Full text of "Critical Exegetical Handbook New Testament 11 volumes"

See other formats

Google

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world’s books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that’s often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book’s long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google’s system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attribution The Google “watermark” you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can’t offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book’s appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world’s books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

atthtto: //books.gqoogle.com/

OF THE
ITY OF Michie,
px tay

OF FPL RET gf POS 2
r- *
ee c al . = , a,

=
=
=
=
=
—
_—a
—
-—
i
=
=
—
=
—
i
=a
—)
- Ll
: |
—
=
=
=
ly
4
=
i
=
—J

*
nis

a Sees eee ee ee Ge
eer

PU LLP

nt 2. si | 7 i
ee Ms =H

”

|
Fd
S.5:
i=
ie
i
J
=)=
=
=
4
—
=
=.

iol iF
PPT TIirerieteeee Lee ' abit tinned daly =! |

Sate

Digitized by Google

BS
234Y
(M623

0 ns RARE Er ROR Sees eagerrenes »- = > aes

———

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL

sietarhcbaaian

Tk LOTS UF TH APOSTLES.

F/4 OB.

BY
HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tz.D.,

OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER.

TRANSLATED FROM THE FOURTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY
REV. PATON J. GLOAG, D.D.

THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY
WILLIAM P. DICKSON, D.D.,

PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.

WITH PREFACE, INDEX, AND SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES TO THE
. AMERICAN EDITION BY

REV. WILLIAM ORMISTON, D.D., LL.D.

NEW YORK:
FUNK & WAGNALLS, PUBLISHERS,
10 aND 12 Dry STREET.
1883.

Burr Paintine Houszs, Nuw YORK.

a | —,,

PREFACE TO THE FOURTH GERMAN EDITION.

Tue third edition of this Commentary appeared in the year 186).
The accessions to the exegetical literature of the Book of Acts since that
date have been on the whole meagre; and they have been chiefly
directed to the investigation of certain specially important facts which
are recorded in the Book, as regards their miraculous character and
their relation to the Pauline Epistles.! The critical researches as to this
canonical writing are, doubtless, not yet concluded ; but they are in
such a position that we must regard the attempte—prosecuted with so
much keenness, confidence, and acuteness—to make the Book of Acts
appear an intentional medley of truth and fiction like a historical
romance, ag having utterly failed. To this result several able apologetic
works have within the last ten years contributed their part, while the
criticism which finds ‘‘ purpose’’ everywhere has been less active, and
has not brought forward arguments more cogent than those already so
often discussed. Even the new edition of the chief work of Baur, in
which its now departed author has devoted his last scientific labours to
the contents of the Acts of the Apostles, furnishes nothing essentially
new, und it touches only here and there on the objections urged by his
opponents,

1 There has just appeared in the first part of the Stud. und Krit, for 1870 the
beginning of an elaborate rejoinder to Holsten, by Beyschlag: ‘die Visions-
kypothese in ihrer neuesten Begriindung,’"’ which I can only mention here as an
addition to the literature noted at ix. 3-9. [Soon after this preface was written,
there appeared Dr. Overbeck’s Commentary, which, while formally professing
to be a new edition of de Wette’s work, is in greater part an extravagant appli-
cation to the Book of Acts of a detailed historical criticism which de Wette
himself strongly condemned, It is an important and interesting illustration of
the Tibingen critical method (above referred to) as pushed to its utmost limits ;
but it possesses little independent value from an exegetical point of view.

W. P. D.

we me sls

1V PREFACE TO THE FOURTH GERMAN EDITION.

With reference to the method of judging the New Testament writ-
ings, which Dr. Baur started, and in which he has taken the lead, I
cannot but regret that, in controversy with it, we should hear people
speak of ‘‘ believing’’ and ‘‘ critical ’’ theology as of things necessarily
contrasted and mutually exclusive. It would thus seem, as if faith must
of necessity be uncritical, and criticism unbelieving. Luther himself
combined the majestic heroism of his faith with all freedom, nay, bold-
ness of criticism, and as to the latter, he laid stress even on the dog-
matic side (‘‘ what makes for Christ ’’),—a course, no doubt, which led
him to mistaken judgments regarding some N. T. writings, easily intel-
ligible as it may appear in itself from the personal idiosyncrasy of the
great man, from his position as a Reformer, and from the standpoint of
science in his time. As regards the Acts of the Apostles, however,
which he would have called ‘‘ a gloss on the Epistles of St. Paul,’’ he
with his correct and sure tact discerned and hit upon the exact opposite
of what recent criticism has found : ‘‘ Thou findest here in this book a
beautiful mirror, wherein thou mayest see that this is true: Sola fides
justificat.”’ The contrary character of definite ‘‘ purpose,’’ which has
in our days been ascribed to the book, necessarily involves the corre-
sponding lateness of historical date, to which these critics have not hesi-
tated to transfer it. But this very position requires, in my judgment,
an assent on their part to a critical impossibility. For—as hardly a
single unbiassed person would venture to question—the author has not
made use of any of the Pauline Epistles preserved to us ; and therefore
these letters cannot have been accessible to him when he was engaged in
the collection of his materials or in the composition of his work, be-
cause he would certainly have been far from leaving unused historical
sources of such productiveness and of so direct and supreme authen-
ticity, had they stood at his command. How is it to be still supposed,
then, that he could have written his work in an age, in which the Epis-
tles of the apostle were already everywhere diffused by means of copies
and had become a common possession of the church,—an age, for
which we have the oldest testimony in the canon itself from the un-
known author of the so-called Second Epistle of Peter (iii. 15 f.) ?

It is my most earnest desire that the labour, which I have gladly de-
voted, as in duty bound, to this new edition, may be serviceable to the
correct understanding of the book, and to a right estimate of its histor-
ical contents ; and to these ends may God give it His blessing !

I may add that, to my great regret, I did not receive the latest work
of Wieseler,' which presents the renewed fruit of profound and inde-

' Beitrage cur richtigen Wirdigung der Evangelien und der evangel. Geschichte,
Gotha, 1869.

PREFACE TO THE FOURTH GERMAN EDITION. Vv

pendent study, till nearly half of my book was already finished and in
type. But it has reference for the most part to the Gospels and their
Chronology, the investigation of which, however, extends in many cases
also into the Book of Acts. The arguments adduced by Wieseler in his
tenth Beitrag, with his wonted thoughtfulness and depth of research, in
proof of the agreement of Luke xxiv. 44 ff. and Acts i. 1, have not
availed to shake me in my view that here the Book of Acts follows a
different tradition from the Gospel.

Dr. MEYER.
Hannover, October 22, 1869.

PREFATORY NOTE.

Tue explanations prefixed to previously issued volumes of this Com-
mentary [see especially the General Preface to Romans, vol. I.] regard-
ing the principles on which the translation has been undertaken, and the
method followed in its execution, are equally applicable to the portion
now issued.

W. P. D.
Giascow CoLtEGcs, May, 1877.

EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.

[For commentaries and collections of notes embracing the whole New
Testament, see Preface to the Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew.
The following list consists mainly of works which deal with the Acts of
the Apostles in particular. Several of the works named, especiully of the
older, are chiefly doctrinal or homiletic in their character; while some
more recent books, dealing with the history and chronology of the apos-
tolic age, or with the life of St. Paul, or with the genuineness of the Book
of Acts, have been included because of the epecial bearing of their discus-
sions on its contents. Monographs on chapters or sections are generally
noticed by Meyer in loc. The editions quoted are usually the earliest ; ai.
appended denotes that the work has been more or less frequently reprinted ;
+ marks the date of the author’s death ; ¢ = circa, an approximation to it. ]

ALEXANDER (Joseph Addison), D.D., + 1860, Prof. Bibl. and Eccl. Hist. at Prince-
ton: The Acts of the Apostles explained. 2 vols.

8°, New York [and Lond.] 1857, al.

ANGER (Rudolf), + 1866, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: De temporum in Actis Apos-

tolorum ratione. 8°, Lips. 1833,

Azcunantvs (Daniel), + 1596, Prof. Theol. at Marburg: Commentarius in Acta

Apostolorum, cura Balthazaris Mentzeri editus. See also GERHaRD

(Johann). 8°, Francof, 1607, al.

BazzmeTron (John Shute, Viscount), ¢ 1734: Miscellanea sacra; or a new
method of considering so much of the history of the Apostles as is
contained in Scripture. 2 vols. Lond. 1725. 2d edition, edited by
Bishop Barrington. 3 vols. 8°, Lond. 1770,

BaUMGARTEN (Michael), lately Prof. Theol. at Rostock : Die Apostelgeschichte,
oder der Entwicklungsgang der Kirche von Jerusalem bis Rom. 2

Bande. 8°, Braunschw. 1852.
{Translated by Rev. A. J. W. Morrison and Theod. Meyer. 3 vols.
8°, Edin, 1854.)

Bavz (Ferdinand Christian), + 1860, Prof. Theol. at Tiibingen: Paulus der
Apostel Jesu Christi. Sein Leben und Wirken, seine Briefe und seine
Lehre. 8°, Stuttg. 1845, al.
{Translated by Rev. Allan Menzies. 2 vols. 8°, Lond. 1875-6
Brpa (Venerabilis), ¢ 735, Monk at Jarrow: In Acta Apostolorum expositio

Opera].
BEEeELEN (ern: Théodore), R. OC. Prof. Or. Lang. at Louvain: Commentarius in
Acta Apostolorum. . . . 2 voll. 4°, Lovanii, 1850.

vill EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.

Benson (George), D.D., + 1763, Minister in London: The History of the first
planting of the Christian religion, taken from the Acts of the Apostles

and their Epistles. 2 vols. 4°, Lond. 1736.

2d edition, with large additions. 3 vols, 4°, Lond. 1756,

Brscoz (Richard), + 1748, Prebendary of St. Paul’s: The History of the Acte
of the Holy Apostles, confirmed from other authors, .. . 2 vols.

8°, Lond. 1742, al.

BioMFreLp (Charles James), D.D., + 1857, Bishop of London : Twelve Lectures

on the Acts of the Apostles... . 8°, Lond. 1826.

Brenz [Brent1vs] (Johann), ¢ 1570, Provost at Stuttgart: In Acta Apostolica

homiliae centum viginti duae. 2°, Francof. 1561, al.

BuGENHAGEN (Johann), t 1558, Prof. Theol. at Wittenberg: Commentarius in

Acta Apostolorum. 8°, Vitemb. 1524, al.

BULLINGER (Heinrich), t 1575, Pastor at Zitrich : In Acta Apostoloruam commen-

tariorum libri vi. 2°, Tiguri, 1533, al.

Burton (Edward), D.D., + 1836, Prof. of Divinity at Oxford: An attempt to
ascertain the chronology of the Acts of the Apostles and of St. Paul's
Epistles, - 8°, Oxf. 1830.

Casetanus [Tommaso pa Vio}, t 1534, Cardinal: Actus Apostoloram commen-
tarlis illustrati. 2°, Venet. 1530, al.

Catrxtus (Georg), t 1656, Prof. Theol. at Helmstadt : Expositio literalis in Acta
Apostolorum. 4°, Brunsvigae, 1654.

Canvin [CHauvin] (Jean), f 1564, Reformer : Commentarii in Acta Apostolorum.

2°, Genev. 1560, al.

[Translated by Christopher Featherstone. 4°, Lond. 1585, al.]

CaPELius [Capre.] (Louis), t 1658, Prof. Theol. at Saumur : Historia apostolica
illustrata ex Actis Apostolorum et Epistolis inter se collatis, collecta,
accurate digesta, .. . 4°, Salmur. 1683.

Casstoporus (Magnus Aurelius), f 563. See Romans,

Curysostomus (Joannes), t 407, Archbishop of Constantinople : Homilis lv.
in Acta Apostolorum [Opera].

ConYBEARE (William John), M.A., Howson (John Saul), D.D. : Life and Epis-
tles of St. Paul. 4°, Lond. 1852, al.

Coox (Frederick Charles), M.A., Canon of Exeter: The Acts of the Apostles ;
with a commentary, and practical and devotional suggestions. . . .

12°, Lond. 1850.
Crapock (Samuel), B.D., ¢ 1706, Nonconformist minister: The Apostolical
history ... from Christ’s ascension to the destruction of Jerusalem

by Titus ; with a narrative of the times and occasions upon which the
Epistles were written : with an analytical paraphrase of them.
2°, Lond. 1672,
Cretz (Johann), ¢ 1633, Socinian Teacher at Racow: Commentarius in mag-
nam partem Actorum Apostoloram [Opera].

Denton (William), M.A., Vicar of 8, Bartholomew, Cripplegate : A commentary
on the Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols. 8°, Lond. 1874-6.
Dicx (John), D.D., t 1834, f. Theol. to United Secession Church, Glas-
gow : Lectures on the Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols.
8°, Glas, 1805-6, al.
Drev (Louis de), ¢ 1642, Prof. at Leyden: Animadversiones in Acta Aposto-
loram, ubi, collatis Syri, Arabis, Aethiopici, Vulgati, Erasmi et Bezae
versionibus, difficiliora quaeque loca illustrantur , . .
4°, Lugd. Bat. 1634.
Dionystus Cartuusianus [DENys DE Rycsxx], { 1471, Carthusian monk: In
Acta Apostoloruam commentaria, 2°, Paris, 1552.
Du Vem. See Ver (Charles Marie de),

Estey (Heneage), M.A., Vicar of Burneston: Annotations on the Four
Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles ; compiled and abridged for the
use of students. 3 vols. 8°, Lond. 1812 al.

EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 1x

Ferus [Wimp] (Johannes), ft 1554, Cathedral Preacher at Mentz: Enarrationes

breves et dilucidae in Acta Apostolorum. 2°, Colon. 1567.

FromonpD [Frommont] (Libert), ¢ 1633, Prof. Sac. Scrip. at Louvain : Actus
Apostolorum brevi et dilucido commentario illustrati.

4°, Lovanii, 1654, al.

GaGnEz (Jean de), ¢ 1549, Rector.of the University of Paris: Clarissima et
facillima in quatuor sacra J. C. Evangelia necnon in Actus Apostolicos

scholia selecta. 2°, Paris, 1552, al.
GerrxHarD (Johann), t 1637, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Annotationes in Acta Apos-
tolorum., 4° Jenae, 1669, al.

. Also : 8S. Lucae evangelistae Acta Apostolorum, triumvirali commentario
. - . theologoram celeberrimorum Joannis Gerhardi, Danielis Arca-

larii et Jo. Canuti Lenaei illustrata. 4°, Hamburgi, 1713.
Groaa (Paton James) D.D., Minister of Galashiels: Critical and exegetical
commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols. 8°, Edin. 1870.
Gorran (Nicholas de), ¢ 1295, Prof at Paris: In Acta Apostolorum ... Com-
mentarii. 2°, Antverp. 1620.
GrynaEvs (Johann Jakob), ¢ 1617, Prof. Theol. at Basle: Commentarius in
Acta Apostoloram. 4°, Basil. 1573.

GuaLTHEBUs [WALTHER] (Rudolph), ¢ 1586, Pastor at Zirich : In Acta Aposto-
loram per divum Lucam descripta homiliae clxxxv. 2°, Tiguri, 1577.

Hacxert (Horatio Balch), D.D., Prof. Bibl. Lit. in Newton Theol. Institution,
. 8. : A commentary on the original text of the Acts of the Apostles.
8°, Boston, U.S8., 1852, al.
Hervricus (Johann Heinrich), Superintendent at Burgdorf: Acta Apostolo-
rum Graece perpetua anotatione illustrate. 2tomi. [Testamentum

Novum. ... illustravit J. P. Koppe, Vol. iii. partes 1, 2.

]
8°, Gotting. 1809, al,

Hemsen (Johann Tychsen). See Romans.

HENTENIUS (Johannes), + 1566, Prof. Theol. at Louvain: Enarrationes vetus-
tissimorum theologoram in Acta quidem Apostolorum et in omnes
Epistolas. 2°, Antverp. 1545,

HILDEBRAND (Traugott W.), Pastor at Zwickau: Die Geschichte der Aposteln
Jesu exegetisch-hermeneutisch in 2 besonderen Abschnitten bear-
beitet. 8°, Leipiz. 1824.

HormetsTer (Johann), ¢ 1547, Augustinian Vicar-General in Germany : In duo-
decim priora capita Actoram Apostolicorum commentaria.

2°, Colon. 1567.

Houmpuery (William Gilson), M.A, Vicar of St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields, London :

A commentary on the Book of the Acts of the Apostles.
8°, Lond. 1847, al.

Kisremaxker (Johann Hyazinth), ¢ 1884, R. C., Prof. Theol. at Minster: Ge-

schichte der Aposteln mit Ammerkungen. 8°, Minster, 1822.

Kurnoxzn [Kugnox) (Christian Gottlieb), ¢ 1841, Prof. Theol. at Giessen : Com-
mentarius in libros Novi Testamenti historicos. 4 voll.

8°, Lips. 1807-18 ai.

Laxez (Johann Peter), Prof. Theol. at Bonn: Das Apostolische Zeitalter. 2
Bande. 8°, Braunschw. 1853.
Lzecuizr (Gotthard Victor), Superintendent at Leipzig: Der Apostel Geschich-
ten theologisch bearbeitet von G. V. Lechler, homiletisch von G.

Gerok (Lange’s Bibelwerk. V.]}. 8°, Bielefeld, 1860, al.
Translated by Rev. P. J. Gloag. 2 vols., Edin. 1866. And by Charles
. Schaeffer, D.D. 8°, New York, 1867.]

Das Apostolische und das nachapostolische Zeitalter mit Rtcksicht auf
Unterschied und Einheit in Lehre und Leben. 8°, Stuttg. 1851.

Zweite durchaus umgearbeitete Auflage. 8°, Stuttg. 1857.
LEEvwEN (Gerbrand van), ¢ 1721, Prof. Theol. at Amsterdam : De Handelingen
der heyligen Apostelen, beschreeven door Lucas, uitgebreid en verk-

laart. Amst. 1704. Also, in Latin, 2 voll. 8°, Amst. 1724.

x EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.

LExEsuscH (Eduard): Die Composition und Entstehung der Apostelgeschichte

von neuem untersucht. 8°, Gotha, 1854.
Lewin (Thomas), M. A., Barrister : The Life and Epistles of St. Paul. 8°, Lond.
1851.—New edition. 2 vols. 49 Lond. 1874.

Liautroot (John), D.D., t 1675, Master of Catherine Hall, Cambridge: A com-
mentary upon the Acts of the Apostles; chronical and critical. . .
From the beginning of the book to the end of the twelfth chapter. . . .

4°, Lond, 1645, al.
{Also, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae. See MatrHew. ]

Lrwsorce (Philipp van), ¢ 1712, Arminian Prof. Theol. at Amsterdam : Com-
mentarius in Acta Apostolorum, et in Epistolas ad Romanos et ad
Ebraeos. 2°, Roterod. 1711, al.

LinDHAMMER (Johann Ludwig), t 1771, General Superintendent in East Fries-
land: Der... Apostelgeschichte ausfiihrliche Erklérung und An-
wendung, darin der Text von Stuck zu Stuck ausgelegt und . . . mit
. . - philologischen und critischen Noten erliutert wird.

2°, Halae, 1725, al.

Lrveemore (Abiel Abbot), Minister at Cincinnati: The Acts of the Apostles,
with a commentary. 12°, Boston, U.S., 1844.

LosstTemn (Johann Michael), ¢ 1794, Prof. Theol. at Strassburg : Vollstandiger
Commentar tiber die Apostelgeschichte das Lukas. Th. I.

8°, Strassb. 1792.

Loris (Jean), ¢ 1634, Jesuit: In Acta Apostolorum commentaria. . .

2°, Lugd. 1605, al.

Marcorum (John), f 1634, Minister at Perth: Commentarius et analysis in
Apostolorum Acta. 4°, Mediob. 1615.
Masxew (Thomas Ratsey), Head Master of Grammar School, Dorchester: An-
notations on the Acts of the Apostles, original and selected .. . 2d
edition... 12°, Camb. 1847.
MENKEN (Gottfried), ¢ 1831, Pastor at Bremen : Blicke in das Leben des Apos-
tel Paulus und der ersten Christengemeinden, nach etlichen Kapiteln

der Apostelgeschichte. 8°, Bremen, 1828.
Menoogto (Giovanni Stefano), t 1655, Jesuit at Rome: Historia sucra de Acti-
bus Apostolorum. 4°, Rom. 1634.

Mosrvs (Samuel Friedrich Nathanael), ¢ 1792, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: Versio
et explicatio Actorum Apostolicorum. Edidit, animadversiones recen-

tioruam maxime interpretum svasque adjecit G. J. Dindorf. 2 voll.
8°, Lips. 1794.

NEANDER (Johann August Wilhelm), ¢ 1850, Prof. Theol. at Berlin : Geschichte
der Pflanzung und Leitung der christlichen Kirche durch die Apostol.

2 Bande. 8°, Hamb, 1832, al.
(Translated by J. E. Ryland. 89, Lond. 1851.]
Novarrmo (Luigi), { 1650, Theatine monk: Actus Apostolorum expansi et notis
monitisque sacris illustrati. 2°, Lugd. 1646.

OxrcuMENtvs, c. 980, Bishop of Trieca. See Romans.
Ozeren (J. O.), Pastor at Gr. Storkwitz : Paulus in der Apostelgeschichte. .. .
8°, Halle, a. §., 1868.

Parzy (William), D.D., ¢ 1805, Archdeacon of Carlisle : Horne Paulinae ; or, the
truth of the Scripture history of St. Paul evinced by a comparison of
the Epistles which bear his name with the Acts of the Apostles, and
with one another.

See Tare (James). 8°, Lond. 1790, al.
Parrizt (Francesco Xavier), Prof. Theol. at Rome: In Actus Apostoloram com-
mentarium. 4° Rom. 1867.

Pragce (Zachary), D.D., t 1774, Bishop of Rochester. See Matruew.
Pgarson (John), D.D., t 1686, Bishop of Chester: Lectiones in Acta Aposto-
lorum, 1672 ; Annales Paulini (Opera posthuma]. 4°, Lond. 1688, al.

[Edited in English, with a few notes, by J. R. Crowfoot, B.D.
12°, Camb. 1851. ]

EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. xl

Perai [Peeters] (Barthélemi), ¢ 1630, Prof. Theol. at Douay : Commentarius
in Acta Apostolorum. 4°, Duaci, 1622,
Pievier (Johannes), ¢ c. 1760, Pastor at Middelburg: De Handelingen der
heylige Apostelen, beschreeven door Lukas, ontleedt, verklaardt en
tot het oogmerk toegepast. 4°, Utrecht, 17265, al.
Paicarvs [Price] (John), LL.D., + 1676, Prof. of Greek at Pisa: Acta Apos-
tolorum ex sacra pagina, sanctis patribus Graecisque ac Latinis scrip-
toribus illustrata. 8°, Paris, 1647, al.
Pyiz (Thomas), D.D., + 1756, Vicar of Lynn: A paraphrase, with some‘ notes,
on the Acts of the Apostles, and on all the Epistles of the New Testa-
ment. 8°, Lond. 1725, al.

Rrexm (Johann Karl): Dissertatio critico-theologica de fontibus Actorum

Apostolorum. 8°, Traj. ad Rhen. 1821.

(Albrecht), Prof. Theol. at Gdttingen : Die Entstehung der altkatho-

lischen Kirche. 8°, Bonn, 1850—2te durchgingig neu ausgearbeitete

Ausgabe. 8°, Bonn, 1857.

Rosrmson (Hastings), D.D., + 1866, Canon of Rochester : The Acts of the Apos-
tles ; with notes, original and selected, for the use of students.

8°, Lond. 1830.

Also, in Latin. 8°, Cantab. 1824.

Satmenon (Alphonso), ¢ 1585, Jesuit : In Acta Apostolorum (Opera, xii.].
Sancugz (Saxctrvs] (Gaspar), + 1628, Jesuit, Prof. Sac, Scrip. at Alcala: Com-

Rrrsceu

mentarii in Actus Apostoloram .. . 4°, Lugd. 1616, al.
Scoarr (Philip), D.D., Prof. of Church Hist. at New York: History of the
Apostolic church, 8°, New York, 1853. 2 vols. 8°, Edin. 1854.

(Previously issued in German at Mercersburg, 1851.]
ScHNECKENBURGER (Matthias), + 1848, Prof. Theol. at Berne : Ueber den Zweck
der Apostelgeschichte. 8°, Bern, 1841.
ScHRaDER (Karl), Pastor at Hirste near Bielefeld: Der Apostel Paulus. 5
Theile. (Theil V. Uebersetzung und Erklarung .. . der Apostelge-
schichte. ] 8°, Leipz. 1830-36.
Scuwereier (Albert), ¢ 1857, Prof. Rom. Lit. .at Tibingen: Das nachaposto-
lisches Zeitalter. 8°, Tibing. 1847.
SELNECCER (Nicolaus), + 1592, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: Commentarius in Acta
Apostolorum. 8°, Jenae 1567, al.
Srapteton (Thomas), ¢ 1598, Prof. at Louvain: Antidota apostolica contra
nostri temporis haereses, in Acta Apostolorum. . . 2 voll. 1595.
Strez (Rudolf Ewald), + 1862, Superintendent in Eisleben: Die Reden der
Aposteln. 2 Bande. 8°, Leipz. 1829.
Translated by G. H. Venables. 2 vols. 8°, Edin. 1869.}
Srrazso (Caspar), t 1664, Pastor at the Hague: Commentarius praeticus in
Actorum Apostolicorum ... capita. 2voll. 4°, Amstel. 1658-9, al.
Syivzra (Juan de), ¢ 1687, Carmelite monk : Commentarius in Acta Aposto-
lorum. 2°, Lugd. 1678.

Tate (James), M.A., Canon of St. Paul's: The Horae Paulinae of William
Paley, D.D., carried vut and illustrated in a continuous history of
the apostolic labours and writings of St. Paul, on the basis of the
Acta... 8°, Lond. 1840.

THEropHriactvs, c. 1070, Archbishop of Acris in Bulgaria: Commentarius in
Acta Apostolornm [Opera].

Turerscn (Heinrich Wilhelm Josias), Prof. Theol. at Marburg : Die Kirche im

apostolischen Zeitalter. 8°, Frankf. 1852, ai.
t slated by Carlyle. 8°, Lond. 1852.]
Tues (Johann Otto), t 1810, Prof. Theol. at Kiel: Lukas Apostelgeschichte
neu fibersetzt, mit Anmerkungen, 8°, Gera, 1800.

Tar (Ch, J.), Superintendent at Leer in East Friesland: Paulus nach der
Avostelgeschichte. Historischer Werth dieser Berichte . . .

8°, Leiden, 1866.

Troizors (William) : A commentary on the Acts of the Apostles .. .

12°, Camb, 1847.

xii EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.

VaLCKENAER (Ludwig Kaspar), ¢ 1785, Prof. in Leyden : Selecta e scholis L. C.
Valckenarii in libros quosdam N. T., editore Eb. Wassenbergh. 2
partes. 8°, Amst. 1815-17.

Vzrz (Charles Marie de), ¢ o. 1701, R. C. convert, latterly Baptist : Explicatio
literalis Actoram Apostolicorum. 8°, Lond. 1684.
(Translated by the author into English, 1685.)

Waxce (Johann Ernst Immanuel), t 1778, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Disserta-
tiones in Acta Apostolorum. 3 voll. 4° Jenae, 1756-61.

WassENBERGH (Everaard van). See VALCKENAEER heat Kaspar).

WIESELER er Prof. Theol. at Gittingen : Chronologie des apostolischen
Zeitalters. 8°, Gitting. 1848.

Wotrzocen (Johann Ludwig von), ¢t 1661, Socinian: Commentarius in Acta
Apostoloram {Opera].

ZELLER uard), Prof. Philos. at Berlin : Die Apostelgeschichte nach ihrem
t und Ursprung kritisch untersucht. 8°, Stuttg. 1854.
[Translated by Rev. Joseph Dare. 8°, Lond. 1875.]

ERRATA.

On pages 33, 35, and 36, for the letters (p), (), and (F), indicating the
notes appended to the chapter, read (H), (1), and (7) respectively.

Digitized by Google

PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.

Tur Book of Acts is the indispensable and invaluable link of connec-
tion between the Gospels and the Epistles. It is the proper sequel and
natural result of the one, and forms a fit preface and a suitable setting
for the other. It is difficult to overestimate our indebtedness to this
book, historically, theologically, and ecclesiastically.

As an epitome of the labours of thirty eventful years, it is remarkable
for the fulness and variety of the information it contains ; and is no less
remarkable for the omission of much which it would be of great interest
for us to know. Even in the life of Paul, of whose labors it specially
treats, there are considerable periods of which nothing is recorded, or
the events of which are dismissed with a sentence. As many volumes
would have been required to give a full narrative in detail, this brief
treatise is written on the principle of selection ; and the ‘selection of
material is alike judicious -and fair. The impartiality and truthfulness
of the writer is amply evinced by the honest record which he makes of
the imperfections in the church, and of the differences which arose be-
tween some of its acknowledged leaders.

The united testimony of the early church to the authenticity of this
book, and to its authorship—as the work of Luke, the writer of the
third Gospel—is confirmed by internal evidence, deduced from the
identity of style, the continuity of the narrative, the reference of the
writer to a previous treatise addressed to the same individual, and the
correspondence of plan. No less than fifty words, not found elsewhere
in the N. T., are common to both books. Dr. Schaff, in the revised
edition of his History of the Christian Church, vol I., page 739,
writes ; ‘* No history of thirty years has ever been written so truthful,
so impartial, so important, so interesting, so healthy in tone and so
hopeful in spirit, so aggressive yet so genial, so cheering and inspiring,
so replete with lessons of wisdom and encouragement for work in

xvi PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.

spreading the gospel of truth and peace, and yet withal so simple and
modest, as the Acts of the Apostles. It is the best as well as the first
manual of church history.’’

Severe critical assaults have been directed against the Book of Acts.
The writer has been accused of systematic perversion of facts, and of
deliberate addition of events and incidents which had no foundation in
truth, in order to serve his special purpose of preparing an irenicum be-
tween the Petrine or Jewish Christians, and the Pauline or Gentile
party, who held more liberal and enlarged views of the gospel. Now
there is no evidence whatever in the book of any such design ; and its
credibility and perfect reliability are clearly demonstrable from the har-
mony between the records it contains and authentic secular history ;
and from the numerous and striking coincidences between the Acts and
the Epistles. The argument constructed by Paley on this subject, in
his Horae Paulinae, is unanswerable.

Dr. Meyer was born in Gotha, January 10th, 1800. He was baptized
on the 12th day of the same month, and was named Henry Auguat
Wilhelm. The family name was formerly written Majer, or Mayer.
As a child, he was constitutionally feeble, but by constant well-regulated
exercise he acquired the power of great physical and mental endurance.
-At the gymnasium of Gotha he early lsid the foundation of his high
classical culture. He had a decided taste for the classical languages and
literature, and made distinguished proficiency in them. In 1818 he
entered the University of Jena to study theology. Simple and social
were the years of his student life. On leaving the university he became
a tutor in an institution under the care of Pastor Oppermann, whose
daughter he married in 1823, with whom he lived in great domestic
enjoyment for forty years. In 1823 he was installed as pastor in
Osthausen, and in 1830 called to the more prominent position of pastor
at Harste, near Gottingen.

In 1829 he issued the first part of the great work of his life, which
was followed in 1882 by another instalment. His original plan of the
work expanded as he proceeded, and he did not live to see it completed.
His views, during forty years of most assiduous study of the Scriptures,
changed considerably ; and such changes were frankly expressed in suc-
cessive editions, and in fresh productions on other portions of the
Word. The principle of grammatico-historical interpretation, however,
which he at first adopted was rigidly adhered to throughout his life. It
was his custom carefully to revise, correct, and polish each work before
making it ready for the press.

In 1837 he removed to Hoga, and in 1844 was called to Hannover as
Consistorialrath, Superintendent, and Chief Pastor of the Neust&dter St.

PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. xvii

Johannis Kirche. In 1845 the faculty at Gottingen conferred on him
the degree of Doctor of Theology. In 1846 he suffered from a severe
Ulness, which so injured his health that he never afterward regained his
former strength. In consequence of this his labours were somewhat
modified and diminished, though still abundant, and he adopted very
strict rules of abstinence and exercise, which he maintained until] the
close of his life. He called water and walking his two great physicians.
He was accustomed to rise early, generally at four o’clock.

In 1864 his wife died, and after that bereavement he lived in the
family of his son, and was very greatly cheered by the gleesome glad-
ness and constant attendance of his granddaughters, who accompanied
him in his daily walks, in all kinds of weather. In 1865 he retired
from official life and devoted his time to his studics and to the society
of friends. He was a man of peace, and all party-political proceedings
and irritating religious controversies were exceedingly offensive to him.
His views of truth became clearer and more positive with his advancing
years and his maturer studies.

His last illness was bricf, nor were his sufferings great. The last
Sunday of his life, June 15th, was spent in his usual way, with great
personal enjoyment to himself and others. About the middle of that
night he was suddenly scized with great pain, from which he obtained
some relief, On the 19th, two days before his decease, he said :
‘* Willingly would I still remain with you ; but willingly am I also ready
to depart, if God calls me.’’ On the evening of June 21st, 1873, he
quietly fell asleep. His remains were Jaid in the Neust&dter church-
yard, and on the cross at his tomb is engraved this text : Romans
xiv. 8. Dr. Gloag, the able translator of a part of Meyer’s Commen-
taries, writes about six months after his death: ‘‘ It is hardly to the
credit of our theologians, that the greatest modern exegete should have
recently passed away, with such slight noticc, at least in our English
periodicals, of his literary works and vast erudition.’’

Among Commentaries on the Acts the work of Meyer occupies a
deservedly pre-eminent place. In extent of erudition and accuracy of
scholarship it stands unsurpassed. No name is entitled to take pre-
cedence of that of Meyer as a critical exegete ; and it would be difficult
to find one that equals him in the happy combination of superior learn-
ing with keen penetration, analytical power, and clear, terse, vigorous
expression. He has admirable exegetical tact and acumen, and presents
his results with candour and perspicuity. So impartial and candid is he,
that he never allows his own peculiar views to colour or distort his inter-
pretations of the language of Scripture. Any Biblical student will find
exquisite delight in tracing his clear and cogent reasonings to the gen-

xviii PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.

erally correct decision reached by his calm judicial mind and deep spir-
itual instinct. He has no sympathy with the school of rationalistic
interpreters, and firmly believes in the supernatural—the divine inter-
position in human affairs. The Bible is to him the Word of God:; and
redemption through the incarnation and death of the Son of God a
glorious reality. The peculiarity of his views concerning the person of
Christ do not seem to affect his full appreciation of the Saviour’s work.
Indeed his doctrine is decidedly evangelical, and he readily receives
whatever is revealed, provided he has satisfactory evidence of the
authenticity of the record. His honesty, and fearlessness are so great
that he does not even seek to harmonize apparent discrepancies ; while
his views of inspiration are such as to permit him to regard some of
them as irreconcilable and contradictory. Some of his statements,
therefore, must be carefully scrutinized and received with caution, but
no theologian, however learned or eminent, can consult his excellent
Commentaries without deriving great profit and grateful satisfaction.

Alford, referring to the Commentaries and critical notes of Meyer, says :
‘* Though often differing widely from him, I cannot help regarding his
Commentaries on the two Epistles to. the Corinthians as the most mas-
terly and complete that I have hitherto seen on any portion of Script-
ure.’’ Dr. Howard Crosby, whose high attainments as a scholar render
him an authority equal to the highest in such matters, characterizes
Meyer’s Commentaries as ‘‘ unsurpassed,’’ and states ‘‘ his work is a
KT7jpa 25 det.’? He states : ‘‘ Meyer’s faults are his purism, which
presses a classical exactness on Hellenistic Greek, and a low view of
inspiration, which permits him to see irreconcilable difficulties’’ in the
sacred narratives; but further adds: ‘‘In the Epistles Meyer is
specially sound and forcible.”’ Dr. 7. W. Chambers, another thor-
oughly qualified judge, writes: ‘‘ Meyer hag been justly called the
prince of exegetes ; being at once acute and learned.’”? Dr. Gloag
regards him as ‘‘ the greatest modern exegete’’ and speaks of his Com-
mentaries as ‘‘ unrivalled.’’

Dr. Dickson, Prof. of Divinity in the University of Glasgow, Editor
of Meyer’s Commentaries, as published by T. & T. Clarke, Edinburgh,
characterizes the production of Meyer as ‘‘ an epoch-making work of
-exegesis,’’ and adds: ‘‘ I have thought it right, so far as the English
reader is concerned, to present, according to my promise, the work of
Meyer without addition or subtraction in its latest and presumably best
form as it left his hand.’’ This American edition is an exact reprint of
‘the Scottish one.

Meyer’s Commentary on Acts is intrinsically worthy of republication
at any time, but the immediate occasion of its hasty reproduction at this

PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. xix

time is to be found in the fact that the attention of Sunday-schools, and
of Christian people generally, will be specially directed to the Book of
Acts, during the first six months of the present year, and both pastors
and teachers will find in Meyer an invaluable aid.

The work of the American editor, which, though far too hurried, has
been one of genuine delight, consists : First, in transferring from the
page to foot-notes most of the exceedingly numerous references to
authorities. These notes are indicated by small numerals, on each page.
It is thought that thus the bouk will be better suited for the general
reader, while the scholarly student can still avail himself of all the
references he may desire. Second, in appending a number of supple-
mentary notes to each chapter. These notes have been written and select-
ed for the purpose of expanding and confirming, and, in some in-
stances, of modifying and correcting the statements of the author. The
notes have been designedly made more copious in the hope of rendering
the work more serviceable to Sunday-school teachers and to the general
reader. |

A list of the books used, referred to, or quoted in preparing the sup-
plementary notes is furnished. They are all in the English language,
most of them inexpensive, many of them handy volumes and easily pro-
curable. We would specially commend to Biblical students the well-
known and excellent work of Prof. Hackett, which Dr. Gloag, in the.
preface to his own work on the Acts, modestly styles ‘‘ the best work
on the subject in the English language.’? The Rev. S. Cox, editor of
the xrpositor, London, says of the Commentaries of Hackett and
Gloag, they ‘‘ are probably the best in our language, cach of them
marked by sound scholarship, goud common-sense, and a candid and
devout spirit. If a choice must be made, give Gloag the preference.’
We most heartily concur in the last sentence, and unhesitatingly say of
Gloag what Gloag himself has said of Hackett, it is the best book on the
Acts tn the English language. The works of Abbott, Alexander,
Plumptre, Jacobus ; and Howson and Spence, edited by Schaff, are suit-
able for popular reading and Sunday-school work.

It is hoped that the Table of Contents, and the Index to the Supple-
mentary Notes, to which reference is made in the text by small capitals
in brackets, will be of service to the reader, and facilitate the study of
the volume. The attentive, earnest perusal of Meyer’s work cannot fail
not merely to increase the reader’s knowledge of the Scriptures. but
also to awaken fresh interest in the thorough study of the Sacred Book.

W. Ormiston,
New Yors, January 6, 1882.

Digitized by Google

LIST OF THE BOOKS USED, REFERRED TO, OR QUOTED IN
THE NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

Assotr.—The Acts of the Apostles, By Rev. Lyman Abbott.
Barnes & Co., N. Y., 1876.
ALExanDER.—The Acts of the Apostles, By Joseph Addison Alexander. In

2 vols. Scribner, N. Y., 1857.
Atrorp.—The Greek Testament: A critical and exegetical commentary. By
Henry Alford, B.D. In 3 vols. Rivingtons, London, 1852,
ArocryPHa.—Apocryphal Gospels, Acts and Revelations. Vol. 16 of the Ante-
Nicene Christian Library. T. & T. Clark, Edin., 1870.
Annot.—The Church in the House: A series of lessons on the Acts of the
Apostles, By William Arnot. Carter & Bros., N. Y., 1873.

Bagnzs.—Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Acts of the Apostles’ De-
signed for Bible-classes and Sunday-schools, By Albert Barnes,

10th ed. Harper & Brothers, N. Y., 1844.
Also, Scenes and Incidents in the Life of the Apostle Paul. By Albert
Barnes. Hamilton, Adams & Co., London, 1869.

BencEet.—Gnomon of the New Testament. By John Albert Bengel. Vol. 2d.
Translated by Rev. Andrew Fausset. 4th ed.
T. T. Clark, Edin., 1860.
Bizgex.—An Introduction to the New Testament. By Frederick Bleek. Trans-
lated from the German of the 2d edition, by Rev. William Urwick,
M.A. T. & T. Clark, Edin., 1869.
Brioom¥imLp.—The Greek New Testument, with English Notes, Critical, Philo-
logical, and Exegetical. By Rev. 8S. T. Bloomfield, D.D., F.8.A, 1st
Am. ed. from the 2d London. In 2 vols.
Perkins & Marvin, Boston, 1837.
Burier.—St. Paul in Rome : Lectures delivered in the Legation of the United
States of America, in Rome. By Rev. C. M. Butler, D.D.
J. B. Lippincott & Co., Phila., 1865. -

Caivin.—Commentary upon the Acts of the Apostles. By John Calvin. Ed-
ited from the original English translation of Christopher Fetherstone.
By Henrv Beveridge. Esq. 2 vols. a Edin., 1844.
Campreti —The Four Gospels, Translated from the Greek, with Preliminary
Dissertations, and Notes, Critical and Explanatory. By George Cam
bell, D.D., F.B.8., Principal of Mareschal College, Aberdeen. 3d
Aberdeen, 1814,
ConyBraRE.—The Life and Epistles of St. Paul. By Rev W. J. Conybeare,
M.A., and Rev. J. 8. Howson, M.A. In2 vols. 6th ed.
Scribner, N. Y., 1856. .
Coox.-— The Acts of the Apostles. Introduction. By Canon Cook.
Charles Scribner’s Sons, N. Y.

xxii LIST OF THE BOOKS USED BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

Denron.—A commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, 2 vols. By William
Denton, M.A. Lond., 1874.
Dicx.—Lectures on the Acts of the Apostles. By John Dick, D.D. First
American (from the 2d Glasgow) edition. Robert Carter, N. Y., 1844.
Dopprwwer.—The Works of the Rev. P. Doddridge, D.D. Vols, VIII. and IX. :
A Paraphrase on the Acts of the Apostles. Leeds, 1805.

Eapre.—Paul the Preacher. By John Eadie, D.D., LL.D., Prof. of Bib. Lit. to
the United Presbyterian Church (Scotland).
Robert Carter & Bros., N. Y., 1859,

Farraz.—The Life of Christ, in 2 vols., 1874 ; The Life and Work of St. Paul,
in 2 vols., 1879 ; The Early Days of Christianity, in 1 vol., 1882. By
F. W. Farrar, D.D., F.B.8., Canon of Westminster, etc.

E. P. Dutton & Co., N. Y.
Frsuer.—The Beginnings of Christianity. By George P. Fisher, D.D., Prof. of
Eccl. Hist. in Yale College. Charlies Scribner’s Sons, N. Y.

Frrcu.—James the Lord’s Brother, By Rev. Chauncy W. Fitch, D.D. .
Dana, N. Y., 1858.

Gioac.—A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. .

By Paton J. Gloag, D.D. T. & T. Clark, Edin., 1870.

Goprt.— A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke. By F. Godet, 8.T.P.,

Neuchatel. Translated by E. W. Shalders and M. D. Cusin; with
Preface and Notes by John Hall, D.D. 2d edition.

I. K. Funk & Co., N. Y., 1881.

(GrapvaTe, A.) Paul of Tarsus : An Inquiry into the Times and the Gospel of

the Apostle uf the Gentiles. By a Graduate.
Roberts Bros., Boston, 1872.

Hacxerr.—A Commentary on the Original Text of the Acts of the Apostles.
By Horatio B. Hackett, D.D., Prof. of Bib. Lit. in Newton Theol.

Inst. A new edition, revised and greatly enlarged.
Gould & Lincoln, Boston, 1859.
Howson.—The Acts of the Apostles. By J.8. Howson, D.D., and H. M. Spence,
M.A. Edited by Philip Schaff, D.D, LL.D., Prof. of Sac, Lit. in the

Union Theol. Sem., New York.
Charles Scribner's Sons, N. Y., 1882.

Jacopson —The Holy Bible: With an Explanatory and Critical Commentary,
and a Revision of the Translation. By Bishops and other clergy of the
Anglican Church. Edited by Canon Cook. The Acts. By William
Jacobson, D.D., Bishop of Chester. Charles Scribner’s Sons, N. Y.

Jaconus.—Notes, Critical and Explanatory, on the Acts of the Apostles. By
Melancthon W. Jacobus, Prof. of Bib. Lit.

Robert Carter & Bros., N. Y., 1860.

JosEPpHus.—The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston,
A.M. KE. Morgan & Co., Cincinnati, 1851.

Knox.—A Year with St. Paul, By Charles E. Knox.
Anson D, F. Randolph & Co., N. Y.

Lanace.—A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Acts of the Apostles, an
Exegetical and Doctrinal Commentary. By Gotthard Victor Lechler,
D.D. Translated by Charles F. Schaeffer, D.D. Edited by Dr. Schaff.
Charles Scribner & Co., N. Y., 1869.
.—The Witness of St. Paul to Christ ; with an Appendix on the Credi-
bility of the Acts. By Rev. Stanley Leathes, M.A.

Rivingtons, Lond., 1869.
Lumsy.—The Cambridge Bible for Schools: The Acts of the Apostles, chaps.

li.-xiv., with Introduction and Notes. By J. Rawson Lumby, D.D.
Cambridge, 1879.

LIST OF THE BOOKS USED BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. § Xxxiii

MoCiurroox.—Cyclopmdia of Bib. Theol. and Eccl. Lit. Prepared by Rev.
John McClintock, D.D., and James Strong, S.T.D.

Harper & Bros., N. Y., 1880.

MacDourr.—The Footsteps of St. Peter and the Footsteps of St. Paul. By J.B.

MacDuff, D.D. Robert Carter & Bros., N. Y., 1877, 1856,

Micuazuis.—Introduction to the New Testament. By John David Michaelis.

Translated by iilerbert Marsh, D.D., F R.A. rae pee of Peterborough.

F.C. & J. Rivington, Lond., 1823.

Morerwon.—The Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of Paul. Arranged in
the form of a continuous history. By Thomas Morrison, M.A.

T. Nelson & Sons, Edin., 1867.

NEanveEr. —General History of the Christian Religion and Church. From the
German of Dr. Augustus Neander, ‘Translated from the 2d and im-
proved edition. By Joseph Torrey. Vol. IL T. &T. Clark, Edin., 1851.

OxrsHausrn. —Biblical Commentary on the New Testament. By Dr. Herman
Olshausen, Translated for Clark's For. and Theol. Lib. 1st Am. ed.

revised after 4th Ger. ed. by A. C. Kendrick, D.D.
Sheldon, Blakeman & Co., N. Y., 1858.

Piumpre=. —The Acts of the Apostles. With Commentary by E. H. Plumptre,
D,D. 2d ed. Cassell & Co., N. Y.

PatEy.—The Works of William Paley, D.D., complete in one volume.
J. J. Woodward, Phila.

Renan.—The Apostles (1866), and St. Paul (1869), By Ernest Renan. Transla-
ted from the original French. Carlton, N. Y., 1866, 1869.

Sonarr.—History of the Christian Church. By Philip Schaff. A new edition
thoroughly revised and enlarged. Vol. I. : Apostolic Christianity.

Charles Scribner's Sons, N. Y., 1882.

Surrn.—A Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by William Smith, LL. D. In

3 vols. : Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1860.
Srrer.—Clark’s For. Theol. Lib. Fourth series. Vol. 22: Stier’s Words of
the Apostles. T. T. Clark, Edin., 1869..

Sumnxr.-—A Practical Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles in the Form of
Lectures. By John Bird Sumner, D.D., Bishop of Chester.
I. Hatchard & Son, Lond., 1838.

Tayrtor.—Peter the Apostle, and Paul the Missionary. By Rev. William M.
Taylor, D D. Harper & Bros., N. Y., 1882.
Tuomas.—A Homiletic Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, By ‘David
Thomas, D.D. Richard D. Dickinson, Lond., 1870.

Vaveuan.—The Church of the First Days: Lectures on the Acts of the Apos-
tles. By O, J. Vaughan. 2d ed. Macmillan & Co., Lond., 1866.

Wescotr.—The Gospel of the Resurrection. By Brooke Foss Wescott, B.D. 2d
ed. Macmillan & Co., Lond., 1867.

Digitized by Google

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PAGE.

TOPICS.

Authorship and genuineness of the Book.
Book.

Aim and sources of the

Time and place of composition.
Chronological summary of the Acts.
Reference to Luke's Gospel.
Last words of Jesus.

The ascension.

Return to Jerusalem.

Address of Peter.

Election of Matthias.

Descent of the Holy Spirit.
Gift of tongues.

Effects of the miracle.

Peter’s discourse.

Results of the discourse.

The first converts.

Community of goods ; growth.
Healing of a lamo man.
Peter’s discourse.

Arrest of Peter and John.
Their defence.

Their release.

A prayer-meeting.

State of the church.

Sin and punishment of Ananias.
Miraculous power of the apostles.
Their arrest and deliverance.
Tria] before the Sanhedrim.
Counsel of Gamaliel.
Appointment of the seven.
Stephen's arrest and trial.
Stephen's defence.

History of the patriarchs.
Jews under the law.

The temple and the prophets.
The martyrdom of Stephen.
General persecution.

Philip preaching in Samaria.
Simon is baptized.

Simon Magus.

The Ethiopian eunuch.

Saul’s conversion.

Ananias baptizes Saul.
Preaching in Damascus.
Flight from Damascus.

Visit to Jerusalem and Tarsus.

ee |

xxvi TABLE OF CONTENTS,
CRAPTER. VERSE PagR. TOrIOS.
IX. 32-43 195 | Peter cures Zneas and raises Dorcas.
X. 1-8 203 The vision of Cornelius.
a 9-16 205 The vision of Peter.
Ae 17-22 207 Messenger from Cornelius.
us 23-33 209 Peter visits Cornelius.
Mm 34-43 211 Peter’s address.
“ 44-48 215 Baptism of Cornelius.
XI. 1-18 221 Peter's defence of his conduct.
As 19-26 223 The gospel in Antioch.
as 27-30 225 Antioch sends aid to Jerusalem.
XII. 1, 2 229 Martyrdom of James.
a 3-7 231 Imprisonment of Peter.
u 8-19 233 Peter’s wonderful deliverance.
ne 20-23 237 Death of Herod Agrippa.
XIII 1-3 245 First ordained missionaries.
ou 4-12 247 Success in Cyprus.
a 13-15 251 Paphos to Perga.
ae 16-41 253 Paul's sermon at Antioch.
. 42-52 265 Labors in and expulsion from Antioch.
XIV 1-7 271 Events at Iconium.
as 8-14 273 The apostles taken for gods.
* 15-21 275 Paul remonstrates and is stoned.
e 22-28 276 Return to Syrian Antioch.
XV 1-5 283 Delegates sent to Jerusalem.
“ 6-13 285 Peter's address at the council.
“e 14-21 287 Address of James.
as 22-35 295 Decision and letter of council.
D 55-2 299 Separation of Paul and Barnabas.
XVI. 1-5 305 Silas accompanies Paul.
6-10 309 Call from Macedonia.
ih 11-15 311 Lydia baptized at Philippi.
es 16-18 313 A demoniac woman healed.
ts 19-25 315 Imprisonment of Paul and Silas.
te 26 -35 317 Conversion of the jailer.
M 36-40 319 Release from prison.
XVII. 1-9 325 Paul at Thessalonica.
ss 10-15 327 Paul at Beroea.
“ 16-21 329 Paul at Athens.
“ 22-34 337 Paul’s address on Mar’s hill.
XVIII. 1-7 347 Paul in Corinth.
“a 8-11 351 Encouraged by a vision.
as 12-18 353 Aquila and Priscilla.
ee 19- 23 355 Paul returns to Antioch.
es 24-28 357 Apollos.
XIX. 1-7 365 Disciples of John.
$ 8-12 369 Paul in Ephesus.
ae 13-20 371 Sons of Sceva. ‘
a 21-34 375 Tumult raised by Demetrius.
a 35-41 377 Tumult quelled by the town clerk.
xX. 1-3 383 Paul in Greece.
a 4-6 385 Plot against Paul.
ee 7-12 387 Services at Troas.
ss 13-38 389 Paul at Miletus.
XXI. 1-16 399 Paul's journey to Jerusalem.
ae 17-26 405 His address and vow.
“a 27-40 411 Arrest of Paul.
XXIL 1-21 417 Paul’s speech to the mob.

— —_—_— = =

ee —_ m

TABLE OF CONTENTS. XxXvVil

CHAPTER. VERSE. PAGE. TOPiIcs.
XX. 22-30 421 Plea of Roman citizenship.
XXIII 1-10 427 Paul before the Jewish council.
a 11-22 431 Conspiracy against Paul's life.
ie 23-30 433 Rescued by Lysias and sent to Cesareea.
“a 31-35 435 Paul introduced to Felix.
XXIV. 1-9 441 Paul accused by Tertullus.
a 10-21 - 443 Paul's defence.
at 22-23 447 His confinement.
“s 24-27 449 Address before Felix and Drusilla.
XXV. 1-12 455 Paul's trial and appeal.
us 13-22 457 Festus and Agrippa.
a 23-27 459 Paul and Agrippa.
XXVI 1-23 463 Paul’s defence of the gospel.
ae 24-26 _ 469 His reply to Festus.
“ 27-32 471 Appeal to Agrippa.
XXVIL. 1-8 477 Voyage to Italy.
a 9-20 483 A storm at sea.
“ 21-26 485 Paul’s address on board.
y. 27-37 487 Fears and hopes.
as 38-41 " 489 Shipwreck.
“ 42-44 491 All on board saved.
XXVIII. 1-6 497 Paul at Malta; murderer and god.
i 8-10 499 He cures diseases.
ve 11-15 501 Voyage to Rome.
16-22 503 Conference with chief men of the Jews.
a8 23-29 505 Second interview with the Jews.

“ 30-31 507 Paul’s captivity.

ES TN

INDEX TO THE NOTES BY THE AMERICAN

LETTER. CHAPTER.

A Introd.
B se
Cc 4s
D rr]
z L
Fr «a
G fe
H a
I oe
J rT}
x II.
L ee
M It.
N IV.
oO 66
P as
Q ae
B ae
8 V.
T rr
U rT
v VI.
Ww “a
x a6
Y VIL.
Z 4s
A! oa
B! “s
c! 66
D! a6
yx! 66
¥! se
a! VIL.
nH! 6
7! ry)
g' 6e
x! rT’
! se
mu! IX.
x! ae
o! a6
p! oe
Q' 6
RB! 66

a I ETT,

xXx

LETTEB.

INDEX TO THE NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

CHAPTSHE.

VERSE.

NOTES.

Conversion of Cornelius.

A devout man.

Fell into a trance.

Accepted with him.

They of the circumcision contended.
Antioch.

Herod.

He killed James.

Peter in prison.

Death of Herod.

Special documentary source.
Prophets and teachers.

John as an attendant,
Second psalm.

Paul's sermon.

Iconium.

An assault made.

Cities of Lycaonia.

Gods in the likeness of men.
Chosen them elders.
Except.ye be circumcised.
Apostles and elders.

James answered.

Paul’s visits to Jerusalem.
Send greeting.

Verse supposed spurious.
The contention of Paul and Barnabas.
We endeavored to go.

The chief city.

Baptism of Lydia.

The inner prison.
And washed their stripes.
Thessalonica.

Honorable women.

Timothy.

The market-place.

An unknown God.

Corinth.

Gallio.

Having shorn his head.
Apollos.

Baptism of John.

Ephesus.

Whether there be any Holy Ghost.
Exorcists.

He dismissed the assembly.
After the uproar.

Try exxanciav trot Kupiou,
Paul’s address at Miletus.
Rhodes and Patara.
Disciples at Tyre.

Philip's four daughters.
Tarried many days.

Paul purifying himself.
Paul's defence.

Art thou a Roman?

I did not know that he is the high priest.

INDEX TO THE NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. xxxi

Pharisees and Sadducees.,

The Lord stood by him.

Paul’s sister's son.

Tertullus began to accuse.

According to our law, ete.

Felix trembled.

I appeal to Cesar.

Unto my Lord.

Almost thou persuadest me.

And he put us therein.

Fair Havens.

Toward the N. W. and 8. W.
Euroclydon.

The angel of God.

They cast four anchors out of the stern.
Except these abide, ye cannot be saved.
Melita.

This sect spoken against.

Two whole years in his own hired house.
Paul's second imprisonment.

Evidential value of the Acts.

Digitized by Google

THE ACIS OF THE APOSTLES.

INTRODUCTION.

SEC. .—AUTHORSHIP AND GENUINENESS OF THE BOOK.

JHE fifth historical book of the New Testament, already named
in early Christian antiquity (Canon Murat., Clem. Al. Strom. v.
12, p. 696, ed. Potter, Tertull. c. Marc. v. 2 f., de jejun. 10, de
ws bapt. 10; comp. also Iren. adv. haer. iii. 14. 1, iii. 15. 1) from
its chief contents mpdgec¢ (roy) arooréAwy, announces itself (i. 1) as a second
work of the same author who wrote the Gospel dedicated to Theophilus.
The Acts of the Apostles is therefore justly considered as a portion of the
historical work of Luke, following up that Gospel, and continuing the his-
tory of early Christianity from the ascension of Christ to the captivity of
Paul at Rome ; and no other but Luke is named by the ancient orthodox
church as author of the book, which is included by Eusebius, H. £. iii. 25,
among the Homologoumena. There is indeed no definite reference made to
the Acts by the Apostolic Fathers, as the passages, Ignat. ad Smyrn. 3 (comp.
Acts x. 41), and Polycarp, ad Phil. 1 (comp. Acts ii. 24), cannot even be
with certainty regarded as special reminiscences of it; and the same re-
mark holds good as to allusions in Justin and Tatian. But, since the time
of Irenaeus, the Fathers have frequently made literal quotations from the
book (see also the Epistle of the churches at Vienne and Lyons in Eus. v.
2), and have expressly designated it as the work of Luke’ (a). With this
fact before us, the passage in Photius, Quaest. Amphiloch. 145 (see Wolf
Cur. IV. p. 781, Schmidt in St&udlin’s Kirchenhist. Archiv, I. p. 15), might
appear strange: tdv d2 ovyypagéa raév rpdgewv of pdv KAjyevta Aéyovot tov
"Pouns, GAAoe dt BapvdBav nal GAAoc Aovndy rov ebayyedtornv, but this statement
as to Clement and Barnabas stands so completely isolated, unsupported by
any other notice of ecclesiastical antiquity, that it can only have reference
to somo arbitrary assumption of individuals who knew little or nothing of
the book. Were it otherwise, the Gospel of Luke must also have been
alleged to be a work of Clement or Barnabus ; but of this there is not the
slightest trace. That the Book of Acts was in reality much less known
and read than the Gospels, the interest of which was the most general,
immediate, and supreme, and than the N. T. Epistles, which were destined
at once for whole churches, and, inferentially, for yet wider circles, is evi-
dent from Chrysostom, Him, J. : moA2ois rout 1d BiBAiov obd? Sri 2m, yrdpimdy

2 It cannot be a matter of surprise that our in the Canon, as there are sevcral Gospels,
old codd. name no author in tho snperecrip- needing diztinctive designation by the names
tion (only some minveruli name Luke), since of their anthors. Comp. Ewald, JaArd. IX.
there arv not several “Acts of the Apustics™ pp. 57.

2 INTRODUCTION.

Eoriv, ore abrd, obre 6 ypdpas atrd Kai ovvOeis.! And thus it is no wonder if
many, who knew only of the existence of the Book of Acts, but had never
read it (for the very first verse must have pointed them to Luke), guessed
at this or that celebrated teacher, at Clement or Barnabas, as its author.
Photius himself, on the other hand, concurs in the judgment of the church,
for which he assigns the proper grounds : ‘Adrdg d2 Aovxds émxpiver. [pérov
wey 8S wv mpooutacerat, Ws xa érépa ait mpaypyareia, TaS deomorTiKds meptéyovca
mpagers xaraBéBanrar, Aevzepov de, && Gv nal Tov GAAwy ebayyedtoroy diaoréAAerat,
Ore péxpt THS Avarnpews ovdeis atray td civrayya xpoeAQely ExathoaTo, GAA’ odToS
povog kai Tv avdAnyiw axpi3og EEnyjoato, Kal maAw riv Tay mpdgewy anapypy ard
Tavrys wmectyoato. Moreover, so early an ecclesiastical recognition of the
canonicity of this book would be inexplicable, if the teachers of the church
had not from the very first recognized it as a second work of Luke, to
which, as well as to the Gospel, apostolic (Pauline) authority belonged.
The weight of this ancient recognition by the church is not weakened by
the rejection of the book on the part of certain heretical parties ; for this
affected only its validity as an authoritative standard, and was based en-
tirely on dogmatic, particularly on anti-Pauline, motives. This was the
case with the Hbionites (Epiphan. Haer. xxx. 16), to whom the reception of
the Gentiles into Christianity was repugnant ; with the Severians (Euseb.
H. E. iv. 29), whose ascetic principles were incompatible with the doctrines
of Paul; with the Marcionites (Tertull. c. Marc. v. 2, de praescr. 22), who
could not endure what was taught in the Acts concerning the connection
of Judaism and Christianity ; and with the Manichaeans, who took offence
at the mission of the Holy Spirit, to which it bears testimony (Augustin.
de utilit. credendi, ii. 7, epist. 287 [al. 253], No. 2).—From these circum-
stances—the less measure of acquaintance with the book, and the less
degree of veneration for it—is to be explained the somewhat arbitrary
treatment of the text, which is still apparent in codd. (particularly D and
E) and versions (Ital. and Syr.), although Bornemann (Actu apost. ad Codicis
Cantabrig. fidem rec. 1848) saw in cod. D the most original form of the text
(‘‘agmen ducit codex D haud dubie ex autographo haustus,’’ p. xxviii.),
which was an evident error.

That the Acts of the Apostles is the work of one author, follows from the
uniformity in the character of its diction and style (see Gersdorf, Beitr. p.
160 ff.; Credner, Hinl. I. p. 182 ff.; Zeller, Apostelgesch. nach Inh. u.,Urspr.
Stuttg. 1854, p. 388 ff.; and especially Lekebusch, Composit. u. Entsteh.
d, Apostelgesch. Gotha 1854, pp. 37-79; Klostermann, Vindiciae Lucanae,
Gétting. 1866; Oertel, Paulus in d. Apostelgesch. 1868), from the mutual

180 much the less can it be assenmed with
certainty, from the fragment of Papiae, pre-
served by Apollinaris, on the death of Judas
(of which the different forms of the text
may be seen, (1) in Theophyl. on Acts i. 18,
and Cramer, Cat. in Act. p. 12 f.; (2) in
Oecum. I. p. 11, Cramer, Cat. in Matth. p. 231,
and Boissonade, Anecd. II. p. 464 ; (8) Scholion
in Matthael on Acts 1. 18), that Papias had in
vicw the narrative of the event in the Acts,

and wished to reconcile it with that of Mat-
thew, He gives a legend respecting the death
of Judas, deviating from that of Matthew
and the Acts, and independent of both. See
the dissertations on this point: Zahn in the
Stud. u. Krit. 1866, p. 649 ff, and in opposi-
tion to him, Overbeck in Hilgenf. Zeitschr.
1967, p. 85 ff.; also Steitz in the Stud. wv. Kritt.
1868, p. 87 ff.

AUTHORSHIP OF THE BOOK. 3

references of individual passages (de Wette, Hinl. § 115, and Zeller, p. 403
ff.), and also from that unity in the tenor and connection of the essential
leading ideas (see Lekebusch, p. 82) which pervades the whole. This
similarity is of such a nature that it is compatible with a more or less
independent manipulation of different documentary sources, but not with
the hypothesis of an aggregation of such documentary sources, which are
strung together with little essential alteration (Schleiermacher’s view ;
comp. also Schwanbeck, tber d. Quellen der Schriften des Luk. I. p. 258,
and earlier, Kénigsmann, de funtibus, etc., 1798, in Pott’s Sylloge, II. p.
215 ff.). The same peculiarities pervade the Acts and the Gospel, and
evince the unity of authorship and the unity of literary character as to both
books. See Zeller, p. 414 ff. In the passages xvi. 10-17, xx. 5-15, xxi. 1-
18, xxvii. 1-xxviii. 16, the author expressly by ‘‘ we’’ includes himself as
an eye-witness and sharer in the events related. According to Schleier-
macher, these portions—belonginog to the memoirs, strung together with-
out elaboration, of which the book is composed—proceed from Timothy, a
hypothesis supported by Bleek (in his Hinleit., and earlier in the Stud.
au. Krit. 1836, p. 1025 ff., p. 1046 f£.), Ulrich (Stud. u. Krit. 1837, p.
367 ff., 1840, p. 1003 ff.), and de Wette, and consistently worked out by
Mayerhoff (Hinl. in d. Petr. Schr. p. 6 ff.) to the extent uf ascribing the
whole book to Timothy ; whereas Schwanbeck seeks to assign these sections,
as well as in general almost all from xv. 1 onwards, to Silas.' But the
reasons, brought forward against the view that Luke is the narrator using
the we, are wholly unimportant. For, not to mention that it is much more
natural to refer the unnamed I of that narrative in the first person plural
tu Luke, who is not elsewhere named in the book, than*to Timothy and
Silas, who are clsewhere mentioned by name and distinguished from the
subject of the we; and apart also from the entire arbitrariness of the asser-
tion that Luke could not have made his appearance and taken part for the
first time at xvi. 10; the circumstance that in the Epistle to the Philip-
pians no mention of Luke occurs, although the most plausible ground of
the objectors, is still merely such in semblance. How long had Luke, at
that time, been absent from Philippi! How probable, moreover, that
Paul, who sent his letter to the Philippians by means of Epaphroditus, left
it to the latter to communicate orally the personal information which
was of interest to them, and therefore adds in the Epistle only such sum-
mary salutations as iv. 22! And how possible, in fine, that Luke, at the
time of the composition of the Philippian Epistle, was temporarily absent
from Rome, which is strongly supported, and, indeed, is required to be

1 Assaming, with extreme arbitrariness,
that the redacteur has in xvi. 10 ff., misled by
the preceding Boj@ycov nuty (1), copied the
first person after the Silas-document, and only
in ver. 19 felt the necessity of changing the
yuete Of Silas into the names concerned, in
dving which, however, he has forgotten to
include the name of Timothy. See Schwan-
beck, p. 270 f., who has many other instances

of arbitrariness, ¢.7. that avépac yyoun. ey
roig adeAg., XV. 22, stood in the Silas-docu-
ment after exAefaunevovs, and other similar
statementa, which refute themselves. The
holding Luke and Silas as identical (van
Vioten in Hilgenf. Zetéechy. 1867, p. 223 ff.)
was perhaps only a passing etymological
fancy (lucus. silva). See, in opposition to it,
Cropp fn Hilgenf. Zeifechr. 1868, p. 363 ff.

4 INTRODUCTION.

assumed by Phil. ii. 20 f., comp. on Phil. ii. 21. The non-mention of Luke
in the Epistles to the Thessalonians is an unserviceable argumentum e si-
lentio (see Lekebusch, p. 895) ; and the greater vividness of delineation,
which is said to prevail where Timothy is present, cannot prove anything
in contradistinction to the vividness of other parts in which he is not con-
cerned. On the other hand, in those portions in which the “ we’? intro-
duces the eye-witness,' the manipulation of the Greek language, indepen-
dent of written documents, exhibits the greatest similarity to the peculiar
colouring of Luke’s diction as it appears in the independent portions of
the Gospel. It is incorrect to suppose that the specification of time ac-
cording to the Jewish festivals, xx. 6, xxvii. 9, suits Timothy better than
Luke, for the designations of the Jewish festivals must have been every-
where familiar in the early Christian church from its connection with
Judaism, and particularly in the Pauline circles in which Luke, as well
as Timothy, moved. The insuperable difficulties by which both the Timo-
thy-hy pothesis, already excluded by xx. 4 f., and the Silas-hypothesis, un-
tenable throughout, are clugzed, only serve more strongly to confirm the
tradition of the church that Luke, as author of the whole book, is the
person speaking in those sections in which ‘‘we’’ occurs. See Lekebusch,
p. 140 ff.; Zeller, p. 454 ff.; Ewald, Gesch. d. Apost. Zeitalt. p. 88 ff.,
and Jahrb. IX. p. 50 ff. ; Klostermann, J.c.; Oertel, Paul. in d. Apostelgesch.
p. 8 tf. In the ‘‘we’’ the person primarily narrating must have been the
‘© 7°? with which the whole book begins. No other understanding of the
matter could have occurred either to Theophilus or to other readers. The
hypothesis already propounded by Kénigsmann, on the other hand, that
Luke had allowed the ‘‘ we’’ derived from the memoir of another to remain
unchanged, as well as the converse fancy of Gfroérer (heil. Sage, II. p. 244
f.), impute to the author something bordering on an unintelligent mechani-
cal process, such as is doubtless found in insipid chroniclers of the Middle
Ages (examples in Schwanbeck, p. 188 ff.), but must appear utterly alien
and completely unsuitable for comparison in presence of such company as
we have here.

Recent criticism, however, has contended that the Acts could not be
composed at all by a companion of the Apostle Paul (de Wette, Baur,
Schwegler, Zeller, Késtlin, Hilgenfeld, and others). For this purpose they
have alleged contradictions with the Pauline Epistles (ix. 19, 23, 26-28, xi.
30, compared with Gal. i. 17-19, ii. 1; xvii. 16 f., xviii. 5, with 1 Thess.
iii. 1 f.), inadequate accounts (xvi. 6, xviii. 22 f., xxviii. 30 f.), omission
of facts (1 Cor. xv. 82; 2 Cor. i. 8, xi. 25 f. ; Rom. xv. 19, xvi. 3 f.), and
the partially unhistorical character of the first portion of the book (accord-
ing to de Wette, particularly ii. 5-11), which is even alleged to be ‘‘a con-
tinuous fiction’? (Schwegler, nachapostol. Zeitalt. I. p. 90, II. p. 111 f.).
They have discovered un-Pauline miracles (xxviii. 7-10), un-Pauline
speeches and actions (xxi. 20 ff., xxiii. 6 ff., chap. xxii., xxvi.), an un-
Pauline attitude (towards Jews and Jewish-Christians : approval of the

1 Expecially chap. xxvil. and xxvifl. See erally, Oertcl, Paul. in d. Apostelgesch. p.
Klostermann, Vindic. Luc. p. 50 ff. ; and gen- 28 ff.

GENUINENESS, 5

apostolic decree). It is alleged that the formation of legend in the book
(particularly the narrative of Simon and of Pentecost) belongs to a later
period, and that the entire tendency of the writing (see sec. 2) points to a
later stage of ecclesiastical development (sce especially Zdler, p. 470 ff.) ;
also that its politically apologetic design leads us to the time of Trajan,
or later (Schwegler, II. p. 119); that the jueis in the narrative of the
travels (held even by Kdstlin, Urapr. d. Synopt. Hoang. p. 292, to be the
genuine narrative of a friend of the apostle) is designedly allowed to stand
by the author of the book, who wishes to be recognized thereby as a com-
panion of the Apostle (according to Késtlin: for the purpose of strengthen-
ing the credibility and the impression of the apologetic representation) ;
and that the Book of Acts is ‘‘the work of a Pauline member of the Ro-
man church, the time of the composition of which may most probably be
placed between the years 110 and 125, or even 130 after Christ ’’ (Zeller,
p. 488). But all these and similar grounds do not prove what they arc al-
leged to prove, and do not avail to overthrow the ancient ecclesiastical rec-
ognition. For although the book actually contains various matters, in
which it must receive correction from the Pauline Epistles ; although the
history, even of Paul the apostle, is handled in it imperfectly and, in part,
inadequately ; although in the first portion, here and there, a post-apostolic
formation of legend is unmistakeable ; yet all these elements are compat-
ible with its being the work of a companion of the apostle, who, not
emerging as such earlier than chap. xvi., only undertook to write the
history some time after the apostle’s death, and who, when his personal
knowledge failed, was dependent on tradition developed orally and in
writing, partly legendary, because he had not from the jirst entertained the
design of writing a history, and had now, in great measure, to content
himself with the matter and the form given to him by the tradition, in
the atmosphere of which he himself lived. Elements really un-Pauline
cannot be shown to exist in it, and the impress of a definite tendency in the
book, which is alleged to betray a later stage of ecclesiastical development,
is simply imputed to it by the critics. The We-narrative, with its vivid and
direct impress of personal participation, always remains a strong testimony
in favour of a companion of the apostle as author of the whole book, of
which that narrative is a part; to separate the subject of thut narrative
from the author of the whole, is a procedure of sceptical caprice. The
surprisingly abridged und abrupt conclusion of the book, and the silence
concerning the last labours and fate of the Apostle Paul, as well as the
silence concerning the similar fate of Peter, are phenomena which are in-
telligible only on the supposition of a real and candid companion of the
apostle being prevented by circumstances from continuing his narrative,
but would be altogether inconceivable in the case of an author not writing
till the second century, and manipulating with a definite tendency the his-
torical materials before him,—inconceivable, because utterly at variance
with his supposed designs. The hypothesis, in fine, that the tradition of
Luke's authorship rests solely on an erroneous inference from the jis in the
narrative of the travels (comp. Col. iv. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 11; see especially

6 INTRODUCTION.

Késtlin, p. 291), is so arbitrary and so opposed to the usual unreflecting
mode in which such traditions urise, that, on the contrary, the ecclesiasti-
cal tradition is to be explained, not from the wish to have a Pauline Gos-
pel, but from the actual possession of one, and from a direct certainty as to
its author.—The Book of Acts has very different stages of credibility, from
the lower grade of the legend partially enwrapping the history up to that
of vivid, direct testimony ; it is to be subjected in its several parts to free
historical criticism, but to be exempted, at the same time, from the scep-
ticism and injustice which (apart from the attacks of Schrader and Gfrérer)
it has largely experienced at the hands of Baur and his school, after the
more cautious but less consistent precedent set by Schneckenburger (iber
d. Zweck d. Apostelgesch. 1841.) On the whole, the book remains, in con-
nection with the historical references in the apostolic Epistles, the fullest
and surest source of our knowledge of the apostolic times, of which we
always attain most completely a trustworthy view when the Book of Acts
bears part in this testimony, although in many respects the Epistles have
to be brought in, not merely as supplementing, but also in various points
as deciding against particular statements of our book (Bs).

Nores BY AMERICAN EDITOR.

(A)

‘‘This work, as well as the Gospel, being anonymous, attempts have been
made to refer the authorship to some other person than St Luke.’’ ‘ We are
inclined to give the weight which it deserves to the ancient opinion, and to ac-
cept the traditional view of the origin of both the Gospel and the Acts, rather
than any of the modern suppositions, which are very difficult to be reconciled
with the statements in the Acts and the Epistles, and which are the mere
offspring of critical imaginations.” (Lumby.)

The evidence that Luke wrote the Acts is threefold :—The explicit testimony
of the early Christian writers—the relation in which the Acts stands to the
Gospel which is ascribed to Luke—and the similarity of style in the two books.
—See Introductions to the Acts, by Hackett, and by Abbott.

(B)

In the preface to the Gospel the writer speaks of his perfect understanding
of all the things whereof he was about to write, implying the utmost care on
his part accurately to ascertain the facts. The same course was doubtless
adopted by him in writing this second treatise. With the opportunities at his
command of personal observation, of intercourse with the parties concerned in
the events recorded, and probably of the aid of written documents, and with
his admitted claims for diligence in use of them, the writer of the Acts merits
the highest confidence granted to the best accredited testimony. Professor
Hackett, in his Introduction to the Acts, says: ‘‘We have not only every.
reason to regard the history of Luke as authentic, because he wrote it with
such facilities for knowing the truth, but because we find it sustaining its
credit under the severest scrutiny to which it is possible that an ancient work
should be subjected.’’ ‘This history has been confronted with the Epistles
of the N. T. and it has been shown as the result, that the incidental corre-
spondences between them and the Acts are numerous and of the most striking

AIM AND SOURCES OF THE BOOK. v4

kind.” ‘*The speeches in the Acts which purport to have been delivered by
Peter, Paul, and James have been compared with the known productions of
these men ; and it is found that they exhibit an agreement with them, in point
of thought and expression, which the supposition of their common origin
would lead us to expect.” ‘‘ We have a decisive test of the trustworthiness of
Luke in the consistency of his statements and alJusions with the information
which contemporary writers have given us respecting the age in which he lived
and wrote.”’

SEC. II.—AIM AND SOURCES OF THE BOOK.

When the aim of the Acts has been defined by saying that Luke wished
to give us a history of missions for the diffusion of Christianity (Eich-
horn), or a Pauline church-history (Credner), or, more exactly and cor-
rectly, a history of the extension of the church from Jerusalem to Rome
(Mayerhoff, Baumgarten, Guericke, Lekebusch, Ewald, Oertel), there is,
strictly speaking, a confounding of the contents with the aim. Certainly,
Luke wished to compose a history of the development of the church from
its foundation until the period when Paul laboured at Rome ; but his work
Was primarily a private treatise, written for Theophilus, and the clearly ex-
pressed aim of the composition of the Gospel (Luke i. 4) must hold good
also for the Acts on account of the connection in which our book, accord-
ing to Acts i. 1, stands with the Gospel. To confirm to Theophilus, in the
way of history, the Christian instruction which he had received, was an
end which might after the composition of the Gospel be yet more fully at-
tained ; for the further development of Christianity since the time of the as-
cension, its victorious progress through Antioch, Asia Minor, and Greece
up to its announcement by Paul himself in Rome, the capital of the world,
might and ought, accurding to the view of Luke, to serve that purpose.
Hence he wrote this history ; and the selection and limitation of its con-
tents were determined partly by the wants of Theophilus, partly by his
own Pauline individuality, as well as by his sources ; so that, after the pre-
Pauline history in which Peter is the chief person, he so takes up Paul and
his work, and almost exclusively places them' in the foreground down to
the end of the book, that the history becomes henceforth biographical, and
therefore cven the founding of the church of Rome—which, if Luke had
designed to write generally, and on its own account, a mere history of the —
extension of the church from Jerusalem to Rome, he would not, and could
not, have omitted—found no place. The Pauline character and circle of
ideas of the author, and his relation to Theophilus, make it also easy
enough to understand how not only the Jewish apostles, and even Peter,

1 The parallel between the two apostles is
not made up, but historically given. Both
were the representatives of apostolic activ-
ity, and what the Acts informs us of them is
Iike an extended commentary on Gal. {i. 8.
Comp. Thiersch, Kirche im «postol. Zeitalt.
p. 190 f. At the same time, the purpose of
the work as a private composition is always

to be kept in view ; as such it might, accord-
ing to ita relation to the receiver, mention
various important matters but briefly or not
at all, and describe very circumetantially
others of less importance. The author, Ilke
a letter-writer, was in this untrammelled.
Comp. C. Bertheau, der Gai. ii. (Programm),
Hamb. 1854,

8 INTRODUCTION.

fall gradually into the background in the history, but also how the re-
flection of Paulinism frequently presents itself in the pre-Pauline hulf
(‘‘ hence this book might well be called a gloss on the Epistles of St.
Paul,’? Luther's Preface). One who was not a disciple of Paul could not
have written such a history of the apostles. The fact that even in respect
of Paul himself the narrative is so defective and in various points even inap-
propriate, as may be proved from the letters of the apostle, is sufficiently
explained from the limitation and quality of the accounts and sources with
which Luke, at the late period when he wrote, had to content himself and
to make shift, where he was not better informed by his personal knowledge
or by the apostle or other eye-witnesses,

Nevertheless, the attempt has often been made to represent our book asa
composition marked by a se¢ apologetic’ and dogmatic purpose. A justiji-
cation of the Apostle Paul, as regards the admission of the Gentiles into the
Christian church, is alleged by Griesbach, Diss. 1798, Paulus, Frisch, Diss.
1817, to be its design; against which view Eichhorn decidedly declared
himself. More recently Schneckenburger (ib. d. Zweck d, Apostelgesch.
1841) has revived this view with much acuteness, to the prejudice of the
historical charactcr of the book. By Baur (at first in the 7b. Zeitschr.
1886, 8, then especially in his Paulus 1845, second edition edited by Zeller,
1866, also in his neutest. Theol. p. 331 ff., and in his Gesch. der drei ersten
Jahrb. 1860, ed. 2) a transition was made, as regards the book, from the
apologetic to the conciliatory standpoint. He was followed specially by
Schwegler, nachapost. Zeitalt. II. p. 78 ff.; Zeller, p. 320 ff.; and Volkmar,
Relig. Jesu, p. 336 ff.; while B. Bauer (d. Apostelgesch. eine Ausgleichung des
Paulinismus und Judenthums, 1850) pushed this treatment to the point of
self-annihilation. According to Schneckenburger, the design of the Acts
is the justification of the Apostle Paul against all the objections of the
Judaizers ; on which account the apostle is only represented in that side of
his character which was turned towards Judaism, and in the greatest pos-
sible similarity to Peter (sec, in opposition to this, Schwanbeck, Quellen d.
Luk. p. 94 ff.). In this view the historical credibility of the contents is
maintained, so far as Luke has made the selection of them for his particular
purpose (4). This was, indeed, only a partial carrying out of the purpose-
hypothesis ; but Baur, Schwegler, and Zeller have carried it out to its full
consequences,* and have, without scruple, sacrificed to it the historical

1 Aberle, in the theol. Quartlalschr. 1858, p.
178 ff., has maintained a view of the apolo-
getic design of the book peculiar to himself ;
namely, that it was intended to defend Paul
against the accusation still pending against
him in Rome. Everything of this nature is
invented withont any indication whatever
in the text, and is contradicted by the pro-
logues of the Gosgpel and the Acts.

2 Certainly we are not carried by the Acts,
as we are by the Pauline Epistles, into the
fresh, living, fervent conflict of Paulinism
with Judaism; and so this later work may

appear as a work of peace (Reuss, Geach. d.
NV. T. p. 206, ed. 4) and reconciliation, in the
composition of which it is conceivable
enough of itself, and without imputing to it
conciliatory tendencies, that Luke, who did
not write till long after the death of Pan) and
the destruction of Jerusalem, already looked
back on those conflicts from another calmer
and more objective standpoint, when the
Pauline ministry presentcd itself to him in
its entirety as the manifestation of the great
principle, 1 Cor. ix. 19 ff.

AIM AND SOURCES OF THE BOOK. 9

character of the contents. They affirm that the Paul of the Acts, in his
compliance towards Juduism, is entirely different from the apostle as ex-
hibited in his Epistles (Baur) ; that he is converted into a Judaizing Chris-
tian, as Peter and James are converted into Pauline Christians (Schwegler) ;
and that our book, as a proposal of « Pauline Christian towards peace by
concessions of his party to Judaism, was in this respect intended to influ-
ence both purties, but especially had in view the Roman church (Zeller).
The carrying out of this view—according to which the author, with ‘‘ set
reflection on the means for attaining his end,’’ would convert the Gentile
apostle into a Petrine Christian, and the Jewish aposties into Pauline
Christians—imputes to the Book of Acts an imperceptibly neutralizing
artfulness and dishonesty of character, and a subtlety of distortion in
breaking off the sharp points of history, and even of inventing facts, which
are irreconcilable with the simplicity and ingenuous artlessness of this writ-
ing, and indeed absolutely stand even in moral contradiction with its
Christian feeling and spirit, and ‘with the express assurance in the preface
of the Gospel. And in the conception of the details this hypothesis neces-
sitates a multitude of suppositions and interpretations, which make the re-
proach of a designed concoction of history and of invention for the sake of
an object, that they are intended to establish, recoil on such a criticism
itself. See the Commentary. The most thorough special refutation may
be seen in Lekebusch, p. 258 ff., and Oertel, Paulus in d. Apostelgesch. p.
183 ff. Comp. also Lechler, apost. u. nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 7 &£. ; Ewald,
Jahrb. IX. p. 62 ff. That, moreover, such an inventive reconciler of Paul-
inism and Petrinism, who is, moreover, alleged to have not written till the
second century, should have left unnoticed the meeting of the apostles,
Peter and Paul, at Rome, and their contemporary death, and not have
rather turned them to account for placing the crown on his work so pur-
posely planned ; and that instead of this, after many other incongruities
which he would huve committed, he should have closed Paul's intercourse
with the Jews (chap. xxviil. 25 ff.) with a rejection of them from the apos-
tle’s own mouth,—would be just as enigmatical as would be, on the other
hand, the fact, that the late detection of the plan should, in spite of
the touchstone continually present in Paul’s Epistles, have remained re-
served for the searching criticism of the present day.

As regards the sources (see Riehm, de fontibus, etc., Traj. ad Rhen. 1821 ;
Schwanbeck, ab. d. Quellen d. Schriften d. Luk. I. 1847; Zeller, p. 289 ff.;
Lekebusch, p. 402 ff.; Ewald, Gesch. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 40 ff. ed. 3), it is
to be generally assumed from the contents and form of the book, and from
the analogy of Luke 1. J, that Luke, besides the special communications
which he had received from Paul and from intercourse with apostolic men,
besides oral tradition generally, and besides, in part, his own personal
knowledge (the latter from xvi. 10 onwards), also made use of written doc-
uments. But he merely made use of them, and did not simply string them
together (as Schleiermacher held, Hinl. in d. N. T. p. 360 ff.). For the
use has, at any rate, taken place with such independent manipulation, that
the attempts accurately to point out the several documentary scurces’ em-

10 INTRODUCTION.

ployed, particularly as regards their limits and the elements of them that
have remained unaltered, fail to lead to any sure result. For such an inde-
pendent use he might be sufficiently qualified by those serviceable con-
nections which he maintained, among which is to be noted his intercourse
with Mark (Col. iv. 10, 14), and with Philip and his prophetic daughters
(xxi. 8, 9); as, indeed, that independence is confirmed by the essential
similarity in the character of the style (although, in the first part, in ac-
cordance with the matters treated of and with the Aramaic traditions and
documentary sources, it is more Hebraizing), and in the employment of
the Septuagint. The use of a written (probably Hebrew) document con-
cerning Peter (not to be confounded with the «#pvyya Tlérpov), of another
concerning Stephen, and of a missionary narrative perhaps belonging to
it (chap. xili. and xiv.; see Bleek in the Stud. u. Krit, 1886, p. 1048 f.;
comp. also Ewald, p. 41 f.), is assumed with the greatest probability ; less
probably a special document concerning Barnabas, to which, according to
Schwanbeck, iv. 38 f., ix. 1-80, xi. 19-80, xii. 25, xiii. 1-14, 28, xv. 2-4 be-
longed. In the case also of the larger speeches and letters of the book, so
far as personal knowledge or communications from those concerned failed
him, and when tradition otherwise was insufficient, Luke must have been
dependent on the documents indicated above and others; still, however,
in such a manner that—and hence so much homogeneity of stamp—his own
reproduction withal was more or less active. To seek to prove in detail
the originality of the apostolic speeches from the apostolic letters, is an
enterprise of impossibility or of self-deceiving presupposition ; however
little on the whole and in the main the genuineness of these speeches, ac-
cording to the respective characters and situations, may reasonably be
doubted. As regards the history of the apostolic council in particular,
the Epistle to the Galatians, not so much as even known to Luke, although
- it supplements the apostolic narrative, cannot, any more than any of the
other Pauline Epistles, be considered as 4 suurce (in opposition to Zeller);
and the apostolic decree, which cannot be a creation of the author, must
be regarded as the reproduction of an original document. In general, it
is to be observed that, as the question concerning the sources of Luke
was formerly @ priori precluded by the supposition of simple reports of
eye-witnesses (already in the Canon Murat.), recently, no less @ priori, the
same question has been settled in an extreme negative sense by the as-
sumption that he purposely drew from his own resources; while Credner,
de Wette, Bleek, Ewald, and others have justly adhered to three sources
of information—written records, oral information and tradition (Luke i.
1 ff.), and the author’s personal knowledge ; and Schwanbeck has, with
much acuteness, attempted what is unattainable in the way of recognizing
and separating the written documents, with the result of degrading the
book into a spiritless compilation." The giving up the idea of written

1 According to Schwanbeck, the redactenr biography of Barnahas ; (4) The memoirs of
of the book has used the four following doo- Silas. Of these writings he has pieced togeth-
uments : (1) A biography of Peter ; (2) A rbe- er only single portions almost unchanged ;
torical work on the death of Stephen; (8) A hence he appears essentially as a compiler.

TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION. 11

sources—the conclusion which Lekebusch has reached oy the path of
thorough inquiry—is all the less satisfactory, the later the time of com-
position has to be placed and the historical character of the contents withal
to be maintained. See also, concerning the derivation of the Petrine
speeches from written sources, Weiss in the Krit. Beiblatt 2. Deutsch.
Zeitschr. 1854, No. 10 f., and in reference to their doctrinal tenor and its

harmony with the Epistle of Peter, Weiss, Petr. Lehrbegr. 1855, and bibl. —

Theol. 1868, p. 119 ff. Concerning the relation of the Pauline history
and speeches to the Pauline epistles, see Trip, Paulus in d. Apostelgesch.
1866 ; Oertel, Paulus in d. Apostelgesch. 1868. Comp. also Oort, Jnquir. in
orat., quae in Act. ap. Paulo tribuuntur, indolem Paulin. L. B. 1862; Hof-
stede de Groot, Vergelijking van den Paulus der Brieven met dien der Handel-
ingen, Groning. 1860.

Nore By AMERICAN EDITOR.
(c)

‘¢ The Book is a special history of the planting and extension of the church,
both among Jews and Gentiles, by the gradual establishment of radiating
centres, or sources of influence, at certain salient points throughout a large
part of the empire, beginning at Jerusalem and ending at Rome.” ( Alexander.)

‘‘ The church of Christ described with respect to its founding, its guidance,
and its extension, in Israel and among the Gentiles, from Jerusalem even to
Rome.”’ (Lange.) .

The Acts like the Gospel is addressed to one individual for his information
and instruction, but not designed for him alone, Luke wrote his history to
preserve the memorials of the Apostles for Christians of all ages.

SEC. I1.—TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION.

As tho Gospel of Luke already presupposes the destruction of Jerusalem
(xxi. 20-25), the Acts of the Apostles must have been written after that
event. Acts viii. 26 cannot be employed to establish the view that the
book was composed during the Jewish war, shortly defore the destruction of
the city (Hug, Schneckenburger, Lekebusch ; see on viii. 26), The non-
mention of that event does not serve to prove that it had not yet occurred,
but rather leads to the inference that it had happened a considerable time
ago. A more definite approximation is not possible. As, however, the
Gospel of John must be considered as the latest of the four, but still be-
Jongs to the first century, perhaps to the second last decade of tbat cen-
tury (see Introduction to John, sec. 6), there is sufficient reason to place
the third Gospel within the seventh decade, and the time of the composi-
tion of the Acts cannot be more definitely ascertained. Yet, as there must
have been a suitable interval between it and the Gospel (comp. on i. 8), it
may have reached perhaps the close of the seventh decade, or about the
year 80; so that it may be regarded as nearly contemporary with the Gos-
pel of John, and nearly contemporary also with the history of the Jewish

1 With justice Weise lays stress on the Acta as being the oldest doctrinal records of
importance of the Petrine speeches in the the apostolic age.

12 INTRODUCTION.

war by Josephus. The vague statement of Irenaeus, Haer. iii. 1 (Euseb. v.
8), that Luke wrote his Gospel after the death of Peter and Paul, comes
nearest to this definition of the time. On the other hand, the opinion,
which has prevailed since the days of Jerome, that the close of the book,
which breaks off before the death of the apostle, determines this point of
time as the date of composition (so Michaelis, Heinrichs, Riehm, Paulus,
Kuinoel, Schott, Guericke, Ebrard, Lange, and others), while no doubt
most favourable to the interest of its apostolic authority, is wholly unten-
able. That the death of the apostle is not narrated, has hardly its reason
in political considerations (my former conjecture), as such considerations
could not at least stand in the way of a quite simple historical mention of
the well-known fact. But it is to be rejected as an arbitrary supposition,
especially considering the solemn form of the conclusion itself analogous to
the conclusion of the Gospel, that the author was prevented from finishing
the work (Schleiermacher), or that the end has been lost (Schott). Wholly
unnatural also are the opinions, that Luke has, by narrating the diffusion
(more correctly : the Pauline preaching) of the gospel as far as Rome (ac-
cording to Hilgenfeld, with the justification of the Pauline Gentile-church
up to that point), attained his end (see Bengel on xxviii. 31, and especially
Baumgarten"); or that the author was led no further by his document (dc
Wette) ; or that he has kept silence as to the death of Paul of set purpose
(Zeller), which, in point of fact, would have been stupid. The simplest
and, on account of the compendious and abrupt conclusion, the most natu-
ral hypothesis is rather that, after his second treatise, Luke intended to
write a third (Heinrichs, Credner, Ewald, Bleek). As he concludes his
Gospel with a short—probably even amplified in the tertus receptus (sce
critical note on Luke xxiv. 51, 52)—indication of the ascension, and then
commences the Acts with a detailed narrative of: it; so he concludes the
Acts with but a short indication of the Roman ministry of Paul and its
duration, but would probably have commenced the third book with a de-
tailed account of the labours and fate of Paul at Rome, and perhaps also
would have furnished a record concerning the other apostles (of whom he
had as yet communicated so little), especially of Peter and his death, as
well as of the further growth of Christianity in other lands. By what
circumstances he was prevented from writing such a continuation of the
history (perhaps by death), cannot be determined.

To determine the place of composition beyond doubt, is impossible.
With the traditional view of the time of composition since the days of
Jerome falls also the certainty of the prevalent opinion that the book was
written in Rome ; which opinion is not established by the reasons assigned

So aleo Lange, apostol, Zeitalt. I. p. 107 ;
Otto, geachichil. Verh. d. Paatorai-drtefe, p.
189. This opinion is unnatural, because it
was juet in the issue of the trial—whether
that consisted {in the execution (Otto) or in
the liberation of the apostle—that the Paul-
ine work at Rome had its culmination, glori-
fying Christ and fulfilling the apostolic task

(Luke xxiv. 47%). See Phil. 1.20. How im-
portant must it therefore have been for Luke
to narrate that issue, if he should not have
had for the present other reasons for being
rilent upon it! That Luke knew what became
of Paul after his two years’ residence in
Rome, is self-evident from the words ¢newe
6é¢ dceriay x. 7. A., Xxviil. 30.

CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY. 13

on the part of Zeller, Lekebusch, and Ewald. Still more arbitrary, how-
ever, is its transference tu Alezandria (Mill, according to subscriptions in
codd. and vas. of the Gospel), to Antioch, or to Greece (Hilgenfeld) ; and
not less so the referring it to Hellenic Asia Minor (K6stlin, p. 294).

Remark.—The circumstance that there is no trace of the use of the Pauline
Epistles in the Acts, and that on the other hand things occur in it at variance
with the historical notices of these Epistles, is, on the whole, a weighty argu-
ment against the late composition of the book, as assumed by Baur, Schwegler,
Zeller, and others, and against its alleged character of a set purpose. How
much matter would the Pauline Epistles have furnished to an author of the
second century in behalf of his intentional fabrications of history! How
much would the Epistle to the Romans itself in its dogmatic bearing have
furnished in favour of Judaism! And so clever a fabricator of history would
. have known how to use it, as well as how to avoid deviations from the his-
torical statements of the Pauline Epistles. What has been adduced from the
book itself as an indication of its composition in the second century (110-130)
is either no such indication, as, for example, the existence of a copious Gospel-
literature (Luke i. 1) ; or is simply imported into it by the reader, such as the
ulleged germs of a hierarchical constitution ; see Lekebusch, p. 422 ff.

SEC. IV.—CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF THE ACTS.

Agr. Dion. 31, v.c. 784 (A). The risen Jesus ascends to heaven. Matthias
becomes an apostle. The outpouring of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, and its
immediate consequences (i. and ii.).—Since, according to the well-founded
assumption that the feast meant at Jobn v. 1 is not a Passover, it must be
considered as certain that the time of the public ministry of Jesus em-
braced no more than threc paschal feasts (John ii. 18, vi. 4, xii. ff.), conse-
quently only two years aud some months ;' as it is further certain that our
Lord was not crucified on the 15th, but on tbe 14th of the month Nisan,
which fell on a Friday ;? according to the researches founded on the
Jewish calendar by Wurm (in Bengel’s Arch. II. p. 1 ff., p. 261 ff.) and
Anger (de tempor. in Act. ap. ratione, Lips. 1838, pp. 80-88), the date laid
down above appears to result as the most probable (‘‘anno 31, siquidem is
intercalaris erat, diem Nisani 14 et 15, anno 33, siquidem vulgaris erat,
diem Nisani 14, anno vero 32 neutrum in Veneris diem incidere potuisse.
Atqui anno 83, idco quod ille annum sabbaticum proxime antecedebnt,
Adarus alter adjiciendus erat. Ergo neque annum 82 neque 88 pro ultimo
vitae Christi anno haberi posse apparet,’’ Anger, p. 88). Nevertheless, the
uncertainty of the Jewish calendar would not permit us to attain to any
quite reliable result, if there were no other confirmatory points. But here

1 The Fathers, who aseumed only one year
for the public ministry of Jesus, considered
His death as occurring in the year 782, under
the coneulship of Rubelliuns Geminus and
Fafius Geminus, which {a not to be reconciled
with Luke fifi. 1. See Seyffarth, Chronol.
sacra, p. 115 ff.

2 Every calculation which is based on the

15th of Nisan as the day of the death of Jesus
(so Wieseler, according to whom it happened
on 7th April 30) is destitute of historical foun-
dation, because at variance with the exact
account of John, which must turn the scale
against the Synoptical narrative (see on John
xvili, 28).

14 INTRODUCTION.

comes in Luke iii. 1, according to which John appeared in the 15th year
of the reign’ of Tiberius, i.e. from 19th August 781 to 19th August 782
(see on Luke, Z.c."). And if it must be assumed that Jesus began his
public teaching very soon after the appearance of John, at all events in the
same year, then the first Passover of the ministry of Jesus (John ii. 13)
was that of the year 782; the second (John vi. 4), that of the year 788 ;
the third (John xii. ff.), that of the year 784. With this agrees the state-
ment of the Jews on the first public appearance of Jesus in Jerusalem, that
(see on John ii. 20) the temple had been u-building during a period of 46
years. This building, namely, had been commenced in the 18th year of
the reign of Herod the Great (i.e. autumn 734-735). If now, as it was
the interest of the Jews at John ii. 20 to specify as long an interval as
possible, the first year as not complete is not included in the calculation,
there results as the 46th year (reckoned from 735-736), the year from
autumn 781 to autumn 782; and consequently as the first Passover, that
of the year 782. The same result comes out, if the first year of the build-
ing be reckoned 734~735, and the full 46 years are counted in, so that
when the words Jobn ii. 20 were spoken, the seven and fortieth year (i.e.
autumn 781-782) was already current.—AxER. Dion. 81-34, u.c. 784-787.
Peter and John, after the healing of the lame man (iii.), are arrested and brought
before the Sanhedrim (iv.) ; death of Ananias and his wife (v. 1-11) ; prosper-
ity of the youthful church (v. 12-16) ; persecution of the apostles (v. 17-42).
As Saul’s conversion (see the following paragraph) occurred during the |
continuance of the Stephanic persecution, so the execution of Stephen is to be
placed in the year 38 or 84 (vi. 8-vii.), and not long before this, the election
of the managers of alms (vi. 1-7) ; and nearly contemporary with that con-
version is the diffusion of Christianity by the dispersed (vill. 4), the minis-
try of Philip in Samaria (viii. 5 ff.), and the conversion of the chamberlain
(viii. 26 ff.). What part of this extraneous activity of the emigrants is to be
placed befcre, and what after, the conversion of Paul, cannot be deter-
mined.—AER. Dion. 85, u.c. 788. Paul’s conversion (ix. 1-19), 17 years be-
fore the apostolic council (see on Gal. ii. 1).—According to 2 Cor. xi. 32,
Damascus, when Paul escaped thence to betake himself to Jerusalem (ix.
24-26), was under the rule of the Arabian King Aretas. The taking pos-
session of this city by Aretas is not, indeed, recorded by any other author,
hut must be assumed as historically attested by that very passage, because
there the ethnarch of Aretas appears in the active capacity of governor of
the city,? and his relation to the éAc¢ Aayacxnvéy is supposed to be well

1 Not of his join? reign, from which Wicse-
ler now reckons in Herzog's Lncyki. XXI. p.
547.

2 In presence of this quite definite state-
ment of the year of the emperor, the differ-
ent combinations, which have been made on
the basis of the acconnts of Josephus con-
cerning the war between Antipas and Aretas
in favoar of a /ater date for the public ap-
pearance of Jesus (84-35; Keim, Gesch. Jesu,
I. p. 620 ff.), necessarily give way. Thcac,

moreover, are not sufficiently reliable for an
exact marking off of the year, to induce us
to eet aside the year of the emperor men-
tioned by Luke, which could only be baeed
on general notoriety, and the exact specifica-
tion of which regulates and controls the
synchronistic notices in Luke iii. 1 f.

3 Not merely of a judicial chief of the Ara-
dian population of Damascus, subordinate to
the Roman authority (Keim in Schenkel’s
Btbeliex. I. p. 239.) There is no historical

CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY. 15

known to the readers. It is therefore very arbitrary to regard this relation
as 2 temporary private one, and not as areal dominion (Anger: ‘forte
fortuna eodem, quo apostolum tempore propter negotia nescio quae Da-
masci versatum esse,’’ and that he, either of his own accord or at the request
of the Jews, obtained permission for the latter from the magistrates of
Damascus to watch the gates). The time, when the Arabian king became
master of Damascus, is assigned with much probability, from what Josephus
informs us of the relations of Aretas to the Romans, to the year 87, after
the death of Tiberius in March of that year. Tiberius, namely, had charged
Vitellius, the governor of Syria, to take either dead or alive Aretas, who
had totally defeated the army of Herod Antipas, his faithless son-in-law
(Joseph. Antt. xviii. 5.1). Vitellius, already on his march against him
(Joseph. /.c. xviii. 5. 8), received in Jerusalem the news of the death of the
emperor, which occurred on the 16th of March 87, put his army into winter
quarters, and journeyed to Rome. Now this was for Aretas, considering
his warlike and irritated attitude toward the Roman power, certainly the
most favourable moment for falling upon the rich city of Damascus—which,
besides, had formerly belonged to his ancestors (Joseph. Antt. xiii. 15, 2)—
because the governor and general-in-chief of Syria was absent, the army
was inactive, and new measures were to be expected from Rome. The king,
however, did not remain long in possession of the conquered city. For when,
in the second year of Caligula (7.¢. in the year from 16th March 88 to 16th
March 89), the Arabian affairs were regulated (Dio Cass. lix. 9. 12), Damas-
cus cannot have been overlooked. This city was too important for the ob-
jects of the Roman government in the East, to allow us to assume with
probability—what Wieseler, p. 172 ff., and on Gal. p. 599, assumes '—that,
at the regulation of the Arabian affairs, it had only just come by way of
gift into the hands of Aretas, or (with Ewald, p. 389) that according to
agreement it had remained in his possession during his lifetime, so that he
would have to be regarded as a sort of Roman cassal. This, then, limits
the flight of Paul from Damascus to the period of nearly two years from
the summer of 37 to the spring of 839. As, however, it is improbable that
Aretas had entrusted the keeping of the city gates to the Jews in what
remained of the year 87, which was certainly still disturbed by military
movements ; and as his doing so rather presupposes a quiet and sure pos-
session of the city, and an already settled state of matters ; there remains
only the year 38 and the first months of the year 39. And even these first
months of the ycar 89 are excluded, as, according to Dio Cassius, l.c.,
Caligula apportioned Arabia in the second year of his reign ; accordingly
Aretas can hardly have possessed the conquered city up to the very end of
that year, especially as the importance of the matter for the Oriental inter-
ests of the Romans made an early arrangement of the affair cxtremely
probable. Every month Caligula became more dissolute and worthless ;
and certainly the securing of the dangerous East would on this account

trace of the relation thus conjectured, and 1 See also his three articles in Herzog's
it would hardly have included a jurisdiction Encykl.: Aretas, Galaterbrief, and Zeitrech-
over the Jew Saul. nung, neutest.

16 INTRODUCTION,

rather be accelerated than delayed. Accordingly, if the year 88' be ascer-
tained as that of the flight of Paul, there is fixed for his conversion, be-
tween which and his flight a period of three years intervened (Gal. i. 18),
the year 35.—AxEr. Dion. 86, 87, u.c. 789, 790. Paul labours as a preacher
of the gospel in Damascus, ix. 20-28 ; journey to Arabia and return to Da-
mascus (see on ix. 19).— AER. Dion. 38, u.c. 791. His flight from Damascus
and first journey to Jerusalem (ix. 23-26 ff.), three years after his conversion,
Gal. i. 18. From Jerusalem he makes his escape to Tarsus (ix. 29, 30).—
AER. Dion. 89-48, u.c. 792-796. The churches throughout Palestine have
peace and prosperity (ix. 81); Peter makes a general journey of visitation (ix.
82), labours at Lydda and Joppa (ix. 82-48), converts Cornelius at Caesarea
(x. 1-48), and returns to Jerusalem, where he justifies himself (xi. 1-18).
Christianity is preached in Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, and in that city
even to the Gentiles, on which account Barnabas is sent thither, who fetches
Paul from Tarsus, and remains with him for one year in Antioch (xi. 19-26).
In this year (43) Agabus predicts a general famine (xi. 27, 28).—AxER. Dion.
44, u.c. 797. After the execution of the elder James, Peter is imprisoned
without result by Agrippa I, who dies in August 44 (xii. 1-28). In the fourth
year of the reign of Claudius occurs the famine in Judaea (see on xi. 28),
on account of which Paul (according to Acts, but not according to Gal. ii.
1) makes his second journey to Jerusalem (with Barnabas), whence he returns
to Antioch (xi. 29, 30, and see on xii. 25).—ArEr. Dion, 45-51, u.c. 798-804.
In this period occurs the jirst missionary journey of the apostle with Bar-
nabas (xiii. and xiv.), the duration of which is not indicated. Having
returned to Antioch, Paul and Barnabas remain there xpovov ovx dAtyov (xiv.
28).—AER. Dion. 52, v.c. 805. The third journey of Paul to Jerusalem
(with Barnabas) to the apostolic congress (xv. 1-29), according to Gal. ii. 1,
fourteen years after the first journey. Having returned to Antioch, Paul
and Barnabas separate, and Paul with Silas commences his second missionary
journey (Acts xv. 80-41).—ArrR. Dron. 53, 54, u.c. 806, 807. Continuation
of this missionary journey through Lycaonia, Phrygia, and Galatia ; crossing
Jrom Troas to Macedonia ; journey to Athens and Corinth, where Pual met
with Aquila banished in the year 52 by the edict of Claudius from Rome, and
remained there more (see on xviii. 11) than a year and a half (xvi. 1-xviii.
18).—Agrr. Dion. 55, u.c. 808. From Corinth Paul journeys to Ephesus,
and thence by Caesarea to Jerusalem for the fourth time (xvii. 20-22), from
which, without staying, he returns to Antioch (xviii. 22), and thus closes his
second missionary journey. He tarries there xpévov rived (xviii. 23), and then
commences his third missionary journey through Galatia and Phrygia (xviii.
28), during which time Apollos is first at Ephesus (xviii. 24 ff.) and then
at Corinth (xix. 1).—A&rr. Dion. 56-58, u.c. 809-811. Paul arrives on this

assumed for the coinage. The circumstance

2 With this also agrees the namber of the
year AP of a Damascene coin of King Aretas,
described by Eckhel] and Mionnet, namely, in
so far as that number (191) is to be reckoned
according to the Pompeian era commencing
with 600 v.0o.,—and this is at any rate the most
probable,—whence the year 88 may be safely

that there are extant Damascene coins of
Augustus and Tiberius, and also of Nero, but
none of Caligula and Claudius (see Eckhel, I.
3, p. 880 f.), is unsatisfactory as evidence of
a longer continuance of the city under the
power of Aretas, and may be accidental.

CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY, 1%

journey at Ephesus (xix. 1), where he labours for not quite three years (see on -
xix. 10). After the tumult of Demetrius (xix. 24-40) he journeys to
Macedonia and Greece, and tarries there three months (xx. 1, 2).—AER.
Dion. 59, vu.c. 812. Having returned in the spring from Greece to
Macedonia (xx. 8), Paul sails after aster from Philippi to Troas (xx. 6), and
Jrom Assos by way of Miletus (xx. 18-88), and Tyre (xxi. 1-6) to Ptolemais
(xxi. 7), thence he journeys by Caesarea (xxi. 8-14) to Jerusalem for the fifth
and last time (xxi. 15-17). Arriving shortly before Pentecost (xx. 16), he is
after some days (xxi. 18-88) arrested and then sent to Feliz at Caesarea (xxiii.
23-85).—AER. Dion. 60, 61, u.c. 818, 814. Paul remains a prisoner in
Caesarea for two years (from the summer of 59 to the summer of 61) until
the departure of Felix, who Jeaves him as a prisoner to his successor Festus
(xxiv. 27). Festus, after fruitless discussions (xxv., xxvi.), sends the apostle,
who had appealed to Caesar, to Rome in the autumn (xxvii. 9), on which
journey he winters at Malta (xxviii. 11).—That Felix had retired from
his procuratorship before the year 62, is evident from Joseph. Antt. xx.
8. 9, according to which this retirement occurred while Pallas, the brother
of Felix, was still a favourite of Nero, and while Burrus, the praefectus
praetorio, was still living ; but, according to Tac. Ann. xiv. 65, Pallas was
poisoned by Nero in the year 62, and Burrus died in an early month of the
same year (Anger, de temp. rat. p. 101). See also Ewald, p. 52 ff. Further,
that the retirement of Felix took place after the year 60,' is highly probable
from Joseph. Vit. § 8, and from Antt. xx. 8.11. In the first passage
Josephus informs us that he had journeyed to Rome yer’ eixoordv xal éxrov
éviaurév of his life, in order to release certain priests whom Fclix, during
his (consequently then elapsed) procuratorship («a6’ dv xpévov big TIS
"Tovdaias exerporevev), had sent as prisoners thither. Now, as Josephus was
born (Vit. § 1) in the first year of Caligula (i.¢. in the year from 16th March
87 to 16th March 88), and so the completion of his 26th year fell in the
year from 16th March 68 to 16th March 64, that journey to Rome is to
be placed in the year 63,* for the sea was closed in the winter months until
the beginning of March (Veget. de re milit. iv. 89.) If, then, Felix had
retired as early as the year 60, Josephus would only have interested himself
for his unfortunate friends three years after the removal of the hated gov-
ernor,—a long postponement of their rescue, which would be quite inex-

2 Not in the year 58,as Lehmann (in the
Stud und Krit. 1858, p. 822 ff.) endeavours to
establish, but without considering the pas-
sage in Joseph. Viia8. See, besides, in
opposition to Lehmann, Wieseler on Gal. p.
588 f.

2 Wicseler, p 98, fullowing Clinton, Anger,
and others, has defended the year 64. He
appeals cspecially to a more cxact deter-
mination of the age of Josephus, which is to
be got from Anti. xx. 11. 8, where Josephus
makes his 56th year coincide with the 18th
year of Domitian (13th September 98 to 18th
September 91). Accordingly, Josephus was

born between 18th September 87 and 16th
March 38, and therefore the above journey is
to be referred not to the year 68, but, as he
would not have entered upon it in the
autumn, only to the year ¢4. But this proof
is not convinctny, a8 we are at all events
entitled to scek the strictly exact statement
of the birth of Josephus in the Vita, § 1 (16
March 37 to 36th March 88), and are not, by
the approximate parallelism of Antt, xx. 11.
2, justified in excluding the period from 16th
March to 18th September, 87. Even if Jose-
phus were born in March 87, his 56th year
would still fallin the 18th year of Domitian.

18 INTRODUCTION.

plicable. But if Felix resigned his government in the year 61,' it was
natural that Josephus should first wait the result of the complaint of the
Jews of Caesarea to the emperor against Felix (Joseph. Anti. xx. 8, 10);
and then, when the unexpected news of the acquittal of the procurator
came, should, immediately after the opening of the navigation in the year
68, make his journey to Rome, in order to release his friends the priests.
Further, according to Joseph. Ant. xx. 8. 11, about the time of the
entrance of Festus on office (card rdév xarpdv rovrov), Poppaea, the mistress
of Nero, was already his wife (yvv7,) which she became according to Tac.
Ann, xiv. 59, Suet. Ner. 35, only in May of the year 62 (see Anger, l.c. pp.
101, 108). Now, if Festus had become already procurator in the year 60,
we must either ascribe to the expression card rdv xatpdv robrov an undue
indefiniteness, extending even to inaccuracy, or in an equally arbitrary
manner understand yev7 proleptically (Anger, Stdlting), or as uxor injusta
(Wieseler), which, precisely in reference to the twofold relation of Poppaea
as the emperor’s mistress and the emperor's wife, would appear unwar-
ranted in the case of a historian who was recording the history of his
own time. But if Festus became governor only in the summer of 61, there
remains for rév xacpdv rovrov a space of not quite one year, which, with the
not sharply definite xara «.7.2., cannot occasion any difficulty. The ob-
jection urged by Anger, p. 100, and Wieseler, p. 86, on Gal. p. 584 f.,
and in Herzog’s Encykl. XXI. p. 557, after Pearson and Schrader, against
the year 61, from Acts xxviii. 16,—namely, that the singular 19 orparoredipyy
refers to Burrus (who died in the spring of 62) as the sole praefectus
praetorii at the period of the arrival of the apostle at Rome, for before
and after his prefecture there were two prefects,—is untenable, because
the singular in the sense of : the praefectus praetorli concerned (to whom
the prisoners were delivered up), is quite in place. The other reasons
against the year 61, taken from the period of office of Festus and Albinus,
the successors of Felix (Anger, p. 101 ff. ; Wieseler, p. 89 ff.), involve too
much uncertainty to be decisive for the year 60. For although the en-
trance of Albinus upon office is not to be put later than the beginning of
October 62 (see Anger, /.c.), yet the building (completion) of the house of
Agrippa, mentioned by Joseph. Anti. xx. 8. 11, ix. 1, as nearly contem-
poraneous with the entrance of Festus on office, and the erection of the
wall by the Jews over against it (to prevent the view of the temple), as
well as the complaint occasioned thereby at Rome, migbt very casily have
occurred from the summer of 61 to the autumn of 62; and against the
brief duration of the high-priesthood of Kabi, scarcely exceeding a month
on this supposition (Anger, p. 105 f.), the history of that period of rapid
dissolution in the unhappy nation raises no valid objection at all.—Azr.
Dion. 68, 64, u.c. 815-817. Paul arrives in the spring of 62 at Rome
(xxviii. 11, 16), where he remains two years (xxviii. 30), that is, until the
spring of 64, in further captivity. Thus far the Acts of the Apostles.—
On the disputed point of a second imprisonment, see on Rom. Introd. p.
15 ff.
1 See aleo Laurent, newlest. Studien, p. 84 ff.

AUTHORITIES FOR CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. 19

Remark 1.—The great conflagration of Rome under Nero broke out on 19th
July 64 (Tac. Ann. xv. 41), whereupon commenced the persecution of the
Christians (Tac. Ann. xv. 44). At the same time the abandoned Gessius Florus
(64-66), the Nero of the Holy Land, the successor of the wretched Albinus,
made havoc in Judaea,

Remark 2.—The Book of Acts embraces the period from a.p. 31 to a.p.
64, in which there reigned as Roman emperors: (1) Tiberius (from 19th August
14), until 16th March 37 ; (2) Caligula, until 24th January 41; (3) Claudius,
until 15th October 54 ; (4) Nero (until 9th June 68),

AUTHORITIES TO WHICH REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE IN THE
FOLLOWING CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.

Euseb. Chronicon in Mai nova Collect. VIII. p. 374 ff.—Hieron. Chronic. and
de vir. ill. 5.—Chronicon paschale, ed. Dindorf.—Baronii Annal. ecclesiast. Rom.
1588, and later editions.—Petavius, de doctrina tempor. Par. 1627, in his Opp.
Amst. 1640.—Cappelli hist. apostolica illusir. Genev. 1634, and later editions.
—Usserii Annal. V. e N. T. Lond. 1650, and later editions.—Fried. Spanheim
(the son of Fried. Spanh.), de convers. Paulinae epocha fiza, in his Opp. Lugd.
Bat. 1701, III. p. 311 ff., and his Hist. Eccl. N. T. in his Opp. I. p. 534 ff.—
Pearson, Lection. in priora Act. capita, and Annales Paulin. and in his Opp.
posthuma, ed. Dodwell, Lond. 1688.—Tillemont, Mémoires pour servir a@
' histoire ecclés. Par. 1693, Bruxell. 1694.—Basnage, Annal. politico-eccles.
Roterod. 1706, I. p. 403 ff.—J. A. Bengel, ordo tempor. Stuttg. 1741, third edi-
tion, 1770.—Michaelis, Hinleit, in d. géttl. Schr. d. N. B. TT. § 169.—Vogel, ib.
chronol. Standpunkte in d. Lebensgesch. Pauli, in Gebler’s Journ. fir auserles.
theol. Lit. 1805, p. 229 ff.—Heinrich's Prolegom. p. 45 ff.—The Introductions
of Hug, Eichhorn, and Bertholdt.—Siiskind, neuer Versuch fiber chronol. Stand-
‘punkte f. d. Ap. Gesch. u. f. d. Leben Jesu in Bengel’s Arch. I. 1, p. 156 ff., 2,
p. 297 ff. Comp. the corrections in Vermischte Aufsiétze meist theol. Inhalts, |
‘ed, C, F. Siskind, Stuttg. 1831.—J. E. Chr. Schmidt, Chronol. d. Ap. Gesch.
in Keil’s and Tzschirner’s Annal, III. p. 128 ff.—Kuinoel, Prolegom. § 7.—
Winer, Realworterb. ed. 3, 1848.—De Wette, Fini. § 118.—Schrader, Der Ap.
Paulus, 1. Lpz. 1830.—Hemsen, Der Ap. Paulus, ed. Liicke, Gott. 1830 (agrees
with Hug).—Koehler, ab. d. Abfassungszeit d. epistol. Schriflen im N. T. u. d.
Apokalypse, Lpz. 1830. Comp. the corrections in Annalen der gesammten Theol.
Jun. 1832, p. 233 ff. (in Koehler’s review of Schott’s Hrérterung, etc.).- -Feil-
moser, Einl. p. 308 ff.—Schott, Isag. § 48. Comp. the corrections in Krdrterung
einig. wicht. chronol. Punkte in d. Lebensgesch. d. Ap. Paulus, Jen, 1832, —
Wurm, &b. d. Zeitbestimmungen im Leben d. Ap. Paulus in the Tub. Zeitschr, f.
Theol. 1833, pp. 1 ff., 261 ff.—Olshausen, bibl. Kommentar. I.—Anger, de tempor.
in Act. ap. ratione, Lpz. 1833.—Wieseler, Chronologie d. apost. Zeitalt. Gdtt. 1848,
and Kommentar z. Br. an d. Gal. Gdtt. 1859, Excurs. p. 553 ff. ; also in Her-
zog’s Encykl. XXI. p. 552 ff.—Ewald, Gesch. d. apost. Zeitalt. ed. 3, 1868.—See
also Géschen, Bemerkungen sur Chronol. d. N. T. in the Stud. u. Krit. 1831, p.
701 ff.—Sanclemente, De vulgaris aerae emendatione, Rom. 1793.—Ideler,
Handb. d. Chronol. II. p. 366 ff.

20 INTRODUCTION,

SYNOPSIS OF THE DATES FIXED

gy | | ld |
. a = a | ad ° gs
sig/ 8S {Sigs |= le2ai.| 3
Sa) esl(eeas4 2228 2 leit
si | e3 Pid Sea zis) 2 | B/S)
al om | “Ee aSe28\ a |e | mle
eee eee o—e oom | eee ee a a a a SS SS SS SS ry eens aes eee
Ascension of Christ, . . 81 ha 8} 31 Be oe 33 g's 33 80 88 | 31 | 88 | 31?
ie
Stephen's martyrdom, 33 or84 ciaad 32 81 37 = Has;Ts) S67] ..

Paul's conversion, . . . 35

Paul's first whee de to Jeru-
ralem,. . . . 38

|
| !
sale |
83 claad. ene 40 |35 54 37 31) 872 | 88?| 872, 8
Claud. an 87 (86 4288 43 89 174083) .. 186?! 40 | 88
a | | | |

Paul's arrival at Antioch, 43

P Claud.) 41 40 42°48 437 42 45 “ty es -- | 42?
e) | te 4 about 43

Death of James,. . 44 1'41 44 4H 42, .. | or | 44
| a ie a oe

he famine, .. - 4141 44 : eh 44 44444244 44 | .. | or | 44
“| | | a 46?

qerieicae! fick, 42 44 tie 4 ‘dy 4 al 44 | 44) 44) 44

’ . a. 44 44 45, 44.4445 45 44
Paul's first mrennopery son . (Claud. yd 42 to to! .. {to toto tol

ney, . : 45-51

Paul’ a third journey iG Je-
rusalem, to me papas
Council, . . 52

Paul commences hie sebond
missionary journey, .

| ees to
V. ae 45 pen we iti 47 46) 47?
ee ve 9 49 46 52, 53 (49 3) /50 47). | 479) 47?

< | |

a 49 ave -. (SO bt \s0 47 as

Expulsion of the cone: on

iq
ome,. .. 52 49 ee 49 494954 .. |B2 io 51...) 54? | 592] 82

4]
| ale

ga 64762952 51 ‘3! B4? | 5997] 52

| | |
dota ws 54/54 59 49 -- | 542] 54
83 eye Fil ‘5404 64 f0
to tatoto to lto'toto to) ..
55 Fi5559 58 67/57 55 Be

|
or | 56 5554.60 59 /58 58 56

Paul arrives at Corinth, . 53-

Panl’s fourth journey to Je-
rusalem (a@2.Cue-area), and
third missionary journey, 55

A
woke
wl

Paul's abode at Ephesus, 55-38

i
1
iF
ae
=i
i
“if
q

St :

Paul’s fifth qouracy to Jern-

aa
salem, and imprisonment, 59 54 56 | 57?! 60 | 59
Paul’s removal from Caes- in
area to Rome,. . . = 614/55) 97 | se 56. 08,50-62, 60 ona 62 |s02| 62 | 61
Paul's two years’ imprison- up to 57 67 57 68 61 |61/61'60 68 | 60| 68 | 62
ment at me, ‘gba 62-64 ee IV. ee to tototo to ‘tolto to A to to to to

59 59 50 65 58 63/63 62 58 65 | 62; 65 | 64

1 Lehmann (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. $12 ff.) furnishes from this point onward the follow.
ing dates :—Second journey to Jerusalem, 44 ; first missionary journey, 45 and 46; apostolic
council, 47; second missionary journey, 48,—in 49 Paul arrives at Corinth ; fourth journey to
Jerasalem, 51; third missionary journey, 52, during which he remains at Ephesus from the
autumn of 52 until 54, and {n 55 proceeds to Macedonia and Greece ; fifth journey to Jcrusalem,
and imprisonment, 56; removal from Caesarea to Rome, 58; : imprisonment in Rome, 59 to 61.—
These dates chiefly depend on the assumption that Felix had been recalled as early as the year
58.—Laurent, neutest. Stud. p. 94 ff , fixes. with me, on the ycar 61 as that of the departure of
Felix and the voyage of the apostle.—Gerlach (Statthaller in Syrien und Judda, $ 14) does, not

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE, 21

BY DIFFERENT CHRONOLOGISTS.

le |
‘ ; r . | | y | Ball
3|a | ad = eB igi ; = | les| &
Ble) ele]elslZielf2e) eli) ¢ Sle k
Sitl4a/8\)4/e8'|% |}2/138 215 |4| & [8s & te
eis|e/2/8|F/8 |e lee) e)e \s 1 a3) 2 &
ee eal OST Me Mea) — ft ot ote os td ee hes tan oe
3 a2) .. | 38 |80f) .. | 85 | 86 3a 3g $3 81 | yy) 30 es
a7 | | | !
a7 | .. | 88 | as oe a a5 | 36 ei a7 a0? |38
a7 | ST 5 |
or 32 | di 40 Gi es s) | 87 35 8&7 41 | 35 | 38 of 40 |38
40 did 40 | | | 88 |
or |} 43) 3% | not | 4 | dl | ofr 42 };40 3 40 43 | 38 | 41 jor) 43 41
41 | occur. a | | | on dl | |
2 | 4 7 or | 43 | 41 )..) « , dl ora | 44 |4
| 43 43 “ | | a3 ] |
44 | or oF 44) 46 | 44 | 41 )..) 44 : or 44
dd |
i | | | 44 }
or |4| 477] . 4 | 44 = _ he) 4 | |. | ors 45 ite
a | or 467; 46
44 at 4
44/44) 46 | 44 | 44 | 45 or 44) 41 44] 44 | 45 | 4 or $8 44 | 45 te
5 or 46%
ane’ 45 | to |_to | 45 48
45 ff. 46 ff P aa ap 45! | S | -@: 49 abyut | to i
i
50 49 | |
sav| az? | 55 | 52 |5t| or | 47 | 51 |2 or | 46 2] St | 53 about sg
bl
537 C 2 or a7 | Ba || og. |] tee) Be a on ‘5g
|
\betw. not | | Bb |
sat | 5a jabontiabont) po | sa | 52 | 49 | 52 53: 58 |before .. | or | .. | s@ |b:
4s Ht and 49 | 5a
ee | | 52 | |
about) s3| 48 | 5st | se |s2| or | 49 | 52 53 or | 49 | 68| 52 | ../| 52 (59
rs] | | | 38 |
r | 53 = bea | | . ; iF
66 | 55} 50 Caes. eh or | 51 | 54 55) Coes) 5 * Bi | be | BA
7 |65| 80 | 55 | bt to SS Od | Gd | OU OM ot
to | to] to ee e- | to | or |51ff B7 it to to jand to 10 Ing
89 | 58] 53 57 ee ha 56 57 | n 87
60 | 58] 58 eo) 57 | 58 He 589 | 58 is 59 5 | 60, 88 | 60 | b8 [89
1 |
6 110) 8S 61 589 | 6 “ 61 | 60 a 61 62; 60 | 62} 60 |61
63 | 61 62 60 | 61) 62 62 | 61 61. 62 61 | 68; 61 | 68; 61 (62
to |to| .. to to | to] to to | to to to to | to, to | to] to |to
65 | 63 64 62 | B&B | 64 64 | 6 8. 64 6) 68 | 6 | €4 [6

enter on the chronological question, but fixes on the year 60 or 61.—Holtzmann, Judenth. u.
Caristenth. p. 547 ff., agrees in essential points with our dates.—Stditing, Beifr. z. Exeges. d.
Paul, Br. 1869, starting from the assumption that the fourteen years in Gal. fi. 1 are to be
reckoned from the conversion to the composition of the Epistle, and that so likewise the four-
teen vears in 2 Cor. xii. 2 are to be determined, fixes for the conversion of Paul the year 40; for
the first journey to Jerusalem, 48 (for the second, 45); for the third, 49; for the eecond mis-

sionary Journey to Corinth, 50-52 ; for the fourth journey to Jerusalem, 53; for the arrest, 56;
for the two years’ imprisonment, 59 to 61.

22 INTRODUCTION.

Norse sy American Eprror.
(D)

Although the author contends strongly for the date he assigns for the
ascension, that the feast referred to in John v. 1 was not the Passover, but
the feast of Purim, and hence our Lord's public ministry extended only over
a period of a little more than two years, the exact chronology of the Acts is
still an unsettled question. The great diversity in the chronological table
furnished by him is proof of this. ‘The vxact number of Passovers from
the baptism to the crucifixion of Christ, and the length of our Lord’s ministry,
are points on which there is much difference of opinion. -For myself I can
see no better view than the old one, that our Lord’s ministry lasted three
years.”’ ( Ryle.)

‘* What this feast was is, in all probability, a question which, though inter-
esting and important in settling the length of our Lord’s ministry, will never
receive a final answer.” ‘‘ The data are clearly insufficient to decide convin-
cingly how long Christ publicly taught on earth, nor shall we ever be able to
attain any certainty on that deeply interesting question.” (Farrar, Ex. VIIL.,
Life of Christ.)

Dr. Robinson in his Harmony of the Gospels, and Dr. McDonald, of Prince-
ton, in his Life and Writings of John, both consider the Passover to be re-
ferred to in John v. 1—as does also Dr. Jacobus in his Notes.

Hackett says: ‘‘The chronology of the Acts is attended with uncertainties
which no efforts of critical labor have been able to remove.” And he gives
A.D, 33 as the probable date of the ascension. In this opinion Lewin and
Canon Cooke concur, as does also Dr. P. J. Gloag in the introduction to his
excellent commentary. Canon Farrar, in Excursus X. appended to his Life
and Work of St. Paul, says: ‘‘How widely different have been the schemes
adopted by different chronologists, may be seen from the subjoined table,
founded on that given by Meyer.”

‘‘This important book forms the grand connecting link of the Gospels with
the Epistles, being a sort of appendix to the former, and an introduction to
the latter, and is therefore indispensably necessary to a right understanding of
both.’’ (Bloomfield.)

« Any view which attributes ulterior design to the writer beyond that of faith-
fully recording such facts as seemed important in the history of the Gospel,
is, I am persuaded, mistaken, Many ends are answered by the buok in the
course of this narration, but they are the designs of Providence, not the studied
purposes of the writer.” (<Alford.)

‘« The purpose of the writer was, evidently, to narrate the work ef Christ con-
tinned after his ascension, and wrought through the Holy Spirit, and to fur-
nish his readers with an account of how Christianity, after the death of its
Founder, was preserved, established, and in so short a time communicated to
so many nations.” (Denton.)

The evidential value of the book is very great when considered in relation
to the Gospels, the Epistles of Paul, and the facts of external history ; and its
bearing on the organization, worship, mission work, and future history of the
Charch is most obvious and important. (See Introductions by Plumptre and by
Howson. )

CRITICAL NOTES. 23

IIpa&es trav anxocroAwy.

B, Lachm. Tisch. have mpéfeis drocréAwv. So also Born. Later enlarge-
ments of the title in codd.: <Aovxa evayyeAtotud mpadéets amooréAwy, al, al
apages Trav dyiwy aroordAwy. Peculiar to D ; mpaéS anoordAwy. ® has merely
medées, but at the close mpafers aroordAwv.—The codex D is particularly rich in
additions, emendations, and the like, which Bornemann has recently defended
as the original text. Matth. ed. min. p. 1 well remarks: ‘Hic liber (the
Book of Acts) in re critica est difficillimus et impeditissimus, quod multa in eo
turbata sunt. Sed corruptiones versionum Syraram, Bedae et scribae codicis
D omnem modum excedunt.” Tisch. justly calls the proceeding of Borne-
mann, ‘‘monstruosam quandam ac perversam novitatem” (k).

CHAPTER I.

Ver. 4. ovvadccéuevos] min. Euseb. Epiph. have ovvavadéuevos. Recom-
mended by Wetst. and Griesb. D has cuvadioxouevos per attrav. Both are
ineptly explanatory alterations. — Ver. 5. The order : é¢v rvevz. Barr. dyiy, adopted
by Lachm., is not sufficiently attested by B ®*° against A C E min. vas. Or. al. —
Ver. 6. émnpdrwv)] Lachm. Tisch. read jpdrwv, according to A B C* &, the weight
of which, considering the frequency of both words in Luke, prevails. — Ver. 8.
pot) Lachm. Tisoh. Bornem. read pvv, decisively attested by A B C D & Or. —
Instead of micy, Elz. Griesb. Scholz read év macy. But ev is wanting in A C*
D min. Copt. Sahid. Or. Hilar. Inserted in accordance with the preceding. —
Ver. 10. éo6qre Aevxg] ABC 8 min. Syr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. Eus. have éo6yc0201
AevxaiS, Adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.. The Rec. is the usual expression.
Comp. on Luke xxiv. 4, — Ver. 13. Lachm. Tisch. Bornem. have the order
"Iwdvins «x, "Idxwfos, whioh is supported by A B C DW& min. vas., also Vulg.
and Fathers. The Rec. is according to Luke vi. 14.— Ver. 14. After xpocevz9
Elz. has «a rp dejcet, which, on decisive testimony, has been omitted by
modern critics since Griesbach. A strengthening addition. — Ver. 15. uabyrav]
A B C* & min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. Aug. have adeAgav : recom-
mended by Griesb., and rightly adopted by Lach. and Tisch. ; the Rec. is an
interpretation of adedg., here occurring for the first time in Acts, in the sense
of nabyr. — Ver. 16. ravrny is wanting in A B C* 8% min. and several vss. and
Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. But the omission occurred because no express
passage of Scripture immediately follows. — Ver 17. cvv] Griesb. Scholz, Lachm.
Tisch. Born. read ev according to decisive testimony ; ov» is an interpretation.
— Ver. 19. 'AxeAdaua] There are different modes of writing this word in the
critical authorities and witnesses. Lachm. and Tisch. read ‘AxeAdauaz accord-
ing to A B; Born. ‘AceAdaiuay according to D; & has ‘AzeAGauay. — Ver. 20.
AdBor] Lachm. Tisch. and Bor. read A/a@erw according to A B O D® Eus.
Chrys. ; Ad3o: was introduced from the LXX. — Ver. 24. 6v &&A. éx tovr. tav dvo
éva} Elz. has éx rovr. ray dvo éva by eéA.,-in opposition to greatly preponderat-

24 CHAP, I., 1-3.

ing testimony. A transposition for the sake of perspicuity. — Ver. 25. rav xAjjpov)
ABC’ D (rox, rév) Copt. Sahid. Vulg. Cant. Procop. Aug. read riv rizov.
Adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. (rérov rév). Rightly ; the Rec. is a gloss
according to ver. 17. — ag’ 45] Elz. Scholz read éé 7s. The former has prepon-
derating testimony.— Ver 26 airdv] A BC D** & min. vss. have atrois. So
Lachm. and Tisch. The dative not being understood gave place to the geni-
tive. Others left out the pronoun entirely (Syr. Erp.).

Ver. 1. Tav piv rpdrov Adyo0v éxorno.| Luke calls his Gospel the first history,
inasmuch as he is now about to compose a second. xpdros, in the sense of
pporepos. See on Johni. 15. Adyos, narrative, history, or the like, what is
contained in a book.’ As to roeyv used of mental products, comp. Plat.
Phaed. p. 61 B: roteiv pious, ada’ ob Adyovs. Hence Aoyoroids = icropixds,?
pév, without a subsequent dé. Luke has broken off the construction.
Instead of continuing after ver. 2 somewhat as follows: ‘‘ but this devrepos
Aéyos is to contain the further course of events after the Ascension,’’ which
thought he had before his mind in the ,pév, ver. 1,—he allows himself
to be led by the mention of the apostles in the protasis to suppress the
apodosis, and to pass on at once to the commencement of the history
itself.s — xep! xdvrwy] a popular expression of completeness, and therefore
not to be pressed. — wy jpéaro x.t.4.] dv is attracted, equivalent to 4; and,
setting aside the erroneous assertion that jpgaro noeiv is equivalent to
eroinoe (Grotius, Calovius, Valckenaer, Kuinoel), it is usually explained :
‘‘what Jesus began to do and to teach (and continued) until the day,” etc.,
as if Luke had written : dv apéduevos "Inoobs émo'nce x. edidakev Gype x.7.A.
Comp. xi. 4.4 But Luke Aas not so written, and it is arbitrary thus to
explain his words. Baumgarten, after Olshausen and Schneckenburger,
has maintained that 7pfaro denotes the whole work of Jesus up to His as-
cension as initial and preparatory, so that this second book is conceived as
the continuation of that doing and teaching which was only begun by Jesus
up to His ascension ; as if Luke had written jpéaro rordv re xai diddoxwr,®
In point of fact, 7pgaro is inserted according to the very frequent custom
of the Synoptists, by which that which is done or said is in a vivid und
graphic manner denoted according to its moment of commencement. It thus
here serves to recall to the recollection from the Gospel all the several
incidents and events up to the ascension, in which Jesus had appeared as
doer and teacher. The reader is supposed mentally to realize from the
Gospel all the scenes in which he has seen Jesus come forward as acting and

18o im Xen. Ages. 10. 8, Anad. ill. 1.1, and
frequently. See also Schweigh. Lew. Herod.
Il. p. 76; Creuzer Symbol. I. p. 44 ff.

3 Pearson, ad Mover. p. 244.

8 Comp. Winer, p. 535 (E. T. 720); Buttm.
neut. Gr. p. 818 (E. T. 865); Kihner, ad Xen.
Anabd, i, 2.1; Baeuml]. Partik. p. 168 f.

4 Plat. Legg. vil. p. 807 D; Xen. Anad. vi.
4.1; Lucian, Somm. 15; aleo Luke xxiii. 5,
xxiv. 2%, 47: Acts §. 22, vill. 35, x. 87. So also

Winer, p. 877 (E. T. 7%); Buttm. p. 820 (E.
T. $74); Lekebusch, p. 202 f. So aleo in
substance Hackett, Commentary on the Orig:
tnal Text of the Acts of the Apostles, Boston,
1838. ed 2.

5 As Xen. Cyr viii. 8. 2: dpfoua: d8acney,
I shail hegin my teaching. Plat. Theaet. p.
167 A. Menez. p. 287 A; comp. Kriiger, § 50.
5, A. 1.

—we .

REFERENCE TO THE GOSPEL 25

teaching,—a beginning of the Lord, which occurred in the most various
instances and varied ways up to the day of His ascent. The emphasis,
moreover, lies on woteiv re xat diddoxecv, which comprehends the contents of
the Gospel.' It muy, consequently, be paraphrased somewhat thus: ‘‘ The
JSirst narrative I have composed of all that, by which Jesus exhibited His activity
in doing and teaching during His earthly life up to His ascension.”? moreiv
precedes, comp. Luke xxiv. 19, because it was primarily the ézpya of Jesus
that demonstrated His Messiahship, John x. 88 ; Acts x. 38.

Ver. 2. Until the day on which He was taken up, after that He had com-
missioned by means of the Holy Spirit the apostles whom He haul chosen, belong-
ing to wv f#psaro x.r,A,— aype 45 nuépas] a usual attraction, but to be ex-
plained as in ver. 22; Luke i. 20, xvil. 27; Matt. xxiv. 38. — évresAdpevos |
refers neither merely to the daptismal command, Matt. xxviii., nor merely to
the tnjunction in ver. 4; but is to be left as general: having given them
charges, ‘‘ut facere solent, qui ab amicis, vel etiam ex hoc mundo disce-
dunt,’’ Beza. — did rvedy, dyiov] belongs to évreA. rots axoor.: by means of
the Holy Spirit, of which He was possessor (Luke iv. 1, xiv. 18; John iii.
84, xx. 22), and by virtue of which He worked, as in general, so specially
as regards His disciples (ix. 55). Yet it is not to be explained as: by com-
munication of the Spirit (comp. Bengel), since this is not promised till after-

‘wards ; nor yet as: quae agere deberent per Spir. 8. (Grot.), which the words

cannot bear. Others* connect did mvedp. dy. with obS t&eAégaro, quos per Sp.
8. elegerat. But there thus would result a hyperbaton which, without any
certain example in the N. T.,* would put a strong emphasis and yet without
any warrant in the context, on did wv. ayiov. {— ob$ téeAgé.| is added with
design and emphasis ; it is the significant premiss to évreAdu. x.7.A. (whom
He had chosen to Himself) ; for the earlier €xAoy7 on the part of Jesus was a
necessary preliminary to their receiving the évroAj dia mv, dy. — aveAyobn|
Luke ix. 51, xxiv. 51 (Elz.).

Ver. 8. OiS xual] to whom also, To the foregoing obs é§eAéé., namely, there
is attached a corresponding incident, through which the new intercourse,
in which the évrecAduevos x.r.A. took place, is now set forth. —jyera ro
naGev airév] includes in it the death as the immediate result of the
suffering (iii. 18, xvii. 8, xxvi. 28; Heb. xiii. 12).— de’ quép. reooapdx, |
He showed Himself to them throughout forty days, (F) not continuously, but
Jrom time to time, which is sufficiently indicated as well known by the
preceding év wodA, rexunpios. — rad rept HS Bac, r. Geod| speaking to them
that which related to the Messiah's kingdom, which He would erect. The
Catholics have taken occasion hence to assume that Jesus at this stage
gave instructions concerning the hierarchy, the seven sacraments, and
the like.—As ‘to the variation of the narrative of the forty days from
the narrative given in the Gospel, see on Luke xxiv. 50 f. This diversity

1 Comp. Paplas in Eus. iil, 89. 2 Winer, p. 517 (E. T. 696); Battm. newd,
28yr. Ar. Aeth. Cyril, Augustine, Beza, Gr. p. 383 (E. T. 888).
Scaliger, Heamann, Kypke, Michaelis, Ro- ‘Plat. Apol. p. 19 D, al. ; Diesen, ad Dem.
senmilller, Heinriche, Kuinoel, Olshausen,de décor. p. 177 f£.; and sce on Rom. xvi. 27.
Wette.

26 CHAP. L, 4-11.

presupposes that a not inconsiderable interval occurred between the
composition of the Gospel and that of Acts, during which the tradition
of the forty days was formed or at least acquired currency: The purposely
chosen dxravéuevos conspiciendum se praebens' corresponds to the changed
corporeality of the Risen One (comp. the remark subjoined to Luke xxiv.
51), but does not serve in the least degrec to remove that discrepancy
(in opposition to Baumgarten, p. 12), as if it presupposed that Jesus, on
occasion of every appearance, quitted ‘‘the sphere of invisibility.’’
Comp. the 967 in Luke xxiv. 24; 1 Cor. xv. 5 ff.; comp. with John '
xx. 17; Actgi. 21 f., x. 41; Luke xxiv, 42 f.

Ver. 4. To the general description of the forty days’ intercourse is
now added by the simple «ei, and, in particular, the description of the
two last interviews, ver. 4 f. and ver. 6. ff., after which the aveAng6y
took place, ver. 9. — cuvadrcou. wapnyy. abros|] while He ate with them, He
commanded them. ovvadcou. is thus correctly understood by the vss.
(Vulg.: convescens), Chrysostom (rparécns xorvwvav), Theophylact, Oecume-
nius, Jerome, Beda, and others, including Casaubon. — ovvadicecfac (prop-
erly, to eat salt with one) in the sense of eating together, is found in
a Greek translator of Ps. cxli. 4, where cvvadiofw (LXX.: ovvdudcw)
corresponds to the Hebrew DIN, also in Clem. Hom. 6, and Maneth. v.
339. <Asto the thing itself, comp. on x. 41. Usually the word is de-
rived from ovvadiveyv, to assemble.? It would then have to be rendered ;
when He assembled with them.” But against this it is decisive that the
sense: when He had assembled with them, would be logically necessary, so
that Luke must have written ovvudis6eis. The conjecture of Hemsterhuis :
ovvaa:Couéevas, is completely unnecessary, although approved by Valckenaer.
— Tv Exayyediay tov marpés| see on Luke xxiv. 49. Jesus means the promise
xar’ éfox7v, given by God through the prophets of the O. T. (comp. ii.
16), which, i.¢. the realization of which, they were to wait for (xepiuévery
only here in the N. T., but often in the classics); it referred to the
complete effusion of the Holy Spirit, which was to follow only after
His exaltion. Comp. John vil. 39, xv. 26, xiv. 16. Already during
their earthly intercourse the mveiya dy. was communicated by Jesus to
the disciples partially and provisionally. Luke ix. 55; John xx. 21, 22.—
hv ixovoaré wou| The oblique form of speech is changed, as frequently also
in the classics,‘ with the increase of animation into the direct form, Luke
v. 41, and elsewhere, particularly with Luke.*® Bengel, moreover, aptly
says: ‘* Atque hic parallelismus ad arctissimum nexum pertinet utriusque
hbri Lucae,’’—but not in so far as 7v Qxove. pov points back to Luke xxiv.
49 as to an earlier utterance (the usual opinion), but in so far as Jesus

1 Comp. Tob. xii. 19; 1 Kings viii. 8. had employed the active. This is gram-
2 Herod. v. 15. 102; Xen. Anabd. vii. 3. 48: matically incorrect; 1¢ muet then have been
Lucian, Luct. 7. ovvadcgev, or, with logical accuracy (as Luther

*Not as Luther (when He had assembled felt), cvvadicas.
them), Grotius (“in unum recolligena qui * Stallb. ad Profag. pp 322 C, 338 B, Kthner,
dispersi fuerunt’’), and most interpreters, § 850.
including even Kuinoel and Olshausen (not ® See Buttm. newt. Gr. p. 880 (i. T. 385).
Beza and de Welte), explain it, as if Luke

LAST WORDS OF JESUS. 27

here, shortly before his ascension, gives the same intimation which was also
given by Him on the ascensicn day (Luke xxiv. 49), directly before the
ascent ; although according to the gospel the day of the resurrection coin-
cides with that of the ascension (B, p. 6). Therefore 7 7xobc. pou is to be
considered as a reference to a former promise of the Spirit, not recorded by
Luke. Comp. John xiv. 16 f., xv. 26.—On axovew ri rivos, see Winer, p.
187 (E. T. 249).

Ver. 5. Reminiscence of the declaration of the Baptist, Luke iii. 16 ; John
i, 83. ‘‘Foron you the baptism of the Spirit will now soon take place
which John promised instead of his baptism of water.’’—Satriofjceobe] riv
éxizvow nai tov mAovrov TiS xopnyiasS onyatve., Theophyl.; Matt. iii. 11;
Mark i. 8; Luke iii. 16; Acts xi. 16. Moreover, comp. on John i. 83.—
ob peta TOAA, raur. Huép.| is not a transposition for ob modi pera rar. hyip.,
but : not after many of these, now and, up tothe setting in of the future
event, still current, days.'| The pusition of the negative is to be explained
from the idea of contrast, not after many, but after few.*

Ver. 6. Not qui convenerant (Vulgate, Luther, and others), as if what
follows still belonged to the scene introduced in ver. 4; but, as is evident
from ovvaii¢., ver. 4, comp. with ver. 12, a new scene, at which the ascen-
sion occurred (ver. 9). The word of promise spoken by our Lord as they
were eating (vv. 4, 5), occasioned (utv obv) the apostles to come together,
and in common to approach Him with the question, etc. Hence: They,
therefore, after they were come together, asked Him. Where this joint asking
occurred, is evident from ver. 12. To the uév corresponds the dé in ver. 7.
—tv 79 xpévy «.7.A.] The disciples, acquainted with the O. T. promise, that
in the age of the Messiah the fulness of the Holy Spirit would be poured
out (Joel iii. 1, 2; Acts ii, 16 ff.), saw in ver. 5 an indirect intimation of
the: now impending erection of the Messianic kingdom; comp. also
Schneckenburger, p. 169. In order, therefore, to obtain quite certain in-
formation concerning this, their nearest and highest concern, they ask :
‘“* Lord, if Thou at this time restorest the (fallen) kingdom to the people Israel ?”’
The view of Lightfoot, that the words were spoken in indignation‘ simply
introduces arbitrarily the point alleged.—ei] unites the question to the
train of thought of the questioner, and thus imparts to it the indirect
character. See on Matt. xii. 10, and on Luke xiii. 23.—év ro yp. rotiry]
i.e. at this present time, which they think they might assume from ver. 4 f.
—<aroxabicr,] See on Matt. xvii. 11. By their r@ "Iopa7A they betray
that they have not yet ceased to be entangled in Jewish Messianic
hopes, according to which the Messiah was destined for the people of

1 Comp. Winer, p. 152 (E. T., 201).

2 See Kfihner, II. 6238. On ravrac, inserted
between woAA. and ymep., comp. Xen. Anad.
fv, 2. 6, v. 7. 20, vii. 8.30; Dem. 90.11; Ale.
1, 14. :

3 Concerning the dime of the question, this
expreesion ¢v te xpévy rovry gives 80 far in-
formation that it must have occurred very
soon aftcr that meal mentioned in ver. 4, so

that no discussions intervened which would
have diverted them from this definite inquiry
as to the time, Therefore it was probably
on the same day. The rovry is thus ex.
plained, which sounds as a fresh echo of that
Ov meta WOAA, TavT. np.

4 “Ttane nunc regnum restitues Judaeis illis,
qui te cruct aflacrunt?™

28 CHAP. I., 4-11.

Israel as such; comp. Luke xxiv. 21. An artificial explanation, on
the other hand, is given in Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. 2, p. 647.—The cir-
cumstance that, by the declaration of Jesus, ver. 4 f., their sensuous expec-
tation was excited and drew forth such a rash question, is very easily ex-
plained just after the resurrection, and need occasion no surprise before the
reception of the Spirit itself; therefore we have not, with Baumgarten,
to impute to the disciples the reflection that the communicution of the
Spirit would be the necessary internal ground for all the shaping of the
future, according to which idea their question, deviating from the tenor
-of the promise, would be precisely a sign of their understanding.

Ver. 7 f. Jesus refuses to answer the question of the disciples ; not indeed
in respect of the matter itself involved, but in respect of the time inquired
after, as not beseeming them (observe the emphatic ody tudv ); and on the
contrary (444d) He turns their thoughts, and guides their interest to their
future official equipment and destination, which alone they were now to
lay to heart. Chrysostom aptly says : didaokddAou roiré éari ue) d Bovderar 6
pabnrys, d22’ d oupgéper pabeiv, didacKetv.—xpdvovs } xatpots] times or, in order
to denote the idea still more definitely, secsons, xacpés. is not equivalent to
xpévos, but denotes a@ definite marked off portion of time with the idea of fit-
ness.' On #, which is not equivalent to xai, comp. here Dem. Ol. 8:
tiva yap xpévov f tiva xatpdy rot mapbvros Beart Cyreire ;—Mero év rp idia ELovoig)
has established by means of His own plenitude of power. On év, comp. Matt. xxi.
28.— The whole declaration (ver. 7) is ageneral proposition, the application of
which to the question put by the disciples is left to them ; therefore only in re-
spect of this application is an ad hance rem perficiendam to be mentally supplied
with éero. Bengel, however, well observes: ‘‘ gravis descriptio reservati di-
vini ;’* and ‘‘ ergo res ipsa firma est, alias nullum ejus rei tempus esset.”’ But
this res ipsa was, in the view of Jesus, which, however, we have no right to put
into the question of the disciples, in opposition to Hofmann,’ the restoration
of the kingdom, not for the natural, but for the spiritual Israel, compre-
hending also the believing Gentiles (Rom, iv. 9), for the "Iopa7A rot Oeod
(Gal. vi. 16); see Matt. viii. 11; John x. 16, 26, viii. 42 ff. ai. ;
and already Matt iii. 9 ;—ddvayev éreA0 rou dy. rv. é¢’ buds] power, when
the Holy Spirit has (shall have) come upon you.*— udprepes] namely, of
my teaching, actions, and life, what ye all have yourselves heard and seen,
v. 21f., x. 39 ff. ; Luke xxiv. 48 ; Jolin xv. 27.—~» re ‘Iepovoaa. . . . TiS THS]
denotes the sphere of the apostles’ work in its commencement and prog-
ress, up to its most general diffusion; therefore ys y75 is not to be
explained of the land, but of the earth ; and, indeed, it is to be observed
that Jesus delineates for the apostles their sphere ideally, Comp. xiii. 47;
Isa. vill. 9; Rom. x. 18; Col. 1. 28; Mark xvi. 15.

Ver. 9. Kai vegéAn| This xai annexes what occurred after the exip@n, He was
taken up on high, not yet immediately into heaven. The cloud, which re-
ceived Him into itself, from before their eyes, is the visible manifestation

? See Thom. Mag. p. 480 f.; Tittm. Synon. 3 Schrifiew., IT. 2. p. 647.
NV. T. p. 41. 3 Winer, p. 119 (E. T. 156).

THE ASCENSION, 29

of the presence of God, who takes to Himself His Son into the glory of
heaven. Comp. on Luke i. 85; Matt. xvii. 5. Chrysostom calls this
cloud ro éxnua Tb Baotdtndv.— Concerning the ascension itself, which was cer-
tainly dodily, but the occurrence of which has clothed itself with Luke in the
traditionary form of an external visible event (according to Dan. vil. 138;
comp. Matt. xxiv. 30, xxvi. 64.' The representation of the scene betrays a
more developed tradition than in the Gospel, but not a special design (Schnec-
kenburger : sanction of the foregoing promise and intimation ; Baumgarten :
that the exalted Christ was to appear as the acting subject properly speaking
in the further course of the Bouk of Acts). Nothing of this kind is in-
dicated.

Vv. 10, 11. ’Arevi{ovres joay] expresses continuance: they were in jized
gazing. To this (not to ropevou. air.) es rdv obpavdvy belongs.’ Strangely
erroneous is the view of Lange, Apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 12: that os is not
temporal, but as if: ‘‘they wished to fix the blue (?) heaven, which one
cannot fix.’’ — mopevopévov airoi| whilst He, enveloped by the cloud, was
departing (into heaven). — xai idov] as in Luke vii. 12, Acts x. 17; not as an
anacoluthon, but: behold also there! *—The men are characterized as in-
habitants of the heavenly world,‘ angels, who are therefore clothed in white.
See on John xx. 12. — of xai elroy] who (not only stood, but) also said : comp.
ver. 3. — ri éorjxare «.7.A,| The meaning is: ‘‘ Remain now no longer sunk
in aimless gazing after Him; for ye are not for ever separated from this
Jesus,’ who will 'so come even as ye have seen Him go away into heaven.”’
— orwS] i.e. in the same manner come down from heaven in a cloud as He
was borne up. Comp. Matt. xxiv. 30.—On the emphasis o0d7uS, 6» rpdzov,
comp. xxvil. 25 ; 2 Tim. iii. 8.

Ver. 12. The ascension took place on the Mount of Olives, which is not
only here, but also in Luke xix, 29, xxi. 87, called éAaov.* Its locality is
indicated in Luke xxiv. 50, not differently from, but more exactly than in
our passage (in oppusition to de Wette and others) ; and accordingly there
is no necessity for the undemonstrable hypothesis that the Sabbath day’s
journey is to be reckoned from Bethphage.* It is not the distance of the
place of the ascension, but of the Mount of Olives, on which it occurred, that
is meant. Luke here supposes that more precisely defined locality as already
known ; but if he had had any particular design’ in naming the Mount of
Olives, he must have said so, and could least of all presume that Theophilus
would understand such a tacit prophetic allusion, especially as the Mount
of Olives was already sufficiently known to him from the Gospel, xix. 29,
xxi. 87, without any such latent reference. — caf Pdrov Fyov dd6v] having a

1 See remark subjoined to Luke xxiv, 51.

2 Comp. ill. 4, vi. 15, vii. 55, xi. 6, xili. 9; 2
Cor, iif. 7, 18. re ovparyy might also have
stood, Luke iv. 2%, xxii. 56; Acts ili. 12, x.
4, xxiii. 1. See generally, Valck. Schol. p.
809 ff. Comp. Polyb. vi. 11. 7%.

§ See Nagelabach, 2. Zias, p. 164, ed. 8.

‘According to Ewald, we are to think on
Moses and Elias, as at the transfiguration.

But if the tradition had meant t&4ese—and in
that case it would certainly have named them
—Luke would hardly have left them nnnamed.
Comp. rather Luke xxiv. 4; Acts x. 30.

§ Bee on Luke xix. 29.

® Wieseler, Synop. p. 435.

7 Baumgarten, p, 28 f.: that he wished to
lead their thoughts to the future, according
to Ezek. xi. 23 ; Zech. xiv. 6.

30 CHAP. L, 12-14.

Sabbath's way. The way is conceived as something which the mountain
has, t.e. which is connected with it in reference to the neighbourhood of
Jerusalem. Such is—and not with Wetstein and Kuinoel : éye pro amézew
-——the correct view also in the analogous passages in Kypke, lI. p. 8 The
more exact determination of 4 éoriv éyyds ‘lepovo. is here given; hence also
the explanation of Alberti' and Kypke, that it expresses the extent of the
mountain (Sabbati constans itinere), is contrary to the context, and the usc
of éxewv is to be referred to the general idea conjunctum quid cum quo esee.*
— A 0d0§ oagddrov, a journey permitted on the Sabbath,* according to the tra-
ditionary maxims, was of the length of 2000 cubits. See on Matt. xxiv.
20. The different statements in Joseph. Antt. xx. 8. 6 (six stadia), and
Bell. Jud. v. 2. 3 (five stadia), are to be considered as different estimates
of the small distance. Bethany was fifteen stadia from Jerusalem,‘ hence
the locality of the ascension is to be sought for beyond the ridge of the
mountain on its eastern slope.

Vv. 13, 14, Eion260v] not: into their place of meeting, as Beza and others
hold, but, in accordance with what immediately precedes: into the city.
The simple style of a continued narrative. — 7d uxepwov] my, the room
directly under the flat roof, used for praying and for meetings.’ It is here
to be conceived as in a private house, whose possessor was devoted to the
gospel, and not with de Dieu, Lightfoot, Hammond, Schoettgen, and
Krebs, as an upper room in the temple (on account of Luke xxiv. 53; see
on that passage), because, considering the hatred of the hierarchy, the
_temple could neither be desired by the followers of Jesus, nor permitted to
them as a place for their special closed meetings. Perhaps it was the same
room as in Jolin xx. 19, 26.— ob joav xaray,] where, i.e. in which they were
wont to reside, which was the place of their common abode. The following
6 re Mérpos x.r.A. ig a supplementary more exact statement of the subject of
dvisyoar, According to Acts, it is expressly the Eleven only, who were
present at the ascension. In the Gospel, xxiv. 83, comp. vv. 36, 44, 50,
the disciples of Emmaus and others are not excluded ; but according to
‘Mark xvi. 14, comp. vv. 15, 19, 20, it is likewise only the Eleven.—As to
the list of the apostles, comp. on Matt. x. 2-4; Mark iii. 17, 18; Luke vi.
14-16. — 6 CyAwrns] the (formerly) zealot. See on Matt. x. 4. — 'lotdas
"laxwBov] the relationship is arbitrarily defined as : brother of the (younger)
James. It is: son of (an otherwise unknown) James. See on Luke vi. .
15 ; John xiv. 22; and Huther on Jude, Introd. § 1. Already the Syriac
gives the correct rendering. — dzoOvyzadév] denotes no mere external being-
together ; but, as Luther correctly renders it: unanimoualy.* — odv yuvasi]

! Ad Lue. xxiv. 18.

2 Herm. ad Vig. p. 7658.

8 According to Schneckenburger, in the
Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 502, this statement
presupposes that the ascension occurred on
the Sabbath. But the inference is rash, and
without any historical trace.

*John xi. 16. See also Robinson, ll. p.
300 f.

+ Hieros. Sotah, f. 24.2. See Lightfoot, p.
11. f.,and Vitringa, Synag. p. 145, and con-
cerning the word generally, which is very
common with classical writers and nota com-
pound, see Valckenaer, Schol. p. 817 £.; Lo-
beck, Etem. I. p. 452 (.

6 Comp. Dem. PA. IV. 147: opoOvpador ex
sas yrenys. So throughout in Acts and
Rom. xv. 6.

RETURN TO JERUSALEM. 31

along with women ; not: eum uzoribus (as Calvin holds) ;? they are partially
known from the Gospels; Matt. xxvi. 56, 61; Luke viii. 2 f., xxiv. 10;
Mark xv. 40 f. —xai Map‘¢] xal, aleo, singles out, after the mention in gen-

eral terms, an individual belonging to the class as worthy of special remark.’ .

— adeAgois] The unbelief* of the four brothers-german (a) of the Lord was
very probably overcome by His resurrection. Comp. on 1 Cor. xv. 7. Ob-
serve that here, besides the eleven apostles, two other classes are specified as
assembled along with them (ody . . . xal ctv), namely (a), women, including
the mother of Jesus; and (0) the brethren of Jesus. Among the latter,
therefore, none of those eleven can be included, This, in opposition to
Lange, Hengstenberg, and older commentators. Comp. on John vii. 8.

Ver. 15. 'Ev rais jyép. ravr.] between the ascension and feast of Pente-
cost. — Ilézpos] even now asserting his position of primacy in the apostolic
circle, already apparent in the Gospels, and promised to him by Jesus
Himself. — rdv adsAgav (see the critical notes) denotes, as very often in the
Book of Acts and the Epistles, the Christians according to their brotherly
fellowship ; hence here (see the following parenthesis) both the apostles
and the disciples of Jesus in the wider sense. — dvoudr.] of persons, who are
numbered.‘—There is no contradiction between the number 120 and the
500 brethren in 1 Cor. xv. 6 (in opposition to Baur and Zeller, who suppose
the number to have been invented in accordance with that of the apostles :
12 X 10), as the appearance of Jesus in 1 Cor. 7. ¢., apart from the fact that
it may have taken place in Galilee, was earlier, when many foreign believers,
pilgrims to the feast, might have been present in Jerusalem, who had now
left.* — ént rd avré] locally united.*

Vv. 16, 17. “Avdpes adeAgoi is more honourable and solemn than the
simple familiar ddeAgoi,.1— ge] It could not but be an especial object
with Peter to lay the foundation for his judgment, by urging that the de-
struction of Judas took place not accidentally, but necessarily according to
the counsel of God, — tiv ypagiy tratrny] this which stands written—comp. on
viii. 835—is not, with Wolf and Eckermann, to be referred to Ps. xli. 10 (John
xiii, 18, xviii. 8), because otherwise that passage must have been adduced ;
but to the passages contained in ver. 20, which Peter has already in view,
but which he only introduces—after the remarks which the vivid thoughts
crowding on him as he names Judas suggest—at ver. 20 in connection with
what was said immediately before. — érz xarnp.] drt is equivalent to eis éxeivo,
ére (Mark xvi. 14; John ii. 18, ix. 17; 2 Cor. i. 18, al.). If Judas had not
possessed the apostolic office, the ypag7 referred to, which predicted the very

2 See also Calovius and others, not uninter-
ested in opposing celibacy.

* See Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 11.

8 fee on Matt. xil 46, xiii. 55; Mark vi. 8;
John vil. 5.

*Comp. Ewald, ad Apoo. 8. 4. The ex-
pression is not good Greek, but formed aftcr
the Hebrew, Num. i. 2, 18, 20, iff. 40, 43.

5 Comp. Wieseler, Synops. p. 434, and see
on 1 Cor. xv. 6; also Lechler, apost. u.

nachapoet. Zetlait. p. 275 f. ; Baumgarten, p,
29 f.

* Comp. fi. 1, ili. 1; Luke xvii. 85; Matt.
xxii. 34; 1 Cor. vil. 5, xi. 2, xiv. 28; Hist.
Susann. 14; often also in the LXX. and in
Greek writers. See Raphel, Folyd., and
Loesner. °

7 See il. 99, 87, vil. 2, ad. Comp. Xen. Anad.
1.6.6: dv8pes gid. Sce gencrally Sturz, Lez.
Xen. I. p. 288.

32 CHAP. I., 15-22.

vacating of an apostolic post, would not have been fulfilled in his fate. This ful-
filment occurred in his case, inasmuch as he was an apostle. — rdv cAfp. 175 dax.
tavr.| the lot of this (presenting itself in us apostles) ministry, i.e. the apostolic
office. Comp. Rom, xi. 18, 6 xAjpos is primarily the lot, ver. 26, then that
which is assigned by lot, and then generally what is assigned, the share; just
as in Greek writers.' Baumgarten gratuitously would understand it as an
antitype of the share of the twelve tribes in the land of Canaan. The gen-
itive is to be taken partitively—share in this ministry—as the idea of apostolic
Jedlowship, in which each xAnpodxos hus therefore his partial possession in the
service, also occurs in the sequel (sve vv. 22, 26). — Aayzadrew here not, as
in Luke i. 9, with the partitive genitive, but, as is usual (2 Pet. i. 1), with
the accusative of the object. The word is the usual term for obtaining by
lot, as in Luke i. 9; it next signifies generally to obtain, and is especially
used of the receiving of public magistracies.* So here in reference to r.
KAijp. Tt. dian, tavr. ; in which case, however, an allusion to a hierarchical
constitution (Zeller) is excluded by the generality of the uwsus loguendi of
the expressions, which, besides, might be suggested by the thought of the
actual use of the lot which afterwards took place. :

Ver. 18. This person now acquired for himself a field for the wages of his
iniquity—a rhetorical indication of the fact exactly known to the hearers :
Jor the money which Judas had received for his treason, a place, a piece of land,
was purchased, Matt. xxvii. 6-8. This rhetorical designation, purposely
chosen on account of the covetousness of Judas,‘ clearly proves that ver. 18
is part of the speech of Peter, and not, as Calvin, Heinrichs, Kuinoel,
Olshausen, and others think, a remark inserted by Luke. With regard to
the expression of the fact itself, Chrys. correctly remarks : 7Ocxdv roiei rdv
Adyov Kal AavOavévtus ri alriav radevtingy odcav aroxaAtnre. To go further,
and to assume—what also the fragment of Papias in Crumer’s Cat. narrates
—that the death of Judas took place in the jield itsel7,* is not warranted by
any indication in the purposely chosen form of representation. Others,
such as Strauss, Zeller, de Wette, Ewald, have been induced by the direct
literal tenor of the passage to assume a tradition deviating from Matthew,
that Judas himself had actually purchased the field ; although it is im-
probable in itself that Judas, on the days immediately following his treason,
and under the pressure of its tragical event, should have made the purchase
of a property, and should have chosen for this purchase the locality of
Jerusalem, the arena of his shameful deed, — «ai xpyv7s yevdu., etc.] xal is
the simple and, annexing to the infamous deed its bloody reward. By
aprvns yevou.® x.t.A,, the death of Judas is represented as a violent fall,’ and
bursting. The particular circumstances are presupposed as well known,

1 Comp. Acts vifi. 21, xxvi. 18; Wied. ii 9,
v. 5; Ecclus, xxv. 19,

2 Sce Bernhardy, p. 176 ; Eliendt, Lex. Soph.
IT. p. 2.

3 Dem. 1806. 14; Plat. Gorg. p. 478 E.

4 Beza aptly remarks that the mode of ex-
pression affirms “ non quid conatus sit Judas,
sed consiliorum ipstus eventum.”"

