Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary Acts》

βαρν. κ. παύλ.] Paul has generally been mentioned first since ch. Acts 13:43. (The exception, ch. Acts 14:14, appears to arise from the people calling Barnabas Jupiter, and thus giving him the precedence in Acts 15:12, after which the next mention of them follows the same order.) But here, as at Acts 15:12, we have naturally the old order of precedence in the Jerusalem congregation preserved.

Verse 26

26. παραδ. τ. ψ.] See reff. The sacrifice of their lives was made by them: they were martyrs in will, though their lives had not as yet been laid down in point of fact.

This is mentioned to shew that Paul and Barnabas could have no other motive than that of serving the Lord Jesus Christ, and to awaken trust in the minds of the churches. But, although this was so, the Apostles and Elders did not think proper to send only Paul and Barnabas, who were already so deeply committed by their acts to the same side of the question as the letter which they bore,—but as direct authorities from themselves, Judas and Silas also, who might by word confirm the contents of the Epistle. On the present part. ( ἀπαγγ.) see reff. and Winer, edn. 6, § 45. 1. One account of it is, that during the mission implied in ἀπεστάλκαμεν they would be ἀπαγγέλλοντες. But a far more probable one, that the pres. part. here, as so often, designates merely, carrying rather a logical than a chronological force: “as announcers of.”

Verse 27

27.] τὰ αὐτά, as above, the contents of the Epistle (and any explanation required): not, as Neander, ‘the same things as P. and B. have preached:’ διὰ λόγου, by word of mouth, as opposed to ‘by letter,’decides against this interpretation.

Verse 28

The judgment as to what things were ἐπάναγκες is implied in ἔδοξεν, &c.

ἐπιτίθ. had been used by Peter, Acts 15:10.

Verse 29

ἐξ ὧν, from which things; not, as Meyer, ‘according to which precepts;’ see John 17:15.

εὖ πράξ.] Not, ‘ye shall prosper:’ but as καλῶς ἐποίησας, ch. Acts 10:33; 3 John 1:6,—ye shall do well.

See the curious additions in var. readd.

ἔῤῥωσθε] The customary ‘valete’ of the conclusion of epistles.

Verse 31

Verse 32

On προφ., see ch. Acts 11:27; Acts 13:1; Ephesians 2:20, and notes.

Verse 33

33.] ποι. χρ., having continued some time: see reff.

[34.] On every account it is probable that the words forming this verse in rec. (see var. readd.) are an interpolation. For, (1) manuscript evidence against them is weighty, especially as D, in the case of insertions in the Acts, is of very low authority. (2) The αὐτοῦ is αὐ τούς in C and D, and αὐτοῖς and αὐτόθι in some cursives; and D and the Vulg. add μόνος δὲ ἰούδ. ἐπορεύθη; the former shewing the copying of an indistinct marginal gloss which was not understood, and the latter betraying the secret of the whole, viz. that the notice was interpolated to account for Silas being found again at Antioch in Acts 15:40. (3) Internally considered, the insertion is very improbable: coming after ἀπελύθησαν unexplained (which from its voice and tense implies that the dismissal actually took place and they departed) and followed by παῦλος δέ after ἔδοξε δὲ τῷ σίλᾳ. On Silas’s subsequent presence at Antioch, see note, Acts 15:40.

We learn from Galatians 2:10, that a condition was attached to the cordiality with which the Gentile mission of Paul and Barnabas was recognized by the chief Apostles: that they should remember the poor, i.e. the poor at Jerusalem:—that the wants of the mother church should not be forgotten by those converts, whose Judaical bond to her was thus cast loose. This was an object which Paul was ever most anxious to subserve. See Gal. l. c. and note.]

Verse 35

Verse 36

δή, see above, ch. Acts 13:2.

ἐν αἷς, because πᾶσαν πόλιν involves a plurality: so Xen. Mem. i. 2. 62, ἐάν τις φανερὸς γένηται … τούτοις θάνατός ἐστιν ἡ ζημία: cf. Herm. ad Viger. p. 40.

Verse 38

τὸν ἀποστ.] See ch. Acts 13:13. It hence is evident that his departure was not by the authority of the Apostles (as Benson).

Verse 39

39.] ὁ παῦλος ἐζήτει τὸ δίκαιον, ὁ βαρνάβας τὸ φιλάνθρωπον, Chrysostom: who also remarks on their separate journeys,— ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ καὶ κατὰ σύνεσιν γεγενῆσθαι τὸν χωρισμόν, καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους εἰπεῖν ὅτι ἐπειδὴ ἐγὼ οὐ βούλομαι, σὺ δὲ βούλει, ἵνα μὴ μαχώμεθα, διανειμώμεθα τοὺς τόπους. ὥστε πάνυ εἴκοντες ἀλλήλοις τοῦτο ἐποίουν. Hom. xxxiv., p. 262. Yet it seems as if there were a considerable difference in the character of their setting out. Barnabas appears to have gone with his cousin [see Colossians 4:10, note] without any special sympathy or approval; whereas Paul was commended to the grace of God by the assembled church.

