Acts 28:17

Act_28:17-22

After three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together.

Pauls first conference with the Jewish chiefs

Note--

I. His address. In justifying himself he states--

1. That his captivity was not due to any crime against Israel or its religious customs.

2. That he had been compelled to appeal to Caesar through the protest of the Jews against his liberation, although the Roman authorities judged that liberation to be just.

3. That his object in appealing to Caesar was not to bring any charge against the Jews, but simply for his own protection.

4. That it was only on account of the Messianic hope of Israel that he was a prisoner and wished to have an interview with them.

II. Their reply. Note--

1. Their avowal of ignorance of the whole matter. This may seem strange, but it must be remembered that intercourse between Rome and Judaea was frequently interrupted by the disorders of the times.

2. Their desire for information respecting the unpopular sect. Justin Martyr says: The Jews of Jerusalem sent messengers to their brethren in every part of the world to prejudice them against the disciples of Christ. These men had heard of the sect, but every word that came to their ears was loaded with reproach. This was what Simeon had predicted. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

Pauls farewell to the Jews

1. A last testimony to his innocence (Act_28:17-20).

2. A last confession of Jesus as the Messiah (Act_28:23).

3. A last effusion of love towards his people (Act_28:17; Act_28:19-20).

4. A last stroke of the hammer on hardened hearts (Act_28:25-28). (K. Gerok.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 28:17-20. And after three days — Given to rest and prayer; Paul called the chief of the Jews together — His great love to the Jews induced him, wherever he came and found any, to labour in the first place to promote their salvation; and as he was now bound, and could not conveniently go round to them, he sent for the chief of them to come to him, his confinement not being so strict but he had liberty to receive the visits of his friends. He had reason to suppose that they might be offended, and imbibe prejudices against him, when they heard he had appealed from the courts in Judea to Cesar, and he judged it would be very proper for him to make an apology to them for so doing; and, in order to prepare their minds for receiving the gospel, to suffer nothing to be wanting on his part, to make them sensible of the affectionate regard that he had for them, notwithstanding the injurious treatment he had met with from their countrymen at Jerusalem. For these purposes he wished to have this interview with them. And when — According to his desire; they were come together — In the private house where he dwelt; he said, Men and brethren — Addressing them in respectful language; and thereby intimating, that he expected to be treated by them both as a man and a brother; though I have committed nothing against the people, &c. — Seeing him chained, they might have suspected he had committed something against them. Therefore he first obviates this suspicion. Yet was I delivered prisoner to the Romans — Their accusing him as a criminal before Felix the governor, and demanding judgment against him, was, in effect, delivering him prisoner into the hands of the Romans; and that at a time when he desired no more but a fair and impartial trial by their own law. But if he had declared the whole truth in this matter, the Jews would have appeared in a worse light than that in which he now represented them; for he might with truth have asserted that they would have murdered him without any colour of law or justice, if the Romans had not protected him. Who, when they had examined me — And had heard all that my adversaries could offer against me; would have let me go — That is, would have set me at liberty; because there was no cause of death in me — No crime, or offence, which they could judge to be a sufficient reason for putting me to death, or for keeping me under longer confinement. But when the Jews spake against it — He speaks tenderly of them, not mentioning their repeated attempts upon his life. I was constrained to appeal unto Cesar — To remove my cause to Rome, finding that the governors of Judea, one after another, stood so much in awe of the Jews, that they would not discharge me for fear of making them their enemies. Not that I had aught to accuse my nation of — Not that I had any design to accuse others; for, whatever injury I have received from any particular persons, I heartily forgive them, and wish the whole Jewish people, without exception, even my most inveterate enemies among them, all possible prosperity and happiness; but I was forced, contrary to my inclination, to make this appeal, purely in my own defence, and to prevent that assassination which I knew some persons were contriving against me. For this cause, therefore, have I called for you — As soon as I came hither; to see and speak with you — With a view, if possible, to prevent any prejudice which might be entertained by any of you to my disadvantage; because that for the hope of Israel — What Israel hopes for, namely, the Messiah and the resurrection; I am bound with this chain — And exposed to all these sufferings; and therefore, rather merit your compassion and friendship, than your resentment.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Offer of Gospel to Jews, Act_28:17-29.

17. And—According to his own motto in his epistle to the Romans, “to the Jew first and also to the Gentile,” Paul first makes his appeal to the Jews at Rome. Unable to go to them, he invites them to himself. The usual result occurs; here in the world’s metropolis a minority believe, the majority harden themselves, and he announces his future and final departure to the Gentiles.

After three days—Spent in recovering from fatigue and seeing his special Roman friends.

Chief—In character and influence rather than office. Paul’s purpose was not mainly to exculpate himself from infidelity to Judaism. This exculpation is but preparatory to the pressing Jesus the Messiah upon their faith.

Yet was I delivered—He states the proceedings of the Sanhedrin against him in the most gentle terms possible, giving the fact passively without holding any body responsible.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL REMARKS

Act_28:17. The best authorities omit Paul. The chief of the Jews.—Better, those that were the chief (first, or principal men) of the Jews, or, otherwise, those that were of the Jews first. Most likely the parties summoned were the rulers of the synagogues, and such as were socially exalted.

Act_28:18. Would have let me go, or desired to set me at liberty.—Bethge and Holtzmann, who regard this address of Paul’s to the Jews of Rome as a pure compilation of Luke’s, pronounce the statement in this clause incorrect, and as justified neither by Act_25:9 nor by any other verse. But the apostle’s intention obviously was to say that the Roman officials who examined him had found no fault in him, and would have dismissed him from the bar had it not been for the opposition of the Jews; and this is distinctly the impression one receives from reading the accounts of the different trials the apostle underwent.

Act_28:21. We neither received letters out of Judæa concerning thee.—Zeller, Baur, Wendt, and Holtzmann think it incredible that the Jews of Rome had no knowledge of Paul, of his missionary labours, or of his imprisonment. But the Jewish leaders do not say they were entirely ignorant of either the apostle or his doings; merely they assert they had received no official intelligence regarding him from the Palestinian Church, either by letter or by messenger (see “Homiletical Analysis”).

Act_28:22. As concerning this sect.—The above critics also pronounce it strange that the Jewish leaders should have affected to be ignorant of the existence of a Christian Church in Rome, and detect in their statement a deliberate misrepresentation of history on the part of the author of the Acts for the purpose of sustaining his theory that Paul was an orthodox Jew, who only turned to the Gentile mission in Rome as elsewhere after the Jews had declined to accept his gospel. (See “Homiletical Analysis.”)

HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Act_28:17-22

An Interview with the Jewish Chiefs; or, an Explanation of his Imprisonment

I. The assembly convened.—

1. The place. Either Paul’s own private dwelling (Act_28:30), which doubtless, through the kindness of Luke, Aristarchus, and other Christian friends, he had been enabled to hire; or a temporary lodging which had been provided for him by some of the Roman brethren “Tradition points to the vestibule of the Church of Santa Maria, at the junction of the Via Lata and the Corso, as the site of this dwelling; but it has been urged by Dr. Philip, at present working as a missionary in the Ghetto at Rome, in a pamphlet On the Ghetto (Rome, 1874), that this site, forming part of the old Flaminian way, was then occupied by arches and public buildings, and that it was far more probable Paul would fix his quarters near those of his own countrymen. He adds that a local tradition points to No. 2 in the Via Stringhari, just outside the Ghetto, as having been St. Paul’s dwelling place, but does not give any documentary evidence as to its nature or the date to which it can be traced back” (Plumptre).

2. The time. After three days, which most likely the apostle spent in recruiting his wearied frame after the long and fatiguing journey he had undergone. It showed his zeal for the cause he represented, that he rested only three days. If any part of these days was devoted to social intercourse, it would certainly be with Luke, Aristarchus, and the friends who had so kindly met him at Appii Forum and The Three Taverns.

3. The guests. In other circumstances Paul would have sought out his countrymen at their synagogues. As this was impossible in the position in which he then was, he could only invite them to wait on him at his lodging. Accordingly at his request they come—the chief men or rulers of the synagogues, and others probably of high rank to whom invitations had been issued. The Jewish community in Rome inhabited the “Trastevere” or district beyond the river, a part of the city then notorious as the residence of a low rabble and a place of the meanest merchandise. The beginnings of the Jewish colony in that quarter could have been traced back to the captives brought to the capital by Pompey after his eastern campaign, many of whom had become freemen, and to whom additions were constantly made as the years went on, in consequence of the mercantile relations which subsisted between Rome and the East. Many of these colonists were wealthy, and contributed largely for sacred purposes to the mother country. (See Conybeare and Howson, ii. 388, 389; compare “Hints” on Act_28:17).

