Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 21:37
And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek?
37 40. Paul asks Leave to address the Crowd
37. And as Paul was to be led into the castle ] More clearly (with Rev. Ver.) “ was about to be brought, &c.” This must have been when Paul with the soldiers had reached some place where he could be allowed to stand.
he said [Gk. saith] May I speak unto thee? ] Literally, (with Rev. Ver.), “ May I say something unto thee? ”
Who said, Canst thou speak Greek? ] More closely, as Rev. Ver. “And he said, Dost thou know Greek? ” The chief captain had evidently come down with a preconceived notion who the offender was about whom the disturbance had arisen. And from some source or other he appears to have known that the Egyptian, whom he supposed St Paul to be, could not speak Greek.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
May I speak unto thee? – May I have the privilege of making my defense before thee; or of stating the case truly; the cause of my accusation; of this tumult, etc.
Canst thou speak Greek? – Implying that if he could, he might be permitted to speak to him. The Greek language was what was then almost universally spoken, and it is not improbable that it was the native tongue of the chief captain. It is evident that he was not a Roman by birth, for he says Act 22:28 that he had obtained the privilege of citizenship by paying a great sum. The language which the Jews spoke was the Syro-Chaldaic; and as he took Paul to be an Egyptian Jew Act 21:38, he supposed, from that circumstance also, that he was not able to speak the Greek language.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 37. Canst thou speak Greek?] Claudius Lysias was not a Roman; he had, as himself informs us, purchased his citizenship of Rome with a great sum of money; (see Ac 22:28😉 and it is very likely that he was but imperfectly acquainted with the Latin tongue; and the tumult that was now made, and the discordant noise, prevented him from clearly apprehending what was said; and, as he wished to know the merit of the cause, he accosted Paul with, , Dost thou understand Greek? And when he found that he did understand it, he proceeded to question him as below.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
May I speak unto thee? A common expression in that language, whereby he craves leave, and bespeaks attention.
Canst thou speak Greek? After the Grecian empire, their language became and continued to be very common in Asia and Egypt, and very well known amongst all the Romans of any education or quality.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
37-40. Art not thou that Egyptian,&c.The form of the question implies that the answer is to bein the negative, and is matter of some surprise: “Thou art notthen?” &c.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And as Paul was to be led into the castle,…. Just as he was got up to the top of the steps, or stairs, that led up to the castle, and was about to go into the door of it:
he said unto the chief captain, may I speak unto thee? the apostle was one that had had a good education, and was a man of address, and this his modest and respectful way of speaking to the chief captain shows; and the question he put to him, was in the Greek language: hence it follows,
who said to him, canst thou speak Greek? or “dost thou know the Hellenistic language?” which the Jews who were born and lived in Greece spoke; hence such were called Hellenists; see Ac 6:1 of this language we read in the Talmud h;
“R. Levi bar Chajethah went to Caesarea, and heard them reading “Shema”, (hear O Israel), c. De 6:4
in the Hellenistic language he sought to hinder them; R. Rose heard of it, and was angry; and said, he that knows not to read in the Hebrew language, must he not read at all? yea, he may read in whatsoever language he understands.”
The nearest to this language spoken by the Jews dispersed in Greece, must be the Greek language, in which Jews have written; as the books of the Old Testament translated by the “seventy” interpreters, who were Jews; and indeed it was this Bible which the Jews called Hellenists made use of; and the writings of Josephus, and Philo the Jew of Alexandria, and even the books of the New Testament, which are written by Jews; and Paul being a Jew of Tarsus, and so an Hellenist, could speak this language; as he did, when he disputed against the Hellenists, in Ac 9:29. This the chief captain said, either as wondering to hear him speak Greek, when he thought he had been a Jerusalem Jew, or rather an Egyptian, as in the next verse; or it may be he put this question to him, as choosing rather that he should speak in Greek, it being the language he might best understand himself, and was the least known to the people, who he might not care should hear what he had to say; since if he took him for the Egyptian, the Greek tongue was what was chiefly spoken by such.
h T. Hieros. Sota, fol. 21. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
May I say something unto thee? ( ?). On this use of in a direct question see on 1:6. The calm self-control of Paul in the presence of this mob is amazing. His courteous request to Lysias was in Greek to the chiliarch’s amazement.
Dost thou know Greek? (H ?). Old Greek adverb in – from H, meaning “in Greek.” “Do you know it in Greek?” In the N.T. only here and Joh 19:20.
Art thou not then the Egyptian? ( ?). Expects the answer Yes and argues the matter (therefore). The well-known () Egyptian who had given the Romans so much trouble.
Stirred up to sedition (). First aorist active participle of , a late verb from , outcast, and so to unsettle, to stir up, to excite, once known only in LXX and Ac 17:6 (which see); Acts 21:38; Gal 5:12, but now found in several papyri examples with precisely this sense to upset.
Of the Assassins ( ). Latin word sicarius, one who carried a short sword under his cloak, a cutthroat. Josephus uses this very word for bands of robbers under this Egyptian (War II. 17,6 and 13,5; Ant. XX. 8,10). Josephus says that there were 30,000 who gathered on the Mount of Olives to see the walls of Jerusalem fall down and not merely 4,000 as Lysias does here. But Lysias may refer to the group that were armed thus (banditti) the core of the mob of 30,000. Lysias at once saw by Paul’s knowledge of Greek that he was not the famous Egyptian who led the Assassins and escaped himself when Felix attacked and slew the most of them.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Canst thou speak [] . Lit., dost thou know? So Rev.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And as Paul was to be led into the castle,” (ho Paulos mellon te eisagesthai eis ten parembolen) “Then as Paul was about to be carried into the castle fort,” led up into the camp barracks.
2) “He said unto the chief captain,” (legei to chiIiarchon) “He addressed the chief captain,” the officer in charge of all the soldiers, whose name was Lysias, Act 13:26; Act 24:7.
3) “May I speak unto thee?” (ei eksestin moi epein ti pros se) “Is it lawful for me to say something to you personally?” May I ask you a question, off the record? aside from your regular duty?
