« PreviousContinue »
certain Prudens on which he bears exactly the title - πρῶτος Μελιταίων· which Luke has employed in this passage. It is impossible to believe that Publius or any other single individual would be called the first man in the island, except by way of official eminence. It will be observed that the father of Publius was still living, and during his life-time he would naturally have taken precedence of the son, had the distinction in this case been one which belonged to the family.
V. 8. Avgεrois. The plural has been supposed to describe the fever with reference to its recurrent attacks or paroxysms. This is one of those expressions in Luke's writings which have been supposed to indicate his professional training as a physician. See also 13: 23. 13: 13; and especially the comparison in his gospel 22: 44. It is correct to attach to them that significancy. No other writer of the New Testament exhibits this sort of technical precision in speaking of diseases.
V. 10. o xai, who also, on their part, i. e. while they came and received such benefit.—7ollais ripais, with many honors, courtesies. They were entertained with a generous hospitality and distinguished by marks of special regard and kindness. Some render the word rewards or presents; but the next clause appears to limit their reception of such favors to the time of their departure and to the relief also · of their necessary wants. It is certain that they did not, even then, accept the gifts which were proffered to them as a reward for their services; for that would have been at variance with the command of Christ in Matt. 10: 8.
Prosecution of the journey to Rome. Vs. 11-16.
V. 11. The three months are the time that they remained on the island. They were probably the months of November, December and January. The season may have admitted of their putting to sea earlier than usual v nλoiq. Luke does not state why this vessel had wintered here. It is a circumstance which shows the consistency of the narrative. The storm which occasioned the wreck of Paul's vessel, had delayed this one so long that it was necessary on reaching Melite to suspend the voyage until spring. - παρασήμῳ Διοσκούροις, with the sign Dioscuri, or distinguished by its having images of Castor and Pollux painted or carved on the prow, from which images the vessel was named. This use of figure-heads, on ancient ships, was very common. See Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Antt. p. 518. Castor and Pollux were the favorite gods of seamen, the winds and waves being supposed to be specially subject to their control. Comp. Horat. Od. 1. 3. 2. napa-VOL. VII. No. 28.
ou may be a noun or an adjective. The former appears to have been most common in this application. The other construction is common as regards the dative, and is preferred by De Wette.
V. 12. Evgaxovoas. This place, the capital of Sicily, on the eastern coast of that island, was about eighty miles north from Melite. The detention here may have been occasioned by business.
V. 13. negieλDóvtes, having come around or about. The sense of the preposition it is impossible to determine with certainty. One supposition is that it refers to their frequent alteration of the ship's course; in other words, to their tacking, because the wind was unfavorable. Another is, that they were compelled by that cause to follow closely the sinuosities of the coast, to proceed circuitously. De Wette says, which is much less probable, that they may have gone around Sicily, or the southern extremity of Italy. - eis Phytor, Rhegium, now Reggio, was an Italian seaport, opposite to the north-eastern point of Sicily. Here they remained a day, when the wind, which had been adverse since their leaving Syracuse, became fair, and they resumed the voyage.
inyeroμérov, having arisen on them. The dative of the person often follows ¿zí in this sense; see Herod. 8. 13. — dɛvrɛgaioi, on the second day; comp. John 11: 39. This adverbial use of the ordinals is classical. - eis Iloziólovs. Puteoli, now Puzzeolo, was eight miles north-west from Neapolis, the modern Naples. It derived this name from putei, being famous for the baths which abounded there. Its earlier Greek name was Aixaiάopeia. It was the principal port south of Rome. Nearly all the Alexandrian and a great part of the Spanish trade with Italy, was brought hither. The seventy-seventh Letter of Seneca gives a lively description of the interest which the arrival of the corn-ships from Egypt was accustomed to excite among the inhabitants of that town. The voyage from Rhegium to Puteoli, which the Dioscuri accomplished in less than two days, was about 180 miles. The passage, therefore, was a rapid one; but as examples of the ancient rate of sailing show, not unprecedented. The course was nearly due north, and they were favored with a south wind.
V. 14. in avtois, with them. Win. § 52. c. ἡμέρας ἑπτά, comp. 22: 6. 21: 4. They had an oportunity to spend a sabbath with them. The centurion granted this delay, not improbably, in order to gratify the wishes of Paul. xai ovros, etc. and so, after the interval so spent and then, we went (not came) unto Rome. The verb has both senses. The incidents in v. 15 occur on the way thither. It is unnecessary to regard the remark as proleptic.
V. 15. Two companies of the Christians at Rome went forth to meet the apostle; but separately and at different times. Hence the advanced
party reached Appii Forum, forty miles from Rome, before Paul appeared; the later party met him at Tres Tabernae, which was thirty miles from Rome. Both places were on the Via Appia, which Paul would take at Capua. See Horat. Sat. 1. 3.
