Acts 27

CHAPTER XXVII

FROM CAESAREA TO MALTA

Acts 27:1

1Luke’s account of the voyage to Rome is considered a masterpiece, the best record of an extended ancient voyage, which throws more light on seafaring matters of that time than any other description. He is a landman and writes as such but is well-informed and most accurate. Consult Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, 314, etc.

Now when it was determined for us to sail away for Italy, they proceeded to deliver Paul and certain other prisoners to a centurion by name Julius, of the Augustan cohort. And having embarked in an Adramyttian ship about to sail to the places along Asia, we put to sea, Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica, being with us.

No further efforts were made in Paul’s case; it was decided to ship him to Italy. The imperfect παρεδίδουν describes the transfer into the centurion’s custody; it presents the course of the action (B.-D. 327) instead of merely the fact (aorist). The other prisoners were not other Romans who had made an appeal to Caesar but men condemned to death, who were to be sent to Rome for the gladiatorial shows, to die in these for the amusement of the Roman populace. Rome drew extensively on the provinces for such victims. We imagine that they were used chiefly to face wild animals and not as gladiators in matched battles with each other. These prisoners may have been pagan criminals; ἑτέρονς, which is not always used as being distinct from ἄλλους, may or may not designate men who were distinct from Paul. The fact that they were distinct and in a class by themselves seems assured.

While he was in custody in Caesarea, Paul was in charge of a centurion (24:23) who was responsible for his safekeeping; so when he was now sent to Rome he was again placed in charge of such an officer. Luke gives us his name “Julius,” which, like Cornelius and Claudius, is the name of the gens, a name that was borne by three emperors and by the dictator Julius Caesar. “A1 Augustan cohort” is not identical with the Italian cohort mentioned in 10:1. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, etc., 348, follows the historian Mommsen: “Augustus had reduced to a regular system the maintenance of communications between the center of control in Rome and the armies stationed in the great frontier provinces. Legionary centurions, called commonly frumentarii, went to and fro between the armies; and were employed for numerous purposes that demanded communication between the emperor and his armies and provinces. They acted not only for commissariat purposes (whence the name), but as couriers, and for police purposes, and for conducting prisoners; and in time they became detested as agents and spies of Government. They all belonged to legions stationed in the provinces and were considered to be on detached duty when they went to Rome; and hence in Rome they were ‘soldiers from abroad,’ peregrini.”

What Ramsay further adds from Mommsen is without substantiation: “While in Rome they resided in a camp on the Caelian Hill, called castra peregrinorum; in this camp there were always a number of them present, changing from day to day, as some came and others went away. This camp was under the princeps peregrinorum, and it is clear that the stratopedrach in Acts 28:16 (A. V. ‘captain of the guard’) is the Greek name for that officer.” Zahn, Introduction, I, 552, etc., states that the existence of this princeps castrorum peregrinorum, of his troops, and his barracks prior to the military reorganization made by the emperor Severus, has yet to be shown. Julius delivered Paul to the praefectus praetorio, the emperor’s judicial deputy who administered criminal justice. It was this General of the Praetorian Guard who ordered Paul kept in the mild custody indicated in 28:16. All this is of great importance for understanding Phil. 1:13 (A. V. margin) and explains how Paul was able to come in contact with many of the Praetorian Guard.

Acts 27:2

2The home port of the vessel boarded for the transport was Adramyttium at the head of the bay in Mysia, opposite the island of Lesbos. The vessel was only a coasting vessel which intended to stop only in different ports along the coast of Asia Minor and was similar to the vessel which Paul’s party took for Patara at Troas (20:13–21:1). Luke accompanies Paul on this voyage. Here for the last time the “we” appears in the narrative and informs the reader of Luke’s presence. Paul’s second companion is Aristarchus, who is identified as the man mentioned in 20:4 by the addition, “a Macedonian of Thessalonica.” He was one of the party commissioned to bring the great collection to Jerusalem. We first met him in 19:29 in Ephesus, and Col. 4:10 and Philemon 24 show that he remained with Paul during his confinement in Rome.

It is debated as to how Luke and Aristarchus managed to make this voyage to Rome with Paul. Ramsay thinks that they went as Paul’s slaves, the apostle being able to take them along as such. Would Paul have stooped to such a pretense? R., W. P., thinks that Luke managed to go along as Paul’s physician—but what about Aristarchus? We do not need such explanations.

We note how Felix treated Paul in 24:23, 24, how Festus arranged a grand audience for Paul in 25:22–26:32, how Julius treated Paul in 27:3. Is not this enough to show Paul’s importance and standing in the eyes of the Roman authorities? Why, then, hesitate in regard to this privilege of taking his two companions on the voyage to Rome? Because in the subsequent narrative Luke does not mention Aristarchus by name, some conclude that Aristarchus went only as far as Myra where Paul was transferred to another vessel. But Luke does not mention even himself by name; he had no occasion to do so. The “we” that runs through the narrative beginning with v. 3 includes all that were in the vessel and alternates with “they.” Read on and note the varying subjects.

Luke as well as Aristarchus recede into the background. Paul is the man that stands out. On the nautical use of ἀνήχθημεν and its counterpart κατήχθημεν (v. 3) see 13:13. The former occurs repeatedly in these last two chapters, the latter again in 28:12.

Acts 27:3

3And on the next day we were brought down to Sidon. And Julius, using Paul in humane manner, permitted that, having gone to his friends, he obtain attention.

On the first run “we were brought down” (from the high sea to the harbor) to Sidon, sixty-seven miles away. “We touched” in our versions is not quite correct, for the verb may imply a permanent stop. Here, of course, it indicates only a temporary one.

Χράομαι governs the dative, τυγχάνω the genitive. When Luke inserts the participial modifier that Julius used Paul in a humane way, in menschenfreundlicher Weise, we see how greatly he, Paul, and Aristarchus appreciated this act. It was exceptional in every way to permit a prisoner and his two friends to land in a port, to go to his other friends there, and to trust that he would return when the vessel would sail on. One of the notable things in the records of the Gospels and the Acts is the fact that all the centurions whom we meet were fine men; the chiliarch Lysias—but he was a chiliarch—stands beneath them all. It was this centurion’s humaneness that prompted his act. One almost suspects that he had known Paul for some time.

How could he otherwise have trusted Paul so much? We do not believe that he sent Paul ashore chained to a soldier or under any kind of military guard. A man who had to be chained and guarded would not have been sent ashore at all. We feel certain that after the fright of Lysias (22:29; 22:25) Paul was not chained again until in 28:10. Paul was not under criminal charges. He certainly could have escaped here at Sidon.

But what would such conduct have availed him? Paul was not that kind of man!

These friends in Sidon were Christians, and we now hear about them for the first time. But we decline to accept the idea that they had been notified concerning Paul’s arrival, had even again and again gone to the docks expecting the vessel, were there to receive him as their guest on his arrival. Paul, Luke, and Aristarchus knew that they were to sail only when the order for Paul’s embarking was issued. Not until then, most likely not until after they had put out to sea, did they know the route and the places at which they would touch. The “attention” Paul obtained was hospitality. Luke and Aristarchus and friends in Caesarea had surely provided all that was needed as baggage for the journey.

