Looking for a thorough commentary on Acts 21:24

Hi world of Logos!

I am looking for an extensive commentary/journal article/essay/treatise on the the interaction between Paul and James in Acts 21:17-26 and it's implications and I haven't found much yet. Can anyone help me out? I am mainly interested in the Law keeping/not under the Law tension issue highlighted in verse 24.

I've looked through almost all of my commentaries already but they don't treat this at length. I really appreciate any help.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Bill Anderson

Welcome to the forum, Daniel.

It might help us to know which commentaries you've already checked, so we don't give you ones you have already looked at.

DAL

Not much on Stanley Horton on Acts:

22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.

Comments:

The elders recognized that these accusations were false. But everyone in Jerusalem had heard them again and again. Now, since all in Jerusalem would surely hear that Paul had come, what should be done? James and the elders had a suggestion that they hoped would avoid a split in the Church. They saw a way to stop the rumors and show they were false. Four of the Jewish believers had taken a vow upon themselves, obviously a temporary 352 Nazirite vow. By this vow any Israelite man or woman could declare their total dedication to God and to His will. Usually the vow was taken for a limited period of time. At the close of the period they had chosen, they would offer rather expensive sacrifices, including a male and female lamb, a ram, and other offerings. Then they would shave their heads as a sign that the vow was completed (Num. 6:14-20).
Paul did not have to take the vow himself. But he was asked to go through ceremonies of purifying himself along with them and pay for the sacrifices so they could complete the vow and shave their heads. 14 This would show the believers and everyone in Jerusalem that Paul did not teach Jewish believers to go against the customs of their fathers. 15 It would also answer all the false things said about Paul and would demonstrate that Paul himself was "living in obedience to the law" (cf. 1 Cor. 9:19-23).

DAL

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/904258#Comment_904258

22–24 The Jerusalem leaders were troubled to know what to do about protecting Paul’s reputation, asking, ‘What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come’ (pantōs akousontai hoti elēlythas).⁵⁰ They themselves appear to have had confidence in his orthodoxy, but were worried that Paul’s detractors would make life difficult for him.⁵¹ Their advice suggests some division of opinion about Paul in the Jerusalem Christian community, with some being more antagonistic to him than others. James and the elders advise Paul to take public action by joining in a purification rite and paying the expenses of four men who were apparently members of the church and had ‘made a vow’. Reference to having ‘their heads shaved’ suggests that these men were completing a temporary Nazirite vow (cf. Nu. 6:1–21; m. Nazir 1:1–9:5; Josephus, War 15.1). As mentioned in connection with 18:18, Jews made such vows of abstinence to God, either in thankfulness for past blessings or as part of a petition for future blessings. The Greek (hagnisthēti syn autois) literally means ‘be purified with them’. In what sense did Paul need to be purified and how could he join with these men in their ‘purification’?⁵² On his return from Gentile territory, it is likely that Paul would have needed a seven-day period of ritual purification before participating in temple worship (Nu. 19:11–13 gives the pattern of this purification rite; cf. m. Ohol. 2:3; 17:5; 18:6). In the process of completing his own period of purification, Paul could have helped four impoverished Nazirites complete their purification or period of separation by paying their expenses (cf. Nu. 6:3, where hagnisthēsetai means ‘he shall abstain’). The completion of two different kinds of purification/separation would thus coincide in time.⁵³ Paying the cost of the offering these men had to make when discharging their vow would be a pious act of charity on Paul’s part. Shaving the hair which had grown during the period of the vow was a critical aspect of the concluding ritual.⁵⁴ Thus James and the elders claimed that ‘everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law’ (stoicheis kai autos phylassōn ton nomon, ‘you yourself conform by keeping the law’). Although some have doubted that the Paul we know from his letters could have agreed to such a proposal, his co-operation can be understood as ‘a sign of his respect for his Jewish heritage and his desire to lay claim to it’.⁵⁵ Such a public display of his piety (everyone will know) would have been no superficial sop to the complainers, but a risky business, enabling Paul’s enemies to plan action against him on a particular day.⁵⁶ However, Paul may not have shared the elders’ optimism about the effect this action, might have in calming the fears of his opponents.⁵⁷ It was certainly a conciliatory action but, in view of the outcome, Luke may be suggesting that ‘such an action for the sake of peace was the wrong thing for Paul to do, even if it led towards the fulfilment of God’s will for him’.⁵⁸

⁵⁰ There is a widely supported variant of the last sentence (pantōs dei plēthos synelthein akousontai gar elēlythas), which is rendered by KJV ‘the multitude must needs come together, for they will hear that thou art come’). However, if the longer form of this text is original, it is hard to explain why it has been cut down by a range of good MSS. The only real possibility is an early copying error. In textual criticism, the shorter text is normally judged the original. Cf. Barrett 1998, 1009–10.

⁵¹ Bruce 1990, 446, suggests that ‘the elders were well-meaning but deeply worried men who knew that, if they appeared to countenance Paul by accepting the Gentile churches’ gift, it would prejudice their mission to the Jewish people and their influence with their own flock’. This solution has the merit of taking the Gentile churches’ gift as a necessary part of the reconstruction of the event. Cf. Haenchen 1971, 613–14; J. D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity (London: SCM, 1977), 257.

War Jewish War

⁵² Marshall 1980, 345, outlines three possible ways in which the expression ‘purified with them’ could be understood.

m. Ohol. Mishnah Oholot

⁵³ Cf. Bruce 1990, 447. The same terminology of purification or separation is used for both rituals (cf. Nu. 6:3; 19:12), but the context in Acts 21 does not imply that Paul took a Nazirite vow at this point or that the four men had to be purified from defilement as Paul did. It seems as though two separate rituals would be brought together by Paul’s actions. So also Witherington 1998, 649.

⁵⁴ Nu. 6:14–15 prescribes the necessary food and drink offerings. According to m. Nazir 2:5–6, these offerings, together with ‘the hair of his separation’ that was cut and then burned at the end of the vow, was called ‘a hair offering’. Cf. Barrett 1998, 1011–12.

⁵⁵ Tannehill 1990, 270. The ritual would be a sort of confessional act, ‘a confession of the validity of law and temple for the Jewish people’.

⁵⁶ Cf. Tannehill 1990, 270. It was also a risky action from the perspective of Paul’s teaching about the law and its role in the gospel era.

⁵⁷ Cf. Bruce 1990, 447. Barrett 1998, 1013, rightly questions whether Paul was prepared to use such an occasion to indicate to Jewish Christians that he was a regular observer of the law, noting that this is different from the policy stated in 1 Cor. 9:19–23, which appears to focus on his behaviour in the presence of unbelieving Jews. Nevertheless, this action was not one that would compromise the truth of the gospel by implying the need for obedience to the law in addition to faith in Christ. Cf. Witherington 1998, 651.

⁵⁸ Marshall 1980, 342.

David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, England: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 586–588.

___________________________________________________________________

■ 24* What is here described is certainly no longer in accord with the requirements. ἁγνίσθητι κτλ., “purify, etc.,” can only be understood as “enter into the vow with them!” But that could not be done for a period of only seven days (vs 27*). Luke has misunderstood a report here. The period of purification for Levitical uncleanliness lasted seven days (Num 19:12* LXX; note the same verb, ἁγνίζεσθαι!). Did Luke erroneously combine this passage with Num 6:4*? Haenchen supposes that the source did in fact tell of such a purification of Paul: he had come from abroad; thus it was necessary for him to be purified in order for him to participate in the absolution ceremony for the Nazirites.⁸

* ²⁴ Join these men, go through the rite of purification with them, and pay for the shaving of their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself observe and guard the law.

