Now in terms of a geographical, getting our bearings geographically with the book of Acts, the last time we were in Acts we saw in chapter 20 that Paul was on the seashore of the Aegean Sea down at the city of Miletus and he had called the elders from the church of Ephesus to meet him there. And this was his farewell to them in Acts chapter 20. And from there he's going to sail by Kos and Rhodes, south of the island of Cyprus, and eventually hit land in Syria, or Phoenicia actually, in the city of Tyre and make his way down to Jerusalem. And so we pick it up in verse one with the travels of Paul. It says, now verse one, now it came to pass that when he had departed from them, that is the Ephesian elders in Miletus, and set sail, running a straight course, we came to Kos. the following day to Rhodes and from there to Patara right along the southern coast, southwest coast of Asia Minor. In finding a ship sailing over to Phoenicia, we went aboard and set sail. And when we had sighted Cyprus, we passed it on the left and sailed to Syria and landed at Tyre. And so this whole journey was about 400 miles by sea. For there, the ship was to unload her cargo. Going on in verses 1-6 it says, in verses 4-6 rather, in finding disciples we stayed there seven days. They told Paul through the Spirit not to go to Jerusalem. When we had 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." So even though Paul did not know these believers. He had just met them in the city of Tyre right on the coast there of Phoenicia or Syria. Nevertheless, he found these disciples and they had fellowship. And so on Paul's final journey to Jerusalem, he sailed from Miletus to Tyre in Syria, where he stayed one week and had fellowship with some disciples. You sense from the apostle Paul that he never let a week go by in which he wasn't fellowshipping, of course, with the Lord and then with other people. He truly invested in people, sought them out, and found them here, and they fellowshiped. And they formed a bond within a week, and they had a prayer meeting on the shore, kind of like with the elders of Ephesus and Miletus, and then they said farewell to Paul. Now, there's a very important verse stuck in that section there of Paul's journeys. It's verse four that tells us about the Holy Spirit's message through a prophet to the Apostle Paul here. What was the Holy Spirit's explicit message to Paul in verse 4? Well, it says, they told Paul through the Spirit not to go to Jerusalem. Now I like what Harry Ironside, a great Bible teacher of the past, said regarding this. He said, while they were there, a most unusual incident occurred in the life of Paul. There they found apostles, or disciples, who said to Paul, now observe this, through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem. Now was this simply a test of his readiness to suffer? Or was it really a warning word forbidding him to go? It may be a little difficult for us to decide, he says, but the statement is plain. These disciples said to Paul through the Holy Spirit that he should not go up to Jerusalem. And I have read commentary after commentary over the years and those defending the Apostle Paul in this case saying he really was in the will of God, even though the Holy Spirit told him not to go here. And I just can't get around verse four. The text says what it says. The Holy Spirit was saying through them to Paul, do not go to Jerusalem. It's an explicit statement. Ron Merriman taught here over 20 years ago. In fact, he had taught through the book of Acts at one point. And this is what he says in his commentary on Acts. He says that Paul was forbidden by the Holy Spirit to go up to Jerusalem is indisputable. Any attempt to justify his decision to go, any attempts, it should say, fail because the text of Scripture is paramount. He disobeyed God's direct command. Now I assure you that is a difficult conclusion to come to when we're talking about the Apostle Paul. I mean, who wants to sit in judgment on the life of Paul? And we're not seeking to do that. And so we're treading lightly here and we don't take this lightly, but we have to be faithful to what the text of the word of God says. And I think we're going to see tonight that this interpretation of verse four is consistent with the activities that come later as Paul arrives in Jerusalem. Ron Merriman goes on to say, Acts 19.21. If you would just turn there for a moment in your Bibles, it's just a page or two to your left. Well, Paul is at Ephesus. You recall in verse 21, it says, when these things were accomplished, Paul purposed in the Spirit, and you'll notice in the New King James Version, if you have a Bible like mine, Spirit is capitalized, but it doesn't have to be. In fact, the original Greek text does not capitalize this word. It could be a reference to Paul's human spirit. He purposed in his spirit, I believe is the idea, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, after I have been there, I must also see Rome. And so Merriman says, Acts 19.21 tells us that Paul purposed in his spirit determined it was right to go to Jerusalem. The word spirit here meant his spirit, hence not capitalized in the King James Version, New American Standard Bible, and incorrectly capitalized in the New King James Version, making it refer to the Holy Spirit. Such an understanding is contrary to the Holy Spirit's command in 21.4 that forbade him to set foot in Jerusalem. And I agree with Ron's interpretation there. Now, moving on back to Acts 21, in the journeys of Paul to Jerusalem, he has come to Tyre, but he's going to leave Tyre after a week there, verse seven. And when he had finished our journey, we had finished our journey, and now Luke is traveling with Paul again. When we had finished our journey from Tyre, we came to Ptolemaeus. greeted the brethren and stayed with