Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary Acts》
Download 4.82 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- If now this had really been so.…’
13. παρὰ τ. νόμον] Against the Mosaic law:—the exercise of which, as a ‘religio licita,’ was allowed to the Jews. Verse 14
14.] Though manuscript authority is so strong against the οὖν, I have retained it, as also has Tischdf. (ed. 7 [not ed. 8]). Its omission may be easily accounted for, from the copyists finding it unnecessary and seemingly out of place: but on no supposition can its insertion be rendered probable. It stands very appropriately here, referring to the complaint of the Jews, either as uttered by them, or perhaps recapitulated by Gallio:—‘Ye have charged this man with lawless conduct. If now this had really been so.…’ κατὰ λόγον] See reff. We have the opposite παρὰ λόγον in 2 Maccabees 4:36. ἂν ἠνεσχ. ὑμ.] I should have borne with (patiently heard) you. Verse 15
15.] ζητήματα has apparently been alterèd to ζήτημα to suit the sense, there being but one question before Gallio. But the plural expresses contempt: If it is questions, &c.: as we should say, ‘a parcel of questions.’ See ch. Acts 23:29. ὀνομάτων] e.g. Paul asserted Jesus to be the Christ, which the Jews denied. This to a Roman would be a question of names. τ. καθʼ ὑμᾶς, with emphasis: see reff. So Lysias (ch. Acts 23:29) declined to decide Paul’s case; and Festus (ch. Acts 25:20), though he did not altogether put the enquiry by, wished to judge it at Jerusalem, where he might have the counsel of those learned in the Jewish law. Verse 17
17. πάντες] Apparently, all the mob, i.e. the Gentile population present. Sosthenes, as the ruler of the synagogue ( ἀρχ. = either the ruler, or one of the rulers; perhaps he had succeeded Crispus), had been the chief of the complainant Jews, and therefore, on their cause being rejected, and themselves ignominiously dismissed, was roughly treated by the mob. From this, certainly the right explanation, has arisen the gloss οἱ ἕλληνες. The other gloss, οἱ ἰουδαῖοι, has sprung from the notion that this Sosthenes was the same person with the Sosthenes of 1 Corinthians 1:1, a Christian and a companion of Paul. But, not to insist on the improbability of the party driven from the tribunal having beaten one of their antagonists in front of the tribunal,—why did they not beat Paul himself? There is no ground for supposing the two persons to be the same, Sosthenes being no uncommon name. If they were, this man must have been converted afterwards; but he is not among those who accompanied Paul into Asia, either in Acts 18:18, or ch. Acts 20:4. The carelessness of Gallio about the matter clearly seems to be a further instance of his contempt for the Jews, and indisposition to favour them or their persecution of Paul. Had this been otherwise meant, certainly καί would not have been the copula. ‘So little did the information against Paul prosper, that the informers themselves were beaten without interference of the judge.’ Meyer. Verse 18 18.] It has been considered doubtful whether the words κειρ. τ. κεφ. κ. τ. λ. apply to Paul, the subject of the sentence, or to Aquila, the last subject. The former is held by Chrys., Theoph., Aug(89), Jer(90), Isid(91), Bede(92), Calv., Beza, Calov., Wolf, Olsh., Neand., De Wette, Baumgarten, Hackett, Wordsworth (whose note may be profitably consulted), al.:—the latter by (Vulg.), Grot., Alberti, Kuinoel, Meyer, al., and more recently Dean Howson, vol. i. p. 498. But I quite agree with Neander (Pfl. u. Leit. p. 348, note), that if we consider the matter carefully, there can be no doubt that they can only apply to Paul. For, although this vow differed from that of the Nazarite, who shaved his hair at the end of his votive period, in the temple at Jerusalem, and burnt it with his peace-offering (Numbers 6:1-21), Josephus gives us a description of a somewhat similar one, B. J. ii. 15. 