Acts of the Apostles Chapter 18:24- 19:10 Antique Commentary Notes

A.T. Robertson
Act 18:24
Apollos (Apollōs). Genitive ̇ō Attic second declension. Probably a contraction of Apollonios as D has it here.

An Alexandrian (Alexandreus). Alexander the Great founded this city b.c. 332 and placed a colony of Jews there which flourished greatly, one-third of the population at this time. There was a great university and library there. The Jewish-Alexandrian philosophy developed here of which Philo was the chief exponent who was still living. Apollos was undoubtedly a man of the schools and a man of parts.

A learned man (anēr logios). Or eloquent, as the word can mean either a man of words (like one “wordy,” verbose) or a man of ideas, since logos was used either for reason or speech. Apollos was doubtless both learned (mighty in the Scriptures) and eloquent, though eloquence varies greatly in people’s ideas.

Mighty in the Scriptures (dunatos ōn en tais graphais). Being powerful (dunatos verbal of dunamai and same root as dunamis, dynamite, dynamo) in the Scriptures (in the knowledge and the use of the Scriptures), as should be true of every preacher. There is no excuse for ignorance of the Scriptures on the part of preachers, the professed interpreters of the word of God. The last lecture made to the New Testament English class in Southern Baptist Theological Seminary by John A. Broadus was on this passage with a plea for his students to be mighty in the Scriptures. In Alexandria Clement of Alexandria and Origen taught in the Christian theological school.

Adam Clarke
Act 18:24
A certain Jew named Apollos – One MS., with the Coptic and Armenian, calls him Apelles; and the Codex Bezae, Apollonius. It is strange that we should find a Jew, not only with a Roman name, as Aquila, an eagle; but with the name of one of the false gods, as Apollos or Apollo in the text. Query: Whether the parents of this man were not originally Gentiles, but converted to Judaism after their son Apollo (for so we should write the word) had been born and named.

Born at Alexandria – This was a celebrated city of Egypt, built by Alexander the Great, from whom it took its name. It was seated on the Mediterranean Sea, between the Lake Mareotis and the beautiful harbour formed by the Isle of Pharos, about twelve miles west of the Canopic branch of the Nile, in lat. 31°. 10’. N. This city was built under the direction of Dinocrates, the celebrated architect of the temple of Diana at Ephesus. It was in this city that Ptolemy Soter founded the famous academy called the Museum, in which a society of learned men devoted themselves to philosophical studies. Some of the most celebrated schools of antiquity flourished here; and here was the Tower of Pharos, esteemed one of the seven wonders of the world. Alexandria was taken by the French, July 4, 1798, under the command of Bonaparte; and was surrendered to the English under General, now Lord, Hutchinson, in 1801. And, in consequence of the treaty of peace between France and England, it was restored to the Turks. Near this place was the celebrated obelisk, called Cleopatra’s Needle; and the no less famous column, called Pompey’s Pillar. This city exhibits but very slender remains of its ancient splendor.

An eloquent man – Having strong rhetorical powers; highly cultivated, no doubt, in the Alexandrian schools.

Mighty in the Scriptures – Thoroughly acquainted with the law and prophets; and well skilled in the Jewish method of interpreting them.

Adam Clarke
Act 18:25
This man was instructed in the way of the Lord – Κατηχημενος; He was catechized, initiated, in the way, the doctrine, of Jesus as the Christ.

Being fervent in the spirit – Being full of zeal to propagate the truth of God, he taught diligently, ακριβως accurately, (so the word should be translated), the things of Christ as far as he could know them through the ministry of John the Baptist; for it appears he knew nothing more of Christ than what John preached. Some suppose we should read ουκ, not, before ακριβως, correctly, or accurately, because it is said that Aquila and Priscilla expounded the way of the Lord, ακριβεϚερον, more perfectly, rather more accurately; but of this emendation there is not the slightest necessity; for surely it is possible for a man to teach accurately what he knows; and it is possible that another, who possesses more information on the subject than the former, may teach him more accurately, or give him a larger portion of knowledge. Apollo knew the baptism of John; but he knew nothing farther of Jesus Christ than that baptism taught; but, as far as he knew, he taught accurately. Aquila and Priscilla were acquainted with the whole doctrine of the Gospel: the doctrine of Christ dying for our sins, and rising again for our justification; and in this they instructed Apollo; and this was more accurate information than what he had before received, through the medium of John’s ministry.

Albert Barnes
Act 18:25
This man was instructed – Greek: was catechised. He was instructed, in some degree, into the knowledge of the Christian religion. By whom this was done we have no information.

In the way of the Lord – The word “way” often refers to doctrine, Mat_21:32. It means here that he had been correctly taught in regard to the Messiah, yet his knowledge was imperfect, Act_18:26. The amount of his knowledge seems to have been:

(1) He had correct views of the Messiah to come – views which he had derived from the study of the Old Testament. He was expecting a Saviour that would be humble, obscure, and a sacrifice, in opposition to the prevailing notions of the Jews.
(2) He had heard of John; had embraced his doctrine; and probably had been baptized with reference to him that was to come. Compare Mat_3:2; Act_19:4. But it is clear that he had not heard that Jesus was the Messiah. With his correct views in regard to the coming of the Messiah he was endeavoring to instruct and reform his countrymen. He was just in the state of mind to welcome the announcement that the Messiah had come, and to embrace Jesus of Nazareth as the hope of the nation.

Being fervent in the spirit – Being zealous and ardent. See the notes on Rom_12:11.

Taught diligently – Defended with zeal and earnestness his views of the Messiah.

The things of the Lord – The doctrines pertaining to the Messiah as far as he understood them.

Knowing only the baptism of John – Whether he had himself heard John, and been baptized by him. has been made a question which cannot now be decided. It is not necessary, however, to suppose this, as it seems that the knowledge of John’s preaching and baptism had been propagated extensively in other nations beside Judea, Act_19:1-3. The Messiah was expected about that time. The foreign Jews would be waiting for him; and the news of John’s ministry, doctrine, and success would be rapidly propagated from synagogue to synagogue in the surrounding nations. John preached repentance, and baptized with reference to him that was to come after him Act_19:4, and this doctrine Apollos seems to have embraced.

John Gill
Act 18:26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue,…. Of the Jews at Ephesus; using great freedom of speech, and showing much intrepidity and greatness of soul, and presence of mind; not fearing the faces of men, nor the revilings and contradictions of the Jews:

whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard; they attending at the synagogue, and having observed what he delivered, that there was some deficiency in it, though they took no notice of it publicly; partly on their own account, it not being proper, especially for Priscilla, to speak in public, nor was it allowed in the Jewish synagogues for a woman to speak there; and partly on his account, that they might not put him to the blush, and discourage him; and chiefly on account of the Gospel, that they might not lay any stumblingblocks in the way of that, and of young converts, and give an occasion to the adversary to make advantages: wherefore

they took him unto them; they took him aside when he came out of the synagogue, and privately conversed with him; they had him “to their own house”; as the Syriac version renders it;

and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly; these two doubtless had received a considerable measure of evangelical light and knowledge from the Apostle Paul, during the time of their conversation with him; and as they freely received from him, they freely imparted it to Apollos, with a good design to spread the truth of the Gospel, and to promote it and the interest of Christ in the world: and as on the one hand it was a good office, and a kind part in them, to communicate knowledge to him, so it was an instance of a good spirit, and of condescension in him, to be taught and instructed by them; especially since one of them was a woman, and both mechanics, and made but a mean figure: and from hence it may be observed, that women of grace, knowledge, and experience, though they are not allowed to teach in public, yet they may, and ought to communicate in private, what they know of divine things, for the use of others.

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown
Act 18:26
speak boldly in the synagogue, whom when Aquila and Priscilla heard — joying to observe the extent of Scripture knowledge and evangelical truth which he displayed, and the fervency, courage, and eloquence with which he preached the truth.

they took him unto them — privately.

and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly — opening up those truths, to him as yet unknown, on which the Spirit had shed such glorious light. (In what appears to be the true reading of this verse, Priscilla is put before Aquila, as in Act_18:18 [see on Act_18:18]; she being probably the more intelligent and devoted of the two). One cannot but observe how providential it was that this couple should have been left at Ephesus when Paul sailed thence for Syria; and no doubt it was chiefly to pave the way for the better understanding of this episode that the fact is expressly mentioned by the historian in Act_18:19. We see here also an example of not only lay agency (as it is called), but female agency of the highest kind and with the most admirable fruit. Nor can one help admiring the humility and teachableness of so gifted a teacher in sitting at the feet of a Christian woman and her husband.

John Gill
Act 18:27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, &c. The chief city of which was Corinth, and whither Apollos went, as appears from Act_19:1. What disposed him to go thither, after he had received a greater degree of light and knowledge, was no doubt that he might communicate it, to the good of others, to which he was moved by the Holy Ghost, who had work for him to do there: according to Beza’s most ancient copy, there were Corinthians sojourning in Ephesus, who when they had heard him (Apollos), besought him that he would go with them into their country; to which he agreeing, the Ephesians wrote to the disciples at Corinth to receive him, as follows:

the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him; that is, the brethren at Ephesus, among whom Aquila was a principal one, wrote letters of recommendation to the brethren of the churches in Achaia, particularly at Corinth, not only that they would receive him into their houses, and hospitably entertain him as a Christian man, but admit him, and behave towards him as a preacher of the Gospel:

who when he was come; into Achaia, and to Corinth:

helped them much which had believed through grace; the phrase “through grace”, is omitted in the Vulgate Latin version, but is in all the Greek copies, and may be connected either with the word “helped”; as the Syriac version, “he helped through grace”; and then the sense is, that Apollos, through the gifts of grace bestowed on him, or by the assistance of the grace of God, or both, greatly helped and contributed much to the advantage of the believers in those parts; as to the encouragement of their faith, and the increase of the joy of it; for the quickening, and comforting, and establishing them in the truths and doctrines of the Gospel, by his affectionate, fervent, and nervous way of preaching: or it may be connected with the word “believed”, as it is in the Arabic version and in ours; and the meaning is, that he greatly assisted such who were already believers; and who became so, not of themselves, but through the grace of God; for faith is not of nature, nor the produce of man’s free will, but is the gift of God’s grace; it is a fruit of electing grace, an instance of distinguishing grace, it is owing to efficacious grace, and comes along with effectual calling grace, through the word preached, the means of grace; and is supported and maintained by the grace of God; the Ethiopic version renders it, “he preached much to them, who believed in the grace of God”; that is, in the Gospel, the doctrine of the grace of God, which they had received and professed; or in the love and favour of God, they were rooted and grounded in, and persuaded of.

Adam Clarke
Act 18:27
When he was disposed to pass into Achaia – There is a very long and important addition here in the Codex Bezae, of which the following is a translation: But certain Corinthians, who sojourned at Ephesus, and heard him, entreated him to pass over with them to their own country. Then, when he had given his consent, the Ephesians wrote to the disciples at Corinth, that they should receive this man. Who, when he was come, etc. The same addition is found in the later Syriac, and in the Itala version in the Codex Bezae.

Which had believed through grace – These words may either refer to Apollo, or to the people at Corinth. It was through grace that they had believed; and it was through grace that Apollo was enabled to help them much.

The words δια της χαριτος, through grace, are wanting in the Codex Bezae, the later Syriac, the Vulgate, one copy of the Itala, and in some of the fathers. But this omission might have been the effect of carelessness in the writers of those copies from which the foregoing were taken: the words convey the same idea that is expressed by St. Paul, 1Co_3:6 : Paul planted, and Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. Though this eminent man became the instrument of mightily helping the believers in Corinth, yet he was also the innocent cause of a sort of schism among them. For some, taken by his commanding eloquence, began to range themselves on his side, and prefer him to all other teachers. This evil St. Paul reprehends and corrects in his first epistle to the Corinthians. St. Jerome says that Apollo became bishop of Corinth.

A.T. Robertson
Act 18:28
Powerfully (eutonōs). Adverb from eutonos (eu, well, teinō, to stretch), well-strung, at full stretch.

Confuted (diakatēlegcheto). Imperfect middle of the double compound verb diȧkaṫelegchomai, to confute with rivalry in a contest, here alone. The old Greek has dielegchō, to convict of falsehood, but not this double compound which means to argue down to a finish. It is the imperfect tense and does not mean that Apollos convinced these rabbis, but he had the last word.

Publicly (dēmosiāi). See note on Act_5:18; and note on Act_16:37. In open meeting where all could see the victory of Apollos.

Shewing (epideiknus). Present active participle of epideiknumi, old verb to set forth so that all see.

By the Scriptures (dia tōn graphōn). In which Apollos was so “mighty” (Act_18:24) and the rabbis so weak for they knew the oral law better than the written (Mar_7:8-12).

That Jesus was the Christ (einai ton Christon Iēsoun). Infinitive and the accusative in indirect assertion. Apollos proclaims the same message that Paul did everywhere (Act_17:3). He had not yet met Paul, but he had been instructed by Priscilla and Aquila. He is in Corinth building on the foundation laid so well by Paul (1Co_3:4-17). Luke has here made a brief digression from the story of Paul, but it helps us understand Paul better There are those who think that Apollos wrote Hebrews, a guess that may be correct.

A.T. Robertson
Act 19:1
While Apollos was at Corinth (en tōi ton Apollō einai en Korinthōi). Favourite idiom with Luke, en with the locative of the articular infinitive and the accusative of general reference (Luk_1:8; Luk_2:27, etc.).

Having passed through the upper country (dielthonta ta anōterika merē). Second aorist active participle of dierchomai, accusative case agreeing with Paulon, accusative of general reference with the infinitive elthein, idiomatic construction with egeneto. The word for “upper” (anōterika) is a late form for anōtera (Luk_14:10) and occurs in Hippocrates and Galen. It refers to the highlands (cf. Xenophon’s Anabasis) and means that Paul did not travel the usual Roman road west by Colossae and Laodicea in the Lycus Valley, cities that he did not visit (Col_2:1). Instead he took the more direct road through the Cayster Valley to Ephesus. Codex Bezae says here that Paul wanted to go back to Jerusalem, but that the Holy Spirit bade him to go into Asia where he had been forbidden to go in the second tour (Act_16:6). Whether the upper “parts” (merē) here points to North Galatia is still a point of dispute among scholars. So he came again to Ephesus as he had promised to do (Act_18:21). The province of Asia included the western part of Asia Minor. The Romans took this country b.c. 130. Finally the name was extended to the whole continent. It was a jewel in the Roman empire along with Africa and was a senatorial province. It was full of great cities like Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea (the seven churches of Rev. 2;3), Colossae, Hierapolis, Apamea, to go no further. Hellenism had full sway here. Ephesus was the capital and chief city and was a richer and larger city than Corinth. It was located at the entrance to the valley of the Maeander to the east. Here was the power of Rome and the splendour of Greek culture and the full tide of oriental superstition and magic. The Temple of Artemis was one of the seven wonders of the world. While in Ephesus some hold that Paul at this time wrote the Epistle to the Galatians after his recent visit there, some that he did it before his recent visit to Jerusalem. But it is still possible that he wrote it from Corinth just before writing to Rome, a point to discuss later.

Certain disciples (tinas mathētas). Who were they? Apollos had already gone to Corinth. They show no connection with Priscilla and Aquila. Luke calls them “disciples” or “learners” (mathētas) because they were evidently sincere though crude and ignorant. There is no reason at all for connecting these uninformed disciples of the Baptist with Apollos. They were floating followers of the Baptist who drifted into Ephesus and whom Paul found. Some of John’s disciples clung to him till his death (Joh_3:22-25; Luk_7:19; Mat_14:12). Some of them left Palestine without the further knowledge of Jesus that came after his death and some did not even know that, as turned out to be the case with the group in Ephesus.

Adam Clarke
Act 19:1
And it came to pass – while Apollos was at Corinth – The Codex Bezae begins this chapter differently. But then Paul was desirous, according to his own counsel, to go to Jerusalem, the Spirit commanded him to return into Asia: then, passing through the upper parts, he came to Ephesus. This addition is also found in the Latin or Itala part of the same MS., and in the margin of the later Syriac.

Paul having passed through the upper coasts – That is, through those parts of Asia Minor that lay eastward of Ephesus, such as Galatia, Phrygia, and probably Lycaonia and Lydia; and it is in reference to Ephesus that these are called the upper coasts. See their situation on the map.

John Gill
Act 19:2 He said unto them, have ye received the Holy Ghost,…. Meaning, not the special regenerating and sanctifying grace of the Holy Ghost, for that is supposed in their being disciples and believers, but the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, for it follows,

since ye believed? that is, in Christ; which is taking it for granted, that they had received the special grace of the Spirit of God; for this believing is to be understood of true, spiritual, special faith in Christ:

and they said unto him, we have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost; by which they could not mean the person of the Holy Ghost: for they must have known that there was such a divine person as the Holy Ghost, from the writings of the Old Testament, with which they were conversant: and from the ministry of John, into whose baptism they were baptized; who saw the Spirit of God descend on Jesus, and bore witness of it; and declared, that Christ who was to come after him, would baptize with the Holy Ghost: nor could they mean the special grace of the Spirit, which they themselves had received; but the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit of God, which they at present knew nothing of, and which were afterwards bestowed upon them: they knew that there were prophecies in the Old Testament, concerning the effusion of the Spirit in the last days, in the days of the Messiah; but they had not heard that these had had their accomplishment; they had heard nothing of the day of Pentecost, and of the pouring out of the Spirit upon the apostles then, nor of any instance of this kind since; they did not know that the Holy Ghost was yet, Joh_7:39 they knew he was promised, but not that he was given; the Ethiopic version, to avoid the difficulty of the text, renders it, “we have only heard that there was an Holy Ghost”.

Albert Barnes
Act 19:2
Have ye received the Holy Spirit? – Have ye received the extraordinary effusions and miraculous influences of the Holy Spirit? Paul would not doubt that, if they had “believed,” they had received the ordinary converting influences of the Holy Spirit – for it was one of his favorite doctrines that the Holy Spirit renews the heart. But, besides this, the miraculous influences of the Spirit were conferred on many societies of believers. The power of speaking with tongues, or of working miracles, was imparted as an evidence of the presence of God, and of their acceptance with him, Act_10:45-46; 1 Cor. 14. It was natural for Paul to ask whether this evidence of the divine favor has been granted to them.

Since ye believed – Since you embraced the doctrine of John that the Messiah was soon to come.

We have not so much as heard … – This seems to be a very strange answer. Yet we are to remember:
(1) That these were mere disciples of John’s doctrine, and that his preaching related particularly to the Messiah, and not to the Holy Spirit.
(2) It does not even appear that they had heard that the Messiah had come, or had heard of Jesus of Nazareth, Acts . Act_19:4-5.
(3) It is not remarkable, therefore, that they had no clear conceptions of the character and operations of the Holy Spirit. Yet,
(4) They were just in that state of mind that they were willing to embrace the doctrine when it was proclaimed to them, thus showing that they were really under the influence of the Holy Spirit. God may often produce important changes in the hearts and lives of sinners, even where they have no clear and systematic views of religious doctrines. In all such cases, however, there will be a readiness of heart to embrace the truth where it is made known.

John Gill
Act 19:3 And he said unto them, unto what then were ye baptized?…. The apostle takes it for granted that they were baptized, since they were not only believers, but disciples; such as not only believed with the heart, but had made a profession of their faith, and were followers of Christ; but asks unto what they were baptized; either in whose name they were baptized, since Christian baptism was administered in the name of the Spirit, as well as in the name of the Father and of the Son; or what attended or followed their baptism, seeing sometimes the Holy Ghost fell upon persons, either before baptism, or at it, or after it:

and they said, unto John’s baptism; some think they had never been baptized at all with water baptism, only had received the doctrine preached by John, concerning repentance and remission of sins, and so were baptized unto him, professing the same doctrine he did, just as the Israelites were baptized into Moses; others think they were baptized, but very wrongly, being baptized in the name of John, and not in the name of Jesus Christ; and so, as it was not Christian baptism they had submitted to, it was right to baptize them again: but neither of these are probable, for it is not likely that they should receive John’s doctrine, and not his baptism; that they should be his disciples and followers, and not attend to the more distinguishing branch of his ministry; and it is still more unlikely that they should be baptized in his name, who preached Jesus Christ to his followers, and pointed out to them the Lamb of God, and declared him to be greater than he; it seems rather that they were baptized, and that they were baptized in the name of Christ, as John’s disciples were, as the apostle affirms in the following words.

A.T. Robertson
Act 19:4
With the baptism of repentance (baptisma metanoias). Cognate accusative with ebaptisen and the genitive metanoias describing the baptism as marked by (case of species or genus), not as conveying, repentance just as in Mar_1:4 and that was the work of the Holy Spirit. But John preached also the baptism of the Holy Spirit which the Messiah was to bring (Mar_1:7.; Mat_3:11.; Luk_3:16). If they did not know of the Holy Spirit, they had missed the point of John’s baptism.

That they should believe on him that should come after him, that is on Jesus (eis ton erchomenon met’ auton hina pisteus ōsin, tout’ estin eis ton Iēsoun). Note the emphatic prolepsis of eis ton erchomenon met’ auton before hina pisteusōsin with which it is construed. This is John’s identical phrase, “the one coming after me” as seen in Mar_1:7; Mat_3:11; Luk_3:16; Joh_1:15. It is not clear that these “disciples” believed in a Messiah, least of all in Jesus. They were wholly unprepared for the baptism of John. Paul does not mean to say that John’s baptism was inadequate, but he simply explains what John really taught and so what his baptism signified.

Albert Barnes
Act 19:4
John verily baptized – John did indeed baptize.

With the baptism of repentance – Having special reference to repentance, or as a profession that they did repent of their sins. See the notes on Mat_3:6.

Saying unto the people – The design of his preaching was to tarn the people from their sins, and to prepare them for the coming of the Messiah. He therefore directed their attention principally to him that was to come, Joh_1:15, Joh_1:22-27.

That is, on Christ Jesus – These are the words of Paul, explaining what John taught. John taught them to believe in the Messiah, and Paul now showed them that the Messiah was Jesus of Nazareth.

The argument of Paul is, that it was highly proper for them now to profess publicly that Saviour to whom John had borne such explicit testimony. “Jesus is the Messiah for whom John came to prepare the way; and as you have em braced John’s doctrine, you ought now publicly to acknowledge that Redeemer by baptism in his name.

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown
Act 19:4
Then said Paul, John … baptized with the baptism of repentance — water unto repentance.

saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him — that is, who should baptize with the Holy Ghost. The point of contrast is not between John and Christ personally, but between the water baptism of John unto repentance, and the promised baptism of the Spirit from the hands of his coming Master unto new life. As to all the facts, or at least the significancy, of this baptism, which made the whole life and work of Christ another thing from what it was conceived to be before it was vouchsafed, these simple disciples were unenlightened.

Act 19:5
The name of the Lord Jesus (to onoma ton kuriou Iēsou). Apollos was not rebaptized. The twelve apostles were not rebaptized. Jesus received no other baptism than that of John. The point here is simply that these twelve men were grossly ignorant of the meaning of John’s baptism as regards repentance, the Messiahship of Jesus, the Holy Spirit. Hence Paul had them baptized, not so much again, as really baptized this time, in the name or on the authority of the Lord Jesus as he had himself commanded (Mat_28:19) and as was the universal apostolic custom. Proper understanding of “Jesus” involved all the rest including the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Luke does not give a formula, but simply explains that now these men had a proper object of faith (Jesus) and were now really baptized.

Albert Barnes
Act 19:5
When they heard this – When they heard what Paul had said respecting the nature of John’s baptism.

They were baptized … – As there is no other instance in the New Testament of any persons having been rebaptized, it has been made a question by some critics whether it was done here; and they have supposed that all this is the narrative of Luke respecting what took place under the ministry of John: to wit, that he told them to believe on Christ Jesus, and then baptized them in his name. But this is a most forced construction; and it is evident that these persons were rebaptized by the direction of Paul. For:

(1) This is the obvious interpretation of the passage – what would strike all persons as correct, unless there were some previous theory to support.
(2) It was not a matter of fact that John baptized in the name of Christ Jesus. His was the baptism of repentance; and there is not the slightest evidence that he ever used the name of Jesus in the form of baptism.
(3) If it be the sense of the passage that John baptized them in the name of Jesus, then this verse is a mere repetition of Acts . Act_19:4; a tautology of which the sacred writers would not be guilty.
(4) It is evident that the persons on whom Paul laid his hands Acts . Act_19:6, and those who were baptized, were the same. But these were the persons who heard Acts . Act_19:5 what was said.

The narrative is continuous, all parts of it cohering together as relating to a transaction that occurred at the same time. If the obvious interpretation of the passage be the true one, it follows that the baptism of John was not strictly Christian baptism. It was the baptism of repentance; a baptism designed to prepare the way for the introduction of the kingdom of the Messiah. It will not follow, however, from this that Christian baptism is now ever to be repeated. For this there is no warrant in the New Testament. There is no command to repeat it, as in the case of the Lord’s Supper; and the nature and design of the ordinance evidently supposes that it is to be performed but once. The disciples of John were rebaptized, not because baptism is designed to be repeated, but because they never had been, in fact, baptized in the manner prescribed by the Lord Jesus.
In the name of the Lord Jesus – See the notes on Act_2:38.

A.T. Robertson
Act 19:6
When Paul had laid his hands upon them (epithentos autois tou Paulou cheiras). Genitive absolute of second aorist active participle of epitithēmi. This act of laying on of the hands was done in Samaria by Peter and John (Act_8:16) and in Damascus in the case of Paul (Act_9:17) and was followed as here by the descent of the Holy Spirit in supernatural power.

They spake with tongues (elaloun glōssais). Inchoative imperfect, began to speak with tongues as in Jerusalem at Pentecost and as in Caesarea before the baptism.

Prophesied (eprophēteuon). Inchoative imperfect again, began to prophesy. The speaking with tongues and prophesying was external and indubitable proof that the Holy Spirit had come on these twelve uninformed disciples now fully won to the service of Jesus as Messiah. But this baptism in water did not “convey” the Holy Spirit nor forgiveness of sins. Paul was not a sacramentalist.

John Gill
Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them,…. They having been before baptized, not by him, but by John, or one of his disciples, in the name of the Lord Jesus; just as Peter and John laid their hands upon the believing Samaritans, who had been before baptized by Philip, Act_8:14 and the same extraordinary effects followed:

the Holy Ghost came on them; in his extraordinary gifts, whose special grace they had before an experience of:

and they spake with tongues; with other tongues, or in other languages, which they had never learned, or had been used to, as the disciples did at the day of “Pentecost”: and prophesied; preached, having an extraordinary gift at once, of explaining the prophecies of the Old Testament, and also foretold things to come.

John Gill
Act 19:7 And all the men were about twelve. The Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions, have not the word “about”; but affirm, that the men were twelve; and indeed the number being so small, the historian might be at a certainty about it: these seem to be the first materials of a Gospel church at Ephesus, which afterwards was very large and flourishing, and very likely were some of the elders of it.

Act 19:8
Spake boldly (eparrēsiazeto). Imperfect middle, kept on at it for three months. Cf. same word in Act_18:26.

Persuading (peithōn). Present active conative participle of peithō, trying to persuade (Act_28:23). Paul’s idea of the Kingdom of God was the church of God which he (Jesus, God’s Son) had purchased with his own blood (Act_20:28, calling Christ God). Nowhere else had Paul apparently been able to speak so long in the synagogue without interruption unless it was so at Corinth. These Jews were already interested Act_18:20).

Act 19:8 And he went into the synagogue,…. Of the Jews at Ephesus, for it seems to have been a private house, where he had met with the twelve baptized disciples, and had laid his hands on them; and these being Jews, as it seems most likely, by their having been baptized into John’s baptism, the apostle went along with them to the synagogue on the sabbath day, as was his usual custom; having a very great desire, and an affectionate concern, for the welfare of his countrymen the Jews:

and spake boldly for the space of three months; that is, he used great freedom of speech, and showed much courage and intrepidity of mind, in preaching the Gospel at the synagogue every sabbath day as it returned, during this space of time; some manuscripts read, “three days”:

disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God; the kingdom of the Messiah, the Gospel dispensation, the doctrines and ordinances of the Gospel, and the Gospel church state, often signified by the kingdom of God, and of heaven, in Scripture; and concerning the glory of a future state, the way and right unto it, and meetness for it; and these things he reasoned upon in such a strong and nervous manner, and made use of such powerful arguments, in proof and demonstration of them, as were very persuasive, and engaged many to believe them, and give their assent unto them.

A.T. Robertson
Act 19:9
But when some were hardened (hōs de tines esklērunonto). Imperfect passive of sklērunō, causative like hiphil in Hebrew, to make hard (sklēros) or rough or harsh (Mat_25:24). In lxx and Hippocrates and Galen (in medical writings). In N.T. only here and Rom_9:18 and Rom_9:4 times in Heb_3:8, Heb_3:13, Heb_3:15; Heb_4:7, Heb_4:8 quoting and referring to Psa_95:8 about hardening the heart like a gristle. The inevitable reaction against Paul went on even in Ephesus though slowly.

Disobedient (epeithoun). Imperfect again, showing the growing disbelief and disobedience (apeithēs), both ideas as in Act_14:2; Act_17:5, first refusal to believe and then refusal to obey. Both sklērunō and apeitheō occur together, as here, in Ecclus. 30:12.

Speaking evil of the Way (kakologountes tēn hodon). Late verb from kakologos (speaker of evil) for the old kakōs legō. Already in Mar_7:10; Mar_9:39; Mat_15:4. Now these Jews are aggressive opponents of Paul and seek to injure his influence with the crowd. Note “the Way” as in Act_9:2 for Christianity.

He departed from them (apostas ap’ autōn). Second aorist active participle of aphistēmi, made an “apostasy” (standing off, cleavage) as he did at Corinth (Act_18:7, metabas, making a change).

Separated the disciples (aphōrisen tous mathētas). First aorist active indicative of aphorizō, old verb to mark limits (horizon) as already in Act_13:2. Paul himself was a spiritual Pharisee “separated” to Christ (Rom_1:1). The Jews regarded this withdrawal as apostasy, like separating the sheep from the goats (Mat_25:32). Paul now made a separate church as he had done at Thessalonica and Corinth.

In the school of Tyrannus (en tēi scholēi Turannou). Scholē (our school) is an old word from schein (echō) to hold on, leisure and then in later Greek (Plutarch, etc.) a place where there is leisure as here. Only this example in the N.T. This is the Greek notion of “school,” the Jewish being that of “yoke” as in Mat_11:29. The name Tyrannus (our tyrant) is a common one. It is an inscription in the Columbarium of the Empress Livia as that of a physician in the court. Furneaux suggests the possibility that a relative of this physician was lecturing on medicine in Ephesus and so as a friend of Luke, the physician, would be glad to help Paul about a place to preach. It was probably a public building or lecture hall with this name whether hired by Paul or loaned to him. The pagan sophists often spoke in such halls. The Codex Bezae adds “from the fifth hour to the tenth” as the time allotted Paul for his work in this hall, which is quite possible, from just before midday till the close of the afternoon (from before the noon meal till two hours before sunset) each day. Here Paul had great freedom and a great hearing. As the church grows there will be other places of meeting as the church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla (1Co_16:19).

