The Book of Acts 21:1-40 Paul at Tyre & Caesarea
Acts 21 · Bob Eckel · Oct 19, 2014
Acts (2014), No. 41
Holly Hills Bible Church
https://hollyhillsbiblechurch.org/teaching/messages/4926443476785

Transcribed from the recording by SermonAudio, so expect the occasional misheard word.

Roger has assigned big sections of scripture again, so this week we're not going to read the entire section, but we are going to read the first six verses, actually the first seven verses. And I'm not sure that I didn't... I played around with whether a cut point should be six or seven, and I made it seven finally. And I guess it was the other hand I was looking at. I thought I stopped at seven.

So anyway, let's revisit this travel. So the title of today's lesson is Paul at Tyre and Caesarea. And ultimately, the first section is going to be the first seven verses. We're going to read those because I think it sets the stage for what follows. And I've entitled this The Trip to Tyre or Ptolemaeus plus Warning. And you're going to see plus warning as part of the second section, too. And we'll define that as we go forward. look at the first seven verses to kind of set the stage, then we're not going to read verse by verse to follow that.

Now remember, you remember what was going on last week, don't you? How did we end last week? Yeah, I mean, he was getting ready to get out of there. Things weren't very pleasant in Ephesus, right? So he's on his way out. And it said, now it came to pass that when we had departed from them and set sail. Remember, he's departing from an unfriendly crowd.

When he had departed from them and set sail, running a straight course, we came to Kos, the following day to Rhodes, and from there to Patara. And finding a ship sailing over to Phoenicia, we went aboard and set sail. And when we'd sighted Cyprus, we passed it on the left and sailed to Syria and landed at Tyre, for there the ship was to unload her cargo.

And finding disciples, we stayed there seven days. And they told Paul through the Spirit not to go to Jerusalem. And when we'd come to the end of those days, we departed and went on our way. And they all accompanied us with wives and children till we were out of the city. And we knelt down on the shore and prayed.

And when we had taken our leave of one another, we boarded the ship. and they returned home. And when we had finished our voyage from Tyre, we came to Ptolemaeus, greeted the brethren, and stayed with them one day." So that is the travel from Ephesus down to Tyre, Ptolemaeus, and ultimately to Caesarea. So Tyre was an ancient Phoenicia. And then that was part of the Roman Empire in Syria. By the way, Syria is kind of still in the same place, although Tyre would not be included today in Syria, but in northern Israel.

And when we had departed from them, and here's the route above. So I don't know if you can see that, but look at your map. So here's Ephesus up here. And now we're going to go through a series of jumping from island to island. And then here's Cyprus here on the left, and he just notes that he sails by Cyprus. It's on the left. It's interesting that... Remember Luke, and I think Verne's brought this out in the study of the gospel. Luke's a guy of detail, right? He's giving you all these details. Who cares what islands he went by, but we're hearing them, yelling. Were you going to say something? No, I shouldn't have said port, shouldn't he? Yeah, he's not on a lake anymore. He doesn't have to be on the port side. Well, maybe because he's a doctor and not a sailor. Ah, that's it. He doesn't sail on the port side.

So anyway, there's the route. I think the map we keep putting up from week to week. But it's important, I think, to orient this whole travel of Paul geographically. All right, so departed. Actually, in the Greek, this means torn. I mean, in part, but he's kind of torn away. I mean, it's kind of like this could be under some strife and some stress that he's leaving the environment that he was facing there, which is not a friendly one. I kind of call this the great escape. He's got to move out of town here pretty quickly to avoid all the pressures that he's under.

Now, notice we, and remember who's writing the Book of Acts. So we, as Luke stills on board. and he's with Paul et al, meaning others, and they sailed. The ship was to unload its cargo at Tyre, and I questioned, were they stowaways? All this sea travel that Paul was doing, is he always on cargo ships? Well, this was, and Constable says that sea journeys in the ancient world depended on finding shipping available and accepting delays arising from loading and unloading. So presumably there was some sort of a relationship that existed between Paul and the captain of the ship that let them board and sail. I mean, mostly ships were there to transport cargo. So that's the concept that Constable gives us in terms of how these guys would have got on that ship.

