Acts 21

CHAPTER XXI

THE CONCLUSION OF THE THIRD MISSIONARY JOURNEY: FROM MILETUS TO JERUSALEM

Luke made this voyage with Paul and his seven other companions (20:4). These eight carried the great collection which Paul had had his Gentile congregations gather during the past year or more to aid the Jewish brethren in Palestine; that is why his company was so large. Paul himself had no part in carrying the funds. The vessel from Troas was a coaster and was used only as far as Patara.

Acts 21:1

1Now when it came to pass that we set sail (cf. 13:13) after having been torn from them, having made a straight run, we came to Cos and on the next day to Rhodes and thence to Patara. And having found a boat crossing over to Phoenicia, having embarked, we set sail. Now having sighted Cyprus and having left it on the left, we continued sailing to Syria and came down to Tyre, for there the boat was to discharge its cargo. The Greek goes up on the sea and then comes down to land (v. 3); both terms are nautical.

It is a beautiful fancy when Zahn pictures the Ephesian elders and the whole congregation of Miletus (Luke says nothing about such a congregation) standing on the shore waving farewell to Paul and his party who wave in return. Sorry to spoil the picture. Read 20:13 and Ramsay who traveled these waters. At this season the wind regularly springs up from the north before dawn and blows until late afternoon. This explains 20:13–15, each day’s run was about so far, and each night they anchored; the daily runs and stops from Miletus to Patara were also due to this fact. First, the straight run to the Island Cos, a distance of forty miles.

Here the boat anchored. The next day’s run was fifty miles to Rhodes, where the night was spent. Then came the run to Patara, again about forty miles, now toward the east. The probability is that this coaster continued in this fashion and did not venture out into the open sea.

So we must change the picture at Miletus. It was night when the elders escorted Paul to the boat, and when his party tore themselves away. This may have happened shortly before sailing, for the boat would start with the rising of the wind. The straight run of which Luke makes note by using a nautical term shows how favorable the first day’s wind was. Cos was an island that was famous for its wines and its fabrics and had attracted many Jews; Κῶ is the second Attic accusative of Κῶς, see Goodwin 196 on νεώς, and B.-D. 44, 1. Rhodes = island of roses (Rhoda in 12:13 = Rose); it was renowned for its great Colussus, a statue of Apollo that was 105 feet high but is at this time in ruins.

The sun was said to shine every day at Rhodes. In 1925 the writer was impressed by the ancient fortifications near the city of Rhodes which date from the time of the crusaders and the Knights of St. John. There were glorious oleanders, flaming hybiscus, gorgeous morning glories, the water was indigo blue. Patara was a notable maritime city on the Lycian coast which once possessed an oracle of Apollo that rivaled that at Delphi.

The Codex Bezae adds that the party went on to Myra (27:5); this is conjecture. If transshipment was made at Myra instead of at Patara, Luke would have written Myra and not omitted it.

Acts 21:2

2At Patara the party left the small coaster and took passage on a large merchantman that sailed across the open sea straight for the Phoenician coast. They had a voyage of about 400 miles before them.

Acts 21:3

3All that Luke says in regard to this voyage is that they sighted Cyprus on their left, sailed on to Syria without stopping, meaning to the Phoenician coast, and landed at Tyre, which was famous in the Old Testament, in the New, during the crusades, 1, 000 years later. Its very site is now hopelessly altered in literal, frightful fulfillment of Ezek. 26:1–28:19, note especially 26:4, 5, 14, 21. Read Delitzsch, Commentar ueber den Propheten Ezechiel (1868), p. 259, etc. Paul sailed close to the tip of Cyprus, where he and Barnabas had achieved a most notable victory at Paphos (13:6, etc.). The writer sailed past the same point, stopped at Lanarka, and then crossed to Syria.

The form of the first aorist active ἀναφάναντες is explained in B.-D. 72; the aorist passive ἀναφανέντες which is found in important texts is incorrect. Ἀναφαίνωγῆν is still the Greek expression for “to sight land” (Smith, Bible Dictionary, nautical vocabulary IV, 3009). The imperfect “we went on sailing” means straight on, making no landing in Cyprus. The vessel’s cargo was to be discharged in Tyre. This was a fast boat that sailed through without a stop. In R., W. P., ἦν … ἀποφορτιζόμενον is explained as a “customary” or “progressive” periphrastic imperfect, see R. 884.

R. 1115 is much better. This is not a periphrastic form, the participle is merely predicative and states what kind of a boat this was, “one discharging its cargo there” (in Tyre), just as the participle διαπερῶν in v. 2 describes this boat as one “crossing over” (es hatte diese Eigenschaft, B.-D. 339, 2b).

Acts 21:4

4And having discovered the disciples, we remained there seven days, who kept saying to Paul through the Spirit not to be going on to Jerusalem. And when it was that we finished the days, having left, we were starting to journey on, all with wives and children bringing us on our way until outside the city. And having bent the knees on the beach, after having prayed, we bade each other farewell, and we went into the boat, but they returned to their homes.

They had to make a search for the disciples in Tyre because the congregation was small. How it came about that there were Christians here is explained by 11:19 and 15:3. Seven days was a long time for Paul to remain in this city; the length of time seems to have been determined by the stay of the vessel at Tyre.

Although they were few in number, the charisma of prophecy was found among these disciples; they knew from one or from the other of their number, to whom the Spirit had granted this special revelation, that imprisonment awaited Paul in Jerusalem. The imperfect ἔλεγον states that they kept telling Paul not to go on to Jerusalem, meaning that he was by all means to avoid that city. These disciples understood the Spirit’s word as a warning which they should transmit to Paul. Paul did not consider the Spirit’s word as a warning, for the Spirit never forbade him to go to Jerusalem; these revelations only forewarned and prepared him to be ready for what awaited him.

Acts 21:5

5Luke uses the accusative with the infinitive as the subject of ἐγένετο. By writing ἐξαρτίσαι, “we finished,” Luke conveys the idea that they spent so many days in Tyre, not from choice, but from necessity while waiting for their vessel to proceed. “Having left, we were starting to journey on” (inchoative imperfect), doing the very thing the disciples of Tyre begged us not to do. Although Paul was quite a stranger to them (he had paid this city a fleeting visit in 15:3, and possibly also passed through it in 11:30 and 12:25), and none of the companions of Paul had ever been in Tyre, yet during this one week the bond of attachment became so strong that men, women, and children turned out to a person to bid farewell to Paul and his company: They realized fully what they had experienced during this week. “To send forward” (as in 20:38) means to go along with one who is departing. “Outside of the city” means to the docks where the boat lay.

On kneeling for prayer see 20:36. A most interesting study are the three pictures of leavetaking presented by Luke: at Miletus (20:36, etc.), here at Tyre, and in the following verses at Caesarea. The intensity of feeling that marks the departure from Miletus is absent in the case of Tyre. These disciples also feel that they will never see Paul again, but he had not been with them for three years but only for seven days. The parting is impressive. They kneel on the beach and separate from each other with earnest prayer. The place was public, but they were not ashamed.

Acts 21:6

6There is a tenderness in Luke’s three statements: they bade each other farewell, we went into the boat, and they returned home. He witnessed this scene. The article in the phrase “into the boat” refers to the boat on which they had come from Miletus, for the sailing of which they had waited a week. Εἰςτὰἴδια, literally, “to their own things,” is idiomatic for “to their own homes”; the masculine would mean “own people.”

Acts 21:7

7Now we, having continued the voyage from Tyre, arrived at Ptolemais and, having greeted the brethren, remained one day with them.

