Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary Acts》

προελθ. κ. τ. λ.] For what reason, is not said: but we may well conceive, that if they bore the contributions of the churches, a better opportunity, or safer ship, may have determined Paul to send them on, he himself having work to do at Philippi: or perhaps, again, as Meyer suggests, Paul may have remained behind to keep the days of unleavened bread. But then why should not they have remained too? The same motive may not have operated with them; but in that case no reason can be given why they should have been sent on, except as above. It is not impossible that both may have been combined:—before the end of the days of unleavened bread, a favourable opportunity occurs of sailing to Troas, of which they, with their charge, avail themselves: Paul and Luke waiting till the end of the feast, and taking the risk of a less desirable conveyance. That the feast had something to do with it, the mention of μετὰ τ. ἡ. τ. ἀζ. seems to imply: such notices being not inserted ordinarily by Luke for the sake of dates. The assumption made by some (see, e.g. Mr. Lewin, p. 587), that the rest of the company sailed at once for Troas from Corinth, while Paul and Luke went by land to Philippi, is inconsistent with συνείπετο, Acts 20:4. From the notice here, we learn that Paul’s stay in Europe on this occasion was about three-quarters of a year: viz. from shortly after Pentecost, when he left Ephesus (see on ch. Acts 19:10), to the next Easter.

Verse 6

6. ἄχρ. ἡμ. πέντε] in five days, see reff. The wind must have been adverse: for the voyage from Troas to Philippi (Neapolis) in ch. Acts 16:11, seems to have been made in two days. It appears that they arrived on a Monday.

Compare notes, 2 Corinthians 2:12, ff.

Verse 7

7. ἐν τῇ μιᾷ τ. σαββ.] We have here an intimation of the continuance of the practice, which seems to have begun immediately after the Resurrection (see John 20:26), of assembling on the first day of the week for religious purposes. (Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 67, p. 83, says, τῇ τοῦ ἡλίου λεγομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ πάντων κατὰ πόλεις ἢ ἀγροὺς μενόντων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συνέλευσις γίνεται.) Perhaps the greatest proof of all, that this day was thus observed, may be found in the early (see 1 Corinthians 16:2) and at length general prevalence, in the Gentile world, of the Jewish seven-day period as a division of time,—which was entirely foreign to Gentile habits. It can only have been introduced as following on the practice of especial honour paid to this day. But we find in the Christian Scriptures no trace of any sabbatical observance of this or any day: nay, in Romans 14:5 (where see note), Paul shews the untenableness of any such view under the Christian dispensation. The idea of the transference of the Jewish sabbath from the seventh day to the first was an invention of later times.

κλάσαι ἄρτον] See note on ch. Acts 2:42. The breaking of bread in the Holy Communion was at this time inseparable from the ἀγάπαι. It took place apparently in the evening (after the day’s work was ended), and at the end of the assembly, after the preaching of the word (Acts 20:11).

αὐτοῖς, in the third person, the discourse being addressed to the disciples at Troas: but the first person is used before and after, because all were assembled, and partook of the breaking of bread together. Not observing this, the copyists have altered ἡμῶν above into τῶν μαθητῶν, and ἦμεν, into ἦσαν to suit αὐτοῖς.

Verse 8

Verse 9

ἐπὶ τῆς θυρίδος] On the window-seat. The windows in the East were (and are) without glass, and with or without shutters.

καταφερόμενος ὕπν.] Wetstein gives many instances of the use of καταφέρομαι, either absolute, or with εἰς ὕπνον, signifying ‘to be oppressed with, borne down towards, sleep’. Thus Aristotle, de somn. et vig⁽¹⁰³⁾ iii. p. 466. b. 31, ed. Bekk.: τὰ ὑπνωτικὰ … πάντα … καρηβαρίαν … ποιεῖ … καὶ καταφερόμενοι καὶ νυστάζοντες τοῦτο δοκοῦσιν πάσχειν, καὶ ἀδυνατοῦσιν αἴρειν τὴν κεφαλὴν καὶ τὰ βλέφαρα: and Diod. Sic. iii. 57, κατενεχθεῖσαν εἰς ὕπνον ἰδεῖν ὄψιν.

