Paul's Vow in Acts 18

[Once4all]

I had a thought this morning regarding Acts 18:18 and Paul’s vow, for which he cut his hair. Most commentators consider Paul's reason for the vow to be unknown, but I believe his reason is right there in front of us. It may not be right, and I haven’t found anyone else putting forth this idea, but it seemed to make sense to me. You can read it at this link:

web.cloudbow.com/blog/?p=61

[didymus]

I have to agree with “'where nothing is recorded, conjecture is useless' (Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible)." There doesn't seem to be any vow indicated in this verse. Certainly nothing said about a vow. Paul's comments did not include, "I make this vow."

[mellontes]

Jun 16, 2010 21:34:00 GMT -5 Once4all said:

I had a thought this morning regarding Acts 18:18 and Paul’s vow, for which he cut his hair. Most commentators consider Paul's reason for the vow to be unknown, but I believe his reason is right there in front of us. It may not be right, and I haven’t found anyone else putting forth this idea, but it seemed to make sense to me. You can read it at this link:

web.cloudbow.com/blog/?p=61

It would seem that whatever he did (vow, promise) was limited in scope to Corinth...

[Morris]

It's certainly possible, but still on the speculative side simply because the text doesn't come right out and tell us.

I'm under the impression that Paul always started with the Jews of any given city first, and then spoke to the Gentiles after that (regardless of the reaction of the Jews).

[Once4all]

Jun 17, 2010 8:54:02 GMT -5 @mellontes said:

Jun 16, 2010 21:34:00 GMT -5 Once4all said:

I had a thought this morning regarding Acts 18:18 and Paul’s vow, for which he cut his hair. Most commentators consider Paul's reason for the vow to be unknown, but I believe his reason is right there in front of us. It may not be right, and I haven’t found anyone else putting forth this idea, but it seemed to make sense to me. You can read it at this link:

web.cloudbow.com/blog/?p=61

It would seem that whatever he did (vow, promise) was limited in scope to Corinth...

Exactly. And he was there for almost two years. After he left Corinth, he cut his hair.

Jun 17, 2010 8:54:02 GMT -5 @didymus said:

There doesn't seem to be any vow indicated in this verse. Certainly nothing said about a vow. Paul's comments did not include, "I make this vow."

I think what Paul said in Acts 18:6 is about as close as you can get to vowing something without having actually used the word "vow." I don't think "vow" is a special word, that unless you say it, you haven't really vowed.

Paul not cutting his hair in the manner of a Nazarite would be an ever-present reminder to the Jews in Corinth of his declaration to them that he would now go only to the Gentiles.

[mellontes]

Jun 17, 2010 13:36:05 GMT -5 Morris said:

It's certainly possible, but still on the speculative side simply because the text doesn't come right out and tell us.

I'm under the impression that Paul always started with the Jews of any given city first, and then spoke to the Gentiles after that (regardless of the reaction of the Jews).

I agree with your impression. I am glad Bev brought this topic up because I think too much emphasis has been given that verse where he say he will only go to the Gentiles. Obviously, Paul didn't lie because in Ephesus (the next place) he started again with the Jews. To me, it has to be Corinth specific.

And those passages sure put to rest all the recent talk (on other sites) about the reference to Gentile being equated with Jews...

[didymus]

Jun 17, 2010 13:37:14 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Jun 17, 2010 8:54:02 GMT -5 @didymus said:

There doesn't seem to be any vow indicated in this verse. Certainly nothing said about a vow. Paul's comments did not include, "I make this vow."

I think what Paul said in Acts 18:6 is about as close as you can get to vowing something without having actually used the word "vow." I don't think "vow" is a special word, that unless you say it, you haven't really vowed.

Paul not cutting his hair in the manner of a Nazarite would be an ever-present reminder to the Jews in Corinth of his declaration to them that he would now go only to the Gentiles.

It's still conjecture and speculation, with no concrete proof. On conjecture and speculation many false doctrines are based. I was in a church one time where there was a rule that all members must wear black shoes to worship. I asked where thay got that from. They explained that God set up elders in the church to make rules in the church. There you have a false doctrine based on conjecture and speculation. It is far better to read what is there then to read into it what isn't there. By doing that you can prove fulfilled prophecy false and futurism true. In fact you could prove just about anything.

Jesus wept. Does that mean he was mentally unstable? Of course not. But by using conjecture and speculation, one could come to that conclusion.

