Acts 13

CHAPTER XIII

THE SECOND HALF

The Gospel Among the Gentiles in the Empire Chapters 13 to 28

The time covered by this period extends from 45 to 62, from the first missionary journey to Paul’s imprisonment in Rome.

The action moves through the Roman Empire in a grand sweep. Mission work reaches its highest development.

The chief personage is Paul; at his side appear his notable assistants. We also again meet Peter in chapter 15, and James in chapters 15 and 21.

We see the progress of the gospel first, with Paul at liberty (13 to 21:16); then, the progress with Paul in captivity (21:17 to 28:31). Three great missionary journeys are prominent while Paul is at liberty. Besides Jerusalem, Antioch, the center from which the journeys were made, attracts our attention; then Corinth and Ephesus and other localities become important centers of Christian activity. When Paul is in captivity, Caesarea draws attention but only as the stepping-stone to the final goal which is Rome. Thus Luke’s objective is reached: the great transition of the gospel from its original center in Jerusalem and Judaism to its grand new center, Rome and the vast Gentile world.

The Third Quarter The Progress of the Gospel with Paul at Liberty

THE FIRST MISSIONARY JOURNEY: THROUGH THE ISLAND OF CYPRUS

Acts 13:1

1Barnabas and Saul are back at Antioch after their brief mission of relief (11:30; 12:25). Now there were in Antioch throughout the present church prophets and teachers, both Barnabas and Symeon called Niger and Lucius, the Cyrenian, also Manaen, Herod the tetrarch’s child companion, and Saul.

Transitional δέ transfers us to a time that is later than that mentioned in 11:26 and in 11:30 and 12:25. Luke advances us from the summer or the fall of 44 to the year 49. Zahn has corrected the 50 which is found in his Introduction to the New Testament III, 482, Chronological Table, to 49, in his Kommentar, 868, in accord with a recently discovered inscription.

Saul and Barnabas are to be sent away on a missionary tour that will necessitate their absence from Antioch for some time. Luke thus mentions the most prominent “prophets and teachers” in the congregation at this time. Three of these would remain at Antioch. We give κατά distributive force “throughout the church” in Antioch because we think of the church as being distributed over the large city and having a host of members.

The added οὗσαν is taken to mean in der dortigen Gemeinde (B.-D. 474, 5), “in the local church” (Moulton in R. 1107); but the participle is not to be construed with “in Antioch”: “the church being in Antioch, being there”; we take it to be temporal: “being” at the time of which Luke writes: “the present church.” It is not said that the church had these five illustrious teachers in 44; it has them now in the year 49.

“Prophets” is explained in 11:27, and here refers to men who are able to expound the Word. The context does not suggest prophets of the type of Agabus, to whom God communicated future events. These men served the congregation in the regular manner. “Prophets and teachers” thus go together: men who thoroughly understand the Word and are at the same time able to teach it to others. Hence, too, we decline to let the two τε divide the five named into three prophets and two teachers. For certainly Saul, the very last in the list, had already received direct communications from the Lord (among others also the one mentioned in 22:17, etc.), while we do not know whether Barnabas had received such communications. B.-D. 444, 5 does not divide into groups, yet Luke evidently intended to indicate two groups although we do not see why he divides the list of names. When Barnabas is placed first and Saul last, this seems to imply that the names are arranged according to the time of the conversion of those named or, possibly, according to the time of their entrance into the church at Antioch.

Barnabas and Saul we know. The fact that Symeon had the Roman name Niger in addition to his Aramaic name and was so designated by the Greeks, is only a common feature and really states nothing definite about the man. If he were the Simon who bore the cross for Jesus, Luke would have so identified him. That Simon came to distinction because of his two sons (Mark 15:21) and hence not because of a later prominence of his own. The fact that Symeon was not a Cyrenian like Lucius also proves that he was not Simon, the crossbearer. Lucius is designated as a Cyrenian and may have been one of those who fled after Stephen’s death and first preached the gospel to the Greeks in Antioch (11:20).

B.-D. 268 calls attention to the article “the Cyrenian” and thinks that it was perhaps intended to distinguish him from Luke, whose name appears also as “Lucius.” Zahn, who finds Luke indirectly referred to in 11:28 (Codex Bezae), scouts the idea that he could have here listed himself as one of the great teachers in Antioch. Symeon is designated by his second name because there are many other Symeons or Simons; Lucius by his birthplace for a similar reason; but Manaen by his connection with the tetrarch, Herod Antipas, whose child companion he had been, σύντροφος, Milchbruder, collactaneus (Vulgate), nourished and brought up together with this Herod. That would make Manaen about 69 years old, for Herod Antipas was born in 20 B. C. Some interpreters identify Manaen with the βασιλικός mentioned in John 4:46–53; but this is only a guess. With more assurance we may say that Manaen was of aristocratic if not princely birth and thus stands out among the disciples.

His princely education was an asset in his present leadership.

On the basis of a hypothetical first edition of Acts, Zahn thinks that a sixth name was added between Lucius and Manaen, namely that of Ticius, an Antiochian, whom Zahn supposes to be Titus, one of Paul’s later assistants, this being the only mention of him in Acts. Aside from the hypothesis itself (Forschungen IX) and Zahn’s alteration of “Ticius” to Titus, he fails to show how Luke could issue a second edition and from it omit this most certainly important name.

Acts 13:2

2And while they were engaged in a divine service to the Lord and on fasting, the Holy Spirit said, Separate now for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them for myself. Then, after having fasted and prayed and laid the hands on them, they released them.

The great hour had come: the call to the Gentile world, even to stand before kings! Saul had waited all these years, from 35 to 49, and had been working here in Antioch for about six years. Now at last he was to go out into the pagan world, not alone, but together with his close friend Barnabas. The Attic orators used the word λειτουργεῖν to designate any free service rendered to the state, in the LXX it is used with reference to the official service rendered by priests and Levites, and in the New Testament with reference to any sacred official service (Rom. 13:6, and 15:27 are not exceptions.) Here the participle must mean that these five men were not merely generally busy in their official capacities as prophets and teachers but were in the midst of a divine service with the assembled congregation; it may well have been one of the regular Sunday services which included the entire congregation as such.

The early Christians retained the Jewish religious custom of fasting. The law prescribed only one annual fast on the Day of Atonement, hence this is also called The Fast (Acts 27:9). A few additional fast days had been arranged by the nation itself in memory of sad experiences. The Pharisaic fasting was self-imposed and was observed for the sake of acquiring merit. Yet pious Jews also fasted in all sincerity, and it was this custom that was followed by the Christian Church. This fasting was always partial. (The writer’s parents never ate before the Communion.) It is correct, the pronoun αὑτῶν refers only to the five men, but the first participle insures the presence of the congregation.

We find no danger in thinking that the church as such was present. Barnabas and Saul belonged to the congregation as prophets and teachers. The members were certainly concerned in the mission of these two. The Holy Spirit alone was their Sender and not the congregation, and certainly not the other three teachers. In 14:26, etc., we see that the church commended Barnabas and Saul to the grace of God for the work which they did and that they returned and made a report to the church. We are not told how the Holy Spirit spoke as he did although it is usually assumed that it was by means of a special revelation to one of the three teachers who was to remain, but this is done largely because we know of no other way unless Saul himself received the revelation. We say the latter only because Saul had previously received such revelations, cf., 9:12, and 22:17, etc.

The order of the Spirit was: “Separate now for me Barnabas and Saul,” etc. Here the second person plural cannot refer to the five men who are included in the αὑτῶν, because two of them were to be separated; this command is addressed to the entire church. It was to give up the services of Barnabas and of Saul and let them serve the Holy Spirit elsewhere. Δή is rare and has a note of urgency. It emphasizes the imperative and is like the Latin jam or the German dock. There is no real equivalent in English, hence it is left untranslated in our versions; it is an emotional particle, and we may render: “Do now separate!” Note the perfect: for the work to which “I have called them for myself” (middle). What this work was we know from 9:15; 22:14, 15, 21; 27:16, in regard to Saul, and this was now to apply also to Barnabas.

Acts 13:3

3What the Spirit ordered was promptly done. We do not think that the commissioning service was set for a later day. We take it that the service was now turned into a commissioning service. It was considerably prolonged. Thus with fasting, praying, and laying on of hands, the latter by the presbyters and not by the three other prophet-teachers who were left behind, “they released them,” namely the whole church at Antioch. Luke is careful not to say: “they sent or they commissioned them,” which would have been untrue. The substance of the prayers we know from 14:26: “they were recommended to the grace of God for their work.” It was a great day for the entire church.

The laying on of hands was used in connection with the seven deacons and is explained in 6:6. It is here again used in the same symbolical way. This, of course, was not ordination for Barnabas and for Saul, who were already “prophets and teachers.” Yet it was the ceremony the church deemed proper formally to carry out the will of the Spirit in order to separate these two for their special work. We have no divine command for ordination, and when we now ordain we merely follow in the footsteps of the apostles and the early church by solemnly setting men apart for the holy ministry. So we also adopt the laying on of hands for our ordination and also for our confirmation of catechumens. We are free to do this and equally free not to add the ancient fasting. The virtue of these rites does not lie in the symbol of the hands being laid on but in the prayers of the church for those who are thereby set apart, prayers that are efficacious with God.

Acts 13:4

4They on their part, therefore, having been sent out by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia and from there sailed away to Cyprus.

Luke writes αὑτοί with a natural emphasis and refers to Barnabas and Saul, and μὲνοὗν is used as in 1:6. Luke purposely repeats that it was the Holy Spirit who had sent them out, and had done that by an immediate call. So the two went the short distance from Antioch to its harbor town Seleucia at the mouth of the Orontes River, found a ship there, and sailed for Cyprus, the island of which Barnabas was a native; see 4:36. The distance was not great. The Spirit evidently let them choose the locality where they wished to labor, and they followed natural lines by returning to the old homeland of Barnabas where he knew the type of people that would be met. It is one of Luke’s literary habits always to name the harbors in connection with the voyages; this has been attributed to his love for the sea which was so characteristic of the Greeks.

We are not told how this tour was financed. Money was required for the passage on the boat and also otherwise. It does not seem that the congregation at Antioch supplied the funds. All that one may conclude is that Barnabas and Saul went quite on their own.

Acts 13:5

5And being at Salamis, they began to proclaim the Word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. Moreover, they had also Mark as attendant.

The actual work of proclaiming the Word started at Salamis, and that method was at once used which Saul followed ever after: they began in the synagogues. That was a simple and an easy way. As teachers and speakers who were efficient and able in every way, who were themselves of Jewish birth and training, permission was always freely given them to address the synagogue congregations and to expound to them the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah and their fulfillment in Jesus. This was, of course, mission work only among the Jews, but it was done among the Jews of the diaspora, in pagan cities, and was intended to reach out from the synagogues to the Gentiles of those cities.

It is often thought of as following the rule or, shall we say, the principle: to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles. But this was not a mere rule. The wall of partition (Eph. 2:14) had been removed, together they were to become Christians. It was this far deeper principle that Barnabas and Saul followed when they entered the synagogues first. The Jews had the Scriptures and the Scripture knowledge of God. Therefore the beginning was naturally made with them. Salvation was of the Jews (John 4:22), the Messiah was David’s son, redemption was wrought in Israel. The gospel was thus offered first to the Jews throughout the diaspora so that the Jews might lead the Gentiles into the Christian Church. It would have been abnormal to follow any other course; in fact, wrong to ignore the Jews.

At this point Luke remarks that Mark was a third party in the work but only in the capacity of an attendant; he was the ὑπηρέτης, literally, “under-rower in a trireme,” and then anyone under the orders of another, “an underling.” This word is used with reference to the Levite Temple police who were under the orders of their στρατηγός or commander, for instance at the time of the arrest of Jesus in Gethsemane and at the Jewish trial of Jesus. This shows what Mark’s duties were: he was to do what Barnabas and Saul ordered him to do. The view that he was to baptize the converts is untenable. The administration of this sacrament was not a chore but as sacred and important as the preaching of the gospel itself, for it had been commanded by Jesus as much as the preaching had. Mark did whatever Barnabas and Saul asked him to do; they assigned his duties. This is the force of “underling.” They may have used him also for teaching, perhaps also even for baptizing or helping to baptize on occasion.

All depended on what might be needed. Some of his duties were prabably those of an ordinary servant. It was through the instrumentality of his cousin Barnabas that he was taken along. Luke mentions his presence in Jerusalem in 12:12, and shows how he was brought to Antioch in 12:25.

Acts 13:6

6Having gone through the whole island as far as Paphos, they found a man, a magus, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus, who was with the proconsul Sergius Paulus, a man of understanding. This one, having called to himself Barnabas and Saul, earnestly sought to hear the Word of God. But Elymas, the magus—for thus his name is translated—began to stand against them, seeking to turn the proconsul aside from the faith.

