Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 21:26
Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
26. Then Paul took the men ] This consent of Paul to the advice of James and the elders has been taken by some for a contradiction of the words and character of the Apostle as represented in his own writings. But he has testified of himself (1Co 9:19-23) that for the Gospel’s sake he was made all things to all men, unto the Jews becoming as a Jew that he might gain the Jews, and for the same end, to them that are without law, as himself without law. And these brethren of the Church of Jerusalem to whom St Paul joined himself were Christians, and therefore were not clinging to legal observances as of merit towards salvation, but as ordinances which were of divine origin, and which education had made them careful to observe. The same spirit had actuated the Apostle to manifest by an outward act his thankfulness for some deliverance when, on a former occasion, he took this vow on himself without the suggestion of others (Act 18:18). In the Christian services of the earliest days there was very little outlet for the expression by action of any religious emotion, and we cannot wonder that a people whose worship for a long time had been mainly in external observance should cling still to such outward acts, though they had grown to estimate them as of no saving virtue in themselves. With reference to the supposed contradiction in the two pictures of St Paul as given by St Luke and by himself, we need only compare his language about Judaizers in the Epistle to the Galatians with what he says of the preaching of the Gospel at Rome by similar adversaries, when he was writing to the Philippians, to see that the Apostle in what he said and did had ever an eye to the circumstances. To the Galatians he speaks in the strongest terms against the Judaizers because their influence was to draw away the Christians in Galatia from the simple Gospel as offered by him in Christ’s name to the Gentiles, and to make them substitute for it the observance of the law of Moses as a necessary door to Christianity. He has no words strong enough to express his horror of such teachers in such a place. But the same Paul at Rome, the condition of whose people may be learnt by a perusal of the first chapter of his letter to that Church, says (Php 1:15-18), “Some preach Christ even of envy and strife, supposing to add affliction to my bonds. Notwithstanding every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is preached, and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.” Assuredly there is as much of so-called contradiction between Paul as described in different places by himself, as between his own description and what St Luke has left us of his history. Contradiction it is not, but only such concession as might be expected from one strong in the faith as St Paul was when he was dealing, as he was called upon to deal, with two classes of men who could never be brought to the same standpoint To observe the ceremonial law was not needful for the Gentiles, therefore the Apostle decried its observance and opposed those who would have enforced it. The ceremonial law was abolished for the Jew also in Christ, but it had a divine warrant for those who had been trained in it from their youth up, therefore all that the Apostle here desired was that their true value only should be set on externals. He felt that time would develop Christian worship to fill the place which the Temple Service for a long time must hold among the Christians of Jerusalem.
and the next day temple ] The regulation was that the Nazarite should avoid all persons and things that would cause ceremonial defilement, and that this might be more thoroughly accomplished the closing days of the vow appear, at this time, to have been passed within the Temple precincts. This, of course, must have been a later arrangement than any which is spoken of in the institution of the vow (Numbers 6).
to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification ] Rev. Ver. “declaring the fulfilment, &c.” The meaning is that St Paul gave notice to the proper of the officials of the Temple that the completion of the vow would be at a certain time. It would be needful for him to do this, as otherwise they would have expected him to keep the full number of days which others observed. After his explanation that he was only a sharer for a time in the vow of his companions, it would be understood that his days of purification should terminate when theirs did.
until that an offering should be offered for every one of them ] Rev. Ver. “Until the offering was, &c.” The offering is better, for it means that special one which was enjoined by the law. The words are a part not of St Paul’s notice to the priests, but of St Luke’s history. The Apostle did these things and continued as a Nazarite till the whole ceremonial for all of them was ended.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Then Paul took the men – Took them to himself; united with them in observing the ceremonies connected with their vow. To transactions like this he refers in 1Co 9:20; And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the Law, as under the Law, that I might gain them that are under the Law. Thus, it has always been found necessary, in propagating the gospel among the pagan, not to offend them needlessly, but to conform to their innocent customs in regard to dress, language, modes of traveling, sitting, eating, etc. Paul did nothing more than this. He violated none of the dictates of honesty and truth.
Purifying himself with them – Observing the ceremonies connected with the rite of purification. See the notes on Act 21:24. This means evidently that he entered on the ceremonies of the separation according to the law of the Nazarite.
To signify – Greek: signifying or making known. That is, he announced to the priests in the temple his purpose of observing this vow with the four men, according to the law respecting the Nazarite. It was proper that such an announcement should be made beforehand, in order that the priests might know that all the ceremonies required had been observed.
The accomplishment … – The fulfilling, the completion. That is, he announced to them his purpose to observe all the days and all the rites of purification required in the Law, in order that an offering might be properly made. It does not mean that the days had been accomplished, but that it was his intention to observe them, so that it would be proper to offer the usual sacrifice. Paul had not, indeed, engaged with them in the beginning of their vow of separation, but he might come in with hearty intention to share with them. It cannot be objected that he meant to impose on the priests, and to make them believe that he had observed the whole vow with them, for it appears from their own writings (Bereshith Rabba, 90, and Koheleth Rabba, 7) that in those instances where the Nazarites had not sufficient property to enable them to meet the whole expense of the offerings, other persons, who possessed more, might become sharers of it, and thus be made parties to the vow. See Jahns Archaeology, 395. This circumstance will vindicate Paul from any intention to take an improper advantage, or to impose on the priests or the Jews. All that he announced was his intention to share with the four men in the offering which they were required to make, and thus to show his approval of the thing, and his accordance with the law which made such a vow proper.
Until that an offering … – The sacrifices required of all those who had observed this vow. See the notes on Act 21:24. Compare Num 6:13. It is a complete vindication of Paul in this case that he did no more here than he had done in a voluntary manner Act 18:18, and as appears then in a secret manner, showing that he was still in the practice of observing this rite of the Mosaic institution. Nor can it be proved that Paul ever, in any way, or at any time, spoke against the vow of the Nazarite, or that a vow of a similar kind in spirit would be improper for a Christian in any circumstances.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 26. To signify the accomplishment, c.] , Declaring the accomplishment, c. As this declaration was made to the priest, the sense of the passage is the following, if we suppose Paul to have made an offering for himself, as well as the four men: “The next day, Paul, taking the four men, began to purify, set himself apart, or consecrate himself with them entering into the temple, he publicly declared to the priests that he would observe the separation of a Nazarite, and continue it for seven days, at the end of which he would bring an offering for himself and the other four men, according to what the law prescribed in that case.” But it is likely that Paul made no offering for himself, but was merely at the expense of theirs. However we may consider this subject, it is exceedingly difficult to account for the conduct of James and the elders, and of Paul on this occasion. There seems to have been something in this transaction which we do not fully understand. See Clarke on Nu 6:21.
“Besides their typical and religious use, sacrifices were also intended for the support of the state and civil government inasmuch as the ministers of state were chiefly maintained by them: so that the allotments to the priests out of the sacrifices may be considered as designed, like the civil-list money in other nations, for the immediate support of the crown and the officers of state. On these principles we are able to account for Paul’s sacrificing, as we are informed he did, after the commencement of the Christian dispensation; an action which has been severely censured by some as the greatest error of his life: hereby he not only gave, say they, too much countenance to the Jews in their superstitious adherence to the law of Moses, after it was abrogated by Christ, but his offering these typical sacrifices, after the antitype of them was accomplished in the sacrifice of Christ, was a virtual denial of Christ, and of the virtue of his sacrifice, which superseded all others. Paul’s long trouble, which began immediately after this affair, some have looked upon as a judgment of God upon him for this great offense. But, if this action were really so criminal as some suppose, one cannot enough wonder that so good and so wise a man as Paul was should be guilty of it; and that the Apostle James and the other Christian elders should all advise him to it, Ac 21:18; Ac 21:23; Ac 21:24. It is likewise strange that we find no censure ever passed on this action by any of the sacred writers; not even by Paul himself, who appears so ready, on other occasions, to acknowledge and humble himself for his errors and failings: on the contrary he reflects with comfort on his having complied with the customs of the Jews in order to remove their prejudices against him and his ministry, and against the Gospel which he preached, and to win them over to embrace it: ‘Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; and this I do for the Gospel’s sake.’ 1Co 9:20, 1Co 9:23.
