Was Paul in sin?

[Faulty]

Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them.

When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, crying out, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against the people and the law and this place. Moreover, he even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.”
Acts 21:26-28

Here we see Paul going to the Temple in Jerusalem, after his meeting with the Apostles, performing a 7-day cleansing period prescribed under the Mosaic Law, and offering sacrifices (also as prescribed under the Law).

When Paul recounted this same visit to Felix, he said he was there to worship.

Was he in sin for doing these rituals prescribed by Moses as an act of worship, or not?

 

[LinkH]

Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them.

When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, crying out, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against the people and the law and this place. Moreover, he even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.”
Acts 21:26-28

Here we see Paul going to the Temple in Jerusalem, after his meeting with the Apostles, performing a 7-day cleansing period prescribed under the Mosaic Law, and offering sacrifices (also as prescribed under the Law).

When Paul recounted this same visit to Felix, he said he was there to worship.

Was he in sin for doing these rituals prescribed by Moses as an act of worship, or not?

Why would that have been a sin?

The question is, why would that sacrifice have been required? He had cut his hair in Cenchrea, for he had made a vow. He may have made a Nazarite vow and removed the unvowed hair beforehand to prevent it from being so cumbersome.

If Paul had violated the Nazarite vow (unintentionally) then that would have been an unintentional sin. But I wonder if the Jews just got to the point where they required the sacrifice--- just in case someone had sinned. It also drove profits to the temple system if they sold extra sacrifices.

I wonder if he got his hair cut off and whether he had to go the rest of his life not cutting his hair because of it.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them.

When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, crying out, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against the people and the law and this place. Moreover, he even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.”
Acts 21:26-28

Here we see Paul going to the Temple in Jerusalem, after his meeting with the Apostles, performing a 7-day cleansing period prescribed under the Mosaic Law, and offering sacrifices (also as prescribed under the Law).

When Paul recounted this same visit to Felix, he said he was there to worship.

Was he in sin for doing these rituals prescribed by Moses as an act of worship, or not?

God told Moses to do the rituals and HE told Moses to teach the people to do them. God told them to pass it all down to each generation for forever (right now some things cannot be done because there is the requirement of a temple to do so and currently there is no temple but their working on it). Therefore, Paul was doing as GOD instructed and no Paul was not sinning by obeying God.

 

[rick357]

Why would that have been a sin?

The question is, why would that sacrifice have been required? He had cut his hair in Cenchrea, for he had made a vow. He may have made a Nazarite vow and removed the unvowed hair beforehand to prevent it from being so cumbersome.

If Paul had violated the Nazarite vow (unintentionally) then that would have been an unintentional sin. But I wonder if the Jews just got to the point where they required the sacrifice--- just in case someone had sinned. It also drove profits to the temple system if they sold extra sacrifices.

I wonder if he got his hair cut off and whether he had to go the rest of his life not cutting his hair because of it.

Sin is defined as transgression of the law...so doing those things contained in the law is not sin....
What Paul taught was that Christ in us was the only way to obtain true obediance to God but he never taught the law was sin...

*[[1Co 9:20-23]] RNKJV* And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to יהוה, but under the law to the Messiah,) that I might gain them that are without law.

To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

And this I do for the glad tidings's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

 

[ToBeBlessed]

Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them.

When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, crying out, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against the people and the law and this place. Moreover, he even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.”
Acts 21:26-28

Was he in sin for doing these rituals prescribed by Moses as an act of worship, or not?

Seems to me that they were most up in arms about there being Greeks in the temple which they felt defiled their holy place, which to me makes sense as they thought gentiles were unclean.

 

[rick357]

Seems to me that they were most up in arms about there being Greeks in the temple which they felt defiled their holy place, which to me makes sense as they thought gentiles were unclean.

Yes but these men were not greeks...if he had brought geeeks past the court of the gentiles he would have been in violation of the law...yet thwy have no real charge against him

 

[rick357]

Seems to me that they were most up in arms about there being Greeks in the temple which they felt defiled their holy place, which to me makes sense as they thought gentiles were unclean.

