The Jewish Uprising against Paul.

The reception at Jerusalem:

v. 17. And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.

v. 18. And the day following Paul went with us unto James; and all the elders were present.

v. 19. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.

When Paul and his companions reached Jerusalem, the brethren of the congregation received them with joy, much to the encouragement of them all. The next day there was a more formal meeting, when Paul took his companions and presented them to James, the brother of the Lord, the most prominent elder of the congregation. All the other elders of the congregation were also present for the interview. After saluting them all, Paul began to narrate, literally, to give an account, one by one, in careful detail, what the Lord had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. This referred especially to the success of the second and of the third journey, for the brethren in Jerusalem had heard the story of the first journey, chap. 15:4. Very likely Paul’s recital also brought out the fact that he had lived up to the resolutions passed by the conference in Jerusalem some eight or nine years before. Reports from the mission-fields should always prove most interesting to all the Christian brethren, and should stimulate interest in the work.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Act 21:17-19 . .] having arrived at ; Act 3:5 .

] the Christians , to whom we came,

Mnason and others who were with him. It was not until the following day, Act 21:18 , that they, with Paul at their head, presented themselves to the rulers of the church. Accordingly, there is not to be found in this notice, Act 21:17 , any inconsistency with the dissatisfaction towards Paul afterwards reported (Baur); and . is not to be interpreted of the apostles and presbyters (Kuinoel).

] witnesses to the historical truth of the whole narrative down to Act 21:26 : those who combat it are obliged to represent this as an addition of the compiler, who wished “externally to attach” what follows to the report of an eye-witness (Zeller, p. 522). See, in opposition to this wretched shift, Ewald, Jahrb . IX. p. 66.

] the Lord’s brother, Act 12:17 , Act 15:13 . Neither Peter nor any other of the Twelve can at this time have been present in Jerusalem; otherwise they would have been mentioned here and in the sequel of the narrative. [121]

] . Usual attraction.

[121] Nevertheless, on the part of the Catholics (see Cornelius a Lapide), the presence of all the apostles is assumed; Mary having at that time died, and risen, and ascended into heaven. According to other forms of the variously-coloured legend, it occurred twelve years after the death of Jesus. See Sepp, p. 68 ff.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

PART FIFTH

The arrest of the apostle Paul, the result of which is, that he not only finds an opportunity, in the providence of God, to deliver his testimony concerning Jesus before his people, the Great Council, rulers, and princes, but is also conducted to Rome, the capital of the world, and the residence of the emperor, in order to bear witness there concerning Jesus Christ, in the presence of Jews and Gentiles.

Act 21:17 to Act 28:31 (Conclusion)

______
SECTION I
THE CAUSE AND MANNER OF THE ARREST OF PAUL

Act 21:17-40

A.BY THE ADVICE OF THE ELDERS AT JERUSALEM, PAUL TAKES A CERTAIN PART IN THE VOW OF FOUR NAZARITES, IN ORDER TO REMOVE THE SUSPICION OF THE JUDO-CHRISTIANS THAT HE WAS AN ENEMY OF THE LAW

Act 21:17-26

17And [Now, ] when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received11 us gladly. 18And [But] the day following Paul went in [om. in] with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 19And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things [related in detail all that] God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. 20And [But] when they heard it, they glorified the Lord [glorified God12 ], and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of [among the13 ] Jews there are which [who] believe; and they are all zealous [zealots in behalf] of the law: 21And [But] they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all14 the Jews which [who] are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying [and sayest] that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. 22What is it therefore [then]? the [a] multitude must needs [will necessarily] come together: for they will hear that thou art come. 23Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which [who] have a vow on them; 24Them take [Take these () to thyself], and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them [and pay the expenses for them], that they may shave their heads: and all may know15 that [there is nothing in] those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing [om. are nothing]; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law [walkest in keeping the law]. 24[But] As touching the Gentiles which [who] believe [have become believers], we have written16 and concluded [given directions and resolved] that they [need] observe no such thing,17 save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols [from every idol-sacrifice], and from blood, and from [every thing] strangled, and from fornication. 26Then Paul took the men [to himself], and the next day purifying himself with them, entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of [temple, and announced that he would fulfil] the days of purification, until that an [the, ] offering should be offered for every one of them.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Act 21:17-18. And when we were come to Jerusalem.[The apostle arrives now at Jerusalem for the fifth time since he left it on his persecuting errand to Damascus. It is the last recorded visit that he ever made to the Jewish capital. (Hackett).Tr.]. are not the apostles and elders (Kuinoel), but those Christians with whom Paul and his companions came first in contact, that is, Mnason and others, who were well acquainted with Paul or with those who accompanied him from Cesarea. For the elders are not mentioned until Act 21:18, and it can scarcely be supposed that any one of the apostles was at that time in Jerusalem, as he would otherwise have undoubtedly been expressly mentioned. The elders alone of the mother-church now preside over it, with James, the brother of the Lord (Act 12:17; Act 15:13), as their central point. In his house all the elders assembled, and held a session of great importance and solemnity, which had, as it is apparent, been specially appointed on account of the apostle of the Gentiles. Paul was accompanied by his fellow-travellers from the Gentile congregations, who, with him, brought the collections offered by the latter; these gifts were, without doubt, formally placed in the hands of the elders on this occasion.

Act 21:19. And when he had saluted them.Paul first saluted () the elders in an impressive and cordial manner, and, at the same time, presented the salutations of the Gentile-Christian congregations. He then gave a full and detailed account of his apostolical labors in pagan lands, and of the success and the blessing which God had granted. The word (comp. Act 20:24), exhibits the conception which Paul had formed of his important vocation as the apostle of the Gentiles.

Act 21:20-21. a. And when they heard it.This address, which doubtless gave all the details, made such a deep impression on the college of the elders of the mother-church, that, full of joy and gratitude, they fervently proclaimed the praises of God. Nevertheless, they did not conceal a certain difficulty which existed; they candidly informed the apostle of the prejudice which large numbers of the converted Jews entertained against him. The expression many thousands of converted persons in Judea, cannot create surprise, unless we should suppose that the congregation in Jerusalem alone is meant; but the language before us does not sustain this supposition, and, indeed, Judea is expressly mentioned. [But Lechler adopts in his translation of the text above, the reading , rather than that of ; see note 3, appended to the text.Tr.]. Now if we assume that the whole province is meant, what should prevent us from believing that the number of the Christians in the many cities and villages of Judea, including the capital itself (in which the congregation, twenty or twenty-five years previously, counted 5000 men as members, Act 4:4), now amounted to several tens of thousands? [. How many myriads (or tens of thousands,) is not a mathematical, but an indefinite and popular expression the definite idea of ten thousand is entirely posterior to Homer. It is also a favorite hyperbole of Paul himself1Co 4:15; 1Co 14:19, in both which cases he can only mean what we mean when we say innumerable, numberless, or endless, not to define or specify a number, but to convey the vague idea of a multitude. It is not the statistics of the Jewish Church that we have now before us, but a strong, yet natural, expression of the fact that they were very numerous, etc. (Alexander).Tr.]. Baur has therefore no ground, in this respect, for doubting the genuineness of (Paulus, p. 200), or, with Zeller, for accusing the historian of an unhistorical exaggeration.

b. And they are all zealous [zealots in behalf] of the law.These Christians in Judea are described as far as their sentiments are concerned, as strict and zealous respecting the law ( . ), that is, so strict in their personal observance of the law, that their zeal and passions were aroused whenever the Mosaic institutions were undervalued or assailed. The same term is employed [] which became the name of a party during the Jewish War. [Josephus: Jewish War, iv. 3. 8, ult, 13; Act 8:1.Tr.]. It is indeed quite possible that the uneasy feelings with which the Jewish people, as a whole, regarded the dominion of the Romans, and paganism generally, may have exercised a certain influence also on the Judo-Christians. James himself was a man whose views and feelings inclined him to a strict observance of the law (whence he was called ), and the elders at Jerusalem doubtless entertained the same sentiments. Still, it is obvious that they were not prejudiced against the apostle Paul, like the great mass of the Judo-Christians. The latter had been induced by the malicious and incessant representations of Judaistic teachers () to believe, with respect to the labors of Paul, that he urged the Jews of the Diaspora ( . . . ) [of the Dispersion, Jam 1:1; 1Pe 1:1.Tr.], to apostatize from the institutions of Moses, and that he taught them, first, that they should no longer circumcise their children, in consequence of which the rite of circumcision would cease to be observed in the next generation, and, secondly, that they should no longer observe in their own conduct the Mosaic customs (). [ etc.the infinitive after verbs expressing: to say, to believe etc., when the latter refer, not to that which actually exists, but to that which ought to be, involving the conception of advising, demanding, commanding. (Winer: Gr. 44. 3.).This opinion respecting. Paul was undoubtedly erroneous, as the principles which he expressed in his Epistles (see Rom.; Gal.; 1 Cor.), and his wisdom as a teacher, sufficiently demonstrate. But it could be easily entertained by those anti-Pauline Judaists, who exaggerated the value of Mosaism, when they learned that he taught that the acquisition of Messianic salvation depended, not on circumcision and the works of the law, but solely on faith in Christ. (Meyer).Tr.]

Act 21:22. What is it therefore?This question ( ) is often proposed when men deliberate on the course of conduct which they should pursue [see 1Co 14:15; 1Co 14:26.Tr.]. The of a multitude [ is not preceded by the article.Tr.], is to be understood as referring neither to a regular meeting of the congregation (Calvin, Grotius, Bengel), nor, specially, to a tumultuous assemblage (Kuinoel), but to a gathering together of inquisitive persons.