Medical attention cannot be thought of in Sidon; Luke, the physician, was on board ship for the entire voyage, which in itself was invigorating. The stop at Sidon lasted a day or more and was probably made for the purpose of taking freight aboard.

Ramsay and others explain why a coast vessel was taken to Myra, which passed to the east of Cyprus. No large vessel for a direct voyage from Caesarea to Rome via Alexandria was available. The winds from the west necessitated the slow voyage along the coast to Myra. The latter was a prominent port where a larger vessel for Rome might be found. It was probably left to the centurion to determine how he would proceed from Myra, whether, as he did, across the open sea with the risks involved at this season of the year or whether, continuing up the coast to Troas, across to Neapolis, and then by land to Dyrrachium, and thence to Brundisium and Rome. On this subject, as on various points involved in Luke’s account of the actual voyage, nautical authorities acquainted with ancient sailing possibilities and practices alone are able to speak with full assurance.

Acts 27:4

4And having put to sea from thence, we sailed under the lee of Cyprus because the winds were contrary. And having sailed across the open sea down along Cilicia and Pamphilia, we came down to Myra of Lycia.

Ships had no difficulty in sailing from Myra to the Syrian harbors because they could use the winds which blew with great steadiness from the west or the northwest. Paul and his party that had the great collection had come this way, from Patara to Tyre (21:1–3). This route left Cyprus on the left and passed the tip of the island at Paphos. But these very winds prevented sailing in the opposite direction, from Syrian ports to the Lycian coast; so they hugged the lee of Cyprus on their left and were sheltered from the contrary western winds by the island.

Acts 27:5

5Then they followed the coast of Cilicia and Pamphilia by availing themselves of temporary local land breezes and the steady westward current that runs along the coast. This was often accomplished with slow progress and necessitated anchoring along the winding coast when the winds from the west were too contrary. Luke does not say how long it took to reach Myra. A few authorities insert “through fifteen days.” Someone apparently made this estimate. While it is not from Luke’s pen it may be a correct comment.

Acts 27:6

6And the centurion having there found an Alexandrian ship sailing for Italy, he embarked us in it.

No stop had been made since leaving Sidon. Myra lay inland about two and one half miles; its port, Andriace, had an excellent harbor and did a large shipping business, Alexandrian grain ships for Rome making this port. We hear about no Christians at Myra. Here transshipment was made by the centurion into an Alexandrian freighter bound for Italy. This was a large vessel; we find that it carried 276 souls (v. 37), it was a grain ship with accomodations also for passengers. The presence of this Alexandrian vessel in Myra is explained by commentators (landmen) as being due to the same contrary winds, the ship being driven off its course.

Ramsay assures us that the contrary is true, that these winds had given the ship a direct run from Alexandria to Myra at this season of the year (autumn), and that only exceptionally could a run have been made directly from Alexandria to Crete. The vessel was ready to sail, and the transshipment was made without delay.

Acts 27:7

7Now sailing slowly in many days and having come with difficulty down along Cnidus, the wind not letting us forward, we sailed under the lee of Crete down along Salmone; and with difficulty coasting along it, we came to a place called Fair Havens, near to which was the city of Lasea.

The city of Cnidus lies at the angle of the coast where, in turning almost northward, the coast no longer protects against winds from the north. That is why the vessel turned southward toward Crete. The distance from Myra to Cnidus, thirteen miles, was made slowly. They again passed Rhodes (21:1) but had to anchor and wait for opportunity to proceed so often that days were consumed thereby.

The genitive absolute is to be construed with the statement in regard to sailing under the lee of Crete. Προσεάω is one of those words that are found nowhere else in the Greek (M.-M. 547) although its sense is plain: πρός + ἐάω, “to let toward”; Ramsay: “as the wind did not permit our straight course onwards.” They made for the southern coast of the island of Crete and passed its eastern promontory, Cape Salmone. To pass to the north of Crete was too hazardous because they would be exposed to north winds along a coast that afforded only a few harbors for shelter.

Acts 27:8

8As it was was, they coasted along the southern side of Crete with difficulty; παραλέγομαι, to coast along, M.-M., 487. When Luke writes, “a certain place called Fair Havens,” he means that it was not a significant place. This place was not well known. Luke mentions the city near it; but neither harbor nor city are otherwise mentioned in Greek literature. The former, however, has been identified as a small bay two leagues east of Cape Matala, at which point most of the protection from the contrary winds ends.

Acts 27:9

9Now considerable time having elapsed, and the voyage being already dangerous because also the Fast had already gone by, Paul went on to advise them by saying: Men, I take the view that the voyage will be with injury and much loss not only of the cargo and the ship but also of our lives. But the centurion was persuaded more by the sailing master and the captain than by the things being stated by Paul.

The “considerable time” that had elapsed refers, not to a long stay in Fair Havens, but to the total time consumed since leaving Caesarea. If the stay in Fair Havens were referred to, Luke would have spoken of “days” and not of “time.” The stay in Fair Havens before the decision was made as to going on must have been very brief.

The second genitive absolute explains that the time had already come when any voyage was considered dangerous, so also this one. “Dangerous” is specific, for it refers to the period between the middle of September and the first part of November; after November 11 all navigation ceased until March 10 (see 18:18). “The Fast” was well along in this period which was considered dangerous for sea voyages. If the year was 59. it would be October 5: if the year 60, near that date.

What causes comment is the fact that Luke here mentions a Jewish festival, “the Fast,” a name for the Day of Atonement as a designation of time for Theophilus, both he and Luke being Gentile Christians. But this is not so strange. Paul and Aristarchus had most likely kept the Fast by fasting that day, and thus the day was noted by Luke in his diary (if he kept one) and in his memory. We can thus also approximate the date when the voyage from Caesarea began, it was after the middle of August. The Feast of Tabernacles, which came five days after the Fast, need not be taken into account so that a date after the Fast and before Tabernacles must be assumed. Tabernacles could not be celebrated on a vessel, and it was a festival that was far less likely than the great Fast to be observed by Jewish Christians.

The imperfect παρῄνει plus ἑπείθετο, which are descriptive, prepare for the aorist ἐθεντοβουλήν; we are told what was transpiring up to the moment when the decision was made. Luke fails to record how Paul came to make his statement so that we are left to our imagination. Did Paul introduce the subject by stating his own view, the others then getting together for a decision? Or was a council held to which Paul, although a prisoner, was invited? In either case we see how Paul gravitated to the front. He was that kind of man. In this case he also had his past experience as a seafarer who had been shipwrecked three times and had been adrift on wreckage in the sea (2 Cor. 11:25) for a day and night to draw on.

Acts 27:10

10With θεωρῶ Paul states his view: “I take the view.” He is not offering a prophecy. What he says is that a continuation of the voyage so late in the season is sure to end in disaster. We have ὅτι followed by the accusative with the infinitive, which is called a mixture of two constructions (B.-D. 397, 6; R. 1047) although it is used in the classics and in the papyri. Paul sees injury and loss ahead, both of cargo and of vessel as well as of the lives of those in the ship. Μέλλεινἔσεσθαι is a circumscribed future which is found three times in the New Testament, R. 887. According to Paul’s view the proper course to follow was to remain in Fair Havens. He probably said so outright but in a deferential and a fitting manner.