All that Luke states in v. 5 is that, upon arrival at Salamis, they adopted the practice of preaching in the synagogues. Now we read that the missionaries crossed the entire island by following its southeastern shore line—the interior is mountainous—to Paphos at the western end. Luke does not intend to furnish an itinerary nor to describe what was done at each place. We have no details about Salamis. There were no places of importance along the route to Paphos. The old Paphos had been destroyed by an earthquake in 15 B. C. With the aid of Augustus the new city was built at some distance from the site of the old ruins, at a spot where a bay faced south. Here the Roman proconsul had his residence.

The reliability of Luke’s statement was formerly challenged on the ground that Cyprus was an imperial province and hence was not governed by a proconsul but by a propraetor. That was, indeed, true at a former time, but at this time Cyprus had been made a senatorial province, and its governor thus was a proconsul as Luke states. The island later again became an imperial province. General Cesnola discovered an inscription on the north coast of Cyprus which was dated “in the proconsulship of Paulus,” the very Sergius Paulus of Acts. Robertson, Luke the Historian, etc., 182.

We are granted only one glimpse of the work done in Cyprus: Saul’s clash with a Jewish charlatan before the proconsul of the island. It is a parallel to the experience Peter had with Simon Magus as recorded in 8:9, etc. As far as the record goes, the work went on in its regular course with nothing especially to be noted. Here in Paphos the clash with the magus is important, not for its own sake, but for the effect it had on the proconsul. After he had been won for the gospel, great success was assured. This μάγος was a man of the type of Simon Magus, of whom μαγεύων and μαγεῖαι are predicated in 8:9, 11, the practice of magical arts, which were usually, however, associated with occultism and strange religious claims.

This man was “a pseudo-prophet,” who mixed his arts with false religious doctrines which were most likely concocted by himself. He was a “Jew,” of course, no longer in religion but only by birth. He was a man of less importance than Simon Magus and spread no mysterious halo of divinity about himself.

Acts 13:7

7He had managed to attach himself to the proconsul whom Luke characterizes as συνετός, which is more than φρόνιμος, “sensible,” and means rather the quality of understanding, ability to put his mind on an object and to grasp it. This charlatan, unlike Simon Magus, cared nothing for the ordinary people but, like so many of his ilk in this era, sought to impress only some great personage and subject him to his control. The fact that he should have had a hold on a man of understanding such as Sergius Paulus was is not so strange when we recall what Juvenal reports regarding the Emperor Tiberius, “sitting on the rock of Capri with his flock of Chaldeans around him.” Shallow men like Pontius Pilate scoffed at truth and anything serious, others who were dissatisfied with ordinary idolatry fell for the impressive and cunning deceivers who offered mysterious and apparently supernatural arts invested with strange Oriental philosophies.

Yet when this proconsul heard of Barnabas and Saul and the stir they were causing in Paphos he summoned them and, as Luke expresses it, ἐπεζήτησεν, “earnestly sought,” to hear the Word of God, i. e., this teaching which they had to offer. The aorist of the Verb and the infinitive imply that he obtained what he sought and fully heard that Word, namely the gospel. Barnabas and Saul had a public audience with the governor, at which they could speak at length and fully inform their great hearer.

Acts 13:8

8 And now we come upon a linguistic problem that is connected also with the variant readings of the codices and of the ancient versions. Does Luke intend to say that “Elymas” is a translation of ὁμάγος, and is “Elymas” then an Arabic or an Aramaic term that is equivalent to a professional title like “professor” which was appropriated by the old mesmerists, the present mediums, and others? This has been the usual view. Attempts were made to clear up the etymology by reference to the Arabic verb ʿalima, “to gain insight,” “to grasp,” and the noun ʿalima, “magician,” “diviner.”

The contention of Zahn and others is that “Elymas” is not intended to be a translation of ὁμάγος which needs no translation but of the man’s name “Barjesus,” a patronymic with “bar” to be understood in the sense of “son.” The process starts by regarding “Elymas” as a Greek term to which the Aramaic “Barjesus” is then fitted. The result is that “Elymas,” a corruption of ʿEtoemus (ʿEtimas), is really paratus = “the Expert”; and “Barjesus,” when this is derived from the Hebrew shavah which in the piel means “to smooth,” “to finish” (omitting bar = “son”), is something of an equivalent of “the Expert.”

This “Son of the Expert” or simply “Expert,” the “ready man,” began to oppose Barnabas and Saul and sought to divert (διαστρέψαι, turn this way and that by raising objections) the proconsul, his patron, from the faith, the article pointing to the objective sense of “faith,” i. e., from the Word intended for faith. The imperfect tense and the present participle reveal only the attempt and point forward to the outcome. The devil had his advocate at the proconsul’s side who was seeking to defeat the messengers of God. The trickster feared that he would lose control and be ousted. Evil men are always in the road to prevent the gospel from saving others. Spurious science and false religious teachings know they will be ousted if the gospel has full sway.

Acts 13:9

9 But Saul, also Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, earnestly looking on him, said: O full of all guile and all villainy, devil’s son, enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to turn aside the Lord’s ways, the straight ones? And now, lo, the Lord’s hand on thee! And thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun until a season! And immediately there fell on him a mist and darkness and, going around, he began seeking hand-leaders.

In the simplest way, with a mere ὁκαί, which R. 734 thinks might be intended as a relative, Luke introduces the name “Paul” instead of Saul. From this point onward he intends to use only the name Paul except where the apostle may speak of himself. The reason for making the change at this point is plain. Up to this moment it is always “Barnabas and Saul,” which implies that Barnabas exercised the leadership; but now the Spirit descends on Saul, and from this point onward the leadership rests with him. Here, then, was a fitting place to indicate that Saul now used his Roman name Paul because he worked among Greeks to whom Shʾaûl would sound too foreign.

Saul did not receive or himself take the name Paul at the time of his baptism in Damascus. If that had been the case, Luke would have called him Paul from that time onward. The idea that conversion “made Saul a Paul” is not correct. Saul did not assume the name Paul here in Paphos and did not choose “Paul” because of the proconsul’s name “Paulus.” These suggestions, as Farrar says, contain “an element of vulgarity impossible to St. Paul.” Augustine thought that he chose “Paul” from motives of humility since the word means “little”; but almost the opposite is true. “Paul” had a proud ring in those days as suggesting the glories of the Aemelian family (Page).

On the eighth day, at the time of his circumcision, the father named his little son after the one Jewish king who had been chosen from the tribe of Benjamin, the tribe to which the family belonged; thus he received his Jewish name “Saul.” But he was born a Roman citizen of the great city of Tarsus and thus received his Roman name (Latin) “Paul” on the ninth day. Like his Jewish name and like so many names of children, this was chosen because it was borne by illustrious persons of the Roman world. Other Jews had Greek names; the apostle and the evangelist were both named Philip after the tetrarch of that name. Saul’s father gave the child a Roman and Latin name because he was a Roman citizen with all the rights in the Roman empire this implied. The child had both names from infancy. When his father called him he shouted, “Saul, Saul!” but when the Greek boys with whom he played called him they shouted, “Paul, Paul!” In his early connections with Jews he was called “Saul” as Luke has named him up to this time; from now on as he henceforth worked chiefly among Gentiles, “Paul” was the name he used, and Luke makes the change by showing that it began at this point. That is why Luke writes only ὁκαὶΠαῦλος and says nothing about his assuming this name; he always had had it.

It was not Barnabas but Paul who at this critical moment was filled with the Holy Spirit and was made the divine instrument for bringing judgment upon Barjishwan—Hetoimos (as Zahn calls him). Up to this point in the narrative Barnabas is always named first. Here in Cyprus, his native land, he properly took the lead. Now that the missionaries are about to leave the island, Paul will be the leader. This was God’s intention regarding this “chosen instrument” for the work among Gentiles; and with it, no doubt, went also Paul’s own higher qualifications for the leadership. Moreover, Paul would continue in this work among Gentiles long after Barnabas.

When Paul now denounces the trickster and tells him that he will be blinded he does this, not by his own power, but through the Spirit. It is the same thing that occurred in Peter’s case, who exposed Ananias and his hypocrisy by the Spirit’s revelation and not by any powers of his own. To say that being filled with the Holy Spirit means being filled only with “a high degree of agitation,” in hochgradiger Erregung, is unwarranted. A holy indignation did, indeed, move Paul just as it moved Jesus when he denounced the Pharisees and announced their judgment, cf., Matt. 23:13, etc. But Paul could never have brought blindness on this charlatan by even the intensest indignation. A mere volition on the part of an apostle never worked a miracle; the Lord and his Spirit use even the apostles only as instruments to carry out their volitions.

Acts 13:10

10 Paul is not carried away by his indignation, for his words have cold logic in them, in this respect being like the denunciation of the Pharisees on the part of Jesus. First, the evil in the man’s heart, his inner motives are named; next, what these make of him in God’s sight; then, what they ever lead him to do. “And now” rests the penalty of the Spirit on this clear basis. First, the full evidence of outrageous guilt; then, the verdict announcing the punishment. The Spirit, speaking through Paul, is absolutely just.

The Greek uses “O” sparingly, which makes it only the stronger when it is used. “Full of all guile and all villainy” exposes exactly what was in this man’s heart. These were the motives back of his opposition to the missionaries and his efforts to keep the proconsul from the faith. Δόλος is “bait” and then the cunning that uses it to catch its victim; the word is very much in place here: the proconsul was the victim who was to snatch at the bait this fellow was offering by his arguments against the faith. Ραδιουργία, “the ability to do a thing easily,” is used in the sense of “unscrupulousness,” when one acts without the least compunction or hesitation as to the damage he may do to others in gaining his ends, hence “villainy.” The fellow was ready to do or to say anything in order to keep his hold on his victim. Twice Paul adds “all,” which marks the extent of this man’s viciousness.

What this really made of him Paul states in plain words, “a devil’s son,” υἱός is to be understood in the ethical sense as described in John 8:44. “Son” and “sons” are used in both an evil and a good way. We have “sons of light,” “sons of Israel,” or “of the prophets,” etc.; in 2 Thess. 2:3, “son of perdition.” Children are dear to men; but in ethical connections the son reflects the father or the quality and thus represents the one or the other. A devil’s son is not only his offspring but one in whom the devil’s characteristics reappear. “Devil” is Satan without stress on the etymology “slanderer.” Those who understand “Barjesus” as meaning “son of Jesus” (Joshuah) find a contrast to this name in “devil’s son.” Paul specifies the ethical feature when he adds “enemy of all righteousness.” An ἐχθρός is a hating personal enemy, and δικαιοσύνη is righteousness or right in the forensic sense as meeting the approval of the righteous divine Judge. Anything of that sort this man hated, for it would utterly condemn and destroy him and his vicious practices.

The motive, the man, and now the deeds: “Wilt thou not cease to turn aside the Lord’s ways, the straight ones?” The addition of the adjective by means of a second article makes a kind of apposition and climax, R. 776. These blessed ways of the Lord, these teachings of his that lead to faith, that are straight and true in every part and not crooked, not tricky, with no ulterior design, this fellow intends never to cease turning this way and that (διαστρέφων as in v. 8), to twist and to pervert by his objections, making them appear as what they are not, as something evil according to the evil that fills his own heart. The question is strongly rhetorical, for it has οὑ with the subjunctive (futuristic, R. 942) as though the answer is to be “yes” while the sense is: “No, thou wilt not cease doing this!” The fellow would let no moral consideration of any kind stop him in his nefarious doing.

Acts 13:11

11 But the Spirit has a way that will stop him: “And now” as the legitimate deduction from this character and conduct, “lo, the Lord’s hand upon thee!” Why insert “is” and weaken what is an exclamation and not a cool declaration? Paul, as it were, sees that hand or almighty power of the Lord Jesus striking this devil’s son. The fellow is to be blind and not see the sun until the time (καιρός) set by the Lord. This blindness for a time is a judicial penalty; it is by no means all that he deserved, but in his grace God moderated it by not cutting off the opportunity for repentance. It was a preliminary judgment like so many that God inflicts on wilful sinners in order by such severe means possibly to turn them from their evil ways. These judgments, if they are spurned, prefigure and announce the final, fatal judgment.

God warned Pharaoh with ever greater severity until the cup of his obduracy overflowed; then came the final stroke. This man’s wilful blindness was punished by miraculous physical blindness. The penalty often corresponds to the guilt. If this penalty would fail of its proper effect, a greater penalty awaited him, the darkness of everlasting death. The devil’s son would then end in the devil’s eternal night.

