Комментарии к Библии

Acts 20:1. μετὰ δὲ τὸ παύσ.: the words may indicate not only the fact of the cessation of the tumult, but that Paul felt that the time for departure had come.—θόρ., cf. Matthew 26:5; Matthew 27:24, Mark 14:2; three times in Acts 21:34; Acts 24:18, and several times in LXX. In Acts 21:34 it is used more as in classics of the confused noise of an assembly (cf. Mark 5:38), but in the text it seems to cover the whole riot, and may be translated “riot”.—ἀσπασάμενος: “non solum salutabant osculo advenientes verum etiam discessuri,” Wetstein, and references; so in classical Greek, cf. also Acts 21:6-7; Acts 21:19.

Acts 20:2. διελθὼν δὲ, see above on Acts 13:6, “and when he had gone through,” in a missionary progress τὰ μέρη ἐκεῖνα, i.e., of Macedonia, the places where he had founded Churches, Thessalonica, Berœa, Philippi. From Romans 15:19 it would appear that his work continued some time, and that round about even unto Illyricum he fully preached the Gospel. On the connection of 2 Cor. with this part of Acts, see “II. Corinthians” (Robertson), Hastings’ B.D., i., pp. 493, 495; Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 286; and on the coincidence between Acts and Romans, l. c., see Paley, Horæ Paulinæ, ii., 4.—τὴν Ἑλλάδα, i.e., Achaia in its Roman sense (approximately at all events); the stay might have included a visit to Athens, but at all events Corinth was visited. A wider sense of the epithet “Greek” would comprise Macedonia also, and Macedonia and Achaia are thus spoken of in close connection as forming the Greek lands in Europe, cf. Acts 19:21, and Romans 15:26, 2 Corinthians 9:2, 1 Thessalonians 1:8, “Achaia” (Ramsay), Hastings’ B.D.

Acts 20:3. ποιήσας τε μῆνας τρεῖς, cf. Acts 15:33, Acts 18:23.—ἐπιβουλῆς: only in Acts in N.T., see above on Acts 9:24; the plot may have been formed in the anticipation that it would be easy to carry it through on a pilgrim ship crowded with Jews of Corinth and Asia, hostile to the Apostle; or it may have been the purpose of the conspirators to kill Paul in a crowded harbour like Cenchreæ before the ship actually started.—μέλλ. ἀνάγ., see on Acts 13:13. If we read ἐγέν. γνώμης (genitive) (cf. 2 Peter 1:20), nowhere else in N.T., cf. Thuc., i., 113, ὅσοι τῆς αὐτῆς γνώμης ἦσαν, see also Winer-Schmiedel, p. 269.—τοῦ ὑποσ., i.e., the return journey to Jerusalem (Ramsay), but see also Wendt (1899), p. 323.

Acts 20:4. συνείπετο δὲ αὐτῷ: only here in N.T., cf. 2Ma 15:2, 3Ma 5:48; 3Ma 6:21, but frequent in classics.—ἄχρι τῆς Ἀ.: among more recent writers Rendall has argued strongly for the retention of the words, whilst he maintains, nevertheless, that all the companions of the Apostle named here accompanied him to Jerusalem. In his view the words are an antithesis to Ἀσιανοὶ δέ, so that whilst on the one hand one party, viz., six of the deputies, travel with Paul to Philippi, on the other hand the other party consisting of two, viz., the Asian representatives, waited for them at Troas. At Philippi the six deputies and Paul were joined by St. Luke, who henceforth speaks of the deputation in the first person plural, and identifies himself with its members as a colleague. Then from Troas the whole party proceed to Jerusalem (Acts, pp. 119, 303). In this way οὗτοι in Acts 20:5 is restricted to Tychicus and Trophimus (see also Ramsay, as below), whereas A. and R.V. refer the pronoun to all the deputies, so too Weiss and Wendt. If this is so, the ἡμᾶς, Acts 20:5, might refer (but see further below) only to Paul and Luke, as the latter would naturally rejoin Paul at Philippi where we left him, cf. Acts 16:17. Ramsay explains (St. Paul, p. 287) that the discovery of the Jewish plot altered St. Paul’s plan, and that too at the last moment, when delegates from the Churches had already assembled. The European delegates were to sail from Corinth, and the Asian from Ephesus, but the latter having received word of the change of plan went as far as Troas to meet the others, οὗτοι thus referring to Tychicus and Trophimus alone (but see also Askwith, Epistle to the Galatians (1899), pp. 94, 95).