II. The explanation offered.—

1. A protestation of his innocence. To the leaders of the Jewish community Paul explicitly affirmed that, though a prisoner, as they beheld, he had been guilty of no offence against the people—i.e., the Jewish nation or against the customs of their fathers. Paul had all along contended that Christianity formed the legitimate because divinely promised development of Judaism, and that in seeking to carry over his countrymen to an acceptance of Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah, he was not actuated by hostility to the ancestral religion. Nay, he had even shown by his unwonted zeal in attending the Jewish feasts and by his observance of a Nazarite vow (Act_21:26), that he was well disposed towards the customs of the fathers; and, though critics like Zeller (Die Apostelgeschichte, p. 292) cannot understand how Paul with a good conscience could have advanced the claim here put into his lips, when he knew that his whole activity aimed at nothing else than to subvert the Mosaic religion through faith in Christ, and that his whole religious consciousness had its middle point in the abrogation of the Law through the gospel, it is by no means hard to comprehend if one remembers that Paul never did insist upon a Jew renouncing Moses before he exercised faith in Christ.

2. A vindication of his appeal. The apostle doubtless felt that his countrymen in Rome would want to understand how he came to be a prisoner if he had not been chargeable with any offence; and in order to meet this unspoken but natural request, he proceeded to relate how the Roman officials who examined him were so convinced of his innocence that they would willingly have set him at liberty had it not been for the interference of the Jews—i.e., of the Sanhedrists—and how solely, as a means of self-defence, and not at all because he intended to prefer any accusation against the nation, he had been obliged to appeal unto Cæsar. The accuracy of this statement also has been challenged by Holtzmann (Hand Commentar, in loco), and that on two grounds: first, that the Roman officials expressed no such desire to liberate Paul as Luke here states; and, second, that it was not the Jews but Festus (Act_25:9-12) who constrained Paul to appeal to Caesar. But one who reads between the lines at Act_25:9 can have no difficulty in perceiving that, while Festus demanded of Paul whether he would go to Jerusalem to be judged, Festus himself felt inwardly disposed to discharge the apostle, and probably would have done so but for the threatening attitude assumed by the Sanhedrists; and that his actual proposal partook of the nature of a compromise, which enabled him neither to condemn Paul nor to displease the Jews. Moreover, if this explanation be correct, it will show how Paul could speak of the Jews rather than of Festus as the parties whose action constrained his appeal.

3. A reason stated for his invitation. He wished himself to place his case before the bar of their unbiassed judgments, and to let them know that he was in reality a sufferer for one of the main points of the national faith, that in fact he was a prisoner for the hope of Israel. Perhaps also he cherished the expectation that in this way he would obviate any hostile interposition on their part in the course of his trial (Holtzmann).

III. The answer returned.—

1. A confession of ignorance. About the details of his case. The Jewish leaders assured the apostle that they had neither received letters from Judæa concerning him, nor had any of the brethren arrived in the city to report or speak harm of him. According to some interpreters the synagogue chiefs imagined that Paul half suspected they might have heard disingenuous and depreciatory rumours concerning him from the Judæan metropolis, and were desirous of disabusing his mind of any such suspicion. Others are at a loss to understand how people, living in the centre of the world, as the Roman Jews did, could have professed to be unacquainted with the extraordinary commotion excited by Paul in every Jewish community into which he had hitherto come. It should, however, be noted that they do not assert they had never before heard of Paul—in which case they would scarcely have accepted his invitation to wait upon him in his lodging; but only that they had received no official papers from Judæa about his case, and that no personal messenger had arrived with tidings to his disadvantage. Both of which statements might easily have been true. Until Paul had appealed to Cæsar the Jerusalem Sanhedrists had no special reason for sending word about him to the Roman Christians; and even after that event, as no great interval elapsed between the appeal and the voyage to Rome, it is easy to comprehend how communications or passengers from Judæa may not have had time to reach Rome before the apostle himself arrived.

2. An expression of desire. To hear what Paul himself had to say about the new sect of which he was so distinguished a champion, and which, they told him, as a reason for their request, it had come to their ears, was everywhere spoken against. How they could have pretended to be so ignorant of Christianity as to represent it as a sect of which they had only incidentally heard has perplexed the critics, some of whom do not hesitate to suggest that the synagogue leaders told a lie (Schneckenburger, Tholuck), while others see in the narrative a falsification of actual history on the part of the writer, for the purpose either of vindicating Paul’s character as that of an orthodox Jew (Zeller), or of showing how Paul in Rome, as elsewhere, commenced a Christian mission only after the gospel had been rejected by the Jews (Baur, Holtzmann). That a large and important Christian Church existed in Rome at this date the Epistle to the Romans written from Corinth shows, not to speak of the evidence supplied by the Neronic persecution, of which Tacitus says, “Nero subdidit reos et quæsitissimis pænis affecit quos per flagitia invisos, vulgus Christianos appellabat” (Annals, 15:44). That the Jewish leaders were ignorant of the existence of such a Christian community is inconceivable. Nor do they deny that they were cognisant of its existence. Only they express themselves concerning it with caution, talking of it as a sect everywhere spoken against, about which they were anxious to receive further information. As to the reason of this reserve various explanations have been offered; as, for instance, that even before Claudius had banished the Jews from Rome the Christians had separated themselves from the synagogue, so that they remained practically unknown to the Jews who returned after the edict of banishment had been recalled (Olshausen); that the Jews purposely deceived Paul in order to obtain from him intelligence about the sect (Tholuck); and that the Jews seeing Paul apparently in favour with the Roman authorities, did not wish to assume an attitude of strong opposition towards the Christians, and therefore carefully concealed their private opinions (Philippi).

Learn.—

1. That the love of a truly Christian heart for the salvation of others is practically unquenchable. Paul’s desire for the conversion of his countrymen was a remarkable phenomenon. Had he not imbibed much of his Master’s spirit, his love for his own kinsman must have long since been extinguished.

2. That a truly Christian heart is incapable of revenge. Paul had nothing to accuse his nation of, although they had unjustly hurled against him baseless charges, loaded him with undeserved chains, and even pitilessly thirsted for his blood as well as frequently attempted his life.

3. That Christ’s followers are tender of the errors and superstitions of others. Paul in preaching Christ never ran down Moses or depreciated the value of his religious institutions.

4. That good men are always careful of their own good names. Paul desired to protect himself against the calumnies that he feared might have reached the ears of his countrymen in Rome.

5. That the Christian Church has in no age lacked detractors. As in the first, so in the nineteenth century, this sect is everywhere by some, though happily now nowhere by all, spoken against.

HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Act_28:17. The Jews in Rome.—“The Jewish quarter in Rome had for almost a hundred years been the unceasing object of attention, of sport, and of anger, to the metropolis. Before the first Jewish war the number of the Jews in Rome had been of less importance, but Pompey, Cassius, and Antoninus had sold numerous Jewish prisoners of war as slaves, who either soon were made free because they were of little value as slaves, or indeed were even many times bought free. These liberti formed the proper root of the Jewish community in Rome, on which account the Romish Jews were styled simply the Libertines.” So, at least, narrates Philo the origin of the Jewish community in Rome. “Cæsar desired for himself no employment for his genius, reports the philosopher, and made no secret that he approved of the Jews when they abominated such. Otherwise had he not permitted that a large part of the town on that side of the Tiber should be occupied by those of whom the greater number were freed men—that is, persons who were set free by their masters, because they could not be constrained to forsake the customs of their fathers. He knew also that they sent to Jerusalem collections under the. name of ‘firstfruits,’ by means of representatives who offered these on their behalf. Intentionally had they been restricted with their retail traffic to the fourteenth district across the Tiber, whither all dirty trades were banished. Their quarter lay upon the slope of the Vatican, and stretched itself over one of the flat islands in the Tiber, which were exposed to inundations, and at which the Tiber boats coming from Ostia were accustomed to land. Here, where the ships’ cargoes were discharged, was for the Jewish brokers the correct place which from year to year they in greater numbers occupied.” … “To the grief of the Roman world the Jewish immigrants in no way restricted themselves to business in general, but with that manysidedness which was peculiar to them, no department of life was safe from their invasion. Whilst great and small, from Josephus, the favourite of Flavius, who dwelt in the palace at Septizonium, down to the female beggar who was stationed on the Capena, they loved to make gain, and by their Oriental manners, which were strange to the metropolitan, and the abomination in which the Romans held the gods and mysterious writings of the East, they largely increased their power, on the other hand we see them, through their pliantness, accommodating themselves to the manners of the metropolis, and developing an incredible allsidedness. What business had the son of Israel not practised in the capital of the world? Merchant, banker, shopkeeper, pedlar, as a rule, he was also an officer, and frequently a soldier; he was scholar, poet, critic, yea, even actor and singer. He swore by the temple of the Thunderer, and declaimed in mythological rôles tragic trimeters to the astonishment of the court. He practised also as a physician, and the doctor of Herod stood in such favour that one had better lock up his silver if he allowed himself to bargain with him. This emancipated Jew loved to imitate all the ways of the heathen. In spite of certain mockery from the heathen, he pressed into the public baths, and with the persistence peculiar to him blocked up the best places, doubly pleased if he succeeded in concealing his Jewish origin. The sportive youth of the metropolis he joined in all playgrounds with success; in short, no place was either so holy or profane that it could not lodge a Jewish guest. The speech of this Jewish community in Rome was the Greek, as indeed Paul had written in Greek to the Christian Church there. The inscriptions upon the Jewish churchyard in the Transtiberine quarter and upon the other superior churchyard on the Appian Way at Capena and upon the third in the Catacombs are composed in a Hebraising Greek, less often in bad Latin, never in Hebrew. Consequently even in the Metropolis the Jewish Greek jargon of Asia Minor was spoken, as Martial makes merry over the manner of speech even of the literary Jews” (Hausrath, der Apostel Paulus, pp. 474–478).

