Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 21:18
And the [day] following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
18. And the day following James ] This was the Church’s reception of the returned missionaries. Notice of their arrival would soon be given, and the authorities who were at the time resident in Jerusalem were gathered together. There was not any Apostle there or St Luke would hardly have failed to mention the fact, as he was one of those present. Paul took with him to this interview all who had shared in his labours, that their work, as well as his own might receive the recognition of the mother church of Christ. The James here mentioned is the same who appears recognised as the head of the congregation in Jerusalem (Act 12:17, Act 15:13). He was most probably one of our Lord’s brethren. See note on Act 12:17.
and present ] These men, with James, formed the government of the Church, and were the persons to whom the Apostle would naturally desire to give an account of his labours. In the proceedings which follow, the narrative does not, as in the council at Jerusalem, represent James as taking the lead, or being spokesman; he is only mentioned as the person to whom the missionaries specially went. The advice given to St Paul is couched in the plural number, as if the elders had jointly tendered it.
And saluted them ] The verb is used both of the greetings at parting and arrival, and these in the East were of a much more formal character than is common in Western countries.
he declared particularly what things ] More literally (with Rev. Ver.), “ he rehearsed one by one the things which.” Such a narrative must have consumed a long time, though St Luke, having previously given a sketch of what the Apostle had done, omits any speech of St Paul here.
God by his ministry ] We cannot doubt, from what remains to us of St Paul’s writings, that this was the tone of all that he would say. God had been pleased to use him, and for His own glory had made St Paul’s weakness effective.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Unto James – James the Less. See the notes on Act 15:13. He resided at Jerusalem. Compare Gal 1:19. It is not improbable that he was the only one of the apostles then at Jerusalem; and there is reason to believe that the church at Jerusalem was left under his particular care. It was natural, therefore, that Paul and his companions should take an early opportunity to see him. James was the cousin of our Lord, and in Gal 1:19 he is called the Lords brother. On all accounts, therefore, he was entitled to, and would receive, particular respect from the early disciples.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 18. Went in with us unto James] This was James the Less, son of Mary; and cousin to our Lord. He appears to have been bishop of the Church in Jerusalem, and perhaps the only apostle who continued in that city. We have already seen what a very important character he sustained in the council. See Ac 15:13.
All the elders were present.] It appears that they had been convened about matters of serious and important moment; and some think it was relative to Paul himself, of whose arrival they had heard, and well knew how many of those that believed were disaffected towards him.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
James, one of the apostles, though some think that he was a kinsman of our Saviours, and at this time bishop of Jerusalem.
Elders; as in Act 15:6,23, not so called for their age, but dignity or place in the church.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
18. Paul went in with us unto James;and all the elders were presentto “report himself”formally to the acknowledged head of the church at Jerusalem, and hisassociates in office. See on Ac15:13. Had any other of the apostles been in Jerusalem on thatoccasion, it could hardly fail to have been noted.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And the day following,…. After they were come into Jerusalem:
Paul went in with us to James; not the son of Zebedee and brother of John, for he was killed by Herod some years ago; but James the son of Alphaeus, and brother of our Lord, who presided over this church; it seems there were no other apostles now at Jerusalem, but they were all dispersed abroad that were living, preaching the Gospel in the several parts of the world: Paul took the first opportunity Of paying a visit to James, very likely at his own house, to give him an account of his success among the Gentiles, and to know the state of the church at Jerusalem, and confer with him about what might be most proper and serviceable to promote the interest of Christ; and he took with him those who had been companions with him in his travels, partly to show respect to James, and partly to be witnesses of what he should relate unto him:
and all the elders were present: by whom are meant, not the ancient private members of the church, but the ministers of the word in this church: who hearing of the coming of the apostle, and of his visit to James, assembled together to see him, and converse with him.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The day following ( ). As in 20:15 which see.
Went in (). Imperfect active of , old classic verb used only four times in the N.T. (Acts 3:3; Acts 21:18; Acts 21:26; Heb 9:6), a mark of the literary style rather than the colloquial Koine use of . Together with us to James ( ). So then Luke is present. The next use of “we” is in 27:1 when they leave Caesarea for Rome, but it is not likely that Luke was away from Paul in Jerusalem and Caesarea. The reports of what was done and said in both places is so full and minute that it seems reasonable that Luke got first hand information here whatever his motive was for so full an account of these legal proceedings to be discussed later. There are many details that read like an eye witness’s story (Acts 21:30; Acts 21:35; Acts 21:40; Acts 22:2; Acts 22:3; Acts 23:12, etc.). It was probably the house of James ( and so used often).