This wasn't a ship they arranged and bought a ticket for, right? They probably had to pay. Containers. Helped load the containers. Maybe did other tasks on ship. I don't think they had containers. I know that. Not those. We're talking about the M4I and other things. The cranes and the knots. We didn't have those in the Marines. I don't think they had those. Let's try to put this into an ancient perspective.

Constable is getting the idea that cargo ships were apparently utilized. Remember when we were going to go to Norway? One of the cruise lines, that's what it did. It was a cargo ship and it was interesting. They said even because in some of those remote areas, The only ships that go to those areas are ships that carry cargo. And yes, there are passengers. But all of those ships carry cargo. Because those are the ships that go up into those remote areas.

I think of it when we consider going to the furthest northern tip of Norway, which is really up by the Arctic Circle. That was a cargo ship. Apparently, when you dock at night, they unload. So you're not really kind of wasting time unloading. You're sleeping when they're unloading. Yeah, I think you're right. Right. Yeah, so it still happens.

So Paul's advised here not to go to Jerusalem through the spirit by the disciples he found at Tyre. So that's directly quoted from the scripture I just read. So my question to the class, who's being led through the spirit? The disciples or Paul? Well, it says by the disciples. Yeah, so maybe the disciples, the Holy Spirit. This is verse four. Maybe the Holy Spirit worked through the disciples where they said, don't go to Jerusalem. Okay. Word for word from the Greek, it says, finding in the disciples, we remained there days seven, who Paul told through the spirit not to go up. Okay. Yeah.

So is Paul being told by the Spirit through the disciples, or is the Spirit moving the disciples through Paul? No, Paul is the receiver of the action, so it's the other people who are teaching. So who's the spirit leading? Paul based on their advice or the spirit is leading the disciples to tell Paul not to go to Jerusalem?

I think through the spirit and resting on them. Yes, I think it's important. Paul says he's being led by the spirit to go, but here's God working through the disciples by the spirit to tell Paul not to go. So I think we're going to come back to this.

Should Paul have gone to Jerusalem? And I can tell you that Macaulay feels very, very strongly that Paul is out of the will of God here. I'm not sure I agree, and I'm going to point some evidence for that. He's out of the will of God. Paul thinks that's the human spirit that's taking him to Jerusalem, out of the will of God. You mean Macaulay. Macaulay thinks that. That's what Macaulay thinks. That's not what I necessarily think, and I think you need to consider this. He's warned multiple times not to do this.

And here the spirit working through the disciples is warning him. So the question is, is the spirit conflicting his position in terms of leading Paul versus leading the disciples to have a contradictory outcome? Think about this though, because that makes this lesson kind of interesting. Well, it does make it interesting because he doesn't have to be Mr. more current information in addition to what the Holy Spirit told them. What we're going to see in the second section today as we get into it, it's titled Plus Warning, again by some other group, actually James in particular. All right, good. I'm posing the question, so keep that in mind going forward.

What was the motive, and was this a contradiction to Acts 20-22, and if so, is this a battle between the Holy Spirit and the human spirit, so in a sense that expands the question I just addressed before. Paul going against the will of God, or was he led by the will, and in some way the spirit that's talking through these disciples is conflicting. We don't like to think that there's any question of what the word of God has to say, but I think it's an interesting thing to try to resolve. Who's going to ask 20, 22, just back one chapter, a single verse?

And now behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there. Okay, we're going to look later today about Paul's expectations of this could be even unto death. So he's expecting potentially the worst. But here, remember last week we touched on this.

Was Paul being led by the Holy Spirit? Or is this the human spirit? Remember pneuma is the Greek term that can reflect on either the Holy Spirit's leading or the human's. We all, we have the Spirit of God in all of us. Every human being has the Spirit of God, right?

I get the feeling that Paul is being weaned off such total dependence on this step-by-step movement of the Holy Spirit but just simply told hang on there this is where we're headed and don't try to question and he didn't give any details about why he was going to Jerusalem. The Holy Spirit only told him so much. Okay, remember Paul had a purpose to go to Jerusalem. What was that purpose, do you recall?

Deliver the money. Yeah, he's out of inflation in Asia, etc., getting income to take back to the Jerusalem Saints. So, there was a purpose there. We'll reflect on that too as we go forward. Alright, and then the question comes up again. It's a bit of redundancy, so I apologize for that. Was he being disobedient to God? I mean, again, keep that in mind because we've got more to reflect on this question in the rest of this section today.