Yes but these men were not greeks...if he had brought geeeks past the court of the gentiles he would have been in violation of the law...yet they have no real charge against him...which becomes obviois at his.trial.

 

[ToBeBlessed]

Yes but these men were not greeks...if he had brought geeeks past the court of the gentiles he would have been in violation of the law...yet they have no real charge against him...which becomes obviois at his.trial.

I am just looking at the scripture.

Whether the men were greeks or not, it seemed that they felt they were greeks and that because they thought they were greeks they felt their holy place had been defiled.

I was just making the observation that it seems that was what they were upset about.

 

[rick357]

I am just looking at the scripture.

Whether the men were greeks or not, it seemed that they felt they were greeks and that because they thought they were greeks they felt their holy place had been defiled.

I was just making the observation that it seems that was what they were upset about.

Im not disagreeing with you...but look at their accusations the greek thing was a and further...showing it was secondary to they felt he was against them.

 

[LinkH]

There are two possible sin issues I see here.

1. Was Paul's making a vow in Cenchrea (possibly what he was hoping to fulfill in the temple along with others who had a vow on them whose expenses he was to pay), constitute a violation of the teaching of Christ to, 'Swear not at all.' if not, why not? Was Paul aware of this teaching, as James the Lord's brother was if he were the James who wrote James?

2. If I recall correctly, the description in Acts makes it sound like he was making an offering for violating the Nazarite vow. Did the Jews invent rules to have everyone make the offering just in case they sinned unknowingly by accidentally eating a raisin stuck to the bottom of the bread without realizing it or stepping on a dead gnat barefoot? Or had Paul sinned by violating the Nazarite vow?

 

[RDKirk]

What sin is being supposed?

There are two possible sin issues I see here.

1. Was Paul's making a vow in Cenchrea (possibly what he was hoping to fulfill in the temple along with others who had a vow on them whose expenses he was to pay), constitute a violation of the teaching of Christ to, 'Swear not at all.' if not, why not? Was Paul aware of this teaching, as James the Lord's brother was if he were the James who wrote James?

A sworn oath is distinctly different from a simple vow or pledge. A sworn oath invokes a guaranteur of performance.

There is no indication that a vow (such as a marriage vow) or pledge made with a Christian's simple "yea" is any less an obligation than a sworn oath would be. If a Christian has said, "yea," to a promise, the obligation is just as strong.

2. If I recall correctly, the description in Acts makes it sound like he was making an offering for violating the Nazarite vow. Did the Jews invent rules to have everyone make the offering just in case they sinned unknowingly by accidentally eating a raisin stuck to the bottom of the bread without realizing it or stepping on a dead gnat barefoot? Or had Paul sinned by violating the Nazarite vow?

It says:

Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs.

Paul is told that he's being accused of turning Jews away from the Mosaic Law.

What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow.

Those men are already in Jerusalem--they are not part of Paul's party. They may or may not have made a Nazarite vow--there are all kinds of vows made by Jews of the day, and by the 1st century their were other shaved-head rituals in the Talmud that people still tended to follow even after becoming Christians.

IOW, scripture doesn't specify, especially given that Acts was written for Gentiles who would not need to know or care.

Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.

This is the same thing as Paul circumcising Timothy even while carrying a letter saying that circumcision is unnecessary.

As rick357 has already quoted:

*[[1Co 9:20-23]] RNKJV* And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to יהוה, but under the law to the Messiah,) that I might gain them that are without law.

To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

And this I do for the glad tidings's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

 

[Frogster]

Here is Acts 21, that makes sense..