4) “Who said, Canst thou speak Greek?” (ho de ephe hellenisti ginoskeis) “Then he said do you know how to speak in Greek?” He appears to have known that the Egyptian insurrectionist, whom he thought Paul to be, could not speak Greek, Act 21:38.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
−
37. May I speak unto thee? Paul offered himself to defend his cause, which all the servants of God must do. For we must do our endeavor to make our integrity known to all men, lest through our infamy the name of God be blasphemed. But when the chief captain demandeth whether Paul be not that Egyptian which was a murderer, which a little before had led away a company of men, − (494) let us learn that how modestly and quietly soever the ministers of Christ behave themselves, and howsoever they be void of all fault, yet cannot they escape the reproaches and slanders of the world. Which thing we must note for this cause, that we may acquaint ourselves with rebukes; − (495) and that in well-doing we may be prepared to be evil-spoken of. When he asketh him concerning the Egyptian, he meaneth not Theudas the sorcerer, as some men falsely suppose; of whom Gamaliel made mention before in the fifth chapter, ( Act 5:36) and of whom Josephus speaketh more in his twentieth of Antiquities. For, besides that we read there that Theudas carried away only four hundred men, and the chief captain reckoneth up in this place four thousand, and saith that they were all murderers, that is more, in that Theudas raised that faction during the reign of Tiberius or Augustus Caesar; whereof remained only an obscure report, because, so soon as a troop of horsemen was sent after them, they were forthwith destroyed. −
Notwithstanding, it seemeth to me that Josephus is deceived in that where he saith, first, that Cuspius Fadus was sent by Claudius, and then he addeth, that Theudas was of him overcome, seeing I have before showed that that former insurrection was made at such time as Claudius was but a private man. Though he disagree much with Luke’s narration, even in the number, seeing he saith that there were about thirty thousand made partners in the sedition, unless happily we expound it thus, that, after he was put to flight by Felix, he fled into the wilderness with four thousand. And it had been an absurd thing that the number should be made ten times greater, as also, that a troop, having no skill in war, or being altogether without courage, should have been defamed with the name of murderers. For as Josephus doth witness, that seducer had deceived the simple and credulous common people with false promises, boasting that he was a prophet of God, which would lead the people dry foot through the midst of Jordan. −
But the same Josephus putteth the matter out of doubt when he saith, that an Egyptian, a prophet, did gather together a band of men under Felix the president, and did carry them into Mount Olivet, whereof four hundred were slain, two hundred taken, and the residue dispersed. The history was fresh in memory. Again, forasmuch as the author of the sedition was escaped, and the region filled with murderers, − (496) it is not without cause that the chief captain demandeth of Paul, when he seeth all men so hate him, whether he were that Egyptian. Luke recordeth no longer conference had between the chief captain and Paul; yet it is likely, forasmuch as both of them understood the Greek tongue, that they had farther talk. Whereby it came to pass, that so soon as Paul had well purged himself, he had license granted him to speak to the people. For the chief captain would never have suffered a wicked man to make any public speech in a city which was so sore suspected.
(494) −
“
Hominum turbam ad defectionem impulerat ?” had induced a body of men to revolt.
(495) −
“
Ut ad contumelias assuescamus,” that we may accustom ourselves to contumely.
(496) −
“
Latronibus infesta,” infested with robbers.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(37) Canst thou speak Greek?The chiliarch apparently expected his prisoner to have spoken Hebrew, i.e., Aramaic, and was surprised to hear Greek; the people expected Greek, and were surprised at Hebrew (Act. 22:2). Nothing could better illustrate the familiarity of the population of Jerusalem with both languages.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
37. Thou speak Greek? Paul, amid the storm, is the self-possessed master of his position. He avails himself, with undisturbed skill, of every advantage within reach, first to assuage the chiliarch, and then the people, in order to attain both safety for himself and triumph for the truth. The very dialect of the first words he utters wins the chiliarch.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And as Paul was about to be brought into the castle, he says to the chief captain, “May I say something to you?” And he said, “Do you know Greek?” Are you not then the Egyptian, who before these days stirred up to sedition and led out into the wilderness the four thousand men of the Assassins?”
Paul then paused on the steps of the fortress and spoke to the chief captain in articulate and sophisticated Greek. He asked, “May I say something to you?” It was always wise to ask a senior soldier for permission to speak to him. But the chief captain was taken by surprise at his articulate and cultured Greek for he had gained quite another impression of Paul, (we must assume from the crowd. He had asked the crowd who and what he was). That some of the crowd should have said what they did serves to demonstrate how little the majority knew the truth about the man whose death they had been seeking, even the false ‘truth’. They were simply a lynch mob, carried away by excitement and prejudice.