The man was struck blind instantly. Those who think that this was effected gradually because “a mist” is mentioned before “darkness” disregard the aorist with its adverb. Sight was blotted out at once. “Mist and darkness” are one idea, and mist is added in order to show that the eyeballs were filmed so that their sight went out like a light that is blown out. The effect was that, “going around, he began to seek hand-leaders,” a compound noun for which we lack a current equivalent. He would mislead the proconsul, he now sought someone to lead him, and that not amiss.

Here the man disappears from view. No one knows how long his blindness lasted. Zahn thinks that he was certainly cast off by Sergius Paulus and that eight years later he appeared as “one of the friends” of the procurator Felix (Acts 24:24), the fellow who was employed to lure away Drusilla, the daughter of Agrippa I, from her husband Azizus, the king of Emesa (Joseph, Ant. 20, 7, 2), in order to marry Felix. He is described as a Cyprian Jew and a magician. As to his name, the “Simon” found in the texts of Josephus is due to Christian copyists who placed this name in the margin and then into the text, thinking that the Simon Magus of Acts 8 was referred to; the name was “Atomon” and seems to be the “Hetoimon” (“Elymas,” see v. 8) of Luke. All that one can say is, interesting if true.

Acts 13:12

12 Then, on seeing what had occurred, the proconsul believed, dumbfounded at the teaching of the Lord.

This punitive miracle dumbfounded the proconsul The undeniable power manifested in it he rightly connected with “the teaching or doctrine of the Lord (Jesus),” thereby showing himself συνετός, “one understanding” (v. 7), by putting his mind and what had occurred together properly. He saw the same power in the miracle and in the doctrine which it sealed.

Luke writes the simple, positive, assuring aorist: “he believed.” We have no reason whatever to discount the word. The reasons brought forward for doing so are invalid the moment Luke’s account of the work in Cyprus is viewed as a whole. We at once see that the proconsul is the only convert that is mentioned as a result of the entire work done in Cyprus. That speaks rather plainly. It was not Luke’s intention to report in detail. He mentions only two towns, Salamis where the missionaries landed and Paphos from which they left. It is not even stated that converts and congregations resulted in these towns. Yet many were undoubtedly converted, and a number of congregations was left behind.

Is it any wonder, then, that Luke writes regarding the proconsul only that “he believed”? Why ask for more, that he was baptized, that this included his family, that he was received into the church, etc.? And because all this is not in the record, why question whether it occurred? Luke expects his readers also to be συνετός. Why these suspicions that the proconsul was perhaps not baptized because of his Roman office, because he had to take official part in certain official religious idolatrous rites? Another view is that, if a proconsul had been converted to Christianity, Roman and Greek historians would have recorded that fact.

They certainly did not record the fact that this proconsul was a pupil of the Jewish magus. “He believed”—that aorist stands as a tower—the very governor of the island, a Roman, believed! Luke makes this fact most impressive by saying nothing about other believers. He lets his reader himself say this.

This first stage of the first missionary journey of Paul was eminently successful. The one high point of success scored speaks volumes. And we should not think that, because in the next verse it is stated that the missionaries left, they departed the very day after the proconsul believed. They left when it was safe to leave their work in Paphos. In his chronological table Ramsay allows from March to July for the stay in Cyprus.

THE FIRST MISSIONARY JOURNEY: PISIDIAN ANTIOCH

Acts 13:13

13 After the work is completed in Cyprus, new territory is sought. Now having set sail from Paphos, those around Paul went to Perga of Pamphilia. John, however, having withdrawn from them, returned to Jerusalem. But they on their part, having gone through from Perga, arrived at Antioch, the Pisidian.

The passive of ἀνάγω is used in a nautical sense, “to put to sea,” “to set sail.” The Greek says literally, “go up” on the sea and “come down” to land, speaking as it appears to the eye. The voyage from Paphos to the coast of the mainland was easily accomplished, there being frequent shipping facilities. Instead of stopping at the harbor town Attalia (14:25), they sailed up the Kestros River and landed at Perga. The observation is certainly correct that, when Luke writes “Perga of Pamphilia,” he is not locating Perga for his reader, not distinguishing it from some other Perga. Pamphilia was selected as the next missionary field and is mentioned for this reason. It is true that Paul first went up to Antioch and worked there, but equally true that on the return journey work was done in Pamphilia.

In οἱπερὶΠαῦλον we have the classic idiom for “Paul and his company,” he being included (B.-D. 228). Significant is the naming of this group after Paul. It is not “the Barnabas party” but “the Paul party.” Luke writes thus because after the stay at Paphos the main person and leader is Paul. Let us understand that this gravitation of Paul to the leadership was entirely natural. In personality, in personal force, as in education, Paul outranked even a man like Barnabas. Although it had been held back all these years, the simple greatness of the man now began to be revealed. That fact made it easy for Barnabas to fall into second place.

It is Ramsay who connects Perga, Mark’s leaving, and the haste to Pisidian Antioch by starting from the assumption that Luke joins together what inwardly belongs together. The three statements are usually treated separately. The only direct light we have on Mark’s defection is the remark made in 15:38, 39 that “he did not go with them to the work” and that Barnabas and Paul fell out with each other in regard to taking him along on a second missionary journey. What really was the trouble still remains veiled. We hastily acquit the mosquitoes at Perga, not because they stung Paul and Barnabas as well as Mark, but because no stay was made at Perga at this time. The charge of homesickness, that Mark went zu seiner Mutter (to his mother), is unfair.

We find nothing convincing in the surmise that Mark did not relish the transfer of leadership from Barnabas, Mark’s cousin, to Paul. Mark was only an attendant (v. 5), and the shift of leadership was entirely natural. Mark could not take umbrage as long as Barnabas did not. Still less likely is Mark’s dissatisfaction with Paul’s work among the Gentiles, for Barnabas stood for the same work, he as well as Paul having cast away Judaistic ideas.

That leaves Mark’s lack of courage, which agrees with chapter 15:38, 39. It may well be possible that something had occurred at Perga which took the heart out of Mark. Ramsay asks the question as to why Paul went straight on from Perga to Pisidian Antioch, a long hard journey that was full of dangers at that. Why was no work done at Perga at this time but only later? Ramsay finds the reason in Gal. 4:13, 14, Paul’s “infirmity of the flesh.” Paul had to leave the hot lowlands and get into the higher interior without delay. Thus he hurried straight on to Antioch, 3, 600 feet above the sea; here he might hope to recover.

What, then, was Paul’s ailment? Ramsay diagnoses it as malaria which with its sudden attacks incapacitated Paul for several hours at each recurrence, prostrated him utterly, and was accompanied by frightful headaches. Since Paul was in this condition, Mark lost heart. In 15:38, 39 Paul still mistrusted Mark. Suppose Paul should have another siege of the malady, what would Mark then do? Was this Paul’s “stake in the flesh” (2 Cor. 12:7)? It could not have been even if we stress the accompanying headaches; the ailment was temporary.

Ramsay’s combination would also explain why Barnabas went on with Paul. He and Paul had been commissioned together by the Holy Spirit (v. 2); if Paul went on, Barnabas dared not withdraw and go with his cousin. The view that in Gal. 4:13, 14 Paul refers to some eye trouble that made his face look disagreeable is only a conjecture which does not even fit in with the language used. In v. 9 Paul “sets his eyes” on the magus, and that bars out any affliction of the eyes. The hypothesis of epilepsy is even less likely; a man who was subject to epileptic fits could not possibly have the mentality and do the work of this apostle. Besides, this ailment of which Paul complains does not seem to have been continuous. Only the Galatians saw him when his condition was very bad.

As far as “Galatia” is concerned, namely the debate as to whether Paul worked in southern Galatia or in northern Galatia, the question is settled. It was southern Galatia which included the very cities Paul was now entering before he returned to Perga which is located in Pamphilia.

Acts 13:14

14 After Mark had left them, Paul and Barnabas pressed on to Pisidian Antiochi. According to Luke’s record this was not a missionary tour, the travelers went straight through to Antioch. Antioch was not in Pisidia but on its border, hence Luke does not write “Antioch of Pisidia” (like “Perga of Pamphilia”) but “Antioch, the Pisidian,” the city thus being distinguished from Syrian Antioch and other towns of that name. It was a Roman colony like Philippi, a free city, and among its inhabitants there were many Jews. It was located in the Roman province of Galatia which included the ethnographic Regiones Pisidia, Phrygia, and Lycaonia. Until the return to Perga the journey was made entirely in Galatia. Antioch was a most desirable place in which to plant a Christian congregation.

And having gone to the synagogue on the day of the Sabbath, they sat down. But after the reading of the Law and of the Prophets the synagogue rulers sent to them, saying, Men and brethren, if you have some word of exhortation in your minds, say on!

We should begin a new sentence with καί. It has been asked how it was possible that in Antioch two Sabbaths were sufficient to produce such a decisive result among the Jews as well as the Gentiles when at other places similar results were more slowly achieved. But Luke is specific. The work began in the synagogue and moved with rapidity. After Paul and Barnabas had found lodging they most likely introduced themselves to the Jewish leaders, and when the Sabbath came, they sat down in the audience. Whether special seats were set aside for visiting rabbis is not known. The Greek often has the plural for “Sabbath”; the word is treated somewhat like names of festivals.

Acts 13:15

15 Luke has a double purpose in reporting the following sermon preached by Paul. It is a sample sermon which shows just how he presented Christ and the gospel in the synagogues. It is more: in this sermon we see how the Jews became hostile and then proceeded to persecute, which was one of the usual experiences of Paul.

Each synagogue had its managers who were called “elders” or as here “synagogue rulers”; one of these served as chairman or head of the others. All the synagogue’s affairs were in the hands of the rulers. Since there were no pastors, the rulers managed the services so that the lessons were read, the prayers and the responses were recited, and necessary business attended to. Whenever possible, however, competent rabbis were asked to address the people. This was done by request or permission of the rulers. Men of the necessary schooling and ability were not numerous and happened along as visitors only occasionally.

When Paul, the famous pupil of Gamaliel in Jerusalem, and Barnabas, a Levite and resident of Jerusalem, appeared in Pisidian Antioch, the elders even sent the chazzan or synagogue clerk to the rear where they were sitting and invited them to come forward to address a word to the people. This was in regular order, was not possible every Sabbath, and was appreciated the more on that account.

This occurred after the regular part of the service had been concluded, the main features of which Luke mentions, namely the reading of the Law (Torah, Pentateuch) and of the Prophets (a term that included the historical books from Joshua through Kings). The Pentateuch was divided into fifty-four lections called parashas, fifty-four so as to suffice also for the Jewish leap year, the Prophets into fifty-four haphtarahs; one of each of these lections was read each Sabbath. These two lections were themselves a fair-sized sermon. The Palestinian and the eastern Jews, the so-called Hebrews (see 6:1), used the Hebrew text which was translated into the vernacular Aramaic, for the majority of these Jews were no longer fully conversant with Hebrew. But in the Hellenistic diaspora, thus also here in Antioch, the LXX was used which need not be translated since all understood the Greek. This explains the presence of so many Gentiles, proselytes of the gate and prospective proselytes, in these synagogues.

The Jews themselves were the Hellenists mentioned in 6:1; on the two kinds of proselytes see 2:10. The second class of proselytes were always open to the gospel, were readily won for the gospel, and thus formed the avenue for reaching the Gentile Greeks in general.

The idiom ἄνδροςἀδελφοί is explained in 1:16; it is at once polite and dignified. Perhaps λόγοςπαρακλήσεως was a standard term for an address such as is here requested, the genitive denoting “exhortation,” encouragement to believe the Word and to live according to its precepts. It did not necessarily imply an exposition of the lections read for that Sabbath although the address might take up some word in one or the other lection or might start with such a word. What the visiting rabbi might desire to say was left entirely to him. The address would be quite informal, at least in most cases: so here “any word in you,” in animis vestris, that in your mind and heart might seem profitable for the people to hear. This invitation was just what the missionaries desired.

Acts 13:16

16 And having arisen and having motioned with the hand, Paul said, etc. It is Paul who responds and makes the address; he is now the leader. The Jewish teachers sat when making an address. Both in Constantinople and in the Great Mosque at Damascus the writer saw the Mohammedan speakers sitting cross-legged, the latter speaker being very dramatic and fervent in his Arabic address. But in the Greek Catholic church in Damascus the patriarch, as well as the new bishop whom he installed, together with the other bishops and clergy stood during the entire ceremony and while the patriarch made his address to the new bishop and the latter responded. In the Hellenistic synagogues it was customary for the speakers to stand. Since the ordinary part of the service was at an end, the audience in the large synagogue had begun a conversation, and when Saul went forward and faced them he motioned for silence. Ἀναστάς is so constantly used circumstantially for proceeding with an act that it does not assure us that Paul stood; but in 17:22 he stood, and we assume that he followed this Roman custom here.