Acts 21:24 (NRSV)

* ²⁷ When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, who had seen him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd. They seized him,

Acts 21:27 (NRSV)

* ¹² They shall purify themselves with the water on the third day and on the seventh day, and so be clean; but if they do not purify themselves on the third day and on the seventh day, they will not become clean.

Numbers 19:12 (NRSV)

LXX Septuagint

* ⁴ All their days as nazirites they shall eat nothing that is produced by the grapevine, not even the seeds or the skins.

Numbers 6:4 (NRSV)

Haenchen Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles (ed. R. McL. Wilson; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971).

⁸ Haenchen, pp. 611–12.

Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, ed. Eldon Jay Epp and Christopher R. Matthews, trans. James Limburg, A. Thomas Kraabel, and Donald H. Juel, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 180.

___________________________________________________________________

■ 22–25* The whole unit (vv. 20–25*) is a balanced and well-constructed composition³² reminiscent of the postapostolic literature in which matters are settled by giving orders rather than with convoluted dialectic and appeal to such general principles as the law of love in light of the freedom bestowed by faith. The external frame (vv. 20*, 25*) deals with Jewish and Diaspora gentile believers.³³ The former observe Torah, while the latter must abide by the requirements set forth in Acts 15.³⁴ Verses 21* and 24c–d* (from “Everyone will then know”) delineate rumor and solution, apostasy³⁵ and observance.³⁶ The center is the string of imperatives in vv. 23–24*.³⁷ These direct Paul to join four devotees, with whom he will “purify himself” and for whom he will assume the expense of discharging their vows. Two actions are in view: ritual purification that will enable one to participate in temple activity³⁸ and payment of expenses for others.³⁹ The latter was a charitable benefaction associated with the wealthy.⁴⁰ An outstanding example is Agrippa I (Josephus Ant. 19.294).⁴¹ The instructions evidently imply that Paul is to join the devotees in the discharge of their obligation, as well as financing it. It is difficult to reconcile the rite described with what is known of Jewish practice. The seven-day period could derive from a misunderstanding of Num 6:9–10*.⁴² For the narrative, seven days gives the pot time to reach the boiling point.

* ²²What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.

²³So do what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow.

²⁴Join these men, go through the rite of purification with them, and pay for the shaving of their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself observe and guard the law.

²⁵But as for the Gentiles who have become believers, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled^e and from fornication.”

Bible:Ac 21:22–25 (NRSV)

* ²⁰When they heard it, they praised God. Then they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the law.

²¹They have been told about you that you teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and that you tell them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs.

²²What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.

²³So do what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow.

Bible:Ac 21:20–25 (NRSV)

³² Verse 22* resembles the style of the diatribe, with rhetorical questions to promote vividness. See Cadbury and Lake, 271–72. It is thus appropriate to writing, underlining the extent to which this is not a conversation. For rhetorical analyses of this little speech, see Kennedy, Rhetorical Criticism, 134; and Soards, Speeches, 109–10. The D-Text of v. 22* (Boismard, Texte, 350) is quite interesting. Between πάντως and ἀκούσονται (“doubtless learn”) there comes the phrase δεῖ συνελθεῖν πλῆθος (“This will cause a mob to form/crowd to assemble, for they will learn that you have come” [γάρ (“for”) has wide support]). This variant is not without its charm, witness its appearance in a range of authorities. Cadbury and Lake (272) suspect that it is original and “should probably be translated ‘there must be a meeting of the whole church.’ ” Haenchen (609 n. 3), despite the absence of the article, believes that a community assembly is in view. If that interpretation is correct—it may mean that Paul’s arrival will generate a mob—the D-editor would have proposed a logical solution to the problem. Two difficulties with viewing it as original are, as often, why it would have been deleted and, more importantly, that the suggestion is not pursued.

* ²⁰When they heard it, they praised God. Then they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the law.

Bible:Ac 21:20 (NRSV)

* ²⁵But as for the Gentiles who have become believers, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled^e and from fornication.”

Bible:Ac 21:25 (NRSV)

³³ In v. 25*, after “gentiles,” the D-Text (Boismard, Texte, 351) reads οὑδὲν ἔχουσιν λέγειν πρός σε (“They [the Jewish believers?] have nothing to say to you, for we …”), and κρίναντες μηδὲν τοιοῦτον τηρεῖν αὑτοὺς εἰ μή (“We determined that they should observe nothing of the sort, other than …”), followed by the “threefold” form of the decree (omitting “strangled” and not including the golden rule). Metzger (Textual Commentary, 429) suggests that the additional words may be related to the absence of the rule, but he does not venture to say how. A more obvious explanation is to relate the matter to Paul’s teaching, as in v. 21*.

³⁴ Cf. the use of the same participial form, πεπιστευκότων (“those who have come to believe”) for both Jews (v. 20*) and gentiles (v. 25*). Hengel’s statement (Acts and the History, 117) that “James presents it as something new and apparently unknown to [Paul]” is not correct, although it responds to the brusqueness of the speech. All of the data are presented in the same manner, and none would have escaped Paul’s prior attention. For Paul Achtemeier (The Quest for Unity in the New Testament Church [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987] e.g., 32, 33, 52, 89), this observation is historically correct, and he builds his hypothesis upon it. Acts 21:25* is, however, too weak a base for the claim that Paul did not know about the “decree” until his final visit to Jerusalem. The information is for the readers: Wilson, Law, 81. See the comments of Barrett, 2:1014–15.

* ²¹They have been told about you that you teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and that you tell them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs.

Bible:Ac 21:21 (NRSV)

* ²⁴Join these men, go through the rite of purification with them, and pay for the shaving of their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself observe and guard the law.

Bible:Ac 21:24c–d (NRSV)

³⁵ “Apostasy” illustrates the lack of separation between “religion” and “politics” in antiquity. The term ἀποστάτης means a “rebel” (cf. στάσις). This sense of ἀποστασία endures (Plutarch Galb. 1; Josephus Vit. 43; Ap. 1.135–36; Ant. 12.219). A more religious application appears in Josh 22:22*; Jer 2:19*, etc. In 2 Macc 5:8*, Jason is called “an apostate from the laws” (τῶν νόμων ἀποστάτης). This is the sense of Acts 21:21*. Note also Luke 8:13*. See Heinrich Schlier, “ἀφίστημι,” TDNT 1:513–14. The persecution under Antiochus IV brought the question of apostasy and its meaning into the forefront of the question of Jewish identity, for Jason and his supporters viewed themselves as reformers rather than apostates. Cf. 1 Macc 1:43–50*.

³⁶ Cf. the use of κατηχέω (“instruct”) in vv. 21* and 24*.

* ²³So do what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow.

Bible:Ac 21:23–24 (NRSV)

³⁷ The reference to shaving the head in v. 24* helps account for 18:18*: The activity was not unusual for Paul.

³⁸ The meaning of ἁγνίσθητι (“get yourself purified”) is not clear. See Haenchen (610 n. 3), who reduces various rationalizations to mincemeat. For Paul to require purification is reasonable, but the text speaks of all five persons. Barrett (2:1011) reasonably relates the confusion to Luke’s lack of detailed knowledge about procedures. Paul affirms his purification in 24:18*.