Act_28:20. The Hope of Israel.

I. Implanted in Israel’s heart by God.

II. Recorded in their sacred scriptures.

III. Fulfilled by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

IV. Published to the Jewish people.

V. Rejected by the unbelieving portion of the nation.

Paul’s Chain.

I. A disgrace to Israel.

II. An honour to Paul.

III. A comfort to Christians.—In case they should be called upon to suffer for the truth.

Act_28:22. Everywhere spoken Against. That this could have been said of Christianity about the middle of the first century was a signal testimony to many things.

I. To the truthfulness of Christ’s prediction.—That against His people men should say all manner of evil (Mat_5:11; Joh_16:2).

II. To the wickedness of the human heart.—Which could speak evil of those who were really the lights of the world and the salt of the earth (Mat_5:13-14).

III. To the success of Christianity.—Which had made its presence known and felt even in the centre of the world (Rom_1:8).

IV. To the spiritual power of the gospel.—Which roused against itself the opposition of the world.

Act_28:22. Everywhere spoken against; or, Popular Objections against Christianity.—Now, as in Paul’s day, Christianity is objected to by various classes of persons, and on widely different grounds; as, e.g.—

I. The supernatural character of its origin.—This has been a difficulty with Christianity from the beginning. Christ advanced this claim on behalf of His doctrine when He first promulgated it (Joh_7:16); and indeed the New Testament writers generally maintain that, like Mosaism, Christianity has its source in Divine revelation, and not merely in such Divine revelation as might be imparted to the human mind through, but in such as transcended, ordinary channels. The Pharisees and Jews generally rejected this claim on the ground that they found it impossible to accept as Divine revelation what seemed to them so unmistakably to set aside the revelation which they believed had been given to Moses (Joh_9:29). Scientific men at the present day reject it as in their judgment incompatible with the Reign of Law, affirming in vindication of their action that, if there be a God, of which many of them are not sure, they have no knowledge of any action of His that transcends the bounds of natural law (2Pe_3:4). Philosophers reject it on the ground that a supernatural origin is not required for the production of what they find to be the essence or kernel of Christianity; after having stripped off what they regard as the legendary accretions with which it has come down through the past nineteen centuries, all that is valuable in it, they affirm may be sufficiently accounted for by the evolution of the human mind. Students of comparative religion, as they are called, reject it on the plea that other religions, such as Mohammedanism and Buddhism, claim to have originated in the same way, and yet their claims have not been accepted by the critical faculty of mankind, though as religions they contain not a few of the same doctrines as Christianity itself.

II. The metaphysical character of its doctrines.—Not so much the circumstance that the Christian documents record miracles, in which the scientific and philosophic worlds do not believe—though, of course, to many this does constitute a serious difficulty in accepting the religion which these documents teach; but the circumstance that as a religion Christianity claims to be based on a series of supernatural facts, which, if once admitted, not only explain and justify the miracles complained of, but render all other objections to Christianity itself unreasonable, These facts are:

1. The incarnation of the Second Person in the Godhead in the person of Jesus; which, if true, involves not only Christ’s supreme divinity, but demands also a plurality of persons in the Godhead.

2. The vicarious sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the cross, which, if true, involves the antecedent doctrine of the fall of man, the total corruption of the race, and the inability of man to save himself, as well as the possibility of a free salvation.

3. The resurrection of Christ from the dead, which again, if true, involves the truth of the two preceding, and the certainty of both a future resurrection of the dead (Act_24:15; 1Co_15:20) and a final judgment of the world (Act_17:31).

4. The necessity of a free justification by Divine grace, and an entire regene ration by the Holy Spirit, in order to salvation—which, once more, if true, lays the axe at the root of self-sufficiency and pride, and thus inevitably excites the hostility of the natural heart. It is perfectly well known that not one of these doctrines is palatable to the world, and even within the precincts of the Church itself there are those who in some surprising manner claim to be counted Christians who repudiate them all.

III. The objectionable character of its precepts.—Many of the objections urged against these are indeed unreasonable and contradictory, having only this in common, that they dislike Christianity and often lead to its rejection.

1. According to one class of objectors, the precepts of Christianity are too humbling. This holds good, especially of the commandments, to repent of sin and believe in Jesus Christ. Did repentance of sin mean nothing more than a formal, conventional, and external acknowledgment that one had not behaved exactly as he should have done—an acknowledgment which one might condescendingly make without unduly putting an indignity upon his self-respect; and were faith in Jesus Christ nothing beyond an equally generous recognition on man’s part that Christ had lived in His day and generation a noble and self-sacrificing life, from which all subsequent ages had received an inspiration and impulse for good, then the acceptance of Christianity by men’s hearts would not have been so difficult as it is But repentance being an inward and real sorrow for sin, which prostrates the soul before God in self-humiliation, and faith signifying the soul’s absolute and final surrender to Jesus Christ for salvation and eternal life, the soul instinctively becomes conscious of antagonism against demands so imperious and exacting.

2. To a second class, the precepts of Christianity are too severe—too lofty, too spiritual, too inward, too thoroughgoing. Easily enough summed up in love to God and love to man, when it comes to be understood that what Christianity regards as a perfect discharge of these duties is not the performance of a few external, conventional, and formal courtesies to God in the shape of bodily worship, however elaborate or costly, and philanthropies to man in the shape of munificent and frequent gifts of charity; but the continual up-going of the heart towards God in adoring love and obedience, and outgoing of the heart towards man in sympathy and succour—then Christianity is felt to be too exalted, too inward, too exacting a religion for the natural man, with the almost inevitable result that it is spoken against and rejected.

3. A third class complain that the precepts of Christianity are too impracticable. While to many the Sermon on the Mount, with its doctrines of non-resistance of evil, renunciation of wealth, love to enemies, doing unto others as one would that others should do unto him, etc., is esteemed the very essence of Christ’s religion, the class of objectors now alluded to pronounce its programme impracticable and visionary—in fact, declare its non-suitability to the exigencies of modern civilisation, shrink not from saying that its morality will not do for either commercial or political life, and that if Christianity insists on its doing, Christianity must go to the wall. Of course Christianity will not go to the wall, but the nation and the people shall go to the wall that propose to transact their business s and conduct their politics on other principles than its.

IV. The visionary character of its rewards.—Had Christianity proposed to confer on its adherents immediate benefits of a material kind, such as increased wealth, power, pleasure, fame, such as the world thirsts for, its reputation might have stood higher to day than it does with the unbelieving world. But the chief blessings which Christianity undertakes to confer on its adherents are of a spiritual sort (see Eph_1:3), and to be enjoyed in their fulness in a future world. Not that Christianity has nothing to confer on its adherents here, because it has (see 1Ti_4:8)—it has a sense of the pardoning mercy of God, peace of conscience, joy in the Holy Ghost, a growing enlightenment in the truth of God with a growing conformity to the image of God, and over and above these it has all things needful for life and godliness (2Pe_1:3), all those “other things” which the heavenly Father knows His children require (Mat_6:33). But because Christianity sets a higher value on its spiritual blessings than on its temporal gifts (John 6 :), teaches men to set their affections on things above rather than on things on the earth (Col_3:1-2), and encourages them to seek for their inheritance in the future life rather than in this (1Pe_1:3-5), men pronounce it visionary, otherworldly, illusory, and pass it by for what they imagine to be a more substantial good, but what they eventually discover to be a shadow.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

Acts

THE LAST GLIMPSE OF PAUL

Act 28:17 - Act 28:31.

We have here our last certain glimpse of Paul. His ambition had long been to preach in Rome, but he little knew how his desire was to be fulfilled. We too are often surprised at the shape which God’s answers to our wishes take. Well for us if we take the unexpected or painful events which accomplish some long-cherished purpose as cheerfully and boldly as did Paul. We see him in this last glimpse as the centre of three concentric widening circles.