§ Hofm. Wetssag. u. Ey/. II. p. 184; Baumg.
p. 81; Lange.

*Which cannot be rendered suspensus
(Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, Castalio).

1 wpnvis, headlong: the opposite vUmrios,
Hom. Ji, xi. 179, xxiv. 11.

ADDRESS OF PETER 33

but are unknown to us, The usual mode of reconciliation with Matthew—
that the rope, with which Judas hanged himself, broke, and that thus
what is here related occurred—is an arbitrary attempt at harmonizing.
Luke follows another tradition, of which it is not even certain whether it
pointed to ewicide (D). The twofold form of the tradition, and in Papias there
occurs even a third,’ does not render a tragical violent end of Judas unhis-
torical in itself (Strauss, Zeller, and others), but only makes the manner
of it uncertain. See, generally, on Matt. xxvii. 5. — tAdxnoe] he cracked,
burst in the midst of his body—a rhetorically strong expression of bursting
with a noise.”

Ver. 19. Not even these words are to be considered, with the above
mentioned expositors,* as an inserted remark of Luke, but as part of the
speech of Peter. For all that they contain belongs essentially to the com-
plete description of the curse of the action of Judas: éyévero forms with
éAdxnor and éSeyvbn, ver. 18, one continuously flowing representation, and
yuuordv . .. ‘lepovo. is more suitable to rhetorical language than to that
of simple narration. But rg dig dtadéxty abrov4 and rodr’ gore yup. aip.
are two explanations inserted by Luke, the distinction between which and
Peter’s own words might be trusted to the reader ; for it is self-evident
(in opposition to Lange and older commentators) that Peter spoke not
Greek but Aramaic. — yvwordy éyév.] namely, what is stated in ver. 18.— |
adore] so that, in consequence of the acquisition of that field and of this
bloody death of Judas becoming thus generally known. According to our
passage, the name ‘‘ field of blood ’’ (73 4p, comp. Matt. xxvii. 8) was
occasioned by the fact that Judas, with whose wages of iniquity the
field was acquired, perished in a manner so bloody—according to others, on
the field itself (see on ver. 18). The passage in Matthew, /.c., gives
another and more probable reason for the name. But it is by no means
improbable that the name soon after the death of Judas became assigned,
first of all, in popular use, to the field purchased for the public destina-
tion of being a yopiov tvragijvar ;* hence Peter might even now quote this
name in accordance with the design of his speech. — didAexros] in the N.
T. only in Acts, a mode of speaking, may express as well the more general
idea of language, as the narrower one of dialect.* In both senses it is often
used by Polybius, Plutarch, etc. In the older Greek it is colloquium.”
In all the passages of Acts it is dialect, and that, excepting at ii. 6, 8,.
the Aramaic, although it has this meaning not in itself, but from its
more precise definition by the context.

1 See on Matt. xxvii. 5, and comp. Introd.
ecc. 1.

2 Hom. JZ, xill. 616 ; Act. Thom. 87.—¢fexv6n]
Comp. Ael. Antm. iv. 52: ra owAddyxva ef éxeav.

* Aleo Schlelerm,. Kini. p. 872.

4 avrev : of the dwellers of Jerusabm (who
epoke the Aramic dialect), spoken from the
standpoint of Luke and Theophilus, * qnoram
alter Graece scriberet alter legeret,'’ Erasmus.

® Aeschin. 1. 90; Matt. xxvill. 7.

* Valckenacr well observes on the distine-

tion between thesetwo ideas : ‘‘ Habent omnes.
Gtalecti aliquid inter se commune; habent
enim omnes candem Hnguam matrem, eed
dialectum efficit, qnod habent singulac pe-
culiare sibi.** The Greeks aleo employ dery
in both seneer (see also Clem. Al. Strom. &
21, p. 401. Pott).

7 Plat. Symp. p. 03 A. Theael. p. 146 B,
pronuntialio (Dem. 962%. 18), sermo (Arist..
Poet, 22).

34 CHAP. I., 23-26.

Ver. 20. T'dp] The tragic end of Judas was his withdrawal ffom the
apostolic office, by which a new choice was now necessary. But both that
withdrawal and this necessity are, as already indicated in ver. 16, to be
demonstrated not as something accidental, but as divinely ordained.—The
first passage is Ps. lxix. 26, freely quoted from memory, and with an
intentional change of the plural (LXX. airy), because its historical ful-
filment is represented «a7’ éfoy7» in Judas. The second passage is Ps. cix.
8, verbatim ufter the LXX. Both passages contain curses against enemies
of the theocracy, as the antitype of whom Judas here appears.—The émavacs
is not that ywpiov which had become desolate by the death of Judas (Chry-
sostom, Oecumenius, and others; also Strauss, Hufmann, de Wette,
Schneckenburger), but it corresponds to the parallel éx:oxor7, and as the
zeplov is not to be considered as belonging to Judas (see on ver. 18), the
meaning is: ‘* Let his farm, i.e. in the antitypical fulfilment of the saying
in the Psalm, the apostolic office of Judas, become desolate, forsaken by
its possessor, and non-existent, i.e. let him be gone, who has his dwelling
therein.”’ — tiv éxtoxon,] the oversight,’ the superintendence which he had
to exercise, TIPS, in the sense of the mAjpwors : the apostolic office. Comp.
1 Tim. iii. 1 (of the office of a bishop).

Vv. 21, 22. Ovv] In consequence of these two prophecies, according to
which the office of Judas had to be vacated, and its transference to another is
necessary. — Tov ovveAGévrwv] dependent on éva,ver. 22: one of the men who
have gone along with us,? who have taken part in our wanderings and journeys.
Others: who have come together with us, assembled with us.* 80 Vulgate,
Beza, de Wette, but never so in the N. T. See on Mark xiv. 58. — év zavri
xpbvy, év @] all the time, when, — eioziGe xai ejAOev] a current, but not a
‘Greek, designation of constant intercourse. Deut. xxviii. 19; Ps. cxxi. 8;
1 Sam. xxix. 6; 2 Chron. i. 10. Comp. John x. 9; Acts ix. 28. — éo’ duds]
& brief expression for £00. é¢’ Huds x. 2&8. ag’ hudy.4— aptép. . . . “lwavvev
is a parenthesis, and éu5 TiS #uépas is to be attached to eionAde . . . "Igooi,
as Luke xxiii. 5. See on Matt. xx. 8. —éwS 7. fy. 95 «.1.4.] #5 is not put by
‘attraction for 9,—&s the attraction of the dative, very rare even among the
‘Greek writers,® is without example in the N. T.,—but is the genitive of
the definition of time.‘ Hence also the expression having the preposition
involved, aype 7S fépas, ver. 2, comp. xxiv. 11. — xdprepa 175 avaor, atrot]
i.e. apostle, inasmuch as the apostles announce the resurrection of Jesus (1
Cor. xv.), the historical foundation of the gospel, as eye-witnesses, i.e. as
persons who had themselves seen and conversed with the risen Jesus ; comp.
ii. 82, and see on ver. 8.——rovrwy] is impressively removed to the end,
pointing te those to be found among the persons present (of those there),

1 Lucian, D. D. xx. 8 frequently in the § See Kithner, ad. Xen. Mem. II. 2. 4.

LXX,. and Apocr. © Matthiae, § 877. 2; Winer, p. 155 (E. T.
2 ix. 80, x. 23, al. Hom. 2. x. 24 204). So, too, in Lev. xxili. 15; Bar. 1, 19.
% Soph. O. 2. 572; Polyb. 1. 78. 4. Comp. Tob. x. 1; Susann, 15° Hist. Bel and

4 See Valckenaer on che passage, and ad =s Drag. 8.
Hurip. Phoen. 536; Winer, p. 580 (E. T. 780).
‘Comp. also John i. 51.

ELECTION OF MATTHIAS. 35

and emphatically comprehending them.'—Thus Peter indicates, as a
requisite of the new apostle,” that he must have associated with the
apostles (4uiv) during the whole of the ministry of Jesus, from the time when
John was still baptizing (a7 rot Barr. ’lwdvy.) until the ascension. That in
this requirement, as Heinrichs and Kuinoel suppose, Peter had in view one
of the Seventy disciples, is an arbitrary assumption. But it is evident that
for the choice the apostles laid the entire stress on the capacity of historical
testimony (comp. x. 41), and justly so, in conformity with the positive contents
of the faith which was to be preached, and as the element of the new di-
vine life was to be diffused. On the special subject-matter of the testimiony
(r#$ avaor, abrot) Bengel correctly remarks: ‘‘qui illud credidere, totam
fidem suscepere.’’ How Peter himself testified, may be seen at 1 Pet. i. 3.
Comp. Acts ii. 82, iii, 15, iv. 88, v. 82, x. 40.

Ver. 23. "Eoryoav] The subject is, as in vv. 24, 26, all those assembled.
They had recognised in these two the conditions required by v. 21 f. ‘‘Ideo
hic demum sors incipit, qua res gravis divinae decisioni committitur et im-
mediata apostoli peragitur vocatio,’? Bengel. For this solemn act they are
put forward.— "lworg tr. xaA, BapoaBdav] Concerning him nothing further is
known. For he is not identical’ with Joses Barnabas, iv. 86, against which
opinion that very passage itself testifies ; from it have arisen the name "Iwo7v
in B and Baprdfav in D (80 Bornemann).‘ Barsabas is a patronymic (son of
Saba) ; Justus is a Roman surname (*y01), adopted according to the custom
then usual, see Schoettgen.—Nor is anything historically certain as to
Matthias.° .

Vv. 24, 25. Without doubt it was Peter, who prayed in the name of all
present. The spocevédu. is contemporaneous with elzov: praying they said.
See on Eph. i. 9. — xvpie] (E), mT. Comp. iv. 29. In opposition to the view
of Bengel, Olshausen, and Baumgarten, that the prayer is directed to Jesus,
—for which éy ééeAééw is appealed to, because Christ chooses His own mes-
sengers,—xv. 7 is decisive, where the same Peter says expressly of God :
b&eAétaro dia rot orduards pov axovoar Ta evn, etc., and then also calls God
xepdioyvecrns (comp. 34 ‘pn, Jer. xvii. 10). By the detision of the lot the
call to the apostleship was to take place, and the call is that of God, Gal. i.
15. God is addressed as xapdioyvwor. because the object was to choose the
intrinsically best qualified among the two, and this was a matter depending
on the divine knowledge of the heart. The word itself is found neither in
Greek writers nor in the LXX.—In Aaeiv zdv rérov (see the critical notes)
the ministry is considered as a place, as a post which the person concerned

1 Dissen, ad Dem. dé cor. p. 235.

2 And Luke relates this as faithfally and
dispassionately as he does what is contained
in x. 41. He would hardly have done so, if he
had had the design imputed to him by Baur
and hia school, as such sayings of Peter did
not at all suit the case of Paul.

8In opposition to Heinrichs and others,
also Ullmann in the Stud. wu. Xrié. 1828, p.
S77 ff.

4See also Mynster in the Stud. u. Krit.
1629, p. 826 f. ;

§ Traditional notices in Cave, Antig. ap. p.
783 ff. According to Ens. {. 12. 1, he was one
of the Seventy. Concerning the apocryphal
Gospel under his name, already mentioned by
Origen, see Fabric. Cod. apocr. N. 7. p. Te2 ff.
Apocryphal Acta Andreae et Matthiae may
be seen in Tischend, Acé. apocr. p. 182 ff.

36 CHAP. I., 23-26.

is toreceive. Comp. Ecclus. xii. 12. — xai aooroAjs] designates more definite-
ly the previous d:axovias. There is thus here, among the many instances
for the most part erroneously assumed, a real case of an & 6102 dvoiv.'—
ag’ #5 rapfpy] away from which Judas has passed over, to go to bis own place.
A solemn circumstanticlity of description. Judas is vividly depicted, as he,
forsaking his apostleship (a¢’ 7s), has passed from that position to go to his
own place. Comp. Ecclus. xxiii. 18 : rapaBaivwy ard 19S KAivns abrod. — ropevd.
eis r, rom, tT, dtov] denotes the end destined by God for the unworthy Judas
as his own, to which he must come by his withdrawal from the apvatolic
office. But the meaning of 6 réros 6 idtos (the expression is purposely chosen
as correlative to rdv rdémoy r. dan, etc.) is not to be decided from the linguis-
tic use of réroS, as réroS may denote any place, but entirely from the con-
text. And this requires us to understand by it Gehenna, which is conceived
as the place to which Judas, according to his individuality, belongs. As
his treason was so frightful a crime, the hearers could be in no doubt as to
the révos idtos. This explanation is also required for the completeness and
energy of the speech, and is itself confirmed by analogous rabbinical pas-
sages.* Hence the explanations are to be rejected which refer rézx. id:os to
the habitation of Judas,® or to that ywpiov, where he had perished,‘ or to the
** societas, quam cum sacerdotibus ceterisque Jesu adversariis inierat’’ (Hein-
richs). Others (Hammond, Homberg, Heumann, Kypke, comp. already
Oecumenius) refer ropev8jvac . . . idtov even to the successor of Judas, so that
the rér. i605 would be the apostleship destined for him, But such a con-
struction would be involved (mopev). would require again to be taken as an
object of Aadeiv), and after 2afeiv . . . dxooroAys tautological. The reading
dixacov, instead of fd:ov, in A hits the correct meaning. The contrast ap-
pears in Clem. Cor. I. 5 as to Paul: ei$ rév dysov rérov éxopevOy, and as to
Peter: eis rav dpecAdpevov rérov rHS d566n5.5

Ver. 26, And they, namely, those assembled, gave for them (avrois, sec the
- critical notes) lots —i.e. tablets, which were respectively inscribed with
one of the two names of those proposed for election — namely into the
vessel in which the lots were collected, Lev. xvi. 8. The expression
&dwxav is opposed to the idea of casting lots; comp. Luke xxiii. 34 and
parallels, — gece 6 xAijjpos] the lot, (F) giving the decision by its falling out,
Jal by the shaking of the vessel.° — tx? Mar9.] on Matthias, according to the
figurative conception of the lot being shaken over both.” — This decision by
the Geia rixn * of the lotisan Old Testament practice,° suitable for the time before
the effusion of the Spirit, but not recurring afterwards, and therefore not to
be justified in the Christian congregational life by our passage. — ovyxarewng.

1 See Fritzeche, ad Matth. p. 86; Nagelsb. 6 rdddccv, comp. Hom. J2. ili. 816. 324, vil.
3. Riae, p. 361, ed. 3. 181, Od. xi. 206, ai.

2 8ee in Lightfoot, ¢g. Baal Turim, on 7 Hom. Od. xiv. 209 ; Ps. xxii. 19, a2. Comp.
Nam. xxlv. %: “Balaam ivitin locum suum, LXX. Ezek. xxiv. 6; John i. 7.

f.e. in Gebennam.” ® Plat. Legg. vi. 759 C; comp. Prov. xvi. 38.
3 Keachen, Moldenhauer, Krebs, Bolten. ® Num. xxvi. 52 ff. ; Josh. vii. 14; 1 Sam. x.
4 Elsner, Zeller, Lange, Baumgarten, and 20; 1 Chron. xxiv. 5, xxv. 8; Prov. xvi. 8;

others. comp. also Luke i. 9.
6 Comp. Polyc. Phi. 9; Ignat. afagn. 5.

NOTES. ° 37

pera 7, bvd, dx. ] he was numbered along with’ the eleven apostles, so that, in
consequence of that decision by lot, he was declared by those assembled to
be the twelfth apostle. Bengel correctly adds the remark: ‘‘ Non dicuntur
manus novo apostolo impositae, erat enim prorsus immediate constitutus.’’
It is otherwise at vi. 6. — The view which doubts the historical character of
the supplementary clection at all (see especially Zeller), and assumes that
Matthias was only elected at a later period after the gradual consolidation
of the church, rests on presuppositions (it is thought that the event of
Pentecost must have found the number of the apostles complete) which
break down in presence of the naturalness of the occurrence, and of the
artless simplicity of its description.

Nores spy AMERICAN Eprror.

(z) Name. V. 1.

The name of the book is traditional and ancient, but not apostolic or
appropriate. The work is certainly not a record of the acts of the apostles, as
it says little of any of them except Peter and Paul. The word ‘ Acts” seems to
be used in the sense of ‘‘ Memoirs.” Dr. Plumptre would call it Origines
Ecclesia. The record is authentic and reliable, but makes no claims to com-
pleteness. It is a history of beginnings only of the work of the church on
earth, but a condinuation of the work of Christ in her and for her.

(F) ‘‘ Forty days.’” V. 8.

In this passage alone is the period between the resurrection and the
ascension defined. Some assert that there is a discrepancy between the state-
ment here given and the Gospel; they say according to the Gospel both
events occurred on the same day. No such discrepancy really exists between
the account which closes the Gospels and opens the Acts. The later account
is more ful] and minute, and furnishes some incidents connected with the
sublime event, and indicates the time when it occurred. Surely no candid
reader of the Gospel narratives can for a moment suppose that all which is
recorded of the life of our Lord on earth after his resurrection transpired in
one day. Moreover, if he ascended on the same day he rose from the sep-
ulchre, it must have been very late at night, which seems at variance with the
entire record. Our author supposes an interval between the two grand events,
but suggests that during that interval, or rather from the time between the
writing of the two treatises by Luke, a period probably of not more than
five years, a tradition ‘‘ was formed, or at least acquired currency, concern-
ing the forty days and other incidents of the ascension.’’ See his Commentary
on Luke xxiv. 50-5 ; and on Acts i. 3 and 9.

1 ovyxaraynpiger@as in this eenee, thus 21 it signifies fo condemn with. Frequently,
equivalent to cvmyndiderOa: (xix. 19), is not and quite in the sense of ovyxceraynd. here,
cleewhere found ; D actually has cuveyydicQy aovyxarapOpeicOa: is found. KX* has only
as the result of a correct explanation. The xareyydicOy. So also Constitt. ap. vi. 12. 1.
word is, altogether, very rare: io Plut. Them.

38 CHAP. I.

But no such supposed ‘more developed tradition” is required to harmonize the
record, or to vindicate the veracity of the historian. The later account does
not contradict, but only supplements the earlier.

‘¢ Luke alone, in his Gospel and in the Acts, has given us a detailed view
of the scene, which is indicated by Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 7, and assumed throughout
the whole N. T. Interpreters like Meyer think themselves obliged to limit
the ascension of Jesus to a purely spiritual elevation, and to admit no external
visible in which this elevation was manifested.’’

‘* The reality of such a fact as that related by Luke in his account of the as-
cension is indubitable, both from the standpoint of faith in the resurrection,
and from the standpoint of faith in general. The ascension is a postulate of
faith.”” (Gode.)

The ascension was & necessary consequence of the resurrection ; it was pre-
dicted in the O. T.; it was prefigured by the translation of Enoch and of
Elijah; it is recorded by two evangelists ; it is presupposed in the Gospel of
John ; it is referred to asa fact and a foundation for doctrine in the Epistles ;
Stephen, Paul, and John saw him in his ascended state ; so that the visible
personal ascension of our Lord from the slope of Olivet into heaven is a doc-
trine most surely believed and rejoiced in.

(a) ‘* His brethren.”” V. 14.

The four brothers-german of our Lord, James, Joses, Simon, and Judas :
these have generally been supposed to be the sons of Mary, the sister
of the mother of Jesus, and therefore only his cousins, For this supposi-
tion we find no authority in Scripture. .James, the son of Alpheus, one of
the twelve, is clearly a different person from ‘‘James, the Lord’s brother.”
Three Jameses are mentioned’ in the Gospels — James, the son of Zebedee,
brother of John, one of the twelve ;—James, the son of Alpheus, brother of
Judas, one of the twelve ;—and James, the son of Joseph, brother of our Lord,
but not one of the twelve. The story of the immaculate conception and per-
petual virginity of Mary has not the slightest foundation in the Bible, and
the common and natural meaning of the terms used in Matt. xiii. 55, 56,
Mark vi. 3, Gal i. 19, and Ps. Ixix. 8, implies that his brothers were the sons
of his mother. That those called his brethren were different persons from
the son of Alpheus and his brothers is manifest, because after the twelve were
chosen and named by Jesus, ‘‘ his brethren ’’ did not believe in him. In this
passage they are mentioned as distinct from, and not of the eleven apostles.
An interesting and satisfactory discussion of this question may be found
in a smal] volume, by Rev. Chauncey W. Fitch, D.D.

(n) Fate of Judas, V. 18.

There is a difference but no contradiction in the accounts given by Matthew
and Luke. Matthew does not say what happened to the body of Judas after
he hanged himself ; nor does Luke say what he did to himself ere he fell head-
long and burst asunder in the midst. We have not the link to connect the act of
suicide with what befell his body; but the two facts are in no sense at va-
riance.

‘* Matthew traces the traitor's fall through all its human stages of (remorse

NOTES. 39

to his own self-inflicted penalty. Luke (Peter) portrays not the act of Judas
in the frenzy of desperation, but the act of God in righteous retribution.’’

‘The two accounts are (not as Meyer the result of different traditions, but)
companion pictures by inspired artists equally and perfectly informed.
Whereof, in strict suitability to their several designs, one reveals the human
side of the tragedy, and the other the divine.’’

‘‘ Matthew wrote as a historian for a wide circle of readers, many of whom
had no previous knowledge of the case ; he therefore states the main fact, and,
according to his custom, passes over the minute details. Peter orally address-
ing those who knew the facts as fully as himself, and less than six weeks after
their occurrence, and upon the very spot, assumes the main fact as already
known, and naturally dwells upon those very circumstances which the Evan-
gelist many years later no less wisely and naturally leaves out altogether.
However this may seem to others, there is scarcely an American or English
jury that would scruple to receive these two accounts as perfectly consistent.”
( Alexander.

(1) ‘* Thou, Lord.”’ V,. 24,

Whether this prayer was addressed to Christ or to God the Father has
been disputed. We agree with those who consider Christ as here addressed.
The word Kugos, when used absolutely in the N. T., generally refers to
Christ ;—Jesus is called KigioS in verse 21 ;—-all the other apostles were
selected by him, as was afterwards Paul. The first Christians were in the
habit of praying to Christ. Peter on a former occasion in addressing Jesus
said, ‘‘Lord, thou knowest all things ; thou knowest that I love thee.”

(3) “ The lot.” V. 26,

Under the Theocracy the lot was used for various purposes; for the
division of the land—for decision in certain criminal cases—for the selec-
tion of troops in military enterprises—and for the appointment to important
offices. The only instance under the new dispensation is this case of Mat-
thias. The Roman soldiers gambling at the cross for the robe of Jesus is an
illustration of the practice, but no sanction for it. From the sanction of O. T.
and this example of the apostles many argue in favor of the admissibility of
the practice. Calvin, in his Com. on this text, says: ‘‘Those men who think
it to be wickedness to cast lots at all, offend partly through ignorance, and
partly they understand not the force of this word. There is nothing which
men do not corrupt with their boldness and vanities, whereby it has come to
pass that they have brought lots into great abuse and superstition. For that
divination or conjecture which is made by lots is altogether devilish.”
Though the custom has been corrupted and depraved, he holds it to be lawful
and Christian. Others have called in question the propriety of this election of
Matthias, and argue with no little plausibility that Matthias was not the di-
vinely appointed successor of Judas, but Paul, who was soon after specially
chosen and commissioned by Christ himself to the apostleship. But Matthias
was reckoned one of the twelve (Acts vi. 2). Inasmuch as we have no instanee
of casting lots after the Spirit was given to the church, the practice now, in
our judgment, is more than questionable.

40 CHAP, II., 1-3.

CHAPTER II.

_ Ver. 1. dravres duo8vpadéy) Lachm. and Tisch. read ravres duoi, after A B C*
®, min. Vulg. Correctly: the duo6upzadéy, so very frequent in the Acts, unin-
tentionally supplanted the éuod found elsewhere in the N. T. only in John ;
wavres, Which is wanting in &°, critically goes along with the reading dyod. -~
Ver. 2. xaOjuevor] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read xa9etiuevo:, according to C D.
The Recepta (comp. on xx. 9) is more usual in the N. T., and was accordingly
inserted. — Ver. 3, ocei] is wanting only in &*, — éxdOicev] Born., following
D* &*, Syr. utr. Arr. Copt. Ath. Did. Cyr., reads éxdQ:cay, A correction occa-
sioned by yAdoca. — Ver. 7. After efioravro 62 Elz. has zayres, which Lachm.
Scholz, Tisch. Born. have erased, following B D, min. and several vss. and
Fathers. From ver. 12. — mpd$ GAAyAovs] is wanting in ABC 8, 26, Copt. Sahid.
Aeth. Vulg. Theodoret. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. It was, as self-evident,
easily passed over. Its genuineness is supported by the reading zpds aA7zAovs,
ver. 12, instead of GAAos mpds aAAov, which is found in 4, 14, al., Aeth. Vulg.
Chrys. Theophyl., and has manifestly arisen from this passage. — Ver. 12. ri dv
OéAve rovro elvac] Lachm. Born. read ri 6éAe rodro elvar, following A B C D, min.
Chrys.: A has 6éAe after rotro. But after A¢yecv the direct expression was
most familiar to the transcribers (comp. ver. 7). — Ver. 13. dcayAevafovres] Elz.
reads yAevdfovres, against preponderating testimony. — Ver. 16. 'Iw7A] Tisch.
and Born. have deleted this word on too weak authority ; it is wanting among
the codd. only in D.— Ver. 17. évumviors] Elz. reads évizvia, against decisive
codd. From LXX. Joel iii. 1. -— Ver. 22. adroi] Elz. reads xa? avroi. But Lachm.
and Tisch. have correctly deleted «cai, in accordance with A B C* D EX, min.
and several vss. and Fathers. «ai, both after «a6os and before atroi, was very
familiar to the transcribers.— Ver. 23. After éxdorov Elz. and Scholz read
Aafévres, which is wanting in A B C &*, min. and several vss. and Fathers. An
addition to develope the construction. — Instead of yepdv, Lachm. Tisch. Born.
have yeipds, following A BC D X&, min. Syr. p. Aeth. Ath. Cyr. And justly, as
xelpsv was evidently inserted for the sake of the following avésnwv. — Ver. 24.
Gavarov] D, Syr. Erp. Copt. Vulg. and several Fathers read ¢ddov. So Born.
From vv. 27, 31. — Ver. 27. géov} Lachm. Born. and Tisch. read ¢énv, which was
already recommended by Griesb., in accordance with A BC D &, min. Clem.
Epiph. Theophyl. As in the LXX. Ps. xvi. 10, the reading is also different, A.
having ddov and B ddnv ; the text here is to be decided merely by the prepon-
derance of testimonies, which favours ¢gd7v. — Ver. 30. Before xa8ica:, Elz.
Scholz, Born. read 1d «ard otipxa avactnoew tdv Xpordév, which is wanting in
ABC D** 8, min, and most vss. and several Fathers, has in other witnesses
considerable variation, and, as already Mill correctly saw, is a marginal gloss
inserted in the text. — Instead of rod Opévov, Lachm. Born. Tisch. read rév Opévor,
according to ABCD, min. Eus, This important authority, as well as the
circumstance that éri with the genitive along with «a0ifecv is very usual in the
N. T. (comp. Luke xxii. 20; Acts xii. 21, xxv. 6, 17; Matt. xix. 28, xxiii. 2,

DESCENT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 41

xxv, 31), decides for the accusative. — Ver. 31. xareAci¢6n] A B C DE ®, min.
and several Fathers read éyxareAeig6n, Recommended by Griesb., and adopted
by Lachm. Tisch. Born. From ver. 27. Therefore not only is ddnv (instead
of dduov) read by Tisch., but also after xareAeigfn there is read by Elz. 4 wry)
atrov, for the omission of which the authorities decide. —otre . . . ovre is ac-
cording to important testimony to be received, with Lachm. Tisch. Born.,
instead of ob . . . otdé, as the reading given in the text appears likewise to
have been formed from ver. 27. — Ver. 33. tues] Elz. Scholz have viv tyeis.
But, according to A B C* D &, min. and many vss. and Fathers, Lachm. Born.
Tisch. have erased viv, which is an addition by way of gloss. — Ver. 37. otjoouer]
roujowuev 18 found in AC E®8, min. Fathers. But the deliberative subjunctive
was the more usual. Comp. on iv. 16. — Ver. 38. 2¢7] is, with Lachm. and
Tisch., to be erased, as it is entirely wanting in B min. Vulg. ms. Aug., and
other witnesses read ¢yoiv, which they have partly after pweravojo. (A C &, 15,
al.), partly utrovs (D). A supplementary addition. — Ver. 40. dezapriparo] Elz.
Scholz read dteuanripero, against decisive testimony. A form modelled after
the following imperfect. — Ver. 41. After vty, Elz. Scholz read dcpévws, which
Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted, in accordance with far preponderating testi-
mony. A strengthening addition. — Ver. 42. xai before ry xAdce: is rejected by
decisive testimony (erased by Lachm. Tisch. Born.). — Ver. 43. éyévero) Lachm.
Tisch. Born. read éyivero, according to A B C D &, min. Vulg. Copt. Syr. utr.
This considerable attestation prevents us from assuming a formation resem-
bling what follows ; on the contrary, éyévero has been inserted as the more
usual form. — Ver. 47. ry txxAnoia] 1s wanting in A B C &, Copt. Sahid. Aeth.
Arm. Vulg. Cyr. Deleted by Lachm., after Mill and Bengel. It was omitted
for the sake of conformity to ver. 41, because ézi 76 aizo, iii. 1, was considered
as still belonging to ii. 47, and therefore iii. 1 began with ITerpus dé (80
Lachm. ).

Ver. 1. When the day of Pentecost became full, 4.e., when the day of Pen-
tecost had come, on the day of Pentecost. The day is, according to the He-
brew mode,’ conceived as a measure to be filled up ;? so long as the day had
not yet arrived, but still belonged to the future, the measure was not yet
filled, but empty. But as soon as it appeared, the fulfilment, the making
the day full, the cvzrA7pwors* therewith occurred ; by which, without figure,
is meant the realization of the day which had not hitherto become a reality.
The expression itself, which concerns the definite individual day, is at va-
riance with the view of Olshausen and Baumgarten, who would have the
time from Easter to be regarded as becoming full. Quite without warrant,
Hitzig° would place the occurrence not at Pentecost at all. See, in oppo-
sition to this, Schneckenb. p. 198 f. — 4% wevrnxoory]} is indeed originally to
be referred to the #uépa understood ; but this supplementary noun had en-
tirely fallen into disuse, and the word had become quite an independent
substantive.* mevryxoory also occurs in Tob. ii. 1, quite apart from its nu-

‘Concerning the Pentecostal occurrence, and many similar passages in the N. T. and in
fee van Hengel, de gave der talen, Finkster- the Apocrypha.
etudie, Leid. 1864. Comp. 3 Eedr. i 58; Dan. fx. 2.

3 See Gesen. Thea. 8.0. xp. 5 Ostern und Pfingat, p. 89 f.

* Comp. aleo ix. 23; Luke fi. 6, xxii. 9, 51, © Comp. 2 Macc. xii. 82.

42 CHAP, II., 1.

meral signification, and év rg wevrnxoorg toprg is there : on the Pentecost-feast.*
The feast of Pentecost, 0 MIY3¥, Deut. xvi. 9, 10 (ayia éxrd &3dopuddur,
Tob. J.c.), was one of the three great festivals, appointed as the feast
of the grain-harvest (Ex. xxiii. 16; Num. xxviii. 26), and subsequently, al-
though we find no mention of this in Philo and Josephus,’ regarded also
as the celebration of the giving of the law from Sinai, falling (Ex. xix. 1)
in the third month.* It was restricted to one day, and celebrated on the
fiftieth day after the first day of the Passover (Lev. xxiii. 15, 16); so that
the second paschal day, 7.¢. the 16th of Nisan, the day of the sheaf offer-
ing, is to be reckoned as the first of these fifty days.‘ Now, as in that
year the Passover occurred on the evening of Friday (see on John xviii.
28), and consequently this Friday, the day of the death of Jesus, was the
14th of Nisan, Saturday the 15th, and Sunday the 16th, the tradition of
the ancient church has very correctly placed the first Christian Pentecost
on the Sunday.* Therefore the custom—which, besides, cannot be shown
to have existed at the time of Jesus—of the Karaites, who explained naw
in Lev. xxiii. 15 not of the first day of the Passover, but of the Sabbath
occurring in the paschal week, and thus held Pentecost always on a Sunday, °
is to be left entirely out of consideration (in opposition to Hitzig); and it
is not to be assumed that the disciples might have celebrated with the
Karaites both Passover and Pentecost.’ But still the question arises;
Whether Luke himself conceived of that first Christian Pentecost as a Suturday
or a Sunday ? Ashe, following with Matthew and Mark the Galilean tradi-
tion, makes the Passover occur already on Thursday evening, and be par-
taken of by Jesus Himself, and accordingly makes the Friday of the cru-
cifixion the 15th of Nisan ; so he must necessarily—but just as erroneously
—have conceived of this first wevryxoor7 asa Saturday,* unless we should
assume that he may have had no other conception of the day of Pentecost
than that which was in conformity with the Christian custom of the Sunday
celebration of Pentecost ; which, indeed, does not correspond with his ac-
count of the day of Jesus’ death as the 15th Nisan, but shows the correct-
ness of the Johannine tradition. — joav mdvres duod ex rd atrd] Concerning
the text, see the critical remarks; concerning é7i rd aid, see on i. 15.
These xdvreS, all, were not merely the apostles, but all the followers of Jesus
then in Jerusalem, partly natives and partly strangers, including the apostles.
For, first of all, it may certainly be presumed that on the day of Pentecost,
and, moreover, at the hour of prayer (ver. 15), not the apostles alone, but
with them also the other za67rai—among whom there were, without doubt,
many foreign pilgrims to the feast—were assembled. Moreover, in ver.
14 the apostles are distinguished from the rest. Further, the mévres,

1 Sce Fritzsche in loc. primitiva et vera festorum ap. Hebr. ratione,
2? Comp. Bauer in the Stud. u. Krit. 1848, p. Hal. 1852, who will have the fifty days reckoned

680. . from the /ast paschal day; sce Ewald, Jahrd.
* Danz in Meuschen, WY. 7. ex Talm.til.p. IV. p. 184 f. :

741; Buxt. Synag. p. 438. ¢ Ideler, II. p. 618; Wieseler, Synop. p. 349.
4 See Lightfoot and Wetstein in loc. ; Ewald, 7 See also Vathinger in Herzog's Encyki. XI.

Alterth. p. 476 f. ; Keil, Archdol. § 88. p. 476 f.

§In opposition to the view of Hupfeld, de ® Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 19.

DESCENT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 43

designedly added, by no means corresponds to the small number of the
apostles (i. 26), especially as in the narrative immediately preceding men-
tion was made of a much greater assembly (i. 15); it is, on the contrary,
designed—because otherwise .it would have been superfluous—to indicate
a still greater completeness of the assembly, and therefore it may not be lim-
ited even to the 120 persons alone. Lastly, itis clear also from the prophetic
saying of Joel, adduced in ver. 16 fe, that the effusion of the Spirit was
not on the apostles merely, but on all the new people of God, so that
dxayres (ver. 1) must be understood of all the followers of Tuia—ol course,
according tu the latitude of the popular manner of expression.

Ver. 2 describes what preceded the effusion of the Spirit as an audible
onpeiov—a sound occurring unexpectedly from heaven as of a violent wind borne
along.1 The wonderful sound is, by the comparison (sorvep) with a violent
wind, intended to be brought home to the conception of the reader, but
not to be represented as an actual storm of wind (Eichhorn, Heinrichs),
or gust (Ewald), or other natural phenomenon.’*— olxov] is not arbitrarily
and against N. T. usage to be limited to the room (Valckenaer), but is to
be understood of 2 private house, and, indeed, most probably of the same
house, which is already known from i. 18, 15 as the meeting-place uf the
disciples of Jesus. Whether it was the very house in which Jesus partook
of the last supper (Mark xiv. 12 ff.), as Ewald conjectures, cannot be
determined. If Luke had meant the temple, as, after the older com-
mentators, Morus, Heinrichs, Olshausen, Baumgarten, also Wieseler, p. 18,
and Lange, Apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 14, assume, he must have named it; the
reader could not have guessed it. For (1) it is by no means necessary that
we should think of the assembly on the first day of Pentecost and at the
time of prayer just as in the temple. On the contrary, ver. 1 describes the
circle of those met together as closed and in a manner separatist ; hence a
place in the temple could neither be wished for hy them nor granted to
them. Nor is the opinion, that it was the temple, to be established from
Luke xxiv. 58, where the mode of expression is popular. (2) The sup-
position that they were assembled in the temple is not required by the
great multitude of those that flocked together, ver. 6. The private house
may have been in the neighbourhood of thetemple; but not even
this supposition is necessary, considering the miraculous character of the
occurrence. (8) It is true that, according to Joseph. Anté. viii. 8. 2, the
principal building of the temple had thirty halls built around it, which he —
calls oixovs ; but could Luke suppose Theophilus possessed of this special
knowledge? ‘‘ But,’’ it is said, (4) ‘‘the solemn inauguration of the
church of Christ then presents itself with imposing effect in the sanctuary
of the old covenant,’ Olshausen ; ‘the new spiritual temple must have.. .
proceeded from the envelope of the old temple,’’ Lange. But this locality
would need first to be proved! If this inauguration did not take place in

3 Comp. wveipa Riaoy, Atrian. Erp. Al. ii. marks: “Sonus venti vehementis, sed abeque
6. 8; Pausan. x. 17. 11. vento; sic etiam linguaeigneae, sed absque
2 Comp. Neander, p. 14. Lightfoot aptly re- igne.’’ Comp. Hom. 0d, vi. 20.

44 CHAP, I1., 1-3.

the temple, with the same warrant there might be seen in this an equally
imposing indication of the entire severance of the new theocracy from the
old. Yet Luke has indicated neither the one nor the other idea, and it is
not till ii. 44 that the visit to the temple emerges in his narrative.—
Kaiser’ infers from }oav .. . én rd abré, ver. 1, as well as from olxos,
xabipuevot, ob peGvovory, ver 15, etc., that this Christian private assembly, at the
first feast of Pentecost, had for its object the celebration uf the Agapue.’? An
interpretation arbitrarily put into the words. The sacredness of the festival
was in itself a sufficient reason for their assembling, especially considering
the deeply excited state of feeling in which they were, and the promise
which was given tothe apostles for so near a realization. — od joav xa eCdue-
vot] where, that is, in which they were sitting. "We have to conceive those
assembled, ere yet the hour of prayer (ver. 15) had arrived (for in prayer
they stood), sitting at the feet of the teachers.

Ver. 8. After the audible cnuciov immediately follows the visible. Incor-
rectly Luther : ‘‘ there were seen on them the tongues divided as if they were
of fire.”?*? The words mean: Z'here appeared to them, i.e. there were seen
by them, tongues becoming distributed, fire-like, i.e. tongues which appeared like
little flames of fire, and were distributed (ii. 45 ; Luke xxii. 17, xxiii. 84)
upon those present ; see the following éxd@Q:oe «.7.4. They were thus ap-
pearances of tongues, which were luminous, but did not burn: not really
consisting of fire, but only doe: rvpés ; and not confluent into one, but dis-
tributing themselves severally on the assembled. As only similar to fire,
they bore an anulogy to electric phenomena ; their tongue-shape referred as a
onzecov to that miraculous Aadeivy which ensued immediately after, and the
Jire-like form to the divine presence (comp. Ex. iii. 2), which was here
operative in a manner 80 entirely peculiar. The whole phenomenon is to
be understood as a miraculous operation of God manifesting Himself in the
Spirit, by which, as by the preceding sound from heaven, the effusion of the
Spirit was made known as divine, and His efficacy on the minds of those
who were to receive Him was enhanced. A more special physiological
definition of the onyeia, vv. 2, 8, is impossible. Lange,* fancifully supposes
that the noise of the wind was a streaming of the heavenly powers from
above, audible to the opened visionary sense, and that the tongues of fire
were a disengaging of the solar fire-power of the earth and its atmo-
sphere (7). The attempts, also, to convert this appearance of fire-like
tongues into an accidental electric natural occurrence (Paulus, Thiess, and
others) are in vain ; for these flames, which make their appearance, during
an accumulation of electric matter, on towers, masts, and even on men,
present far too weak resemblances ; and besides, the room of a house,
where the phenomenon exclusively occurred, was altogether unsuited for
any such natural development. The representation of the text is mon-
strously altered by Heinrichs: Fulgura cellam vere pervadebant, sed in

1 Commentat. 1820, pp. 3-23; comp. ddl. * Therefore the expression is not to be ex-
Theol. II. p. 41. plained from Isa. v. 24, for there W2 re) is

2 Comp. Augusti, Denkwirdigkeiien avsder a representation of that which consumes.
chrtetl. Arch. 1V. p. 124. 4 Apost. Zettait. IT. p. 19.

GIFT OF TONGUES. 45

inusitatas imagines ea effinzit apostolorum commota mens; as also by Heu-
mann: that they believed that they saw the fiery tongues mercly in the
estatic state ; and not less so by Eichhorn, who says that ‘‘ they saw flames”
signifies in rabbinical usus loquendi: they were transported into ecstatic
excitement. The passages adduced by Eichhorn from Schoettgen contain
no merely figurative modes of expression, but fancies of the later Rabbins
to be understood literally in imitation of the phenomena at Sinui,—of
which phenomena, we may add, a real historical analogue is to be
recognised in our passage. — éxé6:cé re] namely, not an indefinite subject,
something,’ but such a yAocoa wei rupés, If Luke had written éxd6:oc» (see
the critical remarks), the notion that one yAcooa sat upon each would not
have been definitely expressed. Oecumenius, Beza, Castalio, Schoettgen,
Kuinoel, incorrectly take rip as the subject, since, in fact, there was no
fire at all, but only something resembling fire ; doe rupés serves only for
comparison, and consequently zip cannot be the subject of the continued
narrative. Others, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Wolf,
Bengel, Heinrichs e al., consider the sveiyua dy:ov as subject. In that case
it would have to be interpreted, with Fritzsche, Conject. I. p. 18 : xaBioavros
ég’ éva éxaotov atta, érdAgjoOncay Gravres mvetparos ayiav, and Matt. xvii. 18
would be similar. Very harsh, seeing that the svetua éycov, in so fur as it
sat on the assembled, would appear as identical with its symbol, the flery
tongues ; but in so far as it jilled the assembled, as the zveiua itself, differ-
ent from the symbol.—The ré joining on to the preceding (Lachm. reads «aé,
following insufficient testimony) connects éxd6:ce «.7.A. with SpOyoay x.7.A,
into an unity, so that the description divides itself into the three acts:
O~Onoav x.T.A., EnAjoOnoay, x.7.A., and #péavro «.7.A., a8 is marked by the thrice
recurring «ai.

Ver. 4. After this external phenomenon, there now ensued the internal
filling of all who were assembled,* without exception (éxA. drarres, comp.
ver. 1), with the Holy Spirit, of which the immediate result was, that they,
and, indeed, these same dravres (comp. iv. 31)—accordingly not excluding
the apostles (in opposition to van Hengel)—#pfavro Aadeiv érépats yAwooats.
Earlier cases of being filled with the Spirit * are related to the present as
the momentary, partial, and typical, to the permanent, complete, and anti-
typical, such as could only occur after the glorifying of Jesus ; see ver. 38 ;
John xvi. 7, vii. 89. — #pgavro] brings into prominence the primus impetus
of the act as its most remarkable element. — Aadeiv érépars yAdooas| For the
sure determination of what Luke meant by this, it is decisive that érépacs
yAdooars on the part of the speakers was, in point of fact, the same thing
which the congregated Parthians, Medes, Elamites, etc., designated as
Tats qpeTtépats yAwooars (comp. ver. 8: rg idig diadéxty Hucdv). The érepar
yAdocar (K) therefore are, according to the text, to be considered as abso-
lutely nothing else than languages, which were different from the native

1 Hildebrand, comp. Battm. neut. Gr. p. wadvres, nai dwootdéAwy Owrwy éxet, ai un Kai of
118 (E. T. 184). aAAot petecxoy. See also van Hengel, p. 54 ff.
* 3Comp. Winer, p. 481 (E. T. 648). 4 Luke i. 41, 47; John xx. 22; comp. also

® Chrysostom well remarks: ove ay «ire Luke 1x. 55.

46 CHAP. II., 4.

language of the speakers. They, the Galileans, spoke, one Parthian, an-
other Median, etc., consequently languages of another sort,' i.e. foreign,
1 Cor. xiv. 21; and these indeed—the point wherein precisely appeared
the miraculous operation of the Spirit—not acquired by study (y26ccas
xavais, Mark xvi. 17). Accordingly the text itself determines the mean-
ing of yAdcoa as languages, not tongues, as van Hengel again assumes on
the basis of ver. 8, where, however, the tongues have only the symbolic
destination of a divine onuecov*; and thereby excludes the various other
explanations, and in particular those which start from the meaning verba
obsoleta et poetica.* This remark holds good (1) of the interpretation of
Herder,‘ that new modes of interpreting the ancient prophets were meant ;
(2) against Heinrichs, who’ founds on that assumed meaning of yAdoca
his explanation of enthusiastic speaking in languages which were foreign
indeed, different from the sacred language, but were the native languages
of the speakers ; (8) against Bleek.* The latter explains yAdooa: as glosses,
é.e. unusual, antiquated poetical and provincial expressions. According
to him, we are not to think of a connected speaking in foreign languages,
but of a speaking in expressions which were foreign to the language of
common life, and in which there was an approximation to a highly poetical
phraseology, yet so that these glosses were borrowed from different
dialects and languages (therefore érépa:s). Against this explanation of the
yAdooai, which is supported by Bleek with much erudition, the wsus
loquendi is already decisive. For yAdoca in that sense is a grammatico-
technical expression, or at least an expression borrowed from grammarians,
which is only as such philologically beyond dispute.’ But this meaning
is entirely unknown to ordinary linguistic usage, and particularly to that
of the O. and N. T. How should Luke have hit upon the use of such a
singular expression for a thing, which he could easily designate by words
universally intelligible? How could he put this expression even into the
mouths of the Parthians, Medes, Elamites, etc.? For juerépacs yAdooacs, ver.
11, must be explained in 8 manner ertirely corresponding to this. Further,
there would result for #uezvépacs a wholly absurd meaning. #pérepar yAdcocat,
forsooth, would be nothing else than glosses, obsolete expressions, which
are peculiar only to the Parthians, or to the Medes, or to the Elamites,
etc., just as the ’Arrixai yAdooa: of Theodorus® are provincialisms of Attica,
which were not current among the rest of the Greeks. Finally, it is fur-
ther decisive against Bleek that, according to his explanation of yAdooa

? Luke ix. 29; Mark xvi. 13; Gal. 1. 6. 8 ; Pollux. ii. 4; Plat. Pyth. orac. UM; and see

Gieze, Aeol. Dial. p. 42 ff.
2 Van Hengel understands, according to ver.
8, by érepar yA., ‘“‘ tongues of fire, which the : ei es i aera sad oe:
believers in Jesus have obtained through their eee - Meyer di. Chovtenals- soe
communion with the Holy Spirit.” That is, kcaaoee whe Hannov 1797
‘an open-hearted and loud speaking to the ” 7 the Stu Luk rit 1829 88 ff.. 1890
glorifying of God in Christ,"' such as had not De ey en eee ae TONS

45 ff.
been done before. Previously their tongues .
had been without fire. 7 See all the paseages in Bleek, p. 33 ff., and

already in A. G. Meyer, l.c.; Fritzeche, ad
8 Galen, exeg. glossar. Hippocr. Prooem.; Hare. p. 741.
Aristot. Ars poet. 21. 4 ff., 22.8 f.: Quincttl. i. * In Athen. xiv. p. 646 ¢, p. 1487, ed. Dindorf.

GIFT OF TONGUES. 47

transferred also to 1 Cor. xii. 14, no sense is left for the singular term
yAdooy Aakeiv ; for yAcooa could not denote genus locutionis glossematicum,'
but simply a single gloss, As Bleek’s explanation falls to the ground, so
must every other which takes yAccoa: in any other sense than languages,
which it mus¢ mean according to vv. 6, 8,11. This remark holds par-
ticularly (4) against the understanding of the matter by van Hengel,
according to whom the assembled followers of Jesus spoke with other
tongues than those with which they formerly spoke, namely, in the exvite-
ment of a fiery inspiration, but still all of them in Aramaic, so that each
of those who came together heard the language of his own ancestral wor-
ship from the mouth of these Galileans, ver. 6.

From what has been already said, and at the same time from the express
contrast in which the list of nations (vv. 9-11) stands with the question
ovK idod mdvreS . . . Tadcdaios (ver. 7), it results beyond all doubt that Luke
intended to narrate nothing else than this : the persons possessed by the Spirit
began to speak in languages which were foreign to their nationality instead of
their mother-tongue, namely, in the languages of other nations,’ the knowledge
and use of which were previously wanting to them, and were only now communt-
cated in and with the mveipa dyov.*, The author of Mark xvi. 17 has correctly
understood the expression of Luke, when, in reference to our narrative, he
wrote xaivais instead of érépacs. The explanation of foreign languages has
been since the days of Origen that of most of the Church Fathers and
expositors ; but the monstrous extension of this view formerly prevalent,
to the effect that the inspired received the gift of speaking all the lan-
guages of the earth,‘ and that for the purpose of enabling them to proclaim
the gospel to all nations, is unwarranted. ‘‘Poena linguarum dispersit
homines : donum linguarum dispersos in unum populum collegit,’’ Grotius.
Of this the text knows nothing; it leaves it, on the contrary, entirely
undetermined whether, over and above the languages specially mentioned
in vv. 9-11, any others were spoken. For the preaching of the gospel in
the apostolic age this alleged gift of languages was partly unnecessary, as
the preachers needed only to be able to speak Hebrew and Greek,’ and
partly too general, as among the assembled there were certainly very many
who did not enter upon the vocation of teacher. And, on the other
hand, such a gift would also have been premature, since Paul, the apostle
of the Gentiles, would, above all, have needed it ; and yet in his case there
is no trace of its subsequent reception, just as there is no evidence of his
having preached in any other language than Hebrew and Greek (kK).

But how is the occurrence to be judged of historically? On this the

1 Adéts yAmoonuarcxy, Dionys. Hal. de Thuc.

A.
*Comp., besides 1 Cor. xiv. 21, Ecclus. praef.:
Stray petax Oy (the Hebrew) eis erépar yAmooay
(Leo, Tact. 4. 49: yAwooas 8tapdpors AaAciv) ;
also Aesch, Sept. 171: wdAcw S0pirovoy 2.4 wpoded"
érepopwvey orpare. Not different is Pind. Pyth.
xi. 48: dAAorpiaor yAdowats.

3Comp. Storr, Opwec. II. p. 200 f2., ITI. p.

277 ff.; Milville, Obes. theol. exeg. de dono
linguar. Basil. 1816. See also Schaff, Gesck.
d. apost. K. p. Wi ff., ed. 2; Ch. F. Fritzsche,
Nova opuse. p. 804 f.

4 Auguatin.: ‘‘coeperunt loqui linguis om-
nium gentium.”

‘Comp. Schneckenb. newlest. Zeitgeach. p.
17 ff,

48 CHAP. II., 4.

following points are to be observed: (1) Since the sudden communi-
cation of a facility of speaking foreign languages is neither logi-
cally possible nor psychologically and morally conceivable, and since
in the case of the apostles not the slightest indication of it is per-
ceptible in their letters or otherwise (comp., on the contrary, xiv.
11); since further, if it is to be assumed as having been only
momentary, the impossibility is even increased, and since Peter him-
self in his address makes not even the slightest allusion to the forcign
languages,—the event, as Luke narrates it, cannot be presented in the
actual form of its historical occurrence, whether we regard that Pentecostal
assembly (without any indication to that effect in the text) as a representa-
tion of the entire future Christian budy (Baumgarten) or not. (2) The
analogy of magnetism,' is entirely foreign to the point, especially as those
possessed by the Spirit were already speaking in foreign languages, when
the Parthians, Medes, etc., came up, so that anything corresponding to the
magnetic ‘‘rapport’’ 1s not conceivable. (8) If the event is alleged to
have taken place, as it is narrated, with a view to the representation of an
idea,* and that, indeed, only at the time and without leaving behind a per-
manent facility of speaking languages, ‘‘in order to represent and to attest,
in germ and symbol, the future gathering of the elect out of all nations,
the cuousecration of their languages in the church, and again the holiness of
the church in the use of these profane idioms, as also of what is natural
generally,’’* such a view is nothing else than a gratuitously-imported sub-
jective abstraction of fancy, which leaves the point of the impossibility and
the non-historical character of the occurrence entirely unsettled, although
it arbitrarily falls back upon the Babylonian confusion of tongues as its
corresponding historical type. This remark also applies against Lange,‘
according to whose fanciful notion the original language of the inner life by
twohich men’s minds are united has here reached its fairest manifestation.
This Pentecostal language, he holds, still pervades the church as the
language of the inmost life in God, as the language of the Bible, glorified
by the gospel, and as the leaven of all Janguages, which effects their re-
generation into the language of the Spirit. (4) Nevertheless, the state of
the fact can in nowise be reduced to a speaking of the persons assembled
in their mother-tongues, so that the speakers would have been no native
Galileans ;° along with which David Schulz * explains érépa:s yAcooacs even
of other kinds of singing praise, which found utterance in the provincial
dialects contrary to their custom and ability at other times. Thus the very
essence of the narrative, the miraculous nature of the phenomenon, is swept
away, and there is not even left matter of surprise fitted to give sufficient

1 Adduced especially by Olshansen, and by 4 Apost. Zettait. Il. p. 22 ff.
Baeumlein in the Wirtemb. Stud. VI. 2, p. 118. ® Paulus, Eichhorn, Schulthess, de cha-
2Comp. Augustine, serm. 9: Loquebatur rismatid. sp.s., Lips. 1818, Kuinoel, Heinrichs,
enim tunc unus homo omnibus Jinguis, quia ¥ritzeche, Schrader, and others.
locutura erat unitas ccclesiae in omnibus * d. Geistesguben d ersten Christen, Breelau,
Hnguis. 1886.
3 Rosetcuscher, Gabe der Sprachen, Marb.
1850, p. 97.

GIFT OF TONGUES. 49

occasion for the astonishment and its expressions, if we do not, with
Thiess, resort even to the hypothesis that the speakers bad only used the
Aramaic dialects instead of the Galilean. Every resolution of the matter
into a speaking of native languages is directly against the nature and the
words of the narrative, and therefore unwarranted. (5) Equally unwar-
ranted, moreover, is the conversion, utterly in the face of the narrative, of
the miracle of tongues into a miracle of hearing, so that those assembled did
not, indeed, speak in any foreign tongue, but the foreigners listening
believed that they heard their own native languages. See against this
view, Castalio in loc., and Beza on x. 46. This opinion—which Billroth on
1 Cor. strangely outbids by his fancy of a primeval language which had
been spoken—is already represented by Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 44, as
allowable by the punctuation of ii. 6; is found thereafter in the Pseudo-
Cyprian (Arnold), in the appendix to the Opp. Cypr. p. 60, ed. Brem. (p.
475, ed. Basil. 1530), in Beda, Erasmus, and others ; and has recently been
advocated especially by Schneckenburger ;’ legend also presents later
analogous phenomena—in the life of Francis Xavier and others. (6) The
miraculous gift of languages remains the centre of the entire narrative,’
and may in nowise be put aside or placed in the background, if the
state of the fact is to be derived entirely from this narrative. If we
further compare x. 46, 47, the xa905 «ai jpeis in that passage shows that the
Aakeiv yAaooars, which there occurred at the descent of the Spirit on those
assembled, cannot have been anything essentially different from the event
in Actsii. A corresponding judgment must in that case be formed as to xix.
6. But we have to take our views of what the yAsooars Aateiv really was,
not from our passage, but from the older and absolutely authentic account.
of Paul in 1 Cor. xii. 14 : according to which it (see comm. on 1 Cor. xii.
10) was a speaking in the form of prayer—which took place in the highest
ecstasy, and required an interpretation for its understanding —and not o
speaking in foreign languages. The occurrence in Acts ii. is therefore to
be recognised, according to its historical import, as the phenomenon of the
qlssolalia (not as a higher stage of it, in which the foreign languages super-
vened, Olshausen), which emerged for the first time in the Christian church,
and that immediately on the effusion of the Spirit at Pentecost,—a phe-—
nomenon which, in the sphere of the marvellous to which it belongs, was
elaborated and embellished by legend into a speaking in foreign languages,
and accordingly into an occurrence quite unique, not indeed as to sub-
stance, but as to mode,*® and far surpassing the subsequently frequent and’
well-known glossolalia, having in fact no parallel in the further history of
the church.‘ How tiis transformation — the supposition of which is by

1 Beitr. p. 84; comp. ud. den Zeck @. 4 The conclusion of Wieseler (Stud. u. Krit,
Apostelgesch. p. 202 ff; Svensun also, in the 1869, p. 118), that Luke, who, as a companion
Zeltechr. f. Luth. Th. u. K. 1859, p. 1 ff.. of Paul, must have been well acquainted with
arrives at the result of a miracle of hearing. tho glossolalia, could not have represented it

3 See Ch. F. Fritzeche, nova opuec. p. 809 ff.; asaspeaking in foreign languages, is incor-
Zeller, p. 104 ff.; Hilgenf. d. Glossolalie, p. rect. Luke, in fact. conceives and describes
ST ff. the Pentecostal miracle not as the glossolatia,

3 Comp. Hilgenfeld, p. 146. aa which was certainly well known to him, as it

50 CHAP, 11, 4.‘

no means to be treated with suspicion as the dogmatic caprice of unbelief
(in opposition to Rossteuscher, p. 125) — took place, cannot be ascertained.
But the supposition very naturally suggests itself, that among the persons
possessed by the Spirit, who were for the most part Galileans (in the elabo-
rated legend ; all of’ them Galileans), there were also some foreigners, and
that among these very naturally the utterances of the Spirit in the glossola-
lia found vent in expressions of their different national languages, and not
in the Aramaic dialect, which was to them by nature a foreign language, and
therefore not natural or suitable for the outburst of inspired ecstasy. If
this first glossolalia actually took place in different languages, we can ex-
plain how the legend gradually gave to the occurrence the form which it
has in Luke, even with the list of nations, which specifies more particular-
ly the languages spoken. That a symbolical view of the phenomenon has
occasioned the formation of the legend, namely, the idea of doing away
with the diversity of languages which arose, Gen. xi., by way of punish-
ment, according to which idea there was to be again in the Messianic
time ei Aads xupiov xat yAdooa pid! is not to be assumed (Schnecken-
burger, Rossteuscher, de Wette), since this idea as respects the yAdeoa yia,
is not a N. T. one, and it would suit not the miracle of speaking, such as
the matter appears in our narrative, but miracle of hearing, such as it has
been interpreted to mean. The general idea of the universal destination of
Christianity * cannot but have been favourable to the shaping of the occur-
rence in the form in which it appears in our passage.

The view which regards our event as essentially identical with the glossolalia,
but does not conceive the latter as a speaking in foreign languages, has been
adopted by Bleek * whose explanation, however, of highly poetical discourse,
combined with foreign expressions, agrees neither with the érép. yA. generally
nor with vv. 8 and 11; by Baur,‘ who, however, explains on this account
érép, yA. as new spirit-tongues,* and regarded this expression as the original
one, but subsequently,* amidst a mixing up of different opinions, has acced-
‘ed to the view of Bleek ; by Steudel,’ who explains the Pentecostal event
from the corresponding tone of feeling which the inspired address encoun-
‘tered in others,—a view which does not at all suit the concourse of foreign
‘unbelievers in our passage; by Neander, who, however,* idealizes the
‘speaking of inspiration in our passage too indefinitely and indistinctly ;

‘was a frequent gift in the apostolic age, but have been otherwise than familiar with the

asa quite extraordinary occurrence, such as
it had been presented to him by tradition;
‘and in doing so, he is perfectly conscious of
the distincfion between it and the speaking
‘with tongues, which he knew by experience.
‘With justice Holtzmann also (in Herzog’s
Lincyk'. XVIII. p. 689) sees in our narrative a
later legendary formation, but from @ time
which was no longer familar with the nature
‘A the glossolalia. Thislatter statement is not
to be conceded, partly because Luke wrote
f#oon after the destruction of Jerueralem. and
the source which he here made use of must

“have been stil! older; and partly because he |

vwas a friend of Paul, and as such could not

nature of that xdpioua, which the apostle
bimself richly possessed.

1 Test. XII. Pair. p. 618.

2 Comp. Zeller, Hilgenfeld.

2 In the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 50 ff.

4In the 7¥. Zellschr. 1€80, 2, p. 101 ff.

5’ Which the Spirit has created for Himself
as His organs, different from the usual human
tongues. See also in his neutest. Theol. p.
828 f.

7In the Tih. Zeilechr. 1880, 2, p. 188 ff.,
1831, 2, p. 128 ff.

8 4th edition, p. 28.

GIFT OF TONGUES. 51

by Wieseler,’ who makes the épznveia yAwcody be described according to the
impression made upon the assembled Jews,—an idca irreconcilable with
our text (vv. 6-12); by de Wette, who ascribes the transformation of
the glossolalia in our passage to a reporter, who from want of knowl-
edge, imported into the traditional facts a symbolical meaning; by
Hilgenfeld, according to whom the author conceived the gift of languages
as a special yévos of speaking with tongues; by van Hengel, who sees
in the Corinthian glossolalia a degenerating of the original fact in our
passage ; and by Ewald,* who represents the matter as the first outburst
of the infinite vigour of life and pleasure in life of the new-born Chris-
tianity, which took place not in words, songs, and prayers previously
used, nor generally in previous human speech and language, but, as it
were, in a sudden conflux and moulding-anew of all previous languages,
amidst which the synonymous expressions of different languages were, in
the surging of excitement, crowded and conglomerated, etc.,—a view in
‘which the appeal to the ¢@e 6 zaryp and papdy afd is much too weak to
do justice to the érépacs yAdcoa:s as the proper point of the narrative. On
the other hand, the view of the Pentecostal miracle as an actual though
only temporary speaking in unacquired foreign languages, such as Luke
represents it, has been maintained down to the most recent times,* a
conception which Hofmann‘ supports by the significance of Pentecost as
the feast of the first fruits, and Baumgarten, at the same time, by its
reference to the giving of the law. But by its side the procedure of
the other extreme, by which the Pentecostal occurrence is entirely banished
from history,* has been carried out in the boldest and most decided
manner by Zeller (p. 104 ff.), to whom the origin of the narrative appears
quite capable of explanation from dogmatic motives—according to the idea of
the destination of Christianity for all nations—and typical views.* — xa00s,
as, in which manner, i.e. according to the context, in which foreign lan-
guage. — arog%éyyeo8at] elogui,’ a purposely chosen word * for loud utterance
in the elevated state of spiritual gifts.’

the festival of the law, urging the. mythi-
cal miracle of tongues on Sinal (comp. also

2In the Stud. u. Krié. 1838, p. 748 ff., 1960,
p. 117%.

2 Gesch. d. apoest. Zeitalt. p. 128 ff., comp.
Jahrb. ITI. p. 269 ff.

3 Bacumlein in the Wirtemd. Stud. 1834, 2,
p. 40 ff. ; Baner in the Stud. u. Krit, 1848, p.
658 ff., 1844, p. 708 ff.; Zinsler, de chariem.
Tov yA Aad. 1847; Engelmann, 2. d. Charis-
men, 1850; Maier, d. Glossalie d. apost. Zeit-
alt. 1835 ; Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zetialt.
p. 67; Rossteuscher, Baumgarten, Lechler ;
comp. also Kahnis, rom hell. Geiale, p. 61 ff.,
Dogmat. I. p. 517, Schaff, and others.

' 4 Welesag. wu. rf. Il. p. 206 ff.

® Weisse, evang. Gesch. II. p. 417 ff., identi-
fies the matter even with the appearance of
the risen Christ to more than 500 brethren, re-
corded in 1 Cor. xv.6!—Gfrorer, Gesch. a.
Urehr. I. 2, p. 897 f., derives the origin of the
Pentecostal history in our paseage from the
Jewish tradition of the feast of Pentecost as

Schneckenburger, p. 202 ff.).

® Comp. also Baur, who finds here Paul's
idea of the Aadrciv rats yAwooas THY dvOpadrwr
wat Tor ayyéAwy, 1 Cor, xiii. 1, converted into
reality. According to Baur, neulest. Theol. p.
822, there remains to us as the proper nucleus
of the matter only the conviction, which be-
came to the disciples and first Christians a
Sact of their consciousness, that the same Spirit
by whom Jesue was qualified to be the Messiah
had aleo been tmparted to them, and was the
Epecifle principle — determining the Christian
consciousness—Of their fellowship. This com-
munication of the Spirit did not, in his view,
even occur at a definite point of time.

7 Lucian, Zeua. 1, Parae. 4, Plat. Mor. p.
405 E, Diog. L. 1. 68.

§ Comp. if. 14, xxvi. 25.

® 1 Chron. xxv. 1; Ecclus. Prolog. ii.; comp.

52 CHAP. II., 5, 6.

Ver. 5 gives, as introductory to what follows, preliminary information how
it happened that Jews of so very diversified nationality were witnesses of
the occurrence, and heard their mother-languages spoken by the inspired.
Stolz, Paulus, and Heinrichs are entirely in error in supposing that ver.
5 refers to the Aadeiv érép. yA., and that the sense is: ‘‘Neque id secus
quam par erat, nam ex pluribus nationibus diverse loquentibus intererant
isti coetui homines,’’ ete. The context, in fact, distinguishes the ’lovdaios
and the Tad:Aaio: (80 designated not as a sect, but according to their
nationality), clearly in such a way that the former are members of the nation
generally, and the latter are specially and exclusively Galileans.’ — joa»
.. . Karotxodvtes] they were dielling, is not to be taken of mere temporary
residence,* but of the domicile? which they had taken up in the central
city of the theocracy, and that from conscientious religious feelings as
Israelites (hence ei/aBeis, comp. on Luke ii. 25). Comp. Chrys.: 1d xarorxeiv
ebAapeiaS Vv onpeiov' TAS; ard TocovTaY yap EOvav svTeS nad watpldas addvTes
. . . Gxouv Exel, — Tov bd Tdv obpav.] sc, Aver, of the nations to be found under
heaven (Bernhardy). — 7d rév otpavév is classical, like 7d rdv fAtov.* The
whole expression has something solemn about it, and is, as a popular
hyperbole, to be left in all its generality. Comp. Deut. ii. 25; Col. 1. 23.

Ver. 6. Tic gwvi¢ ravryc] this sound, which, inasmuch a8 ovroc points back
to a more remote noun, is to be referred to the wind-like rushing of ver. 2, to
which also yevou. carries us back. Comp. John iii. 8. Luke represents the
matter in such a way that this noise sounded forth from the house of meet-
ing to the street, and that thereby the multitude were induced to come
thither. In this case neither an earthquake (Neander) nor a ‘‘sympathy of
the susceptible’ (Lange) are to be called in to help, because there is no
mention of either ; in fact, the wonderful character of the noise is sufficient.
Others, as Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Bleek, Schulz, Wieseler, Hilgenfeld, think
that the loud speaking of the inspired is here meant. But in that case we
should expect the plural, especially as this speaking occurred in different
languages ; and besides, we should be obliged to conceive this speaking as
being strong, like a crying, which is not indicated in ver. 4; therefore
Wieseler would have it taken only as a definition of time, which the aorist
does not suit, because the speaking continues. Erasmus, Calvin, Beza,
Castalio, Vatablus, Grotius, Heumann, and Schulthess take guv4 in the sense
of ¢fun. Contrary to the wsus loquendi ; even in Gen. xlv. 16 it is other-
wise. — ovveytty] mente confusa est (Vulgate), was perplered.* — cig Exaarac]
annexes to the more indefinite jxovov the exact statement of the subject.* —
Siadéxtp] is here also not national language, but dialect (see on i. 19), lan-
guage in its provincial peculiarity. It is, as well as in ver. 8, designedly

anvod@cypna, Dent. xxxli. 2, also Zech, x. 2; aleo 4 Comp. Plat. Zp. p. 88 C, Tim. p. BC.
of falee prophets, Ezek. xiii. 19; Mich. v, 12 5 Comp. ix. 22; 1 Macc. iv. 27; 2 Macc. x.
See, generally, Schleucner, 7hes. I. p. 417; 80; Herod. viii. 99; Plat. Zp. 7, p. 846 D;
also Valckenacr, p. 814; and van Hengel.p.40. Diod.S. iv. 62; Lucian. Nigr. 81.
! See aleo van Henge), p. 9. ®* Comp John xvi. 82; Acts xi. 29 al. ; Jacobs,
2 KuInoel, Olshausen, and others. ad Achill. Tat. p. 622; Ameis on Hom. Ou.
3 Luke xiil.4; Acts. vil. 48, ix. 2, al.; x. 897%; Bernhardy, p. 420.
Plat. Legg. ii. p. 666 E, xii. p. 969 C.

EFFECTS OF THE MIRACLE. 53

chosen, because the foreigners who arrived spoke not entirely different Jan-
guages, but in part only different dialects of the same Janguage. Thus, for
example, the Asiatics, Phrygians, and Pamphylians, respectively spoke
Greek, but in different idioms; the Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, Per-
sian, but also in different provincial forms. Therefore, the persons pos-
sessed by the Spirit, according to the representation of .the text, expressed
themselves in the peculiar local dialects of the érépwv yAwoowv. The view
that the Aramaic dialect was that in which all the speakers spoke (van
Hengel), appears—from ver. 8 ; from the list of nations, which would be
destitute of significance ; from mpoo7Avro: (ver. 10), which would be mean-
ingless ; and from ver. 11,’ as well as from the opinions expressed in vv.
12, 18, which would be without a motive—as an exegetical impossibility,
which is also already excluded by ei¢ éxaorog in ver. 6. — Aadovvrwy avrav|
not, of course, that all spoke in all dialects, but that one spoke in one
dialect, and another in another. Each of those who came together heard
his peculiar dialect spoken by one or some of the inspired. This remark
applies in opposition to Bleek, who objects to the common explanation of
Aateiv érép. yAdoous, that each individual must have spoken in the different
languages simultaneously. The expression is not even awkward (Olshausen),
as it expresses the opinion of the people comprehended generally, and con-
sequently even the summary avra» is quite in order.

Vv. 7, 8. ’Egicravro denotes the astonishment now setting in after the first
perplexity, ver. 6; édaiuavory is the continuing wonder resulting from it.
Comp. Mark vi. 51.—idot] to be enclosed within two commas. — rdvre¢
ovtot «.7.A.] pointing out : all the speakers present. It does not distinguish
two kinds of persons, those who spoke and those who did not speak (van
Hengel) ; but see ver. 4. The dislocation occasioned by the interposition
of eiciv brings the wdvre¢ ovroe into more emphatic prominence. — TadcAaive|
They wondered to hear men, who were pure Galileans, speak Parthian,
Median, ctc. This view, which takes ad. in the sense of nationality, is
required by vv. 8, 11, and by the contrast of the nations afterwards named.
It is therefore foreign to the matter, with Herder, Heinrichs, Olshausen,
Schulz, Rossteuscher, van Hengel, and older commentators, to bring into
prominence the accessory idea of want of culture (unculticated Galileans) ;
and erroneous, with Stolz, Eichhorn, Kuinoel, and others, to consider Tad.
as a designation of the Christian sect —a designation, evidence of which,
moreover, can only be adduced from a later period.* It is erroneous, also,
to find the cause of wonder in the circumstance that the Galileans should
have used profane languages for so holy an object (Kuinoel). So, in opposi-
tion to this, Ch. F. Fritzsche, nova opuse. p. 810. — xai rae] xai, as a simple
and, annexes the sequence of the sense; and (as they are all Galileans)
how happens it that, etc. — tjueig axobopev Exaotog x.7.A.] we on our part (in con-
trast to the speaking Galileans) hear each one, etc. That, accordingly,
éyevy7. is to be understood distributively, is self-evident from the connec-

1 Where neither in itself nor according to own tongues.
ver. 8 can raig nuetdpars yAwooats Mean what 2 Augusti, Denkwtird. IV. pp. 49, 55.
van Hengel puts into it: ae we do with our

54 CHAP. II., 9-11.

tion (comp. rai¢ jer. yAdooae, ver. 11); therefore van Hengel’ wrongly
objects to the view of different languages, that the words would require to
TUN : THC Hu. ak. T. id. diad., ev 9 Exactoe eyevvhOn. —év g éyevvfO.| designation
of the mother-tongue, with which one is, in the popular way of expressing
the matter, dorn furnished.

Vv. 9-11. Tidp8oc . . . "ApaBec is a more exact statement, placed in apposi-
tion, of the subject of éyevvfOjuev. After finishing the list, ver. 11, Luke again
takes up the verb already used in ver. 8, and completes the sentence already
there begun, but in such a way as once more to bring forward the im-
portant point rg idie d:adéxry, only in a different and more general expres-
sion, by raic #uer. yAdooas. Instead, therefore, of simply writing Aadcbvr.
avr. Td ueyad. r. Geov without this resumption in ver. 11, he continues, after
the list of nations, as if he had said in ver. 8 merely xai rac qyeic. — The
list of nations itself, which is arranged not without reference to geography,
yet in a desultory manner east, north, south, west, is certainly genuine (in
opposition to Ziegler, Schulthess. Kuinoel), but is, of course, not to be
considered, at any rate in its present order and completeness, as an origi-
nal constituent part of the speech of the people (which would be psycho-
logically inappropriate to the lively expression of strong astonishment, but
as an historical notice, which was designedly interwoven in the speech and
put into the mouth of the people, either already in the source whence Luke
drew, or by Luke himself, in order to give very strong prominence to the
contrast with the preceding Tad:Aaio. —’EAauira:, on the Persian Gulf, are
so named in the LXX. (Isa. xxi. 2); called by the Greeks ’EAuuzaio:.* —
"Iovdaiav] There is a historical reason why Jews should be also mentioned in
this list, which otherwise names none but foreigners. A portion of those
who had received the Spirit spoke Jewish, so that even the native Jews
heard their provincial dialect. This is not at variance with the érépac
yAdooa, because the Jewish dialect differed in pronunciation from the
Galilean, although both belonged to the Aramaic language of the’ country
at that time ; comp. on Matt. xxvi. 78. Heinrichs thinks that 'Iovdaiav is
inappropriate (comp. de Wette), and was only included in this specifica-
tion in fluxu orationis ; while Olshausen holds that Luke included the
mention of it from his Roman point of view, and in consideration of his
Roman readers. What a high degree of carelessness would either sugges-
tion involve!* Ewald guesses that Syria has dropped out efter Judaea. —
rv 'Aciav] is here, as it is mentioned along with individual Asiatic districts,
not the whole of Asia Minor, nor yet simply Jonia (Kuinoel), or Lydia
(Schneckenburger), to which there is no evidence that the name Asia was
applied ; but the whole western coast-region of Asia Minor.‘ — ré pépn ric AuBone

32.¢c. p.24f.: ‘* How comes it that we, no one * Tertull. c. Jud. %, read Armeniam. Con-
excepted, hear them speak in the mother-tongue jectural emendations are : "I3ovzaiay (Caspar
Of our own people?’ Thus, in his view, we Barth), ‘Ivdiay (Erasmus Schmid), Bidvriar
are to explain the passage as the words stand §(Hemsterhuis and Valckenaer).
in the text, and thus there is designated only ‘Caria, Lydia, Mysia, according to Plin.
the one mother-tongue—the Aramaic. H. N. v.28; see Winer, Realw., Wieseler, p.
2 See Polyb. v. 44. 9, al. The country is 982 ff.
called "EAvuais, Pol. xxxi. 11. 1; Strabo, xvi.
p. 744. .

EFFECTS OF THE MIRACLE. 55

tig Kata Kupfvy] the districts of the Libya situated towards Cyrene, i.e. Libya
Cyrenaica, or Pentapolitana, Upper Libya, whose capital was Cyrene, nearly
one-fourth of the population of which were Jews.' So many of the Cyre-
naean Jews dwelt in Jerusalem, that they had there a synagogue of their
own (vi. 9). —ol émdquovrres ‘Pupaio.] the Romans — Jews dwelling in Rome
and the Roman countries of the West generally — residing (here in Jerusalem)
as strangers (pilgrims to the feast, or for other reasons).* As émdzpovvrec,
they are not properly included under the category of xarocxctyrec in the
preparatory ver. 5, but are by zeugma annexed thereto. —'‘Iovdaiol re xai
mpoowAvro: is in apposition not merely to of émid. 'Pwyaios (Erasmus, Grotius,
van Hengel, and others), but, as is alone in keeping with the universal aim of
the list of nations, to all those mentioned before in vv. 9, 10. The native Jews
(‘Tovdaior) heard the special Jewish local dialects, which were their mother-
tongues ; the Gentile Jews (mpoofAvra:) heard their different non-Hebraic
mother-tongues, and that likewise in the different idioms of the several
nationalities. — Kpire¢ xat “ApaBec] are inaccurately brought in afterwards,
as their proper position ought to have been before 'Iovd. re xai mpooyd., be-
cause that statement, in the view of the writer, held good of all the nationali-
ties, —r. querépatg yAdooarc] quer. has the emphasis of contrast: not with
their language, but with ours. Comp. ver. 8. That yjdoo. comprehends
also the dialectic varieties serving as a demarcation, is self-evident from vv.
6-10. The expression r. quer. yA. affirms substantially the same thing as was
meant by éréparg yAdooare in ver. 4. — 1d peyadeia r. Geov] the great things of
God which God has done.* It is the glorious things which God has pro-
vided through Christ, as is self-evident in the case of that assembly in that
condition. Not merely the resurrection of Christ (Grotius), but ‘‘tota huc
oixovonia gratiae pertinet,’’ Calovius. Comp. x. 46.

Vv. 12, 18. Auprép.] see on Luke ix. 7. — ri ay GéAot rovro elvac;] The
optative with av, in order to denote the hypothetically conceived possibility :
What might this possibly wish to be? i.e. What might—if this speaking
in our native languages, this strange phenomenon, is designed to have
any meaning—to be thought of as that meaning?‘ On the distinction
of the sense without dy, see Kuhner, ad Xen. Anabd. v. 7. 83.°— érepor]
another class of judges, consequently none of the impartial, of whom
there was mention in vv. 7-12, but hostile persons (in part, doubtless, of
the hierarchical party) who drew from the well-known freer mode of life of
Jesus and His disciples a judgment similar to Luke vii. 84, and decided
against the disciples. — diayAevafovrec] mocking ; a stronger expression than
the simple verb.° The scoffers explain the enthusiasm of the speakers,

1 Bee Joseph. AnidZ. xiv. 7.2, xvi. 6.1. See
Schneckenbnrger, neulest. Zeligesch. p. 88 ff.

£On éwdypu., as distinguished from xcara-
xovvres, comp. xvii. 21. Plat. Prot. p. 843 C:
bévos dy dwénuicy. Legg. vill. p. 8, 4 A;
Dem. 1852. 19 ; Athen. vill. p. 861 F : ot ‘Payny
Karowxovvres ai ot éwinuovuvres Ty WOARt.

3 Comp. Ps. Ixxi. 19; Ecclus. xvii. 8, xvill,
8, xxxill. 8; 8 Macc. vil. 22.

4Comp. xvif. 18; Herm. ad Viger. p. TR8;
Bernhardy, p. 410 f.

8 Comp. aleo Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 180.
On 6éAecv of impersonal things, see Wetstein
and Btalibaum, ad Flat. Rep. p. 370 B.

56 CHAP. II., 14-17.

which struck them as eccentric, and the use of foreign languages instead
of the Galilean, as the effect of drunken excitement. Without disturbing
themselves whence this foreign speaking, according to the historical posi-
tion of the matter, this speaking with tongues, had come.and become pas-
sible to the Gulileans, they are arrested only by the strangeness of the phe-
nomenon as it struck the senses, and, in accordance with their own vulgarity,
impute it to the having taken too much wine. Comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 23. The
contents of the speaking (van Hengel) would not, apart from that form of
utterance as if drunk with the Spirit, have given ground for so frivolous an
opinion, but would rather have checked it. The judgment of Festus con-
cerning Paul (xxvi. 24) is based on an essentially different situation. —
yAeixouc] yAevkog Tb aréotaypa THC CTagVvARe mpiv warAiy, Hesychius.’

Vv. 14, 15. rateic] as in v. 20, xvii. 22, xxvii. 21; Luke xix. 8, xviii.
11. The introduction of the address (he stood up, etc.) is solemn. — otv roic
tvdexa}] thus Matthias is already included, and justly ; ver. 82, comp. with
i. 22. We may add that Grotius aptly remarks (although contradicted by
Calovius) : ‘‘ Hic incipit (Petrus) nominis sui a rupe dicti meritum implere.’’
—arepi.] as in ver. 4: but not as if now Peter also had begun to speak
_ trépas yAdoo. (van Hengel). That speaking is past when Peter and the
eleven made their appearance ; and then follows the simple instruction re-
garding it, intelligible to ordinary persons, uttered aloud and with empha-
sis. — xatocxovvrec] quite as in ver. 5. The nominative with the article, in
order to express the imperative address.” — zvivo] namely, what I shall now
explain to you. Concerning évurisecfa (from oic), auribus percipere, which
is foreign to the old classical Greek, but jn current use in the LXX. and
the Apocrypha.? In the N. T. only here.‘ — ob yap] yap justifies the pre-
ceding summons. The vira, these there, does not indicate that the apostles
themselves were not among those who spoke in a miraculous manner, as if
the gift of tongues had been a lower kind of inspired speech ;° but Peter,
standing up with the eleven, places himself in the position of a third per-
son, pointing to the whole multitude, whom he would defend, as their ad-
vocate ; and as he did so, the reference of this apology to himself also and
his fellow-apostles became self-evident in the application. This also ap-
plies against van Hengel, p. 64 f. — dpa zpirg] about nine in the morning ;
so early in the day, and at this first of the three hours of prayer (see on iii.
1), contemporaneously with the morning sacrifice in the temple, people are
not drunk! Observe the sober, self-collected way in which Peter speaks.

Vv. 16,17. But this (which has just taken place on the part of those
assembled, and has been accounted among you as the effect of drunken-
ness) is the event, which is spoken of by the prophet Joel. — Joel iii, 1-5 (LXX.
ii. 28-81) is freely quoted according to the LXX. The prophet, speaking
as the organ of God, describes the oyzeia which shall directly precede the
dawn of the Messianic period, namely first the general effusion of the ful-

VJob xxxil. 19; Lucian. Zp. Sat. 22, Phi- 3 See Sturz, Dial. Al. p. 166.
lope. 89. 65; Nic. Al. 184. 209. Comp. yAev- *Comp. Test. XII. Pair. p. 520.
xoworns, Leon. Tar. 18; Apolicnid. 10. 51 Cor. xiv. 18, 19; sode Wette, at var‘ance

3 See Bernhardy, p. 67. with ver, 4.

-&@

PETER’S DISCOURSE. 57

ness of the Holy Spirit, and then frightful catastrophes in heaven and on
earth. This prophecy, Peter says, has now entered upon its accomplish-
ment. — xai écra}] and it will be the case: quite according to the Hebrew
(and the LXX.) 7°. The «ai in the prophetic passage connects it with
what precedes, and is incorporated in the citation. — év raic éoyarate quépate |
The LXX., agreeing with the Hebrew, has only yera ravra. Peter has in-
serted for it the familiar expression D°D° SVN (Isa. ii. 2; Mic. iv. 1, ai.)
by way of more precise definition, as Kimchi also gives it (see Lightfoot).
This denotes the last days of the pre-Messianic period—the days immediately
preceding the erection of the Messianic kingdom, which, according to the
N. T. view, could not but take place by means of the speedily expected Parousia
of Christ ; see 2 Tim. iii. 1; Jas. v. 3; and as regards the essential sense,
also Heb. i. 1.’ — éxyeo] a later form of the future.? The outpouring fig-
uratively denotes the copious communication. Tit. iii. 6; Actsx.45. Comp.
i. 5, and see on Rom. v. 5. — a7 rov zvevuaroc uov] deviating from the He-
brew ‘M1-Ne, =The partitive expression (Bernhardy, p. 222) denotes that
something of the Spirit of God conceived as a whole—a special partial em-
anation for the bestowal of divers gifts according to the will of God (Heb.
ri. 4; 1 Cor. xii.)—will pass over to every individual (ézi racav odpxa*).—
waouv oapxa| every flesh, i.e. omnes homines, but with the accessory idea of
weakness and imperfection, which the contrast of the highest gift of God,
that is to be imparted to the weak mortal race, here presents.‘ In Joel
173-59 certainly refers to the people of Jsrael, conceived, however, as the
people of God, the collective body of whom, not merely, as formerly, individ-
ual prophets, shalJl receive the divine inspiration. Comp. Isa. liv. 13 ;
John vi. 45. But as the idea of the people of God has its realization, so
far as the history of redemption is concerned, in the collective body of be-
lievers on Christ without distinction of nations; so also in the Messianic
fulfilment of that prophecy meant by Peter, and now begun, what the
prophet has promised ¢o all ficsh is not to be understood of the Jewish peo-
ple as such (van Hengel, appealing to ver. 89), but of all the true people
of God, sv fur as they believe on Christ. The first Messianic effusion of the
Spirit at Pentecost was the beginning of this fulfilment, the completion of
which is in the course of a progressive development that began at that time
with Israel, and as respects its end is yet future, although this end was by
Peter already expected as nigh. — xai mpogyreboovow . . . Evurvaocbycovrat
describes the effects uf the promised effusion of the Spirit. pogyreicover,
afflatu divino loquentur (Matt. vii. 22), is by Peter specially recognized as a
prediction of that apocalyptically inspired speaking, which had just com-
menced with the éréparg yAdooac. This we may the more warrantably af-
firm, since, according to the analogy of xix. 6, we must ussume that that

1 Comp. Weiss, Petrin. Lehrdegr. p. 82 f. tial effusion of the Spirit on individuals. For
2 Winer. p. 74 (EB. T. 91). the personality of the Spirit, comp. especially
*The impersonality of the Spirit is not the eaying of Peter, vy. 3.

thereby assumed (in opposition to Weiss, didi. 4 Comp. Rom. fil. 90; Gal. ii. 16; 1 Cor. i.

Theol. p. 186), but the distribution of the gifts 20; Matt. xxiv. 22; Luke ili. 6.
and powers, which are represented as a par-

58 CHAP. I1., 18-21.

speaking was not mere glossolalia in the strict sense, but, in a portion of the
speaker’s prophecy. Comp. the spiritual speaking in Corinth. — ol vioi dua
xat ai Gvyatépec ipav] the male and female members of the people of God, i.¢.
all without exception. Peter sees this also fulfilled by the inspired mem-
bers of the Christian theocracy, among whom, according to i. 14, there
were at that time also women. — dpdcere . . . évurvioig] visions in waking and
in sleeping, as forms of the doxdAvyr¢ of God, such as often came to the
prophets. This prophetic distinction, Joel predicts, will, after the effusion
of the Spirit in its fulness, become common property. The fulfilment of
this part of the prophecy had, it is true, not yet taken place among the
members of the Christian people of God, but was still before them as a
consequence of the communication of the Spirit which had just occurred ;
Peter, however, quotes the words as already fulfilled (ver. 16), because
their fulfilment was necessarily conditioned by the outpouring of the Spirit,
and was consequently already in idea included in it. — veavioxo: . . . mpeo-
Burepo] belong Jikewise, as the preceding clause (viol . . . Ovyarépes), to
the representation of the collective body as illustrated per pepiopdv. The
épaoec correspond to the lively feelings of youth ; évirua, to the lesser ex-
citability of more advanced age; yet the two are to be taken, not as mutu-
ally exclusive, but after the manner of parallelism.—The verb, with the
dative of the cognate noun, is here (éverviowe evurvaol., they will dream with
dreams ; comp. Jael iii. 1) a Hebraism, and does not denote, like the similar
construction in classic Greek, a more precise definition or strengthening of
’ the notion conveyed by the verb (Lobeck, Paral. p. 524 f).

Ver. 18. A repetition of the chief contents of ver. 17, solemnly confirm-
ing them, and prefixing the persons concerned.—xai ye] and indeed.’ It
seldom occurs in classical writers without the two particles being separated
by the word brought into prominence or restricted, in which case, however,
there is also a shade of meaning to be attended to.* We must not explain
the dobAove ov and the dofAa¢ zov with Heinrichs and Kuinoel, in accordance
with the original text, which has no ov, of servile hominum genus, nor yet
with Tychsen’ of the alienigenae (because slaves were wont to be purchased
from abroad) : both views are at variance with the yov, which refers the
relation of service to God as the Master. It is therefore the male and female
members of the people of God (according to the prophetic fulfilment : of
the Christian people of God) that are meant, inasmuch as they recognise
Jehovah as their Master, and serve Him: my male and female worshippers ;
comp. the Hebrew 7; 722, In the twofold yov Peter agrees with the
translators of the LAX. ,‘ who must have had another reading of the original
before them.

1 Luke xix. 42; Herm. ad Viger. p. 826. who are at the same time my servants and
3 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 319. handmaids, and therefore in spiritual things
3 Tiustratio vaticinti Joel lii. Gott. 1788. are quite on a level with the free.” Similarly

*8o much the less ought Hengstenberg, Bengel, and recently Beelen (Catholic) in his
Chrietol. I. p. 402, to have imported into this Commentar.in Acta ap. ed. 2, 1864, who ap-
enclitic zov what is neitherfound initnorrel- _ peals inappropriately to Gal. ifi. 27 f.
evant: ‘‘on servants and handmalds of men,

PETER’S DISCOURSE. 59

Vv. 19, 20. After this effusion of the Spirit I shall bring about (décu, as at
Matt. xxiv. 24) catastrophes in heaven and on earth—the latter are mentioned
at once in ver. 19, the former in ver. 20—ae immediate heralds of the Messianic
day. Peter includes in his quotation this element of the prophecy, because
its realization (ver. 16), conditioned by the outpouring of the Spirit which
necessarily preceded it, pregented itself likewise essentially as belonging to
the allotted portion of the écoyvara: #uépa:. The dreadful events could not but
now—#seeing that the effusion of the Spirit preceding them had already com-
menced—be conceived as inevitable and very imminent ; and this circum-
stance could not but mightily contribute to the alarming of souls and their
being won to Christ. As to répara and onyeia, see on Matt. xxiv. 24; Rom.
xv. 19—aiua . . . xanvov contains the onueia tri ri¢ y7c, namely, bloodshed
(war, revolt, murder) and conflagration. Similar devastations belonged,
according to the later Jewish Christology also, to the dolores Messiae. See
on Mait. xxiv. 6, 7. ‘‘Cum videris regna se invicem turbantia, tunc ex-
pectes vestigia Messiae.’’' The reference to blood-rain, fiery meteors, and
pillars of smoke arising from the earth * is neither certainly in keeping with
the original text of the prophecy, nor does it satisfy the analogy of Matt,
xxiv. — aryida xarvov] vapour of smoke.* — Ver. 20. Meaning : the sun will
become dark, and the moon appear bloody. Comp. on Matt. xxiv. 29; also
Isa. xiii. 10 ; Ezek. xxxii. 7. — rpiv eAGeiv] ere there shall have come.‘ — riv
tépav xvpiov| t.e. according to the sense of the prophetic fulfilment of the
words : the day of Christ, namely of His Parousia. Comp. on Rom. x. 13.
But this is not, with Grotius, Lightfoot, and Kuinoel, following the
Fathers, to be considered as identical with the destruction of Jerusalem,
which belongs to the oneia of Parousia, to the dolores Messiae. See on
Matt. xxiv. 29. — rjv peydAyy x. exupavy] the great (xar’ éfoxfv, fraught with
decision, comp. Rev. xvi. 14) and manifest, i.e. which makes itself manifest
before all the world as that which it is. Comp. the frequent use of éx:gévera
for the Parousia (2 Thess. ii. 8, a/.). The Vulgate aptly renders: mani-
Jestus. Instead of imigav7, the Hebrew has ®130, terribilis, which the
LXX., deriving from me, has incorrectly translated by éx:gav7, a8 also elee-
where.® But on this account the literal signification of éimgav. need not be
altered here, where the text follows the LXX.

Ver. 21. And every one who shall have invoked the name of the Lord,—this
Peter wishes to be understood, according to the sense of the prophetic ful-
filment, of the invocation of Christ (relative worship : see on vii. 59 ; Rom.
x. 12; Phil. ii. 10; 1 Cor. i. 2); just as he would have the ouwijoera
understood, not of any sort of temporal deliverance, but of the saving
deliverance of the Messianic kingdom (iv. 12, xv. 11), which Jesus on His
return will found ; and hence he must now (vv. 22-36) demonstrate Jesus
the crucified and risen and exalted one, as the Lord and Messiah (ver, 86).

1 Beresh. radd. sec. 41. eral idea. Comp. on such combinations, Lo-
®De Wette, comp. Kuinoel. beck, Paral. p. 534.
3 druis, Plat. Tim. p. 87 E, yet in classical 4 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 726 f.

writers more usually arucs is the more gen- § See Biel and Schleusn. Thee. 8.0.

60 CHAP, II., 22-24.

And how undauntedly, conciselv, and convincingly he- does so! A first
fruit of the outpouring of the Spirit.

Ver. 22. Towrouc] like rovro, ver. 14, the words which follow.’ — rav
Nafwpaioy is, in the mouth of the apostle, only the current more precise
designation of the Lord,* not used in the sense of contempt * for the sake of
contrast to what follows, and possibly as a reminiscence of the superscrip-
tion of the cross (Beza and others), of which there is no indication in the
text (such as perhaps : advdpa dé). — avdpa ard rov Oecd arodederyp.| @ man on
the part of God approved, namely, in his peculiar character, as Messiah. aré
stands neither here nor elsewhere for iwé, but denotes the going forth of
the legitimation from God (divinitus).‘— eic tac] in reference to you, in order
that He might appear to yuu as such, for you. — duvdy. x. tépace x. onpeior]
a rhetorical accumulation in order to the full exhaustion of the idea,® as re-
gards the nature of the miracles, their appearance, and their destination.
Comp. ver. 19; 2 Thess. ii. 9; 2 Cor. xii. 12; Heb. ii.4.—év péow tpar]
an the midst of you, so that it was beheld jointly by you all.

Ver. 23. Tovrov] an emphatic repetition. There is to be no parenthesis
before it. This one. . . . delivered up, ye have by the hand of lawless men’
affixed and made way with : x. 39; Luke xxii. 2, xxiii. 32. By the avéyo are to be
understood Gentiles (1 Cor. ix. 21; Rom. i. 14), and it is here more especially
the Roman soldiers that are meant, by whose hand Christ was affixed, nailed
to the cross, and thereby put to death. On éxdorov, comp. Drac. 26, and
oxamples from Greek writers in Raphel and Kypke, also Lobeck, Paral. p.
531. It refers to the delivering up of Jesus to the Jews, which took place
on the part of Judas. This was no work of men, no independent success
of the treachery, which would, in fact, testify against the Messiahship of
Jesus ! but it happened in virtue of the jized, therefore unalterable, resvlve
and (in virtue of the) foreknowledge of God.° —rpébyvworr is here usually
taken as synonymous with Bovdy ; but against all linguistic usage.° Even
in 1 Pet. i. 2, comp. ver. 20, the meaning praescientia (Vulgate) is to be
retained. See generally on Rom. viii. 29. God’s Bovdy (comp. iv. 28) was,
that Jesus was to be delivered up, and the mode of it was present to Him in
His prescience, which, therefore, is placed after the BovAy. Objectively, no
doubt, the two are not separate in God, but the relation is conceived of

1S8ee Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. 1. 2. 8, ad
Anabd. ii. 5. 10.

2 Comp. ifi. 6, fv. 10.

3 Comp. vi. 14, xxiv. 5.

4 Jozeph. Antt. vil. 14.5; Poppo, ad Thue.
1.17.1; Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 280 (E. T. 826).

® Bornem. Schol. in Luc. p. xxx.

* Sce Schaef. Melel. p. 84; Diesen, ad Dem.
dé cor. p. 2%.

7 &a xetpds (sec the critical remarks) is here
not to be taken, like ‘T!3, for the mere per (see
Fritzsche, ad Marc, p. 199), but, as it is a
manual action that is spoken of, in its con-
crete, literal meaning, It belongs to vivid
rhetorical delineation. Comp. Dorville, ad
Charit. p. 278.

8 On BovAy, comp. the Homeric Avos & eére-
Aatero Bovay, 22. 1.5, Od. xi. 207.

® This reason must operate also against
Lamping’s (Pauli de praedestinat. decreta,
1858, p. 102 ff.) defence of the common ex-
planation, in which he specifies, as the dis-
tinction between BovAy and xrpéyvecis, merely
this: “‘illud adumbrat Dei voluntatem, hoc
inde profectum decretum.”’ It is arbitrary,
with Holsaten, z. Zv. d. Paul. w. Pet. p. 146, to
refer BovAy not to the saving will, but merely
tothe will as regards destiny. See, in oppo-
sition to this, ili. 18, where the suffering of
Christ is the fulfilment of dirine prophecy ;
comp. vill, 82 f., x. 43.

PETER’S DISCOURSE, 61

after the analogy of the action of the human mind.—The dative is, as in
xv. 1, that in which the éxdorov has its ground. Without the divine fovay
x.7.A, it would not have taken place.—The question, How Peter could say
to those present: Ye have put Him to death, is solved by the remark that
the execution of Christ was a public judicial murder, resolved on by the
Sanhedrim in the name of the whole nation, demanded from and conceded by
the Gentiles, and accomplished under the direction of the Sanhedrim (John
xix. 16) ; comp. iii. 18 f. The view of Olshausen, that the death of Christ
was a collective act of the human race, which had contracted a collective
guilt, is quite foreign to the context.

Ver. 24. Tac ddivac] Peter most probably used the common expression
from the O. T.: MD ‘Yan, snares of death, in which the @dvaroc personified
is conceived as a huntsman laying a snare.! The LXX. erroneously trans-
lates this expression as ddivec Gavdrov, misled by an, dolor (Isa. \xvi. 7), in
the plural p'72n, used particularly of birth-pangs. See the LXX. Ps.
xviii. 5; 2 Sam. xxii. 6. But Luke—and this betrays the use of a Hebrew
source directly or indirectly—has followed the LXX., and has thus changed
the Petrine expression vincula mortis into dolores mortis. The expression of
Luke, who with ddivec could think of nothing else than the only meaning
which it has in Greek, gives the latter, and not the former sense. Jn the
sense of Peter, therefore, the words are to be explained : after he has loosed
the snares of death, with which death held him captive ; but in the sense of
Luke: after he has loosed the pangs of death. According to Luke,’ the resur-
rection of Jesus is conceived as dirth from the dead. Death travailed® in
birth-throes even until the dead was raised again. With this event these
pangs ceased, they were loosed ; and because God has made Christ alive,
God has loosed the pangs of death.‘ To understand the death-pangs of
Christ, from which God freed Him ‘resuscitando eum ad vitam nullis dolo-
ribus obnoxiam ’’ (Grotius), is incorrect, because the liberation from the
pains of death has already taken place through the death itself, with which
the earthly work of Christ, even of His suffering, was finished (John xix.
30). Quite groundless is the assertion of Olshausen, that in Hellenistic
Greek adivec has not only the meaning of pains, but also that of bonds,
which is not at all to be vouched by the passages in Schleusn. Thes. V. p.
571. —xaOore : according to the fact, that ; see on Luke i. 7. — ov« qv divarov]
which is afterwards proved from David. It was thus impossible in virtue
of the divine destination attested by David. Other reasons (Calovius : on
account of the unio personalis, etc.) are here far-fetched. — xpareio#a: im
autov] The @avaro¢ could not but give Him up; Christ could not be retained
by death in its power, which would have happened, if He, like other dead,
had not become alive again and risen to cternal life (Rom. vi. 9). By His

1 Ps, xviii. 5 f., cxvi. 3. Sec Gesen. Thes. 0. C. 1612, EV. 027; Aelian. H. A. xil. &.

I. p. 440. Comp. Pla’. Fol. ix. p. 574 A: peyadas wdior
2 Comp. On spwréroxos ex twv vexpwy, Col.{, re xai odvvats ovvéxerOar. The aorist participle
18. , is synchronous with avéornec.
3 6 Oavaros wéive xaréxwy avrov, Chrys. § On cpareioOa Ure, lo be ruled by, comp. 4

4On Avoas, see LXX. Job xxxix. 3 ; Soph. Mace. ii. 9; Dem. 1010. 17.

62 CHAP. II., 25-29.

resurrection Christ has done away death as a power (2 Tim. i. 10; 1 Cor. xv.
25 f.)

Ver. 25. Ec abrév] so that the words, as respects their fulfilment, apply
to Him. See Bernhardy, p. 220.— The passage is from Ps. xvi. 8 ff., ex-
actly after the LXX. David, if the Psalm, which yet certainly is later,
belonged to him, or the other suffering theocrat who here speaks, is, in
what he affirms of himself, a prophetic type of the Messiah ; what he says
of the certainty that he should not succumb to the danger of death, which
threatened him, has received its antitypical fulfilment in Christ by His res-
urrection from the dead. This historical Messianic fulfilment of the Psalm
justified the apostle in its Messianic interpretation, in which he has on his
side not rabbinical predecessors (see Schoettgen), but the Apostle Paul
(xiii. 85 f.). The mpowpdunv x.7.A., a8 the LXX. translates ‘sJ3%, is, accord-
ing to this ideal Messianic understanding of the Psalm, Christ’s joyful
expression of His continued fellowship with God on earth, since in fact (érc)
God is by His side protecting and preserving Him; J foresaw the Lord
before my face always, i.e. looking before me with the mind’s glance,’ I saw
Jehovah always before my face. — ix def» pov écriv] namely, as protector
and helper, as wapacrdryc.* Concerning éx degtav, from the right side out, i.e.
on the right of it, see Winer, p. 844 (E. T. 459). The figurative element of
the expression is borrowed from courts of justice, where the advocates
stood at the right of their clients, Ps. cix. 31. —iva py cadevids] without
figure: that I may remain unmoved in the state of my salvation. On the
figurative use—frequent also in the LXX., Apocr., and Greek authors’—of
caAeterv, comp. 2 Thess. ii. 2.

Ver. 26. Therefore my heart rejoiced and my tongue exulted. The aorists
denote an act of the time described by rpowpdyny x.7.A., the joyful remem-
brance of which is here expressed. — 1 xapdia nov, ‘37: the heart, the centre
of personal life, is also the seat of the moral feelings and determinations of
the will.‘ — Instead of # yAdooé pov, the Hebrew has "1139, ¢.e. my soul,* in
place of which the LXX. either found a different reading or gave a free
rendering. —érz d2 nat 9 odp& uov x.7.A.] but moreover also my flesh (body)
shall tabernacle, that is, settle itself by way of encampment, on hope, by
which the Psalmist expresses his confidence that he shall not perish, but
continue in life—while, according to Peter, from the point of view of the
fulfilment that has taken place in Christ, these words ei¢ Xpiordy (ver. 25)
prophetically express that the body of Christ will tarry in the grave on hope,
i.e. on the basis of the hope of rising from the dead. Thus what is divinely
destined for Christ—His resurrection—appears in poetic mould as the
object of the hope of His body. — érz d2 xai] Comp. Luke xiv. 26; Acts
xxi. 28; Soph. O. BR. 1845. — én’ éAridc] as in Rom. iv. 18.

Ver. 27. What now the Psalmist further says according to the historical
sense: For thou wilt not leave my soul to Hades (L), 1.6. Thou wilt not suffer

1 Xen. Hel. iv. 8 16 ; otherwise, xxi. 2. 4 Delitzsch, Peych. p. 48 ff.
3 Xen. Cyr. ili. 3. 21. ® Ps. vil. 6, xxx. 18, et ai.; see Schoettgen,
3 Dorville, ad Char. p. 807. p. 415.

ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 63

me to die in my present life-peril, and wilt not give Thy Holy One, according
to the Ketibh of the original: Thy holy ones, the plural of category, comp.
Hupfeld in loc., to see corruption—is by Peter, as spoken ei¢ Xpiorév, taken
in accordance with the prophetical meaning historically fulfilled in Him:
Thou wilt not forsake my soul in Hades, after it shall have come thither ;'
but by the resurrection wilt again deliver it,* and wilt not suffer Thy Holy
One, the Messiah, to share corruption, i.e. according to the connection of the
sense as fulfilled, putrefaction (comp. xiii. 84 ff.).* Instead of d:agopay,
the original has NNY, a pit, which, however, Peter, with the LXX., un-
derstood as d:agGopé, and accordingly has derived it not from Mw, but
from NNW, diagSeipw ; comp. Job. xvii. 14. — On ddécecc, comp. x. 40. The
meaning is: Thou wilt not cause, that, etc. Often so also in classical
writers from Homer onward. As to idciv in the sense of experiencing,
comp. on Luke ii. 26.

Ver. 28. Thou hast made known to me ways of life; Thou wilt fill me with
joy in presence of Thy countenance, meant by the Psalmist of the divine guid-
ance in saving his life, and of the joy which he would thereafter experience
before God, refers, according to its prophetic sense, as fulfilled in Christ,
to His resurrection, by which God practically made known to him ways to
life, and to his state of exaltation in heaven, where he isin the fulness of
blessedness with God. — pera row mpoodrov cov] TIB-“N¥, in communion with
Thy countenance, seen by me. Comp. Heb. ix. 24.

Vv. 29-81. Proof that David in this passage of his Psalm has prophetically
made known the resurrection of Christ.

Ver. 29. Merd wappnotac] frankly and freely, without reserve; for the
main object was to show off « passage honouring David, that it had re-
ceived fulfilment in a higher and prophetical sense in another. Bengel
well remarks: ‘‘ Est igitur hoc loco rpofepareia, previa sermonis mitiga-
tio.’’—David is called 6 rarpidpyne as the celebrated ancestor of the kingly
family, from which the nation expected their Messiah. — 6r:] that (not for). -
Petcr wishes to say of David what is notorious, and what it is allowable for
him to say on account of this very notoriety; therefore with é&éy there is
not to be supplied, as is usually done, gore, but tori (e&eors). — év Huiv]
David was buried at Jerusalem.‘ In 1rd pvjua airov, his sepulchre, there is
involved, according to the context, as self-evident: ‘‘cum ipso Davidis
corpore corrupto ; molliter loquitur,’’ Bengel.

1 See Koihner, § 622; Buttm. news. Gr. p. 287
(BE. T. 888).

3 This passage is a dictum probane for the
abode of the soa) of Christ in Hades, but it
contains no dogmatic statement concerning
the descensus ad infernos in the sense of the
church. Comp. Giider, LeAre von d. Erechei-
nung Christi unter d. Todten, p. 80; Welss,
Petrin, Lehrbegr. p. 238 f.

2 After this passage, compared with ver. 31,
no further diecussion is needed to show how
unreasonably it has been taken for granted

(see especially Holsten, 2. Hv. ad. Prul. tu.
Petr. p. 126 ff.) that the early church concelved
the resurrection of Christ as a perdBacrs eis
érepoy cwpe, entirely independent of the dead
body ofour Lord. How much are the evan-
gelical narratives of the appearances of the
risen Christ, in which the identity of His body
has streas so variously laid on it, at variance
with this opinion! Comp. x. 41.

4 Neh. ffi. 16; Joseph. Anti, vil. 15. 8, xiii,
8. 4, Bell. Jud. i. 2. 5,

64 CHAP, II., 30-36.

Vv. 30-32. Oiv] infers from the previous xa? rd prjya airov . . . tabrne,
whence it is plain that David in the Psalm, /.c., as.a prophet and divinely
conscious progenitor of the future Messiah, has spoken of the resurrection of
Christ as the one who should not be left in Hades, and whose body should
not decay. —xai eiddc] see 2 Sam. vii. 12.-—é xaprov r. dopiog avroi| se.
rid. On the frequent supplying of the indefinite pronoun, see Kiihner, IT.
p- 37 f.; Fritzsche, Conject. I. 36. The well-known Hebrew-like expression
kaptog THC dagvo¢ avTov (Ps. cxxxii. 11) presupposes the idea of the uninter-
rupted male line of descent from David to Christ.'— xaBioa: éi r. Opdvov
avtov] to eit on His throne,? namely, as the Messiah, who was to be the theo-
cratic consummator of the kingdom of David (Mark xi. 10; Acts xv. 16).
Comp. Luke 1. 82. — rpoidév] prophetically looking into the future. Comp.
Gal. 111. 8. — 671 ov xared.] since He, in fact, was not left, etc. Thus has
history proved that David spoke prophetically of the resurrection of the
Messiah. The subject of xareAci¢Ay «.7.A. is not David * — which no hearer,
after ver. 29, could suppose—but o Xporé¢ ; and what is stated of Him in
the words of the Psalm itself is the triumph of their historical fulfilment,
a triumph which is continued and concluded in ver. 82. — rovrov rav ’Ijoovr]
has solemn emphasis ; this Jesus, no other than just Him, to whom, as the
Messiah who has historically appeared, David’s prophecy refers. — oi]
neuter : whereof. Sec Bernhardy, p. 298. — udprepec] in so far as we, His
twelve apostics, have conversed with the risen Christ Himself. Comp.
1. 22, x. 41.

Ver. 33 Oty] namely, in consequence of the resurrection, with which the
exaltation is necessarily connected. — rg de&id@ rot Ocoi] by the right hand, i.e.
by the power of God, v. 31; Isa. Ixili. 12.4 The rendering: to the right
hand of God, however much it might be recommended as regards sense by
ver. 34, is to be rejected, seeing that the construction of simple verbs of
motion with the dative of the goal aimed at, instead of with xpé¢ or cig,
belongs in classical Greek only to the poets,*® and occurs, indeed, in late
writers,® but is without any certain example in the N. T., often as there
would have been occasion for it; for Acts xxi. 16 admits of another expla-
nation, and Rev. ii. 16 is not at all a case in point. In the passage of the
LXX. Judg. xi. 18, deemed certain by Fritzche, r7 73 Mua), if the read-
ing is correct, is to be connected, not with 74ev, but as appropriating da-
tive with ad avaroAdy 7Aiov.? The objection, that dy the right hand of God is
here inappropriate (de Wette and others), is not tenable. There is something
triumphant in the element emphatically prefixed, which is correlative to
avéoryocyv 6 Oed¢ (ver. 82) ; God's work of power was, as the resurrection, 30

1 Comp. Heb. vii.5; Gen. xxxv.11;2Chron. pp. 42, the latter seeking to defend the use

vi. 9; and see remark after Matt. 1. 18. as legitimate.
3 Xen. Anad. ii. 1. 4. * The dative of interest (6.9. Epxowat va, T
$8 Hofm. Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 118. come for theo) has often been confounded
*Comp. Vulgate, Luther, Castalio, Beza, with it. Comp. Kriger, § 48.9.1. See Winer,
Bengel, also Zeller, p. 502, and others. Pp. 201 f. (E. T. 268 f.).
5 See the pasrages from Homer fn N§agelsb. 7 Concerning Kvpp iéva:, Xen. Anad, i. 2.

p. 12, ed. 3, and, besides. Erfurdt, ad Antig. 26, eee Burnemann, ed. Lips.
284; Bernbardy, p. 95; Fritzeche, Conject. I.

ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 65

also the exaltation. Comp. Phil. ii. 9. A Hebraism, or an incorrect trans-
lation of *0,! hus been unnecessarily and arbitrarily assumed. — rq re
émayy. T. ay. wy. AaB. rapa tr. warp.] contains that which followed upon the
iywheic, and hence is not to be explained with Kuinoel and others:
‘“‘after He had received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the
Father ;°’ but: ‘after He had received the promised (i. 4) Holy Spirit from
His Father. See on Luke xxiv. 49.—vrovro is either, with Vulgate,
Erasmus, Beza, Kuinoel, and others, to be referred to the rveipua aytov, 80
that the 6 corresponds to the explanatory id guod’* or—which, von account
of the 6 annexed to rovro, is more natural and more suitable to the miracu-
lous character—it is, with Luther, Calvia, and others, to be taken as an in-
dependent neuter: He poured forth, just now, this, what ye, in effectu, see
and hear, in the conduct and speech of those assembled. Accordingly,
Peter leaves it to his hearers, after what had previously been remarked (ri
re émayy. . . . watpéc), themselves to infer that what was poured out was
nothing else than just the mvevpa ayrov.® — The idea that the exalted Jesus
in heaven receives from His Father and pours forth the Holy Spirit, is
founded on such instructions of Christ as John xv. 26, xvi. 7. Comp. on
i. 4,

Vv. 34, 35. Tép] The fundamental fact of the previous statement, namely,
the rg de&ig@ Ceod tyueic, has still to be proved, and Peter proves this also
from a saying of David, which has not received its fulfiln.ent in David him-
self. — Aéyer dé avréc] but he himself says, but it is his own declaration ; and
then follows Ps. cx. 1, where David distinguishes from himself’ Him who is
to sit at the right hand of God, as His Lord (r@ xvpiy pov). This King, des-
ignated by r@ xvpiy wou of the Psalm, although it does not proceed from
David (see on Matt. xxii. 43), is, according to the Messianic destination and
fulfilment of this Psalm,‘ Christ, who is Lord of David and of all the saints
of the O. T. ; and His occupying the throne, sit Thou at my right hand, de-
notes the exaltation of Christ to the glory and dominion of the Father, whose
civipovec He has become ; Heb. i. 8, 18; Eph. i. 21 f.

Ver. 36. The Christological aim of the whole discourse, which, as un-
doubtedly proved after what has been hitherto said (odv), is emphatically at
the close set down for recognition as the summary of the faith now requi-
site. In this case aogadde (unchangeably) is marked with strong emphasis. —
mac olxog ’Iop.] without the article, because olx. ’Iop. has assumed the nature
of a proper name.* The whole people is regarded as the family of their an-
cestor Israel Caer V3). — xai xipiov avtov x. Xpiotév] him Lord, ruler gener-
ally, comp. x. 86, as well as also Messiah. The former general expression, ac-
cording to which He is 6 dp évi révrwv, Rom. ix. 5, and xegady vrép wévra,

1 Bleek in the Stud. u. Krit. 1882, p. 1088; in their case be supposed that they had
de Wette ; Weies, Petr. Lehrdegr. p. 205. already received baptism in the lifetime of
® Ktibner, § 808. 2. our Lord, to which conclusion vv. 88, 41 point.
2 It cannot, however, be said that “ the first 4 Which is not to be identified with its his- -
congregation of disciples receives this gift torical meaning. See Hopfeld in Joc., and
oithout baptism” (Weiss, bidl. Theol. p. 150). Diestel in the Jahrv. f.d. Th. p. 562 f.
Those persons possesred by the Spirit were, ® Comp. LXX. 1 Kings xii. £8: Ezck. xiv.
in fact, all confessors of Christ, and it must 6, a/. Winer, p. 105 (B. T. 187).

66 CHAP. II, 37-41.

Eph. i. 22, the latter special, according to which He is the cur?p rov xéopov,
v. 81, John iv, 42, and xegadp rig éxxAnoiac, Eph. i. 22, Col. 1. 18, together
characterize the Messianic possessor of the kingdom, which God has made
Christ to be by His exaltation, seeing that He had in His state of humilia-
tion emptied Himself of the power and glory, and was only reinstated into
them by [jis exaltation. Previously He was indeed likewise Lord and Mes-
siah, but in the form of a servant; and it was after laying aside that form
‘that He became such in complete reality.’ It is not to be inferred from such
passages as this and Acts iv. 27, x. 38, xvii. 31 (de Wette), that the Book
of Acts represents the Messianic dignity of Jesus as an acquisition in time ;
against which view even mapa rov rartpéc in our passage (ver. 33), compared
with the confession in Matt. xvi. 16, John xvi. 80, is decisive, to say noth-
ing of the Pauline training of Luke himself. Comp. also ver. 84. — avrév
is not superfluous, but rvbrov rév 'Inootv 18 & weighty epexegesis, which is
purposely chosen in order to annex the strongly contrasting dv ipeic éorav-
pdoare (comp. ili, 18, vii. 52), and thus to impart to the whole address a
deeply impressive conclusion. ‘‘ Aculeus in fine,’’ Bengel.

Ver. 87. But after they heard it, what was said by Peter, they were pierced
in the heart. — xatavbocey, in the figurative sense of painful emotion, which
penetrates the heart as if stinging, is not found in Greek writers, who, how-
ever, use vicoey in & similar sense ; butsee LXX. Ps, cix. 16: xatavevuypévov
7 xapdig, Gen. xxxiv. 7, where xarevtyyoay is illustrated by the epexegesis :
Kai Aurnpov qv avtoic ogédpa.* The hearers were seized with deep pain in their
conscience on the speech of Peter, partly for the general reason that He
whom they now recognised as the Messiah was murdered by the nation, part-
ly for the more special reason that they themselves had not as yet acknow!l-
edged Him, or had been even among His adversaries, and consequently had
not recognised and entered upon the only way of salvation pointed out by
Peter.—On the figure of stinging, comp. Cic. de orat. iii. 84, of Pericles :
‘‘ut in eorum mentibus, qui audissent, quasi aculeos quosdam relinqueret.”’
—ri wothoouev] what shall we do ?* The inquiry of a need of salvation surren-
dering itself to guidance. An opposite impression to that made by the dis-
course of Jegus in Nazareth, Luke iv. 28. — dvdpe¢ adeAgoi] an affectionate
and respectful address from broken hearts already gained. Comp. on i. 16.
‘¢ Non ita dixerunt prius,’’ Bengel.

Ver. 38. What a definite and complete answer and promise of salvation !
The weravojcare demands the change of ethical disposition as the moral con-
dition of being baptized, which directly and necessarily brings with it faith
(Mark i. 15) ; the aorist denotes the immediate accomplishment (comp. iii.
19, viii. 22), which is conceived as the work of energetic resolution. So
the apostles began to accomplish it, Luke xxiv. 47. —émi 16 dvéuare *Ino.
Xptoroi] on the ground of the name, so that the name ‘‘ Jesus Messiah,’’ as the
contents of your faith and confession, is that on which the becoming bap-
tized rests. Barri{. is only here used with éxi; but comp. the analogous

'1-Comp. Weiss, didl. Theol. p. 184 f. Susann. 11 (of the pain of love). Compare
2 Ecclus. xiv. 1, xil. 12, xx. 21, xlvil. 21; also Luke il. 85. *% Winer, p. 262 (E. T. 848).

RESULTS OF THE ADDRESS. 67%

expressions, Luke xxi. 8, xxiv. 47; Acts v. 28, 40; Matt. xxiv. 5, al. —
ei¢ denotes the olject of the baptism, which is the remission of the guilt
contracted in the state before uerdvora. Comp. xxii. 16; 1 Cor. vi. 11. —
Kai Ajp.] nai consecutioum. After reconciliation, sanctification; both are
experienced in baptism. — rod dyiov rvetpzaroc] this is the duped itself. Heb.
vi. 4; Acts x, 45, xi. 17.

Ver. 89. Proof of the preceding Afweote x.1.4.: for to you belongs the
promise concerned, yours it is, 1.e. you are they in whom the promise of the
communication of the Spirit is to be realized. — roig ei¢ paxpdv] to those who
are at a distance, that is, to all the members of the Jewish nation, who are
neither dwellers here at Jerusalem, nor are now present as pilgrims to the
feast, both Jews and Hellenists.' But, although Peter might certainly con-
ceive of the conversion of the Gentiles, according to Isa. ii. 2, xlix. 1, al., in
the way of their coming to and passing through Judaism, yet the mention
of the Gentiles here—observe the emphatically preceding iuiv—would be
quite alien from the destination of the words, which were intended to
prove the Afwpeote x.7.A. of ver. 88. The conversion of the Gentiles does not
here belong to the matter in hand. Beza, whom Casaubon follows, under-
stood it of time :* longe post futuros, but this is excluded by the very concep-
tion of the nearness of the Parousia.—As to the expression of direction,
ei¢ paxp., Comp. On xxii. 5. — dcove av mpooxad. x.t.A.] contains the definition
of maoz ruic et¢ waxpdy : as many as God shall have called to Himself, namely,
by the preaching of the gospel, by the reception of which they, as mem-
bers of the true theocracy, will enter into Christian fellowship with God,
and will receive the Spirit.

Ver. 40. Observe the change of the aorist dieuaprtparo (see the critical
notes) and imperfect mapexdAec: he adjured them (1 Tim v. 21; 2 Tim. ii. 14,
iv. 1, often also in classical writers), after which followed the continued ezhor-
tation, the contents of which was: Become saved from this (the now living)
perverse generation away, in separating yourselves from them by the perdvaa
and baptism. — oxoA:dé¢] crooked, in a moral sense = ddixéc. Comp. on Phil.
ii. 15.

Ver. 41. Mév oiv] namely, in consequence of these representations of the
apostle. We may translate either: they then who received his word (namely,
odOyre x.T.A.),* or, they then, those indicated in ver. 87, after they received his
woord, etc.‘ The latter is correct, because, according to the former view of
the meaning, there must have been mention previously of a reception of
the word, to which reference would here be made, As this is not the case,
those present in general are meant, as in ver, 87, and dmodefduevos rov Adyoy
avrov (ver 40) stands in a climactic relation to xareviynoav (ver. 87). —
mpooerttyoav| were added (ver. 47, v. 14, xi. 24), namely, to the fellowship of

1Comp. also Baumgarten. Others, with 22Sam. vii. 19, comp. the classical ov« és
Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Culvin, saxpdv.
Piscator, Grotinus, Wolf, Bengel, Heinrichs, 3 Comp. vill. 4 (so Vulgate, Luther, Beza,
de Wette, Lange, Hackett, alao Woies, Petr. | Bengel, Kuinoel, and others).
Lehrbegr. p. 148, and didi. Theol. p. 149, ex- 4 Comp. i. 6, vii. 25, xv. 3 (eo Castallo, de
plain it of the Gentiles. Comp. Eph. fi. 13. Wette).

68 CHAP. II., 42—45.

the already existing followers of Jesus, as is self-evident from the context. —
puyai] persons, according to the Hebrew ¥5J, Ex. 1.5; Acts vii. 14; 1 Pet.
iil. 20; this use is not classical, since, in the passages apparently proving 1t.'
yuy7 Means, in the strict sense, soul (life).—The text does not affirm that
the baptism of the three thousand occurred on the spot and simultaneously,
but only that it took place during the course of that day (ri quépe Encivy).
Observe further, that their baptism was conditioned only by the yeravoa
and by faith on Jesus as the Messiah; and, accordingly, it had their
further Christian instruction not as a preceding, but as a subsequent, con-
dition (ver. 42).

Ver. 42 now describes what the reception of the three thousand had as
its consequence; what they, namely, the three thousand and those who

were already believers before (for the whole body is the subject, as is evident °

from the idea of mpoceréfyoav), as members of the Christian community
under the guidance of the apostles perseveringly did.* The development
of the inner life of the youthful church follows that great external increase.
First of all : they were perseveringly devoted to the instruction (2 Tim. iv. 2;
1 Cor. xiv. 6) of the apostles, they were constantly intent on having them-
selves instructed by the apostles. —ry «ocvwa] is to be explained of the
mutual brotherly association which they sought to maintain with one another.*
The same in substance with the adcAgéryc, 1 Pet. il. 17, v. 9. It 1s incor-
rect in Wolf, Rosenmiiller, and others to refer it to ray aroordAwy, and to
understand it of living in intimate association with the apostles. For xai 79
xoiwwy, is, as well as the other three, an independent element, not to be
blended with the preceding. Therefore the views of others are also incor-
rect, who either* take the following (spurious) xai as explicativum (et commu-
nione, videlicet fractione panis et precibus), or suppose a Ev dia duviv (Homberg)
after the Vulgate: e¢ communtwatione fractionis panis, so that rp acevo.
would already refer to the Agapae. Recently, following Mosheim,° the
explanation of the communication of charitable gifts to the needy has become
the usual one.* But this special sense must have been indicated by a spe-
cial addition, or have been undoubtedly suggested by the context, as in
Rom. xv. 26; Heb. xiii. 16; especially as xocvwvia does not in itself signify
communicatio, but communio ; and it is only from the context that it can
obtain the idea of fellowship manifesting itself by contributions in aid, etc.,
which is not here the case.— rq x2daoe: tov aprov] in the breaking of their
bread (rov a.). By this is meant the observance of common evening-meals (Luke
xxiv. 80), which, after the manner of the last meal of Jesus, they concluded
with the Lord’s Supper (Agapae, Jude 12). The Peschito and several

1 Ear. Androm. 612, Med. 247, al.; eee
Kypke, II. p. 19.

2 With the spuriousness of the second «ai
(see the critical note), the four particulars are

arranged in paire.
* Comp. on Phil. 1.5. Seo also Weiss, didi.
Theol. p. 141 f., and Ewald. (Wolf.

4 Cornelius a Lapide and Mede as quoted by
5 Derebus Crriet. ante Const. M. p. 114.

6 So Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Banm-
garten, also Lohe, Aphoriem. p. 80 ff , Har-
nack, christl. Gemeindegottesd. p. 78 fi., Hac-
ett, and others. That the mora) nature of the
Kowvwvia expresees itself aleo in liberality, is
correct in itself, but is not here particularly
brought forward. any more than other forms
of its activity, This in opposition to Lechler,
apost. Zeit. p. %5.

THE FIRST CONVERTS. 69

Fathers, as weil as the Catholic Church,’ with Suicer, Mede, Wolf, Light-
foot, and several older expositors, arbitrarily explain it exclusively of the
Eucharist ; comp. also Harnack, /.c. p. 111 ff. Such a celebration is of later
origin ; the separation of the Lord’s Supper from the joint evening mea)
did not take place at all in the apostolic church, 1 Cor. xi. The passages,
xx. 7, 11, xxvii. 85, are decisive against Heinrichs, who, after Kypke, ex-
plains the breaking of bread of beneficence to the poor (Isa. lviii. 7), so that
it would be synonymous with xo:vwria (but see above). —raic mpocevzaic]
The plural denotes the prayers of various kinds, which were partly new
Christian prayers restricted to no formula, and partly, doubtless, Psalms
and wonted Jewish prayers, especially having reference to the Messiah and
His kingdom.—Observe further in general the family character of the
brotherly union of the first Christian church.

Ver. 43. But fear came upon every soul, and many miracles, etc. Luke in
these words describes : (1) what sort of impression the extraordinary result
of the event of Pentecost made generally upon the minds? of those who did
not belong to the youthful church ; and (2) the work of the apostles after
the effusion of the Spint. Therefore ré is the simple copula, and not, as is
often assumed, equivalent to yap. — éyivero] (see the critical note) is in both
cases the descriptive imperfect.» Elsewhere, instead of the dative, Luke
has ézi with the accusative, or éugofoc yiverat. — 96Bo¢, a8 in Mark iv. 41,
Luke i. 68, vil. 16, etc., fear, dread, which are wont to seize the mind on a
great and wonderful, entirely unexpected, occurrence. This 946f0c, occa.
sioned by the marvellous result which the event of Pentecost together with
the address of Peter had produced, operated quasi freno (Calvin), in pre-
venting the first internal development of the church’s life from being
disturbed by premature attacks from without. — da ray azoor.] for the
worker, the causa efficiens, was God. Comp. ver. 22, iv. 80, xv. 12.

Vv. 44, 45. But (dé, continuative) as regards the derclopment of the
church-life, which took place amidst that 9630¢ without and this miracle-
working of the apostles, all were éxi rd airé6. This, as ini. 15, ii. 1, is to
be understood as having a local reference, and not with Theophylact,
Kypke, Heinrichs, and Kuinoel : de animorum consensu, which is foreign to
N. T. usage. They were accustomed all to be together. This is not strange,
when we bear in mind the very natural consideration that after the feast
many of the three thousand—of whom, doubtless, a considerable number
consisted of pilgrims to the feast—returned to their native countries ; so
that the youthful church at Jerusalem does not by any means seem too
large to asseinble in. one place. — xai elzov Gravra koa] they possessed all things
in common, i.e. all things belonged to all, were a common good. According
to the more particular explanation which Luke himself gives (xa? ra xrfyaz

1 This Church drawe as an inference from 466. Beelen atill thinks that he is able to make
our passage the historical assertion: Sub una = good the idea of the datly unbloody sacrifice
specle panis communicaverunt sanctiin primt- of the mass by the appended r. xpocevx. !
tiva ecclesia. Confut. Conf. Aug. p. 548 of my 2 macy puxyn, Winer, p. 147 (E. T. 194).
edition of the Zidri Symbolici. See, in oppo- 3 Comp.,. moreover, on the expression, Hom.
tition to this view, the striking remarke of J7.1. 188: TWnAewye 8 dxos yévero, xJi,382, al.
Casaubon in the Evercitatt. Anti-Baron. p.

710 | CHAP. II1., 45, 46.

. . » elye, comp. iv. 82), we are to assume not merely in general a distin-
guished beneficence, liberality, and mutual rendering of help,’ or ‘‘a prevailing
willingness to place private property at the disposal of the church ;’’ ? but a real
community of goods in the early church at Jerusalem, according to which
the possessors were wont to dispose of their lands and their goods gen-
erally, and applied the money sometimes themselves (Acts ii. 44 f., iv. 32),
and sometimes by handing it to the apostles (Acts v. 2), for the relief of
the wants of their fellow-Christians. See already Chrysostom. But for
the correct understanding of this community of goods and its historical
character (denied by Baur and Zeller), it is to be observed : (1) It took
place only in Jerusalem. For there is no trace of it in any other church ;
on the contrary, elsewhere the rich and the poor continued to live side by
side, and Paul in his letters had often to inculcate beneficence in opposition
to selfishness and rieovefia. Comp. also Jas. v. 1 ff. ; 1 John iii. 17. And
this community of goods at Jerusalem helps to explain the great and gen-
eral poverty of the church in that city, whose possessions naturally—
certainly also in the hope of the Parousia speedily occurring—were soon
consumed. As the arrangement is found in no other church, it is very
probable that the apostles were prevented by the very experience acquired
in Jerusalem from counselling or at ull introducing it elsewhere. (2) This
community of goods was not ordained as _a legal necessity, but was left to the
Sree will of the owners. This is evident from Acts v. 4 and xii. 12. Never-
theless, (3) in the yet fresh vigour of brotherly love,® it was, in point of
Jact, general in the church of Jerusalem, as is proved from this passage and
from the express assurance at iv. 32, 34 f., in connection with which the
conduct of Barnabas, brought forward in iv. 86, is simply a concrete
instance of the general practice. (4) Jt was not an institution borrowed from
the Eesenes* (in opposition to Grotius, Heinrichs, Ammon, Schnecken-
burger). For it could not have arisen without the guidance of the apos-
tles ; and to attribute to them any sort of imitation of Essenism, would be
devoid alike of internal probability and of any trace in history, as, indeed,
the first fresh form assumed by the life of the church must necessarily be cun-
ceived as a development from within under the impulse of the Spirit. (5)
On the contrary, the relation arose very naturally, and that from within,
as a continuation and extension of that community of goods which subsisted in
the case of Jesus Himself and His disciples, the wants of all being defrayed
from a common purse. It was the extension of this relation to the whole
church, and thereby, doubtless, the putting into practice of the command
Luke xii. 88, but in a definite form. That Luke here and in iv. 32, 34
expresses himself too strongly (de Wette), is an arbitrary assertion.

1 Comp. also Hundeshagen in Herzog's Zn-
cyXt. LIT. p. 26. In this view the Pythagorean
Ta Twy didedy cowa might be compared with it
(Rittersh. ad Porphyr. Vit. Pyth. p. 46).

2 De Wette, comp. Neander, Baumgarten,
Lechler, p. 820 ff., also Lange, apost. Zeitait.
1. p. 90, and already Mosheim, Dies. ad hist.
ecel, pertin. II. p. 1 ff., Kuinoel, and others.

3 Bengel on iv. 84 aptly saya: ‘‘non nisi
summo fidei et amoris flori convenit.”

4See Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii.8.8f. The Py-
thagoreans also had a community of goods.
See Jamblich. Vita Pyth. 16S. 72: Zeller, p.
504. Seo, in opposition to the derivation from
Essenism, von Wegnern in the Zettschr. J.
histor. Theol. XI. 2, p.1 ff., Ewald and Ritschl.

COMMUNITY OF GOODS. 71

Schneckenburger, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 514 ff., and Ewald have
correctly apprehended the matter as an actual community of goods.’ — ra
xrjpara| the landed possessions (belonging to him).* imdpfec : possessions in
general,* avrdé| it, namely, the proceeds. The reference is involved in the
preceding verb (ézimpacxov).‘ —xafdri dv tig ypeiav eiye}] just as any one had
need, dv with the indicative denotes : ‘‘ accidisse aliquid non certo quodam
tempore, sed quotiescunque occasio ita ferret.’ °

Ver. 46. Kal juépay] daily. See Bernhardy, p. 241.— On xpooxaprepeiy
év, to be diligent in visiting a place, comp. Susann. 6.—év rq iepp] as con-
fessors of the Messiah of their nation, whose speedy appearance in glory
they expected, as well as in accordance with the example of Christ Him-
self, and with the nature of Christianity as the fulfilment of true Judaism,
they could of course have no occasion for voluntarily separating themselves
from the sanctuary of their nation; on the contrary, they could not but
unanimously (cuo@vu.) consider themselves bound to it; comp. Luke xxiv.
58. — xAdvre¢g aprov] breaking bread, referring, as in ver. 42, to the love-feasts.
The article might stand as in ver. 42, but is here not thought of, and there-
fore not put. It would mean: their bread. —xaz' oixov] Contrast to év ro
iepp ; hence : at home, in meetings in their place of assembly, where they
partook of the meal, perhaps in detachments. Comp. Philem. 2. So
most commentators, including Wolf, Bengel, Heinrichs, Olshausen, de
Wette. But Erasmus, Salmasius, and others explain it domatim, from
house to house. So also Kuinoel and Hildebrand. Comp. Luke viii. 1;
Acts xv. 21; Matt. xxiv. 7. But there is nowhere any trace of holding
the love-feasts successively in different houses; on the contrary, according
to i. 18, it must be assumed that the new community had at the very first
a fixed place of assembly. Luke here places side by side the public relig-
ious conduct of the Christians and their private association ; hence after
év tr iepp the express xar’ olxov was essentially necessary.° — pereAduBavor
rpogyc| they received their portion of food (comp. xxvii. 83 f.), partook of
their sustenance.” Ver. 46 is to be paraphrased as follows: Jn the daily
visiting of the temple, at which they attended with one accord, and amidst
daily observance of the love-feast at home, they wanted not sustenance, of which
they partook in gladness and singleness of heart. —év ayadddcoe] this is the
expression of the joy in the Holy Spirit, as they partook of the daily bread,
‘‘ fructus fidei et character veritatis,’’ Bengel. And still in the erection of

1 Comp. Ritechl, alikath. Kirche, p. 232.

28ec v.1; Xen. Occ. 20. 23; Eustath. ad J.
vi. p. 683.

2 Polyb. il. 17. 11; Heb. x. 34, and Bleek
in loc.

4Comp. Luke xvili. 22; John xii. 5. See
generally, Winer, p. 188 (EB. T. 181 f.).

§ Herm. ad Viger. p. 890. Comp. iv. 85;
Mark vi. 56; Kriger, Anad. i. 5.2; Kohner,
ad Mem.1.1 16; and see on 1 Cor. xii. 2

6 Observe how, on the one hand, the youth-
ful church continued still bound up with the
national cuitus, but, on the other hand, de-

veloped itself at the same time as a separate
society, and in this latter development already
pat forth the germs of the distinctively Chris-
tian cultus (comp. Nitzsch, prakt. Theol. I. p.
174 ff., 218 f.). The further evolution and in-
dependent vital power of thie cultus could
not but gradually bring about the severance
from the old, and accomplish that severance
in the first instanco in Gentile- Christian
churches.

7 Plat. Polit. p. 275 C: wasdeias perecAngdvas
nat Tpopys.

WT | CHAP, IL, 47.

the kingdom believers are auepa iv ayasArdoet, Jude 24. This is, then, the
joy of triumph. -—- ageAdrnc] plainnesa, simplicity, true moral candour.' The
word is not elsewhere preserved in Greek, but agéAeca is.?

Ver. 47. Aimivrec 7. Gedy] is not to be restricted to giving thanks at meals,
but gives prominence generally to the whole religious frame of spirit ; which
expressed itself in the praises of God (comp. de Wette). This is clearly evi-
dent from the second clause of the sentence, xa? éxyovres . . . Aadv, referring
likewise to their relation in general. That piety praising God, namely, and
this possession of the general favour of the people, formed together the
happy accompanying circumstances, under which they partook of their
hodily sustenance with gladness and simple heart. — mpd 6A. r. Aadv] possess-
ing favour, on account of their pious conduct, in their relation to the whole
people.* Comp. Rom. v. 1. — 6 xipioc] i.e. Christ, as the exalted Ruler of
His church. — roig owiopuévous] those who were being saved, i.e. those who, by
their very accession to the church, became saved from eternal perdition so as
to partake in the Messianic kingdom. Comp. ver. 40.

Notrres py AMERICAN Eprror,

(K) Other tongues. V. 4.

The obvious and natural meaning of the passage is that the disciples
were suddenly endowed with the faculty of speaking foreign languages,
before utterly unknown by them. This special gift was promised by our
Lord (Mark xvi. 17). The exercise of the gift is mentioned in connection
with the conversion of Cornelius and his company (Acts ii. 15) ; also with the
Ephesian brethren on whom Paul laid his hands (Acts xix. 6). And Paul
speaks of ‘‘kinds of tongues’’ as one of the spiritual gifts, and discusses the
question at length in 1 Cor. xiv. The gift is designated by a variety of names :
KawvaiS yAdsoaS Aadeiv (Mark xvi. 17); éréparS yAdocas Aadeiv (Acts ii. 4) ;
yAdacas 2aAciv (Acts x. 46); yAaooarS or yAwoor AaAeiv, In this passage alone is
the phrase ‘‘ other tongues’ employed. Various explanations have been offered
of this wonderful phenomenon by those who deny the supernatural, or who,
with our author, consider that the sudden commnnication of a facility of speak-
ing foreign languages is neither logically possible nor psychologically and
morally conceivable, or with Alford regard such an endowment as self-contra-
dictory and impossible. It is supposed that the disciples were not all Galile-
ans, but that some of them were foreign Jews, acquainted with other languages,
in which they spoke—that the utterances were incoherent, jubilant expres-
sions—that nothing more is meant than that some poetical, antiquated, provin-
cial and foreign phrases were employed by the speakers; or that the utter-
ances were ecstatic, spoken in a high state of inspiration, and often destitute

1 Dem. 1489. 10: adedns cat rappyoias peotcs. able period intervenes, and the popular bn-
2 Ael. V. Z. ili. 10, az. ; Polyb. vi. 48. 4. mour, particularly in times of fresh excite-
2 To refer this remark,on account of the ment, issochangeable. Schwanbeck also, p.
later persecution, to the ideahzing tendency 45, denies the correctness of the representa-
and to legendary embellishment (Baur),isa tion, which he reckonsamong the peculiarities
very rash course, as hetween this time and of the Petrine portion of the book.
the commencement of persecution a consider-

e NOTES. 93

of intelligible meaning —or that the words uttered had been heard by the disci-
ples before, when mingling at the annual feasts with pilgrims of many nations ;
and nuw under high excitement these words or phrases were recalled and ut-
tered—or some have supposed that only one language was spoken, but each
hearer understood it as his own. That is, Peter spoke in Aramaic, but one un-
derstood it as Greek, another as Arabic, and another as Persian. Now, not one
of these. theories, however ingenious, accounts for the recorded facts, and
some of them contradict them. But when the event is admitted to be dis-
tinctly miraculous, and the power a special gift of God, why is it to be consid-
ered either impossible or inconceivable? We may be wholly incapable of con-
ceiving the modus operandi, yet admit the credibility and certainty of the fact,
Some difficulty arises from considering the speaking with tongues discussed by
Paul in 1 Cor. xiv., as identical in all respects with the event which transpired
on the day of Pentecost. The gifts are analogous and similar, but not identi-
cal, The gift at Pentecost was unique, not only as the first in order, but also
as superior in kind. Both ure spiritual gifts, and of supernatural origin, and
characterized by similar terms ; but they differ in this, that at Pentecost dis-
tinct languages were spoken, which were understood at once by the hearers,
while at Corinth a tongue was spoken unintelligible to the hearer, and required
to be interpreted. At Pentecost the speaker understood what he said ; while it
is not perfectly clear that the speakers always understood what they uttered.
Dr. Charles Hodge, however, regarding the gift spoken of by Paul as identical
with that vouchsafed at Pentecost, thinks that the speaker, even when unintel-
ligible to others, understood himself, at least generally, even when he was
wholly unable to interpret in his own native tongue. Dr. J. A. Alexander
says: ‘‘ Other tongues can only mean languages different from their own, and
by necessary implication previously unknown.” ‘The attempt to make this
phrase mean a new style, or a new strain, or new forms of expression is not only
unnatural, but inconsistent with the following narrative, where everything im-
plies a real difference of language.” Dr. Lechler, in Lange, declares: ‘‘The
narrative does not allow a single doubt to remain in an unprejudiced mind,
that we are, here already in verse 4th, to understand a speaking of foreign lan-
guages, which were new to the speakers themselves.’’ And in reference to
1 Cor, xiv., he says: ‘‘ The parallel passages claim respectively, at the outset,
an interpretation of their own, independently of each other,” and adds, ‘It
appears, then, that certain essential features of both occurrences are the same,
while important differences between the two are discoverable.”

Calvin says: ‘‘I suppose it doth manifestly appear hereby that the Apostles
had the variety and understanding of languages given unto them, that they
might speak unto the Greek in Greek, and unto the Italians in the Italian
tongue, and that they might have true communication and conference with
their hearers.” ;

Dr. Jacobson, Bishop of Chester, says : ‘‘ Nothing short of the sudden com-
munication of the power of speaking languages, of which there had been pre-
viously no colloquial knowledge, and which were not learned in the ordinary
course, can have been implied by this statement, reiterated as it is in vv. 6, 8,
and 11. None of the suggestions of vehement excitement, for a time affecting
the organs of speech, so as to render it more or less unintelligible, of ecstatic
inarticulate utterances, of the use of archaic words or poetic phraseology, or of
new modes of interpreting ancient prophecies, can be accepted as at all ade-

"4 NOTES.

quate to this narrative.” For a full discussion of the subject see Schaff’s
** History of the Christian Church,’’ vol. i., pp. 224-245.

(u) Hades. V. 27,

A Greek word which, from its derivation, means that which is not seen,
and is used to designate the invisible state—the infernal regions—the abode
of the dead. In the Septuagint it is used as 4 translation of the He-
brew word Sheol. We have no appropriate word in English to express what is
meant by the word Hades. The word occurs in the N. T. eleven times, and is
rendered by the word hell in every instance except one (1 Cor. xv. 55), where it
is rendered grave. In no instance does it mean hell as that word is now com-
monly understood—the place of punishment for the wicked after judgment—
nor in any case does it necessarily mean grave. When it is said that the soul
of Christ was not left in Hades—unhappily rendered in our version hell—the
real meaning is that his soul was not left in the abode of separate spirits,
whither it went at his death, even as his body did not remain in the grave or
sepulchre where it was laid after his crucifixion. In the passage from the 16th
Psalm here quoted by Peter, it would be absurd to understand it as denoting
the place of the damned, whether the expression be interpreted of David the
type, or of Jesus Christ the antitype, agreeably to its principal and ultimate
object.’’ (Campbell.) Doubtless from this passage the article of the Apostles’
Creed is derived, ‘‘He descended into hell ;” all that this can mean is that the
soul of Christ at his death was separated from his body, and entered the abode
of separate spirits, called by himself paradise, For interesting and instructive
discussions of this question see Campbell’s Dissertation VI., part ii,; Dr. Cra-
ven (Lange, Revelation) ; and Gloag.

CRITICAL REMARKS. 75

CHAPTER III.

Ver. 3. After éAenuoc., AaGeiv is to be defended, which is wanting in D, min.
Theophyl. Lucif. and some vss., and is wrongly deleted by Heinr. and Bornem.
The authorities which omit it are too weak, especially as the complete super-
fluousness of the word (it is otherwise in ver. 5) rendered its omission very
nutural. — Ver. 6. éyecpat xal] is wanting in B D &, Sahid.; deleted by Bornem.
But as Peter himself raises up the lame man, ver. 7, this portion of the sum-
mons would more easily be omitted than added from Luke v. 23, vi. 8; comp.
vii, 14. Lachm. and Tisch. have the form éyeoe; rightly, see on Matt. ix. 5 ;
Mark ii. 9. — Ver. 7. After jyepe, ABC &, min., the vss., and some Fathers,
have aitéy. Adopted by Lachm. A usual addition. — Ver. 11. airoi] Elz. has
Tov ia8évrocg xwAov, against decisive testimony. A church-lesson begins with
ver. 11. — Ver. 13. xai ‘Ioaax x. ‘laxu3] Lachm. and Bornem. read «ai Oed¢
"Ioadk, x. Oed¢ *IaxwG, following ACD X&, 15, 18, 25, several ves., Chrys., and
Theophyl. From Matt. xxii. 32 (therefore also several of these witnesses have
the article before Oed¢), and LXX. Ex. iii. 6. — név] is wanting in Elz., but is
to be defended on the authority of ABCE X&, min., vss., and Fathers, and
because no corresponding dé follows.— Ver. 18. atrov (not adrod) is, with
Lachm. and Tisch., according to decisive evidence, to be placed after Xpiordv,
and not after toognrov (Elz. Scholz). — Ver. 20. xpoxexeipiopévor] Elz.: mpoxexn-
puyuévov, against decisive evidence. A gloss (vv. 18, 21 ff.) more precisely de-
fining the meaning according to the context (comp. also xiii. 23 f.). — Ver. 21.
Tov) Elz.: zdvrwv, against decisive testimony, Introduced to make the state-
ment stronger, in accordance with ver. 24.—4z’ aidvoc] is wanting in D, 19,
Arm. Cosm. Tert. Ir.; so Born. It was considered objectionable, because,
strictly speaking, no prophets existed az’ aidvor. The position after dyiav
(Lachm. Tisch.) is so decidedly attested that it is not to be derived from Luke
i. 70. — Ver. 22. Instead of uév, Elz. has piv ydp, against decisive evidence.
yép was written on the margin, because the connection was not understood.
— mpd¢ todc marépac] is wanting in A BC &, min. Syr. Copt. Vulg. It is placed
after elev in D E, vas., and Fathers. So Born. Rightly deleted by Lachm.
and Tisch. An addition by way of gloss. — Ver. 23. Instead of éfoAcfp., A BC
D, Lachm. Born. Tisch. read éfuAe#p. An etymological alteration, which often
occurs also in Codd. of the LXX. Comp. the variations in Heb. xi. 28.—Ver.
24. xatnyyetAav] Elz.: xpoxarnyyeAav, against decisive evidence. A gloss of
more precise definition. — Ver. 25. of viof] Elz.: vioi. But the article, which
before vioi was easily left out by a transcriber, is supported by preponderant
witnesses, as is also the év wanting before 7 omépu. in Elz., which was omitted
as superfluous. — Ver. 26. After atrod Elz. has "Iycoiv, against many and im-
portant authorities. A familiar addition, although already read in A B. —
éuav] OC, min. ves. Ir. have airayv (so Lachm.) or atrov. The original tucv was
first changed into atroj (in conformity with éxacrov), and then the plural
would be easily inserted on account of the collective sense. The pronoun is
entirely wanting in B.

76 CHAP, III., 1-8.

Ver. 1. After the description of the first peaceful and prosperous life of —
the church, Luke now, glancing back to ii. 43, singles out from the multi-
tude of apostolic répara x. onpeia that one with which the first persecution was
associated, — émi rd avré] here also in a local reference ;' not merely at the
same time and for the same object, but also in the same way, i.e. together,
Wi, 2 Sam. 2.c. Prominence is here given to the united going to the
temple and the united working, directing special attention to the keeping
together of the two chief apostles. — avéBacvov] they were in the act of going
up. — éni rv Gpav 7H¢ Mpocevzic] éxi, used of the dginition of time, in so far
as a thing extends to a space of time.* Hence: during the hour, not equiv-
alent to repi tiv Spav.* Concerning the three hours of prayer among the
Jews: the third (see on li. 15), the stzth (noon), and the ninth (that of the
evening sacrifice in the temple), see Lightfoot, Schoettgen, and Wetstein,
in loc, Comp. x. 8, 9.—The Attic mode of writing évaryy is decidedly at-
tested in the Book of Acts.

Ver. 2. XwAde éx xotd. pytp.| born lame. Comp. xiv. 8; John ix. 1. And
he was above forty years old, iv. 22.—The imperfect éBacrdfero, he was
being brought, denotes the action in reference to the simultaneous avéBacvor,
ver. 1; and éri@ovy, its daily repetition. — rv Aeyou. dpaiavy|] which bears the
by-name,‘ ‘‘ Beautiful.’ The proper name was, ‘‘ gate of Nicanor.”’ It lay
on the eastern side of the outermost court of the temple, leading towards
the valley of Kidron, and is described by Josephus, Bell. v. 5. 8, as sur-
passingly splendid: sav d2 ruddy al pév évvéia xpvop xai apyipy KexaAvupévat
mavraydiev yoav, Guoiug te wapaotddes wal ta trépOupa’ pia dé 9 ESwHev Tov ved
KopivOiov yadxod rod 7H Ti® Tag KaTapytpove Kal weptypboove vmEepdyovoa. Kai
dio uév éxdotov tov mvAdvog Oipat, Tpidxovra dé myxOv Td bwoco ExaorTns, Kai Td
mAdtoc #v wevrexaidexa. Others (Wagenseil, Lund, Bengel, Walch) under-
stand it of the gate Susan, which was in the neighbourhood of Solomon’s
porch, and at which the market for pigeons and other objects for sacrifice
was held. But this is at variance with the signification of the word cpaiog ;
for the name Susan 1s to be explained from the Persian capital (WU, town
of lilies), which, according to Middoth, 1 Kal. 8, was depicted on the gate.°
Others (Kuinoel, et. al.) think that the gate Chulda, i.e. tempestioa, leading
to the court of the Gentiles, is meant.* But this derivation of the name (from
TN, tempus) cannot be historically proved, nor could Luke expect his
reader to discover the singular appellation porta tempestiva in dpaiav, seeing
that for this the very natural ‘‘ porta speciosa ’’ (Vulg.) could not but sug-
gest itself.—Among the Gentiles also beggars sat at the gates of their temples '—
@ usage probably connected with the idea (also found in ancient Israel) of
& special divine care for the poor *— roi ailreiv] co fine, ut peteret.

1 See on 1.15; comp. LXX. 2 Sam. fi. 18; ‘the gate of the temple js only an invention on

Joseph. Andt. xvi. 6. 6. account of the name, and the latter might be
* See on Mark xv. 1; Nagelsb. onthe Jiiad, sufficiently explained from the lily-shaped

p. 264, ed. 3. decorations of the columns (waw mvp
3 Alberti, Odess., Valckenaer, Winer, and 1 Kings v. 19).

many others. ® See Lightf. Hor. ad. Joh. p. 946 f.
4 See Schaefer, Melet. p. 14. 7 Martial. 1. 112,

6 Perhaps, however, this picturo of Susa on ® Hermann, Privataiterth. § 14. 2.

HEALING OF A LAME MAN. rid

Vv. 3-5. MéAdovrac eiotévac eic r. igp.] For it was through this outermost
gate that the temple proper was reached. —#pora éAenuoo. AaB.] he asked
that he might receive an alms. Modes of expression used iu such a case, Merere
in me; In me benefac tibi, and the like, may be seen in Vajicra rabd. f. 20,
8, 4. — On Aafeiv, which in itself might be dispensed with, see Winer, p.
565 [E. T. 760]. —arevioac . . . Bator ei¢ yuacg] They would read from his
look, whether he was spiritually fitted for the benefit to be received.
‘Talis intuitus non caruit peculiari Spiritus motu ; hinc fit, ut tam secure
de miraculo pronuntiet,’’ Calvin. Comp. xiii. 9. — éreizev avroic] The sup-
plying of ray vovv serves to make the sense clear. Comp. Luke xiv. 7; 1
Tim. iv. 16, He was attentive, intent upon them.'

Ver. 6. Aiduut) I give thee herewith. —iv rp dvou. . . . mepimare] by virtue
of the name (now pronounced) ef Jesus the Messiah, the Nazarene, arise and:
walk. év denotes that on which the rising and walking were causally
dependent. Mark xvi. 17; Luke x. 17; Acts iv. 10, xvi. 18. Comp. the
utterance of Origen, c. Cela. 1, against the assertion of Celsus, that Chris-
tians expelled demons by the help of evil spirits: rocovrov yap duvara rd
évoua rov ‘Iycov. This name was the focus of the power of faith, through
which the miraculous gift of the apostles operated. Comp. on Matt. vii.
22; Luke ix. 49, x. 17; Mark xvi. 17. A dico or the like is not (in oppo-
sition to Heinrichs, Kuinoe], and others) to be supplied with év r. dvdp.
x.T.A. Observe, moreover, first, the solemnity of the ‘Ijcot Xpiorov rov Nal.
and secondly, that Xoroi, as in ii. 38, cannot yet be a proper name. Comp.
John xvii. 8, i. 42.

Vv. 7, 8. Avrav tac deéac] comp. Mark ix. 27, and see Valckenaer, ad.
Theoer. iv. 35. — éorepedPyoav] his feet were strengthened, so that they now
performed their function, for which they bad been incapacitated in the
state of lameness, of supporting the body in its movements. — ai Bacee are
the feet.*— ra opvpa: the ankle-bones, tali (very frequent in the classics),
after the general expression subjoining the particular. — éfaAAduevoc],
springing up, leaping into the air.* Not: ezsiliens, videlicet e grabbato
(Casaubon), of which last there is no mention. — rai eiogAfe . . . Tdv Aedv]
This behaviour bears the most natural impress of grateful attachment
(comp. ver. 11), lively joy (reperar. nai dAAduevoc, — at the same time as an
involuntary proof of bis complete cure for himself and for others), and
religious elevation. The view of Thiess—that the beggar wus only a
pretended cripple who was terrified by the threatening address of Peter into
using his feet, and afterwards, for fear of the rage of the people, prudently
attached himself to the apostles—changes the entire narrative, and makes
the apostle himself (vv. 12, 16, iv. 9, 10) the deceiver. Peter had wrought
the cure in the possession of that miraculous power of healing which Jesus
had imparted to His apostles (LuKe ix. 1), and the supernatural result can-
not in that case, any more than in any other miracle, warrant us to deny

2Comp. Schweigh. Ler. Herod. I. p. 241, 5; Plat. Zim. p. 92 A, and in later Greek
and Lex. Polyd. p. 238. writers. {LXX. Isa. lv. 12.
Asin Wied. xiii. 18; Joseph. Andé. vii. 5. 3 Xen. Oyr. vil. 1. 8&8; Anad. vii..3 88;

48 CHAP. III., 10-15.

its historical character, a8 is done by Zeller, who supposes that the general
ywdol repixarover, Luke vii. 22, Matt. xv. 81, has here been illustrated in
an individual instance.

Ver. 10. ’Exeyivwoxov avrév, Sri x.7.A.] A well-known attraction.’ — mpdc
tiv Erennoa.| for the sake of alms, — 6 xaGjuevoc] See on John ix. 8. —émi rp
Opaiag r.] éxi: immediately at ; on the spot of the Beautiful gate. See on
John iv. 6.—@auPBovg nat éxordc.] astonishment and surprise at what had
happened to him—an exhaustive designation of the highest degree of
wonder.?

Ver. 11. Kparotvroc] But as he held fast Peter and John, i.e. in the impulse
of excited gratitude took hold of them and clung to them, in order not to be
separated from his benefactors.* There is no sanction of usage for the
meaning commonly given, and still adopted by Olshausen and De Wette:
assectari. For in Col. ii. 19 xpareiv occurs in its proper sense, to hold fast ;
the LXX. 2 Sam. iii. 6 is not at all in point, and in Achill. Tat. v. p. 809,
Ere yeiper we Kpareiv is: me retinere conabatur. — As to the porch of Solomon,
see on John x. 23, — éxOau Bo} the plural after the collective noun 6 Aaéc.‘

Ver. 12. 'Arexpivaro] he began to speak, as a reply to the astonishment and
concourse of the people, which thereby practically expressed the wish for
an explanation. See on Matt. xi. 25. Observe the honourable address, avdp.
"Iop., 88 in ii. 22, v. 835, xiii. 16, xxi. 28.—ri Oavudfere éxit rovtw;]. The
wonder of the people, namely, was unfounded, in so far as they regarded
the healing as an effect of the divaucc # evoeB. of the apostles themselves. —
rovrw] is neuter; see ver. 10: at this. As to the 7, an, introducing the
. second question, observe that the course of thought without interrogation
is as follows : Your astonishment is groundless, provided that you were rea-
sonably entitled to regard us as the workers of this cure. The 7 is accord-
ingly : or else if you think that you must wonder why, etc. — #yziv emphat-
ically prefixed : idig is then correlative. — evceBeig] ‘‘ quasi sit praemium
pietatis nostrae a Deo nobis concessum,”’ Heinrichs. In us lies neither the
causa effectiva nor the causa meritoria. — reroinxdot row repix. avzdv] to be
taken together : as if we had been at work, in order that he might walk. That
this telic designation of that which was done is given with the genitive of the
infinitive, is certainly to be traced to the frequent use of this form of ex-
pression in the LXX.°; but the conception of the aim is not on that ac-
count to be obliterated as the defining element of the expression, especially
as even in classical writers this mode of conception is found, and presents
itself in the expression roveitv drwc.* The roeiv is conceived as striving.

Ver. 18. Connection: Do not regard this cure as our work (ver. 12) ; no,
God, the peculiar God of our fathers, glorified (by this cure),” His servant

1 Winer, p. 581 (E. T. 781). ¢ Kfihner, ad Xen, Anad. i1.1.6. Ast. ad

2 Comp. Satpua xai OduBos, Plut. de audét.8. Plat. Legg.I. p.68. N&geleb. on the Ziad,
145, and similar expressions, Lobeck, Paral. ii. 278. Comp. Acts v. 16
p. 60 f. 5 See Winer, p. 806 (E. T. 410).

$Comp. John xx. 28; Rev. fi. 2, ffi. 11; ® See, ¢g., Herod. i. 117: woety . . .,
Song of Sol. fil. 4: depdrncaavrovaai otxadjca Swas éoras % “Iwevin cAcvOépn, Vv. 109, 1. 209.
avréev. Polyb. vill. 20.8; Eur. Phoen. 600; Comp. spdocey owes, Kriger on Thuc. 1. 56.
Plut. Mor. p. 99 D. 7 Comp. John ix. 8 f., xl. 4.

PETER’S DISCOURSE. 79

, Jesus, whom you delivered up, etc.—what a stinging contrast !— +r. rarépwv
j.] embraces the three patriarchs. Comp. on Rom. ix. 5. — The venerated
designation : ‘‘the God of Abraham,” etc. (Ex. iii, 15 f.), heightens the
blame of the contrast. — édéface] namely, inasmuch as He granted such a
result by means of His name (ver. 6). —rdv aida] is not to be explained,
after the Vulgate, with the older interpreters (and still by Heinrichs, Kui-
noel), as jilium, since only vid¢ Gect is throughout used of Christ in this
‘sense ; but with Piscator, Bengel, Nitzsch,' Olshausen, de Wette, Baum-
garten, and others, as serrum,; and the designation of the Messiah as the
fulfiller of the divine counsel : sercant of God, has arisen from Isa. x].—Ixvi.
namely, from the Messianic reference of the 1) 72}, there. Comp. Matt.
xii. 18. So also in ver, 26, iv. 27, 80. Observe that an apostle is never
called rai¢ (but only dotAoc) Geos. Comp. especially iv. 29 f. — dv tyeic pév}
This uév, which pierces the conscience of the hearers, is not followed by
any corresponding dé. Comp. oni. 1. The connection before the mind of
Luke was: whom you have indeed delivered up, etc., but God has raised from
the dead. But by xpivavrog éxeivov amoAtey he was led away from carrying
out this sentence, and induced to give to it another turn. — rapeddxare]
namely, to Pilate. — 7pvfcacfe aitéy] z.e. ye have denied that He is the Mea-
siah, John xix. 14, 15; Luke xxiii. 2. Comp. also vii. 85. The object of
the denial was obvious of itself, since Jesus had just been spoken of as
the xai¢g rod Ocov. Observe, moreover, that with gpvfc. airévy the relative
construction is not carried on, but with rhetorical emphasis the sentence is
continued independent of it: and ye have denied Him.* This is in keeping
with the liveliness of the discourse and its antitheses; but without such a
breaking off of the construction airéy would be quite superfluous, as the
regimen remains the same as before. — xara rpécwrov] towards the face; ye
have denied Him even unto the face of Pilate, so audaciously! Comp. Gal.
ii. 11. There is no Hebraism.* — xpivayrog éxelvov droAben] although the latter
had decided to release (him). See John xix. 4; Luke xxiii. 16. éxeivov is
designedly used instead of airov, in order to make the contrast felt between
what Pilate judged and what they did.‘ Chrys. well says: tpeic éxelvov
OeAfcavroc ovn WOeAhoate.

Vv. 14, 15. ‘Yyeic dé] Contrast to xpivavrog ix. aroAtev, ver. 13. —rdv
' @ytov xai dixasov] the war’ ééoxgv Holy, consecrated to God, inasmuch as He is
the MT T2y, and Just, innocent and entirely righteous, see on.Jobhn xvi.
10. Comp. Isa. liii. 11. To this characteristic description of Jesus davdpa
govéa, Barabbas,*® forms a purposely chosen contrast : a man who was a mur-
derer.* It is more emphatic, more solemn, than the simple ¢orvéa; but
dvipwrov govéa would have been more contemptuous, Bernhardy, p. 48. —
xapobyva: ipiv| condonari vobis,’ that he should by way of favour be delivered to

1 Stud. u. Krit. 1828, p. 881 ff. cor. p. 819; and tte examples from Plato in
2 Comp. Bernhardy, p. 804; Kfihuer, § 799. Ast, Lez. 1. p. 658.
3 See Jacobs, ad Achill. Tat. p. 612; Schweilg- § See Luke xxiii. 19 ; comp. on John xviil. 40.
h&ueer, Lew. Polyd. p. 540. ® Comp. Soph. O. C.948 : dvdpa warpoxrévov.
* Comp. ver. 14. See Kriiger and Kfihner, 0. R. 843: dvdpas Anords.
ad Xen. Anab. iv. 8.20; Dissen, ad Dem. de 7 Ducker, ad Fior. ii. 5. 10.

80 CHAP. IIL, 16-19.

you.'—rdv dé apynydyv tHe Cape] forms a double contrast, namely, to dvdpa
govéa and to arexreivare. It means: the author® of life, inasmuch as Christ
by His whole life-work up to His resurrection was destined (vv. 20, 21) to
provide eternal life, all that is included in the Messianic owrnpia (Heb. ii. 10).
See Jobn iii. 16, xi. 25; 2 Tim. 1.10. The inclusion, however, of physical
life (de Wette, Hackett), according to the idea of Jobn i. 4, has no support
in the text, nor would it have been so understood by the hearers, although
even Chrysostom comes ultimately to the idea of the original Living one. —
dv 6 Ocdc . . « Ov Hueic x.7.A.] great in its simplicity. The latter, in which
ov is neuter, is the burden of the apostolic consciousness, Comp. on ii. 32.
Observe, moreover, on vv. 14, 15: ‘‘ Graphice sane majestatem illam aposto-
licam expressit, quam illi fuisse in dicendo vel una ejus testatur epistola,’’
Erasmus. The Xpistle of Peter is written as with runic characters.

Ver. 16. ‘Exi rq tiore tod dvéu. abtov] on account of faith in His name
(which we acknowledge as that of the Messiah), z.e. because we believe in
His Messiahship. On ézi, of the cause on which the fact rests, on the ground
of, see Bernhardy, p. 250; as to the genitive of the object with ricrc, see
on Rom. iii. 22. Others—particularly Rosenmiiller, Heinrichs, and Ols-
hausen—understand ézi of the aim:* in order that faith in Jesus may, be
excited in you (and at the same time in the healed man himself, according to
Olshausen), But the very connection of thought is in favour of the first
explanation. For «ai éxi rg miorec x.7.A. attaches itself closely to the pre-
ceding ot qpyeic udpruptc éouev ; 80 that Peter, immediately after mentioning
the testimony, brings forward the extraordinary efficacy of the faith on
which this apostolic testimony is based. Still more decisive is the paral-
lelism of the second clause of the verse, in which the thought of the first
clause is repeated emphatically, and with yet more precise definition. — rd
dvoua avtov] so far, namely, as the cure was effected by means of His name
pronounced, ver. 6. Observe the weighty repetition and position at the end.
— niotic 4 dt abtov) the faith wrought (in us) through Him. Through
Christ was the faith, namely, in Him as the Messiah, wrought in Peter and
John, and in the apostles generally, partly by means of His whole manifes-
tation and ministry during His life (Matt. xvi. 16; John i. 14), partly by
means of the resurrection and effusion of the Spirit. The view which takes
wiortc of trust in God brought about through Christ,‘ is not in keeping with
the first half of the verse, which has already specifically determined the
object of riotic. — rairyy] decxtixéc. For the bodily soundness of the man,
who was present (ver. 11), was apparent to their eyes.® — azévayt: rayr. ip. |
corresponds to 8» Oewpeire in the first clause of the verse. The faith, etc.,
gave to him this restoration in the presence of you ail ; so that no other way
of its coming to pass was at all to be thought of.

