Act 18:14-28  I Must by all Means Keep this Feast that Comes in Jerusalem

[Study Aired July 2, 2023]

Act 18:14  And when Paul was now about to open his mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you:
Act 18:15  But if it be a question of words and names, and of your law, look ye to it; for I will be no judge of such matters.
Act 18:16  And he drave them from the judgment seat.
Act 18:17  Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment seat. And Gallio cared for none of those things.
Act 18:18  And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.
Act 18:19  And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews.
Act 18:20  When they desired him to tarry longer time with them, he consented not;
Act 18:21  But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.
Act 18:22  And when he had landed at Caesarea, and gone up, and saluted the church, he went down to Antioch.
Act 18:23  And after he had spent some time there, he departed, and went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples.
Act 18:24  And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
Act 18:25  This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
Act 18:26  And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
Act 18:27  And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:
Act 18:28  For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

Verse 18 tells us that Paul had taken a vow and shaved his head in Cenchrea. That was a very Mosaic thing to do. Then in verse 21, Paul tells us that he “must by all means keep this feast that comes in Jerusalem.” That, too, is a very Mosaic, seemingly “under the law” thing to do for a man who is going around teaching the Gentiles:

2Co 3:11  For if that which is done away [present tense] was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
2Co 3:12  Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
2Co 3:13  And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished [present tense]:

The phrases “done away” and “is abolished” are both in the present tense, so why is Paul living under the law of Moses? The answer to this question is found in the next three verses:

2Co 3:14  But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
2Co 3:15  But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
2Co 3:16  Nevertheless when it shall turn [Aorist tense] to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.

In using the aorist tense in this verse, Paul reveals that a reformation of the law was in progress, and that the veil is being taken away.

In my studies this week, I came across a short study which reveals that even the serious scholars of the churches of Babylon struggle to understand why the New Testament church continued to keep the law of Moses, even offering blood offerings after the ultimate sacrifice had been made. I want to share that study with you at the beginning of our time together today. It is taken from a website called The Christian Courier:

Did Paul Sin in Submitting to the Temple Ritual?
https://christiancourier.com/articles/did-paul-sin-in-submitting-to-the-temple-ritual
Wayne Jackson

One of the most controversial contexts in the book of Acts has to do with Paul’s activity in the Jerusalem temple, as recorded in Acts 21. Did the apostle violate the law of God in “purifying” himself in that ritual? Some so claim, but is this a necessary conclusion?

“Did Paul sin when he ‘purified’ himself in the Jerusalem temple, according to the record in Acts 21?”

Here is Luke’s record of the incident in question.

“Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them went into the temple, declaring the fulfillment of the days of purification, until the offering was offered for every one of them” (Acts 21:26).

In order to put this matter into proper focus, some background relative to the passage needs to be considered…

At the conclusion of his Third Missionary Journey, Paul and his companions finally came to Jerusalem. This was the fifth (and final) time Paul had visited the city since he left on his journey of persecution for Damascus (9:1ff). Luke affirms that when the company arrived at the sacred city, “the brethren received us gladly” (Acts 21:17). The language suggests a reception without reservation.

Earlier, when Paul penned his letter to the saints in Rome, he asked for their prayers to the end that upon his arrival in Jerusalem, the “ministration,” i.e., gifts of benevolence, “might be acceptable to the saints” (Rom. 15:30-31; cf. Acts 24:17). He was not disappointed. Their prayers were answered. It was a time of wonderful rejoicing.

On the following day there was a special meeting. The missionary group was there and so were the Jerusalem elders, together with James, Jesus’ half-brother (cf. chapter 15). Paul greeted the brethren and then, item-by-item, rehearsed (imperfect tense — the narration took a while!) the events of his labors among the Gentiles, giving all glory to God (vv. 18-19).

The Jerusalem saints were delighted at the success of Paul’s ministry, and they kept on praising God (imperfect tense) for the salvation of lost souls. Paul had successfully removed himself as the center of attention. Eventually, though, they got around to telling the great apostle about a problem they felt was serious. In the section that follows (20ff), the Bible student encounters what this writer considers to be one of the most challenging episodes in the entire book.