And all the elders were present ( ). Clearly James is the leading elder and the others are his guests in a formal reception to Paul. It is noticeable that the apostles are not mentioned, though both elders and apostles are named at the Conference in chapter 15. It would seem that the apostles are away on preaching tours. The whole church was not called together probably because of the known prejudice against Paul created by the Judaizers.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
PAUL CONFERS WITH JAMES AND ALL THE JERUSALEM ELDERS, THEN TOOK A JEWISH VOW OF PURIFICATION V. 18-26; Heb 10:2; Heb 9:12
1) “And the day following,” (te de epiouse) “Then on the next day,” the day after our arrival in Jerusalem and our being received of the Jerusalem brethren.
2) “Paul went in with us unto James; ‘(eiseei ho Paulos sun hemin pros lakobon) “Paul went in company with us,” (the entire missionary and church messenger, charitable good band, including the brethren from the church at Caesarea) to visit or fellowship closely with James,” who is thought to have been pastor of the church at Jerusalem, Act 12:17; Act 15:13; Gal 2:9.
3) “And all the elders were present.” (pantes te paregenonto hoi presbuteroi) “Then all the elders (mature ordained brethren of the church) also came to be present,” to meet with their pastor and receive a report on their labors and messages from their church brethren in Europe, Asia, and removed places. No mention is made of ,any other apostle at this time and it is supposed that they were away from Jerusalem on missionary work.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
−
18. All the elders were present. We may gather that out of this place which we had already in the fifteenth chapter. So often as any weighty business was to be handled, the elders were wont to come together, to the end the consultation might be more quiet without the multitude. We shall see anon, that the people were likewise admitted in their order, yet after that the elders had had their secret consultation − (470) among themselves. −
(470) −
“
Interius consilium,” more private
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(18) The day following Paul went in with us unto James . . .Looking to Act. 20:16, it seems natural to infer that this was on or near the Day of Pentecost. The city would be crowded with pilgrims. The Church would be holding its solemn festival, not without memories of the great gifts of the Spirit, and prayers for their renewal. The Bishop of Jerusalemto give him the title which, though apparently not then borne by him, expressed his functions, and was afterwards attached to his namewas there with the elders of the Church. St. Luke is careful to add that they were all there. On their part there was no reluctance to receive the Apostle of the Gentiles into full fellowship.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
V. PAUL IN COUNCIL WITH JAMES ARREST SENT TO CESAREA, Act 21:18 to Act 23:35.
1. Paul, James, and Elders , Act 21:18-25 .
18. Went in with us As principal with his followers. This is a formal and fully appointed assemblage on both sides.
James Our readers may trace him through our notes on Mat 10:3; Joh 7:3; Act 1:14-15 entire. A fuller portraiture of his remarkable character we hope to furnish introductory to the Epistle of James. No contemporaneous proof whatever exists that he was ever ordained to an official order above the eldership. If, however, there was any man living at this primitive day who could claim to be a pope, a universal pontiff and bishop of the Christian Church, it was this brother of Christ, this spiritual potentate to whom the embassy and the tribute are paid, this prince of the house of David in David’s ancient capital.
Elders were present As Paul is attended by his full suite, so the presbytery of James receive them in full session. The two bodies, therefore, meet, headed by the two illustrious personages whom, perhaps, the unanimous vote of each of the two great sections of the Church, the Judaic and Gentilic, would have recognised as the representative men. The great question of the Church of that age is before them as stated in notes on Act 10:1; Act 11:19 and Act 15:6.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And the day following Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.’
On the next day the Gentile representatives arranged to meet James, along with all the elders. Paul also went with them. The fact that all the Jerusalem church elders also made themselves present meant that it was an official meeting. But the non-mention of the Apostles suggests that they were elsewhere obeying Jesus’ command to take the Good News to the whole world.
