3rd Missionary Trip - Lorin

Macedonia (Acts 19:29). 115 The Gaius in 3 John 1 probably was
another person distinct from any of the above. The other fellow,
Ἀρίσταρχος, Aristarchus, is easier to track down. His name
shows up five times also: Acts 19:29; 20:4; 27:2; Col. 4:10;
Phn. 24. In Acts 20:4 and 27:2 he is identified as being from
Thessalonica which was a city in the province of Macedonia.
Additionally he was with Paul later on at the time of the writing
both of Colossians and Philemon. According to Acts 27:2 he
traveled with Paul from Caesarea to Rome. Col. 4:10 identifies
him as ὁ συναιχμάλωτός μου, a fellow prisoner with Paul.
Both men are identified here by Luke as Μακεδόνας,
Macedonians, and as συνεκδήμους Παύλου, traveling companions
with Paul. We know from Acts 20:4 and 27:2 that Aristarchus
was from Thessalonica, but no indication is given regarding
the hometown in Macedonia for Gaius. More intriguing
is the second reference: συνέκδημος, This term occurs only twice in the NT. In 2 Cor. 8:19, Titus is identified as a
συνέκδημος of Paul whom Paul had sent on ahead to Corinth from Ephesus sometime prior to this riot described
in Acts 19. But Gaius and Aristarchus are also συνεκδήμους who at this point in time were with Paul in the city of
Ephesus. 116 When and where they joined the group of missionaries is not known, since this is the first mentioning
of them. Unfortunate for them, they were the ones that the mob found and seized.
These men were taken εἰς τὸ θέατρον, into the theater. 117 Ancient theaters were multi-purpose facilities.
One of the more important functions was for public assemblies of the people of the city. Thus quite naturally the
silversmiths led by Demetrius would take their ‘prisoners’ to the theater in order to make public charges against
them. With a significant segment of the residents assembled at the theater their thought was that they could get
rid of these Christians and block the growing impact of this new religion on the city.
Luke in verse 30 indicates Paul’s efforts to enter the theater in order to defend his associates before the
crowd: Παύλου δὲ βουλομένου εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὸν δῆμον οὐκ εἴων αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταί, Paul wished to go into the crowd,
but the disciples would not let him. The apostle would not abandon his friends in such a time as this, especially when
he had been the intended target of the attack. His intention was εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὸν δῆμον, to go into the assembly.
The term δῆμος refers to an assembled group of people, and in secular Greek denoted usually an official gathering
in order for the citizens to conduct business. Thus the gathering took on semi-official tones for Demetrius and
his fellow craftsmen to bring formal charges against Gaius and Aristarchus.
Very wisely the Christian disciples in the city would not allow Paul to do this: οὐκ εἴων αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταί.
115A few manuscripts (36 453 pc) use the singular Μακεδόνα instead of the plural Μακεδόνας, in order to limit the reference of
being Macedonian just to Aristarchus, so that Gaius is more easily identified with the Gaius from Derbe in 20:4. But this is clearly an
effort to ease a perceived problem in identifying Gaius by a few copyists many centuries later.
116 “Gaius and Aristarchus were συνέκδημοι of Paul’s. The word is used in a similar way at 2 Cor. 8:19, where the person
concerned, whose praise in the Gospel circulated in all the churches, had been appointed by the churches (χειροτονηθεὶς ὑπὸ τῶν
ἐκκλησιῶν) to be Paul’s συνέκδημος in the matter of the collection that Paul was organizing. The word, which in itself means simply
fellow-traveller, may thus have acquired a semi-official meaning, ‘travelling colleague’, or the like. The word has a somewhat similar
sense at Josephus, Life 79 and Plutarch, Otho 5 (1068). In IG 12(8).186 line 9 (Samothrace, first century BC) the Doric form συνέγδαμοι
is used ‘of private persons accompanying a public mission’ (LS 1706). The word seems very suitable for men who were not simple members
of the church but trusted and authorized assistants of Paul. Presumably they were publicly known and thus natural targets for the
mob’s violence.” [C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, International Critical Commentary
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004), 929.]
117 “The θέατρον at Ephesus is the only one mentioned in the NT (also at v. 31). The Hellenistic theatre was an imposing building,
now fully excavated (see F. Miltner, Ephesos (1951(8)), 30–32). Estimates of its capacity vary, but the lowest seems to be 24,000.
An inscription cited in Deissmann (DLAE 113f.) from Jahreshefte der Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 2 (1899), Supplement
43f., seems to presuppose that meetings of the town ἐκκλησία (vv. 32, 39, 40) were held in the theatre. In AD 103–4, C. Vibius
Salutaris presented a silver image of Artemis, together with other statues, ἵνα τέθηνται κατʼ ἐκκλησίαν ἐν τῶ (sic) θεάτρω (sic) ἐπὶ
τῶν βάσεων. The corresponding Latin of the bilingual inscription runs, … ita ut [om]n[ie]cclesia supra bases ponerentur. Cf. AGIBM
3:481:395. Less formal gatherings also took place in theatres. Thus AGIBM 4:792:4ff.: ὁ μὲν δᾶμος ἐν οὐ μετρίᾳ συγχύσει γενόμενος
… μετὰ πάσας προθυμίας συνελθὼν εἰς τὸ θέατρον; Cicero, Pro Flacco 7 (16): Cum in theatro imperiti homines, rerum omnium rudes
ignarique consederant: tum bella inutilia suscipiebant; tum seditiosos homines reipublicae praeficiebant; tum optime meritos cives e civitate
ejiciebant.” [C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, International Critical Commentary
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004), 928-29.]
Page 412