Acts 21:26

[Christian2]

I need some help understanding this scripture.

26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.

After Jesus died I thought that animal sacrifices were stopped, yet we have Paul "purifying" himself before he enters the Temple and making an offering.

What is this all about?

Thank you.

[Canuckster1127]

I need some help understanding this scripture.

26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.

After Jesus died I thought that animal sacrifices were stopped, yet we have Paul "purifying" himself before he enters the Temple and making an offering.

What is this all about?

Thank you.

The sacrifical system in the temple did not end until the temple was destroyed in AD 70.

Christianity was not seen at that time as a departure from Judiasm, but rather a sect within Judiasm that saw Christ as the Messiah and fulfillment of the Old Testament prophesies.

There was a lot of concern and back and forth between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians as to the role of the law and the need for such rituals as circumcision etc., which you have a lot of evidence of within Paul's epistles as well as the Acts (See for instance the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15

Paul maintained, based on revelation that Gentiles did not need to submit themselves to Jewish Law. He also, however, maintained that he would be all things to all men to the extent that he win anyone to Christ.

I Cor 9:19-23

How effective this was can be argued by the rest of this passage which indicates that despite Paul's seeking to be this way, in this instance, Jews who saw Paul and Christ as a threat, still tried to put Paul to death.

In Jerusalme, James was the Church leader. It is likely that he encouraged Paul to conform in this way and Paul did not see it as a compromise as the sacrifice made was one of commitment and worship, not atonement, which would have been a compromise of a fundamental point otherwise.

Does that help?

[Christian2]

[QUOTE=Canuksteer1127]

The sacrifical system in the temple did not end until the temple was destroyed in AD 70. [/QUOTE]

I know that it didn't end for the Jews, but I did think it ended with the new Christians, those who believed that Jesus was the final sacrifice atoning for our sins.

[QUOTE=Canuksteer1127]

Christianity was not seen at that time as a departure from Judiasm, but rather a sect within Judiasm that saw Christ as the Messiah and fulfillment of the Old Testament prophesies. [/QUOTE]

I still don't think it is a departure from Judaism. I see Christianity as the fulfillment of the Old Testament as well. But we are talking about the sacrifice of animals for the forgiveness of sins and atonement. If the new Christians continued to do that, then what does that say about their belief that Jesus was the final sacrifice?

[QUOTE=Canuksteer1127]

There was a lot of concern and back and forth between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians as to the role of the law and the need for such rituals as circumcision etc., which you have a lot of evidence of within Paul's epistles as well as the Acts (See for instance the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 [/QUOTE]

Yes, the question was: "Does a Gentile have to become a Jew in order to be a Christian?" James, along with the council of the elders, made the final decision that the Gentiles need not be circumcised and a decision was made further than that:

Acts 21: 25 But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.”

[QUOTE=Canuksteer1127]

Paul maintained, based on revelation that Gentiles did not need to submit themselves to Jewish Law. He also, however, maintained that he would be all things to all men to the extent that he win anyone to Christ.

I Cor 9:19-23 [/QUOTE]

Wasn't that a joint decision? See above.

[QUOTE=Canuksteer1127]

How effective this was can be argued by the rest of this passage which indicates that despite Paul's seeking to be this way, in this instance, Jews who saw Paul and Christ as a threat, still tried to put Paul to death.

In Jerusalme, James was the Church leader. It is likely that he encouraged Paul to conform in this way and Paul did not see it as a compromise as the sacrifice made was one of commitment and worship, not atonement, which would have been a compromise of a fundamental point otherwise. [/QUOTE]

I think it is indicated in the scripture that James and the others did encourage "Paul to conform in the way."

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.

I did a little googling since I posted this. I think the purification and sacrifice had to do with the Nazarite Vow. These 4 men were Nazarites. Paul may have been too. Regardless, the sacrifice would not have been for atonement. That was what I was most worried about.

Yes, it helps. Thank you.

[Canuckster1127]

You're right. I think it was a nazarite vow.

What is inspired in this passage is the recording of events and actions. Paul was an instrument of inspiration in preserving Scripture in his epistles. That does not mean that all his actions outside of that were perfect or even always consistent with what he said while under inspiraration. Witness the feud between Paul and Barnabus with regard to John Mark. Paul changed his mind over time.

I'm not necessarily saying Paul was wrong in participating in a nazarite vow, but the fact he did it does not mean he was right or that he was perfect in his decisions or actions.

In this instance however, he was not compromising with regard to atonement being found only in the finished work of Christ.

