Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Acts 18:18 - 18:22
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Act_18:18-22
b. Having shorn his head in Cenchrea.—This act of shaving the head, and the vow connected with it, however brief the terms are in which they are mentioned, and, indeed probably because they are so slightly mentioned, have given rise to much discussion. With regard to the first particular, the question arises: Who shaved his head? Paul or Aquila? The name of the latter confessedly stands immediately before êåéñÜìåíïò , and the circumstance attracts attention that it is placed after that of his wife [whereas, in Act_18:2 and Act_18:26, it precedes Priscilla’s name.—Tr]. Some interpreters have hence inferred that Luke adopts the order of the names found in the present verse for the purpose of more distinctly pointing out that êåéñÜìåíïò prefers to Aquila. [This argument acquires additional force, when it is remembered that the comma usually inserted in the printed text after ʼ Áêýëáò , is simple a modern addition to it, and that the most ancient uncial manuscripts exhibit no marks of punctuation, nor even spaces between the words.—Tr.]. But it is remarkable that Priscilla’s name in a similar manner precedes that of her husband in Rom_16:3 and 2Ti_4:9; the reason may be, that her personal character and acts gave her a more prominent position; she may have possibly labored in the Christian cause with more intelligence and with greater zeal than her husband. If this point be admitted, the order in which the names of this married couple occur here, can afford no aid when we seek for an answer to the question stated above. [Meyer observes that Paul may have been influenced by certain considerations in mentioning Priscilla first in these two passages, but that such could not have been the case with Luke, in preparing his narrative, since, elsewhere, Act_18:2 and Act_18:26, he first names Aquila.—Tr.]. Besides, the very nature of the case, and also the form of the narrative, plainly exhibit Paul as the principal person, and assign a subordinate position to Aquila and his wife, so that it is by far the most natural course to refer the words êåéñÜìåíïò … åὐ÷Þí to the apostle; and, indeed, what significance could this statement have, if it referred to Aquila? [It may be importance, if it referred, not to Paul (comp. Act_15:1 ff.), but to Aquila, who had at a comparatively recent period embraced the Christian faith, and that, on this account, Luke so slightly mentions it, as Lechler himself concedes at the beginning of this note; the whole notice, accordingly, assumes the character of a parenthesis the attached to the name of the person to whom it refers.—Tr]. It hence follows that êåéñÜìåíïò must be understood as referring to Paul. This is the view adopted, for instance, by Augustine, Erasmus, the Reformers, Bengel, and more recently, Olshausen, Neander, de Wette [who, however, speaks with some doubt.—Tr.], Baumgarten, and Ewald [also, Alford, Hackett, and Alexander.—Tr.]. On the other hand, the word is referred to Aquila already by the Vulgate [Pr. et Aquila, qui sibi totonderat], and this is regard ed as the correct interpretation by Theophylact and, subsequently, by Grotius, Kuinoel, Schneck enburger and Meyer [also, Wieseler, Niemeyer (Char. d. Bibel. I. 120. ed. 1830), and Howson (Conyb. and Howson: Life, etc. of St. Paul. I 453).—Tr.]. One of the principal motives which, whether expressly stated or not, has usually influenced those who adopt the latter view may be found in the circumstance that this external Jewish ceremony [cutting of the hair], and also the vow, seem to them to be inconsistent with the liberal views of the apostle of the Gentiles. [Not a trace can be found—says Meyer—indicating that Paul ever “became as a Jew unto the Jews” in such a sense, as making vows.—Tr.]. This argument, however, possesses no weight, if our view of the liberal sentiments of the apostles, is derived, not exclusively from the imagination, but from facts. But the purpose for which this act of shaving the head was performed, can be considered only in connection with the next point—the vow.
