CRITICAL REMARKS
Acts 21:15. We took up our carriages, or things to be carried (see Judges 18:21).—ἀποσκευασάμενοι. The reading of the Received text should be translated, having packed away our baggage—i.e., the superfluous part of it (Olshausen); or having discharged our baggage—i.e., unpacked the matters necessary for our journey to Jerusalem. But the best reading, ἐπισκευασάμενοι, signifies, having packed up our baggage, and so made ourselves ready for the journey to Jerusalem (Hackett, Alford, Holtzmann, and others).
Acts 21:16. An old, better, an early disciple.—i.e., one who had long been a disciple, having been probably converted on the day of Pentecost. Whether the Cæsarean brethren brought Mnason with them to Jerusalem (Calvin, Beza, Plumptre), or brought Paul to Mnason at Jerusalem (Bengel, Olshausen, Meyer, De Wette, Holtzmann) is uncertain. Both translations are admissible. Mnason was of Cyprus, and therefore a countryman of Barnabas (Acts 4:36).
Acts 21:17. The brethren were not the Church or the apostles (Kuinoel), but private Christians, such as Mnason and others (Wendt, Holtzmann, Hackett, and others).
Acts 21:18. James.—See on Acts 12:17, Acts 15:13. The apostles, not mentioned, may by this time have been dispersed from Jerusalem, while some may have been dead. The Jerusalem Church was manifestly presided over by James and the elders.
Acts 21:19. Particularly, what things, or one by one, each of the things which.—Compare Acts 15:4; Acts 15:12. That nothing is here said about the delivering up of the collections for the poor saints at Jerusalem has been explained by supposing that the “we” sources were no more at the author’s command, but may be satisfactorily accounted for by assuming that Luke did not consider this necessary to be stated. It is perfectly arbitrary to assert that—in order, shall it be said, to guarantee the apostle’s good faith?—information should have been given about the final disposition of those contributions which the apostle had been collecting, and with which he hoped to appease the irritated minds of his Jewish brethren (Holtzmann).
Acts 21:20. They glorified the Lord—Rather, God (as in Galatians 1:24), on Paul’s account, and not as if they themselves did not share in the general suspicion or anxiety (Holtzmann), but more likely as if they were somewhat troubled about the inferences that were being publicly drawn from Paul’s Gentile mission—called his attention to the many thousands, or myriads, of Jewish Christians, not in the world (Overbeck), but in Jerusalem and Judaea (Wendt, Zöckler), who were all (not “some “as in Acts 15:1; Acts 15:5) zealous, not of, but for the law, as Paul himself had formerly been (Galatians 1:14).
Acts 21:21. That thou teachest all to forsake Moses.—Lit., that thou teachest apostasy from Moses. The allegation contained an element of truth in so far as it was undoubtedly Paul’s aim to persuade his countrymen to embrace the gospel, and in so far as their reception of the gospel would in due course emancipate them from the bondage of the law; but it was not Paul’s object or business to inculcate on Jewish Christians the discontinuance of either circumcision or the ritual of Moses. (See further in “Homiletical Analysis.”)
Acts 21:22. The multitude (or a crowd, πλῆθος, without the article) must needs come together.—The best MSS. omit this clause along with γὰρ, for, and read, they will certainly hear that thou art come.
Acts 21:23. We have four men.—The clause shows how closely the Jerusalem Church adhered to the ritual of Moses. That the vow, taken by the men, was that of the Nazarite is suggested by the reference to shaving the head.