Wendt also favours retention of ἄχρι τῆς Ἀ. and prefers the reading προσελθόντες, but he takes ἡμᾶς in Acts 20:5 to exclude St. Paul, and refers it to other friends of the Apostle (as distinct from those who accompanied him through Macedonia “as far as Asia”), viz., the author of the “We” sections and others who only now meet the Apostle and his company at Troas. But this obliges us to make a somewhat artificial distinction between ἡμᾶς in Acts 20:5 with ἡμεῖς in Acts 20:6, and ἐξεπ. and ἤλθομεν on the one hand, and διετρίψαμεν, Acts 20:6, on the other, as the latter must be taken to include St. Paul, St. Luke, and the whole company, although Wendt justifies the distinction by pointing out that in Acts 20:13 ἡμεῖς is used exclusive of Paul (cf. Acts 21:12).

Mr. Askwith, u. s., p. 93 ff., has recently argued that ἡμεῖς in Acts 20:6 includes not only St. Luke and St. Paul, but with them the representatives of Achaia (who are not mentioned by name with the other deputies) who would naturally be with St. Paul on his return from Corinth, Acts 20:2-3, and he would not travel through Macedonia unaccompanied. In 2 Corinthians 8 St. Luke, “the brother,” according to tradition, whose praise in the Gospel was spread through all the Churches, had been sent to Corinth with Titus and another “brother,” and so naturally any representatives from Achaia would come along with them, pp. 93, 94. No names are given because St. Luke himself was amongst them, and he never mentions his own name, p. 96. The fact that Timothy and Sopater who had been with the Apostle at Corinth when he wrote to the Romans (chap. Acts 16:21, if we may identify Σωσίπατρος with the Σώπατρος Πύρρου Βεροιαῖος, Acts 20:4) are amongst those who waited at Troas is accounted for on the supposition that Timothy and others might naturally go across to inform the Asiatic delegates of Paul’s change of plan, and would then proceed with these Asian representatives to Troas to meet the Apostle (p. 94). The presence of Aristarchus and Secundus at Troas is accounted for on the ground that St. Paul, on his way to Achaia, did not expect to return through Macedonia, and so would naturally arrange for the Macedonian delegates, who were not accompanying him into Greece, to meet him somewhere. And the delegates from Thessalonica would naturally cross to Troas with the intention of proceeding to Ephesus (or Miletus), where St. Paul would have touched even if he had sailed for Palestine from Cenchreæ (cf. Acts 18:18-19), p. 95. But against this it may be fairly urged that there is no reason to assume that the Macedonian delegates did not accompany Paul into Greece; Timothy and Sosipater had evidently done so, and all the delegates mentioned seem to have been together in St. Paul’s company, συνείπετο αὐτῷ, Acts 20:4. In the uncertain state of the text it is difficult to come to any decision on the passage. The words ἄχρι τῆς Ἀσίας may easily have been omitted on account of the supposed difficulty connected with the fact that two at least of St. Paul’s companions who are named, Trophimus and Aristarchus, went further than Asia, cf. Acts 21:29, Acts 27:2, while on the other hand it is somewhat hard to believe that the words could be inserted by a later hand.

On “The Pauline Collection for the Saints and its importance,” and the representatives of the Churches in the different provinces, see Rendall, Expositor, November, 1893; Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 287, and “Corinth,” Hastings’ B.D.; Wendt, p. 325 (1899); Hort, Rom. and Ephes., pp. 39 ff. and 173. Nothing could more clearly show the immense importance which St. Paul attached to this contribution for the poor saints than the fact that he was ready to present in person at Jerusalem the members of the deputation and their joint offerings, and that too at a time when his presence in the capital was full of danger, and after he had been expressly warned of the peril, cf. Acts 24:17, Romans 15:25. On the suggestion for the fund and its consummation see 1 Corinthians 16:1-8, Acts 20:16, 2 Corinthians 8:10; 2 Corinthians 9:2; A.D. 57–58, Rendall, Lightfoot; 56–57, Ramsay. Such a scheme would not only unite all the Gentile Churches in one holy bond of faith and charity, but it would mark their solidarity with the Mother Church at Jerusalem; it would be a splendid fulfilment by their own generous and loyal effort of the truth that if one member of the body suffered all the members suffered with it. We know how this vision which St. Paul had before his eyes of a universal brotherhood throughout the Christian world seemed to tarry; and we may understand something of the joy which filled his heart, even amidst his farewell to the elders at Miletus, as he anticipated without misgiving the accomplishment of this διακονία to the saints, a “ministry” which he had received from the Lord Jesus, Acts 20:24. On the coincidence between the narrative of the Acts cf. Acts 20:2-3; Acts 24:17-19, and the notices in St. Paul’s Epistles given above, see especially Paley, Horæ. Paulinæ, chap. ii., 1.—Σώπατρος Πύρρου Β., see critical note; whether he is the same as the Sopater of Romans 16:21 who was with St. Paul at Corinth we cannot say—possibly the name of his father may be introduced to distinguish him, but perhaps, as Blass says, added in this one case “quod domi nobilis erat”.—Γάϊος Δ. καὶ Τ., see above on p. 414, and Knabenbauer’s note as against Blass.—Τυχικὸς: Ephesians 6:21, Colossians 4:7 show that Timothy was in Rome at the time of St. Paul’s first imprisonment. He is spoken of as a beloved and faithful minister, and it would appear that as St. Paul was about to send him to Ephesus, he was presumably the bearer of the Epistle which at all events included the Ephesian Church. In Titus 3:12 we have another reference which shows the high place Timothy occupied amongst St. Paul’s trusted confidential friends, and from 2 Timothy 4:12 we learn that he had been a sharer in the Apostle’s second and heavier captivity, and had only left him to fulfil another mission to Ephesus.—Τρόφιμος: probably like Tychicus an Ephesian. In Acts 21:29 he was with St. Paul at Jerusalem, and from 2 Timothy 4:20 we learn that he was at a later stage the companion of the Apostle after his release from his first imprisonment, and that he had been left by him at Miletus sick. On the absurd attempt to connect this notice of Miletus in the Pastoral Epistles with Acts 20:4 see Weiss, Die Briefe Pauli an Timotheus und Titus, p. 354; Salmon, Introd., fifth edition, p. 401.

