5<\/strong>. These going before tarried for us at Troas<\/em> ] Better (with Rev. Ver.<\/em>), But these had gone before and were waiting for us<\/strong>, &c. What the writer wants to point out is that these men before-mentioned did not stop like St Paul at Philippi, nor indeed tarry at all in Macedonia. As in this verse the change of pronoun indicates that the writer of the narrative again becomes a fellow-traveller with St Paul, we may presume, as has before been said, that he had been left here by the Apostle, who now separated himself for a brief time from his companions that he might pick up St Luke.<\/p>\n These going before – <\/B>Going before Paul and Luke. Dr. Doddridge supposes that only Tychicus and Trophimus went before the others. Perhaps the Greek most naturally demands this interpretation.<\/P> Tarried for us – <\/B>The word us, here, shows that Luke had again joined Paul as his companion. In Act 16:12<\/span> it appears that Luke was in Philippi, in the house of Lydia. Why he remained there, or why he did not attend Paul in his journey to Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, etc., is not known. It is evident, however, that he here joined him again.<\/P> At Troas – <\/B>See the notes on Act 16:8<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 5<\/span>. Tarried for us at Troas.<\/B><\/I>] See the preceding verse. Troas<\/I> was a small town in Phrygia Minor, in the province called the Troad<\/I>: see Ac 16:8<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n Us; <\/B>whereby it appears, that St. Luke was one of them that accompanied St. Paul, though neither here nor elsewhere doth he express his own name. <\/P> Troas; <\/B>either the city of Troy, or the country thereabout so called. <\/P> <\/p>\n 5, 6. These going before<\/B>perhapsto announce and prepare for the apostle’s coming. <\/P> tarried for us at Troas.<\/B><\/P><\/p>\n These going before<\/strong>,…. The apostle into Asia, all but Sopater, who accompanied him:<\/p>\n tarried for us at Troas<\/strong>; a city in Asia Minor; see Ac 16:8<\/span> whither they went before hand a nearer way, to provide for the apostle, and where they waited for him, and for Sopater, and for Luke, the writer of this history, who appears from hence to be in company with the apostle, and for as many others as were along with him.<\/p>\n Were waiting for us in Troas <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Here again we have “us” for the first time since chapter 16 where Paul was with Luke in Philippi. Had Luke remained all this time in Philippi? We do not know, but he is with Paul now till Rome is reached. The seven brethren of verse 4<\/span> went on ahead from Philippi to Troas while Paul remained with Luke in Philippi. <\/P> <\/p>\n Us. The first person resumed, indicating that Luke had joined Paul.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “These going before,”<\/strong> (houtoi de proelthontes) “These men going on before us,” the seven men mentioned Act 20:4<\/span>, preceded Paul and Luke, left Corinth before them, or other localities where they had been helping collect help, to carry to the needy brethren in Judea.<\/p>\n 2) “Tarried for us at Troas.”<\/strong>(emenon hemasen Troadi) “Awaited us at Troas,” tarried, lingered, remained, or waited on us to arrive in Troas. The “us” seems to refer to Paul (and Luke who seems to accompany Paul) in all his travels hereafter, until he met death in Rome, 2Ti 4:11<\/span>; Act 16:8<\/span>; Act 16:11<\/span>; 2Co 2:12<\/span>; 2Ti 4:13<\/span>. Troas is today known as Eski Stamboul.<\/p>\n (5) These going before tarried for us at Troas.<\/strong>Two motives may be assigned for this arrangement(1) It enabled St. Paul to keep the Passover with the church at Philippi, starting after the days of unleavened bread, and that feast was already assuming a new character as the festival of the Resurrection, bringing with it also the commemoration that Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us (1Co. 5:7-8<\/span>); (2) The disciples who went on in advance would announce St. Pauls coming to the church of Troas, and so there would be a full gathering to receive him and listen to him on his arrival.<\/p>\n 5<\/strong>. <\/strong> Tarried for us<\/strong> Here at starting from Philippi, Luke suddenly recommences the “we passages.” (See note on Act 16:10<\/span>.)<\/p>\n ‘But these had gone before, and were waiting for us at Troas.’<\/p>\n These (apart possibly from Sopater) had been sent ahead and were waiting at Troas, quite probably having with them some of the Collection monies.<\/p>\n Act 20:5-6<\/span> . ] Luke had remained behind at Philippi, Act 16:40<\/span> . Now, when Paul, on his present journey back through Macedonia, came to Philippi, Luke again joined him. But the above-mentioned seven companions ( ) journeyed before (wherefore? is unknown; possibly to make preparations for the further sea voyage) to Troas, and there waited the arrival of Paul and Luke. For cannot, without arbitrariness, be otherwise referred than to all the seven<\/em> above mentioned, which is not precluded by Act 21:29<\/span> , Act 27:2<\/span> , and thereby, no doubt, our passage is decisive against the hypothesis that Timothy<\/em> speaks in the (see Introduction, 1). Hence the supporters of that hypothesis are necessarily reduced to refer, as already Beza and Wolf have done, merely to Tychicus and Trophimus (Steiger on Col<\/em> . p. 337; Schenkel in the Stud. u. Krit<\/em> . 