Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 24:19
Who ought to have been here before thee, and object, if they had aught against me.
19. and object ] Better (with Rev. Ver.), “and to make accusation.” They had set the cry against him, and now did not come to say what he had done wrong. They were probably on their way home, now that the feast was over.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Who ought to have been here … – They were the proper witnesses, and as they had staid away it showed that they were not prepared to undergo a strict examination. They alone could testify as to anything that occurred in the temple; and as they were not present, that charge ought to be dismissed.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Who ought to have been here; the Jews of Asia, who had caused all this stir, having seen Trophimus with Paul in the streets of Jerusalem, and maliciously presuming that he had brought him into the temple with him. Now these were the only proper witnesses, who might therefore be now absent, because they could testify nothing to the purpose, and when they thought seriously upon it, their consciences might accuse them for the clamour they had made against the apostle, Act 21:28. As for the other Jews, they could only testify, by hearsay, which is not sufficient.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
Who ought to have been here before thee,…. For they were the only persons who saw him in the temple, and what he was doing; and who by an hideous outcry raised a mob upon him, who took things upon hearsay from them:
and object, if they had ought against me; either with respect to sedition, or blasphemy, error or heresy, if they were capable of proving anything.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
But certain Jews from Asia ( ). No verb appears in the Greek for these words. Perhaps he meant to say that “certain Jews from Asia charged me with doing these things.” Instead of saying that, Paul stops to explain that they are not here, a thoroughly Pauline anacoluthon (2Co 7:5) as in 26:9. “The passage as it stands is instinct with life, and seems to exhibit the abruptness so characteristic of the Pauline Epistles” (Page).
Who ought to have been here before thee ( ). This use of with genitive of the person is common. The imperfect indicative with verbs of necessity and obligation to express failure to live up to it is common in Greek (Robertson, Grammar, pp. 919-21). “The accusers who were present had not witnessed the alleged offence: those who could have given evidence at first-hand were not present” (Furneaux). There was no case in a Roman court. These Asiatic Jews are never heard of after the riot, though they almost succeeded in killing Paul then.
If they had aught against me ( ). A condition of the fourth class or undetermined with less likelihood of being determined ( with the optative, Robertson, Grammar, p. 1021). This is a “mixed condition” (op.cit., p. 1022) with a conclusion of the second class.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “Who ought to have been here before thee,” (hous edei eip sou pareinei) “Who should have been present,” here before you. The “certain Asiatic Jews,” who had stirred up the uproar in the temple at Jerusalem, should have been brought along, that is subpoenaed to witness before the governor Felix, against Paul, if they had seen, heard, or knew any wrong doing by Paul, relative or germane to the charges, Act 23:30.
2) “And object, if they had ought against me.” (kai kategorein ei ti echoien epoe eme) “And to make accusations, if they have anything of substance against me,” that, as required in civilized courts, there be two or three witnesses, against one, before finding him guilty of the nature of crimes lodged against Paul by Tertullus, the “hot-air” prosecuting orator. For he had charged Paul with the crimes of: 1) Sedition, 2) Heresy, and 3) Profaning or Desecrating the Jewish temple, all of which were proved to be about as basically false as the charge of the Jews that Jesus was not Caesar’s friend, Act 24:5-6; Act 25:16; 2Co 131; Joh 19:21.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
−
19. Certain Jews. This is an imperfect speech; yet the sense is plain, that these men of Asia, as it should seem, had caused a tumult without cause, of whose absence he complaineth; as if he should say, Ye which lay so many things to my charge, cannot tell how the matter standeth; but you bring before the judgment-seat of the governor a tale which was rashly believed. But those who are to be blamed for the matter, and who were as fans to set all on fire, appear not. After that Paul hath turned back [retorted] the crime upon others, taking to himself a good courage, he doth now appeal unto the adversaries which are present, willing them if they know anything by him freely to utter it; though I dissent from Erasmus and the old interpreter in the participle σταντος, for they translate it in the present tense; and they expound the word συνεδριον, or council, of the sitting of the governor, which I think is far from Paul’s meaning. For his meaning is, in my judgment, that he was ready to give an account of all things in their council. And that they knew nothing then which they can lay to his charge, because they began to stir only for this one voice, when he said that he was judged of the resurrection of the dead; that is, that he suffered all this trouble for no other cause, save only because he did hope for the resurrection of the dead. Whereby it appeareth that they now coin a new accusation for no cause, because, if there had been in him any fault, they would not have concealed it then. It is likely that they had farther talk, and that they came nearer together, − (588) because we shall see elsewhere that they did contend about Christ; but it was Luke’s drift only to declare how well Paul had cleared himself of the false accusations of his accusers.