Acts 21:24. Purify thyself with them and bear charges with, rather, for them.—James, who gave this advice, was himself a Nazarite—“Drank no wine nor strong drink, neither did he eat flesh. No razor ever touched his head; he did not anoint himself with oil; he did not use the bath.… He would enter into the temple alone, and there be found kneeling on his knees and asking forgiveness for the people; so that his knees grew hard like a camel’s knees, because he was ever upon them worshipping God and asking forgiveness for the people” (Euseb, Hist., Acts 2:23). The term for a Nazarite vow, though not prescribed by the law, was usually thirty days; but Jewish practice had rendered it possible for one who could not undertake a vow for so long a time to join in with another in the last days of his Nazaritic period on condition of bearing all the temple charges for offerings for himself and that other. The Jews considered it a specially meritorious act to assist a poor Nazarite in this manner. Agrippa I., on obtaining the sovereignty of Palestine, paid the expense of numerous indigent Nazarites who were waiting to be released from their vows (Jos., Ant., XIX. vi. 1). As Paul was a poor man, it is supposed he paid, or proposed to pay, the charges for the Nazarites out of the Gentile contributions which he brought for the poor saints in Jerusalem. Ramsay challenges the statement that Paul was a poor man, and suggests that the charges here specified, as well as the cost of his subsequent trial, were borne out of his own patrimonial estate, or hereditary property (St. Paul the Traveller, etc., pp. 310 ff). All may know should be all shall know.
Acts 21:25. The best MSS. omit the clause that they observe no such thing. This reference to the apostolic decrees confirms the credibility of the account in chap. 15.
HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Acts 21:15-25
With James and the Elders at Jerusalem; or, Mistaken Counsels
I. Paul’s journey to the capital.—
1. The point of departure. Cæsarea; the abode of Philip the evangelist (Acts 21:8), the city of Cornelius (Acts 10:1), the scene of Herod’s death (Acts 12:19-23) and of Paul’s subsequent imprisonment (Acts 23:31-35). The apostle little dreamt, on leaving Cæsarea, that before many days had passed he would return to it a prisoner, though, had he foreseen such, the knowledge would hardly have discomposed him (Acts 21:13). Paul one of those heroic spirits that rise superior to external circumstances, and when confronted by extremest danger “forget they ever heard the name of death” (Shakespeare).
2. The time of departure. After the interview with Agabus. The pathetic scene with the disciples (Acts 21:12-14), and in particular the courageous declaration of Paul, not to mention other reasons, clearly rendered it impossible for him to remain longer at Cæsarea. Had he done so, even the disciples might have begun to think, if not to say, when they recalled his spirited utterance—“These be brave words, O Paul! but where is thy performance?” And Paul was not the man to suffer any one to charge him with either timidity or inconsistency.
3. The manner of departure. With “carriages” or things to be carried—i.e., baggage taken up—this including both articles necessary for the journey and the gifts Paul was bearing to the poor saints in Jerusalem. Paul’s anticipations of sorrow for himself had no power to make him forget the contributions he had gathered for the needs of others. Paul was ever a rare example of self-forgetfulness.
II. Paul’s travelling companions.—
1. Those who had accompanied him from Asia. Whether all the seven mentioned in Acts 20:4 (Besser), or only Trophimus, Aristarchus, and Luke is debatable, though the latter opinion is the more probable.
2. Certain disciples from Cœsarea. Most likely Gentile converts, though they may have been Jewish Christians travelling to Jerusalem to attend the Feast of Pentecost. Wherever Paul went his noble personality, rendered more magnetic by the grace of God that was in him, drew around him circles of friends, and grappled them to his bosom as with hooks of steel. The time had not yet arrived when all men would forsake him (2 Timothy 4:16) as they had formerly forsaken his Master (Matthew 26:56).
3. Mnason, an old or “early” disciple—i.e., one who had long been a Christian, having been (it may be supposed) one of the first converts, gathered into the Christian fold on the day of Pentecost. A native of Cyprus like Barnabas, he may also have been one of those “men of Cyprus” who came to Antioch and were among the first to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 11:20). Whether he lived at Cyprus but possessed a house as well in Jerusalem, or usually resided in Jerusalem but had been visiting at Cæsarea and was now returning home, or had not been to Cæsarea at all, but was still in Jerusalem, and Paul (according to another translation) was being conducted to him, are points concerning which no authoritative decision can be given. The one clear fact is that Paul and his companions obtained a lodging in Mnason’s house, presumably because in the state of public feeling among Jewish Christians concerning Paul’s Gentile mission, it might have been difficult, if not dangerous, to seek accommodation for him with one of these.
