Комментарии к Библии

Acts 19:1. See critical note for Bezan reading.—Ἀπολλὼ, cf. Acts 21:1; see Blass, Gram., p. 31, and Winer-Schmiedel, p. 95.—τὰ ἀνωτερικὰ μέρη: The main road to Ephesus which passed through Colosse and Laodicea was not apparently taken by Paul, but a shorter though less frequented route running through the Cayster valley. This route leads over higher ground than the other, and St. Paul in taking it would be passing through the higher-lying districts of Asia on his way from Pisidian Antioch to Ephesus. According to Colossians 2:1 the Apostle never visited Colosse and Laodicea, which seems to confirm the view taken above (but see Ramsay, Church in the Roman Empire, p. 94, on Mr. Lewin’s view of Colossians 2:1). The expression τὰ ἀνωτ. μέρη is really a description in brief of the same district, “the region of Galatia and Phrygia,” mentioned in Acts 18:23. If the journey passed through North Galatia, Ramsay contends with great force that the expressions in Acts 18:23 καθεξῆς and πάντας τοὺς μαθητάς would be meaningless, as καθ. would apply not to Churches already known to us, but to Churches never mentioned in the book, and if St. Paul did not visit the South Galatian Churches, how could St. Luke mention “all the disciples”? Zöckler, Apostelgeschichte (second edition), in loco, as a supporter of the North Galatian theory, takes the term as the equivalent of the places referred to in Acts 18:23, but he does not include in these places as far north as Tavium or Ancyra, and a route through Cappadocia is not thought of; so here Pessinus, Amorion, Synnada, Apameia, Philadelphia, and Sardis would be visited by the Apostle, and from Sardis he would go down to Ephesus; the expression τὰ ἀνωτ. μέρη would thus in Zöckler’s view include churches founded on the second missionary journey, but the most northerly are excluded as lying too far away, p. 273; see Ramsay, Church in the Roman Empire, p. 93; “Ephesus,” Hastings’ B.D., and Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, ii., 715; McGiffert, Apostolic Age, p. 275. Blass takes the words to mean districts more remote from the sea; Rendall (so Hackett) explains them as referring to the land route through the interior of Asia Minor by way of distinction to the sea route which Paul had before pursued on his way from Ephesus to Jerusalem. Grimm explains as the parts of Asia Minor more remote from the Mediterranean, farther east, and refers only to Hippocrates and Galen for the use of the adjective, which was evidently a very rare one (see Hobart, p. 148); see also Zöckler on Acts 19:1 and illustrations of Latin expressions similarly used. R.V. renders “the upper country,” lit[328], the upper parts, i.e., inland; A.V., “coasts,” i.e., borders, as in Matthew 2:16, etc., Humphry, Commentary on R. V.—εἰς Ἔφεσον: Ephesus and Athens have aptly been described as two typical cities of heathendom, the latter most Hellenic, the heart and citadel of Greece, the former the home of every Oriental quackery and superstition in combination with its Hellenism; the latter inquisitive, philosophical, courteous, refined, the former fanatical, superstitious, impulsive. And yet Acts portrays to the life the religious and moral atmosphere of the two cities, no less than their local colouring (Lightfoot, “Acts of the Apostles,” B.D.2, p. 36). Under the empire it was a regulation that the Roman governor should land at Ephesus, and from all quarters of the province the system of Roman roads made Ephesus easily accessible. St. Paul with his wonted judgment fixed upon it as a fitting centre for the message and for the spread of the Gospel. Like Corinth, with which close intercourse was maintained, Ephesus is described as one of the great knots in the line of communication between Rome and the East; see further notes in commentary, Ramsay, “Ephesus,” Hastings’ B.D.; “Ephesus,” B.D.2; E. Curtius, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, i., 233 ff.

[328] literal, literally.

