Paul’s Journey to Jerusalem, 1-40

21:1 After we tore ourselves away from them, we put out to sea, and sailing a straight course, we came to Cos, on the next day to Rhodes, and from there to Patara. 21:2 We found a ship crossing over to Phoenicia, went aboard, and put out to sea. 21:3 After we sighted Cyprus and left it behind on our port side, we sailed on to Syria and put in at Tyre, because the ship was to unload its cargo there.

21:4 After we located the disciples, we stayed there seven days. They repeatedly told Paul through the Spirit not to set foot in Jerusalem. 21:5 When our time was over, we left and went on our way. All of them, with their wives and children, accompanied us outside of the city. After kneeling down on the beach and praying, 21:6 we said farewell to one another.

They repeatedly told Paul through the Spirit not to set foot in Jerusalem – Was Paul right, then, to insist on going to Jerusalem?  The disciples at Tyre had ‘repeatedly told Paul through the Spirit not to set foot in Jerusalem’ (v4).  At Caesarea, Agabus had prophesied that bad things would happen to Paul if he went to Jerusalem, v10f and the people there begged him not to go, v12.  Stott suggests that we should distinguish between the Spirit’s warning of danger, and the human response to this, which was to seek to dissuade Paul from travelling to Jerusalem.

Then we went aboard the ship, and they returned to their own homes. 21:7 We continued the voyage from Tyre and arrived at Ptolemais, and when we had greeted the brothers, we stayed with them for one day.

21:8 On the next day we left and came to Caesarea, and entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him. 21:9 (He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied.)

Philip the evangelist – Who we met, of course, in Acts 6 and 8.

Four unmarried daughters who prophesied – This may be by way of explaining that even low-status people (unmarried females) had significant roles within the church (NBC).

There may also be an echo of the four female prophets of the OT: Miriam (Exod. 15:20); Deborah (Judg. 4:4); Huldah (2 Kgs. 22:14); and Noadiah (Neh. 6:14).

It is possible that this visit to Phillip and his household gave Luke his source material for Phillip’s evangelistic work in Samaria and to the Ethiopean eunuch (EBC).

We are not told what these maidens prophesied about.  Marshall points out that that do not (apparently) prophesy about Paul’s fate.

21:10 While we remained there for a number of days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 21:11 He came to us, took Paul’s belt, tied his own hands and feet with it, and said, “The Holy Spirit says this: ‘This is the way the Jews in Jerusalem will tie up the man whose belt this is, and will hand him over to the Gentiles.’ ”

Agabus – He is introduced here as if we had not already met him in Acts 11:28.  ‘This suggests that Luke is recording material from the we-source in which he had not yet been mentioned.’ (Marshall)

Marshall comments:

‘The prophecy was not fulfilled in so many words: although the Jews seized Paul, they did not hand him over to the Romans, but rather the Romans rescued him from them, while keeping him in custody. The form of Agabus’s wording is no doubt meant to bring out more clearly the parallelism between the fates of Jesus and Paul. In any case, the Jews could be regarded as responsible for the fact that Paul fell into the hands of the Romans and remained in custody (cf. Acts 28:17) although the latter had no particular reason of their own to charge him with any crime.’

21:12 When we heard this, both we and the local people begged him not to go up to Jerusalem. 21:13 Then Paul replied, “What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be tied up, but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” 21:14 Because he could not be persuaded, we said no more except, “The Lord’s will be done.”

“I am ready…to die” – Derek Thomas comments:

‘Paul was prepared to die for the church! It takes my breath away to think about it. Is the church that important to us? What kind of sacrifices are we prepared to make for the church? Would we sacrifice a job, an income, just so that the church of Jesus Christ would come first? The answer spells for itself the level of importance we give the church for which Jesus Christ shed his blood. It also, perhaps, spells how far removed we are from that which gripped the apostle.’

21:15 After these days we got ready and started up to Jerusalem. 21:16 Some of the disciples from Caesarea came along with us too, and brought us to the house of Mnason of Cyprus, a disciple from the earliest times, with whom we were to stay.

Mnason of Cyprus, a disciple from the earliest times – His name is possibly a Hellenized variant of “Manasseh” (Trites).  He may have been an associate of Barnabas (also a Cypriot), cf. Acts 4:36f.

Wright notes that this was the last friendly roof under which Paul would ever stay.

21:17 When we arrived in Jerusalem, the brothers welcomed us gladly. 21:18 The next day Paul went in with us to see James, and all the elders were there. 21:19 When Paul had greeted them, he began to explain in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

This marks the end of the third ‘we’ section in Acts.  It reappears in Acts 27:1.  We do not know how long Luke stayed in the Jerusalem area.  But it may have been long enough for him to do research for his Gospel.  See note on ‘James’, below.

The gospel is destined to be taken ‘to the ends of the earth’ (Acts 1:8).  But will Paul survive Jerusalem and ever reach Rome?

We arrived in Jerusalem – This would have been in AD 57.  It was a time of rising Jewish nationalism in Jerusalem, and of resentment towards Gentiles generally.  This atmosphere helps explain the distrust and violence with which Paul was treated.  This is, remarks Milne:

‘a reminder that the church is always ‘in the world,’ set there by and under the hand of God, and hence vulnerable to impacts from the rise and fall of wider forces in the surrounding culture.’

The group arriving in Jerusalem includes Paul, Luke, and other representatives of churches.  We may assume that Paul presented the collection from the Gentile churches to James and elders, although this is only mentioned as a passing comment in Acts 24:17.  The offering, and its acceptance, was an important marker of the connection between the Gentile churches and the Jerusalem church.  For its importance in Paul’s mind, see 1 Cor 16:1–2; 2 Cor 8–9; Rom 15:26–29.

