] See ch. Acts 15:28-29. Verse 26 26

Verse 26

διαγγέλλων] making known to the ministers of the temple.

τὴν ἐκπλήρωσιν] the fulfilment, i.e. that he and the men had come to fulfil: announcing their intention of fulfilling.

ἕως οὗ προσηνέχθη.] ‘donec offerretur,’ Vulg. The aor. indic. is unusual in an indirect construction, where the aor. subj. is almost always found (ch. Acts 23:12; Acts 23:21; Acts 25:21). But we have Plato, Gorg. p. 506, ἡδέως … ἂν … διελεγόμην, ἕως αὐτῷ τὴν τοῦ ἀμφίονος ἀπέδωκα ῥῆσιν,—and Cratyl. 396, οὐκ ἂν ἐπαυόμην διεξιὼν … ἕως ἀπεπειράθην τῆς σοφίας ταυτησὶ τί ποιήσει. (De W.)

ἡ προσφορά] See Numbers 6:13-17.

Verse 27

ἀπὸ τ. ἀς.] From Ephesus and the neighbourhood, where Paul had so long taught. ‘Paulus, dum fidelibus placandis intentus est (viz. the believing Jews), in hostium furorem incurrit (viz. of the unbelieving Asiatic Jews).’ Calv., in Meyer, who adds, ‘In how many ways had those who were at Jerusalem this Pentecost, already persecuted Paul in Asia?’

Notice the similarity of the charge against him to that against Stephen, ch. Acts 6:13.

Verse 28

Verse 29

Verse 30

Verse 31

ἀνέβη] went (was carried) up; up, either because of his high station, as commanding officer, or because he was locally stationed in the tower Antonia, overlooking (from the N.W.) the temple, where the riot was.

τῷ χιλιάρχῳ τ. σπ.] Claudius Lysias (ch. Acts 23:26), the tribune of the cohort (whose proper complement was 1000 men).

Verse 33

τίς [ ἂν] εἴη, who he might be (subjective possibility): and τί ἐστιν πεπ., what he had done (assuming that he must have done something).

Verse 34

34. παρεμβ.] The camp or barracks attached to the tower Antonia;—or perhaps ‘into the tower’ itself: but the other is the more usual meaning of παρεμβ. “For a full history and description of the fortress of Antonia, see Robinson, i. pp. 431, 435; Williams, Holy City, i. 99; ii. 403–411; Howson, ii. 311.” Wordsworth.

Verse 35

Verse 37

Verse 38

αἰγύπτιος] The inference of the tribune was not, as in Bengel, ‘Græce loquitur: ergo est Ægyptius;’ but the very contrary to this. His being able to speak Greek is a proof to Lysias that he is not that Egyptian. This Egyptian is mentioned by Josephus, Antt. xx. 8. 6, ἀφικνεῖται δέ τις ἐξ αἰγύπτου κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν καιρὸν εἰς τὰ ἱεροσόλυμα, προφήτης εἶναι λέγων, καὶ συμβουλεύων τῷ δημοτικῷ πλήθει σὺν αὐτῷ πρὸς ὄρος τὸ προσαγορευόμενον ἐλαιῶν ἔρχεσθαι, ὃ καὶ τῆς πόλεως ἄντικρυς κείμενον ἀπέχει στάδια πέντε· θέλειν γάρ, ἔφασκεν, αὐτοῖς ἐκεῖθεν ἐπιδεῖξαι, ὡς κελεύσαντος αὐτοῦ πίπτοι τὰ τῶν ἱεροσολύμων τείχη, διʼ ὧν τὴν εἴσοδον αὐτοῖς παρέξειν ἐπηγγέλλετο. φῆλιξ δὲ ὡς ἐπύθετο ταῦτα, κελεύει τοὺς στρατιώτας ἀναλαβεῖν τὰ ὅπλα, καὶ … προσβάλλει τοῖς περὶ τὸν αἰγύπτιον· καὶ τετρακοσίους μὲν αὐτῶν ἀνεῖλε, διακοσίους δὲ ζῶντας ἔλαβεν. ὁ δὲ αἰγύπτιος αὐτὸς διαδράσας ἐκ τῆς μάχης ἀφανὴς ἐγένετο. But in B. J. ii. 13. 5, he says of the same person, περὶ τρισμυρίους ἀθροίζει τῶν ἠπατημένων, περιαγαγὼν δὲ αὐτοὺς ἐκ τῆς ἐρημίας εἰς τὸ ἐλαιῶν καλ. ὄρ. κ. τ. λ … ὥστε συμβολῆς γενομένης … διαφθαρῆναι κ. ζωγρηθῆναι πλείστους τῶν σὺν αὐτῷ. It is obvious that the numerical accounts in Jos. are inconsistent with our text, and with one another. This latter being the case, we may well leave them out of the question. At different times of his rebellion, his number of followers would be variously estimated; and the tribune would naturally take it as he himself or his informant had known it, at some one period. That this is so, we may see by noticing that our narrative speaks of his leading out,—whereas Josephus’s numbers are those whom he brought back from the wilderness against Jerusalem, by which time his band would have augmented considerably.