“To elucidate this point; we are to consider that there was a political as well as a typical use of sacrifices; and that, though the typical ceased upon the sacrifice of Christ, yet the political continued till God in his providence broke up the Jewish state and polity about forty years after our Saviour’s death. Till that time it was not merely lawful, but matter of duty, for good subjects to pay the dues which were appointed by law for the support of the government and magistracy. Now, of this kind was the sacrifice which Paul offered; and in this view they were paid by Christians dwelling in Judea, as well as by those who still adhered to the Jewish religion. So that, upon the whole, this action, for which Paul has been so much censured, probably amounts to nothing more than paying the tribute due to the magistrate by law, which the apostle enjoins upon all other Christians in all other nations, Ro 13:6.” –Jennings’ Jewish Antiquities, p. 17.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Paul agrees to their advice, and follows it; and having set such a time for his vow as might end with the other four mens, he, with the four mentioned, signify to the priest (who was concerned to know it, because of the sacrifices that were to be offered for them), that the time of their separation was fulfilled, which is here called
the days of purification, for the reason intimated, in Act 21:24.
Until that an offering should be offered for every one of them: intending to abide in the temple until all those rites were performed which were required of them.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
26. to signifythat is,announce to the priest.
the accomplishment of thedays of purification, &c.(See on Nu6:14-21).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then Paul took the men,…. The four men that had the vow on them; he joined himself to them, and put himself in the same condition, and under a like vow: this he did, not as what he thought himself bound to do in obedience to the law, and much less as necessary to salvation; but to satisfy weak minds, and remove their prejudices, that he might gain them, and be useful to them; and in such a case he would very easily and readily condescend; but when such like things were insisted upon as points of duty, and especially when urged as necessary to salvation, no one more stiffly opposed them:
and the next day purifying himself with them; that is, not separating himself along with them, from what they were obliged by the vow of the Nazarite, as from drinking of wine and shaving, and from everything that was unclean by the law; for this was now done, but cleansing himself afterwards with them: he
entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of the purification: the sense is, that when the days of separation were fulfilled, which the four men had vowed, as everyone might vow what time he pleased, he went to the priests in the temple, to signify it to them, that the time of their purification was expiring:
until that an offering should be offered for everyone of them; as the law directs in Nu 6:13 when he proposed to pay the charges of it, or at least part of it.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Took the men ( ). The very phrase used in verse 24 to Paul.
The next day ( ). One of the phrases in 20:15 for the coming day. Locative case of time.
Purifying himself with them ( , first aorist passive participle of ). The precise language again of the recommendation in verse 24. Paul was conforming to the letter.
Went into the temple ( ). Imperfect active of as in verse 18 which see. Went on into the temple, descriptive imperfect. Paul joined the four men in their vow of separation.
Declaring (). To the priests what day he would report the fulfilment of the vow. The priests would desire notice of the sacrifice. This verb only used by Luke in N.T. except Ro 11:17 (quotation from the LXX). It is not necessary to assume that the vows of each of the five expired on the same day (Rackham).
Until the offering was offered for every one of them ( ). This use of (like , alone) with the first aorist passive indicative of , to offer, contemplates the final result (Robertson, Grammar, pp. 974f.) and is probably the statement of Luke added to Paul’s announcement. He probably went into the temple one day for each of the brethren and one for himself. The question arises whether Paul acted wisely or unwisely in agreeing to the suggestion of James. What he did was in perfect harmony with his principle of accommodation in 1Co 9:20 when no principle was involved. It is charged that here on this occasion Paul was unduly influenced by considerations of expediency and was willing for the Jewish Christians to believe him more of a Jew than was true in order to placate the situation in Jerusalem. Furneaux calls it a compromise and a failure. I do not so see it. To say that is to obscure the whole complex situation. What Paul did was not for the purpose of conciliating his opponents, the Judaizers, who had diligently spread falsehoods about him in Jerusalem as in Corinth. It was solely to break the power of these “false apostles” over the thousands in Jerusalem who have been deluded by Paul’s accusers. So far as the evidence goes that thing was accomplished. In the trouble that comes in Jerusalem and Caesarea the Judaizers cut no figure at all. The Jewish Christians do not appear in Paul’s behalf, but there was no opportunity for them to do so. The explosion that came on the last day of Paul’s appearance in the temple was wholly disconnected from his offerings for the four brethren and himself. It must be remembered that Paul had many kinds of enemies. The attack on him by these Jews from Asia had no connexion whatever with the slanders of the Judaizers about Paul’s alleged teachings that Jewish Christians in the dispersion should depart from the Mosaic law. That slander was put to rest forever by his following the advice of James and justifies the wisdom of that advice and Paul’s conduct about it.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Purifying himself [] . See on 1Pe 1:22; Jas 4:8. Declaring [] . To the priests who directed the sacrifices and pronounced release from the vow.
Fulfillment – until, etc. There is some dispute and confusion here as to the precise meaning. The general sense is that, having entered the temple toward the close of the period required for the fulfillment of these men’s vow he gave notice that the vowed number of Nazarite days had expired, after which only the concluding offering was required.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Then Paul took the men, and the next day,” (tole ho Paulos paralabon tous anoras te echomene hemera) “Then Paul took the men on the following clay;” Paul took the advice of James and acted prudently and charitably, as “wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove,” Mat 10:16.
2) “Purifying himself with them entered into the temple,” (sun autois hagnistheis eiseei eis to hieron) “in concord or colleague with them (the foursome), having purified himself, he went into the temple,” leading- the way, yet in identity with the four Jewish brethren of Jerusalem, Act 21:23-24; Act 24:18. He remained in the temple for seven days with the four poor brethren until the time of their vows was fulfilled, Act 21:27.
3) “To signify the accomplishment of the days of purification,” (diangellon ten ekoerosin ton haginomou) “Announcing to the priest that the days of the purification,” or each of them had been legally fulfilled, 1Co 9:20-23; 1Co 10:31-32.
4) “Until that an offering should be offered for everyone of them.” (heos hou prosenechthe huper hemos hekastou auton he prosphora) “Until the offering should be offered up in behalf of each of them,” each of the four and for Paul, as prescribed by the law, Num 5:13-21.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
−
26. Whereas some accuse Paul of subtilty, − (483) as if he did play the hypocrite, I have before refuted this. Yet I do not deny but that he granted to do thus much at the request of the brethren, being thereunto in a manner enforced. Therefore, it hath more color, and is (as they say) more disputable, that he was too easily entreated, and too ready to obey; and yet I do not admit that which some men say, that it went not well with Paul, because, taking upon him a new and unwonted person, he did not so constantly, as he was wont, maintain the liberty purchased by Christ. I confess, indeed, that God doth oftentimes punish foolish purposes with unhappy success; but I see not why this should be applied to Paul, who through voluntary subjection sought to win the favor of the rude, and such as were not thoroughly instructed, that he might do them good; being about to do that not willingly, but because he had rather yield to the brethren than stick to his own judgment. Furthermore, when he was once admitted, he might fitly have passed over to moderate that zeal. His courtesy doth rather deserve great praise, in that he doth not only gently abase himself for the unskillful people’s sake, but doth also obey − (484) their foolishness who did unworthily, and against reason, suspect him. He might well have reproved − (485) them, because they had been so ready to believe reports contrary to his estimation [reputation]. In that he abstaineth, he showeth great patience; in that he winneth their favor so carefully, it is singular modesty. −
Moreover, he might have been more rough and round with − (486) James and his fellows in office, because they had not been more diligent to root out errors from among the people. For though it be certain that they taught faithfully, yet it may be that the sight of the temple, and the very seat of the law, did hinder them in defending the use of liberty. But Paul, whether he went from his right of his own accord, or whether he think that they see better what is expedient than he, doth follow − (487) their counsel. And whereas false Nicodemites, following this example of Paul, go about to color their treacherous dissimulation, whilst they pollute themselves with all filthiness of Popery, it needeth no long refutation. They boast that they do this to win the weak brethren, (or that they follow their vein thus far) as if Paul did yield to them in all things without choice. If, being Jews, they should take upon them according to the pre-script of the law, to fulfill among the Jews a vow infected with no idolatry, then might they prove themselves to be like Paul. Now, forasmuch as they inwrap themselves in gross and altogether wicked superstitions, and that because they will escape the cross, what likelihood is that which they imagine? − (488) −
(483) −
“
Astutiae,” craftiness.