This majoring on ‘us’ confirms that the question of handing over the Collection was to be dealt with. Note that Paul went ‘with them’. He was not to be seen as the man in charge. These men came as individual and official representatives of their churches to fellowship with their brethren in the Jerusalem church. Yet both here and from this point on, as he has earlier, Luke still ignores the Collection, skipping over anything to do with that and moving on to Paul’s description of his Gentile mission (although he undoubtedly knew about it – Act 24:17). He is more concerned to bring out the wonderful unity and love in the church.
For important though the Collection was it was not important to what Luke was trying to get over. Indeed it might have distracted attention from it. (We modern commentators equally ensure that it does obtain major attention and thus distract attention from Luke’s main purpose). He wanted the attention to be concentrated on what really matters, the success of the word around the world, the wonderful unity of the people of God, and the resulting arrest of Paul with its indication of Jerusalem’s rejection of the Good News.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Act 21:18. James; The apostle, commonly called James the less, and the brother of our Lord.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
Ver. 18. Unto James ] The son of Alpheus, called by St Mark, “James the less,” and by some of the ancients, Bishop of Jerusalem.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
18. ] James, ‘the brother of the Lord:’ the president of the church at Jerusalem: see ch. Act 12:17 ; Act 15:13 , Gal 2:12 , and notes, and Prolegg. to the Epistle of James, vol. iv. pt. 1, i. 24 37.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 21:18 . , three times in “We” sections, twice in rest of Acts; nowhere else in N.T. (in Act 7:26 with ), Hawkins, u. s. : the writer thus again claims to be an eyewitness of what passed; it may well have been the occasion for the reception of the alms collected from the Churches. : on the authoritative position of St. James as further shown here see Hort, Ecclesia , p. 105, and Moberly, Ministerial Priesthood , p. 147. Nothing is said of the Apostles, and they may have been absent from Jerusalem on missionary work, or at least the chief of them. They would scarcely have been included under the term . as Wendt supposes.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
following. Greek. epeimi. See note on Act 7:26.
went in. Greek. eiseimi. Only here, Act 21:26; Act 3:3. Heb 9:6.
elders. See App-189.
were present = came. Greek. paraginomai. Occurs thirty-seven times. Elsewhere translated “come”.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
18. ] James, the brother of the Lord: the president of the church at Jerusalem: see ch. Act 12:17; Act 15:13, Gal 2:12, and notes,-and Prolegg. to the Epistle of James, vol. iv. pt. 1, i. 24-37.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 21:18. , on the following day) without delay.- , with us) so that the fact of our consent (accordance with him) might be certain: Gal 1:2.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
unto: Act 15:13, Mat 10:2, Gal 1:19, Gal 2:9, Jam 1:1
all: Act 15:2, Act 15:6, Act 15:23, Act 20:17
Reciprocal: Mat 10:3 – James Mar 3:18 – James Act 12:17 – James Act 24:11 – but Gal 2:12 – certain 1Pe 5:1 – elders
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
8ut there were certain questions that had arisen among the Jewish Christians that they wished Paul to clarify.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
The Reception of Paul by James and the Jerusalem EldersThey tell Paul how he should act towards the Jewish Christians present at the FeastThe Gentile Apostle acts on their Advice, 18-25.
Act 21:18. And the day following Paul went in with us unto James. This James was the so-called brother of the Lord, not one of the Twelve, but who, converted to the faith probably owing to a special appearance of the Lord after His resurrection, took his place at once among the more prominent members of the Jerusalem Church, of which community after some little time he became the bishop or presiding elder. See the note, chap. Act 15:13, where the position and character of this eminent and devoted servant of the Lord are discussed at some length. There are in the New Testament story three men bearing the name of Jamesthe first, James the son of Zebedee, the brother of John, one of the twelve apostles: he suffered martyrdom at a comparatively early period in the history of the Church, at the bands of Herod (see Act 12:2); the second, James the Less, the son of Alphus, also one of the Twelve; the third, James the so-called brother of the Lord (most probably with the other brethren of the Lord, a son of Joseph by a former wife), the bishop or president of the Church of Jerusalem. He is generally known in history as the Just. This is the James who received Paul when he came up to the Holy City to keep this feast of Pentecost, A.D. 58. Some ten or eleven years later, he suffered as a believer in Jesus of Nazareth, the year before the fatal siege of Jerusalem. By direction of the high priest Annas, a Sadducee, James, the head of the Christian Church in the city, was hurled from a pinnacle of the temple, and finally despatched by stoning (Hegesippus in Eus. H..E. ii. 23).