So he asked in surprise, ‘Are you not then the Egyptian, who before these days stirred up to sedition and led out into the wilderness the four thousand men of the Assassins?’ This was presumably what some in the crowds had told him. This character would later be spoken of by Josephus. It was a well known and infamous story. Three years prior to this an Egyptian Jew had claimed to be a prophet and had led a crowd of adherents out into the wilderness (patterning himself on Elijah and John the Baptiser), and then to the Mount of Olives, in order to Messianically attack Jerusalem declaring that the city walls would miraculously fall before him. He and his ‘assassins’ had been beaten off by Felix with much bloodshed, although he had escaped. The assassins (sicarii – ‘dagger men’) were strictly groups of Jews who carried daggers around with them hidden in their clothing so that at any opportunity that arose they could kill collaborators with the Romans, but the term no doubt became applied by the Romans to anyone who sought to slay them and their collaborators. After all they saw all who opposed them violently as little better than assassins.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Act 21:37-38. Who said, Canst thou speak Greek? St. Paul’s addressing himself in Greek to the chief captain surprised him a good deal, as he took him for an Egyptian impostor; upon which he said to him with some astonishment, “What then! can you speak Greek? Are not you that Egyptian, who some time ago made a disturbance in this country, and, under the pretence of being a mighty prophet, led out into the wilderness four thousand of the sicarii?” ( ) a kind of assassins, so called from the daggers or small crooked swords which they hid under their coats: for the Latin word sica, signifies a short sword or small dagger. These Sicarii, or assassins, came to Jerusalem, under a pretence of worshipping God at the temple, but they were so audacious, as to murder men in the day-time, in the middle of the city; and at the festivals moreespecially, when multitudes came thither from all parts, they would mix with the crowd, and with their private daggers stab their enemies:andthen, to conceal their wickedness, they would seem as full of indignation against the authors of such crimes as any of the people; by which means they continued for some time unsuspected: but being employed by the governor Felix to murder Jonathan the high-priest, and consequently escaping with impunity for so notorious a crime, they became more bold and insolent, and slew great numbers at every festival; some out of private revenge, but others as hired to it. And these slaughters theycommitted, not only in the city, but also in the temple itself, making no scruple of violating that holy place. Four thousand of these men the Egyptian impostor here spoken of led out from Jerusalem; and going into the country, and having raised his reputation amongthe people, he gathered together a great multitude, which amounted at least to thirty thousand men. It is probable, that before he left the city, he had so concerted matters with some friends whom he left behind him, as to entertain hopes, that, upon his return, his design would be favoured by great numbers of the Jews in Jerusalem, and that he should have no opposition from any but the Romans. Having assembled a sufficient number, he brought them round out of the wilderness up to the mount of Olives, whence he intended to force his way into Jerusalem; for, when he came thither, he promised his deluded followers that they should see the walls of the city fall down at his command. However, he hoped, by surprise, to have attacked and beaten the Roman guards, and then designed to bring the people into subjection, and govern them bythe help of his armed associates. Upon his arrival at the mount of Olives, Felix came suddenly out upon him, with a large body of the Roman soldiers, both horse and foot, and the citizens in general prepared also to defend themselves against him. This speedy and general opposition so surprised him, that he dared not venture an engagement; but presently fled away with a body of his most trusty friends, as is usual in such cases. The Roman soldiers were ordered to engage with those in particular, neglecting the rest, who were only a confused multitude, and who immediately made off as they could by different ways. All accounts agree that the Egyptian himself escaped, though his attempt came to nothing. Upon a review of this account, which is taken from Josephus, &c. the reader will remark the great accuracy with which St. Luke has represented Lysias speaking of this matter. The men were led into the wilderness; the impostor’s name was unknown, he being only called that Egyptian: he had escaped alive, and most of his followers had deserted him; so that the tumult of the Jews about him would have been no unnatural circumstance, since he had long ceased to be their idol.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Act 21:37-38 . . . .] as in Act 19:2 ; Luk 14:3 ; Mar 10:2 . “Modeste alloquitur,” Bengel.
] understandest thou Greek? A question of surprise at Paul’s having spoken in Greek. The expression does not require the usually assumed supplement of (Neh 13:24 ), but the adverb belongs directly to the verb ; comp. Xen. Anab . vii. 6. 8, Cyrop . vii. 5. 31: , comp. Graece nescire in Cic. p. Flacco , 4.
. . .] Thou art not then (as I imagined) the Egyptian , etc. The emphasis lies on , so that the answer would again begin with . See Klotz, ad Devar . p. 186. Comp. Bumlein, Partik . p. 281. Incorrectly, Vulgate, Erasmus, Beza, and others: nonne tu es, etc.
The Egyptian, for whom the tribune had probably from a mere natural conjecture of his own taken Paul, was a phantastic pseudo-prophet, who in the reign of Nero wished to destroy the Roman government and led his followers, collected in the wilderness, to the Mount of Olives, from which they were to see the walls of the capital fall down. Defeated with his followers by the procurator Felix, he had taken to flight (Joseph. Bell . ii. 13. 5, Antt . xx. 8. 6); and therefore Lysias, in consequence of his remembrance of this event still fresh after the lapse of a considerable time, [132] lighted on the idea that the dreaded enthusiast, now returned or drawn forth from his long concealment, had fallen into the hands of popular fury.
.] Joseph. Bell. l.c . gives the followers of the Egyptian at ; but this is only an apparent inconsistency with our passage, for here there is only brought forward a single, specially remarkable appearance of the rebel, perhaps the first step which he took with his most immediate and most dangerous followers, and therefore the reading in Josephus is not to be changed in accordance with our passage (in opposition to Kuinoel and Olshausen). [133]
How greatly under the worthless Felix the evil of banditti ( , the daggermen , see Suicer, Thes . II. p. 957: the article denotes the class of men) prevailed in Jerusalem and Judaea generally, see in Joseph. Antt . xx. 6 f.
[132] For different combinations with a view to the more exact determination of the time of this event, which, however, remains doubtful, see Wieseler, p. 76 ff.; Stlting, Beitr. z. Exegese d. Paul. Br . p. 190 ff.
[133] But there remains in contradiction both with our passage and with the of Josephus himself, his statement, Antt . xx. 8. 6, that 400 were slain and 200 taken prisoners; for in Bell . ii. 13. 5, he informs us that the greater part were either captured or slain. But this contradiction is simply chargeable to Josephus himself, as the incompatibility of his statements discloses a historical error, concerning which our passage shows decisively that it was committed either in the assertion that the greater part were captured or slain, or in the statement of the numbers in Antt. l.c .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
XXIX
PAUL IN THE HANDS OF HIS ENEMIES AT JERUSALEM
AND HIS SPEECH ON THE STAIRWAY
Act 21:37-23:30
The scripture for this chapter is Acts 22-23, and the general theme for the rest of the book of Acts is, “Paul in the hands of his enemies and under the protecting care of his Lord.” The distinct forces to be considered) each from its viewpoint, in their interplay on the results at Jerusalem, are as follows: (1) The believing Jews or Christians at Jerusalem; (2) the unbelieving Jews at Jerusalem, coming in from the dispersion to the feasts; (3) Lysias, the representative of the Roman military government in Jerusalem; (4) Paul’s kinsman; (5) Paul himself; (6) Paul’s Lord.