(484) −
“
Morem gerit,” defer to.
(485) −
“
Expostulasset,” expostulated with.
(486) −
“
Durior,” more severe on.
(487) −
“
Acquiescit,” acquiesces in.
(488) −
“
Qualis ista est quam fingunt similitudo,” what resemblance is there in it to that which they feign.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CRITICAL REMARKS
Act. 21:26. Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself, might read took the men the next day, and having purified himself, not by performing the ordinary ablutions required before entering the temple (Howson), but by entering with them upon the same course of dedication. To signify (better, declaring) the accomplishment of the days of purification.I.e., either that the days were fulfilled and the time come for the four men to be released from their vows (Wieseler, Conybeare and Howson); or, better, announcing his intention to fulfil along with them the (seven) days which by the law must precede the termination of the vow (Alford, Hackett, Plumptre, Spence, Holtzmann and others).
Act. 21:27. Seven days was the ordinary period for the most solemn purifications (Exo. 29:37; Lev. 12:2; Lev. 13:6; Num. 12:14; Num. 19:14). Of these seven days Paul observed only two, or at least four, as appears from Act. 24:11 (see Critical Remarks), which shows the interval between Pauls arrival in Jerusalem and his speech before Felix was only twelve days. When his arrest took place the seven days were almost endedi.e., they were not completed when he was apprehended. In the temple meant most likely in the court of the women, afterwards called this holy place (Act. 21:28), into which no foreigner was permitted to enter under pain of death. This court was four square, and had a wall about it peculiar to itself. There was also a stone partition all round, three cubits high, whose construction was very elegant, and upon which stood pillars at equal distances from one another, declaring the law of purity, some in Greek and some in Roman letters, that No foreigner should go within that sanctuary (Jos., Wars, V. Act. 21:2, VI. ii. 4). The correctness of this statement, which was long disputed, has been recently confirmed by Monsieur Clermont Ganneaus discovery of one of those prohibitory notices, with an inscription in Greek, of which the following is a translation: No foreigner to proceed within the partition wall and enclosure around the sanctuary; whoever is caught in the same will on that account be liable to incur death (Recent Discoveries on the Temple Hill, p. 134).
Act. 21:30. They took, or laid hold on Paul.Baur and Holtzmann regard it as improbable that these Jews, among whom doubtless were many zealots for the Messiahs faith and for the law, should have seized Paul when engaged in the performance of a pious work of the law, and accordingly reject this story as unhistorical. But why should fanatical Jews always have acted in logically and religiously consistent fashion, when enlightened and sober-minded Christians do not? The doors were most probably the gates which led into the womens court.
Act. 21:31. The chief captain of the band.The chiliarch, or military tribune of the cohort, whose name was Claudius Lysias (Act. 23:26), resided in the Castle of Antonia, a gigantic fortress on a rock or hill, about eighty-five feet high, at the north-west angle of the temple area, which communicated with its northern and western porticoes, and had flights of stairs descending into both, by which the garrison could at any time enter the court of the temple and prevent tumults (Robinson, Biblical Researches, I., p. 432. Compare Josephus, Wars, V. Act. 21:8).
Act. 21:33. Two chains.I.e., bound by a chain to a soldier on each side (compare Act. 12:6).
Act. 21:34. Into the castle.More correctly, into the camp or barracks attached to the tower.
Act. 21:36. Away with him.Compare Act. 22:22; Luk. 23:18; Joh. 19:15.
Act. 21:37. Canst thou speak Greek?Lit., dost thou know Greek? . Compare Grce nescire in Cicero (Pro. Flac., 4) and in Xenophon (Cyrop., VII. Act. 21:31).
Act. 21:38. That (or, the) Egyptian.Josephus (Wars, II., xiii, 5) mentions an Egyptian, a false prophet, who, having deluded thirty thousand men, led them round about from the Wilderness to the Mount of Olives with the view of breaking into Jerusalem from that place, and states that Felix, having fallen upon them, either destroyed or captured alive the greater portion of his followers, and dispersed the rest, while he himself escaped with a small number. In another account (Ant., XX. viii. 6) the Jewish historian says that this Egyptian went to Jerusalem and advised the common people to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, which they did in vast crowds, he promising to show them the walls of Jerusalem fall down at his command; and that Felix sallied out against them with a great company of horsemen and footmen, slew four hundred, and made two hundred prisoners, but did not capture the Egyptian, who escaped. Tholuck (Glaubwrdigkeit, p. 169) has shown how the variations in Josephuss story may be harmonised; but even if they could not, they would only prove that Josephus, while substantially confirming Lukes account, was not so accurate a historian as Pauls friend.
Act. 21:39. Of no mean city.Josephus (Ant., I. vi. 1) calls Tarsus the most important city in all Cilicia. Many of the coins of Tarsus bear the title of Autonomous and Metropolis (Hackett).
Act. 21:40. That Lysias should have given Paul licence or leave to address the people need occasion no surprise. Paul had satisfied Lysias that he was no wild revolutionary, but a peaceful Cilician; and besides, Lysias may have seen in Pauls countenance from the first what convinced him his prisoner was no ordinary man. The Hebrew tongue, or dialect, was the Syro-Chaldaic or Aramean, as in Joh. 5:2; Joh. 19:13, the mother tongue of the Jews in Juda at that time.
HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.Act. 21:26-40
Arrested in the Temple; or, Long Looked for, Come at Last
I. The Apostles arrest
1. Where it occurred. In the templei.e., the temple court, into which Paul had entered, and in one of the cloisters of which he most likely stayed during the period of his purification. Perhaps at the moment he was in the court of the women (see below).
2. When it took place. On the last of the seven days (say some) when the necessary offerings were being presented for himself and the four Nazarites, but better as the seven days were running on and nearing completion, so that the offerings were not presented.
3. By whom it was instigated. By certain Jews from Asia who had been acquainted with his missionary activity in Asia Minor, and more especially in Ephesus, who had observed him in the city accompanied by Trophimus, an Ephesian, and who now lighted upon him in the temple court. Throughout the whole of his career the Jews (unbelieving) had been his persistent, unsleeping, and remorseless antagonists. The method they adopted in this instance to raise a tumult against him was effective.
(1) They laid hands on him, as if he had been an evil doer, a criminal who they purposed to hand over to the tender mercies of the law.
(2) They raised a shout against him in the temple court, which inflamed the crowd there present, and spreading abroad throughout the city, threw it into confusion, much as Ephesus had been thrown into a turmoil by the cry of Demetrius (Act. 19:29), and attracted an excited mob around the temple gates.
(3) They pointed him out as the manthe notorious fellowwho went about everywhere teaching all (men and women) against the peoplei.e., of Israelan appeal to their patriotism; against the lawi.e., of Mosesan appeal to their orthodoxy; and against this placei.e., the temple, the holy dwelling-place of Jehovahan appeal to their religion.
(4) They accused him, though falsely, of sacrilegei.e., of having violated the sanctity of the holy place by bringing (as they erroneously supposed) Trophimus, the Ephesian, into not the court of the Gentiles, but the court of the women, into which none but Jews could pass under penalty of death (see Critical Remarks).
4. How it was effected.
(1) Tumultuously. The crowd rushed into the temple and seized the apostles person.
