Paul is on his way to Jerusalem and has stopped in Miletus, where he met with the elders of the church in Ephesus. In Acts 21 he sails from Miletus down the coast past the island of Co’os and then to Rhodes (21:1). I’ll just mention there was an ancient wonder at the entrance to the port at Rhodes, a brazen statue of Apollo that stood over 100 feet tall, so large the ships entering the port could pass between its legs. It took 12 years to erect and stood for 66 years, until an earthquake destroyed it in 223 BC.
Paul’s ship did not stop at Rhodes, but sailed on to Patara on the southern coast of Asia. There, they found another ship prepared to sail to Phoenicia (Syria), then proceeded across the Mediterranean Sea past Cyprus to Tyre on the coast of Syria (21:3). And since the ship was to unload its cargo at Tyre (verse 3), Paul and his company spend a week with some disciples there (21:4).
There’s an interesting phrase at the end of verse 4, translations vary a little, but are consistent in saying, “through the Spirit, they urged Paul not to go to Jerusalem.” This could lead some to conclude that the Holy Spirit was warning Paul not to go on to Jerusalem. Later, in verses 11-12, when Paul is in Caesarea, he receives much the same warning.
This seems to be a contradiction of what Paul had already said about this in 20:22-23, that he was “compelled” (the verb deo means, to be bound by one’s convictions) to go to Jerusalem and the Holy Spirit had warned him of what awaited him there. However, there’s no contradiction. Those who warned Paul not to go to Jerusalem only did so out of a personal concern for him because of what they had learned from the Spirit.
These two warnings do not say the Holy Spirit told Paul not to go. If you look again at 20:22-23, it seems the chronology went something like this: the Holy Spirit revealed to Paul that he was to go to Jerusalem, Paul determined to be obedient (bound by the Spirit), then the Holy Spirit revealed what awaited him there. The warnings found in these two instances were simply the result of people’s love and concern for Paul.
From Tyre they sail south to Ptolemais (only about 20 miles), where they would proceed to Caesarea by land (20:6-8). In Caesarea Paul stays at the house of Philip (one of the original deacons in Acts 6:5), and receives the other warning mentioned above. From there Paul goes on to Jerusalem to the house of Mnason, where the brethren welcomed them.
Now we come to an important passage in this chapter when Paul goes to meet with James (Jesus’ half brother) and the elders in Jerusalem (21:18-19) to report on his journey, as he did following his first missionary journey some 8 years earlier in Acts 15. Only this time the situation in Jerusalem is potentially explosive. The city would have been filled with Jewish believers who had come for the feast of Pentecost.
So, if these Jews were believers, what was the problem? Verse 20 tells us they were still “zealous” (enthusiastic) of the law. In other words, they were still guided by the cultural customs that governed their family life and society. This is verse 21, “Now they have been told that you continually teach the Jews who live among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe any of the customs.” The KJV starts this verse with, “they are informed of thee”. The truth is they had been continually misinformed by those who were always trying to destroy Paul’s ministry among the Jews.
There are three areas of misinformation in this verse. The first is the idea that Paul taught the Jews to “forsake Moses”. If you go back and look at Paul’s teaching from the very beginning following his conversion, he used the teaching of Moses and the prophets to prove that Jesus was the one who was to come (Acts 9:20-22, 13:16-41). Paul was firm in his contention that Gentiles who came to Christ should not be expected to follow the law, and to this the church in Jerusalem had agreed (Acts 15:1-35).
The second area of misinformation was that he taught that Jews were not to be circumcised (again, Acts 15:1-35). What he did teach was that neither circumcision nor following any other part of the law was necessary for salvation (Romans 3:24-31, 4:1-21; Galatians 3:19-25). But that did not mean Jews were not to be circumcised, or Gentiles either, if they chose to do so.
Then, the third area was the idea that Jewish believers were not to follow their customs (ethos, principles guiding their family life and social behavior). Paul never advocated the rejection of Jewish culture. He simply viewed them as personal preferences and not destructive, unless one depended on them as necessary for salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9; Colossians 2:14-17).