1, τοὺς γὰρ ἢ νόσῳ καταπονουμένους ἤ τισιν ἄλλαις ἀνάγκαις, ἔθος εὔχεσθαι πρὸ τριάκοντα ἡμερῶν ἧς ἀποδώσειν μέλλοιεν θυσίας, οἴνου τε ἀφέξεσθαι καὶ ξυρήσασθαι τὰς κόμας,—where it appears from ξυρήσασθαι (which, as Neander observes, if it applied to the end of the time, would be ξυρήσεσθαι (or perhaps rather θρέψειν)), that the hair was shaved thirty days before the sacrifice. At all events, no sacrifice could be offered any where but at Jerusalem: and every such vow would conclude with a sacrifice. Now we find, on comparing the subsequent course of Aquila with that of Paul,—that the former did not go up to Jerusalem, but remained at Ephesus (Acts 18:26): but that Paul hastened by Ephesus, and did go up to Jerusalem: see Acts 18:22. Again, it would be quite irrelevant to the purpose of Luke, to relate such a fact of one of Paul’s companions. That he should do so apologetically, to shew that the Apostle still countenanced conformity with the law, is a view which I cannot find justified by any features of this book: and it surely would be a very far-fetched apology, and one likely to escape the notice of many readers, seeing that Aquila would not appear as being under Paul’s influence, and even his conversion to the Gospel has not been related, but is left to be implied from Acts 18:26. Again, Meyer’s ground for referring κειράμ. to Aquila,—that his name is here placed after that of his wife,—is untenable, seeing that, for some reason, probably the superior character or office in the church, of Priscilla, the same arrangement is found (in the best MSS. at Acts 18:26, and) at Romans 16:3; 2 Timothy 4:19. Lastly, the very form of the sentence is against a change of subject at κειράμενος. There are, from Acts 18:18-23 incl.,—a section forming a distinct narration, and complete in itself,—no less than nine aorist participles, eight of which indisputably apply to Paul as the subject of the section: leaving it hardly open to question that κειράμενος also must be referred to him. There need be no enquiry what danger can have prompted such a vow on his part, when we recollect the catalogue given by him in 2 Corinthians 11. Besides, he had, since his last visit to Jerusalem, been νόσῳ καταπονούμενος (see Jos. above, note on ch. Acts 16:6, and Prolegg. to Gal. § ii. 3): it is true, a considerable time ago, but this need not prevent our supposing that the vow may have been then made, to be paid on his next visit to Jerusalem. That he had not sooner paid it, is accounted for by his having been since that time under continual pressure of preaching and founding churches, and having finally been detained by special command at Corinth. That he was now so anxious to pay it (Acts 18:21), consists well with the supposition of its having been long delayed. ἐν κεγχρεαῖς] κεγχρεαὶ κώμη κ. λιμὴν ἀπέχων τῆς πόλεως ὅσον ἑβδομήκοντα στάδια. τούτῳ μὲν χρῶνται πρὸς τοὺς ἐκ τῆς ἀσίας, πρὸς δὲ τοὺς ἐκ τῆς ἰταλίας τῷ λεχαίῳ. Strabo, viii. 380. There was soon after a Christian church there: see Romans 16:1. Verse 19
19. ἔφεσον] Ephesus was the ancient capital of Ionia (Ptol. v. 2. 8), and at this time, of the Roman proconsular province of Asia,—on the Caÿster, near the coast, between Symrna and Miletus. It was famed for its commerce, but even more for its magnificent temple of Artemis (see ch. Acts 19:24; Acts 19:27, and notes). See a full account of its situation and history, secular and Christian, in the Prolegg. to Eph. § ii. 2–6; and an interesting description, with plan, in Mr. Lewin’s Life and Epistles of St. Paul, i. 344 ff. αὐτοῦ] Perhaps this may be said proleptically, referring to his journey to Palestine (De Wette): but on account of the δέ which follows, I should rather understand it to mean that the Jewish synagogue was (as sometimes the case, see Winer, Realw., ‘Synagogen’) outside the town, and that Priscilla and Aquila were left in the town. διελέχθη, aor., referring to one, and a transient occasion: διελέγετο, imperf., Acts 18:4, of his long stay, and continual discourses in the Corinthian synagogue. Verse 21
21.] The omission of the words here inserted in rec., δεῖ με πάντως τὴν ἑορτὴν τὴν ἐρχομένην ποιῆσαι εἰς ἱεροσόλυμα, seems necessitated on the principle of being guided in doubtful cases by the testimony of our most ancient MSS. The text thus produced is the shortest and simplest, and the facts, of other glosses having been attempted on this verse, and of ms. 36 inserting the words without altering the construction to suit them, and (93) omitting the καί before ἀνήχθη, and the δέ before ἀνακάμψω, tend perhaps to throw discredit on the insertion. The gloss, if such it be, has probably been owing to an endeavour to conform the circumstances to those related in ch. Acts 20:16. If they stand, and for those who read them, it may still be interesting to enquire at what feast they may be supposed to point. (1) Not at the Passover: for the ordinary duration of the ‘mare clausum’ was (Livy xxxvii. 9) till the vernal equinox. According to Vegetius de Re Milit. iv. 39, ‘ex die iii. Id. Novembr. usque in diem vi. Id. Martii, maria claudebantur.’ And we are not at liberty to assume an exceptional case, such as sometimes occurred (Philo, Leg. ad Caium, § 29, vol. ii. p. 573; Tacit. Ann. xii. 43; Plin. ii. 47). Hence, if the voyage from Corinth at all approached the length of that from Philippi to Jerusalem in ch. 20, 21, he would have set sail at a time when it would have been hardly possible. (2) Not at the feast of Tabernacles. For if it were, he must have sailed from Corinth in August or September. Now, as he stayed there something more than a year and a half, his sea-voyage from Berœa to Athens would in this case have been made in the depth of winter; which (especially as a choice of land or water was open to him) is impossible. (3) It remains, then, that the feast should have been Pentecost; at which Paul also visited Jerusalem, ch. Acts 20:16. (The above is the argument of Wieseler, Chron. d. Apostelgesch. pp. 48–50, who however allows too long for the voyage from Corinth, forgetting that from the seven weeks’ voyage of ch. 20, 21 are to be taken seven days at Troas (Acts 20:6), seven at Tyre (Acts 21:4), one at Ptolemais (Acts 21:7), ἡμέραι πλείους at Cæsarea (Acts 21:10),—in all certainly not less than three weeks.) The Apostle’s promise of return was fulfilled ch. Acts 19:1 ff. Verse 22
ἀσπ. τ. ἐκκλ.] The payment of his vow is not mentioned, partly because it is understood from the mere mention of the vow itself, Acts 18:18,—partly, perhaps, because it was privately done, and with no view to attract notice as in ch. 21. Verse 23
Either (1) Galatia is here a general term including Lycaonia, and Paul went by Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, &c. as before in ch. 16, or (2) he did not visit Lycaonia this time, but went through Cappadocia: to which also the words διελθόντα τὰ ἀνωτερικὰ μέρη (ch. Acts 19:1) seem to point, ἡ ἄνω ἀσία being the country east of the Halys. We find Christian churches in Cappadocia, 1 Peter 1:1. On this journey, as connected with the state of the Galatian churches, see Prolegg. to Gal. § iii. 1. καθεξῆς implies taking the churches in order; regularly visiting them, each as they lay in his route. One work accomplished by him in this journey was the ordaining (but apparently not collecting) a contribution for the poor saints at Jerusalem: see 1 Corinthians 16:1. Timotheus and Erastus probably accompanied him, see ch. Acts 19:22; 2 Corinthians 1:1; and Gaius and Aristarchus, ch. Acts 19:29; and perhaps Titus, 2 Corinthians 12:18 al. (and Sosthenes? (1 Corinthians 1:1), but see on Acts 18:17.) Verses 24-28 24–28.] APOLLOS AT EPHESUS, AND IN ACHAIA. ἀπολλώς] abbreviated from ἀπολλώνιος [as Lucas from Lucanus, &c.]: see var. read. ἀλεξανδρεύς] Alexandria was the great seat of the Hellenistic [or later Greek] language, learning, and philosophy (see ch. Acts 6:9). A large number of Jews had been planted there by its founder, Alexander the Great. The celebrated LXX version of the O. T. was made there under the Ptolemies. There took place that remarkable fusion of Greek, Oriental, and Judaic elements of thought and belief, which was destined to enter so widely, for good and for evil, into the minds and writings of Christians. We see in the providential calling of Apollos to the ministry, an instance of adaptation of the workman to the work. A masterly exposition of the Scriptures by a learned Hellenist of Alexandria formed the most appropriate watering (1 Corinthians 3:6) for those who had been planted by the pupil of Gamaliel. λόγιος] either (1) learned, as Philo, Vita Mos. i. 5, vol. ii. p. 84, αἰγυπτίων οἱ λόγιοι, and Jos. B. J. vi. 5. 3, who distinguishes, in the interpretation of the omens preceding the siege, οἱ ἰδιῶται from οἱ λόγιοι,—or (2) eloquent: so Jos. Antt. xvii. 6. 2 calls Judas and Matthias, ἰουδαίων λογιώτατοι and πατρίων ἐξηγηταὶ νόμων. The etymologists make the former the ancient,—the latter a subsequent meaning. So Thom. Mag.: λογίους τοὺς πολυΐστορας οἱ ἀρχαῖοι ἀττικίζοντες, ὡς καὶ ἡρόδοτος· λογίους δὲ τοὺς διαλεκτικοὺς οἱ ὕστερον. The latter meaning is most appropriate here, both because the peculiar kind of learning implied by λόγιος [acquaintance with stories and legends] would not be likely to be predicated of Apollos,—and because the subsequent words, δυνατὸς ἐν τ. γραφαῖς, sufficiently indicate his learning, and in what it lay. See on λόγιος as applied to Papias by Eusebius, prolegg. to Matt. § ii. 1 ( α) note. Verse 25