III. Paul’s arrival in the city.—
1. The date. That he reached Jerusalem in time for the Feast of Pentecost is apparent. His departure from Philippi took place after the days of unleavened bread, since then he had been occupied in travelling as under:—
From Philippi to Troas (Acts 20:6)
5 days.
Where he abode
7 days.
From Troas to Miletus (Acts 20:13-15)
4 days.
Where he stayed (say)
3 days.
From Miletus to Patara (Acts 21:1)
3 days.
From Patara to Tyre (say)
4 days.
Where he remained (Acts 21:4)
7 days.
From Tyre to Ptolemais (Acts 21:7)
1 days.
From Ptolemais to Cæsarea (Acts 21:8)
2 days.
Where he halted (Acts 21:10, say)
6 days.
From Cæsarea to Jerusalem
2 days.
In all
44 days.
If to this be added six for the days of unleavened bread (Acts 20:6), the total of fifty will be obtained, which is the interval between Passover and Pentecost.
2. His reception. The brethren—i.e., the private Christians (among them Mnason and his friends) to whom his coming was made known welcomed him and his companions gladly—Mnason to his house and all of them to their hearts. Sympathising fervently with Paul’s missionary enterprise they rejoiced to see him home again with tidings from the regions beyond.
IV. Paul’s interview with the Church leaders.—
1. Fraternal greetings. As on a former occasion (Acts 18:22), Paul saluted or embraced the recognised heads of the Christian community, who had convened to accord him welcome. These were James the brother of Our Lord—not James the younger (Hackett)—who, ten or eleven years later, suffered martyrdom as a believer in Jesus of Nazareth, by being hurled from the pinnacle of the temple and despatched by stoning (Euseb., H. E., Acts 2:23); and the elders or spiritual rulers, overseers, presbyters of the various congregations in Jerusalem. That none of the apostles are mentioned as having been present suggests that none of them at that time resided in the Holy City. Some may have set forth on missionary tours, while others may have “departed to be with Christ, which is far better.”
2. Glowing recitals. Salutations over, the apostle, as he had done on returning from his first missionary tour (Acts 14:27), declared particularly or rehearsed one by one the things which God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry—noting specially his hearing of Apollos (Acts 18:24), meeting with John’s disciples (Acts 19:1), and successful preaching (Acts 19:20) in Ephesus; his journey to Macedonia and Achaia (Acts 20:1-2); with the various incidents that occurred on the homeward route, in Troas (Acts 20:9), at Miletus (Acts 20:17), in Tyre (Acts 21:4), and at Cæsarea (Acts 21:8). More might be done to deepen the home Church’s interest in the missionary enterprise by returned missionaries, were they to lay before their Christian brethren, in fitting language, the story of what God is at present doing among the heathen.
3. Fervent thanksgivings. When the assembled elders had listened to the thrilling narrative, they glorified God for having raised up such a veteran missionary within the Church, and for having performed, through his instrumentality, such wonders of grace among the Gentiles (compare Acts 4:21, Acts 11:18). Henceforth they could entertain no doubt or suspicion, more of the earnestness of the man or of the Divine authority of his mission; and whatever friction may have previously existed between the apostle and the Jerusalem leaders, at this moment it had disappeared. The anti-Gentile spirit, if it slumbered in the Church of the Metropolis, which is doubtful, was not shared in by its rulers.
