Acts 21:26-27. James had made his proposal to Paul—by a public observance of a custom, highly esteemed among the Jews, and consecrated by Moses, practically to refute the accusation in question—in the conviction that the accusation was unfounded, and that thus Paul with a good conscience (without contradiction of his principles) could accept the proposal.[125] And Paul with a good conscience accepted it; in which case it must be presumed that the four men also did not regard the Nazarite vow as a work of justification;[126] otherwise Paul must at once on principle have rejected the proposal, in order not to give countenance to the fundamental error (opposed to his teaching) of justification by the law, and not to offer resistance to Christ Himself as the end of the law (Romans 10:4). In fact, he must have been altogether convinced that the observance of the law was not under dispute, by those who regarded him as an opponent of it, in the sense of justification by the law; otherwise he would as little have consented to the proposal made to him as he formerly did to the circumcision of Titus; and even the furnishing of explanations to guard his action (which Schneckenburger, p. 65, supposes that we must assume) would not have sufficed, but would rather have stamped his accommodation as a mere empty show. Moreover, he was precisely by bis internal complete freedom from the law in a position, without moral self-offence, not only to demean himself as, but really to be, a φυλάσσων τὸν νόμον, where this φυλάσσειν was enjoined by love, which is the fulfilment of the law in the Christian sense (Romans 13:8; Romans 13:10), as here, seeing that his object was—as μὴ ὢν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμον, but as ἔννομος Χριστοῦ—to become to the Jews ὡς Ἰουδαῖος, in order to win them (1 Corinthians 9:19 ff.). Thus this work of the law—although to him it belonged in itself to the στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου (Galatians 4:3; Colossians 2:8)—became a form, determined by the circumstances, of exercising the love that fulfils the law, which, however different in its forms, is imperishable and the completion of the law (Matthew 5:17). The step, to which he yielded, stands on the same footing with the circumcision of Timothy, which he himself performed (Acts 16:3), and is subject essentially to the same judgment. The action of the apostle, therefore, is neither, with Trip (following van Hengel in the Godgeleerd. Bijdrägen, 1859, p. 981 ff.), to be classed as a weak and rash obsequiousness (this were indeed to Paul, near the very end of his labours, the moral impossibility of a great hypocrisy); nor, with Thiersch, are we to suppose that he in a domain not his own had to follow the direction of the bishop (but see Galatians 2:6); nor, with Baumgarten, II. p. 149, are we to judge that he, by here externally manifesting his continued recognition of the divine law, “presents in prospect the ultimate disappearance of his exceptional standpoint, his thirteenth apostleship” (Romans 11:25 ff.), which there is nothing in the text to point to, and against which militates the fact that to the apostle his gospel was the absolute truth, and therefore he could never have in view a re-establishment of legal customs which were to him merely σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων (Colossians 2:17). Not by such imported ideas of interpreters, but by a right estimate of the free standpoint of the apostle (1 Corinthians 3:21 ff.), and of his love bearing all things, are we prevented from regarding his conduct in this passage, with Baur, Zeller, and Hausrath, as un-Pauline and the narrative as unhistorical. See, on the other hand, Neander, p. 485 ff.; Lekebusch, p. 275 ff.; Schneckenburger in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 566 ff.

σὺν αὐτοῖς ἁγνισθείς] consecrated with them, i.e. having entered into participation of their Nazarite state, which, namely, had already lasted in the case of these men for some considerable time, as Acts 21:23 shows. They did not therefore only now commence their Nazarite vow (Neander), but Paul agreed to a personal participation in their vow already existing, in order, as a joint-bearer, to bring it to a close by taking upon himself the whole expense of the offerings. According to Nasir i. 3 (comp. Joseph. Bell. ii. 15. 1), a Nazarite vow not taken for life lasted at least thirty days; but the subsequent accession of another during the currency of that time must at least have been allowed in such a case as this, where the person joining bore the expenses.

εἰσῄει εἰς τ. ἱερ.] namely, toward the close of the Nazarite period of these men, with which expired the Nazarite term current in pursuance of the σὺν αὐτοῖς ἁγμισθείς for himself.