John Gill
Act 19:9 But when divers were hardened and believed not,…. For though some were affected with and convinced by the arguments the apostle used, others were but the more hardened and remained incredulous: for the Gospel, while it is the savour of life unto life to some, it is the savour of death unto death, to others; as the sun melts the wax, and hardens the clay:

but spake evil of the way before the multitude; the Syriac version and Beza’s ancient copy read, “before the multitude of the Gentiles”: the unbelieving Jews not only contradicted the Gospel preached by the apostle, but blasphemed it, and said all the evil things of it they could, and loaded it with reproaches, and charged it with all the bad consequences they could think of; and that publicly, before all the people, in order to prejudice them against it; for by “the way”, is meant the doctrine of the Gospel, which the Vulgate Latin here reads, “the way of the Lord”; and so some copies; and two of Stephens’s copies read, “the way of God”, as does also the Syriac version; and the Arabic version, “the way of faith”; and the Ethiopic version, “the doctrine”; the doctrine, which shows the way of God’s salvation by Jesus Christ:

he departed from them; the hardened, unbelieving, and blaspheming Jews, as being unworthy of the means of grace; he went out of their synagogue, and no more entered there: and separated the disciples; from them, the twelve disciples he had laid his hands on, and others who in this space of time, the space of three months, had been converted under his ministry; these he formed into a separate Gospel church state, as well as engaged them to quit the company and conversation of these blasphemers, and no more attend with them in their synagogue, that so they might not be infected and corrupted by them; a separation from such who contradict and blaspheme the truths and ordinances of the Gospel, is justifiable:

disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus: which was either built by him, and so went by his name, or which one of this name possessed, and made use of; for it seems to be the proper name of a man, and so the Syriac version renders it, “whose name was Tyrannus”; though by others it is taken to be an appellative, and to design some great person, who patronised the apostle, and in whose house he taught; the word “tyrant”, being formerly used for a king, a prince, or nobleman; and so the Arabic version renders it, “in the dwelling house of one of the great men”; the chief of Asia, that were his friends, Act_19:31 and so the Ethiopic version, “and he taught daily before the court and the governors”:

some copies read “Tyrannius”; mention is made of a philosopher whose name was “Tyrannion”, who was so called, because he vexed and disturbed those that were brought up in the same school with him (f); this man it seems was a schoolmaster; there was one of his name a bishop of Tyre, a martyr under Dioclesian; and another whose name was Tyrannus, bishop of Antioch (g); Beza’s ancient copy, and one of Stephens’s, add, “from the fifth hour to the tenth”; as if he spent five hours in public teaching every day, and rest in his trade and devotion.

(f) Hesychius de Philosophis, p. 64. (g) Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 7. c. 32. & l. 8. c. 13.

A.T. Robertson
Act 19:10
For two years (epi etē duo). Note epi with accusative for extent of time as in Act_19:8, epi mēnas treis and often. But in Act_20:31 Paul said to the Ephesian elders at Miletus that he laboured with them for the space of “three years.” That may be a general expression and there was probably a longer period after the “two years” in the school of Tyrannus besides the six months in the synagogue. Paul may have preached thereafter in the house of Aquila and Priscilla for some months, the “for a while” of Act_19:22.

So that all they which dwelt in Asia heard (hōste pantas tous katoikountas tēn Asian akousai). Actual result with hōste and the infinitive with accusative of general reference as is common (also Act_19:11) in the Koiné[28928]š (Robertson, Grammar, pp. 999f.). Paul apparently remained in Ephesus, but the gospel spread all over the province even to the Lycus Valley including the rest of the seven churches of Rev_1:11; 2; 3. Demetrius in Act_19:26will confirm the tremendous influence of Paul’s ministry in Ephesus on Asia. Forty years after this Pliny in his famous letter to Trajan from Bithynia will say of Christianity: “For the contagion of this superstition has not only spread through cities, but also through villages and country places.” It was during these years in Ephesus that Paul was greatly disturbed over the troubles in the Corinthian Church. He apparently wrote a letter to them now lost to us (1Co_5:9), received messages from the household of Chloe, a letter from the church, special messengers, sent Timothy, then Titus, may have made a hurried trip himself, wrote our First Corinthians, was planning to go after the return of Titus to Troas where he was to meet him after Pentecost, when all of a sudden the uproar raised by Demetrius hurried Paul away sooner than he had planned. Meanwhile Apollos had returned from Corinth to Ephesus and refused to go back (1Co_16:12). Paul doubtless had helpers like Epaphras and Philemon who carried the message over the province of Asia, Tychicus, and Trophimus of Asia who were with him on the last visit to Jerusalem (Act_19:22, Act_19:29; Act_20:4). Paul’s message reached Greeks, not merely Hellenists and God-fearers, but some of the Greeks in the upper circles of life in Ephesus.

John Gill
Act 19:10
this continued … two years — in addition to the former three months. See on Act_20:31. But during some part of this period he must have paid a second unrecorded visit to Corinth, since the one next recorded (see on Act_20:2, Act_20:3) is twice called his third visit (2Co_12:14; 2Co_13:1). See on 2Co_1:15, 2Co_1:16, which might seem inconsistent with this. The passage across was quite a short one (see on Act_18:19) – Towards the close of this long stay at Ephesus, as we learn from 1Co_16:8, he wrote his First Epistle to the Corinthians; also (though on this opinions are divided) the Epistle to the Galatians. (See on Introduction to First Corinthians, and see on Introduction to Galatians). And just as at Corinth his greatest success was after his withdrawal to a separate place of meeting (Act_18:7-10), so at Ephesus.

so that all they which dwelt in — the Roman province of Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks — This is the “great door and effectual opened unto him” while resident at Ephesus (1Co_16:9), which induced him to make it his headquarters for so long a period. The unwearied and varied character of his labors here are best seen in his own subsequent address to the elders of Ephesus (Act_20:17, etc.). And thus Ephesus became the “ecclesiastical center for the entire region, as indeed it remained for a very long period” [Baumgarten]. Churches arose at Colosse, Laodicea, and Hierapolis eastward, either through his own labors or those of his faithful helpers whom he sent out in different directions, Epaphras, Archippus, Philemon (Col_1:7; Col_4:12-17; Phm_1:23).

Acts of the Apostles 17:16-34 Sunday School Notes

Here are some of my notes for Sunday, August 3, 2008 based on the Lifeway Explore the Bible curriculum

 Reference works cited include:

1) The Acts of the Apostles: Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary by F. F. Bruce

2) The Acts of the Apostles: A Social-Rhetorical Commentary by Ben Witherington III 

3)The Acts of the Apostles: Anchor Bible Commentary by Joseph Fitzmyer

4)International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915): Studylight online edition; Esword dictionaries module download page

 5)The Catholic Encyclopedia(1917): New Advent online edition; Esword module

From ISBE:”Athens ath´enz Ἀθῆναι, Athḗnai In antiquity the celebrated metropolis of Attica, now the capital of Greece. Two long walls, 250 ft. apart, connected the city with the harbor (Peiraeus). In Acts 17 we are told what Paul did during his single sojourn in this famous city. He came up from the sea by the new road (North of the ancient) along which were altars of unknown gods, entered the city from the West, and passed by the Ceramicus (burial-ground), which can be seen to this day, the “Theseum,” the best preserved of all Greek temples, and on to the Agora (Market-Place), just North of the Acropolis, a steep hill, 200 ft. high, in the center of the city. Cimon began and Pericles completed the work of transforming this citadel into a sanctuary for the patron goddess of the city. The magnificent gateway (Propylaea), of which the Athenians were justly proud, was built by Mnesicles (437-432 bc). A monumental bronze statue by Phidias stood on the left, as one emerged on the plateau, and the mighty Parthenon a little further on, to the right. In this temple was the famous gold and ivory statue of Athena. The eastern pediment contained sculptures representing the birth of the goddess (Elgin Marbles, now in the British Museum), the western depicting her contest with Poseidon for supremacy over Attica. This, the most celebrated edifice, architecturally, in all history, was partially destroyed by the Venetians in 1687. Other temples on the Acropolis are the Erechtheum and the “Wingless Victory.” In the city the streets were exceedingly narrow and crooked. The wider avenues were called πλατεῖαι, plateíai, whence English “place,” Spanish “plaza.” The roofs of the houses were flat. In and around the Agora were many porticoes stoaí̌. In the Stoa Poecile (“Painted Portico”), whose walls were covered with historical paintings, Paul met with the successors of Zeno, the Stoics, with whom he disputed daily. In this vicinity also was the Senate Chamber for the Council of Five Hundred, and the Court of the Areopagus, whither Socrates came in 399 bc to face his accusers, and where Paul, five centuries later, preached to the Athenians “the unknown God.” In this neighborhood also were the Tower of the Winds and the water-clock, which must have attracted Paul’s attention, as they attract our attention today.
The apostle disputed in the synagogue with the Jews (Act_17:17), and a slab found at the foot of Mount Hymettus (a range to the East of the city, 3,000 ft. high), with the inscription αὔτη ἡ πύλη τοῦ κυρίου, δίκαιοι εἰσελεύσονται ἐν αὐτῇ (Psa_118:20), was once thought to indicate the site, but is now believed to date from the 3rd or 4th century. Slabs bearing Jewish inscriptions have been found in the city itself.The population of Athens was at least a quarter of a million. The oldest inhabitants were Pelasgians. Cecrops, the first traditional king, came from Egypt in 1556 bc, and by marrying the daughter of Actaeon, obtained the sovereignty. The first king was Erechtheus. Theseus united the twelve communities of Attica and made Athens the capital. After the death of Codrus in 1068 bc, the governing power was entrusted to an archon who held office for life. In 753 bc the term of office was limited to ten years. In 683 bc nine archons were chosen for a term of one year. Draco’s laws, “written in blood,” were made in 620 bc. Solon was chosen αρχον, archon in 594 bc and gave the state a constitution. The tyrant Pisistratus was in control permanently from 541 to 527 bc; his son Hipparchus was assassinated in 514. Clisthenes changed the constitution and introduced the practice of ostracism. In 490 bc the Athenians defeated the Persians at Marathon, and again in 480 bc at Salamis. In 476 bc Aristides organized the great Athenian Confederacy. After his death Conon became the leader of the conservative party; and when the general Cimon was killed, Pericles became the leader of the people. In 431 bc the Peloponnesian War broke out and continued till 404 bc, when Athens succumbed to Sparta. An oligarchical government was set up with Critias and Theramenes at the head. War broke out again but peace was restored by the pact of Antalcidas (387 bc). In the Sacred War (357-355 bc) Athens exhausted her strength. When Philip of Macedon began to interfere in Greek affairs, Athens could neither resolve on war measures (to which the oratory of Demosthenes incited her), nor make terms with Philip. Finally, she joined Thebes in making armed resistance, but in spite of her heroic efforts at Chaeronea, she suffered defeat (338 bc). Philip was murdered in 336 bc, and Alexander the Great became master. After the subjugation of Greece by the Romans, Athens was placed under the supervision of the governor of Macedonia, but was granted local independence in recognition of her great history. As the seat of Greek art and science, Athens played an important role even under Roman sway – she became the university city of the Roman world, and from her radiated spiritual light and intellectual energy to Tarsus, Antioch and Alexandria. Philo, the Jew, declares that the Athenians were Ἑλλήνων ὀξυδερκέστατοι διάνοιαν (“keenest in intellect”) and adds that Athens was to Greece what the pupil is to the eye, or reason to the soul. Although the city had lost her real independence, the people retained their old characteristics: they were still interested in art, literature and philosophy. Paul may possibly have attended theater of Dionysus (under the Southeast cliff of the Acropolis) and witnessed a play of the Greek poets, such as Euripides or Menander. Many gifts were received from foreign monarchs by Athens. Attalus I of Pergamum endowed the Academy, Eumenes added a splendid Stoa to theater and Antiochus Epiphanes began the Olympeium (15 columns of which are still standing), the massive sub-basement of which had been constructed by Pisistratus. Athens became a favorite residence for foreign writers who cultivated history, geography and literature. Horace, Brutus and Cassius sojourned in the city for some time. Josephus declares that the Athenians were the most god-fearing of the Greeks (εὐσεβεστάτους τῶν Ἑλλήνων). Compare Livy xlv.27.

From ATS Bible Dictionary: “ATHENS: The city of Minerva, the chief city of Attica in Greece, situated on the Saronic Gulf, forty-six miles east of Corinth, and about five miles from the coast. The city was in a plain extending to the sea on the southwest, where it had three ports, the passage to which was defended by long and broad walls. Several rocky hills rose in the plain, the largest of which was the citadel, or Acropolis. Around this the city was built, most of the buildings spreading towards the sea. The summit of the hill was nearly level, about eight hundred feet long and four hundred wide. The only way to the Acropolis was through the Propylea, a magnificent gateway on the western side, adorned with two temples decorated with the finest pieces of sculpture and painting. These splendid portals crowned an ascent by marble steps to the summit of the hill, on which were erected the temples of the guardian divinities of Athens. On the left was the temple of Pallas Athene, (Minerva,) regarded as the protectress of the city. Under the same roof was the temple of Neptune. In the area, on a high pedestal, stood a bronze statue of Minerva seventy feet high. On the right arose the Parthenon, the glory of Athens, the noblest triumph of Grecian architecture. From whatever quarter the traveller arrived, the first thing he saw was the Parthenon rearing its lofty head above the city and the citadel. Its ruins, still sublime in decay, are the first object that attracts the eye of a stranger. It was of the Doric order of architecture, built of beautiful white marble, and was about one hundred feet wide, two hundred and twenty-six feet deep, and seventy feet high. There was a double portico of columns at the two fronts, and a single row along each side. There was an architrave, or frieze, along the exterior of the nave, beautifully sculptured, with the representation of a procession in honor of Minerva. Within the temple was a statue of Minerva, by Phidias, celebrated for its exquisite beauty. It was make of gold and ivory, and was nearly forty feet high. The goddess was represented erect, covered with her aegis, holding in one had a lance, and in the other a figure of victory. At the foot of the Acropolis, on one side was the Odeum, or music hall, and the theatre of Bacchus: on the other side was the Prytaneum, where the chief magistrates and most meritorious citizens were entertained at a table furnished at the public expense. A small valley lay between the Acropolis and the hill on which the Areopagus held its session; it also separated the Areopagus from the Pnyx, a small rocky hill on which the general assemblies of the people were held. Here the spot is yet pointed out from which the eminent orators addressed the people. It is cut in the natural rock. In this vicinity also was the agora, or marketplace, Ac 17:17, an open square surrounded by beautiful structures; while on every side altars, shrines, and temples were seen, some of them exceedingly magnificent. This beautiful city was also celebrated for the military talents and the learning, eloquence, and politeness of its inhabitants. It was the very flower of ancient civilization; its schools of philosophy were the most illustrious in the world, and its painters, sculptors, and architects have never been surpassed. Yet no city was so “wholly given to idolatry.” The apostle Paul visited it about the year A. D. 52, and though alone among its proud philosophers, preached Jesus and the resurrection to them with fidelity and success, Ac 17:15- 34.”Acts 17:16

waiting for them- Silas and Timothy, who were in Berea, which Paul had left to escape Jewish outrage.

troubled/stirred- parozenuto- “irritated”, “enraged”, perhaps “stirred to action” (Bruce)

full of idols- kataidolon, properly formed Greek word, not elsewhere found in Greek literature, considered perhaps a Christian invention. (Bruce) There were many statues in the Acropolis, and many herms, pillars in the city decorated with a head of Hermes and a phallus (Witherington).

Acts 17:17

in the synagogue- Paul following his standard operating procedure of going to the local synagogue first.

those who worshipped God/devout persons- Godfearers attending the synagaogue.

in the marketplace- N. of the Acropolis, the agora, itself filled with the herms mentioned above.

Acts 17:18

Epicureans: Epicurus (341-270 BC) came to Athens in 306, bought a house with a garden, and set up a philosophical school as he had earlier in his career in smaller cities. His followers lived a materialist, spartan life on his property, separating themselves from public affairs. Though nowadays “epicurean” describes a food lover, the original Epicureans idea of living for pleasure was defined by the idea that the greatest pleasure was lack of pain, a sort of tranquil life free from passions or fears. The gods, according to Epicurus, live outside the mortal sphere, and are unconcerned about it in their tranquility.

Stoicism: From the Catholic Encyclopedia: “Stoics and Stoic Philosophy: The Stoic School was founded in 322 B.C. by Zeno of Cittium and existed until the closing of the Athenian schools (A.D. 429), (it took the name from the Stoa poikile, the painted hall or colonnade in which the lectures were held.) Its history may be divided into three parts: (1) Ancient Stoicism; (2) Middle Stoicism; (3) New Stoicism.(1) Ancient Stoicism (322-204)Zeno of Cittium (b. 366; d. in 280) was the disciple of Crates the Cynic and the academicians Stilpo, Xenocrates, and Polemon. After his death (264), Cleanthes of Assium (b. 331; d. 232) became head of the school; Chrysippus of Soli (b. 280), succeeded and was scholarch until 204. These philosophers, all of Oriental origin, lived in Athens where Zeno played a part in politics and were in communication with the principal men of their day. The Stoic doctrine, of which Zeno laid the foundations, was developed by Chrysippus in 705 treatises, of which only some fragments have been preserved. In addition to the principles accepted by all thinkers of their age (the perception of the true, if it exists, can only be immediate; the wise man is self-sufficient; the political constitution is indifferent), derived from the Sophists and the Cynics, they base the entire moral attitude of the wise man conformity to oneself and nature, indifference to external things on a comprehensive concept of nature, in part derived from Heraclitus, but inspired by an entirely new spirit. It is a belief in a universal nature that is at one and the same time Fate infallibly regulating the course of events (eimarmene, logos); Zeus, or providence, the eternal principle of finality adapting all other things to the needs of rational beings; the law determining the natural rules that govern the society of men and of the gods; the artistic fire, the expression of the active force which produced the world one, perfect, and complete from the beginning, with which it will be reunited through the universal conflagration, following a regular and ever recurring cycle. The popular gods are different forms of this force, described allegorically in myths. This view of nature is the basis for the optimism of the Stoic moral system; confidence in the instinctive faculties, which, in the absence of a perfect knowledge of the world, ought to guide man’s actions; and again, the infallible wisdom of the sage, which Chrysippus tries to establish by a dialectic derived from Aristotle and the Cynics. But this optimism requires them to solve the following problems: the origin of the passions and the vices; the conciliation of fate and liberty; the origin of evil in the world. On the last two subjects they propounded, all the arguments that were advanced later up to the time of Leibniz. (2)Middle Stoicism (second and first centuries B.C.)Stoicism during this period was no longer a Greek school; it had penetrated into the Roman world and had become, under the influence of Scipio’s friend, Panaetius (185-112), who lived in Rome, and of Posidonius, (135-40) who transferred the school to Rhodes, the quasi-official philosophy of Roman imperialism. Its doctrines were considerably modified, becoming less dogmatic in consequence of the criticism of the new Academician, Carneades (215-129). In Stoic morality, Panaetius develops the idea of humanity. Posidonius at once a savant, historian, geographer, mathematician, astronomer and a mystic who commenting on Plato’s works, revives his theories on the nature and destiny of the soul. (3)New Stoicism (to A.D. 429)The new Stoicism is more ethical and didactic. Science is no longer the knowledge of nature, but a kind of theological summa of moral and religious sentiments. Very little has been preserved of the short popular treatises and discourses, wherein a vivid style introduced under the influence of the Cynic diatribe, the philosopher endeavored to render his ethical principles practical. The letters of Seneca (2-68 ) to Lucilius, the conversations of Musonius (time of Nero), and of Epictetus (age of Domitian), the fragments of Hierodcles (time of Hadrian), the members of Marcus Aurelius (d. 180), give but an incomplete idea. Stoicism, which generally disappeared as the official School, was the most important of the Hellenistic elements in the semi-oriental religions of vanishing paganism.”

pseudo-intellectual/babbler: “spermologos”, seed picker, like a bird feeding. Later referred to a person buying scraps from the market, and then later to someone who gathered scraps of knowledge, a dilettante. It’s definitely meant as an insult. (Bruce)

foreign deities/strange gods- Josephus in Against Apion 2.37.266-7 says spreading foreign gods was a crime in Athens punishable by death. Socrates was so condemned, and Protagoras and Anaxogoras also faced the same charge. (Fitzmyer)

Jesus and the resurrection- This probably doesn’t convey the sense the Athenians had of Paul’s message. Iesous (Greek Jesus) might easily be confused with Ieso “healer”, and resurrection (anastasis) with anastateria, sacrifices offered on recovery from illness, a feminine word that might be taken to be a name. Thus the Athenians might have thought Paul preaching the Healer and the Resurrection, a male god and his female consort. This is an ancient theory that goes back to John Chrysostom(347-407 AD) Physical resurrection was not a prevalent idea among the Greeks at the time.(Bruce, Fitzmyer)

Acts 17:19

took him- epilambano: generally considered to mean “brought” or lead” in a neutral sense, but Witherington points out that the narrative in Acts typically has Paul hauled up before courts, so this may be better translated as “dragged”, “carried”, as in made Paul go by force.(Witherington)

Areopagus- From ATS Bible Dictionary: “AREOPAGUS: The hill of Mars, the seat of the ancient and venerable supreme court of Athens, called the Areopagites, Ac 17:19-34. It was composed entirely of ex-archons, of grave and blameless character, and their wise and just decisions made it famous far beyond the bounds of Greece. Their numbers and authority varied greatly from age to age. They held their sessions by night. They took cognizance of murders, impieties, and immoralities; punished vices of all kinds, idleness included; rewarded or assisted the virtuous; and were peculiarly attentive to blasphemies against the gods, and to the performance of the sacred mysteries. The case of Paul, therefore, would naturally come before them, for he sought to subvert their whole system of idolatry, and establish Christianity in its place. The Bible narrative, however, rather describes an informal popular movement. Having heard Paul discoursing from day to day in the market place, the philosophic and inquisitive Athenians took him one day up into the adjacent hill, for a more full and quiet exposition of his doctrine. The stone seats of the Areopagus lay open to the sky; in the court stood Epicureans, Stoics, etc.; around them spread the city, full of idolaters and their temples; and little south-east rose the steep height of the Acropolis, on whose level summit were crowded more and richer idolatrous structures than on any other equal space in the world.”

From ISBE: “Areopagus ar-ē̇-op´a-gus (Ἄρειος πάγος, Áreios págos; Act_17:19, Act_17:22. Mars’ Hill, Act_17:22 the King James Version): A sort of spur jutting out from the western end of the Acropolis and separated from it by a very short saddle. Traces of old steps cut in the rock are still to be seen. Underneath are deep grottoes, once the home of the Eumenides (Furies). On the flat surface of the summit are signs still visible of a smoothing of the stone for seats. Directly below to the North was the old Athenian agora, or market-place. To the East, on the descent from the Acropolis, could be seen in antiquity a small semicircular platform – the orchestra – from which rose the precipitous rock of the citadel. Here the booksellers kept their stalls; here the work of Anaxagoras could be bought for a drachma; from here his physical philosophy was disseminated, then, through Euripides, the poetic associate of Socrates and the sophists, leavened the drama, and finally reached the people of Athens. Then came the Stoics and Epicureans who taught philosophy and religion as a system, not as a faith, and spent their time in searching out some new thing in creed and dogma and opinion. Five centuries earlier Socrates was brought to this very Areopagus to face the charges of his accusers. To this same spot the apostle Paul came almost five hundred years after 399 bc, when the Attic martyr was executed, with the same earnestness, the same deep-rooted convictions, and with even greater ardor, to meet the philosophers of fashion. The Athenian guides will show you the exact place where the apostle stood, and in what direction he faced when he addressed his audience. No city has ever seen such a forest of statues as studded the market-place, the streets and the sides and summit of the Acropolis of Athens. A large part of this wealth of art was in full view of the speaker, and the apostle naturally made this extraordinary display of votive statues and offerings the starting-point of his address. He finds the Athenians extremely religious. He had found an altar to a god unknown. Then he develops theme of the great and only God, not from the Hebrew, but from the Greek, the Stoic point of view. His audiences consisted, on the one hand, of the advocates of prudence as the means, and pleasure as the end (the Epicureans); on the other, of the advocates of duty, of living in harmony with the intelligence which rules the world for good. He frankly expresses his sympathy with the nobler principles of the Stoic doctrine. But neither Stoic nor Epicurean could believe the declarations of the apostle: the latter believed death to be the end of all things, the former thought that the soul at death was absorbed again into that from which it sprang. Both understood Paul as proclaiming to them in Jesus and Anástasis (“resurrection”) some new deities. When they finally ascertained that Jesus was ordained by God to judge the world, and that Anastasis was merely the resurrection of the dead, they were disappointed. Some scoffed, others departed, doubtless with the feeling that they had already given audience too long to such a fanatic.The Areopagus, or Hill of Ares, was the ancient seat of the court of the same name, the establishment of which leads us far back into the mythical period long before the dawn of history. This court exercised the right of capital punishment. In 594 bc the jurisdiction in criminal cases was given to the archons who had discharged the duties of their office well and honorably, consequently to the noblest, richest and most distinguished citizens of Athens. The Areopagus saw that the laws in force were observed and executed by the properly constituted authorities; it could bring officials to trial for their acts while in office, even raise objections to all resolutions of the Council and of the General Assembly, if the court perceived a danger to the state, or subversion of the constitution.

The Areopagus also protected the worship of the gods, the sanctuaries and sacred festivals, and the olive trees of Athens; and it supervised the religious sentiments of the people, the moral conduct of the citizens, as well as the education of the youth. Without waiting for a formal accusation the Areopagus could summon any citizen to court, examine, convict and punish him. Under unusual circumstances full powers could be granted by the people to this body for the conduct of various affairs of state; when the safety of the city was menaced, the court acted even without waiting for full power to be conferred upon it. The tenure of office was for life, and the number of members without restriction. The court sat at night at the end of each month and for three nights in succession. The place of meeting was a simple house, built of clay, which was still to be seen in the time of Vitruvius. The Areopagus, hallowed by the sacred traditions of the past, a dignified and august body, was independent of and uninfluenced by the wavering discordant multitude, and was not affected by the ever-changing public opinion. Conservative almost to a fault, it did the state good service by holding in check the too rash and radical younger spirits. When the democratic party came to power, after Cimon’s banishment, one of its first acts was to limit the powers of the Areopagus. By the law of Ephialtes in 460 the court lost practically all jurisdiction. The supervision of the government was transferred to the nomophulakes (law-guardians). At the end of the Peloponnesian war, however, in 403 its old rights were restored. The court remained in existence down to the time of the emperors. From Act_17:19, Act_17:22 we learn that it existed in the time of Claudius. One of its members was converted to the Christian faith (Act_17:34). It was probably abolished by Vespasian.”

Thus there seems to be two points in dispute here:

1) Is the reference to Areopagus “Ares’ hill” to the hill as a meeting place for discussion, or to the court that met there; and

2) If the court is in view, was Paul on trial formally, or was this a sort of preliminary hearing, to determine the necessity of trial?

The commentaries lean toward the reference being to the court, but the occasion being more a preliminary hearing. This is confirmed to many by the neutral, polite question addressed to Paul in 19b.

Acts 17:20

strange things- xenizonta, the same word used of Socrates’ teaching at the beginning of his trial, which lead to his execution. Thus the situation is not entirely safe for Paul, however informal the situation.

Acts 17:21

Luke characterises the Athenians as people constantly searching out the newest news and ideas, the latest fad. This reminds one of people nowadays forever watching CNN or constantly scanning the Internet for the latest.

Acts 17:22

stood in the middle of the Areopagus: Again, is this the middle of the hill, or in the center of the court, which likely met in a building and not in the ancient outdoor court on the hill? The majority opinion these days seems to be in the middle of the assembled court, but image of Paul proclaiming on that hill is etched in our artistic and literary memory.

extremely religious/too superstitious: deisidaimonesterous. Here Paul is using the ambiguity of this word as seen in the different translations of the HCSB and KJV to serve his purposes. A clever orator, Paul is letting his hearers take their own view as to what he is saying here. He may be being complimentary, but like most courts then and now, flattery can set the judges against you as too easy a tactic. He may be deriding the Athenians’ religion, full of idols and the need to placate any god who might be lurking out there whether the Athenians knew the god or not. Almost certainly, Paul is trying to impress the court with his speaking ability by using this double meaning word. (Witherington)

Acts 17:23

objects of worship/devotions- sebasmata, an inclusive word for statues, shrines, sanctuaries, temples, and altars.

altar- bomon, only used here in the NT. All other altars are thusisasterion. The difference is presumably that it is a pagan altar. (Bruce)

unknown god- Highly debated inscription. Scholarly investigation seems to point to numerous solitary altar dedicated to multiple unknown gods in Athens. Still, it is not impossible that altars dedicated to a single god or unknown god existed, as shown by these scenarios:

1) old, damaged altars without an inscription that were repaired might be rededicated to “a god” or “an unknown god”. (Bruce)

2) Godfearers might have dedicated altars to the Jewish God, whose name is not spoken, thus “the unknown god” or “the unnamed god”. (Witherington)

3) a new altar might be erected to a foreign god but called unknown because Greeks feared misnaming a god incurred its wrath.(Witherington)

worship in ignorance, I proclaim: Paul here strikes the right chord with the Athenians by:

1) saying they are pious, they worship this god

2) acknowledging their belief that ignorant, misinformed worship might anger a god.(Witherington)

Acts 17:24

God as creator of universe: common ground between Jewish belief and Greek philosophy.

doesn’t live in shrines: more common ground between 1 Kings 8:27, Is 57:15 and sayings of Epicurus and Stoic founder Zeno.(Fitzmyer)

Acts 17:25

not served, as if He needs: Ps. 50:9-12, Amos 5:12-23, again matching Greek philosophers’ ideas of God.(Fitzmyer)

gives life, breath, and all things: Gen 2:7, Is 45:2 in common with Epicurean ideas. Life , zoe, was almost a name for Zeus, so it could be Paul is making a dig at traditional Greek religion here. (Witherington, Fitzmyer)

Acts 17:26

from one He has made every nation: One is ambiguous, and has been added to in ancient manuscripts, with Greek for “blood” , to refer back to Adam, rather than leave “nation” implied. Classic Athenian legend had the city’s first inhabitants spring from the ground.(Bruce, Witherington)

appointed times: is this saying God made the seasons, or controls human history, or even each man’s fate?

boundaries: Again ambiguous. Is this the habitable parts of the earth, or the borders of the nations?

Acts 17:27

seek: Is this Greek imagery for finding what is true, or OT imagery for trusting and obeying God, as in Deu 4:29, 2 Sam 21:1, Hos 5:15.(Witherington)

reach out/feel after: seems to be imagery of groping for something in the dark.(Bruce)

Acts 17:28

live, move, and exist: Possibly taken from Epimenides of Crete from the sixth century BC.

your own poets: standard quotation marker in Greek.

we also are his offspring: From poem by Aratus, Stoic philosopher of Cilicia (Paul’s home province) born about 310 BC.

Acts 17:29

The argument is thus, from the lesser to the greater: If we are greater than the minerals used to make images, or images themselves, how much greater must be the divinity which made us?