So I have a series of verses and acts which tends to support that Paul is being led by the Holy Spirit. And you can look those up. I don't want to go through each one today because of time. But I'm providing some references here that indicate that Paul, at least from our ability to conclude from these verses, is being led by the Holy Spirit. And this is God's plan for his life. So then the question comes up, if the disciples are told by the Holy Spirit to advise him not to go to Jerusalem, One of our conclusions about that.

Well the situation could have changed. There could have been something when he started out. I mean this is not, this doesn't take a week what he's doing. No. I mean this takes. Well he's here seven days and then one day and the next. But I mean when he left, when he left, it's you know, it's. Ephesus. Ephesus, yeah. It's a while before he gets there. And so maybe it's the situation there changed.

We know the Spirit doesn't contradict, so we have to in some way resolve this issue. And again, it's just Macaulay's opinion that Paul was not Holy Spirit led to Jerusalem, but that was his own agenda, and that he shouldn't have gone. But I think, again, these verses, we again are not going to look at them, but just trust me, they tend to support Paul being led by the Holy Spirit, not his own will.

So after seven days we departed and went on our way and they all accompanied us with wives and children until we were out of the city and we all knelt down on the shore and prayed. Kind of an interesting scenario. So the wives and children were with them and they went out of the city, went down to the shore of the Mediterranean and prayed. So this is group prayer.

I think I was listening to J. Bernard McGee. In fact, he's in the book of Acts. I'm in the book of Acts with him now. I'm in Acts 5 or Acts 4. He was just pointing out how uniquely strong the early church was. And this, you know, congregational prayer, if you will, was incredibly important for the early church.

And not that we don't have that today, but also J. Bernard McGee on the other side of his mouth says, you know, he gets so bored and tired of these congregational prayers. You know, I mean, he just feels, and I must admit, I think, you know, we take it to the Lord day in and day out, 24-7, whenever we have the opportunity. And, you know, when we get together, we kind of, you know, as a group pray. I mean, that's not saying it's not effective, but I kind of think the early church really, that was a very important thing in the early church, to bond together and pray together as a group.

Well, they were really discriminated against. I mean, I think of the mainline church we go in, you have a prayer written in your bulletin, and you all repeat the prayer at the beginning. I mean, it's so sterile. I mean, we pray from the heart, we pray from the spirit. I think to read a prayer as a congregation is kind of... Yeah, but I don't think that's... No, but I don't think this is kind of part of it. No, no. When we were in Ephesus, though, remember the church, the early church was secret.

Remember all of the symbols that we saw pointing the way? When you landed at Ephesus, the Mediterranean has moved back. Ephesus is now like 20 miles away from the sea. Originally at this time it was a coastal city. The main drag or the main road of Ephesus, the street, went right to the water and so ships would land there and it's all cobblestone all the way from where the ocean was the Mediterranean all the way into the city and there were stones that are still there that have been excavated that show their church symbols that show with an arrow pointing so that people who landed there from what they say anyway would know that If they followed these symbols, they would find the early church, or members of the early church, or a home church, or something like that.

Because it was real pagan. It was real paganistic in Ephesus at the time. It was secret. The church was fairly secret. Well, Ephesus was part of the Greek Empire at the time the Romans were infiltrating it. It wasn't a friendly place. Remember what we read last week in Ephesus, Paul went through a great trial in Ephesus. So this was not a friendly term.

Anyway, so they knelt down on the shore and prayed. I guess prayer is the same today as it was then in terms of the communication of God by the power of the Holy Spirit. I just get the sense that this was really something that they did frequently and depended on. And probably there was a lot of unity in the group in terms of the taking of a prayer to the Lord.

All right, so the second section is verses 8 through 16. Jerusalem via Caesarea plus warning. OK, so this warning comes up again. In Caesarea, which, by the way, is the capital of the province of Judea, they entered the house of Philip, the evangelist. and we're told that Philip had four virgin daughters who prophesied.

So Philip is one of the seven deacons, and that's mentioned in this verse, I forget, is that verse 8? Yeah, he's one of the seven. If you go back to Acts chapter 6 verse 5, you see he's one of seven deacons. So this is twice that Philip is mentioned in the Book of Acts as being one of seven.

