Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 28:5
And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.
5. And [ R. V. Howbeit] he shook off the beast ] The rendering of the particles by the R. V. is to be preferred. The verb is the same which is used (Luk 9:5) of shaking off dust from the feet. The idea conveyed is that Paul was quite composed in what he did, and that the beast was no cause of alarm to him.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And he shook off … – In this was remarkably fulfilled the promise of the Saviour Mar 16:18; They shall take up serpents, etc.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 5. Shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.] This is a presumptive evidence that the viper did not bite St. Paul: it fastened on his hand, but had no power to injure him.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
As Daniel in the lions den. God is the God of nature, and the most natural properties are restrained when he pleases, and cannot be exerted without his concurrence. Thus the promises our blessed Saviour made, in Mar 16:18; Luk 10:19, were fulfilled according to the letter.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
5. shook off the beast and felt noharmSee Mr 16:18.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And he shook off the beast into the fire,…. Having held it a while, and as being master of it, and as not being afraid of it, though it was the ready way to provoke it to fasten on him again:
and felt no harm; it having not bit him, nor infected him with its poison; and hereby was fulfilled what our Lord promised to his disciples, Mr 16:18;
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Shook off (). First aorist active participle of , to shake off. Rare word (Euripides, Galen, LXX). In N.T. only here and Lu 9:5.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
The beast [ ] . Luke uses the word in the same way as the medical writers, who employed it to denote venomous serpents, and particularly the viper; so much so that an antidote, made chiefly from the flesh of vipers, was termed qhriakh. A curious bit of etymological history attaches to this latter word. From it came the Latin theriaca, of which our treacle [] is a corruption. Treacle, therefore, is originally a preparation of viper ‘s flesh, and was used later of any antidote. Thus Coverdale’s translation of Jer 8:22 has, “There is no more treacle in Gilead.” Gurnall (” Christian in Complete Armor “) says : “The saints ‘ experiences help them to a sovereign treacle made of the scorpion ‘s own flesh (which they through Christ have slain), and that hath a virtue above all other to expel the venom of Satan ‘s temptations from the heart.” So Jeremy Taylor : “We kill the viper and make treacle of him.”
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And he shook off the beast,” (ho men oun apotinaksas to therion) “He (Paul) then shook off the viper beast,” the snake.
2) “Into the fire (eis to pur) “Upon and into the fire,” that had been kindled with the firewood, right before the eyes of the islanders, the native barbarians.
3) “And felt no harm.” (epathen ouden kakon) “And felt no evil effect at all,” felt no bad effect or harm, in the least. This appears to be a demonstration of the miraculous power, granted by our Lord to the early apostles, including Paul, as recounted, Mar 16:18; Luk 10:19; Heb 2:4.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
−
5. Shaking off the viper. The shaking off of the viper is a token of a quiet mind. For we see how greatly fear doth trouble and weaken men; and yet you must not think that Paul was altogether void of fear. For faith doth not make us blockish, as brain-sick men do imagine, when they be out of danger. − (659) But though faith doth not quite take away the feeling of evils, yet it doth temperate the same, lest the godly be more afraid than is meet; that they may always be bold and have a good hope. So though Paul understand that the viper was a noisome beast, yet did he trust to the promise which was made to him, and did not so fear her plaguy − (660) biting, that it did trouble him; because he was even ready to die if need had been. −
(659) −
“
In umbra et extra teli jacturam,” in the shade, and out of bowshot.
(660) −
“
Pestiferum,” pestiferous, deadly.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
‘However that may be he shook off the creature into the fire, and took no harm.’
But whatever the barbarians thought he shook off the creature into the fire and took no harm. We note that he did not take it into his hand on the grounds that Jesus had said that believers could do so (Mar 16:18). He did not seek to do anything spectacular. He just shook it off. Not for him a showing off of his immunity against snakes.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Act 28:5. And he shook off the beast This was exactly agreeable to what our Lord had promised that his disciples should do. See Mar 16:18. Luk 10:19 and compare with this the miracles of Moses, Exo 4:2-5; Exo 7:10-12.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
5 And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.
Ver. 5. And he shook off the beast ] So should we do false and slanderous reports; or rather make a good use of them; as the skilful apothecary of the flesh of this poisonous beast makes a wholesome theriacle ( ), or treacle, a as we call it.
And felt no harm ] No more did Queen Elizabeth, when Squier, the traitor, sent by Walpool the Jesuit, had poisoned the pummel of her saddle. The vigour of the poison (said the Jesuit) is such as neither continuance of times nor subtilty of air could check or unvirtuate. And yet, albeit the season were hot, and the veins open to receive any malign tinture, her body thereupon felt no distemperature, nor her hand felt no more hurt (saith Speed) than Paul’s did when he shook off the viper into the fire.
a A medicinal compound, originally a kind of salve, composed of many ingredients, formerly in repute as an alexipharmic against and antidote to venomous bites, poisons generally, and malignant diseases. Obs. D
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
5. ] “Luke does not so much as hint, that any divine intervention took place.” De Wette. True enough: but why? Because Luke believed that the very dullest of his readers would understand it without any such hint. According to these rationalists, a fortunate concurrence of accidents must have happened to the Apostles, totally unprecedented in history or probability. Besides, did not the natives themselves in this case testify to the fact? None were so well qualified to judge of the virulence of the serpent, none so capable of knowing that the hanging on Paul’s hand implied the communication of the venom: yet they change him from a murderer into a god, on seeing what took place. Need we further evidence, that the divine power which they mistakenly attributed to Paul himself, was really exerted on his behalf, by Him who had said ? See below on Act 28:8 . The fact that St. Luke understood what the natives said, is adduced by Wordsworth as another proof (see his and my note on ch. Act 14:11 ) that the Apostles and Evangelists commonly understood unknown tongues. But such an inference here has absolutely nothing to rest on. Are we to suppose that these had no means of intercourse with Greek sailors?
