Acts 16

CHAPTER XVI

Acts 16:1

1And he arrived also at Derbe and at Lystra. And lo, a disciple was there, by name Timothy, son of a believing Jewish woman but of a Greek father who was attested by the brethren in Lystra and Iconium. Him Paul wanted to go out with him and, having taken him, he circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

From Cilicia Paul went to the lower corner of Galatia, to Derbe near the border, the last Galatian city he had reached on his first missionary journey. Nothing of importance for Luke’s narrative occurred here. But in connection with Lystra, the next city in which he had established a congregation, Luke introduces Timothy, whom Paul made his companion. Καὶἰδού is stressed unduly when it is adduced as proof that Paul now met Timothy for the first time, and that he had already become a disciple before Paul met him, and that we are mistaken in concluding from 1 Cor. 4:17; 1 Tim. 1:2, 18; 2 Tim. 1:2, that Paul himself had converted him on his first visit to Lystra. When Paul so repeatedly calls Timothy “my beloved son,” this means more than that Timothy was in full accord with him; others who were in equal accord with him are not called “my son.” “Lo” is used by Luke when he introduces someone for the first time or when he draws special attention to some person; see the many examples in Luke’s Gospel and in Acts (Young’s Concordance) and note that other writers do the same. Compare the remarks on 15:20.

Because already here Luke states that Timothy came from Lystra, he leaves his name without further designation in 20:4, and the supposition that, like Gaius, he was from Derbe is untenable. His mother was Eunice and his grandmother Lois (2 Tim. 1:5), both were faithful disciples and former Jews; but his father was a Greek and, apparently, had been dead for some time. This had been a mixed marriage, and although both mother and grandmother were Jews, the father had remained pagan, and the son had never been circumcised. Already this marriage shows that the mother and the grandmother were not strong in the Jewish faith; as does also the fact that even after the father’s death the son had not been circumcised. Although they had been very indifferent Jews, mother, grandmother, and son were now ardent believers in Christ. One thing the mother had done for her son, she had faithfully taught him the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:14, 15), fully unaware of the fact that she was thereby preparing the boy for his great future work. Paul could not have used him in his work if he had not had this early training in the Old Testament Scriptures.

Acts 16:2

2While Lystra and Derbe belonged to the same section, Lystra and Iconium were closer together, and there was regular business and other intercourse between them. That is why Iconium is here named together with Lystra. It implied not a little to have the attestation of the brethren of two such cities, an attestation and testimony as to both character and ability for the work of the church. Here we have the neuter plural in the name Lystra, Luke uses both this plural and the feminine singular.

Acts 16:3

3The resumptive demonstrative τοῦτον gathers up all that has been said about Timothy. This was the young man whom Paul desired to take with him as a second assistant in addition to the older Silas, and the aorist implies that this desire was made reality. Much more than Luke could record, of course, entered into this choice of Timothy; Luke states enough to let his reader see that in Timothy Paul found a young man who was eminently suited to his purpose. In connection with 14:20 R., W. P., regards him as being only fifteen years old and now as being only eighteen although the interval between the two visits of Paul was little more than a year, but this makes Timothy entirely too young. We can only estimate his age, but it was more than that, he was at least twenty-one.

Because Paul wanted to use him in his work he took and circumcised him, not, of course, with his own hand but by the hand of some competent Jewish Christian. Paul did this on account of the Jews in those places, referring not only to Lystra and Iconium but to any others in this territory. He followed the principle laid down in 1 Cor. 9:19, and did not do this because he was yielding to Judaistic legalism. If Jewish Christians had demanded Timothy’s circumcision, Paul would have resisted strongly; he did this very thing in Jerusalem regarding Titus (Gal. 2:3). But if Timothy had not been circumcised he would have been not only useless to Paul in his work but the worst kind of a hindrance, for he would have aroused the prejudices of the Jews whom he might try to approach to such an extent as to prevent even a hearing of the gospel. Timothy would not have dared to speak in any synagogue; even the houses of most Jews would have been closed to him.

Timothy would have directed this Jewish prejudice also against Paul and Silas because they had an uncircumcised associate. R., W. P., says rightly: “Timothy was circumcised because of Jewish unbelievers, not because of Jewish believers.” All the Jews living in that section also knew that the father of Timothy was a Greek; the question of his circumcision would, therefore, be much discussed by them. The mixed marriage of Timothy’s parents had, no doubt, long been an offense to the Jews.

Acts 16:4

4Now, as they were going through the cities, they continued to give to them the resolutions to keep, those that had been decided on by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. The churches, accordingly, were being made firm in the faith and were abounding in number day by day.

The imperfects are descriptive of what continued to happen. Silas is now included, and hence the plurals occur in v. 4. He had been one of the original committee that had been sent to Antioch with the resolutions and was thus better fitted than even Paul for communicating those resolutions also to these predominantly Gentile congregations.

Our versions leave a wrong impression when they translate δόγματα “decrees”; and R., W. P., does not aid us by pointing to Luke 2:1; Acts 17:7; Col. 2:14. To be sure, the word is used with reference to the decrees of rulers and of legal enactments, but that is due to the authors. An emperor declares δοκεῖμοι, “it seems good to me,” and lo, his pleasure is law, a decree; sic volo, sic jubeo. But when the apostles, elders, and the church in Jerusalem were assembled in their meeting, it is stated ἔδοξετοῖςκτλ., and so twice in the letter itself (15:22, 25, 28), when it is used with reference to assemblies, this verb and its datives always means, “it was resolved” and never, “we decree.” Δόγματα is the corresponding noun and means “resolutions.”

So also τὰκεκριμένα cannot mean “that have been ordained”; the verb κρίνω does not mean “to ordain,” and no assembly ever “ordained” resolutions. This is the very κρίνω which James used in 15:19 when he first offered the resolution to the assembly for vote. Did he “ordain”? He did not. The verb means “to judge,” “to decide”; and so here these resolutions were decided on by the assembly in Jerusalem and as such were now offered to the Gentile churches one after another. These were “resolutions” that were “decided on” after full and mature deliberation.

They carried weight accordingly. Only the apostles and the elders are here named by Luke, for he has already told us the entire story about these “resolutions” and how they were adopted (15:22). The apostles and the elders are such only because of the church. Preachers often forget that and act as though the church existed because of them, or as though they could disregard it.

Acts 16:5

5Οὗν indicates the result, and once more we have the verb “being made firm” in the faith, fixed and solid against attack. “The faith” is objective, firm in what the churches believed; Luke has repeatedly used this word in that sense, quae creditur. To be made firm in the faith is with strong confidence (subjective) to hold the divine truth and reality given us to hold (objective). The inward first and then the outward: “they were abounding in number day by day,” receiving new members in the faith. We take it that these were Gentiles. After the question about the old Levitical regulations had been settled effectively as between Jewish and Gentile Christians, more and more Gentiles flocked to the banner of the cross. That was true success.

In order to gain numbers, doctrine and its practice are often sacrificed. The great growth of the apostolic churches was not made at such a sacrifice.

Already at this point the controversy regarding the next three verses is introduced. Where were these “churches,” in which “cities” (v. 4)? Derbe and Lystra have already been mentioned. That would leave Iconium (14:1) and Pisidian Antioch (13:14), where Paul and Barnabas had founded churches, and we may include several others in smaller places in this territory on the strength of 13:49 where we are told that the Word of the Lord was carried “through the entire region” of which Antioch was the general center. Since Iconium and Antioch are not especially named in the following, this must be the understanding with reference to the cities and the churches that were visited and informed regarding the apostolic resolutions with the attendant good results.

Acts 16:6

6And they went through the Phrygian and Galatian region, having been prevented by the Holy Spirit from speaking the Word in Asia. And having come down to Mysia, they were trying to go to Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus did not let them. And having passed alongside Mysia, they went down to Troas.

The controversy centers on the question as to what v. 6 really states. The contention ought to cease regarding the participle. No aorist participle expresses subsequent action. Paul and his companions did not go “through the Phrygian and Galatian region” and then receive the Spirit’s word in regard to Asia. The participle is causal and thus antecedent. They went through the Phrygian and Galatian region because they were prevented from speaking the Word in Asia.

But why do Ramsay and others think that the participle expresses subsequent action? In order to exclude the so-called north Galatian hypothesis, namely that on this journey Paul founded a number of congregations in northern Galatia (in a line from Synnada to Pessinus, Ancyra, and Tavium), and that his letter to the Galatians was addressed to these northern congregations which were chiefly Celtic. Take a look at the map. We are told that “the Phrygian and Galatian region” means: 1) the part of Phrygia that contained Antioch and Iconium, and 2) the part of Galatia that was Lycaonia and contained Lystra and Derbe (note R. 963). After this region had been crossed, we are told, the Spirit made his will known; and then the missionaries did not go to the coast and follow this to Ephesus and north to Troas but went straight across the middle of the province Asia and thus to Troas as some maps draw the journey. But this is not the way in which to refute the northern hypothesis.

The participle prevents this. Luke should have written “the Galatian (Lycaonian) and Phrygian region” and not have reversed the two. Moreover, he should not have led the reader through Derbe and Lystra (v. 1) and the other churches (v. 5) before speaking of going through “the Phrygian and Galatian region” in which these very churches were situated. Luke would twice be reversing the localities.

What Luke says is this: After visiting Derbe and Lystra (v. 1) and all the other churches founded on the first missionary journey (v. 5), after Paul and his companions were through visiting the churches and were probably at Antioch, the question arose as to what new fields were to be entered; and the natural course seemed to be to turn to the coast of the province of Asia with its great cities such as Ephesus, Smyrna, Sardis, Thyatira, Pergamos, etc., most inviting fields of labor—then the Spirit told them not to utter the word in Asia. How the Spirit did that, and to whom he communicated his will, Luke does not state because he is concerned with the fact alone. The supposition that this revelation came to Silas and not to Paul seems unlikely. Our guess is that it came to Paul. What was to be done then? “They went through the Phrygian and Galatian region”; they turned north. Did they preach there, found churches, etc.?

