Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 19:37
For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.
37. For robbers of churches ] Better, robbers of temples with Rev. Ver. As the temple at Ephesus had a great treasure-chamber, the offence might not be unknown among them. All that was placed under the guardianship of the goddess would be for the time the property of the temple, to steal which would be sacrilege.
nor yet blasphemers of your goddess ] The “yet” has nothing to represent it in the original, and the oldest MSS. read “ our goddess.” In a popular address it is natural that such a speaker would identify himself with his fellow-citizens. We may gather from this verse that the language of St Paul and his companions had been measured when they had spoken about the special worship of Ephesus. They had inculcated the great principle that those were no gods which were made with hands and had allowed that to do its work. We find the same restraint put on himself by St Paul at Athens, though he was greatly moved to see the city wholly given to idolatry. Different conduct in either of these cities would most likely have deprived him of all chance of a hearing.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For ye … – Demetrius and his friends. The blame was to be traced to them.
Which are neither robbers of churches – The word churches we now apply to edifices reared for purposes of Christian worship. Since no such churches had then been built, this translation is unhappy, and is not at all demanded by the original. The Greek word hierosulous is applied properly to those who commit sacrilege; who plunder temples of their sacred things. The meaning here is that Paul and his companions had not been guilty of robbing the temple of Diana, or any other temple. The charge of sacrilege could not be brought against them. Though they had preached against idols and idol worship, yet they had offered no violence to the temples of idolaters, nor had they attempted to strip them of the sacred utensils employed in their service. What they had done, they had done peaceably.
Nor yet blasphemers of your goddess – They had not used harsh or reproachful language of Diana. This had not been charged on them, nor is there the least evidence that they had done it. They had opposed idolatry; had reasoned against it; and had endeavored to turn the people from it. But there is not the least evidence that they had ever done it in harsh or reproachful language. This shows that people should employ reason, and not harsh or reproachful language against a pervading evil; and that the way to remove it is to enlighten the minds of people, and to convince them of the error of their ways. People gain nothing by bitter and reviling words; and it is much to obtain the testimony of even the enemies of religion as Paul did of the chancellor of Ephesus – that no such words had been used in describing their crimes and follies.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 37. These men – are neither robbers of churches] ; Spoilers of sacred places. As his design evidently was to appease and conciliate the people, he fixed first on a most incontrovertible fact: These men have not spoiled your temples; nor is there any evidence that they have even blasphemed your goddess. The apostles acted as prudent men should: they endeavoured to enlighten the minds of the multitude, that the absurdity of their gross errors might be the more apparent; for, when they should know the truth, it was likely that they would at once abandon such gross falsehood.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Neither robbers of churches; for they had not entered into their temple.
Nor yet blasphemers of your goddess; Paul had barely preached this truth amongst them, not upbraiding them for their idolatry; as Michael, the archangel, brought no railing accusation against the devil, when he contended with him, Jud 1:9.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
37. For ye have brought hither thesemen, which are neither robbers of churches“temple-plunderers,”or sacrilegious persons.
nor yet blasphemers of yourgoddessThis is a remarkable testimony, showing that theapostle had, in preaching against idolatry, studiously avoided (as atAthens) insulting the feelings of those whom he addresseda lessonthis to missionaries and ministers in general.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
For ye have brought hither these men,…. The Arabic version reads, “these two men”; that is, Gaius and Aristarchus, whom they had brought by force into the theatre to fight with wild beasts:
which are neither robbers of churches; or “temples”; or, as the Arabic version renders it, “robbers of the vessels of the temple”, sacrilegious persons; they have not stolen anything out of the temple of Diana, nor any other:
nor yet blasphemers of your goddess; they have not made mention of her name, much less said anything against her, at least this officer did not know that they had; and if he had, he did not stick to tell an officious lie to screen them, as did the Egyptian midwives in favour of the Hebrew women.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Neither robbers of temples ( ). Common word in Greek writers from , temple, and , to rob, be guilty of sacrilege. The word is found also on inscriptions in Ephesus. The Jews were sometimes guilty of this crime (Ro 2:22), since the heathen temples often had vast treasures like banks. The ancients felt as strongly about temple-robbing as westerners used to feel about a horse-thief.
Nor blasphemers of our goddess ( ). Nor those who blasphemed our goddess. That is to say, these men (Gaius and Aristarchus) as Christians had so conducted themselves (Col 4:5) that no charge could be placed against them either in act (temple-robbery) or word (blasphemy). They had done a rash thing since these men are innocent. Paul had used tact in Ephesus as in Athens in avoiding illegalities.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Robbers of churches [] . The A. V. puts a droll anachronism into the mouth of the town – clerk of a Greek city. Render, rather, as Rev., robbers of temples.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “For ye have brought hither these men,” (egagete gar tous andrasioutous) “For you all led these men,” up here, before the town mob, mob meeting of the city, Gaius and Aristarchus, companions of Paul in mission service, Act 19:29; Col 4:10.
