Acts 18:22

And when he had landed at Caesarea, and gone up, and saluted the church, he went down to Antioch.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(22) And when he had landed at Cæsarea.—It is obvious that a great deal is covered by the short record of this verse. In the absence of any data in the Acts for settling the question, we may possibly refer to some casualty in this voyage, one of the three shipwrecks of 2Corinthians 11:25. At Cæsarea, we may believe, he would probably renew his intercourse with Philip the Evangelist. At Jerusalem there would be the usual gathering of the Church, the completion of his Nazarite vow in the Temple, a friendly welcome on the part of St. James and the elders of the Church. Peter was probably at Antioch (Galatians 2:11), or possibly at Babylon (1Peter 5:13). To this visit to Antioch we may probably refer the scene which St. Paul narrates in Galatians 2:11-14. His long absence from Antioch had left the Judaising party time to gather strength and organise a new attack on the freedom of the Gentiles, and they brought a fresh pressure to bear upon the element of instability which still lingered in St. Peter’s character, and he had not been able to resist it. It is, however, possible that the incident may have occurred before Paul and Silas had left Antioch. (See Note on Acts 15:39-40.)

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

18:18-23 While Paul found he laboured not in vain, he continued labouring. Our times are in God's hand; we purpose, but he disposes; therefore we must make all promises with submission to the will of God; not only if providence permits, but if God does not otherwise direct our motions. A very good refreshment it is to a faithful minister, to have for awhile the society of his brethren. Disciples are compassed about with infirmity; ministers must do what they can to strengthen them, by directing them to Christ, who is their Strength. Let us earnestly seek, in our several places, to promote the cause of Christ, forming plans that appear to us most proper, but relying on the Lord to bring them to pass if he sees good.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

At Cesarea - See the notes on Acts 8:40.

And gone up - From the ship.

And saluted the church - The church at Jerusalem. This was Paul's main design; and though it is not distinctly specified, yet the whole narrative implies that he went there before returning to Antioch. The word saluted implies that he expressed for them his tender affection and regard.

To Antioch - In Syria. See the notes on Acts 11:19.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

22. And when he had landed at Cæsarea—where he left the vessel.

and gone up—that is, to Jerusalem.

and saluted the church—In these few words does the historian despatch the apostle's FOURTH VISIT TO Jerusalem after his conversion. The expression "going up" is invariably used of a journey to the metropolis; and thence he naturally "went down to Antioch." Perhaps the vessel reached too late for the feast, as he seems to have done nothing in Jerusalem beyond "saluting the Church," and privately offering the sacrifice with which his vow (Ac 18:18) would conclude. It is left to be understood, as on his arrival from his first missionary tour, that "when he was come, and had gathered the church together, he rehearsed all that God had done with him" (Ac 14:27) on this his second missionary journey.

Matthew Poole's Commentary

Caesarea; not that Caesarea that was in Syria, but that which was in Palestine, called Caesarea Stratonis; and which was the safest way to Jerusalem; for the way by Joppa, though shorter, was accounted more dangerous. The church; either the church of Caesarea in his journey, or that at Jerusalem at his journey’s end, which for its populousness might be called eminently, the church.

Antioch; that Antioch that was in Syria.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

And when he had landed at Caesarea,.... This was Caesarea Stratonis, formerly called Strato's tower: it would have been nearest for the apostle to have landed at Joppa, in order to go to Jerusalem, but that haven was a dangerous one; this was the safest, and which therefore Herod had repaired at a vast expense, and in honour of Caesar had called it by this name: of the port at Caesarea, and what a convenient and commodious one, as it was made by Herod, Josephus (i) gives a particular account, and who often calls this place Caesarea, "Caesarea by the sea" (k); and in other Jewish (l) writings mention is made of this place as a sea port, and of , "the shore of the sea of Caesarea": Josephus (m) sometimes calls it the port Sebastus, or Augustus, it being, as before observed, made by Herod, and so called in honour of Augustus Caesar; and in another place (n), Sebastus the port of Caesarea: according to Jerom (o), or a writer under his name, this was neither Caesarea Philippi, which indeed it could not be, that being an inland town; nor Caesarea formerly called Strato's tower, but a third Caesarea, the metropolis of Cappadocia: in which he must be mistaken, seeing that was no sea port, and the apostle could not be said to land there; nor did it lie in the way to Jerusalem from Ephesus; but this city was in Phenice, and lay between Joppa and Dora; which cities were maritime ones, but very disagreeable havens, because of the vehement strong winds from Africa: which rolling up the sand out of the sea upon the shore, would not admit of a quiet station (p); wherefore the apostle chose to land here, and not at either of the said ports;