Act 21:23-25. We have four men which have a vow on them.[The vow mentioned in Act 18:18, is of an entirely different nature.Tr.]. These men are clearly described as Christians by . The vow was the well-known vow of the Nazarites [see Numb. Acts 6.Tr.]. The elders [we say, not James alone, Tr.] advise the apostle to unite in some manner in the vow with the men, or associate himself with them (), by defraying the expenses of the sacrifices which they were obliged to offer at the termination of the vow. (Such an act was regarded as a particular mark of devout zeal; Herod Agrippa, for instance, provided in this manner for a number of poor Nazarites; Jos. Antiq. xix. 6.1.). The apostle was also requested to perform certain Levitical rites of purification in conjunction with the men (. ). [They could not legally shave their heads, until they had complied with their obligations.Tr.].Interpreters are not agreed whether Paul himself assumed the Nazariteship, or not; it has been usually supposed that he, too, took the vow, and Meyer, for instance, has recently adopted this view. It is, however, erroneous. It is undoubtedly true that is employed in reference to the Nazariteship (LXX. [e. g., Num 6:3]), but it is also applied to every other Levitical purificatory rite [e. g., Num 19:12]. And even if the phrase , Act 21:24, might be easily so understood, as if Paul was only now to enter into an , which those four men were already bound to perform, still the expression , Act 21:26, by no means admits of this interpretation; those words can only mean that Paul, in company with the Nazarites, and they in company with him, had purified themselves on the same day, and in one and the same act. The reference is simply to an appearance in the temple, and to the prayers and sacrifices which were to be offered there, and for which, in particular, the Jews prepared and sanctified themselves by ablutions and bathing. (Some understand the verb () as signifying, not the Nazaritic vow itself, but those preliminary rites of purification which preceded every solemn act of ceremonial worship, as required by the law (see Exo 19:10; Exo 19:14) and still practised in the time of Christ (see Joh 11:55). The exhortation (of the elders), thus explained, is not that he should make himself a Nazarite, but merely that he should perform such preparatory rites as would enable him to take part with these Nazarites in the conclusion of their solemn service. (Alexander). The same view is advocated in Conyb. and Howsons Life of St. Paul, etc. II. 251; others (Meyer, de Wette, Alford, Hackett, etc. believe that Paul also took the Nazaritic vow.Tr.]. And, indeed, the opinion that those who paid the expenses when Nazarites completed their vow, also took the vow for some days upon themselves, derives support from no other known source, and has been advanced only with a view to account for the transaction described in the passage before us. Comp. Wieseler: Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalters, p. 105 ff. [In this workChronology of the Apostolic AgeWieseler also rejects the opinion that Paul assumed the vow. See also Keil: Bibl. Archol I. 67. note 2. ult.Tr.].

Act 21:26. Then Paul took, etc.The apostle acceded to the proposal, and after having made that Levitical preparation, appeared in the temple for the purpose of informing the priests that those four men would complete the period of their Nazariteship; it terminated legally when the appointed offering ( , the offering required by the law [Num 6:13-17]) had been made for each individual. This conduct of Paul was intended to convince all Judo-Christians who entertained strictly legal principles, that the prejudices which they had been led to entertain, were totally unfounded ( , that not one of them had any real ground), and that, on the contrary, he was so far from inducing the Jews to apostatize from the law, that he himself, in his own person ( ), also observed the Mosaic law in his walk and conduct.At the same time, the elders, who wished to obviate any scruples which their proposal might produce in the mind of Paul, as if it were their ultimate purpose to restrict the liberty of the Gentile-Christians, made the additional remark that that liberty had already been secured and recognized, and was permanently established. , i.e., none of the observances that were peculiar to Mosaic law.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. It was doubtless either in consequence of a misunderstanding of the facts, or from a disposition to circulate a calumny, that the apostle Paul was accused of teaching the Jews of the dispersion to apostatize from Moses. His doctrine was the Gospel of grace in Christ Jesus; it is, at the same time, unquestionably true, that he preached the doctrine of salvation in Christ alone, and not the doctrine of righteousness by the law. But he did not in any case assail the law or the Mosaic institutions themselves; he only combated the doctrine that the observance of the law was absolutely necessary to salvation, and opposed no other tendency except that which refused to recognize any form of the Church of Christ, besides the Jewish. But that evangelical liberty which constituted the very centre of his life, qualified him alike for tolerating the observance of the Mosaic law on the part of those who were Jews by birth, and for contending, in behalf of Gentile-Christians, for their freedom from the law. Comp. 1Co 7:18 ff.

2. What opinion should we form of the conduct of Paul, from a moral point of view? It has been asserted that he is here represented as guilty of great hypocrisy, and hence the whole narrative has been rejected by some as unhistorical (Zeller: Apgsch., p. 277 ff.). But was his conduct really a practical denial of his own sacred convictions, when he resolved to perform a Levitical act, in order to furnish a visible demonstration that neither was he unfaithful to the law himself, nor did he induce others to apostatize from it? Now such was solely the meaning and object of the whole transaction. If he had, by his course, declared that a Christian who had been born under the law, was obliged to observe the Levitical laws, in order to be assured of his salvation and to become just before God, then indeed would he have denied his most holy convictions, and have been guilty of such hypocrisy as would have exposed him to severe censure. Such was, however, far from being the case; it was solely love that prompted him to subject himself to the law on this occasion, in order to remove an unfounded prejudice from the minds of the Judo-Christians, which had led them to take offence at him. This view strictly corresponds to his own declaration respecting himself: Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law, etc. 1Co 9:19-22.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Act 21:17. The brethren received us gladly.The causes which had formerly prevented the believers at Jerusalem from receiving Paul with confidence and friendship (Act 9:26), had long ago ceased to operate. (Rieger).

Act 21:18. And the day following Paul went in with us unto James.This visit demonstrates alike the honesty and candor, and the modesty and humility of Paul. For, with his views of evangelical liberty, he might have found himself repelled by the Judo-Christian legal strictness of James, and, on comparing the many trials and difficulties which he had encountered, with the comparatively easy and undisturbed labors of the presiding officer of the congregation at Jerusalem, he might have claimed the precedence. But the first obstacle was removed by their common evangelical faith, and the second by his apostolical humility and brotherly love.

Act 21:19. What things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.With what humility Paul speaks of his own labors! Godhe sayshas wrought all. He claims nothing for himself save the joy which he experiences on seeing the divine name glorified. (Ap. Past.).When we hear of the works which God is even now performing among pagans, let us not survey them with indifference, but give that glory to God which belongs to him. (Starke).

Act 21:20. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord.They praised the Lord, and not Paul, even as he did not praise himself. But while they praised the Lord for all that He had wrought through Paul, they recognized him, at the same time, as a blessed instrument of God.Thou seest, brother, how many thousands, etc.Although Paul and James fraternally salute each other, and although the brethren are greatly encouraged by the narrative of Paul, and give praise to God, they nevertheless do not conceal the information which they had received concerning the fault which he was accused of having committed. The very sincere and ardent brotherly love which they entertain, makes them not blind and dumb, but rather honest and candid, in uttering their sentiments. (Ap. Past.).

Act 21:21. And they are informed of thee, etc.How can any thing be so well said or done, that the world will not censure or pervert it? (Starke).Let him who hears this charge which was made against Paul, and who asks for the proof of his innocence, examine Acts 14. and Acts 15. of the Epistle to the Romans, (Rieger).And yet, language like that which occurs, for instance, in the second chapter of Romans, might doubtless awaken such suspicions in the minds of men who were zealous of the law. (Williger).

Act 21:22. The [A] multitude must needs [will necessarily] come together.The opinion has sometimes been expressed that, in the apostolical congregations, no distinction existed between the teachers or presiding officers, on the one hand, and other members of the church, on the other. But what a carefully arranged order we here find in the congregation at Jerusalem! To James, the first place is assigned; the elders come in a body to him. In this college of presiding officers the case of Paul was first discussed, and it was only afterwards that the congregation was consulted. [But see Lechlers note on Act 21:22, above Exeg., etc.Tr.]. From this circumstance our own age may derive many lessons, in reference both to an ecclesiastical democracy, and to an over-estimate of the ministerial office. (Williger).

Act 21:23-24. Do therefore this, etc.The best refutation which can be furnished, consists in actions rather than in words.At times it is well to incur expense, for the sake of calming the excited minds of others.In matters in which no principle is involved, a Christian may readily accommodate himself to others; but let him take heed that neither hypocrisy nor the fear of man furnishes the motive.Let us so use our Christion liberty as to gain, and not to offend those that are weak in faith.To act the hypocrite, is one thing, but it is a different thing, when, in a spirit of love, we become all things to all men, for the encouragement of the weak, that is, in matters in which liberty of choice is allowed, and in which the means employed, while they are lawful in themselves, may even be sanctified by the end in view. (Starke).If we desire to form an impartial judgment respecting this occurrence, we will arrive at the following results: first, that James and the elders acted in accordance with their knowledge of the circumstances of the times; secondly, that Paul was desirous of showing that he was controlled, not by self-will and sectarian animosity, but solely by the power of the Gospel, and that he consequently yielded, and conformed to the beggarly elements [Gal 4:9] of the Jews, in order to gain some of them; and, thirdly, that this course, which proceeded from honest motives, was permitted by the Lord, in order that Paul might appear in the eyes even of his most imbittered foes, not as a disturber of their religion, but as a true friend of the Jewish church, and that they might thus learn that their persecution of him was the more unjust. Those interpreters are unjust, who accuse the apostle of hypocrisy, and represent the sufferings which soon followed, as a divine chastisement; for these sufferings had, at a much earlier period, been already revealed to him, and constituted, indeed, the goal which he was steadfastly approaching. (Ap. Past.).The counsel which the elders gave to Paul was not carnal, intended to secure him or them from suffering affliction, but was spiritual, intended to spare the weak, and thus to gain them.The circumstances are often embarrassing, when love apparently requires us to submit to bondage, even though we are free in the faith. In such cases Christianity is involved in difficulties; some demand more exactness and rigor, others, more liberality and freedom from restraint. Truth takes the middle course. (Rieger).The Gentile church, which the apostle had founded, had just been cordially saluted by the Judo-Christian church with united praises which were offered to God. That hour foreshadowed the great consummation, when the fulness of the Gentiles shall come in [Rom 11:25], and when Israel shall acknowledge its God and King in His work among the Gentiles. To that hour and its holy and significant character, the conduct of the apostle now corresponds. For while he had always recognized the law, and steadily adhered to its fundamental principles, (although he could usually obey it only in the domain of the spirit,) he now gives a visible form to that recognition; and thus he opens the prospect of the final disappearance of the exceptional position which he held, that is, the thirteenth apostolate. Could he have possibly chosen a more appropriate method of applying a part of the gifts which the Gentiles had sent, than that of contributing to the expenses incurred by the solemn sacrifices, which the four poor Nazarites from the congregation of the saints were required to offer, on completing their vow? Had he not reason to regard the gifts of the Gentiles, which were offered through his instrumentality, as the beginning of those offerings with which the Gentiles would, at a future period, beautify the sanctuary of Israel, and render glorious the worship of the people of God? Isa 60:5-13; Zec 14:16, and elsewhere. (Baumgarten).