Acts 17:30

overlooked/winked at: The KJV is unfortunate, for the sense is not that God indulged man’s ignorance and sin, but rather that the time for judgement waited for a set time, which Paul declares in v.31 is come.

all men repent: Repent for the kingdom is at hand is Jesus’ earliest proclamation in His ministry. The church has learned in the course of Acts that this message is for all people, not just the Jews. Note also that God does not ask or beg or plead for repentance here; he commands it.

Acts 17:31

Ps 9:8, 96:13, 98:9, Amos 5:18, Is 2:12, Act_10:42; Mat_25:31-46; Joh_5:22-23; Rom_2:5, Rom_2:16, Rom_14:9-10; 1Co_4:5; 2Co_5:10; 2Ti_4:1; 2Pe_3:7; Jud_1:14-15 Acts 17:32

ridiculed/ mocked: It was long held in Greek thought that “dead was dead”, though the soul was immortal. The Jews, on the other hand had some notion of resurrection since Dan 12:2.(Fitzmyer)

we will hear you…again: so Paul was not condemned or forbidden to speak, but as v. 33 shows, allowed to go free.

Acts 17:34

From ISBE: “Dionysius dī-ō̇-nish´i-us (Διονύσιος, Dionúsios, surnamed “the Areopagite”): One of the few Athenians converted by Paul (Act_17:34). We know nothing further about him (see AREOPAGUS). According to one account he was the first bishop of the church at Athens; according to another he suffered martyrdom in that city under Domitian. We are even told that he migrated to Rome and was sent to Paris, where he was beheaded on Montmartre (Mount of the Martyr). The patron saint of France is Denys; compare the French “Denys d’Halicarnasse” (Dionysius of Halicarnassus). The mystical writings which were circulated in the Middle Ages and are still extant, are pronounced by the best authorities to be forgeries, and date from a period not earlier than the 5th century.

Damaris dam´a-ris (Δάμαρις, Dámaris, possibly a corruption of δάμαλις, dámalis, “a heifer”): The name of a female Christian of Athens, converted by Paul’s preaching (Act_17:34). The fact that she is mentioned in this passage together with Dionysius the Areopagite has led some, most probably in error, to regard her as his wife. The singling out of her name with that of Dionysius may indicate some personal or social distinction. Compare Act_17:12.

Luke shows Paul was not totally unsuccessful in Athens, naming the two most socially prominent converts of the city. “Areopagite” makes Dionysus one of the judges on the Athenian high court, and a leading citizen of the city. Damaris likewise is likely a woman of noble background and considerable wealth.”

Acts of the Apostles 17:16-34 Antique Commentary Notes

A.T. Robertson
Act 17:16
Now while Paul waited for them in Athens (En de tais Athēnais ekdechomenou autous tou Paulou). Genitive absolute with present middle participle of ekdechomai, old verb to receive, but only with the sense of looking out for, expecting found here and elsewhere in N.T We know that Timothy did come to Paul in Athens (1Th_3:1, 1Th_3:6) from Thessalonica and was sent back to them from Athens. If Silas also came to Athens, he was also sent away, possibly to Philippi, for that church was deeply interested in Paul. At any rate both Timothy and Silas came from Macedonia to Corinth with messages and relief for Paul (Act_18:5; 2Co_11:8.). Before they came and after they left, Paul felt lonely in Athens (1Th_3:1), the first time on this tour or the first that he has been completely without fellow workers. Athens had been captured by Sulla b.c. 86. After various changes Achaia, of which Corinth is the capital, is a separate province from Macedonia and a.d. 44 was restored by Claudius to the Senate with the Proconsul at Corinth. Paul is probably here about a.d. 50. Politically Athens is no longer of importance when Paul comes though it is still the university seat of the world with all its rich environment and traditions. Rackham grows eloquent over Paul the Jew of Tarsus being in the city of Pericles and Demosthenes, Socrates and Plato and Aristotle, Sophocles and Euripides. In its Agora Socrates had taught, here was the Academy of Plato, the Lyceum of Aristotle, the Porch of Zeno, the Garden of Epicurus. Here men still talked about philosophy, poetry, politics, religion, anything and everything. It was the art centre of the world. The Parthenon, the most beautiful of temples, crowned the Acropolis. Was Paul insensible to all this cultural environment? It is hard to think so for he was a university man of Tarsus and he makes a number of allusions to Greek writers. Probably it had not been in Paul’s original plan to evangelize Athens, difficult as all university seats are, but he cannot be idle though here apparently by chance because driven out of Macedonia.

Was provoked (parōxuneto). Imperfect passive of paroxunō, old verb to sharpen, to stimulate, to irritate (from para, oxus), from paroxusmos (Act_15:39), common in old Greek, but in N.T. only here and 1Co_13:5. It was a continual challenge to Paul’s spirit when he beheld (theōrountos, genitive of present participle agreeing with autou (his), though late MSS. have locative theōrounti agreeing with en autōi).

The city full of idols (kateidōlon ousan tēn polin). Note the participle ousan not preserved in the English (either the city being full of idols or that the city was full of idols, sort of indirect discourse). Paul, like any stranger was looking at the sights as he walked around. This adjective kateidōlon (perfective use of kata and eidōlon is found nowhere else, but it is formed after the analogy of katampelos, katadendron), full of idols. Xenophon (de Republ. Ath.) calls the city holē bomos, holē thuma theois kai anathēma (all altar, all sacrifice and offering to the gods). These statues were beautiful, but Paul was not deceived by the mere art for art’s sake. The idolatry and sensualism of it all glared at him (Rom_1:18-32). Renan ridicules Paul’s ignorance in taking these statues for idols, but Paul knew paganism better than Renan. The superstition of this centre of Greek culture was depressing to Paul. One has only to recall how superstitious cults today flourish in the atmosphere of Boston and Los Angeles to understand conditions in Athens. Pausanias says that Athens had more images than all the rest of Greece put together. Pliny states that in the time of Nero Athens had over 30,000 public statues besides countless private ones in the homes. Petronius sneers that it was easier to find a god than a man in Athens. Every gateway or porch had its protecting god. They lined the street from the Piraeus and caught the eye at every place of prominence on wall or in the agora.

A.T. Robertson
Act 17:17
So he reasoned (dielegeto men oun). Accordingly therefore, with his spirit stirred by the proof of idolatry. Imperfect middle of dialegō, same verb used in Act_17:2which see. First he reasoned in the synagogue at the services to the Jews and the God-fearers, then daily in the agora or marketplace (southwest of the Acropolis, between it and the Areopagus and the Pnyx) to the chance-comers,

“them that met him” (pros tous paratugchanontas). Simultaneously with the synagogue preaching at other hours Paul took his stand like Socrates before him and engaged in conversation with (pros) those who happened by. This old verb, paratugchanō, occurs here alone in the N.T. and accurately pictures the life in the agora. The listeners to Paul in the agora would be more casual than those who stop for street preaching, a Salvation Army meeting, a harangue from a box in Hyde Park. It was a slim chance either in synagogue or in agora, but Paul could not remain still with all the reeking idolatry around him. The boundaries of the agora varied, but there was always the Poikilē Stoa (the Painted Porch), over against the Acropolis on the west. In this Stoa (Porch) Zeno and other philosophers and rhetoricians held forth from time to time. Paul may have stood near this spot.

A.T. Robertson
Act 17:18
And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him (tines de kai tōn Epikouriōn kai Stōikōn philosophōn suneballon autōi). Imperfect active of sunballō, old verb, in the N.T. only by Luke, to bring or put together in one’s mind (Luk_2:19), to meet together (Act_20:14), to bring together aid (Act_18:27), to confer or converse or dispute as here and already Act_4:15 which see.

These professional philosophers were always ready for an argument and so they frequented the agora for that purpose. Luke uses one article and so groups the two sects together in their attitude toward Paul, but they were very different in fact. Both sects were eager for argument and both had disdain for Paul, but they were the two rival practical philosophies of the day, succeeding the more abstruse theories of Plato and Aristotle. Socrates had turned men’s thought inward (Gnōthi Seauton, Know Thyself) away from the mere study of physics. Plato followed with a profound development of the inner self (metaphysics). Aristotle with his cyclopaedic grasp sought to unify and relate both physics and metaphysics. Both Zeno and Epicurus (340-272 b.c.) took a more practical turn in all this intellectual turmoil and raised the issues of everyday life. Zeno (360-260 b.c.) taught in the Stoa (Porch) and so his teaching was called Stoicism. He advanced many noble ideas that found their chief illustration in the Roman philosophers (Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius). He taught self-mastery and hardness with an austerity that ministered to pride or suicide in case of failure, a distinctly selfish and unloving view of life and with a pantheistic philosophy. Epicurus considered practical atheism the true view of the universe and denied a future life and claimed pleasure as the chief thing to be gotten out of life. He did not deny the existence of gods, but regarded them as unconcerned with the life of men. The Stoics called Epicurus an atheist. Lucretius and Horace give the Epicurean view of life in their great poems. This low view of life led to sensualism and does today, for both Stoicism and Epicureanism are widely influential with people now. “Eat and drink for tomorrow we die,” they preached. Paul had doubtless become acquainted with both of these philosophies for they were widely prevalent over the world. Here he confronts them in their very home. He is challenged by past-masters in the art of appealing to the senses, men as skilled in their dialectic as the Pharisaic rabbis with whom Paul had been trained and whose subtleties he had learned how to expose. But, so far as we know, this is a new experience for Paul to have a public dispute with these philosophical experts who had a natural contempt for all Jews and for rabbis in particular, though they found Paul a new type at any rate and so with some interest in him. “In Epicureanism, it was man’s sensual nature which arrayed itself against the claims of the gospel; in Stoicism it was his self-righteousness and pride of intellect” (Hackett). Knowling calls the Stoic the Pharisee of philosophy and the Epicurean the Sadducee of philosophy. Socrates in this very agora used to try to interest the passers-by in some desire for better things. That was 450 years before Paul is challenged by these superficial sophistical Epicureans and Stoics. It is doubtful if Paul had ever met a more difficult situation.

What would this babbler say? (Ti an theloi ho spermologos houtos legeiṅ). The word for “babbler” means “seed-picker” or picker up of seeds (sperma, seed, legō, to collect) like a bird in the agora hopping about after chance seeds. Plutarch applies the word to crows that pick up grain in the fields. Demosthenes called Aeschines a spermologos. Eustathius uses it of a man hanging around in the markets picking up scraps of food that fell from the carts and so also of mere rhetoricians and plagiarists who picked up scraps of wisdom from others. Ramsay considers it here a piece of Athenian slang used to describe the picture of Paul seen by these philosophers who use it, for not all of them had it (“some,” tines). Note the use of an and the present active optative theloi, conclusion of a fourth-class condition in a rhetorical question (Robertson, Grammar, p. 1021). It means, What would this picker up of seeds wish to say, if he should get off an idea? It is a contemptuous tone of supreme ridicule and doubtless Paul heard this comment. Probably the Epicureans made this sneer that Paul was a charlatan or quack.

Other some (hoi de). But others, in contrast with the “some” just before. Perhaps the Stoics take this more serious view of Paul.

He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods (zenōn daimoniōn dokei kataggeleus einai). This view is put cautiously by dokei (seems). Kataggeleus does not occur in the old Greek, though in ecclesiastical writers, but Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, p. 99) gives an example of the word “on a marble stele recording a decree of the Mitylenaens in honour of the Emperor Augustus,” where it is the herald of the games. Here alone in the N.T. Daimonion is used in the old Greek sense of deity or divinity whether good or bad, not in the N.T. sense of demons. Both this word and kataggeleus are used from the Athenian standpoint. Xenos is an old word for a guest-friend (Latin hospes) and then host (Rom_16:23), then for foreigner or stranger (Mat_25:31; Act_17:21), new and so strange as here and Heb_13:9; 1Pe_4:12, and then aliens (Eph_2:12). This view of Paul is the first count against Socrates: Socrates does wrong, introducing new deities (adikei Sōkratēs, kaina daimonia eispherōn, Xen. Mem. I). On this charge the Athenians voted the hemlock for their greatest citizen. What will they do to Paul? This Athens was more sceptical and more tolerant than the old Athens. But Roman law did not allow the introduction of a new religion (religio illicita). Paul was walking on thin ice though he was the real master philosopher and these Epicureans and Stoics were quacks. Paul had the only true philosophy of the universe and life with Jesus Christ as the centre (Col_1:12-20), the greatest of all philosophers as Ramsay justly terms him. But these men are mocking him.

Because he preached Jesus and the resurrection (hoti ton Iēsoun kai tēn anastasin euēggelizato). Reason for the view just stated. Imperfect middle indicative of euaggelizō, to “gospelize.” Apparently these critics considered anastasis (Resurrection) another deity on a par with Jesus. The Athenians worshipped all sorts of abstract truths and virtues and they misunderstood Paul on this subject. They will leave him as soon as he mentions the resurrection (Act_17:32). It is objected that Luke would not use the word in this sense here for his readers would not under stand him. But Luke is describing the misapprehension of this group of philosophers and this interpretation fits in precisely.

Albert Barnes
Act 17:18
Then certain philosophers – Athens was distinguished, among all the cities of Greece and the world, for the cultivation of a subtle and refined philosophy. This was their boast, and the object of their constant search and study, 1Co_1:22.

Of the Epicureans – This sect of philosophers was so named from Epicurus, who lived about 300 years before the Christian era. They denied that the world was created by God, and that the gods exercised any care or providence over human affairs, and also the immortality of the soul. Against these positions of the sect Paul directed his main argument in proving that the world was created and governed by God. One of the distinguishing doctrines of Epicurus was that pleasure was the summum bonum, or chief good, and that virtue was to be practiced only as it contributed to pleasure. By pleasure, however, Epicurus did not mean sensual and groveling appetites and degraded vices, but rational pleasure, properly regulated and governed. See Good’s “Book of Nature.” But whatever his views were, it is certain that his followers had embraced the doctrine that the pleasures of sense were to be practiced without restraint. Both in principle and practice, therefore, they devoted themselves to a life of gaiety and sensuality, and sought happiness only in indolence, effeminacy, and voluptuousness. Confident in the belief that the world was not under the administration of a God of justice, they gave themselves up to the indulgence of every passion the infidels of their time, and the exact example of the frivolous and fashionable multitudes of all times, that live without God, and that seek pleasure as their chief good.

And of the Stoics – This was a sect of philosophers, so named from the Greek στοά stoa, a porch or portico, because Zeno, the founder of the sect, held his school and taught in a porch, in the city of Athens. Zeno was born in the island of Cyprus, but the greater part of his life was spent at Athens in teaching philosophy. After having taught publicly 48 years, he died at the age of 96, that is, 264 years before Christ. The doctrines of the sect were, that the universe was created by God; that all things were fixed by Fate; that even God was under the dominion of fatal necessity; that the Fates were to be submitted to; that the passions and affections were to be suppressed and restrained; that happiness consisted in the insensibility of the soul to pain; and that a man should gain an absolute mastery over all the passions and affections of his nature. They were stern in their views of virtue, and, like the Pharisees, prided themselves on their own righteousness. They supposed that matter was eternal, and that God was either the animating principle or soul of the world, or that all things were a part of God. They fluctuated much in their views of a future state; some of them holding that the soul would exist only until the destruction of the universe, and others that it would finally be absorbed into the divine essence and become a part of God. It will be readily seen, therefore, with what pertinency Paul discoursed to them. The leading doctrines of both sects were met by him.

Encountered him – Contended with him; opposed themselves to him.

And some said – This was said in scorn and contempt. He had excited attention; but they scorned such doctrines as they supposed would be delivered by an unknown foreigner from Judea.

What will this babbler say? – Margin, “base fellow.” Greek: σπερμολόγος spermologos. The word occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It properly means “one who collects seeds,” and was applied by the Greeks to the poor persons who collected the scattered grain in the fields after harvest, or to gleaners; and also to the poor who obtained a precarious subsistence around the markets and in the streets. It was also applied to birds that picked up the scattered seeds of grain in the field or in the markets. The word came hence to have a twofold signification:
(1) It denoted the poor, the needy, and the vile the refuse and offscouring of society; and,
(2) From the birds which were thus employed, and which were troublesome by their continual unmusical sounds, it came to denote those who were talkative, garrulous, and opinionated those who collected the opinions of others, or scraps of knowledge, and retailed them fluently, without order or method. It was a word, therefore, expressive of their contempt for an unknown foreigner who should pretend to instruct the learned men and philosophers of Greece. Doddridge renders it “retailer of scraps.” Syriac, “collector of words.”

Other some – Others.

He seemeth to be a setter forth – He announces or declares the existence of strange gods. The reason why they supposed this was, that he made the capital points of his preaching to be Jesus and the resurrection, which they mistook for the names of divinities.

Of strange gods – Of foreign gods, or demons. They worshipped many gods themselves, and as they believed that every country had its own special divinities, they supposed that Paul had come to announce the existence of some such foreign, and to them unknown gods. The word translated “gods” (δαιμονίων daimoniōn) denotes properly “the genii, or spirits who were superior to human beings, but inferior to the gods.” It is, however, often employed to denote the gods themselves, and is evidently so used here. The gods among the Greeks were such as were supposed to have that rank by nature. The demons were such as had been exalted to divinity from being heroes and distinguished men.

He preached unto them Jesus – He proclaimed him as the Messiah. The mistake which they made by supposing that Jesus was a foreign divinity was one which was perfectly natural for minds degraded like theirs by idolatry. They had no idea of a pure God; they knew nothing of the doctrine of the Messiah; and they naturally supposed, therefore, that he of whom Paul spoke so much must be a god of some other nation, of a rank similar to their own divinities.

And the resurrection – The resurrection of Jesus, and through him the resurrection of the dead. It is evident, I think, that by the resurrection τὴν ἀνάστασιν tēn anastasin they understood him to refer to the name of some goddess. Such was the interpretation of Chrysostom. The Greeks had erected altars to Shame, and Famine, and Desire (Paus., i. 17), and it is probable that they supposed “the resurrection,” or the Anastasis, to be the name also of some unknown goddess who presided over the resurrection. Thus, they regarded him as a setter forth of two foreign or strange gods, Jesus, and the Anastasis, or resurrection.

A.T. Robertson
Act 17:19
And they took hold of him (epilabomenoi de autou). Second aorist middle participle of epilambanō, old verb, but in the N.T. only in the middle, here with the genitive autou to lay hold of, but with no necessary sense of violence (Act_9:27; Act_23:27; Mar_8:23), unless the idea is that Paul was to be tried before the Court of Areopagus for the crime of bringing in strange gods. But the day for that had passed in Athens. Even so it is not clear whether “unto the Areopagus (epi ton Areion Pagon”) means the Hill of Mars (west of the Acropolis, north of the agora and reached by a flight of steps in the rock) or the court itself which met elsewhere as well as on the hills, usually in fact in the Stoa Basilica opening on the agora and near to the place where the dispute had gone on. Raphael’s cartoon with Paul standing on Mars Hill has made us all familiar with the common view, but it is quite uncertain if it is true. There was not room on the summit for a large gathering. If Paul was brought before the Court of Areopagus (commonly called the Areopagus as here), it was not for trial as a criminal, but simply for examination concerning his new teaching in this university city whether it was strictly legal or not. Paul was really engaged in proselytism to turn the Athenians away from their old gods to Jesus Christ. But “the court of refined and polished Athenians was very different from the rough provincial magistrates of Philippi, and the philosophers who presented Paul to their cognizance very different from the mob of Thessalonians” (Rackham). It was all very polite.

May we know? (Dunametha gnōnai). Can we come to know (ingressive second aorist active infinitive).

This new teaching (hē kainē hautē didachē). On the position of hautē see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 700f. The question was prompted by courtesy, sarcasm, or irony. Evidently no definite charge was laid against Paul.

Adam Clarke
Act 17:19
They took him, and brought him unto Areopagus – The Areopagus was a hill not far from the Acropolis, already described, where the supreme court of justice was held; one of the most sacred and reputable courts that had ever existed in the Gentile world. It had its name, Αρειος παγος, Areopagus, or the Hill of Mars, or Ares, from the circumstance, according to poetic fiction, of Mars being tried there, by a court of twelve gods, for the murder of Halirrhothius, son of Neptune: the meaning of which is, that Ares, a Thessalian prince, having slain Halirrhothius, the son of a neighboring prince, for having violated his daughter Alcippe, was here tried by twelve judges, by whom he was honourably acquitted: in the Athenian laws the death of the ravisher was the regular forfeiture for his crime. The justice administered in this court was so strict and impartial, that, it was generally allowed, both the plaintiff and defendant departed satisfied with the decision. “Innocence, when summoned before it, appeared without apprehension; and the guilty, convicted and condemned, retired without daring to murmur.” The place in which the judges sat was uncovered; and they held their sittings by night, to the end that nothing might distract their minds from the great business on which they were to decide; and that the sight of the accused might not affect them either with pity or aversion. In reference to this, all pleaders were strictly forbidden to use any means whatever to excite either pity or aversion, or to affect the passions; every thing being confined to simple relation, or statement of facts. When the two parties were produced before the court, they were placed between the bleeding members of victims slain on the occasion, and were obliged to take an oath, accompanied by horrible imprecations on themselves and families, that they would testify nothing but truth. These parties called to witness the eumenides, or furies, the punishers of the perjured in the infernal world; and, to make the greater impression on the mind of the party swearing, the temple dedicated to these infernal deities was contiguous to the court, so that they appeared as if witnessing the oaths and recording the appeal made to themselves. When the case was fully heard, the judges gave their decision by throwing down their flint pebbles, on two boards or tables, one of which was for the condemnation, the other for the acquittal, of the person in question.

A.T. Robertson Act 17:20
For thou bringest certain strange things (xenizonta gar tina eisphereis). The very verb used by Xenophon (Mem. I) about Socrates. Xenizonta is present active neuter plural participle of xenizō and from xenos (Act_17:18), “things surprising or shocking us.”

We would know therefore (boulometha oun gnōnai). Very polite still, we wish or desire, and repeating gnōnai (the essential point).

Albert Barnes Act 17:21
For all the Athenians – This was their general character.

And strangers which were there – Athens was greatly distinguished for the celebrity of its schools of philosophy. It was at that time at the head of the literary world. Its arts and its learning were celebrated in all lands. It is known, therefore, that it was the favorite resort of people of other nations, who came there to become acquainted with its institutions and to listen to its sages.
Spent their time in nothing else – The learned and subtle Athenians gave themselves much to speculation, and employed themselves in examining the various new systems of philosophy that were proposed. Strangers and foreigners who were there, having much leisure, would also give themselves to the same inquiries.

But either to tell or to hear some new thing – Greek: “something newer” – καινότερον kainoteron. The latest news; or the latest subject of inquiry proposed. This is well known to have been the character of the people of Athens at all times. “Many of the ancient writers I bear witness to the garrulity, and curiosity, and intemperate desire of novelty among the Athenians, by which they inquired respecting all things, even those in which they had no interest, whether of a public or private nature (Kuinoel). Thus, Thucydides (3, 38 ) says of them, “You excel in suffering yourselves to be deceived with novelty of speech.” On which the old scholiast makes this remark, almost in the words of Luke: “He (Thucydides) here blames the Athenians, who care for nothing else but to tell or to hear something new.” Thus, Aelian (5, 13) says of the Athenians that they are versatile in novelties. Thus, Demosthenes represents the Athenians “as inquiring in the place of public resort if there were any news” – τι νεώτερον ti neōteron Meurslus has shown, also, that there were more than 300 public places in Athens of public resort, where the principal youth and reputable citizens were accustomed to meet for the purpose of conversation and inquiry.

A.T. Robertson
Act 17:22
Stood in the midst of the Areopagus (statheis en mesōi tou Areiou Pagou). First aorist passive of histēmi used of Peter in Act_2:14. Majestic figure whether on Mars Hill or in the Stoa Basilica before the Areopagus Court. There would be a crowd of spectators and philosophers in either case and Paul seized the opportunity to preach Christ to this strange audience as he did in Caesarea before Herod Agrippa and the crowd of prominent people gathered by Festus for the entertainment. Paul does not speak as a man on trial, but as one trying to get a hearing for the gospel of Christ.
Somewhat superstitious (hōs deisidaimonesterous). The Authorized Version has “too superstitious,” the American Standard “very religious.” Deisidaimōn is a neutral word (from deidō, to fear, and daimōn, deity). The Greeks used it either in the good sense of pious or religious or the bad sense of superstitious. Thayer suggests that Paul uses it “with kindly ambiguity.” Page thinks that Luke uses the word to represent the religious feeling of the Athenians (religiosus) which bordered on superstition. The Vulgate has superstitiosiores. In Act_25:19 Festus uses the term deisidaimonia for “religion.” It seems unlikely that Paul should give this audience a slap in the face at the very start. The way one takes this adjective here colours Paul’s whole speech before the Council of Areopagus. The comparative here as in Act_17:21means more religions than usual (Robertson, Grammar, pp. 664f.), the object of the comparison not being expressed. The Athenians had a tremendous reputation for their devotion to religion, “full of idols” (Act_17:16).

Albert Barnes
Act 17:22
Then Paul – This commences Paul’s explanation of the doctrines which he had stated. It is evident that Luke has recorded but a mere summary or outline of the discourse; but it is such as to enable us to see clearly his course of thought, and the manner in which he met the two principal sects of their philosophers.

In the midst of Mars’ hill – Greek: Areopagus. This should have been retained in the translation.

Ye men of Athens – This language was perfectly respectful, notwithstanding his heart had been deeply affected by their idolatry. Everything about this discourse is calm, grave, cool, argumentative. Paul understood the character of his auditors, and did not commence his discourse by denouncing them, nor did he suppose that they would be convinced by mere dogmatical assertion. No happier instance can be found of cool, collected argumentation than is furnished in this discourse.

I perceive – He perceived this by his observations of their forms of worship in passing through their city, Act_17:23.
In all things – In respect to all events.

Ye are too superstitious – δεισιδαιμονεστέρους deisidaimonesterous. This is a most unhappy translation. We use the word “superstitious” always in a bad sense, to denote being “over-scrupulous and rigid in religious observances, particularly in smaller matters, or a zealous devotion to rites and observances which are not commanded.” But the word here is designed to convey no such idea. It properly means “reverence for the gods.” It is used in the Classic writers in a good sense, to denote “piety toward the gods, or suitable fear and reverence for them”; and also in a bad sense, to denote “improper fear or excessive dread of their anger”; and in this sense it accords with our word “superstitious.” But it is altogether improbable that Paul would have used it in a bad sense. For:

(1) It was not his custom needlessly to blame or offend his auditors.
(2) It is not probable that he would commence his discourse in a manner that would only excite prejudice and opposition.
(3) In the thing which he specifies Act_17:23 as proof on the subject, he does not introduce it as a matter of blame, but rather as a proof of their devotedness to the cause of religion and of their regard for God.
(4) The whole speech is calm, dignified, and argumentative – such as became such a place, such a speaker, and such an audience. The meaning of the expression is, therefore, “I perceive that you are greatly devoted to reverence for religion; that it is a characteristic of the people to honor the gods, to rear altars to them, and to recognize the divine agency in times of trial.” The proof of this was the altar reared to the unknown God; its bearing on his purpose was, that such a state of public sentiment must be favorable to an inquiry into the truth of what he was about to state.

Adam Clarke
Act 17:23
Beheld your devotions – Σεβασματα, The objects of your worship; the different images of their gods which they held in religious veneration, sacrificial instruments, altars, etc., etc.

To the Unknown God – ΑΓΝΩΣΤΩ ΘΕΩ. That there was an altar at Athens thus inscribed, we cannot doubt after such a testimony; though St. Jerome questions it in part; for he says St. Paul found the inscription in the plural number, but, because he would not appear to acknowledge a plurality of gods, he quoted it in the singular: Verum, quia Paulus non pluribus Diis indigebat ignotis, sed uno tantum ignoto Deo, singulari verbo usus est. Epist. ad Magn. This is a most foolish saying: had Paul done so, how much would such a begging of the question have prejudiced his defense in the minds of his intelligent judges! Oecumenius intimates that St. Paul does not give the whole of the inscription which this famous altar bore; and which he says was the following: Θεοις Ασιας και Ευρωπης και Λιβυης, Θεῳ αγνωϚῳ και ξενῳ, To the gods of Asia, and Europe, and Africa: To The Unknown and strange God. Several eminent men suppose that this unknown god was the God of the Jews; and, as his name יהוה was considered by the Jews as ineffable, the Θεος αγνωϚος may be considered as the anonymous god; the god whose name was not known, and must not be pronounced. That there was such a god acknowledged at Athens we have full proof. Lucian in his Philopatris, cap. xiii. p. 769, uses this form of an oath: νη τον αγνωϚον τον εν Αθηναις, I swear by the Unknown God at Athens. And again, cap. xxix. 180: ἡμεις δε τον εν Αθηναις αγνωϚον εφευροντες και προσκυνησαντες, χειρας εις ουρανον εκτειναντες, τουτῳ ευχαριϚησομεν ὡς καταξιωθεντες, etc. We have found out the Unknown god at Athens – and worshipped him with our hands stretched up to heaven; and we will gave thanks unto him, as being thought worthy to be subject to this power. Bp. Pearce properly asks, Is it likely that Lucian, speaking thus, (whether in jest or in earnest), should not have had some notion of there being at Athens an altar inscribed to the unknown God? Philostratus, in vit. Apollon. vi. 3, notices the same thing, though he appears to refer to several altars thus inscribed: και ταυτα Αθηνῃσι, οὑ και αγνωϚων Θεων βωμοι ἱδρυνται, And this at Athens, where there are Altars even to the Unknown Gods. Pausanias, in Attic. cap. 1. p. 4, edit. Kuhn., says that at Athens there are βωμοι Θεων των ονομαζομενων αγνωϚων, altars of gods which are called, The Unknown ones. Minutius Felix says of the Romans, Aras extruunt etiam ignotis numinibus. “They even build altars to Unknown Divinities.” And Tertullian, contra Marcion, says, Invenio plane Diis ignotis aras prostitutas: sed Attica idolatria est. “I find altars allotted to the worship of unknown gods: but this is an Attic idolatry.” Now, though in these last passages, both gods and altars are spoken of in the plural number; yet it is reasonable to suppose that, on each, or upon some one of them, the inscription αγνωϚῳ Θεῳ, To the unknown god, was actually found. The thing had subsisted long and had got from Athens to Rome in the days of Tertullian and Minutius Felix. See Bp. Pearce and Dr. Cudworth, to whose researches this note is much indebted.

Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship – There is here a fine paronomasia, or play on the words. The apostle tells them that (on their system) they were a very religious people – that they had an altar inscribed, αγνωϚῳ Θεῳ, to the unknown God: him therefore, says he, whom, αγνουντες, ye unknowingly worship, I proclaim to you. Assuming it as a truth, that, as the true God was not known by them, and that there was an altar dedicated to the unknown god, his God was that god whose nature and operations he now proceeded to declare. By this fine turn he eluded the force of that law which made it a capital offense to introduce any new god into the state, and of the breach of which he was charged, Act_17:18; and thus he showed that he was bringing neither new god nor new worship among them; but only explaining the worship of one already acknowledged by the state, though not as yet known.

Albert Barnes
Act 17:23
For as I passed by – Greek: “For I, coming through, and seeing, etc.”

And beheld – Diligently contemplated; attentively considered ἀναθεωρῶν anatheōrōn. The worship of an idolatrous people will be an object of intense and painful interest to a Christian.

