Acts of the Apostles 20:22-25 and 21:17-40 Antique Commentary Notes

A.T. Robertson
Act 20:22
Bound in the spirit (dedemenos tōi pneumati). Perfect passive participle of deō, to bind, with the locative case. “Bound in my spirit” he means, as in Act_19:21, from a high sense of duty. The mention of “the Holy Spirit” specifically in Act_20:23seems to be in contrast to his own spirit here. His own spirit was under the control of the Holy Spirit (Rom_8:16) and the sense does not differ greatly.

Not knowing (mē eidōs). Second perfect active participle of oida with mē.

That shall befall me (ta sunantēsonta emoi). Articular future active participle of sunantaō, to meet with (Act_10:25), to befall (with associative instrumental case) and compare with sumbantōn (befell) in Act_20:19. One of the rare instances of the future participle in the N.T.

John Gill
Act 20:22 And now behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem,…. Not in his own spirit, though the Ethiopic version reads, “in my spirit”; as if he was pressed and straitened, and troubled within himself, at what afflictions and bonds he was to endure at Jerusalem; for this is not consistent with what he says in Act_20:24 nor is the sense, that he was bound in conscience and duty to go to Jerusalem, to carry the collections of the churches made for the poor saints there, which the Gentile churches importuned him to take upon him, and which he undertook, and promised to perform, and so was under obligation to do it; but rather that he was resolved and determined in his own mind, within himself, or he purposed in his spirit, as in Act_19:21 to go to Jerusalem: but it is best to understand it of the Spirit of God; as that either the apostle, by the revelation of the Spirit of God, knew that when he came to Jerusalem he should be laid in bonds, and under a deep impression of that upon his mind, he went thither, as though he was bound already; or rather that he was under such a strong impulse of the Spirit of God, by which he was moved to such a vehement desire to go thither, that the bonds and afflictions he saw waited for him there, could not deter him, and all the entreaties of his friends could not dissuade him from it:

not knowing the things that shall befall me there; that is, the particular things he should suffer there, nor how they would issue with respect to life or death; and if the latter, whether he should suffer death, there or elsewhere; these things were not as yet revealed to him; he only in general knew, that bonds and afflictions would be his lot and portion, and which therefore he excepts in the next verse: after this it was revealed to him by Agabus a prophet, in the name, and under the influence of the Holy Ghost, that he should be apprehended at Jerusalem, and should be bound and delivered to the Gentiles; which was signified by the prophet’s taking his girdle and binding his hands and feet with it, but still he knew not whether he should die there or not, though he was ready for it, Act_21:10 afterwards when he was come to Jerusalem, and had been bound, and was in prison, the Lord himself appeared to him, and told him that he must bear witness at Rome, as he had testified of him at Jerusalem, Act_23:11 so that he was not to suffer death there, only bonds and imprisonment.

George Haycock
Act 20:22 Bound in the spirit, lead by inspiration of the Holy Ghost. (Witham) — Chained, and forced, as it were, by the Holy Spirit, who offers me a sweet violence; or I am so strongly persuaded of the chains, which await me at Jerusalem, that I already feel myself bound in idea. (Calmet) — I no go to Jerusalem for the fourth time, attracted by the Holy Ghost, who is the author and governor of all my actions, that where I have shown myself the greatest enemy of the Church, there I may suffer tribulations in defence of the same Church, and for Christ, her divine spouse. (Tirinus)

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown
Act 20:23
Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, etc. — by prophetic utterances from city to city, as in Act_11:4; Act_21:10, Act_21:11. Analogous premonitions of coming events are not unknown to the general method of God’s providence. They would tend to season the apostle’s spirit.

John Gill
Act 20:23 Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city,…. As he passed along, where there was a church, or any number of saints: in the churches of those times there were prophets who foretold things to come, and by these the Holy Ghost testified to the apostle, as he travelled along, and called upon the churches in every city, what would befall him when he came to Jerusalem; this sense the natural order of the words requires, unless there should be a transposition of them, thus, “save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth, saying, that bonds and afflictions abide me, or wait for me in every city”; that is, this in general was only made known to him by the Spirit of God, that wherever he came, affliction and persecution would attend him, and he must expect bonds and imprisonment; these were ready for him, and be must prepare for them, as he did: and therefore, whenever they came, he was not surprised at them, they were no other than what he looked for; but the other sense seems best, for such a transposition is not very easy, and, besides, can by no means be admitted, if the sense is, as the words are read in Beza’s ancient copy, and in others, and in the Vulgate Latin version, “that bonds and afflictions abide me at Jerusalem”; however, since the Holy Ghost testified before hand of the afflictions and bonds of the apostle, whether in every city or in Jerusalem, or both; it is no inconsiderable proof of the proper deity of the Spirit of God, and is an instance of his affectionate regard to the apostle, to give him previous notice of these things.

Adam Clarke
Act 20:24
None of these things move me – Ουδενος λογον ποιουμαι; I consider them as nothing; I value them not a straw; they weigh not with me.

Neither count I my life dear – I am not my own; my life and being are the Lord’s; he requires me to employ them in his service; I act under his direction, and am not anxious about the issue.

Finish my course with joy – Τον δρομον μου, My ministerial function. We have already met with this word in application to the same subject, Act_13:25, where see the note. And the apostle here adds, by way of explanation, και την διακονιαν, even that ministry which I have received of the Lord. The words μετα χαρας, with joy, are omitted by ABD, some others; the Syriac, Erpen, Coptic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, Vulgate, and some of the fathers. If we consider them as genuine they may imply thus much: that the apostle wished to fulfill his ministry in such a way as might meet with the Divine approbation; for nothing could give him joy that did not please and glorify God.

To testify – Διαμαρτυρασθαι, Earnestly, solemnly, and strenuously to assert, vindicate, and prove the Gospel of the grace of God, not only to be in itself what it professes to be, but to be also the power of God for salvation to every one that believes.

Albert Barnes
Act 20:24
Move me – Alarm me, or deter me from my purpose. Greek: “I make an account of none of them.” I do not regard them as of any moment, or as worth consideration in the great purpose to which I have devoted my life.

Neither count I my life – I do not consider my life as so valuable as to be retained by turning away from bonds and persecutions. I am certain of bonds and afflictions; I am willing also, if it be necessary, to lay down my life in the prosecution of the same purpose.

Dear unto myself – So precious or valuable as to be retained at the sacrifice of duty. I am willing to sacrifice it if it be necessary. This was the spirit of the Saviour, and of all the early Christians. Duty is of more importance than life; and when either duty or life is to be sacrificed, life is to be cheerfully surrendered.

So that – This is my main object, to finish my course with joy. It is implied here:
(1) That this was the great purpose which Paul had in view.
(2) That if he should even lay down his life in this cause, it would be a finishing his course with joy. In the faithful discharge of duty, he had nothing to fear. Life would be ended with peace whenever God should require him to finish his course.

Finish my course – Close my career as an apostle and a Christian. Life is thus represented as a course, or race that is to be run, 2Ti_4:7; Heb_12:1; 1Co_9:24; Act_13:25. With joy – With the approbation of conscience and of God, with peace in the recollection of the past. Man should strive so to live that he will have nothing to regret when he lies on a bed of death. It is a glorious privilege to finish life with joy. It is most sad when the last hours are embittered with the reflection that life has been wasted. The only way in which life may be finished with joy is by meeting faithfully every duty, and encountering, as Paul did, every trial, with a constant desire to glorify God.

And the ministry – That I may fully discharge the duty of the apostolic office, the preaching of the gospel. In 2Ti_4:5, he charges Timothy to make full proof of his ministry. He here shows that this was the ruling principle of his own life.

Which I have received of the Lord Jesus – Which the Lord Jesus has committed to me, Act_9:15-17. Paul regarded his ministry as an office entrusted to him by the Lord Jesus himself. On this account he deemed it to be especially sacred, and of high authority, Gal_1:12. Every minister has been entrusted with an office by the Lord Jesus. He is not his own; and his great aim should be to discharge fully and entirely the duties of that office.

To testify the gospel – To bear witness to the good news of the favor of God. This is the great design of the ministry. It is to bear witness to a dying world of the good news that God is merciful, and that his favor may be made manifest to sinners. From this verse we may learn:
(1) That we all have a course to run, a duty to perform. Ministers have an allotted duty; and so have men in all ranks and professions.
(2) We should not be deterred by danger, or the fear of death, from the discharge of that duty. We are safe only when we are doing the will of God. We are really in danger only when we neglect our duty, and make the great God our enemy.
(3) We should so live as that the end of our course may be joy. It is, at best, a solemn thing to die; but death may be a scene of triumph and of joy.
(4) It matters little when, or where, or how we die if we die in the discharge of our duty to God. He will order the circumstances of our departure, and He can sustain us in the last conflict. Happy is that life which is spent in doing the will of God, and peaceful that death which closes a life of toil and trial in the service of the Lord Jesus.

A.T. Robertson
Act 20:25
And now, behold (kai nun, idou). Second time and solemn reminder as in Act_20:22.

I know (egō oida). Emphasis on egō which is expressed.

