Replies

Do we know why he took that “vow”. The Greek word used their means “a prayer comprising a vow”. I haven’t ever seen the reasoning he gave behind that “shaving”.

It is not stated, but seems to have been similar to a temporary Nazarite vow, (Num. 6:1-27) preparatory for his going to Jerusalem to keep the feast there. (Acts 18:21) Jews made such vows to God as an expression of gratitude such as in deliverance from danger or calamity. (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 2.15.1; Juvenal, Sat., 12, 81) JFB understands this to explain the haste with which he leaves Ephesus (Act_18:21), and the subsequent observance, on the recommendation of the brethren, of a similar vow (Act_21:24).

Where does it say that it was because of Jewish law?

While it was rather obviously based on Jewish law, I did not say Paul was doing this as one who was under the law, but that while Peter is charged with preaching different gospel in accommodation to the Jews, Paul is the one who take a Jewish vow. Which nowhere is taught for Christians to do, if not disallowed. My point was that if Peter did this then it would be invoked for support of him preaching a different gospel.

Or was it simply to be able to relate to Jews rather than a requirement?

Yes, though opinions are divided as to its propriety, and i at least think perpetuating the observance of shadows among Christians would be wrong. In the second case Paul is doing so as a testimony that he keeps the Law, (Acts 21:24) as some supposed he rejected the Law totally, but he did teach required obedience of the ceremonial law was abrogated, as well as reject the Law as the means of salvation. And trying to appease the Jews who included souls who required observance of even the ceremonial law for salvation almost got Paul killed by them.

While the wisdom of Paul taking a Jewish vow seems dubious, Christiancourier.com defends Paul against the accusation of sinning by so doing, stating,

If the apostle could circumcise Timothy as an expediency, with no design of associating the ritual with salvation (as was sometimes done – Acts 15:1), why could he not have done the same with reference to a sacrifice? To utilize circumcision as a matter of salvation was apostasy (Gal. 5:2ff). To practice the rite in order to remove prejudice—in that era when the law was so freshly abolished—was an exercise of wisdom (cf. 1 Cor. 9:19-23). To offer a sacrifice redemptively would have been wrong; but there is no proof that such was Paul’s intention. <

p>It should be noted in passing that ceremonial “purification” did not necessarily involve atonement for personal sin. A Jewish woman had to be “purified” following the birth of a child (cf. Lev. 12:1ff; Lk. 2:22), even though the act of bearing a child is not sinful. Paul’s act of “purification,” therefore, need not suggest that he was seeking personal forgiveness by means of an animal sacrifice. Clearly that was not Paul’s purpose in this temple ritual.

And if a requirement is that also for us today?

No, as it was not a requirement for Jews to be saved then, as the same gospel of repentance and faith is preach to both Jews and Gentiles. (Acts 20:21)

>>then so is Paul, who taught "not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." (Romans 2:13)<<

Um, there is something that doesn’t fit there. I think reading that in the context of the rest of the chapter would cause one to understand that Peter was talking about if you are under the law you have to keep all the law and that to the letter.

I disagree. I see Paul teaching that as obeying the light one results in finding the Light, Christ, thus "To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life," (Romans 2:7) versus "them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness," (v. 8).

And as faith is evidenced by works, thus there will be "glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile," "in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel," Rm. 2:10,16)

Thus the Gentiles who out of faith obey the essence of the Law according to the light they have will be justified, judged as having true faith, versus those who know the Law but disobey it.

However, even if Paul is only saying God-fearing Gentiles will find more mercy on the day of judgment than self righteous Jews, yet Paul in other places teaches that saving faith is that which works by love, (Gal. 5:6) "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:4)

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; (Titus 2:11-12)

And Paul teaches that saving faith mortifies the sinful deeds of the body, and that the kind of faith which results in suffering with Christ makes one "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ, that we may be also glorified together, (Romans 8:17) rather than denying Him, for "if we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: (2 Timothy 2:12)

This is not salvation by works, as works do not actually earn one eternal life, versus eternal damnation - which is what sin earns - but true faith does have good fruit, which testifies to its genuine nature, and which God covenantally rewards in grace. (Heb. 10:35; Rv. 2+3)

For it is Abrhamic type faith that is counted for righteousness, and which faith is manifest by obedience, versus those who evidence the contrary.

Thus as said, Paul knew the Thessalonians were elect based on their fire tried endurance and works of faith, (1Ths. 1) which was not simply good deeds. In contrast a believer who did not even provide for his own had denied the faith, (1Tim. 5:8) and he required the Corinthians to repent from sins in order to be saved, (2Cor. 6:14-18 ) and he disallows the impenitent in the church from claiming to be saved. (Ephesians 5:5)

Gal. 2:21, I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly. It can’t be both ways. Something had to have changed along the way.

Exactly, and neither Peter or Paul is teaching righteousness comes through the Law, neither are they teaching saving faith is inert, but that it confesses Christ in word and in deed, in virtue and works of faith. For the nature of faith is that it effects what one is and does, and we do not simply believe on the Lord Jesus to save us as a promise giver abstract from what He is, and thus what He did, but we believe on the Lord Jesus who hates sin and loves righteousness, and thus died for ours sins to save us from them.