Acts 27:11

11The centurion carefully weighed Paul’s words yet felt that what the sailing master and the captain said had greater weight and so sided with them. The κυβερνήτης is the chief pilot or “sailing master,” and ναύκληρος, “the captain,” (examples from the papyri in M.-M.). Correct the terms found in our versions. The view is mistaken that the centurion had the final decision in the matter, that he presided at a council, that he was merely taking the advice of the others, and that he had charge of the delivery of the cargo of grain. He was only a centurion, he had charge only of the prisoners and their delivery, he was sent from Caesarea, and no one knew that he would be able to secure passage on a grain ship. He did not have the decisive word, nor was the decision made by him.

This was a government vessel, the government was its owner. The sailing master is named before the captain, his word certainly counted as much as that of the latter. All that Luke says about the centurion is that he eventually agreed with these two.

Acts 27:12

12Now since the harbor was not well situated for wintering, the majority resolved to put to sea from there if somehow, after having arrived at Phoenix, they might winter (there), a harbor looking down the southwest wind and down the northwest wind.

The compound ἀνεύθετος, which is found only here in the Greek, means “not well placed.” It was “commodious” (A. V.) enough but did not provide sufficient protection against winter storms. Οἱπλείους = “the majority.” Now we see why the centurion is mentioned. If Paul had succeeded in persuading him, it would have been a case of two against two. Now it was three against one. The supposition that other persons besides these four had a part in the matter is excluded. These three resolved for the reason assigned, if possible, to reach the better harbor of Phoenix, to put to sea from Fair Havens. Ἔθεντοβουλήν does not mean “advised” (our versions). “To take or to give counsel” (R., W.

P.) is also incorrect. They had no one from whom to take it, no one to whom to give it. Βουλή is a resolution, and ἔθεντο means, “they set it for themselves,” thus, “they resolved.” And the aorist states the final outcome of the two preceding imperfects, Paul’s advising and the centurion’s refusal to be persuaded by that advice. Ἀναχθῆνοι is used at it was in 13:13; 27:2; etc.

Εἴπως with the optative is not a condition of potentiality (Robertson’s fourth class condition, W. P.), because it occurs in indirect discourse. “Here after primary tenses we should have ἐάν and the subjunctive, or εἰ with the future indicative” (R. 1030), for this is a condition of expectancy (Robertson’s third class) or of reality (Robertson’s first). The change to the optative in the indirect discourse is optional with the writer. “The indicative or the subjunctive could have been retained,” R. 1044. Nor do we think that this clause expresses purpose. Conditional clauses are distinct from purpose clauses. They said (direct discourse): “If we may somehow be able to winter,” etc.

They expected to but took some risk. Φοῖνιξ = Phoenix (named from “palm”) = Penice (two syllables, A. V.), a harbor on the southern coast of Crete opposite the little isle Cauda (v. 16).

What does βλέποντακατὰλίβακαὶκατὰχῶρον mean? The point is a quite minor one. The vessel never reached this harbor. It makes little difference to us which way it faced, and whether the coast is now altered or not. To say that Luke never saw it is beside the mark, for this sailing master and this captain knew it so well that they left the one harbor for the other. The debate is keen, and not only on the part of the commentators, but even on the part of officers of the navy who have surveyed this coast and others who have examined it with charts, pictures, and debate resulting.

Λίψ is the wind that blows from the southwest, χῶρος the one from the northwest; there is no debate regarding this. There appear, however, to be two harbors in question, one that is now called Lutro, which one enters from the east; the other which by some is called Phineka, which one enters from the west (Zahn, a bight named “Plaka B.” on the latest maps). We see the clash in our versions: “lieth toward the south west and north west,” A. V.; “looking north-east, and south-east,” R. V., the one version looking κατά, “against” the wind, the other looking κατά, “down” the wind and thus translating the supposed sense of the Greek words. For ourselves we can say only this: “A harbor into which the so prevalent western winds could blow would be far worse than Fair Havens, into which these winds do not blow.

How could a northwest wind reach a harbor on the south of Crete?” And now let us leave this question. See Smith, Bible Dictionary, III, 2481, for one view, and Zahn for the other.

Acts 27:13

13Now, when the south wind started to blow gently, supposing to have achieved their purpose, having weighed anchor, they began coasting along Crete rather closely.

After they had decided to get to Phoenix, some forty miles for Fair Havens, the first opportunity that offered itself was when a gentle south wind started to blow; the gentleness lies in ὑπό in the participle, and its aorist is ingressive. The sailing master, the captain, and the centurion at once supposed that they had achieved the purpose they had set, namely reaching Phoenix; κρατέω is followed by the genitive. Since this wind was blowing, they thought they were as good as there. So they quickly weighed anchor, αἴρω, “to draw up,” “to lift,” in the nautical sense. Then they started to coast along the shore of Crete (inchoative imperfect, the verb being the same as the participle used in v. 8) “rather closely,” well inshore, ἆσσον, comparative of ἄγχι. The tense, of course, implies that something unexpected intervened. But the venture itself seemed to have everything in its favor: only forty miles to go, and ugly westerly winds changed into a gentle southern breeze which could be used to good advantage in slipping along the coast.

Acts 27:14

14Not long after, however, there beat down from it a typhonic wind, the one called Euraquilo. And the ship having been seized and not able to face the wind, having given way, we were driven on.

The description is terse and graphic. The gentle south wind was deceptive. “Not much after” is a litotes for “quite soon.” The totally unexpected happened. “Down from it” (feminine, Crete), from the Cretan mountains, 7, 000 feet high, a typhonic wind, for which the sailors had the name Euraquilo, struck the vessel. The adjective is derived from Τυφῶν, “the malignant demon par excellence of magic” (M.-M. 646), from which we still have “typhoon.” When Luke adds the name of this hurricane he conveys the idea that this type of wind was well known. We see what made sailing so dangerous at this season of the year, and what Paul meant by his warning in regard to going on. The resolve to winter in Phoenix was really a compromise. It had been proposed to go only to this point.

But even while traversing this short distance the vessel was promptly caught in the gale. The name εὑρακύλων (εὗρος, east wind and the Latin aquilo, northeast) is unimportant as far as its hybrid etymology is concerned; this name was given the wind because of its terrible character. The variant εὑροκλύδων, textually weakly supported and probably a corruption = northeast wind causing great waves. The aorist ἔβαλε reports wherein the preceding imperfect ended.

Acts 27:15

15The vessel being thus suddenly seized (aorist) and not being able to face the wind (to look it in the eye, nautical for beating up against it; δυναμένου present tense to denote the condition), “having given way, we were being borne on,” the aorist participle to indicate the act of giving the vessel over to the typhoon, and the imperfect verb, the continued result, and aorists to tell what the outcome was. Here Luke’s “we.” includes the entire group on the ship. They were helplessly swept onward in the grip of the hurricane. They simply ran with the wind and did not in any way beat up against it as they could and would have done in an ordinary gale.