(2) Violently. They dragged him forcibly outside the sacred precincts in order that these might not be stained with his blood (compare 2Ch. 23:14), which they clearly intended to shed. More than likely also this was the reason why the temple gates were so expeditiously shut behind the retreating mob, in case it should return and carry out its murderous project in the holy place.
II. The Apostles rescue.
1. Opportune. The mode selected for the carrying out of their deadly intention was the slow one of beating (Act. 21:32), which allowed time for the information to spread and be carried to Claudius Lysias (Act. 23:26), the chief captain of the band, or military tribune (chiliarch) of the cohort, in the Tower of Antonia near by, whose business it was to quell all riots which might occur (and these were frequent) in connection with the Jewish festivals (see Jos., Ant., XX. Act. 21:3; and Wars, V. Act. 21:8). The moment, therefore, Lysias understood the situation, he ran down upon the crowd with a company of soldiers and centurions, the sight of which at once checked their blood-thirsty fury and caused them to leave off beating the apostle. Magistrates were appointed to be terrors to evil-doers (Rom. 13:4), and crowds, it is well known, have a salutary fear of the rulers sword.
2. Incomplete. Rescued from the hands of the Jews and from the jaws of death, he was yet not set at liberty. The chiliarch commanded him (wrongfully, as he afterwards learnt, Act. 22:25), to be bound as a prisoner, with two chains, and fetched into the castle. The reason for this procedure was the impossibility of learning anything correctly from the infuriated rabble about either who the apostle was or what he had done. Those who composed that rabble could only follow after the retreating soldiers as they bore off their prisoner, and cry, Away with him, as their fathers had thirty years before shouted in front of Pilates prtorium (Joh. 19:15). Yea, so violent did they become, that Paul might have been snatched from the soldiers hands and lynched on the spot, had not the soldiers, to whom he was bound, lifted him into their arms or upon their shoulders and borne him up the castle stairs.
III. The Apostles request.
1. The preliminary conversation. When the top of the stairs had been reached, just before passing into the castle, the apostle, addressing the chief captain in Greek, solicited permission to say something to him. Surprised at hearing Greek on the lips of (as he supposed) a foreign Jew whom he did not expect to find a person of culture, he first asked the apostle if he knew Greek, and on receiving a reply in the affirmative, inquired further if he (the apostle) was not then (as the captain had concluded before he heard the apostle speak Greek) that Egyptian impostorspoken of by Josephus Ant., XX. vii. 6; Wars, II. xiii. 5; see Critical Remarks)who shortly before had stirred up to sedition and led out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers, literally, the four thousand men of the Sicarii or Assassins. To this, of course, Paul responded, that he was not that renowned brigand chief, but a Jew of Tarsus in Cilicia, and a citizen of no mean city. Honourable men are never afraid to give account of themselves and their doings.
2. The solicited permission. To address the peoplewhich showed Paul had not parted with his courage, and was still as ready to fight with wild beasts as he had been at Ephesus (Act. 19:30; 1Co. 15:32). The request was a bold one, write Conybeare and Howson, and we are almost surprised that Lysias should have granted it; but there seems to have been something in St. Pauls aspect and manner which from the first gained an influence over the mind of the Roman officer. In another sense, the request was a comparatively harmless one, and on its being granted Paul at once moved to the stair front, and looking into the faces of the demoniac crowd, beckoned to them with his chained hand, signalling that he wished to speak. What nobler spectacle, exclaims Chrysostom, than that of Paul at this moment! There he stands, bound with two chains, ready to make his defence unto the people. The Roman commander sits by, to enforce order by his presence. An enraged populace look up to him from below. Yet, in the midst of so many dangers, how self-possessed is he, how tranquil! (quoted by Hackett). As if startled by the heroism of the man, the angry crowd forget to shout. A great silence ensues which deepens into an intenser stillness as the accents of their old Hebrew tongue fall upon their ear.
Learn.
1. How unexpectedly evil may befall one. Paul, doubtless, never dreamt of being apprehended in the temple.
2. How difficult it is to quench the passion of hate in unrenewed hearts. The Jews dogged Pauls steps like sleuth-hounds.
3. How easily a misconception may arise. Pauls enemies had seen him and Trophimus in the city, and at once jumped to the conclusion that Paul had fetched his Greek friend into the Holy Place.
4. How quickly a lie can spread. In a few moments the slander was in possession of the town.
5. How nearly one may come to being killed and yet be rescued. A few moments longer before Lysias arrived and Paul might have been a dead man.
6. How strangely a good man may be talked of behind his back. The governor clearly had heard it said that Paul was a sort of bandit chief.
7. How bravely a Christian can comfort himself in face of peril. Not many men could have faced the mob as Paul did from the castle stairs.
HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Act. 21:26. Paul among the Nazarites.
I. Not as a slave of human ordinances, but in the might of evangelical liberty, which has power over all things that promote the kingdom of God (1Co. 6:12).
II. Not as a dissembler before the people, but in the ministry of brotherly love, which bears the infirmities of the weak (Rom. 15:1).
III. Not as a fugitive from the cross, but in the power of apostolic obedience, which knows to deny itself from love to the Lord (Luk. 9:23).
Act. 21:27. Unrealised Aims; or, man proposes but God disposes.
I. Many plans that promise well turn out ill.The recommendation of James and the elders, and the compliance of Paul were Intended to ensure Pauls safety, but they actually led to his arrest.
II. When a plan turns out badly it cannot be safely argued that the plan was not good.We agree with the view which thinks Jamess counsel, and Pauls practice were not, in this instance the bestwe cannot pronounce them sinful; but even had they been the wisest they might have failed.
II. The success of a plan does not necessarily demonstrate that the plan was good.Nothing more common than for the counsels of the wicked to prosper on earth and in time, though they will eventually be overthrown.
Act. 21:27-38. The Troubles of a Good Man. Paul.
I. Doubly slandered.
1. Charged with apostasy in religion (Act. 21:28).
2. Blamed for committing sacrilege (Act. 21:28).
II. Nearly murdered.
1. Violently dragged from the court of the women (Act. 21:30).
2. Mercilessly beaten by the angry mob (Act. 21:32).
III. Innocently bound.
1. Like a dangerous criminal (Act. 21:33).
2. Though no one could tell for what (Act. 21:34).
IV. Ignorantly suspected.
1. Of being an Egyptian when he was a Jew.
2. Of being a leader of assassins when he was only a peaceful citizen.
3. Of having stirred up sedition when in truth he was a preacher of peace (Act. 21:38-39).
Act. 21:38. Art not thou that Egyptian? A remarkable proof of the erroneous and absurd thoughts which the blind world entertains of the children and servants of God. They regard us as idiots, madmen, seducers, enemies of mankind, and under this form they hate us. Thus was Christ also numbered among transgressors (Gerok in Lange).
Art not thou that Egyptian? or, misconceptions entertained by the world concerning the followers of Christ, who are often slandered as
I. Disturbers of social order.Paul was accused of being a brigand chief. Had often been reviled as a revolutionary. On this ground the early Christians were persecuted under the Roman emperors. Usual to accuse them as evil doers (see 1Pe. 2:12). In the days of the Stuart ascendency in our own country Nonconformists were treated as enemies of the commonwealth, because they worshipped God according to their own consciences. To-day Christians are looked upon by many, if not as open malefactors, at least as impracticable persons, who, by crying out against social evils, such as drink, gambling, licentiousness, trouble society.
II. Self-interested deceivers.Lysias obviously thought Paul was one of this class. Christianity has often been represented as a huge imposture, a gigantic system of deception, invented by priests for their self-interest. This accusation, which was common last century, is not unknown in this. Believers are often maligned as persons who have adopted a profession of religion simply as a cloak for their covetousness. No doubt such abuses have existed and such individuals have been found in the Church; but Christianity is no invention of deceivers.
III. Hypocritical pretenders.Giving themselves out to be saints when they are as wicked as other people. No doubt of some professing Christians this is true; but it is ignorant calumny to represent all as such. Still Christians should study to approve their sincerity by a holy walk and conversation.