The collection for the believers in Jerusalem served a real need: they were still suffering from the effects of a famine some years prevously, but it was, as Derek Thomas remarks, a highly ‘political’ decision on Paul’s part:

‘The collection, after all, came largely from the hands of Gentile churches and was given to a largely Jewish-Christian church…Tensions between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians had sparked off a somewhat heated controversy in Antioch, one that included a tense moment between Paul and Peter. James provoked Peter into removing himself from table fellowship with his Gentile brothers, something that infuriated Paul to an extent that Peter was given a public dressing-down (Gal. 2:11–21).’

At this point, Luke shifts from the 1st person plural to the 3rd person plural.  According to Kistemaker and others, this is for a literary reason – to show that Paul is the central figure in this account.  The ‘we’ style returns in Acts 27:1.

James – The brother of the Lord (not the disciple of the same name, who was the brother of John).  He has already featured as the head of the church in Jerusalem, Acts 12:12–17; 15:13–21.  This verse teaches us that Luke (included of course in the ‘us’) was in contact with a younger brother of Jesus (James) and therefore a very direct source of material for the life of Jesus and his family (including Mary).

All the elders were there – Not the entire church (that would have been a recipe for chaos), but not just James (the NT knows only of plurality of pastors and elders).  Some think that this group of elders may have been patterned on the Sanhedrin, and that they were 70 in number.

When Paul had greeted them – Cf. v17, where Paul and his companions are warmly greeted.  But, the next day, at this meeting with James and the elders, it is Paul who greets them, but no reciprocal greeting is recorded (Witherington).

He began to explain in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry – Luke’s account is highly condensed.  This either refers to the collection or (more probably) to the events surrounding the establishment of new churches in Ephesus, Corinth, Philippi, and Thessalonica.

But, supposing Paul told them about (in Wright’s words)…

‘Riots in Antioch, stoning in Lystra, beatings in Philippi, more riots in Thessalonica, run out of town in Beroea, court cases and anti-Jewish violence in Corinth, and then that little escapade with 25,000 chanting pagans in Ephesus.’

…then (as Wright says), their anxiety levels must have started to rise.

Luke’s phrasing reminds us that:

‘anything accomplished through a ministry from the Lord, for the Lord and in his name is, in the final analysis, accomplished by the Lord alone. This is a necessary reminder, for often we are so busy doing our demographics, planning our outreach strategies, preparing our people and materials for our next big advance for God that we forget that he must do the work. True ministry for him will always be ministry by him.’ (Larkin)

21:20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all ardent observers of the law. 21:21 They have been informed about you—that you teach all the Jews now living among the Gentiles to abandon Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs.

When they heard this, they praised God – Let us, too, praise God, when we hear of those who were perhaps far away from Christ drawing close in the gospel.

Taken together with the emphasis, in v19, on what God had done, we are reminded that missionary work is, first and foremost, God’s work.  As Schnabel writes:

‘The question is not so much how we, today, “do” church but whether we allow God to do his work or whether we think that the key to “success” in missionary work and church growth lies with anthropological analysis, social-scientific exploration, business management methods, or the use of modern media.’

The cult of personality, in evangelism, is also hereby critiqued.

What about the collection?  There is no mention here of the money, so sacrificially given and so painstakingly conveyed.  Paul seems to have entertained some doubt about whether it would be cordially received, Rom 15:25-31.  Witherington surmises that it is not mentioned because it did not have the effect that Paul and his companions hoped for.  Two of the three apostles (Peter and John) were, apparently, no longer in Jerusalem, leaving the church vulnerable to more extreme Judaizing influences.

According to Witherington, the religious and political situation in Jerusalem in AD 57 was volatile.  Accordingly, he writes:

‘Marching into Jerusalem with Gentiles from various parts of the Empire at this xenophobic moment would hardly have produced a positive result from Jews in general, or from ardent Pharisaic Jewish Christians in Jerusalem’.

So the church in Jerusalem found itself caught between allegiance to the nation and embrace of God’s work among the Gentiles:

‘To accept the contribution from the Gentile churches was to be identified further with that mission and to drive another wedge between themselves and their compatriots. True, they had accepted such a contribution earlier (cf. 11:27–30) and had declared their fraternity with Paul in previous meetings (cf. Gal 2:6–10; Ac 15:13–29). But with the rising tide of Jewish nationalism and a growing body of scrupulous believers in the Jerusalem church, Jewish Christian solidarity with the Gentile mission was becoming more and more difficult to affirm if the Jerusalem church’s relations with the nation were to be maintained and opportunities for an outreach to Israel kept open.’ (EBC)

The conversation soon turns to distrust of Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, by the Jewish Christians.

James and his associates allow the worst, rather than the best, complexion to be placed on Paul’s labours.  As  Derek Thomas writes:

‘It is a line too often taken in the church today. One hears a report about a brother from a disgruntled faction, and instead of diffusing the situation, fuel is added to the flames by granting the accusation pride of place at the next meeting of church leaders. James could have pulled Paul aside and listened to his side of the events before arranging a meeting of the elders. He could have acted as Paul’s advocate in the meeting, diffusing the inevitable tension. These scenarios are not unknown in our own sphere. Have we ever called down a brother or sister by painting him or her in the worst possible light?’

“You see, brother” – ‘Though they were of the circumcision and he the apostle of the Gentiles, though they were conformists and he a nonconformist, yet they were brethren, and owned the relation.’ (MHC)

“Thousands of Jews…have believed” – Lit. ‘myriads.  The population of Jerusalem would have been between 25,000 and 50,000 at that time.

