Nazirite Vows Sponsored By Paul After His Conversion

Nazirite Vows Sponsored By Paul in Acts 21

Many believe that temple sacrifices are "done away" by the New Covenant. If that is the case then why do commentaries agree that James advised Paul to pay for the temple expenses of four brethren who’d taken Nazirite vows?

Despite the fact that the Jews accused him of ........, Paul returned to Jerusalem to face the music.

Acts 21 verse 22.

22 What then? The assembly (presumably the Sanhedrin?) must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come.

Paul clearly had a substantial reputation at the highest levels amongst the seventy elders.

23 Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law.

So what’s this that they’re advising Paul to do?

What Was the Vow The Four Men Had Taken?

Let’s see what a few commentaries have to say about what this vow was.

"There were four Jews who had taken a Nazarite vow. This ordinarily lasted thirty days, but they had incurred some defilement that had placed them in a condition of ceremonial impurity for seven days (v. 27). …. The elders suggested to Paul that he identify himself with these four and practice the common Jewish custom of paying the expenses for the sacrifices". (from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1962 by Moody Press)

"So Paul did here; he contributed what he vowed to the offerings of these Nazarites, and some think bound himself to the law of Nazariteship, and to an attendance at the temple with fastings and prayers for seven days, not designing that the offering should be offered till them, which was what he signified to the priest". (from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1991 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.)

And from The Expositors Bible Commentary:

"James and the elders responded to Paul’s responded to Paul’s report and the gift from the churches by praising God. Yet the also urged Paul to join with four Jewish Christians who were fulfilling their Nazirite vows and to pay for their required offerings… 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 apostatise from Judaism. In view of his having come earlier to Jerusalem in more placid circumstances to fulfil a Nazirite vow of his own (Acts 18:18-19:22)"...

This very clearly indicates that the view of the Expositor's Bible commentary is that Paul kept a Nazirite vow himself in Acts 18:18. Continuing...

"...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. 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". The Expositors Bible Commentary Volume 9 John and Acts (Acts 21:24) – 1981

"All that seems meant here is, that Paul should so 'purify himself' ceremonially, as to be able to present himself as a cleansed man in, the temple on the completion of these four men's vow. And be at charges with them, OR - 'pay expenses for them,' or defray the cost of the sacrifices legally required of them, along with his own; which was deemed a mark of Jewish generosity". (from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft)

"…Generally such vows were from one to three months in length. The outward elements consisted in not touching anything dead, refraining from any product of the grapevine and not cutting one’s hair". (see Numbers 6:) Jewish New Testament Commentary (Messianic Jews) – written by David Sterne

Numbers 6: "From this the custom afterwards grew up, that when poor persons took the Nazarite's vow upon them, those who were better off defrayed the expenses of the sacrifices (Acts 21:24; Josephus, Ant. xix. 6, 1; Mishnah Nasir, ii. 5 ff.)".(from Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament: New Updated Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1996 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.)

Acts 21:15-26 (2.) They produce a fair opportunity which Paul might take to clear himself: "Do this that we say unto thee, take our advice in this case. We have four men, Jews who believe, of our own churches, and they have a vow on them, a vow of Nazariteship for a certain time; their time has now expired (v. 23), and they are to offer their offering according to the law, when they shave the head of their separation, a he-lamb for a burnt-offering, a ewe-lamb for a sin-offering, and a ram for a peace-offering, with other offerings pertinent to them, Num 6:13-20. Many used to do this together, when their vow expired about the same time, either for the greater expedition or for the greater solemnity. Now Paul having so far of late complied with the law as to take upon him the vow of a Nazarite, and to signify the expiration of it by shaving his head at Cenchrea (Acts 18:18), according to the custom of those who lived at a distance from the temple, they desire him but to go a little further, and to join with these four in offering the sacrifices of a Nazarite: `Purify thyself with them according to the law; and be willing not only to take that trouble, but to be at charges with them, in buying sacrifices for this solemn occasion, and to join with them in the sacrifice." This, they think, will effectually stop the mouth of calumny, and every one will be convinced that the report was false, that Paul was not the man he was represented to be, did not teach the Jews to forsake Moses, but that he himself, being originally a Jew, walked orderly, and kept the law; and then all would be well. (from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1991 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.)