them one day." Now again, they had not been to Ptolemaeus before, but they found brethren there and thus they had fellowship again. So he continued sailing down the coast from Tyre, a very important ancient port city, down to Ptolemaeus. Apparently it was easier to travel by sea. It was rugged terrain on land if they had traveled that route. And so they traveled by ship again and arrived at Ptolemaeus where they found brethren and they stayed there a day and they had fellowship again. And then traveling on again, it says verse eight, On the next day, we who were Paul's companions departed and came to Caesarea. Now Caesarea is a major coastal port town as well. And we entered the house. And by the way, Paul is going to later be imprisoned and spend two years in jail in Caesarea in the book of Acts. So a very important city coming up here. And in Caesarea they entered the house of Philip the evangelist who was one of the seven and stayed with him. Now this man had four virgin daughters who prophesied. Now thinking of these virgin daughters who prophesied. Women did have the gift of prophecy. It wasn't just men in the New Testament era. And this passage in Acts confirms that. In fact, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11.5, but every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. And in that day, In that era, that region, just like in the Middle East today when women wear head coverings, it was a sign of unsubmissiveness to your husband to take your head covering off. So that's the issue in chapter 11. But right in that context, he makes an interesting statement that women had the gift of prophecy. Now, I don't believe that they prophesied with men. so that their word became authoritative and men in the congregation had to submit to that. I think just like with the gift of teaching, women can teach other women, but not men. That's what the Bible says. It's an order of authority issue. And the same is true with prophesying. And we're going to see that when it comes to the household of Philip and Caesarea. There's another prophet who's going to come and give an address and a warning to Paul, but it won't be these four virgin prophetess daughters of Philip. So another point we see here from this passage is that Paul next traveled to Caesarea where he stayed many days, the passage says, with Philip the evangelist and his daughters. In fact, it goes on to say, verse 10, And as we stayed many days, a certain prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. And when he had come to us, he took Paul's belt, bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus says the Holy Spirit, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owns this belt, and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. Now, when we heard these things, both we and those from that place pleaded with him not to go to Jerusalem. So who is this Agabus prophet who shows up on the scene? Kind of like when you're reading the Old Testament. And you're reading about these prophets like Elijah and Elisha and others who just sort of pop up from behind a tree or all of a sudden show up in the king's palace to prophesy in front of a king or rebuke him. Who is this Agabus who just shows up? Well, he's not new to the book of Acts. If you recall earlier in Acts chapter 11, he was mentioned in verses 27 and 28 actually. It says in that passage, now in these days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. And one of them named Agabus, so Agabus was from Jerusalem originally. He was a New Testament church age prophet named Agabus, stood up and foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world. And this took place in the days of Claudius, one of the Caesars of that era. And so he already had a track record of one who spoke the truth. His word came true. He was considered a true prophet. So that's who Agabus was, but what was his message? His message was, Paul, you're going to be bound and you're going to be taken. from the Jews and eventually turned over to the Romans, the Gentiles. If you go up to Jerusalem and the Holy Spirit's warning you again through me. Now again, there are those who say, well, all that the Holy Spirit was doing here with Paul was preparing him for the sufferings that he would face. Letting him know, reminding him time after time that, hey, this is what awaits you, Paul, get ready for it. And I don't see it that way. In fact, I see it as, well, the Holy Spirit had already said that once, twice, three times or more. He's actually warning Paul not to go. And that fits with verse four. In fact, why would the Holy Spirit have to repeatedly warn Paul if all he were merely doing were preparing him for what lay ahead? No, in fact, he was telling him not to go, pleading. And that's why those around Agabus interpreted the message the very same way. Verse 13, they pleaded with Paul. And so Paul answers verse 13, what do you mean by weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus. Now, when you read that, who does that remind you of in the gospels? Peter. Lord, I'm ready to die for you. Oh, really? Cock-a-doodle-doo. Now I think it's true. Paul was really ready to die for the Lord. It just wasn't his timing. And I think the Holy Spirit was trying to redirect. Now God in his sovereignty, as we'll see in Acts 21 through 28, has a way of directing his servants and having his purposes and will fulfilled. He did want Paul to eventually go in and speak before Caesar and testify to the gospel. So he would go to Rome. And so they conclude verse 14, so when he would not be persuaded, they couldn't talk him out of it, we ceased. In fact, Luke is included here. Luke, the one who's writing this book at this moment was trying to persuade Paul, don't go to Jerusalem and saying, the will of the Lord be done. Now we have to be careful with our