Word Pictures in the New Testament - David Cox

Word Pictures in the NT [Acts: Chapter 21]
perfect active participle genitive plural of \pisteu•\). He asks
that Paul will stand by the right of Jewish Christians to keep on
observing the Mosaic law. He has put the case squarely and
fairly.
21:26 {Took the men} (\paralab•n tous andras\). The very phrase
used in verse 24 to Paul. {The next day} (\t•i echomen•i\). One
of the phrases in 20:15 for the coming day. Locative case of
time. {Purifying himself with them} (\sun autois hagnistheis\,
first aorist passive participle of \hagniz•\). The precise
language again of the recommendation in verse 24. Paul was
conforming to the letter. {Went into the temple} (\eis•iei eis to
hieron\). Imperfect active of \eiseimi\ as in verse 18 which
see. Went on into the temple, descriptive imperfect. Paul joined
the four men in their vow of separation. {Declaring}
(\diaggell•n\). To the priests what day he would report the
fulfilment of the vow. The priests would desire notice of the
sacrifice. This verb only used by Luke in N.T. except Ro 11:17
(quotation from the LXX). It is not necessary to assume that the
vows of each of the five expired on the same day (Rackham).
{Until the offering was offered for every one of them} (\he•s hou
pros•nechth• huper henos hekastou aut•n h• prosphora\). This use
of \he•s hou\ (like \he•s\, alone) with the first aorist passive
indicative \pros•nechth•\ of \prospher•\, to offer, contemplates
the final result (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 974f.) and is
probably the statement of Luke added to Paul's announcement. He
probably went into the temple one day for each of the brethren
and one for himself. The question arises whether Paul acted
wisely or unwisely in agreeing to the suggestion of James. What
he did was in perfect harmony with his principle of accommodation
in 1Co 9:20 when no principle was involved. It is charged that
here on this occasion Paul was unduly influenced by
considerations of expediency and was willing for the Jewish
Christians to believe him more of a Jew than was true in order to
placate the situation in Jerusalem. Furneaux calls it a
compromise and a failure. I do not so see it. To say that is to
obscure the whole complex situation. What Paul did was not for
the purpose of conciliating his opponents, the Judaizers, who had
diligently spread falsehoods about him in Jerusalem as in
Corinth. It was solely to break the power of these "false
apostles" over the thousands in Jerusalem who have been deluded
by Paul's accusers. So far as the evidence goes that thing was
accomplished. In the trouble that comes in Jerusalem and Caesarea
http://www.ccel.org/r/robertson_at/wordpictures/htm/AC21.RWP.html (14 of 22) [28/08/2004 09:07:25 a.m.]