‘Well might our Lord compare his religion to a grain of mustard seed, seeing it had spread so extensively in so short a time. Its beginning was small; the instruments employed in propagating it apparently mean; the prejudices and obstinacy of the Jews very great; and yet, in about twenty-eight or thirty years after the ascension the number of those who had embraced it and were at one time in the same city is stated at many thousands, or rather myriads, or ten thousands.’

(Joseph Benson, Commentary on the Old and New Testaments)

“They are all ardent observers of the law” – Living as they did in Jerusalem, it was understandable that their Christian faith would have been coloured deeply  by the temple, and its rituals, feasts and other practices.

Matthew Henry:

‘They believe in Christ as the true Messiah, they rest upon his righteousness and submit to his government; but they know the law of Moses was of God, they have found spiritual benefit in their attendance on the institutions of it, and therefore they can by no means think of parting with it, no, nor of growing cold to it.’

Wright paraphrases their concern:

‘In other words, these thousands of recent converts, Paul, are taking the same line as you yourself once did, righteously indignant for God’s honour, for the eternal and unbreakable law of Moses, for the sanctity of the Temple and the land, for the national dream of liberation from Rome, of Israel’s vindication—of, indeed, ‘restoring the kingdom to Israel’ (Acts 1:6). Isn’t that what Jesus had promised?’

Thomas comments that the break from Judaism was unlike a break from some cult or false religion.  Christianity had grown out of the Jewish faith, and continued to hold much in common with it (including the Scriptures of what we call the Old Testament).  Marcionism, in the 2nd century, would teach a total severance of Christianity from all things Jewish.  Suspician that Paul was moving the church in the same direction was understandable, though mistaken.

“They have been informed about you” – Who started these rumours, we do not know (and, probably, they didn’t know either).  We get the impression that these concerns are not shared by James and the elders, but we cannot be sure.

We are introduced to the third controversy between Jewish and Gentile believers:

• The first involved the issue of baptizing and eating with Gentiles (Acts 11).
• The second concerned whether Gentiles should cubmit to circumcision, Acts 15.
• This third conflict is about the perceived pressure Paul has been putting on Jewish Christians to forsake their Jewish customs.

Barrett notes:

‘The general picture of a harmonious apostolic age is retained, but it is clear that at most only the surface is smooth.’

The Jews now living among the Gentiles – the Jews of the diaspora.

The rumour that Paul had been teaching the Jews to abandon Moses was, of course, false:

‘Paul was teaching Gentiles that they need not become Jews, a very different matter from teaching Jews that they must not remain Jews’ (Gempf, NBC)

Peterson: There is no evidence, either from Acts or from Paul’s letters, that the apostle was urging Jewish believers to abandon the Mosaic law or their inherited customs.

Their objection was not that Gentiles were being admitted into the church.  Nor was is about the terms of their admission.  These issues had already been settled, Acts 15:19–21, 23–29, and they fully accepted the terms agreed at the Jerusalem conference, Acts 21:25.  Rather, they were concerned that Paul’s teaching was undermining those believers who wished to remain faithful to their Jewish way of life:

‘These “Torah-zealous” Jewish Christians are not trying to make gentile Christianity Jewish; they are trying to keep Jewish Christianity from becoming gentile.’

(Harper’s Bible Commentary)

In every age, religious zealots are apt to suspect those of embrace the free grace of the gospel of antinomianism.

Milne remarks that if the Jewish Christians had thus misunderstood Paul, then it is likely that even more deepseated misrepresentations were prevalent in the Jerusalem population as a while.  Again, this helps explain the rather extreme way that Paul would soon be treated.

The concern was not about (a) the way of salvation; or (b) what Paul was teaching Gentile converts (about circumcision not be necessary); or (c) about the relevance of the moral law and the necessity for holiness.  It was, rather, about whether Jewish Christians should adhere to, or give up, Jewish customs.  As Stott writes, this was:

‘not a compromise, in the sense of sacrificing a doctrinal or moral principle, but a concession in the area of practice. ‘

Specifically, they were concerned that Paul was teaching these Jewish Christians not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs – Understandable concerns, given that Paul had affirmed that justification is apart from the law of Moses, (Rom 2:25-30; 3:21–22; 10:4; Gal 3:23–25; 4:9; 5:6), and that circumcision was not mandated (Rom 2:25–29; 4:9–12; 1 Cor 7:17–19).  See:

1 Cor 7:19 – ‘Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Instead, keeping God’s commandments is what counts.’

Barrett: Paul nowhere instructs that the circumcision of Jewish children should cease.  He tells already circumcised Jews not to undo the marks of their circumcision, 1 Cor 7:18.  There is a great difference between permitting devout Jewish parents to circumise their children and insisting on the circumcision of Gentile converts.  He probably regarded those who insisted on circumcision as ‘weak’ (Rom. 14; 15; 1 Cor. 8; 10). But he evidently taught his fellow Jews to sit loose to legal regulations and rituals, since he believed that Jewish believers should be willing to eat with Gentile Christians, and that they could buy and eat any kind of meat without scruple (1 Cor. 10:25, 27).

It is possible that some of the converts took Paul’s teaching to what they thought was its logical conclusion.  This might that have (wrongly) been attributed to Paul himself.

But, as Marshall observes:

‘Even if Paul proclaimed that Christ was the end of the law (Rom. 10:4), there is no evidence that he actively persuaded Jewish Christians to forego circumcising their children or to give up Jewish customs.’

Paul’s decision to circumcise Timothy, Acts 16:3, shows that he regarded circumcision as acceptable, though not mandatory, for Jews.  Moreover, Paul had shown himself sensitive to Jewish scruples by observing customs such as the Nazirite vow (Acts 18:18), Passover (Acts 20:6), and Pentecost (Acts 20:16).  In Rom 14-15 and 1 Cor 8-10 he defended the right of different groups to observe their own scruples regarding what they might eat, and urged the need for tolerance.  As remarked in Harper’s Bible Commentary, Luke has already answered these objections in advance!