25.] Apollos had received (from his youth?) the true doctrine of the Messiahship of Jesus, as pointed out by John the Baptist: doubtless from some disciple of John: but more than this he knew not. The doctrines of the Cross,—the Resurrection,—the outpouring of the Spirit,—these were unknown to him: but more particularly (from the words ἐπιστ. μόνον τὸ βάπτ. ἰωάν.) the latter, as connected with Christian baptism: see further on ch. Acts 19:2-3. The mistake of supposing that he did not know Jesus to be the Messiah, has arisen from the description of his subsequent work at Corinth, Acts 18:28, but by no means follows from it: this he did before, but not so completely. The same mistake has led to the alteration of ἰησοῦ into the κυρίου of the rec., it having been well imagined that he could not teach ἀκριβῶς τὰ π. τοῦ ἰησοῦ if he did not know him to be the Messiah: whereas by these words is imported that he knew and taught accurately the facts respecting Jesus, but of the consequences of that which he taught, of all which may be summed up in the doctrine of Christian baptism, he had no idea. ἐπιστ. μόνον] Meyer well remarks, that it is not meant that he was absolutely ignorant of the fact of there being such a thing as Christian baptism, but ignorant of its being any thing different from that of John: he knew, or recognized in baptism only that which the baptism of John was: a sign of repentance. Verse 26
26. ἀκριβέστερον] The former accuracy was only in facts: this is the still more expanded accuracy of doctrine. That was merely τὰ περὶ τοῦ ἰησοῦ, as He lived and ministered on earth: this included also the promise of the Spirit, and its performance. Verse 27
27. προτρεψάμενοι] probably Priscilla and Aquila principally. It may have been from their account of the Corinthian church, that he was desirous to go to Achaia. After προτρεψ. not Apollos, but the disciples (at Corinth) must be understood as an object. Otherwise αὐτόν would have been expressed. So the remarkable reading of (94). συνεβ.] contulit, Vulg. contributed, to their help. διὰ τῆς χάριτος] Bengel, Olsh., Meyer, and others join these words with συνεβάλετο, and understand them ‘by the Grace of God which was in him.’ But this, from their position, is very unnatural; and hardly less so from the διὰ, whereas such a sense would rather require τῇ χάριτι. In the only other two places where the expression occurs (reff.), it refers (1) to the electing grace of God, ref. Gal., (2) to the grace assisting believers to His service, ref. Heb. So that I adopt the more natural rendering of the E. V., those who had believed through grace. “The γάρ should be noticed. His coming was a valuable assistance to the Christians against the Jews, in the controversies which had doubtless been going on since Paul’s departure.” C. and H., edn. 2, ii. p. 10. Verse 28
28.] διακατηλέγχετο, argued down, as we say,—‘proved it in their teeth:’ and then the διὰ gives the sense of continuity,—that this was not done once or twice, but continuously. 19 Chapter 19 Verse 1 1. τὰ ἀνωτερικὰ μέρη] By this name were known the eastern parts of Asia Minor, beyond the river Halys, or in comparison with Ephesus, in the direction of that river. So Herodotus, speaking as a Halicarnassian, calls even the neighbourhood of Sardis τὰ ἄνω τῆς ἀσίας, i. 177; including in the term, however, many of the inland districts, Assyria, Babylonia, &c. So that the reading ἀνατολικά, which is found in three cursives and Theophyl-sif., is a good gloss. τινας μαθητάς] These seem to have been in the same situation as Apollos, see on ch. Acts 18:25. They cannot have been mere disciples of John, on account of πιστεύσαντες, which can bear no meaning but that of believing on the Lord Jesus: but they had received only John’s baptism, and had had no proof of the descent of the Holy Spirit, nor knowledge of His gifts. Verses 1-41
Verse 2
2. ἐλάβ. πιστεύς.] The aorist should be faithfully rendered: not as E. V. ‘Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?’ but Did ye receive the Holy Ghost when ye became (not, when ye had become: cf. προσευξάμενοι εἶπαν, ch. Acts 1:24, and Winer, edn. 6, § 45. 6. b, also note on Acts 19:29) believers? i.e. ‘on your becoming believers, had ye the gifts of the Spirit conferred on you?’—as in ch. Acts 8:16-17. This is both grammatically necessary (see also Romans 13:11, ἐγγύτερον ἡμῶν ἡ σωτηρία ἢ ὅτε ἐπιστεύσαμεν), and absolutely demanded by the sense; the enquiry being, not as to any reception of the Holy Ghost during the period since their baptism, but as to one simultaneous with their first reception into the church: and their not having then received Him is accounted for by the deficiency of their baptism. ἀλλʼ οὐδέ] On the contrary, not even … ἠκούσαμεν] Here again, not, ‘we have not heard,’ which would involve an absurdity: ‘nam neque Mosen neque Johannem Baptistam sequi potuissent, quin de Spiritu Sancto ipso audissent’ (Bengel);—but we did not hear, at the time of our conversion:—Our reception into the faith was unaccompanied by any preaching of the office or the gifts of the Spirit,—our baptism was not followed by any imparting of His gifts: we did not so much as hear Him mentioned. ἐστιν cannot, from its position, be emphatic, nor does it mean “were to be had” (Wordsw.), as John 7:39. The stress of the sentence is on ἠκούσαμεν: so for from receiving the Holy Ghost, they did not even hear of His existence. Tiros only will find an objection to this rendering in ἐστίν (expecting ἦν): the present is commonly used after the aorist of declarative verbs or verbs of sense, in the clause which contains the matter declared, seen, or heard: the action being transferred pro tempore to the time spoken of. See reff. Verse 3
