《Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary Acts》(Henry Alford) Commentator

8.] παρʼ οὗ, if the disputed words be inserted, refers naturally enough to Lysias; but if they be omitted, to Paul, which would be very unlikely,—that the judge should be referred to the prisoner (for examination by torture (Grot. and al.) on one who had already claimed his rights as a Roman citizen can hardly be intended) for the particulars laid to his charge. Certainly it might, on the other hand, be said that Tertullus would hardly refer the governor to Lysias, whose interference he had just characterized in such terms of blame; but (which is a strong argument for the genuineness of the doubtful words) remarkably enough, we find Felix, Acts 24:22, putting off the trial till the arrival of Lysias.

Verse 9

9. συνεπέθ.] joined in setting upon him, bore out Tertullus in his charges.

Verse 10

10. ἐκ πολλῶν ἐτῶν] Felix was now in the seventh year of his procuratorship, which began in the twelfth year of Claudius, A.D. 52.

The contrast between Tertullus’s and Paul’s ‘captatio benevolentiæ’ is remarkable. The former I have characterized above. But the Apostle, using no flattery, yet alleges the one point which could really win attention to him from Felix, viz. his confidence arising from speaking before one well skilled by experience in the manners and customs of the Jews.

Verse 11

11. ἡμέραι δώδεκα] The point of this seems to be, that Felix having been so long time a judge among the Jews, must be well able to search into and adjudicate on an offence whose whole course was comprised within so short a period.

The twelve days may be thus made out: 1. his arrival in Jerusalem, ch. Acts 21:15 to Act_17:2. his interview with James, ib. Acts 21:18 ff. 3. his taking on him the vow, ib. 26; 3–7. the time of the vow, interrupted by—7. his apprehension, ch. Acts 21:27; Acts 8. his appearance before the Sanhedrim, ch. Acts 22:30 ff; Acts 9. his departure from Jerusalem (at night); and so to the 13th, the day now current, which was the 5th inclusive from his leaving Jerusalem. This, which is also De Wette and Meyer’s arrangement, is far more natural than that of Kuin., Olsh., Heinr., &c., who suppose that the days which he had already spent at Cæsarea are not to be counted, because his raising disturbances while in custody was out of the question. The view advocated by Wieseler (Chron. der Apost.-gesch. pp. 103 ff.), that Paul was apprehended on the very day of his appearance with the men in the temple, I cannot but regard, notwithstanding his arguments in its favour, as inconsistent with the text of ch. Acts 21:26-27; as also his idea that the Apostle did not take the vow on himself: the expression σὺν αὐτοῖς ἁγνισθείς clearly negativing the latter supposition; and τῶν ἡμερῶν τοῦ ἁγνισμοῦ, Acts 24:26, being manifestly, unless to one warped by a hypothesis, identical with αἱ ἑπτὰ ἡμέραι of Acts 24:27. See note there. I mention this here, because these suppositions materially affect his arrangement of the twelve days, which he gives thus: 2nd, from Cæsarea to Jerusalem; 3rd, interview with James 4 th, (Pentecost) visit to the temple with the Nazarites, and apprehension; 5th, before the Sanhedrim; 6th, departure from Jerusalem; 7th, arrival in Cæsarea; then, five days from that (but see note on Acts 24:1), Ananias, &c., leave Jerusalem (but how does this appear from Acts 24:1? κατέβη must surely denote their arrival at Cæsarea, where the narrator, or, at all events, the locus of the history is); 13th, arrival of Ananias, &c., at Cæsarea, and hearing (improbable) of Paul. So that the above hypotheses are not the only reasons for rejecting Wieseler’s arrangement.

Verse 12

12. κατὰ τὴν πόλ.] throughout the city, ‘any where in the city;’ as we say, ‘up and down the streets.’

Verse 14

14.] The δέ here has its peculiar force, of taking off the attention from what has immediately preceded, and raising a new point as more worthy of notice. But (‘if thou wouldst truly know the reason why they accuse me’), ‘hinc illæ lacrymæ.’

