Acts 21:24Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

This was no obstacle to the preaching, because they themselves had given the command concerning the Gentiles.

For this reason Paul himself, while arranging such a matter, later rebukes Peter. He does this not without reason, since what Paul did here, Peter did there while hiding and holding to his own opinion (Gal 2:11-14).

They did not say that Jews must not be taught in the same way as Gentiles, or that one may even refrain from preaching to them. Rather, they said that something more must be done.

It had to be done so that they might be assured that you keep the law. This is a matter of condescension; do not fear.

And see: they did not persuade him before first explaining that prudence and benefit required this. In Jerusalem, they say, it is permitted to do this.

Therefore do it here, so that you may be able to do the other thing outside Jerusalem.

This accusation was unjust if it meant that Paul rejected the outward observance of Judaism in itself. He rejected it only as a means of man’s justification and sanctification.

His chief principle was this: no one should abandon any earthly, national, or civil relations in which he had lived before Christianity, unless there were weighty reasons to do so.

Because of this principle, Paul also permitted Jews to remain with their Jewish ordinances, which included observance of the law of Moses (1 Cor 7:17, 18).

Therefore, to refute this accusation by the deed itself, James proposed that Paul publicly bear witness, by his respect for the rites of Judaism, that he was not an enemy of the Jewish law.

Paul accepted this proposal. With four brethren from among the Jews he resolved to take upon himself the Nazarite vow for seven days.

Consequently, he subjected himself to the same renunciations required of Nazarites. He announced to the priests of the temple that he would contribute, for himself and for his companions in the vow, the required sum for offering sacrifice to God at the release from the vow.

The expression, “purify yourself with them,” seems to suggest that Paul had to be purified as they were. That is, he would temporarily take the Nazarite vow and then lay it aside as they did.

Yet the law says nothing about special purifications when the Nazarite vow is removed. It speaks only of a special purification when the Nazarite vow is renewed after defilement, Num 6:9-12. But that is not what is meant here.

Therefore the expression “purify yourself with them” may be understood in the general sense of the purification performed by all Jews before feasts and on special occasions. These included washings, prayers, and special sacrifices; see Jn 11:55.

In other words, he is to perform purification together with them, at the same time, on the same day. Bearing the expense of the Nazarites’ sacrifice does not necessarily imply that the one bearing the expense has taken the Nazarite vow.

Thus the text gives grounds for thinking that Paul did take the Nazarite vow for a time. It also gives grounds for supposing that he did not. His participation may have consisted only in being purified at the same time with the four men.

It also consisted in bearing the expense of their sacrifice. According to the Jews, assuming such expenses for poor Nazarites especially showed zealous reverence for the law on the part of those who undertook them (Josephus, Antt. 19.6.1; Bell. jud. 2.15.1).

“So that they may shave their heads.” Together with the sacrifice, this was the sign that the time of the vow had ended and that the vow itself was being laid aside. This shaving had to take place at the temple.

The hair had to be thrown into the fire of the sacrifice (Num 6:13-29). From this lawful act all would know that what they had heard about him was untrue.

They had heard that he was an apostate from the law and taught other Jews apostasy. Yet this was not so. They would know that he himself continued to observe the law voluntarily and taught others the same.

This is a wise counsel. On the one hand, it in no way violates Christian freedom in the voluntary fulfillment of the law of Moses in a Christian spirit. On the other, it condescends to the weakness of those attached to the law and calms their passions.

Then it exposes the slander raised against the Apostle Paul. Finally, it fully accords with Paul’s own manner of acting, expressed in his remarkable and significant saying: “To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews” (1 Cor 9:20).

His old enemies in Jerusalem did not abandon their hostility toward him. Therefore no proof offered by Paul there could be favorable to him. It was not without reason that the Christians of Caesarea brought him to the secluded dwelling of Mnason, a Cypriot hardly known to anyone.

It was not difficult for the apostle to accept the counsel given him. The purification that he had to perform with others was, in general, a good thing.

In particular, it was good that those fulfilling the vow of temporary Nazariteship had to cut their hair. He himself had done this earlier; see Acts 18:18.

“The hair was a symbol of mortification, because, being dead, it feels no pain. It was customary for those who had taken a vow, after purification, to shave the head. In this form, for seven days, they made offerings for themselves.”

“According to the Jews, assuming such expenses for poor Nazarites especially showed zealous reverence for the law on the part of those who undertook them. The shaving had to take place at the temple, and the hair had to be thrown into the fire of the sacrifice.”

“As is evident from this, in the Jerusalem Christian community Christians observed even those laws of Moses that were left to each person’s good will. These were laws concerning voluntary vows.

This was not considered inconsistent with the Christian spirit and with life by faith in Jesus Christ.”