Ye all (humeis pantes). In very emphatic position after the verb opsesthe (shall see) and the object (my face). Twice Paul will write from Rome (Phi_2:24; Phm_1:22) the hope of coming east again; but that is in the future, and here Paul is expressing his personal conviction and his fears. The Pastoral Epistles show Paul did come to Ephesus again (1Ti_1:3; 1Ti_3:14; 1Ti_4:13) and Troas (2Ti_4:13) and Miletus (2Ti_4:20). There need be no surprise that Paul’s fears turned out otherwise. He had reason enough for them.
Among whom I went about (en hois diēlthon). Apparently Paul here has in mind others beside the ministers. They represented the church in Ephesus and the whole region where Paul laboured.

Albert Barnes
Act 20:25
I know that ye all – Perhaps this means simply, “I have no expectation of seeing you again; I have every reason to suppose that this is my final interview with you.” He expected to visit Ephesus no more. The journey to Jerusalem was dangerous. Trials and persecutions he knew awaited him. Besides, it is evident that he designed to turn his attention to other countries, and to visit Rome; and probably he had already formed the purpose of going into Spain. See Act_19:21; compare Rom_15:23-28. From all these considerations it is evident that he had no expectation of being again at Ephesus. It is probable, however, that he did again return to that city. See the notes on Act_28:31.

Among whom I have gone preaching – Among whom I have preached. The parting of a minister and people is among the most tender and affecting of the separations that occur on earth.

The kingdom of God – Making known the nature of the reign of God on earth by the Messiah. See the notes on Mat_3:2.

John Gill
Act 21:17 And when we were come to Jerusalem,…. That is, Paul and his companions, attended with the disciples of Caesarea, and Mnason the old disciple with them:

the brethren received us gladly; readily, willingly, and cheerfully; they did not treat them with an air of coldness and indifference, or look shy on them, or show any resentment to them, notwithstanding the various reports which had been brought them, concerning the ministry of the apostle among the Gentiles.

A.T. Robertson Act 21:18
The day following (tēi epiousēi). As in Act_20:15 which see.

Went in (eisēiei). Imperfect active of eiseimi, old classic verb used only four times in the N.T. (Act_3:3; Act_21:18, Act_21:26; Heb_9:6), a mark of the literary style rather than the colloquial Koiné[28928]š use of eiserchomai. Together with us to James (sun hēmin pros Iakōbon). So then Luke is present. The next use of “we” is in Act_27:1 when they leave Caesarea for Rome, but it is not likely that Luke was away from Paul in Jerusalem and Caesarea. The reports of what was done and said in both places is so full and minute that it seems reasonable that Luke got first hand information here whatever his motive was for so full an account of these legal proceedings to be discussed later. There are many details that read like an eye witness’s story (Act_21:30, Act_21:35, Act_21:40; Act_22:2, Act_22:3; Act_23:12, etc.). It was probably the house of James (pros and para so used often).

And all the elders were present (pantes te paregenonto hoi presbuteroi). Clearly James is the leading elder and the others are his guests in a formal reception to Paul. It is noticeable that the apostles are not mentioned, though both elders and apostles are named at the Conference in Acts chapter 15. It would seem that the apostles are away on preaching tours. The whole church was not called together probably because of the known prejudice against Paul created by the Judaizers.

John Gill
Act 21:18 And the day following,…. After they were come into Jerusalem:

Paul went in with us to James; not the son of Zebedee and brother of John, for he was killed by Herod some years ago; but James the son of Alphaeus, and brother of our Lord, who presided over this church; it seems there were no other apostles now at Jerusalem, but they were all dispersed abroad that were living, preaching the Gospel in the several parts of the world: Paul took the first opportunity Of paying a visit to James, very likely at his own house, to give him an account of his success among the Gentiles, and to know the state of the church at Jerusalem, and confer with him about what might be most proper and serviceable to promote the interest of Christ; and he took with him those who had been companions with him in his travels, partly to show respect to James, and partly to be witnesses of what he should relate unto him:

and all the elders were present: by whom are meant, not the ancient private members of the church, but the ministers of the word in this church: who hearing of the coming of the apostle, and of his visit to James, assembled together to see him, and converse with him.

John Gill
Act 21:19 And when he had saluted them,…. James and the elders with him; which was either done by a kiss, as the Arabic version adds; or by asking of their health, and wishing a continuance of it, and all prosperity to attend them: the Ethiopic version reads,

they saluted him; and no doubt the salutations were reciprocal:

he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry; it is very likely that this account begins where that ends, which he had delivered in the presence of James, and others, some years ago, Act_15:12 and takes in all his travels and ministry, and the success of it; not only in Syria, Cilicia, and Lycaonia, after he had set out from Antioch again, but in Macedonia, Achaia, and Asia; as at Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, and elsewhere: he declared, what multitudes of souls were converted, and what numbers of churches were planted; and this he ascribes not to himself, but to the power and grace of God, which had attended his ministry; he was only an instrument, God was the efficient, and ought to have the glory.

Act 21:20
Glorified (edoxazon). Inchoative imperfect, began to glorify God, though without special praise of Paul.

How many thousands (posai muriades). Old word for ten thousand (Act_19:19) and then an indefinite number like our “myriads” (this very word) as Luk_12:1; Act_21:20; Jud_1:14; Rev_5:11; Rev_9:16. But it is a surprising statement even with allowable hyperbole, but one may recall Act_4:4 (number of the men–not women–about five thousand); Act_5:14 (multitudes both of men and women); Act_6:7. There were undoubtedly a great many thousands of believers in Jerusalem and all Jewish Christians, some, alas, Judaizers (Act_11:2; Act_15:1, Act_15:5). This list may include the Christians from neighbouring towns in Palestine and even some from foreign countries here at the Feast of Pentecost, for it is probable that Paul arrived in time for it as he had hoped. But we do not have to count the hostile Jews from Asia (Act_21:27) who were clearly not Christians at all.

All zealous for the law (pantes zēlōtai tou nomou). Zealots (substantive) rather than zealous (adjective) with objective genitive (tou nomou). The word zealot is from zēloō, to burn with zeal, to boil. The Greek used zēlōtēs for an imitator or admirer. There was a party of Zealots (developed from the Pharisees), a group of what would be called “hot-heads,” who brought on the war with Rome. One of this party, Simon Zelotes (Act_1:13), was in the number of the twelve apostles. It is important to understand the issues in Jerusalem. It was settled at the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15; Galatians 2) that the Mosaic ceremonial law was not to be imposed upon Gentile Christians. Paul won freedom for them, but it was not said that it was wrong for Jewish Christians to go on observing it if they wished. We have seen Paul observing the passover in Philippi (Act_20:6) and planning to reach Jerusalem for Pentecost (Act_20:16). The Judaizers rankled under Paul’s victory and power in spreading the gospel among the Gentiles and gave him great trouble in Galatia and Corinth. They were busy against him in Jerusalem also and it was to undo the harm done by them in Jerusalem that Paul gathered the great collection from the Gentile Christians and brought it with him and the delegates from the churches. Clearly then Paul had real ground for his apprehension of trouble in Jerusalem while still in Corinth (Rom_15:25) when he asked for the prayers of the Roman Christians (Rom_15:30-32). The repeated warnings along the way were amply justified.

Albert Barnes
Act 21:20
They glorified the Lord – They gave praise to the Lord for what he had done. They saw new proofs of his goodness and mercy, and they rendered him thanks for all that had been accomplished. There was no jealousy that it had been done by the instrumentality of Paul. True piety will rejoice in the spread of the gospel, and in the conversion of sinners, by whatever instrumentality it may be effected.

Thou seest, brother – The language of tenderness in this address, recognizing Paul as a fellow-laborer and fellow-Christian, implies a wish that Paul would do all that could be done to avoid giving offence, and to conciliate the favor of his countrymen.

How many thousands – The number of converts at this time must have been very great. Twenty-five years before this, 3,000 had been converted at one time Acts 2, and afterward the number had swelled to some more thousands, Act_4:4. The assertion that there were then “many thousands,” implies that the work so signally begun on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem had not ceased, and that many more had been converted to the Christian faith.

Which believe – Who are Christians. They are spoken of as believers, or as having faith in Christ, in contradistinction from those who rejected him, and whose characteristic trait it was that they were unbelievers.

And they are all zealous of the law – They still observe the Law of Moses. The reference here is to the law respecting circumcision, sacrifices, distinctions of meats and days, festivals, etc. It may seem remarkable that they should still continue to observe those rites, since it was the manifest design of Christianity to abolish them. But we are to remember:
(1) That those rites had been appointed by God, and that they were trained to their observance.
(2) That the apostles conformed to them while they remained at Jerusalem, and did not deem it best to set themselves violently against them, Act_3:1; Luk_24:53.
(3) That the question about their observance had never been agitated at Jerusalem. It was only among the Gentile converts that the question had risen, and there it must arise, for if they were to be observed, they must have been imposed upon them by authority.
(4) The decision of the council Acts 15 related only to the Gentile converts. It did not touch the question whether those rites were to be observed by the Jewish converts.
(5) It was to be presumed that as the Christian religion became better understood – that as its large, free, and catholic nature became more and more developed, the special institutions of Moses would be laid aside of course, without agitation and without tumult. Had the question been agitated at Jerusalem, it would have excited tenfold opposition to Christianity, and would have rent the Christian church into factions, and greatly retarded the advance of the Christian doctrine. We are to remember also:
(6) That, in the arrangement of Divine Providence, the time was drawing near which was to destroy the temple, the city, and the nation, which was to put an end to sacrifices, and effectually to close forever the observance of the Mosaic rites. As this destruction was so near, and as it would be so effectual an argument against the observance of the Mosaic rites, the Great Head of the church did not suffer the question of their obligation to be needlessly agitated among the disciples at Jerusalem.