Those who advocate the northern hypothesis in regard to the letter to the Galatians say “yes.” A whole group of congregations was founded along the line drawn on the maps in a great sweep from Synnada to Pessinus, Ancyra, even Tavium, through the whole of northern Galatia. And this extensive work is read into Luke’s simple statement that they διῆλθον, “went through,” the Phrygian and Galatian region. Luke does not even say that they preached and writes only χώρα, “region.” The theory in regard to these northern cities in Galatia breaks down here at its source. If this theory is correct, why did Luke not insert at least a phrase such as “as far as Tavium”?

Verses 6–8 intend only to show us briefly how the journey from Antioch to Troas was made without a longer stop between these two points, without the founding of a single church in this territory. On leaving Antioch, which was located in the ethnographic section called Phrygia, on the border of the old Pisidia, the missionaries naturally passed through that part of Phrygia. Now a part of Phrygia (an old indefinite ethnographic section) was located in the Roman province Asia, the rest in the Roman province Galatia (in which were Antioch and Iconium). So Luke writes that they went through “the Phrygian and Galatian region,” remained in that part of Phrygian territory which was Galatian, did not pass over into that part of Phrygia which was incorporated in the Roman province Asia. Where they turned west we do not know, perhaps it was at Pessinus, but that makes little difference. We have absolutely no intimation that they stopped for work, much less that congregations were founded. Zahn’s supposition that they worked but were unsuccessful is untenable.

At this point we see that Ramsay’s idea that in Luke’s writings χώρα designates an administrative section, a Regio in this sense, breaks down. It looks plausible in 13:49, and again in 14:6 (περίχωρον). Ramsay tries to apply his view here and in 18:23; but how does he do this? By having “the Phrygian and Galatian region” mean the Phrygian (with Antioch as its center) and Galatian (embracing Lycaonia with Lystra and Derbe as center). But we have already shown that v. 1–5 place us beyond both of these regions. If two Regiones, administrative centers, are referred to, the article τήν should be repeated, and “Galatian” should precede “Phrygian.” In regard to 18:23 see that passage.

Zahn regards τὴνΦρυγίαν as a noun: they passed through “Phrygia” and also through “Galatian territory” (beyond Phrygia). He does this because Φρυγίαν seems to be a noun in 18:23. But even then, as far as 18:23 is concerned, in 16:6 the adjective is proper. The only difference would be that the missionaries would go farther north before turning toward Troas. But greater difficulty would result in connection with 18:23. On coming from Syrian Antioch, Paul would enter Phrygian territory first and not Galatian as distinct from Phrygian. In both 16:6 and 18:23 all is clear if one section is referred to, namely in 16:6 Phrygian Galatia, and in 18:23 Galatian Phrygia, it being immaterial which word comes first. Both are adjectives, both modify χώραν in both passages.

Acts 16:7

7So they went down to Mysia and then tried to go into Bithynia. The missionaries could not have come close to Mysia without crossing the province Asia. That is why in v. 6 Luke writes that they were prevented only “from speaking the Word in Asia” and not from crossing the province as such. Now the same is true with regard to Mysia that was said in regard to Phrygia. Both are ethnographic sections that include indefinite stretches of territory, and the maps only estimate their extent, and thus map makers vary greatly. We are unable to plot the route from Pisidian Antioch to Troas on the basis of the meager data which Luke furnishes.

How near to Bithynia did their route carry them, and at just what point did the Spirit refuse them permission to enter this northern province with its city Nicea, which later became so well known? Noteworthy is “the Spirit of Jesus” as helping to establish the filioque of the Nicene Creed, the confession: “I believe in the Holy Ghost, … who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, etc.” Jesus himself said that he would send the Spirit, John 16:26.

Acts 16:8

8Both the fact that the travelers came κατά Mysia and that they went παρά (in the participle) Mysia indicates that they left it to one side and so reached Troas. They probably came through Adramyttium. Troas was not in Mysia or in Asia but was an independent district of its own. The point of these verses is the peculiar way in which Paul and his assistants are made to wander from Pisidian Antioch to Troas and are shunted away from the south and from the north until they drift into this faraway Mediterranean port. No work awaited them anywhere on this long journey, nothing of consequence even here at Troas, but great work waited across the sea in Europe, in southern Macedonia. This is one of the plain cases in which the Spirit closes and opens doors for missionary work.

He does so still, and we must dismiss the idea that we may choose the fields ad libitum. Louis Harms selected a place in Africa but all in vain; his missionaries had to go elsewhere, where neither Harms nor they had expected to go.

Acts 16:9

9And a vision appeared at night to Paul—a man, a Macedonian, was standing and beseeching him and saying, Having come across to Macedonia, help us! Now when he saw the vision, immediately we sought to go out to Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to proclaim the good news to them.

Until this time the Holy Spirit had given only negative commands, not to go to the coast cities of the Asian province (v. 6) and not to enter Bithynia (v. 7), and no positive command of any kind. This fact alone refutes the north Galatian hypothesis that, on leaving Pisidian Antioch, Paul had worked and had founded churches in Pessinus, Ancyra, and Tavium and in this section generally. He had no orders to work in even this seaport Troas, for after receiving the vision he promptly left it. If work had been in progress in Troas, he could not have broken it off so promptly. Now at last comes the positive order to cross into southern Europe and to work there.

Sometimes the Holy Spirit communicated his will directly as in v. 6, 7; how this was done we do not know except that the communication was always understood. At other times, as here, a vision was used, which was granted either in the daytime (10:11) or at night. Paul had a number of such visions (18:9; 23:11; 27:23; 2 Cor. 12:1, etc.). Διὰνυκτός means sometime during the night, possibly while Paul slept. It was not a mere dream; for these visions are always plainly supernatural visions and communications. This one was exceedingly simple and also plain in its meaning: “a man, a Macedonian (τις = our indefinite article) was standing” before Paul and beseeching him to come across into Macedonia. The second perfect participle ἑστώς is always used as a present, so we have ἦν with three participles, which are three periphrastic imperfects. The effect is continuation: there he kept standing, beseeching, and saying, “Help us!”

The very fact that he asks Paul to come across into Macedonia makes plain that Paul recognized him as a Macedonian; he also says, “help us.” He pleads for the entire province. We need not think of peculiar Macedonian dress, accent of speech, and the like. The idea that this was an angel who was asking Paul to come over to help him and his fellow angels fight the spirits of Satan, is a mere fancy. The help desired is plainly spiritual help such as Paul was called to bring by means of the gospel. The Lord was assigning him this Gentile field for his labors. It has been thought that this Macedonian was Luke, the writer of the Acts.

This view is based on the assumption that Luke was a Macedonian, a native of Philippi. But it is difficult to imagine how a man of flesh and blood, one of Paul’s companions at this time, could possibly appear to Paul in a vision at night. The entire vision is supernatural, sent by God. As God showed Peter all sorts of animals in a vision, so he showed Paul this man in a vision.

Acts 16:10

10“Immediately,” that means the very next morning, passage was sought on some vessel in order to cross over to Macedonia, the conclusion having been correctly drawn that God had called Paul and his companions to preach the gospel in Macedonia. The vision presented a man pleading for help, and that meant success in the missionary work. This vision has often been regarded as picturing the need of all heathen people, as calling on us to bring them the help of the gospel. That, however, is not strictly correct. To be sure, the whole heathen world is in direct need of the gospel. But we must remember that the Spirit himself prevented Paul from taking the gospel to the coast cities of the province of Asia and to the entire province of Bithynia.

Were the heathen of these provinces not in need of the gospel? The better application made of this text is to point out that we would bring the gospel wherever God opens the door for us. The Macedonian man symbolizes, not the whole heathen world, but that specific part of it to which God would at any special time send us. He does not now use visions to direct us, but he does use plain providential indications, and these are the cries to us to come and to help.

This is the first of Luke’s famous “we” passages found in Acts. Zahn finds an earlier “we” in 11:28, in the reading of the Codex Bezae of that passage: συνεστραμμένωνἡμῶν, “we having been drawn closely together,” namely in regard to Agabus when he predicted the great drought to the congregation at Antioch. But this codex aims to improve on Luke’s text by changing it in scores of places like an editor who revises somebody’s manuscript. A number of conclusions are based on this “we” of the Codex Bezae. Since it takes us to Syrian Antioch in the year 40, it is concluded that Luke and Theophilus were natives of Antioch, see the introduction to this volume. But we discount that “we” in 11:28 since it lacks sufficient textual support.

But this “we” that runs through 16:10–17 again through 20:5–21:25, and once more through 27:2–28:16 is a far different matter. It is Luke’s quiet and unobtrusive yet distinct testimony that he is the writer of Acts, that he was present with Paul and an eyewitness of the events recorded in these sections. So here in Troas, Luke is with Paul. More than that, he is one of Paul’s little party, an assistant such as Silas and Timothy were, for he writes: “Immediately we sought to go out to Macedonia, concluding that God had sent us (ἡμᾶς),” etc. Luke acted together with the rest. The aorist “we sought” implies that they at once found what they sought, namely passage on a ship for Macedonia, and so they sailed away as v. 11 states.

All four men at once left Troas, there was no reason why even one of them should be left behind. We conclude that no work had been done at Troas on this visit.

But now a series of questions naturally arises. This “we” implies that Luke must have been not only a Christian but one who had also proved himself worthy of being an assistant of Paul’s. He suddenly introduces himself as such here at Troas, a place to which the others had come without him, a place to which none of them knew they were going until shortly before they arrived there; for only after they had been forbidden to enter Bithynia did they go to Troas. How, then, does Luke appear here at Troas, appear as an assistant of Paul’s. That fact is most remarkable in every way. And let us honestly admit that we do not know the answer.

But this ignorance on our part opens the gates to speculation. We have noted Zahn’s hypothesis which he bases on the reading of the Codex Bezae in 11:28, and that of a few fathers who think that Luke was a native of Syrian Antioch.

Even when that is granted, we still ask, “How does Luke appear here in Troas just at this time?” It certainly was not due to a previous arrangement, for Paul himself did not know until just a little before this time that he would come to Troas. Luke could not have joined Paul when Paul started from Syrian Antioch or before he got to Pisidian Antioch, for why should Luke then delay the “we” until his mention of Troas? He could not have joined Paul after the latter left Pisidian Antioch, for from that point onward Paul himself was in the dark as to his destination. The hypotheses that ignore these facts are unacceptable for that very reason. And this implies that making Luke a native of Syrian Antioch is not as simple a matter as some have made it. In this and in some other matters we shall have to accustom ourselves to the humble admission that we just do not know and cannot even venture an acceptable guess.

THE SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY: PHILIPPI

Acts 16:11

11Having set sail, therefore, from Troas, we made a straight run to Samothrace, and on the next day to Neapolis and then to Philippi, the first city of that part of Macedonia, a colony; and in this city we continued to spend some days.

Hobart sought to establish the fact that Luke was a physician on the basis of the medical terms occurring in Acts and in the Gospel; when one considers the nautical terms occurring in Acts one might conclude that Luke was a sailor or a sea-captain. Luke, however, never makes his medical profession prominent; and although he was not a sailor, he writes with exactness about harbors and voyages. The term for setting sail is explained in 13:13; to make a straight run is the proper term for sailing straight before a favorable wind without having to tack. It was as though God himself speeded their vessel. So they reached the little island Samothrace at the end of the first day and the harbor Neapolis (New Town) on the mainland the next day. But this harbor was located in the territory of Thrace and not in Macedonia; hence they did not stop here.

Their call was directed toward Macedonia. In 20:6 it took Paul five days to get from Neapolis to Troas.

Acts 16:12

12So Paul and his company at once went over the well-paved road to Philippi, ten miles distant. As Seleucia was the harbor of Syrian Antioch and Milete that of Ephesus, so Neapolis was the harbor of Philippi. The latter was the old Krenides (“Place of Fountains”) which had been made a real city by Philip of Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great. After the battle of Pydna (168 B. C.) the Romans divided Macedonia into four politically separate parts, in the first of which Philippi was located. Amphipolis was the capital of this section. Philippi was located about a mile east of the small river Gangites which flows into the Strymon thirty miles from this point.

In 42 B. C. the battle of Philippi was fought between the Second Triumvirate (Octavius, Antonius, Lepidus) and the republicans of Rome under Brutus and Cassius, which resulted in a defeat for the latter, both of whom were killed. In commemoration of the victory Octavius made Philippi a colony. After the battle of Actium in 31 B. C. Augustus sent more Roman veterans to the colony and raised the standing of Philippi to the highest point by granting it the so-called jus Italicum, i. e., putting it on a par with the Roman colonies in Italy.

Philippi regarded itself as an entirely Roman city. Its citizens were Roman citizens who enjoyed all the rights of such: freedom from scourging, from arrest except in extreme cases, and the right to appeal to the emperor. The official language was Latin. At the head of the city there were two officials, the praetores duumviri or στρατηγοί, who appeared officially with attendant lictors, the lictores or ῥαβδοῦχοι, who carried the official bundles of rods or fasces with a mace protruding from the center, the symbols of power and of authority. Here, then, was a city that was markedly different from many to which Paul had as yet come.

Since πρώτη is commonly used without the article we may translate, “the first city of that part of Macedonia.” And now the controversy begins, for Amphipolis was both the capital and foremost city of that section. Ramsay thinks that this word “first” indicates that Philippi was the native city of Luke, that there was keen rivalry between it and Amphipolis as to which was first, and that Luke naturally favored his own city and loyally wrote “first” in Acts. In other words, Luke was like the ardent advertisers of rival towns are today, each boasting about his own. Considering everything, for instance also the fact that Luke calls only Philippi “a colony” although many other cities mentioned in his narrative were also colonies, a strong case is made for Luke’s being a native of Philippi. We know that the very same thing is done with regard to Syrian Antioch. Every mention of it and all that he says about it are stressed to show how intimately Luke knew this Antioch because it was his native town.

These two hypotheses offset each other, and one admires the ingenuity with which they are constructed. Ramsay answers the disputer of his theory by decaring that every mention of Antioch has “the cold and strictly historical tone.” But is Luke warm and personal in regard to Philippi? These are hypotheses and not proven facts.

With the support of a few Latins Zahn, following Blass, proposes to read πρώτης instead of πρώτη: “which is a city of the first part of Macedonia.” This is an attractive view but lacks sufficient textual support. The best solution still seems to be to construe, “the first (foremost) colony city of that part of Macedonia.” This would also agree with ἥτις which is causal: “since this is,” etc., and states the reason that Paul chose this city. Luke writes “is” because Philippi still had this distinction at the time he wrote Acts. Paul might have sailed for some other coast city but chose this one for a good reason. The clause is not a mere geographical remark such as that Philippi was the first or nearest city in Macedonia he could reach. Paul and his three companions spent several days here before they started to work.

This was necessary. They had to get their bearings. As already stated, this city was materially different from any that Paul had visited before this time. With reference to it alone he uses the word κολωνία. Other cities were colonies because they had a Roman colony, Philippi was a Roman colony because it was largely inhabited by Romans.

Acts 16:13

13And on the day of the Sabbath we went outside the gate beside a river where we were supposing a prayer-place to be; and having sat down, we began speaking to the women who had come together.

We take it that this was the first Sabbath after their arrival in Philippi. After inquiring in the city in regard to Jews and a Jewish synagogue, all that the missionaries learned was that the city had very few Jews, and that their only place of worship was located somewhere along the river Gangites, a little over a mile from the walls of the city. The Greek plural is commonly used in the expression “the day of the Sabbath,” just as the plural is common also in the names for festivals. So the four walk out along the great Roman road, the Via Egnatia, which they had followed into the city from Neapolis; they follow it on the other side of the city toward the northeast.

“Where we were supposing a prayer-place to be” shows how little information they had. They were not entirely certain that there was a prayer-place along the river nor just where it was if there was one. Some prefer the reading οὗἐνομίζετοπροσευχὴεἷναι of the Codex Bezae and take it to mean: “wo es herkoemmlich war, dass eine Gebetsstaette sei; but this reading simply means: “where a prayer-place was supposed to be” (passive) and is quite the same as the attested reading ἐνομίζομεν, “where we supposed” (active).

At least ten men were required to organize a synagogue. No mention is made of Jewish men in Philippi, and it is a question whether any men were connected with the prayer-place beside the Gangites River. None at least were present on this Sabbath. In lieu of a synagogue with its organization, form of service, and proper building, a prayer-place was arranged for an isolated group of Jews, which was called προσευχή, a word that is otherwise used as a designation for prayer to God. A favorite place for such a proseuche was beside some river, which was selected, it is supposed, because of the Jewish lustrations although this is not entirely clear. The missionaries found the place.

Whether it was a mere enclosure, or some sort of shelter, or just a selected spot, we are unable to say. Only women had gathered there, and we have no idea how they conducted their worship. The four missionaries, no doubt, introduced themselves, and after their status as teachers had been properly established, they sat down and “began speaking to the women who were come together.” That this was teaching is understood. Luke says “we began speaking,” each of the four in turn, also Luke.

One reason that no men were present may be the fact that, when Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome, the colony city Philippi had followed his example. Only a little group of women—yet Paul did not despise this humble beginning. Let no preacher despise even the smallest audience and imagine that he need not do his best for so few. The very smallness of a group of hearers is sometimes fraught with special blessing for the few who are present. It has often been remarked that the vision showed “a man, a Macedonian,” and here Paul found a few women. Where two or three are gathered in my name, Jesus says, he will be present.

Acts 16:14

14And a woman, by name Lydia, a purple-seller of Thyatira city, one worshipping God, kept hearing; whose heart the Lord opened wide to be heeding the things spoken by Paul.

A woman was the first Christian convert made in Europe. No wonder her name is cherished by her sisters to this day and by all believers generally. Since Luke introduces personal names by the dative ὀνόματι, we cannot accept the idea that Lydia, Λυδία, is here the appellative “a Lydian,” a woman of Lydia, and the supposition that her personal name was either Euodia or Syntyche (Phil. 4:2, 3). We cannot agree with the further surmise that, since racial and place names were often borne by slaves, this was a freed woman, a former slave. But if Luke says only that she was “a Lydian,” why did he add “of Thyatira city” when this city is known as the main city and a colony at that in the section of Asia Minor called Lydia, and the main output of the entire section was purple dye and cloth?

Luke combines “a purple-seller of Thyatira” (the plural as a designation for the city as it was for Philippi in v. 11) because in good part the city explains Lydia’s business. The purple dye was obtained from a conchylium, the shellfish Murex trunculus of Linnæus, and the waters at Thyatira produced the brightest and the most permanent hues. Scarlet fezzes made there are still considered superior. In three inscriptions dating back to the time between Vespasian and Caracalla a corporate guild of dyers is mentioned as having been established in this city. The dye itself was so costly because only a drop of it was secured from a small vessel in the throat of each shellfish. This was the genuine article; a cheaper grade was secured by crushing the fish.

Dyeing was the chief industry of the Lydian land. Lydia herself came from Thyatira and was now located in Philippi. Purple cloth of all kinds would be in high demand in this colony with its many Romans. It formed the trimming of the white Roman toga as well as of the tunic; the rich wore purple (Luke 16:19); prominent ladies loved the royal color; rugs and tapestries contained much rich purple; and besides it was used by officials for state robes and by emperors and their courts. “Royal purple” is still a current phrase.

Lydia dealt in purple goods of all kinds, and it is not necessary to add all kinds of other goods. This sale of purple was a business that required a large capital. Let us take it that Lydia was a widow and was carrying on her dead husband’s business by importing from Thyatira and selling in Philippi. She was a business woman, capable, successful, rich. She has “a house” (family), ample accommodations for four men in her beautiful home. In those days, when women were greatly restricted and seldom launched out for themselves to any great extent, all this that is related about Lydia means much.

Paul’s first European convert was no ordinary woman. Lydia was a proselyte of the gate; Luke uses the regular term for that idea: σεβομένητὸνΘεόν (13:43). Since Philippi had no synagogue, it is only fair to conclude that she was drawn to Judaism already in Thyatira. It is not amiss to conclude that she was the leading spirit among the women whom Paul found at the prayer-place. At this time many pagan women of prominence found their way into the synagogues; note a sign of it in 13:50. The worship of the sun god Tyrimnas, to which her native city was devoted, had long lost its hold upon Lydia since she came to know the True God. Her business did not keep her away from the insignificant little prayer-place to reach which she had to travel far on the Sabbath.

We must combine the two duratives “she kept hearing” and “to be heeding,” for they imply that Lydia was not converted on that very first Sabbath. From the beginning, however, she heard with a heart that was opened wide (διά in the verb) by the Lord. Little did she dream that Saturday morning what a treasure she was to find in the little retreat by the riverside; but she heard the great Apostle of the Gentiles himself set forth the blessed gospel of Jesus Christ with all fervor and all conviction, and this gospel was corroborated by his three companions. She was finding the pearl of great price.

The Lord opens the heart, but the hand with which he lifts the latch and draws the door is the Word which he makes us hear, and the door opens as we heed, προσέχειν, keep holding our mind to what we hear. No man can open the door of his heart (καρδία is the center of thought and will) himself, nor can he help the Lord to open it by himself lifting the latch and moving the door. The one thing he can do is to bolt the door, i. e., refuse to hear and to heed; and thus he can keep the door closed and bar it even more effectually than it was at first. This prevents conversion.

All the women at the prayer-place heard the missionaries speak, but all did not heed as Lydia did. The grace of hearing, however, none of them thrust away, and they may later have come to faith. The heeding may have followed when they afterward recalled the apostle’s words to memory, perhaps discussed them with Lydia, or when they heard the same things preached a second time.

“The grace of hearing no man is able to ward off.” Besser. But we must let God work the heeding through the hearing. Then will his blessed purpose be accomplished. Lydia came to faith. Luke says that this was accomplished through “the things spoken by Paul.” He thus credits Paul with Lydia’s conversion. This was undoubtedly the fact; Paul’s companions at most reinforced what he said. In Lydia we have a beautiful example of adult conversion. There is no emotionalism, no ranting of the preacher to work up his hearer, no agitation and shouting by the hearer, but only the silent touch of the Spirit as the ear conveys the blessed truth to the heart, only the true inward assent, the blessed confidence and trust which presently manifest themselves in open confession.

Acts 16:15

15And when she was baptized and her house she besought, saying, If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, having come into my house, remain there. And she constrained us.

Lydia’s baptism followed in due order. When, where, and in what manner it was administered Luke does not say. The expression “and her house,” meaning her household, leaves undetermined whether she and the rest were baptized at the same time, or she alone at this time and the rest later. The former seems the more probable, since by using a temporal clause Luke connects the baptism with Lydia’s invitation to the missionaries to lodge in her house. May we say that at the solemn service in her house, when she and her household were baptized, she then and there insisted that these her teachers make her house their headquarters?

Who made up her “house”? When R., W. P., states that nothing indicates that Lydia’s “house” included more than “the women employed by her, who, like her, had heard the preaching of Paul and had believed,” and when “possibly” Euodia and Syntyche (Phil. 4:2, 3) are included in the supposition that Lydia may have employed many slaves and freed-women in her trade, we fear that these women are assigned to the house in order to evade the statement that there were children. But even then, the more women are introduced, the greater is the likelihood of at least one child being present. Other writers state that οἶκος means servants or workpeople.

Now “her house,” as here used, is the regular term for the members of one’s immediate family. Thus any children Lydia may have had would be included. The word also includes servants, but if there happened to be servants we must not fill every “house” with a number of servants. We think Lydia did have servants; but we also know that Paul would never baptize even as much as one slave simply on the order of that slave’s master. If any servants of Lydia’s were baptized they of their own volition believed the Word they themselves had heard. “House” does not include employees generally, not even when such people believed. They had their own homes.

As far as the text is concerned, Luke does not say or imply that the other women who were present at the river came to faith. We think some of them did, but Luke does not say so. It is also unwarranted to make all these women at the river servants or employees of Lydia. It lays them open to the charge that they associated themselves with Lydia only for mercenary reasons. What Paul writes about Euodia and Syntyche in Phil. 4:2, 3 simply states that the two were prominent women who were neither slaves nor mere employees of Lydia but had homes of their own.

One commentator states: “In the household baptisms (Cornelius, Lydia, the jailor, Crispus) one sees ‘infants’ or not according to his predilections or preferences.” But why just “infants”? And why just these four households? Surely, the few baptisms of entire families during the time of the apostles on record were not the only ones that occurred. And the point at issue is in regard to children up to the age of discretion and not only “infants.” The whole matter is rather simple. The apostles and their assistants baptized entire households and by baptism received them into the Christian Church. That was the standard apostolic practice.

Where is the evidence that οἶκος ever meant less than “household,” “family,” referred only to the adults to the exclusion of the children? Granted that many servants and slaves were included, the likelihood of there being children is only increased; and who will count all the households thus received by baptism? Mark 10:13–16 settled the question for the apostles.

Equally unsatisfactory is the view that Lydia “submitted to baptism as proof that she was ‘faithful to the Lord.’” Is that all her baptism involves? Was it only a submission and a proof that she offered? Did the Lord do nothing for her in and through baptism? Was Ananias mistaken when he said to Saul: “Be baptized and wash away—yes, wash away!—thy sins”? Was Lydia baptized “and her house” without the sacrament washing away their sins? Lydia did do something to prove that she was “faithful to the Lord.” She besought her teachers to use her home as their lodging place while they remained in Philippi.

That sounds as though they had thus far had very poor accommodations in the city. Her invitation was put in such a way that, if it were refused, this would imply that her teachers did not yet esteem her “faithful to the Lord.” She uses the condition of reality: “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord,” i. e., one who truly believes in and trusts the Lord. Paul seems to have declined this invitation at first, and we know that it was his principle to be burdensome to no one.

Luke writes: “And she constrained us,” the aorist implying that she succeeded. This is another trait in Lydia that makes her character lovely in our eyes. Christian hospitality is one of the outstanding virtues of the early church, and Lydia is the first outstanding example of it. In this Lydia from the very beginning gave a distinction to the church at Philippi. For this was the one congregation which later remembered the needs of the apostle and sent him kindly personal gifts, especially when he was in captivity in Rome. How Paul appreciated such remembrances he himself records in Phil. 4:15, etc.

What an example for all future time! There are no greetings to Lydia in Paul’s letter to the Philippians, in fact, this epistle contains no personal greetings at all. We must offer our own explanation as to the reason for this.

Acts 16:16

16And it came to pass as we were going to the prayer-place that a maid having a divining spirit met us, one such as was bringing her masters much income by divining.

The accusative with the infinitive is the subject of ἐγένετο. Preaching at the prayer-place evidently continued for many days (v. 18). On one occasion, when Paul and his companions were going out to it, this παιδίσκη—the word commonly used as a designation for slave girl—met them. Luke describes her as “having a spirit,” as one possessed. But to πνεῦμα he adds the apposition πύθωνα, which describes the character of this “spirit.” This word “Python” originally designated the mythical serpent or dragon that dwelt in the region Pytho at the foot of the Parnassus in Phocis and was said to have guarded the oracle at Delphi until it was slain by the god Apollo. Then the word became the appellation for those who professed to reveal future events such as those associated with the Delphic oracle.

It later came to mean merely a ventriloquist. Here the second sense of the word is referred to: the girl had “a spirit, a diviner,” i. e., a divining spirit. The supposition that she was afflicted with a peculiar mental derangement that gave certain of her faculties an excessive sensitiveness and keenness is not in accord with Luke’s language and describes a pathological condition that is otherwise not known.

This poor girl’s terrible affliction was capitalized by “her masters” who had probably purchased her for this very reason. She was bringing (imperfect tense) them “much income” (ἐργασία) by divining (the participle denoting means). The masters charged a price for the information which people desired of the girl. The world has not changed in this respect. Girls are still exploited—just so money can be made through them, no matter what becomes of their souls or their bodies. And divining of all sorts still brings in good money, for men will not believe God but will believe the charlatans who profess to be able to pry into the future.

In this case, of course, there was no charlatan but a demon speaking from the girl. Many are ready to believe that this spirit could foretell the future. Let them learn once for all that no devil or demon is able to perform even one genuine miracle, all their “miracles” are “pseudo,” lying, spurious, and intended only to deceive, 2 Thess. 2:9. The spirit in this girl accomplished no more by means of his divining than our fortunetellers do today. Why, this spirit could not and did not know what was awaiting him, namely that in a few days he would be driven out of the girl by the power of Jesus!

Acts 16:17

17She, following after Paul and us, kept yelling, saying, These men are slaves of God, the Highest, such as are proclaiming to you salvation’s way. And this she kept doing on many days.

She met the missionaries, walked past them, then, however, turned around and followed behind them, crying out her information at the top of her voice and continuing this until the very gates of the city were reached. Just imagine the excitement she must have caused. When the Canaanitish woman did a similar thing, the disciples of Jesus could not endure it and asked Jesus to get rid of her, “for she crieth after us.”

Two questions may be asked at this point. How did this girl know what she was doing, and why did she have to broadcast it to the world? These are the same two questions that arise with reference to all the demoniacs we read about in the Gospels. The fact that the devils know the Son of God need not be explained. They know him just as they know the other persons of the Godhead. The fact that this girl, apart even from the spirit that possessed her, should know Paul and his companions as preachers of God and of salvation’s way is not even surprising.

Paul did not in any way keep his work secret. All Philippi was free to know of it. This divining spirit had discovered no secret. He might have learned even more; for we must note that he says nothing about Jesus, or Christ, or God’s Son. What he does say is no more than would apply to ordinary Jewish rabbis. It is quite possible that the girl was a Jewess, for she met the missionaries going out to the Jewish prayer-place. “God, the Highest” was a term that was familiar also to pagans; “salvation’s way” sounds more Jewish.

R., W. P., regards the expression as indefinite: “a way of salvation” and remarks that many such have been offered to men and still are; but the qualitative genitive makes the expression definite: “salvation’s way.” The spirit is not speaking of some way of salvation but of the one way proclaimed by these missionaries. In regard to the “somewhat thorny subject” (R. 782) of the article and its absence with nouns and their genitives one must be rather careful.

It is the spirit’s crying after the missionaries as such that constitutes the main point. It was intended especially for Paul, he being recognized as the leader; for the girl did not follow merely “us” but “Paul and us” as Luke carefully writes. Imagine a venerable preacher accompanied by three colleagues going through town with a girl behind them pointing to them and crying, “These are preachers!” Or think of any other four professional men. That would certainly be disconcerting. People would stare, wonder, begin to talk, and ask all sorts of queer questions about such men. That is the wicked spirit’s very intention in this case. This explanation suffices, so that we disregard the idea of this spirit’s attempted fawning and flattery by his cries, or of expressing fear of stripes and torments and seeking to deprecate his well-known Master’s anger.

Acts 16:18

18This public demonstration the girl continued for “many days.” Paul finally drove out the spirit. Why did he not do so sooner, and why not at once? Miracles are never wrought at the discretion of the human agent. They are in every instance wrought only by the will of the Lord. Paul had no directions from the Lord or his Spirit to act during those “many days,” and that is why he did not, in fact, could not act. At last the divine directions came to him, and he promptly drove out the demon.

But Paul, having been deeply distressed and after turning to the spirit, said, I order thee in the name of Jesus Christ to go out of her! And he went out in that very hour.

Neither the first participle nor the second are causal. Not because this crying distressed him did Paul drive out the spirit. That is the mistaken idea that suggested the translation “worn out,” as though Paul stood it so long, and then his patience was worn out completely. Διαπονηθείς was true already on the first day. The first participle states the inner feeling with which Paul acted, and the second the outward act. And this distress was not due to his own person but to the state of the girl and the effect on his work. We may venture to say that the Lord let it continue as long as he did because he wanted Paul to finish his work in Philippi; for after he drove out the spirit Paul had to leave the city (v. 39, 40).

The spirit is ordered to leave and forthwith leaves. We must construe the dative with the participle: Paul turned to the spirit. The fact that he spoke to the spirit is made plain by what he said. The position of the dative indicates that it is to be construed with the participles, and when it is construed thus, this dative affects also the verb “said” by showing to whom the words were said. “In the name of Jesus Christ” is never to be taken in the sense of “by the authority of,” etc., but always: “in connection with the revelation of Jesus Christ.” See the explanation in 2:38 (“name” already in 2:21). Follow ὄνομα in all these and in similar connections and clear up this important point. NAME—NAME—NAME goes echoing through the Scriptures.

Acts 16:19

19But now the trouble begins. One should suppose that all men would acclaim the deed of the apostle, see in it the hand of “God, the Highest,” and a sample of the “salvation” his messengers bring; but worldly eyes took a different view. But her masters, on seeing that their hope of income was gone out, having laid hold on Paul and Silas, dragged them to the market place to the rulers and, having brought them to the praetors, said, These men are exceedingly stirring up our city, being Jews, and are proclaiming customs which it is not lawful for us to receive or to practice, being Romans. And the multitude rose up together against them. And the praetors, having stripped off their garments, were ordering to beat them with rods. And having put many blows on them, they threw them into prison, having ordered the jailor to keep them safely; who, having received such an order, threw them into the inner prison and made their feet fast in the stocks.

This was the reward for the priceless service rendered to the poor victim of the devil.

The fact that the girl was owned by several “masters” is made plain by the plural which cannot here denote a succession of masters. Their hope of income “was gone out.” Luke uses the very verb he employed when the spirit “was gone out.” The worldly look for monetary gain; the hope for that dims the higher hope, blots it out altogether. Touch the unconverted moneybag and hear what a devilish noice results. A fine example is Demetrius at Ephesus. Just how soon these “masters” discovered their great loss we are unable to say, but it must have been soon, perhaps by the time Paul came back from the prayer-place if that is where he again went this day. These masters were evidently in a rage, judging from the way in which they pounced upon Paul and Silas and dragged them into the agora or market place to the rulers.

Why Luke and Timothy were not with Paul and Silas is not indicated. The fact that they were absent was providential, for they thereby escaped being compelled to leave the city. The Lord’s hand ruled even in apparent disaster. The agora was the public square or forum where the people gathered for business and for other purposes. The magisterial offices, courts, etc., were usually located at or near the market place.

We find no difficulty in the two clauses “dragged them to the market place to the rulers,” and the next, “having brought them to the praetors.” Why should these “rulers” and the “praetors” be the same? It lies on the surface that the two praetors did not attend to petty cases but only to graver matters. These “rulers” were what we should call the police court with its officers, who could be easily reached. This is why Luke says no more about them; they turned the case over to the praetors. We see why, when we note the extravagant charges launched against Paul and Silas. Something that affected the whole city belonged to the two supreme judges.

Acts 16:20

20Thus Paul and Silas came before the στρατηγοί, the duumviri, mentioned in v. 12, the highest authority in the colonial cities, who tried infractions of the Roman laws. They gloried in the title στρατηγοί which was the proper equivalent of the Latin praetores. We are amazed to hear the charge. There is not one word about the girl and her deliverance from the demon and, of course, not a breath about losing the wicked income from her affliction. Instead of this they prefer the inflammatory charge that Paul and Silas were Jews and as such were setting the city by the ears. This was a rank appeal to race prejudice coupled with religious animosity.

The single word “Jews” was thrown out like a firebrand. The emperor Claudius had recently expelled all Jews from Rome (18:2), and it was the pride of every colonial city to become more or less a replica of Rome. This would be especially true of a colony that had as many Romans as Philippi had. It had scarcely any Jews in it, not enough even to maintain the smallest kind of a synagogue. And here were two Jews caught in the very act of stirring up the city exceedingly (ἐκ in the verb). No wonder Rome had ousted all Jews.

Acts 16:21

21“Jews”—think of it! And now the deadly specification is added: these Jews “are proclaiming customs which it is not lawful for us to receive or to practice, being Romans.” “Jews—Romans,” take in the full contrast. And do not forget the ungodly pride that is associated with “Romans,” men who had conquered and were now ruling the whole world! “Englishmen,” “Americans” are superior titles today, but in the whole world of today there is no capital that is at all comparable to Rome in its imperial days, and hence there is no title of such imperial grandeur as “Romans.” It is cunningly mild on the part of these accusers to speak of “customs which it is not lawful for us to receive or practice, being Romans.” The very idea of even suggesting that these lords of the world should change their customs and change them for those of Jews—think of it, of Jews! A barb is thrust in: “which it is not lawful.” “Not lawful?”—just negative? why, that would be outright treason!

We must note the shrewdness of this charge. The “customs” are left wholly to the imagination, not one of them is named; all that is said is that they come from “Jews” and are offered to “Romans.” The accusers themselves do not know what they mean by these “customs.” They know nothing at all about Paul and Silas, have paid no attention to them until this time when the girl is no longer a source of income. They heard only the word “Jews” and may have had only a vague idea as to what a real Jew was. It is safe to say that they had never even heard the word “Christians” (11:26). But their rage and their revenge had to find some outlet. This is a counterpart to the charges which the Sanhedrin launched against Jesus before Pilate.

Both were equally based on nothing, both equally hid the real vicious motive, and both even attempted to uphold the interest of Rome. But the Sanhedrists were baser. They had the divine law, these pagans had only idols.

Acts 16:22

22The two or three owners of the girl could never have dragged Paul and Silas to the police court with their own hands; but they had men enough with them. And this drew an ὄχλος, a crowd, just as any excitement will. The charge before the praetors repeated only what had been told the rulers or police officers. When it was made again with strident voices, this crowd rose up to support and second the accusers against Paul and Silas. The σύν in the verb refers to the accusers, the crowd was “with” them. They “rose up” means that they became tumultuous with shouts and cries “against them,” the two accused “Jews,” and κατά (“down”) suggests that they shouted: “Down with them!

Down with them!” or something of the sort. That is the way of silly crowds. The praetors thus had an ocular demonstration of how the city was being stirred up exceedingly except that not Paul and Silas but these Jew baiters were doing the stirring. The missionaries had worked in great quietness, and their first general advertisement had been the miracle performed on the girl.

The two praetors were simply swept off their feet. They did not have the sense of Pilate. Roman praetors they were but showed not a trace of it before this mob. Roman dignity, Roman justice, Roman law which hears the accused face to face with the accusers, preferably under the open sky—all were lacking in this wild disorder. The praetors order their lictors, the ῥαβδοῦχοι of v. 38 (see v. 12) to strip the accused and to beat them with their official rods. The usual formula was: “Go, lictors, strip off their garments; let them be scourged!” Ῥαβδίζειν = virgis caedere. Paul refers to this infliction in 2 Cor. 11:25, and to two others that are not otherwise recorded. He mentions the shameful treatment which he received here at Philippi in 1 Thess. 2:2; it was outrageous in the extreme.

The wording: “the praetors, having stripped off their garments” becomes ridiculous when Ramsay lets these praetors strip off their own garments. And not with their own hands did the praetors tear the clothes from the victims; this, as all other actions of violence, was carried out by the hands of the lictors at the command of the praetors. So Pilate, so the Jews crucified Jesus. What one commands or to what one consents he himself thereby does. “To beat them with rods” needs no subject; the lictors did the beating. We must note the imperfect ἐκέλευον. The Jews scourged with forty blows less one, a fixed number; the Romans did not count.

So when the lictors went to work they did not know when to stop and after beating a while looked up to the praetors for a signal. These praetors repeatedly ordered them to go on. That is what the imperfect intends to say.

This thing was done right there; the praetors were influenced by the jubilant mob. It thus happened that neither Paul nor Silas could assert their right as Roman citizens whom no Roman court could flog. We may take it that they tried to warn the praetors, but all their efforts were in vain. If any of the lictors heard them they just laughed.

Acts 16:23

23All that Luke is able to say is that “they put many blows upon them,” for no one kept count. We calmly read these few words as we do those others: “Pilate took and scourged Jesus.” But they are filled with excruciating pain and horrible disgrace. Under the many blows the skin would be broken, the blood would ooze out, and inflamed welts would cover the whole back. And all this was wholly illegal according to Roman law, was inflicted on innocent men without process of law to satisfy a few greedy men and a wholly ignorant mob. The gospel and Jesus were not even mentioned during the whole affair. The punishment was intended for Paul and Silas because they were Jews.

But this was the calling of the apostles, to suffer innocently for welldoing. If some share of such suffering comes to us, shall we not also take it?

Since they were regarded as two dangerous vagabond Jewish agitators, the praetors intended to look further into their case and remanded them to prison. The Roman prison usually had three distinct parts: the communiora, where the prisoners had light and air; the interiora, which was shut off by strong iron gates and had bars and locks; and the tullianum or dungeon for executions, where prisoners condemned to die were confined. Chrysostom’s supposition that in this case the jailor (literally, “the guard of bonds”) was the Stephanus mentioned in 1 Cor. 16:15 is an unreliable guess.

This prison warden received orders not only to lock up Paul and Silas but “to keep them safely,” which means that he was held responsible with his own life for their safekeeping as were the guards that kept Peter in 12:4, who lost their lives after his escape. So this warden took no chances and threw them into the dungeon; and even here “he made safe their feet in the wood,” i. e., in the stocks, which were both a fetter and an instrument of torture, for the feet were locked wide apart and held in that painful position. Note the middle voice ἠσφαλίσατο, he made them safe on his own account. Bleeding, bruised, sore, without anything to assuage their wounds, Paul and Silas lay in the black dungeon in this painful position. This was the last place in the world to do missionary work but the very place where they were given such work to do by the Lord.

Acts 16:25

25But along midnight Paul and Silas, praying, were singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were attentively listening to them. And suddenly there occurred a great earthquake so that the foundations of the prison were shaken. And forthwith all the doors were opened, and the fetters of all were let go.

Nihil crus sentit in vervo quum animus in coelo est: “Nothing the limb feels in the stocks when the mind is in heaven.” Tertullian. What else could they have done in such pain and wretchedness of body than to pray to God? The present participle and the imperfect verb express simultaneous action: their singing was praying. What hymns they sang we, of course, do not know, but the psalms of David have ever been dear to those who suffer, especially also to those who suffer wrong. We may be sure that their praying hymns were not a weary wail. They were rather a petition for deliverance according to the good and wise counsel of God, a petition for fortitude and strength to bear their cross, and prayers for the furtherance of God’s work in the midst of their enemies and for the conversion of many.

Such conduct a Roman prison had never experienced, but, of course, it had never confined such Christians before this. No wonder “the prisoners were attentively listening to them.” The jailor had forgotten to fetter their lips, their hearts he could not fetter. “And if among those captives there was a malefactor like the one at the right side of Christ’s cross, Paul and Silas sang him into Paradise.” Besser. In his city mission work in Berlin, Stoecker employed bands of singing boys, each band under a good leader, and thus sang the gospel into many a cold and arid heart; and this work of the Kurrendensaenger may still be going on. Paul was here learning what he afterward put into such comforting language in Romans eight.

Acts 16:26

26We know in what way the Twelve and especially Peter were released from prison (5:19; 12:7, etc.), namely through an angel. This time the Lord used an earthquake with results (ὥστε) that were phenomenal and such as the Lord intended to achieve by this means. The Lord is never bound to a single means to achieve his end. Weg hat er alter Wege, an Mitteln fehlt’s ihm nicht. We see why the Lord used an earthquake in this instance: he intended to release all the prisoners in that prison and not merely Paul and Silas. In Jerusalem and among Jews the Lord used an angel, in Philippi among pagans he used an earthquake. We call the one means supernatural, the other natural, and that may pass as far as the agencies are concerned; but we dare not surrender the conviction that both were employed by the Lord and in that sense were supernatural.

Now winds, waters, earthquakes, and other disturbances of nature often play curious “pranks” as we call them, but they are in reality not pranks at all. Like the disturbance itself, all that they effect and do is in the hand of divine providence down to the least point. So it was here when the very foundations of the prison were shaken, when all the doors were opened, and all the fetters of the prisoners were let go (ἀνέθη, from ἀνίημι, first aorist passive without augment, note the passive). This does not mean that the doors were thrown ajar; they were opened in the sense that their heavy locks and bars no longer held. So also the fetters and the stocks were made to let go; the bolts in the walls fell out and no longer held the chains; the lock in the stocks was sprung open or burst from the beams. Yet not a single prisoner was hurt. These miraculous features were so plain that all the prisoners could see them.

Just as all the prisoners heard the prayer-hymns which Paul and Silas sang to God, so these prisoners were to see God’s miraculous answer to those prayers and praises. They could not but connect the two. As by their singing Paul and Silas were really preaching the Word to these prisoners, so by his deed of power God put his own tangible seal on that word. Strange kind of missionary work! But it is exactly the same as when God supported the apostolic preaching by means of other miracles. In this instance, however, the miracle was new and different.

Acts 16:27

27But the jailor, having been roused out of sleep and having seen that the doors of the prison had been opened, having drawn his short sword, was about to make away with himself, supposing that the prisoners had fled. But Paul called with a great voice, saying, Do thyself no harm, for we are all here!

Let us not imagine that this warden had no assistants, that he alone kept the prison and, after locking it up securely, had peacefully gone to bed in his own adjoining house. He had guards, and some of them kept guard all night. They are not important for the story and therefore are ignored. They certainly rushed to the outside when the earthquake began. Note the use of no less than five participles in three tenses in the Greek, and all are placed with exactness. The first two go together: the jailor was aroused from sleep (became ἔξυπνος) and then saw the prison doors, the perfect participle describes these as having been opened and as thus being open.

On rushing out the guards had left those through which they fled wide open. This much the jailor saw without lights. Paul and Silas must have gone toward the main entrance which was now wide open; the other prisoners perhaps crowded around or back of them. They were invisible to the jailor who stood outside the building.

Then the jailor drew his short sword, the regular Roman weapon; but this participle has no καί before it because this action is very closely connected with the verb “was about to make away with himself,” namely by this means. Finally, the durative participle at the end: “supposing the prisoners to have fled.” He saw the gaping door but not a prisoner anywhere. Panic seized him, and the next thought was suicide. The imperfect implies that something intervened. It was Paul’s tremendous shout. When the jailor got awake (temporal) and because he saw (causal), etc., then by the act of drawing his sword (means) he was about to kill himself, since he was supposing (again causal) the prisoners have fled (perfect, implying that they are far away and still fleeing; it is like the perfect participle used with reference to the doors).

The Roman law dealt severely with jailors who were unable to produce the prisoners who had been put into their custody. If prisoners who were liable to the death penalty were lost, the jailor himself would be promptly executed in their stead. That is why the jailor, despairing of his own life when he thought that all his prisoners had escaped, preferred to kill himself rather than to be ignominiously killed by the praetors. But what a difference between the happy apostles singing amid their suffering, shame, and mortal danger and this pagan Roman who, even before he is certain of his calamity, would resort to suicide! But this was true Roman teaching, for had not Cassius, when he was defeated, covered his face and ordered his freedmen to kill him in his tent here at Philippi? Had not Titinius, his messenger, done the same as being properly “a Roman’s part”?

Had not Brutus and many others done likewise? This is the pagan wisdom of the world: when everything seems lost, cap it with suicide, a quick death. The worldling’s philosophy has not advanced one step since King Saul killed himself. It is the devil’s own trick to rush a man into self-destruction; a Judas died by his own hand.

Acts 16:28

28We take it that through the open door and in the light which the night afforded Paul saw the action of the jailor and with a great shout stopped him: “Do thyself nothing base!” the peremptory aorist subjunctive in a negative command. The distinction between πράσσειν, “practice,” and ποιεῖν, “do,” is not always observed although the Greek idiom would prefer the former here. Paul knew the reason and the motive of the jailor and therefore offers the one assurance that would stop him, the statement that all the prisoners were still there. Now you may ask how Paul knew that, and in the following you may ask still more questions that Luke disregards altogether. Just take it for granted that Paul automatically took charge of matters just as he did later in the desperate situation recorded in 27:21–44. Paul was master here, one who understood exactly what God was doing and never for a moment lost his wits.

We need not wonder that none of the prisoners attempted to flee. The effect of the praying and the singing of Paul and Silas was still in their hearts, and this was combined with the tremendous effect of the earthquake, which to all of them could not but appear as the direct intervention of the God to whom these two had so strangely and so effectively prayed. So they all stood together, and not a man made a wrong move. Let us not forget, however, that the shackles with which they had been bound were removed from their fastenings in the wall but still clung to their wrists or their feet.

Acts 16:29

29And, having asked for lights, he rushed in and, having become trembling, he fell down before Paul and Silas and, having brought them outside, said, Lords, what is necessary for me to do that I be saved?

Paul’s shout checked the jailor’s suicidal attempt, and he asked for lights to assure himself that it was true that all of the prisoners were still there. We regard it as scarcely a possibility that the members of the jailor’s own family brought those lights, namely torches. We prefer to think of the jailor’s assistants who had been on guard and had run out of the building when the earthquake made it rock with an accompanying roar. They ran out but were at hand and obeyed the order to bring lights. There, sure enough, were all the prisoners, not one was gone.

Then the jailor sank to his knees before Paul and Silas, the men whom he had caused extra tortures by locking their feet in the stocks. He was overwhelmed with gratitude to Paul and Silas, to whom he attributed the fact that no prisoner had escaped. He was still shaking because of his terrible experience when he a moment ago was trying to take his life. What a scene for those other prisoners! What thoughts must have raced through their minds? Besser exclaims: “Behold the man from Macedonia! And if he had been the only one in all Macedonia to be brought to salvation, Paul and Silas would gladly have suffered the scourging and the pain of the stocks for this one.”

Acts 16:30

30After they had lifted him up with gentle yet firm words, he brought them out of the prison. What about the other prisoners? We decline to believe that the jailor himself first bound them securely, and equally that he just left them inside the prison without further attention. Why do some commentators suppose that this jailor was alone? To account for the lights they bring in the family, but to account for the other prisoners the family will not do, so the jailor either attends to them or just leaves them. The jailor’s assistants attend to these prisoners.

Where did this jailor take Paul and Silas? Luke writes: προαγαγὼναὑτοὺςἔξω, “having led them forward outside”—the prison was left behind. It is Luke’s custom to mention only the essential facts, and here the fact is that the great question of the jailor was asked after the jailor had led the prisoners out of the prison.

We do not think that the jailor’s question was asked immediately after he and his prisoners were outside of the prison. It must have occurred after the jailor had fully collected himself. Luke does not tell us what led to the question. Zahn thinks that the jailor asked his question just outside of the prison door and that it was not a question but an expression of worry regarding the loss of his position for some negligence with which the praetors might charge him, and that Paul then surprised the poor fellow by giving him an answer when he had expected none. “Saved” is then understood in the sense of saved from losing his position. But this is too unlikely. When was the gospel offered a man who was still upset by panic and worry about his job?

While we do not know just what led to the jailor’s question we at once see that beneath the man’s rough exterior there beat a poor, wretched human heart. God had reached into his life, this God of Paul and Silas who was greater that Jupiter or any god of Olympus. The man’s whole inner nature had been shaken; he had been tossed between life and death. Had he heard Paul and Silas singing in the prison? Did he know their real story? One thing is certain, his word about being saved (ἵνασωθῶ) is a direct echo of the possessed girl’s word about “salvation’s way (ὁδόνσωτηρίας)” in v. 17. Luke is giving us only the final outcome of what happened after the jailor took the missionaries away from the prison.

Κύριοι is only an address of humility. It is an eloquent expression of the jailor’s feeling toward Paul and Silas. Undue fear of synergism lays stress on ποιεῖν as though the man intended to say that he would “do” something to merit salvation or to prepare himself for it. The earthquake had removed all high ideas regarding himself from his heart. We have noted this question already in 2:37, and in 9:6. Neither the apostles nor Jesus (in Luke 10:25; 18:18) act as though the question in regard to doing something had anything wrong about it; see the discussion on 2:37.

Paul answers this question exactly as it is put by telling the man what he is to “do.” The same is true with regard to the clause ἵνασωθῶ and the verb “to be saved” (see 4:12 regarding “salvation”). Paul answers by using this same great verb, and no one need attempt to show that the sense in which Paul used it was totally different from that implied in the jailor’s question.

This man had looked death in the face, and divine “saving” was not a remote subject to him. Whatever imperfect conceptions he may have had, he saw before him two astounding men who were undisturbed by fear amid an earthquake, undismayed by their punishment, who spoke of God in a mighty sense—they had been saved, and the jailor wanted this same salvation. If we knew what preceded his asking this question we should see that the jailor’s question came to his lips most naturally. From the answer of Paul and Silas we may conclude that the jailor’s family was present. In that question the man laid open his heart.

Acts 16:31

31That is why it received an answer that was so crystal clear, an answer that has gone down through the ages, that has answered this same question in unnumbered hearts and satisfied those hearts as nothing else could satisfy them. And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house. And they spoke to him the Word of the Lord together with all those in his house.

Here we have the most astounding piece of mission work recorded in Acts: it is done in the small hours of the night for the jailor and his family by the jailor’s prisoners! Here we have the gospel in a nutshell, its quintessence expressed in simplest form: faith, Jesus, salvation. Many find a play on words in Paul’s answer: as though the missionaries said, look not to us as “lords” but to the One who is truly the “Lord”; but this is imaginary. The common address toward a superior was “lord,” and the missionaries did not repudiate the title and its meaning as used by the jailor. When the word was used by believers with reference to Jesus, it meant divine Lord, Lord in the supreme sense, and was thus clear. Luke compresses the answer into a few strong words. As the next verse shows, it was fully expanded so that the gospel was presented to the jailor and to his family in all its saving power.

Πίστευσον is properly the aorist, for the moment one believes, salvation is his. “To believe” always means to put all trust and confidence in the Lord Jesus, in other words, by such trust of the heart to throw the personality entirely into his arms for deliverance from sin, death, and hell. Here ἐπί is used; this trust is to rest on Jesus. This the jailor is to “do.” He must do the believing, every individual in his household likewise, for no one can do the believing for others. But faith is not our own production. Even in ordinary life confidence is awakened and produced in us by the one in whom we believe. The same holds true with reference to Jesus who is most worthy of our confidence and trust.

To come in contact with him is to be moved to trust him and him alone for salvation. For this reason unbelief is such a crime. It is the refusal to trust him who is supremely worthy of trust.

Jesus has salvation, offers and bestows it. To trust him is to let him give us that salvation. To refuse is to mistrust and distrust him and his salvation, which means to remain unsaved although salvation is actually extended to us. His very name means “Savior.” The result of letting Jesus draw us to trust him is to be saved. The future passive “thou shalt be saved” makes Jesus the agent, the one who saves. But this future tense is not to be dated at some distant time, say at the hour of one’s death.

This future is relative to the preceding aorist in the sense that believing is forthwith followed by being saved. To believe is to accept the divine gift of salvation and at once to have it. This is a logical future: faith—salvation; never in the reverse order. There is no interval of time between them.

“Thou” is expressed already by the verb ending. When the pronoun is added it becomes emphatic: “thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house” (family, household). The jailor’s believing will certainly not save his wife, children, etc. As he must believe in his person, so must each member of his house in his or her person. Here again there is family religion as in v. 15, Lydia “and her house.” See v. 15 in regard to the question concerning children.

Acts 16:32

32This theme of believing, etc., was fully elaborated by Paul and Silas. The pain and the blows inflicted by the lictors and the torture of the hours in the stocks were practically forgotten by Paul and Silas when it came to preaching the gospel for the saving of souls. Again we meet the individualization: “to him (personally) together with all those in his house (in the same personal way).” The aorists occurring in v. 31, 32 already imply that the speaking was not in vain.

Acts 16:33

33And having taken them aside in that hour of the night, he washed them from the blows, and he was baptized, he and all his, immediately. And having brought them up into the house, he set a table beside them and exulted with his whole house, having believed God.

Luke writes: παραλαβὼναὑτούς, “having taken them aside in that hour of the night,” παρά, “aside,” where there was water and there “he washed them from the blows,” washed off the dried blood and laved the hot and inflamed welts. Callously this pagan jailor had thrust these men into the prison and added the cruel stocks to their pain; but he now seeks to undo the cruelty inflicted upon the two victims as much as he can. His heart was now completely changed. This was the first work of the man’s faith. Pagan cruelty and callousness is changed into Christian mercy and tenderness. Behold what the gospel does! It always does this. And yet many spurn its blessed converting and renewing power.

One of the curiosities of exegesis is the assumption that the jailor took the two men down into the cellar where there was water. Here in the cellar, we are told, the jailor drew a bath, and after the two had bathed in the same cellar, the whole family was baptized. This interpretation is made to depend on the preposition used in the participle: “having taken them aside.”

If this idea of a cellar is curious, and if the sane view is that the washing took place in the courtyard, one would think that all is then taken care of. Here in the courtyard there would be a well, a cistern in the ground, or a tank above ground, either of the latter two containing rain water from the roof. A basin or a tub would be used for washing the bloody backs of the missionaries, the jailor doing this washing. But immersionists are not satisfied with this explanation. R., W. P., would have us choose between “the pool or tank” mentioned by De Wette and “the rectangular basin (impluvium), or even a swimming pool (kolumbethra) found within the walls of the prison” mentioned by Kuinol.

