Acts 23:32

Friday, 19 January 2024

 

The next day they left the horsemen to go on with him, and returned to the barracks. Acts 23:32

 

More literally, the words read, “And the morrow, having allowed the horsemen to go with him, they returned to the barracks” (CG).

 

In the previous verse, the detachment of soldiers took Paul out of Jerusalem to Antipatris. Now, the narrative continues, saying, “And the morrow.”

 

Scholars debate whether this means it is the next day from Jerusalem or from Antipatris. Being a forced march, it is most probably from Jerusalem. Thus, the entire trip was done in a single day. Further, Cambridge notes that “The original has a conjunction which the Rev. Ver. represents by ‘But.’ These men would return to Jerusalem again on the day of the intended plot.”

 

Because of the use of the conjunction, which can be translated as and, but, now, etc., it is more probable that this is referring to the next day from Jerusalem. Further, some translations add in the word “on” before “morrow” or “next day.” That will also cause confusion. It is most likely the first day after leaving Jerusalem that it next says, “having allowed the horsemen to go with him, they returned to the barracks.”

 

The four hundred soldiers and spearmen went directly back to Jerusalem. Thus, they would be in Jerusalem when the original plot against Paul was supposed to occur. These soldiers would have had a very long time without sleep before all went back to normal. The seventy horsemen would be more than sufficient to conduct Paul the rest of the way swiftly and safely.

 

This account shows us the immense size of the force that must have been kept in Jerusalem. If almost 500 were dispatched for this one incident, there were many more who remained to keep the peace and to perform the normal functions Rome required.

 

Life application: For such a short and simple verse, one would think the translators would be willing to carefully look at the Greek, notice there was an opening conjunction, and say, “This is a necessary part of God’s word,” and include it in the translation.

 

But translations as far back as Tyndale (1526), the Bishop’s Bible (1568), and the King James (1611) arbitrarily omit it. By doing so, an ambiguity in the wording arises, and debates arise concerning which day Paul was escorted. It’s not an issue that someone should lose sleep over, but because of the poor translation, varying thoughts are unnecessarily bandied about concerning what is being said.

 

So why would this conjunction have been left off? It may have been to make the verse flow better in English. Reading a literal translation can be awkward because the words fit together in a clunky fashion. But this is not an excuse to arbitrarily skip necessary words.

 

When you come to a conflict in translations, before deciding on a final analysis that may be wrong because of one translation or another, try checking the original manuscript. Carefully consider what is being conveyed. Unlike Acts 23:32, faulty translations of some verses can lead to very poor theological positions being held. Study! Stand approved in what you accept.

 

Glorious Lord God, the more we study Your word, the more delightful it is to our minds. It is like a well of deep waters that are sweet and refreshing. Help us to read it, cherish it, and carefully study its contents all the days of our lives. To Your glory! Amen.