Vv. 17, 18. Peter ndw pitches his address in a tone of heart-winning

1 Plut. 0. Gracch. 4; Acta xxv. 11, xxvil. 4 Comp. 1 Pet. {. 21: Welss, Petr. Lehrvdegr.
24: Philem. 22. See Loesner, Odss. p. 172 f. p. 324; ddl. Theol. p. 189, after de Wctte.

2 Heb. if. 10, xli.9; Mic. i.18; 1 Macc, ix. 8 On oAoxAnp., comp. Plut. Mor. p. 1068 F;
61: Plat. Locr. p. 96C; Zim. p. 21 E. Plat. Tim. p. 44 C: dAdcAnpos vyiis re way-

3 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 475. TeAws.

REPENTANCE URGED. 81

gentleness, setting forth the putting to death of Jesus (1) as a deed of ig-
norance (ver. 17) and (2) as the necessary fulfilment of the divine counsel
(ver. 18). — xai viv] and now, i.e. et sic, itaque ; 80 that viv is to be under-
stood not with reference to time, but as: tn this state of matters.’ — ade2qoi]
familiar, winning. Chrys. : avrav rac yoydc evféuc rg Tay adeAgav xpooryopia
rapenvOgoato, Comp. on the other hand, ver. 12: dvdpec 'Ionpandira:. — xara
dyvorav| unknowingly (Lev. xxii. 14), since you had not recognised Him as
the Messiah ; spoken quite in the spirit of Jesus. See Luke xxiii. 34;
comp. xiii. 27. ‘‘ Hoc ait, ut spe veniae eos excitet,’’ Pricaeus. Comp.
also 1 Pet. 1.14. The opposite: xara rpdfecw, xara mpoaipeotv. — dorep Kai oi
Gpxy. tuov] namely, have acted ignorantly. Wolf (following the Peshito)
refers the comparison merely to érpéiare : scio vos ignorantia adductos, ut
Jaceretis sicut duces vestri. But it would have been unwise if Peter, in order
to gain the people, had not purposed to represent in the same mild light
the act also of the Sanhedrists (apyovrec), on whom the people depended.
Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 8. — Ver. 18. But that could not but so happen, ete.
Comp. Luke xxiv. 44 ff. — ravrwv trav xpopyrav) comp. Luke xxiv. 27. The
expression is neither to be explained as a hyperbole (Kuinoel) nor from the
typical character of history (Olshausen), but from the point of view of ful-
Jilment, in 80 far as the Messianic redemption, to which the divine predic-
tion of all the prophets referred (com. x. 43), has been realized by the suf-
ferings and death of Jesus. Looking back from this standpoint of histor-
ical realization, it is with truth said : God has brought into fulfilment that
‘which He declared beforehand by ali the prophets, that His Messiah should
suffer. On r. Xpicrdv airov, comp. iv. 26; Luke ii. 26, ix. 20; Rev. xi. 15,
xii. 10, — ovrw] a0, as it has happened, vers. 14, 15, 17.

Ver. 19. Ovv} infers from ver. 17 f. — uerarfoare| see on ii. 88. The
éxtotpépare (comp. xxvi. 20), connected with it, expresses the positive con-
sequence of the ueravoeiv. ‘‘ Significatur in resipiscente applicatio sui ad
Deum,’’ Bengel. — cig rd e€aderg@. x.7.A.] contains the aim, namely, the medi-
ate aim: the final aim is contained in ver. 20, which repentance and con-
version ought to have. The idea of the forgiveness of sins is here repre-
sented under the figure of the erasure of a hand-writing.* Baptiem is not
here expressly named, as in ii. 88, but was now understood of itself, see-
ing that not long, before thousands were baptized ; and the thought of it
has suggested the figurative expression ¢fadegf.: in order that they may
be blotted out, namely, by the water of baptism. The cawsa meritoria of the
forgiveness of sina is contained in ver. 18 (xaGeiv rdv X.).? The causa appre-
hendens (faith) is contained in the required repentance and conversion.

Ver. 20. The jinal aim of the preceding exhortation. In order that times of
refreshing may come. Peter conceives that the xa:poi avaybfewc and the Parousia

1 Since, in fact, only by this self-manifesta- loc. See also vii. 84, x. 5, xxii. 16; John if.
tion of the risen Christ must the true light 28; 2 John 5.
concerning Him who was formerly rejected 2 See on Col. if. 14. Comp. Ps. li. 9; Iea.
and put to death havo dawned upon you; = xiii. 25; Dem. 701. 12: é¢gargacwras 7d 5GAnua,
otherwise yon could not have so treated Him. Comp Weise, Petr. Lehrbegr. p. W8.
Comp. Xen. Anad. iv. 1.19, and Ktthner in

82 CHAP. III., 20, 21.

(xai arooreiAg x.T.A.) (M) Will set in, as soon as the Jewish nation is converted to
the acknowledgment of Jesus as the Messiah. It required a further revelation
to teach him that the Gentiles also were to be converted—and that directly,
and not by the way of proselytism—to Christ (chap. x.). — éruc av, with the
subjunctive,’ denotes the purpose that is to be attained in dependence on a
supposition, here, in this event ; if ye comply with the summons.’ This dy,
consequently, is not equivalent to éay (Vulg. : ut cum venerint), in which
case an apodosis which would be wanting is arbitrarily supplied in
thought (see Erasmus and, recently, Beelen). Others (Beza, Castalio, Eras-
mus Schmid, Eckermann, ¢ al.) consider dzwc as a particle of time = dre :
quandocunque venerint. Against this it may be decisively urged, in point
of linguistic usage, that in Greek writers (in Herod. and the poets) the
temporal ézuc is joined with the indicative or optative, but does not occur
at all in the N. T. ; and, in point of fact, the remission of sins takes place
not for the first time at the Purousia, but at once on the acceptance of the
gospel. — xacpoi avayig.] seasons of refreshing: namely, the Messianic, as 18
self-evident and is clear from what follows. It is substantially the same as
is meant in Luke 11. 25 by rapdaAnore rot ’IopagzA, — namely, seasons wn which,
through the appearance of the Messiah in his kingdom, there shall occur blessed
rest and refreshment for the people of God, after the expiration of the troub-
lous seasons of the aid ovroc.* The aidveg of éxepyduevor in chap. ii. 7 are
not different from these future xa:poi. This explanation 1s shown to be
clearly right by the fact that Peter himself immediately adds, as explana-
tory of xarpoi avawik.: nai amooreiAn Tov mpoxexerp. vuiv ‘Ino. X., which points
to the Parousia, Others rationalizing have, at variance with the text, ex-
plained the xacpoi avay. either of the time of rest after death,‘ or of deliver-
ance from the yoke of the ceremonial law,’ or of the putting off of penal
judgment on the Jews,°* or of the sparing of the Christians amidst the de-
struction of the Jews,’ or of the glorious condition of the Christian church
before the end of the world.® On avdwvéic, comp. LXX. Ex. viii. 15 ; Aq.
Isa. xxviii. 12; Strabo, x. p. 459, —~axé mpoowrov roi avpiov] The times,
which are to appear, are rhetorically represented as something real, which
is to be found with God in heaven, and comes thence, from the face of God,
to earth. Thus God is designated as aircoc of the times of refreshing (Chry-
sostom). — rév mpoxex. tuiv I. X.] Jesus the Messiah destined for you (for your
nation). On mpoyepifouac (xxii. 14, xxvi. 16), properly, I take in hand ;
then, J undertake, I determine, and with the accusative of the person : J ap-
point one.’ Analogous is 6 rod Geov éxAextéc, Luke xxiii, 35.

Ver. 21. Whom the heaven must receive as the place of abode appointed

xv. 17; Luke ii. 35; Rom. iif. 4; Matt. 4 Schniz in the Bit. Hag. V. p. 119 ff.
vi. 5. § Kraft, Odss. sacr. faec. IX. p. 271 ff.
2 See Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 289; Klotz, ¢ Barkey.
ad Devar. p. 685 f. '? Grotius, Hammond, Lightfoot.
32 Tim. fii. 1; Gal. i. 4; Acts xiv. 22. 8 Viiringa.
Analogous is the conception of cardravais ®* Comp. 2 Macc. iii. 7, vili. 9; Polyb. vi.

and cafSfarconds in the Epistieto the Hebrews. 58. 3; Plut. Gal. 8; Diod. Sic. xil. 2:
Comp. dveccs. 2 Thess. i. 7, and the descrip- Wetstein and Kypke in (loc.; Schleusn. Thee.
tion given in Rev. xxi. 4f, iv. p 518.

THE PAROUSIA. 83

for Him by God until the Parousia. Taken thus,’ cipavdy is the subject,?
and dei does not stand for éde:, as if Peter wished historically to narrate the
ascension ; but the present tense places before the eyes the necessity of the
elevation of Christ into heaven as an absolute relation, which as such is
constantly present until the Parousia (ver. 20, and dype ypdvwr x.7.A., Ver.
21). Hence also the infinitive is not of the duration of the action (déyec@az),
but of its absolute act (défacfa:). Others find the subject in dy: who must
occupy heaven (so Luther and many of the older Lutherans, partly in the
interest of Christ’s ubiquity; also Bengel, Heinrichs, Olshausen, Lange,
Weiss, et al.) ; ‘‘ Christus coelum debuit occupare ceu regiam suam,”’ Ca-
lovius. But against this view the linguistic usage of déyeofa:, which never
signifies occupare,’ is decisive.‘—On the pév solitarium Grotius aptly re-
marks, that it has its reference in ayp: ypévov azoxaract., ‘‘ quasi dicut :
ubi illud tempus venerit, ex coelv in terras redibit.’? — aype ypdvwr aroxaracr.
wdvrwv] until times shall have come, in which all things will be restored. Before
such times set in, Christ comes not from heaven. Consequently the times
of the aidy 6 péAAuy itself—the xa:po? avapifews—cannot be meant; but only
such times as shall precede the Parousia, and by the emergence of which it
1s conditioned, that the Parousia shall ensue. Accordingly the explanation
of the universal renewal of the world unto a glory such as preceded the fall® is
excluded, seeing that that restoration of all things (zévrwv) coincides with the
Purousia, 1n opposition to de Wette, as well as many older expositors, who
think on the resurrection and the judgment. The correct interpretation
must start from Mal. iv. 6 as the Instorical seat of the expression, and from
Matt. xvin. 11, where Christ Himself, taking it from Malachi, bas made it
His own. Accordingly the avoxaracrace tavrwy can only be the restoration
of all moral relations to their original normal condition. Christ’s reception
in heaven—this is the idea of the apostle—continues until the moral cor-
ruption of the people of God is removed, and the thorough moral renovation,
the ethical restitutio in integrum, of all their relations shall have ensued.
Then only is the exalted Christ sent from heaven to the people, and then
only does there come for the latter the avawuiic from the presence of God,
ver. 20. What an incitement neither to neglect nor to defer repentance
and conversion as the means to this aroxardoracie ravtuy | The mode in
which this moral restitution must take place is, according tu ver. 22, be-
yond doubt,—namely, by rendering obedience in all points to what the

1 Gregory of Nazianzns, Oral. 2 de jil.,
already has evidently this view : Se: yap avrdy
. bm’ ovpayov SexOyva:, and Oecumenius
calls heaven the arodoxyn Tov amecradpévov.
The Vulgate repeats the ambiguity of the
original: quem oportet coslum quidem susci-
pere » but yet appears, by euscipere, to betray
the correct view. Clearly and definitely Cas-
talio gives it with a passive tum: ‘“‘quem
oportet coelo capi."
2 Beza, Piscator, Castalio, and others, the
Socinians, also Kuinoel, de Wette, Baum-
garten, Lechler, Hackett.

3 We ehonld have to explain ot as: who
must accept the hearen (comp. Bengel). But
what a singularly turgid expression would
that be!

4 Comp. on the other hand, Plat. Theaet. p.
177 A: reAevriicavras avrovs éxeivos piv 6 Tay
xaxey xabapds réwoc ov Seferar, Soph. 7rachk.
1075: dvat Ady 8éfar we. Occupare would be
xardxev. Comp. Soph. Ant. 605: xaréxes
‘OAvpwou pappapsercay aiyAay.

5 wadcyyeveoia. Matt. xix. 98; comp. Rom.
vill. 18 ff.. 2 Pet. iff. 18.

84 CHAP. III., 22-24.

Messiah has during His earthly ministry spoken. Observe, moreover, that
ravruy is not masculine,’ but neuter, as in Matt. xvii. 11, Mark ix. 12
(comp. ver. 22, xara ravra, éoa) ; and that aroxardcracrc cannot be otherwise
taken than in its constant literal meaning, restoration,* wherein the state
lost and to be restored is to be conceived as that of the obedience of the
theocracy toward God and His messenger (ver. 22). The state of forgive-
ness of sin (ver. 19) is not identical with this, but previous to it, as dru
x.T.A. (ver. 20) shows: the sanctification following the reconciliation. — ov
éAdAnoev x.t.A.] The attracted ov refers to ypdvuv: of which he has spoken,
etc.” Others refer it to mdvruv, and explain: usque ad tempus, guo omnia
eventum habebunt,* quae, etc.; by which Peter is supposed to mean either
the conquest of Messiah’s enemies and the diffusion of the Christian re-
ligion,® or the destruction of the Jewish state,* or the erection of the Mes-
sianic kingdom and the changes preceding it, the diffusion of Christianity,
the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment.’ Incorrectly, as aroxarao-
tacrcc, in the sense of impletio, cic répac éAfeiv,® and the like, is without
warrant in usage; and as little does it admit the substitution of the idea
realization.® — am’ aidvoc] since the world began, to be taken relatively. See
on Luke i. 70.

Vv. 22-24. Connection: What has just been said: ‘‘ By the mouth of
His holy prophets from the beginning,’’ is now sct forth more particularly
in two divisions, —namely : (1) Moses, with whom all O. T. prophecy begins
(comp. Rom. x. 19), has announced to the people the advent of the Mes-
siah, and the necessity of obedience to Him, vv. 22, 23. Thus has he made
a beginning in speaking of the aroxardoraote mévrwv, which in fact can only
be brought ahout by obedience to all which the Messiah has spoken. (2)
But also the collective body of prophets from Samuel onwards, that is, the
prophets in the stricter sense, etc., ver. 24 — Mwvoyc] The passage is Deut.
xviii. 15 f., 19,'° which, applying according to its historical sense to the
prophetic order generally which presents itself to the seer collectively as in
one person, has received its highest fulfilment in Christ as the realized ideal
of allthe Old Testament interpreters of God, consequently as the aAnfivac
mpoghrnc."' Comp. vii. 37. — a¢ éué] as He has raised up me by His prepara-

1 Weiss, Petr. Lehroegr. p. 8, and didi.
Theol. p. 145.

2 Polyb. iv. 93. 13; v. 2 11; xxvili. 10.7;
Dion. Hal. x. 8; also Plat. Az p. 870. ;

3On Aadrciy re, in this sense, comp. Matt.
xxvi. 18; Plat. Az. p. 366 D; Soph. PAil. 110.
So also Adyew 1, & tell Of something; see
Stallhaum, ad Plat. Apo. p. 23 A; Phaed. p.
79 B.

4 Baumgarten, p. 83, endeavours to bring
out csscntially the same meaning, but without
any change in the idea of dwoxcaraor., in this
way : he supplies the verb aroxaracraéjcerOar
with &» éAdAyoer, and assuines the kingdom
of Ieraei (i. 6) to be meant. To imagine the
latter reference, especially after wayrwv, 16
juet as arbitrary, as the supplying of that

verbal notion is exceedingly harsh. Hofm.
Schriflbew. II. 2, p. 648, follows the correct
reference of Sv to xpdvwv.

6 Xosenmiller, Morus, Stolz, Heinriche.

* Grotiue, Hammond, Bolten.

T Kuinoel. § Oecnmentius.

* Grotius, Schneckenburger in the Sud. w.
rit. 1835, p. 517, Lechler.

10 See on this passage and its different ex-
planations, and aleo on its at any rate
Messianic idea, Hengstenberg, Christol. 1. p.
110 ff.; G. Baur, alttest. Weissag. I. p. 858 ff.

11 Calvin appropriately says: “ Non modo
quia prophetarnm omnium est princeps, sed
quod in ipenm dirigebantur omnes superiores
prophetiac, ct qnod tandem Deus per os ejus
absolute Icquutus est." Heb, & 1.

PROPHECIES FULFILLED. 85

tiun, calling, commission, and effectual communion. Bengel well remarks
regarding the Messianic fulfilment : ‘‘ Similitudo non officit excellentiae.”’
—éara dé] see on ii. 17, — éfoAofp. éx. tov Aaov] In the LXX. it runs after
the original text: #0 éxd:xjow é€ avrov. Peter, in order to express this
threat according to its more special import, and thereby in a manner more
deterrent and more incentive to the obedience required,’ substitutes for it
the formula which often occurs in the Pentateuch after Gen. xvii. 14:
May KIT WHIN WIAD), which is the appointment of the punishment of
death excluding forgiveness.*, The apostle, according to his insight into
the Messianic reference and significance of the whole passage, understands
by it, erelusion from the Messianic life and ejection to Gehenna, consequently
the punishment of eternal death, which will set in at the judgment." —xai...
dé] t.e. Moses on the one hand, and all the prophets on the other. Thus over
aguinst Moses, the beginner, who was introduced by jév, there is placed as
similar in kind the collective body. See as to «ai... dé, on John vi. 51, and
observe that dé is attached to the emphasized idea appended (rdvrec).4 — AU
the prophets from Samuel and those that follow, as many as have spoken, hate
also, etc.,—evidently an inaccurate form of expression in which two con-
structions are mixed up,—namely : (1) All the prophets from Samuel onward,
as many of them as hace spoken, have also, etc. ; aud (2) Al the prophets,
Samuel and those tho follow, as many of them as have spoken, have also, etc.°
The usual construction since Casaubon, adopted also by Valckenaer and
Kuinoel, is that of the Vulgate : ‘‘ et omnes prophetae a Samuel, et deinceps
qui locuti sunt,’’ so that it is construed xai dc0 Trav xafleéne EAGA. ; it yields
a tautology, as those who follow after are already contained in rdvre¢ vi
xnogyrae até Z. Wan Hengel‘s* expedient, that after rav xafleEje there is
to be supplied éw¢ Iwavvov, and after roogyra:, ap€auevor, is simply arbitrary
in both cases.—After Moses Samuel opens the series of prophets in the
stricter sense. He is called in the Talmud also (see Wetstein) magister
prophetarum. For a prophecy from 2 Sam., see Heb. i. 5.7 —x. rav xafeEqe]
‘‘longa temporum successione, uno tamen consensu,’’ Calvin. —ra¢ guépac
rairac] i.e. those days, of which Moses has spoken what has just been quoted, name-
ly, ‘the yzpdvoe aroxaracr, rdvr., which necessarily follows from av éAdAncev 6
Oedc¢ x.r.A., ver. 21. Hence we are not to understand, with Schneckenburger,
Weiss, Hofmann” the time of the present as referred to; in which view
Hofmann would change the entire connection, so as to make vv. 22-24
serve as a reason for the call to repentance in ver. 19, whercas it is evident
that dv éAdAnoev «.7.A., ver. 21, must be the element determining the fol-
lowing appeals to Moses and the prophets.

Ver, 25. Ye* are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant, i.e. ye belong

1 Comp. Weiss, HA. Theol. p. 146. [p. 419. 4Comp. Baeuml. Partik. p. 149.

2 See Gcesen. Thes. II. p.718 ; Ewald, Alderta. ® Winer, p. 588 (E. T. 789).

8On eforocdpeiw, funditus perdo, frequent © Adnotatt. in loca nonnulla N. T. p. 101 ff.
in the LXX., the Apocrypha, and in the Zest. 1 Comp. Hengstenberg, Christol. [. p. 148 ff.
XT. Patr., also tn Clem. Rom. who has only 8 Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 140.
the form éfoAedp., only known to later Greck, | * Observe the great «emphasis of the vmeis as
see Kypke, IL p. 27; Sturz, Dial Mac. p. of the upip (ver. 26). From their position of
166 f. Preference they ought, in the consciousness of

86 CHAP. III., 26.

to both, inasmuch as what was promised by the prophets and pledged in the
covenant is to be realized for and in you, as the recipients in accordance
with promise and covenant. Comp. ii. 39; Rom. ix. 4, xv. 8. On vioi r7¢
diabijxnc, comp. the rabbinical passages in Wetstein. Concerning vidc, used
to denote closer connection (like }3), see on Matt. viii. 12. Incorrectly
Lightfoot, Wolf, and Kuinoel render: ‘ prophetarum discipuli, Matt. x1i.
27; so the Greek raidec ;! because then vioi in the same signification does
not suit r7¢ dcabgxnc. Hence, incorrectly, also Michaelis, Morus, Heinrichs :
‘‘e vestra natione provenerunt prophetae.’’ — diafjxn, covenant. For God
bound Himself by covenant to bless all generations through the seed of Abra-
ham, on the condition, namely, that Abraham obeyed His command (Gen.
xii. 1).* So with d:a6jxqv also in the classics. — mpd¢ rove rar. yu.) mpd¢ Ae-
notes the ethical direction. Bernhbardy, p. 265. Abraham is conceived as
representative of the forefathers ; hence it is said that God had bound Him-
self towards the fathers when He spoke to Abraham. — xai év rp onéppati cov]
xai, and, quite as in ii. 17. — The quotation (Gen. xxii. 18; comp. xviii.
18, xii. 3) is not exactly according to the LXX. According to the Mes-
sianic fulfilment, from which point of view Peter grasps and presents the
prophetic meaning of the passage (see ver. 26), évy ro om. cov 18 not collec-
tive, but: in thy descendant, namely, the Messiah (comp. Gal. iii. 16), the
future blessing of salvation has its causal ground. As to xarpiai, gentes,
here nations, see on Eph. iii. 15.

Ver. 26. Progress of the discourse: ‘‘ This bestowal—in accordance with
God’s covenant-arrangements—of salvation on all nations of the earth
through the Messiah has commenced with you,”’ to you first has God sent,
etc. — mporov] sooner than to all other nations. ‘‘ Praevium indicium de vo-
catione gentium,’’ Bengel. Rom. i. 16, xi. 11. On this intimation of the
universality of the Messianic salvation Olshausen observes, that the apostle,
who at a later period rose with such difficulty to this idea (ch. x.), was
doubtless, in the first moments of his ministry, full of the Spirit, raised
above himself, and in this clevation had glimpses to which he was still, as
regards his general development, a stranger. But this is incorrect : Peter
shared the views of his people, that the non-Jewish nations would be made
partakers in the blessings of the Messiah by acceptance of the Jewish theocracy.
He thus still expected at this time the blessing of the Gentiles through the
Messiah to take place in the way of their passing through Mosaism. ‘‘Ca-
put et summa rei in adventu Messiae in eo continetur, quod omnes omnino
populi adorent Jovam illumque colant unanimiter.’’* ‘‘ Gentes non traditae
sunt Israeli in hoc saeculo, at tradentur in diebus Messiav.’’* See already
Isa. ii. 2 f., 1x. 8 ff. — dvacrgoac] causing His servant to appear (the aorist
participle synchronous with dzéor.). This view of avacr. is required by
ver. 22. Incorrectly, therefore, Luther, Beza, Heumann, and Barkey:
after He has raised Him from the dead, — evioyowvra tyac) blessing you. The

their being the people of God, to feel the 2 On d&eGero, comp. Heb. vill. 10, x. 16 ; Gen.
more urgently the duty of accepting the Mes- = xxv. 18, aé. ; 1 Mace. f. 11.
siah. 3 Mikrae K.udesch, f. 108. 1.

1 Blomf. Gloss. Peres. 408. Berish. rad. f. 28. 2.

NOTES. 87

correlate of évevaoy., v. 25. This efficacy of the Sent One procuring salva-
tion through His redeeming work is continuous. — iv rg anoorptpev] in the
turning away, i.e. when ye turn from your iniquities (see on Rom. i. 29),
consequently denoting that by which the evAoyeiv must be accumpanied on
the part of the recipients (comp. iv. 80) — the moral relation which must
necessarily be thereby brought about. We may add, that here the intran-
sitive meaning of arcorpégerv,' and not the trausitive, which Piscator, Cal-
vin, Hammond, Wetstein, Bengel, Morus, Heinrichs adopt (when He turns
away), is required by the summons contained in ver. 19.— The issue to
which vv. 25 and 26 were meant to induce the hearers—namely, that they
should now believingly apprehend and appropriate the Messianic salvation
announced beforehand to them by God and assured by covenant, and in-
deed actually in the mission of the Messiah offered to them first before all
others—was already expressed sufficiently in ver. 19, and is now again at
the close in ver. 26, and that with a sufficiently successful result (iv. 4) ;
and therefore the hypothesis that the discourse was interrupted while still
unfinished by the arrival of the priests, etc. (iv. 1), is unnecessary.

Nores spy American Eprror.

(m) Parousia. V. 20.

V. 20, Rev. Version, ‘‘And that he may send the Christ who hath been ap-
pointed for you, even Jesus,” mooxexecgiouéevov—the reading preferred, signi-
fies taken in hand, determined, appointed. Jesus was their appointed, pre-
destined Messiah.

‘¢ Nearly all critics understand this passage as referring to the return of
Christ at the end of the world. The apostle enforces his exhortation to repent,
by an appeal to the final coming of Christ, not because he would represent it
as nearin point of time, but because that event was always near to the feelings
and consciousness of the first believers. It was the great consummation on
which the strongest desires of their souls were fixed, to which their thoughts
and hopes were habitually turned. They lived with reference to this event.
They labored to be prepared for it (2 Pet. iii. 12). The apostles, as well as the
first Christians in general, comprehended the grandeur of that occasion. It
filled their circle of view, stood forth to their contemplations as the point of
culminating interest in theirown and the world’s history ; threw into com-
parative insignificance the present time, death, all intermediate events, and
made them feel that the manifestation of Christ, with its consequences of inde-
scribable moment to all true believers, was the grand object they were to keep
in view as the end of their toils, the commencement and perfection of their
glorious immortality.”

‘‘If modern Christians sympathized more fully with the sacred writers
on this subject, it would bring both their conduct and their style of religious
instruction into nearer correspondence with the lives and teaching of the
primitive examples of our faith.’’ ( Hackett.)

180 only here in the N. T.; but see Xen. _ 5, xvii. 21; Bar. 11. 88: Sauppe, ad Xen. Ge re
Hie, iii, 4. 12; Gen, xvill. 98, al.; Ecclus. vili. eg. 12. 18; Krfiiger, § iii. 2. 5.

88 NOTES.

‘“‘The reference is evidently to an objective and not a subjective ad-
vent. It is a matter of dispute in what manner the apostles regarded
the second coming of Christ. In all probability they were so engrossed
with it that they lost sight of intermediate events; it was the object
of their earnest desire; the period was indeed concealed from thom,
but they continually looked forward to it; they expected it, as that which
might occur at any moment. Afterwards, as revelation disclosed itself, and
the course of Providence was developed, they did not expect it to occur in
their days. Paul especially seems to have regarded it as an event in the re-
mote future, and cautions his converts not to be shaken in mind or to be
troubled, as if the day of Christ was at hand (2 Thess. ii. 2). The precise
period of the advent, we are expressly informed by our Lord, formed no part
of divine revelation ; it was designedly left in uncertainty by God.” ( Gloag.)

CRITICAL REMARKS, 89

CHAPTER IV.

VER. 2. rijv éx vexpov] D, min. and some vss. and Fathers have rav vexpdv.
Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Bornem. An alteration in accordance
with the current avdoraog ray vexpov. — Ver. 5. cic] A B D E, min. Chrys. have
év, which Griesb. has recommended, and Lachm. Tisch. Born. adopted. A
correction, as the reference of ei¢ was not obvious, and it was taken for éy;
hence also eic ‘Iepovg. (regarded as quite superfluous) is entirely omitted in the
Syr. — Ver. 6. Lachm. has simple nominatives, xai"Avvag . . . ’AAééavdpog, in
accordance no doubt with A BD &; but erroneously, for the very reason that
this reading was evidently connected with the reading ovy7y8ycar, ver. 5, still
preserved in D ; Born. has consistently followed the whole form of the text in
D as to vv. 5, 6 (also the name ’Iwvd%ac instead of "Iwdvrnc). — Ver. 7. év ry péay
with the article is to be defended after Elz., with Lachm., on preponderating
evidence (A B®). — Ver. 8. rod "Iopa7A] is wanting in A B RX, Vulg. Copt.
Sahid. Aeth. Cyr. Fulg., and deleted by Lachm. But, as it was quite obvious
of itself, it was more readily passed over than added. — Ver. 11. oixodéuwv] 80,
correctly, Lachm. and Tisch., according to important authorities. The usual
vixodonotvrwy is from Matt. xxi. 42 ; comp. LXX. Ps. cxviii. 22. — Ver. 12. otre]
ABR, min. Did. Theodoret. Bas. have oidé, which is recommended by Griesb.
and adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. And rightly, as in Luke xx. 36, xii. 26.
Born., following D, has merely ov. — Ver. 16. srorjoovev] A E ®, min. have
muujownev, Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. But the de-
liberative subjunctive appeared more in keeping with the sense. Comp. on ii.
37. — Ver. 17. dretAnodur0a] D, min. have areAnoduefa. So Born. But the
future was introduced in order that it might correspond to the question
ti nocnoouev, The preceding azecAg is wanting in A B D &, min. most vas. and
some Fathers ; deleted by Lachm. and Born. It might very easily be omitted
by an oversight of the transcriber. — Ver. 18. After rapyyy., Elz. Scholz. Born.
have avroi¢. A common, but here weakly attested insertion. — Ver. 24. 6 Oedc]}
is wanting in A B ®&, Copt. Vulg. Ath. Did. Ambr. Hilar. Aug. Deleted by
Lachm. and Tisch. But as it might be dispensed with so far as the sense was
concerned, how easily might a transcriber pass over from the first to the
second 6! On the other hand, there is no reason why it should have been
inserted. — Ver. 25. 6 dtd orduar. A. watdég cov eixdv] There are very many
variations,' among which 6 rob warpd¢ ndv dui rvevpatog dyiov otéuarog A, madd¢
cov eirav has the greatest attestation (A B E ®, min.), and is adopted by
Lachm., who, however, considers zvetyaro¢ as spurious (Praef. p. VII.). An
aggregation of various amplifying glosses ; see Fritzsche, de conform. Lachm. p.
55. — Ver. 27. ¢v rz wéAe ravry] is wanting in Elz., but has decisive attestation.
Rejected by Mill and Whitby as a gloss, but already received by Bengel. The

1 Sce besides Tisch.. especially Born. ia (oc., who reads after D: 6 (D: 5s) dca wv. ay., da rou
arom. AadAjoas Aavié, racdds gov.

90 CHAP. IV., 1-5.

omission may be explained from the circumstance, that in the passage of the
Psalm no locality is indicated. — Ver. 36. 'Iwoj¢) Lachm. Tisch. Born. read
"Iwong, according to ABD E ¥%, min. Chrys. Epiph. and several vss. A mechan-
ical alteration, in conformity with i. 23. — v6] Lachm. and Tisch. read ard,
according to A B E &, min. Theophyl. Rightly ; ix6 appeared to be neces-

sary.

Vv. 1, 2. 'Eréoryoav} stood there beside them. The sudden appearance is
implied in the context (Acdovyr. dé avr., and see ver. 8). See on Luke ii. 9,
xx. 1, — ol iepeig] The article signifies those priests who were then serving
as a guard at the temple. — 6 orparryd¢ rov iepov| the leader on duty of the
Levitical temple-guard (of the iepeic), and himself a priest ; different from
the xpoordry¢ rov iepov.'—As the concourse of people occurred in the temple-
court, it was the business of the temple-guard officially to interfere.
Therefore the opinion of Lightfoot, Erasmus Schmid, and Hammond, that
the orparryéc zou icp. is here the commander of the Roman garrison of the
castle of Antonia, is to be rejected. — xai oi Zaddovxaios] see on Matt. iii. 7
(N). The Sadducees present in the temple-court had heard the speech of
Peter, chap. iii., at least to ver. 15 (see ver. 2), had then most probably
instigated the interference of the guard, and hence appear now taking part
in the arrest of the apostles. — d:amovoipevor . . . vexpdv] refers to of Laddoux.
For these denicd the resurrection of the dead, Matt. xxii. 23. ‘‘ Sadducaei
negant dicuntque : deficit nubes atque abit ; sic descendens in sepulcrum
non redit,’? Tanchum, f. iii. 1. dtarovoiz. here and in xvi. 18 may be
explained either according to classical usage : who were active in their exer-
tions, exerted their energies, my former interpretation, or according to the
LXX.,? who were grieved, afflicted, the usual view, following the Vulgate
and Luther. The latter meaning is most natural in the connection, is suffi-
ciently justified in later usage* by those passages, and therefore is to be
preferred. Sorrow and pain come upon them, because Peter and John
taught the people, and in doing so announced, etc. That was offensive to
their principles, and so annoyed them. — év r@ ‘Incov] in the person of Jesus,
i.e. in the case of His personal example. For in the resurrection of Jesus
the avdoracic éx vexp. in general—although the latter is not expressly brought
forward by Peter—was already inferentially maintained, since the possi-
bility of it and even an actual instance were therein exhibited (1 Cor. xv.
12). — We may add that, as the apostles made the testifying of the Risen
One the foundation of their preaching, the emergence of the Sadducees is
historically so natural and readily conceivable (comp. v. 17), that Baur’s
opinion, as to an @ priort combination having without historical ground
attributed this rdéle to them, can only appear frivolous and uncritical,

12 Macc. fil. 4 (ree Grimm in loc.); comp. roreicOa in this sense, whether the pain felt
Joseph. Bell. Jud. 11.12. 6; Antt. xx. 6. 2. may be bodily or mental. See Krigeron 7huc.

Seo also on Luke xxii. 4. fl. 81. 4; Lobeck, ad Aj. p. 806; Duncan,
2 Ecclus. x.9; Aq Gen. vi.6; 1 Sam. xx. Lez. Hom. ed. Rost, p. 969. Accordingly, in
80 (Hesychius, dawovnOecs: AvanGas). the above passages d:aroveic 6a: is the atrength-

3 The classical writers use the simple verb ened woveicGas in this sense.

ARREST OF PETER AND JOHN. 91

however zealously Zeller has sought to amplify and establish it. See in
opposition to it, Lechler, Apost, Zeit. p. 826 ff.

Ver. 3. Eic rypyow] into custody, i.e. into prison.'— éorépa] as they had
gone to the temple at the ninth hour, and so at the beginning of the first
evening (ili. 1), the second evening, which commenced ut the twelfth hour,
had probably already begun. See on Matt. xiv. 15.

Ver. 4. As a contrast to this treatment of the apostles (dé), Luke notices
the great increase of the church, which was effected by the address of the
apostle. The number of believers had before this been above three thou-
sand (ii. 41, 47); by the present increase the number of men, the women, therc-
fore, being not even included—on account of the already so considerable
multitude of believers, came to be about jive thousand. The supposition of
Olshausen, ‘‘ that at first, perhaps, on/y men had joined the church,”’ is ar-
bitrary, and contrary to i. 14. At variance with the text, and in opposition
to v. 14, de Wette makes women to be included.

Ver. 5. ’Eyévero . . . avvaxydyva) But it came to pass that, etc.*? — airav]
refers not to the believers, but, as is presumed to be obvious of itself, to
the Jews, whose people, priests, etc., were named above, ver. 1, and to
whom those who had become believers belonged.® — rove dpyovr. x. mpeoB.
x. ypaup.] the Sanhedrists and elders and scribes. A full meeting of the San-
hedrim was arranged, at which in particular the members belonging to the
classes of representatives of the people and scribes were not absent. Comp.
on Matt. ii. 4.-—ei¢ ‘IepovoaAyjp] not as if they had their official residence
elsewhere as Zeller suggests, in the interest of proving the narrative un-
historical ; but certainly many were at this most beautiful period of sum-
mer soon after Pentecost, at their country residences. So, currectly, Beza,
‘Carcessitis videlicet qui urbe abcrant ut sollennis esset hic conventus,’’—
but only by way of suggestion, Bengel, Winer, and others. Most of the
older commentators, and Kuinoel, erroneously assume that cic stands for év,
in which case, moreover, a quite superfluous remark would be the result.
— xai] also, in order to mention these specially. —*Avvay rdv apyep.] (0). AS
at this time npt Annas, but his son-in-law Caiaphas, was the ruling high priest,
an erroneous statement must be acknowledged here, as in Luke iii. 2, which
may be explained from the continuing great influence of Annas.‘ Baumgar-
ten still, p. 88,° contents himself with justifying the expression from the age
and influence of Annas—a view which could not occur to any reader, and
least of all to Theophilus, after Luke iii. 2. — Nothing further is known of
John and Alexander, who, in consequence of their connection with Caiaphas
and with the following xai doo: x.r.A., are to be regarded as members of the
hierarchy related to Annas. Conjectures concerning the former, that he is
identical with the Jochanan Ben Zaccai celebrated in the Talmud, may be

1 Comp. Thue. vii. 8. 1; Acts v. 18. 4 See the particulars, as well as the unsatis-

3 Comp. ix. 3; Luke ili. 21,xvi. 22. Soalseo factory shifts which have been resorted to,
in classical writers (Hes. Theog. 639; Xen. on Luke fii. 2. Comp. Zeller, p. 127.
Cyr. vi. 8.11). See Starz, Ler. Xen. I. p. 5 Comp. also Lange, Apoetol. Zeliult. 1. p.
587. 96, and IT. p. 55.

3 Comp. Winer, p. 188 (BE. T. 183).

92 CHAP. Iv., 7, 12.

seen in Lightfoot in loc.; and concerning the latter, that he was the brother
of Philo, in Mangey,' — éx yévouc apyiepar.] of the high-priestly family. Be-
sides Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, all the other relatives of the high
priest were brought into the assembly,—a proceeding indicative of the
special importance which was ascribed to the pronouncing judgment on the
dangerous prisoners.

Ver. 7. The apostles were placed in the midst (év 76 puéow, comp. Matt.
xiv. 6; John viii. 8), so that they might be seen by all ; and, for the pur-
pose of ascertaining the state of matters which had occasioned the popular
tumult of yesterday, the question is first of all submitted to them for their
own explanation : By what kind of power,? which was at your command, or
by what kind of name, which ye have pronounced, have ye done this ?—the cure
which, they were aware, was the occasion uf the discussion. Erruneously,
Morus, Rosenmiiller, and Olshausen have referred rotro to the publie teach-
ing. For the judicial examination had to begin at the actual commence-
ment of the whole occurrence ; and so Peter correctly understood this
tovro, a3 vv. 9, 10 prove. — év roi ovéuart] The Sanhedrim certainly knew
that the apostles had performed the cure év dvéuat: 'I. Xpcorod (iii. 6), and
they intended to found on the confession of this point partly the impeach-
ment of heresy and blasphemy—as the Jewish exorcists were accustomed to
use names of an entirely different kind in their formulae, namely, those of
the holy patriarchs, or of the wise Solomon, or of God Himself*—and
partly the charge of effort at rebellion, which might easily be based on the
acknowledgment of the crucified insurgent as the Messiah. — izeic] you
people ! with depreciating emphasis at the close.

Vv. 8-10. WaAnodeic rvebu. dyfov] quite specially, namely, for the present
defence. Comp. xiii. 8. ‘‘Ut praesens quodque tempus poscit, sic Deus
organa sua movet,’’ Bengel. See Luke xii. 11 f. — i] in the sense of évei,«
is here chosen not without rhetorical art. For Peter at once places the
nature of the deed, which was denoted by roiro, in its true light, in which
it certainly did not appear to be a suitable subject of judicial inquiry,
which presupposes a misdeed. If we (sjyei¢ bas the emphasis of surprise)
are this day examined in respect of @ good deed done to an infirm man (as to
the means, namely), whereby he has been delivered. —In éx’ evepyecia is con-
tained an equally delicate and pointed indication of the unrighteousness of
the inquisitorial proceeding. — We are decidedly led to interpret év rim as
neuter (whereby, comp. Matt. v. 18), by the question of the Sanhedrim, ver.
7, in which no person is named ; as well as by the answer of Peter: év ro
dvéuare °I. X. «.7.4., ver. 10, which is to be explained by the uttering the
name of Jesus Christ, but not to be taken as equivalent to év 'Iycot Xprore.
Hence the explanation, per quem, cujus ope (Kuinoel, Heinrichs), is to be
rejected ; but the emphatic éy roiry (ver. 10) is nevertheless to be taken,

1 Praef.ad PAU. ; and Pearson, Lect. p. 51; ? See Van Dalen, de dicinal. Idd. V. 7. p.
Krebs, Odes. p. 176; Sepp, Geeckh. d. Ap. p.5, 520.
ed. 2. 4Bornem. ad. Xen. Symp. 4. 8 p. 101;
2 Obeerve the qualiiative interrogative pro- Mtelesig, Conject. in Aristoph. I. p. 113; Dis-
nouns, sen, ad Dem, dé cor. p. 195.

THEIR DEFENCE. 93

with Erasmus, as masculine, so that after the twice-repeated Sy x.r.a. there
comes in instead of the droza'I. X., as the solemnity of the discourse in-
creases (‘‘ verba ut libera, ita plena gravitatis,’’ Grotius), the concrete Person
(on this one it depends, that, etc.), of whom thereupon with obrog, ver. 11,
further statements are made. — by 6 Oed¢ yerpev éx vexp.] o rhetorical asyD-
deton, strongly bringing out the contrast without pév .. . d&.!— ovro¢
saptornxev x.7.A.] Thus the man himself who had been cured was called into
the Sanhedrim to be confronted with the apostles, and was present ; in
which case those assembled certainly could not at all reckon beforehand
that the sight of the man, along with the rappyota of the apostles (ver. 18),
would subsequently, ver. 14, frustrate their whole design. This quiet
power of the man’s immediate presence operated instantaneously ; therefore
the question, how they could have summoned the man whose very presence
must have refuted their accusation (Zeller, comp. Baur), contains an argu-
mentum ez eventu which forms no proper ground for doubting the historical
character of the narrative.

Ver. 11. Otroc] referred to Jesus, the more remote subject, which, howerer,
was most vividly present to the conception of the speaker.® — 6 Ai9og x.1.4.] aremi-
niscence of the well-known saying in Ps. cxviii. 22, in immediate, bold
application to the Sanhedrists (i9’ iuav), the builders of the theocracy, that
have rejected Jesus, who yet by His resurrection and glorification has
become the corner-stone, the bearer and upholder of the theocracy, 2.e.
that which constitutes its entire nature, subsistence, and working.*

Ver. 12. To the foregoing jigurative assurance, that Jesus is the Messiah,
Peter now annexes the solemn declaration that zo other is 80, and that with-
out jigure. — And thereis not in another the saleation, 1.e. war’ e&oxtv the
Messianic deliverance (ii, 21). Comp. v. 81, xv. 11. This mode of taking
7 owrnpia is imperatively demanded, both by the absolute position of the
word with the force of the article, and by the connection with the preced-
ing, wherein Jesus was designated as Messiah, as well as by the completely
parallel second member of the verse. Therefore Michaelis, Bolten, and
Hildebrand err in holding that it is to be understood of the cure of a man
so infirm. Nor is the idea of deliverance from diseases generally to be at
all blended with that of the Messianic salvation (in opposition to Kypke,
Moldenhauer, Heinrichs), as Peter had already, at ver. 11, quite departed
from the theme of the infirm man’s cure, and passed over to the assertion
of the Messianic character of Jesus quite generally, without retaining any
special reference to bodily deliverance. — év G2 ovdevi] no other is the
ground, on which salvation is causally dependent.‘ — yép] annexes a more
precise explanation, which is meant to serve as a proof of the preceding.
For also there is no other name under the heaven giten among men, in which
we must obtain saleation. —ovd2 yép (see the critical remarks) : jor also not.

1 See Dissen, Kxc. Il. ad Pind. p. 27. 4 Soph. Aj. 615: é» cot rao” éywye owCousr.
2 Winer, p. 148 (E. T. 195). Eur. Ale. 279: év coi écpey cai Cy xai my.
3 Moreover, see on Matt. xxl. 42, and comp. Herod. vill. 118: év dmiv douev enor elvas 9
1 Pet. ff. 4 ff. ; also on 1 Cor. fil.11; Eph. ceornpiy.
fi. 20.

94 CHAP. IV., 13-22.

The reading otre yép would not signify namgque non,’ but would indicate
that a further clause corresponding to the ré was meant to follow it up,’
which, however, does nut suit here, where the address is brought toa
weighty close. The use generally doubtful, at least with prose writers, of
ovx . . . ovre instead of vire . . . obre,* is here excluded by ydo, which
makes the notion of neither —nor inapplicable. —érepov] a name different
from that name. On the other hand previously: év dAAw ovd., in no one but
in Him. Comp. on Gal. i. 7. — 1rd dedop. év avdp.] which is granted by God
— given for good — among men, in human society. The view adopted by
Wolf and Kuinoel, that év av3p. stands for the simple dative, is erroneous.*
— av3paror¢] in this generic reference did not require the article.® wor.
ovpav., which might 1m itself be dispensed with, has solemn emphasis.
Comp. ii. 5.—év »] as formerly év 44am. The name is to be conceived as
the contents of the believing confession. Fides implicita, in opposition
to the Catholics, cannot here be meant ; ili. 19, 26. — dei] namely, accord-
ing to God’s unalterable destination.

Vv. 18-15. Gewpodvrec] ‘‘Inest notio contemplandi cum attentione aut
admiratione.’’* — xai xataAaBdpevor] and when they had perceived,’ when they
had become aware. They perceived this during the address of Peter, which
was destitute of all rabbinical learning and showed to them one ypappdrwv
Getpov." aypdéupyaroe® denotes here the want of rabbinic culture. 'Idarac is
the same : laymen, who are strangers to theological learning.’° The double
designation is intended to express the idea very fully ; év9pwzo: has in it,
moreover, something disparaging: unlearned men.“ On idtdzy¢, which,
according to the contrast implied in the connection, may denote either a
private man, cr a plebeian, or an unlearned person, or a common soldier,
or one inexperienced in gymnastic exercises, one not a poet, not a physi-
cian, and other forms of contrast to a definite professional knowledge, sec
Valcken. in loc.; Hemsterhuis, ad Lucian. Necyom. p. 484; Ruhnken, ad
Long. p. 410. Here the element of contrast is contained in aypdppara :
hence the general meaning plebeians'? is to be rejected. They were pwpoi
tov kécpov, 1 Cor. 1. 27. Comp. John vii. 15. — ézeyivwoxdy tre avroig, dre
x.t.A.] and recognised them, namely, that they were, at an earlier period,
ith Jesus. Their astonishment sharpened now their recollection; and
therefore Baur and Zeller have taken objection to this remark without
sufficient psychological reason. émeyivwox. is incorrectly taken (even by
Kuinoel) as the pluperfect.* The two imperfects, é3aipal. and éreylywor.,
are, as relative tenses, here entirely in place. — rd: dé avd pwr.] emphatically
put first. — ovvéBadov] they conferred among themselves."

18o0 Hermann, Opuse. III. p. 158.
3 Klotz, ad Devar. p. 716; Ktthner, ad Xen.

Mem. 1. %. 31; Ellendt, Lex. soph. IJ. p. 444f.

§ Baeumlein, Partik. p. 222.

4 Winer, p. 204 (E. T’. 278).

§ See Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 177 f.; Kihner,
ad Xen. Mem. 1. 4. 14; Stallb. ad Plat. Crit.
p.51 A; Prot, p. 855 A,

* Tittmann, Synon. N. 7. p. 121.

73.34; Eph. ffi. 18; Plat. Phaedr. p. 250

D; Polyb. viil. 4.6; Dion. Hal. fi. 66.
® Plat. Apol. p. 26 D.
* Xen. Mem. iv. 2 20; Plat. Crit. p. 108 D.
10 See Hartmaun in the Stud. u. Arié. 1834,

I, p. 119 ff.
11 Comp Lys. acc. Nicom. 2%, and Bremi in
loc. [ten.

12 Kuinoel and Olshausen, comp. Baumgar-
13 Seo Winer. p. 958 (E. T. 387).
44 Comp xvii. 18; Plat. dfor. p. 22 C.

THEIR RELEASE, 95

Ver. 16. The positive thought of the question is: We shall be able to do
nothing to these men. What follows contains the reason: for that a notable
miracle, a definite proof of divine co-operation, has happened through them,
ts evident to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and ue are not in a position to
deny it. — To the yév corresponds ada’, ver. 17; to the yrwordy is opposed
the mere dogacréy.'

Vv. 17, 18. In order, however, that it be not further brought out among the
people, i.e. spread by communication hither and thither among the people,
even beyond Jerusalem. The subject is 7d oqpeiov, not diday7; but the
former is conceived of and dreaded as promoting the latter. éi rAeiov,
magis, i.6. here ulterius.? — Observe that the confession of ver. 16, made in
the bosom of the council, in confidential deliberation, and without the
presence of a third party, is therefore by no means ‘inconceivable’? (in
opposition to Zeller). The discussion in the council itself may have been
brought about in various ways, if not even by secret friends of Jesus in the
Sanhedrim (Neander, Lange). —amecAj ameAno.] emphatically threaten.* —
zadeiv] is quite general, to speak; for it corresponds to the two ideas,
gdéyyec9ae * and diddoxecv, ver. 18.—ézi +O dvdu. robrw] so that the name
uttered is the basis on which the Aadeiv rests. Comp. on Luke xxiv. 47.
They do not now name the name contemptuously, but do so only in stating
the decision, ver. 18. — The article before the infinitive brings into stronger
prominence the object. Concerning 7 in such a case, see Baeumlcin,
Partik. p. 296 f. ;

Vv. 19-22. 'Evdézr. 7. Orov] coram Dev, God as Judge being conceived as
present : ‘“multa mundus pro justis habet, quae coram Deo non sunt justa,”’
Bengel. We may add, that the maxim here expressed, founded on Matt. xxii.
21, takes for granted two things as certain; on the one hand, that some-
thing is really commanded by God ; and, on the other hand, that a demand
of the rulers does really cancel the command of God, and is consequently im-
moral ; in which case the rulers actually and wilfully abandon their status as
organs of divine ordination, and even take up a position antagonistic to God.
Only on the assumption of this twofold certainty could that principle lead
Christianity, without the reproach of revolution, to victory over the world
in opposition to the will of the Jewish and heathen rulers.* For analogous ex-
pressions from the Greek * and Latin writers and Rabbins, see Wetstein. The
uadrov % is : rather (potius, Vulgate) than, i.e. instead of listening to God,
rather to listen to you. The meaning of axotev is similar to te:Iapyeiv, ver.

1 Plat. Pol. v. p. 479 D, vi. p. 510 A.

2 See xx. 9, xxiv. 4; 2 Tim. i1. 16, 111.9; Plat.
Phaedr. p. 261 B; Gorg. p. 453 A; and Stallb.
tn loc.; Phaed. p. 98 B; Xen. de rect. 4. 3%
Comp. dw: paddAov, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 48.

3 Comp. Luke xxii. 15; Lobeck, Paras. p.
523 ff. ; Winer, p. 4% (EB. T. 584).

On pn O8eyyerOa:, not to become audible,
Erasmus correctly remarks : “ Plus est quam
ne loguerentur ; q.d. ne Atacerent aut ullam
racem ederent.. Comp. Castalio. Sce on
O0éyyer@a:, Dorvill. ad Charit. p. 409.

§ Bernhardy, p. &6; Winer, p. 808 (E. T.
406).

*Comp. Wuttke, Sitteni. § 810. Observe
withal, that it is not the magisterial command
itself and per ee that is divine, but the com-
mand for its obserceance is a divine one,
which therefore cannot be connected with im-
morali:y without doing away with ita very
idca as divine.

7 Plat. Apol. p. 20D; Arrian. Zpict. |. 20.

® Inconsistently the Vuly. hay, at v. 20,
magts. Sec Bacuml. Parfek. p. 186,

96 CHAP. IV., 23-28.

29. — ydp] Ver. 20 specifies the reason, the motive for the summons: xpivare in
ver. 19. For tous it is morally, in the consciousness of the divine will, zmpossi-
ble not to speak,' i.e. (P) we must speak what we saw and heard — namely,
the deeds and words of Jesus, of which we were eye-witnesses and ear-
witnesses. — jucic] we on our part. — mpocareAnodpuevor] after they had still
more threatened them, namely, than already in the prohibition of ver. 18, in
which, after ver. 17, the threatening was obviously implied.* — uydév
eipioxovres Td Ti K.7.4.] because they found nothing, namely how they were to
punish them. The article before whole sentences to which the attention is
to be specially directed.* — rac is not, with Kuinoel and others, to be ex-
plained qua specie quo praetextu ; the Sanhedrim, in fact, did not know how to
invent any kind of punishment, which might be ventured upon without stir-
ring up the people. Therefore dia rdv Aadév, on account of the people, i.e. in
consideration of them, is not to be referred, as usually, to azéAvoay avrtois,
but to undév edipioxovres x.7.A. — érav yap x.7.A.] So much the greater must the
miracle of healing have appeared to the unprejudiced people, and so much
the more striking and worthy of praise the working of God init. wAedvu
recoapéx. Comp. Matt. xxvi. 53.‘

Vv. 28, 24. poe roig idiovc] to those belonging to them, i.e. to their fellow-
apostles. This explanation (Syr. Beza) is verified partly by ver. 31, where
it is said of all, that they proclaimed the doctrine of God ; partly by ver.
82, where the multitude of believers are contrasted with these. Hence
neither are we to understand, with Kuinoel, Baumgarten, and others, the
Christian church in general, nor, ‘with Olshausen, the church in the house
of the apostles, or an assembly as in xii. 12.° — duodvpaddv Fpav] Thus all
with one accord spoke aloud the following prayer ; and not possibly Peter
alone. The attempts to explain this away (Kuinoel, comp. Bengel : that
the rest accompanied the speaker with a subdued voice; de Wette: that
they spoke after him mentally ; Olshausen: either that one prayed in the
name of all, or that in these words is presented the collective feeling of all)
are at variance with the clear text." It is therefore to be assumed (comp.
also Hildebrand) that in vv. 24-30 there is already a stated prayer (Q) of the
eapostolic church at Jerusalem, which under the fresh impression of the last
events of the life of Jesus, and under the mighty influence of the Spirit
received by them, had shaped and moulded itself naturally and as if invol-
untarily, according to the exigency which engrossed their hearts; and
which at this time, because its contents presented to the pious feeling of
the suppliants a most appropriate application to what had just happened,
the assembled apostles joined in with united inspiration, and uttered aloud.
With this view the contents of the prayer quite accord, as it expresses the

‘memories of that time (ver. 25 ff.) and the exigencies (vv. 29, 80) of the

1 Winer, p. 464 (E. T. 624). ®'Van Hengel, Gace d. talen, p. 68.

2 Comp. Ecclus. xifi. 8, ed. Compl. ; Dem. * This holds also in opposition to Baumgar-
844, 26; Zosim. |. 70. ten’s view, that the whole assembly sang

* Comp. Kfthner, IL p. 188; Mark ix. 28; together the second Paalm, and then Peter
Luke {. 62; Acts xxii. 90. made an application of it to the present cir-

4 Plat. Apol. p. 17 D, and Stallb. in Joc.; | cnm-tances in the words here given.
Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 410 f.

A PRAYER-MEETING. 97

threatened church in general with energetic precision, but yet takes no
special notice of what had just happened to Peter and John. — The address
continues to the end of ver. 26. Others’ supply el after of, or before 6...
eirov (Bengel), but less in keeping with the inspired fervour of the prayer.
The designation of God by déorora and 6 morhoag x.7.A., serves as a back-
ground to the triumphant thought of the necessary unsuccessfulness of hu-
man opposition. Comp. Neh. ix. 6; Rev. xiv. 7, a.

Vv. 25, 26. Ps. ii. 1, 2, exactly according to the LXX. The Psalm it-
self, according to its historical meaning, treats of the king, most probably
of Solomon, mounting the throne ; but this theocratic king is a type of the
ideal of the Israelitish kingdom, ¢.¢. of the Messiah, present to the prophetic
eye. The Psalm is not by David (see Ewald and Hupfeld) ; but those who
are praying follow the general assumption that the Psalms, of which no
other is mentioned as author, proceed from him. — From the standpoint of
the antitypical fulfilment in Christ they understoood (see ver. 27) the words
of the Psalm thus: Wherefore raged, against Jesus, Gentiles, the Romans,
and tribes, of Israel, imagined a vain thing, in which they could not succeed,
namely, the destruction of Jesus? There arose, against Him, the kings of
the earth, and the rulers, the former represented by Herod, and the latter by
Pilute, assembled themselves, namely with the édveorv and Aaoci¢ (see ver. 27),
against Jehovah, who had sent Jesus, and against His anointed. — gpvdcow)
primarily, fo snort ; then, generally, ferocio ; used in ancient Greek only in
the middle.’

Vv. 27, 28. For in truth there assembled, etc. This yép confirms the con-
tents of the divine utterance quoted from that by which it had been his-
torically fulfilled. — éx’ aayGeiac}) according to truth® really. — ini rdv ayov
xaida oov ‘Ino av éxpo.| against Thy holy servant, etc. Explanation of the
above xara tov Xpiorov avrod. The (ideal) anointing of Jesus, i.e. His conse-
cration on the part of God to be the Messianic king, took place, according
to Luke, at His baptism,‘ by means of the Spirit, which came upon Him
while the voice of God declared Him the Messiah. The consecration
of Christ is otherwise conceived of in John (éy 6 zargp wyiace ; see on

John x. 86). —‘Hpédyc] Luke xxiii. 11. — civ e0veot x Aaoig ‘Iop.| with *

Gentiles and Israel's peoples. The plural Aacig does not stand for the
singular, but is put on account of ver. 25, and is to be referred either,
with Calvin and others, to the different nationalities (comp. ii. 5) from
which the Jews—in great measure from foreign countriee—were assembled
at the Passover against Jesus; or, with Grotius and others, to the twelve
tribes, which latter opinion is to be preferred, in accordance with such
passages as Gen. xxviii. 8, xxxv. 5, xlviii. 4. The priesthood not spe-
cially named is included in the Aaoic¢ "lop. — rotfjoa] contains the design of
the ovrfy9ncav. This design of their coming together was ‘‘ to kill Jesus ;"’
but the matter is viewed according to the decree of God overruling it: ‘‘to
do what God has predetermined.’ — 4 xeip cov] symbolizes in the lofty strain

1 Vulgate, Beza, Castalio, Calvin, de Wette, * Bervhardy, p. 248. Comp. x. 4; Lake fv.
and many. 25: Dem. 588; Polyb. 1. 8&4. 6.
* See Weseeling, ad Diod. iv. 74. 4 Acta x. 88; Luke ill. 21, 32%

98 CHAP. IV., 29-35.

of the discourse the disposing power of God.' A zeugma is contained in
xpoopoe, inasmuch as the notion of the verb does not stand in logical re-
lation to the literal meaning of # yeip covu—with which some such word as
xpoytoiuace would have been in accord—but only to the attribute of God
thereby symbolized. — The death of the Lord was not the accidental work of
hostile cuprice, but the necessary result of the divine predetermination, to
which divine deci, the personally free action of man had to serve as an in-
strument.? Ov« airoi icyvoav, GA2G ov el o Td wav EmtTpépac Kai Ei¢ Tépac ayaywv,
6 evunyavoc Kai copdc’ ov Sov uév yap exeivot wc ExPpoi . . ., Emolovy dé a oD
éBotAov, Oecumenius. Beza aptly says: momjoa: refers not to the consilia
et voluntates Herodis, etc., but to the eventus consiliorum.?

Vv. 29, 80. Kai raviv] and now, as concerns the present state of things.
In the N. T. only in the Book of Acts ;* often in classical authors, — é¢cde °
ére t. areiA. avr. : direct thine attention to their threatenings, that they pass not
into reality. On égopav in the sense of governing care, see Schaef. App. ad
Dem. VY. p. 81. Comp. Isa. xxxvii. 17. avro», according to the original
meaning of the prayer (sec on ver. 24), refers to the ‘Hpadyc . . . “Iapay.
named in ver. 27, from whom the followers of Jesus, after His ascension,
feared continued persecution. But the apostles then praying, when they
uttered the prayer in reference to what had just occurred, gave to it in
their conception of it a reference to the threatenings uttered against Peter
and John in the Sanhedrim. — roi¢ dotAag cov] i.e. us apostles, They are
the servants of God, who execute His will in the publication of the gospel.
But the wai¢ Ocov nar’ é€ox7v is Christ. Comp. on Hi. 13.°— ywsra appro.
xaa.| with all possible freedom.’ —év re tiv yeipa cov éxreiv. x.7.A.] 3.6. whilat
Thou (for the confirmation of their free-spoken preaching ; comp. xiv. 3;
Mark xvi. 20) causest Thy power to be active for (cic, of the aim) healing, and
that signs and wonders be done through the name (through its utterance), etc.
—xaio. x. Tr. yiveoda] is infinitive of the aim, and so parallel to ei¢ tao,
attaching the general to the particular ; not, however, dependent on cic,
but standing by itself. To supply év ro again after xai (Beza, Bengel)
would unnecessarily disturb the simple concatenation of the discourse, and
therefore also the clause is not to be connected with déc.

Ver. 31. *Eoateidn 6 réxoc] This is not to be conceived of as an accidental
earthquake, but as an extraordinary shaking of the place’ directly effected by
God, @ onzeiov’—analogous to what happened at Pentecost—of the filling
with the rveiua, which immediately ensued. This filling once more with
the Spirit (comp. ver. 8) was the actual granting of the prayer déc . . . Adyov
cov, ver. 29; for the immediate consequence was : éAdAovy r. Ady. Tr. Ocov peta
wappnotac, namely in Jerusalem, before the Jews, so that the threatenings

1 Comp. ver. 80, vii. 50, xiii. 11; 1 Pet. v 6; * For cxamples of 80s in prayers, see Elencr,
Herod. vill. 140.2; Herm. ad Viger. p. 732. p. 381: Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 1. p. 42%.

2 Comp. ff. 23, fii: 18; Luke xxii. 22, xxiv. 26. 7 Sec Theile, ad Jac. p.7; and on Phil. 1. 20.
3 Comp. Flacias, Clav. I. p. 818. " Viewed hy Zeller, no doubt, as an inven-
4 Verre 38, xvii. 30, xx. $2, xxvii. 22. tion of pious legend, although nothing similar

5 Is to be so written with Tisch. and Lachm., occurs in the gospel history, to afford a con-
comp. on Phil. II. 28. necting link for such a legend.

STATE OF THE CHURCH. 99

against Peter and John (vv. 19, 21) thus came to nothing. Luke, how-
ever, has not meant nor designated the free-spoken preaching as a glossola-
dia (van Hengel).'

Ver. 82. Connection: Thus beneficial in its effect was the whole occur-
rence for the apostles (ver. 31); but (dé) as regards the whole body of those
that had become believers, etc. (ver. 82). As, namely, after the former great
increase of the church (ii. 41), a characteristic description of the Christian
church-life is given (ii. 44 ff.); 80 here also, after a new great increase
(ver. 4), and, moreover, so significant a victory over the Sanhedrim (vv.
5-31) had taken place, there is added a similar description, which of itself
points back to the earlier one (in opposition to Schleiermacher), and in-
dicates the pleasing state of things as unchanged in the church now so
much enlarged. — roi dé rA90ouc] of the multitude, i.e. the mass of believers,
These are designated as micrevoavrec, having become believers, in reference to
ver, 4; but in such a way that it is not merely those 7roAAoi, ver. 4, that are
meant, but éhey and at the same time all others, who had till now become
believers. This is required by 1d 7A#9oc¢, which denotes the Christian people
generally, as contrasted with the apostles. Comp. vi. 2. The believers’
heart and soul were one,—an expression betokening the complete harmony of
the inner life as well in the thinking, willing, and feeling, whose centre is
the heart,” as in the activity of the affections and impulses, in which they
were cipyvyor, and icéyuyor.® —xai ovdé etc] and not even a single one among
so many. Comp. on John i, 8. — aire] belongs to irapy.‘— As to the com-
munity of goods, see on ii. 44 (R).

Ver. 33. And with this unity of love in the bosom of the church, how
effective was the testimony of the apostles, and the divine grace, which was
imparted to all the members of the church ! — rjc avaor. r. xvp.'Inoov). This
was continually the foundation of the whole apostolic preaching ; comp.
on i. 22. They bore their witness to the resurrection of Christ, as a thing to
which they were in duty bound. Hence the compound verb amedidovy.°
Observe, moreover, that here, where from ver. 82 onwards the internal con-
dition of the chuoch is described, the apostolic preaching within the church
is denoted. — The ydpic¢ weyday is usually understood (according to ii. 47)
of the favour of the people. Incorrectly, as ovd? yap evdeyS x.7.A., ver. 34,
would contain no logical assignation of a reason for this. It is the divine
grace, which showed itself in them in a remarkable degree (1 Cor. xv. 10).
So, correctly, Beza, Wetstein, de Wette, Baumgarten, Hackett. — 4» ex
wavr. abr.|] upon them all: of the direction in which the presence of grace
was active. Comp. Luke ii. 40.

Vv. 84, 85. T'dp] adduves a special ground of knowledge, something from

1 As extra Biblical analogies to the cxtra-
ordinary écad. 6 roros, comp. Virg. Aen. iii.
90 ff.; Ovid. Met. xv. 672. Other examples
may be found in Doughtaeus, Anal. II. p.
vl, and from the Rabbins in Schoettgen, p.
421.

* Comp. Delitzach, Prychol p. 250.

* Phil. ii. 2, 20. Comp. 1 Chron xii. 88; Phil.

i. 27. See examples in Elsner, p. 817; Kypke,
Il. p. 31.

4 Comp. Luke vill. 8; Tob. iv.8; Plat. Alo.
I. p. 104 A.

§ Which (see Wyttenbach, Bibl. erti. TIT. 2,
56 ff.) xabdwep éyxetpraOevras avrovs tT: decxvves
Kat as wept OhAmparos Adyes avré, Oecumenius,
Comp. 4 Macc. vi. 32, Dem, 234. 5. »

100 CHAP. IV.

which the xdp:s peyéAy was apparent. For there was found no one needy
among them, because, namely, all posseasors, etc. — twAodvres x.t.A.] The pres-
ent participle is put, because the entire description represents the process
as continuing: being wont to sell, they brought the amount of the price of what
was sold, etc. Hence also tmpacxou. is not incorrectly (de Wette) put in-
stead of the aorist participle.’ The aorist participle is in its place at ver.
87. — napa rods médaS}, The apostles are, as teachers, represented sifting
(comp. Luke ii. 46) ; the money is brought and respectfully? placed at their
feet as they sit.* — xa8dre dv x.7.A.] See on ii. 45.

Vv. 36, 87. Aé] autem, introduces, in contradistinction to what has been
summarily stated in vv. 84, 85, the concrete individual case of an honout-
ably known man, who acted thus with his landed property. The idea iu
the dé is: All acted thus, and in keeping with it was the conduct of Joses. —
dwé (see the critical remarks) ]: as at li. 22. — vids wapaxdyjo.] TID) 13, son
of prophetic address, i.e. an inspired instigator, exhorter. Barnabas was a
prophet (Acts xiii. 1), and it is probable that (at a later period) he received
this surname on the occasion of some specially energetic and awakening
address which he delivered ; hence Luke did not interpret the name gen-
erally by vies xpogyreias, but, because the tpogyreia had been displayed pre-
cisely in the characteristic form of wapdxAno:s (comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 3), by
vids wapaxA, At Acts xi. 28 also, tapdsAnors appears as a characteristic of
Barnabas. We may add, that the more precise description of him in this
passage points forward to his labours afterwards to be related. — Aevirns]
Jer. xxxii. 7 proves that Levites might possess lands in Palestine.‘ Hence
the field is not to be considered as beyond the bounds of the land (Bengel).
— trdpy. abr. aypot] Genitive absolute. — 1d x,ua] in the singular: the sum
of money, the money proceeds, the amount received.°

Notes spy American Eprror.

(w) Sadducees. V.1.

It is worthy of note that in the Gospels the Pharisees are the great oppo-
nents of Christ, while in the Acts the Sadducees are most violently hostile
to the apostles. This may be explained by the facts, that Christ specially
endangered the influence of the Pharisees by unmasking their formality and
hypocrisy ; and that the apostles, in preaching so strenuously the resurrec-
tion of Jesus, successfully assailed the leading tenet of the Sadducees. The
sect of the Sadducees was not numerous, but it exerted much influence. Jo-
sephus says: ‘‘Their opinions were received by few, yet by those of the
greatest dignity.”” They rejected all tradition—the doctrine of a resurrection

1 See, on the contrary, Kfihner, IT. § 675.5. administer the fands of the church, which
2 Comp. Chrysostom : woAAn % Trepy. Sepp still finds sanctioned here, this paseage
3 The delivery of the fundstothe apostles has nothing to do.

is not yet mentioned in if. 45, and appears 4 Bee Ewald, Alterth. p. 406

only to have become necessary when the in- § Herod. lil. 38; Poll. 9. 87; Wesseling, ad

crvase of the church had taken place. With Diod. Sic. v. p. 486.

the alleged right of the clergy personally to

NOTES. 101

and a future state—the reality of direct divine influence, and strongly insisted
on the perfect freedom of the human will, Their name is probably derived
from a certain Zadok, pupil of a distinguished rabbi, whose followers held
that ‘‘ there was nothing for them in the world to come.”

(0) Annas the high priest. V. 6.

Caiaphas, son-in-law of Annas, at this time held the office of high priest,
a fact which doubtless was known to Luke; but as Annas had been high
priest, and even now wielded very great influence, the title is given to him.
In the Gospel by Luke he is named along with Caiaphas, and that first in
order, ‘‘ Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests’’ (Luke iii. 1). On this
passage Meyer writes: ‘‘But Annas retained withal very weighty influence,
so that not only did he, as did every one who had been agyegevs, continue
to be called by the name, but, moreover, he also partially discharged the func-
tions of high priest. Annas, whose son-in-law, and five sons besides, filled
the office, was accustomed to keep his hand on the helm.” It is also probable
that Annas was president of the Sanhedrim, an office of equal importance with
that of high priest, who was usually made president. Caiaphas was made high
priest by Valerius Gratus, a.p. 24, and held office for twelve years. He was
entirely under the influence of Annas, his father-in-law.

(P) For we cannot but speak. V. 20.

Peter and John were dauntless in their determination to obey God, even
though interdicted by the highest earthly authority, secular or sacred. Their
conduct was manly, heroic, Christlike. Socrates is reported to have said, on
being condemned for teaching the people their duties to God: ‘O ye Athe-
nians, I will obey God rather than you ; and if you would dismiss me and
spare my life on condition that I should cease to teach my fellow-citizens,
I would rather die a thousand times than accept the proposal.’’ A similar
instance of heroic fidelity to God's law is recorded in 2 Macc. vii.:—A young
man, scourged and threatened with death by Antiochus unless he deliberately
violated the law of God, said : ‘‘I will not obey the king’s commandment ; but
I will obey the commandment of the law that was given unto our fathers by
Moses,”’

(Q) A stated prayer. V. 24.

Some suppose that this was a liturgical form already introduced into the
infant church, and used on this occasion as peculiarly appropriate. With
this supposition Meyer agrees. But the prayer seems to have been the
natural and sudden outburst of devotion and desire. Nor does the language
used imply that all necessarily spoke aloud. It might be a goncert of hearts
rather than of voices, though all, as was customary, may have ‘assented vocally
at the close. Nor have we any intimation elsewhere of any forms of prayer,
or of liturgical service at so early a period in the Christian Ghurch. No evi-
dence is found in the record that even the Lord's Prayer was publicly used
in the assemblies of Christians.

102 CHAP. IV.

’ (x) All things common. V. 32.

See also notes on ii. 44.—"‘Common in the use of their property, not nec-
essarily in the possession of it.” (Hackelt.) ‘‘It would appear that by the
community of goods is meant, not that the disciples lived in common, and
that all property ceased among them, but that a common fund was instituted.
The disciples were actuated by the spirit of love toward each other, which
impelled them to regard the necessities of their brethren as their own. Not
only did they give largely of their wealth, but many placed the whole of it
at the disposal of the apostles.” ‘‘In the first glow of Christian life the
disciples put into actual practice the precept of our Lord” (Luke xii. 33).
(Gloag.) The community of goods was voluntary, local, and temporary, not
obligatory then or now.

We have here aspecimen of Christian Socialism. The narrative gives us such
a view of it as throws the secular thing called by that name into contempt, and
reveals the lamentable imperfection connected even with the highest form of
spiritual fellowship now existing on this earth. From it we learn that the so-
cialism which these first Christians enjoyed was attractive, religious, and amal-
gamating. They recognized the authority, the creatorship, the revelation, and
the predestination of God ; and in their prayers they invoked his protection,
interposition, and aid. Their union was most hearty and practical ; it con-
sisted with a diversity of position and service. It was under the spiritual and
economical supervision of the apostles, and it was produced by the favor of
God, for ‘‘ great grace was upon them all.'’ In what a sublime contrast
does such a state of things stand to all the socialistic schemes of the world.
Read the one hundred and thirty-third psalm. (Condensed from Thomas.)
‘‘ The ideal perfection of man’s condition is just that, in which neither poor nor
rich are to be found, but every individual has his wants supplied. Intima-
tions that such a condition must one day be realized, are to be found, not only
in the reckless cry after freedom and equality, but also in the most exalted of
our race. Pythagoras and Plato were captivated with this idea ; the Essenes
and other small bodies attempted to realize it. But the outward realization of
it requires certain internal conditions ; and just because these conditions were
wanting, the attempts referred to could not but fail. These conditions, how-
ever, were secured by the Redeemer, who poured pure brotherly love into the
hearts of believers ; but as the Church herself still appears in this world ex-
ternally veiled, so the true community of goods cannot be outwardly prac-
tised.’’ (Olshausen.)

CHAPTER V.

Ver. 2. After yvvarnés, Elz, Scholz have atroi, which Lachm. Tisch. Born. -
have rightly deleted, as it is wanting in A B D* &, min., and has evidently
slipped in from ver. 1.— Ver. 5. After axovovras, Lachm. Tisch, Born. have
deleted the usual reading raira; it is wanting in A BD ®&*, min. Or. Lucif.
and several vss., and is an addition from ver. 11. — Ver. 9. ele] is very suspi-
cious, as it is wanting in B D &, min. Vulg.; in other witnesses it varies in
position, and Or. has ¢yciv. Deleted by Lachm. Born. and Tisch. — Ver. 10.
wapé tT. w.) Lachm. and Tisch. read mpds r. x. according to A B D X&, Or. ; other
witnesses have ézir. r.; others, ird r. r.; others, évdriov. Born. also has
apds tr. t But as Luke elsewhere writes zapa 7. 7. (Luke viii, 41, xvii. 16),
and not mpoS r. 7. (Mark v. 22, vil. 25; Rev. i. 17), the Recepta is to be
retained. —- Ver. 15. wapa 1a$ 7A.] Lachm. reads «a? ei$ ras wd, after A B D**
®, min. D* has only xara 7A. ; and how easily might this become, by an error
of a transcriber, xai rdS 71., which was completed partly by the original xara
and partly by ets! Another correction was kal év rais rAareia:s (E). No version
has «ai, Accordingly the simple «ara rAar., following D*, is to be preferred. —
Instead of xA:ydv, Lachm. Tisch. Born, have rightly xA:vopiov (so ABD ®&);
kAcvov was inserted as the wonted form. — Ver. 16. eis ‘Iepove.] eis is wanting in
AB ¥, 103, and some vss. Deleted by Lachm. But the retention of es has
predominant attestation ; and it was natural to write in the margin by the side
of ray répcé wéAewy the locally defining addition ‘IspovoaAnu, which becaine the
occasion of omitting the eS ‘Iepovc. that follows. — Ver. 18. rT. yep. adror]
airov is wanting in A.B D ®&, min. Syr. Erp. Arm. Vulg. Cant. Theophyl. Lu-
cif., and omitted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. But see iv. 3.— Ver. 23. éoraras]
Elz. has #&w éor. But ééw has decisive evidence against it, and is a more
precisely defining addition occasioned by the following fw. — pd] Lachm.
Tisch. Born. read ézi. according to A BD ®, 109; a 6 is an interpretation.
— Ver. 24. i re lepevds nai 6 orpar. tr lepod. x. of dpxtep.] AB D ®, min. Copt.
Sohid. Arm. Vulg. Cant. Lucif. have merely 5 re orpar. 7. lepov x. of apytep.
So Lachm. Rinck, and Born. But lepets being not understood, and being
regarded as unnecessary seeing that of apyep. followed, might very easily be
omitted ; whereas there is no reason for its having been inserted. For the
genuineness of fepevs also the several other variations testify, which are to be
considered as attempts to remove the offence without exactly erasing the word,
namely, of iepeis x. 6 orp. T. lep. x. of Gpy. and 6 re apyepeds x. 6 orp, tr. lep. x. of
apy. — Ver. 25. After avrois Elz, has Aéywy, against decisive evidence. An
addition, in accordance with ver. 22 f. — Ver. 26. iva u7} Lachm. Born. have
uy, according to B YE &, min. But the omission easily appeared as necessary
on account of é¢03. Comp. Gal. iv. 11.— Ver. 28. of is wanting in AB ®*,
Copt. Vulg. Cant. Ath. Cyr. Lucif. Rightly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.,
as the transforming of the sentence into a question was evidently occasioned
by énnpdtnoev, — Ver. 32. After /ouev, Elz. Scholz. Tisch. have adrod, which

104 CHAP. V., 1-10.

A D* &, min., and several vas. omit. It is to be defended. As pdprvpes is still
defined by another genitive, avrod became cumbrous, appeared inappropriate,
and was omitted. B has xai queis év att paprupeS (without éopuevr), etc. But
in this case EN is to be regarded as a remnant of the écyev, the half of which
was easily omitted after jueis ; and thereupon atrod was transformed into atr¢.
The less is any importance to be assigned to the reading of Lachm.: «at yes
év atr@ paprupés touev x.7.A.— Ver. 33. #BovAevovro] Lachm. reads iBovdiovro,
according to ABE, min. An interpretation, or a mechanica) interchange,
frequent also in mss. of the classics ; see Born. ad xv. 37. — Ver. 34. Bpayd r1]
vt, according to decisive evidence, is to be deleted, with Lachm. Tisch.
Born. — arooréaovs} A B &, 80, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Chrys. have arOperovs. So
Lachm. Tisch. ; and rightly, as the words belong to the narrative of Luke,
and therefore the designution of the apostles by aOparovs appeared to the
scribes unworthy. It is otherwise in vv. 35, 38.— Ver. 36. mpooexAiby] Elz.
Griesb. Scholz. read mpocexoAAnOn, in opposition to A B C** &, min., which
have mpocexdAidy ; and in opposition to C’ D* E H, min. Cyr., which have
mpocexaAnGn (so Born.). Other witnesses have zpoocere6Gn, also mpooexznpaGn.
Differing interpretations of the mpooexa‘6n, which does not elsewhere occur
in the N. T., but which Griesb. rightly recommended, and Matth. Lachm.
Tisch. have adopted. -- Ver. 37. ixavér] to be deleted with Lachm. and Tisch.,
as it is wanting in A* B &, 81, Vulg. Cant. Cyr., in some others stands before
Aaév, and in C D, Eua. is interchanged with sodAvy (so Born.). — Ver. 38. In-
stead of éaoare, Lachm. has agere, following ABC 8. A gloss. — Ver. 39.
duvac6e] Lachm. Tisch. Born. have duvyjcecfe, according to BC DE &, min.,
and some vss, and Fathers. Mistaking the purposely chosen definite expression,
men altered it to agree with the foregoing future. — Instead of avrovs, which
Lachm. Tisch. Born. have, Elz. and Scholz read atré, against decisive testi-
mony. An alteration to suit rd épycy.— Ver. 41. After dvouaros Elz, has atrov,
which is wanting in decisive witnesses, and is an addition for the sake of
completeness. Other interpolations are: ’lyc0v,—rov Xpiorod,—'I yao Xpiorui,
—TrTowv xvpiov,—rod Oeod.

Vv. 1-10. Ananias' and Sapphira, however, acted quite otherwise. They
uttempted in deceitful hypocrisy to abuse the community of goods, which,
nevertheless, was simply permissive (ver. 4). For by the sale of the piece
of land and the bringing of the money, they in fact declared the whole sum
to be a gift of brotherly love to the common stock; but they aimed only
at securing for themselves the semblance of holy loving zeal by a portion of
the price, and had selfishly embezzled the remainder for themselves. They —
wished to serve fo masters, but to appear to serve only one. With justice,
Augustine designates the act as sacrilegium (‘‘ quod Deum in pollicitatione
fefellerit °*) and fraus. — The sudden death of both is to be regarded as a result
directly effected through the will of the apostle, by means of the miraculous power
imparted to him ; and not as a natural stroke of paralysis, independent of

VIPIIN, God pittes ; Jer. xxviil.1; Dan.i. the Aramaic RVDW, formosa. Derived from
6: LXX. Tob. v. 12. It may, however. be the the Greek cawrdecpos, sapphire, it would have
Hebrew name 77'})p (Neh. til. 23,LXX.),4.¢. | probably been Zawderpivy.

God covers.—The name Lar¢eipy is apparently

SIN OF ANANIAS AND SAPPHIRA. 105

Peter, though taking place by divine arrangement (co Ammon, Stolz,
Heinrichs, and others). For, apart from the supposition, in this case
necessary, of a similar susceptibility in husband and wife for such an im-
pressidn of sudden terror, the whole narrative is opposed to it ; especially
ver. 0, the words of which Peter could only have uttered with the utmost
presumption, if he bad not the consciousness that his own will was here
active. If we should take ver. 9 to be a mere threat, to which Peter found
himself induced by an inference from the fate of Ananias, this would be
merely an unwarranted alteration of the simple meaning of the words, and
would not diminish the presumptuousness of a threat so expressed. Nearly
allied to this natural explanation is the view mingling the divine and the
natural, and taking half from each, given by Neander, the holy earnestness
of the apostolic words worked so powerfully on the terrified conscience ;
and by Olshausen, the word of Peter pierced like a sword the alarmed
Ananias, and thus his death was the marvel arranged by a higher dispos-
ing power. But this view is directly opposed to the contents and the de-
sign of the whole representation. According to Baur, nothing remains
historical in the whole narrative except that Ananias and his wife had, by
their covetousness, made their names so hated, ‘‘that people believed that
they could see only a divine judgment in their death, in whatever way it
occurred ;’ all the rest is to be explained from the design of representing
the rvedza dycov as the divine principle working in the apostles. Comp.
Zeller, who, however, despairs of any more exact ascertainment of the state
of the case. Baumgarten, as also Lange (comp. Ewald), agrees in the main
with Neander; whilst de Wette is content with sceptical questions, al-
though recognising the miraculous element so far as the narrative is con-
cerned. Catholics have used this history in favour of the two swords of the
Pope. — The severity of the punishment, with which Porphyry reproached
Peter,' is justified by the consideration, that here was presented the first
open venture of deliberate wickedness, as audacious as it was hypocritical,
against the priaciple of holiness ruling in the church, and particularly in
the apostles; and the dignity of that principle, hitherto unoffended, at
once required its full satisfaction by the infliction of death upon the viola-
tors, by which ‘‘awe-inspiring act of divine church-discipline,’’* at the
same time, the authority of the apostles, placed in jeopardy, was publicly
guaranteed in its inviolableness (“‘ ut poena duorum hominum sit doctrina
multorum,’’ Jerome). — évoogic.] he put aside for himself, purloined.* — é7d
tT. reuys} ac. re.4

Ver. 3. Peter recognises the scheme of Ananias as the work of the devil,
who as the liar from the beginning (John viii. 44), and original enemy of the
nveiua Gycov and of the Messianic kingdom, had entered into the heart‘of
Ananias (comp. on John xiii. 27; Luke xxii. 3), and filled it with his
presence. Ananias, according to his Christian destination and ability

3 Jerome, Zpp. 8. p. 895 f.

® Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 46. * See Fritzsche, Conject. p. 96; Buttm. neug.

9 Tit. il. 10; 2 Macc. iv. 83; Josh. vii. 1; Gr. p. 180 (E. T. 158). Comp. Athen. vi. p.
Xen. Cyr. iv. 2.48 ; Pind. Nem. vi. 106; Valck. 234A: vood. éx rot xpymaros.

106 CHAP. V., 4-6.

(Jas. iv. 7; 1 Pet. v. 9), ought not to have permitted this, but should have
allowed his heart to be filled with the Holy Spirit ; hence the question,
Gari énAjpwoev x.t.A, — petoacbai ce ro mveiua 7d dy.) that thou shouldest by
lying deceive the Holy Spirit: this is the design of éexAjpwcev. The expla-
nation is incorrect which understands the infinitive éxSarcxds, and takes it
only of the attempt : unde accidit, ut mveipa dy. decipere tentares (Heinrichs,
Kuinoel). The deceiving of the Holy Spirit was, according to the design
of Satan, really to take place ; and although it was not in the issue suc-
cessful, it had actually taken place on the part of Ananias. — 7d wveipa rd

dytov] Peter and the other apostles, as overseers of the church, were pre-
' eminently the bearers and organs of the Holy Spirit (comp. xiii. 2, 4) ;
hence through the deception of the former the latter was deceived. — For
examples of pevdecbar, of de facto lying, deception by an act, see Kypke,
Il. p. 82 f. The word with the accusative of the person’ occurs only here in
the N. T., often in the classical writers.* — This instantaneous knowledge
of the deceit is an immediate perception, wrought in the apustle by the
Spirit dwelling in him.

Ver. 4. When it remained, namely, unsold ; (the opposite, tpabév), did it
not remain to thee, thy property? and when sold, was it not in thy power ? —
That the community of goods was not a legul compulsion, see on ii. 48. —
év rg og eovoig tripye] ac. 7 tiuy, Whick is to be taken out of mpabev. It was
in the disposal of Ananias either to retain the purchase-money entirely to
himself, or to give merely a portion of it to the common use ; but not to do
the latter, as he did it, under the deceitful semblance as if what he handed
over to the apostles was the whole sum. The sin of husband and wife is
cleverly characterized in Constitt. ap. vii. 2. 4: xAépavres ra idta. — ti bre]
quid est quod,i.e. cur? Comp. on Mark ii. 17. Wherefore didst thou jiz
this deed in thy heart ? i.e. wherefore didst thou resolve on this deed (namely,
on the instigation of the devil, ver. 8) 2° — obk éedow dvOpdras, arAd Te Ox@).
The state of things in itself relative: not s0 much . . . but rather, is in the
vehemence of the address conceived and set forth absolutely : not to men,
but to God. ‘‘ As a lie against our human personality, thy deed comes not
at all into consideration ; but only asa lie against God, the supreme Ruler
of the theocracy, whose organs we are.’’* The taking it as non tam, quam‘
is therefore a weakening of the words, which is unsuited to the fiery and
decided spirit of the speaker in that moment of deep excitement. The
datives denote the persons, to whom the action refers in hostile contradis-
tinction. Examples of the absolute wevdeofac with the dative are not
found in Greek writers, but in the LXX. Josh. xxiv. 27; 2 Sam. xxii. 45 ;
Ps. xviii. 44, lxxviii. 86. By re ep Peter makes the deceiver sensible of
his fatal guilt, for his sin now appeared as blasphemy. This ry Oey is quite

1 Tea. vil. 11; Dent. xxxifi. 20; Hos. ix. 2. T. 621).

2 See Blomfi-ld, Gloss. ad Aesch. Pers. 478. ® See also Fritzeche, ad Marc. p. 781.

*Comp. xix. 21; the Heb. Db, by nw ¢ Bernhardy, p. 99. Valckenaer well remarks :
(Dan. 1. 8; Mal. if. 2), and the classical ex- ‘“weicac@ai riva notat mendacio aliquem
pression OécGa. dv dpeci, and the like. decipere, eto. tux. mendacio contumeliam

4 Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 8; Winer, p. 461 f. (EB. alicui facere.

THEIR PUNISHMENT. 107

warranted, for a lying to the Spirit (ver. 8, ré xveduc) is a lie against God
(ro Gew), whose Spirit was lied to. Accordingly the divine nature of the
Spirit and his personality are here expressed, but the Spirit is not-called God.

(8) Vv. 5, 6. "Egépvfe] as in xii. 23 ; elswhere not in the N. T., but in the
LXX. and later Greek writers. Comp. xx. 10. @mopéyew occurs in the old
Greek from Homer onward. — é=x) révras rovs deovovras] upon all hearers,
namely, of this discussion of Peter with Ananins. For ver. 6 shows
that the whole proceeding took place in the ussembled church. The
sense in which it falls to be taken at ver. 11, in conformity with the
context at the close of the narrative, is different. Commonly it is taken
here as in ver. 11, in which case we should have to say, with de Wettc,
that the remark was proleptical. But even as such it appears unsuitable

. and disturbing. — of vedtrepo:} the younger men in the church, who ruse up

from their seats (avaordyres), are by the article denoted as a definite cluss
of persons. But seeing that they, unsummoned, perform the business ns
one devolving of itself upon them, they must be considered as the regular
servants of the church, who, in virtue of the church-organization as hitherto
developed, were bound to render the manual services required in the
ecclesiastical commonwealth, as indeed such ministering hands must, both
of themselves and also after the pattern of the synagogue, have been
from the outset necessary.’ But Neander, de Wette, Rothe, Lechler, and
others? doubt this, and think that the summons of the vewrepo: to this
business was simply based on the relation of age, by reason of which they
were accustomed to serve and were at once ready of their own accord. But
precisely in the case of such a miraculous and dreadful death, it is far more
natural to assume a far more urgent summons to the performance of the
immediate burial, founded on the relation of a conscious necessity of ser-
vice, than to think of people, like automata, acting spontancously. —
ovvéore:Aay airév] means nothing else than contrazerunt eum. We must
conceive the stretched out limbs of him who had fallen down, as drawn
together, pressed together by the young men, in order that the dead body
might be carried out. The usual view: they prepared him for burial, by
washing, swathing, etc., confounds ovoréAAew with mepiotéAAew,* and, more-
over, introduces into the narrative a mode of proceeding improbable in the
case of such a death. Others incorrectly render: they covered him (de Dieu,
de Wette); comp. Cant. : involeerunt. For both meanings Eur. Troad.
882 has been appealed to, where, however, ob duuapros év xepoiv mirAos ov-
veorddnoay means: they were not wrapped up, shrouded, by the hands of
a wife with garments (in which they wrapped them) in order to be buried.
As little is ovveordAGa: in Lucian. Imag. 7: to be covered ; but: to be pressed
together, in contrast to the following d:nveuco@a:, to flutter in the wind. The
explanation amoverunt * is also without precedent of usage.

1 See Mosheim, de red. Christ. ante Const. *Tiom. Od. xxiv. 202; Plat. Hinp. maj. p.
p. 114, 201 D; Diod. Sic. xix. 12; Joseph. Anté, xix.

2 See also Walch, Diss. p. 79 f. 4.13; Tob. xil. 14; Eeclus. xxxviilf. 17.

®Comp. Land.: collexerunt (sic); Castal. : * Vulgate, Erasmus, Lather, Beza, and
conelrinzerunt ; 1 Cor. vii. 29. others,

108 CHAP. V., 716.

Ver. 7. But it came to pasa—about an interval of three hourse—and his wise
came in. The husband had remained away too long for her. A period of
three hours might easily elapse with the business of the burial, especially
if the place of sepulture was distant from the city (see Lightfoot). After
éyévero dé a comma is to be put, and oS op. tp. didor. is a statement of time
inserted indépendently of the construction of the sentence.’ The common
view : but there was an interval of about three hours, and his wife came in, is at
variance with the use, especially frequent in Luke, of the absolute éyévero,*
As to the «ai after tyévero, see on Luke v. 12. On didornua used of time,
comp. Polyb. ix. 1. 1.

Ver. 8. 'Arexpi87] comp. on iii. 12. Bengel aptly remarks: ‘‘ respondit
mulieri, cujus introitus in coetum sanctorum erat instar sermonis, — rocovrov]
Jor so much, points to the money still lying there. Arbitrarily, and with
an overlooking of the vividness of what occurred, Bengel and Kuinoel sup-
pose that Peter had named the sum. The sense of tantilli, on which
Bornemann insists,’ results not as the import of the word, but, as else-
where frequently,‘ from the connection.

Vv. 9, 10. Wherefore was it agreed by you (dative with the passive, see
on Matt. v. 21) to try the Spirit of the Lord (God, see vv. 4, 5)? i.e. to vent-
ure the experiment, whether the rveiza dyiov, ruling in us apostles, was
infallible.* The wepa{wv challenges by his action the divine experimental
proof. — ot xédeS] a trait of vivid delineation ;° the steps of those returning
were just heard at the door” outside (ver. 10). — mpds rdv dvdpa abrijs] beside
her (just buried) husband. .

Ver. 11. $6305] quite as in ver. 5, fear and dread at this miraculous,
destroying punitive power of the apostles. — &9’ dAqu r, éxxA. xa) Emi xdvras
K.T.A.] upon the whole church (in Jerusalem), and (generally) on all (and eo
also on those who had not yet come over to the church, ver. 18) to whose
ears this occurrence came.

Vv. 12-16. After this event, which formed an epoch as regards the pres-
ervation of the holiness of the youthful church, there is now once more*®
introduced as a resting-point for reflection, a summary representation of the
prosperous development of the church, and that in its external relations. — dé
is the simple weraSarixév, carrying on the representation.—By the hands of
the apostles, moreover, occurred signs and wonders among the people in great
number. And they were all* with one accord in Solomon's porch, and there-

1 See on Matt. xv. 88 ; Luke ix. 28 ; Schaefer,
ad Dem. V. p. 368.

2 Gersdorf, Belir. p. 285 ; Bornemann, Schol.
p. 2. f.

3 Ghol. in Luc. p. 168.

4 See Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 416 E, 608 B;
Lobeck, ad Soph. Aj. 747.

§ Comp. Mal. fff. 15; Matt. fv. 7.

® Comp. Luke {. 79; Rom. iti. 15, x. 15.

7? See on John v. 2; Acts iii. 10.

® Comp. ii. 48 f., iv. 82 ff.

® All Christiana, comp. fi. 1, in contrast to
tov 8 Aower. The limitation of adrarres to

the cposies (Kuinoel, Olehausen, and others)
ia by Baur urged In depreciation of the au-
thenticity of the narrative. The apostles are
assnmed by Baur to be presented asa group
standing isolated, as superhuman, as it were
magica] beings, to whom people dare not draw
nigh ; from which there would result a con-
ception of the apoaties the very opposite of
that which is found everywhere in the N. T.
and in the Book of Acts iteelf! Even Zeller
has, with reason, declared himself opposed to
this interpretation on the part of Baur.

109

fore publicly: of the rest, on the other hand, no one ventured to join himself to
them ; but the people magnified them, the high honour in which the people
held the Christians, induced men to keep at a respectful distance from
them : and the more were believers added to the Lord, great numbers of men and
women ; 80 that they brought out to the streets, etc. The simple course of the
description is accordingly : (1) The miracle-working of the aposties con-
tinued abundantly, ver. 12: did... moAAd, (2) The whole body of
believers was undisturbed in their public meetings, protected by the
respect’ of the people (cal joav, ver. 12 . . . 4 Aads, ver. 18), and the
church increased in yet greater measure ; so that under the impression of
that respect and of this ever increasing acceptance which Christianity
gained, people brought out to the streets, etc., vv. 14, 15. dZiegler,*
entirely mistaking the unartificial progress of the narrative, considered
kai foav . . . yuvaixov as a later insertion ; and in this Eichhorn, Heinrichs,
and Kuinoél agree with bim ; while Laurent® recognises the genuineness of
the words, but looks on them as a marginal remark of Luke, Beck‘
declared even ver. 15 also as spurious. It is unnecessary even to make 4
parenthesis of ver. 14 (with Lachmann), as dere in ver. 14 is not necessarily
confined in its correct logical reference to GAA’ éwey. air. 6 A065 alone, but
may quite as fitly refer to vv. 18 and 14 together.*— tov d2 AoizSv] are the
ssme who are designated in the contrast immediately following as 6 Aaés,
and therefore those who had not yet gone over to them, the non-Christian popu-
lation. It is strangely perverse to understand by it the newly converted
(Heinrichs), or the more notable and wealthy Christians like Ananias (Beza,
Morus, Rosenmiiller). By the tov Ao:tay, as it forms the contrast to the
dravres, Christians cannot at all be meant, not even as included (Kuinoel,
Baur). — xoAAdo@az avrois] to join themselves to them, i.e. to intrude into their
society, which would have destroyed their harmonious intercourse.* This
avroiS and avrovs in ver. 13 must refer to the dxavres, and so to the Chria-
tians in general, but not to the apostles alone, as regards which Luke is
assumed by de Wette to have become ‘‘a little confused.’’ — udAAoy dé] in
the sense of all the more, etc." The bearing of the people, ver. 18, promoted
this increase. — ty xvpiy] would admit grammatically of being construed
with miorevorres (xvi. 84) ; but xi. 24 points decisively to its being connected
with tpocerievro, They were added to the Lord, namely, as now con-
nected with Him, belonging to Christ. — +4767] ‘‘ pluralis grandis: jam
non initur numerus uti iv. 4,’? Bengel.°— xard mAareias (see the critical
remarks)] emphatically placed first: so that they (the people) through
streets, along the streets, brought out their sick from the houses, ete.

MIRACULOUS POWER.

1“ Ket enim in saucta dieciplina et in
sincero pietatis cultu arcana quaedam
ceuvorys, quae malos ctiam invitos con-
stringat," Calvin. It would have been more
accurate to say : “quae profanum vuigue et
smnalos eliam,”’ etc.

2 In Gabler's Journ. f. treol. Lit. I. p. 188.

3 Neulest. Stud. p. 138 f.

# Obes. ereg. crit. V.p. 17.

§ Compare Winer, p. 59 (BE. T. 706).

® Comp. ix. 26, x. 28, xvii. 84; Luke xv. 15.

? See Nagelsbach on the Jliad, p. 227, ed. 3.

® Comp. on the comparatively rare plural
wAy@y not again occurring in the N. T., Bremi.
ad Aeschin. adv. Clesiph. p. 361.

110 CHAP. V., 17-20.

— én) xhev. «, xpadsdr.] denotes generally: smali beds' and couches. The
distinction made by Bengel and Kuinoel with the reading xArvov, that
the former denotes sof% and costly, and the latter poor and humble, beds,
is quite arbitrary. — épyouz. [[érpov] ,genitive absolute, and then 4 ond:
the shadow cast by him. —«d»] at least* is to be explained as an ab-
breviated expression: in order that, should Peter come, he might touch
any one, if even merely his shadow (T) overshadowed him.* That cures actually
took place by the shadow of the apostle, Luke does not state; but only the
opinion of the people, that the overshadowing would cure their sick. It may
be inferred, however, from ver. 6 that Luke would have it regarded as a
matter of course that the sick were not brought out in vain, but were cured
by the miraculous power of the apostle. As the latter was analogous to
the miraculous power of Jesus, it is certainly conceivable that Peter also
cured without the medium of corporeal contact ; but if this result was in
individual instances ascribed to his shadow, and if men expected from the
shadow of the apostle what his personal miraculous endowment supplied,
he was not to be blamed for this superstition. Zeller certainly cannot
admit as valid the analogy of the miraculous power of Jesus, as he does
not. himself recognise the historical character of the corresponding evangel-
ical narrative. He relegates the account to the domain of legend, in which
it wag conceived that the miraculous power had been, independently of the
consciousness and will of Peter, conveyed by his shadow like an electric
fluid. An absurdity, which in fact only the presupposition of a mere
legend enables us to conceive as possible. — ré 14760] the multitude (oulgus)
of the neighbouring towns. — oir:ves] as well those labouring under natural
clisease as those demoniacally afflicted ; comp. Luke iv. 40 f.—Then follows
ver. 17, the contrast of the persecution, which, however, was victoriously
overcome.

Vv. 17, 18. ’Avaords] The high priest stood up ; he raised himself : a graphic
trait serving to illustrate his present interference.‘ ‘‘ Non sibi quiescendum
ratus est,’? Bengel. The apyzepevs is, according to iv. 6, Annas, not Caia-
phas, although the latter was so really. — nai raves of ovv aire, % ovoa aipects
rav Laddoux.] and all his associates,* which were the sect of the Sadducees. This
sect had allied itself with Annas, because the preaching of Christ as the
Risen One was a grievous offence to them. See iv. 1,2. The participle
j; ovca (not of dvres is put) adjusts itself to the substantive belonging to the
predicate, as is often the case in the classical writers.° Luke does not
uffirm that the high priest himself was a Sadducee, as Olshausen, Ewald,
and others assert. This remark also applies in opposition to Zeller, who
ndduces it as an objection to the historical character of the narrator, that
Luke makes Annas a Sadducec. In the Gospels also there is no trace of the
Sadducaeism of Annas, According to Josephus,’ he had a sen who be-

1 edtvapiwy, seo the critical remarks, and « Comp. vi. 9, xxiii. 9; Luke xv. 18, ai.
comp. Epict. iii. 5. 18. 58 Hie whole adherents, ver. 21 ; Xen. Anad,

2 cas cay, sce Herm. ad Viger. p. 888. ili. 2 11, al. {888 E, 392 D.

3 Comp. Fritesche, Dise.in 2 Oor. II. p. 120, ¢Sce Kfihner, § 420; Stallb. ad Tiat. Rep.
and sce on 2Cor. x1 16. 7 Ant. xx. 9. 1.

Seg OY aes

ARREST AND DELIVERANCE. 111

longed to that sect. — év rnpfaes dnuoc.] rapyo. as in iv. 8. The public prison
is called in Thuc. v. 18. 6 also merely rd dyusocov ; and in Xen. Hist. vii. 36.
oxia Onpéata.

Vv. 19, 20. The historical state of the case as to the miraculous mode of
this liberation, —the process of which, perhaps, remained mysterious to the
apostles themselves,—cannot be ascertained.. Luke narrates the fact in a
legendary’ interpretation of the mystery ;* but every attempt to refer the
miraculous circumstances to a merely natural process (a stroke of lightning,
or an earthquake, or, as Thiess, Eck, Eichhorn, Eckermann, and Heinrichs
suggest, that a friend, perhaps the jailer himself, or a zealous Christian,
may have opened the prison) utterly offends against the design and the
nature of the text. It remains matter for surprise, that in the proceedings
afterwards (ver. 27 ff.) nothing is brought forward as to this liberation and
its circumstances. This shows the incompleteness of the narrative, but not
the unhistorical character of the fact itself (Baur, Zeller), which, if it were
an intentional invention, would certainly also have been referred to in the
trial. Nor is the apparent uselessness of the deliverance, for the apostles
are again arrested, evidence against its reality, as it had a sufficient ethical
purpose in the very fact of its confirming and increasing the courage in faith
of the apostles themselves. Qn the other hand, the hypothesis that Christ,
by His angel, had wished to demonstrate to the Sanhedrim their weakness
(Baumgarten), would only have sufficient foundation, provided the sequel
of the narrative purported that the judges had really recognised the inter-
position of heavenly power in the mode of the deliverance. Lange’ refers
the phenomenon to a visionary condition: the apostles were liberated ‘‘in
the condition of genius-life, of second consciousness.’’ This is extravagant
fancy introducing its own ideas. — dyyz4os] not the angel, but an angel.‘
— dia iS vuxtés} per noctem, i.e. during the night ; so that the opening, the
bringing out of the prisoners, and the address of the angel, occurred during
the course of the night, and toward morning-dawn the apostles repaired to
the temple.’ The expression is thus more significant than dca 7)v vicra® would
be, and stands in relation with dd rdv ép9porv, ver. 21. Hence there is no
deviation from Greek usage.’ — #§a)ay.] But on the next day the doors
were again found closed (ver. 23), according to which even the keepers had
not become aware of the occurrence. —Ver. 20. oraOévres] take your stand and
speak ; in which is implied a summons to boldness. Comp. ii. 14. — ra
pquara TIS (wis tavryS] the words of this life. What life it was, was self-evi-
dent to the apostles, namely, the life, which was the aim of all their effort
and working. Hence: the words, which lead to the eternal Messianic life,
bring about its attainment. Comp. John vi. 68. See on ravrys, Winer,
p. 228 (E. T. 297 f.) We are not to think here of a Aypallage, according
to which raurns refers in sense to r. pjyara,*

4 Ewald also discovers here a legendary form ° Comp. xvi. 9, and see on Gal. it. 1.
(perhaps a duplication of the history in ch. * Nagelsbach on the Jtiad, p. 222, ed. 3.

2 Cowp. Neander, p. 726. {xfl.). 7 Winer, Fritzsche.

® Apost. Zeitalt. 11. p. 68. ® Bengel, Kujnoel and many others, Comp.

* Winer, p. 118 (EB. T. 138). xiii. 26; Rom. vii. %.

112 CHAP. V., 21-30.

Vv. 21-28. ‘Ywd rdv dpOpor] about the dawn of day.' The axovcavres is
simply a continuation of the narrative : a/Yer they heard that, etc., as in ii.
87, xi. 18, and frequently. — rapayevéuevosS] namely, into the chamber where
the Sanhedrim sat, as is evident from what follows. They resorted thither,
unacquainted with the liberation of the apostles which had occurred in the
past night, and caused the Sanhedrim and the whole eldership to be con-
voked, in order to try the prisoners. — nai wdcav ri yepovciay] The importance
which they assigned to the matter (comp. on iv. 6) induced them to sum-
mon not only those elders of the people who were likewise members of the
Sanhedrim, but the whole body of elders generally, the whole council of
representatives of the people. The well-known term yepovoia is fittingly *
transferred from the college of the Greek gerontes* to that of the Jewish
presbyters. Heinrichs‘ considers do. r. yepovo. as equivalent to 7d ovvédpiov,
to which it is added as honorjficentissima compellatio. Warranted by usage ;°
but after the quite definite and well-known 10 ovvédprov, the addition would
have no force.—Ver. 28 contains quite the artless expression of the official
report.

Vv. 24, 25. "O re lepevs] the (above designated) priest, points to the one
expressly named in ver. 21 as 6 dpy:epedS. The word in itself has not the
signification high priest ; but the context * gives to the general expression
this special reference. — 6 orparnyds r. iepod] see on iv. 1. He also, as the
executive functionary of sacred justice, was summoned to the Sanhedrim.
— of dpytepeiS] are the titular high priests ; partly those who at an earlier
date had really held the office, and partly the presidents of the twenty-four
classes of priests. Comp. on Matt. ii. 4.—The order in which Luke names
the persons is quite natural. For first and chiefly the directing Jepeis,
the head of the whole assembly, must feel himself concerned in the unex-
pected news; and then, even more than the apyrepeis, the orparnyés, because
he, without doubt, had himself carried into effect the arrest mentioned at
ver. 18, and held the supervision of the prison. — dinrépowy . . . rovre] they
were full of perplexity (see on Luke xxiv. 4) concerning them (the apostles), as
to what this might come to—what they had to think as the possible termina-
tion of the occurrence just reported to them. Comp. on ii. 12, also x. 17.
— éorores «.7.A.] Comp. vv. 20, 21.

Vv. 26-28, O8 werd Bias) without application of violence. Comp. xxiv. 7
and the passages from Polybius in Raphel. More frequent in classical
writers is Sig, é« Bias, pds Ziav.—tva wu) A6ac8.] contains the design of
égooivro yap r, Aadv. They feared the people, in order not to be stoned. How
easily might the enthusiasm of the multitude for the apostles have resulted
in a tumultuous stoning of the ovparnyés and his attendants (érnpér.), if, by

1 On dpdpos, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. 2% f.;
and ond, used of nearness in time, see Bern-
hardy, p. 267. Often soin Thuc. ; see Kriger
on i. 100.8. Comp 8 Macc. v. 2; Tob. vif. 11.

2 Although nowhere else in the N. T.;
hence here, perhaps, to be derived from the
source nsed by Luke.

3 Dem 489.19: Polyb xxxvill. 5.1; Herm.
Staatsalterth. § 24. 186.

* Following Vitringa, Archtsynag. p. 356.

81 Macc. xii. 6; 2 Macc. 1. 10, iv. 44; Judith
ty. 8, xi. 14, xv.8; Loeener, p. 178.

6 So also in 1 Macc. xv. 1; Bar. i.7; Heb.
v. 6; and see Krebs, p. 178.

TRIAL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM. 113

any compulsory measures, such as putting them in chains, there had been
fearless disregard of the popular feeling! It is erroneous that after verbs
of fearing, merely the simple yp, wos «.7.4., should stand, and that there-
fore iva pi) 7:8. is to be attached to fyayey . . . Blas, and egof. x. r. A. to be
taken parenthetically.! Even among classical writers those verbs are found
connected with 4x0s «#7.7— Assuming the spuriousness of od, ver. 28 (see
the critical remarks), the question proper is only to be found in «at Povdecte
«.t.A., for which the preceding (mapayyetg . . . didaxas tuov) paves the way.
—napayy. wapnyy.] see iv. 17, 18. —eéml r. dvdu. 1r.] as in iv. 17. — Bovdecbe]
your efforts go to thie ; ‘* verbum invidiosum,’’ Bengel. — érayayeiv x.1.A.] to
bring about upon us, i.e. to cause that the shed blood of this man be avenged on
us (by an insurrection of the people). ‘‘ Pro confesso sumit Christum jure
occisum fuisse,’? Calvin.* On the (contemptuous) rovrg... tovrov Bengel
rightly remarks : ‘‘ fugit appellare Jesum ; Petrus appellat et celebrat, vv.
80, 81.’°—Observe how the high priest prudently leaves out of account the
mode of their escape. Disobedience towards the sacred tribunal was the ful-
crum.

Ver. 29. Kal of aréoroAo} and, generally, the apostles. For Peter spoke
in the name of all; hence also the singular aoxp.0.4 — weiBapyeiv x.1.A.]
‘‘Ubi enim jussa Domini et servi concurrunt, oportet illa prius exsequi.’’ °
The principle is here still more decidedly expressed than in iv. 19, and in
all its generality.

Vv. 80-82 now present, in exact reference to the previous 92 pdaAAor,
the teaching activity of the apostles as willed by God. — 6 0205 r. rar. ju. ]
Comp. iii. 18. —4#yepev] is, with Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Erasmus, and
others, to be referred to the raising from the dead, as the following relative
sentence contains the contrast to it, and the exaltation to glory follows
immediately afterwards, ver. 81. Others, such as Calvin, Bengel, de
Wette, hold that it refers generally to the appearance of Christ, whom God
has made to emerge.* — dtazeipifecba:| to murder with one's own hands." This
purposely chosen significant word brings the execution of Christ, which
was already in iv. 10 designated as the strict personal act of the instiga-
tors, into prominent view with the greatest possible force as such. So
also in the examples in Kypke, II. p. 84. The following aorist xpeude.
is synchronous with diexep. as its modal definition. — ém évAov] on
@ ‘tree: an expression, well known to the hearers, for the stake.°
on which criminals were suspended. The cross is here designedly so
called, not because the cravpés was a Roman instrument of death,° but in
order to strengthen the representation, because im? SvAov reminded them of

1 So Winer, p. 471 (EB. T. 684), de Wette.

2 With iva wi: Diod. Bic. il. p. 899. See
Hartang, Portikell. II. p. 116; Kiihner, ad
Aen. Mem. ti. 9.2; Kriger on 7hwe. vi. 13. 1.

§Comp. Matt. xxiii. 85, xxvii. 9%; Acts
xvili. 6; Josh. xxili. 15; Judg. ix. 9%; Lev.
xxii. 16.

4 See Buttm. newt. Gr. p. 111 (BE. T. 197).

§ Maimon. Hilchoth. Melach. iii. 9, Comp.
on iv. 19.

7 See xxvi. 21; Polyb. vill. 28. 8. Comp.
daxerpovoda, Job xxx. M4.

* Vy, Gon. xl. 19; Dent. xxi. $3; Isa. x. 96;
comp. Acts x. 30: 1 Pet. ff. 94; Gal. fli. 18,

® See, on the other hand, fi. 86, iv. 10.

114 CHAP, V., 31-34.

the accursed (see on Gal. iii. 13). — Ver. 31. Him has God exalted by His
right hand to be the Leader (not as in iii. 15, where a genitive stands aloug-
side), 7.6. the Ruler and Head of the theocracy, a designation of the
kingly dignity of Jesus,’ and a Saviour (the author and bestower of the Mes-
sianic salvation). On the idea, comp. ii. 86. As to rg deg. abrot, see on
ii. 23. — dotvac perdvorav x.r.A.] contains the design of rotrov . . . rg deéid
avrob: in order to give repentance to the Israelites and the forgiveness of sins.
With the exaltation of Christ, namely, was to commence His heavenly
work on earth, through which He as Lord and Saviour, by means of the
Holy Spirit, would continually promote the work of redemption to be ap-
propriated by men, would draw them to Him, John xii. 82, 838, in bringing
them by the preaching of the gospel (1 Pet. i. 23) toa change of mind
(comp. xi. 18; 2 Tim. ii. 25), and so, through the faith in Him which set
in with the yerdvoca, making them partakers of the forgiveness of sins in
baptism (comp. 1 Pet. iii. 21). The appropriation of the work of salvation
would have been denied to them without the exaltation of Christ, in the
absence of which the Spirit would not have operated (John vii. 39, xvi. 7) ;
but by the exaltation it was given* to them, and that, indeed, primarily to
the Jeraelites, whom Peter still names alone, because it was only at a later
period that he was to rise from this his national standpoint to universalism
(chapter x.).— With the reading atrod udpr. (see the critical remarks),
pépt, governs two genitives different in their reference, the one of a person
and the other of a thing,® and adroi could not but accordingly precede ; but
the emphasis lies on the bold jyeis, to which then rd rveiya «.7.4. is added
still more defiantly. — rav Anydr. rovrwv] of these words, 4.e. of what has just
been uttered. See on Matt. iv. 4. Peter means the raising and exaltation
of Jesus. Of the latter the apostles were witnesses, tn 90 far as they °
had already experienced the activity of the exalted Jesus, agreeably to His
own promise (i. 5), through the effusion of the Spirit (ii. 88 f.). But Luke,
who has narrated the tradition of the externally visible event of the ascen-
sion as an historical fact, must here have thought of the eye-witness of
the apostles at the ascension. — xa? rd xvetpua d2 Td dy:ov] a8 well we . . . as
also the Spirit,‘ in which case dé, according to the Attic usage, is placed
after the emphasized idea.* The Holy Spirit, the greater witness, different
from the human self-consciousness, but ruling and working in believers,
witnesses with them (ovuuaprepei, Rom. viii. 16). Comp. xv. 28. — rois
weOapy. ait] to those who obey Him. In an entirely arbitrary manner this is
usually restricted by a mentally supplied #yiv merely to the apostles ; whereas
all who were obedient to God, in a believing recognition of the Measiah

1 Comp. Thue. 1. 183.2; Aesch. Agam. 250 ;
an | roar dpxnyoi, Eur. 7¥. 196.

2 Not merely the actual impul«e and occasion
given, as, after Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and de
Wette, aleo Weiss, Petr. Lehrdegr. p. W7
(comp. his dtd/. Theol. p. 188), would have us
t.kcit. Againet this view may be urged the
upp nded cai égecww axapriay, which is not

compatible with that more free rendering of
Sovras.

3 See Winer, p. 180 (E. T. 389); Dissen, ad
Pind. Ob. 1.94; Pyth. il. 56.

4On the other hand, see Hartung, Purtikeil.
I. p. 161.

§ Basumlein, Partik. p. 169.

COUNSEL OF GAMALIEL. 115

preached to them, comp. ii. 88, xi. 17, and so through the draxo) ris
aiorews, Rom. i. 5, had received the gifts of the Spirit. They form the
category to which the apostles belong.

Ver. 88. Acenplovro] not: they gnashed with the teeth, which would be
dcéxptov rovs ddévra$,’ but dissecabantur (Vulgate), comp. vii. 54: they were
sawn through, cut through as by a saw,* —a figurative expression (comp. il.
87) of deeply penetrating painful indignation.’ It is stronger than the non-
figurative diaroveioGa:, iv. 2, xvi. 18. — tSovAetovro] they consulted, Luke xiv.
31; Acts xv. 87. The actual coming to a resolution was averted by Gamaliel.

Ver. 84. Gamaliel, On on, retributio Dei (Num. i. 10, ii, 20), is usually
assumed to be identical with Rabban Gamalicl, {PJ (senez), celebrated in
the Talmud, the grandson of Hillel and the son of R. Simcon,—a view
which cannot be proved, but also cannot be refuted, as there is nothing
against it in a chronological point of view.‘ He was the teacher of the
Apostle Paul (Acts xxii. 8), but is certainly not in our passage to be con-
sidered as the president of the Sanhedrim, as many have assumed, because
in that case Luke would have designated him more characteristically than
by 15 év r. ovvedpiy Sapo. That he had been in secret a Christian,* and been
baptized, along with his son and Nicodemus, by Peter and John,‘ is a
legend deduced by arbitrary inference from this passage.’ An opposite
but equally arbitrary extreme is the opinion of Pearson (Lectt. p. 49), that
Gamaliel only declared himself in favor of the apostles from an inveterate
partisan opposition to the Sadducees. Still more grossly, Schrader, IT. p.
68, makes him a hypocrite, who sought to act merely for his own elevation
and for the kingdom of darkness, and to win the unsuspicious Christians
by his dissimulation. He was not a mere prudent waiter on events
(Thiersch), but a wise, impartial, humane, and religiously scrupulous man,
so strong in character that he could not and would not suppress the warn-
ings and counsels that experience prompted him to oppose to the passion-
ate zeal, backed in great part by Sadducean prejudice, of his colleagues
(ver. 17); and therefore to be placed higher than an ordinary jurist and
politician dispassionately contemplating the case (Ewald). Recently it has
been maintained that the emergence of Gamaliel here recorded is an unhis-
torical réle* assigned to him ; and the chief*® ground alleged for this view

1 Lacian. Calumn. 24.

9 Plat. Conv. p. 188 A; Aristoph. Zy. 768;
1 Chron. xx. 3; Seo Suicer, Thes. I. p. 860;
Valckenaer, p. 403 f.

3 Alberti, Gloas. p. 67: wixpus éxaAdwa:vor.

4 Lightf. Hor. ad Matth. p. 88.

®See already Rerogn. Clem. i. 65; Beda,
Corneline a Lapide.

* Phot. cod. 171, p. 190.

T fee Thilo, ad Cod. apocr. p. 601.

® Baur, seo also Zeller.

* Moreover, Baur puts the alternative:
Either the previous miracles, etc., actually
took place, and then Gamaliel could not have
given an advice so problematic in tenor,

whether he might have regarded them as di-
vine miracles or not. Or, if Gamaliel gave
this counsel, then what is said to have taken
place could not have occurred as it is related.
But this dilemmas proves nothing, as there isa
third al:ernative possible, namely, that Ga-
maliel was by the miracles which had occurred
favorably inclined towards Christianity, but
not decided ; and therefore, as a prudent and
conscientious man, judged at least s farther
waiting forlight to be necessary. This favor-
able inclination is evidently to be recognised
in the mode in which he expresees his advice ;
see on vv. 88, 9.

116 CHAP. V., 35, 36.

is the mention of Theudas, ver. 86 (but see on ver. 86), while there is fur-
ther assumed the set purpose of making Christianity a section of orthodox,
or in other words Pharisaic Judaism, combated by Sadducaeism. As if,
after the exaltation of Christ, His resurrection must not really have stood
in the foreground of the apostles’ preaching ! and by that very fact the
position of parties could not but necessarily be so far changed, that now the
main interests of Sadducaciem were most deeply affected. — vopodiddoxados]
@ vousds, one skilled in the law (canonist) as a teacher.'— Bpaxi a short
while.*— On tw raeiv] to put without.* — 1. avOpdézovs (see the critical re-
marks): thus did Gamaliel impartially designate them, and Luke repro-
duces his expression. The order of the words puts the emphasis on éfo ;
for the discussion was to be one conducted within the Sanhedrim. Comp.
iv. 15.

Ver. 85. "Em rots avOpdr. rovro:s] in respect of these men‘ might be joined
to mpoolyere éavrois (Lachm.), as Luther, Castalio, Beza, and many others
have done (whence also comes the reading amd rov «.7.A. in E); yet the cur-
rency of the expression spdocey ri éxi revt* ig in favour of its being con-
strued with ti uéAAere mpdocey, The emphasis also which thus falls on én
rots avOp. is appropriate. — pdocew (not mueiv): agere, what procedure ye
will take. Comp. iii. 17, xix. 86; and see on Rom. i. 82. Gamaliel will
have nothing xporerés (xix. 86) done; therefore they must be on their
guard (rpocéy. éavr.).

Ver. 86. Tép gives the reason * for the warning contained in ver 85. In
proof that they should not proceed rashly, Gamaliel reminds them of two
- instances from contemporary history (vv. 86, 87) when fanatical deceivers
of the people (without any interference of the Sanhedrim) were overthrown
by their own work. Therefore there should be no interference with the.
apostles (ver. 88) ; for their work, if it should be of men, would not escape
destruction ; but if it should be of God, it would not be possible to over-
throw it. — pd rovruy tov fuep.] i.e. not long ago. Ov Agyet ahaa denynpata
walrowe éywv, aAAd vedrepa, d pddcora pds ior hoav ioxvpd, Chrysostom.
Comp. xxi. 88. Yet the expression, which here stands simply in contrast
to ancient incidents (which do not lie within the experience of the genera-
tion), is nut to be pressed ; for Gamaliel goes back withal to the time before
the census of Quirinus. — Oevdas] Joseph. Antt. xx. 5. 1, informs us that
under the procurator Cuspiue Fadus' an insurgent chief Theudas (v) gave
himself out to be a prophet, and obtained many adherents. But Fadus fell
on the insurgents with his cavalry ; they were either slain or taken prisoners,
and Theudas himself was beheaded by the horsemen. This narrative suits
our passage exactly as regards substance, but does not correspond as regards
date. For the Theudas of Josephus lived under Claudius, and Tiberius

1 See on Matt. xxii. 85. § Wolf and Kuinoel in loc., Matthiae, p. 927.
® Thue. vi. 18; Polyb. iii. 96. 2; 3 Sam. xix. ¢ Erasmus well paraphrases it: '‘ Ex prae-
36. terltis sumite conailium, qaid in futurum
3 Comp. Xen. Cyr. iv. 1.8; Symm. Ps. oporteat decerncre.”
exlii. 7. 7 Not before a.p. 4; eee Anger, de temp.
« Bernhardy, p. 61. rat. p. %.

THEUDAS. 117

Alexander succeeded Cuspius Fadus about a.p. 46; whereas. Gamaliel’s
speech occurred about ten years earlier, in the reign of Tiberius. Very
. many,’ therefore, suppose, that it is not the Theudas of Josephus who is
here meant, but some other insurgent chief or robber-captain acting a re-
ligious part,* who has remained unknown to history, but who emerged in
the turbulent times either of the later years of Herod the Great or soon
after his death. This certainly removes all difficulties, but in what a vio-
lent manner! especially as the name was by no means so common as to
make the supposition of two men of that name, with the same enterprise
and the same fate, appear probable, or indeed, in the absence of more pre-
cise historical warrant, ‘otherwise than rash, seeing that elsewhere histori-
cal mistakes occur in Luke (comp. iv. 6; Luke ii. 1, 2). Besides, it is
antecedently improbable that tradition should not have adduced an admon-
itory example thoroughly striking, from a historical point of view, such as
was that of Judas the Galilean. But the attempts to discover in our
Theudas one mentioned by Josephus under a different name,* amount only
to assumptions incapable of proof, and are nevertheless under the necessity
of leaving the difference of names unaccounted for. But inasmuch as, if
the Theudas in our passage is conceived as the same with the Theudas
mentioned by Josephus, the error cannot be sought on the side of Josephus ;*
as, on the contrary, the exactness of the narrative of Josephus secures at
any rate the decision in its favour for chronological accuracy over against
Luke ; there thus remains nothing but to assume that [uke—or in the first
instance, his source—has, in the reproduction of the speech before us, put into
the mouth of Gamalie a proleptic mistake. This might occur the more
easily, as the speech may have been given simply from tradition. And the
tradition which had correctly preserved one event adduced by Gamaliel,
the destruction of Judas the Galilean, was easily amplified by an anachrou-
nistic addition of another. If Luke himeel/ composed the speech in accord-
ance with tradition, the error is in his case the more easily explained, since
he wrote the Acts so long after the insurrection of Theudas,—in fact, after
the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth,—that the chronological
error, easy in itself, may here occasion the less surprise, for he was not a
Jew, and he had been for many years occupied with efforts of quite another
kind than the keeping freshly in mind the chronological position of one
of the many passing enthusiastic attempts at insurrection. It has been ex-

1 Origen, c. Cols. 1 6, Scaliger, Casaubon,
Beza, Grottus, Calovius, Hammond, Wolf,
Bengel, Henmann, Krebe, Lardner, Morue,
Rosenmfiller, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Guericke,
Anger, Olshaueen, Ebrard.

* So also Gerlach, d. Rdmtschen Statthali,
p. 70, not withoot a certain irritation towards
me, which I regret, as it contributes nothing
to the settlement of the question.

3 Wleseler, Synope. p. 108 ff., and Baum-
garten, aleo Kohler in Herzog's Encykl. XVI.
p. @ f., holding it to refer to thé scribe Mat-

thias in Joseph, Bell. 1.88. 2, Anft. xvil. 6;
Sonntag in the Stud. u. Xrit. 18387. p. 688 ff.,
and Ewald, to the insurgent Simon in Joseph.
Ball. ii. 4. 2, Anéé. xvii. 10.6; Zuschlag in the
monograph Theudas, Anfihrer eines 700. tn
Palast, erregten Aufatandes, Cassel 1849, tuk-
ing it tobe the Theudion of Joseph, Antt. xvii.
4, who took an active part in the Idumean
rising after the death of Hered the Great.

4Baronine, Reland, Michaelis, Jahn, Ar
chdol. I. 2, § 127.

118 CHAP. V., 37-40.

plained as a proleptic error by Valesius,' Lud. Cappellus, Wetstein, Ottius,’
Eichhorn, Credner, de Wette, Neander, Bleek, Holtzmann, Keim,’ as also
by Baur and Zeller, who, however, urge this error as an argument against
the historical truth of the entire speech. Olshausen considers himself pre-
vented from assenting to the idea of a historical mistake, because Luke
must have committed a double mistake,—for, first, he would have made -
Gamaliel name a man who did not live till after him ; and, secondly, he
would have put Judas, who appeared under Augustus, as subsequent to
Theudas, who lived under Claudius. But the whole mistake amounts to
the simple error, that Luke conceived that Theudas had played his part
already before the census of Quirinius, and accordingl¥ he could not but place
him before Judas.‘ — elvai riva] giving out himself* for one of peculiar im-
portance.* — @ zpocexAiby]) to whom leaned, i.e. adhered, took his side: roAdovs
yrarnoev, Josephus, l.c.7 — éyévovro eis obdév] ad nihilum redacti sunt. They
were, according to Josephus, U.c., broken up (dseAv6yoav) by the cavalry of
Fadus, and partly killed, partly taken prisoners.—The two relative sen-
tences 9 tpocead. and 45 dvgpéOy are designed to bring out emphatically the
contrast. Comp. iv. 10. |
Ver. 87. “Iovdas 6 TadsAaios] Joseph. Anétt. xviii. 1. 1, calls him a Gaula-
nite ; for he was from Gamala in Lower Gaulanitis. But in Anté. xviii. 1.
6, xx. 5. 2, Bell. ii. 8. 1, xvii. 8, he mentions him likewise as Tad:Acios.
Apparently the designation ‘‘the Galilean’? was the inaccurate one used
in ordinary life, from the locality in which the man was at work. Gaulani-
tis lay on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee.—He excited an insurrec-
tion against the ccnsus which Augustus in the year 7 aer. Dion.® caused to
be made by Quirinius the governor of Syria (see on Luke ii. 2), represent-
ing it as a work of subjugation, and calling the people to liberty with all
the fanatical boldness kindled by the old theocratic spirit."* — dwfornce . . .
éricw abrot}] he withdrew them from the governmen), and made them his
own adherents.'' — axddero] a notice which supplements Josephus. Accord-

1 Ad. Kuecb. H. £. ti, 11.

* Splotieg, p. 258.

$ According to Lange, Apost. Zetialt.I. p.
94, the difficulty between Luke and Josephus
remains ‘‘somewhat in suspense.” Yet he
inclines to the assumption of an earlier Theu-
das, according to the hypothesis of Wieseler.
According to this hypothesis, the Greek name
(seo Wetstein) Theudas (= deodas == deddeopos),
preserved still on coins in Mionnet, mast be
regarded as the Greek form of the name
TAD. Bat why ehould Gamaliel or Luke
not have retained the name Matthias? Or
what could induce Josephus to put Matthias
inetead of Theudas ? expecially as the name
DI) was not strange in Hebrew (Schoettg.
p. 428), and Josephus himself mentions the
later ineurgent by no other name.

4 Entirely mistaken is the—even in a lin-
guistic point of view erroneous—interpreta-

tion of pera rovrow (ver. 87) by Calvin, Wet-
stein, and others, that it denotes not femporis
ordinem, but, generally, insuper or praeterea.

§ cavrévy, in which consists the arrogance,
the ee{f-ewaliation; “ character falsaze doc-
trinae,”’ Bengel.

® xpodyrns eAcyer elvar, Joseph. Andé. xx. 5.
1. On ts, eximiuse quidam (the opposite
ovdeis—Valckenaer, ad Herod. iil. 140), ere
Wetstein in loc. : Winer, p. 160 (E. T. 218);
Dissen, ad Pind. Pyth. vill. 95, p. 299.

™Comp. Polyb. iv. 51. 5; also wpécxdscrs,
Polyb. vi. 10. 10, v. 51. 8.

® See Schleusner, Zhes. IV. p. 140.

® Thirty-seven years after the battle of Ac-
tium, Joeeph. Anté. xviii. 31.

10 Joveph. Antt, xvili. 1.1. Sce Gerlach, d.
Rom. Statthalter, p. 45 f.; Paret in Herzog‘s
Encyki. VII p. 1% f.

1! Attraction ; Hermann, ad Vig. p. 883.

JUDAS OF GALILEE. 119

ing to Joseph. Antt. xx. 5. 2, two sons of Judas perished at a later period,
whom Tiberius Alexander, the governor of Judaea, caused to be crucified.’
Still later a third son was executed.* — diecxopricOyoay| they were scattered,
—which does not exclude the continuance of the faction, whose members
were afterwards very active as zealots, and again even in the Jewish war ;°
therefore it is not an incorrect statement (in opposition to de Wette).

Vv. 88-40. Kaé] is the simple copula of the train of thought ; ra viv as in
iv. 29. — é& dvOpdnwyr] of human origin (comp. Matt. xxi. 25), not proceed-
ing from the will and arrangement of God (not éx Oeod).— 4 Bovdd airy f 7d
toy. rovro] ‘‘Disjunctio non ad diversas res, sed ad diversa, quibus res
appellatur, vocabula pertinet.’’"* This project or (in order to denote the
matter in question still more definitely) this work (as already in the act of
being executed). — xaraAv@jcerat] namely, without your interference. This
conception results from the antithesis in the second clause: ov divaobe
xaTaAdoas abrovs. For similar expressions from the Rabbins, see Schoettgen.°
The reference of xaraAveiv to persons (atrovs, see the critical remarks) who
are overthrown, ruined, is also current in classical authors.*—Notice, further,
the difference in meaning of the two conditional clauses: tavganda...
écrw,"’ according to which the second case put appeared to Gamaliel as the
more probable. — pirore xal Geoxdyzor evpefzre] although grammatically to be
explained by & oxenréov, mpootyere éavtois (Luke xxi. 84), or some similur
phrase floating before the mind, is an independent warning : that ye only be
not found even fighters against God.* Valckenaer and Lachmann (after
Pricaeus and Hammond) construe otherwise, referring ujmore to édoare
avroos, and treating dr: . . . avrovs as a parenthesis. A superfluous inter-
ruption, to which also the manifest reference of Gsoudyo to the directly
preceding ei 6? éx Ozod éorty x.7.A, is Opposed. — xai] is to be explained ellip-
tically : not only with men, but also further, in addition.* — beoudzot}.’* —
éxeicOnoay| even if ouly in tantum; and yet how greatly to their self-
conviction on account of their recent condemnation of Jesus ! — de/pavrec]
The Sanhedrim would at least not expose themselves, as if they had insti-
tuted an examination wholly without result, and therefore they order the
punishment of stripes, usual for very various kinds of crime—here, proved
disobedience—but very ignominious (comp. xvi. 87, xxii.).—Concerning the
counsel of Gamaliel generally, the principle therein expressed is only right
conditionally, for interference against a spiritual development must, in
respect of its admissibility or necessity, be morally judged of according
to the nature of the cases ; nor is that counsel to be considered as an abso-

' Comp. Bell. il. 8. 1.

® Be. 1.17.8 f.; Vit. v. 11.

§ Joseph. Bell. ii. 17. 7.

4 Fritzeche, ad Marc. p. 277.

® Pirke Aboth, iv. 11, al. Comp. Herod. fx.

7 Comp. Gal. i. 8, 9; and see Winer. p. 977 f.
(E. T. 869); Stallb. ad Plat. Phaed. p. 98 B.

® See Hom. J7. 1. 26, il. 195; Matt. xxv. 9
(Elz.); Rom xi. 21; Baeumlein, Partik. p.
268; N&zelsb. on the Jad, p. 18, ed. 8.

16: 6, re Set yerdrdas dx rov God, durjxavoy
axorpdpa: ardpumry. Eur. Hippol. 476.

*Xen. Cyr. vill. 5. 24; Plat. Legg. iv. p.
714C; Lucian. Gall. 2%. Comp. cardAvere
tov tupévvov, Polyb. x. 25. 8, etc.

® See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 184.

10 See Symm. Prov. ix. 18, xxi. 16 ; Job xxvi.
8; Heraclid. Aleg. 1; Lucian. Jov. 7y. 45. On
the thing itself, comp. Hom. JJ. vi. 129: ov«
ay éywye Oeoicry drovparioig: paxoimyy.

120 NOTES.

lute maxim of Gamaliel, but as one which is here presented to him
by the critical state of affairs, and is to be explained from his predomi-
nant opinion that a work of God may be at stake, as he himself indeed
makes this opinion apparent by e . . . éorcv, ver. 89 (see above).

Ver. 41 f. Xalpovres] comp. Matt. v. 11, 12.— imp rod dvéuaros) placed
first with emphasis : for the name, for its glorification. For the scourging
suffered tended to that cffect, because it was inflicted on the apostles on
account of their steadfast confession of the name. Comp. ix. 16. ‘‘Quum
reputarent causam, praevalebat gaudium,’’? Calvin. The absolute 1d dvopa
denotes the name xar’ éfox#v,—namely, ‘‘ Jesus Messiah ’’ (iii. 6, iv. 10), the
confession and announcement of which was always the highest and hohest
concern of the apostles. Analogous is the use of the absolute 0W (Lev.
xxiv. 11, 16), in which the Hebrew understood the name of his Jehovah as
implied of itself. Comp. 8 John 7. — xatn§cd0. arizac.] An oxymoron.’ —
nacav huépav| every day the otx éxavovro in preaching took place.* They did
it day after day without cessation. — car’ olxov}] domi, in the house, a con-
trast to ev 1 lepw. See on ii. 46. — avexavovro diddoxovres|.>— nai evayyed. 'I70.
r. X.] and announcing Jesus as the Messiah, a more specific definition of
diddoxovres as regards its chief contents.

Notes spy Amerricax Eprror.
(8) Ananias. V. 1.

His punishment.—The statement of our author, though strong, is near the
truth. Peter was merely the organ of the Holy Spirit, and his address was
the sentence of death. It was not Peter who either pronounced or exe-
cuted the sentence, but God himself. Dr. Davidson observes: ‘It is evidently
set forth as the miraculous instantaneous effect of Peter's words. This, with
the harshness of the divinely inflicted punishment, which is out of character
with the gospel history, prevents the critic from accepting the fact as histori-
cal, at least in the way it is told.” Others denounce the punishment as too
severe, and not in accordance with the benign spirit of Christ. Porphyry ac-
cuses Peter of cruelty. To this charge Jerome very justly replies: ‘‘The
apostle Peter by no means calls down death upon them, as the foolish Por-
phyry falsely lays to his charge, but by a prophetic spirit announces the judg-
ment of God, that the punishment of two persons might be the instruction of
many.” ‘But whether used directly against Peter, or indirectly against God
himself, the charge of rashness and undue ‘severity may be repelled without
resorting to the ultimate plea of the divine infallibility and sovereignty, by the
complex nature of the sin committed, as embracing an ambitious and vainglo-
rious desire to obtain the praise of men by false pretences ; a selfish and ava-
ricious wish to do this at as small expense as possible ; a direct falsehood,
whether told by word or deed, as to the completeness of the sum presented ;
but above all, an impious defiance of God the Spirit, as unable to detect the

1 Comp. Phil. 1. 29; 2 Cor. xi. 96-80; Gal. § See Herm. ad Viger. p. 771; Bernhardy,
vi. 14, 17, al. : 1 Pet. fi. 19. p. 477.
* See Winer, p. 162 (EB. T. 214).

NOTES. 121

imposture or to punish it ; a complication and accumulation of gratuitous and
aggravated crimes, which certainly must constitute a heinous sin—if not the
unpardonable sin—against the Holy Ghost.” (Alexander.) The sin of Ananias
was an aggravated combination of all iniquity—vanity and hypocrisy, covetous-
ness and fraud, impiety, and contempt of God, As analogous instances refer
to the fate of Nadab and Abihu ; Korah and his company ; the man that gath-
ered sticks upon the Sabbath day, and Achan.

(v) Peter's shadow. V. 15.

‘The expression is rhetorical; the sick were anxious that something be-
longing to Peter might touch them, even if it were only his shadow.” It is
not said, but it is implied, that cures were thus wrought. Analogous in-
stances are recorded in the evangelical history: the infirm woman (Matt. ix.
21, 22); cures effected by handkerchiefs from the person of Paul (Acts xix.
12), See specially Lange, in loc.

(U) Theudas. V. 36.

Josephus gives the history of an impostor named Theudas, who drew a
great multitude of people after him. He was apprehended and beheaded
by order of the Roman ruler. But this event occurred in the reign of
Claudius, about ten years after the speech of Gamaliel had been delivered.
Assuming that this Theudas is the one referred to by Gamaliel, a charge of
anachronism and ‘historical mistakes ” is brought against Luke. Now without
making any comparison between the two historians for acéuracy, or insisting
that Luke is as good authority as Josephus, the assumed difficulty may be re-
moved by supposing that Gamaliel referred to some one of the many turbulent
insurrectionary chiefs, of whom Josephus speaks as overrunning the land
about the time of the death of Herod the Great. He says: ‘‘At this time
. there were great disturbances in the country, and the opportunity that now
offered itself induced a great many to set up for kings,” ‘Judea was at this
time full of robberies ; and as the several companies of the seditious lighted
upon any one to lead them, he was created a king forthwith.”

‘‘ The name was not an uncommon one, and it can excite no surprise that
one Theudas, who was an insurgent, should have appeared in the time of Au-
gustus, and another, fifty years later, in the time of Claudius. Josephus gives
an account of four men named Simon, who followed each other within forty
years, and of three named Jndas within ten years, who were all instigators of
rebellion.’’ (Hacket.) Now such an explanation, or others equally probable,
must be proved to be false, before a charge of ignorance or error is brought
against the writer of the Acts. The ‘charge is in the Jast degree improbable,
considering how often such apparent inconsistencies are reconciled by the dis-
covery of new but intrinsically unimportant facts ; and also the error, if it
were one, must have been immediately discovered, and would either have been
rectified at once, or made the ground of argumentative objection.” (Alexander. )

122 CHAP. VI., 1.

CHAPTER VI.

Ver. 3. ‘Ayiov] is wanting in B D &, 137, 180, vss. Chrys. Theophyl. De-
leted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. ; the Syr. expresses xvpiov. A more precisely de-
fining addition (comp. ver. 5), which is also found inserted at ver. 10. — «ara-
oryoopev} Elz. has xaraorjowpev, against decisive evidence. An over-hasty cor-
rection. — Ver. 5, mrAjpq7] AC* D E H &, min. have rAyons, which, although
adopted by Lachm., is intolerable, and is to be regarded as an old error of
transcription. — Ver. 8. ydpiros] Elz. has riorews, contrary to decisive evidence.
From ver. 5. — Ver. 9. «ai ’Acias] is deleted by Lach., following A D* Cant.
It was easily overlooked after KcA:cIAZ ; whereas it would be difficult to con-
ceive a reason for its being inserted. — Ver. 11. BAdognua] D has ‘BAacgnyias.
Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Born. But Jyjpara SAdcgenya was ex-
plained by the weakly-attested PAacgnyulas (blasphemies) as a gloss ; and this,
taken as a genitive, thereupon suppressed the original B/Adognua. — Ver. 13.
After Jjuara, Elz. has SAdognua, against a great predominance of evidence.
From ver. 11. — After dyiov, Elz. has rovrov, which, it is true, has in its favour
B C, Tol. Sahid. Syr. utr. Chrys. Theophyl. 2, but was added with reference to
ver. 14, as the meeting of the Sanhedrim was conceived as taking place within
the area of the temple court.

Vv. 1-7. An explanation paving the way for the history of Stephen,
ver. 8 ff. Ver. 7 is not at variance with this view.

Ver. 1. Aé] Over against this new victory of the church without, there
now emerges a division in its own bosom. — év rais juép. tavr.) namely,
while the apostles continued, after their liberation, to devote themselves
unmolested to their function of preaching (v. 42). Thus this expression
(O°D*3 OF) finds its definition, although only an approximate one, always
in what precedes. Comp. on Matt. iii. 1. — wAnfvvdvrwov] as a neuter verb
(Bernhardy, p. 339 f.): amidst the increase of the Christian multitude, hy
which, consequently, the business of management referred to became
the more extensive and difficult.!— ‘EAAnvior7s, elsewhere only preserved
in Phot. Bidl. (see Wetstein), according to its derivation, from éAAnvilecy, to
present oneself in Grecian nationality, and particularly to speak the Greek
language ;* and according to its contrast to 'Efpaiovs, is to be explained : a
Jew, and so non-Greek, who has Greek nationality, and particularly speaks
Greek: ix. 29. Comp. Chrysostom and Oecumenius. As both appella-
tions are here transferred to the members of the Christian church at Jeru-
salem, the ‘Efpaios are undoubtedly : those Christians of the church of Jerusa-
lem, who, as natives of Palestine, had the Jewish national character, and spoke

1 Comp. Aesch. Ag. 869; Polyb. iff. 108.7; | Apoer.
Herodian, ffi. 8. 14, often in the LXX. and ® Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 880.

A MUEMURING. 123

the sacred language as their native tongue ; and the ‘EAAguoral are thoee mem-
bers of this church, who were Greek-Jews, and therefore presented themselves in
Greek national character, and spoke Greek as their native language. Both
parties were Jewish Christians ; and the distinction between them turned
on the different relation of their original nationality to Judaism. And as
the two parties (v) embraced the whole of the Jews who had become Chris-
tian, it is a purely arbitrary limitation, when Camerarius, Beza, Salmasius,
Pearson, Wolf, Morus, Ziegler,! would understand exclusively the Jewish
proselytes who had been converted to Christianity. These are included
among the Greek-Jews who had become Christian, but are not alone meunt ;
the Jews by birth who had been drawn from the d:acropa to Jerusalem are
are also included. The more the intercourse of Greek-Jews with foreign
culture was fitted to lessen and set aside Jewish narrow-mindedness, so
much the more easy it is to understand that many should embrace Chris-
tianity.* — =pés] denotes, according to the context, the antagonistic direc-
tion, as in Luke v. 80. Comp. Acts ix. 29. — é» rg diux. ry xaOnu.] in the
daily service (2 Cor. viii. 4, ix. 1, 18), here: with provisions, in the daily
distribution of food. Ver. 2 requires this explanation. — xaOnpepivds only
here in the N. T., more frequently in Plutarch, etc., belongs to the later
Greek.* — The neglect of due consideration, xapaSewpeiv,4 which the widows
of the Hellenists met with, doubtless by the fault not of the apostles, but
of subordinates commissioned by them, is an evidence that the Jewish seli-
exaltation of the Palestinian over the Greek-Jews,® so much at variance
with the spirit of Christianity,* had extended also to the Christian com-
munity, and now on the increase of the church, no longer restrained by
the fresh unity of the Holy Spirit, came into prominence as the first germ
of the later separation of the Hebrew and Hellenistic elements ;" as also,
that before the appointment of the subsequently named Seven, the care of
the poor was either exclusively, or at least chiefly, entrusted to the Hebrevs.*
The widows are not, as Olshausen and Lekebusch, p. 98, arbitrarily assume,
mentioned by synecdoche for all the poor and needy, but simply because
their neglect was the occasion of the yoyyvouds. We may add, that this
passage does not presuppose another state of matters than that of the com-
munity of goods formerly mentioned (Schleiermacher and others), but only
a disproportion as regards the application of the means thereby placed at
their disposal. There is nothing in the text to show that the complaint as
to this was unfounded (Calvin).

Ver. 2. Td rAgOos rév pabyrév] the mass of the disciples; i.e. the Christian
multitude in general, not merely individuals, or a mere committee of the
church. Comp. iv. 82. It is quite as arbitrary to understand, with Light-

t Binlet/. in d. Br. a.d. Hebr.p.@l,and LXX. and Apocr., bat see Kypke, IT. p. 36.
Pfannkuche, in Hichhorn's allg. Bidt. VIII. § Lightf. Hor. ad Joh. p. 1081.

p. 471. @ Gal. fil. 2%; Col. ill, 11; Rom. x. 13; 1
2 Comp. Reuss in Herzog’s Encyki. V. p. Cor. xii. 13.

708 f. 7 Comp. Lechler, apost. Zeit. p. 838.
$ Judith xii. 15; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 55. * Mosh. de red. CArist. ante Const. pp. 118,

4Not cleewhero in the N. T., nor inthe 130.

124 OHAP. VI., 3-5.

foot, only the 120 persons mentioned in i. 15, as, with Mosheim and
Kuinoel, to suppose that the church of Jerusalem was divided into seven
classes, which assembled in seven different places, and had each selected from
their midst an almoner. As the place of meeting is not named, it is an
over-hasty conclusion that the whole church could nut have assembled all
at once. — ot« apeoréy éativ] non placet.' The Vulgate, Beza, Calvin, Pisca-
tor, Casaubon, Kuinoel, incorrectly render: non aequum est, which the word
never means, not even in the LXX. It pleased not the apostles to leave the
doctrine of God—its proclamation—just because the fulfilment of the proper
duty of their calling pleased them. — xaradeiy.] A strong expression under
a vivid sense of the disturbing element (to leave in the lurch).* — d:axoveiv
tparéCais] to serve tables, i.e. to be the regulators, overseers, and dispensers
in reference to food. The expression, which contains the more precise
definition for rg d:axovig of ver. 1, betrays ‘‘ indignitatem aliquam’’ (Bengel).
+—The reference which others have partly combined with this. partly as-
sumed alone, of rpdre{a to the money-changers’ table,* is excluded, in the
absence of any other indication in the text, by the d:axoveiv used statedly
.of the ministration of food.‘ Moreover, the designation of the matter, as
if it were a banking business, would not even be suitable. The apostles
would neither be rpamrefoxéuor nor rpareforowi.® They may hitherto in the
management of this business have made use, without fixed plan, of the
assistance of others, by whose fault, perhaps, the murmuring of the
Hellenists was occasioned.

Ver. 3. Accordingly (ctv), as we, the apostles, can no longer undertake
this business of distribution, look ye out, i.e. direct your attention to test

and select, etc. —érrd] (w) the sacred number. — sogias] quite in the
" usual practical sense : wisdom, which determines the right agency in con-
formity with the recognised divine aim. With a view to this required con-
dition of fulness of the Spirit and of wisdom, the men to be selected from
the midst of the church were to be attested, i.e. were to have the corre-
sponding testimony of the church in their favour.*— obs xatacrjoopev em) THS
xpeias ravtns| whom we (the apostles) will appoint," when they are chosen,
over the business in question.* This officium, ministration,’ is just that, of
which the distributing to the widows was-.an essential and indeed the chief
part, namely, the care of the poor in the church, not merely as to its Hellen-
istic portion.'° The limitation to the latter would presuppose the existence
of a special management of the poor already established for the Hebrew

1 xii. 8; John vill. 29; Herod.1.119; Plato,
Def. p. 415 A.

2 Qn the form, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p.
718 ff.

3 Matt. xxi. 12, Luke xix. 9% (‘‘peeonia in .

usum pauperam coliecta et iis distribuenda,”
Kuinoel).

4 Wetat. ad Matth. iv. 11.

8 Athen. IV. p. 170.

® Comp. xvi. 2 and on Luke iv. 223; Dion.
Hal. Ant. ii. 26.

TThe opposite of xcaracnjc. twxi rie xp.
(comp. 1 Macc. x. 87) is: peragricacda awd
THs xp., Polyb. iv. 8%. 9; 1 Macc. xi. 68.

®On ew with the genitive, in the sense of
official appointment over something, see
Lobc ck, ad Phryn. p. 474; Kfihner, ad Xen.
Afem. ili. 3. 2.

* Sec Wetetein and Schwelghiuser, Lez.
Polyd. p. 665.

10 Vitringa, da Synag. ii. 2. 5, Mosheim,
Heinrichs, Kuinoel.

CHOOSING THE SEVEN. 125
portion, without any indication of it in the text; nor is it supported by the
Hellenic names of the persons chosen (ver. 5), as such names at that time
were very common also among the Hebrews. Consequently the hypothesis,
that pure Hellenists were appointed by the impartiality of the Hebrews,' is
entirely arbitrary ; as also is the supposition of Gieseler,? that three He-
brews and three Hellenists, and one proselyte, were appointed ; although
the chosen were doubtless partly Hebrews and partly Hellenists.—Observe,
moreover, how the right to elect was regarded by the apostles as vested in
the church, and the election itself was performed by the church, but the ap-
pointment aud consecration were completed by the apostles ; the requisite
qualifications, moreover, of those to be elected are defined by the apostles.*
From this first regular overseership of alms, the mode of appointment to
which could not but regulate analogically the practice of the church, was
gradually developed the diaconate, which subsequently underwent further
elaboration (Phil. i. 1). It remains an open question whether the overseers
corresponded to the 0°%33 of the synagogue *— rj Jiaxovig rot Adyov] correlate
contrasting with the dcaxoveiy rparéfars in ver. 2.47 The apostolic working
was to be separated from the office of overseer ; while, on the other hand, the
latter was by no means to exclude other Christian work in the measure of
existing gifts, as the very example of Stephen (vv. 8-10) shows ; comp.
on viii. 5.

Ver. 5. Mavrd¢ tov Agave] ‘‘ pulcher consensus cum obsequio,’’ Bengel.
The aristocracy of the church was a wer’ evdotiag mrAGfovg aporoxparia.® —
wiorewc] is not, with Wetstein, Kuinoel, and others, to be interpreted
honesty, trustworthiness ; for this qualification was obvious of itself, and is
here no peculiar characteristic. But the prominent Christian element in
the nature of Stephen was his being distinguished by fulness of faith

1 Rothe, de Wette, Thiersch, Kirche im
apoet. Zeitali. p. 75.

3 Kirchengesch. I. sec. 2%, note 7.

* Comp. Holtzm. Judenth. u. Christenth. p.
618 f.

4 Bat the arsumption that ‘the institution
of the so-called deacons was originally one
and the same with the presbyterate, and that
only at a later period it ramified into the dis-
tinction between the presbyterate in the
parrower sense and the diaconate” (Lange.
apost. Zettait. II. p. 7%, after J. H. BOhmer:;
comp. also Lechier, p. 806), iu not to be proved
by xi. 80. See én loc. Ritsechi, altkathal. KX.
p. 855 ff., thinks it very probable that the
authority of the Seven was the first shape of
the office of presbyter afterwards emerging in
Jerusalem. So aleo Holtzmann, é/.c. p. 616.
Similarly Weiss, di. Theol. p. 142, according
to whom the presbyters stepped into the place
of the Seven and took upon them their duties.
But the office of presbyter was still at that
time vested in the apoetiee themselves ; accord-
ingly, the eseential and necessary difference

of the two fanctions was from the very first
the regulative point of view. The presbyterate
retained the oversight and guidance of the
diaconate (Phil. i. 1) ; comp. also xi. 80; but
the latter sprang, by reason of the emerging
exigency, from the former, not the converse.

8 Ae Leyrer, in Herzog’s Encyki. XV. p.
$18, thinks. The ecclesiastical overseership
arose out of the higher need and interest of
the new present, but the synagogal office
might eerve as a model that offered iteelf his-
torically. The requirements for the latter
Office pointed merely to “ well-known trust-
worthy '* men.

6 Vitringa ; on the other side Rhenfeld, see
Wolf, Curae.

7 Observe, however, that it is not said: r7
Scaxovig THs Tporevyx#s xai Tov Adyov, and there-
fore it is not to be inferred from our passage,
with Abrens (Amt d. Schidesel, p. 87 f.), that
by ry spoorevyy & part of ‘‘the office of the
keys’ is meant. See, in opposition to this,
Dfteterdieck in the Stud. «. Krit. 1865, p. 708 f.

® Plat. Menez. p. 288 D.

126 CHAP. VI., 6-9.

(comp. xi. 24), on which account the church united in selecting him first.
—diditxor| At a later period he taught in Samaria, and baptized the
chamberlain (viii. 5 ff.). Concerning his after life and labours (see, how-
ever, xxi. 8) there are only contradictory legends. — Ni«éAavv] neither the
founder of the Nicolaitans,' nor the person from whom the Nicolaitans had
borrowed their name in accordance with his alleged immoral principles ;*
Thiersch wishes historically to combine the two traditions. NixeAarai, Rev.
ii. 6, is an invented Greek name, equivalent to xparowvrec tyv didazyv Badadu
(ver. 14), according.to the derivation of DY ya, perdidit populum.* Of the
others mentioned nothing further is known. — xpoofAvrov 'Avriox.| From
this it may be inferred, with Heinsius, Gieseler, de Wette, Ewald, and
others, that only Nicolas had been a proselyte, and all the rest were not ;
for otherwise we could not discern why Luke should have added such a
epecial remark of so characteristic a kind only in the case of Nicolas. But
that there was also a proselyte among those chosen, is an evidence of the
wisdom of the choice. —’Avrioyéa] but who dwelt in Jerusalem.—The fact
that Stephen is named at the head of the Seven finds its explanation in his
distinguished qualities and historical significance. Comp. Peter at the
head of the apostles. Chrysostom well remarks on ver. 8: xai év roi¢ éxra
yy Tig WpéxptTog Kal Ta WpwTeia elyev" ei yap Kal 7 xeEtpotovia KolvH, G22’ buwe ovTOC
éreaondoato ydpv miaeiova. Nor is it less historically appropriate that the
only proselyte among the Seven is, in keeping with the Jewish character of
the church, named ast.

Ver. 6.° And after they (the apostles) had prayed, they laid their hands on
them. —xai is the simple copula, whereupon the subject changes without
carrying out the periodic construction.* Itis otherwise in i, 24. The idea
that the overseers of the church (comp. on xiii. 8) form the subject, to which
Hoelemann is inclined, has this aguinst it, that at that time, when the body
of the apostles still stood at the head of the jirst church, no other presiding
body was certainly as yet instituted. The diaconate was the jirst organ-
ization, called forth by the exigency that in the jirst instance arose.— The
imposition of hands,’ as a symbol exhibiting the divine communication of
power and grace, was employed from the time of Moses’ as a special theocratic
consecration to office. So also in the apostolic church, without, however, its
already consummating admission to any sharply defined order (comp. 1
Tim. v. 22). The circumstance that the necessary gifts (comp. here vv. 8,
5) of the person in question were already known to exist’ does not exclude
the special bestowal of official gifts, which was therein contemplated ; see-
ing that elsewhere, even in the case of those who have the Spirit, there

1 As, after Iren. Haer. ii. 27, Eptph. Haer.
25, Calvin, Grotias, and Lightfoot assumed.

2 Constitt. ap. vi. 8.8; Clem. Al. Strom. il.
p. 177, il. p. 187.

3 See his Kirche tm apost. Zeitali. p. 251 f. ;
comp. generally, Lange, gpost. Zeitalt. I1. p.
526 ff.,and Herzog in his EncyH. X. p. 338 £.),
but otherwiee hietorically quite unknown.

4 See Ewald and Dfisterdieck, 7.¢.

§ See, on the imposition of hands, Bauer in
the Siud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 343 ff.; Hoelemann
in his neue Bideletud. 1866, p. 282 ff., where
also the earlier literature, p. 283, is noted.

* Sec Buttm. nevt. Gr. p. 116 (E. T. 182).

TovT ADD, Vitringa, Synag. p. 886 ff.

Num. xxvil. 18; Deut. xxxiv. 9; Ewald,
Alterth. p. 57 f.

® Ritechl, altkath. Kirche, p. 887.

INSTALLING THE SEVEN. 127

yet ensues a special and higher communication.—Observe, moreover, that
here also (comp. viii. 17, xiii. 3) the imposition of hands occurs after
prayer,’ and therefore it was not a mere symbolic accompaniment of prayer’
without collative import, and perhaps only a ‘‘ ritus ordini et decoro con-
gruens”’ (Calvin). Certainly its efficacy depended only on God’s bestowal,
but it was associated with the act representing this bestowal as the medium
of the djvine communication.

Ver. 7, attaching the train of thought by the simple «ai, now describes
how, after the installing of the Seven, the cause of the gospel continued to
prosper. ‘* The word of God grew’’—it increased in diffusion.* How could
the re-established and elevated love and harmony, sustained, in addition
to the apostles, by upright men who were full of the Holy Spirit and of
wisdom (ver. 8), fail to serve as the greatest recommendation of the new
doctrine and church to the inhabitants of the capital, who had always
before their eyes, in the case of their hierarchs, the curse of party spirit
and sectarian hatred? Therefore—and whut a significant step towards
victory therein took place !|—a great multitude of the priests became obedient
to the faith, that is, they submitted themselves to the faith in Jesus as the
Messiah, they became believers; comp. as to iraxog micrewc, on Rom. i. 5.
The better portion of the so numerous (Ezra ii. 86 ff.) priestly class could
not but, in the light of the Christian theocratic fellowship which was
developing itself, recognise and feel all the more vividly the decay of the
old hierarchy. Accordingly, both the weakly attested reading ‘lovdaiwy,
and the conjecture of Casaubon, approved by Beza: cai rav iepéwv, se. tives,
are to be entirely rejected ; nor is even Elener’s view, which Heinsius
anticipated, and Wolf and Kuinoel followed, to be adupted, viz. that by
the dyxAvuc rév iep., the sacerdotes ex plebe, plebeii sacerdotes, YTRN DY DIN,
are meant in contradistinction to the theologically learned priests, p*pon
“yoon. The text itself is against this view ; for it must at least have run:
woAdoi re iepeig rov byAov. Besides, such a distinction of priests is nowhere
indicated in the N. T., and could not be presumed as known. Compare,
as analogous to the statement of our passage, John xii. 42.

Vv. 8, 9. Yet there now came an attack from without, and that against
that first-named distinguished overseer for the poor, Stephen, who became
the rpwroudptrup.* The new narrative is therefore not introduced abruptly
(Schwanbeck). — ydpiroe is, as in iv. 88, to be understood of the divine
grace, not as Heinrichs, according to‘ii. 47, would have it taken : gratia,
quam apud permulios inicrat. This must have been definitely conveyed by
an addition. — dvvayewc] power generally, heroism ; not specially : miraculous
power, as the following émoie: répara x.7.A. expresses a special exercise of
the generally characteristic yaprc and di-vauge. — rive rdv ix rie cuvaywyhe
Ary. AcBepr.] some of those who belonged to the so-called Libertine-synagogue.
The number of synagogues in Jerusalem was great, and is estimated by the

' Lake has not expressed himself in some Theol. p. 144.
euch way as this: «ai dwidevres avroi¢ race 3 xff. 24, xix. M, ete. Comp. the parable of
xeroas wpoonvftavro, the mustard-seed. Matt. xiii. 81, 38.

* This aleo in opposition to Weiss, didi. 4 Conet. ap. ii. 40. 2.

128

Rabbins,'’ at the fanciful number 480 (i.e. 4 x 10 x 12). Chrysostom,
already correctly explains the A:Beprivo:: of ‘Pupalev aredeifepo. They are
to be conceived as Jews by birth, who, brought by the Romans, particularly
under Pompey, as prisoners of war to Rome, were afterward emancipated, and
had returned home. Many also remained in Rome, where they had settled
on the other side of the Tiber.” They and their descendants after them
formed in Jerusalem a synagogue of their own, which was named after the
class-designation which its originators and possessors brought with them
from their Roman sojourn in exile, the synagogue of the freedmen (libertin-
orum). This, the weual explanation, for which, however, further historical
proof cannot be adduced, is to be adhered to as correct, both on account
of the purely Roman name, and because it involves no historical improba-
bility. Grotius, Vitringa, Wolf, and others understand, as also included
under it, Italians, who as freedmen had become converts to Judaism. But
it is not at all known that such persons, and that in large numbers, were
resident in Jerusalem. The Roman designation stands opposed to the view
of Lightfoot, that they were Palestinian freedmen, who were in the service
of Palestinian masters. Others,* suppose that they were Jews, natives of
Libertum, a (problematical) city or district in proconsular Africa. If there
was a Libertum,‘ the Jews from it, of whom no historical trace exists, were
certainly not so numerous in Jerusalem as to form a separate synagogue of
their own.*—xal Kup. xai 'AAegé.] Likewise two synagogal communities.
Calvin, Beza, Bengel, Heumann, and Klos,* were no doubt of opinion that
by éx ric ovvaywyic . . . xal’Actac there is meant only one synagogue, which
was common to all those who are named. But against this may be urged,
as regards the words of the passage, the circumstance that r. Acyouéync only
suits A:Beprivwy, and as regards matter of fact, the great number of syn-
agogues in Jerusalem, as well as the circumstance that of the Libertini,
Cyrenaeans, etc., there was certainly far too large a body in Jerusalem to
admit of them all forming only one synagogue. In Cyrene, the capital of
Upper Libya, the fourth part of the inhabitants consisted of Jews,’ and in
Alexandria two of the five parts into which the city was divided were
inhabited by them.* Here was also the seat of Jewish-Greek learning, and
it was natural that those removing to Jerusalem should bring with them in
some measure this learning of the world without, and prosecute it there in
their synagogue. Wieseler, p. 68, renders the first xaf and indeed, so that
the Cyrenaeans, Alexandrians, and those of Cilicia and Asia, would be
designated as a mere part of the so-called Libertine synagogue. But how
arbitrary, seeing that «ai in the various other instances of its being used

CHAP. VI., 10-12.

1 Megtll. f.%8, 4; Ketuvoth f. 106, 1.

2Sueton. Tiber. 86; Tacit. Ann. ii. 8;
Philo, Leg. ad Cas. p. 1014 C.

8 See particularly Gerdes In the Milscell.
Groning. I. 8, p. 589 ff.

* Buidas: AcBeprivos: Svona sOvous.

® Conjectures: Arfvorivar, Ldbyans (Occu-
menius, Lyra, Beza, ed. 1 and 2, Clericus,
Gothofredue, Valckenaer), and A:Svvwr riov

xata Evp. (Schulthess, de chariem. Sp. St. p.
162 ff.). See Wetstein, who even considers
Acfepr. as another form (inferio) of the name
AcBver. The Arm. already has Zibyorwm.

° Ream. emendatt. Valek. in N. T. p. ®&.

? Joseph. Anté. xiv. 7. 2, xvi. 6.1; ¢ Apion.
it, 4.

8 Joreph. Anétét. xiv. 7. 2, xiv. 10. 1, xix. &.
2; Bel. Jud. il. 18. 7.

STEPHEN ARRESTED. 129

throughout the representation always expresses merély the simple and /
The Synagoga Alexandrinorum is also mentioned in the Talmud.' Winer
and Ewald divide the whole into ‘wo communities : (1) Kupyy. and ’ Aref.
joined with the Libertines ; and (2) the synagogue formed of the Cilician
and Asiatic Jews. But against this view the above reasons also militate,
especially the ric Aeyouévyc, which only suits AcBeprivwv. The grammatical
objection against our view, that the article ray is not repeated before
Krpyv., and before 'Adzé., is disposed of by the consideration, that those
belonging to the three synagogues, the Libertine-synagogue, the Cyrenaeans,
ind the Alexandrians are conceived together as one hostile category,” and the
two following synagogal communities are then likewise conceived as such a
unity, and represented by the xai rav prefixed.» We have thus in our
passage jire synagogues, to which the rivéc belonged, — namely, three of
Roman and African nationality, and two Asiatic. The two categories—the
former three together, and the latter two together—are represented as the
two synagogal circles, from which disputants emerged against Stephen.
To the Cilician synagogue Saul doubtless belonged. -—— Asia is not to be
tuken otherwise than in ii. 9.—cv{yroivrec] as disputants, ix. 29. The
ovinreiv had already begun with the rising up (avéoryoay). ‘

Vv. 10, 11. The codia is to be explained, not of the Jewish learning, but
of the Christian wisdom,* to which the Jewish learning of the opponents
could not make any resistance.* The zvedua was the wv. ayov,’ with which
he was filled, vv. 8, 5. —@] Dative of the instrument. It refers, as respects
sense, to doth preceding nouns, but is grammatically determined according
to the latter, Matthiae, page 991.—rére] then, namely, after they bad
availed nothing in open disputation against him. ‘‘Hic agnosce morem
improborum ; ubi veritate discedunt imparcs, ad mendacia confugiunt,”’
Erasmus. Paraphr. —intBadrov] they instigated, secretly instructed." — axnxé.
apev x.T.A.] provisional summary statement of what these men asserted that
they had heard as the essential contents of the utterances of Stephen in
question. For their more precisely formulated literal statement, see vv.
13, 14.

