Bible Study 9/24/25

As we can recall, we left off last week in the middle of this story that we will continue this week, though we will actually stop in the middle of what is happening once again. After sprinting, and then seemingly crawling toward Jerusalem, Paul and his companions arrived to meet with James and the elders of the church. Along the way to Jerusalem, Paul had received word from the Lord, directly and through others, that he would experience suffering when he arrived in Jerusalem. He didn’t know what that would look like, until he crossed paths with the prophet Agabus who gave him some insight. Agabus not only told Paul some of what would happen, but also showed him by taking Paul’s belt and binding his own hands and feet, saying that the one who owned the belt, Paul, would experience the same thing in Jerusalem. Even though his companions and others begged him not to go to Jerusalem, Paul made clear that he was going to Jerusalem no matter what, even if it results in his death. And now here we are, gathered with the church of Jerusalem, as Paul finishes sharing all that God had done on his recent trip. Verse 20.

Acts 21:20 And 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;

The response the the elders of the church makes a lot of sense here. What could they do but rejoice in all that God was doing? It would be the same as how we might respond to our own missionaries and the work that God is doing where they are serving. But at the same time, it’s a little bit different. Once Paul left Jerusalem, the church here wouldn’t know what had happened until Paul returned. Nowadays we can communicate around the world in a matter of seconds, whereas here the only option would be to send a messenger which would still take a good deal of time.

When they were done glorifying God, they informed Paul that there were still people around who were intensely suspicious of him, though those in the church did not share such a viewpoint. There were, as they said, Jews who were believers and yet were still zealous for the law. To call someone a zealot would most commonly characterize someone as having a willingness to use violence as a means of furthering their cause. So while they had believed in the person of Jesus, they were still adamant that the Law of God have its place in the faith and we enthusiastic for the law as God’s gift to Israel. Paul was once a zealot with them, as we can recall from the earlier portion of Acts, but had left behind his zeal for the law when Jesus had revealed Himself to Him.

The statement made that there are many thousands may be quite exaggerated due to the Jerusalem’s fairly small population, however earlier stories in Acts number conversions in the thousands, such as the 3,000 added to the church on the first day and another 5,000 a short time after. It is hard to tell if we should understand the language literally, but at the very least we can understand that their were many Jews struggling where Paul did not; that is to understand the grace of Jesus rightly so that their faith would no longer be held back by a zeal for the law.

Their statement about these zealots continues in verses 21 and 22.

Acts 21:21-22 and 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. What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.

Here we have a classic case of hearing what someone is not saying and blowing it out of proportion. So think back to the Jerusalem counsel back in Acts chapter 15. What was the issue they were trying to solve? It was the same predominant issue we read about in the letter to Galatians as well. The Jews who were holding onto the Law were trying to convince new converts, particularly Gentiles, that they should be circumcised. But not innocently as if they were saying it was a good thing to do, but they were communicating that it was necessary for salvation. According to the law, circumcision was necessary obedience to as a symbol of submission to the laws of God. Under the new law of Christ, circumcision of the body was no longer necessary, but rather circumcision of the heart. So these Jews were going around confusing new believers who had responded to the gospel and were telling them that the gospel alone was not enough for salvation.

Now Paul was at the forefront of the mission to correct this, hence the content of his letter, and the charge he was given to take the news to the churches. And Paul’s message to those churches was simply not to confuse the law and the gospel and make them the same thing. He told them that circumcision was not necessary for salvation and that gentiles were under no obligation according to the gospel to be circumcised. But what the people chose to hear instead, or were being told by others with less than good intentions, was that Paul was telling everyone to ditch the law altogether. The question of course is, where did Paul say that? And the answer of course is, nowhere. Paul was clear that Gentiles did not need to follow the law because it is not the law that was given to them but the gospel. But for the Jew, if they were to continue in following the law, it was good and right for them to do, though if they chose not to they would still be covered by the gospel should they place their faith in Jesus.