Ptolemais is the ancient Acco (Judges 1:31), the later Acre (Crusades). Little is said about the stop made here because it was so brief. We see that here, too, a congregation had been founded. On his trips between Antioch and Jerusalem Paul must have passed through Ptolemais as he had through Tyre.

We here take issue with a large number of commentators and with those dictionaries that accept their exegesis. Because of διανύσαντες they say that the voyage ended here at Ptolemais, and that Paul and his party went overland to Caesarea. Zahn mentions cart and horses, and R., W. P., alters the construction. As to the latter point, we cannot accept Robertson’s translation, “arrived from Tyre to Ptolemais.” If Luke had intended to say that he would have placed both phrases after the verb. To place “from Tyre” before the verb would imply putting an emphasis on this phrase if it were to be construed with this verb.

But such an emphasis is entirely out of place. Nor could any reader guess that “from Tyre” is to be construed with the following verb, because the phrase is placed after the participle διανύσαντες exactly as the phrase “at Ptolemais” is placed after κατηντήσαμεν, and neither has an emphasis. The verb διανύω is found only here in the New Testament, and it means not only “to finish” but also “to continue”; see Abbott-Smith, Lexicon, for this use in Xenophon and in other writers, in Clement, etc.; see also Liddell and Scott. The New Testament dictionaries which omit this second meaning deal only. with the verb as it is found in our passage.

In determining the meaning of a word the context and the author’s own thought are usually taken into consideration, and wisely so. Ptolemais is thirty miles south of Tyre, one day’s walk on the fine road along the shore, the great highway from Syria to Egypt. Why should Paul remain in Tyre for a period of seven days merely in order to be able to sail these thirty miles and no more? Then spend only one day in Ptolemais? Then spend only a few days in Caesarea? Have some of these commentators forgotten that Paul preferred walking from Troas to Assos while he let his eight companions go by boat (20:13)? Here, then, is another case where correction is needed. Fortunately, it is only in regard to externals, for it matters little whether Paul arrived at Caesarea afloat or afoot.

Acts 21:8

8And having left on the morrow, we came to Caesarea by boat. This is substantiated by v. 15; for when the party did finally travel by land, namely from Caesarea to Jerusalem, Luke adds ἐπισκευασάμενοι, “having made our preparations,” i. e., “having packed up.” If the journey overland began at Ptolemais, why is this participle postponed until the mention of the departure from Caesarea?

And having gone to the house of Philip, the evangelist, who was one of the seven, we remained with him.

Philip came to Caesarea in 8:40; but we find no further mention of him until now when he and his daughters are living in Caesarea in a home that is spacious enough to entertain Paul’s entire party of nine men. It is most natural to assume that Philip just insisted on lodging all of them himself because he was overjoyed at having all of them with him. Peter began work among the Gentiles in Caesarea (10:1–11, 18) although Luke says nothing about Philip’s presence in the city at that time. We also hear nothing about Cornelius at this time; he had probably been transferred to some other garrison. Caesarea was the capital of Judea during the rule of the Romans and was the residence of the procurators. It had a magnificently built harbor, and the whole city had been grandly rebuilt by Herod the Great and named in honor of Caesar. Paul had passed through this city several times.

Philip is called “the evangelist” in order to distinguish him from Philip, the apostle, and is further identified as “of the seven,” partitive ἐκ, one of the seven deacons (6:4, etc.), whose office as deacon came to a sudden end during the persecution that scattered the church at Jerusalem after Stephen’s martyrdom. On Philip’s work as an “evangelist” see 8:5. The participial modifier does not mean that Philip was the evangelist of the “seven,” i. e., the only one deserving this name. This office was not specific and fixed but fluctuated according to abilities and gifts. What we know about Philip is most attractive; we here catch our final glimpse of him as he served as Paul’s host.

Acts 21:9

9To him belonged four daughters, virgins, prophesying. All we know about them is what Luke relates here. Being “virgins,” never having married, they lived with their father; being four in number, they could entertain nine guests without trouble. “Virgins,” of course, had nothing to do with “prophesying.” In connection with 11:27 we have described the difference between “prophets” and those who were blessed with the charisma of prophesying. That difference is here clearly indicated: Agabus is a “prophet” who was on occasion used by the Spirit for communicating direct revelations and is called “prophet” on that account; Philip’s daughters “prophesied,” i. e., had the gift of prophecy, the ability to set forth God’s will from his Word, the gift for which Paul told all the Corinthians to strive (1 Cor. 14:1). Those who exercised this gift were not known by the name “prophet” in the same way that Agabus was; a reading of 1 Cor. 14 makes that clear.

The distinction here pointed out is often overlooked, especially in the present account. The daughters are considered “prophets” like Agabus; their “prophesying” was noted by Luke because they, too, foretold to Paul what awaited him (20:13; 21:4); it is usually also found remarkable that all four were prophets. The present participle is explained by thinking that one after another of the four stood before Paul and foretold his future. But this is in conflict with all that follows.

Agabus alone foretells. It is plain that the Spirit sent him to Caesarea for this specific purpose. Not until after Agabus had delivered his special message did the dissuading and the weeping set in. The participle is to be construed with ἧν and refers to the past activity of these daughters just as “virgins” refers to their entire past state. These women were like their father, they had the ability to propound the Word; they had what Paul told the Corinthians to value as the very best gift. The present participle states that they exercised this gift diligently.

Luke tersely mentions this fact to their credit and thereby gives credit also to their father. These women are an example to the daughters of all pastors today, and, let us add, to the sons as well. How these ladies exercised their valuable gift is not indicated by Luke; it certainly was not done in conflict with what Paul states in 1 Cor. 14:34, 35, and in 1 Tim. 2:11–14. A part of their making known the Word and the will of God included the contents of these very passages regarding the position of women in the church. Let us also recall 2:17 and its exposition.

Zahn supposes that there were two editions of Acts, and that both were issued by Luke himself. He reconstructs the first edition and on the strength of a Provencal thirteenth-century translation assumes that Luke wrote “five” daughters in his first edition. In his commentary he says that Luke made a mistake in his first edition and corrected it in the second after somebody had pointed out the error to him. But see the introduction to this volume regarding this matter of two editions and in regard to Luke’s writing “books” that were intended for publication.

Acts 21:10

10While remaining on more days, there came down from Judea a prophet by name Agabus.

Both ἐπί in the participle and “more days” state that the stay in Philip’s home was extended beyond the time at first intended. Paul had time, there were still some days before Pentecost, his date for being in Jerusalem. And we may be sure his hosts and his friends in Caesarea clung to him as long as they possibly could. The participle is the genitive absolute with ἡμῶν understood. “Came down” is correct, Judea being high and rugged, and Caesarea lying on the coast. Agabus appears already in 11:28, yet Luke now introduces him as he introduces an entirely new person, with τίς and the dative “by name.” The explanation that Luke kept a diary of this journey and thus merely copied from his diary at this place, reflects on Luke’s mentality. The fact that both passages speak about the same Agabus is beyond question.

It is also clear that “a prophet” intends to differentiate him from the “prophesying” daughters of Philip. Until we find a better explanation, let us assume that Luke introduces Agabus anew because ten chapters have intervened since he was first mentioned.

Acts 21:11

11And having come to us and having taken the girdle of Paul, after binding his own feet and hands, he said: These things says the Holy Spirit, The man whose is this girdle the Jews will so bind in Jerusalem and will deliver him up into the hands of the Gentiles.

It must have been at the Spirit’s own bidding that Agabus went to Caesarea and then “to us” as Luke writes. We also regard it as providential that Paul’s resolution to stay in Caesarea a little longer coincided with the arrival of this message from the Spirit through Agabus.

