Paul

When Paul arrives in Jerusalem to deliver the collection, he learns that there are some Jewish Christians who think he is teaching Jewish people to abandon the law, specifically circumcision. To respond to this rumor, James proposes that Paul sponsor a vow to prove his loyalty by submitting to the Nazarite vow along with a few men (21:22-25).

Dunn rightly observes that James does not deny the rumor: “The advice of James and the elders is carefully calibrated. They do not disown the rumors. Instead, they suggest that Paul disproves the rumors by his actions, but it shows that he still lived in observance of the Law” (Dunn, Acts, 287).

The Nazarite vow was a deeply spiritual exercise. Sponsoring such a vow would indicate Jewish loyalty and fidelity to the Law (For example, Agrippa I sponsored vows for several young men to show his personal loyalty to the law (Josephus, Antiq. 19.294). To enter the Temple, Paul had to purify himself for seven days. This is required because Paul comes from non-Jewish territory and is ceremonially unclean (Josephus, JW 5.227, Ap 2.103f). This would have involved washing in one of the many mikvoth in Jerusalem, perhaps also consulting with Temple personnel responsible for inspecting those who were entering for worship.

Is Paul right or wrong to make this vow? Is he simply trying to please James and the elders? Does Paul sin by taking the vow? Paul states his ministry objective in 1 Corinthians 9:22, expressing his desire to be “all things to all men to win a few.” Paul is in a position where he is only going to be winning Jews, and by taking the vow, he is attracting Jews. The vow would not influence Gentiles; they would not care one way or another. In addition to this, Paul may have taken other vows. Remember Acts 18:18; Paul may have been completing a similar vow at that time.

Did James set Paul up? On the one hand, Luke does not explicitly state that James believed these rumors, although he also does not show James rejecting them. Some scholars have described James in somewhat sinister ways. Brandon, for example, says that James trapped Paul into a compromise he would not have otherwise made (Brandon, Fall of Jerusalem, 150-151). Barrett describes the solution as “the sham of James’ proposal” (Barrett, Acts, 2:1000). Even Dunn describes the “frosty reception” James gives Paul in Acts 21 (Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 959). Stanley Porter suggested that the Jerusalem leadership agreed with the rumors, and they wanted “to put Paul in his place as subordinate to the Jerusalem leaders” (Paul of Acts, 179-180). Witherington simply notes that many see a “sinister side” to the proposal (Witherington, Acts, 649). “In the rest of the story, James and his party show little concern for Paul” (Barrett, Acts, 2:1007).

Whether Paul walked into a trap is not at all clear. However, it is a fact that Jerusalem itself was a hotbed of nationalistic fervor. The Jewish church was a significant part of the messianic nationalism that led to the revolt of A.D. 66. Arriving in Jerusalem with an entourage of Gentiles who were not converts to Judaism was, at the very least, dangerous (Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 961-962).

Paul’s arrival in Jerusalem probably was in the spring of A.D. 56 or 57 during the procuratorship of Felix. Josephus described this period of the mid-50s as a time of intense Jewish nationalism and political unrest. One insurrection after another rose to challenge the Roman overlords, and Felix brutally suppressed them all. This only increased the Jewish hatred for Rome and inflamed anti-Gentile sentiments. It was a time when pro-Jewish sentiment was at its height, and friendliness with outsiders was viewed askance. Considering public relations, Paul’s mission to the Gentiles would not have been well received (Polhill, Acts, 447).

The next day after arriving in Jerusalem, Paul meets with James, who appears to be the leader of the Jerusalem church (21:8-19). Paul “reports in detail” what God has been doing, and this report brings joy to the Jewish community, and they praise God.

What is missing here is any mention of the delivery of the collection. Luke ignores the whole thing. Why is this? There is a strong possibility that the Jewish Christians refused the collection, a concern that Paul himself expressed in Romans 15:31-32 from Corinth, just before embarking on the trip to Jerusalem. Why would they do that? It was a gift from Gentiles, collected by an apostate Jew?

Romans 15:31–32 (ESV) …that I may be delivered from the unbelievers in Judea, and that my service for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints, 32 so that by God’s will I may come to you with joy and be refreshed in your company.

The collection may have been received contingent upon Paul’s participation in the vow, which suggests that he was not opposed to Jewish traditions. Since he is arrested and whisked off to Caesarea, it is possible that the collection was not accepted.

If James did not accept the gift, what happened to it? Nothing in the Book of Acts or the epistles helps answer that question. If James refused it outright, then the Gentiles who delivered it may have returned it to the original churches. On the other hand, James may have accepted it quietly, as the church was in such dire need.

There are many Jews in Jerusalem who are believers in the Gospel and continue to follow the laws and traditions of Judaism (21:20). This is not unexpected. Jesus did not come to destroy the Law and does not teach anything that might be taken as a rejection of the Law or Temple worship. While Jesus may have rejected the traditions of the Pharisees, he lived as any Jew might have in the first century.

In Acts 15, the Jerusalem church included both priests and Pharisees. These men would have been particularly interested in cleanliness and ritual purity. James describes the Jerusalem church as very large; the NIV has “thousands,” translating the Greek “myriads.” While this might seem like hyperbole, several thousand people are mentioned in Acts 2 and 3, so it is not unlikely that there have been additional converts in the many years that have passed.

The Jews report that there are extremists among their church who think that Paul has “apostatized”, that he is teaching that Gentiles should turn away from the Law (21:21). Is this true? Paul indeed taught that Gentiles were not under the law; in fact, in Galatians, he is strong in his condemnation of these same zealots who were teaching the Gentiles to keep the law

With respect to Jews, there is nothing that implies Paul told Jews to continue keeping the law and traditions of Israel. It may or may not be the case that Paul considered ceremonial law and traditions matters of indifference. Witherington seems to allow for more possibilities than Paul taught that traditions were not required (Acts, 648). Indeed, the Letter to the Galatians could be read as a repudiation of the Law, although it seems that Paul only has in mind Gentile converts. Ultimately, that may still be the heart of the problem – what Paul has created is something new and distinct. People are converting to a belief in Jesus as savior apart from the Law rather than converting to Judaism or converting to a particular messianic conviction within Judaism.

Based on Paul’s behavior in Acts, it may well be that he would have told the Jews to continue keeping the Law. Paul required Timothy to be circumcised, for example, and he had made a vow while in Corinth. Later, he will claim that he has continued to keep the law, although one wonders to what extent he kept the boundary markers of the Law that these conservative Jews would have expected from him.