Acts 27:16

16And having run under the lee of a small island called Cauda, we succeeded with difficulty to secure the boat; which having hoisted, they started using frappings, undergirding the ship; and fearing lest they fall off into the Syrtis, having lowered the tackle, they were thus borne along.

Note well how Luke writes: in v. 14, 15, he tells how the typhoon struck until ἐφερόμεθα, “we were borne on”; then v. 16, 17, how they got into the lee of the island, did what they could, and thus still ἐφέροντο, “they were borne on.” These two imperfects are mates: borne on and still borne on. Cauda or Clauda, called Gaudo by the Greeks today, Gozzo by the Italians, twenty-three miles from Crete, is a little triangular isle, one side facing east, the second southwest, the third north. They managed “to run under the lee” of this isle; note in v. 4, “to sail under the lee.” This lee was the southwest angle of the isle which shielded the vessel somewhat from the northwest hurricane.

With difficulty they managed to secure the ship’s boat here. When they left Fair Havens, this only boat which they possessed was towed. Then the sudden typhoon swept down on them and afforded no opportunity to take the boat in. It had been promptly swamped and was thus now hauled in with considerable difficulty. Luke writes ἰσχύσαμεν “we succeeded,” as though he had been one of those who helped to secure the boat. Some imagine that, when the typhoon struck, the boat had been put out (even loaded down) in order to act as a drag.

But if this had been done, Luke would have mentioned the fact. He writes instead as though the boat had been towed as a matter of course. The boat was too valuable to be cut adrift; in case of the ship’s foundering it afforded some means of escape. It was probably of a considerable size.

Acts 27:17

17The first task was to hoist the boat. This done, they began to use frappings to undergird the ship. Βοηθεἰαις is to be construed with ἐχρῶντο, which always has the dative, and the present participle describes how the frappings were used. Luke now uses the third person, for this task the sailors alone could perform, and the imperfect pictures the work as consuming some time. These βοηθεῖαι were ὑποζώματα, strong cables that were passed under the ship transversely around its waist in order to support the timbers lest they spring their joints and let in the water and cause the ship to founder. The Athenian triremes used such frappings. Some speak of passing these cables around the ship horizontally, from stem to stern, an idea that is unacceptable, not only because the thing could not be done, but because, if done, would be quite useless.

The planking of the hull was horizontal, and a transverse cable alone would help to secure it against springing joints. Ancient ships generally foundered because of the spreading of the planks of the hull; frappings were thus carried as regular equipment. The straining of the heavy mast in a violent storm often forced timbers to spread. Even in the case of modern vessels severe storms force open the steel plates and cause foundering despite powerful pumps.

The next step was to escape a different danger, that of being driven into the Syrtis. There were two, one a smaller (now the Gulf of Cabes), and the other the larger one here referred to (now the Gulf of Sidra). These were sandbanks which shifted because of wind and waves. This Syrtis lying between Carthage and Cyrene was so dreaded by all ancient sailors that “Syrtis” became a common expression with the poets. These northeast hurricanes were known to blow for days as we see that this one did. When they were first caught on the coast of Crete, nothing availed but to run before the wind; but to continue thus involved being driven into these sand bars with a fatal ending. The ship’s course had to be changed at all hazard.

When this is understood, we shall reject the explanation of the German commentators who think that χαλάσαντεςτὸσκεῦος means lowering the gear into the water in order to slow down the scudding vessel. Some think of stones or weights that were dragged by ropes; Zahn names rudder, sails, ropes, anchors, but does not mention further details except to state that the sails were furled, and the anchors were thrown out. But this would not have changed the ship’s course, it would only have delayed the calamity of the Syrtis. And the ship’s course was changed; see the maps. It was driven westward and a little northward so that it eventually (the hurricane lasted fourteen days) reached Malta. The indispensable book for a proper understanding of the entire voyage and most of its details is that by J.

Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, 4th ed., 1880.

What was lowered in the lee of Cauda was the mainsail; the yardarm and this sail were brought down. The ship was laid to, pointed into the wind as closely as possible, having only a small topsail to help to hold it there; she was laid on her starboard tack, the right side slanting acutely to the wind, so that the gale sent her westward and a little northward. The resultant drift 8° north of west, according to the strength of the gale, would be between ¾ and 2 miles per hour. Taking the mean rate of 1½ miles per hour, 36 per day, would bring the ship the 480 miles to Malta in about 13 days, exactly as Luke has described its course. These calculations of Smith are certainly most satisfactory. “Thus they were borne on” in the new course.

Acts 27:18

18And we being exceedingly tempest-tossed, they started jettisoning, and on the third day with their own hands they hurled out the furniture of the ship. And neither sun nor stars appearing for a number of days, and no small tempest continuing to hold on, as for anything further, there began to be taken away all around every hope of our being saved.

The hurricane did not abate in the least as the genitive absolute (causal) states. Thus jettisoning started the next day in order to lighten the ship (A. V.), literally: “they began to make an outthrow,” imperfect, inchoative. Luke fails to state what was heaved overboard. Those who think of the grain are mistaken (v. 38); it was probably some of the heavy supercargo, pieces of freight that were, perhaps, lashed to the deck or easily reached through the hatches. The tense implies that not all of it was jettisoned.

Acts 27:19

19But on the third day with their own hands they heaved overhoard τὴνσκευήν of the ship, its furniture (R. V. margin) and not the tackling (our versions). The latter would be τὰσκεύη or τὰὅπλα. Because of αὑτόχειρες the A. V. translates, “we with our own hands,” which Ramsay thinks more graphic. Everybody lent a hand, even Luke.

But the text has the third person, and now the aorist to indicate a complete job. Beds, tables, chairs, chests were thrown overboard. Desperation was growing. But they did not cast overboard the tackling, the spars, broken masts or the anchors. We note four anchors in v. 29 and 40, and the hoisting of the mainsail in v. 40, which means that the mast held, and that the spars were in place. Moreover, the ship was held to its course and not abandoned to drift helplessly.

Acts 27:20

20Neither sun nor stars appearing for days (πλείονας, “more,” i. e., a number of them), it was impossible to make a reckoning and to establish the position of the ship. “No small tempest continuing to hold on,” literally, “to lie on,” means that the severity of the gale had not abated. Luke does not name the number of days; he had lost count. In this desperate condition, “as for anything further,” λοιπόν, “furthermore,” Deissmann, Light, etc., 176, (16), 188 (5 and 20), “there began to be taken away all around (περιῃρεῖτο, imperfect of περιαιρέω) all hope of our being saved” (ἡμᾶς, not, “as far as we were concerned,” R., W. P., for it is the subject of the infinitive). We need not ask whether Paul, too, was losing hope, for Luke uses the inchoative imperfect which even in the case of the others does not imply complete loss of hope.