I. We have Paul and the leaders of the Roman synagogue.

He was not the man to let the grass grow under his feet. After such a voyage a pause would have been natural for a less eager worker; but three days were all that he allowed himself, and these would, no doubt, be largely occupied by intercourse with the Roman Christians, and with the multitude of little things to be looked after on entering on his new lodging. Paul had gifts that we have not, he exemplified many heroic virtues which we are not called on to repeat; but he had eminently the prosaic virtue of diligence and persistence in work, and the humblest life affords a sphere in which that indispensable though homely excellence of his can be imitated. What a long holiday some of us would think we had earned, if we had come through what Paul had encountered since he left Caesarea!

The summoning of the ‘chief of the Jews’ to him was a prudent preparation for his trial rather than an evangelistic effort. It was important to ascertain their feelings, and if possible to secure their neutrality in regard to the approaching investigation. Hence the Apostle seeks to put his case to them so as to show his true adherence to the central principles of Judaism, insisting that he is guiltless of revolt against either the nation or the law and traditional observances; that he had been found innocent by the Palestinian representatives of Roman authority; that his appeal to Caesar, which would naturally seem hostile to the rulers in Jerusalem, was not meant as an accusation of the nation to which he felt himself to belong, and so was no sign of deficient patriotism, but had been forced on him as his only means of saving his life.

It was a difficult course which he had to steer, and he picked his way between the shoals with marvellous address. But his explanation of his position is not only a skilful piece of apologia, but it embodies one of his strongest convictions, which it is worth our while to grasp firmly; namely, that Christianity is the true fulfilment and perfecting of the old revelation. His declaration that, so far from his being a deserter from Israel, he was a prisoner just because he was true to the Messianic hope which was Israel’s highest glory, was not a clever piece of special pleading meant for the convincing of the Roman Jews, but was a principle which runs through all his teaching. Christians were the true Jews. He was not a recreant in confessing, but they were deserters in denying, the fulfilment in Jesus of the hope which had shone before the generation of ‘the fathers.’ The chain which bound him to the legionary who ‘kept him,’ and which he held forth as he spoke, was the witness that he was still ‘an Hebrew of the Hebrews.’

The heads of the Roman synagogue went on the tack of non-committal, as was quite natural. They were much too astute to accept at once an ex parte statement, and so took refuge in professing ignorance. Probably they knew a good deal more than they owned. Their statement has been called ‘unhistorical,’ and, oddly enough, has been used to discredit Luke’s narrative. It is a remarkable canon of criticism that a reporter is responsible for the truthfulness of assertions which he reports, and that, if he has occasion to report truthfully an untruth, he is convicted of the untruth which he truthfully reports. Luke is responsible for telling what these people found it convenient to say; they are responsible for its veracity. But they did not say quite as much as is sometimes supposed. As the Revised Version shows, they simply said that they had not had any official deputation or report about Paul, which is perfectly probable, as it was extremely unlikely that any ship leaving after Paul’s could have reached Italy. They may have known a great deal about him, but they had no information to act upon about his trial. Their reply is plainly shaped so as to avoid expressing any definite opinion or pledging themselves to any course of action till they do hear from ‘home.’

They are politely cautious, but they cannot help letting out some of their bile in their reference to ‘this sect.’ Paul had said nothing about it, and their allusion betrays a fuller knowledge of him and it than it suited their plea for delay to own. Their wish to hear what he thought sounded very innocent and impartial, but was scarcely the voice of candid seekers after truth. They must have known of the existence of the Roman Church, which included many Jews, and they could scarcely be ignorant of the beliefs on which it was founded; but they probably thought that they would hear enough from Paul in the proposed conference to enable them to carry the synagogue with them in doing all they could to procure his condemnation. He had hoped to secure at least their neutrality; they seem to have been preparing to join his enemies. The request for full exposition of a prisoner’s belief has often been but a trap to ensure his martyrdom. But we have to ‘be ready to give to every man a reason for the hope that is in us,’ even when the motive for asking it may be anything but the sincere desire to learn.

II. Therefore Paul was willing to lay his heart’s belief open, whatever doing so might bring.

So the second circle forms round him, and we have him preaching the Gospel to ‘many’ of the Jews. He could not go to the synagogue, so much of the synagogue came to him. The usual method was pursued by Paul in arguing from the old revelation, but we may note the twofold manner of his preaching, ‘testifying’ and ‘persuading,’ the former addressed more to the understanding, and the latter to the affections and will, and may learn how Christian teachers should seek to blend both-to work their arguments, not in frost, but in fire, and not to bully or scold or frighten men into the Kingdom, but to draw them with cords of love. Persuasion without a basis of solid reasoning is puerile and impotent; reasoning without the warmth of persuasion is icy cold, and therefore nothing grows from it.

Note too the protracted labour ‘from morning till evening.’ One can almost see the eager disputants spending the livelong day over the rolls of the prophets, relays of Rabbis, perhaps, relieving one another in the assault on the one opponent’s position, and he holding his ground through all the hours-a pattern for us teachers of all degrees.

The usual effects followed. The multitude was sifted by the Gospel, as its hearers always are, some accepting and some rejecting. These double effects ever follow it, and to one or other of these two classes we each belong. The same fire melts wax and hardens clay; the same light is joy to sound eyes and agony to diseased ones; the same word is a savour of life unto life and a savour of death unto death; the same Christ is set for the fall and for the rising of men, and is to some the sure foundation on which they build secure, and to some the stone on which, stumbling, they are broken, and which, falling on them, grinds them to powder.

Paul’s solemn farewell takes up Isaiah’s words, already used by Jesus. It is his last recorded utterance to his brethren after the flesh, weighty, and full of repressed yearning and sorrow. It is heavy with prophecy, and marks an epoch in the sad, strange history of that strange nation. Israel passes out of sight with that dread sentence fastened to its breast, like criminals of old, on whose front was fixed the record of their crimes and their condemnation. So this tragic self-exclusion from hope and life is the end of all that wondrous history of ages of divine revelation and patience, and of man’s rebellion. The Gospel passes to the Gentiles, and the Jew shuts himself out. So it has been for nineteen centuries. Was not that scene in Paul’s lodging in Rome the end of an epoch and the prediction of a sad future?

III. Not less significant and epoch-making is the glimpse of Paul which closes the Acts.

We have the third concentric circle-Paul and the multitudes who came to his house and heard the Gospel. We note two points here. First, that his unhindered preaching in the very heart of the world’s capital for two whole years is, in one aspect, the completion of the book. As Bengel tersely says, ‘The victory of the word of God, Paul at Rome. The apex of the Gospel, the end of Acts.’

But, second, as clearly, the ending is abrupt, and is not a satisfying close. The lengthened account of the whole process of Paul’s imprisonments and hearings before the various Roman authorities is most unintelligible if Luke intended to break off at the very crucial point, and say nothing about the event to which he had been leading up for so many chapters. There is much probability in Ramsay’s suggestion that Luke intended to write a third book, containing the account of the trial and subsequent events, but was prevented by causes unknown, perhaps by martyrdom. Be that as it may, these two verses, with some information pieced out of the Epistles written during the imprisonment, are all that we know of Paul’s life in Rome. From Philippians we learn that the Gospel spread by reason of the earlier stages of his trial. From the other Epistles we can collect some particulars of his companions, and of the oversight which he kept up of the Churches.

The picture here drawn lays hold, not on anything connected with his trial, but on his evangelistic activity, and shows us how, notwithstanding all hindrances, anxieties about his fate, weariness, and past toils, the flame of evangelistic fervour burned undimmed in ‘Paul the aged,’ as the flame of mistaken zeal had burned in the ‘young man named Saul,’ and how the work which had filled so many years of wandering and homelessness was carried on with all the old joyfulness, confidence, and success, from the prisoner’s lodging. In such unexpected fashion did God fulfil the Apostle’s desire to ‘preach the Gospel to you that are at Rome also.’ To preach the word with all boldness is the duty of us Christians who have entered into the heritage of fuller freedom than Paul’s, and of whom it is truer than of him that we can do it, ‘no man forbidding’ us.

Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

28:17-20 Conscious that the Good News was to be presented to the Jews first (13:46; Rom 1:16) and concerned that the false charges against him might already have reached Rome, Paul summoned the local Jewish leaders and gave an account of his life and work. He insisted that he was guilty of no criminal offense, but strong Jewish opposition had made it necessary for him to appeal to the emperor. Paul had nothing against his own people; rather, he wanted to explain his great conviction that the Messiah they had been expecting had already come in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Act 28:17. Μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας, after three days) which were given to rest and prayer.—συγκαλέσασθαι, called together) to himself, Act 28:23. Being bound, he could less conveniently go about to visit them.—τῶν Ἰουδαίων πρώτους, the chief of the Jews) possessed of especial authority among them. He always sought out the Jews in the first instance.—οὐδὲν, nothing) They might have taken up a false suspicion from his very chains: Paul obviates this (anticipates and meets this objection).