Your devotions – τὰ σεβάσματα ta sebasmata. Our word devotions refers to the “act of worship” – to prayers, praises, etc. The Greek word used here means properly any sacred thing; any object which is worshipped, or which is connected with the place or rites of worship. Thus, it is applied either to the gods themselves, or to the temples, altars, shrines, sacrifices, statues, etc., connected with the worship of the gods. This is its meaning here. It does not denote that Paul saw them engaged in the act of worship, but that he was struck with the numerous temples, altars, statues, etc., which were reared to the gods, and which indicated the state of the people. Syriac, “the temple of your gods.” Vulgate, “your images.” Margin, “gods that ye worship.”

I found an altar – An altar usually denotes “a place for sacrifice.” Here, however, it does not appear that any sacrifice was offered; but it was probably a monument of stone, reared to commemorate a certain event, and dedicated to the unknown God.

To the unknown God – ἀγνώστῳ Θεῷ agnōstō Theō. Where this altar was reared, or on what occasion, has been a subject of much debate with expositors. That there was such an altar in Athens, though it may not have been specifically mentioned by the Greek writers, is rendered probable by the following circumstances:

(1) It was customary to rear such altars. Minutius Felix says of the Romans, “They build altars to unknown divinities.”
(2) The term “unknown God” was used in relation to the worship of the Athenians. Lucian, in his Philopatris, uses this form of an oath: “I swear by the unknown God at Athens,” the very expression used by the apostle. And again he says (chapter xxix. 180), “We have found out the unknown God at Athens, and worshipped him with our hands stretched up to heaven, etc.”
(3) There were altars at Athens inscribed to the unknown gods. Philostratus says (in Vita Apol., Rom_6:3), “And this at Athens, where there are even altars to the unknown gods.” Thus, Pausanius (in Attic., chapter i.) says, that “at Athens there are altars of gods which are called the unknown ones.” Jerome, in his commentary Tit_1:12, says that the whole inscription was, “To the gods of Asia, Europe, and Africa; to the unknown and strange gods.”
(4) There was a remarkable altar raised in Athens in a time of pestilence, in honor of the unknown god which had granted them deliverance. Diogenes Laertius says that Epimenides restrained the pestilence in the following manner: “Taking white and black sheep, he led them to the Areopagus, and there permitted them to go where they would, commanding those who followed them to sacrifice τῶ προσήχοντι θεῷ tō prosēkonti theōto the god to whom these things pertained or who had the power of averting the plague, whoever he might be, without adding the name and thus to allay the pestilence. From which it has arisen that at this day, through the villages of the Athenians, altars are found without any name” (Diog. Laert., book i, section 10). This took place about 600 years before Christ, and it is not improbable that one or more of those altars remained until the time of Paul. It should be added that the natural inscription on those altars would be, “To the unknown God.” None of the gods to whom they usually sacrificed could deliver them from the pestilence. They therefore reared them to some unknown Being who had the power to free them from the plague.

Whom therefore – The true God, who had really delivered them from the plague.

Ye ignorantly worship – Or worship without knowing his name. You have expressed your homage for him by rearing to him an altar.

Him declare I unto you – I make known to you his name, attributes, etc. There is remarkable tact in Paul’s seizing on this circumstance; and yet it was perfectly fair and honest. Only the true God could deliver in the time of the pestilence. This altar had, therefore, been really reared to him, though his name was unknown. The same Being who had interposed at that time, and whose interposition was recorded by the building of this altar, was He who had made the heavens; who ruled over all; and whom Paul was now about to make known to them. There is another feature of skill in the allusion to this altar. In other circumstances it might seem to be presumptuous for an unknown Jew to at tempt to instruct the sages of Athens. But here they had confessed and proclaimed their ignorance. By rearing this altar they acknowledged their need of instruction. The way was, therefore, fairly open for Paul to address even these philosophers, and to discourse to them on a point on which they acknowledged their ignorance.

A.T. Robertson Act 17:24
The God that made the world (Ho theos ho poiēsas ton kosmon). Not a god for this and a god for that like the 30,000 gods of the Athenians, but the one God who made the Universe (kosmos on the old Greek sense of orderly arrangement of the whole universe).

And all things therein (kai panta ta en autōi). All the details in the universe were created by this one God. Paul is using the words of Isa_42:5. The Epicureans held that matter was eternal. Paul sets them aside. This one God was not to be confounded with any of their numerous gods save with this “Unknown God.”

Being Lord of heaven and earth (ouranou kai gēs huparchōn kurios). Kurios here owner, absolute possessor of both heaven and earth (Isa_45:7), not of just parts.

Dwelleth not in temples made with hands (ouken cheiropoiētois naois katoikei). The old adjective cheiropoiētos (cheir, poieō) already in Stephen’s speech (Act_7:48). No doubt Paul pointed to the wonderful Parthenon, supposed to be the home of Athene as Stephen denied that God dwelt alone in the temple in Jerusalem.

Albert Barnes
Act 17:25
Neither is worshipped with men’s hands – The word here rendered “worshipped” (θεραπέυεται therapeuetai) denotes to “serve”; to wait upon; and then to render religious service or homage. There is reference here, undoubtedly, to a notion prevalent among the pagan, that the gods were fed or nourished by the offerings made to them. The idea is prevalent among the Hindus that the sacrifices which are made, and which are offered in the temples, are consumed by the gods themselves. Perhaps, also, Paul had reference to the fact that so many persons were employed in their temples in serving them with their hands; that is, in preparing sacrifices and feasts in their honor. Paul affirms that the great Creator of all things cannot be thus dependent on his creatures for happiness, and consequently, that that mode of worship must be highly absurd. The same idea occurs in Psa_50:10-12;

For every beast of the forest is mine; And the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountain;
And the wild beasts of the field are mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell thee; For the world is mine, and the fulness thereof.

Seeing he giveth – Greek: he having given to all, etc.

Life – He is the source of life, and therefore he cannot be dependent on that life which he has himself imparted.

And breath – The power of breathing, by which life is sustained. He not only originally gave life, but he gives it at each moment; he gives the power of drawing each breath by which life is supported. It is possible that the phrase “life and breath may be the figure hendyades, by which one thing is expressed by two words. It is highly probable that Paul here had reference to Gen_2:7; “And the Lord God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” The same idea occurs in Job_12:10;

In whose hand is the life (margin) of every living thing; And the breath of all mankind.

And all things – All things necessary to sustain life. We may see here how dependent man is on God. There can be no more absolute dependence than that for every breath. How easy it would be for God to suspend our breathing! How incessant the care, how unceasing the providence, by which, whether we sleep or wake – whether we remember or forget him, he heaves our chest, fills our lungs, restores the vitality of our blood, and infuses vigor into our frame! Compare the notes on Rom_11:36.

A.T. Robertson Act 17:26
And he made of one (epoiēsen te exō henos). The word haimatos (blood) is absent from Aleph A B and is a later explanatory addition. What Paul affirms is the unity of the human race with a common origin and with God as the Creator. This view runs counter to Greek exclusiveness which treated other races as barbarians and to Jewish pride which treated other nations as heathen or pagan (the Jews were laos, the Gentiles ethnē). The cosmopolitanism of Paul here rises above Jew and Greek and claims the one God as the Creator of the one race of men. The Athenians themselves claimed to be antochthonous (indigenous) and a special creation. Zeno and Seneca did teach a kind of cosmopolitanism (really pantheism) far different from the personal God of Paul. It was Rome, not Greece, that carried out the moral ideas of Zeno. Man is part of the universe (Act_17:24) and God created (epoiēsen) man as he created (poiēsas) the all.

For to dwell (katoikein). Infinitive (present active) of purpose, so as to dwell.

Having determined (horisas). First aorist active participle of horizō, old verb to make a horizon as already in ActsAct_10:42 which see. Paul here touches God’s Providence. God has revealed himself in history as in creation. His hand appears in the history of all men as well as in that of the Chosen People of Israel.

Appointed seasons (prostetagmenous kairous). Not the weather as in Act_14:17, but “the times of the Gentiles” (kairoi ethnōn) of which Jesus spoke (Luk_21:24). The perfect passive participle of prostassō, old verb to enjoin, emphasizes God’s control of human history without any denial of human free agency as was involved in the Stoic Fate (Heirmarmenē).

Bounds (horothesias). Limits? Same idea in Job_12:23. Nations rise and fall, but it is not blind chance or hard fate. Thus there is an interplay between God’s will and man’s activities, difficult as it is for us to see with our shortened vision.

John Gill
Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood,…. That is, of one man’s blood; the Vulgate Latin version reads, “of one”; and the Arabic version of De Dieu reads, “of one man”; of Adam, the first parent of all mankind, and who had the blood of all men in his veins: hence the Jews (u) say,

“the first man was דמו של עולם, “the blood of the world”;”

and this by propagation has been derived from him, and communicated to all mankind. They also say (w), that

“the reason why man was created alone (or there was but one man created) was, on account of families, that they might not be stirred up one against another;”

that is, strive and contend with one another about pre-eminence: and they add,

“that the righteous might not say we are the sons of the righteous, and ye are the sons of the wicked.”

And it is a certain truth that follows upon this, that no man has any reason to vaunt over another, and boast of his blood and family; and as little reason have any to have any dependence upon their being the children of believers, or to distinguish themselves from others, and reject them as the children of unbelievers, when all belong to one family, and are of one man’s blood, whether Adam or Noah: of whom are

all nations of men, for to dwell on all the face of the earth; for from Adam sprung a race of men, which multiplied on the face of the earth, and peopled the world before the flood; these being destroyed by the flood, and Noah and his family saved, his descendants were scattered all over the earth, and repeopled it: and this is the original of all the nations of men, and of all the inhabitants of the earth; and stands opposed to the fabulous accounts of the Heathens, which the apostle might have in his view, that men at first grew up out of the earth, or after the flood were formed of stones, which Deucalion and Prometheus threw over their heads; and particularly the Athenians boasted that they sprung out of the earth, which Diogenes ridiculed as common with mice and worms. But the apostle ascribes all to one blood:

and hath determined the times before appointed; how long the world he has made shall continue; and the several distinct periods, ages, and generations, in which such and such men should live, such and such nations should exist, and such monarchies should be in being, as the Assyrian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman, and how long they should subsist; as also the several seasons of the year, as seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night; and which are so bounded, and kept so distinct in their revolutions, as not to interfere with, and encroach upon each other; and likewise the several years, months, and days of every man’s life; see Job_7:1 to which may be added, the times of the law and Gospel; the time of Christ’s birth and death; the time of the conversion of particular persons; and all their times of desertion, temptation, affliction, and comfort; the times of the church’s sufferings, both under Rome Pagan and Rome Papal; of the holy city being trodden under foot, of the witnesses prophesying in sackcloth, and of their being killed, and their bodies lying unburied, and of their resurrection and ascension to heaven, Rev_2:10 Rev_11:12 the time of antichrist’s reign and ruin, Rev_13:5 and of Christ’s personal coming, and the day of judgment, 1Ti_6:15 and of his reign on earth for a thousand years, Rev_20:4. All these are appointed times, and determined by the Creator and Governor of the world:

and the bounds of their habitation; where men shall dwell, and how long they shall continue there the age or distinct period of time, in which every man was, or is to come into the world, is fixed and determined by God; nor can, nor does anyone come into the world sooner or later than that time; and also the particular country, city, town, and spot of ground where he shall dwell; and the term of time how long he shall dwell there, and then remove to another place, or be removed by death. And to this agrees the Ethiopic version, which renders the whole thus, “and hath appointed his times, and his years, how long they shall dwell”; see Deu_32:8 to which the apostle seems to refer.

(u) Caphtor, fol. 37. 2. (w) T. Hieros. Sanhedrin, fol. 22. 2.

Albert Barnes
Act 17:27
That they should seek the Lord – Greek: to seek the Lord. The design of thus placing them on the earth – of gang them their habitation among his works – was, that they should contemplate his wisdom in his works, and thus come to a knowledge of his existence and character. All nations, though living in different regions and climates, have thus the opportunity of becoming acquainted with God, Rom_1:19-20. The fact that the nations did not thus learn the character of the true God shows their great stupidity and wickedness. The design of Paul in this was doubtless to reprove the idolatry of the Athenians. The argument is this: “God has given to each nation its proper opportunity to learn his character. Idolatry, therefore, is folly and wickedness, since it is possible to find out the existence of the one God from his works.”

If haply – εἰ ἄρα γε ei ara ge. If perhaps – implying that it was possible to find God, though it might be attended with some difficulty. God has placed us here that we may make the trial, and has made it possible thus to find him.

They might feel after him – The word used here ψηλαφήσειαν psēlaphēseian means properly “to touch, to handle” Luk_24:39; Heb_12:18, and then to ascertain the qualities of an object by the sense of touch. And as the sense of touch is regarded as a certain way of ascertaining the existence and qualities of an object, the word means “to search diligently, so that we may know distinctly and certainly.” The word has this sense here. It means “to search diligently and accurately for God, to learn his existence and perfections.” The Syriac renders it, “That they may seek for God, and find him from his creatures.”

And find him – Find the proofs of his existence. Become acquainted with his perfections and laws.

Though he be not far … – This seems to be stated by the apostle to show that it was possible to find him; and that even those who were without a revelation need not despair of becoming acquainted with his existence and perfections. He is near to us:

(1) Because the proofs of his existence and power are round about us everywhere, Psa_19:1-6.
(2) Because he fills all things in heaven and earth by his essential presence, Psa_139:7-10; Jer_23:23-24; Amo_9:2-4; 1Ki_8:27. We should learn then:

(1) To be afraid of sin. God is present with us, and sees all.
(2) He can protect the righteous. He is always with them.
(3) He can detect and punish the wicked. He sees all their plans and thoughts, and records all their doings.
(4) We should seek him continually. It is the design for which he has made us; and he has given us abundant opportunities to learn his existence and perfections.

A.T. Robertson
Act 17:28
For in him (en autōi gar). Proof of God’s nearness, not stoic pantheism, but real immanence in God as God dwells in us. The three verbs (zōmen, kinoumetha, esōmen) form an ascending scale and reach a climax in God (life, movement, existence). Kinoumetha is either direct middle present indicative (we move ourselves) or passive (we are moved).

As certain even of your own poets (hōs kai tines tōn kath’ humās poiētōn). “As also some of the poets among you.” Aratus of Soli in Cilicia (ab. b.c. 270) has these very words in his Ta Phainomena and Cleanthes, Stoic philosopher (300-220 b.c.) in his Hymn to Zeus has Ek sou gar genos esōmen. In 1Co_15:32 Paul quotes from Menander and in Tit_1:12 from Epimenides. J. Rendel Harris claims that he finds allusions in Paul’s Epistles to Pindar, Aristophanes, and other Greek writers. There is no reason in the world why Paul should not have acquaintance with Greek literature, though one need not strain a point to prove it. Paul, of course, knew that the words were written of Zeus (Jupiter), not of Jehovah, but he applies the idea in them to his point just made that all men are the offspring of God.

Albert Barnes
Act 17:28
For in him we live – The expression “in him” evidently means by him; by his originally forming us, and continually sustaining us. No words can better express our constant dependence on God. He is the original fountain of life, and he upholds us each moment. A similar sentiment is found in Plautus (5, 4,14): “O Jupiter, who dost cherish and nourish the race of man; by whom we live, and with whom is the hope of the life of all men” (Kuinoel). It does not appear, however, that Paul designed this as a quotation; yet he doubtless intended to state a sentiment with which they were familiar, and with which they would agree.

And move – κινούμεθα kinoumetha. Doddridge translates this, “And are moved.” It may, however, be in the middle voice, and be correctly rendered as in our version. It means that we derive strength to move from him; an expression denoting “constant and absolute dependence.” There is no idea of dependence more striking than that we owe to him the ability to perform the slightest motion.

And have our being – καὶ ἐσμέν kai esmen. And are. This denotes that our “continued existence” is owing to Him. That we live at all is his gift; that we have power to move is his gift; and our continued and prolonged existence is his gift also. Thus, Paul traces our dependence on him from the lowest pulsation of life to the highest powers of action and of continued existence. It would be impossible to express in more emphatic language our entire dependence On God.

As certain also – As some. The sentiment which he quotes was found substantially in several Greek poets.

Of your own poets – He does not refer particularly here to poets of Athens, but to Greek poets who had written in their language.

For we are also his offspring – This precise expression is found in Aratus (“Phaenom.,” v. 5), and in Cleanthus in a hymn to Jupiter. Substantially the same sentiment is found in several other Greek poets. Aratus was a Greek poet of Cilicia the native place of Paul, and flourished about 277 years before Christ. As Paul was a native of the same country it is highly probable he was acquainted with his writings. Aratus passed much of his time at the court of Antigonus Gonatas, king of Macedonia. His principal work was the “Phoenomena,” which is here quoted, and was so highly esteemed in Greece that many learned men wrote commentaries on it. The sentiment here quoted was directly at variance with the views of the Epicureans; and it is proof of Paul’s address and skill, as well as his acquaintance with his auditors and with the Greek poets, that he was able to adduce a sentiment so directly in point, and that had the concurrent testimony of so many of the Greeks themselves. It is one instance among thousands where an acquaintance with profane learning may be of use to a minister of the gospel.

A.T. Robertson
Act 17:29
We ought not to think (ouk opheilomen nomizein). It is a logical conclusion (oun, therefore) from the very language of Aratus and Cleanthes.

That the Godhead is like (to theion einai homoion). Infinitive with accusative of general reference in indirect discourse. To theion is strictly “the divine” nature like theiotēs (Rom_1:20) rather than like theotēs (Col_2:9). Paul may have used to theion here to get back behind all their notions of various gods to the real nature of God. The Athenians may even have used the term themselves. After homoios (like) the associative instrumental case is used as with chrusōi, argurōi, lithōi.

Graven by art and device of man (charagmati technēs kai enthumēseōs anthrōpou). Apposition with preceding and so charagmati in associative instrumental case. Literally, graven work or sculpture from charassō, to engrave, old word, but here alone in N.T. outside of Revelation (the mark of the beast). Graven work of art (technēs) or external craft, and of thought or device (enthumēseōs) or internal conception of man.

Albert Barnes
Act 17:29
Forasmuch then – Admitting or assuming this to be true. The argument which follows is drawn from the concessions of their own writers.

We ought not to think – It is absurd to suppose. The argument of the apostle is this: “Since we are formed by God; since we are like him, living and intelligent beings; since we are more excellent in our nature than the most precious and ingenious works of art, it is absurd to suppose that the original source of our existence can be like gold, and silver, and stone. Man himself is far more excellent than an image of wood and stone; how much more excellent still must be the great Fountain and Source of all our wisdom and intelligence.” See this thought pursued at length in Isa_40:18-23.

The Godhead – The divinity (τὸ Θεῖον to Theion), the divine nature, or essence. The word used here is an adjective employed as a noun, and does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament.

Is like unto gold … – All these things were used in making images or statues of the gods. It is absurd to think that the source of all life and intelligence resembles a lifeless block of wood or stone. Even degraded pagan, one would think, might see the force of an argument like this.

Graven – Sculptured; made into an image.

Act 17:30
The times of ignorance (tous chronous tēs agnoias). The times before full knowledge of God came in Jesus Christ. Paul uses the very word for their ignorance (agnoountes) employed in Act_17:23.

Overlooked (huperidōn). Second aorist active participle of huperoraō or hupereidō, old verb to see beyond, not to see, to overlook, not “to wink at” of the Authorized Version with the notion of condoning. Here only in the N.T. It occurs in the lxx in the sense of overlooking or neglecting (Ps 55:1). But it has here only a negative force. God has all the time objected to the polytheism of the heathen, and now he has made it plain. In Wisdom Act_11:23 we have these words: “Thou overlookest the sins of men to the end they may repent.”

But now (ta nun). Accusative of general reference, “as to the now things or situation.” All is changed now that Christ has come with the full knowledge of God. See also Act_27:22.

All everywhere (pantas pantachou). No exceptions anywhere.

Repent (metanoein). Present active infinitive of metanoeō in indirect command, a permanent command of perpetual force. See note on metanoeō Act_2:38 and the Synoptic Gospels. This word was the message of the Baptist, of Jesus, of Peter, of Paul, this radical change of attitude and life.

Albert Barnes
Act 17:30
And the times of this ignorance – The long period when people were ignorant of the true God, and when they worshipped stocks and stones. Paul here refers to the times preceding the gospel.

God winked at – ὑπεριδὼν huperidōn. Overlooked; connived at; did not come forth to punish. In Act_14:16 it is expressed thus: “Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways” The sense is, he passed over those times without punishing them, as if he did not see them. For wise purposes he suffered them to walk in ignorance that there might be a fair experiment to show what people would do, and how much necessity there was for a revelation to instruct them in the true know edge of God. We are not to suppose that God regarded idolatry as innocent, or the crimes and vices to which idolatry led as of no importance; but their ignorance was a mitigating circumstance, and he suffered the nations to live without coming forth in direct judgment against them. Compare the notes on Act_3:17; Act_14:16.

But now commandeth – By the gospel, Luk_24:47.

All men – Not Jews only, who had been favored with special privileges, but all nations. The barrier was broken down, and the call to repentance was sent abroad into all the earth.

To repent – To exercise sorrow for their sins, and to forsake them. If God commands all people to repent, we may observe:
(1) That it is their duty to do it. There is no higher obligation than to obey the command of God.
(2) It can be done. God would not command an impossibility.
(3) It is binding on all. The rich, the learned, the great, the frivolous, are as much bound as the beggar and the slave.
(4) It must be done, or the soul lost. It is not safe to neglect a plain Law of God. It will not be well to die reflecting that we have all our life despised his commands.
(5) We should send the gospel to the pagan. God calls on the nations to repent, and to be saved. It is the duty of Christians to make known to them the command, and to invite them to the blessings of pardon and heaven.

A.T. Robertson
Act 17:31
Inasmuch as (kathoti). According as (kata, hoti). Old causal conjunction, but in N.T. only used in Luke’s writings (Luk_1:7; Luk_19:9; Act_2:45; Act_4:35; Act_17:31).

Hath appointed a day (estēsen hēmeran) First aorist active indicative of histēmi, to place, set. God did set the day in his counsel and he will fulfil it in his own time.

Will judge (mellei krinein). Rather, is going to judge, mellō and the present active infinitive of krinō. Paul here quotes Psa_9:8 where krinei occurs.

By the man whom he hath ordained (en andri hōi hōrisen). Here he adds to the Psalm the place and function of Jesus Christ, a passage in harmony with Christ’s own words in Matthew 25. Hōi (whom) is attracted from the accusative, object of hōrisen (first aorist active indicative of horizō) to the case of the antecedent andri. It has been said that Paul left the simple gospel in this address to the council of the Areopagus for philosophy. But did he? He skilfully caught their attention by reference to an altar to an Unknown God whom he interprets to be the Creator of all things and all men who overrules the whole world and who now commands repentance of all and has revealed his will about a day of reckoning when Jesus Christ will be Judge. He has preached the unity of God, the one and only God, has proclaimed repentance, a judgment day, Jesus as the Judge as shown by his Resurrection, great fundamental doctrines, and doubtless had much more to say when they interrupted his address. There is no room here for such a charge against Paul. He rose to a great occasion and made a masterful exposition of God’s place and power in human history.

Whereof he hath given assurance (pistin paraschōn). Second aorist active participle of parechō, old verb to furnish, used regularly by Demosthenes for bringing forward evidence. Note this old use of pistis as conviction or ground of confidence (Heb_11:1) like a note or title-deed, a conviction resting on solid basis of fact. All the other uses of pistis grow out of this one from peithō, to persuade.

In that he hath raised him from the dead (anastēsas auton ek nekrōn). First aorist active participle of anistēmi, causal participle, but literally, “having raised him from the dead.” This Paul knew to be a fact because he himself had seen the Risen Christ. Paul has here come to the heart of his message and could now throw light on their misapprehension about “Jesus and the Resurrection” (Act_17:18). Here Paul has given the proof of all his claims in the address that seemed new and strange to them.

Adam Clarke
Act 17:31
He hath appointed a day – He has fixed the time in which he will judge the world, though he has not revealed this time to man.

By that man whom he hath ordained – He has also appointed the judge, by whom the inhabitants of the earth are to be tried.

Whereof he hath given assurance – ΠιϚιν παρασχων πασιν, Having given to all this indubitable proof, that Jesus Christ shall judge the world, by raising him from the dead. The sense of the argument is this: “Jesus Christ, whom we preach as the Savior of men, has repeatedly told his followers that he would judge the world; and has described to us, at large, the whole of the proceedings of that awful time, Mat_25:31, etc.; Joh_5:25. Though he was put to death by the Jews, and thus he became a victim for sin, yet God raised him from the dead. By raising him from the dead, God has set his seal to the doctrines he has taught: one of these doctrines is, that he shall judge the world; his resurrection, established by the most incontrovertible evidence, is therefore a proof, an incontestable proof, that he shall judge the world, according to his own declaration.”

A.T. Robertson
Act 17:32
The resurrection of the dead (anastasin nekrōn). Rather, “a resurrection of dead men.” No article with either word. The Greeks believed that the souls of men lived on, but they had no conception of resurrection of the body. They had listened with respect till Paul spoke of the actual resurrection of Jesus from the dead as a fact, when they did not care to hear more.

Some mocked (hoi men echleuazon). Imperfect active of chleuazō, a common verb (from chleuē, jesting, mockery). Only here in the N.T. though late MSS. have it in Act_2:13 (best MSS. diachleuazō). Probably inchoative here, began to mock. In contempt at Paul’s statement they declined to listen further to “this babbler” (Act_17:18 ) who had now lost what he had gained with this group of hearers (probably the light and flippant Epicureans).

But others (hoi de). A more polite group like those who had invited him to speak (Act_17:19). They were unconvinced, but had better manners and so were in favour of an adjournment. This was done, though it is not clear whether it was a serious postponement or a courteous refusal to hear Paul further (probably this). It was a virtual dismissal of the matter. “ It is a sad story–the noblest of ancient cities and the noblest man of history–and he never cared to look on it again” (Furneaux).

John Gill
Act 17:32 When they heard of the resurrection of the dead,…. Of a certain man that the apostle said God had raised from the dead, though they knew not who he was:

some mocked; at him, and at the doctrine he preached: these very likely were of the Epicurean sect, who disbelieved a future state; though, as Tertullian observes (b), the doctrine of the resurrection was denied by every sect of the philosophers: it is a doctrine of pure revelation, and what the light of nature never taught men, and by which men being only guided, have declared against, and have treated it with the utmost ridicule and contempt. Pliny (c) reckons it, among childish fancies, and calls it vanity, and downright madness to believe it; as does also Caecilius in Minutius Felix (d), and who even calls it a lie, and places it among old wives’ fables; and Celsus in Origen (e) represents it as exceeding detestable, abominable, and impossible.

And others said, we will hear thee again of this matter; some think these were of the Stoic sect, who held a future state, and that the soul would live after the body, and had some notions which looked inclining to this doctrine: however, these thought there might be something in what the apostle said; they could not receive it readily, and yet could not deny it; they were willing to take time to consider of it; and were desirous of hearing him again upon that subject; in which they might be very open and upright; and this might not be a mere excuse to shift off any further hearing at that time, like that of Felix, in Act_24:1.

(b) De praescript. Heret. c. 7. p. 232. (c) Nat. Hist. l. 7. c. 55. (d) Octav. p. 10. (e) Contra Cals. l. 5. p. 240.

A.T. Robertson
Act 17:33
Thus Paul went out from among them (houtōs ho Paulos exēlthen ek mesou autōn). No further questions, no effort to arrest him, no further ridicule. He walked out never to return to Athens. Had he failed?

John Gill
Act 17:33 So Paul departed from among them. As it was high time, when they fell to deriding and scoffing at him; for hereby they judged themselves unworthy of the Gospel ministry: the Ethiopic version adds, “from Athens”; but it does not appear that the apostle went directly out of the city; we read afterwards of his departing from Athens, Act_18:1 but the sense is, that he went out of the Areopagus, from that court of judicature; and from among the judges of it, and the philosophers of every sect, that stood around him in it; they having no more to say to him, nor he to them. And this shows, that he was not brought to be tried and judged, in order to be punished, but only to be heard concerning his doctrine; of which, when they had heard enough, he departed quietly, no one molesting him, unless with scoffs and jeers.

A.T. Robertson
Act 17:34
Clave unto him and believed (kollēthentes autōi episteusan). First aorist passive of this strong word kollaō, to glue to, common in Acts (Act_5:13; Act_8:29; Act_9:26; Act_10:28 ) No sermon is a failure which leads a group of men (andres) to believe (ingressive aorist of pisteuō) in Jesus Christ. Many so-called great or grand sermons reap no such harvest.

Dionysius the Areopagite (Dionusios ho Areopagitēs). One of the judges of the Court of the Areopagus. That of itself was no small victory. He was one of this college of twelve judges who had helped to make Athens famous. Eusebius says that he became afterwards bishop of the Church at Athens and died a martyr.

A woman named Damaris (gunē onomati Damaris). A woman by name Damaris. Not the wife of Dionysius as some have thought, but an aristocratic woman, not necessarily an educated courtezan as Furneaux holds. And there were “others” (heteroi) with them, a group strong enough to keep the fire burning in Athens. It is common to say that Paul in 1Co_2:1-5 alludes to his failure with philosophy in Athens when he failed to preach Christ crucified and he determined never to make that mistake again. On the other hand Paul determined to stick to the Cross of Christ in spite of the fact that the intellectual pride and superficial culture of Athens had prevented the largest success. As he faced Corinth with its veneer of culture and imitation of philosophy and sudden wealth he would go on with the same gospel of the Cross, the only gospel that Paul knew or preached. And it was a great thing to give the world a sermon like that preached in Athens.

John Gill
Act 17:34 Howbeit, certain men clave unto him, and believed,…. There were some who were ordained to eternal life, to whom the Gospel came in power, and they received the love of the truth, and their hearts and affections were knit unto the apostle; and they followed him, and kept to him, and privately conversed with him, and believed his doctrine, and in Jesus Christ, whom he preached unto them; to these the Gospel was the savour of life unto life, when to the scoffers and mockers it was the savour of death unto death: and this is the fruit and effect of the Gospel ministry, wherever it comes:

among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite; a judge in the court of Areopagus: how many judges that court consisted of, is not certain, nor whether there was one who was superior to the rest; if there was such an one, Dionysius seems to have been he, since he is called the Areopagite. The business of this court was not only to try causes of murder, which seems to have been the original business of it; but by these judges the rights of the city were preserved and defended, war was proclaimed, and all law suits adjusted and decided; and they made it their business to look after idle and slothful persons, and inquire how they lived (f): they always heard and judged causes in the night, in the dark, because they would only know facts, and not persons, lest they should be influenced by their afflictions, and be led wrong (g); they were very famous in other nations for their wisdom and skill, and for their gravity and strict justice. Dolabella, proconsul of Asia, having a woman brought before him for poisoning her husband and son, which she confessed, and gave reasons for doing it, referred the matter to a council, who refused to pass sentence; upon which he sent the case to Athens, to the Areopagites, as to judges “more grave” and “more experienced” (h): and hence these words of Julian the emperor (i),

“let an Areopagite be judge, and we will not be afraid of the judgment.”

