Paul's Nazarite Vow

(Thread begun by RandyP )

Paul in kjv@Acts:18:18 and kjv@Acts:21:15-40 performs what appears to be a temporary Nazarite vow for purification yet in Galatians:2 etc.. insists that believers are dead to the Law. Is there contradiction with Paul? Is there a place for the Law after all?

---

Today's introductory text: easton@Acts:18:18

The vow that Paul was under most likely was a form of the Nazarite vow originally established in easton@Numbers:6:1-21

3 well known men in the bible under a life long commitment to the Nazarite vow:

1. Judge - Samson easton@Judges:13:4-5
   
2. Judge/Prophet - Samuel easton@1Samuel:1:11
   
3. Prophet - John the Baptist easton@Luke:1:15
   

(see: dict:all NAZARITE )
(Note: both men and women could take the oath)
(Note: It later became possible to take a temporary oath lasting at least 1 week and there became the possibility of a "sponsor" who could pay the expenses+sacrifices of others thereby not having to due the complete time other than the 1 week purification)

With that vow in mind let's now examine what Paul submitted himself to in easton@Acts:21:15-40

Of interest:

• nkjv@Acts:21:20 ..."You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed,
  
• and they are all zealous for the law;
  
• nkjv@Acts:21:21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.
  
• nkjv@Acts:21:22 What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come.
  
• nkjv@Acts:21:23 Therefore do what we tell you
  

Here is where the long time controversy doctrinally begins: easton@Acts:21:25

From this response it could be (and has been) argued either:

• Justification differs between Jews and Gentiles or
  
• That Paul simply overstated his claims of justification by faith only or
  
• Paul mistakenly thought that the previous Jerusalem counsel had committed to something doctrinally that it really hadn't or was backing off of or
  
• That Paul's beliefs on justification were not yet solidified or
  
• That Gentile believers must have misinterpreted/mis-translated Paul else
  
• Paul is about to make a mistake or worse sin.
  

What then does Paul decide to do? Why would he do this? easton@Acts:21:26

What were the results of Paul's action? easton@Acts:21:27-39

(note: The results of him doing as the apostles had ordered turned out no better for Paul than if he had resisted their order)

So we have to ask:

1. Why did Paul do this?
   
2. What does it mean for us and Paul's doctrine of justification?
   

Let's discuss some possible answers:

1. easton@Acts:22:17-24
   
2. easton@1Corinthians:9:19-23
   
3. easton@Acts:24:10-21
   
4. (any scriptures group can bring up?)
   
5. easton@Galatians:3:21-29
   

Final considerations:

• Would it be permissible for a Messianic Jewish community to still submit themselves to the Law under any circumstance?
  
• Would it be permissible for Gentiles to submit themselves under the Law in similar situations?
  
• What would those permissible situations be?
  
• What situations might that submission not be the permissible approach?
  
• Anything else we haven't considered yet?
  

---

Comment Board:PaulNazariteVow

Further Resources:
http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/15350/did-paul-take-the-nazarite-vow-in-cenchreae-if-so-why-this-vow

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/699-did-paul-sin-in-submitting-to-the-temple-ritual

http://www.bibleresearch.org/lawbook4/b4w5.html

Child Threads:

---