ON THE WHOLE SECTION, Act 21:17-26.On Christian forbearance: I. It is necessary: (a) it was exercised by the Lord Himself; (b) it was observed by the apostles; (c) it is indispensable in our own case. II. It is salutary: (c) without the forbearance of God, the world would be lost; (b) by the forbearance of the apostles, many who were weak in the faith, were gained; (c) we, too, may, by Christian forbearance, gain, not indeed all men, but at least peace, and thus promote the general interests of the kingdom of God. (From Lisco).

How far may an experienced Christian yield to the prejudices of those who are weak in the faith? I. He may participate in all things, which are matters of indifference, when the object is goodthe service of God. II. He is not at liberty to do anything which would sanction the opinion that such acts are necessary to salvation. (Lisco).

The conduct of the Christian towards his honest but weak brethren, (id.).

The cordiality of Paul and James, on meeting in Jerusalem, Act 21:18-20 : it was, I. A victory of that love which seeketh not its own, over a carnal narrowness of heart, and self-will: II. A token of the future union of Israel and the Gentile world under the cross of Christ; III. A. triumph of the wonderful ways of God in extending His kingdom, and executing his plan of salvation, Act 21:19-20.

Paul among the Nazarites: I. Not as the slave of human ordinances, but acting in the power of evangelical liberty, to which all things are lawful that promote the interests of the kingdom of God, 1Co 6:12; II. Not as a hypocrite before men, but acting in the service of brotherly love, which bears the infirmities of the weak, Rom 15:1; III. Not as a fugitive from the cross, but acting in the power of apostolic obedience, which, supported by love to the Lord, is enabled to practise self-denial, Luk 9:23.

In what sense may a servant of Christ be made all things to all men (1Co 9:22)? I. When, in the case of all men whom he hopes to benefit, he never flatters the flesh, but aids and encourages the spirit; II. When, in all things which he does in order to benefit others, he never surrenders the one thing needful, but preaches Christ, even as He is set forth in the Word of God, and received by faith in the heart.

Paul among the brethren at Jerusalem, or, What will enable us to bear the infirmities of the weak? I. Christian love, which is willing to bear them; (a) it has a tender regard for the wants of the weak, and (b) and nobly practises self-denial, in adapting itself to for them in word and deed. II. Christian strength, which is able to bear them; it possesses (a) the liberty of the spirit, by which it distinguishes between the form and the essence, the shell and the kernel; and (b) firmness of character; for even in subordinate matters it never surrenders principle, or denies the Lord for the sake of pleasing men.

Footnotes:

[11]Act 21:17. is far better attested [by A. B. C. E. and Cod. Sin.] than [of text. rec., and found in G. H.]. Luke is the only writer in the New Test. who employs the compound , and he introduces it several times [once in his Gospel, ch: Act 8:40, and five times in the Acts. Lach. Tisch. and Alf. read .Tr.]

[12]Act 21:20. a. According to external testimony, the reading is undoubtedly preferable to . [The latter, adopted in text. rec., is found in D. H., while A. B. C. E. G. Cod. Sin. and Vulg. (Deum) exhibit , which reading is recognized by Lach. Tisch. Alf., and several other recent editors.Tr.]

[13]Act 21:20. b. The words are found in the uncial manuscripts A. B. C. E., and in several versions [Vulg. in Judaeis], and this reading is supported by that of Cod. Cantab. [D. and also by the Syr. vers.], namely, , while the genitive was inserted to suit . The latter reading is sustained only by the two latest uncial manuscripts [G. H., but without before .], and by several versions. [Lach. and Tisch. read . Alf. reads, with text. rec. simply , and, with Meyer and de Wette, regards the other reading as an adaptation to in Act 21:19.Cod. Sin. omits both readings, without furnishing a substitute.Tr.]

[14]Act 21:21. [of text. rec.] is so strongly attested [by B. C. D (corrected). G. H. and Cod. Sin.], that the omission of the word must be regarded as unauthorized. [A. and E. omit the word; D (original), has for . Lach. and Tisch. drop the word, but Alf. retains it.Vulg. eorum Judaeorum.Tr.]

[15]Act 21:24. [Instead of , of text. rec., from G. H., the reading is found in A. B. C. D. E. and Cod. Sin. Recent editors generally insert the latter. Alford, who adopts the view of Meyer and de Wette, says: is a grammatical correction after .Tr.]

[16]Act 21:25. a. is very decidedly sustained [by A. C. E. G. H. and Cod. Sin.], and should be preferred to ., which Lachmann has adopted on the authority of two uncial manuscripts [namely, B. D. Alf. reads, with text. rec. .; Vulg. scripsimus.Tr.]

[17]Act 21:25. b. Lachmann has cancelled the words: , , on the authority of A. B., of three minuscules, and of some versions [Vulg. etc.]; but they were probably dropped in all these cases [by copyists], for the reason that they do not occur in the parallel passage, Act 15:28-29 [where other verbal variations occur.Tr.]. Five uncial manuscripts, on the other hand [C. D. E. G. H.], and numerous minuscules exhibit these intermediate words, which should be retained as genuine. [Alf. retains them, but Cod. Sin. omits the whole, without any apparent correction by a later hand.Tr.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

17 And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.

Ver. 17. Received us gladly ] Gr. , smilingly. Dat bene, dat multum, qui dat cum munere vultum. When we come to the new Jerusalem, the whole court of heaven shall meet us, and greet us with great joy.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

17 23:35 .] PAUL AT JERUSALEM: MADE PRISONER, AND SENT TO CSAREA.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

17. ] The Christians generally: not the Apostles and elders, as Kuin., who imagines from Act 21:20-21 , that ‘ctus non favebat Paulo.’ But (1) this is by no means implied: and (2) James and the elders are not mentioned till Act 21:18 .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Act 21:17 . There is no good reason to doubt that they were in time for the Feast; it is a legitimate inference from their tarrying at Csarea that they were easily able to reach Jerusalem: possibly the presence of Jews from Asia may be taken, as Rendall points out, to indicate that the time of the Feast was near at hand. : only here, significantly; omitted in Act 2:41 (R.V., W.H [358] ); 2Ma 4:12 ; 2Ma 10:33 A, Mal 3:15Mal 3:15 ; 3Ma 5:21 , so in classical Greek. Even if the welcome only came, as Wendt supposes, from those who were comparatively few amongst many in Jerusalem, St. Paul found himself a brother amongst brethren. ., see on Act 18:27 , .

[358] Westcott and Hort’s The New Testament in Greek: Critical Text and Notes.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Act 21:17-26

17After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22″What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23″Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. 25″But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.” 26Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.

Act 21:17 It was a good sign that the Jerusalem believers gave Paul and these Gentile converts a hearty welcome (cf. Luk 8:40; Luk 9:11; Act 2:41; Act 18:27; Act 21:17; Act 24:3; Act 28:30), but there was also prejudice in the Jerusalem church (cf. Act 21:20-21).

Act 21:18-19 “Paul went in with us to James” There is no special mention here of the gift from the Gentile churches (cf. Act 24:17). Paul made a similar report to James in Act 15:12. James is the half-brother of Jesus and the respected leader of the Jerusalem Church (cf. Act 12:17; Act 15:13).

Act 21:18 “and all the elders were present” Notice that there is no mention of the Apostles. Apparently they were on mission trips out of the country, or maybe they were dead. This use of the term “elders” reflects its Jewish usage (cf. Act 4:5; Act 4:8; Act 4:23; Act 6:12; Act 11:30; Act 15:2; Act 15:4; Act 15:6; Act 15:22-23; Act 16:4; Act 23:14; Act 24:1; Act 24:25; Act 25:15; Heb 11:2; Jas 5:14), not its later use by the church for pastors (cf. Act 14:23; Act 20:17-18; Act 20:23; 1Ti 5:17; 1Ti 5:19; Tit 1:5; 1Pe 5:1; 2Jn 1:1; 3Jn 1:1).

Act 21:19 Some commentators think that Paul received a cool reception and that the money from the Gentile churches was not appreciated. Here is their line of reasoning.

1. Paul stayed at a Hellenistic Jew’s home, not one of the leaders of the Jerusalem church.

2. There is no expression of gratitude for the gift. It is not even mentioned.

3. The leadership immediately tell Paul how disliked he is among thousands in the Jerusalem church.

4. The church is never said to have supported Paul in prison or at his trials.

It must be said that there was conflict and confusion about Paul’s message and mission. However, Act 21:19 seems to be positive to me!

Act 21:20 “how many thousands there are among the Jews” What a wonderful witness of the power of the gospel and the love of God to Jewish people in Jerusalem. There was a believing Jewish remnant. May be Zec 12:10 has been fulfilled!

“who have believed” This is a perfect active participle (see Special Topics at Act 3:16; Act 6:5). This surely implies true saving faith. One can be saved without complete understanding and even despite misunderstanding of all theological issues, (cf. Act 1:6; Luk 19:11).

Paul would characterize these as “weak” Christians (cf. Rom 14:1 to Rom 15:13; 1 Corinthians 8; 1Co 10:23-33). He would bend over backward to encourage them, as long as their “weakness” did not affect the gospel (the Judaizers of Galatians).