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act_28:17. On the interview which now follows with the Jews it is to be observed: (1) that Paul even now remains faithful to his principle of trying his apostolic ministry in the first instance among the Jews, and thereby even as a prisoner complying with the divine order of the way of salvation: Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνι, Rom_1:16, and with the impulse of his own love to his people, Rom_9:1 ff., which the painful experiences of the past had not weakened. (2) He does this after three days, during which time he had without doubt devoted himself, first of all, to the Roman Christians.[179] (3) The fact that he commences his interview with the Jews by a self-justification isconsidering the suspicion with which he, as a prisoner, must have been regarded by themnatural and accordant with duty, and does not presuppose any ulterior design (such as: to prevent a prejudicial influence of the Jews on his trial). (4) The historical character of these discussions with the Jews has unjustly been denied, and they have been wrongly referred to the apologetic design of the author (Baur, Zeller). See the details below at the passages appealed to.

μετὰ ἡμέρ. τρεῖς] in which he might sufficiently occupy himself at the outset with the Roman Christians who came to him, as doubtless (in opposition to Zeller) he did in conformity with his long-cherished desire to see them (Rom_1:11 ff.).

τοὺς ὄντας τῶν Ἰουδ. πρώτους] the existing (comp. Rom_13:1) chiefs of the Jews (comp. Luk_19:47; Act_13:50; Act_25:2), i.e. the Jewish leaders at that time in Rome.

οὐδὲν ἐναντίον κ.τ.λ.] although I have done nothing, etc. This Paul could say, as he had laboured only to conduct the nation to the salvation appointed for it, and only to bring the Mosaic institutions to their Messianic πλήρωσις. His antagonism to the law was directed against justification by the law. This, and not the abolition of the law in itself, was his radical contrast to the Jewish standpoint (in opposition to Zeller). Comp. on Act_24:14.

τῶν Ῥωμαίων] refers to the procurator in Caesarea, who represented the Romans ruling over Palestine.

[179] That Luke gives no further information concerning the Roman church cannot surprise us (in opposition to Zeller, p. 373), as the theme of his book was the ministry of the apostles. A disagreement between Paul and the Roman church (Schneckenburger, p. 122) is not at all to be thought of; the church was not Judaizing, but Pauline. According to Zeller, the author has desired to make Paul appear as the proper founder of that church. But this is erroneous on account even of ver. 15, where, it is true, Zeller understands only isolated believers from Rome, who are assumed therefore not to presuppose any church there, as referred to. See, on the contrary, Ewald, Jahrb. IX. p. 66 f.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 28:17 . The whole section Act 28:17-28 is referred by Hilgenfeld to the “author to Theophilus”. In Act 28:20 the Paul bound for the hope of Israel belongs only to the “author to Theophilus,” cf. Act 23:6 , Act 26:6 ; it is only the same author who still supposes him to bear the chain, Act 26:29 , which according to Act 22:29-30 , had been long removed. A reference to the passages in question is sufficient to show the unreasonableness of this criticism. In this same section Clemen can only see his two redactors, Judaicus and Antijudaicus, at work again, the latter in Act 28:25-28 , and the former in Act 28:16-24 . But it will be noticed that Wendt (1899) still allows that an historical kernel lies at the foundation of the narrative, and although he does not speak so unhesitatingly as in 1888, he still allows that it is not inconceivable that Paul soon after his arrival in Rome should seek to enter into relations with the Jews there, to convince them if possible of his innocence, and to prevent any unfavourable influences on their part upon his trial. μετὰ ἡμεράς τρεῖς : an intimation of Paul’s continuous energy; the previous days may well have been employed in receiving his own friends, and in making his summons known. τῶν Ἰου .: the edict of Claudius, cf. Act 18:2 , had evidently been very transient in its effects, and the Jews soon returned; possibly they may only have emigrated to the neighbourhood, e.g. , to Aricia (Schürer). πρώτους , cf. Act 13:50 , Act 25:2 , Luk 19:47 , here including the ἀρχισυνάγωγοι , the γερουσιάρχαι , the ἄρχοντες and others, Sanday and Headlam, Romans , p. 23, or the word may perhaps be used of social distinction, including the officers named. The Jews in Rome were divided into no less than seven synagogues. It does not of course follow that all came in answer to the Apostle’s characteristic summons, as he always turned to his countrymen first. Rendall renders “those that were of the Jews first,” as if Paul invited first the members of the synagogues who were Jews, intending to reserve the devout Gentiles for the second place; see R.V. renderings in loco . συνελθ .: it was natural that Paul should thus assemble them, and that he should then endeavour to show that although a prisoner he was guiltless of any offence against the Jewish nation; otherwise he could not expect the representatives of his people to listen to his message; so far it would be difficult to find an intimation of anything unhistorical (see Blass, in loco ). ἐγὼ : the word probably occurring first, W.H [433] , R.V. Weiss, seems to indicate from its emphatic position that the Apostle’s chief concern on this occasion was to vindicate himself. ἔλεγε : imperfect, “quia expectatur responsum,” Blass, see note on Act 3:3 . ἀδελφοὶ … λαῷ … πατρῴοις : all indicate the same conciliatory spirit: “mira certe Pauli mansuetudo” (Calvin). ποιήσας : “though I had done,” R.V., i.e. , at the time he was taken prisoner there had been nothing done by him to merit such treatment. τῷ λαῷ , cf. Act 21:28 . The man who could write Rom 9:1 ff. and 1Co 7:18 ( cf. Act 9:21 ) might justly use such words. παρεδόθην , cf. Act 21:11 . The words ascribe primarily to the Jews a share in the imprisonment of which they appear as only the indirect cause, cf. Act 21:33 , but Paul summarises the chief points and does not enter into minute details; moreover his words were strictly true, for he would have been freed by the Romans in Jerusalem had not the outcry of the Jews stamped him as a malefactor. For similar instances of a main summary cf. Act 2:23 , Act 13:29 , Act 21:11 , Act 23:27 .

[433] Westcott and Hort’s The New Testament in Greek: Critical Text and Notes.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Paul in every place remembereth himself to be an Apostle.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Paul, with a great deal of expense and hazard, is brought a prisoner to Rome, and when he has come nobody appears to prosecute him or lay any thing to his charge; but he must call his own cause; and here he represents it to the chief of the Jews at Rome. It was not long since, by an edict of Claudius, all the Jews were banished from Rome, and kept out till his death; but, in the five years since then, many Jews had come thither, for the advantage of trade, though it does not appear that they were allowed any synagogue there or place of public worship; but these chief of the Jews were those of best figure among them, the most distinguished men of that religion, who had the best estates and interests. Paul called them together, being desirous to stand right in their opinion, and that there might be a good understanding between him and them. And here we are told,