And all the elders were present. The mention of James and all the elders, and the omission of any allusion to the apostles, is a clear proof that none of these were at this time resident in the Holy City. It must be borne in mind that more than a quarter of a century had passed since the memorable first Pentecost kept by the believers in Jesus of Nazareth; some had doubtless rejoined their Lord, others were working for Him in distant lands.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
TUMULT IN JERUSALEM
The stirring events in this lesson are:
1. Pauls Ceremonial Vow (Act 21:18-26) 2. His Apprehension by the Jewish Mob (Act 21:27-30) 3. His Speech to Them from the Castle Stairs (Act 21:31 to Act 22:21) 4. His Colloquy with the Roman soldiers (Act 22:22-29) 5. His Defense before the Sanhedrin (Act 22:30 to Act 23:11) 6. The Plot to Murder Him (Act 23:12-22) 7. The Escape to Caesarea (Act 23:23-35).
As to Pauls vow, it is to be kept in mind that the Judaizing element in the church increased as its numbers increased, and while they had accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior, yet they were also zealous for the law of Moses. They can be sympathized with in this, considering their past history as Jews; but not when they attached a saving value to the law, or attempted to force its observance upon the Gentiles. To propitiate them and promote peace, Paul was tempted to compromise in the matter of this vow whatever it may have been, and he fell into a snare. It might be said in extenuation that the pressure was exceedingly strong upon him.
Of course it was not these Judaizing Christians who set upon him in the temple, but out and out Jews who hated Christianity altogether, and to whom the opportunity had been given by the action of Paul in yielding to the prejudices of the others.
This speech on the castle stairs constitutes: first, an account of himself as a Jew (Act 22:1-5); second, the story of his conversion (Act 22:6-16); and third a declaration of his divine commission (Act 22:17-21). In the story of his conversion some have found a difficulty in that Paul says his companions saw the light but heard no voice, while in chapter 9, Luke reports that they heard the voice. The explanation probably is that they heard the sound of the voice but were unable to understand the words. What he says of his divine commission here is not given in chapter 9, and is especially interesting and important on that account. It is a chapter of his inner life which otherwise never would have been known.
In Pauls defense before the Sanhedrin some think he was acting in the flesh, and after his own will rather than in the Holy Spirit. This is a serious charge to make and great caution is necessary, but the circumstances supposed to justify it are the abruptness of his beginning without waiting to be questioned, and his apparently self-righteous spirit (Act 23:1), his offensive epithet to the high priest (Act 23:3), and his cleverness in dividing the council (Act 23:6). If there be anything in such a supposition, we are all the happier for the evidence in Act 23:11, that it was all right once more between the Lord and himself before the next day arose.
We need not continue our comments further in this case.
QUESTIONS
1. Give the outline of this lesson.
2. How would you explain the occasion for Pauls vow?
3. Do you see the distinction between Jews, and those here called Judaizers?
4. Analyze Pauls speech on the castle stairs.
5. What serious reflection is sometimes cast upon Paul at this crisis, and on what grounds?
6. What Divine comfort or justification of Paul does the record contain?
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
18-26. After the general statement that they were gladly received by the brethren, Luke proceeds to state more in detail what followed. (18) “And on the day following, Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. (19) And having saluted them, he related particularly what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. (20) When they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said to him, You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who believe, and they are all zealous for the law. (21) Now they heard concerning you, that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles apostasy from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children, nor to walk according to the customs. (22) What, then, is it? The multitude must by all means come together; for they will hear that you have come. (23) Do this, therefore, which we tell you. We have here four men who have a vow upon them. (24) Take them, and purify yourself with them, and bear the expenses for them, in order that they may shear their heads, and all may know that those things of which they have heard concerning you are nothing; but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. (25) But as respects the Gentiles who have believed, we have already written, having decided that they observe no such things, only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication. (26) Then Paul took the men, and the next day went with them into the temple purified, announcing the fulfilling of the days of purification, when an offering should be offered for each one of them.”