So they ask plainly, what is to be done? Those Jews who were against Paul were going to find out that he was in Jerusalem, and like Paul has faced many times they would seek to plot against him, likely even seeking to kill him. We already know that Paul is going to face trouble, so whatever comes next won’t change that, but still the leaders of the church had a plan.

Acts 21:23–24 Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take 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.

This is quite the interesting twist in the story, because as we have seen recently Paul is not quick to listen to people over their concern for his well-being. Though many told him not to go to Jerusalem, he still went. Now that he is in Jerusalem and there are some law-zealous Jews that may take issue with him, he’s got more people telling him what to do so that he might avoid trouble.

We will see in the next two verses that Paul agreed to go along with this, but we’re kind of left to wonder why to some extent. The vow that the elders were referencing was a Nazirite vow, which Paul did actually recognize himself back in chapter 18 if you remember. So Paul was no stranger to such a vow and would not have thought it strange that these four men were under that vow. The question is more along the lines of why Paul would observe that vow again at this moment. In 1 Corinthians, Paul talks about becoming who he needs to be for those he’s ministering to. To the Jews he became a Jew, to those under the law he was under the law, though not actually himself under the law. But his purpose in becoming something to someone was for the sake of bringing them the gospel, while in this case he would purify himself to appease the zealots. It is quite a different scenario. Was Paul showing himself to be under the law just to appease those who thought he should be? Certainly not, as he continued to proclaim that he was no longer under the law but under Christ. Think of it like being around a recovering alcoholic…elaborate.

Verses 25 and 26.

Acts 21:25–26 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.” Then 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.

The fact that Paul was being asked to behave in this way in no sense implied that similar demands would be made of the Gentiles. The fundamental freedom of the Gentiles from the law had been established at the Jerusalem Council described in chapter 15, and that decision is here reaffirmed in chapter 21. It seems odd that they would retell all of this to Paul when he was both aware of the issue and was a participant in the meeting where the decisions were made. With that in mind, it is possible that James is retelling everything for the sake of Paul’s companions, many, if not most, of whom were not at the Jerusalem Council meeting, assuming that his companions are still present in this meeting. Either that or Luke, a man of detail, is simply reminding the reader of what took place during the meeting. It could also be the case of being a first time first-person account on the part of Luke of what took place. So in this case he has a live recording of what he is experiencing, while previously he recorded what he was told. Whatever the reason, we get a reminder of what grace was given to the Gentiles.

So Paul accepted the request to purify himself. The next day he went to the temple to commence his own period of cleansing from ritual defilement and to give notice that the Nazarite vow of the four men would be concluded, along with his own purification, on the seventh day.

The Nazirite vow is a temporary commitment involving three main abstentions: avoiding all grape products, allowing hair to grow uncut, and staying away from dead bodies, even those of close relatives. These practices symbolize a radical dedication to serving God and maintaining ritual holiness, reflecting a deep spiritual commitment.

Verses 27 and 28.

Acts 21:27–28 When the seven days were almost over, the Jews from Asia, upon seeing him in the temple, began to stir up all the crowd and laid hands on him, crying out, “Men of Israel, come to our aid! This is the man who preaches to all men everywhere against our people and the Law and this place; and besides he has even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.”

Here’s a familiar story we’ve read before of some Jews committed to seeing to it that Paul suffers. As Paul was nearing the end of the seven day period of purification, he went up to the temple and was met by some Jews. But it wasn’t the zealous Jews who were concerned because of his view of the law and were spreading information, but it was a group of Jews from Asia, most likely even from Ephesus where he had trouble that resulted in him not visiting again. This isn’t the first time that Paul has had Jews following him from one place to another, and these Jews put in an especially long journey just to seize him. It is possible that they were already there as pilgrims at Pentecost, but they seized the opportunity before them.