2) “Which are neither robbers of the churches,” (oute hierosulous) “Who are neither temple robbers,” thieves of temple idols, robbers of idol temples.
3) “Nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.” (oute blasphemountas ten theon hemon) “Nor even at all blaspheming your goddess,” the goddess Diana, neither guilty in act, nor in language, of disrespect to our goddess, Rom 2:22; 1Th 1:9; 1Co 1:23-24. It appears that Paul studiously, with speech “seasoned with salt,” avoided insulting the idol worshippers in Ephesus, as he had done in Athens, Act 17:22-31; Col 4:6.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
−
37. Men which are neither church-robbers. He doth both truly and well deny that they be church-robbers; but he doth shortly after falsely define the kind of church-robbery to speak blasphemously against Diana. For seeing that all superstition is profane and polluted, it followeth that those be sacrilegious persons who translate the honor which is due to God alone unto idols. But the wisdom of the town-clerk, and that carnal, is here commended, and not his godliness. For he had respect unto this alone to extinguish the heat of the uproar; and therefore doth he at length conclude, if Demetrius have any private matter, there be judgment-seats and magistrates. And that public affairs must be handled in a lawful, and not in a disordered assembly — in an assembly gathered by the commandment of the magistrates, and not in a concourse which is without consideration, run together through the motion of one man, and to satisfy his appetite. − (399) He calleth them deputies, − (400) in the plural number, not that Asia had more than one, but because legates did sometimes keep courts in the place of the deputies. Also, he appeaseth them by putting them in fear, because the deputy had occasion offered to punish and fine the city sore. − (401)
(399) −
“
Unius hominis impulsu et libidine,” at the instigation and caprice of one man.
(400) −
“
Proconsules,” proconsuls.
(401) −
“−
Quia proconsuli oblatu erat occasio urbis male mulctandae ,” because an opportunity was given to the proconsul to impose a heavy fine on the city.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(37) These men, which are neither robbers of churches.Better, robbers of temples. It was not unusual for the writers of the Elizabethan age to apply the term, which we confine to Christian buildings, to heathen temples. They would speak, e.g., of the church of Diana, or the chapel of Apollo. The corresponding noun for robbing temples, or sacrilege, is found in inscriptions discovered by Mr. Wood (vi. 1, p. 14) among the ruins of the Temple, as denoting a crime to which the severest penalties were attached. The testimony to the general character of St. Paul and his companions, as shown both in word and deed, indicates the quietness and calmness with which they had preached the truth. They persuaded, but they did not ridicule or revile. This was, probably, more than could be said for Alexander and the Jews who put him forward. (See Note on Act. 19:33.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
37. Robbers of churches The Greek pagan phrase signifies temple-pillagers or blasphemers. Some have supposed the townclerk here, in giving the Christians so quiet a character, to have slipped into a smooth untruth. But it must be remembered that Paul was not present; and the two who were apprehended may have been, for-all that appeared, as innocent as the townclerk made them.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“For you have brought here these men, who are neither robbers of temples nor blasphemers of our goddess.”
For they needed to recognise that there was no real excuse for holding this meeting. The men whom they had arraigned were not guilty of anything tangible. They had neither robbed Temples nor blasphemed their goddess (had such charges been brought they might at least have been seen as justifying an extraordinary city meeting). So the Roman authorities would not like it at all.
‘These men.’ They were seemingly still stood there, a little battered but unharmed.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Act 19:37. Men, which are neither robbers of churches, &c. It is very ungenerous in Orobio to insinuate from hence, that the fear of suffering kept St. Paul from declaring against the established idolatries here; and it is much more so in Lord Shaftesbury, to represent the apostle and his companions as acquiescing in this defence of the chancellor, and sheltering themselves under it, though it maintained that they allowed the divinity of Diana and her image. Now not to insist on the remark, that nothing said against gods made with hands could affect an image which was supposed to have fallen down from heaven; nor to urge St. Paul’s absence, though that puts him quite out of the question as to any reply to this speech,it is obvious to answer, that the chancellor’s assertion is only this, “That the persons in question had not disturbed the public peace by any riotous attempt to plunder or demolish the temple or altar of Diana, nor did they abuse her by scurrilous language.” This was much to their honour: but in how serious, strenuous, and courageous a manner the apostles bore an open, though always peaceable testimony against idolatry, the whole series of their history and writings shews.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Act 19:37 . ] justifies the expression used, , rashly, without consideration .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
37 For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.
Ver. 37. Blasphemers of your goddess ] This was false: but this politician held it lawful to redeem peace with a lie. Not so St Paul, who knew that after his departure from Ephesus grievous wolves would enter in,Act 20:29Act 20:29 . And yet, because he could not stay to preach unless he would have restored some Pharisaical observations, and unless, for peace’s sake, he would have yielded to the rites and image of Diana, he left the place, because he must not do the greatest good by any evil means.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
37. ] From this verse it appears that Paul had proceeded at Ephesus with the same caution as at Athens, and had not held up to contempt the worship of Artemis, any further than unavoidably the truths which he preached would render it contemptible. This is also manifest from his having friends among the Asiarchs, Act 19:31 . Chrysostom, however, treats this assertion of the town-clerk merely as a device to appease the people: .