³⁹ “Shaving the head” is probably a synecdoche for discharging the vow.

⁴⁰ Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveller, 311) uses this action as proof of Paul’s wealth. On the role of expense in Nazirite vows, see the data in George B. Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament: Its Theory and Practice (Oxford: Clarendon, 1925) 38–39. For evidence that a Nazirite vow is in view, see Heinrich Greeven, “εὕχομαι,” TDNT 2:775–808, esp. 777.

Ant. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews

⁴¹ Pervo (Dating, 190–91) examines the possibility that Josephus inspired this passage.

* ⁹If someone dies very suddenly nearby, defiling the consecrated head, then they shall shave the head on the day of their cleansing; on the seventh day they shall shave it.

¹⁰On the eighth day they shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting,

Bible:Nu 6:9–10 (NRSV)

⁴² Numbers 6 provides regulations for Nazirite vows. See also Cadbury and Lake, 272–73; Wilson, Law, 66, “There can be little doubt that as it stands it makes little sense in terms of current Jewish practice.” Haenchen (610) sums it up: “The only thing clear is that Paul through the proposed action will prove himself a law-abiding Jew.”

Richard I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary on the Book of Acts, ed. Harold W. Attridge, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2009), 545–546.

___________________________________________________________________

24. Take them and purify yourself along with them. Lit., “and be purified along with them.” The problem with James’s suggestion is that it is unclear whether he means that Paul should partake in the Nazirite ceremony itself with the four or undertake a rite of purification different from the Nazirite ceremony and still pay the expenses of the four so that they can complete that Nazirite ceremony. The Nazirite vow was believed to make one “holy” (Num 6:5) or “holy to the Lord” (Num 6:8), i.e., dedicated or consecrated to Yahweh for a set period. “All the days of his separation” (Num 6:4) was later understood in Mishnaic regulation as a period of thirty days (m. Nazir 1:3), with purification after an unexpected defilement of the Nazirite (Num 6:9–12). So James’s suggestion could mean that Paul should join in the Nazirite ceremony. Because the purification that Paul undergoes lasts for only “seven days” (21:27), possibly the purification of which James speaks is rather that required of a Jew returning from a trip abroad (to pagan territories) to undergo a purification that would rid him of the defilement caused by “earth from a foreign country” (m. Oholoth 2:3). This Paul could do along with paying the expenses of the Nazirite ceremony for the four men who needed assistance, without taking part in the Nazirite ceremony himself. Some think that the “purification” meant for Paul would have been either that of Num 19:12 or something similar to it. So Schneider (Apg., 2.310). In any case, the matter is incidental to Luke’s real story, which will be narrated in the following episode. Cf. Philo, De ebrietate 1.2; Str-B, 2.80–89, 757–61.

pay the expenses for them. See Num 6:14–15 for the requirements of the termination of the vow rite. The expenses would not have been light. Compare the similar action of Herod Agrippa I noted in Josephus, Ant. 19.6.1 §§293–94.

so that they may have their heads shaved. See Num 6:9, 18–19, which prescribes the shaving “on the seventh day” and “at the door of the tent of meeting” that it may be “put on the fire” as a sacrifice of peace offering.

all will know that there is nothing to the information that they have been given about you, but that you too follow and observe the law. This expresses the purpose of James’s suggestion to Paul.

25. As for Gentile believers, we sent them a letter with our decision. I.e., the decision of “the apostles and presbyters” of Jerusalem for the local churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (15:23). Now Paul seems to learn for the first time in Acts about the letter that James and the elders have sent in 15:22–29. See Comment on 15:13–21.

they should avoid meat sacrificed to idols, blood, meat of strangled animals, and illicit marital unions.” For details about these matters, see Notes on 15:20.

m. Mishnah (+ tractate name)

Apg. Apostelgeschichte (used especially in titles of German commentaries)

Str-B (H. L. Strack and) P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (6 vols.; Munich: Beck, 1922–61; partly repr. 1963, 1965)

Ant. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 31, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 694.

___________________________________________________________________

24. The structure of the verse is complicated by a variant reading. ξυρήσονται (future indicative) is read by P⁷⁴ א B^* D^c E 33 614 1175 1891 2495 al; ξυρήσωνται (aorist subjunctive) is read by A B² C D^* (so NA²⁶; D^* seems in fact to read ξυρῶνται—so e.g. Ropes’s text of D in Begs. 3:207). All witnesses appear to have as the next verb the future indicative, γνώσονται. If a subjunctive is read in immediate connection with ἵνα it seems natural to separate it from γνώσονται: Pay their expenses in order that they may shave …; and (then) all will know … If however both verbs are future it becomes more natural (though by no means necessary) to coordinate them: … in order that they may shave … and that all may know … The difference in meaning is perhaps not very great. According to BDR § 442:2d the καί (before γνώσονται) may be ‘nach Konjunktiv das Futur verbindend zur Bezeichnung des weiteren Ergebnisses’. They add (n. 8) ‘Durch καί wird die Folge gewissermassen verselbständigt, ohne dabei aber ein selbständiger Satz zu werden (die Folge gehört in den ἵνα-Satz hinein …)’. Here undoubtedly that all should know is the intention of the proposed action.

The request to Paul is expressed by παραλαβών (see C. Burchard, ZNW 69 (1978), 156f.; cf. v. 26; 16:33) and two imperatives, ἁγνίσθητι and δαπάνησον. The meaning of the former imperative is not clear. According to Conzelmann (123) it must mean, ‘Tritt mit ihnen in das Gelübde ein!’ This however would involve the 30 day period of the Nazirite vow, and it is clear that the proceedings did not last so long (21:27). Marshall (345) points out clearly the possibilities. (1) The four men had incurred some uncleanness during the period of their (Nazirite) vow and thus needed to go through a process of purification (see on v. 26). Luke assumes, incorrectly, that Paul had to share the process with them, although he had not shared the defilement. (2) Paul had been resident outside Palestine and therefore needed purification before he could enter the Temple (Haenchen 586). It was arranged that this should coincide with the end of the four men’s Nazirite period. (3) An alternative view is that Paul would not need cleansing in order to enter the Temple but would do so in order to share in the Nazirite vow. He had not yet terminated the vow of 18:18. None of those views is truly satisfactory, and one must conclude that Luke was imperfectly informed about the regulations for vows and uncleanness and the events that were planned. Fortunately the details are less important than the fundamental proposal that Paul should clear his reputation by taking part in the Temple ritual relating to vows, and should do so as a partner with a group of Jewish Christians.

δαπάνησον involves no such problems. Purification required sacrifice and sacrifice required expense. Paul would pay. Was it proposed that the collection he had made, or part of it, should be used for this purpose? Let all see that Gentile funds were going into the Temple? Luke does not say so, but his silence regarding the collection is a major problem, and gives rise to such questions as these.

ἵνα ξυρήσονται τὴν κεφαλήν. It is probable that this refers not only to the shaving of the head and offering of the hair but to the whole process of release from the Nazirite vow. גלח is used in this sense at Nazir 2:5, 6: ‘This expression is used throughout for the offering of the he-lamb, ewe-lamb, and ram and their associated Meal-offering (Num 6:14, 15) which the Nazirite brings on the completion of his vow and when he cuts off and burns the “hair of his separation” (Num 6:18)’ (Danby, Mishnah 282). Cf. Josephus, Ant. 19:294, Ναζιραίων ξυρᾶσθαι διέταξε μάλα συχνούς, rightly interpreted by L. H. Feldman (LCL Josephus, 9:353) to mean that ‘Agrippa had shouldered the expense for the offerings of poor Nazirites.’

