Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 19:40
For we are in danger to be called in question for this day’s uproar, there being no cause whereby we may give an account of this concourse.
40. For we are in danger to be called in question for this day’s uproar. The A. V. seems here to be incorrect. ‘The word for “uproar” ought not to be joined with “this day.” The construction is contrary to N. T. usage, and the adoption of it has caused some violence to be done to the other words. The verb rendered “called in question” is the verb used in Act 19:38 in the sense of “accuse,” while the word for “uproar” means “riot,” “sedition.” So the Rev. Ver. gives, as an alternative version, “For indeed we are in danger to be accused of riot concerning this day.” Of course the town-clerk did not want himself to call it riot, but he intimates to them that other people may do so. He only styles it a “ concourse.”
there being no cause whereby we may give an account of this concourse ] Here the readings of the oldest MSS. raise a considerable difficulty. Their repetition of after gives another form to the sentence altogether. But it is not possible to decide with certainty whether the two letters in question should or should not be part of the text. Westcott and Hort place them in their text, but do not think that thus the reading is correct. The rendering of the Received Text is that of the A.V. The text with the additional is translated in the Rev. Ver. “ there being no cause for it: and as touching it we shall not be able to give account of this concourse.”
But the alternative rendering of the Rev. Ver. given above for the first clause of the verse may be taken, with the rendering of the Text, Recept. in the second clause. The Rev. Ver. adheres to “this day’s riot,” but this involves a transposition of the preposition in the Greek, of which no other example is found in the N. T.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
To be called in question – By the government; by the Roman authority. Such a tumult, continued for so long. a time, would be likely to attract the attention of the magistrates, and expose them to their displeasure. Popular commotions were justly dreaded by the Roman government; and such an assembly as this, convened without any good cause, would not escape their notice. There was a Roman law which made it capital for anyone to be engaged in promoting a riot. Sui coetum, et concursum fecerit, capite puniatur: He who raises a mob, let him be punished with death.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 40. For we are in danger, c.] Popular commotions were always dreaded by the Roman government and so they should by all governments; for, when might has nothing to direct its operations but passion, how destructive must these operations be! One of the Roman laws made all such commotions of the people capital offenses against those who raised them. Qui caetum et concursus fecerit, capite puniatur: “He who raises a mob shall forfeit his life.” If such a law existed at Ephesus-and it probably did, from this reference to it in the words of the town-clerk or recorder-then Demetrius must feel himself in great personal danger; and that his own life lay now at the mercy of those whom he had accused, concerning whom he had raised such an outcry, and against whom nothing disorderly could be proved.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
He wisely minds them of their danger; for being under the power of the Romans, it was no less than the loss of their liberties to abet any faction or sedition; and to make a concourse or meeting tumultuously together, was capital, unless it were upon the sudden invasion of an enemy, or to but out some raging fire.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
40. For wethe publicauthorities.
are in danger of being calledin questionby our superiors.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
For we are in danger of being called in question,…. Or are liable to be called to an account, reproved, and punished by the Roman proconsul, appointed over this city, or by the Roman emperor, or the Roman senate: for this day’s uproar; it being capable of being interpreted as a riot, tumult, and sedition:
there being no cause whereby we may give an account of this concourse: or no reason can be assigned, why such a number of people should gather together; none can be given that will justify it, or that can be alleged in favour of it.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
For indeed we are in danger to be accused concerning this day’s riot ( ). The text is uncertain. The text of Westcott and Hort means “to be accused of insurrection concerning today’s assembly.” The peril was real. , from , danger, peril. Old verb, but in the N.T. only here and Luke 8:23; 1Cor 15:30.
There being no cause for it ( ). Genitive absolute with , common adjective (cf. , cause) though in N.T. only here and Heb 5:9; Luke 23:4; Luke 23:14; Luke 23:22.
And as touching it ( ). “Concerning which.” But what? No clear antecedent, only the general idea.