They stirred up a mob that attempted to hang Paul. The mob quickly responded to suggestions that Paul, like Stephen before him, was attacking the fundamental symbols of Jewish national solidarity, the people, the law and the temple. In particular, they argued that Paul had brought Gentiles into the temple, thereby defiling it. It is quite ironic given that it is at the time of these charges that Paul himself was undergoing purification so that he would not defile the temple himself!

Verse 29.

Acts 21:29 For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian in the city with him, and they supposed that Paul had brought him into the temple.

This here is the basis of the charge. The Ephesian Jews had recognized Trophimus, mentioned as one of Paul’s companions on his journey to Jerusalem in chapter 20, as one of their own fellow citizens, and trumped up the charge that Paul had taken him with him on his visit to the temple. Some commentators think that there may have been something to this charge, however it is hard to gain ground there. One commentator comments that Paul would not have been so stupid as to rouse Jewish susceptibilities in this way, and another adds that a perfectly adequate explanation of the Jews’ action lies in their readiness to believe anything about Paul’s lack of respect for the law. The possibility that Trophimus might have wandered of his own freewill into the forbidden area is about as likely as that somebody should wander into private rooms in the the Kremlin for the purpose of sightseeing. What we can know with some decent certainty is that these Jews were out to get Paul and were likely happy to spread false information much like the zealous Jews of Jerusalem.

Verse 30.

Acts 21:30 Then all the city was provoked, and the people rushed together, and taking hold of Paul they dragged him out of the temple, and immediately the doors were shut.

The uproar quickly spread throughout the city. It is amazing how quickly everyone believed what was being said and turned against Paul. Whether it was actually “all the city” as Luke rights or the language is simply meant to convey that a the feeling spread well beyond those making the accusations, what we can know for certain is that it probably an overwhelming show of force that came against Paul. The crowd joined in seizing Paul and they dragged him out of the temple. The temple authorities that were present promptly closed the gates to prevent any further trouble inside. The doors referenced here are likely those that separated the inner courts where the Gentiles could not go from the outer courts where Gentiles were allowed to gather. It is unlikely that the whole of the temple was closed. It seems like the demonstrative prophecy from Agabus that we saw last week is starting to take place.

Verses 31 and 32.

Acts 21:31–32 While they were seeking to kill him, a report came up to the commander of the Roman cohort that all Jerusalem was in confusion. At once he took along some soldiers and centurions and ran down to them; and when they saw the commander and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul.

It would not take long for news of the disturbance to reach the Roman troops in the city. Their garrison was located in the Fortress of Antonia which was at the north-west end of the temple. It was high enough to enable a constant watch to be kept on any disturbances below and it was connected by two flights of stairs to the court of the Gentiles. Their commute was probably just barely further than mine as I don’t even have a full flight of stairs. The garrison in Jerusalem was a cohort, meaning it was a group consisting of 760 infantry and 240 calvary, and commanded by a tribunus militum, or an officer of a rank similar to a major or colonel. Their commander acted quickly in the face of the riot that was starting up, taking a strong force of soldiers and running down to the scene. When the strong force of Romans showed up, the people quickly quieted down and backed away from Paul.

Acts 21:33–34 Then the commander came up and took hold of him, and ordered him to be bound with two chains; and he began asking who he was and what he had done. But among the crowd some were shouting one thing and some another, and when he could not find out the facts because of the uproar, he ordered him to be brought into the barracks.

Since Paul was the cause of the trouble, though not through any fault of his own, the Romans decided that he should be arrested. What, if anything, happened to the men attacking him isn’t recorded. If the commander of the cohort suspected that Paul had been breaking the temple regulations, he would not be too concerned about the Jews taking the law into their own hands; properly, however, such action against Paul should have been taken by the temple police and not by a random mob of Jews.