Acts 20:5. προελθόντες, see critical note. If we read προσελ. render as in R.V. (margin), “these came, and were waiting for us at Troas,” cf. Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 287, and Rendall, in loco.—ἡμᾶς: the introduction of the word is fatal to the idea that Timothy could have been the author of this “We” section.

Acts 20:6. μετὰ τὰς ἡμ. τῶν ἀ., cf. Acts 12:3, i.e., the Passover. 1 Corinthians 5:7 shows us how they would “keep the Feast”. Ramsay’s “fixed date in the life of St. Paul,” Expositor, May, 1896, depends partly on the assumption that Paul left Philippi the very first day after the close of the Paschal week, but we cannot be sure of this, see Wendt’s criticism on Ramsay’s view, p. 326, edition 1899, and also Dr. Robertson “I. Corinthians” Hastings’ B.D., p. 485.—ἄχρις ἡμ. πέντε: “in five days,” i.e., the journey lasted until the fifth day, so πεμπταῖοι, cf. δευτεραῖοι, Acts 28:13. In Acts 16:11 the journey only lasted two (three?) days, but here probably adverse winds must be taken into account; or the five days may include a delay at Neapolis, the port of Philippi, or the land journey to the port; on ἄχρις see above Acts 1:2.—ἡμέρας ἑπτά, so as to include a whole week, and so the first day of the week, cf. 2 Corinthians 2:12-13, which shows how reluctantly Paul left Troas on his former visit, but see on the other hand, Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 295, who thinks that St. Paul would not have voluntarily stayed seven days at Troas.

Acts 20:7. τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σ., “on the first day of the week,” μιᾷ being used, the cardinal for the ordinal πρῶτος, like Hebrew אֶחָד, in enumerating the days of the month, see Plummer’s note on Luke 24:1; cf. Luke 18:12 (so Blass). We must remember that 1 Cor. had been previously written, and that the reference in 1 Corinthians 16:2 to “the first day of the week” for the collection of alms naturally connects itself with the statement here in proof that this day had been marked out by the Christian Church as a special day for public worship, and for “the breaking of the bread”. On the significance of this selection of the “first day,” see Milligan, Resurrection, pp. 67–69; Maclear, Evidential Value of the Lord’s Day, “Present Day Tracts” 54; and for other references, Witness of the Epistles, pp. 368, 369; Wendt (1899), p. 326.—μέλλων: Burton, Moods and Tenses, p. 71.—παρέτεινε, see μῦθον, Arist., Poet., xvii., 5, λόγους, and Acts 9:4, μῦθον.—μεσονυκτίου, cf. Acts 16:25.

Acts 20:8. λαμπάδες ἱκαναὶ, see critical note and reading in D. The words have been taken to indicate clearly that the accident was not due to darkness coming on through Paul’s lengthy discourse (so Weiss and Wendt), whilst Meyer regards them as introduced to show that the fall of the young man was not perceived at once. Others (so Felten) hold that the words mark the joy at the Sacramental Presence of the Lord and Bridegroom of the Church (Matthew 25:1), and Nösgen sees in them a note of joy in the celebration of the Christian Sunday (see also Kuinoel). But it is also allowable to see in this notice the graphic and minute touch of one who was an eye-witness of the scene, and who described it, as he remembered it, in all its vividness (Hackett, Blass). We can scarcely see in the words with Ewald an intention on the part of the narrative to guard against any suspicion attaching to the night meetings of the Christians (so Calvin, Bengel, Lechler); the date, as Nösgen says, is too early (so too Overbeck). Lewin also takes Ewald’s view, but with the alternative that the lights may have been mentioned to exclude any suspicion in the reader’s mind of any deception with regard to the miracle.