Why was Paul Arrested in the Temple? Acts 21:26-36

Paul was seen on the Temple Mount when he sponsored a vow for some young men. Jews from Asia spread the misunderstanding that Paul was preaching against the Law and the Temple, and accused him of bringing a Gentile into the temple. Who are these Jews from Asia? Asia refers to the Roman province, so they are most likely from Ephesus. They have come to Jerusalem, perhaps arriving for Passover and staying through Pentecost. Since Paul spent almost three years in Ephesus, he was known to these men. They recognized him and knew he was a troublemaker in Ephesus (Acts 19:23-41). They had previously seen Paul in the city with Trophimus, a Gentile likely from Ephesus. They assume that Paul brought the Gentile into the Temple courts, where Gentiles were forbidden (the Court of the Men).

To “stir up” (συγχέω) often has the sense of “throwing into confusion” (BDAG). It is the word used in LXX Genesis 11:7, 9 for the “confusion” of the languages at Babel and Acts 2:6 for the response of the crowd when they heard the apostles speaking in tongues (Acts 2:6). The only other use in Acts is 9:22, the response to Paul’s conversion and Christian preaching in the Synagogue.

The charge brought against Paul was that he brought a Gentile into the Temple. This would be a serious offense, worthy of death for both Paul and the Gentile. The Jews did not allow women or Gentiles into the central courts of the Temple, believing them to be unclean. Although the Mosaic Law did not specifically forbid Gentiles from entering the Temple courts, by the first century, Herod the Great had expanded the Temple courts so that there was a large area where everyone was welcome, the Court of the Gentiles.

A four-foot-high wall divided the Court of the Gentiles from the inner courts, and at least two warnings have been discovered warning Gentiles from entering the area. Tacitus, Hist. 5.8 know of these rules, and Josephus mentions the warning inscription that separated the outer courts (Ant. 15.417; War 6.125-26). He says the inscription was in Greek and Latin, so Gentiles could read the warning (War 5.194). The two inscriptions known today are only in Greek. Phileo (Embassy, 212) states that the Romans knew of the penalty for entering unauthorized areas. The larger inscribed stone was discovered in 1871 and is now in the Istanbul Museum. Another fragment was found in 1935 and is not in the Israel Archaeology Museum.

The Asian Jews accuse Paul of teaching against the Law and the Temple. Did Paul teach against the Temple? In Romans 12:1, Paul instructs believers to present themselves as a living sacrifice. In Ephesians 2:14, Paul says Jesus’s death destroyed the “dividing wall of hostility,” often taken as a reference to the warning on the balustrade dividing the Gentiles from the Jews in the Temple. In Ephesians 2:19-22, Paul describes the church itself as a living temple growing into a suitable dwelling place for God.  If Paul taught his congregations that they were the “temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor 3:16-17) and a spiritual temple (Eph 2:19-22), then it is possible that the Ephesian Jews who accused Paul of speaking against the Temple were aware of Paul’s teaching (Keener, Acts, 3:3152).

Is this violent reaction credible, or is Luke exaggerating the situation for rhetorical reasons? There is evidence that indicates there were zealots in Jerusalem in the mid-first century who were willing to use violence to guard the sanctity of the Temple.

m.Sanhedrin 9:6 He who stole a sacred vessel [of the cult (Num. 4:7)], and he who curses using the name of an idol, and he who has sexual relations with an Aramaean woman— zealots beat him upon the spot.

A priest who performed the rite in a state of uncleanness— his brothers, the priests, do not bring him to court. But the young priests take him outside the courtyard and break his head with clubs. A non-priest who served in the Temple— R. Aqiba says, “[He is put to death] by strangling [Num. 18:7].” And sages say, “[He is put to death] at the hands of Heaven.” (Translation from Neusner, The Mishnah, 604

Philo, Spec.Laws 2.253 And such a man will never entirely escape, for there are innumerable beings looking on, zealots for and keepers of the national laws, of rigid justice, prompt to stone such a criminal, and visiting without pity all such as work wickedness, unless, indeed, we are prepared to say that a man who acts in such a way as to dishonour his father or his mother is worthy of death, but that he who behaves with impiety towards a name more glorious than even the respect due to one’s parents, is to be borne with as but a moderate offender.

As Keener points out, many ancient cults had similar violent reactions to perceived desecrations of their temples. A violation could result in a rebuke (like a man who entered the temple after eating garlic) or a violent death (for entering a sacred area) (Keener, Acts, 3:3149).

The charges are not true. Paul did not bring a Gentile into the Court of the Men. The charge comes from “Jews from the province of Asia,” quite possibly from Ephesus. They would have been the most likely to recognize Trophimus as a Gentile convert and Paul’s associate. These men are never referred to as disciples, implying that they are Jewish pilgrims.

What is remarkable is the silence of the Jerusalem Christians – no one comes to the defense of Paul! James Dunn speculates: “Could it be that the Jerusalem Christians left Paul (like Stephen) to stew in his own juices?”