διαγγέλλων] notifying, namely, to the priests (comp. Thuc. vii. 73. 4; Herodian, ii. 2. 5; Xen. Anab. i. 6. 2), who had to conduct the legally-appointed sacrifices (Numbers 6:13 ff.), and then to pronounce release from the vow.[127] The connection yields this interpretation, not: omnibus edicens (Grotius), or (Bornemann) with the help of friends spreading the news, which in itself would likewise accord with linguistic usage (Luke 9:60; Romans 9:17).

τὴν ἐκπλήρωσιν τῶν ἡμερ. τ. ἁγν.] i.e. he gave notice that the vowed number of the Nazarite days had quite expired, after which only the concluding offering was required. This idea is expressed by ἕως οὗ προσηνέχθη κ.τ.λ., which immediately attaches itself to ΤῊΝ ἘΚΠΛΉΡΩΣΙΝ Κ.Τ.Λ.: the fulfilment of the Nazarite days, until the offering for each individual was presented by them, so that ἕως οὗ προσηνέχθη κ.τ.λ. contains an objective more precise definition of the ἘΚΠΛΉΡΩΣΙς added from the standpoint of the author; which fulfilment was not earlier than until there was brought, etc. Hence, Luke has expressed himself not by the optative or subjunctive (comp. Acts 23:12), which Lachmann, Praef. p. ix., has conjectured, but by the indicative aorist (“the fulfilment up to the point that the presentation of the offering took place”). Wieseler arbitrarily (comp. already Erasmus, Paraph.) makes ἕως οὗ dependent on ΕἸΣῄΕΙ ΤῸ ἹΕΡΌΝ, supplying “and remained there.”

Observe, further, that in αὐτῶν Paul himself is now included, which follows from σὺν αὐτοῖς ἁγυισθείς, as well as that ἙΝῸς ἙΚΆΣΤΟΥ is added, because it is not one offering for all, but a separate offering for each, which is to be thought of.

Acts 21:27. αἱ ἑπτὰ ἡμέραι] is commonly taken as: the seven days, which he up to the concluding sacrifice had to spend under the Nazarite vow which he had jointly undertaken, so that these days would be the time which had still to run for the four men of the duration of their vow. But against this may be urged, first, that the ἐκπλήρωσις τῶν ἡμ. τ. ἁγν., Acts 21:26, must in that case be the future fulfilment, which is not said in the text; and, secondly and decisively, that the αἱ ἑπτὰ ἡμ., with the article, would presuppose a mention already made of seven days (comp. Jdt 8:15; comp. Acts 7:30). Textually we can only explain it as: the well-known seven days required for this purpose,[128] so that it is to be assumed that, as regards the presentation of the offerings (according to Numbers 6:13 ff., very varied in their kind), the interval of a week was usual. Incorrect, because entirely dissociated from the context, is the view of Wieseler, p. 110, and on Gal. p. 587 (comp. Beza), that the seven days of the Pentecostal week, of which the last was Pentecost itself, are meant. So also Baumgarten, and Schaff, p. 243 ff. See, on the other hand, Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 482 ff., who, however, brings out the seven days by the entirely arbitrary and groundless apportionment, that for each of the five persons a day was appointed for the presentation of his offering, prior to which five days we have to reckon one day on which James gave the counsel to Paul, and a second on which Paul went into the temple. On such a supposition, besides, we cannot see why Luke, in reference to what was just said, ὑπὲρ ἑνὸς ἑκάστου αὐτῶν, should not have written: ΑἹ ΠΈΝΤΕ ἩΜΈΡΑΙ.

ΟἹ ἈΠῸ Τ. ἈΣΊΑς ἸΟΥΔ.] “Paulus, dum fidelibus (the Jewish-Christians) placandis intentus est, in hostium (the unconverted Asiatic Jews) furorem incurrit,” Calvin. How often had those, who were now at Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost, persecuted Paul already in Asia!

ἘΝ Τῷ ἹΕΡῷ] To see the destroyer of their ancestral religion in the temple, goaded their wrath to an outbreak.

συνέχεον] Acts 19:32.