Note the three aorist participles, the last being added without καί. They are written from the standpoint of the aorist εἷπε, these three actions preceded this last one. Agabus either unfastened the belt from Paul’s waist, or, if Paul had laid it aside, took it up. The next action is best conceived as a double action. The prophet tied his own feet together and then wrapped the belt around his wrists. This was symbolic, a sort of picture-prophecy that illustrated to the eye what had already been told Paul about “bonds,” 20:23. We may compare John 21:18; 1 Kings 22:11; Isa. 20; Jer. 13; Ezek. 4. Agabus was ordered to do this by the Spirit himself as the words which he was ordered to speak show.

Agabus quotes the very words of the Spirit exactly as the ancient prophets did. If this is not verbal Inspiration, pray, what is? The Spirit has no difficulty whatever in communicating his words and his will to a prophet with utmost exactness; nor is there anything in the least “mechanical” about the process, this dreadful feature which modern theologians feel they must eliminate at all hazards even though they destroy Inspiration itself.

The symbolical action accompanies the prediction regarding fetters and thus imprisonment, but the words add a new point, namely that, like Jesus, Paul is to be delivered up to the Gentiles by the Jews. The prophecy, however, stops with that. Paul’s fate is not to be that of Stephen and of James, and he was, indeed, set free again (see 20:25). One more point may be noted. The girdle was used to bind up the long, loose outer robe when one walked rapidly or worked; the binding of both feet and hands, then, meant that for a time Paul was not to travel and to work at will as he had done heretofore. Any work that he now did would be done as a prisoner.

Acts 21:12

12Now when we heard these things, both we ourselves and they of that place began beseeching him not to go up to Jerusalem.

Others were present. The house had many visitors (ἐντόπιοι is found in the classics but only here in the New Testament). Luke really makes a confession when he states that “we ourselves” joined in beseeching Paul not to go to Jerusalem. Had the eight traveling companions said nothing until this time (20:25, 38; 21:4)? It seems so. Their pent up feelings give way at last, and they join with those of Caesarea in trying to prevent Paul from going to the fatal city. Caesarea was the last stopping place, and perhaps the journey to Jerusalem was to be begun the very next day. If Paul was to refrain from going he would have to turn back now.

We need not argue the questions in regard to preventing the fulfillment of a divine prophecy such as this, as to whether it could remain unfulfilled, and as though human effort could have interfered with the fulfillment. Divine determination does not force the fulfillment. We know that the prophecy rests on the event, and not the event on the prophecy. It is thus that the foreknowledge and the prophecy are infallible. The friends of Paul were not actuated by a close reasoning in regard to prophecy but by their abounding affection for the apostle. They dreaded to see him snatched from their midst and thrown into terrible bondage. They act very human in the whole matter by giving way to their natural feeling in these moments when they realize how close the impending calamity looms over their beloved leader.

Acts 21:13

13Then answered Paul: What are you doing, sobbing and crushing my heart? For on my part I am ready not only to be fettered but also to die in Jerusalem in behalf of the name of the Lord Jesus.

This plain instance reveals how Paul towered above even the best of his assistants. When all had lost their balance under the stress of feeling, Paul kept both his heart and his head. Gently but firmly, with feeling but with that feeling perfectly controlled he rebukes all of these his friends. The question is dramatic and asks them to stop and to consider what they are doing by their sobbing and their crushing of Paul’s heart. If they consider his road a hard one, are they not making it much harder for Paul by acting thus? Do they really want to do that?

Συνθρύπτω has been found in but one other place in Greek literature (Liddell and Scott; M.-M. 607); the sense is that of θρύπτω plus σύν “to crush together.” No; they should have heartened and encouraged Paul instead of trying to do the opposite. But that is a way which the love of relatives and of friends has; it is generally too mushy and soft.

Paul states the reason (γάρ) for his rebuke and for his implied command that they stop sobbing, etc. Whatever they may think, he for his part (emphatic ἐγώ) is prepared not only for fetters but for death itself. We note the sting in ἐγώ, for it involves the thought that on their part Paul’s friends would shrink from martyrdom. Ἔχω with an adverb is always equal to “to be” (it does not mean, “I hold myself,” and has no reflexive idea). Paul indicates that the prophecy of Agabus did not involve death. Yet Paul is ready for even the ultimate martyrdom. This was not boasting, for he had already repeatedly faced death.

Why, should he, then, now run away, when less than death threatened him? Nor was this bravery, such as that which a soldier manifests in battle. The world admires that, but such bravery disregards only physical death and generally blindly disregards what comes after death. Paul had Christian courage. His motive was spiritual, and he knew what death would bring him (2 Tim. 4:8). This is something that is vastly different from mere human bravery.

He states his motive. The highest possible human motive for willingly going into death is stated in Rom. 5:7. The motive with which Paul had so often faced death and would face it again was vastly higher: “to die in behalf of the name of the Lord Jesus.” He states it again in 2 Tim. 4:6 shortly before he was beheaded in Rome. In order to understand this decisive phrase we must know what Paul means by ὄνομα, namely the revelation, the gospel of Jesus (see 2:21, 28; 3:6; 10:43). As his life had been dedicated to this Name and its spread, so he was ever ready to devote also his death to this Name. He finally did that very thing.

Acts 21:14

14Now, he not being persuaded, we became silent after saying, Let the will of the Lord occur!

Paul remained firm. The present participle states that not only at the end but all along he did not in the least yield to the persuasion of his solicitous friends. Luke, who was present, gives him that testimony. The ingressive aorist ἡσυχάσαμεν (ἡσυχάζω) means: “we became silent,” i. e., ceased our efforts to persuade him. This is really another confession on the part of Luke: only Paul’s firmness induced Luke and the rest to cease. So far removed were all of them from the noble strength of Paul. Even when they kept still they would rather have persuaded him.

Yet Paul’s firmness began to brace them up. That is what one man’s correct stand, firmly held, often does. Soon these friends, too, grew firmer. We must note that Luke writes the aorist εἰπόντες and not the durative present λέγοντες (as our versions may lead us to suppose). They said this once, with finality; they did not repeat it or go on saying it. After saying it they were silent—the matter was ended. “The will of the Lord” is his volition, whatever he had decided regarding Paul.

They now bowed to that decision. From their anxiety regarding Paul they now turned their thoughts and their wills submissively to the Lord. That was assuming the right attitude. The Lord’s will can do nothing but good to those who love him, Rom. 8:28. Some submit reluctantly at first, as Paul’s friends did, with a sigh and a tear. From that we must advance to joyful submission, like Paul, with head erect and heart elate.

It is sad to see that Calvin reads his idea of the absolute decree of God into “the will of the Lord.”

Acts 21:15

15And after these days, having packed up, we went up to Jerusalem. Moreover, there went with us also some of the disciples from Caesarea, bringing us to him with whom we were to lodge, Mnason, a Cyprian, an early disciple.

We have indicated in connection with v. 8 that the participle “having packed up” (having made our paraphernalia ready) is inserted to indicate that the journey overland began at Caesarea; see also v. 7. Because Luke says nothing about the time of Paul’s arrival in Jerusalem, some assume that he failed to get there by Pentecost as he had planned (20:16); but beginning with his mention of Philippi and Troas, Luke has numbered the days for us until they reached Caesarea. Paul had time to spare even after spending several days in Caesarea. He reached Jerusalem before Pentecost. In 21:27 we read of “the Jews from Asia” who were evidently present for the observation of Pentecost.

Acts 21:16

16The partitive genitive is freely used as both the subject and the object; here: “some of the disciples” went with us. Escorts such as this were the regular practice in apostolic times; we have noted that some of the Bereans escorted Paul all the way to Athens. Caesarea was seventy miles from Jerusalem, a journey, even when it was made on asses, that required over two days. Ramsay mentions the use of horses, but a few hours in the saddle on horseback would have worn out Paul’s party, to speak of them alone. How many of them could have managed a horse traveling beyond a walk? Asses, yes.

