13<\/strong>. contrary to the law<\/em> ] i.e. the Jewish law. Their religion was one of those allowed throughout the Roman Empire, and their hope is to induce the proconsul to protect the Jewish law by Roman law. But the majesty of Roman power was far too august to be invoked for settling a quarrel between the members of a merely “tolerated” religion. He would not meddle in their matters.<\/p>\n Contrary to the law – <\/B>Evidently intending contrary to all law – the laws of the Romans and of the Jews. It was permitted to the Jews to worship God according to their own views in Greece; but they could easily pretend that Paul had departed from that mode of worshipping God. It was easy for them to maintain that he taught contrary to the laws of the Romans and their acknowledged religion; and their design seems to have been to accuse him of teaching people to worship God in an unlawful and irregular way, a way unknown to any of the laws of the empire.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 13<\/span>. Persuaded men to worship God contrary to the law.<\/B><\/I>] This accusation was very insidious. The Jews<\/I> had permission by the Romans to worship their own God in their own way: this the laws<\/I> allowed<\/I>. The Roman<\/I> worship was also established<\/I> by the law<\/I>. The Jews probably intended to accuse Paul of acting contrary to both<\/I> laws. “He is not a Jew, for he does not admit of circumcision; he is not a Gentile, for he preaches against the worship of the gods. He is setting up a worship of his own<\/I>, in opposition to all laws<\/I>, and persuading many people to join with him: he is therefore a most dangerous man, and should be put to death.”<\/P><\/p>\n Contrary to the law, <\/B>of the Romans, who, to avoid tumults and confusions, did forbid any to set up any new worship without leave; and the Jews in these parts having here no power to punish St. Paul as they had at Jerusalem, maliciously incite the governor against him. Or by the law here may be meant the law of Moses, which they accuse Paul to have broken, and so not to be comprehended in that licence which they had to exercise their religion. <\/P> <\/p>\n 13. contrary to the<\/B>Jewish <\/P> law<\/B>probably in notrequiring the Gentiles to be circumcised.<\/P><\/p>\n Saying, this fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law.<\/strong> Meaning either to the law of the Romans, which forbad the bringing in of any new gods, without the leave of the senate;<\/p>\n [See comments on Ac 16:21]<\/span>; or rather to the law of Moses: the Arabic version reads, “our law”; though this was false, for Moses in his law wrote of Christ, and ordered the children of Israel to hearken to him.<\/p>\n Contrary to the law <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). They did not accuse Paul of treason as in Thessalonica, perhaps Paul had been more careful in his language here. They bring the same charge here that the owners of the slave-girl brought in Philippi (16:21<\/span>) Perhaps they fear to go too far with Gallio, for they are dealing with a Roman proconsul, not with the politarchs of Thessalonica. The Jewish religion was a religio licita<\/I> and they were allowed to make proselytes, but not among Roman citizens. To prove that Paul was acting contrary to Roman law (for Jewish law had no standing with Gallio though the phrase has a double meaning) these Jews had to show that Paul was making converts in ways that violated the Roman regulations on that subject. The accusation as made did not show it nor did they produce any evidence to do it. The verb used <\/SPAN><\/span> means to stir up by persuasion (old verb here only in the N.T.), a thing that he had a right to do. <\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “Saying, this fellow,”<\/strong> (legontes hautos) “Repeatedly saying that this man,” this fellow, directly leveling the following charges against Paul.<\/p>\n 2) “Persuadeth men to worship God,”<\/strong> (anapeithei tous anthropous sebesthai ton theon) “Urges (earnestly persuades) men to worship God,” this part of the charge was true – to worship God, in spirit and in truth, as a living God, not thru media of the ceremonies of Moses’ law, or idols of the heathen, Joh 4:24<\/span>; Act 17:25<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “Contrary to the law.”<\/strong> (hoti para ton nomon) “Differently (from what we do) from the law,” different from the Mosaic order of procedure of worship. It is likely that the major offence to the Jews was that Paul did not require Christian converts from among the Gentiles to be circumcised, in keeping with the advice of the Jerusalem council (Act 15:24-31<\/span>), rather than complying with the rigid laws of the Mosaic era which had passed away.<\/p>\n Gallio referred to their charges as “your law,” Act 18:15<\/span>, not “the law” the Roman civil law, that they were under.<\/p>\n (13) This fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law.<\/strong>It is obvious that in this appeal to the proconsul the Jews must have meant, not the law of Moses, but that of Rome. Their contention was that though Jews had been banished from Rome as a measure of policy, Judaism as such was still a relligio licita, <\/em>tolerated and recognised by the State. Their charge against the Apostle was that he was preaching a new religion, which was not so recognised. The words this fellow, though the substantive is an interpolation, fairly expresses the contempt implied in the use of the Greek pronoun.