τὴν κεφαλήν. Greek would normally (though not always or necessarily) have the plural. The singular in such cases is possible in Hebrew and normal in Aramaic (cf. Jer. 18:16, LXX (not A)), so that some Semitic influence may be suspected here (BDR § 140, n. 3).

ὧν (the relative is attracted into the case of the antecedent τούτων, which is to be supplied) … οὐδέν ἐστιν: there is nothing in the things which.

κατήχηνται, See v. 21.

ἀλλά στοιχεῖς. D^* has ἀλλʼ ὅτι πορεύου, D has πορεύῃ, without significant difference in meaning. The imperative πορεύου (D^*) is surprising and yields an awkward sentence requiring a stop after ἐστιν and leaving ὅτι unexplained. It can hardly be other than an accidental error, probably caused by the two preceding imperatives (ἁγν., δαπ.). στοιχεῖν in the sense of conform (to) is normally followed by a dative (e.g. Gal. 6:16). LS 1648 quote an absolute use from Dittenberger, SIG³ 2:708:5, στοιχεῖν βουλόμενος καὶ τοῖς ἐκείνων ἴχνεσιν ἐπιβαίνειν (cf. BA 1535, citing Dittenberger, OGIS 1:308:21; cf. 1:339:51), but in this inscription the context supplies the equivalent of a dative, and this is so also in Acts, in φυλάσσων τὸν νόμον.

φυλάσσων τὸν νόμον. For an extra-biblical example of φυλάσσειν used in this sense see ND 4:82. ‘Deutlich ist nur, dass sich Paulus durch die vorgeschlagene Handlung als gesetzestreuen Juden ausweisen wird’ (Haenchen 584).

Did Paul στοιχεῖν, φυλάσσων τὸν νόμον? Would he have done so even on one special occasion with the intention of proving to Palestinian Jewish Christians that he like them was still a good Jew as well as a Christian? According to Bornkamm (4:160f.) this was no more than an application of the principle stated in 1 Cor. 9:19–24. ‘So zeigt Apg 21:10–26 wenigstens an einem historisch gesicherten Beispiel, was Paulus mit seiner 1 Kor 9:19ff. erklärten Bereitschaft, “frei von allem allen zum Knecht” zu werden, gemeint hat. Bekanntlich isr gerade diese letzte Handlung des Paulus im Tempel für ihn zum Verhängnis geworden. Mit anderen Worten: seine Treue zu dem 1 Kor 9:20 formulierten Wort hat ihn in Gefangenschaft und Tod geführt’ (161). Davies takes a similar view: ‘That the apostle no longer recognized the authority of the Jewish Law did not signify that every legal observance was closed to him when he was among Jews: his very freedom from the Law enabled him to submit to it when he so desired … He was merely practising in Acts 21:17ff. his policy, or rather strategy, as revealed in 1 Cor. 9:19ff. … Acts does not contradict the Epistles on Paul’s attitude to the Temple’ (192). (The epistles show no attitude to the Temple!). See also Begs. 4:273: ‘… in what way was he a Jew to the Jews if not by observing the Law when he was with them?’ So also many others; but the real question here is not whether on occasion Paul would do what Jews did: 1 Corinthians 9 proves conclusively that he was prepared to do this. The question is whether Paul was prepared to use a special occasion such as the one described in order to suggest something that was not true, namely that he too (καὶ αὐτός, he just like the ardent Jews who suspected his loyalty) was regularly observant of the Law as understood within Judaism. Readiness to do this is not covered by 1 Corinthians 9. The issue is not only a moral one. Paul, one would think, must have observed that a single action such as that suggested to him could not prove the point, and that if his motives were suspected this would enrage the Jews even more than simple apostasy. Undoubtedly the plan, as described in Acts, misfired. That is, the demonstration proposed by James was ill adapted to its purpose—unless indeed we are to suppose (cf. Brandon, Fall 135) that James’s real but secret motive was to discredit Paul in the eyes of the Gentile church. ‘Occasional conformity’ is an arrangement that does little credit to the parties on either side of the contract. For Haenchen’s suggestion regarding what took place see above, p. 1000f.

Luke writes in a situation in which it is accepted that Jewish Christians may and do observe the Law, and it is part of his conviction that Paul was both a good Jew (this will be frequently repeated in the ensuing chapters) and a good Christian. Paul was in fact a Jewish Christian of a kind that could hardly continue to exist after the first generation—a fact that was not clearly seen by Luke.

The story presupposes that Jewish Christians in Palestine, in Luke’s day and before it, continued to observe the provisions of the Law. This is brought out by Fitzmyer (Essays 280), ‘Jewish practices were still admitted as part of the Christian way of life in Jerusalem as late as c. AD 58, when Paul after a long apostolate among the Gentiles went through the rite of the Nazirite at James’s request (21:23–26).’ Cf. Black (Scrolls, 15, 82f.). The point is perhaps more strongly made if Paul did not go through the rite of the Nazirite.

P P⁷⁴ is in the Bodmer collection at Geneva.^* It contains parts of all seven Catholic Epistles and a considerable amount of Acts, between 1:2 and 28:31. It is not known where it was found; it was written in the 7th, or possible the 6th, century. It is in general agreement with א A B, that is, the Old Uncial, or Alexandrian, text^*.

⁷⁴P⁷⁴ is in the Bodmer collection at Geneva.^* It contains parts of all seven Catholic Epistles and a considerable amount of Acts, between 1:2 and 28:31. It is not known where it was found; it was written in the 7th, or possible the 6th, century. It is in general agreement with א A B, that is, the Old Uncial, or Alexandrian, text^*.

א א, or S (01),^* Codex Sinaiticus, is now in the British Library;^* up to the middle of the 19th century it was in St Katherine’s monastery on Mt Sinai. Its place of origin is not known, but its text is in general of the Alexandrian type, though with occasional Western readings.^* It contained originally the whole Bible. Part of the OT has been lost, but the whole of the NT, including Acts, remains. The siglum א¹ is used for corrections made in the 4th to 6th centuries. א² for corrections from about the 7th century, א^c for corrections of the 12th century; see Aland (Text 108).

B B (03) Codex Vaticanus, is in the Vatican Library,^* where it has certainly been since at latest 1475. It was written in the 4th century and is the primary witness for the Alexandrian^* or Old Uncial text. Originally a complete Bible it has lost its opening pages (part of Genesis) and the last (from Heb. 9:14, including 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Revelation). Acts remains.

D D (05), Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis, now in Cambridge University Library.^* Originally it contained the four gospels, Acts, and the Catholic Epistles. Of the last only a fragment of 3 John remains, and Acts 8:29–10:14; 21:2–10, 16–18; 22:10–20; 22:29–28:31 are wanting. It is a bilingual MS, written with one column to a page, Greek on the left of the opening, Latin (its readings denoted by d) on the right. In both languages the text is written in corresponding sense lines (κῶλα). The fact that it is bilingual seems good evidence that it was written and used in an area where both languages were current, presumably somewhere in the Western part of the Empire (or of what had been the Empire), but various localities have been suggested. It was given to Cambridge University in 1581 by Theodore Beza, who said that it was found in the Monastery of St Irenaeus at Lyons during the unrest of 1562. It does not necessarily follow that the MS was written in Gaul; Southern Italy, Sicily, and the Roman province of Africa have been suggested.^* The date of writing was probably 5th century, though both earlier and later dates have been maintained.