We find Mark afterwards received into favour by Paul, see Colossians 4:10; 2 Timothy 4:11; and in the former of those places it would seem as if he was dependent for his reception on Paul’s special commendation.

Verse 40

40. σίλαν] He may perhaps have come down again to Antioch (see Acts 15:33) in Peter’s company. We find (see above on Acts 15:22) a Silvanus in 1 Peter 5:12, the bearer of that epistle to the congregations of Asia Minor.

Verse 41

ἐκεῖ] At Lystra: which, and not Derbe, was in all probability the birth-place of Timotheus: see on ch. Acts 20:4. This view is confirmed by Acts 16:2.

He had probably been converted by Paul during his former visit, as he calls him his son in the Lord, 1 Corinthians 4:17; 1 Timothy 1:2; 2 Timothy 1:2; perhaps at Antioch in Pisidia, see 2 Timothy 3:10-11. His mother was Eunice, his grandmother Lois,—both women of well-known piety, 2 Timothy 1:5. Whether his father was a proselyte of the gate or not, is uncertain: he certainly was uncircumcised. He would be, besides his personal aptness for the work, singularly fitted to be the coadjutor to Paul, by his mixed extraction forming a link between Jews and Greeks.

Verse 2

Verse 3

διὰ τ. ἰουδ.] That he might not at once, wherever he preached, throw a stumbling-block before the Jews, by having with him one by birth a Jew, but uncircumcised. There was here no concession in doctrine at all, and no reference whatever to the duty of Timotheus himself in the matter. In the case of Titus, a Greek, he dealt otherwise, no such reason existing: Galatians 2:3.

Verse 4

4. τὰς πόλ.] Iconium, and perhaps Antioch in Pisidia. He might at Iconium see the elders of the church of Antioch, as he did afterwards those of Ephesus at Miletus. If he went to Antioch, he might regain his route into Phrygia and Galatia by crossing the hills east of that city.

Verse 5

Verse 6

The Apostle’s route must remain very uncertain. It is probable that he may have followed the great road (according to his usual practice and the natural course of a missionary journey) from Iconium to Philomelium and perhaps as far as Synnada, and thence struck off to the N.E. towards Pessinus in Galatia. That he visited Colossæ, in the extreme S.W. of Phrygia, on this journey, as supposed by some, and maintained with some ingenuity by Mr. Lewin (Life and Epistles of St. Paul i. 191 ff.), is very improbable (see Wieseler, Chron. d. Apostgsch. pp. 28 ff.).

γαλατικὴν χ.] The midland district, known as Galatia, or Gallo-græcia, was inhabited by the descendants of those Gauls who invaded Greece and Asia in the third century B.C., and after various incursions and wars, settled and became mixed with the Greeks in the centre of Asia Minor. They were known as a brave and freedom-loving people, fond of war, and either on their own or others’ account, almost always in arms, and generally as cavalry. Jerome (in the introduction to book ii. of his comm. on Galatians, vol. vii. p. 429) says that their speech was like that of the Germans in the neighbourhood of Treves: and perhaps λυκαονιστί, ch. Acts 14:11, spoken of the neighbouring district, may refer to this peculiardialect. But Greek was extensively spoken. They were conquered by the consul Cn. Manlius Vulso, 189 B.C. (Livy xxxviii. 12, see 1 Maccabees 8:2), but retained their own governors, called as before tetrarchs, and afterwards kings (for one of whom, Deiotarus, a protégé of Pompey’s, Cicero pleaded before Cæsar); their last king, Amyntas, passed over from Antony to Augustus in the battle of Actium. Galatia, after his murder, A.D. 26, became a Roman province. The principal cities were Ancyra,—which was made the metropolis of the province by Augustus,—Tavium, and Pessinus: in all, or some of which, the Apostle certainly preached. He was detained here on account of sickness ( διʼ ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκός, Galatians 4:13). See further in Prolegg. to Gal. § ii.

κωλυθέντες] By some special intimation, like that in ch. Acts 13:2.

