Comments on Acts 21 v1-16 Paul and some of the disciples sail back to Jerusalem. In the process of doing so they stop and meet various disciples who warn Paul against going to Jerusalem (v. 4, 11) and they try to talk him out if it. Paul states that he is willing to die for the cause of Christ, so they should stop trying to talk him out of it (v. 13) and they do (v. 14). It is odd that Paul would be so determined to go to Jerusalem that he would ignore two inspired warnings (v. 4, 11). It almost reads like Paul is eager for martyrdom. Unfortunately, his determination to go to Jerusalem goes unexplained in the text. What is clear is that he is willing to die for the cause. Ultimately, the Lord approves of Paul's actions and tells him that He has plans for him to go to Rome, cf. 23:11. Maybe the two warnings in the present chapter were something of a test for Paul to see if he would back out given the opportunity. v1 "we", Luke rejoined Paul's company in 20:6. v9 "four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy", in other words "four prophetesses". v17-26 Paul arrives at Jerusalem and is welcomed by the brethren (v. 17). The following day he meets with James and the elders of the ecclesia and relates to them his success in preaching among the Gentiles (v. 18-19), and when they hear it they glorify God (v. 20). However, the subject shifts to a local problem created by Judaizers within the ecclesia who have been telling the other Christian Jews that Paul is preaching against Moses and the Law (v. 21). This is a problem because there are thousands of Jews who believe that Jesus is the messiah, but they are still zealous in keeping the Law (v. 20). Once they have found out that Paul is in Jerusalem the matter is sure to be brought to a head (v. 22). The elders choose to resolve the matter by having Paul pay the expenses of the closing sacrifices of four Nazirites, and in so doing all will see that Paul still respects the Law (v. 23- 24). Regarding the Gentiles, they do not need to keep all of the works of the Law (v. 25). Thus, the way the leadership of the ecclesia deals with the problem is to say that Jewish Christians can still observe the Law, but Gentile Christians do not have to. Paul goes along with the request of the elders (v. 26). v18 "James", it is not clear who this James is, but we do know that it is not the brother of John as he was previously martyred, cf. 12:2. v24 "be at charges with them", the regulations for a Nazirite appear in Num. 6, with the offerings at the end of the vow being detailed in Num. 6:13-21. Accessory regulations for redeeming one from votary vows appear in Lev. 27:1-8. v22-23 The leaders of the ecclesia are caught in a bad situation, and the way they deal with it is to placate the present majority. There isn't even the slightest hint of inspiration or revelation, and this after repeated references to inspiration earlier in the chapter (v. 4, 9, 11). Note the group referenced is "the elders" and not "the apostles" and there is no specific mention of anyone like Peter or John. Only one James is referenced. Also, in ch. 15 where both groups are explicitly present the "apostles" are consistently characterized as separate from the "elders". This suggests the apostles are absent and the decision is made ad hoc by the present elders. Judaizers within the ecclesia, probably associated with if not those referenced in 2 Cor. 3:1, have been slandering Paul in Jerusalem (cf. v. 21). The result is the leadership of the ecclesia are forced into a situation where the Jewish Christians who keep the Law are already predisposed against Paul. The potential for great contention within the ecclesia over this matter was probably extreme given the emphatic description given in v. 20. Hence the desire to avoid contention and Paul's subsequent acquiescence. And it apparently works, as there is no contention within the ecclesia over this matter. v23-24 A similar act was performed by Herod Aggripa I upon his arrival from Rome so as to show his respect for the Jewish religion, cf. Josephus, Antiquities 19.6.1. Thus, the people would immediately recognize this as an overt act of conciliation. v26 What Paul thought of the whole situation we are left to guess at. v27-36 Paul is spotted by Asian Jews (i.e., non-Christian Jews living in and around Lycia, Ephesus, and Pergamum) as the agitator who preaches against the Law in favor of Christianity and who had defiled the Temple by permitting a Gentile to enter it (v. 27-28). Never mind that the accusation of defiling the Temple was unsubstantiated (v. 29). The people present attack Paul in a riot, so much so that the Roman guard is summoned to intervene. Upon the arrival of the Romans the crowd stops beating Paul. When the commander of the guard tries to figure out what is going on the people are so out of control he cannot determine what is going on so he takes Paul away in chains carried by the guard (v. 30-36). As they are carrying Paul to the Roman barracks Paul stops the procession by speaking to the commander in Greek (v. 37). The commander is surprised at this as he had assumed that Paul was an Egyptian agitator who had recently caused a ruckus in Jerusalem (v. 38). Paul identifies himself as a Jew and asks permission to address the people (v. 39). Permission is granted him and standing on the stairs of the garrison he motions to the people to be quiet and they fall silent (v. 40). v27 "Jews which were of Asia", it being the Feast of Weeks, or Pentecost, Jews from all over would gather into Jerusalem to observe the Feast. v28 "brought Greeks also into the Temple, and hath polluted this holy place", cp. Ezek. 44:7-9 for a proof text. Despite the fact that uncircumcised persons were not permitted in the Temple in OT times and the principle of excluding the uninitiated from the Temple is eminently Biblical, Christians still question the LDS practice of exclusive Temple worship. v30 The gates would have been shut by the Temple Levites to keep the riot out. It is probable that the initial call to arms in v. 28 was primarily aimed at the Temple Guard, who were composed of Levites. v34 The riot was apparently so confused the people involved were not entirely aware of what they were rioting about. From the comments made by the commander in v. 38, at least some of the people in the riot had mistaken Paul for the leader of a group of assassins. The confusion was probably a result of the riot starting inside the Temple, the group expelling Paul out of the Temple and then inciting a much greater riot outside the Temple walls. Those who were not present for the initial instigation of riot inside the Temple would not have known what it was all about. They simply joined in on their own assumptions. Copyright © 2002 by S. Kurt Neumiller . All rights reserved. No part of this text may be reproduced in any form or by any means for commercial gain without the express written consent of the author. Digital or printed copies may be freely made and distributed for personal and public non-commercial use.