αἵρεσιν, in allusion to αἱρέσεως used by Tertullus, Acts 24:5. The word is capable of an indifferent or of a had sense. Tertullus had used it in the latter. Paul explains what it really was.

οὕτως = κατὰ ταύτην. Notice in the words πατρώῳ θεῷ the skill of Paul. The term was one well known to the Greeks and Romans, and which would carry with it its own justification. “Invisum quippe erat gentibus, nominatim etiam Romanis, si quis se peregrinis aut diis aut deorum cultibus addiceret; præterea Judæis per multa imperatorum et magistratuum decreta et senatus consulta sancita erat potestas, Deum patrium colendi, patriis ritibus et sacris utendi. Jos. Antt. xiv. 17; xvi. 4” (Kuinoel). In his address to the Jews (ch. Acts 22:14) the similar expression ὁ θ. τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν, brings out more clearly those πατέρες, in whom Felix had no interest further than the identification of Paul’s religion with that of his ancestors required.

κατὰ τ. ν.] See on κατ. τ. πόλιν, above. Then (if the words in brackets be omitted: and it is not easy to imagine that St. Luke wrote them) the dat. is used of the personal agents, the prophets. He avoids saying ‘by Moses,’ because the mention of the law would carry more weight.

Verse 15

15. αὐτοὶ οὗτοι] It would appear from this, that the High Priest and the deputation were not of the Sadducees. But perhaps this inference is too hasty; Paul might regard them as representing the whole Jewish people, and speak generally, as he does of the same hope ch. Acts 26:7, where he assigns it to τὸ δωδεκάφυλον ἡμῶν.

νεκρῶν, inserted here in some MSS. to fill up the meaning, is not likely to have been spoken by the Apostle. The juxtaposition of those words, which excited mockery even when the Gospel was being directly preached, would hardly have been hazarded in this defence, where every expression is so carefully weighed.

Verse 16

16. ἐν τούτῳ] Accordingly, i.e. ‘having and cherishing this hope;’ see reff.

καί] also, ‘as well as they.’

Verse 17

17.] δέ refers back to the former δέ, Acts 24:14. ‘But the matter of which they complain is this, that after an absence of many years,’ &c.

See 1 Corinthians 16:3-4; 2 Corinthians 8, 9. notes, ch. Acts 20:4.

Verse 18

18.] De W. observes, that ἡγνισμ. can only refer to προσφ., not to ἐλεημ.: thus αἷς may have been altered to οἷς, to give a general neuter sense, amidst which occupations: and the sense will be among or engaged in which offerings: it being in the temple. But this seems far-fetched and unlikely, and Meyer’s supposition, that οἷς has been altered to αἷς to suit προσφοράς, certainly has an air of probability. The use of a verb referring to two substantives, to only one of which it is applicable, is too common to require illustration. But, as so often in this book, we must follow the best MSS., our only fixed evidence, as against any questionable subjective considerations.

The construction is irregular. A subject to εὗρον has to be supplied by a reference to some nominative case implied in οὐ μετὰ ὄχ. οὐδ. μ. θορ., thus: amidst which they found me purified in the temple, none who detected me in the act of raising a tumult … but certain Asiatic Jews.… This would leave it to be inferred that no legal officers had apprehended him, but certain private individuals, illegally; who besides had not come forward to substantiate any charge against him. Bornemann would supply οὐχ οὗτοι μέν before τινες δέ; but the objection to this is, that the negative οὐ μετὰ ὄχ … stands already as the proper opponent clause to τινες δέ, and we should thus have two negative clauses together.

On this sense of δέ, see Viger, ed. Hermann, p. 16, note 24; and Hermann’s note, p. 702. 19. The latter remarks, “intelligitur in hac formula, quam malum, stultum est, vel simile quid.”

Verse 19

19.] ἔχοιεν, not ἔχουσιν, implying the subjective possibility merely, and disclaiming all knowledge of what the charge might be. The sentence is an anacoluthon: δεῖ is absolutely asserted in the present: then ἔχοιεν in the opt. follows, as if the hypothetical ἔδει had been used: and hence the correction to ἔδει. (So I wrote in former editions, and so I still believe: but the text must follow the evidence of the great MSS. [1870.]) On the opt. after the hypothetical indicative, see Bern-hardy, Syntax, p. 386 ff.