4. Mistaken counsels.
(1) The circumstances out of which these arose were two; the multitudes (myriads or tens of thousands) of Jewish Christians from all parts of the world, who were then present in the Holy City, and the misconception under which they laboured of Paul’s work, which they imagined to be a crusade against circumcision and the customs of Moses, when it was no such thing. Certainly Paul taught the Gentiles that circumcision and the customs of Moses were not required for a sinner’s justification so that the Gentiles had no need to embrace these with a view to salvation. To the Jews among the Gentiles—i.e., to the Jewish Christians he explained that even for them circumcision and the customs of Moses formed no ground of acceptance before God; but he never insisted on the discontinuance, by Jewish Christians, of either circumcision or the customs. Doubtless Jewish Christians, who came to understand the complete religious worthlessness of circumcision, and the customs as mere external performances, would gradually lay these aside; and so the notion might (and probably did) diffuse itself that Paul directly aimed at this result by means of his gospel. It was of course an error fitted to be hurtful.
(2) The motive which dictated the advice given by James and the elders was unquestionably good. They desired, if possible, to disabuse the public mind of the unjust suspicions it entertained of Paul’s Hebrew orthodoxy, and to remove every stumbling block out of the way of his ministerial usefulness among his countrymen. On this principle Paul himself was always prepared to act (1 Corinthians 9:20).
(3) The advice itself ran that Paul should associate himself with four poor Christian Jews who had taken on themselves Nazarite vows, which required them to let their hair grow, to abstain from intoxicating liquor, and generally to lead ascetic lives for a period usually of thirty days, from which vows they could not be released without the presentation in the temple of certain specified offerings (Numbers 6:1-21). It was suggested that Paul should, according to a custom then prevailing, join himself to these four men during the last seven days of their vow, should along with them abstain from wine, and lot his hair grow; and that at the end of these days he and they should shave their heads, while he paid for the necessary offerings to clear himself and them—again after the manner of pious Jews of a wealthier sort, who were accustomed thus to assist their poorer brethren. James and the elders believed that by so doing Paul would demonstrate to his excited countrymen that there was no truth in the information they had received, and that he, Paul, was as good and orderly a Jew as any one among themselves. To the suggestion of this course they may have felt prompted by remembering that Paul had once at least before at Cenchrea undertaken a similar vow (Acts 18:18).
(4) The consideration by which James and the elders hoped to urge this course upon the apostle was that they had gone a long way in making concessions to the Gentiles, having written and concluded or given judgment, that they, the Gentiles, should observe no such thing as circumcision and the customs of Moses, but only that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols and from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication.
(5) Nevertheless the advice was a mistake. What it recommended, if carried out, as it was, might not have been sinful in itself or unlawful for Paul from his point of view (1 Corinthians 6:12; 1 Corinthians 10:23), but it was certainly of doubtful policy as tending to confirm Jewish Christians in the idea that Paul did regard the law as in some fashion indispensable for salvation, while in point of fact he did not, and practically worthless, since it neither effected what they hoped for, nor averted what they feared, neither allayed the groundless suspicions against Paul, nor prevented an outbreak of hostility against him (Acts 21:28).
Lessons.—
1. The lawfulness of Christian prudence—exemplified in lodging Paul with Mnason.
2. The duty of Christian brotherly kindness—illustrated in Paul’s reception by the Christians of Jerusalem and the leaders of the Church there.
3. The doubtfulness even of Christian compromises—as seen in the course recommended by James and followed by Paul.
HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Acts 21:16. An Old Disciple.—Exemplified in Mnason of Cyprus.
I. A striking proof of Divine faithfulness.—In preserving Mnason to be a Christian of long standing.
II. A satisfying evidence of the reality and power of religion.—Had Mnason not found it so, he had not adhered to it so long.
III. A precious storehouse of Christian experience.—One who has long been a disciple must have learnt much of the secret of the Lord.
IV. A possible instrument of valuable service.—To the Church and the world. As there are tasks that can better be performed by young believers, so there are offices that can be more efficiently filled by aged disciples.
V. A deserving object of Christian honour and esteem.—If the hoary head is entitled to respect and veneration, much more is it so when found in the way of righteousness.
VI. A Christian pilgrim drawing near the better land.—Heaven may be near the young believer, it never can be far off from the old disciple.
Acts 21:17-20. A Foreign Missionary’s Return.