τοὺς τετρ.] the four thousand,—the matter being one of notoriety.

σικαρίων] From sica, a dagger; they are described by Jos. B. J. ii. 13. 3, ἕτερον εἶδος λῃστῶν ἐν ἱεροσολύμοις ὑπεφύετο, οἱ καλούμενοι σικάριοι, μεθʼ ἡμέραν καὶ ἐν μέσῃ τῇ πόλει φονεύοντες ἀνθρώπους· μάλιστα δὲ ἐν ταῖς ἑορταῖς μισγόμενοι τῷ πλήθει, καὶ ταῖς ἐσθήσεσιν ὑποκρύπτοντες μικρὰ ξιφίδια, τούτοις ἔνυττον τοὺς διαφόρους … πρῶτος μὲν οὖν ὑπʼ αὐτῶν ἰωνάθης ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς ἀποσφάζεται· μετὰ δὲ αὐτὸν καθʼ ἡμέραν ἀνῃροῦντο πολλοί … The art. is generic.

Verse 39

39. μέν] Our indeed,—implying ‘not the Egyptian, but,’—exactly renders it: I indeed am: so Aristoph. Plut. 355, μὰ δίʼ ἐγὼ μὲν οὔ. See Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 413.

οὐκ ἀσήμου πόλ.] See note, ch. Acts 9:11.

The expression is an elegant one, and very common. Wetst. gives many examples, and among them one from Eurip. Ion 8, ἐστὶν γὰρ οὐκ ἄσημος ἑλλήνων πόλις.

There was distinction in his being a πολίτης of an urbs libera. “Many of the coins of Tarsus bear the epigraphs μητρόπολις and αὐτόνομος.” Wordsw. from Akermann, p. 56.

Verse 40

40. τῇ ἑβρ. διαλ.] The Syro-Chaldaic, the mother-tongue of the Jews in Judæa at this time: his motive is implied (ch. Acts 22:2) to be, that they might be the more disposed to listen to him.
22 Chapter 22
Verse 1

1.] This speech of Paul repeats the narrative of his conversion to Christianity, but this time most skilfully arranged and adapted (within legitimate limits) to avoid offence and conciliate his hearers. Proofs of this will appear as we go on. See an enquiry into its diction and rendering into Greek, in the Prolegg. § ii. 17 β.

Verse 3

On Gamaliel, see note, ch. Acts 5:34.

The expression παρὰ τ. πόδ. (see ch. Acts 4:35, note) indicates that the rabbi sat on an elevated seat and the scholars on the ground or on benches, literally at his feet.

κατὰ ἀκρ.] (The art. omitted aft. a prep.) According to the strict acceptation of the law of my fathers; = κατὰ τὴν ἀκριβεστάτην αἵρεσιν τῆς ἡμετέρας θρησκείας, ch. Acts 26:5;—i.e. as a Pharisee. So Jos. B. J. ii. 8. 18, φαρισαῖοι … οἱ δοκοῦντες μετὰ ἀκριβείας ἐξηγεῖσθαι τὰ νόμιμα.

Some of the older Commentators make τοῦ πατρῴου νόμου governed by πεπαιδ., and take κατὰ ἀκρίβ. adverbially: which would give a very vapid sense, the accuracy and carefulness of his education having been already implied in παρὰ τ. π. γαμαλιήλ.

καθὼς …] Not meaning ‘in the same way as YE are all this day’ (but now in another way): but as ye all are this day: ‘I had the same zealous character (not excluding his still retaining it) which you all shew to-day.’ A conciliatory comparison.

Verse 5

5. ὁ ἀρχ.] ‘The High Priest of that day, who is still living:’ i.e. Theophilus, see on ch. Acts 9:1. Similarly, the whole Sanhedrim = ‘those who were then members, and now survive.’

παρʼ ὧν καί] from whom, moreover.

πρὸς τοὺς ἀδελφ.] to the Jewish (their) brethren (see ch. Acts 28:21). Bornemann’s rendering, ‘against the (Christian) brethren,’ is altogether inadmissible. If ever Paul spoke to the Jews as a Jew, it was on this occasion.

καὶ τοὺς ἐκ.] even those who were there.