Acts 27:21

21And there having been much going without food, then, having taken his stand in their midst, Paul said: It was necessary, O men, for you by obeying me not to put to sea from Crete and to escape this injury and loss. And as to you, I exhort you to be of good cheer, for there shall be not a single loss (by sea) of life from among you, only of the ship. For there stood beside me this night of the God, whose I am, whom also I serve, an angel, saying, Fear not, Paul! It is necessary for thee to stand before Caesar. And lo, God has graciously granted thee all those sailing with thee. Therefore be of good cheer, men, for I believe God that it shall be thus according to what manner he has spoken to me. However, it is necessary for us to fall onto some island.

Since the conditions during these days were as described, even the preparation of food had scarcely been attempted to say nothing about eating sufficiently. Ἀσιτῖα is “foodlessness,” and there had been much of this, namely men going without food, perhaps eating a bite only at great intervals, giving way to despair, and being weak and exhausted. This completes Luke’s picture of the desperate condition of vessel, crew, and passengers.

We have already seen so much of Paul’s strong character and of the leadership and the mastery with which he was endowed, that all this does not need again to be introduced. Of course, he had lost none of this during these desperate days. Now, however, it is not this strength of soul that makes him “take a stand in the midst of them,” but the divine message God sent him by an angel during the night. He is not attempting to put new heart and courage into all these despairing men merely by his own personal power but chiefly by this divine revelation which he has received, which, indeed, concerns all on board the ship. He had made no special move until this time; the one he now makes is undertaken by God’s own direction. Luke records Paul’s words in full.

The imperfect ἔδει expresses a past necessity or obligation that was not met. This idiom is difficult to the English and the German ear, starting, as it does, in the past and reaching to the present. R. 886 and 919–920 describe it well although we doubt the statement on p. 9–20 that this imperfect is practically an apodosis of a second-class conditional sentence (present unreality) without ἄν; we think only of one function, not of this second one of a conditional thought. Back there in Fair Havens they should have obeyed Paul when he urged them not to put to sea, but they failed to do so.

Δεῖ always takes the accusative with the infinitive, and here the infinitive ἀνάγεσθαι, “to be putting to sea” (nautical, see 13:13), has its implied accusative subject ὑμᾶς modified by the participle πειθαρχήσαντάςμοι. The thing they ought to have done as being right and necessary was: “by obeying me not to go on putting to sea from Crete.” Κερδῆσαι adds what the result of not putting to sea would have been: “and escape (aorist, the one act of escaping) this injury and loss.” The verb means “to gain” but is used idiomatically with terms such as injury and loss; the gain lies in escaping the loss. Our versions draw the negative μή also to this second infinitive: “not to gain this injury,” etc., which is incorrect (B.-P. 672, and others).

Acts 27:22

22This reminder of the past great mistake was not intended in the sense of, “I told you so,” as is the manner of petty natures. Paul reminds the authorities of the ship in regard to what they now see, that they should have obeyed him, in order that they may not again disbelieve and disobey. One serious mistake was enough. So now (τανῦν, “as to present affairs,” complement of μέν in v. 21) he exhorts them to be of good cheer and to drop their hopeless despair. But this is not a rallying of the last bit of desperate courage, at least to die fighting. Paul has more, far more: God’s own positive assurance that not a single loss (ἀποβολή, nautical: “loss by sea,” by being thrown overboard, Smith, Bible Dictionary, the nautical vocabulary, IV, 3009) of life among all of them shall occur although the vessel itself shall be lost.

Paul thus states in brief what God had communicated to him. Looking at that communication, we see that it promised nothing cheering in regard to the ship, and the outcome, too, shows that Paul understood correctly that the ship would not be saved.

Acts 27:23

23And now, in explanation (γάρ) of this so positive assurance and prophecy, Paul tells all his shipmates what God himself promised him by one of his angels in a vision during the past night. As soon as possible Paul announced the news in the morning. The genitive “of God” with its two modifiers is placed forward for the sake of emphasis. All these men were pagans although there may have been a Jew or two among them. That makes clear the reason for this emphasis. And Paul’s tone and bearing must be added, his joy in confessing the one true God before these pagans, “whose I am,” who is my God, to whom alone I belong with heart and soul, who holds me in his hand as his very own; “whom also I serve,” λατρεύω (in the service due him from everyone, not λειτουργέω, official service as an apostle), serve faithfully as his true worshipper.

What were pagan gods in comparison with this “God”? Let all these men understand well this great confession of God on Paul’s part. Whether these pagans understood ἄγγελος as “angel,” in the way Paul meant the word, or only as “messenger,” in the general sense, made little difference, for only a spirit from God and from heaven could stand beside Paul during the night and speak the message which Paul now repeats.

Acts 27:24

24In prohibitions the present imperative often means to stop an action already begun (R. 851, etc.), yet here the sense is scarcely, “Stop being afraid!” but, as in various other instances, “Remain unafraid!” for the angel’s message was, indeed, a blessed one. It was brief and consisted of two decisive statements. The first is that Paul must, indeed, appear before Caesar. The necessity implied in δεῖ is here that of God’s will which was plainly intimated to Paul already in 23:11, so that before Festus he had also appealed to Caesar (25:11, 12). With regard to God it had been settled, and he would bring it to pass that the apostle should stand before Caesar. We hesitate to stress the angel’s statement to mean that Nero himself was to hear Paul’s case and not merely Nero’s imperial judge in Rome.

More than this, and no small addition, as “lo” makes clear. God has graciously granted Paul the lives of all his shipmates. May we not assume that Paul had earnestly prayed for them, and that this was God’s answer? The angel does not say so as he does in Luke 1:13, and Acts 10:4, hence we cannot be certain. But this is beyond question: it was for Paul’s sake that God spared the lives of all these men. They had him, under God, not themselves to thank for the extension of their day of grace.

God has often done similar things for the sake of his children. “Graciously granted” to Paul, with its perfect tense implying that this was now their condition, is a word to cause us to pause although so many pass over it lightly. All might have perished in the waves, and God might have saved Paul alone, or Paul and Luke and Aristarchus. Surely, it was not the keeping of all alive that is so important in this divine grant. They now hear that they belong to Paul by the gift of the Almighty who will save them from this tempest when their hope was almost gone. And Paul belongs to God as one who truly serves him. Is God not telling them that through Paul’s mediation they, too, like him, are to be this true God’s own in order to serve him?

They were to see and to hear much more about God, and we may, indeed, conclude that many of these men “sailing with Paul” came also to be saved in the higher sense.

Acts 27:25

25Calamity, the imminence of frightful death, is one of God’s means for opening men’s ears to his Word and to the thought of eternity. Paul’s words found willing hearers. No one scoffed at the vision of the angel and the message. Again, and for the mighty reason assigned, Paul bids them take heart by assuring them that he trusts what God has said (πιστεύω with the dative of the person). In καθʼ ὃντρόπον the antecedent is drawn into the relative clause. The Greek is more cumbersome; we say, “just as.” Paul confesses his confidence in God and in the message.

He does it in order to awaken a like confidence in all his shipmates. One man’s faith and confident confession are to aid other men in joining him. The strong faith is to support the weak, hesitant, timid. This was more than a star of hope in the black night of death; this was God himself, his angel, his great message, a burst of sunlight. “I believe God.” This word is placed on each man’s lips in order to confess it with Paul.

