Acts 21

H. Leo Boles Commentary On Acts 21 PAUL RETURNS TO Act_21:1-16 1 And when it came to pass that we were parted—After the discourse to the elders of the church at Ephesus at Miletus, Paul dismissed them and left Miletus and sailed southward to Cos, which was a small island about forty miles from Miletus; it seems that the vessel was under the direction of Paul, as he could sail as he pleased and make such stops as he wished. They could stay at a place as long as they pleased. It seems that the wind was favorable for sailing and they made the journey in one day. The next day they sailed from Cos to Rhodes, and from Rhodes to Patara. Rhodes is fifty miles southeast of Cos, and Patara is east of Rhodes. 2 and having found a ship crossing over—Paul sailed on the Mediterranean Sea southeast to Phoenicia. They changed vessels at Patara, as they “ found a ship” going to Phoenicia. It was more than four hundred miles from Patara to Jerusalem; it seems that from Patara Paul and his company took a larger vessel, one that could sail across the open sea. Phoenicia is on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea and northwest of Palestine. 3 And when we had come in sight of Cyprus,—Paul’ s company, now making the journey in a larger vessel than they first had, sailed a direct route to Phoenicia and left Cyprus to the left. They proceeded and landed at Tyre; the ship was to unload her burden at this place. “ Syria” was the name given to the entire eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea from Cilicia to Egypt. Paul was now on his way to Jerusalem; he could now easily find means of conveyance to that city. Tyre is the chief city of Phoeni¬cia ; it was about three hundred fifty miles from Patara, and under favorable conditions could be reached in four or five days’ sailing. Tyre had been one of the most famous cities of the ancient world. Hiram, king of Tyre, aided Solomon in building the temple in about 1000 B.C. (1 Kings 15:18.) Many prophets prophesied about Tyre. (Isaiah 23; Ezekiel 26-28; Amos 1:9-10.) Christ visited Tyre and its vicinity. (Matthew 15:21; Mark 7:24.) 4 And having found the disciples,—“ Having found” indicates that some time and trouble were had in locating the disciples; “ having found” is from the Greek “ aneurontes,” which means “ to seek for, to find by searching.” There was a church in Tyre, but the city was large, and the number of disciples may have been small. Paul had gone through Phoenicia on his way to Jerusalem at one time. (Acts 15:3.) Paul and his companions “ tarried there seven days.” Among the disciples at Tyre were some who warned Paul of the dangers that awaited him at Jerusalem. The Holy Spirit had already told Paul that bonds and affliction awaited him at Jerusalem. (Acts 20:23.) At this time Paul is warned by the disciples not to go to Jerusalem; they did not want Paul to suffer the persecutions that awaited him. 5-6 And when it came to pass that we had accomplished—When Paul and his company had remained in Tyre seven days, they made preparation to proceed on their journey to Jerusalem. The disciples at Tyre, including the wives and children of the disciples, accompanied Paul to the outskirts of the city. They remained with him as long as they could. The entire company of disciples was so interested in him that they were ready to give him any assistance that he might need. They treated him as did the disciples at Miletus. (Acts 20:37-38.) This is the first mention of children in connection with the early church. Before parting, they kneeled down “ on the beach,” and prayed together; this was a fitting separation of these disciples who loved each other so much.

After the prayer they “ went on board the ship,” but the disciples in Tyre returned home. Some think that this was the same ship on which they had sailed from Patara; others see no reason for con¬cluding that it was the same. 7 And when we had finished the voyage from Tyre,—They sailed from Tyre, a distance of about thirty miles south, to Ptolemais. There was a church at Ptolemais, and Paul and his company “ saluted the brethren, and abode with them one day." Some think that the church here was founded by Philip, the evangelist, or some other disciples who were driven from Jerusalem by the persecution some twenty years previous to this. (Acts 11:19.) 8 And on the morrow we departed,—The company left Ptole¬mais and continued south to Caesarea; it is not known whether this part of the trip was made by sea or by land. It was possible to make the journey by sea; however, some think that the verb seems rather to leave us to infer that it was a land journey; there was a good road between the two places. When they arrived at Caesa¬rea, they entered “ into the house of Philip the evangelist." This distinguishes him from the apostle Philip, one of the twelve. His evangelistic work followed the death of Stephen. The word “ evan¬gelizing" is from the Greek “ eueggelizeto," and was used of Philip in Acts 8:40. The earliest of the three New Testament examples of the word “ evangelist" (Acts 21:8; Ephesians 4:11; 2 Timothy 4:5) is found here.

This Philip was one of the seven. (Acts 6:5.) He was selected with the others at Jerusalem to help serve tables. We find him busy after he left Jerusalem. (Acts 8:5-13 Acts 8:26-40.) 9 Now this man had four virgin daughters,—Philip’ s daughters were Christians; they were walking in their father’ s steps; they “ prophesied," which meant more than to predict future events. Philip had the honor of having in his home four virgin daughters with a gift of prophecy; there was a certain phase of work in the early church that was done by women. Phoebe was a servant of the church at Cenchreae (Romans 16:1), and Philip’s daughters had the gift of prophecy. These daughters of Philip had the power to interpret a divine message. God inspired women as well as men when they could be used in his service. They had a mission to proclaim the gospel in their own womanly way. (Acts 2:17 Acts 18:26; Joe 2:28-29; 1 Corinthians 11:5 1 Corinthians 14:24.) These four daughters, being virgins, unmarried, could devote their whole time to the service of the church. 10 And as we tarried there some days,—We do not know how long they remained in Caesarea, or in the house of Philip; but during their sojourn a disciple by the name of Agabus, who had prophetic gift, came from Judea. This may have been the same Agabus mentioned in Acts 11:28, who foretold the coming famine at Antioch, as the prophets mentioned on that occasion had re¬cently come from Jerusalem; this name was somewhat unusual; hence, it is thought that this Agabus was the same. He was not prominent as was Barnabas. It seems that Paul had made the journey quicker than he had thought, and could remain in Caesa¬rea “ some days.” This was Paul’ s third time to visit Caesarea. His first visit was on his journey from Jerusalem to Tarsus (Acts 9:30) ; his second visit was on his return at the close of his second missionary tour (Acts 18:22). 11 And coming to us, and taking Paul’ s girdle,—Agabus very vividly impressed his prophecy or prediction by an object lesson. He took Paul’ s girdle and bound “ his own feet and hands” with it, and then said that the owner of this girdle should be bound and delivered into the hands of the Gentiles. He gave the Holy Spirit as authority, or rather spoke by the Holy Spirit. Old Tes¬tament prophets often employed symbolic deeds. (1 Kings 22:11; Jeremiah 13:1-7; Ezekiel 4:1-6.) Jesus used the symbolism of Pe¬ter’ s girding himself to impress a lesson. (John 21:18.) Agabus was just from Jerusalem, and the Holy Spirit revealed to him what would be done to Paul when he arrived in Jerusalem. 12 And when we heard these things,—Luke and the others who had traveled with Paul joined the disciples at Caesarea in attempting to persuade Paul not to “ go up to Jerusalem.” This dra¬matic warning that Agabus gave was in addition to that which was given at Tyre. (Acts 21:4.) This was the same as Paul had confessed at Miletus. (Acts 20:23.) It seems strange that Luke and the other messengers, together with Philip and his daughters, joined in persuading Paul not to go to Jerusalem. It seems that Paul was determined to go to Jerusalem, and that no one could dissuade him. This reminds one of the fixed determination of Martin Luther to go to “ the Diet of Worms” ; Spalatin persuaded Luther not to go, but he replied: “ Though devils be as many in Worms as tiles upon the roofs, yet thither will I go.” No one could prevent Paul’ s going to Jerusalem at this time. 13 Then Paul answered, What do ye,—It was hard for Paul to resist the earnest, pathetic, and forceful pleadings of his brethren and sisters; he had due respect for their judgment and their interest in him; he knew as well as they that danger and persecu¬tion awaited him at Jerusalem. However, Paul was not one who would shrink from duty because of danger, neither was he one who would change his course to avoid persecution. Their weeping and strong solicitations could not alter his determination. He was un¬der a higher guidance than theirs, and was ready, if God willed it, to die at Jerusalem; moreover, they could add to his bur-den by their weeping over him. Paul had had abundant warnings of the dangers he must encounter as a Christian and as an apostle; he had always expected them, and had made up his mind to meet them without flinching. (Acts 9:16 Acts 20:22-23.) He was not to be turned away from the path of duty, however hazardous it might be. He would very gladly spend and be spent for the cause of Christ. (2 Corinthians 12:15.) 14 And when he would not be persuaded,—When the company of disciples saw that Paul would not yield to their persuasion, they ceased to persuade him and said: “ The will of the Lord be done.” Since Paul would not let them persuade him and have their own way, they were willing for the Lord to have his way. Many times we are resigned to the Lord’ s way because we cannot have our own way. They seem, finally, to understand that Paul had a higher leading than theirs in what he was doing. Painful events were seen by Paul’ s friends, but these sufferings appeared to Paul so evidently to lie in his path of duty that it would be wrong in him to avoid them by failing to go forward in that path. 15 And after these days we took up our baggage—Caesarea is about sixty-four miles north of Jerusalem. Some think that Paul and his companions put their baggage on pack horses and carried it to Jerusalem. However, we do not know. The English word now used always of the vehicle that carries was in common use at the time of the Authorized Version for the things carried. It is from the Greek “ episkeuasamenoi,” which originally meant the things necessary to pack up or saddle horses. They “ went up to Jerusalem.” Jerusalem was situated on a higher elevation than Caesarea; hence, they would naturally go “ up” to Jerusalem. 16 And there went with us also certain of the disciples—When the brethren could not persuade Paul to stay away from Jerusalem, it seems that some of them prepared to go with him. They would naturally go up to the Pentecost feast; multitudes of the Jews would go to Jerusalem the last day before the feast began. The brethren would also like to be present to assist Paul and to witness the greetings of the church at Jerusalem extended to Paul. They took with them “ one Mnason of Cyprus” ; he was an “ early disciple,” and the company would lodge with him. There has been some difficulty in translating this verse; some think that it should be rendered that Paul and his company were brought to Mnason’ s house. This Mnason was originally from Cyprus; he may have become a disciple on the day of Pentecost.

Since Jerusalem would be filled with visitors, it would be difficult to find a lodging place; but as Mnason was known to some of them, they would make sure of a lodging place with him. This ends Paul’ s third missionary journey. He left Philippi and came to Miletus; next he came to Cos, then to Rhodes, then to Patara, and finally came to Tyre; they spent a week at Tyre; next they came to Ptolemais, then to Caesarea, and finally to Jerusalem. The narrative of this voyage is that of an eyewitness; Luke, the writer, includes himself. It seems that the ship left Troas on the first day of the week; four days were spent in the voyage to Miletus, and probably they remained there three days; three days were occupied in sailing thence to Patara, and probably four days in sailing to Tyre; seven days were spent in Tyre, and three days in coming to Caesarea. It is thought that Paul arrived at Caesarea about ten days before Pentecost; the journey had been made very rapidly, for the wind was favorable from Troas, and as the moon was full, the voyage from Patara to Tyre was made, not by coasting, but by running across the open sea.