This also is a skilful argument on the part of the Apostle:—it being the custom of the Romans not to judge a prisoner without the accusers face to face, he deposes that his real accusers were the Asiatic Jews who first raised the cry against him in the temple,—not the Sanhedrim, who merely received him at the hands of others,—and that these were not present.

Verse 20

20.] Or let these persons themselves say, what fault they found in me while I stood before the Sanhedrim, other than in the matter of this one saying … τί serves for τί ἄλλο. So in English: What fault but this: i.e. ‘What other fault but this.’

Verse 21

21.] ἐφʼ ὑμ., before you: less usual than ὑφʼ ὑμ., which is probably a correction.

Verse 22

22. ἀνεβάλετο αὐτ.] ‘ampliavit eos:’ viz. both parties.

ἀκρ. εἰδὼς τὰ π. τ. ὁδ.] These words will bear only one philologically correct interpretation, having more accurate knowledge about the way: not, ‘till he should obtain more accurate knowledge’ (ungrammatical): nor, ‘since he had now obtained’ (viz. by Paul’s speech: but εἰδώς cannot be rendered ‘certior factus’). But this, the only right rendering, is variously understood. Chrys. says: ἐπίτηδες ὑπερέθετο (he adjourned the case purposely), οὐ δεόμενος μαθεῖν, ἀλλὰ διακρούσασθαι βουλόμενος τοὺς ἰουδαίους. ἀφεῖναι οὐκ ἤθελε διʼ ἐκείνους. Luther and Wolf: “distulit, … non quod sectæ ignarus esset, aut pleniorem sibi notitiam ejus comparare vellet, sed quia, cum satis illam jam cognitam haberet, Judæos amplius sibi molestos esse nolebat.” But these interpretations, as De W. observes, overlook the circumstance, that such a reason for adjournment would be as unfavourable to Paul, as to the Jews. Meyer explains it, that he adjourned the case, ‘because,’ &c. But this (De W.) would imply that he was favourably disposed to Paul. The simplest explanation is that given by De W.: He put them off to another time, not as requiring any more information about ‘the way,’ for that matter he knew before,—but waiting for the arrival of Lysias. Whether Lysias was expected, or summoned, or ever came to be heard, is very doubtful. The real motive of the ‘ampliatio’ appears in Acts 24:26. The comparative implies, “more accurate than to need additional information.”

διαγν. τὰ καθʼ ὑμ.] I will adjudge your matters. So in reff. also.

Verse 23

23.] διαταξάμενος is in apposition with εἴπας, and both belong to ἀνεβάλετο.

ἄνεσιν] De W. and Meyer explain this of ‘custodia libera,’ φυλακὴ ἄδεσμος (Arrian, Exp. ii. 15). But this can hardly be. Lipsius (Excurs. II. on Tacit. Ann. iii. 22; vi. 3, cited by Wieseler, Chron. d. Apost.-g. p. 380) says, ‘Præter custodiam militarem alia duplex, apud magistratus, et apud vades. Apud magistratus, quum reus Consuli, Prætori, Ædili, interdum et Senatori, etiam non e magistratu, committebatur: quod nonnisi in reis illustrioribus usurpatum, eaque custodia libera dicta: vid. Tacit. Ann. vi. 3; Sall. Cat. xlvii.; Liv. vi. 36; Cic. Brut. xcvi.; Dio lviii. 3. Custodia apud vades, quum eorum periculo fidejussoribus reus tradebatur: vid. Tacit. Ann. Acts 24:8; Suet. Vitell. 2.’ Now, Wieseler argues, as Paul was not bailed,—and was not ‘e reis illustrioribus,’ and besides was delivered to a centurion to keep, his cannot have been ‘custodia libera,’ but ‘militaris:’ relaxed however as much as was consistent with safe custody. He cites Josephus, who says (Antt. xviii. 6. 10) of the custody of Agrippa, φυλακὴ μὲν γὰρ καὶ τήρησις ἦν, μετὰ μέντοι ἀνέσεως τῆν εἰς τὴν δίαιταν. Remission, or relaxation, would be a better rendering than ‘liberty.’