This Dionysius the Areopagite is said, by another Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, a very ancient writer (k), to be the first bishop of the Athenians, which is more likely than that he should be a bishop in France. It is reported of him, that being at Heliopolis in Egypt, along with Apollophanes, a philosopher, at the time of Christ’s sufferings, he should say concerning the unusual eclipse that then was, that “a God unknown, and clothed with flesh, suffered”, on whose account the whole world was darkened; or, as, others affirm, he said, “either the God of nature suffers, or the frame of the world will be dissolved”: it is also related of him that when he was converted by the apostle at Athens, he went to Clemens, bishop of Rome, and was sent by him with others into the west, to preach the Gospel; some of which went to Spain, and others to France, and that he steered his course to Paris, and there, with Rusticus and Eleutherius his “colleagues”, suffered martyrdom (l). The books ascribed unto him concerning the divine names, and ecclesiastical hierarchy, are spurious things, stuffed with foolish, absurd, and impious notions, and seem to have been written in the “fifth” century.

And a woman named Damaris; some of the ancients, and also some modern writers, take this woman to be the wife of Dionysius; but had she been his wife, she would have been doubtless called so; however, by the particular mention of her name, she seems to have been a person of some note and figure: the name is a diminutive from δαμαρ, Damar, which signifies a wife.

And others with them; with these two, as the Arabic version renders it; that is, with Dionysius and Damaris. These laid the foundation of a Gospel church at Athens. Dionysius, as before observed, was the first bishop, or pastor of it; it is also said that Narcissus, one of the seventy disciples, was bishop of this place; See Gill on Luk_10:1. In the “second” century Publius was bishop of the church at Athens, who suffered martyrdom for Christ in the time of Hadrian; and was succeeded by Quadratus (m), who was famous for a writing he presented to the said emperor, in favour of the churches in common, and the success of it, about the year 128; at the same time, Aristides, a famous philosopher and Christian, flourished in the church at Athens, who wrote an apology for the Christian religion; and also Jovius, a presbyter and martyr, and a disciple of Dionysius; likewise Athenagoras, a man of great learning and piety, who wrote also an apology for the Christians, and a treatise concerning the resurrection of the dead, which are still extant; the former was written to the emperors Antoninus and Commodus: in the “third” century mention is made of the church at Athens; and Origen (n) speaks very honourably of it, as meek and quiet, and desirous of approving itself to God. In the “fourth” century it appears that there were Christians there, since Maximus the emperor stirred up wicked men to molest and distress them; and there was a Christian school there, in which Bazil and Gregory Nazianzen were brought up. In the “fifth” century there was a church in this place; and in the “sixth”, a Christian school, in which Boethius Patricius learned the liberal arts; and in the “seventh” century mention is made of a bishop of Athens, who was in the sixth council at Constantinople (o): thus far this church state is to be traced.

(f) Alexander ab Alex. Genial. Dier. l. 3. c. 13. & l. 4. c. 11. (g) Alexander ab Alex. Genial. Dier. l. 3. c. 5. (h) A Gellii noctes Attica, l. 12. c. 7. (i) Orat. 2. p. 112. (k) Apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 4. & l. 4. c. 23. (l) Magdeburg. Hist. Eccles. cent. 1. l. 2. c. 10. p. 491. (m) Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 4. c. 23. (n) Contra Cels. l. 3. p. 128. (o) Magdeburg. Hist. Eccles. cent. 2. c. 2. p. 4, 17. & c. 10. p. 151, 152, 153. cent. 3. c. 2. p. 3. cent. 4. c. 7. p. 287. & c. 10. p. 539. cent. 5. c. 2. p. 6. cent. 6. c. 7. p. 205. cent. 7. c. 2. p. 5.

Acts of the Apostles Chapter 15 Sunday School Notes

Here are some of my notes for Sunday, July 27, 2008 based on the Lifeway Explore the Bible curriculum

 Reference works cited include:

1) The Acts of the Apostles: Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary by F. F. Bruce

2) The Acts of the Apostles: A Social-Rhetorical Commentary by Ben Witherington III 

3)The Acts of the Apostles: Anchor Bible Commentary by Joseph Fitzmyer

4)International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915): Studylight online edition; Esword dictionaries module download page

5) NET Bible

Gal 2:1-10 NET. Then after fourteen years I went up to Jerusalem again with Barnabas, taking Titus along too. (2) I went there because of a revelation and presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did so only in a private meeting withthe influential people, to make sure that I was not running — or had not run — in vain. (3) Yet not even Titus, who was withme, was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek. (4) Now this matter arose because of the false brothers withfalse pretenses who slipped in unnoticed to spy on our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, to make us slaves. (5) But we did not surrender to them even for a moment, in order that the truthof the gospel would remain withyou. (6) But from those who were influential (whatever they were makes no difference to me; God shows no favoritism between people ) — those influential leaders added nothing to my message. (7) On the contrary, when they saw that I was entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised just as Peter was to the circumcised (8 ) (for he who empowered Peter for his apostleship to the circumcised also empowered me for my apostleship to the Gentiles) (9) and when James, Cephas, and John, who had a reputation as pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we would go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. (10) They requested only that we remember the poor, the very thing I also was eager to do.

The relationship between Acts 15 and Galatians 2 is a notorious problem in New Testament studies. There are three main theories:

1) Acts 15= Galatians 2
2) Acts 11, 12= Galatians 2
3) Neither Acts nor Galatians reports all of Paul’s Jerusalem journeys.

The problem is ancient, in that there are textual variants in the ancient manuscripts trying to resolve the tangled chronology, especially in Acts 12:25. 1) is the majority view, but 2) has many wise heads in favor of it. Ben Witherington lays out the pros and cons for 1) and 2) in his _Acts of the Apostles_, favoring in the end 2).(Witherington)

Acts 15:1
some men came down from Judea: The problem of chronology immediately raises it’s head. These are likely PharisaicChristians who seem to have nipped at Paul’s heels for a long time. But are they identified with the “false brothers” of Gal. 2:4 or the “certain people from James” of Gal. 2:12?

unless circumcised, you cannot be saved: Fitzmyer points out that the variant text in Codex Bezae explains the implication quite well: AND WALK according to the custom of Moses. IN other words, effectively become a Jewish proselyte in order to become a Christian.(Fitzmyer)

Acts 15:2
Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them- The KJV quite well conveys the sense here of Luke understating what much have been a serious argument with heated debate between Paul and these Judaizers.

they arranged- the leaders of the Antioch church.

some others- If this is the same as Gal 2:1, then Titus was one of the others.(Bruce)

apostles and elders- This is the last appearance of the apostles in Acts, a natural change as the book shifts attention to Paul’s mission among the Gentiles, first by having the apostles formally approve it.(Bruce)

in Jerusalem- Whether a formal acknowledgement of Jerusalem as the head church existed or not, that church was a natural authority, owing to its location, many witnesses to Jesus likely being members, and especially the presence of Apostles among its members.(Bruce)

Acts 15:3
Phoenicia and Samaria- There is some debate as to whether or not actual Gentiles were numbered among the members of the churches of these areas, but even the Jewish Christians among the congregations would have been thoroughly Hellenized and thus able to appreciate the news of Gentiles coming to Christ.(Bruce)

Acts 15:4-
welcomed by the church, the apostles, and the elders- Thus the leaders of the Jerusalem church and members. In Antioch, the leadership was apparently titled prophets and teachers.(Bruce)

Acts 15:5-
party of the Pharisees: whatever the chronology here, this is likely the group behind the “false brothers” of Gal. 2:4, the circumcision party of Gal 2:12 and elsewhere. “Party” is haireseos in Greek, from which word comes our “heretic”. That was a later meaning of the word. In earlier Greek it referred to a party, sect, or school of thought.(Witherington)

necessary- Greek dei, a word about necessity backed with some force, as in fate, the gods, though logic might also be behind such necessity. When Jews adopted the term, the idea of divine requirement definitely was implied, as here.

The Pharisee party could point to scriptures such as Gen 17:10-14, Josh 5:2-9, and Deu 5:28-33 for their reasoning.(Fitzmeyer, Witherington)

Acts 15:6
apostles and elders- How many meetings were there? Here only the leadership is mentioned, yet in 15:22 “the whole church” is mentioned. Is it the same meeting, or a subsequent more public one? Did the apostles and elders form a court which decided and presented to the church, or was the whole assembly involved? (Bruce, Witherington)

Acts 15:7
Peter- Did he speak as senior apostle, or simply as the only leader there with previous experience of Gentile converts?(Fitzmyer)

in early days- The Cornelius incident might be as much as ten years prior to this council.(Bruce, Fitzmyer)

that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the Gospel- Peter is not calling himself an apostle to the Gentiles here, but rather saying God chose Peter to break tradition by proclaiming the gospel to non-Jews. One cannot but think that God chose Peter just because of the controversy the Gentile mission would cause, so that one of the major leaders of the Christian community could witness and endorse the Gentile mission.

Acts 15:8
God testified by giving them the Holy Spirit: This is the common refrain every time a new group joins the church in Acts, Samaritans, Gentile Godfearers, and now pure pagan Gentiles: “Sure, we didn’t expect this, but they have the Spirit, so who can deny it, as that is our proof of conversion as well from Pentecost?”

Acts 15:9
He made no distinction- Pretty much a repetition of his statement in Acts 10:34

cleansing their hearts by faith- see Ps 24 and Ps 51(Bruce)

Acts 15:10
testing God- As God has approved the Gentiles by sending them the Spirit, to resist this is to invite God’s discipline.

yoke that neither our forefathers nor we have been able to bear- This is strange coming from a Jew, who have traditionally called the Law a yoke, but rejoiced in it. This apparent oddity may reflect both:
a) Peter’s standing as a common Galilean, who spent much of his day working to support himself and had little time or patience for the movement among Jews of the first century toward extending the purity requirements for priests to the common people, a list of things many ordinary Jews had no capacity or desire to learn.
b) Peter’s recollection of Jesus’ words in Mat 11:28-30 and Mat. 23:2-4(Bruce, Fitzmyer, Witherington)

Acts 15:11
we are saved through the grace- This sounds very Pauline. Paul says in 1 Cor 15:11 that he teaches the same gospel as Peter and James. (Bruce)

in the same way they are- Interesting that Peter reverses the common way of speaking, putting the Gentiles ahead of the Jews. Before it was “Gentiles like Jews”. Now it is “Jews like Gentiles”.(Bruce)

Peter disappears from Acts at this point, having served as the leader of the early mission of the church, and here legitimizing the mission to Gentiles.(Bruce)

Acts 15:12
signs and wonders- Again, evidence is brought forth to back the conclusion Peter has reached. Bruce wryly notes that the salvation of Gentiles might well seem the biggest miracle of all to many in the assembly.

Acts 15:13
James responded: James was not necessarily considered an apostle by many (Paul considered him one based on his post-Resurrection sighting of Jesus) . The later heretics, the Ebionites, considered James the 12th apostle. His high esteem seems to have been based mainly on his piety rather than his relationship as Jesus’ brother.(Bruce)

Acts 15:14
James, reportedly very Jewish his whole life, thus finds confirmation of Peter’s words and Barnabas and Paul’s account from the Old Testament.

people for his name- A phrase not found in the Hebrew or Greek OT, but a common idiom in later Palestinian Targums. The ancestors of those Targums stretch back before Jesus’ time.(Bruce)

Acts 15:15-
prophets: presumably a formula used for any quotation out of the prophetic writings.(Fitzmyer)

Acts 15:16
most of this is quoted from Amos 9:11-12 in the Greek OT.

Acts 15:17
Still matching the Greek OT, rather than the Hebrew text’s “remnant of Edom”. If the Greek seems strange from a devout Jew, it is good to remember that such use of varying texts is common in biblical interpretation among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and that the Greek OT actually represents a family of texts with Hebrew ancestry and “cousins” likely still in use in the first century AD. The situation is not unlike the multiple English Bible translations available in our day.(Witherington)

Acts 15:18
from long ago- an allusion to Is 45:21, implying ancient revelation of Gentile salvation.(Bruce)

Acts 15:19
my judgement- not a formal decree, but a personal opinion As the NET Bible notes points out, there are about four possibilities as to what James is doing here, from issuing a decree to giving a personal opinion to stating a consensus.

Acts 15:20
James’ four regulations are not meant to define requirements for Gentile salvation, but rather set out a code of conduct so that mutual table fellowship can take place between Gentile and Jewish Christians. (Fitzmyer)

Idolatry, fornication, and murder are the cardinal sins in Judaism, but whether these rules are directed at them is debatable. A good case can be made that the rules are instead meant to restrain Gentiles from frequenting pagan temples. Thus:
1) pollution of idols- food left over from pagan sacrifices, a major source of meat in ancient world.
2) fornication- sexual misconduct, which would be incumbent on Jew and Gentile, can’t be meant here. Many think marriage within families is being rebuked here. On the other hand, temple prostitution and sexual rites were practiced in many temples, so that may well be what is proscribed here.
3) what has been strangled- again, probably a reference to temple meat.
4) blood- this might again be a reference to temple food, or to certain dishes made with blood, either in temple cerremonies or normal meals. On the other hand, it might also be a reference to murder. (Witherington, Bruce, Fitzmyer)

Acts 15:21
Moses proclaimed- This might either be a statement meant to say that these rules for Gentile Christians will keep the peace with Jews around the world, or it might be a statement to the Pharasaic sect that Gentiles have had centuries to convert and have not, therefore more cannot be asked of Gentile Christians.(Bruce, Fitzmyer, Witherington)

Acts 15:22
Silas – The name is another form of Saul, and was Hellenized Silvanus. Silas was a leader among the Jerusalem church, likely a Roman citizen, and a scribe of some ability who penned several New Testament epistles for their authors, the common practice then being a sort of diction even by those who could write for themselves.

Barsabbas- From ISBE: “Judas was, with Silas, a delegate from the church in Jerusalem to the Gentile Christians of Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. They were appointed to convey the letter containing the decision of “the apostles and the elders, with the whole church” regarding the attitude to be taken by Gentile Christians toward the Mosaic law, and also to explain “the same things by word of mouth.” They accompanied Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, and, “being themselves also prophets,” i.e. preachers, they not only handed over the epistle but stayed some time in the city preaching and teaching. They seem to have gone no farther than Antioch, for “they were dismissed in peace from the brethren unto those that had sent them forth,” and it was Paul and Silas who some time afterward strengthened the churches in Syria and Cilicia (Act_15:40, Act_15:41).
Barsabbas being a patronymic, Judas was probably the brother of Joseph Barsabbas. He cannot be identified with any other Judas, e.g. “Judas not Iscariot” (Joh_14:22). We hear no more of Judas after his return to Jerusalem (Act_15:22 )”

Acts 15:23
Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia- Antioch was the chief city of the region.

Acts 15:25
beloved Barnabas and Paul… who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ: if the troublemakers are dismissed as “some men”, here Paul and Barnabas are warmly commended.

Acts 15:27
who will report- Since letters might be forged, witnesses were sent to testify as to its authenticity. Also it was common courtesy to send a delegation. Two or more were required since Jewish law specified testimony needed two or more witnesses to be confirmed.

Acts 15:28
The Holy Spirit- confirmed this decision from the council both by previous action in signs among the Gentiles, and presumably in answer to prayer before sending the delegation to Antioch.

necessary things: not optional, note, but necessary.

Acts 15:29
These terms of the council were held binding in the churches of Asia Minor (Rev 2:4, 20), and followed the missionary path into the Rhone Valley. There they were codified into law about 177 AD. The same rules reach Africa about 189-200 AD. Eventually, in the 800s, these rules, together with the negative Golden Rule were made part of the law code of England under Alfred the Great.(Bruce)

Remember the Weather Season

It’s probably redundant of me, but I’ll do it anyway: Those living on the coasts of America, Mexico, and the Yucatan would do well to check the weather forecasts.

Cristobal is now a Tropical Storm and forecast to stay that way. That’s not intensely dangerous, but it’s always worse if you’re caught unprepared. Wind and rain are never to be taken for granted.

The more scary system is the tropical wave in the Caribbean. Still lacking a strong center at this point, a number of computer models are predicting a very fast spin up into a hurricane or even a powerful hurricane starting about Monday, and possible landfalls from Mexico to the Texas/Louisiana border about Wednesday or Thursday.  Again, don’t be caught flat-footed.

Enjoy your weekend. The week may be more hectic, especially for those of us along the Gulf of Mexico.

Acts of the Apostles Chapter 15 Antique Commentary Notes

A.T. Robertson
Act 15:1
And certain men came down from Judea (kai tines katelthontes apo tēs Ioudaias). Evidently the party of the circumcision in the church in Jerusalem (Act_11:2) had heard of the spread of the gospel among the Gentiles in Cyprus, Pamphylia, and South Galatia (Phrygia, Pisidia, Lycaonia). Possibly John Mark after his desertion at Perga (Act_13:13) told of this as one of his reasons for coming home. At any rate echoes of the jubilation in Antioch in Syria would be certain to reach Jerusalem. The Judaizers in Jerusalem, who insisted that all the Gentile Christians must become Jews also, had acquiesced in the case of Cornelius and his group (11:1-18 ) after plain proof by Peter that it was the Lord’s doing. But they had not agreed to a formal campaign to turn the exception into the rule and to make Christianity mainly Gentile with a few Jews instead of mainly Jewish with a few Gentiles. Since Paul and Barnabas did not come up to Jerusalem, the leaders among the Judaizers decided to go down to Antioch and attack Paul and Barnabas there. They had volunteered to go without church action in Jerusalem for their activity is disclaimed by the conference (Act_15:24). In Gal_2:4 Paul with some heat describes these Judaizers as “false brethren, secretly introduced who sneaked in to spy out our liberty.” It is reasonably certain that this visit to Jerusalem described in Gal_2:1-10 is the same one as the Jerusalem Conference in Acts 15:5-29 in spite of the effort of Ramsay to identify it with that in Act_11:29. Paul in Galatians is not giving a list of his visits to Jerusalem. He is showing his independence of the twelve apostles and his equality with them. He did not see them in Act_11:29., but only “the elders.” In Acts 15 Luke gives the outward narrative of events, in Gal_2:1-10 Paul shows us the private interview with the apostles when they agreed on their line of conduct toward the Judaizers. In Gal_2:2 by the use of “them” (autois) Paul seems to refer to the first public meeting in Acts before the private interview that came in between verses Act_15:5-6. If we recall the difficulty that Peter had on the subject of preaching the gospel to the heathen (10:1-11:18), we can the better understand the attitude of the Judaizers. They were men of sincere convictions without a doubt, but they were obscurantists and unable and unwilling to receive new light from the Lord on a matter that involved their racial and social prejudices. They recalled that Jesus himself had been circumcised and that he had said to the Syro-Phoenician woman that he had come only save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mat_15:24.). They argued that Christ had not repealed circumcision. So one of the great religious controversies of all time was begun, that between spiritual religion and ritualistic or ceremonial religion. It is with us yet with baptism taking the place of circumcision. These self-appointed champions of circumcision for Gentile Christians were deeply in earnest.

Taught the brethren (edidaskon tous adelphous). Inchoative imperfect active, began to teach and kept it up. Their attitude was one of supercilious superiority. They probably resented the conduct of Barnabas, who, when sent by the Church in Jerusalem to investigate the conversion of the Greeks in Antioch (Act_11:20-26), did not return and report till a strong church had been established there with the help of Saul and only then with a big collection to confuse the issue. Paul and Barnabas were on hand, but the Judaizers persisted in their efforts to force their views on the church in Antioch. It was a crisis.

Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved (ean me peritmēthēte tōi ethei Mōuseōs, ou dunasthe sōthēnai). There was the dictum of the Judaizers to the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas had been circumcised. This is probably the precise language employed, for they spoke in Greek to these Greeks. It is a condition of the third class (undetermined, but with prospect of being determined, ean plus the first aorist passive subjunctive of peritemnō). There was thus hope held out for them, but only on condition that they be circumcised. The issue was sharply drawn. The associative instrumental case (tōi ethei) is customary. “Saved” (sōthēnai) here is the Messianic salvation. This doctrine denied the efficacy of the work of Christ.

John Gill-
Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judea,…. To Antioch; they were not sent by the apostles, they came down of “themselves”; who they were, is not certain; that they were “judaizing” Christians, and teachers among them, is plain from the following account: according to Epiphanius (g) they were Cerinthus, and some of his followers: these

taught the brethren; the Gentile converts at Antioch, who are styled “brethren”, though they were Gentiles, because they were regenerated by the grace of God, and were of the same faith with the believing Jews, and in the same church state with them at Antioch: and said,

except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses; or custom of Moses, which had been used from the time of Abraham, and was revived and reinforced by Moses; wherefore the Syriac version renders it, “the law of Moses”; See Gill on Joh_7:19.

ye cannot be saved; these men were not only for retaining circumcision, which was now abolished, but they made it necessary to salvation; which was carrying the matter further than even the unbelieving Jews themselves did, at least some of them: for though indeed it is a notion with them, that no circumcised persons go to hell, but are all saved; and some of them say, that God rejects uncircumcised persons, and brings them down to hell (h); yet others of them speak of the godly among the nations of the world, and of the proselytes of the gate, who keep the seven precepts of Noah, as persons that shall be saved; so Ananias the Jew, preceptor to King Izates, when he signified his great desire to be circumcised, in order to put him off of it, told him, that if he was determined to follow the customs of the Jews, he might worship God without circumcision, which was more peculiar to the Jews than to be circumcised (i).

(g) Contra Haeres. l. 1. Haeres. 28. (h) Shemot Rabba, sect. 19. fol. 104. 4. (i) Joseph. Antiqu. l. 20. c. 2. sect. 5.

A.T. Robertson
Act 15:2
When Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them (Genomenēs staseōs kai zētēseōs ouk oligēs tōi Paulōi kai Barnabāi pros autous). Genitive absolute of second aorist middle participle of ginomai, genitive singular agreeing with first substantive staseōs. Literally, “No little (litotes for much) strife and questioning coming to Paul and Barnabas (dative case) with them “ (pros autous, face to face with them). Paul and Barnabas were not willing to see this Gentile church brow-beaten and treated as heretics by these self-appointed regulators of Christian orthodoxy from Jerusalem. The work had developed under the leadership of Paul and Barnabas and they accepted full responsibility for it and stoutly resisted these Judaizers to the point of sedition (riot, outbreak in Luk_23:25; Act_19:40) as in Act_23:7. There is no evidence that the Judaizers had any supporters in the Antioch church so that they failed utterly to make any impression. Probably these Judaizers compelled Paul to think through afresh his whole gospel of grace and so they did Paul and the world a real service. If the Jews like Paul had to believe, it was plain that there was no virtue in circumcision (Gal_2:15-21). It is not true that the early Christians had no disagreements. They had selfish avarice with Ananias and Sapphira, murmuring over the gifts to the widows, simony in the case of Simon Magus, violent objection to work in Caesarea, and now open strife over a great doctrine (grace vs. legalism).

The brethren appointed (etaxan). “The brethren” can be supplied from Act_15:1and means the church in Antioch. The church clearly saw that the way to remove this deadlock between the Judaizers and Paul and Barnabas was to consult the church in Jerusalem to which the Judaizers belonged. Paul and Barnabas had won in Antioch. If they can win in Jerusalem, that will settle the matter. The Judaizers will be answered in their own church for which they are presuming to speak. The verb etaxan (tassō, to arrange) suggests a formal appointment by the church in regular assembly. Paul (Gal_2:2) says that he went up by revelation (kat’ apokalupsin), but surely that is not contradictory to the action of the church.

Certain others of them (tinas allous). Certainly Titus (Gal_2:1, Gal_2:3), a Greek and probably a brother of Luke who is not mentioned in Acts. Rackham thinks that Luke was in the number.
The apostles and elders (tous apostolous kai presbuterous). Note one article for both (cf. “the apostles and the brethren” in Act_11:1). “Elders” now (Act_11:30) in full force. The apostles have evidently returned now to the city after the death of Herod Agrippa I stopped the persecution.

Adam Clarke
Act 15:2
No small dissension and disputation – Paul and Barnabas were fully satisfied that God did not design to bring the converted Gentiles under the yoke of circumcision: they knew that Jesus Christ was the end of the law for righteousness (justification) to every one that believed, and therefore they opposed the Judaizing teachers. This was one of the first controversies in the Christian Church; but, though the difference of sentiment was considerable, it led to no breach of Christian charity nor fellowship among themselves.

They determined that Paul, etc. – This verse is read very differently in the Codex Bezae: Γενομενης δε εκτασεως και ζητησεως ουκ ολιγης τῳ Παυλῳ και τῳ Βαρναβᾳ συν αυτοις. ελεγεν γαρ ὁ Παυλος μενειν οὑτως, καθως επιϚευσαν, διΐσχυριζομενος. οἱ δε εληλυθοτες απο Ἱερουσαλημ, παρηγγειλαν αυτοις, τῳ Παυλῳ και τῳ Βαρναβᾳ και τισιν αλλοις, αναβαινειν προς τους ΑποϚολους και Πρεσβυτερους εις Ἱερουσαλημ, ὁπως κριθωσιν επ’ αυτοις (αυτων) περι του ζητηματος τουτου. But when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, Paul said, with strong assurance, that they should remain so as they had believed. But those who came from Jerusalem charged Paul and Barnabas and certain others to go up to the apostles and elders to Jerusalem, that a determination might be made by them concerning this question.

And certain other of them – If this be the journey to which St. Paul alludes, Gal_2:1-5, then he had Titus with him; and how many elders went from the Church of Antioch we cannot tell. This journey was 14 years after Paul’s conversion, and was undertaken by express revelation, as he informs us, Gal_2:2, which revelation appears to have been given to certain persons in the Church of Antioch, as we learn from this verse, and not to Paul and Barnabas themselves.

Albert Barnes
Act 15:2
Had no small dissension an disputation – The word rendered “dissension” στάσις stasis denotes sometimes “sedition” or “intestine war,” and sometimes “earnest and violent disputation or controversy,” Act_23:7, Act_23:10. In this place it clearly denotes that there was earnest and warm discussion; but it is not implied that there was any improper heat or temper on the part of Paul and Barnabas. Important principles were to be settled in regard to the organization of the church. Doctrines were advanced by the Judaizing teachers which were false, and which tended to produce great disorder in the church. Those doctrines were urged with zeal, were declared to be essential to salvation, and would therefore tend to distract the minds of Christians, and to produce great anxiety. It became, therefore, necessary to meet them with a determined purpose, and to establish the truth on an immovable basis. And the case shows that it is right to “contend earnestly for the faith” Jud_1:3; and, when similar cases occur, that it is proper to resist the approach of error with all the arguments which may be at our command, and with all the weapons which truth can furnish. It is further implied here that it is the duty of the ministers of the gospel to defend the truth and to oppose error. Paul and Barnabas regarded themselves as set for this purpose (compare Phi_1:17, “Knowing that I am set for the defense of the gospel”); and Christian ministers should be qualified to defend the truth, and should be willing with a proper spirit and with great earnestness to maintain the doctrines revealed.

They determined – There was no prospect that the controversy would be settled by contention and argument. It would seem, from this statement, that those who came down from Judea were also willing that the whole matter should be referred to the apostles at Jerusalem. The reason for this may have been:
(1) That Jerusalem would be regarded by them as the source of authority in the Christian church, as it had been among the Jews.
(2) Most of the apostles and the most experienced Christians were there. They had listened to the instructions of Christ himself; had been long in the church; and were supposed to be better acquainted with its design and its laws.
(3) Those who came from Judea would not be likely to acknowledge the authority of Paul as an apostle: the authority of those at Jerusalem they would recognize.
(4) They might have had a very confident expectation that the decision there would be in their favor. The question had not been agitated there. They had all been Jews, and it is certain that they continued as yet to attend in the temple service, and to conform to the Jewish customs. They might have expected, therefore, with great confidence, that the decision would be in their favor, and they were willing to refer it to those who resided at Jerusalem.

Certain other of them – Of the brethren; probably of each party. They did not go to debate, or to give their opinion, or to vote in the ease themselves, but to lay the question fairly before the apostles and elders.

Unto the apostles – The authority of the apostles in such a case would be acknowledged by all. They had been immediately instructed by the Saviour, and had the promise of infallible guidance in the organization of the church. See the notes on Mat_16:19; Mat_18:18.

And elders – See the note at Act_11:30. Greek: presbyters. See the notes on Act_14:23. Who these were, or what was their office and authority, is not easy now to determine. It may refer either to the aged men in the church at Jerusalem, or to those who were appointed to rule and to preach in connection with the apostles. As in the synagogue it was customary to determine questions by the advice of a bench of elders, there is no improbability in the supposition that the apostles would imitate that custom, and appoint a similar arrangement in the Christian church (Grotius). It is generally agreed that this is the journey to which Paul refers in Gal_2:1-10. If so, it happened fourteen years after his conversion, Gal_2:1. It was done in accordance with the divine command, “by revelation,” Gal_2:2. Among those who went with him was Titus, who was afterward so much distinguished as his companion, Gal_2:3.

About this question – The question whether the ceremonial laws of Moses were binding on Christian converts. In regard to the nature and design of this council at Jerusalem, see the notes on Act_15:30-31.

John Gill
Act 15:3 And being brought on their way by the church,…. That is, either being accompanied by some of the brethren of the church some part of the way, out of respect unto them, or being provided by them with things necessary for their journey; see Tit_3:13

they passed through Phenice and Samaria; which both lay between Syria and Judea; in the former of which places those that were scattered upon the death of Stephen had preached, and a great number were converted and believed in Christ who were Jews, Act_11:19 and in the latter Philip the evangelist had preached with much success, Act_8:5 as therefore their way to Jerusalem lay through these places, they called upon the brethren as they passed;

declaring the conversion of the Gentiles; in the several places where they had been, as in Syria, Pisidia, Pamphylia, and Lycaonia, how by their ministry they were turned from darkness to light, from Satan unto God, from their superstition and idolatry to the worship of the true God, and to faith in Christ Jesus:

and they caused great joy unto all the brethren; the believing Jews in those parts, who being truly believers in Christ, rejoiced at the spread of his Gospel, and the increase of his interest, even among the Gentiles; for if angels rejoice, much more should saints rejoice at the conversion of sinners, let them be who or where they will; and where there is true grace, there will be joy when this is the case. There were churches in each of these places, of which “the brethren” here mentioned were members, and which continued for many ages afterwards: the foundation of the churches in Phenice was first laid by the converts made by them, who were scattered abroad through the persecution at the death of Stephen, Act_11:19. Quartus, mentioned in Rom_16:23 is said to be bishop of Berytus in this country. In the “second” century there were churches at Tyre and Ptolemais, two cities in Phoenicia; Cassius was bishop of the one, and Clarus of the other (k): in the “third” century several Phoenician bishops suffered martyrdom, as Tyrannio, bishop of the church of Tyre, Zenobius, presbyter of that at Sidon, and Sylvanus, bishop of Emisa (l): in the “fourth” century, at the beginning of it, there were present, at the council of Nice, the bishops of Ptolemais, Damascus, Tripolis, Paneas, and Emisa; as they were also at a synod held at Jerusalem in the same century, on account of the Arians, and at another at Antioch on the same account: in the fifth century there were churches in Phoenicia reformed by Chrysostom, by whose means also the temples of the idols were destroyed, and many were converted in these countries; and in this age lived several persons of note here, as Antiochus bishop of Ptolemais, Eustathius bishop of Berytus, Paulus bishop of Emisa, Pompeianus and Uranius of the same place, and Damianus bishop of Sidon, and other Phoenician bishops, who assisted at the council of Chalcedon; as Olympius bishop of Atrapolis, Theodorus bishop of Tripoils, Joseph bishop of Heliopolis, Valerius bishop of Laodicea, Thomas bishop of Euroma, and Theonas bishop of Enria or Enaria, all in Phoenicia: in the sixth century, mention is made of the bishops of Ptolemais, Tyre, Sidon, and Berytus, in the acts of the synod at Rome and Constantinople; and though Phoenicia was seized upon, and wasted by the Arabians and Persians, in the seventh century; yet we read, in the eighth century, of Adeodatus, a bishop of Berytus, who baptized many converted Jews (m). As for Samaria, our Lord himself preached and converted many persons there; and after his resurrection he gave his apostles a commission and directions to go there; and here Philip preached with great success. Nicolaus, the deacon, is said to be the first bishop of Samaria; and though in after ages Heathenism very much prevailed in those parts; yet there were Christians and churches, more or less, for several centuries; even in the sixth century there was a bishop of Neapolis in Samaria, killed with the sword, and some presbyters who were taken and fried in a pan, with the remains of some martyrs, by the Samaritan Jews (n).