Wright notes the plight of the church leader today:

‘Speaking for a moment as a church leader, I take great comfort in Paul’s uncomfortable position. It’s where we often find ourselves. Zealots to left of us, zealots to right of us, zealots in front of us, volley and thunder their absolute and undoubted truths, while those of us who have to find a way through with real people who are struggling to live real lives in loyalty to the real Jesus know, but realize we simply cannot explain to such people, that things are more complicated than that. Not because we have made them complicated, or because the gospel itself isn’t clear, or because we are fatally compromised, but because real life in God’s world is complicated and the gospel must not only address that real life from a distance but must get down on its hands and knees alongside it and embrace it right there with the love of God.’

This tense meeting between the two main groups – Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians – reminds us that there is only one Christianity.  Both groups could had claimed evidence of God’s blessing, and rightly so: many thousands had joined the church in Jerusalem, and Paul and his companions could tell of the success of the gospel around Asia Minor.  But were the two groups doctrinally compatible?  Centuries later, Luther would have his doubts, based on Paul’s insistence on salvation by faith, about James’ stress (in his epistle) on works.

Schnabel notes from this passage that it is good for church leaders to face up to tensions and disagreements, rather than sweeping them under the carpet.

Both of these leading apostles were, as Stott remarks, in a conciliatory frame of mind.  James and his associates praise God for the success of the gospel in Gentile lands.  Paul, too, shows generosity of spirit by agreeing to the proposal that now follows.

Trites explains the issue:

‘For Paul, since neither the circumcised condition or uncircumcised condition had any spiritual significance, it is highly unlikely that he would have taught Jews this “apostasy from the law”; it would have been like teaching Gentiles to take on the yoke of the law, something he opposed (see Rom 3:25–30; 1 Cor 7:18–19; Gal 5:6; 6:15). In fact, his circumcision of Timothy (16:3) and his respect for the weaker brother’s conscience in matters of Jewish custom (Rom 14:1–15:7) demonstrate that he proclaimed his “law-free” gospel with a flexibility which aimed to violate no one’s cultural identity. His “law-free” gospel, then, did not mean that Paul instructed persons in a “custom-free” life.’

21:22 What then should we do? They will no doubt hear that you have come. 21:23 So do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow; 21:24 take them and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself live in conformity with the law.

The proposed solution is a very Jewish one: Paul should participate in a vow.  He had done so previously, Acts 18:18.

Hughes suggests that:

‘there was more to this than seen at first glance because there was an implicit exchange of favors. “We have accepted this gift from the churches abroad, identifying ourselves with your Gentile mission. Now, Paul, if you will join with these men and identify yourself openly with our nation…” They were not asking Paul to compromise his Gentile ministry (see v. 25), but they wanted to portray him as a more scrupulous Jew than he actually was. This was a case of religious politicking!’

Alastair Begg (oral ministry) points to the difficulty the preacher might have, at first sight, in finding any contemporary relevance in this  ‘story of how Paul paid for the haircut of four men whose names we don’t even know?’

It is not clear why these four men [had] taken a vow.  It is possible that they had been defiled by coming into contact with a corpse, cf. Num. 6:6–12; 19:11–12 (Harper’s Bible Commentary).

It appears that this was a Nazirite vow that these four men had taken.  Barclay explains:

‘This was a vow taken in gratitude for some special blessing from the hand of God. It involved abstention from meat and wine for thirty days, during which the hair had to be allowed to grow. It seems that sometimes at least the last seven days had to be spent entirely in the Temple courts. At the end, certain offerings had to be brought—a year-old lamb for a sin offering, a ram for a peace offering, a basket of unleavened bread, cakes of fine flour mixed with oil and a meat offering and a drink offering. Finally, the hair had to be cut and burned on the altar with the sacrifice.’ (NDSB)

Was this a Nazirite vow on Paul’s part?  Probably not, since such a vow would have lasted for at least 30 days.  Longenecker comments:

‘Coming from abroad, Paul would have had to regain ceremonial purity by a seven day ritual of purification before he could be present at the absolution ceremony of the four Jewish Christians in the Jerusalem temple. This ritual included reporting to one of the priests and being sprinkled with water of atonement on the third and seventh days.’

Paul’s involvement (according to Longenecker) was to:

‘report to the priest at the start of the seven days of purification, inform him that he was providing the funds for the offerings of the four … men … and return to the temple at regular intervals during the week for the appropriate rites.’

How Paul was expected to pay their expenses is not clear.

The leaders in Jerusalem are saying, in effect: “We can accept this gift from the churches and so identify ourselves openly with your Gentile mission, if you will join with these men and identify yourself openly with the nation.” (EBC)

(a) Some, including Hausrath, have doubted that Paul would ever have accepted this proposal.  It may have been distasteful to him (Barclay, NDSB).  But, as Marshall states, it was a conciliatory gesture, motivated more by a desire to win unbelieving Jews than to pacify Christian Jews.  It is entirely in keeping with:

1 Cor 9:20f – ‘To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.’

As Bruce remarks:

‘A truly emancipated spirit such as Paul’s is not in bondage to its own emancipation.’

(b) An alternative view is that Paul accepted the proposal, but was mistaken in doing so.  We recall his earlier strenuous teaching, about the dangers of turning back from the gospel of salvation by faith alone to Jewish beliefs and practices (Gal 1:6-9; 2:11-14; 3:23-26; 5:1).  Without committing to this interpretation, Hughes points out how this action might have been unwise, if not actually sinful, on Paul’s part:

‘He gave the money for the purification (v. 24) to the very priestly system that had called for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, in the very temple where the veil had been torn in two when Jesus died—demonstrating that God had made a new way into his presence.’