“they are all zealous for the Law” This shows the large number of converted Pharisees, zealots, or Essenes. However, conversion did not remove their religious bias. These were similar to the Judaizers of Galatians. It is remarkable how Paul loved and supported “weak” believers, but would not tolerate “false teachers” or those who misrepresented the gospel.

Act 21:21 “they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses” The phrase “having been told” reflects the Hebrew idiom “re-echo,” which implies oral teaching. This is combined with the present tense verb (teaching) to show that the Jews in Jerusalem had repeatedly been told about Paul’s activity in a biased sense. These charges were more serious than preaching to Gentiles, which caused so much trouble (cf. Acts 15).

The term “to forsake” is a strong term which comes into English as “apostasy” (cf. 2Th 2:3). The theological issue related to how believing Jews should relate to the OT was not yet settled! In some sense this mirrors the issues of “Messianic synagogues”!

Act 21:23 “We have four men who are under a vow” Apparently these were members of the church. This refers to a limited Nazarite vow (cf. Num 6:1-8). Paul had earlier taken a similar vow (cf. Act 18:18). We are very uncertain about the details of this limited vow (cf. Nazir Act 1:3).

Act 21:23-25 This passage gives us insight into Paul’s view about Jewish Christians’ relationship to the Mosaic Law. Paul may have continued to observe Jewish traditions (cf. Act 18:18; Act 20:6), at least when trying to evangelize Jews (cf. 1Co 9:19-23). This is possibly an affirmation of Messianic Jewish fellowships in our day.

Act 21:24 “pay their expenses” Paul may not have taken a Nazarite vow himself at this point, but paid for the required sacrifice for the others. The rabbis taught that it was a great honor to pay for the Nazarites vow (Ned. 10a).

SPECIAL TOPIC: NAZARITE VOW

“shave their heads” The Nazarite vow is discussed in Numbers 6. Those who took permanent vows were not allowed to cut their hair. However, the temporary vow was characterized by the shaving of the head at the end of the time period. This verse shows how Paul tried to conform to the culture to which he was trying to preach (cf. 1Co 9:19-23; 1Co 10:23-33).

Act 21:25 “we wrote” This refers to the official statement of the Jerusalem Council (cf. Act 15:19-20; Act 15:28-29). This document mainly removed the ritualistic and dietary barriers between believing Jewish and believing Gentile groups in mixed churches of the diaspora (outside Palestine). It, however, did not relate to believing Jews’ relationship to the Mosaic Covenant.

Act 21:26 “went into the temple” This is what would cause the trouble, not solve it!

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

gladly. Greek. asmenos. Only here and Act 2:41.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

17-23:35.] PAUL AT JERUSALEM: MADE PRISONER, AND SENT TO CSAREA.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Act 21:17-40

THE PROMISE IS FOR ALL:

LESSONS FROM THE BOOK OF ACTS

Notes For Lesson Twenty:

Turmoil In Jerusalem

(Act 21:17 to Act 22:30)

At last Paul reaches Jerusalem and the end of his journey. But it does not take long for trouble to develop. Before Paul can even finish the traditional days of purification after arriving, his presence provokes all kinds of accusations that soon lead to an uproar. It all ends with Paul beginning what would become a lengthy period of imprisonment.

Paul in Jerusalem (Act 21:17-36)

Jerusalem was a city very different from the Gentile cities that Paul had long been in the habit of visiting. And so Paul’s reception and his decisions reflect this. Rather than begin immediately with a preaching ministry of any kind, he goes well out of his way to assure everyone in the town that he is still a practicing Jew and that he honors the customs and practices he was brought up with. But none of this prevents Paul from soon becoming the focal point of hostility and attack.

As Paul arrives in the city for the first time in several years, he also reports on the latest news from the Gentile churches (Act 21:17-19). He is received with joy by the Christians, and is also welcomed by James and the other elders. Paul certainly had much news to pass along, and Luke says that Paul “reported in detail” on his ministry, which must have occupied no little time.

But Paul is also made aware that he is no longer in Ephesus or Philippi or Corinth (Act 21:20-26). He thus puts into practice a principle that he described elsewhere as ‘becoming a Jew to the Jews’. The church in Jerusalem was strong and large, but their view of religion was very different from that of the Gentiles, and was even different from that of the Jewish believers in cities outside of Judea. Even the Christians in Jerusalem were still zealously following the Mosaic law insofar as it did not conflict with Christianity, and they had difficulty in trusting any other worshipper of God who did not do likewise. Accordingly, the elders appeal to Paul to do everything he can to assuage the fears of the Jerusalem Christians, by joining in the traditional purification rites. Paul thus agrees, planning to go through a complete seven-day period of purification.

But none of this prevents Paul from being arrested (Act 21:27-36). The trouble arose not from local residents, but from a group of visitors from Asia who had heard about Paul there, and who now spread bad reports of him throughout the city. They combined their resistance to the gospel with an unwarranted assumption about Paul’s Gentile friend Trophimus. Their accusation that Paul “teaches … against our people and our law” got everyone’s attention, and their further suggestion that Paul had taken Trophimus into the temple area was erroneous, but emotionally effective. It all resulted in a sudden disturbance that would deprive Paul of his liberty for quite some time to come. As had happened in Ephesus, a vague emotional appeal was all it took to get the whole city in an uproar that endangered not only Paul’s life but also the peace and safety of the entire city. As soon as the Roman garrison commander found out what was happening, he acted at once. To the Romans, there were few things worse than civil disorders, and as soon as they realized that Paul was the focus of the trouble, they arrested him. It is something of an irony that only their arrival as Paul was being savagely beaten prevented the hate-crazed crown from killing him on the spot.

For Discussion or Study: What reasons did Paul have for agreeing to try so hard to please the Jews in Jerusalem? Why did it not work anyway? Did the fact that he was arrested anyway mean that he should not have tried to ‘become like a Jew’?

Address to the Crowd (Act 21:37 to Act 22:21)

In the hope of quieting the tumult, and perhaps opening a door to ministry, Paul takes the chance of speaking himself to the angry and unstable crowd. In his well-known speech, he recounts his conversion and also tries to set forth some of the reasons why he follows Jesus. In reading it, we know that there is not much chance of this working, but to Paul there was never a bad opportunity to explain about faith in Jesus.

Being now a prisoner, Paul must first ask for permission to speak (Act 21:37-40) . The Roman commander had little familiarity with Paul or with Christianity or any of the details of the controversy, and thus a question of identity arose. To the commander, Paul sounded suspiciously like a certain Egyptian rebel who had, shortly before this, led a revolt in the desert. Paul has to assure him that he is someone else, but then is allowed to speak.

Paul first tells the crowd of his past life (Act 22:1-5). He speaks in Aramaic*, as a sign of his heritage, and recounts how he himself was thoroughly trained in the law. In the hope of emphasizing even further his Jewish credentials, he talks about his former attitude towards Jesus, and his rampant persecutions of those who had believed in Jesus. Although the crowd chooses not to accept this, Paul’s change of heart from his previous position is quite remarkable, and was an event that should have caused them to reflect. Only something remarkable could have produced such a change.

* A sister language to Hebrew. In the 1st century AD, it was more universally understood than was Hebrew itself.

In fact, it was something remarkable that turned Paul around, as he indicates when he recounts his conversion (Act 22:6-21). He tells of meeting Jesus even as he was on the way to Damascus, intending to persecute the believers there. As a result of Jesus’ appearance to him, he learned God’s real purpose for his life, which was not to persecute Christians but rather to be one, and indeed to persuade the Gentiles also to accept Christ. Paul’s mission in life, then, contained an inherent conflict between old and new. Not only did he have to accept the limitations of the old law, to which he had devoted so much of his life, but he also had to adjust his thinking to take the good news to the Gentiles, most of whom did not even know the law. Paul does, then, understand the reasons for the violent opposition to his message from those who were devoted to traditional Judaism. But he also knew that they, no less than anyone else, needed to hear the truth, and he knew that he was God’s chosen instrument to teach them the truth, whether they chose to listen to it or not.

For Discussion or Study: So far, Paul’s ministry in Jerusalem has produced little of a positive nature. Are there any reasons we can see yet why God may have sent him there? How does Paul seem to feel about his experiences in Jerusalem?

Deciding What To Do With Paul (Act 22:22-30)

When Paul’s speech succeeded only in making the situation more volatile, the Roman commander was faced with the difficult decision of how best to handle this controversial man. He has even fewer choices when he discovers that Paul is a Roman citizen. This assured Paul of his legal rights, and led to the first step in a chain of events that would eventually take him all the way to Rome.

The reaction to Paul’s speech was, unfortunately, entirely negative (Act 22:22-29). The frenzied crowd screamed for his death and, unable to vent all of their hatred for him through shouts alone, flung dust in the air and performed other rather bizarre actions in a desperate attempt to convey the depth of their emotions. Now from a Roman perspective, it was not very important whether Paul himself was actually guilty of anything. What mattered was that he was responsible for a civil disturbance, which was something that Rome did not tolerate. Accordingly, the commander decided to flog Paul in order to force him to talk. Yet this plan is suddenly thwarted when Paul reveals his Roman citizenship to the centurion who was preparing to supervise the flogging. Not only did Paul’s rights as a citizen prevent them from flogging him until found guilty of a crime, they also forced the Romans to deal with the problem exclusively through the court system.

Thus began the long legal process in the case of Paul the apostle, which would eventually take him all the way to Rome. As the first step (Act 22:27-30), the Roman commander ordered the Jewish Sanhedrin to assemble, giving them the responsibility to formulate some specific charges against Paul. So, for the first of what would be many times over the next couple of years, Paul prepared to defend himself and to proclaim Christ at the same time.