A.T. Robertson
Act 21:21
They have been informed concerning thee (katēchēthēsan peri sou). First aorist passive indicative of katēcheō. A word in the ancient Greek, but a few examples survive in the papyri. It means to sound (echo, from ēchō, our word) down (kata), to resound, re-echo, to teach orally. Oriental students today (Arabs learning the Koran) often study aloud. In the N.T. only in Luk_1:4 which see; Act_18:25; Act_21:21; 1Co_14:19; Gal_6:6; Rom_2:18. This oral teaching about Paul was done diligently by the Judaizers who had raised trouble against Peter (Act_11:2) and Paul (Act_15:1, Act_15:5). They had failed in their attacks on Paul’s world campaigns. Now they try to undermine him at home. In Paul’s long absence from Jerusalem, since Act_18:22, they have had a free hand, save what opposition James would give, and have had great success in prejudicing the Jerusalem Christians against Paul. So James, in the presence of the other elders and probably at their suggestion, feels called upon to tell Paul the actual situation.

That thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses (hoti apostasian didaskeis apo Mōuseōs tous kata ta ethnē pantas Ioudaious). Two accusatives with didaskeis (verb of teaching) according to rule. Literally, “That thou art teaching all the Jews among (kata) the Gentiles (the Jews of the dispersion as in Act_2:9) apostasy from Moses.” That is the point, the dreadful word apostasian (our apostasy), a late form (I Macc. Jam_2:15) for the earlier apostasis (cf. 2Th_2:3 for apostasia). “In the eyes of the church at Jerusalem this was a far more serious matter than the previous question at the Conference about the status of Gentile converts” (Furneaux). Paul had brought that issue to the Jerusalem Conference because of the contention of the Judaizers. But here it is not the Judaizers, but the elders of the church with James as their spokesman on behalf of the church as a whole. They do not believe this false charge, but they wish Paul to set it straight. Paul had made his position clear in his Epistles (I Corinthians, Galatians, Romans) for all who cared to know.

Telling them not to circumcise their children (legōn mē peritemnein autous ta tekna). The participle legōn agrees with “thou” (Paul), the subject of didaskeis. This is not indirect assertion, but indirect command, hence the negative mē instead of ou with the infinitive (Robertson, Grammar, p.1046). The point is not that Paul stated what the Jewish Christians in the dispersion do, but that he says that they (autous accusative of general reference) are not to go on circumcising (peritemnein, present active infinitive) their children. Paul taught the very opposite (1Co_7:18 ) and had Timothy circumcised (Act_16:3) because he was half Jew and half Greek. His own practice is stated in 1Co_9:19 (“to the Jews as a Jew”).

Neither to walk after the customs (mēde tois ethesin peripatein). Locative case with infinitive peripatein. The charge was here enlarged to cover it all and to make Paul out an enemy of Jewish life and teachings. That same charge had been made against Stephen when young Saul (Paul) was the leader (Act_6:14): “Will change the customs (ethē the very word used here) which Moses delivered unto us.” It actually seemed that some of the Jews cared more for Moses than for God (Act_6:11). So much for the charge of the Judaizers.

Albert Barnes
Act 21:21
And they are informed of thee – Reports respecting the conduct of Paul would be likely to be in circulation among all at Jerusalem. His remarkable conversion, his distinguished zeal, his success among the Gentiles, would make his conduct a subject of special interest. Evil-minded men among the Jews, who came up to Jerusalem from different places where he had been, would be likely to represent him as the decided enemy of the laws of Moses, and these reports would be likely to reach the ears of the Jewish converts. The reports, as they gained ground, would be greatly magnified, until suspicion might be excited among the Christians at Jerusalem that he was, as he was reputed to be, the settled foe of the Jewish rites and customs.

That thou teachest all the Jews … – From all the evidence which we have of his conduct, this report was incorrect and slanderous. The truth appears to have been, that he did not enjoin the observance of those laws on the Gentile converts; that the effect of his ministry on them was to lead them to suppose that their observance was not necessary – contrary to the doctrines of the Judaizing teachers (see Acts 15); and that he argued with the Jews themselves, where it could be done, against the obligation of those laws and customs since the Messiah had come. The Jews depended on their observance for justification and salvation. This Paul strenuously opposed; and this view he defended at length in the Epistles which he wrote. See the Epistles to the Romans, the Galatians, and the Hebrews. Yet these facts might be easily misunderstood and perverted, so as to give rise to the slanderous report that he was the enemy of Moses and the Law.

Which are among the Gentiles – Who live in pagan countries. The Jews were extensively scattered and settled in all the large towns and cities of the Roman empire.

To forsake Moses – The Law and the authority of Moses. That is, to regard his laws as no longer binding.

To walk after the customs – To observe the institutions of the Mosaic ritual. See the notes on Act_6:14. The word “customs” denotes “the rites of the Mosaic economy the offering of sacrifices, incense, the oblations, anointings, festivals, etc., which the Law of Moses prescribed.”

Albert Barnes
Act 21:22
What is it therefore? – What is to be done? What is it proper to do to avoid the effects of the evil report which has been circulated? What they deemed it proper to do is suggested in the following verses.

The multitude – The multitude of Jews.

Must needs come together – There will be inevitably a tumultuous assemblage. It will be impossible to prevent that. The reasons were, because the minds of the Jews were exceedingly agitated that one of their own countrymen had, as they understood, been advising apostasy from the religion of their fathers; because this had been extensively done in many parts of the world, and with great success; and because Paul, having, as they believed, himself apostatized from the national religion, had become very conspicuous, and his very presence in Jerusalem, as in other places, would be likely to excite a tumult. It was, therefore, the part of friendship to him and to the cause to devise some proper plan to prevent, if possible, the anticipated excitement.

Adam Clarke
Act 21:23
We have four men which have a vow – From the shaving of the head, mentioned immediately after, it is evident that the four men in question were under the vow of Nazariteship; and that the days of their vow were nearly at an end, as they were about to shave their heads; for, during the time of the Nazariteship, the hair was permitted to grow, and only shaven off at the termination of the vow. Among the Jews, it was common to make vows to God on extraordinary occasions; and that of the Nazarite appears to have been one of the most common; and it was permitted by their law for any person to perform this vow by proxy. See the law produced in my note on Num_6:21 (note). “It was also customary for the richer sort to bestow their charity on the poorer sort for this purpose; for Josephus, Ant. lib. xix. cap. 6, sec. 1, observes that Agrippa, on his being advanced from a prison to a throne, by the Emperor Claudius, came to Jerusalem; and there, among other instances of his religious thankfulness shown in the temple, Ναζαραιων ξυρασθαι διεταξε μαλα συχνους, he ordered very many Nazarites to be shaven, he furnishing them with money for the expenses of that, and of the sacrifices necessarily attending it.” See Bp. Pearce.

John Gill
Act 21:24 Them take, and purify, thyself with them,…. That is, join thyself to them, make one of their number, and attend to the rules prescribed to a Nazarite, who is to be holy to the Lord; and in case of any ceremonial uncleanness, is to be cleansed, or purified in the manner directed, Num_6:5.

And be at charges with them; join with them in the expense, for the offerings to be made at the end of the vows, or when the days of separation are fulfilled, Num_6:13.

That they may shave their heads; according to the law in Num_6:18. This was done in לשכת הנזירים, the chamber of the Nazarites (r); for there the Nazarites boiled their peace offerings, and shaved their hair, and put it under the pot, in the fire that was under it: Maimonides says (s),

“if he shaved in the city it was excusable; but whether he shaved in the city or in the sanctuary, under the pot his hair must be cast; and he did not shave until the door of the court was opened, as it is said, “at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation”, Num_6:18 not that he shaved over against the door, for that would be a contempt of the sanctuary.”

Moreover, it may be observed, that a person who had not made a vow, or fulfilled a Nazariteship himself, which was the apostle’s case, yet he might join in bearing the expenses of others, at the time of their shaving and cleansing: for so run the Jewish canons (t);

“he that says, upon me be the shaving of a Nazarite, he is bound to bring the offerings of shaving for purification, and he may offer them by the hand of what Nazarite he pleases; he that says, upon me be half the offerings of a Nazarite, or if he says, upon me be half the shaving of a Nazarite, he brings half the offerings by what Nazarite he will, and that Nazarite perfects his offerings out of that which is his.”

That all may know that those things whereof they were informed concerning thee are nothing; that there is no truth in them; that they are mere lies and calumnies; as they will easily judge by this single instance, in complying with the law concerning a Nazarite’s vow:

but that thou thyself walkest orderly, and keepest the law; and therefore can never be thought to teach others to walk disorderly, or to neglect the law, the rites and customs of it.

(r) T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 16. 1. (s) Hilchot Nezirut, c. 8. sect. 3. (t) Hilchot Nezirut, c. 8. sect. 18.