Verse 24

24. παραγεν.] Into the hall or chamber where Paul was to speak.

δρουσίλλῃ] She was daughter of Herod Agrippa I. (see ch. 12) and of Cypros,—and sister of Agrippa II. She was betrothed at six years old (Jos. Antt. xix. 9. 1) to Epiphanes, son of Antiochus, king of Commagene; but (Antt. xx. 7. 1) he declining the marriage, not wishing to be circumcised and become a Jew, she was married to the more obsequious Azizus, king of Emesa. Not long after, Felix, being enamoured of her beauty, persuaded her, by means of a certain Simon, a Cyprian magician (see note on ch. Acts 8:9), to leave her husband and live with him (Antt. xx. 7. 2). She bore him a son, Agrippa: and both mother and son perished in an eruption of Vesuvius, in the reign of Titus (ibid.).

The Drusilla mentioned by Tacitus (Hist. Acts 24:9), a granddaughter of Antony and Cleopatra, must have been another wife of Felix, who was thrice married, and each time to persons of royal birth; ‘trium reginarum maritus,’ Suet. Claud. 28.

Verse 25

25.] It is remarkable that Tacitus uses of Felix (Ann. xii. 54) the expression ‘cuncta malefacta sibi impune ratus.’ The fear of Felix appears to have operated merely in his sending away Paul: no impression for good was made on him.

Verse 26

26.] ‘Lex Julia de repetundis præcipit, ne quis ob hominem in vincula publica conjiciendum, vinciendum, vincirive jubendum, exve vinculis dimittendum; neve quis ob hominem condemnandum absolvendumve … aliquid acceperit.’ Digest. xl. 11. 3. Cited by Mr. Humphry, who observes: Albinus, who succeeded Festus, so much encouraged this kind of bribery, that no malefactors remained in prison, except those who did not offer money for their liberation (Jos. B. J. ii. 14. 1). St. Paul did not resort to this mode of shortening his tedious and unjust imprisonment, and Tertullian (‘de Fuga in Persecutione,’ 12, p. 116) quotes his conduct in this respect against those who were disposed to purchase escape from persecution: a practice which prevailed and became a great evil in the time of Cyprian. See his Epistles, iii. and lxviii., denouncing the Libellatici.

Verse 27

27. διετίας] viz. of Paul’s imprisonment.

πόρκιον φῆστον] Festus appears to have succeeded Felix in the summer or autumn of the year 60 A.D.: but the question is one of much chronological difficulty. It is fully discussed in Wieseler, Chron. d. Apost.-g. pp. 91–99. He found the province (Jos. Antt. xx. 8. 10) wasted and harassed by bands of robbers and sicarii, and the people the prey of false prophets. He died, after being procurator a very short time,—from one to two years. Josephus (B. J. ii. 14. 1) contrasts him, as a putter down of robbers, favourably with his successor Albinus.

On the deposition, &c., of Felix, see note, ch. Acts 23:24.

χάριτα καταθέσθαι] See reff. ‘Est locutio bene Græca, Demostheni quoque usitata et Xenophonti: quales locutiones non paucas habet Lucas, ubi non alios inducit loqueutes, sed ipse loquitur, et quidem de rebus ad religionem non pertinentibus.’ Grot. The reading χάριτα, brought into the text by the evidence of the best MSS., has apparently been a correction to suit the context, only one such act being spoken of. The plural would describe the wish of Felix to confer obligations on the Jews, who were sending to complain of him at Rome,—and so win their favour.

δεδεμένον] There was no change in the method of custody, see note on Acts 24:23. He left him in the ‘custodia militaris’ in which he was.
25 Chapter 25
Verse 1

Acts 25:1.] The term ἐπαρχία is properly used of a province, whether imperial or senatorial (see note on ch. Acts 13:7),—but is here loosely applied to Judæa, which was only a procuratorship, attached to the province of Syria. So also Josephus calls Festus ἔπαρχος, Antt. xx. 8. 11; as also Albinus, ib. 9. 1.

Verse 2

2. οἱ ἀρχ.] It has been imagined, that ὁ ἀρχ. of the rec. has been a correction to suit the former part of the narrative. But it may be that οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς has been substituted for it, to suit the assertion of Festus, Acts 25:15. So Meyer and De Wette. The High Priest now was Ishmael the son of Phabi, Jos. Antt. xx. 8. 11 [see chronological table in Prolegg.].

πρῶτοι is more general than πρεσβύτεροι, though most of the first men must have been members of the Sanhedrim. Festus, relating this application, Acts 25:15, calls them πρεσβύτεροι.

Verse 3

3.] χάριν = καταδίκην, Acts 25:15.

ποιοῦντες, not for ποιήσοντες: they were making, contriving, the ambush already. The country was at this time, as may be seen abundantly in Jos. Antt. xx., full of sicarii; who were hired by the various parties to take off their adversaries.

Verse 5

5. οἱ δυνατοί] not, as in E. V., those among you that are able (to go down?): but, the powerful among you: those who from their position and influence are best calculated to represent the public interests. See Meyer and Wordsworth.

Verse 6

6.] The number of days is variously read: which has probably arisen from the later MSS., which have η for the ὀκτώ of the more ancient ones: thus η has been omitted on account of the η following. It is possible, as Meyer also observes, that a perverted notion of the necessity of an absolute precision in details in the inspired text, may have occasioned the erasure of one of the numbers.

Verse 7

7. περιέστησαν] Without the αὐτόν, as in rec., this might mean round the βῆμα, or round Festus: and perhaps the insertion has been made to clear this up.

καταφέροντες, bringing against him: see var. readd. and ref.

Verse 8

8.] These were the three principal charges to which the πολ. κ. βαρ. αἰτ. of the Jews referred (Meyer).

Verse 9

9.] κριθῆναι, the aor., refers to the one act, of deciding finally concerning these charges. This not having been seen, the later MSS. have substituted κρίνεσθαι, which is more ‘going to law,’ ‘being involved in a trial.’

The question is asked of Paul as a Roman citizen, having a right to be tried by Roman law: and more is contained in it, than at first meets the eye. It seems to propose only a change of place; but doubtless in the ἐκεῖ κριθῆναι was contained by implication a sentence pronounced by the Sanhedrim. ἐπʼ ἐμοῦ may mean no more than ἐπὶ σοῦ, ch. Acts 26:2, viz., that the procurator would be present and sanction the trial: so Grot., “visne a synedrio judicari me præsente?” Otherwise, a journey to Jerusalem would be superfluous. Festus may very probably have anticipated the rejection of this proposal by Paul, and have wished to make it appear that the obstacle in the way of Paul being tried by the Sanhedrim arose not from him, but from the prisoner himself.

Verse 10

10.] Paul’s refusal has a positive and a negative ground—1. ‘Cœsar’s tribunal is my proper place of judgment: 2. To the Jews I have done no harm, and they have therefore no claim to judge me’ (De W.).

ἐπ. τ. β. καίς.] Meyer quotes from Ulpian, “Quæ acta gestaque sunt a procuratore Cæsaris sic ab eo comprobantur, atque si a Cæsare ipso gesta sint.” In οὗ με δεῖ κρίνεσθαι, Wordsworth has again fallen into the mistake of supposing με (and again in Acts 25:11) to be emphatic (see note, Matthew 16:18), which it cannot possibly be under any circumstances. The form of the sentence which would express the sense built by him on this error, would be, οὗ δεῖ ἐμὲ κριθῆναι, or οὗ ἐμὲ δεῖ κριθῆναι. But the sense, when thus given, surely is wholly alien from the person speaking and from the situation: as is also the understanding δεῖ as alluding to divine intimation made to him. The δεῖ is simply of his right as a Roman citizen: the με simply enclitic, and of no rhetorical force at all.

