Acts 21:22-26

[Jrfail]

Hello everyone.. so i am posting this question once again. I have seen a few threads on this and each one that i have seen simply refers to another thread which is no longer able to be accessed..

So I would appreciate either a referral to an active thread or your comments on this post in regards to this question.

Acts 21:22-26 portrays that Paul is partaking in the Nazarite vow and even if he is not partaking in the Nazareth vow, the elders in Jerusalem have asked him to pay for the sacrifices for other Jewish Christians who are partaking in the Nazarite vow.

The question is.. how is this action consistent with the Gospel and with all that we know regarding the scriptures (specifically Hebrews). I have heard many a sermon on reformed pastors teaching against dispensationalism and one point they often bring up is the rebuilding of the temple and the incompatable nature of brining back sacrifices of animals even in a way that does not put the faith in the animal sacrifices but that point to Christ as the true sacrifice.

I would love to hear your comments on this. I have read other reformed commentators and it seems that John Calvin struggled with this passage, and matthew Henry does a good job in his commentary with it, but I am not sure that I agree with the direction that he goes with it.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The days of NT beginning are also transitional. Participants of the national life of Israelites/Jews grew up embedded in a culture that was social and religious intertwined. One might have undertaken vows under the previous administration, fulfillment of which did not take place until the NC administration was instituted, or maybe post-conversion for a given individual. One does not casually walk away from duties, even if certain and important circumstances have changed.

Furthermore, the issue of not creating needless offense obtains. In the case in view, offense ended up being taken, though it was unjustified. Still, it was not wrong to seek to placate the locals.

Lastly, if we focus exclusively on the matter of the sacrifice brought by Paul for himself, and the total change in the sacrificial nature or basis of the NC: the offering which he brought had the character of a Peace offering. This service was given by someone under OC rules who was already in good-standing with God (as far as covenant relations and propriety was concerned). Thus, the meal it represented was most nearly correlate with the NC fellowship meal, the Lord's Supper. Which is to say, it was not a "sin offering" in any sense, so was no challenge to the final Sacrifice of Christ.

Paul's offering, therefore, remains an example of transitional behavior, oath fulfillment in a social and religious context, not intended to validate continued maintenance of the system that was being dismantled even in the course of its last days of use.

 

[Jrfail]

The days of NT beginning are also transitional. Participants of the national life of Israelites/Jews grew up embedded in a culture that was social and religious intertwined. One might have undertaken vows under the previous administration, fulfillment of which did not take place until the NC administration was instituted, or maybe post-conversion for a given individual. One does not casually walk away from duties, even if certain and important circumstances have changed.

Furthermore, the issue of not creating needless offense obtains. In the case in view, offense ended up being taken, though it was unjustified. Still, it was not wrong to seek to placate the locals.

Lastly, if we focus exclusively on the matter of the sacrifice brought by Paul for himself, and the total change in the sacrificial nature or basis of the NC: the offering which he brought had the character of a Peace offering. This service was given by someone under OC rules who was already in good-standing with God (as far as covenant relations and propriety was concerned). Thus, the meal it represented was most nearly correlate with the NC fellowship meal, the Lord's Supper. Which is to say, it was not a "sin offering" in any sense, so was no challenge to the final Sacrifice of Christ.

Paul's offering, therefore, remains an example of transitional behavior, oath fulfillment in a social and religious context, not intended to validate continued maintenance of the system that was being dismantled even in the course of its last days of use.

Can you flesh out your 2nd to last paragraph a little more? If this is the nazarite vow then it would include a sin offering is my understanding. Or am I misunderstanding that paragraph.

 

[Watson81]

Not to derail the thread but wouldnt acts 21 21 also bolster the case for infant baptism? The newly converted jews were falsely being told that Paul was teaching that infants were now excluded from the covenant. Which of course they werent.

 

[philomath]

Here is something from John Gill's Exposition of The Bible on this:

Acts 21:26
Then Paul took the men
The four men that had the vow on them; he joined himself to them, and put himself in the same condition, and under a like vow: this he did, not as what he thought himself bound to do in obedience to the law, and much less as necessary to salvation; but to satisfy weak minds, and remove their prejudices, that he might gain them, and be useful to them; and in such a case he would very easily and readily condescend; but when such like things were insisted upon as points of duty, and especially when urged as necessary to salvation, no one more stiffly opposed them:

and the next day purifying himself with them;
that is, not separating himself along with them, from what they were obliged by the vow of the Nazarite, as from drinking of wine and shaving, and from everything that was unclean by the law; for this was now done, but cleansing himself afterwards with them: he

entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of the purification:
the sense is, that when the days of separation were fulfilled, which the four men had vowed, as everyone might vow what time he pleased, he went to the priests in the temple, to signify it to them, that the time of their purification was expiring:

until that an offering should be offered for everyone of them;
as the law directs in ( Numbers 6:13-20 ) when he proposed to pay the charges of it, or at least part of it.