IV. Impracticable visionaries.Doubtless the captain considered Paul such when he fancied the apostle was that Egyptian who had been aiming at upsetting the supremacy of Rome by means of a handful of Sicarii. So the world pronounces Christians visionaries, fools, fanatics, idiots, dreamers, and such like when they talk of,
1. Applying the principles of Christianity to ordinary life;
2. Bringing the whole world round to the acceptance of Christianity; and,
3. Living for the other world rather than for this.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
(26) To signify the accomplishment of the days of purification . . .The process lasted, as the next verse shows, for seven days, which were probably reckoned from the completion of the thirty days, or other term, of the vow itself. St. Paul, having made himself the representative of the Nazarite company, had to give, in their name, the formal notice to the priests, who were to be ready for the sacrifices when the seven days had expired. Seven days was, it will be noted, the ordinary period for the more solemn purifications (Exo. 29:37; Lev. 12:2; Lev. 13:6; Num. 12:14; Num. 19:14, et al.).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
2. Paul’s Arrest Rescue by Romans , Act 21:26-40 .
26. Then Paul One of the most momentous turning points of Paul’s life has now arrived. He is to become for years an apostle in bonds. He now marches as a victim to the scene of his arrest.
Paul enters, doubtless through Solomon’s portico, on the east, into the court of the Gentiles; and, within finds himself walking on a beautiful pavement of variegated stone. He next passes, ascending, as up a terrace, through the Beautiful Gate into the court of the women, where are rooms for the ceremony of release from a Nazarite vow. Here Paul, with his four, is to signify, or announce to the priests there waiting, the accomplishment (now to be accomplished in a period of seven days) of the purification.
“Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them went into the temple, declaring the fulfilment of the days of purification, until the offering was offered for every one of them.”
It should be noted that there is no suggestion that Paul saw any objection to this at all. It would seem that he willingly and happily carried out the suggestion, joining the Nazirites in the Temple and purifying himself alongside them for their last seven days, so that his own offerings could be accepted, and covering all the costs of their offerings until their vows were satisfactorily completed. There is no hint at all of disapproval in Luke’s narrative.
‘Declaring the fulfilment of the days of purification.’ That is, declaring to those officiating at the Temple that he was entering into an official seven day purification, and the final seven days of the Nazirite vows. This would ensure that at the final point when the vows were finalised he would be seen as absolutely ‘clean’ from any pollution of any kind. It thus confirmed to all that to him being ‘clean’ was seen as being important. (This was not just a normal purifying from ‘uncleanness’. That would take place outside the Temple. Paul would not have entered the Temple if he had been ‘unclean’. This was a kind of double guarantee purifying)
There is no reason to doubt that Paul would be quite happy to do this when acting as a Jew among Jews. The previous visit that he had made to Jerusalem had been because of a similar vow (Act 18:18; Act 18:22). If he could win Jews to Christ by doing this, or ensure the maintenance of their faith in Christ as Jews, he would be only too pleased to do it, especially as it was so clearly of concern to the leadership of the church who were behaving in an exemplary fashion with regard to the decision made earlier in Jerusalem.
And indeed what happened next cannot really be laid at the door of this behaviour. The men involved were haters of Paul (some of them had been planning to kill him when he sailed from Corinth, and others had tried to kill him in Asia Minor), and they would have constantly been on the lookout for how they could trap him whatever had happened here. They had already revealed that they had an almost pathological hatred for him. Had they not caught him here they would no doubt have caught him this way some other time, unless he avoided the Temple altogether. We do not do well if we blame what followed on this perfectly admirable scheme of the elders at Jerusalem. To do so is simply to reflect our own prejudice. (It is interesting how many who criticise Paul for this expect everyone to be doing the same thing in some supposed Millennium when it would be far less acceptable).
The beginning of the riot:
v. 26. Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself with them, entered into the Temple to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
v. 27. And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the Temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,
v. 28. crying out, Men of Israel, help! This is the man that teacheth all men everywhere against the people and the Law and this place; and further brought Greeks also into the Temple, and hath polluted this holy place.
v. 29. (For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus, an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the Temple.)
v. 30. And all the city was moved, and the people ran together; and they took Paul, and drew him out of the Temple; and forthwith the doors were shut.
Paul here showed that the spirit of Christ lived in him, that he was willing, for the sake of others, to take part in a ceremony of which he knew that it had lost its real significance and value and had become a mere empty form, 1Co 9:20. He took the four men with him, became their associate, performed the required rites of purification in his own case, and then entered into the Temple proper, that part which was reserved for the exclusive use of the children of Israel, giving notice there, for the convenience of the priests of the day when the vow would be ended, and the necessary offerings brought for every one of the four. Apparently, Paul also spent most, if not all the time in the Temple during this week. Thus he became all things to all men. Note: in matters in which no fundamental Scriptural principle is involved, a Christian may accommodate himself to others: but he must be careful lest hypocrisy and fear of men furnish his motive for so doing. So far everything had proceeded with gratifying smoothness, and no cloud seemed to be darkening the horizon. All the more surprising, therefore, was the fact that the storm broke from a practically clear sky. For when the seven days of the purification of the Nazirites were about to come to an end, the time for which the apostle was associated with the men, Jews from the province of Asia, probably from Ephesus itself, that had come up for the Feast of Pentecost, saw him in the Temple, and their hatred was at once inflamed to a white fury. The very fact that this supposed despiser of the Temple should dare to enter its inner courts (which were forbidden to the Gentiles under pain of death) was an insult in their estimation. So they immediately raised a disturbance, stirred up the people, like liquids that refuse to mix and surge to and fro, and laid violent hands upon Paul. At the same time, they raised their voices, calling upon the assembled Israelites to help. The very name intended to remind them all of the dignity and glory, of the hopes and obligations, of their nation. Contemptuously referring to Paul as “this man,” this outcast, they accused him of making it a habit to teach all men, everywhere, against the people, against the Law, against this place, this city. Mark the significant coincidence that the charge against Paul is made in almost the same words as that which had been brought against Stephen, chap. 6:13. But the gravest part of the accusation was the allegation that Paul had brought Greeks into the Temple proper, inside the Soreg, or stone wall, which enclosed the sanctuary, and had thus profaned the Holy Place itself. But the latter charge was based upon a false supposition, namely, that Paul had brought Trophimus, the delegate of the Ephesian congregation, who had been seen in his company in the city, into the Temple an altogether unwarranted deduction. But the Jews were in a mood to rest their suspicions upon even slighter evidence, if they could but succeed in removing Paul. The immediate effect of their startling and vehement charge and denunciation certainly left nothing to be desired. The entire city was moved, the excitement having spread like wildfire; there was a tumultuous concourse of the people; he was surrounded by a band of people that grabbed him and dragged him outside of the sanctuary into the Court of the Gentiles. And then the doors of the Temple, of the sanctuary, were locked by the Levites, either because they feared that the Temple would be defiled by the shedding of blood, or because they believed that this defilement had already taken place by the entrance of a Gentile into its Holy Place, and that it must be purified before it could be reopened. Note: The Jews, just like their successors in our days, were so hostile to the Gospel preached by Paul because he condemned their Pharisaic self-righteousness and testified before Jews and Greeks alike that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the Law. The false church, boasting its own righteousness, and the honorable, virtuous world have ever been the principal enemies of the Church of Christ and of the Gospel of God’s free grace and mercy.