It is, of course, problematic what lections had been read on that Sabbath, nor have we the lections as they were arranged in those early days. From two words, both of which are distinctive, in Paul’s address one might conclude that the lection from the Torah was Deut. 1, and the lection from the Prophets Isa. 1. These words are ἐτροφοφόρησεν (v. 18), which appears in Deut. 1:31; and ὕψωσεν (v. 17), which appears in Isa. 1:2, in the LXX. The historical part of Paul’s address may have been suggested by Deut. 1. The address names: Israelite men and those fearing God and bids them hear, and uses the authoritative aorist imperative and not the milder present. This implies that quite a number of these proselytes of the gate, who are regularly called οἱφοβούμενοιτὸνΘεόν, must have been present.

Paul names them side by side with the Israelites. The proselytes would sit in a place that was especially set aside for them. The women were seated behind some screen where they would be invisible to the men. Paul had no occasion to name them in his address. When Paul says “Israelites” he appeals to the highest motives in his Jewish hearers; see the term in 2:22.

Inferior homiletics receives no support from Paul’s address at Pisidian Antioch. The theme is plainly marked in v. 23, and three of the parts are marked, each with ἄνδρεςἀδελφοί (v. 16, 26, 38). Here is the outline:

UNTO ISRAEL A SAVIOR, JESUS

I. Israel’s history leads up to him.

II. God fulfilled his promises to Israel by raising him from the dead.

III. In him alone is forgiveness and justification.

Even a little study shows how well the sermon fit the time, the place, and the audience. Put yourself in Paul’s place and say what you would have spoken in Antioch.

Acts 13:17

17 The God of this people Israel elected for himself our fathers and exalted the people in the foreign sojourn in Egypt’s land and with a high arm led them forth out of it. And for about a time of forty years he bore them as a nursing father in the desert.

Paul begins his address as Stephen had begun his defense: by a review of Israel’s history. The tone and the object, however, are different. Through the history recounted by Stephen runs the note of Israel’s disobedience in rejecting Christ; Paul’s account of the history shows God’s grace blessing Israel. Impressively Paul begins with “the God of this people Israel.” He says “of this people Israel” because he is speaking to Gentiles as well as to Jews, and the pagan nations had been idolaters and had not worshipped the true God. The Jews sometimes carried their ancestry back to Abraham (John 8:39), sometimes to Jacob or Israel (as here) and thus to “our fathers,” the twelve patriarchs (Rom. 9:5). This great and only God, who in the Old Testament is named from his people Israel, in whom the Gentile proselytes of the gate now also believed, by a signal act of his free grace “elected for himself (middle voice) our fathers” in his great plan of grace for all men to be the bearers of his promises to the world and to be the nation from whom the Savior of the world should be born according to the flesh. A brief and yet mighty statement; a perfect way to begin a sermon, namely with a statement that arrests attention by its importance and promises that the following will remain on this high plane.

Equal in force is the next statement: “and he exalted the people in the foreign sojourn in Egypt’s land” by making them strong and numerous and by granting them his covenant promises and the true worship. Λαός is always the covenant people; and the verb does not mean merely that he let the people grow up to be big but that he placed them on a high plane. While they lived as πάροικοι, “foreigners,” not natives in παροικία, the state of aliens, in the land of Egypt, God still kept them as his own people. And when the time came, God ended that alien state by leading his people out “with an arm exalted.” The μετά does not speak of this exalted arm as the means or instrument by which God led out Israel but as the accompaniment: “in company with an arm exalted,” This arm went along with Israel at the time of the exodus; they saw it in the pillar of cloud by day which became a pillar of fire by night. God’s arm is his power and his majesty; where his arm is, there he is: God who exalted his people led them to their own land with an exalted arm. Behold all this grace! Then think of its ultimate purpose!

Acts 13:18

18 We regard this verse as an independent sentence and not as subordinate to the next verse. Like a nursing father God carried his people through the desert. The reading ἐτροφοφόρησεν, both here and in Deut. 1:31, is decidedly to be preferred to ἐτροποφόρησεν, “he bore their manners.” The former is a rare verb and was easily changed to the commoner verb by altering only one letter. But the Hebrew justifies the former verb: “he bare thee as a man doth bear his son.” Paul knew the Hebrew as well as the LXX. There would be a note of blame in saying that God bore Israel’s manners for forty years; for we know what those manners were (7:39–43); but Paul’s tone is the very opposite; it shows God’s wonderful grace toward Israel. All those years God tenderly cared for Israel like a father nursing his son.

He fed the people with manna and kept them so that they did not perish. The fact that their own unbelief extended the journey to forty years is not the point here; God kept them in spite of their unbelief.

Acts 13:19

19 And having destroyed seven nations in Canaan land, he distributed as a heritage their land about four hundred and fifty years; and after that he gave them judges until prophet Samuel; and thereupon they asked for themselves a king, and God gave them Saul, son of Kish, a man of Benjamin’s tribe, for forty years.

Paul proceeds from the entrance into Canaan through the era of the judges to the end of Saul’s reign. The chief point of this presentation is the truth that God did all that is here recited. His agency in the history is brought to view. It was he who destroyed the seven Canaanite nations (cf., Deut. 7:1, where their names are recorded); he who distributed their land to the people of Israel as an inheritance.

The correct reading continues with ὡς (there is no καί before it) and places the dative of time in v. 19 and not, as the A. V. does, in v. 20 by placing the dative after the μετά phrase: “and after that … about the space of 450 years.” R. 527 does not give much helpful information on this dative; B.-D. 201 furnishes full evidence for this use of the dative as denoting length of time instead of an accusative with transitive verbs; this is apparently done in order to avoid two consecutive accusatives, one being the direct object of the transitive verb and another indicating the extent of time. Zahn says that placing the dative of time into v. 19 lets Paul say that distributing the inheritance covered that much time. The round number “about 450 years” covers the time from the sojourn in Egypt to the possession of Canaan. According to 7:6 (Gen. 15:13) 400 years were spent in Egypt, forty additional years in the journey through the desert to Canaan, and about ten further years for conquering the land, which is certainly close to 450 years. Paul says that during these many years, almost half a millennium, God dealt so graciously with his λαός.

Acts 13:20

20 Zahn resorts to an emendation of the text by eliminating μετὰταῦτα and making v. 20 read: “for about 450 years he gave judges,” etc., and makes the period of the Judges 450 years, which is in contradiction with 1 Kings 6:1, which makes the entire time from the exodus from Egypt to the fourth year of Solomon’s reign only 480 years. Nor can the 450 years be reckoned according to the incorrect reading of the A. V. “after these things,” after the entrance of Israel into Canaan, for this would advance us into the reign of David and beyond that of Saul, neither of whom Paul has as yet mentioned.

The claim is unwarranted that Paul had a different method of reckoning from that employed in 1 Kings 6:1, which arrived at 480 years from the exodus to the time of Solomon, namely that Paul merely added together the years of the judges and disregarded the fact that the terms of the judges frequently overlapped and thus secured 450 years; the Jews are charged with doing the same thing. Paul’s 450 years have nothing to do with even the longer era that began with the conquest of Canaan. R., W. P., counted the 450 years from the birth of Isaac to the conquest of Canaan. But it is sixty years from Isaac’s birth to Jacob’s, seventy more until Jacob goes to Canaan, 400 in Egypt, forty in the wilderness—570!

It is again God who gave Israel judges until the last one who was even more than a judge, namely “prophet Samuel” who is even regarded as one of God’s great prophets.

Acts 13:21

21 Finally they asked for themselves a king. Paul is not reciting the faults of Israel but God’s leadings which culminated in the Messiah. Hence he mentions only the request for a king since in response to it God gave them Saul. It was God who did this. It is a misunderstanding to say that Paul adds Saul’s lineage, “son of Kish, a man of Benjamin’s tribe,” because the apostle himself came from that tribe and himself was named Saul. No motive of pride actuated Paul in making this addition. He mentions Saul’s lineage for a most pertinent reason. It was not from the tribe of Benjamin, not from the royal line of Saul, that the Savior came but from David who replaced Saul.

The Old Testament nowhere states the length of Saul’s reign. In 1 Sam. 13:1 the age of Saul when he became king had already been omitted when the LXX made their translation. Here again Jewish tradition is supposed to have furnished the omitted information by making Saul’s reign forty years, equal to that of David and of Solomon. Josephus is usually quoted in support of this view, but in Ant. 6, 14, 9, in the statement that Saul reigned eighteen years while Samuel yet lived and twenty-two after Samuel was dead, the word “twenty” is not genuine, and the word “two” seems to be taken from the corrupted passage 1 Sam. 13:1. Elsewhere Josephus makes Saul’s reign only twenty years—a sample of the reliability of this historian. Paul’s forty years should be taken as extending back to Samuel just as the 450 years extended back and allowed seventeen to nineteen years for the judgeship of Samuel and twenty to twenty-two for the kingship of Saul. Keil, Biblischer Commentar, Josua, Richter und Ruth, 212.

Acts 13:22

22 And after having removed him, he raised up David for them for king, to whom also he said, giving testimony, I found David, him of Jesse, a man according to my heart who will do all my will. Of the seed of this one God according to promise brought for Israel a Savior, Jesus, John having heralded in advance before the presence of his entering in a baptism of repentance to all the people Israel. And as John was fulfilling his course he went on to say: What do you suspect me to be? I am not he! But lo, there comes after me he, the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to loose.

All that Paul says about Saul, the Benjaminite king, is that God removed him. This, however, does not refer to Saul’s death—he killed himself—but to his rejection by God when Samuel was commissioned to anoint another as king in Saul’s place. God allowed Saul to continue to reign for a time but only as one who had been rejected. In place of Saul, God “raised up David for them for king” (εἰς introducing the predicate, resembling the Hebrew le, R. 482). Of Saul, Paul says God “gave,” of David, God “raised up,” a more significant term which includes all that made David the king he was. Paul makes this prominent by letting God himself testify concerning David; the action of μαρτυρήσας is simultaneous with that of εἶπε due to the nature of the actions. What God said was testimony.

Paul is not quoting, has no formula of quotation, and cares only to state the substance of the divine testimony regarding David. Thus Ps. 89:20, and 1 Sam. 16:7, 12 are used, and one expression is taken from Isa. 44:28, where it is used with reference to Cyrus, but it applies to David just as well or even better. David allowed God to make his heart and his life what they were. “Him of Jesse,” i. e., Jesse’s son, points to David’s father as being but a common man; yet under God’s gracious leading he eventually found this man’s son David “a man according to my heart,” an individual as God wished him to be. David’s great sins did not alter this testimony of God, for David repented.

The relative clause shows to what this testimony referred, namely to David’s willingness to do all the θἑλήματα of God, the different things that God willed. In this respect David was the opposite of Saul, to whom Samuel had to say, “To obey is better than sacrifice,” and then, “Thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord hath rejected thee from being king over Israel,” 1 Sam. 15:22, 26.

Paul brings into prominence the high, godly caracter of David because the Messiah was to be David’s son. When he thus distinguished David, Paul had the fullest consent of all his hearers, especially of the Jews who knew all about David and who fully believed that the Messiah would come from David’s line. When Jesus asked the Pharisees whose son the Christ would be, they promptly answered, David’s son (Matt. 22:41, etc.), and many an afflicted person appealed to Jesus as “the son of David.”

Acts 13:23

23 The emphatic demonstrative τούτου, “of this one,” placed at the head of the sentence, sums up all that Paul had said about David and now, leaping across the space of a thousand years, connects Jesus with him: “of the seed of this one,” etc. This clear statement that Jesus was “from the seed” of David ought to give pause to all those who deny that Mary was a lineal descendant of David and refuse to understand Luke’s genealogical table (Luke 3:23, etc.) as being that of Mary. Read Rom. 1:4: “Jesus Christ, which was made (τοῦγενομένου) of the seed of David according to the flesh.” If Joseph alone was of David’s blood and not Mary, if, therefore, Jesus was only legally David’s son through his foster-father, how could he be “from (ἀπό, Rom. 1:4, ἐκ) David’s seed”? That exegesis is wrong which denies Davidic descent to Mary and Davidic blood to Jesus. When we are told that in the present passage Paul is not speaking of the birth of Jesus but only of his office, and that this is made certain by εἴσοδος in the next verse, we challenge this claim. Paul speaks of both the birth or descent of Jesus and of his office. “According to promise” even connects the two, for it was God’s promise that one of David’s blood should be the Savior, 2 Sam. 7:16; Isa. 11:1; Jer. 23:5, 6; Zech. 3:8 (Luke 1:32, 33). Without the Davidic birth and blood there is no Messianic office.

In one simple, direct statement Paul declares that God made Jesus the Savior: “God according to promise brought for Israel a Savior, Jesus.” “God” did it; Paul made God’s agency very prominent throughout all of Israel’s history, and here that agency reaches its climax. The choice between the reading ἤγαγε and the slighty supported ἤγειρεν, is easy, because the latter is drawn from v. 22: “raised up” David; and we regard the reading ἀνήγαγε as a conjecture for which there is little support.

This very verb ἄγω, “brought,” occurs in the promise Zech. 3:8, and its use with the dative “brought for Israel” is most proper. The expression is only a variation of Peter’s declaration: “God made this Jesus both Lord and Christ” (2:36). Paul has been recounting Israel’s history under God and thus he says that God brought Jesus “for Israel.” The Gentiles present were to hear that the Savior was presented to Israel according to the promise made to Israel; the fact that this Savior was intended also for them they would hear presently (v. 39).

Note that the great name “Jesus” is placed emphatically at the end and that it thus balances the equally emphatic genitive “of this one (David)” at the head of the sentence. No play on words is intended in σωτῆραἸησοῦν although “Jesus” itself signifies “savior” (see 2:38). “Savior” puts the whole office and work of Jesus into one word, and that word signifies not only what Jesus did but what he still does—he is and remains the one who saves. All that the Scriptures say about salvation lies in this one term. “Savior,” plus its derivatives, refers to the act of rescuing from mortal spiritual danger and includes the further continuous act of keeping in the condition of spiritual safety. All that God had planned from the very beginning when selecting the fathers (v. 17) God had carried out when he brought Jesus to Israel and presented him as the Savior according to the promise.

What a glorious statement for these Jews to hear! They gloried in that past history with all its illustrious names and with God in and over it all; and now it was crowned by God’s bringing to them this promised Savior. We know of no more perfect approach that Paul could have made to the mighty theme of the Saviorhood of Jesus for this audience of his.

Acts 13:24

24 The added genitive absolute describes how God brought Jesus for Israel as a Savior. We must note the grandness of the language and of the underlying imagery. Note, “before the presence or face of his entering in,” Hebraistic, as though this Savior came in divine power and majesty. A great herald came before him who announced his coming for Israel by proclaiming “a baptism of repentance for all the people Israel.” It was thus that God brought Jesus to Israel. Paul’s hearers knew about Jesus and about the Baptist; all he needed to do was to present the great facts as they had occurred.

In the verb “to herald in advance” (πρό) we have the prophecy that John should be the “voice” crying in the wilderness. What heralding a baptism meant all Jews would know, all of whom were conversant with the Jewish lustrations and cleansing ceremonies. This herald John, they understood, came in advance in order to prepare the people of Israel for the coming of the Savior. Carefully, despite all brevity, Paul adds the qualifying genitive baptism “of repentance.” It demanded repentance, was intended for the repentant only, but the entire people of Israel were to accept it by such repentance. On the concept repentance see 2:38, and on John’s baptism 1:5. God intended John’s work only for the Jews, and in due time, as now, the blessing of it would go out to all the world.

Acts 13:25

25 Paul shows the greatness of this Savior Jesus by the word of the Baptist which John 1:19, etc., recounts so fully, also Luke 3:15, etc.; Matt. 3:11. This occurred when John was finishing his course, i. e., when Jesus had already begun his ministry. Many of the people quietly thought (ὑπό in the verb) that John himself might be the Christ. The imperfect ἔλεγε pictures his answer. One may draw the question and the answer together: “What you suspect me to be I am not,” the emphasis being on the pronouns (B. D. 298, 4; R. 738); or one may divide: “What do you suspect me to be? I am not (what you thus suspect)!” what, not who.

The utter folly of thinking that a mere man like John could be the Messiah and Savior is brought out by saying that one as high as John was, so high as to be suspected of himself being the Messiah, was not worthy of stooping before the real Messiah in order to render him the service of the lowest slave, that of untying his sandals to take and to cleanse them and of washing the dust from his feet. It was a concrete and striking way of pointing out the deity of the Messiah. The exclamation “lo” helps to make it strong; ἔρχεται is Messianic, the Messiah was “the One coming.”

This first part of Paul’s discourse is purely historical—all a series of facts—all straight testimony. All these things God had done—no “if” or “but” about it. Every word must have gone directly home.

Acts 13:26

26 Paul marks the second part of the discourse most plainly by once more addressing his hearers: ἄνδρεςἀδελφοί (see 1:16). We may extend this second part to v. 37, after which Paul addresses his hearers for a third time. Two historical facts are presented: Jesus’ death and his resurrection. Both, however, are presented in such a way as to bring out their full significance. The Jews of Jerusalem killed Jesus but by doing this ignorantly fulfilled the divine prophecy. God raised Jesus from the dead and completed the fulfillment. This resurrection attests the Messiahship of Jesus by God’s own act. The prophecies are quoted to fortify the fact. Here again are straight facts but facts set into the proper divine light.

Men and brethren, sons of Abraham’s stock, and those among you fearing God, to us the word of this salvation was sent out.

The apposition appeals most strongly to the theocratic position and feelings of Paul’s Jewish hearers. In v. 17 this appeal was made through Israel, now it reaches back also to Abraham with whom the covenant was originally made. By adding Abraham to Israel Paul produces a cumulative effect. Paul is asking his Jewish hearers to show themselves as true sons of Israel and of Abraham. All that is said about υἱός in v. 10 applies also here. The translation of our versions “children” misses this important point; “children” would be τέκνα, the connotation being “dear children.” “Sons” are far more, namely the heirs of Abraham and Abraham’s stock, they in whom all that Abraham and his race stand for is to live on undiminished, they who ought to perpetuate the character, the faith, the lofty standing of Abraham and of his descendants.

As such “sons” Paul addresses his Jewish hearers. The Gentiles present Paul addressed by the title he had formerly given them (v. 17); as men who have come to the right knowledge and the true fear and the worship of God and have forsaken all idolatry, they, too, are now to show themselves as such.

Paul has mentioned Jesus as “Savior” (v. 23); “the word of this salvation” links up with that Savior. This word sets forth what makes Jesus the Savior and how he is our Savior. Hence it was sent out, commissioned forth for all, Jews and Gentiles alike, to hear, know, believe, and thereby to receive salvation, σωτηρία, deliverance from sin and the safety that results (it is like Σωτήρ in v. 23). The ὑμῖν of a few texts should not be urged against the ἡμῖν of the many and most important. Paul could have used either; both would include all his hearers, and that irrespective of the preceding ἐνὑμῖν. The difference is only this, by saying “to us” this word was sent Paul includes Barnabas and himself with all his hearers, while “to you” would refer only to his hearers. The great word of this salvation, Paul says, is now here for all of us to accept and thereby to be saved.

Acts 13:27

27 For, those dwelling in Jerusalem and their rulers, having failed to understand this and the voices of the prophets that are being read on every Sabbath, they, by passing judgment, fulfilled them. And though having found not a single cause for death, they asked Pilate in due course that he be made away with. Moreover, when they had finished all the things that have been written concerning him, having taken him down from the wood, they placed him in a tomb.

With γάρ Paul introduces his presentation of the death of Jesus on the cross. This is not a statement of a reason but an explanation of what is contained in “this word of salvation” which Paul says has been sent out to us. “For” means: “in order that I may explain.” There is not the least indication that Paul is here contrasting the murderers of Jesus with his present hearers and no reason for such a contrast.

The death of the Savior Jesus was brought about by the people of Jerusalem and their rulers, the Sanhedrists. Peter, too, accuses the former just as Paul does here (2:23). The simple fact is that the Sanhedrin could never have forced Pilate to crucify Jesus if the populace of Jerusalem had not seconded their rulers. If the people had objected and demanded the release of Jesus, Pilate would have been encouraged to deny the ungodly demand for Jesus’ death. Paul, too, brings out the truth that both people and rulers acted in ignorance (3:17; 1 Cor. 2:8; compare Luke 23:34). This was criminal ignorance, and Paul states the guilt of it in the causal participle “having failed to understand,” which is not ingressive (R. 858) but effective.

Does τοῦτον refer to Jesus as our versions translate? This antecedent would be too remote. Since v. 26 Paul had advanced to a new part of his discourse, and the masculine λόγος immediately precedes. These people and their rulers failed to understand both “this,” the word of salvation regarding Jesus as the Savior, and the voices of the prophets which already contained that word. What increased the guilt of the latter was the fact that these prophets were constantly being read in their synagogues; on every Sabbath they heard them and yet failed utterly to understand the word of salvation in them, the word about Jesus, his atoning death, and his resurrection. Καί cannot be “also” for the reason that the main verb can never be added to a participle by an “also” or some other coordinate conjunction; those who attempt it here change the participle into a second finite verb: “because they failed to understand … they also fulfilled,” but Paul subordinated. So Καί connects τοῦτον and τὰςφωνάς.

The grammatical references of κρίναντεςἐηλήρωσαν are misunderstood in our versions, apparently because τοῦτον is referred to “him” (Jesus). Since neither the participle nor the verb have an object expressed in the Greek, the participle is given the object “him” and the verb the object “them” (voices): “fulfilled them by condemning him.” But the participle has no object in the Greek, and the two objects, “this” (word of salvation) and “the voices of the prophets,” etc., belong equally to “having failed to understand” and to “fulfilled,” as they failed to understand both, so they (inadvertently and ignorantly) fulfilled both. And κρίναντες states how they did the latter: “by passing judgment,” i. e., by that act (aorist).

The verb κρίνειν is neutral and means neither to acquit nor to condemn but only to judge. Because of their failure to understand these men were fit to do neither, acquit or condemn or to judge in any sense. Yet they went ahead and acted the judge, they passed judgment. Of course, when one does this he must either acquit or condemn. These men did the latter. In this way their blind ignorance led them to fulfill their own prophets, do the horrible acts their prophets had foretold regarding them. Incredible—yet true to the letter!

Acts 13:28

28 The indefinite participle which speaks of their act of passing judgment is now described. They found not a single “cause of death” yet demanded Jesus’ death. This is legal language. This finding is judicial, the legal finding of a judge on the basis of legal evidence. Αἰτία is a legal indictment, and the genitive θανάτου qualifies it as being one the penalty for which is rightly death. In the negative “not a single one” there lies the implication that several indictments were tried, but that not one of them was supported by evidence that a court could allow.

This applies fully also to the charge on which Jesus was condemned by the Sanhedrin, that by calling himself the Son of God he had blasphemed. The Sanhedrin merely grasped at that as a last resort. The moment Jesus had uttered his yea to the question put to him, the verdict guilty was rendered. No opportunity was given Jesus to offer proof that his yea was true in fact and the opposite of blasphemy. He was pronounced guilty without in the least permitting him to produce evidence on which the court might render a finding. That is why the Sanhedrin dared not tell Pilate on what grounds it had condemned Jesus to death but threw up a lying smoke screen of findings it had never even attempted to find: “we found” (i. e., legally), Luke 23:2; but Pilate had to answer: “I find” (legally, as judge), John 19:4.

Although it had no finding, the Sanhedrin and the people “asked Pilate in due course that he be made away with.” The wording is again legal; for this verb is middle and in this voice is used to designate all sorts of business transactions. It does not mean that “they asked as a personal favor for themselves” that Jesus be executed. Roman governors did not grant such favors. In due course the great Jewish court came to Pilate’s superior court with the legal request that the Roman court accept the Jewish verdict. This was a piece of legal business. The Jews could execute no one; all their death verdicts were subject to the Roman governor’s review.

Now the outrageousness of the Sanhedrin’s procedure is revealed: without a single finding legally laid down by their own court they come in due form and make the formal legal request of Pilate’s court to have Jesus executed! The aorist ᾐτήσαντο implies that they actually succeeded. The verb ἀναιρέω is constantly used in Acts with reference to the judicial murder of Jesus; he was to be made away with, executed.

Acts 13:29

29 Paul is brief; his aim is to show how the guiltless Savior Jesus came to his death through the guilty and ignorant Sanhedrin and the people of Jerusalem. For this reason he does not alter the subject when he now speaks of what was done with the body of Jesus. He simply says that they buried him. But first the important clause: “when they had finished (the Greek needs only the aorist) all the things that have been written (and still stand so, perfect participle) concerning him”—yes, they finished all of them! They were plainly written for anyone to read and to know, and yet, without an inkling of what they were thus really doing, they did all these things. This was the vital point for Paul’s hearers, that God himself had had all these things regarding Jesus, his sufferings and his death, recorded in the prophets.

To see them there in the inspired books and then to see them in actuality in Jesus, this was bound to go home. In this light of prophecy the shame of the cross disappeared; in this light of prophecy the guilt of the Jewish rulers and of the people in Jerusalem cried to heaven.

We must not miss the added touch in the participial clause: “having taken him down from the wood.” We have explained this “wood” which our versions translate “tree” in 5:30, and have shown that in the estimation of Jews hanging on wood involved being accursed. Paul’s hearers knew that Jesus had been crucified at Jerusalem; when he speaks of it, Paul brings out the Jewish point of view that the Sanhedrin and the people had not merely succeeded in having him made away with but by having this done so that in the eyes of all Judaism he was accursed. See the exposition of Gal. 3:13. After taking him down they placed him in a tomb. Dead, buried, accursed at that. His foes thought they surely had destroyed him, were absolutely done with him, would never be disturbed by him and all this was done just as it had been written, and they never realized that it had been written about them.

The passive “that he be made away with” (v. 28) shows that the rulers and the people did not do this with their own hands; and this applies to taking down the body and placing it into the tomb. By having Jesus killed these rulers necessitated the disposal of his body, and thus it can be said that they did these acts. The usual explanation is that Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus are referred to since both were Sanhedrists. But this is only a formal explanation and hence is not satisfactory. Peter charged the Sanhedrists to their faces that they killed Jesus; in the same way they buried him. Both were done by forcing others to perform these acts.

This is the first subpart. It stands out in strong contrast with the preceding. In v. 17–25 the agent is God throughout: he, he did all all that is said; but in v. 26–29 the agents are the blind people and the rulers: they, they do all that is said. When Paul now proceeds, it is again God who is the great agent. The address pivots on the agents. Its convincing force rests on these marked pivots.

Acts 13:30

30 But God raised him from the dead, who appeared for many days to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, such as now are his witnesses to the people.

The contrast is tremendous: the people and the rulers made away with Jesus as one who was accursed, God did the absolutely opposite. God reversed and nullified what they did, yea, by raising him from the dead whom they had killed as one who was accursed God set his seal upon him as being the Savior. It is the same stunning contrast and opposition as that used by Peter when he faced the people in Jerusalem and the Sanhedrin, the very murderers of Jesus (2:23, 24, 36; 4:10; 5:30, 31). Note how succinctly the fact is stated as a fact: “But God raised him from the dead!” On ἐκνεκρῶν see 3:16. This deed was one of omnipotence. There it is recorded in Scripture for all who will to rage against; but it is unchangeable, impregnable as ever. Modernists may hurl themselves against it, they injure it not a whit, they injure only themselves.

Acts 13:31

31 A second fact and deed is added with ὅς which in the Greek so often = “he who.” Paul does not continue with God and say: “God manifested him.” Yet he does not detract from the first mention of God and what God did. He also maintains all that he said when stating that God “raised him from the dead.” Jesus was made alive. He, he himself was the one who appeared as living and raised from the dead and not once only but “for many days,” in the Greek idiom “for more days (than a few),” forty in all. To whom? “To those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem,” to those who had known him longest and best, who could not be deceived. Paul is not speaking of himself and of his vision of the risen Lord. He uses ὤφθη, the aorist passive of ὁράω, “he was seen,” or intransitive, “he appeared,” which is employed four times in 1 Cor. 15:5–9.

But his resurrection was not intended for these friends of Jesus alone. It concerned all the λαός or Jewish people, namely in the special sense developed in v. 17–25. So many of them were scattered far and wide over the earth and could not all be direct witnesses of God’s saving acts. This was the case in regard to all Israel’s past history and God’s deeds in that history. The true witnesses testified to all those facts. That is the case with regard to Jesus, his work and suffering and death and now in particular his resurrection, God chose the witnesses by whom he intended to attest this great deed of his and the living presence of the risen Savior. Οἵτινες expresses quality: “such as now are his witnesses to the people.” Having seen the risen Jesus again and again, they, as many of them as there are, constitute his eyewitnesses who are qualified in every way to testify to all that they have seen.

Paul first presents the facts that God raised Jesus from the dead and that Jesus appeared to chosen witnesses. Up to this point all has been objective, but now with the marked ἡμεῖςὑμᾶς there comes the subjective: the good tidings we bring to you of the fulfilled promises to which are added some of these promises concerning the Messiah’s resurrection with brief elucidation. Down to its minor parts the discourse is arranged with exactness in a perfect progression, logically and psychologically.

Acts 13:32

32 And we on our part to you on yours are proclaiming as good news the promise come to the fathers, that God has completely fulfilled this to us, their children, by having made Jesus to appear; as also it has been written in the second Psalm: My Son art thou; I today have begotten thee. Moreover, regarding that God made him appear from the dead not still about to return to corruption he has declared in this way, I will give to you the holy things of David, the trustworthy things! Because also in another he declares, Thou wilt not give thy Holy One to see corruption. For David, having served his own generation by the counsel of God, fell asleep and was added to his fathers and saw corruption; but he whom God raised up did not see corruption.

Both pronouns occurring in v. 32 are accented and are aided in their emphasis by their juxtaposition. “We on our part” = Paul and Barnabas, and “to you on yours” are Paul’s Jewish hearers. To them these messengers are here and now proclaiming as good news “the promise that came to the fathers.”

Acts 13:33

33 Not the promise as such, but the fact “that God has completely (ἐκ in the verb) fulfilled this to the children (of the fathers), namely to us (Paul, Barnabas, and the Jewish hearers), by having made Jesus to appear.” The ὅτι clause is appositional to “the promise.” Ταύτην is put forward for the sake of emphasis: “this,” this very promise, for which the fathers waited so long, God has now finally fulfilled for their children, the perfect tense implying that the fulfilling now stands as such. The reading τοῖςτέκνοιςἡμῶν (R. V.) makes no sense. Paul had no children, and the promise was fulfilled not merely for the children of his Jewish hearers and not the hearers themselves. We must read either “for their children” (αὑτῶν) as in the A. V., or “for the children, namely us” (ἡμῖν).

Since the promise was made to the fathers and not to the Gentiles, Paul says properly that it was fulfilled for the children of those fathers, the Jews, leaving out the Gentiles. The whole work of Jesus was done among Jews. The fact that the Gentiles were to participate in it changes nothing of what God did. Throughout the discourse one sees how Paul is laboring to win his Jewish hearers; throughout he depicts what God did for the fathers and finally for their children. Paul has no fears for his Gentile hearers. So he now freely says, “To the children, to us.”

We refer ἀναστήσαςἹησοῦν to God’s act of raising up Jesus as the Savior and not to the act of raising him up from the dead. With δέ, “moreover” (slightly adversative), Paul then adds ἀνέστησεναὑτὸνἐκνεκρῶν, the act of raising Jesus from the dead. This δέ prevents us from referring both the participle and the finite verb to the resurrection. If both referred to the same act, the former and not the latter ought to have the modifier “from the dead.” But the participle should not be restricted to the incarnation and the birth of Jesus: “by having made Jesus to appear (or to arise)” the entire career of Jesus from beginning to consummation is referred to, which thus includes also his resurrection. The verb “completely fulfilled” refers to the entire career; it cannot mean that by the resurrection of Jesus the final item of complete fulfillment was added. As far as that final item is concerned, that is specified in v. 34. When in v. 23 Paul says “Savior,” in v. 26, “the word of this salvation,” and in v. 32 εὑαγγελιζόμεθα, he is not speaking only of the resurrection of Jesus but of all that he was and did, including his glorious resurrection.

It is this act on the part of God, this making Jesus to appear or arise in general, of which Ps. 2:7 speaks. Peter quoted this psalm in 4:25, 26. In Heb. 1:5 our passage is quoted to show that God exalted Jesus above the angels. Peter attributes this psalm to David although it appears without a caption. The contents are plainly Davidic. The reply that in general speech “psalm” meant a song composed by David overlooks the fact that many psalms were attributed to Asaph, to Solomon, and to others.

Some think that Paul cites David because in v. 22 he had brought Israel’s history up to the time of David; but he also quotes Isaiah. When some texts read “the first” Psalm, we note that the two psalms were read as one lection in the synagogue, which regarded the first Psalm as the introduction to the entire book of Psalms.

The Hebrew and the LXX agree: “My Son art thou; I myself (emphatic ἐγώ) today have begotten thee.” The reference is to 2 Sam. 7, especially to v. 13 and 16, to the Seed of David (Jesus) who should reign in the Davidic kingdom and on the Davidic throne forever. It is this everlasting King himself who quotes Jehovah as declaring to him, “My Son art thou,” etc. God made that declaration to Jesus himself when at the time of his baptism he anointed him with the Spirit: “Thou art my beloved Son.” Luke 3:22. It was then that Jesus assumed his office as Savior. That declaration was repeated at the time of the Transfiguration of Jesus, cf., Luke 9:35.

Although they are even verbally almost identical with the word occurring in the psalm, these two words of the Father to his Son Jesus are often overlooked. In the psalm David says that this declaration was made long ago. He speaks of 2 Sam. 7. Then Jehovah said, “Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion!” and that King declares that Jehovah said to him, “Thou art my Son,” etc. Regard it all prophetically with reference to what the Father did with Jesus when he brought him to Israel as the Savior (23); or regard it as prophecy, as what was done already in David’s vision as regards the everlasting King on his throne. In either case “I myself today have begotten thee” is figurative regarding Jehovah’s placing this everlasting King on his throne.

The inauguration of a King who rules forever on an everlasting throne in an eternal kingdom is for Jehovah the begetting of a Son, a King who rules eternally like Jehovah himself. That prophecy was fulfilled, Paul says, when God raised up Jesus as the Savior. The statement about Jesus, like that of the psalm, is general; hence Paul follows it with a further elaboration, and we must read the whole together in order to get its force.

The passage occurring in the psalm does not speak of the generatio aeterna, not of the inner Trinitarian relation of the two Persons, not of eternity but of time. Likewise, the psalm does not speak of the Incarnation, the conception, and the birth of Jesus. Many, however, think that it speaks of the resurrection of Jesus, and that the reality back of the figure of generating is the raising from the dead. They, therefore, also let ἀναστήσας mean “having raised from the dead.” It sounds attractive to hear that Jesus was made Savior and King forever by his resurrection. But how about his suffering and his death, his whole office and his life? And look at Luke 3:22, and 9:35. No, this raising up, making to appear, the word of the psalm, refer to all that God did in setting him forth as the Savior and most certainly includes also his resurrection, but most certainly also includes all else as well and does not refer to the resurrection alone.

Acts 13:34

34 With δέ, “moreover,” Paul now turns to the resurrection: “regarding that God made him appear from the dead,” ὅτι is slightly causal. This resurrection, however, involves more than the fact that Jesus was brought back to life. So were Lazarus and others, and then they again died. Jesus was raised “not still about to return to corruption.” Μηκέτι = “not still,” not after all to fall a prey to corruption; it does not imply that by dying Jesus had seen corruption but was not again to see it. The translation “no more” in our versions is inadequate. Paul tells his hearers that God “has said” (formula of quotation like “has been written”) something in Isaiah 55:3 in regard to the mighty act of raising Jesus from the dead never to see corruption; God promised, “I will give to you the holy things of David, the trustworthy things.” Paul follows the LXX because the point is τὰπιστά, “the things trustworthy,” hanneʾ emanim, that can never be broken or abrogated. They are “the holy things of David,” Hebrew, “the David mercies,” a standard term for the covenant promises as made to David by God in 2 Sam. 7 (see above), Ps. 89:36, 37.

“David mercies” introduce an epoch in the history of the covenantal prophecies and promises in that David was promised the Seed who should rule his throne and his kingdom forever. That was more specific than the promises given to Abraham. Now Paul says that God spoke thus about these absolutely reliable David mercies with a view to what he intended to do in regard to Jesus, namely realize these mercies in Jesus, raise him up as the Savior (v. 33), and raise him from the dead incorruptible and never to see corruption, and thus to be the eternal Messianic King. In short, τὰπιστά are absolutely reliable, sure, trustworthy, because they are realized in him who is beyond being touched by corruption.

We may add that Isa. 55:1–3 is an invitation to the Gentiles; the covenant made with Israel is intended for them also; the trustworthy mercies of David are to be theirs. This makes the quotation the more significant for Paul’s audience in which there were many Gentile hearers. Aug. Pieper, Jesaias II, 444, etc. The interpreters usually think only of Israel. Paul quotes freely, adding: “I will give to you.”

Acts 13:35

35 And now comes the capstone to this arch of prophecy. In Psalms 2:7 David had the Messiah in mind, Jesus in his whole office; in Isa. 55:3 the prophet had Jesus in mind, his resurrection, his being beyond all corruption. Now God spoke as he did in Isa. 55 “because” (διότι) in another psalm, namely 16:10, he says in so many words through David, his mouthpiece: “Thou wilt not give thy Holy One to see corruption.” Jesus dead, entombed, raised from the dead, then and forever free from corruption or decay of body is, indeed, the Savior forever. Peter used this same passage from this psalm in 2:27, where the details are fully elucidated. Even the explanation added by Paul contains what Peter added at greater length.

Acts 13:36

36 For David himself certainly saw corruption and hence could not be this “Holy One,” hence could not be the Messianic King. After he had served his generation (indirect object) according to God’s counsel he fell asleep. The dative cannot be temporal, “in his own generation,” for the simple reason that no man ever serves in any but his own generation. The point is not when David served but how far his service extended, namely to his own generation alone. The Messiah had to serve all generations; and this Jesus does because he was raised in incorruption to live and to rule forever. If David served his own generation (indirect object), “the counsel of God” cannot be an indirect object.

Yet that leaves two constructions possible: “served by,” or, “fell asleep in the counsel of God.” But plainly the chief point is that David died (main verb) and not that he served (only participle). Why, then, attach all the modifiers to the participle, the minor action? The point is that God let David fall asleep for good and all, aorist. It was God’s counsel to let him die and be gathered to his fathers and his body thus to see (experience) corruption. On “see” (eye, ear, singulars) note Delitzsch on 2:27; “fell asleep,” ingressive aorist as in 7:60. David “was added to his fathers” in the grave.

The expression must refer to the grave, since the next clause states that he saw corruption, his body turning to dust in the grave.

Acts 13:37

37 Jesus’ case was far otherwise. In him all those promises were fulfilled. God raised him up, and he did not see corruption but lives to serve and to save forever. Here the relative ὅν is again emphatic: “he, the one whom,” etc. Through the first part of the discourse and through the second there runs the word “God,” what God did and said. All are divine facts which need only to be seen aright and in their true bearing.

Acts 13:38

38 In the third part of the discourse Paul presents the saving power and grace in Jesus to everyone who believes and warns against unbelief. Be it known, therefore, to you, men and brethren, that through this One remission of sins is being announced to you; and in connection with this One everyone believing is justified from all things from which you could not be justified in connection with the law of Moses.

With οὗν Paul comes to the conclusion that must be drawn from all that precedes. Two things follow: 1) the objective fact that remission is being announced; 2) the personal fact that every believer is justified. Both facts are most closely connected with “this One” whom Paul has fully and clearly presented as the Savior brought to Israel (23) by God. “Be it known to you” ushers in these weighty announcements in an authoritative tone. The address “men and brethren” (see 1:6) is this time without appositions which distinguish Jews and Gentiles (v. 17 and 26). The Savior is intended for all alike.

Διὰτούτου, “through this One,” makes Jesus the Mediator, and the demonstrative, in the idiomatic Greek fashion, sums up all that has been said about Jesus. Through Jesus as the one divine channel remission of sins is conveyed by the public announcement which presents him. Jesus, crucified and risen, brings us remission. On this ἄφεσις see 2:38, and note 10:43. It means that the sins are sent away from the sinner forever. To see the last of your sin and guilt, to see it all vanish like vapor in the hot sun of grace and pardon in “this One” as though you had never sinned, is certainly blessedness and joy to anyone who realizes what sin is.

There is a passive sense in the word “remission”; God himself sends the sins away. This helps us to comprehend διά. It is only by way of Jesus that God can possibly come and remove our sins from us. All of them are contained in the plural “sins,” everything in us whereby we have missed the mark set for us by God’s holy law.

This remission “is being announced,” κατά in the verb has the note of solemnity, wird feierlich verkuendigt. Paul’s present passive means more than that he and Barnabas were now making the great announcement; the real agent is God; this is also true with regard to “is justified” in the next verse. We see that throughout the entire address God is the one agent. This is a supreme way of composing an address, it was certainly effective for both classes of Paul’s hearers. The verb is pregnant, “announced to you,” for you to believe, accept, receive, possess. The gospel is always “announced” or preached thus.

The very announcement reaches into the heart in order to kindle faith. Who can hear this remission announced to him without wanting it? A special, wicked, ugly effort is necessary to keep faith from arising in the heart.

Acts 13:39

39 With a coordinate statement Paul repeats and sets the matter in a still clearer light before his hearers. Our inflexible English compels us to reverse the clauses. The emphasis is on the modifier: “from all things from which you could not be justified in connection with the law of Moses.” The two phrases are in direct contrast: ἐντῷνόμῳΜωϋσέως and ἐντούτῳ, “in connection with the law” and “in connection with this One.” The idea is not that some sins can be removed by the law, and that others remain which the law is unable to remove; no, all sins are referred to. As long as our connection is only with the law of Moses, its demands and requirements, we shall break them often and in this law find no means to remove our sin and our guilt.

Here we meet the verb δικαιοῦν for the first time in Acts. It is always a forensic term with a personal object, and in the New Testament is used only in the religious sense as referring to the verdict and judgment of God which is always favorable: “to justify,” that act of God by which as the Judge he declares the sinner just and acquits him from his sin and his guilt. See C.-K. 324, who has a treatment that is so exhaustive that every student should examine it in its entirety. It does not mean “to free” except in the forensic sense just stated (B.-P. 308 is misleading); in the Scriptures it never means “to make just,” “to deem worthy” (R., W. P.). Justification is no less than the central doctrine of the Word, the articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclessiae, the destruction of which destroys the church itself so that it remains Christian no longer.

Paul tells his hearers that if they appear before God’s judgment bar in connection with the law of Moses as their hope, God cannot acquit them. It is utterly impossible, for the law brings only condemnation to the sinner.

This is Paul’s first summary statement regarding works of the law and their utter hopelessness to secure the favorable verdict of God. He has made his letters ring with this doctrine. Jesus most strenuously opposed the Pharisees who trusted in the law. The world is full of followers of these Pharisees who in one or in another way still operate with works as the certain way to heaven.

The sinner’s hope is only “in connection with this One.” The phrase does not belong to the participle: “everyone believing in this One,” but to the verb: “is justified in connection with this One.” The connection with him is made by this believing. The participle is used without a modifier: “every believer.” And this is another cardinal concept of Scripture: πιστεύειν (πίστιςὁπιστός), compare 2:44. “To believe” is to put all trust for remission, justification, and salvation in Christ alone as the Savior (v. 23). By believing, by our confidence in him and in the saving power of his death and his resurrection we are put in vital, spiritual connection with him. Paul tells his hearers that everyone who appears before God’s judgment bar in connection with this Savior, he and he alone “is justified,” the present tense is durative: “is and remains justified” as long as he is “one believing.” In this way Jesus is the Savior. Do you want to be acquitted of all sin and guilt by God, now, in the instant of death, at the last great day? Then let this Savior fill your heart with complete reliance on him.

“Everyone believing” is like the blank line in a signed check or draft, on which you are to write your name over the signature ΣωτὴρἸησοῦς (v. 23). This is the universality of grace, remission, and justification. Paul was speaking to Jews and to Gentiles, and “everyone believing” applies to all of them. In the previous sentence ὑμῖν is plural, here πᾶςὁ is singular. Paul is a master in using these two. Being justified is personal, individual. Every sinner is judged separately. The verdict is always rendered in the singular: “Thy sins are remitted for thee! Go in peace!”

In these two short verses we have Romans and Galatians in a nutshell. Justification by faith alone—Sola Fide—is an endless, inexhaustible theme. “The way to salvation, so slowly and with such difficulty prepared for us—slowly through the time of preparation in the old covenant—with difficulty, through the bitter suffering and death of Jesus: and yet so short and so pleasant for us to travel—short, for all that we need is to embrace the cross of Christ by faith—pleasant, for here we find remission of sins, life, and salvation.” Gerok.

Acts 13:40

40 Paul closes his address by prodding the consciences of his hearers and warning them against Israel’s greatest sin, unbelief. See to it, therefore, lest that arrive which has been spoken in the Prophets:

Look, you despisers, and wonder and vanish away!

Because I am working a work in your days,

A work Which you in no wise shall believe if one detail it for you.

Note that μὴἐπέλθῃ is not followed by a dative; hence it does not mean, “lest there come upon you,” but only, “lest there arrive.” “The Prophets” are that portion of the Old Testament which is regularly designated by this name which does not, however, include Daniel. Paul quotes from Hab. 1:5, according to the LXX with slight change. The prophet’s words are not a prediction concerning Paul’s present hearers. Paul uses them only as a warning, He has in mind a possible analogy or resemblance. Unbelief in regard to Jesus would make his hearers like those whom Habakkuk threatened. By unbelief they would put themselves into the same class with those despisers of old and would, of course, invite the same judgment.

Acts 13:41

41 The LXX translate as though their Hebrew text read bogdim, “despisers,” instead of bagoyim, “among the heathen.” The imperatives are aorists and thus peremptory. The God of might and majesty is speaking. He calls to the blind Jews, “Look!” and as a result “wonder!” and as a result “vanish away!” The judgment descending upon them is the terror behind these imperatives. It shall rise, like a tornado, fill them with astonishment, and then strike them and wipe them out completely.

What this calamity is, the prophet describes by bringing out powerfully that it is wholly God’s work. “Because a work I work in your days” means a most terrible work, and I, I myself (emphatic ἐγώ), work it. To the prophet’s hearers the present tense sounded as though God were already busy with that work. So incredible will that work be that, if one were to tell about it in advance, no one would in any wise (strong οὑμή with the futuristic subjunctive) believe it, i. e., give it credence. The conditional clause is strong: “if one shall detail, recount it piece by piece (διά), and spread it out (ἐκ) for you.” The prophet did so detail it by depicting how the Chaldeans would sweep down upon Israel and utterly destroy it. It was literally true, but not a single Israelite believed the prophet until the horrible destruction came upon the nation. Paul practically asks whether such unbelief is now to repeat itself in the case of his hearers. We know what calamity it was soon to bring on Jerusalem and on Palestine.

Acts 13:42

42 And as they were going out they were beseeching them for the next Sabbath to speak to them these utterances. Moreover, the synagogue having broken up, many of the Jews and of the worshipping proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, kept urging them to continue in the grace of God.

This was the effect of Paul’s sermon. It was entirely favorable as the two statements in regard to what the hearers did show. Paul and Barnabas were asked to speak again on the next Sabbath, and many Jews and proselytes followed them to hear more immediately. So we discount the idea that Paul ended his sermon with a warning because he saw some of the Jews scowling. The two imperfects ταρεκάλουν and ἔπειθον intimate that more will follow. We need not debate long as to how this going out of the synagogue and its breaking up should be understood. When the service was ended, and as they were going out among the large audience, Paul and Barnabas were asked to return the next Sabbath (construe εἰς with the main verb), of course, by those who had the authority, the synagogue elders; then after the audience had left the building, and Paul and Barnabas finally started for their lodgings, many of the audience followed them.

Acts 13:43

43 This shows the powerful impression Paul had made. There was no difference between the Jews and the Greek proselytes in this respect, for both classes are found in the group that follows the missionaries. Like φοβούμενος, also σεβόμενος is regularly used as a designation for a proselyte of the gate. Luke reports only the gist of what Paul and Barnabas said to these men who could scarcely separate themselves from them; it was the admonition to remain in the grace of God. The implication is that they were in this grace, that they believed Paul’s message about the Savior Jesus. The one thing necessary, then, was to continue in this grace. One feels that Paul and Barnabas are thinking that opposition to this grace will arise and will try these young believers. In this they were right.

Acts 13:44

44 Now on the coming Sabbath almost the whole city was gathered together to hear the Word of God.

We now learn what the imperfect tenses used in v. 42, 43 intimated, namely what eventually happened. The talk about Paul and Barnabas and the sermon the former had preached spread through the city, the proselytes telling all their Greek friends with the result that a vast interest was aroused, and almost the whole city turned out to hear the Word of God. What interested all these Gentiles was the fact that without becoming Jews and adopting the Jewish separative laws they could be received into the full communion of faith. Paul and Barnabas were certainly succeeding in Pisidian Antioch.

Acts 13:45

45 But the Jews, on seeing the crowds, were filled with passion and began to speak against the things uttered by Paul, blaspheming. Also speaking boldly, Paul and Barnabas said: To you was it necessary that the Word of God be spoken first. Since you are thrusting it away and are judging your own selves not worthy of eternal life, lo, we are turning to the Gentiles! For so has the Lord enjoined upon us:

I have set thee as a light of Gentiles

For thee to be for salvation to the uttermost part of the earth.