and gone up; not to Caesarea, but to Jerusalem, from thence, which lay higher; and going to and from these places, is signified by a going up and down, Acts 9:30. Moreover, the apostle had told the Ephesians, that he must go and keep the feast in Jerusalem, as he undoubtedly did: and yet if this does not refer to his going up thither, it will not be easy to observe that he went thither at all before his return to Ephesus; and besides, to suppose him to go from Caesarea to Antioch, was all one as to go back to Ephesus; and so to go, as one observes, by the same place to Jerusalem, into which he promised, in his return from Jerusalem, to come again, if God would:

and saluted the church; at Jerusalem, the mother church:

he went down to Antioch; in Syria, from whence he first set out.

(i) Antiqu. l. 15. c. 9. sect. 6. & de Bello Jud. l. 1. c. 21. sect. 5, 6, 7. (k) Ib. de Bello l. 1. c. 3. sect. 5. & l. 3. c. 8. sect. 1. & l. 7. c. 1. sect. 3. c. 2. sect. 1.((l) Midrash Kohelet, fol. 71. 4. & 82. 2.((m) Antiqu. l. 17. c. 5. sect. 1.((n) De Bello Jud. l. 1. c. 31. sect. 3.((o) De locis Hebraicis, fol. 96. A. (p) Joseph. Antiqu. l. 15. c. 9. sect. 6.

Geneva Study Bible

And when he had landed at Caesarea, and gone up, and saluted the church, he went down to Antioch.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Meyer's NT Commentary

Acts 18:22-23. Fourth journey to Jerusalem, according to chap. 9, 11, 15.

From Ephesus Paul sailed to Caesarea (i.e. Caesarea Stratonis, the best and most frequented harbour in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem; not, as Jerome, Beda, and Lyra suppose, Caesarea in Cappadocia, against which the very word ἀνήχθη serves as a proof), and from thence he went up to Jerusalem, whence he proceeded down to Antioch.

ἀναβάς] namely, to Jerusalem. So Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Bengel, Rosenmüller, Heinrichs, Olshausen, Neander, Anger (de temp. rat. p. 60 f.), de Wette, Wieseler, Baumgarten, Lange, Ewald, and others. Others refer it to Caesarea (so Calovius, Wolf, Kuinoel, Schott, and several others), and think that the word is purposely chosen, either because the city was situated high up from the shore (Kuinoel and others), or because the church had its place of meeting in an elevated locality (de Dieu and others). The reference to Caesarea would be necessary, if δεῖ με πάντως κ.τ.λ., Acts 18:21, were not genuine; for then the reference to Jerusalem would have no ground assigned for it in the context. But with the genuineness of that asseveration, Acts 18:21, the historical connection requires that ἀναβ. κ. ἀσπασ. τ. ἐκκλ. should contain the fulfilment of it. In favour of this we may appeal both to the relation in meaning of the following κατέβη to this ἀναβάς, and to the circumstance that it would be very strangely in contrast to the hurried brevity with which the whole journey is despatched in Acts 18:22, if Luke should have specially indicated in the case of Caesarea not merely the arrival at it, but also the going up (?) to it. In spite of that hurried brevity, with which the author scarcely touches on this journey to Jerusalem, and mentions in regard to the residence there no intercourse with the Jews, no visit to the temple, and the like, but only a salutation of the church,[87] the fidelity of the apostle to the Jewish festivals has been regarded as the design of the narrative (Schneckenburger), and the narrative itself as invented (Zeller, Hausrath; comp. Holtzmann, p. 695). The identification of the journey with that mentioned in Galatians 2:1 (Wieseler) is incompatible with the aim of the apostle in adducing his journeys to Jerusalem in that passage. See on Galatians. Nor can the encounter with Peter, Galatians 2:11, belong to the residence of Paul at that time in Antioch (Neander, Wieseler, Lange, Baumgarten).