E E (08), like D, is a bilingual, Graeco-Latin, MS; the Latin text is denoted by e. It contains Acts only,^* 26:29–28:26 being missing. Once in the possession of Archbishop Laud it is known as Codex Laudianus.^*

614 614, a relatively late (13th century) MS, but of considerable importance especially in regard to Acts (it contains the epistles also), since it contains a number of early readings which distinguish it from the Byzantine text.^*

A A (02), Codex Alexandrinus, is in the British Library.^* It was written in the 5th century and reached England in 1627 as a gift from the Patriarch Cyril Lucar to King Charles I. Like א, it was originally a complete Bible. Parts of the OT and of the NT have perished but the whole of Acts is present. The text of Acts (differing from that of the gospels) is close to that of א and B and must be considered a good example of the Alexandrian type.

C C (04), Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus,^* as a biblical MS was written in the 5th century; in the 12th it was re-used (as a palimpsest) to accommodate the writings of Ephraim. The text is of the Byzantine or Koine type, though it seems to have an Alexandrian base and contains some Western readings.^* Since the break-up and re-use of the MS only parts of Acts remain.

NA Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. Eberhard and Erwin Nestle, subsequently re-edited by K. Aland, M. Black, C. M. Martini, B. M. Metzger, A. Wikgren; further edited and provided with critical apparatus by K. Aland and B. Aland, Stuttgart, 1981.

²⁶Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. Eberhard and Erwin Nestle, subsequently re-edited by K. Aland, M. Black, C. M. Martini, B. M. Metzger, A. Wikgren; further edited and provided with critical apparatus by K. Aland and B. Aland, Stuttgart, 1981.

BDR F. Blass and A. Debrunner, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, bearbeitet von F. Rehkopf, Göttingen, 1979.

Burchard C. Burchard, Der dreizehnte Zeuge, Göttingen, 1970.

ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenchaft, Giessen; Berlin.

Conzelmann Conzelmann, H., Die Apostelgeschichte (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 7), Tübingen, 1963.

Marshall Marshall, I. H., The Acts of the Apostles (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), Leicester, 1980.

Haenchen Apophoreta. Festschrift E. Haenchen, Berlin, 1964.

Danby H. Danby, The Mishnah, London, 1933.

LCL Loeb Classical Library.

BDR F. Blass and A. Debrunner, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, bearbeitet von F. Rehkopf, Göttingen, 1979.

BA W. Bauer, Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur, 6e… Auflage herausgegeben von Kurt Aland und Barbara Aland, Berlin, New York, 1988.

ND New Documents illustrating Early Christianity, by G. H. R. Horsley, vol. IV, North Ryde, 1981–9.

4 New Documents illustrating Early Christianity, by G. H. R. Horsley, vol. IV, North Ryde, 1981–9.

Haenchen Apophoreta. Festschrift E. Haenchen, Berlin, 1964.

Brandon, S. G. F. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church, London, 1951.

Fall S. G. F. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church, London, 1951.

Haenchen Apophoreta. Festschrift E. Haenchen, Berlin, 1964.

C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004), 1010–1013.

___________________________________________________________________

Vv. 23–24 provide what was seen as a solution to this dilemma. Paul was to undertake an action that would make clear that he supported those who were Torah observant, and that he himself not only did not object to keeping the Law but was prepared to be seen doing so himself at the very heart of Judaism—in the temple. This, it was thought, would squelch the rumor.

There has been considerable debate over what ritual is envisioned in these two verses. There are four men under a vow, and in view of the reference in v. 24 to the shaving of their heads, it must be seen as a temporary Nazaritic vow (see Num. 6:2–21). Paul is to join with these men in some fashion, go through a rite of purification, and pay for the fulfillment of these men’s vows, which involved costly sacrifices. Does Luke envision Paul undertaking a Nazaritic vow here?²² Probably not, not least because one could not undertake such a temporary vow for less than thirty days (m. Nazir 6:3; cf. Josephus, War 2.313).

Haenchen is likely correct that Paul is undertaking different sort of ritual of purification, the sort required of those who come from foreign, unclean lands (m. Oholot 2:3; 17:5; 18:6). This sort of rite could be completed in seven days (cf. Num. 19:12), and thus Paul would have been in position to accompany the four to the temple at the end of their vow, pay the expenses for the closing sacrifices of these men (Num. 6:13–20), as well as conclude his own rite. As Larkin says, both the LXX and Luke use purification terminology (αγνισθητι here) to refer to both the process of removing ritual impurity (Num. 19:12) and undergoing a Nazaritic vow (Num. 6:3, 5).²³ Thus Paul can be said to join them in a purification rite.²⁴

It has been suggested that this proposal of the Jerusalem leaders had a sinister side to it. There were those who knew that the prescribed ritual would give a golden opportunity to Paul’s enemies to attack him, for it required Paul not merely to appear in the temple but to state in advance when he would complete his vow in the temple, thus giving his enemies a timetable to plan an attack (see Rom. 15:31).²⁵ Thus, those who suggested this plan saw a way to get rid of the problem of Paul once and for all.²⁶ The problem with this suggestion is that James would never have consented to it, and 21:18 makes clear that he, if anyone, is the main speaker here. It may be nearer the mark to suggest that if Paul performed this act, then these Jerusalem Christians would feel they could accept the collection from Paul in good faith.²⁷

V. 24b states the hoped-for outcome of Paul’s fulfilling the aboverequested activities—that all will know the rumors are not true, for Paul both personally observes and guards the Mosaic Law. This must be seen at least in part as an exercise to change public perception rather than regulate Pauline practice. In any event, v. 25 makes clear that this request was not to be understood as an attempt to go back on the agreement reached earlier at the apostolic council discussed in Acts 15. Paul of course knows very well that such a letter has been sent with the decree in it, for he helped disseminate it (see Acts 15:30), but the point here is to reiterate the commitment to that arrangement.²⁸ The point of the reiteration is to make clear that while more may now be required of Paul in a Jewish ritual direction, this did not imply that more would be required of Gentile converts in that direction.²⁹

As we have argued earlier in our discussion of the decree in Acts 15,³⁰ what is essentially being required of the Gentiles here is to avoid idolatry and immorality by staying away from the place where such things could be found together—idol feasts in pagan temples. The order of items here corresponds with what we find in 15:29, with the significance and venue being signaled by the first term, ειδωλοθυτον, which refers to meat sacrificed and eaten in the presence of idols. In the first mention of this topic in Acts this is made clear by referring to “something polluted by an idol.” The issue is not just one of menu but of venue where this meat has been offered and eaten. To avoid that venue would clearly signal to Jews and Jewish Christians that Gentile Christians were serious about severing their ties with their pagan past as Paul himself had insisted they must do (cf. 1 Thess. 1:9–10; 1 Corinthians 8–10).

²² It is not probable that Luke thought Paul was here fulfilling a vow he undertook much, much earlier (see 18:18), for surely he fulfilled that vow on his previous trip to Jerusalem, mentioned in 18:22 (see pp. 558ff. above).

²³ Larkin, Acts, p. 309 and the notes on these verses.