(c) Another view is that, for Paul, the way of salvation was not at issue here.  Rather, it was the question of whether Jewish believers should be permitted to observe their traditional customs and practices, insofar as they did not threaten the integrity of the gospel.  Marshall roundly states:

‘There was no theological compromise for Paul in so doing, especially since the offering involved would not seem to him to clash with the self-offering of Jesus as a sacrifice for sin.’

Matthew Henry:

‘The ceremonial law, though it was by no means to be imposed upon the Gentile converts (as the false teachers would have it, and thereby endeavoured to subvert the gospel), yet it was not become unlawful as yet to those that had been bred up in the observance of it, but were far from expecting justification by it. It was dead, but not buried; dead, but not yet deadly. And, being not sinful, they thought it was a piece of prudence in Paul to conform thus far.’

The thinking behind this proposal, then, was for Paul to show solidarity with the Jewish believers, and quash rumours that he was undermining the Mosaic law.  It may have helped the Jerusalem leaders to accept the gift in good faith.

For Paul’s love for the Jewish nation, see Rom 9:1-3.

As Hughes, observes, ‘unity is still a major problem in the church’:

‘Two congregations located only a few blocks from each other in a small community decided to become one united, and thus larger and more effective, body instead of two struggling churches. But the merger did not happen because they could not agree on how to recite the Lord’s prayer. One group wanted “forgive us our trespasses,” while the other demanded “forgive us our debts.”’

Paul’s desire for visible unity reflected our Lord’s prayer in Jn 17:20-23.

“Purify yourself along with them” – Some scholars have doubted that Paul would ever associate himself with this Nazirite vow.  But, as Schnabel says:

‘The notion that Paul would express repentance and renewed commitment to God through the symbolic action of immersion in water is not impossible at all.’

As to Paul’s involvement in this vow, we cannot be certain.  Milne offer three possibilities:

(1) The vow is to restore purity to Paul due to his having become ‘unclean’ as a result of his travels in Gentile territories. The men’s vow is a Nazirite vow (thirty days) now nearing completion. Paul will join them for the final days and their shaving of hair.
(2) The men are embarked on a Nazirite vow but have contracted some impurity during its course and require the wait of a further seven days before having their heads shaved and then making a final offering. Paul joins them for the final stages.
(3) Paul’s cleansing is not for his having been in Gentile territory but as a completion of the vow he himself had initiated at Cenchrea (18:18). The men are either themselves from overseas and needing cleansing, or are completing a Nazirite vow.

The fact that this strategy did not lead to the intended peace is taken by some (including Marshall) as hinting that it was the wrong thing to do.  But Christians know that taking a peacable course of action does not always lead to a peacable outcome.  And ‘compromise’ is not always a dirty word!

On the other hand, Fernando suggests:

‘While it does not present a model as such, I believe it shows us how seriously Paul viewed the unity of the church and how he was willing to do everything possible to please those who were different in perspective from himself.’

Stott says that the solution agreed by James and Paul was not a doctrinal compromise, but a practical concession.

1 Cor 9:19f ‘For since I am free from all I can make myself a slave to all, in order to gain even more people.To the Jews I became like a Jew to gain the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) to gain those under the law.’

Milne comments:

‘In ministry or social situations, we may at times be invited to share in morally neutral, cultural practices which can, as for Paul here, clear away barriers to our sharing the gospel, especially when, again like Paul here, we are visitors to an area.’

Fernando:

‘Paul’s participation in the vows of the four men is consistent with his teaching in his letters. As he wrote in 1 Corinthians 9, for evangelistic purposes he was willing to change his behavior according to his audience. He advocated the same flexibility in order to preserve the unity of the body, especially because some actions that certain Christians thought were legitimate could be a stumbling block to weaker Christians (Rom. 14; 1 Cor. 8). One who has died to self has a love that “does not insist on its own way” (1 Cor. 13:5, NRSV). To Paul the unity of the church was so important that a big price was well worth paying in order to preserve it. We ought to recover this perspective in today’s church.’

How far should we go in seeking and maintaining unity with fellow Christians?  What compromises might be acceptable with regard to liturgy, inclusive language.

Schnabel notes that ‘Paul’s accommodation is not absolute’:

‘With regard to the Gentiles, accommodation is decisively limited by the religious convictions and ethical values of the pagans (Paul never says that he becomes “a pagan to the pagans”). Paul cannot “live like a Gentile” and worship in a pagan temple or visit prostitutes or despise the slaves, and this is what he teaches the Gentile converts. With regard to the Jews, accommodation is decisively constrained by his faith in Jesus as Israel’s Messiah and Savior: Paul cannot “live like a Jew” and treat the temple as the central place of God’s presence (and continue to bring sin offerings and guilt offerings), or regard the Jewish people as the only place where salvation is possible (and require Gentiles to become Jews if they want forgiveness). The religious relativism and polytheism of Gentile society make it impossible for Paul—or any other Christian—to live “as a Gentile” in every respect. And the reality of Jesus as Israel’s crucified, risen, and exalted Messiah and Savior, and the significance of God’s calling together a new people among whom he is present, consisting of Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus, make it impossible for Paul to live “as a Jew” in every respect.’

The Application Bible Commentary:

‘Although Paul was a man of strong convictions, he was willing to compromise on nonessential points, becoming all things to all people so that he might save some (1 Corinthians 9:19–23). Churches can split over disagreements about minor issues or traditions. Instead, like Paul, we should remain firm on Christian essentials but flexible on nonessentials. Of course, no one should violate his or her true convictions, but sometimes we need to exercise the gift of mutual submission for the sake of the gospel.’