PAUL AT Act_21:17 to Acts 23:35 PAUL MOBBED IN THE TEMPLEAct_21:17-26 17 And when we were come to Jerusalem,—Paul and his company made the journey from Caesarea to Jerusalem, sixty-four miles, in about two days. They were received by the brethren in Jerusalem, and especially those of Mnason’ s household with glad¬ness. There are three sets of Christians at Jerusalem mentioned: “ the brethren,” whom Paul met privately at the house of Mnason; (2) “ the elders,” or officers of the church in Jerusalem, who were present at his official reception; (3) “ the multitude,” or the entire number of Jewish Christians, both belonging to Jerusa¬lem and those who were present at the Pentecost feast. 18 And the day following Paul went—Paul did not idle away any time; “ the day following” his arrival in Jerusalem, he, with his companions in travel, went to see James; James the son of Zebedee had been killed by Herod previous to this time. (Acts 12:2.) The James mentioned here is the same who is recognized as a leader in the church at Jerusalem. (Acts 12:17 Acts 15:13.) This may have been “ James the less.” (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40.) There are five James mentioned in the New Testament— James, the son of Zebedee, and brother of John; James, the son of Alphaeus, one of the twelve apostles; James the less; James, the Lord’ s brother (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3); and James in Luke 6:16, as the brother of Judas. “ All the elders were present” at this meeting. It seems that there was a special interview which had been arranged for Paul with James and the elders of the church in Jerusalem. This was important, as many injurious reports had gained circulation respecting Paul’ s course. 19 And when he had saluted them,—At this official reception, it was thought important for “ all the elders” to be present, and to hear a detailed report of Paul’ s work. He gave a minute account of his work among the Gentiles; he would report that many Gen¬tiles had forsaken their idols and were living faithful to God. No doubt at this time he introduced Trophimus, with the others, who had brought the generous gifts from the Gentile churches to be distributed among the poor saints in Jerusalem and Judea. This would show that he had taught the Gentile Christians to practice charity toward those who were in need. It seems that Paul, in spite of the reports, won the favor of the church in Jerusalem. 20 And they, when they heard it, glorified God;—The Jewish Christians rejoiced in the fact that the Gentiles had been accepted by the Lord; they received with thanksgiving the offerings that Paul brought; however, they proceeded cautiously because there were “ many thousands there” “ among the Jews” who believed. This shows that there were many Christians among the Jews in Jerusalem and surrounding country at this time. The Greek, “ posai muriades,” literally means an indefinite number, and is the old word for “ ten thousand” (Acts 19:19) or “ myriads” (Luke 12:1; Acts 21:20; Jude 1:14; Revelation 5:11 Revelation 9:16). It is surprising to know that there were so many Christians in Jerusalem after the persecution which had scattered the early disciples. (Acts 8:1-5.) The number mentioned here may include the Christians from neighboring towns in Palestine and some foreign countries who had come to the Feast of Pentecost. All these were “ zealous for the law.” “ Zealous” is from the Greek “ zelotai,” and means “ to burn with zeal, to boil.” There was a party of “ Zealots,” a group of what would be called “ extremists,” or “ hotheads.” One of this party was Simon Zelotes. (Acts 1:13.) James and the elders at Jerusalem attempt now to harmonize Paul’ s work among the Gentiles and the Gentile converts with this great multitude of Jewish Christians who were zealous for the law. 21 and they have been informed concerning thee,—The report had reached Jerusalem that Paul had taught “ all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses,” and that they should not “ circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.” It seems that these Judaizers had brought trouble to Peter (Acts 11:2) and also to Paul (Acts 15:1 Acts 15:5). The charge against Paul was not true; he had never taught that the Jews among the Gentiles should not circumcise their children; neither had he taught that they should not keep the ceremonial law of the Old Testament. Their charge against him was a malicious half¬truth, for Paul had preached Christ, and that was more than advis¬ing the Jews to sink down to the level of Gentiles. Paul had never taught Jews that when they became Christians they were not to circumcise their children; he himself had circumcised Timothy. (Acts 16:3.) Paul was a true follower of Christ and had taught that circumcision, the seal of the covenant which was superseded in Jesus Christ (Romans 4:11), had become of no effect in the relation between man and God (1 Corinthians 7:19; Galatians 5:6 Galatians 6:15; Ephesians 2:11-14). These Judaizing teachers saw what the end of such teach¬ing was sure to be. “ To walk after the customs” was to follow the ceremonial law. The charge was brought against Stephen (Acts 6:14) that he would change “ the customs which Moses delivered unto us.” The charge against Paul with respect to the Mosaic rites was true only in the sense of his denying their necessity to the salvation of souls. 22 What is it therefore?—The question asked here simply means: Paul, what is to be done about this? James and the elders at Jerusalem do not believe the misrepresentations against Paul; however, many of the Jewish brethren do believe them. They would hear that Paul had come to Jerusalem; there was no effort to conceal that fact; they are ready to meet the issue in as tactful a way as possible. They know that the many Jewish Christians would be anxious to see Paul and to hear the reports that he had to make. By asking this question, James and the elders are requesting Paul to cooperate with them in satisfying the Jewish Christians. 23 Do therefore this that we say to thee:—It seems that Paul would not have opportunity to meet all the Jewish Christians and explain the situation to them, but they advise Paul to do something which the whole community would observe or hear about, and which would show them and all men that Paul did reverence the Mosaic law. Paul knew that the law was fulfilled in Christ; he respected that law for that which it had done for the Jews, and be¬cause it came from God. It seems that after some deliberation the elders thought out a plan of procedure by which Paul could set the whole matter straight. They called to his attention that there were “ four men that have a vow on them.” They propose to use this as a matter to clear Paul of the false charges which were made against him. This seems to be a temporary Nazirite vow. (Numbers 6:13-15.) Either Paul or Aquila had such a vow on leaving Cen- chreae. (Acts 18:18.) 24 these take, and purify thyself with them,—James and the elders suggested that Paul take the four men who had a vow upon them, and who evidently were Christians, and pay his and their ex¬penses that they might fulfill their vow; this was to be done so that the Jewish Christians would see that Paul had proper respect for the law. James and the elders were attempting to offset the preju¬dice that some had against Paul. This has given commentators generally much trouble; they have attempted to harmonize Paul’ s conduct here with his teachings concerning the law. Confessedly, it is a difficult task. Different comments have been offered as a solution. They are as follows: (l)That Paul at this time did not have a complete revelation of God’ s will; (2) that Paul did not understand even what he had written by inspiration; (3) that Paul dissembled, acted hypocritical; (4) that Paul did not do as James and the elders suggested that he do; (5) that he compromised principle for the sake of unity; (6) that he did from policy what he would not have done by religious principle.

No. 1 does not seem to satisfy the conditions, as Paul had revelation enough of God’ s will to know at this time what to do. No. 2 does not elimi¬nate the difficulty, and places Paul in a state of ignorance as to what he had formerly taught; neither can we agree to the position that Paul was hypocritical.

No. 4 seems to contradict (verse 26). No. 5 makes Paul a compromiser and surrenders in part that which he knew to be the will of God; neither can we agree that Paul acted merely from policy, which would make him a hypocrite. It seems that Paul had not taught Jewish Christians to disrespect the law of Moses. In fact, Paul and other faithful Christians among the Jews were the only ones who properly respected the law. Christ fulfilled the law; ‘‘ for Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to every one that believeth.” (Romans 10:4.) The law was given by Jehovah until Christ should come; Paul understood this. He never thought that Christians had to keep the law in order to be saved; neither did he at any time so act as though the keeping of the law had anything to do with his salvation.

Paul said: “ To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, not being myself under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak: I am become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some.

And I do all things for the gospel’ s sake, that I may be a joint partaker thereof.” (1 Corinthians 9:20-23.) The above quotation describes the conduct of Paul here as elsewhere; he never acted from mere policy, but was guided by principle. We are to understand his conduct here in the light of the above. Since the law of Moses contained some ceremonial rites, these could be ob¬served for the sake of peace and harmony without violating a principle. 25 But as touching the Gentiles that have believed,—James and the elders are making further suggestions to Paul with explanations concerning the Gentile Christians. James was present in Jerusalem when the question of circumcision was discussed with Paul and Barnabas and others. (Acts 15:13.) The decision reached there with James, Peter, and the elders of the church with Paul and Barnabas was that the law of Moses should not be im¬posed on the Gentiles. (Acts 15:28-29.) The four things mentioned in the letter that was written at that time are mentioned here; namely (1) abstain from things sacrificed to idols; (2) from blood; (3) from what is strangled; (4) from fornication. Everything settled in Jerusalem at that time and embodied in the letter is to remain exactly as it was. The liberty of the Gentile Christians was not to be touched by the law. 26 Then Paul took the men,—It was permitted for one man to bear the expense of another in keeping the Nazirite vow. Numbers 6:9-12 recites the law governing the Nazirite vow. The “ charges” involved the payment (1) for the act of shaving the head for which there was a fixed fee to priest or Levite; (2) for the sacrifices which each Nazirite had to offer; namely, two doves or pigeons, a lamb, a ram, a basket of unleavened bread, a meat offering, and a drink offering. Paul agreed to pay for the expenses of the four in their fulfilling their vow. It seems that he appeared in the temple each day for the four. He thus kept his vow in fellowship with the four men, and when the period of his vow was ended and that of the others, the proper offerings were made for each one of them.

THE RIOT AND PAUL’ S Act_21:27-40 27 And when the seven days were almost completed,—There is some discussion as to “ the seven days” mentioned here; it is not known whether this has reference to the week of the Pentecost feast or the seven days required for keeping the vow and purification as required by law. Near the close of the seven days “ Jews from Asia” caused trouble; in fact, there was an outburst of wild fury instigated by these Jews from Asia. Perhaps these were some of the Jews who had come “ from Asia” to the Feast of Pen¬tecost and who had heard Paul preach at Ephesus or in some other place of Asia; they had persecuted him in their own district and had stirred up the people in Jerusalem against him before he arrived. They saw Paul “ in the temple” ; he was probably in the court, along the inner wall of which there were small chambers in which the Nazirites used to live while fulfilling the last seven days of their vow. This court was separated with a wall from the court of the Gentiles. These infuriated Jews laid hands on Paul while he was there in the court of the temple. 28 crying out, Men of Israel, help:—They made an attack on Paul as though he had committed some crime; they called upon their fellow Jews to help them. Paul was seized with the marks of his Nazirite vow upon him. (Acts 24:18.) They shouted their accusation against him which they had already spread among the people. (Acts 21:21.) They had accused him of attempting to make Jews become as uncircumcised Gentiles, and that he had spoken against the law of Moses and had blasphemed the temple. They brought this same charge against Christ. (Mark 14:58.) Also this charge was brought against Stephen where Paul was one of the number. (Acts 6:13-14.) They added to this charge that he had brought Gentiles “ into the temple,” and had “ defiled this holy place.” Their accusation was that he had defiled it by making it common. The Jews hated Paul for his work, and were not careful about the charges which they brought against him. 29 For they had before seen with him—These “ Jews from Asia” had seen Trophimus, a Gentile Ephesian, with Paul in the city, and they now saw some strange Jews with Paul in the court of the temple, and they hastily assumed that Paul had taken Trophimus into the temple with him. They were in error; they did not take time to investigate; they were so eager to prefer charges against Paul, and more anxious to find some cause for accusing him, that they did not take sufficient time. Perhaps they were honest, but honestly mistaken. They based their charges against Paul on a mere supposition, but their supposition was false; they did not care whether it was false or true, it served them well to make charges against Paul. 30 And all the city was moved,—These “ Jews from Asia” were successful in stirring up a riot against Paul. The city was “ moved” ; that is, stirred with violent emotion. The same word is used by Tertullus in stirring up a riot against Paul later. (Acts 24:5.) “ The people ran together” in their excitement; they came from all quarters of the city when they heard the noise; the cry spread like wildfire over the city, and the people rushed pell-mell into the court of the temple. They laid hands on Paul, and “ dragged him out of the temple.” They were saving the temple by dragging Paul out of it. It seems clear that the ceremonies of Paul’s vow were not yet accomplished, and if they did not violently lay hands on him he could flee to the altar for protection. The keepers of the temple closed the gates to prevent anyone disturbing further the worship in the temple. 31 And as they were seeking to kill him,—It seems that the intention of the mob was to kill Paul; that is, beat him to death in the crowd and no one could be charged with his murder; they could accomplish their aim in killing Paul and avoid any individual responsibility for it. When the “ chief captain” heard what was going on, he rushed to Paul’ s rescue. Herod the Great had built a strong fortress, the castle of Antonia, on a rock on the northwest corner of the temple area; it overlooked the temple, and was con¬nected by two flights of stairs with the outermost courts of the temple on the northern and western sides. The Romans always kept this castle strongly garrisoned with troops to overawe Jerusalem. At festivals, when Jerusalem was filled with excitable crowds, the garrison consisted of a cohort or “ band” of one thou¬sand men. The “ chief captain” of this number was called “ Chiliarch.” When the chief captain heard that all Jerusalem was in confusion, he hastened with his men to the scene of action. 32 And forthwith he took soldiers—The “ chief captain” “ took soldiers and centurions” and hastened “ down upon them.” The chief captain did not go with the view of protecting Paul, but to find out what was the matter, and seeing Paul in the hands of the mob, he arrested him, supposing that he had done something worthy of arrest. The mob “ left off beating Paul” when the “ chief captain and the soldiers” appeared on the scene. The mob probably thought that the Roman law would do justice, and if Paul were found by the chief captain to have been wrongfully treated they would be brought to an account. Furthermore, the chief captain with his soldiers could overpower the mob and make them let Paul go free. 33 Then the chief captain came near,—The Roman official came and formally arrested Paul, “ laid hold on him,” and com¬manded him to be “ bound with two chains.” Paul was bound with chains as though he were a violent and seditious person; probably they thought that he was the leader of a band of assassins. (Acts 21:38.) Inquiry was made as to who Paul was, and what he had done. He had been arrested, and the one making the arrest did not know who he was or what accusation was brought against him. It seems that the chief captain asked Paul his name, and asked the crowd what he had done; naturally they were the ones to prefer the charges; he did not know Paul, and thinking him to be a crimi¬nal, he would not believe what Paul stated. Not many criminals will state accurately their own crimes. 34 And some shouted one thing, some another,—When in¬quiry was made as to the charges against Paul, no unanimous charge could be made; some preferred one charge and some another. Many of the mob knew neither Paul’ s name nor what he had done; hence, they could give no clear answer to the inquiry. The verb used here by Luke is the one he uses to express the con¬fusion of the multitude which shouted against Jesus. (Luke 23 : 21.) Luke is the only writer of the New Testament that uses this verb. The chief captain had made an honest effort to learn what charges were made against Paul, but could not learn from the mob; they did not know themselves; hence, he had Paul brought into the castle. “ The castle” here signifies the barracks which the Romans had in the tower of Antonia; this was near the scene of action. 35-36 And when he came upon the stairs,—Mob violence and uproar were common in Jerusalem during the feasts, and the Roman authorities attempted to keep order; the officers were severe on those who raised an insurrection or incited trouble. The castle in which the “ chief captain” resided was near the temple; he rescued Paul from the mob, and when he could not learn from the mob, neither could he ascertain from Paul in the midst of such confusion, he sought to take him as a prisoner into his castle where he could make an investigation and ascertain the cause of the trouble. As the soldiers took Paul, the mob sought to take him away from the soldiers; they followed after Paul and shouted: “ Away with him.” It seems that the crowd pressed with more fury upon Paul when they saw that he was now to be taken out of their hands. Some of the soldiers had to lift Paul from his feet and carry him up the stairs till he was out of reach of the mob. 37 And as Paul was about to be brought—As Paul was about to be brought into the castle he asked the “ chief captain” if he might say something to the infuriated mob. The chief captain had not yet learned anything about the character of the man that he had suddenly rescued from death; his first supposition was entirely erroneous. When Paul asked if he might speak to the mob, he used the Greek language. This caused the chief captain to ask: “ Dost thou know Greek ?” The officer had seized Paul as the best means of quieting the riot; he thought his prisoner a Jewish desperado, and was greatly surprised to find him a cultured man who could speak the Greek language. 38 Art thou not then the Egyptian,—The chief captain expected an affirmative answer; this Egyptian had given the Romans much trouble; he had “ stirred up to sedition” the people and had “ led out into the wilderness the four thousand men of the Assassins.” It seems that the first thing which began to correct the false impression of the chief captain was that Paul was a cultured man, able to speak the cultural language, Greek. Then he inquired further if he were not the leader of that band who had caused so much trouble to the Roman government. From this time the Roman official seems to change his attitude toward Paul; he now accepts what Paul states as the truth. The desperado that the chief captain had in mind had led out “ into the wilderness the four thousand men” who were styled “ the Assassins.” He was a man of much influence since he could lead out “ four thousand men.” Josephus tells how this one was one of the many impostors of the time. “ Assassins” is from the Greek “ sikarion,” and is the same as the Latin “ sicarius,” and means “ one who carried a short sword” ; he carried this under his cloak and was a cutthroat. These “ Assassins” killed men by daylight in the midst of the city of Jerusalem. They did not form a band of soldiers, but secretly worked with their short daggers by going into the crowd at the feasts and wounding their adversaries, and when they had fallen the murderers mixed with the crowd and joined in the outcry against crime. They passed unsuspected for a long time. 39 But Paul said, I am a Jew,—Paul answered the chief captain and made his denial by stating simply who he was. He de¬clared himself to be a Jew “ of Tarsus in Cilicia.” Tarsus was the metropolis of Cilicia, and a city remarkable for its culture and the zeal of its inhabitants for philosophic studies. It was “ no mean city” ; that is, it was a city of prominence. Tarsus was one of the great cities of the empire, and had a great university there. Paul was a citizen of this city, which was an honorable distinction. After briefly telling the chief captain who he was and that he was a citizen of the proud city of Tarsus, he asked the privilege “ to speak unto the people.” Paul desired to speak to his people, and in Jerusalem.