²⁴ See Haenchen, Acts, p. 612. Once Paul had been sprinkled with the water of atonement on the third and seventh day, then and then only would he be deemed Levitically clean and only then could he be allowed to be present at the final ceremony for the four, which took place in the temple. That Paul has money to pay for these rather expensive sacrifices may say something about his social condition and position at this point, unless of course the money came out of the collection. This is perhaps not impossible, and perhaps the Jerusalem church suggested Paul use some of the money this way, thus making clear that their receiving of the rest was not some sort of bribe or inducement to overlook the Jewish violation of the Law supposedly encouraged by Paul.

²⁵ While the church probably did not plot against Paul, it is not unbelievable that others who found out about Paul’s arrangements in the temple might do so. For instance, that members of the priesthood would not be above such an attack on early Christians, even the most conservative Jewish ones among them, is shown by Ananias’s successful attempt to get rid of James himself during the interregnum after Festus died in a.d. 62, only a few short years after Paul encountered trouble in Jerusalem (see Ant. 20.197–203).

²⁶ See Mattill, “The Purpose of Acts,” pp. 115ff.

²⁷ So Dunn, Unity and Diversity, pp. 257–58.

²⁸ As a secondary point, Talbert, “Again: Paul’s Visits to Jerusalem,” pp. 37–38, is surely right that Luke wanted this material reiterated as well to make clear to his own audience that there was no going back on the decree. Talbert is also helpful in showing there is no good reason to suppose that Paul didn’t hear about the decree until his last visit to Jerusalem.

²⁹ See the discussion in Longenecker, Acts, p. 520.

³⁰ See pp. 439ff. above.

Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 648–650.

Hope you can find something of help there...

-Dan

PS:I was trying to focus on the primary verse you inquired about if one of these really speaks to you I can expand it to the who sectioned you asked about.

RyanB

Keener's incredible commentary on Acts (specifically volume 3) spends numerous pages on the verse and surrounding verses. It's pricey but it is definitely my go-to Acts resource.

Volume 3 alone: https://www.logos.com/product/45067/acts-an-exegetical-commentary-volume-3

Volumes 1-3 together: https://www.logos.com/product/53135/acts-an-exegetical-commentary

Volume 4 alone: https://www.logos.com/product/54840/acts-an-exegetical-commentary-volume-4

Mattillo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/904334#Comment_904334

I don't own it but challies recommends

A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles

https://www.logos.com/product/136960/challies-recommends-best-new-testament-commentaries

David Thomas

I am looking for an extensive commentary/journal article/essay/treatise on the the interaction between Paul and James in Acts 21:17-26 and it's implications and I haven't found much yet. Can anyone help me out? I am mainly interested in the Law keeping/not under the Law tension issue highlighted in verse 24.

I've looked through almost all of my commentaries already but they don't treat this at length.

Have you looked at any of these commentaries ranked by BestCommentaries.com as the top 8? I noticed #4 and #6 have already been posted in this thread.

Here is Polhill -

21:22–24 The elders had evidently worked out a possible solution among themselves of a means whereby Paul could by example demonstrate that he was still true to the Jewish law. This they now set before him (vv. 22–24). There were four Jewish Christians who had taken upon themselves a Nazirite vow, a rather extreme expression of Jewish piety.8 The four were nearing the end of the period of their vow and soon would be completing it with the customary ceremony in the temple. This involved cutting their hair and burning it as an offering. In addition a number of costly sacrifices were required—a male and a female lamb, a ram, and cereal and drink offerings (Num 6:14f.).
Paul was asked to join the four and bear the expenses of these rites. Aside from paying their expenses, Paul’s role in the matter is not altogether clear. He obviously did not join in the vow because the minimum period for a Nazirite was thirty days, and only seven were involved here (v. 27). Also it could not have been a matter of a Nazirite “purification” ceremony in which he participated. There was such a purification ceremony in connection with Nazirite vows, but it was not a regular part of the Nazirite commitment; rather, it was a special provision in case the one under the vow came into contact with a corpse or became otherwise defiled (Num 6:9–12). That could not be the situation here because the Nazirite who underwent the purification rite had to begin the minimum thirty-day period of the vow all over again (Num 6:12). The most likely solution is that Paul was the one who underwent purification. Often a Jew on returning to the Holy Land after a sojourn in Gentile territory would undergo ritual purification. The period involved was seven days (cf. Num 19:12), which fits the present picture (v. 27). Paul thus underwent ritual purification to qualify for participation in the completion ceremony of the four Nazirites which took place within the sacred precincts of the temple. This would be a thorough demonstration of his full loyalty to the Torah, not only in his bearing the heavy expenses of the vow but also in his undergoing the necessary purification himself.9

John B. Polhill, Acts, vol. 26, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 448–449.

Here is Longenecker -

1. Arrival at Jerusalem (21:17-26)

17-18 With these two verses, the third "we" section of Acts concludes (cf. 16:10-17; 20:5-15-21:1-18, 27:1-28:16). But it is likely that the "we" is dropped in 21:19-26:32 for purely literary reasons and that we should assume Luke's presence in Palestine for a longer time than vv. 17-18 themselves imply. Where Paul is the focus of the narrative—particularly in his discussion with the leaders of the Jerusalem church, his arrest in the temple precincts, and his five speeches of defense at Jerusalem and Caesarea—Luke speaks only of him.
It was probably at Mnason's house that the believers gathered to receive Paul and his party "warmly." Then on the next day, as Luke says, "Paul and the rest of us" called on James. Perhaps Peter, John, and others of the Jerusalem apostles had been in the city fifty days earlier for Passover. But from Luke's not mentioning them here we may assume that they were away from Jerusalem at the time. James was the resident leader of the Jerusalem church (cf. comments on 12:17 and on 15:13). Sharing with him in the administration of the church was a body of elders (hoi presbyteroi—perhaps a band of seventy, patterned, as many have surmised, on the Sanhedrin)—who were also there to meet Paul and his colleagues.

19 On this occasion Paul "reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry." Undoubtedly he also presented the collection from the Gentile churches to James and the elders. Nowhere in Acts (except later at 24:17, in reporting Paul's speech before Felix) has Luke mentioned this collection for the Christians of Jerusalem, probably because he did not know how to explain to his Gentile readers (1) its significance as being much more than a way of currying favor and (2) Paul's fears that the Jerusalem Christians might not accept it. But the presentation of this collection was the chief motive of Paul's going to Jerusalem (cf. 1Cor 16:1-4; Rom 15:25-27). And he felt it absolutely necessary to present it personally to the Jerusalem church so that it be viewed as a true symbol of faith and unity and not as a bribe—though he feared both opposition from the Jews and rejection by the Jewish Christians of the city (cf. Rom 15:30-31).
To understand Paul's fears, we must realize that the Jerusalem church was increasingly being caught between its allegiance to the nation and its fraternal relation to Paul's Gentile mission. To accept the contribution from the Gentile churches was to be identified further with that mission and to drive another wedge between themselves and their compatriots. True, they had accepted such a contribution earlier (cf. 11:27-30) and had declared their fraternity with Paul in previous meetings (cf. Gal 2:6-10; Acts 15:13-29). But with the rising tide of Jewish nationalism and a growing body of scrupulous believers in the Jerusalem church (perhaps as a result of a large number of Essenes being converted), Jewish Christian solidarity with the Gentile mission was becoming more and more difficult to affirm if the Jerusalem church's relations with the nation were to be maintained and opportunities for an outreach to Israel kept open. Undoubtedly Paul recognized the increased tensions at Jerusalem. No wonder he feared that James and the elders, for the sake of their Jewish relations and mission, might feel themselves constrained to reject the contribution, thus severing, in effect, the connection between the Pauline churches and the Jerusalem church—which would have been a disaster in many ways. Luke, however, seems to have found all this exceedingly difficult to explain to his Gentile readers and so excluded any mention of the collection here and earlier in his account. (Such a rationale as this for Luke's handling of the collection Paul brought to Jerusalem in no way impugns the fact of biblical inspiration. Like all the biblical writers, Luke shows his humanness in his writing. His reticences, as in this instance, are not incompatible with inspiration.)