This I confess to be the most difficult passage in Acts to fully understand, and to reconcile with the teaching of Paul on the subject of the Mosaic law. We shall have the exact state of the question before our minds, by inquiring, first, What was the exact position of the Jerusalem brethren in reference to the law? second, What had Paul actually taught upon the subject? and, third, How can the course pursued by both be reconciled to the mature apostolic teaching?
First. It is stated, in this speech, of which James was doubtless the author, that the disciples about Jerusalem were “all zealous for the law.” They recognized the authority of Moses as still binding; for they complained that Paul taught “apostasy from Moses.” The specifications of this apostasy were, first, neglect of circumcision; second, abandonment of “the customs.” By “the customs” are meant those imposed by the law, among which, as seen in their proposition to Paul, were the Nazarite vows, with their burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, and meat-offerings, and, as seen in Paul’s epistles, abstinence from unclean meats, and the observance of Sabbath-days, holy days, new moons, and Sabbatic years.
Second. Our iniquity into Paul’s teaching on the subject must have separate reference to what he had taught before this time, and what he taught subsequently. None of his oral teachings on the subject are preserved by Luke, hence we are dependent for a knowledge of his present teaching upon those of his epistles which were written previous to this time. In none of the specifications above enumerated did he fully agree with his Jewish brethren. True, he granted the perpetuity of circumcision; yet not because he acknowledged with them the continued authority of the law, but because of the covenant with Abraham which preceded the law. As for the law, he taught that it had been “a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith, but after faith is come, we are no longer under the schoolmaster;” that, “now we are delivered from the law, being dead to that in which we were held;” that we are “become dead to the law by the body of Christ.” In repudiating the authority of the law, he necessarily repudiated all obligation to observe “the customs.” In reference to all these, he afterward said to the Colossians, that God had “blotted out the handwriting of ordinances which was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross.” “Let no man, therefore, judge you in food or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of Sabbaths; which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ.” While thus repudiating the obligation to observe the ordinances, he admitted the innocence of their observance, and forbade any breach of fellowship on account of it, laying down in reference to them all, this rule: “Let not him who eats, despise him who eats not; and let not him who eats not, judge him who eats.” In reference, therefore, to meats and days, he and the judaizers agreed that the Jews might observe them; and they differed as to the ground of this conclusion: the latter affirming that it was a matter of duty; the former holding that it was a matter of indifference.
Thus far we have omitted special mention of one custom, because its importance demands for it a separate consideration. We refer to sacrifices. It is evident, from the transaction before us, as observed above, that James and the brethren in Jerusalem regarded the offering of sacrifices as at least innocent; for they approved the course of the four Nazarites, and urged Paul to join with them in the service, though it required them to offer sacrifices, and even sin-offerings. They could not, indeed, very well avoid this opinion, since they admitted the continued authority of the Mosaic law. Though disagreeing with them as to the ground of their opinion, as in reference to the other customs, Paul evidently admitted the opinion itself, for he adopted their advice, and paid the expense of the sacrifices which the four Nazarites offered.
Third. The commentators uniformly agree that Paul was right, and that the rites observed on this occasion are to be referred to that class which are indifferent, and in reference to which Paul acted upon the principle of being a Jew to the Jew, that he might win the Jew. This would not be objectionable, if the proceeding had reference merely to meats and drinks, holy days, etc., to which it appears to be confined in their view; for all these were indifferent then, and are not less so at the present day. Who would say that it would now be sinful to abstain from certain meats, and observe certain days as holy? But it is far different with bloody sacrifices. If disciples, either Jewish or Gentile, should now assemble in Jerusalem, construct an altar, appoint a priesthood, and offer sin-offerings, they could but be regarded as apostates from Christ. But why should it be regarded as a crime now, if it was innocent then?