<\/p>\n 13<\/strong>. <\/strong> Contrary to the law<\/strong> As having infringed the law requiring every man to remain in his ancestral religion. From Gallio’s words it is clear that the indictment contained a statement of some length, not given by Luke, which he heard completely through.<\/p>\n 13 Saying, This fellow<\/em> persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 13. Contrary to the law<\/strong> ] That is, contrary to our law. For the Romans had granted liberty to the Jews to worship God as their own law prescribed. <\/p>\n 13. <\/strong> <\/strong> . <\/strong> <\/strong> ] Against the Mosaic law: the exercise of which, as a ‘religio licita,’ was allowed to the Jews.<\/p>\n Act 18:13<\/span> . : in the set accusation which follows there is probably an indication that the Jews could not stir up the crowd against Paul as at Philippi and Thessalonica, for already he had gained too good an influence over the common people (Weiss). : only here in N.T., “persuadendo excitare, sollicitare,” it is used of evil persuasion in LXX, Jer 36<\/span> (39):8 and in Mal 1:11<\/span>Mal 1:11<\/span> . : “contrary to the law”: what law? Roman or Jewish? in a certain sense the expression might include both, for as a religio licita<\/em> the Jewish law was under the protection of the Roman law, and Josephus tells us how leave had been granted to the Jews to worship according to their own law, Ant.<\/em> , xiv., 10, 2 ff. But Paul’s teaching was to these Jews the introduction of something illegal, contrary to the religion which they were allowed to practise, and so they sought to bring his teaching under the cognnisance of the proconsul (see Zahn, Einleitung<\/em> , i., p. 190). They may therefore have designedly used a phrase which had a double meaning. But whatever their design, Gallio saw through it, and drew a hard and fast distinction between a charge of illegality against the state and of illegality against Jewish, , not Roman law. In this reply Gallio showed that he knew more about the matter than the Jews supposed, and he may have had some intelligence of the Jewish disturbances at Rome about “Chrestus”. Both and . point to the general nature of the charge, as including Paul’s efforts to convert not only Jews but proselytes. At least the Jews would try to give their accusation a colour of illegality against the Roman law, for they would themselves have dealt with it if it had been simply connected with their own religious observances, see “Corinth,” Hastings B.D., i., 481.<\/p>\n This fellow = This one. persuadeth. Greek. anapeitho. Strong form of peitho (App-150.) Only here. <\/p>\n men. Greek. anthropos. App-123. <\/p>\n contrary to = against. Greek. para. App-104. <\/p>\n 13. . ] Against the Mosaic law:-the exercise of which, as a religio licita, was allowed to the Jews.<\/p>\n Act 18:13. ) by persuasions excites. They declare repeatedly that all was tranquil previously.<\/p>\n Act 18:4, Act 6:13, Act 21:28, Act 24:5, Act 24:6, Act 25:8 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Mat 5:17 – to destroy the law Mat 26:61 – This Act 16:19 – they Act 17:6 – they drew 2Co 5:11 – we persuade 1Th 2:16 – Forbidding<\/p>\n 3<\/p>\n Act 18:13. Contrary to the law. They charged that Paul’s teaching was contrary to the law of Moses. That was a false charge, because Paul had shown on more than one occasion that the Gospel system had even been predicted by the Old Testament.<\/p>\n Act 18:13. Saying, This fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law. There is no doubt but that the law here alluded to was the law not of the Jews, but of the Empire; it was the Roman, not the Mosaic law, which the stranger Jew, Paul, was accused of violating, and the offence consisted in the attempt to promulgate a religion which was not sanctioned by the imperial government. There were, besides that form of Paganism which was the state religion of Rome, other systems of worship formally sanctioned and recognised by the state; among these, Judaism, although for a time banished from Rome itself, was ranked. The apostle was charged now before the proconsuls court with preaching in Corinth a new and unlawful religion. From Gallios own comment in Act 18:15, there is no doubt but that Paul was accused of introducing new deities as objects of worship. It was a novel and unprincipled method of action, and as the event showed, one seen through by the Roman official.<\/p>\n See notes on verse 12<\/p>\n The Corinthian Jews’ charge against Paul was the same as the one the Philippian Jews and the Thessalonian Jews had raised (Act 16:21; Act 17:6-7; Act 17:13). They claimed he was proselytizing for a new religion. The Romans permitted the Jews to do this, but they could not proselytize among Roman citizens.<\/p>\n saying, This [fellow] persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law. 13. contrary to the law ] i.e. the Jewish law. Their religion was one of those allowed throughout the Roman Empire, and their hope is to induce the proconsul to protect the Jewish law by Roman law. But the majesty of Roman power … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 18:13”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27529","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27529","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27529"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27529\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27529"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27529"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27529"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"