The writer rode them in Palestine and in Egypt. His personal opinion is that the entire party used pedes apostolorum in the good old fashion to which they were thoroughly accustomed, and led a few asses that carried whatever baggage they had.

How must the idiomatic Greek which incorporates the antecedent in the relative clause and at the same time attracts it to the case of the relative, be resolved? Certainly not by inserting the preposition πρός (B.-D 294, 5; 378; R. 719) when the relative clause has παρά. Nor by the simple accusative Μνάσωνα as the object of ἄγοντες: “bringing Mnason” along from Caesarea (R. 719, and W. P.). This goes hand in hand with the curious comment of the Codex Bezae that the whole party went to a village and stopped for the night with Mnason who is described as a wealthy landowner. The point of the narrative is never where the travelers stopped for the night (the probability is that they had to lie over for two nights) but where Paul’s party lodged in Jerusalem even as Luke has said in v. 15 that “we went up to Jerusalem.”

We must resolve the contraction as it itself indicates: ἄγοντεςπαρὰΜνάσωναπαρʼ ὧκτλ., “bringing (us, derived from σὺνἡμῖν) to Mnason, with whom we should lodge” in Jerusalem during our stay there (R., W. P.). The point to be noted is that the friends in Caesarea discussed and decided which would be the best place to lodge the nine men of Paul’s party during their stay in Jerusalem. They decided on the home of Mnason, not only because he had ample accommodations, but also because he was “a Cyprian, an early disciple” (datives, appositions to the dative “Mnason”). We do not know just why “a Cyprian” is added although we may think of Paul and Barnabas in Cyprus (Barnabas being a Cyprian).

Since Mnason was one of the early converts, this plainly implies that he must have been well known to the whole church in Jerusalem, and that the friends in Caesarea thought that for this reason he would be the man with whom to lodge Paul. So some went along to bring Paul’s party to Mnason. Paul would not have imposed himself upon Mnason, especially not with eight companions even though they brought the great collection from the Gentile congregations with them.

On the subjunctive in relative clauses see R. 955. Such clauses are used for various purposes, and the forms of the verb correspond. Here the relative clause indicates purpose. We know only what Luke here states about Mnason. That he was only too glad to accommodate these guests who were almost formally brought to him by a delegation from Caesarea goes without saying. We may note, too, that the disciples in Caesarea knew him well as Luke plainly implies.

The Fourth Quarter

The Progress of the Gospel with Paul in Custody

PAUL IS MADE A PRISONER

Acts 21:17

17The eight brethren mentioned in 20:4 plus Luke are with Paul. They were the delegates who had the great collection Paul had been taking up for the last year and more in all his Gentile congregations for famine sufferers in the churches of Judea. That explains their number. Luke omitted mention of the collection from his record.

Now we having come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.

The genitive absolute is in place because of v. 16. The seventy miles from Caesarea, we take it, required a little over two days of travel. The news of the arrival of Paul and his party at Mnason’s house must have brought many of the brethren in Jerusalem to see these most welcome visitors. Thus the remainder of the day of arrival was spent.

Acts 21:18

18And on the following day Paul went in together with us to James, also all the elders were present.

It is most natural to assume that this meeting was arranged in advance and that all the elders in Jerusalem assembled at the home of James. In regard to James as the chief elder of the church in Jerusalem see 12:17. No apostles are mentioned, apparently because all were absent from Jerusalem and working in distant places. Luke was present at this meeting as the phrase “together with us” makes certain. But this is the last time he writes “we” until 27:1, when he starts on the voyage to Rome with Paul. But he relates most fully all that intervened, and we must conclude that after Paul’s arrest he kept as close to Paul as he could and visited him in his prison in Caesarea as often as he could.

Acts 21:19

19And having saluted them, he recounted one by one each of the things which God did among the Gentiles through his ministry.

We take it that the collection was duly delivered by Paul’s companions after the salutations had been observed. We have previously noted that Paul had entrusted the handling of all funds to them, also that the money must have been in the form of drafts on bankers and could not have been in the form of coins because of the great sum. Then everybody wanted to know all about the apostle’s great work, and he told the whole story of what had transpired since his last visit in Jerusalem. We have it in Luke’s record. It is not necessary to combine καθʼ ἕνἕκαστον and to complicate the construction by making the phrase a substantive, the object of “recounted”; read καθʼ ἕν by itself as an adverbial phrase with distributive κατά, “one by one,” and read ἕκαστον as the object: “he recounted each thing.” The ἇν contains the genitive antecedent τούτων, which attracts ἅ into its genitive case: “each thing of those which.” God is the one who did all these things, and that is the absolute fact; Paul was only his instrument as διά so plainly states. This was not boasting, not self-laudation.

Nor was Paul submitting a report to a higher authority. What higher authority had these elders compared with the elders in the churches founded by Paul himself? Paul was informing these elders as he had done in Antioch in 14:27.

Acts 21:20

20And they, having heard it, began to glorify God; also they said to him: Thou beholdest, brother, how many myriads there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and all are zealots for the law; and they had it reported concerning thee that thou teachest all the Jews down among the Gentiles apostasy from Moses, telling them not to circumcise the children, neither to walk in the customs.

The inchoative imperfect, “they began to glorify,” merely implies that they also did something else. When Luke writes that they glorified God he intends to say that they did exactly what Paul himself did, the only right thing to be done. An unwarranted implication is introduced by the remark that these elders in Jerusalem failed to praise Paul. Look at 15:4, 7, 8, 12, 14, 18, and see how throughout the work among the Gentiles all success is attributed to God and to God alone. Here Paul does the very same thing, and these elders respond by recognizing the agency of God and by glorifying God accordingly.

This unwarranted contrast is expanded. It is supposed that Paul was received with coldness although he came with eight men who brought the great collection. If not by the elders, at least by the church in Jerusalem he was regarded with suspicion. We are told that for this reason no meeting of the entire church at Jerusalem was called; and that, after Paul had been imprisoned, no effort was made by the church in his behalf, he was practically abandoned to his fate. In v. 17 “the brethren” are supposed to be only a few special friends of Paul, the rest holding aloof. This picture is incredible on the face of it.

It distorts Luke’s record by injecting an unwarranted hypothesis. Even the fact that the elders address Paul only as “brother” is given a suspicious turn. Yet “brother” contains the fullest possible acknowledgment by the elders and should be understood only in that sense.

It was a most brotherly act on the part of the elders to inform Paul in regard to the damaging reports that had been spread among the Jewish Christians in Palestine in regard to the character of his work and his teaching. Some are puzzled by the expression “myriads among the Jews of those who have believed” and call this hyperbole. And the 144, 000 mentioned in Rev. 7:4–8 are introduced; but this number is purely symbolical like the other numbers mentioned in Revelation. A myriad is the Greek term for 10, 000, and it was certainly a fact that tens of thousands of Jews in Palestine had by this time become believers. We saw that at the time of Stephen’s death the estimate of 25, 000 converts was low, and years had passed since that time.

Now all these Jewish converts were “zealots for the law” (objective genitive). They retained their Jewish way of living, circumcised their children, ate kosher, kept the Sabbath, etc. No one was forbidden to live in this way, and that, undoubtedly, won so many converts in the Jewish land. All the apostles, plus Paul himself, regarded these matters as adiaphora. They became dangerous only when they were regarded as necessary to salvation. The so-called Judaizers regarded them thus; in 15:5 we have considered them when they appeared at the apostolic convention.