Vv. 12-14. The assertion of these izoBAyroi® served to direct the public
opinion against Stephen ; but a legal process was requisite for his complete
overthrow, and prudence required the consent of the people. Therefore
they stirred up the people, and the elders of the people and the scribes, etc.
— ovvexivnoav|] they drew them into the movement with them, stirred up
them also. Often in Plut., Polyb., etc. — xa? émiordvrec] as in iv. 1. The
subject is still those hostile r:véc. — ovvgpr.] they drew along with them, as
in xix. 29.— pdprepac pevdeic] Consequently, Stephen had not spoken the

} Megill. f. 73, 4. ® Comp. 1 Cor. |. 17 ff., ii. 6 ff.
2 See Kriger, ad Xen. Anad. fi. 1. 7; Sanppe 7 But re ayiw 18 not added ; for “‘ advcrsarii
and Kithner, ad Xen. Mem.i.1.19; Dissen, sentiebant Spirifwm esee in Stephano; Spiri-

ad Dem. de cor. p. 873 f. tum sanctum in co esac non sciebant,”’ Benge.
*Vulg. : ‘* ef eorum qui erant.” * Comp. Appian. {. 74, vweBAyOycay cari
4 Bernhardy, p. 477 f.; Winer, p. 820f. (E. yopo.. The Latin eubornarunt, or, as the
T. 44.) Valg. has it, eudmiserunt (Suct. Ner. 28).

§ Luke xxl. 15; and see on Eph. {. 8, 17. ® Joseph. Bell. v. 10.4; Plut. 710. Or..8.

130 CHAP, VI., 13, 14.

same words, which were then adduced by these witnesses, ver. 14, as heard
from him. Now, namely, in presence of the Sanhedrim, it concerned them
to bear witness to the blasphemy alleged to have been heard according to
the real state of the facts, and in doing so those dvdpec iroBAyroi dealt as
Sales witnesses. As formerly'a saying of Jesus was falsified in order to
make Him appear as a rebel against the theocracy ; so here also some ex-
pression of Stephen now unknown to us,—wherein the latter probably had
pointed, and that in the spirit of Jesus himself, to the reformatory influence
of Christianity leading to the dissolution of the temple-worsbip and legal
institutions, and the consummation of it by the Parousia, and had indeed,
perhaps, quoted the prophecy of the Lord concerning the destruction of
Jerusalem,—was so perverted, that Stephen now appears as herald of a
revolution to be accomplished by Jesus, directed against the temple and
against the law and the institutions of Moses.* Against the view of
Krause,’ that an expression of other, more inconsiderate, Christians was im-
puted to Stephen, may be urged not only the utter arbitrariness of such a
supposition, but also the analogy of the procedure against Jesus, which
very naturally presented itself to the enemies of Stephen as a precedent.
Heinrichs, after Heumann and Morus, thinks that the udéprupes were in so
far pevdeic, as they had uttered an expression of Stephen with an evil design,
in order to destroy him; so also Sepp. p. 17. But in that case they would
not have been false, but only malicious witnesses ; not a weidoc, but a bad
motive would have been predominant. Baur also and Zeller maintain the
essential correctness of the assertion, and consequently the incorrectness of
the narrative, in so far as it speaks of false witnesses. But an antagonism
to the law, such as is ascribed by the latter to Stephen, would lack all
internal basis and presupposition in the case of a believing Israelite full of
wisdom and of the Holy Spirit ;‘ as regards its true amount, it can only be
conceived as analogous to the subsequent procedure of Paul, which, as in
xviii. 13, xxi. 21, was misrepresented with similar perversity ; nor does the
defensive address, vii. 44-58, lead further. Nevertheless, Rauch® has
maintained that Stephen actually made the assertion adduced by the wit-
nesses, ver. 14, and that these were only false witnesses, in so fur as they
had not themselves heard this expression from the mouth of Stephen, which
yet was the purport of their statement. This is at variance with the entire
design and representation, see particularly ver 11. And the utterance
itself, as the witnesses professed to have heard it, would, at any rate,

1 Matt. xxvi. 61; John ii. 19.

2 Comp. Weiss, dit. Theol. p. 148. But that
Stephen, as Reuss thinks (in Herzog's Encyk.
XV. p. 78), preached something which the
aposties had not previously taught, is all the
more uncertain an assumption, seeing that
already in the sayings of Jesus Himself suffi-
cient materials for the purpose were given.
Comp. ¢g. John fv. 21 ff., the eayings of
Jesux concerning the Sabbath, concerning the
Levitical purifications, concerning the wAijpe-
ows Of the law, concerning the destraction of

Jerusalem, and the Parousia,ctc. But Ste-
phen (6 tre wvevmart Céwy, Constill. ap. villi.
46. 9) may have expressed himsclf in a more
threatening and incisive manner than others,
and thereby have directed the persecution fo
hémself. In so far he was certainly the fore-
runner of Paul.

® Comment. in hetor. atque orat. Sleph..
Gott. 1780,

* Comp. Baumgarten, p. 125.

® In the Stud. u. Arit. 1857, p. 856.

STEPHEN ACCUSED. 131

even if used as a veil for a higher meaning, be framed after a manner
so alien to Israelite piety and so unwise, that it could not be attributed at
all to Stephen, full as he was of the Spirit. Oecumenius has correctly
stated the matter: ée:d} GAAwe pv Frovoav, GAAwe d2 viv abrol mpovxdporr,
eixdétug xal pevdoudprupes avaypdgovra, — Tov rérov Tov dylov| the holy place car’
éEox4y is the temple. — Ver. 14. 6 Nalup. obroc] is not to be considered as
part of the utterance of Stephen, but as proceeding from the standpoint of
the false witnesses who so designate Jesus contemptuously, and blended by
them with the words of Stephen. And not only is 4 Nafwp. an expression of
contempt, but also ovroc* : Jesus, this Nazarene ! — tiv térov rovrov] The false
witnesses represent the matter, as if Stephen had thus spoken pointing to the
temple.

Ver. 15. All the Sanhedrists* saw the countenance of Stephen angelically
glorified ; a superhuman, angel-like défa became externally visible to them
on it (x). So Luke has conceived and represented it with simple definite-
ness ; so the serene calm which astonished even the Sanhedrists, and the
holy joyfulness which was reflected from the heart of the martyr in his:
countenance, have been glorified by the symbolism of Christian legend.
But it would be arbitrary, with Kuinoel (comp. Grotius and Heinrichs), to
rationalize the meaning of eldov . . . ayyéAov to this effect: ‘‘Os animi’
tranquillitatem summam referebat, adeo ut eum intuentibus reverentiam
injiceret ;' according to which the expression would have to be referred,
with Neander and de Wette, to a poetically symbolical description, which
does not correspond with the otherwise simple style of the narrative. The
phenomenon was certainly ‘an extraordinary operation of the Spirit of
Jesus ;’’* but the form of it is added by tradition, which betrays the point
of view of the miraculous also by the révrec. The parallel adduced afresh
by Olshausen (2 Sam. xiv. 17) is utterly unsuitable, because there the com-
parison to an angel relates to wisdom, and not to anything external. Nor
is the analogy of the défain the face of Moses (2 Cor. iii. 7) suitable, on
account of the characteristic xpéowr. ayyéAov. For Rabbinical analogies, see
Schoettgen and Wetstein.

Norgs py American Eprror.
(v) A murmuring. V.1.

The first dissension within the Christian Church arose from a natural
jealousy of two parties, of different language and national manners, Each
party, wedded to its own customs and ways, was naturally prejudiced some-
what against the other ; both truly Christian, yet each imperfect and lacking
in true charity. This trouble was the germ of the future disturbance caused
by the Judaizing Christians during and after the age of the apostles. The
same element of discontent and disunion exists still in countries where

18 Macc. il. 14 8 Grevicayres eis avréy: ‘‘usitatum est in
9 vil. 40, xix. 26; Luke xv. 30; Ast, Zew. judiciis oculos in reum convertere, quam
Plat. Il. p. 404; Dissen, ad Pind. Nem. ix. cxpectatur ejus defensio,” Calvin.
29, p. 492. 4 Baumgarten, p. 190.

132 CHAP. VI., NOTES.

different races, nationalities, and languages prevail, as in our own land, where
dwell together natives of almost every country in the world. There is need
for the exercise of enlarged and enlightened charity, for the exhibition of
Christian wisdom and apostolic tact, and for the cultivation of spirit of mu-
tual forbearance and brother-love.

‘‘ There is something very sad in the brief statement contained in the open-
ing verses of this sixth chapter. It tells us that the curtain had fallen on the
first act of the church's history. Hitherto unbroken peace had reigned in the
church, and a mutual love, which manifested itself in the general community
of goods. But now we see the fair life interrupted, and the apostle compelled
by a dissension to make arrangements for governing the community. It is a
humiliating thought that the first great movement to organize ecclesiastical
order and discipline was forced upon the apostles by an outburst of human
passions among believers.’’ (Howson, Acts.)

(w) Seven men. V. 3.

Luke does not designate these men deacons. Nor does it appear that any
one of the seven was ever so called. Philip is spoken of as an evangelist, and
both he and Stephen were successful preachers.

‘‘Some of the ancient writers regarded them as the first deacons ; others as
entirely distinct from them. The general opinion at present is that this order
arose from the institution of the Seven, but by a gradual extension of the
sphere of duty at first assigned to them.’’ (Hacket.) Various reasons have
been imagined why seven were selected—that this was the sacred number among
the Jews ; that there were seven thousand believers at the time—one for each
thousand ; that there were seven congregations in Jerusalem ; that it referred
to the supposed existence of seven archangels ; that it was a contrast to the
twelve apostles, ora reference to the days of the week. But all such supposi-
tions are arbitrary and vain. Lightfoot observes: ‘‘Let him that hath confi-
dence enough pretend to assign a sufficient reason.’’ The special exigency of
the time required a particular work, and for this men were selected by the
church and appointed by the apostles. The office of a deacon is scriptural,
and his qualifications and duties are divinely specified.

(x) The face of anangel. VY. 15.

Our author, speaking of the phenomenon, ascribes it to the ‘‘operation of
the Spirit of Jesus, but the form of it is added by tradition.” The narrative
plainly implies that the appearance was supernatural, probably something
similar to the radiance on the face of Moses, upon which the children of
Israel could not look. The comparison with the angel is not intended to
give any definite idea of his actaal appearance, as we know nothing of the
aspect of an angel's conntenance ; but it is used as a strong figure to suggest
the idea of something superhuman and celestial.

Augustine thus beautifully writes of the martyr's transfigured face: ‘*O
lamb, foremost of the flock of Christ, fighting in the midst of wolves, following
after the Lord, but still at a distance from him, and already the angel’s friend !
Yes, how clearly was he the angel’s friend, who, while in the very midst of the
wolves, still seemed like an angel ; for so transfigured was he by the rays of
the Sun of Righteousness, that even to his enemies he seemed a being not of
this world.’’

CRITICAL REMARKS. 133

CHAPTER VII.

Ver. 1. dpa is wanting in ABC &, min. Vulg. Cant. Germ. Bed. Deleted by ,
Lachm. Butif not genuine, it would hardly have been added, as it was so little
necessary for the sense that, on the contrary, the question expressed in a
shorter and more precise form appears to be more suitable to the standpoint
and the temper of the high priest. — Ver. 3. +7 y7v] The article is wanting in
Elz. Scholz, against far preponderant attestation. A copyist’s error. Restored
by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. Born. — Ver. 5. airq doiva:] dotvac atrg is decidedly
attested ; so Lachm. Tisch. Born. — Ver. 7. dovAevowor] Tisch. reads dovAevcou-
ov, in accordance, no doubt, with A C D, vss. Ir., but it is a mechanical rep-
etition from ver, 6.— Ver. 11. rv yijv Aiyinrov] A BC D* (which has é9’ Ans
79S Acy.) %, 81, vas. have r7v Aiyutrov. Recommended by Griesb, and adopted
by Lachm. But how easily might THN be passed over after THN! and then
the change AiyurrON became necessary. — Ver. 12. Instead of otra, cctia is to
be received with Lachm. Tisch. Born.'— év Aiyirry] Lachm. Tisch. read ¢is
Aiyvrrov, following A B C ER, 40. év Aiy. is an explanatory supplement to
bvra. — Ver. 14. After ovyyév. Elz, has avrov, in opposition to witnesses of
some importance (also &), although it is defended by Born. A prevalent addi-
tion. — Ver. 15. dé] A C E &, 15, 18, vss. have xal xarfé3n, which Griesb. has
recommended, Rinck preferred, and Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted. D, 40,
' §Syr. p. Cant. have no conjunction at all ; so Born., but from the LXX. Deut.
x. 22; xa? xar. is to be preferred as best attested. — Ver. 16. q] Elz. reads 6,
against decisive testimony. Mistaking the attraction. —- rod Zvytu] Lachm.
reads roi év &., according to A E &** min, Copt. Syr. p. Tol. BC & min.
Sahid. Arm. have merely évy =. An alteration, because this Xvyéu was appre-
hended, like the preceding, as the name of a town, and the parallel with Gen.
xxxiii. 19 was not reeognized. — Ver. 17. ayododynoev] So Tisch. Lachm. But
Elz. and Scholz have dyocey, against A B C &, 16, 36, and some vss. A more
precisely defining gloss from the LXX. instead of which D E have éxnyyeisaro
(so Born.). —Ver. 18. After érepos Lachm. has én’ Aiyuzrov, according to A B C
%, min. and several vss. An exegetical addition from the LXX. — Ver. 20.
After xarpés Elz. has airos. See on ver. 14. — Ver. 21. éxrefévra 62 aitév]
Lachm. Born. read éxrefévros 62 avvov, according to ABC D& min. A correc-
tion in point of style. — Ver. 22. racy oogig] A C E X&, vas. Or. (twice) Bas.
Theodoret have év racy cog. So Tisch. D* has rdcay riv cogiav, So Born.
Interpretations of the Hecepia, in favour of which is also the reading mrdons
cogias in B, which is a copyist’s error. — év before épy. (Elz. Scholz) is as de-
cidedly condemned by external testimonies as the avrod after épyors, omitted
in Elz, is attested. — Ver. 26 ovy7Aacev] BC DRX, min. and some vss. have
OvyyAAacev OF cur7AdAaccey, Valck. has preferred the former, Griesb. recom-

1 How often orriov is exchanged in mss. ad Hier. iii. 11; Heind. ad Plat. Phaed. p.
with ciros and oiroy, may beseenin Frotscher, 64D; Kriger, ad Xen. Anabd. vii. 1. 38.

134 CHAP, VII.

mended the latter, and Lachm. Born. (comp. also Fritzsche, de conform. Lachm.
p. 31) adopted it. Gloss on the margin for the explanation of the original
ouvydacev .. . eS eipyvnv. On its reception into the text, the eis eip., separated
from ovv#A. by atrovs, was retained. — Ver. 27. é¢’ juds] A BC H ®, min.
Theophyl. have i¢’ jue». So Tisch. and Lachm,. From LXX. Ex. ii. 14. — Ver.
30. xvpiov] is to be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch., following A B C®, Copt.
Sahid. Vulg. A current addition to dyyedoS generally, and here specially oc-
casioned by the LXX. Ex. iii. 2. — Instead of gAoyi rup6s, Tisch. has mvp) gAoyds,
after A C E, min. Syr. Vulg. The reading similarly varies in the LXX., and
as the witnesses at our passage are divided, we cannot come to any decision.
— Ver. 31. efavuave} So Griesb. Scholz, Tisch. Born. But Elz. and Lachm.
have é$avyacey. Both have considerable attestation. But the suitableness of
the relative imperfect was, as often elsewhere, not duly apprehended. — After
xupiov Elz. Scholz have xpés atrév, which, however, Lachm. and Tisch. have
deleted, following A B®, min. Copt. Arm. Syr. p. An exegetical amplification,
instead of which D, after xarav., continues by: 6 «ip. eiwev aite Afywv. — Ver.
32. Lachmann’s reading: 6 620S ’Aspauyu x. ’loadx x. "laxu3 (so also Tisch.), has
indeed considerable attestation, but it is an adaptation to iii. 13. — Ver. 33.
év @] Lachm. Tisch. read é¢’ g, which is to be preferred on account of pre-
ponderant attestation by A B C D** (D* has od, so Born.) ®; év d is from the
LXX. — Ver. 34. arocreAw] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read axooreiiu, which is so
decidedly attested by A B C D. Chrys., and by the transcriber's error arocridw
in E and &, that it cannot be considered as an alteration after the LXX. Ex.
iii, 10. The Recepla is a mistaken emendation. — Ver. 35. Instead of umforesAev,
dréotaAxev is to be read, with Lachm. Tisch. Born., according to decisive evi-
dence, — év yeipl} Lachm. Tisch. Born., read ody yerpi, which is so decidedly
attested, and might so easily give place to the current éy yerp’, that it must be
preferred. — Ver. 36. y7] Lachm. reads ry, according to B C, min. Sahid. Cant.
A transcriber's error. The originality of yg is supported also by the Aiyéxrov
(instead of Aiyéinry) adopted by Elz. and Born. after D, which, however, hag
preponderating testimony against it.— Ver, 37, After O65 Elz. has tar,
against decisive testimony. «vpioS and airod axovcecde are also to be rejected
(Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted both), as important authorities are against
them, and as their insertion after the LXX. and iii. 22 is more natural than
their omission. — Ver. 39. raiS xapd.] Lachm, reads éy 7a:S xapd., according to
ABCR®. This is evidently an explanatory reading. On the other hand, rg
xapdig (in H, min. and some vas, Chrys. Oec. Theoph.), preferred by Rinck and
Tisch., would unhesitatingly be declared genuine, were it not that almost all
the uncials and vss. support the plural.— Ver. 43. izev] is wanting in B D,
min. vss. Or. Ir. Philast. Rightly erased by Lachm. and Tisch. From the
LXX. — ‘Pegav] a great variety in the orthography. Lachm. and Tisch. have
‘Pegdv, according to A C E, But Elz. Scholz have ‘Pexgidiv ; Born. ‘Pexgdz (D,
Vuilg. Ir.) ; B has 'Poudd ; &*, ‘Poudav ; R**, ‘Pacgavy. — Ver. 44. The usual év
before rois, which Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted (after A B C D*” H &, min,
Chrys. and some vss.), is an explanatory addition. — Ver. 46. 6e9] BDH ®*,
Cant, have oixy. Adopted by Lachm. and Born. But in accordance with ver,
48 it appeared contradictory to the idea of Stephen, to designate the temple as
the dwelling of God; and hence the alteration. — Ver. 48. After yetpor. Elz.
has vaois, against AB C D E &, min. and most vss. An exegetical addition.
Comp. xvii. 24, — Ver. 51. r9 xapdig] Lachm. and Born. read xapdia:s. But the

STEPHEN’S DEFENCE. 135

plural, which is found partly with and partly without the article in ACD &,
min, and several vss. Chrys. Jer., was occasioned by the plural of the subject.
B has xapdias, which, without being a transcriber's error (in opposition to
Buttm. neutest. Gr. p.148 [E. T. 170]), may be either singular or plural, and
therefore is of nu weight for either reading. — Ver. 52. yeyévyo$e] The reading
"yéveofe in Lachm. Tisch. Born. is decidedly attested, and therefore to be
adopted.

Ver. 1. The high priest interrupts the silent gazing of the Sanhedrists
on Stephen, as he stood with glorified countenance, and demands of him
an explanation of the charge just brought aguinst him.—Z/s then this, which
the witnesses have just asserted, 30? With «i (see oni. 6; Luke xiii. 28)
the question in the mouth of the bigh priest has something ensnaring about
it. On the dpa, used with interrogative particles as referring to the cir-
cumstances of the case—here, of the discussion—see Klotz.!

Vv. 2-53. On the speech of Stephen.*—This speech bears in its contents and
tone the impress of its being original. For the long and somewhat prolix
historical narrative, vv. 2-47, in which the rhetorical character remains so
much in the background, and even the apologetic element is discernible
throughout only indirectly, cannot—so peculiar and apparently even ir-
relevant to the situation is much of its contents*—be merely put into the
mouth of Stephen, but must in its characteristic nature and course have come
from his own month. If it were sketched after mere tradition or acquired
information, or from a quite independent ideal point of view, then either
the historical part would be placed in more direct relation to the points of
the charge and brought into rhetorical relief, or the whole plan would
shape itself otherwise in keeping with the question put in ver. 1; the
striking power and boldness of speech, which only break forth in the
smallest portion (vv. 48-58), would be more diffused over the whole, and
the historical mistakes—which have nothing surprising in them in the case
of a discourse delivered on the spur of the moment—would hardly occur.
—But how is the authentic reproduction of the discourse, which must in the
main be assumed, to be explained? Certainly not by supposing that the
whole was, either in its main points (Krause, Heinrichs) or even verbally
(Kuinoel), taken down in the place of meeting by some person unknown.‘
It is extremely arbitrary to carry back such shorthand-writing to the pub-
lic life of those times. The most direct solution would no doubt be given,
’ if we could assume notes of the speech made by the speaker himeelf, and
preserved. But as this is not here to be thought of, in accordance with the
whole spirit of the apostolic age and with vi. 12, it only remains as the

2 Ad Devar. p. 17%; Nagelab. on the Ziad, orat., Marb. 1849. Comp. his KXirche im

p. 11, ed. 3.

3 See Krauce, Coma. in hist. ef orat. Steph.,
Gott. 1786; Baur, de orat. hab. a Steph. con-
sitio, Tub. 1829, and his Paulus, p. 42 ff;
Luger, @b. Zweck, Inhalt u. Etgenthimlichk.
der Rede des Steph., Littbeck 1898: Lange in
the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 735 ff., and apoet.
Zeitalt. Il. p. 84 ff.; Thiersch, de Stephani

apost. Zeitalt, p. 85 ff.; Rauch in the Stud. w.
Kris, 1857, p. 852 ff.; F. Nitzsch in the same,
1860, p. 479 ff. ; Senn in the Keang. Zeilechr.
J. Prot. u. Kirche, 1859, p. 811 ff.

® Comp. Calvin: “ Stephani responsio prima
specie absurda et inepta videri posset.”’

4 Richm, de fontib. Act. ap. p. 195 f., con-
jectures: by Saw.

136 CHAP. VIL, 1.

most natural expedient: to consider the active memory of an ear-witness, or
even several, vividly on the stretch, and quickened even by the purpose of placing
it on record, as the authentic source ; so that, immediately after the tragical
termination of the judicial procedure, what was heard with the deepest
sympathy and eagerness was noted down from fresh recollection, and after-
wards the record was spread abroad by copies, and was in its substantial
tenor adopted by Luke. The purely historical character of the contents,
and the steady chronological course of the greater part of the speech, re-
move any improbability of its being with sufficient faithfulness taken up
by the memory. As regards the person of the reporter, no definite conject-
ures are to be ventured on ;' and only this much is to be assumed as prob-
able, that he was no hostile listener, but a Christian, perhaps a sccret Chris-
tian in the Sanhedrim itself,—a view favoured by the diffusion, which we
must ussume, of the record, and more especially by the circumstance, that
vv. 54-60 forms one whole with the reproduction of the speech interrupted
at ver. 53, and has doubtless proceeded from the same authentic source.
With this view even the historical errors in the speech do not conflict ; with
regard to which, however,—especially as they are based in part on tradi-
tions not found in the O. T.,—it must remain undetermined how far they
ure attributable to the speaker himself or to the reporter. At all events,
these historical mistakes of the speech furm a strong proof in what an un-
altered form, with respect to its historical data, the speech has been pre-
served from the time of its issuing from the hands that first noted it down.
—From this view it is likewise evident in what sense we are to understand
its originality, namely, not as throughout a verbal reproduction, but as cor-
rect in substance, and terbal only so far, as—setting aside the literary share,
not to be more precisely determined, which Luke himself had in putting it
into its present shape—it was possible and natural for an intentional exer-
tion of the memory to retain not only the style und tone of the discourse
on the whole, but also in many particulars the verbal expression. Defini-
tions of a more precise character cannot psychologically be given. Accord-
ing to Baur and Zeller the speech is a later composition, ‘‘ at the founda-
tion of which, historically considered, there is hardly more than an indefi-
nite recollection of the general contents of what was said by Stephen, and
perhaps even only of his principles and mode of thought ;’’ the exact recol-
lection of the speech and its preservation are inconceivable ; the artificial
plan, closely accordant with its theme, betrays a premeditated elaboration ; ,
the author of the Acts unfolds in it his own view of the relation of the
Jews to Christianity : the discussion before the Sanhedrim itself is histori-
cally improbable, etc. ; Stephen is ‘‘the Jerusalem type of the Apostle of
the Gentiles.’ ? Bruno Bauer has gonc to the extreme of frivolous criticism :
‘The speech is fabricated, as is the whole framework of circumstances in
which it occurs, and the fate of Stephen.”’

Interpreters, moreover, are much divided in their views concerning the

1 Olehaueen, ¢.g., refers to vi. 7; Luger and 2See in opposition to Banr, Schnecken-
Baumgarten to the intervention of Saul. burger in the Stud. u. Kriz. 1855, p. 527 ff.

STEPHEN’S DEFENCE. 137

relation of the contents to the points of complaint contained in vi. 18, 14.
Among the older interpreters—the most of whom, such as Augustine, Beza,
and Calvin, have recourse to merely incidental references, without any
attempt to enter into and grasp the unity of the speech—the opinion of
Grotius is to be noted: that Stephen wished indirectly, in a bistorical
way, to show that the favour of God is not bound to any place, and that
the Jews had no advantage over those who were not Jews, in order thereby
to justify his prediction concerning the destruction of the temple and the
call of the Gentiles." But the very supposition, that the teaching of the
call of the Gentiles was the one point of accusation against Stephen, is arbi-
trary ; and the historical proofs adduced would have been very ill-chosen
by him, secing that in his review of history it is always this very Jewish
people. that appears as distinguished by God. The error, so often com-
mitted, of inserting between the lines the main thoughts as indirectly indi-
cated, vitiates the opinion of Heinrichs, who makes Stephen give a defence
of his conversion to Christ as the true Messiah expected by the fathers; as
well as the view of Kuinoel, that Stephen wished to prove that the Mosaic —
ceremonial institutions, although they were divine, yet did not make a man
acceptable to God; that, on the contrary, without a moral cunversion of
the people, the destruction of the temple was to be expected. Olshausen
stands in a closer and more direct relation to the matter, when he holds
that Stephen narrates the history of the O. T. so much at length, just to show the
Jews that he believed in it, and thus to induce them, through their love for the
national history, to listen with calm attention. The nature of the history itself
Jitted it to form a mirror to his hearers, and particularly to bring home to their
minds the circumstance that the Jewish people, in all stages of their development
and of the divine revelation, had resisted the Spirit of God, and that, conse-
quently, it was not astonishing that they should now show themselves once more
disobedient. Yet Olshausen himsclf does not profcss to look upon this
reference of the speech as ‘‘ with definite purpose aimed at.’’ Ina more
exact and thorough manner, Baur, whom Zeller in substance follows, has
laid down as tho leading thought: ‘‘ Great and extraordinary as were the
benefits which God from the beginning imparted to the people, equally ungrateful
in return and antagonistic to the divine designs was from the first the disposition
of that people.”** In this case, however, as Zeller thinks, there is brought
into chief prominence the reference to the temple in respect to the charges raised,
and that in such a way thut the very building of the temple tiself was meant
to be presented as a proof of the perversity of the people,—a point of view
which is fureign to Stephen, and arbitrarily forced on his words, as it would
indeed in itself be unholy and impious.* With reason, Luger, who yet gocs
too far inthe references of details, Thiersch, Baumgarten, and F. Nitzsch
have adhered to the historical standpoint given in vi. 18, 14, and kept
strictly in view the apologetic aim of the speech ;‘ along with which, how-

2 Comp. Schneckenburger, p. 184, who con- _ per mali fuistis,” etc.
siders the speech, as respects the chief object $2 Sam. vil.18; 1 Kings v. 8, vi. 13; 1
aimed at, as a preparation for xxviii. 25 ff. Chron. xviif. 12; comp. on vv. 49, 50.

2 Comp. already Bengel ; ‘“‘ Vos autem sem- 4 Comp. also de Weite,

138 CHAP. VIL, 1.

ever, Thiersch and Baumgarten not without manifold caprice exaggerate,
in the histories brought forward by Stephen, the typical reference and
allegorical application of them—by which they were to serve as a mirror to
the present—as designed by him,’ as is also done in the Hrlang. Zeitschr.
1859, p. 811 ff. Rauch is of opinion that the speech is directed against the
meritoriousness of the temple-worship and of the works of the law, inasmuch as
it lays stress, on the contrary, upon God’s free and unmerited grace and elee-
tion ; a similar view was already held by Calvin ; but to this there remains
the decisive counter-argument, that the assumed point, thé non-meritorious
nature of grace and election, is not at all expressly brought out by Stephen
or subjected to more special discussion. Moreover, Rauch starts from the
supposition that the assertion of the witnesses in vi. 14 was true,* inasmuch
as Stephen had actually said what was adduced at vi. 14.—But if the asser-
tion in vi. 14 is not adduced otherwise than as really false testimony, then
it is also certain that the speaker must have the design of exposing the
groundlessness of the charges brought against him, and the true reason for which
he was persecuted. And the latter was to the martyr the chief point, so that
his defence throughout does not keep the apologetic line, but has an offensive
character,* at first indirectly and calmly, and then directly and velhement-
ly ; the proof that the whole blame lay on the side of his judges was to him
the chief point even for his own justification. Accordingly, the proper
theme is to be found in vv. 51, 52, and the contents and course of the
speech may be indicated somewhat as follows: I stand here accused and per-
secuted, not because I am a blasphemer of the law and of the temple, but in conse-
quence of that spirit of resistance to God and His messengers, which you,
according to the testimony of history, have received from your fathers and con-
tinue to exhibit. Thus, it is not my fault, but your fault. To carry out this

1 Thus, for example, according to Thiersch,
even in the very command of God to Abraham
to migrate, ver. 2 ff., there is assumed to be
involved the application: ‘‘To us also, to
whom God in Christ has appeared, there has
been a command to go out from our kindred.*’
In ver. 7, Stephen, it is affirmed, wishes to in-
dicate ; So will the race of oppressors, before
whom he stood, end like Pharaoh and his
host, and the liberated church will then cele-
brate Its new independent worship. In the
envy of Joseph‘s brethren, etc. (ver. 9 ff.), it
is indicated that Christ aleo was from cnvy
delivered up to the Gentiles, and for that God
had destined Him to be a Saviour and King of
the Gentiles. The famine (ver. 11) signifies
the affliction and spiritual famine of the hos-
tile Jews, who, however, would at length
(ver. 18), after the conversion of the Gentiles,
acknowledge Him whom they had rejected.
Moses’ birth at the period of the severest op-
presefon, points to the birth of Christ at the
period of the cenens. Moses’ second appear-
ance points to the (In the N, T. not elsewhere

occurring) second appearance of Christ, which
would have as its consequence the restora-
tion of the Jews. Aaron is the type of the
high priest in the judgment hall, etc. — Ac-
cording to Luger, the speech has the three
main thoughts: (1) That the law is not a
thing rounded off in iteelf, but something
added to the promise, and bearing even in it-
self a new promire; (2) That the temple is
not exclusively the holy place, but only stands
in the rank of holy places, by which a per-
fecting of the temple is prefigured; (8) That
from the rejection of Jesus no argument can
be derived against him (Stephen), as, indeed,
the ambaseadors of God in all stages of reve-
lation had been reviled. These three main
thoughts are not treated one a/fer the other,
but one sithin the other, on the thread of
sacred history; hence the form of repetition
very often occurs in the recital (vv. 4, 5, 7, 18,
14, 18, 26, etc.).

2 See, against thie, on vi. 138.

*Comp. the appropriate remarks of F.
Nitzsch.

STEPHEN’S DEFENOE. 139

view more in detail, Stephen (1) first of all lets Aistory speak, and that with
all the calmness and circumstantiality by which he might still have won
the assembly to reflection.. He commences with the divine guidance of the
common ancestor, and comes to the patriarchs ; but even in their case that
refractoriness was apparent through the envy toward Joseph, who yet was |
destined to be the deliverer of the family. But, at special length, in
accordance with the aim of his defence, he is obliged to dwell upon Moses,
in whose history, very specially and repeatedly, that ungodly resistance
and rejection appeared,* although he was the mediator of God for the de-
liverance of His people, the type of the Messiah, and the receiver of the
living oracles of the law. Stephen then passes from the tabernacle to the
temple prayed for by David and built by Solomon (ver, 44 ff.). But hardly
has he in this case indicated the mode of regarding it at variance with the
prophet Isaiah, which was fostered by the priests and the hierarchy (vv.
48-50), than (2) there now breaks forth a most direct attack, no longer to be
restrained, upon his hostile judges (ver. 51 ff.), and that with a bold
reproach, the thought of which had already sufficiently glanced out from
the previous historical representation, and now receives merely its most un-
veiled expression.? This sudden outbreak, as with the zeal of an ancient
prophet, makes the unrighteous judges angry ; whereupon Stephen breaks
off in the mid-current of his speech,‘ and is silent, while, gazing stedfastly
heavenwards to the glory of God, he commits his cause to Him whom he
sees standing at the right hand of God.

Very different judgments have been formed concerning the calve of the
speech, according as its relation to its apologetic task has been recognised
and appreciated. Even Erasmus (ad ver. 51) gave it as his opinion, that
there were many things in it ‘‘ quae non ita multum pertinere videantur ad
id quod instituit.’? He, in saying so, points to the interruption after ver.
58. Recently Schwanbeck, p. 251, has scornfully condemned it as ‘‘a
compendium of Jewish history forced into adaptation to a rhetorical pur-
pose, replete with the most trifling controversies which Jewish scholasti-
cism ever invented.’’ Baur, on the other hand, has with justice acknowl-
edged the aptness, strikingness, and profound pertinence of the discourse,
as opposed to the hostile accusations,—a praise which, doubtless, is in-
tended merely for the alleged later composer. Ewald correctly character-
izes the speech as complete in its kind; and F. Nitzsch has thoroughly

1The more fally, and without confining
himself to what was directly necezsary for
his aim, Stephen expatiates in his historical

not carried the history farther than to the
time of Solomon. Vv. 51, 52 include in them-
sclves the whole tragic summary of the later

representation, the more might he, on account
of the national love for the sacred hiatory,
and in accordance with O. T. examples (Ex.
xx. 5 ff.; Deut. xxili. 2 ff.), expect the eager
and concentrated interest of his hearers, and
perhaps even hope for a calming and clearing
of their judgment.

2 Ver. 27 f., ver. 89 ff.

3 We may not ask wherefore Stephen has

history.

4 What Stephen would still have said or left
nungaid, if he had spoken further, cannot be
ascertained. But the speech is broken af;
with ver. 58 he had just entered on a new
stream of reproaches, And certainly he would
still have added a prophetic threatening of
punishment, as well as possibly, also, the
summons to repentance.

140 CHAP. VII., 2-4.

and clearly done justice to its merits. It is peculiarly important as the
only detailed speech which has been preserved from one not an apostle,
and in this respect also it is a ‘‘documentum Spiritus pretiosum,”’
Bengel (y).

As regards the language in which Stephen spoke, even if he were a Hel-
lenist, which must be left undecided, this forms no reason why he should
not, as a Jew, have spoken in Hebrew before the supreme council. Nor
does the partial dependence on the LXX. justify us in inferring that the
speech was delivered in Greek ; it is sufficient to set down this phenome-
non to the account of the Greek translation of what was spoken in Hebrew,
whether the source from which Luke drew was still Hebrew or already
Greek.

Vv. 2, 38. Brethren and respectively (xai) fathers. The former (kinsmen,
D're) refers to all present ; the latter,’ to the Sanhedrists exclusively. Comp.
xxii. 1.— 6 Gedg tH¢ déénc] God, who has the glory. And this déga (3),
as it stands in significant relation to o9f7, must be understood as outward
majesty, the brightness in which Jehovah, as the only true God, visibly mani-
fests Himself.* — Haran, {WW}, LXX. Xappay, with the Greeks * and Romans,‘
Kappa: and Carrhae, was a very ancient city in northern Mesopotamia.*
The theophany here meant is most distinctly indicated by ver. 3 as that
narrated in Gen. xii. 1. But this occurred when Abraham had already
departed from Ur to Haran (Gen. xi. 31); accordingly not: xpiv # xarouxqjoas
avrév év Xappav. This discrepancy ‘is not to be set at rest by the usual
assumption that Stephen here follows a tradition probably derived from
Gen. xv. 7,’ that Abraham had aJready had a divine vision at Ur, to which
Stephen refers, while in Gen. xii. there is recorded that which afterwards
happened at Haran. For the verbal quotation, ver. 8, admits of no other
historical reference than to Gen. xii. 1. Stephen has thus, according to
the text, erroneously (z) — speaking off-hand in the hurry of the moment,
how easily might he do so !—transferred the theophany that happened to
Abraham at J/aran to an earlier period, that of his abode in Ur, full of the
thought that God even in the earliest times undertook the guidance of the
people afterwards so refractory! This is simply to be admitted (Grotius,
‘Spiritus sanctus apostolos et evangelistas confirmavit in doctrina evan-
gelica; in ceteris rebus, si Hieronymo credimus, ut hominibus, reliquit
quae sunt hominum’’), and not to be evaded by having recourse ° to un

1 Comp. the Latin Patres and the Hebrew
3% in respectful address to kings, priests,
prophets, and teachers; Lightfoot, ad Mare.
p. 634.

2 Comp. ver. 55; Ex. xxiv. 16; Isa. vi. 8;
Ps. xxiv. 7, xxix. 8; and on 1 Cor. fi. 8.

* Herodian. iv. 18. 7; Ptol. v. 18; Strab.
xvi. 1, p. 747.

4 “WMiserando funere Crassus Assyrias Latio
maculavit sanguine Carrhaa," Lucan. i. 104;
comp. Dio Case. xl. 25; Ammian. Marc.
xxiil. 3. [Ardk. XI. 291 ff,

® See Mannert, Geogr. V. 2, p. 280 ff. ; Ritter,

¢ Ewald explains the many deviations in
this speech from the ordinary Pentateuch, by
the supposition that the speaker followed a
later text-book, then much used in the schools
of learning, which had contained such pecull-
arities. This is possible, but cannot be other-
wise shown to be the case; nor can it be
shown how the deviations came into the sup-
poeed text-book.

7 Comp. Neh. ix.7:; Philo, de Abr. II. pp.
11, 16, ed. Mang.; Joseph. An#. i. 7. 1; see
Krause, /.c. p. 11.

8 Sec Luger after Beza, Calvin, and others.

HISTORY OF PATRIARCHS, 141

anticipation in Gen. xi. 81, according to which the vision contained in xii.
1 is supposed to have preceded the departure from Ur (a'); or, by what
professes to be a more profound entering into the meaning, to the arbitrary
assumption ‘‘that Abraham took an independent share in the transmigra-
tion of the children of Terah from Ur to Haran,’’’ to which primordial
hidden beginning of the call of Abraham the speaker goes back. — év rg
Mecoror.] for the land of Ur* was situated in northern Mesopotamia, which
the Chaldeans inhabited ; but is not to be identified with that Ur, which
Ammianus Marc. xxv. 8, mentions as castellum Persicum, whose situation
must be conceived os farther south than Haran.?— zpiv 7] see on Matt. i.
18. — fv av om deifw| quameunque tiki monstravero. ‘‘Non norat Abram,
quae terra foret,’’ Heb. xi. 8, Bengel.

Ver. 4. Tore] after he had received this command, — pera 7d arolaveiv rov
watépa avrov| Abraham was born to his father Terah when he was 70 years
of age; and the whole life of Terah amounted to 205 years. Now, as
Abraham was 75 years old when he went from Haran,‘ it follows that
Terah, after this departure of his son, lived 860 years (B'). Once more, there-
fore, we encounter a deviation from the biblical narrative, which is found
_ also in Philo, de migr. Abr. p. 415, and hence probably rests on a tradition,
which arose for the credit of the filial piety of Abraham, who had not
migrated before his father’s death. The circumstance that the death of
Terah is narrated at Gen. xi. 82, proleptically, comp. xii. 4, before the
migration, does not alter the state of matters historically, and cannot, with
an inviolable belief in inspiration, at all justify the expedient of Baumgar-
ten, p. 134.° The various attempts at reconciliation are to be rejected as
arbitrarily forced: e.g. the proposal, Knatchbull, Cappellus, Bochart,
Whiston, to insert at Gen. xi. 82, instead of 205, according to the Samaritan
text 145, but even the latter is corrupted, as Gen. xi. 32 was not under-
stood proleptically, and therefore it was thought necessary to correct it ; °
or the ingenious refinement which, after Augustine, particularly Chladenius, ’
Loescher, Wolf, Bengel, and several older interpreters have defended,
that perpxicev is to be understood, not of the transferring generally, but of
the giving quiet and abiding possession, to which Abraham only attained
after the death of his father. More recently * it has been assumed that
Stephen here follows the tradition ° that Abraham left Canaan aster the
spiritual death of his father, 7.¢. after his falling away into idolatry—this,

1 Baumgarten, p. 134.

2 O°IWD WN, Gen, xi. 29.

3 Sec, after Tuch and Knobel on Genesis,
Arnold in Herzog’s Encykl. XVI. p. 73.

4 Gen. xi. 26, 32, xil.4; Joseph. Anéé.i.7. 1.

§ That the narrative of the death of Terah,
Gen. U.c., would indicate that for the com.
mencement of the new relation of God to men

Abraham alone, and not in connection with |

his father, comes into account. Thus ccr-
tainly all tallies.

* Nalvely enough, Knatchbull, p. 47. was
of opinion that, if this alteration of the He-

brew text could not be admitted, it was better
“cum Scaligero nodum hunc solvendum re-
linquere, dum Ktias venerit.” According to
Beelen in loc., Abraham need not have becn
the first-born of Terah, in spite of Gen. xi.
26, 27.

7 De conciliat. Mosis et Steph. circa annos
Abr., Viteb. 1710,

® Michaelis, Krause, Kuinoel, Luger, Ols-
hansen.

® Lightf. in ioe.; Michael. de chronol. Mos.
post diluv. sec. 15.

142 CHAP. VII., 5-13.

at least, was intended to protect the patriarch from the suspicion of having
violated his filial duty !—- which opinion Michaelis incorrectly ascribes also
to Philo. According to this view, arofaveiy would have to be understood
spiritually, which the context does not in the least degree warrant, and
which no one would hit upon, if it were not considered «# necessity that no
deviation from Genesis /.c. should be admitted. — pergxicev] namely, God.
Rapid change of the subject ; comp. on vi. 6. — el¢ qv ipei¢ viv xarotx.] i.e.
into which ye having moved now dwell init. A well-known brachylogy by
combining the conception of motion with that of rest.’ The cic 7 calls
to mind the immigration of the nation (which is represented by tyzeic) from
Egypt.

Ver. 5. K2Anpovonia, mn), hereditary possession. Heb, xi. 8. — Biya rodéc] *
On the subject-matter, comp. Heb. xi. 9.— xal émyyeidaro] Gen. xiii. 15.
Kai is the copula. He gave not... and promised, the former he omitted,
and the latter he did.— «ai r9 oépp. aitov] xai is the simple and, not
namely (see Gen. l.c.). The promise primarily concerned Abraham as the
participant father of the race himself. Comp. Luke i, 71.— This verse,
too, stands apparently at variance with Genesis, where, in chap. xxiii., we
are informed that Abraham purchased a field from the sons of Heth. But
only apparently. For the remark oix éduxev avro . . . wodéc refers only to
the first period of Abraham’s residence in Palestine before the institution
of circumcision (ver. 8), while that purchase of a field falls much later. It
was therefore quite superfluous, either > to emphasize the fact that Abraham
had not in fact acquired that field by divine direction, but had purchased
it, or * to have recourse to the erroneous assumption, not to be justified
eitber by John vii. 8 or by Mark xi. 13, that oi« stands for oie.

Vv. 6,7 By the continuative dé there is now brought in the express
declaration of God, which was given on occasion of this promise to Abraham
concerning the future providential guidance destined for his posterity.
But God, at that time, spoke thus: ‘‘ that his seed will dwell as strangers in a
foreign land,” etc. The ar: does not depend on £44A., nor is it the recitative,
but it is a constituent part of the very saying adduced.’ This is Gen. xv. 13,
but with the second person (thy seed) converted into the third, and also
otherwise deviating from the LXX.; in fact, «ai Aarp. wor év ry térw tobTy
is entirely wanting in the LXX. and Hebrew, and is an expansion suggested
by Ex. iii. 12. — éorae néporxov] THT VY. Comp. on Luke xxiv. 18 ; Eph. ii.
19. —dovAdcove.y avré] namely, the adAdrpior. — tetpaxdora] Here, as in an
oracle, the duration is given, as also at Gen. l.c., in round numbers ; but in
Ex. xii. 40 this period of Egyptian sojourning and bondage ® is historically
specified eractly as 480 years (c'). In Gal. iii. 17 (see in loc.), Paul has
inappropriately referred the chronological statement of Ex. xii. 40 to the
space of time from the promise made to Abraham down to the giving of

1 Winer, p. 886 f. (E. T. 516 f.) ; Dissen, ad 3 With Drusiue, Schoettgen, Bengel.
Pind. Ol. xi. 38, p. 188. 4 With Kuinoel and Olehausen.

2 LXX. Dent. ii. 5 (7-43). spatium, quod 5 LXX.: ywwdonwy yrwoy ort sapotcoy «.7.A.
planta pedis calcatur. Comp. on Bjua in the *éry rerpax. belongs to the whole ecru
sense of vestigium, Hom. H. Merc. 222, 345. o + . KAKMTOVELY,

HISTORY OF PATRIARCHS. 143

the law. — Ver. 7. Asin the LXX. and in the original Heb. the whole
passage vv. 6, 7 is expressed in direct address (rd orépua cov), while Stephen
in ver. 6 has adduced it in the indirect form ; so he now, passing over to the
direct expression, inserts the eivev 6 Oeéc, which is not in the LXX. nor in
the Heb. — And, after this 400 years’ bondage, the people. . . I shall judge;
xpivey Of judicial retribution, which, as frequently in the N. T., is seen from
the context to be punitive. — iyo] has the weight of the authority of divine
absoluteness. Comp. Rom. xii. 19. —év ro rérw roiTw] namely, where I now
speak with thee (in Canaan).. There is no reference to Hored,' as we have
here only a freely altered echo of the promise made to Moses, which
suggested itself to Stephen, in order to denote more definitely the promise
made to Abraham. Arbitrary suggestions are made by Bengel and Baum-
garten, who find an indication of the long distance of time and the
intervening complications, Stephen, however, berc makes no erroneous
reference (de Wette), but only a free application, such as easily presented
itself in an extempore speech.

Ver. 8. Aadgxnv repirougc) a covenant completed by means of circumcision.’
Abraham was bound to the introduction of circumcision; and, on the
other hand, God bound Himself to make him the father of many nations.
—iduxev] inasmuch as God proposed and laid on Abraham the conclusion
of the covenant. —oiruc] so, 7.e. standing in this new relation to God,* as
the bearer of the divine covenant of circumcision. Jshmael was born
previously. —xai 6 'Ioadx tr. ‘Iaxi3) namely, éyévunoe x. wepiét. T. yu. T. Oyd.

Vv. 9-13. ZnAdcavrec] here of envious jealousy, as often also in classical
writers. Certainly Stephen in this mention has already in view the similar
malicious disposition of his judges towards Jesus, so that in the ill-used
Joseph, as afterwards also in the despised Moses, both of whom yet became
deliverers of the people, he sees historical types of Christ. — aréduvro ele
Aiy.] they gave him away to Egypt.‘ For analogous exumples to azod. cic,
see Elsner, p. 890.—The following clauses, rising higher and higher with
simple solemnity, are linked on by «ai. — xdpev «. cogiav] It is simplest * to
explain yépw of the divine bestowal of grace, and to refer évavriov ap.
merely to cogiav: He gave him grace, generally, and in particular, wisdom
before Pharaoh, namely, according to the history which is presumed to be
well known, in the interpretation of dreams as well as for other counsel.
—yoin.] ‘‘vice regis cuncta regentem,’’ Gen. xli. 43, Grotius, —«. 6A. 7.
oix. avr.| as high steward. — xopréopara] fodder for their cattle. So through-
out with Greek writers.® A scarcity of fodder, to which especially belongs
the want of cereal fodder, is the most urgent difficulty, ina failure of crops,
for the possessors of large herds of cattle. — dvra o:ria] that there was corn.
The question, Where ? finds its answer from the context and the familiar
history. The following cic Aiyvrrov (see critical remarks) belongs to éfaréor.,
and is, from its epoch-making significance, emphatically placed first. On

1 Ex. 11.12: é» rg Spe: rovre. 6 Comp. Gen. xxxix. 21.
*Gen. xvli. 10. Comp. on Rom. iv. 11. * And comp. LXX. Gen. xxiv. 25, 89, xlff.

? Comp. on Eph. v. 83. 2; Judg. xix. 10; Ecclus, xxxiil. 20, xxviil.
4 By sale, comp. v. 8; Gon. xlv. 4, LXX. 29.

144 | CHAP. VII., 14-16.

axoterv, to learn, with the predicative participle, see Winer ;' frequent also
in Greek writers. — aveyvwpicby] he was recognised by his brethren,’ to be taken
passively, a8 also Gen. xiv. 1, when the LXX. thus translates PVA. —
76 yévoc tov ‘Iwoxo] the name® is significantly repeated ;‘ a certain sense of
patriotic pride is implied in it.

Vv. 14, 15. ’Ev wp. éBdounjx. révre] in 75 souls, persons,* he called his father
and, in general, the whole family, z.c. he called them in a personal number
of 75, which was the sum containing them. The expression is a Hebraism
(3), after the LXX. Deut. x. 22. In the number Stephen, however, follows
the LXX. Gen. xlvi. 27, Ex. 1. 5,° where likewise 75 souls are specified,
whereas the originul text, which Josephus follows,’ reckons only 70.°—
avroc x. of wat. quav} he and our patriarchs, generally. A very common
epanorthosis. See on John ii. 12,

Ver. 16. Mereré@ycav] namely, avro¢ x. of marépeg gudv. Incorrectly
Kuinoel and Olshausen refer it only to the rarépec ;° whereas avri¢ xai of
wavépec yuav are named as the persons belonging to the same category, of
whom the being dead is affirmed. Certainly Gen. xlix. 80, according to
which Jacob was buried in the cave of Machpelah ‘at Hebron (Gen. xxiii.),
is at variance with the statement pereré@. ei¢ Xvyéx. But Stephen—from
whose memory in the hurry of an extemporary speech this statement
escaped, and not the statement, that Joseph’s body was buried at Sychem”—
transfers the locality of the burial of Joseph not merely to his brethren, of
whose burial-place the O. T. gives no information, but also to Jacob him-

1 p. 825 (E. T. 486).

2 Plat. Pol. p. 258 A, Pharm. p. 127 A, Lach.
p. 181 ©.

8 Instead of the simple avrov, as A E, 40.
Arm. Vulg read.

* Bornem, ad Xen. Symp. 7. 84; Kibner,
ad Xen. Anad. i. 7. 11.

§ fi, 41, xxvii. 37. '

* At Dent. é.c. alao Codex A has the reading
75, which is, however, evidently a mere alter-
ation by a later hand in accordance with the
two other passages. Already Philo (nee Loes-
ner, p. 185) mentions the two discrepant state-
ments of number (75 according to Gen. J.c.
and Ex. é.c., and 70 according to Deut. 2.c.)
and allegorizee upon them.

7 Anét, il. 7. 4, vi. 5. 6

8 According to the Hebrew, the nnmber 70
is thus made ap: all the descendants of Jacob
who came down with him to Egypt are fixed
at 66, Gen. xivi. 26, and then, ver. 27, Joseph
and his two sons and Jacob himaclf (that fs,
four persons more) are included. In the
reckoning of the LXX., infinenced by a dis-
crepant tradition, there are added to those 66
pereons (ver. 26) in ver. 27 (contrary to the
original text), vioi Se Iwond ot yevopuevos ary
ev yp Alyurty Puxat évvéa, 80 that 73 persons
are made ont. It is thus evidently contrary to

this express mode of reckoning of the LXX.,
when it is commonly assumcd (alyo by Wet-
stein, Michaelis, Rosenmiller, Kuinoel, Ols-
hausen) that the LXX. had added to the 70
persons of the original text 5 grandchildren
and great-grandchildren of Joseph (who are
named in the LXX. Gen. xlvi. 20). Butin
the greatest contradiction to the above notice
of the LXX. stands the view of Seb. Schmid,
with whom Wolf agrees, that the LXX. had
added to the 66 persons (ver. 26) the wives of
the sons of Jacob, and from the sum of 78
thereby made up had again deducted 8 persons,
namely, the wife of Judah who had died in
Canaan, the wife of Joseph and Joecph him-
celf, so that the number 7% is left. Entirely
unhistorical is the hypothesis of Krebs and
Loesner: ‘‘Stephanum apud Luc. (et LXX.)
de iis loqui, qui in Aegyptum invitati fuerint,
Mosen de his, qui eo renerin?, quorum non
nisi 70 fnernnt."’ Beza conjectured, instead
of révre in our paseage : wayres (!); and Mas-
sonius, instead of the numeral signs OF (7),
the numeral signs CH (66). For yet other
views, see Wolf.

® See also Hackett.

19 Comp. Joseph. Ant. il. 8. 7.

11 Josh. xxiv. 38, comp. Gen. 1. %.

HISTORY OF THE PATRIARCHS. 143

self, in unconscious deviation, as respects the latter, from Gen. xlix. 80 (pD’).
Perhaps the Rabbinical tradition, that all the brethren of Joseph were also
buried at Sychem,! was even then current, and thus more easily suggested
to Stephen the error with respect to Jacob. It is, however, certain that
Stephen has not followed an account deviating from this,* which transfers
the burial of all the patriarchs to Hebron, although no special motive can
be pointed out in the matter ; and it is entirely arbitrary, with Kuinoel,
to assume that he had wished thereby to convey the idea that the Samari-
tans, to whom, in his time, Sychem belonged, could not, as the possessors
of the graves of the patriarchs, have been rejected by God. — wvicaro
’ABp.] which, formerly, Abraham bought. But according to Gen. xxxili. 19,
it was not Abraham, but Jucob, who purchased a piece of land from the
sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem. On the other hand, Abraham pur-
chased from Ephron the field and burial-cave at Hebron (Gen. xxiii).
Consequently, Stephen has here evidently fallen into a mistake, and asserted
of Abraham what historically applied to Jacob, being led into error by the
fact that something similar was recorded of Abraham. If expositors had
candidly admitted the mistuke so easily possible in the hurry of the
moment, they would have been relieved from all strange and forced expe-
dients of an exegetical and critical nature, and would neither have assumed
a purchase not mentioned at all in the O. T., nor,? a combining of two pur-
chases,‘ and two burials ;° nor,® against all external and internal critical
evidence, have asserted the obnoxious ’Afp. to be spurious,’ either supplying
’Iqxof us the subject to ovzcaro,* or taking ovgcaro as impersonal ;° nor would
‘ABp., With unprecedented arbitrariness, have been explained as used in a
patronymic sense for Abrahamides, i.e. Jacobus.'° Conjectural emendations
are: 'IaxoZ,"' 6 rov “ABpaau."* Other forced attempts at reconciliation may
be seen in Grotius and Calovius. — rot Zuzéu] the father of Sychem." The
relationship is presupposed as well known.— dvhoaro] is later Greek. '4— renge
anyvp.] the genitive of price : for @ purchase-money consisting of silver. The
LXX. (Gen. xxxiii. 19) has éxardv auvdv,” for which Stephen has adopted
a general expression, because the precise one was probably not present to
his recollection.

1 Lightf. and Wetst. in loc.

3 Joseph, Anidé. ii. 8. 2.

* Flacius, Bengel, comp. Lager.

4 Gen. xxiii, xxxili.

® Gen. 1}. ; Josh. xxiv.

* Beza, Bochart, Bauer in Philol. Thue.
Paul. p. 167, Valckenaer, Kuinoel.

7 Comp. Calvin.

* Beza, Bochart.

® * Quod emtnm erat,"* Kuinoel.

10 Glass, Feszel, Surenhusius, Krebs.

") Clericus.

18 Cappellas.

19 Not the son of Sycbem, as the Vulgate,
Erasmus, Castalio, and others havo it. See
Gen. xxxiii. 19. Lachmann reads rov év, &., in
accord doubtless with important witnesses, of

which several have only é» ., but evidently
an alteration arising from the opinion that
Zvxeu was the city. The circumstance that in
no other passage of the N.T. the genitive ot
relationship is to be explained by waryp, must
be regarded as purely accidental. Entirely
similar are the passages where with female
name p»yrnp is to be supplied, as Luke xxiv.
10. See generally, Winer, p. 178 f. (BR. T.
237). If fii were to be supplied, this would
yield a fresh historical error; and not that
quite another Hamor is meant than at Gen.
é.c. (in opposition to Beelen).

14 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 187 f.

16 Probably the name of a coin, see Bochart,
Fieroz. 1. p. 478 f2; Gesenius, Thee. hii. p.
1241, 8.2. nO wp.

146 CHAP, VII., 17-25.

Vv. 17, 18. Kafdéc] is not, as is commonly assumed, with an appeal to
the critically corrupt passage 2 Macc. i. 31, to be taken as a particle of
time cum, but! as guemadmodum. In proportion as the time of the promise,
the time destined for its realization, drew nigh, the people grew, etc. — 7
Opoady. x.7.A.] which God promised (ver. 7). duodoy., often so used in Greek
writers ; comp. Matt. xiv. 7. — avéorn Baothede érepoc] ti¢ Baotdeiag ei¢ aAAov
oixov pereAnAvdviac,* Joseph, Antt. ii. 9. 1.— d¢ obx dee rdv 'Iwohe] who knew
not Joseph, his history and his services to the country. This might be said
both in Ex. i. 8 and here with truth ; because, in all the transactious of
Pharaoh with Moses and the Israelites, there is nothing which would lead
us to conclude that the king knew Joseph. Erroneously Erasmus and
others, including Krause, huld that oida and yt here signify to love; and
Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Hackett render: who did nut regard the
merits of Joseph. In 1 Thess. v. 12, also, it means simply to know, to
understand,

Ver. 19. Karacogifecfac] to employ cunning against any one, to beguile, LXX.
Ex. i. 10. Only here in the N. T.* —rov roceiv éxOera ra Bpign avrav) a
construction purely indicative of design ; comp. on iii. 12. But it cannot
belong to xaracogic,‘ but only to éxax. Comp. 1 Kings xvii. 20. He mal-
treated them, in order that they should expose their children (k'), i.e. to force
upon them the exposure of their children.°— cig 7d uy Gwoy.} ne vivi conserva-
rentur, the object of roceiv éxOera Tr. Bp. avr.®

Ver. 20. "Ev » xacpo] ‘‘tristi, opportuno,’’ Beng. — doreiog 1H Oe. |
Luther aptly renders : a jine child for God,—i.e. so beautifully and grace-
fully formed,’ that he was by God esteemed as aoreioc.* In substance, there-
fore, the expression amounts to the superlative idea; but it is not to be
taken asa paraphrase of the superlative, but as conceived in its proper
literal sense.° The expressions Oeoesd#¢ and OeocixeAoc, compared by many,
are not here revelant, as they do not correspond to the conception of acreioc
r~ Oey. — Moses’ beauty is also praised in Philo, Vit. Mos. i. p. 604 A, and
Joseph. Antt. ii. 9. 7, where he is called waic vopgg Oeiog. According to
Jalkut Rubeni, f. 75. 4, he was beautiful as an angel. — yavac rpeic) Ex. ii.
2. — row warpéc] Amram, Ex. vi. 20.

Vv. 21, 22. 'Exref. 62 avrav, aveia. avrév] Repetition of the pronoun as in
Matt. xxvi. 71; Mark ix. 28; Matt. viii. 1.1! — aveiAaro] took him up (sustu-
lit, Vulg.). So also often among Greek writers, of exposed children ; see
Wetstein. — éaurg ] in contrast to his own mother. — ei¢ vidv] Ex. ii. 10, for
@ son, so that he became a son to herself. So also in classical Greek with

1 Comp. also Grimm on 2 Macc. {. 81. ¢Comp. LXX. Ex.i. 17; Luke xvii. 88. See
2 The previous dynasty wasthat ofthe Hyk- on 2 Cor. viii. 6; Rom. 1. 20.
eos; the new king was Ahmes, who expclled 7 Comp. Judith xi. 2.
the Hyksos. See Knobel on Ex. i. 8. ® Comp. Winer, p. 282 (E. T. 810).
* But see Kypke, IT. p. 37; and from Philo, ® See also on 2 Cor. x. 4. Hesiod, ’Epy.
Loesner, p. 186. Aorist participle, asini.%4. 825: avairws adavaraow, and Aesch. Agam.

4 So Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 846. 852: Ceois avauwAacnros, are parallels; as are
5 On woecy éxGera = éxdecvar, comp. worecw from the O. T., Gen. x. 9, Jonah iii. 3.
éxSorovy = éxde86var, Herod. tii. 1; on éxderos, 10 Ex. ii. 2; comp. Heb. xi. 28. {p. 877.

Eur. Andr. 70. 11 See on Matt. viii. 1, Fritzeche, ad Mare.

JEWS UNDER THE LAWS. 147

verbs of development.’ — sdoy cogig Aiy.] Instrumental dative. The notice
itself is not from the O. T., but from tradition, which certainly was, from
the circumstances in which Moses* was placed, true. The wisdom of the
Egyptians extended mainly to natural science, with magic, astronomy,
medicine, and muthematics ; and the possessors of this wisdom were chiefly
the priestly caste,* which also represented political wisdom.‘— duvarig év
Ady. x. Epy.] see on Luke xxiv. 19. éy gpy. refers not only to his miraculous
activity, but generally to the whole of his abundant labours. With du. év
Aéyore * Ex. iv. 10 appears at variance ; but Moses in that passage does not
describe himself as a stammerer, but only as one whose address was unskil-
ful, and whose utterance was clumsy. But even an address not naturally
fluent may, with the accession of a higher endowment,* be converted into
eloquence, and become highly effective through the Divine Spirit, by which
it is sustained, as was afterwards the historically well-known case with the
addresses of Moses.” Thus, even before his public emergence, for to this
time the text refers, a higher power of speech may have formed itself in
him. Hence div. év Ady. is neither to be referred, with Krause, to the writ-
ings of Moses, nor to be regarded, with Heinrichs, as a once-current gen-
eral eulogium ; nor is it to be said, with de Wette, that admiration for the
celebrated lawgiver had caused it to be forgotten that he made use of his
brother Aaron as his spokesman.

Ver. 23. But when a period of forty years became full to him,—i.e. when he
was precisely 40 years old. This exact specification of age is not found in
the O. T. (Ex. ii. 11), but is traditional.*— dvéBy éxi riv xapdiav abtod] i
arose into his heart, i.e. came into his mind, to visit, to see how it went with
them, etc. The expression’ is adopted from the LXX., where it is an imita-
tion of the Hebrew 32°y my, Jer. iii. 16, xxxii, 85; Isa. Ixv. 17.1
Neither is 6 d:adoy:oudc, for which Luke xxiv. 38 is erroneously appealed to,
nor # Bovay to be supplied. — éioxéy.] invisere, Matt. xxv. 86, often also in
Greek writers. He had hitherto been aloof from them, in the higher circles of
Egyptian society and culture. — rove adeAgotc] ‘‘motivum amoris,’’ Bengel.
Comp. ver. 26.

Vv. 24, 25. See Ex. ii. 11, 12. — ddixeioba:] to be unjustly treated. Erro-
neously Kuinoel holds that it here signifies verberari. That was the mal-
treatment. — quivaro] he exercised retaliation. Only here in the N. T., often
in classic Greek. Similarly dyeiBeo@ar.'' — x. ixoino. éxdix.] and procured
revenge (Judg. xi. 86). He became his éxdixoc, vinder. —r@ xatarovoup.] for
him who wag on the point of being overcome, present participle."® — rardéac]
mode of the qubvaro x. éxoigo. x.1.A, Wolf aptly says: ‘‘ Percussionem vio-

1 Bernhardy, p. 218 f.

2 Philo, Vit. Mos.

3 Isa. xix. 12.

* Comp. Justin. xxxvi. 2.

® Comp. Joseph. And. fii 1.4: wAfdec duc-
Aaty wieGavwraros.

* Comp. Lake xxi. 15.

7 Comp. Joseph. Andtt. if. 12. 2.

® Beresh.f. 115.8; Schemoth Rabd. f. 118. 3.

Sce Lightfoot in loc. Bengel says: ‘ Mosis
vita ter 40 anni, vv. 90, 96."

® Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 9.

10 © Potest aliquid esse in profundo animae,
quod postea emergit et in cor .. . ascendit,"

Bengel.
11 See Poppo, ad Thue. 1. 42; Herm. ad
Soph. Ant. 689. [xi. 6, xill. 56.

13 Comp. Polyb. xxix. 11. 11, xl, 7. 8 Diod.

148 CHAP. VII., 26-37.

lentam caedis causa factam hic innui indubium est.’? Comp. Matt. xxvi.
31, and see ver. 28.— The inaccuracy, that ray Aiybrriov has no definite
reference in the words that precede it, but only an indirect indication '! in
adixobpevoy, Which presupposes a mattreater, is explained from the circum-
stances of the event being so universally known.—Ver. 25. But he thought
that his brethren would observe that God by his hand (intervention) was giving them
deliverance, — didwowr] the giving is conceived as even now beginning ; the first
step toward effecting the liberation from bondage had already taken place
by the killing of the Egyptian, which was to be to them the signal of
deliverance.

Vv. 26, 27 f. See Ex. ii. 18 f. — S967] he showed himself to them,—when,
namely, he arrived among them ‘‘rursus invisurus suos.’** Well does
Bengel find in the expression the reference uliro, ex improviso.* — airoic]
. Fefers back to ddeAgoic. It is presumed in this case as well known, that
there were two who strove. — ovrfAacev air. ei¢ cip.] he drove them together,
by representations, to (cic, denoting the end aimed at) peace.‘ The aorist
does not stand de conatu,*® but the act actually took place on Moses’ part ;
the fact that if was resisted on the part of those who strove, alters not the
action. Qrotius, moreover, correctly remarks : ‘‘ vox quasi vim significans
agentis instantiam significat.’? —6 dé adixov r. wAyo.| but he who treated his
neighbour, one by nationality his brother, unjustly, was still in the act of
maltreating him. — arécarto] thrust him from him. On xartornoev, has ap-
pointed, comp. Bremi, ad Dem. Ol. p. 171; and on dixacrfc, who judges
according to the Jaws, as distinguished from the more general xpiric, Wyt-
tenbach, Zp. crit. p. 219. — up avedeiv x.7.A.] thou wilt not surely despatch (ii.
23, v. 38) me? To the periness of the question belongs also the ot.

Vv. 29, 830. See Ex. ii. 15-22, ili. 2.— év 76 Ady robry] on account of this
word, denoting the reason which occasioned his fiight.* — Mad:du] }"T?, a
district in Arabia Petraea. Thus Moses had to withdraw from his obsti-
nate people ; but how wonderfully active did the divine guidance show it-
self anew, ver. 30! On xépocxuc, comp. ver. 6. — Kai tAnpwl. érév reocapax. ]
traditionally, but comp. also Ex. vii. 7: ‘‘ Moses in palatio Pharaonis degit
XL annos, in Mediane XL annos, et ministravit Israeli annos XL.’ "— év rg
épipw rou dp. Z.] in the desert, in which Mount Sinai is situated, *)°D 3D, Ex.
xix. 1, 2; Lev. vii. 28. From the rocky and mountainous base of this
desert Sinai rises to the south (and the highest), and Horeb more to the
north, both as peaks of the same mountain ridge. Hence there is no con-
tradiction when, in Ex. iii., the appearance of the burning bush is trans-
ferred to the neighbourhood of Horeb, as generally in the Pentateuch the
names Sinai and Hored are interchanged for the locality of the giving of
the law, except in Deut. xxxiii. 2, where only Horeb is mentioned, as also
in Mal. iv. 4; whereas in the N. T. and in Josephus only Sinai is named.
The latter name specially denotes the locality of the giving of the law, while

1 Winer, p. 587 (E. T. 788). xx. 184.
2 Erasmus. Comp. 1 Kings ili. 16. * Grotius, Wolf, Kuinoel.
3 Comp. ff. 8, vil. 2, ix. 17, a. ; Heb. ix. 28. * Winer, p. 862 (KE. T. 484).

*The opposite : épids fureAdooa:, Hom. Ji. 7 Beresh. Rabb. f. 115. 3.

JEWS UNDER THE LAW. 149

Horeb was also the name of the entire mountain range.'— év odoyi rupoc
Barov] in the flume of fire of a thorn bush. Stephen designates the phenom-
enon quite as it is related in Exodus, l.c., as a flaming burning bush, in
which an angel of God was present, in which case every attempt to explain
away the miraculous theophany, a meteor, lightning, must be avoided.?

Vv. 81-38. See Ex. iii. 8-5. — 1d dpapya] spectaculum. See on Matt. xvii.
9. — xatavoqoa] to contemplate, Luke xii. 24, 27; Acts xi. 6. — gwv9 xvpior]
as the angel represents Jehovah Himself, so is he identified with Him.
When the angel of the Lord speaks, that is the voice of God, as it is His -
representative servant, the angel, who speaks. To understand, with Chry-
sostom, Calovius, and others, the angelus increatus — i.e. Christ as the Aéyorc —
as meant, is consequently unnecessary, and also not in keeping with the anar-
throus dyyedoc, which Hengstenberg* wrongly denies (F'). Comp. xii. 7,
23. — Advoov rd inédnua rév wod. cov.]| The holiness of the presence of God
required, as it was in keeping generally with the religious feeling of the
East,* that he who held intercourse with Jehovah should be barefooted, lest
the sandals charged with dust should pollute (Josh. v. 15) the holy ground
(v7 ayia) ; hence also the priests in the temple waited on their service with
bare feet.’

Ver. 84. ’Idav eidov] LXX. Ex. iii. 7, Hence here an imitation of the
Hebrew form vf expression.* Similar emphatic combinations were, how-
ever, not alien to other Greek.’ —xaréB8yv] namely, from heaven, where I
am enthroned.* — arooreiAw (see the critical remarks), adhortative subjunc-
tiye.°

Vv. 85-37. The recurring rovrov is emphatic: this and none other. Also
in the following vv. 36, 37, 38, ovroc . . . obroc . . . ovrog are always em-
phatically prefixed. — dv yprjcavro] whom they at that time, ver. 27, denied,
namely, a8 dpyorra xal dixaorzv. The plural is purposely chosen, because
there is meant the whole category of those thinking alike with that one (ver.
27). This one is conceived collectively."' — apy. x. Avrpwrfv] observe the climax
introduced by Avrpur. in relation to the preceding dixaor. It is introduced
because the obstinacy of the people against Moses is type of the antago-
nism to Christ and His work (ver. 51) ; consequently, Moses in his work of
deliverance is a type of Christ, who has effected the Atrpworc of the people
in the highest sense.'?— According to the reading civ yerpi (see the critical
remarks), the meaning is to be taken as: standing in association with the

2 See the particulars in Knobel on Ex. xix. 2.

20On Ade wvpdés, comp. 2 Thes. i. 8, Lach-
mann; Heb. 1. 7; Rev. I. 14, if. 18, xix. 12;
Isa. xxix. 6, Ivi. 15; Pind. Pyth. iv. 400.

8 Christol, IIT. 2, p. 70.

4 Even in the present day the Arade, as is
well known, enter their mosques barefooted.
The precept of Pythagoras, avurdénros dive xal
spogcuve, was dcrived from an Eyyptian cus-
tom. Jamblich. Vit. Pyth.23. The Samari-
tan trode barefoot the holiest place on Ge-
rizim, Robinson, III. p. 820. [769 ff.

5 8ce Wetstein; also Carpzov. Appar. p.

6 Comp. Matt. xiif. 14; Heb. vi. 14.

™8ee on 1 Cor. fi.1; Lobeck, Parailip. p.
582. idey eldoyv is found in Lucian, Dial. Mar.
iv. 3.

8 Isa. Ixvi. 1; Matt. v. 84. Comp. Gen. xi.
7, xvili. 21; Pe. cxliv. 5.

® See Elmsl.ad Hur. Bacch. 341, Med. 1242.

10 See Bornemann in the Sdche, Stud. 1842,
p. 66.
11 Kiihner, ad Xen. Anad. i. 4. 8. Comp.
Roth, Ate. Agr. 8.

12 Luke i. 64, ii. 88; Heb. ix. 12; Tit. fi. 14.

150 ‘CHAP, VII., 38—42.,

hand, i.e. with the protecting and helping power, of the angel. Comp. the
classical expression civ Oeoic. This power of the angel was that of God
Himself (ver. 84), in virtue of which he wrought also the miracles, ver. 86.
— As to the gender of Baroc, see on Mark xii. 26.— After the work of Moses -
(ver. 86), ver. 837 now brings into prominence his great Messianic prophecy,
which designates himself as a type of the Messiah ;! whereupon in ver. 88 .
his exalted position as the receiver and giver of the law is described, in order
that this dight, in which he stands, may be followed up in ver. 89 by the
shadow—the contrast of disobedience towards him.

Ver. 38. Thisis he who . . . had intercourse with the angel... and our
Jathers, was the mediator (Gal. iii. 19) between the two.*— év rj éxxAnoiga
év rH Ephug] in the assembly of the people, held for the promulgation of the
law, in the desert, Ex. xix. This definite reference is warranted by the
context, as it is just the special act of the giving of the law that is spoken
of. — Ady:a (Svra] 2.e. utterances which are not dead, and so ineffectual,
but living, in which, as in the self-revelations of the living God, there is
effective power (Jolin vi. 51), as well with reference to their influence on the
moulding of the moral life according to God's will, as also especially with
reference to the fulfilment of the promises and threatenings thereto an-
nexed.* Incorrectly Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Kuinoel, and others hold that
¢gv stands for (woroeiv, Even according to Paul, the law in itself is holy,
just, good, spiritual, and given for life (Rom. vii. 12, 14); that it never-
theless kills, arises from the abuse which the power of sin makes of it,‘ and
is therefore an accidental relation.

Vv. 39,40. They turned with their hearts to Egypt, i.e. they directed their
desires again to the mode of life pursued in Egypt, particularly, as is evident
from the context (ver. 40), to the Egyptian idolatry. Ex. xx. 7, 8, 4.
Others, including Cornelius a Lapide, Morus, Rosenmiiller: they wished to
return back to Egypt. But the ol rpowopetcovra: judy in ver, 40 would then
have to be taken as: ‘‘ who shall go before us on our return,’’—which is
just as much at variance with the historical position at Ex. xxxii. 1 as
with Ex. xxxii. 4, 1 Kings xii. 28, and Neh. ix. 18, where the golden bull
appears as a symbol of the God who has led the Israelites out of Egypt. —
Geoic] the plural, after Ex. xxxii. 1, denotes the category,’ without reference
to the numerical relation. That Aaron made only one idol was the result
of the universally expressed demand; and in accord with this universal
demand is also the expression in Ex. xxxii. 4. — oi mporop.] borne before
our line of march, as the symbols, to be revered by us, of the present
Jehovah. — 46 yap. M. ovro¢c] yap gives the motive of the demand. Moses,
hitherto our leader, has in fact disappeared, so that we need another guid-
ance representative of God. — ovroc] spoken contemptuously.*— The nomi-
native absolute is designedly chosen, in order to concentrate the whole

1 Deut. xvill. 153 (comp. above, iff. 22). xxxil. 47.

2On yivona perd, versor cum, which is no * Rom. vii. 5, 13 ff.; 1 Cor. xv. 38.
Hebraism, comp. ix 19, xx. 18; Mark xvi. 5 See on Matt. fi. 20.
10; Ast, Lew. Plat. I. p. 394. ® See on vi. 14.

3 Comp, 1 Pet. 1. 2%; Heb. v. 12; Dent.

JEWS UNDER THE LAW. 151

attention on the conception.' For this Moses... weknow not what has
happened to him, since he returns not from the mount.

Ver. 41. 'Epuooyoroinoay| they made a bull, Ex. xxxii. 4: éroincey avra
uéayov xavevrov. The word does not elsewhere occur, except in the Fathers,
and may have belonged to the colloquial language. The idol itself was an
imitation of the very ancient and widely-spread bull-worship in Egypt,
which had impressed itself in different forms, ¢.g. in the worship of Apis
at Memphis, and of Mnevis at Heliopolis. Hence uéoxog is not a calf, but®
equivalent to raipoc, a young bull already full-grown, but not yet put into
the yoke. — Examples of avayecv—namely, to the altar, 1 Kings ili. 15 —6voiav
may be seen in Elsner, p. 393, and from Philo in Loesner, p. 189. — evgpai-
vovro] they rejoiced in the works of their hands. By the interpretution : ‘‘ they
held sacrificial feaste’’ (Kuinoel), the well-known history (Ex. xxxii. 6),
to which the meaning of the words points, is confounded with that
meaning itself. — gpyoc] plural of the cateyory, which presented itself in
the golden calf. On cigpaiv. ev,* to denote that on which the joy is causally
based, compare yaipev év, Luke x. 20; see on Phil. i. 18. :

Ver. 42. "Eorpewe d2 6 Oed¢] but God turned,—a figurative representation
of the idea: He became unfavourable to them. The active in a neuter sense ;‘
nothing is to be supplied. Incorrectly Vitringa, Morus, and others hold that
éorpewe connected with rapéd. denotes, after the Hebrew s3¥/, rursus tradi-
dit. This usage has not passed over to the N. T., and, moreover, it is not
vouched for historically that the Israelites at an earlier period practised
star-worship. Heinrichs connecta éorp. with avrobc: ‘‘ convertit animos
eorum ab una idololatria ad aliam.’’ But the expression of divine disfavour
is to be retained on account of the correlation with ver. 89. — «ai rapéd.
avtoic Aatp.] and gave them up to serve, an explanatory infinitive. The fall.
ing away into star-worship, orpar. Tr. ovpavod = D'DWN RAY, in which, from
the worslipper’s point of view, the sun, moon, and stars are conceived as
living beings, is apprehended as wrought by an angry God by way of pun-
ishment for that bull-worship, according to the idea of sin being punished
by sin. The assertion, often repeated since the time of Chrysostom and
Theophylact, that only the divine permission or the withdrawal of grace is
here denoted, is at variance with the positive expression and the true
biblical conception of the divine retribution.’ Self-surrender (Eph. iv.
19) is the correlative moral factor on the part of man. — 9 ogdy:a x.7.A. ]
Amos v. 25-27, freely after the LXX. Ye have not surely presented unto me
sacrifices and offerings, offerings of auy kind, for forty years in the wilder-
ness? The question supposes a negative answer; therefore without an in-
terrogation the meaning is: Ye cannot maintain that ye have offered . . . to
me, The apparent contradiction with the accounts of offerings, which were
actually presented to Jehovah in the desert,* disappears when the pro-

1 Comp. on Matt. viil.%4; Buttm. neut. Gr. 41 Macc. {i. 68; Acts v.22, xv.16; Kahner,
p. 335 (BE. T. 879); Valck. Schol. p. 429. II. pp. 9, 10.

® Comp. Heb. ix. 12, 18, 19; Herod. ill. 28. § See on Rom. i, 24.

® Heclus. xiv, 5, xxxix. 31, li. 20; Ken. Mier. ¢ Ex, xxiv. 4 ff.; Num. vii., ix. 1 #.
1. 16.

152 CHAP. VIL, 43, 44.

phetic utterance, understood by Stephen as a reproach,' is considered as a
sternly and sharply significant divine verdict, according to which the ritual
offerings in the desert, which were rare and only occurred on special occa-
sions (comp. already Lyra), could not be taken at all into consideration
against the idolatrous aberrations which testitied the moral worthlessness
of those offerings. Usually* yo: is considered as equivalent to mihi soli.
But this is incorrect on account of the enclitic pronoun and its position, and
on account of the arbitrarily intruded yévov. Fritzsche* puts the note of
interrogation only after rpooxuveiv avroic, ver. 43: ‘‘ Sacrane et victimas per
XL annos in deserto mihi obtulistis, et in pompa tulistis aedem Molochi,
etc. ?’’ In this way God’s displeasure at the unstedfastness of His people
would be vividly denoted by the contrast. But this expedient is im-
possible on account of the vq presupposing a negation. Moreover, it is as
foreign to the design of Stephen, who wishes to give a probative passage
for the Aarpetery rg oTparia Tov ovpavod, to concede the worship of Jehovah, as
it is, on the other hand, in the highest degree accordant with that design
to recognise in ver. 42 the negative element of his proof, the denial of
the rendering of offering to Jehovah, and in ver. 48 the positive proof,
the direct reproach of star-worship.

Ver, 43. Kal... spocxvveiv abroicg] is the answer which God Himself
gives to His question, and in which xai joins on to the negation implied in
the preceding clause: No, this ye have not done, and instead of it ye have
taken up from the earth, in order to carry it in procession from one encamp-
ment to another, the tent, 390, the portable tent-temple, of Moloch. — row
Modéy] so according to the LXX. The Hebrew has p20, of your king, i.e.
your idol. The LXX. puts instead of this the name of the idol, either as"
explanatory or more probably as following another reading.‘ 6 Moddéy,
Hebrew 37% (Rez), called also 027) and 039D, was an idol of the
Ammonites, to whom children were offered, and to whom afterwards even
the Israelites ° sacrificed children. His brazen image was, according to
Rabbinical tradition,® especially according to Jarchi on Jer. vii. 31, hollow,
heated from below, with the head of an ox and outstretched arms, into
which the children were laid, whose cries were stifled by the sacrificing
priests with the beating of drums. The question whether Moloch corre-
sponds to Kronos or Saturn, or is to be regarded as the god of the sun,’ is

1 According to another view, the period of
forty years withont offerings appears in the
prophet as the ‘golden age of Israel,’ and as
a proof how little God cares for such offer-
ings. See Ewald, Proph. tn loo.

2 As by Morus, Rosenmiiler, Heinrichs,
Olshausen, similarly Kuinoe).

3 Ad Mare. p. 65 f.

«p55, comp. LXX. 2 Kings xxiii. 18,
§ Whether the chiJdren were burned alive,
or first put to death, might seem doubtful

from such passages as Ezek. xx. 26,31. But
the burning alive must be assumed according

to the notices preserved concerning the Car-
thaginian procedure at euch sacrifices of
children (see Knobel on Lev. xviii. 21).—The
extravagant assertion that the worship of
Moloch was the orthodow primitive worship
oP the Hebrews (Vatke, Daumer, Ghillany),
was a folly of 1885-42. Lev. xviii. 21, xx. 2;
1 Kings xi. 7; 2 Kings xxiii. 10; Jer. vii. 81.

® Comp. the description, agreeing in the
main, of the image of Kronos in Diod. Sic.
xx. 14.

7Theophylact, Spencer, Deyling, and oth-
ers, including Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshausen,
Minter, Crenzer.

THE TABERNACLE OF WITNESS. 153

settled for our passage to this extent, that, as here by Moloch and Rephan
two different divinities from the host of heaven must be meant, and Rephan
corresponds to Kronos, the view of Moloch as god of the sun receives thereby
a confirmation, however closely the mythological idea of Kronos was origi-
nally related to the notion of a solar deity ' and consequently also to that of
Moloch. See, moreover, for Moloch as god of the sun, Miller in Herzog’s
Encykl.?—xai 7d dorpov rov Geov iu. ‘Pegdv] and the star (star-image) of your (al-
leged) god Rephan, i.e. the star made the symbol of your god Rephan. ‘Pegay
isthe Coptic name of Saturn, as Kircher® has proved from the great Egyp-
tian Scala. The ancient Arabs, Phoenicians, and Egyptians gave divine

honours to the planet Saturn ; and in particular the Arabic name of this
Se uF

star, wi yas corresponds entirely to the Hebrew form {?°9,‘ which the LXX.

translators *° have expressed by Rephan, the Coptic name of Saturn known
to them.°—We may add, that there is no account in the Pentateuch of the
worship of Moloch and Rephan in the desert ; yet the former is forbidden
in Lev. xviii. 21, xx. 2; Deut. xviii. 10. It is probable, however, that from
this very fact arose a tradition, which the LXX. followed in Amos, J.c.—
tovg rhirous] apposition to ray oxyy. tr. Mod. x. tT. Gorp. 7. Aeov tu. ‘Ped. It
includes a reference to the tent of Moloch, in so far as the image of the
idol was to be found in it and was carried along with it. For examples in
which the context gives to rizoc the definite sense of idol, see Kypke, II.
p. 88, and from Philo, Loesner, p. 192. — évéxeva] beyond Babylon. Only
here in the N. T., but often in classic writers. — BaBva.] LXX.: Aauacxoi,
so also in Hebrew. An extension in accordance with history, as similar
modifications were indulged in by the Rabbins ; see Lightfoot, p. 75.

Ver. 44. 'H oxyv) rov papr.] not a contrast to ver. 43, for the bringing out
of the culpability, ‘‘ hic ostendit Steph., non pogse ascribi culpam Deo,”’
Calvin, comp. Olshausen and de Wette, which there is nothing to indicate ;
but after the giving of the law (ver. 38) and after the described back-
sliding and its punishment (vv. 89-48), Stephen now commences the new
section of his historical development,—that of the tabernacle and of the
temple,—as he necessarily required this for the subsequent disclosure of the

1 Comp. Preller, Griech. Mythol. I. p. 42 f.

9 1X. p. 716 f.

8 Lingua Aeg. restituta, p. 49, 587.

4 8ee Winer, Realw. I1. p. 887, and generally
Mller in Herzog'’s Encyd. X11. p. 738.

* In general, the ILXX. has dealt very freely

with this passage. The original text runs
according to the customary rendering: and
yé carricd the tent of your king and the frame
(2) PA your images, the star of your divinity,
which ye made for yourselves. See Hitzig in
loc.; Gesenius, Thes. II. p. 660. The LXX.
took }*"9 which is to be derived from qi. as
& proper name (Pedav), and transposed the
words as if there stood in the Hobrew pany
DIT TD IDID. Moreover, it is to be
observed that the words of the original may

be taken also as future, as a threat of punish-
ment (E. Meier, Ewald): so shall ye take up
the tent (Ewald: the pole) of your king and
the platform of your images, etc. According
to this, the fugitives are conceived as taking on
their backs the furniture of their gods, and
carrying them from one place of refuge to
another. This view corresponds best with the
connection in the prophet ; and in the Areat
is implicd at the same time the accusation,
which Diisterdieck in the Stud. u. Krit. 1849,
p. 910, feels the want of, on which account he
takes it as present (but ye carry, etc.).— The
epeech of Slephen, as we havc it, simply followe
the LXX.

* See Movers, Phonikter, I. p. 289 f., Maller,
lc.

154 CHAP. VII., 45-51.

guilt of his opponents precisely in respect to this important point of charge.
—The Hebrew 710 91 means tent of meeting, of God with his people,
i.e. tent of revelation, not tent of the congregation,’ but is in the LXX.,
which the Greek form of this speech follows, incorrectly rendered by
4 OKNV? Tov zaptupiov, the tent in which God bears witness of Himself, as if
derived from 3’, a witness. For the description of this tabernacle, see Ex.
XXV.—XXVli. — xara Tov TvToy dv éwp.] see Ex. xxv. 9, 40.?

Ver 45. Which also our fathers with Joshua—in connection with Joshua,
under whose guidance they stood—a/ter having received it from Moses,
brought in to Canaan. diadéyeoPa:, only here in the N. T., denotes the
taking over from a former possessor.* — év rg xatacyéoe: Tay evar] xaTaoxeate,
as in ver. 5, possessio.* But év is not to be explained as put for cic, nor is
Katacyea Tov évev taking possession of the land of the Gentiles, as is
generally held, which is‘ not expressed. Rather: the fathers brought in
the tabernacle of the covenant during the possession of the Gentiles, i.e. while
the Gentiles were in the state of possession. To this, then, signficantly corre-
sponds what further follows: dy éfwcev 6 Ocd¢ x.r.A. But of what the Gen-
tiles were at that time possessors, is self-evident from ciof#yayov—namely, of
the Holy Land, to which the eic in cio#yay. refers according to the history
well known to the hearers. — ard mpocérov r. 1. yu.| away from the face of
our fathers, so that they withdrew themselves by flight from their view.*—
Ewe Tév ju. A.] is to be separated from the parenthetic clause dv éfwoev . . .
juav, and to be joined to the preceding : which our fathers brought in...
until the days of David, so that it remained in Canaan until the time of
David inclusively. Kuinoel attaches it to dv @&woev x.r.A.; for until the
time of David the struggle with the inhabitants of Canaan lasted. This is
in opposition to the connection, in which the important point was the dura-
tion of the tabernacle-service, as the sequel, paving the way for the tran-
sition to the real temple, shows; with David the new epoch of worship
begins to dawn.

Vv. 46, 47. Kai grjcaro] and asked, namely, confiding in the grace of
God, which he experienced, Luke i. 30. The channel of this request, only
indirectly expressed by David, and of the answer of God to it, was Nathan.‘
What is expressed in Ps. cxxxii. 2 ff. is a later retrospective reference to it.
See Ewald on the Psalm. This probably floated before the mind of Stephen,
hence oxjveua and eipeiv. The usual interpretation of yricaro: optabat,
desiderabat, is incorrect; for the fact, that the LXX. Deut. xiv. 16 ex-
presses Oxw by éxOveiv, has nothing at all to do with the linguistic use of
aitovpat. — etpeiv oxfvepua TH Ged "Iax.] t.¢e. to obtain the establishment of a
dwelling-place destined for the peculiar god of Jacob. In the old theo-
cratic designation ro Ocg ‘Iaxd8, instead of the bare air, lies the holy

1 See Ewald, Alterta. p. 167. 4LXX., Apocr., Joseph., Vulgate, Calvin,
2 Comp. Heb. viii. 5,and thereon Linemann =Grotius, Kuinoel, and others.
and Delitzsch, p. 337 f. 5Comp. LXX. Ex. xxxtiv. 24; Dent. xi. 23.

34 Macc. iv. 15; Dem. 1218, 28. 1045, 10; On the aorist form égwoa, from cfwieir, see
Polyb. fi. 4. 7; xxxi. 18.7; Lucian. Dial. M. Winer, p. 86 (KE. T. 111).
xi. 3. *2 Sam. vii. 2; 1 Chron. xviii. 1.

THE TEMPLE AND THE PROPHETS. 155

national motive for the request of David ; on cxpupua applied to the temple
at Jerusalem, comp. 3 Esdr. i. 50, and to a heathen temple, Pausan. iii. 17.
6, where it is even the name. Observe how David, in the humility of his
request, designates the temple, which he has in view, only generally as
oxivepna, whereas the continuation of the narrative, ver. 47, has the definite
oixov. —Stephen could not but continue the historical thread of his discourse
precisely down to the building of Solomon's temple, because he was accused of
blasphemy against the temple.

Vv. 48-50. Nevertheless this xodéu. avrg oixov (ver. 47) is not to be
misused, as if the presence of the Most High—observe the emphatic pre-
fixing of 6 iycroc, in which lies a tacit contrast of Him who is enthroned
in the highest heavens to heathen gods—were bound to the temple! The
temple-worship, as represented by the priests and hierarchs, ran only too
much into such a misuse.’— yecporororc] neuter : in something which is made
by hands, xvii. 24.7 — Vv. 49, 50 contain Isa. Ixvi. 1, 2, slightly deviating
from the LXX. — 6 obpavic . . . rodav uov] a poetically moulded expression
of the idea: heaven and earth I fill with my all-ruling presence.* Thus there
cannot be for God any place of His rest (réx. ri¢ xataraic.), any abode of
rest to be assigned to Him. — oixodoufoere] The future used of any possible
future case. Baur‘ and Zeller have wrongly found in these verses a disap-
proving judgment as to the building of the temple, the effect of which had
been to render the worship rigid ; holding also what was above said of the
tabernacle—that it was made according to the pattern seen by Moses—as
meant to disparage the temple, the building of which is represented as ‘‘a
corruption of the worship of God in its own nature free, bound to no fixed
place and to no rigid external rites’’ (Zeller). Such thoughts are read
between the lines not only quite arbitrarily, but also quite erroneously, as
is evident from ver. 46, according to which the building of Solomon ap-
pears as fuljilment of the prayer of David, who had found favour with God.
The prophetical quotation corresponds entirely to the idea of Solomon
himself, 1 Kings viii. 27. The quotation of the prophetic saying was,
moreover, essentially necessary for Stephen, because in it the Messianic ref-
ormation, which he must have preached, had its divine warrant in reference
to the temple-worship.

Ver. 51. The long-restrained direct offensive now breaks out, as is quite
in keeping with the position of matters brought to this point.‘ This
against Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshausen, and others, who quite arbitrarily
suppose that after ver. 50 an interruption took place, either by the
shouts of the hearers, or at least by their threatening gestures; as well
as against Schwanbeck, p. 252, who sees here ‘‘ an omission of the reporter.’
Stephen has in ver. 50 ended his calm and detailed historical narrative.
And now it is time that the accused should become the bold accuser, and
at length throw in the face of his judges the result, the thoughts forming

1 Comp. John iv. 20 &. u. Arif, 1855, p. 528 ff., concurred, ascribing to
2 Comp. LXX. Isa. xvi. 12; 2 Chron. vi. 18. Stephen a view akin to Essenism.
7 Comp. Matt. v. 8; 1 Kings vill. 27. § Comp. 1 Kings vili. 94.

‘ With whom Schneckenburger in the Stud. © Comp. Baur, I. p. 58, ed. 2; Ewald; p. 213.

156 CHAP. VIL, 52-56.

which were already clearly enough to be inferred from the previous his-
torical course of the speech. Therefore he breaks off his calm, measured
discourse, and falls upon his judges with deep moral indignation, like a
reproving prophet; Ye stiff-necked ! etc. — arepitu. 7H xapd. x. Tr. Goiv)] an up-
braiding of them with their unconverted carnal character, in severe contrast
to the Jewish pride of circumcision. The meaning without figure is: Men
whoss management of their inner life, and whose spiritual perception, are
heathenishly rude, without moral refinement, not open for the influence of the
divine Spirit.’ — iueic] with weighty emphasis. — aei] always ; even yet at
this day !— we of warépec wav nai iueic] sc. asi te wv. dy. avtix.: for the
fathers are thought of in their resistance to God and to the vehicles of His
Spirit, and therefore not the bare éoré is to be supplied.*—The term avrimirrecv,
not occurring elsewhere in the N. T., is here chosen as a strong designation.*
Bengel well puts it: ‘‘in adversum ruitis.”’

Ver. 52. Proof of the o¢ of warépes tuav nai, also, tueic. — xai axéxt.] xai is
the climactic even ; they have even killed them.‘ The characteristic more
special designation of the prophets: rove rpoxarayyeiAavrac x.t.A., augments
the guilt. — rod dixaiov] xar’ é§ox7v of Jesus, the highest messenger of God,
the (ideal) Just One.* Contrast to the relative clause that follows. — viv]
in the present time, opposed to the times of the fathers ; tyeic is emphatically
placed over against the latter as a parallel. — wpodéra] betrayers (Luke vi.
16), inasmuch as the Sanhedrists, by false and crafty accusation and con-
demnation, delivered Jesus over to the Roman tribunal and brought Him
to execution.

Ver. 58. Oirivec] quippe qui. Stephen desires, namely, now to give the
character, through which the foregoing od viv iueig xpodéra: x.7.A., a8 founded
on their actually manifested conduct, receives its explanation. — :Aéfere]
ye have received, placed first with emphasis. — sic drarayac ayyéAwy] upon ar-
rangements with angels, i.e. so that the arrangements made by angels, the
direct servants of God, which accompanied the promulgation of the law,‘
made you perceive the obligation to recognise and observe the received
law—comp. the contrast, x. oix egvAdé.—as the ethical aspect of your éAdBere.
Briefly, therefore: Ye received the law with reference to arrangements of
angels, which could not leave you doubtful that you ought to submit obediently to
the divine institution. — cic denotes, as often in Greek writers and in the N.
T.,”’ the direction of the mind, in view of.° —d:arayf is arrangement, regula-
tion, ag in Rom. xiii. 2, with Greek writers didragic.* At variance with
linguistic usage, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Elsner, Hammond, Wolf, Krause,

1 Comp. Lev. xxvi. 41; Deut. x. 16, xxx. 6;
der. iv. 4, vi. 10, ix. 25; Rom. li. &, 29;
Barnabas, Zp.9; Philo, de migrat. Adbr.I. p.
450 ; and from the Rabbins, Schoettgen in loc.

2 With Beza and Bornemann in the Sdchs.

6 ifi. 14, xxii. 14: 1 Pet. fff. 18; 1 John il. 1.

* Angela were the arrangers of the act of
divine majesty, as arrangers of a festival
(S:araccovres), disposilores.

7 Winer, p. 871 (E. T. 496).

Stud. 1842, p. 72.

3 Comp. Polyb. fii. 19. 5: avréwecay rais
omeipas xatardnxtruws. Num. xxvii. 14;
Herodian. vi. 8. 13.

¢ Comp. on this reproach, Luke xi. 47.

® Comp. here especially, Matt. xil. 41; Rom.
iv. 20.

* Comp. also Ezra iv. 11; and see Suicer,
Thea. I. p. 886. On the subject-matter, comp.
Gal. 111.19; Heb. ii. 2; Dolitzech on Hebd. p. 49.

MARTYRDOM OF STEPHEN. 157

Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others, taking d:arayy in the above signification,
render: accepistis legem ab angelis promulgatam, as if ei¢ stood for év.
Others—Grotius, Calovius, Er. Schmid, Valckenaer, and others—explain
diaray as agmen dispositum, because d:atdoce is often, also in the classics,
used of the drawing up of armies,’ and d:draéec of the divisions of an army,*
and translate praesentibus angelorum ordinibus, so that cic is likewise taken
for év. But against this view, with which, moreover, ei¢ would have to be
taken as respectu, there is the decisive fact, that there is no evidence of the
use of d:aray7 in the sense assumed ; and therefore the supposition that
diarayy = diaraéic in this signification is arbitrary, as well as at variance with
the manifest similarity of the thought with Gal. iij. 19. Bengel® renders :
Ye received the law for commands of angels, i.e. as commands of angels, 80
that cic is to be understood as in ver. 21.4 But the Israelites did not
receive the law as the commands of angels, but as the commands of God,
in which character it was made known to them 4’ ayyéAwy.*—Moreover,
the mediating action of the angels not admitting of more precise defini-
tion, which is here adverted to, is not containcd in Ex. xix., but rests
on tradition, which is imported already by the LXX. into Deut. xxxiii. 2.
Comp. on Gal. iii. 19. It was a mistaken attempt at harmonizing, when
earlier expositors sought to understand by the angels either Moses und the
prophets’ or the seniores populi ;* indeed, Chrysostom even discovers here
again the angel in the bush.

Vv. 54-56. Taira] The réproaches uttered in vv. 51-58. — diezp. raic xapd.}
seo on v. 33. — éBpuzov +. oddvr.] they gnashed their teeth, from rage and
spite.” — én’ abrév] against him. —rdgp. rveiu.) which at this very moment
filled and exalted him with special power, iv. 8.—eci¢ rdv oipavér] like
Jesus, John xvii. 1. The eye of the suppliant looks everywhere toward,
heaven,'® and what he beheld he saw in the spirit (rAijp. rvevpz. ayiov) ; he only
and not the rest present in the room. — roi¢ ovpavoic] up to the highest."
— déEav Geov] MMT W33: the brightness in which God appears.'® — éorara)
Why not sitting ?* He beheld Jesus, as He has raised Himself from God's
throne of light and stands ready for the saving reception of the martyr.
Comp. ver. 59. The prophetic basis of this vision in the soul of Stephen
is Dan. vii. 13 f. Chrysostom erroneously holds that it is a testimony of
the resurrection of Christ. Rightly Oecumenius : iva deifg ray avridgyy cy
eic aurév. Comp. Bengel: ‘‘ quasi obvium Stephano.’’ De Wette finds no
explanation satisfactory, and prefers to leave it unexplained ; while Borne-

12 Macc. xii. 20.

* Judith i. 4, viil. 36.

> Comp. Hackett, F. Nitzsch, also Winer
doubtfully, and Battmar.n.

«Comp. Heb. xi. 8.

®Comp. Joseph. Ant. xv. 5. 83: yyav ra
néddota Tey Soypdarey Kai Ta OoUusTaTa Tey ev
Tog vopocs bt’ dyyéAwy mapa TOU Beod paddvreey ;
and see Krebs in loc.

¢ Por Rabbinical passages (Jaikui Rudeni f.
107, 8, aZ.), eee Schoetigen and Wetstein ad

Gal. ili. 19.

? Heinrichs, Lightfoot.

® Surenhuelus, caradA. p. 419,

® Comp. Archias, 12: Bpvxeyv dycroy d8orra,
Hermipp. quoted in Plut. Pericd. 38; Job xvi.
9; Ps. xxxv. 16, xxxvil. 12.

16 Comp. on John xvii. 1.

11 Comp. Matt. iff, 16. It is otherwise fn
Acts x. 11.

12 Sce on ver. 2. Lake il. 9.

13 Matt. xxvi. 04; Mark xvi. 19, ai.

158 CHAP. VII., 57-60.

mann! is disposed only to find in it the idea of morandi e existendi,* as
formerly Beza and Knapp, Scr. var. arg. —eide] is to be apprehended as
mental seeing in ecstasy. Only of Stephen himself is this seeing related ;
and when he, like an old prophet,* gives utterance to what he saw, the
rage of his adversaries—who therefore had seen nothing, but recognised in
this declaration mere blasphemy—reaches its highest pitch, and breaks out
in tumultuary fashien. The views of Michaelis and Eckermann, that
Stephen had only expressed his firm conviction of the glory of Christ and
of his own impending admission into heaven ; and the view of Hezel,‘ that
he had seen a dazzling cloud as a symbol of the presence of God, —convert
his utterance at this lofty moment into a flourish of rhetoric. According
to Baur, the author's own view of this matter has objectivized itself into a
vision, just as in like manner vi. 15 is deemed unhistorical. —eide .. .
fewpa] he saw . . . I behold.® As to o vid r. avp., the Messianic designa-
tion in accordance with Dan. vii. 18, see on Matt. viii. 20.

Vv. 57, 58. The tumult, now breaking out, is to be conceived as pro-
ceeding from the Sanhedrists, but also extending to all the others who
were present (vi. 12). To the latter pertains especially what is related from
Gpuncay onward. — They stopped their ears, hecause they wished to hear
nothing more of the blasphemous utterances. — ifw r7¢ méAew] see Lev.
xxiv. 14. ‘*Locus lapidationis erat extra urbem ; omnes enim civitates,
muris cinctae, paritatem habent ad castra Israelis.’’ °— eAd@oBdAovy] This
is the fact generally stated. Then follows as a special circumstance, the
activity of the witnesses in it. Observe that, as airév is not expressed with
£A:60;3.," the preceding éx’ airév is to be extended to it, and therefore to be
mentally supplied.* — oi uaprupes] The same who had testified at vi. 13.
A fragmeut of legality! for the witnesses against the condemned had,
according to law, to cast the first stones at him.® — aréOevro ra indtia avrov|
Gore eivat xovgor kai amapamddiora ei¢ Td AoBodeiv, Theophylact. — LaiAov]
So distinguished and zealous a disciple of the Pharisees—who, however,
ought neither tu have been converted into the ‘‘ notarial witness,’’ nor even
into the representative of the court conducting the trial (Sepp)—was for
such a service quite as ready (xxii. 20) as he was welcome. But if Saul
had been married or already a young widower (Ewald,) which does not
follow from 1 Cor. vii. 7, 8, Luke, who knew so exactly and had in view
the circumstances of his life, would hardly have called him veaviac, although
this denotes a degree of age already higher than pe:pdxcov."° Comp. xx. 9,
xxili. 17, also v. 10 ; Luke vii. 14. — xai éA:oBéAovv) not merely the witnesses,
but generally. The repetition has a tragic effect, which is further strength-
ened by the appended contrast émcxad. «.7.A. A want of clearness, occa-
sioned by the use of two documents (Bleek), is not discernible. — The

1 In the Sachs. Stud. 1842, p. 78 f. 7 Which Bornemann has added, following
2 Lobeck, ad Aj. 199. D and vas.

* Comp. John xii. 41. ® Comp. LXX. Ex. xxilf. 47.

4 Following older commentators, in Wolf, ® Deut. xvii. 7; Sankedr. vi. 4.

5 See Tittmann’s Synon. pp. 116, 120. 10 Lobeck, ad PAryn. p. 2138.

¢ Gloss in Babyt. Sanhedr. f. 42. 2.

STEPHEN’S DEATH. 159

stoning, which as the punishment of blasphemy was inflicted on Stephen,
seeing that no formal sentence preceded it, and that the execution had to
be confirmed and carried out on the part of the Roman authorities,’ is to
be regarded as an illegal act of the tumultuary outbreak. Similarly, the
murder of James the Just, the Lord's brother, took place at a later period.
The less the limits of such an outbreak can be defined, and the more the
calm historical course of the speech of Stephen makes it easy to understand
that the Sanhedrists should have heard him quietly up to, but not beyond,
the point of their being directly attacked (ver. 51 ff), so much the less
warrantable is it, with Baur and Zeller, to esteem nothing further as his-
torical, than that Stephen fell ‘‘as victim of a popular tumult suddenly
arising on occasion of his lively public controversial discussions,’’ without
any proceedings in the Sanhedrim, which are assumed to be the work of
the author.

Vv. 59, 60. ‘’Emxadobpevov] while he was invoking. Whom? is evident
from the address which follows. — xbpce ’Incov] both to be taken as vocatives,*
according to the formal expression xtpiog "Iyootc,* with which the apostolic
church designates Jesus as the exalted Lord, not only of His church, but
of the world, in the government of which He is installed as aivfpovoc of
the Father by His exaltation (Phil. ii. 6 ff.), until the final completion of
His office.* Stephen invoked Jesus; for he had just beheld Him standing
ready to help him. As to the invocation of Christ generally, relative
worship, conditioned by the relation of the exalted Christ to the Father.*
— défat rd rvevpd pov] namely, to thee in heaven until the future resurrection.’
‘¢ Fecisti ne victorem, recipe me in triumphum,’’ Augustine. — gwr9 ueydAy]
the last expenditure of his strength of love, the fervour of which also dis-
closes itself in the kneeling. — uy orgoye avroic Tr. auapr. tabr.] fiz not this sin
(of my murder) upon them. This negative expression corresponds quite to
the positive : ag:éva: tv duapriav, to let the sin go as regards its relution of
guilt, instead of fixing it for punishment.® The notion, ‘‘to make availing”?
(de Wette), i.¢. to impute, corresponds to the thought, but is not denoted
by the word. Linguistically correct is aleo the rendering : ‘‘ weigh not this
sin to them,’’ as to which the comparison of pW is not needed.* In this
view the sense would be: Determine not the weight of the sin (comp.
xxv. 7), consider not how heavy it is. But our explanation is to be pre-
ferred, because it corresponds more completely to the prayer of Jesus,
Luke xxiii. 84, which is evidently the pattern of Stephen in his request,
only saying negatively what that expresses positively. In the case of such

1 Luke xxiv. 16; Sanhedr. vil. 4. 4 Gersdorf, Beitr. p. 202 ff.

2 Ewald supposes that the Sanbedrim might
have appealed to the permission granted to
them by Pilate in Jobn xvili. 31. But so
much is not implied in John xviii. 31; see in
loc. And ver. 57 sufficiently shows how far
from “ calmly and legaily *’ matters proceeded
at the execution. See Joseph. Anié. xx. 9. 1,
and on John xviii, 81.

3 Rev. xxii. 20.

§ 1 Cor. xv. 28; comp. x. 36.

7 Comp. on Phil. i. 36, remark.

8 Comp. Rom. x. 8; Ecclus. xliv. 21, 2;
1 Macc. xiii. 88, xiv. 28, xv. 4, al.

® Matt. xxvi. 15; Plat. Zim. p. 68 B, Prot,
p. 886 B, Pol. x. p. 02 D; Xen. Cyr. vill. 2.
21; Valcken. Diatr. p. 288 A.

160 CHAP. VII.—NOTES.

as Saul what was asked took place.’ In the similarity of the last words of
Stephen, ver. 59 with Luke xxiii. 34, 40, as also of the words défa: rd rv.
pov with Luke xxiii. 46, Baur, with whom Zeller agrees, sees an indication
of their unhistorical character ; as if the example of the dying Jesus might
not have sufficiently suggested itself to the first martyr, and proved
sufficient motive for him to die with similar love and self-devotion.—
éxotunOn| ‘* lugubre verbum et suave,’’ Bengel ; on account of the euphemistic
nature of the word, never used of the dying of Christ. See on 1 Cor.
xv. 18.

Notrs spy American Eprror.
(x) Stephen's speech. V. 2.

‘¢Qpinions are divided concerning this speech of Stephen. Some regard
it as inconclusive, illogical, and full of errors ; others praise it as a complete
refutation of the charges brought against him, and as worthy of the fulness
of the Spirit with which he was inspired.’’ ‘‘It is to be observed that the
speech of Stephen is an unfinished production. He was interrupted before
he came to a conclusion. We are therefore to regard it as in a measure
imperfect.’’ ‘It bears, in its nature and contents, the impress of authen-
ticity.” ( Gloag.)

‘‘The speaker's main object may be considered as twofold : first, to show
that the charge against him rested on a false view of the ancient dispensation ;
and secondly, that the Jews, instead of manifesting a true zeal for the temple
and the law, in their opposition to the gospel, were again acting out the unbe-
lieving, rebellious spirit which Jed their fathers so often to resist the will of
God and reject his favors.’’ ‘‘ Stephen pursues the order of time in his nar-
rative ; and it is important to mark that feature of the discourse, because it
explains two peculiarities in it ; first, that the ideas which fall logically under
the two heads that have been mentioned are intermixed instead of being pre-
sented separately ; and secondly, that some circumstances are introduced
which we are not to regard as significant, but as serving merely to maintain the
connection of the history.” ‘It may be added that the peculiar character of
the speech impresses upon it a seal of authenticity.” (Hacleett.)

Stephen ‘‘commenced this defence with great calm and dignity, choosing as
his theme a subject which he knew would command the attention and win the
deep interest of his audience. It was the story of the chosen people, told with
the warm, bright eloquence of one not only himself an ardent patriot, but also
a trained orator and scholar. He dwelt on the famous national heroes, with
rare skill, bringing out particular events in their lives, and showing how, not-
withstanding the fact that they had been sent by God, they had been again
and again rejected by the chosen people.” ‘What a magnificent conception,
in the eyes of a child of Israel, were those instances of the lifework of Joseph
and Moses, both God-sent regenerators of the loved people, both in their turn
too rejected and misunderstood by those with whom their mission lay, but jus-
tified and glorified by the unanimous voice of history, which has surrounded

1 Comp. Oecumenius.

NOTES. 161

the men and their work with a halo of glory, growing only brighter as the cen-
turies have multiplied! Might it not be the same with that Great One who
had done such mighty works, and spoken such glorious words, but whom they
had rejected and crucified?” (Howson, Acts.)

(z) Historical errors. V. 3.

The historical allusions in the speech of Stephen in some respects differ
from O. T. history; as to the time of Abraham’s call, the time of Terah’s
death, the length of the sojourn in Egypt, the number of souls in Jacob’s
household, the purchase of the sepulchre, and the place of burial of the
patriarchs. These variations or additions, which may either be fairly rec-
onciled, or, at least, are of such a nature that were some fact known of which
we are not informed all might be harmonized, our author unhappily char-
acterizes as ‘‘errors,’’ ‘‘ historical mistakes,’’ ‘‘ historical errors,” ‘‘ mistakes,’’
etc. In reference to all such apparent discrepancies two things should be
borne in mind: first, Stephen, though ‘full of faith and power,’’ was not
an inspired teacher in the strict sonse of the word ; so that, provided we have
@ true record of his discourse, it may contain an error of statement, or a ques-
tionable date, and yet the accuracy of the sacred historian remain unimpeach-
able ; and second, allowance should be made for the possible errors of copy-
ists, specially with regard to numbers. Most of such difficulties, however,
have been satisfactorily removed. Surely, in any view of the case, it is rash
to assume that men of average culture and information, not to say such men of
education and intelligence as Stephen and Luke unquestionably were, would
be ignorant of the facts recorded in the sacred books, which had been their
constant study. Nor need we suppose a speaker or writer likely to make erro-
neous statements, which a reference to the book of Genesis would at once have
corrected, or to which even the audience addressed would at once have
objected.

(a!) Abraham’s call. V. 8.

‘‘The discrepancy is only apparent. It would appear from the sacred
narrative that Abraham was twice called: once in Ur of the Chaldees, and
afterwards at Haran.” ‘To this solution of the difficulty Meyer objects
that the verbal quotation from Gen. xii. 1 proves that Stephen had in view
no other cull than that mentioned in this passage. But, on the one hand,
it is not surprising either that the call should be repeated to Abraham in
nearly the sume words, or that Stephen should apply the well-known words
found in Gen. xii. 1 to the earlier call. And, on the other hand, the
words are not precisely the same ; for here there is no mention of a departure
from his father's house, as there is when God called Abraham at Haran. When
Abraham removed from Ur of the Chaldees he did not depart from his father’s
house, for Terah, his father, accompanied him ; but when he removed from
Haran he left Terah, if he were yet alive, and his brother Nahor.” (Gloag.)

‘‘It is a perversion of the text to suppose Stephen so ignorant of the geogra-
phy here, as to place Canaan on the west of the Enphrates, His meaning evi-
dently is that Abraham’s call in that city was not the first which he received
during his residence in Mesopotamia." (Hackett.)

162 CHAP. VII.—NOTES.

(B') Death of Terah. V. 4.

‘‘ But this apparent disagreement admits of a ready solution, if we suppose
that Abram was not the oldest son, but that Haran, who died before the
first migration of the family, was sixty years older than he, and that Terah,
consequently, was one hundred and thirty years old at the birth of Abraham.
The relation of Abraham to the Hebrew history would account for his being
named first in the genealogy.” (Hackett.)

‘* The most probable explanation is that Abraham was the youngest son of
Terah, and was not born until Terah was one hundred and thirty years old.”

(Gloag. )

(c') Four hundred years. V. 6.

‘‘The exact number of years, as we elsewhere learn, was four hundred
and thirty. A round sum is here given, without taking into account the
broken number.’’ ‘At first sight the words in the Mosaio narrative would
seem to intimate.that this was the period of Egyptian bondage; but Paul
understands it differently. He reckons four hundred and thirty years as
extending from the call of Abraham to the giving of the law.’’ (Gloag.) A
solution is ‘‘that the four hundred and thirty years in Ex. xii. 40 embraces
the period from Abraham's immigration into Canaan until the departure ovt
of Egypt, and that the sacred writers call this the period of sojourn or servi-
tude in Egypt. ” ( Hackett.)

(D!) Jacob's burial and Abraham's purchase. V. 16.

‘‘With respect to the concurrence or accumulation of supposed inaccu-
racies in this one verse, so far from proving one another, they only aggravate
the improbability of real errors having been committed, in such quick succes-
sion, and then gratuitously left on record, when they might have been so
easily corrected and expunged.’’ (Alexander.)

Many critics, including our author, have given up all attempts at reconcilia-
tion, and simply assume that Stephen, in the excitement of the occasion, has
made a mistake which Luke did not feel at liberty to correct. It is a very easy
way to dispose of the difficulty, to say that Stephen made a mistake ; but it is
not so easy to account for such a man, before such an audience, publicly stat-
ing what must have been known by many of them not to be in harmony with
well-known facts of their history ; and farther, that it should have been recorded
by such a historian, and remain without either correction or objection for many
generations. Surely if conjectural emendation is ever admissible in an ap-
proved text, it would be justifiable here; and very slight alterations indeed
would eliminate the difficulty. Calvin says, ‘‘ It is plain that a mistake has been
made in the name of Abraham."’ The following reading has been suggested,
which requires only that an ellipsis be supplied: ‘‘And were carried into
Sychem, and were laid, some of them, Jacob at least, in the sepulchre that
Abraham bought for a sum of money ; and others of them in that bought from
the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem.” The sketch is drawn with great
brevity, and the facts greatly compressed, doubtless clearly apprehended
by those to whom they were stated, though not easy to disentangle and ar-

NOTES. 163

. Tange now. It seems as rash as it is unnecessary, in view of all the circum-
stances, to charge either the orator or the historian with inaccuracy or mis-
statement, in this address.

(E') Cast out... children. V. 19.

‘‘ Meyer thinks we have here the construction of the infinitive of purpose :
he oppressed them in order to make them so desperate as to destroy their own
children. But such a meaning does not suit the context, and is grammati-
cally unnecessary. In Hellenistic Greek the indication of the purpose is often
changed to that of the result. The reference is to the command of Pharaoh,
given to the Egyptians, that they should cast out all the male infants of the
Israelites into the Nile.” (Gloag, also Hackett and Lange.)

‘‘ Better—in causing their young children to be cast out. The words are rather a
description of what the Egyptian king did in his tyranny, than of what the Is-
raelites were driven to by their despair.” (Plumptre.)

(F!) Anangel. V. 30.

There is a division of opinion as to whether this was a created angel, or
the angel of Jehovah—the messenger of the covenant—the second person of
the Godhead, even then appearing as the revealer of the Father. Our author,
with others, adopts the former opinion, while Hackett, Alexander, Abbott,
Barnes, Jacobus, with Alford, adopt the latter view, in support of which
Gloag says : ‘‘The Mosaic narrative isin favor of the latter view. The Angel of
the bush who guided the Israelites in the wilderness is in the O. T. frequently
identified with God ; and here he appropriates to himself the titles of the
Supreme Being, for speaking out of the bush he gays, ‘J am the God of Abraham,
and of Isaac, and of Jacob.’ ”

164 _ CRITICAL REMARKS,

CHAPTER VIII.

Ver. 1. rdvre¢ re) Lachm. Tisch. Born. read mdvre¢ dé, according to BC D E
H, min, Vulg. Copt. al., and several Fathers. A, min. Syr. Aeth. have ré; %*
has only rdvreg; &** has cal 7. The dé has, the preponderance of testimony,
and is therefore to be adopted, as also in ver, 6. — Ver. 2. éroijoavtv] Lachm.
and Born. read émoijcay, according to decisive testimony. —Ver. 5. méAcv)
Lachm. reads riv rédv, after A B®, 31, 40. More precise definition of the
capital. — Ver. 7. mwoAAov] Lachm. reads oAAoi,' and afterwards éf&#pyovro,
following ABC E &, min. Vulg. Sahid. Syr. utr. ; éfypyovro is also in D, which,
however, reads roAAvic (by the second hand: amd rodAoic), Accordingly éé#p-
xovto, a8 decisively attested, is to be considered genuine (with Born. and
Tisch.), from which it necessarily follows that Luke cannot have written
moAAol (which, on the contrary, was mechanically introduced from the second
clause of the verse), but either zoAAwy (H) or roAAvic (D*). — Ver. 10. # xadov-
pévy] is wanting in Elz., but is distinctly attested. The omission is explained
from the fact that the word appeared inappropriate, disturbing, and feeble. --
Ver. 12. ra epi] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read repi, afterA BCDER. Cor-
rectly ; evayyeAdt. is not elsewhere connected with epi, and this very circum-
stance occasioned the insertion of rd.— Ver. 13. duvdwece xai onpeia peyada
ytvéyeva] Elz. Lachm. Born. read: onueia x. duvduece peydsac yivouevac. Both
modes of arrangement have important attestation. But the former is to be
considered as original, with the exclusion, however, of the peydAa deleted by
Tisch., which is wanting in many and correct codd. (also in &), and is to be
considered as an addition very naturally suggesting itself (comp. vi. 8) for the
sake of strengthening. The later origin of the latter order of the words is
proved by the circumstance that all the witnesses in favour of it have peydAar,
and therefore it must have arisen after peydAa was already added. — Ver. 16.
obra] ABCDE 8, min. Chrys. have otdémw. Recommended by Griesb. and
adopted by Rinck, Lachm. Tisch. Born. The Recepfa came into the text,
through the inattention of the transcribers, as the word to which they were
more accustomed. — Ver. 18. On decisive evidence idwy is to be adopted, with
Griesb. and the later editors, instead of @eacdu. The latter is a more precise
definition. — Ver. 21. évimiov] A B C D &, min. and several Fathers have
évavtiov or évavtt, which last Griesb. has recommended, and Lachm. Tisch.
Born, have adopted. Correctly ; the familiar word was inserted instead of the
rare one (Luke i. 8).-— Ver. 22. xvpiov] 80 Lachm. Tisch. Born. But Elz,
Scholz have coi, against preponderating evidence. A mechanical repetition,
after ver. 21. — Ver. 25. The imperfecta uréotpegov and evyyyeAiCovto (Lachm.
Tisch. Born.) are decisively attested, as is also the omission of r7¢ before Gaau2.
in ver. 27. — Ver. 27. 6s before éA7A. is wanting in Lachm. and Born., follow-
ing A C* D* &*, Vulg. Sahid. Oec. An incorrect expedient to help the con-

1 Instead of which, however, he (Prae¢faé. p. viii.) conjectures woAAd.

GENERAL PERSECUTION. 165

struction. — After ver. 36, Elz. has (ver. 37): elwe d26 d:Auwroc: ei meorevere &&
dAnc ri¢ xapdiac, tEeottv. ‘AroxpBelc 62 elre miotetw Tov vidv Tob Oeod elvae rdv
"Inootv Xproréy, This is wanting in decisive witnesses ; and in those which
have the words there are many variations of detail. It is defended, indeed, by
Born., but is nothing else than an old (see already Iren. iii. 12 ; Cypr. ad Quir.
iii. 48) addition for the sake of completenoss. — Ver. 39. After mveipa A**,
min. and a few vas. and Fathers have dyov éxémecev én? (or elc) rv edvotyor,
dyyeAoc dé. A pious expansion and falsification of the history, induced partly
by ver. 26 and partly by x. 44.

Ver. 1. The observation Savao¢ . . . avrov’ forms the significant transi-
tion to the further nurrative of the persecution which is annexed. — jv
ouvevdoxav] he was jointly assenting, in concert, namely, with the originators
and promoters of the avaipeace.* On avaipeoic, in the sense of caedes, suppli-
cium, comp. Num. xi. 15; Judith xv. 4; 2 Macc. v. 18; Herodian. ii. 6. 1,
iii. 2.10. Here, also, the continuance and duration are more strongly de-
noted by 7 with the participle than by the mere finite tense. — év éxeivy ry
guépg] is not, as is usually quite arbitrarily done, to be explained indefi-
nitely illo tempore, but (comp. ii. 41): on that day, when Stephen was
stoned, the persecution arose, for the outbreak of which this tumultuary
stoning served as signal (G'). — 7 év 'Iepoc.] added, because now the disper-
sion (comp. xi. 19) set in. — wdvrec] a hyperbolical expression of the popular
mode of narration.* At the same time, however, the general expression
thy éxxAnoiav does not permit us to limit wavrec especially to the Hellenistic
part of the church.‘ But if the hyperbolical wdvrec is not to be used
against the historical character of the narrative (Schneckenburger, Zeller),
neither are we to read withal between the lines that the church had been
formally assembled and broken up, but that to dispersion into the regions
of Judaea and Samaria — which is yet so clearly affirmed of the ravrec !—a
great part of those broken up, including the apostles, had not allowed
themselves to be induced (so Baumgarten). —«. Zauapeiac] This country
only is here mentioned as introductory to the history which follows, ver. 5
ff. For a wider dispersion, see xi. 19. —Ajyv rév axoor.| This is explained,
in opposition to Schleiermacher, Schneckenburger, and others, who con-
sider these statements improbable, by the greater stedfastness of the
apostles, who were resolved as yet, and in the absence of more special
divine intimation, to remain at the centre of the theocracy, which, in their
view at this time, was also the centre of the new theocracy.° They knew
themselves to be the appointed upholders and rpuraywnorai (Oecumenius)
of the cause of their Lord.

Vv. 2, 8. The connection of vv. 1-8 depends on the double contrast,

1 Observe the Gimaz of the three state- 3 Matt. if1.5; Mark fii. 88, ai.
ments concerning Saul, vii. 50, vill. 1 and 8; 4 Baar, I. p. 46, ed. 2; comp. de Wette.
also how the second and third are inserted 6 Quite inappropriately, preseing that war-
antithetically, and how all three are evidently res, Zeller, p. 158, in opposition to this in-
intended to prepare the way for the eubse- quires: “Wherefore was this necessary, if
quent importance of the man. all their followers were disperzed ?"

* Comp. Lake xi. 46, and on Rom. 1. 32.

166 CHAP. VIII., 1-9.

that in spite of the outbreak of persecution which took place on that day,
the dead body of the martyr was nevertheless honoured by pious Jews;
and that, on the other hand, the persecuting zeal of Saul stood in stern op-
position thereto. On that day arose a great persecution, ver.1. This, however,
prevented not pious men from burying and lamenting Stephen, ver. 2; (a') but
Saul laid waste, in that persecution which arose, the church (of Jerusalem,
ver. 8). The common opinion is-accordingly erroneous, that there prevails
here a lack of connection—ver. 2 is a supplementary addition, according to
de Wette—which is either' to explained by the insertion of extracts from
different sources, or* betokens that éyévero dé . . . droorédAwy is an inter-
polation, or* at least makes it necessary to hold these words as transposed,
so that they had originally stood after ver. 2.‘ — ovyxopifew] to carry together,
then, nsed of the dead who are carried to the other dead bodies at the
burial-place, and generally: to bury.’ According to the Scholiast on
Soph. J.c. and Phavorinus, the expression is derived from gathering the
fruits of harvest. Comp. Job v. 26. — The dGvdpec evAaBeic are not, in op-
position to Heinrichs and Ewald, Christians, but, as the connection requires,
religious Jews-who, in their pious conscicntiousness (comp. ii. 5), and with
a secret inclination to Christianity, had the courage to honour the in-
nocence of him who had been stoned. Christians would probably have
been prevented from doing so, and Luke would have designated them more
distinctly. — xoweré¢ : Opqvog petra yogos yetpov, Hesychius.’ — éAvuaivero] he
laid waste, comp. ix. 21; Gal. i. 18. The following sentence informs us
how he proceeded in doing 80; therefore a colon is to be placed after r.
ExkA. — ata Tovg otk. eiorop.] entering by houses, house by house, Matt. xxiv.
7.°—ovpwv] dragging.*®

Vv. 4, 5. ArjAdov} they went through, they dispersed themselves through
the countries to which they bad fled.'°— Ver. 5. Of the dispersed per-
sons active as missionaries who were before designated generally, one is
now singled out and has his labours described, namely Philip, not the
apostle, asis erroneously assumed by Polycrates in Eusebius," but he who is
named in vi. 5, xxi. 8. That the persecution should have been directed
with special vehemence against the colleagues of Stephen. was very
natural. Observe, however, that in the case of those dispersed, and even
in that of Philip, preaching was not tied to an existing special office. With
their preaching probably there was at once practically given the new
ministry, that of the evangelists, xxi. 8; Eph. iv. 11, as circumstances re-

1 Olshausen, Bleek. [p. 188.

* Ziegler in Gabler’s Journ. f. theol. Lit., I.

8 Heinrichs, Kuinoel.

* According to Schwanbeck, p. 8%, v. 1 Is
to be regarded as an insertion from the biog-
raphy. of Peter.

®* Soph. Aj. 1048; Plat. SudJ. 88. (mus.

8 Winer, p. 874 (E. T. 500).

® See Tittmann, Synon. N. T. p. 57 f.. and
Wetstein. Comp. xiv. 19, xvil. 8. Arrian.
Epict. i. 20. /

10 The oi pev ob» Stacwapevtres is resumed at
xi. 19,—a circumstance betokening that the
long intervening portion has been derived

7Bee Gen. 1.10; 1 Macc. il. 70; Nicarch.
30; Plut. Fad. 17; Heyne, Obes. in Tidull. p.
71.

from epecial sonrces here incorporated.

11 £11. 81.2, v.24. 1; see, on the contrary, vv.
1, 14, and generally, Zeller, p. 154 ff; Ewald,
p. 235 f.

PHILIP IN SAMARIA. 167

quired, under the guidance of the Spirit. — xarea6.] from Jerusalem. — ri¢
- wéduv rH¢ Lapzap.| into a city of Samaria. What city it was (Grotius and
Ewald think of the capital, Olshausen thinks that it was perhaps Sichem) is
to be left entirely undetermined, and was probably unknown to Luke him-
self. Comp. John iv. 5. Kuinoel, after Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Calovius,
and others, takes rjc Zayap. as the name, not of the country, but of the
capital.’ In that case, indeed, the article would not have been necessary
before é4cv, a8 Olshausen thinks.* zéA:c, too with the genitive of the name
of the city, is a Greek idiom ;* but ver. 9, where ric Zauap. is evidently the
name of the country (rd é@voc), is decidedly opposed to such a view. See
also on ver. 14. —airoic] namely, the people in that city.

Vv. 6, 7. Ipoceixzov] they gave heed thereto, denotes attentive, favourably
disposed interest, xvi. 14; Heb. ii. 1; 1 Tim. i. 4; often in Greek writers.‘
The explanation jidem praebebant, Krebs, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others,
confounds the result of the zpocézev (ver. 12) with the xpooé ze itself,—a
confusion which is committed in all the passages adduced to prove it. — év
T@ Gxobey avtoic x. x.7.A4.] in their hearing, etc., while they heard. — In ver.
7, more than in v. 16, those affected by natural diseases (mapaded. x. ywAot),
who were healed (é6epare(0.), are expressly distinguished from the pos-
sessed,* whose demons came out (é&#pyero) with great crying.—Notice the
article before éyévruy : of many of those who, etc., consequently, not of all.
As regards the construction, roAAdy is dependent on the ra mvebpara axdbapra
to be again tacitly supplied after rveiuara axabapra.®

Ver. 9. Sivwr] is not identical, in opposition to Heumann, Krebs, Rosen-
miller, Kuinoel, Neander, de Wette, Hilgenfield,’ with the Simon of
Cyprus in Joseph.,* whom the Procurator Felix, at a latter period, employed
to estrange Drusilla, the wife of Azizus king of Emesa in Syria, from her
husband. For (1) Justin,® expressly informs us that Simon was from the
village Gitthon in Samaria, and Justin himself was a Samaritan, so that we
can the less suppose, in his case, a confusion with the name of the Cyprian
town Kirov.'© (3) The identity of name cannot, on account of its great
prevalence, prove anything, und as little can the assertion that the Samari-
tans would hardly have deified one of their own countrymen, ver. 10.
The latter is even more capable of explanation from the national pride,
than it would be with respect to a Cyprian. — rpovrjpyzev] he was formerly,
even before the appearance of Philip, in the city. The following yayebuy
x.t.A. then adds how he was occupied there; comp. Luke xxiii. 12. —
payebuy] practising magical arts, only here in the N. TT." The magical exer-
cises of the wizards, who at that time very frequently wandered about in

1 Sebaste, which was also called Samaria, 18. 8, and others.
Joseph. Ant. xviii. 6. 2. 8 Antt. xx.7.2. Neander, p. 107 f., has en-
® Poppo, ad Thue. i. 10; Eflendt, Lex. Soph. _tirely misunderstood the words of Josephus.
II. p. 187 ; comp. Luke il. 4, 11 ; 2 Pet. il, 6. See Zeller, p. 164 f.

® Rubnk. Hpp. crit. p. 186. ® Apol. 1. 26: comp. Clem. Hom. 1. 15, ii. 22.
4 Jacobs, ad Ach. Tat. p. 883. 10 Thue. {. 112. 1.
® Comp. Lake lv. 40 f. 1 Bat sce Kur. Zph. 7. 1887; Meleag. 12:

* See Matthiae, p. 1583 ; Kfihner, IT. p. 602. Clearch. in Athen. vi. p. %6 E; Jacobse, ad
7 See aleo Gleseler’s Kirchengesoh. I. sec. Anthol. VI. p. 2.

168 CHAP. VIII, 10-13.

the East, extended chiefly to an ostentatious application of their attain-
ments in physicial knowledge to juggling conjurings of the dead and
demons, to influencing the gods, to sorceries, cures of the sick, south-
sayings from the stars, and the like, in which the ideas and formulac of
the Oriental-Greek theosophy were turned to display.!—riva . . . péyar]
We are not, accordingly, to put any more definite claim into the mouth of
Simon ; the text relates only generally his boasting self-eraltation, which
may have expressed itself very differently according to circumstances, but
always amounted to this, that he himself was a certain extraordinary person.
Perhaps Simon designedly avoided a more definite self-designation, in
order to leave to the praises of the people all the higher scope in the desig-
nating of that (ver. 10) which he himself wished to pass for. — éavrév]
He thus acted quite differently from Philip, who preached Christ, ver. 5.
Comp. Rev. ii. 20.

Ver. 10. Ipoceiyov] just as in ver. 6.— ad pxpov éwe peyddov] A designa-
tion of the whole body, from little and up to great, i.e. young and old.*—
ov7rdéc gore % dbv. r. Oeov 7 Kad. yey.) this is the God-power called great. The
Samaritans believed that Simon was the power emanating from God, and
appearing and working among them as a human person, which, as the
highest of the divine powers, was designated by them with a specific
appellation nar’ éfoy#v as the peydAy. Probably the Oriental-Alexandrine
idea of the world-creating manifestation of the hidden God, the Logoe,
which Philo also calls pyrpérodic tracey rv duvduewv tov Oeov, had become
at. that time current among them, and they saw in Simon this effluence of
the Godhead rendered human by incarnation,—a belief which Simon
certainly had been cunning enough himself to excite and to promote, and
which makes it more than probable that the magician, to whom the neigh-
bouring Christianity could not be unknown, designed in the part which he
played to present a phenomenon similar to Christ; comp. Ewald. The
belief of the Samaritans in Simon was thus, as regards its tenor, an ana-
logue of the 6 Adyoc capé éyévero, and hence served to prepare for the true
and definite faith in the Messiah, afterwards preached to them by Philip:
the former became the bridge to the latter. Erroneously Philastr. Haer.
29; and recently Olshausen, de Wette, and others, put the words 4 divayec
x.T.A. into the mouth of Simon himself, so that they are held only to be an
echo of what the sorcerer had boastingly said of himself.* This is con-

1 See Neander, Gesch. d. Phanz. u. Leit. d.
chriei. K. I. p. 99 f.; Miller in Herzog's
Enoyhl, VI. p. 676 ff.

2 Comp. Heb. viii. 11; Acts xxvi. 22; Bar.
i. 4; Judith xii. 4, 18; 1 Macc. v.45; LXX.
Gen. xix. 11; Jer. xiii. 1, ai.

8 According to Jerome on Matth. xxiv., he
asserted of himself: ‘‘ Ego eum sermo Del,
ego sum speciosus, cgo paracietus, ego om-
nipotens, ego omnia Dei.” Certainly an in-
vention of the tater Simoulans, who trans-
ferred specifically Christian elements of faith
to Simon. Bat this and similar things which

were put into the monzth of Simon (that he was
avetary tis SUvayis Kat avrov Tov Toy KécpLoy
xrigaytos @eov, Clem. Hom. ii. ®, 25; that he
was the same who had appeared among the
Jews as the Son, but had come among the
Samaritans as the Father, and among other
nations as the Holy Spirit, Iren. 1. 23), and
were wonderfully dilated on by opponents,
point back to a relation of incarnation
analogous to the incarnation of the Logos,
under which the adherents of Simon concelved
him. De Wette incorrectly denies this, re-
ferring the expression, ‘‘ the great power of

SIMON IS BAPTIZED. 169

trary to the text, which expressly distinguishes the opinion of the infatu-
ated people here from the assertion of the magician himself, ver. 9. He
had characterized himself ind¢finitely ; they judged definitely and confessed
(Aéyovrec) the highest that could be said of him ; and, in doing so, accorded
with the intention of the sorcerer. |

Ver. 12. They believed Philip, who announced the good news of the kingdom
of God and of the name of Jesus Christ.— evayyedif. only here (see the
critical remarks) with zepi.'— The Samaritans called the Messiah whom
they expected INWN or ANAM, the Coneerter, and considered Him as the
universal, not merely political, but still more religious and moral, Renewer.
See on Jobn iv. 25.

Ver. 183. ‘Eviorevoe} also on his part (x. avrdéc), like the other Samaritans,
he became believing, namely, likewise ro @:Aimmw ecvayyedicouévp x.7.A. (1°).
Entirely at variance with the text is the opinion’ that Simon regarded
Jesus only as a great magician and worker of miracles, and not as the
Messiah, and only to this extent believed on Him. He was, by the preach-
ing and miracles of Philip, actually moved to faith in Jesus as the Messiah.
Yet this faith of his was only historical and intellectual, without having as
ita result a change of the inner life ;? hence he was soon afterwards capable
of what is related in vv. 18, 19. The real verdvoa is not excited in him,
even at ver. 24. Cyril aptly remarks: éBarrio6y, GAA’ ovn égutioty. — égiovaro]
he, who had formerly been himself éfcordv rd 26Ovog |

Vv. 14-17. Oi év ‘Iepoo. aréor.] applies, accurding to ver. 1, to all the

God,”’ to the notion of an angel. This is too
weak ; all the anclent acconnts concerning
Simon, as well as concerning his alleged com-
panion Helena, the all-bearing mother of
angela and powers, betoken a Messianic part
which he played ; to which also the name 6
*Eorws, by which he designated himself accord-
ing to the Clementines, points. This name
(hardly correctly explained by Ritsch), altkath.
Kirche, p. 228 £., from avaorjce, Deut. xviii.
15, 18) denotes the ts¢nperishable and unchange-
able. See, besides, concerning Simon and his
doctrine according to the Clementines,
Ublhorn, die Homil. u. Recognit. des Clemens
Rom. p. 281 ff.; Zeller, p. 159 ff.; and concern-
ing the entire diversified development of the
old legends concerning him, Mfiller in
Herzog's Lncyki. XIV. p. 801 ff.; concerning
his doctrine of the Aeons and Syrzyzgies,
Philosoph. Orig. vi. 7 ff. According to Baur
and Zeller, the magician never exisied at all :
and the legend concerning him, which arose
from Christian polemics directed against the
Samaritan worship of the sun-god, the Oriental
Hercules (Baal-Melkart), is nothing else than
a hostile travestie @f the Apostle Paul and hie
sntinomian labours. Comp. also Hilgenfeld,
d. clement. Recognit. p. 819 f.; Volckmar in the
theol. Jahrd. 1856, p. 270 ff. The Book of Acts
has, in their view, admitted this legend about

Simon, but has cut off the reference to Paani.
Thus the state of the casc is exactly reversed.
The history of Simon Magus in our passage
was amplified in the Clementines in an anti-
Pauline interest. The Book of Acts has not
cut off the hostile reference to Paul; but the
Clementines have added it, and accordingly
have dressed out the history with a view to
combat Panlinism and Gnosticism, indeed
have here and there caricatured Paul himself
as Simon. We set to work unhistorically, if
we place the simple narratives of the N. T. on
@ parall.! with later historical excrescences
and disfigurements, and by means of tholatter
attack the former as likewise fabulous repre-
tations, Our narrative contains the historical
germ, from which the later legends concern-
ing Simon Magus have luxuriantly developed
themselves ; tho Samaritan worship of the sun
and moon has nothing whatever to do with
the history of Simon.

1 But see Rom. {. 3; Josephus, Antt. xv. 7.2.

® Grotius, Clericns, Roeenmfiller, Kuinoel.

* Bengel well remarks: ‘‘ Agnovit, virta-
tem Dei non ease in se, sed in Philippo. . ..
Non tamen pertigit ad fidem plenam, justif-
cantem, cor purificantem, salvantem, tametal
ad eam pervenisse speciose videretur, donec
se aliter prodidit.”*

170 CHAP, VIII, 14-17.

apostles, to the apostolic college, which commissioned two of its most
distinguished members, Gal. ii. 9.— Zayudpeca] here also the name of the
country ; see vv. 5, 9. From the success which the missionary labours of
Philip had in that single city, dates the conversion of the country in general,
and so the fact: dédexra: 7 Zaudpera rdv Adyov row Oeow (J'). — The design of
the mission of Peter and John! (&') is certainly, according to the text, in
opposition to Schneckenburger, to be considered as that which they
actually did after their arrival, ver. 15: to pray for the baptized, in order
that (arwc) they might receive the Holy Svirit (L'). Not as if, in general,
the communication of the Spirit had been exclusively bound up with the
prayer and the imposition of the hands (vv. 17, 18) of an actual apostle ;
nor yet as if here under the Spirit we should have to conceive something
peculiar :* but the observation, ver. 16, makes the baptism of the Samaritans
without the reception of the Spirit appear as something extraordinary: the
epoch-making advance of Christianity beyond the bounds of Judaea into
Samaria was not to be accomplished without the intervention of the direct
ministry of the apostles.* Therefore the Spirit was reserved until this
apostolic intervention occurred. To explain the matter from the designed
omission of prayer for the Holy Spirit on the part of Philip,‘ or from the
subjectivity of the Samaritans, whose faith had not yet penetrated into the
inner life,* has no justification in the text, the more especially as there is no
mention of any further instruction by the apostles, but only of their prayer,
and imposition of hands,° in the effect of which certainly their greater
éSovoia, 88 compared with that of Philip as the mere evangelist, was his-
torically made apparent, because the nascent church of Samaria was not to
develope its life otherwise than in living connection with the apostles them-
selves.” The miraculous element of the apostolic influence is to be recog-
nised as connected with the whole position and function of the apostles,
and not to be referred to a sphere of view belonging to a later age (Zeller,
Holtzmann). — dédexra:] has received.* —xaraBdavtec] namely, to Samaria
situated lower. — ovdinuw yap av] for as yet not at all, etc. —pudvov dé

1 Which Baur (I. p. 47, ed. 2) derives from
the inlerest of Judaism to piace the new
churches in a position of dependence on Jeru-
salem, and to prevent too free a development
of the Hellenistic principle. See, on the
other hand, Schneckenburger in the Stud. u.
Krif. 1855, p. 542 ff., who, however, likewise
gratuitously imports the opinion that the con-
version of the Samaritans appeared suspicious
aud required a more exact examination.

2 73 Tay onsaciwy, Chrysostom, comp. Beza,
Calvin.

3 Comp. Baumgarten, p. 1% ff.

* Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. &.

® Neander, p. 80 f., 104

* Ver. 15, comp. with vv. 17, 18, shows
clearly the relation of prayer to the imposition
of hands. The prayer obtained from God the
communication of the Spirit, but the impost-
tion of hands, after the Spirit had been prayed

for, became the vehicle of the communication.
It was certainly of a symbolical nature, yet
not a bare and ineffective symbol, but the
effective conductor of the gifts prayed for.
Comp, on vi. 6. In xix. 5 alsoitis applied
after baptism, and with the resutt of the
communication of the Spirit. On the other
hand, at x. 48, it would have come too Iate.
If it is not specially mentioned in cases of
ordinary baptism, where the operation of the
Spirit was not bound up with the apostolic
imposition of hands as here (see 1 Cor. 1.
14-17, xii. 13; Tit. iii. 5), 1t 18 to be considered
as obvious of itself (Heb. vi. 2).

7 Surely this entirely peculiar state of mat-
ters should have withheld the Catholics from
grounding the doctrice of confirmation on our
passage (as even Beelen does).

® See xvii. 7; Winer, p. 46 (. T. 828) ;
Vaicken. p. 487.

SIMON MAGUS. 171

BeBarriopévo: x.r.A.}] but they found themselves only in the condition of bap-
tized ones, not at the same time also furnished with the Spirit.

Ver. 18. The communication of the Spirit was visible (‘dév, see the critical
remarks) in the gestures and gesticulations of those who had received it,
perhaps also in similar phenomena to those which took place at Pentecost
in Jerusalem.—Did Simon himself receive the Spirit? Certainly not, as this
would have rendered him incapable of so svon making the offer of money.
He saw the result of the apostolic imposition of hands on others,—there-
upon his impatient desire waits not even for his own experience—the power
of the apostolic prayer would have embraced him also and filled him with
the Spirit—and, before it came to his turn to receive the imposition of hands,
he makes his proposal, perhaps even as a condition of allowing the hands
to be laid upon him. The opinion of Kuinoel, that from pride he did not
' consider it at all necessary that the hands should be laid on him, is entirely
imaginary. The motive of his proposal was selfishness in the interest of his
magical trade ; very naturally he valued the communication of the Spirit,
to the inward experience of which he was a stranger, only according to
the surprising outward phenomena, and hence saw in the apostles the pos-
sessors of a higher magical power still unknown to himself, the possession
of which he as a sorcerer coveted, ‘‘ne quid sibi deesset ad ostentationem
et quaestum,’’ Erasmus.

Vv. 20, 21. Thy money be along with thee unto destruction ; i.e. let perdition,

Messianic penal destruction, come upon thy money and thyself! The sin-
money, in the lofty strain of the language, is set forth as something per-
sonal, capable of ardéAea. — ein cig arwdA.] a usual attraction: fall into de-
struction and be in it.1—rav dwpedv cov Oeov) tiv eEovoiav stabryv, iva x.7.A.,
ver, 19. Observe the antithetically chosen designation. — évéuicac] thou
wast minded, namely, in the proposal made. — yepi¢ ode xAgpoc] synonyms,
of which the second expresses the idea figuratively : part nor lot." The
utterance is carnest. — ev Tq Adyw rovTw] in this word, t.e. in the é£ovoia to be
the medium of the Spirit, which was in question. Lange gratuitously im-
ports the idea: in this word, which flows from the hearts of believers moved
by the Spirit. Adyoc of the ‘‘ ipsa causa, de qua disceptatur,’’ is very cur-
rent also in classical writers.* Others, as Olshausen and Neander after
Grotius, explain Adyoc of the gospel, all share in whose blessings is cut off
from Simon. But then this reference must have been suggested by the
context, in which, however, there is no mention at all of doctrine. — eifeia
straight, i.e. upright,‘ for Simon thought to acquire (xraofa:) an éfovoia not
destined for him, from immoral motives, and by an unrighteous means.
Herein lies the immoral nature of simony, whose source is selfishness. *

Vv. 22, 23. ’And rc xax.] i.¢. turning thee away from, Heb. vi. 1.
Comp. on 2 Cor, xi. 8.—ci dpa agebgoera:] entreat the Lord (God,

1 See Winer, p. 386 f. (E. T.516f.). Comp. N&gelsb. on the Jad, p. 41 f. ed. 3
ver. 23, 4 Comp. Wisd. ix. 8; Ecclus. vii. 6.
2 Comp. Dent. xii. 12, xiv. 27,29: Tea. lvil. 6. ® Comp. the ethical cxoAcs (Luke fil. 5), ii.
3 Ast, Lew. Plat. Il. p. 256; Branck, ad 40; Phil. ii. 15. ‘‘Cor arx boni et mali,” Ben-
Soph. Aj. 1%8 ; Wolf, ad Dem. Lept. p. 277; gel; Delitech, Psychol. p. 250.

172 CHAP. VIIL, 18-24.

ver. 21), and try thereby, whether perhaps, as the case may stand, there
will be forgiven, etc.. Comp. on Mark xi. 18; Rom. i. 10. Peter, on
account of the high degree of the transgression, represents the forgive
ness on repentance still as doubtful.' Kuinoel, after older expositors,? thinks
that the doubt concerns the conversion of Simon, which was hardly to be
hoped for. At variance with the text, which to the fulfilment of the
peravénoov, without which forgiveness was not at all conceivable, annexes
still the problematic «i apa. Concerning the direct expression by the
Suture, see Winer, p. 282 (E. T. 376). — 9 exivora] the (conscious) plan, the
project, is a vox media, which receives its reference in bonam,? or as here in
malam partem, entirely from the context.‘— Vor I perceive thee fallen into
and existing in gall of bitterness and in band of iniquity, i.e. for I recognise
thee as a man who has fallen into bitter enmity against the gospel as into
gall, and into iniquity as into binding fetters. Both genitives are to be
taken alike, namely, as genitives of apposition ; hence yody mexpiac is not fel
amarum, as is usually supposed, in which case, besides, z:xpiag would only
be tame and self-evident. On the contrary, mxpia is to be taken in the
ethical sense, a bitter, malignant, and hostile disposition ;° often in the
classical writers,‘ which, figuratively represented, is gall, into which
Simon had fallen. In the corresponding representation, ad:xia is conceived
as a band which encompassed him. Comp. Isa. lviii. 6. Others render
oivdecuoc, bundle.* So Alberti, Wolf, Wetstein, Valckenaer, Kuinoel, and
others, including Ewald. But in this way the genitive would not be taken
uniformly with m«piac, and we should expect instead of ad:xiac a plural ex-
pression. Ewald, moreover, concludes from these words that a vehement
contest had previously taken place between Peter and Simon,—a point
which must be left undetermined, as the text indicates nothing of it. — eiva
cic] stands as in ver. 20.° Lange,’ at variance with the words, gratuitously
imports the notion: ‘‘that thou wild prove to be a poison. . . in the
church,"

Ver. 24. ‘Yuecc] whose prayer must be more effectual. On deff. with mpdc,
comp. Ps. Ixiv. 1. — dru¢ undév x.r.A.] ‘‘ poenae metum, non culpae horrorem
fatetur,’? Bengel. A humiliation has begun in Simon, but it refers to the
apostolic threat of punishment, the realization of which he wishes to avert,
not to the ground of this threat, which lay in Ais own Aeart and could only
be removed by a corresponding repentance. Hence, also, his conversion,
which even Calvin conjectures to have taken place,” does not ensue. It

1 Not as if it were thereby made dependent 32 Macc. xii 45; Ar. Thesm. 766, al.
on the caprice of God (de Wette’s objection), 4 See the passages in Kypke, II. p. 4%, and
but because God, in presence of the greatness from Philo in Loesner, p. 198 f.
of the guilt, could only forgive on the corre- ® Rom. fii. 14; Ey h. iv. 31.
sponding sincerity and truth of the repentance © See Valck. ad Kwr. Phoen. 968.
and believing prayer ; and how doubtful was 7 Comp. Herodian. iv. 12. 11.
thie with euch a mind! The whole greatness ® See Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 266 (EK. T. 388).
of the danger was to be brought to the con- ®Comp. also Thierech, Hirche im apost.
eciousnes.of Simon, and to quicken him tothe Zett. p. 91.
need of repentance and prayer. 10 Comp. Ebrard.

* Comp. Heinrichs and de Wette.

THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH. 173

would, as a brilliant victory of the apostolic word, not have been omitted ;
and in fact the ecclesiastical traditions concerning the stedfastly continued
conflict of Simon with the Jewish-apostolic gospel, in spite of all the
strange and contradictory fables mixed up with it down to his overthrow
by Peter at Rome, testify against the occurrence of that conversion at all.

Vv. 25, 26. Tov Ady. 7. a«vp.] The word which they spoke was not their
word, but Christ’s, who caused the gospel to be announced by them as His
ministers and interpreters.’ But the auctor principalis is God (x. 36), hence
the gospel is still more frequently called 6 Adyoc rov Geod, iv. 29, 31, vi. 2,
and frequently. — roAAd¢ re xopac . . . evyyyeA.) namely, on their way back
to Jerusalem. — evayyeAi{eofar, with the accusative of the person,’ is rare,
and belongs to the later Greek.* — ayyedo¢ dé xvpiov] is neither to be ration-
alized with Eichhorn to the effect, that what is meant is the sudden and
involuntary rise of an internal impulse not to be set aside; nor with
Olshausen to the effect, that what is designated is not a being appearing
individually, but a spiritual power, by which a spiritual communication
was made to Philip ; the language is, in fact, not figurative, as in John i.
52, but purely historical. On the contrary, Luke narrates an actual angelic
appearance, that spoke literally to Philip. This appearance must, in respect
of its form, be left undefined, as a vision in a dream,‘ is not indicated in
the text, not even by avdor7i, which rather (raise thyself) belongs to the
pictorial representation ; comp. on v. 17. Philip received this angelic
intimation in Samaria, in opposition to Zeller, who makes him to have
returned with the apostles to Jerusalem, while the two apostles were on
their way back to Jerusalem. —Idfa, WY, 2.6. the strong,’ a strongly forti-
fied Philistine city, situated on the Mediterranean, on the southern border
of Canaan.*° It was conquered,’ and destroyed,* by Alexander the Great,
—a fate which, after many vicissitudes, befell it afresh under the Jewish
King Alexander Jannaeus, in B.c. 96.° Rebuilt as New Gaza farther to the
south by the Proconsul Gabinius, s.c. 58, the city was incorporated with
the province of Syria. Its renewed, though not total destruction by the
Jews occurred not long before the siege of Jerusalem.’ It is now the open
town Ghuzzeh. — airy éoriv Epyuoc] applies to the way, von Raumer, Robin-
son, Winer, Buttmann, Ewald, Baumgarten, Lange, and older commenta-
tors, as Castalio, Beza, Bengel, and others. As several roads led from
Jerusalem to Gaza, and still lead," the angel specifies the road, which he
meang, more exactly by the statement : ¢his way is desolate, i.¢. it is a desert
way, leading through solitary and little cultivated districts.'"* Such a road
still exists ; see Robinson, /.c. The object of this more precise specification
can according to the text only be this, that Philip should take no other road

' Comp. xiii. 48 f., xv. 35 ., xix. 10, 20. Arnold in Herzog’s Encyki. IV. p. 671 ff.
2 Luke iii. 18; Acts xiv. 21, xvi. 10. 7 Plut. Alex. 25; Curt. iv. 6.
* See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 267 f. ® Strabo, xvi. 2. 80, p. 759.
4 Eckermann, Heinrichs, Kufnoel. ® Joseph. Anéé, xiii. 18.3, Bell. 1. 4.2.
® Gen. x. 19 ; Josh. xv. 45; Juadg. iif. 8, xvi. 10 Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 1.

1; 1 Macc. xi. 16. 11 See Robinson, II. p. 748.

* See Stark, Gaza u. d. philistdische Kuate, 12 Comp. 2Sam. if. 94 LXX.
Jona 182; Ritter, Ardk. XVI. 1, p. 45 f.;

174 _ CHAP, VIIL., 2%, 28.

than that on which he would not miss, but would really encounter, the Ethio-
pian. The angel wished to direct him right surely. Other designs are
imported without any ground in the text, as, ¢g., that he wished to raise
him above all fear of the Jews,‘ or to describe the locality as suitable for
undisturbed evangelical operations,* and for deeper conversation,* or even to
jndicate that the road must now be spiritually prepared and constructed
(Lange). épyuoc stands without the article, because it is conceived alto-
gether qualitatively. If airy is to be referred to Gaza,‘ and the words
likewise to be ascribed to the angel, we should have to take épypoc as
destroyed, and to understand these words of the angel as an indication that
he meant not the rebuilt New Gaza, but the old Gaza lying in ruins. But
this would be opposed, not indeed to historical correctness (see Stark), but
yet to the connection, for the event afterwards related happened on the
way, and this way was to be specified. Others consider the words as a gloss
of Luke.* .But if airy is to be referred to the way, is is difficult to see what
Luke means by that remark. If it is to indicate that the way is not, or no
longer, passable, this has no perceptible reference to the event which is
related. But if, as Wieseler, p. 401, thinks, it is meant to point to the
fact that the Ethiopian on this #litary way could read without being dis-
turbed, and aloud, no reader could possibly guess this, and at any rate
Luke would not have made the remark till ver. 28. If, on the other hand,
we refer avr7 in this supposed remark of Luke to the city, we can only
assume, with Hug and Lekebusch, p. 419f., that Luke has meant its
destruction, which took place in the Jewisit war." But even thus the notice
would have no definite object in relation to the narrative, which is con-
cerned not with the city, but with the way as the scene of the event. Hug
and Lekebusch indeed suppose that the recent oceurnence of the destruction
induced Luke to notice it here on the mention of Gaza; but it is against
this view in its turn, that Luke did not write till a considerable time after
the destruction of Jerusalem.’ Reland, Wolf, Krebs, inappropriately
interpret pzyoc as unfortijfied, which the context must have suggested.’
and which would yield a very meaningless remark. Wassenberg, Hein-
richs, and Kuinoel take refuge in the hypothesis of an interpolated gloss.

Ver. 27. Kai idoi] And behold (there was) a man. Comp. on Matt. iii. 17.
—evvovyoc duvaoryc] is, seeing that duvdorye is a substantive, most simply
taken, not conjointly, @ power-wielding eunuch, after the analogy of Herod.
ii. 82: avdpov dvvactéwy raidec,® but separately: a@ eunuch, one wielding
power, so that there is a double apposition.'° The more precise description
what kind of wielder of power he was, follows, chief treasurer, yafogbAag."'
The express mention of his sexual character is perhaps connected with the

1 Chrysostom, Oecumentius. ¢ Joseph. Ball. il. 18. 1.
2 Baumgarten. 7 See Introduction, sec. 8.
3 Ewald, Jahrv. V. p. 27. 8 Asin the passages in Sturz, Lex. Xen. II.
4 So Stark, Z.c. p. 510 ff., following Erasmas, pp. 359.
Calvin, Grotius, and others. ® Comp. Ecclus. vili. 1.

6 De Wette, Wieseler, and others, following 20 See Bornemann in loc.
older interpreters. 1! Plat. Mor. p.823C; Athen. vi. p. 261 B.

THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH. 1%5

universalism of Luke, in contrast to Deut. xxiii. 1. In the East, eunuchs
were taken not only to be overseers of the harem, but also generally to fill
the most important posts of the court and the closet,’ hence eivowvyzor is
often employed generally of court officials, without regard to corporeal
mutilation.? Many therefore, Cornelius a Lapide, de Dieu, Kuinoel,
Olshausen, suppose that the Ethiopian was not emasculated, for he is called
avfp und he was not a complete Gentile, as Eusebius and Nicephorus would
make him, but, according to ver. 30 ff., 1» Jew, whereas Israelitish citizen-
ship did not belong to emasculated persons.* But if s0, etvoizoc, with
which, moreover, the general word avfp ‘ is sufficiently compatible, would
be an entirely superfluous term. The very fact, however, that he was an
officer of the first rank in the court of a queen, makes it most probable that
he was actually a eunuch ; and the objection drawn from Deut. lc. is
obviated by the very natural supposition that he was a proselyte of the gate,
comp. on Joho xii. 20. That this born Gentile, although a eunuch, had
been actually received into the congregation of Israel (Baumgarten), and
accordingly a proselyte of righteousness, as Calovius and others assumed,
cannot be proved either from Isa. lvi. 3-6, where there is a promise of the
Messianic future, in the salvation of which even Gentiles and eunuchs were
to share ; nor from the example of Ebedmelech, Jer. xxxviii. 7 ff., con-
sidered by Baumgarten as the type of the chamberlain, of whom it is not
said that he was a complete Jew ; nor can it be inferred from the distant
journey of the man and his quick reception of baptism,* which is a very
arbitrary inference. Eusebius, ii. 1, also designates him as zpéroc é& éAvan,
who had been converted. Kavddxy was, like Pharaoh among the Egyptian
kings, the proper name in common of the queens of Hthiopia, which still
in the times of Eusebius was governed by queens.* Their capital was
Napata.’— On yé{a, a word received from the Persian, ‘‘ pecuniam regiam,
quam gazam Persae vocant,’’*® into Greek and Latin.* — ézi, as in vi. 3.
Nepos, Datam. 5: ‘‘gazae custos regiae.’’ — Tradition,’ with as much
uncertainty as improbability," calls the Ethiopian Indich and Judich, and
makes him,—what is without historical proof, doubtless, but in itself not
improbable, though so early a permanent establishment of Christianity
in Ethiopia is not historically known,—the first preacher of the gospel
among his countrymen, whose queen the legend with fresh invention
makes to be baptized by him."

Vv. 28-31. He read aloud (see ver. 30), and most probably from the LXX.
translation widely diffused in Egypt. Perhaps he had been induced by
what he had heard in Jerusalem of Jesus and of His fate to occupy himself

1 Pignor. de servis, p. 871 f.; Winer, Realw. 6 Seo Strabo, xvii. 1. 54, p. 8%; Dio Cass.

s.v. Veraschnittene. liv.5; Plin. NW. Z. vi. &. 7%. [140 ff.
® See de Dieu, inioc. ; Spanheim, ad Julian. 7 See particniarly Laurent, neudest. Siud. p.
Oratt. p. 174. ® Cart. fli. 18. 5.
3 Deut. xxfif.1; Michaelis, Mos. 2. II. § 95, ® Sec Serv. ad Virgil. Aen. 1. 119, vol. i. p.
IV. § 19%; Ewald, Alerth. p. 218. 80, ed. Lion. and Wetstein in ioc.
‘Heo might even have been married. Sce 19 Bzovius, Annal. ad a. 1584, p. 542.
Gen. xxxtx. 1, and Knobel in loc. 11 Ludolf, Comm. ad. Hist. Aeth. p. 89 f.

6 Lange, apost. Zeitalé. II. p. 109. 12 Niceph. fi. 6.

1%6 CHAP. VIII., 29-40.

on the way with Isaiah in particular, the Evangelist among the prophets,
and with this very section concerning the Servant of God. Ver. $4 is not
opposed to this. — cime d2 r. rveiua denotes the address of the Holy Spirit
inwardly apprebended. Comp. x. 19. — xoAAfOyri] attach thyself to, separate
not thyself from.'— apd ye ywdoxec & Gvayivdoxerc;] For instances of a
similar paronomasia,* see Winer, p. 591 [E. T. 794 f.]. Comp. 2 Cor. iii.
2; 2 Thess. iii. 11. dpa, num (with the strengthening yé), stands here as
ordinarily: ‘‘ut aliquid sive verae sive fictae dubitationis admisceat.’**
Philip doubts whether the Aethiopian was aware of the Messianic reference
of the words which he read. — rac yép Gy duvatuqy x.1.A.] an evidence of
humility and susceptibility. av, with the optative, denotes the subjective
possibility conditionally conceived and consequently undecided.‘ }ép is
to be taken without a no to be supplied before it: How withal. as the mat-
ter stands. See on Matt. xxvii. 23.

Vv. 82, 88. But the contents of the passage of Scripture which he read was
this. ric ypadyc] is here restricted by 7 aveyivwoxev to the notion of a single
passage, as also, ver. 35, by rairnc.* Luther has given it correctly. But
many others refer fv aveyivwox. to 9 wepioxyf: ‘‘ locus autem scripturae, quem
legebat, hic erat,’’ Kuinoel, following the Vulgate. But it is not demon-
strable that repio77 signifies a section ; even in the places cited to show this,’
it is to be taken as here : what is contained in the passage,’ and this is then
verbally quoted.* — w¢ rpéBarov x.r.A.] Isa. liii. 7, 8, with unimportant vari-
ation from the LXX.° The subject of the whole oracle is the M7 73y,
i.e. according to the correct Messianic understanding of the apostolic
church, the Messiah. The prophetical words, as Luke gives them, are as
follows: Asa sheep He has been led to the slaughter ; and as a lamb, which is
dumb before its shearer, so He opens not His mouth. In His humiliation His
judgment was taken away; t.e. when He had so humbled Himself to the
bloody death, comp. Phil. 1i. 8, the judicial fate imposed on Him by God"
was taken from Him, so that now therefore the culmination and crisis of
His destiny set in, comp. Phil. ii. 9. But His offepring who shall deseribe ?
z4.e. how indescribably great is the multitude of those belonging to Him, of
whom He will now be the family Head, comp. Phil. ii. 10! for ground of
the origin of this immeasurable progenies, His life ts taken avay from the
eorth, so that He enters upon His heavenly work relieved from the tram-
mels of earth."* yeved does not, any more than ‘5}5, signify duration of life."

1Comp. Ruth fi. 8; Tob. vi. 17; 1 Macc. Huther in loc.

vi. 21. ® Which, however, deviates considerably,
* Compare the well-known saying of Julian: § and in part erroneously, from the original
dvéyvey, éyvav, aréyvery. Hebrew.

§ Battmann, ad Charmid. 14. Comp. Herm.
ad Viger. p. 88, and on Luke xviii. 8 ; Gal. il.
17; Baeuml. Pard&k. p. 40 f.

«See Kiihner, § 467. [xfi. 10.

®Comp. |. 16; Luke iv. 21; and on Mark

6 Cic. ad Ad. xili. 25, and Stob. Ze. phys.
p. 164 A.

¥ Hesych. Suid. : vwdGecrs.

® Comp. the use of wepiexer, 1 Pet. fi. 6, and

19 Matt. vill. 17; Mark xv. 28; John xii.
88 ff., 1. 29; 1 Pet. 11. 2 ff. Comp. the mais
Tou @eov, iil. 13, 26, iv. 27, 30.

11 The designation of His destiny of euffer-
ing a8 } xpiows avrov preeupposcs the idea of
its vicarious and propitiatory charncter.

12 Comp. John xii. 82; Rom. v. 10, vili. 2,
&, xiv. 9.

13 Luther, Beza, Calvin, and others.

HIS CONVERSION AND BAPTISM. 17%?

The explanation, also, of the indescribably wicked race of the contempo-
raries of Christ, who proved their depravity by putting Him to death (ér:
aiperat x.t.A.), is inappropriate. Such is the view I have previously taken,
with de Wette and older commentators. But in this way the prophecy
would be diverted from the person of the Messiah, and that to something
quite obvious of itself; whereas, according to the above explanation, the
alpera: ard tT. y. 9 Son abr. stands in thoughtful and significant correlation to
4 «plow avrov 7907. In these correlates lies the dixacocivy of the Humbled
one, John xvi. 10. The Fathers have explained yeved in the interest of
orthodoxy, but here irrelevantly, of the eternal generation of the Son.!