τὴν Γαλατ. χ. τ. Φρυγ.] certainly, also, Lycaonia (Acts 14:21), although Luke does not expressly name it. On ἘΠΙΣΤΗΡΊΖΩΝ, comp. Acts 14:22, Acts 15:32; Acts 15:41.

[87] The so short residence of the apostle in Jerusalem is sufficiently intelligible from the certainly even at that time (comp. Acts 21:21 ff.) very excited temper of the Judaists, with whom Paul now recognised it as incompatible with his more extended apostolic mission to meddle. See Ewald, p. 503 f.

Expositor's Greek Testament

Acts 18:22. κατελθὼν εἰς κ., i.e., Cæsarea Stratonis, i.e., came down from the high sea to the coast, the shore, cf. Acts 27:5 (Acts 21:3), so in Homer, and also of coming down from the high land to the coast, see Grimm-Thayer, sub v.—ἀναβὰς, i.e., to Jerusalem, the usual expression for a journey to the capital, cf. Acts 11:2, Acts 15:2 (b), Acts 25:1; Acts 25:9, Matthew 20:18, Mark 10:32, see Luke 2:42; Luke 18:31; Luke 19:28, John 2:13; John 7:8, Galatians 2:1; cf. Acts 24:1; Acts 24:22; Acts 25:6, where “to go down” is used of the journey from Jerusalem to Cæsarea. To suppose that the word is used to indicate simply that they landed in the harbour, or because the town lay high up from the shore, or because the place of assembly for the Church was on high ground, is quite arbitrary, and cannot be set against the usage of the term “going up” and “going down” in relation to Jerusalem; see Hort, Ecclesia, p. 96; Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 264; so Bengel, Neander, Meyer, Hackett, Zückler, Rendall, Page, Weiss, Weizsäcker, Spitta, Jüngst, Hilgenfeld, Wendt, Knabenbauer, and Belser, Beiträge, p. 89, who opposes here the position of Blass (and if the T.R. in Acts 18:21 is retained in [326] certainly “the going up” to Jerusalem seems naturally to follow). Blass maintains that Cæsarea is meant, but he is evidently led to adopt this view by his desire to retain the reading in , Acts 19:1, see Zöckler, in loco, and Ramsay, p. 264, and Belser, u. s., for a criticism of Blass’s view. Amongst the more recent critics, Zahn, Einleitung, ii., 343, 350. combats the reasons alleged by Belser, and takes the going up and the Church mentioned to refer to Cæsarea and the Church there, not to Jerusalem. This visit of St. Paul to Jerusalem is disputed by McGiffert, although he does not deny with Weizsäcker the whole journey, but admits that the Apostle went as far as Antioch. So too Wendt is not prepared to follow Weizsäcker entirely, although he holds that as the Apostle went to Syria, Luke concluded that he must have gone up to Jerusalem (so McGiffert). On the other hand, the historical truthfulness of the journey to Jerusalem is stoutly defended by Spitta (pp. 246–248). The silence of the Galatian Epistle is admitted by Wendt to be in itself no proof against its occurrence, and still less objection can be based on the supposed variance at this time between St. Paul and the Jewish Christians of the capital. See Zöckler’s note, p. 272, and also Alford, in loco.—τὴν ἐκκ.: the Church at Jerusalem may be fairly regarded as indicated, the ἐκκ. κατʼ ἐξοχὴν: “primariam, ex qua propagatæ sunt reliquæ,” Bengel. If St. Luke had meant the Christians in Cæsarea, he would probably have said that Paul saluted the brethren or the disciples, cf. Acts 24:7 (see Belser, u. s., p. 90). This visit of St. Paul to Jerusalem would probably be his fourth, Acts 9:26, Acts 11:30 (Acts 12:25), Acts 15:4, and if he went on this fourth occasion to complete a vow, this fact alone would prove that the visit was not wanting in an object: see however note on Acts 18:18.—ἀσπασ.: the word indicates a short stay. Blass interprets that the Apostle went up from the harbour to the city of Cæsarea, and then “went down to Antioch”. But Ramsay, p. 264, urges that it is impossible to use the term κατέβη of a journey from the coast town Cæsarea to the inland city Antioch; on the contrary, one regularly “goes down” to a coast town, Acts 13:4, Acts 14:25, Acts 16:8, etc. At the Syrian Antioch, the mother of the Gentile churches, St. Paul would find a welcome after his second journey, as after his first—this so far as we know was his last visit to a place which was now no longer an effective centre for the Apostle’s work, or for the supervision of his new churches.