(k) Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 5. c. 25. (l) Ib. l. 8. c. 13. (m) Madgeburg. Hist. Eccles. cent. 4. c. 2. p. 2. c. 9. p. 35O, 390, 404. cent. 5. c. 2. p. 3, 12, 13. c. 10. p. 550, 551. cent. 6. c. 2. p. 3. cent. 7. c. 3. p. 17. c. 16. p. 365. cent 8. c. 2. p. 3. (n) Ib. cent. 6. c. 3. p. 22.

John Gill
Act 15:4 And when they were come to Jerusalem,…. Paul and Barnabas, and the rest that came from Antioch with them:

they were received of the church; that is, that was at Jerusalem, in a very kind and respectful manner; they were received into their houses, and accommodated with everything convenient for them:

and of the apostles; particularly James, and Cephas, and John, who gave to Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, in token of their approbation of them, affection for them, and agreement with them:

and elders: the other ministers of the Gospel who preached in that place:

and they declared all things that God had done with them: just as they did to the church at Antioch, when they returned from their travels; see Gill on Act_14:27, the Arabic version here adds, as there, “and that God had opened to the Gentiles the door of faith.”

Adam Clarke
Act 15:4
They were received of the Church – The whole body of Christian believers.

The apostles – Either the whole or part of the twelve; though we read of none but John, Peter, and James. See Gal_2:9.

And elders – Those who were officers in the Church, under the apostles.

They declared – To this council they gave a succinct account of the great work which God had wrought by them among the Gentiles. This was St. Paul’s third journey to Jerusalem after his conversion. See an account of his first journey, Act_9:26, and of his second in Act_11:30.

A.T. Robertson
Act 15:5
But there rose up (exanestēsan de). Second aorist active indicative (intransitive). Note both exō and an. These men rose up out of the crowd at a critical moment. They were believers in Christ (pepisteukotes, having believed), but were still members of “the sect of the Pharisees” (tēs haireseōs tōn Pharisaiōn). Evidently they still held to the Pharisaic narrowness shown in the attack on Peter (Act_11:2.). Note the dogmatism of their “must” (dei) after the opposition of Paul and Barnabas to their “except” (ean me) at Antioch (Act_15:1). They are unconvinced and expected to carry the elders with them. Codex Bezae says that they had appealed to the elders (Act_15:2, Act_15:5). At any rate they have made the issue in open meeting at the height of the jubilation. It is plain from Act_15:6that this meeting was adjourned, for another gathering came together then. It is here that the private conference of which Paul speaks in Gal_2:1-10 took place. It was Paul’s chance to see the leaders in Jerusalem (Peter, James, and John) and he won them over to his view of Gentile liberty from the Mosaic law so that the next public conference (Acts 15:6-29) ratified heartily the views of Paul, Barnabas, Peter, James, and John. It was a diplomatic triumph of the first order and saved Christianity from the bondage of Jewish ceremonial sacramentalism. So far as we know this is the only time that Paul and John met face to face, the great spirits in Christian history after Jesus our Lord. It is a bit curious to see men saying today that Paul surrendered about Titus and had him circumcised for the sake of peace, the very opposite of what he says in Galatians, “to whom I yielded, no not for an hour.” Titus as a Greek was a red flag to the Judaizers and to the compromisers, but Paul stood his ground.

Albert Barnes
Act 15:5
But there rose up … – It has been doubted whether these are the words of Paul and Barnabas, relating what occurred at Antioch, or whether they are the words of Luke recording what took place at Jerusalem. The correct exposition is probably what refers it to the latter. For:
(1) This seems to be the most obvious interpretation.
(2) The use of the words “rose up” implies that. Those who disturbed the church at Antioch are said to have come down from Judea Act_15:1, and if this place referred to that occurrence, the same words would have been retained.
(3) The particular specification here of “the sect of the Pharisees” looks as if this was an occurrence taking place at Jerusalem. No such specification exists respecting those who came down to Antioch; but it would seem here as if this party in Jerusalem resolved still to abide by the Law, and to impose those rites on the Christian converts. However, this interpretation is by no means certain.

Which believed – Who maintained or taught.

That it was needful … – See the notes on Act_15:1.

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown
Act 15:6
the apostles and elders came together to consider of this — but in presence, as would seem, of the people (Act_15:12, Act_15:22, Act_15:23).

A.T. Robertson
Act 15:7
When there had been much questioning (pollēs zētēseōs genomenēs). Genitive absolute with second aorist middle participle of ginomai. Evidently the Judaizers were given full opportunity to air all their grievances and objections. They were allowed plenty of time and there was no effort to shut off debate or to rush anything through the meeting.

Peter rose up (anastas Petros). The wonder was that he had waited so long. Probably Paul asked him to do so. He was the usual spokesman for the apostles and his activities in Jerusalem were well-known. In particular his experience at Caesarea (Acts 10) had caused trouble here in Jerusalem from this very same party of the circumcism (Acts 11:1-18). It was fitting that Peter should speak. This is the last time that Peter appears in the Acts.

A good while ago (aph’ hēmerōn archaiōn). From ancient days. The adjective archaios is from archē, beginning, and its actual age is a matter of relativity. So Mnason (Act_21:16) is termed “an ancient disciple.” It was probably a dozen years since God “made choice” (exelexato) to speak by Peter’s mouth to Cornelius and the other Gentiles in Caesarea. His point is that what Paul and Barnabas have reported is nothing new. The Judaizers made objection then as they are doing now.

Adam Clarke
Act 15:8
And God which knoweth the hearts – Ο καρδιογνωϚης Θεος. We had this epithet of the Divine Being once before; see Act_1:24, and the note there: it occurs no where else in the New Testament.

Bare them witness – Considered them as proper or fit to receive the Gospel of Christ. It is properly remarked by learned men, that μαρτυρειν τινι, to bear witness to any person, signifies to approve, to testify in behalf of. Here it signifies that, as God evidently sent the Gospel to the Gentiles, and, by the preaching of it, conveyed the Holy Spirit to them who believed, and as he can make no improper judgment of any who knows all hearts and their secrets, therefore what he had done was right: he saw that it was time for them to receive the Gospel; and he saw that they might be safely trusted with this heavenly deposit; and the experience of eighteen hundred years has justified the conduct of God.

John Gill
Act 15:9 And put no difference between us and them,…. Neither in the extraordinary gifts, nor special grace, of the Spirit; giving them the same graces of faith, hope, and love, admitting to the same privileges and immunities of the house of God, and giving them a right and title to the same inheritance of the saints in light, though the one were circumcised, and the other were not. God puts no difference as to matters of religion under the Gospel dispensation between Jews and Gentiles, neither on account of Abraham’s seed, or of circumcision, or of the ceremonial law, or of national adoption; nor would he have any made with respect to conversation, civil or religious; all which Peter knew full well: nor has he made any difference in his eternal choice of persons to eternal salvation, on any of the above accounts, having ordained Gentiles to eternal life as Jews, who in consequence of it believe in Christ; nor in redemption, Christ having redeemed by his blood men out of every kindred, tongue, people, and nation; nor in the effectual calling, for they that were called in the first times of the Gospel, were not of the Jews only, but of the Gentiles also, to whom the Gospel was alike sent, and made effectual to saving purposes: these shared in the same blessings of pardon, justification, and adoption; their sins were forgiven through the same blood, their persons were justified by the same righteousness, and they were taken into the same family, and were no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens of the saints, and of the household of God; having the same access to God, being built on the same foundation, enjoying the same privileges, and having the same hope of eternal glory.

Purifying their hearts by faith; which was done by implanting faith in them, and leading that faith to the blood of Christ, which cleanses from all sin, original and actual, with which men are defiled; for faith has not this efficacy in itself, but as it has to do with the blood of Jesus: and this spiritual purification being what answered to circumcision, made that unnecessary; for this is the circumcision of the heart, of which the other was only typical. The hearts of men are filthy, and need purifying; they are originally polluted with sin; this is the case of all men; and this defilement reaches to all the members of the body, and the faculties of the soul; and especially the heart is the seat of this impurity, which God only can cleanse: he promises to do it, and does do it; and he only can do it, men cannot; for though, they are exhorted to it, in order to make them sensible of their pollution, and their need of cleansing, that they may apply where it is to be had, yet it is not in their power to effect it; to make a clean heart is a creation work, which is peculiar to God: the heart cannot be purified, neither by ceremonial ablutions, nor by works of moral righteousness, nor by humiliations and tears, nor by submission to Gospel ordinances, as water baptism, but only by the grace of God, and the blood of Christ; which the Spirit of God sprinkles upon the heart, and which faith looks to and deals with, and so it is freed from an evil conscience; and this blessing the believing Gentiles enjoyed in common with the believing Jews.

John Gill
Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God,…. By hesitating about this matter, by disputing upon this point, and by seeking for further proof and evidence of the will of God in this affair; when it is so plain a case, that it has been his will that the Gospel should be preached to Gentiles, without obliging them to circumcision; that he has given his Spirit both in his extraordinary gifts, and special grace, to uncircumcised persons; particularly he has bestowed faith in Christ upon them, whereby they have been led to the blood of Christ, typified in circumcision, and are thereby purged from all their filth and pollution, and so are the true circumcision: wherefore it is no other than tempting God, a manifest opposition to him, and what must give him offence, to debate about a point so clear; and especially to attempt

to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear. It is common with the Jews to call the law a yoke; frequent mention is made of ניר פקידיא and מצות עול, “the yoke of the commandments” (o), and עול התורה, “the yoke of the law” (p): and by it here is meant, not circumcision only and barely, for that the Jewish fathers had been able to bear, and had bore it; nor the whole ceremonial law only, which consisted of a multitude of commands and ordinances very heavy and hard; but even the whole moral law, which circumcision obliged those who submitted to it to keep it perfectly; see Gal_5:3, which neither the apostles, nor their fathers, were ever able to do, nor any mere man whatever; and therefore this yoke was intolerable and insupportable, and not to be put upon the necks of the Gentile believers; who here are called disciples, being taught the doctrine of the Gospel, and the way of salvation; which was not by circumcision, nor by any works of the law, but by the grace of Christ, as in the following verse.

(o) Targum in Cant. i. 10. & in Lam. iii. 27. Misn. Beracot, c. 2. sect. 2. (p) Echa Rabbati, fol. 56. 3. Pirke Abot, c. 3. sect. 5. Tzeror Hammor, fol. 39. 3.

Adam Clarke
Act 15:10
Now therefore why tempt ye God – A God, by giving the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles, evidently shows he does not design them to be circumcised, in order to become debtors to the law, to fulfill all its precepts, etc., why will ye provoke him to displeasure by doing what he evidently designs shall not be done?

A yoke – which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? – This does not refer to the moral law – that was of eternal obligation – but to the ritual law, which, through the multitude of its sacrifices, ordinances, etc., was exceedingly burthensome to the Jewish people. And had not God, by an especial providence, rendered both their fields and their flocks very fruitful, they could not possibly have borne so painful a ritual.

There is a curious story in Midrash Shochar, told in Yalkut Simeoni, part i. fol. 229, where Korah is represented as showing the oppressive nature of the law, and avarice of its priests, in justification of his rebellion. “There was,” said he, “a widow in our neighbourbood who had two orphan children: she had one field; and, when she began to plough it, one came and said, Thou shalt not plough with an ox and an ass together. When she went to sow it, he said, Thou shalt not sow thy field with divers seeds. When she began to reap, and to gather the sheaves together, he said, Leave a handful and the corners of the field for the poor. When she prepared to thresh it, he said, Give me the wave-offering, and the first and second tithes. She did as she was commanded, and then went and sold her field, and bought two ewes, that she might clothe herself and family with the wool, and get profit by the lambs. When they brought forth their lambs, Aaron came and said, Give me the firstlings, for the holy blessed God hath said, All the first born, whatsoever openeth the womb, shall be thine. She yielded to his demands, and gave him two lambs. When shearing time came, he said, Give me the first fruits of the wool. When the widow had done this, she said, I cannot stand before this man; I will kill my sheep and eat them. When she had killed the sheep, Aaron came and said, Give me the shoulder, and the jaws, and the ventricle. The widow said, Though I have killed my sheep, I am not delivered from this man; I therefore consecrate the whole to God. Then Aaron said, All belongs to me, for the holy blessed God hath said, Every thing that is consecrated in Israel shall be his, i.e. the priest’s. He therefore took the whole carcasses, and marched off, leaving the widow and her orphan daughters overwhelmed with affliction.” This is a terrible picture of the requisitions of the Mosaic ritual; and, though exaggerated, it contains so many true features that it may well be said, This is a yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear. See Schoettgen. In the same vexatious way may the tithes of the national Church in this country be exacted, and in this very way is the exaction frequently exercised. It is high time that these abuses should be corrected.

A.T. Robertson
Act 15:10
Why tempt ye God? (tōi peirazete ton theoṉ). By implying that God had made a mistake this time, though right about Cornelius. It is a home-thrust. They were refusing to follow the guidance of God like the Israelites at Massah and Meribah (Exo_17:7; Deu_6:16; 1Co_10:9).

That ye should put (epitheinai). Second aorist active infinitive of epitithēmi, epexegetic, explaining the tempting.

A yoke upon the neck (zugon epi ton trachēlon). Familiar image of oxen with yokes upon the necks. Paul’s very image for the yoke of bondage of the Mosaic law in Gal_5:1. It had probably been used in the private interview. Cf. the words of Jesus about the Pharisees (Mat_23:4) and how easy and light his own yoke is (Mat_11:30).

Were able to bear (ischusamen bastasai). Neither our fathers nor we had strength (ischuō) to carry this yoke which the Judaizers wish to put on the necks of the Gentiles. Peter speaks as the spiritual emancipator. He had been slow to see the meaning of God’s dealings with him at Joppa and Caesarea, but he has seen clearly by now. He takes his stand boldly with Paul and Barnabas for Gentile freedom.

A.T. Robertson
Act 15:11
That we shall be saved (sōthēnai). First aorist passive infinitive in indirect discourse after pisteuomen. More exactly, “We believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus in like manner as they also.” This thoroughly Pauline note shows that whatever hopes the Judaizers had about Peter were false. His doctrine of grace is as clear as a bell. He has lifted his voice against salvation by ceremony and ritualism. It was a great deliverance.

John Gill
Act 15:11 But we believe,…. Who are circumcised; the Arabic version adds, “and are sure”; for what follows is a sure and certain article of faith:

that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ; not through circumcision, or by any works of the law, moral or ceremonial; but through the grace of Christ undertaking for them, assuming their nature, and dying in their room and stead; through his redeeming, justifying, and pardoning grace: salvation is by Christ; Jehovah the Father appointed him to be his salvation; he sent him, and he came to save sinners; and he has obtained salvation for them; and it is in him, and in no other: and this salvation is by “the grace” of Christ; it was grace moved him to engage in this work before the world began; it was good will to men that caused him to come down from heaven, and appear on earth in the form of a servant; it was pure love that influenced him to lay down his life for them; through the grace in his heart he did all this for them; and it is the fulness of grace in his hands, out of which they receive abundance, whereby they are entitled to, and are made meet for eternal glory:

we shall be saved, even as they; either as the disciples, the Gentile converts, who without circumcision, and the works of the law, were saved by the pure grace and love of Christ, in dying for them, and on which they alone depended for salvation; or else as the Jewish fathers were, for they were justified, pardoned, accepted, and saved in the same way, as the saints under the New Testament are: they could not keep the law perfectly, nor was there then, nor now, salvation by it, only by the grace of Christ; and in that way, and that only, Old and New Testament believers, Jews and Gentiles, whether circumcised or uncircumcised, are saved. The Gentiles were not saved by the light of nature, nor the Jews by the law of Moses; the one were not lost for want of circumcision, nor the other saved by it; the only way of salvation to both, and under all dispensations, is the Lord Jesus Christ; through whose sacrifice sin is atoned for, through whose blood it is pardoned, through whose righteousness men are justified before God, and are accepted with him; and through whom saints have communion with God; and by whom, and whose grace, and not by their own works, they shall be saved with an everlasting salvation, from sin, law, death, hell, and damnation: and the salvation of one and of another, even of all that are saved, Jews or Gentiles, is by grace; no one is deserving of it; they have all sinned, and come short of the glory of God; have done that which is abominable, and they themselves are abominable in the sight of God; they have destroyed, and cannot help themselves; nor have they anyone good thing but what they have received from the Lord, and therefore ought to ascribe all to his grace; it is by that they are what they are, have what they have, and do what they do. Salvation, in all its parts and branches, is owing to grace; and so it is with respect to all persons that are saved; some are not saved by their works, and others by the grace of Christ, but they are all saved by grace; and none have any room to boast of themselves against others.

A.T. Robertson Act 15:13
After they had held their peace (meta to sigēsai autous). Literally, “after the becoming silent (ingressive aorist active of the articular infinitive) as to them (Barnabas and Paul, accusative of general reference).”

James answered (apekrithē Iakōbos). First aorist passive (deponent) indicative. It was expected that James, as President of the Conference, would speak last. But he wisely waited to give every one an opportunity to speak. The challenge of the Judaizers called for an opinion from James. Furneaux thinks that he may have been elected one of the twelve to take the place of James the brother of John since Paul (Gal_1:19) calls him apostle. More likely he was asked to preside because of his great gifts and character as chief of the elders.

John Gill
Act 15:13 And after they had held their peace,…. Meaning not the multitude, but Paul and Barnabas; when they had finished their account, and had done speaking:

James answered; or rose up, as the Syriac version reads, he stood up and began to speak. This was James the son of Alphaeus, one of the twelve apostles, sometimes called the brother of the Lord; for the other James, the son of Zebedee and brother of John, was dead, being killed by Herod, Act_12:2 but this was the brother of Jude, and the same that wrote the epistle that bears his name: whether he was now bishop or pastor of the church at Jerusalem, is not certain; nor whether he was president in this council; the speeches made in it do not appear to be directed to him: he began his oration thus,

saying, men and brethren, hearken to me; the titles he uses, and the manner of desiring audience, were what were common with the Jews; see Act_2:14.

Adam Clarke
Act 15:13
James answered – He was evidently president of the council, and is generally called bishop of Jerusalem. The rest either argued on the subject, or gave their opinion; James alone pronounced the definitive sentence. Had Peter been prince and head of the apostles, and of the Church, he would have appeared here in the character of judge, not of mere counsellor or disputant. Thy popish writers say that “James presided because the council was held in his own church.” These men forget that there was not then what they term a Church on the face of the earth. The Church, or assembly of believers, then met in private houses; for there was no building for the exclusive purpose of Christian worship then, nor till long after. These writers also forget that the pope pretends to be the head of the catholic or universal Church; and, consequently, no man can preside where he is present, but himself. Peter did not preside here; and this was the first ecclesiastical council, and now, if ever, he should have assumed his character of prince and chief; but he did not; nor did any of the other apostles invite him to it, which they would have done had they thought that Jesus Christ constituted him head of the Church. From this very circumstance there is the most demonstrative evidence that Peter was no pope, and that the right of his pretended successor is a nonentity.

A.T. Robertson
Act 15:14
Hearken unto me (akousate mou). Usual appeal for attention. James was termed James the Just and was considered a representative of the Hebraic as opposed to the Hellenistic wing of the Jewish Christians (Act_6:1). The Judaizers had doubtless counted on him as a champion of their view and did later wrongfully make use of his name against Peter at Antioch (Gal_2:12). There was instant attention when James began to speak.

Symeon (Sumeōn). The Aramaic form of Simon as in 2Pe_2:1. This little touch would show his affinities with the Jewish Christians (not the Judaizers). This Aramaic form is used also in Luk_2:25, Luk_2:34 of the old prophet in the temple. Possibly both forms (Symeon, Aramaic, and Simon, Greek) were current in Jerusalem.
How (kathōs). Strictly, “according as,” here like hos in indirect discourse somewhat like the epexegetic or explanatory use in 3 Jo Luk_1:3.

First (prōton). Told by Peter in Act_15:7. James notes, as Peter did, that this experience of Barnabas and Paul is not the beginning of work among the Gentiles.

Did visit (epeskepsato). First aorist middle indicative of episkeptomai, old verb to look upon, to look after, provide for. This same verb occurs in Jam_1:27 and is one of various points of similarity between this speech of James in Acts and the Epistle of James as shown by Mayor in his Commentary on James. Somehow Luke may have obtained notes of these various addresses.

To take from the Gentiles a people for his name (labein exō ethnōn laon tōi onomati autou). Bengel calls this egregium paradoxon, a chosen people (laon) out of the Gentiles (ethnōn). This is what is really involved in what took place at Caesarea at the hands of Peter and the campaign of Barnabas and Paul from Antioch. But such a claim of God’s purpose called for proof from Scripture to convince Jews and this is precisely what James undertakes to give. This new Israel from among the Gentiles is one of Paul’s great doctrines as set forth in Galatians 3; Romans 9-11. Note the use of God’s “name” here for “the Israel of God” (Gal_6:16).

Albert Barnes
Act 15:15
The words of the prophets – Amo_9:11-12. It was a very material point with them, as Jews, to inquire whether this was in accordance with the predictions of the Scriptures. The most powerful revivals of religion, and the most striking demonstrations of the divine presence, will be in accordance with the Bible, and should be tested by them. This habit was always manifested by the apostles and early Christians, and should be followed by Christians at all times. Unless a supposed work of grace accords with the Bible, and can be defended by it, it must be false, and should be opposed. Compare Isa_8:20.

John Gill
Act 15:16 After this I will return,…. That is, after the Lord had destroyed the sinful kingdom from off the face of the earth, and had sifted the house of Israel among all nations, and the sinners of his people were slain with the sword; after all this he promises to return and show favour to them: this is the sense of the prophet which James gives; for these words are not at length in Amos; there it is only said, “in that day”; upon which Jarchi’s note is,

“after all these things shall have come upon them, that day shall come which is appointed for redemption;”

which well agrees with James here, and the manner in which he introduces this passage:

and will build again the tabernacle of David, that is fallen down: that is, as the Jewish (r) writers themselves interpret it, the kingdom of the house of David, though in a temporal sense, which was now in a most ruinous condition; the sceptre was departed from Judah; all; power and authority were falling off apace from the Jews, into the hands of the Romans; David’s family were quite sunk, and almost gone, and had no share at all in the civil government; Jesus, who was descended from him, and was of the blood royal, and right heir to his throne, was born of a poor virgin; and his supposed father was a carpenter; and he himself the King of the Jews, was crucified by them; yet notwithstanding all this, David’s tabernacle was to be rebuilt, and his kingdom to be restored by the Messiah, but in a spiritual way; for the tabernacle of David designs the spiritual kingdom or church of Christ, who is here called David, as in Eze_34:23 and of whom David was an eminent type: and the church may be called a tabernacle, being in the present state of things, as to its place, uncertain and moveable, though ere long it will be a tabernacle that will not be taken down, Isa_33:20 and Christ’s tabernacle, being of his building, and where he dwells and keeps his court, as King of saints; see Isa_16:5 and which was in a fallen ruinous condition when he came on earth, through the corrupt principles of the Pharisees and Sadducees, the bigotry and superstition of the one, and the deism of the other; and through the great decay of spiritual worship and powerful godliness, and the bad lives of professors, and the small number of truly godly persons: the Jews (s) themselves refer this prophecy to the times of the Messiah, yea, one of the names by which they call the Messiah is taken from hence (t): it is asked,

“who is Bar Naphli? it is replied, the Messiah; the Messiah is called Bar Naphli (the son fallen, or of the fallen); is it not written, “in that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen down?””

one of their own commentators (u) on this text, has this note,

“if we interpret this of the Messiah, the matter is clear:”

but then this must be understood in a spiritual sense, for Christ’s kingdom is not a worldly one; the raising up and rebuilding of this tabernacle, must design the reviving of true religion, the doctrine and practice of it, the enlargement of the church of God, by the conversion both of Jews and Gentiles:

and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up; which has been done by breaking down the middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles, and letting in the latter into the Gospel church with the former, whereby it grows up to be an holy temple in the Lord; see Isa_54:2 and to this sense the Jews themselves (w) interpret it;

“the holy blessed God will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, as it is said, Amo_9:11 in that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David; for all the world shall be אגודה אחת, “one bundle”; as it is said, Zep_3:9”

(r) Targum, Jarchi & Kimchi in loc. (s) Zohar in Gen. fol. 53. 2. & in Exod. fol. 4. 2. & 96. 2. (t) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 96. 2. (u) Aben Ezra in Amos ix. 11. (w) Bereshit Rabba, sect. 88. fol. 76. 4.

Adam Clarke
Act 15:17
That the residue of men might seek – Instead of this, the Hebrew has, That they may possess the remnant of Edom. Now it is evident that, in the copy from which the Seventy translated, they found ידרשו yidreshu, they might seek, instead of יירשו yireshu, they may possess, where the whole difference between the two words is the change of the י yod for a ד daleth, which might be easily done; and they found אדם adam, man, or men, instead of אדום Edom, the Idumeans, which differs from the other only by the insertion of ו vau between the two last letters. None of the MSS. collated by Kennicott and De Rossi confirm these readings, in which the Septuagint, Arabic, and St. James agree. It shows, however, that even in Jerusalem, and in the early part of the apostolic age, the Septuagint version was quoted in preference to the Hebrew text; or, what is tantamount, was quoted in cases where we would have thought the Hebrew text should have been preferred, because better understood. But God was evidently preparing the way of the Gospel by bringing this venerable version into general credit and use; which was to be the means of conveying the truths of Christianity to the whole Gentile world. How precious should this august and most important version be to every Christian, and especially to every Christian minister! A version, without which no man ever did or ever can critically understand the New Testament. And I may add that, without the assistance afforded by this version, there never could have been a correct translation of the Hebrew text, since that language ceased to be vernacular, into any language. Without it, even St. Jerome could have done little in translating the Old Testament into Latin; and how much all the modern versions owe to St. Jerome’s Vulgate, which owes so much to the Septuagint, most Biblical scholars know.

John Gill
Act 15:17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord,…. The rebuilder and proprietor of this tabernacle, and who dwells in it; that is, attend his worship, pray unto him, and seek unto him for life and salvation: in Amos these are called, “the remnant of Edom”: and design the remnant according to the election of grace among the Gentiles; the Jews generally call all other nations, and especially the Roman empire, Edom:

and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called; for God is the God of the whole earth, of the Gentiles as well as of the Jews; and his Gospel was now spread among them, and many of them were converted and called Christians, and the children and people of God: the Jews (x) understand this of the people of Israel, who are called by the name of the Lord, or on whom his name is called; and some think the words are to be transposed (y) thus,

“that Israel on whom my name is called might possess the remnant of Edom, and all the people;”

and is true of their possessing or enjoying them in a Gospel church state:

saith the Lord, who doth all these things; raises up the tabernacle of David, revives the interest of religion, resettles the church, and increases it, calls and converts the Gentiles, causes them to seek after the Lord, and unites them in one church state with the Jews; the word “all” is left out in the Alexandrian copy, and in the Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions, and is not in Amos.

(x) Targum in Amos ix. 12. (y) Kimchi & Aben Ezra in ib.

Adam Clarke
Act 15:18
Known unto God are all his works from the beginning – As if he had said, This is not a new counsel of God: he had purposed, from the time he called the Israelites, to make the Gentiles partakers of the same grace and mercy; and ultimately to destroy those rites and ceremonies which separated them from each other. He therefore has sent the Gospel of his Son, proclaiming equally peace to him that is afar off, the Gentiles, and to him that is nigh, the Jews.

The whole of this verse is very dubious: the principal part of it is omitted by the most ancient MSS., and Griesbach has left γνωϚα απ’ αιωνος doubtful, and has thrown εϚι τῳ Θεῳ παντα τα εργα αὑτου out of the text. Of the former clause, Professor White, in his Crisews, says, “forsitan delenda,” “probably these words should be blotted out.” And of the latter clause he says, “certissime delenda,” “most assuredly these should be blotted out.” Supposing the whole to be genuine, critics have labored to find out the sense. Some very learned men, and particularly Schleusner, contend that the word γνωϚα, from γινωσκειν, to know, should be understood here in the same sense in which ידא yada is in many parts of the Old Testament, which not only signifies to know, but to approve, love, etc. They therefore would translate the passage thus: All the works of God are ever dear unto him. And, if so, consequently we might naturally expect him to be merciful to the Gentiles, as well as to the Jews; and the evidence now afforded of the conversion of the Gentiles is an additional proof that all God’s works are equally dear to him.

John Gill
Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works,…. These are the words of James, and not of Amos; all the things which God does in the church and in the world, they were all foreknown and predetermined by him: from the beginning of the world; or from eternity; even all his works of creation, providence and grace: the Alexandrian copy, and Beza’s most ancient copy, and the Vulgate Latin version, read in the singular number, “his work”; the work of the conversion of the Gentiles; this was fixed and resolved on by God in eternity; he knew it would be, because he had determined it should be; and accordingly he foretold it, and spoke of it in various periods of time before it came to pass; and therefore it should not be looked upon as some new and strange thing, that was never known, spoken or heard of: and this holds true of every other work of God, and agrees with what the Jews sometimes say (z), that

“every work which is renewed in the world, the holy blessed God has commanded (or ordered) it from the day the world was created.”

(z) Zohar in Exod. fol. 78. 2. Vid. ib. in Lev. fol. 25. 4.

Adam Clarke Act 15:19
Wherefore my sentence is – Διο εγω κρινω, Wherefore I judge. There is an authority here that does not appear in the speech of St. Peter; and this authority was felt and bowed to by all the council; and the decree proposed by St. James adopted.

John Gill Act 15:19
Wherefore my sentence is,…. Opinion or judgment in this case, or what he reckoned most advisable to be done; for he did not impose his sense upon the whole body, but proposed it to them:

that we trouble not them; by obliging them to be circumcised, which would have been very afflicting and disturbing to them; not only because of the corporeal pain produced by circumcision, but because of the bondage their minds would be brought into, and they become subject to the whole law, and all its burdensome rites and ceremonies:

which from among the Gentiles are turned to God; the one true and living God, Father, Son, and Spirit, and from idols, and the worshipping of them.

