Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 24:6
Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, and would have judged according to our law.
6. who also hath gone about [ who moreover assayed R. V. ] to profane the temple ] The old English “gone about” was equivalent to “attempted.” Cp. Shaks. Mids. Nt. D. iv. 1. 212: “Man is but an ass, if he go about to expound this dream.” But the expression is somewhat obsolete now.
It is noteworthy that the Jews no longer adhere to their definite charge as made Act 21:28, but only impute to St Paul the attempt at profanation.
whom we took ] i.e. by main force. They would represent their proceedings as an arrest of a grave offender.
and would, &c.] These words, as well as Act 24:7 and Act 24:8 down to “come unto thee” are omitted in nearly all the oldest MSS., and by the Rev. Ver., while the Greek Text, in those MSS. where it is found, exhibits many variations. But in spite of this it is very difficult to see how the advocate could have avoided some allusion to the circumstances mentioned in these words. Of course he puts the matter in a light most favourable to the Jews. “We would have judged him according to our law” is very different language from that in which (Act 23:27) Lysias describes Paul as in danger to be killed by the Jews. The action of Lysias too is described by Tertullus as one of great violence. Probably the Roman soldiers would not handle the mob tenderly. But Tertullus is trying to cast blame upon the chief captain and to represent his party as doing all things according to law.
according to our law ] Tertullus identifies himself, advocate-like, with the Jews whose mouthpiece he is.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Who also hath gone about – Who has endeavored.
To profane the temple – This was a serious, but unfounded charge. It arose from the gross calumny of the Jews, when they pretended that he had introduced Greeks into that sacred place, Act 21:28. To this charge he replies in Act 24:18.
And would have judged – That is, would have condemned and punished.
According to our law – Their law, which forbade the introduction of strangers into the temple.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 6. Hath gone about to profane the temple] This was a heavy charge, if it could have been substantiated, because the Jews were permitted by the Romans to put any person to death who profaned their temple. This charge was founded on the gross calumny mentioned, Ac 21:28-29; for, as they had seen Trophimus, an Ephesian, with Paul in the city, they pretended that he had brought him into the temple.
Would have judged according to our law] He pretended that they would have tried the case fairly, had not the chief captain taken him violently out of their hands; whereas, had not Lysias interfered, they would have murdered him on the spot.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Hath gone about to profane the temple; by bringing into the temple (as they falsely suggested) uncircumcised persons: but Tertullus does not mention this, or show in what Paul had profaned the temple; for Felix himself being uncircumcised, it would have reflected upon him too much, to be accounted, by the Jews, amongst such profane ones, as were enough to defile their temple and worship.
Would have judged according to our law; they had a law, it seems, whereby it was death to bring strangers into the temple; and some think, that by the Romans they had yet power allowed them to put it in execution:
See Poole on “Act 21:28“. And this was their aim all along, viz. to take away his life.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
6. hath gone aboutattempted.
to profane the templethethird charge; and entirely false.
we . . . would have judgedaccording to our law.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Who also hath gone about to profane the temple,…. By introducing a Greek into it; see Ac 21:28 which was only a supposition and conjecture of the Asiatic Jews, and was a false and groundless one:
whom we took; as they did in the temple, and dragged him out of it:
and would have judged according to our law; which was another untruth, for they had him not before any court of judicature; they brought no charge in form against him, nor did they examine his case, and inquire into the truth of things, or hear what he had to say, but fell upon him, and beat him; and if it had not been for the chief captain and his soldiers, would have destroyed him, so far were they from proceeding according to their law: it seems by Tertullus calling the law, “our law”, that he was a Jewish proselyte; or else he speaks after the manner of lawyers, who call what is their clients, theirs.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Assayed to profane ( ). A flat untruth, but the charge of the Asian Jews (21:28-30). Verbum optum ad calumnian (Bengel).
We seized (). As if the Sanhedrin had arrested Paul, Tertullus identifying himself with his clients. But it was the mob (21:28-31) that attacked Paul and Lysias who rescued him (21:32ff.).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
To profane [] . The word is akin to bhlov, threshold, and bainw, to step; and its fundamental idea, therefore, is that of overstepping the threshold of sacred places. The word profane is the Latin pro fanurn, in front of the sanctuary; that which is kept outside the fane because unholy.
We laid hold. The best texts omit all after these words as far as by examining.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Who also hath gone about to profane the temple:(hos kai to hieron epeitasen bebelosai) “Who also attempted to profane (desecrate) the temple; Deliberately tried to pollute the temple, a third falsehood that he could not sustain with evidence. Note: Tertullus, the orator that Jerusalem Jews hired to prosecute Paul before Felix the governor, invented three basic false charges against Paul: 1) A charge of sedition, 2) A charge of heresy, and 3) A charge of profaning or desecrating the temple, without any truthful evidence to support a single charge, Act 24:12-16; Act 25:7-8; Act 26:31.
