Note 8 at Acts 21:26: Here begins the story of some of the most difficult scriptures in Acts to understand. Paul had become God's champion of grace, opening the door of salvation to the Gentiles. Six or seven years prior to this (Acts 15), Paul had successfully argued before the elders of the church that keeping the law was not a requirement for salvation. James and the other elders agreed with him and put their conclusions in writing (Acts 15:20, 29).

Now, in an apparent reversal of his hard fought victories, Paul seeks to prove to the Jews that he is not against the law of Moses by performing a vow (probably Nazarite-Num. 6) and paying for four other men to do the same. He had refused to make concessions like this before (Gal. 2:3-5). This looks like a compromise on Paul's part and has caused some to speculate that all the trouble that Paul encountered in Jerusalem and his subsequent years of imprisonment were all his fault or even worse, God's punishment on him for surrendering to the Jews demands.

When you combine this with the prophecies that Paul received on his way to Jerusalem (see note 4 at Acts 21:4, p. ???; note 2 at Acts 21:11, p. ???), then the evidence seems overwhelming that this was a major mistake if not an outright act of disobedience on Paul's part.

Even if this was the case, we can at least say that this illustrates Paul's extreme love for the Jews that he spoke of in Rom. 9:1-3. If he did err, it was his love for others that got him in trouble. Most of us would be blessed to have faults such as that.

It can be said for sure that Paul was not performing this act of the law for the purpose of seeking to be justified with God. Paul made it abundantly clear in his teachings that anyone who sought to be justified by the works of the law, had fallen from grace (Gal. 5:4). That was certainly not the case with him.

Paul had already written that there was nothing wrong with still observing rituals of the law as long as it was understood that they were only symbolic (Rom. 14:1-7; Col. 2:16-17). It was only when people trusted in their performance of the rites of the law instead of Jesus that Paul had a problem. It was no doubt his intention to show these Jews through these actions that he also lived holy and was not a law breaker.

Although it takes some effort, it is possible to explain all of these events in a way that would not fault Paul but still have him in the perfect will of God. This seems like a more consistent interpretation of Paul's life and it would explain the noticeable lack of his confession of this as a sin or mistake in his later writings.

The Lord had not clearly communicated yet that the law had been abolished (2 Cor. 3:13; Eph. 2:15; Heb. 7:18). He tolerated it until the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. (see note 4 at Lk. 19:43, p. 415), when it became impossible to perform many of the laws rituals. Therefore, it can be supposed that Paul was well within his limits to perform ceremonial rites of the law with the understanding that this was just formality to placate the Jews so they would listen to what he had to say.