So what relevance is there in mentioning these four daughters, do you think? We're not told anything more about what they're prophesying about, but simply that they were a virgin. And presumably this meant untouched, not only young girls, but presumably lived at home and had no experiences sexually.

So Acts 2.17 and Joel 2.28 are effectively the same verses.

So let's turn there. Acts 2.17 is probably closer in your Bible, and if you remember where Joel is, it always takes a second. Let's see where's Joel, right? We can find Joel, I can tell, right? Whoever gets to Joel first wins. Joel 228. So these are effectively the same verse. So let's read those. Somebody read one of those two verses. They're effectively the same. Don't be bashful.

Acts 2.17 or Job 2.28. I got Joel. He's the winner.

And it came up there and it will come about after this that I will pour out my spirit on all mankind and your sons and daughters will prophesy. Your old men will dream dreams. Your young men will see visions. Does that timely relate to the prophecy that these gals are providing here this time, do you think?

Or is that more prophetic in terms of future? I think it's the future, personally. a case of partial fulfillment and final fulfillment because he was speaking to the Jews in Israel originally. And here we are in pagan land and it's a different scenario. Yeah, and Joel's more end times related, isn't it? It's not so much in the church age. It doesn't say here, mine says, and it shall come to pass in the last days.

Now that's Acts 2.17. You're right. And don't we say that the last days are the last days.

Keep in mind Acts 2.17, where does that fit historically in the church? Who's the early church? It's Jews. Right? The early church is all Jews. And then the Gentiles get reached ultimately. The early church is all Jews. So this is future prophetic. Let's look, by the way, women also prophesied in the Old Testament. So let's look at those couple of verses.

Judges 4.4 in 2 Kings 22. There's an idea that women don't prophesy, it's just not scriptural. In the Old Testament, we see it in Joel and in Judges and 2 Kings, and then we see it referred to again in Acts, and we're told not only did these four virgin daughters prophesy, we're not told about what they're prophesying, but in Acts 2, 17, actually the same verse that is utilized in the Old Testament is brought forward into the body of Christ, the new Jewish believers. So, who has judges for it? Does anybody have judges for it?

Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lepidoth, was judging Israel at that time. So Hilkiah, the priest, and Ankhim, and Agbor, oh my gosh. It continues. Agbor, Shaphan, and Assiah went unto Hulda, the prophetess, the wife of Shalom. Anyway, I think we've made the point that women can prophesy. We don't have a lot of details here. Luke's a guy of details, so he's not telling us what these four virgin daughters are prophesying about. But anyway, they're prophets. Then this prophet named Agabus from Judea comes on the scene. Agabus had previously come from Jerusalem to Antioch to foretell the famine of AD 46.

Let's document Agabus a little bit more. We study him in Acts 11. Let's turn to Acts 11 and read verses 26-28. much people, and the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. And in those days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch, and they stood up, one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world, which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar." Okay, good, Tom.

So that documents Agabus's early role. And so Agabus shows up, and apparently he's really probably an important part of the whole transition phase from the pre-church era to the church era. And Agabus, and here's directly from verse 11, he took Paul's belt, bound his own hands and feet, and said, thus says the Holy Spirit. Notice this now. So shall the Jews of Jerusalem bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of Gentiles.

Does that sound like something that's going to be a fun trip ahead for Paul? Well, he knows he's going to get an escape somehow, and the details are very hazy. Yeah, I would say this is an ominous statement. And it's a recollection of the past. And if you look at the verses in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, you get the idea that this belt around the loins, et cetera, being dropped is evidence of potential harm to come. That people in these various sections of the Old Testament are going through similar kinds of experiences with a prophecy of doom to follow.

And this also kind of reminds us regarding the prophecy about the Lord Jesus Christ. So all of these verses, let's just take a look at a couple. So, Wayne, could you look at John 21, 18? And Megan, could you look at Mark 9, 31? Remember, this is prophecy.

So Agabus is prophetic to Paul in terms of this belt around his loins that ultimately is going to be forsaken in terms of expected doom to follow. So the Lord Jesus Christ. Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself and walk wherever you wished. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will gird you and bring you where you do not wish to go. Okay, um, maybe, that was 2118? That was 2118. Okay. Let's try Mark 9 31.