2) “Whom we took,” (hon kai ekratesamen) “Whom we even went so far as to lay hold of;” We grabbed in the very act, in his polluting the temple; This was a deliberate lie- -not one witness, even one, did they have to sustain this charge, and Tertullus knew it. They had just “supposed” that he had brought an uncircumcised Greek into the temple, Act 21:28-29.
3) “And would have judged according to our law.” (omitted in older manuscripts) but appears to bring forward what is asserted, Act 21:27-31.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
−
6. Who went about to pollute the temple. It was a light and almost a frivolous accusation to lay this to his charge before the Roman governor, who could have wished that the temple had been turned topsy-turvy. But because nothing was more fit for procuring uproars than the polluting of the temple, he doth craftily accuse Paul thereof, as if he should say, that it was no thanks to him that Jerusalem was not on an uproar; and that he carried such a firebrand as might have procured sore hurt if he had not been prevented. Also he includeth that other thing, that because Paul had offended in matters of religion, it did belong properly to the Jews to give judgment in that matter. And here he complaineth also of the chief captain Lysias, because he robbed them of their right. Therefore his drift is, to obtain at the hands of the ruler that he will restore to them that which Lysias had taken from them. This is also not void of subtilty, in that Tertullus doth discredit the chief captain, because he dealt more courteously towards Paul than the priests would he should; and glancingly he bringeth him in suspicion, because he dare not openly accuse him. But the question is, whether they could hope that the governor would grant them so much, seeing the Roman magistrates alone were to sit upon life and death? I answer, that he maketh in this place some semblance of equity, as if they were purposed to handle him more gently than he deserved. For though they might not condemn any man to death, yet they might use some light chastisement as was scourging. Nevertheless, Tertullus doth not cease to desire before the president to have him put to death. −
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(6) Who also hath gone about to profane the temple.Better, who even attempted to profane. Here the case was clearly to be supported by the evidence of the Jews of Asia. The charge, we see, was modified from that in Act. 21:28. Then they had asserted that he had actually taken Trophimus within the sacred precincts. Now they were contented with accusing him of the attempt.
Whom we took . . .The advocate throughout identifies himself, after the manner of his calling, with his clients; and in his hands the tumult in the Temple becomes a legal arrest by the officers of the Temple, which was to have been followed in due course by a legal trial, as for an offence against the law of Israel, before a religious tribunal.
The words from according to our law to come unto thee are omitted in many MSS., and may have been either the interpolation of a scribe, or a later addition from the hand of the writer. Assuming them to be part of the speech, they are an endeavour to turn the tables on Lysias by representing him as the real disturber of the peace. All was going on regularly till his uncalled-for intervention.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Act 24:6. Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: Tertullus artfully mentions this as the most express fact he had to charge upon him, well knowing that the Romans allowed the Jews a power of executing, even without forms of law, any person who should be found in any such act of profanation; and he seems to have designed to make a merit of their moderation, that they intended, nevertheless, fairly to have tried him, and not to have destroyed him on the spot, as Lysias had justly charged them with attempting: and it is observable, that Tertullus no where expressly avows so much as a design to have put St. Paul to death, though it was undoubtedly intended, The expression, with great violence took him, Act 24:7 is another base and false insinuation of this orator, as if Lysias’s just care of the life of a man had stopped the course of justice, and been an act of the highest outrage.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
6 Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, and would have judged according to our law.
Ver. 6. To profane the temple ] A loud lie: but innocence is no target against calumny.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Act 24:6 . : the charge could not be proved, cf. Act 21:28 , but the verb here used is an aggravation not a modification of the surmise ( , Act 21:29 ) of the Jews. ., cf. Mat 12:5 ( , , threshold), Jdt 9:8 , Mal 2:12Mal 2:12 ; 1Ma 4:38 ; 1Ma 4:44 ; 1Ma 4:54 , 2Ma 10:5 , etc., and frequent in LXX, cf. Psalms of Solomon Act 1:8 , and four, three times. Probably Tertullus wanted to insinuate that the prisoner was punishable even according to Roman law, see above on Act 21:29 ; but Trophimus as a Greek and not Paul would have been exposed to the death penalty, to say nothing of the fact that the charge was only one of suspicion. Schrer, Jewish People , div. i., vol. ii., p. 74, note, and references in chap. 21, Act 21:29 . : the word could be used “de conatu vel mero vel efficaci,” and so Bengel adds “aptum igitur ad calumniam”. The orator identifies himself with his clients, and ascribes to the hierarchy the seizing of Paul, as if it was a legal act, whereas it was primarily the action of the mob violence of the people, Act 21:30 ; frequently used in same sense as here by Matthew and Mark, but not at all by St. John, and only in this passage by Luke, cf. Rev 20:2 , LXX, Psa 55 , tit. , Jdg 8:12 ; Jdg 16:21 (A al [379] ). , Act 24:8 , see critical note, omitted by R.V. in text, retained by Blass and Knabenbauer, so in Vulgate. Zckler amongst others has recently supported Blass, and for the same reason, viz. , because if the words are retained the judge is asked to inquire of Paul, and thus the Apostle becomes a witness as well as a prisoner. But, on the other hand, Paul though still a prisoner is allowed to speak for himself before both Felix and Festus. If the words are retained, would refer to Lysias, and this would be in agreement with the remarks of Felix in Act 24:22 . Certainly seems very bald without any sequel, and this may have caused the insertion of the words; but the insertion was a bold one, although we can understand that the Jews would have been incensed against Lysias, who had twice protected Paul from their violence. The omission of the words if they formed part of the original text is no doubt difficult to explain. . , cf. Act 21:31 ; Act 21:36 , Act 22:22 , Act 23:12 , passages which give us a very different idea of the wishes of the Jews.