I know this is similar to Henry's comments on the passage. Both seem to have 1 Corinthians 9 in mind:

"19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. 23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings."

Which part of Henry's comments do you find less convincing?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Can you flesh out your 2nd to last paragraph a little more? If this is the nazarite vow then it would include a sin offering is my understanding. Or am I misunderstanding that paragraph.

You are technically correct with respect to the Nazirite vow as Num.6:14 indicates the propriety of a sin offering for the completion of that vow. Act.18:18 is the text usually taken as confirming Paul had bound himself to a vow (possibly Nazirite or similar). The men for whom he went to offer sacrifices are also assumed to be under the terms of the Nazirite vow. Yet, it must be observed that certain assumptions stand behind the connection. Lesser commitments than to a full Nazirite vow would call for lesser signs of clearing that obligation.

As to the technical matter of the Nazirite vow's concluding sacrifices, including a sin offering. Reading the context of Num.6, note v11. An accidental defilement resulted in a vow reset. The man is said to have "sinned" by virtue of action out of his control. The amends are his duty to perform, even though he did no act against conscience.

I would argue something similar is intended by the concluding sin offering marking the whole vows completion. Amends are due, for any inadvertent and even unknown ceremonial defilement. The burnt offering was a fundamental act of covenant faith and worship. So, the two went together (as the three also go together at the end). The sin offering required the burnt offering. Note that the vow reset did not include the peace offering. But it did further include a guilt offering, v12.

The Nazirite vow's conclusion was to be marked by a peace offering, accompanied by the others mentioned and a grain and drink offering. In other words, a nearly complete set of offerings according to the Levitical orders. The burnt and sin offerings were unto the end--these paved the path so to speak--to arrive at the peace offering.

Assuming Paul was following the distinctive and full Nazirite pattern (though it is a gratuitous assumption), yet we may also assume he did not view it needful to make any sin offering to cover any but some inadvertent and unknown ceremonial error under the old system. We are returned to the issue of removing needless offense. There is no need to preach to the Jews attending or officiating at their altar all the undoing being accomplished in their own generation.

 

[EvanF]

Not to derail the thread but wouldnt acts 21 21 also bolster the case for infant baptism? The newly converted jews were falsely being told that Paul was teaching that infants were now excluded from the covenant. Which of course they werent.

I don't think there's enough context in the verse to confirm that idea. It only says that they were being told that he taught against circumcision and the laws of Moses, which he probably did, regardless of his teachings on baptism. The passage is about how the jewish believers considered themselves law-abiding and were suspicious that Paul was antinomian.

 

[Jrfail]

Here is something from John Gill's Exposition of The Bible on this:

Acts 21:26
Then Paul took the men
The four men that had the vow on them; he joined himself to them, and put himself in the same condition, and under a like vow: this he did, not as what he thought himself bound to do in obedience to the law, and much less as necessary to salvation; but to satisfy weak minds, and remove their prejudices, that he might gain them, and be useful to them; and in such a case he would very easily and readily condescend; but when such like things were insisted upon as points of duty, and especially when urged as necessary to salvation, no one more stiffly opposed them:

and the next day purifying himself with them;
that is, not separating himself along with them, from what they were obliged by the vow of the Nazarite, as from drinking of wine and shaving, and from everything that was unclean by the law; for this was now done, but cleansing himself afterwards with them: he

entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of the purification:
the sense is, that when the days of separation were fulfilled, which the four men had vowed, as everyone might vow what time he pleased, he went to the priests in the temple, to signify it to them, that the time of their purification was expiring:

until that an offering should be offered for everyone of them;
as the law directs in ( Numbers 6:13-20 ) when he proposed to pay the charges of it, or at least part of it.

I know this is similar to Henry's comments on the passage. Both seem to have 1 Corinthians 9 in mind:

"19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. 23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings."

Which part of Henry's comments do you find less convincing?

To me its not necessarily his comments that I find unconvincing.. to me its simply the fact that the book of hebrews was written to jews prior to the destruction of the temple... so prior to the close of the "transitional time period" and they are told In summary not to return to the elementary elements (hebrews 6:1 and galatians 4:9). I recognize that they are talking about apostasy and not a combination of faith in Christ while still partaking in the rituals of the shadows of Christ. But I have heard many a reformed pastor preach based on these principles that for example the dispensational premil view of the temple being rebuild and animal sacrifices being reinstated in faith in Christ is absolutely nonsensical.

I think generally speaking the best interpretation that I have heard is the argument that there was this transitional period, but im just still wrestling with it. I might would even say that God providentially stopped Paul from sinning through the means of the jewish crowds that rose up and actually prevented the sin offering from being carried out. I think this is possible given that this is a descriptive text, although I am sure many would disagree with this.

*I am replying on my phone so sorry if there are typos*