Acts 21. Paul goes to Jerusalem with his heart wide open, even bringing money he collected from the Gentiles, to show good will and unity. Paul arrives in Jerusalem, only to hear from James that the thousands there, many law following believers, thought Paul taught apostasy in verse 21, the Greek for “forsake” Moses, same word used in Thessalonians about the “Antichrist”, serious accusation. Did Paul preach it was ok to commit adultery or steal? No. Did Paul preach apostasy? No. In Romans 3:8 Paul said they lied about his teaching making like Paul said “do evil, so good will come”. He said their condemnation will be deserved. This confirms that James knew what many thought, incorrectly of course, concerning what Paul taught. And Paul knew it too (Rom 3:8), hence answered sin questions are seen in Romans 6. Do we continue in sin Paul asked, then said no! James and Paul both knew what the masses thought.




James, understandably fearing the thousands said, "do what we tell you", to Paul. Did Paul have to? No, but the language sounds strong, James saying do what we tell you, not an order, but an emphatic emphasis, a tone, stress, a very concerned James, can not be denied in those words. So Paul, who said in 1 Corinthians 9, that he did certain things to further the gospel, become as a Jew or Gentile etc, along with 2 Corinthians 4, while saying he commended himself to others, he then commended himself to James in Acts 21. Keep in mind, after James wanted Paul to take the ritual, James reminded Paul how he helped Paul earlier at the council meeting in Acts 15. So now it was Paul’s turn to reciprocate with James. Fine, both helped each other.

So yes, Paul did the ritual, no big deal really, so what!? In a transitional stressful time, in an unfolding history of the apostleship of Paul and the church, along with the integration of Jew and Gentile populations, and all of the other things going on then, Paul did not want to freak out James, he took the vow. So what? It was the way for thousands of years anyway, it is not like he worshipped an idol or pagan God or something. Besides, that whole temple was going down soon anyway. People get so carried away with Acts 21, for no reason, other than to think they “got Paul”!



I say, good for Paul! He can't win anyway, if he didn't take the vow, people today, would find fault with that too. They would say….

"Evil Paul, would not show love to James"

"Proud Paul!"

"Big shot apostle!"

 

[Tobias]

Here is Acts 21, that makes sense..



Acts 21. Paul goes to Jerusalem with his heart wide open, even bringing money he collected from the Gentiles, to show good will and unity. Paul arrives in Jerusalem, only to hear from James that the thousands there, many law following believers, thought Paul taught apostasy in verse 21, the Greek for “forsake” Moses, same word used in Thessalonians about the “Antichrist”, serious accusation. Did Paul preach it was ok to commit adultery or steal? No. Did Paul preach apostasy? No. In Romans 3:8 Paul said they lied about his teaching making like Paul said “do evil, so good will come”. He said their condemnation will be deserved. This confirms that James knew what many thought, incorrectly of course, concerning what Paul taught. And Paul knew it too (Rom 3:8), hence answered sin questions are seen in Romans 6. Do we continue in sin Paul asked, then said no! James and Paul both knew what the masses thought.




James, understandably fearing the thousands said, "do what we tell you", to Paul. Did Paul have to? No, but the language sounds strong, James saying do what we tell you, not an order, but an emphatic emphasis, a tone, stress, a very concerned James, can not be denied in those words. So Paul, who said in 1 Corinthians 9, that he did certain things to further the gospel, become as a Jew or Gentile etc, along with 2 Corinthians 4, while saying he commended himself to others, he then commended himself to James in Acts 21. Keep in mind, after James wanted Paul to take the ritual, James reminded Paul how he helped Paul earlier at the council meeting in Acts 15. So now it was Paul’s turn to reciprocate with James. Fine, both helped each other.

So yes, Paul did the ritual, no big deal really, so what!? In a transitional stressful time, in an unfolding history of the apostleship of Paul and the church, along with the integration of Jew and Gentile populations, and all of the other things going on then, Paul did not want to freak out James, he took the vow. So what? It was the way for thousands of years anyway, it is not like he worshipped an idol or pagan God or something. Besides, that whole temple was going down soon anyway. People get so carried away with Acts 21, for no reason, other than to think they “got Paul”!



I say, good for Paul! He can't win anyway, if he didn't take the vow, people today, would find fault with that too. They would say….