ἀσίᾳ] This name, applied at first to the district near the river Cayster in Lydia ( ἀσίῳ ἐν λειμῶνι, καϋστρίου ἀμφὶ ῥέεθρα, Hom. Il. β. 461), came to have a meaning more and more widely extended, till at last it embraced, as at present, the whole vast continent, forming one of the quarters of the globe. But we never find this meaning in Scripture. The Asia of the Acts is not even our Asia Minor,—which name is not used till Orosius (i. 2, p. 16) in the fourth century A.D.,—but only a portion of the western coast of that great peninsula. (A full account of the history of the territory and its changes of extent will be found in C. and H., i. pp. 275 ff., and in Wieseler, pp. 32–35. I confine myself to its import in the Acts.) This, which was the Roman province of Asia,—Asia Propria, Plin. Acts 16:28,—as spoken of in the Acts, includes only Mysia, Lydia, and Caria,—excluding Phrygia (ch. Acts 2:9 and here: 1 Peter 1:1 it must be included) as in Pliny l. c.,—Galatia, Bithynia, Cilicia, Pamphylia, Lycia. See ch. Acts 19:26, &c.

Verses 6-9

Verse 7

The expression πν. ἰησοῦ is remarkable, as occurring in all the great MSS., and from its peculiarity bearing almost unquestionable trace of genuineness,—the idea being quite untenable that the word ἰησοῦ has been inserted here, and no where else, on doctrinal grounds. If the report of this journey came from an unusual source, an unusual expression would be accountable.

Verse 8

8.] παρελθόντες must from the context mean ‘having passed by,’ i.e. as regarded their work of preaching (cf. ch. Acts 20:16),—and not ‘having passed by’ as avoiding it; for they could not get to the coast without entering Mysia. I adhere to this interpretation, notwithstanding what has been said against it by Dr. Bloomfield (Gr. Test. edn. 9). For this sense of παρέρχομαι, which is not figurative at all, but involved in the literal, cf. Hom. Il. θ. 239: Aristoph. Vesp. 636, 7: Plato, Phædr. p. 278 fin.

τρωάδα] Troas (Alexandria Troas, in honour of Alex. the Great: now Eski Stamboul) was a colony juris Italici (see on Acts 16:12), and a free city, and was not reckoned as belonging to either of the provinces Asia or Bithynia. Whether it was for this reason that Paul and his companions visited it, is uncertain. He may have had the design of crossing to Europe, if permitted, which the subsequent vision confirmed. See ch. Acts 20:5; 2 Corinthians 2:12; 2 Timothy 4:13.

Verse 9

9.] The vision seems to have appeared in the same way as that sent to Peter in ch. 10. It was an unreal apparition, designed to convey a practical meaning. The context precludes our understanding it as a dream.

΄ακεδών] known probably by the affecting words spoken by him. There would hardly be any peculiarity of dress by which a Macedonian could be recognized.

Verse 10

10. ἐζητήσαμεν] by immediate enquiry for a ship. This word is remarkable as the introduction of the first person in the narrative: which however is dropped at Acts 16:40, on Paul’s leaving Philippi, and resumed again, ch. Acts 20:5, on occasion of sailing from Philippi. Thence it continues (in all places where we have reason to expect it: see below) to the end of the book. On the question, what is implied by this, we may remark, (1) That while we safely conclude from it that the writer was in company with Paul when he thus speaks, we cannot with like safety infer that he was not, where the third person is used. This latter must be determined by other features of the history. For it is conceivable that a narrative, even where it concerns all present, might be, in its earlier parts, written as of others in the third person, but might, when more intimacy had been established, or even by preference only, be at any point changed to the first. And again, the episodes where the chief person alone, or with his principal companion or companions, is concerned, would be many, in which the narrator would use the third person, not because he was not present, but because he was not concerned. This has not been enough attended to. If it be thought fanciful, I may refer to an undoubted instance in the episode, ch. Acts 21:17, γενομένων ἡμῶν εἰς ἰερ., to ch. Acts 27:1, ὡς δὲ ἐκρίθη τ. ἀποπλεῖν ἡμᾶς, …; during the whole of which time the writer was with or in the neighbourhood of Paul, and drops the we, merely because he is speaking of Paul alone. (2) One objection raised by De Wette to the common view, that Luke accompanied Paul from this time (except as above), is, that several times Paul’s companions are mentioned, but Luke is never among them. On examining however one of the passages where this is done, we find that after the enumeration of Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Timotheus, Tychicus, and Trophimus, we are told, οὗτοι προελθόντες ἔμενον ἡμᾶς ἐν τρωάδι: so that the writer evidently regards himself as being closely associated with Paul, and does not think it requisite to enumerate himself among the companions of the Apostle. This may serve as a key to his practice on other occasions. On the whole, and after careful consideration of the subject, I see no reason to doubt the common view, that Luke here joined the Apostle (whether, as Wieseler suggests, as a physician, on account of his broken health, must of course be matter of conjecture, but is not improbable), and from this time (except from ch. Acts 17:1 to Acts 20:5) accompanies him to the end of the history. See the question of the authorship of the Acts further discussed in the Prolegg. § i. 12–14.