For he was teaching his disciples and telling them, the Son of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him. And when he has been killed, he will rise three days later. Can you go to Mark 10, read verse 33 too? Sure. to the down verse, saying, Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and will hand him over to the Gentiles.

OK, so just the resemblance of kind of what Paul's expectations might be, not maybe unto death. He was really prepared to die according to his desire to get to Jerusalem. But the Lord Jesus kind of went through the same thing. So this prophecy close to the event was something that I think really reminds us of the Lord Jesus Christ.

So the John 21, 18 verse may be incorrect. I thought I looked at that this morning and it was correct, but that didn't sound exactly what I'd read this morning. So further advice is given by Luke and the others to Paul, and even with tears, not to go to Jerusalem. So verse 13. Now, when we heard these things, both we and those from that place pleaded with him not to go up to Jerusalem. Then Paul answered, what do you mean by weeping and breaking my heart? So, presumably, they are weeping. They are pleading with him not to go to Jerusalem. Paul responds. Here's his response.

What do you mean by weeping and breaking my heart? For I'm ready not only to be bound, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus. Sounds like a pretty convincing argument. Yeah, Tom? He was saying it so emphatically, I was thinking of the old phrase, turn off the waterworks. Right.

Okay, so doesn't this kind of give you some confidence that Paul knows what he's doing? I guess the human spirit can be so strong not to ultimately take advice from our brothers and sisters in the Lord who are there to advise us and guide us. Or to not listen to the Holy Spirit. Don't we do it all the time? Yeah, we do. This battle between the spirit and the flesh is an ongoing one, isn't it?

People say they've been led by the spirit. Well, we can't doubt that. That's their experience and that's their understanding of where they're going. I think again, I said this briefly in the prayer earlier, that the will of God is to be conformed to the image of his Son.

Sometimes we get direct guidance by the Spirit. Sometimes it's a little unclear whether we're being led by the Holy Spirit or a human spirit. By the way, being led by the human spirit is just being part of the earthly existence, isn't it? I don't think you have to confess that you have a human spirit. It's just that increasingly as we grow in grace and live by faith in the new creation we are in Christ Jesus, ultimately we see this played out more clearly as we take steps going forward.

So, Paul said they're breaking my heart. What's that all about? It was already indicated by the Holy Spirit that this is going to happen. He's going to Jerusalem. So why try to contradict it? Right, so would the fact that they're breaking his heart by advising him not to go to Jerusalem, would that be more evidence that it's his human spirit leading him than the Holy Spirit? That's kind of an unanswerable question, really. Again, we've been at this question several times already this morning, but keep that theme in mind. Scripture is 100% accurate as to what occurred, and we have evidence that both the human spirit and the Holy Spirit could be involved here.

Again, this is the second warning he's getting about going to Jerusalem. All right, let's continue. Accepting this as the will of the Lord even unto death, the trip to Jerusalem ensues, and Luke's still on board. And Luke's not going to be on board much longer. This is going to be near the end of Luke's involvement and relationship to Paul.

And Mason of Cyprus is with him. And from what I could read, Mason is a Hellenistic Jewish believer who was one of the earliest converts to Christianity. And the other thing about him is that's where they're going to be staying, in Caesarea. He's apparently got a place. It must be a big house. So the house of Mason of Cyprus. Of course, he's not at Cyprus anymore. That's where he's from. But he's in Caesarea. So not only was he an early believer, but he's also apparently well-to-do. He's got a place for him to stay.

And there's probably a group here. We don't have the number. There's Luke and others, the disciples that are traveling with him. So the last section I've entitled, this is verses 17 through 26, Paul, James, the vow, and the temple. That's kind of a crazy title, but it captures, I think, the players in this section and also the geography of what this relates to. So the day after Paul, Luke, and all arrived, they meet with James and the elders, and Paul shared with them his missionary journey. So that's kind of a scenario of this section. And you can imagine, here they're meeting with Paul, and look where Paul's been.

I mean, what a series of stories for him to tell. Wouldn't that be so uplifting to him in terms of the spread of the gospel across Asia, and then Europe, and now back into Asia again? Gosh. Wouldn't it be great if you in fact had a relative who did all this travel and came back and shared all the experiences that he or she had been on? So anyway, I'm sure they listened intently.