John Gill Act 15:20
But that we write unto them,…. Or send an epistle to them, to this effect, concerning the following things:

that they abstain from pollutions of idols; that is, from eating things offered to idols; see Act_15:29 for not idolatry, or the worshipping of idols itself, is here spoken of; for that was no indifferent thing; and besides, these converted Gentiles were turned from that, and there was no danger of their returning to it; but eating things sacrificed to idols was an indifferent thing; but yet inasmuch as it had a tendency to lead to idolatry, and gave offence to the Jewish believers in the churches, and was a stumbling block to weak minds, who by the example of stronger Christians, were led to eat them as sacrificed to an idol, and so their weak consciences were defiled, therefore it was very proper to abstain from them;

and from fornication; not spiritual fornication or idolatry, but fornication taken in a literal sense, for the carnal copulation of one single person with another, and which is commonly called simple fornication: the reason why this is put among, things indifferent is, not that it was so in itself, but because it was not thought to be criminal by the Gentiles, and was commonly used by them, and which must be offensive to the believing Jews, who were better acquainted with the will of God; this is omitted in the Ethiopic version:

and from things strangled; that is; from eating them, and design such as die of themselves, or are torn with beasts, or are not killed in a proper way, by letting out their blood; but their blood is stagnated or congealed in the veins: the Jews might not kill with a reaper’s sickle, nor with a saw, nor with the teeth, or nail; because these חונקין, “strangled” (a): and what was not slain as it should be, was reckoned all one as what dies of itself; and whoever ate of either of these was to be beaten (b); the law respecting these things was of the ceremonial kind, and peculiar to the Jews, and was not binding upon the Gentiles; for that which died of itself might be given to a stranger, and he might eat it, or it might be sold to an alien, Deu_14:21 this has been wanting in many copies, and it was not read by several of the ancient fathers:

and from blood: which is not to be understood of the blood of men and shedding of that, which is of a moral nature; but of the blood of beasts, and of eating of that. There were several laws about eating of blood, and which are different, and ought to be carefully distinguished. The first is in Gen_9:4 “but flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood there of, shall you not eat”; which forbids the eating of flesh with the blood; but not the eating of flesh separately, nor the eating of blood separately, provided they were properly prepared and dressed, but the eating of them together without any preparation. As this was the first hint to man that we know of, that he might eat flesh, it was proper that the manner in which he should eat it, should be suggested to him; that he should not take the creature alive and eat it, or tear off any of its members and eat it whilst alive, or eat raw flesh; but should prepare it by roasting or boiling, or some way, in which it might become proper food: and it is the constant sense of the Jewish synagogue (c), that this law is to be understood of the member of a living creature, torn from it, and eaten whilst alive; six commands, the Jews say, were given to the first man Adam, the first five forbid idolatry, blasphemy, shedding of blood, uncleanness, and theft, or robbery, and the sixth required judgment against offenders; to these were added, for the sons of Noah, a seventh, which forbid the eating of the member of a living creature, as it is said, Gen_9:4 (d). So that this law has nothing to do with eating of blood, simply considered, and no more forbids eating of it separately, than it does eating of flesh separately: in like manner is the law in Deu_12:23 to be understood, and is so interpreted by the Jewish writers (e): another law is in Lev_19:26 “ye shall not eat anything with the blood”; which according to our version, seems to be the same law with the former, but is not; for it is not said here, as before, ב, “in”, or “with”, but על, “upon”, “over”, or “by” the blood. This is differently understood: some think the sense is, that no one should eat of the sacrifices, before the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar (f); or until it stands or is congealed in the basons (g); others, that it is a caution to judges, that they do not eat until they have finished judgment; for whoever judges or passes sentence after he has eat and drank, is as if he was guilty of blood (h): another observes (i), that next to this clause, it is said, “neither shall ye use enchantment”; meaning that they should not use enchantment by eating, in the way that murderers do, who eat bread over the slain, that the avengers of the slain may not take vengeance on them; this author smells something superstitious or diabolical in this matter; and indeed this is the case; the truth of the matter is, it refers to a practice among the Heathens, who fancied that blood was the food of the demons, to whom they sacrificed; and therefore when they sacrificed to them, they took the blood of the beast and put it into a vessel, and sat down by it, and round about it, and ate the flesh; imagining that whilst they ate the flesh, the demons eat the blood, and by this means friendship and familiarity were contracted between them; so that they hoped to receive some advantage from them, and be informed of things to come (k). Hence, this law is placed with others against enchantments and observing times, to which may be added, Eze_33:25 “ye eat with the blood”, or “over it”, or “by” it; “and lift up your eyes to your idols”: which is to be understood in the same light, and with these compare 1Sa_14:32. But besides these, there was a third law, which is frequently repeated, Lev_3:17 which absolutely forbids the eating of blood, as well as fat; the Jews except the blood of fishes, and locusts, and creeping things, and the blood of men, and the blood that is in eggs, and that which is squeezed out of flesh, or drops from it, which a man may eat and not be guilty of the breach of this law (l) the reason of this law was, because the blood, which is the life, was given in sacrifice for the life of men, to be an atonement for them; wherefore, to keep up a just reverence of the sacrifice, and to direct to the blood of the great sacrifice of the Messiah, blood was forbidden to be eaten, till that sacrifice was offered up; and then that blood itself was to be spiritually eaten by faith: and now if eating of blood in general was morally evil in itself, it would be a monstrous shocking thing in the Christian religion, that the blood of Christ is to be drank; though it be to be understood in a spiritual sense: the law against eating blood was very strictly enjoined the Jews, and severely punished; whoever ate of blood, but the quantity of an olive, if he ate it wilfully, was guilty of cutting off; if ignorantly, he was to bring a sin offering (m): James knew that the breach of this law would give great offence to the Jews, and therefore for the peace of the church he moves that the Gentiles might be wrote to, to abstain from blood; and which was agreed to and done: and this was attended to with much strictness by the primitive Christians, who seemed to have observed this advice in the form of a law, and thought it criminal to eat blood; but in process of time it was neglected; and in Austin’s time abstinence from blood was derided, as a ridiculous notion; and it is at least now high time that this, and everything else of a ceremonial kind, was dropped by Christians; though where the peace of the brethren is in danger, this, and everything of an indifferent nature should be abstained from: Beza’s ancient copy adds, “and whatsoever they would not have done to themselves, do not unto others”; and so two of Stephens’s: the Ethiopic version is, “whatsoever they hate should be done to themselves, let them not do to their brethren”.

(a) Misn. Cholin, c. 1. sect. 2. (b) Maimon. Hilchot Maacolot Assurot, c. 4. sect. 1. (c) Targum Jon Jarchi, Aben Ezra & Abendanae not. in Sol. ben Melec in loc. (d) Maimon. Hilchot Melacim, c. 9. sect. 1. (e) Jarchi and Baal Hatturim in loc. T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 56. 2. & 59. 1. & Cholin, fol 102. 2. Tzeror Hammor, fol. 95, 4. (f) Jarchi & Aben Ezra in loc. (g) Targum Jon. in loc. (h) Zohar in Exod. fol. 50. 3. Vid. Maimon. Hilchot Sanhedrin, c. 13. sect. 4. (i) Baal Hatturim in Lev. xix. 26. (k) Maimon. Morch Nevochim, par. 3. c. 46. Kimchi in I Sam. xiv. 32. & in Ezek. xxxiii

Albert Barnes
Act 15:20
That we write unto them – Expressing our judgment, or our views of the case.

That they abstain – That they refrain from these things, or wholly avoid them.

Pollutions of idols – The word rendered “pollutions” means any kind of “defilement.” But here it is evidently used to denote the flesh of those animals that were offered in sacrifice to idols. See Act_15:29. That flesh, after being offered in sacrifice, was often exposed for sale in the markets, or was served up at feasts, 1Co_10:25-29. It became a very important question whether it was right for Christians to partake of it. The Jews would contend that it was, in fact, partaking of idolatry. The Gentile converts would allege that they did not eat it as a sacrifice to idols, or lend their countenance in any way to the idolatrous Worship where it had been offered. See this subject discussed at length in 1Co_8:4-13. As idolatry was forbidden to the Jews in every form, and as partaking even of the sacrifices of idols in their feasts might seem to countenance idolatry, the Jews would be utterly opposed to it; and for the sake of peace, James advised that the Christians at Antioch be recommended to abstain from this. To partake of that food might not be morally wrong 1Co_8:4, but it would give occasion for scandal and offence; and, therefore, as a matter of expediency, it was advised that they should abstain from it.

And from fornication – The word used here πορνεία porneia is applicable to “all illicit sexual intercourse,” and may refer to adultery, incest, or licentiousness in any form. There has been much diversity of opinion in regard to this expression. Interpreters have been greatly perplexed to understand why this violation of the moral law has been introduced amidst the violations of the ceremonial law, and the question is naturally asked whether this was a sin about which there could be any debate between the Jewish and Gentile converts? Were there any who would practice it, or plead that it was lawful? If not, why is it prohibited here? Various explanations of this have been proposed. Some have supposed that James refers here to the offerings which harlots would make of their gains to the service of religion, and that James would prohibit the reception of it. Beza, Selden, and Schleusner suppose the word is taken for idolatry, as it is often represented in the Scriptures as consisting in unfaithfulness to God, and as it is often called adultery. Heringius supposes that marriage between idolaters and Christians is here intended. But, after all, the usual interpretation of the word, as referring to illicit sexual intercourse of the sexes of any kind, is undoubtedly here to be retained. If it be asked, then, why this was particularly forbidden, and was introduced in this connection, we may reply:
(1) That this vice prevailed everywhere among the Gentiles, and was that to which all were particularly exposed.
(2) That it was not deemed by the Gentiles disgraceful. It was practiced without shame and without remorse. (Terence, Adelphi, 1, 2, 21. See Grotius.) It was important, therefore, that the pure laws of Christianity on this subject should be known, and that special pains should be taken to instruct the early converts from paganism in those laws. The same thing is necessary still in pagan lands.
(3) This crime was connected with religion. It was the practice not only to introduce indecent pictures and emblems into their worship, but also for females to devote themselves to the service of particular temples, and to devote the avails of indiscriminate prostitution to the service of the god, or the goddess. The vice was connected with no small part of the pagan worship; and the images, the emblems, and the customs of idolatry everywhere tended to sanction and promote it. A mass of evidence on this subject which sickens the heart, and which would be too long and too indelicate to introduce here, may be seen in Tholuck’s Nature and Moral Influence of Paganism, in the Biblical Repository for July, 1832, p. 441-464. As this vice was almost universal; as it was practiced without shame or disgrace; as there were no laws among the pagan to prevent it; as it was connected with all their views of idol worship and of religion, it was important for the early Christians to frown upon and to oppose it, and to set a special guard against it in all the churches. It was the sin to which, of all others, they were the most exposed, and which was most likely to bring scandal on the Christian religion. It is for this cause that it is so often and so pointedly forbidden in the New Testament Rom_1:29; 1Co_6:13, 1Co_6:18; Gal_5:19; Eph_5:3; 1Th_4:3.

And from things strangled – That is, from animals or birds that were killed without shedding their blood. The reason why these were considered by the Jews unlawful to. be eaten was, that thus they would be under a necessity of eating blood, which was positively forbidden by the Law. Hence, it was commanded in the Law that when any beast or fowl was taken in a snare, the blood should be poured out before it was lawful to be eaten, Lev_17:13.

And from blood – The eating of blood was strictly forbidden to the Jews. The reason of this was that it contained the life, Lev_17:11, Lev_17:14. See notes on Rom_3:25. The use of blood was common among the Gentiles. They drank it often at their sacrifices, and in making covenants or compacts. To separate the Jews from them in this respect was one design of the prohibition. See Spencer, De Ley Hebrae., p. 144, 145, 169, 235, 377, 381, 594, edit. 1732. See also this whole passage examined at length in Spencer, p. 588-626. The primary reason of the prohibition was, that it was thus used in the feasts and compacts of idolaters. That blood was thus drank by the pagans, particularly by the Sabians, in their sacrifices, is fully proved by Spencer, De Leg., p. 377-380 But the prohibition specifies a higher reason, that the life is in the blood, and that therefore it should not be eaten. On this opinion see the notes on Rom_3:25. This reason existed before any ceremonial law; it is founded in the nature of things; it has no particular reference to any custom of the Jews; and it is as forcible in any other circumstances as in theirs. It was proper, therefore, to forbid it to the early Christian converts; and for the same reason, its use should be abstained from everywhere. It adds to the force of these remarks when we remember that the same principle was settled before the laws of Moses were given, and that God regarded the fact that the life was in the blood as of so much importance as to make the shedding of it worthy of death, Gen_9:4-6. It is supposed, therefore, that this law is still obligatory. Perhaps, also, there is no food more unwholesome than blood; and it is a further circumstance of some moment that all people naturally revolt from it as an article of food.

Adam Clarke
Act 15:20
But that we write unto them – Four things are prohibited in this decree:
1. Pollutions of idols;
2. fornication;
3. things strangled;
4. blood.

By the first, Pollutions of Idols, or, as it is in Act_15:25, meats offered to idols, not only all idolatry was forbidden, but eating things offered in sacrifice to idols, knowing that they were thus offered, and joining with idolaters in their sacred feasts, which were always an incentive either to idolatry itself, or to the impure acts generally attendant on such festivals.

By the second, Fornication, all uncleanness of every kind was prohibited; for πορνεια not only means fornication, but adultery, incestuous mixtures, and especially the prostitution which was so common at the idol temples, viz. in Cyprus, at the worship of Venus; and the shocking disorders exhibited in the Bacchanalia, Lupercalia, and several others.

By the third, Things Strangled, we are to understand the flesh of those animals which were strangled for the purpose of keeping the blood in the body, as such animals were esteemed a greater delicacy.

By the fourth, Blood, we are to understand, not only the thing itself, for the reasons which I have assigned in the note on Gen_9:4, and for others detailed at the end of this chapter; but also all cruelty, manslaughter, murder, etc., as some of the ancient fathers have understood it.
Instead of του αἱματος, blood, some have conjectured that we should read χοιρειας, swine’s flesh; for they cannot see, first, that there can be any harm in eating of blood; and, secondly, that, as the other three things neither have nor can have any moral evil in them, it would seem strange that they should be coupled with a thing which, on all hands, is confessed to have much moral turpitude. Answers to such trifling objections will be found at the end of the chapter. It is only necessary to add that this χοιρειας, which is the critical emendation of Dr. Bentley, is not supported by one MS. or version in existence.

At the close of this verse, the Codex Bezae, and several others, add a fifth thing, And not to do to others what they would not have done to themselves. Though this is a very ancient reading, it does not appear to be genuine.

Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him,…. That is, for many years past, even from the times of Ezra, the law of Moses has been publicly expounded by them, whom the Jews call Derashim, preachers, or expounders, in every city where there was a synagogue; and every city belonging to the Jews, were obliged to build a synagogue, yea, they were obliged to do it where there were but ten Israelites (n): this is given by James as a reason why the Gentiles should be wrote unto concerning the above things; because that they hearing the law read and expounded every week, would be ready to conclude that they were obliged to submit unto it, as to circumcision, and other things; unless they were told that they were free from it; only in order to maintain peace with their brethren the Jews, it would be necessary for them to abstain from the above things: and it may also carry in it a reason, why the Jews need not be wrote unto, and why they had no reason to complain for thus writing to the Gentiles; since they had the law read and explained to them every week, and there would be no attempt to make any alteration in that form of service:

being read in the synagogues every sabbath day; See Gill on Act_13:15: And after the reading of the law and the prophets,…. Which was done every sabbath day, Act_15:21 The five books of Moses, which are meant by the law, were divided into sections: Genesis was divided into twelve, Exodus into eleven, Leviticus into ten, Numbers into ten, and Deuteronomy into ten, which in all make fifty three sections: and so by reading one on each sabbath, and two on one day, they read through the whole law in the course of a year, and which they finished at the close of the feast of tabernacles; and that day was called שמחת תורה “the rejoicing of the law”; it was a day of rejoicing, that the law was read through. Some make fifty four sections, and then two of them must be read together, on two sabbath days, to finish the whole in the year. In some synagogues the section was divided into three parts, and so they finished the law in three years; but this custom was less common. The custom of reading the law, the Jews say, was one hundred and seventy years before the time of Jesus Christ; though some say the division of the law, into sections, was made by Ezra; and others refer it to Moses himself: it is certain it obtained in the times of Christ and his apostles, as did also the reading of the prophets, and which was introduced in this way, and upon this account. When Antiochus Epiphanes burnt the book of the law, and forbad the reading of it, the Jews in the room of it selected some passages out of the prophets, which they thought came nearest in words and sense to the sections of the law, and read them in their stead; and when the law was restored again, they still continued the reading of the prophetic sections; and the section for the day was called הפטרה, “the dismission”, because usually the people were dismissed upon it, unless anyone stood up, and preached or expounded the word of God unto the people: hence the following message and address to the apostles,

(n) Maimon. Tephilla, c. 11. sect. 1.

Albert Barnes
Act 15:21
For Moses – The meaning of this verse is, that the Law of Moses, prohibiting these things, was read in the synagogues constantly. As these commands wore constantly read, and as the Jewish converts would not soon learn that their ceremonial law had ceased to be binding, it was deemed to be a matter of expediency that no needless offence should be given to them. For the sake of peace, it was better that they should abstain from meat offered to idols than to give offence to the Jewish converts. Compare 1Co_8:10-13.Of old time – Greek: from ancient generations. It is an established custom, and therefore his laws are well known, and have, in their view, not only the authority of revelation, but the venerableness of antiquity.

In every city – Where there were Jews. This was the case in all the cities to which the discussion here had reference.

Them that preach him – That is, by reading the Law of Moses. But, in addition to reading the Law, it was customary also to offer an explanation of its meaning. See the notes on Luk_4:16-22.

A.T. Robertson
Act 15:22
Then it seemed good (Tote edoxen). First aorist active indicative of dokeō. A regular idiom at the beginning of decrees. This Eirenicon of James commended itself to the whole assembly. Apparently a vote was taken which was unanimous, the Judaizers probably not voting. The apostles and the elders (tois apostolois kai tois presbuterois, article with each, dative case) probably all vocally expressed their position.

With the whole church (sun holei tēi ekklēsiāi). Probably by acclamation. It was a great victory. But James was a practical leader and he did not stop with speeches and a vote.
To choose men out of their company (eklezamenous andras exō autōn). Accusative case, though dative just before (tois apostolois, etc.), of first aorist middle participle of eklegō, to select. This loose case agreement appears also in grapsantes in Act_15:23and in MSS. in Act_15:25. It is a common thing in all Greek writers (Paul, for instance), especially in the papyri and in the Apocalypse of John.

Judas called Barsabbas (Ioudan ton kaloumenon Barsabban). Not otherwise known unless he is a brother of Joseph Barsabbas of Act_1:23, an early follower of Jesus. The other, Silas, is probably a shortened form of Silvanus (Silouanos, 1Pe_5:12), the companion of Paul in his second mission tour (Act_15:32, Act_15:41; Act_16:25).

Chief men (hēgoumenous). Leaders, leading men (participle from hēgeomai, to lead).

A.T. Robertson
Act 15:23
And they wrote (grapsantes). First aorist active participle of graphō and the nominative as if a principal verb epempsan had been used instead of pempsai, the first aorist active infinitive (anacoluthon). This committee of four (Judas, Silas, Barnabas, Paul) carried the letter which embodied the decision of the Conference. This letter is the writing out of the judgment of James and apparently written by him as the President.

The apostles and the elders, brethren (hoi apostoloi kai hoi presbuteroi, adelphoi). So the oldest and best MSS. without kai (and) before “brethren.” This punctuation is probably correct and not “elder brethren.” The inquiry had been sent to the apostles and elders (Act_15:2) though the whole church joined in the welcome (Act_15:4) and in the decision (Act_15:22). The apostles and elders send the epistle, but call themselves “brothers to brothers,” Fratres Fratibus Salutem. “The brothers” (tois adelphois) addressed (dative case) are of the Gentiles (exō ethnōn) and those in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, because they were immediately involved. But the decision of this Conference was meant for Gentile Christians everywhere (Act_16:4).

Greeting (Chairein). The customary formula in the beginning of letters, the absolute infinitive (usually chairein) with the nominative absolute also as in Jam_1:1; Act_23:26 and innumerable papyri (Robertson, Grammar, pp. 1902f.).

A.T. Robertson
Act 15:24
Certain which went from us (tines exō hēmōn, Aleph B omit exelthontes). A direct blow at the Judaizers, put in delicate language (we heard ēkousamen) as if only at Antioch (Act_15:1), and not also in Jerusalem in open meeting (Act_15:5).

Have troubled you with words (etaraxan humas logois). What a picture of turmoil in the church in Antioch, words, words, words. Aorist tense of the common verb tarassō, to agitate, to make the heart palpitate (Joh_14:1, Joh_14:27) and instrumental case of logois.

Subverting your souls (anaskeuazontes tas psuchas humōn). Present active participle of anaskeuazō, old verb (ana and skeuos, baggage) to pack up baggage, to plunder, to ravage. Powerful picture of the havoc wrought by the Judaizers among the simple-minded Greek Christians in Antioch.

To whom we gave no commandment (hois ou diesteilametha). First aorist middle indicative of diastellō, old verb to draw asunder, to distinguish, to set forth distinctly, to command. This is a flat disclaimer of the whole conduct of the Judaizers in Antioch and in Jerusalem, a complete repudiation of their effort to impose the Mosaic ceremonial law upon the Gentile Christians.

A.T. Robertson
Act 15:25
It seemed good unto us (edoxen hēmin). See statement by Luke in Act_15:22, and now this definite decision is in the epistle itself. It is repeated in Act_15:28.

Having come to one accord (genomenois homothumadon). On this adverb, common in Acts, See note on Act_1:14. But genomenois clearly means that the final unity was the result of the Conference (private and public talks). The Judaizers are here brushed to one side as the defeated disturbers that they really were who had lacked the courage to vote against the majority.

To choose out men and send them (eklexamenois andras pempsai A B L, though Aleph C D read eklexamenous as in Act_15:22). Precisely the same idiom as in Act_15:22, “having chosen out to send.”

With our beloved Barnabas and Paul (sun tois agapētois hēmōn Barnabāi kai Paulōi). The verbal adjective agapētois (common in the N.T.) definitely sets the seal of warm approval on Barnabas and Paul. Paul (Gal_2:9) confirms this by his statement concerning the right hand of fellowship given.

John Gill
Act 15:26 Men that have hazarded their lives,…. As at Antioch, in Pisidia, where a persecution was raised against them, and they were expelled out of the coasts of that place; and at Lystra, where Paul was stoned, and left for dead, Act_13:50 and this they did, not for any sinister and selfish ends, for any worldly gain, or vain glory, and popular applause, but

for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; for the sake of his Gospel, and the enlargement of his interest, and kingdom in the world; and therefore were worthy of esteem, and ought to be regarded and attended to, and greatly to be preferred to false teachers; who only sought themselves, their worldly honour, and ease, and would sacrifice nothing, nor hazard anything, for the sake of Christ.

A.T. Robertson
Act 15:27
Who themselves also shall tell you the same things by word of mouth (kai autous dia logou apaggellontas ta auta). Literally, “they themselves also by speech announcing the same things.” The present participle, as here, sometimes is used like the future to express purpose as in Act_3:26 eulogounta after apesteilen and so here apaggellontas after apestalkamen (Robertson, Grammar, p. 1128). Judas and Silas are specifically endorsed (perfect active indicative of apostellō) as bearers of the epistle who will also verbally confirm the contents of the letter.

A.T. Robertson
Act 15:28
To the Holy Spirit and to us (tōi pneumati tōi hagiōi kai hēmin). Dative case after edoxen (third example, verses, 22, 25, 28). Definite claim that the church in this action had the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That fact was plain to the church from what had taken place in Caesarea and in this campaign of Paul and Barnabas (Act_15:8). Jesus had promised that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth (Joh_16:13). Even so the church deliberated carefully before deciding. What a blessing it would be if this were always true! But even so the Judaizers are only silenced for the present, not convinced and only waiting for a better day to start over again.

No greater burden (mēden pleon baros). The restrictions named did constitute some burden (cf. Mat_20:12), for the old word baros means weight or heaviness. Morality itself is a restraint upon one’s impulses as is all law a prohibition against license.

Than these necessary things (plēn toutōn tōn epanagkes). This old adverb (from epi and anagkē) means on compulsion, of necessity. Here only in the N.T. For discussion of these items see note on Act_15:20, note on Act_15:21. In comparison with the freedom won this “burden” is light and not to be regarded as a compromise in spite of the arguments of Lightfoot and Ramsay. It was such a concession as any converted Gentile would be glad to make even if “things strangled” be included. This “necessity” was not a matter of salvation but only for fellowship between Jews and Gentiles. The Judaizers made the law of Moses essential to salvation (Act_15:16).

Albert Barnes
Act 15:28
For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost – This is a strong and undoubted claim to inspiration. It was with special reference to the organization of the church that the Holy Spirit had been promised to them by the Lord Jesus, Mat_18:18-20; Joh_14:26.

No greater burden – To impose no greater restraints to enjoin no other observances. See the notes on Act_15:10.

Than these necessary things – Necessary:
(1) In order to preserve the peace of the church.
(2) To conciliate the minds of the Jewish converts, Act_15:21.
(3) In their circumstances particularly, because the crime which is specified – licentiousness was one to which all early converts were especially exposed. See the notes on Act_15:20.

John Gill
Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols,…. Which explains what is meant by pollutions of idols, Act_15:20

and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication. See Gill on Act_15:20.

In Beza’s most ancient copy, and in three other manuscripts, and in the Complutensian edition, it follows, “and whatsoever ye would not have done to yourselves, that do ye not to another”; in like manner the Ethiopic version also reads, as in Act_15:20 “from which if ye keep yourselves ye shall do well”; it will be doing a good thing, and make for the peace of the churches; in Beza’s most ancient copy it is added, “born”, or “moved by the Holy Ghost”: being influenced and assisted by him in this, and every good work:

fare ye well; the Syriac version adds, “in our Lord”.

A.T. Robertson
Act 15:29
It shall be well with you (eu praxete). Ye shall fare well. A classical idiom used here effectively. The peace and concord in the fellowship of Jews and Gentiles will justify any slight concession on the part of the Gentiles. This letter is not laid down as a law, but it is the judgment of the Jerusalem Christians for the guidance of the Gentiles (Act_16:4) and it had a fine effect at once (Act_15:30-35). Trouble did come later from the Judaizers who were really hostile to the agreement in Jerusalem, but that opposition in no way discredits the worth of the work of this Conference. No sane agreement will silence perpetual and professional disturbers like these Judaizers who will seek to unsettle Paul’s work in Antioch, in Corinth, in Galatia, in Jerusalem, in Rome.

Fare ye well (Errōsthe). Valete. Perfect passive imperative of rhōnnumi, to make strong. Common at the close of letters. Be made strong, keep well, fare well. Here alone in the N.T. though some MSS. have it in Act_23:30.

A.T. Robertson
Act 15:30
So they (hoi men oun). As in Act_15:3.

When they were dismissed (apoluthentes). First aorist passive participle of apoluō, common verb to loosen, to dismiss. Possibly (Hackett) religious services were held as in Act_15:33(cf. Act_13:3) and perhaps an escort for part of the way as in Act_15:3.

The multitude (to plēthos). Public meeting of the church as in Act_15:1-3. Deissmann (Bible Studies, p. 232) gives illustrations from the inscriptions of the use of plēthos for official, political, and religious gatherings. The committee formally “delivered” (epedōkan) the epistle to the church authorities.

John Gill
Act 15:30 So when they were dismissed,…. That is, Paul and Barnabas, with Judas and Silas, by the apostles, elders, and church at Jerusalem:

they came to Antioch; or “came down to Antioch”, as the Alexandrian copy, the Vulgate Latin, and Ethiopic versions read, agreeably to Act_15:1

and when they had gathered the multitude together; the whole church, which consisted of many members; the company, or congregation of the faithful, as the Arabic version renders it: and as Paul and Barnabas were sent by the church at Antioch; and as the letter, which they, with Judas and Silas, brought from Jerusalem, was directed and sent to the brethren at Antioch, it was highly reasonable, and necessary, that they should be called together, and an account of the business they were sent upon be given them, and the letter be delivered to them, as it accordingly was:

they delivered the epistle; sent by the apostles, elders, and brethren at Jerusalem to them; this they put into the hands of some one or other of the brethren of the church, in order to be read.

A.T. Robertson
Act 15:31
When they had read it (anagnontes). Second aorist active participle of anaginōskō. Public reading, of course, to the church.

They rejoiced (echarēsan). Second aorist (ingressive) passive indicative of chairō. They burst into exultant joy showing clearly that they did not consider it a weak compromise, but a glorious victory of Gentile liberty.

For the consolation (epi tēi paraklēsei). The encouragement, the cheer in the letter. See parekalesan in Act_15:32. Consolation and exhortation run into one another in this word.

Albert Barnes Act 15:31
They rejoiced for the consolation – They acquiesced in the decision of the apostles and elders, and rejoiced that they were not to be subjected to the burdensome rites and ceremonies of the Jewish religion. This closes the account of the first Christian council. It was conducted throughout on Christian principles; in a mild, kind, conciliatory spirit, and is a model for all similar assemblages. It came together, not to promote, but to silence disputation; not to persecute the people of God, but to promote their peace; not to be a scene of harsh and angry recrimination, but to be an example of all that was mild, and tender, and kind. Those who composed it came together, not to carry a point, not to overreach their adversaries, not to be party people, but to mingle their sober counsels, to inquire what was right, and to express, in a Christian manner, what was proper to be done. Great and important principles were to be established in regard to the Christian church, and they engaged in their work evidently with a deep sense of their responsibility, and with a just view of their dependence on the aid of the Holy Spirit. How happy Would it have been if this spirit had been possessed by all professedly Christian councils; if all had really sought the peace and harmony of the churches; if none had ever been convened to kindle the fires of persecution, or to rend and destroy the church of God!

This council has been usually appealed to as the authority for councils in the church as a permanent arrangement, and especially as an authority for courts of appeal and control. But it establishes neither, and should be brought as authority for neither. For:

(1) It was not a court of appeal in any intelligible sense. It was an assembly convened for a special purpose; designed to settle an inquiry which arose in a particular part of the church, and which required the collected wisdom of the apostles and elders.

(2) It had none of the marks or appendages of a court. The term “court,” or judicature, is nowhere applied to it, nor to any assembly of Christian people in the New Testament. Nor should these terms be used now in the churches. courts of judicature imply a degree of authority which cannot be proved from the New Testament to have been conceded to any ecclesiastical body of people.