c. For he had a vow.—The cutting off of the hair was connected with a vow, and, indeed, was done in consequence of it ( åῖ ̓ ÷å ãὰñ åὐ÷Þí ). But this expression itself is also indefinite in its character. Nothing whatever is said respecting either the nature of the vow, or the time of the cutting off of the hair—whether at the beginning, when the vow was made, or after the expiration of the time, when the vow was fulfilled. It was, at an earlier period (Wetstein, and others), supposed that the vow was that of a Nazarite. The individual, in this case, allowed his hair to grow during a specified period, in honor of God; the hair was cut off, at the expiration of the period, and thrown into the sacrificial fire. But these facts do not explain the present case, for the Nazarite could not be released from his vow, unless he presented himself in the temple, that is, in Jerusalem [whereas here Cenchrea is mentioned]; and the assertion that Jews who were travelling, were not bound by this regulation, has never been sustained by satisfactory evidence. And the assumption that the Nazariteship had been interrupted in this case by some Levitical uncleanness, and was now renewed by this, shaving of the head, can claim no attention, as such a renewal likewise could take place only in the temple (Num_6:9 ff.). Hence we may infer that this shaving of the head had no connection with the vow of a Nazarite, and that the present passage does not speak of any Levitical vow, closely connected with the temple. At all events, it appears from all that we learn from other sources respecting this subject, that the shaving of the head coincided, not with the assumption, but with the fulfilment of a vow, since it was the custom of the Hebrews to cut the hair from time to time, when its growth was too rapid. [Herzog: Encyk. V. 434]. According to this view, åῖ ̓ ÷å would have the sense of: “he had had” [but see Winer: Gr. N. T. § 40. 3.—Tr.].—Still, the occasion which led to this vow, and its precise character, cannot be determined, and the conjectures which have been hazarded, lead to no satisfactory conclusions [all which seems to sustain the view of those who suppose that the vow was a private and comparatively unimportant personal affair of Aquila, and not one which Paul had made.—Tr.]
Act_18:19-21. And he [But they] came to Ephesus.—This is the first occasion on which Paul, who was returning from his second missionary journey, visited Ephesus. This ancient and celebrated city, the capital of Ionia, was also, at that time, the capital of proconsular Asia; it maintained an extensive commerce, and soon became the Christian metropolis of Asia Minor. Aquila and his wife remained here, when the apostle left the city; êáôÝëéðåí simply anticipates this fact [and áὐôὸò äὲ is not intended to imply that they did not accompany Paul, when he proceeded to the synagogue (de Wette).—Tr.]. Before his departure, he endeavored to exercise an influence on the Jews, whose synagogue he visited; he was so successful, that they desired to retain him for a longer period among them, but, as he was anxious to proceed to Antioch, he could not comply with their request; he gave them, however, the promise that he would return, and soon afterwards, according to Act_19:1, he fulfilled it. [Lechler here ascribes Paul’s refusal to remain at that time, to his desire to proceed to Antioch: he regards the words: “I must … in Jerusalem,” which assign a different reason for his refusal, as an interpolation; see note 5, appended to the text above. Those who receive this sentence as genuine, generally suppose, with Wieseler (Chron. d. Apost.) that the feast of Pentecost is meant. Ewald suggests the Passover; but the data do not enable them to decide the point with entire confidence.—Tr.]