All the text says is that Paul cut his hair because of a vow he made. It does not say what that vow that was. You can guess all you want, but that doesn't change the facts.

[Once4all]

I'm not here to argue against an accusation of conjecture or speculation. That's fruitless. I'm here to discuss possibilities.

In line with that, I've discovered someone else (named Eddie) who came to a similar conclusion, though his is slightly different. Based on my discussions with this person (iron sharpens iron!) I will likely be modifying my study a bit. To read Eddie's position, and my discussion with him, go to:

smoodock45.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/what-was-paul%E2%80%99s-vow/

My latest post to his blog may not be posted yet (he has to approve it), so he was my most recent comment to him:

Thanks for those verses, Eddie. I see what you mean.
OK, so we both agree on the timing of Paul’s vow, and it seems
we even narrow it down to the same couple of verses (around
Acts 18:5-6). If I’m reading your article correctly, you say his
vow was him “devoting himself completely to the word, solemnly
testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ” (Acts 18:5)
and I’m saying it was in Acts 18:6 when “he shook out his
garments and said to them, ‘Your blood be on your own heads!
I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.’” Since he cut
his hair after leaving Corinth, we can also both agree that the
vow was in force for the time that he remained there, yes?
(I do find it exciting that we are so close on this!) I think your
supporting verses, such as 1 Corinthians 2:2 are very good.

On the other hand, you didn’t mention at all the fact that Paul
cut his hair, signifying the conclusion of his vow. I think in support
of my argument, the proximity of Paul washing his hands clean
(to use a phrase used elsewhere for a similar purpose,
Matthew 27:24) of their blood has shades of similarity to the
description of the Nazarite vow in Numbers 6. WAIT! Reading
through Numbers 6, something more is being clarified for me.
The resisting, blaspheming Jews, which I thought caused him
to make the vow, actually may correspond to a “dead body”
that would defile his vow, making the Jews something to avoid
BECAUSE of the vow!

Numbers 6:6-9 NASB
(6) ‘All the days of his separation to the LORD he shall not go
near to a dead person.
(7) ‘He shall not make himself unclean for his father or for his
mother, for his brother or for his sister, when they die, because
his separation to God is on his head.
(8) ‘All the days of his separation he is holy to the LORD.
(9) ‘But if a man dies very suddenly beside him and he defiles his
dedicated head of hair, then he shall shave his head on the day
when he becomes clean; he shall shave it on the seventh day.

Numbers 6:12b – but the former days will be void because his
separation was defiled.

This would have the effect of interrupting or defiling his vow,
making it necessary to be cleansed and basically BEGINNING
THE VOW ANEW (the former days were void).

Perhaps, Eddie, we are both right! I was seeing Acts 18:6 as
the start of the vow when it was actually an interruption and
renewal of it. What do you think?

[MoGrace2U]

Paul's gospel that he preached to Jew and Gentile alike included the condemnation of those Jews that rejected it. This is why he makes a declaration that he is free of the blood guilt that remains upon them - which defiles them. The thing they need to repent of IS their rejection of Jesus as the Christ and the guilt they would share in for His crucifixion if they failed to repent. Paul's vow is to remove the stain of their condemnation (like that of touching a dead man...) so that he is not the one responsible for their death in the judgment they were about to face. He does a similar thing upon arriving in Jerusalem - see Acts 20 & 21, where a controversy arose that he was teaching the Jews among the Gentiles to forsake Moses by not circumcising their children or keeping the customs. This rite of purification is for the removal of such guilt so that the blessing of the Lord may remain upon his head. Makes for a nice contrast for the blood that is on the head of the others because they remain defiled in their unbelief.

Notice how they treat him during this week of consecration whereby he has publically separated himself unto God? These men care not for the law they praise so highly, nor for the life of a man who has done them no wrong. Which pretty much proves Paul's case against them was spot on.

It makes me wonder about those 1,000's of Jews among the Gentiles which BELIEVED who were also zealous for the law. Can one really believe the message and still want to condemn the messenger? Which takes us right into Christian history...

[didymus]

Robin,

Good post.

Acts 21.23&24 states:

Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. - NKJV

Here we have a vow and the shaving of heads connected to purification. So, was Paul purifying himself from responsibility of the Jews, in essence washing his hands of their blood, saying, "your blood be on your own hands"?

However, while purification seems to fit the passage in question in Acts 18, it is still speculation as the text still doesn't say what the vow Paul took was. But, a vow of purification makes sense.