Acts 23:12 - 24:27 Paul in Caesarea before Felix

“There is irony in the Holy Spirit’s message through Agabus in Acts 21:10-11, ‘the Jews of Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles’. It was in fact the Gentiles who saved Paul from two violent incidents and went on to thwart those Jews who wanted to kill him. “ (IVP-NBC).

After securing permission and addressing the crowd from the steps leading to the Fortress of Antonia (Acts 21:40-22:22), Paul's words only intensified the violent reaction of his opponents in the crowd. Not knowing yet that Paul was a Roman citizen, the commander had him brought inside the Fortress and was about to have him flogged to secure more information about why he so inflamed the Jews (22:24), when Paul informed him that he was a Roman citizen and could not legally be flogged. The commander could not have understood Paul's explanations in the address, since that address was in Aramaic (Acts 22:2).

The following day in order to discover the root of this riot, the commander had Paul stand before the Sanhedrin in order for charges to be brought. This “trial” ended in a stalemate, since the Pharisees in the audience sided with Paul who claimed the whole matter was due to his believe in the doctrine of resurrection.

Returned to the Roman fortress, Paul was discouraged, since he saw no way he was going to be released and allowed to continue his missionary work. That night Jesus appeared to him and assured him that he would be able to stand as a witness to Jesus in Rome, as Paul had previously felt was his divine calling.
Meanwhile, over night the Jewish opponents of Paul were plotting a further step.

Acts 23:12-15 The next morning the Jews formed a conspiracy and bound themselves with an oath not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul. 13 More than forty men were involved in this plot. 14 They went to the chief priests and elders and said, “We have taken a solemn oath not to eat anything until we have killed Paul. 15 Now then, you and the Sanhedrin petition the commander to bring him before you on the pretext of wanting more accurate information about his case. We are ready to kill him before he gets here.”

23:12-15 The words “in the morning” remind the reader that this dangerous situation is under the control of the Lord Jesus (ὁ κύριος), who the previous night promised Paul that he must (δεῖ) survive in order to testify to Christ in Rome (v. 11) (cf. Rapske in Witness to the Gospel 254).

Some authorities translate verse 12 as ‘The Judeans [not 'the Jews'] came together in a mob’ Acts 23:12”. But if, as the NIV Commentary suspects, these fanatical Jews were from Asia/Ephesus, they were not “Judeans” but simply “Jews”. Nevertheless, it is clear that Luke does not mean that all Jews were complicit in this plot to kill Paul, but only a group of more than forty together with certain members of the national leadership.

The group of “more than forty men” were not themselves priests or Sanhedrin members, but rather probably members of the group of Jews from Asia [i.e., the region around Ephesus] who had failed to kill Paul in the temple precincts (Acts 21:27-29). But they made common cause with high priests and elders in order to lure Paul out of the safety of Roman custody in the Fortress of Antonia. The fanaticism of this group of forty-plus is indicated by their vow, which however did not mean they starved to death when they failed: when Paul’s enemies eventually had to break their oath of fasting when they were unable to kill him, Jewish law would simply require them to bring atonement offerings to the temple; thus their oath here does not mean they would literally starve. (cf. IVP-BBC-NT).

Still, we may ask: “Why was a vow necessary?” In conspiracies which require coordinated activity it was always important to ensure that each member did his part and did not back out at the last minute. Therefore group vows provided a deterrent: whoever backed out would suffer the curse that each member swore down upon himself if he failed to follow through. See 1 Enoch 6:4-5 (a fictional elaboration of Genesis 6:1-3) for an example: a vow taken by all the fallen angels to cohabit with human women and beget offspring.

“Now when humans had grown numerous on the earth, there were born to them beautiful daughters. And the angels, the sons of heaven, noticed them and lusted after them, saying to one another: 'Come, let us choose wives from among the humans and have children with them.' And Semyaza, their leader, said to them: 'I'm afraid you will not in fact agree to do this deed, and I alone will have to pay the penalty for such a great sin.' But they all answered: 'Let us all take an oath, and bind ourselves by shared curses not to abandon this plan but to carry it out.' Then they all took an oath and bound themselves to it by shared curses. And they were in all two hundred” (1 Enoch 6:1-6, English wording slightly modernized from the online text).

Although the devotees probably counted on God’s help, the vow of the 40 would have been useless without the cooperation of the men of the Sanhedrin who would lure Paul to Jerusalem under the pretext of needing further information and inquiry.

It would appear that, although Paul was in Roman custody in order to preserve the peace, the investigation as to the nature of his offense which had so enraged the mob (διαγινώσκειν ἀκριβέστερον τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ) could belong to the jurisdiction of the local Jewish court. The transfer of Paul’s case to the Roman procurator Felix in Caesarea was only resorted to, when it became clear that a lynch mob would thwart the judicial process in Jerusalem.

12-15 One wonders if Luke was not reminded, as he wrote this, of the verses from Psa 2:1-3 quoted by Peter at Pentecost (Ac 4:25). The same dynamic which was at work in the trial and death of Jesus as is evident here with Paul. In Psa 2:4 God’s response to human conspiracies against his rule is to laugh at their feeble efforts, as he doubtless also did at the Tower of Babel (Gen 11:5-9), and then he frustrated the plan.

23:16-22 But when the son of Paul’s sister heard of this plot, he went into the barracks and told Paul. 17 Then Paul called one of the centurions and said, “Take this young man to the commander; he has something to tell him.” 18 So he took him to the commander. The centurion said, “Paul, the prisoner, sent for me and asked me to bring this young man to you because he has something to tell you.”
19 The commander took the young man by the hand, drew him aside and asked, “What is it you want to tell me?” 20 He said: “The Jews have agreed to ask you to bring Paul before the Sanhedrin tomorrow on the pretext of wanting more accurate information about him. 21 Don’t give in to them, because more than forty of them are waiting in ambush for him. They have taken an oath not to eat or drink until they have killed him. They are ready now, waiting for your consent to their request.” 22 The commander dismissed the young man and cautioned him, “Don’t tell anyone that you have reported this to me.”

16-22 But the God's power to frustrate opposition to his plans is often done through human means, and here it is simply that Paul’s nephew learned of the plot and reported it to the tribune, Claudius Lysias. Paul’s nephew refers to the alliance of the forty-plus and the Sanhedrin simply as “the Jews” (v. 20-21), meaning those ones who were involved in the mob attempt to kill Paul in the temple and from whom Claudius Lysias had barely rescued him.

17 “Paul' s status has gradually been elevated as the story has progressed. He ‘summons’ the centurion and sends him on an errand!” (Johnson, Acts 404).

“The seriousness with which the commander took the warning about the plot shows that he knew that [the current High Priest] Ananias was the kind of man who could support such action and realized that Jewish feeling against Paul was strong enough to nurture it.” (NIV Comm).