Gently, the Jerusalem brethren explained to Paul that thousands of Jews had “believed,” i.e., they had been converted to Christ. This reference to a vast harvest from among the Jews reveals how abbreviated the record in Acts has been. The term “believed” is employed to summarize their obedience to the gospel.

“Though these multitudes had become Christians, they had not arrived at the full realization that the introduction of Christianity made the law of Moses inoperative as a redemptive system. Accordingly, these new Christians still circumcised their children (as a covenant sign), and they observed many of the “customs” of the Mosaic regime.

Here was the problem: a report had been circulated widely that Paul went about constantly teaching that Jews, especially those who lived in Gentile lands, should “forsake,” (apostasia – cf. “apostasy”) Moses. “Moses” stands for the Old Testament economy. They apparently had concluded that Paul opposed any sort of connection with the Hebrew system, which was not true. The apostle himself had circumcised Timothy in order to prevent offense to the Jews (16:3). Paul had not opposed observing certain elements of the law — provided the intent was not to seek justification on that basis.

The apostle was not insensitive to the feelings of his Israelite kinsmen. But that had become his reputation. Though James and the brethren did not agree with the assessment that Paul radically opposed the law, they felt the matter needed remedy in some fashion. It must be added that these Jerusalem leaders probably did not have a completely accurate view themselves as to what Paul was practicing and teaching. What could be done to defuse this volatile situation? The Jewish antagonists were bound to hear that Paul was in Jerusalem, and there would be trouble. The following solution, therefore, was proposed.

There were four Hebrew men who had placed themselves under a vow (likely a Nazarite vow). It was near the time for that ritual to be consummated by a purification ceremony in the temple. It was suggested, therefore, that Paul identify with them, paying their temple fees, and, “purifying” himself along with them. Such a procedure was allowed under the law. This would be done so that the Jews in general might see that Paul was “walking orderly, observing the law.” Gentiles, of course, were under no such constraints, as indeed the conference in Jerusalem had established (chapter 15).

Paul agreed to the suggestion. The following day the apostle, along with the four men, went to the temple where the sacrifices would be offered. The process was initiated, which would be culminated a few days later. Not only were the four “purified,” but so was Paul—though likely not for the same reason. There is no evidence that the apostle was under a vow. However, since he recently had been in Gentile territory, he would be viewed as ceremonially “unclean,” hence would need to purify himself in order to partake with the others (Simon Kistemaker, Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990, p. 760). The minute details of the whole process are not recorded.

Here is the problem: Why would Paul, knowing that the Mosaic regime was obsolete, submit to a “purification” ritual, that would appear to convey the impression that Christ’s blood was insufficient as a medium of cleansing? Sincere Bible students have struggled with this difficulty. Several views have been offered relative to this matter.

1. Some suggest the event never happened; it is alleged that Luke fabricated the incident in order to show that Paul was a law-abiding Jew.
2. Others argue that the apostle was sincere in yielding to this procedure; he simply did not fully understand—at this point—that the law had been abrogated.
3. Many allege that Paul, in a moment of weakness, knowingly sinned, yielding to the pressure.
4. Some contend that the apostle’s actions were a matter of expediency—in a unique time-period when certain elements of the Mosaic system (particularly civil/ceremonial) gradually were passing away.

Perhaps no suggestion is entirely free from difficulty, in view of the brevity of the record. We would offer, however, the following observations.

First, the notion that Luke invented this narrative to buttress his personal agenda is unworthy of any consideration. It is wholly barren of evidence.

Second, J.W. McGarvey contended that the apostle’s understanding was limited at this point New Commentary on Acts of Apostles, 1892 – Reprint, Delight, AR: Gospel Light, II, p. 208). He thought that if Paul had entertained a clearer perception of the abolition of the law, he would not have done what he did here — especially later on, after writing the books of Ephesians and Hebrews (he assumes Paul wrote the latter).

