‘And there went with us also certain of the disciples from Caesarea, bringing with them one Mnason of Cyprus, an early disciple, with whom we should lodge.'
They were accompanied by certain disciples from Caesarea, together with Mnason who was from Cyprus, but had a house where they could lodge. He was an ‘early disciple', probably from Pentecost days. He had invited them to stay with him. In view of the fact that Paul was a marked man his bravery in doing this must be recognised. All these men were willing to hazard their lives and their futures for Christ.
The Jerusalem Visit
That in recording details of Paul's fifth Jerusalem visit Luke's mind was fixed on the main purposes of his narrative comes out quite clearly in the fact that he ignored the bringing of the Collection to the church in Jerusalem. The Collection for the people of God in Jerusalem and Judaea, in the circumstances in which they found themselves as a result of famine and the constant disturbances that were taking place, had taken up much of Paul's time (see 1 Corinthians 1:1-5; 1 Corinthians 8:9 ), and he clearly considered it of prime importance as a means of cementing unity between the Jewish Christians and their Gentile counterparts. And yet Luke totally ignores it when describing the Jerusalem visit in Acts.
This is another of Luke's ‘silences', designed to ensure that the emphasis does not go in the wrong place (compare the deliberate lack of a direct mention of the Holy Spirit as such in Luke 13-24, even when approaching the hour of His coming). He was here rather concerned to demonstrate the spiritual oneness of the church (Acts 21:17-18), the success of the Good News (Acts 21:19-20), and the circumstances that led up to Paul's arrest (Acts 21:21 onwards), in order to stress Jerusalem's repeated and final rejection of the messengers of the Messiah. He was concerned to demonstrate that what was true in the early days after Pentecost was still true. Love of the brethren was still strong, fruitfulness and expansion were still taking place among both Jews and Gentiles, and the retaliation of Satan, which finally brings about God's will, was still occurring. But above all he wanted to demonstrate that Jerusalem was no longer central in God's purposes. These things are what Acts has been all about.
The rejection of its Messiah by Jerusalem, and of Jerusalem by its Messiah, had been made clear in chapter 12. Peter had then ‘departed for another place'. However, there was a sense in which Paul's coming had given it another opportunity. But the Temple would now symbolically ‘close its doors' against God's messengers for ever, and the only Apostle left in Jerusalem would be transferred to Rome. Furthermore, in the parallel passage in Acts 26:28-32 (for parallels see introduction to Acts 19:21 and Introduction) King Agrippa II (son of the king in chapter 12) who even now controlled the appointment of High Priests and their vestments and had overall oversight over the Temple and its worship, would choose to do the same. Both Jerusalem and its King again said no to Jesus Christ. So while the church in Jerusalem welcomes Him, Jerusalem itself rejects Him once again and finally. All that remains for it is for it to be destroyed. Stephen had stressed the dual offer to Israel of its Saviours (see his speech), and especially of the Righteous One. Luke in Acts brings out His dual post-resurrection rejection, in chapter 12 and here.