That infuriated mob was as ignorant of the gospel as though the Christ had never come, suffered and died in that city. Surely, if anyone could, Paul could get them to see the truth by telling them how Jesus had revealed himself to him. He now had a chance. It seems that the chains were taken off of Paul and he was permitted to stand there and speak to his Jewish brethren. 40 And when he had given him leave,—They were still on the stairs; Paul was above them and out of their reach; they were beneath Paul and from his elevated position he could speak to them with ease if they would hear him. The chief captain promptly gave Paul permission to speak to the people. He “ beckoned with the hand unto the people.” He “ beckoned with the hand,” which meant that he demanded their attention. By his beckoning, the gesture gained an audience very readily, and a “ great silence” was ob-served. Paul used tact in handling this mob; he now spoke in the native tongue of the Jews; he spoke in the Hebrew language. The people of Jerusalem knew this language better than they knew the Greek; Paul could speak in either the Hebrew or the Greek lan¬guage. It seems that Jesus used this language on special occa¬sions. (Mark 5:41 Mark 14:36 Mark 15:34.) Paul is given opportunity to make his first defense; he does so with courage and clearness.

J.W. McGarvey Commentary On Acts 21Act 21:1-3. The vessel proceeded by a coasting voyage along the southern shore of Asia Minor. (1) “And it came to pass, when we had separated from them, and set sail, that we ran with a straight course and came to Cos; and the next day to Rhodes, and thence to Patara. (2) And finding a ship going across to Phenicia, we embarked and set sail. (3) Passing in sight of Cyprus, and leaving it to the left, we sailed to Syria, and landed at Tyre, for there the ship was to unload her cargo.” The change of vessels at Patara must have been occasioned by the fact that the one in which they had hitherto sailed was not bound for a Phenician port. That the new vessel is said to be going across to Phenicia, and that it left Cyprus on the left, is an indication that the other was going to cling still further to the coast of Asia Minor, and was probably bound for Antioch. Acts 21:4. The time employed by the sailors in putting out freight, and taking on board a fresh cargo, gave Paul another opportunity for communing with brethren on shore. (4) “And having found the disciples, we remained there seven days. They told Paul, through the Spirit, not to go up to Jerusalem.” Here Paul met a repetition of those prophetic warnings which had already cast a gloom over his feelings, and so much alarmed were the brethren at the prospects before him, that they entreated him to go no further. We are not to understand that these entreaties were dictated by the Spirit; for this would have made it Paul’s duty to desist from his purpose; but the statement means that they were enabled to advise him not to go, by knowing through the Spirit, what awaited him. The knowledge was supernatural; the advice was the result of their own judgment. Acts 21:5-6. When the seven days had passed, including, most likely, a Lord’s day, in which the disciples came together to break bread, another scene of painful parting occurred, like that at Miletus. (5) “And it came to pass that when we completed those days, we departed and went our way, they all, with their wives and children, conducting us forward till we were out of the city. And we kneeled down on the shore and prayed. (6) And bidding each other farewell, we went on board the ship, and they returned home.” Unlike the scene at Miletus, the sorrow of manly hearts was here accompanied by the tenderness of female sympathy and the tears of children. The tears of the company were bitter, but they were sanctified and made a blessing to each heart, by prayer. Thus, though all before the apostle, during this journey, was darkness and danger, all around him and behind him was earnest prayer to God in his behalf. Borne forward upon the current of such devotion, he was able to breast the storm, and defy all the powers of earth and hell. Acts 21:7. The journey by water was soon completed, and the remainder of the distance was performed on foot. (7) “And from Tyre we went down to Ptolemais, completing the voyage, and saluted the brethren, and remained with them one day.” If the vessel had been going forward to Cζsarea without delay, they had better have continued on board than to have traveled the distance of thirty or forty miles to that city on foot. We conclude, therefore, that the vessel either intended lying in port for awhile, or did not intend to touch at Cζsarea. The fact that Paul found brethren in Tyre and Ptolemais on the coast of Phenicia, where he had never preached before, reminds us once more of the dispersion of the Church in Jerusalem, and the fact that “ they who were scattered abroad upon the persecution which arose about Stephen, traveled as far as Phenicia, speaking the Word to none but the Jews.” Acts 21:8-9. The single day spent with the brethren in Ptolemais was sufficient for the solemn admonitions which Paul was leaving with all the Churches, and for another painful farewell. (8) “And the next day we departed, and went to Cζsarea. And entering into the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, we abode with him. (9) Now he had four daughters, who were virgins, and who prophesied.” When we parted from Philip, after the immersion of the eunuch, he had prosecuted an evangelizing tour through Azotus and the intermediate cities, to Cζsarea. It was probably while he was engaged in this tour that Peter had come to Cζsarea, and immersed the family and friends of Cornelius. When Philip arrived, he found the nucleus of a Church, and here we still find him, after a lapse of more than twenty years. He seems never to have returned to Jerusalem, to resume his position as a deacon of that Church, but accepted the providential arrangement by which he was thrown out into a wider field of usefulness, and thenceforward was known as Philip the evangelist. That he had four maiden daughters, who had the gift of prophesy, indicates the strict religious training which he had given to his family. Acts 21:10-14. During the interval spent with the family of Philip, another, and the last of the prophetic warnings which Paul encountered on this journey was given, causing a scene of sorrow similar to those at Miletus and Tyre. (10) “And while we were remaining several days, there came down from Jerusalem a certain prophet named Agabus; (11) and he came to us, and took Paul’s girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus says the Holy Spirit: So shall the Jews in Jerusalem bind the man who owns this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. (12) And when we heard this, both we and they of that place besought him not to go up to Jerusalem. (13) But Paul answered, What do you mean by weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem, for the name of the Lord Jesus. (14) And when he would not be persuaded, we held our peace, saying, The will of the Lord be done.” Agabus was the same prophet who went from Jerusalem to Antioch, and announced the famine which caused the mission of Paul and Barnabas into Judea with a contribution for the poor. It was a singular coincidence that the same man should now meet him, after the lapse of so many years, when entering Judea on a similar mission, and warn him of his own personal danger. The dramatic manner in which his prophesy was delivered gave Paul a more distinct conception of the afflictions which awaited him. If his traveling companions had hitherto been silent when brethren were entreating him to desist from the journey, as is implied in the narrative, their courage now failed them, and they joined in the entreaties of the brethren in Cζsarea. The fearfulness of his prospects was a sufficient trial to his own courage, when he enjoyed at least the silent sympathy of his chosen companions; but when they deserted him, and threw the weight of their influence upon the weight already too heavy for him, the effect was crushing to his heart, though the steadfastness of his purpose was not shaken. The duty imposed upon him by the fearful condition of the Church at large was paramount to all personal considerations, and he felt willing to be bound and to die in his efforts to maintain the honor of the name of the Lord Jesus by preserving the unity of his body. Upon this declaration of his sublime self-devotion, the brethren felt unable to offer another objection, and gave expression to their reluctant resignation by the remark, “ The will of the Lord be done.” Acts 21:15-16. (15) “And after those days, we packed up our baggage, and went up to Jerusalem. (16) Some of the disciples from Cζsarea went with us, conducting us to one Mnason, a Cyprian, and an old disciple, with whom we should lodge.” The journey had been accomplished in time for the feast of Pentecost. This is made to appear by enumerating the days spent on the journey from Philippi. Leaving that city immediately after the days of unleavened bread, which was seven days after the Passover, he reached Troas in five days, where he spent seven. Four days were occupied in the passage from Troas to Miletus. Two are sufficient to allow for the stay at Miletus. In three he sailed from Miletus to Patara, which place he left the same day he reached it; and two more days, with favorable weather, would take him to Tyre.