The Jewish Christians at Jerusalem forced upon Paul the observance of a custom that he didn’t consider binding, but he was willing for expediency’s sake to observe it, and thus put him in the Temple where he would be in full view of the millions of Jews gathered in Jerusalem. After putting him in that position and seeing that it was the cause of an assault upon his life by the unbelieving Jews, and of his arrest by the Romans, there is no record then or later of their coming in to testify in Paul’s behalf or bringing any influence whatever to bear to enable him to escape from the difficulty. Action moved so fast in the assault on him, and in the arrest and his being sent away from Jerusalem, that you might excuse their silence there, but when they knew he was taken to Caesarea, although some time elapsed before his trial there, and the enemies had ample notice and time to get there to testify against him, they sent no representatives.
The impression made on my mind is that they acted in an ungrateful, “scaly” sort of way. As he had come there to bring them a big collection that had taken him four years to gather together, and for their benefit, and as they had specifically endorsed his work among the Gentiles, and as they knew he was in that Temple at their instance, and also knew that the charge was false that he had introduced a Gentile into the sacred precincts, it is to me an amazing thing that they did nothing to help him.
As was shown in the former chapter, the whole unbelieving Jewish population, whether at Jerusalem or in the lands of the dispersion, was a seething, boiling pot, and feeling that the last thing that they had to hold to was this Temple and Moses, they were jealous to madness of anything that reflected upon the sanctity of that Temple or upon the customs of Moses. Of all men living they hated Paul most, because they regarded him as an apostate from the Jewish faith. They recognized him in the Temple, and couldn’t have touched him except upon one ground, and that was, that he had introduced into the sacred precincts a Gentile. The Romans did not allow the Jews generally to have jurisdiction over life and death, but out of deference to their intense jealousy to guard the sacred precincts of the Temple from intrusion, the Romans did allow them to kill any man found in those sacred precincts that was not a Jew.
That enables you to understand why they brought the accusation against him that he had introduced a Gentile into the sacred precincts. If they could do that they could kill him right there under the eyes of the Roman guard, and escape Roman prosecution. Their hate was uniform in its persistence, and multiform in its method. They manifested their intense rancor, not only by the manner in which the high priest commanded him to be smitten in the mouth when he appeared before the Sanhedrin, but because a number of avowed assassins, forty in number, came and apprised them of what they wanted to do, viz.: to kill Paul, and asked the Sanhedrin to enter into the plot this far, that it would urge that Paul be brought before the Sanhedrin again as if to gain further information. When they agreed to that they became guilty of the whole diabolical conspiracy.
Let us consider the case of Lysias, the chiliarch, who had charge of the Roman soldiers in Jerusalem. The procurator, Felix, was at Caesarea, and hence Lysias, the chiliarch, had command of all the Roman forces in Jerusalem, and was responsible on this point, that he should keep down all tumult. So that he was in the full discharge of his duty when he witnessed a tumult right under the Tower of Antonio and sent his soldiers to disperse that crowd, and found out what was the matter. He was in the full discharge of his duty when he saw all of them holding the one whom the Jews were trying to kill, for he supposed that it must be that Egyptian who had been the cause of such a slaughter of the Jews. He was following the Roman custom when, not being able to understand what the grievance was from what the crowd was shouting all around him, he ordered Paul to be examined by torture. It was a very cruel proceeding, but the Roman law allowed him to practice it always; that is, they stretched a man out with thongs, and put him to the torture to make him tell what was the cause of the assault against him. Lysias wanted to know what it was, and he couldn’t gather from what the Jews said; so he wanted to force the person accused to state the cause. “What devilment have you been into that makes the people want to kill you?” But when Paul avowed his Roman citizenship, Lysias followed the law in instantly countermanding the order to put him to the torture. And Lysias followed the Roman custom of inquiring into a case before he judged of the case, in having Paul brought before the Sanhedrin in order that in that open court he might ascertain what the gist of the matter was. And he recognized at a glance what it was. Then when a vow was made to kill Paul, he showed himself to be able in tactics and in administrative capacity to put Paul beyond the power of assassination, by sending him to his chief, the procurator at Caesarea. No man can read the action of Lysias in this whole matter without receiving a very favorable impression of this Roman officer.
But Paul had some kinsfolk there, and as there were forty men who had conspired to assassinate Paul, and as they carried their plot to the whole Sanhedrin (such a secret as that couldn’t be kept), so Paul’s kinsfolk found out about it, and the nephew came with a warning. It isn’t said that he was a Christian. That is probable, yet it is strange that James and the elders couldn’t find out anything and couldn’t offer any service, but this boy did find out, and took a very active and noble part.
So far as Paul is concerned, he is entirely innocent. He had done nothing to justify an assault upon him in the Temple. It was an outrageous thing against the Temple for any violent man to come into it and lay hold upon a man who was carrying out the Temple regulations. And when he was rescued by the Romans, we see that he didn’t lose his self-possession. The crowd came so near killing him that the soldiers had to pick him up and rush with him in their arms to get up that stairway out of danger, but before his feet hit the ground he wanted to say something. He wasn’t going to allow his life to be disposed of, and the cause to be put in jeopardy, without doing all he could. So he says to Lysias, “May I speak to you?” addressing him in Greek. “Why, do you speak Greek?” says Lysias, “Is supposed you to be that Egyptian.” “No,” says Paul, “I am a Jew, a citizen of Tarsus, no mean city.” “Well,” answers Lysias, “What do you want?” “Why, I want to speak to that mob there.” Lysias is very anxious to find out all the facts he can, and he permits it. So Paul stands there on the stairway and delivers that inimitable address that we will consider later, and as Paul spoke in Hebrew, Lysias couldn’t get any light on the subject, and when he proposes to bring Paul before the court to torture him, Paul still has his wits about him and says, “I am a Roman. You can’t torture me.” Then when Paul is brought before the council, he boldly affirms in his first sentence that from his youth up he had lived conscientiously, no matter which side he was on; that he thought he was doing God’s service when he did it.