(588) −
“
Et proprius quasi manu conserta congressos esse,” and came, as it were, to close quarters.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(19) Who ought to have been here before thee.The originators of the disturbance shrank from the consequences of their actions, and either remained at Jerusalem or else started on their homeward journey as soon as the Feast was over.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
19 Who ought to have been here before thee, and object, if they had ought against me.
Ver. 19. Who ought to have been here before thee ] For those that are here to accuse me, speak but by hearsay, which is tam ficti pravique tenax quam nuntia veri, a loud liar, for the most part.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
19. ] , not , implying the subjective possibility merely, and disclaiming all knowledge of what the charge might be. The sentence is an anacoluthon: is absolutely asserted in the present: then in the opt. follows, as if the hypothetical had been used: and hence the correction to . (So I wrote in former editions, and so I still believe: but the text must follow the evidence of the great MSS. [1870.]) On the opt. after the hypothetical indicative, see Bern-hardy, Syntax, p. 386 ff.
This also is a skilful argument on the part of the Apostle: it being the custom of the Romans not to judge a prisoner without the accusers face to face, he deposes that his real accusers were the Asiatic Jews who first raised the cry against him in the temple, not the Sanhedrim , who merely received him at the hands of others, and that these were not present .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 24:19 . without , cf. Luk 11:42 ; Luk 15:32 ; on the force of this imperfect, see Burton, p. 14, Winer-Moulton, xli. 2. : the optative of subjective possibility, representing the subjective view of the agent if they had anything against me (in their own belief), Winer-Moulton, xli. b 2, Viteau, Le Grec du N. T. , p. 111 (1893), Burton, p. 106. : “to make accusation,” R.V., cf. Act 24:2 .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
before. Greek. epi. App-104.
object = accuse, as in Act 24:2.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
19.] , not , implying the subjective possibility merely, and disclaiming all knowledge of what the charge might be. The sentence is an anacoluthon: is absolutely asserted in the present: then in the opt. follows, as if the hypothetical had been used: and hence the correction to . (So I wrote in former editions, and so I still believe: but the text must follow the evidence of the great MSS. [1870.]) On the opt. after the hypothetical indicative, see Bern-hardy, Syntax, p. 386 ff.
This also is a skilful argument on the part of the Apostle:-it being the custom of the Romans not to judge a prisoner without the accusers face to face, he deposes that his real accusers were the Asiatic Jews who first raised the cry against him in the temple,-not the Sanhedrim, who merely received him at the hands of others,-and that these were not present.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 24:19. , whom) Never does the world commit greater solecisms (blunders) in violation even of its own laws, than in persecuting the faith.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Act 23:30, Act 25:16
Reciprocal: Act 24:8 – by
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Act 24:19. Who ought to have been here before thee, and object, if they had ought against me. This was happily urged by the apostle, as it was the Roman custom not to judge a prisoner on any charge unless the accusers were present. Paul urges that his accusers really were not the Sanhedrim nor the Jews then in court, but certain foreign pilgrims from Ephesus (Asia). These we hear nothing of now; they had doubtless tarried behind in Jerusalem, or had already set out on their return journey.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
See notes on verse 10
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 19
Who ought, &c.; meaning the Jews from Asia who made the original charge.