I believe the word is used here and below in the same sense, not, as usually interpreted, here of the effect of sleep, and below of the fall caused by the sleep. It implies that relaxation of the system, and collapse of the muscular power, which is more or less indicated by our expressions ‘falling asleep,’ ‘dropping asleep.’ This effect is being produced when the first participle is used, which is therefore imperfect,—but as Paul was going on long discoursing, took complete possession of him, and, having been overpowered,—entirely relaxed in consequence of the sleep, he fell.

In the ἤρθη νεκρός here, there is a direct assertion, which can hardly be evaded by explaining it, ‘was taken up for dead,’ as De Wette, Olsh.;—or by saying that it expresses the judgment of those who took him up, as Meyer. It seems to me, that the supposition of a mere suspended animation is as absurd here as in the miracle of Jairus’s daughter, Luke 8:41-56. Let us take the narrative as it stands. The youth falls, and is taken up dead: so much is plainly asserted. (First, let it be remembered that Luke, a physician, was present, who could have at once pronounced on the fact.) Paul, not a physician, but as Apostle,—gifted, not with medical discernment, but with miraculous power, goes down to him, falls on him and embraces him,—a strange proceeding for one bent on discovering suspended animation, but not so for one who bore in mind the action of Elijah (1 Kings 17:21) and Elisha (2 Kings 4:34), each time over a dead body,—and having done this, not before, bids them not to be troubled, for his life was in him. I would ask any unbiassed reader, taking these details into consideration, which of the two is the natural interpretation,—and whether there can be any reasonable doubt that the intent of Luke is to relate a miracle of raising the dead, and that he mentions the falling on and embracing him as the outward significant means taken by the Apostle to that end?

Verse 11

τὸν ἄρτ., as ch. Acts 2:42. Were it not for that usage, the article here might import, ‘the bread which it was intended to break,’ alluding to ἄρτ. above.

γευσάμενος] having made a meal, see reff. The agape was a veritable meal. Not ‘having tasted it,’ viz. the bread which he had broken;—though that is implied, usage decides for the other meaning.

οὕτως] ‘After so doing:’see reff.

Verse 12

12.] As in the raising of Jairus’s daughter, our Lord commanded that something should be given her to eat, that nature might be recruited, so doubtless here rest and treatment were necessary, in order that the restored life might be confirmed, and the shock recovered. The time indicated by αὐγή must have been before or about 5 A.M.: which would allow about four hours since the miracle. We have here a minute but interesting touch of truth in the narrative. Paul, we learn afterwards, Acts 20:13, intended to go afoot. And accordingly here we have it simply related that he started away from Troas before his companions, not remaining for the reintroduction of the now recovered Eutychus in Acts 20:12.

Verse 13

Paul’s reason is not given for wishing to be alone: probably he had some apostolic visit to make.

Verse 14

14. ΄ιτυλήνην] The capital of Lesbos, on the E. coast of the island, famed (Hor. Od. i. 7. 1: Epist. i. 11.17) for its beautiful situation. It had two harbours: the northern, into which their ship would sail, was μέγας κ. βαθύς, χώματι σκεπαζόμενος, Strabo, xiii. 2, p. 137.

Verse 15

΄ίλητον] The ancient capital of Ionia (Herod, i. 142). See 2 Timothy 4:20, and note.

Verse 16

16. κεκρίκει] We see here that the ship was at Paul’s disposal, and probably hired at Philippi, or rather at Neapolis, for the voyage to Patara (ch. Acts 21:1), where he and his company embark in a merchant vessel, going to Tyre. The separation of Paul and Luke from the rest at the beginning of the voyage may have been in some way connected with the hiring or out-fit of this vessel. The expression κεκρίκει (or ἔκρινε, which will amount to the same thing, only it must not be taken ‘for the pluperfect,’ here or any where else) is too subjectively strong to allow of our supposing that the Apostle merely followed the previously determined course of a ship in which he took a passage.