When the high priest commanded him to be smitten in the mouth, Paul’s anger flashed out: “God will smite thee, thou whited wall! You attempt to try me by the law, and contrary to the law command me to be smitten in the mouth?” But when somebody said, “You are reviling the high priest,” quick as a flash he turned, saying, “Brethren, I knew not that he was the high priest. I remember the law says that there should be reverence toward rulers.” He possessed quick self-control, and then when he saw there was no chance to get a verdict before that crowd, with his will as quick as lightning, recognizing Pharisees and Sadducees there, he adopted the old Latin proverb, “Divide your enemies in order to conquer them,” and instantly avows that he is under charge on account of his belief in the resurrection of the dead.
The Pharisees, of course, sided with Paul on that, and the Sadducees against him, and they turned to fighting each other, and Paul escaped. It shows the most nimble wit in hazard. And then when his nephew brings him the information about the plot you see how his wisdom is running all the while. He says, “You go show these facts to Lysias.” Throughout the whole proceeding he commends himself to us in not getting scared, and in not losing his head; in seizing every opportunity for self-defense and for setting forth the cause. That is Paul’s part.
The tact of Paul’s speech on the stairway is almost infinite:
1. In that he spoke it in Hebrew. If anything in the world would appeal to that crowd it was to hear their own mother tongue. When such a great multitude of the Jews had lost the power to speak Hebrew, or even to read it, it was an instant appeal to them that this man would speak to them in the mother tongue.
2. While everything he said had been said before, yet it is the way in which he makes what he says meet that case. He applies it to this point: First, “I was once Just such a zealot as you are about your law. Your high priest knows it. You all know that I went to any length to put down Christianity. But, brethren, I met the Lord. The light in which I met him was so bright it blinded me. By the power of God I am a changed man. There has been an internal experience to justify my change from one crowd to another crowd, and the recognition of my change was by as devout a Jew as you are one Ananias and the Lord met him and sent him to authenticate what had been done. And to show that my heart is toward you as it ever has been, when I was in Jerusalem at the time of the conference here in the church I went to the Temple, and there the same Lord that converted me and that impressed Ananias to baptize me, told me to go to the Gentiles. You have nothing against me beyond my going to the Gentiles, and yet I have gone in obedience to your Messiah gone after an experience of conversion to prove to me that my former zeal against the church was wrong, and authenticated by a Jew just as zealous as you are.” It was impossible for an orator to state a case with any greater simplicity and with any more tactfulness. But when he said “Gentiles,” why that was like waving a red flag before a mad bull. Then they went to howling at once.
Here we have the expression, “Wash away thy sins.” We have already considered that in Act 2:38 , but I will restate it now, since here Paul is commanded to wash away his sins. Since he is commanded to wash away his sins in baptism, that proves that it wasn’t real cleansing from sin, but a figurative one, because God alone can remit sin, and there is no virtue in baptism to take it away. Therefore, what is meant is that Paul himself, not God, could symbolically wash away his sins in baptism. Baptism could symbolize the cleansing from sin, though it couldn’t actually remove it.
Lysias ordered Paul’s examination by torture in order to find out what the grievance of the Jews was against this man, and Paul escaped it, as I have already shown, by claiming to be a Roman citizen; and that leads to the next expedient of Lysias. As a Roman he is bound to find out in some way what the grievance is, so the next expedient is to order the Sanhedrin to come together, and he said, “You are not to mob this man. He is my prisoner, and I want to know what is against him,” and the expedient was very successful from his point of view. It demonstrated to him that there were no charges against Paul that could come under the jurisdiction of a Roman. So he won out on this expedient. He saw that they didn’t agree themselves, and that it was only a matter upon which Pharisees and Sadducees differed a matter of their own law and he never had any doubt about the case any more.
Paul’s saying, “I wist not that he was the high priest,” is hard to explain. I will give what some commentators have said, viz.:
First, that Ananias had usurped the office of high priest during a vacancy, and therefore was not recognized by Paul. There is no evidence that that office was vacant.
Second, that Paul, having been long absent, was really unacquainted with the person of the high priest. That cuts no figure, because Paul would recognize the man that was wearing the full official dress of the priest, as the priest.
Third, that the words are ironical: “I couldn’t be supposed to know that you, a man that would command me to be smitten in the mouth as you did, was high priest.”
Fourth, that Paul on account of his nearsightedness, his imperfect sight, couldn’t discern that dress. That is Farrar’s explanation, and it is a very plausible one, too.
Fifth, that “I wist not, brethren,” means, “I didn’t give it a thought; I just spoke fast, and when he commanded me to be smitten in the mouth I spoke without giving a thought to the fact that the one who said it was high priest.” That is not very plausible.
Of all these explanations the most plausible one to me is Farrar’s. A near-sighted man may come right into a room and unless he comes right up close to a person he will not recognize him.
[I most heartily agree here with Canon Farrar and Dr. Carroll on their explanation of Paul’s failure to recognize the high priest. It is almost tragical that there is so little allowance made for the man who has an infirmity of vision. I have suffered for nearly thirty years with what I suppose to be the same eye trouble that so harassed and afflicted Paul. Many times I do not recognize my best friends, even when they are but a few feet away. It has been one of the greatest of all my crosses, and I am sure that in this incident Paul did not have sufficient vision with which to recognize the high priest, and that this is a full explanation of the matter. Editor.]
Before this, Paul had set forth the Christian’s duty toward rulers in Rom 13:1-7 : “Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers: for there is no power but of God; and the powers that be are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God: and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment. For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shall have praise from the same; for he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil. Wherefore, ye must needs be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For, for this cause ye pay tribute also; for they are ministers of God’s service attending continually upon this very thing. Render to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.”