[125] For if James had, in spite of Galatians 2:9, regarded Paul as a direct adversary of Mosaism, he would, on account of what he well knew to be Paul’s decision of character, have certainly not proposed a measure which the latter could not but have immediately rejected. It remains possible, however, that, though not in the case of James himself, yet among a portion of the presbyters there was still not complete certainty, and perhaps even different views prevailed with regard to what was to be thought of that accusation. In this case, the proposal was a test bringing the matter to decisive certainty, which was very correctly calculated in view of the moral stedfastness of the apostle’s character.

[126] They were still weak brethren from Judaism, who still clave partially to ceremonial observances. Calvin designates them as novices, with a yet tender and not fully formed faith.

[127] The compound (internuntiare) is purposely chosen, because Paul with his notice acted as internuntius of the four men. So commonly διαγγέλλειν is used in Greek writers, where it signifies to notify, to make known. Comp. also 2Ma 1:33.

[128] Comp. Erasmus, Paraphrase: “Totum hoc septem diebus erat peragendum; quibus jam paene expletis,” etc.; also Ewald, p. 571.

Acts 21:26. τότε ὁ Παῦλος: St. Paul’s conduct was another illustration of the rule laid down for himself when writing to Corinth, cf. 1 Corinthians 9:20. This is in itself an answer to the captious criticism which doubts the truth of his action on this occasion, so amongst recent writers Hilgenfeld (1896). The vow of Acts 18:18 is sufficient to show us that there is no reason to suppose that the Apostle was merely acting a part in following the advice of St. James. McGiffert discusses the question at length, p. 340 ff., and concludes that the Apostle may well have done just what he is reported to have done; and further, that as a simpler explanation of Paul’s arrest would have answered every purpose, the explanation given may fairly be assumed to be the true one. Renan, Saint Paul, p. 517, also accepts the narrative as an illustration of St. Paul’s own principle referred to above in 1 Corinthians 9:20, so too Wendt, J. Weiss, Pfleiderer. It seems strange that Wesley should have gone so far in the opposite direction as to believe that the Apostle actually suffered for his compliance with the wishes of James, Acts 21:33, cf. Speaker’s Commentary, in loco.—τῇ ἐχομ. ἡμέρᾳ, taken either with παραλ. or with σὺν αὐτοῖς ἁγν., so R.V.; only in Luke, cf. Luke 13:33, Acts 20:15, without ἡμέρᾳ (so in Polybius); cf. Acts 13:44, W. H. margin. In LXX 1 Chronicles 10:8; 2Ma 12:39 (1Ma 4:28).—εἰσῄει: according to our interpretation of the passage, the word means that Paul entered into the Temple, and stayed there for seven days with the four poor men until the period of their vow was fulfilled, Renan, Saint Paul, p. 520; but the expression need not mean more than that he entered into the Temple to give notice, or rather, giving notice, for the convenience of the priests of the day when the vow would be ended, and the necessary offerings brought—διαγγέλλων: “declaring,” R.V., i.e., to the priests, not omnibus edicens (Grotius, so Grimm), “to signify” as in A.V., makes the participle future; verb only used by St. Luke in N.T. (Romans 11:17, quotation from LXX), 2Ma 1:33 (cf. its use in the sense of publication, Ps. 2:7, 58:13, cf. 2Ma 1:33; 2Ma 3:34, Sir 43:2).—τὴν ἐκπ. τῶν ἡ τοῦ ἁγ., i.e., the seven days, Acts 21:27, which remained until the period of the vow was fulfilled, when the sacrifice was offered. Others however take ἕως οὗ with εἰσῄει, “he entered in … (and remained) until the offering,” etc.—ὑπὲρ ἑνὸς ἑκάστου αὐτῶν: there is no need to suppose with Nösgen that these words mean that the period of the full accomplishment of the vow was different in each of the four cases—at all events the whole period of “purification” did not extend over more than seven days.

