Bible Groups - Digests of Bible Commentaries

The Acts of the Apostles - Chapter 21

1 3^rd "we" section starts. Not mentioned by Luke: koinonia: motive for taking donation from Gentile churches to Jerusalem: above all else, fellowship/unity must be maintained. Cos and Rhodes are islands, Patara on coast of Lycia: from there sail direct to Phoenicia, passing south of Cyprus.
2 The need to wait for a ship going in the right direction fits the vagaries of sea travel at that time.
3 As does the destination determined by where the cargo is to be unloaded. About 450 miles, perhaps 5 days.
4 Christians in Tyre mentioned already, church founded by Hellenists driven from Jerusalem at time of Stephen's death - and hence indirectly by Paul (Lk 6:17, Acts 11:19, 15:3). First of the warnings "city by city" (20:23).
5 Community prayer emphasises the religious character of Paul's journey.
7 Ptolemais = Acco or Acre, north of Haifa and Carmel. About 25 miles from Tyre.
8 Caesarea is about 30 miles from Ptolemais. Philip - ie one of the 7 assistants - almost a title (Cf 6:5). Although Paul did not found these Christian communities at Tyre and Caesarea, he was instrumental: his persecution led to the Hellenists - including the 7 - fleeing Jerusalem and starting communities elsewhere about 20 years earlier (8:1-3,40). He is now warmly received by both men and women (21:5-6, 8-9), in contrast to his own intention of "dragging off both men and women (8:3).
9 Cf Joel 3, quoted in 2:17. Greater role for women, as ties with male dominated Judaism weaken?
10 Agabus: a reliable prophet - predicted famine under Claudius (11:28) (Cf Rom 15:31). We have met him before, but Luke gives no references, as he did for Philip. Agabus gas come down from Jerusalem, as he had before, again with a prophetic sign, though grimmer now. With the daughter-prophets, the auguries are looming! This is not simply a journey to a geographical place, but a return to a "narrative" place with memories and potential conflict for Paul.
11 Echoes Jesus' journey to Jerusalem (Lk 9:51, 13:33). Recalls similar symbolic acts in OT (Is 20:2, Ez 4:1-17, Jer 13:1ff, 19:1-13). "Bound" picks up Paul's statement that he will be told in every city that chains await him in Jerusalem, and punningly echoes that he is bound by the Spirit: to be fulfilled in 21:23, though not by Jews. Paul will be "handed over to the power of the Gentiles" - very close to what Jesus predicted of himself (Lk 9:44, 18:32).
12 The local residents - and "we" - perhaps express the readers' concerns, as a dramatic chorus.
13 Another emotional scene, portraying Paul as sympathetic, who has generated warmth and affection among his followers. "Die in Jerusalem" recalls Paul's own words (20:24, Rom 15:31-32) and Jerusalem as "murderer of the prophets (Lk 11:49-51, 13:33-34). Like Jesus, Paul accepts that he must suffer "for the name". "To suffer for the name" includes Paul with the first apostles (5:41) and Jesus' own predictions (Lk 6:22, 21:12,17). "Once he has surrendered his will to him, what has he to fear?" (St Teresa).
14 Moved by Paul's willingness to accept God's will, the chorus expresses what was Jesus - should now be our reaction in faith - ie acceptance of God's will, as Jesus (Lk 22:42). Discerning the Spirit's will is seldom easy - even Jesus wrestled with himself, until he surrendered to God's purpose (Lk 22:42-44). Humanly speaking Paul should not go to Jerusalem, but the Lord wills that he should. How do we know we are listening to God's will for us? How can we tell when our determination is justified, and not just stubbornness?
15 About 65 miles to Jerusalem.
16 Mnason: link with Barnabbas from Cyprus - Cypriots founded church in Antioch, which welcomed Paul (11:20-26). Considerable hospitality - for the whole group who had accompanied Paul. V 17 and Western Text suggests this lodging was before arriving in Jerusalem.
17 A climax: Paul arrives in Jerusalem, journey's end - for the time being. And is welcomed "gladly" - in spite of his fears (Rom 15:31).