refers to the with which he had charged them: ‘and this caution is not unneeded, for &c.’ see Meyer; and Herm. as above, on Act 19:35 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 19:37 . : “for,” i.e. , they had done something rash. . : Gaius and Aristarchus, , “robbers of temples,” R.V., in A.V. “of churches,” the word “church” being applied as often in the Elizabethan age to pagan temples. Ramsay however renders “guilty neither in act nor in language of disrespect to our goddess,” i.e. , to the established religion of our city, = Latin, sacrilegium , and here for emphasis the speaker uses the double term . ., “Churches, Robbers of,” Hastings’ B.D., Ramsay, and St. Paul , pp. 260, 282, 401, In 2Ma 4:42 we have the same word , R.V., “Author of the sacrilege,” “Church-robber,” A.V., used of Lysimachus, brother of Menelaus the high priest, who perished in a riot which arose from the theft of the sacred vessels by his brother and himself (quoted by Ramsay, u. s. ). Canon Gore, Ephesians , p. 41, note, however, points out that the word is used in the former sense of “robbers of temples,” in special connection with Ephesus by Strabo, xiv. 1, 22, and Pseudo-Heraclitus, Letter vii., p. 64 (Bernays); cf. Rom 2:22 . The cognate noun is found in inscriptions at Ephesus, describing a crime involving the heaviest penalties, Wood, Ephesus , vi. 1, p. 14; Lightfoot, Cont. Rev. , p. 294, 1878.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
robbers of churches = plunderers of temples. Greek. hierosulos. Only here.
your goddess. The texts read “our god”. App-98.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
37.] From this verse it appears that Paul had proceeded at Ephesus with the same caution as at Athens, and had not held up to contempt the worship of Artemis, any further than unavoidably the truths which he preached would render it contemptible. This is also manifest from his having friends among the Asiarchs, Act 19:31. Chrysostom, however, treats this assertion of the town-clerk merely as a device to appease the people: .
refers to the with which he had charged them: and this caution is not unneeded,-for &c. see Meyer; and Herm. as above, on Act 19:35.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 19:37. , ye have brought) hastily (raptim), into the theatre, as if to a tribunal, or to punishment.-, these men) Act 19:29.-, neither) i.e. they have neither by deed injured the temple, nor by word injured Diana.- , nor yet blasphemers of) The apostles did not gather together many of the absurd stories out of their mythology, but set forth the truth of GOD, and in general terms the vanity of idols, Act 19:26. They who believed, afterwards of themselves rejected false gods.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
which: Act 25:8, 1Co 10:32, 2Co 6:3
Reciprocal: Act 24:6 – gone
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
7
Act 19:37. The townclerk was not siding with Paul in his teaching, but wished to show his fellow citizens that they were mistreating him and his friends contrary to the principles of human rights. Robbers of churches is from HIEROSULOS which means those who commit sacrilege or who rob temples. Paul had not made any vicious attack on the goddess of the Greeks, but had emphasized the authority of the God of Heaven. But these heathen had correctly concluded that if the God whom Paul preached was the only true one, then all manmade objects of worship were false.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 19:37. Neither robbers of churches. This rendering is liable to mislead the modern reader. In the time when the English Version was made, it was by no means unusual to style a heathen temple a church or a chapel.
Nor yet blasphemers of your goddess. Deeds of violence belonged to an age long subsequent to the apostles. To undermine the Pagan religions, they adopted other means than pillage or destruction. St. Pauls address to the Athenians on the Hill of Ares (Mars) was an instance of his treatment of the ancient superstition. He hurt no ancient prejudices, no time-honoured customs, by rude invective. He was no blasphemer of the ancient gods of Greece and Rome, but led men to the knowledge of the truth by gentle but far more effective means. We can imagine the painful surprise with which St. Paul would read the coarse language and the bitter, angry eloquence of one like Tertullian. St. Paul and his immediate followers no doubt owed not a little of their wonderful influence over mens hearts to their winning and graceful courtesy, to their chivalrous consideration for the feelings of others. Pauls Master, on whom the great disciple modelled his ways of life, was ever gentle to those utterly ignorant of the truth. His fiery wrath was especially reserved for those who knew their Lords will and only pretended to do it.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
See notes on verse 35
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Second, Gaius and Aristarchus had done nothing worthy of punishment. They had neither physically damaged anything nor had they spoken against Artemis. Robbing temples and blaspheming other gods were common accusations that Gentiles made against Jews, including Jewish Christians, in antiquity (cf. Rom 2:22). [Note: Josephus, Antiquities of . . ., 4:8:10.]