"Evil Paul, would not show love to James"

"Proud Paul!"

"Big shot apostle!"

Not to mention, Paul already knew things were going to go bad in Jerusalem. And that he would be arrested, etc.

When Jesus knew that it was his time to be arrested and tried before the monkey court, he said nothing in his defense. It was another loose/loose situation. Might as well get it over with as quickly as possible, right?!


(I like your answer btw, Frog!)

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Perhaps this explains your question Faulty...

1 Corinthians 9:19-22

19Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.

If Paul made that sacrifice to receive forgiveness of sin, then that would have been sin. If he made the sacrifice to show the Jews (who thought he had abandoned his Jewish heritage and law) that he still found merit in the Mosaic Law, but remained firmly under the blood of Christ then it is nothing of consequence. No more significant than a brother or sister who gives money to the church on Sunday. Do they do it to receive forgiveness? Or do they do it to support the mission? One is okay, the other is not.

 

[Faulty]

Here is Acts 21, that makes sense..



Acts 21. Paul goes to Jerusalem with his heart wide open, even bringing money he collected from the Gentiles, to show good will and unity. Paul arrives in Jerusalem, only to hear from James that the thousands there, many law following believers, thought Paul taught apostasy in verse 21, the Greek for “forsake” Moses, same word used in Thessalonians about the “Antichrist”, serious accusation. Did Paul preach it was ok to commit adultery or steal? No. Did Paul preach apostasy? No. In Romans 3:8 Paul said they lied about his teaching making like Paul said “do evil, so good will come”. He said their condemnation will be deserved. This confirms that James knew what many thought, incorrectly of course, concerning what Paul taught. And Paul knew it too (Rom 3:8), hence answered sin questions are seen in Romans 6. Do we continue in sin Paul asked, then said no! James and Paul both knew what the masses thought.




James, understandably fearing the thousands said, "do what we tell you", to Paul. Did Paul have to? No, but the language sounds strong, James saying do what we tell you, not an order, but an emphatic emphasis, a tone, stress, a very concerned James, can not be denied in those words. So Paul, who said in 1 Corinthians 9, that he did certain things to further the gospel, become as a Jew or Gentile etc, along with 2 Corinthians 4, while saying he commended himself to others, he then commended himself to James in Acts 21. Keep in mind, after James wanted Paul to take the ritual, James reminded Paul how he helped Paul earlier at the council meeting in Acts 15. So now it was Paul’s turn to reciprocate with James. Fine, both helped each other.

So yes, Paul did the ritual, no big deal really, so what!? In a transitional stressful time, in an unfolding history of the apostleship of Paul and the church, along with the integration of Jew and Gentile populations, and all of the other things going on then, Paul did not want to freak out James, he took the vow. So what? It was the way for thousands of years anyway, it is not like he worshipped an idol or pagan God or something. Besides, that whole temple was going down soon anyway. People get so carried away with Acts 21, for no reason, other than to think they “got Paul”!



I say, good for Paul! He can't win anyway, if he didn't take the vow, people today, would find fault with that too. They would say….

"Evil Paul, would not show love to James"

"Proud Paul!"

"Big shot apostle!"

Perhaps this explains your question Faulty...

1 Corinthians 9:19-22

19Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.

If Paul made that sacrifice to receive forgiveness of sin, then that would have been sin. If he made the sacrifice to show the Jews (who thought he had abandoned his Jewish heritage and law) that he still found merit in the Mosaic Law, but remained firmly under the blood of Christ then it is nothing of consequence. No more significant than a brother or sister who gives money to the church on Sunday. Do they do it to receive forgiveness? Or do they do it to support the mission? One is okay, the other is not.

Hmmm, interesting responses from the both of you.

So if it's acceptable for him to do rituals prescribed by the Law, without having the result in placing him under the law, then wouldn't that also apply to any believer also wishing to observe a feast or other prescription of
the Law, knowing they are not actually seeking justification before God by their act, thus not placing themselves again under the Law?