There he spent seven days, and three in the journey thence to Cζsarea. Allowing two days more for the journey from Cζsarea to Jerusalem, we have enumerated only forty-two of the forty-nine days intervening between the Passover and Pentecost, leaving seven for the stay at the house of Philip. That the feast of Pentecost did transpire immediately after his arrival in Jerusalem, is indicated by the immense multitude of Jews then assembled there, and the presence of some from the province of Asia, who had known Paul in Ephesus. Nothing but the annual feasts brought together in Jerusalem the Jews from distant provinces. Acts 21:17. The period which had been looked forward to for months with prayerful anxiety had now arrived, and Paul was to know, without further delay, whether or not the service which he had for Jerusalem would be accepted by the saints. To his unspeakable relief, the historian was able to say, (17) “Now when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.” If Luke had given any account of the contribution Paul was bringing, we should have expected him to say something more definite about its reception than is implied in this remark. But, as he saw fit to omit all mention of the enterprise, we are at liberty to infer, from the glad reception given to the messengers, that the gift they bore was also welcome. The main object of Paul’s visit and of his prayers was now accomplished. He had finished this much of his course and his ministry with joy, and his heart was relieved from its chief anxiety. Whether the Lord would now accept his prayer for deliverance from the disobedient in Jerusalem, he felt to be a matter of minor importance. Acts 21:18-26. After the general statement that they were gladly received by the brethren, Luke proceeds to state more in detail what followed. (18) “And on the day following, Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. (19) And having saluted them, he related particularly what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. (20) When they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said to him, You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who believe, and they are all zealous for the law. (21) Now they heard concerning you, that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles apostasy from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children, nor to walk according to the customs. (22) What, then, is it? The multitude must by all means come together; for they will hear that you have come. (23) Do this, therefore, which we tell you. We have here four men who have a vow upon them. (24) Take them, and purify yourself with them, and bear the expenses for them, in order that they may shear their heads, and all may know that those things of which they have heard concerning you are nothing; but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. (25) But as respects the Gentiles who have believed, we have already written, having decided that they observe no such things, only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication. (26) Then Paul took the men, and the next day went with them into the temple purified, announcing the fulfilling of the days of purification, when an offering should be offered for each one of them.” This I confess to be the most difficult passage in Acts to fully understand, and to reconcile with the teaching of Paul on the subject of the Mosaic law. We shall have the exact state of the question before our minds, by inquiring, first, What was the exact position of the Jerusalem brethren in reference to the law? second, What had Paul actually taught upon the subject? and, third, How can the course pursued by both be reconciled to the mature apostolic teaching? First. It is stated, in this speech, of which James was doubtless the author, that the disciples about Jerusalem were “ all zealous for the law.” They recognized the authority of Moses as still binding; for they complained that Paul taught “ apostasy from Moses.” The specifications of this apostasy were, first, neglect of circumcision; second, abandonment of “ the customs.” By “ the customs” are meant those imposed by the law, among which, as seen in their proposition to Paul, were the Nazarite vows, with their burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, and meat-offerings, and, as seen in Paul’s epistles, abstinence from unclean meats, and the observance of Sabbath-days, holy days, new moons, and Sabbatic years. Second. Our iniquity into Paul’s teaching on the subject must have separate reference to what he had taught before this time, and what he taught subsequently. None of his oral teachings on the subject are preserved by Luke, hence we are dependent for a knowledge of his present teaching upon those of his epistles which were written previous to this time. In none of the specifications above enumerated did he fully agree with his Jewish brethren. True, he granted the perpetuity of circumcision; yet not because he acknowledged with them the continued authority of the law, but because of the covenant with Abraham which preceded the law. As for the law, he taught that it had been “ a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith, but after faith is come, we are no longer under the schoolmaster;” that, “ now we are delivered from the law, being dead to that in which we were held;” that we are “ become dead to the law by the body of Christ.” In repudiating the authority of the law, he necessarily repudiated all obligation to observe “ the customs.” In reference to all these, he afterward said to the Colossians, that God had “blotted out the handwriting of ordinances which was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross.” “ Let no man, therefore, judge you in food or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of Sabbaths; which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ.” While thus repudiating the obligation to observe the ordinances, he admitted the innocence of their observance, and forbade any breach of fellowship on account of it, laying down in reference to them all, this rule: “ Let not him who eats, despise him who eats not; and let not him who eats not, judge him who eats.” In reference, therefore, to meats and days, he and the judaizers agreed that the Jews might observe them; and they differed as to the ground of this conclusion: the latter affirming that it was a matter of duty; the former holding that it was a matter of indifference. Thus far we have omitted special mention of one custom, because its importance demands for it a separate consideration. We refer to sacrifices. It is evident, from the transaction before us, as observed above, that James and the brethren in Jerusalem regarded the offering of sacrifices as at least innocent; for they approved the course of the four Nazarites, and urged Paul to join with them in the service, though it required them to offer sacrifices, and even sin-offerings. They could not, indeed, very well avoid this opinion, since they admitted the continued authority of the Mosaic law. Though disagreeing with them as to the ground of their opinion, as in reference to the other customs, Paul evidently admitted the opinion itself, for he adopted their advice, and paid the expense of the sacrifices which the four Nazarites offered. Third. The commentators uniformly agree that Paul was right, and that the rites observed on this occasion are to be referred to that class which are indifferent, and in reference to which Paul acted upon the principle of being a Jew to the Jew, that he might win the Jew. This would not be objectionable, if the proceeding had reference merely to meats and drinks, holy days, etc., to which it appears to be confined in their view; for all these were indifferent then, and are not less so at the present day. Who would say that it would now be sinful to abstain from certain meats, and observe certain days as holy? But it is far different with bloody sacrifices. If disciples, either Jewish or Gentile, should now assemble in Jerusalem, construct an altar, appoint a priesthood, and offer sin-offerings, they could but be regarded as apostates from Christ. But why should it be regarded as a crime now, if it was innocent then? The truth is, that, up to this time, Paul had written nothing which directly conflicted with the service of the altar, and he did not yet understand the subject correctly. His mind, and those of all the brethren, were as yet in much the same condition on this subject that they were before the conversion of Cornelius, in reference to the reception of the uncircumcised into the Church. If we admit that the proposition above quoted from Galatians, affirming that “ we are no longer under the law,” was, when fully understood, inconsistent with the continuance of the sacrifice, we make his case only the more likely like Peter’s in regard to the Gentiles; for he announced propositions, on Pentecost, which were inconsistent with his subsequent course, until he was made to better understand the force of his own words. Peter finally discovered that he was wrong in that matter, and Paul at length discovered that he was wrong, in his connection with the offerings of these Nazarites. Some years later, the whole question concerning the Aaronic priesthood and animal sacrifices was thrust more distinctly upon his mind, and the Holy Spirit made to him a more distinct revelation of the truth upon the subject, and caused him to develop it to the Churches, in Ephesians, Colossians, and especially in Hebrews. In the last-named Epistle, written during his imprisonment in Rome, he exhibited the utter inefficiency of animal sacrifices; the sacrifice of Christ, once for all, as the only sufficient sin-offering; and the abrogation of the Aaronic priesthood by that of Christ, who was now the only high priest and mediator between God and man.

After these developments, he could not, for any earthly consideration, have repeated the transaction with the Nazarites; for it would have been to insult the great High Priest over the house of God, by presenting, before a human priest, an offering which could not take away sin, and which would proclaim the insufficiency of the blood of the atonement. We conclude, therefore, that the procedure described in the text was inconsistent with the truth as finally developed by the apostles, but not with so much of it as was then understood by Paul. This conclusion presents but another proof that the Holy Spirit, in leading the apostles “ into the truth,” did so by a gradual development running through a series of years. When Paul finally was enabled to understand and develop the whole truth on this subject, no doubt the opinions and prejudices of the more liberal class of Jewish disciples yielded to his clear and conclusive arguments. But, doubtless, some still clung to the obsolete and unlawful service of the temple, assisting the unbelieving Jews to perpetuate it. Then came in the necessity for the destruction of their temple and city, so that it should be impossible for them to longer offer sacrifices which had been superseded. The destruction of the temple was not the legal termination of the Mosaic ritual; for it ceased to be legal with the death of Christ; but this brought to an end its illegal continuance. Before we dismiss this passage, there are two more points claiming a moment’s attention. First, the justness of the accusation which the brethren had heard against Paul. He had certainly taught the Jews that they were no longer under the law, and that “ the customs” were no longer binding, and this was, in one sense, “ apostasy from Moses.” But he had not, as he was charged, taught them to abandon the customs; for he had insisted that they were innocent; and, in reference to circumcision, he had given no ground of offense whatever. Hence the charge, as understood by those who preferred it, was false; and it was with the utmost propriety that Paul consented to disabuse their minds, though the means he adopted for that purpose was improper. The last point claiming attention is the nature of the purification which Paul underwent. The statement which we have rendered, he “ purified himself with them,” is understood, by some commentators, to mean that he took part in their vow of abstinence. But for this meaning of the term, agnizo, there is no authority in the New Testament; everywhere else it means to purify, and Paul’s own statement to Felix, that “ they found me purified in the temple,” in which he speaks of the same event, and uses the same word, is conclusive as to its meaning here. It will be remembered that no Jew who, like Paul, had been mingling with Gentiles, and disregarding the ceremonial cleanness of the law, was permitted to enter the outer court of the temple without being purified. This purification he must have undergone, and there is no evidence that he underwent any other. But it is said that he purified himself “ with them,” which shows that they, too, were unclean.

Now, when a Nazarite became unclean within the period of his vow, it was necessary that he should purify himself, shear his head on the seventh day, and on the eighth day bring certain offerings. Then he lost the days of his vow which had preceded the uncleanness, and had to begin the count anew from the day that the offering was presented.

This is fully stated in the sixth chapter of Numbers, where the law of Nazarite is prescribed. Such was the condition of these Nazarites, as is further proved by the notice given of the “ days of purification,” and the mention, in the next verse below, of “the seven days,” as of a period well known. Nazarites had no purification to perform except when they became unclean during their vow; and there was no period of seven days connected with their vow, except in the instance just mentioned. In this instance, as the head was to be sheared on the seventh day, and the offerings presented on the eighth, there were just seven whole days employed. Paul’s part was to give notice to the priest of the beginning of these days, and to pay the expenses of the offerings; but he had to purify himself before he went in for this purpose. Acts 21:27-30. (27) “Now when the seven days were about to be completed, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, aroused the whole multitude, and laid hands on him, (28) crying out, Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, and the law and this place, and has even brought Greeks into the temple, and polluted this holy place. (29) For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian in the city with him, whom they thought Paul had brought into the temple. (30) And the whole city was moved, and the people ran together, and seizing Paul, dragged him out of the temple; and the doors were immediately closed.” If Paul’s own brethren in Jerusalem has become prejudiced against him on account of his teaching in reference to the law, it is not surprising that the hatred of the unbelieving Jews toward him should be intense. Their treasured wrath was like a magazine, ready to explode the moment a match should be applied; and to charge him with defiling the holy place, which they believed that he had already reviled in every nation, was enough to produce the explosion. It is not the custom of mobs to investigate the charges heaped upon their victims; hence, without knowing or caring to know, whether he had really brought Trophimus into the temple, they seized him and dragged him out into the court of the Gentiles. The doors of the inner court were closed, to prevent the defilement of that holy place by the blood which was likely to be shed. Acts 21:31-34. For the second time in his history the Roman authorities came to Paul’s rescue from the hands of his countrymen. (31) “And as they were seeking to kill him, word came to the chiliarch of the cohort that all Jerusalem was in an uproar, (32) who immediately took soldiers and centurions, and ran down upon them. And when they saw the chiliarch and the soldiers, they quit striking Paul. (33) Then the chiliarch drew near and seized him, and commanded him to be bound with two chains, and inquired who he was, and what he had done. (34) But some of the multitude cried out one thing, and some another; and not being able to know the certainty on account of the tumult, he commanded him to be led into the castle.” The inability of the mob to agree upon any charge against him shows the precipitancy with which they had rushed upon him, while the multiplicity of charges which they vociferated shows the intensity of their hatred. The chiliarch was indifferent through total ignorance of the case, and desired to act prudently; hence he determined to protect the prisoner, and hold him for examination under more favorable circumstances. Acts 21:35-39. It was but a short distance to the castle of Antonia, which overlooked the temple inclosure, and was connected with it by a stairway. Thither the apostle was rapidly borne, the mob pressing after him. (35) “And when he was on the stairs, he was borne by the soldiers, on account of the violence of the multitude. (36) For the crowd of people followed, crying out, Away with him! (37) And when he was about to be led into the castle, Paul said to the chiliarch, May I say something to you? He said, Do you understand Greek? (38) Are you not that Egyptian, who formerly made an insurrection, and led out into the wilderness four thousand Assassins? (39) Paul said, I am a Jew, of Tarsus, in Cilicia; a citizen of no unknown city; and I beseech you, permit me to speak to the people.” This conversation shows that the chiliarch was utterly ignorant of the character and history of his prisoner. The best conclusion he could form from the confused outcries of the mob was the one indicated in the question just quoted. When he learned that he was a Jew, he was still more perplexed concerning the rage of the people, and not less astonished at the coolness displayed by Paul. In the hope of learning something more definite, he at once gave him liberty to speak, and stood by, an interested hearer. Acts 21:40. “And when he gave him permission, Paul, standing upon the stairs, waved his hand to the people. And when there was general silence, he spoke to them in the Hebrew dialect, saying,”

“ACTS OF THE "

Chapter Twenty-One IN THIS CHAPTER

1. To explore the warnings that Paul received as he journeyed to Jerusalem

2. To review the arrival of Paul in Jerusalem

3. To examine Paul’s arrest in the temple

4. To observe Paul’s request to address the violent mob as he entered the barracks

SUMMARY Paul left the Ephesian elders at Miletus. Paul, Luke and the other traveling companions sailed from Miletus to Cos. From Cos, they sailed to Rhodes, and then on to Patara. At Patara, they caught a ship to Tyre of Phoenicia. The ship passed to the south of the island of Cyprus. Upon arrival in Tyre, they found the disciples and remained with them seven days. The Spirit had indicated to the disciples what awaited Paul in Jerusalem. They told Paul to not go to Jerusalem. Paul continued, the disciples accompanied him outside the city, and they knelt and prayed on the shore. Paul and his companions boarded the ship and departed. They sailed from Tyre to Ptolemais. They greeted the brethren there and remained one day. They then went to Caesarea. Paul and his companions went to Philip’s house. He was one of the seven (cf. Acts 6). Philip had four virgin daughters; they prophesied. The prophet Agabus came down from Judea. He took Paul’s belt and bound his own hands and feet. This was to indicate that Paul would be bound and delivered to the Gentiles in Jerusalem, as the Holy Spirit revealed. Both his traveling companions and those in Caesarea pleaded with Paul not to go to Jerusalem. Then Paul answered, “What do you mean by weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 21:13NKJV) They then ceased pleading with Paul and asked that the will of the Lord be done. (Acts 21:1-14)