intentions, right? Sometimes we have very good intentions to serve the Lord, but if we're not really following the voice of the Holy Spirit via the Word of God, then all our intentions are in vain. So don't be blinded by good intentions. And why was Paul desirous to go to Jerusalem? He had a burden for his fellow Jews, didn't he? That's why when you read Romans 9, 1 through 3, or you read Romans 10, 1, it's very clear that his heart's desire for Israel was that they might be saved. And he even desired, if it were even possible, theoretically, that he could be cut off from Christ so that they could be saved. That's how great a burden he had for them. And frankly, we should have such a great burden as well for the lost. That's the burden the Lord has to see the world saved and come to him. But evangelism doesn't justify everything. We still need to follow the will of God. And Paul, I believe here, was intent and not really listening. In fact, he's going to get into a heap of trouble when he gets to Jerusalem. Now, when they say here in verse 14, the will of the Lord be done, what are they referring to? Now, there are those who say that Paul was in the will of God when he went to Jerusalem. In fact, he acted wisely. That's one of their arguments. And they'll actually use verse 14 and say, see, even the disciples around Paul thought that he was doing the will of God. Now that's not how I take verse 14. They were trying to talk him out of it. And they conceded and just said, well, God's will be done. I think they were saying, you know what? You might even be in the permissive will of God right now, Paul. And God's sovereign over that, just like his perfect will. What is the difference between permissive and perfect will of God? Well, think back to the very beginning of humanity, when we were created. We were created without sin, but given a volition and a choice to make. And we saw that Adam and Eve in the garden, you know, chose to sin. At least Adam chose that. Eve was deceived. But we fell into sin as a human race. Now, did God want humanity to sin? Was that his perfect will as far as his original intent or design? No, it wasn't. He permitted it, however. And we'll see as we look at the image of God coming up soon on Sundays why. But when it comes to sin in our life, he'll permit that for various reasons, but it's not his perfect will. And I think though God wanted to take Paul and have him testify eventually in Rome, I don't think this was his timing when it came to Jerusalem. So going on, we see verse 15. It says, and after those days we packed and went up to Jerusalem. Evidently Luke went with Paul to Jerusalem. Also, some of the disciples from Caesarea went with us and brought with them a certain Naasan of Cyprus, an early disciple with whom we were to lodge. He probably had property there in Jerusalem. And so this journey to Jerusalem is complete. They arrived there in Jerusalem. Now what's going to happen? In the rest of the chapter, we see Paul's lapse into legalism at Jerusalem. And when they get to Jerusalem, this is what we read verse 17 through 20. And when we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. On the following day, Paul went in with us to James. James would be the half brother of the Lord Jesus. Remember he presided at the first church council in Acts chapter 15. Being the half-brother of the Lord Jesus, he was very respected and became an elder, one of the elders, the primary elder, a senior pastor, if you will, there in Jerusalem. He seems to be representative for the rest. What's interesting is we don't see Peter in this incident. We don't know where Peter was. Maybe he was there, but James was presiding. And all the elders were present, verse 18 says. And when he had greeted them, Paul, that is, he greeted all these elders. He told them in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. You know what I love about verse 19 is Paul doesn't get up and say, here are all the things I did. No, he says, here are all the things the Lord did. And when we're giving a testimony, we should put the emphasis where? On what the Lord did. Now he did it through Paul, but Paul gives Jesus Christ credit for this. among the Gentiles. And what was the response of these Jerusalem Jewish elders in the church? Verse 20, when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. So when they arrived in Jerusalem, James and all the elders of the church met Paul. And how did they meet him? They received him with gladness. And after his report, they glorified the Lord for all that he had done through Paul's ministry. And when you hear about all that the Lord has done, just like His work on the cross that it is finished, what should be the response? To God be the glory and the credit, right? When a soul gets saved by God's grace, what should be the result? Not boasting in self, but He gets all the credit and all the glory. The same is true when it comes to ministry in our Christian life. This is where the glory should go. And everything's real positive at this point. Just let all this sink in. This is a really joyous occasion. Paul's here. But it's like an old record player now with the needle. It's going to kind of go sideways and you hear this. That's where we're going to go for the rest of this account. So we're going from positive to something seriously askew. After it says, they glorified the Lord, then verse 20 goes on to say, and they said to him, notice they, this wasn't just James, this was an elder decision. They said to him, you see, brother, well, you can almost hear it coming, right? Here comes the law. You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law, but they have been informed about you. that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, synonym for the law of Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. Now, how