This position has an obvious weakness. The apostle had written clearly on the matter of the law’s abrogation in other letters that were composed before this incident. And these discussions were not mere passing allusions, as were Peter’s brief references to the Gentiles in Acts 2 (which he did not comprehend at the time, cf. 17,21,39). Rather, Paul’s teaching on the abolition of the law had been clear and definitive (cf. 2 Cor. 3; Rom. 7; Gal. 5). It does not appear, therefore, that this episode can be explained upon the basis of the apostle’s limited knowledge.

Third, some respected men have argued that Paul “slipped” on this occasion, lapsing into weakness; his practice, therefore, was “inconsistent” with his preaching… After all, they contend, if Peter could sin (Gal. 2), so could Paul. We respectfully offer the following general observations on this position.

1. If Paul is indicted of sin, so are James and the Jerusalem elders, for they asked him to do what he did.
2. Even if the apostle did err (and we are not ready to affirm that he did), the mere recording of the transgression would not make the Bible culpable. It is not a sin to record the commission of a sin.
3. While it is the case that even an apostle could sin, as indicated above (cf. Gal. 2:11ff), one ought to be very careful in charging Paul with an overt sin in the absence of explicit testimony. In other words, is one logically forced to this position as a last resort, or is there another possibility?
4. If Paul erred in this episode, why did he later, in an inspired defense of his ministry before a government ruler (cf. Mt. 10:17-19), appeal to this very incident (cf. 24:18)? Was the apostle led by the Spirit to defend sin? It would seem to me that, in arguing this position, the “cure” is worse than the “ailment.”

Fourth, is it possible that Paul went through this ritual as a matter of expediency in an attempt to relieve a tense situation? Could the apostle have “purified” himself, strictly in conformity to nationalistic Judaism—with no intent whatever of substituting an animal for the precious sacrifice of the Lamb of God? Fervent voices cry: “Absolutely not.” But why not? If the apostle could circumcise Timothy as an expediency, with no design of associating the ritual with salvation (as was sometimes done – Acts 15:1), why could he not have done the same with reference to a sacrifice? To utilize circumcision as a matter of salvation was apostasy (Gal. 5:2ff). To practice the rite in order to remove prejudice—in that era when the law was so freshly abolished—[My comment: It was not yet abolished, it was being abolished, Act 15:22-29] was an exercise of wisdom (cf. 1 Cor. 9:19-23). To offer a sacrifice redemptively would have been wrong; but there is no proof that such was Paul’s intention. [My comment: Anymore than circumcising Timothy was done for the sake of his salvation]

It should be noted in passing that ceremonial “purification” did not necessarily involve atonement for personal sin. A Jewish woman had to be “purified” following the birth of a child (cf. Lev. 12:1ff; Lk. 2:22), even though the act of bearing a child is not sinful. Paul’s act of “purification,” therefore, need not suggest that he was seeking personal forgiveness by means of an animal sacrifice. Clearly that was not Paul’s purpose in this temple ritual.

In the final analysis, I must say this. In the absence of more conclusive information, it is unwise to accuse Paul of compromise or sin. As Frank Goodwin observed, “Paul’s conduct in this transaction was perfectly consistent with his previous teaching and practices” (A Harmony of the Life of St. Paul, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1951, p. 121). There may have been a greater good (the unity of Jew/Gentile relations) to be accomplished in this case [My comment: Fidelity to the decrees of the holy spirit through the apostles and elders of Act 15:22-29], than whatever negative “impressions” might have resulted from Paul’s offering of a sacrifice. If one is to err in judging this episode, it is best to err on the side of respect and love for God’s noble apostle. (End Quote)

The Lord has simply blinded the minds of all the scholars of Babylon to the fact that the holy spirit speaks only “from between the cherubims”, meaning only through the church which is led by His apostles and elders:

Act 15:22  Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

Act 15:28  For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us [“The apostles and elders”], to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

The Lord Himself has blinded the eyes of the scholars who cannot see that these verses explain why the church was still living with and observing all the rituals of Moses while also believing Christ had died for their sins.