And who is this James? Which James is this? There's lots of Jameses in the New Testament. Well, this is the Lord's half-brother and a leader of the Jerusalem church. So whether James likely went from Jerusalem to meet him up in Caesarea was up there for other reasons. But anyway, this is the James from Jerusalem. This is the Lord Jesus Christ's half-brother.

And that's documented in Acts 12, 17, and in 15, 13. So we don't have to look at those verses, but that's just reference. So this is the same James who's been involved in the early church in Jerusalem. So we're talking about James now, because James is the one that's advising him. And what the scriptures say in this section is a quotation of what James is doing to advise Paul. He mentions nothing about the monetary gift that likely accompanied Paul. Let's revisit this, because I think it's important to document one of the reasons that Paul wants to go back to Jerusalem. So Romans 15, 25 through 27. and 1 Corinthians 16, 1-4 are sections that are very complementary.

In Romans 15.25 it says, But now I am going to Jerusalem to minister to the saints. For it pleased those from Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints who are in Jerusalem. And it pleased them indeed that they are their debtors. For if the Gentiles have been partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister them in material things.

Keep in mind now, remember we talked about this last week, the epistle to the Romans was likely written by Paul when he was in Ephesus. So Paul is writing to the Romans now anticipating his intended travel to Jerusalem. Who's got 1 Corinthians 16? Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do you.

On the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store, as God has. Prosper him, that there be no gatherings when I come. And when I come, whomsoever you shall approve by your letters, they will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem. And if it be me that I go also, they shall go with me. Okay, so there's reference again to his bringing offerings back to Jerusalem. His letter to the church at Corinth.

Now, he also states that the Gentiles, this is James speaking now, he also states that the Gentiles who believe are confused by the Jewish believers. I can understand that. And why? This is from the scripture, verse 21, who are all zealous for the law, but that Paul teaches all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. So the Gentiles are kind of confused because they're hearing that, you know, you ought to be obedient to the law, but then they say, well, you know, basically Paul has said to the Jews, you know, you don't have to circumcise anymore.

So this, again, is another kind of area where there's a lot of uncertainty and we need some clarification. What do you think was Paul's true position on this issue? I mean, the Gentiles are understanding him to say one thing, you know, be obedient to the law, but yet they're also claiming, well, you're telling the Jews they don't have to circumcise their children anymore. What's Paul's true position on this issue?

I'm asking you to speculate based on a lot of other scripture that's not necessarily here, because Paul's going to get into trouble here, and the trouble you're going to hear about next week. We're ultimately going to see what happens from James' advice to Paul here, but the consequences of that is next week. Well, I think Paul has also been, has confused them, because with some groups he said, you know, You don't need to eat the meat anymore. I mean, you can eat meat. You don't need to circumcise. You're not under the law. You're under grace.

I mean, he starts talking about that. But then for others, in order to fit in when he was doing his ministry, he would say, well, we need to follow what the customs are. Didn't he tell Peter? I can't remember who it was that he told. So that they would fit in when they did their ministry.

They would be more accepted. So it is confusing, I think. I think Paul is trying to do what's best for the gospel and spreading the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. However, he realizes you've got apples and oranges here in terms of Gentiles and Jews. The Jews are transitioning. They're used to the law, and they're believers now, and they still bring the law forward. But the Gentiles ultimately have not come out of the law. And I think Paul is trying to meet both needs with some confusion developing in between that. And that ends up to be quite a trial form in Jerusalem.

And I think, again, you're going to see that over the next couple of weeks. So Paul's trying to do his best to try to please both groups with the same body of truth But yet the interpretation of young believers is confusing to them. So I think this is a reality.

I mean, think about relationships you have today in terms of your being a believer. And you may be talking to a young believer, even to someone who's unsaved. And it's kind of difficult to reconcile the whole word of God to someone who's doubtful or inexperienced or not knowledgeable. So I'm identifying with Paul having a real challenge to trying to meet the needs of new believers who are Jewish in heritage and those who are Gentiles. Anyway. Alright, so Paul thereupon decides to comply with James' advice, and that's to be purified were the four men who had taken the Nazirite vow.

Numbers 6, 1 through 7, despite their new-founded belief. Do you remember last week that Vern talked about the Nazirite vow? Let's turn to Numbers, chapter 6. And this is going to come up twice, this Numbers section is going to come up twice here in terms of the Nazirite vow. All right, so I'm going to be reading here Numbers 6, 1 through 7.

Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them, When either a man or a woman consecrates an offering to take the vow of a Nazarite, to separate himself to the Lord, he shall separate himself from wine and similar drink, he shall drink neither vinegar made from wine nor vinegar made from similar drink, neither shall he drink any grape juice nor eat fresh grapes or raisins.

All of the days of his separation he shall eat nothing that is produced by the grapevine, from seed to skin. And all the days of the vow of his separation no razor shall come up on his head, until the days are fulfilled, for which he separated himself to the Lord. He shall be holy, then he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow. All the days that he separates himself to the Lord he shall not go near a dead body. He shall not make himself unclean even for his father or his mother, for his brother or his sister when they die, because the separation to God is on his head."

Wow. So this apparently was a vow taken by maybe the more extreme and dedicated people under the legal system. And I think Fern outlined that reasonably well last week. And so this is also related to shaving their heads, which is alluded to here, and paying their expenses. So now we're going to drop down to verse 13. The reason I'm reading this in detail, I think, is to give you an idea of where these Nazirite vows are impacting some very serious Jewish believers. So verse 13, now this is the law of the Nazirite.

When the days of the separation are fulfilled, he shall be brought to the door of the tabernacle of meeting, And he shall present his offering to the Lord, one male lamb in its first year without blemish as a burnt offering, one ewe lamb in its first year without blemish as a sin offering, one ram without blemish as a peace offering, a basket of unleavened bread, cakes of fine flour mixed with oil, unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and their grain offering with their drink offerings.

Then the priest shall bring them before the Lord and offer his sin offering and his burnt offering. and he shall offer the ram as a sacrifice of peace offering to the Lord with a basket of unleavened bread. The priest shall also offer its grain offering and its drink offering. Then the Nazirite shall shave his consecrated head at the door of the tabernacle of the meeting, and shall take the hair from his consecrated head and put it on the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offering. And the priest shall take the boiled shoulder of the ram, one unleavened cake from the basket, and one unleavened wafer, and put them upon the hands of the Nazarite, after he has shaved his consecrated hair. And the priest shall wave them as a wave offering before the Lord. And they are holy for the priest, together with the breast of the wave offering and the thigh of the heave offering. After that, the Nazarite may drink wine." Wow. Does that also imply that a priest has to eat the hair? No, the hair was on the fire. It burned pretty quickly. And quickly.

So the only reason we read all the detail here is this is a group of fairly extreme, dedicated Jewish people who are still apparently utilizing this vow to their commitment to the Lord. They clearly don't understand the grace message and the fact that the curtain's been rent and now there's a whole new policy that relates to the New Testament believer. So informing everyone that you will walk orderly and keep the law. So what James is advising Paul to do is go ahead and be purified with these people who want to take this Nazarite gap. That's fine. That's going to meet their need.

But then the question comes up, is Paul really compromising the truth of the gospel by going ahead and demonstrating this ceremonious activity? Lots of questions in this section of scripture that I think are interesting. What happened to Paul's position of the blotting out of ordinances?

Let's turn to Colossians 2.14. And as you know, this is an example of many, many sections of Paul's epistles that deal with this issue.

Colossians 2.14. I guess it might be best to start with 13.

And you being dead in your trespasses and uncircumcision of your flesh, he is made alive together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses. having wiped out the handwriting of requirements, that was against us, which was contrary to us, and he has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross, having disarmed principalities and powers, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it. So let no one judge you in food or in drink or regarding a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath."

So, I mean, again, just exemplary of the many passages that Paul states that these legal principles are no longer necessary in terms of the New Testament truths. So you can understand the confusion. I make a note here. I mean, I just kind of elaborated on the confusion these people are sensing. Here's Paul meeting the needs of an extreme group of Jews who want to continue to be purified or consecrated to the Nazarite law. And then you've got the Gentiles over here. So what's going on around here? You're saying we don't have to do this stuff anymore, but yet you're following James's advice.