[bluesman]

Matthew Henry Comments
http://bible.cc/acts/21-26.htm

21:19-26 Paul ascribed all his success to God, and to God they gave the praise. God had honoured him more than any of the apostles, yet they did not envy him; but on the contrary, glorified the Lord. They could not do more to encourage Paul to go on cheerfully in his work. James and the elders of the church at Jerusalem, asked Paul to gratify the believing Jews, by some compliance with the ceremonial law. They thought it was prudent in him to conform thus far. It was great weakness to be so fond of the shadows, when the substance was come. The religion Paul preached, tended not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it. He preached Christ, the end of the law for righteousness, and repentance and faith, in which we are to make great use of the law. The weakness and evil of the human heart strongly appear, when we consider how many, even of the disciples of Christ, had not due regard to the most eminent minister that even lived. Not the excellence of his character, nor the success with which God blessed his labours, could gain their esteem and affection, seeing that he did not render the same respect as themselves to mere ceremonial observances. How watchful should we be against prejudices! The apostles were not free from blame in all they did; and it would be hard to defend Paul from the charge of giving way too much in this matter. It is vain to attempt to court the favour of zealots, or bigots to a party. This compliance of Paul did not answer, for the very thing by which he hoped to pacify the Jews, provoked them, and brought him into trouble. But the all-wise God overruled both their advice and Paul's compliance with it, to serve a better purpose than was intended. It was in vain to think of pleasing men who would be pleased with nothing but the rooting out of Christianity. Integrity and uprightness will be more likely to preserve us than insincere compliances. And it should warn us not to press men to doing what is contrary to their own judgment to oblige us.

From the above the important part I see:

"James and the elders of the church at Jerusalem, asked Paul to gratify the believing Jews, by some compliance with the ceremonial law."

"The apostles were not free from blame in all they did; and it would be hard to defend Paul from the charge of giving way too much in this matter. It is vain to attempt to court the favour of zealots, or bigots to a party. This compliance of Paul did not answer, for the very thing by which he hoped to pacify the Jews, provoked them, and brought him into trouble."

"Integrity and uprightness will be more likely to preserve us than insincere compliances. And it should warn us not to press men to doing what is contrary to their own judgment to oblige us."

From another website
http://www.awmi.net/bible/act_21_26?op=displayLogin

Now, in an apparent reversal of his hard fought victories, Paul seeks to prove to the Jews that he is not against the law of Moses by performing a vow (probably Nazarite-Num. 6) and paying for four other men to do the same. He had refused to make concessions like this before (Gal. 2:3-5).

we can at least say that this illustrates Paul's extreme love for the Jews that he spoke of in Rom. 9:1-3. If he did err, it was his love for others that got him in trouble. Most of us would be blessed to have faults such as that.

Paul had already written that there was nothing wrong with still observing rituals of the law as long as it was understood that they were only symbolic (Rom. 14:1-7; Col. 2:16-17).

The Lord had not clearly communicated yet that the law had been abolished (2 Cor. 3:13; Eph. 2:15; Heb. 7:18). He tolerated it until the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D.

it can be supposed that Paul was well within his limits to perform ceremonial rites of the law with the understanding that this was just formality to placate the Jews so they would listen to what he had to say.

Read on in Acts we see this attempt to placate or get the Jews to listen didn't work well.

27 When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the multitude and laid hands on him,

28 crying out, "Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, and the law, and this place. Moreover, he also brought Greeks into the temple, and has defiled this holy place!"

Michael
Thomas

[ruthrush]

[quote="Canuckster1127"]You're right. I think it was a nazarite vow.

What is inspired in this passage is the recording of events and actions. Paul was an instrument of inspiration in preserving Scripture in his epistles. That does not mean that all his actions outside of that were perfect or even always consistent with what he said while under inspiraration. Witness the feud between Paul and Barnabus with regard to John Mark. Paul changed his mind over time.

I'm not necessarily saying Paul was wrong in participating in a nazarite vow, but the fact he did it does not mean he was right or that he was perfect in his decisions or actions.

In this instance however, he was not compromising with regard to
atonement being found only in the finished work of Christ.[/quote]




If Paul participated in any sacrifice, knowing that God had stopped sacrifice (and the rest of MC Law) with Yeshua's sacrifice, he was a hypocrite and a giver of false information from God by his actions.
He was therefore a false prophet.
From what the Bible tells us about Paul and his willingness to endure physical punishment for the truth and his public condemnation of Peter for his acting not in keeping with God's revelation, to compromise the truth would not be in character.