18 "we" ceases after this meeting until 2 years later (27:1). Like Jesus, Paul appears to be left without support during these difficulties. James is spokesman, but all the elders are present too - an important meeting. But presumably the Apostles are no longer here. Luke's narrative now becomes difficult and painful, not just because of the difficulties Paul encounters, but also because Luke's account seems less consistent with Paul's own letters. Do Luke's obscurities arise partly because he is trying to make the story look better than the facts justified? Was Paul accepted by the Jerusalem community, or not? Was Paul's arrest entirely outside the community's control, or was he abandoned by them - or even set up? Paul saw his collection from his Gentile churches as a way of reconciling and completing his Eastern mission, before starting his new venture in the West, based in Rome (Rom 15:22-29). Luke leaves it unclear whether or not Paul's "service for Jerusalem" (Rom 15:31) - presumably the collection - was accepted by the Jerusalem saints. Striking that Paul seems very much on his own while in Jerusalem, with sole exceptions of his own family (23:16-22), and his co-workers (24:23), and especially in view of the thousands of community members. And still Luke does not mention the collection Paul has brought, even though he seems to know about it (24:17, 24:26). Luke's portrayal of the meeting with James and the elders emphasises how great was the Jewish identity crisis when confronted by Gentile Christians, but it is very ambiguous: James and the elders assume an authority over Paul which differs from Paul's own view (Gal 2:5-10), and demand a gesture of appeasement which Paul might regard as capitulation (Gal 2:3), and above all they ignore the cash gift brought by Paul as a gesture of koinonia and agreed beforehand (Gal 2:10). Perhaps Luke in this way indicates why the community, suspicious of Paul's loyalty to Judaism, requires him to visit the Temple, and is too divided to support him in trouble, while shifting the blame for Paul's imprisonment to the outsiders who attack him in the Temple. In the meeting with the Elders, the social implications of the conflict between Mosaic Law and Jesus'/Paul's teachings are spelt out; in the Temple it is the geographical implication that are the focus. Are we sure our Christianity does not impose unnecessary cultural requirements, eg white, middle class male?
19 Language echoes that in Paul's previous report (15:12), with addition of "through his ministry". "In detail" or "one by one" echoes Peter's report in 11:4.
20 As before (15:19) - but now the whole of the Jerusalem leadership - praises God for his intervention in securing Paul's many converts - but go on to point out that these are matched by many believers among Jews - they have not been idle either. Luke has shown, that we too may see, how many thousands of Jews have responded to the apostles teaching - God has remained faithful to his promise to the people of Israel, an essential part of Luke's argument. ~AD58.
21 While the allegation is unfounded, Paul has been teaching that the Law cannot save. But Paul's teaching re Jews and Gentiles is clear: 1 Cor 7:18. Paul is not accused of himself breaking the Jewish law, but of teaching that Jews who live among the Gentiles should do so. Paul has not done this, and indeed has circumcised Timothy (16:3), taken a Nazirite vow (18:18), and observed the feasts (20:5, 17). But he has taught that the customs of the Jewish have no direct bearing on their life of faith. Consistently Paul has taught only that Gentiles need not be circumcised.
22 A rhetorical question. Those "zealous for the law" (v 20) will quickly hear of Paul's arrival and need to be appeased.
23 "Do what we tell you" - not very friendly! V 24 makes it clear that this is (again) a Nazirite vow (Cf Num 6:1-21). Perhaps a ritual will be less easy to misunderstand than a letter?
24 Action more likely to convince local Christians than words. The implication is that Paul's practice would not differ from his teaching, and his observance of this Nazirite act would therefore refute the charge about his teaching. Paul must repeat the purity ritual from before his previous visit (18:18-23), and add cash as well! Expenses, ie 2 lambs, a ram, and food and drink (Num 6:1-24). First indication that Paul came to Jerusalem with funds. We do not know what lies behind this request, but we can speculate. 7 days is too short for a Nazirite separation (Num 6:13) - this may be a general purpose purification (Num 19:12) such as for a return from a Gentile territory. Purification is not mentioned in Num 6, but other Jewish writings envisage several cases where someone who had taken a vow needed purification before shaving the head in completion of the vow. Paul might also have been seen as unclean by his journey among the Gentiles, and by his contact with the dead Eutychus.
25 Strange that there appears a need to inform Paul about their earlier decision and letter (15:23-29), if he had been present and then carried their letter. Appears to exclude Paul's contribution to the decision about the Gentiles - "we" sent a letter with "our" judgement - and omits protective concern for Gentiles' freedom (15:19). Perhaps Luke is merely reminding us of this important decision. Other manuscripts clearly imply that the charge against Paul does not concern either validity of the Gentile mission nor what he had taught them, but strictly what concerns Jewish believers. But why did Paul fear Jerusalem might reject the donation from the Gentile churches? Donation not mentioned. Unsympathetic to Paul. Luke may be admitting that the Jerusalem decree, given here in reverse order, evolved further after Paul had left, so this is first time he hears it, perhaps having left Antioch before it arrived there in its final form. Luke may include it here to remind readers that the Gentile Christians were asked to observe certain Jewish practices, and Paul may have omitted to emphasise it in his teaching. In addition to food laws, these requirements included abstaining from fornication, ie sexual intercourse with an unmarried woman - not "unlawful marriage" as in some translations. That the Elders raised this issue suggests lack of trust of Paul among the conservative Jewish Christians.