Act 21:26. To signify the accomplishment, &c. Dr. Heylin renders this, and declared how many days the purification was to last, and when the offering was to be made for each of them. This seems to be the true meaning of the passage: accordingly Dr. Benson’s account of it is this: “The next day, taking the four men, St. Paul began to purify himself along with them; entering into the temple, and publicly declaring that he would observe the separation of a Nazarite, and continue itfor seven days: at the end of which days of purification he would bring an offering for himself and the other four who joined with him, according to what was appointed in the law of Moses.” See on Num 6:4. To what has been said in the preceding note, in order to vindicate the apostle’s character in this transaction, we may observe, that he had not taught all the Jewish Christians in Gentile countries to forsake the law of Moses; nay, he does not appear to have taught it as yet to any of them directly and immediately: that he took upon him the vow of a Nazarite, because it was an indifferent thing, or lawful for him to comply with the deep-rooted prejudices of the Jewish Christians: that if he had not complied at this time, and in the present circumstances, the Christianity of the Jewish converts would have been in danger, or at least their charity for, and union with, the Gentile churches which he had planted; and that if he had gone about to have explained himself immediately and at large, the consequence would probably have been as bad.
Act 21:26-27 . James had made his proposal to Paul by a public observance of a custom, highly esteemed among the Jews, and consecrated by Moses, practically to refute the accusation in question in the conviction that the accusation was unfounded, and that thus Paul with a good conscience (without contradiction of his principles) could accept the proposal. [125] And Paul with a good conscience accepted it; in which case it must be presumed that the four men also did not regard the Nazarite vow as a work of justification ; [126] otherwise Paul must at once on principle have rejected the proposal, in order not to give countenance to the fundamental error (opposed to his teaching) of justification by the law, and not to offer resistance to Christ Himself as the end of the law (Rom 10:4 ). In fact, he must have been altogether convinced that the observance of the law was not under dispute, by those who regarded him as an opponent of it, in the sense of justification by the law; otherwise he would as little have consented to the proposal made to him as he formerly did to the circumcision of Titus; and even the furnishing of explanations to guard his action (which Schneckenburger, p. 65, supposes that we must assume) would not have sufficed, but would rather have stamped his accommodation as a mere empty show. Moreover, he was precisely by bis internal complete freedom from the law in a position, without moral self-offence, not only to demean himself as, but really to be, a , where this was enjoined by love , which is the fulfilment of the law in the Christian sense (Rom 13:8 ; Rom 13:10 ), as here, seeing that his object was as , but as to become to the Jews , in order to win them (1Co 9:19 ff.). Thus this work of the law although to him it belonged in itself to the (Gal 4:3 ; Col 2:8 ) became a form, determined by the circumstances, of exercising the love that fulfils the law, which, however different in its forms, is imperishable and the completion of the law (Mat 5:17 ). The step, to which he yielded, stands on the same footing with the circumcision of Timothy, which he himself performed (Act 16:3 ), and is subject essentially to the same judgment. The action of the apostle, therefore, is neither, with Trip (following van Hengel in the Godgeleerd. Bijdrgen , 1859, p. 981 ff.), to be classed as a weak and rash obsequiousness (this were indeed to Paul, near the very end of his labours, the moral impossibility of a great hypocrisy); nor, with Thiersch, are we to suppose that he in a domain not his own had to follow the direction of the bishop (but see Gal 2:6 ); nor, with Baumgarten, II. p. 149, are we to judge that he, by here externally manifesting his continued recognition of the divine law, “presents in prospect the ultimate disappearance of his exceptional standpoint, his thirteenth apostleship” (Rom 11:25 ff.), which there is nothing in the text to point to, and against which militates the fact that to the apostle his gospel was the absolute truth, and therefore he could never have in view a re-establishment of legal customs which were to him merely (Col 2:17 ). Not by such imported ideas of interpreters, but by a right estimate of the free standpoint of the apostle (1Co 3:21 ff.), and of his love bearing all things, are we prevented from regarding his conduct in this passage, with Baur, Zeller, and Hausrath, as un-Pauline and the narrative as unhistorical. See, on the other hand, Neander, p. 485 ff.; Lekebusch, p. 275 ff.; Schneckenburger in the Stud. u. Krit . 1855, p. 566 ff.
] consecrated with them, i.e . having entered into participation of their Nazarite state, which, namely, had already lasted in the case of these men for some considerable time, as Act 21:23 shows. They did not therefore only now commence their Nazarite vow (Neander), but Paul agreed to a personal participation in their vow already existing, in order, as a joint-bearer, to bring it to a close by taking upon himself the whole expense of the offerings. According to Nasir i. 3 (comp. Joseph. Bell . ii. 15. 1), a Nazarite vow not taken for life lasted at least thirty days; but the subsequent accession of another during the currency of that time must at least have been allowed in such a case as this, where the person joining bore the expenses.
. .] namely, toward the close of the Nazarite period of these men, with which expired the Nazarite term current in pursuance of the for himself.
] notifying , namely, to the priests (comp. Thuc. vii. 73. 4; Herodian, ii. 2. 5; Xen. Anab . i. 6. 2), who had to conduct the legally-appointed sacrifices (Num 6:13 ff.), and then to pronounce release from the vow. [127] The connection yields this interpretation, not: omnibus edicens (Grotius), or (Bornemann) with the help of friends spreading the news , which in itself would likewise accord with linguistic usage (Luk 9:60 ; Rom 9:17 ).
. . .] i.e . he gave notice that the vowed number of the Nazarite days had quite expired , after which only the concluding offering was required. This idea is expressed by . . ., which immediately attaches itself to . . . : the fulfilment of the Nazarite days, until the offering for each individual was presented by them , so that . . . contains an objective more precise definition of the added from the standpoint of the author ; which fulfilment was not earlier than until there was brought, etc. Hence, Luke has expressed himself not by the optative or subjunctive (comp. Act 23:12 ), which Lachmann, Praef . p. ix., has conjectured, but by the indicative aorist (“the fulfilment up to the point that the presentation of the offering took place”). Wieseler arbitrarily (comp. already Erasmus, Paraph .) makes dependent on , supplying “ and remained there .”
Observe, further, that in Paul himself is now included , which follows from , as well as that is added, because it is not one offering for all , but a separate offering for each, which is to be thought of.
Act 21:27 . ] is commonly taken as: the seven days, which he up to the concluding sacrifice had to spend under the Nazarite vow which he had jointly undertaken , so that these days would be the time which had still to run for the four men of the duration of their vow. But against this may be urged, first, that the . . ., Act 21:26 , must in that case be the future fulfilment, which is not said in the text; and, secondly and decisively, that the ., with the article , would presuppose a mention already made of seven days (comp. Jdt 8:15 ; comp. Act 7:30 ). Textually we can only explain it as: the well-known seven days required for this purpose , [128] so that it is to be assumed that, as regards the presentation of the offerings (according to Num 6:13 ff., very varied in their kind), the interval of a week was usual . Incorrect, because entirely dissociated from the context, is the view of Wieseler, p. 110, and on Gal . p. 587 (comp. Beza), that the seven days of the Pentecostal week , of which the last was Pentecost itself, are meant. So also Baumgarten, and Schaff, p. 243 ff. See, on the other hand, Baur in the theol. Jahrb . 1849, p. 482 ff., who, however, brings out the seven days by the entirely arbitrary and groundless apportionment, that for each of the five persons a day was appointed for the presentation of his offering, prior to which five days we have to reckon one day on which James gave the counsel to Paul, and a second on which Paul went into the temple. On such a supposition, besides, we cannot see why Luke, in reference to what was just said, , should not have written: .
. . ] “Paulus, dum fidelibus (the Jewish-Christians) placandis intentus est, in hostium (the unconverted Asiatic Jews) furorem incurrit,” Calvin. How often had those, who were now at Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost, persecuted Paul already in Asia!
] To see the destroyer of their ancestral religion in the temple , goaded their wrath to an outbreak.
] Act 19:32 .
[125] For if James had, in spite of Gal 2:9 , regarded Paul as a direct adversary of Mosaism, he would, on account of what he well knew to be Paul’s decision of character, have certainly not proposed a measure which the latter could not but have immediately rejected. It remains possible, however, that, though not in the case of James himself, yet among a portion of the presbyters there was still not complete certainty, and perhaps even different views prevailed with regard to what was to be thought of that accusation. In this case, the proposal was a test bringing the matter to decisive certainty, which was very correctly calculated in view of the moral stedfastness of the apostle’s character.