The explanation of the three classes of Paul’s military escort is that the Roman legion was divided. The main dependence of the Roman legion was what is called the heavy-armed soldiers. They carried the shields and that deadly short sword. They carried also an immensely long lance. When they drove that lance into the ground and drew on their short swords, they turned the battle. Right ahead of them was a line of spearmen, that before they got in touch with the enemy could throw their javelins, and fall back behind the heavy part. The third part was the light troops cavalry. Every legion had those three classes of soldiers, so when Lysias sent a guard of 200 soldiers, tremendously heavily armed troops, 200 spearmen, light armed troops, and 70 cavalrymen, that made a body that could adapt itself to any kind of an enemy that would attack them on the way and it was exceedingly formidable, for Lysias recognized the power of the malice of the Jews.
A very favorable impression is made on the mind by this account. The world never saw such military discipline as the Romans had. Whenever they camped for just one night they would do work enough to build a town. They would dig a ditch and throw up a wall around their camp. They knew exactly where to put the baggage wagons. Every cavalryman knew where his place was. Every spearman knew where his place was. It was a citadel of fortifications, if they just camped one night, and over all Europe, where the Romans marched, could be seen their camps at night. Frederick the Great came near having a military discipline equal to the Romans. As to the administration of justice, we are compelled to bow before it. Take this man Lysias, or Gallic, or any other case that came up, and how careful they are! They would say, “It is not our custom to try a man until we hear him. We will hear both sides of it. We want to know the facts, and if what he is accused of doesn’t come under the Roman jurisdiction, we dismiss the case.” And the only time when there is a “slip-up” in Roman justice is where the man appointed to power, like Pilate or like that slave, Felix, to whom we will come later, has itching palms or fears, then justice goes awry. The Roman code, together with the code of Moses, is the foundation of the law that rules the civilized world today. The Romans had good roads. They had good discipline. They had fine administration of justice. A “slip-up” would come only in some special cases, as I have mentioned.
There are three styles in this section the inimitable historical prose style of Luke, the epistolary style of Lysias, and the oratorical style of Paul in making a speech. When I read it over I can feel the touch of each one of them as I come to it.
When a school boy I read the twenty-seven novels of Walter Scott, and I had read quite a number of his historical books before I came to his epistolatory ones, and I was perfectly delighted when I came to Gauntlet, a story in the form of letters written from one to another. Scott enhanced the literary excellence of his stories by changing the style.
Lysias’ letter is a genuine letter. Paul’s speech is a great speech. Luke is a true historian. There is nothing stilted. There is one touch of human nature in the letter of Lysias. He knows how to write: “Claudius Lysias unto the most excellent governor, Felix, greeting: This man was seized of the Jews, and was about to be slain of them, when I came upon them with the soldiers, and rescued him, having learned that he was a Roman. And desiring to know the cause whereof they accused him, I brought him down unto their council: whom I found to be accused about questions of their law, but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds. And when it was shown to me that there would be a plot against the man, I sent him to thee forthwith, charging his accusers also, to speak against him before thee.”
So the one touch of human nature in that letter is this: “This man was taken of the Jews and would have been killed of them: Then I came with an army and rescued him.” Now, he didn’t know that Paul was a Roman when he first interfered. He found that out afterward, but as he stated it, it certainly put him in a more favorable light to make Felix think that he understood it that way that be was endeavoring to take care of the Roman people. Every man is the hero of the story he tells.
I knew a man to run into our camps on the frontier once, gasping for breath and his tongue out, telling about the Indians only two miles off, and how they had crowded him, bow he had saved his horses, and how he had come across to give information to the camp (it was all made up to scare us) and John Meriwether says, “I was a fool to believe you at first, but I was wise in believing you afterwards, because there was such a natural twang in the way you made yourself the hero, that I thought you were telling the truth.”
QUESTIONS 1. What the scripture for this chapter, and the general theme for all the remainder of Acts?
2. What distinct forces must be considered, each from its viewpoint, in their interplay on the results at Jerusalem?
3. State the case from the viewpoint of the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem, and your judgment of their performance.
4. What is the case of the unbelieving Jews there?
5. What is the case of Lysias, the chiliarch, who had charge of the Roman soldiers in Jerusalem?
6. What is the case of Paul’s kinsman?
7. What is the case of Paul himself?
8. Analyze Paul’s speech on the stairway, and give the substance of this speech in paraphrase.
9. What the explanation and force of “wash away thy sins”?
10. Why did Lysias order Paul’s examination by torture, and how did he escape?
11. What is the next expedient of Lysias, and what the result?
12. What is the explanation of Paul’s saying, “I wist not that he was the high priest”? What the remarks on this incident of the editor of this INTERPRETATION?
13. Where before had Paul set forth the Christian’s duty toward rulers and what is the substance of his statement?
14. How do you explain the three classes of Paul’s military escort?
15. What impression is made on the mind by this account of Roman military discipline and administration of justice?
16 When was there injustice practiced under the Roman law, and what illustrations cited?
17 What is the literary excellence of this section?
18. What is one touch of human nature in the letter of Lysias? Illustrate.
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
37 And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek?
Ver. 37. Canst thou speak Greek ] Ay, no man better, whensoever he pleased; witness his gallant apology to Tertulhs, Ac. xxiv., and again his most accurate apology to Agrippa, Ac. xxvi., wherein (Pericles-like) fulgurabat, iutonabat, &c., he lightened one while, thundered another, did what he would with his audience, became master of their affections, being as potent in his divine rhetoric as Cicero in his human; who, as it is said, while he pleaded for Ligarius, disarmed the angry emperor and got pardon for the poor suppliant.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
37. .] as ‘Grce nescire,’ Cic. pro Flacc. 4, , Xen. Cyr. vii. 5. 31: and reff. There is no ellipsis of .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 21:37 . ., see on Act 21:34 . , cf. Act 1:6 . . ; no need to supply , cf. Xen., Cyr. , vii., 5, 31; so in Latin, Grc nescire , Cic., Pro Flacco , iv., Vulgate, literally, Grc nosti?