In our last study, Paul had sent Silas and Timothy to Macedonia while he was still in Athens. Paul had then left Athens and gone to Corinth where the Lord introduced him to Aquilla and Priscilla, who, like Paul, were tent makers. Paul worked with Aquilla and Priscilla “and he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks” (Act 18:4). After Paul called Silas and Timothy to Corinth from Macedonia to help him with the work he was doing among the believing Jews of Corinth, many of the unbelieving Jews “opposed themselves and blasphemed” leading Paul to declare for the second time that “from henceforth I will go to the Gentiles” (Act 18:6). Paul left off preaching in the synagogue and moved right next door into the home of a man named Justus “whose house joined hard to the synagogue” (vs 7). Paul’s efforts were blessed so much that “Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed and were baptized” (vs 8). At this point the Lord appeared to Paul in the night by a vision and told him that he was not to fear, but he was to “speak and hold not thy peace because I am with you, and no man shall set on you to hurt you, because I have much people in this city.” The Lord continued to bless Paul’s efforts to such an extent that Paul spent a year and six months in Corinth.

Then, during the time “when Gallio was deputy of Achaia”, a Roman province which was in the north western part of what is modern-day Greece, the unbelieving “Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul and brought him to the judgment seat” of Gallio accusing Paul of persuading men to worship God contrary to the law [of Moses].

Here are the last two verses of last week’s study:

Act 18:12  And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment seat,
Act 18:13  Saying, This fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law.

Just as Paul was about to begin to speak in his own defense, Gallio realized that Paul had not broken any Roman law, and that the complaint against him had only to do with the law of Moses. Finally realizing such was the case this was his reaction:

Act 18:14  And when Paul was now about to open his mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you:
Act 18:15  But if it be a question of words and names, and of your law, look ye to it; for I will be no judge of such matters.
Act 18:16  And he drave them from the judgment seat.

This is the same situation in which Pilate found himself, and had it not been Christ’s time to die ‘Pilate would have let Him go’, as Gallio let Paul go:

Act 3:13  The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.

Gallio is the Roman “deputy of Achaia.” This man knew nothing of Biblical principles. Nevertheless, he was using secular wisdom which was based upon this Biblical principle:

2Ti 2:3  Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.
2Ti 2:4  No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

Gallio was given exceptional wisdom to avoid being drawn into having to make judgments about things that had nothing to do with “him who had chosen him to be a soldier” [a Roman deputy]. The laws of Rome had nothing to do with the law of Moses, and neither does “the law of Christ”:

Gal 6:1  Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
Gal 6:2  Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

When we allow ourselves to be drawn into conversations about the affairs of this life, we are placing ourselves in a position to “make judgments about such matters.” As “ambassadors of Christ”, we will do well to follow Gallio’s example and stay aloof from the affairs of this age, be it the affairs concerning the law of Moses or the law of the Gentiles, because to our Lord there is no difference between those two laws:

Rom 2:14  For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15  Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
Rom 2:16  In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

2Co 5:20  Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

The day when God shall judge “the secrets of men by Jesus Christ” is the day when Christ and His Christ will open the books and “judge the secrets of men.” That day will be “when the thousand years are expired” (Rev 20:7), and the rebellion against “the camp of the saints” has been put down by “fire… from God out of heaven” (Rev 20:9) at the white throne judgment.

Rev 20:7  And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
Rev 20:8  And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
Rev 20:9  And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
Rev 20:10  And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Rev 20:11  And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
Rev 20:12  And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened [Psa 139:16 ASV]: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged [Joh 5:27-29] out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Rev 20:13  And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged [Isa 26:8-9] every man according to their works.