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 28:5 . .: only in Luke, Luk 9:5 , in parallel in Matt. and Mark, ., cf. Lam 2:7 , and in classical Greek, Eur., Bacch. , 253. , cf. Mar 16:18 , Luk 10:19 .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
And he = He then indeed.
shook off. Greek. apotinasso. Only here, and Luk 9:5.
felt = suffered.
no = nothing. Greek. oudeis.
harm = evil. Greek. kakos. App-128.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
5.] Luke does not so much as hint, that any divine intervention took place. De Wette. True enough: but why? Because Luke believed that the very dullest of his readers would understand it without any such hint. According to these rationalists, a fortunate concurrence of accidents must have happened to the Apostles, totally unprecedented in history or probability. Besides, did not the natives themselves in this case testify to the fact? None were so well qualified to judge of the virulence of the serpent,-none so capable of knowing that the hanging on Pauls hand implied the communication of the venom:-yet they change him from a murderer into a god, on seeing what took place. Need we further evidence, that the divine power which they mistakenly attributed to Paul himself, was really exerted on his behalf, by Him who had said ? See below on Act 28:8. The fact that St. Luke understood what the natives said, is adduced by Wordsworth as another proof (see his and my note on ch. Act 14:11) that the Apostles and Evangelists commonly understood unknown tongues. But such an inference here has absolutely nothing to rest on. Are we to suppose that these had no means of intercourse with Greek sailors?
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 28:5. , having shaken off) Quintinus Hduus, in the book concerning the Melitensian war, as quoted in Flacius, observes in this passage, No poisonous kind of serpent either is born in Melita, or hurts any there, when introduced from elsewhere. The natives of that isle are, as it were, a terror to serpents. Scorpions, a deadly animal elsewhere, are seen harmless in the hands of children in sport. I have seen a person who ate them; which, they say, is due to Paul, when bitten, having shaken off the viper hanging to his finger without hurt. If this be true, subjoins Illyricus, we must no doubt suppose that it is the peculiar blessing of GOD, who, as it were, left an eternal memorial of the Gospel having been preached there, and so many miracles performed; even as the Scripture often testifies that GOD makes lands cither worse or better on account of the sins of men, or even, on the other hand, on account of His own extraordinary compassion. Even as evident experience testifies that the soil and clime itself of Germany, and of all the northern regions, are far milder, and more salubrious and fertile, than they were formerly before the birth of Christ, as is clear from writers worthy of credit, etc.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
felt: Num 21:6-9, Psa 91:13, Mar 16:18, Luk 10:19, Joh 3:14, Joh 3:15, Rom 16:20, Rev 9:3, Rev 9:4
Reciprocal: Gen 31:55 – returned 2Sa 16:8 – returned 2Ki 4:41 – there Psa 104:25 – beasts Dan 3:25 – they have no hurt Act 28:4 – beast
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
6
Act 28:5-6. They fully expected to see Paul drop dead. Seeing his mastery over it, they reversed their opinion and said he was a god. While that was not the object of the miracle, it, did serve to prove Paul and his companions to be good men.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 28:5. Felt no harm. We see here part of the fulfilment of the promise in Mar 16:12, words which were doubtless fulfilled in other instances likewise.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Act 28:5-6. And he shook off, &c. Greek, , having shaken off the venomous animal into the fire, (the power of Christ interposing to preserve him,) he felt no harm Received no injury, and took no further notice of what had happened. Howbeit, they looked when he should have swollen The islanders, knowing that the bite of a viper was wont to occasion a sudden and painful death, expected the venom left in Pauls flesh would have caused a burning and swelling, and that he would instantly have fallen down dead. But Christ now fulfilled in Paul the promise made to his disciples, they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them. But after they had looked a great while Expecting every moment the pernicious effects of the venom to appear, to their astonishment they saw no harm come to him God hereby intended to make him remarkable among this barbarous people, and so to prepare the way for their receiving the doctrine of salvation from his lips: they changed their minds, and said that he was a god Some deity, descended in a human form; supposing that no less power than that of a god could ward off so extreme a danger. Such is the stability of human reason! A little before he was a murderer; and presently he is a god! Just like the people of Lystra; one hour sacrificing to this same apostle, and the next stoning him. Nay, but there is a medium: he is neither a murderer nor a god, but a man of God. But natural men never run into greater mistakes than in judging of the children of God. Grotius, Whitby, and some others, think that these Melitese took Paul for Hercules, , (the driver away of evil,) who was worshipped in this island, and was, according to Ptolemy, one of the gods of the Phenicians.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
See notes on verse 3