does James describe the believers of Jerusalem in these few verses here? And why is this significant? Well, first of all, he says there are myriads of Jews. And the word myriad is simply the Greek transliteration for the word thousands. There are thousands of Jews who are believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. And that's true. But these Jewish believers did not have a grace orientation in their thinking yet. Remember this episode that we're reading about here in Acts chapter 21 is in the late 50s AD. So we are about 25 years post cross and resurrection and Pentecost. The church has been around for about 25 years. But that doesn't mean there has been a solid shift in the understanding of the church as a whole, Jew and Gentile. about law versus grace, the dispensation of law now shifting to grace in the church age. And that's why the way James and these elders describe their own church, they go on to say not only are these Jewish believers by the thousands here in Jerusalem, but they are all zealous for the law. And what is the anticipated response that these men are expecting from Paul? Yay, I'm so glad to hear you're all zealous for the law. Now, if you had to describe Duluth Bible Church, and you had to pick like three ways to describe us, would you say, yeah, we are a Bible-based, Christ-centered, law-zealous church? I hope not. You'd say grace-oriented, right? And then he goes on to say, or they say, that, oh, by the way, we've been informed about you. Word is on the street going around. In fact, it's causing a stumbling block in our ministry here to our fellow Jews who are also zealous for the law, but they're unsaved. And we hear that you are going around teaching people not to observe the law of Moses, nor to circumcise their children and walk according to the customs. Now, is this a completely true statement? No. Is it a completely false statement? No. And oftentimes when you hear things about other people, there's sometimes a little bit of truth and a little bit of error. So be careful when you hear rumors, gossip, things said to verify, verify, verify. And do not be quick to judge. Now when it comes to Paul here, Did he defend Titus not getting circumcised because Titus was a Gentile? Yes. Galatians chapter 2 says that. Titus, do not get circumcised. Whatever you do, you're a Gentile, don't go under the law. But remember in the ministry of Paul in his second missionary journey, he came across Timothy who was half Jew, half Gentile. And Timothy hadn't been circumcised yet. But he was a devout young man, faithful, and he wanted to take him with him on ministry trips. And so he said, if you're going to encounter Jews with me, you've got to be circumcised, Timothy, or this is going to be a hang up. It wasn't so Timothy could be more spiritual, but rather to avoid a stumbling block. And so there were times where Paul said, if it enhances the testimony of Christ and ministry under grace, then you can choose to do that. But otherwise, if it's a matter of principle, putting a Gentile under law, don't do it. Now did he not teach in his epistles that we are, whether Jew or Gentile, not under law but under grace? That we've died to the law? Were alive to God in Christ Jesus now? Yes, he did. And that's true whether Jew or Gentile. So these are three ways in which Paul is being described here by his fellow Jewish believers. And so they make this proposal to Paul. Verse 22, what then? The assembly must certainly meet for they will hear that you have come. Word is out, you're in town. Therefore, do what we tell you." How does that hit you? Kind of like, hey, we're all zealous for the law. Legalists typically come up to you and tell you, this is what you have to do. Therefore, do what we tell you. We have four men who have taken a vow, a Nazarite vow, by the way, we'll see. take them and be purified with them and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads." At the end of this Nazarite vow, it culminated with the shaving of their hair. They couldn't cut their hair until it was complete. "...and that all may know that these things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law." In other words, show yourself to be a good follower of the law of Moses, that you truly are a Jew who's keeping the law of Moses. And then they make reference back to Acts chapter 15. And remember the council there said, here's only four things we want the Gentile believers to do to keep peace between Jew and Gentile in the church. They recall this verse 25, but concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided 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. And here's the climactic moment in this account, verse 26. Then Paul took the men. And the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification. In other words, that the time of their Nazarite vow was coming to a conclusion at which time an offering should be made for each one of them. And then we're going to see things erupt because people see Paul in the temple. They never get to do the offering. But Paul was this close. to paying and supporting these men offering animal sacrifices again. So to dispel the accusations against Paul, James and the elders proposed a preconceived plan. They had this idea already in mind for Paul. We're going to make you a good legalistic Christian like the rest of us, Paul, is kind of the idea. We want to have you be ritually purified. And then pay for the completion of these four men's Nazarite vows. Evidently they were too poor to pay for their own sacrifices and offerings. And these did include sacrifices in the temple. And so this is hard to believe that what we're reading here, but this is what happened. I like what C.I. Schofield said. Well, I don't like what he said, but it's true what he said. Many years ago, the one who