Vv. 34-88. *Aroxpifeic] for Philip had placed himself beside him in the
chariot, ver. 81; and this induced the eunuch, desirous of knowledge and
longing for salvation, to make his request, in which, therefore, there was so
far involved a reply to the fact of Philip having at his solicitation joined him.
— The question is one of utter unconcealed ignorance, in which, however, it
is intelligently clear to him on what doubtful point he requires instruction.
— dvoifag «.r.A.] a pictorial trait, in which there is here implied something
solemn in reference to the following weighty announcement.* — xara rv 6660]
along the way.? —ri xwriet] odddpa yuyie rovTo Exxatouévnc, Chrysostom. —
BarrioOjva] Certainly in the ebyyyeAicato avrg rdv ‘Iyoovy there was compre-
hended also instruction concerning baptism. — Ver. 88. Observe the simply
emphatic character of the circumstantial description. — exéAevoe] to the
charioteer. — Beza erroneously supposes that the water in which the baptism
took place was the river Eleutherus. According to Jerome, de locis Hobr.,
it was at the village Bethsoron. Robinson, II. p. 749, believes that he has
discovered it on the road from Beit Jibrin to Gaza For other opinions
and traditions, see Hackett, p. 157; Sepp., p. 84.

Vv. 89, 40. Luke relates an involuntary removal‘ of Philip effected by the
Spirit of God (xvpiov)® He now had to apply himself to further work,
after the design of the Spirit (ver. 29) had been attained in the case of the
Ethiopian. The Spirit snatched him away (comp. John vi. 15), in which
act not only the impulse and the impelling power, but also the mode, is con-
ceived of us miraculous—as a sudden unseen transportation as far as Ash-
dod, ver.40. The sudden and quick hurrying away which took place on
the impulse of the Spirit * is the Aistorical element in the case, to which
tradition, and how easily this was suggested by the O. T. conception,’
annexed, in addition to the miraculous operative cause, also the miraculous
mode of the event. But to go even beyond this admission, and to allow
merely the country and person of the converted Ethiopian to pass as his-
torical (Zeller), is wholly without warrant with such an operation of angel
and Spirit as the narrative contains, when viewed in connection with the

1 See Suicer, Thee. I. p. 744. ® Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 2, 4; 1 Thess. iv. 17;
See on Matt. v.83; 3% Cor. vi. 11. Comp. Ezek. ili. 14; 1 Kings xvill. 12; 2 Kings il.

Acts x. 84. 16; aleo what happened to Habakkuk in Bel
® Seo Winer, p. 874 (E. T. 490). and the Dragon, 88.

¢The excellent Bengel strangely remarks : ® Kuinoel, Olshausen, Comp. also Lange,
that one or other of the apostles may have poet. Zeifait. IT. p. 118.
gone even to America ‘' pari trajectu.”’ 7In1 Kings xvili. 13 ; 2 Kings !1. 16.

178 CHAP. VIII.—NOTES.

supersensuous causal domain of N. T. facts in general.— éxopebero yap x.7.A.]
he obtained no further sight of Philip, for he made no halt, nor did he
take another road in order to seek again him who was removed from him,
but he went on his way with joy, namely, over the salvation obtained in
Christ (comp. xvi. 34). He knew that the object of his meeting with
Philip was accomplished. — cic "ASwrov] He was found removed to Ashdod.'!
Transported thither, he again became visible.* — *ACwrog* WWR, Josh. xiii.
3, 1 Sam. v. 5, was a Philistine city, the seat of a prince ; after its destruc-
tion by Jonathan rebuilt by Gabinius,‘* 270 stadia to the north of Gaza, to
the west of Jerusalem, now as a village named Zedud.* — Kaodorra is the
celebrated Kao. efaor#, so called in honour of Augustus, built by Herod
I. on the site of the Castellum Stratonis,—the residency of the Roman pro-
curators, on the Mediterranean, sixty-eight miles north-west of Jerusalem ;
it became the abode of Philip; see xxi. 8. He thus journeyed northward
from Ashdod, perhaps through Ekron, Ramah, Joppa, and the plain of
Sharon. There is no reason to regard the notice éwe . . . Kaodpecay as
prophetic, and to assume that Philip, at the time of the conversion of
Cornelius, x. 1 ff., was not yet in Caesarea,* seeing that Cornelius is by
special divine revelation directed to Peter, and therefore has no occasion to
betake himself to Philip.

Norzs sy Asenrcan Eprror.

(a') A great persecution, V. 1.

On the very day of the murder of Stephen, a fierce persecution began against
the church. Probably the mob may have hastened from the scene of outrage
and violence to the assemblies of the believers, in order to disperse them.
This violent, sudden outbreak against those who, until now, had been not only
tolerated, but apparently approved, arose doubtless from the fact that Stephen,
who was a Greek, had not only preached Jesus, but had declared that the city
and temple would be destroyed, and the gospel preached to all nations. The
Pharisees, hitherto neutral, now made common cause with their rivals, the
Sadducees, against the sect. The prudent cautions of Gamaliel were ignored ;
the agents of the civil government interfered not for the protection of
the Christians, and the wild fury of fanatical bigotry, maddened by blood,
rushed upon the defenceless witnesses for the truth, and scattered them. Thus
by the violence of the enemies of Christ his followers were compelled to carry
out his purpose intimated in Actsi. 8. The dispersion must have been very
general, though not absolutely universal, as some, beside the apostles, must
have remained, since Saul immediately afterward began to seize and imprison
both men and women.

1 Winer, pp. 887, 572 (E. T. 516, 769); Butt- sine, grammat. Untere. p. 90.

mann, newt. Gr. p. 287 (E. T. 888). * Joseph. Anti. xiv. 5. 8.

2 Comp. xxi. 18; Eeth.1.5; Xen. Angad. iil. 8 Volney, Travels, II. p, 251 ; Robinson, IL
4. 18: cis rovrov 8 row craQuow Ticcadpepyns p. 628. See Ruetachi in Herzog's Encyk. II.
éweddyn, 2 Macc. i. 88. p. 356.

9 Herod. ff. 157: Diod. xix. 65; in Straho, * Schleiermacher, Lekebusch, Laurent.
xvi. 29, p. 75; oxytone, incorrectly ; see Lip-

NOTES. 179

(8') Devout men carried Stephen, V. 2.

How touching and affecting is the simple statement of Luke concerning the
burial of Stephen, when contrasted with a subsequent elaborate legend : that
‘* Gamaliel appeared in a vision to Lucius, a presbyter of the church at Jeru-
salem, and informed him where the body of Stephen lay. The high priest had
designed that the corpse should be devoured by beasts of prey; but Gamaliel
rescued it, and buried it at his own villa at Caphar Gamala, twenty miles
from Jerusalem. All the apostles attended the funeral, and the mourning
lasted forty days. Gamaliel himself, and Nicodemus, were afterward buried in
the same grave. Tho relics of Stephen, thus miraculously discovered, were
brought to Jerusalem, and authenticated by many miracles wrought by them
among the people.”’

When the first martyr ‘‘fell asleep,’’ ‘‘Saul was consenting unto his death,”
but we do not find him attending the funeral. He believed that one who was
promulgating doctrines subversive of the true religion had met a severe but
deserved fate. While doubtless pitying the sufferings of the man, he rejoiced
in the doom of the heretic, and hastened to bring otherstoasimilarend. The
two men met once and parted, one to enter into the joy of his Lord, the other
to lay waste the church of Christ. The late Rev. William Arnot says: ‘I
have often tried to conceive the scene at the next meeting of these two men,
when Saul also became a martyr and joined the general assembly and church of
the firstborn.” ‘‘We have not the means of determining whether Stephen or
Saul owed most to the Lord. By looking on the surface of the sea we cannot
tell what place is deepest ; but we know that all places, alike the deepest and
the shallowest, are filled, and all present one level surface to the sky. In like
manner, as far as we can perceive, all the forgiven are alike, It is only He who
bore their sins who can distinguish the aggravations of every case. Certain it
is that the first martyr, and the man who kept the clothes of the executioners
at his death, are now at peace. They are one in Christ.”

(t'!) Simon believed. V. 13.

He who had bewildered others by his sorcery, which he knew to be unreal,
was bewildered by the reality of the power possessed by Philip, and was
doubtless impressed by the doctrine of the Messiah preached by the evangel-
ist. He made an outward profession of his faith and was baptized. His con-
version was spurious and his profession insincere. His mind was aroused, but
his conscience was not awakened. He desired the advantages which the gos-
pel proffered, but he did not submit to what it demands. A sense of sin, a
conviction of error, and any attempt at reparation for the wrongs he had done,
are all wanting in his case, There may be subscription to a scriptural creed,
the observance of the external ordinances of Christianity, and even some service
rendered to the church, without genuine repentance or saving faith. A man
may have been baptized, and yet be ‘‘in the gall of bitterness and in the bond
of iniquity.” The wickedness of this man, who ‘ thought that the gift of God
may be purchased with money,’’ has not only given a name to the ecclesiasti-
cal offence of purchasing preferment or position in the church, which is
branded as Simony, but it is a warning against uniting with the church, or seek-
ing office therein, with a view to worldly advantages of any kind.

180 CHAP. VIII.—NOTES.

(s') Samaritans. V. 14.

A mixed or, as some suppose, a purely heathen race, introduced by the kings
of Assyria to supply the place of the ten tribes, who had been mainly carried
away, and assimilated to the Jews by the reception of the law of Moses. Min-
gled with them were doubtless many Jews who were left after the captivity,
and others who, as renegades, came to them from Judea. On the return of
the Jews from the exile, they repeatedly sought to unite with them in rebuild-
ing the temple, but were repulsed. They therefore erected a temple for them-
selves on Gerizim, and there set up a rival worship. The Jews and Samaritans
mutually detested each other, and maintained a system of irritating hostility.
Josephus says the Samaritans attacked and robbed the pilgrims on their way
from Galilee to Jerusalem, and that, on one occasion, they desecrated the tem-
ple by scattering dead men's bones in the cloisters. They rigidly observed
the law of Moses, and looked for the promised Messiah. They were there-
fore in some measure prepared for the announcement of his coming, and
hence the success of the gospel among them,

(x') Mission of Peter and John. VY. 14.

These two apostles are frequently associated. They must have been warm
personal friends. The striking contrast in their characters would unite them
the more closely, and fit them to labor together. Peter fervid, zealous, impet-
uous ; John mild, loving, persuasive. This is the last mention of John in the
Acts, except once he is referred to in chap. xii. 2, where James is called the
brother of John. In accordance with the directions of the Master, the early
missionaries generally went out two by two. We read of Peter and John ;
Paul and Barnabas ; Paul and Silas; and Barnabas and Mark.

The object of their mission at this time was of a general character—to in-
quire into the state of things, supply what was wanting, and extend the right
hand of fellowship to the believers in Samaria.

(u') They received the Holy Ghost. V. 17.

Calvin on verse 16 writes : ‘‘ Surely Luke speaketh not in this place of the
common grace of the Spirit, whereby God doth regenerate us, that we may be
his children ; but of those singular gifts, wherewith God would have certain
endued at the beginning of the gospel to beautify Christ’s kingdom.’

By the Holy Ghost here we do not understand the regenerating and sanctify-
ing agency of the Holy Spirit in the conversion and renewal of the soul ; but
the impartation of such a presence of the Holy Spirit as is accompanied with
supernatural gifts ; the miraculous influences of the Spirit, which were mani-
fested by speaking with tongues, or other visible tokens, The spiritual condi-
tion of those who ‘had received the word of God,"’ and ‘‘ were baptized in the name
of the Lord Jesus,"’ was this: they had been spiritually quickened by the Spirit
of God, and were saved by Him into whose name they were baptized, but they
had not received any special gifts which were visibly manifested, as the be-
lievers elsewhere had received, and as they also received by the laying on of
the hands of the apostles—whose peculiar prerogative it seems to have been to
confer such gifts. The case of Ananias, in his relation to Paul, is altogether
of an exceptional kind.

CRITICAL REMABEKS. 181

CHAPTER IX.

Ver. 3. dvd] A BCG X&, min. have ix, which is, no doubt, reeommended by
Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. and Born., but is inserted from xxii. 6
to express the meaning more strongly.—Instead of ep:jotpay. Lachm. has
mepttotpay, A weakly attested error of transcription.—Ver. 5. xvproc elev]
Deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Born., after A B C, min. Vulg. In some other
witnesses (including &), only «vpioc is wanting ; and in others, only ¢lre:.
The Recepta is a clumsy filling up of the original bare 6 d¢.—After diwxets, Elz.,
following Erasm., has (instead of aAdd, ver. 6) oxAn dv cot mpoc xévtpa Aaxtilecr.
Tpéuwv tre xai Oausov ele’ wipce, ri we OfAece rotjoac; Kai 6 Kipiog mpog aiTér,
against all Greek codd. Chrys. Theoph. and several vss.’ An old amplification
from xxii. 10, xxvi. 14. — Ver. 8. ovdéva] A* B &, Syr. utr. Ar. Vulg. have ovdév.
So Lachm. Tisch. Born. The Recepta has originated mechanically from fol-
lowing ver. 7. — Ver. 10. The order év dpdpati 6 xvp. (Lachm. Tisch. Born.) has
the decisive preponderance of testimony. — Ver. 12: év dpdyzar:] is wanting in
A &, lo" Copt. Aeth. Vulg. BC have it after dvdpa (so Born.). Deleted by
Lachm, and Tisch. An explanatory addition to eldev. — Instead of yeipa,
Lachm, and Born. have rd¢ yeipac, after B E, vss.; also AC &,* lot, which,
however, do not read rd¢. From ver. 17, and because é7ir8. td¢ yeipac is the
usual expression in the N. T. (in the active always so, except this passage). —
Ver. 17. axjxoa] Lachm. Born. read fxovca, which is decidedly attested by
ABCE RX, min. — Ver, 18. After avésiepé re, Elz. has sapaypina, which is
wanting in decisive witnesses, and, after Erasm. and Bengel, is deleted by
Lachm. Tisch. Born, A more precisely defining addition. — Ver. 19. After
tyévero dé Elz, has 6 LadAoc, against decisive testimony. Beginning of a
church-lesson. — Ver. 20. 'Incovv)] Elz. reads Xporév, against A BC E &, min.
ves, Iren. Amid the prevalent interchange of the two names this very pre-
ponderance of authority is decisive. But ‘Incoty is clearly confirmed by the
following ér: obrdé¢ éoriv 6 vids Tr. Geot, as also by ver. 22, where odros necessarily
presupposes a preceding "Incots. — Ver. 24. raperypouv te] Lachm. Tisch. Born.
read sapetnpoivro d? xal, which is to be preferred according to decisive testi-
mony. — avrév of wabyral] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read of sa@yrai airod, after
ABCF X&, lo'* Or. Jer. This reading has in its favour, along with the
preponderance of witnesses, the circumstance that before (ver. 19) and after
(ver. 26) the uxaOyrai are mentioned absolutely, and the expression of xa9. atrod
might appear objectionable. In what follows, on nearly the same evidence,
dtd rob reiyouS xabjxav avrév is to be read. — Ver. 26. After wapay, dé, Elz. has
6 ZadAos, E, 6 Maddos. An addition. — eis] BEGH, min. Oco. Theophyl.
haye év, recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. The
evidence leaves it doubtful ; but considering the frequency of rapayiv. with «5

1 The words aro found in Vulg. Ar. pol. Theophy!l. 2. Occ. Hilar. in Ps. ji., but with
Aeth. Arm. Syr. p. (with an asterisk) Slav. many variations of detail.

182 CHAP. Ix., 1-9.

(xiii. 14, xv. 4; Matt. ii. 1; John viii. 2), whereas it does not further occur
with ¢v in the N. T., év would be more easily changed into eis than the con-
verse. — éreipdto}] Lachm. and Born. read éveipalev (after A BC &, min.), which
was easily introduced as the usual form (zecpdoua: only again occurs in the
N. T. in xxvi. 21; Heb. iv. 15?),— Ver. 28. é» 'Iepove.] Lachm. Tisch. Born.
have rightly adopted eis ‘Iepovs., which already Griesb. had approved after
ABCEG ®&, min. Chrys. Oec. Theophyl. ¢é» was inserted as more suitable
than eis, which was not understood. Accordingly, xai before rappyc. is to be
deleted with Lachm. and Tisch., following A BC &, min. vss. An insertion
for the sake of connection. — Ver. 29. "EAAnmordc] A has °EAAnvas. From xi.
20. — Ver. 31. Lachm. Tisch. Born. read 7... éxxAnola. . . elyev elp, oixo-
dopovzervn x. wopevouévn . . . ExAnOuvero, after A BC &, min. and several vss.,
including Vulg. Rightly. The original 7 pdy oby éxxAnoia, x.t.A., in accord-
ance with the apostolic idea of the unity of the church, was explained by ai yév
aby ExxAnoiaa xdoat (80 E), which mdca: was again deleted, and thus the Recepta
arose. — Ver. 33. Instead of xpad3a7y, xpasBurov is to be adopted, with Lachm.
Tisch. Born., on preponderating evidence. — Ver, 38. dxvicac . . . avror),
Lachm, and Tisch. read édxvycys . . . qudv, after A B C* E &, lo Vulg., which
with this preponderance of evidence is the more to be preferred, as internal
grounds determine nothing for the one reading or the other.

(m') Vv. 1, 2. "Ert] See viii. 8, hence the narrative does not stand isolated
(Schleiermacher). — éumvéwy arene x. gdvor cic Tr. wad.] out of threatening and
murder breathing hard at the disciples, whereby is set forth the passionateness
with which he was eager.to terrify the Christians by threats, and to hurry
them to death. In exrviwy, observe the compound, to which the ei¢ r. nal.
belonging to it corresponds ; so that the word signifies : to breathe hard at
or upon an object ; as often also in classical writers, yet usually with the
dative instead of with eic. The expression is stronger than if it were said
avéwy areiajy x.t.A.! The genitives are and gévov denote whence this
furvéew issued ; threatening and murder, 7.e. sanguinary desire (Rom. i. 29),
was within him what excited and sustained his breathing hard.*— rq apyiepei]
If the conversion of Paul occurred in the year 35,* then Caiaphas was still
high priest, as he was not deposed by Vitellius until the year 86.‘ Jonathan
the son of Ananus (Joseph. Anét. xviii. 4.8) succeeded him; and he, after
a year, was suceeeded by his brother Theophilus.°—(n') Aauacxés, PY21, the
old capital of Syria, in which, since the period of the Seleucidae, so many
Jews resided that Nero could cause 10,000 to be executed.* It was specially
to Damascus that the persecuting Saul turned his steps, partly, doubtless,
because the existence of the hated sect in that city was well known to him—
the church there may have owed its origin and its enlargement as well to the
journeys of the resident Jews to the feasts, as to visits of the dispersed
from Jerusalem ; partly, perhaps, also, because personal connections promised

1 Lobeck, ad Aj. p. 342; Boeckh, Expl. 3 Introduction, sec. 4.

Find. p. 341. 4 Ancer, de temp. rat. p. 184.
2Comp. é¢uwvéor gays, Josh. x. 40; dovov & Joseph. Antt. xvili. 5. 3.

wveovra, Nonn. Dlonys. 2; Aristop. Fy. p. * Joseph. Bell. Jud. 1. 2. 25, ii. 20, 2.
437; Winer, p. 192 (E. T. 285). ‘

CONVERSION OF SAUL. 183

for his enterprise there the success which he desired. — mpd¢ ra¢ ovvaywy.],
from which, consequently, the Christians had not as yet separated them-
selves.'—The recognition of the letters of authorization at Damascus was not
to be doubted, as that city was in the year 85 still under Roman dominion ;
and Roman policy was accustomed to grant as much indulgence as possible
to the religious power of the Sanhedrim, even in criminal matters, only the
execution of the punishment of death was reserved to the Roman authority.
— rH¢ ddov bytac] who should be of the way. The way, in the ethical sense, is
here xar’ écoxjv the Christian, i.e. the characteristic direction of life as de-
termined by faith on Jesus Christ (6dd¢ xvpiov, xviii. 25),—-an expression in
this absolute form peculiar to the Book of Acts,* but which certainly was
in use in the apostolic church. Oecumenius indicates the substantial mean-
ing : riv xara Xpiorov elie wodireiav. — eivai, with the genitive in the sense of
belonging to.*

Vv. 3-9. The conversion of Saul does not appear, on an accurate considera-
tion of the three narratives,‘ which agree in the main points, to have had
the way psychologically prepared for it by scruples of conscience as to his perse-
cuting proceedings. On the contrary, Luke represents it in the history at
our passage, and Paul himself in his speeches,* as in direct and immediate
contrast to his vehement persecuting zeal, amidst which he was all of a
sudden internally arrested by the miraculous fact from without.* Moreover,
previous scruples and inward struggles are @ priori, in the case of a char-
acter sv pure—at this time only crring—firm, and ardently decided as he
also afterwards continued to be, extremely improbable: he saw in the
destruction of the Christian church only a fulfilment of duty and a merito-
rious service for the glory of Jehovah.’ For the transformation of his firm
conviction into the opposite, of his ardent interest against the gospel into
an ardent zeal for it, there was needed—with tho pure resoluteness of his
will, which even in his unwearied persecutions was just striving after a
righteousness of his own’—-a heavenly power dircctly seizing on his inmost
conscience ; and this he experienced, in the midst of his zealot enterprise,
on the way to Damascus, when that perverted striving after righteousness
and merit was annihilated. The light which from heaven suddenly shone
around him brighter than the sun’ was no jlash of lightning (o'). The
similarity of the expression in all the three narratives militates against this
assumption so frequently made, and occurring still in Schrader; and Paul
himself certainly knew how to distinguish in his recollection a natural
phenomenon, however alarming, from a gé¢ ard rot ovpavod associated with
a heavenly revelation. This gd¢ was rather the heavenly radiance, with

1 Comp. Lechler, apost. Zeit. p. 290. ? gxfl. 8; comp. Gal. 1. 143; Phil. ili. 6.
8 xix. 9, xxii. 4, xxiv. 14, 22. ® Phil. iii. 6.
® See Bernhardy, p. 105; Winer, p. 184 (E. * xxvi. 18.

T. 244). 10 This applics in the main, also, against
*ix., xxfl., xxvi. Ewald, p. 278, who assumes a dazzling celestial
® xxfi. and xxvi.; comp. also Gal.1.14,15; phenomenon of an unexpected and terrible

Phil. fil. 12. nature, possibly a thunder-storm, or rather a

*Cemp. Beyschlag in the Stvd.u. Krit. deadly sirocco in the middle of a sultry day,
1864, p. 21 f. etc.

184 CHAP, Ix., 1-9.

which the exalted Christ appearing in His dééa is surrounded. In order to
a scripturally truco conception of the occurrence, moreover, we may not
think merely in general of an internal vision produced by God ;' nor is it
enough specially to assume a sel f-manifestation of Christ made merely to the
inner sense of Saul,—although externally accompanied by the miraculous
appearance of light,—according to which by an operation of Christ, who is
in heaven, He presented Himself to the inner man of Saul, and made Him-
self audible in definite words.” On the contrary, according to 1 Cor. xv. 8,?
Christ must really have appeared to him in His glorisied body.‘ For only
the objective, this also against Ewald, and real corporeal appearance corre-
sponds to the category of appearances, in which this is placed at 1 Cor. xv.
8, as also to the requirement of apostleship, which is expressed in 1 Cor.
ix. 1 most definitely, and that in view of Peter and the other original
apostles, by rév xiptov yudv édpaxa.® The Risen One Himself was in the
light which appeared, and converted Saul, and hence Gal. i. 1 : rob éyeipavro¢
avrov éx vexpav, With which also Gal. i. 16° fully agrees ; comp. Phil. iii. 12.
This view is rightly adopted, after the old interpreters, by Lyttleton,’ Hess,
Michaelis, Haselaar,* and by most modern interpreters except the Tiibingen
School; as well as by Olshausen and Neander, both of whom, however,
without any warrant in the texts, assume a psychological preparation by
the principles of Gamaliel, by the speech of Stephen, and by the sight of
his death. For the correct view comp. Baumgarten ; Diestelmaier ;° Oer-
tel,'° who also enlarges on the connection of the doctrine of the apostle with
his conversion."' On the other hand, de Wette does not go beyond an ad-
mission of the enigmatical character of the matter; Lange’* connects the
objective fact with a visionary perception of it ; and Holsten," after the ex-
ample of Baur, attempts to make good the vision, which he assumes, as a
real one, indeed, but yet as an immanent peychological act of Saul’s own mind,
—a view which is refuted by the necessary resemblance of the fact to the
other Christophanies in 1 Cor. xv.“ All the attempts of Baur and his

1 Weise, Schweizer, Schcnkel, and others.

2See my first cdition; comp. Bengel, «0.
ad. Bekehr. Pauli, aus d. Lat. tibers. v. Niet-
hammer, Tib. 1826.

3 Comp. tx. 1.

4 Comp. ix. 17, 2%.

® Comp. Paul in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitecke. 1968,
p. 182 ff.

6 See in loc.

1 On the conversion, 6f., translated by Hahn,
Hannov. 1751.

® Lugd. Bat. 1806. :

® Jugendleben des Saulus, 1866, p. 87 ff.

10 Paulus in d. Apostelgesch. p. 112 ff.

11 See also Hofstede de Groot, Pauli con-
versio praecipuus theologiae Paul. fons, Gro-
ning. 1855, who, however, in setting forth this
connection mixes up too much that is
arbitrary.

12 Apost. Zettalt. IT. p. 116 f.

23 In Hilgenfcld’s Zeitechr. 1861, p. 223 ff.

14 See, in opposition to Holsten, Reyschlag
in the Stud. u. Xrit. 1864, pp. 197 ff., 281 ff.;
Oertel, ic, In opposition to Beyschlay, again,
see Holsten, sum Hoang. des Paulus u. Petr.
p. 2 ff.; as also Hilgenfeld in his Zetechr
1864, p. 185 ff., who likewise starts from 2
priort presuppositions, which do not agree
with the exegetical resulta. These @ priori
presappoeitions, marking the criticiem of the
Baur School, agree generally in the negation
of miracle, as well as in the position that
Christianity has arieen in the way of an
immanent development of the human mind,—
whereby the credibility of the Book of Acts
is abandoned. With Holsten, Lang, reliz.
Charaktere, Paulus, p. 15 ff, essentially
agrees ; as does also, with poetical embellirh-
ment, Hirzel in the Zeidstintmen, 1861.—Haus-
rath, der Apostel Prulus, 1865, p. 28 f.. con-
tents himself with doubts, founded on Gal.
15, which leave the measure of the historical

_ CONVERSION OF SAUL. 185

school to treat the event asa visionary product from the laboratory of
Saul’s own thoughts are exegetical impossibilities, in presence of which
Baur himself at last stood still acknowledging a mystery.' It is no argu-
ment against the actual bodily appearance, that the text speaks only of the
light, and not of a human form rendered visible. For, while in general
the glorified body may have been of itself inaccessible to the human eye,
80, in particular, was it here as enclosed in the heavenly radiance ; and the
texts relate only what was externally seen and apparent also to the others,
—namely, the radiance of light, out of which the Christ surrounded by it
made Himself visible only to Saul, as He also granted only to him to hear
His words, which the rest did not hear.* Whoever, taking offence at the
diversities of the accounts in particular points as at their miraculous tenor,
sets down what is so reported as unhistorical, or refers it, with Zeller, to the
psychological domain of nascent faith, is opposed, as regards the nature of
the fact recorded, by the testimony of the apostle himself in 1 Cor. xv. 8,
ix. 1, with a power sustained by his whole working, which is not to be
broken, and which leads ultimately to the desperate shift of supposing in
Paul, at precisely the most decisive and momentous point of his life, a self-
deception as the effect of the faith existing in him ; in which case the nar-
rative of the Book of Acts is traced to a design of legitimating the apostle-
ship of Paul, which in the sequel is further confirmed by the authority of
Peter.—Hardly deserving now of historical notice is the uncritical ration-
alism of the method that preceded the critical school of Baur, by which'
the whole occurrence was converted into a fancy-picture, in which the per-
secutor’s struggles of conscience furnished the psychological ground and a
sudden thunderstorm the accessories,—a view with which some‘ associate
the exegetical blunder of identifying the fact with 2 Cor. xii. 1 ff.; while
Brennecke® makes Jesus, who was only apparently dead, appear to Saul to
check his persecuting zeal. These earlier attempts to assign the conversion
of the apostle to the natural sphere are essentially distinguished, in respect

character in suspenso. Holtzmann, Judenth. u.
Christenth. p. 540 ff., finds ‘‘ the—in the details
—contradictory and legendary narrative” of
the Book of Acts confirmed in the main by
the hints of the apostle himself in his letters ;
nevertheless, for the explanation of what
actually occurred, he does not go beyond sug-
gesting various possibilities, and finds it
advisable “to ascribe to the eame causes,
from which it becomes impossible absolutely
to discover the origin of the belief of the
resurrection, such a range that they include
also the event before Damascus.”

1 See hia CAristenth. d. dret ersten Jahkrh.
p. 4, ed. 2

2 See xxil.9. The statement, ix. 7: axovorres
piv rie Gorges, is evidently a trait of tradition
already disfiguring the history, to which the
apostie’s own narrative. as it ia preserved at
xxii. 9, must without hesitation be preferred.

In the case of a miraculous event so entirely
unique and extraordinary, such traditional
variations in the certainly very often repeated
narrative are so naturally conceivable, that it
wonld, in fact, be surprising and suspicions
if we should find in the various narratives no
variation. To Luke himself such variations,
amidst the unity of essentials, gave so little
offence that he has adopted and included them
unreconeiled from his different sources. Baur
transfers them to the laboratory of literary
design, in which case they are urged for the
purpose of resolving the historical fact into
myth. See hie Paulus, I. p. 71 ff., ed. 2.

® After Vitringa, Odes. p. 870, and particn-
larly Eichhorn, Ammon, Boehme, Heinrichs,
Kninoel, and others.

4 Emmerling and Bretschneider.

6 After Bahrdt and Venturini.

186 CHAP. IXx., 4-9.

of their basis, from those of the critical school of Baur and Holsten, by the
circumstance that the latter proceed from the postulates of pantheistic, and
the former from those of theistic, rationalism. But both agree in starting
from the negation of a miracle, by which Saul could have come to be among
the prophets, as they consign the resurrection of the Lord Himself from the
dead to the same negative domain. In consequence of thia, indeed, they
cannot present the conversion of Paul otherwise than under the notion of
an immanent process of his individual mental life. — amd r. ovpavor] be-
longs to zepijorp.'

Vv. 4, 5. The light shone around im, and not his companions. Out of
the light the present Christ manifested Himself at this moment to his view :
he has seen the Lord,? who afterwards makes Himself known also by name ;
and the persecutor, from terror at the heavenly vision, falls to the ground,
when he hears the voice speaking in Hebrew :* Saul, Saul, etc. —ri pe dd-
Ketc;] ti wap’ éuov wéya puxpdv Adixnuévog tavta woei¢; Chrysostom. Christ
Himself is persecuted in His people. Luke x. 16. ‘‘Caput pro membris
clamabat,’’ Augustine. — ric¢ ef, xipce ;]. On the question whether Saul, dur-
ing his residence in Jerusalem, had personally seen Christ‘ or not, comp. on
2 Cor. v. 16, no decision can at all be arrived at from this passage, as the
form in which the Lord presented Himself to the view of Saul belonged to
the heavenly world and was surrounded with the glorious radiance, and
Saul himself, immediately after the momentary view and the overwhelming
impression of the incomparable appearance, fell down and closed his eyes.
—Observe in ver. 5 the emphasis of éys and oi.

Ver. 6. ’AAAa] breaking off..—According to chap. xxvi., Jesus forthwith
gives Saul the commission to become the apostle of the Gentiles, which,
according to the two other narratives, here and chap. xxii., is only given
afterwards through the intervention of Ananias. This diversity is sufficient-
ly explained by the fact that Paul in the speech before Agrippa abridges
the narrative, and puts the commission, which was only subsequently con-
veyed to him by the instrumentality of another, at once into the mouth of
Christ Himself, the author of the commission ; by which the thing in itself,
the command issued by Christ to him, is not affected, but merely the ex-
actness of the representation, the summary abbreviation of which on this
point Paul might esteem us sufficient before Agrippa.*

Ver. 7. Elorjxecoay éveoi™] According to xxvi. 14, they all fell to the earth
with Saul. This diversity is not, with Bengel, Haselaar, Kuinoel, Baum-
garten, and others, to be obviated by the purely arbitrary assumption, that
tle companions at the first appearance of the radiance had fallen down, but
then had risen again sooner than Saul ; but it is to be recognised as an un-

! Comp. xxif. 6, xxvi. 18; Xen. Cyr. iv. 2. 5 See on Mark xvi, 7, and Baumlein, Portik.
15: Gas éx rod ovparoy wpodaves. On wepac- op. 15.
Tparrey, comp. Jauvenc. in Stob. cxvii. 9; 4 ¢ In opposition to Zeller, p. 198.

Macc. iv. 10. 7 éveos, dumd, speechless (here, from terror), is
$(1 Cor. ix. 1, xv. 8), Acts x. 17, 27. to be written with one y (not évveds), as ie done
3 xxvi. 14, by Lachm. Tiech. Born. after ABC EHR.

¢ Schrader, Olshausen, Ewald, Keim, Bey- See on the word, Valck. ad h. i. ; Bornem, ad
echiag, and others. Xen. Anad. iv. 5. 88; Ruhnk. ad Jism.p. 1038.

SAUL FASTING IN DAMASCUS. 187

essential non-agreement of the several accounts, whereby both the main
substance of the event itself, and the impartial conscientiousness of Luke
in not arbitrarily harmonizing the different sources, are simply confirmed
(P!), — dxobovrec uev tio govec] does not agree with xxii. 9.’ The artificial
attempts at reconciliation are worthless, namely : that r7¢ geri, by which
Orhist’s voice is meant, applies to the words of Paul ;* or, that guv7 is here
a& noise (thunder), but in xxii. 9 an articulate voice ;° or, that jxovoay in xxii.
9 denotes the understanding of the voice,‘ or the definite giving ear in
reference to the speaker,* which is at variance with the fact, that in both
places there is the simple contradistinction of seeing and hearing ; hence
the appeal to John xii. 28, 29 is not suitable, and still less the comparison
of Dan. x. 7. — undéva dé Oewp.|] But seeing no one, from whom the voice
might have come ; u7déva is used, because the participles contain the sub-
jective cause of their standing perplexed and speechless. It is otherwise in
ver. 8: ovdév éBdere.

Vv. 8, 9. "Avepyutévwy d2 rov o¢6adyz.] Consequently Saul had lain on the
ground with closed eyes since the appearance of the radiance (ver. 4),—
which, however, as the appearance of Jesus for him is to be assumed as in
and with the radiance, cannot prove that he had not really and personally
seen the Lord. — ovdéy éBAere] namely, because he was blinded by the heaven-
ly light, and not possibly in consequence of the journey through the desert,
seve xxii. 11. The connection inevitably requires this explanation by what
immediately follows ; nor is the Recepta obdéva 281. (see the critical remarks)
to be explained otherwise than of being blinded,* in opposition to Haselaar
and others, who refer ovdéva to Jesus. — 4? BAérwr] he was for three days
without being able to see, i.e. blind,’ so that he had not his power of vision.‘
Hence here x7 from the standpoint of the subject concerned ; but after-
wards ov« und ovdé, because narrating objectively. — oix égayev odd Emtev] an
absolute negation of eating and drinking,’ and not ‘‘a cibi potusve largioris
usu ubstinebat,’’ Kuinoel. By sasting Saul partly satisfied the compunction
into which he could not but now feel himself brought for the earlier wrong
direction of his efforts, and partly prepared himself by fasting and prayer
(ver. 11) for the decisive change of his inward and outward life, for which,
according to ver. 6, he waited a special intimation. See ver. 18.

2 See the note on ver. 8 ff.

2 So, againet the context, Chrysoetom, Am-
monius, Oecumeniue, Camerartus. Cartalio,
Beza, Vatablus, Olarius, Erasmus Schmid,
Heumann, and others.

380 erroneously, in opposition to ver. 4,
Hammond, Elsner, Fabricius, ad Cod. Apocr.
N.T., p. 442, Roszenmfller, Morus, Heinrichs.

#8o, after Grotius and many older inter-
preters, in Wolf, Kuinoel, and Hackett.

6 Bengel, Baumgarten.

* That the blinding took place as a symbol
of the previous spiritual blindness of Saul
(Calvin, Grotins, de Wette, Baumgarten. and
Others) is not indicated by anything in the

text, and may only be considered as the edi-
JSying application of the history, although
Baur makes the formation of the legend at-
tach itself to this idea. That blinding of Saui
was a simple consequence of the heavenly ra-
diance, and served (as also the fasting) to
withdraw him for a season wholly from the
outer world, and to restrict him to his inner
life. And the blindness befell Saul alane ;
iva BH Kotvoy Kai ws awd rixns Td wados
vouirdy, adAa Oeias mpovoias, Oecumenius.

7 John ix. 89; Ellendt, Lew. Soph. I. p. 308.

® Comp. Winer, p. 453 (E. T. 610).

* John iii. 7; Heth. iv. 16.

188 CHAP. 1X., 10-18.

Ver. 10. ‘0 xipioc] Christ.'— éy dpdéyar:] in a vision ;* whether awake or
asleep, the context does not decide, not even by avacrds, ver. 11. Eich-
horn’s view, with which Kuinoel and partially also Heinrichs agree,—
that Saul and Ananias had already been previously friends, and that the
appearance in a dream as naturally resulted in the case of the former from
the longing to speak with Ananias again and to get back sight by virtue
of a healing power which was well known to him, as in the case of Ananias,
who had heard of his friend’s fate on the way and of his arrival and
dream,—is a fiction of exegetical romance manufactured without the slight-
est hint in the text, and indeed in opposition to vv. 11 f., 14. The course
of the conversion, guided by Christ directly revealing Himself, is entirely
in accordance with its commencement (vv. 8-9): ‘‘ but we know not the
law according to which communications of a higher spiritual world to men
living in the world of sense take place, so as to be able to determine any-
thing concerning them’’ (Neander). According to Baur, the two corre-
sponding visions of Ananias and (ver. 12) Saul are literary parallels to the
history of the conversion of Cornelius. And that Ananias was a man of
legal piety (xxii. 12), is alleged by Schneckenburger* and Baur to be in
keeping with the tendency of Luke, although he does not even mention it
here; Zeller, p. 196, employs even the frequent occurrence of the name * to
call in question whether Ananias ‘‘ played a part’’ in the conversion of the
apostle at all.

Vv. 11, 12. There is a “‘ straight street,’ according to Wilson, still in
Damascus.° — ZaiAov dvéuars] Saul by name, Saul, as he is called.*° — idovd
yap . . . avaBAéyy} contains the reason of the intimation given : for, behold,
he prays, is now therefore in the spiritual frame which is requisite for what
thou art to do to him, and—he is prepared for thy very arrival to help him
—he has seen in a vision a@ man, who came in and, etc. — Imposition of hands"
is here also the medium of communication of divine grace. — avdpa ovdu.
‘Avaviav] This is put, and not the simple oé, to indicate that the person
who appeared to Saul had been previousiy entirely unknown to him, and
that only on occasion of this vision had he learned his name, Ananias.

Vv. 18-16. Ananias, in ingenuous simplicity of heart, expresses his
scruples as to conferring the benefit 1n question on a man who, according
to information received from many (a7d 7oAA.), had hitherto shown himself
entirely unworthy of it (ver. 18), and from whom even now only evil to
the cause of Christ was to be dreaded after his contemplated restoration
to sight (ver. 14). Whether Ananias had obtained the knowledge of the
inquisitorial éfovoia which Saul had at Damascus by letters from Jerusalem,®
or from the companions of Saul,’ or in some other way, remains undeter-

1 See vv. 18, 14, 17. loe.,and Petermann, Reisen im Orient, I. p.
3x. 8. xvi. 9, al.» differently vil. 81. 98.
3 p. 168 f. Comp. Xen. Anad. 1. 4. 11: wédcs ...
4 Chap. v. and xxii. 3, xxiv. 1 @adpaxos dyduars. Tob. vi. 10; 4 Mace. v. 3
5 The house in which Pani js said to have 7 Comp. on viii. 15.

dwelt is still pointed out. See aleo the Aus- ® Wolf, Rosenmiller.

land, 1866, No. 2%, p. 564. Comp. Hackett in —® Kuinoel.

ANANIAS BAPTIZES SAUL. 189

mined. — roi¢ dyiose cov) to the saints belonging to Thee, i.e. to the Christians:
for they, through the atonement appropriated by means of faith,’ having
been separated from the xécuoc and dedicated to God, belong to Christ,
who has purchased them by His blood (xx. 28). — év ‘Iepovs. belongs to
xaxa éroinoe. — Ver. 14. As to the emxadeiofla of Christ, see on vii. 59. It
is the distinctive characteristic of Christianity.» — Ver. 15. oxevoc éxdoyfc] a
chosen vessel (instrument). In this vessel Christ will bear, etc. The geni- *
tive of quality emphatically stands in place of the adjective.* — rot Bacrdca
x.T.A.| contains the definition of ox. éxA. wor goriv ovroc : to bear my Messianic
name, by the preaching of the same, before Gentiles, and Kings, and Israel-
ites. Observe how the future work of converting the Gentiles‘ is presented
as the principal work (e6vév x. Baoid.), to which that of converting the Jews
is related as a supplemental accessory ;° hence vidy 'Iop. is added with ré.* —
The ydp, ver. 16, introduces the reason why He has rightly called him oxeio¢
éxAoyge x.7.A. 3 for I shall show him how much he must suffer for my name, for
its glorification." The zy placed first has the force of the power of dis-
posal in reference to oxeiog éxA. wor éoriv: J am He, who will place it always
before his eyes. On this Bengel rightly remarks: ‘‘re ipsa, in toto ejus
cursu,’’—even to his death. According to de Wette, the reference is to
revelation: the apostle will suffer with prophetic foresight.° But such rev-
elations are only known from his later ministry, whereas the experimental
urddecéc¢ Commenced immediately, and brought practically to the conscious-
ness of the apostle that he was to be that oxetog zxAoy#¢ amidst much suf-
fering.

Vv. 17, 18. 'AdeAgé] here in the pregnant sense of the Christian brother-
hood already begun. — The ’Iycoct¢ . . . #pxov, not to be considered as a
parenthesis, and the xai rAyo6. rvebu. ay. make it evident to the reader that
the information and direction of the Lord, ver. 15, was fuller. —«. mAyoé.
xv. dy.] which then followed at the baptism, ver. 18. — And immediately
there fell from his eyes—not merely : it was to him as if there fell—as i were
ecales.° A scale-like substance had thus overspread the interior of his eyes,
and this immediately fell away, so that he again saw—evidently a mirac-
ulous and sudden cure, which Eichhorn ought not to have represented as
the disappearance of a passing cataruct by natural means, fasting, joy, the
cold hand of an old man ! — évicyvoev] in the neuter sense : he became strong.'°
Here of corporeal strengthening.

2 Comp. on Rom. i. 7.

3 Ver. 21; 1 Cor. 1.2; Rom. x. 10 ff.

* Herm. ad Vig. p. 800 f.; Winer, p. 228 (B.
T. 297). Comp. oxevos avdyxys, Anthol. xi.
27. 6.

4 Comp. Gal. 1. 16.

®8 The apostle’s practice of always attempt-
ing, firat of all, the work of conversion among
the Jews is not contrary to this, as his des
tination to the conversion of the Gentiles is
expressly designated without excluding the
Jews, and accordingly was to be followed out
without abandoning the historical courso of

salvation: ‘Iovdaie re mpwrov xai “EAAyn,
Rom. 1. 16. And what Panl was to attain in
this way, entirely corresponds to the expres-
sion in our passage.

® See Herm. ad Bur. Med. 4f.:; Klotz, ad
Devar. p. 748 f.; Winer, p. 404 (E. T. 542).

7 See on V. 41.

® Com. xx. 23, %, xxi. 11.

8 Comp. Tob. xi. 18.

10 Bee Aristot. Ath. x. 9: 1 Macc. vii. 2%; 8
Macc. ii. 88; Test. XII. Patr. p. 588; and
examples in Kypke, II p. 44. and from the
LXX. in Schleusner, II. p. 367 f.

190 CHAP. 1X., 19-26.

Vv. 19, 20 f. But he continued some days with the Christians there, and
then he immediately preached Jesus in the synagogues, at Damascus, namely,
that He was the Son of God.’ This is closely connected, and it is only with
extreme violence that Michaelis and Heinrichs have referred ver. 19 to the
time before the journey to Arabia,*® and ver. 20 to the time after that
journey. Pearson placed the Arabian journey before ver. 19, which is at
variance with the close historical connection of vv. 18 and 19; just us the
connection of vv. 21 and 22 does not permit its being inserted before ver.
22 (Laurent). The evOéwe in Gal. Jc. 1s decisive against Kuinoel, Olshausen,
Ebrard, Sepp, p. 44 f., and others, who place this journey and the return
to Damacus after ver. 25. The Arabian excursion, which certainly was but
brief, is historically—for Luke was probably not at all aware of it, and has
at least left it entirely owt of account as unimportant for his object, which
has induced Hilgenfeld and Zeller to impute his silence to set purpose—
most fitly referred with Neunder to the period of the guépa: ixavai, ver. 23.°
The objection, that Saul would then have gone out of the way of his
Opponents and their plot against him would not have taken place,‘ is
without weight, as this hostile project may be placed after the return from
Arabia.® It is, however, to be acknowledged ® that the time from the
conversion to the journey to Jerusalem cannot have been known to Luke
as so long an interval as it actually was —three years, Gal. i. 18 — seeing
that for such a period the expression ind¢finite, no doubt, but yet measured
by days (it is otherwise at ver. viii. 11), gyépac ixavai, ver. 28," is not
sufficient. —év raic ovvay.] ovx goxivero, Chrysostom. — 6 sropttyoac| see on
Gal. i. 18. — «ai ddex.7.A.] and hither, to Damascus, he had come for the
object, that he, etc. How contradictory to his conduct now!*® On the
subjunctive aydyy, see Winer.°

Vv. 22, 238. But Saul, in presence of such judgments, became strong in
his new work all the more.°— ovvéxuve] made perplexed, put out of countenance,
éreoréustev, ovx cia te etreiv."§ The form ytrw instead of zéw belongs to late
Greek. "—ovp8iBas.] proving.4*— érAnpovvro, a8 in Vii. 28. ixavai, as in ver. 43,
xvill, 18, xxii. 7, of a considerable time,"* especially common with Luke (q').

Vv. 24, 25. Maperypobyro dé xai (see the critical remarks), but they watched
also, ete., contains what formed a special addition to the danger mentioned

2 0 vids row Geos occurs only here (xiii. 83 is
a quotation from the O. T.) in the narrative
of the Book of Acts. The historical fact ts:
Paul announced that Jesus was the Messiah,
see ver. 22. He naturally did not as yct enter
on the metaphysical relation of the Sonehip of
God ; but this is implied in the conception of
Luke, when he from his fully formed Pauline
standpoint uses this designation of the Mes-
siah.

2 Gal. 1. 17.

7 Comp. on Gal. i. 17 and Introduction to
Romane, rec, 1.

* De Wette.

5 With this agrees aleo the eviews, Gal 1.
16, which requires the Arabian journey to be

pat very soon after the conversion, conse-
quently at the very commencement of the
Hepat ixavai, ver, 23. If this is done, that
eviews is not opposed to our view given above
(in opposition to Zeller, p. 202).

* Comp. Baur.

7 Comp. ver, 43, xviil. 18, xvil. 7.

§ **Qnasi dicerent: At etiam Saul inter pro-
phetas,’’ 1 Sam. x. 11, Grotius.

®p 270 (E. T. 35).

10 Nagelsb. on the Iliad, p. 227, ed. 8.

1) Chrysostom. Comp. on if. 6.

13 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 726.

18 Comp. 1 Cor. il. 16; Schleusner, Thea. ¢.0.;
Jamblich 60.

14 Plat. Legg. p. 786 C.

PREACHING AND FLIGHT. e 191

in ver. 28. The subject is the Jews ; they did it—and thereby the apparent
difference with 2 Cor. xi. 88 is removed—on the obtained permission or
order of the Arabian ethnarch.! More artificial attempts at reconciliation
are quite unnecessary.*— oi yabyrai abrov (see the critical remarks), opposed
to the ’Iovdaio, ver. 28. Saul had already gained scholars among the Jews of
Damascus ; they rescued him from the plot of their fellow Jews, in opposition
to de Wette’s opinion, that disciples of the apostle were out of the ques-
tion. — dia rov relyouc] through the wall: whether an opening found in it, or
the window of a building abutting on the city-wall, may have facilitated
the passage. The former is most suited to the mode of expression. — év
orvpidc] see on Matt. xv. 37.°

Vv. 26, 27. Three years after his conversion (Gal. i. 18), Paul went for
the first time back to Jerusalem.‘ Thus long, therefore, had his first
labcurs at Damascus lasted, though interrupted by the Arabian journey.
For the connection admits of no interruption between vv. 25 and 26, the
flight, ver. 25, and the rapayevéu. o2 cic ‘Iepovo., ver 26, stand in close rela-
tion to each other. Driven from Damascus, the apostle very naturally and
wisely directed his steps to the mother-church in Jerusalem, in order to
enter into connection with the older apostles, particularly with Peter, Gal.
i, 18.—roi¢ pabyr.| to the Christians. — xai rdvrec épof.] xai is the simple
and, which annexes the unfavourable result cof the ée:p. xoAA. roig wa. Ob-
serve, moreover, On this statement—(1) that it presupposes the conversion
to have occurred not long ago; (2) that accordingly the #yépaz ixavat, ver.
28, cannot have been conceived by Luke as a period of three years ; (8) but
that—since according to Gal. i. 18 Paul nevertheless did not appear till
three years after at Jerusalem—the distrust of all, here reported, and the
‘introduction by Barnabas resting on that distrust as its motive, cannot be
historical, as after three years’ working the fact that Paul was actually a
Christian could not but be undoubted in the church at Jerusalem.° — 67:
éoriy uaf.} to be accented with Rinck and Bornemann, éoriw. — Bapvéfac}
see on iv. 86. Perhaps he was at an earlier period acquainted with the
apostle, -— ériAaBdu.] graphically : he grasped him by the hand, and led him ;
autéy, however, is governed by jyaye, for ér:AauBdvecfa is always conjoined
with the genitive.* — mpd¢ rode avoor.] an approximate and very indefinite

? Comp. 2 Cor. xJ. 38.

* Comp. Wieseler, p. 142.

*On the apelling odupid, attested by C &,
see Lobeck. ad Phryn. p. 118.

‘ According to Laurent, neufest. Stud. p. 70
ff., the journey to Jerusalem in our passage is
diferent from the journey [n Gal. 1.18. The
latter is to be placed defore ix. 26. But in that
case the important journey, ix. 26, would be
left entirely unmentioned in the Epistle to the
Galatians (for it is not to he found at Gal i.
22, 23),—which is absolutely irreconcilable
with the very object of narrating the journeys
in that Epistle.

5 To explain the distrust from the enigmat-

ically long disappearance and re-emergence
of the apostle (Lange, Apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 98)
ia quite against the context of the Book of
Acts, in which the Arabian journey has no
place. The distrust may in some measure be
explained from a long retirement in Arabia
(comp. Ewald, p. 408), especially if, with Nean-
der and Ewald, we suppose also a prolonged
interruption of communication between Da-
mascus and Jerusalem occasioned hy the war
of Aretas, which, however, does not admit of
being verified.

* So in xvi. 19, xvili. 17. Comp. Luke riv.
4; Battm. neué. Gr. p. 140 (E. T. 160).

192 | CHAP. IX., 27-30.

statement, expressed by the plural of the category ; for, according to Gal.
i. 18, only Peter and James the Lord’s brother were present; but not at
variance with this,’ especially as Luke betrays no acquaintance with the
special design of the journey *—a design with which, we may add, the
working related in vv. 28-80, although it can only have lasted for fifteen
days, does not conflict, A purposely designed fiction, with a view to bring
the apostle:from the outset into closest union with the Twelve, would
have had to make the very most of icropyca: Iérpov. —xal diyyfoato} not
Paul, so Beza and others, as already Abdias* appears to have taken it, but
Barnabas, which the construction requires, and which alone is in keeping
with the business of the latter, to be the patron of Paul. — ér:] not 3, rz. —
év rg dvéu. 7. "Inoov] the name—the confession and the proclamation of the
name—of Jesus, as the Messiah, was the element, in which the bold speak-
ing (érappnordcaro) had free course. ‘

Vv. 28-80. Mer’ airéy eiorop. x. éxrop.] Bee on i. 21. According to the
reading cic ‘Iepovc., and after deletion of the following xai (see the critical
remarks), ei¢ ‘Iepove. is to be attached to rappyo.: He found himeelf in
familiar intercourse with them, while in Jerusalem he spoke frankly and freely
in the name of the Lord Jesus. Accordingly eic ‘Iepove. is to be taken as in
xnpbocew etc (Mark i. 89), Atyecv ei¢ (John viii. 26), waprupeiy ete (Acts xxiii.
11), and similar expressions, where cic amounts tu the sense of coram.
Comp. Matthiae, § 578, 85; Ellendt, Ler. Soph. I. p. 584. With éadre ze
x.r.A. (which is only to be separated from the preceding by a comma) there
is annexed to the general sic ‘Iepove. wappyco. a special portion thereof, in
which case, instead of the participle, there is emphatically introduced the
finite tense.°— rpdc rove “EAAyv.] with (against) the Greek-Jews, see on vi.
1, —érexelpovv airdv avedeiv] does not exclude the appearance of Christ,
xxii. 17, 18, as Zeller thinks, since it is, on the contrary, the positive ful-
filment of the ov rapadéfovra: x.r.A. negatively announced in chap. xxii. —
etartore:Aay] they sent him away from them to Tarsus, after they had brought
him down toCaesarea. On account of Gal. i. 27 it is to be assumed that the
apostle journeyed from Caesarea ° to Tarsus, not by sea, but by land, along
the Mediterranean coast through Syria; and not, with Calovius and
Olshausen, that here Caesarea Philippi on the borders of Syria is to be
understood as meant. The reader cannot here, any more than in viii. 40,
find any occasion in the text to understand Kaodpeca otherwise than as the
celebrated capital ; it is more probable, too, thut Paul avoided the closer
vicinity of Damascus. — How natural it was to his heart, now that he was
recognised by his older colleagues in Jerusalem but persecuted by the Jews,
to bring the salvation in Christ, first of all, to the knowledge of his beloved
native region! And doubtless the first churches of Cilicia owed their
origin to his abode at that time in his native country.

2 Schneckenburger, Baur, Zeller, Laurent, cvcAm wdype "IAAvpixov, Rom. xv. 19. Comp.

comp. Neander, p. 165 ; Lekebusch, p. 288. Eph. vi. 20.
3 igropnaa: Ilérpoy, Gal. f.c. ® Winer p. 588 (EB. T. 717).
9 Hist. ap. ii. 2. 6 See on vill. 40.

4 From this ia dated the dwd “IepovoaAy x.

VISITS JERUSALEM AND TARSUS. 193

Ver. 81. Oiv] draws an inference from the whole history, vv. 3-30: in
consequence of the conversion of the former chief enemy and his trans-
formation into the zeulous apostle. — The description of the happy state of
the church contains two elements: (1) Jé had peace, rest from persecutions,
and, as its accompaniment, the moral state: becoming edified—advancing in
Christian perfection, according to the habitual use of the word in the N. T.
—and walking in the fear of the Lord,' i.e. leading a God-fearing life, by
which that edification exhibited itself in the moral conduct. (2) Jt was
enlarged, increased in the number of its members,* by the exhortation * of the
Holy Spirit, i.e. by the Holy Spirit through His awakening influence direct-
ing the minds of men to give audience to the preaching of the gospel.‘
The meaning: comfort, consolation,’ is at variance with the context, al-
though still adopted by Baumgarten.— Observe, morcover, with the
correct reading 7 uév oby éxxAnoia x.t.A. the aspect of unity, under which
Luke, surveying the whole domain of Christendom, comprehends the churches
which had been already formed, and were in course of formation.* The
external bond of this unity was the apostles; the internal, the Spirit;
Christ the One Head; the forms of the union were not yet more fully
developed than by the gradual institution of presbyters (xi. 80) and
deacons. That the church was also in Galilee, was obvious of itself,
though the name is not included in viii. 1; it was, indeed, the cradle of
Christianity.

Vv. 32-35. (r') This journey of visitation and the incidents related of
Peter to the end of chap. x. occur, according to the order of the text, in
the period of Paul’s atode in Cilicia after his departure from Jerusalem,
ver. 30. Olshausen,’ in an entirely arbitrary manner, transfers them to
the time of the Arabian sojourn, and considers the communication of the
return to Jerusalem, at ix. 26 ff., as anticipated. — dia mavruv}] namely, rav
ayiwy, as necessarily results from what follows.* — Aidda, in the O. T. Lod,*
a village resembling a town,’ not far from the Mediterranean, near Joppa
(ver. 38), at a later period the important city of Diospolis, now the vil-
lage of Ludd."' — Aivéac was, according to his Greek name,'* perhaps a Hel-
lenist ; whether he was a Christian, as Kuinoel thinks, because his conver-
Bion is not afterwards related, or not, in favour of which is the anything but
characteristic designation dvfpwrdéy tiva, remains undetermined. — idrai ce]
actually, at this moment. —'Iyo0t¢ 6 Xptoréc] Jesus the Messiah. — ovzpacov
orauvr@ | Erroneously Heumann, Kuinoel: ‘‘ Lectum, quem tibi hactenus alii

1 Dative of manner, as in xxi. 21; Rom. 21 Chron. {x. 12; Ezra fi. 88.

xiii. 18; comp. on 2 Cor. xii. 18. 10 Joseph. Antt. xx. 6,2; Bell. ii. 12. 6, iii.
2 As in vi. 1,7, vii. 17, xfi. 24; hence not: 3 5.

it was Alled with, etc., Vulgate, Baumgarten, 1! See Lightfoot, ad Matth. p. 85 ff.; Rob-

and others. inson, IIT. 863 ff. ; von Raumer, p. 190 f.
3 As in iv, 36, xiil. 15, xv. 81; Phfl. il. 1. 12The name Aivéeas (not to be identified
4 Comp. xvi. 14. with that of the Trojan Aiveias) is also found
® Vulgate and others. in Thue. iv. 119. 1; Xen. Anabd. iv. 7. 18, Hell,
* Gal. 1.22. Comp. xvi. 5. vii. 3.1; Pind. Ol. vi. 149. Yet Aiveds inetead
7 Comp. aleo Wiecereler, p. 146. Of Aiveias is found in a fragment of Sophocles

* Comp. Rom. xv. 28. (S42 D) for the sake of the verze.

194 CHAP. Ix., 31-43.

straverunt, in posterum tute tibi ipse sterne.’? The imperative aorist
denotes the immediate fulfilment ;! hence: make thy bed, on the spot, for
thyself ; perform immediately, in token of thy cure, the same work which
hitherto others have had to do for thee in token of thine infirmity. — orpd»-
vue, used also in classical writers absolutely, without eivd¢ or the like.*—
Saron, {18} a very fruitful ;* plain along the Mediterranean at Joppa, ex-
tending to Caesarea.* — oirivec éxéorp. éxi r. xip.] The aorist does not stand for
the pluperfect, so that the sense would be: ali Christians ;° but: and there
saw him, after his cure, all the inhabitants of Lydda and Saron, they who
(quippe qui), in consequence of this practical proof of the Messiahship of
Jesus, turned to the Lord. The numerous conversions, which occurred in
consequence of the miraculous cure, are in a popular hyperbolical manner
represented by dvre¢ of x.7.A. a8 a conversion of the population as a whole,—
Since Peter did not first inquire as to the faith of the sick man, he must
have known the man’s confidence in the miraculous power commcnicated
to him as the ambassador and announcer of the Messiah (ver. 34), or have
read it from his looks, as in iii. 4. Chrysostom and Oecumenius adduce
other reasons.

Ver. 36. 'Iérr7, ‘2’, now Jaffa, an old, strong, and important commer-
cial city on the Mediterranean, directly south of the plain of Sharon, at
this time,after the deposition of Archelaus, belonging to the province of
Syria.’ — pvabyrp:a] whether virgin, widow, or wife, is undetermined.* On
this late Greek word, only here in the N. T., see Wetstein. — Tafr6d,

ae 7

Aramaic *°30, which corresponds to the Hebrew ‘4¥ (>); i.¢. dopxdc,°

a gazelle.” It appears as a female name also in Greek writers ;"' and the
-bestowal of this name is explained from the gracefulness of the animal,
just as the old Oriental love-songs adorn their descriptions of female loveli-
ness by comparison with gazelles.—xai eAenu.] wai: and in particular.
Comp. ver. 41. That Tabitha was a deaconess,"* is not implied in the text ;
there were probably not yet any such office-bearers at thut time. ,

Vv. 37, 88. Concerning the general ancient custom of washing the dead,
see Dougtaei™ and Wetstein ; also Hermann.‘ — éy tepgw] The articie,
which Lachmann and Bornemann have, after A C E, was not necessary,
as it was well known that there was only one upper room (i. 18) in the
house, and thus no mistake could occur. Nor is anything known as to its

1 Elmel. ad Soph. Aj. 1180; Ktthner, II.
p. 90.

3 Hom. Od. xix. 506; Plut. Artaw. 2.

3 Notto be accented Zapwva,with Lachmann,
bat Zdpwva. See Bornemann in loc. Comp.
Lobeck, Paralip. p. 555.

« Jerome, ad Jes. xxxili. 19.

& See Lightfoot, ad Matth. p. $8 f.; Arnold
in Herzog’s Encyki. XI. p. 10.

* Kuinoel.

7 See Tobler, 7opogr. vo. Jerus. Tl. p. 576 ff. ;
Ruetschi in Herzog's Enecyki. VII. p. 4f.

8 But probably a widow. To this points

wacat ai xnpar Of ver. 89; all thé widows of
the church, who lamented their dead com-
panion.

° Xen. Anad. 1.5.2; Eur. Bacch. 696; Ael.
#f. A. xiv. 14,

10 Bochart, Hieros. I. p. 924 ff., IL. p. 804;
Buxtorf, Lex. Taim. p. S48.

11 Luc. Mereir. D. 9, Meleag. 61 f., in Joseph
Bell. iv. 3. 5, and the Rabbins (Lightfoot, ad.
Math. p. 3).

18 Thiersch, Sepp.

13 Anal. II. p. 77 ff.

14 Privatatterth. § 89.8,

PETER CURES AENEAS AND RAISES DORCAS. 195
having usually served as the chamber for the dead ; perhaps the room for
privacy and prayer was chosen in this particular instance, because they
from the very first thought to obtain the presence and agency of Peter. —
He Oxrhoye x.T.A.] Comp. Num. xxii. 16. ‘‘ Fides non tollit civtlitatem ver-
borum,’’ Bengel. On the classical oxveiv, only here in the N. T., see
Ruhok.,’ Jacobs." Thou mayest not hesitate to come to us. On ceAé.,
comp. Luke ii. 15.

Ver. 89. The widows, the recipients of the dyafév épy./x. tAenpoo., ver.
86, exhibit to Peter the under and upper garments, which they wore® as
gifts of the deceased, who herself, according to the old custom among
women, had made them,—the eloquent utterance of just and deep sorrow,
-and of warm desire that the apostolic power might here become savingly
operative ; but, according to Zeller, a display calculated for effect. —
9% Aopxac|] The proper name expressed in Greek is, as the most attractive for
non-Jewish readers, and perhaps also as being used along with the Hebrew
name in the city itself, here repeated, and is therefore not, with Wassen-
berg, to be suspected.

Vv. 40-48. The putting out‘ of all present took place in order to pre-
serve the earnestness of the prayer and its result from every disturbing
influence. — 7d capa] the dead body. See on Luke xvii. 37. On avexdfrae,
comp. Luke vii. 15. — The ezplanation of the fact as an awakening from
apparent death® is exegetically at decided variance with ver. 87, but is also
' to be rejected Aistorically, as the revival of the actually dead Tabitha has
its historical precedents in the raisings of the dead by Jesus. Ewald’s
view also amounts ultimately to an apparent death (p. 245), placing the
revival at that boundary-line, ‘‘where there may scarcely be still the last
spark of lifein a man.’’ Baur, in accordance with his foregone conclusions,
denies all historical character to the miracles at Lydda and Joppa, holding
that they are narratives of evangelical miracles transferred to Peter ;’ and
that the very name Tafiid is probably derived simply from the radia xoipz,
Mark v. 40, for TaG:64 properly (#) denotes nothing but maiden. — xai] and
in particular. — Ver. 42. éri] direction of the faith, as in xi. 17, xvi. 81,
xxii. 19; Rom. iv. 24. — Ver. 43. Bupoci] although the trade of a tanner,
on account of its being occupied with dead animals, was esteemed unclean ;*
which Peter now disregarded. —The word upoetc, in Artemidorus and
others, has also passed into the language of the Talmud (D113). The more
classical term is Bupoodéyne.°

2 Ad Tim. p. 190.

8 Ad Anthol. IIT. p. 804.

§ Obzerve the middle éw:Secey. (only here in
the N. T.), they ewhtbiled on themselves. There
lay a certain self-consciousness, yea, a grateful
ostentation, in their being able to show the
pledges of her beneficence. See on the dis-
tinction between the active and middle of
éwidexey., Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ti. 1. 21.
Comp. also Ast, Lew. Plat. 1. p. T72.

* Comp. Matt. ix. 25; Mark v, 4; Luke
vill. 54.

5 See particularly Eck. Versuch d. Wunder-
gesch. ad. N. T. aus natiri. Ure. as. erkldren, p.
248 ff.

* Hence it is just as unnecessary as it ds
arbitrary to assume, with Lange, apoel. Zeilalt.
Il. p. 129, that Tabitha had for a considerable
time stood 1n spiritual rapport with Peter, and
that this was the vehicle of the reviving agency.

7 Comp. aleo Zeller, p. 177 f.

8 Wetstein and Schoettgen.

* Plat. Conv. p. 221 E; Aristoph. Puut, 168.

196 CHAP. IX.—NOTES.

Notes sy AMERICAN Eprror.
(a') Saul. V. 1.

The first section of the ninth chapter furnishes a record of an event in the
early history of the church of Christ, second in interest and importance only to
the wonders of the day of Pentecost—the sudden, miraculous conversion of
Saul of Tarsus. He was a man of rare endowments, varied attainments, great
influence, and indomitable energy ; and he became the mightiest champion,
and most zealous and successful missionary of the faith he had so fiercely un-
dertaken to overthrow. More than any, or than all of the apostles, he has
impressed his spirit and personality on evangelical Christianity ; and thus he
has wielded a more potent influence in the world than any man of his own, or
of any other age, unless, indeed, we except that mighty man of God, the great
emancipator and lawgiver of Israel. Of this marked event we have three dis-
tinct accounts in the Acts—one in the narrative of Luke, two in speeches de-
livered by Paul himself—and numerous allusions in his epistles. These ac-
counts agree in all principal points, and only differ in subordinate details.
The variety furnishes the highest evidence of the credibility of the history.
The separate accounts mutually supplement each other, and give completeness
to the record. Farrar says: ‘‘It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of
Paul’s conversion as one of the evidences of Christianity. That the same man
who just before was persecuting Christianity with the most violent hatred
should come, all at once, to believe in him: whose followers he had been seek-
ing to destroy, and that in this faith he should become a ‘new creature '—
what is this but a victory which Christianity owed to nothing but the spell of
its own inherent power? Of all who have been converted to the faith of
Christ, there is not one in whose case the Christian principle broke so imme-
diately through everything opposed to it, and asserted so absolutely its tri-
umphant superiority. Henceforth to Paul Christianity was summed up in the
one word, Christ.’’

(N') Damascus. V. 2.

The name of Damascus occurs as early as the time of Abraham, and is, there-
fore, probably the oldest city in the world. It is situated about one hundred
and forty miles north-east of Jerusalem, and was, at the time of Paul's visit,
the capital of Syria. Many Jews resided there, and it is probable a number of
them were present on the day of Pentecost, so that a church was early planted
in it. The city has had a romantic and diversified history. It played an im-
portant part in the Wars of the Crusades, and it is still one of the largest cities
in the East, containing 150,000 inhabitants. Beautiful for situation as it is
important in position, it has been described as ‘‘ the eye of the East,” or as ‘‘a
handful of pearls in its goblet of emeralds.”’

(0!) A light from heaven. V. 38.

Our author strongly repudiates and refutes the opinions of those who at-
tempt to account for the occurrence on natural principles—as that Paul was in
greatly perturbed state of mind, in reference to all he had heard about_Jésus,

NOTES. 197

and had witnessed concerning Stephen ; that, while journeying in this unset-
tled and troubled state, he encountered a violent thunder-storm, and was
blinded by a vivid flash of lightning ; that his excited imagination heard a
voice in the thunder, and saw a celestial form in the lightning. He says the
light was rather the heavenly radiance, with which the exalted Christ, appearing
in his glory, is surrounded. The Risen One himself was in the light which ap-
peared and converted Saul. This, doubtless, is the meaning of the narrative.
Paul was free from fanaticism, and under no hallucination, and was little
likely to confound a merely natural phenomenon with a heavenly revelation.
To him the sight and the sound alike were impressively and permanently
real, ‘* And about that which he saw and heard he never wavered. It was
the secret of his inmost being ; it was the most unalterable conviction of his
soul; it was the very crisis and most intense moment of his life. Others
might hint at explanations or whisper doubt : Saul knew. From that moment
Saul was converted. A change total, utter, final had passed over him. And
the means of this mighty change all lay in this one fact—at that awful moment
he had seen the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Furrar.)

(P!) Stood speechless. V. 7,

The first apparent discrepancy here relates to the posture of Paul's compan-
ions. Luke says they stood ; Paul says they all fell to the ground (xxvi. 14),
‘* This verb often means éo stand, not as opposed to other attitudes, but to be
fixed and stationary, as opposed to the idea of motion. In this sense the pas-
sage is entirely consistent with xxvi. 14, where it is said that when they heard
the voice they all fell tothe ground. Plainly it was not Luke’s object to say that
they stood erect in distinction from kneeling, lying prostrate, and the like ;
but that, overpowered by what they saw and heard, they were fixed tw the spot ;
they were unable for a time to speak or move.” (Hackeltt.)

The second apparent discrepancy relates to the voice from heaven. Luke says
Paul’s companions heard it ; Paul says (xxii. 9), ‘‘They heard not the voice of
him that spake to me.” The verb rendered to hear is often used in the sense
of to understand—to hear with the understanding. The meaning is that the
words of our Lord were heard indeed both by Paul and his companions, but
were understood only by the former. ‘‘axovw, like the corresponding word in
other languages, means not only to hear, but to hear so as to understand.” The
expression used by Luke differs from that employed by Paul—Luke uses gwv7s ;
Paul, gwv7v. Jacobson and others think that this implies a difference in the
meaning, attributing to the genitive case a partitive sense, and so understand.
ing Luke to say the companions heard something of the voice, but indistinctly.
Hackett and Alford both disapprove of this distinction.

(Q') Many days. V. 23.

During the time included by this phrase, the journey into Arabia, of which
Paul speaks in his epistle to the Galatians, but of whioh Luke makes no men-
tion, must have been made. There is an indefiniteness about the time, and
where and how it was spent, which leaves room for various conjectures. ‘The
following,” says Gloag, ‘‘ appears to have been the series of events: Panl, im-
mediately after his conversion, spent a few days with the disciples at Damas-

198 CHAP, IX.—NOTES.

cus, preaching Christ in the synagogues of the Jews (verses 19-22). Soon af-
terward, urged by an internal impnise, he went to Arabia, where he spent
two or three years in retirement, preparing himself for his great mission (Gal.
i. 15-17). Then he returned to Damascus, and spent some time longer there
preaching the gospel (ver. 23). Afterward, in consequence of a plot of the
Jews against his life, he effected his escape and betook himself to Jerusalem
(verses 24, 25), It isprobable that the greater part of the three years was spent
not in Damascus, but in Arabia ; for it is to his residence in Arabia that Paul
himself gives the greater prominence. Damascus is only incidentally men-
tioned by him. This also best accounts for the cold reception which he re-
ceived from the disciples in Jerusalem.'’ The fact that Luke makes no men-
tion of the journey to Arabia may be accounted for by this consfderation, that
the Acts is not a biography of Paul in his private relations or experiences, but
a record of his public labors for the extension and upbuilding of the church.
** Paul, in Arabia, was not an evangelist, but a student of theology ; not a dis-
penser, but a receiver of revelations. He who formerly at Jerusalem sat at the
feet of Gamaliel, in Arabia sat as a student at the feet of Jesus; and the Acts
records not his studies but his labors ; it relates public events which are his-
tory, not private events which are biography.’’ (Gloag.)

(2!) Peter and Paul—Lydda and Joppa, V. 32.

On the return of Paul from Damascus to Jerusalem he was introduced to the
brethren there by Barnabas. There first Peter and Paul met and took counsel
together. Kindred in spirit, though differing much in social culture and men-
tal training, the high-born, philosophic pupil of Gamaliel and the humble il-
literate boatman of Galilee formed, even during the brief intercourse of two
weeks, an ardent, life-long friendship. Little did either of them at the time
imagine the grandeur of the work in which they were engaged, or the great
things they both were to do and to suffer forthe sake of Him they sought to
serve and honor. Still less did they suppose that their humble names would
be inscribed in the heraldry of deathless fame, while the great men of their
day, princes, philosophers, and priests, would be remembered chiefly because
of their relation to them and their work. Scarcely had the names of Caligula,
and Gamaliel, and Annas been known to-day but for their connection with
these two humble great men and their mission. After a few days of wonderful
and intimate fellowship, and mutual explanations of personal experience, they
part—Paul to go to his native city, and Peter to visit the church in the vicinity
of Jerusalem. Hitherto the attention of the apostles had mainly been given to
the church in the capital ; now the most restless and ardent of their number
goes forth on a tour of pastoral and evangelistic labor. In his journeyings he
came to Lydda, the ancient Lud, situated in the delightful pastoral plain of
Sharon, famous for its beauty, flowers, and fruitfulness. The old loveliness of
the plain remains, but it is now a solitude; and a soil rich enough to supply
all Palestine with food, under the desolating rule of the Ottoman domination,
is untilled and unproductive. Lydda is the reputed birthplace of St. George,
whose name is associated with the mythical story of the dragon, and who is
the so-called patron saint of England. Peter came to the saints there. It is
worthy of note that there are four names by which the followers of Jesus were
designated before they were called Christians—the name.by which they are now

NOTES. 199

universally distinguished: disciples, i. 15; believers, ii. 44; saints, ix. 13 ;
brethren, ix. 30. Here, and also at Joppa, now Jaffa, a seaport on the Mediter-
ranean, and within six miles of Lyydda, the apostle wrought two striking mira-
cles, in restoring the confirmed paralytic Eneas to perfect strength, and in rais-
ing the deceased Dorcas to life. To the one he said: ‘‘ Eneas, Jesus Christ
maketh thee whole ;” and to the other, after prayer: ‘‘ Tabitha, arise.’”’ At-
tempts have been made to explain away these miracles, but they have totally
failed. The impression made on all who witnessed them was that it was the
mighty power of God, and in consequence ‘‘many believed in the Lord.’’ Dr.
W. M. Taylor says: ‘‘A wonder, and yet not a wonder. A wonder when we
look at Peter, the human instrument ; but no wonder at all when we think of
Jesus Ohrist, the Divine Agent. It is Divine power that works in daily order,
and Divine choice can alter that order in an individual instance. Hence let
but the Deity of Jesus Christ be granted, and the whole matter is explained.’’

200 CRITICAL REMARKS.

CHAPTER X.

Ver. 1. After ris, Elz. Scholz have jv, which Lachm. Tisch. and Born. have
deleted. It is wanting in ABCEG %, min., in the vas. and Theophyl. ; it
was inserted (after ix. 36), because the continuous construction of vv. 1-3 was
mistaken. Almost according to the same testimony the usual r¢, ver. 2, after
sotoy is condemned as an insertion. — Ver. 3. dcei] Lachm. and Born. read
woe repi, after A B C E %, min. Dam. Theophyl. 2. Rightly; the epi after
doei was passed over as superfluous. — Ver. 5. After Liuwva read, with Lachm.
Tisch. Born., teva, according to A B C, min. Copt. Arm. Syr. p. (in the margin)
Vulg. The indefinite 7:va appeared not suited to the dignity of the prince of
the apostles, and was therefore omitted. — After ver. 6, Elz. (following Erasm. )
has odroS AaAnjoe: oot, Ti ce det woceiv, Which, according to decisive testimony, is
to be rejected as an interpolation from ix. 6, x. 32. The addition, which some
other witnesses have instead of it: 65 AaAnoe: Apyata xpis ce, év olS owbyoy od
cai wiiS 6 olxéS cov, is from xi. 14. — Ver. 7. atry] Elz. has rw KoprnAiy, against
decisive testimony. On similar evidence adroi after oixer. (Elz. Scholz) is
deleted. — Ver. 10. avrwy] So Lachm. Born. Tisch. instead of the usual é«eirwr,
which has far preponderant evidence against it, and was intended to remedy
the indefiniteness of the atrév. — éxéxecev] A BC ®&, min. Copt. Or. have
tyévero, which Griesb. approved, and Lachm. Tisch. Born. have adopted, and
that rightly, as it is preponderantly attested, and was easily replaced by the
more definite érérecev (Clem. : érecev) as its gloss. — Ver. 11. After xcaraBaivor,
Elz. hus éx' atrév, which is wanting in A B C** E &, min. vss. Or. Defended,
indeed, by Rinck (as having been omitted in conformity to xi. 5) ; but the very
notice xai #AGev Gyp:S éuov, xi. 5, has here produced the addition én’ abrév as a
more precise definition. — dedeuévov xai] is wanting in A B C** E &, min. Arm.
Aeth. Vulg. Or. Cyr. Theodoret. Deleted by Lachm. But see xi. 5.— Ver. 12.
775 77S] is wanting in too few witnesses to be regarded as spurious. But
Lachm, and Tisch. have it after éowerd, according to A BC E &, min. vss, and
Fathers. Rightly ; see xi. 6, from which passage also the usual xai ra Onpia
before xai rd épwerd is interpolated. ra before fpwerd and werervé is, with
Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted. — Ver. 16. ed60S] So Lachm. and Tisch.
after ABC EX, min. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. But Elz. Scholz have zdacv, which is
introduced from xi. 10, although defended by Born. (who places it after aved.)
on account of its appearing superfluous. -- Ver. 17. xa? idov] Lachm. reads idov,
after A B®, min. ; but «ci was unnecessary, and might appear disturbing. —
Ver. 19. dievOupovpévov] Elz. has évOuu. against decisive evidence. Neglect of
the double compound, elsewhere not occurring in the N. T. — avdpes] Elz-
Lachm. Scholz. add to this zpeis, which is wanting in D GQ H min. vss. and
Fathers. An addition, »fter ver. 7, xi. 11 ; instead of which B has dvo (ver. 7),
which Buttmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 357, unsatisfactorily defends by
the artificial assumption—not confirmed by the expression in ver. 8—that the
soldier was only taken with him as escort and attendant. — Ver. 20. Instead

‘

CRITICAL REMARKS, 201

of dre, Elz. has didr/, against decisive evidence. — Ver. 21. After didpas, Elz.
has rov$ ameoradusvuvs and rob Kopyyiiov mpds atrov, against ABC DEG X,
min. and most vss. Chrys. An addition, because ver. 21 commences a church-
lesson.— Ver. 23. avacrds] is wanting in Elz., but is just as certainly protected
by decisive testimony, and by its being apparently superfluous, as o [lLérpos,
which in Elz. stands before ¢éj/@e, is condemned by ABCD X&, min. and sev-
eral vas. as the subject written on the margin. — Ver. 25. rod eiceAGeiv] Elz. has
merely eiceAGeiv. But rod is found in A BC E G B®, min. Chrys. Bas. Theophyl.
See the exegetical remarks. — Born. reads ver. 25 thus: npoceyyifovros d2 Tov
Tlétpov eS rav Kaodperav, mpodpauov eS trav dotAwy diecdgnoevy napayeyovévas
airév: 6 d2 KopyjAcosS éxrndgoas nat ovvaytnoas aity meody mpos rovs xédaS mpoce-
xuvnoev airév, only after D, Syr. p. (on the margin) ; an apocryphal attempt at
depicting the scene, and how much of a foil to the simple narrative in the
text ! — Ver. 30. After evar», Elz. has dpav, which, according to preponderant
testimony, is to be rejected as a supplementary addition. Lachm. has also
deleted vnsrevwv xai, after some important codd. (including ®) and several vss.
But the omission is explained by there being no mentien of fasting in ver. 3.
— Ver. 32. 55 wapayevdu. AaAjoce: cor) is wanting in Lachm., after A B &, min.
Copt. Aeth. Valg. But the omission took place in accordance with ver. 6. —
Ver. 33. Instead of ud, read, with Lachm. Tisch. Born. according to prepon-
derating evidence, a7é (E rapa).— Instead of Ocoi, Lachm. and Tisch. have
xupiov, according to predominant attestation ; Ocov is a mechanical repetition
from the preceding, in which the reading évidr. cov. (Born.) is, on account of
too weak attestation, to be rejected. — Ver. 36. dy] is wanting in A B®**, lot
Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Vulg. Ath. Deleted by Lachm.; but the omission very
naturally suggested itself, in order to simplify the construction. — Ver. 37.
aptduevov] AC D EH 8&, min. have apfduevos, which Lachm. has on the mar-
gin. AD Vulg. Cant. Ir. add yép, which Lachm. puts in brackets. Born. has
apiauevos yép. But apéduevov is necessary, according to the sense. — Ver. 39.
After jueis, Elz. has éouev, against decisive testimony. A supplementary addi-
tion, — Ver. 42. airés] B C D E G, min. Syr. utr. Copt. Sahid. have otros.
Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lach. and Born. An erroneous cor-
rection. See the exegetical remarks. — Ver. 48. airovs] atrois is neither strong-
ly enough attested (A &), nor in accordance with the sense. — rov xvpiov) A B
E &, min. vss. Fathers have ’Inoot Xprorov. So Lachm. An alteration, in or-
der to denote the specific character of the baptism more definitely, Hence
some codd. and vss. have both together. So Born. after D.

(s’). Vv. 1, 2. Kacoapeia] See on viii. 40.—The centurion was of the Italian
cohort, which, stationed at Caesarea, consisted of Italians, not of natives of
the country, like many other Roman troops iu Syria. Such a Roman aux-
iliary corps was apprupriately stationed at the place where the procurator
had his residence, for the maintenance of tranquillity.! — cice3i¢ x. poBobpevog
tT. Ocdv] pious and fearing God (t'). The latter is the more precise definition
of the more general cice7¢. Cornelius was a Gentile, who, discontented
with polytheism, had turned his higher interest towards Judaism, and

1 See Schwarz, decohorte Italica et Augusta, Beltrdge s. Wirdig. ad. Hvangelien, 1869, p.
Altorf. 1720; Wieseler, CAhronol. p. 145, and 37f.

202 CHAP. X., 2-4.

satisfied a deeper pious want in the earnest private worship of Jehovah
along with all his family. Judaism, as Stoicism and the like in the case of
others, was for him the philosophical-religious school, to which he, although
without being a proselyte, addicted himself in his heart and devotional life.
Hence his beneficence (ver. 2) and his general esteem among the Jews (ver.
22.) Comp. the centurion of Capernaum, Luke vii. Others consider him, with
Mede, Grotius, Fecht,’ Deyling, Hammond, Wolf, Ernesti, Ziegler, Paulus,
Olshausen, Neander, Lechler, and Ritschl, as a proselyte of the gate.? But
- this is at variance with vv. 28, 34, 35, xi. 1, 18, xv. 7, where he is simply
put into the class of the Gentiles, —a circumstance which cannot be referred
merely to the want of circumcision, as the proselytes of the gate also be-
longed to the communion of the theocracy, and had ceased to be non-Jews
like absolute foreigners.* And all the great importance which this event
has in a connected view of the Book of Acts, has as its basis the very cir-
cumstance that Cornelius was a Gentile. Least of all can his proselytism
be proved from the expression gofotevoc rov Gedy itself, as the general literal
meaning of this expression can only be made by the context * to apply to the
worship of proselytes ; but here we are required by ver. 35 to adhere to
that general literal meaning without this particular reference. It is to be
considered, moreover, that had Cornelius been a proselyte of the gate, it
would have, according to xv. 7, to be assumed that hitherto no such prose-
lyte at all had been converted to Christianity, which, even apart from the
conversion of the Ethiopian, chap. viii., is—considering the many thousand
converts of which the church already consisted—incredible, particularly as
often very many were admitted simultaneously,° and as certainly the more
unprejudiccd proselytes were precisely the most inclined to join the new
theocracy.—Accordingly the great step which the new church makes in its
development at chap. x. consists in this, that by divine influence the jirst
Gentile, who did not yet belong to the Jewish theocratic state, becomes a
Christian, and that directly, without having first made the transition in any
way through Mosaism. The extraordinary importance of this epoch-making
event stands in proportion to the accumulated miraculous character of the
proceedings. The view, which by psychological and other assumptions
and combinations assigns to it along with the miraculous character also a
natural instrumentality,® leads to deviations from the narrative, and to
violences which are absolutely rejected by the text.". The view which re-
jects the historical reality of the narrative, and refers it toa set purpose in
the author,® seeks its chief confirmation in the difficulties which the direct
admission of the Gentiles had for long still to encounter, in what is narrated
in chap. xv., and in the conduct of Peter at Antioch.’ But, on the other

1 De pietate Corneiti, Rostoch. 1701. 6 IT. 41, iv. 4.

2 Selden, de jure nat. ii. 3 (whom de Wette ® Neander, p. 115 f. [and Baumgaricn.
follows), has doubted, but without sufficient 7 See, on the other hand, Zeller, p. 179 ff.,
reason, the existence of Vyyw7} °), in the ® Baur, Zeller.

proper sense, after tho Captivity. ® Gal. fi. 11 f%. Comp. aleo Schwegler, nach-
3 See Ewald, Alterth. p. 818; Keil, Archdol. apostol. Zitali. I. p. 127 ff. ; Gfrirer, Aeil.
I. p. 817, Sage, I. p. 415; Holtzmann, Judenth. u.

4 As xili. 16, 26. . Christenth. p. 679 f.

VISION OF CORNELIUS. 203

hand, it is to be observed, that not even miracles are able at once to remove
in the multitude deeply routed national prejudices, and to dispense with
the gradual progress of psychological development requisite for this end,
comp. the miracles of Jesus Himself, and the miracles performed on him;
that further, in point of fact the difficulties in the way of the penetration
of Christianity to the Gentiles were exceedingly great ;} and that Peter’s
conduct at Antioch, with a character so accessible to the impressions of the
moment, comp. the denial, is psychologically intelligible as a temporary
obscuration of his better conviction once received by way of revelation, at
variance with his constant conduct on other occasions,” and therefore by no
means necessitates the presupposition that the extraordinary divine disclo-
sure and guidance, which our passage narrates, are unhistorical. Indeed,
the reproach which Paul makes to Peter at Antioch, presupposes the agree-
ment in principle between them in respect to the question of the Gentiles ;
for Paul designates the conduct of Peter as tréxpioic, Gal. ii. 18.

Ver. 8. Eidev is the verb belonging to avjp .. . Kopv#i., ver. 1, and
éxatovr. . . . dtavavrde is in apposition to Kopv7a, — The intimation made to
Cornelius is a vision in a waking condition, caused by God during the hour
of praycr, which was sacred to the centurion on account of his high respect
for Judaism, t.c. a manifestation of God made so as to be clearly perceptible
to the inner sense of the pious man, conveyed by the medium of a clear
(gavepac) angelic appearance in vision, which Cornelius himself, ver. 80,
describes more precisely in its distinctly seen form, just as it at once on its
occurrence made the corresponding impression upon him ; hence ver, 4:
kugoBoc yevou. and ri éori, xbpce ;* Eichhorn rationalized the narrative to the
effect that Cornelius, full of longing to become acquainted with the distin-
guished Peter now so near him, learned the place of his abode from a
citizen of Joppa at Caesarea, and then during prayer felt a peculiar eleva-
tion of mind, by which, as if by an angel, his purpose of making Peter's
acquaintance was confirmed. This is opposed to the whole representation ;
with which also Ewald’s similar view fails to accord, that Cornelius, un-
certain whether or not he should wish a closer acquaintance with Peter,
had, ‘‘ as if irradiated by a heavenly certainty and directed by an angelic
voice,’ firmly resolved. to invite the apostle at once to visit him. — doei repi
jp. évdr. (see the critical remarks) : as it were about the ninth hour. Circum-
stantiality of expression.‘

Ver. 4. Eic¢ pvyudowvoy ivi. 7. Oeoi] 18 to be taken together, and denotes
the aim or the «destination of avéBycarv :* to be a mark, i.e. a token of re-
membrance, before God, so that they give occasion to God to think on thee.
Comp. ver. 81. The sense of the whole figurative expression is: ‘‘Thy
prayers and thine alms have found consideration with God; He will fulfil
the former® and reward the later.” See ver. 81.—avéByoav is strictly

2 See Ewald, p. 260 ff, ; Ritechl, altkath. K. ¢ Assuredly from the heart of the devout

eed on Gal. il. 14. (p. 188 ff. Gentile there had arisen for the most part
: Comp. Luke xxiv. 5 prayers for higher illumination and sanctifica-
See Bornemann in loc. tion of the inner li’e ; probably also, seeing

* Comp. Matt. xxvi. 13. : that Christianity had already attracted so

204 CHAP. x., 5-16,

suited only to ai rpocevyai, which, according to the figurative embodiment
of the idea of granting prayer, ascend from the heart and mouth of man
to God ;' but it is by a zeugma referred also to the alms, which have excited
the attention of God, to requite them by leading the pious man to Christ.
The opinion? that avéf. is based on the Jewish notion * that prayers are
carried by the angels to the throne of God, is as arbitrarily imported into
the text as is the view ‘ that cic punpdouvoy signifies instar sacrificii,® because
forsooth, the LXX. express IDI by prgudovvor.* In all these passages the
sense of a memorial-offering is necessarily determined by the context, which
is not the case here with the simple avé37cav. — On the relation of the good
works of Cornelius to his faith, Gregory the Great’ already correctly re-
marks that he did not arrive at faith by his works, but at the works by his
faith. The faith, however cordial and vivid it was, was in his case up till
now the Old Testament faith in the promised Messiah, but was destined,
amidst this visitation of divine grace, to complete itself into the New Testa-
ment faith in Jesus as the Messiah who had appeared. Thus was his way of
salvation the same as that of the chamberlain, chap. viii. Comp. also
Luther’s gloss on ver. 1.

Vv. 5-7. The tanner, on account of his trade, dwelt by the {Mediterra-
nean| sea, and probably apart from the city, to which his house belonged.
‘‘Cadavera et sepulcra separant et coriarium quinquaginta cubitos a
civitate.’’*—The z.va is added to Ziuwva (see the critical remarks) from the
standpoint of Cornelius, as to him Peter was one unknown. — evoef7]} the
soldier, one of the men of the cohort specially attached and devoted to
Cornelius (7a» mpocxapr. avr»), had the same religious turn of mind as his
master, ver. 2.°

Vv. 9, 10. On the following day, for Joppa was thirty miles from
Caesarea, shortly before the arrival of the messengers of Cornelius at Peter's
house, the latter was, by means of a vision effected by divine agency in the
state of ecstasy, prepared for the unhesitating acceptance of the summons
of the Gentile ; while the feeling of hunger, with which Peter passed into
the trance, served the divine revelation as the medium of its special form.
— éni rd daua] for the flat ronfe'® were used by the Hebrews for religious
exercises, prayers, and meditations." Incorrectly Jerome, Luther, Pricaeus,
Erasmus, Heinrichs, hold that the ixeppov is meant. At variance with N.
T. usage ; even the Homeric daue (hall) was something different ;? and why
should Lnke not have employed the usual formal word izepgov ?!* Moreover,

mach attention in that region, prayers for in- * Ley. ii. 2, 9, 16, v. 12, vi. 15; Nam. v. %;
formation regarding thin phenomenon bearing comp. Ecclus. xxxii. 7, xxxviil. 11, xlv. 16.
eo closely on the religious interests of the ? In Ez. Hom. 19.

man. Perhaps the thought of becoming a ® Surenh. Mlachn. xi. 9. Comp. Artemid. i.
*Christian was at that very time the highest 58. See Walch, de Simonecoriario, Jen. 1757.
concern of his heart, in which case only the ® On rpocxapr., comp. viil. 13 ; Dem. 1386. 6:

final decision was yet wanting. Sepamavas tas Neape tore mpocxaptepovaas.
1 Comp. Gen. xviil. 2; Ex. i. 28; Macc. v.81. Folyb. xxiv. 5. 3.
3? Wolf, Bengel, Eichhorn, and others. 10 Comp. Luke v. 19, xii. 8, xvii. 31.
3 Tob. xii. 12, 15, Rev. viii. 4. 11 Winer, Realw. e.v. Dach.
* Grotius, Heinrichs, and others. 13 See Herm. Priratalterth. § 19. 5.

® Comp. on the idca, Ps. cixi. 2. i3 |, 18, 14, ix. 87, 39, xx. 8.

VISION OF PETER. 205

the subsequent appearance is most in keeping with an abode én the open air.
— ixryv] Bee on iii. 1. mpéorecvoc, hungry, is not elsewhere preserved ; the
Greeks say reivaséinc. — ifleAe yeboaota:| he had the desire to eat '!—and in this
desire, whilst the people of the house (airav) were preparing food,
mapaoxevacéyrwy,” the éxoracig came upon him (éyévero, see the critical remarks),
by which is denoted the involuntary setting in of this state.” The éxoraocc
itself is the waking but not spontaneous state, in which a man, transported out
of the lower consciousness (2 Cor. xii. 2, 3) and freed from the limits of sensuous
restriction as well as of discursive thought, apprehends with his higher pneumatic
receptivity divinely presented revelations, whether these reach the inner sense -
through visions or otherwise * (v’).

Vv. 11-18. Observe the vividly introduced historical present Qewpzi. —
réooapow apyaic dedeu.| attached with four ends, namely, to the edges of the
opening which had taken place in heaven. Chap. xi. 5 requires this ex-
planation, not the usual one: ‘‘ bound together at the four corners.’’ Nor
does the text mention anything of ropes, bound to which it was let down.
The visionary appearance has something marvellous even in the way of its
occurrence. We are to imagine the vessel—whose four corners, moreover,
are without warrant explained by Augustine, Wetstein, Bengel, Lange,
and others as pointing to the four quarters of the world—looking like a
colossal four-cornered linen-cloth (#év7), letting itself down, while the
corners attached to heaven support the whole. On dpyai, extremitates, see
Jacobs.* — rdvra ra rerpdoda] The formerly usual interpretation: ‘‘four-
footed beasts of all sorts, i.e. of very many kinds,” is linguistically erroneous.
The phenomenon in its supernatural visionary character exhibits as present
in the oxeioc (év © imnpxe) all four-footed beasts, reptiles, and birds, all kinds
of them, without exception.* In a strangely arbitrary manner Kuinoel,
after Calovius and others, holds that these were only unclean animals. See
on ver. 14. — rov ovpavov}] See on Matt. vi. 26. — avacréc] Perhaps Peter luy
during the trance. Yet it may also be the mere call to action: arise.’ —
Gvcov] occide,® slay, not: sacrifice,’ nee ver. 10.

Vv. 14-16. Peter correctly recognises in the summons fivov x. gaye, Ver.
13, the allowance of selection at his pleasure among all the animals, by which,
consequently, the enting of the unclean without distinction was permitted
to him. Hence, and not because only unclean animals were seen in the
vessel, his strongly declining p7daudc, xipie! This xipeis the address to
the—to him unknown—author of the voice, not to Christ.*°— Concerning
the animals which the Jews were forbidden to eat, see Lev. xi. ; Deut. xiv.

1 For examples of the absolute yevoardu,
eee Kypke, II. p. 47.

2 See Elener, Ode. p. 408: Kypke, /.c.

2 Comp. v. 5, 11; Luke i. 65, iv. 87.

«Comp. Graf in the Stud. u. Krit. 1859, p.
263 ff. ; Delitzsch, Paychol. p. 285.

8 Ad Anthol. XI. p. 1.

© That Ashes (those without fins and scales
were forbidden) are not included in the vision,
18 explained from the fact that the oxevos was
ke acloth. Fishes would have becn uneutt-

able for this, expecially as the animals were
presented as firing (dvcov). According to
Lange, it is ‘perhaps a prophetic omission,
wherein there ie already floating before the
mind the image of fishes as the souls to be
gathered." A fancifal notion.

7 {ix 11, 89, vill. 20, and frequently ; comp.
on viii. 26.

® Vulz.

® Asin 1 Macc. {. 47 (Thiersch).

19 Schwegler, Zeller.

206 CHAP. x., 17-25.
1 ff.” — bre ovdéxore tgayov wav Kotvdv } dxdfapt.| for never ate I anything com-
mon or unclean, the Talmudic xov 1x ‘DD, @.e. for any profane thing I
have always left uneaten. 7 does not stand for xaf,* but appends for the
exhaustion of the idea another synonymous expression.* xoivd¢ = BEBnAog ;
the opposite of ay:oc (Ezek. xlii. 20). —xai guv4] and a voice, not # guwvi,
because here other words were heard, came again the second time to him,
méAwv éx devtépov, pleonastically circumstantial.‘—4& 6 Oed¢ éxabdpioe, od py
xotvov| what God has cleansed, make not thou common, unclean. The mirac-
ulous appearance with the divine voice (ver. 18) had done away the Le-
vitical uncleanness of the animals in question; they were now divinely
cleansed ; and thus Peter ought not, by his refusal to obey that divine bid-
ding, to invest them with the character of what is unholy —to transfer
them into the category of the xowév, Rom. xiv. 14. This were man’s
doing in opposition to God's deed. — émi rpic} for thrice, which ‘‘ad con-
Jirmationem valuit’’? (Calvin) ; érf denotes the terminiis ad quem.*— The
object aimed at in the whole vision was the symbolical divine announcement that
the hitherto subsisting distinction between clean and unclean men, that
hedge between Jews and Gentiles! was to cease in Christianity, as being
destined for all men without distinction of nation, vv. 84, 85. But in
what relation does the & 6 Oed¢ ixabdpice stand to the likewise divine institution
of the Levitical laws about food? This is not answered by reference to ‘‘the
effected and accomplished redemption, which is regarded as a restitution
of the whole creation,’’* for this restoration is only promised for the world-
period commencing with the Parousia ;’ but rather by pointing out that
the institution of those laws of food was destined only for the duration of
the old theocracy. They were a divine institution for the particular people
of God, with a view to separate them from the nations of the world ; their
abolition could not therefore but be willed by God, when the time was
fully come at which the idea of the theocracy was to be realized through
Christ in the whole of humanity.* The abolition therefore does not con-
flict with Matt. v. 17, but belongs to the fulfilment of the law effected by
Christ, by which the distinction of clean and unclean was removed from
the Levitical domain and raised into the sphere of the moral idea.’

Vv. 17-20. The éxcracic was now over. But when Peter was very doubt-
Sul in himself what the appearance, which he had seen, might mean.” The
true import could not but be at once suggested to him by the messengers
of Cornelius, who had now come right in front of the house, to follow
whom, moreover, an internal address of the Spirit urged him. — év éavr]
i.e. in his reflection, contrasted with the previous ecstatic condition. —

2 Ewald, Alterth. p. 194 ff.; Saalachdtz,
Mos. R. p. 251 ff.

* Which Lachm. and Tisch. read, after A B
8, min. vas. Clem. Or. ; perhaps correctly, see
xi. 8.

* Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 2t7 ; Bornemann,
Schol.in Lue. p. xi. f.

‘See on Matt. xxvi. 42; comp. on John iv.
54.

6 Bernhardy, p. 252. Comp. és zpis, Herod.
1.86; Xen. Anad. vi. 4. 16; and Wetetein.

® Olehauren.

7 ili. 20; Matt. xix. 28; Rom. vili. 19 ff.

8 Ver. 85; Rom. iil.; Gal. iii. 28; Col. iff.
11-John x. 16. Comp. Matt. xv. 17, 18.

® Comp. Rom. il. 28, 20. See also on Rom.
xv. 14; Matt. v. 17.

10 Comp. Luke viii. 9, xv. 26.

MESSENGERS AT JOPPA. 207

Scyrdp.] a8 in v. 24, ii. 12. —xai idob] See on i. 10. — éi rdv rvAdval] at the
door, Sec on Matt. xxvi. 71. — gwvzoarrec] Kuinoel quite arbitrarily : ‘* se.
rivd, evocato quopiam, quod Judaei domum intrare metuebant, ver. 18.”
They called below at the door of the house, without calling on or calling
forth any particular person, but in order generally to obtain infurmation
from the inhabitants of the house, who could not but hear the calling.
That Peter had heard the noise of the men and the mention of his name,
that he had observed the men, had recognised that they were not Jews,
and had felt himself impelled by an internal voice to follow them, etc., are
among the many arbitrary additions, ‘‘ of a supplementary kind,’’ which
Neander has allowed himself to make in the history before us.— a27.4 avaorag
xaréfnOt] GAAd with the imperative denotes nothing more than the adversa-
tive at. ‘‘Men seek thee: but, do not let yourself be sought for longer and
delay not, but rather arise’ and go down.’’ The requisition with aA7é
breaks off the discourse and renders the summons more urgent.* — pydév
dtaxpivéu.] in no respect® wavering ;* for I, etc. The rvevpa designates Himself
as the sender of the messengers, inasmuch as the vision (vv. 8-7) did not
ensue without the operation of the divine Spirit, and the latter was thus
the cause of Cornelius sending the messengers. —éyé] with emphasis.
Chrysostom rightly calls attention to the xipov and the éfovoia of the Spirit.

Vv. 22-25. Maprupoip.] as in vi. 8. —éxpypar.]* The communication on
the part of the angel (vv. 4-7) is understood as a divine answer to the
constant prayer of Cornelius (ver. 2).— Peter and his six (xi. 12) com-
panions had not traversed the thirty miles from Joppa to Caesarea in one
day, and therefore arrived there only on the day after their departure. The
messengers of Cornelius, too, had only arrived at Peter’s abode on the
second day,® and had passed the night with him,’ so that now, r9 ératpcor,®
it was the fourth day since their departure from Caesarea. Cornelius ex-
pected Peter on this day, for which, regarding it as a high family-festival,
he had invited his certainly like-minded relatives and his intimate friends.°
— ac dé éyévero Tov eiceADeiv roy IT.] but when it came to pass that Peter entered.
This construction is to be regarded as a very inaccurate, improper applica-
tion of the current infinitive with ros. No comparison with the Hebrew
nia “31, Gen. xv. 12,'° is to be allowed, because ‘i3") does not stand abso-
lutely, but has its subject beside it, and because the LXX. has never imi-
tated this and similar expressions” by éyévero rov. The want of correspond-
ing passages, and the impossibility of rationally explaining the expression,
mark it as a completely isolated ’* error of language, which Luke either

2 As ver. 18. 3@ Gesenius, Lehrgebr. p. 787.
* See Fritzeche, ad Marc. p. 810; Baecum- 11 Gesenius, Z.c.

fein. Partik. p. 17 f. 12 Even at Rev. xii. 7 it is otherwise, as there,
$ Jak. 1.6; Bernhardy, p. 886. if we do not accede to the conjecture of Dtis-
4 See on Rom. iv. 20. terdieck, é¢yévero must be again mentally sup-
® See on Matt. fi. 12. plied with 6 MiyayA, but in the altered mean-
® vv. 8, 9. ing: there came forward, there appeared
7 Ver. 2. (comp. on Mark J. 4; John i. 6), e0 that it is
* Ver. 24. [IT. p. 80. to be translated: And there came (i.e. there

9 ove avayx. didovs, sce Wetstein; Kypke, set in, there resulted) war in heaven ; Michael

208 CHAP. X., 26-34.

himself committed or adopted from his original source,—and not’ as a
corruption of the transcribers, seeing that the most important witnesses
decide in favour of rov, and its omission in the case of others is evidently a
correction.* — émi r. médac] at the feet of Peter.*? — xpocexivyoe| See on Matt.
ii. 2. He very naturally conjectured, after the vision imparted to him,
that there was something superhuman in the person of Peter, comp. on
Luke v. 8; and to this, perhaps, the idca of heroes, to which the centurion
had not yet become a stranger, contributed.

Vv. 26-29. Kayo avréc] also I myself, I also for mine own part, not other-
wise than you. See on Rom. vii. 25. — cuvoyd. abtg] in conversation with
him. The word occurs elsewhere in Tzetz.‘— cioyafe] namely, into the
room. In ver. 25, on the other hand, row ciceAGety r. Il. wus meant of the
entrance by the outer door into the house.— Ye know how, how very unallowed
it is, etc.— aféurov]* is a later form® for the old classical avéycrov.' The
prohibition to enter into closer fellowship with men of another tribe.* or, even
but, to come to them, comp. xi. 3, is not expressly found in the Pentateuch,
but easily resulted of itself from the lofty consciousness of the holy peuple
of God contrasted with the unholy heathen,°® and pervades the later Judaism
with all the force of contempt for the Gentiles."° ‘The passage Matt. xxiii.
5, and the narrative of the conversion of Izates king of Adiabene in
Josephus," appear to testify against the utterance of Peter in our passage,
and therefore Zeller, p. 187, holds it as unhistorical. But Peter speaks
here from the standpoint of the Judaistic theory and rule, which is not in-
validated by exceptional cases’? and by abuses, as in the making of pros-
elytes.* Not even if Cornelius had been a proselyte of the gate'* could
the historical character of the saying be reasonably doubted; for the
Rabbinical passages adduced with that view (according to which the
proselyte is to regard himself as a member of the theocracy,’® apply only to
complete converts, proselytes of righteousnesss,"* ‘‘quamvis factus sit
proselytus, attamen nisi observet praecepta legis, habendus adhuc est pro
ethnico,’’ and are, moreover, outweighed by other expressions of contempt
towards proselytes, as, ¢.g.,'" ‘‘ Proselyti sunt sicut scabies Israeli.’’ It is
erroneous to derive the principle which Peter here expresses from Pharisa-

came, and his angels, in order to wage war.
Among Greek writers also, a8 is well known,
the verb to be repeated in thought is often to
be taken in an altered meaning, Comp. ¢.g.
Plat. Rep. p. 471 C, and Stallb. in loc. Least
of all will such a supplement occasion diffi-
culty in a prophetic representation, which is
often stiff, angular, and abrapt in its delinea-
tion (as especially in Isaiah).

1In opposition to Fritzsche, ad Afatth. p.
848, and Rinck, Lucudr. crit. p. 64.

2 Comp. now also Winer, p. 307 (E. T. 412).

2 Comp. Luke vili. 41, xvii. 16 ; Mark v. 22,
John xi. 82, al.

4 Mist. tii. 877, cvvépcdos in Symm. Job. xix.
19.

62 Macc. vi. 5.

6 Pjut., Dion. Hal., etc., 1. Pet. iv. 3.

7 Herod. vil. 33; Xen. Mem. i. 1. 9, Cyrop.
1. 6. 6.

® The classical aAAdédvdos is not elsewhere
found in the N. T., but often in the LXX. and
Apocr. The designation is here tenderly for-
bearing. It is otherwise in ver. 45, xi. 8.

° Ewald, Alferth. p. 310.

10 See, ¢.g., Lightfoot on Matt. xviii. 17.

MW Anti. xx. 2.4 f.

12 As Josephus é.c.

13 Matt. Z.c.

14 But see on vv. 1, 2.

18 As Schemoth Radda 19 f., 118. 8, ad Er.
xii. 3.

16 Comp. Sohar, p. 2. 27.

17 Bubyl. Niddah f. 18. 2.

PETER GOES TO CESABRAEA. 209

ism, or to limit it to an intentional going in quest of them,* or, according
to xi. 3, to the eating,? which must have been made clear from the context.
— avarvrippyr.| without contradiction.‘ — nai éuai 6 Ocd¢g edge] Contrast to
imei éxioraobe. The element of contrast lies not in the copula, but in the
relation of the two clauses: Ye know .. . and to me God has showed.*:
Very often so in John. The 6 Ged¢ édecge took place through the disclosure
by means of the vision, ver. 8 ff., the allegorical meaning of which Peter
understood. — undéva x.t.2.] namely, in and for itself.— rive Adyp] with what
reason, i.e. wherefore. See examples from classical writers in Kypke.
Comp. on Matt. v. 82. The dative denotes the mediate cause. *

Ver. 30. The correct view is that which has been the usual one since
Chrysostom, held by Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Bengel, Kuinoel, Olshausen :
Four days ago I was fasting until this hour, i.e. until the hour of the day
which it now is, and was praying at the ninth hour. amd rerdprnce yuépag is
quarto abhine die, on the fourth day from the present, counting backwards,
and the expression is to be explained as in John xi. 18, xxi. 8; Rev. xiv.
20.7. Comp. Ex. xii. 15, azd rie xpéras guépac: on the first day before.
Cornelius wishes to indicate exactly (1) the day and hour when he had seen
the vision, — namely, on the fourth day before, and at the ninth hour ;
and (2) in what condition he was when it occurred,—namely, that he had
been engaged that day in an ezercise of fasting, which he had already con-
tinued up to the very hour that day, which it now was; and in connec-
tion with this exercise of fasting, he had spent the ninth hour of the day—
the prayer-hour—in prayer, and then the vision had surprised him, rai
idob x.t.A. Incorrectly, Heinrichs, Neander, de Wette render: For four
days I fasted until this hour, when the vision occurred, namely, the ninth
hour, etc. Against this view it may be decisively urged that in this way
Cornelius would not specify at all the day on which he had the vision, and
that ratry¢ cannot mean anything else than the present hour, — évdr. 7. Ocor]
Ver. 8. Rev. xvi. 19. The opposite, Luke xii. 6.

Ver. 88. ’Evémiov rod xuptov (see critical remarks), 7 “D9, in conspectu
Dei. Cornelius knows that it is God, who so wonderfully arranged every-
thing, before whose eyes this assembly in the house stands. He knows
Ilim to be present as @ witness. — aro (see the critical remarks), on the part
of, divinitus.®

Vv. 84, 85. ’Avoifac «.7.A.] a8 in viii. 35.— With truth, so that this
insight, which I have obtained, is true.’ J perceive that God is not partial,
allowing Himself to be influenced by external relations not belonging to the
moral sphere ; but in every nation he that feareth Him and worketh rightness '°

1 Schoettgen. Comp. Plat. Gorg. p. 512 C: rive dixace
* Hofmann, Sohriftew. IT. 2, p. 39. : Aye Tov uNXavoToLou KaTadpovers ;
? Ebrard, Lange, Ewald. 7 See Winer, p. 518 f. (E. T. 687 £.).
* Polyb. xxiri. 8. 11, vi. 7. 7, xxviif. 11.4. * Sce Winer, p. 347 f. (E. T. 463).
Comp. avaryriAectws, Lucian. Cail. 6, Conciv. 9. ® Comp. on Mark xii. 14, and Fritzsche,
‘Sanctum fidet silentinm," Caivin. Quaest. Luc. p. 137 ff.
® Comp. Bornemann, Schol. in Lue. p. 102; 1° Acta rightly, comp. Ps. xv. 3; Heb. xi. 33;

Hartung, Partikell. HU. p. 147; KOhner, ad Luke i. 20; the opposite, Matt. vif. 23.
en. Mem. iil. 7. 6.

210 CHAP. X., 36-38.

is acceptable to Him,—namely, to be received into the Christian fellowship
with God. Comp. xv.14. Peter, with the certainty of a divinely-obtained
conviction, denies in general that, as regards his acceptance, God goes to
work in any way partially ; and, on the other hand, affirms in particular
that in every nation — dv ve axpdéBvardég iotiv, dv re éumepirouoc, Chrysostom —
etc. To take this contrast, ver.,35, as no longer dependent on dr, but as
independent,‘ makes its importance the more strongly apparent. What is
meant is the ethico-religious preliminary frame requisite for admission
into Christianity, which must be a state of fellowship with God similar to
the piety of Cornelius and his household, however ditferent in appearance
and form according to the degree of earlier knowledge and morality in each
case, yet always a being given or a being drawn of God, according to the
Gospel of Jobn, and un attitude of heart and life toward the Christian sal-
vation, which is absolutely independent of difference of nationality. The
general truth of the proposition, as applied even to the undevout and sinners
among Jews and Gentiles, rests on the necessity of yerdvoca as a preliminary
condition of admission.* It is a misuse of this expression when, in spite of
ver. 43, it is often adduced as a proof of the superfluousness of faith in the
specific doctrines of Christianity ; for dexréc av7@ éore in fact denotes (ver.
86 ff.) the capability, in relation to God, of becoming a Christian, and not
the capability of being saved without Christ. Bengel rightly says: ‘‘non
indifferentismus religionum, sed indifferentia nationum hic asseritur.’’ — Re-
specting mpoowroAgrrnc, not found elsewhere, see on Gal. ii. 6 (v').

Vv. 36-48. After this general decluration regarding the acceptableness for
Christianity, Peter now prepares those present for its actual acceptance, by
shortly explaining the characteristic dignity of Jesus, inasmuch as he (1)
reminds them of His earthly work to His death on the cross, vv. 36-39 ;
(2) then points to His resurrection and to the apostolic commission which
the disciples had received from the Risen One, vv. 40-42 ; and finally, (8)
mentions the prophetic prediction, which indicates Jesus as the universal
Reconciler by means of faith on Him, ver. 43.°

Vv. 36-38. The correct construction is, that we take the three accusa-
tives: rdv Adyov, ver. 86, 1d yevdu. pqzua, Ver. 87, and 'Incovv rév ard Nalap.,
ver 38, as dependent on iyei¢ oidare, ver. 37, and treat obréc éore xdvruv Kbpioc
asa parenthesis. Peter, namely, in the rav Adyov already has the teic oidare
in view; but he interrupts himself by the insertion otréc . . . xtpeoc, and
now resumes the thought begun in ver. 36, in order to carry it out more
amply, and that in such a way that he now puts wyei¢ ofdare first, and then
attaches the continuation in its extended and amplified form by 'Iycovv ray
axd Naz. by way of apposition. The message, which He (God, ver. 35) sent to
the Israelites,‘ when He made known salvation through Jesus Christ, He is Lord
of all!—ye know the word, which went forth through all Judaea, having begun
From Galilee after the baptism which John preached—Jesus of Nazareth, ye know
how God anointed Him, consecrated Him to be the Messianic King,* with the

1 Luther, Castalio, and many others. 55 f.
2 ii. 38, iii. 19, ad. Comp. xiii. 26.
* Comp. Seyler in the Stud. u. Krit. 1832, p. & See on iv. 27.

PETER’S ADDRESS. 211

Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing, etc. This
view i3 quite in keeping with the hurriedly aggregated and inartistic mode
of expression of Peter, particularly at this urgent moment of extraordinary
and profound emotion.' The most plausible objection to this construction
is that of Bengel :? ‘‘ Noverant auditores historiam, de qua moz, non item
rationes interiores, de quibus hoc versu.’’ But the contents of the Adyor is,
in fact, stated by eipfuq dia "I. X. 80 generally and, without its rationes
anteriores, 80 purely historically, that in that general shape it could not be
anything strange to hearers, to whom that was known, which is said in vv.
87 and 88. Erasmus, Er. Schmid, Homberg, Wolf, Heumann, Beck,’
Heinrichs, Kuinoel make the connection almost as we have given it; but
they attach tyeic oldare to rév Adyov, and take ré yevdpevov pjya as apposition
to rdv Adyov,—by which, however, ovré¢ éore wdvrwv xiptog makes its weight,
in keeping with the connection, far less sensibly felt than according to our
view, under which it by the very fact of its high significance as an element
breaks off the construction. Others refer rav Adyov dv x... to what precedes,
in which case, however, it cannot be taken either as for av Adyov, Beza,
Grotius, comp. Bengel and others, or with Olshausen, after Calvin ana
others, for xara rév Adyov dv x.t.A.; but would have, with de Wette,* to be
made dependent on xaradazB., or to be regarded as an appositional addition, °
and consequently would be epexegetical of dr: ote gore . . . dextdg airy éore.
In this case cip#vy would have to be understood of peace between Jews and
Gentiles. But even apart from this inadmissible explanation of etpfuny (see
below), the Aéyo¢ of ver. 36, so far as it proclaims this peace, is something
very different from the doctrine indicated in ver. 85, in which there is ex-
pressed only the universally requisite jirst step towards Christianity. More-
over, Peter could not yet at this time say that God had caused that peace to
be proclaimed through Christ—for this he required a further development
starting from his present experience—for which a reference to i. 8 and to
the universalism of Luke’s Gospel by no means suffices. Pfeiffer,* likewise
attaching it to what precedes, explains thus: he is in so far acceptable to
him, as he has the destination of receiving the message of saloation in Christ ;
so that thus ebayyeAc. would be passive,’ and rév Adyov, as also cipiuyy,
would be the object to it. But this is linguistically incorrect, inasmuch as
it would require at least the infinitive instead of ebayyeActéuevoe ; and besides,
evayyeAtConat rt, there is something proclaimed to me, is foreign to the N. T.
usage. Weiss* gives the meaning: ‘‘ Every one who fears God and does
right, by him the gospel may be accepted ;*’ so that rév Aéyov would stand by
attraction for 6 Aédyoc, which is impossible. According to Ewald, p. 248,
rov Z6yov x.T.A. is intended to be nothing but an explanation to d:xcaiwoivyy.
A. view which is the more harsh, the further 7. Aésyov stands removed from
dexacoc., the less rdv Adyov ov x.7.A. coincides as regards the notion of it with

1 Comp. on Eph. ii. 1; Winer, p. 525 (E. T. 8 Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 184 (B. T. 158).

706). * In the Stud. u. Krit. 1880, p. 401 ff.
2 Comp. de Wette. 7 Luke vii. 22; Heb. iv. 2, 6.
3 Obes. crit. exeg. I. p. 18. ® Petr. Lehrobegr. p. 151 f.

¢ Comp. Baumgarten and Lange. * In | Pet. ii. 7 1t is otherwise,

212 CHAP. X., 39.

dixatoo., and the more the expression épydlecfa: 2é6yov is foreign to the N. T.
—eipfvy is explained by many, including Heinrichs, Seyler, de Wette, of
peace between Jews and Gentiles (Eph. ii. 17), but very arbitrarily, since no
more precise definition is annexed, although the Jews are just named as the
receivers of the gospel. Nor is there in what follows any mention of that peace.
Hence itis to be generally taken as = pow, salvation, and the whole Mes-
sianic salvation is meant, which God has made known through Christ to
the children of Israel ; not specially peace with God,’ which yet is the basis
of salvation.* — dia "I. X. belongs to evayy., not to eipyvy ;° for eiayy. eip. dia
‘I. X. contains the more precise explanation of the rév Ady. v aréor., con-
sequently must also designate Jesus as the sent of God, through whom the
Adyoc is brought. — rdvruv] not neuter,‘ but masculine. Christ is Lord of ali,
of Jews and Gentiles, like God Himself,* whose cirOpovoc He is. The aim
of this emphatically added remark is to make the univereal destination of
the word primarily sent to the Jews to be felt by the Gentile hearers, who
were not to regard themselves as excluded by év aréor. roic¢ vioi¢ "Iop.7 —
pipa] word, not the things, de Wette and older expositors, which it does
not mean even in v. 82; Luke ii. 15.* It resumes the preceding ray Adyor.
On yevéu., comp. Luke ili. 2. Concerning the order of the words, instead
of rd xa? 62. 1. 'Iovd. yevdu. paua, see Kithner.°—In ver. 38 the discourse
now passes from the word, the announcement of which to the Jews was
known to the hearers, to the announcer, of whose Messianic working they
would likewise have knowledge. — we éypicev avrév] renders prominent the
special divine Messianic element in the gencral 'Iyoovy rév ard Nat., oidare.’®
As to the idea of this ypiev, see on iv. 27. — d¢ dc7Abev] him (airév), who,
after receiving this anointing, went through, Galilee and Judea, ver. 87,
doing good, and in particular healing, etc.—In the compound verb xaradvvacr.
is implied hostile domination.'' — uer' airod is not spoken according toa
‘t lower view,’’ de Wette, against which, sec on ij. 86; but the metaphys-
ical relation of Christ to the Father is not excluded by this general ex-
pression,'* although in this circle of hearers it did not yet demand a specific
prominence. Comp. Bengel: ‘‘parcius loquitur pro auditorum captu de
majestate Christi.”

Vv. 39-41. Ov xai aveidoyv] namely, of “Invdaiox. °Ov refers to the subject
of ézoiyoev. There lies at the bottom of the xa/, also, the conception of the
other persecutions, etc., to which even the aveidov was added. See on the
climactic idea indicated by «ai after relatives, Hartung. '*—aveid. xpeudo.] as

1 Rom. vy. 1, Calovius, and others. fit, ut addatur mentio ejus speciatim, quod
2 Comp. on Rom. x. 15. convenit cum re praesenti."" Comp. vi. 8, xi.
> Bengel and others. 24, xiii. 58; also Luke }. 85, xxiv. 20.

¢ Luther and others. 11 Jas. fi 6; Wied. fi 10, xv. 14; Ecclus.
5 Rom. til. 29, x. 12. xlvili. 12; Xen. Symp. ii. 8; Strabo, vi. p.
® Comp. Rom. x. 12, xiv.9; Eph. iv. 5f. 270; Joseph. Antz. xli. 2. 3; Plat. de Je. et
7 Comp. ver. 48. Osir. 41: xatadvvagrevor % xaTrafcacénevor.
§ Comp on Matt. iv. 4. Comp. carasovdAovpy.

* Ad Xen. Anab., iv. 2. 18. 13 Comp. John xvi. 82.

16 On wv. ayio x. &vvdues, Bengel correctly 13 Partlikell. I. p. 186.
remarks : ‘Spiritus sancti mentio eacpe ita

CORNELIUS AND OTHERS BELIEVE. 213

in ii, 28. —émi fbA0v] as in v. 80.—xal iduxev x.r.2.] and granted! that He
should become manifest, by visible appearances, i. 3; John xxi. 1, not to all
the people, but to witnesses who (quippe qui) are chosen before of God, namely,
to us, who, ete.—Toi¢ mpoxexep. wd tov Ceov] Peter with correct view
regards the previous election of the apostles to be witnesses of the resurrec-
tion of Jesus,* as done by God ;* they are apostles dca Ge2-4parTu¢ Ocov,' agupiouévor
cig evayy. Geov.© And with the zpo in mpuxeyecp. he points back to the time
of the previous choice as disciples, by which their election to be the future
witnesses of the resurrection in reality took place. On mpoyeiporoveiv, only
here in the N. T, comp. Plat. Legg. vi. p. 765 B. — werd 1d avacr. abrov ix
vexpov} is not, with Cameron and Bengel, to be connected with éugarg
yevéota, ver. 40,° 80 that ot rayri . . . avr would have to be arbitrarily
and vivlently converted into a parenthesis ; but with oircvec ouved. x. cvver.
avrg, Which even without the passages, i. 4, Luke xxiv. 41, 48, John xxi.
12, would have nothing against it, as the body of the Risen One was not
yet a glorified body.” The words clearly exhibit the certainty of the attested
bodily resurrection, but annexed to ver. 40 they would contain an unim-
portant self-evident remark. The apparent inconsistency of the passage
with Luke xxii. 18 is removed by the more exact statement to Matt. xxvi.
29 ; see on that passage.

Ver. 42. Tg Aap] can only denote the Jewish people, seeing that the con-
text speaks of no other (ver. 41), and cannot include the Gentiles also
(Kuinoel). But the contents of or: . . . vexpov is so different from Matt.
xxviii. 29, also Acts i. 8, that there mustebe here assumed a reference to
another expression of the Risen One, for He is the subject of zapfyy., un-
known to us. — dr: airdéc orev . . . vexpayv| that He, no other, is the Judge
ordained by God, in His decree, over living, who are alive at the Parousia,*®
and dead, who shall then be already dead.*—Incorrectly Olshausen, resting
on Matt. xxii. 82 !—understands by (évruy x. vexp. the spiritually living and
dead. This meaning would require to be suggested by the context, but is
here quite foreign to it,'°

Vv. 48, 44. Now follows the divinely attested way of salvation unto this
Judge of the living and dead. — révre¢ ol rpog.] comp. iii. 24.— That every
one who believes on Him receives forgiveness of sins by means of His name, of
the believing confession of it, by which the objectively completed redemp-
tion is subjectively appropriated." The general mdvra rév moor. cig air.,
which lays down no national distinction, is very emphatically placed at
the end, Rom. iii. 22. Thus has Peter opened the door for further an-
nouncing to his hearers the universalism of the salvation in Christ. But

« Comp. ff. 97. tle suitable for the alleged object of vindicat-

9 i, 8, 14. 22, lil 82, al. ing Paul as it 1s in {. 21, 22

® John xvil. 6, 9, 11, vi. 97. ? See on Luke xxiv. 51. note; Ignat. ad
41Cor, 1 1; Gal. i. 1, ai. Amyrn.&; Constitt. An. vi. av. 5.

® Rom. f.1; Gal. 1 15. 8 1 Theas. iv. 17: 1 Cor. xv. 51. 82

* So also Baur, I. p. 101, ed. 2, who, at the ® Comp. 2 Tim. iv. 1; 1 Pet. iv. 5.
same time, simply passes over, with quite an 1® Comp Rom. xiv. 19, 20; Acts xvil. 81.
arbitrary evasion, the difficulty that the cri- 11 Rom. iti. 25, z. 10, ad.
terion of apostieship in this passage is as lit-

214 CHAP. X., 45-48.

already the living power of his words has become the vehicle of the Holy
Spirit, who falls upon all the hearers, and by His operations makes the
continuation of the discourse superfluous and—impossible.'—Here the
unique example of the outpouring of the Spirit before baptism—treated, in-
deed, by Baur as unhistoricul and ascribed to the set purpose influencing
the author—is of itself intelligible from the frame of mind, now exalted
after an extraordinary manner to the pitch of full susceptibility, in those
present. The appropriate degree of receptivity was there ; and so, fora
special divine purpose, the zvevua communicated itself according to the free
will of God even before baptism.” Olshausen thinks that this extraordinary
circumstance took place for the sake of Peter, in order to make him aware,
beyond a doubt, in this first decisive instance, that the Gentiles would not
be excluded from the gift of the Spirit. But Peter had this illumination
already, ver. 84 f.; and besides, this object would have been fully attained
by the outpouring of the Spirit after baptiem. We may add that the
quite extraordinary and, in fact, unique nature of the case stands decidedly
opposed to the abuse of the passage by the Baptists.*

Vv. 45, 46. Oi é« wepir. miotol] those who were believers from the circumcision,
4.e. believers who- belonged to the circumcised, the Jewish- Christians.‘ —
door ouvgAd. 7. Tl.] see ver. 28,— éxi ra é&vy] Cornelius and his company
now represented, in the view of those who were astonished, the Gentiles as
a class of men generally ; for the article signifies this. Observe also the
perfect ; the completed fact lay before them. — dp] reason assigned ab
effectu. — Aarobvrwy yAdooa] yAdooatc, OF yAdoon Aadeiv is mentioned as
something well known to the church, without the éréparc, by the charac-
teristic addition of which the event recorded in chap. ii. is denoted as
something singular, and not identical with the mere yAdcoare AaAciv, as it
was there also markedly distinguished by means of the list of peoples.
Now if, in the bare yAdacace Aadeiv, this yAdooare were to be understood in
the same sense as in chap. li. according to the representation of the nar-
rator, then—as Bleck’s conception, ‘‘to speak in glosses,’’ is decidedly to
be rejected *— no other meaning would result than: ‘‘to speak in lan-
guages,’’ i.e. to speak in foreign languages, different from their mother
tongue, and therefore quite the same as érépag yAdooars Aadeiv. But against

1 Comp. on xi. 15.

8“ Liberum gratia habet ordinem,"’ Bengel.
Not the necessify, bnt the possibility of the
hestowal of the Spirit bef.re baptism, was
implied by the susceptibility which had al-
ready emerged. The destgn of this extra-
ordinary effusion of the Spirit is, according
to ver. 45, to be found in this, that all scruples
concerning the reception of the Gentiles were
to be taken away from the Jewish-Christians
who were present in addition t> Peter, and
thereby from the Christians generally. What
Peter had just said: sdyra roy micrevorra ecs
avréy, was at once divinely affirmed and sealed
by this onpeioy in such a way that now no

doubt at all could remain coneerning the im-
mediate admiesibility of baptism. Chrysos-
tom strikingly calls this event the awoAoy:ay
meyaAnv, which God had arranged befvrehand
for Peter. That it could not but, at the same
time, form for the fatter himeelf the divine
confirmation of the revelation already im-
parted to him, 1s obvious of itself.

? Comp. Laufs in the Stud. w. Krit. 1858, p.
284.

4 Comp. xi. 2; Rom. iv. 12 Gal. if. 12, Col.
iv. 11; Tit.1.10. On weperopuy in the concrete
sense, comp. Rom. ffi. 80, iv. 9, 12, xv. 8; Gal.
ii. 7; Phil. 1i1. 8.

® See on chap. fl.

GIFTS OF THE SPIKIT. 215

this we may decisively urge the very expression érépa:c, with which agrees
xarvaic in the apocryphal passage,’ only added in chap. ii., and almost os-
tentatiously glorified as the chief matter, but not inserted at all elsewhere,
here or at chap. xix. or 1 Cor. xii.-xiv. So much the more decidedly is
yAéooarc here and in xix. 6 not to be completed by mentally supplying
érépaic—so Baur still, and others, following the traditional interpretation—
but? to be explained : ‘‘with tongues,’ and that in such a way that Luke
himself has meant nothing else—not, ‘‘ in languages ’’—than the to him well-
known glossolalia of the apostolic church, which was here manifested in
Cornelius and his company, but from which he has conceived and repre-
sented the feast of Pentecost as sumething different and entirely extra-
ordinary, although the latter also is, in its historical substance, to be con-
sidered as nothing else than the first speaking with tongues.* Cornelius
and his friends spoke with tongues, i.e. they spoke not in the exercise of reflect-
ive thought,‘ not in intelligible, clear, and connected speech, but in enrapt-
ured eucharistic ecstasy, as by the involuntary exercise of their tongues, which
were just organs of the Spirit.*

Vv. 47, 48. Can any one, then, withhold the water, in order that these be not
baptized ? The water is in this animated language conceived as the element
offering itself for the baptism. So urgent now appeared the necessity for
completing on the human side the divine work that had miraculously
emerged. Bengel, moreover, well remarks: ‘‘ Non dicit: jam habent
Spiritum, ergo aqua carere possunt.’’? The conjunction of water and Spirit —
could not but obtain its necessary recognition. — rod py) Barr. robr.] genitive
according to the construction awAber teva tivoc, and pf after verbs of hinder-
ing, a8 in xiv. 18. — rabo¢ xai nyeic] as also we, the recipients of the Spirit
of Pentecost. This refers to the prominent and peculiar character of the
enraptured speaking, by which the fact then occurring showed itself as of
a similar kind to that which happened on Pentecost, xi. 15. But xato¢
xai ypeic cannot be held as a proof that by yAdcoac Aadeiv is to be under-
stood a speaking in foreign languages—in oppusition to Baumgarten, who
thinks that he seesin our passage ‘‘ the connecting link between the miracle
of Pentecost and the speaking with tongues in the Corinthian church *? —
for it rather shows the essential identity of the Pentecostal event with the
later speaking with tongues, and points back from the mouth of the apostle
to the historical form of that event, when it had not yet been transformed
by tradition into a speaking of languages. — rpocérage] The personal per-
formance of baptism did not necessarily belong to the destined functions of
the apostolic office.*— év r@ dvdp. tov xup.] belongs to Barriof., but leaves
untouched the words with which the baptism was performed. As, namely,
the name of Jesus Christ is the spiritual basis of the being baptized * and

1 Mark xvi. 17. ® See on chap. Si.
* Comp. also yan Hengel, de gave d. falen, 4 Of the vous, 1 Cor. xiv. 9.
pp. 7% ff., 84 ff., * who, however, here aleo (sce 8 See the more particular exposition at 1
on chap. #1.) abides by the view, that they Cor. xii. 10.
spoke ‘‘onenly and aloud to the glorifying of ® See on 1 Cor. {. 17.
God in Chriet.” ? See on ti. 88, comp. viil. 85 f.

216 CHAP. X.—NOTES.

the end to which it refers,' so it is also conceived as the entire holy sphere,
in which it is accomplished, and out of which it cannot take place. —
Excpeivac] to remain. And he remained and had fellowship at table with
them, xi. 3. So much the more surprising is his troxpiore at Antioch, Gal.
ii. 11 ff.

Nores spy American Eprror.
(8') Conversion of Cornelius. VY. 1.

The event recorded in this chapter was an important crisis in the progress of
Christianity. Hitherto it had won its way among Jews, and through their in-
strumentality, so that it might be regarded as a peculiar Jewish sect ; but now
it was to be presented os a religion for the race, Jew and Gentile alike—a wor-
ship forthe world. All restrictions of every kind were now to be removed,
and the universal adaptation and power of the gospel was to be proclaimed and
exemplified. What seems to us simple as a self-evident truth was then a mys-
tery—that the Gentiles should be ‘‘partakers of the promise in Christ by the
gospel.”

Paul had already been chosen and was being prepared for the great work of
making known unto the Gentiles ‘‘the unsearchable riches of Christ.” And
now Peter is specially commissioned to open the door for the Gentile world.
The apostles and many of the Jewish believers doubtless expected that the
gospel should be preached to the Gentiles. The predictions of the Old Testa-
ment, the statements of our Lord, and the distinct tenor of their commission
received from him, to disciple all nations, clearly und unmistakably indicated
the admission of all peoples into the kingdom of Christ. It was difficult,
however, for them to understand how they could enter except by the divinely
appointed way. The law of Moses was of divine origin. Circumcision was of
God. The Jews were his peculiar people, hence it was natural that they
should think obedience to the law of Moses a prerequisite to admission into
the Christian church. Although some of the preachers of the gospel may have
already attained more liberal views on the subject of Judaism, yet it required a
special revelation to overcome'the prejudices of many, and to make the path of
duty clear. This question the visions vouchsafed to Cornelius and Peter finally
settled. Henceforth all nations were to be held as equal, and all races wel-
comed to the privileges and provisions of the gospel. No man should be re-
garded any longer as unclean, or interdicted from Christ and his salvation.
‘The whole transaction is narrated with great minuteness of detail. The two
visions at Cessarea and Joppa were both real and supernatural, and divinely
adapted to each other-—a striking illustration of divine providence in the man-
agement of human affairs. The design of both was impressively and practi-
cally to teach the lesson that God is no respecter of persons ; that mere exter-
nal adventitious circumstances —as parentage, nationality, profession, or |
rank—are neither a passport nor a barrier to the divine favor ; that in Christ
Jesus there is ‘‘ neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian,
bond, nor free.” Neander says: ‘‘By a remarkable coincidence of inward
revelation with a chain of outward circumstances, the illumination hitherto
wanted was imparted.’’

NOTES. 217

(t') A devout man. V. 2.

Cornelius, as is shown by our author, was a Gentile, probably an Italian,
and in no formal way connected with the Jewish state or faith. He had clearly
wbandoned idolatry, and worshipped the one living and true God with reveren-
tial fear, and prayed to him constantly. As a centurion he had a good posi-
tion and much influence ; these he used fur good purposes. His piety was not
less practical than it was sincere. His hand obeyed the dictates of his heart
in acts of munificent generosity. It is probable that through the ministrations
of Philip or otherwise he had heard of the claims of Jesus to be the Messiah,
and learned some of the facts of his wondrous life and death. Longing for
light, he earnestly besought it, and it came.

His prayers and alms came up “for a memorial before God.” The allusion
is to the ascending incense from the ancient altar, and denotes their accept-
ance by God. But, Alexander justly says: ‘‘ Intrinsic merit or efficacy is no
more ascribed in these words to the good works of Cornelius than to the obla-
tions from which the figure or comparison is taken.’’ The acceptance implied
does not denote personal salvation. He had still to hear the words by which
he should be saved. But his earnest desire for light, and his following it as
far as he had it, were pleasing to God. ‘‘He who does, as far as in him lieth,
according as natural grace from God enables him to do, as a pagan might do
from the light of nature—-which, let us not forget, is light from God—desiring
to be directed aright, and seeking this grace from God's hand, and supplicat-
ing the forgiveness of his sins ; to such an one God will open a way by his an-
gel, or by sending to him teachers to direct him into the perfect way, and to
teach him those truths which are as light to his soul.” (Denton.) Dick says:
‘‘ Cornelius believed in the true God, and this faith rendered his religious ser-
vices acceptable.” MacDuff, Abbott, and Jacobson concur with Calvin in the
opinion that Cornelius was a true, though unenlightened believer before the
visit of Peter.

There are three centurions mentioned with commendation by the evangel-
ists. Of one our Lord said: ‘‘I have not found so great faith, no not in
Israel’ (Matt. viii. 10). Another, standing at the cross of Jesus, said: ‘‘ Truly
this was the Son of God’ (Matt. xxvii. 54), And in this chapter Cornelius.

(u') Fell into a trance. V. 10.

‘‘The éxoracs of Peter seems to differ from the eoaza of Cornelius in this,
that whereas Peter was entirely insensible to external things, and saw only
that which passed before his spirit, but which, as in a dream, had no objective
reality, Cornelius in a waking state, and attentive to what was around him,
saw what actually occurred. The linen cloth which came down from heaven
was an internal vision imparted to Peter ; whereas the angel who stood before
Cornelius was an external reality.’’ (Gloag, so also Alford, who, however, inti-
mates that the usage of such a distinction between the two words is not always
strictly observed.) ‘‘His senses being abstracted from outward objects and
rapt in a supernatural state, a vision was revealed to his inner soul, engrossing
and absorbing all his thought and attention.” This was a sudden and over-
powering influence of the Spirit ; a state of unconsciousness as to the impres-
sions made upon the senses, and of entire abstraction from what was going on

218 CHAP. X.—NOTES.

in the world around him, during which time there are present to the soul clear
visions of heavenly realities.” The same word is used in the Septuagint con-
cerning the condition of Abraham when the future history of his posterity was
revealed to him; also in reference to the condition of Paul, xxii. 17. The
trance may be distinguished from a dream in that it is not connected with nat-
ural sleep ; and from a vision, in that the person in a trance is unconscious, and
the objects presented have no real objective existence.

(v!) Accepted with him. VY. 35.

In reference to this statement of the apostle Alford observes: ‘It is very
important that we should hold the right clue to guide us in understanding this
saying. The question which recent events had solved in Peter's mind was
that of the admissibility of men of all nations into the church of Christ. Jn
this sense only had he received any information as to the acceptableness of men of
all nations before God. He saw that in every nation men who seek after God,
who receive his witness of himself, without which he has left no man, and
humbly follow his will, as far as they know it—these have no extraneous hin-
drances, such as uncircumcision, placed in their way to Christ, but are capable
of being admitted into God s church, ‘hough Gentiles, and as Gentiles.” ‘‘ It is
clearly unreasonable to suppose Peter to have meant that each heathen’s natural
light and moral purity would render him acceptable in the sight of God. And it is
equally unreasonable to find any verbal or doctrinal difficulty in ipyalopevos
dtxavoovvny, or to suppose that dicacootvyy must be taken in its forensic sense,
and therefore that he alludes to the state of men after becoming believers.”’
This note is adopted by Taylor, and heartily approved by him.

Lechler forcibly says on this passage : ‘‘It is well known that the introduc-
tory words in the discourse of Peter have often been so interpreted as to teach
that all religions are of equal value; that faith, as contradistinguished from
morality, is not indispensable ; and that, with respect to the salvation of the
soul, all that is specifically Christian is of no importance. But the attempt to
find a palliation of indifference in the subject of religion in this passage be-
trays, as even de Wette judges, very great exegetical frivolity ; both the words
themselves, and also the whole connection of the discourse, as well as of the
narrative of which they form a part, decidedly pronounce against any such an
interpretation.” ‘If the language in verses 34, 35 meant that a heathen, a
Jew, and a Christian were altogether alike in the eyes of God, and that any one
of them could be as easily saved as another, provided he was honorable and
upright in his conduct, then Peter should have simply allowed Cornelius to
remain what he was—a heathen —without leading him to Christ.”

CRITICAL REMARKS, 219

CHAPTER XI.

VER, 8. xowvdv] Elz. has ray xouvév, against A B D E X&, min. vss. and Fathers,
From x, 14, — Ver. 9. zo:] is wanting in A B &, min. Copt. Sahid, Arm. Vulg.
Epiph. Deleted by Luchm, Tisch, It is an addition, in accordance with ver. 7.
— Ver. 10. The order aveor, radi is, according to preponderant evidence, to be
adopted. — Ver. 11. jum] Lachm, Born. read jyev, atter A B D ¥®, 40. Without
attestation, doubtless, from the vss. ; but on account of its apparent irrelevancy,
and om account of ver. 5, to be considered as the original, — Ver. 12. ynddv
diaxpivopevov) is, as already Mill saw, very suspicious (as an interpolation from
x. 20), for it is wholly wanting in D, Syr. p. Cant.; in A B ®, lo: it is ex-
changed for pndév dcaxpivovra or pn. diaxpivayra (80 Lachm.), and in 33, 46, for p.
dtaxpivduevos. Tisch.and Born. have rejected it ; de Wette declares himself for
the reading of Lachm. — Ver. 13. dé is to be read instead of ré, with Lachm. and
Born., in accordance with preponderant authority, — After Iéra7v Elz. has
avdpas, an addition from x. 5, which has against it A BD &, min. and most
ves. — Ver. 17. dé] is wanting in A B D ®&, min. vss. and several Fathers.
Deleted by Lachm. It was omitted as disturbing the construction. — Ver. 18.
éddéafov) The considerably attested éddfacav (Lachm.) has arisen from the pre-
ceding aorist. — Instead of dpaye, Lachm. has dpa, after AB D 8, min, A neg-
lect of the strengthening ye, which to the transcribers was less familiar with dpa
in the N. T. (Matt. vii. 20, xvii. 26, Acts vii. 27). — Ver. 19. Z7egavy] Lachm, reads
Zregavov, after A E, min. Theophyl., bnt this has been evidently introduced
into the text as an emendatory gloss from erroneously take évi as denoting
time, — Ver. 20. éA@dvres] Elz. reads eiceAQdvres, against decisive testimony. —
"EAAnvas] So A D* &** vss. and Fathers. Already preferred by Grotius and
Witsius, adopted by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. Scholz. Born. But Elz. Matth.
have 'EAAnviorde, which, in particular, Ammon (de Hellenistis Antioch. Er]. 1810,
krit. Journ. I. 8. p. 218 ff. ; Magaz. f. christl. Pred. IIT. 1, p. 222 f.) has.defended,
assuming two classes of Antiochene Jews, namely, Hebrew-speaking, who used
the original text of the O. T., and Greek-speaking, who used the LXX. But
see Schulthess, de Charism. Sp. St. p. 73 ff.; Rinck, Lucubr. crit. p.65 f. The
reading *EA2nva$ is necessary, since the announcement of the gospel to Hellenists,
particularly at Antioch, could no longer now be anything surprising, and only
"EAAnvas exhausts the contrast to ’Iovdaio.s, ver. 20 (not 'Ejpaios as in, vi. 1).
"EAAnuor. might easily arise from comparison with ix. 29, for which Cod. 40
testifies, when after éAdAcvy it inserts cal ovvetnyrovy, — Ver. 22. dieAGeiv] is want-
ing in A B ®&, lo. Syr. and other vss., and is deleted by Lachm. Omitted as
superfluous. — Ver. 25,’ 6 Bapvafas and the twice-repeated airéy are to be
deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch., after A B X, al. ; the former as the subject

1 Bornemann has the p-cullar expansion of ocvvrvxay wapexddeoey avrov dAdeiy cis “Avrid-
the simple text froin D: axovcas de, ort ZavAcs = xeray.
dorwy cig Tapody, efnAder avagnrwy avror Kat wt

220 CHAP. XI., 1-18.

written on the margin (seeing that another subject immediately precedes),
and the latter as a very usual (uunecessary) definition of the object. — Ver.
26. avrovs] read with Lachm. Tisch. Born. airois, after A B E ®, min. Tho
accusative with the infinite after tyévero was most familiar to the transcribers
(ix. 3, 32, 37).— Lachm. and Tisch. have «ai after air., following AC &,
Cant. Syr. p. Ath. Vig. Rightly ; apparently occasioning confusion, it was
omitted. — Ver. 28. wéyav . . . doTus] peyudqvy ... tS is supported by the
predominant testimony of A BD E & (E has péyav.. . . #rcS), min, Fathers,
so that it is to be adopted, with Lachm. Tisch. Born., as in Luke xv. 14 (see
on that passage), and the masculine is to be considered as an emendation
of ignorant transcribers, — After KAuvdiov, Elz. has xaioapos, an inserted gloss,
to be rejected in conformity with A B D ®, lo4- 40, Copt. Aeth. Sahid. Arm.

Vulg. Cant.

Vv. 1-18. The fellowship into which Peter entered with the Gentiles,
chap. x., offends the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem, but their objection is
allayed by the apostle through a simple representation of the fucts as a
whole, and is converted into the praise of God.— xara ri ‘Iovdaiav is not
= év rg ‘Iovd,’ but throughout Judaea.* — Ver. 2. duexpivovro] they strove
against him.* — ol é« wepirou.] the circumcised Christians, a3 in x. 45, opposed
to the Gentiles (axpoBvor. 2xovrac) whose conversion is reported.— dr: is most
simply taken as recitative, neither quare, Vulg.,‘ nor because, Grotius supply-
ing: hoc querimur.— mpd¢g dvdpac x.t.A.] Thus it was not the baptism of
these men that they called in question, but the fellowship entered into by
Peter with them, especially the fellowship at table.° This was the stone of
stumbling: for they had not come to Peter to be baptized, as a Gentile
might present himself to become a proselyte; but Peter had gone in to
them. (w'). Without ground, * Gfrérer and Zeller employ this passage against
the historical character of the whole narrative of the baptism of Cornelius. —
axpoB. éy.} An expression of indignation. Eph. ii. 11.— Ver. 4. apgdu.
éferiO.) he began and expounded, so that apédyu. is a graphic trait, correspond-
ing to the conception of the importance of the speech in contradistinction
to the complaint ;’ comp. il. 4.—Ver. 6. ei¢ §v arevicag xarevduun x. eiduv] on
which I, having fixed my glance, observed (vii. 81) and saw, etc. This eldov ra
terparoda x.T.A. is the result of the xarevéovy. —x. ra Onpia] and the beasts ;
specially to make mention of these from among the quadrupeds. In x. 12
the wild beasts were not specially mentioned ; but there zdvra stood before
ta terpda.— Ver. 11. juev] (see the critical remarks) is to be explained from
the fact, that Peter already thinks of the adeAgoi, ver. 12, as included.—
Ver. 12. obro:] the men of Joppa, who had gone with Peter to Cornelius,

1 Kuinoel, de Wette. {ed. 8. ¢ail the vison narrated. This in opposition

2 vy. 15, and see Nagelab. on the iad, p. 12,

§ Jude 9; Dem. 168. 15; Polyb. il. 22. 11;
Athen. xii. p. 544 C.

* Comp. on Mark ix. 11.

8 Comp. Gal. ffi. 12.

® Sce, in opposition, Oertel, p. 211.

7 The importance of the matter is the rea-
eon why Luke makes Peter again recite in de-

to Schlelermacher, who finds in the double
narrative a support for his view concerning
the composition of the book. — Observe how
simply Peter makes his experience speak for
iteelf, and then, ver. 16 ff., just as simply,
calmly, and with persuasive brevity, subjoins
the justification following from this experi-
ence,

PETER’S DEFENCE OF HIS CONDUCT. 221

x. 28, had.thus accompanied him also to Jerusalem. They were now
present in this important matter as his witnesses. — Ver. 18. rdv dyyedov] the
angel already known from chap. x.,— a mode of expression, no doubt, put
into the mouth of Peter by Luke from his own standpoint. — Ver. 14. év oi¢]
by means of which. — Ver. 15. év dé rg dpgacbai pe Aadeiv] This proves that
Peter, after x. 43, had intended to speak still considerably longer.— xai é9’
yuac and xal guiv, ver. 17—it is otherwise with ipeic, ver. 16—are to be taken
us in x. 47.— év apy] namely, at Pentecost. The period of the apostolic
church was then at its beginning. — Ver. 16. Comp. i. 5. —d¢ ddeyey] A
frequent circumstantiality.' Peter had recollected this saying of Christ,
because he had seen realized in the Gentiles filled with the Spirit what
Jesus, i, 5, had promised to the apostles for their own persons. Herein, as
respects the divine bestowal of the Spirit, he had recognised a placing of
the Gentiles concerned on the same level with the apostles. And from
this baptisma flaminis he could not but infer it as willed by God, that the
baptisma fluminis also was not to be refused. — Ver. 17. mioreboacw] refers
not to avroic, as is assumed by Beza, Heinrichs, and Kuinoel against the
order of the words, but to guiv: ‘as also to us as having become believers,’’
etc., that is, as He has given it aleo to us, because we had become believers, 80
that thus the same gift of God indicated as its basis the same faith in them
as in us.— éyd d2 ric Huq duvardc x.t.A.] Two interrogative sentences are
here blended into one :* Who was I on the other hand? was I able to hinder
God, namely, by refusal of baptism? Concerning dé, in the apodosis, follow-
ing after a hypothetical protasis, see Niagelsb. ;> Baeumlein.‘—Ver. 18.
jotyacay| they were silent, Luke xiv. 4, often in classical writers.* The
following édéfafov (imperfect) thereupon denotes the cuntinuous praising.
Previously contention against Peter, vv. 2, 8, now silence, followed by praise
of God.— dpaye] thus, as results from this event. By rv perdvocav, however,
is meant the Christian change of disposition ; comp. v. 31.— ric (usr) unto
eternal Messianic life; this is the aim of ray perdvorav eduxev.®

Vv. 19, 20. 0 pév viv dtaorapévrec) A resumption of vill. 4, in order now
to narrate a still further advance, which Christianity had made in conse-
quence of that dispersion, —namely, to Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, for
the most part, indeed, among the Jews, yet also (ver. 20) among the Gen-
tiles, the latter at Antioch.’ — ava r. dAip.] on account of, on occasion of, the
tribulation.* — éxi Eregdvw} Luther rightly renders: over Stephen, i.e. on ac-
count of Stephen.*® Others, Alberti, Wolf, Heumann, Palairet, Kypke, Hein-
richs, Kuinoel, Olshausen, render : post Stephanum. Linguistically admis-

1 Luke xxii. 61, Thue. {. 1. 1. and Kriger
tn loe : also Bornemann. ad Cyrop i 2, 5.

? Winer. p 583 (E. T 784).

* On the Jiiad, p. 66, ed 8.

4 Partsk p. 92 f.

* Comp. Locetia, ad Xen. Eph. p. 290.

* Com. ew@yop, ver. 14.

7 The preaching to the Gentiles at Antioch
is not to be placed defore the baptism of Cor-

nelina (Giceeler In Staendl. Archir. TV. 2, p.
310. Baur, Schneckenburger, Wicseler, Lech-
ler), but it was after that event that the mir-

. sionary activity of the dispereed advanced 20

far. See xv. 7.

® Comp. Herm. ad Soph. Et. 63.

® Comp. Erasmus, Beza, Bengel, and others,
including de Wette, See Winer, 367 (E. T.
489 f.); Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 1. p. 619.

222 CHAP. XI., 19-26.

sible,’ but less simple, as post Stephanum would have again to be explained as
e medio sublato Stephano, — qoav dé tivec é& avtav)] does not apply to ‘Iovdaiorc,?
as the dé, corresponding to the yév, ver. 19, requires for airoy the ref-
erence to the subject of ver. 19, the d:aotanévrec, and as oirivec eABdvres ei¢
"Avriéyecav, ver. 20, so corresponds to the diyAfov iwc . . . 'Avtioxeiac of ver.
19, that a diversity of the persons spoken of could not but of necessity
be indicated. The correct interpretatation is: ‘‘The dispersed travelled
through the countries,? as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, de-
livering the gospel — rév Adyov, nar’ é€ox7v, 28 in vill. 4. vi. 4, and frequently
—to the Jews only, ver. 19, hut some of them, of the dispersed, Cyprians
and Cyrenians by birth, proceeded otherwise ; having come to Antioch,
they preached the word to the Gentiles there.’’* — roc “EAAgvac] is the
national contrast to ‘Toudaiorc, ver. 19, and therefore embraces as well the
Gentiles proper as the proselytes who had not become incorporated into
Judaism by circumcision. Te understand only the proselytes*® would be a
limitation not founded here in the text, as in xiv. 1 (x').

Vv. 21-26. Xeip xupiov) See on Luke i. 66; Acts iv. 80. Bengel well re-
marks: ‘‘potentia spiritualis per evangelium se exserens.’’ — airar]
these preachers to the Gentiles. — Ver. 22. cic ra Sta} Comp. on Luke iv. 21.
— 6 2dyoc] the word, z.e. the narrative of it; see on Mark i. 45. — Ver. 28.
xapiv tr. cov] as it was manifested in the converted Gentiles. — ry rpoféce
rac Kapd. tpoouév. TH Kupiv] with the purpose of their heart to abide by the Lord,
4.6, not again to abandon Christ, to whom their hearts had resolved to be-
long, but to be faithful to Him with this resolution.* — Ver. 24. dr: gv . . .
siorewc] contains the reason, not why Barnabas had been sent to Antioch,’
but of the immediately preceding éydpy . . . xvpiw. — avin ayafdc] quite
generally : an excellent man, a man of worth, whose noble character, and,
moreover, whose fulness of the Spirit and of faith completely qualified him
to gain and to follow the right point of view, in accordance with the divine
counsel, as to the conversion of the Gentiles here beheld. Most arbitrarily
Heinrichs holds that it denotes gentleness and mildness, which Baum-
garten has also assumed, although such a meaning must have arisen, as
in Matt. xx. 5, from the context,* into which Baumgarten imports the
idea, that Barnabas had not allowed himself to be stirred to censure by the
strangeness of the new phenomenon. — Ver. 25. ci¢ Tapodv] See ix. 80. —
Ver. 26. According to the corrected reading fyévero d2 avtoic nat émavrov
x.t.A. (see the critical remarks), it is to be explained : it happened to them,’
to be associated even yet (xai) a whole year in the church, and to instruct a con-
siderable multitude of people, and that the disciples were called Christians jirst
at Antioch. With ypnyarica: the construction passes into the accusative
with the infinitive, because the subject becomes different (roc jafyz.).
But it is logically correct that ypyyarica: x.r.A. should still be dependent

1 Bernhardy, p. 249. ® Comp. 2 Tim. tii. 10.

2 Heinrichs, Kuinoel. 7 Kuinoel.

3 Comp. viii. 4, ix. 38. ® Comp. on Rom. v. 7.

4 Comp. de Wette and Lekebusch, p. 105. ® Comp. xx. 16; Gal. vi. 14.

6 Rinck.

THE GOSPEL IN ANTIOCH. 223

on éyévero airoic, just because the reported appellation, which was first given
to the disciples at Antioch, was causally connected with the lengthened and
successful labours of the two men in that city. It was their merit, that
here the name of Christians first arose. — On the climactic «ai, etiam, in the
sense of yet, or yet further, comp. Hartung.'’— ovvaythjvac] to be brought to-
gether, t.e. to join themselves for common work. They had been since ix.
26 ff. separated from each other. — ypquaricar] to bear the name.* — Xaoriavaic |
This name decidedly originated not in, but outside of, the church, seeing that
the Christians in the N. T. never use it of themselves, but designate them-
selves by nafyrai, adeAgoi, believers, etc. ; and seeing that, in the two other
passages where Xproriavoi occurs, this appellation distinctly appears as ex-
trinsic tothe church.* But it certainly did not proceed from the Jews, because
Xpioréc was known to them as the interpretation of 1"%, and they would
not therefore have transferred so sacred a name to the hated apostates.
Ience the origin of the name must be derived from the Gentiles m Antioch.‘
By these the name of the Head of the new religious society, ‘‘ Christ,’’ was
not regarded as an official name, which it already was among the Christians
themselves ever more and more becoming ; and hence they formed accord-
ing to the wonted mode the party-name: Christiani,® ‘* auctor nominis ejus
Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio
affectus erat.’’ At Antioch, the seat of the mother-church of Gentile
Christianity, this took place at that time, for this follows from the reading
éyév. dé avtuic, because in that year the joint labours of Paul and Barnabas
occasioned so considerable an enlargement of the church, and therewith
naturally its increase in social and public considcration. And it was at
Antioch that this name was born /jirst, earlier than anywhere else,* becuuse
here the Christians, in consequence of the predominant Gentile-Christian
element, asserted themselves for the first time not as a sect of Judaism, but
as an independent community. There is nothing to support the view that
the name was at first a title of ridicule."’ The conjecture of Baur, that the
origin of the name was referred to Antioch, because that was the first
Gentile city in which there were Christians,* cannot be justified by the
Latin form of the word.°

Vv. 27, 28. Kaz7Afov] whether of their own impulse, or as sent by the
church in Jerusalem, or as refugees from Jerusalem" is not evident. —
mpogyra] inapired teachers, who delivered their discourses, not, indeed, in the ec-
static state, yet in exalted language, on the basis of an amoxddvyic received.
Their working was entirely analogous to that of the O. T. prophets. Rev-
elation, incitement, and inspiration on the part of God gave them their
qualification ; the unveiling of what was hidden in respect of the divine

1 Partikell I. p. 188 £. beck, ad Phryn. p. 311 f.

2 See on Rom. vii. 3. 7 De Wette, Baumgarten, after Wetstein

3 Acts xxvi. 28; 1 Pet. iv. 16, and older interpreters.

« Ewald, p. 441 £, conjectures that {t pro- ® Zeller also mistrusts the account before
ceeded from the Roman authorities. us.

* Tac. Ann. xv. 44, ® Sce Wetstcin, ad. Matth. xxii. 17.

* spwrory, or, according to BR. rpwrws T.o- 1¢ Ewald.

Q24 CHAP, XI., 27-30.

counsel for the exercise of a pyschological and moral influence on given
circumstances, but always in reference to Christ and His work, was the tenor
of what these interpreters of God spoke. The prediction of what was fu-
ture was, as with the old, so also with the new prophets, no permanent
characteristic feature ; but naturally and necessarily the divinely-illumi-
nated glance ranged very often into the future development of the divine
counsel and kingdom, and saw what wasto come. In respect to the de-
gree of the inspired scizure, the mpog7ra: are reluted to the )Adooarg Aadvi-vrec'
in such a way that the intellectual consciousness was not thrown into the
back ground with theformer as with the latter, and so the mental excite-
ment wus not raised to the extent of its becoming ecstatic, nor did their
speaking stand in need of interpretation.* — avacrds] he came forward in
the cliurch-assembly. — ‘Aya8oc] Whether the name? is to be derived from
32M, a locust,‘ or from 34y, to love,* remains undecided. The same proph-
et as in xxi. 10. —6.a tov rvebyaroc] This characterizes the announce-
ment (coquave) of the famine as something imparted to the prophet by the
Holy Spirit ; hence Eichhorn’s opinion,* that the famine was already present
in its beginnings, does great violence to the representation of the text,
which, moreover, by dor¢ . . . KAavdiov states the fulfilment as having oc-
curred afterwards, and consequently makes the event to appear at that time
still as future, which also péAAew éoeota definitely affirms.— 2udv.. .
oixovuévyy| that a great famine was appointed by God to set in over the whole
inhabited earth. Thus generally is r7v oixovy. to be understood in the origi-
nal sense of the prophet, who sees no Jocal limits drawn for the famine beheld
in prophetic vision, and therefore represents it not as a partial, but as an
unrestricted one. Just because the utterance is a prediction, according to
its genuine prophetic character, there is no ground for giving to the general
and usual meaning of rir vixovu.,—which is, moreover, designedly brought
into relief by 6A7»,—any geographical limitation at all tothe land of Judaea
or the Roman empire.’ This very unlimited character of the vision, on the
one hand, warranted the hyperbolical form of the expression, as given by
Agabus, while yet, on the other hand, the famine extending itself far and
wide, but yet limited, which afterwards historically occurred, might be
regarded as the event corresponding to the entirely general prophetic vision,
and be described by Luke as its fulfilment. History pointed out the limits,
within which what was seen and predicted without limitation found its ful-
filment, inasmuch, namely, as this famine, which set in in the fourth year of
the reign of Claudius (a.p. 44), extended only to Judaea and the neigh-
bouring countries, and particularly fell on Jerusalem itself, which was sup-
ported by the Syrian queen Helena of Adiabene with corn and figs.* The
view which includes as part of the fulfilment a yet later famine,’ which oc-
curred in the eleventh year of Claudius, especially at Rome," offends against

1 See on x. 46. * Comp. Heinrichs.

2 Comp. on 1 Cor. xii. 10. 7 See on Luke fi. 1. [47. EZ. ti. 11.
3 Comp. Evra ii. 46. ’ See Joseph. Ant. xx. 2. 6, xx. 5.2; Eus.
4 With Drustfus, * Baumgarten.

5 With Grotius, Witsius, Drasius, Wolf. 1° Suct. Claud. 18; Tacit. Ann. xii. 43.

ANTIOCH SENDS AID TO JERUSALEM. 225

the words (Acudv . . . gric) as well as against the connection of the history.’
It is altogether inadmissible to bring in here the different famines, which
successively occurred under Claudius in different parts of the empire,’ since,
by the famine here meant, according to vv. 29, 30, Judaca was affected,
and the others were not synchronous with this. Lastly, very arbitrary is
the assertion of Baumgarten, that the famine was predicted as a sign and
herald of the Parousia, and that the fulfilment under Claudius was therefore
merely a preliminary one, which pointed to a future and final fulfilment.—
On Acués as feminine (Doric), a8 in Luke xv. 14, see on Luke iv. 26, and
Bornemann on our passage.

Vv. 29, 30. That, as Neander conjectures and Baumgarten assumes, the
Christians of Antioch had already sent their money contributions to Judaea
before the commencement of the famine, is incorrect, because it was not through
the entirely general expression of Agabus, but only through the result (de7¢¢
xai éyévero éwi KAavd), that they could learn the definite time for sending,
and also be directed to the local destination of their benevolence ; hence
ver, 29 attaches itself, with strict historical definiteness, to the directly pre-
ceding do71¢ . . . KAavdiov.® The benevolent activity on behalf of Judaea,
which Paul at a later period unweariedly and successfully strove to promote,
is to be explained from the dutiful affection toward the mother-land of
Christianity, with its sacred metropolis, to which the Gentile church felt
itself laid under such deep obligations in spirtual matters, Rom. xv. 27. —
The construction of ver. 29 depends on attraction, in such a way, namely,
that rav d? uafyray is attracted by the parenthesis xafoc ziropeiré ric, accord-
ing as every one was able,‘ and accordingly the sentence as resolved is: oi dé
palinrai, aac yuropeiTé Tic avT@v, Gpicav. The subsequent éxaoroc airay is a
more precise definition of the subject of dp:cav, appended by way of appo-
sition. Comp. ii. 3. — réupac] ac. re. — The Christian presbyters, here for
the first time mentioned in the N. T., instituted after the manner of the
synagogue (D‘3pt),° were the appointed overseers and guides of the indi-
vidual churches, in which the pastoral service of teaching, xx. 28, also
devolved on them.* They are throughout the N. T. identical with the
éx:oxovoi, who do not come into prominence as possessors of the chief super-
intendence with a subordination of the presbyters till the sub-apostolic

1 vv. 20, 30.

3 Ewald.

3 Comp. Wieseler, p. 149.

4See Kypke, II. p. 56; comp. also 1 Cor.
xvi. 2.

& We have no account of the inetitution of
this office. It probably shaped iteelf after the
analogy of the government of the synagogue,
soon after the firet dispersion of the church
(viil, 1), the apostles themselves having in the
first instance presided alone over the church
in Jerusalem; while,on the other hand, in
conformity with the pressing necessity which
primarily emerged, the office of almoner was
there formed, even before there were special

presbyters. But certainly the presbyters
were, as elsewere (xiv.23), s0 also in Jerusalem
(xv. 22, xxi. 18), chosen by the church, and
apostolically installed. Comp. Thiersch, p.
78, who, however, abitrarily conjectures that
the coming over of the priests, vi. 7, had given
occasion to the origin of the office.—We may
add that the presbyters do not here appear as
almoners (in opposition to Lange, apost. Zett-
ali. II. p. 146), but the moneys are consignéd
to them as the presiding authority Of the
church. *‘‘Omnia enim rite et ordine admin-
istrari oportuit,"° Bezs. Comp. besides, on
vi. 8, the subjoined remark.

* Sce on Eph. fv. 11; Hather on 1 Tim. i1..2,

226 CHAP, XI.—NOTES,

age—in the first instance, and already very distinctly, in the Ignatian
epistles. That identity, although the assumption of it is anathematized
by the Council of Trent, is clear from Acts xx. 17.'_ Shifts are resorted to
by the Catholics, such as Déllinger.* — The moneys were to be given over
to the preabyters, in order to be distributed by them among the different
overseers of the poor for due application. — According to Gal. ii. 1, Paul
cannot have come with them as far as Jerusalem.* In the view of Zeller,
that circumstance renders it probable that our whole narrative lacks a

historical character—which is a very hasty conclusion.

Norges ny American Eprror.

(w') They of the circumcision contended with him. VY. 3.

Luke employs a designation here which, when he wrote, was full of signifi-
cance ; though it probably originated in the very event he here narrates. The
difference of sentiment manifest now soon came to be a well-defined distinction
between the Jewish and Gentile portions of the church. It is probable
that those who reproached Peter with acting disorderly were only a party in
the church at Jerusalem who regarded the observance of the law of Moses, if
not essential to salvation, yet of the greatest importance ; and specially that
the rite of circumcision should be observed first, before any were admitted to
either social or church fellowship. They did not censure Peter because he had
preached the gospel to them, or caused them to be baptized, but that he had
associated with them. His grave offence was that, contrary to the customs of
his people, and the commands of the rabbins, he had eaten with the uncircum-
cised. It was a maxim of these teachers that a man might buy food of a Gen-
tile, but not receive it as a gift from him, or eat it with him. It was to vindi-
cate himself in this matter that Peter gave explanations to the brethren at
Jerusalem. So clear, conclusive, and satisfactory was his statement of the
whole case that his opponents were silenced, and probably most of them for
the time at least convinced ; and their indignant complaint against the apos-
tle was changed into joyous thanksgiving to God. This dispute may be con-

1 Comp. ver. 28; Tit i. 5,7; 1 Pet.v.1f. ;
Phil. 1. 1. See Gabler, de episcopie primae
ecol., Jen. 1805, Mitinter in the Stud. u. Krit.
1888, p. 760 ff.: Rothe, Anfange d. chr. K.I. p.
1738 ff., Ritsch!, altkath. K. p. 399 ff. ; Jacob-
son in Herzog's Encyki. II. p. 241 ff.