1841, p. 85; Ulrich, Bleek, Beitr<\/em> . I. p. 52; de Wette, Lachmann).<\/p>\n . .] Paul remained over the Paschal days (A.D. 59) in quietness, keeping holy the festival of his people in Christian freedom. Comp. Chrys.<\/p>\n . ] specifies (Heliod. iv. 19. 65), i.e. how long<\/em> the lasted<\/em> from the sailing from Philippi, namely, up to five days<\/em> . Comp. on Luk 2:37<\/span> ; Plut. Mor<\/em> . p. 791 E. The reading (D, Born.) is a correct gloss.<\/p>\n ] a full week<\/em> . Comp. Act 21:4<\/span> . More is not to be sought behind this simple statement of time (in opposition to Baumgarten, II. p. 48 f.).<\/p>\n 5 These going before tarried for us at Troas. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 5. Tarried for us at Troas<\/strong> ] See Trapp on “<\/em> Act 16:8 “<\/em> <\/p>\n 5. <\/strong> <\/strong> ] The persons mentioned in Act 20:4<\/span> ; not only Tychicus and Trophimns. The mention of Timotheus in this list, distinguished from , has created an insuperable difficulty to those who suppose Timotheus himself to be the narrator of what follows: which certainly cannot be got over (as De Wette) by supposing that Timotheus might have inserted himself in the list, and then tacitly excepted himself by the afterwards. The truth is apparent here, as well as before, ch. Act 16:10<\/span> (where see note), that the anonymous narrator was in very intimate connexion with Paul; and on this occasion we find him remaining with him when the rest went forward.<\/p>\n <\/strong> . <\/strong> <\/strong> .<\/strong> <\/strong> .<\/strong> <\/strong> .<\/strong> ] For what reason, is not said: but we may well conceive, that if they bore the contributions of the churches, a better opportunity, or safer ship, may have determined Paul to send them on, he himself having work to do at Philippi: or perhaps, again, as Meyer suggests, Paul may have remained behind to keep the days of unleavened bread. But then why should not they have remained too? The same motive<\/em> may not have operated with them; but in that case no reason can be given why they should have been sent on<\/em> , except as above. It is not impossible that both may have been combined: before the end of the days of unleavened bread, a favourable opportunity occurs of sailing to Troas, of which they, with their charge, avail themselves: Paul and Luke waiting till the end of the feast, and taking the risk of a less desirable conveyance. That the feast had something<\/em> to do with it, the mention of . . . . seems to imply: such notices being not inserted ordinarily by Luke for the sake of dates<\/em> . The assumption made by some (see, e.g. Mr. Lewin, p. 587), that the rest of the company sailed at once for Troas from Corinth, while Paul and Luke went by land to Philippi, is inconsistent with , Act 20:4<\/span> . From the notice here, we learn that Paul’s stay in Europe on this occasion was about three-quarters of a year: viz. from shortly after Pentecost, when he left Ephesus (see on ch. Act 19:10 ), to the next Easter.<\/p>\n Act 20:5<\/span> . , see critical note. If we read . render as in R.V. (margin), “these came, and were waiting for us at Troas,” cf.<\/em> Ramsay, St. Paul<\/em> , p. 287, and Rendall, in loco.<\/em> : the introduction of the word is fatal to the idea that Timothy could have been the author of this “We” section.<\/p>\n tarried = were waiting. <\/p>\n at = in. Greek. en. App-104. <\/p>\n Troas. Compare Act 16:8. 2Co 2:12. <\/p>\n 5. ] The persons mentioned in Act 20:4; not only Tychicus and Trophimns. The mention of Timotheus in this list, distinguished from , has created an insuperable difficulty to those who suppose Timotheus himself to be the narrator of what follows: which certainly cannot be got over (as De Wette) by supposing that Timotheus might have inserted himself in the list, and then tacitly excepted himself by the afterwards. The truth is apparent here, as well as before, ch. Act 16:10 (where see note), that the anonymous narrator was in very intimate connexion with Paul; and on this occasion we find him remaining with him when the rest went forward.<\/p>\n . …] For what reason, is not said: but we may well conceive, that if they bore the contributions of the churches, a better opportunity, or safer ship, may have determined Paul to send them on, he himself having work to do at Philippi: or perhaps, again, as Meyer suggests, Paul may have remained behind to keep the days of unleavened bread. But then why should not they have remained too? The same motive may not have operated with them; but in that case no reason can be given why they should have been sent on, except as above. It is not impossible that both may have been combined:-before the end of the days of unleavened bread, a favourable opportunity occurs of sailing to Troas, of which they, with their charge, avail themselves: Paul and Luke waiting till the end of the feast, and taking the risk of a less desirable conveyance. That the feast had something to do with it, the mention of . . . . seems to imply: such notices being not inserted ordinarily by Luke for the sake of dates. The assumption made by some (see, e.g. Mr. Lewin, p. 587), that the rest of the company sailed at once for Troas from Corinth, while Paul and Luke went by land to Philippi, is inconsistent with , Act 20:4. From the notice here, we learn that Pauls stay in Europe on this occasion was about three-quarters of a year: viz. from shortly after Pentecost, when he left Ephesus (see on ch. Act 19:10), to the next Easter.