Why did the Jews accuse Paul of defiling the temple in Acts 21:28? Historical Context of Temple Purity The Law of Moses required strict separation between sacred and profane space (Exodus 19:12; Numbers 3:38). By the Second Temple period, these statutes were elaborated into a detailed system of concentric courts. A Gentile could ascend the Temple Mount only as far as the Court of the Gentiles. Passing the low limestone barrier—the soreg—into the inner courts without full Jewish status and ritual purity was a capital offense enforced by the Sanhedrin and sanctioned by Rome. Legal Foundation for the Charge The prohibition rested on Numbers 1:51 and Ezekiel 44:6-9, texts interpreted by later scribes to forbid uncircumcised foreigners from God’s sanctuary. The Temple inscriptions discovered in 1871 and 1936 read: “Let no foreigner enter within the balustrade and embankment that surround the sanctuary. Whoever is caught will have himself to blame for his death that ensues.” (translation of the Greek plaque; Istanbul Archaeological Museum #2192) These stones corroborate Luke’s narrative and show that any rumor of a Gentile’s trespass would have provoked instant outrage. Paul’s Arrival and Nazarite-Like Purification Acts 21:17-26 records that Paul willingly joined four Jewish believers completing a vow. He shaved his head, paid their expenses, and purified himself. Luke’s detail that “the days of purification were nearly over” (v. 27) confirms Paul was inside the courts legally. His conduct aligned with Numbers 6 and with James’s advice, disproving any intention to profane the sanctuary. The Presence of Trophimus the Ephesian Acts 21:29 explains the actual basis of the accusation: “For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, and they assumed that Paul had brought him into the temple.” Trophimus, named in Acts 20:4 and 2 Timothy 4:20, was an uncircumcised Gentile convert from Ephesus. Diaspora Jews visiting for Pentecost recognized him in the streets. Seeing Paul alone inside the inner court later, they drew an inference—without evidence—that Trophimus had entered as well. Identity of the Accusers Luke pinpoints “Jews from Asia” (Acts 21:27), most likely the same opponents who had stirred riots in Ephesus (Acts 19). Their familiarity with Trophimus and hostility toward Paul’s Gentile mission fueled their readiness to believe the worst. Archaeological Verification of the Soreg Both soreg fragments bear wording identical to Josephus’s description (Jewish War 5.193-194; Antiquities 15.417). The plaques’ findspots—one on the north-west of the Temple Mount debris, the other near Lion’s Gate—demonstrate that Luke’s spatial terminology (“into the temple,” “all Jerusalem was stirred”) matches the topography. Sir William M. Ramsay’s fieldwork and recent laser mapping of Herodian foundational courses show the balustrade lay only a few meters inside the raised platform, allowing a mob in the Court of the Gentiles to seize Paul quickly (Acts 21:30). Luke as a Credible Historian Luke displays familiarity with legal procedure (arrests under Claudius Lysias, Acts 21:31-33), political titles (Chiliarchos), and Greek forensic rhetoric. The Gallio Inscription (Delphi, AD 51-52) and the Erastus pavement (Corinth) corroborate Luke’s accuracy elsewhere; thus his precision regarding Temple regulations gains further credibility. Theological Significance: Gentile Inclusion and Jewish Zeal Paul taught that in Christ “He Himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has torn down the dividing wall of hostility” (Ephesians 2:14). Ironically, the literal stone barrier symbolizing that “wall” became the flashpoint of hostility. The accusation therefore reflects a deeper spiritual resistance to the inclusion of Gentiles apart from proselyte conversion—a theme foretold in Isaiah 49:6 and embodied in Jesus’s cleansing of the Temple (Mark 11:17). Parallel to Accusations Against Jesus As false witnesses claimed Jesus threatened the Temple (Mark 14:57-59), so misinformed witnesses claimed Paul violated it. Luke draws a literary and theological link: both Messenger and apostle are innocent, yet condemned by zeal that lacks knowledge (Romans 10:2). Roman Intervention and Legal Outcome The Chiliarch spared Paul from lynching, fulfilling the Lord’s promise of witness before rulers (Acts 9:15). Subsequent hearings before Felix and Festus (Acts 24-26) found no evidence of sacrilege. Roman jurisprudence, archaeological inscriptions, and the Acts narrative converge to show the charge was unsubstantiated. Application for Believers 1. Zeal divorced from truth leads to false judgment. 2. God’s plan to reconcile Jew and Gentile through the cross cannot be thwarted by human hostility. 3. The integrity of Scripture is reinforced by internal coherence, external archaeology, and manuscript fidelity. Answer in Summary The Jews accused Paul of defiling the Temple because hostile pilgrims from Asia, having seen the Gentile believer Trophimus with Paul earlier in the city, wrongly assumed Paul had escorted him past the soreg into the restricted inner courts. Their accusation exploited existing purity laws, Temple inscriptions threatening death to trespassing Gentiles, and rumors about Paul’s teaching. Archaeological discoveries, manuscript evidence, and the broader narrative of Acts all demonstrate the charge was baseless yet providentially used to advance the Gospel. |
    |