Verse 11

εἱς νεάπολιν] In an E. by N. direction, past the island of Thasos. It was not properly in Macedonia, but in Thrace, and twelve (ten, C. and H. i. 339, from the Jerusalem Itinerary) Roman miles from Philippi, which was the frontier town of Macedonia strictly speaking: see below. It was by Vespasian, together with the whole of Thrace, attached to the province of Macedonia (Winer, Realw.). Some Roman ruins and inscriptions serve to point out the Turkish village of Cavallo as its site.

Verse 12

12. φιλίππους] Philippi was built as a military position on the site of the village Krenides (also called Datos, Appian, Bell. Civ. iv. 105, οἱ δὲ φίλιπποι πόλις ἐστίν, ἣ δάτος ὠνομάζετο πάλαι, καὶ κρηνίδες ἔτι πρὸ δάτου· κρῆναι γάρ εἰσι περὶ τῷ λόφῳ ναμάτων πολλαί), by Philip the Great of Macedon. The plain between the Gangites, on which the town is situate, and the Strymon, was the field of the celebrated battle of Antony and Octavius against Brutus and Cassius (cf. Dio Cassius, xlvii. 41. ff.: Appian, ubi supra): see more below. There is now an insignificant place on its site retaining the name Filiba (or Philippigi?). Winer, Realw.

πρώτη τῆς μερίδος τῆς ΄ακεδονίας πόλις] The first Macedonian city of the district. It was the first Macedonian city to which Paul and his companions came in that district,—Neapolis properly belonging to Thrace. And this epithet of πρώτη would belong to it not only as regarded the journey of Paul and Silas, but as Wieseler remarks (Chron. d. Apgsch. p. 37, note) as lying furthest eastward, for which reason also the district was called Macedonia prima, though furthest from Rome. The other explanations are, (1) ‘chief city,’ as E. V. But this it was not: Thessalonica being the chief city of the whole province, and Amphipolis of the division (if it then subsisted) of Macedonia prima:—(2) πρώτη is taken as a title of honour (Hug, Kuin., De Wette), as we find in the coins of Pergamus and Smyrna (but not in the case of any city out of Asia Minor): (3) πόλις κολων. are united (Grot.),—‘the first city which was a colony.’ But there could be no reason for stating this: whereas there would be every reason to particularize the fact that they tarried and preached in the very first city to which they came, in the territory to which they were sent.

μερίδος would seem to import that the division into Macedonia prima, secunda, &c., made long before this by Æmilius Paulus (Livy, xlv. 29), still subsisted; this however is not necessary: μερίς might be merely a geographical subdivision. Wordsworth finds his solution of the difficulty in “the Hellenistic sense of the word μερίς, viz. a frontier or strip of border land, that by which it (?) is divided from some other adjacent territory: see Ezekiel 45:7.” But this supposed sense may be questioned. Certainly in the place cited μερίς has no such meaning. It there represents חֵלֶק, which is merely a part or portion.

κολωνία] Philippi was made a colonia by Augustus, as a memorial of his victory over Brutus and Cassius, and as a frontier garrison against Thrace. Its full name on the coins of the city was Colonia Augusta Julia Philippensis. A Roman colony was in fact a portion of Rome itself transplanted to the provinces (Aulus Gellius, xvi. 13, calls them ‘ex civitate quasi propagatæ—populi Romani quasi effigies parvæ simulacraque’). The colonists consisted of veteran soldiers and freedmen, who went forth, and determined and marked out their situation, with all religious and military ceremonies. The inhabitants of the coloniæ were Roman citizéns, and were still enrolled in one or other of the tribes, and possessed the privilege of voting at Rome. In them the Roman law was strictly observed, and the Latin language was used on their coins and inscriptions. They were governed by their own senate and magistrates (Duumviri, as the consuls at Rome: see on στρατηγοί below, Acts 16:20), and not by the governor of the province. The land on which they stood was tributary, as being provincial, unless liberated from tribute by the special favour of the jus Italicum, or Quiritarian ownership of the soil. This Philippi possessed, in common with many other coloniæ and favoured provincial towns. The population of such places came in process of time to be of a mixed character: but only the descendants of the original colonists by Roman wives, or women of a people possessing the civitas, were Roman citizens. Hence new supplies of colonists were often necessary. See article ‘Colonia’ in Smith’s Dict. of Antt., and C. and H. i. pp. 341, f.

ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ πόλει] In this city,—as distinguished from the suburban place of prayer to which they afterwards, on the Sabbath, ἐξῆλθον ἔξω τῆς πύλης. Perhaps ταύτῃ may have been changed to αὐτῇ, to make the contrast stronger. ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ πόλει, as distinguished from ἔξω τῆς πύλης, would be too strong an expression for the calm simplicity of St. Luke’s narrative style.

Verse 13