[379] Alford’s Greek Testament .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
also. This should follow “temple”.
hath gone about = attempted. Same as “assayed” (Act 16:7).
profane = pollute. Greek. bebeloo. See note on Mat 12:5, the only other occurances.
temple. Greek. hieron. See note on Mat 23:16.
took = seized also.
and would have, &c. These words and Act 24:7 and Act 24:8, as far as “unto thee”, are omitted by the texts, but not by the Syriac. Dean Alford puts the words in brackets and declares himself at a loss to decide respecting them, it being inexplicable that Tertullus should have ended so abruptly.
would have judged = purposed (Greek. ethelo. App-102.) to judge.
judged. Greek. krino. App-122.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Act 24:6. , attempted) This verb may be understood of a mere attempt, or else of an effectual effort: therefore it was a term suited for creating odium.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
gone: Act 24:12, Act 19:37, Act 21:27-29
whom: Act 21:30-32, Act 22:23, Act 23:10-15
and: Joh 18:31, Joh 19:7, Joh 19:8
Reciprocal: Psa 35:11 – False witnesses Pro 18:17 – General Act 18:13 – General Act 18:15 – for Act 21:28 – Men Act 23:29 – questions Act 25:7 – and laid Act 25:8 – Neither Act 28:22 – for 1Pe 2:12 – that
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
7
Act 24:6-7. This was a falsehood. (See chapter 21:30-34.)
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 24:6. Who also hath gone about to profane the temple. More literally, who even tried to profane. It is noticeable that here the error of the tumultuous Jews, who, when they saw Paul in the temple, at once accused Him of having profaned the holy building by the introduction of a Gentile into the sacred enclosure, is corrected. Here the careful lawyer modifies the original accusation, and merely states the prisoner had attempted to profane the Jerusalem templean offence which the Jews might punish with death, even in the event of the transgressor being a Roman citizen. There were thus three distinct grave charges brought against the accused Paul by the Sanhedrim: (1) that he was one that excited seditions in different parts of the Empire; (2) that, as a leader of the Nazarene sect, he was an introducer of strange gods, a teacher of an unlawful religion; (3) that he had attempted to profane the Jerusalem templean offence which, by the direct permission of the Roman government, was punishable by the Jews with death.
And would have judged. . . . Act 24:8. Commanding his accusers to come unto thee. This whole passage, parts of Act 24:6-8, according to the strict rules of criticism, must be expunged from our New Testament. The critical evidence for and against the words is as follows: The passage is omitted in five out of the six of the great Greek (uncial) MSS., upon which we rely here for our text of the Acts,the exception being Codex E of the sixth or seventh century,and in most of the versions, the Syriac being the exception. Still, the fact that Codex E, the famous MS. of the Acts of Archbishop Laud (belonging to the sixth century), now in the Bodleian library, Oxford, contains it, as do also those more ancient Syriac versions, and that Chrysostom quotes it, inclines us to the opinion it was very likely a later and comparatively speaking little-heeded addition of the author (St. Luke) to his original writings. Perhaps Dean Alfords compromise, by which he prints the disputed words, but encloses them in a bracket [ … J thus, is the fairest and best solution of an acknowledged difficulty. There is no doctrinal gain or loss by the omission or retention of the passage: a better sense certainly is gained by retaining the words as we find them in our English Version; so that, as Meyer justly observes, if they are genuine, it is difficult to see why any one should have left them out.
We would have judged, or better, we wished to judge. This hardly agrees with the statement of chap. Act 21:31, and as they went about to kill him; or with chap. Act 26:21, the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me. Still, the unfair, untruthful gloss with which the advocate covers the transaction, well agrees with the general false tone of his whole speech.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
See notes on verse 2
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Third, Tertullus claimed Paul had tried to desecrate the temple, allegedly by bringing a Gentile into its inner precincts (Act 21:28). This was a softening of the Asian Jews’ earlier charge that Paul had indeed brought Trophimus into the inner precincts of the temple (Act 21:28-29). Tertullus’ statement that the Jews had arrested Paul harmonized with Lysias’ report (Act 23:27). The Jews had tried to kill Paul on the spot too (Act 21:31-33). Perhaps Tertullus did not mention that because it would have put the Jews in a very bad light. This third charge implied that Felix should put Paul to death since Rome had given the Jews the right to execute temple desecrators.