Why did Paul Sponsor a Vow? Acts 21:23-26

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).