The “great white throne… judgment” is as sure as the rising of the sun, and then Christ and His Christ will ‘judge every man according to their works.’ At that time, Christ’s Christ will have the ability to know “the secrets of the hearts of men”, and they will judge them “according to their works.” If we allow ourselves to become involved in the affairs of this present life, we will not be those judges. We will do well to follow Gallio’s example and judge only “them that are within” the kingdom of God in this age, just as Gallio judged only those who were concerned with Roman law:

Act 18:14  And when Paul was now about to open his mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you:
Act 18:15  But if it be a question of words and names, and of your law, look ye to it; for I will be no judge of such matters.
Act 18:16  And he drave them from the judgment seat.

1Co 5:9  I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
1Co 5:10  Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
1Co 5:11  But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
1Co 5:12  For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? [“for I will be no judge of such matters.”] do not ye judge them that are within? [the kingdom of God within (Luk 17:20-21)]
1Co 5:13  But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Act 18:17  Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment seat. And Gallio cared for none of those things.

These ‘Greeks’ were not the Greeks who were drawn to the words of Paul. These were profane men who were quick to place their stamp of approval on Gallio’s disdain of the Jews and their laws.

The fact that verse eight tells us that “Crispus [was] the chief ruler of the synagogue” and here in this same chapter we are told that “Sosthenes [was] the chief ruler of the synagogue” is called a contradiction by detractors who are always looking for some way to discredit scripture. It is clearly a matter of Sosthenes simply succeeding Crispus as the chief ruler of the synagogue. That succession could have been due to some predetermined time for Crispus to serve as the chief ruler, or it could have been occasioned by his conversion to Christianity:

Act 18:8  And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

Paul remained in Corinth for awhile after this insurrection against himself and the gospel. The Lord promised him ‘no one [would] set on him to hurt him.’ Nevertheless, he was led to leave Corinth to return to Antioch via Jerusalem where he was intent on “keeping this feast that comes in Jerusalem”:

Act 18:18  And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.
Act 18:19  And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews.

According to the law of Moses, a Nazarite was to conclude his vow at the temple in Jerusalem, the place where the Lord had chosen to place His name:

Num 6:13  And this is the law of the Nazarite, when the days of his separation are fulfilled: he shall be brought unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation:

Num 6:18  And the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it in the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offerings.

Act 18:20  When they desired him to tarry longer time with them, he consented not;
Act 18:21  But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.

There are those who contend that Paul took a vow and shaved his head just because he was on his way to Jerusalem, and he simply wanted to be a Jew to the Jews:

1Co 9:19  For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
1Co 9:20  And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
1Co 9:21  To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
1Co 9:22  To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
1Co 9:23  And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

When we think that Paul was not in good conscience keeping the law of Moses, we use his own words in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 to paint him as a hypocrite. Either “[he himself was] walking orderly and keeping the law” of Moses, or he was not doing so. If Paul himself were not keeping the law of Moses, why did he agree to demonstrate that he was keeping the law of Moses? If he, being a Jew, was not doing so except when he went up to Jerusalem, then Paul was just as great a hypocrite as Peter and Barnabas had been in Antioch just prior to the Jerusalem conference. Paul was not being a Jew only when he was in Jerusalem, and he did not hesitate to demonstrate that he had been faithful to the decrees of the apostles and elders during “the time of reformation” (Heb 9:10):

Act 21:17  And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.
Act 21:18  And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
Act 21:19  And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.
Act 21:20  And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
Act 21:21  And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
Act 21:22  What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
Act 21:23  Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
Act 21:24  Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
Act 21:25  As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
Act 21:26  Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

Heb 9:6  Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.
Heb 9:7  But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
Heb 9:8  The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
Heb 9:9  Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
Heb 9:10  Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

Paul agreed with the decrees of the apostles and elders which decreed that the Jews were still under the law of Moses, and according to the holy ghost it was not yet time for the Jewish believers to stop keeping all the rituals of the law of Moses (Act 15:21-31 and Act 21:17-26).

Paul also denied before Festus under the inspiration of the holy spirit (Mar 13:9-11; Luk 21:12-15) that he had ever taught the Jews anything contrary to Moses:

Act 25:7  And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove.
Act 25:8  While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

Mar 13:9  But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.
Mar 13:10  And the gospel must first be published among all nations.
Mar 13:11  But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.