Act_18:22. And when he had landed at Cesarea.—Some of the earlier commentators, e.g., Calovius, Kuinoel, etc., supposed that ἀíáâÜò referred to Cesarea [see Act_10:1], in the sense that Paul ascended from the beach to the city, which was situated on higher ground. But it is not conceivable that Luke, who here (Act_18:19-22, inclusive) relates the facts in so summary a manner, and who had already said: êáôåëèὼí åὶò ÊáéóÜñåéáí , (which remark undoubtedly refers to the city itself, and not merely to the coast and harbor), should now pause in order to give special prominence to the circumstance that Paul ascended from the water to the higher ground on which the city lay. Moreover, the expression êáôÝâç åἰò ʼ Áíôéü÷åéáí , would be inappropriate, if it referred to Cesarea, since Antioch was situated in the interior of the country [Act_9:20], at a distance of nearly twenty miles from the Mediterranean, and was, consequently, more elevated than the sea-port Cesarea. But the same expression is perfectly appropriate, and corresponds to the usual phraseology of the Book of the Acts (comp. [Act_9:27, and] Act_15:2 : ἀíáâáßíåéí descriptive of the journey from Antioch to Jerusalem), if we assume that Jerusalem is the terminus ad quem for ἀíáâÜò and the terminus a quo for êáôÝâç and this interpretation appears to be indicated by ἡ ἐêêëçóßá ( êáô ʼ ἐîï÷Þí [i.e., the mother-church of Jerusalem, not the church at Cesarea], without ἡ áῦ ̓ óá , Act_13:1.). Still, it is an erroneous opinion which Meyer entertains, when he represents ἀíáâÜò as necessarily referring to Cesarea, if the sentence in Act_18:21 : äåῖ ìå - - Ἱåñïò . [see above], is assumed to be an interpolation; for the considerations just presented, retain their weight, even if that sentence is omitted. [Recent commentators almost unanimously adopt the view here presented, i.e., that ἀíáâÜò describes a brief visit to Jerusalem; but this interpretation apparently demands the recognition of the sentence: äåῖ ìå etc., as genuine, although Lechler does not here concede that point.—Tr.].—It is, however, remarkable under all circumstances, that in this portion of the narrative, Luke exhibits such brevity and haste, and especially that he so slightly —with only five words—refers to a visit of Paul to Jerusalem, simply stating that he saluted the church. It cannot be doubted that Paul remained only a short time with the mother-church.
Act_18:19. He came to Ephesus—entered into the synagogue—reasoned with the Jews.—The society of his most beloved brethren was not so attractive to him, as to induce him to interrupt his intercourse with the people who were so hostile to him, or to discontinue the efforts which he had already made for their conversion. Here he presents a model, as a servant who labors not for himself, but for his Lord and Master Jesus. He is always willing to be himself scorned and oppressed, and it is his only aim to glorify his Saviour.
Act_18:20. Desired him to tarry longer—he consented not.—He furnishes us with an instructive example, in maintaining an intercourse with brethren. He was connected with the believers by tender bonds of love, and yet he did not blindly obey them; he refused to comply with a request, which did not seem to him to accord with the mind and will of the Lord. This example should teach us that we ought not to yield to every wish even of beloved brethren and devout souls, but that we should love God and the Saviour even more than the brethren, and obey the divine will, rather than the will of any human being. (Ap. Past.).—“He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.” Mat_10:37.
Act_18:21. I must by all means keep this feast that cometh at Jerusalem (according to Luther’s version [and the English Bible.—Tr.]). May God grant even to us such an earnest zeal in pursuing our journey to the heavenly Jerusalem, and may He teach us to oppose this holy “I must” to all the allurements of the world and of our own flesh! (From Ap. Past.).—I will return … if God will.—He was as prompt and humble in submitting to the will of God, as he was heroic in pursuing his prescribed course. He was a lion in his contest with the world, but, like a lamb, obeyed the voice of his Lord, (id.)
Act_18:22. When he had … gone up, and saluted the church, he went down to Antioch.—As the mention of his departure from Jerusalem is so closely connected with that of the salutation, we may conjecture that on this occasion also, he found no suitable field of labor in that city. (Rieger.)
‘I must work while it is day’ [Joh_9:4]—the motto of the ambassadors of Christ: I. Where do they work? Wherever the Lord shows a way, and opens a door; II. How do they work? With unwearied zeal, and yet with humble attention to every intimation of the Lord; III. For what do they work? Not for their own glory and gain, but, in everyplace, for the kingdom of God, and, accordingly, for the salvation of men.—The longing desire for Christian fellowship: I. How strong it was in Paul! It induced the apostle, who was himself so richly endowed, and who had received such an abundant measure of grace, to proceed from a distant point, to Jerusalem; II. How great its strength should be also in us! (Lisco.).—Paul as a traveller, a model as a servant of God obeying the divine will: I. The hatred of no enemies intimidates him, when the Lord sends him, Act_18:19; II. No fraternal love restrains him, when the Lord calls him away, Act_18:20; III. No place is too distant for him; he hastens thither, when the Spirit draws him, Act_18:21; IV. No place is too pleasant to him; he departs, when the Lord no longer requires his services in it, Act_18:22.—‘I must go up to Jerusalem’—the watchword of the pilgrim of God: it enables him to resist every temptation—in sorrow and in joy—whether it proceeds from friend or from foe.