Give an account of this concourse ( ). Rationem reddere. They will have to explain matters to the proconsul. (from , together, , to turn) is a late word for a conspiracy (Ac 23:12) and a disorderly riot as here (Polybius). In Ac 28:12 is used of gathering up a bundle of sticks and of men combining in Mt 17:22. Seneca says that there was nothing on which the Romans looked with such jealousy as a tumultuous meeting.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Concourse [] . Lit., a twisting together : hence of anything which is rolled or twisted into a mass; and so of a mass of people, with an underlying idea of confusion : a mob. Compare ch. 28 12.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “For we are in danger,” (kai gar kinduneuomen)”For we are even in danger,” because of the mob violence; The “we” referred to were the Ephesian public officials.
2) “To be called in question for this day’s uproar,” (egkaleisthai staseos peri tes semeron) “To be charged with insurrection and impeachment concerning today’s mob action,” should the report of the riot reach Rome, Act 21:31-32. This was a public statement of judgement, given by the highly respectable town clerk.
3) “There being no cause,” (medenos aitiou huparchontos) “There being or existing not even one real cause,” no public ground on which we could defend the mob assembly of that day.
4) “Whereby we may give account,” (peri hou ou dunesometha apodounai logon) “Concerning which we shall not be able to give a defensible account,” a valid justification to the Roman government.
5) “Of this concourse.” (peri tes sustrophes tautes) “Concerning this mob gathering,” with its two hour mob rioting, Act 19:34.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(40) We are in danger to be called in question.The we as used to include the rioters. The called in question is the same verb as that rendered implead in Act. 19:38. There was a risk of which Demetrius and his party had to be reminded, that they might find themselves defendants, and not plaintiffs, in a suit. A riotous concourse (the town-clerk uses the most contemptuous word he can find, this mob meeting) taking the law into its own hands was not an offence which the proconsuls were likely to pass over lightly. It would hardly be thought a legitimate excuse that they had got hold of two Jews and wanted to lynch them.
An interesting inscription of the date of Trajan, from an aqueduct at Ephesus, gives nearly all the technical terms that occur in the town-clerks speech, and so far confirms the accuracy of St. Lukes report: This has been dedicated by the loyal and devoted Council of the Ephesians, and the people that serve the temple (Nekoros), Peducus Priscinus being proconsul, by the decree of Tiberius Claudius Italicus, the town-clerk of the people.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
“For indeed we are in danger of being accused concerning this day’s riot, there being no cause for it, and as touching it we shall not be able to give account of this concourse.”
For the truth was that they were all in danger of being called to account by the Roman authorities for this days riotous behaviour and this clandestine meeting. For they could produce no real grounds to excuse the one or authorise the holding of the other. (Had it been a matter of a charge of blasphemy or the robbing of a Temple it would have been a different matter. It might have been seen as justifying such a meeting).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
40 For we are in danger to be called in question for this day’s uproar, there being no cause whereby we may give an account of this concourse.
Ver. 40. For we are in danger ] Danger we all desire to decline, whether it be of life, limb, estate, &c., but venture our souls daily to the danger of damnation: this is practical atheism, rank folly.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
40. ] assumes that this assembly was an unlawful one.