I. The welcome he received.—Joyful.
II. The salutation he brought.—Peace.
III. The story he told.—The triumphs of the cross.
IV. The enthusiasm he enkindled—They glorified God.
Acts 21:20-24. Concessions to Weak Brethren.
I. Legitimate.—
1. When they can be made without violating conscience—i.e., when they refer to things indifferent.
2. When they help to remove stumbling-blocks out of the weak brother’s way.
3. When they assist in promoting peace.
II. Illegitimate.—
1. When, though right in themselves, they tend to mislead the weak brother by causing him to think his position only right.
2. When adopted more from a desire of peace than with a view to promote what is right.
3. When they are calculated to offend as many as they please.
Acts 21:21-24. The World’s Misrepresentations of the Followers of Christ.
I. Are frequently wide-spread.
II. Mostly have nothing in them.
III. Always are difficult to remove.
IV. Seldom get corrected by compromise.
Acts 21:26. Doubtful Actions; or, the inconsistencies of great and good men.
I. State the case referred to.—Paul’s arrival in Jerusalem; welcome from the brethren; meeting with the elders and James. James’s proposal and the reason of it. Danger apprehended from probable suspicions of Jewish Christians. Paul’s adoption of the course recommended, and joining of himself with the four men who had a vow.
II. Was this action wrong?—Consider—
1. How it may have looked to James.
(1) Unless James had deemed the course recommended legitimate it may be assumed he would not have made the proposal.
(2) James’s motives were unquestionably right—to ensure Paul’s safety by disarming the hostility of the Jews; to gain a hearing from his co-religionists for Paul’s gospel; to set the apostle right with the Jewish Christians.
(3) Yet the course recommended may have been wrong, though the course itself may have appeared right and the motives prompting it may have been good.
2. How it may have looked to Paul.
(1) Of great importance to allay the wide-spread suspicion that was abroad concerning him, and to gain a hearing for the gospel.
(2) No small matter to disabuse the minds of his weaker brethren of their misconceptions concerning himself and his mission.
(3) Not against his principles to take a vow, since he had done so at Cenchrea (Acts 18:18).
(4) In harmony with his conduct in circumcising Timothy (Acts 16:3).
(5) Not inconsistent with his refusal to perform the same rite on Titus (Galatians 2:3).
(6) Not the same as Peter’s eating with the Gentiles at Antioch and then withdrawing (Galatians 2:11-12).
(7) It was only a carrying out of Paul’s principle of becoming all things to all men to gain some (1 Corinthians 9:20, etc.).
3. How it may look to some still.
(1) Of doubtful morality. Not that to recommend or adopt such a course of action was wrong; but that being liable to misconstruction it should neither have been recommended nor adopted without serious consideration. Neither Paul nor James believed that observance of the moral law was indispensable for salvation; but what about the multitude of Jews? Would they not reason, that if Paul observed the customs they must be absolutely binding on the conscience?
(2) Of doubtful expediency. It was meant to save Paul, but did not; intended to gain the Jews, but did not; designed to recommend Christianity; but is it certain it did not rather confirm the Jews, both Hebrew and Christian, in the notion of the permanent obligation of the law of Moses?
III. Lessons from the story.—
1. Compromises are seldom successful.
2. Good men may give bad advice and take false steps.
3. The short road to victory is ever steadfast adherence to principle.
Note.—“Surely these records of the ‘Acts,’ with their unflinching truth, speak with a strange mighty power to us after all these ages. We feel, while we read of the awful fall and miserable death of one of the Twelve (Acts 1:16-20); of the sin and punishment of two of the most notable believers of the first age (Acts 5:1-11); of the jealous murmuring and discontent of the poor saints (Acts 6:1); of the failure in courage of Mark and the bitter quarrel of two of the most prominent Christian leaders (Acts 15:38-40); and here of this doubtful compromise of Paul and James that we have before us a real picture, painted from life, of the Church of the first days, by one who never shrinks to paint the errors, the faults, and the grievous mistakes of even the most distinguished of the first believers.”—Spence.