I. What he said to them, and what account he gave them of his cause. He speaks respectfully to them, calls them men and brethren, and thereby intimates that he expects to be treated by them both as a man and as a brother, and engages to treat them as such and to tell them nothing but the truth; for we are members one of another - all we are brethren. Now, 1. He professes his own innocency, and that he had not given any just occasion to the Jews to bear him such an ill will as generally they did: "I have committed nothing against the people of the Jews, have done nothing to the prejudice of their religion or civil liberties, have added no affliction to their present miseries, they know I have not; nor have I committed any thing against the customs of our fathers, either by abrogating or by innovating in religion." It is true Paul did not impose the customs of the fathers upon the Gentiles: they were never intended for them. But it is as true that he never opposed them in the Jews, but did himself, when he was among them, conform to them. He never quarrelled with them for practising according to the usages of their own religion, but only for their enmity to the Gentiles, Gal 2:12. Paul had the testimony of his conscience for him that he had done his duty to the Jews. 2. He modestly complains of the hard usage he had met with - that, though he had given them no offence, yet he was delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans. If he had spoken the whole truth in this matter, it would have looked worse than it did upon the Jews, for they would have murdered him without any colour of law or justice if the Romans had not protected him; but, however, they accused him as a criminal, before Felix the governor, and, demanding judgment against him, were, in effect delivering him prisoner into the hands of the Romans, when he desired no more than a fair and impartial trial by their own law. 3. He declares the judgment of the Roman governors concerning him, Act 28:18. They examined him, enquired into his case, heard what was to be said against him, and what he had to say for himself. The chief captain examined him, so did Felix, and Festus, and Agrippa, and they could find no cause of death in him; nothing appeared to the contrary but that he was an honest, quiet, conscientious, good man, and therefore they would never gratify the Jews with a sentence of death upon him; but, on the contrary, would have let him go, and have let him go on in his work too, and have given him no interruption, for they all heard him and liked his doctrine well enough. It was for the honour of Paul that those who most carefully examined his case acquitted him, and none condemned him but unheard, and such as were prejudiced against him. 4. He pleads the necessity he was under to remove himself and his cause to Rome; and that it was only in his own defence, and not with any design to recriminate, or exhibit a cross bill against the complainants, (Act 28:19): When the Jews spoke against it, and entered a caveat against his discharge, designing, if they could not have him condemned to die, yet to have him made a prisoner for life, he was constrained to appeal unto Caesar, finding that the governors, one after another, stood so much in awe of the Jews that they could not discharge him, for fear of making him their enemies, which made it necessary for him to pray the assistance of the higher powers. This was all he aimed at in this appeal; not to accuse his nation, but only to vindicate himself. Every man has a right to plead in his own defence, who yet ought not to find fault with his neighbours. It is an invidious thing to accuse, especially to accuse a nation, such a nation. Paul made intercession for them, but never against them. The Roman government had at this time an ill opinion of the Jewish nation, as factious, turbulent, disaffected, and dangerous; and it had been an easy thing for a man with such a fluent tongue as Paul had, a citizen of Rome, and so injured as he was, to have exasperated the emperor against the Jewish nation. But Paul would not for ever so much do such a thing; he was for making the best of every body, and not making bad worse. 5. He puts his sufferings upon the true footing, and gives them such an account of the reason of them as should engage them not only not to join with his persecutors against him, but to concern themselves for him, and to do what they could on his behalf (Act 28:20): "For this cause I have called for you, not to quarrel with you, for I have no design to incense the government against you, but to see you and speak with you as my countrymen, and men that I would keep up a correspondence with, because for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain." He carried the mark of his imprisonment about with him, and probably was chained to the soldier that kept him; and it was, (1.) Because he preached that the Messiah was come, who was the hope of Israel, he whom Israel hoped for. "Do not all the Jews agree in this, that the Messiah will be the glory of his people Israel? And therefore he is to be hoped for, and this Messiah I preach, and prove he is come. They would keep up such a hope of a Messiah yet to come as must end in a despair of him; I preach such a hope in a Messiah already come as must produce a joy in him." (2.) Because he preached that the resurrection of the dead would come. This also was the hope of Israel; so he had called it, Act 23:6; Act 24:15; Act 26:6, Act 26:7. "They would have you still expect a Messiah that would free you from the Roman yoke, and make you great and prosperous upon earth, and it is this that occupies their thoughts; and they are angry at me for directing their expectations to the great things of another world, and persuading them to embrace a Messiah who will secure those to them, and not external power and grandeur. I am for bringing you to the spiritual and eternal blessedness upon which our fathers by faith had their eye, and this is what they hate me for, - because I would take you off from that which is the cheat of Israel, and will be its shame and ruin, the notion of a temporal Messiah, and lead you to that which is the true and real hope of Israel, and the genuine sense of all the promises made to the fathers, a spiritual kingdom of holiness and love set up in the hearts of men, to be the pledge of, and preparative for, the joyful resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come."

II. What was their reply. They own, 1. That they had nothing to say in particular against him; nor had any instructions to appear as his prosecutors before the emperor, either by letter or word of mouth (Act 28:21): "We have neither received letters out of Judea concerning thee (have no orders to prosecute thee) nor have any of the brethren of the Jewish nation that have lately come up to Rome (as many occasions drew the Jews thither now that their nation was a province of that empire) shown or spoken any harm of thee." This was very strange, that that restless and inveterate rage of the Jews which had followed Paul wherever he went should not follow him to Rome, to get him condemned there. Some think they told a lie here, and had orders to prosecute him, but durst not own it, being themselves obnoxious to the emperor's displeasure, who though he had not, like his predecessors, banished them all from Rome, yet gave them no countenance there. But I am apt to think that what they said was true, and Paul now found he had gained the point he aimed at in appealing to Caesar, which was to remove his cause into a court to which they durst not follow it. This was David's policy, and it was his security (Sa1 27:1): There is nothing better for me than to escape into the land of the Philistines, and Saul shall despair of me, to seek me any more in any coasts of Israel; so shall I escape out of his hands: and it proved so, Act 28:4. When Saul heard that David had fled to Gath, he sought no more again for him. Thus did Paul by his appeal: he fled to Rome, where he was out of their reach; and they said, "Even let him go." 2. That they desired to know particularly concerning the doctrine he preached, and the religion he took so much pains to propagate in the face of so much opposition (Act 28:22): "We desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest - ha phroneis what thy opinions or sentiments are, what are those things which thou art so wise about, and hast such a relish of and such a zeal for; for, though we know little else of Christianity, we know it is a sect every where spoken against." Those who said this scornful spiteful word of the Christian religion were Jews, the chief of the Jews at Rome, who boasted of their knowledge (Rom 2:17), and yet this was all they knew concerning the Christian religion, that it was a sect every where spoken against. They put it into an ill name, and then ran it down. (1.) They looked upon it to be a sect, and this was false. True Christianity establishes that which is of common concern to all mankind, and is not built upon such narrow opinions and private interests as sects commonly owe their original to. It aims at no worldly benefit or advantage as sects do; but all its gains are spiritual and eternal. And, besides, it has a direct tendency to the uniting of the children of men, and not the dividing of them, and setting them at variance, as sects have. (2.) They said it was every where spoken against, and this was too true. All that they conversed with spoke against it, and therefore they concluded every body did: most indeed did. It is, and always has been, the lot of Christ's holy religion to be every where spoken against.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Paul called the chief of the Jews together--Though banished from the capital by Claudius, the Jews enjoyed the full benefit of the toleration which distinguished the first period of Nero's reign, and were at this time in considerable numbers, wealth, and influence settled at Rome. We have seen that long before this a flourishing Christian Church existed at Rome, to which Paul wrote his Epistle (see on Act 20:3), and the first members of which were probably Jewish converts and proselytes. (See Introduction to Romans.)

yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans--the Roman authorities, Felix and Festus.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 17. Paul called the chief of the Jews together] We have already seen, in Ac 18:2, that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome; see the note there: but it seems they were permitted to return very soon; and, from this verse, it appears that there were then chiefs, probably of synagogues, dwelling at Rome.

I have committed nothing] Lest they should have heard and received malicious reports against him, he thought it best to state his own case.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

17. And after three days. Paul’s humanity was wonderful, in that, though he had suffered such cruel injuries of his nation, he studied, notwithstanding, to appease the Jews which are at Rome, and he excuseth himself to them, lest they hate his cause, because they hear that the priests do hate him. He might well have excused himself before men, if he passed over these Jews and turned himself to the Gentiles. For though he had continually, in divers places, essayed to bring them to Christ, yet they were more and more nettled and moved; and yet he had omitted nothing, neither in Asia, nor in Greece, neither at Jerusalem, which might mitigate their fury. Therefore, all men would have justly pardoned him, if he had let those alone whom he had so often tried [experienced] to be of desperate pride. But because he knew that his Master was given of his Father to be the minister of the Jews, to fulfill the promises whereby God had adopted to himself the seed of Abraham to be his people; he looketh unto the calling of God, and is never weary. He saw that he must remain at Rome, seeing he had liberty granted to teach, he would not that they should be deprived of the fruit of his labor. Secondly, he would not have them moved through hatred of his cause to trouble the Church; because a small occasion might have caused great destruction. Therefore, Paul meant to beware, lest, according to their wonted madness, they should set all on fire.

I have done nothing against the people. These two things might have made the Jews hate him; either because he should have done hurt to the commonwealth of his nation, as some runagates did increase their bondage, which was too cruel, through their treachery; or because he should have done somewhat against the worship of God; for though the Jews were grown out of kind, and religion was depraved and corrupted among them with many errors, yet the very name of the law and the worship of the temple were greatly reverenced. Furthermore, Paul denieth not but that he did freely omit those ceremonies whereto the Jews were superstitiously tied; yet he cleareth himself of the crime of revolting whereof he might be suspected. Therefore, understand those ordinances of the fathers, whereby the children of Abraham, and the disciples of Moses ought, according to their faith, to have been distinguished from the rest of the Gentiles. And surely in that he did cleave so holily to Christ, who is the soul and perfection of the law, he is so far from impairing the ordinances of the fathers, that none did better observe the same.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(17) After three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together.—The decree of Claudius had, as has been already stated (see Note on Act_28:15), been allowed to lapse, and the Jews had settled in their old quarters in the trans-Tiberine region, and in part, perhaps, on the island of the Tiber, and the region on the right bank of the river, now known as the Ghetto, which has been for many centuries the “Jewry” of Rome. Those who are described as the “chief” would naturally include the ruler of the synagogue (the title Archisynagogus is found in a Jewish inscription from Capua, now in the Lateran Museum); the Archontes, or rulers of the people—perhaps another way of describing the Archisynagogi—(this title is found in the Jewish cemetery at Rome already mentioned; Garucci, ut supra, p. 35); the Scribes (the title Grammateus is also found, pp. 42, 47, 55, 59); the Gerousiarchai, or heads of the Jewish senate, which was allowed, as at Alexandria, a certain measure of independent jurisdiction (pp. 51, 62); the “fathers of the synagogue,” perhaps identical with the “rulers” or “elders,” perhaps of a slightly higher grade (p. 52); perhaps, also (for this title also is found), the “mothers of the synagogue,” occupying, possibly, a position more or less analogous to the widows and deaconesses of the Christian Church (pp. 52, 53);[4] those who were known as Nomomatheis, or students of the Law (p. 57); the wealthier traders; those who, as freed-men, held office of some kind in the imperial court, or, like the Aliturius mentioned by Josephus (Life, c. 3), courted the favour of Poppæa, and gained the praise of Nero by acting in his spectacles. To such a mingled crowd, summoned by a special messenger—or, it may be, by a notice read on the Sabbath in the synagogue, or posted on some wall or pillar in the Jewish quarter—after three days spent, partly in settling in his lodging, partly in the delivery of the summons, St. Paul now addressed himself. These he was seeking to win, if possible, for Christ.