When Paul denied breaking the law of Moses or teaching the Jews among the Gentiles to do so, “it was not [him that spake], but the holy ghost”:

Act 25:8  While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

On his return trip to Syria, Paul went to Ephesus for the first time. Ephesus was in Asia, and earlier in this second journey he had been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to go into Asia:

Act 16:6  Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia,

This is the same second journey, but at this time he is not forbidden to go into Asia, and while he does not spend much time in Ephesus on this second journey, he did take the time to enter into the synagogue where he reasoned with the Jews:

Act 18:19  And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews.

From Ephesus Paul sailed straight to Caesarea and went from Caesarea up to Jerusalem to keep the feast he was intent on keeping in Jerusalem. His going up to Jerusalem is mentioned simply as ‘saluting the church’, and then he returns to his home base of Syrian Antioch, where he “spends some time” before beginning his third and final missionary journey:

Act 18:22  And when he had landed at Caesarea, and gone up, and saluted the church [at Jerusalem], he went down to Antioch.
Act 18:23  And after he had spent some time there, he departed, and went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples.

This is the beginning of Paul’s third and final missionary journey.

At the end of this chapter, we are introduced to another powerful evangelist who the holy ghost has seen fit to bring to our attention:

Act 18:24  And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
Act 18:25  This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

Being “instructed in the way of the Lord” yet “knowing only the baptism of John” is another way of saying ‘knowing only the message of John who witnessed that Jesus was the Messiah.’ John was well known throughout Judaism because his father, Zacharias, a well-known elderly priest, had been struck dumb until John’s birth. His elderly mother Elizabeth had been barren and had given birth to John in her old age, just as all the wives of the patriarchs Abraham (Sarah), Isaac (Rebekah), and Jacob (Rachel).

Luk 1:5  There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
Luk 1:6  And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
Luk 1:7  And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years.
Luk 1:8  And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest’s office before God in the order of his course,
Luk 1:9  According to the custom of the priest’s office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.
Luk 1:10  And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense.
Luk 1:11  And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.
Luk 1:12  And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.
Luk 1:13  But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth [Cousin to Mary the mother of Christ, vs 36] shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.
Luk 1:14  And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.
Luk 1:15  For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb. [A shadow of the True ‘filling of the holy ghost’ on the day of Pentecost]
Luk 1:16  And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.
Luk 1:17  And he [John] shall go before him [Christ] in the spirit and power of Elias [“Elias is come already” (Mat 17:12)], to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
Luk 1:18  And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years [Just like all the Old Testament patriarchs and their wives].
Luk 1:19  And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.
Luk 1:20  And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.

This all was done right there at the temple in Jerusalem before all the people of Jerusalem to give John the credence needed to “Go before [Christ] in the spirit and power of Elias” and prepare the way of the coming of the Messiah, Christ, as the gospel of John proclaims:

Joh 1:6  There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
Joh 1:7  The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
Joh 1:8  He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

That is exactly what John did:

Joh 1:29  The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Joh 1:35  Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;
Joh 1:36  And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

That is what is meant by being “instructed in the way of the Lord… knowing only the baptism of John.” John the Baptist lived under the law of Moses completely. The Jews never accused John of breaking the sabbath or reforming the law or making himself equal with God. When Aquilla and Priscilla “took [Apollos] unto themselves and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly”, they shared all the “but I say unto you” reforms of Christ with Apollos, along with everything that had happened to Peter at the house of Cornelius and with Paul on the road to Damascus.

Act 18:26  And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
Act 18:27  And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:
Act 18:28  For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

Christ’s doctrine of ‘spiritual circumcision’ is not unique to the New Testament. While it was not yet understood completely, certainly not by Apollos when he first met Aquilla and Pricilla, it was right there in “that which is written” all along (1Co 4:6):

Deu 10:16  Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Deu 30:6  And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

Jer 4:4  Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings.