聖書注解書

CHAPTER 13

Acts 13:1. ἦσαν δέ] So Lachm. Tisch. Born. But Elz. and Scholz add τινές, against A B D א, min. vss. Vig. A hasty addition, from the supposition that all the teachers and prophets of the church of Antioch could not be named.

Acts 13:4. οὗτοι] Lachm. Tisch. read αὐτοί, after A B א, min. Vulg. Syr. utr. Ambr. Vig.; Born. has οἱ only, after D, Ath. As the reading of C is not clear, the preponderance of witnesses, which alone can here decide, remains in favour of the reading of Lachm.

Acts 13:6. ὅλην] is wanting in Elz., but is supported by decisive testimony. How easily would transcribers, to whom the situation of Paphos was not precisely known, find a contradiction in ὅλην and ἄχρι Πάφου!

ἄνδρα τινά] So Lachm. Tisch. Born., after A B C D א, min. Chrys. Theophyl. Lucif. and several vss. After τινά, E, 36, Vulg. Sahid. Slav. Lucif. have ἄνδρα. But Elz. and Scholz omit ἄνδρα, which, however, is decisively attested by those witnesses, and was easily passed over as quite superfluous.

Acts 13:9. The usual καί before ἀτενίσας is deleted, according to decisive evidence, by Lachm. Tisch. Born.

Acts 13:14. τῆς Πισιδίας] Lachm. and Tisch. read τὴν Πισιδίαν, after A B C א. But it lacks any attestation from the vss. and Fathers. Therefore it is the more to be regarded as an old alteration (it was taken as an adjective like Πισιδικός).

Acts 13:15. After εἰ Lachm. Born. Tisch. have τις, which has preponderant attestation, and from its apparent superfluousness, as well as from its position between two words beginning with E, might very easily be omitted.

Acts 13:17. After τούτου Lachm. reads, with Elz., Ἰσραήλ, which also Born. has defended, following A B C D א, vss. Its being self-evident gave occasion to its being passed over, as was in other witnesses τούτου, and in others λαοῦ τούτου.

Acts 13:18. ἐτροφοφ.] So (after Mill, Grabe, and others) Griesb. Matthaei, Lachm. Scholz, Tisch., following A C* E, min. vss. But Elz. Tisch. and Born. have ἐτροποφ. (mores eorum sustinuit, Vulg.). An old insertion of the word which came more readily to hand in writing, and was also regarded as more appropriate. See the exegetical remarks.

Acts 13:19. κατεκληρονόμησεν] Elz. reads κατεκληροδότησεν, against decisive witnesses. An interpretation on account of the active sense.

Acts 13:20. καὶ μετά … ἔδωκε] Lachm. reads ὡς ἔτεσι τετρακοσίοις καὶ πεντήκοντα, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἔδωκεν, which Griesb. has recommended and Born. adopted, after A B C א, min. Vulg. An alteration, in order to remove somehow the chronological difficulty.

Acts 13:23. ἤγαγε] Elz. and Born. read ἤγειρε, in opposition to A B E G H א, min. and several vss. and Fathers. An interpretation, in accordance with Acts 13:22.

Acts 13:27. ἀπεστάλη] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read ἐξαπεστάλη, which is so decidedly attested by A B C D א, min. Chrys. that the Recepta can only be regarded as having arisen from neglect of the double compound.

Acts 13:31. νῦν] is wanting in Elz., but is, according to important attestation, to be recognised as genuine, and was omitted because those who are mentioned were already long ago witnesses of Jesus. Hence others have ἄχρι νῦν (D, Syr. p. Vulg. Cant.; so Born.); and others still, καὶ νῦν (Arm.).

Acts 13:32. αὐτῶν ἡμῖν] Sahid. Ar. Ambr. ms. Bed. gr. have only αὐτῶν. A B C* D א, Aeth. Vulg. Hil. Ambr. Bed. have only ἡμῶν (so Lachm. and Born., who, however, conjectures ἡμῖν[1]), for which Tol. read ὑμῶν. Sheer alterations from want of acquaintance with such juxtaposition of the genitive and dative.

Acts 13:33. τῷ πρώτῳ] Elz. and Scholz read τῷ δευτέρῳ (after ψαλμῷ). But τῷ πρώτῳ, which (following Erasm. and Mill) Griesb. Lachm. (who places it after γέγραπται, where A B C א, loti. 40 have their τῷ δευτέρῳ) Tisch. Born, have adopted, is, in accordance with D, Or. and several other Fathers, to be considered as the original, which was supplanted by τῷ δευτέρῳ according to the usual numbering of the Psalms. The bare ψαλμῷ, which Hesych. presb. and some more recent codd. have, without any numeral, is, although defended by Bengel and others, to be considered as another mode of obviating the difficulty erroneously assumed.

Acts 13:41. ὅ] Elz. reads ᾧ, which, as the LXX. at Habakkuk 1:5 has ὅ, would have to be preferred, were not the quite decisive external attestation in favour of ὅ.

The second ἔργον is wanting in D E G, min. Chrys. Cosm. Theophyl. Oec. and several vss.; but it was easily omitted, as it was regarded as unnecessary and was not found in the LXX. l.c.

Acts 13:42. ΑὐΤῶΝ] Elz. reads ἘΚ Τῆς ΣΥΝΑΓΩΓῆς ΤῶΝ ἸΟΥΔΑΊΩΝ. Other variations are ΑὐΤῶΝ ἘΚ Τ. ΣΥΝΑΓ. Τ. ἸΟΥΔ. or ΤῶΝ ἈΠΟΣΤΌΛΩΝ ἘΚ Τ. ΣΥΝΑΓ. Τ. ἸΟΥΔ. Sheer interpolations, because Acts 13:42 begins a church-lesson. The simple ΑὐΤῶΝ has decisive attestation.

After ΠΑΡΕΚΆΛΟΥΝ Elz. has ΤᾺ ἜΘΝΗ, which, although retained by Matthaei, is spurious, according to just as decisive testimony. It was inserted, because it was considered that the request contained here must not, according to Acts 13:45, be ascribed to the Jews, but rather to the Gentiles, according to Acts 13:48.

Acts 13:43. After ΠΡΟΣΛΑΛ. A B (?) C D א, vss. Chrys. have ΑὐΤΟῖς (so Lachm. and Born.). A familiar addition.

ΠΡΟΣΜΈΝΕΙΝ] Elz. reads ἘΠΙΜΈΝΕΙΝ, against decisive evidence.

Acts 13:44. ἘΧΟΜΈΝῼ] Elz. reads ἘΡΧΟΜΈΝῼ, against A C** E*, min. An alteration, from want of acquaintance with this use of the word, as in Luke 13:33; Acts 20:15; Acts 21:26.

Acts 13:45. ἈΝΤΙΛΈΓΟΝΤΕς ΚΑΊ] is wanting in A B C G א, min. and several vss. (erased by Lachm.). E has ἘΝΑΝΤΙΟΎΜΕΝΟΙ ΚΑΊ. Both are hasty emendations of style.

Acts 13:50. ΤᾺς ΕὐΣΧ.] Elz. reads ΚΑῚ ΤᾺς ΕὐΣΧ., against decisive testimony. ΚΑΊ, if it has not arisen simply from the repetition in writing of the preceding syllable, is a wrongly inserted connective.

[1] Lachmann, Praef. p. ix., conjectured ἐφʼ ἡμῶν: “nostro tempore.”

With chap. 13 commences the second part of the book, which treats chiefly of the missionary labours and fortunes of Paul. First of all, the special choice and consecration of Barnabas and Paul as missionaries, which took place at Antioch, are related (Acts 13:1-3); and then the narrative of their first missionary journey is annexed (Acts 13:4 to Acts 14:28). These two chapters show, by the very fact of their independent commencement entirely detached from the immediately preceding narrative concerning Barnabas and Saul[2] (comp. Schleiermacher, Einl. p. 353 f.), by the detailed nature of their contents, and by the conclusion rounding them off, which covers a considerable interval without further historical data, that they have been derived from a special documentary source, which has, nevertheless, been subjected to revision as regards diction by Luke. See also Bleek in the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 1043. This documentary source, however, is not to be determined more precisely, although it may be conjectured that it originated in the church of Antioch itself, and that the oral communications mentioned at Acts 14:27 as made to that church formed the foundation of it from Acts 13:4 onward. The assumption of a written report made by the two missionaries (Olshausen) obtains no support from the living apostolic mode of working, and is, on account of Acts 14:27, neither necessary nor warranted. Schwanbeck considers the two chapters as a portion of a biography of Barnabas, to which also Acts 4:36 f., Acts 9:1-30, Acts 11:19-30, Acts 12:25 belonged; and Baur (I. p. 104 ff.) refers the entire section to the apologetic purpose and literary freedom of the author.

[2] Lekebusch, p. 108, explains this abrupt isolation as designed; the account emerges solemnly. But to this the simplicity of the following narrative does not correspond.

Acts 13:1. This mention and naming of the prophets and teachers is intended to indicate how rich Antioch was in prominent resources for the sending forth messengers of the gospel, which was now to take place. Thus the mother-church of Gentile Christianity had become the seminary of the mission to the Gentiles. The order of the persons named is, without doubt, such as it stood in the original document: hence Barnabas and Saul are separated; indeed, Barnabas is placed first (the arrangement appears to have been made according to seniority) and Saul last; it was only by his missionary labours now commencing that the latter acquired in point of fact his superiority.

κατὰ τὴν οὖσαν ἐκκλησίαν] with the existing church. ἐκεῖ is not to be supplied. Comp. Romans 13:1. This οὖσαν is retained from the original document; in connection with what has been already narrated, it is superfluous.

κατά, with, according to the conception of (here official) direction. Bernhardy, p. 240; Winer, p. 374 [E. T. 500].

προφῆται κ. διδάσκαλοι] as prophets (see on Acts 11:27) and teachers (who did not speak in the state of apocalyptic inspiration, but communicated instruction in a regular and rational unfolding of doctrine, 1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11).

The five named are not to be regarded only as a part, but as the whole body of the prophets and teachers at Antioch, in keeping with the idea of the selection which the Spirit designed. To what individuals the predicates “prophet” or “teacher” respectively belong, is not, indeed, expressly said; but if, as is probable in itself and in accordance with Acts 4:36, the prophets are mentioned first and then the teachers, the three first named are to be considered as prophets, and the other two as teachers. This division is indicated by the position of the particles: (1) τέ … καί … καί; (2) τέ … καί. Comp. Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 3. 19; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 219 f.

That the prophets of the passage before us, particularly Symeon and Lucius, were included among those mentioned in Acts 11:27, is improbable, inasmuch as Agabus is not here named again. Those prophets, doubtless, soon returned to Jerusalem.

Concerning Simeon with the Roman name Niger (Sueton. Aug. 11, al.), and Lucius of Cyrene (Romans 16:21?), who is not identical with the evangelist Luke, nothing further is known. The same is also the case with Menahem (מְנַחֵם), who had been σύντροφος of the tetrarch Herod, i.e. of Antipas; see Walch, de Menachemo συντρόφῳ Herodis, Jen. 1758. But whether σύντροφος is, with the Vulgate, Cornelius a Lapide, Walch, Heumann, Kuinoel, Olshausen, and others, to be understood as foster-brother (conlactaneus, comp. Xen. Eph. ii. 3), so that Menahem’s mother was Herod’s nurse; or, with Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Raphel, Wolf, Heinrichs, Baumgarten, Ewald, and others, brought up with, contubernalis,—cannot be determined, as either may be expressed by the word (see Wetstein and Kuinoel). The latter meaning, however (comp. 1Ma 1:6; 2Ma 9:29; and see, in general, Jacobs, ad Anthol. XI. p. 38), makes the later Christian position of Menahem the more remarkable, in that he appears to have been brought up at the court of Herod the Great. At all events he was already an old man, and had become a Christian earlier than Saul, who is placed after him.

Acts 13:2. Λειτουργούντων … τῷ Κυρίῳ] λειτουργεῖν, the usual word for the temple-service of the priests (LXX. Exodus 28:31; Numbers 4:38; Exodus 40:38; Jdt 4:14; Hebrews 10:11; comp. on Romans 15:27), is here transferred to the church (αὐτῶν) engaged in Christian worship,[3] in accordance with the holy character of the church, which had the ἉΓΙΌΤΗς, the ΧΡῖΣΜΑ of the Spirit (1 John 2:20), and indeed was a ἹΕΡΆΤΕΥΜΑ ἍΓΙΟΝ (1 Peter 2:5). Hence: while they performed, holy service to the Lord (Christ) and (at the same time) fasted. Any more specific meaning is too narrow, such as, that it is to be understood of prayer (Grotius, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshausen, and many others,—on account of Acts 13:3, but see on that passage) or of preaching (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and others in Wolf). Both without doubt are included, not, however, the mass (as Catholics hold); but certainly the spiritual songs (see on Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16).

εἶπε τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον] the Holy Spirit said (comp. on Acts 20:28), namely, by one or some of these λειτουργοῦντες, probably by one of the prophets, who announced to the church the utterance of the Spirit revealed to him.

δή] with the imperative makes the summons more decided and more urgent; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 104 f. Comp. on Luke 2:15.

μοι] to me, for my service.

ὃ προσκέκλημαι αὐτούς] for which (description of the design) I have called them to me (Acts 16:10), namely, to be my organs, interpreters, instruments in the propagation of the gospel. The utterance of the Spirit consequently refers to an internal call of the Spirit already made to both, and that indeed before the church, “ut hi quoque scirent vocationem illorum eique subscriberent,” Bengel. The preposition is not repeated before ὅ (=εἰς ὅ), because it stands already before ΤῸ ἜΡΓΟΝ, according to general Greek usage. See Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 32; Stallb. ad Phaed. p. 76 D; Winer, p. 393 [E. T. 524 f.].

[3] The reference of αὐτῶν not to the collective ἐκκλησία, but to the prophets and teachers named in ver. 1 (Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, and many others, including Baumgarten, Hoelemann, neue Bibelstud. p. 329; Laurent, neut. Stud. p. 146), is not to be approved on account of ἀφορίσατε and on account of ver. 3. The whole highly important missionary act would, according to this view, be performed only in the circle of five persons, of whom, moreover, two were the missionaries themselves destined by the Spirit, and the church as such would have taken no part at all, not being even represented by its presbyters,—a proceeding which neither agrees with the fellowship of the Spirit in the constitution of the apostolic church, nor corresponds with the analogous concrete cases of the choice of an apostle (chap. 1) and of the deacons (chap. 6). Comp. also Acts 14:27, where the missionaries, on their return, make their report to the church. Moreover, it is evident of itself that the prophets and teachers are included in αὐτῶν.

Acts 13:3. The translation must be: Afterwards, after having fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them (as the consecration communicating the gift of the Spirit for the new and special holy office, comp. on Acts 6:6), they sent them away. For there is here meant a solemnity specially appointed by the church on occasion of that address of the Spirit, different from the preceding (Acts 13:2); and not the termination thereof (Kuinoel and many others: “jejunio et precibus peractis”). This is evident from the words of Luke himself, who describes this act differently (νηστεύσ. κ. προσευξ.) from the preceding (λειτουργ. κ. νηστ.), and by τότε separates it as something later; and also because νηστεύσαντες, in the sense of “when they had finished fasting” does not even give here any conceivable sense.

ἀπέλυσαν] What the Spirit had meant by εἰς ἔργον, ὃ προσκέκλ. αὐτούς, might, when they heard that address, come directly home to their consciousness, especially as they might be acquainted in particular with the destination of Saul at Acts 9:15; or might be explained by the receiver and interpreter of the Spirit’s utterance.

That, moreover, the imposition of hands was not by the whole church, but by its representatives the presbyters,[4] was obvious of itself to the reader.

[4] Not by the prophets and teachers (Otto, Pastoralbr. p. 61; Hoelemann, l.c.); for the subject of vv. 2, 3 is the church, and its representatives are the presbyters, Acts 20:17; Acts 20:28, Acts 11:30, Acts 15:2-23; 1 Timothy 4:14. The church sends the two missionaries to the Gentiles, and consecrates them by its office-bearers (Romans 12:8; 1 Timothy 5:17).

Acts 13:4-5. Αὐτοί (see the critical remarks): such was the course taken with them; they themselves, therefore, ipsi igitur.

ἐκπεμφθ. ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύμ.] for “vocatio prorsus divina erat; tantum manu Dei oblatos amplexa erat ecclesia,” Calvin.

They turned themselves at first to the quarter where they might hope most easily to form connections—it was, in fact, the first attempt of their new ministry—to Cyprus, the native country of Barnabas (Acts 4:36), to which the direct route from Antioch by way of the neighbouring Seleucia (in Syria, also called Pieria, and situated at the mouth of the Orontes), led. Having there embarked, they landed at the city of Salamis, on the eastern coast of the island of Cyprus.

γενομ. ἐν] arrived at. Often so in classical authors since Homer.[5]

Ἰωάννην] See on Acts 12:12.

ὙΠΗΡΈΤΗΝ] as servant, who assisted the official work of the apostles by performing external services, errands, missions, etc., probably also acts of baptism (Acts 10:48; 1 Corinthians 1:14). “Barnabas et Paulus divinitus nominati, atque his liberum fuit alios adsciscere,” Bengel.

As to their practice of preaching in the synagogues, see on Acts 13:14.

[5] See Nägelsbach on the Iliad, p. 295, ed. 3.

Acts 13:6-7. Ὅλην τὴν νῆσον] For Paphos, i.e. New Paphos, the capital and the residence of the proconsul, sixty stadia to the north of the old city celebrated for the worship of Venus, lay quite on the opposite western side of the island. See Forbiger, Geogr. I. p. 469 f.

μάγον] see on Acts 8:9. Whether he was precisely a representative of the cabalistic tendency (Baumgarten), cannot be determined. But perhaps, from the Arabic name Elymas, which he adopted, he was an Arabian Jew. μάγον, although a substantive, is to be connected with ἄνδρα (Acts 3:14).

Βαριησοῦς] i.e. בַּר יֵשׁוּע, filius Jesu (Josuae). The different forms of this name in the Fathers and versions, Barjeu, Barsuma, Barjesuban, Βαριησουσάν, have their origin in the reverence and awe felt for the name of Jesus.

ἀνθυπάτῳ] Cyprus, which Augustus had restored to the senate, was, it is true, at that time a propraetorian province (Dio Cass. liv. 4); but all provincial rulers were, by the command of Augustus, called proconsules, Dio Cass. liii. 13.

συνετῷ] although the contrary might be suspected from his connection with the sorcerer. But his intelligence is attested partly by the fact that he was not satisfied with heathenism, and therefore had at that time the Jewish sorcerer with him in the effort to acquire more satisfactory views; and partly by the fact that he does not feel satisfied even with him, but asks for the publishers of the new doctrine. In general, sorcerers found at that time welcome reception with Gentiles otherwise very intelligent. Lucian. Alex. 30, Wetstein in loc.

τὸν λόγ. τοῦ Θεοῦ] Description of the new doctrine from the standpoint of Luke. See, moreover, on Acts 8:25.

Acts 13:8. Ἐλύμας] The Arabic name (عَليمٌ sapiens, κατ ̓ ἐξοχήν: magus; comp. Hyde, de relig. vet. Pers. p. 372 f.) by which Barjesus chose to be designated, and which he probably adopted with a view to glorify himself as the channel of Arabian wisdom by the corresponding Arabic name.

ὁ μάγος] Interpretation of Ἐλύμας, added in order to call attention to the significance of the name. Comp. Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. lviii.

διαστρέψαι ἀπό] a well-known pregnant construction, which Valckenaer destroys arbitrarily, and in such a way as to weaken the sense, by the conjecture ἀποστρέψαι: to pervert (and turn aside) from the faith. Comp. LXX. Exodus 5:4.

Acts 13:9. Σαῦλος δὲ, ὁ καὶ Παῦλος] sc. λεγόμενος. Schaefer, ad Bos Ell. p. 213.

As Saul (שָׁאוּל, the longed for) is here for the first time and always henceforth (comp. the name Abraham from Genesis 17:5 onwards) mentioned under his Roman name Paul, but before this, equally without exception, only under his Hebrew name, we must assume a set historical purpose in the remark ὁ καὶ Παῦλος introduced at this particular point, according to which the reader is to be reminded of the relation—otherwise presupposed as well known—of this name to the historical connection before us. It is therefore the most probable opinion, because the most exempt from arbitrariness, that the name Paul was given to the apostle as a memorial of the conversion of Sergius Paulus effected by him.[6] “A primo ecclesiae spolio, proconsule Sergio Paulo, victoriae suae trophaea retulit, erexitque vexillum, ut Paulus diceretur e Saulo,” Jerome, in ep. ad Philem.; comp. de vir. ill. 5. The same view is adopted by Valla, Bengel, Olshausen, Baumgarten, Ewald; also by Baur, I. p. 106, ed. 2, according to whom, however, legend alone has wished to connect the change of name somehow adopted by the apostle—which contains a parallel with Peter, Matthew 16:16—with an important act of his apostolic life; comp. Zeller, p. 213. Either the apostle himself now adopted this name, possibly at the request of the proconsul (Ewald), or—which at least excludes entirely the objection often made to this view, that it is at variance with the modesty of the apostle—the Christians, perhaps first of all his companions at the time, so named him in honourable remembrance of that memorable conversion effected on his first missionary journey. Kuinoel, indeed, thinks that the servants of the proconsul may have called the apostle, whose name Saul was unfamiliar (?) to them, Paul; and that he thenceforth was glad to retain this name as a Roman citizen, and on account of his intercourse with the Gentiles. But such a purely Gentile origin of the name is hardly reconcilable with its universal recognition on the part of the Christian body. Since the time of Calvin, Grotius, and others, the opinion has become prevalent, that it was only for the sake of intercourse with those without, as the ambassador of the faith among the Gentiles, that the apostle bore, according to the custom of the time, the Roman name; comp. also Laurent, neut. Stud. p. 147. Certainly it is to be assumed that he for this reason willingly assented to the new name given to him, and willingly left his old name to be forgotten; but the origin of the new name, occurring just here for the first time, is, by this view, not in the least explained from the connection of the narrative before us.

Heinrichs oddly desires to explain this connection by suggesting that on this occasion, when Luke had just mentioned Sergius Paulus, it had occurred to him that Saul also was called Paul. Such an accident is wholly unnatural, as, when Luke wrote, the name Saul was long out of use, and that of Paul was universal. The opinion also of Witsius and Hackspan, following Augustine, is to be rejected: that the apostle in humility, to indicate his spiritual transformation, assigned to himself the name (Paulus = exiguus); as is also that of Schrader, d. Ap. Paul. II. p. 14 (after Drusius and Lightfoot), that he received at his circumcision the double name; comp. also Wieseler, p. 222 f.

πλησθεὶς πνεύμ. ἁγ.] “actu praesente adversus magum acrem,” Bengel. Comp. Acts 4:8; Acts 4:31, Acts 7:55, Acts 13:52.

[6] Lange, apost. Zeitalt. p. 368 (comp. Herzog’s Encykl. XI. p. 243), sees in the name Paul (the little) a contrast to the name Elymas; for he had in the power of humility confronted this master of magic, and had in a N.T. character repeated the victory of David over Goliath. Against this play of the fancy it is decisive, that Elymas is not termed and declared a master of magic, but simply ὁ μάγος.