[326] R(omana), in Blass, a first rough copy of St. Luke.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

22. Cesarea] (See Acts 8:40.) This was the home of Philip the Evangelist, and we may suppose that St Paul would make the success of his distant mission known to his fellow-labourer. He made the house of Philip his home in Cæsarea on a later occasion (Acts 21:8).

gone up] i.e. from the coast town to the city of Jerusalem.

and saluted the church] This is a very brief notice of a visit to the centre of all church life and action at this time. And we cannot but be surprised that there is no mention (as in Acts 14:27) of a gathering of the church, and of the report of what the great missionary had been enabled to effect. Dr Farrar (St Paul, ii. 5) suggests that St Paul met with a cold and ungracious reception, and that the position which he assumed towards the Law in his preaching to Gentile converts, raised him up adversaries among the Christians in Jerusalem, who were naturally zealous for the Law. It is certainly strange that even the name of the city is not mentioned, nor are we told a word about the fulfilment of the vow. For some reason or other, the Apostle hastened, as soon as his salutations were ended, to the more congenial society of the Christians at Antioch who had rejoiced over his success on a former visit.

Bengel's Gnomen

Acts 18:22. Ἀναβὰς, having gone up) to Jerusalem: Acts 18:21.—τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, the church) The primary church, from which the others were propagated.

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 22. - He went up for and gone up, A. g.; and went for he went, A.V. When he had landed at Caesarea; i.e. Caesarea Stratonis, or Sebaste, or Παραλιός, as it was variously called, to distinguish it from Caesarea Philippi (see Acts 8:40; Acts 9:30; Acts 10:1, etc., and frequently elsewhere in the Acts). "Caesarea, whither probably the vessel was bound, was the military capital of the Roman province of Judea, of which Felix was at this time procurator. It was also the harbor by which all travelers from the West approached it, and from whence roads led to Egypt on the south, to Tyre and Sidon and Antioch on the north, and eastward to Nablous and Jerusalem and the Jordan" (Howson, 1:455). He went up and saluted the Church; meaning, without any doubt, he went up to Jerusalem, as both the word ἀναβὰς, and the object of his-going up, "to salute the Church," conclusively show. For ἀναβαίνω, whether coupled with εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα as in Matthew 20:17, 18, or standing alone as in John 7:8, 10, and John 12:20, is the regular word for going up to Jerusalem (see Acts 11:2; Acts 15:2; Acts 21:12, 15; Acts 24:11; Acts 25:1, 9); and ἡ ἐκκλησία, the Church, which Paul went to salute, can mean nothing but the mother Church of Jerusalem. No doubt he was received officially by the apostles, represented by James and the elders and the Church, as in Acts 15:4; and gave a formal account of the result of his second missionary journey, and of the great event of the introduction of the gospel into Macedonia and Achaia. It is a remarkable example of St. Luke's great brevity at times that this is the only notice of his arrival at Jerusalem, where his vow was to be fulfilled. Went down to Antioch; from whence he had started with Silas, after his separation from Barnabas, some three years before, "being recommended by the brethren to the grace of God" (Acts 16:40; comp. Acts 14:26, 27; Acts 15:30). Acts 18:22