Luke says nothing about rabbis and that they stirred up the Jews during the week and were envious on this second Sabbath because so many came out to hear Paul while nobody in particular came out to hear them. The Jews were wrought up, not during the week, but on this Sabbath, not by agitators, but at sight of these crowds of Gentiles. Nor were the Jews afraid of losing the Jewish character of their synagogue services. Their ζῆλος, “zeal,” “passion,” was inflamed by the Gentiles as Gentiles: all these pagans were coming to share with them. This was not clerical jealousy between rabbis and Christian ministers which points a warning for professional men but the dislike of established church members who were unwilling to let a large number of outsiders suddenly come to share their religious prerogatives and blessings.

From Luke’s account we are unable to tell whether the uproar began in the synagogue after the service was in progress and Paul and Barnabas spoke as they had been requested on the Sabbath before or already outside of the synagogue. It does not seem possible that all these people could have found room within the building. The imperfect is inchoative; the Jews began speaking against the things that were uttered by the missionaries. The outcome is held in abeyance for the moment by the imperfect tense. Not reason but heat and passion dictated this contradiction. Luke, therefore, does not intimate what objections were raised. He says only that the objections were vicious and went to the length of blasphemy, reviling this Jesus whom Paul and Barnabas preached as being the Savior promised to Israel by God.

Acts 13:46

46 The aorist now states the outcome. Argument against this blasphemous passion was useless. The rupture had come. Paul and Barnabas accept it. It is for this reason that Luke gives such prominence to the story of Pisidian Antioch. Here for the first time in Paul’s missionary experience the open breach with the synagogue occurred.

Paul was to have this experience again and again. It was to become typical of his work. So Luke describes at length how it began. In Cyprus nothing comparable to this had occurred. Here in Antioch Paul’s sermon at first won the Jews; v. 42, 43 are plain in regard to that point. We have the whole sermon and can judge that it could not but win the Jews since God, their God, had done all that Paul recounted.

What caused the break was the proclamation of the universality of God’s grace in Jesus, the opening of the door full and wide to all the Gentiles. This stirred the Jewish exclusiveness and particularism to violent opposition when so many Gentiles now came. So the break came and it was decisive in every way.

How Paul and Barnabas accept it is fully recorded, and it should be noted that both are agreed in the matter. “To you,” they say, “to you as the people whom God originally chose for the high mission of bringing salvation to all the world, it was necessary because of this your mission that the Word of God in regard to the fulfillment of his promises in Jesus, the Savior, should be spoken first, before that Word was brought to the Gentiles.” Paul and Barnabas have done that.

The boldness (παρρησιασάμενοι) of the statement they make is evident from what follows. Since the Jews here in Antioch are thrusting that Word away and by that act are pronouncing on themselves the judgment that they are unworthy of eternal life, because of their unbelief not fit to have the eternal life the Savior bestows, “lo,” let it surprise you, indeed, “we are turning to the Gentiles,” who, as you see, are so eager for this Word, so ready to hear about the Savior, Jesus, and to accept the eternal life which you will not receive through him. That attests the break, states clearly who is making it, places the guilt where it belongs, and defines exactly what that guilt is.

Paul states what thrusting away the Word really means. By doing so the Jews themselves act as judges in their own case. They do not want the Word, their judgment, therefore, is that they are not worthy of the eternal life which that Word brings. They, indeed, blasphemed that Word as Paul spoke it, they scorned it as though it were nothing; Paul and Barnabas lift it high by pointing to the life it brings. And they tell these scorners what they are really doing. In his grace God regarded them worthy to receive that life through the Savior; they regard themselves unworthy. Whereas God intended to place them in the van, at the head of all the Gentiles, they put themselves entirely out of the procession. They have only themselves to blame.

“We are turning to the Gentiles!” Here at last Paul’s mission as originally defined by Jesus comes to full realization: “to bear my name before the Gentiles,” 9:15. The gospel will be preached to the Gentiles alone wherever the Jews thrust it away. The gospel will leave the synagogue completely and will gather its own assembly and church. The doom is settling down on the synagogue and the Jews; for nearly 2, 000 years that doom has now remained. It will remain to the end.

Acts 13:47

47 When Paul uttered his strong warning in v. 40, 41 he let one of the prophets of the Jews’ own Bible speak for him. Now that Barnabas and he are taking the decisive step of turning to the Gentiles, he does the same. Isaiah is their spokesman cf., 49:6. This is done in order to close the mouths of the Jews. If they rage against Paul and Barnabas because of their turning to the Gentiles they must first square accounts with the great ʿEbed Yahweh, Jehovah’s Servant, who himself stated what Jehovah declared to him, namely that it is a light thing to raise up the Jews and the Israel of the diaspora, but that the greater and mightier part of the work of this Servant is to be that done upon the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas say: “So the Lord (Jesus) has enjoined upon us” (perfect: his order stands). The sense is that, when Jehovah told the Messiah, his Servant Jesus, that he was to be a light for Gentiles, and when this Servant so declared, this was an order for all the messengers through whom this Servant works to preach also to the Gentiles in order that light and salvation might be brought even to the farthest end of the earth.

God himself has appointed his Messiah “for a light of Gentiles” (predicative εἰς, R. 482). The genitive is objective, this light is to illumine them. They are in darkness without the Old Testament Word. It was the Messiah’s great task to be their light. The infinitive with τοῦ denotes purpose: “in order that thou be for salvation to the uttermost part of the earth.” All Gentiles, however far removed from the center Jerusalem they may be, are to have this light. The εἰς is again predicative: Jesus is to be the salvation of the Gentiles (“Savior” in v. 23). God has appointed him to be this, has done it in the distant past, and that act stands. And now the messengers of Jesus are proceeding in accordance with that will of Jehovah.

Acts 13:48

48 That was a stunning reply which the Jews could answer, not by reason, but only by violence. Now hearing it, the Gentiles began to rejoice and to glorify the Word of God; and they believed, as many as had been ranged in order for life eternal.

The two imperfects reach a climax in the aorist “they believed.” What angered the Jews delighted the Gentiles, namely to hear that the gospel was intended also for them, for them directly without the necessity of first becoming Jews and submitting to all the Jewish regulations. Happy to hear it, they glorified “the Word of God,” meaning the Word in the sense in which Luke has continually been using it, the gospel of Jesus, the Savior. It is always so: whereas some spurn that Word, others receive it joyfully. So these Gentiles “believed,” the aorist stating the fact.

Yet not all of those who had come to the synagogue on that Sabbath but only those “who were such as had been ranged in order for life eternal” believed. Τάσσω is a military term that means to draw up in rank and file and is then used generally for placing in an orderly arrangement and then to appoint and even to agree. The English “ordain” (our versions), verordnen (Luther) serve well enough, even better than “appoint” (R., W. P.) as long as the sense of the original is not rejected. For in τάσσω there lies a τάξις, a certain order, here the ordo salutis. Verb and noun go together. The periphrastic past perfect may be either passive or middle: “had been ranged in this ordo” by God; or “had ranged themselves in this ordo.” Since no man is able to put himself into the ordo salutis by his own powers, it makes little difference which we choose.

It is like bekehrt iverden and sich bekehren. The point is to exclude all synergism. The context helps us. Here we have a contrast: the Jews thrust away the Word; these Gentiles glorify the Word. By their own fault the Jews are out of the τάξις; by God’s grace these Gentiles are in it. Again the contrast: the Jews regard themselves unworthy of eternal life; these Gentiles are in line for eternal life.

Who put them in line? God did so by sending Paul and Barnabas and his Word and his grace and by making both come in contact with their hearts. He did the same for the Jews and would have preferred to have them in the same blessed ordo but for the criminal wickedness with which they removed themselves from this ordo by blaspheming instead of glorifying the Word.

Although this passage deals with the doctrine of conversion, it has often been regarded as a pronouncement regarding predestination. This view began with Jerome who revised the old Latin rendering destinati or ordinati to praeordinati in order to make the coming to faith and salvation the product of a predestinatory eternal decree. Calvin is the great exponent of the decretum absolutum; those included in this decree are irresistibly brought to faith and held in it, and all others, even if they do believe for a time, are doomed by this same decree. Others conceive the decree as merely including the former and omitting the latter. Calov pointed out that Luke did not write προτεταγμένοι, and that neither τάσσειν nor τάσσεσθαι nor the context refer to eternity.

“Life eternal,” so often found in the discourses of Jesus in John’s Gospel (see John 3:15, 16), is the spiritual ζωή implanted in regeneration, fed by the Word and the Sacrament, passing unharmed through temporal death, then entering the heavenly state of glory. It dwells in the soul by faith but extends also to the body. Jesus will raise up those who have this life at the last day, John 6:54. “Life eternal” does not refer only to the heavenly life to come.

Acts 13:49

49 Moreover, the Word of the Lord was being carried through the whole region. The imperfect describes this spread in its progress; new believers were being won in the entire region. How long this continued until Paul and Barnabas were driven out can only be estimated; a period of approximately six months is probable. Ramsay regards χώρα here and elsewhere in Acts as a technical term for Regio, the administrative district with Antioch as its center. He calls it “the Phrygian Region of (the province) Galatia.” Since Galatia was so large, these “regions” were established; in each regional center the governor had his officials and visited these centers from time to time; thus also those living in the Regio would have much occasion to visit the center and thereby come into contact with the gospel. Ramsay’s view seems sound until one gets to 16:6 and 18:23, where it cannot apply. We thus understand χώρα in the sense of territory, an indefinite region.

Acts 13:50

50 The Jews, however, incited the worshipping women, those prominent, and the chief men of the city and stirred up a persecution against Paul and Barnabas and expelled them from their borders. But they, having shaken off the dust of the feet against them, went to Iconium. Yet the disciples continued to be filled with joy and the Holy Spirit.

These women were proselytes, and Strabo and Juvenal report that throughout the empire many pagan women were proselytes of the synagogue. On the distinctive participle σεβόμενος see v. 43. The prominent women who were married to influential men were incited and also the chief men of the city, those who had government offices in the city and others who had considerable influence. The Jews had to work through others because they were not sufficiently numerous and powerful to take matters into their own hands.

Luke is reticent in regard to Paul’s sufferings; so all that he records is the fact that the machinations of the Jews succeeded in stirring up a persecution against Paul and Barnabas the result of which was that the two were expelled beyond the borders, not merely of the city, but also of its environs. This means that magistrates of the city took action and not officials of the province. Only this city and its neighborhood were forbidden them and not the entire regio or all of Galatia. In 2 Tim. 3:11 Paul speaks of these days: “Persecutions, sufferings, what things befell me at Antioch,” etc. In 2 Cor. 11:25 he states that he was thrice beaten with rods, and that means by the lictors in cities that were Roman colonies such as Antioch. One of those beatings may well have been suffered in Antioch. The entire city at first flocked to hear the gospel, now the current flowed in the opposite direction.

Acts 13:51

51 The expression “shaking off the dust of the feet” goes back to Jesus, Matt. 10:14; Mark 6:11; Luke 10:11. One commentator regards this as being only a phrase—the two left willingly. Another, “a dramatic gesture that forbids further intercourse.” Still another finds in it “a gesture of protest.” We also find the view that it is “a symbol that the very soil of the place was defiling.” But they shook off only dust. In v. 50 Luke purposely retained “the Jews” as the subject although the expulsion took place through the magistrates who were the tools of the Jews. So now the dust was shaken off against these Jews and not against the whole city, which would have included the Christians. The act is symbolic; how serious it is Matt. 10:15 states; and it means that the dust is left behind as a testimony or witness (Mark 6:11) that the kingdom had been brought near by the feet of these messengers whose dust was thus left behind (Luke 10:11). That dust will testify on the day of judgment that wicked obduracy drove the messengers away.

So with sore backs Paul and Barnabas went on to Iconium. The fact that this was a Phrygian city is plain. Just where it belonged at this time is debated by the authorities. The question is intricate because at various times the city belonged to Pisidia, to Phrygia, and to Lycaonia, these signifying ethnographic districts and not Roman provinces. Ramsay makes it a part of the Regio of Antioch; but it naturally belonged with Antioch, both being Phrygian. So also Lystra and Derbe belonged together, both being nationally Lycaonian. Zahn makes Iconium a Roman colony. Later on this city became more renowned than Antioch.

Acts 13:52

52 The expulsion in no way injured the disciples who were left destitute of these leaders. They had the best Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, who filled their hearts and also gave them joy. The imperfect describes this condition as one that continued indefinitely. Luke does not refer to a charismatic presence of the Spirit but to the gracious spiritual presence that was mediated objectively by the Word and subjectively by faith in “the Savior Jesus” (v. 23).

B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

R A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th edition.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

B.-P Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handwoerterbuch, etc.