20-24 James and the elders responded to Paul's report and the gift from the churches by praising God. Yet they also urged Paul to join with four Jewish Christians who were fulfilling their Nazirite vows and to pay for their required offerings. In effect, they were saying to Paul, "We can accept this gift from the churches and so identify ourselves openly with your Gentile mission, if you will join with these men and identify yourself openly with the nation." Thus they were protecting themselves against Jewish recriminations while at the same time affirming their connection with Paul and his mission. And, as they saw it, they were providing Paul with a way of protecting himself against a slanderous accusation floating about that he was teaching Jews to apostatize from Judaism. In view of his having come earlier to Jerusalem in more placid circumstances to fulfill a Nazirite vow of his own (cf. 18:18-19:22), Paul would not have viewed such a suggestion as particularly onerous. It doubtless seemed to all concerned a particularly happy solution to the vexing problems both Paul and the Jerusalem church were facing.

25 Many commentators have argued that the fourfold Jerusalem decree (cf. 15:20, 29) has no relevance to this situation but was only brought in to inform Paul for the first time of something drawn up behind his back at Jerusalem after the Jerusalem Council. Yet the reference to the decree here is closely connected with what has gone before and should be viewed as a reminder of the early Christians' agreed-on basis for fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers. Having urged Paul to follow their proposed course of action, the leaders of the Jerusalem church go on to assure him that this in no way rescinds their earlier decision to impose nothing further on Gentile converts than these four injunctions given for the sake of harmony within the church and in order not to impede the progress of the Jewish Christian mission.

26 Coming from abroad, Paul would have had to regain ceremonial purity by a seven-day ritual of purification before he could be present at the absolution ceremony of the four Jewish Christians in the Jerusalem temple. This ritual included reporting to one of the priests and being sprinkled with water of atonement on the third and seventh days. To imagine that Paul was here taking upon himself a seven-day Nazirite vow conflicts with Jewish law because thirty days were considered the shortest period for such a vow (cf. M Nazir 3:6). What Paul did was to report to the priest at the start of his seven days of purification, inform him that he was providing the funds for the offerings of the four impoverished men who had taken Nazirite vows, and return to the temple at regular intervals during the week for the appropriate rites. He would have also informed the priest of the date when the Nazirite vows of the four would be completed (or, perhaps, they were already completed, awaiting only the offerings and presentation of the hair) and when he planned to be with them (either with all of them together or with each one individually) for the absolution ceremony. To pay the charges for Nazirite offerings was considered an act of piety and a symbol of identification with the Jewish people (cf. Jos. Antiq. XIX, 294 [vi.1], on Herod Agrippa I's underwriting the expenses for a number of poor Nazirites).

Whyndell Grizzard

Hi world of Logos!

I am looking for an extensive commentary/journal article/essay/treatise on the the interaction between Paul and James in Acts 21:17-26 and it's implications and I haven't found much yet. Can anyone help me out? I am mainly interested in the Law keeping/not under the Law tension issue highlighted in verse 24.

I've looked through almost all of my commentaries already but they don't treat this at length. I really appreciate any help.

21:22–24

Paul’s presence in Jerusalem means that something needs to be done, since the Jews will know he is in the city. The church therefore asks him to take a vow and pay for four others so that all may know he respects the law. Paul has already been described as having taken a vow himself (18:18), and so this is not something Paul opposes doing. Four options for this vow exist (Marshall 1980: 345 has three):

1. The purification for Paul is to restore purity after he has traveled in Gentile areas; for the others, it is an affirmation of their Nazirite vow of at least thirty days (m. Naz. 6.3). In this view, the payment for sacrifices (see v. 26) and the shaving of the head are part of the observance of the law. The OT and Jewish roots here include the Nazirite vow (Num. 6:2–21) and restoring purity generally (Num. 6:9–10; 19:12; m. ʾOhol. 2.3). Fitzmyer (1998: 694) and Schneider (1982: 310) note that this might be what is taking place. Also, Str-B 2:759 has a discussion of the Jewish background and takes this view (m. Naz. 6.5–8.2). Larkin (1995: 308–9) sees it as the solution.

2. Haenchen (1987: 610n3, 611) rejects this option and prefers the idea that Paul shares in the end of their vow for its remaining duration of a week (also Marshall 1980: 345; Witherington 1998: 649).

3. Bruce (1988a: 407) suggests that the four men have contracted uncleanness themselves during their vow and need to restore their purity as well.

4. Paul’s cleansing is not for having been in Gentile territory but is tied to the completion of his own vow, noted in 18:18, along with four men who are also from overseas. Jervell (1998: 526) considers the possibility that this is what Paul’s vow is about whereas the four men are undertaking Nazirite vows.

The last view is difficult given the years that have passed since Paul made his vow and the lack of a mention that the four men are from overseas. Barrett (1998: 1011) says that no option is entirely satisfactory, but it should be noted that any of these first three options is possible. Le Cornu and Shulam (2003: 1186, 1190–91) see the men as completing a Nazirite vow (see also my comments above on 18:18), while Paul is dealing with general uncleanness. We simply lack enough detail and Luke’s account is so compact that we cannot know which scenario is correct. Gaventa (2003: 299–300) says that we simply do not know what is meant. The shaving of heads does point to a Nazirite vow somewhere in the action (Josephus, J.W. 2.15.1 §313; Ant. 19.6.1 §§293–94). This leans in the direction of the first option. Acts 21:27 tells us that Paul’s vow is for a week, probably for Gentile uncleanness as he approaches the temple (see Num. 19:11–13 on analogy with cleansing for touching a dead body; also see m. Naz. 7.3 for various causes of uncleanness). The hope is that by his acting in accordance with the law, the remarks made that Paul has taught against the law will be refuted. There is no ambush of Paul here as some more skeptical readings about James’s request suggest. This view is discussed and rightly rejected by Bruce (1990: 446). Nor is it likely that the collection money is used for this, as Haenchen (1987: 614) suggests. There is no clear evidence for either of these suggestions. Paul’s reaction does not fit with the "ambush" theory, and the collection money goes to the Jerusalem church as intended.

BECNT- BOCK

22–24

There was, however, a way in which Paul himself could give the lie effectively to those disturbing reports. If he were seen to take part publicly in one of the ancestral customs, it would be realized that he was, after all, an observant and practising Jew. Therefore, in their naïveté, they put a proposal to him. Four of their number had undertaken a Nazirite vow: if no time limit was specified, their vow would last for thirty days.³² During that period they would abstain from wine and strong drink, would avoid any defiling contact (e.g., with a corpse), and would leave their hair uncut. At the end of the period they would present an offering in the temple, and their hair, which they had now cut, would be consumed in the sacrificial fire.³³ Another Israelite might associate himself with Nazirites by defraying the cost of their offering; this was regarded as a pious and charitable action.³⁴ The elders’ proposal, then, was that Paul should associate himself with the four Nazirites when they discharged their vow in the temple and pay their expenses.