26 Num 6:9 requires shaving the head immediately and 7 days later if someone dies suddenly near you. Perhaps Paul was giving notice when the vow would be completed.
27 Jews from Asia - on pilgrimage to Jerusalem for Pentecost - not unexpected. After the difficult meeting with the Elders, Luke seems on firmer ground describing The fulfilling of the Nazirite vow and the issues in the Temple, all consistent with what we know from other sources. Also how the Fortress and Temple Court of Gentiles are connected by stairs, enabling Roman to reach the Temple area quickly, and providing a raised dais for Paul to address the crowd (vv 35, 40). While the crowd is unlikely to be silenced by Paul's wish to address them, Luke shows us a Paul familiar with the politics of Rome and willing to use his heritage to stand up for himself, unlike Jesus. And the misapprehensions by (a) the Jews and (b) the cohort commander set the scene for Paul's speeches defining himself and what he stands for, especially in relation to his Jewish birth. The Temple scene is essential for Luke, because Paul must then address these issues during his imprisonment.
28 Charge of teaching contrary to the Law is serious enough, but that of profaning the Temple -same as against Stephen (6:13) - is far more serious. Non-Jews were forbidden to go beyond the Court of Gentiles, marked by inscriptions, under penalty of death.
29 Luke makes it clear that the charge is false: the Asians may have recognised Trophimus as a Greek with Paul in the city and assumed he had come into the Temple with Paul.
30 Makes sense to shut the gates once the "polluter" was expelled, and keep the riot - and any spilt blood - outside. Presumably the inner gates from the Court of Gentiles were shut. But is Luke also hinting that this is a final shutting of Israel to Paul and the Christians?
31 Where are James and "we"? No support for Paul - as none for Jesus. Cohort based in the Antonine Fortress at NW corner of Temple area. Commander named in 23:26. Nominally commanded 1,000, but usually nearer 600 at this time, although presumably stronger to be able to muster an escort of 470 (23:23).
32 The riot is stopped; Paul is rescued from likely death - by Gentiles. Why is gossip and lies so readily believed? How can we counter this? Are exaggeration or failing to speak the truth also lies, in effect?
33 Bound with 2 chains - presumably to 2 soldiers. At least the Roman commander tries to find out the facts.
34 Contrary to the prophecy, Paul is not "handed over to the Gentiles" (21:11), but is rescued by them. The crowd, as on previous occasions (19:32), is confused and shouts for various things. Paul is brought into the barracks compound, in this case the Fortress Antonia, north-west of the Temple.
36 The "mass of the people" could mean "assembly of the people", appearing to give some authority to the crowd? Same shout as for Jesus (Lk 28:18), although perhaps not here meaning "kill him".
37 Paul seeks to resolve the issue.
38 From Paul's use of Greek the commander concludes that Paul is not an Egyptian revolutionary, as he had thought. The "Egyptian" gathered a large crowd (30,000) to witness the walls of Jerusalem fall down at his command (c. AD 54): escaped when commotion put down by Romans, 1,000s died. Luke says 4,000 (not 30,000 as Josephus said) assassins who killed their opponents with short daggers (sica). Again the Roman authorities are shown as just and fair-minded, recognising that Paul is not rebelling against Rome. But in this atmosphere it is perhaps not surprising that gifts from Gentiles, and Paul's alleged disloyalty to the Law, are somewhat unwelcome.
39 Paul gives his identity in good Greek fashion: Ethnicity (Jew), birthplace (Tarsus), and status (citizen). Paul claims to be a Jew, brought up in Jerusalem, and not Egyptian, and thus speaking Aramaic as well as Greek. Tarsus, an important Hellenistic centre, carries right of Roman citizenship, but Paul's claim to this is deferred to 22:25. Although Paul was a Jew, there is no evidence that he studied ("under Gamaliel") in Jerusalem: he never claims this in his letters, and it would be unlikely for him to be there during Jesus' lifetime without hearing about Jesus.
40 Unlikely that the commander would allow a prisoner to address the crowd - more likely to lead to further rioting? In Hebrew, ie Aramaic, the common Semitic language used then. First of 3 speeches by Paul in Judea.