Acts 27:26

26From the angel’s words Paul makes the deduction that “we must fall onto some island,” δεῖ to indicate the necessity lying in the situation. On ἐκπεσεῖνεἰς note v. 17, in v. 29 this verb is used with κατά; our versions translate interpretatively, “be cast upon.” Paul’s judgment was correct. It was so in v. 10, where he spoke without revelation or inspiration. Where he speaks of the loss of lives in addition to the other loss, he was right; for the fact that no lives were lost was due wholly to God’s intervention and gracious gift. We take it that Paul spoke on the morning before the fourteenth night (v. 27).

Acts 27:27

27But when the fourteenth night came, we being borne on through in the Adria, along the middle of the night the sailors began to suspect that some land was drawing near to them. And on sounding they found twenty fathoms; and on standing through a little and having sounded again, they found fifteen fathoms. And fearing lest, perhaps, they fall along rough places, having thrown out four anchors from the stern, they kept praying for day to come.

In regard to the time, the fourteenth night as compared with the distance covered from Crete to Malta, see v. 17. This protracted tempest which continued unabated after fourteen days and nights shows the danger of navigation at this season (September 15–November 11), and why all navigation ceased from November 11 to March 10. We see no reason for “to and fro” as a translation of διά in διαφερομένων; “through” is sufficient, for they held their course in the same direction as before.

“The Adria” (not “the Adriatic” in our sense) is the sea between Malta, Italy, Greece, and Crete; later “the Adria” was extended to the coast of Cyrene. About midnight the sailors on duty began to suspect that some land was approaching. It is an interesting textual question whether to accept the reading προσάγειν, or with one codex and a Latin version or two the reading προσαχεῖν, resonare sibi, the Doric for προσηχεῖν. The former is, indeed, used intransitively in the sense of “to approach,” and the commentators explain that the verb is subjective, the sailors thinking of the land as coming toward them. But, in reality, during the thick, starless night (v. 20) they detected the nearness of land by the first sound of the breakers and the surf beating on the coast. This new sound was at first faint because of the storm, hence ὑπενόουν, “began to suspect some land sounding toward them.” One also sees how this more unusual infinitive by a slight alteration became, “was approaching,” when landmen copied the text. See M.-M. 546 for Moulton’s opinion that “resounding toward them” was a technical nautical term.

Acts 27:28

28The sailors promptly cast the sounding lead and found the depth to be twenty fathoms, the ὀργυιά or “stretch” being the distance between the tips of the middle fingers with the arms outstretched. “And when they had gone a little further” (A. V.). like, “after a little space” (R. V.), is interpretative for “having stood on through a little,” διά being used to indicate the interval. Then the sounding showed only fifteen fathoms, which indicated that they were rapidly approaching land. The noise they had begun to hear was certainly the roar of the breakers.

Acts 27:29

29They now feared that “they might fall out down on rough places,” the verb ἐκπίπτω being used as it was in v. 17 and 26. Those breakers sounded ominous in the dead of night as though the coast were full of rocks and reefs toward which the ship was rapidly drifting. Forthwith they threw out four anchors from the stern, all the anchors they had in the stern, in order to prevent the ship, if possible, from going straight onto the rocks. We see no reason for calling this anchoring from the stern “unusual” under the circumstances. This was not an anchoring in a calm bay or in waters where a position could be chosen but in a storm. The effect of the anchoring from the stern seems to be ill understood.

The ship was not driving head on, i. e., running before the wind. This would have carried it southwest into the great Syrtis. Under the lee of Cauda the prow had been pointed north or north by east. The impact of the wind on the starboard side drove the vessel west by north. Thus it was now in danger of being hurled port or larboard side onto the rocks. The moment the stern anchors held, the ship swung to the left as on a pivot, its prow pointing down wind, southwest, more or less directly toward the shore.

With the casting of the anchors the rudder was released, and the topsail was quickly taken in.

All this was done in the dark while the booming shore was wholly invisible, and only its general direction was being indicated by the sound. To say that anchoring from the prow would have caused the ship to swing about and to snap the anchor cables is unwarranted. The stern would have swung about and not the prow, nor would there have been more danger of snapping than by causing the prow to swing around by anchoring at the stern. It is not easy to show just why the stern was chosen. The assumption that it had already been determined to beach the ship, and that the calculation had already been made that in doing this with the prow down wind the ship might be controlled enough to choose a favorable spot ashore, overlooks the total darkness. All that can safely be said is that, if the anchors would not hold, it was thought best to head inshore at some kind of an angle. But the anchors held, and all now prayed for day to come so that they might be able at least to see.

Acts 27:30

30But the sailors seeking to flee out of the ship and having lowered the boat into the sea on pretext as though intending to lay out anchors from the prow, Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, Unless these remain in the ship, you yourselves cannot be saved. Then the soldiers cut away the ropes of the boat and let her fall off.

This scheme of the sailors was cunning, indeed. Once in the boat under the cover of the dark night, who could tell but what they were swept away from the ship by accident? They thought that they had more chance of getting ashore alive by means of the boat than by risking their lives in the ship, whose stern anchors might not hold the ship until daylight. Those who think that the sailing master and the captain (v. 11) were not party to the scheme forget that these officers of the vessel alone could order more anchors lowered.

The scheme progressed as far as lowering the boat into the sea (aorist to express the fact). One of the main officers gave the order and added the second regarding the additional anchors. It is Luke who calls this “a pretext.” With ὡς and the participle (genitive, continuing the genitive absolute, R. 966) he states what was used as the pretext, namely “intending (μελλόντων) to lay out anchors from the prow.” Ἐκτείνωἄγκυραν is used in this sense, Smith, Bible Dictionary, vocabulary IV, 3009. This was really an excellent plan. By means of the boat the anchors of the prow would be carried as far back as possible on each side of the ship so that, if the four stern anchors began to slip, these others would grip, and all of the anchors together would hold.

Acts 27:31

31It was the keen eye of Paul that detected the treachery. His speaking to the centurion and the soldiers and not to the ship’s officers shows plainly that the latter were party to the scheme, in fact, were the very men who were trying to effect it. One word from Paul is enough: “Unless these remain in the ship, you yourselves (ὑμεῖς, emphatic) cannot be saved.” Paul says nothing about himself and all the other passengers. It was enough that the centurion and his soldiers (who heard Paul) should lose their lives. But had Paul, by God’s own revelation, not declared that not a single life would be lost? He had, indeed; nor was even one man lost.

But God uses natural means, was even now using Paul, the centurion and his soldiers, and these wicked sailors. After the desertion of the latter no man would have been left to manage the ship (as in v. 39–41). It is idle to ask the hypothetical question as to what really would have happened if the scheme of the sailors had succeeded. Nearly all of such “if” questions are useless. When God foretells the future, he does so by foreseeing every detail and every means with the same certainty as though they had already occurred. Thus Paul’s frustration of the wicked scheme of the sailors was known to God when he gave him the prophecy.

Acts 27:32

32Upon the centurion’s orders the ropes that held the boat were promptly slashed through by the soldiers and the boat let go (ἐάω, nautical, see Smith above).

Acts 27:33

33Until day was about to come, Paul was beseeching them all to partake of food, saying: For the fourteenth day today you are continuously waiting foodless, having taken nothing to yourselves. Wherefore I beseech you to partake of food, for this is in the interest of your own safety, for of not one of you a hair from the head shall perish. And on having said this and having taken bread, he gave thanks to God in the presence of them all and, having broken it, he began to eat. And having become of good cheer, all also themselves took food. Now we were in the ship to the total number of souls two hundred seventy-six.

What a scene! It is still pitch-dark night, the storm is still howling as it had done during thirteen other nights, the surf is roaring on the uncertain coast, dim lanterns afford the only light, a vessel full of despairing people is expecting to be drowned in the wild sea! It is Paul who once more steps to the front. He connects the prophecy with the present situation: all lives will be saved, but the vessel will be lost. What could and should now be done? Here was a true leader in an emergency. He made all these people eat in order to hearten and to strengthen them for what lay ahead.

We may take it that little food had been served during these two weeks. Few had cared to eat beyond snatching a bite now and then, many of those who were not sailors had been seasick and had given up entirely. It was no small task to rally all of them. How Paul had borne up during the long ordeal we do not know but he had by God’s help and had courage enough for all of them. And had not God himself “graciously granted” all those sailing with him to Paul as a special gift to him (v. 24)? Had God not thus placed them in his charge?

Just as it had been the case with regard to the sailors, whom God would use and who must not abandon the ship, so now it was the case with regard to the food which was to hearten and to strengthen all of them: this was another means in God’s hands, and Paul was God’s agent. God achieves so many of his ends by blessing the proper, sensible means.

Luke has preserved Paul’s urgent words. The accusative “for the fourteenth day today” states the extent of the time of their having continued foodless. As is done so often in the Greek, the participle expresses the main idea, and the verb the adverbial thought: προσδοκῶντεςδιατελεῖτε, ihr wartet ununterbrochen (B.-D. 414), “you wait continuously” (Abbott-Smith, Manual Greek Lexicon, 112), and “foodless” is not to be taken absolutely, but as “having taken to yourselves nothing” in the way of a real meal. Since they were expecting death at any moment, who wanted to eat, how many could eat?

Acts 27:34

34Paul rouses them out of this despair. He urges them to partake of food, for this is in the interest (πρός, “towards”) of their own safety or deliverance. It is safety that lies ahead, not death; and the possessive adjective ὑμετέρας is stronger than the pronoun ὑμῶν, “your own safety.” “For of not one of you shall a hair from the head perish” intensifies the assurance of coming safety and is based on the prophecy mentioned in v. 24. The sense is that, without the least bodily injury, every person on the ship shall be saved. The word is the same as that used in Luke 18:21. A variant reading has, “shall fall from the head,” in agreement with 1 Sam. 14:45; 2 Sam. 14:11; 1 Kings 1:52; compare Matt. 10:30; Luke 12:7. Paul’s faith dismisses all doubts and questions; he voices it in the strongest language in order to hearten all the others.

Acts 27:35

35To his words he adds his example, for acts always speak more effectively than words. He took bread, gave thanks to God before them all, broke it, and began to eat. This action said more than Paul’s words; it showed all of them how to eat, namely with thanksgiving to God. It must not escape the reader that “he gave thanks” is a main verb which raises this act above those expressed by the participles. “In the presence of them all,” perhaps all pagans, is important. Of course, this was grace before meat, but it was the confession of the true God before pagans, it was preaching this God to all of them as the fount of every blessing, as their one Deliverer in their frightful danger. So simple and yet so significant an act!

No, Paul did not just break and eat; praying before eating was no formality with him, one that might be omitted at a time such as this. Prayer and thanksgiving were more essential in this hour than in more normal ones.

It is strange to find Blass and some others introducing the Lord’s Supper or at least the Agape because Paul took the bread, gave thanks, and broke it. Bread was always taken, broken, and eaten, and all Jews were taught to eat with thanksgiving. Our method of biting into sliced bread was never used, nor was bread sliced in those days. Paul did not ask all to give thanks with him; he did not regard all these men as a Christian or a Jewish family for the reason that they were nothing of the kind. Luke and Aristarchus regarded Paul’s thanksgiving as intended also for them; the rest listened, and even that was good for them. They saw a man of God acting like one even under dire circumstances.

Acts 27:36

36Cheered and heartened, at least to some degree, they all also themselves took food. So much Paul had gained.

Because v. 21–26, and again, resting on them, v. 33–35, introduce the supernatural element, critics eliminate them. This critical canon, applied to Acts generally, would leave it a senseless wreck. As regards this one chapter Ramsay writes to the point: “In the voyage Luke pictures Paul on a higher plane than common men, advising more skillfully than the skilled mariners, maintaining hope and courage when all were in despair, and breathing his hope and courage into others, playing the part of a true Roman in a Roman ship (let us rather say of a true Christian in a heathen ship), looked up to even by the centurion, and in his single self the savior of the lives of all. But the interpolation-theory would cut out the center of the picture.” Yes, it would do worse.

Acts 27:37

37Δέ is parenthetical because of the nature of the statement. On the size of ancient vessels see Smith, Bible Dictionary IV, 3004. Josephus was wrecked in the same part of the Levant in a vessel which carried 600 souls. The average ship was between 500 and 1, 000 tons, carrying one man for every 1½ tons. We need not trouble about the variant reading “about seventy-six” in place of “two hundred seventy-six.” But πᾶσαι is attributive and thus means “the total number.” It is Paul who towers above them all.

Acts 27:38

38And having been satisfied with food, they proceeded to lighten the ship by throwing out the wheat into the sea.

This was done before daylight. Everybody had eaten well. New life and vigor promptly showed themselves. After verbs of tasting we have the genitive. It was a real task to bring up the wheat from the holds and to heave it overboard, but the work was done with zest. The verb κουφίζω is nautical (Smith, cited above), and the tense indicates the action as being in progress. The lighter the vessel, the higher she would ride, and the farther up on the shore would she be thrown. That ship and cargo were doomed had been plain for some time.

Acts 27:39

39But when it became day, they recognized not the land; but they were aware of a sort of bay having a beach, into which they resolved, if they could, to drive the ship. And having cast loose the anchors, they let them go into the sea; at the same time having loosed the yokes of the paddle-rudders and having hoisted the foresail to the blow, they held for the beach. But lighting upon a place between the seas, they grounded the vessel; and the prow having become fixed, remained immovable, but the stern began to break by the violence.

The climax is reached, and Luke is both detailed and most accurate. Any careful reader sees this, but those who have investigated the actual locality where Paul’s ship was wrecked are astonished at Luke’s wonderful account. It is well to note how he records only the vital points, each just briefly but so as to furnish a perfect picture. One must carefully follow the imperfects from v. 38 on to v. 41; they are like a moving picture. It is difficult to reproduce them in English but they are beautiful in the Greek. Only in v. 41 the aorist stands out, ἐπέκειλαν; they “beached” the vessel. With one heave it grounded.