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Act 21:37-40
37As Paul was about to be brought into the barracks, he said to the commander, “May I say something to you?” And he said, “Do you know Greek? 38″Then you are not the Egyptian who some time ago stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins out into the wilderness?” 39But Paul said, “I am a Jew of Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no insignificant city; and I beg you, allow me to speak to the people.” 40When he had given him permission, Paul, standing on the stairs, motioned to the people with his hand; and when there was a great hush, he spoke to them in the Hebrew dialect, saying,
Act 21:37 “Do you know Greek” The Colonel was surprised that Paul spoke Koine Greek because he apparently thought that Paul was an Egyptian insurrectionist that he had heard about (cf. Act 21:38 and Josephus’ Antiq. 2.13.5; 20.8.6). This Egyptian rebellion occurred between A.D. 52-57.
Act 21:38 “men of the Assassins” This is sicarii, a Latin term for assassins or dagger men. They are often called “zealots” in the NT (cf. Luk 6:15; Act 1:13). They were a group of Jews committed to the violent overthrow of the Romans.
A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 3, p. 382, mentions that this very word was used by Josephus to describe this Egyptian insurrectionist’s followers (cf. Josephus, Wars 2.13.5; Antiq. 20.8.6,10).
Act 21:39 “a citizen of no insignificant city” This is an idiom (litotes, see note at Act 12:18), which Paul used to assert his citizenship in a world-class university town. The text does not say if the Roman officer was impressed.
Act 21:40 “he had given him permission” This commander still wanted to know what this was all about!
“motioned to the people with his hand” This was apparently a well known hand gesture for silence so that a person could speak (cf. Act 12:17; Act 13:16; Act 19:33; Act 21:40; Act 26:1). This may have been a rhetorical gesture that Paul learned while studying rhetoric at Tarsus.
“he spoke to them in the Hebrew dialect” Paul spoke to the mob in Aramaic (the Jews had learned to speak Aramaic during their years under Persian rule). This quieted the mob for a period (cf. Act 22:2).
was = was about.
led = brought.
May I speak. Literally If (App-118. a) it is permitted me to say something.
Who = But he.
Canst thou speak = Dost thou know. Greek. ginosko. App-132.
Greek. Greek. Bellenisli. Only here and Joh 19:20.
37. .] as Grce nescire, Cic. pro Flacc. 4,- , Xen. Cyr. vii. 5. 31: and reff. There is no ellipsis of .
Act 21:37. , when he was about to be led) By a most immediate guidance of Divine wisdom, Paul takes this most suitable place for speaking [for making his address to the people],- ; may I he allowed?) He addresses him modestly.
chief
(Greek – , the Roman tribune). There were six such “chief captains” in each legion of 6000 men.
Act 21:19, Act 19:30, Mat 10:18-20, Luk 21:15
Reciprocal: Joh 18:12 – the captain Joh 19:20 – and Greek Act 21:34 – into Act 21:39 – suffer 2Co 6:9 – unknown
7
Act 21:37. While this military police was pushing Paul along, he asked permission to make a speech to the people in his own behalf. This request was made in the Greek language, which surprised the captain who thought Paul was an Egyptian.
Act 21:37. And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? who said, Canst thou speak Greek? At the foot of the stairs leading up to the Tower of Antonia (the Castle), the pressure of the angry throng apparently obliged the Roman guard to take up Paul in their arms, and closing round, to carry him out of harms way up the steps. Out of reach of the angry crowd, and standing as it seems on the steps at the entrance of the tower, this strange prisoner turned quietly to the captain and addressed him in Greek, a language the Roman was surprised to hear from this eastern pilgrim, as he supposed him to be. He had no idea that the prisoner was a person of high culture; the Roman officer at once perceiving the accused was no ordinary man, proceeded to interrogate him.
Observe, 1. The justice which the chief captain, though an heathen soldier, doth St. Paul: he demands what he had done, before he punishes him. An heathen would hear the cause before he condemns the person; a piece of justice which the law of nature requires and obliges to.
Observe, 2. The unjust suspicion which the chief captain had of St. Paul’s being a very bad man: Art not thou that Egyptian which madest an uproar, and leddest four thousand men that were murderers? Here St. Paul without cause is suspected for a rebel, a seducer, and a murderer, by the chief captain. It is not in the power of the most unspotted innocency to protect from jealousies and suspicion, from censure and calumny, from slander and false accusation. The peaceable apostle is suspected for a turbulent incendiary, Art not thou the Egyptian that madest an uproar?
Observe, 3. The just and necessary apology which St. Paul makes for himself: I am a Jew of Tarsus, a citizen of no mean city.
Where note, 1. He describes his original; I am a Jew, not that wicked Egyptian which you expected me to be, but a Jew of a religious and noble ancestors, is a desirable privilege and singular prerogative. St. Paul was a Jew, descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the holy patriarchs.
Note, 2. He describes the country where he was born: he was born in Cilicia, a rich and fruitful country in Asia.
Learn thence, That to be born in a rich and fruitful country (if godly and religious) is a very desirable favour and privilege: it is not blind chance and fortune, but a wise and merciful porvidence of God, which appointed both the place of our birth, and determined the bounds of our habitation. What mercy is it that we were born, not in Spain, not in Turkey, not in a land of darkness, but in a valley of vision! If the Spaniards have the golden mines, we have the golden treasure of the scripture, more to be desired than gold, yea, than much fine gold, Psa 19:1.
Note, 3. He describes, not only his country, but his native city, and the dignity of it: he was born in Tarsus, a citizen of no mean city, it being the metropolis or chief city of all Cilicia: in this famous city was the apostle born.
Learn thence, That to be born in a noble, free, and famous city, especially if privilege. St. Paul was born in the noble city of Tarsus; but how could he then say as he did, Act 22:1 that he was a Roman?
Answer, So he was; but not by birth, but by immunity and privilege. Tarsus was invested with the Roman privileges, and made free of Rome by M. Antonius: thus Paul was free born, and declared that they ought not to scourge a Roman citizen.
Note, lastly, That though the forementioned privileges are considerable privileges, namely, to be descended from noble ancestors, to be born in a famous country, and in a free city, (passages of divine Providence not to be overlooked or disregarded, but very highly valued and thankfully acknowledged;) yet must it be remembered, that all these are but outward and temporal privileges, common to the worst, as well as the best of men; such privileges as a man may enjoy, and yet be under the wrath of God, and the guilt of eternal damnation. Let us labour to be nobly minded, as well as nobly descended– by regeneration born from above; otherwise we are low born, mean born, be our parents never so high.
Thus the chapter concludes with an account of the apostle’s imminent preservation in a time of imminent danger: when likely to have been torn in pieces by the riotous rabble, God stirs up the chief captain, an heathen, belonging to the bloody trade of war, to rescue oppressed innocency; and the guard of soldiers, who had no manner of affection for Paul, God sets as a life-guard upon his person, they bear him up in their arms, give him liberty to speak for himself; and his apology, or defensive plea, we have recorded in the following chapter.
Paul’s Request to be Allowed to Speak
In proper fashion, Paul asked the chief captain, who had taken him prisoner, if he could speak. The captain was surprised to hear Paul so fluently speak to him in Greek, since he had assumed he was an Egyptian criminal. The captain described the man in question as the one who had led a band of some 4,000 men in rebellion. Josephus indicates they first attacked the Roman authorities in Jerusalem, then the Egyptian ran away into the wilderness.
Paul explained to the captain that he was a Jew from Tarsus in Cilicia. Coffman says, “Coins excavated from Tarsus carry the inscription, ‘Metropolis Autonomous,’ indicating that it had been granted autonomy by the Romans. It was an important metropolis noted for its educational facilities, as well as for trade, shipbuilding, and commerce.” The apostle went on to ask him for permission to speak to the very multitude that only moments before had sought to kill him! Once permission was granted, Paul gestured with his hand to gain the attention of the audience and a hush fell over the crowd. He then began to speak to them in Hebrew, or Aramaic ( Act 21:37-40 ). Bruce says, “Aramaic was not only the vernacular of Palestinian Jews, but was the common speech of all non-Greek speakers in western Asia, as far east as (and including) the Parthian empire beyond the Euphrates.”
Act 21:37-40. And as Paul was going to be led into the castle To which the soldiers were conducting him; he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? The wisdom of God teaching him to make use of that very time and place: Who Hearing him speak in the Greek language; said With some surprise; Canst thou speak Greek? Art not thou that Egyptian Who came into Judea when Felix had been some years governor there, (see note on Mat 24:26;) and, calling himself a prophet, drew much people after him: and, having brought them through the wilderness, led them to mount Olivet, promising that the walls of the city should fall down before them. But Felix marching out of Jerusalem against him, his followers were quickly dispersed, many of whom were taken or slain, but he himself made his escape. To the tribunes question, Paul replied that he was a Jew, born in Tarsus, in Cilicia, and begged that he would suffer him to speak to the people. And when he had given him license To say what he pleased; Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with his hand unto the people To show that he was going to speak to them. And when there was made great silence Their curiosity concurring with other motives to make them desire to hear what he could say in his own defence; he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue Or that dialect of it which was then commonly spoken at Jerusalem.
See notes on verse 35
Act 21:37-40. Conversation on the Steps: Paul Addresses the Jews.Josephus (Wars, II. xiii. 5, Ant. XX. viii. 6) tells us of an Egyptian Jew who, under Felix, led 30,000 men to the Mount of Olives with promises of the Messianic kingdom. He escaped when his followers were killed and dispersed; the tribune here supposes the Jews to be taking vengeance on him. He is surprised to hear Paul speak Greek: what language he expected the Egyptian to use, is not clear. The assassins are the Sicarii, dagger-men, who were the extreme Jewish party and spread terror in Juda in the days of Felix (p. 610). That Paul after his rough usage should be anxious to address the excited crowd at his feet, seems unlikely, as also is his being allowed by the tribune to do so. But this is the last opportunity for Paul to address the Jewish people; the stairs give the position, and he is exhibited once more as enjoying the favour of a Roman official (cf. Act 13:7, Act 18:12 ff.).
Verse 37
Canst thou speak Greek? Paul probably asked the question in the Greek tongue, at which the chief captain was surprised, as it was a mark of cultivation and refinement to understand that language.
Paul’s request to address the people 21:37-40
The commander had assumed that Paul was a certain Egyptian who had appeared in Jerusalem three years earlier. This man claimed to be a prophet of God and announced that the wall of Jerusalem would collapse at his command. He further claimed that he would lead his followers from the Mount of Olives into Jerusalem where they would defeat the Romans and throw off their yoke. The Romans, however, attacked this man’s followers first and killed many of them, but he had escaped.
The Egyptian’s followers came from the ranks of the Assassins (lit. dagger-men). These were radicals who mingled with crowds with daggers hidden under their cloaks and stabbed Romans and pro-Roman Jews stealthily in an attempt to gain Jewish independence from Rome. [Note: Josephus, The Wars . . ., 2:13:3, 5; and Antiquities of . . ., 20:8:5, 6, 10. See also Richard A. Horsley, "High Priests and the Politics of Roman Palestine," Journal for the Study of Judaism 17:1 (June 1986):42-43; and Mark A. Brighton, "The Sicarii in Acts: A New Perspective," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 54:3 (September 2011):547-58.]
Claudius Lysias evidently thought this man had returned to the temple area to recruit more followers and the people who now recognized him as an impostor had turned against him.
Paul’s defense before the Jewish mob 21:37-22:22
"In this first of Paul’s five defenses, Luke’s apologetic interests come to the fore in highlighting the nonpolitical character of Christianity (contrary to other messianic movements of the day, cf. Act 21:38) and in presenting Paul’s mandate to the Gentiles as being the major reason for Jewish opposition to the gospel (cf. Act 22:10-22)." [Note: Longenecker, p. 523.]
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)