[126] They were still weak brethren from Judaism, who still clave partially to ceremonial observances. Calvin designates them as novices , with a yet tender and not fully formed faith.
[127] The compound ( internuntiare ) is purposely chosen, because Paul with his notice acted as internuntius of the four men. So commonly is used in Greek writers, where it signifies to notify, to make known . Comp. also 2Ma 1:33 .
[128] Comp. Erasmus, Paraphrase : “Totum hoc septem diebus erat peragendum; quibus jam paene expletis,” etc.; also Ewald, p. 571.
26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
Ver. 26. Purifying himself ] See Augustine’s Epistles 11 and 19.
26. ] Paul himself entered into the vow with them ( . ), and the time settled (perhaps the least that could be assigned: the Mischna requires thirty days) for the completion of the vow, i.e. the offering and shaving of their heads, was seven days. No definite time is prescribed in Num 6 , but there seven days is the time of purification in case of uncleanness during the period of the vow .
] making known to the ministers of the temple.
] the fulfilment , i.e. that he and the men had come to fulfil : announcing their intention of fulfilling .
.] ‘ donec offerretur ,’ Vulg. The aor. indic. is unusual in an indirect construction, where the aor. subj. is almost always found (ch. Act 23:12 ; Act 23:21 ; Act 25:21 ). But we have Plato, Gorg. p. 506, , , and Cratyl. 396, . (De W.)
] See Num 6:13-17 .
Act 21:26 . : St. Paul’s conduct was another illustration of the rule laid down for himself when writing to Corinth, cf. 1Co 9:20 . This is in itself an answer to the captious criticism which doubts the truth of his action on this occasion, so amongst recent writers Hilgenfeld (1896). The vow of Act 18:18 is sufficient to show us that there is no reason to suppose that the Apostle was merely acting a part in following the advice of St. James. McGiffert discusses the question at length, p. 340 ff., and concludes that the Apostle may well have done just what he is reported to have done; and further, that as a simpler explanation of Paul’s arrest would have answered every purpose, the explanation given may fairly be assumed to be the true one. Renan, Saint Paul , p. 517, also accepts the narrative as an illustration of St. Paul’s own principle referred to above in 1Co 9:20 , so too Wendt, J. Weiss, Pfleiderer. It seems strange that Wesley should have gone so far in the opposite direction as to believe that the Apostle actually suffered for his compliance with the wishes of James, Act 21:33 , cf. Speaker’s Commentary, in loco. . , taken either with . or with ., so R.V.; only in Luke, cf. Luk 13:33 , Act 20:15 , without (so in Polybius); cf. Act 13:44 , W. H. margin. In LXX 1Ch 10:8 ; 2Ma 12:39 ( 1Ma 4:28 ). : according to our interpretation of the passage, the word means that Paul entered into the Temple, and stayed there for seven days with the four poor men until the period of their vow was fulfilled, Renan, Saint Paul , p. 520; but the expression need not mean more than that he entered into the Temple to give notice, or rather, giving notice, for the convenience of the priests of the day when the vow would be ended, and the necessary offerings brought : “declaring,” R.V., i.e. , to the priests, not omnibus edicens (Grotius, so Grimm), “to signify” as in A.V., makes the participle future; verb only used by St. Luke in N.T. (Rom 11:17 , quotation from LXX), 2Ma 1:33 ( cf. its use in the sense of publication, Psa 2:7 , 58:13, cf. 2Ma 1:33 ; 2Ma 3:34 , Sir 43:2 ). . ., i.e. , the seven days, Act 21:27 , which remained until the period of the vow was fulfilled, when the sacrifice was offered. Others however take with , “he entered in (and remained) until the offering,” etc. : there is no need to suppose with Nsgen that these words mean that the period of the full accomplishment of the vow was different in each of the four cases at all events the whole period of “purification” did not extend over more than seven days.
next. Same as in Act 20:15. Greek. echomai
entered. Greek. eiseimi, as in Act 21:18.
temple. Greek. hieron. See note on Mat 23:16.
to signify = declaring. Greek. diangello. Only here, Luk 9:60. Rom 9:17.
accomplishment. Greek. ekplerosis. Only here. Compare Act 13:33.
purification. Greek. hagnismos. Only here.
an offering = the offering. See Num 6:14-20. Greek. prosphora. Only here, Act 24:17. Rom 15:16. Eph 5:2. Heb 10:5, Heb 10:8, Heb 10:10, Heb 10:14, Heb 10:18.
offered. Greek. prosphero. First occurance. Mat 2:11 (presented).
every = each.
ended. Greek. sunteleo. Elsewhere Mat 7:28. Mar 13:4. Luk 4:2, Luk 4:13. Rom 9:28. Heb 8:8.
when they saw = having seen. Greek. theaomai. App-133.
stirred up = excited. Greek. suncheo. This form Occurs only here. See note on Act 2:6.
people = crowd. Greek. ochlos.
26.] Paul himself entered into the vow with them ( .), and the time settled (perhaps the least that could be assigned: the Mischna requires thirty days) for the completion of the vow, i.e. the offering and shaving of their heads, was seven days. No definite time is prescribed in Numbers 6, but there seven days is the time of purification in case of uncleanness during the period of the vow.
] making known to the ministers of the temple.
] the fulfilment, i.e. that he and the men had come to fulfil: announcing their intention of fulfilling.
.] donec offerretur, Vulg. The aor. indic. is unusual in an indirect construction, where the aor. subj. is almost always found (ch. Act 23:12; Act 23:21; Act 25:21). But we have Plato, Gorg. p. 506, , ,-and Cratyl. 396, . (De W.)
] See Num 6:13-17.
Act 21:26. , then) Great yieldingness (complaisance).-) signifying, professing or declaring.- , the fulfilment) about to be: Act 21:27, the seven days; Num 6:9; Num 6:13.
Paul took
Contra. Act 21:4; Gal 2:2-6. See,; Rom 3:9; Rom 3:10; Rom 3:19; Rom 3:20; Rom 3:28; Rom 4:3-5; Rom 5:1; Rom 5:2; Rom 6:14; Rom 7:1-4; Rom 7:6; Rom 8:3; Rom 8:4; Gal 2:15; Gal 2:16; Gal 2:18; Gal 2:19; Gal 3:10; Gal 3:24; Gal 3:25; Gal 4:9-11; Gal 4:21-31; Php 3:7-9; Heb 9:14; Heb 9:15; Heb 9:28; Heb 10:1-4; Heb 10:17; Heb 10:18; Heb 13:11-14
Then: 1Co 9:20
entered: Act 24:18
to signify: Num 6:13-20
Reciprocal: Num 6:18 – shave the head 1Sa 21:7 – detained Job 1:5 – according Act 21:24 – and purify Act 24:11 – to worship Act 24:17 – offerings
6
Act 21:26. Paul complied with the advice of the elders. When he did so he carried out a principle he set forth in 1Co 9:20.
Paul takes the Nazarites VowThe Uproar in the TempleHe is arrested by the Roman Soldiery and interrogated by the Officer in Command, who allows him to address the Crowd, 26-40.
Act 21:26. Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them, entered into the temple. Dr. Schaff (Hist, of the Apostolic Church, Book I., Missions) well remarks on this concession of Paul to the request of James: The position of James, as his martyrdom a few years after shows, was at all events one of extreme difficulty; since, amidst the growing obduracy of the nation, and in sight of its impending doom, he still had to standfor this was his proper missionas the connecting link between the old and the new dispensations, to rescue as many as possible from the destruction. And as to Paul, he was here not in his proper Gentile-Christian field of labour. His conduct on other occasions proves that he was far from allowing himself to be restricted in this field. He reserved to himself entire independence in his operations. But he stood now on the venerable ground of the Jewish-Christian mother Church, where he had to respect the customs of the fathers, and the authority of James, the regular bishop. Clearly conscious of already possessing righteousness and salvation in Christ, he accommodated himself, with the best and noblest intentions, to the weaker brethren. Though himself free, he became to them that were under the law, as under the law; to the Jews, a Jew; to those who were not free, a servant, that he might gain some, according to his own maxim (1Co 9:19-23). Should he therefore, in this particular instance, have yielded too much, it would at all events not have been a betrayal of his convictions;this is precluded by the firm, logical consistency of his character,but a personal sacrifice for the great end of the peace and unity of the Church. And surely this sacrifice must have been duly appreciated by the more moderate and noble-minded of the Jewish Christians.
