Was Paul wrong to agree to take the
Nazarite vow?
Possibly but not necessarily. Just after his first departure from Corinth, Paul took a Nazarite vow and had his hair cut off at Cenchrea, the
eastern port of Corinth, but
there is no mention of him making any offering, let alone sin or trespass
offering (see
Aquila and Priscilla): "So Paul still remained a good while. Then he took leave of the
brethren and sailed for Syria, and Priscilla and Aquila were with him. He
had his hair cut off at Cenchrea, for he had taken a vow. And he came to
Ephesus, and left them there; but he himself entered the synagogue and
reasoned with the Jews" (Acts 18:18-19). If the offerings were omitted as implied, Paul may have
wanted the consecration part of the Nazarite vow but not the
atonement/sin/trespass offering part, which he stripped out. If so, he could have been planning
to do the same or praying to the Lord to intervene before the
end of the purification period at which time the offerings were supposed to be made.
Did the Lord intervene?
Since the mob "seized Paul, and dragged him out of the
temple" (Acts 21:30) just before the seven day purification period ended -
"when the seven days were almost ended"
(Acts 21:27), Paul and the four men had yet to make the
"offering" (Acts 21:26).
Who saw Paul and "stirred up" (Acts 21:27) the crowd?
"Jews from Asia" (Acts 21:27)
Why would they recognize Paul and what would they have against him?
Since they previously had recognized "Trophimus"
(Acts 21:29), one of the eight men who had accompanied Paul to Jerusalem, as an
"Ephesian" (Acts 21:29),
they were probably from Ephesus, where Paul ministered for three years and
planted a church that flourished, much to the displeasure of the Ephesian Jews,
who would know and welcome an opportunity to accuse Paul.
Why were the "doors ... shut" (Acts 21:30)?
Since the mob was "seeking to kill him"
(Acts 21:31), the temple guards probably didn't want Paul's impending
death to defile the temple or another gentile allegedly sneaking into
the temple.