Let me stop here and make an important distinction before we go on. With reference to the Jewish believers mentioned in verse 20, their misunderstanding of what Paul taught had to do with Jewish customs (cultural issues), not the ritual part of the law involving animal sacrifices that depicted the future sacrifice of Christ. If they had accepted the gospel message that centered on the sacrifice of Christ, then they understood the ritual sacrifices of the law had been fulfilled – that was not the issue.
And, it should be noted that the year is 58 AD and those Jews who rejected Christ were still observing the ritual, sacrificial law. But not for long, the temple will be destroyed in 12 more years (70 AD) bringing an official end to the Mosaic dispensation in God’s timetable and rendering the observance of the ritual law impossible. To this day the temple has not been rebuilt, animal sacrifices have not resumed and an Islamic shrine called the Dome of the Rock occupies the site.
So, the real issue was that these Jewish believers had been deceived and misunderstood what Paul taught and the apostles and elders in Jerusalem were simply trying to avoid trouble in what they’re about to propose. This is 21:22-24, “What should be done (given these circumstances)? A crowd will surely come together when they hear you have come. So, this is what you should do. There are four men here who have made a vow. Take these men and go through the purification rites with them and pay their expenses for the temple offerings, so they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know that there is no truth in what they have been told about you, but that you are actually living in obedience to the law.”
Now, you may not remember, but some 4 years earlier towards the end of Paul’s second missionary journey Acts 18:18 states he had shaved his head and taken a vow. We are not told what the vow involved, but I suspect (since Paul is now completing this vow) that it had to do with his determination to eventually go to Jerusalem in obedience to what the Holy Spirit had revealed to him.
And, since this involved cutting his hair, it must be assumed this was a Nazirite vow, as found in Numbers 6. The Nazirite vow was an individual, personal, self-imposed discipline, a promise or dedication to a special service to God. And, I have come to believe that special service was Paul’s willingness to be obedient even to death. It has now become evident he knew that by going to Jerusalem he was setting in motion circumstances that would eventually lead to his demise (Acts 20:24, 21:13).
Then, in 21:26-27, Paul and the four others begin the purification requirements of the Nazirite vow, “The next day Paul and the four men went through the rites of purification (the Mikveh, a ceremonial bath). Then they went to the temple and gave notice of when the days of purification would be fulfilled, so the usual offerings could be presented on their behalf. And when the seven days were almost completed, some of the Jews from Asia recognized Paul in the temple, stirred up the crowd and seized him.”
What follows is the beginning of Paul’s violent opposition in Jerusalem, leading to his appeal to Caesar and resulting imprisonment in Nero’s Rome. But, before we get to that, there are those who assert that Paul was wrong to even enter into a Nazirite vow, much less agree to complete that vow according to the requirements given in Numbers 6. Why? Because the completion of the vow required animal sacrifices - a burnt, sin and peace offering, all of which picture the sacrifice of Christ, all fulfilled by His death on the cross.
Would this not expose Paul as a certain hypocrite, in violation of the gospel message he had been preaching for over 20 years? Would Paul so flippantly throw away the integrity he had maintained all those years? Would the Holy Spirit direct him to do such a thing? Yet, the facts are the facts, the record is clear.
So, what is the answer to this seeming dilemma? Remember in a previous lesson I explained how Jesus was in total control of the circumstances leading to His eventual arrest and finally, His crucifixion and death. Everything that happened was in accordance with what had been predicted and followed the plan of God completely.
And, as I have asserted several times, the history of the ages is nothing less than example after example of time unfolding exactly as the Lord has planned it. Hebrews 11:3 says, “By faith we understand that the ages of time were arranged (equipped for their intended purpose) by the word of God, so what we see unfolding was not caused by things that are visible to us.” As some have rightly said, history is His Story.
That being the case, it’s entirely possible that it was never the Lord’s intention that Paul actually fulfill this vow by participating in those Old Testament sacrifices? And isn’t it well within the realm of possibility that it had long been determined that Paul would be seized by this mob, interrupting the completion of it? When we follow the events that are about to unfold, I get the sense that Paul is not surprised by anything that happens, but faces everything with courage and conviction, as though the Lord had prepared him for them all.