Acts 19:2. μαθ.… πιστεύσαντες: Blass points out that both these words are used only of Christians. From St. Chrysostom’s days the men have often been regarded merely as disciples of the Baptist (so McGiffert, p. 286), and Apollos has been named as the person to whom they owed their conversion, whilst amongst recent writers Mr. Wright, u. s., argues that they had been baptised by the Baptist himself. But if we realise the force of the remark made by Blass on the two words, they were men simply in the same position as Apollos, i.e., “ignorabant illi ea quæ post resurrectionem facta erant” (Blass)—their knowledge was imperfect like that of Apollos. There may have been many who would be called μαθηταί in the same immature stage of knowledge. Much difficulty has arisen in insisting upon a personal connection of these men with Apollos, but St. Luke’s words quite admit of the supposition that the twelve men may not have come to Ephesus until after Apollos had left for Corinth, a consideration which might answer the question of Ramsay, p. 270 as to how the Twelve had escaped the notice of Apollos (see Felten, p. 351, note).—εἰ, cf. Acts 1:6.—πιστεύσ.: “when ye became believers,” or “when ye believed,” R.V., in contrast with A.V.—the question was whether they had received the Holy Ghost at their Baptism, and there is no allusion to any subsequent time. The two aorists, as in R.V., point to one definite occasion.—εἰ Π. Ἅ. ἐστιν: “whether the Holy Ghost was given,” R.V. (cf. John 7:39): (the spirit was not yet given), A.V., but in margin, R.V. follows A.V. in the passage before us: ἐστιν, accipitur, Bengel. There could not be any question as to the existence of the Holy Ghost, for the Baptist had pointed to the future Baptism of the Spirit to be conferred by the Messiah, and the O.T. would have taught the existence of a Holy Spirit—the meaning is that they had not heard whether their promised Baptism of the Spirit by the Messiah had been already fulfilled or not. So δοθέν, ἐκχυνόμενον may be understood. Alford holds that the stress should be laid on ἠκούσαμεν—when we received Baptism we did not even hear of a Holy Ghost.

Acts 19:3. οὖν: presupposes that if they had been baptised into the name of Jesus, they would have received the Spirit at Baptism.—εἰς: “to baptise into” (R.V.) may have been suggested by the original practice to baptise by dipping or plunging, see Humphry, Comment. on R. V., in loco.—εἰς τὸ Ἰ. βάπτισμα, i.e., into or unto repentance. For the strange notion that they were baptised into John as the Messiah see Hackett’s note.

Acts 19:4. εἰς τὸν ἐρχ: placed first before ἵνα, perhaps for emphasis. The phrase had been a favourite one with the Baptist (cf. Matthew 3:1). John’s own words showed that his Baptism was insufficient. ἵνα may express both the purport and the purpose (so Alford).

Acts 19:5. ἀκούσαντες δὲ: neither grammatical nor in accordance with fact can these words be regarded (as by Beza and others) as part of St. Paul’s words, as if they meant, “and the people when they heard him,” i.e., John.

Acts 19:6. καὶ ἐπιθ. αὐτοῖς τοῦ Π. τὰς χ., see above on Acts 8:16.—ἐλάλουν τε γλ. καὶ προεφ.: the imperfects may mean that they began to speak, or that the exercise of the gifts mentioned continued. The two gifts are discussed in 1 Corinthians 12:10; 1 Corinthians 12:14, in an Epistle which was written probably during this stay at Ephesus—no doubt the gifts are specially mentioned because the bestowal of such gifts distinguished Christian Baptism from that of John. McGiffert, p. 286, while admitting the accuracy of the account as a whole, thinks that its representation is moulded, as in 8, in accordance with the work of Peter and John in Samaria; so too Hilgenfeld refers the account to his “author to Theophilus,” who also, in Acts 8:16, narrates that the baptised Samaritans received the Holy Ghost by the laying on of Peter’s hands. This is in some respects not unlike the older view of Baur, who held that the narrative was introduced to parallel Paul’s dignity and work with that of Peter in Acts 10:44—the first speaking with tongues in 2 is narrated in relation to Jews, the second in relation to Gentiles, 10, and the third in relation to a kind of middle class, half-believers like the Samaritans! (so Zeller and Schneckenburger). But not only does this require us to identify 2 with 10 and 19, the speaking of tongues at Pentecost with subsequent bestowal of the gift, but it seems strange that a narrative should not have been constructed more free from liability to misconception and misinterpretation if the leading purpose of its introduction had been as supposed above.

Acts 19:7. ὡσεὶ, as Weiss admits, excludes any special significance attaching to the number twelve on account of which the narrative would be constructed. See also Knabenbauer, in loco. We know so little about these men that it seems hazardous to attempt to define them more clearly (see Plumptre, in loco).

Acts 19:8. The Apostle follows his usual method—to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. διαλεγ., see above; cf. Acts 17:2, “reasoning,” R.V. (“discoursing,” Rendall).