Acts 21:21

21Κατηχήθησαν does not mean, “they were informed.” If they only had been informed, all would have been well. The trouble was that they had no information; they had only false reports. This verb means “to sound,” “to echo,” with κατά, “to resound,” and the passive, “to have this sound get into the ears.” These Jewish believers in Palestine suffered because of false rumors regarding Paul The passive purposely hides the agents who sounded forth these rumors. Many leap to the conclusion that the unscrupulous Judaizers are referred to, especially because Paul’s letter to the Galatians reveals them as undermining Paul’s work in the Galatian congregations. Their number and their power are then also magnified. Let us keep our balance.

We know about these Judaizers; in chapter 15 they received their quietus. We see some of them in Galatia. But all evidence shows that they were never numerous; their power lay, not in their numbers, but in their zeal to spread their error. They were of the fanatic type, a few of them capable of doing much damage. We know of none that were found in Jerusalem at this time and cannot conceive that James and the elders and the apostles who returned from time to time would have tolerated them and their destructive work. It is imagination to locate a party of Judaizers in Jerusalem at this time.

Wherever they roamed about they slandered Paul. That was their chief stock in trade.

But these reports, regarding which the elders inform Paul, had also other and probably quite innocent sources. It is more than likely that Jewish converts in the Gentile churches in the provinces dropped many of their former Jewish customs. It made things easier for them in their Gentile surroundings, in labor, trade, travel, etc. The gospel in no way prevented that, it was a natural result. In fact, many Jews of the diaspora failed to live up to the Jewish legal ways, often they could not help it. Many of these Jewish converts came to Palestine; other Christians, too, came and told about them and how they had dropped their Jewish ways. In this way these reports regarding Paul spread in Palestine.

It was impossible to stop and to counteract them, and among Jewish Christians who were still zealous for the law they would find credence. Thus many supposed that Paul actually taught “apostasy from Moses,” that all Jews of the diaspora must disavow everything Mosaic, in particular must not circumcise their children nor observe the Jewish customs in their daily walk.

When πάντας is in the attributive position it refers to the total number (R. 773). The infinitives with μή after λέγω replace the imperatives of direct discourse (R. 950, 1046). The concern the elders show when they tell Paul about these reports implies that they themselves had done all they could to brand them as false. Now Paul is himself again in Jerusalem. He will remain only for a little while but long enough to do something that may prove most effective in squelching these reports, something to which all could point to prove what his real position and teaching were. The elders suggest a good plan, one that Paul also cheerfully accepts.

Acts 21:22

22What, then, is to be done? Certainly, they will hear that thou hast come. Do, therefore, this that we tell thee. We have four men who have a vow on them. Having taken these along, let thyself be sanctified with them and pay the expenses for them in order that they may get the head shaved, and all may realize that of the things that have been reported concerning thee there exists not a thing, on the contrary that thou also thyself standest in line, keeping the law.

By asking, τίοὗἐστιν, which is idiomatic for our, “What, then, is to be done?” the elders submit the situation to Paul himself They do not at all dictate but submit to him their solution as to what it is best to do under the circumstances. We also see that Paul accepts their plan. The elders add that certainly (πάντως, “in every way”) they will hear that he has come, referring to many Jewish believers in Jerusalem. Paul cannot escape notice; but if he at once acts as proposed, the falseness of the reports about him will at once be apparent to all.

Acts 21:23

23The proposal is simple and in harmony with what Paul himself had some time before written to the Corinthians: “Unto the Jews I became as a Jew,” etc., 1 Cor. 9:20–23. So to the Jewish Christians he could become as a Jewish Christian in the interest of the gospel. The plan was that Paul join himself to four Jewish Christians who had made a vow in the Jewish manner and were now bringing their vow to an end. The reading ἀφʼ, “from themselves,” is inept, for all such vows were voluntary, none were compulsory; we must read ἐφʼ, “upon themselves,” for the vow rested on them as an obligation to be discharged, not only by keeping it, but also by closing it in the prescribed way.

We may at once dispose of two other points. These four belonged to the church in Jerusalem. “We have (the Greek idiom: there are for us) four men” means that the elders have them in their congregation; that, too, is why they know all about them and the length of time their vow lasts and the fact that they are poor and need somebody to help pay the expense of the sacrifices they must offer. These voluntary vows usually continued from one to three months. That of these men had only a week more to continue. The singular “having a vow” means that all four of them had made the same vow which would continue for the same length of time and end with sacrifices to be offered on the same day. The opinion that four different vows, ending on different days, are referred to has no support in Luke’s language.

On the subject of these vows and on the way prescribed for concluding them see Num. 6:1–21. We must note the following points. Taking such vows was an ancient custom which reached back we do not know how far. Numbers 6 merely regulates them. They were entirely voluntary; but, once assumed, they bound the person who could be properly released only in the prescribed manner. These vows were assumed for various reasons: in order to thank God for some special blessing like recovery from sickness, some piece of good fortune, and the like, or in order to obtain some blessing or favor from God.

Numbers 6 plainly states what the person vowed: he separated himself, became a nazarite (one separated, natzir), 1) by using nothing whatever that was produced by the vine; 2) by letting his hair grow; 3) by remaining away from the dead, even from the closest relative. These three continued for the duration of the vow, the time fixed by the person himself. Such a vow meant that the person would live priestlike, as one who was for the time especially dedicated to God. A breach of the vow by accident or otherwise required that the vow be begun over again. It is reported that Queen Helena made a vow for seven years, but that she was held for twenty-one years. The nature of the vow made it public although the writer is uncertain as to whether it was at once reported to the priests or not.

Only in the prescribed way, by offering sacrifices, cutting off the hair and burning it on the altar, etc., could the vow be brought to an end.

How long the vow of the four men had already continued we do not know, and that point is immaterial. Paul is asked to pay the expenses involved in terminating their vow. Incidentally we thus learn about the poverty of the church in Jerusalem, the poverty Paul had come to relieve by his great collection among the Gentile churches. Josephus, Ant. 19, 6, 1, reports in regard to Agrippa that he thus helped many nazarites to conclude their vows. To help in such a way was considered not only a good deed, it certainly also showed that the helper honored the Jewish law highly.

Acts 21:24

24We now understand what the elders proposed to Paul. He was to take these four men and to have himself sanctified with them by going to the priests in the Temple and informing them that he would be the one to pay their expenses for all the sacrifices that were necessary in order that these four men might have their heads shaved and their hair burned with the sacrifice on the altar in the Temple, thereby being released from their vow. The passive ἁγνίσθητι, like other passives in the Koine (R. 819), is reflexive and causative: “have thyself sanctified.” The verb is used in the technical sense with reference to a ritualistic act (C.-K. 62), the one required in the present instance. The idea expressed is certainly not that Paul is to take a vow or to participate in the vow of these four men. They and not he are to have their hair shaved off and burnt. Paul was only to help these men terminate their vow by furnishing the necessary sacrifices.

Just how a case of this kind was handled by the priests no one is able to say. We can glean only the following: the proceeding lasted a week; the persons who had taken the vow, together with their patron (if they needed one), appeared before the priests. Just what was done with them and with him we do not know, but some ritualistic act was performed. The patron did not merely pay the money for the sacrifices, the priests had to accept and to sanctify him.

We see how this plan of the elders was to operate. There were four men who had taken a vow and not merely one; these were known in the church, known as being under a vow. Paul would go with them, would be seen with them, would be noticed in the Temple courts with them, would be observed when he appeared before the priests. They may have had to go before the priests on several of the seven days. It would quickly become known that Paul was generously participating in the Jewish ritual of concluding a vow for no less than four men. All would realize “that of the things that have been reported concerning thee there is (exists in fact) not a thing.” On the contrary (ἀλλά), they would see that Paul was himself standing in line (στοιχεῖς does not mean, “to walk,” but, “to stand in line,” C.-K. 1025) by keeping the law laid down in Num. 6.