Surely these records of the Acts, with their unflinching truth, speak with a strange mighty power to us after all these ages. We feel, while we read of the awful fall and miserable death of one of the Twelve (chap. Act 1:16-20); of the sin and punishment of two of the most notable believers of the first days (chap. Act 5:1-11); of the jealous murmuring and discontent of the poor saints (chap, Act 6:1); of the failure in courage of Mark, and the bitter quarrel of two of the most prominent Christian leaders (chap. Act 15:38-40); and, here, of this doubtful compromise of Paul and James, that we have before us a real picture, painted from life, of the Church of the first days, by one who never shrinks to paint the errors, the faults, and the grievous mistakes of even the most distinguished of the first believers. Nothing is concealed, nothing is even partially veiled. On the same page with the splendid successes of the Christians of the first days, appear their failures; side by side with their supernatural powers are described their sins and human weaknesses. No careful reader can study these Acts without gaining with every hours work a surer confidence that he has before him a true and genuine record of the life of Christian men and women during the thirty years which immediately succeeded the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
To signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them. Expositors have differed slightly as to the meaning of the original words here. The literal translation here would be, declaring the fulfilment of the days of purification until the offering was offered for every one of them; that is to say, Paul entered the temple declaring [to the priests] when the days of purification would be completed for himself and the four, namely, in seven days; and that then, at the close of them, the customary offerings for all of them would be made; or, in other words, Paul announced to the temple authorities the interval, viz. seven days, between this declaration of his and the end of the vow and the presenting the required offerings. Dean Alford purposes to translate, signifying their intention of fulfilling; but this is inadmissible. Dean Howson (St. Paul, chap, xxi.) would render the whole passage thus: He entered into the temple, giving public notice that the days of purification were fulfilled, [and stayed there] till the offering for each one of the Nazarites was brought. If this rendering be adopted, we must understand that Paul entered the temple and told the priests that the period of the Nazaritic vow was accomplished; and he waited then within the sacred enclosure till the necessary offerings were made for each of them, and their hair cut and burnt in the sacred fire. Wieseler also adopts this view. [The rendering, however, given above, which looks on the announcement of the days of purification as having reference to the future, on the whole appears best and simplest.] Seven days was the ordinary period for the more solemn purifications. See Exo 29:37; Lev 12:2; Lev 13:6; Num 12:14-15; Num 19:14-16, etc.
Observe here, 1. That at the instance and importunity of his friends, St. Paul is persuaded to purify himself in the temple; partly to gain upon the affections of the believing Jews, who were still zealous of the law; and partly to confute the false aspersions of them that reported him to be against all ceremonial observances. If any had grudged that, after the coming of the gospel, so much cost should be bestowed on the law, and say, with murmuring Judas, To what purpose was this waste? the law might truly answer with our Saviour, and say, “He did it for my burial, and for the more solemn interment of me.”
Observe, 2. How blind was the zeal, and how furious the rage, of the unbelieving Jews, against the apostle! They seek, and because they could not find, they take an occasion to vent their malice upon him; accordingly they put the whole city of Jerusalem into an uproar, upon a pretence that he had brought Trophimus, a Gentile, into the temple, to profane and pollute it; and in their blind rage they dragged the apostle out of the temple, as a profaner of it.
Well might the apostle say he was in deaths often, 2Co 11:23. He was now in danger to be pulled in pieces by this tumult, and of being made a sacrifice to the fury of the rabble; but God, who never wants ways or means for the seasonable succour and relief of his faithful servants, in an unexpected manner, and by unthought-of means, rescued the apostle from the jaws of death and danger, as the next verses inform us.
Paul’s Arrest in the Temple
Paul yielded to the proposal set forth by James and the others and began to be purified, perhaps to enter the inner part of the temple (See McGarvey). Near the end of the seven days of purification, some Jews from Asia found Paul in the temple area and called for others to help them. They accused him of: 1.) teaching against the Jews; 2.) teaching against the law; 3.) teaching against the temple; and 4.) bringing Greeks into the temple, thereby defiling it. As to the last charge, Luke reported that they had seen Paul in the city with Trophimus the Ephesian and supposed he had brought him into the temple. An angry mob seized the apostle and dragged him into the court of the Gentiles. The doors to the temple’s inner court were shut so that no blood would defile it ( Act 21:26-30 ).
Through God’s providence, word reached the chief captain of the Roman garrison guarding Jerusalem. He rushed with perhaps 300 men into the midst of the mob violence. The mob left off beating Paul as the soldiers arrived. The chief captain ordered Paul to be bound with two chains and asked of his crime. Different, possibly conflicting, answers were given, so he ordered Paul taken to the castle. The soldiers literally had to carry Paul as a large part of the crowd followed, shouting, “Away with him.” ( Act 21:31-36 ).
Act 21:26-28. Then Paul took the men Agreeably to the advice which he had received from James and the elders. And the next day, purifying himself with them According to the rites of the law; entered into the temple, to signify To the priest; the accomplishment That is, their resolution to accomplish the seven days of purification Till all the sacrifices should be offered which the Mosaic law required. And when the seven days of purification were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia Where Paul had preached so long, and who were especially enraged against him; when they saw him in the temple Utterly disregarding this proof of his respect for the law; stirred up all the people Greek, ; threw into confusion the whole multitude; and laid hands on him In a violent and outrageous manner; crying out To all that were present; Men of Israel, help If ye be indeed men of Israel, that have a concern for your religion and your country, now is your time to show it by helping to seize an enemy to both. This is the man that teacheth all men everywhere In all parts of Asia and Greece; against the people By telling the Jews that they ought not to circumcise their children, and by assuring the Gentiles that they may be saved without becoming proselytes to Judaism; and the law and this place By predicting that both shall be destroyed. Every thing contrary to the law would be justly interpreted as contrary to the temple, which was so evidently supported by a regard to it: but perhaps Paul might have declared that the time of the destruction of the temple was approaching, a declaration which, we know, was charged on Stephen as a great crime, Act 6:14 : and brought Greeks also into the temple Any foreigner might worship in that part which was called the court of the Gentiles; but these zealots, upon an uncertain conjecture and rumour, and without any proof, imagined Paul had brought some uncircumcised Greeks into the inner court, appropriated to the people of Israel, which no foreigner might enter, as was notified by the Greek and Latin inscriptions on several of the pillars which stood in the wall that separated it: , No foreigner must enter here. It must be observed, however, that a proselyte who by his circumcision had declared his submission to, and acceptance of the whole Jewish religion, was no longer looked on as a foreigner, but as one naturalized, and so a fellow-citizen, to which there seems to be an allusion Eph 2:19.
See notes on verse 18
21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, {f} to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
(f) The priests were to be informed of the accomplishment of the days of the purification, because there were sacrifices to be offered the same day that their vow was ended.
A Jew would announce the completion of his vow to the priest and then seven days later present his offerings (cf. Num 6:13-20). The Law did not prescribe this week’s wait, but it was customary. Paul accompanied the four men into the temple and underwent the rites of purification with them because he was paying the expenses of their vow. A few expositors believed Paul compromised his convictions here. [Note: E.g., Morgan, p. 485.] But this is a minority opinion that I do not share. The Jews considered paying the charges for votive offerings an act of piety and a symbolic identification with the Jews. Herod Agrippa I had previously done this. [Note: Josephus, Antiquities of . . ., 19:6:1.]
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)