A.T. Robertson
Act 21:25
We wrote (epesteilamen). First aorist active of epistellō, to send to and so to write like our epistle (epistolē). Old verb, but in the N.T. only here and Act_15:20; Heb_13:22. It is the very word used by James in this “judgment” at the Conference (Act_15:20, episteilai). B D here read apesteilamen from apostellō, to send away, to give orders. Wendt and Schuerer object to this as a gloss. Rather is it an explanation by James that he does not refer to the Gentile Christians whose freedom from the Mosaic ceremonial law was guaranteed at the Jerusalem Conference. James himself presided at that Conference and offered the resolution that was unanimously adopted. James stands by that agreement and repeats the main items (four: anything sacrificed to idols, blood, anything strangled, fornication, for discussion see note on Acts 15) from which they are to keep themselves (direct middle phulassesthai of phulass, indirect command after krinantes with accusative, autous, of general reference). James has thus again cleared the air about the Gentiles who have believed (pepisteukotōn, perfect active participle genitive plural of pisteuō). He asks that Paul will stand by the right of Jewish Christians to keep on observing the Mosaic law. He has put the case squarely and fairly.

John Gill
Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe,…. This is said, to show that the Jews were not offended with Paul, for not insisting upon the circumcision of the believing Gentiles, and their conformity to the ceremonial law; and to remove an objection that Paul might make, that should he comply with this advice, and the believing Gentiles should hear of it, it might be a stumblingblock and a snare to them; who by his example, might think themselves obliged to regard the law: Beza’s ancient copy adds, “they have nothing to say to thee”; for as it follows,

we have written and concluded; some years ago, at a meeting of the apostles, elders, and brethren at Jerusalem, when Paul was present; and of which he reminds him, to prevent any objection of this kind; where it was unanimously agreed on and determined,

that they observe no such things; as circumcision, and other rites and customs of the law, and particularly the vow of the Nazarite, which Gentiles are free from: hence it is said (u),

“Gentiles have no Nazariteship;”

upon which one of the commentators says (w), if a Gentile vows Nazariteship, the law of the Nazarite does not fall upon him, he is not obliged to it:

save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, &c. see Act_15:19.

(u) Misna Nazir, c. 9. sect. 1. (w) Bartenora in Misn. Nazir, c. 9. sect. 1.

Albert Barnes
Act 21:25
As touching the Gentiles – In regard to the Gentile converts. It might be expedient for Paul to do what could not be enjoined on the Gentiles. They could not command the Gentile converts to observe those ceremonies, while yet it might be proper, for the sake of peace, that the converts to Christianity from among the Jews should regard them. The conduct of the Christians at Jerusalem in giving this advice, and of Paul in following it, may be easily vindicated. If it be objected, as it has been by infidels, that it looks like double-dealing; that it was designed to deceive the Jews in Jerusalem, and to make them believe that Paul actually conformed to the ceremonial law, when his conduct among the Gentiles showed that he did not, we may reply:
(1) That the observance of that law was not necessary in order to salvation;
(2) That it would have been improper to have enjoined its observance on the Gentile converts as necessary, and therefore it was never done;
(3) That when the Jews urged its observance as necessary to justification and salvation, Paul strenuously opposed this view of it everywhere;
(4) Yet that, as a matter of expediency, he did not oppose its being observed either by the Jews, or by the converts made among the Jews.

In fact, there is other evidence besides the case before us that Paul himself continued to observe some, at least, of the Jewish rites, and his conduct in public at Jerusalem was in strict accordance with his conduct in other places. See Act_18:18. The sum of the whole matter is this, that when the observance of the Jewish ceremonial law was urged as necessary to justification and acceptance with God, Paul resisted it; when it was demanded that its observance should be enjoined on the Gentiles, he opposed it; in all other cases he made no opposition to it, and was ready himself to comply with it, and willing that others should also.

We have written – Act_15:20, Act_15:29.

A.T. Robertson
Act 21:26
Took the men (paralabōn tous andras). The very phrase used in Act_21:24to Paul.

The next day (tēi echomenēi). One of the phrases in Act_20:15 for the coming day. Locative case of time.

Purifying himself with them (sun autois hagnistheis, first aorist passive participle of hagnizō). The precise language again of the recommendation in Act_21:24. Paul was conforming to the letter.

Went into the temple (eisēiei eis to hieron). Imperfect active of eiseimi as in Act_21:18which see. Went on into the temple, descriptive imperfect. Paul joined the four men in their vow of separation.

Declaring (diaggellōn). To the priests what day he would report the fulfilment of the vow. The priests would desire notice of the sacrifice. This verb only used by Luke in N.T. except Rom_11:17 (quotation from the lxx). It is not necessary to assume that the vows of each of the five expired on the same day (Rackham).

Until the offering was offered for every one of them (heōs hou prosēnechthē huper henos hekastou autōn hē prosphora). This use of heōs hou (like heōs, alone) with the first aorist passive indicative prosēnechthē of prospherō, to offer, contemplates the final result (Robertson, Grammar, pp. 974f.) and is probably the statement of Luke added to Paul’s announcement. He probably went into the temple one day for each of the brethren and one for himself. The question arises whether Paul acted wisely or unwisely in agreeing to the suggestion of James. What he did was in perfect harmony with his principle of accommodation in 1Co_9:20 when no principle was involved. It is charged that here on this occasion Paul was unduly influenced by considerations of expediency and was willing for the Jewish Christians to believe him more of a Jew than was true in order to placate the situation in Jerusalem. Furneaux calls it a compromise and a failure. I do not so see it. To say that is to obscure the whole complex situation. What Paul did was not for the purpose of conciliating his opponents, the Judaizers, who had diligently spread falsehoods about him in Jerusalem as in Corinth. It was solely to break the power of these “false apostles” over the thousands in Jerusalem who have been deluded by Paul’s accusers. So far as the evidence goes that thing was accomplished. In the trouble that comes in Jerusalem and Caesarea the Judaizers cut no figure at all. The Jewish Christians do not appear in Paul’s behalf, but there was no opportunity for them to do so. The explosion that came on the last day of Paul’s appearance in the temple was wholly disconnected from his offerings for the four brethren and himself. It must be remembered that Paul had many kinds of enemies. The attack on him by these Jews from Asia had no connexion whatever with the slanders of the Judaizers about Paul’s alleged teachings that Jewish Christians in the dispersion should depart from the Mosaic law. That slander was put to rest forever by his following the advice of James and justifies the wisdom of that advice and Paul’s conduct about it.

Albert Barnes
Act 21:26
Then Paul took the men – Took them to himself; united with them in observing the ceremonies connected with their vow. To transactions like this he refers in 1Co_9:20; “And 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.” Thus, it has always been found necessary, in propagating the gospel among the pagan, not to offend them needlessly, but to conform to their innocent customs in regard to dress, language, modes of traveling, sitting, eating, etc. Paul did nothing more than this. He violated none of the dictates of honesty and truth.

Purifying himself with them – Observing the ceremonies connected with the rite of purification. See the notes on Act_21:24. This means evidently that he entered on the ceremonies of the separation according to the law of the Nazarite.

To signify – Greek: signifying or making known. That is, he announced to the priests in the temple his purpose of observing this vow with the four men, according to the law respecting the Nazarite. It was proper that such an announcement should be made beforehand, in order that the priests might know that all the ceremonies required had been observed.

The accomplishment … – The fulfilling, the completion. That is, he announced to them his purpose to observe all the days and all the rites of purification required in the Law, in order that an offering might be properly made. It does not mean that the days had been accomplished, but that it was his intention to observe them, so that it would be proper to offer the usual sacrifice. Paul had not, indeed, engaged with them in the beginning of their vow of separation, but he might come in with hearty intention to share with them. It cannot be objected that he meant to impose on the priests, and to make them believe that he had observed the whole vow with them, for it appears from their own writings (Bereshith Rabba, 90, and Koheleth Rabba, 7) that in those instances where the Nazarites had not sufficient property to enable them to meet the whole expense of the offerings, other persons, who possessed more, might become sharers of it, and thus be made parties to the vow. See Jahn’s Archaeology, §395. This circumstance will vindicate Paul from any intention to take an improper advantage, or to impose on the priests or the Jews. All that he announced was his intention to share with the four men in the offering which they were required to make, and thus to show his approval of the thing, and his accordance with the law which made such a vow proper.

Until that an offering … – The sacrifices required of all those who had observed this vow. See the notes on Act_21:24. Compare Num_6:13. It is a complete vindication of Paul in this case that he did no more here than he had done in a voluntary manner Act_18:18, and as appears then in a secret manner, showing that he was still in the practice of observing this rite of the Mosaic institution. Nor can it be proved that Paul ever, in any way, or at any time, spoke against the vow of the Nazarite, or that a vow of a similar kind in spirit would be improper for a Christian in any circumstances.

A.T. Robertson
Act 21:27
The seven days (hai hepta hēmerai). For which Paul had taken the vow, though there may be an allusion to the pentecostal week for which Paul had desired to be present (Act_20:16). There is no necessary connexion with the vow in Act_18:15. In Act_24:17 Paul makes a general reference to his purpose in coming to Jerusalem to bring alms and offerings (prosphoras, sacrifices). Paul spent seven days in Troas (Act_20:6), Tyre (Act_21:4), and had planned for seven here if not more. It was on the last of the seven days when Paul was completing his offerings about the vows on all five that the incident occurred that was to make him a prisoner for five years.