[4] Since I wrote the above, I have heard from Dr. A. Edersheim, than whom there is no higher living authority on matters connected with Jewish archæology, that in his judgment the title of “father” or “mother” of the synagogue did not imply any functions, but was assigned as a mark of honour to its oldest members. He rests this belief on the fact that they are found chiefly, or exclusively, in inscriptions which record a very advanced as 80 or 110.

(17) Though I have committed nothing against the people . . .—We note St. Paul’s characteristic tact. He addresses his hearers by the title which they loved, as “the people.” (See Note on Act_4:28.) He speaks with respect of their “customs.” (See Notes on Act_6:14; Act_21:21.) He disclaims the thought of treating either with disrespect.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

17–28. St Paul’s interview with the Jews in Rome

17. after three days] At first the Apostle would naturally desire to learn all he could of the Christian congregations at Rome from those who had been the first to welcome him on his approach to that city. But for this, three days sufficed. Then he set about explaining his position to those of his fellow-countrymen, not Christians, who were of most importance in Rome. For to them would most probably be forwarded an account of the charges to be laid against the Apostle, and of the evidence by which they were to be supported.

Paul called the chief of the Jews together] Keeping still to the rule to offer the Gospel first to the Jews, even here in Rome, where he had good reason to think that his message would not be received. The decree by which in the reign of Claudius all the Jews had been banished from Rome (Act_18:2) was evidently no longer in force. For clearly there was an important body of them resident in the city.

Men and brethren] See note on Act_1:16.

though I have committed [R. V. had done] nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers] For everywhere had he shewn himself desirous that his own people should hear the message of the Gospel first, and for Jews he had never forbidden circumcision, only insisting that Gentile converts should not be forced to submit to the Jewish law before they were received into the Christian Church.

delivered prisoner … into the hands of the Romans] He describes the result, rather than the steps by which it was brought about. The chief captain had rescued him from the violence of the Jewish mob, and he had never since been out of the care of the Roman authorities. Yet but for the Jews he never would have been a Roman prisoner, and when the Sadducees in Jerusalem found that he was not to be given up to them, they made themselves his accusers before Felix and Festus.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And it came to pass, that after three days,.... From his first coming to Rome, when he had hired himself a house, or lodging, and was settled in it, and was rested from the fatigue of his voyage and journey:

Paul called the chief of the Jews together: he sent to the principal men among them; for though the Jews, were expelled from Rome in the reign of Claudius, they were now returned, and had their liberty of residing there; very likely by means of Poppea, Nero's concubine, who favoured the Jews: but whether they had a synagogue, and these men were the chief and leading men in it, the doctors, rulers, and officers of it, are things not certain; however, these the apostle desired to come to him where he was, for whether he had the liberty of going about where he would, the soldier attending him, is not so clear a point:

and when they were come together; to his house, or lodging:

he said unto them, men and brethren: which was the usual form of address with the Jews; see Act 7:2.

Though I have committed nothing against the people and customs of our fathers; meaning he had said nothing disrespectfully of the people of the Jews; nor had done anything to the prejudice of their temporal, spiritual, and eternal good, but just the reverse; nor had he said or done anything contrary to the laws and customs enjoined the Jews by Moses, even those that were of a ceremonial nature; for though he had everywhere declared that the Gentiles were not obliged to an obedience to them, yet he did not dissuade the Jews from the use of them; and oftentimes complied with them himself, things he had been charged with:

yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans; he was first seized by the Jews in the temple of Jerusalem, and then fell into the hands of Lysias, the chief captain; who bound him, and by whom he was sent to Caesarea, where he was retained a prisoner both by Felix and Festus, Roman governors.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.

Ver. 17. After three days] Ministers should free themselves as much and as soon as may be from sinister suspicions. For they must never think to do good on those that have conceived an incurable prejudice against them.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Paul called the chief of the Jews - He probably had two objects in this: one was to vindicate himself from the suspicion of crime, or to convince them that the charges alleged against him were false; and the other, to explain to them the gospel of Christ. In accordance with his custom everywhere, he seized the earliest opportunity of making the gospel known to his own countrymen; and he naturally supposed that charges highly unfavorable to his character had been sent forward against him to the Jews at Rome by those in Judea.

Against the people - Against the Jews, Act 24:12.

Or customs ... - The religious rites of the nation. See the notes on Act 6:14.

Was I delivered prisoner ... - By the Jews, Act 21:33, etc.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Chief of the Jews. We have seen before, that the emperor Claudius banished all Jews from Rome. It would appear from this verse, that many of the principal Jews returned at his death, which happened five years before St. Paul’s arrival. (Calmet)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Paul called the chief of the Jews together; Paul does this not only out of an extraordinary love which he had for that people, but also because the apostles were commanded to go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, Mat 10:5,6. The whole economy of the gospel is a doing good for evil. So did our Saviour, who is the author and subject of it; and so must his messengers or ministers do, or they are not like to do any good at all; for the world will hate them, 1Jo 3:13.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

He for Paul, A.V. and T.R.; called together those that were the chief for called the chief together, A.V.; I, brethren, though I had done for men and brethren, though I have committed, A.V. and T.R.; the customs for customs, A.V.; was I for was, A.V.. After three days. He could but just have got into his hired house, but he would not lose a day in seeking out his brethren to speak to them of the hope of Israel. What marvelous activity! what unquenchable love! The chief (touv ontav prwtouv). The expression oiJ prwtoi, for the principal people of the district or neighborhood, occurs repeatedly in Josephus. The Jews. They had returned to Rome, after their banishment by Claudius, (Act_18:2) some time before this. (Rom_16:3, Rom_16:7) I had done nothing against the people, or the customs. (comp. Act_23:1, 6 24:14-16, 20, 21 25:8 26:6, 7, 22, 23)

Vers. 17-28. The Christian and the Jew.

Here we have the Christian and the Jew brought into close contact; and there seems to have been as fair an opportunity for the latter to understand and appreciate the former as could ever have been granted. With calmness, with the wisdom and fullness of long study and mature experience, the most enlightened Christian apologist presented the case of Christianity to these men of the Jewish faith. We may look at

I THE INTRODUCTION. Paul felt that his position was one which was open to misunderstanding on the part of his fellow-countrymen, and he resolved on a free and full explanation. In this we recognize

(1) his constant faithfulness; for it was in discharge of his duty to his Divine Master that he sought to conciliate those who were his enemies; also

(2) his habitual courtesy; for the whole strain of his address to the "chief of the Jews" was suave and courteous in a high degree (vers. 17-20).

In their reply (vers. 21, 22) we recognize

(1) a formal impartiality combined with

(2) a real prepossession of mind decidedly against the cause of which he was the advocate.

II THE CONFERENCE. (Vers. 23-28.) We have:

1. Christian earnestness confronting Jewish curiosity. Paul "expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them," etc., evidently with characteristic zeal. They listened, curious and wondering what he had to say. "We desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest." Christian fervor on the one side, Jewish eagerness on the other.

2. Christian truth striving with Jewish prejudice. Paul marshaled his facts and his arguments, we cannot doubt, to the full height of his fervor and his practiced ability, maintaining his plea at great length (ver. 23). But he spoke to men whose minds were occupied with prejudice. The "sect was everywhere spoken against," they said to him. They probably used much stronger language in speaking to one another.

3. Christian truth prevailing over Jewish prejudice. But seldom do we read of men being "convinced against their will;" but we are glad to read here that "some believed," etc. (ver. 24).

4. But we have the old sad story of Jewish prejudice prevailing over Christian truth. "Some believed not.

5. Finally we have Christian indignation uttering itself freely (vers. 25-27). We turn to

III THE LESSORS WE GAIN FROM IT.