ἐκεῖσε] if resolved, would be εἰς δαμασκόν,—a similar construction to εἰς οἶκόν ἐστιν, Mark 2:1, ‘those who had settled at Damascus and were then there.’

Verse 6

Verse 11

Verse 12

Verse 13

Verse 14

τὸν δίκαιον] So Stephen, ch. Acts 7:52. How forcibly must the whole scene have recalled him, whom presently (Acts 22:20) he mentions by name.

Verses 14-16

14–16 is not related, but included, in ch. Acts 9:15-19.

Verse 16

See ref. 1 Cor. and note.

αὐτοῦ] of Jesus, τοῦ δικαίου.

Paul carefully avoids mentioning to the Jews this Name, except where it is unavoidable, in Acts 22:8; so αὐτόν again, Acts 22:18.

Verse 17

17.] viz. as related ch. Acts 9:26-30, where nothing of this vision, or its having been the cause of his leaving Jerusalem, is hinted.

Verse 18

Verse 19

αὐτοί can only refer to the same persons as the subjects of παραδέξονται above: not (as Heinrichs) to the foreign Jews;—“Idcirco iter apostolicum extra urbem detrectat, quod undique odio petitum se iri prævidet, Hierosolymis autem in apostolorum collegio delitescere se posse opinatur:”—a motive totally unworthy of Paul, and an interpretation which happily the sentence will not bear.

Verse 20

20. μάρτυρός σου] “E. V. ‘thy martyr,’ following Beza: Vulg., and Erasm, testis tui. The Apostle may have here used the (Hebrew, עֵד, as Wordsworth) word in its strict primary sense; for a view of Christ in His glory was vouchsafed to Stephen, and it was by bearing witness of that manifestation that he hastened his death (ch. Acts 7:55 ff.). The present meaning of the word martyr did, however, become attached to it at a very early period, and is apparently of apostolic authority: e.g. Revelation 17:6, and Clem. Rom⁽¹⁴⁷⁾ 1 Corinthians 5, p. 217 (cited in note on ch. Acts 1:25).… The transition from the first to the secondary sense may be easily accounted for. Many who had only seen with the eye of faith, suffered persecution and death as a proof of their sincerity. For such constancy the Greek had no adequate term. It was necessary for the Christians to provide one. None was more appropriate than μάρτυρ, seeing what had been the fate of those whom Christ had appointed to be His witnesses (ch. Acts 1:8). They almost all suffered: hence to witness became a synonym for to suffer; while the suffering was in itself a kind of testimony.” (Mr. Humphry.) Bp. Wordsworth well designates this introduction of the name of Stephen “A noble endeavour to make public reparation for a public sin, by public confession in the same place where the sin was committed.”

καὶ αὐτός] I myself also.

Verse 21

21.] The object of Paul in relating this vision appears to have been to shew that his own inclination and prayer had been, that he might preach the Gospel to his own people: but that it was by the imperative command of the Lord Himself that he went to the Gentiles.

Verse 22

καθῆκεν] ‘decuerat:’ implying, he ought to have been put to death long ago (when we endeavoured to do it, but he escaped).

Verse 23

23. ῥιπτούντων] Not ‘flinging off their garments,’ as preparing to stone him, or even as representing the action of such preparation: the former would be futile, as he was in the custody of the tribune,—the latter absurd, and not borne out by any known habit of the Jews: but shaking, jactitantes, their garments, as shaking off the dust, abominating such an expression and him who uttered it. The casting dust into the air was part of the same gesture. Chrys. explains it, ῥιπτάζοντες, ἐκτινάσσοντες.

Verse 24

ἐπεφών.] they were thus crying out against him.

Verse 25

25.] And while they were binding him down with the thongs. Dr. Bloomfield quotes from Dio Cassius, xi. 49, ἀντίγονον ἐμαστίγωσε σταυρῷ προδήσαντες, and explains rightly, I think, the προ in both verbs to allude to the position of the prisoner, which was, bent forward, and tied with a sort of gear made of leather to an inclined post. De W. and others render τοῖς ἱμᾶσιν, ‘for the scourge’ (dat. commodi); but why should μάστιξιν be varied? and can it be shewn (as Dr. B. asks) that the word in the plural will bear this meaning?

ἑκατόνταρχον] The ‘centurio supplicio præpositus’ of Tacitus and Seneca,—standing by to superintend the punishment.

εἰ ἄνθ. κ. τ. λ.] See ch. Acts 16:37, note.