Remember, who's James? The Lord's half-brother. His half-brother. So what are James' roots? Jewish. Absolutely. And remember, James didn't believe until after the Lord died. Isn't that right? Isn't that right? He didn't believe until after the Lord died. I think that's correct. I'd have to go back. I think that's right. He didn't believe. He's really steeped in Judaism. Right. So maybe his advice really was somewhat elementary in terms of wisdom and guidance. OK. Good. Good points there.

The action of Paul was entirely voluntary. I mean, keep in mind that We don't see that the Holy Spirit told him to do this. We're just having him follow what James's advice was to do. And what Paul's trying to do is bond with this group to show to the Jew that he still appreciates their legal tradition.

But boy, I'm not sure that as a public witness to the new truth of grace and life in the Lord Jesus Christ that ultimately it's a message that you want to put forth. James then reminds Paul that they had written and stated to the Gentile believers that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, and from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. Verse 25. That sounds kind of legal too, doesn't it? Now, James is reminding Paul of something that he had stated to the Gentile believers. And all we have here is James is telling Paul what he'd stated. We can't go back and recover those words of Paul. Remember, Luke is reporting a sequence of events that are occurring here specifically in the life of Paul and the new church.

So he's saying, by the way, the Gentiles heard you say this. And I find it interesting, except for things offered to idols from blood or from sin strangled. So James is stating what he perceives Paul has told the Gentiles. This is maybe not necessarily what Paul told the Gentiles.

This is James' perception. And again, as we just indicated, James may be fairly new in the faith, may be fairly uninformed about the grace principle. And he's from Jerusalem. He's a half-brother, as Margaret reminded us. He came to the Lord maybe late. and not as early. And this was a statement of clarification for the Gentiles consistent with the take-home message from the Jerusalem Council. So let's look at Acts 15, and this is something I think Jeremy had taught earlier.

Anybody have Acts 15.20 and 29? Not inclusive, but 20 and then 29. But that we write unto them that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication, from which, if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well, very well.

Okay, so effectively this was the message that came out of the council at Jerusalem, that these messages are being given to the Gentiles, if you will. So Paul apparently did, in fact, indicate that these words had been stated. And we go back to Acts 15, and we do see an example of those stated right here. So in a sense, there is a legal touch, historically, that the Gentiles had perceived and actually heard and witnessed that Paul had said. So I want to correct myself earlier. This, in fact, does document that, in fact, Paul did state, based on the Jerusalem Council to the Gentiles, that these things should be avoided.

So then Paul is purified with the four men and enters the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them. And that's why we read the numbers passages, because at the terminus of that, there's kind of a freedom from all this legality. And I think that Paul is demonstrating that here.

He did enter the temple, and the expiration of the days of purification were when this whole commitment was terminated. Remember, they cut their hair, and they put it in the fire, et cetera. And so in a sense, he's calling a termination now to this legal ceremony that these four men wanted him to participate in that presumably pleased a lot of Jews. So did Paul accomplish what he wanted, do you think?

Almost, but not quite, because it tells later that he didn't quite make it all the way to the sacrificial altar. Okay, we're anticipating what's to follow here, right? Yeah, because he was intercepted, as they say in football. Right, you need to wait until next week to find all this out.

And so, I think this text to follow now is going to take you into some difficult time for Paul. will make you re-question whether it was the Spirit of the Lord that ultimately took him back to Jerusalem, or in fact, his own spirit. So let's summarize, kind of a controversial and confusing section. So Paul travels now to Caesarea, intent to go to Jerusalem, presumably to deliver offerings that he'd been accumulating throughout Asia and Europe.

There's controversy as to whether he should have gone. He's been advised by several different groups of people or individuals not to return to Jerusalem. He claims that the Lord has called him to go there, whether or not death might ensue by his presence there. And then he's challenged with this controversy between the Gentile and Jewish believers in terms of the influence of the law.

So we see a bit of confusion in that the Council of Jerusalem did have some legality connected to it in terms of reaching the Gentile nation. And Paul was quoted as, in fact, delivering that message. And he undergoes this purification ceremony in reference to the Nazirite vow, and then ultimately terminates that by its expiration, freeing him up now to a life that's presumably free of law and tradition. So now we're going to see what the results are of his action in Jerusalem in terms of this purification process.

So, William, could you close us in prayer, please? Father, we thank you again for your word that you've given us to study and learn. We commit the rest of this day to your blessing and we look forward to what you have to teach us today. In Jesus' name. Amen.