3.] Paul’s question establishes the above rendering, to what then ( οὖν, if ye did not so much as hear of the Holy Ghost at your first believing) were ye baptized? If the question and answer in Acts 19:2 regarded, as in E. V., the whole interval since their conversion, this enquiry would have been more naturally expressed in the perfect. See Galatians 3:27, where there is the same necessity of preserving the historical sense of the aorists. εἰς τί] unto (with a view to, as introductory to) what profession? They answer, unto (that indicated by) the baptism of John, viz.: repentance, and the believing on Jesus, then to come, but now (see ch. Acts 18:25, note) the object of our faith. Verse 4
Verse 5
5.] Two singular perversions of this verse have occurred: (1) the Anabaptists use it to authorize the repetition of Christian baptism, whereas it is not Christian baptism which was repeated, seeing that John’s baptism was not such, but only the baptism which they now for the first time received; and (2) Beza, Calixtus, Calov., Suicer, Glass., Buddeus, Wolf, and al., wishing to wrest this weapon out of the hands of the Anabaptists, oddly enough suppose this verse to belong still to Paul’s discourse, and to mean, ‘and the people when they heard him (John), were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.’ This obviously is contrary to fact, historically: and would leave our present narrative in a singular state: for Paul, having treated their baptism as insufficient, would thus proceed on it to impose his hands, as if it were sufficient. εἰς τὸ ὄν. τ. κυρ. ἰησοῦ] Two questions arise here: (1) Was it the ordinary practice to rebaptize those who had been baptized either by John or by the disciples (John 4:1 f.) before baptism became, by the effusion of the Holy Spirit, λουτρὸν παλιγγενεσίας? This we cannot definitely answer. That it was sometimes done, this incident shews: but in all probability, in the cases of the majority of the original disciples, the greater baptism by the Holy Ghost and fire on the day of Pentecost superseded the outward form or sign. The Apostles themselves received only this baptism (besides probably that of John): and most likely the same was the case with the original believers. But of the three thousand who were added on the day of Pentecost, very many must have been already baptized by John; and all were rebaptized without enquiry. (2) What conclusion can we deduce from this verse respecting the use or otherwise of baptism in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, in the apostolic period? The only answer must be, that at that early time we have no indication of set formulæ in the administration of either sacrament. Such formulæ arose of necessity, when precision in formal statement of doctrine became an absolute necessity in the church: and the materials for them were found ready in the word of God, who has graciously provided for all necessities of His church in all time. But, in matter of fact, such a baptism as this was a baptism into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. As Jews, these men were already servants of the living God—and by putting on the Son, they received in a new and more gracious sense the Father also. And in the sequel of their baptism, the imposition of hands, they sensibly became recipients of God the Holy Ghost. Where such manifestations were present, the form of words might be wanting; but with us, who have them not, it is necessary and imperative. Dean Howson regards (i. 517; ii. 13) St. Paul’s question in our Acts 19:3 as indicative that the name of the Holy Ghost was used in the baptismal formula. But the inference seems to me insecure. Verse 6
Directory: New%20Testament -> 44Acts -> 44Acts-E 44Acts-E -> Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary – Acts (Vol. 1)》 44Acts-E -> Preparations for a gentile mission-the calling of a new apostle Download 4.82 Mb. Share with your friends:
|