21:25 But regarding the Gentiles who have believed, we have written a letter, having decided that they should avoid meat that has been sacrificed to idols and blood and what has been strangled and sexual immorality.” 21:26 Then Paul took the men the next day, and after he had purified himself along with them, he went to the temple and gave notice of the completion of the days of purification, when the sacrifice would be offered for each of them.

Regarding the Gentiles who have believed… – This issue had already been deatl with: they are not bound by the law of Moses.  The question now concerns Jews who have believed: what should be their relation to that same law?

“We have written a letter, having decided that they should avoid meat that has been sacrificed to idols and blood and what has been strangled and sexual immorality” – They should ‘avoid idolatry and immorality by staying away from the place where such things could be found together—idol feasts in pagan temples’ (Witherington)

Witherington adds that the issue is not just ‘menu’, but also ‘venue’:

‘The issue is not just one of menu but of venue where this meat has been offered and eaten. To avoid that venue would clearly signal to Jews and Jewish Christians that Gentile Christians were serious about severing their ties with their pagan past as Paul himself had insisted they must do (cf. 1 Thess. 1:9–10; 1 Corinthians 8–10).’

Paul took the men the next day – He might well have simply denied the rumours, or dismissed them as trivial.  But no: he evidently felt that the unity of the church was so important, that he was willing to undergo the expense and (as it turned out) the danger, of this procedure.

He went to the temple – As part of his fulfilment of his part in the vow of the four men.

---

21:27 When the seven days were almost over, the Jews from the province of Asia who had seen him in the temple area stirred up the whole crowd and seized him, 21:28 shouting, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches everyone everywhere against our people, our law, and this sanctuary! Furthermore he has brought Greeks into the inner courts of the temple and made this holy place ritually unclean!” 21:29 (For they had seen Trophimus the Ephesian in the city with him previously, and they assumed Paul had brought him into the inner temple courts.)

A further, and more dangerous, source of opposition comes from the non-Christian Jews.  This comes as a consequence of Paul’s agreement with the elders’ proposal.  But we need not conclude from this that the proposal – and Paul’s acquiecensce in it – was faulty.

When the seven days were almost over – ‘possibly when he came to receive the water of atonement on the seventh day’ (EBC).

The Jews from the province of Asia – Roughly equivalent to modern Turkey and northern Greece.  These Jews were probably on a pilgrimage (Gempf).  Possibly including those from Ephesus, Acts 19:9, for they appear to inow Trophimus, Acts 21:29, a believer from Ephesus who had travelled with Paul to Jerusalem, Acts 20:4.

The Jews from Asia may include those from Ephesus who had forced Paul to relocate his teaching from the synagogue to the lecture hall of Tyrannus (19:9). This is a plausible assumption since they know Trophimus (v. 29), a Christian from Ephesus who had come with Paul to Jerusalem (20:4). Since Luke mentions the impact of Paul’s ministry on “all people who lived in the province of Asia, both Jews and Greeks” (19:10; cf. 19:22, 26; 20:16, 18), Jews of other cities may be in view as well.

Paul had been seen in the temple area precisely because of the vow he had agreed to be associated with.

The charges against Paul are that he:

(i) teaches against the Jewish people
(ii) teaches against the law
(iii) teaches against the temple
(iv) has brought Greeks into the temple
(v) has defiled the temple

Paul is accused of teaching “everyone everywhere against our people, our law, and this sanctuary” – Luke nowhere records Paul preaching against the Jewish people:

‘On the contrary: he always preached in synagogues before he preached to Gentile audiences, and he left the local synagogues only when he was forced to relocate his activities due to opposition from members of the Jewish communities. ‘ (Schnabel)

Neither did Paul teach against the Mosaic law.  Indeed, his very presence in the temple spoke of his willingness to reassure those Jewish Christians who had been troubled by rumours that he been doing just that.

As for the accusation that Paul spoke against the Temple (in the outer courts of which they were all gathered), Schnabel comments that it was indeed regarded by Jews as the locus of God’s presence, and the only place where they could offer sacrifices and be made holy.  But:

‘Since Paul taught that Jesus has been sent by God as Israel’s Messiah, whose death and resurrection procures forgiveness of sins and eternal life (13:37–38, 46)—as the new place of God’s atoning presence, a sacrifice that forgives sins and procures righteousness for all who believe in Jesus (Rom 3:25–26)—the temple is indeed no longer the exclusive and effective place of God’s atoning presence among his people.’

The accusation, then, (suggests Milne) was a half-truth, for:

‘With the coming of Jesus and his ministry the people, law and temple are necessarily taken to a new place, in that Jesus is the Promised One of Israel and the fulfiller of the law and the temple in his person. The law cannot offer salvation, and the temple sacrifices are fulfilled in Jesus’ self-offering.’

“He has brought Greeks into the temple area and defiled this holy place” – Cf. Eph 2:14.  A serious accusation, but a totally false one.

As Marshall comments:

‘‘It is ironical that this should have been the charge against Paul at a time when he himself was undergoing purification so that he would not defile the temple!’

The danger to Gentiles of venturing into the inner courts of the temple, is testified by Josephus.  The so-called Soreg Inscription, discovered in the 1870, was hung outside the sanctuary of the Second Temple, and warned ‘strangers’ not to proceed further: “No foreigner is to enter within the balustrade and embankment around the sanctuary. Whoever is caught will have himself to blame for his death which follows.”  A further notice, carrying the same warning, was discovered in 1935.