Paul and his companions proceeded to Jerusalem. They were accompanied by some of the disciples from Caesarea. They were to lodge with Mnason of Cyprus, who was an early disciple. They then met with the Jerusalem brethren, who met them gladly. The next day, Paul and his companions met with James and the elders to give a description of the “things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.” The brethren glorified the Lord upon hearing these things. James and the elders then expounded to Paul the problem he faced. Many myriads of Jews had believed, and they were zealous for the law. They had been informed that Paul taught Jews, living among the Gentiles, to forsake Moses - that is, not to circumcise their children, nor to keep the customs. They expected these Jewish believers to learn that Paul was in Jerusalem. James and the elders gave Paul a plan - he should accompany the four men who had taken a vow; purify himself; pay their expenses in an effort to show that Paul kept the law (customs) as a Jew. They reiterated (cf. Acts 15) that the believing Gentiles were not subject to the law. (Acts 21:15-25)

Paul followed the plan from James and the elders. He took the men and was purified with them. They then entered the temple. Jews from Asia saw Paul in the temple. They stirred up the crowd and seized Paul. They cried out charges as James and the elders had expected. Additionally, they charged that Paul had brought Greeks into the temple and had defiled the place. They had seen Trophimus, the Ephesian, with Paul in the city and “supposed” that he had brought him into the temple. The Jews seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple. As they sought to kill him, word came to the Roman commander about the uproar. When the Jews saw the commander and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul. The commander took Paul and bound him with chains. He asked what he had done, but he could not get an answer from the mob. He then took him to the barracks. When they reached the stairs of the barracks, Paul had to be carried due to the violence of the mob. (Acts 21:26-36)

Paul asked to speak to the commander. The commander asked him if he could speak Greek. The commander also asked if he was the Egyptian leader of the assassins. Paul replied that he was a Jew from Tarsus in Cilicia, “a citizen of no mean city.” Paul then requested to speak to the people. The commander gave Paul permission to speak to the people. Paul then began to speak to them in Hebrew. (Acts 21:37-40)

OUTLINE I. TO PAUL AS HE HEADED TO (Acts 21:1-14) A. THEY SAILED FROM MILETUS TO TYRE (Acts 21:1-3)1. Paul left the Ephesian elders at Miletus 2. Paul, Luke, and the other traveling companions sailed from Miletus to Cos to Rhodes and to Patara 3. From Patara, they caught a ship to Tyre of Phoenicia a. As they sailed, they saw Cyprus on the “left” (passing south of the island)

B. PAUL AND HIS ARRIVED IN TYRE (Acts 21:4-6)1. They found the disciples there and remained with them seven days a. The disciples understood through the Spirit what awaited Paul in Jerusalem b. They told Paul not to go to Jerusalem 2. The disciples accompanied Paul and his companions outside the city a. They all knelt down and prayed on the shore b. Paul and his companions boarded the ship and departed

C. MORE GIVEN TO PAUL BEFORE IN (Acts 21:6-14)1. Paul and his companions sailed from Tyre to Ptolemais a. They greeted the brethren there and remained one day b. The next day, they went to Caesarea 2. Paul and his companions went to Philip’s house a. Philip was one of the seven (cf. Acts 6) b. Philip had four virgin daughters; they prophesied c. The prophet Agabus came down from Judea d. Agabus took Paul’s belt and bound his own hands and feet; this was to indicate what would happen to Paul, as revealed by the Holy Spirit; he would be delivered to the Gentiles e. Both his traveling companions and those in Caesarea pleaded with Paul not to go to Jerusalem f. Then Paul answered, “What do you mean by weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 21:13 NKJV) g. They ceased pleading with Paul and asked that the will of the Lord be done

II. PAUL ARRIVED IN (Acts 21:15-25) A. PAUL AND HIS TO (Acts 21:15-16)1. They were accompanied by some of the disciples of Caesarea 2. They were to lodge with Mnason of Cyprus, an early disciple

B. THEY MET WITH THE (Acts 21:17-25)1. The Jerusalem brethren met them gladly 2. Paul and his companions met with James and the elders to give a description of the “things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry” 3. They glorified the Lord upon hearing these things 4. James and the elders expounded to Paul the problem he faced a. Many myriads of Jews had believed b. These Jewish believers were zealous for the law c. They had been informed that Paul taught Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake Moses - not to circumcise their children, nor to keep the customs d. These Jewish believers would learn that Paul was in Jerusalem e. James and the elders gave Paul a plan - he was to accompany the four men who had taken a vow; purify himself; pay their expenses - this was an effort to show that Paul kept the law (customs) as a Jew f. They reiterated (cf. Acts 15) that the believing Gentiles were not subject to the law

III. PAUL IN THE TEMPLE (Acts 21:26-36) A. PAUL THE PLAN FROM JAMES AND THE ELDERS (Acts 21:26)1. Paul took the men and was purified with them; they entered the temple

B. JEWS FROM ASIA SAW PAUL IN THE TEMPLE (Acts 21:27-29)1. They stirred up the crowd and seized Paul 2. They cried out charges as expected (see notes above) 3. Additionally, they charged that Paul had brought Greeks into the temple and defiled the place a. They had seen Trophimus the Ephesian with Paul in the city b. They “supposed” that Paul had brought him into the temple

C. PAUL WAS SEIZED AND THE JEWS SOUGHT TO KILL HIM (Acts 21:30-36)1. The people seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple 2. As they sought to kill him, word came to the Roman commander of the uproar 3. When the Jews saw the commander and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul 4. The commander took Paul and bound him with chains; he asked what Paul had done a. When he could not get an answer, he took him to the barracks b. When they reached the stairs, Paul had to be carried due to the violence of the mob

IV. PAUL ASKED TO ADDRESS THE MOB (Acts 21:37-40) A. PAUL ASKED TO SPEAK TO THE (Acts 21:37-39)1. The commander asked if he could speak Greek 2. The commander also asked if he was the Egyptian leader of the assassins 3. Paul replied that he was a Jew from Tarsus in Cilicia, “a citizen of no mean city” 4. Paul requested to speak to the people

B. THE ALLOWED PAUL TO SPEAK TO THE PEOPLE (Acts 21:40)1. The commander gave Paul permission to speak to the people 2. Paul began to speak to them in Hebrew

REVIEW FOR THE CHAPTER

1. What are the main events in this chapter?- Warnings to Paul as he headed to Jerusalem (Acts 21:1-14)

• Paul arrived in Jerusalem (Acts 21:15-25)
• Paul arrested in the temple (Acts 21:26-36)
• Paul asked to address the mob (Acts 21:37-40)

2. Sailing from Miletus, list the cities passed through prior to Tyre? (Acts 21:1-2)- Miletus to Cos, to Rhodes, to Patara, to Tyre (Acts 21:1-2)

3. On which side of the ship did they pass Cyprus? What direction would that be? (Acts 21:3)- Left; ship passed to the south of Cyprus [see map] (Acts 21:3)

4. What was the common request made of Paul at Tyre and Caesarea? (Acts 21:4-12)- Not to go up to Jerusalem (Acts 21:3)

5. What two groups made this common request of Paul in Tyre and Caesarea? (Acts 21:4-12)- The local disciples asked in Tyre (Acts 21:4)

• The local disciples and Paul’s traveling companions in Caesarea (Acts 21:12)

6. What was Paul ready to do in Jerusalem? (Acts 21:13)- Not only ready to be bound, but even to die for the Lord (Acts 21:13)

7. When Paul would not be persuaded, what did the brethren say? (Acts 21:14)- “The will of the Lord be done” (Acts 21:14)

8. What did Paul tell James and the elders? How did they react? (Acts 21:18-20)- Those things God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry (Acts 21:19)

• They glorified the Lord (Acts 21:20)

9. What had the Jewish believers been informed about Paul? (Acts 21:20-21)- He taught all the Jews among the Gentiles to forsake Moses (Acts 21:21)

• He told them not to circumcise their children (Acts 21:21)
• He told them not to walk according to the customs (Acts 21:21)

10. What was the plan suggested to Paul? What was this to accomplish? (Acts 21:22-24)- Take the four men who have taken a vow; be purified with them; pay their expenses (Acts 21:23-24)

• The things they had been informed of were “nothing,” and that Paul walked orderly and kept the law (Acts 21:24)

11. Had James and the elders changed their position regarding the letter written to the Gentiles in Acts 15? (Acts 21:25)- No; they reiterated the points of the letter (Acts 21:25)

12. Where were the Jews from that saw Paul in the temple? How did they stir up the people? (Acts 21:27-28)- Jews from Asia (Acts 21:27)

• They cried out that Paul taught men everywhere against people, the law, and the temple; they claimed he brought Greeks into the temple and defiled it (Acts 21:28)

13. Who did the Jews “suppose” Paul brought into the temple? (Acts 21:29)- Trophimus, the Ephesian (Acts 21:29)

14. What did the mob do to Paul? (Acts 21:30-32)- They seized Paul, and dragged him out of the temple (Acts 21:30)

• They sought to kill him (Acts 21:31)
• They were beating him (Acts 21:32)

15. When the commander heard of the uproar, what did he do? (Acts 21:31-34)- He took soldiers and centurions and ran to them (Acts 21:32)

• The commander took Paul and had him bound with chains (Acts 21:33)
• He asked who he was and what he had done (Acts 21:33)
• He commanded that he be taken to the barracks (Acts 21:34)

16. What did the soldiers have to do at the stairs? Why? (35)- The soldiers had to carry Paul (Acts 21:35)

• Because of the violence of the mob (Acts 21:35)

17. When Paul asked to speak to the commander, what two questions did he ask Paul? How did Paul respond? (Acts 21:37-39)- Can you speak Greek? (Acts 21:37)

• Are you not the Egyptian, the leader of the assassins? (Acts 21:38)
• I am a Jew from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city; and I implore you to permit me to speak to the people (Acts 21:39)