1. That it is right for us to invite and address the curious as well as the devout. We should summon to the sanctuary not only those who are wishful to worship God, but those also who are solicitous to learn what we have to say on any subject with which we deal.

2. That we should exert ourselves to present truth in all its phases and with all our force. As Paul made his appeal to the Law and to the prophets, and developed and illustrated his argument at full length, so we should present the truth as it is in Jesus Christ, in all its fullness and in all its force; not being satisfied until we have "declared the whole counsel of God.

3. That we may reasonably hope for some measure of success. We have to contend, not indeed with Jewish prejudice, but with human obduracy. Yet armed with Divine truth and aided by the Divine Spirit, we should look for success.

4. That we need not be surprised at partial failure. Where apostles were baffled we may be beaten.

5. That the hour of rebuke sometimes comes in the ministry of Christ.

6. That one sphere failing, another will open to the earnest worker (ver. 28). The salvation of God is sent to all men, and there are those who "will hear it," if there are many who will not. C.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And after three days - Given to rest and prayer, Paul called the chief of the Jews together - He always sought the Jews first; but being now bound, he could not so conveniently go round to them. Though I have done nothing - Seeing him chained, they might have suspected he had. Therefore he first obviates this suspicion.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Two Years at Rome.

Paul calls the Jews together:

v. 17. And it came to pass that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together; and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans,

v. 18. who, when they had examined me, would have let me go, because there was no cause of death in me.

v. 19. But when the Jews spake against it, I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar; not that I had aught to accuse my nation of.

v. 20. For this cause, therefore, have I called for you, to see you and to speak with you, because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.

There was a flourishing congregation in Rome at this time, and Paul could well have devoted his entire time to the believers already gathered. But, as in other places, he here deliberately called the most influential Jews together, still adhering to his rule: to the Jew first and also to the Greek, Rom 1:16. The decree of Claudius banishing the Jews from Rome. Act 18:2, had meanwhile been recalled, and the Jews had again flocked to the capital. When the leading Jews responded to his invitation and met in the place designated by Paul, he laid some matters of a personal nature before them. He wanted, above all, to remove any prejudices that they might entertain with respect to him, first, on account of his imprisonment; secondly, on account of the fact that he had appealed to the emperor; thirdly, to remove any effects of slanderous reports which may possibly have been brought from Jerusalem. He told them that he had done nothing, was not guilty of any offense either against the people of the Jews or against the customs and usages of the fathers, and yet had been delivered into the hands of the Romans. Paul tactfully refers to his arrest as being occasioned only indirectly by the Jews. When the Romans had given him a hearing, they had wanted to release him, since they found no cause of death in him, not a single crime having been proved against the apostle. But when the Jews then objected, he had been obliged to appeal to Caesar: hut not in the sense, as Paul hastens to add, as though he had any accusation to bring against his own people. But it was for this reason that he had called for them, had asked them to meet with him in order that he might see them and speak to them, have a conference with them. For he assures them that he is wearing this chain, which they all could see, he was surrounded with this evidence of imprisonment, on account of the hope of Israel. The one hope of Israel was that concerning the Messiah; to Him all the prophets looked forward, of Him all the sages had spoken. And it was because Paul preached of the fulfillment of all these hopes and predictions and prophecies in the person of Jesus Christ of Nazareth that the enmity had struck him which resulted in his arrest.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

PAUL’S RECEPTION OF THE JEWS AT ROME

17. When the Jews finally failed in Judea, and they saw Paul was gone far away to Rome, they utterly surrendered their enterprise for his destruction, of course knowing that their brethren in Rome were but a handful in the heart of the heathen world, and could not hope to be especially influential with the emperor, who neither knew nor cared anything about their religion.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

17-20. He made no delay in beginning his work; and his first appeal, according to his uniform custom, was addressed to his own kinsmen according to the flesh. (17) " And it came to pass, after three days, that he called together the chief men of the Jews; and when they had come together, he said to them, Brethren, I have done nothing against the people, or the customs of the fathers; yet I was delivered a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans; (18) who, having examined me, were disposed to release me, because there was no cause of death in me. (19) But the Jews opposing it, I was compelled to appeal to Cæsar; not that I had any thing of which to accuse my nation. (20) For this cause I have requested to see you, and speak to you. For it is on account of the hope of Israel that I am bound with this chain. " The propriety of this interview, and of the individual statements in the speech, is quite obvious. It might have been supposed, from the fact that he was accused by the Jews, that he had been guilty of some crime; and from his appeal to Cæsar, that he intended to prefer charges against his accusers. The fact that the Romans would have released him but for the opposition of the Jews, was much in his favor on the first point; and on the latter, his own disavowal was sufficient. His closing remark, that it was for the hope of Israel that he was bound with a chain, was well calculated to enlist their sympathies; for it was no uncommon thing for Jews to be persecuted.

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

17–22. After three days. We see indicated his restless activity. In three days after his arrival as a prisoner he begins his work. The first three days had probably been devoted to the brethren. Called the chief of the Jews. The leading Jews. Josephus says that fifty years earlier there were 8,000 Jews in Rome. A quarter of the city north of the Tiber was given up to them. In a.d. 49, they had been banished by decree of the Emperor Claudius, but shortly after were allowed to return. At this time they enjoyed favor, Poppæa, the wife of Nero, being a proselyte to the Jewish faith. These chiefs would include the rulers of the synagogues, the scribes, and the heads of the leading families. Men, brethren. In a short speech, of which we have only an abstract, he told them how he came to be there as a prisoner. No doubt he fully explained the ground of enmity and his appeal; so fully that when he said,

For the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain. They knew that it was the hope of Christ and the resurrection. This chain is a reference to the one that bound him to the soldier.

We neither received letters, etc. They mean official letters from the authorities at Jerusalem. They have no official tidings warning them against him. They must have known of him, and of the charges made against him.

His fame was such that they desire to hear what he thinks, or holds; to hear him explain the gospel. For as concerning this sect, we know that it is every where spoken against. Everywhere the Jews “spoke against” the Christians with malignant hatred. Paul's treatment illustrates this. The Jews of Rome had known but little of the Christians, but they knew the odium of the church elsewhere. The Pagans also were beginning to regard the Christian religion as “a detestable superstition” (Tacitus), and matters were shaping for the bitter persecution of Nero, which came a few years later.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

17–28. ST PAUL’S INTERVIEW WITH THE JEWS IN ROME

17. αὐτόν for τὸν Παῦλον with אABI. Vulg. has not the proper name.

17. μετὰ ἡμέρας τρεῖς, after three days. At first the Apostle would naturally desire to learn all he could of the Christian congregations at Rome from those who had been the first to welcome him on his approach to that city. But for this, three days sufficed. Then he set about explaining his position to those of his fellow-countrymen, not Christians, who were of most importance in Rome. For to them would most probably be forwarded an account of the charges to be laid against the Apostle, and of the evidence by which they were to be supported.

συγκαλέσασθαι αὐτὸν τοὺς ὄντας τῶν Ἰουδαίων πρώτους, that he called together the chief of the Jews. Keeping still to the rule that the Gospel should be offered first to the Jews, even here in Rome, where he had good reason to think that his message would not be received. The decree by which in the reign of Claudius all the Jews had been banished from Rome (Act 18:2) was evidently no longer in force. For clearly there was an important body of them resident in the city.

ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί. See note on Act 1:16.

οὐδὲν ἐναντίον ποιήσας τῷ λαῷ κ. τ. λ., though I had done nothing against the people or the customs of our forefathers. For everywhere he had shewn himself desirous that his own people should hear the message of the Gospel first, and for Jews he had never forbidden circumcision, only insisting that Gentile converts should not be forced to submit to the Jewish law before they were received into the Christian Church.

δέσμιος ἐξ Ἱεροσολύμων παρεδόθην, I was delivered a prisoner from Jerusalem. The Apostle describes the result, rather than the steps by which it was brought about. The chief captain had rescued him from the violence of the Jewish mob, and he had never since been out of the care of the Roman authorities. Yet but for the Jews he never would have been a Roman prisoner, and when the Sadducees in Jerusalem found that he was not to be given up to them, they made themselves his accusers before Felix and Festus.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

17.] The banishment of Jews from Rome (ch. 18:2) had either tacitly or openly been abrogated some time before this. Priscilla and Aquila had returned when the Epistle to the Romans was written, Rom 16:3.

Paul was naturally anxious to set himself right with the Jews at Rome—to explain the cause of his being sent there, in case no message had been received by them concerning him from Judæa,—and to do away if possible with the unfavourable prejudice which such letters, if received, would have created respecting his character.

The fact of his sending for them, and their coming to him, seems to shew (as in the gloss on ver. 16: see digest) that he was not imprisoned in the Prætorian camp, but was already in a private lodging.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.