The Nazarite vows included sin sacrifices (Num.6:13-14). Paul publicly gave sin offerings!
Paul is not a hypocrite or a false prophet. He gave sacrifices because the MC Law was still in effect. It will still be in effect when the New Covenant is instituted when Yeshua returns. See Jer.31. God places "My Torah" by which He means the MC Law, on the hearts and minds of those who accept the NC, the Houses of Israel and Judah, whose fathers came out of Egypt. In Jer. 33, He says that there will always be a Levitical priesthood to offer burnt offerings.
What you don't understand is what Yeshua's sacrifice means. It is not a replacement of the MC sacrifices. It is a higher sacrifice than any of the MC sacrifices. There was no sacrifice in the MC that was sufficient to allow people to return to Paradise and the tree of everlasting life. That was only done through the Promised Seed of Gen.3, Yeshua. That offering took away all sin and even the stain of sin so we could walk past the flaming sword back into Paradise. Our faith in Yeshua as the only acceptable sacrifice for that purpose is the Way.
We, who continue to live in this world of sin, continue to sin. Although we have the assurance that when we die and walk to that flaming sword, our faith makes us pure as snow, until we do, we carry that stain of sin.
We still need forgiveness for our daily sin, just as we pray in the Lord's Prayer.
If we were in the time of Paul, we would give the animal sacrifices. That was the way God ordained to atone for daily sin. We would obey Him as Paul and all the apostles and the 10's of thousands of new Jewish believers did in Acts 21:20.
As a punishment, God allowed the Temple to be destroyed and the sacrifices had to stop as they did in the time of Daniel. There was no longer atonement, forgiveness of sins for those who did not have Yeshua as their Lord. Yeshua promised believers that they could ask Him for that forgiveness as our High Priest in Heaven.
Those who do not call Him Lord have no assurance of forgiveness. That is not to say that God will not be merciful to whom He will be merciful, but they have no assurance of that mercy as we do, and as long as we forgive others.
Hebrews 8:4 says that the Levitical priesthood was still in authority at that time. It was only when the Temple would be destroyed that Yeshua would not only be our High Priest for salvation but also our High Priest for our daily sins. He did not take over the Levitical priesthood duties as long as they could function. They are still the authorized earthly vehical for forgiveness of daily sins but they cannot function without the altar for sacrifice in Jerusalem.
To say the priesthood has been abolished you would have to say that Jeremiah was a false prophet re Jer.33. But the Word of God stands. Neither Jeremiah nor Paul have been shown to be false prophets.
Ruth

[Canuckster1127]

You're right. I think it was a nazarite vow.

What is inspired in this passage is the recording of events and actions. Paul was an instrument of inspiration in preserving Scripture in his epistles. That does not mean that all his actions outside of that were perfect or even always consistent with what he said while under inspiraration. Witness the feud between Paul and Barnabus with regard to John Mark. Paul changed his mind over time.

I'm not necessarily saying Paul was wrong in participating in a nazarite vow, but the fact he did it does not mean he was right or that he was perfect in his decisions or actions.

In this instance however, he was not compromising with regard to
atonement being found only in the finished work of Christ.

If Paul participated in any sacrifice, knowing that God had stopped sacrifice (and the rest of MC Law) with Yeshua's sacrifice, he was a hypocrite and a giver of false information from God by his actions.
He was therefore a false prophet.
From what the Bible tells us about Paul and his willingness to endure physical punishment for the truth and his public condemnation of Peter for his acting not in keeping with God's revelation, to compromise the truth would not be in character.

The Nazarite vows included sin sacrifices (Num.6:13-14). Paul publicly gave sin offerings!
Paul is not a hypocrite or a false prophet. He gave sacrifices because the MC Law was still in effect. It will still be in effect when the New Covenant is instituted when Yeshua returns. See Jer.31. God places "My Torah" by which He means the MC Law, on the hearts and minds of those who accept the NC, the Houses of Israel and Judah, whose fathers came out of Egypt. In Jer. 33, He says that there will always be a Levitical priesthood to offer burnt offerings.
What you don't understand is what Yeshua's sacrifice means. It is not a replacement of the MC sacrifices. It is a higher sacrifice than any of the MC sacrifices. There was no sacrifice in the MC that was sufficient to allow people to return to Paradise and the tree of everlasting life. That was only done through the Promised Seed of Gen.3, Yeshua. That offering took away all sin and even the stain of sin so we could walk past the flaming sword back into Paradise. Our faith in Yeshua as the only acceptable sacrifice for that purpose is the Way.
We, who continue to live in this world of sin, continue to sin. Although we have the assurance that when we die and walk to that flaming sword, our faith makes us pure as snow, until we do, we carry that stain of sin.
We still need forgiveness for our daily sin, just as we pray in the Lord's Prayer.
If we were in the time of Paul, we would give the animal sacrifices. That was the way God ordained to atone for daily sin. We would obey Him as Paul and all the apostles and the 10's of thousands of new Jewish believers did in Acts 21:20.
As a punishment, God allowed the Temple to be destroyed and the sacrifices had to stop as they did in the time of Daniel. There was no longer atonement, forgiveness of sins for those who did not have Yeshua as their Lord. Yeshua promised believers that they could ask Him for that forgiveness as our High Priest in Heaven.
Those who do not call Him Lord have no assurance of forgiveness. That is not to say that God will not be merciful to whom He will be merciful, but they have no assurance of that mercy as we do, and as long as we forgive others.
Hebrews 8:4 says that the Levitical priesthood was still in authority at that time. It was only when the Temple would be destroyed that Yeshua would not only be our High Priest for salvation but also our High Priest for our daily sins. He did not take over the Levitical priesthood duties as long as they could function. They are still the authorized earthly vehical for forgiveness of daily sins but they cannot function without the altar for sacrifice in Jerusalem.
To say the priesthood has been abolished you would have to say that Jeremiah was a false prophet re Jer.33. But the Word of God stands. Neither Jeremiah nor Paul have been shown to be false prophets.
Ruth