18. With the commander’s permission, in what language did Paul speak to the people? (Acts 21:40)- Hebrew (Acts 21:40)

Verse 1 Paul’s third journey continued from Miletus to Tyre (Acts 21:7-15), and was concluded in Jerusalem (Acts 21:17-26); and Luke’s account of these events, although very brief, is of keen interest. The great feature of the chapter, however, is that of Paul’s being mobbed in the temple and rescued by the Romans who took him into protective custody, beginning a long period of imprisonment for the apostle Paul, an imprisonment that would not end until Satan had enlisted the Roman Empire as a persecutor of the church. And when it came to pass that we were parted from them and had set sail, we came with a straight course unto Cos, and the next day unto Rhodes, and from thence unto Patara. (Acts 21:1) FROM MILETUS TO TYREThe places touched on this phase of Paul’s trip were all places of historic interest and attraction for tourists. For example, Rhodes, a tiny island famous for its cultivation of roses (whence came the name), was also noted for “the giant Colossus of Greek fame, with conquering limbs astride from land to land."[1] This member of the Dodecanese Islands boasted the mighty Colossus of Rhodes, “One of the seven wonders of the ancient world,"[2] a giant bronze statue astride the harbor on its eastern extremity. It stood 105 feet high, having been erected by Chares of Lindus in 300 B.C. After standing only 56 years, it was tumbled and fragmented by an earthquake in 244 B.C.; but the ruins of this enormous wonder were a notable attraction until they were finally sold as scrap metal to a Jewish dealer in 656 A.D.,[3] who required 900 camels to transport “the remains”![4]The above is a fair example of the interest which attaches to every point mentioned by Luke in this passage; but we shall follow the example of the inspired author in passing over the others in this list without comment on them. After all, the journey outlined here was not a tourist excursion. Before leaving “The Colossus,” it should be pointed out that “The notion that it once stood astride over the entrance to the harbor is a mediaeval fiction."[5]When … we were parted from them … Many have noted the Greek text here which has the meaning of “When we had torn ourselves away,“Acts 2 p. 169.">[6] indicating the intense emotions of the parting from Miletus. Luke was sensitive to the deep emotional ties which bound the apostle to his converts. [1] Emma Lazarus, Sonnet (bronze plaque on Statue of Liberty, New York Harbor, placed in 1886). [2] Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, Inc., 1972), Vol. 20, p. 282. [3] The Encyclopedia Britannica (Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1961), Vol. 19, p. 262. [4] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1953), Acts, p. 301. [5] The Encyclopedia Britannica, op. cit., p. 262. Acts 2 p. 169.">[6] A. C. Hervey, Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1950), Vol. 18, Acts 2 p. 169. Verse 2 And having found a ship crossing over unto Phoenicia, we went aboard and set sail.The ship Paul and company had been using was a “tramp vessel,” making many stops; and here the chance to speed up their journey came through the timely availability of a ship bound directly for Tyre. As Hervey said, “This meant the voyage would be shortened by many days."[7]ENDNOTE: [7] Ibid., p. 170. Verse 3 And when we had come in sight of Cyprus, leaving it on the left hand, we sailed unto Syria, and landed at Tyre: for there the ship was able to unlade her burden.Here was a remarkable fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy: Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold with them, unto the name of the Lord thy God, and to the Holy One of Israel (Isaiah 60:9). The sons of God, coming from far, laden with gold and silver, unto the name of the Lord (in the person of his disciples) - all of this is remarkably applicable to what took place here. In addition, the “ships of Tarshish” were invariably associated with places “like Joppa and Tyre."[8]ENDNOTE: [8] The New Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1962), p. 1239. Verse 4 And having found the disciples, we tarried there seven days: and these said unto Paul through the Spirit, that he should not set foot in Jerusalem.Wesley was correct in saying that the presence of Christians in Tyre “was foretold”;[9] for Psalms 87:4 has this: “Among them that know me, behold Philistia, and Tyre, with Ethiopia.” Having found … would seem to indicate some little search before the company of believers (perhaps small) was located. This sail to Tyre was a distance of 340 miles; but in view of the prevailing winds at that time of the year, Howson concluded that “The voyage might easily have been accomplished in forty-eight hours."[10]We tarried there seven days … Plumptre and others have observed that the purpose here of the seven days’ stay was to enable the missionaries to observe the Lord’s supper with the Christians of Tyre. The seven days’ stay, as at Troas (Acts 21:2-6), and afterward at Puteoli (Acts 28:14), was obviously for the purpose of attending one, or possibly more than one meeting of the church for the Lord’s supper on the Lord’s day.[11]That he should not set foot in Jerusalem … This could hardly be understood as a direct word from the Holy Spirit to the effect that Paul should not continue his journey to Jerusalem. The Holy Spirit had repeatedly revealed that bonds and imprisonment awaited Paul in Jerusalem; and these carried the certain implication that he was, of course, going there. The words here, then, should be viewed, not as a mandate of the Holy Spirit, but as a conclusion reached by the disciples who so dearly loved Paul and wished to protect him from danger. “The inference that he should not go to Jerusalem was their own”[12] that is, of the disciples. [9] John Wesley, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, in loco. [10] J. S. Howson, Life and Epistles of St. Paul (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1966), p. 562. [11] E. H. Plumptre, Ellicott’s Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1953), Vol. VII, p. 144. [12] A. C. Hervey, op. cit., p. 170. Verse 5 And when it came to pass that we had accomplished the days, we departed and went on our journey; and they all, with wives and children, brought us on our way until we were out of the city: and kneeling down on the beach, we prayed, and bade each other farewell; and we went on board the ship, but they returned home again.Barnes viewed this episode as proof that New Testament Christians did not follow any prescribed form of prayer, but that prayers were offered extemporaneously at any convenient time or place. He said: No man can read this narrative in a dispassionate manner without believing that they offered an extemporaneous prayer …. No man can believe that Paul thus poured out the emotions of his heart in a prescribed form of words.[13]But they returned home again … There is the suppressed longing of the heart for home in Luke’s words here. He, with Paul and their fellow-travelers, went aboard ship; but THEY went home. What a poignant word is they. They went home with wife and child; but Luke and Paul went to the savage mob in Jerusalem, and chains, and long waiting for justice that never came, and at last a voyage that led to a shipwreck on Malta, and the military barracks in Rome. As De Welt said, “I can read into the closing words of Luke a certain loneliness that he must have felt … `But they returned HOME again.’"[14][13] Albert Barnes, op. cit., p. 303. [14] Don DeWelt, Acts Made Actual (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1958), p. 278. Verse 7 And when we had finished the voyage from Tyre, we arrived at Ptolemais; and we saluted the brethren, and abode with them one day.When we had finished the voyage from Tyre … Hervey and others believed that the Greek words used here indicate that “the sea voyage ended here,"[15] and that the balance of the journey to Jerusalem was on foot. Saluted the brethren … This was a favorite word, both of Paul and of Luke; Paul used it more than a dozen times in Romans 16. It carried the meaning of a fervent greeting of fellow-Christians. ENDNOTE: [15] A. C. Hervey, op. cit., p. 170. Verse 8 And on the morrow we departed, and came unto Caesarea: and entering into the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, we abode with him.Philip the evangelist … “This title was given to those who went from place to place proclaiming the gospel”;[16] such preachers were ranked after apostles and prophets and above pastors and teachers in Ephesians 4:12. Timothy was another evangelist in the New Testament sense (2 Timothy 4:5). The use of the word as a title for authors of the gospels did not arise until much later. We abode with him … As McGarvey said, “His house must have been a capacious one, as it enabled him to entertain the nine men who made up Paul’s company."[17] See Acts 20:4-5 for the names of the other seven besides Paul and Luke. Philip had evangelized the cities of the coastal area from southward of Caesarea; where, after his preaching in many places, he had settled down in Caesarea, his large house indicating that he was a man of considerable means, incidentally disproving the “communism” which some think they find in the New Testament. See also Acts 21:16. [16] R. Milligan, Analysis of the New Testament (Cincinnati, Ohio: Bosworth, Chase Hill, Publishers), p. 389. [17] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on Acts (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company), 2p. 199. Verse 9 Now this man had four virgin daughters, who prophesied.MacGreggor noted that: The absence of any statement as to what the daughters of Philip did or said is a sign that here we have the account of an eyewitness. In fiction, a new character is introduced only in order to do or say something.[18]Wesley’s notion that “these women were evangelists also”[19] must be rejected. These are the New Testament counterpart of such Old Testament prophetesses as Miriam (Exodus 15:20), Deborah (Judges 4:4), Noadiah (Nehemiah 6:14), and Huldah (2 Kings 22:14). They were not evangelists. Furthermore, the mention of their being unmarried “virgins is only an interesting detail and carries no religious significance."[20]Root’s supposition that these daughters of Philip “likely repeated the same prophecy that was being given in every city (Acts 20:23),"[21] is not proved by anything in the text but could be true. Also, Bruce’s seeing in the sojourn of Luke with Paul and company in the house of Philip a possible source of information acquired by Luke with reference to the earliest days of the church, is most likely correct. “The daughters who lived to great age were highly esteemed as informants concerning persons and events”[22] of the early years of Christianity. In that connection, it should be remembered that Paul was imprisoned here at Caesarea for two whole years; and there can hardly be any doubt that Luke, who was with him (though not imprisoned), would have highly prized information acquired during that period, making use of such information “in the composition of his twofold work."[23][18] G. H. C. MacGreggor, The Interpreter’s Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1954), Vol. IX, p. 278. [19] John Wesley, op. cit., in loco. [20] Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 462. [21] Orrin Root, Acts (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1966), p. 164. [22] F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1954), p. 424. [23] Ibid. Verse 10 And as we tarried there some days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet named Agabus. And coming to us, and taking Paul’s girdle, he bound his own feet and hands, and said, Thus saith the Holy Spirit, So shall the Jews and Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. And when we heard these things, both we and they of that place besought him not to go up to Jerusalem.Agabus … The prophecy here delivered by this man is exceedingly important as showing “how” the Holy Spirit testified to Paul in every city that bonds and imprisonment awaited him. It was not by premonitions and subjective thoughts, but through plain words spoken by the Holy Spirit through a prophet, that Paul received such information. For more on this, see under Acts 20:23. Bound his own feet and hands … The Old Testament prophets often acted out their prophecies, as for example, in Ezekiel’s portrayal of the siege of Jerusalem (Ezekiel 4:1-6); and a similar thing was done by Agabus here. Implicit in Agabus’ prophecy that the binding of Paul would occur in Jerusalem is the fact that the Holy Spirit expected him to go to Jerusalem. The prophecy was not that “If you go you will be bound,” but that “you will be bound.” Agabus is the same prophet mentioned in Acts 11:28 who foretold the famine in the reign of Claudius. Luke himself appears to have been one of the disciples who interpreted the prophetic warnings to Paul as an indication that he should not proceed to Jerusalem at all. Note the “we” in Acts 21:12. There remains, in the light of what occurred there, a lingering wonderment if Luke might have been correct. After all, he was also inspired, as well as Paul. Verse 13 Then Paul answered, What do ye, weeping and breaking my heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus. And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.This is a tragic passage. Against the advice of his physician, and contrary to the insistence of his friends and fellow-Christians, Paul determined to go to Jerusalem, believing, of course, that it was the will of God for him to go; a conclusion that was reluctantly accepted by Luke and others who sought to dissuade him. I am ready … to die at Jerusalem … It certainly was not God’s will that Paul should die in Jerusalem, for such did not occur. Paul’s words remind one of what Peter said (John 13:37); but there was a difference. Peter’s affirmation that he was ready to die for the Lord was made in his own strength; Paul’s was made in the strength of the Lord. The group concurred in the conviction that Paul knew what the will of the Lord was. Verse 15 And after these days we took up our baggage and went up to Jerusalem. And there went with us also certain of the disciples from Caesarea, bringing with them one Mnason of Cyprus, an early disciple with whom we should lodge.The point of interest here is the early disciple, Mnason, who would provide lodging for the company of nine men in Jerusalem; and the fact of his also residing in Caesarea, or at least having gone up there to meet Paul, gives rise to the speculation that he owned houses in both Jerusalem and Caesarea, and perhaps even in Cyprus also. Faced with such implications, some commentators have supposed that Mnason had journeyed to Caesarea to meet Paul,[24] or that his house was located halfway between Caesarea and Jerusalem,[25] or even that this refers to Mnason’s picking up the bill for the group’s lodging on the way to Jerusalem, which was about sixty miles away and would have required an overnight halt. All such speculations are unnecessary upon the acceptance of the obvious fact of Mnason’s being a man of means and of property. Only such a person could have provided lodgings in such a city as Jerusalem for so large a company. Added to what is recorded in Acts 21:8 and Acts 12:12 ff, the picture of the New Testament church which emerges in Acts utterly fails to support the allegations of collectivists. OF THE THIRD JOURNEYSome place the conclusion of Paul’s third journey at Acts 21:17; but it would appear more logical to include the balance of this paragraph, through Acts 21:26, thus including the implied delivery of the charity to James and the elders, along with suggestions immediately offered to Paul in their first meeting. [24] Orrin Root, op. cit., p. 165. [25] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 847. Verse 17 And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. And when he had saluted them, he rehearsed one by one the things which God had wrought among the Gentiles through his ministry.Received us gladly … This could have been expected, normally, due to the money which Paul brought and presumably delivered at this time to James and the elders; but the situation was far from normal, there being many powerful enemies of Paul in Jerusalem who had sowed the city with false and bitter reports concerning him. In his letter to the Romans, Paul had solicited their prayers that the brethren in Jerusalem would even receive the bounty raised for them among the Gentile churches (Romans 15:31). This first joyful reception was therefore an answer to Paul’s prayers. James … and all the elders … It is affirmed, of course, that what emerges here is the picture of a metropolitan bishop ruling over the church in Jerusalem, the elders being secondary; but this is not to be accepted. James, as a natural half-brother of our Lord, and an inspired author (of the Book of James), was an “apostle of secondary rank,” though not one of the Twelve; and it was quite natural that the church in Jerusalem should have given him the honor which he seems to enjoy in this and other passages. “This was the fifth time that Paul had visited Jerusalem, since he set out against the brethren at Damascus."[26] This initial joyful reception seemed to promise that it would be the happiest; but such was not to be. “It can scarcely be supposed that any of the apostles were at that time in Jerusalem."[27] Otherwise, they would have been mentioned. It could be only a matter of conjecture as to where each of them had gone; but it is natural to conclude that they were obedient to the Lord’s command to “Go … into all the world.” [26] Alexander Campbell, Acts of Apostles (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation Publishing House), p. 142. [27] John Peter Lange, Commentary on Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House), p. 389. Verse 20 And they, when they heard it, glorified God; and they said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of them that have believed; and they are all zealous for the law: and they have been informed concerning thee, that thou teachest all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.In the absence of the Twelve, who presumably might have known better, the whole Jerusalem church was involved in law-keeping, being “zealous for the law of Moses.” One may only be astounded at such a statement as James made here. This very James had already publicly assented with Peter and the Twelve that they would not place upon the Gentiles “a yoke” which neither themselves nor their fathers could bear; and here James is concerned for circumcision and keeping the “customs.” The great error of James, the Jerusalem elders, and the majority of that church was in the supposition that God had two plans, one for Gentiles and another for Jews. The apostolic mandate lifting law-keeping from the back of the Gentiles was also the theoretical and logical lifting of it off the backs of “all Christians”; but this had somehow been overlooked in Jerusalem. This writer can find no rational basis for supposing that James was blameless in this situation, although it was probably a blameworthiness due to ignorance of the implication of what had already been decided by the apostles, rather than of any willful disobedience. An extenuation of the blame of those Jewish Christians in not being able to accept the abolition of the Mosaic law and all the temple services, is seen in our Lord’s prophecy of the temple’s destruction. The Lord knew that the hold of its forms and sacrifices would have such a force upon all the Jews, that rather than their being able to tear away from them, God would tear them away from the Jews. See reasons for God’s destruction of the temple in my Commentary on Mark under Mark 13:2. As Wesley said, “James should have told those Jewish Christians: I do not keep the law of Moses; neither does Peter; neither need any of you!"