The party makes a voyage of twenty-seven miles to Ptolemais, situated on a small promontory on the north side of a broad bay between it and the modern city of Haifa. The site of ancient Acco (Judg 1:31) and modern Acre, Ptolemais, a prosperous metropolis and Roman colony, had the best anchorage on that part of the central Syrian coast. Here during a one-day stopover Paul and his party greeted the brothers in a church probably planted at the same time as Tyre's (Acts 11:19).

Though they could proceed by road to Caesarea, skirting Mount Carmel (forty miles), probably they go the thirty-two miles by sea. Caesarea, with its magnificent harbor and city built by Herod the Great to serve as the port of Jerusalem, was also the Roman provincial capital of Judea. This is the third time Paul has passed through Caesarea (9:30; 18:22). Philip the evangelist and his four unmarried (literally, virgin) daughters host his group. Philip is identified according to function, if not office, not only to distinguish him from the apostle of the same name but probably also to bring to mind his chief work, the early evangelization of Samaria to the coast (8:4-40). This is one of the three occurrences in the New Testament of the title evangelist (Eph 4:11; 2 Tim 4:5). Our modern appropriation of the term may be too specialized, applied only to those gifted to proclaim the gospel to the unconverted. Pastors who like Timothy preach the Word must remember that they too do the work of an evangelist (2 Tim 4:2, 5). And evangelists must aim for pioneer crosscultural church planting, the missionary work of apostles. Philip's daughters with the gift of prophecy are a reminder that in fulfillment of Joel 2:28/Acts 2:17, without regard to gender, God is pouring out his Spirit in each spiritual generation of the time period called "the last days."

It is not Philip's daughters but Agabus (compare 11:27-28), come down from Judea—that is, Jewish territory—who in an acted prophecy offers another opportunity for Paul to renew his determination to go to Jerusalem. The action and word together communicate the effective and self-fulfilling word of God (Is 55:11; Bruce 1988:401; see Old Testament examples: 1 Kings 11:29-40; Jer 13:1-11). Agabus takes Paul's belt, probably a long strip of cloth which he would wrap around himself several times and in which he would fold money (Mt 10:9; m. Sabbat 10:3; m. Berakot 9:5). He binds himself hand and foot and says, The Holy Spirit says, "In this way the Jews of Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles."

Though neither of these actions is recorded, both are assumed in what Luke tells us of the Jews' treatment and the Romans' handling of Paul (21:30-33; 24:1-9; compare 28:17). We do not need to conclude, as many do, that based on Luke's report of the arrest, Agabus is mistaken. The prophecy's wording, especially hand him over to the Gentiles, parallels Jesus' predictions of his suffering (Lk 9:44; 18:32; 24:7). The theological significance is similar. It is neither the desire nor the just deserts of a righteous person to be given over to the power of enemies (Ps 26[27]:12; 40[41]:3; 73[74]:19; 117[118]:18; 139[140]:9). That is what God has determined as the fate for Israel in punishment for its sins (3 Kingdoms 8:46; 14:16; 2 Chron 25:20). So for this to be prophesied of Paul points to his innocence. As Peter will point out later, Christians are called upon to suffer for the right reason (1 Pet 4:15-16).

If anything divides Christians today, it is this question: Is the miraculous—signs and wonders, the gift of healing or prophecy—intended to continue beyond the apostolic age or the closing of the canon of Scripture? Some who answer in the affirmative with regard to prophecy use this passage to argue that New Testament prophecy is qualitatively different from the prophetic revelation reported in the Old Testament. They define it as simply "telling something that God has spontaneously brought to mind" and claim for it an authority less than Scripture's and even less than recognized Bible teaching (Grudem 1988:29-30). They reason that Paul disobeyed the prophecy of Acts 21:4; Agabus was wrong when his prophecy is compared with Acts 21:30-33; and the daughters of Philip may have prophesied, but as women they would not have been permitted to teach authoritatively (1 Tim 2:12).

We have already seen that these assessments of Acts 21:4 and Agabus's prophecy are not the preferred ones. The distinction between prophecy and teaching and the implications for 1 Timothy 2:12 for Philip's daughters' ministry activity are well taken. Still, for Luke a New Testament prophet

is the Lord's instrument, one among several means by which Jesus leads his church. As one who makes known (gnostos) the meaning of Scripture, exhorts and strengthens the congregation, and instructs the community by revelations of the future, the Christian prophet manifests in the power of the Spirit the character of his Lord, who is the Prophet of the end-time. (Ellis 1970:67)

This is the standard for defining and testing all alleged prophetic utterances in our day.

The prophecy triggers an interaction between Paul and his fellow believers, including members of his traveling band. With tender affection the believers pleaded (better, "were pleading," imperfect) with Paul not to go up (better as a present prohibition, "cease going up"; Bruce 1990:442) to Jerusalem (compare 20:37-38; 21:4). They want to preserve the beloved apostle from physical harm, possibly death, and so keep him for themselves and the church's mission.

Paul responds with unwavering determination as he seeks to help them sort out the will of God in this matter. In such a process he recognizes the effects of their emotions on him. They are weeping for him as the women did for Jesus on the way to the cross (Lk 23:28). They are breaking [his] heart, his resolve, as stone is pulverized. He reaches back for the rationale that guides his whole life: for the name of the Lord Jesus. The One under whom he serves (Acts 20:19, 24) and in whose name he preaches, heals and baptizes (9:27-28; 16:18; 18:15; 19:5) is the One for whose name he is willing to suffer, even die (9:16; compare Lk 21:12; Acts 5:41). He reaffirms his resolve: he is ready . . . to be bound (21:33) and, like the prophets and Jesus before him, to die in Jerusalem (Lk 13:33-34).

In devout resignation, unable to persuade him otherwise, they gave up (literally, "became quiet"; Lk 14:4; Acts 11:18), saying the only thing a Christian can say in such perplexing circumstances: The Lord's will be done (Lk 22:42).

We learn from Paul that suffering for the right reason, for the Lord's sake, is the key to a determination that correctly sorts out God's will. From the Christians we are instructed positively and negatively. Negatively, we must ask ourselves, "Has our own fear of radical obedience ever prompted us to crush someone else's determination to do the Lord's will? Has tender affection ever been substituted for courageous love in wanting God's best for someone else?" (Ogilvie 1983:298). Positively, do we know when to cease striving with one another and in humility, recognizing our lack of definitive knowledge of God's plan for the other, start asking God to carry out his desire for their lives?