(3) There is not the slightest intimation that anything like permanency was to be attached to this council, or that it would be periodically or regularly repeated. It proves, indeed, that, when cases of difficulty occur – when Christians are perplexed and embarrassed, or when contentions arise – it is proper to refer to Christian people for advice and direction. Such was the case here, and such a course is obviously proper. If it should be maintained that it is well that Christian ministers and laymen should assemble periodically, at stated intervals, on the supposition that such cases may arise, this is conceded; but the example of the apostles and elders should not be pleaded as making such assemblies of divine right and authority, or as being essential to the existence of a church of God. Such an arrangement has been deemed to be so desirable by Christians, that it has been adopted by Episcopalians in their regular annual and triennial Conventions; by Methodists in their conferences; by Presbyterians in their General Assembly; by Friends in their Yearly Meetings; by Baptists and congregationalists in their Associations, etc.; but the example of the council summoned on a special emergency at Jerusalem should not be pleaded as giving divine authority to these periodical assemblages. They are wise and prudent arrangements, contributing to the peace of the church, and the example of the council at Jerusalem can be adduced as furnishing as reach divine authority for one as for another; that is, it does not make all or either of them of divine authority, or obligatory on the church of God.

(4) It should be added that a degree of authority (compare Act_16:4) would, of course, be attached to the decision of the apostles and elders at that time which cannot be to any body of ministers and laymen now. Besides, it should never be forgotten – what, alas! it seems to have been the pleasure and the interest of ecclesiastics to forget that neither the apostles nor elders asserted any jurisdiction over the churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia; that they did not claim a right to have these cases referred to them; that they did not attempt to “lord it” over their faith or their consciences. The case was a single, specific, definite question referred to them, and they decided it as such. They asserted no abstract right of such jurisdiction; they sought not to intermeddle With the case; they enjoined no future reference of such cases to them, to their successors, or to any ecclesiastical tribunal. They evidently regarded the churches as blessed with the most ample freedom, and contemplated no arrangement of a permanent character asserting a right to legislate on articles of faith, or to make laws for the direction of the Lord’s freemen.

A.T. Robertson
Act 15:32
Being themselves also prophets (kai autoi prophētai ontes). As well as Paul and Barnabas and like Agabus (Act_11:27-30), for-speakers for Christ who justify the commendation in the letter (Act_15:27)

“with many words” (dia logou pollou), “with much talk,” and no doubt with kindly words concerning the part played at the Conference by Paul and Barnabas.

Confirmed (epestērixan). See note on Act_14:22. It was a glorious time with no Judaizers to disturb their fellowship as in Act_15:1.

Albert Barnes
Act 15:32
Being prophets – See the notes on Act_11:27. This evidently implies that they had been preachers before they went to Antioch. What was the precise nature of the office of a prophet in the Christian church it is not easy to ascertain. Possibly it may imply that they were teachers of unusual or remark able ability. Compare the notes on Rom_12:6.

Confirmed them – Strengthened them; that is, by their instructions and exhortations. See the notes on Act_14:22.

John Gill
Act 15:33 And after they had tarried there a space,…. How long is not certain; the Arabic version renders it “a year”; and it is probable enough, they might stay there so long, till things were thoroughly settled, which were thrown into great disorder and confusion, by the pleaders for circumcision:

they were let go in peace; that is, they were dismissed, and went away with the leave and consent of the church; who returned them thanks for the service and good offices they had done them, and wished them all peace, prosperity, and happiness, both in soul and body, and great success in their ministrations wherever they went: and as they were dismissed in peace, they left the church in perfect peace; an end being put to the controversy about circumcision, which was raised among them; and the members of the church being agreed in their sentiments, and heartily united in their affections to one another: and thus Judas and Silas were honourably dismissed

from the brethren, at Antioch,

to the Apostles, at Jerusalem; the Alexandrian copy, and Beza’s ancient copy, the Vulgate Latin, and Ethiopic versions, read, “to them that sent them”; and so include, with the apostles, the elders, and brethren at Jerusalem, who wrote the letter to the church at Antioch, and sent it by them; and it was proper that they should return to them, and give them an account of the success of it, how it was received, and what good it had done.

A.T. Robertson
Act 15:34
But it seemed good unto Silas to abide there (edoxe de Silāi epimeinai autou). This verse is not in the Revised Version or in the text of Westcott and Hort, being absent from Aleph A B Vulgate, etc. It is clearly an addition to help explain the fact that Silas is back in Antioch in Act_15:40. But the “some days” of Act_15:36afforded abundant time for him to return from Jerusalem. He and Judas went first to Jerusalem to make a report of their mission.

Adam Clarke
Act 15:34
Notwithstanding it pleased Silas, etc. – This whole verse is wanting in ABEG, a great number besides, with the Syriac, Arabic, Coptic, Slavonic, Vulgate, and some of the fathers. It does not appear to have been originally in the text.

John Gill
Act 15:34 Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still,…. Though he had leave to go, and was actually dismissed with Judas; and doubtless intended to have gone with him, but for some reason or another he changed his mind, and thought fit to continue at Antioch some time longer: and the design of Providence in it seems to have been this; that he might be a companion with the Apostle Paul in his travels among the Gentiles, as he afterwards was, and was very useful to him. This verse is wanting in the Alexandrian copy, and in the Syriac and Arabic versions; the Ethiopic version reads, “and Paul proposed”, or “determined to abide”, as he did some little time longer, as appears from the following verse: the Vulgate Latin version here adds, and “Judas went alone to Jerusalem”; and so it is read in one of Beza’s copies, and in one of Stephens’s.

A.T. Robertson Act 15:35
Tarried (dietribon). Imperfect active of diatribō, old verb to pass time, seen already in Act_12:19; Act_14:3, Act_14:28.

With many others also (meta kai heterōn pollōn). A time of general revival and naturally so after the victory at Jerusalem. It is at this point that it is probable that the sad incident took place told by Paul in Gal_2:11-21. Peter came up to see how things were going in Antioch after Paul’s victory in Jerusalem. At first Peter mingled freely with the Greek Christians without the compunctions shown at Caesarea and for which he had to answer in Jerusalem (Acts 11:1-18). Rumours of Peter’s conduct reached Jerusalem and the Judaizers saw a chance to reopen the controversy on the line of social customs, a matter not passed on at the Jerusalem Conference. These Judaizers threaten Peter with a new trial and he surrenders and is followed by Barnabas and all the Jewish brethren in Antioch to the dismay of Paul who boldly rebuked Peter and Barnabas and won them back to his view. It was a crisis. Some would even date the Epistle to the Galatians at this time also, an unlikely hypothesis.

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: E-sword Topic Files

R.H. Charles’s massive two volumes on Old Testament writings: e-books (This is the R.H. Charles index page, because a number of his books are classics you might want to read)

Book of Enoch, Book of Jubilees, Sibylline Oracles: all for e-sword: here. (Lots more stuff to intrigue and confuse you here.)

A Miscellaneous Collection of Old and New Testament related writings in one big e-sword file: here

You can find Targummim, Apostolic Fathers, and some Nag Hammadi writings, in original languages and translation at this excellent webpage: E-sword Original Languages Library (Under Resources: E-sword Modules on the left sidebar)

A great many of these texts were collated from the Internet, particularly the Internet Sacred Text Archive

God’s Answers to Prayer: Jewish Parables

Our pastor has spent the last few weeks discussing prayer and the local church. One thing he has spoken about repeatedly is how God doesn’t always seem to answer as fast as we like. Especially, as he put it tonight, for those of us who live in the microwave, fast-food, cellphone, internet download age. Patience as a virtue is not something modern Christians, especially modern American Christians, really grasp.

I was inevitably reminded as I listened to the pastor of two Jewish parables that explain why some people’s prayers get answered faster than others.  They are, in brief, and with due reference to my ignorance of rabbinic literature (in other words, corrections and updates may be ahead):

1. To what may the matter be compared? To a king with two daughters. One daughter the king couldn’t stand to be around. Therefore, whenever she came to court with a request, the king immediately turned to a minister and said: see what she wants is done. The other daughter was much beloved of the king, and he cherished every moment she was with him. Therefore, whenever she appeared at court, the king prolonged the interview as much as possible, so he could be with her and hear her more before he told a minister: see what she wants is done.

2. To what may the matter be compared: To a king before whom often appeared a beloved son and a prime minister. The beloved son would ask whatever, often in as graceless a way as possible, like the most spoilt child, yet the king would say to a minister: “Let it be done so for my son immediately.” The prime minister would speak of high state matters of great import in complete respect to the king, who would question the prime minister’s every point and whittle his every suggestion do to a shadow of it’s original self before agreeing “Let this be done”.

Which of the people before the King would you prefer to be in these two stories?

Acts of the Apostles Chapter 14 Sunday School Notes

Here are some of my notes for Sunday, July 20, 2008 based on the Lifeway Explore the Bible curriculum

 Reference works cited include:

1) The Acts of the Apostles: Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary by F. F. Bruce

2) The Acts of the Apostles: A Social-Rhetorical Commentary by Ben Witherington III 

3)The Acts of the Apostles: Anchor Bible Commentary by Joseph Fitzmyer

4)International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915): Studylight online edition; Esword dictionaries module download page

5)The Catholic Encyclopedia(1917): New Advent online edition; Esword module

6) A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: Bruce Metzger

 7) The Western Text of the Acts of the Apostles: J.M. Wilson

 8 ) Word Pictures in the New Testament by A.T. Robertson

 9)The Source New Testament with Extensive Notes by Ann Nyland

Codex Bezae, Acts 13:1-3 translated by J.M. Wilson, 1923: Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers, among whom were Barnabas, and Symeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, the foster-brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. And as they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. Then when they had all fasted and prayed, and had laid their hands on them, [they sent them away.]

Bold print on additions to typical text. Here verse 1 addition increases the number of prophets and teachers at Antioch. Verse 3 “all” again tries to increase numbers.

Acts 13:1
prophets and teachers: Ancient controversy over who is who in this verse. Are these two classes split between the names mentioned, or do both classes include all the names? Witherington suggests the list is chronological.

teachers- usually high on the lists of spiritual gifts. See 1 Cor 12:28, Eph. 4:11, 1 Tim 4:13, 16, 2 Tim 2:2

Simeon Niger- Combination of names suggests a Jew (proselyte?) from North Africa. Not likely the same as Simon of Cyrene in Gospel, despite some traditons.

Lucius of Cyrene: Presumably one of the men in Acts 11:20 who preached to Greeks. Not Luke of Luke-Acts, who is often speculated to be from Antioch instead. Forms of the name Lucius were quite common in first century AD.

Manaen: Greek form of Hebrew Menahem, “Comforter”. Suntrophos (close friend, brought up with) is a Greek title for boys of the same age as nobles and princes who were raised with the. The term literally describes having the same wet-nurse. But it was often used more informally to describe a intimate friend There was a Menahem who had been a close friend of Herod the Great, who supposedly predicted Herod the Great’s assumption of the Judean kingship. He might have been Manaen’s father or grandfather. Luke makes special note of Herod Antipas the Tetrarch in his gospel (Lk 8:3, 13:32, 23:7-12), perhaps with input from Manaen. (Bruce, Witherington, Metzger, Wilson)

Acts 13:2
lietourgounton- (minstering, offering worship) Lietourgeo is an Attic Greek verb fr performing unpaid public service like helping equip naval units or training choruses. In the NT it means more than just the traditional “liturgy”.

Fasting is rare in Acts (13:3. 14:23). Did the leaders at Antioch often fast or is this a hint of some special occasion? Is the idea that fasting makes one more open to spiritual communication?

The Holy Spirit said- presumably through one of the prophets.

Barnabas and Saul- Essentially then, the Spirit said, “give me your two best”. (Witherington, Bruce)

Acts 13:3
fasting and prayer- Presumably the whole church at this point? This laying on of hands is presumably done by the other church leaders here named, and shows Antioch’s ready obedience to God, in that they formalize in a human way the commission given by the Holy Spirit.

Acts 14:1

From ISBE: “The topographical position of Iconium is clearly indicated in Acts, and the evidence of Acts has been confirmed by recent research. Was Iconium in Phrygia or in Lycaonia, and in what sense can it be said to have belonged to one ethnical division or the other? The majority of our ancient authorities (e.g. Cicero, Strabo, Pliny), writing from the point of view of Roman provincial administration, give Iconium to Lycaonia, of which geography makes it the natural capital. But Xenophon, who marched with Cyrus’ expedition through Phrygia into Lycaonia, calls Iconium the last city of Phrygia. The writer of Act_14:6 makes the same statement when he represents Paul and Barnabas as fleeing from Iconium to the cities of Lycaonia – implying that the border of Phrygia and Lycaonia passed between Iconium and Lystra, 18 miles to the South. Other ancient authorities who knew the local conditions well speak of Iconium as Phrygian until far into the Roman imperial period. At the neighboring city of Lystra (Act_14:11), the natives used the “speech of Lycaonia.” Two inscriptions in the Phrygian language found at Iconium in 1910 prove that the Phrygian language was in use there for 2 centuries after Paul’s visits, and afford confirmation of the interesting topographical detail in Acts (see Jour. Hell. Stud., 1911, 189).

In the apostolic period, Iconium was one of the chief cities in the southern part of the Roman province Galatia, and it probably belonged to the “Phrygian region” mentioned in Act_16:6. The emperor Claudius conferred on it the title Claudiconium, which appears on coins of the city and on inscriptions, and was formerly taken as a proof that Claudius raised the city to the rank of a Roman colonia. It was Hadrian who raised the city to colonial rank; this is proved by its new title, Colonia Aelia Hadriana Iconiensium, and by a recently discovered inscription, which belongs to the reign of Hadrian, and which mentions the first duumvir who was appointed in the new colonia. Iconium was still a Hellenic city, but with a strong pro-Roman bias (as proved by its title “Claudian”) when Paul visited it.

About 295 ad, an enlarged province, Pisidia, was formed, with Antioch as capital, and Iconium as a “sort of secondary metropolis.” The Byzantine arrangement, familiar to us in the Notitiae Episcopatuum, under which Iconium was the capital of a province Lycaonia, dates from about 372 ad. Iconium, the modern Konia, has always been the main trading center of the Lycaonian Plain. Trade attracted Jews to the ancient Phrygio-Hellenic city (Act_14:1), as it attracts Greeks and Armenians to the modern Turkish town.”

From The Catholic Encyclopedia:”from 1063 to 1309 it was the capital of the sultans of the Seljuk Turks, who on the extinction of their dynasty adopted as their heir Osman, the founder of the present [1910] dynasty….Koniah is one of the holy cities of Islam.

Acts 14:1
Iconium was about 90 miles SE of Antioch, the most easterly city of Phrygia. Barnabas and Paul’s route in these chapters presumably followed the Sebaste Road, which connected the Roman colonies in the area with a wide paved road.

They entered the synagogue- Paul even this early has laid out his constant pattern: Go to the Jews first, then when rejected by them, turn to the Gentiles. See Acts 13:46

Greeks- Here the Godfearers in the synagogue. Hellenon is actually used on occasion to describe Godfearers in ancient literature (Bruce, Witherington)

Western Text translation of variations in Acts 14:2-7, from Metzger’s Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament:

“(2) But the chiefs of the synagogue of the Jews and the rulers of the synagogue stirred up for themselves persecution against the righteous and poisoned the minds of the Gentiles against the brethren, But the Lord soon gave peace.(3) …(4) But the people of the city were divided; some sided with the Jews, and some with the apostles, cleaving to them on account of the word of God. (5) But when an attempt was made again by both Gentiles and Jews, with their rulers, to molest them a second time, and to stone them (some Italian and Syriac manuscripts say they did stone them)(6) they learned of it and fled to Lystra and Derbe and to the whole surrounding country;(7) and there they preached the gospel, and the whole multitude was moved by the teaching. And Paul and Barnabas stayed on in Lystra.”

As the commentary states, the changes here all look unoriginal because they seem designed to solve problems raised by the shorter text.

Acts 14:2
Jews stir up Gentiles: Is this pagan Gentiles, or the Godfearers among the synagogue attenders? Is it even as here:

Act 13:50 NET. But the Jews incited the God-fearing women of high social standing and the prominent men of the city, stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and threw them out of their region.

A.T. Robertson notes: “The prominence of women in public life here at (Pisidian) Antioch is quite in accord with what we know of conditions in the cities of Asia Minor. “Thus women were appointed under the empire as magistrates, as presidents of the games, and even the Jews elected a woman as Archisynagogos, at least in one instance at Smyrna” (Knowling). In Damascus Josephus (War II. 20, 21) says that a majority of the married women were proselytes. Strabo (VIII. 2) and Juvenal (VI. 542) speak of the addiction of women to the Jewish religion.”

Acts 14:3

spoke boldly: a form of that now familiar word parrhesia, Luke’s favorite description for how to witness: so boldly and bluntly it could easily get one in trouble, as it usually does Paul.

boldness, fearlessness, outspokeness- Greek parrhesia. Originally both this frankness in speech, and then a legal term in ancient Greek democracy. The ancient Greco-Roman political ideal was what some call the “parrhesian contract”, where a powerful ruler without truth would promise no reprisal for a citizen who spoke the blunt truth of corruption within the government. It was the special privilege of the greatest Greek citizens. Later the word became use of an ideal in Cynic philosophy for the capacity of a person to be morally free and make independent choices. It is an important term in the whole of Acts. (Nyland, Fitzmyer, Bruce)

signs and wonders: Luke frequently mentions signs and wonders in Acts, but always miracles are evidence of the truth of apostolic witness. (Witherington, Bruce)

Acts 14:4
apostles: No end of debate over this one word here and in 14:14. The simplest and probably best answer is to realize Luke didn’t always use apostolos in the same way absolutely all the time. Thus here Barnabas and Paul are apostles, “ones sent out”, but presumably sent out by the Antioch church. Not Apostles, as in the Twelve, which is Luke’s usual sense for the word.

Acts 14:5
Gentile and Jewish synagogue leaders here attempt to instigate a riot that would see Barnabas and Paul stoned, beaten, etc. There is nothing judicial or legal about it. (Bruce)

Acts 14:6

They found out: We don’t know how. Divine revelation, sympathetic leaders, or perhaps a servant of a leader who was a believer passing on overheard plans? It doesn’t say.

Fled to… Lycaonian towns: Iconium is placed in both Lycaonia and Phrygia by ancient writers, but the language was apparently Phrygian until the second century AD, and this tactic smacks of leaving Phrygian jurisdiction (Iconium) for Lycaonian jurisdiction (Lystra and Derbe). Lystra was some eighteen miles from Iconium, on that main Sebaste road.

Lystra: From ISBE: “Lystra owed its importance, and the attention which Paul paid to it, to the fact that it had been made a Roman colonia by Augustus (see ANTIOCH), and was therefore, in the time of Paul, a center of education and enlightenment. Nothing is known of its earlier, and little of its later, history. The site of Lystra was placed by Leake (1820) at a hill near Khatyn Serai, 18 miles South-Southwest from Iconium; this identification was proved correct by an inscription found by Sterrett in 1885. The boundary between Phrygia and Lycaonia passed between Iconium and Lystra. (Act_14:6).

ISBE continued: “The population of Lystra consisted of the local aristocracy of Roman soldiers who formed the garrison of the colonia, of Greeks and Jews (Act_16:1, Act_16:3), and of native Lycaonians (Act_14:11).

After Paul had healed a life-long cripple at Lystra, the native population (the “multitude” of Act_14:11) regarded him and Barnabas as pagan gods come down to them in likeness of men, and called Barnabas “Zeus” and Paul “Hermes.” Commentators on this incident usually point out that the same pair of divinities appeared to Baucis and Philemon in Ovid’s well-known story, which he locates in the neighboring Phrygia. The accuracy in detail of this part of the narrative in Acts has been strikingly confirmed by recent epigraphic discovery. Two inscriptions found in the neighborhood of Lystra in 1909 run as follows: (1) “Kakkan and Maramoas and Iman Licinius priests of Zeus”; (2) “Toues Macrinus also called Abascantus and Batasis son of Bretasis having made in accordance with a vow at their own expense (a statue of) Hermes Most Great along with a sun-dial dedicated it to Zeus the sun-god.”

Now it is evident from the narrative in Acts that the people who were prepared to worship Paul and Barnabas as gods were not Greeks or Romans, but native Lycaonians. This is conclusively brought out by the use of the phrase “in the speech of Lycaonia” (Act_14:11). The language in ordinary use among the educated classes in Central Anatolian cities under the Roman Empire was Greek; in some of those cities, and especially of course, in Roman colonies, Latin also was understood, and it was used at this period in official documents. But the Anatolian element in the population of those cities continued for a long time to use the native language (e.g. Phrygian was in use at Iconium till the 3rd century of our era; see ICONIUM). In the story in Acts a fast distinction is implied, and in fact existed, between the ideas and practices of the Greeks and the Roman colonists and those of the natives. This distinction would naturally maintain itself most vigorously in so conservative an institution as religious ritual and legend. We should therefore expect to find that the association between Zeus and Hermes indicated in Acts belonged to the religious system of the native population, rather than to that of the educated society of the colony. And this is precisely the character of the cult illustrated in our two inscriptions. It is essentially a native cult, under a thin Greek disguise. The names in those inscriptions can only have been the names of natives; the Zeus and Hermes of Acts and of our inscriptions were a graecized version of the Father-god and Son-god of the native Anatolian system. The college of priests which appears in inscription number 1 (supporting the Bezan variant “priests” for “priest” in Act_14:13) was a regular Anatolian institution. The miracle performed by Paul, and his companionship with Barnabas would naturally suggest to the natives who used the “speech of Lycaonia” a pair of gods commonly associated by them in a local cult. The two gods whose names rose to their lips are now known to have been associated by the dedication of a statue of one in a temple, of the other in the neighborhood of Lystra.”

The Catholic Encyclopedia:”Pliny (Historia Naturalis, V, 42), places Lystra in Galatia, Ptolemy (V, 4) locates it in Isauria, and the Acts of the Apostles in Lycaonia. The Vulgate (Acts 27:5) also mentions it, but the reference is really to Myra in Lycia. Some coins have been found there belong to a Roman colony founded by Augustus at Lystra “Colonia Julia Felix Germina Lystra”. The exact site of the town has been discovered at Khatum Serai, twelve miles south of Iconium; it is marked by some ruins on a hill about one mile north of the modern village. Lequien (Oriens Christ., I, 1073-76) mentions five bishops of Lystra between the fourth and the ninth centuries, one of whom, Eubulus, about 630 refuted Athanasius, the Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch.”

Derbe: ISBE:”Derbe is first mentioned as the seat of Antipater, who entertained Cicero, the Roman orator and governor of Cilicia. When the kingdom of Amyntas passed, at his death in 25 bc, to the Romans, it was made into a province and called Galatia (see GALATIA). This province included Laranda as well as Derbe on the extreme. Southeast, and for a time Laranda was the frontier city looking toward Cappadocia and Cilicia and Syria via the Cilician Gates. But between 37 and 41 ad Laranda was transferred to the “protected” kingdom of Antiochus, and Derbe became the frontier city. It was the last city on distinctively Roman territory, on the road leading from Southern Galatia to the East; it was here that commerce entering the province had to pay the customs dues. Strabo records this fact when he calls Derbe a limēn or “customs station.” It owed its importance (and consequently its visit from Paul on his first journey) to this fact, and to its position on a great Roman road leading from Antioch, the capital of Southern Galatia, to Iconium, Laranda, Heracleia-Cybistra, and the Cilician Gates. Roman milestones have been found along the line of this road, one at a point 15 miles Northwest of Derbe. It was one of those Lycaonian cities honored with the title “Claudian” by the emperor Claudius; its coins bear the legend “Claudio-Derbe.” This implied considerable importance and prosperity as well as strong pro-Roman feeling; yet we do not find Derbe standing aloof, like the Roman colonies Iconium and Lystra, from the Common Council of Lycaonian cities (Koinon Lykaonias).

Derbe remained in the province Galatia till about 135 ad, when it passed to the jurisdiction of the triple province Cilicia-Isauria-Lycaonia. It continued in this division till 295 ad, and was then included in the newly formed province Isauria. This arrangement lasted till about 372 ad, when Lycaonia, including Derbe, was formed into a separate province. The statement of Stephanus of Byzantium that Derbe was “a fortress of Isauria” originated in the arrangement which existed from 295 to 372 ad. Coins of the city represent Heracles, Fortuna and a winged Victory writing on a shield (after the pattern of the Venus of Melos, in the Louvre, Paris). Derbe is mentioned several times in the records of the church councils. A bishop, Daphnus of Derbe, was present at the Council of Constantinople in 381.

The Catholic Encyclopedia: “A titular see of Lycaonia, Asia Minor. This city was the fortress of a famous leader of banditti, when it was captured by Amyntas, the last King of Galatia (Strabo, XII,i, 4; vi, 3; Dio Cassius, XLIX, xxxii). In Roman times it struck its own coins. It was successfully evangelized by St. Paul and St. Barnabas (Acts 14:6, 14:20-21), and again visited by St. Paul (Acts 16:1). Derbe became a suffragan see of Iconium; it is not mentioned by later “Notitiæ Episcopatuum”, and we know but four bishops, from 381 to 672 (Lequien, Oriens Christ., I, 1081).”

Acts 14:8-20
Many people have noticed the resemblance of this unit to Acts 3:1-4:23, about Peter. This is actually a standard historical idea of ancient writers, who believed in repetition patterns. Luke who patterned his writing after the classical historians, thus follows common practice in molding his language so that the healings of Peter and Paul read even more similar. (Witherington)

Acts 14:9
sothenai- “to be healed” usually used in a bodily sense, but having a moral and spiritual hint to it as well. Like salvation and healthy, healed is a word commonly used about the work of the Asklepios cult, the healing god of the Greek and Romans.(Bruce)

Faith-Interestingly, in the Gospels “faith” is often exercised by someone interested in the wellbeing of a sick person, not the sick person themselves. (Bruce)

Acts 14:11
crowds, people- Not the Roman colonists, but the natives, who spoke Lycaonian. Thus Barnabas and Paul’s initial ignorance of what was going on.

Acts 14:12
The local Zeus, Zeus Ampelites, was evidently portrayed as an elderly bearded man, while Hermes was portrayed as a younger man. This has interesting application to Barnabas and Paul, suggesting Barnabas was the elder statesman who endorsed, even mentored? a younger Paul. Stereotypically one envisions Barnabas’ advice to Paul as constant variations on “calm down”. ON the other hand, it may simply be due to Paul’s being the chief preacher and speaker, as Hermes was the messenger of the gods.

The Lycaonians may have actually called Zeus and Hermes, Pappas and Men.(Witherington)

Acts 14:13
It was a common thing to have whole colleges of priests attached to temples, especially in Asia Minor.

Pro “before” the city can perhaps mean Zeus was the guardian deity of Lystra.

Garlands are likely woolen wreaths to be put on oxen before sacrifice.

“The gates” is ambiguous. Does it mean gates of city, gates of the temple, or the gates of the house where Paul and Barnabas were staying? In short, how far did the apostles have to run?(Bruce)

Acts 14:14
Barnabas and Paul- unusual order of names. Usually it is Paul and Barnabas. When Paul was called Saul, then it was Barnabas and Saul. A common explanation is the Barnabas= Zeus, Paul= Hermes relationship.

Saul, by the way, becomes Paul, in Acts 13:9, presumably because he started moving among Greek-speakers more and used his Roman name, Paulos.

Tearing clothes- traditional Jewish ritual reaction to blasphemy and emotional distress. Readily understandable even to non-Jews. (Bruce)

Acts 14:15-17
First of Paul’s speeches to complete pagans. As the later ones, emphasizes the “living God”, the Creator of the universe.

Acts 14:18
Was Paul’s speech interrupted, or the rest not recorded? Seemingly Paul made no mass conversions with this speech, unlike previous examples in Acts. On the other hand, subsequent verses show Paul and Barnabas were not unsuccessful in Lystra.

Acts 14:19
Jews from Antioch and Iconium- Paul apparently made bitter enemies. It is some 100 miles from Pisidian Antioch to Lystra. Nevertheless, the presence of a statue of Concord in Pisidian Antioch, put there by the city of Lystra, hints at a close relationship between the cities, perhaps a sister city status., and certainly a strong social interaction between the cities. That broad paved Sebaste Road between them certainly helped communication as well.(Bruce, Witherington)

stoned: This is the same incident mentioned in 2 Cor 11:25 and 2 Tim 3:11

Acts 14:20
disciples: plainly Paul and Barnabas had sowed a harvest of souls in Lystra.

he got up: This relates to 14:19’s “thinking he was dead”. Was Paul actually dead and miraculously revived, perhaps by the prayer of the disciples, or simply seriously injured but still mobile? Or is the a record of the new converts forming a circle to protect Paul, thus publicly confessing their faith? It seems likely in whatever case, that the disciples’ presence ran the attackers off, after which Paul was able to get up.

went into the town: Sounds brave, but logically, where else could he go? And if as seems likely, he was injured, quick medical attention was nearest to hand at Lystra.

Derbe: eastern limit of this journey, some 60 miles SW of Lystra. And the road was an unpaved one, despite Derbe’s reputation as a cult center and wild city.

Acts 14:21
Now Paul and Barnabas retrace their route back to Syrian Antioch. There is definitely courage in returning to all these cities they were driven out of, but also logic, since the best road was that way as well.

Acts 14:22
strengthening and encouraging: The real reason Barnabas and Paul returned by the same route. They had a pastoral, brotherly concern to see the new Christians continue in their faith, knowing that these folk likely became objects of attack after Paul and Barnabas left.

The apostles’ message to the converts has been further condensed down into the brief, “No cross, no crown”.
See Phil 1:2-30, 1 Th 3:3, 2 Th 1:5, Rom 8:7, 2 Tim 2:11

It may also relate to the Jewish notion that believers would suffer messianic woes before the messiah appeared and made things right.(Witherington)

Acts 14:23
cheirotoneo- “stretch out hands”. Though this word seems to point to laying on of hands, as in apostolic succession, or election of leaders by members, this most common meaning in NT times is “appoint by authority”.

Presbuteroi- “elders”, not the common Pauline term for church leaders. He uses episkopoi, “overseers”. Perhaps Luke’s term. Witherington hints frequently that Luke may be the author of the Pastoral Epistles in some fashion, and this is one clue he mentions. (Witherington)

Vacation Movie Roundup

Wanted: Probably the most viscerally entertaining movie out right now. Completely unrealistic and completely gripping action sequences. It is also perhaps the most morally repugnant film I’ve seen lately. Self-help and actualization through assassination. Urghh. The movie starts with the hero bemoaning, “My life is @#$! It ends basically with “My life is @#$!, but now I’m in doing something about it”. Language, violence, and a little sex trying to make mature a pretty juvenile “wouldn’t it be cool if” story.

Hancock: Interesting take on the old “If superheroes were real…sorta.” Decent message though. Hancock discovers he’s a hero not through his superpowers, but through his weaknesses and his sacrifices. It’s hard to speak of this one without giving away spoilers.

Get Smart: Pretty much aimed at younger audiences, but with numerous winks and nods to the original tv series. Maxwell Smart is no longer a complete screw-up, but a geek, like the geek in all of us. Agent 99 now is a screw-up, an emotional one. The good guys are win because they’re nice, the bad guys lose because they’re mean. The kids sitting in front of me enjoyed it more than I did. Might make a decent date movie.

Hellboy II: The Golden Army- You have to just take this on its own. Guillermo Del Toro unrepentantly dives in the world of Hellboy again, this time with even less reference to the real world than before. More than almost any comic book adaptation, this film just puts the comic there up on the screen for you to accept or reject. Too many plates spinning to be completely successful, it handles many moments quite well, but still feels a bit of a patchwork fan film.