The truth is, that, up to this time, Paul had written nothing which directly conflicted with the service of the altar, and he did not yet understand the subject correctly. His mind, and those of all the brethren, were as yet in much the same condition on this subject that they were before the conversion of Cornelius, in reference to the reception of the uncircumcised into the Church. If we admit that the proposition above quoted from Galatians, affirming that “we are no longer under the law,” was, when fully understood, inconsistent with the continuance of the sacrifice, we make his case only the more likely like Peter’s in regard to the Gentiles; for he announced propositions, on Pentecost, which were inconsistent with his subsequent course, until he was made to better understand the force of his own words. Peter finally discovered that he was wrong in that matter, and Paul at length discovered that he was wrong, in his connection with the offerings of these Nazarites. Some years later, the whole question concerning the Aaronic priesthood and animal sacrifices was thrust more distinctly upon his mind, and the Holy Spirit made to him a more distinct revelation of the truth upon the subject, and caused him to develop it to the Churches, in Ephesians, Colossians, and especially in Hebrews. In the last-named Epistle, written during his imprisonment in Rome, he exhibited the utter inefficiency of animal sacrifices; the sacrifice of Christ, once for all, as the only sufficient sin-offering; and the abrogation of the Aaronic priesthood by that of Christ, who was now the only high priest and mediator between God and man. After these developments, he could not, for any earthly consideration, have repeated the transaction with the Nazarites; for it would have been to insult the great High Priest over the house of God, by presenting, before a human priest, an offering which could not take away sin, and which would proclaim the insufficiency of the blood of the atonement. We conclude, therefore, that the procedure described in the text was inconsistent with the truth as finally developed by the apostles, but not with so much of it as was then understood by Paul. This conclusion presents but another proof that the Holy Spirit, in leading the apostles “into the truth,” did so by a gradual development running through a series of years.
When Paul finally was enabled to understand and develop the whole truth on this subject, no doubt the opinions and prejudices of the more liberal class of Jewish disciples yielded to his clear and conclusive arguments. But, doubtless, some still clung to the obsolete and unlawful service of the temple, assisting the unbelieving Jews to perpetuate it. Then came in the necessity for the destruction of their temple and city, so that it should be impossible for them to longer offer sacrifices which had been superseded. The destruction of the temple was not the legal termination of the Mosaic ritual; for it ceased to be legal with the death of Christ; but this brought to an end its illegal continuance.
Before we dismiss this passage, there are two more points claiming a moment’s attention. First, the justness of the accusation which the brethren had heard against Paul. He had certainly taught the Jews that they were no longer under the law, and that “the customs” were no longer binding, and this was, in one sense, “apostasy from Moses.” But he had not, as he was charged, taught them to abandon the customs; for he had insisted that they were innocent; and, in reference to circumcision, he had given no ground of offense whatever. Hence the charge, as understood by those who preferred it, was false; and it was with the utmost propriety that Paul consented to disabuse their minds, though the means he adopted for that purpose was improper.
The last point claiming attention is the nature of the purification which Paul underwent. The statement which we have rendered, he “purified himself with them,” is understood, by some commentators, to mean that he took part in their vow of abstinence. But for this meaning of the term, agnizo, there is no authority in the New Testament; everywhere else it means to purify, and Paul’s own statement to Felix, that “they found me purified in the temple,” in which he speaks of the same event, and uses the same word, is conclusive as to its meaning here. It will be remembered that no Jew who, like Paul, had been mingling with Gentiles, and disregarding the ceremonial cleanness of the law, was permitted to enter the outer court of the temple without being purified. This purification he must have undergone, and there is no evidence that he underwent any other. But it is said that he purified himself “with them,” which shows that they, too, were unclean. Now, when a Nazarite became unclean within the period of his vow, it was necessary that he should purify himself, shear his head on the seventh day, and on the eighth day bring certain offerings. Then he lost the days of his vow which had preceded the uncleanness, and had to begin the count anew from the day that the offering was presented. This is fully stated in the sixth chapter of Numbers , where the law of Nazarite is prescribed. Such was the condition of these Nazarites, as is further proved by the notice given of the “days of purification,” and the mention, in the next verse below, of “the seven days,” as of a period well known. Nazarites had no purification to perform except when they became unclean during their vow; and there was no period of seven days connected with their vow, except in the instance just mentioned. In this instance, as the head was to be sheared on the seventh day, and the offerings presented on the eighth, there were just seven whole days employed. Paul’s part was to give notice to the priest of the beginning of these days, and to pay the expenses of the offerings; but he had to purify himself before he went in for this purpose.
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 18
James. James seems to have occupied a prominent place among the Christians at Jerusalem at this time. There is a tradition that the church at that place was officially under his charge. (See Acts 12:17,15:13.)