– Mark W. Garner, July 2002

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

the brethren: Act 15:4, Rom 15:7, Heb 13:1, Heb 13:2, 3Jo 1:7, 3Jo 1:8

Reciprocal: Act 18:22 – the church Act 19:21 – to go Rom 9:24 – not of the Jews Rom 15:31 – accepted

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

7

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

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Act 21:17. And when we were come to Jerusalem. St. Paul now arrives at Jerusalem for the fifth time since he left it on that never-to-be-forgotten journey to Damascus to persecute the believers in Jesus. This is the last recorded visit that he made to the Holy City. The probable date of this Pentecost, in which the events about to be recorded took place, was A.D. 58.

The brethren received us gladly. This must have been an informal reception either at the city gates or in the house of Mnason, for we read how James and the elders received the traveller and his companions on the day following.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Act 21:17-19. The brethren received us gladly The alms which they brought with them might be one, but certainly were not the only or the chief reason of the welcome reception they met with. The day following, Paul, and those who had attended him in his journey, waited on James Commonly called James the Less, or the Lords brother, the only apostle then presiding over the churches in Judea. See notes on Act 15:18. And all the elders were present To receive so important a visitant, of whose arrival and errand they had doubtless been informed. And when he had saluted them With cordial affection, and presented to them those that were of his company; he declared particularly what God had wrought among the Gentiles Since he last left Jerusalem, informing them how many of the idolatrous Gentiles, in all the great cities of the Lesser Asia, Macedonia, and Greece, had embraced the gospel through his ministry; that he had planted churches in those cities, and that the gifts of the Holy Ghost had been communicated to many believers in every church; mentioning also his having visited most of them a second time, as well as taken a review of those in Cilicia, Pamphylia, Lystra, and other parts of Asia, with the plantation of which they had formerly been made acquainted, Act 15:4. Moreover, in this account we may be sure he did not forget to mention the liberal contributions which the churches of the Gentiles through Asia and Europe had made for the poor of the saints in Judea, and which they had sent by his hands as a testimony of their gratitude for the knowledge of the true God, communicated to them by men of their nation. The collection, Paul, no doubt, now delivered, in presence of the messengers of the churches, to James and to the elders, to be by them distributed to the poor of the Jewish Christians, who by that expression of the good-will of the Gentile believers, ought to have been disposed to think favourably of them as their brethren.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

17. The period which had been looked forward to for months with prayerful anxiety had now arrived, and Paul was to know, without further delay, whether or not the service which he had for Jerusalem would be accepted by the saints. To his unspeakable relief, the historian was able to say, (17) “Now when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.” If Luke had given any account of the contribution Paul was bringing, we should have expected him to say something more definite about its reception than is implied in this remark. But, as he saw fit to omit all mention of the enterprise, we are at liberty to infer, from the glad reception given to the messengers, that the gift they bore was also welcome. The main object of Paul’s visit and of his prayers was now accomplished. He had finished this much of his course and his ministry with joy, and his heart was relieved from its chief anxiety. Whether the Lord would now accept his prayer for deliverance from the disobedient in Jerusalem, he felt to be a matter of minor importance.

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

17, 18. Paul is gladly received by the apostles and brethren, proceeding at once to James, the pastor of the mother church, where, in presence of the apostles, elders and brethren, he relates the mighty works of God among the Gentiles.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Act 21:17-26. Arrival at Jerusalem: Pauls Nazirite Vow.

Act 21:17 gives the general impression on both sides when Paul arrived; in Act 21:18 he presents himself to James with his retinue, and finds the elders, i.e. the governing body of the Church (Act 11:30), assembled to receive them. His report to them is given as in Act 14:27, Act 15:4. Nothing is said of the subvention from the churches of Macedonia and Greece. The elders have already been considering Pauls arrival, the painful impressions which prevail about him and doubtless occasioned the warnings received on the journey, and possible means of removing them. They represent multitudes of Jews who believe in Christ and yet are upholders of the Law and the customs. These Christian Jews have been told that Paul encourages all the Jews who live among Gentiles to desert Moses, to give up circumcising their children and all their distinctive practices. This must place the Jewish Christians in a painful position. Paul should consider this. The elders have thought of a plan to remove these misconceptions and establish his reputation as a law-abiding Jew. He is to associate himself with four men who have a Nazirite vow (Numbers 6*) to discharge, himself coming under the same vow and paying the expenses of the whole party. The person taking the vow let his hair grow and abstained from every form of wine and defiling contact, and, when the vow matured, presented offerings at the Temple (Num 6:13-17), and then shaved his head and put the hair in the fire of the sacrifice. Paul, having just arrived at Jerusalem, could not fully discharge such a vow, which took time (at least thirty days); but the considerable expense of the party of five, two lambs and a ram each, with additions, would show his sincerity as a supporter of the Temple and its rites. This on his part, and on the part of the Gentile Christians the careful observance of the rescript of ch. 15. will secure the position of the Law for all parties. Paul agrees; he goes next day to the Temple and adds his vow to theirs; it is to be for seven days (Act 21:27).

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

2. Ministry in Jerusalem 21:17-23:32

The events that transpired in Jerusalem when Paul visited the city on this occasion proved crucial in spreading the gospel to Rome. The events that Luke narrated in Act 21:17 to Act 23:35 took twelve days, whereas those that follow in Act 24:1 to Act 26:32 took two years. Luke wrote these events partially to reveal God’s methods to his readers.

"The geographical extension of the church was not Luke’s main interest; it was rather the movement of redemptive history from the Jews to the Gentiles. In keeping with this purpose, Luke devotes considerable space to the record of Paul’s last visit to Jerusalem, not because the visit was important in itself, but because it showed the final rejection of the Gospel by Jerusalem." [Note: Ladd, "The Acts . . .," p. 1164.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

The advice of James and the elders 21:17-26

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

As he had done before, Paul related to a group of elders what God had done on his missionary journeys among the Gentiles (Act 14:27; cf. Act 18:23). This undoubtedly helped the Jerusalem church accept the gift that Paul had brought from their Gentile brethren. I am assuming that the Jerusalem church leaders received the gift, but they may not have done so. Perhaps Luke did not comment on the giving and receiving of the gift because that was not something he wanted to draw attention to, even though by not explaining he left his readers with an unanswered question.

James, the Lord’s half-brother, was still the recognized leader of the Jerusalem church (cf. Act 12:17; Act 15:13), but this church also had elder leadership (cf. Act 11:30). Herod Agrippa I had killed James, the brother of John, earlier (Act 12:2), not James the half-brother of Jesus. Luke mentioned nothing about Paul’s delivery of the monetary gift, Paul’s main reason for going to Jerusalem (cf. Rom 15:25-27; 1Co 16:1-4). His purpose was primarily to emphasize the spread of the gospel. The Gentiles had remembered the poor as Paul had urged them to do (Gal 2:10).

Even though the third "we" section ends with Act 21:18, Luke may have remained with Paul in Jerusalem. He could have stopped including himself in the narrative to stress Paul’s leadership. Alternatively he may have departed for some other destination.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

3

Chapter 17

A PRISONER IN BONDS.

Act 21:2-3; Act 21:17; Act 21:33; Act 21:39-40; Act 22:22; Act 22:30; Act 24:1; Act 26:1

THE title we have given to this chapter, “A Prisoner in Bonds,” expresses the central idea of the last eight chapters of the Acts. Twenty years and more had now elapsed since St. Pauls conversion on the road to Damascus. These twenty years had been times of unceasing and intense activity. Now we come to some five years when the external labours, the turmoil and the cares of active, life, have to be put aside, and St. Paul was called upon to stand apart and learn the lesson which every-day experience teaches to all, -how easily the world can get along without us, how smoothly Gods designs fulfil themselves without our puny assistance. The various passages we have placed at the head of this chapter cover six chapters of the Acts, from the twenty-first to the twenty-sixth. It may seem a large extent of the text to be comprised within the limits of one of our chapters, but it must be remembered that a great deal of the space thus included is taken up with the narrative of St. Pauls conversion, which is twice set forth at great length, first to the multitude from the stairs of the tower of Antonia, and then in his defence which he delivered before Agrippa and Bernice and Festus, or else with the speeches delivered by him before the assembled Sanhedrin and before Felix the governor, wherein he dwells on points previously and sufficiently discussed. We have already considered the narrative of the Apostles conversion at great length, and noted the particular directions in which St. Pauls own later versions at Jerusalem and Caesarea throw light upon St. Lukes independent account. To the earlier chapters of this book we therefore would refer the reader who wishes to discuss St. Pauls conversion, and several of the other subjects which he introduces. Let us now, however, endeavour, first of all, to gather up into one connected story the tale of St. Pauls journeys, sufferings, and imprisonments from the time he left Miletus after his famous address till he set sail for Rome from the port of Caesarea, a prisoner destined for the judgment-seat of Nero. This narrative will embrace from at least the summer of A.D. 58, when he was arrested at Jerusalem, to the autumn of 60, when he set sail for Rome. This connected story will enable us to see the close union of the various parts of the narrative which is now hidden from us because of the division into chapters, and will enable us to fix more easily upon the leading points which lend themselves to the purposes of an expositor.

I. St. Paul after parting from the Ephesian Church, embarked on board his ship, and then coasted along the western shore of Asia Minor for three days, sailing amid scenery of the most enchanting description, specially in that late spring or early summer season at which the year had then arrived. It was about the first of May, and all nature was bursting into new life, when even hearts the hardest and least receptive of external influences feel as if they were living a portion of their youth over again. And even St. Paul, rapt in the contemplation of things unseen, must have felt himself touched by the beauty of the scenes through which he was passing, though St. Luke tells us nothing but the bare succession of events. Three days after leaving Miletus the sacred company reached Patara, a town at the southwestern corner of Asia Minor, where the coast begins to turn round towards the east. Here St. Paul found a trading ship sailing direct to Tyre and Palestine, and therefore with all haste transferred himself and his party into it. The ship seems to have been on the point of sailing, which suited St. Paul so much the better, anxious as he was to reach Jerusalem in time for Pentecost. The journey direct from Patara to Tyre is about three hundred and fifty miles, a three days sail under favourable circumstances for the trading vessels of the ancients, and the circumstances were favourable. The northwest wind is to this day the prevailing wind in the eastern Mediterranean during the late spring and early summer season, and the northwest wind would be the most favourable wind for an ancient trader almost entirely depending on an immense mainsail for its motive power. With such a wind the merchantmen of that age could travel at the rate of a hundred to a hundred and fifty miles a day, and would therefore traverse the distance between Patara and Tyre in three days, the time we have specified. When the vessel arrived at Tyre St. Paul sought out the local Christian congregation. The ship was chartered to bring a cargo probably of wheat or wine to Tyre, inasmuch as Tyre was a purely commercial city, and the territory naturally belonging to it was utterly unable to finish it with necessary provisions, as we have already noted on the occasion of Herod Agrippas death. A week, therefore, was spent in unloading the cargo, during which St. Paul devoted himself to the instruction of the local Christian Church. After a weeks close communion with this eminent servant of God, the Tyrian Christians, like the elders of Ephesus and Miletus, with their wives and children accompanied him till they reached the shore, where they commended one another in prayer to Gods care and blessing. From Tyre he sailed to Ptolemais, thirty miles distant. There again he found another Christian congregation, with whom he tarried one day, and then leaving the ship proceeded by the great coast road to Caesarea, a town which he already knew right well, and to which he was so soon to return as a prisoner in bonds. At Caesarea there must now have been a very considerable Christian congregation. In Caesarea Philip the Evangelist lived and ministered permanently. There too resided his daughters, eminent as teachers, and exercising in their preaching or prophetical functions a great influence among the very mixed female population of the political capital of Palestine. St. Paul and St. Luke abode in Caesarea several days in the house of Philip the Evangelist. He did not wish to arrive in Jerusalem till close on the Feast of Pentecost, and owing to the fair winds with which he had been favoured he must have had a week or more to stay in Caesarea. Here Agabus again appears upon the scene. Fourteen years before he had predicted the famine which led St. Paul to pay a visit to Jerusalem when bringing up the alms of the Antiochene Church to assist the poor brethren at Jerusalem, and now he predicts the Apostles approaching captivity. The prospect moved the Church so much that the brethren besought St. Paul to change his mind and not enter the Holy City. But his mind was made up, and nothing would dissuade him from celebrating the Feast as he had all along proposed; He went up therefore to Jerusalem, lodging with Mnason, “an early disciple,” as the Revised Version puts it, one therefore who traced his Christian convictions back probably to the celebrated Pentecost a quarter of a century earlier, when the Holy Ghost first displayed His supernatural power in converting multitudes of human souls. Next day he went to visit James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, who received him warmly, grasped his position, warned him of the rumours which had been industriously and falsely circulated as to his opposition to the Law of Moses, even in the case of born Jews, and gave him some prudent advice as to his course of action. St. James recommended that St. Paul should unite himself with certain Christian Nazarites, and perform the Jewish rites usual in such cases. A Nazarite, as we have already mentioned, when he took the Nazarite vow for a limited time after some special deliverance vouchsafed to him, allowed his hair to grow till he could cut it off in the Temple, and have it burned in the fire of the sacrifices offered up on his behalf. These sacrifices were very expensive, as will be seen at once by a reference to Num 6:13-18, where they are prescribed at full length, and it was always regarded as a mark of patriotic piety when any stranger coming to Jerusalem offered to defray the necessary charges for the poorer Jews, and thus completed the ceremonies connected with the Nazarite vow. St. James advised St. Paul to adopt this course, to unite himself with the members of the local Christian Church who were unable to defray the customary expenses, to pay their charges, join with them in the sacrifices, and thus publicly proclaim to those who opposed him that, though he differed from them as regards the Gentiles, holding in that matter with St. James himself and with the apostles, yet as regards the Jews, whether at Jerusalem or throughout the world at large, he was totally misrepresented when men asserted that he taught the Jews to reject the Law of Moses. St. Paul was guided by the advice of James, and proceeded to complete the ceremonial prescribed for the Nazarites. This was the turning-point of his fate. Jerusalem was then thronged with strangers from every part of the world. Ephesus and the province of Asia, as a great commercial centre, and therefore a great Jewish resort, furnished a very large contingent. To these, then, Paul was well known as an enthusiastic Christian teacher, toward whom the synagogues of Ephesus felt the bitterest hostility. They had often plotted against him at Ephesus, as St. Paul himself told the elders in his address at Miletus, but had hitherto failed to effect their purpose. Now, however, they seemed to see their chance. They thought they had a popular cry and a legal accusation under which he might be done to death under the forms of law. These Ephesian Jews had seen him in the city in company with Trophimus, an uncircumcised Christian belonging to their own city, one therefore whose presence within the temple was a capital offence, even according to Roman law. They raised a cry therefore that he had defiled the Holy Place by bringing into it an uncircumcised-Greek; and thus roused the populace to seize the Apostle, drag him from the sacred precincts, and murder him. During the celebration of the Feasts the Roman sentinels, stationed upon the neighbouring tower of Antonia which overlooked the Temple courts, watched the assembled crowds most narrowly, apprehensive of a riot. As soon therefore as the first symptoms of an outbreak occurred, the alarm was given, the chief captain Lysias hurried to the spot, and St. Paul was rescued for the moment. At the request of the Apostle, who was being carried up into the castle, he was allowed to address the multitude from the stairs. They listened to the narrative of his conversion very quietly till he came to tell of the vision God vouchsafed to him in the Temple some twenty years before, warning him to leave Jerusalem, when at the words “Depart, for I will send thee forth far hence unto the Gentiles,” all their pent-up rage and prise and national jealousy burst forth anew. St. Paul had been addressing them in the Hebrew language, which the chief captain understood not, and the mob probably expressed their rage and passion in the same language. The chief captain ordered St. Paul to be examined by flogging to know why they were so outrageous against him. More fortunate, however, on this occasion than at Philippi, he claimed his privilege as a Roman citizen, and escaped the torture. The chief captain was still in ignorance of the prisoners crime, and therefore be brought him the very next day before the Sanhedrin, when St. Paul by a happy stroke caused such a division between the Sadducees and Pharisees that the chief captain was again obliged to intervene and rescue the prisoner from the contending factions. Next day, however, the Jews formed a conspiracy to murder the Apostle, which his nephew discovered and revealed to St. Paul and to Claudius Lysias, who that same night despatched him to Caesarea.

All these events, from his conference with James to his arrival under guard at Caesarea, cannot have covered more than eight days at the utmost, and yet the story of them extends from the middle of the twenty-first chapter to the close of the twenty-third, while the record of twelve months hard work preaching, writing, organising is embraced within the first six verses of the twentieth chapter, showing how very different was St. Lukes narrative of affairs, according as he was present or absent when they were transacted.

From the beginning of the twenty-fourth chapter to the close of the twenty-sixth is taken up with the account of St. Pauls trials, at first before Felix, and then before Festus, his successor in the procuratorship of Palestine. Just let us summarise the course of. events and distinguish between them. St. Paul was despatched by Claudius Lysias to Felix, accompanied by a letter in which he contrives to put the best construction on his own actions, representing himself as specially anxious about St. Paul because he was a Roman citizen, on which account indeed he describes himself as rescuing him from the clutches of the mob. After the lapse of five days St. Paul was brought up before Felix and accused by the Jews of three serious crimes in the eyes of Roman law as administered in Palestine. First, he was a mover of seditions among the Jews; second, a ringleader of a new sect, the Nazarenes, unknown to Jewish law; and third, a profaner of the Temple, contrary to the law which the Romans themselves had sanctioned. On all these points Paul challenged investigation and demanded proof, asking where were the Jews from Asia who had accused him of profaning the Temple. The Jews doubtless thought that Paul was a common Jew, who would be yielded up to their clamour by the procurator, and knew nothing of his Roman citizenship. Their want of witnesses brought about their failure, but did not lead to St. Pauls release. He was committed to the custody of a centurion, and freedom of access was granted to his friends. In this state St. Paul continued two full years, from midsummer 58 to the same period of A.D. 60, when Felix was superseded by Festus. During these two years Felix often conversed with St. Paul. Felix was a thoroughly bad man. He exercised, as a historian of that time said of him, “the power of a king with the mind of a slave.” He was tyrannical, licentious, and corrupt, and hoped to be bribed by St. Paul, when he would have set him at liberty. At this period of his life St. Paul twice came in contact with the Herodian house, which thenceforth disappears from sacred history. Felix about the period of St. Pauls arrest enticed Drusilla, the great-granddaughter of Herod the Great, from her husband through the medium, as many think, of Simon Magus. Drusilla was very young and very beautiful, and, like all the Herodian women, very wicked. Felix was an open adulterer, therefore, and it is no wonder that when Paul reasoned before the guilty pair concerning righteousness, temperance, and the judgment to come, conscience should have smitten them and Felix should have trembled. St. Paul had another opportunity of bearing witness before this wicked and bloodstained family. Festus succeeded Felix as procurator of Palestine about June, A.D. 60. Within the following month Agrippa II, the son of the Herod Agrippa who had died the terrible death at Caesarea of which the twelfth chapter tells, came to Caesarea to pay his respects unto the new governor. Agrippa was ruler of the kingdom of Chalcis, a district north of Palestine and about the Lebanon Range. He was accompanied by his sister Bernice, who afterwards became the mistress of Titus, the conqueror of Jerusalem in the last great siege. Festus had already heard St. Pauls case, and had allowed his appeal unto Caesar. He wished, however, to have his case investigated before two Jewish experts, Agrippa and Bernice, who could instruct his own ignorance on the charges laid against him by the Jews, enabling him to write a more satisfactory report for the Emperors guidance. He brought St. Paul therefore before them, and gave the great Christian champion another opportunity of bearing witness for his Master before a family which now for more than sixty years had been more or less mixed up, but never for their own blessing, with Christian history. After a period of two years and three months detention, varied by different public appearances, St. Paul was despatched to Rome to stand his trial and make his defence before the Emperor Nero, whose name has become a synonym for vice, brutality, and self-will.

II. We have now given a connected outline of St. Pauls history extending over a period of more than two years. Let us omit his formal defences, which have already come under our notice, and take for our meditation a number of points which are peculiar to the narrative.

We have in the story of the voyage, arrest, and imprisonment of St. Paul, many circumstances which illustrate Gods methods of action in the world, or else His dealings with the spiritual life. Let us take a few instances. First, then, we direct attention to the steady though quiet progress of the Christian faith as revealed in these chapters. St. Paul landed at Tyre, and from Tyre he proceeded some thirty miles south to Ptolemais. These are both of them towns which have never hitherto occurred in our narrative as places of Christian activity. St. Paul and St. Peter and Barnabas and the other active leaders of the Church must often have passed through these towns, and wherever they went they strove to make known the tidings of the gospel. But we hear nothing in the Acts, and tradition tells us nothing of when or by whom the Christian Church was founded in these localities.

We get glimpses, too, of the ancient organisation of the Church, but only glimpses; we have no complete statement, because St. Luke was writing for a man who lived amidst it, and could supply the gaps which his informant left. The presbyters are mentioned at Miletus, and Agabus the prophet appeared at Antioch years before, and now again he appears at Caesarea, where Philip the Evangelist and his daughters the prophetesses appear. Prophets and prophesying are not confined to Palestine and Antioch, though the Acts tells us nothing of them as existing elsewhere. The Epistle to Corinth shows us that the prophets occupied a very important place in that Christian community. Prophesying indeed was principally preaching at Corinth; but it did not exclude prediction, and that after the ancient Jewish method, by action as well as by word, for Agabus took St. Pauls girdle, and binding his own hands and feet declared that the Holy Ghost told him, “So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that own-eth this girdle, and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.” But how little we know of the details of the upgrowth of the Church in all save the more prominent places! How entirely ignorant we are, for instance, of the methods by which the gospel spread to Tyre and Ptolemais and Puteoli! Here we find in the Acts the fulfilment of our Lords words as reported in Mar 4:26 : “So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed upon the earth; and the seed should spring up and grow, he knoweth not how.” It was with the last and grander temple of God as it was with the first. Its foundations were laid, and its walls were built, not with sound of axe and hammer, but in the penitence of humbled souls, in the godly testimony of sanctified spirits, in the earnest lives of holy men hidden from the scoffing world, known only to the Almighty.

Again, we notice the advice given by James and the course actually adopted by St.. Paul when he arrived at Jerusalem. It has the appearance of compromise of truth, and yet it has the appearance merely, not the reality of compromise. It was in effect wise and sound advice, and such as teaches lessons useful for our own guidance in life. We have already set forth St. Pauls conception of Jewish rites and ceremonies. They were nothing in the world one way or another, as viewed from the Divine standpoint. Their presence did not help on the work of mans salvation; their absence did not detract from it. The Apostle therefore took part in them freely enough, as when he celebrated the passover and the days of unleavened bread at Philippi, viewing them as mere national rites. He had been successful in the very highest degree in converting to this view even the highest and strictest members of the Jerusalem Church. St. James, in advising St. Paul how to act on this occasion, when such prejudices had been excited against him, clearly shows that he had come round to St. Pauls view. He tells St. Paul that the multitude or body of the Judaeo-Christian Church at Jerusalem had been excited against him, because they had been informed that he taught the Jews of the Dispersion to forsake Moses, the very thing St. Paul did not do. St. James grasped, however, St. Pauls view that Moses and the Levitical Law might be good things for the Jews, but had no relation to the Gentiles, and must not be imposed on them. St. James had taught this view ten years earlier at the Apostolic Council. His opinions and teaching had percolated downwards, and the majority of the Jerusalem Church now held the same view as regards the Gentiles, but were as strong as ever and as patriotic as ever so far as the Jews were concerned, and the obligation of the Jewish Law upon them and their children. St. Paul had carried his point as regards Gentile freedom. And now there came a time when he had in turn to show consideration and care for Jewish prejudices, and act out his own principle that circumcision was nothing and uncircumcision was nothing. Concessions, in fact, were not to be all on one side, and St. Paul had now to make a concession. The Judaeo-Christian congregations of Jerusalem were much excited, and St. Paul by a certain course of conduct, perfectly innocent and harmless, could pacify their excited patriotic feelings, and demonstrate to them that he was still a true, a genuine, and not a renegade Jew. It was but a little thing that St. James advised and public feeling demanded. He had but to join himself to a party of Nazarites and pay their expenses, and thus Paul would place himself en rapport with the Mother Church of Christendom. St. Paul acted wisely, charitably, and in a Christlike spirit when he consented to do as St. James advised. St. Paul was always eminently prudent. There are some religious men who seem to think that to advise a wise or prudent course is all the same as to advise a wicked or unprincipled course. They seem to consider success in any course as a clear evidence of sin, and failure as a proof of honesty and true principle. Concession, however, is not the same as unworthy compromise. It is our duty in life to see and make our course of conduct as fruitful and as successful as possible. Concession on little points has a wondrous power in smoothing the path of action and gaining true success. Many an honest man ruins a good cause simply because he cannot distinguish, as St. Paul did, things necessary and essential from things accidental and trivial. Pigheaded obstinacy, to use a very homely but a very expressive phrase, which indeed is often only disguised pride, is a great enemy to the peace and harmony of societies and churches. St. Paul displayed great boldness here. He was not afraid of being misrepresented, that ghost which frightens so many a popularity hunter from the course which is true and right. How easily his fierce Opponents, the men who had gone to Corinth and Galatia to oppose him, might misrepresent his action in joining himself to the Nazarites! They were the extreme men of the Jerusalem Church. They were the men for whom the decisions of the Apostolic Council had no weight, and who held still as of old that unless a man be circumcised he could not be saved. How easily, I say, these men could despatch their emissaries, who should proclaim that their opponent Paul had conceded all their demands and was himself observing the law at Jerusalem. St. Paul was not afraid of this misrepresentation, but boldly took the course which seemed to him right and true, and charitable, despite the malicious tongues of his adversaries. The Apostle of the Gentiles left us an example which many still require. How many a man is kept from adopting a course that is charitable and tends to peace and edification, solely because he is afraid of what opponents may say, or how they may twist and misrepresent his action. St. Paul was possessed with none of this moral cowardice which specially flourishes among so-called party-leaders, men who, instead of leading, are always led and governed by the opinions of their followers. St. Paul simply determined in his conscience what was right, and then fearlessly acted out his determination.

Some persons perhaps would argue that the result of his action showed that he was wrong and had unworthily compromised the cause of Christian freedom. They think that had he not consented to appear as a Nazarite in the Temple no riot would have occurred, his arrest would have been avoided, and the course of history might have been very different. But here we would join issue on the spot. The results of his action vindicated his Christian wisdom. The great body of the Jerusalem Church were convinced of his sincerity and realised his position. He maintained his influence over them, which had been seriously imperilled previously, and thus helped on the course of development which had been going on. Ten years before the advocates of Gentile freedom were but a small body. Now the vast majority of the local church at Jerusalem held fast to this idea, while still clinging fast to the obligation laid upon the Jews to observe the law. St. Paul did his best to maintain his friendship and alliance with the Jerusalem Church. To put himself right with them he travelled up to Jerusalem, when fresh fields and splendid prospects were opening up for him in the West. For this purpose he submitted to several days restraint and attendance in the Temple, and the results vindicated his determination. The Jerusalem Church continued the same course of orderly development, and when, ten years later, Jerusalem was threatened with destruction, the Christian congregations alone rose above the narrow bigoted patriotism which bound the Jews to the Holy City. The Christians alone realised that the day of the Mosaic Law was at length passed, and, retiring to the neighbouring city of Pella, escaped the destruction which awaited the fanatical adherents of the Law and the Temple.

Another answer, too, may be made to this objection. It was not his action in the matter of the Nazarites that brought about the riot and the arrest and his consequent imprisonment. It was the hostility of the Jews of Asia; and they would have assailed him whenever and wherever they met him. Studying the matter too, even in view of results, we should draw the opposite conclusion. God Himself approved his course. A Divine vision was vouchsafed to him in the guard-room of Antonia, after he had twice experienced Jewish violence, and bestowed upon him the approbation of Heaven: “The night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer; for as thou hast testified concerning Me at Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.” His courageous and at the same time charitable action was vindicated by its results on the Jerusalem Church, by the sanction of Christ Himself, and lastly, by its blessed results upon the development of the Church at large in leading St. Paul to Rome, in giving him a wider and more influential sphere for his efforts, and in affording him leisure to write epistles like those to Ephesus, Philippi, and Colossae, which have been so instructive and useful for the Church of all ages.

Another point which has exercised mens minds is found in St. Pauls attitude and words when brought before the Sanhedrin on the day after his arrest. The story is told in the opening verses of the twenty-third chapter. Let us quote them, as they vividly present the difficulty: “And Paul, looking steadfastly on the council, said, Brethren, I have lived before God in all good conscience until this day. And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: and sittest thou to judge me according to the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? And they that stood by said, Revilest thou Gods high priest? And Paul said, I wist not, brethren, that he was high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of a ruler of thy people.”

Two difficulties here present themselves.

(a) There is St. Pauls language, which certainly seems wanting in Christian meekness, and not exactly modelled after the example of Christ, who, when He was reviled, reviled not again, and laid down in His Sermon on the Mount a law of suffering to which St. Paul does not here conform. But this is only a difficulty for those who have formed a superhuman estimate of St. Paul against which we have several times protested, and against which this very book of the Acts seems to take special care to warn its readers. If people will make the Apostle as sinless and as perfect as our Lord, they will of course be surprised at his language on this occasion. But if they regard him in the light in which St. Luke portrays him, as a man of like passions and infirmities with themselves, then they will feel no difficulty in the fact that St. Pauls natural temper was roused at the brutal and illegal command to smite a helpless prisoner on the mouth because he had made a statement which a member of the court did not relish. This passage seems to me not a difficulty, but a divinely guided passage witnessing to the inspiring influence of the Holy Ghost, and inserted to chasten our wandering fancy, which would exalt the Apostle to a position equal to that which rightly belongs to his Divine Master alone.

(b) Then there is a second difficulty. Some have thought that St. Paul told a lie in this passage, and that, when defending himself from the charge of unscriptural insolence to the high priest, he merely pretended ignorance of his person, saying, “I wist not, brethren, that he was high priest.” The older commentators devised various explanations of this passage. Dr. John Lightfoot, in his “Horae Hebraicae,” treating of this verse, sums them all up as follows. Either St. Paul means that he did not recognise Ananias as high priest because he did not lawfully occupy the office, or else because Christ was now the only high priest; or else because there had been so many and so frequent changes that as a matter of fact he did not know who was the actual high priest. None of these is a satisfactory explanation. Mr. Lewin offers what strikes me as the most natural explanation, considering all the circumstances. Ananias was appointed high priest about 47, continued in office till 59, and was killed in the beginning of the great Jewish war. He was a thoroughly historical character, and his high priesthood is guaranteed for us by the testimony of Josephus, who tells us of his varied fortunes and of his tragic death. But St. Paul never probably once saw him, as he was absent from Jerusalem, except for one brief visit, all the time while he enjoyed supreme office.

Now the Sanhedrin consisted of seventy-one judges, they sat in a large hall with a crowd of scribes and pupils in front of them, and the high priest, as we have already pointed out, was not necessarily president or chairman. St. Paul was very short-sighted, and the ophthalmia under which he continually suffered was probably much intensified by the violent treatment he had experienced the day before. Could anything be more natural than that a short-sighted man should not recognise in such a crowd the particular person who had uttered this very brief, but very tyrannical command, “Smite him on the mouth”? Surely an impartial review of St. Pauls life shows him ever to have been at least a man of striking courage, and therefore one who would never have descended to cloak his own hasty words with even the shadow of an untruth!

Again, the readiness and quickness of St. Paul in seizing upon every opportunity of escape have important teaching for us. Upon four different occasions at this crisis he displayed this characteristic. Let us note them for our guidance. When he was rescued by the chief captain and was carried into the castle, the captain ordered him to be examined by scourging to elicit the true cause of the riot; St. Paul then availed himself of his privilege as a Roman citizen to escape that torture. When he stood before the council he perceived the old division between the Pharisees and the Sadducees to be still in existence, which he had known long ago when he was himself connected with it. He skilfully availed himself of that circumstance to raise dissension among his opponents. He grasped the essential principle which lay at the basis of his teaching, and that was the doctrine of the Resurrection and the assertion of the reality of the spiritual world. Without that doctrine Christianity and Christian teaching were utterly meaningless, and in that doctrine Pharisees and Christians were united. Dropping the line of defence he was about to offer, which probably would have proceeded to show how true to conscience and to Divine light had been his course of life, he cried out, “I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees: touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.” Grotius, an old and learned commentator, dealing with Act 23:6, has well summed up the principles on which St. Paul acted on this occasion in the following words: “St. Paul was not lacking in human prudence, making use of which for the service of the gospel, he intermingled the wisdom of the serpent with the gentleness of the dove, and thus utilised the dissensions of his enemies,” Yet once more we see the same tact in operation. After the meeting of the Sanhedrin and his rescue from out of its very midst, a plot was formed to assassinate him, of which he was informed by his nephew. Then again St. Paul did not let things slide, trusting in the Divine care alone. He knew right well that God demanded of men of faith that they should be fellow-workers with God and lend Him their co-operation. He knew too the horror which the Roman authorities had of riot and of all illegal measures; he despatched his nephew therefore to the chief captain, and by his readiness of resource saved himself from imminent danger. Lastly, we find the same characteristic trait coming out at Caesarea. His experience of Roman rule taught him the anxiety of new governors to please the people among whom they came. He knew that Festus would be anxious to gratify the Jewish authorities in any way he possibly could. They were very desirous to have the Apostle transferred from Caesarea to Jerusalem, sure that in some way or another they could there dispose of him. Knowing therefore the dangerous position in which he stood, St. Pauls readiness and tact again came to his help. He knew Roman law thoroughly well. He knew that as a Roman citizen he had one resource left by which in one brief sentence he could transfer himself out of the jurisdiction of Sanhedrin and Procurator alike, and of this he availed himself at the critical moment, pronouncing the magic words. Caesarem Appello (“I appeal unto Caesar”). St. Paul left in all these cases a healthy example which the Church urgently required in subsequent years. He had no morbid craving after suffering or death. No man ever lived in a closer communion with his God, or in a more steadfast readiness to depart and be with Christ. But he knew that it was his duty to remain at his post till the Captain of his salvation gave a clear note of withdrawal, and that clear note was only given when every avenue of escape was cut off. St. Paul therefore used his knowledge and his tact in order to ascertain the Masters will and discover whether it was His wish that His faithful servant should depart or tarry, yet awhile for the discharge of his earthly duties. I have said that this was an example necessary for the Church in subsequent ages. The question of flight in persecution became a very practical one as soon as the Roman Empire assumed an attitude definitely hostile to the Church. The more extreme and fanatical party not only refused to take any measures to secure their safety or escape death, but rather rushed headlong upon it, and upbraided those as traitors and renegades who tried in any. way to avoid suffering. From the earliest times, from the days of Ignatius of Antioch himself, we see this morbid tendency displaying itself; while the Church in the person of several of its greatest leaders-men like Polycarp and Cyprian, who themselves retired from impending danger till the Roman authorities discovered them-showed that St. Pauls wiser teaching and example were not thrown away. Quietism was a view which two centuries ago made a great stir both in England and France, and seems embodied to some extent in certain modern forms of thought. It taught that believers should lie quite passive in Gods hands and make no effort for themselves. Quietism would never have found a follower in the vigorous mind of St. Paul, who proved himself through all those trials and vicissitudes of more than two years ever ready with some new device wherewith to meet the hatred of his foes.

III. We notice lastly in the narrative of St. Pauls imprisonment his interviews with and his testimony before the members of the house of Herod. St. Peter had experience of the father of Herod Agrippa, and now St. Paul comes into contact with the children, Agrippa, Drusilla, and Bernice. And thus it came about. Felix the procurator, as we have already explained, was a very bad man, and had enticed Drusilla from her husband. He doubtless told her of the Jewish prisoner who lay a captive in the city where she was living. The Herods were a clever race, and they knew all about Jewish hopes and Messianic expectations, and they ever seem to have been haunted by a certain curiosity concerning the new sect of the Nazarenes. One Herod desired for a long time to see Jesus Christ, and was delighted when Pilate gratified his longing. Drusilla, doubtless, was equally curious, and easily persuaded her husband to gratify her desire. We therefore read in Act 24:24, “But after certain days, Felix came with Drusilla, his wife, which was a Jewess, and sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ Jesus.”

Neither of them calculated on the kind of man they had to do with. St. Paul knew all the circumstances of the case. He adapted his speech thereto. He made a powerful appeal to the conscience of the guilty pair. He reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and the judgment to come, and beneath his weighty words Felix trembled. His convictions were roused. He experienced a transient season of penitence, such as touched another guilty member of the Herodian house who feared John and did many things gladly to win his approval. But habits of sin had grasped Felix too firmly. He temporised with his conscience. He put off the day of salvation when it was dawning on him, and his words, “Go thy way for this time, and when I have a convenient season I will call thee unto me,” became the typical language of all those souls for whom procrastination, want of decision, trifling with spiritual feelings, have been the omens and the causes of eternal ruin.

But Felix and Drusilla were not the only members of the Herodian house with whom Paul came in contact. Felix and Drusilla left Palestine when two years of St. Pauls imprisonment had elapsed. Festus, another procurator, followed, and began his course as all the Roman rulers of Palestine began theirs. The Jews, when Festus visited Jerusalem, besought him to deliver the prisoner lying bound at Caesarea to the judgment of their Sanhedrin. Festus, all-powerful as a Roman governor usually was, dared not treat a Roman citizen thus without his own consent, and when that consent was asked Paul at once refused, knowing right well the intentions of the Jews, and appealed unto Caesar. A Roman governor, however, would not send a prisoner to the judgment of the Emperor without stating the crime imputed to him. Just at that moment Herod Agrippa, king of Chalcis and of the district of Ituraea, together with his sister Bernice, appeared on the scene. He was a Jew, and was well acquainted therefore with the accusations brought against the Apostle, and could inform the procurator what report he should send to the Emperor. Festus therefore brought Paul before them, and gave him another opportunity of expounding the faith of Jesus Christ and the law of love and purity which that faith involved to a family who ever treated that law with profound contempt. St. Paul availed himself of that opportunity. He addressed his whole discourse to the king, and that discourse was typical of those he addressed to Jewish audiences. It was like the sermon delivered to the Jews in the synagogue of Antioch in Pisidia in one important aspect. Both discourses gathered round the resurrection of Jesus Christ as their central idea. St. Paul began his address before Agrippa with that doctrine, and he ended with the same. The hope of Israel, towards which their continuous worship tended, was the resurrection of the dead. That was St. Pauls opening idea. The same note lay beneath the narrative of his own conversion, and then he turned back to his original statement that the Risen Christ was the hope of Israel and of the world taught by Moses and proclaimed by prophets. But it was all in vain as regards Agrippa and Bernice. The Herods were magnificent, clever, beautiful. But they were of the earth, earthy. Agrippa said indeed to Paul, “With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian.” But it was not souls like his for whom the gospel message was intended. The Herods knew nothing of the burden of sin or the keen longing of souls desirous of holiness and of God. They were satisfied with the present transient scene, and enjoyed it thoroughly. Agrippas father when he lay a-dying at Caesarea consoled himself with the reflection that though his career was prematurely cut short, yet at any rate he had lived a splendid life. And such as the parent had been, such were the children. King Agrippa and his sister Bernice were true types of the stony-ground hearers, with whom “the care of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word.” And they choked the word so effectually in his case, even when taught by St. Paul, that the only result upon Agrippa, as St. Luke reports it, was this: “Agrippa said unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.”

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary