Acts 19

CHAPTER XIX

THE THIRD MISSIONARY JOURNEY: EPHESUS

Acts 19:1

1Luke takes up the thread broken off at 18:23 and continues with the story of Paul. The accusative Ἀπολλώ is the Attic second declension (R. 260; B.-D. 55, 1g). The account of the twelve men who had not been properly baptized has been criticized as being unlike Luke and far below the high literary level of Acts. This criticism overlooks the fact that the account about Apollos and that about these twelve men must be considered together as dealing with the aftereffects produced by certain disciples of the Baptist. Both accounts are also concerned with Paul. He put his stamp of approval on Apollos.

He was with Paul when the latter wrote to the Corinthians from Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:12). But Paul corrected the baptism of the twelve men whose case was different from that of Apollos. Not all baptisms were genuine. It is so to this day.

Now it came to pass while Apollos was in Corinth that Paul, having come through the upper parts, came to Ephesus and found some disciples.

Luke uses two of his favorite idioms: ἐγένετο with an accusative with the infinitive as the subject; and ἐντῷ with the infinitive in the sense of “while.” Apollos had left Ephesus before Paul arrived there and had only heard about him from Aquila and Priscilla. “The upper parts” which Paul crossed in order to go directly to Ephesus were “the Galatian and Phrygian region” of 18:23; see the discussion of that passage. Luke’s brevity need not imply that the “disciples” were found in Ephesus immediately upon Paul’s arrival. When Paul found them is not stated because it is quite immaterial. Luke is concerned only about what Paul did in their case.

Acts 19:2

2And he said to them, Did you receive the Holy Spirit on coming to believe? They to him, No, we did not even hear whether there is a Holy Spirit. And he said, In what, then, were you baptized? They said, In John’s baptism. But Paul said, John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people to believe in the One coming after him, that is in Jesus. And having heard, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

We do not agree with those who feel that Paul became “suspicious of their looks and conduct.” There is no evidence that these disciples were different from others in appearance or in conduct. On meeting these as well as other disciples, Paul and others likewise would naturally try to get acquainted with them and would thus ask about their past life and their connection with the faith. We do the same today. Thus in the most natural way the question was asked: “Did you receive the Holy Ghost on coming to faith?” The participle expresses action that is simultaneous with that of the main verb and is punctiliar to indicate the time when they first came to believe. We have discussed the use of εἰ at the beginning of a direct question in 1:6, and venture the explanation that it is not elliptical but has become a mere interrogatory particle which thus does not call for translation.

Paul’s question contained no reference to baptism. The sacrament was only indirectly involved since people who came to faith would naturally also be baptized. What Paul asked these men was whether any charismatic manifestations of the Holy Spirit occurred when they came to faith. In the case of Cornelius and those with him these manifestations came before they were baptized, they usually came afterward, yet not always immediately but sometimes much later as was the case in 8:15, and in most of the later cases they did not occur at all. As proof of this we may point to all the congregations founded by Paul. The question asked by Paul was thus not at all a searching one, as though he were putting these men to a test.

Some of the early converts received the temporary grace of charismatic gifts, not, however, the 3, 000 who were converted at Pentecost, nor the many thousands that were converted later. Paul thus merely inquired as to what had happened in their case.

Acts 19:3

3His innocent question brought out the astonishing fact that these men had never even heard whether or not there was a Holy Ghost. Ἀλλά is here equal to “no” (R. 1186, where it is shown that this conjunction does not always mean “but”). We leave this answer just at it reads. They confess that they had not yet heard of the existence of the Holy Spirit (εἴἔστιν). This does not mean that, as in John 7:39, they had, indeed, heard of his existence but not yet of his being given, i. e., of his great coming at the time of Pentecost. Those who hold this view must reckon with Apollos who also had not heard of Pentecost and yet was admittedly not rebaptized.

This is the salient point in this entire account: people who know nothing about the Holy Spirit cannot have received genuine and valid baptism; what they have received in that respect is not a true baptism. That is why Paul at once asks: “In what, then, were you baptized?” This is the static use of εἰς and is equal to ἐν with the idea of sphere (R. 592) so that the sense is: “In connection with what were you baptized?” And “what” (neuter) shows that Paul has in mind “in connection with what name?” When these men were baptized, was the name of the Holy Ghost not used, and had the sacrament not been explained to them sufficiently to make plain the Spirit’s connection with it (John 3:3, 5)? It develops that the Spirit’s name had not even been mentioned. In regard to εἰς in this paragraph, the R. V. with its “into” is inferior to the A V. with its “unto” and its “in” (v. 5). The R.

V. aims to be more literal and exact; unfortunately its translation was made before the new knowledge of the Koine became known. Anyone who still doubts this static use of εἰς should consult the many new grammars and dictionaries and the ostraca and the papyri where copious proof is furnished.

These men give a rather helpless answer. Paul wants to know “in what” they had been baptized, and all they can say is that it it was “in John’s baptism.” That is the only name they can mention in connection with their baptism. It is quite possible that somebody had baptized them by using only the words: “I baptize you with John’s baptism.” Disciples and followers of John, who were scattered about even outside of Palestine after John’s early death, tried to perpetuate his baptism and his teaching. In every case where people received the baptism of these followers of John it became a casual question as to what such a baptism really amounted to.

Acts 19:4

4After receiving only the vague answer, “In John’s baptism,” Paul explains briefly what John himself did so that these men could compare John himself, his baptism, and his teaching with whatever alleged follower of John they had come into contact with and anything he had done and said. Paul emphasizes two main points in regard to John: 1) he baptized with the baptism of repentance (cognate accusative), the divinely appointed sacrament, genuine, legitimate, proper in every way. The genitive “of repentance” is qualitative. We see what he had in mind in Mark 1:4, 5; Matt. 3:6, especially when we note those to whom John refused baptism, Matt. 3:7–9; Luke 3:7–9. True repentance accompanied John’s baptism; the sacrament itself implied that. It was no opus operatum, for it conveyed the forgiveness of sins just as baptism does today.

On “repentance” see 2:38. And 2) John’s baptism turned every man to faith in the One coming after John, that is, to Jesus. Paul calls him, what John himself had called him, “the One coming,” which was the great Messianic name. Repentance had to be linked with faith in him. The fact that this involved the Holy Spirit who alone works repentance and faith need not be stated.

Note that the object is placed before ἵνα in order to give it the greatest emphasis; note also the construction λέγωνἵνα in which this conjunction introduces what John demanded (R. 993; B.-D. 392, 1 d). John baptized only repentant and believing confessors just as we do to this day, with this difference, that John demanded faith in the One coming, we faith in the One come. Paul may have spoken at great length, Luke gives his reader the gist of what he said.

Acts 19:5

5This was entirely new to these men. They saw from what Paul revealed to them about John’s baptism that the baptism they had received was not John’s real baptism. Paul discovered it for them when they told him they knew nothing about the Holy Ghost. So they were now baptized. What they had received before was not baptism. But now they were not baptized in the name of the One yet to come. The Lord Jesus had come long ago, and so they were baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus.” This phrase has been explained in 2:38, and always means, “in connection with the revelation of the Lord Jesus”; ὄνομα means “revelation” in all these and similar phrases and never “the authority of.”

We still meet analogous cases when people are baptized in non-Trinitarian churches. Theirs is not baptism and for the following valid reason. Baptism was given to the church, and non-Trinitarians are not in any sense the church or a part of it. Denial of the Trinity is denial of the true God, substituting a figment for him, destroying the very substance of baptism, which is to bring a sinner into saving connection, not with an imaginary “God” but with the one true God. We never rebaptize such people, for these people were never baptized. A counterfeit is not real money, never will be. We, therefore, see the great value of this incident reported by Luke.

Acts 19:6

6And when Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they began to speak with tongues and to prophesy. Moreover, the men in all were about twelve.

See 6:6 for the laying on of hands. Here this act must have been accompanied by a prayer for the special manifestation of the Holy Ghost. This is a duplicate to 8:15–17; compare also 9:17. We are able to say why charismatic gifts were bestowed at the time of Pentecost, on the Samaritans, and then on the Gentiles who were with Cornelius. Just why these same gifts were bestowed here is not apparent. But the fact is plain. The two imperfects are inchoative.

It is unwarranted to state that because Luke does not write “with other tongues” as he did in 2:4, this was not the same speaking in foreign languages that occurred at the time of Pentecost; that there were two entirely different kinds of speaking with tongues, etc. See 2:4 where the subject is treated at length. Prophesying is added in order to state what was uttered with tongues just as in 2:11, “the great things of God” are mentioned. This word must here be understood in the wider sense as expressing any adequate utterance of divine truth. The Spirit himself spoke through the mouths of these men who were so ignorant but now so richly blessed by him. They now know the Holy Spirit because of their own wonderful experience.

If Luke offers a hint in regard to immersion, R., W. P., ought to point it out instead of claiming that this was “a baptism in water,” meaning by immersion. He also advances the old erroneous claim that this baptism did not convey the Holy Spirit nor forgiveness of sins; but Jesus differs with him as to the Spirit in John 3:5, and Peter differs with him as to the remission of sins in Acts 2:38, likewise Ananias in Paul’s case in 22:16, and Paul himself in Tit. 3:5. But one should not think that baptism and the charismatic gifts go together. Pentecost excludes such a view, for none of the 3, 000 baptized on that day spoke with tongues. The saving presence of the Spirit is evident in baptism; his charismatic presence is an entirely different thing and is bestowed as the Spirit wills (1 Cor. 12:11) for his own special purposes. To conclude that, because the Spirit there came charismatically after the baptism when Paul laid on his hands, therefore the Spirit was not bestowed with saving grace in baptism, and then to stress the idea that this was “a baptism in water,” is to antagonize John 3:5.

Acts 19:7

7“About twelve,” like the addition πάντες, “in all,” means that not many men were involved and that Luke cared to say no more. Note that πάντες is attributive, is placed after the article, and thus means im ganzen, zusammen (B.-D. 275, 7), “the total number of the men” (R. 773.) The incident connected with these men seems to have occurred during the first days that Paul spent in Ephesus and not necessarily before he began his work in the synagogue.

Acts 19:8

8The account of what Paul did in Ephesus Luke presents in v. 8–12. Now having gone into the synagogue, he continued to speak boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading regarding the things concerning the kingdom of God.

Paul had been most favorably received in the Ephesian synagogue on his first visit and was at that time asked to remain but promised, God willing, to return. So he now again takes up his work. It is exceptional that it was possible for him to continue for as long a period as three months, reasoning, namely on the basis of the Scriptures, and persuading his Jewish hearers “regarding the things concerning the kingdom of God,” God’s rule of grace in Christ Jesus and all that it included. On this kingdom and on the entire expression see 1:3. We do not regard “persuading” as conative, “trying to persuade” (R., W. P.), because both participles must be understood in the same way, and Paul certainly did not merely try to reason. “Trying to persuade” would imply that he failed, but this was by no means the case.

Acts 19:9

9Paul took his time. As long as no opposition developed, he had hopes of winning the entire synagogue, and nothing would have delighted him more.

But when some began to harden themselves and began to be disobedient, speaking basely of the Way in the presence of the multitude, having stood away from them, he separated the disciples, day by day reasoning in the school of Tyrannus. Moreover, this went on for two years so that all those inhabiting Asia heard the Word of the Lord, Jews as well as Greeks.

The division finally came, and not through the agency of Paul but through that of the opposing Jews. The two imperfect tenses are inchoative: “they began,” etc.; and the first is not passive, “were hardened” (our versions) but the reflexive middle, “began to harden themselves.” The point is rather important because the sinner always first hardens himself, and not until that point has been reached does God harden him. In other words, God’s hardening is always punitive. His whole effort is directed toward softening the sinner in contrition and faith, but when the sinner resists all these efforts of grace so that the Holy Spirit can no longer work in him by his grace, God abandons him, gives him over to his hardness, and thus hardens him. The outstanding example is Pharaoh who hardened himself five times and was then hardened by God as a punishment. The idea contained in the verb is expressed in the adjective σκληρός (compare it in the compound found in 7:51), “dried out” like a dried branch that no longer bends but is rigid and stiff.

The second imperfect helps to bring out the idea more fully. Paul was busy “persuading,” but these Jews “were unpersuaded.” The longer Paul applied grace in order to persuade, the worse they became. The verb thus gets to mean both “to be disobedient” and “to be disbelieving,” and usually, as here, both ideas flow together. These Jews would not obey the saving call of grace, and that means that they would not believe the saving truth in Jesus. The condition thus described by the two verbs is possible only when grace is applied to the heart; it can never result before grace is applied. It is always abnormal and unreasonable because the sinner ought to yield to grace and to saving truth, i. e., to the power of deliverance, to the gratia sufficiens.

Because it is so abnormal and unreasonable his self-hardening is extremely guilty, has a guilt that is due wholly to himself (Matt. 23:37). It is a terrible matter for the sinner when saving grace is compelled to withdraw and to abandon him to God’s judgment.

The participle states how these Jews manifested their inner hardening and disobedient refusal to believe: they began to speak basely of the Way in the presence of the multitude; compare the expressions found in 13:45; 18:6. “The Way” is here used ethically as it was in 13:10; 16:17. It needs no modifier, it is the Way of salvation κατʼ ἐξοχήν. When Luke writes “some” he evidently refers to the leaders of the opposition. They spoke against the Way “in the presence of the multitude,” in the synagogue meeting, and sought to turn everybody against the Way that was proclaimed by Paul. To what extent they succeeded is not stated.

The decisive moment had come. Paul “stood away from them,” he gave up speaking in the synagogue. It was the only course left to him. It is also impossible to force the gospel upon men who, after they have heard it, reject and revile it. When he withdrew himself he naturally took with him and separated the “disciples” from the synagogue. So Paul had “disciples” in the synagogue at the end of the three months; how many is not stated. Separating them from the synagogue implied the formation of a new congregation. We take it that these “disciples” were in part proselytes of the gate.

The new meeting place was “the school of Tyrannus” where Paul reasoned day by day (distributive κατά). The word σχολή means “leisure” but is here used in the sense of “school.” This is the only instance in the New Testament where the word has this meaning. Just what this school was we are unable to say. Some have thought that Tyrannus was a Jew who conducted a school for teaching the law or even maintained a private synagogue. Others think of a regular Greek school for boys and bring descriptions of how each of the boys was conducted to school by his παιδαγωγός, slave mentor, and spent from earliest morning until about eleven o’clock under the teacher. Still others think of a lecture hall for teaching rhetoric and philosophy, or possibly even medicine. This conjecture seems best.

It is a question whether “the school of Tyrannus” was merely the name of the hall which was not in use at the time, or whether Tyrannus was the teacher who was using it at the time it bore this name. The Codex Bezae again amplifies with the comment that Paul used this school from 11 in the morning until 4 in the afternoon, “after business hours” as Ramsay puts it. This intrigues some, and they picture Paul working at his trade from dawn until 11 and then teaching from 11 to 4—a strenuous life indeed! But it is an impossible supposition to anyone who has visited the Orient. Every place of business closes from noon until 4 o’clock; everybody takes his siesta, does so of necessity, would be compelled to do so especially in a coast town. This is necessary less because of the heat than because of the dangerous actinic power of the vertical rays of the sun during the long summer season.

The hours mentioned by the Codex Bezae are the very ones when even such a man as Paul could not have had hearers for most of the year. This Codex must have originated in northern territory.

As in 18:7 Paul used the spacious house of Titus Justus, so he now uses the school of Tyrannus. Both places must have been suitable to his purpose. But no one knows whether Tyrannus was a convert, whether the school building was offered gratis, or whether Paul and the disciples paid rent. One thing is certain, having left the synagogue and the Jewish circle, Paul now extended his work into the great Gentile world.

Acts 19:10

10Paul used this hall for two years. In 20:31 Paul himself states that he devoted a τριετία, a period of three years, to his labors in Ephesus. This scarcely implies that he counted after the Jewish fashion and reckoned a part of a year as a year, and two years and three months as three years. The church, too, probably outgrew the old hall and found some more commodious place of meeting. To think of the home of Aquila and Priscilla is untenable. Note the mention of additional time in v. 22.

The result of this prolonged labor in Ephesus was that “all who inhabited Asia heard (aorist) the Word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.” The coast cities and villages of the province of Asia are referred to, the cities mentioned in Rev. 2:1, etc. Jews as well as Greeks had at least heard the gospel. Paul used Ephesus as a radiating center. While he remained in this metropolis and political center he reached out as far as possible by means of his assistants; how many he employed we cannot estimate. Congregation after congregation was formed. Paul is at the height of his great missionary activity.

Acts 19:11

11Also power works, not those usual, God kept doing through the hands of Paul so that even on the sick there were carried from his skin handkerchiefs and aprons, and the ailments were removed from them, also the wicked spirits went out.

Luke records only the unusual miracles, δυνάμεις, “power works,” that occurred in Ephesus. The feminine participle is added attributively with the article: τὰςτυχούσας; and οὑ is placed before the article and negatives the attribute (not merely the participle, R. 1038, etc.): “not those happening,” i. e., ordinarily. This is a litotes for “those exceptional.” We take it that Paul did other miracles in the usual way by touching the sufferers with his hands, speaking the word of power with his lips, etc.

Acts 19:12

12The remarkable fact was that without his presence or his voice all kinds of sufferers were healed διὰτῶνχειρῶν, “through his hands,” he with his hands giving messengers handkerchiefs and aprons “from his χρώς, body surface, skin.” The phrase “through the hands of Paul” states that these handkerchiefs and these aprons were sent by Paul himself; they were not taken surreptitiously, and hence were not used superstitiously. Paul would be the last person to encourage superstition.

“Ωστε with the infinitive expresses actual result. The three infinitives state what actually occurred. The view that people secured the handkerchiefs and the aprons from Priscilla and Aquila before they were washed and without the knowledge of Paul because they imagined that there was some somatic and occult power in them and so applied them to the sick, and that Luke is careful not to say what actually happened—this modernistic view contradicts Luke’s plain statement. The three infinitives are even present tenses which denote the frequency with which this occurred. Luke has just said that all dwellers in Asia heard the Word of the Lord. Luke is not speaking of sufferers in Ephesus.

These could be brought to Paul personally, or he could go to them. These were sufferers who resided in other cities and villages and were far away from Paul. It was he who reached them in the way here indicated.

Read the discussion of 5:15, much of which applies also here. The statement that the Lord “honored superstitious faith” is in an impermissible mixture—superstition and faith are opposites, faith drives out superstition. Many begged Jesus to touch and to heal them. The skin of the hand is not different from the handkerchief or apron touched by that skin of the hand. In every case the person through whom the divine power to heal reaches the sufferer is recognized. The difference is only superficial just as Luke says, “Not those happening (ordinarily)” as is the case when the apostle is present in person.

And these unusual miracles, which were wrought at a distance from the apostle, extended also to the demoniacs. Luke writes carefully, “So that also the wicked spirits kept going out.” He makes a separate class of these cases and designates them accurately. On demoniacal possession see 5:16, and the writer’s discussion in Matt. 4:24; 8:28; Mark 1:23; Luke 4:33. The mention of demoniacs in the present connection means that no case was so serious that this mode of healing was not effective. Paul was only the Lord’s instrument; it was the Lord’s own power that wrought these “power works,” wrought them as freely through Paul’s handkerchiefs and aprons as through Paul’s hand and spoken word. Paul used aprons in the shop of Aquila in his work as a tentmaker.

No wonder that these “power works” mightily advertised “the Word of the Lord” in Asia. Luke wants us to note this connection. In the following he also indicates to some extent why the Lord wrought these power works in spreading the gospel. Ephesus and Asia were full of superstition, magic, charms, and everything else of that kind. It is reversing things to claim that magical powers were superstitiously attributed also to Paul. The very opposite was the effect: the people turned from all devilish arts, burned their magical books and papers, and accepted the Lord’s Word.

How could the Lord possibly allow superstitious notions to be associated with his “chosen vessel,” the great apostle? As everywhere, these mighty works of the Lord glorified the Lord and sealed his saving Word which is so full of the still higher power that saves men’s souls eternally.

Acts 19:13

13Now some of the strolling Jewish exorcists undertook to name over those having the wicked spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul is preaching!

We are not surprised to note that there were Jewish exorcists among the charlatans in Ephesus, and that these tried to steal what they thought was the superior method and formula of Paul. They are described as “vagabond” (A. V.), “strolling” (R. V.), “going around” (Greek) like gypsies. They had evidently seen Paul work miracles, not as indicated in v. 11, 12, but in the usual way, by personally applying the name of Jesus. We see that Luke expects his reader to understand that Paul also wrought miracles in this way.

These exorcists tried to use the name of Jesus in the same way and upon demoniacs, and Luke adds the very formula they used: “I adjure,” etc., ὁρκίζω is construed with two accusatives. They felt that they had to identify Jesus as “the Jesus whom Paul is preaching.” They evidently did not know much about this Jesus. Jewish exorcists used the name of Solomon; Josephus, Ant. 8, 2, 5 furnishes a description of Solomon’s power and relates how an exorcist used Solomon’s system before the emperor Vespasian by drawing the demon out of its victim’s nose and making the demon upset a cup of water to demonstrate that he had gone out of his victim. These exorcists imagined that Paul somehow had discovered a far more potent name for charming, namely the name “Jesus.” So they themselves undertook to use it.

Acts 19:14

14And there were seven sons of a certain Sceva, a Jewish high priest, doing this thing.

Δέ marks this statement as being parenthetical. Luke specifies that these seven are the exorcists he has in mind. To charge Luke with relating matters in an awkward way is to read him superficially. He wants us to know in a general way that these Jewish exorcists tried to imitate Paul (v. 13). Then he specifically mentions the seven sons of Sceva (v. 14). Then he specifies still further by telling of an actual incident that happened in the case of these seven fellows (v. 15, 16).

Where is the awkwardness of this narration? The genitive Σκευᾶ is Doric. No high priest by the name of Sceva appears in any Jewish writing. Luke himself uses the plural “high priests” so as to include the reigning high priest and any who had held the office before him and also those members of the family of the high priest who was functioning in the Sanhedrin. Some think that the heads of the twenty-four courses of ordinary priests were also called “high priests.” This title is used in a wider sense when it is here applied to Sceva.

The fact that his seven sons had traveled far from Palestine shows a marked decline of the family. They, no doubt, made much of their parentage and, as all ambitious practitioners of this type are apt to do, most likely sought the patronage of the rich, Gentiles being as welcome to them as Jews. Luke relates their story also because of their prominence as sons of one who could in some way claim to be of high priestly standing. They would naturally be regarded as mighty exorcists. The whole subject of Jewish exorcists which is touched upon by Jesus himself in Matt. 12:27 especially as to what they actually accomplished by their efforts, is still rather obscure. All we can say is that they operated on demoniacs and not on the sick and diseased, and that they help to prove the prevalence of demoniacal possession in their day and thus refute the claim that this affliction was not what the New Testament so plainly indicates that it was.

Acts 19:15

15Answering, the wicked spirit said to them, This Jesus I recognize, and this Paul I am acquainted with. But you, who are you? And springing upon them, the man in whom the wicked spirit was, having overmastered them all, he prevailed against them so that naked and having been wounded they fled out of that house.

These exorcists must have been thoroughly cured of ever again attempting to use the name of Jesus in connection with a demoniac. Note that Luke distinguishes between the demon in the man and the man himself. The very words uttered could not have been spoken by this man.

The two articles used with “Jesus” and “Paul” are clearly demonstrative: German, den Jesus, den Paulus, “the Jesus,” “the Paul” of whom you speak. Note the synonyms: “I recognize” (realize whom you mean), which is applicable to one who is no longer on earth; and, “I am acquainted with,” which is applicable to Paul who is active in the city. Everything is proper in regard to these two who had been brought to the attention of the demon. “But you, who are you?” with its emphatic ὑμεῖς, asks not merely who they are (sons of Sceva) but who they are as men who name Jesus and Paul to the demon. What possible connection have they with either Jesus or Paul so that any demon should obey them? Do they intend to pose as disciples of this Jesus and companions of this Paul? The demon will show them.

Acts 19:16

16In sudden fury the possessed man leaps upon these exorcists, and completely overpowers them with the result that they flee out of that house in consternation. Their clothes have been torn from their bodies, and they themselves have been wounded. And this refers to the entire seven; for ἀμφοτέρων is used in the papyri with reference to more than two (in 23:8 with reference to three). The papyri reveal this broader use of this word at a later time than the composition of the Acts, yet one need not say that in Luke’s time it was as yet only colloquial.

The demon filled his victim with supernatural strength. The seven exorcists, no doubt, made the mistake of resisting, which brought on their nakedness and their wounds. Remember how Orientals dressed in those days, and how easy it was to strip them so that they were actually naked. The perfect participle “having been wounded” has its usual present connotation, “being in that condition.”

Acts 19:17

17Moreover, this became known to all Jews as well as Greeks inhabiting Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus began to be magnified. Many also of those having believed kept coming, making confession and reporting their practices. Moreover, considerable of those practicing the uncanny arts, having brought together the books, went on burning them up in the presence of all. And they reckoned together the prices of them and found fifty thousand pieces of silver. Thus with strength the Word of the Lord continued to grow and prevail.

If the matter had had no results beyond those experienced by the seven exorcists themselves, Luke would probably have passed it by; but great results followed. The entire city heard what had happened. The exorcists were Jews, and so, of course, all the Jews learned the story, but the Greeks also heard about it.

This was not, in our newspaper parlance, a mere “news story” that was soon to be forgotten for another. It gripped the Ephesians very seriously, for they were all given to superstition and magical practices. They all felt directly involved. A glare of light fell on the whole subject, and not because of the dramatic failure of these exorcists, but because the name “Jesus” was involved as having brought on that failure. Here was a new power that operated with stunning effect even against all powers of superstition. In this connection we must not forget the miracles wrought by Paul himself, nor the effort of these exorcists to duplicate them.

It was thus that something akin to holy fear fell on all. And Luke at once adds that “the name of the Lord Jesus began to be magnified.” The wonder of that name passed from lip to lip. Paul used that name, and the demons were expelled; the exorcists used it, and were themselves crushed. What was back of that name?

Acts 19:18

18Luke says no more about this effect on the general population. He turns to the most wholesome effect on the believers themselves and by using the perfect participle describes them as those who have believed and thus continue to do so. Driven by their consciences, they kept coming to the Christian assembly in order to confess and report their practices, namely that they still kept practicing magical arts of all kinds. They saw their delusion in the light of the Savior’s name and that they were still sinning against him and his divine, saving power.

We have the exact counterpart today: Christians who still resort to witchcraft for healing, for warding off evil, for directing their lives in difficulties, and the like. See, for instance, the comprehensive and most excellent work by Wuttke, Der Deutsche Volksaberglaube. Every experienced physician and every pastor can tell many a tale. In spite of all enlightenment and education the ilk of those who practice the uncanny arts is still legion. If only the churches themselves could clean house as this was done in Ephesus!

To no small extent the preachers themselves have been guilty in keeping alive superstitious faith in the claims of witchcraft by admitting that its charms are effective. After an extensive study the writer here declares: they never work; they are remnants of paganism; the holy names, symbols, and Scripture words used in them are substitutions for pagan originals, a desecration of the most damnable kind, the devil’s delight; they deceive, and this is the real devil’s power in them; they are dangerous even when they are tried in fun; they do “work” in countless cases and often produce the saddest physical, mental, and invariably also spiritual damage. Fail not to include spiritualism.

Acts 19:19

19With ἱκανοί Luke singles out those believers who had βίβλοι, little papyrus rolls that were inscribed with magical formulas and symbols. They used them for their own benefit but also for the benefit of others, and often, as at present, had extensive patronage. Now they wanted to get rid of these treasured documents and, therefore, collected them and proceeded to burn them. Note the imperfect found here and in the preceding verse. This confessing and this destroying of magical documents was not done in a day. Another point to be noted is this: all this was done publicly.

Note that Luke uses two participles in v. 18 to emphasize the idea “confessing and reporting”; and in v. 19 the phrase “in the presence of all.” This implies that Paul himself directed this entire movement and directed all these believers to proceed in this way. He succeeded in getting some to take the lead, and then all who felt themselves guilty followed. It is of interest to know that Magic Papyri have been discovered in Egypt (Deissmann, Bible Studies, 323); pagan writers refer to charms, slips of parchment that contained cabalistic words and sentences which were deposited in little silk bags and worn like amulets. A great trade was carried on in Ephesia grammata.

How did they calculate that the price amounted to five myriads of silver, i. e., so many drachmae (at say 17 cents), in all about $8, 500? Somebody of a statistical bent of mind must have conceived the idea and then added up the amounts that had been paid for these bibloi. That was a lot of money to be consigned to the flames. It was one of the best investments these believers ever made. And no one had the brilliant idea of selling these bibloi to the pagans and the Jews and of setting the price aside for sacred use. Incidentally, this sum of 50, 000 drachmae gives some indication as to the size to which the Ephesian congregation had grown.

Acts 19:20

20Two more imperfects show us the continuance of the growth of the Word in the city and in the province, and the second adds the idea of prevailing (the same verb occurs in v. 16) over adverse forces. Οὕτω, “thus,” extends back over the entire previous account concerning the work in Ephesus. It is the Word that grew and prevailed in the double sense of extending to more and more converts and of more and more filling their hearts and their lives.

Acts 19:21

21Now at last Paul thinks of moving on. Now when these things were accomplished, Paul purposed in the spirit, on having gone through Macedonia and Achaia, to proceed to Jerusalem, saying, After I get there, it is necessary for me to see also Rome.

This plan was duly carried out as Luke records, but the part in regard to seeing Rome was realized in a way that Paul did not expect: he was brought to Rome as a prisoner. Luke presents Paul’s final plan of going to Achaia by way of Macedonia (the route overland); Paul had originally planned to go directly to Corinth (sea route), then through Macedonia and back again to Corinth (2 Cor. 1:16), and then on to Judea (Jerusalem). During his visit to Macedonia and Achaia Paul wished to inspect the various congregations and also to look after the great collection then in progress for the famine sufferers in Palestine. That is why he here mentions Jerusalem before stating his desire to see Rome. The matter of the great collection is so important that Paul wants it off his hands before turning toward Rome. Regarding the collection and its magnitude compare 1 Cor. 16:1, etc.; 2 Cor. 8; Rom. 15:25, etc.

“When these things were accomplished” (literally fulfilled) places us at the end of the two years mentioned in v. 10. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians was written about this time, near Easter 57. Other communications had passed between Paul and the Corinthians during Paul’s stay in Ephesus. In 1 Cor. 5:9 he refers to an earlier letter of which all other trace has been lost. A short time before Paul wrote First Corinthians he sent Timothy to Corinth by the longer and much slower route overland so that the letter arrived before this messenger. Timothy had various things to do in the congregations en route.

Paul’s eventual goal is Rome. In Rom. 1:10, 13 he writes to the Romans about his desire to come to them. But Luke carefully states that Paul said only that he must “see” Rome. The commentary on this is Rom. 1:11, 12. The congregation at Rome was not founded by an apostle, and Paul never thought of establishing himself there. It was not for him to build on another man’s foundation. His desire to go to Rome was, as far as the Roman Christians were concerned, to impart some spiritual gift to them and to enjoy their mutual faith. Paul was fully aware of the importance of Rome for the church and what might be done in reaching out farther from this center. The consideration that all his plans were made “God willing” Luke does not need again to add (18:21).

Acts 19:22

22Moreover, having commissioned into Macedonia two of those ministering to him, Timothy and Erastus, he himself held out for a time in Asia.

We know that Timothy proceeded to Corinth through Macedonia. In 1 Cor. 4:17 Paul informs the Corinthians of his coming, the letter being sent early enough to anticipate his arrival; he again mentions his coming in 1 Cor. 16:10, 11, and wants him to return to Ephesus immediately after completing the mission indicated in 1 Cor. 4:17.

Paul says nothing about Erastus in First Corinthians. The Erastus mentioned in Acts is the same person that is mentioned in 2 Tim. 4:20, but one is uncertain whether he is also the person referred to in Rom. 16:23, who is there called the οἰκονόμος of the city of Corinth, Rentmeister, steward or treasurer. Romans was written in Corinth when Paul was there for the second time (20:2, 3). Because he held an important city office, Erastus could scarcely absent himself from the city for a long period of time. One supposition is that he is the Erastus mentioned here, that he was sent to Paul by the Corinthians and because of his financial ability was employed by Paul in the matter of the collection in Macedonia. The trouble with this view is that Luke calls him one of “those ministering” to Paul, one of his steady assistants, that nothing is said about him in First Corinthians, and that he is, nevertheless, mentioned in Romans.

Paul intended to follow the route taken by Timothy and Erastus although we know that he did not expect to start until Timothy had returned from Corinth. Before Paul started for Macedonia he sent Titus directly to Corinth by the sea route so that he might help to settle matters there. Titus was to meet Paul at Troas but was delayed, so that Paul grew anxious and met him in Macedonia and received the best of news from Corinth. Here in Macedonia, Paul wrote Second Corinthians not long before he himself arrived in Corinth.

Luke reports only the fact that, after dispatching Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia, “he himself held out for a time in Asia.” First Corinthians, written near Easter, states the reason: a great and effectual door was opened in Ephesus although there were many adversaries (1 Cor. 16:10). So Paul planned to stay in Ephesus until Pentecost. We do not know whether he realized his plan. Pentecost came late in May, and May was the month when the great festival of Artemis (Diana) was observed in Ephesus. The tumult staged by Demetrius must have taken place before this festival, and immediately after the tumult Paul departed (20:1). When Luke writes “in Asia” εἰς, is, of course, static; he intends to state that the interests that detained Paul extended beyond Ephesus itself, so that 1 Cor. 16:10 must not be understood as referring to Ephesus alone.

Summing up all that is involved in these two verses: messengers hurrying to distant parts and to many congregations, Ephesus with its open door, and the province of Asia besides, enemies to add their peculiar zest, one understands 2 Cor. 11:27: “The care of all the churches.” It was enough to break down any man.

Acts 19:23

23 Now along that period there occurred no small disturbance about the Way. It occurred while Paul was still spending his time in Asia (v. 22) “No small” is a litotes for “great,” and “the Way” is the designation frequently found in Acts (see 9:2) for the entire Christian faith and life. This disturbance, which was precipitated by Demetrius, cannot possibly be what Paul refers to in 1 Cor. 15:32, when he speaks of fighting with wild beasts in Ephesus; for First Corinthians was already in Corinth when Demetrius stirred up the city; Paul also left Ephesus immediately after this episode. The expression used in 1 Cor. 15:32 is plainly figurative and elaborates the equally figurative term: “I die daily.” See the details in the author’s commentary on First Corinthians.

Acts 19:24

24For one by name Demetrius, a silversmith, making silver shrines of Artemis, was furnishing for the artisans no small income; whom having collected together, also the workers pertaining to such things, he said: Men, you know that from this income we have our prosperity. Also you behold and hear that this Paul, by persuading, turned away a great multitude not only of Ephesus but of almost all Asia, saying that those formed by hands are not gods. Now not only is there danger for ourselves that this part come into disrepute but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis be accounted as nothing, and that presently also she be deposed from her majesty—she whom whole Asia and the inhabited earth worships!

Luke introduces the account of the great disturbance with γάρ. Demetrius has too common a name to make it possible to identify him beyond what Luke here records of him. This applies to 3 John 12, and to any inscriptions. This Demetrius was no more than a “silversmith, a maker of silver sanctuaries of Artemis.” If these artisans had formed a guild, as is generally assumed, he may have been its head. He is described by Luke as furnishing the artisans no small “income,” ἐργασίαν. This word has that meaning in 16:16, 19, and scarcely means “business.” This reads as though he was a proprietor who himself employed workmen in his profession and also gave out work to others who were not directly in his employ.

Acts 19:25

25Note the two terms employed by Luke: “technicians” to designate those who made silver shrines, and “workmen” to characterize those who produced τὰτοιαῦτα, “the things of a similar kind,” which were probably images made of terra cotta. Demetrius arranged to have them meet and then made his inflammatory address. Regarding the temple of Artemis as being the glory of Ephesus see the remarks in 18:19 and consult the Bible Dictionaries for complete descriptions. The fact that only terra cotta images have been found is explained by the value of those made of silver. These were sought for the silver and were melted down. The use to which the little miniatures were put was to serve as offerings in the temple itself and as sacred ornaments in houses; we do not think that they were used as amulets.

Artemis is not Diana (our versions). The latter, the sister of Apollo, is the Roman goddess who was a graceful huntress, while Artemis, specifically “the Artemis of Ephesians,” is the goddess whose image was believed to have fallen from heaven here at Ephesus, a female figure with many breasts which symbolized the generative and the nutritive powers of nature. Nor was “Artemis” her original name. She was worshipped in Ephesus and in the entire province of Asia. Elaborate festivities and games were celebrated in her honor which drew crowds from the whole province and beyond. It seems that at this very time, in May, these celebrations were about to take place, and Paul’s work threatened materially to reduce the income of Demetrius and of the manufacturers of the shrines of Artemis.

The address of Demetrius is a cunning mixture of self-interest and zeal for the goddess. One suspects that the mercenary motive was the real one, the religious one being added in order to gild the other. All these artistic and other workers certainly knew “that from this income (ἐργασία) we have our prosperity (εὑπορία).”

Acts 19:26

26But here is this Paul who is about to destroy this prosperity. Demetrius furnishes an interesting account of what Paul had accomplished. When he says to all these workmen, “you behold and hear,” he speaks of what all of them knew about Paul’s work. He exaggerates when he says that by his persuading this Paul (derogatory: “this fellow Paul”) has turned away a considerable (ἱκανός) multitude not only of Ephesus but of almost all Asia; yet even then, and allowing for the strong language, we see how much Paul had actually accomplished. He certainly had reached out into the province generally.

Demetrius even states to what Paul was persuading so many, namely that manufactured gods are not gods at all; θεοί, without the article, is the predicate. Note the present tense in the phrase οἱδιὰχειρῶνγινόμενοι, “those coming into being through (human) hands.” Demetrius, of course, does not refer to the handmade images as such but to what these images intend to represent. He restates Paul’s thought quite correctly. Gods that can be carved and modeled by human hands are eo ipso not gods, and this fact is so plain that a mere statement of it already convinces. We think that the two genitives Ἐφέσου and πάσηςτῆςἈσίας are dependent on ὄχλον, “of Ephesus, of all Asia a multitude,” B.-D. 186, 1, and do not agree with R. 494 who states that they are genitives of place: “at Ephesus, at Asia.” These genitives are placed forward merely for the sake of emphasis.

Here we have a plain case of knowing the truth and of stating it exactly and yet rejecting it because of a base motive. The sordidness of the motive is not the point although income and prosperity constantly keep men away from the divine truth and its salvation. The devil buys many for a price. Always, however, a secret motive blinds the soul to its own destruction despite the clearness of the truth. We must not suppose that this entire multitude of which Demetrius speaks became Christian. Paul’s success was not so inordinate, great as it was.

Paul’s teaching did, however, cause thousands of pagans to lose faith in the pagan gods, notably in Artemis. Recall 17:18, the skepticism of the philosophic schools, to which we must add a large number who were like Pilate (“What is truth?”), men who saw the emptiness of idolatry although they found no substitute for the gods. Paul’s teaching raised the question about the reality of these gods and turned many worshippers away from the shrines and the altars. Men like Demetrius raised an outcry against it. They felt the loss of money.

Acts 19:27

27He points out a threefold danger that threatens if this fellow Paul is not stopped in his teaching. Once more we see that the apostle is the center of attention and not his assistants. The lightning always flashes over his head. He certainly must have towered high above all his assistants. The first danger is ἡμῖν, “for us ourselves,” namely, “that this part come into disrepute,” the part involving the manufacture of the shrines. Their sales will decrease heavily.

This will be bad enough as Demetrius implies. This lucrative business will most surely decline to an alarming degree. But worse than that, there is danger “also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis be accounted as nothing” (predicative εἰς), and that in consequence few will care to buy miniatures of that temple. Finally, there is danger “that presently also she be deposed from her majesty—she whom whole Asia and the inhabited earth worships.” This will be the crowning calamity if this fellow Paul is not stopped.

We translate τεκαί “and … also.” All the infinitives occurring after κινδυνεύει are future in sense; hence we have μέλλειν with the last, “about to be deposed,” followed by the genitive as is the case with verbs that denote separation. One questions whether even in these statements Demetrius is a sincere worshipper of this great goddess. It is, of course, gross exaggeration to claim that the whole oikoumenē, “inhabited (earth),” worshipped the Ephesian Artemis, but some allowance must be made for the provincial character of the speaker who imagined that, when the province paid homage to Artemis, the world generally surely did the same.

Acts 19:28

28The fire thus kindled burst into a violent conflagration. Having heard and become full of wrath, they began to shout, saying, Great the Artemis of Ephesians! And the city was filled with confusion; also they began to rush into the theater, having seized Gaius and Aristarchus, Macedonians, travel companions of Paul.

Luke’s description is graphic. They heard, became excited, began to shout. The Codex Bezae adds the comment that they ran into the open street. Luke has not mentioned a building, the meeting may have been held in the Agora. The laudation of their Artemis came naturally to their lips and gave vent to their excitement. The acclamation “great” as well as her designation “the Artemis of Ephesians” merely repeat the cries the votaries shouted at the festivals of the goddess. She is always “the Artemis of Ephesians,” for at Ephesus her image had fallen from heaven, and here was located her central sanctuary, so that elsewhere, too, she bore this name.

Acts 19:29

29The excitement spread quickly and filled the city with confusion, and everybody poured into the amphitheater that had over 20, 000 seats encircling an arena and was the usual place for large public meetings. The move to the theater seems not to have been planned but was begun spontaneously. Public affairs were transacted in these amphitheaters also when tumults ensued.

How the crowd found Gaius and Aristarchus, travel companions of Paul, is not indicated, it was most probably by accident. No special hostility was shown them save that they were forced to go along and thus involuntarily came to witness the entire affair in the theater. These two were evidently recognized as Paul’s companions. We see no reason for thinking that the mob wanted these two as victims for “this gladiatorial show,” or that they were to be treated to a dose of “popular justice.” The mob was leaderless, was one grand confusion. Nobody knew why these two were wanted or what to do with them. The danger, of course, was that at any moment some man might assume the lead and demand some form of violence. No one could foresee how things would end. The whole crowd was irresponsible.

Gaius was a Macedonian and hence was not identical with the Gaius of Derbe (20:4), or with the Gaius of Corinth (1 Cor. 1:15; Rom. 16:23). The praenomen Gaius was quite common. The Gaius of 3 John 1 is certainly another person. Aristarchus was from Thessalonica and is again mentioned in 20:4; 27:2; Col. 4:10; Philemon 24.

Acts 19:30

30And Paul, wanting to go in to the populace, the disciples were not letting him. Moreover, some also of the Asiarchs, being friends to him, by sending to him were beseeching him not to adventure himself into the theater.

All credit to Paul for both his courage and his readiness to come to the rescue of his assistants. While that mob was carrying on, no man could tell what would happen to Gaius and to Aristarchus, and the worst was no doubt feared. Δῆμος is the term for the people as a political body and is in place here since rushing to the theater appeared to them as an assembling there to settle some matter. The disciples would naturally not think of letting Paul do this. It would have made the situation worse. Paul could not have saved the two, he might even have precipitated a calamity by having himself and these two killed. R. 885 calls this a negative imperfect which denotes resistance to pressure. Instead of implying that the disciples failed, it implies the opposite, that they succeeded, and that is the distinctive thing about this imperfect.

Acts 19:31

31In addition there came the message from “some of the Asiarchs,” friends of Paul, which earnestly urged him not to risk his life in the theater. Here we have another imperfect which is evidently to be taken in the same sense as the one preceding; it is also action against pressure, and it also implies success. “Not to give himself” is well rendered, “not to adventure himself.”

Zahn is evidently mistaken when he thinks that only one Asiarch was appointed for each year. All the evidence is in favor of the view that there were ten for each year. The plural cannot be justified by counting those who had had this honor during preceding years after the analogy of the plural “high priests” although only one was high priest at any time. When Eusebius mentions only one (4, 11) named Philip who refused to release a lion against Polycarp in Smyrna, this has nothing to do with the number of Asiarchs that ruled a province. He was the one who had been elected for Smyrna or resided in that city. Each city elected a representative annually and these elected the ten Asiarchs for the year; one was selected as the president by the proconsul of the province.

It was their duty to defray the costs of and to undertake all the arrangements for the national games and the sacred theatrical spectacles. This entailed the expenditure of great sums of money; only the wealthiest could serve, but the honor was eagerly sought. Some authorities add other functions and mix in priests, but this is without warrant.

A remarkable circumstance is the fact that some of these men were friends of Paul and so concerned about him as hastily to send a message on this occasion lest he throw his life away. This is a little chapter on which one might like to have light. Their presence in Ephesus may be explained by the fact that the festivities were to be held at this time (May); otherwise they lived in various cities. To be sure, they wanted to avoid bloodshed in the theater. But they acted from motives of friendship toward Paul. How did it come about that they were Paul’s friends, men who were so prominent in the province and friends so loyal?

A most remarkable man was this Paul. We are sorry we can say no more about his contact with these Asiarchs. Other provinces, too, had their men: Galatriarchs, Bithyniarchs, Syriarchs.

Acts 19:32

32Some, then, kept shouting one thing, others another; for the assembly was confused, and the majority knew not on what account they had come together.

οὗν is resumptive and continues the story from v. 30; ἄλλοιἄλλοτι is the classical idiom for “some one thing, some another” (R. 747). Luke still speaks of the ἐκκλησία, the word for a proper assembly, but he describes it as being in a condition of confusion. This is the force of the perfect participle συγκεχυμένη. We do not combine this with ἦν to make a periphrastic past perfect passive (R., W. P.). This verse has three imperfect tenses, and the perfect participle with ἦν is merely predicative: “was confused” i. e., was in that condition.

In fact, the majority (R. 665) knew not (ἤδεισαν, second past perfect which is always used as an imperfect) why they had come together (the Greek here accommodating the tense just as we do in English) Demetrius had started something that promptly got beyond him. Perhaps he was himself frightened.

Acts 19:33

33Moreover, out of the multitude they brought Alexander, the Jews putting him forward. And Alexander, beckoning with the hand, wanted to make defense to the populace. But having recognized that he was a Jew, there came one shout from all for about two hours crying, Great the Artemis of Ephesians!

This abortive effort on the part of the Jews is surely most interesting. The view that this Alexander was a converted Jew, and that the Jews forced him forward in order that, as a Christian, he might become the victim of the mob’s fury is untenable. They might have forced him forward, but he would never have attempted to speak, and if he spoke he would have accused the Jews who thrust him forward. He certainly was himself a Jew and was willing to speak in defense of the Jews.

In his Introduction to the New Testament 2, 16, etc.; 21, etc., Zahn advocated the view that this Alexander is not identical with the one mentioned in 1 Tim. 1:20, and 2 Tim. 4:14; but he changed his mind in his Apostelgeschichte. The fact that in the latter passage Alexander is called a coppersmith lends color to the view that they were identical. But then he must have been converted to Christianity and must have forsaken the faith according to 1 Tim. 1:20. As a coppersmith he may well have helped in manufacturing shrines of Artemis; they were made of copper and were then plated with silver and thus were of a cheaper grade than the solid silver shrines. Some Jews made a living by following many trades that were forbidden by their law.

If Alexander was also a metal image worker we can almost know what his address would have presented if he had been allowed to make it. He would have said that he himself helped to make shrines and that thus he and the Jews were not guilty of opposing Artemis, that this was wholly the crime of renegade Jews such as “this fellow Paul” whom Gaius and Aristarchus abetted. But a higher hand controlled this wild hubbub.

The moment Alexander, by the help of the Jews, got to the stage and moved his hand up and down in order to give the usual signal for quiet so that he might speak, pandemonium broke loose. Already the imperfect ἤθελεν indicates that he did not get beyond wanting to speak, and ἀπολογεῖσθαι is the regular verb for making a formal oral defense.

Acts 19:34

34The preferred reading is ἐπιγνόντων (with αὑτῶν being understood), a perfectly regular genitive absolute: “they having realized that he was a Jew” (“is” in the Greek is unchanged from the direct discourse); the reading ἐπιγνόντες would be a pendent nominative absolute and an unusual construction. Somebody who knew Alexander may have shouted, “A Jew, a Jew!” As though a signal had been given, the thousands that were in the amphitheater raised the original cry, “Great the Artemis of Ephesians!” This absolutely prevented Alexander from speaking. So this Jew also precipitated something that he neither expected nor could control. We need not inject the thought that he was promptly removed from the stage. The great multitude was not in a violent mood, the outlet of its energy remained vocal. Luke writes beautifully, “a voice came as one out of all”; it was an instantaneous, unanimous chorus in which everybody shouted in order to drown out the Jew.

That was the first involuntary impulse; but once it was under way. Alexander was forgotten, and the shouting continued of its own momentum for well on to two hours. Once started, it just could not stop. It exhibited typical mob psychology. There was no leader, no sense, no object and purpose, no consideration even of the foolishness of its own demonstration. This Ephesian clamor seems to hold the world’s record for crowd marathon shouting.

Acts 19:35

35And having quieted the multitude, the chancellor says: Ephesian men, Why, who is there of men that does not know the city of the Ephesians as being temple keeper of the great Artemis and of the image fallen from Zeus? These things, then, being undeniable, it is needful that you keep quiet and be doing nothing precipitate. For you brought these men, neither temple robbers, nor blaspheming our goddess. If, therefore, Demetrius and the artisans with him have a legal complaint against anyone, court days are held, and there are proconsuls—let them bring charges against each other. If, however, you are seeking something concerning different matters, it shall be disposed of in a lawful assembly. For also we are in danger of being accused of riot concerning this day, there being no legal cause regarding which we shall be able duly to give a statement concerning this mob.

The “town clerk” of our versions makes a wrong impression. This γραμματεύς was the chief official of the city; Luther’s rendering “chancellor” is still the best. This title is found on Ephesian inscriptions and in the papyri just as Luke has it. It was probably derived from his function of drafting the decrees with the aid of the strategoi; but he also had charge of the city funds, was in control of the assembly of the citizens when this was called out to transact city affairs, and communicated with the Roman proconsul who governed the entire province. Free cities such as Ephesus elected their own chancellor and other officers. In different cities the functions of the chancellor varied somewhat.

When this city chief appeared on the stage, his very presence affected the howling mob which was already well spent because of its two hours of crying, and he soon had silence and full attention. We do not think that he stood on the stage for some time. His appearance brought prompt silence.

This official’s address was decidedly to the point. He was a capable man in his position and showed it. We first note his neat captatio benevolentiae; next, the natural deduction as to the impropriety of the mob’s procedure; then, the pointing out the proper and legal course that Demetrius or any others were to pursue if they have a case of other business; finally, the implied threat that he and all others present might be called to account for this day’s unwarranted and indefensible action. That sobered everybody. If we ask why he did not interfere sooner, the address itself answers that question. What he says about Demetrius and those with him reveals that he did not rush into the meeting uninformed in order to stop the clamor; he waited until he had full and correct information on the entire affair, down to the part Demetrius had played in it.

When he had what he needed he interfered. Meanwhile the shouting was doing no special damage.

We cannot duplicate ἄνδρεςἘφέσιοι (“men, Ephesians”) except by making the latter an adjective: “Ephesian men”; and γάρ resembles our “why” at the head of a statement. We may reproduce as follows: “Why, who in the world does not know,” etc.? Then follows the complementary participle οὗσαν in indirect discourse (R. 1123) which we may imitate by rendering, does not know “the city of the Ephesians as being temple keeper,” etc. This term νεωκόρος (from νεός = νεώς plus κορέω, sanctuary sweeper) is a sort of high title. A coin of A. D. 65 bears this as a title for Ephesus, inscriptions do the same.

It was later used also with reference to the imperial cultus in temples that were erected for the emperors. The chancellor’s question challenges anybody to name a man in the whole world who does not know that Ephesus is the illustrious warden of “the great Artemis.” That was saying a good deal when it was taken literally. In general, of course, Ephesus with its temple of Artemis, one of the seven wonders of the world, was known as the adorer of this goddess.

The addition καὶτοῦΔιοπετοῦς (Ζεύς, genitive, Διός, plus πίπτω) with ἀγάλματος to be supplied, R. 653, “and of the image fallen down from Zeus,” refers to the statue that was so highly revered in Ephesus, a many-breasted female figure whose bottom section was a square pillar carved with ancient symbols of bees, corn and flowers. It was discolored with age, and more like a Hindoo idol than anything else. Perhaps it was dug up at an early age and was a relic of previous idolatry, the image of a goddess whose original name is now no longer known, and was, perhaps, unknown to the Ephesians at the beginning. Having been found thus, it was thought to have fallen from heaven where Zeus was supposed to rule. Being made of ebony, it should have been burned up when, on the night of the birth of Alexander the Great, Herostratus set fire to the temple in order to gain undying fame; the statue escaped destruction because it was at the time not in the temple but was being used in some ceremony.

Acts 19:36

36Since the fame of Artemis, her image, and Ephesus as her sanctuary warden were assured in the whole world, what sense was there in all this shouting? “These things, then, being undeniable” answers the speaker’s question, answers it for all his hearers. But then they ought to be quiet and not to perpetrate anything rash such as the present proceeding. There is no rhyme or reason in what they are doing. Δέον (neuter participle of δεῖν) ἐστίν is a periphrastic present that is both classical and vernacular, R. 881; and κατεσταλμένους (we have the aorist active participle in v. 36) with ὑπάρχειν is the perfect passive periphrastic infinitive which is here used as the subject: the needful thing is “for you on your part (ὑμεῖς, emphatic) to have been, and thus still to be, quiet.”

Acts 19:37

37This is said in view of the fact (γάρ) that they have brought into the theater “these men, neither temple robbers (deeds) nor blaspheming (participle—words) our gods.” They have committed no crime against the temple or against the goddess. The chancellor knows about Gaius and Aristarchus and their innocence and fears no contradiction.

Acts 19:38

38The two conditions of reality include all other possibilities. The term λόγος may refer to any legal complaint and Demetrius himself and the artisans are named. If they feel that they have been wronged in an illegal way, the chancellor informs them that court days or sessions are regularly conducted, ἀγοραῖοι (ἡμέραι, which were called this because they were held in the Agora under proper judges who conducted trials according to the laws.

He also reminds Demetrius and the artisans that there are such supreme judges as the ἀνθῦπατοι; for Asia was a senatorial province which was always under a proconsul. The plural is a general designation for this highest type of judge. The hint is given that, if justice is not secured in the lower courts, the proconsul may hear an appeal. But this mention of proconsuls hints at the seriousness of starting a trial in the courts; the thing may go farther than Demetrius and his men may desire. “Let them bring charges against each other” is neutral in regard to those who may consider themselves wronged.

Acts 19:39

39However, it may not be a matter for the law courts but “something concerning different things,” referring to such as concern the δῆμος which was composed of the citizen voters in general that could thus legally and properly decide to enact a new law or change one that was already in force. There is slight textual evidence for the reading περαιτέρω, comparative of περαίτερος, “something further beyond.” Any matter of this kind “shall be disposed of in the lawful assembly,” the ἐκκλησία, the meeting to which, according to law, all the voting citizens are called out (ἐκκαλεῖν). Only the Roman officials could issue this call. One must not lose the force of “lawful.” The present assembly was entirely unlawful. Moreover, calling and conducting an “assembly” was always a grave matter and vastly beyond any little grievance a man might have.

Acts 19:40

40With γάρ the chancellor states why he is reminding this theaterful of people of these legal ways of proceeding, ways which they should certainly themselves know. He means that the proconsul may look into this day’s riot and frankly calls it a στάσις, “riot.” Diplomatically he says, “We are in danger of being accused of riot concerning this day.” As the city chancellor he himself would, of course, also be involved. He intimates that by taking a hand as he now does and by speaking in a sensible way as he does he is keeping his own skirts clean, but how about Demetrius, his adherents, and all the rest? According to R., W. P., the Romans looked on nothing with so much jealousy as on tumultuous meetings. The chancellor’s hearers knew that.

This wild assembly certainly had “no legal cause” whatever; μηδενὸςαἰτίου, neuter, in the genitive absolute denotes cause in the legal sense, one that would be accepted by a judge. Another cause there was, namely the inflammatory harangue of Demetrius; but he would be the last person to desire that the proconsul look into that. “There being no legal cause regarding which we shall be able (i. e., if actually called upon by the proconsul) duly to give a statement concerning this mob (συστροφή).” Ἀποδοῦναι = duly to give, and λόγον is here an acceptable account and explanation. Not one of us, the chancellor says, could offer the least excuse to the proconsul for this day’s turmoil. He was certainly right. He began with words that tickled the vanity of this mob, he ended by throwing the fear of proconsular justice into their bones. He certainly cured them of any further demonstration.

Acts 19:41

41And having said these things, he dismissed the assembly. It was most willing to be dismissed, and the most willing was Demetrius himself who had started things. It began wildly, it ended tamely. That was God’s providence. He as yet wanted no martyrs in Ephesus. The chancellor closed this unwarranted “assembly” in proper order and saved at least that much of legality.

Luke’s record of this address contains so many specific terms that are used in the same sense in inscriptions, papyri, coins, and other writers, that one is really surprised at Luke’s exactness and at the precision with which he introduces term after term. Those who fault him in other places do not praise him here. They are simply silent. But the great fact stands out that Luke is absolutely reliable aside from inspiration. Here is evidence that can be tested from many still available sources; where we have less or no outside sources and can apply no such tests, the record is just as true.

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

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