Acts 21:23 [We have four men which have a vow] From the shaving of the head, mentioned immediately after, it is evident that the four men in question were under the vow of Nazariteship; and that the days of their vow were nearly at an end, as they were about to shave their heads; for, during the time of the Nazariteship, the hair was permitted to grow, and only shaven off at the termination of the vow. Among the Jews, it was common to make vows to God on extraordinary occasions; and that of the Nazarite appears to have been one of the most common; and it was permitted by their law for any person to perform this vow by proxy. See the law produced in my note at Numbers 6:21. "It was also customary for the richer sort to bestow their charity on the poorer sort for this purpose; for Josephus, Ant. lib. 19 cap. 6, sec. 1, observes that Agrippa, on his being advanced from a prison to a throne, by the Emperor Claudius, came to Jerusalem; and there, among other instances of his religious thankfulness shown in the temple, Nazaraioon xurasthai dietaxe mala suchnous, he ordered very many Nazarites to be shaven, he furnishing them with money for the expenses of that, and of the sacrifices necessarily attending it." (from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1996 by Biblesoft)

So these commentaries agree then that James advised Paul to pay for the temple expenses of four church members who’d taken Nazirite vows. Nazirite vows involve animal sacrifices.

That said, let’s be clear about something before we go any further. Here in Acts 21: the Bible does not say anything explicitly about exactly what type of vow these four men have engaged in.

Nowhere in Acts 21: is the word Nazirite used is it ?

So what’s going on here?

Arguably its very significant that apart from David Sterne who is a Messianic Jew, and believes in the integrity of both halves of the Bible, the other four commentaries that we’ve referred to: Expositors, Matthew Henry, Wycliffe, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown are coming from the traditional protestant theological perspective; that is: the Old Testament written Torah-law “is done away with”. If that's the case why were these brethren keeping Nazirite vows (Numbers 6)?

If anything, we might think their natural tendency would be to try to dismiss this as a "legalistic ritual", because surely the apostle who is characterised as teaching that the law given to Moses is “done away with” isn’t to get involved in the fulfilment of ritualistic OT Nazarite vows IS HE ?

After all wasn’t he free from the “burden of the law”?

But actually not one of these protestant commentators can offer an alternative explanation about this scripture.

Full credit to them; at least they don’t try to argue: “Actually it’s a different sort of vow”.

Presumably they can’t, because Acts 21:24 specifically mentions that the men were going to have their heads shaved, and those few words take away any doubt. These were definitely four men who were shaving their heads at the end of their Nazirite vows.

So these protestant commentators have to admit that Nazarite vows specified in the written Torah-law were still being taken by church members even after Christ’s resurrection.

Now that’s a very brave thing for protestant commentators to say, isn’t it? For the sake of completeness I should mention that there are others who are completely perplexed by it.

For example Adam Clarke Acts 21:26

However we may consider this subject, it is exceedingly difficult to account for the conduct of James and the elders, and of Paul on this occasion. There seems to have been something in this transaction which we do not fully understand. (from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1996 by Biblesoft)

You can't do anything but respect that sort of honesty.

Let’s move back to Acts 18:18 where some of the commentaries also suggested that Paul kept a Nazirite vow.

Return to the start of Paul's Post Crucifixion Temple Sacrifices a Judianity website ?
© www.pauls-post-crucifixion-temple-sacrifices.info March 2006.

One small & predictable change to an "Old Testament" law about circumcising gentile proselytes in Acts, caused massive turmoil in the predominantly Jewish first century church. If most of the "law of Moses" really has been "done away with" by Paul in Galatians; why then isn't any comparable degree of unrest recorded in the New Testament?