The complaints against Paul echo those against  Stephen, Acts 6:13, and Jesus himself, (cf. Mk 14:58; Mt 26:61; Mk 15:29; Mt 27:40).  Paul is accused of being anti-Jewish, antilaw, and anti-Temple; in other words, he is charged with being a threat to ‘everyone everywhere’ – a universal menace (Harper’s Bible Commentary).

Acts 6:13 ‘They brought forward false witnesses who said, “This man does not stop saying things against this holy place and the law.’

Agabus had already predicted that the Jews would ‘bind’ Paul, v11.

Schnabel: The gospel of Jesus Christ does not pose a real threat to faithful Jews, but rather proclaims the fulfilment of God’s promises to the patriarchs and the restoration of God’s people, now to embrace Jews and Gentiles alike.  Christians continue to face unjust accusations, gross misunderstandings, and downright mispresentations of their beliefs, along with defamation of their motives and actions.

21:30 The whole city was stirred up, and the people rushed together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple courts, and immediately the doors were shut.

The charges are unfounded.  Nevetheless…

The whole city was stirred up – Gempf surmises that Christianity may have been unpopular in the city since the aftermath of the incident involving Stephen (Acts 8:1).

They seized Paul – The same word is used in v33, when the commanding officer ‘arrested’ Paul.  But the first was motivated by Jewish hostility; the second was intended to take Paul into protective custody.

Immediately the doors were shut – Possibly the gates between the inner and outer courts (Peterson).  In this case, Paul has been dragged from the inner courts of the temple to the Court of the Gentiles.

Stott sees this as symbolic of the Jewish rejection of the gospel.

This was not the first time that Paul’s life was in danger.  As Schnabel notes, Paul has been expelled from cities (Pisidian Antioch), stoned (Lystra), imprisoned (Philippi), dragged before a judge (Corinth), and been the cause of a riot (Ephesus).  Right up to the present day, Christians have faced opposition, oppression, persecution, and martyrdom. They have experienced intimidation, threats, isolation, psychological pressure, or even physical violence and pain.  The aim has been to be force them to give up their faith, or at least stop their Christian activities, or even face death.

21:31 While they were trying to kill him, a report was sent up to the commanding officer of the cohort that all Jerusalem was in confusion. 21:32 He immediately took soldiers and centurions and ran down to the crowd. When they saw the commanding officer and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul. 21:33 Then the commanding officer came up and arrested him and ordered him to be tied up with two chains; he then asked who he was and what he had done. 21:34 But some in the crowd shouted one thing, and others something else, and when the commanding officer was unable to find out the truth because of the disturbance, he ordered Paul to be brought into the barracks. 21:35 When he came to the steps, Paul had to be carried by the soldiers because of the violence of the mob, 21:36 for a crowd of people followed them, screaming, “Away with him!”

They were trying to kill him – Jesus said that his followers could expect poverty, persecution and even martyrdom.

The sufferings of Jesus and of Paul

Stott observes a number of parallels between the passion of Jesus and the trials endured by Paul.  Both:

(1) were rejected by their own people, arrested without cause, and imprisoned;

(2) were unjustly accused and wilfully misrepresented by false witnesses;

(3) were slapped in the face in court (23:2);

(4) were the hapless victims of secret Jewish plots (23:12ff.);

(5) heard the terrifying noise of a frenzied mob screaming ‘Away with him’ (21:36; cf. 22:22); and

(6) were subjected to a series of five trials—Jesus by Annas, the Sanhedrin, King Herod Antipas and twice by Pilate; Paul by the crowd, the Sanhedrin, King Herod Agrippa II and by the two procurators, Felix and Festus.

(Paragraphing added)

Rico Tice (oral ministry) agrees that Paul’s experience closely parallels that of his Master.  Both were rejected by their own people.  Both are arrested without cause.  Both are unjustly tried.  Both a slapped in the face.  Both are victims of secret Jewish plots.  Both are screamed at by hostile mobs.  Both are executed.

The commanding officer…arrested him – identified as Claudius Lysias in Acts 23:26.

Josephus writes of the Roman garrison, which was situated in the Fortress of Antonia at the north-west of the temple.  From their elevated position in one of the towers the soldiers were able to watch out for disturbances below and take swift action to deal with them, as here.

Schnabel: Paul is taken into protective custody, until the facts can be determined:

‘He is rescued, not by escaping to another city (as he had done earlier), not by a miracle (as had happened earlier), but by the probably unexpected intervention of an army commander and his troops. Christians experience God’s power in different ways: through miracles of liberation, through help in personal efforts to escape, through the assistance of outsiders, or through supernatural courage in facing death.’

Some in the crowd shouted one thing, and others something else – Reminiscent of the scene in Ephesus:

Acts 19:32 – ‘So then some were shouting one thing, some another, for the assembly was in confusion, and most of them did not know why they had met together.’

Paul was tied up with two chains – He would never be a free man again.

There would be no more miraculous escapes from prison,  cf. Acts 5:17–21; 12:1–17; 16:25–30.

“Away with him!” – i.e. ‘Kill him!’  Cf. Lk 23:18; Jn 19:15.

21:37 As Paul was about to be brought into the barracks, he said to the commanding officer, “May I say something to you?” The officer replied, “Do you know Greek? 21:38 Then you’re not that Egyptian who started a rebellion and led the four thousand men of the ‘Assassins’ into the wilderness some time ago?” 21:39 Paul answered, “I am a Jew from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of an important city. Please allow me to speak to the people.” 21:40 When the commanding officer had given him permission, Paul stood on the steps and gestured to the people with his hand. When they had become silent, he addressed them in Aramaic,

Once again, the Romans come to Paul’s rescue.  Nevetheless, he is bound (fulfilling the prophecy of Agabus, v11), and he will remain a prisoner from now on, so far as the record in Acts shows.  As such, he will carry the gospel to Rome, the centre of the civilised world.  He will accept his status as a prisoner in chains, but will also take every opportunity for evangelism.