To do this Paul himself would have to be purified: he had just returned from a long residence in Gentile lands, and the ritual defilement which inevitably attached to him on that account had to be removed before he could take part in such a solemn ceremony. But his purification should be distinguished from the Nazirites’ purification. In the LXX the same Greek term³⁵ does duty both for general purification from ritual defilement (as in Num. 19:12) and for the various forms of abstention which Nazirites had to practise throughout the period of their vow (as in Num. 6:3); and Luke here uses that term in both senses. If the two kinds of purification be distinguished, it will not be necessary to suppose either that Paul had a Nazirite vow of his own to discharge on this occasion³⁶ or that the four Nazirites had inadvertently contracted some defilement during the period of their vow and had now to be purified from it.³⁷

NICNT- BRUCE

Compromise

"Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses in order that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication." Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple, giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.

(21:23–26)

The elders feared a confrontation between the apostle to the Gentiles and the misinformed zealots for the law. To head that off, they suggested a compromise—not a sacrifice of truth for expediency but an act of self-sacrificial humility to promote unity and understanding. "Therefore," they urged Paul, "do this that we tell you." They informed him of four men of their number who were under a vow (a Nazirite vow, as the reference to shaving their heads makes clear [cf. Num. 6:18]). The Nazirite vow, expounded at length in Numbers 6, symbolized total separation to God. It involved abstaining from alcoholic beverages and all other products derived from grapes, letting the hair of the head grow long, and avoiding contact with dead bodies. The usual length of the vow was thirty days (cf. Josephus Wars 2.15.1), although Samson (Judg. 16:17), Samuel (1 Sam. 1:11), and John the Baptist (Luke 1:15) were Nazirites for life. It manifested the highest level of spiritual devotion.

What it meant for Paul to purify himself along with the four is not clear. He could not have taken a Nazirite vow himself, since the four men’s vows would expire in seven days (v. 27). Some have suggested that the four had incurred a ritual defilement during their vows. Numbers 6:9–12 describes the purification ritual, lasting seven days, that applied in those circumstances. That does not appear to be the case here, however, since those defiled and purified had to begin the period of their vows all over again (Num. 6:12). It would also not explain the preliminary visit to the temple, recorded in verse 26.

A more likely explanation is that Paul, having returned to Israel from Gentile lands, was considered ceremonially unclean. As their sponsor, Paul would participate in the ceremony marking the culmination of the four men’s vows. But before he could do that, he would have to undergo ritual purification himself. His willingness to do that would show that he had no disdain for Jewish customs and tradition.

A second way the apostle could show his continuing devotion to his Jewish heritage was to pay the four men’s expenses in order that they might shave their heads. The expenses connected with the Nazirite vow (including paying for the hair-cutting ceremony in the temple and several expensive sacrifices [Num. 6:14ff.]) were considerable, and undertaking them for another was considered an act of piety. That would be further proof that the Judaizers’ charges against Paul were false. "All those concerned about the Judaizers’ allegations will then know," James informed Paul, "that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law."

James then added an important clarifying statement: "But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication." By urging this course of action on Paul’s part, the elders were by no means abrogating the decree of the Jerusalem Council regarding Gentiles. Gentiles were not to be required to observe the ceremonies and rituals of the Mosaic law. To make that absolutely clear, James summarized the decision of the council that Gentiles were only required to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. Since Paul was Jewish, his participation in the ceremony would not violate that decision.

Displaying humility and a desire for unity, Paul agreed to the elders’ proposal. Doing so would not compromise biblical truth since, as Paul himself had written in Romans 14 and 15, such matters were issues of Christian liberty. In fact, Paul’s participation in the ceremony was an illustration of the principle he laid down in 1 Corinthians 9:19–23:

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

(For further discussion regarding Christian liberty, see 1 Corinthians, MacArthur New Testament Commentary [Chicago: Moody, 1984], 243ff.) Accordingly, Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple, giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them. Thus was set in motion the chain of events that would culminate in the apostle’s arrest.

Some have argued that by heeding the elders’ request, Paul made a tragic mistake. They accuse him of compromising his convictions and violating his conscience, although for the best of motives. Such a view is unlikely, however, for several reasons.

First, Paul had taken a Nazirite vow himself on his second missionary journey (18:18). Why, then, would it be wrong for him to participate in this ceremony?

Second, as noted, Paul’s participation did not compromise any biblical truth. Instead, it was simply a matter of Christian liberty.

Third, if Paul made such a serious error, would not the Holy Spirit have made that clear in the text? Luke, under the Spirit’s inspiration, recorded Paul’s failures (cf. 15:37–39) as well as his strengths.

Fourth, Paul’s motives were pure. That, coupled with the his vast knowledge of biblical truth, makes such a serious mistake unlikely.

Finally, the negative results do not prove he made a mistake. Such a pragmatic approach ignores the fact that Paul’s arrest had been prophesied before he arrived in Jerusalem (21:4, 11; cf. 20:22–23).

Paul’s humility permeates this straightforward historical narrative. He was humble before God, giving Him the glory for all that had been accomplished through his ministry. He showed his humility before other believers by agreeing to do what the elders asked of him. Finally, Paul humbly accepted the persecution he would shortly face.

MNTC- MACARTHUR

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/904420#Comment_904420

Conzelmann, H. (1987). Acts of the Apostles: a commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. (E. J. Epp & C. R. Matthews, Eds., J. Limburg, A. T. Kraabel, & D. H. Juel, Trans.) (p. 180). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

22–24 There was, however, a way in which Paul himself could give the lie effectively to those disturbing reports. If he were seen to take part publicly in one of the ancestral customs, it would be realized that he was, after all, an observant and practising Jew. Therefore, in their naïveté, they put a proposal to him. Four of their number had undertaken a Nazirite vow: if no time limit was specified, their vow would last for thirty days. During that period they would abstain from wine and strong drink, would avoid any defiling contact (e.g., with a corpse), and would leave their hair uncut. At the end of the period they would present an offering in the temple, and their hair, which they had now cut, would be consumed in the sacrificial fire.³³ Another Israelite might associate himself with Nazirites by defraying the cost of their offering; this was regarded as a pious and charitable action. The elders’ proposal, then, was that Paul should associate himself with the four Nazirites when they discharged their vow in the temple and pay their expenses.

To do this Paul himself would have to be purified: he had just returned from a long residence in Gentile lands, and the ritual defilement which inevitably attached to him on that account had to be removed before he could take part in such a solemn ceremony. But his purification should be distinguished from the Nazirites’ purification. In the LXX the same Greek term does duty both for general purification from ritual defilement (as in Num. 19:12) and for the various forms of abstention which Nazirites had to practise throughout the period of their vow (as in Num. 6:3); and Luke here uses that term in both senses. If the two kinds of purification be distinguished, it will not be necessary to suppose either that Paul had a Nazirite vow of his own to discharge on this occasion or that the four Nazirites had inadvertently contracted some defilement during the period of their vow and had now to be purified from it.³⁷

Bruce, F. F. (1988). The Book of the Acts (pp. 406–407). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.