has the Schofield notes and the Schofield Study Bible that many of us use, he has a Schofield correspondence course that Moody Bible Institute still sponsors. And in the books written by C.I. Schofield for that course, he says this, this part of the Book of Acts is at once painful and pathetic. For a time, the great apostle to the Gentiles and the very excess of his zeal took the ordering of his own ways. The consequences of Paul's going to Jerusalem are apparent. There was, at this time, a strange indecision in the movements of the apostle. But it is what occurred at Jerusalem that is most sadly significant. Compare Paul's noble stand against the legalizing party on the occasion of a former visit with his weakness now. In other words, read about his former visit in Galatians 2, 1 through 9, where he stands up to false brethren for the sake of the gospel continuing, the gospel of the grace of God. Compare that with what we read now in Acts 21. It is painful to think of the writer of Romans and Galatians with a shaved head about to make an offering in a temple which his Lord had disowned and appointed to destruction. Now think of this, that temple where Paul is in 12 years or so is going to be destroyed by the Romans as part of the wrath of God that was waiting above the citizens of Jerusalem. because they had rejected the Messiah, not just during the Lord Jesus's lifetime with his crucifixion, but now for some 40 years afterwards as the patience of God had run out and it was time to let his wrath fall. And that city and that temple would be destroyed. And Paul was right there about to support the offering for these four men. Now, why do some people claim that Paul here was actually walking wisely in the use of his liberty? They will use passages like 1 Corinthians 9, 19 through 21, where Paul says, though I'm not under the law, I make myself all things to all men, whether I'm with the Gentiles or whether I'm with the Jews. When I'm with the Jews, it's as though I'm under the law, though I'm not under the law. I'm under the law of Christ. And they use that passage and say, see, Paul could do these things. Really? I don't think so. We're going to see as we go on, this just violates the whole shift from law to grace and sacrifices. But one of the reasons that they used to support this is because of the statements made. where the Holy Spirit, you know, it says in 1921, which we already read, Paul purposed in the spirit, the New King James says, or could be translated in spirit in reference to his human spirit. He purposed to go to Jerusalem and afterwards to go see Rome. And then in chapter 20, which we saw recently, verse 22, Paul says to the Ephesian elders, and see, now I go bound in the Spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing the things that will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit testifies in every city, saying that chains and tribulations await me. And so they say this implies in verse 22 that he's bound in the spirit to go to Jerusalem. But there the new King James actually has it as a small s for spirit in reference to the human spirit. Paul was not physically bound yet, but he was bound in his human spirit. to go to Jerusalem. So again, this isn't necessarily a reference to the Holy Spirit binding Paul and making him go to Jerusalem. It seems to imply actually the opposite. The second evidence that they use to support the idea that Paul was actually walking in the perfect will of God here is found in chapter 23. In verse 11, after Paul has been arrested, there's a mob scene, he's imprisoned, he stands trial before the Sanhedrin, and he again escapes from being put to death. The Lord Jesus appears to him and speaks to him in 2311. It says, the following night the Lord stood by him and said, be of good cheer, Paul, for as you have testified for me in Jerusalem, so you must also bear witness at Rome. And they reasoned that why would the Lord Jesus here not rebuke Paul for having gone legalistic a couple chapters earlier? Why would he say, be of good cheer? Well, they say, well, this confirms that Jesus was supportive of what Paul did two chapters earlier. And I say, not necessarily. Maybe Paul was in fellowship with the Lord for two chapters later after this incident in 21. And maybe the Lord was speaking in utter grace to his servant here, wanting to preserve his life and have him go to Rome and not be torn to pieces and die in Jerusalem. So this isn't confirmation necessarily that Paul was in the will of God. Now in chapter 23 as well. Notice what it says in verse 1. Here's a third evidence they claim as support that Paul was in the perfect will of God in 21. 23 verse 1, it says, then Paul, looking earnestly at the council, the Sanhedrin said, men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. And they say, see, Paul could not have been able to say he lived in all good conscience if two chapters earlier He was out of the will of God in supporting these Nazarite vows. Again, I'm baffled at times when I read commentaries and people trying to support what Paul did and they stretch these kinds of arguments. Yes, Paul had a clear conscience at this point, but again, could he not have acknowledged, Lord, I messed up, I sinned. I went legal instead of grace two chapters earlier. Could he have not acknowledged that in the meantime? That's part of having a good conscience, taking heed to yourself and acknowledging those things to the Lord. And so I don't see verse one as a clear support that Paul was in the will of God, the perfect will of God back in chapter 21 either. Now let's ask a more basic question here. It says in Acts 21 that Paul went to the temple and he had to be purified first before he could support these four men with their vows. And so he had to undergo ritual purification there in the temple. What's the