κάλλιον] Not ‘for the superlative,’ here or any where else:—the comparative is elliptical, requiring ‘than …’ to be supplied by the hearer: so also in reff. Here, the ellipsis would be readily supplied from Festus’s own speech, which appeared to assume that there was some ground of trial before the Sanhedrim. κάλλιον will therefore mean, better than thou choosest to confess. We have an ellipsis of the same kind in our phrase ‘to know better.’ Or it may be in this case as in 2 Timothy 1:18, ‘better, than that I need say more on it:’ but I prefer the other interpretation.

Verse 11

11.] Both readings, εἰ μὲν γάρ, and εἰ μὲν οὖν, will suit the sense. In the former case, it is, ‘For if I am an offender, …:’ in the latter, If, now, I am an offender …,—taking up the supposition generally, after having denied the particular case of his having offended the Jews. Meyer and De Wette are at issue about the internal probability of these readings: I am disposed to agree with Meyer that a difficulty was felt in the οὖν (no expression is more frequently misunderstood and altered than μὲν οὖν) and it was corrected into γάρ. This εἰ assumes the conviction after proof; as the following εἰ does the acquittal.

οὐ. με δύν.] Said of legal possibility: ‘non fas est aliquem.…’ The dilemma here put by Paul is, “If I am guilty, it is not by them, but by Cœsar, that I must be (and am willing to be) tried, sentenced, and punished. If I am innocent, and Cœsar acquits me, then clearly none will be empowered to give me up to them: therefore, at all events, guilty or innocent, I am not to be made their victim.”

καίς. ἐπικαλ.] I call upon, i.e. appeal to (provoco ad) Cæsar. This power (of ‘provocatio ad populum’) having existed in very early times (e.g. the case of Horatius, Livy i. 26), was ensured to Roman citizens by the Lex Valeria (see Livy ii. 8, U.C. 245), suspended by the Decemviri, but solemnly re-established after their deposition (Liv. iii. 55, U.C. 305), when it was decreed that it should be unlawful to make any magistrate from whom there did not lie an appeal. When the emperors absorbed the power of the populus and the tribunitial veto in themselves, the ‘provocatio ad populum’ and ‘appellatio ad tribunos’ were both made to the princeps. See Smith’s Dict. of Antt. art. Appellatio. In Pliny’s celebrated Epistle respecting the Bithynian Christians (x. 97), we read, “Fuerunt alii similis amentiæ: quos, quia cives Romani erant, adnotavi in urbem remittendos.”

Verse 12

12. συμβουλίου] The ‘conventus,’ or σύνοδος of citizens in the provinces, assembled to try causes on the ἀγοραῖοι ( ἡμέραι), see ch. Acts 19:38. A certain number of these were chosen as judices, for the particular causes, by the proconsul, and these were called his ‘consiliarii’ (Suet. Tib. 33), or ‘assessores’ ( πάρεδροι, Suet. Galba 19). So in Jos. (B. J. ii. 16. 1), Cestius, on receiving an application from Jerusalem respecting the conduct of Florus, μετὰ ἡγεμόνων ἐβουλεύετο, i.e. with his assessors, or συμβούλιον. He consulted them to decide whether the appeal was to be conceded, or if conceded, to be at once acted on. (Mr. Lewin cites from the Digests, xlix. 5. 7: ‘Si res dilationem non recipiat, non permittitur appellare.’)

The sense is stronger and better without a question at ἐπικέκλησαι. Thus were the two—the design of Paul (ch. Acts 19:21), and the promise of our Lord to him (ch. Acts 23:11)—brought to their fulfilment, by a combination of providential circumstances. We can hardly say, with De W. and Meyer, that these must have influenced Paul in making his appeal; that step is naturally accounted for, and was rendered necessary by the difficulties which now beset him; but we may be sure that the prospect at length, after his long and tedious imprisonment, of seeing Rome, must at this time have cheered him, and caused him to hear the ἐπὶ καίσαρα πορεύσῃ of Festus with no small emotion.

Verse 13