παραπλ. τ. ἔφ.] He may have been afraid of detention there, owing to the machinations of those who had caused the uproar in ch. 19 F. M., in his notes, gives another reason: “He seems to have feared that, had he run up the long gulf to Ephesus, he might he detained in it by the westerly winds, which blow long, especially in the spring.” But these would affect him nearly as much at Miletus.

Verse 17

17.] The distance from Miletus to Ephesus is about thirty miles. He probably, therefore, stayed three or four days altogether at Miletus.

τοὺς πρεσβ.] called, Acts 20:28, ἐπισκόπους. This circumstance began very early to contradict the growing views of the apostolic institution and necessity of prelatical episcopacy. Thus Irenæus, iii. 14. 2, p. 201: ‘In Mileto convocatis episcopis et presbyteris, qui erant ab Epheso et a reliquis proximis civitatibus.’ Here we see (1) the two, bishops and presbyters, distinguished, as if both were sent for, in order that the titles might not seem to belong to the same persons,—and (2) other neighbouring churches also brought in, in order that there might not seem to be ἐπίσκοποι in one church only. That neither of these was the case, is clearly shewn by the plain words of this verse: he sent to Ephesus, and summoned the elders of the church (see below on διῆλθον, Acts 20:25). So early did interested and disingenuous interpretations begin to cloud the light which Scripture might have thrown on ecclesiastical questions. The E. V. has hardly dealt fairly in this case with the sacred text, in rendering ἐπισκόπους, Acts 20:28, ‘overseers;’ whereas it ought there as in all other places to have been bishops, that the fact of elders and bishops having been originally and apostolically synonymous might be apparent to the ordinary English reader, which now it is not.

Verse 18

18.] The evidence furnished by this speech as to the literal report in the Acts of the words spoken by Paul, is most important. It is a treasure-house of words, idioms, and sentiments, peculiarly belonging to the Apostle himself. Many of these appear in the reff., but many more lie beneath the surface, and can only be discovered by a continuous and verbal study of his Epistles. I shall point out such instances of parallelism as I have observed, in the notes.

The contents of the speech may be thus given: He reminds the elders of his conduct among them (Acts 20:18-21): announces to them his final separation from them (Acts 20:22-25): and commends earnestly to them the flock committed to their charge, for which he himself had by word and work disinterestedly laboured (Acts 20:26-35).

ἀπὸ πρ. ἡμ.] These words hold a middle place, partly with ἐπίστασθε, partly with ἐγενόμην. The knowledge on their part was coextensive with his whole stay among them: so that we may take the words with ἐπίστασθε, at the same time carrying on their sense to what follows.

μεθʼ ὑμ. ἐγεν.] So 1 Thessalonians 1:5, οἴδατε οἷοι ἐγενήθημεν ἐν ὑμῖν,—Acts 2:10, ὑμ. μάρτυρες … ὡς ὁσίως … ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἐγενήθημεν. See 1 Corinthians 9:20; 1 Corinthians 9:22.

Verse 19

19. δουλεύων τῷ κυρ] With the sole exception of the assertion of our Lord, ‘Ye cannot serve God and mammon,’ reff. Matt., Luke, the verb δουλεύω for ‘serving God’ is used by Paul only, and by him seven times, viz. besides reff., Romans 12:11; Romans 14:18; Romans 16:18; [Philippians 2:22(?)] Colossians 3:24; 1 Thessalonians 1:9.

μετ. π. ταπ.] Also a Pauline expression, 2 Corinthians 8:7; 2 Corinthians 12:12.

πειρασμῶν] See especially Galatians 4:14.

Verse 20

τῶν συμφερ.] See reff.

Verse 21

21. εἰς θ … εἰς τ. κύρ ἰ.] This use of εἰς is mostly Pauline: and in ch. Acts 24:24 it seems to be taken from his own expression.

Verse 22

As he went up to Jerusalem δεδεμένος τῷ πνεύματι, so he left Judæa again δεδεμένος τῇ σαρκί,—a prisoner according to the flesh.