Paul himself was handcuffed by two soldiers, thus fulfilling the prophecy of Agabus, though not to the letter since his feet were not bound. The leader of the cohort then attempted to find out who Paul was and what he had done, possibly asking the crowd rather than asking Paul himself. It is also possible that he did question Paul, but the crowd clearly did not believe in speaking one at a time and their uproar continued. The people became so unruly that the commander gave up on the questioning because he couldn’t discern anything that was being said. So instead of trying to make out what the crowd was saying, he opted to take Paul back to the soldiers’ barracks where a more peaceful examination of their prisoner and his accusers could be conducted.

35 and 36.

Acts 21:35–36 When he got to the stairs, he was carried by the soldiers because of the violence of the mob; for the multitude of the people kept following them, shouting, “Away with him!”

The crowd, however, renewed their rioting and made it impossible for Paul to walk safely up the stairway to the barracks on his own. Therefore, he had to be carried. I am sure that was quite the interesting experience for everyone, and it makes me wonder how the rest of this scene looked. Surely some of the Romans there would’ve become victims of the attacks against Paul. How would they respond? Would they arrest more Jews? Was their goal just to get Paul out of there as quickly as possible? It’s hard to say and unfortunately we don’t know, but I’m curious nonetheless.

One commentator argues that carrying Paul would’ve made him even more susceptible to attacks since he would be unable to defend himself and instead he was carried because he had difficulty walking to the the riot itself. Either way, Paul seems to have been in pretty bad shape at this point and probably was incapable of making it out of there alive on his own. The cry “away with him!” echoes the same language used during Jesus’ trial. Much like the Jews had called for Jesus’ death then, they were now calling for Paul’s.

37 and 38.

Acts 21:37–38 As Paul was about to be brought into the barracks, he said to the commander, “May I say something to you?” And he said, “Do you know Greek? Then you are not the Egyptian who some time ago stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins out into the wilderness?”

Here we transition in the story, which we will not finish tonight, as Paul prepares to defend himself against the accusations the Jews from Ephesus were making. He first called to the commander for permission to speak, and the commander learned quickly that Paul was an educated Jew that could speak multiple languages.

Strangely, the commander now wondered whether Paul was an Egyptian who had recently stirred up a revolt in the dessert. According to Josephus there had been an Egyptian false prophet who had led 30,000 men to the Mount of Olives in order to take Jerusalem; he promised that they would see the walls of the city fall. The governor, Felix, killed or captured his followers, while the prophet himself managed to escape. Clearly the commander thought that this person had reappeared. The discrepancy in the numbers of 30,000 and 4,000 lends to a tendency to exaggerate that Josephus had, and commentators agree that the commanders estimate of 4,000 was likely the more accurate number.

The prophet belonged to a class of people who held messianic hopes and expected that God would work signs for them in the wilderness. The commanders use of the term assassins in referring to these men, which would have more specifically meant that they were anti-Roman extremists who emerged during the time of Felix and were eventually responsible for the revolt against Rome in AD 66-70.

Paul responds first to this misidentification in our last two verses for tonight.

Acts 21:39–40 But Paul said, “I am a Jew of Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no insignificant city; and I beg you, allow me to speak to the people.” When he had given him permission, Paul, standing on the stairs, motioned to the people with his hand; and when there was a great hush, he spoke to them in the Hebrew dialect, saying,

Paul was concerned to establish his respectable Jewish background and civil status as one who was not the kind of person to cause a riot in the temple. He was a Jew and a citizen of Tarsus. This is not a reference to his Roman citizenship, which does not emerge until chapter 22, but to his status in a self-governing city to which he was proud to belong. From the time of the Emperor Claudius it was possible for a man to have both Roman and local citizenship.

Paul’s request to address the crowd was granted, once he had given his credentials. From the steps he was able to look down on the crowd, motion for silence, and then attempt to address them. The reference to speaking in Hebrew may also mean Aramaic.

Next week we will dive into Paul’s address to the crowd as we go through…

NEXT WEEK: Acts 22:1-23