23:23-24 Then he called two of his centurions and ordered them, “Get ready a detachment of two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen and two hundred spearmen to go to Caesarea at nine tonight. Provide mounts for Paul so that he may be taken safely to Governor Felix.”

23:23-25 Tribune Claudius Lysias believed the report and took steps to send Paul under guard to Caesarea, to the court of the Roman procurator Antonius Felix. The Roman tribune’s plan was to act swiftly and secretly in order to avoid his detachment from being itself ambushed by the conspirators. Just how seriously he regarded the threat is indicated by Luke’s numbers:

“[he] commit[ed] almost half the garrison at the Fortress of Antonia to escort Paul, with most of them due to return in a day or two” (NIV Comm.).

One should keep in mind in evaluating this seemingly excessive number of troops in the escort, that the goal was not just to be able to win in combat with the forty-plus armed assassins, but rather to discourage them from even attempting to attack the convoy.

23:25-30 He wrote a letter as follows:
26 Claudius Lysias, To His Excellency, Governor Felix: Greetings.
27 This man was seized by the Jews and they were about to kill him, but I came with my troops and rescued him, for I had learned that he is a Roman citizen. 28 I wanted to know why they were accusing him, so I brought him to their Sanhedrin. 29 I found that the accusation had to do with questions about their law, but there was no charge against him that deserved death or imprisonment. 30 When I was informed of a plot to be carried out against the man, I sent him to you at once. I also ordered his accusers to present to you their case against him.

Claudius Lysias also drafted a letter-report to Felix, detailing the circumstances. The form of the letter and its tone are precisely what one would expect in correspondence between a military tribune and his commander. The greeting "His Excellency" befits Felix's office, although he was by birth a slave who had been freed by his master.

His reference to Paul as “this man” (τὸν ἄνδρα τοῦτον) shows that the letter would be read to the procurator with Paul standing in his presence.

23:29 It is curious that according to Lysias the Sanhedrin did not accuse Paul of violating the sanctuary (μηδὲν δὲ ἄξιον θανάτου ἢ δεσμῶν), since that was clearly recognized by the Roman provincial governors as sufficient cause for the Jews to execute the offender themselves on the spot, and did not even require consulting the Roman authorities first. This part of the letter certainly strengthened Paul’s case not only before Felix and Festus, but also eventually in Rome, where the letter would have formed part of the trial documents. The private prosecutor Tertullus eventually alludes to this "desecration" in his allegations before Felix (24:6), but by then he can neither rely on an explicit mention in the letter of Claudius Lysias, nor does he produce eye-witnesses.

23:30 Lysias also ordered the Jewish plaintiffs (κατηγόροις) to appear before Felix to present their charges.

23:31-35 So the soldiers, carrying out their orders, took Paul with them during the night and brought him as far as Antipatris. 32 The next day they let the cavalry go on with him, while they returned to the barracks. 33 When the cavalry arrived in Caesarea, they delivered the letter to the governor and handed Paul over to him. 34 The governor read the letter and asked what province he was from. Learning that he was from Cilicia, 35 he said, “I will hear your case when your accusers get here.” Then he ordered that Paul be kept under guard in Herod’s palace.

23:34 “Had Paul been from one of the client kingdoms in Syria or Asia Minor, Felix would probably have wanted to consult the ruler of the kingdom. But on learning that Paul was from the Roman province of Cilicia, he felt competent as a provincial governor to hear the case himself” (NIV Comm.).

“Cilicia was an imperial province, the capital of which was Tarsus. But during Paul’s period (not, however, Luke’s period), Cilicia was governed as part of Syria. The Syrian legate had too much territory to concern himself with a relatively minor case, so Felix assumes jurisdiction he might otherwise have deferred.” (IVP-BBC-NT). It is unclear if Paul’s case would have had a more favorable hearing in a Syrian court.

24:1-4 Five days later the high priest Ananias went down to Caesarea with some of the elders and a lawyer named Tertullus, and they brought their charges against Paul before the governor. 2 When Paul was called in, Tertullus presented his case before Felix: “We have enjoyed a long period of peace under you, and your foresight has brought about reforms in this nation. 3 Everywhere and in every way, most excellent Felix, we acknowledge this with profound gratitude. 4 But in order not to weary you further, I would request that you be kind enough to hear us briefly.

24:1 The delegation from Jerusalem included the High Priest Ananus (Hebrew Hananiyah), some members of the Sanhedrin, and “a lawyer named Tertullus” (NIV). Tertullus is called a “lawyer” (NIV), “attorney” (NRSV), and “spokesman” (RSV, ESV). He served on the Sanhedrin’s behalf as a “private prosecutor”, bringing the charges and arguing for the prosecution.

“According to the normal working of things [in the Roman imperial system], the judicial process was initiated by the drawing up of charges and penalties and the formal act of accusation (delatio) by an interested party. The Roman system had no public prosecutor …. Apart from manifest offenders, enforcement of the law depended on private initiative, hence the place for … a private prosecutor” (Ferguson, Backgrounds 65).

2-4 Tertullus begins his case against Paul in the accepted form of flattering the judge. No one in that day (even the judge) would take its details seriously.

24:5-9 “We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect 6 and even tried to desecrate the temple; so we seized him. 8 By examining him yourself you will be able to learn the truth about all these charges we are bringing against him.” 9 The Jews joined in the accusation, asserting that these things were true.

The charge presented could not have been better chosen in order to arouse Felix’s attention, since it was precisely rebellions and riots in Judea that had most troubled him during his tenure there, and he had been swift and ruthless in suppressing them. The question was, however, if the charges could be verified. Luke’s readers know of the riots that broke out in Ephesus (Roman Asia) and of Asian Jews who had followed Paul to Jerusalem.

24:10-16 When the governor motioned for him to speak, Paul replied: “I know that for a number of years you have been a judge over this nation; so I gladly make my defense. 11 You can easily verify that no more than twelve days ago I went up to Jerusalem to worship. 12 My accusers did not find me arguing with anyone at the temple, or stirring up a crowd in the synagogues or anywhere else in the city. 13 And they cannot prove to you the charges they are now making against me. 14 However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets, 15 and I have the same hope in God as these men, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. 16 So I strive always to keep my conscience clear before God and man.

10 “Invited to respond, Paul also began with a complimentary statement—but a briefer and truer one. Felix had been in contact with the Jewish nation in Palestine for over a decade, first in Samaria and then as governor over the entire province of Judea. Therefore Paul was pleased to make his defense before one who was in a position to know the situation as it was and to understand his words in their context” (NIV Comm).

11 In vv. 11-12 Paul states the facts of the case as he knows them: “You can easily verify that no more than twelve days ago I went up to Jerusalem to worship. My accusers did not find me arguing with anyone at the temple, or stirring up a crowd in the synagogues or anywhere else in the city.” He is confident, because verification of certain key facts was possible through Lysias’ accompanying letter, as well as through Felix's network of local informants.

12-13 Crucial here is the circumstance that there is no eyewitness present in the court who can give testimony that Paul was guilty of any of the charges. All that the prosecution can offer is allegations and perhaps oaths. And in a Roman provincial court witness testimony always trumped allegations, oaths and arguments of probability. “For example, Herod’s son Antipater, after much proof of his guilt, offered only oaths in favor of his innocence, so the Syrian legate Varus had him executed” (IVP-BBC-NT).

14-16 In what he modestly (and sarcastically?) calls an admission Paul unveils the real motive for this malicious prosecution: it springs from an internal religious conflict within Judaism which is no proper subject for a Roman court. With this statement Paul traps his opponents, even pointing out that they themselves call the followers of Jesus a “sect” (αἵρεσις), which means that the Jesus movement—like Pharisaism and Sadducaism—was a legitimate wing of Judaism, which was a religion that enjoyed legal protection under Roman law (religio licita). He further explains that his religious group holds to all the sacred writings of Judaism and observes its worship forms.

24:17-21 “After an absence of several years, I came to Jerusalem to bring my people gifts for the poor and to present offerings. 18 I was ceremonially clean when they found me in the temple courts doing this. There was no crowd with me, nor was I involved in any disturbance. 19 But there are some Jews from the province of Asia, who ought to be here before you and bring charges if they have anything against me. 20 Or these who are here should state what crime they found in me when I stood before the Sanhedrin— 21 unless it was this one thing I shouted as I stood in their presence: ‘It is concerning the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you today.’”

17-18 Paul’s affirms that the purpose of his visit to Jerusalem was to bring “gifts for the poor (alms)” and “offerings”. “Gifts” refers to the gifts brought from the Diaspora churches of Asia Minor and Greece for the Jerusalem believers and the “offerings” were those presented at the temple at the suggestion of James in order to pay the expenses of the men who had taken vows. The relevance to his defense is that such actions on his part made very improbable a charge that he deliberately defiled the temple by bringing a Gentile into the sacred area.

19 “Paul mentioned that the Jews from the province of Asia should have been the ones bringing charges. This line of argument was a potential bombshell, for there were two immediate implications. First, there was strong feeling against the practice of accusing someone without appearing in court to prosecute …. Secondly, any infractions or accusations that primarily concerned the province of Asia (as it would now appear Tertullus had meant by ‘all over the world’ in v 5 above) would place the affair out[side] of Felix’s jurisdiction” (IVP-NBC).

24:22-23 Then Felix, who was well acquainted with the Way, adjourned the proceedings. “When Lysias the commander comes,” he said, “I will decide your case.” 23 He ordered the centurion to keep Paul under guard but to give him some freedom and permit his friends to take care of his needs.

22-23 Prior to his elevation to the position of governor of the province, Felix had served in a lower position in the region of Samaria. So he had been around long enough to be well acquainted with the incipient Jesus movement within Palestinian Judaism and to have his own network of reliable local informants. He knew, therefore, that Ananias and his friends really had no case against Paul that would stand in a Roman court.

The “freedom" (literally, "relaxation”, Greek ἄνεσις) granted to Paul in custody was probably a lenient form of military custody (cf. Rapske, Paul in Roman Custody, 156ff.). This was in the massive palace built by Herod the Great which had become the headquarters of the Roman procurators. Located on a promontory jutting out into the Mediterranean, it was served by pleasant breezes. And Paul’s relaxed custody made it a comfortable place to spend two years. But being the restless evangelist that he was, Paul was uncomfortable not being able to travel to evangelize, plant churches, and strengthen those he had already planted. Paul's "comfort" was in serving Jesus and the gospel, not in lolling about in a palace. Many scholars believe that it was during these two years in Caesarean "imprisonment" that he wrote the "prison epistles" to Philippi, Ephesus and Colosse. If so, one can see the discomfort that Paul felt in Caesarea, wanting to get out and get on with his plans to travel to Rome and evangelize there. In Philippians 1 there is mention of how certain insincere fellow Christians (rivals of Paul's?) on the outside tried to frustrate him by showing off their own evangelistic efforts. But Paul found ways to evangelize right there in Herod's palace!

24:24-26 Several days later Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was a Jewess. He sent for Paul and listened to him as he spoke about faith in Christ Jesus. 25 As Paul discoursed on righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid and said, “That’s enough for now! You may leave. When I find it convenient, I will send for you.” 26 At the same time he was hoping that Paul would offer him a bribe, so he sent for him frequently and talked with him.

25 Paul’s holding area was the same palace in which Felix and his young Jewish wife Drusilla lived. this gave many occasions for “quiet serious talks”, since Felix was an intelligent man and, like most Roman officials, mildly interested in philosophy and ethical ideas. Paul’s serious discussions with Felix and his wife Drusilla about morality (“righteousness, self-control”) and God’s judgment “were apparently sufficiently on target to unsettle Felix, for he had not been practicing justice, and the very presence of Drusilla, whom he had lusted after while she was still the teenage bride of Azizus the king of Emesa, and the message about future judgment for bad behavior while on earth would probably have been disturbing and not very familiar to Felix, unless he had heard of it through his Jewish wife. The message of Paul terrified Felix, but apparently not enough to lead him to repent” (Witherington, Acts 715).

It is worthwhile noting with respect to the fashionable doubting of the genuineness of Luke’s records of Paul’s speeches in Acts, that the points which he discussed with Felix and Drusilla are precisely those that comprised his message to the Thessalonians: (1) faith in Jesus (“you turned to God from idols” 1 Thessalonians 1:9), (2) holy living (“to serve the living and true God” 1:9), and (3) expectation of the Second Coming of Jesus to judge (“and to wait for his Son from heaven who saves us from the coming wrath” 1:10). Luke’s “Paul” is clearly the real Paul. Felix’s dual-mindedness toward Paul—curious enough to want to hear him, yet unwilling to change his sinful life—reminds us of Herod Antipas and John the Baptist. His further meetings (v. 26) were simply in order to give Paul a chance to offer him a bribe. Paul probably knew that, but seized the opportunities to witness anyway.

“The Lex Repetundarum (or Lex Julia de repetundis) prohibited anyone holding a position such as Felix's from either soliciting or accepting a bribe either to free or take someone into custody. This law, however, was not infrequently violated by provincial governors, and for an example in Judea we can point to one of Felix's successors, Albinus (A.D. 61-65), whom Josephus tells us explicitly accepted money for these very purposes (War 2.14.1)” (Witherington, Acts 716).

“It may be in order to ask in passing what Luke might have been doing during this two-year span, other than perhaps attending to Paul. Longenecker 's suggestion that he used this time to investigate "everything closely from the beginning" commends itself. Here in Israel he would have access both to traditions about the time of Jesus and also to what happened in the Jerusalem church between about A.D. 35 and 57, the time about which Paul could inform him very little. Perhaps also ‘he had begun to sketch out during this time the structure and scope of his two-volume work we know as Luke-Acts’” (Witherington, Acts 717).

Ch. 21:17 - 23:11 Paul in Jerusalem (WH)

Our guest columnist today is Wini Hoffner, who composed this fine exposition of Acts 21:17-23:11. The editor has taken the liberty of adding links to some Scripture citations and outside web sources for some of her comments.

Introduction

In the previous posting we followed Paul on his way to Jerusalem. The previous Hattatar posting pointed out that Paul had two reasons for going to Jerusalem.

1. The first, to bring a gift from the Gentile churches to “the poor among the saints in Jerusalem” (as Paul put it in Romans 15:26), a gift he had been collecting for a long time. This gift would not only help feed the poor, Paul hoped that it would also help cement a good relationship between the Jewish churches of Palestine and the Gentile ones of Syria, Asia Minor and Greece.
2. Secondly, Paul wanted to be in Jerusalem for one of the great feasts in order to demonstrate by worshiping in Jerusalem in all the traditional Jewish ways that his fight to keep Gentile converts from being required to become Jews in oder to be saved did not mean that he was discouraging Jewish converts from continuing to follow Old Testament forms of worship, including sacrifice. In other words, he hoped that this visit would bring unity to the young church.

In writing to the Romans about this trip and the gift he was taking he expressed some fears and asked them to pray for him saying:

Rom. 15:30-31 I urge you, brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join me in my struggle by praying to God for me.Pray that I may be rescued from the unbelievers in Judea and that my service in Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints there,

In Acts 21:17 ff we see how this prayer was answered.

This is quite a meeting as it consists of leaders from both segments of the young church. There is James, the recognized leader of the Jerusalem church along with all the elders. As there were now “many thousands of Jews who have believed” (v.20) there would have been a considerable number of elders appointed to oversee this growing community. And then there is Paul, the leader and in fact founder of the Gentile church, along with delegates from each area where Paul had ministered.

Paul and his companions are warmly greeted and the gift they bring may partly account for this warm reception. For some reason Luke does not mention the gift here but refers to it later in 24:17. We know however from Paul's prayer request of the Romans that this gift was extremely important to him.

James has told Paul about the thousands of new Jewish converts and has described them as being staunch upholders of the law. Rumor had it that Paul had been teaching Jewish converts that they should not continue to observe Jewish cultural practices. Undoubtedly then, the presence of Paul was going to raise big concerns among these Jewish believers who were “zealous for the law”. What to do?

James offers a suggestion: Paul should accompany four men who had taken a Nazirite vow and and pay their expenses for the sacrifices required to conclude their vow. He also suggests that Paul purify himself. The purification rite as prescribed by law required seven days, at the end of which sacrifices were offered in the temple. In v. 26 Paul goes to the temple to announce the date when they will be ready to make their sacrifices. Perhaps Paul decided to undergo this purification rite because his long sojourn among the Gentiles had rendered him “unclean” in the eyes of the “zealous”. So he not only pays for the four men's sacrifice (a considerable expense) but he undergoes the rite himself. Paying the expenses of the offerings of people who were too poor to pay them themselves was also considered an act of great religious piety. James hoped that by such participation, everyone would know there is no truth in these reports (v. 24) about Paul.

Just as Paul had nearly completed this sincere gesture, some Jews outside the Christian community from the province of Asia caused trouble.

21:27-36 The city was full of pilgrims from all over the Diaspora, in Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost. Some Jews from the province of Asia, probably from Ephesus, who may even have been part of the riot at Ephesus began to stir up the crowd of worshipers. They brought two false accusations against him:

1. That he “teaches men everywhere against our people, our law, and this place” (meaning the temple).
2. That he has brought a Gentile into the temple area. They saw Paul at the temple where he is ironically going through the very Jewish rite of purification so that he would not defile the temple, but they accuse him of defiling the temple by bringing a Gentile into it. They had seen him in the city with an Ephesian named Trophimus and assumed he had brought him beyond the partition into the inner courts of the temple.

Josephus describes the wall of partition that divides the outer court of the Gentiles from the inner Court of Israel as being

“a stone balustrade, four and a half feet high and of exquisite workmanship; in this at regular intervals stood slabs giving warning, some in Greek, and others in Latin,...”
(as quoted in The Sacred Bridge, p. 378

that foreigners were prohibited from entering on pain of death. Two remnants from this warning, have been found — one in 1871 and one in 1935. This was the only “crime” for which the Romans allowed the Jews to carry out execution. So you see that Paul was truly in danger of being killed in the riot that follows.

We see a parallel throughout these chapters between the sufferings of Christ and this ordeal of his apostle, Paul. We saw in the last chapter the parallels between Jesus' and Paul's journeys up to Jerusalem. Now we see the similarities in their trials. “Both were rejected by their people, arrested without cause, ... unjustly accused, and willfully misrepresented by false witnesses.” They were both brought before a Roman official who doesn't know what to make of them or what to do with them. They both “were slapped in the face in court ... [and both] “heard the terrifying noise of a frenzied mob shouting 'Away with him!'” (Stott, p. 336).

In Paul's case before us, these two false accusations against Paul (that he teaches against our people, our law, and the temple and that he has defiled the temple) are enough to bring people running from all directions to seize Paul and try to kill him. The Romans then arrive to put down the mob violence and take Paul into custody.

The Roman garrison was housed in the Fortress of Antonia up a flight of stairs in the northwest corner of the temple area. The garrison's purpose was to keep order in the city and they would have been on close watch during the time of an important feast when thousands of pilgrims were in the city. The commander of the garrison (who is identified later in Acts as one Claudius Lysias) comes with a contingent of soldiers to break up the riot. He arrests Paul as the apparent cause of all the trouble even though he can't get at the real truth because of the uproar.

The arrest of Paul protects him from the crowd, and Paul asks to speak to Claudius Lysias personally.

(vv. 37-40) Lysias is confused about who Paul is, thinking him to be an Egyptian Jew who had been active in terrorist activities. Paul corrects him, giving his true identity, and then asks for permission to speak to the crowd.

21:40-22:21

Paul is using this defense to convince this Jewish mob that he is not anti -Jewish.

Question: What are the many ways in which Paul demonstrates his Jewish credentials to this crowd?

1. (v.3) Paul grew up in Jerusalem,
2. Was thoroughly trained in the law having studied under the renowned Pharisaic leader and rabbinic teacher, Gamaliel,
3. Was just as zealous for God as any of them,
4. (v.4) had persecuted the followers of the Way. The Jewish council (the Sanhedrin) was well aware of this as they had given him the extradition order he carried with him to Damascus to seize Jews who had converted and bring them back to Jerusalem to be punished.
5. After Paul's vision on the road to Damascus, his God-appointed mentor, Ananias, was himself a devout observer of the law and highly respected by all the Jews living in Damascus.(vv.12-14) It was he who restored Paul's sight, told him that the God of our Fathers had chosen him to hear his voice, to see his Righteous One, and to be his witness.
6. (vv.17-21) After returning to Jerusalem he has a vision from the Lord which took place in the very temple which he is supposed to have now defiled.

In this speech Paul has shown: (1) that he has always been and still is a loyal Jew and (2) that His conversion and mission to the Gentiles are not the result of some some misguided thinking on his part but came to him by divine revelation from heaven, through the guidance of his loyal Jewish mentor, Ananias, and finally in the temple itself.

At mention of the Gentiles (v.21), however, the crowd comes to life again, goes into a frenzy and demands his death.

Acts 22:22-23 [They say] “Rid the earth of him! He's not fit to live!” ... they were shouting and throwing off their cloaks and flinging dust into the air,

vv. 23-24 Claudius Lysias again rescues him from the crowd, but wanting to find out why the people were shouting at him like this he directs that Paul be flogged and questioned. Flogging with a Roman lash was a brutal beating. Some people died from it, but the purpose was not to kill, but to extract the truth from the man whipped.

Acts 22:25 As they stretched him out to flog him, Paul said to the centurion standing there, “Is it legal for you to flog a Roman citizen who hasn't even been found guilty?”

And we read in v. 29 that “The commander himself was alarmed when he realized that he had put Paul, a Roman citizen, in chains.”

22:30 The next day, still trying to discover the basis of the accusations against Paul, the commander brings him before the Sanhedrin...just as Jesus before him, was brought to a hearing before the Sanhedrin.

Paul addresses the court saying: (23:1) “My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day.”

For some reason this infuriates Ananias, the high priest, and he orders that Paul be struck on the mouth. Paul angrily responds to the slap saying:

Acts 23:3 “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!”

Some who were standing near Paul rebuked him for speaking with such disrespect to the high priest. Paul's response is filled with irony.

Acts 23:5 “Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: 'Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.' (quoting Ex. 22:28)

Ananias is depicted by Josephus as being very corrupt, even to the point of stealing the tithes belonging to the poorer priests. And often the Jews themselves plead with the Romans to get rid of him. Paul's reply is a stinging reproach of the high priest. The way he uses Ex. 22:28 is a reflection of his rabbinic upbringing. Paul has in mind the way the rabbinic scholars of his day interpreted Ex. 22:28 to mean “don't speak evil of your rulers when those rulers behave in a manner that befits your people.” In other words, don't speak evil of your rulers when they are worthy of your respect.” Ananias' behavior certainly did not make him a leader worthy of respect. He never behaved in a manner that befitted his people. Paul's rabbinic-styled use of Scripture helps the Pahrisees to identify him as one of their own and sets up the exchange that follows.

Acts 23:6-8 Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead.” When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. (The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.)

Why does Paul raise this conflict between the Pharisees and Sadducees? Was it merely a ploy to get them fighting each other instead of him?

No. It is part of his defense against the charges brought against him.

We know that the actual charges brought against him were that he was encouraging Jews not to continue to follow the law and that he had defiled the temple. But Paul understood that his real offense to these people was that he believed in Jesus. And while the Pharisees claimed to believe in the hope of the resurrection, Paul knows that that hope has been fulfilled in Jesus, whom they reject. Jesus is the hope of Israel. So in fact, Paul is more of a Pharisee than these Pharisees before whom he stands. Paul believes in the resurrection and stands as witness to that resurrection which is the one and only authentic hope of Israel.

23:9 At this point a great uproar breaks out between the Sadducees and Pharisees, and:

Acts 23:10 The dispute became so violent that the commander was afraid Paul would be torn to pieces by them. He ordered the troops to go down and take him away from them by force and bring him into the barracks.

Once again Lysias gets Paul out of there and brings him for protection to the barracks.

Acts 23:11 The following night the Lord stood near Paul and said, “Take courage! As you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome.”

Paul knew that trouble lay ahead for him in Jerusalem. And what a violent two days he has experienced! It must have been a great comfort for him the following night to have the Lord come and stand by his side and say “Take courage.” Nighttime is the loneliest time. It's the time when all our fears are magnified. Paul had been fearless, courageous, and bold during the day, but don't you imagine that after those two violent days when night fell Paul must have been discouraged, spent, ready to doubt? He had been convinced that he should go to Rome. Now it looked as if he would never get there. But throughout his ordeal Paul had honored the Lord whom he served in speech and behavior. And now the Lord comes to him definitely, personally, and says, “Take courage.”

The Lord lets him know too, that he will leave Jerusalem safely (albeit not for two years) and that there is still work to be done...he will go to Rome. As you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome.”

Application: Paul had asked the believers in Rome to pray “that I may be rescued from the unbelievers in Judea” and God answered that prayer. Even though Paul suffered, God did rescue him. And through the events of those violent two days God used Paul and God was pleased with Paul. As you have testified about me in Jerusalem,

Is God putting you through something that you had hoped to be delivered from, maybe are still praying to be delivered from?

God did not abandon Paul. He hasn't abandoned you either. He wants to use you for his purposes through your crisis. It may be hard. It may be frightening. But if you ask God to make his purposes your purposes, he will give you insight, courage, a testimony, and your suffering will not be wasted. It will count for him.




21:17 Keener’s comment “This gracious reception would necessarily include hospitality for the whole delegation—including offering lodging in Jewish Christian homes to uncircumcised Gentile Christians (although Paul himself might have stayed with his nephew’s family- Acts 23:16). This line thus has more significance than would normally strike the modern reader” may assume too much, since Luke already tells us that the delegation stayed in Mnason’s house, and he was already sympathetic to uncircumcised Gentile converts. But certainly Luke wants us to see that the visit started well.





23:1-5 Ananias strikes Paul for claiming to have lived in good conscience as a Jew. His reason for rebuking the High Priest, seemingly a breach of the law (Ex 22:28 [MT LXX 27]), is based upon an early (perhaps Pharisaic?) interpretation of Ex 22:28 (cf. Rainey/Notley, Sacred Bridge 378).

“Why does Scripture specify ‘among your people’ [ÔKV;mAoVb = LXX touv laouv sou]? [Isn't this phrase superfluous? We should understand this addition to imply, only] when they [the rulers] behave in a manner that befits ‘your people’." Mek. on Ex 22:28 Mishpatim 19 [ed. H. Saul Horwitz and Israel Abraham Rabin, Mechilta D'Rabbi Ishmael. Jerusalem 1970. p. 318); cf. S. Safrai and Z. Safrai, Haggadah of the Sages 1998:34-37.

“Paul's excuse [Acts 23:1-5] was not that he did not know the high priest, but that Ananias had not behaved in a manner that ‘befits your people’." The Apostle's rabbinic-styled use of Scripture anticipates his self-identification with the Pharisees [v. 6], who were included in the Sanhedrin” (Sacred Bridge 378).