. . .] There being no ground why (i.e. in consequence of which) we shall be able to give an account, i.e. ‘no ground whereon to build the possibility of our giving an account.’ The reading (see digest) seems to involve the sentence in almost inextricable confusion. To read . . and take it in apposit. with , ‘hujus rei, videlicet conventus hujus’ (Bornemann), is very harsh.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 19:40 . , A.V., “to be called in question for this day’s uproar,” but R.V., “to be accused concerning this day’s riot,” rendering ., as in Act 19:38 , and , as in Mar 15:7 . being rather the word for uproar or tumult, cf. Vulgate: “argui seditionis hodiern”. But a further question arises from the marginal rendering of R.V., “to be accused of riot concerning this day”: so Page, Meyer-Wendt, Zckler. But Blass, Weiss, Rendall, so Ram say: “to be accused of riot concerning this day’s assembly,” sc. , , although Blass thinks it still better to omit altogether, and to connect with ., cf. Act 4:9 . : with this punctuation R.V. renders “there being no cause for it ,” taking as neuter, and closely connecting the phrase with the foregoing, so W. H. Overbeck (so Felten, Rendall) takes as masculine: “there being no man guilty by reason of whom,” etc., and Wendt considers that the rendering cannot be altogether excluded. Vulgate has “cum nullus obnoxius sit”. But may be strictly a noun neuter from = , and not an adjective as the last-mentioned rendering demands, cf. Plummer on Luk 23:4 ; Luk 23:14 ; Luk 23:22 , and nowhere else in N.T., so Moulton and Geden, who give the adjective only in Heb 5:9 . : Ramsay (so Meyer and Zckler) follows T.R. and Bezan text in omitting the negative before ., but see on the other hand Wendt (1899), p. 322; and critical note. R.V. (introducing negative , so Weiss and Wendt) renders “and as touching it we shall not be able to give account of this concourse”. , Polyb., iv., 34, 6, of a seditious meeting or mob. In Act 23:12 used of a conspiracy; cf. LXX, Psa 63:2 , Amo 7:10 .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
called in question. Same as “implead” (Act 19:38).
for = concerning, as in Act 19:8.
uproar. Greek. stasis, insurrection.
cause. Greek. aition. Only here and Luk 23:4, Luk 23:14, Luk 23:22.
whereby =. concerning (GR. peri, as in Act 19:8) which.
account. Greek. logos. App-121.
concourse. Greek. sustrophe. Only here and Act 23:12.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
40.] assumes that this assembly was an unlawful one.
…] There being no ground why (i.e. in consequence of which) we shall be able to give an account, i.e. no ground whereon to build the possibility of our giving an account. The reading (see digest) seems to involve the sentence in almost inextricable confusion. To read . . and take it in apposit. with , hujus rei, videlicet conventus hujus (Bornemann), is very harsh.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 19:40. ) viz. : ch. Act 20:26, .-) The Vulgate takes this in the masculine gender: but the neuter in this book is frequent.- ) A double negation: ch. Act 10:47, .-) which has the appearance of a , insurrection. The mild term is prudently used by the clerk.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
we are: Act 17:5-8
uproar: Act 20:1, Act 21:31, Act 21:38, 1Ki 1:41, Mat 26:5
Reciprocal: Act 19:32 – and the
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
0
Act 19:40. The townclerk feared that the higher authorities might bring a complaint against the community because of the riot.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 19:40. For we are in danger to be called in question for this days uproar. Men of the rank of the town-clerk of Ephesus well knew how probable it was that a tumultuous meeting which endangered the public peace would be inquired into by the Roman officials. The prized liberties of their city might in consequence have been forfeited. There was a Roman law which made it a capital offence to raise a riot. Qui ctum et concursum fecerit capitate sit (Seneca, Controv. iii. 8). Qui ctum et concursum fecerit capite puniatur Sulpicius Victor (Instit. orat., quoted by Gloag).
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
See notes on verse 35
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Fourth, the mayor reminded the citizens that if the provincial authorities concluded that there was no good reason for their rioting they could impose penalties on the city. Furthermore this riot was unjustified. This line of argument proved effective and the crowd disbursed.
This may have been the time Priscilla and Aquila risked their lives for Paul (Rom 16:4). This event may have been in Paul’s mind when he wrote of fighting wild beasts at Ephesus (1Co 15:32) and of despairing of life as he faced a deadly foe (2Co 1:8-11).
One wonders if the cooling of the Ephesian Christians’ love for Jesus Christ that took place in later years connects to the zeal for Artemis that characterized this community (cf. Rev 2:1-7).
"The story [of the riot in Ephesus, Act 19:23-41] is in effect a statement that Christians do not constitute a danger to the state and a plea that they be treated with toleration in a pluralistic society; only when properly defined criminal charges can he preferred against them should they be summoned before the courts." [Note: Marshall, The Acts . . ., p. 314.]