Footnotes:
Act_18:19. a. The plural êáôÞíôçóáí is found in four uncial manuscripts [A. B. E., and Cod. Sin.], whereas the singular, êáôÞôçóå [of text, rec.], occurs only in two [G. H.; also Vulg.]. The singular undoubtedly corresponds to the style of the narrative in the context [verbs and participles in the singular, especially êáôÝëéðåí ], but, precisely on that account, would not have been changed [by copyists] into the plural, if it had been originally employed. [D. has êáôÜíôçóáò Lach., Tisch., and Alf. adopt the plural.—Tr.]
Act_18:19. b. [In place of áýôïῦ after êáôÝëéðåí , of text. rec. from B. G. H., ἐêåῖ is found in A. D. E., and Cod. Sin., and is substituted by Lach. and Born.; Alf. retains áὐôïῦ , regarding ἐêåῖ as an alteration to the more usual word, and Meyer adopts the same view.—Tr.]
Act_18:19. c. [In place of äéåëἐ÷èç , of text, rec. from E. G. H., Lach. and Tisch, adopt äéåëÝîáôï , from A. B., and Cod. Sin., which, however, Alf. regards as a later correction to the more usual form; comp. Act_17:2.—Tr.]
Act_18:21. a. Not less than four uncial manuscripts [A. B. D. E.; also Cod. Sin.] exhibit [in place of ἀðåôÜîáôï áὐôïῖò åἰðþí , of text, rec.] the following: ἀðïôáîÜìåíïò êáé åἰðþí , according to which construction, the direct narrative is not resumed till at the word ἀíÞ÷ïç ; only two manuscripts, of the ninth century, viz.: G. H. read ἀðåôÜîáôï , which is an easier construction [and is hence regarded as probably a later correction of the original participle; the latter is, accordingly, adopted by Lach. and Tisch. Alford retains the verb of the text. rec. here, and also the sentence which follows ( Äåῖ -- Ἱåñ .; see next note), and thinks that the variations in this place were occasioned by the omission of that sentence; Meyer (3d ed.) is also inclined to recognize the reading of the text. rec. as genuine.—Tr.]
Act_18:21. b. The entire sentence: Äåῖ ìå ðÜíôùò ôὴí ἑñ÷ïìἐíçí ðïéῆóáé åἰò ̔I åñïóüëõìá , is omitted in four important ancient manuscripts, viz.: A. B. E., and Cod. Sin., as well as in nine minuscules, and in several ancient versions [Vulg. etc.], whereas it is found in D. G. H., [and is inserted in text. rec.]. The whole sentence, like so many other interpolations in the Acts, seems to have been inserted [suggested, as some suppose, by Act_20:16] at a later period, because the terms: ðÜëéí -- èÝëïíôïò [if immediately succeeding åἱðþí ] seemed to be too brief or abrupt. Mill and Bengel, and, after their day, Griesbach, Heinrichs, and Kuinoel, took exception to the sentence, believing it to be an interpolation, and Lach. and Tisch. [and also Born.] have rejected it. [The manuscripts vary considerably in the entire verse. Alford says that no imaginable reason for the later insertion can be assigned, and, like Meyer, believes that the omission may be explained by assuming that ἀíáâὰò in Act_18:22 had been misunderstood by copyists and translators; they could find no immediate and explicit mention of such a journey to Jerusalem; whereas ἀíáâὰò really indicates (see Exeg. note on Act_18:22) the journey up to Jerusalem, not up from the shore into the city of Cesarea, and êáôÝâç ) informs us that Paul went down from Jerusalem to Antioch.—Tr.]