Please note the names of the authorities used and the main point, somehow to get enough water for an immersion! Now this “tank” is especially interesting! Imagine Paul and Silas in this tank and then the jailor and his family! Now the jailor may have had a tank, but it had a spigot to draw out the water into vessels as it was needed. The water in the tank was kept clean and was not used to wash off blood into it or the filth of bathing bodies. Does this need to be said?

On the question of immersion see 2:41. The jailor and his family were baptized in the ordinary way by an application of water in the name of the Triune God. The quantity of water present is wholly immaterial. Zoeckler offers another curiosity by thinking that the baptismal act was partly immergendo, partly adspergendo. But why this difference?

Was this baptism performed too hastily? Could instruction and all that was necessary be completed in one night when the family was pagan? We may leave this question with Paul and Silas and the answer they gave. We know that they never baptized before their converts were fully prepared.

Acts 16:34

34Why need one think that the jailor lived upstairs above the prison? “Having brought them up into the house” is fully satisfied by his leading Paul and Silas up the few steps from the courtyard to the house and its dining-room. The expression that he placed a table beside them implies that the missionaries had had nothing to eat for some time, apparently since the morning of the previous day. Whether the low table had the food on it when it was brought in we are unable to say. The two dined from couches in the usual way. The jailor did everything in his power for these his great benefactors.

One is struck by the fact that Luke adds a record of the feelings of the jailor and his family. A little while before this black despair had him by the throat with suicide the only escape, now “he exulted,” was jubilant, with salvation in his possession. That is what the gospel does; this was a glorious exhibition of its power. Πανοικί (-εί) occurs in the papyri. A little while previously the family was about to be bereaved by a tragic death, now all had life everlasting. R., W. P., thinks the adverb is amphibolous, that it may be construed with either the verb or the participle; but this views the matter only in the abstract.

When the jailor exulted, his entire family exulted. The fact that the entire family believed has already been stated. The context leads us to construe the adverb with the verb. The dative after πεπιστευκώς means that the jailor “has believed God,” namely what God said. In v. 15 “the Lord” is used in the case of Lydia. Some think that this is due to the fact that she was a Jewess, while the jailor was a pagan.

But in v. 31 Paul says: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,” and he is speaking to this very pagan. So we conclude that there was no difference between Lydia and the jailor. The identification of the jailor with the Clement mentioned in Phil. 4:3 is only a guess.

Acts 16:35

35Now, day having come, the praetors sent the lictors, saying, Release those men! And the jailor reported the words to Paul: The praetors have sent in order that you be released; now, therefore, having come out, be going in peace. But Paul said to them: Having hided us in public not subjected to trial, men that are Romans, they threw us into prison; and now secretly they are throwing us out? No indeed! But having come themselves, let them lead us out!

The additions of the Codex Bezae found in this paragraph are no more than a commentator’s effort to add to the story here and there. In connection with v. 35 the reader at once wonders how the praetors came to reverse themselves so completely in the morning. The Codex Bezae answers: they came to their offices in the Agora, remembered the earthquake, got frightened because of that, and so sent the lictors to release Paul and Silas. But Luke usually reports just the facts and not the motivation for them when he has no direct knowledge of what this was. He does so here. This right-about-face of the praetors remains unexplained.

Whether even Paul and Luke ever found out what brought it about we do not know. They probably guessed as we still do. The supposition that the praetors in some way connected the earthquake with Paul and Silas and the treatment they had received seems unlikely. It is more likely that the praetors discovered the real reason for the false accusations against Paul and Silas and therefore ordered them released.

We also have no difficulty with the order to the jailor, “Release those men!” That command records only the gist of the order and not the whole of it. The lictors were noted in v. 12.

Acts 16:36

36The jailor is evidently happy to report this order to his benefactors. Luke mentions only Paul because it was he who refused to be released in this way. The jailor bids the missionaries go in peace. “In peace” is the word of a friend and brother. But where were these two men? Certainly not, as some suppose, in the jailor’s house in comfort. Beautiful as that would have been, Paul and Silas would not have risked this for the sake of the jailor himself. If this were found out by the praetors, they would most likely have removed him from his position. They were back in the prison at their own insistence. No one surmised that the praetors would so quickly release them; they, as well as the jailor, expected that the lictors would summon them for trial as soon as possible.

Acts 16:37

37Πρὸςαὑτούς is generally taken to mean that the lictors themselves were present, but one cannot be sure; the phrase may well mean that the jailor is to transmit Paul’s answer to the lictors. The apostle intends to teach these precipitate praetors a necessary and wholesome lesson, one, too, that is in the interest of the believers in Philippi. These praetors are to understand thoroughly that the men behind the proclamation of the gospel are Roman citizens. And these praetors had flagrantly broken the severe laws which safeguarded the rights of Roman citizens. Paul’s answer is according. In unmistakable terms it points out the crime which the praetors had committed and insists on an act of reparation, one which, though it cannot make good the serious wrong done, yet acknowledges that wrong and returns to Paul and Silas the honor they rightly claim.

The praetors may congratulate themselves for being let off so easily. This is the purport of Paul’s answer to the praetors.

Δέρω means “to skin,” “to flay,” and thus comes to mean “to beat severely,” “to give one a hiding.” The praetors had publicly hided Paul and Silas before many witnesses. They had done this to men “not subjected to trial,” ἀκατακρίτους, “without having been tried.” And these men were “Romans” who were under the aegis of the great Roman law.

The praetors had thrown these Romans into prison. The Lex Valeria B. C. 509, and the Lex Poscia B. C. 248 made it a crime to inflict blows upon a Roman citizen. Cicero is quoted: “To fetter a Roman citizen was a crime, to scourge him a scandal, to slay him—patricide.” Ἀκατάκριτος is found only here and in 22:25, but the meaning “uncondemned” (our versions) cannot be maintained because it would imply that condemned Romans might be beaten, which was not the case. To have condemned them and then to have them beaten would exclude the plea that the thing had been done ignorantly, not knowing that Romans were concerned; the trial would have brought out their Roman citizenship.

This word brings out an aggravating circumstance in the crime of the praetors. It signifies “not subjected to trial,” B.-P. 45. The praetors had rushed ahead blindly, had not paused even to begin a trial, had merely ordered the beating and the imprisonment. The whole business had been criminally wrong. At the very start of the trial the praetors should have learned that they had Roman citizens before them. These praetors had made themselves liable to severe penalties.

We see that Paul fully knows and asserts his rights as a Roman citizen.

Having committed these criminal acts, do these praetors now think they can throw these Roman citizens out secretly and so rid themselves of what they have done? Οὑγάρ. “Not much!” (R. 1190). As the least reparation he can accept Paul demands that they come in person and lead him and Silas out and thereby acknowledge the wrong and honor the prisoners as Roman citizens. That was in truth little enough. It is plainly implied that Paul and Silas were again in the prison. Paul’s claim that he is a Roman is never challenged for the simple reason that to make a false claim to this effect entailed death.

Here we have the first mention of Paul’s citizenship, and 22:29 adds that he was born a Roman. His father, then, had this precious right, perhaps also his grandfather. This could not have been due to merely living in Tarsus, an urbs libera; the city was not even a Roman colony. Only two possibilities are thus open: the right was purchased (22:28), or it was granted for special service to the state. How the family of Paul obtained it we do not know. The same is true with regard to Silas who was a Roman like Paul. All we know about his being a Roman is what Paul here says.

Acts 16:38

38And the lictors reported these utterances to the praetors; but they became frightened on hearing that they were Romans. And having come, they besought them and, having led them out, began requesting them to go away from the city. And having gone out of the prison, they went in to Lydia; and having seen the brethren, they comforted them and went out.

Fear came upon the praetors when they heard the report of the lictors and found what crimes they had committed against these Romans. These crimes might easily have cost them their lives. The governor of Macedonia would have given them a summary trial, and an appeal to the emperor would have been hopeless. We may translate the ingressive aorist, “they became terrified.”

Acts 16:39

39We may be sure that the praetors came in haste and “besought” Paul and Silas with placating words. We see, too, that they did what Paul had demanded and themselves led him and Silas out of the prison. But why did they request that they leave the city? Of course, Luke again states only the fact and omits the reason for it. With the imperfect ἠρώτων he implies that the praetors kept requesting, but that Paul made no promise—the matter is held in suspense. The reason that the praetors were so concerned to get Paul and Silas out of the city is very apparent. If they remained, the criminal action of these praetors might easily become known among the Roman colonists, and then woe to them! No wonder they so earnestly made this request.

Acts 16:40

40After having said that the praetors led Paul and Silas out, Luke repeats, as if to impress it upon his reader, that they “went out of the prison.” They literally conferred a favor on the praetors by doing so. Think how they were thrown in, and now how they go out. Luke loves contrasts such as this. The night had brought them no sleep. Without having answered the request of the praetors, the two men went to Lydia, to their lodging place. Here they met τοὺςἀδελφούς, and for the first time and in this one word we learn that the mission work done in Philippi had been far more successful than Luke has reported.

He has sketched only two of the interesting and significant stories connected with this work, that of the first convert, and that of this last event before Paul and Silas left the city. A congregation was left behind when Paul and Silas departed. They comforted all these brethren and, when they were at last ready, they left. But not because of the praetors. They left because the work had been established in Philippi, because it could be left, and because elsewhere work was waiting to be done. Moreover, only Paul and Silas left, Timothy and Luke remained behind.

The “we” that began in v. 10 is now dropped: “they went out” of the city, “they,” not “we.” Timothy and Luke continued to work in Philippi. We again meet the former in 17:14, the latter not until 20:5 (“us”).

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

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.