Would it not also be acceptable in the age to come, in the future Temple, to again have some other acts prescribed in the Law performed, such as animal sacrifice as Paul intended to do, or observance of a feast day, without fear that their actions would somehow place them again under the Law (Zec 14). Obviously, Paul wasn't concerned that his actions derived from the Law would actually place himself back into the bondage of the Law.


If I were to follow your logic applied to Paul, I would have to conclude these things are indeed acceptable.

 

[RDKirk]

So if it's acceptable for him to do rituals prescribed by the Law, without having the result in placing him under the law, then wouldn't that also apply to any believer also wishing to observe a feast or other prescription of the Law, knowing they are not actually seeking justification before God by their act, thus not placing themselves again under the Law?

All things are lawful; but not all things are beneficial. All things are lawful; but not all things edify. -- 1 Corinthians 10

Mission focus. If the purpose is to benefit and edify the mission of Christ, then being a "Jew to the Jew" and a "Greek to the Greek" is not wrong. It's not to be popular, but to be able to present the gospel.

But also remember those whose faith is not strong who might take your actions as necessary for salvation. This is a tension, a balance.

 

[rick357]

All things are lawful; but not all things are beneficial. All things are lawful; but not all things edify. -- 1 Corinthians 10

Mission focus. If the purpose is to benefit and edify the mission of Christ, then being a "Jew to the Jew" and a "Greek to the Greek" is not wrong. It's not to be popular, but to be able to present the gospel.

But also remember those whose faith is not strong who might take your actions as necessary for salvation. This is a tension, a balance.

Rd
With all respect you have the verse backwards...the weak is the one who is honoring one day above anouther...the one who honors all days unto the lord is to not stop one who honors the day unto the lord....for if he feels he should and you convince him he shouldnt you cause him to draw back from God in his convictions.

 

[Frogster]

Not to mention, Paul already knew things were going to go bad in Jerusalem. And that he would be arrested, etc.

When Jesus knew that it was his time to be arrested and tried before the monkey court, he said nothing in his defense. It was another loose/loose situation. Might as well get it over with as quickly as possible, right?!


(I like your answer btw, Frog!)

Agreed, thanks, greetings bro, and good to see yaa rounddddd...

 

[Frogster]

Hmmm, interesting responses from the both of you.

So if it's acceptable for him to do rituals prescribed by the Law, without having the result in placing him under the law, then wouldn't that also apply to any believer also wishing to observe a feast or other prescription of
the Law, knowing they are not actually seeking justification before God by their act, thus not placing themselves again under the Law?

Would it not also be acceptable in the age to come, in the future Temple, to again have some other acts prescribed in the Law performed, such as animal sacrifice as Paul intended to do, or observance of a feast day, without fear that their actions would somehow place them again under the Law (Zec 14). Obviously, Paul wasn't concerned that his actions derived from the Law would actually place himself back into the bondage of the Law.

If I were to follow your logic applied to Paul, I would have to conclude these things are indeed acceptable.

But Paul knew the temple was going down anyway, Judaism was winding down, and again, he did it for James, who helped him earlier, as james reminded Paul of that in 21.


But the people of the future temple, think it will take away sin, Paul did not, he was just going through the motions, no big deal, and why are you looking at this single event to promote feast keeping?

Did Paul go to jerusalem for 14 years? ( Gal 2:1) No, that means no feasts, no temple rituals, and that is that.

 

[RDKirk]

Rd
With all respect you have the verse backwards...the weak is the one who is honoring one day above anouther...the one who honors all days unto the lord is to not stop one who honors the day unto the lord....for if he feels he should and you convince him he shouldnt you cause him to draw back from God in his convictions.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, but I know you did not see what I meant.

I'm saying the same thing as Frogster with regard to what Paul did and what Paul meant by it.

My mention of the brother of weak faith is a caution that the weak brother--seeing (in this case) Paul's adherence to the Jewish customs might be confused as to whether those customs aren't necessary after all.