Are you suggesting that the MC and a nazerite vow are the same?

[Canuckster1127]

You're right. I think it was a nazarite vow.

What is inspired in this passage is the recording of events and actions. Paul was an instrument of inspiration in preserving Scripture in his epistles. That does not mean that all his actions outside of that were perfect or even always consistent with what he said while under inspiraration. Witness the feud between Paul and Barnabus with regard to John Mark. Paul changed his mind over time.

I'm not necessarily saying Paul was wrong in participating in a nazarite vow, but the fact he did it does not mean he was right or that he was perfect in his decisions or actions.

In this instance however, he was not compromising with regard to
atonement being found only in the finished work of Christ.

If Paul participated in any sacrifice, knowing that God had stopped sacrifice (and the rest of MC Law) with Yeshua's sacrifice, he was a hypocrite and a giver of false information from God by his actions.
He was therefore a false prophet.
From what the Bible tells us about Paul and his willingness to endure physical punishment for the truth and his public condemnation of Peter for his acting not in keeping with God's revelation, to compromise the truth would not be in character.

The Nazarite vows included sin sacrifices (Num.6:13-14). Paul publicly gave sin offerings!
Paul is not a hypocrite or a false prophet. He gave sacrifices because the MC Law was still in effect. It will still be in effect when the New Covenant is instituted when Yeshua returns. See Jer.31. God places "My Torah" by which He means the MC Law, on the hearts and minds of those who accept the NC, the Houses of Israel and Judah, whose fathers came out of Egypt. In Jer. 33, He says that there will always be a Levitical priesthood to offer burnt offerings.
What you don't understand is what Yeshua's sacrifice means. It is not a replacement of the MC sacrifices. It is a higher sacrifice than any of the MC sacrifices. There was no sacrifice in the MC that was sufficient to allow people to return to Paradise and the tree of everlasting life. That was only done through the Promised Seed of Gen.3, Yeshua. That offering took away all sin and even the stain of sin so we could walk past the flaming sword back into Paradise. Our faith in Yeshua as the only acceptable sacrifice for that purpose is the Way.
We, who continue to live in this world of sin, continue to sin. Although we have the assurance that when we die and walk to that flaming sword, our faith makes us pure as snow, until we do, we carry that stain of sin.
We still need forgiveness for our daily sin, just as we pray in the Lord's Prayer.
If we were in the time of Paul, we would give the animal sacrifices. That was the way God ordained to atone for daily sin. We would obey Him as Paul and all the apostles and the 10's of thousands of new Jewish believers did in Acts 21:20.
As a punishment, God allowed the Temple to be destroyed and the sacrifices had to stop as they did in the time of Daniel. There was no longer atonement, forgiveness of sins for those who did not have Yeshua as their Lord. Yeshua promised believers that they could ask Him for that forgiveness as our High Priest in Heaven.
Those who do not call Him Lord have no assurance of forgiveness. That is not to say that God will not be merciful to whom He will be merciful, but they have no assurance of that mercy as we do, and as long as we forgive others.
Hebrews 8:4 says that the Levitical priesthood was still in authority at that time. It was only when the Temple would be destroyed that Yeshua would not only be our High Priest for salvation but also our High Priest for our daily sins. He did not take over the Levitical priesthood duties as long as they could function. They are still the authorized earthly vehical for forgiveness of daily sins but they cannot function without the altar for sacrifice in Jerusalem.
To say the priesthood has been abolished you would have to say that Jeremiah was a false prophet re Jer.33. But the Word of God stands. Neither Jeremiah nor Paul have been shown to be false prophets.
Ruth

Are you suggesting that the MC and a nazerite vow are the same?

[ruthrush]

Are you suggesting that the MC and a nazerite vow are the same?




The nazarite vow is part of the MC Law.
Ruth





_________________
Get the facts, or the facts will get you. And when you get them, get them right, or they will get you wrong.

Dr. Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732

Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:


It really says:
Therefore, do not let anyone judge you in food or in drink
or in a matter of a festival or of a new moon or of Sabbaths,
which is [singular] a shadow of the coming, but the body is of Messiah.

So what is the singular subject of is?
Ruth