<\/p>\n Act 20:5. , in Troas) The name of the region and town.<\/p>\n Troas: Troas was a maritime city and country of Phrygia, in Asia Minor, anciently called Dardania, lying on the Hellespont, west of Mysia Act 16:8, Act 16:11, 2Co 2:12, 2Ti 4:13 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Deu 4:16 – the likeness Act 27:2 – with us 2Co 11:27 – weariness<\/p>\n Act 20:5. These, going before, tarried for us at Troas. Here the language of the narrative (see remarks on the preceding verse) suddenly changes from the third person to the first. Briefly to recapitulate, the close personal connection of Luke and Paul appears to have dated from the years 51-52. They were together evidently from the time of the arrival of Paul at Troas (chap. Act 16:8); they crossed over together into Europe, but when Paul left Philippi (Act 16:40), the physician-friend of the great apostle was left behind in that city, and it has been supposed that the Evangelist made Philippi the centre of his work for several years. Here again at Philippi, after the lapse of some six or seven years, the beloved physician again joins his friend and master. The rest of the narrative of the Acts is told us by an eye-witness of the various events recorded. We may therefore conclude with certainty that from this time, that is, from the arrival at Philippi (A.D. 57), till Paul was entrusted to the charge of the soldier at Rome (A.D. 62), Luke was never separated from his beloved master (see also note on Act 16:10).<\/p>\n Two reasons have been, with much probability, suggested for Paul remaining at Philippi, while his companions went on before him to Troas. The first, that they should make all possible arrangements for the gathering of the disciples of Troas and the neighbourhood to meet the apostle; and the second, that Paul might keep the Passover feast with all quiet solemnity. We know he was ever anxious to conciliate his countrymen, and whenever he could do so without sacrifice of principle. The presence of his Gentile companions who went on before him into Asia (Troas), would have been an hindrance and a stumbling-block to him on this occasion, when he, no doubt, hoped to win some of his dearly-loved brother Jews to the side of his Master Christ.For us, that is, for Luke and Paul.<\/p>\n See notes on verse 4<\/p>\n Verse 5 <\/p>\n Troas; near the head of the Egean Sea, on the eastern side.<\/p>\n Apparently these men travelled from Corinth to Philippi with Paul. In Philippi Paul met Luke who may have ministered there since Paul had founded the Philippian church (cf. Act 16:10-40). Paul’s team celebrated the feast of Unleavened Bread, which followed immediately after Passover, in Philippi. This eight-day festival began with Passover and continued with the feast of Unleavened Bread. The Jews commonly referred to the whole holiday as the feast of Unleavened Bread since it was the longer celebration. Then Paul’s companions proceeded on to Troas. Paul and Luke, and perhaps Titus and two other representatives of the church in Achaia (cf. 2Co 8:6-24), remained in Philippi briefly. Note the recurrence of "we" (Act 20:5-15; cf. Act 16:10-17; Act 21:1-18; Act 27:1 to Act 28:16). They did so to celebrate the Passover and Unleavened Bread feasts in the spring of A.D. 57. Then they sailed from Neapolis, the port of Philippi (Act 16:11), to Troas and joined the other messengers. This crossing took five days whereas previously Paul’s ship from Troas to Neapolis made the trip in only two days (Act 16:11). [Note: See Bruce, "Chronological Questions . . .," pp. 288-89.] <\/span><\/p>\n These going before tarried for us at Troas. 5. These going before tarried for us at Troas ] Better (with Rev. Ver.), But these had gone before and were waiting for us, &c. What the writer wants to point out is that these men before-mentioned did not stop like St Paul at Philippi, nor indeed … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 20:5”<\/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-27590","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27590","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=27590"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27590\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27590"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27590"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27590"}],"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: Vincent’s Word Studies 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: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/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: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"