problem with that? Paul was already pure in the eyes of the Lord and didn't need this ritual to purify him. While we're in Acts, look at chapter 10 with me again. Actually, look at chapter 11, but look up here first at chapter 10. Remember what Paul said to those who were questioning him going into Cornelius and the Gentiles, and what God had taught Peter through that incident? Verse 15 of chapter 10 says, a voice spoke to him again the second time from heaven, and this is the Lord speaking, what God has cleansed you must not call common. And then later, verse 28 in that chapter, he says, you know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean. This whole idea of ritual cleanness versus uncleanness was gone under grace. In fact, it was gone 11 chapters earlier in the book of Acts. And this was taught to Peter. And usually most people think Paul had a better grasp on grace than even Peter. So Paul, what are you doing going back to something that even Peter grasped? It's mind blowing. Acts 11 verse 9 says the same thing. In 1 Corinthians 6, verse 11, Paul says to the church in Corinth that you also have been washed, sanctified, and justified by the Spirit of our God and in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. And Hebrews 1.3 says that all believers have had their sins purged, they've been purified by the Lord Jesus himself and his work. So no, Paul did not need this ritual cleansing at all. And so to go through the motions in the temple would be to perpetuate a lie. Now turn with me to the book of Numbers chapter six, and we're gonna look at the Nazarite vow for a moment. I'm sure most of us here tonight are really familiar with the Nazarite vow. We've probably had that vow a number of times ourselves. In fact, that's why my head is virtually shaved most of the time, because I just am really into these kinds of vows and head shaving. No. So let's get familiar with the Nazarite vow because I think it really helps explain and bring to light what Paul was engaged in in Acts 21. Starting in verse 1, it says, Then the Lord spoke to Moses saying, speak to the children of Israel and say to them, when either a man or woman consecrates an offering to take the vow of a Nazarite, to separate himself to the Lord. And so what is the idea behind a Nazarite vow right off the bat? We see it's one of separation, to set oneself apart unto the Lord in a special way. And this is voluntary. No one's compelled to do this. If you want to choose to do this, here's what this is going to entail, he says in chapter six. But notice right away in verse two, the word offering. The Nazirite vow requires an offering, and that offering is going to come at the very end of the vow when the days of the vow are fulfilled. So part and parcel with the Nazirite vow was the offering. Verse 3, he goes on to describe how a Nazirite was to stay away from alcoholic beverages, anything that came from the fruit of the vine, from raisins and seeds with skins, etc. No razor was to come upon his head, verse 5. And that's why you remember Samson. He was a lifelong Nazirite. So was John the Baptist. Their hair grew out, evidently. It wasn't always growing, but I'm sure it was cut at points or intervals, but they were to be on a continuous basis, Nazarites of some sort. Verse six says, 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 sister when they die, because his separation to God is on his head." So if a Nazirite were to touch a dead body over the course of their vow, they would be considered unclean. And that's why Paul needed to be purified when he came into the temple to support these Nazarites, because he had been among the Gentiles and it was assumed he was unclean. So he had to go through a ritual of purification in the eyes of the priests in the temple. That was part of this support for these Nazarites. in Acts 21. Verse eight says, all the days of his separation, he shall be holy or set apart unto the Lord. Verse nine, and if anyone dies very suddenly beside him and defiles his consecrated head, then he shall shave his head on the day of his cleansing. On the seventh day, he shall shave it. And then on the eighth day, he is to bring these offerings. Now skip down with me to verse 13. It says, now this is the law of the Nazarite. When the days of his separation are fulfilled, and remember those four guys in Acts 21 were about to come to the fulfillment of their Nazarite vow. When his days are fulfilled, he shall be brought to the door of the tabernacle of meeting, verse 14, 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. And so in other words, there were several offerings that were to be brought. These animals that were to be offered were costly. It would be like, you know, you pay for a half side of beef and you have it put in your freezer for the year. That's expensive. Well, so was an entire calf or lamb. and these other offerings. And that's why Paul was subsidizing the offerings for these men in Acts 21. But I want you to see, and we'll skip over the rest. You can read down to verse 21. There were clearly sin offerings, peace offerings, trespass offerings, burnt offerings. These were offerings that all pictured the Lord Jesus Christ. And yet, what do we read about in the New Testament? We read that when Jesus Christ died on the cross, Matthew 27 verses 50 and 51, right as he gave up his spirit, he gave up the ghost. What happened? The veil in the temple was ripped from top to bottom in the holy place. Why? Because God was showing he was done with that system of offerings. And yet Paul was going back to that. Astounding. Now turn with me to Hebrews chapter 10 in the New Testament. I think it's important to see a few of these passages in Hebrews 10 as well. Hebrews is most likely, most scholars think it was written shortly before the destruction of the temple in