3 Chrislenth. u. K. p. 808, and Sepp, p. 353 f.

§ Ewald’s hypothesis also—that Paul had,
when present in Jerusalem, conducted himeelf
as quietly as possible, and had not traneacted
anything important for doctrine with the
apostivs, of whom Peter, acccording to xii. 17.
had been absent—ts insnfficient to exp!ain the
silence in Gal. ii. concerning this journey.
The whole argument in Gal. ii. is weak, if
Paul, having been at Jerusalem, was silent to

the Galatians about this journey. For the
very non-mention of it must. have exposed the
journey, however otherwige little liable to ob-
jection, to the suspicions of opponents. This
applies also against Hofmann, XW. 7.1 p. 121;
and Trip, Paulus nach d. Apostelgesch., p. %2f.
The latter, however, ultimately accedes to
my view. On the other hand, Pau] had no
need at all to write of the journey at Acts
xvili. 22 to the Gaiatians (in opposition to
Wieseler), because, after he had narrated to
them his coming to an underetanding with the
apostle, there was no object at all in referring
in this Epistle to further and later journeys
to Jerusalem. See on Gal. il. 1.

NOTES. 22%

sidered as the commencement of the Jewish controversy,.which so greatly
troubled the early church, and which Paul so triumphantly maintained and
settled.

(x!) Antioch. V. 20.

Next to Jerusalem Antioch is the most important in apostolic history. It
was the mother church of the Gentile Christians, as Jerusalem was of the Jew-
ish. Here the first Gentile church was formed, and here first the name Chris-
tian was applied to believers. Hence also Paul started on each of his three
great missionary tours. This city, populous and powerful, was ranked next to
Rome and Alexandria in extent and importance in the Roman Empire. After
the establishment of Christianity, it became one of the five patriarchates—
Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem being the other four. The
gospel was first preached to the Gentiles in Antioch, by some who, fleeing from
persecution, had gone thither, with very great success, probably about the
same time or shortly after Peter's visit to Cesarea. The church at Jerusalem,
hearing of this success in all likelihood soon after Peter's account of the re-
ceiving of the Gentiles, sent Barnabas, a man of moral worth and spiritual
power, and who, being a native of Cyprus, and a friend of Paul, would be in
thorough sympathy with the work among the Greeks, to inquire into the state ~
of things and report. When he saw the great work going on, he felt that aid
was needed ; and recalling his intercourse with Paul, and the fact that he had
been specially called and chosen for this very work, he went to Tarsus, and
brought Paul back with him to Antioch, where for a whole year, in delightful
fellowship and successful work, they labored together-—fratres nobiles. The
future prominence and splendor of Paul’s work somewhat casts into the shade
the high character and great services of the good and gifted Son of Consolation,
who should ever be regarded as occupying a place in the first rank of the
founders of our holy faith.

228 CHAP. XII., 1-2.

CHAPTER XII.

Vex. 3. ai] is wanting in Elz., but rightly adopted, in accordance with consider-
able attestation, by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch., because it was easily passed over as
wholly superfluous. — Ver. 5. éxrev7S] Lachm. reads éarevds, after A? B®;
comp. D, év éxreveig. Several vss. also express the adverb, which, however,
easily suggested itself as definition to y:rvou. —vméy] Lachm, Tisch. Born, read
wepi, which Griesb, has also approved, after A B D &, min. But epi is the
more usual preposition with mpocevyecba: (comp. also viii. 15) in the N, T.—
Ver. 8. {jca:] So Lachm. Tisch. Born, But Elz, Scholz have repifsoa, against
ABDRX&,min. A more precise explanatory definition. — Ver, 9. avrq] after
acoA, is, with Lachm. Tisch. Born., to be deleted, according to decisive
evidence, A supplementary addition occasioned by ya, ver. 8. — Ver. 13. avrov]
Elz, has rod Ilerpoi, against decisive evidence, — Ver. 20. After fv dé, Elz, has
6 ‘HpodnS, against preponderant authority. The subject unnecessarily written
on the margin, which was occasioned by a special section (the death of
Herod) beginning at ver. 20. — Ver. 23. dééav] Elz. Tisch. have riv ddgav. The
article is wanting in D E GH, min, Chrys, Theophyl. Oec., but is to be re-
stored (comp. Rev. xix. 7), seeing that the expression without the article was
most familiar to transcribers ; see Luke xvii. 18 ; John ix. 24; Rom. iv. 20;
Rev. iv. 9, xi. 13, xiv. 7. — Ver. 25. After ovzrapad. Lachm. and Born. have
deleted «ai, following A B D* &, min. and some vss. But how readily may
the omission of this xai be explained by its complete ene, eee ! where-
as there is no obvious occasion for its being added.

Vv. 1, 2. Kar’ éxeivov d2 tov xaindv] but at that juncture,’ points, as in xix.
23,7 to what is narrated immediately before ; consequently : when Barnabas
and Saul were sent to Jerusalem (xi. 80). From ver. 25 it is evident that
Luke has conceived this staternent of time in such a way, that what is re-
lated in vv. 1-24 is contemporaneous with the despatch of Barnabas and
Saul to Judaea and with their stay there, and is accordingly to be placed
between their departure from Antioch and their return from Jerusalem,’
and not so eurly as in the time of the one year's residence at Antioch, xi.
25.‘ — 'Hpdédyc] Agrippa I., grandson of Herod the Great, son of Aristobulus
and Berenice, nephew of Herod Antipas, possessed, along with the royal
title,° the whole of Palestine, as his grandfather had possessed it ; Clau-
dius having added Judaea and Samaria ° to his dominion already preserved
and augmented by Caligula.” A crafty, frivolous, and extravagant prince,

1 Winer, p. 374 (E. T. 500).

2 Comp. 2 Macc. ifi. 5; 1 Mace. xi. 14.

§ Schrader, Hug, Schott.

4 Wiescler, p. 152; Stélting, Beitr. ¢«. Zreq.
d. Paul. Br. p. 184 f.; comp. also Anger, de
tempor.rat. p. 47 f.

§ Joseph. Anit. xviii. 6. 10.

® Joseph. Anté. xix. 5.1, xix. 6.1; Bell. i.
11. 8.

1 Joseph. Anét. xvilt. 7. 2; Ball. 11. 9.6. Sec
Wicseler, p. 129 f.; Gerlach in the Luther.
Zeltechr. 1869, p. 58 if.

MARTYRDOM OF JAMES, 229

who, although better than his grandfather, is praised far beyond his due by
Josephus (Y ). —-éréBadev tag yeipac is not, with Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and
others, to be interpreted : coepit, conatus est = éxeyeinpnoe,' because for this
there is no linguistic precedent at all, even in the LXX. Deut. xii. 7, xv.
10, the real and active application of the hand is meant, and not the
general notion suscipere ; but according to the constant usage,* and ac-
cording to the context, rpocéteru ovAAaBeiv, ver. 8, it is to be interpreted of
hostile laying hands on. Herod laid hands on, he caught at, i.e. he caused to
be forcibly seized, in order to maltreat some of the members of the church—on
vi aré, used to designate membership of a corporation, see Lobeck.* Else-
where the personal dative ‘ or éri riva ° is joined with éifad2eiv rag yeipac,
instead of the definition of the object aimed at by the infinitive. —On the
apostolic work and fate of the elder James, who now drank out the cup
of Matt. xx. 23, nothing certain is otherwise known. Apocryphal accounts
may be seen in Abdiae Histor. apost. in Fabric. Cod. Apocr. p. 516 ff., and
concerning his death, p. 528 ff. The late tradition of his preaching in
Spain, and of his death in Compostella, is given up even on the part of the
Catholics.* — r. ddeAg. *"Iwavvov] John was still alive when Luke wrote, and
in high respect. — uayaipa] probably, as formerly in the case of John the
Baptist, by beheading,’ which even among the Jews was not uncommon and
very ignominous ; see Lightfoot, p. 91 (z').—The time of the execution was
shortly before Easter week (a.p. 44), which follows from ver. 8; and the
place was probably Jerusalem.* It remains, however, matter of surprise
that Luke relates the martyrdom of an apostle with so few words, and
without any specification of the more immediate occasion or more special
circumstances attending it, arAde cai o¢ érvzyev Herod had killed him, says
‘Chrysostom, A want of more definite information, which he could at all
events have easily obtained, is certainiy not to be assumed. Further, we
must not in fanciful arbitrariness import the thought, that by ‘‘the en-
tirely mute (7) suffering of death,’’ as well as ‘‘in this absolute quietness
and apparent insignificance,’ in which the first death of an apostle is here
presented, there is indicated ‘‘a reserved glory,’’® by which, in fact, more-
over, some sort of more precise statement would not be excluded. Nor yet
is the summary brevity of itself warranted as a mere introduction, by which
Luke desired to pass to the following history derived from a special docu-
ment concerning Peter ;'° the event was too important for that. On the
contrary, there must have prevailed some sort of conscious consideration

1 Luke i.1; Actes ix. 20.

3 iv. 8, v. 18, xxi. 97; Matt. xxvi. 50; Mark
xiv. 46; Lnke xx. 19, xxi. 12: John vil. 90:
Gen. xxii. 12; comp. Lucian, Jim. 4, also in
Arrian., Polybius, ete.

3% Ad Phryn. p. 164; Schaef. Melet. p. 26 ff.

‘Ar. Lys. 440; Actsiv. 3; Mark xiv. 46;
Tischendorf, Esth. vi. 2.

§ Gen. xxii. 18; 2 Sam. xviii. 12, and always
in the N. T., except Acts iv. 3 and Mark xiv.
46.
* See Sepp, p. 73. Who, however, comes at

least to the reecue of the Bones of the apostie
for Compoeteila !

7 ““Cervicem spiculatori porrexit,’’ Abdias,
fc. p. 581.

® For Agrippa was accustomed to reeide in
Jernealem (Joseph. Anti. xix. 7. 8); all the
more, therefore, he must have been present
or have come thither from Cacsarea, shortly
before the feast (ver. 19).

®° Baumgarten.

10 Bleek.

230 CHAP, XII, 3-11.

involved in the literary plan of Luke,—probably this, that he had it in
view to compose a third historical book (sce the Introduction), in which
he would give the history of the other apostles besides Peter and Paul,
and therefore, for the present, he mentions the death of James only quite
briefly, and for the sake of its connection with the following history of
Peter. The reason adduced by Lekebusch, p. 219: that Luke wished to
remain faithful to his plan of giving a history of the development of the
church, does not suffice, for at any rate the first death of an apostle was in
itself, and by its impression on believers and unbelievers, too important an
element in the history of that development not to merit a more detailed
representation in connection with it.—Clem. Al. in Hused. ii. 9 has a beauti-
ful tradition, how the accuser of James, converted by the testimony and
courage of the apostle, was beheaded along with him.

Vv. 8, 4. Herod, himself a Jew, in opposition to Harduin, born in Ju-
daism, although of Gentile leanings, a Roman favourite brought up at
the court of Tiberius, cultivated out of policy Jewish popular favour,
and sought zealously to defend the Jewish religion for this purpose.” —
npooéfero avAaaB.] a Hebraism: he further seized.* — réocapor retpadioc| four
bands of four— rerpddcov, a number of four, Philo, II. p. 583, just as rerpdée¢
in Aristotle and others—gquatuor quaternionibus, i.e. four detachments of
the watch, each of which consisted of four men, so that one such rerpddcov
was in turn on guard for each of the four watches of the night.‘ —
petra 1d wéoya] not to desecrate the feast, in consideration of Jewish
orthodox observance of the law. For be might have evaded the Jewish
rule, ‘‘non judicant die festo,’’* at least for the days following the first
day of the feast,* by treating the matter as peculiarly pressing and
important. Wieseler’ has incorrectly assumed the 15th Nisan as the
day appointed for the execution, and the 14th Nisan as the day of the
arrest. Against this it may be decisively urged, that by werd 1rd ndoyxa
must be meant the entire Paschal feast, not the 14th Nisan, because it
corresponds to the preceding ai juépar rov aliu.® — avayay. abr. re Aag] that
is, to present him to the people on the elevated place where the tribunal
stood (John xix. 18), in order there publicly to pronounce upon him the
sentence of death.

Vv. 5, 6. But there was earnest prayer made by the church to God for him.
On éxrevfc, peculiar to the later Greek, 1 Pet. iv.5; Luke xxii. 44.° —
mpoaye| to bring publicly forward. See on ver. 4.—ry vucti éixeivg] on
that night; when, namely, Herod had already resolved on the bringing
forward, which was to be accomplished on the day immediately follow-
ing. — According to the Roman method of strict military custody, Peter
was bound by chain to his guard.” This binding, however, not by one

1 Deyling, Odes. II. p. 968; Wolf, Our. 6 See Bleek, Beitr. p. 189 ff.
8 Joseph. Anté. xix. 7. 8. 7 Synops. p. 364 ff., Chronol. d. ap. Zeitalt.
$ Comp. on Luke xix. 11, xx. 12. p. 215 ff.

4On this Roman regulation, see Veget. 2. § Comp. Luke xxii. 1.

M. iti. 8; Censorinus, de die nat. 23; Wet- ® See Lobeck, ad Paryn. p. 811.

stein in loc. 2° Comp. Joseph. Anéé. xvili. 6.7; Plin. ep.
8 Moed Katon, v. 2. x. 65; Senec. ep. 5, ad,

IMPRISONMENT OF PETER. 231

chain to one soldier, but by two chains, and so with each hand attached |

to a soldier, was an aggravation, which may be explained from the fact
that the execution was already determined.' Two soldiers of the rerpad:ov
on guard were tn the prison, fastened to Peter asleep (xo:wwyu.), and, indeed,
sleeping profoundly® in the peace of the righteous ;° and two as guards,
gbAaxes, were stationed outside at some distance from each other, form-
ing the mporny gvAaxhy Kai devrépav, ver. 10.

Vv. 7-11. The narrative of this deliverance falls to be judged of in the

same way as the similar event recorded in v. 19, 20. From the mixture of |

‘ what is legendary with pure history, which marks Luke's report of the
occurrence, the purely historical state of the miraculous fact in its in-
dividual details cannot be surely ascertained, and, in particular, whether the
angelic appearance, which suddenly took place,‘ is to be referred to the inter-
nal vision of the apostle, —a view to which ver. 9 may give a certain support.*
But as the narrative lies before us, every attempt to constitute it a natural
occurrence must be excluded.* This holds good not only of the odd view
of Hezel, that a flash of lightning had undone the chains, but also of the
opinion of Eichhorn and Heinrichs, ‘‘ that the jailer himself, or others with
his knowledge, had effected the deliverance, without Peter himself being
aware of the exact circumstances ;’’ as also, in fine, of the hypothesis of
Baur, that the king himself had let the apostle free, because he had be-
come convinced in the interval (? ver. 8) how little the execution of James
had met with popular approval. According to Ewald,’ Peter was delivered
in such a surprising manner, that his first word after his arrival among his
friends was, that he thought he was rescued by an angel of God ; and our
narrative is an amplified presentation of this thought.— Ver. 7. 9oc]
whether emanating from the angel,*or as a separate phenomenon, cannot
be determined. — oixnuc}] generally denoting single apartments of the
house,’ is, in the special sense: place of custody of prisoners, i.e. prison, a
more delicate designation for the decpzwrfpov, frequent particularly among
Attic writers."°—And the chains fell from his hands, round which, namely,
they were entwined. — Ver. 9. He was so overpowered by the wonderful

course of his deliverance and confused in his consciousness, that what had:

been done by the angel was not apprehended by him as something actual,

1 Bee, generally, Wieseler, pp. 381, 395.

2 See ver. 7.

® Pa. iif. 6.

* éwéorn, see on Luke il. 9.

§ Lange, aposial. Zeitait. II. p. 150, supposes
that the help had befallen the apostle in the
condition of ‘‘second consciousness, in an
extraordinary healthy disengagement of the
higher life * [Geniusieben], and that the anyel
wae a “ reflected image of the glorified Christ;"’
that the latter Himself, in an angelic form,
came within the sphere of Peter’s vision ; that
Christ Himself thus undertook the responei-
bility ; and that the action of the apostle
transcended the condition of responsible con-

eciousness. There is nothing of all this in
the passage. And Christ in an angelic form
ig without analogy in the N. T.; is, indeed,
at variance with the N. T. conception of the
&éfa of the glorified Lord.

* See Storr, Opusc. III. p. 188 ff.

7 Who (p. 20%) regards our narrative as
more historical than the similar narratives in
chaps. v. and xvi.

® Matt. xxviii. 3.

9Valck. ad Ammon. ili. 4; Dorvill. ad
Charit. p. 587.

10 Dem. 78M, 2. 890, 18. 1284, 3; Thue. iv. 4%.
2, 48.1; Kypke, II. p. 67. Comp. Valck. ad
Herod. vil. 119.

232 CHAP. XII, 12-17.

GAyfléc, as a real fact, but that he fancied himself to have seen a vision,
comp. xvi. 9. — Ver. 10. raw gépoveay ei¢ ri wéAtv] Nothing can be de-
termined from this as to the situation of the prison. Fessel holds that it
was situated in the court of Herod's castle; Walch and Kuinoel, that
Peter was imprisoned in a tower of the inner wall of the city, und that the
nxban was the door of this tower, if the prison-house was in the city, which
is to be assumed from cai é§eASévreg x.7.4., its iron gate still in fact led from
the house eic¢ rjv 16acv.—Examples of airéuaroc, used not only of persons,
but of things, may be seen in Wetstein in loc., and on Mark iv. 28.}—
pou piav] not several. — Ver. 11. yevduevog ev éaury] when he had become
(present) in himself, i.e. had come to himself,* ‘‘cum animo ex stupore ob
rem inopinatam iterum colletto satis sibi conscius esset.’’ *@—xai rdéone 17¢
mpoodox. Tov Aaov r. 'Iovd.} For he had now ceased to be the person, in whose
execution the people were to see their whole expectation hostile to
Christianity gratified.

Ver. 12. Sundédv] after he had perceived it, namely, what the state of the
case us to his deliverance had been, ver. 11.4 It may also mean, after he
had weighed it, Vulg. considerans, namely, either generally the position of the
matter,* or quid agendum esset.* The above view is simpler, and in keeping
with xiv. 6. Linguistically inappropriate are the renderings : sibi conacius ;"
and: ‘‘after that he had set himself right in some measure as to the place
where he found himself.’?* — There is nothing opposed to the common
hypothesis, that this John Mark is identical with the second evangelist.
Comp. ver. 25, xili. 5.

Vv. 18, 14. Tv Bipav rov rvAdvoc)] the wicket of the gate, x. 17. On
xpotecv OF xérrev, used of the knocking of those desiring admission.’ —
waidioxy| who, amidst the impending dangers,’’ had to attend to the duties
of a watchful doorkeeper; she was herself a Christian.— trancvea:] For
examples of this expression used of doorkeepers, who, upon the call of
those outside, listen (auscultant) who is there, see Kypke."* — rpv gary roi I. |
the voice of Peter, calling before the door.—azd ri¢ xapac] prompted by the
joy, which she now experienced, '* she did not open the door at once, but
ran immediately in to tell the news to those assembled.— arfyy. éordvas
x.T.A.| etoayyéAAey is the more classical term for the announcement of a door-
keeper.’*

Vv. 15, 16. Maivy] Thou art mad! An expression of extreme surprise
at one who utters what is absurd or otherwise incredible."* The hearer also

1Comp. Hom. Z. v. 749; Eur. Bacch. 447: § Beza.

evropata Seoua SueAvOy. Apollon. Rhod. Iv. ¢ Benge), comp. Erasmus.
41: avropara Oupdww vdetay oxjes. Ovid. 7 Kulnoel.
Met. 1i1. 699. [PARW. 988. 8 Olshansen ; comp. Chrysostom, Aoyrodue-

2 Luke xv. 17; Xen. Anad. i 5. 17; Soph. vos Swov eon, also Grotius and others.
3 Kypke, comp. Wetstein and Dorville, ad ® See Lobeck, ad Phkryn. p. 177 f.; comp.
Charit. p. 81; Herm. ad Vig. p. 749. Becker, Charikl. I. p. 180.
Comp. xiv. 6; Plut. 7hem.7: avrcdwv rov 10 Comp. John xx 19.
xivduvvoy, Xen. Anad. 1. 5.9; Plat. Dem. p. 381 11 II. p. 60, and Valckenaer, p. 489 f.
E, Dem. 17. 7, 1851,6; Polyb. i. 4. 6, lif. 6. 9, 132 Comp. Luke xxiv. 41.
vi. 4. 12; 1 Macc. iv. 21; 2 Macc. fi. 24, iv. 4, 18 See Sturz, Ler. Xen. II. p. 74.
v. 17, vill. 8; and see Wetstein. 14 Comp. xxvi. 24; Hom. Od. xviii. 406.

PETER’S WONDERFUL DELIVERANCE. 233

of something incredible himself exclaims : palvopac !' — dtiozupif.] as in Luke
xxli. 59, and often in Greek writers: she maintained jirmly and strongly.—
6 GyyeAog abrod éorty] Even according to the Jewish conception,* the explana-
tion suggested itself, that Peter's guardian angel had taken the form and
voice of his protégé and was before the door. But the idea, originating
after the exile, of individual guardian angels,* is adopted by Jesus Him-
self,‘ and is essentially connected with the idea of the Messianic kingdom.‘
Olshausen rationalizes this conception in an unbiblical manner, to this
effect : ‘‘ that in it is meant to be expressed the thought, that there lives in
the world of spirit the archetype of every individual to be realized in the
course of his development, and that the higher consciousness which dwells
in man here below stands in living connection with the kindred phenom-
ena of the spirit-world.’? Cumeron, Hammond, and others explain: “a
messenger sent by him from the prison.”’ It is decisive against this in-
terpretation, that those assembled could just as little light on the idea of
the imprisoned Peter’s having sent a messenger, as the maid could have
confounded the voice of the messenger with the well-known voice of Peter,
for it must be presumed from dicyupivero otruc éxerv that she told the more
special reasons for her certainty that Peter was there. — Ver. 16. avoléavrec]
consequently the persons assembled themselves, who had now come out of
their room.

Ver. 17. Karaceiew rq xpi) to make a shaking motion with the hand
' generally, and in particular, as here,* to indicate that there is a wish to
bring forward something, for which one bespeaks the silence and attention
of those present.’ The infinitive ocyav, as also often with vete and the
like, by which a desire is made known.*— The three clauses of the whole
verse describe vividly the haste with which Peter hurried the proceedings,
in order to betake himself as soon as possible into safe concealment. Baum-
garten invents as a reason: because he saw that the bond between Jerusalem
and the apostles must be dissolved. As if it would have required for that pur-
pose such haste, even in the same night! His regard to personal safety
does not cast on him the appearance of cowardly anxiety ; but by the
opposite course he would have tempted God. How often did Paul and Jesus
Himself withdraw from their enemies into concealment | — kai roic adeAg. |
who were not along with them in the assembly.— ei¢ Erepov rérov] is wholly
indefinite. Even whether a place in or out of Palestine’ is meant, must
remain undetermined. Luke, probably, did not .himself know the im-
mediate place of abode, which Peter chose ufter his departure. To fix
without reason on Caesarea, or, on account of Gal. ii. 11, with Heinrichs,
Kuinoel, and others, on Antioch,’® or indeed, after Eusebius, Jerome, and
many Catholics, on Rome," is all the more arbitrary, as from the words it

1 Jacobe, ad Anthol. IX. p. 440. and Wetstein in loc.

2 Bee Lightfoot ad loc. § Comp. Joseph. Anté. xvii. 10. 2.

* See on Matt. xvili. 10. ® Ewald, p. 67.

* Matt. xviil. 10, 3¢ But see on ver. 3.

® Heb. 1. 14. 31 Even in the present day the reference to
* Comp. xill. 16, xix. 88 xxf. 40. Rome ie, on the part of the Catholics (see

7 See Polyb. 1. 78. 8; Hellod. x. 7; Krebs Gams, d. Jahr. d. Martyrertodes der Ap. Peir.

204 CHAP. XII., 18-20.

is not even distinctly apparent that the érepog réro¢ is to be placed outside of
Jerusalem, although this is probable in itself ; for the common explanation
of égeaddv, relicta urbe, is entirely at variance with the context, ver. 16,
which requires the meaning, relicta domo, into which he was admitted (a’).
— The James mentioned in this passage is not the son of Alphaeus,—a tradi-
tional opinion, which has for its dogmatic presupposition the perpetual
virginity of Mary,' but the real brother of the Lord,* adeAgog xara odpxa row
Xptorov.* kt is the same also at xv. 18, xxi. 18. See on 1 Cor. ix. 4, 5;
Gal. i. 19. Peter specially names him, because he was head of the church
in Jerusalem. The fact that Peter does not name the apostles also, suggests
the inference that none of the twelve was present in Jerusalem. The
Clementines and Hegesippus make James the chief bishop of the whole
church.‘ - This amplification of the tradition as to his high position goes,
in opposition to Thiersch, beyond the statements of the N. T.*

Vv. 18, 19. ‘What had become of the (vanished) Peter,* whether accord-
ingly, under these circumstances,’ the wonderful escape was capable of no
explanation—this inquiry ‘was the object of consternation (rapazoc) among
the soldiers who belonged to the four rerpadia, ver. 4, because they feared
the vengeance of the king in respect to those who had served on that
night-watch. And Herod actually caused those who had been the ¢tAaxec
of the prison at the time of the escape, after previous inquiry,® to he led to
execution—arnaydyva, the formal word for this.’ After the completion of
the punishment, he went down from Judaea to his residency, where he
took up his abode.—eic¢ rjv Kacdp.] depends, as well as azé r. "Iovd., on
xareASdv, The definition of the place of the d:érpeSev'? was obvious of itself.

«. Paw., Regensb. 1867), very welcome, be-
cause a terminus a quo is thereby thought to
be gaincd for the duration, lasting about
twenty-five years, of the episcopal] functions
of Peter at Rome. Gams, indeed, places this
Roman journey of Peter as early as 41, and his
martyrdom in the year 65. So aleo Thiersch,
KX. im. apost. Zeit. p. 96 ff., comp. Ewald.

18ee Hengstenberg on John fi. 123; Th.
Schott, d. aweite Br. Par.und a. Br. Judd,
p. 193 ff.

2 Lange (apost. Zeiiali. I. p. 198 ff., and in
Herzog’s Hacykl. VI. p. 407 ff.) has declared
himself very decidedly on the opposite side of
the qucstion, and that primarily on.the basis
of the passages from Hegesippus in Eusebius
il, 28 and iv. 22; but erroneously. Credner,
inl. It. p. 574 f., has already strikingly ex-
hibited the correct explanation of these pas-
sages, according to which Jesus and James
appear certainly as brothers in the proper
sense. Comp. Hather on James, Introd. p. 5
ff. ; Bleck, Bind. p. 548 ff. James the Just is
tdentical with this brother of the Lord ; see,
especially, Euseb. H. Z. ii. 1, where the
opinion of Clem. Al., that James the Just was

the son of Alphaeus, is rejected by Eusebins
(againet Wiescler on (ral. p. 81 f.), although it
was afterwards adopted by Jerome. Sec,
generally, also Ewald, p. 221 ff. Bdttger, d.
Zeug. des Joseph. von Joh. d. T., etc., 1868.
Plitt in the Zetlechr. f. Luth. Theol. 1864, L. p.
28 ff.; Laurent, neut. Stud. p. 184 ff.—Accord-
ing to Mark vi. 8, Jamcs was probably the
eldest of the four brethren of Jesua.

3 Constit ap. vill. 85. The Constif. ap.
throughout distinguish very definitely James
of Alphacus, as one of the twelve, from the
brother of the Lord, whom they characterize
as 6 éwigxowos. See ii. 55. 2, vi. 12. 1, 5, 6, vi.
14. 1, vill. 4. 1, viii, 28 £., viii. 10. 2, vili. 35,
viii. 46. 7, v. 8, vii. 46. 1.

* See Ritechl, altkathol. Kirche, p. 415 ff.

® Gal. li. 12; 1 Cor. xv.7; Acts xv., xxi. 18;
Epistie of James.

6 Luke i. 6; John xxi. 21.

7 Klotz, ad Devar. p. 176, comp. Baeumlein,
Partik. p. 84.

6 avaxpivas, iv. 9; Luke xxiii. 14.

® See Wakefield, Stiv. crit. II. p. 181; Kypke,
WU. p. 61; and from Philo: Loesner, p. 204.

10 Vulg.: it commoratus est.

EXECUTION OF THE SOLDIERS. 235

Ver. 20.' Ovzozayeiv] signifies to jight violently, which may be meant
as well of actual war as of other kinds of enmity.* Now, as an actual
war of Herod against the Roman confederate cities of Tyre and Sidon
is very improbable in itself, and is historically quite unknown; as,
further, the Tyrians and Sidonians, for the sake of their special advan-
tage (dia 7d rtpigecdar . . . BactAccgc), might ask for peace, without a
war having already broken out,—namely, for the preservation of the
peace, a breach of which was to be apprehended from the exasperation
of the king; the explanation is to be preferred, in opposition to Raphel
and Wolf: he was at vehement enmity with the Tyrians, was vehemently
indignant against them.* The reason of this Svpyouayia is unknown, but
it probably had reference to commercial interests. — éuoduyadéy] here
also, with one accord, both in one and the same frame of mind and inten-
tion.* — rpd¢ avrév] not precisely : with him, but before him, turned towards
him.* —BAdorov] according to the original Greek name, perhaps a Greek or °
a8 Roman in the service of Herod, his praefectus cubiculo,’ chamberlain,
chief valet de chambre to the royal person,® o ér? rod xorrdvog Tov BaaAéwe.®
How they gained and disposed him in their favour, reioavrec,'® possibly by
bribery, is not mentioned. — did rd rpégeodar . . . Baoding] 96. ydpac.
This refers partly to the important commercial gain which Tyre and
Sidon derived from Palestine, where the people from of old purchased
in large quantities timber, spices, and articles of luxury from the Phoe-
nicians, to whom, in this respect, the harbour of Caesarea, improved by
Herod, was very useful ;" and partly to the fact, that Phoenicia annually
derived a portion of its grain from Palestine.'*

Ver. 21. Taxrg d2 quépe]'* According to Josephus, namely, he was
celebrating just at that time games in honour of Claudius, at which, de-
clared by flatterers to be a god, he became suddenly very ill, etc. — evdvadu.
éo9nta Bacta.] crodjy évdvoduevog EE apyupiov merompeévyy nacav, Joseph. l.c.
— The fyua, the platform from which Agrippa spoke, would have to be
conceived, in harmony with Josephus, as the throne-like box in the theatre,
which, according to the custom of the Romans, was used for popular
assemblies and public speeches,'* which was destined for the king, if Luke

1 Chrysostom correctly remarks the internal
relation of what follows: ev@dws % diay xardA-
aBey avréy, ci cai wh 8:ad Uérpow, adda ba rh
avrov weyeAnyopiay, Com, Eureb. ii. 10. There
is much subjectively supplied hy Baumgarten,
who considers it as the aim of this section to
exhibit the character Of the kingdom @f the
world in this bloody persecution directed
against the apoetles.

2 See Schweigh&duser, Lex. Polyd. p. 806;
Kypke, II. p. 63 f.; Valcken. p. 498.

2 Polyb. xxvii. 8. 4.

¢ See on i. 14.

§ See on John f. 1.

* See the inacription in Wetstein.

7 Sueton. Domit. 16.

- ®8carcely overseer of the royal treasure

(Gerlach), as xo:rée is used in Dio Cass. Ixi. 5.
For the meaning chamber, ie. not treasure
chamber, but sleeping-room, is the usual one,
and lies at the root of the designations of ser
vice, corrwrdépyys (Chamberiain) and corevirns
(valet de chambre). Comp. Lobeck, i.c. In
the LXX. and Apocr. also cor. is cudleulum.
See Schieusn. Thes.

* Comp. on éwi, vill. 27, and on xco.ray, Wet-
stein and Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 252 f.

19 See Niageleb. on IHad, p. 80 f.

11 Joseph. Anit. xv. 9. 6.

131 Kings v. 9,11; Ezek. xxvii. 17; Joseph.
Ant. xiv. 10. 6.

13 According to Joseph. Antt. xix.8 2comp.
xviii. 6. 7, Sevrdpg 8¢ row Cewprdy udp.

14 Comp. xix. 29.

236 CHAP. XII., 21-25.

—which, however, cannot be ascertained—has apprehended the whole
occurrence as in connection with the festival recorded by Josephus. This
festival itself is not defined more exactly by Josephus than as held inép ric
cuwtnpiag of the emperor. Hence different hypotheses concerning it, such
as that of Anger: that it celebrated the return of Claudius from Britain ;
and that of Wieseler : that it was the Quinquennalia, which, however, was
not celebrated until August ; a date which, according to the context, ver. 25,
is too late. — édquyydper mpd¢ abroic] he made a speech in public assembly of
the people (ver. 22) to them, namely, to the Tyrians and Sidonians, to whom,
to whose representatives, he thus publicly before the people declared in
a speech directed to them his decision on their request, his sentiments,
_ etc. Only this simple view of pic airoic: to them,' not: in reference to
them,—my first edition, and Baumgarten,—as well as the reference to the
Tyrians and Sidonians, not to the people,* is suggested by the context,
and is to be retained. That, moreover, the speech was planned to obtain
popularity, is very probable in itself from the character of Herod, as
well as from ver. 22; and this may have occasioned the choice of the
word dyuzyopeiv, which often denotes such a rhetorical exhibition.*

Ver. 22. Eudic dé of xdAaxeg rag ovdé éxtivw mpdg ayadod ar2u¢ GA,09Ev guvac
aveSduv, Sedv mpooayopetovrec, evpevig te cing, EwcAéyovTec, et Kai uéx viv o¢
avd purov éEgoPhSnpev, GAAG rovvrev_Sev Kpeittova ce Dunrig gicewc duv20)ovpuev !
Joseph. /.c.. who, however, represents this shout of flattery, which cer-
tainly proceeded from the mouth, not of Jews, but of Gentiles, as occa-
sioned by the silver garment of the king shining in the morning sun,
and not by a speech on his part. ‘‘Vulgus tamen vacuum curis et sine
falsi verique discrimine solitas adulationes edoctum, clamore et vocibus
adstrepebat.’’* 6 d#uoc, the common people, is found in the N. T. only in
the Book of Acts.°

Ver. 23. 'Erdratev abrév dyyedog xupiov] an angel of the Lord smote him.
The paroxysm of disease suddenly setting in us a punishment of God, is in
accordance with O. T. precedents,* apprehended as the effect of a stroke
invisibly befalling him from an angel. The fate of Nebuchadnezzar’ does
not accord with this view, in opposition to Baumgarten. Josephus, J.c.,
relates that soon after that display of flattery, the king saw an owl sitting
on a rope above his head, and he regarded this, according to a prophecy
formerly received in Rome from a German, asa herald of death, whereupon
severe abdominal pains immediately followed, under which he expired after
five days, at the age of fifty-four years. That Luke has not adopted this
fable,—instead of which Eichhorn puts merely a sudden shivering,—is a
consequence of his Christian view, which gives instead from its own sphere
and tradition the érdragfev . . . @ep as an exhibition of the divine Nemesis ;

1Comp. Plat. Legg. vii. p. 817 C: 8yuny. 8350 E.

wpoe waidds Te Kat yuvaixas Kat Tov wavTa 5xAov. 4 Tacit. Hist. 11. 90.

2 So Gerlach, p. 60, after Ranisch, de Lucae § See xvii. 5, xix. 30, 88. Comp. on xix. 80.
et Josephi in morte Her. Agr. consensu, Lips. * Comp. 2 Sam. xxiv. 17; 2 Kings xix. 8;
1745; and Fritzsche, Conject. p. 13 f. Isa. xxxvii. 86.

3 See Stallb. ad Gory. p. 482 C,ad Rep. p. 7 Dan. iv. 26-90.

DEATH OF HEROD AGRIPPA. 237

therefore Eusebius ' ought not to have harmonized the accounts, and made
out of the owl an angel of death. Bengel: ‘‘ Adeo differt historia divina
et humana,’’? — avd’ dv] as a requital for the fact, that.? — oix iduxe rv déEav
Te Ora] he refused God the honour due to Him, inasmuch as he received
that tribute of honour for himsel/, instead of declining it and directing the
flatterers to the honour which belongs to God, ‘‘nulli creaturae communi-
cabilem,’? Erasmus ;‘ obx éxéAnfe rotrocc, the flatterers, é'BaoiAedc, obd2 riv
xo2axeiay aoeBovoay aretpéyvaro. How entirely different the conduct of Peter,
x. 26, and of Paul and Barnabas, xiv. 14 f. ! — yevdyevoe oxwAnxdBp.] similarly
with Antiochus Epiphanes.*® This is not to be regarded as at variance with
Josephus, who speaks generally only of pains in the bowels ; but as a more
precise statement, which is, indeed, referred by Baur to a Christian
legend originating from the fate of Epiphanes, which has taken the abdom-
inal pains that befell Herod as if they were already the gnawing worm
which torments the condemned !* Kiihn,’ Elsner, Morus, and others, entirely
against the words, have converted the disease of worms destroying the in-
testines ® into the disease of lice, gdepiacic, a8 if gIecpédBpwroc ® were used !—
The word oxw7x63p. is found in Theoph. c. pl. iii. 12. 8 (%), v. 9. 1.—
étépvtev] namely, after five days. Joseph. i.c. But did not Luke consider
the yevdu. oxwAnx. eséyoyev as having taken place on the spot? The whole
brief, terse statement, the reference to a stroke of an angel, and the use of
éséyefev,’ render this highly probable (B’).

Ver. 24. A contrast—full of significance in its simplicity—to the tragical
end of the persecutor: the divine doctrine grew, in diffusion, and gained in
number of those professing it. Comp. vi. 7, xix. 20.

Ver. 25. ‘Yréorpepar] they returned, namely, to Antioch, xi. 27-80, xiii.
1. The statement in ver. 25 takes up again the thread of the narrative,
which had been dropped for a time by the episode, vv. 1-24, and leads
over to the continuation of the historical course of events in chap. xiii.
The taking of ixéorpeyay in the sense of the pluperfect," rests on the er-
roneous assumption that the collection-journey of this passage coincides with
Gal. ii. The course of events, according to the Book of Acts, is as follows :
— While, xar’ éxeivov rov xaipdév, ver. 1, Barnabas and Saul are sent with the
collection to Judaca, xi. 80, there occurs in Jerusalem the execution of
James and the imprisonment and deliverance of Peter,'* and then,’ at Caes-
area, the death of Herod. But Barnabas and Saul return /rom Jerusalem

1277. £. ii. 10. 6 Mark ix. 44 f.; comp. Isa. xlvi. 44.
2 See. besides, Heinichen, Exc. Il. ad Fused. 1 Ad Ad. V. H. iv. %8
TIT. p. 356 ff. 8 Bartholinus, de morbis Bibl. c. 23; Mead.

8 Bee on Luke j. 20.

4 Iga. xivili. 11. Comp. Joseph. J.¢.

89 Macc. ix. 5,9. Observe bow much our
simple narrative—became eaten with wormse—
ie distinguished from the overladen and ex-
travagantly embellished description in 2 Macc.
ix 9(see Grimm ta loc.). But there is no rea-
son, with Gerlach, to explain onwAnxoBp. Agqn-
ratirely (like the German wurmatlichig) : worn
and shatlered by pain.

de mord. Bibl. c. 15; and see the analogous
cases in Wetatein.

® Hesych. Mil. 40.

10 Comp. Acts v. 5, 10.

11** Jum ante Herodis obitum,” etc., Hein-
richs, Kuinoel.

12 yv, 2-18,

13 Ver. 19.

14 vv, 2-28.

239 CHAP. XII.,, NOTES.

to Antioch.' From this it follows that, according to the Acts, they visited
first the other churches of Judaea and came to Jerusalem las; so that the
episode, vv. 1-23, is to be assigned to that time which Barnabas and Saul
on their journey in Judaea spent with the different churches, before they
came to Jerusalem, from which, as from the termination of their journey,
they returned to Antioch. Perhaps what Barnabas had heard on his
journey among the country-churches of Judaea as to the persecution of the
Christians by Agrippa, and as to what befell James and Peter, induced him,
in regard to Paul,’ not to resort to the capital, until he had heard of the
departure and perhaps also of the death of the king. — ovuzapadaf. x.1.A.]
frum Jerusalem ; see ver. 12.

Nores sy American Eprroz.

(x') Herod. V. 1.

This king was the grandson of Herod the Great. He ruled, in some degree
independently, over » larger domain than that of his grandfather. His rev-
enues, according to Josephus, were very large—a sum calculated as equal to
two millions of dollars. He was aman of ability and of royal magnificence ; but
crafty, selfish, and extravagant, vainglorious, unprincipled, and licentious. His
reign was short, and was stained by many acts of oppression and cruelty.
His death, the result of a loathsome and torturing disease, was an evident Di-
vine rebuke of his blasphemous impiety. In this matter Josephus concurs
with Luke in the main facts of the case. After his death Judea was again re-
duced to a Roman province. The three Herods are thus distinguished :
“ Aschalonita necat pueros, Antipa Joannem, Agrippa Jacobum, Claudens in Car-
cere Petrum."’

Renan, speaking of Herod, says: ‘‘ This vile Oriental, in return for the les-
sons of baseness and perfidy he had given at Rome, obtained for himself Sa-
maria and Judea, and for his brother Herod the kingdom of Chalcis. He left
at Rome the worst memories ; and the cruelties of Caligula were attributed in
part to his counsels.” ‘‘The orthodox [Jews] had in him a king according to
their own heart.’’

(z') He killed James, V. 2.

Instigated by the Jews, with whom he sought to be popular, and whose ritual
he zealously observed, Herod harassed the church by maltreating its members ;
and finding this course pleasing to the Jews, whose good-will he was anxious to
secure, he seized James and beheaded him—a mode of death deemed very dis-
graceful by the Jews. The victim of this high-handed violence was James the
elder, designated by our Lord a Son of Thunder. Very little is recorded con-
cerning him in the Acts. He is to be distinguished from James the younger,
son of Alpheus ; and also from James, the Lord’s brother. The death of James
verified the prediction that he should drink of his Master’s cup. He is the

1 Ver. 3. 3 See on xi. 90.

NOTES, - 239

only one of the twelve of whose death there is any account in Scripture, and
probably the first of the twelve who died. The record of his “ taking off’’ is
very brief—only two words, aveidev payaipg. Conjecture as to the cause of such
brevity is vain. There is a tradition which states that his accuser, or the offi-
cer who led him to the judgment-seat, was so influenced by the conduct and
confession of the apostle, that he avowed himself a Christian, and, having
asked and received the kiss of pardon from James, suffered martyrdom with
him. ‘The accuracy of the sacred writer,’’ says Paley, ‘in the exptessions
which he uses here is remarkable. There was no portion of time for thirty
years before, or ever afterwards, in which there was a king at Jerusalem, a per-
son exercising that authority in Judea, or to whom that title could be applied,
except the last three years of Herod's life, within which period the transaction
here recorded took place.’

(a*) Peler in prison. V. 5.

In the war of extermination which Herod had been instigated to wage
against the Christians he used the policy of first removing the most marked
ringleaders. He had cut off James, the brother of John, Peter's oldest friend,
and one of the three highly favored by the Master, by a sndden and terrible
death, so as to strike terror into the hearts of the disciples. This first act of the
bloody tragedy had been played with success, and a second is about to open.
There remained now no one, unless Saul of Tarsus, more obnoxious or more
to be feared than the dauntless, intrepid son of Jonas. He therefore is next
seized, and cast mto prison, under many guards—a precaution surely unneces-
sary, for his friends had no apparent means by which to affect his rescue.
But possibly some of the courtiers might have heard that he had once before,
in some wonderful way, escaped from prison ; and hence this double security.
Not until after the feast of the passover would the punctilious monarch order
his execution. Meantime the afflicted and disconsolate disciples, conscious of
their helplessness, turn to the Lord in earnest and continued prayer. The
last night before the expected execution has come ; the disciples are gathered
together in prayer ; the apostle, calm in his confidence and fearless in his faith,
quietly sleeps between his guards. Ere the dawn of the morning a dazzling
light fills the cell, and an angel arouses the prisoner, and orders him to put on
his attire, as for a journey. He safely leads him past the first and second
watches through the gate into the open street, and then leaves him. Peter,
with difficulty realizing what had been done in his behalf, went to the house
of Mary, mother of Mark, and sister of Barnabas, and found the brethren there
still in prayer. Wordsworth thus beautifully writes on this passage : ‘‘ Herod's
soldiers were watching under arms at the door of the prison ; Christ’s soldiers
were watching with prayer in the house of Mary. Christ's soldiers are more
powerful with their arms than Herod's soldiers with theirs ; thoy unlock the
prison doors and bring Peter to the house of Mary.’’ And when the answer to
their prayer had been granted they could scarcely believe that Peter was really
in person, among them. He related to them all the circumstances connected
with his deliverance, and they were filled with joy. Peter prudently, in the
meantime sought safety in concealment.— cc éregov rordv. Alford says: ‘‘I see
in these words a minute mark of truth in our narrative.” Lechler (in Lange)

240 CHAP. XII., NOTES.

observes: ‘‘ The event is indeed most graphically described, and exhibits no
features that can embarrass any one who believes in the interposition of the
living God, in the real world, and who admits the actual existence and the
operation of angels. Hence no sufficient reason is apparent which could induce
those who admit the miraculous character of the historical facts, nevertheless,
to assert that legendary matter has been commingled with the pure historical
elements,” as Meyer in the text has done.

‘«‘ All rationalistic explanations to account for this deliverance of Peter are in
direct opposition to the narrative. According to Hezel, a flash of lightning
shone into the prison, and loosened the chains of Peter. According to Eich-
horn and Heinrichs, the jailor, or others with his knowledge, delivered Peter
without the apostle being conscious to whom he owed his freedom ; and as the
soldiers are a difficulty in the way of this explanation, they suppose that a
sleeping draught was administered to them. All this is mere trifling. Others
endeavor to get rid of the miraculous by questioning the correctness _of the
narrative. Meyer and de Wette think that the truth is here so mixed up with
the mythical element that it is impossible to affirm what took place. Raursup-
poses that Herod himself delivered the apostle, as he found, in the interval,
that the people were not gratified by the death of James, but that, on the con-
trary, that proceeding had made him unpopular. Neander passes over the
narrative with the remark: ‘ By the special providence of God Peter was deliv-
ered from prison.” Whenever the miraculous in the narrative is given up, the
only resource is the mythical theory—to call in question the truth of the his-
tory—as all natural explanations are wholly unavailing. The narrative, here,
however, has no resemblance to a myth ; there is a naturalness and freshness
about it which remove it from all legends of a mythical description.” (Gloag.)

Renan even admits in a note to chapter 14th of ‘‘ The Apostles :”’ ‘‘ The ac-
count in the Acts is so lively and just that it is difficult to find any place in it
for any prolonged legendary elaboration.”’

(B*) Death of Herod, VY. 23.

Josephus informs us that Herod died in the fifty-fourth year of his age, in
the seventh of his reign, having reigned only three years over the whole of
Palestine. ‘‘ But Herod deprived this Matthias of the high priesthood, and
burnt the other Matthias, who had raised a sedition with his companions,
alive. And that very night there was an eclipse of the moon. But now
Herod’s distemper greatly increased upon him after a severe manner, and this
by God’s judgment upon him for his sins, for a fire glowed in him slowly,”
He further speaks of putrefaction, of convulsions, of worms, of fetid breath,
and Joathsomeness generally. He says also that it was said by those who un-
derstood such things that God inflicted this punishment on the king for his
great impiety. Just before his death he summoned the principal men of the
entire Jewish nation to come to him. When they came the king was in a wild
rage against them all, the entirely innocent as well as those against whom there
might be ground of accusation. He ordered them all to be shut up in the Hip-
podrome, and left most solemn injunctions with his brother-in-law, Alexis,
that when he died they should all be put to death, so that there might be a
general mourning at his decease. He acted like a madman, and even had a

NOTES. 241

design of committing suicide. A-more miserable death scene has never been
portrayed than Josephus gives of the impious, infamous, and atrociously ma-
lignant and cruel Herod. (Josephus Antig. xvii. 6, 5, and 7, and 8.) The
points of difference between the account given by Luke and the history of Jo-.
sephus are few and unimportant, and easily reconciled. There is really no
contradiction in the narratives at all, and therefore it is wholly superfluous on
the part of any commentator to have recourse to mythical explanations ; as it
the worms—mentioned however by Josephus as well as by Luke—had ref:
erence to the gnawing worm of remorse which preys upon the consciously
guilty.

242 CHAP. XIII.

CHAPTER XIII.

Ver. 1. foav dé] So Lachm. Tisch. Born. But Elz. and Scholz add rirés,
against ABD ®&, min. vas. Vig. A hasty addition, from the supposition that
all the teachers and prophets of the church of Antioch could not be named. —
Ver. 4. ovro:] Lachm. Tisch. read avroi, after A B ¥, min. Vulg. Syr. utr. Ambr.
Vig. ; Born. has of only, after D, Ath. As the reading of C is not clear, the
preponderance of witnesses, which alone can here decide, remains in favour of
the reading of Lachm. — Ver. 6. 5A7v] is wanting in Elz., but is supported by
decisive testimony. How easily would transcribers, to whom the situation of
Paphos was not precisely known, find a contradiction in dAyv and dy Idgov!
-— dvdpa riva] So Lachm. Tisch. Born., after AB C D &, min. Chrys. Theophyl.
Lucif. and several] vss, After rivd, E, 36, Vulg. Sahid. Slav. Lucif. have aydpa.
But Elz. and Scholz omit dydpc, which, however, is decisively attested by those
witnesses, and was easily passed over as quite superfluous. — Ver. 9. The usual
xai before arevicas is deleted, according to decisive evidence, by Lachm. Tisch.
Born. — Ver. 14, r7$ T:oidias}] Lachm. and Tisch. read rv Tcacdiav, after A BC
*. But it lacks any attestation from the vss. and Fathers. Therefore it is
the more to be regarded as an old alteration (it was taken as an adjective like
Tt cocdexdS), — Ver. 15, After el Lachm, Born. Tisch, have 7:s, which has pre-
ponderant attestation, and from its apparent superfluousness, as well as from
its position between two words beginning with E, might very easily be omitted.
— Ver. 17. After rovrov Lachm. reads, with Elz., ’Iopa74, which also Born. has
defended, following ABCD &, vss, Its being self-evident gave occasion to
its being passed over, as was in other witnesses rovrov, and in others Aaod
rovrov. — Ver. 18. érpogod.] So (after Mill, Grabe, and others) Griesb. Matthaei,
Lachm. Scholz, Tisch., following A C* E, min. vss. But Elz. Tisch. and Born.
have érpoog. (mores eorum sustinuit, Vulg.). An old insertion of the word
which came more readily to hand in writing, and was also regarded as more ap-
propriate. See the exegetical remarks. — Ver. 19. xarexAnpovdunoer] Elz, reads
xatexAnpodérycev, against decisive witnesses. An interpretation on account of
the active sense. — Ver. 20. xai werd . . . dwxe] Lachm. reads oS éreoe tetpa-
KooiotS Kalwe vTnKovTa, xa) werd taita Edwxev, which Griesb. has recommended
and Born. adopted, after A B C &, min. Vulg. An alteration, in order to re-
move somehow the chronological difficulty. — Ver. 23. yyaye] Elz. and Born.
read fyeipe, in opposition to AB E GH &, min. and several vss. and Fathers.
An interpretation in accordance with ver. 22.— Ver. 27. dreardAn] Lachm.
Tisch. Born. read égéareordAn, which is so decidedly attested by AB C D &,
min. Chrys, that the Recepia can only be regarded as having arisen from neg-
lect of the double compound. — Ver. 31. viv] is wanting in Elz., but is, accord-
ing to important attestation, to be recogized as genuine, and was omitted
because those who are mentioned were already long ago witnesses of Jesus.
Hence others have dypr viv (D. Syr. p. Valg. Cant. ; so Born.) ; and others still,
cai viv (Arm.). — Ver. 32. abrov gir) Sahid. Ar. Ambr. ms, Bed. gr. have only

CRITICAL REMARKS, 243

eirdy, A B C*D [®, Aeth. Vulg. Hil. Ambr. Bed. have only judy (so Lachm.
and Born., who, however, conjectures #yiv'), for which Tol. read dudv. Sheer
alterations from want of acquaintance with such juxtaposition of the genitive
and dative. — Ver. 33. rg xpaory] Elz. and Scholz read r¢ devrépy (after padug).
But ro wpéry, which (following Erasm. and Mill) Griesb. Lachm. (who places
it after yéypaxra:, where A BOC ¥, lo. 40 have their rp devrépw) Tisch. Born.
have adopted, is, in accordance with D, Or. and several other Fathers, to be
considered as the original, which was supplanted by rq devrépy according to
the usual numbering of the Psalms. The bare wadu@, which Hesych. presb.
and some more recent codd. have, without any numeral, is, although defended
by Bengel and others, to be considered as another mode of obviating the
difficulty erroneously assumed. — Ver. 41. 6] Elz. reads @, which, as the LXX.
at Hab. i. 5 has 4, would have to be preferred, were not the quite decisive ex-
ternal attestation in favour of 6. — The second épyoy is wanting in D E G, min.
Chrys. Cosm. Theophyl- Occ, and several vas. ; but it was easily omitted, as it
was regarded as unnecessary and was not found in the LXX. l.c.— Ver. 42:
abrév) Els, reads ix 175 cvvaywyfS tdv "Iovdaiuy. Other variations are abrév éx tr.
ovvay. T. "Iovd, or trav aroordéAuy éx t. ovvay. Tt. Iovd. Sheer interpolations, be-
cause ver. 42 begins a church lesson. The simple atrdv has decisive attesta-
tion. — After wapexd? ovy Elz, has ra é6v”, which, although retained by Matthaei,
is spurious, according to just as decisive testimony. It was inserted, because
it was considered that the request contained here must not, according to ver.
45, be ascribed to the Jews, but rather to the Gentiles, according to ver. 48. —
Ver. 43. After rpocAad, A B (?) C D &, ves. Chrys. have avrois (so Lachm. and
Born.). A familiar addition. — rpoopévery] Els. reads érpéverv, against decisive
evidence, — Ver. 44, éyouévy) Elz. reads épyouévy, against A C** E*, min. An
alteration, from want of acquaintance with this use of the word, as in Luke xiii-
33 ; Acta xx. 15, xxi. 26. — Ver. 45. avriAéyovres xai] is wanting in A BC GR,
min and several vss. (erased by Lachm.). E has évayriovuevo: xal. Both are
hasty emendations of style. — Ver. 50. rds etoy.] Elz. reads «ai ras etoy., against
decisive testimony. «ai, if it has not arisen simply from the repetition in
writing of the preceding syllable, is a wrongly inserted connective,

With chap. xii. commences the second part of the book, which treats
chiefly of the missionary labors and fortunes of Paul. First of all, the spe-
cial choice and consecration of Barnabas and Paul as missionaries, which
took place at Antioch, are related, vv. 1-3 ; and then the narrative of their
first missionary journey is annexed, ver. 4-xiv. 28. These two chapters show,
by the very fact of their independent commencement entirely detached from
the immediatly preceding narrative concerning Barnabas and Saul,’ by the
detailed nature of their contents, and by the conclusion rounding them off,
which covers a considerable interval without further historical data, that they
have been derived from a special documentary source, which has, nevertheless,
been subjected to revision as regards diction by Luke.* This documentary

1 Lachmann, Pra¢/. p. ix., conjectured é¢" following narrative does not correspond.
quay: “nostro tempore.” Oomp. Schleiermacher, Zini. p. 858 f.

2 Lekebusch, p. 108, explains this abrupt ® See also Bleek in the Stud. u. Xrid. 1886,
jsolation as designed; the account emerges pp. 1048.
solemnly. But to this the simplicity of the

244 CHAP. XIII., 1-2.

source, however, is not to be determined more precisely, although it may
be conjectured that it originated in the church of Antioch itself, and that
the oral communications mentioned at xiv. 27 as made to that church formed
the foundation of it from xiii. 4 onward. The assumption of a written report
made by the two missionaries,' obtains no support from the living apostolic
mode of working, and is, on account of xiv. 27, neither necessary nor war-
ranted. Schwanbeck considers the two chapters as a portion of a biography
of Barnabas, to which also iv. 36 f., ix. 1-80, xi. 19-80, xii. 25 belonged ;
and Baur® refers the entire section to the apologetic purpose and literary
freedom of the author (c’).

Ver. 1. This mention and naming of the prophets and teachers is intended
to indicate how rich Antioch was in prominent resources for the sending
forth messengers of the gospel, which was now to take place. Thus the
mother-church of Gentile Christianity had become the seminary of the mis-
sion to the Gentiles. The order of the persons named is, without doubt,
such as it stood in the original document: hence Barnabas and Saul are
separated ; indeed, Barnabas is placed first—the arrangement appears to have
been made according to seniority—and Saul last ; it was only by his mission-
ary labours now commencing that the latter acquired in point of fact his
superiority. — xara rv ovoav ExxAnciav] with the existing church. éxei is not to
be supplied.* This ovcay is retained from the original document; in connec-
tion with what has been already narrated, it is superfluous. — card, with, ac-
cording to the conception of, here official, direction.* — mpogyrat x. deddoxadnr]
as prophets® and teachers, who did not speak in the state of apocalyptic in-
spiration, but communicated instruction in a regular and rational unfolding
of doctrine.*— The five named are not to be regarded only as a part, but
as the whole body of the prophets and teachers at Antioch, in keeping with
the idea of the selection which the Spirit designed. To what individuals the
predicates ‘‘ prophet *’ or ‘‘ teacher ’’ respectively belong, is not, indeed, ex-
pressly said ; but if, as is probable in itself and in accordance with iv. 36,
the prophets are mentioned first and then the teachers, the three first named
are to be considered as prophets, and the other two as teachers. This di-
vision is indicated by the position of the particles: (1) ré. .. nai... wai;
(2) ré.. . xai.’ — That the prophets of the passage before us, particularly
Symeon and Lucius, were included among those mentioned in xi. 27, is im-
probable, inasmuch as Agabus is not here named again. Those prophets,
doubtless, soon returned to Jerusalem. — Concerning Simeon with the Roman
name Niger,® and Lucius of Cyrene,’ who is not identical with the evan-
gelist Luke, nothing further is known. The same is also the case with
Menahem (2133), who had been otvrpogoc of the tetrarch Herod, t.6. of An-
tipas.'° But whether cbvrpogo¢ is, with the Vulgate, Cornelius a Lapide,

1 Olshausen. 7 Comp. Ktibner, ad. Xen. Mem. 11. & 19;
21. p. 104 ff. Baeumlein, Partik. p. 219 f.

3 Comp. Rom. rill. 1. [3500). ® Sueton. Aug. 11, al.

4 Bernhardy, p 240; Wicer, p. 374 (E. T. ® Rom, xvi. 21?

5 See on xi. 27. 10 See Walch, de Menachemo cvvrpédy Hero-

*1 Cor. xil. 23; Eph. fv. 11. dia, Jen. 1758.

FIRST ORDAINED MISSIONARIES.

245

Walch, Heumann, Kuinoel, Olshausen, and others, to be understood as
JSoster-brother, conlactaneus,' so that Menahem’s mother was Herod’s nurse ;
or, with Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Raphel, Wolf, Heinrichs, Baum-
garten, Ewald, and others, brought up with, contubernalis,—cannot be deter-

mined, as either may be expressed by the word.’

The latter meaning, how-

ever,* makes the later Christian position of Menahem the more remarkable,
in that he appears to bave been brought up at the court of Herod the Great.
At all events he was already an old man, and had become a Christian earlier
than Saul, who is placed after him (p*).

Ver. 2. Aecroupyobytuy .

. » t@ Kupiy] Aecroupyeiv, the usual word for the

temple-service of the priests,‘ is here transferred to the church (airér)
engaged in Christian worship,® in accordance with the holy character of
the church, which had the dy:éryc, the zpioua of the Spirit,* and indeed was

a lepdrevua aytov."

Hence: twhile they performed holy service to the Lord

Christ, and, at the same time, fasted. Any more specific meaning is too
narrow, such as, that it is to be understood of prayer, Grotius, Heiarichs,
Kuinoel, Olshausen, and many others, on account of ver. 8, but see on
that passage, or of preaching, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and others in Wolf.
Both without doubt are included, not, however, the mass, as Catholics hold ;
but certainly the spiritual songs.*— ele rd xveipa rd dywv)] the Holy Spirit
said,’ namely, by one or some of these Aerovpyotvrec, probably by one of the
prophets, who announced to the church the utterance of the Spirit revealed
to him. — 64] with the imperative makes the summons more decided and
more urgent.'* — yor] to me, for my service. — 6 mpooxéxAnpa: avrobe) for which,
description of the design, J have called them to me," namely, to be my organs,

interpreters, instruments in the propagation of the gospel.

The utterance

of the Spirit consequently refers to an internal call of the Spirit already
made to both, and that indeed before the church, ‘‘ut hi quoque scirent

vocationem illorum eique subecriberent,’’ Bengel.

The preposition is not

repeated before 5, = eic 4, because it stands already before rd épyov, accord-

ing to general Greek usage.”

1 Comp. Xen. Epa. if. 8.
2 See Wetstein and Kuinoel.
2Comp. 1 Macc. i. 6; 2 Macc. ix. 29; and
see, in general, Jacobs,ad Anthol. XL. p. 88.
4LXX. Ex. xxviii. 81; Num. tv. 8; Ex.
x]. 48; Jadith lv. 14; Heb. x. 11; comp. on
Rom. xv. 27.
§ The reference of avrey not to the collective
' dexAyoia, but to the prophets and teachers
named in ver. 1 (Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, and
many others, including Baumgarten, Hoele-
mann, neue Bidelstud. p. 330; Laurent. neuf.
Stud. p. 146), is not to be approved on scconnt
of agfopicare and on acconnt uf ver. 8 The
whole highly important missionary act would,
according to this view, be performed only in
the circle of five persons, of whom, moreover,
two were the missionaries themselves destined
by the Spirit, and the church as such would
have taken no pert at all, not being even rep-

resented by its presbyters,—a proceeding
which neither agrees with the fellowship of
the Spirit in the conetitution of the apoetolic
church, nor corresponds with the analogous
concrete cases of the choice of an apostle,
chap. i. and of the deacons, chap. vi. Comp.
aleo xiv. 27, where the missionaries, on their
return, make their report to the church.
Moreover, itis evident of itself that the proph-
ets and teachers are induded in avrev.

€ 1 John fi. 90.

7 1 Pet. ii. 8.

8 Bee on Eph. v. 19; Col. ill. 16.

® Comp. on xx. 98.

16 Bacumlein, Purtik. p. 104 f. Comp. on
Luke fi. 15.

§2 xvi, 10.

12 See Kfihner, ad Yen. Mem. ii. 1. 82: Btallb.
ad. Phaed. p. 7% D; Winer, p. 306 (EK. T.
524 f.).

246 CHAP, XIIL, 3-9.

Ver. 8. The translation must be: Afterwards, after having fasted and
prayed and laid their hands on them, as the consecration commuuicating the
gift of the Spirit for the new and special holy office,' they sent them away.
For there is here meant a solemnity specially appointed by the church on
occasion of that address of the Spirit, different from the preceding, ver. 2 ;
and not the termination thereof.? This is evident from the words of Luke
himself, who describes this act differently, »joretc. x. mpocevé., from the
preceding, Aerovpy. x. vyor., and by rére separates it as something later ;
and also because vyoreicavrec, in the sense of ‘‘ when they had jinished fast-
ing,’? does not even give here any conceivable sense. — aréAvoav] What the
Spirit had meant by ei¢ épyov, & mpookéxA. avtobtc, might, when they heard
that address, come directly home to their consciousness, especially as they
might be acquainted in particular with the destination of Saul at ix. 15;
or might be explained by the rcceiver and interpreter of the Spirit's
utterance, — That, moreover, the imposition of hands was not by the whole
church, but by its representatives the presbytere,* was obvious of itself to
the reader.

Vv. 4, 5. Abrof (see the critical remarks): such was the course taken
with them ; they themselves, therefore, ipsi igitur. — éxreugd. vrs rov rvevp. |
for ‘‘vocatio prorsus divina erat; tantum manu Dei oblatos amplexa
erat ecclesia,’’ Calvin. — They turned themselves at first to the quarter
where they might hope most easily to form connections—it was, in fact,
the first attempt of their new ministry—to Cyprus, the nutive country of
Barnabas, iv. 86, to which the direct route from Antioch by way of the
neighbouring Seleucia, in Syria, also called Pieria, and situated at the
mouth of the Orontes, led. Having there embarked, they landed at the
city of Salamis, on the eastern coast of the island of Cyprus. — yevéu. év]
arrived at. Often so in classical authors since Homer.‘ —’Iwdvrqv| See on
xii. 12. —trypérzy] as servant, who assisted the official work of the
apostles by performing external services, errands, missions, etc., probably
ulso acts of baptism.* ‘‘ Barnabas et Paulus divinitus nominati, atque his
liberum fuit alios adsciscere,’’ Bengel. — As to their practice of preaching
in the synagogues, see on ver. 14. (E*).

Vv. 6, 7. “OAqv ri vicov] For Paphos, i.e. New Paphos, the capital and
the residence of the proconsul, sixty stadia tu the north of the old city
celebrated for the worship of Venus, lay quite on the opposite western
side of the island.* — udyov] see on viii. 9. Whether he was precisely a
representative of the cabalistic tendency,’ cannot be determined. But
perhaps, from the Arabic name Elymas, which he adopted, he was an
Arabian Jew. dyor, although a substantive, is to be connected with avdpa,

1 Comp. on vi. 6. the two missionaries to the Gentiles, and con-
2 Kuinoel and many others: ‘“‘jejunio et secrates them by its office-bearers (Rom. xii.
precibus peractis."* 8; 1 Tim. v. 1%.

3 Not by the prophets and teachers (Otto, 4 See N&gelabach on the Jilad, p. 295, ed. 3.
Pastloralbr. p. 61; Hoelemann, /.c.); for the § x. 48; 1 Cor. i. 14.
subject of vv. 2, 8 ia the church, and its rep- * See Forbiger, Geogr. I. p. 969 £.
resentatives are the presdylers, xx. 17%, 28, xi. 7 Baumgarten.
30, xv. 2-28; 1 Tim. fv. 14. The church eends

SUCCESS IN CYPRUS. 247

iii. 14. — Bapinovic] i.¢, PIC? 3, filius Jesu (Josuae). The different forms of
this name in the Fathers and versions, Barjeu, Barsuma, Barjesuban, Bapinoov-
ody, have their origin in the reverence and awe felt for the name of Jesus. —
avOurdry] Cyprus, which Augustus had restored to the senate, was, it is
true, at that time a propractorian province ;' but all provincial rulers were,
by the command of Augustus, called proconsules.* — ovverg] although the
contrary might be suspected from his connection with the sorcerer. But
his intelligence is attested partly by the fact that he was not satisfied with
heathenism, and therefore had at that time the Jewish sorcerer with him
in the effort to acquire more satisfactory views ; and partly by the fact that
he does not feel satisfied even with him, but asks for the publishers of the
new doctrine. In general, sorcerers found at that time welcome recep-
tions with Gentiles otherwise very intelligent.* — rav Ady. rov Ocov] Descrip-
tion of the new doctrine from the standpoint of Luke. See, moreover,
on viii. 25.

, r)
Ver. 8. ’EAiuac] The Arabic name, exile, sapiens, nar’ tEoyiv : magua,*

by which Barjesus chose to be designated, and which he probably adopted
with a view to glorify himself as the channel of Arabian wisdom by the
corresponding Arabic name. — é zéyoc] Interpretation of ’EAtuac, added in
order to call attention to the significance of the name.* — d:aorpéya: ard] a
well-known pregnant construction, which Valckenaer destroys arbitrarily,
and in such a way as to weaken the sense, by the conjecture droorpéypa :
to pervert and turn aside from the faith. Comp. LXX. Ex. v. 4.

Ver. 9. ZabAoe d2, 6 xa? TavAoc] sc. Acysuevoc.* — As Saul, KW, the longed
Sor, is here for the first time and always henceforth’ mentioned under his
Roman name Paul, but before this, equally without exception, only under
his Hebrew name, we must assume a seé historical purpose in the remark
6 xa IlavAoc introduced at this particular point, according to which the
reader is to be reminded of the relation — otherwise presupposed as well
known — of this name to the historical connection before us. It is there-
fore the most probable opinion, becuuse the most exempt from arbitrariness,
that the name Paul was given to the apostle as a memorial of the conversion of
Sergius Paulus effected by him.* ‘*A primo ecclesiae spolio, proconsule
Sergio Paulo, victoriae suae trophaea retulit, erexitque vexillum, ut Paulus
diceretur e Saulo.’’”® The same view is adopted by Valla, Bengel, Ols-
hausen, Baumgarten, Ewald ; also by Baur,’ according to whom, however,
legend alone has wished to connect the change of name somehow adopted

1 Dio Cass. liv. 4. Paul (the little) a contrast to the name
2 Dio Cass. lili. 18. Etymas ; for he had in the power of Aumilily
2 Lucian. Alex. 80, Wetstein in loc. confronted this master of magic, and had in

4 Comp. Hyde, de relig. vet. Pers. p. 872 f. a N.T. character repeated the victory of:
5 Comp. Bornemann, Schol. in. Luc. p. lviil. David over Goliath. Against this play of the

* Schaefer, ad Bos Hil. p. 218. fancy it is decisive, that Mgymas is not termed
7 Comp. the name Abraham from Gen. xvii. and declared a maeter of magic, but simply 4
5 onwards. mayor. (ézZ. 5.

* Lange, apoet, Zetlalt. p. 868 (comp. Her- ® Jerome in ep. ad Patilem. ; comp. de vir.
zog's Encyki. XI. p. 948), sees in the name 10 T. p. 106, ed. 2%

243 CHAP, XIII., 10-12.

by the apostle — which contains a parallel with Peter, Mutt. xvi. 16 — with
an important act of his apostolic life.’ Either the apostle himself now
adopted this name, possibly at the request of the proconsul,? or — which at
least excludes entirely the objection often made to this view, that it is at
variance with the modesty of the apostle —the Christians, perhaps jirst of"
all his companions at the time, so named him in honourable remembrance of that
memorable conversion effected on his yirst missionary journey. Kuinoel, indeed,
thinks that the servants of the proconsul may have called the apostle,
whose name Saul was unfamiliar (7) to them, Paul; and that he thenceforth
was glad to retain this name as a Roman citizen, and on account of his
intercourse with the Gentiles. But such a purely Gentile origin of the
name is hardly reconcilable with its universal recognition on the part of the
Christian body. Since the time of Calvin, Grotius, and others, the opinion
has become prevalent, that it was only for the sake of intercourse with
those without, as the ambassador of the faith among the Gentiles, that the
apostle bore, according to the custom of the time, the Roman name.’
Certainly it is to be assumed that he for this reason willingly assented to
the new name given to him, and willingly left his old name to be forgotten ;
but the origin of the new name, occurring just here for the first time, is, by
this view, not in the least explained from the connection of the narrative
before us. — Heinrichs oddly desires to explain this connection by suggest-
ing that on this occasion, when Luke had just mentioned Sergius Paulus,
it had occurred to him that Saul also was called Paul. Such an accident is
wholly unnatural, as, when Luke wrote, the name Saul was long out of
use, and that of Paul was universal. The opinion also of Witsius and
Hackspan, following Augustine, is to be rejected: that the apostle in
humility, to indicate his spiritual transformation, assigned to himself the
name, Paulus = eviguus ; as is also that of Schrader,‘ after Drusius and
Lightfoot, that he received at his circumcision the double name.* — rAcofeic
rvetu. ay.} ‘actu praesente adversus magum acrem,’’ Bengel.*

Ver. 10. ‘Pgdioupyiac] knavery, roguery.’ —vié dia3bAov] 1.6. a@ man whose
condition of mind proceeds from the influence of the devil, the arch-enemy of
the kingdom of the Messiah.* An indignant contrast to the name Barjess.
d.aBdAov is treated as a proper name, therefore without the article.® — réon¢
Scxacootvyc| of all, that is right, x. 85. — diacrpéowy rag ddove Kup. tr. evbeiac]
Wilt thou not cease to pervert the straight—leuding directly tothe goal—tways
of the Lord, to give them a perverted direction? i.e. applying this general
reproach to the present cause: Wilt thou, by thy opposition to us, and by
thy endeavour to turn the proconsul from the faith,'* persist in so working
that God’s measures,” instead of attaining their aim according to the divine
intention, may be frustrated? The straight way of God aimed here at the

1 Comp. Zeller, p. 218. 7 Polyb. xii. 10. 5, iv. 99. 4; Plat. Cat. m.
* Ewald. 16. Comp. pedcovpynuma, xvill. 14.

% Comp. aleo Laurent, newt. Stud. p. 147%. ® Comp. on John vill. 44.

4D. Ap. Paul. Vi. p. 14. *1 Pet. v.8; Rev. xx. 2

® Comp. also Wieseler, p. 222 f. 10 Ver. 8.

* Comp. iv. 8, 31, vil. 55, xiii. 59, ; 12 Rom. xi. 88; Rev. xv. 8.

ELYMAS THE SORCERER. | 249

winning of Sergius for the salvation in Christ, by means of Barnabas and
Paul; but Elymas set himself in opposition to this, and was engaged in
diverting from its mark this straight way which God had entered on, so
that the divinely-desired conversion of Sergius was to remain unrealized.
De Wette tukes it incorrectly : to set forth erroneously the ways in which
men should walk before God. On d:actpéguv, comp. in fact, Prov. x. 10;
Isa. lix. 8; Micah iii. 9; and notice that the diacrpégew «.7.A. was really
that which the sorcerer strove to do, although without attaining the desired
success. Observe, also, the thrice repeated emphatic ravrég . . . done... .
néonc, and that Kupiov is not to be referred to Christ, but to God, whom the
son of the devil resists, as is proved from ver. 11.

Ver. 11. Xeip Kvpiov] a designation, borrowed according to constant
usage from the O. T.,' of ‘‘ God’s hand,’"* and here, indeed, of the punitive
hand of God, Heb. x. 31.—ém? oé] sc. tori, ie directed against thee. — oy]
The future is not imperative, but decided prediction.* — uy BAétuv tr. Hhi0r]
self-evident, but ‘“‘ auget manifestam sententiam.’’‘ To the blind the sun is
gag ageyyéc.® — Gyxpt xatpoy] for a season. His blindness was not to be perma-
nent ; the date of its termination is not given, but it must have been in so far
known by Paul, seeing that this penal consequence would cease with the cause,
namely, with the withstanding.” With the announcement of the divine
punishment is combined, by dy xacpot, the hint of future possible forgive-
ness. Chrysostom well remarks: 1d dype xaipov dé ov xoAdlovrog qv Td pyya,
GAA’ éxiorpégovtoc’ && yap KoAadlovrog yv, Stanayrég Gv avrov éxoinoe TupAdv.* —
napaxpijua dé éxénecev x.t.A.] We are as little to inquire what kind of blind-
ness occurred, as to suppose, with Heinrichs, that with the sorcerer there
was already a tendency to blindness, and that this blindness actually now
set in through fright. The text represents the blindness as a punishment of
God without any other cause, announced by Paul as directly cognizant of
its occurrence. —ayAi¢g xai oxdroc] dimness and darkness, in the form of a
climax. Sce on ayAvc, only here in the N. T., Duncan.’ — The text assigns
no reason why the sorcerer was punished with blindness, as, for instance,
that he might be humbled under the consciousness of his spiritual blind-
ness.°° We must abstain from any such assertion all the more, that this
punishment did not befall the similar sorcerer Simon. Rom. xi. 34.

Ver. 12, 'Exi rg d:dayp 7. Kupiov} For he rightly saw, both in that an-
nouncement of punishment by Paul, and in the fate of his sorcerer, some-
thing which had a connection with the doctrine of the Lord, that is, with
the doctrine which Christ caused to be proclaimed by His apostles." Its
announcer had shown such a marvellous familiarity with the counsel of
God, and its opponent had suddenly experienced such a severe punishment,
that he was astonished at the doctrine, with which so evident a divine judg-

3 LXX. Judg. il. 15; Job xix. 21; 2 Macc. * Comp. Luke iv. 18.

vi. 26; Ecclua. xxxilf. 2. 7 Ver. 8. Comp. on ver. 12.
9 Luke i. 66, Acta xi. 31. * Comp. Oecumentius,
3 Comp. Vv. 9. ® Lex. Hom., ed. Rost, p. 198.
# Quinctil. ix. 3. 45. 1° Comp. Baumgarten.

* Soph. 0.C. 1546, 11 See on vill. 25.

250 CHAP. XIII., 13-16.

ment was connected. Comp. on the connection of the judgment concern-
ing the doctrine with the miracle beheld, Mark i. 27. The éricrevoev
obviously supposes the reception of baptism.'— Whether the sorcerer after-
wards became a believer the text does not, indeed, inform us; but the pre-
sumption of a future conversion is contained in aypc xa:pov, ver. 11, and
therefore the question is to be answered in the affirmative ; for Paul spoke
that dp: xaipov : dpiov TH ywduq didoic, Oecumenius, The Tabingen criticism
has indeed condemned the miraculous element in this story and the story
itself as an invented and exaggerated counterpart of the encounter of Peter
with Simon Magus, chap. viii.,—a judgment in which the denial of
miracles in general, and the assumption of dogmatic motives on the part of
the author, are the controlling presuppositions.?

Vv. 18-15. Having put to the open sea again from Paphos, avayz6ivrec, as xvi.
11, and frequently, also with Greek writers,® they came in a northerly direc-
tion to Perga, the capital of Pamphylia with its famous temple of Diana,‘
where John Mark parted from them‘ and returned to Jerusalem, for what rea-
son is not certain,—apparently from want of courage and boldness, see xv. 38.
But they, without their former companion (avroi), journeyed inland to the
north until they came to Antioch in Pisidia, built by Seleucus Nicanor, and
made by Augustus a Roman colony,* where they visited the synagogue on
the Subbath, comp. ver. 5. Their apostleship to the Gentiles had not can-
celled their obligation, wherever there were Jews, to turn first to these ;
and to Paul, especially, it could not appear as cancelled in the light of the
divine order : 'lovdaiy te xpérov xai “EAA, Rom. i. 16, clearly known to him,
of his ardent love to his people, Rom. ix. 1 ff., of his assurance that God
had not cast them off, Rom. xi., as wellas of his insight into the blessing
which would arise to the Gentile world even from the rejection of the gospel
by the Jews, Rom xi. 11. ff. Hence, although apostle of the Gentiles, he
never excludes the Jews from his mission,’ but expressly includes them,* and
is wont to begin his labours with them. This we remark against the opinion,
which is maintained especially by Baur and Zeller, that in the Book of Acts
the representation of Paul’s missionary procedure is unhistorically modified
in the interest of Judaism.’ — ol repi rdv MavAov] denotes the person and
his companions, —the company of Paul.° Now Paul, and no longer Barnabas,
appears as the principal person. The conspicuous agency of the Gentile
apostle at once in the conversion of Sergius, and in the humiliation of the
sorcerer, has decided his superiority. — ric Mcord.] chorographic genitive."

1 Comp. iv. 4, xi. 21, xix. 18.

* See Baur and Zeller ; comp. also Schneck-
enburger, p. 58.

3 Comp. Luke viil. 22.

4 On the ruins, see Fellows’ 7yavele in Asia
Minor, p. 142 ff.

5 Ewald, p. 456, conjectures that now Titus
(Gal. ii. 1) had appeared as an apostolic com-
panion. But how natural it would have been
for Luke at least here to mention Titus, who
is nevcr named by him !

€ On its ruins, see Hamilton's Travels in
Asta Minor, I. p. 481, ff.

™Comp. on the contrary, é¢¢’ ocor, Rom.
xi, 13.

8 1 Cor. ix. 20.

® See, in opposition to it also, Kling tn the
Stud. u. Krit. 1887, p. 802 ff. ; Lekebusch, p.
822 ff.

10See on John xi. 19, and Valckenaer, p.
499 f.

\ Krtiger, § 47. 5. 5.

PAPIIOS TO PERGA. 251

For other designations of this situation of the city, see Bornemann.—éxd@:sav]
on the seats of the Rabbins, as Wolf, Wetstein, Kuinoel, think. Possibly ;
but it is possible, also, that they had already, before the commencement of
the Sabbath, immediately on their arrival, announced themselves as teachers,
and that this occasioned the request of the president to the strange Rabbins.
— Tov véuov k. T. Tpog.] namely, in the Parasha and Haphthara for that Sab-
bath.' That, as Bengel thinks and Kuinoel and Baumgarten approve,’ the
Parasha, Deut. i.—because Paul, in ver. 18, hints at Deut. i. 81—and the cor.
responding Haphthara, Isa. i., were in the order of the reading, is uncertain,
even apart from the fact that the modern Parshioth and Haphtharoth were
fixed only at a later period.* — oi apyiovvdy.] i.e. the college of rulers, con-
sisting of the apy:ovvdywyoc car’ éfoxfy (10)97 WR), and the elders associated
with him. — év diyziv] in animis vestris.—Adyoo napaxd.| a discourse of exhor-
tation, whose contents are an encouragement to the observance and applica-
tion of the law and the prophets. For: ‘“‘ opus fuit expositoribus, qui corda
eorum afficerent.’’"* — Aéyere] On Adyov Afyeev, see Lobeck, Paral. p. 504.
Ver. 16. Karac. rg yeti] See on xii. 17. —oi goBobp. r. Gedy] is here, as
the distinction from 'IcpayAira: requires, the formal designation of the pros-
elytes of the gate,who, without becoming actual 'IopayAira: by circumcision,
were yet worshippers of Jehovah, and attenders at the synagogues, where they
had their particular seats.* Against the unfavourable judgment, which the
following speech has met with from Schneckenburger, Baur, and Zeller,—
namely, that it is only an echo of the speeches of Peter and Stephen, a free pro-
duction of the narrator,—we may urge as a circumstance particularly to be
observed, that this speech is directed to those who were still non-helievers, not,
like the Epistles of the apostle, to Christians, and accordingly does not find
in the Epistles any exactly corresponding standard with which to compare
it; that, further, nothing un-Pauline occurs either in its contents or form,
—on the contrary, the Pauline fundamental dogma of justification® forms
its important concluding main point,’ and the Pauline delicacy, prudence,
aud wisdom of teaching are displayed in its entire plan and execution ; that,
in particular, the historical introduction, although it may not have originated
without some influence from Stephen’s speech, and the latter may have, by
the editing, been rendered still more similar, yet presents nothing which
could not have been spoken by Paul, as the speech of Stephen was known
to the apostle and must have made an indelible impression on him ; and
that the use of Ps. xvi.“ as a witness for the resurrection of Jesus, was as
natural to Paul as it was to Peter, as, indeed, to Paul also Christ rose xara
zac ypagds.” The reasons, therefore, adduced against its originality tn the

1 See on Luke iv, 17. ¢ vv, 88 ff. do not contain a mere “timid

* Comp. also Trip, Paulus, p. 194. allusion ’’ to it, as Zeller thinks, p. 327.

§ Zunz, gotlesdiensll. Vortr. ad. Juden. p. 6; 7 In opposition to Baur’s opinion (T. p. 117,
comp. Hupfeld in the Sfud.u. Arit. 1887, p. ed. 2), that the anthor, after he had long

848 f. enough made the Apostle Paul spcak in a
4 Gloss {1 Babyl. Schabd. f. 30,2. Comp. Jetrine manner, felt that he must now add
Zuns. p. 889 f. something specifically Pauline /

*Comp. vv. 43, 69, xvii. 4, 17, xvi. 14, ® Comp. Acts ii. 2 ff.
xviil. 7. °1C r. xv. 4.

252 CHAP. XIII, 17-20.

main, are not sufficient, although, especially amidst our ignorance of the
document from which the speech thus edited is taken, a more complete as-
sertion of an originality, which is at all events only indirect, cannot be
made good.’

Vv. 17-22. An introduction very wisely prefixed to prepare the minds
of the Jews, giving the historical basis of the subsequent announcement
that the Messiah has appeared, and carried down to David, the royal Mes-
sianic ancestor and type ; the leading thought of which is not the free grace
of God, but generally the divine Messianic guidance of the people before the
final appearance of the Messiah Himself.

Ver. 17. Tow Aacd robrov ’Iop. (see the critical remarks) refers with rotrov
to the address dvdpec *Iop., and with the venerated name 'Iopa4/ the theo-
cratic national feeling is appealed to.*— éfeAtgaro] He chose for Himself,
namely, from the mass of mankind, to be His peculiar property. On roi¢
catép. hu., the patriarchs, comp. Rom. ix. 5, xi. 1, 16. In them the peo-
ple saw the channels and sureties of the divine grace. —ivywoer] During
the sojourn in Egypt, God evalted the people, making them great in number
and strength, and especially distinguishing and glorifying them in the
period directly before the Exodus by miraculous arrangements of Moses.
The history, which Paul supposes as known, requires this interpretation,
comp. already Chrysostom, who in éyucer finds the two points: ei¢ AGoc
exédooay and ra Oatuara &:’ avrovs yéyove. Others, among whom are Kuinoel,
Olshausen, and de Wette, arbitrarily limit iywoey merely to the increase of
number, appealing even to Gen. xlviii. 19, Ecclus. xliv. 21, 1. 22, where,
however, ivory, as always,* signifies nothing else than ¢o exalt. The special
nature of the exaltation is derived purely from the context. Calvin,
Elsner, and Heinrichs suppose that the deliverance from Egypt is meant.
But the exaltation, according to the text, occurred év rg maporxig, tv yy
Aiyérry,* during their sojourn as strangers in Egypt. Beza and Grotius
think that it is the iywor of the people by and under Joseph that is
meant. Erroneously, as éyucev stands in historical connection with the
following ég7yayev. — wera Bpaxlovog synod] t.e. without figure: éy r9 toyii
avrov rH peydAn.® Jehovah is conceived as a leader who advances with up-
lifted arm, at the head of His people, for their defence against all their
enemies. °®

Vv. 18, 19. ‘Qc] might be the as of the protasis, so that xal, ver. 19,
would then be the also of the apodosis.' But the common rendering
circiter is simpler and more suitable to the non-periodic style of the entire
context, as well as corresponding to the o¢ of ver. 20. — On the accentua-
tion of reccapaxovraéry, so Lachmann and Tischendorf, see Ellendt.*—
érpooopép.| He bore them as their nourisher, as it were in his arms, ¢.e. he
nourished and cherished them. There is here a reminiscence of the LXX.

' Comp. the thoughtful judgment of Weiss, * LXX. Dent. iv. 87.
bidt. Theol. p. 220. ® Comp. Ex. vi. 1,6; Bar. fi. 11.
2 Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 22 7So Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 81. (CE, T. p.
8 Comp. particularly Isa. i. 2. 362).
¢ vil. 6, 29; Wisd. xix. 10. * Lex. Soph. 1. p. 406 f.

ANTIOCH IN PISIDIA. . 253

Deut. i. 81, according to which passage God bore (X¥)) the Israelites in
the wilderness as a man (@®) beareth his son. The LXX. has rendered this
*w) by érpopop., whence it is evident, as the image is borrowed from a Man,
that it is based on the denvation from 6 rpogé¢ and not from tpogée.4 In
the few other passages where the word is still preserved, women are spoken
of—namely, 2 Macc. vii. 27, and Macar. Hom. 46. 8, where of a mother it
is said : avatayuSdver nai mepibéArer nat Tpogogopei év mwoAAg oropyj. But
as in this place and in Deut. i. 81 the motion of a male rpogéc is quite as
definitely presented ;? usually rpogetc,* it follows that the two references, the
male and the female, are linguistically justified in an equal degree ; there-
fore Hesychius explains érpogogéproev, entirely apart from sex, by épexev.
From misapprehension of this, the word érporog. was at an early period—
among the Fathers, Origen already has it—introduced in Deut. J.c. ; he bore
their manners,‘ because the comparison of God to a nourishing mother or
nurse, } rpopéc, was regarded as unsuitable,’ and following this reading in
Deut. L.c., erporog. was also adopted in our passage for the same reason.—
&0vn éxrd) see Deut. vii. 1. He destroyed them, i.e. xafeAdv.* — xarexAnpov.]
He distributed to them for an inheritance.". This compound is foreign to other
Greek writers, but common in the LXX. in an active and neuter significa-
tion. The later Greeks have xaraxAnpovyeiv.

Ver. 20. And afterwarde—after this division of the land among the
Israelites—He gave them, during about 450 years, judges—D'ODY , theocratic
dictators, national heroes administering law and justice °—wuntil Samuel.
The dative grec: sel ot is dative of the time, during which something hap-
pens, comp. viii. 11." As Paul here makes the judges to follow after the
division of the land, it is evident that he overleaps the time which Joshua
yet lived after the division of the land, or rather includes it in the pera
ravra, Which in so summary a statement is the less strange, as Joshua was
actually occupied until his death with the consolidation of the new arrange-
ment of the land, Josh. xxiv. 1-28. But the 450 yeare are in contradiction with
1 Kings vi. 1, where the fourth year of Solomon’s reign, the year of the build-
ing of the temple, is placed 480 ° years after the Exodus from Egypt, which
leaves only about 800 years for the period of the judges. But, on the other
hand, the chronology of Josephus, who" reckons 592 years from the Exodus
out of Egypt to the building of the temple, agrees with Paul in our passage.”
If, namely, we regkon: (1) 40 years as the period of sojourn in the desert ;
(2) 25 years as the period of Joshua’s rule ;'3 (8) 450 years as the duration

180 also Cyril, in Oseam, p. 182, in Deut.

p. 415. (7. 4, EB. 409.

2 Comp. Plat. Polit. p %8 A B, Eur. Here.

8 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 316.

4 Cic. ad Att. xill. 20, Constitutt. ap. vil. 86,
Schol. Arist. Ran. 1482.

® With the Greeks their fatherland 1s often
represented under this image. See Stallb. ad
Plat. Rep. p. 470 D.

® See Thue. t. 4, and Krfiger in loc.

7 LXX. Judg. xi. 94; 1 Kings il. 8; Isa. xiv.
2,3; 8 Eedr. vill. 85.

® See N&gelshach in Herzog's Encyké. XTIL
p-. % ff.; Bertheau, Komment.

® Comp. Joseph. sntd. 1.8.5: rd vdep yud
pats treccapdxovra SAats xarepepero. John ii.
20; Rom. xiv. 2%; Winer, p. 206 (B. T. 274).

19 L¥X. : 440.

In Antt, vill. 8.1, comp. x. 6. 5.

12 In Antt.xx. 10, c. Ap. if. 2, he reckons 612
years for the same period, thus @) years more,
which comes still nearer to the statement of
time In our passage ; see below.

13 Joseph. Anté. v. 1. 20.

254 . CHAP. XIII., 21-25.

of the judges, to Samuel inclusive, according to our passage ; (4) 40 years
as the reign of Saul ;' (5) 40 years as the reign of David, 1 Kings ii. 11;
(6) the first four years of Solomon’s reign, —there resulis from the Hzodus out
of Egypt to the building of the temple 599 years, with which there remains a
difference between Paul and Josephus, which is fully covered by é¢ in the
text. Accordingly, it appears as the correct view that Paul here follows the
chronology entirely different from 1 Kinge vi. 1, which is also followed by
Josephus.* This chronology arises from summing up all the numbers men-
tioned in the Book of Judges,’ 410 years, and adding 40 years for Eli; by
which, however, a total much too high results, as synchronistic statements
are included in the reckoning. All attempts at reconciling our passage
with 1 Kings vi. 1 bear the impress of arbitrariness and violence—namely :
(1) that of Perizonius,* and others, that in 1 Kings vi. 1 the years are not
reckoned, in which the Israelites in the time of the judges were oppressed
by heathen nations, with which view Wolf agrees ;* (2) Cornclius a Lapide,
Calovius, Mill, and others supply yevéueva after wevrhxovra, post haec, quae
spatio 450 annorum gesta sunt, 20 that the terminus a quo is the birth of Isauc,
in whom God chose the fathers ; from thence to the birth of Jacob are 60
years, from the birth of Jacob to the entrance into Egypt are 180 years,
after which the residence in Egypt lasted 210 years, and then from the
Exodus to the division of Canaan 47 years elapsed, making in all 447 years,
—accordingly, about 450 years. With the reading of Lachmann, also, we
must count in accordance with this computation. Comp. Beza. (8) Others
have had recourse to critical violence. They suppose either® that in this
passage rpraxociorc is to be read (r’ for 6), or” that o¢ érect terp. x. wevrqx. is
an addition of a marginal annotator, who * reckoned thus from the birth of
Isaac ; or, at least,” that 1 Kings vi. 1 is corrupt ; in which case, however,
Kuinoel grants that Paul follows a Jewish chronology of his time. — éu¢
LapovfjA] i.e. until the end of the series of judges, which had commenced
with Otbniel and closed with Samuel, after which Saul’s reign began.
See ver. 21.

Ver. 21. Kaxeifev] and from thence. éxet has only here in the N. T., as
also in later Greek, a temporal reference, yet so that the time is conceived
as something in space stretching itself out. So, too, in the passages in
Bornemann.” — éry reccapdx.|] '‘EfBacidevce LaotA, Lapovhdov Cavroc, éry dxto
pos Toi déxa* TeAeuthoavtog d2 dbo xal eixocr, Joseph. Antt. vi. 14. 9, according
to the usual text, in which, however, «ai eixoo: is spurioug.'' In the O. T.
there is no express definition of the duration of Saul’s reign. However,

1 See on ver. 21. 4 Orig. Aeg. p. 821.

2 That, nevertheless, the reckoning of 480 ® Comp. also Keil in the Dorpt. Belir. Tl.
years in 1 Kings vi. is not on account of our sp. 8111.
passage to be wholly rejected ; and how far, ¢ Luther and Bera.

on the contrary, it is to be considered as cor- 7 Vitringa and Heinrichs.

rect, may be eeen in Bertheau on Judges, In- ® Heinrichs,

trod. p. xvi. ff. * © Voss, Michaelis, Kuinoel. {xiii. 28.
3 ili. 8, 11, 14, 80, iv. 8, v. 81, vi. 1, vili. 28, 10 Schol. in Insc. p. 90 f., but not in Luke

ix. 22, x. 2, 8, 8, xii. 7, 9, 10, 14, xifl. 1, xv. 20. 11 8-0 Bertheau on Judges, p. xx.

PAUL’S DISCOURSE. 255

the explanation ' that éry reocapéx., which, in fact, contains the duration of
éduxev . . . ZaotA, embraces the time of Samuel and Saul together, is to be
rejected as contrary to the text; and instead of it, there is to be assumed
a tradition—although improbable in its contents, yet determined by the
customary number 40—which Paul followed.

Ver. 22. Meraor. airéy}] cannot be explained of the death of Saul,*? because
there is no éx rod C7v* or the like added, or at least directly suggested, from
the context. The word is rather to be considered as selected and exactly
corresponding to the known history of Saul, expressing the divine rejection
recorded in 1 Sam. xv. 16 f., and deposition of this king from his office, ac-
cording to the current usus loquendi.‘ — xai ele paptupzoac] for whom He
also bearing witness has said. is governed by uaprvp. ; and on ele yaprup.,
comp. i. 24: mpocevéduevos elrrov. — evpov Aavid x.7.A.}] Ps. 1xxxix. 21 is here
quite freely blended with 1 Sam. xiii. 14 in the inexact recollection of the
moment, and formed into one saying of God, as indeed in Ps. Ixxxix. 21
God is the speaker, but not in Sam. xiii. 14. —eipov] God had sought for
the kingdom of His people a so rare man like David. — xara rv xapdiav pov]
i.e. aa my heart desires him. This and the following dc . . . you is to be
left without any more precise limitation—Eckermann, after the older com-
mentators, supposes that it applies to the government of the people;
Heinrichs: to the establishment of the theocracy—as the text does not
furnish such a limitation, and rayra ra eA. forbids it. On these last words
Bengel correctly remarks : ‘‘ soluntates, multas, pro negotiorum varietate.’’ *

Vv. 28-25. Paul now proceeds to his main point, the announcement of
the Messiah, the Son of David, as having appeared in Jesus,* whom John
already preached before His coming. — robrov] with great emphasis, placed
first and standing apart. — «ar éxayyeAiav] according to promise, an essential
element for the awakening of faith. Comp. ver. 82. —fyaye ro ‘Iopana
. . » 'Iopafa] He brought" to the Israelites Jesus as deliverer, Messiah, John
having previously preached before His coming a baptism of repentance, baptism
obliging to change of mind, @ all the people of Israel. — xpd npoowrov} "309,
i.¢. ante, and that in a temporal sense.* With ric eiaddov, according to the
context, is meant the official, Messianic, emergence among the people. The
Fathers strangely and erroneously refer it to the incarnation.°—d¢ 62
éxAfpov 6 ’Iwdvv. 7. dpdpov] but when John fulfilled, was in the act of fulfilling, '®
the couree—without figure: the official work incumbent on him." Paul
considers John’s definite pointing to the ipyéuevoc as that with which the
course of the Baptist approached its termination ; the dpéuoc of the forerunner
was actually concluded as regards its idea and purpose, when Jesus Him-
self publicly appeared. — riva ye tov. elva:;| is, with Erasmus, Castalio,

1 Erasmus, Beza, Calovius, Wolf, Morus, 5 Comp. Eph. vi. 6; Ps. cil. 7; 2 Macc. 1.8

Rosenmfiller, Heinrichs. © vy. 23. 24, 3.
3 Grotlus, de Wette, also my former inter- T Zech. iii. 8

pretation. * Gesenius, Thes. II. p. 1111.
*3 Macc. vi. 18; Polyb. xxxii. 21. 8. ® See Suicer, Thee. I. p. 1042.

*See Dan. fi. 21; 1 Macc. vill. 18; Luke 10 Imperfect ; see Bernhardy, p. 378.
xvi. 4; also in Greek writers. 18 Comp. xx. 24; 3 Tim. iv. 7; Gal. il. &

256 CHAP. XITII., 26-33.

Calvin, Beza, and many others, to be taken as a question ; not, with Luther,
Grotius, Kuinoel, Lachmann, Buttmann, as a relative clause: ‘‘quem me
esse putatis, non sum,’’ which, indeed, is linguistically justifiable,’ but
detracts from the liveliness of the speech.* —oi« cin? éyd] namely, the
Messiah, John i. 20, as self-evidently the expected Person, who was vividly
before the mind of John und of his hearers.*

Ver. 26. In affectionate address (dvdpec adeAgol) earnestly appealing to
the theocratic consciousness (viol yev. ’Afp.), Paul now brings home the
announcement of this salvation, procured through Jesus, 6 Adyo¢ ri¢ owr.
ratrnc,* to the especial interest of the hearers.° — égareordAn] namely, forth
from God, ver. 28, x. 86, not from Jerusalem (Bengel). But this tuiv...
éfareor. actually took place by the very arrival of Paul and his companions.

Ver. 27. Tép] Chrysostom leads to the correct interpretation : didwow
avroic tovotay arxocxiobyvar Tév Trdv dévov reroAunxérov. In accordance with
the contrast : tuiv and of xatotxotvrec év ‘Iepove., the logical sequence is:
‘6 To you was the doctrine of salvation sent ; for in Jerusalem the Saviour
has been rejected ;’’ therefore the preaching must be brought to those out-
side in the diacropd, such as you are. It does not conflict with this view,
that at all events the preaching would come to them as Jews ;° since the
fundamental idea rather is, that, because Jerusalem has despised Christ,
now in place of the inhabitants of Jerusalem the outside Jews primarily are
destined for the reception of salvation. They are to step into the places of
those as regards this reception of salvation ; and the announcement of salva-
tion, which was sené to them, was withdrawn from those and their rulers,
the members of the Sanhedrim, on account of the rejection of the Saviour.
Thus there is in yép the idea of divine retribution, exercised against the seat .
of the theocracy, and resulting in good to those outside at a distance ;’ the
idea of a Nemesis, by which those afar off are preferred to the nearest
children of the kingdom.* Most of the older commentators are silent on
yép here. According to Erasmus, it is admonitory, according to Calvin,
exhortatory to yet greater compliance ; but in this case the special point
must first be read between the lines. Contrary to the contrast of inv and
ol xatoix. ‘Iepove., yép, according to de Wette, is designed to introduce the
exposition of the idea of owrnpia ; according to Baumgarten, to convey the hint
that the informal (?) way, outwardly considered, in which the Adyoc had
reached Antioch, had its reason in the fact that the centre of the theocracy
had resisted Jesus. — rotrov dyvofoavrec «.1.4.] not having known Him, i.e.
Jesus, as the self-evident subject, they have also—xai, the also of the corre-
sponding relation—/fufjilled by their sentence, by the condemnation of Jesus,
the voices of the prophets, which are read every Sabbath day. This fulfilment
they effected involuntarily in their folly. But the prophecies had to be ful-

1 Matt. x. 19, al. ; Winer, p. 150 (E. T. 210) ; 4 Comp. on v. 20.
Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 216 (E. T. 251). 8 Comp. ii. 29, iif. 28 f.

2 Comp. das. iii. 15. ® Objection of de Wette.

3 Comp. Mark xiii 4; Luke xxi.8; John 7 Comp. roi¢ eis maxpdy, ff. $9
xiff. 19.—On ver. 35 generally, com. Luke iii. ® Comp. Matt. xxi. 48.
15 f.

PAUL’S DISCOURSE. 257

filled, Luke xxiv. 85 f.; 1 Cor. xv. 8. —éyvofoavrec] a mild judgment,
entirely in the spirit of Jesus.'_ Therefore not too lenient for Paul (Schneck-
enburger). Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Rosenmiiller, Kuinoel, Hackett, and
others refer ayvogo. not only to robrov, but also to nat rac g. 7. mpog.: ‘ qui
hunc non norant, nec prophetarum oracula . . . intelligebant, eo condem-
nando effecerunt, ut haec eventu comprobarentur.’? Unnecessarily harsh,
as xpivavrec and érAfp. require different supplements. — ra¢ x. . c6 ff. ave-
pevwox.] a mournful addition ; what infatuation !|—xpivavreg] judging, name-
ly, Jesus. Following Homberg, others have referred it to the gwvac r. xp.:
‘‘and although judging, correctly valuing the voices of the prophets, they
nevertheless fulfilled them.’’ Incorrect, because at variance with history,
and because the resolution of the participle by although is not suggested by
the context, but rather (rotrov ayvofcavrec) forbidden.

Vv. 28, 29, Kai] and, without having found, they desired.? — xabeAdvrec . . .
6nxav ei¢ uvnu.| The subject is the inhabitants of Jerusalem and their rulers,
as in the preceding. Joseph and Nicodemus® were, in fact, both ; therefore
Paul, although those were favourably inclined to Jesus, could in this sum-
mary narrative continue with the same subject, because an exact historical
discrimination was not here of moment, and the taking down from the
cross and the placing in the grave were simply the adjuncts of the cruci-
fixion and the premisses of the corporeal resurrection, 1 Cor. xv. 4.‘

Ver. 80. But God, after such extreme and unrighteous rejection of Jesus
on the part of those men, what a glorious deed has He done! Thus Paul
paves the way to announce the highest Messianic onueiov of Jesus,’ the res-
urrection from the dead ; and that according to its certainty as matter of
experience, as well as a fulfilment of the prophetic promise. °

Vv. 31-83. ’Emi guép. wAeiove] for several days, as in Luke iv. 25.7 Instead
of the argumentative &¢, dcye would be still more significant. — roi¢ ovvava-
Baocv x.t.A.] Thus Paul according to this narrative, like Luke in the Gospel,
follows the tradition which knows only Jewish appearances of the Risen
One.° — oirivec] quippe qui. — nad jueic x.t.A.] we also, on our part, engaged
in the same work of preaching as those eye-witnesses, announce untc you
the promise made to the fathers, that, namely, God has completely fulfilled this,
etc. — bre ratrny x.7.A.] contains the particular part of the érayyedla, the
promise of the Messiah generally, which is announced. Entirely arbitrarily,
Heumann, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others hold that it should be connected :
evayyeAcéueba, ore rv mpdc Tove warépacg yevou. érayy. 6 Oedc éxwerA., and that
tavryy is without significance. This very repetition of ratrzy has rhetorical
emphasis.° — éxretAjpuxe] stronger than the simple verb, ver. 27.'!°— roi¢

1 Luke xxiii. 84. Comp. on iil. 17; ece also ® Comp. ix. 90; see Diseen, ad. Dem. de
1 Cor. fi. 8. cor. p. 225; Bernhardy, p. 288.

3 On avarpeOyvar, comp. fi. 23, x. 89. 10Comp. the passages from Xenoph. in

§ John xix. 2 f. {vili. 20; Mark xv. 46. Starz, Herod. v. 85: rv vedécyxerw exwaAn-

*On xa@ed\Gvres avo rt. €uAov, cump. Josh. paca, Plat. Legg. p. 958 B: éewxAnpwop ro

® Comp. Rom. i. 4. xpéos away, Polyb. 1. 67.1: rac éAridas w. Tas
6 vv 81, 89-37. a éwayyeAias éxwAnpoty, 8 Macc. 1. 2, 22. Else-
7 Nagelebach on the J/iad, p. 364, ed. 38. where not in the N. T., but comp. éxwArjpwors,

® Sce on Matt. xxviii. 10. Comp. i. 4. xxi. 26.

258 CHAP. XIII., 33, 34.

réxvotc avr. pulv] for the benefit of their children, descendants, us. The pre-
fixing of r. réxv. avr. has a peculiar emphasis. — avacrfaac ’Inoovv] by this,
that He raised up Jesus, from the dead. This interpretation’ is necessarily
required by the connection, which is as follows: (1) The Jews have put to
death Jesus, though innocent, and buried Him, vv. 28, 29. (2) But God
has raised Him from the dead, as is certain from His appearance among His
followers and their testimony, vv. 30, 31. (38) By this resurrection of Jesus,
God has completely fulfilled to us the promise, etc., vv. 32, 33. (4) Bat
the Raised One will, according to God’s asurance, never again die, vv. 34—
88. This, the only explanation accordant with the context, is confirmed
by the purposely chosen éxewAfpwxe, a8, indeed, the fulfilment of the
promise begun from the very appearance of Jesus has, although secured
already essentially, as Hofmann interprets the compound verb, only become
complete by His resurrection. It has been objected that é« vexpav would
have to be added to avacrgeac, as in ver. 84; but incorrectly, as the con-
text makes this addition very superfluous, which yet is purposely added
in ver. 34, in order that the contrast of yyxére uéAAovta troarpégety cig dtagBopdy
might more strongly appear. The textual necessity of our interpretation
excludes, accordingly, of itself the other explanation,® according to which
avaorhaag is rendered like O'Pil, prodire jubens, exhibens, iii. 22, vii. 87. This
rendering would hardly have been adopted and defended, had it not been
thought necessary to understand Ps. ii. 7 of the appearance of Jesus upon
earth. — dc . . . yéyparrai] denotes the avacrfoac 'Incovy as the event which
took place according to, besides other scriptural passages, the saying in Ps. ii.
7. —1@ mpéry] Formerly?—though not universally, yet frequently—the first
Psalm was wont not to be separately numbered, but, as an introduction to
the Psalter and certainly composed for this object, to be written along with
the second Psalm, as it is even now found in mss. As, however, such a
local citation of a passage is found neither in Paul’s writings nor elsewhere
in the N. T., it must be assumed that Paul did not himself utter the rpdry,
and that it was not even added by Luke ; but that he took it over from his
documentary source—into which it had doubtless come, because it was es-
teemed particularly noteworthy that this prophecy should be found written
on the very front of the Psalter (F"). — vide pov el od «.7.A.] in the historical
sense of the Psalm composed by Solomon on his anointing: My son, as
the theocratic king, thou art; I, no other, have this day begotten thee, made
thee by thine anointing and installation to be this my son. But, accord-
ing to the Messianic fulfilment of this divine saying, so far as it has been
historically fulfilled—it is otherwise in Heb. i. 5—especially by the rcsurrec-
tion of the Messiah : My Son, asthe Messiah, thou art; [ am He «ho has this
day, on the day of the resurrection, begotten Thee, installed Thee into this
divine Sonship by the resurrection, Rom. i. 4,—inasmuch, namely, as the

1 Brasmus, Luther, Hammond, Clericus, richs, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Hofmann, Wetss-
Heumann, Morus, de Wette, Baumgarten, ag. u. Bf. p. 178, Schriftdew. I. p. 128 and
Lange, and others. others.

* Castalio, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Calovius, 3 See Wetstein.

Wolf, Bengel, Michaelis, Rusenmfller, Hein-

DISCOURSE AT ANTIOCH. 259

resurrection was the actual guarantee, excluding all doubt, of that Eonship of
Christ. Thus has God by the resurrection, after His humiliation, although
He was from eternity God’s Son, constituted Him the Son of God, He has
begotten Him. Comp. ii. 86, The expression is not to be illustrated from
xputdéroxog Ex. T. vexpav, Col. i. 18;' because for denoting the installation
into the divine Sonship the figure begotten suits admirably ; but as a new
beginner of life, as Baumgarten explains it. Christ would by the resurrec-
tion not be begotten, but born. Comp. also Rom. viii. 29. The ofyepor,
moreover, which to those interpreters, who explain the dvacr#ez¢ generally
of the bringing forward Jesus, must appear without significance and in-
cluded in the quotation only for the sake of completeness, as is, however,
not the case even in Heb. i. 5, forms an essential element of the prophecy in
its relation to the connection.

Ver. 84. But that God raised Him from the dead as one who is no more to
return to corruption, He has thus said. The pnxére péddovra . . . diagbop. 18
the main element whereby the speech advances. Comp. Rom. vi. 9. — eis
d:agbupav] into corruption, is not, with Kuinoel, after Beza and Piscator, to
be explained : in locum corruptionis, i.e. in sepulerum, for which there is no
reason at all, as uyxér: by no means requires the inference that Christ must
already have been once in the condition of corruption ; for pyxére refers
logically to the general idea of dying present in the mind of Paul, which
he, already thinking on Ps. xvi. 10, expresses by ixoorp. cic diag6.* Bengel
aptly says: ‘‘non amplius ibit in mortem, quam alias solet subsequi
dtagfopd.’? The appeal to the LXX., which renders MMW by d:agdopd, is
equally inadmissible, for the translators actually so understood 1, and thus
connected with their d:ag6opé no other idea than corruptio.* — déow tyiv t. be.
A. r. mord] a free quotation of the LXX. Isa. lv. 8, in which Paul, instead
Of diabfoopat ipiv dtabhxny aidviay, gives déow ipiv, certainly not designedly,
because the text of the LXX. represents the appearance of-the Messiah as
something future, as Olshausen thinks ; for the words of the LXX., par-
ticularly the aiévov, would have been very suitable as probative of our pas-
sage ; nor yet by a mistake of memory, as the passage about the eternal
covenant certainly was very accurately known to the apostle ; but because
he saw the probative force in ra bora A. ra miotd, and therefore, in introduc-
ing those words on which his argument hinged, with his-freedom otherwise
in quotation he regarded it as sufficient only to prefix to them that verb,
the idea of which is really contained in diaPfoopa: tpiv deadhxyy aidv. TI shall
give unto you the holy things of David, the sure; t.ethe holy blessings con-
ferred by me on David, the possession of which will be, federally, sure
and certain. By this is meant the whole Messianic salvation as eter-
nally enduring, which, in an ideal sense, for future realization by the Son
of David, the Messiah, belonged as a holy property to David, the Messianic
ancestor, and was to come to believers through Christ as a sacred inheri-
tance. The LXX. translates TT “101 inezactly by ra 5010 Aavid ; but on this
very account the literal meaning bengjicia is not, against Kuinoel and others,

1 Againet Banmgarten. 3 Comp. Winer, p. 574 (BE. T. 772). 8 Comp. on li. 2%.

260 . CHAP. XIIL, 35-39.

to be assumed for dc1a. It denotes veneranda, pie observanda.'—The historical
meaning of the passage in Isaiah contains a promise of the Messianic times
alluring the exiles to the appropriation of the theocratic salvation ; but in
this very Messianic nature of the promise Paul had reason and right to
recognise the condition of its fulfilment in the eternal remaining-alive of
the risen Christ, and accordingly to understand the passage as a prophetic
promise of this eternal remaining-alive ; because through a Messiah liable
to death, and accordingly to corruption, those holy possessions of David,
seeing they are to be ord, could not be conferred ; for that purpose His
life and His government, as the fulfiller of the promises,* must be eernal.*
As surely as God, according to this prophetic assurance, must bestow the
dora Aavid ra miord, 80 surely Christ, through whom they are bestowed, can-
not again die. Less accurately Hengstenberg, Chriséol. I. p. 384.

Ver. 35. Acé] therefore, namely, because the Messiah, according to ver.
84, after His resurrection will not again die, but live for ever. —év érépy]
8c. yaAug, which is still present to the mind of the speaker from the quo-
tation in ver. 83. — Aéyec] the subject is necessarily that of cipyxev, ver. 34,
and so neither David,‘ nor the Scripture,* but God, although Ps. xvi. 10
contains David's words addressed to God. But David is considered as in-
terpreter of God, who has put the prayer into his mouth.® As to the pas-
sage quoted, see on ii. 25-27. Calvin correctly says: ‘‘Quod ejus corpus
in sepulcro fuit conditum, nihil propterea juris habuit in ipsum corruptio,
quum illic integrum non secus atque in lecto jacuerit usque ad diem resur-
rectionis.”’

Vv. 36, 87 give the explanation and demonstration (yap), that in Christ
raised by God from the dead this language of the Psalm has received its ful-
filment. Comp. ii. 20-81. — idig yevea] Dativus commodi : for his own con-
temporaries. Others understand it as the dative of time: sua acetate,’ or
tempore vitae suae.® Very tame and superfluous, and the latter contrary to
the usus loqguends. idig yevea is added in foresight of the future Messianic
yeved, Vili. 88, for which the Son of David serves the counsel of God.
‘‘ Davidis partes non extendunt se ultra modulum aetatis vulgaris,’’ Bengel.
—rqj Tov Oeov Bov27 | may either be connected with éxorunby’ or with imnpergoac: '°
after he for his generation had served the counsel of God. The latter meaning
is more in keeping with the theocratic standpoint of David and ver. 22.—
mpocetéOn mpd¢ Tove matépac avrov] toas added to his fathers, namely, as regards
his soul in Sheol, whither his fathers had preceded him. A well-known
Hebrew expression, Judg. ii. 10; Gen. xv. 15, xxv. 8, and Knobel thereon.

Vv. 38-41. From the previously proved resurrection of Jesus, there fol-
lows (oiv), what is now solemnly announced, yrwordv x.r.A., and does not ap-
pear as a mere ‘‘ passing hint ’’" of the Pauline doctrine of justification—

1 Comp. Bremi, ad Lys. p. 269, Goth. 7 Kuinoel and the older interpreters.

22 Cor. i. 10. 8 Olehausen.

3 Comp. Calvin and Hofmann, Welseag. wu. ® Kraesmus, Castalio, Calvin, Vatablus, and
Erf. I. p. 178 f. others.

4 Bengel, Heinrichs, and others. 10 Vulgate, Beza, Luther, Wolf, Bengel,

§ Heumann, Ku!noel, Olshausen, Baumgarten, and others.

* Comp. on Matt. xix. 5. 3} Baar.

FORGIVENESS THROUGH CHRIST. 261

that precisely through Him, who was thus so uniquely attested by God to
be the promised Messiah, the Messianic forgiveness and justification are
offered, vv. 38, 39 ; and from this again follows (od, ver. 40) with equal
naturalness, as the earnest conclusion of the speech, the warning against
despising this benefit. — Observe that Paul dges not enter on the point, that
the causa meritoria of forgiveness and justification lay in the death on the croas,
or how it was so; this belonged to a further instruction afterwards ; at this
time, on the first intimation which he made to those who were still unbe-
lievers, it might have been offensive and prejudicial. But with his wisdom
and prudence, according to the connection in which the resurrection of the
Lord stands with His atoning death,' he has neither prejudiced the truth,
nor, against Schneckenburger and Baur, exhibited an un-Pauline, an alleged
Petrine reference of justification to the resurrection of Jesus.

Vv. 38, 89. Aca robrov] through this one, i.e. through His being announced to
Ou. — Kai ard wavrwv . . . dixnasovra:] and that from all things, from which®
ye were unable to be justified in the law of Moses, every one who believes in this
One is justified. —ard ravrwv] is pregnant: justified and accordingly freed,
in respect of the bond of guilt, from all things.* — év rq véuw and the
emphatic év rotry represent the dixacwOjva: as causally grounded, not in the
law, but in Christ. But the proposition that one becomes justified in Christ
by means of faith from all things, z.e. from all sins,* from which one cannot
obtain justification in the law, is not meant to affirm that already in the law
there is given a partial attainment of justification and the remainder is at-
tained in Christ,° which would be un-Pauline and contrary to the whole of the
N. T. On the contrary, Paul, when laying down that proposition, in itself
entirely correct, leaves the circumstance, that man finds in the law justifica-
tion from no kind of sins, still entirely out of account, with great prudence not
adopting at once an antinomistic attitude, but reserving the particulars of
the doctrine of justification in its relation to the law for eventually further
Christian instruction. The proposition is of a general, theoretic nature ; it
is only the major proposition of the doctrine of justification, from all things
from which a man is not justified in the law, he is justified in Christ by
faith; the minor proposition, but in the law a man can be justified from
nothing, and the conclusion, therefore only in Christ can all justification be ob-
tained, are still kept back and reserved for further development. Therefore
the shift of Neander, I. p. 145, is entirely unnecessary, who * very arbitrarily
assumes that zdyrwy is designed to denote only the completeness of the re-
moval of guilt, and that, properly speaking, Paul has had it in view to refer
the relative to the whole idea of d:xa:wOjva:, but by a kind of logical attrac-
tion has referred it to révrov. — We may add that the view,’ according to
which «ai . . . dexacovra: is taken as an independent proposition, as it is also
by Lachmann, who has erased xai, after A C* x, is also admissible, although

2 Rom. fv, 2. ® Schwegler, nachapost. Zeifalt. II. p. 96 f. ;

3 Gy = ad’ Sy see on ver. 2 admitted also by Zeller, p. 299.

* Rom. vi. 7; Ecolus. xxvi. 29; Zest. AIL * Comp. also Schneckenburger, p. 131, and
patr. p. 540. Lekebusch, p. 884.

4 Comp. before d¢ecus auaprimy, ¥ Wolf and others, following the Vulgate.

262 CHAP. XIII., 40-47.

less in keeping with the flow of the discourse, which connects the negative
element (ageot¢ auapr.) and the positive correlative to it (dccaovrar) with one
another ; therefore «ai is the simple and, not : and indeed. But it is contrary
to the construction to attach xai ard . . . dixawjva to the preceding ; so
Luther, also Bornemann, who, however, with D, inserts perdvoa after aai.
Lastly, that neither, with Luther, is é» rovrw to be connected with moretur,
nor, with Morus, is év robry wae 6 mor. dixacovra: to be taken as a proposition,
by itself, is evident from the close reciprocal relation of zy r@ véuw and é»
rovrw. — On the idea of d:xacovofa:, the essence of which here already, by zac
6 moreiwy, most definitely emerges as the Pauline justitia jidei, see on Rom.
i. 17.

Vv. 40, 41. 'Ev roig xpodhrac] in volumine prophetarum, Luke xxiv. 44;
John vi. 45. — Hab. i. 5 is here quoted, according to the LXX., which, in-
stead of 0°13, probably read 0°23, from memory with an unimportant
deviation. In the announcement of the penal judgments to be executed by
means of the Chaldaeans, which are in Hab. l.c. threatened against the
degenerate Jewish nation, the apostle secs a divine threatening, the exe-
cution of which, in the Messianic sense, would ensue at the impending last
- Judgment by the punishment befalling the unbelieving Israelites. The
divine threatening preserves its power and validity even to the end, and
has then its last and highest fulfilment. This last Messianic judgment of
God—not the ruin of the Jewish war'—is here the épyov. — doaviobyze]
vanish, come to nought.* The coming to nought through ¢error is meant.—
épyaCouac| The present denotes what God was just on the point of doing.
The éyé:annexed, J, whom you despise, has the emphasis of divine
authority. —épyov] A rhetorically weighty anaphora, and hence without
6é.* — éxdinyyrac] tells it quite to the end.‘

Vv. 42, 43. After this speech Paul and Barnabas depart, and on their
going out of the synagogue are requested by those present, the subject of
mapexaa., to set forth these doctrines again next Sabbath. But after the
assembly was dismissed (Avéeioncs), many even follow them to their lodging,
ete.— é&idvrwv J? avtav] They consequently departed, as is indisputably
evident from ver. 48, before the formal dismissal of the synagogue.
Olshausen, indeed, thinks that the fé:6yr. avr. did not historically precede the
Avieions ri¢ cvvaywy., but is only anticipated as the chief point of the narrative,
giving rise to the request to appear again. But this is nothing but an
arbitrary device, which would impute to Luke the greatest clumsiness in his
representation.— cic rd erat aaBSarov] on the nezt following Sabbath. Instead
of yerazi, D has what is correct us a gloss: é9¢. In the N. T. this meaning
is without further example, for Rom. ii. 15 1s not a cuse in point. From the
apostolic Fathers: Barnabas 18 ; Clemens, ad Cor. I. 44. For the few, but

1 Wetstein and others, ? Comp. Buttmann, new. Gr. p. 341 (EB. T.
® Comp. Philostr. Jmag. 1. 26: ovx ws awc- 808). Kriiger, § lix. 1.3 f.
Aowro, GAA’ ws adavricOciey. Jas. iv. 14. So Comp. xv. 3: Job xfi.3; Ecclus. xxxix.

very often in classical writers. See Toup, 12, xliil. 31, xliv. 8; Joseph. Anti. vy. 8 3;
Fan in Sutd.I. p. 92. Bell, v. 13. 7.

- LABORS IN ANTIOCH. 263

quite certain examples from the other later Greek,’ see Krebs.* Others
— Camerarius, Calvin, Beza, Erasmus Schmid, Rosenmfller, Sepp, and others
—render : ‘‘ diebus sabbatha intercedentibus,’’ by which, following the Recepta
(see the critical remarks), those making the request are regarded as Gentiles,
who would have desired a week-day. Comp. Luther: ‘‘ between Sabbaths.”> We
should then have to explain oaSBarov as week,* that is : on the intervening week,
so that it would require no conjectural emendation.‘ But the evident con-
nection in which ver. 42 stands with ver. 44 gives the necessary and
authentic explanation: ra éyouévy oaBBéty. — Tr. ceBou. mpoonA.| the (God)
worshipping proselytes, This designation of the proselytes occurs only here ;
elsewhere, merely xpoo7Avra,® or merely ceBdyevor with * and without’ Oecd».
Yet there is here no pleonasm ; but cfou. is added, because they were
just coming from the worship, as constant purtakers in which they were
worshipping proselytes. — oitivec] applies to Paul and Barnabas, who (quippe
gus) made moving representations (é7<:0ov) to those following them to con-
tinue in the grace of God, which by this first preaching of the gospel had
been imparted to them, because the apostles by the very following of the
people, and certainly also by their expressions, might be convinced that the
xapic Tou Oeov had found an entrance into their souls.— zpooAadovvrec] speak-
sng to them ; xxviii. 20.°

Vv. 44,45. Te d2 ézoutyy onBB.| but on the following Sabbath.’ It is
in itself, moreover, highly probable that the two apostles were not
idle during the week, but continued their labours in private circles. —
ovvix0n) As it was Sabbath,’® this assembly, at which also the Gentiles
of the city were present, oxzeddv xaca 4 wéArc, and see ver. 48, took
place certainly in and near the synagogue, pot, as Heinrichs supposes,
‘Sante diversorium apostolorum.’’ The whole city = mdvrec ol wodirac ; see
Valckenaer, ad Phoen. 982. — roic 5xA0u"] which consisted in great part of
- Gentiles, whose admission to the preaching of the Messiah now stirred up
the angry zeul (f7Aoc) of Israelitish pride ; obeerve that here the ’Iovdaioc
alone without the proselytes are named. — avriAéyovrec is neither superfluous
nor a Hebraism," but juined with xai BAacenu., it specifies emphatically the
mode of avréAeyov, namely, its hostile and spiteful form: they contradicted,
contradicting and at the same time blaspheming the apostle and his doctrine."

Vv. 46, 47. ‘Hv dvayxaioy] namely, according to the counsel of God’* and
our apostolic duty. — ob« agiovg xpivere x.r.A.] This judgment of their un-
worthiness they, in point of fact, pronounced upon themselves by their
zealous contradicting and blaspheming. — idof) ‘‘ ingens articulus temporis
magna revolutio,’? Bengel. As to the singular, comp. on Matt. x. 16. —

1 Plat. Inst. Lac. 42, de discr. amici ef adul. © xvi. 14, xviii. 6. ‘
2; Joseph. ¢. Ap. i. 21; Bell. v. 4. 2.—but 7 xiii, 50, xvii. 4,17. (19; Wied. xilf. 17.
not Bell. 1i. 11. 4. *T.ucian, Nigr. 7. 11, 18: Theophr. Char.
® Odss. p. 220; Kypke, IT. p. 67 f ; Wyttenb. ® Comp. xx. 15, xxi. 296; Luke xiii. 38 ; often
ad. Plut. Mor. p.177 C. Comp. Otto,ad The- _— also in classical writers.

oph. Ant. 1. 8, p. 26 ff. 1® See also ver. 42.
3 Mark xvi. 9; Luke xvill. 18; 1 Cor. xvi. 2 11 Ewald, Lehrd. § 2800. [Judg. iv. 24.
* Grotius : cafBarey. 128ee Lobeck. Paralip. p. 588 f. Comp.

§ 11. 10, vi. 5; Matt. xiii. 21. 33 See on ver. 14.

264 CHAP. XLII., 48-52.

obrw yap evréraAra: x.7.A.] a proof that the orpegduefa ei¢ ra 26vy occurred not
arbitrarily, but iu the service of the divine counsel. Isa. xlix. 6, according
to the LXX., with slight deviation, referring to the servant of God, 1s by
Paul and Barnabas, according to the Messianic fulfilment which this divine
word was to receive, recognised and asserted as évroAy for the apostolic
office ; for by means of this office it was to be brought about that the
Messiah (ce) would actually become the light of the Gentiles,’ for which,
according to this oracle, God has destined Him. — row eivai ce x.1.A.] the
final purpose : in order that thou mayest be, etc.

Vv. 48, 49. Tav Adyov r. Kupiov] see on Vill. 25. — bea: foay reraypévos eic
Cwyv aidvoyv] as many of them as were ordained to eternal, Messianic, life.
Luke regards, in uccordance with the Pauline conception,’ the believing of
those Gentiles as ensuing in conformity to their destination, ordered by
God already, namely, from of old, to partake of eternal life. Not all in
general became believers, but all those who were divinely destined to this
Cwy; and not the rest. Chrysostom correctly remarks: agwpicpévo: ty Ow.
The rééc¢ of God in regard to those who became believers was in accordance
with His rpdéyvwois, by means of which He foreknew them as credituros ;
but the divine raé:¢ was realized by the divine «Agore effectual for faith,
Rom. viii. 28-30—of which Paul, with his preaching, was here the instru-
ment. It was dogmatic arbitrariness which converted our passage into a
proof of the decretwm absolutum.* For Luke leaves entirely out of account
the relation of ‘‘ being ordained ’’ to free self-determination ; the object of
his remark is not to teach a doctrine, but to indicate a historical sequence.
Indeed, the evident relation, in which this notice stands to the apostle’s
own words, éed? . . . Cuofc, ver. 46, rather testifies against the conception
of the absolute decree, and for the idea, according to which the destination
of God does not exclude, comp. ii. 41, individual freedom, d¢ ob xnav’
avayeqv, Chrysostom ; although, if the matter is contemplated only from
one of those two sides which it necessarily has, the other puint of view,
owing to the imperfection of man’s mode of looking at it, cannot receive
proportionately its due, but appears to be logically nullified. See, more
particularly, the remark subjoined to Rom. ix. 88. Accordingly, it is not
to be explained of the actus paedagogicos,‘ of the praesentem gratiae opera-
tionem per evangelium,* of the drawing of the Father, John vi. 44, 37, etc.,
with the Lutheran dogmatic writers ; but the literal meaning is to be ad-
hered to, namely, the divine destination to eternal salvation: aero avrovc 6
Oed¢ sig meperoinory owunpiac, 1 Thess. v. 9. Morus, Rosenmiiller, Kuinoel,
and others, with rationalizing arbitrariness, import the sense: ‘ quibus,
dum fidem doctrinae habebant, certa erat vita beata et aeterna,’’? by which

1 Lake fi. 83, etc. [ii. 18, a2. oredituri.” This excludes from the divine

3% Rom. ix. ; Eph. 1. 4,6, 11, iff. 11; 2 Thess.
®In which case Beza, for example, pro-
ceeds with logical self-deception : “‘ Xrgo vel
non omnes orant vitae aeternae destinatl, rel
omnes crediderunt.*’ Rather it is to be said :
**Omnes erant vilae acternae destinali, sed

rafts of salvation thoee who reject the faith
through their own fault. See Beza and Calvin
in loc., and Canon. Dordrac. p. 205, ed. Au-
gusti.

4 Calovius.

* Bengel.

EXPULSION FROM ANTIOCH. 265

the meaning of the word rerayyzévo: is entirely expl:.ined away. Others take
goav tevayu. in the middle sense, quotquot se ordinaverant ad vitam acternam,
as Grotius, Krebs, Loesner, and others,’ in which case rereyz. is often under-
stood in its military sense (qui ordines servant):* ‘‘quide agmine et classe
erant sperantium vel contendentium ad vitam aeternam.’’* But it is
against the middle rendering of rerayy.,* that it is just seized on in order
to evade an unpleusant meaning ; and for the sensus militaris of rerayp. no
ground at all is afforded by the context, which, on the contrary, suggests
nothing else than the simple signification ‘‘ ordained’ for rerayp., and the
sense of the aim for cig Suv aidv. Others join cic Cuny aldmor to éxicrevoay,
so that they understand verayy. either in the usual and correct sense
destinati,* or quotquot tempus constituerant,* or congregati,’ in spite of the
simple order of the words and of the expression moretew cig Gunv aidvov
being without example; for in 1 Tim. i. 16 cig defines the aim. Among
the Rabbins, also, the idea and expression ‘‘ordinati (D°33\D) ad vitum
JSuturi saeculi,”” as well as the opposite : ‘‘ ordinati ad Gehennam,"’ are very
common. See the many pussages in Wetstein. But Wetstein himself
interprets in an entirely erroneous manner: that they were on account of
their faith ordained to eternal life. The faith, foreseen by God, is subse-
quent, not previous to the ordination ; by the faith of those concerned their
divine raéi¢ becomes manifest and recognised. See Rom. viii. 80, x. 14;
Eph. i. 11, 18, ai.

Ver. 50. Mapérpuvay r. o&B. yuv. tr. evox.) they stirred up* the female pros-
elytes, of genteel rank.® Heinrichs interprets o28. otherwise: ‘‘ religiosas
zeloque servandorum rituum ethnicorum ferventes.’’ Against this may be
urged the stated use of oc. in this narrative, vv. 16, 48, as well as the
greater suitableness of the thing itself, that the crafty Jews should choose
as the instruments of their hatred the female proselytes, who were suf-
ficiently zealous for the honour of their adopted religion to bring about,
by influencing their Gentile husbands, the intended expulsion of the apostles.

Ver. 51. ’Exrtivag. 7. xoviopt.] as a sign of the greatest contempt.’°— éx' avroi¢]}
against them, is to be understood either as denoting the direction of the
movement of the feet in shaking off the dust, or, more significantly, in the
sense of the direction, frame of mind, in which the action took place.
Comp. Luke ix. 5.—’Ixévov] belonging at an earlier period to Phrygia,"
but at this time the capital of Lycaonia,'* and even yet,’® an important city.

4 Hofmann's view, Schrifldero. I. p. 288, ¢ Comp. on xx. 18.

amounts to the same thing: ‘‘ who, directed ® So Lieinrichs,
unto eternal life, were in a disposition of mind © Markland.
corresponding to the offer of it." The com- 7 Knatchbull,

perison of 1 Cor. xvi. 15 does not sult. Lange, ® Pind. OV. iii. 88; Lacian, Zoe. 85.

Il. p. 178, in a similiar manner evades the ® See xvii. 12, and on Mark xv. 48.

meaning of the words: ‘‘those who under 10 Comp. xvili. 6, and see on Matt. x. 14.

God's ordination were st that time ripe for 1) Xen. Anabd. 1. 2. 19.

faith.’ Comp. already Brestchneider, ‘‘ die- 43 Strabo, xii. p. 568; Cic. ad Div. xv. 4;

poeiti,”’—that is to say, ‘‘apti facti oratione Plin. N. H. v. B.

Paali.” 33 Konieh or Koniyah, see Ainsworth's
Sec Maj! Odss. III. p. 81 ff. Traveds in the Track Of the Ten Thousand
§ Mede in Wolf. Greeks.

266 CHAP, XIII.—NOTES.

Ammian. Mare. xiv. 2, reckons it to belong to the neighbouring Pisidia,
in opposition to the above witnesses,—an error easily committed. In
Iconium the legend makes Thecla be converted by Paul.— From the
Pisidian Antioch they did not move farther forward, but turned south-
eastwurd, in order (xiv. 26) at a later period to return by ship to the Syrian
Antioch.

Ver. 52. What a simple and significant contrast of the effect produced
by the gospel, in spite of the expulsion of its preachers, in the minds of
those newly converted! They were filled with joy, in the consciousness of
their Christian happiness, and with the Holy Spirit! Madoc yap didacxaAov
nappnoiav oun éyxémret, GAAG mpofuudtepoy rorei Toy pabyryy, as Chrysostom here
says (G"),

Norges sy Amenroax Eprror.

(0%) Special documentary source. V. 1.

While there is nothing in the supposition of our author that the 13th and
14th chapters are a separate document, revised by Luke, inconsistent with the
authenticity and authority of the record, yet there does not seem to be any ne-
cessity, from the style or the contents of the chapters, for any such supposi-
tion. Gloag in reference to this says: ‘‘ The narrative is pervaded throughout
with Luke's peculiar style, and is not so unconnected with the preceding his-
tory as is asserted.” Paul and Barnabas had returned to Antioch, and other
distinguished teachers were assembled there, so that, as Meyer happily re.
marks, the mother church of the Gentiles became a seminary of missionaries.

Hitherto Luke has given an account of the progress of the gospel generally.
Henceforth he treats almost exclusively of Saul—now and henceforth called
Paul—his missionary labors and journeys, and the leading events of his life.
The missionary character of the church is now brought prominently into view.
The first two acts of the church at Antioch are characteristic of the gospel,
and exemplify the unity of the Christian church. They first sent alms to
the poor Jews in Jerusalem, and next sent the gospel far and wide to the igno-
rant Gentiles. This conduct furnishes a pattern for all churches to-day.

(D*) Prophets and teachers. Ys. 1, 2.

These office-bearers of the early church are frequently referred to in the
Acts and in the Epistles of Paul. (1 Cor. xii. 28, and Eph. iv. 11.) The proph-
es were an order of men endowed with the Spirit, and recognized by the church
as next to the apostles in dignity and authority, and superior to the teachers.
They, when inspired by the Spirit, addressed the people in an exalted and im-
passioned state of mind—their conscious intelligence being informed by the
Holy Spirit. They were only occasionally under this influence, and some-
times, as in the present instance, they foretold future events. The teachers
were publicly appointed by the church to the work of instruction, and, under
the guidance of the Holy Spirit, using their own judgment, after due medita-
tion, furnished instruction for the edification of others. A prophet might also
be a teacher, as the higher gift usually included the lower; but the teacher

NOTES, 267

would not assume the function of the prophet. The mention of prophets and
teachers implies that the first Gentile church was large and flourishing. Some
of the prophets came from Jerusalem to minister to the Gentiles. . «The
prophets in the New Testament stood to the early churches nearly in the same
relation as do our printed Bibles to our modern churches. They spoke by au-
thority and without error, and gave to their audience such details as occur in
the Gospels, and such illustrations and precepts as are found in the Epistles,
They were the ‘men of their counsel '—present oracles, whose lips keep

knowledge.” (Hadie.)

(x*) John as an attendant. VY. 65.

The two friends took with them John, surnamed Mark, the nephew of Bar-
nabas, and the author of the second gospel. He is styled in the narrative
‘‘their minister ;” but it is impossible to determine with precision the kind of
service he was expected to render them. Some suppose that he was simply a
personal attendant, as Elisha was upon Elijah, or Gehazi upon Elisha ; others
believe that he was an assistant in their public duties—such as preaching and
the administration of the ordinance of baptism.” (Taylor.) While it may be
readily imagined that Mark, as the younger man, would perform any kind of
service which would contribute to the personal comfort of his relative and his
distinguished companion, doubtless his functions were mainly of oa spiritual
character. Soon, however, he left such noble companionship, and seriously
offended Paul by abandoning the arduous and perilous mission. His motives
for doing this were probably various, though cowardice did not necessarily con-
stitute one of them. Having passed through his mother's native isle, he prob-
ably felt a strong desire to visit her—or still more probably, being strongly
attached to Peter, through whose instrumentality he was converted, as Peter
affectionately calls him Marcus my son, and sympathizing more strongly with
his work than that of Paul, he may have returned to join him. Be this as it
may, Barnabas never lost confidence in him, {nd he was also at last reconciled
to Paul, and was with him when a prisoner in Rome (Col. iv. 10 ; Philemon,
24).

(¥*) Second psalm. V. 33.

‘“‘The majority of mass. are in favor of devrépp ; but critics have in general
preferred the reading xpury, as being more difficult and adverted to by the
Fathers. It is accounted for on the supposition that our first psalm was not
numbered, but was composed as an introduction to the psalter; and that the
second psalm was properly the first. In some Hebrew mas. this order occurs,”
(Gloag.) Some refer the words quoted to the incarnation of Christ, but the
reference clearly is, as our author shows, to his resurrection. Declared, by his
resurrection, to be the Son of God with power, it was the public inauguration
of his Sonship, a manifestation of his divinity (Rom. i. 4).

(a*) Paul's sermon. VY. 41.

Of this first recorded discourse of Paul very different judgments have been
formed. Some suppose it to be unhistorical—a mere imitation and repetition
of the speech of Peter. Another says it is but the echo of the speeches of

268 CHAP. . XIII.—NOTES.

Peter and Stephen. The similarity between the discourses is just what might
be expected, from the two apostles speaking on the same subject to similar
audiences. Farther, says Gloag, there is nothing un-Pauline either in the form
or the contents of the discourse. Neander says: ‘It is a specimen of the pe-
culiar wisdom and skill of the great apostle in the management of men’s dispo-
sitions, and of his peculiar antithetical mode of developing Christian truth.”
The discourse is regularly constructed, and may be divided into four parts—
the historical, the apologetic, the doctrinal, and the practical. In the dis-
course the preacher wins the attention of his audience by giving a sketch of
the history of their forefathers. Then he proves the Messiahship of Jesus from
the testimony of John, from the fulfilment of prophecy in him, and from his
resurrection from the dead. Next he proclaims the forgiveness of sins through
faith in this crucified and risen Messiah, announcing distinctly the doctrine
which he discusses at so great length in his Epistles—justification through
faith in Christ. Justification, as taught by Paul, means deliverance from con-
demnation, the claim of the law for punishment. Dr. Taylor gives in a note
a striking and curious illustration of the use of the word justified in this sense,
taken from Scott’s ‘‘ Waverley,”—when Evan Maccombich, pleading for his
master, says to the judge ‘‘that ony six o' the very best o’ his clan will be
willing to be justified in his stead.” Here the word means hanged ; @ criminal
being held to be set right with the law when he had suffered its penalty. The
conclusion of the discourse is an earnest warning against rejecting Christ, lest
something worse than the evils predicted by Habakkuk should come upon
them. Startled and surprised by this solemn conclusion, they besought the
apostles, as they left the synagogue, to come and preach again on the next
Sabbath. Even after they had withdrawn, many followed and had an inter-
view with the apostles,

During the week the excitement was great; nor were the apostles either
idle or silent. And so next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to
hear the word, But when the Jews saw the multitudes of the Gentiles listen-
ing to the truth and receiving it, they became enraged, and contradicted and
insulted the apostles, On the other hand, the Gentiles, hearing that Jesus the
crucified was set for a light and salvation to them, were glad and glorified God ;
and even though the apostles were driven off by the instigation of the Jews,
the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Ghost.

CRITICAL REMARKS, 269

CHAPTER XIV.

Ver. 2. areSotvres] ABC, min. have dre@yjcavres, which Lachm. Tisch,
Born. have adopted ; and rightly, partly on account of the preponderating
authority (D, however, does not here concur, as it has an entirely different
reading), and partly because aecfoivres most directly presented itself to the
mechanical scribes as a contrast to those who had become believers. If they
lad conformed themselves to morevoa, ver. 1, they would have written
amcornoavres, — Ver. 3. Before didévr: Elz. has xai, against decisive evidence,
— Ver. 8. After airod Elz, has irapywr, against greatly preponderating evidence.
Added from iii. 2 as an unnecessary completion. — repimeraryxe:] So (not
wrepieren. 88 Elz.) D EG H, min. Chrys. Lachm, and Tisch. have repiendrnoev,
after A BC, min. But the regular preference, which in relative sentences
the Greeks give to the aorist over the pluperfect, here easily supplanted the
latter. — Ver. 9. jxove] Lachm. Tisch. Born, read jxovcev, after ADEG HR,
min, Chrys. Theoph. An alteration, as the narrative continues in the aorist,
and the intentional selection of the imperfect here was not understood. — Ver.
10. Lachm. Tisch. Scholz (Born. avjAaro, after D) have #Aato. But Elz. has
fAdero, against decisive evidence. The aorist yielded to the imperfect on ac-
count of mepretarec.— Ver. 12. pév] is, after A B C*D X, rightly erased by
Lachm. Tisch. Born. as a customary insertion. — Ver. 13. After wéAews Elz, has
airov, A current addition, condemned by the witnesses. — Ver. 14. ifen#dycav]
Elz. has eicer7jd., against decisive evidence, The less the reference of é§— was
understood, the more easily would the better known eis be inserted, corre-
sponding to «iS rov dysov. — Ver. 17. xairorye}] Others: xaiye (30 D E, Born.).
Others : xaizo: (so A B C* &**, Lachm.). With this diversity cairo, and also yé,
are to be considered as certainly and predominantly attested ; and therefore
xalrotye, with C*** G H &*, min. Chrys. Theoph. Oec., is to be retained. Be-
side xai sometimes the one particle and sometimes the other was omitted, as is
also the case in xvii. 27. — dya@ovpydy] so to be read, with A BC &, min. Ath.
Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. But Elz. Scholz,
Born. have aya$orady, which, as the more usual word, was inserted. — tiv

. tuov] Elz. has fuiv , . . Auov, against very important witnesses. The
alteration arose, because the sentence had become a commonplace. — After ver.
18, CD E, min. vas. read dratpisovtwy atray x, dtdackévrwy. So Born. with dé
after d:arp., and attaching it to what follows. An interpolation, by way of
smoothing the transition from ver. 18 to its contrast in ver. 19, variously en-
riched by different insertions. — Ver. 19. vouicavtes] Lachm. Tisch. and Born.
have vouifovres, after AB D®, min. The Recepta arose mechanically from the
context, — re§vdvac] Lachm. Tisch. read reOryxFvar, after AB C ®, min. Cor-
rectly, as the contracted form was the more usual. — Ver. 28. After drérpifov de
Elz. has éxei, which has been, after A B C D ®&, min. and several vss,, erased or
suspected since the time of Griesb. Insertion for the sake of more precise
definition.

270 CHAP. XIV., 1-11.

(H") Vv. 1, 2. Kara 13 aid] at the same time, simul (Vulg.), duov, Hesych."
— 'EAAjver] see on xi. 20. Comp. xviii. 4,6. Yet here those Gentiles only
are meant who were in connection with Judaism as proselytes of the gate, comp.
xiii. 43, and thus had not by circumcision laid aside their Greek nationality.
This limitation is required by the context ; for they are present in the syn-
agogue, and in ver. 2 the é6vy are distinguished from them, so that they
occupy 3 middle place between the é@r7 and the ‘Ioadaia. — obtuc] in such a
manner, 80 effectively. — dcre] refers to the preceding viruc, as in John iii.
16.4 — areOjcavrec (see the critical remarks), having refused obedience, by
unbelief. — ixax.] they made evil-affected, put into a bad frame of mind, é.¢.
ad iracundiam concitaverunt (Vulg.), like the German phrase, ‘‘ sie machten
bés.’? This meaning, not in use with Greek writers, nor elsewhere in the N.
T. or in the LXX. (Ps. cvi. 82%) and Apocr., occurs in Joseph. Antz. xvi.
1. 2, 7. 8, 8. 6. — xara trav adeAg.] refers to éxqy. x. éxax. conjointly. Both
were hostilely directed against the Christians.

Vv. 3, 4. Oiv represents vv. 3 and 4 as a consequence of vv. 1 and 2.
‘¢In consequence of that approval (ver. 1) and this hostility (ver. 2), they
spent indced (uév) a considerable time in free-spoken preaching (ver. 3),
but (dé) there arose a division among the multitude’’ (ver. 4). —ézi r6
Kupiy] states on what their bold teaching rested—had its stay and support.’
Hence as regards sense: /freti Domino. Elsewhere in the N. T. with év.
Képiog may as well be Jesus* as God ,° the mode of conception of the apostolic
church admits both the former, Mark xvi. 20, and the latter. The latter,
however, is preponderantly supported partly by Acts xx. 32, whiere ric
xzapito¢g avrov is to be referred to God, and partly by iv. 29, 50, where didévze
onpeia x.t.A. likewise points to God. Comp. Heb. ii. 4. —rq@ papropotyte .. .
aitav] who gave practically confirmatory testimony® to the word of His grace (to
the gospel, xx. 24), in granting that signs and wonders should be done by their
hands. The second participle d:dévr:, added without copula, denotes the
Jorm, in which the paprupeiv was presented. — écyiof|] comp. John vii. 48.
‘* Scinditur incertum studia in contraria vulgus.’’’ Examples in Wetstein.
—ai] and indeed.

(1%) Vv. 5-7. Opus] impetus (Vulg.), but not exactly in the sense of an
assault,® nor yet a plot. The former meaning, according to the context,
expresses too much ; the latter is not sanctioned by linguistic usage, even
in Jas. iii. 4. It denotes a strong pressure, a pushing and thronging.’”° — cvv
roi¢ dpyovary airév] joins on closely to *Iovdaiwy, whose rulers of the syna-
gogue and elders are meant. Comp. Phil. i. 1. On tfpica:, comp. Luke
Xvill. 82; 1 Thess. ii. 2; Lucian, Soloec. 10."— ovvidévreg} Comp. on xii. 12.

?Comp.1 Sam. xxxi. 6, and cxamples in 7 Virg. Aen. il. 89,
Kypke, II. p. 69 f.; Schaefer, cd Bos. Eli. p. * Luther, comp. Castalio, Calvin, and others.
210. ® Kuinoel, de Wette, and others.
2 Often so in Greek writers, ¢.g. Ken. Mem. 10 Comp. Herod. vil. 18: éwet Sa:povin res yive-
12.1; Starz, Lex. IV. p. 623. rat opuy, Plat. Phil. p.35 D: puxns Evuwacar
3 See Bernhardy, p. 250. Thy Te OpunY Kai exmOvuiavy, Dem. 809. 4: eis
4 Heinrichs, Olehansen. opeany rou ta Séovra wovety wmporpewar, Ken.
® Grotius, Morus, Kuinoel. Afem, iv. 4.2; Jas. iil. 4: 3 Macc. 1. 2, iv. 3.

* Comp. x. 48, xiii. 22, xv. 8. il Hroe wAryats % Seapots nai GAAg TPOTY,

EVENTS AT ICONIUM. 271

It had become known to them, what was at work against them. — Atorpa,
sometimes used as feminine singular, and sometimes as neuter plural, as
in ver. 8, see Grotius, and Aépfy, two cities of Lycaonia (3”), to the north of
Taurus, and lying in a southeastern direction from Iconium. Prtol. v. 4
reckons the former to belong to the neighbouring Isauria ; but Plin. v. 82
confirms the statement of our passage. On their ruins, see Hamilton's
Travels in Asia Minor, II. pp. 801 f., 807 f. ; Hackett, p. 228.

Vv. 8-10." 'Exa67r0} he sat, because he was lame. Perhaps he begged,
comp. John ix. 8, like the lame man in chap. iii. — zep:rex.] Pluperfect
without augment.* Observe, moreover, the earnest circumstantiality of the
narrative. —yxove] The imperfect denotes his persevering listening.— iddv]
Paul saw in the whole bearing of the man closely scanned by him, in
his look, gestures, play of features, his confidence of being saved, i.e.
healed. This confidence was excited by listening to the discourse of the
apostle ; by which Paul appeared to him as a holy man of superior powers.
Bengel aptly suys: ‘‘dum claudus verbum audit, vim sentit in anima, unde
intus movetur, ut ad corpus concludat.’’ — rov owfgva:| This genitive of the
object depends directly on mioriv.* — peydAn 79 gwry | thus,-with the sey.
predicatively prefized only here and in xxvi. 24.‘— opldc] ita ut erectus stes,*
— qAato x. wepuerares] Observe the exchange of the aorist and imperfect :
he sprang up, made a leap, and walked. Otherwise in iii. 8.

Ver. 11. Avxaovori] Chrysostom has finely grasped the object of this re-
mark : voix qv tovro ovdétw dydov, TH yap oixeia gwvy egbéyyovro Alyovrec, Sre oi
Ocot x.7.A. Ata TrovTo ovdév airoig ZAcyov. The more surprised and astonished
the people were, the more natural was it for them to express themselves in
their native dialect, although Zeller reckons this very improbable and calcu-
Jated with a view to make the homage go as far as possible. Nothing defi-
nite can be made out concerning the Lycaonian language ; perhaps a dialect
of the Lycian,® which Jablonsky " considered as derived from the Assyrian ;
Grotius, as identical with the Cappadocian ; and Giihling,® as a corrupt
Greek, — duowbévreg avd paroc] having become similar to men. Theophanies

The distinction there stated of vfpigey with
ag ia groundicss. Sce, on the contrary, ¢.g.
Dem. 522. ult. 589. 14.

1 Although two cures of the same kind of
infirmity and in a similar miraculous manner
naturally enough produce two similar narra-
tives, yet {t cannot eurprise us that, according
to the criticism of Schneckenburger, Baur,
and Zcller, the whole of this narrative is as-
sumed to originate from an imitation of the
narrative of the eirlier Pctrine miracle in
chap. ili. “But with the miracle is with-
drawn also the fonndation of the attempted
worship of the two apostles; this, therefore,
cannot be regarded as historical, and so much
the Icas, as it also 18 exposed to the suspicion
of having arisen from sn cxaggerated repeti-
tion of a trait from the history of Peter.”
Zelter, p. 214. Comp. Baur, I. p 112 ff. ed. 3.

In a corresponding manner have the miracles
of Paal generally been placed in parallelism
with those of Peter, to the prejudice of their
historical truth. Comp., in opposition to this
view, Trip, Paulue nach d. Ayosteigesch. p.
161 ff.

* See on Matt. vil. 25, and Valckenaer, p.
504f. Bornemann, ad Xen. Cyr. vi. 2. 9.

® See Buttmann’s neut. Gr. p. 229 f. (EB. T.
266).

4 See, gencrally, Kaihner, § 493. 1, and cspeci-
ally Schaefer, ad Dionys. Comp. p. 359.

8See on Matt. xii. 18, and Bornemann,
Schol. in Luc. p. 80 f. :

? In Iken’s nov. Thes. II. p. 688 ff.

QV2 CHAP. XIV., 12-16.

in human form!' belonged, at the instance of the myths of antiquity,’ to
the heathen popular belief, in which such conceptions survived as an echo
of these ancient myths ;* although Baur (comp. Zeller) discovers here an
imitation, in which the author of the Acts shows himself as ‘‘ acquainted
with mythology.’’ Comp., moreover, the analogous conception which at-
tached itself to the appearance of Pythagoras, of Apollonius of Tyana, and
others.‘ Such a belief was naturally rejected by philosophers ;° but just
us naturally it lingered among the people (k’).

Ver. 12. The fact that Barnabas and Paul were declared to be Zeus and
Hermes, is explained partly and primarily from the well-known provincial
myth, according to which these gods were once hospitably entertained in
the same regions by Philemon and Baucis;‘ but partly also from Zeus
having a temple in front of the city, ver. 13, and from its being the office
of Hermes, as the eloquent” interpreter * and messenger of the gods,° to ac-
company his father when he came down to the earth.”° Paul was called
Hermes, because, in contrast to his companion, it was he who was ‘‘ leader
of the word”? (avrd¢ wv 6 fy x. r. A.), a3 Hermes was considered Grd¢ o rev
Adyov Hyeudv." Probably also his more juvenile appearance and greater
activity, compared with the calmer and older Barnabas, contributed to this ;
but certainly not, as Neander conjectures, his insignificant bodily appear-
ance ; for apart from the fact that this rests only on very uncertain tradition—
in the Acta Pauli et Theclae in Tischendorf, Act. apocr. p. 41, he is de-
scribed a8 pixpdc re ueyéder, Ade THY KEQaARY ayKiAog Taig Kvjuatc'® —Hermes
is always represented as a handsome, graceful, very well-formed young man."
But certainly Barnabas must have had a more imposing appearance, xai ard
TI¢ bes, aftorperhc, Chrysostom.

Ver. 18. But the priest, then officiating, of the Zeus, who is before the city,
i.e. of the Zeus (rodebc), who had his seat in a temple in front of the city.
iepov is not to be supplied, with Kuinoel and others,‘ as rov Avéc is the
genitive directly belonging to iepete ; but the expression rod dvroc spd r#¢ dA.
is explained from the heathen conception that the god himself is present in
his temple, consequently is (3vroc) at the place where his temple stands:
hence the classical expressions zap’ Ad (ad fanum Jovis), wap’ *Hpy.”” Wolf
thinks that it is spoken ‘‘de Jove, cujus, simulacrum, and so not templum,
ante urbem erectum erat.’’ But mere statues had no special priests.’* It
does not, however, follow from this passage, that there was also a temple
of Jupiter in the city (Olshausen). — raipove xai oréupara] bulls and garlands.

1 Hom. Od. xvii. 48 ff. ® Apollod. fii. 10. 2.
2See also N&gelsbach, Homer. Theol. p. 10 Hygin. Poet. Astron. 84; Ovid. Fast. v.
158. 495. Comp. Walch, Dées. in Act. IIT. p. 173 ff.
? Comp. Themist. vii. p. 90, quoted by Wet- 1! Jamblich. de myster. Aeg. 1.
stein on ver. 12. 13Comp. Malalas, Chronogr. x. p. 27;
4 Vaickcnaer, p. 506. Nicephor. H. £. iii. 37.
6 Plat. Rep. li. p. 881 C-E; Cic. de Haruap. 13 Comp. Mfiller, Archdol. § 379, 820.
2B. 14 See Bernhardy, p. 184 f.
* Ovid Meé. viii. 611 ff. 18 Jacobs, ad Del. epiqr. p. 229.
7 Vocis et sermonis potens, Macrob. Sat. 1.8. 18 See Valckenacr, Opuse. II. p. 235, and

® Adyou wpodyrns, Orph. Z. 27. 4 Schai. I. p. 509.

APOSTLES TAKEN FOR GODS. 273

‘‘Taurus tibi, summe Deorum,” Ovid. Metam. iv. 755. Beza, Calovius,
Raphel, Erasmus Schmid, Palairet, Morus, Heinrichs, and others, have quite
erroneously assumed a hendiadys for raipove écrexpévovc. This would come
back to the absurd idea: bulls and, indeed, garlands.' The destination of
the garlands is, moreover, not to be referred to the deified apostles, in op-
position to Grotius and Valckenaer, who, like statues,? were to have been
adorned ; but to the animals that were to be adorned therewith at the com-
mencement of the sacrifice,” because the design of the garlands is inclu-
ded in the Sere Grew. —émi rove rvAdvac] to the gates, doors of the gate,
namely, of the city. This reference is required by the correlation in which
émt tovg muddvac stands to rot dyrog mpd rico méAewc. The alleged incarnate
gods were in the city, and therefore the sacrifice was to be brought at the
gates of the city. The reference to the doors of the temple,‘ or of the house
where the apostles lodged, is not in keeping with the context.

Vv. 14, 15. 'Axotoavrec] Perhaps an inhabitant already gained by them
for Christ brought intelligence of the design. — d:appgé. r. iudt. air.] from
pain and sorrow. See on Matt. xxvi. 65. Not: as doing penance for the
blinded people, as Lange imagines. — éfergdyoav] they sprang out from the
gate, to which they had hastened from their lodging, among the multitude.
The simple representation depicts their haste and eagerness,—ri ravra toceite 3]
see on Luke xvi. 2. — xai queic¢ x.t.A.] evdéwe éx mpootpioy avétpepay 1d Kandy,
Chrysostom. — ouororadeic] of like nature and constitution.’— evayyeAcCbuevoe . . «
Savra] contains what is characteristic of the otherwise ouaoradeg tuiv: we
who bring to you the message of salvation, to turn you from these vain, t.¢,
devoid of divine reality, gods, to the living, true God. evayyeAcs. does not thus
mean cohortantes,* but retains its proper import; and the epexegetical in-
finitive ex:orpégecv states the contents of the joyful news. It may be cleared
up by supplying deiv, but this conception is implied in the relation of the
infinitive to the governing terb."— rotrwv rev paraiwy] masculine, not neuter,
referring to the gods, present in the conception of the hearers, such as Zeus
and Hermes, who yet are no real gods, 1 Cor. viii. 4 ff.— é¢ éroince] significant
epexegesis of the Covra, whereby the para:éry¢ of the polytheistic deification
of the individual powers of nature is made very palpable. Comp. with the
whole discourse the speech to the Athenians (‘‘sublimiora audire
postulantes,’’ Bengel), chap. xvii.

Vv. 16-18. Who in the past ages left the Gentiles to themselces, did not
guide them by special revelation, although He withal made Himself known,
doing good to them, by the blessings of nature—an indulgent description® of the
ungodly character of the heathen, with a gently reproving reference to the
revelation of God in nature. ‘Opa rac Aavdavdvrug tiv xatnyopiav ridyot,
Chrysostom. Grotius aptly remarks: ‘*Egregiam hic habemus formam

' See Fritzeche, ad Matth. p. &6. Winer, ® Comp. Plat. 7im. p. 43 C, Fol. p. 400 B,

p. 583 (BE. T. 786). comp. p. 464 D ; Jas. v. 17.

2 Comp. ep. Jerrm. 9. ¢ Heinrichs and Kuinocl.

3 See Wetstein and Dongtaeus, Anal. p. 80 7 Bec Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 738 f. ; Kfibner,
ff.; Hermann, got/esd. Alterth. § 24. 7. IT. § 647, ad Xen. Anab. v. 7. 3.

$ of pay iepot rou vees wuAcves, Plut. Zen. 12. © Comp. xvil. 30.

av4 CHAP. XIV., 17—25.

orationis, quam imitari debeant, qui apud populos in idololatria educatos
evangelium praedicant.”’ '— raig ddoic] local * dative : in their ways.? What is
meant is the development of the inward and outward life in a way shaped
by themselves, without divine regulation and influence, and also without
the intervention of the divine anger. Comp. Rom. iii. 10 ff., i. 22 ff.,
where the whole moral abomination and curse of this relation is unveiled,
whereas here only alluring gentleness speaks.‘— xairorye ovx audpr. x.r.A.]
An indication that they, nevertheless, might and should have known Him.’
Observe the relation of the three participles, of which the second is logically
subordinate to the first, and the third to the second ; as doer of good, in
that He gives you rain, thereby filling, etc.— otpavédev] not uselessly added.
‘sCoelum sedes Dei,’’ Bengel. Observe also the individualizing sxziv (see
critical remarks).— evopoctvyc] joy generally. Arbitrarily, Grotius and Wolf
suggest that® wine is meant.— rac xapdiac tuov] neither stands for the simple
vuac, nor is it to be tuken, with Wolf, of the stomach ;" but the heart is
Jilled with food, inasmuch as the sensation of being filled, the pleasant feeling
of satisfaction, is in the heart. Comp. Ps. civ. 15; Jas. v. 5.—row up Sve
airoic] comp. x. 47. The genitive depends on xaréxavoav, according to the
construction xara. rivd tivoc, to divert a person from a thing, to hinder him
in it,® and 7 is the usual particle with verbs of preventing and hindering.°

Vv. 19-22. This unmeasured veneration was by hostile Jews who arrived
(ér7A9ov) from Antioch” and Iconium," transformed in the fickle multitude”
into a participation in a tumultuous attempt to kill Paul. Between this
scene very summarily related and the preceding no interval is, according
‘to the correct text (see critical remarks), to be placed, in opposition to Ewald.
The mobdile culgus, that doradunréraroyv rpaypa Tov drdvtwy,'* is at once carried
away from one extreme to another. — xai weicavrec «.7.A.] and after they, the
Jews who had arrived, had persuaded the multitude to be of their party, and
stoned * Paul, the chief speaker ! they dragged him, etc. — xuxAwodvrwr] not
sepeliendi causa, Bengel, Kuinoel. and others,—a thought quite arbitrarily
supplied ; but in natural painful sympathy the Lystrians who had been
converted to Christ surrounded him who was apparently dead. — avacrac
eionA dev ei¢ r. .] is certainly conceived as a miraculous result. — Ver 22.
nai Ort x.T.A.] comp. ver. 27; but here so, that from zapaxadobvre¢ a kindred

1 Comp. Schneckenbur¢er. die nattiri. Theol.
d. Paul. in his Beitr. p. 97 ff.

3S8ee, generally, on the dativus localis,
Becker, Homer. Blatter, 208 f.

® Comp. on 2 Cor. xii. 18 , Jude 11; Judith
xifl. 16: Ecclus. xxxv. 20.

¢The announcement of the gorpel forms
the great epoch in the history of salvation,
with the emergence of which the times of
men's being left to themeelves are fulfilled.
See xvii. 30; Rom. iif. 25f. Comp also He-
bart, natdri. Theol. d. Ap. Pavl. p. 18. For
judgment Jesus has come into the world.

5 Comp. Rom. i. 20, cafrovye, as in John fv.
2, gquamquam quidem, and yet. See also

Baeumlein, Partik. p. 245 ff.; and Krier,
Dion. H. p. 267.

6 Ecclus. xxxi. $8.

7 Thace. II. 49. 2.

® Hom. Od. xxiv. 45?; Plat. Polit. p. 24 E;
frequently in the LXX.

®* Hartung, Partixel. II. p. 167 f.; Baeum-
lein, ¢.¢. p. 208 ff.

1@ xfii. 14, 50.

It yy, 1, 6. 6.

13 “ Ventoaae plebis suffragia !° Hor. Ep.
. 19. 87.

13 Dem. 888, 5.

14 Consequently in the city. It was to bea
dédvos SyudAeveros «ev woAes (Soph. Ant. 86).

oly

PAUL STONED. 295

verb (Aéyovrec) must be borrowed.! — dei] namely, ex decreto divino. Comp. ix.
16. — yuac] we Christians must, through many afflictions, enter into the
Messianic kingdom, fac. r. Geov, to be established at the Parousia. Comp.
Matt. x. 38; Rom. viii. 17 f. ; also the saying of Christ in Barnab. ep. 7:
ot SéAovrég pe ideiv K. apacdai pov tig Baatheiag ogeiAovot OA Bévrec x. Taddvres
AaBeiv pe. ‘*Siad vitam ingredi cupis, afflictiones quoque tibi necessario
sufferendae sunt.’’? That, moreover, the stoning here narrated is the same
as that mentioned in 2 Cor. xi. 25,° is necessarily to be assumed, so long as
we cannot wantonly admit the possibility that the author has here inserted
the incident known to him from 2 Cor. only for the sake of the contrast,
or because he knew not a more suitable place to insert it; so Zeller. It is,
however, an entirely groundless fancy of Lange, that the apparent death
in vv. 19, 20 is what is meant by the trance in 2 Cor. xii. 1 ff.

Ver. 28. Xetporovgoavrec] Erasmus, correctly : suffragiis delectos. The
ecclesiastical offices were apya? ye:porovgrai or aiperai.4 The analogy of vi.
2-6 requires this strict regard to the purposely chosen word, which, resting
on the old method of choice by lifting up the hands, occurs in the N. T.
only here and in 2 Cor. viii. 19,° and forbids the general rendering consti-
tuebant,® or eligebant,’ so that the appointment would have taken place sim-
ply by apostolic plenary power,® although the word in iteclf* might denote
eligere generally without that special mode, Paul and Barnabas choee by cote
presbyters for them, i.e. they conducted their selection hy vote in the
churches.'® Entirely arbitrary and erroneous is the Catholic interpretation,”
that it refers to the ye:podecia at the ordination of presbyters (L?). — xaz'
éxxAnoiav] distributively.'* Each church obtained several presbyters, xx. 17 ;
Phil. i. 1.!% — wpooev’. werd vyor.] belongs to rapéOevro, not, as Kuinocl sup-
poses, to yecpor. See on xiii. 9. The committing" of the Christians of
those places to the Lord,commending them to His protection and guidance,
which took place at the farewell,'* was done by means of an act of prayer
combined with fasting. The Kipioc is Christ, as the specific object of faith,
tic dv remior., Not God (de Wette).