When they saw him in the temple (theasamenoi auton en tōi hierōi). First aorist middle participle of theaomai (from thea, a view, cf. theatre) to behold. In the very act of honouring the temple these Jews from Asia raise a hue and cry that he is dishonouring it. Paul was not known by face now to many of the Jerusalem Jews, though once the leader of the persecution after the death of Stephen and the outstanding young Jew of the day. But the Jews in Ephesus knew him only too well, some of whom are here at the pentecostal feast. They had plotted against him in Ephesus to no purpose (Acts 19:23-41; Act_20:19), but now a new opportunity had come. It is possible that the cry was led by Alexander put forward by the Jews in Ephesus (Act_19:33) who may be the same as Alexander the coppersmith who did Paul so much harm (2Ti_4:14). Paul was not in the inner sanctuary (ho naos), but only in the outer courts (to hieron).

Stirred up all the multitude (sunecheon panta ton ochlon). Imperfect (kept on) active of suncheō or sunchunō (̇unnō), to pour together, to confuse as in Act_2:6; Act_9:22; Act_19:31, Act_19:32; Act_21:31 and here to stir up by the same sort of confusion created by Demetrius in Ephesus where the same word is used twice (Act_19:31, Act_19:32). The Jews from Ephesus had learned it from Demetrius the silversmith.

Laid hands on him (epebalan ep’ auton tas cheiras). Second aorist (ingressive, with endings of the first aorist, ̇an) active indicative of epiballō, old verb to lay upon, to attack (note repetition of epi). They attacked and seized Paul before the charge was made.

A.T. Robertson
Act 21:28
Help (boētheite). Present active imperative of boētheō, to run (theō) at a cry (boē), as if an outrage had been committed like murder or assault.

All men everywhere (panta pantachēi). Alliterative. Pantachēi is a variation in MSS., often pantachou, and here only in the N.T. The charges against Paul remind one of those against Stephen (Act_6:13) in which Paul had participated according to his confession (Act_22:20). Like the charges against Stephen and Jesus before him truth and falsehood are mixed. Paul had said that being a Jew would not save a man. He had taught the law of Moses was not binding on Gentiles. He did hold, like Jesus and Stephen, that the temple was not the only place to worship God. But Paul gloried himself in being a Jew, considered the Mosaic law righteous for Jews, and was honouring the temple at this very moment.

And moreover also he brought Greeks also into the temple (eti te kai Hellēnas eisēgagen eis to hieron). Note the three particles (eti te kai), and (te) still more (eti) also or even (kai). Worse than his teaching (didaskōn) is his dreadful deed: he actually brought (eisēgagen, second aorist active indicative of eisagō). This he had a right to do if they only went into the court of the Gentiles. But these Jews mean to imply that Paul had brought Greeks beyond this court into the court of Israel. An inscription was found by Clermont-Ganneau in Greek built into the walls of a mosque on the Via Dolorosa that was on the wall dividing the court of Israel from the court of the Gentiles. Death was the penalty to any Gentile who crossed over into the Court of Israel (The Athenaeum, July, 1871).

Hath defiled this holy place (keKoinōken ton hagion topon touton). Present perfect active of Koinoō, to make common (See note on Act_10:14). Note vivid change of tense, the defilement lasts (state of completion). All this is the substance of the call of these shrewd conspirators from Ephesus, Jews (not Jewish Christians, not even Judaizers) who hated him for his work there and who probably “spoke evil of the Way before the multitude” there so that Paul had to separate the disciples from the synagogue and go to the School of Tyrannus (Act_19:9.). These enemies of Paul had now raised the cry of “fire” and vanish from the scene completely (Act_24:19). This charge was absolutely false as we shall see, made out of inferences of hate and suspicion.

John Gill
Act 21:28 Crying out, men of Israel, help,…. The Arabic and Ethiopic versions read, “help us”; to hold Paul, on whom they had laid their hands, and to assist in beating him: but why such an outcry for help against a single man, and he but little of stature, and weak in body, and so easily held and overpowered? it may be they chose to engage others with them, to give the greater countenance to their actions, and for their own security and protection, should they be opposed or called to an account;

this is the man that teacheth all men everywhere against the people; the people of the Jews, saying that they were not the only people of God; that God was the God of the Gentiles, as well as of the Jews; that God had chosen, and called, and saved some of the one, as well as of the other; that the Gentiles shared in the favour of God, and the blessings of the Messiah; that the Gospel was to be preached to them, and a people taken out of them for his glory; and that the people of the Jews would be rejected for their unbelief and impenitence, and in a little time utterly destroyed as a nation; which, and the like, these Asiatic Jews interpreted as speaking against them; whereas no man had a stronger natural affection for his countrymen, or a more eager and importunate desire for their spiritual and eternal welfare, than the apostle had;

and the law; the law of Moses, both moral and ceremonial; for they not only were displeased with him for asserting the abrogation of the latter, but traduced him as an enemy to the former; representing him as an Antinomian, because he denied justification to be by the works of the law, and asserted Christ to be the end of the law for righteousness; whereas he was so far from making void the law hereby, that he established it, and secured the rights and honours of it; yea, they went further, and represented him as a libertine, saying, let us do evil that good may come; but this was all calumny:

and this place: meaning the temple, in which they then were; the Alexandrian copy reads, “this holy place”; as it is expressed in a following clause; the reason of this charge was, because that he had taught, that the sacrifices of God were the sacrifices of prayer and of praise, and that these were to be offered up in every place; and that divine service and religious worship were not tied to the temple at Jerusalem, but that, agreeably to the doctrine of Christ, men might worship the Father anywhere, and lift up holy hands in every place; and perhaps he might have asserted, that the temple of Jerusalem would be destroyed in a short time, as Christ had predicted:

and further, brought Greeks also unto the temple, and hath polluted this holy place; that part of the temple, which they supposed Paul had brought Greeks or Gentiles into, could not be the most holy place, for into that only the high priest went, once a year; nor that part of the holy place called the court of the priests, for into that only priests went, and other Israelites were not admitted, unless on some particular occasions; as to lay hands on the sacrifice, for the slaying of it, or waving some part of it (x); but it must be either the court of the Israelites, or the court of the women, into which Paul, with the four men that had the vow, entered; and as Dr. Lightfoot thinks, it was the latter; for in, the south east of this court was the Nazarite’s chamber, in which they boiled their peace offerings, shaved their heads, and put the hair under the pot (y): now though Gentiles might come into the mountain of the house, which was all the outmost circumambient space within the wall, which encompassed the whole area, yet they might not come into any of these courts, no, nor even into what they call the “Chel”; for they say, that the Chel is more holy than the mountain of the house, because no Gentile, or one defiled with the dead, enters there (z); now the Chel was an enclosure before these courts, and at the entrance into it pillars were erected, and upon them were inscriptions in Greek and Latin, signifying that no strangers should enter into the holy place (a).

(x) Misn. Celim, c. 1. sect. 8. (y) Misn. Middot, c. 2. sect. 5. (z) Misn. Celim, ib. (a) Joseph. Antiqu. l. 15. c. 14. sect. 5.

A.T. Robertson
Act 21:29
For (gar). Luke adds the reason for the wild charges made against Paul.

They had before seen (ēsan proeōrakotes). Periphrastic past perfect of prooraō, old verb to see before, whether time or place. Only twice in the N.T., here and Act_2:25 quoted from Psa_16:8. Note the double reduplication in ̇eō̇ as in Attic (Robertson, Grammar, p. 364).

With him in the city Trophimus the Ephesian (Trophimon ton Ephesion en tēi polei sun autōi). The Jews from Asia (Ephesus) knew Trophimus by sight as well as Paul. One day they saw both of them together (sun) in the city. That was a fact. They had just seized Paul in the temple (hieron). That was another fact.

They supposed (enomizon). Imperfect active of nomizō, common to think or suppose. Perfectly harmless word, but they did, as so many people do, put their supposed inference on the same basis with the facts. They did not see Trophimus with Paul now in the temple, nor had they ever seen him there. They simply argued that, if Paul was willing to be seen down street with a Greek Christian, he would not hesitate to bring him (therefore, did bring him, eisēgagen as in Act_21:28 ) into the temple, that is into the court of Israel and therefore both Paul and Trophimus were entitled to death, especially Paul who had brought him in (if he had) and, besides, they now had Paul. This is the way of the mob-mind in all ages. Many an innocent man has been rushed to his death by the fury of a lynching party.

John Gill
Act 21:29 For they had seen before with him in the city,…. Not of Ephesus, but of Jerusalem:

Trophimus an Ephesian; the same that is mentioned in Act_20:4 whom these Jews of Asia, and who very probably were inhabitants of Ephesus, knew very well to be a Gentile:

whom they supposed Paul had brought into the temple; for seeing him walk with the apostle very familiarly through the streets of Jerusalem, they concluded from thence, that he took him with him into the temple, which was a very rash and ill grounded conclusion; and which shows the malignity and virulence of their minds, and how ready they were to make use of any opportunity, and take up any occasion against him, even a bare surmise, and which had no show of probability in it; for it can never be thought, that while Paul was using methods to remove the prejudices of the Jews against him, he should take such a step as this, to introduce a Gentile into the holy place, which he knew was unlawful, and would greatly irritate and provoke them.

A.T. Robertson
Act 21:30
All the city was shaken (ekinēthē hē polis holē). First aorist passive of kineō, common verb for violent motion and emotion. See note on Act_24:5 where the word is used by Tertullus of Paul as the stirrer up of riots!

The people ran together (egeneto sundromē tou laou). Rather, There came a running together (suṅdromē from suṅtrechō) of the people. The cry spread like wildfire over the city and there was a pell-mello4 scramble or rush to get to the place of the disturbance.

They laid hold on Paul (epilabomenoi tou Paulou). Second aorist middle participle of epilambanomai with the genitive (cf. epebalan in Act_21:27).

Dragged (heilkon). Imperfect active of helkō (and also helkuō), old verb to drag or draw. Imperfect tense vividly pictures the act as going on. They were saving the temple by dragging Paul outside. Curiously enough both epilabomenoi and heilkusan occur in Act_16:19 about the arrest of Paul and Silas in Philippi.

Straightway the doors were shut (eutheōs ekleisthēsan hai thurai). With a bang and at once. First aorist (effective) passive of kleiō. The doors between the inner court and the court of the Gentiles. But this was only the beginning, the preparation for the real work of the mob. They did not wish to defile the holy place with blood. The doors were shut by the Levites.

John Gill
Act 21:30 And all the city was moved, and the people ran together,…. The outcry in the temple reached the ears of some that were without, and these alarmed others; so that the report of a disturbance in the temple soon went through the whole city; and brought people out of their houses, who ran together in great numbers, to see what was the matter:

and they took Paul and drew him out of the temple; as unworthy to be in that holy place; and that it might not be defiled with his blood; for their intention was nothing less than to take away his life:

and forthwith the doors were shut; not of themselves, as if there was something miraculous in it, as some have thought, but by the door keepers, the Levites; and which might be done, partly to prevent Paul’s returning into it for refuge at the horns of the altar, and partly to keep out the Gentiles from coming in, they were alarmed with.

Adam Clarke
Act 21:31
The chief captain of the band – The Roman tribune, who had a troop of soldiers under him, which lodged in general in the castle of Antonia, which was built at the angle where the northern and western porticoes of the outer court of the temple were joined together. This castle was built by John Hyrcanus, high priest of the Jews: it was at first called Baris, and was the royal residence of the Asmoneans, as long as they reigned in Jerusalem. It was beautified by Herod the Great, and called Antonia, in honor of his friend Mark Antony. By this castle the temple was commanded, as it stood on higher ground. Josephus describes this castle, War, b. v. chap. 5, sec. 8, “as having four towers, from one of which the whole temple was overlooked; and that one of the towers was joined to the porticoes of the temple, and had a double pair of stairs from it, by which soldiers in the garrison were used to come down with their arms to the porticoes, on the festival days, to keep the people quiet; for, as the temple was a guard to the city, so this castle was a guard to the temple.” “It seems, therefore,” says Bp. Pearce, “to me very plain, that the place where the Jews were about to kill Paul was the court of the Gentiles, the porticoes being there; and that the chief captain came down there to his rescue.” The name of this chief captain, or tribune, was Claudius Lysias, as we learn from Act_23:26.

Albert Barnes
Act 21:31
And as they went about to kill him – Greek: they seeking to kill him. This was evidently done in a popular tumult, as had been done in the case of Stephen, Acts 7: They could not pretend that they had a right to do it by law.

Tidings came – The news, or rumour came; he was told of it.

The chief captain of the band – This band or body of Roman soldiers was stationed in the castle Antonia, on the north of the temple. This was built by John Hyrcanus, high priest of the Jews, and was by him called Baris. It was beautified and strengthened by Herod the Great, and was called Antonia in honor of his friend, Mark Antony. Josephus describes this castle as consisting of four towers, one of which overlooked the temple, and which he says was 70 cubits high (Jewish Wars, book 5, chapter 5, section 8). In this castle a guard of Roman soldiers was stationed to secure the temple and to maintain the peace. The commander of this cohort is here called “the chief captain.” Reference is made to this guard several times in the New Testament, Mat_27:65-66; Joh_18:12; Act_5:26. The word translated “chief captain” denotes properly “one who commanded 1,000 men.” The band σπεῖρα speira was the tenth part of a legion, and consisted sometimes of four hundred and twenty-five soldiers, at others of five hundred, and at others of six hundred, according to the size of the legion. The name of this captain was Claudius Lysias, Act_23:26.

In an uproar – That the whole city was in commotion.

A.T. Robertson
Act 21:32
Forthwith (exautēs). Common in the Koiné[28928]š (exō autēs, supply hōras, hour).

He took (paralabōn). See Act_21:24, Act_21:26.

Centurions (hekatontarchas). See note on Luk_7:2 for discussion. Plural shows that Lysias the chiliarch took several hundred soldiers along (a centurion with each hundred).

Ran down (katedramen). Effective second aorist active indicative of katatrechō. From the tower of Antonia, vivid scene.

And they (hoi de). Demonstrative use of hoi. The Jewish mob who had begun the work of killing Paul (Act_21:31).

Left off beating Paul (epausanto tuptontes ton Paulon). The participle with pauomai describes what they were already doing, the supplementary participle (Robertson, Grammar, p. 1121). They stopped before the job was over because of the sudden onset of the Roman soldiers. Some ten years before in a riot at the passover the Roman guard marched down and in the panic several hundred were trampled to death.

John Gill
Act 21:32 Who immediately took soldiers and centurions,…. A very large number of soldiers, for they are called an army, in Act_23:27 with a sufficient number of officers called centurions, who were each of them over an hundred men, to command them, and put them in order:

and ran down unto them: from the tower to the temple, the outer part of it; perhaps the mountain of the house, where they had dragged Paul, and were beating him; hither the captain, with his officers and soldiers, came in great haste; all which shows his vigilance, prudence, and quick dispatch; and in which there was a remarkable appearance of divine providence in favour of the apostle, who otherwise in all likelihood would have quickly lost his life:

and when they saw the chief captain and the soldiers; coming down upon them in great haste, with sword in hand:

they left beating of Paul; this beating was what the Jews call מכות מרדית, “the rebels’ beating”; or beating, on account of rebellion and obstinacy; and differed from whipping or scourging, which was done by the order of the sanhedrim, and in measure with forty stripes save one; but this beating was without any order from a court of judicature, and was without measure and mercy: this was inflicted upon various offenders, particularly on such who received not admonitions given them, or transgressed by doing what was forbidden by the words of the wise men (c); or if any defiled person entered into the court of the women; and such the people would fall upon at once, and beat them unmercifully with their fists, or with clubs and staves, and which often issued in death; so, for instance, when a priest ministered in his uncleanness, his brethren the priests did not bring him to the sanhedrim, but the young priests brought him without the court, and dashed his brains out with clubs (d).

(c) Maimon. Hilchot Sanhedrin, c, 18. sect. 5. (d) Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 9. sect. 6.

John Gill
Act 21:33 Then the chief captain came near,…. To the place where the Jews were beating Paul:

and took him the Arabic version adds, “from them”; he rescued him out of their hands, as he himself says, Act_23:27.

And commanded him to be bound with two chains: partly to appease the people, and partly to secure Paul; who, he supposed, had been guilty of some misdemeanour, which had occasioned this tumult; these two chains were put, one on one arm, and the other on the other arm; and were fastened to two soldiers, who walked by him, having hold on those chains, the one on his right hand, and the other on his left; and thus Agabus’s prophecy in Act_21:11 was fulfilled:

and demanded who he was; or asked and inquired about him, who he was, of what nation he was, what was his character, business, and employment: this inquiry was made, either of the apostle himself, or of the people; and so the Arabic version renders it, “he inquired of them who he was”; also

and what he had done; what crime he had been guilty of, that they used him in such a manner.

John Gill
Act 21:34 And some cried one thing, and some another, among the multitude,…. For though they agreed to beat him, and even to kill him, yet some of them knew not for what; being led by a blind zeal for Moses, the law and temple, or rather by fury and madness:

and when he could not know the certainty for the tumult; could not come at the truth of the matter, or any certain knowledge of it, not anything that could be depended upon, because of the noise of the people, and the different notes they were in:

he commanded him to be carried into the castle; of Antonio, formerly called Baris, of which Josephus (e) gives this account;

“on the north side (of the wall) was built a four square tower, well fortified and strong; this the kings and priests of the Asmonaean race, who were before Herod, built, and called it Baris; that there the priestly robe might be laid up by them, which the high priest only wore, when he was concerned in divine service:”

this tower King Herod made more strong, for the security and preservation of the temple; and called it Antonia, for the sake of Antony his friend, and the general of the Romans: the description of it, as given by Dr. Lightfoot (f), which is collected by him out of Josephus and other writers, is this;

“upon the north side, and joining up to the western angle (but on the outside of the wall), stood the tower of Antonia, once the place where the high priests used to lay up their holy garments; but in after times a garrison of Roman soldiers, for the a wing of the temple: when it served for the former use, it was called Baris (it may be from בר, “ad extra”, because it was an outer building), but when for the latter, it bare the name of Antonia; Herod the great having sumptuously repaired and called it after the name of the Roman prince Antony: it stood upon the north west point of Moriah, and was a very strong and a very large pile; so spacious a building with all its appurtenances, that it took up to two furlongs’ compass; the rock it stood upon was fifty cubits high, and steep, and the building itself was forty cubits above it; it was four square, encompassed with a wall of three cubits high, which enclosed its courts, and had a turret at every corner, like the white tower at London; but that it was more spacious, and that the turrets were not all of an height; for those at the north east and north west corners were fifty cubits high, but those on the south east and south west were seventy cubits high, that they might fully overlook the temple: it had cloisters or walks about it, and baths and lodgings, and large rooms in it; so that it was at once like a castle, and like a palace. There was a passage out of it, into the north and west cloisters of the mountain of the house, and by that the Roman garrison soldiers went down at every festival of the Jews, to take care against tumults and seditions, in those great concourses of the people.”

