Question Answered by John Nevins Andrews

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 19, 1873

Question Answered.

By John Nevins Andrews

Did Paul dissemble, or do anything contrary to Christ or the gospel (Acts 21:26,) in being purified according to the law? S. S.

ANSWER. There is no just reason to believe that Paul in this act did anything that displeased God. It was done by the advice of James and of the elders at Jerusalem. Paul's judgment concurred with theirs, and it is likely that the eminent men who were of Paul's company approved the act. The united judgment of such men of God, deliberately given, on an occasion of such importance, is entitled to our highest confidence. It was not at all like the act of Peter at Antioch which Paul so severely reproved. Gal. 2:11-14. If Paul's act at Jerusalem was one of dissimulation, like that of Peter at Antioch, it places him in a far worse light than Peter placed himself in by his error. For if Paul wrote these words to the Galatians after his act at Jerusalem, and that act was one of dissimulation, then in his accusation he should have joined himself with Peter in this kind of sin, if indeed he had not confessed his own sin only, and passed that of Peter in silence. But if he wrote the epistle to the Galatians before this visit to Jerusalem, and did, after condemning Peter's dissimulation, which appears to have been the result of sudden temptation, deliberately enter into the like sin, his fault was a very serious one indeed. But there is no hint that he sinned at all.

What then did Paul do which has given occasion to this question? James proposed a certain act which Paul should do publicly as an evidence to the people of Jerusalem that he had not taught the scattered Jews, whom he had met in Gentile cities, that they should omit circumcision, and cease “to walk after the customs.” If Paul had taught the Jews to do this, then, whether the act which James proposed was right in itself or not, the apostle Paul made himself a deliberate liar, inasmuch as this deed was designed to show that he had never acted in that manner. But no one will affirm that this was the case. Paul had not preached circumcision; but, on the other hand, he had never advised the Jews to abandon it. So far was he from this that he had circumcised Timothy, whose mother was a Jewess. Acts 16:1-3. His act, then, was not one of falsehood, while Peter's virtually was; for Peter acted before those who came from James as though he was too strict to eat with the Gentiles, whereas this was not true. Gal. 2:12.

But Paul participated in a certain act commanded only in the ceremonial law. This is true, but it is not true that he has ever said that such a thing is wrong. Several such acts may be found in his ministry. Acts 18:18, 21; 20:16; 16:1-3. The act was this: There were four men among the brethren who had made the vow of the Nazarite, which was, in substance, that they would set themselves apart for God for a certain time in tasting neither wine nor grapes, and until that time was expired, they were not to shave the hair or beard. Num. 6. It seems that in this case their vow had one week more to run. At the end of this time, they had certain offerings to make which involved quite a heavy expense. See Num. 6. Paul was advised, not to make the like vow, but to publicly associate himself with the men, and to assume a share of the expense in which they would be involved, and when these offerings had been made, then the men were to have their heads shaved, to signify that their vow was fulfilled. This, Paul did on the next day. He gave public notice that in seven days from that day he would appear with those men and participate in the conclusion of their vow, especially in the charges to be incurred by them. I am not able to see any impropriety in this. He knew that the Jews at Jerusalem were about to seize him (Acts 21:11); but he wished as far as possible to conciliate their prejudices, and to leave them without excuse for their murderous acts.

J. N. A.