the late 60s AD. So only about a decade after the incident we read of with Paul in Acts 21. But this was the truth regarding a grace age perspective on temple sacrifices. In Hebrews 10.1 we read, For the law, having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of things, can never, with these same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. Notice these animal sacrifices all pictured the Lord Jesus in the past, but when he came along, he was the fulfillment of those things. So now you've got Paul moving from the substance and the fulfillment back to the shadows. In fact, Colossians 2 verse 17 speaks of the shadows of the law that were all cast backwards from Jesus Christ and his cross. So Paul, in Acts 21, what are you doing playing in the shadows when you could be in the light of God's grace and the cross? It's mind-blowing. But Hebrews 10 makes it very clear that these sacrifices can never take away sin, verse 2. They can never actually cleanse. For then, because they were offered year after year, they can't make perfect. If they did make perfect, they would have ceased to be offered, verse 2 says, just like his work on the cross was once for all. For the worshipers once purified would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices, there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. What could take away sin? Only the work of Jesus Christ, which he talks about in the following verses. Verse 10. By that will, we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices which can never take away sins. But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till his enemies are made his footstool. For by one offering, not the offerings that Paul was going to pay for in Acts 21. For by one offering he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us, for after he had said before, this is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts and in their minds I will write them. Then he adds, their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more. Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin. Remember the Nazarite vow number six included a sin offering as a requirement for the fulfillment of the Nazarite vow. But this passage says, with the coming of Christ, there is no longer an offering for sin. So Paul, what are you doing going back to the temple and offering animal sacrifices? That's why the one we are to look to perpetually is Jesus Christ, verse 19 and following. Now turn with me to chapter 13 while we're in Hebrews. And instead of going to the temple to do sacrifices, what should Paul have done? Chapter 13 verses 10 through 13 say this, We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat. For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin are burned outside the camp. Therefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered outside the gate. Remember, he was not crucified inside the temple. Christ was crucified outside of it, but there in Jerusalem. Verse 13, therefore, let us go forth to him outside the camp bearing his reproach. And so I think it's very clear that Paul in going into the temple was not going outside the camp bearing his reproach. Now what had Paul previously written as the inspired word of God about law versus grace? And we won't take the time to look up all these passages, but it's very clear in Romans 6.14, he says, we are not under law, but under grace. So Paul, why are you putting yourself under law? He says in Romans 7 verse 4 and 6 that we have died to the law and we're married to another, namely the Lord Jesus, that we might serve a newness of spirit, not an oldness of the letter. In Romans 10 verses 1 through 4, he says that Christ is the end of the law for all those who believe. So Paul, why are you going back to law keeping? In fact, he says in Galatians 5 verse 1, that we should not subject ourselves again to a yoke of bondage, namely the law. So Paul, why are you going back to this? Now clearly James and the elders in Jerusalem did not understand what was all involved with this shift dispensationally from law to grace. Remember when you read Acts, you are reading a description of the early church, not necessarily a prescription. And it wasn't always pretty in this description that we're reading. And so we see that there had to be a transition in their thinking at this time. And unfortunately, I think Paul slipped back under the yoke of bondage, under their influence and pressure in Acts 21. In fact, he should have recognized and stood firm on the fact that in Christ, We aren't to offer animal sacrifices anymore or purification. We are pure in Christ. When it comes to law versus grace, there are very clear distinctions. Under law, God prohibits and requires. Under grace, God beseeches and bestows. Under law, God brings condemnation righteously. Under grace, it brings forgiveness. The law curses, grace redeems from the curse. The law kills, grace makes alive. Law shuts all mouths before God, grace opens the mouth to praise God. Law brings distance between guilty man and God, and grace reconciles and draws us near to God. The law says an eye for an eye, whereas grace says turn the other cheek. The law says do and live, grace says believe and you will live. The law condemns the best man, grace justifies the worst man. Law is a system of probation. Grace is a system of favor, unmerited favor. Law came by Moses. Grace came by the Lord Jesus Christ. And so why would you ever want to go back to shadows when you've got Jesus Christ? So what was the outcome of Paul's lapse into legalism? Reading on, going back to Acts 21, we see in verses 27 through 30 the outcome. Remember, he's about to have these offerings presented as the fulfillment of their Nazirite vow. And then comes the clincher, verse 27. Now, when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, crying out, Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the law, and this place. And furthermore, he also brought Greeks into the temple, lie, and has defiled this holy place. For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city." That's very different from being in the temple. "...whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple. And all the city was disturbed. And the people ran together, seized Paul, and dragged him out of the temple. And immediately the doors were shut." I like what Harry Ironside said here again. He says, just imagine if that rite had been consummated, what it would have meant. It would have nullified to a large extent the testimony of the Apostle Paul in the years to come. Imagine him stepping up with them to the altar and offering animal sacrifices, a virtual denial of the one sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ. But God did not permit it. He so overruled that the very Jewish people that Paul wanted to reach misunderstood him entirely and took steps that led to his arrest. It's almost as though, although the passage doesn't say it, we can't be dogmatic, but it seems as though God in mercy and grace intervened and stopped Paul from going that final step. Now, what happened to the financial gift that Paul was bringing from the Gentile believers to the Jewish believers in Jerusalem? Do you read anything about it in verses 1 through 30? Nothing. Remember, that was one of the main reasons he was going to Jerusalem. He thought, hey, if I have this gift, it's going to win the hearts of these Jewish Christians, and it's going to bring unity between Jew and Gentile in the body of Christ. They're going to see how the Gentiles love the Jews. It'll create a greater platform for the gospel with the unsaved Jews, perhaps. Did that happen? No. In fact, we don't read anything about this financial gift. It's as though it became an afterthought in light of everything else that transpired. Now what does Paul's lapse into legalism teach us about great saints of the past and our own walk? Well, it teaches us in the words of 1 Corinthians 10, 11, and 12, that when it comes to what happened in the past with saints of the Old Testament, we are to learn from them lest we not fall and have victory instead. As you think of saints of the past, And I think this is where a lot of people struggle with this episode with Paul. How could the Apostle Paul, the champion of grace, really lapse back into legalism? We must be misinterpreting this somehow. That's the perplexion, perplexity that people have in Acts 21. But really, is it so great to fathom? Noah, did he sin? Yeah, he goes through the flood and then he gets off the boat and what happens? He gets drunk. What about Abraham? Well, he lies and tries to pawn off his wife, you know, as his sister. What about Moses? Oh, he got mad and in his anger, didn't obey exactly what the Lord said. He struck the rock twice. He wasn't allowed to go into the Holy land, the promised land. What about David? Well, he sinned with Bathsheba among other things. What about Peter? Oh yeah, well, you know, he denied the Lord three times among other things. And by the way, wasn't he the one that was corrected by the apostle Paul in Galatians 2? When they were there in Antioch and Paul was there at the same time and men from James came down and there was that legalistic pressure. to put the ham sandwich under the table and say, oh, you've got to act like a Jew now that the men from James are around. And Paul calls them out in Galatians 2, 11 through 14. So if even Peter, the great apostle, can be inconsistent, is it also possible that Paul could as well? Yes. And I think what that tells us is this, dear saints, that even if a great man of God like Paul could slip back into legalism. Could we? Oh no, not us. Very easily we could, right? That's why we need to guard our thinking. Now, what does this episode teach us also about appeasing men versus pleasing the Lord? Clearly here, They had the yoke of bondage ready to slip around Paul's neck when he got into the church there in Jerusalem. And they said, hey, we got a plan already in place for you, Paul. Do what we tell you. And he so badly wanted unity between Jewish believer, Gentile believer, so badly wanted to reach his fellow Jews that he said, all right, I'll put that yoke on just for a moment. Who is he really pleasing though? The Lord? I don't think so. Or men. Beware of legalistic pressure to do what other men want you to do that you can't do as unto the Lord. Colossians 3.23-24 reminds us, in fact Paul wrote this, and whatever you do, do it heartily from the heart as to the Lord and not to men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance for you serve the Lord Christ. And if you can't do it as unto the Lord, then don't do it. It's vain and empty and it's just legalism if you go ahead and do it, but you're not doing it as unto the Lord. Now, how did the Lord Jesus treat Paul after this? We don't mean to be hard on Paul here at all. In fact, like I say, I've treaded lightly here. This is no light matter to say Paul had lapsed back into legalism. How did the Lord Jesus treat Paul after this? Well, we already saw on Acts 23.11, he treated him in grace because where sin abounds, grace does much more abound. So let's not lose sight of that despite Paul's lapse here. And we will pick it up next time in Acts 21 verse 30 and following to see the uproar that ensued after this incident. Let's pray. Father, thank you again for this passage and what it teaches us. It is sobering to consider that we too are inconsistent at times. We have a natural bent, whether towards license or legalism, and we're capable of both. So may we keep our eyes fixed on Christ and walk on the high road of liberty by your grace. We pray this in Jesus' name. Amen.