[28]The charges mentioned here, to the effect that Paul had persuaded Jewish Christians not to circumcise their children, was a base lie. He had even circumcised Timothy with his own hands, and it is evident that Paul had carried on no campaign of any kind as that alleged against him. However, in Paul’s making circumcision and all Mosaic regulations absolutely unnecessary for salvation, he had laid the theoretical foundation for their total abandonment by all Christians. James’ proposal as to what Paul should do about the situation was next offered. ENDNOTE: [28] John Wesley, op. cit., in loco. Verse 22 What is it therefore? they will certainly hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say unto thee: We have four men that have a vow on them; these take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges for them, that they may shave their heads: and all shall know that there is no truth in the things whereof they have been informed concerning thee; but that thou thyself walkest orderly, keeping the law.It is true, of course, that Paul himself, as a Jew, kept many of the customs of Jews, in a patriotic sense, even shaving his head (apparently) (Acts 18:18) with regard to some kind of vow; but Paul’s writings make it certain that he never regarded any such things as being related in any manner whatsoever to salvation in the name of Christ. Without doubt Paul’s observance of such things made his entry into synagogues possible, and thus they had a certain practical utility in his teaching. “To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews” (1 Corinthians 9:20). Still, one is aghast at James’ proposal! Was it right for him to make such a proposition to Paul? and was it right for Paul to concur in it? This writer simply does not dare to offer a dogmatic answer. It is believed, of course, that both James and Paul did what, under the circumstances, they truly believed to be right; but evidently both of them were caught in a net of circumstances where anything they might have done would have had elements of error in it. Be at charges for them … What is indicated here is that James and the Jerusalem elders were proposing that part of the Gentile bounty raised for the “poor saints” would be diverted to the greedy priests in the “den of thieves and robbers,” so vehemently condemned by the Christ himself. It appears that the absorption into the Jerusalem church of so many Pharisees (Acts 6:7 Acts 15:5) had created a situation in which a Pharisaical party in the church itself was as busy as beavers grafting as much as possible of the law of Moses onto Christianity; and, although they had not yet gone so far as to insist on Gentiles keeping such things (the apostolic edict still stood against it, as in next verse), nevertheless, it is all too evident that they would soon have gotten around to that, or else have made Gentile Christianity an inferior brand of faith. As Adam Clarke appropriately said: However we may consider this subject, it is exceedingly difficult to account for the conduct of James and the elders, and of Paul on this occasion. There seems to be something in this transaction which we do not fully understand.[29]The exact nature of the Nazarite vow, involved in this business, can be of very little interest to Christians. It is enough to know that certain sacrifices to be offered in the temple had to be provided and paid for; and that Paul consented to be “the fall guy.” Some things had to be done by God himself before men could be righteous; and the denial of Peter the night the Lord was betrayed was due not so much to any unusual weakness in Peter, as to the fact that the enabling death of Christ had not then taken place. We view the unhappy situation here as beyond the control, either of James and the elders, or of Paul. The mighty undertow against true spirituality in Christ which was provided by the extravagantly beautiful, impressive, and even glorious temple was simply too much for the Jerusalem church, the entire epistle to the Hebrews giving evidence of the same fact; and, as the hour God had appointed for its destruction was yet future, the status of the church in Jerusalem continued to be far short of the ideal. Paul, without any sacrifice of principle, found his very liberty of thought used against him here in a manner that he found no means of avoiding. Even kings were “sucked in” by the pressures exerted by that temple crowd in Jerusalem. Conybeare relates that not long before this, “Agrippa I had given the same public expression of his sympathy with the Jews, on his arrival from Rome to take possession of his throne."[30] No doubt James and the elders felt that what the king had done for popularity, Paul might do for the sake of peace and harmony; but in such a misunderstanding (on someone’s part) there was a gross misreading of the relationship between the Jewish temple and the spiritual body of the Lord, which alone is the true temple. The entire venture was destined for a disastrous failure. [29] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: T. Mason and G. Lane), Vol. V, p. 860. [30] W. J. Conybeare, Life and Epistles of St. Paul (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 1964), p. 573. Verse 25 But as touching the Gentiles that have believed, we wrote, giving judgment that they should keep themselves from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what is strangled, and from fornication.This repetition of the agreement of the so-called council in Jerusalem was made for the sake of assuring Paul that there had been no “backing out” of the agreement; but that it still held. Implicit in James’ proposal, however, was the proposition of TWO BODIES of Christians being promulgated, one keeping the law of Moses, the other not; a premise which it is certain that Paul never for one moment accepted. In fact his efforts in this chapter were dedicated to a resolution of the differences in the two groups whichALREADY EXISTED. Verse 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them went into the temple, declaring the fulfillment of the days of purification, until the offering was offered for every one of them.So far, so good. It might have seemed that all was well, that everything would be all right, that all the Jewish Christians would behold what a noble Jew Paul really was; but Jesus had spoken of that temple, calling it a “den of thieves and robbers,” and accusing its masters of committing murder in the sanctuary itself; and before the week ended the Lord’s church would have new evidence that he had spoken the truth. It is here that the third journey of Paul ended, with the bounty delivered, and with Paul going the second and third miles in a vain effort to mollify the Judaizers. Paul had traveled some 3,400 miles, suffering countless hardships, and extending himself to the limit of human endurance on behalf of the gospel of Christ. Thus the fabulous missionary journeys of Paul were concluded. According to De Welt, a period of about eight years was required for all the events connected with those journeys, from about 50 A.D. to about 58 A.D. These journeys established a large number of Gentile congregations throughout a large portion of the Roman Empire and proved the amazing success of the Lord’s great apostle to the Gentile world. During this period, Galatians , 1,2 Corinthians , 1,2Thessalonians, and Romans had been written and sent on their way through history. In a real sense, these eight years were crucial to the spread of Christianity throughout the world. Verse 27 And when the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the multitude and laid hands on him.Jews from Asia … These were not Jewish Christians, but were of the hard cadre of secular Israel who rejected Christ totally. Harrison believed that one of the reasons for Luke’s inclusion of this incident was to show the final and irrevocable rejection by the Jews of the Lord Jesus Christ. He said: Luke devotes considerable space to the record of Paul’s last visit to Jerusalem, not because the visit was important in itself, but because it showed the final rejection of the gospel by Jerusalem.[31]That James’ intentions were honorable, and that he in heart had not in any degree forsaken the will of the Lord in his request of Paul, which incidentally appears not actually as his request but rather as that of “the elders” (Acts 21:20), is evident in the cause and manner of his death, as recorded by Josephus: Ananus thought that he had a favorable opportunity because Festus was dead and Albinus was still on the way. So he convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man called James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned.[32]A Christian writer of the second century, Hegesippus, says James was thrown down from the pinnacle of the temple, stoned, and finally killed by a fuller’s club.[33]Jack Lewis declares that these testimonies are “usually thought to be authentic."[34]Such information further explains the character of the temple crowd which dominated and controlled the Jewish temple, but recently completed, having been under construction nearly three quarters of a century, and which was THE THEATER WHERE the conciliatory efforts of this chapter were enacted. Given the place where the efforts occurred and the mob who controlled it, there was no possibility of such efforts succeeding. [31] Everett F. Harrison, op. cit., p. 463. [32] Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, translated by William Whiston (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston), p: 598. [33] Jack P. Lewis, Historical Backgrounds of Bible History (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1972), p. 141. [34] Ibid. Verse 28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: this is the man that teacheth all men everywhere against the people, and the law, and this place; and moreover he brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath defiled this holy place.The unscrupulous agitators who stirred up the mob were false in all of their charges; but a lie serves better than the truth in the mouths of such evil beasts as those whose fury broke against Paul. In the next verse, Luke gave the pretext upon which they founded the third charge of defiling the temple; but it is of interest only as an example of the way the criminal mind works. If they had not had that pretext, they would have invented another. Verse 29 For they had before seen with him in the city Trophimus the Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.There was no basis at all for supposing that anyone with Paul in the city was also with him in the temple. Verse 30 And all the city was moved, and the people ran together; and they laid hold on Paul, and dragged him out of the temple: and straightway the doors were shut.The Jerusalem hierarchy had long sought to murder Paul, and his frequenting the temple for a whole week gave them exactly the opportunity they needed; and the only reason they did not succeed was due to the providential alertness and efficiency of the Roman garrison in the tower of Antonio. Verse 31 And as they were seeking to kill him, tidings came up to the chief captain of the band, that all Jerusalem was in confusion.One would like to think that some of those Christians with their heads shaved carried the message to the chiliarch, but there is no evidence of it. The Sanhedrinists, through their henchmen, were in the process of beating Paul to death, having first precipitated a mob scene in which it would be impossible to fix individual responsibility. Only God’s providence saved the great apostle’s life. Verse 32 And forthwith he took soldiers and centurions, and ran down upon them: and they, when they saw the chief captain and the soldiers, left off beating Paul.At the northwest corner of the temple stood the great tower of Antonio, official headquarters of the Roman presence in Jerusalem. That presence was commanded by a chiliarch (commander of a thousand, or a tenth of a legion) with centurions (each commanding a hundred) under him. Thus it appears that two or three hundred men were used by the chiliarch (called the chief captain) in his rescue of Paul. From the scene here, it is crystal clear that the Jewish temple would have to be destroyed, in order to break up the center of opposition which it sheltered. That opposition was ruthless, unprincipled, and resourceful; and, if they could have continued in possession of such an instrument of power as the temple assuredly was, the gospel might not ever have been fully free of it in Judaea. However, Paul’s speech about to be given would be the last great opportunity that the temple-keepers would ever have to renounce their unbelief and accept the Savior. Only about a decade from the uproar in this chapter would elapse before Vespasian and Titus would unknowingly implement the Lord’s great prophecy of the temple’s utter ruin. See my Commentary on Mark under Mark 32:2 for ten reasons why God destroyed it. Verse 33 Then the chief captain came near, and laid hold on him, and commanded him to be bound with two chains; and inquired who he was, and what he had done. And some shouted one thing, and some another, among the crowd: and when he could not know the certainty of the uproar, he commanded him to be brought into the castle.Thus the apostle Paul passed into the custody of the Roman government, beginning a period of imprisonment which was to last five years; and during which Rome itself would become a persecutor. It was a most decisive moment in the life of Paul. During those long years of his imprisonment, first at Caesarea, then in Rome, Luke would do the research necessary to giving mankind the gospel that bears his name and the book which is the object of these present studies. Verse 35 And when he came upon the stairs, so it was that he was borne of the soldiers for the violence of the crowd; for the multitude of the people followed after, crying out, Away with him.It was necessary to carry Paul in order to prevent someone’s putting a dagger in his heart, even while in the custody of the military. That was no ordinary mob. Away with him … They may have supposed that the temple authorities would find some manner of persuading the military to execute Paul. The words remind one of the cries of the mob who clamored for the blood of Jesus. Verse 37 And as Paul was about to be brought into the castle, he saith unto the chief captain, May I say something unto thee? And he said, Dost thou know Greek?PAUL’S REQUEST TO SPEAKIn the best form of military etiquette, Paul requested and received permission to speak to the chiliarch, who was astounded that Paul addressed him in a learned manner, speaking Greek, which the chiliarch had no reason to suppose that he knew. Throughout, the chiliarch had acted upon the assumption that Paul was a criminal, but one word from the apostle was enough to cast doubt on such a conclusion. Verse 38 Art not thou then the Egyptian, who before these days stirred up to sedition and led out into the wilderness the four thousand men of the Assassins?Egyptian who led … four thousand men … Commentators like to speculate on the disparity between this chiliarch’s attribution of only 4,000 men to the Egyptian seditionist as contrasted with the 30,000 attributed to him by Josephus; but it is exceedingly unlikely that the chiliarch’s information would have been inadequate on such a subject. Josephus, unlike the sacred authors, has been proved wrong on many points. The evil genius of the critical mind, however, is revealed in such a comment as that of MacGreggor, thus: “This is another faulty recollection of Josephus on Luke’s part."[35] This snide little criticism is reproduced here, not because of its value, for it has none; but it is cited as another example of the crooked exegesis which is popular in our day. Here is what Josephus wrote: There was an Egyptian false prophet … who got together thirty thousand men who were deluded by him … and was ready to break into Jerusalem by force … conquer the Roman garrison … But Felix prevented his attempt … When it came to a battle, the Egyptian ran away … while the greatest part of those that were with him were either destroyed or taken alive.[36]Note the last lines of the above comment from Josephus, which declare that there were more than FIFTEEN casualties, that number being the minimum which could qualify as “the greatest part” of “thirty thousand.” But in another place, Josephus gave the number killed and captured thus: Felix attacked the Egyptian and the people that were with him. He slew four hundred of them, and took two hundred alive. But the Egyptian himself escaped out of the fight, but did not appear any more.[37]Behold then the accuracy of Josephus! But not less marvelous is the critical mind which can: (1) suppose that Josephus was absolutely correct, (2) that the competent military commander in Rome knew that Josephus was correct and agreed with him when he said the Egyptian led thirty thousand men, and (3) that poor Luke failed to remember exactly what he had read in Josephus, (4) that of course he never heard Lysias say anything, but was piecing together a speech attributed to Paul by scrounging up some material from Josephus! It is exactly this type of nonsense which has firmly fixed the onus of bias and unreliability upon current criticism of the New Testament. [35] G. H. C. MacGreggor, The Interpreter’s Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1954), p. 288. [36] Flavius Josephus, op. cit., p. 683. [37] Ibid., p. 596. Verse 39 But Paul said, I am a Jew, of Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and I beseech thee, give me leave to speak unto the people.A citizen of no mean city … Coins excavated from Tarsus carry the inscription, “Metropolis Autonomous,” indicating that it had been granted autonomy by the Romans. It was an important metropolis noted for its educational facilities, as well as for trade, shipbuilding, and commerce. The amazing character of Paul is seen in this, that he desired to address a multitude which only a few moments before had been illustrated in their efforts to beat him to death. Amazing fortitude, amazing faith, amazing power! Verse 40 And when he had given him leave, Paul, standing on the stairs, beckoned with the hand unto the people; and when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew language, saying.Beckoning with the hand … Such a gesture, so characteristic of Paul, might not have been possible unless the chiliarch had ordered the easing or removal of his chains. A great silence … How strange that the uproar ceased. The hand of God was surely in the astounding silence that fell over the temple mob. By such a means, God would give them one more opportunity to hear and believe the truth; and one may only wonder if perhaps there was even a single individual who dared in his heart to forsake such blind and frenzied prejudice and come to the fullness of faith in Jesus our Lord. The Hebrew tongue … Strictly, this was Aramaic, or the common vernacular of the people. Paul was a linguist; and it may be supposed that if his dream of reaching Spain was ever realized, even there he would have been able to preach in a tongue known to the people. The content of Paul’s speech is the burden of the next chapter. Questions by E.M. Zerr For Acts Chapter 211. Who are the “we” of verse one? 2. Who are “them” of same verse? 3. At what place did they change ships? 4. Where did they land? 5. Whom did they find at this place? 6. How long did they tarry with them? 7. What day would such period bring? 8. State their protest to Paul. 9. Who composed the escort to the ship? 10. Relate the manner of their leave taking. 11. State the next important stop. 12. What gave the city its importance? 13. Into whose house did they enter? 14. Tell what you can of his family. 15. What prediction in 2nd chapter does this fulfill ? 16. Who came down from Judea ? 17. Relate the actions and predictions. 18. Who begged Paul not to go to Jerusalem? 19. Should this plea be counted as from the Holy Ghost ? 20. What was Paul’ s reply? 21. To what will did they then submit? 22. Would this show the former protest as being man’ s will ? 23. To what place did Paul next go ? 24. What arrangement was made for lodging? 25. State the reception that was given. 26. With whom did Paul meet next day? 27. Tell what he related to them. 28. And how was it received? 29. What information was then given Paul ? 30. Was this report true? 31. Harmonize verses 22-24 and 26 with Gal. 5: 4. 32. When did verse 25 occur? 33. What is meant by “ the seven days” in 27th verse ? 34. At that time who made a stir? 35. State the cause of the commotion. 36. Explain the mistake they made. 37. How did Paul get out of the temple ? 38. What conspiracy was about to be carried out? 39. Tell the news reaching the chief captain. 40. How did he respond ? 41. What did he find them doing to Paul? 42. Tell how Paul was secured. 43. What demands were made of him ? 44. Describe the state of the multitude. 45. Where did this cause Paul to be taken? 46. What was the Tegular use of this place? 47. How was Paul kept from violence of the people ? 48. What was the mob demanding? 49. State what surprised the chief captain. 50. Who did he have in mind with Paul? 51. State Paul’ s account of his nativity. 52. What privilege was now given him? 53. In what language did he speak ?