All the baseless and perverted reports about Paul would thus be silenced by a demonstratio ad oculos that would be far more effective than any verbal preachment. The idea was certainly a good one. The choice of the act, too, was good: the matter of a voluntary vow together with the generosity of helping four men to be absolved from its obligation.

The Koine allows the use of the future indicative after ἵνα, so here ξυρήσονται. We may likewise construe the second verb which is also a future, γνώσονται, with ἵνα or regard it as an independent sentence: “and all shall realize.” The ὧν contains the antecedent τούτων: “of these things which,” the genitive is due to the antecedent, the subject being ἅ. Κατήχηνται is the perfect passive: “have been (and thus still are) reported.” Στοιχέω means to follow a certain mode of life.

Acts 21:25

25But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we on our part sent the letter after coming to a decision that they keep themselves from that sacrificed to an idol and from blood and from anything strangled and from fornication.

James was undoubtedly the speaker (v. 18), and he adds this matter regarding the Gentile believers in order to show that what Paul was to do in no way contradicted the decision arrived at in the apostolic convention years before this time (Acts 15:13, etc.). James himself had presided at that convention and himself had formulated the resolution that was unanimously adopted. Paul, too, had been at that convention, for he had been sent as a delegate from Antioch together with Barnabas for the very purpose of having the question regarding the Gentile believers settled.

The emphatic “we” (ἡμεῖς) intends to include Paul. What James says is that the old agreement to which Paul, too, was party stands, namely when we reached our decision and then sent out our letter to all the Gentile congregations, asking them for the sake of unity and harmony to keep themselves clear of four things. See the letter in 15:23–29, and the exposition of the four items in 15:29. James was right: the request that was now being made of Paul conflicted neither in principle nor in fact with the agreement that had once been made and was so acceptable to the Gentile churches everywhere. The fact that the reading ἐπεστείλαμεν is correct over against ἀπεστείλαμεν, “we sent orders,” is substantiated by 15:20, where the very same word was used by James, namely ἐπιστεῖλαι.

Acts 21:26

26Then Paul, having taken the men along on the following day after letting himself be sanctified with them, was in the act of going into the Temple, declaring the fulfillment of the days of the sanctification, until the offering was offered in behalf of each one of them.

Paul proceeded promptly to carry out the plan proposed to him by James and the elders. On the very next day he took the four men along with him and had himself sanctified with them, i. e., accepted by means of the required ritual act as the patron of these men who was to attend to the offerings for them. This was the first necessary act and was attended to the next day after the conference with the elders. Nowhere is it intimated that Paul, too, took a vow although this is sometimes assumed. To help pay the expenses for terminating the vow of other men certainly did not require that the benefactor also take that vow.

After this preliminary matter had been attended to on the first day, the time came for Paul and these men to go to the Temple once more in order to announce to the priests who had the matter of vows in charge that the days required for the sanctification of the patron had expired. All that was left to be done was for the patron to attend to having the offering offered for each one of the men for whom he had assumed this expense. The imperfect εἰσῄει (from εἶσειμι) describes Paul in the act of doing this thing. The announcement, it seems, was required, for the priests handling offerings for vows might be busy with other men who were completing their vows. If they were not, the offerings could be made at once, otherwise a wait ensued perhaps until the next day. It would not do to have too many vowmakers in line. On ἕωςοὗ with the indicative see R. 974, etc.

The sentence is perfectly clear when it is read in proper sequence although it is sometimes misunderstood because of failure to follow this sequence and noticing that the taking the men along and being sanctified occurred on the first day, and that the going to the Temple for the announcement of the completion of the sanctification days took place on the last of these days, necessarily on the last. Nor does “each one of them” include Paul. No offering was made for him, nor was his hair to be cut off.

The fact that the number of days consumed was seven we learn from v. 27. But the tense of εἰσῇει is important. This imperfect implies that something intervened, that Paul did not get to make his announcement to the priests and, of course, did not get to have the offerings made for his beneficiaries. As he was passing through the courts of the Temple, the Jews from Asia began their riot.

We pause here in order to answer the charge that, by accepting the proposal of James, Paul became inconsistent, compromised his position, chose expediency instead of principle, became weak in the knees, and what not. We might as well call him a hypocrite. We are also told that his effort proved a total failure. But what was Paul’s principle? Read it as recorded in 1 Cor. 9:19–23. That truly Christian principle Paul was following here when he was becoming a Jewish Christian.

In accordance with that principle he had circumcised Timothy (16:3). Only one set of men Paul met with solid opposition, the Judaizers. He gave place to them not even for an hour, nor did he circumcise Titus (Gal. 2:3–5). When men made observance of Mosaic regulations necessary to salvation, these regulations ceased to be adiaphora; as long as this was not done, they were adiaphora, freely to be used or to be put aside as the interests of the gospel required. In order to silence effectively false reports Paul uses the regulation about vows.

Nor did his effort fail. His very arrest advertised his act and satisfied all Jewish Christians when they learned what he was doing in the Temple on that day.

Acts 21:27

27And when the seven days were being about to be completed, the Jews from Asia, on beholding him in the Temple, began to stir up all the multitude and to lay hands on him, crying: Israelite men, run to help! This fellow is the man who is teaching all everywhere against the people and the law and this place! And still more, he brought also Greeks into the Temple and has made common this holy place! For they had previously seen Trophimus, the Ephesian, in the city with him, whom they were supposing that Paul brought into the Temple.

The article refers to the customary seven days that were needed for terminating a vow of the type that had been made by these four men. The completion of these days implies more than the mere expiration of the week (see 24:11); it includes the sacrifices and the ritual, this, too, being nearly completed. With the four men for whom he was acting as patron Paul must have been standing in the court of the men at the barrier which fronted on the court of the priests who were attending to the final sacrifices that closed the vow. This occurred on the seventh day.

At that time these Jews from Asia began their uproar. We note the same verb συνχέω, “to pour together,” to create confusion, in the description of the Ephesian tumult, and also the noun σύγχυσις (19:29, 32). At least some of these Asian Jews must have come from Ephesus, for they had recognized the Ephesian Trophimus (v. 29). These were those vicious Jews from whom Paul had separated the believers in Ephesus when he took them from the synagogue and began work in the school of Tyrannus (19:9); during the Ephesian riot in the theater they had put forth Alexander as their spokesman (19:33) They exhibit the same vicious character that all unbelieving Jews display.

Here then, out of a clear sky, with terrific suddenness comes the blow in regard to which the Spirit had forewarned Paul. It comes not from Jewish Christians, not even from Judaizers, not from Palestinians, but from vicious, implacable Jews who came directly from one of Paul’s greatest mission centers. Few Jews of Palestine knew Paul by sight, but these Asians did. The riot begins in typical fashion. The Jews were as inflammable as gunpowder, especially in their religious fanaticism and here at the center of their religion, Jerusalem and the Temple. They were noted for that, and we shall see that the Romans had taken measures accordingly.

Read the history of the Jews of this period and note the bloody riots that preceded the last days of the Temple. Modern times present many similar bloody riots.

Acts 21:28

28So they suddenly seized Paul with loud shouts and denounced him amid a tumult that spread like wildfire. Luke reports some of their wild shouts. They called on all Jews to run to the rescue; βοηθέω means “to run at a cry,” thus to hurry and help. They have caught the man who does nothing but teach things that are subversive (κατά, “down on”) of the λαός (“the people” in the sense of the one chosen by God), of the Mosaic law (which was sacrosanct to all Jews), and of this place (the Temple and Sanctuary of God). His crime is unmentionable. “All everywhere” is alliterated in the Greek and points out the damage Paul is supposed to be doing.