V. 16. r orqaroлedágy, to the commander of the camp, the praetorian camp, where the emperor's body-guard was quartered; see Phil. 1: 13. Nearly all critics at present, as Olshausen, Anger, De Wette, Meyer, Wieseler, and others, suppose this officer, i. e. the praefectus praetorio, to be meant here. The prisoners who were sent to Rome from the provinces, were committed to his custody. There is a difference of opinion in regard to the article. The command of the praetorian guard was divided between two praefects, except during a part of Nero's reign, when Burrus acted as sole praefectus praetorio. He held the office as late as the beginning of the year 62 A. D., which was not far from the time of Paul's arrival at Rome. Wieseler finds the explanation of zo in this fact, and at the same time as an argument for the correctness of the chronology, which assigns the apostle's arrival to that or the preceding year. This view is very possibly the correct one. It would furnish a striking coincidence between Luke's narrative and the history of the times. Yet in speaking of the praefect the writer may have meant the one who acted in this particular case, he who took into his charge the prisoners whom the centurion transferred to him, whether he was sole praefect or head colleague with him. De Wette assents to Meyer in this explanation of the article. The expression, as so understood, does not affirm that there was but one praefect or deny μévεir xao savrov, to dwell by himself, instead of being confined with the other prisoners. This was a favor which the Roman laws often granted to those who were not suspected of any very serious offence. The centurion who had already acted so friendly a part towards the apostle, may have procured for him this indulgence, or it may have been owing to the terms in which Festus stated the accusation against him.— our orqarorn, with the soldier who guarded him, and to whom he was fastened by a chain. Different soldiers relieved each other in the performance of this office. Hence, as Paul states in Phil. 1: 13, he became, in the course of time, personally known to a great number of the praetorian soldiers, and through them to their comrades. The notoriety which he thus acquired, served to make his character as a prisoner for the sake of the gospel, more widely known, and thus to aid him in his efforts to extend the knowledge of Christ. To this result he refers in Phil. 2: 12 seq.
1 Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters u. s. w., p. 86.
LIFE AND CHARACTER OF DR. DE WETTE.'
By B. B. Edwards, Professor at Andover.
We shall not undertake to furnish in the following article, a complete account of the life and writings of this distinguished theologian and commentator. It will rather be our object to give some notices of his personal and social character, so far as his friends have provided the materials. Entertaining, as we do, on many subjects in biblical criticism, radically different views from those propounded by this eminent writer, it is refreshing to know how estimable and honored he was in all his relations as a man and a citizen, with what singular attraction he drew friends and students around him, how earnest, childlike and simple his manners were, how comprehensive in his views and unflagging in his studies, how happily he blended culture and a pure taste with talent and knowledge, and how, especially towards the close of life, his thoughts and hopes seemed to gather around Him, without whom there is no salvation, the Rock of Ages, the only Life and Light of man. Before proceeding to our task, a few preliminary observations may not be unimportant.
German writers, both in Philosophy and Theology, have been arranged into various classes, the right, the centre, the left, the extreme right, the extreme left, etc. But there are important points where they coincide. In some essential respects they are formed in one mould. Various influences have been at work for many years, which have affected them all alike, the naturalist and the supernaturalist,the young Hegelian and the evangelical scholar. Now in judging of individual character, it is essential to bring into account those influences which all have shared in common. Otherwise, we shall form unjust judgments. Instead of exercising candor and an enlightened discrimination, we shall condemn men en masse, and thus violate some of the plainest principles of Christian morality. Often it
11. Lacke, zur freundschaftlichen Erinnerung an D. De Wette, Studien u. Kritiken, drittes Heft. 1850.
2. Rede bei der Beerdigung des Herrn Dr. De Wette, gehalten den 19. Juni 1849, von Dr. K. R. Hagenbach.
3. W. M. L. De Wette, und die Bedeutung seiner Theologie für unsere Zeit, von Dr. Daniel Schenkel, Pfarrer am Münster, Schaffhausen. 1849.
4. Wilhelm Martin Leberecht De Wette. Eine akademische Gedachtnitzrede, von Dr. K. R. Hagenbach, Leipzig, 1850.
Union of Church and State.
is the system which is in fault, not the man; it is the institution which we should denounce, not the individual. The root of the difficulty may be in the national temperament, in causes which have been in operation for centuries, and of which particular writers are in a great measure the innocent and unconscious exponents. By overlooking such obvious considerations, many persons are accustomed to pronounce harsh and sweeping judgments, which only serve to create and perpetuate melancholy prejudices. We will advert to some of the more obvious of these causes.
First. Among the influences which have given a general likeness to German writers, is that which we may trace to the union of the church with the State. If the government and the leading ecclesiastical authorities happen to be rationalist, as for example, has been the case in the Grand Duchy of Weimar, then the pulpits and the schools would be brought under the same destructive influence. Strong temptations would be held out to the abandonment of the old creeds and to the profession of rationalist opinions. If the higher powers were evangelical, as in Prussia, motives would be brought into action which would lead to the hypocritical profession of evangelical views ; an unsuccessful applicant for office might charge his failure to his frank avowal of opinions that were considered unsound. Besides, the system strikes at the root of all ecclesiastical discipline. By tolerating avowed deists and pantheists as teachers in the church and professors of theology, all the interests of piety and truth would be compromised. The young theologian sees that the widest departures from the confessions and from biblical truth is no hindrance to preferment.
Second. The despotic character of many of the governments in Germany, has been one of the most fruitful sources of theological and philosophical error. In some respects, the Prussian government has been as arbitrary as that of Russia or Austria. These paternal governments have acted on one vast system of regulations, of minute and vexatious interference. The political, social, religious and private life is harassed by an all-pervading espionage. A business partnership cannot be formed, an inn cannot be kept, a marriage cannot be consummated, without its being made a subject for government inspection. The poor man has a supervisor over him from the cradle to the grave. All must attend the school, all must be confirmed, baptized, and buried under the formalities of a special code. In short, in certain great departments of thought and action, freedom has existed only in name. But the mind is free and must have scope. In the provinces of abstract, scientific, historical, theological truth, the Germans have had the