26. Then Paul took the men] This consent of Paul to the advice of James and the elders has been taken by some for a contradiction of the words and character of the Apostle as represented in his own writings. But he has testified of himself (1 Corinthians 9:19-23) that for the Gospel’s sake he was made all things to all men, unto the Jews becoming as a Jew that he might gain the Jews, and for the same end, to them that are without law, as himself without law. And these brethren of the Church of Jerusalem to whom St Paul joined himself were Christians, and therefore were not clinging to legal observances as of merit towards salvation, but as ordinances which were of divine origin, and which education had made them careful to observe. The same spirit had actuated the Apostle to manifest by an outward act his thankfulness for some deliverance when, on a former occasion, he took this vow on himself without the suggestion of others (Acts 18:18). In the Christian services of the earliest days there was very little outlet for the expression by action of any religious emotion, and we cannot wonder that a people whose worship for a long time had been mainly in external observance should cling still to such outward acts, though they had grown to estimate them as of no saving virtue in themselves. With reference to the supposed contradiction in the two pictures of St Paul as given by St Luke and by himself, we need only compare his language about Judaizers in the Epistle to the Galatians with what he says of the preaching of the Gospel at Rome by similar adversaries, when he was writing to the Philippians, to see that the Apostle in what he said and did had ever an eye to the circumstances. To the Galatians he speaks in the strongest terms against the Judaizers because their influence was to draw away the Christians in Galatia from the simple Gospel as offered by him in Christ’s name to the Gentiles, and to make them substitute for it the observance of the law of Moses as a necessary door to Christianity. He has no words strong enough to express his horror of such teachers in such a place. But the same Paul at Rome, the condition of whose people may be learnt by a perusal of the first chapter of his letter to that Church, says (Php 1:15-18), “Some preach Christ even of envy and strife, supposing to add affliction to my bonds. Notwithstanding every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is preached, and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.” Assuredly there is as much of so-called contradiction between Paul as described in different places by himself, as between his own description and what St Luke has left us of his history. Contradiction it is not, but only such concession as might be expected from one strong in the faith as St Paul was when he was dealing, as he was called upon to deal, with two classes of men who could never be brought to the same standpoint To observe the ceremonial law was not needful for the Gentiles, therefore the Apostle decried its observance and opposed those who would have enforced it. The ceremonial law was abolished for the Jew also in Christ, but it had a divine warrant for those who had been trained in it from their youth up, therefore all that the Apostle here desired was that their true value only should be set on externals. He felt that time would develop Christian worship to fill the place which the Temple Service for a long time must hold among the Christians of Jerusalem.

and the next day … temple] The regulation was that the Nazarite should avoid all persons and things that would cause ceremonial defilement, and that this might be more thoroughly accomplished the closing days of the vow appear, at this time, to have been passed within the Temple precincts. This, of course, must have been a later arrangement than any which is spoken of in the institution of the vow (Numbers 6).

to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification] Rev. Ver. “declaring the fulfilment, &c.” The meaning is that St Paul gave notice to the proper of the officials of the Temple that the completion of the vow would be at a certain time. It would be needful for him to do this, as otherwise they would have expected him to keep the full number of days which others observed. After his explanation that he was only a sharer for a time in the vow of his companions, it would be understood that his days of purification should terminate when theirs did.

until that an offering should be offered for every one of them] Rev. Ver. “Until the offering was, &c.” The offering is better, for it means that special one which was enjoined by the law. The words are a part not of St Paul’s notice to the priests, but of St Luke’s history. The Apostle did these things and continued as a Nazarite till the whole ceremonial for all of them was ended.

Acts 21:26. Τότε, then) Great yieldingness (complaisance).—διαγγέλλων) signifying, professing or declaring.—τὴν ἐκπλήρωσιν, the fulfilment) about to be: Acts 21:27, the seven days; Numbers 6:9; Numbers 6:13.