Evidently, Paul spoke to the commanding officer in Greek, which was the standard language used by Roman officials in the eartern Mediterranean (Schnabel).

Hearing Paul speak fluent Greek, the commander surmises that he is not that Egyptian who started a rebellion and led the four thousand men of the ‘Assassins’ into the wilderness – Josephus refers to this incident, which had taken place some 3 years previously.  In the case of Josephus, that size of the ‘army’ is inflated to 30,000.

A false prophet from Egypt had brought a large crowd of followers to Jerusalem, with the promise that, on a word from him, the walls would collapse and the Roman occupiers would be defeated.  In the event, the plan failed totally, and the Romans captured or killed several hundred of them, although their leader escaped.  To capture the Egyptian insurrectionist would have been a real prize for the commander.

Paul, then, is not a troublemaker bent on overthrowing Roman authority in Jerusalem.

Schnabel: Christians do not start violent revolutions.  Indeed, the Christian message has far-reaching effects on society, but these effects are peacable.  Paul preached neither the overthrow of the Roman yoke, not downfall of the Jewish religion.  This, and subsequent, interractions with the Roman authorities showed that they had nothing to fear from Paul.  And he taught that the religion of Jesus is the fulfilment, not the negation of the Jewish faith.

“Please allow me to speak to the people” – That is, to the Jewish people.

Paul gestured to the people with his hand – A standard procedure of an orator.

When they had become silent, he addressed them – Some have doubted the historical accuracy of the account at this point.  How could a crowd that had been bent on killing Paul (v31) suddenly become silent and willing to listen to him.  The answer may be, as Gempf suggests that they were eager to hear him recant.  But, of course, he did not recant, and the crowd did not remain silent for very long (Acts 22:22).

He addressed them in Aramaic – Speaking in their native language out of sensitivity (they would have understood Greek).

Having described Paul’s three missionary journeys, Luke now outlines five trials:

The first was before a Jewish crowd at the north-west corner of the temple area (22:1ff.),

The second before the supreme Jewish Council in Jerusalem (23:1ff.),

The third and fourth in Caesarea before Felix and Festus, who succeeded one another as the procurator of Judea (24:1ff.; 25:1ff.),

The fifth, also in Caesarea, before King Herod Agrippa II (26:1ff.).

(Stott, paragraphing added)

Stott adds that during the two years of Pau’s custody in Caesarea (Acts 24:27), Luke was a free man, and it is reasonable to assume that he remained in Palestine, gathering material for his two-volume work.

Jews and Romans

It is no accident, writes Stott, that Luke’s account of the spread of the gospel begins in Jerusalem and ends in Rome.  The Jews became increasingly hostile to it, while the Romans were consistently friendly.

Regarding Jewish hostility, Luke records that:

The Sanhedrin imprisoned first Peter and John, then all the apostles, and forbade them with threats to preach or teach in the name of Jesus (4:1–5:42), although he also draws attention to the caution, wisdom and justice of Gamaliel (5:34ff.).

Then came Stephen’s martyrdom (7:54ff.), and the Jewish persecution of the church in Jerusalem (8:1ff.) and of the erstwhile persecutor Saul of Tarsus (9:23ff.), which kept erupting during his subsequent missionary journeys.

In Jerusalem, however, what had been spasmodic outbursts became an implacable determination to get rid of him once for all, beginning with an attempt to lynch him (21:27ff.), continuing with a hysterical demand for his death (22:22–23), and concluding with the secret plot under oath of more than forty men to murder him (23:12ff.).

(Paragraphing added)

Regarding Roman friendliness:

The first Gentile convert was a Roman centurion, Cornelius, and the first convert of Paul’s missionary journeys was the Roman proconsul of Cyprus, Sergius Paulus, Acts 13:12.

The Roman authorities repeatedly defended the Christian missionaries:

• In Philippi the magistrates actually apologized to Paul and Silas for having beaten and imprisoned them, Roman citizens, and came personally to the prison to escort them out of it (16:35ff.);
• in Corinth Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia, refused even to listen to Jewish accusations against Paul and dismissed the case (18:12ff.);
• in Ephesus the town clerk declared the Christian leaders innocent, rebuked the crowd for public disorder, and sent them home (19:35ff.).

Now, in Jerusalem and Caesarea:

‘Claudius Lysias, the military tribune, took Paul under his protection. He twice rescued him from being lynched by bringing him into custody (21:33ff.; 22:24); he quickly exempted him from a brutal examination by torture, on discovering that he was a Roman citizen (22:25ff.); and he protected him from the murder plot by transferring him to the procurator’s jurisdiction in Caesarea (23:23ff.).’

Both Jesus and Paul were accused by the Jews, but exonerated by the Romans.  Luke records that Pilate three times pronounced Jesus innocent.  In the case of Paul, Claudius Lysius declared his innocence (Acts 23:29), as did Festus (Acts 25:25) and Agrippa (Acts 26:31f).

Stott concludes that Luke has deliberately set out to show the innocence, in the eyes of Roman law, of both Jesus and Paul, and therefore the legality of the Christian faith.  This has far-reaching implications:

‘Luke’s purpose has shown the church of all subsequent times and places how to behave under presecution. It must be able to show that accusations of crimes against the state and against humanity (which were often alleged in the early centuries) are groundless; that it is innocent of offences against the law; and that its members are conscientious citizens, that is, submissive to the state in so far as their conscience permits them. Then the freedom to profess, practise and propagate the gospel will, inasmuch as it lies with the church, be preserved, and the only offence which Christians give will be the stumbling block of the cross.’