Vv. 25, 26. MWép)y] see on xiii. 18. — Attalia, now Adalia," was a sea-
port of Pamphylia, at the mouth of the Catarrhactes, built by Attalus
Philadelphus, king of Pergamus.'*—’ Ayrioy.] They returned to Syria, to the

1 See Kfthner. IT. p. 608. Buttmann, neu,
Gr. p. 330 (E. T. 885). Comp. Krebs, p. 235.

2 Vajikra Rabba, f. 173, 4.

3 Comp. Clem. Cor. 1.5: ABac@eis.

X. p. 968, correctly remarks that the choice
was only the form of the recognition of the
charisma and of subjection to it ; not the basis

* Hermann, Staalsalierth. § 148. 1.

5 See on that passage.

6 Vulgate, Hammond, Kuinoel, and many.

7 De Wette.

® Lihe.

* Comp. x. 41, Lucian. Philope. 12, al.

1° Comp. Calvin in loc.; Rothe, Anf. d.
Caria, Kirche, p. 150; Neander, I. p. 208.
Against Schrader, V. p. 643. who finds in the
appointment of preshyters a vorepoy rpérepor ;
nee Lechler, apoet. u. nachanoet. Zeltalt. 858 f.
On the eseence of the matter, Ritech!, al/kath.

of the office, but only the medium, through
which the divine gift becomes the ecclesiasti-
cal office. Comp. on Eph. iv. 11.

"1 See Cornelius a Lapide, and Beelen still,
not Sepp.

13 Bee Bernhardy, p. 240.

13 See Rothe, p. 181 ff.

14 Comp. xx. 88.

18 See on wapars@dvar, Kypke, IJ. p. 70.

3® Comp. xx. 82.

17 See Fellows, 7ravels in Asta Minor, p.
138 ff.

1* Strabo, xiv. 4, p. 667.

276 CHAP. XIV., 27, 28.

mother church which had sent them forth. — ifev goav wapaded. x.r.A.] from
tohich they were commended to the grace of God for (the object) the work which
they had accomplished. dtev denotes the direction outwards, in which the
recommendation of the apostles to the grace of God had taken place at
Antioch.!

Vv. 27. 28. Zvvayay.] expressly for this object. Comp. xv. 80. Calvin
observes well: ‘‘quemadmodum solent, qui ex legatione reversi sunt, ra-
tionem actorum reddere.’’ — yer’ avrav] standing in active connection with
them.* As the text requires no deviation from this first and most natural
rendering, both the explanation per ipsos® and the assumption of a Hebraism
Mwy with OY (Luke i. 72): quae ipsis Deys fecisset,‘ are to be rejected. —
nal 6tz] and, in particular, that, etc. — qvoge Cipay ricrewc] a figurative
designation of admission to the faith in Christ. Corresponding is the figu-
rative use of Ojpa in 1 Cor. xvi. 9, 2 Cor. ii. 12, Col. iv. 8, of the fulfiill-
ing of apostolic work ; comp. also eicodog, 1 Thess. i. 9. — xpdvov ovx oAiyov]
is the object of d:érp:fov, as in ver. 3 ; they spent not a little time in intercourse
with the Christians.

Nores py American Eprror,

(w*) Iconium. V. 1.

This city was situated about sixty miles eastward of Antioch, on the road
between Ephesus and Syrian Antioch. In the middle ages it was celebrated as
the capital of the Seljukian Sutans. It is at present a town of considerable
importance; retains its ancient name Konieh ; contains a population of
30,000 ; and is the capital of the Turkish province of Cancarania. It is de-
scribed by travellers as a scene of destruction and decay, with heaps of ruins.
Scarcely anything remains of ancient Iconium save a few inscriptions and
fragments of columns and sculpture built into the walls. How it appeared in
the time of Paul we know not ; but it was largeand populous. ‘‘ The elements
of its population would be as follows : a large number of trifling and frivolous
Greeks, whose principal places of resort would be the theatre and the market-
place ; some remains of a still older population, coming in from the country, or
residing in a separate part of the town ; some few Roman officials, civil or mili-
tary, holding themselves proudly aloof from the inhabitants of a subjugated
province ; and an old settlement of Jews, who exercised their trade during the
week, and met on the Sabbath to read the law in the synagogue.” Thither the
two strangers, driven from Antioch by wicked, crafty, and violent opposition
of the Jews, came in accordance with the injunction of the Master, that when
rejected in one house or city, they should go into another.

3 See xili.8f. Comp. xv. 40. * Beza, Piscator, Heinrichs.

2 Comp. x. 88; Matt. xxvili. 2%); aleo 1 Cor. * Calvin, de Dien, Grotins, Kuinoel, and
xv. 10; and Mark xvi.20: rov Kupiov ouvep- many others; comp. also de Wette.
yourrTos.

NOTES. 277%

(1*) An assault made. V. 5.

The word épu}, as explained by Meyer, does not mean just this ; but an im-
petus or strong pressure, impulse er purpose, It implies here a state of mind
of which some intimation was given: ‘‘ There was a strong feeling among
them ” against the apostles—a movement of some kind. The success of the
apostles in Iconium was very great ; a multitude both of Jews and Greeks be-
lieved. They remained there several months. We have no account of what
they preached ; but doubtless in the synagogues, and from house to house,
they preached that Jesus was the Christ, and that through him, and him alone,
could be obtained the forgiveness of sins. They also wrought many miracles,
as attestations of their divine commission and of the trath of their doctrine.
Their success, however, aroused the hostility of the Jews, who were ever jeal-
ous of the old faith, and opposed to the admission of the Gentiles to like
privileges with themselves. They looked upon Christianity, not as the out-
growth and perfection of Judaism, but as its antagonistic rival ; hence their
indignation at its success, and their embittered and continued hostility to its
preachers. We are informed that the Jews sent out their emissaries every-
where to circulate falsehoods concerning the Christians, and to stir up the Gen-
tiles against them. Of the many persecutions mentioned in the Acts, all were
caused by the Jews except two. Tradition says that Paul frequently preached
long and late—that his enemies brought him before the civil authorities,
charging him with disturbing their households by his sorcery, and greatly
troubling the city. It is probable that here, as suggested by Hackett, that
they insinuated that the preachers were dangerous men, and disloyal to the
empire.

In the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla there is a legend given concerning

Paul’s visit to Iconium, the substance of which is this: that Thecla, who was
espoused to Thamyris, was deeply affected by the preaching of the apostle ;
and when Paul was put in prison, accused of being a magician, she bribed the
jailer, and was allowed to visit the prisoner, by whom she was more fully in-
structed in the Christian faith, which she heartily adopted. She was con-
demned to die because she refused to marry Thamyris, but was miraculously
delivered ; joined Paul in his missionary journeys ; finally she made her home
at Seleucea, where she lived the life of a nun, and died at the age of ninety
years.
The Acts of Paul and Thecla gives a portrait-description of the apostle’s per-
son and physiognomy, which is by no means flattering. He is represented as
“a man small in size, bald-headed, bandy-legged, stout, with eyebrows meet-
ing, rather long-nosed, full of grace—for sometimes he seemed like a man, and
sometimes he had the countenance of an angel.” Other accounts add that he
had small, piercing gray eyes. His manner was singularly winning. ‘The
poverty of the casket served to assist the lustre of the jewel it contained ; the
plainness of the setting called attention to the worth of the gem.”

(3*) Cities of Lycaonia. V. 6.

Escaping threatened violence at Iconium, the apostles went into a wilder
and less civilized region. The name, Lycaonia or Wolfland, indicates only too
faithfully the character of the inhabitants. Few, if any, Jews were settlad

278 CHAP. XIV.—NOTES.

there, and we read of no synagogue in either of the towns named. The re-
gion is described as wild, rugged, mountainous ; an almost Alpine country,
with numerous lakes and rivers, which, with the melting of the spring snows,
become suddenly rapid and dangerous torrents ; the roads were bad, and in-
fested with brigands. Lycaonia is an elevated table-land, a great part of
which is unwatered and sterile, and described as a dreary plain, destitute alike
of trees and fresh water. Ovid, writing of the place, says :
‘* Where men once dwelt, a marshy lake is seen,
And coots and bitterns haunt the waters green.”

Neither Lystra nor Derbe were large cities or places of any great importance ;
hence the apostles embraced the surrounding country and villages in their
field of evangelistic labor. The difficulties and obstacles in the way of the
apostles were very great. Yet with unwearied zeal they evangelized the whole
region. To no part of Paul's life would the account he vividly gives to the
Corinthians of his personal experience more fitly apply than to his labors
_ here: “In perils,’’ etc. (2 Cor. ii. 26). The sites of both Lystra and Derbe
are uncertain. Lystra, however, has a post-apostolic history—the names of its
bishops appearing in the records of early councils. It was the home of
Timothy, who in all probability was converted under the preaching of Paul at
this time. Here Paul performed a miracle in perfectly restoring, by a word,
& man who had been a cripple from his birth. The people marvelled ; and
believing the power to be divine, they thought that two of their pagan gods
had appeared in the persons of the apostles.

(x?) Gods in the likeness of men. V. 11.

It was a general belief, long after the Homeric age, that gods visited the earth
in the form of men. Such a belief with regard to Jupiter would be natural in
such an inland rural district as Lystra, which seems to have been under his
special protection, as his image or temple stood in front of the city gates.
And as Mercury was the messenger and herald of the gods, especially of Jupi-
ter, it was natural that he should be associated with him. He was also the
god of eloquence ; and as Paul was the chief speaker, they took him for Mer-
cury ; and the more quiet, and perhaps the more aged, venerable, and majes-
tic looking Barnabas, they regarded as Jupiter.

** Jove with Hermes came, but in disguise

Of mortal men concealed their deities.”
The pagan priests, true to the functions of their office, hasten to bring oxen
and garlands of flowers to crown the victims and wreath the altars, to the tem-
ple at the gates, within which Jupiter was supposed specially to dwell, and
there to offer sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas. The apostles, when they ascer-
tained what the people and priests were about to do, were horror-stricken.
Rending their clothes, they rushed out among the people and expressed their
abhorrence of the proposed service. We can well imagine with what impas-
sioned earnestness and vehemence Paul uttered the address of which we have
only an outline. He exclaims: ‘* We are not gods, but men of like nature and
feelings as yourselves ; that these supposed gods whom ye worship are mere
ranities, and. their worship debasing We have come to declare to you the

ce
€ Oo - * ©

NOTES. 279

one living and true God ; that this living God made all things, in heaven above,
and in the earth beneath ; that this God has never left himself without a wit-
ness in the munificent gifts of nature and the benevolent dealings of his gra-
cious providence.” This clear and cogent address scarcely restrained the igno-
rant and superstitious people from their impious act. What a contrast be-
tween the inhabitants of Jerusalem and those of Lystra! When a miracle
similar to this wus performed by Peter, he was not deified but imprisoned.
The reality of the miracle was admitted, but the apostles were straitly threat-
ened. The mfhds of the instructed rulers of the Jews were hardened and
blinded by prejudice, and they reasoned, against the truth ; the ignorant peo-
ple at Lystra did not reason, but came at once to a conclusion, natural in their
circumstances, which, though mistaken, rebukes the vaunted wisdom of the
Jewish Sanhedrim. The peuple were disappointed in being hindered in their
idolatrous design, and were all the more ready to listen to the vile insinuations
and cruel instigations of those Jews who had, with evil purpose against the
apostles, come from Antioch and Iconium. ‘The fickle and faithless Lyca-
’ onians,’’ excited and ignorant, and easily duped, listened to the Jews, and
were induced to stone Paul on the very place where but just now they were
ready to worship him. A similar sudden change, but in a different direction,
subsequently occurred at Malta, among the barbarous people, who first thought
Paul a murderer, and then immediately afterward a god. What had only
been purposed by the people at Iconium was perpetrated by the inhabitants of
Lystra. It is observable that we read of no injury done to Barnabas. Paul's
intenser zeal and fiery eloquence doubtless provoked their special ire. He
who had approved and assisted ‘at the stoning of Stephen is now himself
stoned for the same cause. Some suppose Paul to have been really dead ;
others that he was only stunned. It is clearly implied, however, that his res-
toration was supernatural. As soon as Paul recovered his strength the apos-
tles proceeded to Derbe, distant about twenty miles. Paul, in writing to Tim-
othy many yeurs afterward, reminds him of his knowledge of his own perse-
cutions ‘‘ at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra ;” and in his catalogue of sufferings
given to the Corinthians is this instance: ‘‘Once was I stoned" (2 Cor. xi. 25,
und 2 Tim. ili. 11). Paley, from the various references to this event, draws a
forcible argument for the authenticity of the narrative by Luke: ‘‘ Had the
assault [at Jconium] been completed , had the history related that a stone was
thrown, as it relates that preparations were made both by Jews and Gentiles to
stone Paul and his companions ; or even had the account of this transaction
stopped, without going on to inform us that Paul and his companions were
aware of their danger and fled, a contradiction between the history and the
Epistles would have ensued. Truth is necessarily consistent ; but it is scarcely
possible that independent accounts, not having truth to guide them, should
thus advance to the very brink of contradiction without falling into it.’ (Hore
Pauline, chap. IV. No. 9.) ;

(L*) Chosen them elders. V. 23.

The meaning of the word rendered chosen has been disputed. etporovéu,
compounded of yeiS, hand, and re‘vw, to stretch or extend, means to stretch out
the hand. Robinson gives: fo stretch oul or hold up the hand, hence to vole; to
appoint; as also Liddell and Scott, to vole for, to elect. Bloomfield says :

280 CHAP. XIV.—NOTES.

‘‘ There is, indeed, no point on which the most learned have been so much
agreed as this, that ye:porovyoavres here simply denotes having selected, consti-
tuted, appointed. Alford says : ‘‘ The word will not bear the sense of laying on of
hands,’ and adds : ‘The apostles ordained the presbyters whom the churches
elected.’’ Gloag says the word admits of two meanings, to choose by election, or
simply to choose. Meyer adopts the first of these meanings. Gloag decidedly
prefers the second, as does also Hackett, who says: ‘‘ That formality (election
by extending the hand) could not have been observed in this instance, as but
two individuals performed the act in question.” Abbott says the word is
used ‘‘ as equivalent to select or appoint, and understands the declaration to be
that the apostles appointed elders, without any indication whether the selection
was made by themselves or first by the lay members of the church, and ratified
by the apostles, or by the concurrent action of the two.'' While, as we learn
from chap. vi., the seven were chosen by the whole church, it would appear,
in this instunce, that these elders were chosen by Paul and Barnabas alone.
Clemens gives the following rule as handed down by tradition from the apos-
tles : ‘‘That persons should be appointed to ecclesiastical offices by approved
men, the whole church consenting.” This is the second mention of elders in
the Acts (xi. 30). ‘‘The ministers of the charch were called mpeoBurepoi
(elders), with reference to the Jewish element in the church; and érioxoro:
(overseers), with reference to the Greek element.” (Gloag.)

CRITICAL PEMARKS. 281

CHAPTER XV.

Ver. 1. repitéuvyo6e) ABC DX, min. Constitut. Ath. Epiph. have repirunbfre.
Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. T:sch. Born. ; and rightly, as the
witnesses are so preponderating, and the reference of the aorist easily escaped
the notice of the transcribers. — Ver. 2. ov] Tisch. Born. read dé. The wit-
nesses for dé preponderate. — ¢yr#cewS] Elz. has ovjyrycews, in opposition to
decisive testimony. From ver. 7. It is also in favour of Cyr. that it is inserted
in ver. 7, instead of ov(yr. in A, ¥, min. vss., which evidently points to the
originality of (yr. in our passage. — Ver. 4, amedéx6.] Lachm. Tisch. and Born.
read wapedéy0., according to AB D** (D* has rayedéGnoav)' ® lo“ These wit-
nesses preponderate, and there are no internal reasons against the reading. —
i726] Tisch. reads a7é, following only B C, min. — Ver. 7. év #uiv) Lach. Tisch.
read éy vuiv, according to AB C &, min. and several vss. and Fathers. But
duty ig necessary ; and on this acconnt, and because it might easily be mechan-
ically changed into tuiv after the preceding ‘nes, it is to be defended on the
considerable attestation remaining to it. -- Ver. 11. rod Kupiov ‘lycov] Elz. has
Kupiov 'Incot Xpicrov, against preponderating evidence. Whilst the article was
omitted from negligence, Xp:orod (which also Born. has) was added in order to
complete the dogmatically important saying. — Ver. 14. rp évéza72] 80 Lachm.
Tisch. Born, But Elz. Schulz have émi r@ dvoy.,—an exegetical expansion,
against preponderating evidence. — Ver. 17. After ratra Elz. has ravra, which
is wanting in ABC D &, min. and many vss, and Fathers. From LXX. Amos
ix, 12, and hence it also stands before raivra in E G, min.—Ver. 18, Griesb.
Scholz, and Tisch. have only yyword ar’ aisvos, so that this must be attached to
ravta in ver. 17. This reading appears as decidedly original, and so for: ...
avrov as decidedly interpolated : partly because B C &, min. Copt. Sahid, Arm.
vouch for the simple yywora an’ atdvos, and those authorities which have éor:

. . atrov present a great number of variations ; partly because it was thought
very natural to complete yrword an’ aidvos into a sentence, and to detach it from
ver. 17, inasmuch as no trace of yyword ax’ aidvos was found in Amos ix. 12 ;
partly, in fine, because, if for: . . . abrod is genuine, ver. 18 contains a
thought so completely clear, pious, and unexceptionable, so inoffensive, too,
as regards the connection, and in fact noble, that no reason can be conceived
for the omission of gor: . . . atrov, and for the numerous variations in the
words. Lachm. has ywwordv dr’ aiwyas ro Kuply rd épyav atrod, after A D, Arm.
Vulg. Cant. Ir., which betrays a still later origin than the Recepla, as the
genuine yruora an’ alaros first gave occasion to the casting of the sentence in
the plural form, but afterwards, in order to bring forward the special reference
to the Zpyoy in question of the conversion of the Gentiles, the change into the
singular form was adopted. Matth. has entirely erased ver. 18, without
evidence. — Ver. 20. xai roi rvixron) is, following Mill, erased by Born. as a
later addition ; Ambrosiaster already explains the words as such, and, indeed,
as proceeding from the stricter observance of the Greeks. But they are)only

282 . CHAP. xv., 1-4.

wanting in D, Cant. Ir. Tert. Cypr. Pacian. Fulgent. Hier. Gaudent. Eucher.
Ambrosiast., of whom several omit them only in ver, 29. The omission is ex-
plained from Lev. xvii. 13, where the eating of things strangled generally is
not forbidden, but only the pouring out of the blood is made a condition ; and
from the laxer view of the Latins. After ver. 20 (so, too, in ver. 29 after
wopvelas), D, min. vss, and Fathers have the entirely irrelevant addition from
Matt. vii. 12: nai d0a (or o0a dv) ud OéiAwow éavrois yiveoBat, érépors py Troreiv
(woceire). — Ver, 22. émtxad.] Lachm. has xaAovuevor, also commended by Griesb.,
according to decisive evidence, and adopted by Tisch. and Born. Rightly : the
former is an interpretation. — Ver. 23. xa? of adeAgoi] A B C D &* lo" 13, Arm.
Vulg. Cant. and some Fathers have merely adeAgo/, which Lachm. and Born.
have adopted.' But the omission of ‘xai of is on hierarchical grounds, for which
reason also 34 Sahid. have omitted «ai of adeAgoi entirely, — Ver. 24. Aéyoures
Tepit. K. Thpeiv Tav voyoy is wanting in A B DX, lot- 13, Copt. Aeth. Sahid.
Vulg. Cant. Constitut. Ath. Epiph. Vigil. Beda. Besides variations in detail.
Deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. Probably a gloss ; yet it remains surprising
that it was drawn not from ver. 1, but from ver. 5, and so freely. Besides,
AéyovresS ... voMON might be easily passed over after SMQN. — Ver. 25. ExAega-
pévovs}] A BG min. read éxdegauévors. So Lachm. A stylistic correction. — Ver.
28. Instead of rv éxavaye. rovtTwy is to be written, with Lachm., according to
preponderating evidence, rovrwyv rov éx. ; Tisch. has erased rovrwr, yet only
after A and some min. and Fathers. — Ver. 30. 7Afov] Lachm. and Born. read
xaT7A9ov, which is so decidedly attested (A B C D ®&) that it may not be derived
from ver. 1. The compounds of épyeoGur were often neglected. — Ver. 33, azos-
telAavras abrovs] Elz. reads amoarédjovs, contrary to A B C D ®&, min. and
several vas. and Fathers. A.more precisely defining addition, which, taken
into the text, supplanted the original. — After ver. 33, Elz. Scholz, Born. have
(ver, 34) : édoge d8 re TiAg Excueivac abrod, to which D and some vss. and Cassiod.
add : uévos d2? "lotdas exopevOn (so Bornemann), Condemned by Mill, Griesb.
Matthaei, also deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., according to AB EG H &, min.
Chrys. Theophyl. and several vss. A hasty addition on uccount of ver. 40.—
Ver. 37. eBovAevoaro}] Lachm. reads ésovAero, which also Griesb. recommended,
after ABCE 8, min. Born., following D, reads évovAevero. While the two
verbs are frequently (comp. on v. 33) interchanged, éovAero is here to be pre-
ferred on account of its far preponderant attestation. — Ver. 40. Ocot] A B D &,
min. vss, have Kupiov. So Lachm. Tisch, also Born., who only omits roi,
following D*. Oevi is from xiv. 26.

" Vv. 1, 2. The Jewish-Christian opinion, that the Gentiles could only in
the way of circumcision and observance of the law—that is, in the way of
Jewish Christianity—obtain the salvation of the Messianic kingdom, wus
by no means set aside by the diffusion of Christianity among the Gentiles,
which had so successfully taken place since the conversion of Cornelius.
On the contrary, it was too closely bound up with the whole training and
habit of mind of the Jews, especially of those who were adherents of the
Pharisees,? not tv have presented, as the conversions of the Gentiles

1 Approved by Buttmann in the Stud. wu. ®* Comp. Ewald, p. 464 f.
Arié. 1860, p. 338.

DELEGATES SENT TO JERUSALEM. 283

increased, an open resistance to the freedom of the Gentile brethren from
the law,—a freedom which exhibited itself in their whole demeanour to
the scandal of the strict legalists,—and to have made the question on which
it hinged the most burning question of the time. This opposition—the
most findamental and most dangerous in the apostolic church, for the
overcoming of which the whole further lubour of a Paul was requisite—
emerged in the very central seat of Gentile Chiistianity itself at Antioch ;
whither some! from Juduea, trav weriorevxétwv ard r7¢ aipecews TOV Sapioaiuy,”
came down with this doctrive : Jf ye shall nut have been circumcised (repitpn6.,
see the critical remarks) according to the custom ordered by Moses, and so have
taken upon you the obligation of obedience to the whole law, Gal. v. 8, ye
cannot obtain the salwation in Christ! (m"). —ordoews® x. Cnrhoewc ; *
division and disputation. — éragav| namely, the adeAgoi, ver. 1, the Christians
of Antioch, comp. ver. 3. — Jerusalem was the mother-church of all Chris-
tianity ; here the apostles had their abode, who, along with the presbyters
of the church, occupied for the Christian theocracy « position similar to
that of the Sanhedrim. Comp. Grotius. The recognition of this on the
part of Paul is implied in Gal. ii. 1, 2.—sxai rivac adore ef avrdy] among
whon, according to Gal. ii. 1, was Titus, not named at all in the Acts, un-
less Paul voluntarily took him as companion, which is more suitable to the
expression in Gal. ii. 1.— We may add that the commission of the church,
under which Paul made the journey, is by no means excluded by the state- .
ment: xara amoxdAvyy, Gal. ii. 2; see on Gal. U.c. Subtleties directed
against our narrative may be seen in Zeller, p. 224 f. — cgrnua, quaestia, i.e.
question in dispute, in the N. T. only in the Book of Acts; often in Greek
writers.

Ver. 3. Iporeughivrec] after they were sent forth, deducti, i.e. escorted for a
part of the way.® Morus and Heinrichs: ‘‘rebus ad iter suscipiendum
necessariis instructi.’’ That, however, must have been suggested by the
context, as in Titus iii. 13. The provision with necessaries for the journey
is understood of itself,‘ but is not contained in the words. — roi¢ adeAgaic |
They caused joy by their visit and by their narratives, not only to the
Jewish-Christians,’ but to ald.

Vv. 4, 5. Mapedéxfyoav (see the critical remarks) denotes, in keeping with
the delegation in ver. 2 f., the reception, i.e. the formal receiving of the
delegates as such." Observe the prefixing of fxxaAyoia ; comp. Phil. i. 1. —
wer’ avrav} see on xiv. 27; comp. dc avrav, ver. 12. — Ver. 5 belongs to the
narrative of Luke, who here records as worthy of remark, that at the very
first meeting of the delegates with the church receiving them, the very
same thing was maintained by some who rose up in the assembly (éfavéoryo.),

1 According to Epiphan. Haer. %, Cerin- 8 Comp. 8 John 6; Herod. 1. 111, viii. 124,

thus is supposed to have been among them. 126; Plat. Menex. p. 286 D; Soph. O. C. 1668.
® As Syr. p. has on the margin, and codd. 8. * Although the travellers, on account of the
187 in the text, as a certainly correct gloss, hospitality of the churches, which they visited
gee ver. 5. by tho way, certainly needed but little.
§ xxiii. 7,10; Soph. 0. 2. 634. T Heinrichs.

¢ xxv. 20; John ill. 25. & Comp. 3 Mace. iv. 22.

284 CHAP. xXV., 5-11.

and tvas opposed (dé) to the narration of Paul and Barnabas dca o Ocd¢ éroince
per’ avvav,.as had been brought forward by Jews at Antioch and had occa-
sioned this mission. Those mentioned in ver. 1, and those who here came
forward, belonged to one and the same party, the Pharisee-Christians, and
therefore ver. 5 is unjustly objected to by Schwanbeck. Beza, Piscator,
Wakefield, and Heinrichs put ver. 5 into the mouth of the delegates ; holding
that there is a rapid transition from the oblique to the direct form,
and that éAeyov is to be supplied after ésavéor. dé. A harsh and arbitrary
view, a8 the change in form of the discourse must naturally and necessarily
have been suggested by the words, as ini. 4 and xvii. 3. That the depu-
tation had already stated the object of their mission, was indeed self-
evident from aredéx6noav, and hence it was not requisite that Luke should
particularly mention it. —avzoic] namely, the Gentile-Christians, as those
to whom the narrative dca 6 Oed¢ éx. yu. avz. had chiefly reference ; not the
tivag GAAouc, ver. 2,! which is erroneously inferred from Gal. ii. — They
must be circumcised, etc., has a dictatorial and hierarchical tone.

Ver. 5. The consultation of the apostles and presbyters concerning this
assertion (epi rod Adyou ruvrov, see ver. 5) thus put forward here afresh, was
not confined to themselves — Schwanbeck, who here assumes a confusion of
sources — but took place in presence, and with the assistance, of the whole
church assembled together, as is evident from ver. 12, comp. with ver. 22, and
most clearly from ver. 25, where the ardaroAo xai of pecBirepot xai oi adeAgoi
ver, 23, write of themselves : édoSev gus yevouévorc ovollusadéy. Against this
it has been objected that no place would have sufficed to hold them, and
therefore it is maintained that only deputies of the church took part ;* but
this is entirely arbitrary, as the text indicates nothing of such a limitation,
and the locality is entirely unknown to us, — This assembly and its trans-
actions are not at variance with Gal. ii. 1 ff., in opposition to Baur, Zeller,
Hilgenfeld, Hausrath, where, indeed, they are presupposed as known to
the readers by avroi¢ in ver. 2, as well as by ver. 3 and ver. 5. Hofmann,
N. T.. 1. p. 126, judges otherwise, but by a misinterpretation of Gal. ii.
4 ff. The words xar’ idiav dé roi¢ doxover, Gal. il. 2, betoken a separate dis-
cussion, different from these public discussions? (N*).

Ver. 7. ModAne dé ovintrioeuc yevouévac] These were the preliminary debates
in the assembly, before Peter, to whom the first word belonged, partly by
reason of his apostolic precedence, partly and especially because he was the
first to convert the Gentiles, rose up and delivered a connected address.‘
In this previous 7oAAq ovsarnowe may have occurred the demand for the cir-
cumcision of Titus, indirectly mentioned in Gal. ii. 3. See on Gal. l.c. —
ag’ quEpav apxaiwy] does not point to the conversion of Cornelius as to some-
thing long since antiquated and forgotten.® But certainly that selection of

4 There is no farther mention of Peter in
the Book of Acts.—-The reference to the con-

1 Lekebusch.
2 Mosheim, de red. Chriet. ante Const. M. p.

117, Kuinoel, Neander.

3See on Gul. dc. ; comp. also Lekebusch,
p. 24 ff ; Lechler, p. 896 ff. ; Ritechl, ad‘kath.
K. p. 130; Trip, Paulus nach d. Apostelgesch.
p. 96 ff. ; Oertel, p. 232 ff.

version of Cornelius 1s introduced, according
to Baur, simply in pureuance of the consistent
plan of the author, who makes Peter thus
speak after the manner of Paul.

§ Baur, I. p. 91, ed. 2

PETER’S ADDRESS. 285

Peter as the first converter of the Gentiles, viewed in relation to the entire
period, during which Christianity had now existed, dated from ancient days,

Acts. x. 11. — év quiv éfeAésaro x.r.4.] He made choice for Himself among us,

that by my mouth, etc. Hence éué is not to be supplied, as Ulshausen, fol-

lowing older commentators, holds. Others—Grotius, Wolf, Bengel, Hein-

richs, Rosenmiller, Kuinoel, and many others—unnecessarily take év #uiv for

jac as a Hebraism in accordance with 3 ‘13.' Beza aptly says: ‘‘ habito

inter nos delectu voluisse.’’ — Luke has the word evayyédcov only here and

in xx, 24, not at all in the Gospel. Jvhn also has it not.

Vv. 810. God who knows the heart, who thus could not be deceived in
the matter,* has, in reference to this their admission effected by my instru-
mentality into the fellowship of the gospel and of faith (ver. 7), done two
things. He has (a) positively borne matter-of-fact witness for them, to their
qualification for admission, by His giving to them the Holy Spirit, as to us ;?
and (b) negatively, He made in no way distinction between us and them, after
He by faith, of which He made them partakers through the gospel, had
purified their hearts. God would have made such a distinction, if, after
this ethical* purification of the heart effected by faith, He had now required
of them, for their Christian standing, something else, namely, circumcision
and other works of the law; but saith, by which He had morally purified
their inner life, was to Him the sole requisite for their Christian standing
without distinction, as also with us. Observe on (a), that doc avroi¢ x.7.A.
is contempororaneous with éuapripyorry, expressing, namely, the mode of it ;
and on (5), that r. 1. xafapicac is previous to the ovdév diéxpeve. This is evi-
dent from the course of the speech, as the faith must have been already
present before the communication of the Spirit.°— Ver. 10. Accordingly as
the matter now stands (viv ov). — ri weipacete rov Oedv ,| i.e. why do ye put
it to the test, whether God will abandon His attestation of non-observance
already given to the Gentiles, or assert His punitive power against human
resistance? ‘‘ Apostrophe ad Pharisiios ct severus elenchus,’’ Bengel. —
Excteivac] with the design to impose, etc. — Cvyév] comp. Gal. v. 1, and Chry-
sostom in loc, > t@ Tov Cvyov arcuate td Bap) rou mpayparoc, Of the complete ob-
servance of the law, avroic évdeixvuraz. Contrast to this yoke: Matt. xi. 29,
30. — of rarépec gu] since the time of Moses,

Ver. 11. ’A2Aa] A triumphant contrast to the immediately preceding év
obre of mwarépes nucv obTe muetc iaxia. Baor. — dia THC xap.t. Kup. "I.]® Not
elsewhere used by Peter. In triumphant contrast to the yoke of the law,
it is here placed first. —xaf? dy zpdrov xaxecvor| 8c. meotebover awlpvat dt TI¢

yaptrog tov xup. 'Inaoi.
whole debate relates.

11 Sam. xvi. 9, 10; 1 Kings viii. 16; 1
Chron, xxviii. 4,5: Neh. ix. 7.and the LXX.
at thosc places. So aleo Ewald.

® Comp. 1. 24.

3 Comp. x. 44, xi. 15 ff.

4 Weiss, Petr. Lehrbegr. p. 3231, thinks that
it ta in the ceremonial senee, oo that the idea
only allusizely pasecs over into that of ethical

The éxeivor are the CGentile-Christians, to whom the
Others, Calvin, Calovius, Wolf, and many older

cleansing. But ras xcapdias points only to the
moral sphere. Comp. Weiss himeelf, p. 274 f.
This mora] cleansing presupposex, moreover,
the reconciliation appropriated by faith; see
1 Pet. 1. 18.

8 Comp. xi. 17.

* Comp. Rom. v. 15, 1. 7; 1 Cor. 1.8; 3 Cor.
1. 2, xiii. 13; Eph. 1.9; Phil. i. 2 ;8 Thess. |. 2.

286 CHAP. XVv., 12-17.

commentators, following Augustine, against Pelagius, make it apply to
narépec yuav. Incorrectly, as the salvation of the Jewish fathers, servati
fuerunt is supplied, is quite alien from the question concerning the ourzpia
of the Gentile-Christians here. But the complete equalization of both
parties is most fitly brought out at the close; after its having been pre-
viously said, they as well as we, it is now said, we as well as they. Thus the
equalizing is formally complete.—That Peter in the doctrine of the right-
eousneas of faith was actually as accordant with Paul us he here expresses
himself, is, in opposition to Baur, Schwegler, Hilgenfeld, and Zeller, to be
inferred even from Gal. ii. 15 ff., where Paul acknowledges his and Peter's
common conviction, after he had upbraided the latter, ver. 14 for the
inconsistency of his conduct at Antioch.'

Ver. 12. The result of this speech was that the whole assembled multi-
tude (ray rd Agfoc) was silent, so that thus a new ov.yrnoc¢ did not begin,
and the agitation of the opponents was set at rest. A happy beginning
for the happy issue. Now Barnabas and Paul could without contradiction
confirm the view of Peter by the communication of thcir own apostolic
experiences among the Gentiles,—Barnabas jirst, on account of his older
and closer relation to the church. Comp. on ver. 25. —oqueia x. tépara]
Comp. generally also Rom. xv. 19; 2 Cor. xii. 12, hence so much the less
improbable (Zeller).

Ver. 13. When these had finished speaking (o:)70a:), James, not the son
of Alphaeus, but the brother of the Lord (xii. 17), a strict legalist, and highly
esteemed in Jerusalem as chief leader of the church, delivered his address
having reference to these matters (amexpit7). He first confirmed, by 2
prophetic testimony, the divine call of the Gentiles brought into promi-
nence by Peter, vv. 13-17. and then made his conciliatory proposal for
the satisfaction of both parties—in concise, but all the more weighty
language (0’).

Vv. 14-17. Zvpedv] formed after the Hebrew }\yDwW,* while the more
usual Yivwy"® corresponds to the Rabbinical \n°D. In the Talmud also
both forms of the name are used side by side. Moreover, the original
name of Peter was still the current one in the church of Jerusalem.‘
We are not to think of any intentional use of it in this passage, that
Peter was not here to be regarded according to his apostolic dignity,
Baumgarten. — éreoxé. AaB. && ev. Dadv rd dv. aitov] he looked to, took
care for, the receiving from the Gentiles a people for His name, i.e. apeople
of God, a people that bore the name of God as their rwier and proprietor.
‘‘Egregium paradoxon,’’ Bengel.*— Ver. 15. roirw] neuter: and with this,
namely, with this fact expressed by Aafeiv é& Efvav x.7.A., agree, etc. —
xaboc yéypaxta] He singles out from the Zoyoi ray mp0. & passage, comp.
Xx. 35, in conformity with which that agreement takes place, namely,
Amos ix. 11, 12, quoted freely by Luke after the LXX. Amos predicts

1 Comp. on Gal. 7.c. > also Baumgarten, p. 31 Chron. iv. 20.
480 f. ; Lekebusch, p. 800 ff. 4 Comp. on Lake xxiv. $4.

72 Pet. i. 13; LXX. Gen. xxix. 39; Lnke Hf. * Comp. xvili. 10; Rom. ix. 24-26.
23, fil. 80; Acta xill. 1; Rev. vil 7.

ADDRESS OF JAMES, 287

. the blessed Messianic era, in which not only the Davidic theocracy, fallen
into decay by the division of the Kingdom, will be again raised up, ver.
16, but also foreign nations will join themselves to it and be converted
to the worship of Jehovah. According to the theocratic character of
this prophecy, it has found its Messianic historical fulfilment in
the reception of the Gentiles into Christianity, after that thereby
the Davidic dominion, in the higher and antitypical sense of the Son
of David (Luke i. 82), was re-established. — era raira] Hebrew and
LXX. : év rg quépe exeivg. The meaning is the same : after the pre-Messianic
penal judgments, in the day of the Messianic restoration. — dvacrpépo xai
avuxodon7ow)] Jehovah had withdrawn from His people ; but now He promises
by the prophet : I will return and build again the fallen, by desolation, taber-
nacle of David. Many assume the well-known Hebraism: iterum (2\W®)
aedificabo. This would only be correct were 3)¥® in the original ; but there
stands only D’pe, and in the LXX. only avacrfow; and the idea of iterum
18 very earnestly and emphatically presented by the repetition of dvocxod. and
by avopf, — ryv oxnvyv Aavid] The residence of David, the image of the the-
ocracy, is represented as a torn down and decayed tabernacle, ‘‘ quia ad mag-
nam tenuitatem res ejus redactae erant,’’ Bengel. — éruc] not the result,
but the design, with which what is promised in ver. 16 is to take place.—
vi xatadotrot Tov aviip.] i.e. the Gentile. The LXX., whocertainly had before
them another reading (WT WR OW WIRY wT 12), deviate consider-
ably from the original text, which runs: DYW MRR wy 109, that
they may possess the remainder of Edom ; the remainder, for Amaziah had again
subdued only a part of it, 2 Kings xiv. 7. Asxai mavra ra éHvy «.7.A. fol-
lows, James might have used even these words, as they are in the original,
for his object,' and therefore no set purpose is to be assumed for his having
piven them according to the reading of the LXX. Perhaps they were only
known to him and remembered in thaé reading ; but possibly also they are
only rendered in this form by Luke, or the Greek document used by him,
without being so uttered by James, who spoke in Hebrew. — nai ravra ra
édvy «.7.A.] nai after oi xarad. r. avip. 18 necessarily explicative, and indeed,
and the emphasis of this more precise definition lies on zayra ; but the fol-
lowing ég' vic hasan argumentative purpose: they upon whom, i.e. seeing that,
indeed, upon all the Gentiles, etc. — é@° of¢ exixéxA. r. dv. pov] quite a He-
brew expression :* upon whom com oy . » « WOR) is named, is uttered as nam-
ing them, my name, namely, as the name of their Lord, after whom they are
designated, so that they are called ‘‘ God's people.’** They have the name
already, inasmuch as the predicted future ‘ is conceived as having already
taken place, and as existing, in the counsel of God ; a praeteritum prophe-
ticum, as in Jas. v. 2, 8. The view, in itself inadmissible, of Hitzig and

1 Comp. Hengstenberg, CArisiol. 1. p. 456. «eAccw a8 denoting an accessory naming, comp.
2Gesenius, Thee. ITI. p. 1282. especially Herod. vill. 44 (ctvropagéuewon . . .
2The Greek would say: ot xdxAnvras (Or éwexAqOycay), Comp. Jas. li.7; Deut. xxvill.
éwecdxAqvra) rd dvoud pov, OF oi¢ xéxAnracrdo 10; Iea.ixill. 19 ; Jer. xtv.9; Dan. ix. 19; Bar.
dvoua pov, OF even é¢’ ol¢ adxAyras +. 0. uw. On 1.13; 2 Mace. vili. 15.
«mcadeir, to be distinguished from the «imple 4Comp. Rom. ix. % f.

288 CHAP. XV., 18-20.

others: ‘‘over whom my name, as that of their conqueror, has been formerly
named," was certainly not that of James. — én’ avrobc}] is here to be ex-
plained not from the Greek use of the repetition of the pronoun,’ but as an
imitation of the Hebrew.* — 6 rodv ravra yvwora an’ aidvoc] Such is to be
considered as the original text ; the other words, ver. 18, are to be deleted.
See the critical remarke. The Lord who does these things, the rebuilding of
the theocracy and the conversion of all Gentiles designed by it—known from
the beginning. The yvword az’ aidvog added to the prophetic words are not
to be considered as the speaker’s owen significant gloss accompanying the pro-
phetic saying, for such a gloss would not have been so directly or so curtly
udded ; but as part of the scripturul passage itself. The words must at that
time either have belonged to the original text, as it presented itself to James,
or to the text of the LXX., as Luke gives it, or to both, as areading which
is now no longer extant ;* whereas there is now at the conclusion of ver.
11, p>iy ‘29 (LXX.: xatog ai yuépat tov aidvoc). — yvwora] equivalent to
yvwora dvra, and therefore without an article. By whom they were known
from the beginning, is evident from the context, namely, by God who ac-
complishes them (mo:év) in the fulness of time. He accordingly carries into
effect nothing, which has not been from the beginning evident to Him in
His consciousness and counsel ; how important and sacred must they conse-
quently appear! As Bengel well remarks: ‘‘ ab aeterno scivit ; quare non
debemus id tanquam nooum et mirum fugere.’’ Erroneously de Wette ren-
ders: what was known of old, through the prophets. Opposed to this is az’
aiavoc, Which also means from the very beginning in iii. 21 and Luke i. 70;
and how unimportant and superfluous would the thought itself be !

Vv. 19, 20 (29). ‘Eyo] For my part I vote. — rapevoyrecv] to trouble them
withal, at their conversion.‘ — émoreiAa avtoic rov axéxeoba] to despatch a
writing to them® that they should abstain—aim of the émoreiAat. — ard trav
adioynuarwv| may be referred either to ray cidwAuy only, or to all the follow-
ing particulars. The latter, as avo is not repeated with ric ropveiac, is the
more natural: therefore : from the pollutions, which are contracted through
idols and through fornication, etc. adicyqyua, from the Alexandrian adcyeiv,
polluere,* is a word entirely foreign to the other Greek ; therefore Hesychius
explains it merely in reference to its present connection with réy eiddAuv :
ahicynudruv’ THE peETaAHWEws TOY piapav Avoiwy. — Tov eiddAwy] What James
meant by the general expression, ‘‘ pollutions of idols,'’ was known to
his hearers, and is evident from ver. 29, where the formally composed
decree required as unambiguous a designation as possible, and there-
fore eidwAofirey is chosen; hence: pollutions occasioned by partaking of
the flesh of heathen sacrifices (Ex. xxxiv. 15). The Gentiles were accus-

' Fritzsche, Quaeat. Luc. p. 100 f.; Gdttling,
ad. Callim. p. 19 f.

3 Buttmann, neutest. Gramm. p. 240 f. (BE.
T. 280).

3 Comp. Ewald, p, 472, who would, how-
ever, read yrecrdy ax’ alsvos rd épyor avrod.

4Dem. 24. 16; Polyb. 1. 8 1, ili. 58. 6;

Plat. Timol. 3; frequently also in the LXX.,
both with the dative and the accusative.

6 Heb. xitl. 22; often with Greek writers,
see Loesner, p. 207.

*LXX. Dan. i.8: Mal. i. 7, 12; Ecclus. xi.
29: Sturz, de Dial. Ai p. 145; Korai on Jeocr.
p. 209.

ADDRESS OF JAMES. 289

tomed to consume so much of the sacrificed animals as was not used
for the sacrifice itself and did not belong to the priests, in feasts, in
the temple or in their houses, or even to sell it in the shambles.! Both
modes of partaking of flesh offered in sacrifice, for which the Gentile-
Christians had opportunity enough either by invitations on the part of their
heathen friends or by the usual practice of purchase, were to be avoided
by them as fellowship with idolatry, and thus as polluting Christian sanctity.
— xai rij¢ topveiac] As in the decree, ver. 29, the same expression is repeated
without any more precise definition, and a regulative ordinance, particularly
in such an important matter, proceeding from general collegiate delibera-
tion, presupposes nothing but unambiguous and well-known designations
of the chief points in question ; no other explanation is admissible than
that of fornication generally,* and accordingly all explanations are to be
discarded, which assume either a metaphorical meaning or merely a single
form of ropveia; namely: (1) that it denotes figuratively zdolatry, and that
merely the indirect idolatry, which consists in the partaking of ciduAofbrur,
so that roy ciddd. and ric ropv. form only one point—so, entirely oppused to
the order in ver. 29, Beza, Selden, Schleusner ; (2) that it is the fornication
practised at the heathen feativals, so Morus, Dindorf, Stolz, Heinrichs; (8)
that the ropux7 Gvoia is meant, the gains of prostitution offered in sacrifice,
Heinsius and Ittig ; or (4) the ‘‘actus professionis meretriciae, in fornice
stantis viri vel mulieris mercede pacta prostitutae et omnium libidini
patentis,’’ Salmasius ; or (5) the concubinage common among the Gentiles,
Calvin ; or (6) the nuptiae intra gradus prohibitos,® incest ;‘ or (7) marriage
with a heathen husband ;° or (8) deuterogamy.* Bentley has even recourse to
conjectural emendation, namely, yorpeiac or ropreiacg (swine’s flesh). Such
expedients are only resorted to, because all the other particulars are not im-
moral in themselves, but ad:agopa, which only become immoral through the
existing circumstances. But the association of wopreia with three adiaphora
is to be explained from the then moral corruption of heathenism, by which
fornication, regarded from of old with indulgence and even with favour,
nay, practised without shame even by philosophers, and surrounded by
poets with all the tinsel of lasciviousness, had become in public opinion a
thing really indifferent.’ Compare the system of Hetaerae in Corinth,

1 See on 1 Cor. vifl. 1; aleo Hermann, got-
lead. Alterth, § xxviii. 22-24.

* But that the apostles had here in view a
sanctification of marriage by the cognizance
or approval of the rulers of the charch, so
that the germ of the coclesiastical nuptial
ceremony 1s to be found here, is very arbi-
trarily assumed by Lange, apost. Zeitalt. IL.
p. 188. ,

3 Lightfoot, comp. Hammond.

4 Gieseler in Staeudlin and Tzechirner’s
Archiv. TV. p. 812; Baur, I. p. 162, ed. 23
Ritschl, afkath. Kirche, p. 129; Zeller, p.
246 ; Sepp, and others: also Wiescler, who,
however, on Gal. p. 149, takes it generally,

and only treats incest as included.

® Hering in the Bibl. nov. Brem. IV. p. 289
ff. ; Teller.

* Schwegier, nachapost Zeitalt. I. p. 12%.

1 That even among the heathen the sin/ful-
ness of sexual abuse was recognised (as Hof-
mann, heti. Schr. N. 7’. I. p. 181, objects),
makes no difference as regards the whole of
their moral attitude and tendency. Voices
of earnest and thonghtful men in Greece and
Rome were raised against a vices. Hofmann
attaches to the notion of wopyea a width
which the word, as actually used, has not:
“‘Unbridledness of natural sexual conduct,
which neither knows nor desirea to know

290 CHAP. XV., 20.

Rome, etc., and the many forms of the worship of Aphrodite in the Greek
world.' Baumgarten, Ewald, Bleek, Weiss have with reason retained the
proper and in the N. T. prevailing literal sense of ropveia. — xai rod rvicroi |
i.e. the flesh of such beasts as are killed by strangling, strangulation by snares,
and the like, and from which the blood ia not let out. This is based on Lev.
xvii. 18, 14, Deut. xii. 16, 28, according to which the blood was to be let
out from every hunted animal strangled, and without this letting out of
blood the flesh was not to be eaten.* That the prohibition here refers to
Roman epicurism (¢.g. to the eating of fowls suffocated in Falernian wine),
is very inappropriately assumed by Schneckenburger, especially considering
the humble position of most of the Gentile-Cbristians. — xai rod aiyuaroc]
denotes generally any partaking of blood, in whatever form it might be
found.‘ The prohibition of eating blood, even yet strictly observed by the
Jews, is not to be derived from the design of the lawgiver to keep the
people at a distance from all idolatry—as is well known, the sacrificing
Gentiles ate blood and drank it mingled with wine ‘—or from sanitary con-
siderations, but from the conception expressly set forth in Gen. ix. 6, Lev.
xvii. 11, xiii. 14, Deut. xii. 23, 24, that the blood is that which contains ‘‘ the
soul of all flesh.’’ On this also depended the prohibition of things strangled,
because the blood was still in them, which, as the vehicle of life, was not
to be touched as food, but was to be poured out,” and not to be profaned by
eating. The very juxtaposition of the two points proves that Cyprian,
Tertullian, and others,® erroneously explain aiza of homicidium. With the
deep reverence of the Hebrews for the sanctity of blood was essentially
connected the idea of blood-sacrifice; and therefore the prohibition of
partaking of blood, in respect of its origin and importance—it was accom-
panied with severe penalties—was very different from the prohibition of un-
clean animals, '°

The following general observations are to be made on ver. 20 compared
with ver. 29:-—-1. The opinion of James and the resolution of the
assembly is purely negative; the Gentile brethren were not to be sub-
jected to rapevoyiciv, but they were expected merely aréyeo8a:, and that
from four matters, which according to the common Gentile opinion were
regarded as indifferent, but were deeply offensive to the rigidly legal
Jewish-Christians. The moral element of these points is here accordingly
left entirely out of account; the design of the prohibition refers only
to the legal strictness of the Jewish-Christians, between whom and the

moral restriction.” Thus the word, in his
view, applies not only to sexual intercourse in
relationship, but also to sexual conduct in
marriage (%) Qrotius in loc., Hermann,
Privatalterth. § 29, 18 ff.

1 See also on 1 Cor. vi. 12,

2 The omission of «cai rov ryxros in D and
Fathers, though approved by Bornemann
(here and in ver. 29), can only be regarded as
a copyiet’s error occasioned by Homoiotelauton
(xat Tod... «ai rov). So decisive are the

witnesses in favour of these words.

3 Comp. Schoettgen in loc.

4 Lev. iil. 17, vil. 26, xvii. 10. xix. 26 ; Dent.
xii. 16, 28 ff, xv. 28.

§ Saalschfitz, Mos. R. p. 262 f.

®* Michaelis, Hos. R. IV. § 26.

7 Lev. xvii. 13; Deut. xil. 15 ff.

® See Ewald, Alterth. pp. 51, 197; Delitsech,
bibl. Paych. p. 242 ff.

® See Wolf in loc.

19 Comp. also Bahr, Symbol. IT. p. 240.

THINGS FORBIDDEN. 291

Gentile-Christians the existing dispute was to be settled, and the fellow-
ship of brotherly intercourse was to be provisionally restored. The
Gentile-Christian, for the avoidance of offence towards his Jewish brother,
was to abstain as well from that which exhibited the fundamental char-
acter of heathenism — pollutions of idols and fornication'!—as from those
things by which, in the intercourse of Christian fellowship, the most
important points of the restrictions on food appointed by God for Ierael
might be prematurely overthrown, to the offence of the Jewish-Christians.
— 2. That precisely these four points are adduced, and neither more nor
other, is simply to be explained from the fact, that historically, and
according to the experience of that time, next to circumcision these
were the stumbling-blocks in ordinary intercourse between the two sec-
tions of Christians; and not, as Olshausen and Ebrard, following many
older commentators, suppose,* from the fact that they were accustomed
to be imposed on the proselytes of the gate in the so-called seven precepts
of Noah,* and that the meaning of the injunction is, that the Gentile-
Christians had no need to become proselytes of righteousness by circum-
cision, but were only obliged to live as proselytes of the gate, or at least
were to regard themselves as placed in a closer relation and fellowship to
the Jewish people (Baumgarten). Were this the case, we cannot see why
the decree should not have attached itself more precisely and fully to the
Noahic precepts,‘ to which not a single one of the four points expressed
belonged ; and therefore the matter bas nothing at all in common with the
proselytism of the gate.°— 8. That the proposal of James, and the decree
drawn up in accordance with it, were to have no* permanent force as a rule
of conduct, is clear from the entire connection in which it arose. It was
called forth by the circumstances of the times; it was to be a compromise
as long as these circumstances lasted ; but its value as such was extin-
guished of itself by the cessation of the circumstances—namely, as soon as
the strengthening of the Christian spirit, and of the Christian moral
freedom of both parties, rendered the provisional regulation superfluous. °
Therefore Augustine strikingly remarks (c. Manich, 82.18): ‘‘ Hlegisse
mihi videntur pro tempore rem facilem et nequaquam observantibus onerosam,
in qua cum Ieraelitis etiam gentes propter angularem illum lapidem duos in se
condentem aliquid communiter observarent. Transacto vero illo tempore, quo
illt duo parietes, unus de circumeisione alter de praeputio venientes, quamvis
an angulari lapide concordarent, tamen suis quibusdam proprietatibus distinc-
tius eminebant, ac ubi ecclesia gentium talis effecta est, ut in ea nullus Israelita
carnalis appareat : quis jam hoc Christianus observat, ut turdas vel minutiores
aviculas non attingat, nist quarum sanguis effusus est, aut leporem non edat,

1 Comp. on the latter, Rom. |. 21 ff. phemy; (8) murder ; (4) incest ; (6) robbery ;
3 Comp. aleo Ritschl, al/kath. K. p. 129: (6) disobedience to magistrates ; (7) partaking
Wieseler, p. 185; Holtzmann, JudentA. u. of flesh cut from living animals.

Caristenth. p. 371 f. *Comp. also Ocrtel, p. 249; Hofmann, 2.
®See the same in Sanh. 3645; Maimo- Schr. d. N. 7.1. p. 128 ff.
fides, 7y. Melach. 9. 1. * Comp. Ritschi, altkath. K. p. 138 f.

‘These forbade: (1) idolatry; (2) blas-

292 CHAP. XY., Ql.

si manu a cervice percussus nullo cruento vulnere occisus est? Et qui forte
pauci tangere ista formidant, @ caeteris irridentur, ita omnium animos in hac
re tenuit sententia veritatis.”” In contrast to this correct view stand the
Canon. apost. 68 (ei ti¢ érioxorog ) mpecBitepoc } dtaxovoc 7 bAwe Tov KaTaAédyou Tow
leparexod gdyy xpéa év aiuare puyne avrov, 7 Onpiadwrov 7 Dunotpaiov, cadaipei-
adw' rovro yap 6 véuoc areirev. Ei dé Aaixdc ely, agopicéodw), and not less the
Clementine Homilies, vii. 4, and many Fathers in Suicer, Thes. I. p.
118, as also the Concil. Trull. II. Can. 67, and exegetical writers cited
in Wolf.' It is self-evident withal, that not only the prohibition of
ropveia, but also the general moral tenor and fundamental thought of
the whole decree, the idea of Christian freedom, to the use of which
merely relative limits given in the circumstances, and not an absolute ethi-
cal limitation, must be assigned, have permanent validity, such as Paul ex-
hibited in his conduct and teaching. — 4. The Tiibingen criticism, finding in
Gal. ii. the Archimedean point for its lever, has sought to relegate the whole
narrative of the apostolic council and its decree to the unhistorical sphere ;*
because the comparison with Gal. ii. exhibits contradictions, which cause
the narrative of the Acts to be recognized as an irenic fiction. It is alleged,
namely, that by its incorrect representation the deeply seated difference be-
tween the Jewish-Christianity of the original apostles and Paulinism free
from the law was to be as much as possible concealed, with a view to
promote union. Holtzmann’® more cautiously weighs the matter, but still
expresses doubt.‘ The contradictions, which serve ay premisses for the
attack upon our narrative, are not really present in Gal. ii. 1 ff. For—and
these are the most essential points in the question—in Gal. ii. Paul narrates
the matter not in a purely historical interest, but in personal defence of his
apostolic authority, and therefore adduces incidents and aspects of what
happened at Jerusalem, which do not make it at all necessary historically
to exclude our narrative. Moreover, even in Gal. ii. the original apostles
are not in principle at variance, but at one, with Paul ;° as follows from ver.
6, from the reproach of hypocrisy made against Peter, vv. 12, 13, which
supposes an agreement in conviction between him and Paul, from the

1 Comp. also the Erlangen Zeitschr. f. Pro-
test. u. E., July 1851, p. 53, where the ab-
stinence from things strangled and from blood
is reckoned as a ‘‘precipitate on the part of
the external Levitical ordinances "’ to be pre-
served in the church.

® See besides, Baur, I. 119 ff. ed. 2, Schweg-
ler, Zeller, Holsten, especially Hilgenfeld in
Comm. s. Br. an d. Gai., and in his Zeilechr.
J. wiss. Theol. 1858, p. 317 ff., 1860, p. 118 f£.,
Kanon u. Krit. d. N. T. p. 188 ff.

3 Judenth. und Chrietenth. p. 568 ff.

4 Fora defence of its historical character,
see Wieseler, Chronol. p. 189 ff., and in his
Comm. z. Br. an d. Gal.—who, however, still
(see the article ‘“‘ Galaterbrief’" in Herzog’s
Encylt. X1X.) identifies the journey in Gal. 11.

with that mentioned in Acts xviii. 21 f., an
opinion which it is impossible to maintain,
comp. on Gal. hi.1; Ebrard, § 125; Baum-
garten, p. 401 ff.; Schaff, Geach. d. apost.
KX. p. 22 ff.,ed. 2; Schneckenburger in the
Stud. uw. Krit. 1855, p. 551 ff.; Lechler, apoet.
u. nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 396 ff. (aleo in the
Stud. d. Wirtemd. Getetl. 1847, 2, p. 94 ff.);
Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 108 ff. ; Thiersch,
p. 127 ff. ; Lekebuach, p. 206 ff. ; Ewald, p. 469
ff.; Ritschl, altkath. KX. p. 148 ff. ; Hofmann,
heil. Schr. N. T.1. p. 127 ff., who, however,
calls to his aid many incorrect interpretations
of passages in the Epistle to the Galatians ;
Trip, /.c. p. 92 ff.; Ocrtel, Paul in d. Aposteal-
geach. p. 226 ff.
* Comp. Bleek, Betir. p. 258 f.

REASONS FOR RESTRICTIONS. 293

E0vexdc Sic, ver. 14, and from the speech in common, ver. 16 ff.! Further,
in Gal. ii. Paul is not contrasted with the original apostles in respect of
doctrine, for the circumcision of Titus was not demanded by them, but as
regards the field of their operations in reference to the same gospel, ver. 9.
By «xar’ idiay, again, Gal. ii. 2, is meant a private conference,® which had
nothing to do with the transactions of our. narrative ; nor is the care for
the poor determined on, Gal. ii. 10, a matter excluding the definitions of
our decree, particularly as Paul only describes an agreement which had
been made, not in any sort of public assembly, but merely between him
and the three original apostles ; the observance of the decree was an inde-
pendent matter, and was understood of itself. In fine, the absence of any
mention of the council and decree in the Pauline Epistles, particularly in
the Epistle to the Galatians, and even in the discussion on meats offered
in sacrifice, 1 Cor. viii. 10, 28 ff, is completely intelligible from the merely
interim nature and purpose of the statute; as well as, on the other hand,
from the independence of his apostleship and the freedom of believers from
the law, which Paul had to assert more and more after the time of the
council in his special apostolic labours, and always to lay greater stress on,
in opposition to the Judaism which ever raised itself anew.* Indeed, the
very circumstance that the proposals for the decree proceed from James, is
in keeping with his position as the highly respected head of the Jewish-
Christians, and is a testimony of his wise moderation, without making him
answerable‘ for the Judaistic narrowness and strictness of his followers.‘
And there could be the less scruple to consent on the part of Paul, as, in
fact, by this henoticon the non-circumcision of the Gentiles had completely
conquered, and he thereby saw the freedom and the truth of the gospel
securely established,* while at the same time the chief vice of heathenism,
ropveia, Was rejected, and the right application of the other three prohibi-
tions, in accordance with the yydai¢ and ayary which his Gospel promoted,
was more and more to be expected in confidence on the Lord and His
Spirit."

Ver. 21.° Tap] gives the reason why it was indispensable to enjoin this
fourfold arézyecda:—namely, because the preaching of the Mosaic law,
taking place from ancient generations in every city every Sabbath day by its
being read in the synagogues, would only tend to keep alive the offence
which the Jewish-Christians, who still adhered to the synagogue,° took to
their uncircumcised brethren, in view of the complete freedom of the latter
from the law, including even these four points..° These words thus assign

1 See evasions, on account of vrdapors, in 1849, p. 283 ff.

Schwegler and Baur. ® Comp. Lechler, apoet. Zeitalt. p. 291 f.
8 Comp. on ver. 6. 19 Lekebusch and Oerte) adopt in the main
® See on Gail., Introd. § 8. this interpretation, to which Caivin already
© Comp. Jas. 1. 95, 11. 12. came very near. Nor 1s the explanation of
§ Gal. ii. 12, Ditsterdieck eseentialiy different. Yet he un-
© Gal. in. 3 £f. derstands éxe. m the sense: Ae has tn his
72 Cor. iil. 17; Rom. viii. 15. See,in ad- power, holds in subjection, which, however,
- dition, on Gal. 11. appears not to de admissible, as not the Jews

® See Disterdieck in the Gétting Monatechr. generally, but the «apiccorres, are the object

294 CHAP. XV., 22-24.

a ground for the proposal on the score of necessity, corresponding to the
éravayxec in the decree, ver. 28, and, indeed, of the necessity that there
must be, at least so far, accommodation to the Mosaic law. Others:
nepitrov Tolg lovdaiotg ratra érioréAdew' ard tov vépov tatta pavdvovery K.T.A.,
scholion in Matthaei, Chrysostom, Lyra, and many others, and recently
Neander. Out of place, as there was no question at all about an instruc-
tion for the Jewish-Christians. Erasmus, Wetstein, Thiersch, and others
still more arbitrarily import the idea: ‘‘ Neque est metuendum, ut Moses
proplerea antiquetur ;”’ or :’ it is not to be feared that the Mosaic law gen-
erally will be neglected and despised.* Still more freely Gieseler* reads be-
tween the lines what is supposed to be meant: ‘‘The Mosaic law already
has been so lung preached, and yet there sre few who submit to embrace it.
Now, when the service of the true God is preached without the yoke of the
law, many are turning to Him, and it is indisputable that the ceremonial
law is the only obstacle to the universal diffusion of true religiun.’’ Lange,
jl. p. 183, likewise imports: ‘‘ We have nothing further to do. To assert
the statutes of Moses is not our office; there are already preachers for
that.’? Similarly Hofmann,‘ who, however, discovers under the words of
James the presupposition as self-evident, that Gentiles, if they pleased,
might along with the faith embrace also the law of Moses; to those, who
wished to become Mosaic, nothing need be said about the law, because
they would always have an opportunity to become acquainted with it. As
if one could read-in such a very important presupposition as self-evident !
And asif Paul and Barnabas could have been silent at a proposition so
entirely anti-Pauline! Further, we cannot see how what Brenske’ finds as
the meaning, considering the proselytes of the gate as those to whom the
xnpbocew took place, is contained in the words: the «zpiocev has the notion
of publicity and solemnity, but not of novelty (Brenske), which even passages
such as Gal. v. 11, Rom. ii. 21, should have prevented him from assuming.
Lastly, Wieseler® finds in the words the designed inference : consequently
these statutes have for long been not a thing unheard of and burdensome
for these Gentiles, because there are among them many proselytes. But
even thus the chief points are mentally supplied (P*).

Ver. 22. ’ExAefauévovc] is not to be taken, with Beza, Er. Schmid, Kui-
noel, and others; for éxAexdévrac, us the middle aorist never has a passive
signification ; on the contrary,’ the correct explanation is, accusative with
the infinitive : after they should have, not had, chosen men from among them,

of dgxa. It is the simple: As has them, they
do not fail him.

1 So Grotius and Ewald, p. 472.

* Thus in substance also Schneckenburger,
Zeller, Baumgarten, Hilgenfeld. Peculiarly
ingenious, but importing what is not in the
text, is the view of Bengel: ‘‘ Prophetas
citavi, non Moeen, cujus consensns est aper-
tior,”” holding that James had Deut. xxxii. 21
in view.

2In Stiudlin und Tzschirner’s Archiv. f.
Kirchengesch. IV. p. 812. Baur, ed. 1, also

adopted the explanation of Gieseler. But in
the second edition, I. p. 187, he interprets it
as if James wished to say: “a worship so
ancient as the Mosaic is perfectly entitled to
such a demand.’ This, however, is m no way
contained in the words, in which, on the
contrary, the point is the ancient preaching
and the constant reading.

4 Schriflbew. IT. 2, p. 41.

6 Stud. u. Krit. 1859, p. 711 ff.

T Comp. ver. 40.

DECISION OF COUNCIL 295

to send them, i.e. to choose and to send men.’ — Nothing further is known of
Judas Barsabas, whom Grotius and Wolf consider as a brother of Joseph
Barsabas, i. 28. Ewald considers him as identical with the person named
in x. 28. Concerning Silas, 7.¢. Silvanus,* the apostolic companion of Paul
on his journeys in Asia Minor and Greece,* see Cellar. de Sila viro apost.,
Jena, 1773 ; Leyrer in Herzog’s Encykl. XIV. p.369. These two men, who
were of the first rank and infiuence‘ among the Christians, were sent to
Antioch to give further oral explanation, ver. 27.

Vv. 28, 24. Tpdyavrec] while they wrote, should properly agree in case
with éxAefazévoup. Anacoluthia in carrying out the construction by partici-
ples is frequent ; here it conforms to the logical subject of édofe roic «.1r.A.*
— 6a yetpd¢ avrav] so that they were to be the bearers of the letter.—As the
letter was directed not only to Antioch and to Syria, whose capital and
chief church was Antioch, but also to Cilicia, we are to infer that in this
province also similar dissensions between Jewish and Gentile Christians had
taken place, and had come to the knowledge of the apostolic assembly.—

The genuineness of the letter is supported as well by its whole form—which, :

with all distinctness as to the things forbidden, the designation of which
is repeated exactly in xxi. 25, yet has otherwise so little official circumstan-
tiality, that it evidently appears intended to be orally supplemented as re-
gards the particulars—as also by the natural supposition that this impor-
tant piece of writing would soon be circulated in many copies (xxi. 25), and
therefore might easily, in an authentic form, pass into the collection of
Luke’s sources.* — xai ol adeApoi] t.e. the whole church, ver. 22 (Q7). —
Xaipev] the well-known epistolary salutation of the Greeks.” The letter
addressed to Greek Christians was certainly written in Greek. But that
it was actually composed by James* does not follow at least from Jas. i.
1, although it is in itself possible, and indeed from his position in Jerusalem
even probable. The similarity in the expression of the decree with Luke i.
1, does not justify us in doubting the originality of that expression,® as the
subdivision in the protasis and apodosis was very natural, and the use of
édofev almost necessary. — avaoxevdtovrec] destroying, subverting, elsewhere
neither in the N. T. nor in the LXX. and Apocrypha.’ — Aéyovreg meprréuy. |
without deivy, because in Aéy. the sense of commanding is implied.'!— The
thpeiv r. vduov is the Cuyéc, ver. 10, which was imposed with circumcision,
Gal. v. 8. And the vépzoc is the whole law, not merely the ceremonial part.
—ol¢ ob dteore:A.| So arbitrarily had they acted.

1 Comp. Vuilg., and see Kypke, II. p. 78;
Winer, p. 280 (BE. T. 319 f.).

2 See on 2 Cor. i. 19.

3 xvii. 4, x. 14 f., xvill. 5, also 1 Pet. v. 12.

4 wyous., comp. Luke xxii. 28.

’ See Bernhardy, p. 463; Winer, p. 527 (E.
T. 708) ; also Pflugk, ad Kur. Hee. ¥0.

®* According to Schwanbeck, the letter fs
derived from the ‘‘Memotra of Silas,’ In
this view, of course, it must be assumed that
avépas iyyoup., ver, 22, did not stand in the

text at all, or not Aere.

7 See Otto in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1887,
p. 678 ff. Comp. xxiii. 26.

® Bengel, Bleek in the Stud. w. Krit. 1886,
p. 1087.

* Schwegler, Zeller.

10 But see Xen. Cyr. vi. 2. %; Polyb. ix. 81.
6, ix. 82. 8; Dem. 893. 5. ‘*Non parcuut fife,
qui dubitationes invexerant,”’ Benge.

11 Kihner, ad Xen. Anab, v. 7. &. Comp.
on xiv. 14,

296 | CHAP. XV., 25-35.

Vv. 25-28. Tevoptvoig cuodvuadsy] after we had become unanimous. Thus
it was not a mere majority of voices: ‘‘non parum ponderis addit decreto
concors sententia,’’ Grotius. On yiveo9a: with an adverb in the sense of a
predicate, see Bernhardy, p. 887. Comp. on Johni. 15. — Bapvaf. x. Natay]
This order, after chap. xiii, almost always inverted, is justly regarded by
Bleek as a proof of fidelity to the documentary source. The placing of
Barnabas first was very natural to the apostles and to the church in Jerusa-
lem, on the ground of the older apostolic position of the man who in fact
first introduced Paul himself to the apostles. Also at xiv. 14, xv. 12, this pre-
cedence has its ground in the nature of the circumstances. — avd péros «.7.A. |
men who have given up, exposed to the danger of death, their soul for the
name, for its glorification, v. 41, of our Lord Jesus Christ. rapad. riv pyxip,
the opposite of SéAew cioa r. uy, Luke ix. 24, is not to be identified
with ridévac r. y., and the two are not to be explained from the Hebrew
WD) iY, in opposition to Grotius, Kuinvel, Olshausen.? The purpose of
these words of commendation is the attestation of the complete confidence
of the assembly in the Christian fidelity, proved by such love to Christ, of
the two men who had been sent from Antioch, and who perhaps had been
slandered by the Judaistic party as egotistic falsifiers of the gospel.*
Comp. Grotius. — xai abrotg x.r.A.] who also themselves, i.e. in person, along
with this our written communication, make known the same thing orally.‘—
arayyéAA.]| stands not for the future, against Grotius, Hammond, Heinrichs,
Kuinoel, but realizes as present the time when Judas and Silas deliver the
letter and add their oral report. — rd aird] namely, what we here inform you
of by letter. Neander takes it otherwise : the same, that Barnabas and Paul
have preached to you, namely, that faith in the Redeemer, even ‘ without
the observance of the law, suffices,”’ etc. Against this view d:d Adyou is de-
cisive, by which +4 aird necessarily retains its reference to what was com-
municated by letter.—re dyin mvebyare wat yuiv] The agreement of the
personal activity of the advisers themselves with the illuminating and con-
firming influence of the Holy Spirit experienced by them when advising.*
Comp. v. 82. Well does Calovius remark : ‘‘ Conjungitur causa principalis
et ministerialis decreti.’’ Olshausen supposes that it is equivalent to ry
dy. wv. év quiv. Just as arbitrarily and erroneously, Grotius, Piscator, and
many others hold that there is here a éy d:d duoiv, nobis per Sp. St. Neander :
through the Holy Spirit we also, like Paul and Barnabas, have arrived at the per-
ception. To this is opposed édofe, which, in accordance with ver, 22, must
necessarily denote the determination of the council, and therefore forbids
the reference of the xa? #juiv to Paul and Barnabas, which reference, at any
rate, see before on ra aird, is remote from the context. — juiv] includes,
according to vv. 22, 23, also the church, to which, of course, Bellarmin and

? Comp. Plat. Prof. p. 812 C. Paul.
® See on John x. 11. 4 3a Adyov, see Raphel, Polyd.
® According to Zeller, p. 946, these com- ® Ewald, p. 476, appropriately remarks:

mendatory words are calculated by theauthor ‘The mention of the Holy Spirit, ver. 28, is
for Ais readers, as indeed the whole book is the most primitive Christian thing imayina-
held to be only a letter of commendation for _ bie.”

LETTER SENT. 297

other Catholics concede only the consensus tacitus.1.— ra imdvayxec} the
things necessary." The conjectural emendations, én’ avdyxn¢* and iv aydrasc,*
are wholly unnecessary. That érdvayxec* is an adverb, see in Schaefer.*
The necessity here meant is not a necessity for salvation (Zeller), but a
necessity conditioned by the circumstances of the time. See on ver. 20 f.

Ver. 29. The points mentioned in ver. 20 are here arranged more accu-
rately, so that the three which refer to food are placed together. — aré-
xeoda:] is in ver. 20, as in 1 Thess. iv. 8, v. 22, Ecclus. xxviii. 8, and fre-
quently in the LXX., joined with azé; but here, as usually among Greek
writers, only with the genitive. The two differ ‘‘non quoad rem ipsam,
sed modo cogitandi, ita ut in priori formula sejunctionis cogitatio ad rem,
in posteriori autem ad nos ipsos referatur.’’’ —é dv dsarnpowvrec éavroic]
Jrom which, i.¢., at a distance from, without fellowship with them, ye care-
Sully keeping yourselocs."— ei mpdgere] not: ye shall do well—so usually,
also de Wette, comp. x. 83 — but, as also Hofmann interprets it according
to the usus loquendi,® ye shall fare well, namely, by peace and unity in
Christian fellowship. Quite incorrectly, Elsner, Wolf, Krebs, Kuinoel have
understood the meaning as equivalent to cwSfoec8e, which egregiously and
injuriously mistakes the apostolic spirit, that had nothing in common
with the ob divacde owSgva: of the strict legalists. — éppwode] the epistolary
valete,1

Vv. 31, 82. Eni rg wapaxAjon] for the consolation, which the contents of
the letter granted to them. They now saw Christian liberty protected and
secured, where the abrupt demand of the Jewish-Christians had formerly
excited so much anxiety. The meaning cohortatio, arousing address,"' is
less suitable to the contents of the letter and to the threatening situation
in which they had been placed. — xa? airoi] is to be explained in keeping
with ver. 27; and so to be connected, not, as is usually done, with rpog.
évrec, as they also, as well as Paul and Barnabas, were prophets, but with
did Adyou 7. wapexda. x.t.A. Judas and Silas aleo personally, as the letter by
writing, comforted and strengthened the brethren by much discourse, which
they could the more do, since they were prophets.1* The rapexddecay must be
interpreted like rapaxAfoe:, and so not cdhortabantur, as usually."

Vv. 33-85. Moceiv zpdvov] to spend a time.4— per’ eipfvyc] i.e. a0 that wel-
Sare (D1D%) was bidden to accompany them, amidst good wishes. A refer-

D: «i ed wpdrrovew abuovvres, Dem. 460. 14:
ai Tis GAAos eB péy éxocnoey Uuas ed wpdrrwy,
Plat. Zp. 8, p. 815 B; the opposite, xaxws
spécoay, comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p.
629, and Grimm, 32.v. ed.

1 See, on the contrary, Calovius.

* Bernhardy, p. 808 ; Kypke, IL. p. % f.

9 Salmasius.

4 Bentley.

& Herod. i. 82; Plat. Pol. vii. p. 586 D,

Conv. p. 176 E, Dem. 706. 21.

6 Ad Dem. App. IV. p. 540 f.

7 Tictmann, Synon. N. 7. p. 225.

®Comp. John xvii. &; Prov. xxi. %:
Starnpet dx OAcwews Thy YuyHy avrov ; also the
corresponding connection with ard, Ps. xii.
8; Jas. i 27.

9 See especially Plat. Alc. 1. p. 116 B: cores
Kadms Bparre, ovxi cai ed wpérre, Prot. p. 388

10 Xen. Cyr. iv. 56. 88; Hipp. ep. p. 1275, 20;
Artem. ili. 44; 3 Macc. xi. 21, 38, vii. 9.
Comp. Diseen,ad Dem. de Cor. p. 888 f.

11 Beza, Castalio, and others,

12 See on xi. 27.

13 Comp. Vulgate ; and see ver. 27, ra avrd.

14 Dem. 392. 18. See Wetstein and Jacobs,
ad Anthol. Il. 8, p. 44; also Schacfer, ad
Bos. BU. p. 418.

298 CHAP. Xv., 36-41.

ence to the formula of parting: ropetov or imaye cig eipfvyy, OF év eipfyy! —
The xai between diddox. and evayy.” is expexegetical. — rév Ady. tov Kup. ]
see on viii. 25. — At this period, ver. 85, occurs tle encounter of Paul with
Peter (Gal. ii. 11 ff.) The quite summary statement, ver. 35, makes the
non-mention of this particular incident intelligible enough, and therefore
there is no reason for the fiction that Luke desired, by the narrative of the
strife between Paul and Barnabas,* merely to mask the far more important
difference between him and Peter.‘ This passing and temporary offence
had its importance in the special interest of the Epistle to the Galatians, but
not in the general historical interest of Luke, which was concerned, on
the other hand, with the separation of Paul and Barnabas and of their
working. The objections of Wieseler to the assumed coincidence of time *
have little weight. In particular, the indefinite statements of time, vv.
38, 85, 86, allow space enough. — As to the spuriousness of ver. 34, see on
ver. 40 (rR).

Ver. 86. A7] see on xiii. 2. —2év aic] because racav 6A contains a dis-
tributive plurality.* — rag txovor] how their state is, their internal and exter-
nal Christian condition. The reference to éroxey. rove adeAg. depends on
well-known attraction. Moreover, Bengel well remarks that zac éyouc is
the nervus visitationis ecclesiasticae.

(s*.) Vv. 38, 39. But Paul judged it not right" to take with them this one
who had fallen away from them from Pamphylia, etc. Observe the yi ovura-
padaBeiv standing in sharp opposition to the cvumapadafeiv of ver. 37, and
the rovrov significantly repeated at the close. The purposely chosen amo-
ordvra, aud the decisive rejection which Paul founded on this falling away,
even in opposition to the highly esteemed Barnabas, who did not wish
to discard his cousin,® proves that the matter was not without grave fault
on the part of Mark. Fickleness in the service of Christ ** was to Paul’s
bold and decided strength of character and firmness in his vocation the
foreign element, with which he could not enter into any union either
abstractly or for the sake of public example. —This separation was ben-
eficial for the church, because Barnabas now chose a sphere of operation
for himself. Ver. 39; 1 Cor. ix. 6. And as to Mark, certainly both
the severity of Paul and the kind reception given to him by Barnabas were
alike beneficial for his ministerial fidelity, Col. iv. 10, 2 Tim. iv. 11. tT
pév yap abAov doBepdy exborpepev avrév' rd db? BapvdBa ypnordyv Eroie: punxére
arodephiva, “Qore pdxovra: piv, mpdg Ev d2 réAog amavta Td Képdog (Chrysos-

xvi, 86; Mark v.34; Luke vil. 50, vill.
48; Jas. ii. 16.

2 The added wera xai érép. rodrwv, with yet
mary others, shows how very great the fleld
of labour at Antioch was.

3 vv. 87 ff.

4 Schrader, Schneckenburger, Baur,

§ On Gal. if. 11.

¢ Winer, p. 184 (E. T. 177).

7 nécov, comp. xxvill. 28; Xen. Anad. v. 5.
9: Mem. il. 1. 9.

® Comp. xill. 18. Luke does not mention
the later reunion (Col. iv. 11; Philem. 24;
2 Tim, iv. 11), which, if the view as to the
book being intended as a reconciliation of
Panlinism and Petrinism were correct, must
occasion great surprise, as Mark wasa disciple
of Peter.

® Col. iv. 10.

10 Mark had been ot Xpicroy apverdmevos,
aAAa Tov Bpomor Tov woAvy Kai Bapiy wapaityncE-
wevos, Oecumentus,

SEPARATION OF PAUL AND BARNABAS. 299

tom). — wapofvoudc}] an exasperation.’ The expression is purposely chosen ;
it was oix éx3pa ovdé gcAoverxia (Chrysostom). But the thing itself had its
ground in the avdperivy davoia according tu its relation to the difference of
the character confronting it, ob yap qoav Aida: % FA, Chrysostom.

Vv. 40, 41. "EmcAeEduevocg Lidav] after he had chosen Silas as his apostolic
companion. It is accordingly to be assumed that Silas, ver. 27, after he
had returned to Jerusalem, ver. 88, and had along with Judas given an
account of the result of their mission, had in the meantime returned to
Antioch. But the interpolation, ver. 34 (see the critical remarks), is in-
correct, as the return of Silas to Jerusalem was a necessary exigency of the
commission which he had received. ém:AéyeoSa:, in the sense sibi eligere,
only here in the N. T.; often in Greek writers, the LXX., and Apocr. —
rapadod. Ty yap. T. Kupiov] committed to the grace of Christ (see the critical
remarks), Comp. ver. 11. Not different in substance from xiv. 86, but
here expressed according to a more specifically Christian fourm. Moreover,
the notice, compared with ver. 89, leads us to infer, with great probability,
that the church of Antioch in the dispute before us was on the side of
Paul. — rv Xup. x. Kcdcx.] a8 Barnabas, ver. 89, so Paul also betook him-
self to his native country ; from their native countries the two began their
new, and henceforth for ever separated, missionary labours. Barnabas
is unjustly reproached, by Baumgarten, with repairing to his own country,
instead of to the wide fields of heathenism ; in point of fact, we know not
the further course which he adopted for his labours..

Norges spy AmenicaN Eprror,
(m*) Except ye be circumcised. V. 1.

These words introduce one of the most exciting and important controversies
in the history of the Christian Church—the first famous controversy, which
threatened the disruption of the church into two sections—a Jewish and a Gen-
tile church—or, as Meyer designates them, Pharisee Christians and Gentile Chris-
tians. The only other topics of equal moment which have arisen are the doc-
trine of the Trinity, which shook the church to its foundation in the fourth
century—a question concerning the person of Christ ; and the doctrine of justi-
fication by faith, which was the grand central truth of the Protestant Reforma-
tion—a question concerning the work of Christ. The question which so early
and so Jong agitated the primitive church was whether the law of circumcision
was still obligatory or abrogated? whether it was necessary to require all to
enter the church through the gate of Judaism? or, regarding these rites as
superseded by a new dispensation, to open the door for all who simply be-
lieved on the Lord Jesus. The conservative party held that circumcision was
@ divine ordinance, and asked by what authority these new teachers set aside
or changed what God had established? Not only did they make circumcision
a condition of church communion, but excluded the uncircumcised from the
hope of salvation. So that the real question at issue between the disputants

1 Dem. 1105. 944; Deut. xxix. 2%; Jer. xxxii. 87.

800 CHAP. XV.—NOTES,

was whether Christianity should be confined to the narrowness of a Jewish
sect, or be propagated as the religion of the world ?—the distinction, in this
respect, between Jew and Gentile being forever done away.

The Judaizing teachers declared that it was necessary for the Gentiles ‘to be
circumcised and to keep the law of Moses.’’ Paul and Barnabas asserted that
this was directly opposed to the principles of the Gospel—that the true Chris-
tian doctrine is, “ that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself,"’
and that ‘‘he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.’’ The controversy
waxed warm at Antioch, and, as the church at Jerusalem was the mother
church, and many of the apostles were there, the congregations desired to know
-what was the view of the question entertained there ; so a deputation of en-
quiry was sent. Paul and Barnabas, and Titus also (Gal. ii. 1), were of the
embassy.

(x*) Apostles and elders. V. 6.

We know not how many of the apostles were present. Peter, John, and
James the Lord’s brother, and probably others were there ; as were also Paul
and Barnabas, Silas, Titus, and Jude. With the apostles and elders gathered
the brethren for counsel, and the decision arrived at was announced in the
name of all. After some preliminary and exciting discussions, Peter arose and
addressed the assembly. Partly on account of his age and eminent position,
and partly because he first admitted the Gentiles to the church without circum-
cision, he speaks first. His position was one of authority, but not of primacy.
And his authority was that of personal character and practical experience, noth-
ing more. In his cogent and conclusive address Peter shows that the question
had already been decided by God himself, since by the effusion of his Spirit he
had manifested his acceptance of the Gentiles. Now therefore why tempt ye God ?
Seeing that we all believe that Jew and Gentile alike are saved by the grace of
God through faith in Christ Jesus, it is neither reasonable, nor in harmony
wtth the will of God, to fetter that grace with superfluous and vexatious condi-
tions, ‘‘The Spirit of God, through the apostle, now put an end to the
‘much disputing,’ and the decisive reply derived from God's testimony had
been made perceptible to all.’’ (Stier.) All the assembly kept silent and lis-
tened to the account given them by Barnabas and Paul of the wonders of di-
Vine grace among the Gentiles.

(0%) James answered. V. 13.

‘*'We, as many others, consider that this James was not the apostle James,
the son of Alpheus, but James the brother of the Lord, who was not one
of the twelve, but was regarded the head of the church at Jerusalem, men-
tioned in xii. 17, and Gal. ii. 9." (Stier.) See also note oni. 14. It is gener-
ally supposed that he was president of the council. He was, at least, the last
to speak, and delivered the judgment of the assembly. He is spoken of in
ecclesiastical history as bishop of Jerusalem, and also as a legalist or strict ob-
server of the Mosaic law. In his address he confirms aj] that Peter had said,
and shows from prophecy that God had a purpose of mercy toward the Gen-
tiles ; and to insist on making a partial and temporary ritual a condition of

NULLS. 301

church membership was an attempt to frustrate the purposes of God. For his
part, he was prepared to admit the Gentiles, even in uncircumcision. His
opinion would carry great weight, both from his reputed sanctity and sagacity,
but also from his well-known Hebrew sympathies. He proposed that the Gen-
tiles should not be troubled on the question of circumcision, but simply en-
joined to abstain from certain things, which were either indifferent in them-
selves, or immoral, and therefore to be avoided. The great end sought in this
deliverance which was adopted by the assembly was the reconciliation of the
hostile parties and the peace of the church. ‘‘The true meaning appears to
be that the Gentiles should abstain from these things in order to avoid giving
offence to the Jews ; for in every city the law is preached every Sabbath, and
so these matters are brought prominently forward ; and thus, unless there be
an abstinence from these particulars, the preaching of the law would perpetu-
ate the offence of the Jewish to the Gentile Christians. In order, then, to
maintain peace, let the Gentile Christians abstain from those actions which
are regarded by the Jews as causing pollution.’’ (Gloag.) These are substan-
tially the views of Meyer presented in the text. And Alford says: ‘‘ Living,
as the Gentile converts would be, in the presence of Jewish Christians who
heard those Mosaic prohibitions read, as they had been from generations past, in
their synagogues, it would be well for them to avoid all such conduct and
habits as would give unnecessary offense.’’

(P*) Paul's visits to Jerusalem. VY. 21.

In the Acts five visits of Paul to Jerusalem are mentioned—ix. 26, xi. 30,
xv. 4, xviii. 22, and xxi. 15. In the Epistle to the Galatians two visits are
mentioned—Gal. i. 18. and ii. 1. The first in each case is clearly identical.
There are, however, different opinions as to the second referred to in the
Epistle. All admit it cannot be either the first or the fifth mentioned in the
Acts. Some suppose Paul to have made a visit which is not recorded in Luke's
narrative—possible, but not probable, Others think that in the Epistle refer-
ence is made to the second visit. But the date—fourteen years after his con-
version—precludes the possibility of that conjecture being correct. The fourth
visit has also its advocates, but their arguments are not at all clear or satis-
factory.

It is almost certain that in the Epistle the apostle refers to this visit to the
council, as Meyer indicates. The result of the whole discussion is thus stated
by Conybeare: ‘If the Galatian visit be mentioned at all in the Acts, it must
be identical with the visit at which the (so-called) council took place.” ‘The
Galatian visit could not have happened before the third visit ; because, if so,
the apostles at Jerusalem had already granted to Paul and Barnabas the liberty
which was sought for the etayyéAcov rnc axpofvoriag ; therefore there would
have been no need for the church to send them again to Jerusalem upon the
same cause. And, again, the Galatian visit could not have happened after
visit third ; because almost immediately after that period Paul and Barnabas
ceased to work together as missionaries to the Gentiles ; whereas, up to the
time of the Galatian visit they had been working together.” This conclusion
is clear and satisfactory, and is adopted not only by Meyer, but by many able
commentators.

302 CHAP, XV—NOTES.
(q*) Send greeting. V. 22.

The word used means to rejoice or be glad. It is only found elsewhere in
N. T., Jamesi.1. As this letter was, in all probability, either written or dic-
tated by James, this coincidence certainly suggests that he also wrote the Epis-
‘tle that bears his name. The letter written and sent to the churches was of the
nature of a compromise, framed with great sagacity and foresight as a concor-
dat between the contending parties. The advocates of freedom would be sat-
isfied, because circumcision and the rites of the Mosaic law were not to be in-
sisted on ; the other party, influenced by the discussion, and specially by the
speeches of James and of Peter, the apostle of the circumcision, would accept the
allowance made to their scruples in other matters. But their acquiescence in
the decision was only temporary. They did not relinquish their opinions, and
were soon more active than ever in disseminating them. They followed Paul
everywhere ; and to the end of his life he maintained a fearless and forceful
protest against their persistent attempts to infringe the liberty wherewith
Christ makes his people free. ‘‘The decision of the council at Jerusalem was
a great step in advance. Had it been otherwise, had they decided that circum-
cision and the observance of the law of Moses were necessary, the progress of
Christianity would have been impeded. But now Gentile Christianity could
be freely propagated without let or hindrance : all the obstacles which stood in
the way of its diffusion were removed, and the apostolic church was delivered
from legal bondage. We see the immediate effects of this decision in the joy
and confidence which the reading of the decree imparted to the Christians at
Antioch, and in the great success of Paul in his second missionary journey.
The triumph of the free Christian over the Judaizing party was one great ele-
ment in the success of the Gospel.” (Gloag.)

(n) V. 84,

This verse is wanting in the best mss. See critical notes by Meyer, who char-
_ acterizes the verse as spurious, Alford says : ‘‘On every account it is probable
that the words forming this verse in the received version are an interpolation.”
Bloomfield writes: ‘‘ This verse is omitted in several mss. and versions, and is
rejected’’ by many. Hackett says: ‘‘Griesbach, Lachman, Tischendorf, and
others strike out this verse. Most of the mss. omit it or read it variously. It
is a gloss probably, supposed to be required by verse 40.” Gloag says: ‘‘ Verse
34 is considered by the best critics as an interpolation, designed to account
for the presence of Silas in Antioch.” There is no difficulty, but even the
highest propriety, in supposing that Silas first went to Jerusalem to make his
report, and then returned to Antioch, of his own accord or at Paul's desire.
This verse is omitted in the revised version.

(s*) The contention of Paul and Barnabas. VY. 39.

They could not agree about the character of Mark and his fitness to accom-
pany them on their missionary tour. Barnabas, influenced by the kindness
and generosity of his disposition, and by his natural affection for Mark, as his
sister’s son, was disposed to take Mark ; but Paul, viewing the matter, not on

NOTES, 303

any personal grounds, and constitutionally intolerant of vacillation or weakness,
thought it was not right or fitting to take with them one who had previously
been guilty of a serious dereliction of duty in leaving them and the work several
years before. Barnabas insisted ; Paul would not yield ; and so they agreed to
part. In this dispute both doubtless were at fault ; both were angry and under
undue excitement ; nor is it ours to determine how far each was to be blamed,
or which should be most censured. Nor need we inquire ‘‘ whether Paul was
chargeable with undue severity or Barnabas with nepotism, or both, or neither,
all which alternatives have been maintained.” The contention or parorysm
was of short duration, and produced no lasting effects on the mutual relations
of the three men concerned. The warmth of their previous friendship, com-
menced probably in boyhood, fostered by mutual acts of kindness, and con-
firmed by common labors and dangers, made the breach between them all the
more painful. This variance, however, did not in any degree diminish their
zeal in their work, or permanently affect their regard for each other; and it
was overruled for the wider diffusion of the Gospel, Paul took Silas and went

his way ; Barnabas took Mark and went his. But, as Alford observes: ‘It ,

seems as if there were a considerable difference in the character of their setting out.
Barnabas appears to have gone with his nephew without any special sympathy
or approval ; whereas Paul was commended to the grace of God by the assem-
bled church.’’ Too much, however, may be inferred from the seeming differ-
ence, as Luke had no occasion to speak particularly of the departure of Barna-
bas and Mark. Barnabas henceforth disappears from the narrative of Luke
altogether. But Paul in his Epistles speaks of him with the highest respect and
affection ; he also afterwards commends Mark, mentions him among the num-
ber of his fellow-laborers, and in his last letter to Timothy, the last he wrote,
he expresses & wish to have Mark with him, as one who was profitable to him
for the ministry (1 Cor. ix. 6, Gal. ii. 9, Col. iv. 10, Philemon 24, and 2 Tim.
iv. 11). Taylor says: ‘‘ These allusions, after all that had occurred, are equally
creditable to both parties, They show that Mark had grown steady and brave,
and was not above ministering to Paul; and they prove that Paul was not so
mean as to keep up an old grudge, when all that caused it had been perfectly
removed.” The fact that the dispute with Peter had occurred just before this,
and that even Barnabas had been carried away with the temporizing spirit, may
have had some influence on the mind of Paul. Stier favors Paul in this sad
matter, as does also Calvin ; Renan takes the part of Barnabas very strongly,
and accuses Paul of pride, love of pre-eminence, and ingratitude. ‘' Barnabas,”
says he, ‘‘had not Paul's genius, but who can say whether in the true hierar-
. chy of souls, which is regulated by the degree of goodness, he would not occu-
py 8 more elevated rank ?’’

304 CRITICAL REMARKS,

CHAPTER XVI.

Ver. 1. After yuvaids Elz. has rivos, which is decidedly spurious according
to the evidence. — Ver. 3. rév rarépa avrod, bri “EAA, tzijpyev] Lachm. reads
dct “EAAnv 6 sathp atrov ingpyev, according to ABC &, min. Righfly; the
Recepta is a mechanical or designed transposition into the usual mode of ex-
pression by attraction. If the reading of Lachm. were a resolution of the
attraction, °EA%7v would not have been placed first. — Ver. 6. dckeAOdvres] AB
CDE 8, min. and several vss, and Fathers have 6:726ov, and in ver. 7 for the
most part dé after 2A@évres. Both are adopted by Lachm, and Born. The
attestation of this reading is so preponderating, that it cannot be held
as an emendation to avoid the recurrence of participial clauses. The Re-
cepta, on the contrary, appears to have risen because of a wish to indicate
that the hindrance of the Spirit took place only after passing through Phrygia
and Galatia, which appeared necessary if Asia was understood in too wide a
sense. The reading of the Vulg. presents another corresponding attempt :
‘‘transeuntes autem ... vetati sunt.’’— Ver. 7. eS r. B.] Elz. has xara r. B.,
against decisive evidence. Either a mere error of a copyist after the preced-
ing «ard, or an intentional interpretation). —’Ijcot] is wanting in Elz., but
supported by decisive evidence. If only rveiya were original, the gloss added
would not have been "I7cod (for rv. "Incod is not elsewhere found in the N. T.),
but, from the preceding, rd dycov. — Ver. 9. The order best attested and there-
fore to be adopted is: avip Maxeddv tic fv. So Luchm., also Tisch., and Born. ;
the latter, however, has deleted #v according to too weak evidence (it was
superfluous), and, moreover, has in accordance with D adopted év opduare . . .
599 oct avip x.7t.A., an explanatory gloss, as also are the words «ard mpéowrov
attov added after éorus (Born.). — Ver. 10, 6 Kiros} ABCE X&, min. Copt.
Valg. Jer. have 6 626s. Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm.
The Recepta is a gloss in accordance with ver. 7 (rvetua "Inoot), comp. xiii. 2,
or written on the margin in accordance with ii. 39, — Ver. 13. rvA7$] Approved
already by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. instead of the usual
wéAews, against which A BCD 8&, min. Copt, Sahid. Valg. Cant. witness. ri¢
nréAews Was written by the side of 17S mrvA7$ as a gloss (as some vss. have still
r. wUAnS T. wéAewS), and then supplanted the original, — évoyifero mpocevyy] A** °
BC &, lo 13, 40, Copt. Aeth. have eropifonev mpocevy7v. So Lachm. An al-
teration, because the reading of the text was not understood. From the same
misunderstanding the reading in D, Epiph. édéxee mpocevyy (80 Born.) arose,
and the translation of the Vulg., ‘‘ubi videbatur oratio esse.’’— Ver. 16. ri
mpocevxz7v] In Elz, the article is wanting, but is supported by preponderating
evidence and by its necessity (ver, 13), —Iv@wvos] A BC*D (?) &, lot: 33,
Vulg. Cant. and some Fathers have ré9wva. Adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born.
Correctly ; the accusative, not understood, was changed for the genitive as the
more intelligible case, which was well known to the transcribers with mvetyua
(comp. especially, Luke iv. 33). — Ver. 17. Instead of the second jyiv, Tisch.

PAUL AND SILAS. 305

Born. have wiv, contrary to AC GH, min. ves. and Fathers. But fyi ap-
peared less suitable, especially as a demoniacal spirit spoke from the raidioxn.
— Ver. 24. Instead of eiAngus read, with Lachm. and Born., 4u3dv on decisive
evidence. — Ver. 31. Xpiorév] is with Lachm. and Tisch. to be deleted as a
usual addition (comp. on xv, 11), on the authority of A B &, min. Copt. Vulg.
Lucif. — Ver, 82. cai xdoc] ABCD ®&, min. Vulg. Cant. Lucif. have ov» mda.
Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. The «ai easily crept
in, because with it the dative mdoz roiS remained, and because xa? 6 olkés cov
(ver. 31) preceded. — Ver. 34. jyadAuicaro] C* (?) D, min. Chrys. Oec. Theo-
phyl. have f#yaAAcdro. Approved by Griesb, and adopted by Born. and Tisch.
With this weak attestation it is to be regarded as an easily committed error of
a transcriber. — Ver. 39. é&eAGeiv 175 16A.] Lachm. and Tisch. read areAGeiv and
r. T6A., according to A B &, min. A more definite and precise statement. —
Ver. 40. pds] Elz. has eis against decisive evidence.

Vv. 1, 2. Aép3. x. Atorp.] See on xiv. 6.— éxei] does not refer to both
cities, as Otto, Pastoralbr. p. 58, strangely assumes, but to the Jast named,
Lystra. Here Timothy, whose conversion by Paul is to be referred to xiv.
6 f., was at that time residing (7v éxei); probably it was also his native
place,‘ as may be inferred from ver. 2 (guapzvpeiro imd trav év At'arpots) Ccom-
pared with ver. 8 (ydeccav yap azavre¢ «.t.A.). Usually, even by Olshausen
and Neander, but not by de Wette and Baumgarten, Timothy is supposed
to be a native of Derbe, on account of Acts xx. 4;° éxei is referred to
AépBnv, very arbitrarily, and ver. 2 is explained to mean that, besides the
presupposed good report of his native city, Timothy had also the good
report of the neighbouring cities of Lystra and Iconium ; a very forced
explanation, which Theophilus and the other first readers certainly did not
hit upon ! — yuvax. 'Iovd. mor.] The name of this Jewish-Christian was
Eunice.* 'Yovdaiag is the adjective, John iii. 22, as also °EAAnwe and
Maxedév, ver. 9. Whether the father was a pure Gentile or a proselyte of
the gate, the language employed ‘ and the lack of other information leave
entirely undecided. — zzaprvp.} as in vi. 3. — ‘Ixoviy] see on xiii. 51. What
were the peculiar circumstances, which had made Timothy honourably
known in Iconium as well as in the place of bis birth, we do not know. |

Ver. 3. Apart from his superior personal qualifications, fostered by a
pious education,’ Timothy was also well adapted to be the coadjutor of the
apostle from the peculiar external relation in which he stood us belonging
by parentage both to the Jewish and to the Gentile Christians. — AaBov
mepérepev] he took and circumcised. There is no reason whatever to suppose
that Paul should not have himself performed this act, which might in fact
be done by any Israelite.* — dia raig ‘Iovdaiovs] namely, to avoid the offence
which the Jews in the region of Lystra and Iconium would have taken,
had Paul associated with himself one who was uncircumcised to go forth

1 With this Kohler also agrees in Herzog‘s # But see remarks on that passage.
Encyl. XVI. p. 168; Huther and Wicsinger 9 See 2 Tim. 1. 5.
leave it undecided; but Wieseler. p. % f., 4 See on xi. 20.
endeavonrs to uphold the usual view. But $2 Tim. i. 5, ili, 18.
sec on xx. 4. ® Comp. on Luke f. 59.

306 CHAP, XVI, 4-7.
(é€eAdeiv) as his colleague in procluiming the Messianic salvation. Paul
acted thus according to the principle of wise and conciliatory accommoda-
tion,' and not out of concession to the Judaistic dogma of the necessity of
circumcision for obtaining the Messianic salvation.?, He acted thus in order
to leave no cause of offence at his work among the yet unconcerted Jews of
that region, and not to please Christian Judaists, to whom, if they had
demanded the circumcision of Timothy, as they did that of Titus at
Jerusalem,* he would as little have yielded as he did in the case of Titus.
This entirely non-dogmatic mutive for the measure, which was neither
demanded by others nor yet took place with a view to Timothy’s own
salvation or to the necessity of circumcision for salvation generally, removes
it from all contradiction either with the apostolic decree, xv. 29, or with
Gal. ii. 8; for in the case of Titus circumcision was demanded by others
against his will, and that on the ground of dogmatic assertion, and so Paul
could not allow that to be done on Titus,‘ which he himself performed on
Timothy. This we remark in opposition to Baur and Zeller, who attack
our narrative as unhistorical, because it stands radically at variance with
the apostle’s principles and character, so that it belongs ‘‘ to the absolutely
incredible element in the Book of Acts.’’* Chrysostom has hit in the main
on the correct interpretation : ovdév Nai2ov ovverdrepov’ Gore mavta mpo¢ rd
cupeépoy Ewpa . . . weptéteuev iva reptropyy Kadé2y. But the canon insisted
on in the Talmud: partus sequitur ventrem,® can hardly have been taken
. into consideration by the apostle,’ because Timothy was already a Christian,
and thus beyond the stage of Judaism; and therefore it is not to be
assumed, with Ewald, p. 482, that Paul had wished merely to remove the
reproach of illegitimacy from Timothy—even laying aside the fact that
Jewesses were not prohibited from marrying Gentiles, with the exception
only of the seven Canaanitish nations.© The circumstance: vid¢ yvvaixdc
x.7.2., ver. 1, serves only toexplain whence it happens that Timothy, whose
Christian mother was known to be a Jewess, was yet uncircumcised ; the
Sather was a Gentile, and had in his paternal authority left him uucircum-
cised. — Observe, according to the correct reading dr: “EAAny 6 rargp avrov
imgpxev (see the critical remarks), the suitable emphasis with which the
predicate is placed first: that a Greek his father was. wrdpyzeev in the sense
of eiva: is used most frequently in the N. T. by Luke. An antithesis to
gaiveoda is arbitrarily and unsuitably imported by Otto.

Vv. 4, 5. Mapedidovv] orally, perhaps also partly in writing, by delivering
to them a copy of the decree, xv. 23 ff. —avroi¢] namely, to the Gentile-
Christians in the towns, which the connection requires by ¢u/docerv. — 7a

11 Cor. ix. 19.

9 Eraemuse in his Paraphrase (dedicated to
Pope Clement vit.) observes: Non quod cre-
deret circumcisionem conferre salutem, quam
ava fides adferebat, sed ne quid tumuitus
oriretur a Judaeis.”’ Observe thix distinctively
Latheran sola Ades.

3 Gal. il. 8 f.

4 Comp. Gal. v. 2

§ Baur, I. p. 147, ed. 2. See,on the other
hand, Lechler in the Wurtemd. Stud. x1x. 2.
p. 190 ff., and apoel. und nachapoet. Zeilalt.
p. 419; Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p.
136 f.; Lekebuach, p. 272 ff. ; Baumgarten, I.

* See Wetatein. {p. 488 ff.

7In opposition to Thiersch and Lange,
anost. Zettait. I. p. 102 f.

® Ex. sxaiv. 16; Deut. vil. 1 #.

THEY JOURNEY TO TROAS, 307

déynata] Luke ii. 1, the ordinances. — tri trav aroor. x.r.2.| the mention of
the leaders was sufficient ; the co-operation of the church is, according to
xv. 22 f., obvious of itself. — rdv év ‘lepove.] belongs only to r. rpecSur. —
Ver. 5. They developed themselves internally in stedfastness of faith, and
externally in the daily increasing number of their members. On the former,
comp. Col. ii. 5; «a8 yuép. belongs to érepoc. tr. ape9 ug, comp. ii. 46.

Vv. 6, 7. According to the reading d:7ADov and, ver. 7, eAddvrec dé (see
the critical remarks) : Now they went through Phrygia and Galatia, after they
had been withheld by the Holy Spirit from preaching in Asia ; but having come
toward Mysia, they attempted, etc. Observe (1) that this hindrance of the
Spirit to their preaching in Asia induced them, instead of going to Asia, to
take their route through Phrygia and Galatia, and therefore the founding
of the Galatian churches is correctly referred to this period ;' indeed, the
founding of these may have been the immediate object aimed at in that hin-
drance. The fact that Luke so silently passes over the working in Phrygia
and Galatia, is in keeping with the unequal character of the information
given by him generally—an inequality easily explained from the diversity
of his documents and intelligence otherwise acquired — so that it appears
arbitrary to impute to him a special set purpose—Olshausen : he was hasten-
ing with his narrative to the European scene of action ; Baumgarten : be-
cause the main stream of development proceeded from Jerusalem to Rome,
and the working in question lay out of the live of this direction ;* and quite
erroneously Schneckenburger : because there were no Jews to be found in
those regions, and terefore Luke could not have illustrated in that case how
Paul turned first to the Jews. Further, (2) Asia cannot be the quarter of
the world in contrast to Europe, but only the western coast of Asia Minor, as
in ii, 9, vi. 9. To that region his journey from Lycaonia—Derbe and Lystra,
ver. 1—was directed ; but by the hindrance of the Spirit it was turned else-
where, namely, to Phrygia and Galatia, the latter taken in the usual narrower
sense, not according to the extent of the Roman province at that time, as
Bittger, Thiersch, and others suppose.*—The hindering of the Spirit, taken
by Zeller in the sense of the apostle's own inward tact, is in vv. 6, 7 to be
regarded as an influence of the Holy Spirit — that is, of the odjectire Divine
Spirit, not of ‘‘ the holy spirit of prudence, which judged the circumstances
correctly,’’ de Wette—on their souls, which internal indication, they were
conscious, tas that of the Spirit. — xara +. Mvaiay] not: at (see ver. 8), but
toward Mysia, Mysia-wards, in the direction of the border of that land. They
wished from this to go northeastward to Bithynia ; for in Mysia, which, along
with Lydia and Caria, belonged to Asia, they were forbidden to preach.
— Td zvetpa ’Iyoov] i.e. the aycov rvevua, ver. 6 ; see on Rom. viii. 9.

Remarx.—According to the Received text (dseA9dures . . . 2AGdvres), the ren.
dering must be : having journeyed through Phrygia and Galatia, they endeavoured,
after they had been withheld by the Holy Spint from preaching in Asia, on coming

1 Whether he also planted churches in place by means of others, Col. fl. 1.
Phrygia, is unknown tous. The founding of £ Comp. aleo Zeller, p. 388.
the church in Coloseac and Laodicea took * Comp. on Gal. Introd. § 1.

308 CHAP. XVI., 8-11.

toward Mysia, io journey to Bithynia, etc. Comp. Wieseler, p. 31 ; Baumgarten,
p. 489 ; and see regarding the asyndetic participles, which ‘*‘ mutua temporis vel
causae ratione inter se referuntur,’’ Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 1.7; Dissen, ad
Dem. de cor. p. 249 ; Buttmann, newt, Gr. p. 255 (E. T. 297).

Vv. 8-10. They were now between Mysia and Bithynia. To Bithynia
the Spirit suffered them not to go; in Mysia they were not to preach,
because it belonged to Asia. In this position of things they saw them-
selves directed tu the West, away from all their former sphere of action,
and across to Greece. This the Spirit now willed. Accordingly they had
first to make for the Asiatic sea-coast, and therefore they went directly
westward along the southern border of Mysia, of course without preaching,
for this they were not permitted to do, and thus, having passed by Mysia
(xapeAddvrec tiv Muciav), they came down to TJroas on the Hellespont, in
order there to determine more precisely their furtber journey to the West,
or to receive for this purpose a higher determination, which they might
expect in accordance with the previous operations of the Spirit. And they
received this higher determination by a visionary appearance! which was
made to the apostle during the night (dca r. vuxrdc, as in v. 19). This vis-
ion * is not to be considered as a dream, * as is evident from the expression
itself. and from the fact that there is no mention of a xar’ dvap or the like,
or afterwards of an avacrac or other similar expression, but after the seeing
of the vision the é{yrfoauev x.r.A. comes in without further remark. Ols-
hausen, however, very hastily lays it down asa settled point, that revela-
tion by dreams, as the lowest form of revelation,‘ was no longer vouch-
safed to the apustles who were endowed with the Holy Spirit, but that they
must have had their visions in ecstasy, always in a waking condition. We
have far too little information as to the life of the apostles to maintain
this.*— Maxeddv] is used adjectivally.* As Macedonian the appedrance
announced itself, namely, by dtaBa¢ cig Maxed. Boyd. guiv. It is arbitrary in
Grotius to say that an angel had appeared, and indeed ‘‘ angelus curator
Macedonum.’’ Something objectively real is not indicated by épaya den.’
— t{nrhoauev] we sought, directed our view to the necessity of procuring,
first of all, the opportunity of a ship, etc. Here Luke, for the first time,
includes himself in the narrative, and therefore it is rightly assumed that
he joined Paul at Troas. He does not enter further on his personal rela-
tions, because Theophilus was acquainted with them. Olshausen arbitrarily
thinks : from modesty. On and against the assumptions that Zimothy ° or
Siuas*® wrote the portions in which ‘‘ we’’ occurs, see Introd. § 1.—

1 opaja, ix. 10, x. 8, xvili. 9.

7 Taken by Baur, I. p. 166, ed. 3, only as
an embellishment of the history, namely, as
symbolizing the desire of salvation, with which
not only the Macedonian population, but the
men of Europe in general, called upon the
apostle to come over to them. This view
Zeller also, p. 251, consid: rs as possible. It
fs fn the connection of the entire narrative
impossible, and simply tends to obscure the

further occurrences as regards their historical
character.

§ Heinrichs, Kainoel, Zeller.

4? See Delitzsch, Prychol. p. 264.

®§ Comp. aleo if. 17.

Comp. on v, 1 f. as in Thue. |. 63, 8, 1
63. 3.

7 Comp. x. 17.

® Schlefermachcr, Maycrhoff, Ulrich, Bloek.

® Schwanbeck.

CALL TO MACEDONIA. 309

ouuBcBélovrec x.t.A.] because we gathered (colligebamus) as the meaning of
that appearance, drew from it the conclusion, that in it there was issued to
us the call of God (see the critical remarks), and the in itself indefinite
BoffSncov juiv was the call for help to be afforded by communication of the
gospel (T*).

Ver. 11. EvSvdpou.} having sailed from Troas, swe ran by a straight course,
xxi. 1. The word is not preserved in Greek writers, who have, however,
evdvdpduog and as a verb, ev durAcéw. — Samothrace, a well-known island off
the coast of Thrace, in the Aegean Sea. —r9 émioboy] die postero, used by
Greek writers both with (vii. 26) and without guépe.* In the N. T. it
occurs only in Acts. — Neapolis, at an earlier period Datos,* a seaport on
the Strymonian Gulf, opposite the island of Thasos, at that time belonging
to Thrace, but after Vespasian to Macedonia.‘— On Philippi, formerly
Krenides, named from the Macedonian Philip, who enlarged and fortitied
it, see the Introd. to Philipp. § 1.— xpéry rig pepidog Maxed. xodwvia mbAcc¢]
As in that district of Macedonia, divided by Aemilius Paulus into four
parts, Amphipolis was the capital, and mpary wéAc¢ cannot therefore in a
strict sénse mean capital ;* all difficulty is removed simply by connecting,
and not, as is usually done,* separating, éAg xoAwvia: which is the first, in
rank, colony-town of the part concerned of Macedonia." Thus it is unneces-
sary, with Kuinoel, Hug, and others,” who separate wéjic from xodwvia, to
take rpdéz7 réAcc in the sense of 2 city endowed with privileges—Bertholdt com-
pares the French use of bonne ville—inscriptions on coins being appealed to,
in which the formal epithet zpdéry is given tv Greek cities which were not
capitals.° In the case of Philippi itself no special privileges are known,
except the general colonial rights of the jus Jtalicum ,; nor is the title rpéry
found on the coins of Philippi, it is met with only in the case of cities in
Asia Minor.’® Others take rpdér7 of local situation, so that they too separate
adic from xoAwrvia: ‘‘ Philippi was the first city of Macedonia at which Paul
touched in his line of travel.’ So Olshausen and Wieseler, following
Erasmus, who, however, appears to .join méAc¢ xoA., Cornelius a Lapide,
Calovius, Raphael, Wolf, Bengel, Eckermann, Heinrichs. In this case we
have not to consider Neapolis as the mere port of Philippi (Olshausen), but
with Rettig, van Hengel, ad Phil. p. 4 ff., and De Wette, to lay stress on
the fact that Neapolis at that time belonged to Thrace, and to take tori

3% Comp. Plat. Hipp. mtn. p. 869 D, Pol. vi.
p. 504 A, and Stallb. in loc.

2 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 464.

# Strabo, vii. p. 880.

4 Sueton. Veep.8; Dio Case. xIvil 85; Ptol.
ill. 18. 9.

§ Liv. xlv. 29.

® Without any reason, Wetstein imagined
that after the battle at Philippi this city was
raised to be the capital. From the erroneous
interpretation capital arnse the reading #ris
dotiy xepady tit Mex., wodcs xodwvia, which
Bornemann regards as original. ;

7 Thos also Ewald, p. 485, according to

whom Philippi, on account of {ts flourishing
condition at that time, is aszsumed to be named
““theftret city of the province of Macedonta.”’
But pepie does not mean province (érapxia,
xxili. 84, xxv. 1).

® Comp. also Baumgarten, who elaborately
expliins puepidos, as if ris oixovsdrns stood
alongside of it, so that ris Maxed. would be in
apposition to +r. pepiéos. See also Credner,
Aint. 11. p. 418 f.; Myneter, k. theol. Schr.
p. 170. :

® See Eckhel, doctr. vet. num. I. 4. 282;
Boeckh, Corpus inecript. I. 2, No. 838.

10 See Rettig, Quacst. Phdiipp.-p. 6f:

fone

810 CHAP, XVI., 12-15.

(Luke did not write 7) as an expression of the admitted state of things,
that Philippi from that side is the first city, consequently the most easterly.'
But what reason could Luke have to make such an exact geographical
specification, especially with regard to such a well-known city as Philippi ?
It is quite at variance with his manner elsewhere. And that too with the
argumentatively (quippe guae) emphatic 7ri¢? This applies also in opposi-
tion to Grotius, who takes réAcc xoAwvia together, the first colonial city, but
understands zpwry also of the geographical situation. According to our
view, there is conveyed in 7ri¢ an explanation of the motive for their going
to Philippi in particular, seeing that it is, namely, the most noteworthy
colonial-city of the district, so that the gospel might at once acquire a very
considerable and extensive sphere of action in Macedonia. If in itself
agivud éote wéAews 7 KoAdveta (Chrysostom), this is yet more heightened
by tpéry7.—On the combination of two substantives like wéAig xoAwvia,
comp. Lobeck, Paralip. p. 844. Instead of xodwvia, the Greek uses azor-
kia OF éxorxia ; instead of wéArc noAwvia, wéAcc arrorxic¢. — Philippi was colonized
by Octavianus through the removal thither of the partisans of Antonius,
and had also the jus Italicum conferred on it.? (w’).

Ver. 13. Morayzév] i.e. not, as Bornemann and Bleek suppose, the Strymon,
which is distant more than a day’s journey, but possibly the rivulet Gangas,*
or some other stream in the neighbourhood which abounded with springs. —
ov évouilero mpooevyn eiva] where a place of prayer was accustomed to be, i.e.
where, according to custom, a place of prayer was. On vouifeadat, in more
esse, to be wont. Nut: where, as was supposed, there was a place of prayer
(Ewald), in which case we should have to supply the thought thut the
place did not look like a synagogue, which, however, is as arbitrary as it is
historically unimportant. The zpocevyai were places of prayer, sometimes
buildings, and at other times open spaces—so most probably here, as may
be inferred from ov évouifero eivac—near to streams, on account of the custom
of washing the hands before prayer, to be met with in cities where syna-
gogues did nut exist or were not permitted, serving the purposes of a
synugogue.*—raic ovveAd. yvvacgi] the women who came together, to prayer.
Probably the number of Jewish men in the city was extremely small, and
the whole unimportant Jewish population consisted chiefly of women, some
of them doubtless married to Gentiles, ver. 1; hence there is no mention
of men being present. More arbitrary is the explanation of Calvin: ‘: Vel
ad coetus tantum muliebres destinatus erat locus ille, vel apud viros frigebat
religio, ut saltem tardius adessent ;’' and of Schrader: the Jews had been
expelled from the city. ;

Ver. 14. Kai rec x.7.A.] Also a woman was listening, etc. Avdia.was a
common female name,* and therefore it remains doubtful whether she re-

1 See Wieaeler, p. 87 f. f. ; from Philo, in Loesner, p. 208.

2See Dio Cass. ll. 4; Plin. H. WN. fv. 11; * Jnvenal, iil. 295. See Joseph. Antt. xiv.
Digest. Leg. xv. 6. 10. 28; Corp. inecrint. HI. p. 1008; Vitringa,

3 So Zeller, Hackett. Oynag. p. 119 ff.; Rosenmiiller, Morgen. V1.

«See Hermann, ad Lucian. de hiet. conser. p. Wf.
p. 244; Schweighdueer, Lex. Herod. II. p. 126 ® Hor. Od. i. 8, iii. 9, vi..20.

LYDIA BAPTIZED AT PHILIPPI. 311

ceived her name ‘a solo natali.’’' — ropérvpdrwdg] 7 ra copevpa, fabrics and
clothes dyed purple, zudAotca.* The dyeing of purple was actively curried
on,* especially in Lydia, to which TAyatira belonged,‘ and an inscription
found at Thyatira particularly mentions the guild of dyers of that place.°®
—ceBun. t. Sedv] A female proselyte. See on xiii. 16, 43. — 9 6 Kip. dupvorge
r. xaod.] Luke recognises the attentive interest, which Lydia with her heart
unclosed directed to the word, as produced by the influence of the exalted
Christ (6 Kipioc) working for the promotion of His kingdom, who opened
(dujvore) the heart of Lydia, i.e. wrought in her self-consciousness, as the centre
and sphere of action of her inner vital energy, the corresponding readiness, in
order that she might attend to what was preached (xpooéy. voi¢, AaAoun.). The
Jfidem habere* followed, but still was not the rpocé yew itself. Comp. on viii.
6. Moreover, Chrysostom correctly remarks : 76 uév obv avoiga: tov Geot’ Td dé
movoé yey avtyg’ Gore kai Seiov kai avOpurivoy nv." She experienced the motus
inevitabiles of grace, to which she offered no resistance, but with willing
submission rendered the moral self-conscious compliance by which she
arrived at faith.®

Ver. 15. Kai 6 oixog argc] Of what members her family consisted, cannot
be determined. This passage and ver. 88, with xviii. 8 and 1 Cor. i. 16,
are appealed to in order to prove infant baptiem in the apostolic age, or at
least to make it probable. ‘‘ Quis credat, in tot familiis nullum fuisse in-
fantem, et Judaeos circumcidendis, gentiles lustrandis illis assuetos non
etiam obtulisse eos baptismo?’’ Bengel. See also Lange, apost. Zeitalt. II.
p. 504 fi. But on this question the following remarks are to be made: (1)
If, in the Jewish and Gentile families which were converted to Christ, there
were children, their baptism is to be assumed in those cases, when they
were so far advanced that they could and did confess their fuith on Jesus
as the Messiah ; for this was the universal, absolutely necessary qualifica-
tion for the reception of baptism.*® (2) If, on the other hand, there were
children still incapable of confessing, baptism could not be administered to
those to whom that, which was the necessary presupposition of baptism for
Christian sanctification, was still wanting. (8) Such young children, whose
parents were Christians, rather fell under the point of view of 1 Cor. vii.
14, according to which, in conformity with the view of the apostolic church,
the children of Christians were no longer regarded as axaVapro, but as aycor,
and that not on the footing of having received the character of holiness by
baptism, but as having part in the Christian ay:dry¢ by their fellowship
with their Christian parents. See on 1 Cor. lc. Besides, the circumcision
of children must have been retained for a considerable time among the
Jewish-Christians, according to xxi. 21. Therefore (4) the baptism of the
children of Christians, of which no trace is found in the N. T.,’® is not to be

1 Grotius, de Wette, and othere. * Grotius, Kulnoel, Heinrichs.

2 Hesychins, Phot. idl. 201. 41. 7 Comp. 2 Macc. 1.4; Lake xxiv. 45; Eph.

3 Val. Fl. iv. 8368; Cland. Rapt. P. {. 274; 1. 18. [427 f.
Plin. A. N. vil. 8%; Ael. H. A. 4.46; Max. "Comp. Luthardt, vom frelen Willen, p.
Tyr. x). 2. ® Comp. also vv. 31, 8%, 38, xvill. 8.

* Ptol. v. 2; Plin. v. 31. 10 Not even in Eph. vi. 1, in opposition to

* See Spon. Afiscell. erud. ant, p. 118. Hofmann, Schriftdew.I1..2, p. 192%

812 CHAP, XVI, 16-18.

held as an apostolic ordinance,’ as, indeed, it encountered early and long
resistance ; but it is an institution of the church,* which gradually arose in
post-apostolic times in conneetion with the development of ecclesiastical
life*® and of doctrinal teaching, not certainly attested before Tértullian, and
by him still decidedly opposed, and, although already defended by Cyprian,
only becoming general after the time of Augustine in virtue of that con-
nection. Yet, even apart from the ecclesiastical premiss of a stern doctrine
of original sin and of the devil going beyond Scripture, from which even
exorcism arose, the continued maintenance of infant baptism, as the objec-
tive attribution of spiritually creative grace in virtue of the plan of sal-
vation estublished for every individual in the fellowship of the church, is
so much the more justified, as this objective attribution takes place with
a view to the future subjective appropriation. And this subjective appro-
priation has so necessarily to emerge with the development of self-conscious-
ness and of knowledge through faith, that in default thereof the church
would have to recognise in the baptized no true members, but only membra
mortua. This relation of connection with creative grace, in so far as the
church is its sphere of operation, is a theme which, in presence of the
attacks of Baptists and Rationalists, must overstep ‘ the domain of exegesis *
and be worked out in that of dogmatics, yet without the addition of con-
firmation ns any sort of supplement to baptism. — ei xexpixare] if ye hate
judged. This judgment was formed either tacitly or openly on the ground
of the whole conduct of Lydia even before her baptism,—the latter itself
was a witness of it ; hence the perfect is here entirely in order, in opposition
to Kuinoel, Heinrichs, and others, and is not to be taken for the present.
—ei, in the sense of é7ei, is here chosen with delicate modesty.°— ye mor.
7. Kup. elvac] that Iam a. believer in the Lord (Christ), 7.6. giving faith to
His word and His promise, which ye have proclaimed, vv. 18, 14. Comp.
ver. 84, xviii. 8, where Bengel well remarks: ‘‘Ipse dominus Jesus testa-
batur per Paulum.”’ — apefidoaro].". The use of this purposely-chosen
strong word, constraining, is not to be explained from the refusal at first of
those requested,* but from the vehement urgency of the feeling of grati-
tude (v’).

Ver. 16. That Paul and his companions accepted this pressing invitation
of Lydia, and chose her house for their abode, Luke leaves the reader to
infer from xai mapeBidoaro juac, ver. 15, and he now passes over to
another circumstance which occurred on another walk to the same rpocevy7
mentioned before. What now follows thus belongs to quite another day.
Heinrichs and Kuinoel assume that it attached itself directly to the pre-

1 Orlgen, én ep. ad Rom.lib.v.: “ Abapos- baptist. Fruge, Gotha 1860, ed. 2, and Dog-
tolis traditione uccepit eccle-1a."" mat, § 255.

2JI¢ is the most striking example of th: 6 Matt. xvill. 14; Mark x. 13 ff; Mat.
recognition of hi-torical tradition in theevan- = xxviil. 19; John fll. 6; Rom. vi. 3f.; Col. :
gellcal church. Comp. Holtzmann, Aunon u. il. 12; Tit. dif. 5; 1 Pet. fit. 21. See also
Tradit. p. 399 ff. Kichter in the Stud. «. Avdl. 1861, p. 2% ff.

3 Com). Ehrenfeachter, prakt. Theol. I. p. Comp, Diaven, ad Dem. decor. p. 19.
(2°. 7 Comp. Luke xxfv. 29; 1Sam,. xxvili 23.

4Comp. Martenaen, d. christ. Tuufe u. d. ® Chrysostom, Bengel, comp. Ewald.

A DEMONIAC WOMAN. 313

ceding: that the conversion and baptism of Lydia had occurred while the
women, ver. 138, were waiting at the mpocevyy for the commencement of
divine worship ; and that, when they were about to enter into the mpocevy4,
this affair with the soothsaying damsel occurred. In opposition to this it
may be urged, first, that ver. 15 would only interrupt and disturb the nar-
rative, especially by xai wapefidoaro uae ; secondly, that the beginning of
ver. 16 itself (éyévero dé) indicates the narration of anew event ; and thirdly,
that the instruction and baptism of Lydia, and still more of her whole
louse, cannot naturally be limited to so short a period.—According to the
reading 2yovcav rvevya riduva (see the critical remarks), the passage is to be
interpreted : who was possessed by a spirit Python, i.e. by a demon, which
prophesied from her belly. The damsel was a ventriloquist, and as such
practised soothsaying. The name of the well-known Delphic dragon,
TliSuv,' became subsequently the name of a dacudviov pavrixdy,? but was also,
according to Plut. de def. orac. 9, p. 414 E, used appellaticely, and that of
soothsayers, who spoke from the belly. So also Suidas: éyyaorpipvdoc, tyyac-
Tpimavru, bv riveg viv wiDwva, LogoxAge d2 otrepvéuavrev. This use of ridur,
corresponding to the Hebrew Ji, which the LXX, render by éyyaorpipv¥or,
Lev. xix. 31, xx. 6, 27,* and also passing over to the Rabbins,‘ is to be
assumed in our passage, us otherwise we could not see why Luke should
have used this peculiar word, whose specific meaning (ventriloquist-scothsayer)
was certainly the less strange to him, as the thing itself had so impor-
tant allusions in the O. T. and LXX. suggesting it to those possessed of
Jewish culture,® just as amung the Greeks the jugglery which the ventrilo-
quists *° practised was well enough known.’ Without doubt, the damsel
was considered by those who had their fortunes told by her as possessed
by a divinity ; and that she so regarded herself, is to be inferred from the
effect of the apostolic word, ver. 18. Hers was a state of enthusiastic
_possexsion by this fixed idea, in which she actually might be capable of a
certain clairvoyance, as in the transaction in our passage. Paul, in his
Christian view,*® regards this condition of hers as that of a demoniac ;
Luke also so designates it, and treats her accordingly. — roi¢ xvpiorc]. There
were thus sereral, who in succession or conjointly had her in service for the
suke of gain.” .

Vv. 17, 18. The soothsaying damsel, similar to a somnambulist,’® reads in
the souls of the apostle and his companions, and announces their character-
istic dignity. But Paul, after he had first patiently let her alone for many
days, sees in her exclamation a recognition on the part of the demon dwell-
ing within her, as Jesus Himself met with recognition and homage from
demons ;" and in order not to accept for himself and his work demoniacal

} Apollod. 1 4. 1. © The Eipundci¢ or BipucAci8a.

3 Suidas, who has the quotation: ré¢ re 7 See Hermann, gottesd. Alterth. § xili. 16.
wvevpart TiGwvos évOovoweas .. . eiov rd ®Comp. 1 Cor x, 20. (1761.
égduevov wapayopevoat. ® Comp. Walch, de servile vet. fatidicis, Jen.

® See Schleusner, 7hee. IT. p. 222. 10 But she was not a sompambuiist. See

«R Salomo on Deut, xviii. 11. Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 310.

§1 Sam. xxvili. 7. 11 Mark ill. 11.

314 CHAP. XVI., 19-25.

testimony, which would not of itself be hushed, at length being painfully
grieved,' and turning to her as she followed him, he, in the name of Jesus
Christ,? commands the demon to come out of her. Now, as the slave con-
sidered Paul to be the servant of the most high God, who thus must have
power over the god by whom she believed herself possessed, her fixed idea
was at once destroyed by that command of power, and she was consequently
restored from her overstrained state of mind to her former natural condition.
Of a especial set purpose, for which the slave made her exclamation, ovrur vi
évdpurrot x.r.A.—Chrysostom : the god by whom she was possessed, Apollo,
hoped, on account of this exclamation, to be left in possession of her;
Walch : the damsel so cried out, in order to get money from Paul ; Ewald :
in order to offer her services to them; Camerarius, Morus, Rosenmiiller,
Heinrichs, Kuinoel : in order to exalt her own reputation—there is no hint
in the text ; it was the involuntary and irresistible outburst of her morbid-
ly exalted soothsaying nature.

Vv. 19-21. The first persecution which is reported to us as stirred up on
the part of the Gentiles.* — exi cove dpyovtag . . . tui¢ atpatyyoic] When they
saw that with the departure of the god from the slave their hope of further
gain had departed (é£740«v), they dragged Paul and Silas, not Timothy and
Luke along with them, but only the two principal persons, to the market,
where, according to the custom of the Greeks, the courts of justice were
erected, to the archons.* But these, the city-judges,° must have referred the
matter to the orparyyoi ; and therefore the narrative proceeds: x. xpocaya-
yovres avrovs x.t.A. The accusation amounted to revolt against the Roman
political authority.—The orparnyoi are the praetores, as the two chief Roman
magistrates ° in towns which were colonies called themselves.” The name
has its origin from the position of the old Greek strategoi.* — éxrapace.| to
bring into utter disorder.’ — jpov Tr. 76A.] judy prefixed with haughty emphasis,
and answering to the following ‘‘ though they are Jews.”’ —‘Pwpatorg ovor]
proud contrast to the odious ’Iovdaio: imépyovrec. Calvin aptly says: ‘‘ Ver-
sute composita fuit haec criminatio ad gravandos Christi servos; nam ab
una parte obtendunt Romanum nomen, quo nihil erat magis favorabile :
rursum ex nomine Judaico, quod tunc infame erat, conflant illis invidiam;
nam quantum ad religionem, plus habebant Romani affinitatis cum aliis
quibuslibet, quam cum gente Judaica.*’—The introduction of strange re-
ligious customs and usages (£07), in opposition to the native religion, was
strictly interdicted by the Romans.'® Possibly here also the yet fresh im-
pression of the edict of Claudius " co-operated.

3 ScarovnGeis, ace on iy. 2.

2 Comp. iii. 6, iv. 7.

3 Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 2.

4 Not different from roAcrapxas, xvil. 6.

8 Comp. Luke xii. 58, and the archons in
Athens in Hermann's Sfaatsalterth. § 138.

* The duwmnviri, Cic. de leg. agr. 35.

? Diod. Sic. T. X. p. 146, ed. Blp. ; Zpicet. ii.
1. %: Polyb. xxxiii. 1. 5: Spanheim ad
Julian. Oral. I. p. 70, de usw et praest. num.

I. p. 69%, II. p. 601; Alberti, Odes. p. 258.

& Dem, 400, 26; Aristot. Polit. vii. 8, ed.
Becker, II. p. 1822; Hermann, Slaalealterth.
§ 153; Dorville, ad Char. p. 447.

9 See on dxwenArjpece, xili. 88; Plut. Corio.
19: “ Suberat utilitas privata ; publica obten-
ditur,’* Bengel.

10 See Wetatein in loc.

1! See on xviil. 2.

IMPRISONMENT OF PAUL AND SILAS. 315

Vv. 22, 28. And at the same time (‘‘cum ancillae dominis,’’ Bengel) the
multitude rose up, in a tumultuary manner, against them ; therefore the
praetors, intimidated thereby, in order temporarily to still the urgency of
the mob, commanded the accused to be scourged without examinution, and
then, until further orders, to be thrown into strict confinement. — repeppié.
avTap Ta ivaria] after having torn off their clothes. The form of expression
of ver. 23 shows that the practors did not themselves, in opposition to Ben-
gel, do this piece of work, which was necessary and customary for laying
bare the upper part of the body,! but caused it to be done by their subor-
dinate lictors, Erasmus erroneously desired to read aizav, so that the
praetors would have rent their own clothes from indignation. Apart from
the non- Roman character of such a custom, there may be urged against this
view the compound rerppp., which denotes that the rending took place all
round about the whole body.* — ixé7evov] The reference of the relative tense
is to the personal presence of the narrator.>— Paul and Silas submitted to
this maltreatment, one of the three mentioned in 2 Cor. xi. 25, with silent
self-denial, and without appealing to their Roman citizenship, committing
everything to God ; sec on ver. 37. Men of strong character may, amidst
unjust suffering, exhibit in presence of thcir oppressors their moral defiance,
even in resignation. We make this remark 1n opposition to Zeller,‘ who
finds the brutal conduct of the pruetors, and the non-employment by the
apostles of their legal privilege in self-defence—which Paul, moreover, re-
nounced not merely on this occasion, 2 Cor. xi. 25—inexplicable. Bengel
well remarks: ‘'Non semper omnibus praesidiis omni modo utendum ;
divino regimini auscultandum.*’ Ina similar plight, xxii. 25, Paul found
it befitting to interpose an assertion of his privilege, which he here only
uesd for the completion of hia victory over the persecution, ver. 37,—a result
which, in xxii. 25, according to the divine destination which he was aware
of, he recognised as unattainable.

Ver. 24. The zealous jailor fulfilled the command acogaiae rypeiv by a two-
fold measure ; he not only put the accused into the prison-ward situated,
more than the other wards, in the interior of the house (ei¢ ry eowrépav
evzaxyv), but also secured their feet in the stocks. — «ic rd EbAov, in nervum,*
7.e, in the wooden block in which the feet, stretched apart from each other,
were enclosed, called also rudoxaxy and rodvorpaBy in Heb. W* (w’).

Vv. 25, 26. In joyful consciousness of suifering for the glorification of
Christ, v. 41, they sing in the solemn stillness of the night prayers of
praise to God,’ and thereby keep their fellow-prisoners awake, so that they
listened to them (éryxpoovro). Whether these are to be conceived as con-
fined in the same éowrépay gv2axyy, or possibly near to it but more to the
front, or whether they were in both localities, cannot be determined.

1 Grotius and Wolf in loc. ® Plant. Capéiv. iii. 5.71; Liv. vill. 98.

2 Plat. Crié. p. 118 D: wepsppyyyver evade, * Job xiii. 2, xxxih. 11. Sce Herod. vi. %,
Polyb. xv. 88, 4, af.; comp. Tittmann, Synon. ix. 87, and later writera, Grotius and Wetstein
p. 221. tn loe.

3 See Winer, p. 253 (E. T. 387). 7 -* Nihil crus sentit in nervo, quam animus

«Comp. Baur. in coelo est,’' Tei tail.

316 CHAP. XVI., 26-35.

Then suddenly there arises an earthquake, etc. God at once rewards—this
is the significant relation of vv. 25 and 26—the joy of faith and of suf-
fering on the part of Paul and Silas by miraculous interposition. The
objection, which Baur and Zeller! take to the truth of this narrative, turns
on the presupposed inconceivablencss of miracles in general. In connec-
tion with the fiction assumed by them, even the éxyxpuavro . . . déomtot is
supposed only to have for its object ‘‘to make good the casual conncction
between the earthquake and the prayer’’ (Zeller). — wéyrwv] thus also of
those possibly to be found in other parts of the prison.* The reading
Gvedvdy (Bornemann) is a correct gloss,

Vv. 27, 28. The jailer, aroused by the shock and the noise, hastens to
the prison, and when he sees the doors whicli, one behind unother, led to
it open, and so takes it for granted that the prisoners have escaped, he
wishes, from fear of the vengeance of the praetors, to Kill himself — which,
in opposition to Zeller’s objection, he may have sufficiently indicated by
expressions of his despair. Then Paul calls, etc. — na yapav] a sword, which
he got just at hand ;* with the article it would denote the sword which he
was then wearing, his sword. —azavrec] Thus the rest of the prisoners,
involuntarily detained by the whole miraculous event, and certainly also
in part by the imposing example of Paul and Silas, had not used their re-
lease from chains (ver. 26) and the opening of the prison for their own
liberation. The évdade does not affirm that they had all come together into
the prison of Paul, but only stands opposed to éamegevyfvar. None is away ;
we are, all and every one, here ! — The loosening of the chains, moreover, and
that without any injury to the limbs of the enchained, is, in view of the
miraculous character of the event, not to be judged according to the laws
of mechanics, in opposition to Gfrérer, Zeller, any more than the omission
_ of flight on the part of the other prisoners is to be judged according to the
usual practice of criminals. The prisoners were arrested, and felt them-
selves sympathetically detained by the miracle which had happened ; and
therefore the suggestion to which Chrysostom has recourse, that they had
not seen the opening of the doors, is inappropriate.

Vv. 29, 30. dara] Lights, i.e. lamps,* several, in order to light up and
strictly search everything. — évrpopnoc yevdu. mpocér.] He now saw in Paul
and Silas no longer criminals, but the favourites and confidants of the gods ;
the majesty which had been ‘maltreated inspired him with terror and re-
spectful submission. —iva ouda] in order that I may obtain salvation. Ue
means the owrzpia, which Paul and Silas had announced ; for what he had
heard of them, that they made known odov owrnpiac, ver. 17, was now
established in his conviction as truth. This lively conviction longs to have
part in the salvation, and his sincere longing desires to fulfil that by which
this participation is conditioned. Morus, Stolz, Resenmiller render it : ‘‘in
order that I may escape the punishment of the gods on account of your

3-Comp. Gfrdrer, heti. Sage, I. p. 446. 3 Mark xiv. 47.

20On aveOy, comp. Plat. Alex. T3: rots 4Xen. Hall. v. 1. 8; Lucian. Convio. 15 ;
Seopove aveivac, Eustath ad Od. viil. p. 318. Plat. Ant. 26.
17. .

oo.

CONVERSION OF THE JAILER. 317

harsh treatment.’’ But, if Luke desired to have ow96 and owSfoy, ver. 81, un-
derstood in different senses, he must have appended to cw3s a more precise
definition ; for the meaning thus assigned to it suggests itself the less
naturally, as the jailer, who had only acted as an instrument under higher
direction,’ could not reasonably apprehend any vengeance of the gods.

Vv. 31, 82. The epanorthosis ci xai 6 olxég cov extends to xicrevsoy and

- ewHon. — They lay down faith on Jesus as the condition of owr7pia, and

nothing else ; but saving faith is always in the N. T. that which has holiness
as its effect, Rom. vi, not ‘‘a human figment and opinion which the
depths of the heart never get to know,’’ but ‘‘a divine work in us which
trausforms and begets us anew from God,’’* without, however, making justi-
fication, which is the act of the imputation of faith, to include sanctifica-
tion.*— For the sake of this requirement of believing, they set forth the
gospel to the father of the family and all his household.‘

Vv. 83, 84. Mapadaf. avrove . . . éXovoev] he took and washed them (x*).
Vividness of delineation. Probably he led them to a neighbouring water,
perhaps in the court of the house, in which his baptism and that of his
household was immediately completed.* — ard raév rAnyav] a pregnant ex-
pression : so that they were cleansed from the stripes—from the blood of the in-
tlicted wounds, ver. 23 f.°— wapaypyua] the adverb emphatically placed at
the end.’ — avajayov] We are to think of the official dwelling of the jailer
as being built aboce the prison cells.* — rapéOnxe rpdrefav] quite the Latin
apposuit mensam, i.e., he gave @ repast ; to be explained from the custom of
setting out the table before those who were to be entertained.® — zavocxi]
ovy OAw TH vicky, Phavorinus, It belongs to remor. A more classical form,"
according to the Atticists, would have been zavouig or zarocxyoig.” —
semeorernag TO Ory| because he had become and was a believer on God (perfect).
He, the Gentile, now belicved the divine promises of salvation announced
to him by Paul and Silas.'* That this his weretecv was definitely Christian
fuith, and accordingly equivalent to morevev ro Kupiv, was self-evident to
the reader.'? — That, after ver. 34, Paul and Silas had returned to prison,
follows from vv. 86-40.

Vv. 85, 36. The news of the miraculous earthquake, perhaps also the
particulars which they might in the meantime have learned concerning the
two prisoners, may have made the praetors have scruples concerning the
hasty maltreatment. They consider it advisable to have nothing further

1 Comp. Chrysost.

2 Luther's Preface 9 the Epistle to the Ro-
mane.

3? See on Rom. i. 17.

4 See on villi. 25.

§ This is confirmed by the fact that baptism
took place by complete immerzion,—in oppo-
sition to Baumgarten, p. 615, who, tranefer-
ring the performance of baptism to the house,
finds here “‘an approximation to the later
custom of simplifying the ceremony," sccord-
ing to which complete immersfon did not
take place. Immersion was, in fact, quite an

essential part of the symbolism of baptism
(Rom. vi.).

©See Buttmann, nevi. Gr. p. 976 f. (E. T.
52).

7 Comp. on Matt iL 10, and KOhner, § 868. 1.

® Comp. ix. 89; Luke iv. 5, xxii. 67.

* Hom. Od. v. 02, xxi 29; Polyb. xxxix.
2. 11.

10 Yet ecc Plat. Eryx. p. 882 C.

11 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 514 ff. Sec exam-
ples from Philo in Loesner, p. 208.

13 Ver. 88; comp. ver. 15, xvill. 8.

13 See also ver. 22.

318 CHAP. XVI., 37-40.

to do with them, and to get rid of them forthwith by releasing them.
Curtly and contemptuously (roi¢ avdp. éxeivouc), in order to maintain at least
thereby their stern official attitude, they notified the order by their lictors
(paBdobyoucs, bearers of the fasces) to the juiler, who, with congratulatory
sympathy, announces it to the prisoners. According to Baumgarten, the
motives for the severity of the previous day had lost their force with the
praetors during the night—a point in which there is expressed a distinction
from the persistent enmity of the Sanhedrists in Jerusalem. But this
would furnish an adequate ground for a proceeding running so entirely
counter to the course of criminal procedure. The praetors must have be-
come haunted by apprehension and ill at ease, and they must therefore have
received some sort of information concerning the miraculous occurrences, —
év eipgvy] happily.'

Ver. 87. po avrotc] to the jailer and the lictors; the latter had thus in
the meantime come themselves into the prison. — deipavreg x.7..] after
they had beaten us publicly without judicial condemnation,—us who are Romans.
This sets forth, in terse language precisely embracing the several elements,
their treatment as an upen violation, partly of the law of nature and nations
in general,* partly of the Roman law in particular. For exemption from
the disgrace of being scourged by rods and whips was secured to every
Roman citizen by the Ler Valeria in the year 254 vu.c.,* and by the Lez
Porcia in the year 506 u.c.,* before every Roman tribunal ;° therefore Cicero,
in Verr. v. 57, says of the exclamation, Civis Romanus sum: ‘‘ saepe multis
in ultimis terris opem inter barbaros et salutem tulit.””— That Silas was
also a Roman citizen, is rightly inferred from the plural furm of expression,
in which there 1s no reason to find a mere synecdoche. The distinction,
which was implied in the bestowal of this privilege, cannot be adduced
against the historical character of the narrative (Zeller), as we know not
the occasion and circumstances of its acquisition. But how had Paul, by
his birth, xxii. 18, Roman citizenship? Certainly not simply as a native of
Tarsus. For Tarsus was neither a colonia nor « municipium, but an urbs
libera, to which the privilege of having governing authorities of its own,
under the recognition, however, of the Roman supremacy, was given by
Augustus after the civil war, as well as other privileges,* but not Roman
citizenship ; for this very fact would, least of all, have remained historically
unknown, and acquaintance with the origin of the apostle from Tarsus
would have protected him from the decree of scourging.’’ This much,
therefore, only may be surely decided, that his father or a yet earlier an-
cestor had acquired the privilege of citizenship either as a reward of merit*
or by purchase,* and had transmitted it to the apostle. According to
Zeller’s arbitrary preconceptions, the mention of the Roman citizenship

1.See on Mark v. 34: comp. on xv. 88 * Comp. Enceb H. £Z. v. 1.
2 dxaraxpirovs, found neither in the LXX. * Dio Chrys If p 36, ed. Reiske.
or Apocrypha, nor in Greek writers. 7 Sce xxi. 29 comp. with xxii. 24 ff.
3 Liv. fi.6; Valer. Max. iv.1; Dion. Hal. ® Suet. Aug. 47.
Vv. p. WB ® xxi}. 28; Dio Cages. Ix. 17: Joseph. Bell.

4 Liv. x. 93 Cic. pro Rabdir. 4. Jud. ti. 14.

RELEASE FROM PRISON. 319

here and in chap. xxii. had only the unhistorical purpose in view ‘of rec-
ommending the apostle to the Romans as a native Roman."’ — xai viv Addpa
yuag éxj3aaA.| is indignantly oppused to deipavrer gua dnpooia . . . éBadov eic
ovdaxyy: and now do they cast us out secretly? The present denotes the
action as already begun, by the order given. Paul, however, for the
honour of himself and his work, disdains this secret dismissal, that it might
not appear—and this the praetors-intended !—that he and Silas had escaped.
On the previous day he had, on the contrary, disdained to avert the mal-
treatment by an appeal to his citizenship, see on ver. 23. The usual
opinion is' that the tumult in the forum had prevented him from asserting
his citizenship. But it is obvious of itself that even the worst tumult, at
ver. 22 or ver. 23, would have admitted a ‘* Civis Romanus sum,” had Paul
wished to make such an appeal. — ow yap, 442d] not so, but. It is to be
analyzed thus: for they are not to cast us out secretly ; on the contrary
(adAa) they are, etc. ydp specifies the reason why the preceding, indignant
question is put, and 424d answers adversatively to the ob.?— airoi] in their
own persons they are to bring us out.

Vv. 38, 89. 'Epofj8yc0av] The reproach contained in dxaraxpirove did not
trouble them, but the violation of citizenship was an offence against the
majesty of the Roman people, and as such was sevcrely punished.? — Ver.
39. What a change in the state of affairs: éAdvreg . . . wapexdAcoav, name-
ly, toacquiesce, . . . é€ayaydvreg . . . apatuv !— ésipyeoda with the simple
genitive, asin Matt. &. 14. Very frequent with Greek writers since subse-
quent to Homer. On zapaxaiev, to give fair words, comp. on 1 Cor. iv. 13.

Ver. 40. Before they comply with the éfeAdciv rig woAewe, ver. 89, the
apostolic heartfelt longing constrains them first to repair to the house of
Lydia, to exhort (xapexadecayv) the new converts assembled there that they
should not become wavering in their Christian confession. And from this
house grew the church, to which, of all that Paul founded, he has erected
the most eulogistic monument in his Epistle—in this sense also the first
church which he established in Europe. — #£7290v] Only Paul and Silas, as
they alone were affected by the inquiry, appear now to have departed from
Philippi. Juke at least, as the use of the third person teaches us, did not
yo with them. Paul left him behind to build up the youthful church.
Whether, however, Timothy (vv. 1 ff.) also remained behind, cannot be de-
termined. He is not again named until xvji. 14, but he may nevertheless
have already departed from Philippi, and need not necessarily have rejoined
them till in Bervea or Thessalonica.

RemarE.—lIn the rejection of the entire history as history Buur and Zeller
(comp. Hausrath) essentially agree ; it is alleged to be formed in accordance
with xii. 7 ff., as an apologetic parallelism of Paul with Peter. But as Philip-
pian persecutions are mentioned also in 1 Thess. ii. 2, the opinions formed by
them concerning the relation of the two passages are opposite. Baur makes 1

? Bo also de Wette. Protag. p. M8 D, and the examples in Wet-
2S8ee Hartung. Partikell. IT p 48; comp. ateln.
Devar. p. 169. ed. Klotz; also Stallb. ad ? Dion. Hal. x!. p. 75; Grotius tn Joc.

320 CHAP. XVI.—NOTES.

Thess. ii. 2 to be derived from the narrative before us; whereas Zeller, con-
sidering the Epistles to the Thessalonians as older, supposes the author of the
Acts to have ‘‘ concocted "’ (p. 258) his narrative from 1 ‘Thess. ii. 2.

Nores spy Amertcan Eprror.

(v2) We endeavored to go. VY. 10.

‘It is observable that the first person is here introduced for the first time,
the author thus intimating his presence. From this it appears that Luke
joined Paul's company at Truas.’’ Meyer supposes the reason why Luke never
mentions his own name throughout the entire history to be that Theophilus
was well acquainted with his personal relations to Paul. Olshausen suggests,
Meyer says arbitrarily, we think with great probability, a feeling of modesty on
the part of Luke. Some, in view of the fact that the apostle had only recently
recovered from a severe illness (see v. 6, and Gal. iv. 13), suppose ‘that Luke,
the beloved physician,’’ accompanied him, to watch over his health. From
this time till the last imprisonment at Rome, with but two brief intervals, he
was the great apostle’s constant attendant. In the very Jast of his Epistles the
apostle, writing in full view of oa violent death, and forsaken by many, touch-
ingly says: ‘‘Only Luke is with me” (2 Tim. iv. 11). Another hypothesis is
that Luke makes use of a history written by Silas or Timothy ; but this is not
probable in itself, and if true would have produced an earlier change in the form
of the narrative. These four, then—Paul, Silas, Timothy, and Luke—after ao
brief voyage from Troas, landed at Neapolis, and so the first Christian apostle
landed in Europe. It is probable, however, ere this time that the gospel had
been preached in Rome by some of the dispersion, but not by an apostle. Dr.
Taylor writes: ‘‘ That voyage stands out by itself as unique as it is glorious.
They went to plant a seed from which have sprung liberty, law, progress, and
religion on that continent, and all the blessings which, in this western land, we
now enjoy. The gigantic trees in the Mariposa grove sprung each from a seed
no bigger than a grain of wheat, though it took them centuries to grow. Here,
in the landing of Paul with the gospel at Neapolis, we have the germ out of
which European and American Christianity has been developed.”

(u*) The chief city. V. 12.

Various opinions are held as to the meaning of this description of Philippi,
aputn méAcs—the obvious meaning is chief city or capital ; but Thessalonica
was the capital, or capital of that part of Macedonia where Paul then was ; but
Amphipolis held that position. Some would change the reading from zpu-rn
795 to wpwr7S, a cily of the first part of Macedonia; but the authority of the mes.
is against such change. Others understand the phrase tou mean a chief town.
Others, with Meyer, unite the two words rpurn wOAtS With xo?wvia—the first colo-
nial city of the district—the most distinguished in point of importance. Many
others render it the first city of Macedonia proper at which Paul arrived ; and
this appears to be the correct idea. ‘‘The purpose of the narrator is to define
the geographical position, and not the political importance of Philippi. He
means to say that to one entering Macedonia from the Thracian frontier in that
district, Philippi is the first city on his route.’ ( Taylor.)

NOTES, 821

(v*) She was baptized and her household. V. 15.

This verse has often been quoted as evidence that infant baptism was the
practice of the apostolic age. Commentators are divided in opinion on the
force of the evidence afforded. The passage in itself cannot be adduced either
for or against infant baptism. It might be a presumption in favor of it.
‘«The practice itself rests on firmer grounds than a precarious induction from
a few ambiguous passages.” (Plumtre.) The subject, however, does not prop.
erly fall under the domain of exegesis, but must be, as Meyer says, ‘‘ worked
out in that of dogmatics.”

(w*) Into the inner prison. V. 24.

In the Roman prisons there were usually three distinct stories, one above an-
other—the communiora, or upper flat, where the prisoners had light and fresh
air ; the interiora, or lower flat, shut off with strong iron gates, with bars and
locks ; the tullianum, or lowest flat or dungeon, the place for one condemned to
die. Into this dark, damp, underground, filthy, stifling pit, after having been
stripped, beaten with great severity, and bound with an instrument of torture,
the unoffending preachers were thrust with unfeeling alacrity. ‘Yet over all
this complication of miseries the souls of Panl and Silas rose in triumph.
With heroic cheerfulness they solaced the long black hours of midnight with
prayer and hymns. To every Jew, as to every Christian, the psalms of David
furnished an inexhaustible storehouse of sacred song.” ‘Never, probably,
had such a scene occurred before in the world’s history, and this perfect tri-
umph of the spirit of peace and joy over shame and agony was an omen of
what Christianity would afterwards effect. And while they sang, and while
the prisoners listened, perhaps, to verses which ‘out of the deeps’ called on
Jehovah, or ‘ fled to him before the morning watch,’ or sang—

‘The plowere plowed upon my back and made long frrrows,
But the righteous Lord hath hewn the anares of the ungodly in pieces,’

or triumphantly told how God had ‘ burst the gates of brass, and smitten the
bars asunder.’ Suddenly there was felt the great shock of earthquake, which
rocked the very foundation of the prison.” (Farrar.) This is the first in-
stance recorded of a persecution against the Christians by the Roman authori-
ties. Hitherto either the Jews themselves, or the multitude instigated by them,
had persecuted the disciples ; but there had been no interference on the part
of the Roman government. The accusation against them was not on religious
grounds, or because they preached Jesus and the resurrection ; but it was based
on political grounds, charging them with being disturbers of the peace, and
teaching practices contrary to Roman customs. On this charge against the’
aposties Calvin writes: ‘‘This accusation is craftily composed to burden the
servants of Christ. For on the one side they pretend the name of the Romana,
than which nothing was more favorable ; on the other, they purchase hatred
and bring them in contempt by warning the Jews, which name was at that
time infamous ; for, as touching religion, the Romans were more like to any than
to the Jewish nation, For it was lawful for one which was a Roman to do sac-
rifice either in Asia or in Grecia, or in any other country where were idols and
superstitions. They frame a third accusation out of the crime of sedition, for

322 CHAP. XVI.—NOTES.

they pretend that the public peace is troubled by Paul and his company. In
like sort was Christ brought into contempt (odiose traductus fuit).”

(x*) And washed their stripes. V. 33.

The twofold washings—that which evidenced the true repentance, awakened
gratitude, and kindly reverence of the jailer for his prisoners, and that which
they administered to him, as the sign of the washing of regeneration—are
placed in close and suggestive juxtaposition. As Chrysostom beautifully ex-
presses it: ** ZAovcev abrovs xa édovn: Exelvovs piv and rév rAnydy Edovoev, avTas
d2 ard Tév éuaptioy éAovon—He washed them, and he was washed ; he washed
them from their stripes, he himself was washed from his sins,”

CRITICAL BEMARKS. 823

CHAPTER XVII.

Ver. 2. dtedéyero] AB &, min. have dceAcgaro (so Lachm.). DE, min. have
dceAéz9n, which Griesb. has recommended and Born. adopted. Different altera-
tions of the imperf. into the aor. (in conformity with eio#46e). — Ver. 4. After
oeBou. Lachm. has xai (A D lot Vulg. Copt.). Offence was taken at the combi-
nation cefou. ‘EAAjv., and therefore sometimes ‘EAAyv. was omttted (min.
Theophyl. 1), sometimes «ai was inserted. — Ver. 5. mpocAaB. d2 of ’lovd.] So
Griesb. But Elz. has {yAccavres 62 of ameBobvres "lovdaiot, nai mpocda.
Lachm. : (yAdcavres d2 of "loud. xai mpoAa’., which also Rinck prefers. Mat-
thaei: mpoodaZ. d2 of ’lovd. of are8. So Scholz and Tisch. Still other varia-
tions in codd. vss. and Fathers (D: of d2 arecBoivres loudaiot cvorpépavres, 80
Born.). The reading of Lachm. has most external evidence in its favour (A
B ®, min. Vulg. Copt. Sahid. Syr. utr.), and it is the more to be preferred,
since that of Griesb., from which otherwise, on account of its simplicity, the
others might have arisen as amplifications in the form of glosses, is only pre-
served in 142, and consequently is almost entirely destitute of critical warrant ;
the are.foivres in the Recepta betrays itself as an addition (from xiv. 2), partly
from its being exchanged in several witnesses for amecOjoavres, and partly from
the variety of its position (E has it only after rovgpots). — ayayeiv) So H, min.
Chrys. Theoph. Oec. But D, 104, Copt. Sahid. have eéayayeiv (80 Born.) ; A
B &®, min. Vulg. : tpeayayeiv (so Lachm.); E: spocayayeiv ; G, 11: avayayeiy.
All of them more definite interpretations. — Ver. 13. After saAevorres , Lachm.
and Born. have xai rapdcocovreS. So ABD, ®, min. and several vss. But oad.
was easily explained after ver. 8 by rap. as a gloss, which was then joined by
cai with the text. — Ver. 14. 05] A BE ®&, min. have és, which Lachm. has
adopted. But oS was not understood, and therefore was sometimes changed
into éwS, sometimes omitted (D, min. vss.).— Ver. 15. After f#yayor, Elz. Scholz
have atréy, against preponderating testimony. A familiar supplement. — Ver.
16. Bewpodvr:) Lachm. and Tisch. read §ewpotvros, which also Griesb. recom-
mended, after A BE, ®, min. Fathers. Rightly ; the dative is adapted to the
aivy. — Ver. 18. Instead of atrois (which with Lachm., according to witnesses
of some moment, is to be placed after evyyyeA.) Rinck would prefer airoi,
according to later codd. and some vss. A result of the erroneous reference of
the absolute rv avdcraciy to the resurrection of Jesus. The pronoun is en-
tirely wanting in B GX, min. Chrys. So Tisch.; and correctly, both on
account of the frequency of the addition, and on account of the variety of the
order. In D the whole passage ér: . . . ednyyeAifero is wanting, which Born.
approves. — Ver. 20. Instead of ri dv, A B &, min. vss, have riva, and instead
of 6éAo:: GéAe. Lachm. has adopted both. But TIAN was the more easily
converted after the preceding riva into TINA, as raéra follows afterwards. The
removal of the dy then occasioned the indicative. — Ver. 21. xa axovev)
Lachm. Tisch. Born read # axoverv, which according to A B D &, Vulg. Sahid.
Syr, p. is to be adopted. -— Ver. 23, Instead of 4» and roérov, A* BD ®*

324 CHAP. XVIL, 1-6.

lo#- Vulg. Cant. Or. Jer. have 6 and rovre. So Lachm. Tisch. Born. Rightly ;
the masculine is an old alteration (Clem. already has it) in accordance with
what precedes and follows. — Ver. 25. av6pwrivur) Elz. Scholz have aviporuy,
against decisive evidence. — «ai ra ravra] B G H most min. and some vss. and
Fathers have xara xravrae. So Mill. and Matth. An error of transcribers, to
whose minds xaré rayra, from ver. 22, was still present. — Ver. 26. aizaros] is
wanting in A B ®, min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Vulg. Clem. Beda, Lachm. The
omission easily took place after £vOZ. Had there been a gloss, av4pdrov would
most naturally have suggested itself; comp. Rom. v. 12 ff. — adv ré mpdewmov]
Lachm. Tisch. Born. read mavrds tpocwrov, according to ABD &, min. Clem.
But the article is necessary, and in the scriptio continua IIANTO was easily
taken together, and xavros made of it. — mpoorerayy.) Elz. Born. read mpore-
tayu., against decisive testimony. A frequent interchange. — Ver. 27. Kupiov)
Griesb. Lachm. read @<6v, according to A B G H &, min. and several vss. and
Fathers. So Tisch. and Born. But certainly an interpretation, which was
here in particular naturally suggested, as Paul is speaking to Athenians, Té
Gciov in D, Clem. Ir. Ambr., inserted from ver. 29, is yet more adapted to this
standpoint. — xairarye] So ®. But BD GH, min. Fathers read xaiye, which
Griesb. has recommended, and Lachm. Tisch. Born. have adopted. A E,
Clem, read «airo:z. See on xiv. 17. — Ver. 30. wao:] AB D** E &, min. Ath.
Cyr. and vss. have mwdvras. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm.
Born. ; and rightly. The dative came in after dv@pdmras.— Ver. 31. d:ér1]
Lachm. Tisch. Born, read xa9éri, according to AB DE ®&, min. and Fathers.
Rightly ; it was supplanted by the more usual d:dr1.

Ver. 1. Amphipolis, an Athenian colony, at that time the capital of Mace-
donia prima, comp. on xvi. 12, around which on both sides flowed the
Strymon. Apollonia, belonging to the Macedonian province Mygdonia,
was situated 80 miles to the south-west. It is not to be confounded with
Apollonia in Macedonian Illyria. Thessalonica lay 86 miles to the west of
Apollonia—so called either, and this is the most probable opinion, by its
rebuilder and embellisher, Cassander, in honour of his wife Thessalonica,'
or earlier by Philip, as a memorial of his subjection of Thessaly,” at an
earlier period Therme,—on the Thermaic gulf, the capital of the second
district of Macedonia, the seat of the Roman governor, flourishing by its
commerce, now the large and populous Saloniki, still inhabited by numer-
ous Jews. *—7 ovvaywyy] Beza held the article to be without significance.
The same error occasioned the omission‘ of 7 in A B D x, min. Lachm.
But the article marks the synagogue in Thessalonica as the only one in all
that neighbourhood. Paul and Silas halted at the seat of the synagogue of the
district, according to their principle of attempting their work in the first
instance among the Jews (y’*). ;

Vv. 2-4. Kara 62 rd eiw. rg II.] Comp. Luke iv. 16. The construction
is by way of attraction (xara 62 r. eiw. aitg eio7AOev 6 Madoc), with antici-
pation of the subject. ° — dceAéyero atroic]) he carried on colloquies with them.

1 Dionys. Hal., Strabo, Zonaras. ¢ Approved by Buttmann in the Stud. wu.
2 Stephan. Bys., Tzetzes. Frit. 1860, p. 860.
$ See Lfinemann on 1 7’here. Introd. § 1. $ Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 116 (E. T. 138).

PAUL AT THESSALONICA. 325

Thus frequently in and after Plato, with the dative or mpéc,!in which com-
binations it is never the simple facere verba ad aliquem, in opposition to de“
Wette, not even in xviii. 19, xx. 7, nor even in Heb. xii. 5, where the pa-
ternal wapdxAyorg speaks with the children.* The form of dialogue, Luke
; li. 46 f., was not unsuitable even in the synagogue; Jesus Himself thus
taught in the synagogue, John vi. 25-59; Matt. xii. 9 ff. ; Luke iv. 16 ff. —
ard Tov ypag.| starting from the Scriptures, deriving his doctrinal propositions
from them.’ Is ard ray ypag. to be connected with ded. atroic* or with
Stavoiywv x.7.A.¥* The latter is, on account of the greater emphasis which ‘
thus falls on ard +. yp., to be preferred. — diavoiy. «. taparid.] Upon what
Paul laid down as doctrine, thetically, he previously gave information, by
analytical development.* Bengel well remarks: ‘‘ Duo gradus, ut si quis
nucleum fracto cortice et recludat et exemtum ponat in medio,.’’ — 8r: ray
Xptorév édec (Luke xxiv. 26) «.7.A. is related to xai dre obro¢ «.7.A., a8 & gen-
eral proposition of the history of salvation to its concrete realization and
manifestation. The latter is to be taken thus: and that this Messiah, no
other than He who had to suffer and rise again, Jesus is, whom I preach to
you. Accordingly, 'Iyovtc ov &. xar. tu. is the subject, and obrog 6 Xprorée
the predicate. By this arrangement the chief stress falls on 'Iyootc x.r.4.,
and in the predicate ovroc, which, according to the preceding, represents
the only true Scriptural Messiah, has the emphasis, which is further brought
out by the interposition of éori between ovrog and 6 Xpioréc. —éyd] em-
phatic: I for my part. As to the oratio cariata, see on i. 4. — mpocexAnp. } is
not to be taken as middle,” but as passive: they were assigned by God to
them, as belonging to them, as ya@yrai. Only here in the N. T. *— rivec
. moAv wAgboc] The proselytes were morc free from prejudice than the
native Jews.

Vv. 5, 6. ZyAdoavrec (see the critical remarks) : filled with eeal, and having
taken to themselves, namely, as abettors towards producing the intended rie-
ing of the people. — ayopaio:| are market-loungers, idlers, a rabble which,
without regular business-avocations, frequents the public places, subrostrani,
subbasilicani.’ The distinction which old grarmmarians make between ayopaiu¢
and ayépatog appears to be groundless from the conflicting character of their
statements themselves.!°— Whether Jason is an originally Hellenic name,
or only a Hellenic transformation of the Jewish Jesus, as according to
Joseph. Antt. xii. 5. 1 was certainly the case with the high priest in 2
Macc. i. 7, iv. 7 ff., remains entirely undecided from our want of know]l-
edge as to the man himself. It was his house before which they suddenly

} Mark ix. 3; Acts xvil. 17.

2 Comp. Delitzech in loc. p. 612.

8 Comp. xxviii. 23; Winer, p. 849 (E. T. 465).

4 So Vulg., Luther, and many others, Winer
and de Wette.

® Pricaenn, Grotius, Elener, Morus, Rosen-
mfiller, Valckenaer, Kujnoel, Ewald.

7 Comp. Eph. L 11.

8: Loesner, p. 209 f.

® See Herod. ii. 141; Plat. Prot. 8&7 C, and
Ast in loc.

10 Suldas: the former is 6 ev 77 ayops evac-
tpepdpevos avOpwwrors, the latter 7 nuepa ev 7 7
ayopa reActra:, Whereas Ammonius says: the
former denotes roy «vy ayopg tipwuevoy, the
lutter row woynpoy roy éy ayope reOpauueroy ;
ree Gittling, Accen/l. p. 207. Comp. Stepha-
nue, Thes, I. p. 480, ed. Paris.