Ch. 20 - 21:16 Thru Greece again & On to Jerusalem

What is generally called Paul’s “Third Missionary Journey” begins when he leaves Antioch in Acts 18:23. Chapters 20 to 21:15, the boundaries of this posting, constitute the last part of this long narrative unit. But since Paul spent over three years in Ephesus, and his itinerary from that point on was not planned at the outset of the “third” journey, we are justified in seeing it as a discreet unit. I will therefore call it “this trip” in what follows.



Paul departs on his second journey to Europe (20:1-6)



In the last chapter we saw how Paul barely escaped injury in the riot instigated by the artisans of the temple of Artemis in Ephesus, because the success of the gospel in that city was cutting into the profits from visiting worshipers at the Temple of Artemis.

After the uproar ceased, Paul sent for the disciples, and after encouraging them, he said farewell and departed for Macedonia. 2 When he had gone through those regions and had given them much encouragement, he came to Greece (i.e., Corinth). 3 There he spent three months, and when a plot was made against him by the Jews as he was about to set sail for Syria, he decided to return through Macedonia. 4 Sopater of Berea, the son of Pyrrhus from Berea, accompanied him; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy; and the Asians, Tychicus and Trophimus. 5 These went on ahead and were waiting for us at Troas, 6 but we sailed away from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and in five days we came to them at Troas, where we stayed for seven days (Acts 20:1-6 ESV).

20:1-6 Luke’s account here is only a truncated itinerary with notes as to who was with Paul. This trip was originally planned (with guidance from the Holy Spirit, ἔθετο ... ἐν τῷ πνεύματι) as taking the following route: Macedonia, Achaia, Jerusalem, and Rome (Acts 19:21-22). There were three purposes Paul had in mind for this trip: (1) While in Ephesus, Paul had heard of problems at Corinth and had written a strong and painful letter to them (2Cor 7:8). He was worried about how they might respond, and Titus was to meet him in Troas to bring word of the church’s response to that letter (2Cor 2:12-13). (2) Secondly, for a long time he had been planning to have a group of Gentile delegates from the churches he had founded accompany him to Jerusalem for the Passover and deliver to the Jerusalem believers a generous gift of money to help them feed themselves and carry on their evangelistic work among the Jews of Palestine. This, Paul hoped, would help to cement a good relationship between the predominantly Jewish churches of Palestine with the Gentile-dominated ones in Syria (Antioch), Asia Minor and Greece, many of which he had founded. (3) And thirdly, Paul wished to show by his own example of worshiping in Jerusalem in all the traditional Jewish ways that his fight to keep Gentile converts from being required to become Jews in order to be saved did not mean that he was discouraging Jewish converts from continuing to follow OT forms of worship, including sacrifice. In other words, he wished this Passover pilgrimage to build unity in the young Church.

Now when I went to Troas to preach the gospel of Christ and found that the Lord had opened a door for me, 13 I still had no peace of mind, because I did not find my brother Titus there. So I said good-by to them and went on to Macedonia. … 5 … when we came into Macedonia, this body of ours had no rest, but we were harassed at every turn—conflicts on the outside, fears within. 6 But God, who comforts the downcast, comforted us by the coming of Titus, 7 and not only by his coming but also by the comfort you had given him. He told us about your longing for me, your deep sorrow, your ardent concern for me, so that my joy was greater than ever (2Cor. 2:12-13; 7:5-7).

Luke fails to give us some important background information, which we must retrieve from Paul's own letters, such as the historical note above. When Paul reached Troas, he did not find Titus there (2Cor 2:12). Purpose #1 seemed to be in jeopardy.



It has been speculated that Titus missed the last boat from Corinth to Troas before navigation ceased for the winter (W.L. Knox cited by Bruce, Acts [Greek] 369), and had been forced to travel by land northward through Greece to meet Paul in Philippi in Macedonia. There Paul found him and was heartened with the news that the Corinthian church had received his rebuke in the “painful” letter in a good spirit and had dealt with the abuses as he had asked them to. All was well in Corinth. Purpose #1 was now accomplished! Thanks be to God!



Purpose #2: The Collection for the Jerusalem Church. For some reason Luke is silent about the second purpose: the collection of funds from Paul’s churches as a gift to the Jerusalem saints. We know of this activity at this time from Paul’s own letters. And although Luke is quiet about it, the fact that he records the men who accompanied Paul — two from each of the regions where he had founded churches — makes it clear that Paul was in fact gathering local delegates and funds for this purpose.



Timothy and Erastus had been sent to Macedonia, the first stop, as advance men. Luke’s conciseness must not mislead us into thinking this was a lightning trip covering only a few months. "Those regions" — (so correctly NRSV, ESV; NIV’s “that area” obscures the plural in the Greek) — shows that more than just Philippi, Thessalonica and Beroea were included. And “many words of encouragement” (NIV; Greek λόγῳ πολλῷ) indicates what Johnson (Acts 354), Witherington (Acts), and others refer to as “many speeches”, probably one or two major addresses in each of a number of cities and regions.

“Just how long Paul stayed in Macedonia we do not know. Luke’s words seem to suggest a fairly prolonged period. It was probably during this time that the Gospel entered the province of Illyricum in the northwest corner of the Balkan peninsula (Ro 15:19; cf. also 2Ti 4:10, where Titus is mentioned as returning to Dalmatia, the southern district of the province of Illyricum). — [HH: Illyricum is shown in the upper left quarter of the map at the top of this posting, located where Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia are today.] — Perhaps Paul himself traveled across the Balkan peninsula on the Via Egnatia to the city of Dyrrhachium. It is probable that this ministry in Macedonia lasted for a year or more, from the summer of 56 through the latter part of 57” (NIV Comm.)

After a three-month visit to Corinth in Achaia (v. 2-3), Paul discovered a plot to kill him while sailing to Jerusalem. In Corinth he had influential friends in high governmental positions to protect him. At sea—especially on a ship bound directly for Syria, perhaps filled with Jewish pilgrims— he would be vulnerable to assassination. So he changed his plans and set out with seven men of his traveling party, members of which represented the churches on his route: Beroea, Thessalonica, Ephesus (Province of Asia) and Derbe.



Acts 20:3 in the Codex Bezae ("D") of Acts (the so-called "Western" text) indicates that Paul's change of plans was—like the original planned route (19:21-22)— the result of the leading of the Holy Spirit: “And when he had spent three months there, and a plot was laid against him by the Jews he wished to sail for Syria. But the Spirit said to him to return through Macedonia, therefore …" (The bolded blue parts of the above translation of Codex Bezae represent its additions to the Greek text on which all current versions of the New Testament are based.)



Many scholars believe that the differences between Codex Bezae and the other texts are not due to scribal additions or errors, but to Luke’s own revision of his earlier manuscript. They represent therefore authentic information from the author himself. You can read a complete English translation of Codex Bezae's Acts material online by clicking here.



Since part of the purpose for this trip was to collect funds to aid the poor and hungry saints in Jerusalem, these local representatives were helpful in taking charge of the contributions raised from each area (so L. T. Johnson, Acts 355). The lack of a Corinthian representative may indicate strained relations with that church, while Luke who joined the travelers in Philippi (the "they" of v. 5 becomes "we" in v. 6) may have represented that church.



5-6 Having been unable to get to Jerusalem for Passover, Paul remained at Philippi to celebrate it and the week-long Feast of Unleavened Bread. He sent his Gentile companions ahead to Troas and stayed on at Philippi, apparently with Silas and Timothy.

"The fact that the delegation travels together ahead of Paul and then makes rendezvous with him again suggests its real role as one of arranging the delivery of the collection to the Jerusalem Church (Rom 15:25-27)" (Johnson, Acts 355).

Then after the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the missionaries—accompanied by Luke (note the “we” section of vv. 5-15)—went down to Neapolis, the port city of Philippi, and crossed the Aegean to Troas. It was evidently a difficult crossing because it took five days instead of two days as earlier (Acts 16:11).



Paul's enthusiasm at Troas leads to an accident (v. 7-12)

On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight. 8 There were many lamps in the upstairs room where we were meeting. 9 Seated in a window was a young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep as Paul talked on and on. When he was sound asleep, he fell to the ground from the third story and was picked up dead. 10 Paul went down, threw himself on the young man and put his arms around him. “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “He’s alive!” 11 Then he went upstairs again and broke bread and ate. After talking until daylight, he left. 12 The people took the young man home alive and were greatly comforted (Acts 20:7-12).

The unique blend of loyal Judaism and fervent messianic Christianity in Paul is exemplified in the rapid transition from longing to reach Jerusalem to celebrate the Pesach and the dating of the time spent in Philippi as "the days of Unleavened Bread" (v. 6) to the celebration in Troas of the Eucharist on the Lord's Day, the "first day of the week" (v. 7).



Although we cannot deny Luke the right to a sense of humor, it is unlikely that in a book as short as The Acts of the Apostles, which after all had a serious purpose, that he would include an episode like this just to get a laugh out of Theophilus. The mention of the torches in the crowded house suggests that Eutychus' falling asleep may have had more of a biochemical cause (lack of oxygen, warmth) than simply being literally "bored to death" by Paul's prolonged speech.

There is no hint that Paul took the incident as a rebuke for long-windedness. Nor were the people troubled by the meeting’s length. They were eager to learn and only had Paul with them a short time. It was an evening of great significance for the church at Troas: Paul had taught them, they had fellowshiped together in the Lord’s Supper, and they had witnessed a dramatic sign of God’s presence and power. No wonder Luke says that they “were greatly comforted.” (NIV Comm.)

When Luke makes the closing comment that they "were not a little comforted" (παρεκλήθησαν οὐ μετρίως), there is a pun in the Greek, since the verb "comfort" used here (παρακαλεω) is the verb regularly used of Paul's addresses to the believers (Acts 14:22; 15:32; 16:39-40)!



Why then does Luke include this story? Perhaps to show how spiritually hungry these new Christians were for the kind of teaching that Paul could give them. Hungry enough to stay up into the wee hours of the morning to hear him, after many of them had put in a complete day (even on the Lord's day) of backbreaking work. This is the kind of spiritual hunger that Paul alluded to in 2 Cor 2:12, where he says that God had given him an “open door” for the gospel in Troas on his previous visit to the city.



We sail to Miletus

We went on ahead to the ship and sailed for Assos, where we were going to take Paul aboard. He had made this arrangement because he was going there on foot. 14 When he met us at Assos, we took him aboard and went on to Mitylene. 15 The next day we set sail from there and arrived off Kios. The day after that we crossed over to Samos, and on the following day arrived at Miletus. 16 Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus to avoid spending time in the province of Asia, for he was in a hurry to reach Jerusalem, if possible, by the day of Pentecost (Acts 20:13-16).

When he had arrived in Corinth, Paul had doubtless hoped to sail to Jerusalem in time to celebrate Passover there. But the plot mentioned above forced him to change his travel plans and proceed north overland. He spent Passover/Unleavened Bread in Philippi, and resumed his travels down the western coast of Asia Minor on a schedule to reach Jerusalem in time to celebrate Pentecost (Hebrew hag ha-shavu'ot) 50 days later. When his ship stopped at Miletus to unload and reload cargo, Paul knew he didn’t have time to travel to Ephesus and back, lest his ship sail without him. Therefore he arranged for the leaders of the congregations (the "elders") to come to Miletus for a conference with him. Since Luke by hindsight (and Paul by foresight!) knew that this would be Paul's last face-to-face contact with that important church, he preserves for us here his synopsis of what Paul said to the elders.



Paul's moving farewell message to the elders of Ephesus (20:17-38)



This is another of Luke's edited speeches (or synopses). It is no insult to him as a historian or to the Holy Spirit who inspired this book to recognize that Luke's purpose was not to give a verbatim transcript. Having said that, the present text certainly has the rambling character of a real speech. In it Paul doubles back several times to say the same thing he has said before. It gives the impression of precisely the emotional intensity of the occasion: a man sensing he will never see these people again on earth for whom and with whom he has labored long in the bonds of the gospel (v. 25).



First of all, Paul explains where he is going next and why. He goes to Jerusalem (v. 22) and after that probably to Rome. He goes "compelled by the (Holy) Spirit" (v. 23 δεδεμένος … τῷ πνεύματι). The comment in the NIV Study Bible states the case well and concisely:

Paul did not go to Jerusalem against the direction of the Spirit, as some have suggested, but because of the guidance of the Spirit. People pleaded with him not to go (21:4,12), not because the Spirit prohibited his going but because the Spirit revealed the capture that awaited him there (21:11-12).

He is well aware, and lets his hearers know he is, that dangers await him (v. 23 "imprisonment and afflictions") and most likely at the end death (v. 24).



Knowing that this will be the last time he will see these believers and their churches, he wants to remind them of the tenor and purpose of his ministry among them and give them final warnings. He reminds them that he has not held back from them any truth or teaching that is spiritually and theologically helpful to them (vv. 20-21, 26-27). In the future they must give heed to all that he has taught them (v. 32 "the message of His [i.e., God's] grace") and beware of those future teachers (he calls them "savage wolves", v. 29) who will seek to undermine and distort this precious heritage of Christian truth (vv. 28-32). This warning will henceforth be heavy on Paul's mind, and it shows up frequently in his later letters, such as 1 and 2 Timothy.



In vv. 33-35 Paul reprises the final words of great spiritual leaders from the Old Testament, such as Samuel (1 Sam 12:1-5), by giving an account of his blameless behavior among the flock, challenging them to cite any dishonest behavior, whether dishonesty in speech (lying, distorting, flattering) or in monetary matters (embezzling funds intended for the poor, etc.). Paul rarely accepted money or goods to support himself, preferring to work at his trade and labor in the gospel free of charge. This too he reminds them.



The brothers at Tyre warn Paul not to go to Jerusalem

After we had torn ourselves away from them, we put out to sea and sailed straight to Cos. The next day we went to Rhodes and from there to Patara. 2 We found a ship crossing over to Phoenicia, went on board and set sail. 3 After sighting Cyprus and passing to the south of it, we sailed on to Syria. We landed at Tyre, where our ship was to unload its cargo. 4 Finding the disciples there, we stayed with them seven days. Through the Spirit they urged Paul not to go on to Jerusalem. 5 But when our time was up, we left and continued on our way. All the disciples and their wives and children accompanied us out of the city, and there on the beach we knelt to pray. 6 After saying good-by to each other, we went aboard the ship, and they returned home. Acts 21:7 We continued our voyage from Tyre and landed at Ptolemais, where we greeted the brothers and stayed with them for a day. 8 Leaving the next day, we reached Caesarea and stayed at the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven. 9 He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied. 10 After we had been there a number of days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 Coming over to us, he took Paul’s belt, tied his own hands and feet with it and said, “The Holy Spirit says, ‘In this way the Jews of Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles.’” 12 When we heard this, we and the people there pleaded with Paul not to go up to Jerusalem. 13 Then Paul answered, “Why are you weeping and breaking my heart? I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” 14 When he would not be dissuaded, we gave up and said, “The Lord’s will be done.” (Acts 21:1-6)

The “we”s show that Luke is part of the traveling party here. Was Tyre a church that Paul and Barnabas had a role in founding or at least ministering to? Its location not far south of Antioch makes this quite possible. Regardless, it is clear how affectionately attached to Paul the believers there were. This fact also mirrors the affection felt for him by the Ephesian elders in Miletus (Acts 20:36-37), where he had to “tear himself away” from them (literally in the Greek) in order to depart (so Bruce, Acts 438; cf. also With. Acts 629).



One manifestation of their love was the earnest warnings members of the group gave to Paul not to go on to Jerusalem (v. 4). Luke says that these warnings were given “through the [Holy] Spirit” (διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος), but as Keener (Bible Background Comm., 385) observes, the Greek expression here is not Luke’s normal way of describing the Holy Spirit speaking through someone. Therefore Longenecker (Acts 516) and others favor what is called an “occasional” use of Greek διὰ “through”, meaning that on the occasion that the Spirit was warning of the dangers Paul would face on this trip that the Spirit had originally told him to take (Acts 19:21; 20:22), some members of the congregation warned him not to go. See also my remarks below on Agabus.



At Caesarea, Agabus prophesies



The stopover in Ptolemais (OT Acco) was motivated not only by travel logistics, but because there was a Christian community there as well (Acts 11:19).



8-9 In Caesarea Paul and his party stayed in the home of Philip “the evangelist”, one of “the Seven” who were chosen in Acts 6-7 to see to the distribution of food to the widows of the Greek-speaking believers, and who brought the gospel to Samaria and to the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8). Although he has four unmarried daughters with the “gift of prophecy”, it is not they but a man named Agabus whose prophecy is mentioned in vv. 10-11. It has been suggested (by I. R. Reimer, Women in the Acts, 249) that Agabus had just come from Jerusalem (in Acts 11:27 Jerusalem is given as his home base) and could give prophetic insight into what awaited Paul there.



Here in Agabus’ prophecy we are confronted with a prediction made by a Christian “prophet” with all the trappings of OT prophecy, including acting it out (v. 11, compare Jer 19:1-13; Ezek 4:1-17). David Aune (Prophecy in early Christianity and the ancient Mediterranean world [1983]) comments:

“Symbolic actions performed by Christian prophets are very rare. Agabus appears to have been allowed an unusual degree of freedom in his activity; that is implied by his unusual action of taking Paul's girdle, or belt, and binding himself with it. After binding himself Agabus correlates his action with the impending fate of Paul by using the adverb houtōs, "thus," "in this manner," a linguistic feature which also characterized the symbolic prophetic actions in the OT” (p. 263).

And he further adds:

“[I]n form this oracle has little relationship to OT prophetic speech forms, which nearly always provide a reason (Begründung) for the threat in terms of an accusation. That form is clearly irrelevant here, where the fate of Paul cannot be construed as a divine threat”.



“The content of the oracle deserves some discussion. Agabus does not tell Paul to take a particular course of action, nor does he forbid him to journey to Jerusalem. His oracle is wholly predictive; it simply warns Paul of what will transpire if he follows a certain course of action: he will be arrested and turned over to the Romans. While the oracle in its present form is not syntactically conditional, it seems understood that the predicted fate could be avoided if Paul were to stay away from Jerusalem. At least that is how Luke undoubtedly understood the oracle, since Paul's companions in Acts 21:12-14 are depicted as actively attempting to dissuade Paul from proceeding on to Jerusalem” (p. 264).

In Jerusalem Paul is warmly welcomed by the Believers (21:15-16)

After this, we got ready and went up to Jerusalem. 16 Some of the disciples from Caesarea accompanied us and brought us to the home of Mnason, where we were to stay. He was a man from Cyprus and one of the early disciples (Acts 21:15 ).

Luke often incidentally introduces us to someone who sounds fascinating, and we would wish to know more about him. Such a man is this Mnason. His name is Greek, and he is from Cyprus, both of which imply that he belongs to the Hellenist wing of the early Church. Yet he is called here “one of the earliest disciples”. Does this mean that he was a Jew and a disciple in the days of Jesus’ earthly ministry? Or does it mean one of those converted when Peter preached at Pentecost (Acts 2)? Most likely the latter. Luke as a historian is aware of the distance in time between the events he is now narrating and those of his second chapter. What happened then qualifies as the “earliest” period, even though Acts is the second of the two-volume work, the first of which was his gospel. Furthermore, the very fact that he has a home in Jerusalem large enough to house Paul’s entire traveling party shows that he was a wealthy Jew who, although he was born on Cyprus, had lived in Jerusalem most of his life—like Barnabas.



The large number of Gentile believers accompanying Paul might have made last-minute hospitality in a Jewish Christian’s Jerusalem home awkward. Paul and his friends must have known that Mnason held to their more tolerant views regarding uncircumcised believers in Jesus, and sent someone ahead to Mnason’s house to arrange for lodging. Either that, or Mnason might have been in Caesarea and accompanied the party to Jerusalem himself.



Many commentators have pointed out that the last stages of Paul's journey— when so many sincere Christians tried to dissuade him from going to Jerusalem, where death may await him, and where many of them believed that he was doing this contrary to the will of God — are crafted by Luke in such a way as to remind the readers of Jesus' last days going to Jerusalem to His death and resurrection, against the advice of all of his disciples. If so, then Luke is reminding us that Paul models for every Christian the "way of the cross" that true Christian discipleship entails. Jesus said "whoever wishes to follow me must take up his/her cross and follow me". Paul and Luke knew that this meant a willingness to suffer for the sake of the gospel, whatever form that suffering might take. It is a lesson for us today!