Acts 21:1

1 Act 21:1-2. The ship they took at Miletus went as far as Patara only, where the group had to change over to another vessel bound for Phenicia. That was a small tract of country on the east coast of the Mediterranean Sea.

Acts 21:3

3Act 21:3. Discovered Cyprus means they came in sight of that island, but passing it on their left they sailed on into Syria, the larger territory of which Phenicia was a small part. The ship landed at Tyre, an important seaport of the last named country. Here the ship was to unload its cargo which made a delay in the journey of seven days.

Acts 21:4

4Acts 21:4. Through the Spirit applies to the general condition of persecution that would beset Paul, not that it was an inspired directive for him not to go.

Acts 21:5

5Acts 21:5. Brought us on our way means that they all went with them to “see them off.” Leave-taking was often done in connection with a prayer service. It was done when Paul and the elders separated (chapter 20:36).

Acts 21:6

6Acts 21:6. After saying good-bye they separated. The disciples went to their homes and Paul and his company went into the ship which was ready to sail again.

Acts 21:7

7Acts 21:7. Paul and his group ended their sea travel at this town. There were some brethren here with whom they visited for one day.

Acts 21:8

8Acts 21:8. This traveling was done by land, bringing them to Caesarea which was the headquarters of the Roman government in Palestine. Philip was one of the deacons appointed in chapter 6. He is called the evangelist because of such work as he did as recorded in chapter 8.

Acts 21:9

9Acts 21:9. These virgins were the maidens mentioned elsewhere and their prophesying fulfilled the prediction made in Joe 2:28-29 and quoted by Peter in Acts 2:17-18.

Acts 21:10

0Acts 21:10. This is the same Agabus who made a prediction in chapter 11:28. The primary meaning of a prophet is a foreteller, although it is not restricted to that definition, but sometimes is used of those who edify or exhort (1 Corinthians 14:3). Agabus was a prophet of the former kind, those being the days of spiritual gifts.

Acts 21:11

1Act 21:11. See the note on “prophets acting” at 1 Kings 20:35 in volume 2 of the Old Testament Commentary. Agabus took this dramatic manner of making his prediction to impress its importance upon the group.

Acts 21:12

2Act 21:12. The whole group believed the prediction of Agabus, and in their anxiety and love for Paul, tried to persuade him not to go up to Jerusalem.

Acts 21:13

3Act 21:13. Paul did not worry over the prediction, but he was vexed because of the attitude of the group. He declared his willingness to go even further in his endurance for the sake of Jesus. He was willing to die for him if need be, although Agabus had not included that in his prediction.

Acts 21:14

4Acts 21:14. The will of the Lord be done indicates their resignation to whatever lot might befall the beloved apostle. His fortitude had the effect of reconciling them to the program that Christ might have mapped out for him.

Acts 21:15

5Acts 21:15. Took up our carriages is all from , which Thayer defines, “To pack up and carry off.” We means Luke, Paul and the others of their company.

Acts 21:16

6Acts 21:16. Mnason was formerly of the island of Cyprus but was now living in Jerusalem. He was returning home with this group and arrangements were made for them to stay with him.

Acts 21:17

7Acts 21:17. Brethren received us gladly indicated a friendly attitude toward the brethren of Paul’s group. This was not only because of the common interest they had in the cause of Christ, b

Acts 21:18

8Acts 21:18. The prominence of this James has been mentioned before. He is the one called “the Lord’s brother” in Galiatians 1:19, and is the one in Acts 12:17 Acts 21:18; 1 Corinthians 15:7 and Galatians 2:12. It is understandable, then, why Paul sought his company in the presence of the elders.

Acts 21:19

9Acts 21:19. One of the main subjects of interest in those days was the admittance of the Gentiles to the benefits of the Gospel.

Acts 21:20

0Acts 21:20. While many of the brethren rejoiced in the conversion of the Gentiles, they were confused as to their proper relation to the national customs of the Jews under the law of Moses. Zealous of the law means they had a desire to continue the aforesaid customs of the law even though they had embraced the Gospel. They had the right to do so (chapter 16:3; 18:21), but did not understand why thy,, Gentiles did not also.

Acts 21:21

1Act 21:21. Paul taught that no one was to be justified by the law of Moses. This teaching of the apostle was misunderstood and some thought that he also opposed the Jews who observed the old practices even though they did it merely as national customs. These elders understood Paul’s position on the subject, but many of the Jewish brethren did not, and they were informing him of the situation.

Acts 21:22

2Act 21:22. Paul was told that there would be an assembling of these zealous Jewish disciples in order to inquire into the subject.

Acts 21:23-24

4Acts 21:23-24. As a proof that Paul had not turned against the law as far as the national customs were concerned, they told him of an opportunity just at hand where he could engage in one of those customs, which was in regard to vows and the formalities required. The directions for observing this vow are in Numbers 6 th chapter.

Acts 21:25

5 Acts 21:25. This refers to Acts 15:23-29.

Acts 21:26

6Acts 21:26. Paul complied with the advice of the elders. When he did so he carried out a principle he set forth in 1 Corinthians 9:20.

Acts 21:27

7Acts 21:27. Paul had to be in the temple to perform the custom mentioned in the preceding verse. That attracted the attention of the Jews of Asia, a small Roman province in which was the city of Ephesus. They had known of Paul’s work in their home city, and still had a prejudice against him. They raised a commotion among the people and caused them to threaten Paul with violence.

Acts 21:28

8Acts 21:28. Like most riotous demonstrations, the motive was a false accusation. The mob accused Paul of opposing the law. (See comments at verses 20, 21.) They even accused him of bringing some Greeks (Gentiles) into the temple for the purpose of corrupting it.

Acts 21:29

9Acts 21:29. When people have the motive of persecuting a man whose teaching they do not like but cannot meet, they will take things for granted and form wrongful conclusions. Paul was seen with one Trophimus somewhere in the city, then the people presumed that he had taken him into the temple to corrupt it.

Acts 21:30

0Acts 21:30. A general uproar was caused and Paul was forcibly taken out of the temple. The doors were closed to prevent him from returning should he get loose.

Acts 21:31

1 Act 21:31. Went about to kill him means they were actually beginning their acts of violence, and intended to continue until they had him killed (verse 32). Word of the riot reached the ears of the captain of the military.

Acts 21:32

2Act 21:32. The captain took a crew of soldiers with him to the scene of the riot. The appearance of this company caused the mob to cease beating Paul.

Acts 21:33

3Act 21:33. The captain partook of the mob spirit and mistreated Paul, although the apostle had not even been accused by any officer.

Acts 21:34

4Acts 21:34. The riotous clamor of the mob confused the captain so that he concluded to remove Paul from them for further investigation, all the while treating him very roughly. The castle was the place that contained the barracks of the soldiers.

Acts 21:35

5Acts 21:35. The mob spirit was so violent that Paul had to be carried by the soldiers to get him through the crowd to a place of personal safety.

Acts 21:36

6Acts 21:36. Away with him was an outburst of rage prompted by the spirit of murder, for Paul had not even been accused by any legal witness.

Acts 21:37

7Acts 21:37. While this military police was pushing Paul along, he asked permission to make a speech to the people in his own behalf. This request was made in the Greek language, which surprised the captain who thought Paul was an Egyptian.

Acts 21:38

8Acts 21:38. The only fact that was present in both the case of the Egyptian and that of Paul, was that there was an uproar among the people. But the apostle was not to blame for the present riot, a truth seemingly unknown to the chief captain.

Acts 21:39

9Acts 21:39. Paul did not answer the captain with a direct “no,” but stated in brief his identity. Instead of being an Egyptian he was a Jew. Tarsus was no mean city which means it was no insignificant place. Paul’s nativity, then, was an honorable and noted one. On that basis he again asked permission to speak to the people.

Acts 21:40

0Acts 21:40. After being given license or permission to speak, Paul stood on the stairway to be in sight and hearing of the people, making a signal with his hand requesting their attention. When talking to the captain (verse 37) who was a Gentile, Paul used the Greek tongue. Now that the crowd was mostly Jewish, he used their own language which he knew they could understand and would respect.