Verse 26. - Went for entered, A.V.; declaring the fulfillment for to signify the accomplishment, A.V.; the offering was for that an offering should be, A.V. Paul took the men. St. Paul's acquiescence in James's advice is an instance of what he says of himself (1 Corinthians 9:20), and is in accordance with his conduct in circumcising Timothy (Acts 16:3). But that he did not attach any intrinsic importance even to circumcision, and much less to the minor Jewish ceremonies, is clear from such passages as Romans 2:28, 29; 1 Corinthians 7:19; Galatians 5:6; Galatians 6:15; Philippians 3:3, etc. Purifying himself with them, etc. (ἁγνισθεὶς); see note on ver. 24. James's advice had been Τούτους παραλαβὼν ἁγνίσθητι σὺν αὐτοῖς: in obedience to that advice St. Paul now Παραλαβὼν τοὺςἄνδρας σὺν αὐτοῖς ἁγνισθεὶς εἰσήει εἰς τὸ ἱερόν. What was the particular form by which a person who wished to associate himself with others under a Nazaritic vow (note on ver. 24) did so is not known; nor how long before the expiration of the vow such association must be made. But from the mention of "seven days" in ver. 27 (which is the number named in Numbers 6:9, in case of an accidental uncleanness), it seems highly probable that "seven days" was the term during which a person must have conformed to the Nazaritic vow to entitle him to "be at charges," as well, perhaps, as the time during which Nazarites, at the end of their vow, had to undergo special purification. Declaring the fulfillment, etc. The vow of the four men had been for at least thirty days (the minimum period of such vow); but whatever length of time it had been for, such time would have expired by the end of the seven days, and probably long before. We know not how long they might have been waiting for some one to "be at charges" for them, and provide the sacrifices, without which they could not shave their heads and accomplish their vow. But it is obvious that some notice must be given to the priests in the temple of the day when one or more Nazarites would present themselves at "the door of the tabernacle of the congregation," to offer the prescribed offerings. And this accordingly Paul and the four did. Διαγγέλλων means "notifying," or "declaring," to the priests (Exodus 9:16 [LXX., answering to the Hebrew סַפֵּר]; Romans 9:27; Joshua 6:9, LXX. [Joshua 6:10, A.V., "bid"]). Until the offering was offered, etc. This is interpreted in two ways. Meyer makes "until" depend upon "the fulfillment of the days," so as to define that fulfillment as not taking place till the offering was offered. Wieseler makes "until" depend upon "he entered into the temple," with the idea supplied, "and remained there," or "came there daily;" supposing that it was the custom for Nazarites to finish up their time of separation by passing the last seven days, or at least being present daily, in "the court of the women, where was the apartment appropriated to the Nazarites" (Lewin, it. p. 142). If, however, with Howson, Lewin and others, we understand the word ἀγνίζεσθαι, in vers. 24 and 20, not generally of taking the Nazarite vow, but of certain special purifications at the close of a Nazaritic vow, which lasted seven days immediately before the offerings were made and the head shaven, then a very easy and natural rendering of the words follows: "Notifying their intention of now completing the seven days of their purification, until the offering for each of them was offered." Alford, in loc., justifies by examples the aorist indicative προσηνέχθη, instead of the subjunctive, which is more usual. Lewin thinks that St. Paul had taken a Nazaritic vow after his escape from death at Ephesus, or at Corinth; but there is no evidence of this, and it is hardly consistent with James's advice. Renan thinks it doubtful whether or no Paul took the Nazaritic vow at all, but inclines to this as the best interpretation ('St. Paul,' p. 518, note). Acts 21:26Purifying himself (ἁγνισθεὶς).

See on 1 Peter 1:22; and James 4:8.

Declaring (διαγγέλλων)

To the priests who directed the sacrifices and pronounced release from the vow.

Fulfilment - until, etc

There is some dispute and confusion here as to the precise meaning. The general sense is that, having entered the temple toward the close of the period required for the fulfilment of these men's vow, he gave notice that the vowed number of Nazarite days had expired, after which only the concluding offering was required

Acts 21:26 Interlinear
Acts 21:26 Parallel Texts


Acts 21:26 NIV
Acts 21:26 NLT
Acts 21:26 ESV
Acts 21:26 NASB
Acts 21:26 KJV

Acts 21:26 Bible Apps
Acts 21:26 Parallel
Acts 21:26 Biblia Paralela
Acts 21:26 Chinese Bible
Acts 21:26 French Bible
Acts 21:26 German Bible

Bible Hub