Verse 28

ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ γεγ.] But I (besides having the privilege like thee of being a Roman citizen) was also born one. How was Paul a Roman citizen by birth? Certainly not because he was of Tarsus: for (1) that city had no such privilege, but was only an ‘urbs libera, not a Colonia nor a Municipium: and (2) if this had been so, the mention of his being a man of Tarsus (ch. Acts 21:39) would have of itself prevented his being scourged. It remains, therefore, that his father or some ancestor must have obtained the civitas, either as a reward for service (‘urbes, merita erga P. R. allegantes, … civitate donavit,’ Suet. Aug⁽¹⁴⁸⁾ 47) or by purchase. It has been suggested that the father of Saul may have been sold into slavery at Rome, when Cassius laid a heavy fine on the city [of Tarsus] for having espoused the cause of Octavius and Antony, Appian, B. C. iv. 64, and very many of the Tarsians were sold to pay it. He may have acquired his freedom and the citizenship afterwards. See Mr. Lewin, i. p. 4. But this is mere conjecture.

Verse 29

29. καὶ … δέ] moreover, ‘more than that.’

ἐφοβ.] There is no inconsistency (as De W.) in the tribune’s being afraid because he had bound him, and then letting him remain thus bound. Meyer rightly explains it, that the tribune, having committed this error, is afraid of the possible consequences of it (‘facinus est vinciri civem R., scelus verberari,’ Cic. Verr. v. 66), and shews this by taking the first opportunity of either undoing it, or justifying his further detention, by loosing him, and bringing him before the Sanhedrim. His fear was on account of his first false step; but it was now too late to reverse it: and the same reason which leads him to continue it now, operates afterwards ( ὁ δέσμιος π., ch. Acts 23:18) when the hearing was delayed. That ἦν δεδεκώς cannot, as Bloomfield and Wordsworth suppose, refer only to the binding before scourging, its immediate juxtaposition with ἔλυσεν in the next verse sufficiently shews. Besides, the mere circumstance of a preparation for scourging having been begun in ignorance, and left off as soon as the knowledge was received, would rather have relieved, than occasioned, the fear of the tribune. A more cogent reason still is, that ἦν δεδεκώς can properly only apply to an action still continuing when the fear was felt: that he had put him into custody. ‘The centurion believed Paul’s word, because a false claim of this nature, being easily exposed, and punishable with death (Suet. Claud. 25), was almost an unprecedented thing.’ Hackett.

Verse 30

30. τὸ τί] The art. is epexegetical: see reff. It seems remarkable that the tribune in command should have had the power to summon the Sanhedrim: and I have not seen this remarked on by any Commentator. Some of the ancient correctors of the text, however, seem to have detected the difficulty, and to have altered συνελθεῖν into the vapid ἐλθεῖν in consequence.

καταγ.] From Antonia to the council-room. According to tradition (see Biscoe, p. 147, notes), the Sanhedrim ceased to hold their sessions in the temple about twenty-six years before this period. Had they done so now, Lysias and his soldiers could not have been present, as no heathen was permitted to pass the sacred limits. Their present council-room was in the upper city, near the foot of the bridge leading across the ravine from the western cloister of the temple. Lewin, p. 672.

The purport of Paul’s assertion seems to be this: being charged with neglecting, and teaching others to neglect the law of Moses, he at once endeavours to disarm those who thus accused him, by asserting that up to that day he had lived a true and loyal Jew,—obeying, according to his conscience, the law of that divine πολιτεία of which he was a covenant member. Thus πεπολίτευμαι τῷ θεῷ will have its full and proper meaning: and the words are no vain-glorious ones, but an important assertion of his innocence.

Verse 2

2. ἀνανίας] He was at this time the actual high priest (Acts 23:4). He was the son of Nebedæus (Jos. Antt. xx. 5. 2),—succeeded Joseph son of Camydus, Antt. xx. 1. 3; 5. 2,—and preceded Ismael, son of Phabi (Antt. xx. 8. 8, 11). He was nominated to the office by Herod, king of Chalcis, in A.D. 48 (Antt. xx. 5. 2); and sent to Rome by Quadratus, the prefect of Syria, to give an account to the emperor Claudius (Antt. xx. 6. 2): he appears, however, not to have lost his office, but to have resumed it on his return. This has been regarded as not certain,—and the uncertainty has produced much confusion in the Pauline chronology. But as Wieseler has shewn (Chronol. d. Apostelgeschichte, p. 76, note), there can be no reasonable doubt that it was so, especially as Ananias came off victorious in the cause for which he went to Rome, viz. a quarrel with the Jewish procurator Cumanus,—who went with him, and was condemned to banishment (Antt. xx. 6. 3). He was deposed from his office not long before the departure of Felix (Antt. xx. 8. 8), but still had great power, which he used violently and lawlessly (ib. 9. 2): he was assassinated by the sicarii [see ch. Acts 21:38, note] at last (B. J. ii. 17, 9).

Verse 3