Worse than this and the climax of his sacrilege, ἔτι, “still more”: “he brought (aorist to express the fact) also Greeks (pagans) into the Temple and has made common (perfect to indicate a condition that lasts) this holy place,” i. e., has defiled it, than which no greater crime could be imagined by the Jews. In 10:15 we have κοίνου, the same verb that occurs here, and in 10:14 the adjective (which see). On the marble screen, which was three cubits high and separated the court of the Gentiles from the other courts there was to be seen an inscription which forbade Gentiles to enter other courts (Josephus, Ant. 15, 11, 5); this inscription was written in Greek and in Roman characters. The Greek inscription has been discovered, for it was built into the walls of a mosque on the Via Dolorosa; it decreed death for the violator.

Acts 21:29

29With γάρ Luke explains how these frantic Jews came to charge Paul with bringing Greeks into the Temple. They had previously seen Trophimus, a Gentile Christian from Ephesus, whom they well knew, in the city in company with Paul. Now they saw Paul in the Temple with four men who were strange to them. So they jumped to the conclusion that Paul had brought Trophimus into the forbidden courts. The imperfect implies that for the time being they were thus supposing, and that their mistake became apparent later on. A fine example of what hate does to men’s minds. But any pretext was sufficient for these Jews who knew no bounds in their viciousness; and Paul was ever their target.

Acts 21:30

30And the whole city was set in motion, and there occurred a running together of the people. And having laid hold of Paul, they were drawing him outside of the Temple! and immediately the doors were shut.

“The whole city” is not hyperbole. The writer and a party of others rode around the entire outer walls of the present city on an ass in one hour’s time. Although the city might have been larger in Paul’s time, we must not think of these ancient cities as being as large as cities are today. Disturbances spread in the most astounding way. So the λαός (the same word that was used in v. 28) ran for the Temple. When Luke writes that they were drawing Paul out of the ἱερόν, we understand this to mean out of the inner courts into the great court of the Gentiles and not also out of this into the street.

What follows makes this plain. It took some time considering the confused mob of Jews that must have quickly formed at the balustrade in front of the court of the priests where Paul was first seized. Also the determination as to what to do with him had to be made. The imperfect εἷλκον (from ἕλκω), of course, describes but at the same time indicates that something is to follow.

So the great doors were shut. This refers to the doors that opened into the courts of the men and of the women. On these doors, the one toward the east being the Gate Beautiful, see 3:2. This was done by the Temple police and certainly on an order from their chief strategos or commander. We take it that this Levite police force, which was always on hand to keep order especially at the festival seasons, helped to get the crowds out of these most sacred precincts.

Acts 21:31

31And as they were seeking to kill him, information came up to the chiliarch of the cohort that whole Jerusalem was stirred up, who at once, having taken soldiers and centurions, ran down upon them. And they, on seeing the chiliarch and the soldiers, ceased beating Paul.

Supply αὑτῶν as the subject of the genitive absolute ζητούντων. It was their intention to kill Paul, and the seeking was for the purpose of finding ways and means to this end, the present participle indicating that these were still to be found. The mob surrounding Paul had no leader; in v. 34 different opinions were voiced. This genitive absolute does not imply that the killing was now in progress. Before anything was decided by the mob information came to the chiliarch that whole Jerusalem was seething with commotion. The aorist implies that this interfered with the search for ways of killing Paul.

“Came up” is the proper verb. Northwest of the Temple towered the castle Antonia which had been built by Herod the Great and had been fitted out like a little city. It rested like a citadel on a steep, rocky height of fifty cubits and had towers that were fifty cubits high at all corners, the one toward the Temple, from which the entire Temple area could be overlooked, being seventy cubits high. It was equipped magnificently as a royal palace and in addition served as the garrison for the troops of the Roman procurator. Broad steps led down from this citadel into the court of the Gentiles. The entire arrangement was intended to control every disturbance in the Temple courts below, for here violent turbulence was liable to arise at any time, especially during the Jewish festival periods. Antonia could promptly pour out its full military force right into the midst of a violent mob just as it did on this occasion. Φάσις is the term for information in regard to crime or violence.

A Roman legion consisted of 6, 000 men plus a detachment of cavalry and auxiliaries. Each cohort of 1, 000 was commanded by a chiliarch or tribune, which was a rank corresponding to that of our colonel. The σπεῖρα or cohort was the sixth part of a legion, 1, 000 men, each being under a centurion; as happens also in our armies, the numbers were not always full. Such a speira was garrisoned at Antonia at this time. In 23:23 we read about the cavalry that was attached to this force of infantry. The chiliarch’s name was Claudius Lysias (23:26), and he was promptly reached on this occasion, which shows that he was on duty in the citadel. The information was alarming: whole Jerusalem in turmoil, and the mobs in the Temple court who could be seen by the lookouts of the castle.

Acts 21:32

32Serious business. Orders ring out. The chiliarch takes personal command. With his soldiers and his centurions on the double-quick, down the two flights of steps he comes upon the crowds in the court of the Gentiles. A few minutes sufficed to permit this disciplined force to break through the mob to its center of disturbance. The mob saw him coming with his soldiers, saw that it was the chiliarch himself, and promptly left off beating Paul.

We do not think that this beating was administered by the Levite Temple police who carried clubs as weapons. A good blow on the head with only one of these clubs would have rendered Paul unconscious; yet Paul is able to make an address to the mob from the Temple steps. Paul received the buffetings of unarmed men who were impatient to have his mode of death decided. When the castle doors suddenly opened and the Romans rushed out, the whole mob paused.

Acts 21:33

33Then, having come near, the chiliarch laid hold on him and ordered that he be bound with two chains and tried to learn who he was and what he had done. But some kept shouting one thing, some another in the crowd; and not being able to know the certainty because of the uproar, he ordered him to be brought into the castle.

The moment the chiliarch and his soldiers reached the center of the disturbance where Paul was, “he laid hold on him” (genitive when a part is referred to), but certainly not with his own hands but through his soldiers. The order at once to fetter the apostle with two chains reveals the thought that the chiliarch later expressed in v. 38. The fact must be noted that such chains were at hand. The soldiers had had plenty of experience with riots on the Temple grounds and invariably brought chains along with them in preparation for the prisoners they might take. We do not know how the two chains were applied; one would fetter the hands and one the feet, but not in such a way that Paul could not walk.

When the prisoner was secure, the chiliarch tried to learn by questioning the crowd (R. 884 regards the imperfect as iterative, we prefer to make it conative, R. 885: he tried but failed) who the man was and what he had done. The optative in the first indirect question stands for the indicative of the direct; in the second indirect question the original indicative remains unchanged. The writer or speaker may or may not change to the optative, R. 1043, etc. The chiliarch asked, “Who is this?” then, “What has he done?” The perfect tense (here periphrastic) implies that what has been done stands indefinitely against the man as his crime. This chiliarch questions the crowd on the very spot. It was certainly the proper and wise thing to do.

Acts 21:34

34But his effort failed; μὴδυνάμενος is the nominative. Another reading has a genitive absolute, but the sense is the same. In ἄλλοιἄλλοτι we have the Greek idiom: “some kept shouting (iterative) something to this effect, others to that effect.” Unable to learn anything certain because of the uproar, the chiliarch followed the only course left to him: he ordered his soldiers to bring Paul into the παρεμβολή, really, “camp,” castra, which in this instance was the castle where the soldiers were in barracks. We must note the present infinitive ἄγεσθαι; the aorist would imply that Paul was brought in forthwith, but the present implies that during the course of the action something else occurred that is to be told.