And it was by this passage that the chief captain, with the centurions and soldiers, came down so quickly and suddenly upon the Jews, while they were beating Paul in the temple; and this castle being on such an eminence as described, hence he with the soldiers is said to run down, Act_21:32 And it was in this way that the apostle was led up to the castle.

(e) Antiqu. l. 15. c. 11. sect. 4. Vid. ib. l. 18. c. 5. sect. 3. & de Bello Jud. l. 1. c. 3. sect. 3. c. 5. sect. 4. & c. 21. sect. 1. (f) The Temple described, c. 7. p. 1060.

John Gill
Act 21:35 And when he came upon the stairs,…. Or steps, which led up to the castle; for it was built upon a very high place, as appears from the account of it in the preceding verse; to which agrees what Aristaeas (g) says of it in the following words;

“in order to have knowledge of all things, we went up to a castle adjoining to the city, which is situated in a very high place, fortified with very high towers, built with large stones, as we supposed for the preservation of the places about the temple, if there should be any lying in wait, or tumult, or enemies should enter; so that none might be able to make way in at the walls about the temple; for in the towers of the castle lay very sharp darts and various instruments, and the place was upon a very great eminence.”

So it was that he was borne of the soldiers for the violence of the people: the sense is, either that the crowd of the people was so great, and they so pressed upon Paul and the soldiers that conducted him, that he was even thrown upon them, and bore up by them; or else such was the rage of the people against him, that the soldiers were obliged to take him up in their arms, and carry him, in order to secure him from being tore in pieces by them.

(g) Hist. de 70 Interpret. p. 36. Ed. Oxon.

Albert Barnes
Act 21:35
Upon the stairs – The stairs which led from the temple to the castle of Antonia. Josephus says (Jewish Wars, book 5, chapter 5, section 8), that the castle of Antonia “was situated at the corner of two cloisters of the temple, of that on the west, and of that on the north; it was erected on a rock of 50 cubits (75 feet) in height, and was on a great precipice. On the corner where it joined to the two cloisters of the temple, it had passages down to them both, through which the guards went several ways among the cloisters with their arms, on the Jewish festivals, etc.” It was on these stairs, as the soldiers were returning, that the tumult was so great, or the crowd so dense, that they were obliged to hear Paul along to rescue him from their violence.

The violence of the people – The rush of the multitude.

A.T. Robertson
Act 21:36
Followed after (ēkolouthei). Imperfect active of akolutheō, was following. Cheated of their purpose to lynch Paul, they were determined to have his blood.

Crying out (krazontes). Construction according to sense, plural masculine participle agreeing with neuter singular substantive plēthos (Robertson, Grammar, p. 401).

Away with him (Aire auton). The very words used by the mob to Pilate when they chose Barabbas in preference to Jesus (Luk_23:18, Aire touton). He will hear it again from this same crowd (Act_22:22). It is the present imperative (aire) as in Luk_23:18, but some may have used the urgent aorist active imperative as also in the case of Jesus Joh_19:15, āron, āron with staurōson added). Luke does not say that this mob demanded crucifixion for Paul. He was learning what it was to share the sufferings of Christ as the sullen roar of the mob’s yells rolled on and on in his ears.

John Gill
Act 21:37 And as Paul was to be led into the castle,…. Just as he was got up to the top of the steps, or stairs, that led up to the castle, and was about to go into the door of it:

he said unto the chief captain, may I speak unto thee? the apostle was one that had had a good education, and was a man of address, and this his modest and respectful way of speaking to the chief captain shows; and the question he put to him, was in the Greek language: hence it follows,

who said to him, canst thou speak Greek? or “dost thou know the Hellenistic language?” which the Jews who were born and lived in Greece spoke; hence such were called Hellenists; see Act_6:1 of this language we read in the Talmud (h);

“R. Levi bar Chajethah went to Caesarea, and heard them reading “Shema”, (hear O Israel), &c. Deu_6:4 Nytoynwla in the Hellenistic language; he sought to hinder them; R. Rose heard of it, and was angry; and said, he that knows not to read in the Hebrew language, must he not read at all? yea, he may read in whatsoever language he understands.”

The nearest to this language spoken by the Jews dispersed in Greece, must be the Greek language, in which Jews have written; as the books of the Old Testament translated by the “seventy” interpreters, who were Jews; and indeed it was this Bible which the Jews called Hellenists made use of; and the writings of Josephus, and Philo the Jew of Alexandria, and even the books of the New Testament, which are written by Jews; and Paul being a Jew of Tarsus, and so an Hellenist, could speak this language; as he did, when he disputed against the Hellenists, in Act_9:29. This the chief captain said, either as wondering to hear him speak Greek, when he thought he had been a Jerusalem Jew, or rather an Egyptian, as in the next verse; or it may be he put this question to him, as choosing rather that he should speak in Greek, it being the language he might best understand himself, and was the least known to the people, who he might not care should hear what he had to say; since if he took him for the Egyptian, the Greek tongue was what was chiefly spoken by such.

(h) T. Hieros. Sota, fol. 21. 2.

Adam Clarke
Act 21:37
Canst thou speak Greek? – Claudius Lysias was not a Roman; he had, as himself informs us, purchased his citizenship of Rome with a great sum of money; (see Act_22:28); and it is very likely that he was but imperfectly acquainted with the Latin tongue; and the tumult that was now made, and the discordant noise, prevented him from clearly apprehending what was said; and, as he wished to know the merit of the cause, he accosted Paul with, ἙλληνιϚι γινωσκεις, Dost thou understand Greek? And when he found that he did understand it, he proceeded to question him as below.

John Gill
Act 21:38 Art thou not that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar,…. Josephus speaks (i) of one that came out of Egypt to Jerusalem, and gave out that he was a prophet, and deceived the people, whom he persuaded to follow him to the Mount of Olives, where they should see the walls of the city fall at his command, and so through the ruins of it they might enter into the city; but Felix the Roman governor fell upon them, killed four hundred, and took two hundred prisoners, and the Egyptian fled: the account which he elsewhere (k) gives of him, and Eusebius (l) from him, is this; a certain Egyptian false prophet did much more mischief to the Jews; for he being a magician, and having got himself to be believed as a prophet, came into the country (of Judea), and gathered together about thirty thousand persons, whom he had deceived: these he brought out of the wilderness to the Mount of Olives, from thence designing to take Jerusalem by force, and seize the Roman garrison, and take the government of the people but Felix prevented his design, meeting him with the Roman soldiers, assisted by all the people; so that when they engaged, the Egyptian fled with a few, and most of those that were with him were destroyed or taken: now it was some little time before this, that this affair happened; and by these accounts of Josephus, though the Egyptian was discomfited, yet he was not taken; he had made his escape, so that he might be yet in being; and therefore the captain could not tell but Paul might be he, who had privately got into the city, and was upon some bad designs:

and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers? Josephus says, that he brought them out of the wilderness, or led them through it to the Mount of Olives, from thence to rush into Jerusalem, when the walls should fall down at his command; but he says, the number of men that he led out were about thirty thousand; it may be at first there were no more than four thousand, but afterwards were joined by others, and increased to thirty thousand; or among these thirty thousand, he had four thousand “murderers, or sicarii”: so called from the little swords which they carried under their clothes, and with them killed men in the daytime, in the middle of the city, especially at the feasts, when they mingled themselves with the people (m).

(i) Antiqu. l. 20. c. 7. sect. 6. (k) De Bello Jud. l. 2. c. 13. sect. 5. (l) Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. 21. (m) Joseph. de Bello Jud. l. 2. c. 13. sect. 3.

Albert Barnes
Act 21:38
Art not thou that Egyptian? – That Egyptian was probably a Jew who resided in Egypt. Josephus has given an account of this Egyptian which strikingly accords with the statement here recorded by Luke. See Josephus, Antiq., book 20, chapter 8, section 6, and Jewish Wars, book 2, chapter 13, section 5. The account which he gives is, that this Egyptian, whose name he does not mention, came from Egypt to Jerusalem, and said that he was a prophet, and advised the multitude of the common people to go with him to the Mount of Olives. He said further that he would show them from thence how the walls of Jerusalem would fall down: and he promised them that he would procure for them an entrance through those walls when they were fallen down. Josephus adds (Jewish Wars) that he got together 30,000 men that were deluded by him; “these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives, and was ready to break into Jerusalem by force from that place. But Felix, who was apprised of his movements, marched against him with the Roman soldiers, and defeated him, and killed 400 of them, and took 200 alive. But the Egyptian escaped himself out of the fight, but did not appear anymore.” It was natural that the Roman tribune should suppose that Paul was this Egyptian, and that his return had produped this commotion and excitement among the people.

Madest an uproar – Producing a sedition, or a rising among the people. Greek: “That Egyptian, who before these days having risen up.”

Into the wilderness – This corresponds remarkably with the account of Josephus. He indeed mentions that he led his followers to the Mount of Olives, but he expressly says that “he led them round about from the wilderness.” This wilderness was the wild and uncultivated mountainous tract of country lying to the east of Jerusalem, and between it and the river Jordan. See the notes on Mat_3:1. It is also another striking coincidence showing the truth of the narrative, that neither Josephus nor Luke mention the name of this Egyptian, though he was so prominent and acted so distinguished a part.

Four thousand men – There is here a remarkable discrepancy between the chief captain and Josephus. The latter says that there were 30,000 men. In regard to this, the following remarks may be made:
(1) This cannot be alleged to convict Luke of a false statement, for his record is, that the chief captain made the statement, and it cannot be proved that Luke has put into his mouth words which he did not utter. All that he is responsible for is a correct report of what the Roman tribune said, not the truth or falsehood of his statement. It is certainly possible that that might have been the common estimate of the number then, and that the account given by Josephus might have been made from more correct information. Or it is possible, certainly, that the statement by Josephus is incorrect.
(2) If Luke were to be held responsible for the statement of the number, yet it remains to be shown that he is not as credible a historian as Josephus. Why should Josephus be esteemed infallible, and Luke false? Why should the accuracy of Luke be tested by Josephus, rather than the accuracy of Josephus by Luke? Infidels usually assume that profane historians are infallible, and then endeavor to convict the sacred writers of falsehood.
(3) The narrative of Luke is the more probable of the two. It is more probable that the number was only 4,000 than that it was 30,000 thousand; for Josephus says that 400 were killed and 200 were taken prisoners, and that thus they were dispersed. Now, it is scarcely credible that an army of 30,000 desperadoes and cut-throats would be dispersed by so small a slaughter and captivity. But if the number was originally only 4,000, it is entirely credible that the loss of 600 would discourage and dissipate the remainder.
(4) It is possible that the chief captain refers only to the organized Sicarii, or murderers that the Egyptian led with him, and Josephus to the multitude that afterward joined them the rabble of the discontented and disorderly that followed them on their march. Or,
(5) There may have been an error in transcribing Josephus. It has been supposed that he originally wrote four thousand, but that ancient copyists, mistaking the (Δ D) delta, four, for (Λ L) lambda, thirty, wrote 30,000 instead of 4,000. Which of these solutions is adopted is not material.

That were murderers – Greek: men of the Sicarii – τῶν σικαρίων tōn sikariōn. This is originally a Latin word, and is derived from sica, a short sword, sabre, or crooked knife, which could be easily concealed under the garment. Hence, it came to denote “assassins,” and to be applied to “banditti, or robbers.” It does not mean that they had actually committed murder, but that they were desperadoes and banditti, and were drawn together for purposes of plunder and of blood. This class of people was exceedingly numerous in Judea. See the notes on Luk_10:30.

John Gill
Act 21:39 But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus,…. And not that Egyptian; he was not of that country, much less that man; but a Jew, both by birth and religion; he was born of Jewish parents, and brought up in the Jewish religion; though his native place was Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, where it is placed by Pliny (n), Ptolomy (o), and Mela (p); and is by some thought to be the same with the Tarshish of the Old Testament:

a citizen of no mean city; Pliny (q) calls it a free city, and Solinus (r) says it is the mother, or chief of cities, and Curtius (s) speaks of it as a very opulent one; which when Alexander drew near to with his army, the inhabitants of it set fire to, that he might not possess their riches; which he understanding, sent Parmenio to prevent it: through this city, as the same historian, in agreement with Pliny and others, observes, ran the river Cydnus; and it being summer time when Alexander was here, and very hot weather, and being covered with dust and sweat, he put off his clothes, and cast himself into the river to wash himself; but as soon as he was in, he was seized with such a numbness of his nerves, that had he not been immediately taken out by his soldiers, and for the extraordinary care of his physician, he had at once expired. Josephus (t) calls this city the most famous of the cities in Gallicia; and derives it, and the whole country, from Tarshish, the grandson of Japheth, Gen_10:4 his words are,

“Tharsus gave name to the Tharsians, for so Cilicia was formerly called, of which this is an evidence; for the most famous of the cities with them, and which is the metropolis, is called Tarsus; Theta being changed into Tau for appellation sake.”

Though some say it was built by Perseus, the son of Jupiter and Danae, and called Tharsus, of the hyacinth stone, which is said to be found about it: others think it was so called, παρα το τερσανθηναι, because the places of this country were first dried up after the flood: it was not only a city of stately buildings, as it was repaired by Sardanapalus, and increased after the times of Alexander; but there was a famous academy in it, which, for men of learning, exceeded Athens and Alexandria (u); though these exceeded that in number of philosophers: here it is thought lived Aratus the poet, from whom the apostle cites a passage, in Act_17:28 and of this place was the famous Chrysippus, who is called ταρσευς, “a Tarsian” (w), as the apostle is here. Hermogenes, a very celebrated rhetorician, some of whose works are still extant, came from hence (x). Jerom (y) reports it as a tradition, that the parents of the Apostle Paul were of Giscalis, a town in Judea; which with the whole province being destroyed by the Romans, they removed to Tarsus, a city of Cilicia, whither Paul when a young man followed them; but certain it is, that the apostle was born there, as he himself says, in Act_22:3. Ignatius, in (z) the “second” century, writing to the church at Tarsus, calls them citizens and disciples of Paul; citizens, because he was of this city; and disciples, because of the same faith with him; and very likely the first materials of the church in this place were converts of his; since it is evident that he went hither after he was a preacher; see Act_9:30.

And I beseech thee suffer me to speak unto the people; first he desired to speak with the captain, and that was in order to obtain leave to speak to the people; and which he asks in a very handsome and submissive manner, and hopes to have his request granted him, since he was not the person he took him for, but was a Jew by birth, and a citizen of a very considerable Roman city; and was not a mean, sordid, vagabond creature, nor need he fear that he would sow any discord and sedition among the people.

(n) Nat. Hist. l. 5. c. 27. (o) Geograph. l. 5. c. 8. (p) De orbis situ, l. 1. c. 13. (q) Ib. ut supra. (Nat. Hist. l. 5. c. 27.) (r) Polyhist. c. 51. (s) Hist. l. 3. c. 4. (t) Antiqu. l. 1. c. 6. sect. 1. (u) Strabo, Geograph. l. 14. (w) Laert. Vit. Philosoph. l. 7. (x) Vid. Fabricii Bibl. Graec. l. 4. c. 31. sect. 4. 5. (y) Catalog. Script. Eccles. sect. 15. fol. 90. G. & Comment. in Philemon. ver. 23. Tom. 9. fol. 116. L. (z) Ep. ad Tarsenses, p. 75.

A.T. Robertson
Act 21:40
When he had given him leave (epitrepsantos autou). Genitive absolute of aorist active participle of the same verb epitrepō.

Standing on the stairs (hestōs epi tōn anabathmōn). Second perfect active participle of histēmi, to place, but intransitive to stand. Dramatic scene. Paul had faced many audiences and crowds, but never one quite like this. Most men would have feared to speak, but not so Paul. He will speak about himself only as it gives him a chance to put Christ before this angry Jewish mob who look on Paul as a renegade Jew, a turncoat, a deserter, who went back on Gamaliel and all the traditions of his people, who not only turned from Judaism to Christianity, but who went after Gentiles and treated Gentiles as if they were on a par with Jews. Paul knows only too well what this mob thinks of him.

Beckoned with the hand (kateseise tēi cheiri). He shook down to the multitude with the hand (instrumental case cheiri), while Alexander, Luke says (Act_19:33), “shook down the hand” (accusative with the same verb, which see). In Act_26:1 Paul reached out the hand (ekteinas tēn cheira).

When there was made a great silence (pollēs sigēs genomenēs). Genitive absolute again with second aorist middle participle of ginomai, “much silence having come.” Paul waited till silence had come.

In the Hebrew language (tēi Ebraidi dialektōi). The Aramaean which the people in Jerusalem knew better than the Greek. Paul could use either tongue at will. His enemies had said in Corinth that “his bodily presence was weak and his speech contemptible” (2Co_10:10). But surely even they would have to admit that Paul’s stature and words reach heroic proportions on this occasion. Self-possessed with majestic poise Paul faces the outraged mob beneath the stairs.

Adam Clarke
Act 21:40
Paul stood on the stairs – Where he was out of the reach of the mob, and was surrounded by the Roman soldiers.

Beckoned with the hand – Waving the hand, which was the sign that he was about to address the people. So Virgil says of Turnus, when he wished, by single combat between himself and Aeneas, to put an end to the war: -He beckoned with his hand, and cried out with a loud voice,Desist, ye Rutulians; and, ye Latins, cease from throwing your javelins.

He spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue – What was called then the Hebrew, viz. the Chaldaeo-Syriac; very well expressed by the Codex Bezae, τῃ ιδιᾳ διαλεκτῳ, in their own dialect.
Never was there a more unnatural division than that in this chapter: it ends with a single comma! The best division would have been at the end of the 25th verse.