He had no detailed knowledge of futurity—nothing but what the Holy Spirit, in general forewarning, repeated at every point of his journey ( κατὰ πόλιν; see ch. Acts 21:4; Acts 21:11, for two such instances), announced, viz., imprisonment and tribulations. That here no inner voice of the Spirit is meant, is evident from the words κατὰ πόλιν. (Two of the three other places where this phrase occurs are from the mouth or pen of Paul.)

Verse 23

Verse 24

τελειῶσαι] See the same image, with the same word, remarkably expanded, Philippians 3:12-14. There in Acts 20:12 he has used τετελείωμαι,—and,—as is constantly the case when we are in the habit of connecting certain words together,—the δρόμος immediately occurs to him, which he works into a sublime comparison in Acts 20:14.

δρόμον] A similitude peculiar to Paul: occurring, remarkably enough, in his speech at ch. Acts 13:25. He uses it without the word δρ., at 1 Corinthians 9:24-27, and Philippians 3:14

καὶ τ. δ.] and (i.e. even) the ministry, &c. καί in this sense gives that which, in matter of fact, runs parallel with the metaphorical expression just used,—stands beside it as its antitype.

ἔλαβον] Compare Romans 1:5, διʼ οὗ ἐλάβομεν χάριν κ. ἀποστολήν.

Verse 25

Verse 26

Verse 28

τ. ποιμνίῳ] This similitude does not elsewhere occur in Paul’s writings. We find it (reff.) where we should naturally expect it, used by him to whom it was said, ‘Feed my sheep.’ But it is common in the O. T. and sanctioned by the example of our Lord Himself.

τὸ πν. τ. ἅγ.] See ch. Acts 13:2

ἔθετο] So Paul, reff. 1 Cor.

ἐπισκόπους] See on Acts 20:17, and Theodoret on Philippians 1:1, ἐπισκόπους τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους καλεῖ· ἀμφότερα γὰρ εἶχον κατʼ ἐκεῖνον τὸν καιρὸν τὰ ὀνόματα (Olsh.).

The question between θεοῦ and κυρίου rests principally on internal evidence—which of the two is likely to have been the original reading. The manuscript authority, now that it is certain that ⁽¹⁰⁵⁾ has θεοῦ a prima manu, as also ⁽¹⁰⁶⁾, is weighty on both sides. The early patristic authority for the expression αἷμα θεοῦ is considerable. Ignat. Ephesians 1, p. 644, has ἀναζωπυρήσαντες ἐν αἵματι θεοῦ. Tertull. ad Uxor. ii. 3, vol. i., p. 1293, “pretio empti, et quali pretio? sanguine Dei.” Clem⁽¹⁰⁷⁾ Alex., ‘Quis dives salvus,’ c. 34, vol. ii., p. 344, has δυνάμει θεοῦ πατρός, κ. αἵματι θεοῦ παιδός, κ. δρόσῳ πνεύματος ἁγίου. On the other hand Athanasius (contra Apol. ii. 14, vol. ii., p. 758) says, οὐδαμοῦ δὲ αἶμα θεοῦ δίχα σαρκὸς παραδεδώκασιν αἱ γραφαί, ἢ θεὸν δίχα σαρκὸς παθόντα ἢ ἀναστάντα. In attempting to decide between the two readings, the following alternatives and considerations may be put: (I.) IF κυρίου WAS THE ORIGINAL, it is very possible (1) that some busy scribe may have written at the side, as so often occurs, θεοῦ. This having been once done, the interests of orthodoxy would perpetuate the gloss, and by degrees it would be adopted into the text and supersede the original word, or become combined with it, as is actually the case in ^{(108) (109)} and a vast body of mss. Or, continuing supposition I., it may have been (2) that the expression ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ κυρίου, not found any where else, may have been corrected into the very usual one, ἐκκλ. ( τοῦ) θεοῦ, which occurs eleven times in the Epistles of Paul. Or (3), which I consider exceedingly improbable (see below), the alteration may have been made solely in the interest of orthodoxy. Such are possible, and the two former not improbable, contingencies.

περιεπ.] Luke and Paul (in pastoral Epp. only), see reff.

Verse 29