Acts 21:35

35But when he got to the stairs, it befell that he was borne by the soldiers because of the violence of the multitude, for the crowd of the people was following, shouting, Make away with him!

The stairs led into the castle. Here the violence of the crowd was so great that the soldiers had to bear Paul up on their hands. They lifted him high in order to get him up at all. On συνέβη (συμβαίνω), “it befell,” compare 20:19.

Acts 21:36

36Deprived of its victim, the mass of Jews (λαός) raged to get hold of him again as if to tear him to pieces. If the plural masculine κράζοντες is the proper reading, the construction is ad sensum; if the singular neuter κρᾶζον is preferred, it is quite ordinary. The cry, αἷρε, recalls the aorist ἆρον, ἆρον uttered against Jesus in John 19:15. The singular calls upon the chiliarch to take Paul away by making an end of him. Some may have shouted the aorist as R., W. P., suggests; the present imperative means that the chiliarch is to busy himself with removing Paul from life.

Acts 21:37

37And, being about to be brought into the castle, Paul says to the chiliarch, Is it permitted to me to say something to thee? And he said: Dost thou know (how to speak) in Greek? Art thou not, then, the Egyptian who before these days stirred up and led out into the desert the four thousand men of assassins? And Paul said: I for my part am a Jew, a Tarsian of Cilicia, a citizen of no undistinguished city; and I beg of thee, permit me to speak to the people. And he having permitted it, Paul, standing on the stairs, motioned with the hand to the people. And when a great silence came, he addressed them in the Hebrew language, saying, etc.

Paul must have been on the upper platform in front of the doors and was now standing on his own feet, and the chiliarch must have been close to him, the crowd now being left behind. Deferentially Paul turns to the chiliarch and asks whether it is permitted that he say something to the chiliarch. On εἰ in a direct question see 1:6; in our opinion it is merely an interrogative particle. When we note what Paul intends to ask we see why he makes this preliminary inquiry. It is well, too, to keep in mind the importance of this military man and the hauteur that so many high officers exhibit to this day. And Paul was a prisoner in chains.

The thing to be noted is Paul’s spirit. Manhandled in the worst way, barely saved from a murderous mob, he is so far from being upset that he plans to use this frightful occasion in the interest of the gospel! In order to feel the magnificence of such a spirit imagine yourself in his place at this moment. He naturally addressed the chiliarch in Greek, the current language of the day. Unwittingly he thereby astonished the chiliarch. Ἐλληνιστί is an adverb; to preserve it at least in a phrase we translate, “Dost thou know (how to speak) in Greek?” That was the last thing the chiliarch expected from this prisoner.

Acts 21:38

38It upset the conclusion to which he had come. The chiliarch thought that he had in his hands the Egyptian who had recently headed a rebellion and had led 4, 000 men into the desert. These were the frightful sicarii who were armed with the sica, a curved dagger, from which they had received their name. The translation might be “dagger-men”; “assassins” is used because they made a practice of mingling with the crowds on the Temple grounds, especially at the time of the Jewish festivals, when they would carry their daggers under their cloaks and suddenly whip them out to stab to death such persons whom they wanted to make away with. They were also hired to commit murder, and one of their victims was the high priest Jonathan who was killed at the instigation of the present procurator Felix. See the accounts of Josephus, Ant. 20, 8, 5–6; Wars 2, 13, 5–6.

This Egyptian was a mountebank, a pretending prophet; Josephus reports the promises he made to his followers. All that the chiliarch mentions about this man is that some days before this he had stirred up a sedition and had led 4, 000 of the assassins into the wilderness. Whether this has anything to do with the 30, 000 this Egyptian led against the Romans on Mt. Olivet, and whether the figure stated by Josephus is correct, need not concern us; for here, too, as elsewhere Josephus seems to make two stories out of one, the second having only 600 “robbers,” 400 of whom were killed by Felix, 200 were captured, the Egyptian himself escaped. Josephus seems to have used Luke’s account of the chiliarch’s remark and have tried to weave it into his history with the exception of the number 4, 000.

Whatever one may decide in regard to the muddled accounts of Josephus, it is clear that the chiliarch knows what he is talking about, for the affair had happened only some days before this. Although he had gone into the wilderness with 4, 000 of the cutthroats, the chiliarch thought that this Egyptian had suddenly returned, and that Paul was the man. No wonder he had put double chains on this dangerous fellow. The verb ἀναστατόω, “to upset,” to create an uprising, was once thought to occur only in the LXX and in Acts but has been found also in the papyri. But this Egyptian could not speak Greek, and Paul addresses the chiliarch in most excellent Greek. The chiliarch’s great credit for capturing the dangerous Egyptian alive thereby disappears on the instant, and one can imagine his surprise and his disappointment.

Acts 21:39

39Paul is only too glad to tell who he is. Ἐγώ is emphatic, “I for my part,” and marks the contrast with the person the chiliarch had in mind. Ἄνθρωπος is pleonastic and hence is omitted in the English. Paul is “a Jew” by nationality and not an Egyptian; “a Tarsian (9:11) of Cilicia,” who was born in the capital of this Roman province. Significantly he adds, “citizen of no undistinguished city”; note the assonance in πόλεωςπολίτης and the litotes “no undistinguished” for “very distinguished.” What Paul meant by “citizen” the chiliarch failed to catch as we see in 22:27. Perhaps his general surprise was the cause for this, for Paul was declaring himself a Roman citizen (see 16:37, 38; 22:25, etc.).

Paul’s two statements are balanced by μέν and δέ: on the one hand he tells who he is and at once makes the information complete; on the other he now makes the request for which he had asked permission in v. 37. He begs (δέομαι) to be allowed to speak to the people, to the turbulent mob of Jews who were milling around the stairs that was held by the soldiers. Think of the bold, startling idea!

Acts 21:40

40The chiliarch gave the permission. That, of course, is all that Luke would say. But, surely, something about this man Paul, something about the way in which he was conducting himself in this ordeal must have registered in the mind of this chiliarch so as to induce him to consent to a petition that was as astonishing as this. The view that he thought that he would thus find out more about the whole affair is superficial; for when Paul spoke in Aramaic (“in the Hebrew language,” not “dialect,” see 2:8) which the chiliarch did not understand, he did not stop Paul. Perhaps the very boldness of the request, combined with the impression Paul’s person was making, gained for Paul what he desired.

Paul occupied many strange pulpits but none stranger than this one: the top platform of the steps leading into the great citadel Antonia; chiliarch, centurions, Roman soldiers protecting the preacher; a vast mob of violent Jews constituting the audience. A little space is cleared at the edge of the platform. The preacher stands there, and, with the chain rattling at his wrist, his hand gives the signal that he desires quiet in order to speak. We often read about this preliminary motion. Do you wonder that “much silence occurred” (Luke’s Greek)? Here was a tableau indeed. When did Paul ever have attention such as this?

He now spoke in Aramaic. We need draw no special conclusions from that because it was the natural thing to do when addressing a Jewish audience, and we see the instantaneous effect in 22:2. A Jew addressing Jews would speak Aramaic, however well they both spoke Greek. The fact that many Jews were a little weak in Greek scarcely entered Paul’s mind; he likewise had no thought of excluding the chiliarch and the soldiers from his address, for a public speech was public property. In the phrase, “in the Hebrew language,” the adjective is employed; in v. 37 “in Greek” has the adverb.

B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

R., Word Pictures in the New Testament by Archibald Thomas Robertson, Volume III, The Acts of the Apostles.

R A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th edition.

M.-M The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and other non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.