Day finally arrived, the shore began to become visible through the spray, but though the sailors strained their eyes, they “were not recognizing” (imperfect) the land. But “they were noting” (again imperfect) a sort of (τινά) bay or inlet (not “creek,” A. V.) with a beach. The ship had been driven just past Koura Point on the northwest slope of Malta, this Point forming the east boundary of what has since been called St. Paul’s Bay. Today the water is twenty fathoms deep at this place, and in a storm breakers beat upon this point.

The west side of this bay shows a decreasing depth. After passing the Point breakers would sound also from the opposite direction but in time to allow casting anchor. The English government survey states that anchors will hold here. On this western side of the bay there lies the island Salmonetta, so that from the vessel it would look like part of the mainland. But this west coast is made up entirely of high rocks, against which it was hopeless to beach the ship. That is why the sailors were so happy when they saw an indentation with a beach, one place where, by driving the ship ashore, they might hope to save at least their lives.

So “they were resolved (imperfect), if they could (protasis, condition of potentiality), to drive the ship” into this inlet (we prefer the reading ἐξῶσαι, from ἐξωθέω. There was no hope of saving the ship, ἐκσῶσαι, a variant reading). The translation of the A. V. is far better than that of the R. V., for βουλεύω does not mean, “to take counsel whether,” etc., but, “to resolve that,” etc. (B.-P. 228; also others.)

Acts 27:40

40The things that were thus done are grouped: an aorist participle with an imperfect verb, then, connected by ἅμα (“at the same time”), two aorist participles and another imperfect verb. After casting loose the four anchors at the stern they let go of them for good (εἴων, from ἐάω, is nautical; probably also περιελόντες, from περιαιρέω). The ship was thus adrift, was head on with the wind. At the same moment the two paddle-rudders were again fixed for use. Ancient vessels had no hinged rudder but had two long oar-like rudders, one on each side of the stern. The two were often operated together by being joined by crossbars, ζεῦγλαι, the same as ζευκτήριαι, “yokes” (cf.

Liddell and Scott on these words and on πηδάλιον). While the anchors at the stern held the ship, the rudders were drawn up and fastened so as to be out of the way. Now the fastenings of the yokes were loosed (ἀνέντες, second aorist participle), and the rudders slipped into the water and once more controlled the ship. At that moment, too, the foresail was hoisted to the blow of the wind. While ἀρτέμων is very rare, all nautical authorities are agreed that it means top foresail, which could be hoisted from the deck.

Thus “were they holding for the beach,” the foresail and the rudders controlling the vessel so as to head in the direction desired. Τῇπνεοῦσῃ is the present feminine participle converted into a noun: “to the blow,” B.-P. 1090. This was not a “breeze,” αὕρᾳ, Abbott-Smith and R., W. P., but a howling gale. Equally unacceptable is the supposition of Breusing and the German commentators that the rudders were released in order not to be used; for without them the ship could not have been pointed toward that inlet beach. That certainly was a swift run for the shore!

Acts 27:41

41But instead of reaching this goal they fell in with (περιπίπτω, “encountered,” M.-M. 507) “a place dividing the sea,” a sand bar that either projected from the beach or lay in front of it, the sea washing up from both Sides (διθάλασσον).

James Smith thinks this sand bar was the submerged isthmus between the isle Salmonetta and the coast, and his word carries great weight. Nevertheless, we question this view, for Luke makes it very plain that, while running for the inlet beach, they unexpectedly struck this sand bar “between seas.” It seems to be this adjective which our versions translate, “where two seas met” (following Luther’s der auf beiden Seiten Meer hatte), that favors this view of the submerged isthmus, for any isthmus has sea on both sides. But the word means, “between seas,” between deeper places on its two sides, thus “through the sea” and across the course of the ship which was making for the main shore and the inlet beach. This is the view of the German naval men reflected in B.-P. 304 who translates τόποςδιθάλασσος Aussengrund. So we do not say with Ramsay that the ship could not have struck a more fortunate place. It was not fortunate, it was unavoidable. “They grounded the vessel” on this bar and were still some distance from the beach. This is the only place where Luke changes from πλοῖον to ναῦς in referring to the same vessel.

With μέν and δέ balancing the statements the effect is described and imperfects are again employed. The prow, fixed fast in the sand bar, continued to remain immovable, but the stern began to be broken by the violence, certainly not of the shock, but of the pounding waves. The imperfects leave us with this situation while the next incident is told.

Acts 27:42

42Now the resolution of the soldiers was to kill the prisoners so that not one, by swimming out, escape. But the centurion, being resolved to save Paul, hindered them from the project and ordered those able to swim, by going overboard, to get out as the first to the land, and the rest, some on boards, some on whatever things from the ship. And so it came to pass that all came safe through to the land.

The soldiers were accountable for the prisoners with their own lives (see 12:18, 19). It was in order to protect their own lives for their accounting to the emperor for their prisoners that they resolved to kill all of them so that not one, by escaping, might cause them to be held accountable with their own lives. To say that they “owed this to their honor” is unwarranted. Here again βουλή is not “counsel” but an actual resolution; see the verb in v. 39, “to resolve.” The soldiers did not merely advise this but agreed on it and told the centurion about their resolution. The texts vary between the subjunctive διαφύγῃ and the optative διαφύγοι, either being correct (R. 987).

43, 44) But the centurion vetoed the project (τοῦβουλήματος, more than “purpose”), not because he was “more humane,” but for a different reason. He was personally more in danger of forfeiting his own life than his soldiers in case one of his prisoners should manage to escape. Under other circumstances he himself would have ordered the prisoners killed. His soldiers counted on that. It is generally assumed that his “being resolved to save Paul” implies the alternative of killing all the prisoners, Paul included, or of killing none. But he certainly could have ordered all killed except Paul.

And this the more readily because all the other prisoners had been condemned to death and were being sent to their death in Rome (see v. 1), while no sentence whatever had been passed on Paul. This centurion was grateful to Paul as the man who had practically saved his life by his courageous actions. But more is implied. This centurion was impressed by Paul’s prophecy that God had “graciously granted” to Paul (v. 24) all his shipmates, including himself (the centurion). That word of prophecy gripped the centurion and made him veto the entire proposition of the soldiers; for Paul’s sake he spared all the prisoners. Verbs of hindering take the genitive.

So he gave the command that all the prisoners and the soldiers who could swim should, by dropping overboard (ἀπό in the participle), get to the land as the first ones (πρώτους), so that they might help also any of the rest in getting to land. The sailors, of course, were able to swim and take care of themselves. The passengers, including Luke and Aristarchus, used boards (planks) or anything else that served to keep them afloat. The gale drove the waves ashore so that all of these had only to keep afloat in order to be thrown toward land. The aorist ἐκέλευσε implies that the order was promptly carried out.

“And thus it came to pass” (this ἐγένετο which is often used by Luke after the fashion of the LXX) marks something weighty and notable. The entire 276 “came through safe to land” (were brought safely through, passive). The angel’s word was fulfilled (v. 24), and that in spite of everything that worked to the contrary even to the very last.

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

M.-M The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and other non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.

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.