326 CHAP, XVIL, 715.

appeared,’ because this was known to them as the place where Paul and

*Silas were lodged. These two, however, were absent, either accidentally,
or designedly after receiving information. — rdv 'Iacova x. tivac adedg.| as
accomplices, and Jason also as such, and at the same time as the responsi-
ble host of the insurgents. — rod:rapyac] like rove épxovrac, xvi. 19. Designa-
tion of the judicial personages acting as magistrates of the city.* — oi rHv oixovn.
avacrar.| who have made the world rebellious! The evaggerative character of
the passionate accusation, especially after what had already taken place
amidst public excitement at Philippi, is a sufficient reason to set aside the
Opinion that the accusation bears the colouring of a later time, Baur, Zeller ;
comp. xxiv. 5. — avacraréw, excito,* belongs to Alexandrian Greek.‘

Ver. 7. ‘Yrodédexra:] not secretly, which Erasmus finds in i7é, but as in
Luke x. 88, xix. 6. — As formerly in the case of Jesus the Messianic name
was made to serve as a basis for the charge of high treason, so here with
the confessors of Jesus (oira savrec) as the Messiah. Comp. xix. 12. Per-
haps * the doctrine of the Parousia of the risen (ver. 8) Jesus had furnished
a specia) handle for this accusation. — ovro: wévrec}] ‘‘ Eos qui fugerant, et
qui aderant notant,’’ Bengel. — arévayri rav doyudr. Kaic.]| in direct oppo-
sition to the edicts of the emperor, which interdicted high treason and guarded
the majesty of the Caesar.* — Baad. Aéy. érepov elva:] Baca. in the wider
sense, which includes also the imperial dignity.”

Vv. 8, 9. ’Erdpagfav| This was alarm at revolutionary outrage and Roman
vengeunce. Comp. Matt. ii. 8. —AaBévre¢ 16 ixavév] Comp. Mark xv. 15,
where ré ixavdy roeiv tive is: to satisfy one, so that he can demand nothing
more. Therefore: after they had received satisfaction, so that for the pres-
ent they might desist from further claims against the persons of the ac-
cused, satisdatione accepta. Comp. Grotius. But whether this satisfaction
twok place by furnishing sureties or by lodging a deposit of money, remains
undecided ; certainly its object was a guarantee that no attempt against the
Roman majesty should prevail or should occur. This is evident from the
relation in which AaPévrec rd ixavéy necessarily stands with the point of
complaint, ver. 7, and with the disquietude (érdpafav) excited thereby.
Therefore the opinions are to be rejected, that Aaf. r. ix. refers to security
that Paul and Silas would appear in case of need before the court,° or that
they would be no Jonger sheltered,® or that they should immediately de-
part.’° Moreover, it is erroneous, with Luther and Camerarius, to suppose
that by 1d ixavéy is meant a satisfactory vindication. Luke would certainly
have brought out this more definitely ; and AaBévree denotes an actual
receipt of the satisfaction (rd ixavév), as the context suggests nothing else.
— Observe, too, how here—it is otherwise in xvi. 20—the politarchs did not

1 émcorayres, comp. on Luke iif. 9. ® See 1 and 2 Thess.

® Boeckh. Jnecripé. I. p. 58, No. 1967. woadAc- On awrevayrr, comp. Ecelus. xxxvi. 14,
rapxos is found in Aeneas Tacticus 26; else- xxxvii. 4.
where in classic Greek, woAiapxos. Pind. Nem. 7 John xix. 15; 1 Pet. iL 12; Herodian, |.
vil. 128; Eur. Rhes. 881; Dio Cass. xl. 46. 6. 14.

3 xxi. 38; Gal. v. 12. 8 Grotius, Raphel.

¢ Sturz, de Dial. Al. p. 146. Comp. avacra- ® Michaelis, Heinrichs, comp. Ewald.
twors, Poll. ili. 91. 10 Heumann, Kuinoel.

PAUL AT BEROEA. 327

prosecute the matter further, but cut it short with the furnished guarantee, .
which was at least politically the most prudent course.

Vv. 10-12. Acd +. vvar.] As in xvi. 9.— Beroea, a city in the third dis-
trict of Macedonia,' to the south-west of Thessalonica.*— argecav] arecu,
so frequent in Greek writers, only here in the N. T.* They separated,
after their arrival, from their companions, and went away to the syna-
gogue. — evyevécrepo.] of @ nobler character.‘ Theophyl. after Chrys.:
evcecxéorepo. An arbitrary limitation ; tolerance is comprehended in the
general nobleness of disposition. — ray év @ecoad.] than the Jews in Thes-
salonica. —1é xa’ quépav] daily.* —avaxpivovtec rac yp.) searching the Seript-
ures (John v. 89), namely, to prove: ei éyo: ratra, which Paul and Silas
stated, virus, as they taught, ‘“‘ Character verae religionis, quod se dijudi-
cari patitur,’’ Bengel. — evoynu.] see on xiii. 50. — The Hellenic women and
men are to be considered partly as proselytes of the gate who had heard
the preaching of Christ in the synagogue, and partly as actual Gentiles
who were gained in private conversations. Comp. on xi. 20. — ‘EAA vid]
construed with yvvaxav, but also to be referred to avdpav.*— That the
church of Beroea soon withered again, is quite as arbitrarily assumed by
Baumgarten, as that it was the only one founded by Paul to which no
letter of the apostle has come down to us. How many churches may Paul
have founded of which we know nothing whatever ! (z*).

Vv. 18-15. Kaxei] is to be connected, not with 7Afov, so that then the
usual attraction would take place,” but with cadetovres ; for not the coming,
but the cadeiew, had formerly taken place elsewhere.— Ver. 14. Then
immediately the brethren sent Paul away from the city, that he might journey
¢ éxt rv Oddaccav. Neither here nor elsewhere is oc redundant, but it
indicates the definitely conceived purpose of the direction, which he had
to take toward the sea, the Thermaic gulf. Others® render it: as ¢f toward
the sea ; so that, in order to escape the snares, they took the road toward
the sea only apparently, and then turned to the land-route. But in that
case Luke, if he wished to be understood, would not have failed to add a
remark counter to the mere semblance of the sop. évi r. 644, especially as
in what follows nothing necessarily points to a journey by land to Athens,"°
— 6 Tiu68.] Where Timothy, supposing him to have remained behind at
Philippi," again fell in with Paul and Silas, is uncertain. — éxei] in Beroea.
— Ver. 15. xarS:ordva:] to bring to the spot ; then, to transport, to eacort one."*
—iva O¢ taxroTa x.7.A.] See xviii. 5, according to which, however, they

® Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Er. Schmid, Ben-
gel, Olshausen, Neander, Lange.

1 Liv, xlv. 80. [ Verria.
* See Forbiger, Geogr. III. p. 1061. Now

* Comp. 4 Mace, vil. 8; 2 Macc. xii. 1.

¢ Plat. Def. p. 418 B, Polit. p.810 A; Soph.
Aj. 473 5 4 Mace. vi. 5, ix. 27. [829.

§ Comp. Luke xi. 8, xix. 47; Bernhardy, p.

® See Matthael, § 441.

7 Bee on Matt. il. 22.

5 See Winer, p. 578 f. (E. T. 771); Hermann,
ad Phtloct. &%; Ellendt, Lex Soph. Il. p.
1004.

19 Erasmus correctly observes: ‘‘ probabilius
est eum navigavisse .. . quia nulla fit
mentio eorum, quae P. in itinere gesserit, cui
fuerint tot civitates peragrandae."’

3) See on xvi. 40.

18 Not: who droughé Aim in safety (Bera and
others’. Hom. Od. xill. 874: rove ue" éxéAevoa
IivAovSe (thus also dy ship) xcaracrgoca. Thuc.
iv. 78, vi. 108.8; Xen. Angad. iv. 8. 8.

328 CHAP. XVIL, 16-20.

only joined Paul at Corinth. But this, as regards Timothy, is an incorrect
statement, as is clearly evident from 1 Thess. iii. 1,—a point which is to
be acknowledged, and not to be smoothed over by harmonistic combina-
tions’ which do not tally with any of the two statements.” According to
Baumgarten, Luke has only mentioned the presence of the two compan-
ions again with Paul, xviii. 5, when their co-operation could again take an
effective part in the diffusion of the gospel. But it is not their being to-
gether, but their coming together, that is narrated in Acts xviii. 5 (a’).

Ver. 16. Mapwgkivero] was irritated at the high degree of heathen dark-
ness and perversity‘ which prevailed at Athens. —+7d rveipa avrov év aire]
comp. John xi. 33, 38. — The genitive Oewpoivroc, mentally attached to avrov
(see the critical remarks): because he saw. —xareidwAov] full of images, of
idols, pot preserved elsewhere in Greek, but formed according to usual
analogies (xaradumedoc, xatddevdpoc, xaraypvoos, xatadsSoc, al.). — Athens, the
centre of Hellenic worship and art, united zeal for both in a pre-eminent
degree, and was—especially at that period of political decay, when outward
ritual and show in the sphere of religion and superstition flourished among
the people alongside of the philosophical self-sufficiency of the higher
scholastic wisdom among people of culture—full of temples and altars, of
priests and other persons connected with worship, who had to minister at
an innumerable number of pompous festivals. *

Ver. 17. Ovv] impelled by that indignation to counteract this heathen
confusion. He had intended only to wait for his companions at Athens,
but ‘‘insigni et extraordinario zelo stimulatus rem gerit miles Christi,’’
Bengel. And this zeal caused him, in order to pave the way for Christian-
ity in opposition to the heathenism here so particularly powerful, to enter
into controversial discussions* with Jews and Gentiles at the same time, not
first with the Jews, and, on being rejected by them, afterwards with Gen-
tiles. — tv rg ayopa] favours the view that, as usual in Greek cities, there
was only one market at Athens.’ If there were two markets,® still the cele-
brated ayopa xar’ éfoyqv is to be understood,’ not far from the Pnyx, the
Acropolis, and the Areopagus, bounded by the croa roxiAy on the west, by
the Stoa Basileios and the Stoa Eleutherios on the south, rich in noble
statues, the central seat of commercial, forensic, and philosophic inter-
course, as well as of the busy idleness of the loungers (B’).

Ver. 18. That it was Epicureans and Stoics who fell into conflict with him,"
and not Academics and Peripatetics, is to be explained—apart from the
greater popularity of the two former, and from the circumstance that they
were in this later period the most numerous at Athens—from the greater
contrast of their philosophic tenets with the doctrines of Christianity. The
one had their principle of pleasure, and the other their pride of virtue!

1 Such as Otto, Pastoraldr. p. 61 f., makes. ® See on ver. 2.

2 See Linemann on 1 Thess. iit. 1. 7 Forchhammer, Forbiger, and others.
31Cor. xiii. 5; Dem. 514. 10: wpytoOy nai 8 8o Otfried Miller and others.

4 Rom. i. 21 ff. [wapwtivOn, ® Not the Zretria ( vey éorw ayopad, Strabo,

5 See Pans. i. 244.8; Strabo, x. p. 472; Liv. x. 10, p. 447).
xlv. 27; Xen. Rep. Ath. 11.2; and Wetstein 19 guveBaddAoy, comp. Luke xiv. 31.
in loc.

PAUL AT ATHENS, 3829

and both repudiated faith in the Divine Providence.!— The opinion of
these philosophers was twofold. Some, with vain scholastic conceit, pro-
nounced Paul's discourses, which lacked the matter and form of Hellenic
philosophy, to be idle talk, undeserving of attention, and would have
nothing further todo with him. Others were at least curious about this
new matter, considered the singular stranger as an announcer of strange
divinities, and took him with them, in order to hear more from him and to
allow their fellow-citizens to hear him, to the Areopagus, etc. — ri dv GéAa
. . . Aéye] if, namely, his speaking is to have a meaning.” — oxeppoddyoc]
originally the rook.* Then in twofold figurative meaning: (1) from the
manner in which that bird feeds, a parasite; and (2) from its chattering
voice, a babbler.‘ So here, as the speaking of Paul gave occasion to this
contemptuous designution.* — da:uoviay] divinities, quite generally. The
plural is indefinite, and denotes the category, see on Matt. ii. 20. Accord-
ing to de Wette, it is Jesus the Risen One and the living God that are meant
in contrast to the Greek gods,—an element, however, which, according to
the subjoined remark of Luke, appears as imported. The judgment of the
philosophers, very similar to the charge previously brought against Socrates, *
but not framed possibly in imitation of it, in opposition to Zeller, was
founded on their belief that Jesus, whom Paul preached and even set forth
as a raiser of the dead, must be assumed, doubtless, to be a foreign divinity,
whose announcer—xarayyedeic, not elsewhere preserved—Paul desired to be.
Hence Luke adds the explanatory statement : 51: rdv 'Incovv x. r. avdor. evnyy.
Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Alexander Morus, Selden, Hammond, Spencer,
Heinrichs, Baur,’ Lange, and Baumgarten, strangely imagine that the phi-
Josophers meant the "Avdorac:c as a goddess announced by Paul.® But if Luke
had aimed at this by his explanatory remark, he must have indicated it
more precisely, especially as it is in itself improbable that the philosophers
could, even in mere irony, derive from the words of the apostle a god-
dess ‘Arvdaoranc, for Paul doubtless announced who would raise the dead.
Olearius referred +. avaor. not to the general resurrection of the dead, but
to the resurrection of Jesus; so also Bengel. But Luke, in that case, in
order not to be misunderstood, must have added avrov, which (see the criti-
cal remarks) he has not done.

Vv. 19, 20. 'EmAaBéuevor] Grotius aptly says: ‘‘manu leniter prehen-
sum.”?® Adroitly confiding politeness. Ver. 21 proves that a violent seiz-
ure and carrying away to judicial examination is not indicated, as Adami '°
and others imagined, but that the object in view was simply to satisfy the
curiosity of the people flocking to the Areopagus. And this is evinced by
the whole proceedings, which show no trace of a judicial process, ending
us they did partly with ridicule and partly with polite dismissal, ver. 31,

}Comp. Hermann, Cullurgesch. d. Gr. u. * See his Paulus, I. p. 192, ed. 2: the froni-

2 See on li. 12. [Rom. 1. p.287f. cal popular wit had out of Jesus and the
3 Aristoph. Ae. 232, 579. avacrace made a pair of divinities,

4 Dem. 260.19; Athen. viii. p. 344 C. ® Comp. also Ewald, p. 494 f,

§ See also Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 207. ® Comp. ix. 97, xxiiL 19.

* Xen. Mem. 1. 1. 1. 10 See in Wolf.

330 CHAP. XVII., 21-23.

after which Paul departed unhindered. Besides the Athenians were very
indulgent to the introduction of foreign, particularly Oriental, worships,
provided only there was not conjoined with it rejection of the native gods,
such as Socrates was formerly accused of. To this the assertion of
Josephus, c. Ap. 2, is to be limited: véuy & Hv rovTo rap’ avroicg KexwAvuévov
kai Titwpia Kata Tov févov eicayévTwv Oedv Spoto Bavatroc,—which, perhaps, 1s
merely a generalization from the history of Socrates. And certainly Paul,
us the wisdom of his speech’ attests, prudently withheld a direct condemna-
tory judgment of the Athenian gods. Notwithstanding, Baur and Zeller
have again insisted on a judicial process in the Areopagus—alleging that
the legend of Dionysius the Areopagite, as the first bishop of Athens,’ had
given rise to the whole history ; that there was a wish to procure for Paul
an opportunity, as solemn as possible, for the exposition of his teaching,
an arena analogous to the Sanhedrim (Zeller), etc. — Concerning the "Apeco¢
xayoc, collis Martius so called br: xpéarog "Apne évravda éxpidy,‘ the seat of the
supreme judicature of Athens, situated to the west of the Acropolis, and
concerning the institution and authority of that tribunal, see Meursius.* —
duvaueda yvova: x.7.A.] invitation in the form of a courteous question, by
way of securing the contemplated enjoyment. — ri¢ 7 xaivq x.7.A.] what, as
respects its more precise contents, this new doctrine, namely, that which is
being announced by you. In the repetition of the article’ there is here im-
plied a pert, ironical emphasis. — gevigovra] startling. fevitw ov udvov rd
Eévov brodéyouat, GAAG Kai éxrAnrtw.' — eiopépecc] namely, whilst you are here,
hence the present. — ri Gv 6éA0 ravra eilvat] see on ver. 18, ii. 12, and
Tittmann, Synon. N. T. p. 129 f. The plural rabra indicates the individual
points, after the collective character of which ri inquires.°®

Ver. 21. A remark of Luke added for the elucidation of vv. 19, 20. But
Athenians, ’ A@yvain, without the article: Athenian people, collectively,® and
the strangers resident there, had leisure for nothing else than, etc. eixaipeiv,
vacare alicui rei, belongs to the later Greek.'° The imperfect does not ex- .
clude the continuance of the state of things in the present, but interweaves
it with the history, so that it is transferred into the same time with the
latter."' According to Ewald, Luke actually means an earlier period, when
it had still been so in Athens, ‘‘ before it was plundered by Nero.’? But
then we should at least have expected an indication of this in the text by
rére oF wéAa, even apart from the fact that such a characteristic of a city is
not so quickly lost. — xacvérepov] The comparative delineates more strongly

1 Strabo, x. p. 474; Philostr. Vit. Apollon.
vi. 7; Hermann, gotieed. Alterth. § 12.

8 Ver, 2 ff.

' 8% Eua. iv, 28.

¢ Paus. 1. 28. 5.

8 De Areop. Lugd. Bat. 1624; Bickh, de
Areop. Berol. 1826; Hermann, Stuatealterth.
§ 105. 108. On the present locality, see Rob-
inson, I. p. 11 f.; Forbiger, Geogr. LI. p.
OST.

® Stallb. ad Flat. Rep. p. 407 B.

7Thom. Mag. Comp. Polyb. fii. 114. 4:
fevcGovca mpécowes x. eatanAnctixy, Diod. Sic.
xii. 58: 3 Macc. ix. 6; 8 Macc. vil. 3.

® Krfiger, § Ixi. 8 2; Stallbaum, ad Plas.
Gorg. p. SBC, Muthyphr. p. 15 A.

* wavres, see Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 12;
Kihner, § 685, note 2. [Phryn. p. 125.

10 Sturz, de Dial. Al. p. 169; Lobeck, ad

11 See on John xi. 18, and Kihner, ad Xen.
Anab. 1. 4.9. Comp. also the pluperfect éreye-
ypawro, Ver. 28.

PAUL’S ADDRESS ON MARS’ HILL. 331

and vividly. The novelty-loving' and talkative’ Athenians wished always
to be saying or hearing something newer than the previous news.*

Ver. 22. Xrafeic év uéow] denotes intrepidity.— The wisdom with which
Paul here could become a Gentile to the Gentiles, has been at all times
justly praised. There is to be noted also, along with this, the elegance
and adroitness, combined with all simplicity, in the expression and prog-
ress of thought; the speech is, as respects its contents and form, full of
sacred Attic art, a vividly original product of the free apostolic spirit. —
xara avra] in all respects. Comp. Col. iii. 20, 23. decocdaruoveorépovc] A com-
parison with the other Greeks, in preference over whom Athens had the
praise of religiousness.* Aeco:daiuwy means divinity-fearing, but may, as the
fear of God may be the source of either, denote as well real picty* as super-
stition.* Paul therefore, without violating the truth, prudently leaves the
religious tendeney of his hearers undetermined, and names only its source —
the fear of God. Ctrysostom well remarks: mpoodoraei rw Adyw’ dia rovro
sive’ decordatuovectépouc vudc Gewod.” Mistaking this fine choice of the expres-
sion, the Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Calovius, Suicer, Wolf, and
others explained it: superstitiosiores. o¢: I perceive you as more God-
fearing, so that you appear as such.* — iudc Oeapa] ‘‘ Magna perspicacia et
parrhesia ; unus Paulus contra Athenas,’’ Bengel.

Ver. 23. Arepysu.| belongs jointly to ra ceBaop. bu. — avafedp. ra oeB. vp. ]
attentively contemplating® the objects of your worship, temples, altars, images.*
— ayvéory Oew| That there actually stood at Athens at least one altar with
the inscription: ‘‘to an unknown god,’’ would appear historically certain
from this passage itself, even though other proofs were wanting, since Paul
appeals to his own observation, und that, too, in the presence of the
Athenians themselves, But there are corroborating external proofs:
(1) Pausan. i. 1. 4. (comp. v. 14. 6) says: in Athens there were Bwyoi Seav
re dvouaZzouévwy ayvocrwv xat fpdwv; and (2) Philostr. Vit. Apollon. vi. 2:
auopovéctepov wept wavruv Oem eb Aépecv, Kai TavTa 'ADHvyotv, ov Kai ayvooTtur
Jeav Bunt idpvvraz. From both passages it is evident that at Athens there
were several altars, each of which bore the votive inscription : ayvécry Seg."
The explanation of the origin of such altars is less certain. Yet Diog.
Laert. Hpim. 3 gives a trace of it, when it is related that Epimenides put
an end to a plague in Athens by causing black and white sheep, which he
had let loose on the Areopagus, to be sacrificed on the spots where they
lay down rq xpoojxovr: Sep, i.e. to the god concerned, yet not known by

1 Thue. ii). 38. 4
2 Wetstein and Valckenaer in loc.

?8ee on this word, Hermann, gottesd.
® See Bernhardy, p. 8338. {Alterth. § 8. 6.

2 See Winer, p. 228 (BE. T. 305). Comp. Plat.
Phaed. p. 115 B; Dem. 48.7; 160. 2.

* See Valckenaer, Schol. p. 351: “ASyvaios
wepurcérepéy te & Toig GAAos és Ta Oeid don
owovsys, Pauean. in Altic. 2%. Comp. Soph.
0. C. 20; Thue. fi. 40 f.; Ear. Her. 177, 380;
Joseph. o. Ap. i. 12.

§ Xen. Cyr. iil. 3. 58, Agesii. 11. 8.

® Theopr. Char. 16: Diod. Sic. i. 62 ; Lucian.
Alez. 9; Platarch, and others,

® Heb. xiii. 7; Diod. Sic. xli. 15; Plat. Aem.
P.1; Lacian, Vit. auct.23; comp. dvabenpyons,
Cicero, ad Adé. ix. 19, xiv. 15 f.

10 9 Thess. 11.4; Wied. xiv. 20, xv. 7; Hist.
Drag. 27; Dion. Hal. Ant. 1. 30, v.1; Suicer,
Thes. II. p. 942.

11 Lucian, Philopatr. 9 and 29, is invalid as
a proof, for there the reference of the pseudo-
Lucian to the "Ayvwcros év ‘A@jwace is based
on thia very passage.

332 CHAP. XVII., 24, 25.

name, namely, who was the author of the plague; and that therefore one
may find at Athens Buyotc dvwvbpouc, te. altars without the designation of a
god by name, not as Kuinoel, following Olearius, thinks, without any in-
scription. From this particular instance the general view may be derived,
that on important occasions, when the reference to a god known by name was
wanting, as in public calamities of which no definite god could be assigned as the
author, in order to honor or propitiate the god concerned (rév ™ poomaovTa) by
sacrifice, without lighting on a wrong one, altars were erected which were des-
tined and designated ayvécty Sep. Without any historical foundation, Eich-
horn ' supposed that such altars proceeded from the time when the art of
writing was not yet known or in use; and that at a later period, when it
was not known to what god these altars belonged, they were marked with
that inscription in order not to offend any god. Against this may be urged
the great probability that the destination of such altars would be preserved
in men’s knowledge by oral tradition. Entirely peculiar is the remark of
Jerome on Tit. 1. 12: ‘‘Inscriptio arae non ita erat, ut Paulus asseruit :
ignoto Deo, sed ita: Diis Asiae et Huropae et Africae, Diis ignotis et pere-
grinis.2| Verum quia Paulus non pluribus Diss ignotis indigebat, sed uno
tantum ignoto Deo, singulari verbo usus est,’’ etc. But there is no his-
torical trace of such an altar-inscription ; and, had it been in existence,
Paul could not have meant it, because we cannot suppose that, at the very
commencement of his discourse, he would have made a statement before
the Athenians deviating so much from the reality and. only containing an
abstract inference from it. The ayvdécry beg could not but have its literal
accuracy and form the whole inscription ; otherwise Paul would only have
promoted the suspicion of orepuodoyia. We need not inquire to what definite
god the Athenians pointed by their ayvdécry Seq. In truth, they meant no
definite god, because, in the case which occasioned the altar, they knew
none such. The view (see in Wolf) that the God of the Jews—the obscure
knowledge of whom had come from the Jews to Egypt, and thence to the
Greeks—is meant, is an empty dogmatic invention. Baur, p. 202, ed. 2,
with whom Zeller agrees, maintains that the inscription in the singular is
unhistorical ; that only the plural, dyvworo: Seoi, could have been written ;
and that only a writer at a distance, who ‘‘ had to fear no contradiction on
the spot,’’ could have ventured on such an intentional alteration. But the
very hint given to us by Diogenes Laertius as to the origin of such altars is
decisive against this notion, as well as the correct remark of Grotius:
‘‘Cum Pausanias ait aras Athenis fuisse Sed» ayyeorwy, hoc vult, multas
fuisse aras tali inscriptione : O29 ayydéory, quamquam potuere et aliae esse

1 Bidl. Ill. p. 418 f. (with whom Niemeyer,
Interpret. orat. Paul. Act. xvii. 22 ff., Hal.
1805, agreed).

2 But, according to Oecumenius : beots *Acias
Kat Evpwwns cat AcBuns Oey ayvwote nat fevy.
Comp. Isidor. Pelus. in Cramer, Caé. p. 292.
According to Ewald, this is the more exact
statement of the inscription; from it Paul
may have borrowed his quotation. But the

exactness is suspicious just on account of the
singular in Oecumenius; and moreover, Puul
would have gone much too freely to work by
the omission of the essential term AcBuyes
(‘‘ the unknown and strange god of Libya’);
nor would he have had any reason for the
omission of the germ, while he might, on the
contrary, have cmployed it in some ingenious
sort of turn with reference to ver. 18.

PAUL’S ADDRESS, 833

pluraliter inscriptae, aliae singulariter.’? Besides, it may be noted that
Paul, had he read ayvéoroc Seoic on the altar might have used this plural
expression for his purpose as suitably as the singular, since he, in fact, con-
tinues with the generic neuter 6. . . rovro. —On the Greek altars without
temples, see Hermann, gottesd. Alterth. § 17.—6 obv ayvooiwrec evoeBeire, ,
routo x.t.A.] (see the critical remarks) what ye therefore, according to this
inscription, without knowing tt, worship, that, this very object of your wor-
ship, do I, éyé, with a self-conscious emphasis, make known unto you. Paul
rightly inferred from the inscription that the Athenians, besides the gods,
Zeus, Athene, etc., known to them, recognised something divine as existing
and to be worshipped, which was different from these, however, after the
manner of heathenism, they might conceive of it in various concrete forms.
And justly also, as the God preached by him was another than those known
heathen gods,' he might now say that this divinity, which served them in
an unknown manner as the object of worship, was that which he announced
to them, in order that it might now become to them yvwords Sebo. Of
course, they could not yet take up this expression in the sense of the apostle
himself, but could only think of some divine being according to their usual
heathen conception,* but, most suitably to the purpose he had in view, re-
serving the more exact information for the further course of his address,
he now engaged the religious interest of his hearers in his own public an-
nouncement of it, and thereby ezcited that interest the more, as by this
ingeniously improvised connection he exhibited himself quite differently
from what those might have expected who deemed him a xarayyedeic Eévwv
Sauoviev, ver. 18. Chrysostom aptly remarksin this respect: dpa mac
deixvvot mpoetAnostacg avrov’ ovdéy Eévov, onoiv, ovdév xatvov eiopépw. — Observe,
also, the conciliatory selection of evoeBeire, which expresses pious worship.
evoeBeiv, with the accusative of the object,* is in classical writers, though
rare, yet certainly vouched for, in opposition to Valckenaer, Porson,
Seidler, Eliendt* (c’).

Vv. 24-29. Paul now makes that unknown divinity known in concreto,
and in such a manner that his description at the same time exposes the
nullity of the polytheism deifying the powers of nature, with which he
contrasts the divine affinity of man. Comp. Rom. i. 18 ff.

Vv. 24, 25. Comp. vii. 48; Ps. 1. 10 ff.; also the similar expressions
from profane writers.* — Gepareberat] is served, by offerings, etc., namely, as
regards the actual objective state of the case. — mpocdedu. rivd¢} as one, who
needed anything in addition,* i.e. to what He Himself is and has. Erasmus,
Paraphr.: ‘*‘cum .. . nullius bopi desideret accessionem.’’ * — avri¢ didoix

' Rom. 4, 2, 23; 1 Cor. vill. 4%, x. W. likewise Philo, leg. alleg. II. p. 1087.

* Comp. Laufs in the Stud. und Krit. 1850, © Luther takes rwoc as masculinc, which
p. 584 f. likewise excellently corresponds with what

31 Tim. v. 4; 4 Mace. v. 9%, xi. 5. precedes, ae with the following wac.. But

¢See Hermann, ad Soph. Ant. 727. Com- the ncuter rendering is yet to be preferred, as
pare also the Greek acefeiy rc oF rive. affecting everything exccpt God (in the ri

In Grotins and Wetstein, Kypke, II. 89, ‘there Is also every ris.) Comp. Clem. ad Cor.
and the passages cited from Porphyr. by I. 52.
Ullmann in the Stud. wu Krit. 1872, p. 888; 7 Comp. 2 Macc. xiv. 83, and Grimm ix /oc.,

334 CHAP. XVIL, 26-28.

x.T.A.] a confirmatory definition to oid? . . . revdg: seeing that He Himself
gives, etc. — dot] to all men, which is evident from the relation of airéc

. wavra to the preceding oid . . . rivéc. —Cwyv «. mvofv] the former
denotes life in itself, the latter the continuance of life, which is conditioned
by breathing. ‘Eumvoug ér’ eiul x. wvods Aepudc wvéw.' The dying man ¢picce:
wvod¢* éexrvei. Erasmus correctly remarks the jucundus concentus of the two
words.* Others assume a hendiadys, which, as regards analysis—life, and
indeed breath—and form, namely, that the second substantive is subordinate,
and must be converted into the adjective, Calvin has correctly appre-
hended : vitam animalem. But how tame and enfeebling ! — xai ra ravra]
and, generally, all things, namely, which they use. — Chrysostom has already
remarked how far this very first point of the discourse, vv. 24, 25, tran-
scends not only heathenism in general, but also the philosophies of heathen-
ism, which could not rise to the idea of an absolute Creator. Observe the
threefold contents of the speech: Theology, ver. 24 f.; Anthropology, vv.
26-29; Christology, ver. 30 f.

Vv. 26, 27. ‘*The single origin of men and their adjusted diffusion upon
the earth was also His work, in order that they should seek and find Him
who is near to all.’? —émoijoe . . . xatorxeiv] He has made that from—pro-
ceeding from—one blood, every nation of men should dwell upon all the face of
the earth, comp. Gen. xi. 8. Castalio, Calvin, Beza, and others: ‘‘ fecitque
ex uno sanguine omne genus hominum, ut inhabitaret’’ (after avfp. a
comma). Aguinst this is the circumstance that dpicac x«.7.A. contains the
modal definition, not to the making, to the producing, of the nations, but
to the making-them-fo-dwell, as is evident from ric xaroxtag atvrav ; so that
this interpretation is not according to the context. — é& évd¢ ainarac} See,
respecting aiza as the seat of life propagating itself by generation, on
John i. 13. Paul, by this remark, that all men through one heavenly
Father have also one earthly father, does not specially oppose, as Stolz,
Kuinoel, and others, following older interpreters, assume, the belief of the
Athenians that they were airézfovec];‘ the whole discourse is elevated
above so special a polemic bearing. But he speaks in the way of general
and necessary contrast to the polytheistic nature-religions, which derived
the different nations from different origins in their myths. Quite irrele-
vant is what Olshausen suggests as the design of Paul, that he wished to
represent the contempt in which the Jews were held among the Greeks as
absurd. — éi av 7d zpéour. r. yc] refers to the idea of the totality of the
nations dwelling on the earth, which is contained in ray é@voc, every nation.
— édpioac] Aorist participle contemporaneous with éoinoe, specifying how
God proceeded in that éroinoe x.7.4.: inasmuch as He has fixed the appointed
periods and the definite boundaries of their, the nation's, dwelling. rH¢ xarorx.
avr. belongs to both—to mpoorer. xaip., and tu rag 6po@. God has deter-

p. 199. See on this meaning of the verb es- 2 Pind. Wem. x. 140.

pecially, Dem. xiv. 22: Plat. Phil. p. 20 E: ® Comp. Lobeck, Paral. p. 58; Winer, p.
and on the distinction of spocSeic@ai rivos and =—s_«591 (KE. T. 783).
re, Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 342 A. 4 See Wetatein én loc.

1 Eur. Here. J. 1002.

PAUL’S ADDBESS. 835

mined the dwelling’ of the nations, according both to its duration in time
and to its extension in space. Both, subject to change, run their course in
a development divinely ordered.* Others take spoorer. xacp. independently
of r. xatocx. atr., so Baumgarten ; but thereby the former expression pre-
sents itself in perplexing indefiniteness, The sense of the epochs of the
world set forth by Daniel* must have been more precisely indicated than
by the simple xa:poic. Lachmann has separated sxpoorerayp. into mpdc
TeTayuévovg unnecessarily, contrary to all versions and Fathers, also con-
trary to the reading wporerayz. in D* Iren. interpr. — 7} épo8ecia is not else-
where preserved, but 1d dpoféccov ; see Bornemann.

Ver. 27. The divine purpose in this guidance of the nations is attached
by means of the telic infinitive :‘ in order that they should seek the Lord, i.e.
direct their endeavours to the knowledge of God, if perhaps they might feel
Him, who is so palpably near, and jind Him. Olshausen thinks that in
Cyretv is implied the previous apostasy of mankind from God. But the
seeking does not necessarily suppose a having lost ; and since the text does
not touch on an earlier fellowship of man with God, although that is in
itself correct, the hearers, at least, could not infer that conclusion from
the simple ¢yreiv. The great thought of the passage is simply : God the
Author, the Governor, and the Hnd of the world’s history: from God,
through God, to God. — yyiag . . . etpoev] Paul keeps consistently to his
figure. The seeker who comes on his object touches and grasps it, and has
now in reality found it. Hence the meaning without figure is: if per-
chance they might become conscious of God and of their relation to Him, and
might appropriate this consciousness as @ spiritual possession. Thus they
would have understood the guidance of the nations as a revelation of God,
and have complied with its holy design in their own case.* The problem-
atic expression, e: dpaye, ¢f they at least accordingly,* is in accordance both
with the nature of the case—Bengel: ‘‘via patet ; Deus inveniri potest,
sed hominem non cogit’’—and with the historical want of success ;" for
the heathen world was dlinded, to which also y7Aag. points—a word which,
since the time of Homer, is very frequently used of groping in the dark or
in blindness. * — xafrocye x.7.A.] although certainly He* does not at all require
to be first sought and found, as He is not far ® from every one of us. Comp.
Jer. xxiii. 28. This addition makes palpably evident the greatness of the
blindness, which nevertheless took place.

Ver. 28. Reason assigned (yap) for ov uaxp. ard évig x.7.A., for in Him we
live, we move, and we exist. Paul views God under the point of view of His
immanence as the element in which we live, etc.; and man in such intimate
connection with God, that he is constantly surrounded by the Godhead and
embraced in its essential influence, but, apart from the Godhead, could

1 carouxia, Polyb. v. 78. 5; Strabo, v. p. * See Rom. i. 18 ff., and comp. Baumg. p.

® Comp. Job xii. 28. (36. 550 ff.

3’ Baumgarten. ® Od. ix. 416; Job v.14; comp. here es.
4 Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 2A (KR. T. 261). pecially, Plato, Phaed. p. 99 B.

® Comp. Luthardt, vom. freien Willen, p. 415. ® xiv. 17; John iv. 2%,

® See Klotz, ad Devar. pp. 178, 192. 10 For see ver. 28.

336 CHAP. XVII., 29-31.

neither live, nor move, nor exist.!. This explanation is required by the re-
lation of the words to the preceding, according to which they are designed
to prove the nearness of God; therefore év airy must necessarily contain
the local reference—the idea of the divine rem ydpyorc, which Chrysostom il-
lustrates by the example of the air surrounding us on all sides. Therefore
the rendering per eum,” or, as de Wette more correctly expresses it, ‘‘ rest-
ing on Him as the foundation,’’* which would yield no connection in the
way of proof with the ob uaxpav eivac of the Godhead, is to be abandoned.
In opposition to the pantheistic view, see already Calvin. It is sufficient
to urge against it—although it was also asserted by Spinoza and others—
on the one hand, that the transcendence of God is already decidedly at-
tested in vv. 24-26, and on the other, that the éy avr@ Capuev «.7.A. 18 said
solely of men, and that indeed in so far as they stand in essential connec-
tion with God by divine descent, see the following, in which case the doc-
trine of the reality of evil * excludes a spiritual pantheism. — Goyer x. xtvoineta
x. éouév] a climax: out of God we should have no life, not even movement,
which yet inanimate creatures, plants, waters, etc., have, nay, not even any
existence, we should not have been at all. Heinrich and others take a su-
perficial view when they consider all three to be synonymous. Storr,° on
the other hand, arbitrarily puts too much into (ayev ; vivimus beate ac hilare ;
and Olshausen, after Kuinoel, too much into éopuév: the true being, the life of
the spirit. It is here solely physical life and being that is meant ; the moral
life-fellowship with God, which is that of the regenerate, is remote from
the context. —rive¢ rav xa? ipuac rar.| Namely, Aratus, of Soli in Cilicia,
in the third century B.c.,* and Cleanthes of Assos in Mysia, a disciple of
Zeno.” For other analogous passages, see Wetstein.—The acquaintance of
the apostle with the Greek poets is to be considered as only of a dilettante
sort ;* his school-training was entirely Jewish, but he was here obliged to
abstain from O. T. quotations. — rév xa? inde ror.] Of the poets pertain-
ing to you, t.¢. your poets.° —rov yap nal yévoc éouév)] The first half of a hex-
ameter, verbatim from Aratus /.c. ; therefore yap xai is not to be considered
in logical connection with the speech of the apostle, but as, independently
of the latter, a component part of the poetical passage, which he could not
have omitted without destroying the verse. Nam hujus progenies quoque
sumus: this Paul adduces as a parallel (6¢ «ai rive . . . eipfxact) confirm-

1Comp. Dio Chrys. vol. I. p. 88, ed.
Reiske: are ov paxpay ovd' cf Tov OSeiov
Supxeopévor, add’ év avr peow wepuxores «.7.A.

2 Beza, Grotius, Heinrichs, Kuinoel.

3 Comp. already Chrysostom: ove elwe &s
aUTOU, GAA’ 5 éyyvrepoy hry, ev alTe.

* Comp. Olshausen.

5 Opusc. ITL. p. 95.

7 Hymn. in Jov. 5.

8 That Paul after his conversion, on account
of his destination to the Gentiles, may have
earnestly occupied himself in Tarsus with
Greek literature (Baumgarten), to which also

the BiBAtce, 2 Tim. fv. 18, are supposed to
point, is a very precarious assumption, es-
pecially as it ie Aratus, a felloro-countryman
of the apostle, who is quoted, and other
quotations (except Tit. {. 12) are not demon
strable (comp. on 1 Cor. xv. 83). The poct-
ical expression itself in our passage is euch
& common idea (see Wetstein), that an ac-
quaintance with it from several Greeks pocts
(revés) by nO means presupposes a more
special study of Greek literature. See In-
troduction to the Zpistle to the Romans, § 1.
* See Bernhardy, p. 941,

PAUL’S ADDRESS. 337

ing to his hearers his own assertion, év air@ COuev . . . éonév. As the off-
spring of God, we men stand in such homogeneity to God, and thus in such
necessary and essential connection with God, that we cannot have life, etc.,
without Him, but only in Him. 80 absolutely dependent is our life, etc.,
on Him, — rov| Here, according to poetical usage since the time of Homer,
in the sense of ruirov.! Paul has idealized the reference of the rot to Zeus
in Aratus.—In the passage of Cleanthes, which was also in the apostle’s
mind, it is said: &x cov yap yévoc éovév, where yévoc is the accusative of more
precise definition, and means, not kindred, as with Aratus, but origin.

Ver. 29. Since, then, we, according to this poetical saying, are offspring
of God, 90 must our self-consciousness, kindred to God, tell us that the Godhead
has not resemblance to gold, etc. We cannot suppose a resemblance of the
Godhead to such materials, graven by human urt, without denying our-
selves as the progenies of God.* Therefore we ought not (cix ogelAonev).
What a delicate and penetrating attack on heathen worship! That Paul
with the reproach, which in voix ogei2ouev x.7.A. is expressed with wise mild-
ness,* does no injustice to heathenism, whose thinkers had certainly in great
measure risen sbove anthropomorphism, but hits the prevailing popular
opinion,* may be seen in Baumgarten, p. 566 ff. — yévoc] placed first and
separated from r. Orvi, as the chief point of the argument. For, if we are
proles Dei, and accordingly homogeneous with God, it is a preposterous error
at variance with our duty to think, with respect to things which ure en-
tirely heterogeneous to us, as gold, silver, and stone, that the Godhead has
resemblance with them. — yapa)par: réyv. x. évOuy. avfpororv] a graven image -
which is produced by art and deliberation of a man, for the artist made it
according to the measure of his artistic meditation and reflection : an appo-
sition to xyprow «.r.4., not in the ablative (Bengel). — rd Geiov] the divine
nature, divinum numen.* The general expression fitly corresponds to the
discourse on heatheniam, as the real object of the latter. Observe also the
striking juxtaposition of avfpdrov and ré Oeiov ; for xapdyp. téyv. x. evi. avép.
serves to make the ovx ogeiAovev vopiterv still more palpably felt ; inasmuch
as metal and stone serve only for the materials of human art and artistic
thoughts, but far above human artistic subjectivity, which wishes to repre-
sent the divine nature in these materials, must the Godhead be exalted,
which is not similar to the human image, but widely different from it.*

Vv. 80, 81. It is evident from ver. 29 that heathenism is based on igno-
rance. Therefore Paul, proceeding to the Christological portion of his
discourse, now continues with pév obv: the times, therefore, of ignorance, for
such they are, according to ver. 29, God having overlooked, makes known at
present to all men everywhere to repent. — ixepiddv] without noting them with
a view to punishment or other interference.” The idea of contempt,° although

1 See Kfthner, § 480, 8; Eilendt, Lex. Soph. pos Tous woAAovs 5 Adyor Fy abre, Chry-
sostom.

IT. p. 198.

2Graf views it otherwise, but sgainst the
clear words of the passage, in the Siud. wu.
KXrtt. 1869, p. 282.

3 Bengel: “clemens locutio, praesertim in
prima persona plurall.””

[C, al.
¢ Herod. iff. 106, 1. 88: Plat. Phaedr. p. M2
© Comp. Wied. xv. 15 ff.
7Comp. Dion. Hal. v. 82% Opposite of

édopay. See aleo on Rom. ill. 2%; Acts xiv. 16.
© Vulg.: despictens.

338 CHAP. XVII., 32-34.

otherwise linguistically suitable, which Castalio, de Dieu, Gataker, Calo-
vius, Seb. Schmid, and others find in the expression, partly even with the
observation : ‘‘indignatione et odio temporum . . . correptus,’’! is at vari-
ance with the cautiousness and moderation of the whole speech. — rac
mavrayov| a popular hyperbolical expression ; yet not incorrect, as the uni-
versal announcement was certainly in course of development.* — xadsri (see
the critical remarks) : in accordance with the fact that He has appointed a day.
It denotes the important consideration, by which God was induced ;aviv
mwapayyéAde x.t.A. Comp. ii. 24.— év dinacoc.| in righteousness, so that this
is the determining moral element, in which the xpivecy is to take place, i.e.
dixaiwg, 1 Pet. ii. 28. Paul means the Messianic judgment, and that as not
remotely impending. — év avdpi] i.e. in the person of a man, who will be
God's representative. — J Gpice x.7.2.] a well-known attraction : whom He
ordained, namely, for holding the judgment, having afforded faith, in Him
as a judge, to all, by the fact that He ruised Him from the dead. The niorw
mapéxecv* is the operation of God on men, by which He affords to them
faith,— an operation which He brought to bear on them historically, by
His having conspicuously placed before them in the resurrection of Jesus
His credentials as the appointed judge. The resurrection of Jesus is indeed
the divine onyeiov,* and consequently the foundation of knowledge and con-
viction, divinely given as a sure handle of faith to all men, as regards what
the Lord, in His nature and destination was and is; and therefore the
thought is not to be regarded as ‘‘ not sufficiently ideal’’ for Paul.* The
épierv is not, as in x. 42, the appointment which took place in the counsel
of God, but that which was accomplished in time and fact as regards the
faith of men, as in Rom. i. 4. Moreover, the rior mapéyerv, which on the
part of God took place by the resurrection of Jesus, does not exclude the
human self-determination to accept and appropriate this divine rapézev.°
Nliorty mapéyecv may be rendered, with Beza and others,’ according to like-
wise correct Greek usage: to yive assurance by His resurrection, but this
commends itself the less, because in that case the important element of
Jaith remains without express mention, although it corresponds very suit-
ably to the mapayyéAAe pezavoeiv, ver. 80. The conception and mode of
expression, to afford faith, is similar to perdvocav didévar, V. 81, xi. 18, yet
the latter is already more than zapéyerv, potestatem facere, ansam praebere
credendi.

Ver. 82. As yet Paul has not once named Jesus, but has only endeavoured
to gather up the most earnest interest of his hearers for this the great final
aim of his discourse ; now his speech is broken off by the mockery of some,
and by a courteous relegation to silence on the part of others. — avacraciw
vexpav] a resurrection of dead persons, as Paul had just asserted such a case.
The plural denotes the category.* To take it of the generul rising of the

1 Wolf, 8 De Wette. Comp. on if. 96, iv. 27, x. 38,

3 Comp. Col. i. 28. On the juxtaposition of = xill. 33.
waco. wavr., Bee Lobeck, Paralip. p. 56 f. ¢ Comp. on Rom. il. 4.
* See Wetstein and Kypke in loe. 7 Sec eaxpeciaily Raphel, Polyd. in loc.

4 Comp. John ii. 18 f. ® Comp. on Rom. {. 4.

PAUL’S ADDRESS. 339

dead at the day of judgment, is quite at variance with the context, That,
moreover, the oi zév were all Epicureans, and the ui dé Stoics, as Grotius,
Wolf, and Rosenmfiller supposed, cannot be proved. Calvin, Grotius,
Wolf, Rosenmiller, Alford, and others hold axovoéue§a cov rad. repi rotrov
as meant in earnest. But would not Paul, if he had so understood it, have
remained longer in Athens? See xviii. 1. — The repellent result, which
the mention of the resurrection of Jesus brought about, is by Baur sup-
posed to be only a product of the author, who had wished to exhibit very
distinctly the repulsive nature of the doctrine of the resurrection for edu-
cated Gentiles ; he thinks that the whole speech is only an effect fictitiously
introduced by the author, and that the whole narrative of the appearance
at Athens is to be called in question —‘‘ a counterpart to the appearance of
Stephen at Jerusalem, contrived with a view to a harmless issue instead of
a tragical termination,’’ Zeller. But with all the delicacy and prudence,
which Paul here, 1n this ‘EA2ddo¢ 'EAAd¢,* had to exercise and knew how to
do so, he could not and durst not be silent on the resurrection of Jesus, that
foundation of apostolic preaching ; he could not but, after he had done all
he could to win the Athenians, now bring the matter to the issue, what effect
the testimony to the Risen One would have. If the speech had noé this
testimony, criticism would the more easily and with more plausibility be
able to infer a fictitious product of the narrator ; and it would hardly have
neglected to do so.

Vv. 38, 34. Oiruc] i.e. with such a result. — xoarnflivees aire] having more
closely attached themselves to him. Comp. v. 13, ix. 26. — 6 'Apeoray.] the
assessor of the court of Areopagus. This is to be considered as the well-known
distinctive designation, hence the article, of this Dionysius in the apostolic
church. Nothing further is known with certainty of him. The account of
Dionysius of Corinth in Eus. H. Z. iii. 4, iv. 23,* that he became bishop of
Athens, where he is said to have suffered martydom,‘ is unsupported. The
writings called after him,*® belonging to the later Neoplatonism, have been
shown to be spurious. According to Baur, it was only from the ecclesias-
tical tradition that the Areopagite came into the Book of Acts, and so
brought with him the fiction of the whole scene on the Areopagus. —
Adyapic] wholly unknown, erroneously held by Chrysostom to be the wife
of Dionysius, which is just what Luke does not express by the mere yvv4.
Grotius conjectures Adyadic (juvenca), which name was usual among the
Greeks. But even with the well-known interchange of 4 and p,* we must
assent to the judgment of Calovius: ‘‘ Quis nescit nomina varia esse, ac
plurima inter se vicina non tamen eadem.’’ As a man’s name we find
Aauapivy in Boeckh, Jnser, 2398, and Aaudpyc, 1241, also Aapudpero¢ in Pausan.
v. 5. 1; and as a woman's name, Aayapérn, in Diod, xi. 26.

1 Comp. Zeller. [102. * Niceph. iif. 11.
* Thacyd. epigr., see Jacobs, Anthol. I. p. 8 wep. THS OUpamcas Lepapyias K.T.A.
® Comp. Oonstiti. ap. vil. 46. 9. * Lobeck, ad PAryn. p. 179.

340 CHAP. XVII—NOTES.

Norges By AMERICAN Eprror.

(x*) Thessalonica, VY. 1.

Having been ‘“‘shamefully entreated’’ and then honorably dismissed from
Philippi, Paul and two of his companions, leaving Luke at Philippi, passing
through other cities, came to Thessalonica, This celebrated city, distant about
one hundred miles south-west from Philippi, was beautifully situated on the
slope of a hill, at the northern end of the Thermaic Gulf. It was a great com-
mercial city, the capital of the province and residence of the proconsul. After
the battle of Philippi, on account of its attachment to the cause of Anthony, it
was made a free city. Strabo mentions it as the largest city in Macedonia. It
has always been a city of importance; at present it is considered the second
city of European Turkey, and has a population of 70,000. Here the mission-
aries rested, as there was a synagogue of the Jews, probably the only one in
that district. After finding the means of earning his daily bread by manual
toil, and a home in the house of Jason, the apostle, as was his custom, went to
the synagogue, and for three consecutive Sabbaths preached to the Jews that
Jesus was the promised Messiah. Some of them believed, and formed the nu-
cleus of what becamea large and useful church. But the Jews as a class, from
first to last, were the plague of his suffering life, and a great hindrance to his
ministry. ‘ At Antioch and Jerusalem, Jews, nominally within the fold of
Christ, opposed his teaching and embittered his days ; in all other cities it was
the Jews who contradicted and blasphemed the holy name which he was
preaching. In the planting of his churches he had to fear their deadly opposi-
tion ; in the watering of their yet more deadly fraternity. The Jews who hated
Christ sought his Jife ; the Jews who professed to love him undermined his
efforts. The one faction endangered his existence, the other rnined his pence.
Never, till death released him, was he wholly free from their violent conspira-
cies or their insidious caluamnies, Without, they sprang upon him like a pack
of wolves ; within, they hid themselves in sheep’s clothing to worry and tear
his flocks.’’ (Furrar.) Here in Thessalonica he was assaulted by a mob, in-
stigated and led on by the Jews ; and he and his friends deemed it prudent
that he should privately and hastily depart, lest the liberty and the lives of the
brethren who had given surety for him might be imperilled.

(z*) Honorable women. V. 12.

The term employed indicates that the women were of high rank and social
position —among the chief people of the city. Arnot, on this passage, wriies :
‘* And is there ground for gladness there? Are the upper ten thousand more
precious in God’s sight than the myriads who occupy a lower place? No; this
word comes from heaven, and does not shape itself by the fashion of the
world. But though poor and rich are equally precious, there are times and cir-
cumstances in which conversion in high places is more noted and noteworthy
than conversion in a low place. The common people heard the Master gladly ;
but the rulers held aloof, and boasted that they were not tinged with any trust

NOTES. 341

in Jesus of Nazareth. On this very account there was great joy in their circle
when a magnate joined their band. Even the Lord longed to have some of
them, and looked fondly on the young rich man who cane running and kneel-
ing and culling him Master.’’ At Antioch in Pisidia the Jews enlisted the ser-
vices of women of similar rank and position, and characterized by superstitious
devoutness and ignorant zeal, to counteract the influence and usefulness of the
apostles. ‘‘ This is an agency that has from the beginning been sought and
used both for good and evil. Women were employed by our Lord himself for
certain appropriate ministries in the establishment of his kingdom. But falso
teachers have in all times availed themselves of the combined weakness and
strength of the female nature for their own ends. The Romish hierarchy have

-always made much of female agency, and especially the agency of women in

high social rank. But as Christ himself employed their tenderness and pa-
tience and perseverance in his own cause, he has encouraged his disciples in
all ages to go and do likewise. Let woman stand on her true foundation—the
family ; and forth from that citadel let her go to her daily task, wherever the
Lord hath need of her daily service ; but back to the family let her ever return,
as to her refuge and rest. Colonies of women, cut off from family relations and
affections and duties, and bound by vows, are mischievous to themselves, and,
notwithstanding superficial apparent advantages, in the long run, dangerous to
the community. God made the family ; man made the convent. | God's work!
behold it is very good ; man's is in this case a snare.” (Arnot.) Lately, in the
Christian church in this land, the place and power of woman, both at home
and abroad, has been more generally acknowledged and felt—among the young
and the poor and afflicted amidst ourselves ; and in the schools and zenanas of
foreign lands, her work is greatly blessed. And as a large proportion of the
membership of the Protestant churches in this country are women, their work
and their worth in every field of religious and charitable enterprise cannot be
overestimated.

(a*) Timothy. V. 15.

This is the first time Timothy is mentioned in the narrative since Paul left
Philippi. ‘The probability is, however, that he was with the apostle at Thessa-
Jonica, as he appears to have been intimately connected with that church.
(1 Thess. i. 1, iii. 2, and 2 Thess. i. 1.)

Comparing xviii. 5 and 1 Thess. iii. 1, 2 our author and others suppose that
there is a mistake in Luke's narrative which cannot be explained or removed.
On this Gloag writes : ‘‘ But certainly the mere omission by Luke of Timothy's
visit to Athens and return to Thessalonica is no discrepancy, as the circum-
stance had no bearing on his narrative. If Timothy had remained with the
apostle, and thus had not rejoined him at Corinth, the case would have been
different. But after all, the fact that Timothy came to Athens at all isa mere
supposition ; it is not asserted .in 1 Thess. iii. 1. The probability is that he
was sent by Paul to Thessalonica from Berea, and not from Athens; and that
after his return he and Silas went directly from Berea to Corinth.’’ Those who
had accompanied Paul to Athens when they returned brought back a request
from him that Silas, who had remained at Berea, and Timothy, who had in the
meantime gone back to Thessalonica, either from Berea or from Athens, should

342 CHAP. XVIIL—NOTES.

go to him with all speed. ‘' But Silas and Timothy do not seem to have re-
joined Paul until he reached Corinth. We have no direct information what
became of Luke’in the meantime.” (<Abbott.) Plumtree says: ‘‘ As far as we
can gather from 1 Thess, i. 1-3, Timothy came by himself to Athens, probably
after the scene at the Areopagus, and was sent back at once with words of coun-
sel and comfort to those whom he reported as suffering much tribulation.”’

Alford gives this explanation: ‘‘When Paul departed from Berea, he
sent Timpthy to exhort and confirm the Thessalonians and determined to be left
at Athens alone, Silas meanwhile remaining to carry on the work at Berea.
Then Paul, on his arrival at Athens, sends a message to both to come to him
as soon as possible. They did so, and find him at Corinth.”

(B*) The market-place, V. 17.

The Agora, or market-place, in any Greek city, was the centre of its life. The
market-place of Athens was at once its Exchange, its Lyceum, and its lounge.
Men of all ranks and classes, of all callings and professions, met and jostled
each other in the eager, bustling throng which daily crowded it. In this same
market-place, more than four centuries before, Socrates had conducted his
wonderful conversational discussions. Hither Paul, after having addressed the
Jews in their synagogue, went, with stirred heart, to address the idolatrous
multitudes. Among the throng of curious listeners mingled many philosophers
of every shade of opinion. Special mention is made of the Epicureans and
Stoics. Epicurus, the founder of the one school, lived a long and tranquil
life at Athens, and died at the age of 72. The leading tenet of his philosophy
was that the highest good is pleasure. But as experience taught that what are
called pleasures are often more than counterbalanced by the pains which they
incur, he taught that all excess in sensuous delights should be avoided, His
own. life seems to have been characterized by generosity, general kindliness, and
self-control ; many of his followers, however, adopted a life of ease and self-
indulgence ; sometimes restrained by the calculations of prudence, and some-
times sinking into mere voluptuousness.

* Quid sit futurum cras fuge querere. ct
Quem fors dicrum cunque dabit, lucro appone."”

“Strive not the morrow's chance to know,
But count whate’er the Fatea bestow
As given thee for gain."" (Horace.)

The other school took its name, not from its founder, Zeno, bnt from the
Stoa prekil2, the painted porch, where Zeno was accustomed to teach. This
school held as their chief tenet, that the highest source of pleasure is to be
found in virtue. They taught that true wisdom consisted in controlling cir-
cumstances and not being affected by them ; that men should he alike indif-
ferent to pleasure and pain, They aimed at obtaining a complete mastery, not
only over their passions, but even over their circumstances. There was much
that was good in each system, and the highest nnd noblest of the schools ex-
hibited a moral and manly life. But each, in most cases, tended to degrade
and degenerate the race. ‘In their worst degeneracies Stoicism became the
apotheosis of suicide, and Epicureanism the glorification of lust.’ (Furrar.)

NOTES. 343

The one school was designated the school of the garden ; the other the school
of the porch. The one was atheistic, the other pantheistic. Neither believed
in a divine personal Providence. To them, the message of this new teacher,
enforced by his fiery eloquence and informal logic, concerning Jesus and the
resurrection, seemed but as idle tales and yarrulous chatterings. Butas it was
something new, they all wished, from curiosity, to hear something farther from
him ; at least it might amuse them, if nothing more. So they led him to Mars’
Hill, where he might more fully unfold his strange doctrines.

(o*) An unienown God. V. 23.

Paul standing in the midst of a vast, curious, sneering, or indifferent throng,
announced as his text an inscription he had seen om one of their numerous
altars. As to the pulpit he occupied and its surroundings, Bishop Wordsworth
observes: ‘‘ He stood on that hill in the centre of Athens, with its statues and
altars and temples around him. The temple of the Eumenides was immediately
below him , behind was the temple of Theseus ; and he beheld the Parthenon
of the Acropolis fronting him from above. The temple of Victory was on his
right and a countless multitude of temples and altars in the Agora and Cerami-
cus below him. Above him, towering over the city from its pedestal on the
rock of the Acropolis, was the bronze colossus of Minerva, the champion of
Athens.’’ With deep earnestness, undaunted composure, and sublime faith in
the message he had to utter, and in the Master he served, the apostle addressed
the mixed and multitudinous assemblage. And a most remarkable address he
gave. His manner was courteous and winning ; his style natural and adapted
to his andience ; his arguments clear and conclusive ; his illustrations ample
and appropriate ; his application personal and pointed, solemn and impres-
sive.

‘‘In expressions markedly courteous, and with arguments exquisitely con-
ciliatory, recognizing their piety toward their gods, and enforcing his views by
an appeal to their own poets, he yet manages, with the readiest power of adapta-
tion, to indicate the errors of each class of his listeners. While seeming to
dwell only on points of agreement, he yet practically rebukes, in every direction,
their national and intellectual self-complacency.’’ (Furrar.) From the nature
and dignity of man, he infers and declares the spirituality and unity of God,
and the obligations under which all men are laid to worship him alone, as the
Creator of all things, and in whom ‘we Jive and move and have our being.’’
Then he urges all to repentance for the past, in view of a coming general judg-
ment, which will be held by Jesus Christ, whereof indisputable assurance has
been given by God, in raising his Son from the dead. The apostle was here
interrnpted by a burst of derision, and the apostle went sorrowfully away,
mourning over their intellectual pride and spiritual incapacity. Some, how-
ever, believed, among whom was a member of the court, who mast have occupied
a high position, and a woman, also probably of some distinction. Tradition
tells us that this Dionysius became Bishop of Athens, and died a martyr. The
succens of the apostle was less in Athens than in any other city he visited, and
he makes no allusion to the city or the church in it, in any of his epistles. He
left Athens a despised and lonely man. yet his visit was not in vain— in its
effects on his own mind, and in the results that followed from the planting of

344 CHAP. XVII.—NOTES.

the grain of mustard-seed. He founded no church there, but one grew up in
that city, which furnished its mattyr bishop, and able apologists to the
charch, in the next century. ‘‘Of all who visit Athens, many connect it with
the name of Paul who neverso much as remember that, since the days of its
glory, it has been trodden by the feet of poets and conquerors and kings.
They think not of Cicero, or Virgil, or Germanicus, but of the wandering tent-
maker.” (Furrar.)

The report of this able, eloquent, powerful speech, and the results which
followed, was probably written by Paul’s own hand.

CRITICAL REMARKS. 345

CHAPTER XVIII.

Ver. 1, 6 MadAos is wanting in important witnesses, Rightly deleted by Lachm.
and Tisch. With ywp.o6eis a church-lesson begins, — Ver. 2.é] ABDEG X,
min. Vulg. have azé. So Lachm. Tisch. Born., and rightly, on account of the
decisive attestation.—On preponderating evidence, rg réyvy is, in ver 3, to be
adopted, with Lachm. and Tisch., instead of riv réyvnv. — Ver. 5. rp Adyy) Elz.
has rq rveipzari, in opposition to A B D E G X, min. several vss. and Fathers.
Defended by Rinck on the ground that r¢ Adyy is a scholion on diaxapr. But
it was not d:auapr., but ovveiyero, that needed a scholion, namely, rg wvetuare,
which, being received into the text, displaced the original r¢ Adyw. — Ver. 7.
"lovorov}] Syr. Erp. Sahid. Cassiod. have Tirov; E &, min. Copt. Arm. Syr. p.
Vulg. have Tirou ‘Iovorov ; BD**: Tcriov ’I. A traditional] alteration.! ~ Ver. 12.
avOurarevovros] Lachm. Born. read avOurdrov évros after A B DX, min. An
explanatory resolution of a word not elsewhere occurring in the N. T..— Ver. 14.
ovv] Lachm. and Born. have deleted it according to important testimony. But
it was very easily passed over amidst the cumulation of particles and between
ueN and 7N, especially as ody has not its reference in what immediately pre-
cedes, — Ver. 15. (yryza] A B D** ®, min. Theophyl. and several vss. have ¢y77-
parva. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The singular
was, in spite of the several objects afterwards named, very easily introduced
mechanically as an echo of adixyua and Jadiovpynua. — ydp] is to be deleted,
with Lachm. Tisch. Born. in accordance with A BD X&, Vulg. Copt., as a con-
nective addition. — Ver.17. After rdvres, Elz. Born. read of “EAAnves, which is
wanting in A B &, Erp. Copt. Vulg. Chrys. Bed. Some more recent codd. have,
instead of it, of "Iovdaior. Both are supplementary additions, according to dif-
ferent modes of viewing the passage. See the exegetical remarks. — Ver. 19.
xarnvence] Lachm. Tisch. read xargyrycay, after A B E X&, 40, and some vas.
The sing. intruded itself from the context. — airod) éxei, which Lachm. and
Born. have according to important evidence, was imported as by far the more
usual word. — Ver. 21. azerdgaro avr. eindv] Lachm., Tisch. Born. read aroraga-
pevos xal‘eirov (with the omission of xai before dv7y6n), after A B D E &, min.
vas. Rightly ; the Recepia is an obviously suggested simplification. — dei ue rdv-
tos... eiS ‘Iepoc.] is wanting in ABE &, min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Vulg., as
well as dé after wuA.v. Both are deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., and condemned
already by Mill and Bengel. But the omission is far more easily accounted for
than the addition of there words,—occasioned possibly by xix. 21, xx. 16, or by
the wdéAcv dvax. presumed to be too abrupt,—as in what directly follows copy-
ista, overlooking the reference of ava@ds in ver, 22, found no journey of the

1 Occasioned by the circumstancethat Justus named in i. 28 and Col. iv. 11. Wieseler
does not elsewhcre occur alone asaname, but judges otherwise, on Gala. p. 578, and in
only as a surname; and that the pereon here Herzog‘'s Ancyki. XXI. 276; he prefers Tirev
meant must be a different person from those ‘loverov.

346 CHAP. XVIUJ., 1, 2.

apostle to Jerusalem, and accordingly did not see the reason why Paul declined
a longer residence at Ephesus verified by the course of his journey. — Ver. 25.
’Inoot) Elz. has xvpiov, against decisive testimony. — Ver. 26. The order Il piox.
x. 'Ac. (Lachm.) is attested, no doubt, by A B E &, 13, Valg. Copt. Aeth., but is
to be derived from ver. 18. — rv rod beot odé6v}] AB ®, min. vss. Lachm. have ri
6ddv Tov Geoi ; E, vas. have r. 6d. rov xrpiov ; D has only rv odédy (80 Born.). With
the witnesses thus divided, the reading of Lachm. is to be preferred as the
best attested.

Vv. 1, 2. In Corinth, at which Paul had arrived after his parting from
Athens,' he met with the Jew ’AxiAac, Greek form of the Latin Aguila,
which is to be considered as a Roman name adopted after the manner of
the times instead of the Jewish name,’ a native of the Asiatic province of
Pontus, but who had hitherto resided at Rome, and afterwards dwelt there
also,* and so probably had his dwelling-place in thaé city—an inference
which is rendered the more probable, as his temporary removal to a dis-
tance from Rome had its compulsory occasion in the imperial edict. We
make this remark in opposition to the view of Neander, who thinks that
Aquila had not his permanent abode at Rome, but settled, on account of
his trade, now in one and then in another great city forming a centre of
commerce, such as Corinth and Ephesus. The conjecture that he was a
Jreedman of a Pontius Aquila,‘ so that the statement Movriady ro yéver is an
error,’ is entirely arbitrary. Whether Mpiox:AAa—identical with Prisca,
Rom. xvi. 8, for, as is well known, many Roman names were also used in
diminutive forms, see Grotius on Rom. /.c.—was a Roman by birth, ora
Jewess, remains undecided. But the opinion—which has of late become
common and is defended by Kuinoel, Olshausen, Lange, and Ewald—that
Aquila and his wife were already Christians, having been so possibly at
starting from Rome, when Paul met with them at Corinth, because there
is no account of their conversion, is very forced. Luke, in fact, calls
Aquila simply ‘Iovdaiov, he does not say, r:va pabyriy 'Iovd., whereas else-
where he always definitely makes known the Jewish Christians ; and ac-
cordingly, by the subsequent wévrag roic¢ *Iovdaiove, he places Aquila, with-
out any distinction, among the general body of the expelled Jews. He also
very particularly indicates as the reason of the apostle’s lodging with him,
not their common Christian faith, but their common handicraft, ver. 3.
It is therefore to be assumed that Aquila and Priscilla were still Jews when
Paul met with them at Corinth, but through their connection with him they be-
came Christians.* This Luke, keeping in view the apostolic labours of Paul
as a whole,’ leaves the reader to infer, inasmuch as he soon afterwards
speaks of the Christian working of the two, ver. 26. We may add that
the reply to the question, whether and how far Christianity existed at all
in Rome before the decree of Claudius,* can here be of no consequence,

1 ywpiod., comp., |. 4. § Reiche on Rom. xvi. 3, de Wette.
* See Eust. ad Dion. Per. 381. 6 See also Herzog in his Encyd. I. p. 456.
8 Rom. xvi. 8. 7 Comp. Banmgarten, p. 578.

* Cic. ad Famti x. 83.4; Suet. Caes. 78. ® See on Zom., Introd. § 2.

PAUL IN CORINTH. 347

secing that, although there was no Christian church at Rome, individual
Christians might still at any rate be found, and certainly were found,
umong the resident Jews there. — mrpocgdrw¢] nuper,' from zpocgaroc, which
properly signifies fresh, = just slaughtered or killed, then generally new, of
quite recent occurrence.* — 6a 1d dtaretax. KA. 4.7.A.] ‘‘ Juducos impuleore
Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit.”"* As Chrestus was actually a
current Greck and Roman name,‘ it is altogether arbitrary to interpret im-
pulsore Chresto otherwise than we should interpret it, if another name stood
instead of Chresto. Chrestus was the name of a Jewish agitator at Rome,
whose doings produced constant tumults, and led at length to the edict of
expulsion. This we remark iv opposition to the hypothesis upheld, after
older interpreters in Wolf, by most modern expositors, that Suetonius
had made a mistake in the name and written Chresto instead of Christo—
% view, in connection with which it is either thought that the disturbances
arose out of Christianity having made its way among the Jewish population
at Rome, and simply affected the Jews themselves, who were thrown into a
ferment by it, so that the portion of them which had come to believe was
at strife with that which remained unbelieving ;° or it is assumed’ that en-
thusiastic Messianic hopes excited the insurrection among the Jews, and
that the Romans had manufactured out of the ideal person of the Messiah
a rebel of the same name. While, however, the alleged error of the name
has against it generally the fact that the names Christus and Christiani
were well known to the Roman writers,* it may be specially urged against
the former view, that at the time of the edict’ the existence of an influ-
ential number of Christians at Rome, putting the Jewish population into
a tumultuous ferment, is quite improbable; and against the latter view,
that the Messianic hopes of the Jews were well enough known to the Ro-
mans in general,’® and to Suetonius in particular." Hence the change” of
Christus into Chrestos (Xpyoréc) and of Christianus into Chrestianus, which
pronunciation Tertullian rejects by perperam, may not be imputed to the
compiler of a history resting on documentary authority, but to the misuse
of the Roman colloquia] language. Indeed, according to Tacit. Ann. xv.

2 Polyb. iii. $7. 11, iti. 48.6; Alciphr. i. 89;
Judith iv. 3,5; 2 Macc. xiv. 36.

3 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 874 f.; Klauecn,
ad Aeach. Choeph. 6.

® Sueton. Claud. 2%.

« Philostr. v. Soph. ii. 11; Inscr. 194; Cic.
ad Fam. xi. 8.

§ Herzog, in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1867, p.
541, rightly defends this explanation (against
Preasensé), The objection is entirely anim-
portant, which Mangold also (Rdmerdr. 1866)
has taken, that short work would have been
made with an insurgent Chrestusat Rome. He
might have made a timely escape. Or may he
not have been actually seized and short work
made of him, withont thereby qnenching the
fire? See also Wiereler, p. 122, and earlier,
Ernest!, in Suet., l.c.

© Waseenbergh, ad Vaicken. p. S54; Kui-
noel, Hug, Credner, Baur, Gleseler, Reuss,
Thiersch, Ewald; aleo Lehmann, Stud. zur
Geach. ad. apost. Zeitall., Greifew. 1856, p. 6 ff. ;
Sepp, Mangold, Beyschiag in the Stud. ».
Arif. 1867, p. 632 f.; Laurent, seulest Stud.
p. 88, and others.

7 Paulus, Reiche, Neander, Lange, and oth-
ers.

® Tacitus, Pliny, and Suetonius himself,
Ner. 16.

® Probably in the ycar 52, see Anger, de
temp. rat. p. 118; Wieseler, p. 125 ff.

16 Tacit. Hiet. v. 18.

1! Suet. Veep. 4.

13 Attested by Tertull. Apol. 8, ad nal. 1. 8,
and by Lactant. Jneé. dir. iv. 7. 5.

348 CHAP, XVIII., 3-6.

44: ‘Nero... poenis affecit, quos . . . vulgus Christianos appellabat ;
auctor nominis ejus Christus,’ etc., it must be assumed that that inter-
change of names only became usual at a later period ; in Justin. Apol. I. 4,
To Xproréy is only an allusion to Xpioriavoi. The detailed discussion of the
point does not belong to us here, except in so far as the narrative of Dio
Cass. 1x. 6 appears to be at variance with this passage and with Suet. lc. -
rove te ‘lovdaioug mAeovdcavrac avéic, GoTe yaAerwc av dvev TapayAc vTd Tov dxAvv
ogavrac méAews cipxOnvar,ouK eFHAaceE wéev, Tw dé dy TaTpiy vouy Sip XOWUEVOLE
exéAevoe uy avvatpoilecfa.' This apparent contradiction is solved by our re-
garding what Dio Cassius relates as something which happened before the
edict of banishment,? and excited the Jews to the complete outbreak of insur-
rection? The words gore . . . eipy6fvac, which represent the ordinance as
a precautionary measure agsinst the outbreak of a revolt, warrant this view.
From xxviii. 15 ff., Rom. xvi. 8, it fullows that the edict of Claudius,
which referred not only to those making the tumult,‘ but, according to the
express testimony of this passage, to all the Jews, must soon either tacitly
or officially have passed into abeyance, as, indeed, it was incapable of being
permanently carried into effect in all its severity. Therefore the opinion
of Hug, Eichhorn, Schrader, and Hemsen, that the Jews returned to Rome
only at the mild commencement of Nero’s reign, is to be rejected. —
mévrac rove ‘lovdaiavs] with the exception of the proselytes, Beyschlag
thinks, so that only the national Jews were concerned. But the proselytes
of righteousness at least cannot, without arbitrariness, be excluded from
the comprehensive designation.

Vv. 8, 4. It was a custom among the Jews, and admits of sufficient ex-
planation from the national esteem for trade generally, and from the de-
sign of rendering the Rabbins independent of others as regards their sub-
sistence,*® that the Rabbins practised a trade. Olshausen strangely holds
that the practice was based on the idea of warding off temptations by
bodily activity. Comp. on Mark vi. 3, according to which Christ Himself was
a réxtwv. — dia 7d dudteyvov eivac] sc. avrév, because he (Paul) was of the same
handicraft. Luke might also have written did rd éuéreyvoe elvar.* — goav} the
two married persons. — cxyvoraoi] is not with Michaelis to be interpreted
makers of art-instruments, which is merely based on a misunderstanding of

1 Ewald, p. 846, wishes to insert ov before
xponevovs, 80 that the words would apply to
the Jewish-Chrisliane. {it otherwise.

* Wiereler, p 123, and Lehmann, p. 5, view

®To plice the prohibition mentioned by
Dio Cassius as early as the first year of Clau-
dius, a.p. 41 (Laurent, new/est. Stud. p. 89 f.),
does not sult the pecniiar mildness and favour
which the emperor on his accession showed
to the Jews, according to Joseph. Anéé. xix.
5&.2f. The subsequent severity eupposes a
longer experience of necd for it. Laurent,
after Oros. vi. 7, places the edict of expulsion
as early as the ninth year of Claudius, a.pD.
49; bat he is in consequence driven to the

artificial explanation that Aquila indeed left
Rome in a.v. 49, but remained for some time in
italy, from which (ver. 2: aso rns ‘Iradcas) he
only departed in a.p. 58. Thus he would not,
in fact, have come to Corinth at ali as an im-
mediate consequence of that edict, which yet
Luke, particularly by the addition of spocgd-
tes, evidently intends to say.

4 Credner, Zinl. p. 380.

8 Juch. xilli. 1. 2.

¢ Kfihner, II. p. 82; but comp. on the ac-
cusative Luke xi. 8, and see on the omission
of the pronoun, where it Is of itself evident
from the preceding nonn, Kihner, § 852 b,
and ad Xen. Mem. 1. 2, 49.

LABORS IN CORINTH. 349

Pollux, vii. 189, nor yet with Hug and others makers of tent-cloth. It is
true that the trade of preparing cloth from the hair of goats, which was
also used for tents («:Aixca), had its seat in Cilicia ;' but even apart from
the fact that the weaving of cloth was more difficult to be combined with
the unsettled mode of life of the apostle, the word imports nothing else
than tent-maker,? tent-tailor, which meaning is simply to be retained. Such
a person is also called oxyvoppdeoc,? and so Chrysostom‘ designates the apos-
tle, whilst Origen makes him a worker in leather,’ thinking on leathern
tents.*— érede is the result of dieAéyero, xvii. 2, 17. He convinced, per-
suaded and won, Jews and Greeks, here—as it is those prescnt in the syna-
gogue that are spoken of —proselytes of the gate.

Ver. 5. This activity on his part increased yet further when Silas and
Timothy had come from Macedonia,’ in whose fellowship naturally the zeal
and courage of Paul could not but grow.—The element of increased activity,
in relation to what is related in ver. 4, is contained in ovveiyero ro Adyw: he
was wholly seized and arrested by the doctrine, so that he applied himself to it
with assiduity and utmost earnestness. Against my earlier rendering: he
wis pressed in respect of the doctine,® he was hard-beset,’* it may be decisively
urged, partly on linguistic grounds, that the dative with ovéyzeoda is
always the thing itself which presses," partly according to the connection,
that there results in that view no significant relation to the arrival of Silas
and Timothy. — rdv Xpiordy ‘Inooty, as in ver. 28.

Ver. 6. The refactoriness'* and reviling, which he experienced from them
amidst this increased activity, induced him to turn to the Gentiles. —
éxrivag. ra indt.| he shook out his garments, ridding himself of the dust, in-
dicating contempt, as in xiii. 561. — 16 aiua tudv . . . tua) 8c. eAdfru, Matt.
xxiii, 35, i.e. let the blame of the destruction, which will as a divine punishment
reach you, light on no other than yourselves..* The expression is not to be ex-
plained from the custom of laying the hands on the victim,'* as Elsner and
others suppose, or on the accused on the part of the witnesses ;” but in all
languages’* the head is the significant designation of the person himself,
The significance here lies particularly in the conception of the divine punish-
ment coming /rom above, Rom. i. 18. — What Paul intends by the destruction

?Plin. W. A. vi. 8; Veget. dere mil, iv. 6;
Serv. and Philarg. ad. Firg. Georg. iii. 313,
vol. II. pp. 278 and 338, ed. Lion.

® Pollux, J.c.; Stob. ect. phys 1. 62, p. 1084.

2 Ael. V. A 11.1.

4 See also Theodoret, on 2 Cor. 11. 6: rocov-
Tov ioxyve xa: ypddur 6 oxyvoppagos.

® Hom. 17 in Num.

* Comp. de Dieu.

7 xvil. 14 f.

® Comp. Wisd. xvii. 90, and Grimm in loe.
So in the maln, following the Vulgate (‘‘in-
stabat verbo"), most modern interpreters,
including Olshausen, de Wette, Baumgarten,
Lange, Ewald.

® Comp. on Phil. {.

10 Comp. Chrysostom, reading r¢ wvevmars .

éexypéagoy avry ehicravro avrg.

1’ Comp. xxvill. 8: Luke vill. 837. Comp.
also Thue. ii. 49. 3, fii, 98.1; Arrian, vi. 24.6;
Plat. Soph. p. 20 D: Xen. Occ. i. 21, and
many other paseagcs: Helnd. ad Plat. Soph.
46, particularly Wied. xvil. 90; Hecrodian I.
17, 22; Ael. V. FH. xiv. 2.

12 Rom. xiil. 2.

19 Comp. 2 Sam. i. 16; 1 Kings fi. 88; Ezek.

. Ni. 16 ff, xxxili. 4,7 ff. On éwi or cis r. cepd-

Any, see Dem, p. 328, ult. 881. 15. On the
elliptical mode of expression, see Matt. xxvif.
%; 2 Sam. 1. 16; Plat. Zuthyd. p. 288 E;
Ariet. Plut. 528.

14 Lev. xvi. 81; comp. Herod. fi. 89.

18 So Piscator.

4 Comp. Heinsius, ad Ov. Her. xx.-127.

350 CHAP.. XVIII., 7-15.

which he announces as certainly coming, and the blame of which he
adjudges to themselves, is not moral corruption,' but eternal anode,
which is conceived as Odévaroc,* and therefore symbolized as aiua to be shed,
because the blood is the seat of life.* The setting in of this aradea occurs
at the Parousia, 2 Thess. i. 8. Thus Paul, as his conduct was ulready in
point of fact for his adversaries an évdectic arudeiac,* expressly gives to
them such an évdecEi¢. — xaBapoc éyd|] Comp. Xx. 26.—a7d rob vow x.1.2.] as
in xiii. 46. . s

Ver. 7. Paul immediately gave practical proof of this solemn renunciation
of the Jews by departing from the synagogue,® and went, not into the
house of a Jew, but into that of a proselyte, the otherwise unknown Justus,
who is not to be identified with Titus.° That Paul betook himself to the
non-Jewish house nearest to the synagogue, is entirely in keeping with the
profoundly excited emotion under which he acted, and with his decision of
character. — ovvopopeiv] to border upon, is not found elsewhere ; the Greeks
use duopeiv in that sense. Observe, morcover, that a change of lodging is not
mentioned.

Ver. 8. This decided proceeding made a remarkable impression, so that
even Crispus, the president of the synagogue, whom the apostle himself
baptized,’ with all his family, believed on the Lord,® and that generally
many Corinthians, Jews and Gentiles, for the house of the proselyte was ac-
cessible to both, heard him and received faith and baptism.

Vv. 9-11.° But Jesus Himself, appearing to Paul in a night-vision,’ in-
fused into him courage for fearless continuance in work. — AdAe x. uy ctw. |
solemnly emphatic." — diér: is both times simply propterea quod. — éya]
Bengel well says: ‘‘ fundamentum fiduciae.”’ — ércOj0eTai cor Tov ax. ce} will
set on thee (aggredi) to injure thee. On the classical expression émirifroOai rivi,
to set on one, 1.e. impetum facere in alig., see many examples in Wetstein and
Kypke. The attempt, in fact, which was made at a later period under
Gallio, signally failed.— ddr: Aad¢ x.r.4.] gives the reason of the assurance,
Ey eipe peta cov, x. ovd. ErcOho. oot Tov xan. ce, Under His people Jesus under-
stands not only those already. converted, but likewise proleptically '? those
who are destined to be members of the church purchased by His blood,'* —
the whole multitude of the reraypévor cig Supv aidvov at Corinth. — énavroy
x. pivac |] The terminus ad quem is the attempt of the Jews,"* and not **
the departure of Paul, ver. 18. For after Luke in vv. 9, 10 has narrated

1De Wette, who sees hore an un-Pauline f., ver. 11 was a marginal note of Luke to

expression.

2 Rom. i. 8%, vi. 16, 21, 28, vii. 5, 10, 18, 24,
vilf. 2, 6 ad.

® 1 Comp. on xv. 90.

4 Phil. i. 28,

8 éxeiOev, which Heinrichs and Alford after
Calvin explain, contrary to the context, ez
domo Aquilae.

6 Wieseler.

71 Cor. 1.14

8 xvi. 15, 34.

® According to Laurent, neut. Stud. p. 148

nedpas ixavds, ver. 18. But ver. 11 ia by no
means superfiuous in Its present textual posi-
tion, but attests the fulfilment of the promise,
ver 10.

40 Comp. ix. 10.

11 Comp. Isa. Lxii. 1, and see on John 3}. 8, 20.

13 Comp. John x. 16, xi. 53.

13 xx, 28; Eph. i. 14.

14 xiii, 48.

18 Ver. 12.

16 In opposition to Anger, de temp. rat. p. 62
f., and Welseler, p. 45 f.

ENCOURAGED BY A VISION. 351

the address and promise of Jesus, he immediately, ver. 11, observes how
long Paul in consequence of this had his residence, z.e. his quiet abode, at
Corinth,' attending to his ministry ; and he then in vv. 12-18 relates how on
the other hand” an attack broke out, indeed, against him under Gallio, but
passed over so harmlessly that he was able to spend before his departure
yet * a considerable time at Corinth, ver. 18. —év avroic] i.e. among the
Corinthians, which is undoubtedly evident from the preceding év rg dA. r.

Vv. 12, 18. Achaia, i.e. according to the Roman division of provinces,
the whole of Greece proper, including the Peloponnesus, so that by its side
Macedonia, Illyria, Epirus, and Thessaly formed the province Macedonia,
and these two provinces comprehended the whole Grecian territory, which
originally had been «# senatorial province,‘ but by Tiberius was made an
imperial vne,® and was again by Claudius * converted into a senatorial prov-
ince,’ and had in the years 58 and 54 for its proconsul® Jun. Ann. Gallio,
who had assumed this name — his proper name was M. Ann. Novatus — from:
L. Jun. Gallio, the rhetorician, by whom he was adopted. He was a
brother of the philosopher L. Ann. Seneca,® and was likewise put to death
by Nero.'°— xarenéor.] they stood forth against him, is found neither in Greek
writers nor in the LXX. — mapa +. véu.]| i.e. against the Jewish law." To
the Jews the exercise of religion according to their laws was conceded
by the Roman authority. Hence the accusers expected of the proconsul
measures to be taken against Paul, whose religious doctrines they found at
variance with the legal standpoint of Mosaism. Luke gives only the chief
point of the complaint. For details, see ver. 15.

Vv. 14, 15. The mild and humane Gallio* refuses to examine into the
complaint, and hands it over, as simply concerning doctrine, to the decision
of the accusers themselves—to the Jewish tribunal—without permitting
Paul, who was about to begin his defence, to speak. — oy] namely, in
pursuance of your accusation. — padiotpy. iuev] I should with reason" bear
with you, i.e. according to the context: give you a patient hearing."
‘* Judaeos Gallion sibi molestos innuit,’’ Bengel. — ei 62 Cyrfuata . . . tac]
but if, as your complaint shows, there are questions in dispute, xv. 2, concern-
ing doctrine and names—plural of category ; Paul’s assertion that the name of
Messiah belonged to Jesus, was the essential matter of fact in the case, see
ver. 5—and of your, and so not of Roman, law. — row «ad tpac} See on xvii.
28. — xpiry¢ x.7.A.] Observe the order of the words, judge will I for my part,
etc. Thus Gallio speaks in the consciousness of his political official po-

’ éxad@ioe, as in Luke xxiv. 49. 1? See on ver. 15. They do not mean the lato
3 8¢, ver. 12, marks a contrast to ver. 11. Of the state; nor yet do they express them-
3 Observe this ér:, ver 18. selves ina double sense (Lange, apost. Zeitalt.
4 Dio Case. Lill. p. 74. II. p. 240). Gallio well knew what 6 véues
® Tacit. Ann. |. 76. signified in the mouth of s Jew.

* Bnet. Claud. 5. 33 Stat. Sify. ii. 7, 88; Seneca, Q. Nat. 4
*¥ See Hermann, Staatealterth. § 190, 1-8. praef.

8 dv@vwaros, see on xiil. 7. 18 See Plat. Rep. p.866 B; Wetstein ix loc. ;
® Tacit. Ann. xv. 78, xvi. 17. Bernhardy, p. 941.

1¢ Bee Lipsius, én Senec. prooem. 2, and ep. 14 Comp, Plat. PAU. p.18 Bs; Rap. p. 867 D.
104; Winer, Realw.

352 CHAP. XVIII., 16-18.

sition ; and his wise judgment—which Calovius too harshly designates as
éuéAea atheistica—is after a corresponding manner to be borne in mind in
determining the limits of the ecclesiastical power of princes as bearing on
the separation of the secular and spiritual government, with due attention,
however, to the circumstance that Gallio was outside the pale of the Jewish
religious community.

Vv. 16, 17. "AxfAacev] he dismissed them as plaintifis, whose information
it was not competent to him to entertain.' — Under the legal pretext of the
necessity of supporting this ax4Aacev of the proconsul, all the bystanders—
mdvrec, partly perhaps Roman subordinate officials, but certainly all Gentiles,
therefore oi “EAAzvec is a correct gloss—used the opportunity of wreaking
their anger on the leader and certainly also the spokesman of the hated
Jews; they seized Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, even before the
tribunal, and beat him. — Lwodérv7e is by Theodoret, Erasmus, Calvin, and
others, also Hofmann,’ very arbitrarily, especially as this name was so com-
mon, considered as identical with the person mentioned in 1 Cor. i. 1;
hence also the erroneous gloss oi ‘Iovdaios added to mdvrec has arisen from the
supposition that he either was at this time actually a Christian, or at least
inclined to Christianity, and therefore not sufficiently energetic in his ac-
cusation. Against this may be urged the very part which Sosthenes, as
ruler of the synagogue, evidently plays against Paul ;* and not Jess the
circumstance, that the person mentioned in 1 Cor. i. 1 was a fellow-labourer
of Paul out of Corinth; according to which, for the identification of the
two, a more extended hypothesis would be necessary, such as Ewald has.
Chrysostom considers him even identical with Crispus. —rév apxiow.]
Whether he was a colleague * of the above-named Kpioroc, ver. 8, or suc-
cessor to him on his resignation in consequence of embracing Christianity, *
or whether he presided over another synagogue in Corinth,* remains un-
determined. — xal ovdév robrev x.7.A.] and Gallio troubled himself about none
of these things, which here took place ; he quite disregarded the spectacle.
The purpose of this statement is to exhibit the utter failure of the attempt.
So little was the charge successfu), that even the leader of the accusers

himself was beaten by the rabble without any interference of the judge,.

who by this indifference tacitly connived with the accused.

Ver. 18. ’ArordoceoBai rivi] to say farewell to one. See on Mark vi. 46. —
xetpdevoc rT. xeg.] is not to be referred to Paul, as Augustine, Beda, Eras-
mus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Calovius, Spencer, Reland, Wolf, Bengel, Rosen-
miiller, Morus, Olshausen, Zeller, de Wette, Baumgarten, Lunge, Hackett,
Lechler, Ewald, Sepp, Bleek, and others connect it, but to Aguila, with

1 Comp. Dem. 278. 11, 1878. 12. character would thus be the result! And

9 Hell. Schr.d. N. 7.11. il. p. 4 f.

® According to Hofmann, he was so linked
with his people, that, although inwardly con-
vinced by the preaching of the apostle, he yet
appeared at the head of the frrious multitude
before the proconsul against Paul, becanse he
conld not foraake the synagorue. What s

what reader conld from the simple words put
together for himeelf traits so odiove! How
entirely different were Joseph and Nicode-
mus !
4 See on xifi. 15. [and others.
* Olshansen, de Wette, Baumgarten, Ewald,
* Grotius.

AQUILA AND PRISCILLA. 353
Vulgate, Theophylact,' Castalio, Hammond, Grotius, Alberti, Valckenaer,
Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Wieseler, Schneckenburger, also Oertel.? A decisive
consideratiun in favour of this is the order of the names II piox:A2a wai ' AxiAag,
which * appears as designedly chosen. Luke, if he had meant the xecpau. of
Paul, would, by placing the wife first, have led the reader himself into
error, whereas, with the precedence naturally given to the husband, no one
would have thought of referring xecpéy. to any other than Paul as the prin-
cipal subject of the sentence. If, accordingly, xecpdy. is to be referred to
Aquila, Luke has with design and foresight placed the names so; but if it
be referred to Paul, he has written with a strange, uncalled for, and mis-
leading deviation from vv. 2 and 26.‘ On the other hand, appeal is no
doubt made to Rom. xvi. 8,° where also the wife stands first ;* but Paul
here followed a point of view determining his arrangement,’ which was not
followed by Luke in his history, as is evident from vv. 2 and 26. Accord-
ingly, wedo not need to have recourse to the argument, that it could not
but at all events be very strange to see the liberal Paul thus, entirely with-
out any higher necessity or determining occasion given from without,°
voluntarily engaging himself in a Jewish votive ceremony. How many
occasions for vows had he in his varied fortunes, but we never find a trace
that he thus became a Jew to the Jews! If there had been at that time a
special reason for accommodation to such an exceptionally legal ceremony,
Luke would hardly have omitted to give some more precise indication of it,°
and would not have mentioned the matter merely thus in passing, as if it
were nothing at all strange and exceptional in Paul's case. Of Aquila, a
subordinate, he might throw in thus, without stating the precise circum-
stances, the cursory notice how it happened that the married couple joined
Paul on his departure at the seaport ; regarding Paul as the bearer of such
a vow, he could not but have entered into particulars. Nothing is gained
by importing suggestions of some particular design ; ¢.g. Erasmus here dis-
covers an obsequium charitatie toward the Jews, to whom Paul had appeared
as a despiser of their legal customs ;’° Bengel supposes” that the purpose
of the apostle was: ‘‘ut necessitatem sibi imponeret celeriter peragendi
iter hoc Hierosolymitanum ;’’ Neander presupposes some occasion for the
public expression of gratitude to God in the spirit of Christian wisdom ;
and Baumgarten thinks that ‘‘ we should hence infer that Paul, during his
working at Corinth, lived in the state of weakness and self-denial sp-

7 See on Rom. xvi. 3.

3 Chrysostom and Oecumentius do not clear-
ly express to whom they refer capdéu. But in
tho Vulgate (‘‘ Aquila, qui sibi totonderat in
Cenchris caput ”) the reference is undoubted.

2 Paul. in d. Apyeach. p. 191.

® Comp. with vv. 2 and 2.

+ Comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 19. I¢ is true that A B
E 8 have also in ver. 9% Lpicn, «. ‘AxvAas (80
Lachm.), but that transposition has evidently
arisen from our passage.

8 Comp. 2 Tim. fv. 19.

¢ See especially, Neander, p. 849, and Zoller,
p. 304,

® The case in xxi. 23 ff. is different.

® Comp. xvi. 3.

10 And so in substance Lange, apost. Zeitalt.
Ir. p. 246 f.

31 With Bengel agrees {n substance Ewald,
p. 502, who supposes that Paul, in order, per-
hape, not to be fettered by Priscilla and
Aquila in Ephesus. made the eolemn vow of
his desire to be at Jcrnealem even before
Easter, and in sign thereof shaved his head,
which had no connection with thc Nazarite
vow. and is rather to be compared to fasting.

354 CHAP. XVIII, 19-21.

pointed by the law and placed under a special constitution ;’’! whereas
Zeller uses the reference to Paul in order to prove a design of the writer to
impute to him Jewish piety. — év Keyxpeaic] Keyzpeai (in Thuc. Keyypeai)
Kony Kai Auny artyuv rie wéALw¢ boov EBdouyxovra oradta. Totty pév ovv xpovrae
mpo¢ Touc éx THE 'Aciac, mpd d2 Tove Ex THC "Iradiacg re Aeyaiy, Strabo, viii. 6,
p. 880. —elye yap cixir] states the reason of xecpay. Tr. xeg. ev K. : for he had
a vow on him, which he discharged by having his head shorn at Cenchreae.
— The cow itself is not to be considered as a Nazarite vow,* called by Philo
ev? peydAn, according to which a man bound himself, for the glory of
Jehovah, to permit his hair to grow for a certain time and to abstain from
all intoxicating drink, ‘‘ Tres species sunt prohibitae Nasiraeis, immundities,
tonsura et quicquid de vite egreditur,’’*® and then after the lapse of the
consecrated time to have his hair shorn off before the temple, and to pre-
sent a sacrifice, into the flames of which the hair was cast.‘ For the re-
demption of such a vow had to take place, as formerly at the tabernacle,
so afterwards at the temple and consequently in Jerusalem ; * and entirely
without proof Grotius holds: ‘‘haec praecepta . . . eos non obligabant,
qui extra Judaeam agebant.’’ If it is assumed ° thdt the Nazarite vow had
in this case been interrupted by a Levitica] uncleanness, such as by contact
with a dead person, according to Lange, by intercourse with Gentiles, and
was begun anew by the shearing off of the hair already consecrated but
now polluted,’ this is a mere empty supposition, as the simple elye yap evxqv
indicates nothing at all extraordinary. And even the renewal of an inter-
rupted Nazarite vow was bound to the temple. Therefore a proper Naza-
rite vow is here entirely out of the question ; it is to be understood as a
private vow (votum civile) which Aquila had resting upon him, and which he
discharged at Cenchreae by the shaving of his head. On the occasion of some
circumstances unknown to us,—perhaps under some distress, in view of
eventual deliverance,—he had vowed to let his hair grow for a certain
time ; this time had now elapsed, and therefore he had his head shorn
at Cenchreae.* The permitting the hair to grow is, in the Nazarite state,
according to Num. vi. 7, nothing else than the sign of complete consecration
to God,’ not that of a blessed, flourishing life, which meaning Bahr" im-
ports ;"” nor yet, from the later view of common life, 1 Cor. xi. 14, a repre-
sentation of man’s renunciation of his dignity and of his subjection to God,*
which is entirely foreign to the matter. In a corresponding manner is the
usage in the case of the vow to be understood. For the vow was certainly
analogous to the Nazarite state,"* in so far as one idea lay at the root of

1 [This is a literal rendering. The meaning * Comp. Salamasius, de coma, p. 710; Wolf,

seems to me obscure.—Ep.] Cur. in loc. ; Spencer, de leg. Jud. rit. p. 862
3 Num. vi. ff.
® Mischna Nasir, vi. 1. 10 Whence also Judg. xvi. 17 {8 to be ex-
* See Num. J.c.; Ewald, Alterth. p.118 f% plained. Comp. Ewald, Aléerth. p. 115.
Comp. on xxi. 28 ff. 13 Symbol. II. p. 482 f.
‘Num. vi., Reland, Antiquitt. p. 2%. 12 Comp., in opposition to this, Kell, 4r-
6 Wolf, Stolz, Rosenmiiller. chdol. § Ixvit. 11.
7? Num. vi. 10. 19 Baumgarten.

8 See Num. vi. 10. 16 See Ewald, Alverth. p. 28 f.

PAUL RETURNS TO ANTIOCH. 355

both; but it was again specifically different from it, as not requiring the
official intervention of the priests, and as not bound to the temple and to
prescribed forms. Neander correctly describes the edz4 in this passage ' as
a modification of the Nazarite vow ; but for this very reason it seems errone-
ous that he takes the shearing of the head as the commencement of the re-
demption of the vow, and not as its termination.? See Num. vi. 5, 18;
Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 15, 1: rove yap } vécy xatarovovpévore, 7 Tio aAAatc
avdyxaic, éog ebyecBat mpd Tpldxovta quepav, A¢ aroddcey péAAaeY Bvoiac, olvov
re agéfacdal nai Evpyoacba: tac xéuac, where the meaning from éo¢ onwards
is thus to be taken: ‘‘They are accustomed, thirty days before the in-
tended presentation of the offering, to vow that they will abstain from
wine and, at the end of that period, have the head shorn.’’—A special set
purpose, moreover, on the part of Luke, in bringing in this remark con- |
cerning Aquila, cannot be proved, whether of a conciliatory nature,’ with
the assumed object of indirectly defending Paul against the charge of an-
tagonism to the law, or by way of explaining the historical nexus of cause
and effect,‘ according to which his object would be to give information
concerning the delay of the departure of the apostle, and concerning his
leaving Ephesus more quickly.

Vv. 19, 20. KaréA:rev airov] he left them there, separated himself from
them, so that he without them—airdc, he on his part—went to the synagogue,
there discoursed with the Jews,° and then, without longer stay, pursued
his journey. The shift, to which Schneckenburger has recourse, that atri¢
dé properly belongs to areraé. airoic, is impossible ; and that of de Wette,
that Luke has written xaxeivoug xaréAcr. avr. in anticipation, ‘‘in order, as it
were, to get rid of these secondary figures,’’ is arbitrarily harsh. — We may
remark, that within this short abode of the apostle at Ephesus occurred the
first foundation of a church there, with which the visit to the synagogue
and discussion with the Jews are appropriately in keeping as the commence-
ment of his operations. So much the less, therefore, is an earlier presence
there and foundation of the church to be assumed.*—ém 7A. yp.] for a
longer time. It was to take place only at a later period, chap. xix.

Ver. 21. What feast was meant by ry éopriy rpv épzou. must remain un-
determined, as dei we ravrwo does not allow us absolutely to exclude the
winter season dangerous for navigation, and as the indefinite juépac ixavdc,
ver. 18—which period is not included in the one and a half years ’—pre-
vents an exact reckoning. It is commonly supposed to be either Haster or
Pentecost. The latter by Anger.® The former °® is at least not to be inferred
from the use of the article ‘‘ the feast,’? which in general,’ and here specially
on account of the addition rpv épyou., would be an uncertain ground. The

2 Comp. Bengel. ©As Marker (Sielung d. Pastoralbridfe,
* Comp. Calovins: “Causa redditur, cur 1861, p.4 f.) places the same between ix. 30
Paulus navigarit in Syriam, quia sc. votum and xi. 9%.
fecerat, quod expleri debebat in tempilo Ht- 7 See on ver. 11.

erosolymitano.”° © De temp. rat. p. 0 ff., and Wieseler, p.
3 Schneckenburger, p. 66. 48 ff.
* Wieseler, p. 208, conjecturally. ® Ewald.

§ Ver. 4, xvii. 2, 17. 10 Fritsche, ad. Matt’. p. 804.

356 CHAP, XVIII., 22-25.

motive, also, of the determination indicated by dei is completely unknown.
— rowiv] a8 in ver. 28; see on xv. 38. — cic ‘IepoodA.]!1— wade 62 x.1.A.]
which took place, xix. 1.

Vv. 22, 28. Fourth journey to Jerusalem, according to chap. ix., xi., xv. —
From Ephesus Paul sailed to Caesarca—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 dvf767 serves as a proof—and from thence he went up to
Jerusalem, whence he proceeded down to Antioch. — avaBéc] namely, &
Jerusalem. So Erasmus, Calvin, Bezu, Grotius, Bengel, Rosenmiller, Hein-
richs, Olshausen, Neander, Anger,* de Wette, Weiseler, 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,® or because the
church had its place of meeting in an elevated locality.‘ The reference to
Caesarea would be necessary, if dei ue mévrwe x.7.A., ver. 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, ver.
21, the historical connection requires that avaf. x. dorac. tr. éxxA. should
contain the fulfilment of it. In favour of this we may appeal both to the
relation in meaning of the following xaréBy to this avaBdc, and to the cir-
cumstance that it would be very strangely in contrast to the hurried brevity
with which the whole journey is despatched in ver. 22, if Luke should
have specially indicated in the case of Caesarea not merely the arrival at it,
but also the going up (?) toit. 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,’ the fidelity of
the apostle to the Jewish festivals has been regarded as the design of the
narrative,® and the narrative itself as invented." The identification of the
journey with that mentioned in Gal. li. 1° 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, Gal. ii. 11, belong to the
residence of Paul at that time in Antioch.* — rj Tatar. x. r. dpvy.| certainly,
also, Lycaonia, xiv. 21, although Luke does not expressly name it. On
excornpijwv, comp. xiv. 22, xv. 82, 41.

Vv. 24-28. Notice interposed concerning Apollos, who, during Paul's ab-
sence from Ephesus, came thither as a Messianic preacher proceeding from
the school of the disciples of John, completed his Christian training there,
and then before the return of the apostle, xix. 1, departed to Achaia.

1 See Winer, p. 887 (KE. T. 518). whom Paul now recognized {t as incompatible
2 De temp. rat. p. 60 f. with his more extended apostolic mission to
3 Kuinoel and others. meddle. See Ewald, p. 508 f.

4 De Dien and others. * Schneckenburger.

®* The so short residence of the apostle in 7 Zeller, Hausrath ; comp. Holtmmann, p.
Jerusalem is sufficiently intelligible from the 695.
certainly even at that time (comp. xxi. 21 ff.) 8 Wieseler.
very excited temper of the Jadaists, with .© Neander, Wieseler, Lange, Baumgarten.

357

Ver. 24.’ "ArodAde] the abbreviated ‘AroAAdyoc, as D actually has it.
His working was peculiarly influential in Corinth.*— Adsy:c]’ may mean
either learned or eloquent.* Neandcr, also Vatablus, takes it in the former
signification. But the usual rendering, eloguens, corresponds quite as well
with his Alexandrian training, after the style of Philo, and is decidedly in-
dicated as preferable by the reference to vv. 25 and 28, as well as by the
characteristic mode of Apollos’s work at Corinth. Besides, the Scripture-
learning is particularly brought forward alongside of Aoy:érn¢ by duvarig dv
év r. ypag. : he had in the Scriptures, in the understanding, exposition, and
application of them, a peculiar power, for the conviction and winning of
hearts, refutation of opponents, and the like.

Ver. 25. Karnynpévoc r. 6d. r. Kup.] Apollos was instructed concerning the
way of the Lord, i.e. concerning Christianity as a mode of life appointed
and shaped by Christ through means of faith in Him,‘ doubtless by dis-
ciples of John, as follows from émordau. pdvov r. Bart. ’Iwdvvov. How im-
perfect this instruction had been in respect of the doctrinal contents of
Christianity,’ appears from the fact that he knew nothing of a distinctively
Christian baptism. He stood in this respect on the same stage with the
pobyrai in xix. 2; but, not maintaining the same passive attitude as they did,
he was alread y—under the influence of the partial and preliminary light of
Christian knowledge—full of a profound, living fervour, as if seething and
boiling in his spirit, i.e. in the potency uf his higher self-conscious life,* so
that he éAdde xai édidackev axpiBag ra rept row 'Incov. What had reference to
Jesus, to whom as the Messiah John had borne witness, was naturally that
concerning which he had in his Johannean training received most informa-
tion and taken the deepest interest. He must have regarded Jesus—His
historical person—actually as the Messiah, not merely as a precursor of
Him,* whicb Bleek erroneously denies, contrary to the express words of the
passsge ; but he still needed a more accurate Christian instruction, which
he received, ver. 26. The incompleteness and even the lack to some extent
of correctness in his Christian knowledge, made him, with his might in the
Scriptures and fervour in spirit—which latter was under the control of the
former—not incapable to teach, according to the measure of his knowledge,
with accuracy * concerning Jesus, although he himself had to be instructed
yet axp:Bécrepov, ver. 26, in opposition to Baur and Zeller, who find here con-
tradictory statements. In a corresponding manner, for example, a mission-
ary may labour with an incomplete and in part even defective knowledge
of the way of salvation, if he is mighty in the Scriptures and of fervent spirit.
— AGA. x. 2did, are simply to be distinguished as genus and species; and

APOLLOS.

10On Apollos, see Heymann in the Sdche.
Stud. 1848, p. 222 ff.; Bleek on Hedr. Introd.
p. 804 f.; Ewald, p. 613 ff. We should know
him better, if he were the author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, which, however, re-
mains a matter of great uncertainty.

91 Cor. 1. 12, 111. 5 f., iv. 6 fff.

3 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 198; Jacobe, ad
Anthol. XII. p. 116.

4 See on ix. 2.

6 Erasmus, Paraphr.: “hic Apollos erat
semichristianus,**

6 Céewy Te wvevnart, see ON Rom. xii. 11.

7? Baumgarten.

8 Not to be taken in a subjective senac;
carefully (Beza and others), which the com-
parative in ver. 26 does not suit.

358 CHAP. XVIII., 27, 28.
axpipac, exactly, receives its limitation by émor. pév. r. B. 'I. — extorapevog
udv. t. Barr. Iwdvvov] although, etc. The view, that by this an absolute
ignorance of Christian baptism is expressed, is incredible in itself, and not
to be assumed on account of John iii. 26. Notwithstanding, the simple
literal sense is not to be interpreted, with Lange,' as though Apollos was
wanting only in ‘‘ complete Christian experience of salvation and maturi-
ty ;’’ but, inaemuch as he did not recognise the characteristic distinction of
the Christian baptism from that of John, he knew not that the former was
something superior to the latter ;* he knew only the baptism of John.°*
Ver. 26. Té] to which dé afterwards corresponds. ‘— #péaro] beginning of the
wappyo. év ty ovvay. Immediately afterwards Aquila and Priscilla, who had
temporarily settled in Ephesus,* and had heard him speak — from which
they could not but learn what he lacked —took him to themselves for
private instruction. — rv rot Oecd ddév] the same as tiv dddv r. Kupiov, ver.
25, inasmuch as the whole work of Christ is the work of God. That, also
Christian daptisem was administered to Apollos by Aquila, is neither to be
assumed as self-evident,‘ nor is it to be arbitrarily added, with Olshausen,
that he first received the Holy Spirit at Corinth by Paul (#). Ewald cor-
rectly remarks : ‘‘there could be no mention of a new baptism in the case
of a man already, in a spiritual sense, moved deeply enough.’’” The Holy
Spirit had already taken up His abode in his fervent spirit,—a relation
which could only be furthered by the instruction of Aquila and Priscilla.
Ver. 27. AceAbeiv ei¢ tr.’ Axaiav] probably occasioned by what he had heard
from Aquila and Priscilla concerning the working of Paul at Corinth. —
mporpey. oi ad. Eypaw. toig waOyr. arod. avr.| The Christians already at Ephesus®
wrote exhorting, issued a letter of exhortation, to the disciples, the Christians
of Achaia, to receive him hospitably as a teacher of the gospel. So Luther,
Castalio, and others, also de Wette and Ewald. The contents of their
letter constituted a Adyo¢ mporperrixéc.® But many others, as Erasmus, Beza,
Grotius, Bengel, following Chrysostom (xporéurovo: x. ypaupara éexididdacw),
refer mpotpep. to Apollos as its object, not to the pafyrac, ‘‘ sua exhortatione
ipsum magis incitaverunt fratres et currenti addiderunt calcar,’’ Calvin ;
according to which we should necessarily expect either a defining atrév with
mpotpep., Or previously BovAduevov d2 aitév. — ovveBadero] he contributed much,"
helped much.* This meaning, not disseruit,"* is required by the following
yap. —toi¢ rentorevxdc:] Bengel appropriately remarks: ‘‘ rigavit Apollos,
non plantavit.”’ “—dé:a rij¢ xapitoc] is not to be connected with roic remor.,'®
but with cvveB. woat ; for the design of the text is to characterize Apollos

1 Apost. Zeitait. II. p. 200.

2 xix. 8, 4. [p. 28 f.

® Comp. Oertel, Paulus in der Apostelgesch.

4 See Winer, p. 409 (E. T. 548); Kiihner, ad
Xen. Anad. v. 5. 8.

5 Ver. 18 f.

* Erasmus, Grotius, and others,

7 See on xix. 5.

* Doubtless but few at first, vv. 19 f.

® Plat. CYit. p. 410 D.

10 Thia reference is implied also in the am-
plification of the whole veree in D, which
Bornemann has adopted.

1) Contulit, Valg.:; profuit, Cod. It.

13 Dem. 6538. 18; Plat. Legg. x. p. 98 C;
Polyb. {.2. 8, ii. 18.1; Philo, mégr. Adr. p.
422 D.

13 xvii. 18.

34 Comp. 1 Cor. fil. 6.

18 Hammond,de Wette, Hackett, and others.

NOTES. 359

and his workings, and not the wemcreve. The ydpec is to be explained of
the divine grace sustaining and blessing his efforts. Not only is the view of
Hammond and Bolten, that it denotes the guapel, to be rejected, but also
that of Raphel, Wetstein, and Heinrichs, that it signifies facundia dicendique
venustas, in which case the Christian point of view of Luke, according to
which he signalizes that ovveBad. rodd, is entirely mistaken. Apollos thus
laboured, not by his art, but by grace. But the reception of baptism is not
presupposed by this yapcc, in opposition to Grotius ; see on ver. 26.

Ver. 28. Evrévec] nervously, vigorously, also in Greek writers used of ora-
tore, Comp. Luke xxiii. 10. — d:axaryA.] stronger than xar7A.; not preserved
elsewhere. The dative of reference’ is to be rendered : for the Jews, 1.6.
over against the Jews, to instruct them better, he held public refutations, so
that he showed, etc. — dzpocie] The opposite is idig.2 It comprehends more
than the activity in the synagogue.* — da rev ypag.] by means of the Script-
ures, whose expressions he made use of for the explanation and proof of his
proposition that Jesus was the Messiah, ’Iycoiy is the subject, comp. ver. 5.
—The description of the ministry of Apollos, vv. 27, 28, entirely agrees with
1 Cor. iii. 6.

Norzs sy American Eprror,

(D9) Corinth. V. 1.

Corinth, distant from Athens about 45 miles, was situated on an isthmus,
between two seas, the Ageun and the Ionian, on each of which, respectively,
were the ports of Cenchrea and Lechwum. Hence called ‘‘ The City of the Two
Seas,’’ Its favorable position rendered it a vast commercial emporium. It was
also a city of great military importance, as it commanded the entrance into the
peninsulas. In ancient and in modern times, armies have contended for the
possession of the lofty citadel of this city, called by Xenophon ‘The Gate of
the Peloponnesus,” and by Pindar the ‘‘ Bridge of the Sea.”

This city differed much in almost every respect from Athens. Athens was a
Greek free city, Corinth was a Roman colony. Athens was a seat of learning,
Corinth a mart of commerce. At Coninth, more than anywhere else, the
Greek race could be seen in all its life and activity.

The ancient city, so renowned in Grecian history, and which rivalled even
Rome, had been destroyed and fora century Jay in ruins ; but, nearly a century
before the time of Paul’s visit, the city was rebuilt by Julius Cesar, and it quickly
surpassed its former opulence and splendor. ‘Splendid buildings, enriched
with ancient pillars of marble and porphyry and adorned with gold and silver,
soon began to rise side by side with the wretched huts of wood and straw, which
sheltered the mass of the poorer population. The life of the wealthier in-
habitants was marked by self-indulgence and intellectual restlessness, and the
mass of the people, even down to the slaves, were more or less affected by the
prevailing tendency. Corinth was the Vanity Fair of the Roman Empire, at
once the London and the Paris of the first century after Christ." (Furrar.)

1 Comp. Symm., Job xxxix. 88: deAcyxdue- 2 Xen. Heer. xi. 9.
vor Gag. ® See xix. 9.

360 CHAP, XVIII., NOTES.

It was no less notorious for vice and licentiousness than it was famous for ite
magnificence and refinement. For while Cicero calls it ‘* totius Greecie lumen,"’
the light of all Greece, and Florus designates it ‘‘ Greeciss decus,” the glory of
Greece,” so low had it sunk in morals, that to live like a Corinthian became
proverbial for a course of wanton licentiousness and reckless dissipation. It
was ‘‘a populous city, rich, brilliant, frequented by numerous strangers, centre
of an active commerce. The characteristic feature which rendered its name
proverbial was the extreme corruption of manners displayed there.’’ (Renan.)
To this vast city, with its teeming mixed population of Jews, Greeks, and
Romans, where strife and uncleanness prevailed, the apostle came to preach
the gospel of peace and purity, and he did so with great power and success.

(z*) Gallio. V. 15.

Gallio was the brother of Seneca, the celebrated moralist, who dedicated two
of his books to him. He possessed those qualities which render a man a general
favorite. He was characterized as the ‘dulcis Gallio.”

‘¢He was a man of fine mind and noble soul, the friend of the poets and
celebrated writers. Such a man must have been little inclined to receive the
demands of fanatics, coming to ask the civil power, against which they protest
in secret, to free them of their enemies.’’ (Renan.)

Seneca says: ‘‘Nemo mortalium uni tam dulcis est, quam hic omnibus.”’
And the narrative of Luke represents him as acting in harmony with such a dis-
position. In the matter brought before him, he acted the part of a wise and
upright judge. The question was one which did not fall under his jurisdiction.
He was unwilling to be made a party to a Jewish prejudice, or the executioner
of an alien code. Paul and his accusers as religionists stood on an equality in
the eye of the law. His conduct is often reproached severely, as if he had been
wholly indifferent on matters of religion. Whether he was so or not is not
manifested hero, He simply declined to interfere in such matters. In this
he was right ; though he should surely have kept the peace, and prevented
the attack on Sosthenes. The view of Meyer is probably correct, that he favored
the accused.

The Romans regarded the Jews with mingled feelings of curiosity, disgust,
and contempt. Their orators and satirists heap scorn and reproach upon
them for their low cunning, their squalor, mendicancy, turbulence, supersti-
tion, cheatery and idleness. And they viewed Christianity in the light of a
Jewish faction.

‘It took the Romans nearly two centuries to learn that Christianity was
something infinitely more important than the Jewish sect, which they mistook
it to be. It would have been better for them, and for the world, if they had
tried to get rid of this disdain, and to learn wherein lay the secret power of 1
religion, which they could neither eradicate norsuppress. But while we regret
this unphilosophic disregard, let us at least do justice to Roman impartiality.
In Gallio, in Lysias, in Felix, in Festus, in the centurion Julius, even in Pilate,
different as were their degrees of rectitude, we cannot but admire the trained
judicial insight with which they at once saw through the subterranean injustice
and virulent animosity of the Jews in bringing false charges against innocent
men.’’ (Furrar.)

NOTES. 361

(F*) Having shorn his head. VY. 18.

It is a matter of dispute whether this shaving of the head refers to Paul or
to Aquila, Meyer is decidedly of the opinion that it was Aquila who had the
vow. He argues strenuously in favor of this view, but he very candidly gives
a list of authorities on both sides,

On the statement Plumpire writes thus: ‘‘The grammatical structure of the
Greek sentence makes it possible to refer the words to Aquila as well as St.
Paal, but there is hardly the shadow of a doubt that the latter is meant.”’

Alford says: ‘‘There are, from verse 18 to 23—a section forming a distinct
narrative, and complete in itself—no less than nine aorist participles, eight of ©
which indispulably apply to Paul as the subject of the section; leaving it
hardly open to question that xecpéyevoc algo must apply unto him.’’ Taylor
quotes this passage and concurs with it. On the other hand Bloomfield
writes: ‘‘All who were distinguished for knowledge of Greek and almost
every editor of the N. T. have adopted the view that it refers to Aquila, which
is supported by the ancient versions, and, as it invokes far more probability,
und avoids the difficulties attendant on supposing Paul to be meant, it deserves
the preference.’” Howson also, in ‘‘The Life of Paul,’’ says: ‘‘ Aquila had
bound himself by one of those vows which the Jews often voluntarily took
even when in foreign countries,”’ and ‘‘ had been for some time conspicuous, even
among the Jews and Christians at Corinth, for the long hair, which denoted that
he was under 8 peouliar religious restriction ; and before accompanying the
apostle to Ephesus, laid aside the tokens of his vow.’’ He also in a note
quotes Heinrichs: ‘‘ Preferendum mihi videtur, quia constructio fluit facilior,
propiusque fidem est, notitiam hanc, quae lJereviter nonnisi et quasi per tran-
seunam additur, de homine ignitione adjunctamesse.” Gloag thinks the view
which refers the shaving of the head to Paul is the more correct. Since the
time of Augustine, opinion on this question has been divided; among the
scholars and commentators of the present day diversity of sentiment still ex-
ista, nor can we expect unanimity in the future. In view of the whole disous-
sion, we are disposed to agree with Meyer, that it was Aquila and not Paul
who shaved his head.

(a*) vipollos, V. 24.

Nothing is known of the previous history of Apollos, only that he was born
in Alexandria, of Jewish parents. He was doubtless trained from his child-
hood in the knowledge of the O. T. Scriptures; and thoroughly disciplined by
the culture of the best schools in a city where literature, philosophy, and criti-
cism excited the utmost intellectual activity, and which at that time was
second only to Athens in influence over the current thought of the age. The
philosophy of Alexandria exercised an important influence, both for good and
evil, over primitive Christianity.

Apollos was not only learned and mighty in the Scriptures, but he was en-
dowed with a most fascinating and persuasive eloquence, and, both before and
after his acquaintance with Paul, rendered good service to the cause of Christ,
in Corinth and in Ephesus. He was with Paul when he wrote the first Epistle
to the Corinthians, and Paul mentions him many years afterward, in his

362 CHAP. XVIII.—NOTES.

Epistle to Titus. Luther suggested the idea that he was the author of the
Epistie to the Hebrews, and many have agreed with him. The term Aédytoc,
applied to Apollos, may mean skilled in history, learned, or eloquent, the last
is best suited to the context ; but, in all its senses, the word was applicable to
the distinguished Alexandrian.

(H°) Baptism of John. V. 25.

Besides his early Biblical and literary training, Apollos had probably been
instructed by some disciple of John, if not by John himself, and had been im-
bued with the spirit of the trampet-toned preacher of the Jordan, and sought to
lead men to repentance, and to the reception of the Messiah, who had already
come, as he proved from the received Scriptures. He had been instructed
in the way of the Lord—that is, the divine purpose to redeem Israel through
the Messiah, whom he believed Jesus of Nazareth to be; for with great fervor
of spirit and force of speech he taught accurately the things concerning the
Lord Jesus, as far as he knew them. It is not to be supposed that Apollos was
ignorant of the fact that Jesus was the Christ, the Lamb of God which taketh
away the sin of the world ; for this was the keynote of John’s ministry ; nor
that he did not know anything about Christian baptism, but only that he did
not distinguish between it and that of John. The disciples of John,
who were numerous and scattered, may be divided into three classes:
those, including a large majority, who became disciples of Christ; those,
who formed a small sect of their own, holding that John was the Mes-
siah ; and those who, being removed from Palestine, held just what John
taught. To this last class Apollos and the twelve disciples at Ephesus be-
longed. They had not yet heard of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, though
they were personally led into the truth by Him. The pious couple,
who had left Corinth with Paul, took the fervent, eloquent preacher
to their home, and gave him more full and accurate instruction in the
gospel of Christ, its distinctive doctrines, and, though no mention is made
of the fact, Aquila in all probability baptized him. Meyer thinks he was not
rebaptized ; but both Hacket and Plumptre think it more probable that he was
rebaptized, and we agree with them.

CRITICAL REMARKS, 363

CHAPTER XIX.

Vv. 1, 2. eipav) A B &, min. Copt. Vulg. Fulg. have etpeiv, and then re (or dé)
after ele. So Lachm. Tisch. But how easily might evpuy, after éA#civ, be changed
by transcribers into eipeiv !— elsov, ver. 2, and mpdS atrovs, ver. 3 (both deleted,
after important witnesses, by Lachm. Tisch. Born.), have the character of an
addition for the sake of completion. — Ver. 4. név] is wanting in A B D ¥, min.
Vulg. Deleted by Lachm. and Born. The want of a corresponding dé occa-
sioned the omission.—Before "Ijcoty Elz. Scholz read Xp:orév, which is deleted
according to preponderating testimony. <A usual addition, which was here
particularly suggested by es r. ox. — Ver. 7. dexadvo) Lachm. Born. read dudexa,
it is true, according to AB D E &, min., but it is a change to the more usual
form. — Ver. 8. rd repi] B D, min. vss. have repi. So Lachm. Tisch. Born. See
on viii. 12. — Ver. 9. rivés] is wanting in A B ¥, min. vss, Lachm. Tisch., but
was, as apparently unnecessary, more easily omitted than inserted. — Ver. 10.
After Kupiov Elz. has, against decisive testimony, ’Iyoot, which Griesb. has de-
leted. — Ver. 12. arogep.] recommended by Griesb,, and adopted by Lachm.
and Tisch., after A B E &, min. But Elz. Scholz, Born. read émigéip. Occa-
sioned by ém r. do. — éxropevecbar] Elz. reads é&épyecOar ax’ atruv, against pre-
ponderating evidence. The usual word for the going out of demons! and dz’
avr. was added from the preceding. — Ver. 13. nat] after r:vés, is approved by
Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. Tisch., according to A B E &, min. Syr.; Elz.
Scholz read a7é, according to G H, min.; Born. reads éx, after D. Accordingly
something, at all events, originally stood after rivfs. But had axé or éx stood,
ho reason can be perceived why they should be meddled with; «ai, on the
other hand, might be found perplexing, and was sometimes omitted and some-
times exchanged for dé or éx, — dpxitw] So AB DE 8, min. Copt. Arm. Cas-
siod. But Elz. has dpxifozev. Correction to suit the plurality of persons. —
Ver. 14. reves viol Ze. 'I. dpy. éxra] Lachm. reads rivos Ex. "I. apy. énxra viol.
Both have important evidence, and the latter is explained as a correction and
transposition (Tisch. has rives indeed, but follows the order of Lachm., also at-
tested by &), the transcribers not knowing how to reconcile rivés with éxra, —
oi] is deleted by Lachm., according to insufficient evidence. Superfluous in
itself ; and, according to the order of Lachm., it was very easily passed over
after viol. — Ver, 16. é¢aAAdu.] AB ®*, 104. Lachm. reads égaddy. Correctly ;
the Recepta arises from the inattention of transcribers.—Before xaraxip. Elz.
Scholz have «ai, which is deleted according to predominant testimony. An
insertion for the sake of connection. — dugorépwv] Elz. has ctrév, against A B
D &, min. Theophyl. 2, and some vss.; au¢., which is recommended by Griesb,
and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born., was objectionable, as before there was
no mention of two. — Ver. 21. 4:2e496v) Lachm. Born. read d:2A8eiv, according to
ADE. Resolution of the constrnction, by which «ai became necessary before
roneveodat, which, aleo, D has (so Born.), — Ver. 24. zapelzyero) Lachm. reads
mapeizye, according to A* DE; yet D places 6s before, and has previously gv

364 CHAP. XIxX., 1, 2.

after ris (vo Born.). The middle was less familiar to transcribers. — Ver. 25.
Elz. Scholz have judy ; Lachm. Tisch. Born. read jy:v, according to ABD E &,
min. Vulg. Copt.Sahid. Theophyl. 2. The latter is to be received on account
of the preponderance of testimony, and because jzav would more easily sug-
gest itself to unskilful transcribers, — Ver. 26. GAAd] Lachm. Born. read aArd
xal, after A B G, min. vss, Chrys. Both suitable in meaning ; but «ai would
more easily after ob yévov be mechanically inserted (comp. ver. 27) than omitted.
—Ver. 27, Aoy:o67vaz, wéAAecv]) Lachm. Born, read Aoyo6poerat, wéAAe, according
to weighty evidence ; but certainly only an emendation of a construction not
understood. — rjv zeyaA.) Lachm. reads r7$ peyadedrnros, A B E &, min. Sahid.
Correctly ; the genitive not being understood, or not having its meaning at-
tended to, yielded to the more naturally occurring accusative. — Ver. 29. 647} is
wanting in A B &, min. Vulg. Copt. Arm., and is deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.
An addition which easily suggested itself. — Ver. 33, rpoe3iBacav} Lachm. reads
ouveBiBacav, according to A B E X&, min.; Born. reads «xare3i3., after D*. In
this diversity ovvefi8. is indeed best attested by Codd., but yet is to be rejected
as completely unsuitable. As, further, care3iZ. has only D* for it, the reading
of the Recepta, which was glossed in a variety of ways, is to be retained. — Ver.
34. éxcyvévres] Elz. has excyvévrwv, against decisive evidence. A correction in
point of style. — Ver. 35. dv@pwros] Lachm. Tisch. read avOpdrwy, according to
A BER, min. ves. The Recepta came in mechanically.—After peyad. Elz. has
@eas. Condemned by decisive testimony as an addition. — Ver. 37. Oedv) Elz.
reads Gedy, against decisive testimony. —Instead of iudv, Griesb. approved, and
Lachm. and Born. read, jywv, according to A D E** &, min. vss. But with the
important attestation which tc also has, and as the change into f#yov was
so naturally suggested by the context, the Recepia is to be defended. —- Ver. 39.
wept érépwv}] B, min. Cant. have mepairépw. Preferred by Rinck, adopted by
Lachm. and Tisch.; and correctly, as alterations easily presented themselves for
a word not occurring elsewhere in the N. T. (E has rep érepov), and which is
hardly to be ascribed to the transcribers, — Ver. 40. After repi od Griesb. and
Matth. have adopted of, which, however, has more considerable authorities
against it than for it(A G H &). Writing of the ob twice. — epi before 175
ovorp.is found in A B E &, min. vss.; it is, with Lachm., to be adopted, be-
cause, being superfluous and cumbrous, it ran the risk of being ‘omitted, but
was not appropriate for insertion.

Ver. 1. 'AroAAG] Concerning this form of the accusative, see Winer, p.
61 (E. T. 72). — 1a avwrepexd] the districts lying more inland from Ephesus,
as Galatia and Phrygia, xviii. 28.! The reading Theophylact, ra avarodsa,
is a correct gloss. A more precise definition of the course of the journey *
through the regions of Hierapolis, Philadelphia, and Sardes, is not to be
attempted. — pafyrdc] é.¢. as no other definition is added, Christians. It
is true that they were disciples of John,* who had been, like Apollos, in-
structed and baptized by disciples of the Baptist,* but they had joined the
fellowship of the Christians, and were by these regarded as fellow-disci-
ples, seeing that they possessed some knowledge of the person and doc-

1 Comp. Kypke, IT. 98. § ver, 2, 3.
* Bottger, Beitr. 1. p. 30, and de Wette. «Comp. xviii. %.

DISCIPLES OF JOHN. 365

trine of Jesus and a corresponding faith in Him, though of a very imper-
fect and indefinite character,—as it were, misty and dawning ; therefore
Paul himself also considered them as Christians, and he only learned from
his conversation with them that they were merely disciples of John.!
Heinrichs * thinks that they had received their instruction’ and baptism of '
Jobn from Apollos, and that ‘Paul was also aware of this. But the very
ignorance of these disciples can as little be reconciled with the energetic
ministry of Apollos us with any already lengthened residence at Ephesus at
: all, where, under the influence of the Christians, and particularly of Aquila
and Priscilla, they must have received more information concerning the
rvevpa ay. Therefore it is most probable that they were strangers, who had
but just come to Ephesus and had attached themselves to the Christians of
that place. As disciples of John they are to be regarded as Jews, not as
Gentiles, which ver. 2 contains nothing to necessitate.‘ — Observe, also,
that the earlier keeping back of the apostle from Asia on the part of the
Spirit* had now, after his labours thus far in Greece, obtained its object
and was no longer operative. Of this Paul was conscious. Cod. D hasa
special address of the Spirit to this effect, —an interpolation which Borne-
mann has adopted.

Ver. 2. The want of the distinctively Christian life of the Spirit in
these disciples must have surprised the apostle ; he misses in their case
those peculiar utterances of the Holy Spirit, commencing with Christian
baptism, which were elsewhere observable.‘ Hence his question. — e]
The indirect form of conception lies at the foundation, as in i. 6. — moret-
oavrec] after ye became believers, i.e. Christians, which Paul considered
them to be.’— ada’ ovdé ei rv. dy. &@. nxove.] as the existence of the Holy Spirit
at all cannot have been unknown to the men, because they were disciples of
John and John’s baptism of water had its essential correlate and intvlligi-
ble explanation in the very baptism of the Spirit—even apart from the O.
T. training of these men, according to which they must at least have been
aware that the Holy Spirit was something existing—Zor:v, to be so accented,
must necessarily be taken as adest, as in John vii. 89 : No, we have not even
heard whether the Holy Spirit is there, already present on the earth. Ac-
cordingly, they still remained ignorant whether that which John had
announced, namely, that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit, had
already taken place, and thus the mveiua aytov had become present. The
supplements, dofév, éxyuvéuevov, and the like, give the sense, just as in John
vil. 89, but are quite unnecessary. The view which it takes of existence
generally has misled Olshausen to import the here inappropriate dogmatic
assertion: that God still stood hefore their minds as a rigid, self-contained,
immediate unity, without their knowing anything of the distinctive attributes
of the Father, Son, and Spirit, necessarily conditioned by the nature of the

' verse 8. § xvi. 6.
2 Comp. Wetstein, also Lange, IT. p. 964. © 1 Cor. xfi. 18; Tit. ili. 5.
9 xvill. 2, 26. 7 See on ver. 1.

* In opposition to Baumgarten, IT. p. 3.

366 CHAP, XIX., 4-7.

Spirtt ; and, with Baumgarten, has given rise to the supposition that they
were Gentiles.!—The question occurred to them as surprising.*

Ver. 8. Eic ri] reference of the baptism :* unto what, then, us the object of
faith and confession, to which you were referred, were ye baptized ? — civ}
accordingly, since the matter so stands, since ye have not even heard of the
existence of the Holy Spirit. The presupposition in this eic¢ ri ody is, that
they, baptized in the name of Christ, could not but have received the Holy
Spirit. —ei¢ rd ’Iudvy. Barr.] in reference to the baptism administered by
John, so that thus the baptism performed in our case was to be the baptism
of John, in relation to which we were baptized.

Ver. 4. Mév] See on i. 1. Instead of following:it up by an apodosis,
such as: ‘‘but Jesus is the coming One, on whom John by his bap-
tism bound men to believe,’’ Paul already inserts this idea by rowr. gore ic
r.’I. into the sentence beyun by yév, and, abandoning the ,é», entirely
omits to continue the construction by 6é. —iBdarr. Bart, perav.] he baptieed,
administered, a baptism which obliged to repentance. See Mark i. 4. On
the combination of @azrif{s with a cognate noun.‘ — el¢ r. épy.] is with great
emphasis prefixed to the iva.* — iva mor.) is to be understood purely in the
sense of design ; saying to the people: that he administered a baptism of
repentance, in order that they should believe on Him who was to come after
him, i.e. on Jesus. This terse information concerning the connection of the
baptism of John, which they had received, with Jesus, decided these disci-
ples to receive Christian baptism. The determining element lay in roi7’
éoriy ei¢ Tov ’Incotv, which Paul must have more precisely explained to
them, and by which they were transplanted from their hitherto indistinct
and non-living faith into the condition of a full jides explicitta—from the
morning dawn of faith to the bright daylight of the same.

Ver. 5. Eig rd évoua r, Kup, "I.] on the name of the Lord Jesus, which they
were to confess, namely, as that of the Messiah.‘ These disciples of John
thus received—whether from Paul himself, or from a subordinate assistant,
the text leaves undetermined ’ — Christian baptism, for it had appeared that
they had not yet received it. The Anabaptists have from the first wrongly
appealed to this passage; for it simply represents the non-sufficiency of
John’s baptism, in point of fact, for Christianity, and that purely in re-
spect of the twelve persons, but does not exhibit the insufficiency of the
Christian baptism of infants. Many, moreover, of the orthodox,® in a
controversial interest — both against the Roman Catholic doctrine of the
distinction between the Johannean and the Christian baptism,® and also
against the Anabuptists,—have wrongly attached ver. 5 to the address of the
apostle: ‘‘ but after they had heard it they were baptized (by John), etc.”’

1 On aAAd, in the reply, see Klotz, ad Devar, 6 Comp. on Matt. xxviil. 19.

p. 11 f. 7 But see for the latter view 1 Cor. 1. 17;
? Baeumlein, Partik. p. 14. comp. Acts x. 48.
® Matt. fii. 11, xxviii. 19; Rom. vi. 8; 1 Cor. ® Comp. Beza, Calixtus, Calovius, Suicer,
i. 18, x. 2, xl. 18; Gal. iif. 37. Glass, Buddeus, Wolf, and several of the older
4 Comp. Luke vii. 20, xii. 50; Mark x. 88. commentators.

& Comp. on Gal. ii. 10; Eph. fil. 18, ® Trident. Seas. vii. Can. 1.

BAPTISM OF JOHN’S DISCIPLES. | 367

But against this it may be urged, that John did not baptize in the name of
Jesus, and that dé, ver. 5, stands in no logical connection at all with yé»,
ver. 4. On the other hand, Calvin and others have maintained, against the
Anabaptists, that ver. 5 is meant not of the baptism of water, but of the
baptism of the Spirit, which ver. 6 only more precisely explains; but this
shift is just another, quite as utterly unexegetical, error of dogmatic pre-
supposition. We may add, that it may not be inferred from our passage
that the disciples of John who passed over to Christianity were uniformly
rebaptized ; for in the case of the apostles who passed over from John to
Jesus, this certainly did not take place ;! and even as regards Apollos, the
common opinion that he was baptized by Aquila is purely arbitrary, as in
xviii. 26 his instruction in Christianity, and not his baptism, is narrated.
Indeed, in the whole of the N. T., except this passage, there is no example
of the rebaptism of a disciple of John. Hence the baptiem of the disciples of
John who passed over to Christianity was not considered as absolutely necessary 5
but it did or did not take place according as in the different cases, and in pro-
portion to the differences of individuals, the desire of the persons concerned, and
the opinion of the teachers on the matter determined. With those twelve, for
example, Paul regarded it as conducive to his object and requisite that they
should be baptized, in order to raise them to the elevation of Christian
spiritual life; and therefore they were baptized, evidently according to
their own wish and inclination, as is implied in dxovoavreg 62 éBanr., whilst
Apollos, on the other hand, could dispense with rebaptism, seeing that he
with his fervid spirit, following the references of John to Christ and the
instruction of his teachers, penetrated without any new baptismal consecra-
tion into the pneumatic element of life. If, however, among the three
thousand who were baptized at Pentecost? there were some of John’s disci-
ples,—which is probable,—it was their desire to be baptized, and apostolic
wisdom could not leave this unfulfilled. Accordingly, the opinion of
Ziegler,*® that those twelve were rebaptized, because they had been baptized
by some disciple of John not unto the épyéuevoc, but unto John himeelf, and
thus had not received the true Johannean baptism, is to be rejected. They
did not, in fact, answer, in ver. 8, ei¢ rov "Tadveqy |

Vv. 6,7. After the baptism the imposition of the hands of the apostle * be-
came the vehicle of the reception of the rveduza dyoy on the part of the
minds opened by the apostolic word. The Spirit descended upon them,
and manifested Himself partly by their speaking with tongues,° and partly
in propheticinspiration.* These two must, according to the technical mode
of reference to them in the apostolic church attested by 1 Cor. xii.—xiv., be
distinguished, and not treated as equivalent, with van Hengel, who’ finds
here merely in general an expression of the inspired praising aloud of God
in Christ. The analogy of the phenomenon with whut occurred in the

1 John fv. 3. * See on xi. 97.

2 ii. 88, 41. 7 Comp. on chap. if. 10.

8 Theol. Abh. II. p. 168. 8 Bee his Gave d. talen, p. & ff. ; Trip, p.
4 See on viii. 15, remark. 185, follows him.

® See on x. 46.

368 CHAP. XIx., 8-12.

history of Cornelius! serves Baur? for a handle to condemn the whole narra-
tive as unhistorical, and to refer it to the set purpose of placing the Apostic
Paul, by a new and telling proof of his apostolic dignity and efficiency, on
& parallel with the Apostle Peter. The author had, in Baur’s view, seeing
that the first yAdooace Aa? civ, chap. ii., is exhibited in the person of Jewa,
and the second, chap. x., in that of Gentiles, now chosen for the third a
middle class, half-DLelievers, like the Samaritans !? With all this presumed
refinement of invention, it is yet singular that the author should not have
carried out his parallelism of Paul with Peter even so far as to make the
descent of the Holy Spirit and the speaking with tongues take place, as
with Cornelius, before baptism, on tbe mere preaching of the apostle! Peo-
ple themselves weave such fictions, and give forth the author of the book,
which is thus criticised, as the ingenious weaver. — Ver. 7. A simple his-
torical statement, not in order to represent the men ‘as a new Israel.’ *

Ver. 8. Hei8wv] is not equivalent to diddoxwv, but contains the result of
d:adey. He convinced men’s minds concerning the kingdom of the Mes-
siah.°

Ver. 9. But when some were hardened and refused belief, he severed himself
Jrom them, from the synagogue, and separated the Christians, henceforth
discoursing daily in the school of a certain Tyrannus. Tyrannus ® is usually
considered ’ as a Gentile rhetorician, who had as a public sophist possessed
a lecture-room, and is perhaps identical with the one described by Suidas :
Tipavvog’ cogiorie mepi ordoewy x, dtaipécews Adyov 3:8Ala déxa. But as the text
does not indicate a transition of the apostle wholly to the Gentiles,® but
merely a separation from the synagogue, and as in the new place of instruc-
tion,® ’Iovdaior, and these are named first, ver. 10, continued to hear him ;
as, in fine, Tyrannus, had he been a Gentile, would have to be conceived of
as oefduevoc ov Gedy, like Justus, xviii. 7,—an essential point, which Luke **
would hardly have left unnoticed : the opinion of Hammond is to be pre-
ferred, that Tyrannus is to be considered as a Jewish teacher who had a
private synagogue, wt) V3." Paul with his Christians withdrew from
the public synagogue to the private synagogue of Tyrannus, where he and
his doctrine were more secure from public annoyance. The objection, that
it would have been inconsistency to pass from the synagogue to a Rabinnical
school,’* is of no weight, as there were also Rabbins like Gamaliel, and Ty-
rannus must be considered, at all events, as at least inclined to Christianity.
—t. 6dév] see on ix, 2, xviii. 25.

1x, 44 ff.

27. p. 212 f., ed. 2 (with whom Zeller
agrees ; and see earlier, Schneckenburger, p.

3 See Schwegler, [56 ff.

4§o Baumgarten, II. p.7, whom the very
ecet ought to have preserved from this fancy.

§ Comp. on wei@ew with the mere accusative
of the object (Plat. Pol. p. 804 A; Soph. 0. (.
1444), Valckenaer, ad Kur. Hipp. 1062.

¢The same name in Apollod. if. 4. 5;
Boeckh, Corp. Inecr. 1782; 2 Macc. iv. 40:
Josoph. Antt. xvi. 10. 8, Bell. 1. 2%. 8; and

among the Rabbis 613°10), see Drusius in
loc. [Ewald, p. 516.
TAs by Lange and Baumgarten, comp.
8 See, on theother hand, xviii. 6, 7, xiii.
48. [ete.
® cxoAy, & teaching-room, often in Plutarch,
36 Comp. xviii. 7.
11 “In Beth Midrasch docuerunt traditiones
atque aerum expositiones,** Badyl. Berac. f.
17.1; see Light’. ad Matth. p. 28 f.; Vitrin-
ga, Synag. p. 137.
13 Baumgarten.

PAUL IN EPHESUS. 369

Ver. 10. ’Exit érn dio] for two years.'| The three months, ver. 8, are to be
reckoned in addition to this for the thole residence at Ephesus. This
statement of the time is not at variance with xx. 31, if only we take the
deria in our passage, and the zpeeria in xx. 81, not as documentarily strict,
but as approximate statements.? There is not, therefore, sufficient reason
to suppose, nor is there any hint in the narrative, that we are to reckon the
érn dbo as not extending further than ver. 20,* — dore mdvrac «.7.2.] & hyper-
bolical expression. In Ephesus, flourishing by commerce and art, with its
famous temple of Diana and festivals,‘ strangers were continually coming
and going from all parts of Asia Minor, Jews and Gentiles, the latter par-
ticularly for the sake of worship. The sensation which Paul made excited
very many to hear him ; a great sphere of labour was opened up to him, 1
Cor. xvi. 9. —°EAAnvac] comprehends here both pruselytes of the gate and
complete Gentiles.* The private school, which Tyrannus had granted to
Paul, was made accessible by the latter also to the Gentiles, which could
not have been the case with a public synagogue.

Vv. 11, 12. Ov rag rvzoic.| not the usual, i.e. distinguished, not to be com-
pared with those of the Jewish exorcists.* The opposite: pixpat xai ai
tuxovoa: mpagerc.” On ruyo», in the sense of vulgaris, see generally, Vigerus,
ed. Hermann, p. 864 ; and on the very frequent connection by way of litotes
with ov, see Wetstein in loc.®* — Gore nai x.t.A.] 80 that also, among other
things, towels and aprons were brought to the sick from his skin, and thereby
the ailments were removed from them, etc. — oiuixivthov, not preserved else-
where, the Latin semicinctium, is explained either as a handkerchief,® or
usually as an apron, in favour of which isthe etymology, and Martial, Zpigr.
xiv, 151. Very probably it was a linen apron which workmen or waiters "
wore after laying aside their upper garment, and which, when they had it
on, they likewise used for the purpose remarked by Oecumenius, — aro rov
xpuric avrov] so that they had just been used by him and been in contact
with his skin. Luke, who also here” distinguishes the ordinary sick from
the possessed, represents the healing of the former and the deliverance of
the latter ag an effect, which was brought abvut by the cloths laid on
them ; for dore down to éxrop. forms together the description of a peculiar
kind of those unusual miraculous duvayecc. Purely historical criticiem, indc-
pendent of arbitrary premises laid down @ priori, has nothing to assail in
this view, as the healing power of the apostle, analogous to the miraculous
power of Jesus, might through his will be transmitted by means of cloths
requested from him to the suffering person, and received by means of the faith
of the latter. The truth of the occurrence stands on the same footing with

1 Ae ver. 8, xviii. 20, and frequently. ® Oecumentus ; dy rais xepoi xardxoves .. .
* Comp. Anger, de temp. rat. p. 50. wpos To awouarrerOat Tas bypérnTas Tov wpo-
3 Schrader, Wieseler, and others. @arov, ctor idpwras, mrveAov, Sdxpvoy Kx. Ta
4 "Réecia, Locella, ad Xen. Hph. p. 182. Suova, comp. Theophylact and Suicer, Thee.
§ Comp. on xi. 20. IL. p. 988.

6 Ver. 18. Comp. xxviii. 2 10 auddrepa ALvoedy ior, Schol. ap. Matth.

7 Polyb. i. %. 6. 11 Pignor, de serv. p. Ixxv.

370 CHAP. XIX., 13-19.

the N. T. miraculous cures in general, which took place through the will
of the worker of miracles, partly with and partly without sensible trans-
mission. By relegating the matter from the historical domain of miracles,
which is yet undoubtedly to be recognized in the working of Paul,! to the
sphere of legends as to relics,? with comparison of v. 15, or to that ‘‘ of the
servants’ rooms and houses behind,’’* the narrative of our passage is easily
dismissed, but not got rid of, although a more special embellishment of it
by the importunity of those seeking help, and by the pouring out of the sweat
of the apostle as he worked,‘ of which the text indicates nothing, is to be
set aside.

Ver. 18. But some, also, of the itinerant Jewish demon-exorcisers — sor-
cerers, who, for the healing of demoniacs, used secret arts derived from
Solomon, and charms *— undertook,* in expectation of greater results than
their own hitherto had been, and provoked by the effects which Paul pro-
duced by the utterance of the name of Jesus, to use this formula with the
demoniacs: J conjure you to come out, ye evil spirits,’ by Jesus, who,
besides, will punish you, whom Paul announces. — ini roig éxy.] denotes the
local direction: towards the possessed, not, as Kuinoel proposes, on account of
the possessed, perhaps with a design towards, of the direction of the will,
in which case the vivid form of the representatiun is entirely overlooked.
— rd rvebu. Td wov.] are the demons concerned, then and there to be expelled.
— rdv "Incovv.]® Equivalent to r@ dvéuare rov ’I., 3 Esdr. 3. 48.

Ver. 14. 'Apyiep.}] Whether he was a former head of one of the twenty-
four priestly classes, or a past de facto high priest, remains undecided, us
this Skewas— according to A: Skeujas, according to Ewald, perhaps
iv'32Y —is otherwise entirely unknown. — reece . . . érré] is by many,
including Kuinoel and Olshausen, taken as some seven, i.e., about seven ; but
then Luke would have placed the pronoun close to the numeral, either
before or after it ;° and the merely approximate expression would not be in
keeping with the significance of the number seven. The correct mode of
taking it is: but there were certain sons of Skeuas, a Jewish high priest, and
indeed seven, who did this. The number, not thought of at the very begin-
ning, instead of tivec, is introduced afterwards. Baur converts the sons
into disciples, without any ground whatever in the text.

- Ver. 15. But how entirely did that éreyelpyoav fail of success in the very
first instance of its application! Bengel well remarks on ver. 18: ‘Si
semel successisset, saepius ausuri fuerant.’? — 7rd mveina] the demon, who had
taken possession of the individual consciousness in the man.—By rév 'Iyaobr

. éxiorayac he recognises the power of Jesus and of the apostle over
him ; by tpei¢ 2 rivec, what sort of men! art he shows his contempt for the
presumption of his powerless—not empowered by Jesus and Paul—oppo-
nents. wseic is with depreciating emphasis placed first.

1 Rom. xv. 19 ; 2 Cor. xil. 12 * erexecp., see on Luke {. 1.

2 Buar, Zeller. 1 Ver. 15.

3 Hauarath. 8 Comp. Mark v. 7; 1 Thess. v. 27. -

4 Baumgarten. * xxiii. 23; Thuc. vil. 34. 4, érrd rivec, and

5 See Joseph. Antt. vill. 2.5, Bell. Jud.i.1. see Kfthner, § 688.5; Krfiger, § li. 16. 4.
2; Matt. xii. 27. 30 J, p. 215, ed. 2.

SONS OF SCEVA. 371

Ver. 16. "Egaddéuevog (see the critical remarks) éx’ airoi¢ x.7.A.] having
leaped upon them, after overpowering both he so prevatled against them, that, etc.
The mode of representation is not exact, as we only see from augorépwr that
here of those seven but two were active, whom Luke has already conceived
to himself in airobe. According to Ewald, ayugor. is newter ; on both sides,
i.e. from above and from below. This would be az’ augorépwy, wap’ augor.,
apugorépy, augorépubev. — yuuvobc] whether entirely naked, or merely divested
of their upper clothing,’ remains an undecided point.

Vv. 17, 18. The first impression of this signal miscarriage of that appli-
cation of the name of Jesus was in the case of the Ephesian multitude
naturally fear, dread? on account of its extraordinary nature ;* and then
followed universal praise of that name.‘ And many who, through this event
now, were believers (trav memior.®) came, to Paul, and confessed and made known,
an exhaustive description, their deeds. This open confession * of their pre-
vious practices, which had been entirely alien and opposed to the faith in
Christ, was the commencement of their new life of faith. In woAAoi and rac
apaé. air. the converted sorcerers and their evil tricks are meant to be in-
cluded, but not they only ;" for it is not till ver. 19 that these exclusively
are treated of. As to zpdferc in a bad sense, comp. on Rom. viii. 18.

Ver. 19. On sepiepyoc, often joined in Greek writers with droog, pdracoc,
avéyro¢, and the like, male sedulus, curiosus, and on ra repiepya, what is useless,
especially employed of the practices of sorcerers, see Kypke* and Wet-
stein.*° — The article here denotes that which is known from the context.
— rag BiBAovg] in which the magical arts were described, and the formulac
were contained. Such formulae of exorcism, carried on slips as amulets,
proceeded in large quantities from the sorcerers at Ephesus ; hence the ex-
pression ’ Egecia ypdupara. °— cuveypgicav] The sorcerers themselves reckoned
up the prices, which, indeed, others could not do. From this is partly ex-
plained the greatness of the sum. —- rip. apy. nup. révre] they found" in silver
money fifty thousand, namely, drachmae.* As the word. is not dpyvpivv, but
apyvpiov (comp. Dem. 949.1: rpiaxiAiag épxaAeoag apyvpiov dpaxpds) ; a8 Luke
did not write for a Hebrew, and as the scene of the transaction was a
Greek city, the opinion of Grotius, Hammond, and Drusius, that shekele are
meant, is to be rejected. The statement of a sum, without naming the
sort of money of the drachmae, was usual with the Greeks.'"* An Attic .

1 See on John xxi. 7.

Luther (see his gloss) has misunderstood the
2 See on il. 48. .

verse,

3 On éewerece $6805, comp. Luke f. 12

4 Comp. Lake vit. 16.

* This rendering of ror remor. is justified
by d¢ueyaduvero «.7.A., ver. 17. Others, as
Banmgarten, understand those who had al-
ready prertovely been believers, but who had
not yet arrived at such a confession. This,
however, is not reconcilable with nerdroca an
the necessary moral condition of faith and
baptism, which condition must have at an
earlier period been fnifilled hy thore who had
already at an eariier time become believers.

7 In opposition to Heinrichs and O)shausen.

* TI. p. . [B.

® Comp. weprepyageoOar, Plat. Apol. 8. p. 19

1 See Wetatein and Grotius tn loc.; Valcke-
naer. Schol. p. 864; Hermann, gollead. Alterth.
§ xiii. 17.

11 Got ont as the sam, see Raphel in loc.

13 The eileer drachma stande, as is well
kno 'n, tu the gold drachms in the proportion
of 10to 1 {Bernhardy, p. 187.

19 Sev Bor, Ellipe., ed. Schaefer, p. 119 f.;

872 CHAP. XIX., 20-27.

drachma, = 6 oboli, is about 24 kreuzers, accordingly the sum is about 20,-
000 Rhenish guiden.'—Baur, according to his presupposition, cannot but
reject the whole history of the demoniac, etc., as unhistorical; he holds
even the judgment in ver. 20 as itself unworthy of the associates of an
apostle ; and the following history, vv. 21-40, appears to him only to have
arisen through an @ priori abstraction, the author wishing to give as splen-
did a picture as possible of the labours of Paul at Ephesus. Zeller declares
himself more neutrally, yet as suspecting the narrative (p. 265), us does also
Hausrath, p. 86 f.

Ver. 20. So (so much) with power (par force) grew, in external diffusion,’
and displayed itself powerful, in the production of great effects, the doctrine
of the Lord. — xara xpéroc|.* The reference of xpdrog to the power of
Christ ‘ has occasioned the order rot Kuplov 6 Adyog.*®

Vv. 21, 22. Taira] these things hitherto reported from Ephesus.* Schra-
der’ would strangely refer it to the entire past labours of Paul, even in-
cluding what is not related by Luke. An arbitrary device in favour of his
hypothesis, that after ver. 20 a great journey to Macedonia, Corinth, Crete,
etc., occurred.* — ero év trp rveip.| he determined in his spirit, he resolved.’
— rv Maxed. x. ’Ay.] see on xviii. 12. — ropebectas rig 'Iepove.] The special
object of the journey is known from 1 Cor. xvi. 1 ff.; 2 Cor. viii.; Rom.
xv. 25 ff. The non-mention of this matter of the collection is so much the
less to be set down to the account of a conciliatory design of the book °—
as if it made the apostle turn his eyes toward Jerusalem on account of the
celebration of the festival ''—since the very aim of the collection would have
well suited that alleged tendency. '*— dei} in the consciousness of the divine
determination, which is confirmed by xxiii. 11. From this consciousness is
explained his earnest assurance, Rom. i. 10 ff. And towards Rome now
goes the whole further development '* of his endeavours and of his destiny.
He was actually to see Rome, but only after the lapse of years and asa
prisoner. —’Epacrov] 2 Tim. iv. 20. Otherwise unknown and different
from the person mentioned in Rom. xvi. 23.— éréaye xpédvov] he kept him-
self, remained, behind for a time.'4— cic r. ‘Aciay] does not stand for éy rg
‘Aa., in opposition to Grotius, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and many others, but. it
denotes the direction in which this keeping back took place, toward Asia,
where he was.'* Considering the frequency of this construction'* gener-
ally, and in the N. T.,'" it is not to be rendered, with Winer: jor Asia, in
order to labour there.

1 About £1875, or $9000.

2 vi. 7, xfl. 24.

3See Valckenaer, p. 565; Bernhardy, p.
241; Bornemann, ad Xen. Cyr. i. 4. 28.

4 Eph. i. 19. [B e*.

5 Lachmann and Tischendorf, following A

6 vv. 1-19.

¥ Der Apostel Paulus, II. p. 85 f.

8 See, on the contrary, Anger, de lemp. rat.
p. 64 ff.

® Comp. on v. 4,

3° Schneckenborger, p. 67; Zeller, p. 26%.

12 xx. 16, xxiv. 11, 17.

12 Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 12 ff.; eee Lekebuech, p.
280. How undesignedly the work of the col-
lection remained here unmentioned, is evi-
dent from xxiv. 17. (85 ff.

13 Compare Klostermann, Vindiciae Luc. p.

14 See examples in Wetstein, and from Philo
in Loesner, p. 219.

16 Comp. the we:l-known és Sopovs pera,
Soph. Aj. 80.

16 Comp. xviii. 21.

17 Buttmann, neuf. Gr. p. 37 (EK. T. BB).

MANY CONVERTED. 373

Ver. 24. The silver-beater (apyupoxéroc) Demetrius had a manufactory, in
which little silver temples (ag:dpiyara) representing the splendid! temple
of Diana?’ with the statue of the goddess, d¢ «Bdpia pexpd,* were made.
These miniature temples must have found great sale, partly among Ephe-
sians, partly among strangers, as it was a general custom to carry such min-
iature shrines as amulets with them in journeys, and to place them in their
houses ;* and particularly as the "Apreyzec ’Egecia was such a universally
venerated object of worship.> We are not to think of coins with the im-
pression of the temple, in opposition to Beza, Scaliger, Piscator, Valck-
enaer, as the naming of coins after the figure impressed on them ° is only
known in reference to living creatures ; nor can the existence of such coins
with the impress of the Ephesian temple be historically proved.

Vv. 25, 26. Demetrius assembled not only the artisans (obs) who worked
for him, but also the other workmen who were occupied in similar industrial
occupations (ra roatra). Bengel correctly remarks: ‘‘ Alii erant reyvira:,
artifices nobiliores, alii goydrac operarii.’’ — ov pévov . . . aAAd] without xai,
like the Latin non modo. . . sed, contains a climax.’ — peréor.] namely, from
the worship of the gods. — dr: obx eici Geoi] The people identified the stat-
ues of the gous with the gods themselves, or at least believed that the
numen of the divinity tilled them.’ Observe the order of the words, accor-
dant with their emphasis, marked also by a dislocation in ver, 26, and the
scornful and bitter 6 Natdoc ovtos : that Paul there ! — 6eoi is predicate. How
Paul looked on the heathen gods, may be seen at 1 Cor. viii. 4, x. 20. The
gods, = images, were to him of course only the work of men, without any
reality of that which they were intended to represent. Comp. xvii. 29.

Ver. 27. And not only this matter,® this point, namely, our lucrative trade, -
is in danger for us of coming into contempt, but also’ the temple of the great
goddess Artemis is in danger of being regarded as nothing, and there will aleo,
he added, be brought down the majesty of her, whom, etc. — juiv] dative of
reference, i.e. here incommodi. — cig ameA. £40.) 1.€. to come intodis credit ;
areacyude is not preserved elsewhere ; but comp. éAeyydc, frequent in the
LXX. and Apocr. — rij¢ weydAnc] a habitually employed epithet, as of other
gods, so particularly of the Ephesian Artemis."" With péAdew the oratio
recta, passes into the oratio obliqua.'* —ré is and, simply annexing ; «ai is alao,

1 Callimach. Hyma. in Dian. 246.

2 See concerning this temple, burned by
Herostratus on the night in which Alexander
the Great was born, and afterwards built with
greater magnificence, Hirt, d. Temp. d. Diana
s. Ephes., Berlin 1800.

3 Chrysostom.

{Dio Caes. xxxix. 200: Diod. Sic. 1. 15;
Amm. Marc. xxii. 18; Dougt. Anal. If. p. 91.

®Creuzer, Symbol. II. p. 176 ff.; Preller,
Mythol. I. p. 196 ff.; Hermann, goltesd.
Alterth. § ixvi. 4, ixviil. 39 [én toc.

* See Maetzn. ad Antiph. p. 120 ; Bremi, ad

Ieocr, Exe. IX. ; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 817
(E. T. 369).

® See Elener, Obes. p. 458 ff.; Wolf, Cur. ;
Hermann, gotlesd. Alterth. § xviii. 19.

9 nepog, eee on Col). if. 16.

10“ Efficax sermo, quem ulilitas et super-
stitio acuit,"* Bengel. Comp. xvi. 19.

11 Xen. Eph. i. 11; Alberti, Odss. p. 259.

12 Still weAAcw may also be governed by
xuvéuy. yuiy, But in that case peAAcy» would
itself simply appear very unncceseary, and the
paseage would ‘more fittingly after the preced-
ing be continued: ca@aipsioGer re xai «.7.A,
See Buttmann, neul. Gr. p. 880 (EB. T. 885).

374 CHAP. XIX., 28-33.

climactic: ‘‘ destructumgue etiam iri majestatem,’’ etc.' — ric peyadecéryroc
(see the critical remarks) ia to be taken partitively, as if ri stood with it ;
there will be brought down something of her majesty. Nothing of this
magnificence will they sacrifice. On xafapeiv of the lowering of the honour
of one, comp. Herodian. iii. 3. 4, vii. 9. 24. fw... oéBerat} again the
direct form of address. See on such mixing of direct and indirect ele-
ments, Kiihner.* The relative applies to avryc.

Vv. 28, 29. MeydAy 7 “Apr. 'Eg.}] An enthusiastic outcry for the preserva-
tion of the endangered, and yet so lucrative! majesty of the goddess. —
&punoav] namely, those who ran together along with Demetrius and his
companions. — ozofvyadév| here also: with one mind, in opposition to Dey-
ling, Krebs, Loesner, and others, who think that, on account of ver. 32, it
must be rendered simul; for they were at one on the point, that in the
theatre something in general must be determined on against Paul and his
companions for the defence of the honour of the guddess,‘ although specially
the most might not know rivog évexev ovveaAgaibetcayv.® — It is well known that
the theatre wus used for the despatch of public transactions and for popular
assemblies, even for such as were tumultuury.* Consequently the more
easy it is to understand, why the vehement crowd poured itself into the
great theatre.” — cvvaprdc.] First, they drew along with them the two
fellow-travellers (cuvvexd.) of the apostle, and then rushed into the theatre.
But it may also be conceived as simultaneous; while they carried along with
them, they rushed, etc. Whether they fetched these two men from their
lodgings, or encountered them in the streets, cannot be determined. —
Caius is otherwise unknown, and is not identical with the Caius mentioned
in xx. 4,° or with the one mentioned in Rom. xvi. 23; 1 Cor. i. 15. —
"Aplorapy.| See xx. 4, xxvii. 2; Col. iv. 10; Philem. 24.

Vv. 80, 81. MatAov] whom doubtless the rioters had not found present, at
his usual place of abode. ‘‘ Nulla militaris audacia par huic fortitudini,”’
Bengel. —eic¢ r. djzov] among the people that ran together into the theatre.”*
o dgpnoc is also among Greek writers very often the multitude.” Contrary to
the whole course of proceeding as narrated, Otto'' understands a formal
assembly of the people, of which we are not to think even in the case of
éxxAnoia, ver. 82 —The ten presidents of sacred rites as well as of the
public games in proconsular Asia were called ‘Ac:apzai, corresponding to
whom in other provinces were the Tadarapyai, BAviiapzai, Xuprapzai a.t.A.
They had to celebrate, at their own expense, these games in honour of the
gods and of the emperor. Each city annually, about the time of the
autumnal equinox, delegated one of its citizens, and these collective dele-

1Comp. xxi. 2&8; Buttmann, p. 309 (. T. TIt wae one of the largest. as its rains
300). show. See Ottfr. Miller, Archdol. d. Kunst,
* Comp. Xen. Hellen. iv. 4. 18: rev rayov pp. 391.
xaGeAciy, also fii. 2. 11. ® See in loc.
8 Ad Xen. Anad.i.8.14; Diseen, ad Dem. ® Ver. 31.
de cor. p. 28. ' 19 Dem. 383. 5: Diod. Sic. xvi. 84, plabs, rul-
4 Ver. 34. gus. See Starz, Lew. Xen I. p. 63; Nagels-
5 Ver. 82. {alterth §128 9. bach onthe JHad, p 277, ed. 8.

“See Wetstein én loc.; Hermann, Séaas- 1 Pastoralbr.p 108.

TUMULT RAISED BY DEMETRIUS. 375

gates then elected the ten. It was natural that one of these—perhaps
chosen by the proconsul—should preside, and hence may be explained the
remark in Eusebius, H. Z. iv. 15, that Polycarp was executed under the
Asiarch Philip. But the inference from our passage is historically inde-
monstrable, that only one was really Asiarch, and that the plural is to be
explained from the fact that the other nine, but particularly the retired
Asiarchs, like the past high priests of the Jews, bore the title,! which is
in itself improbable on account of the enormous expense which in that
case would have been laid on one.* — yp) dcoivac éavrév|] apprehension of
danger to life. On the expression with cic of a dangerous locality, comp.
Polyb. v. 14. 9.

Vv. 32, 33. Ov] joins on, by way of inference, the description of the
concourse, ver. 29, interrupted by vv. 80 and 81.—dAdo .. . dAdo.]?
The following ri might have been left out,‘ but it is only wanting in D.*—
9 éxxAncia] It was no évvouoc exxA., ver. 89, and accurdingly, no legal popular
assembly, neither an ordinary one (vduizoc), nor an extraordinary (ofy«Ayroc),
but simply an assemblage of the people, who had flocked together of their
own accord,—a concio plebis exlez et abusiva. — ovyxexuu.| confused, Sn an
uproar.® It lacked all order, guidance, self-restraint, discipline, etc. —
mpoeB. ’AALE. mpoBaad. avr. r. "lovd.] a vivid description of its tumultuary
character. The Jews shoved (pushed) him fortrard from behind (pofadd.),
and others, standing in front, brought or drew him out of the crowd.’
Grotius, Wetstein, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others take zpofdAAew as to pro-
pose,* but this does not at all suffice for the lively picture of the tumult.
Alexander, otherwise entirely unknown, was certainly a Christian, since
only to such a one is the subsequent arodcyeiofa: suitable, not a Jew.* He
is commonly, but arbitrarily, especially considering the frequency of the
name, considered as identical with the Alexander mentioned in 1 Tim. i.
20, 2 Tim. iv. 14, in which case it is in its turn presupposed that the name
occurring at those two passages denotes one person. Such completely
indemonstrable assumptions cannot serve to prove the genuineness and
time of the composition of the Epistles to Timothy, in opposition to Otto.
The Alexander in our passage had, in the Christian interest, mixed among
the crowd, and was pushed forward by the malicious Jews that he might
make a public address and, if possible, become a sacrifice to the fury of the
multitude. If we hold him to bea non-Christian Jew, which does not
result fro:n ver. 84, it is to be supposed that the Jews would be afraid that,
on this occasion, they also might be attacked, and therefore pushed for-
ward Alexander, an cloquent man and hostile to Paul, that he might main-

1 Salmasius, Valesius, Tillemont, Hardain, dyopay ovyérpexey GAAwy ddAa xexpayorer, Plat.

and Deyling. Charm. p. 158 D : npwrey 84 GAAos aAAo,
® Bee generally, Spanheim, de usu e¢ praest. 4 Ktihner, § 886. note 5.
num. IT. p. 604: van Dale, Diseertt. ad antig. § Bornemann.

et. marmor. p. 273 ff.: Winer, Reale. I. p. 97 6 Comp. ver. 25.
f.; Babington in Numism. Chronicle, 186. 7 én 7. dxAov wpoeB.
p. 98 ff. Comp. aleo Jacobs, ad Anthol. XII. §Bee Xen. Anad. vi. 1. %, vi. 2.6; Dem.
p. $18. 519.16; Kypke, II. p. 101 f.
® Comp. Charit. 1.5: & Shmos dwag cig trav ® Beza, Grotius, Ewald, and others.

376 CHAP. XIX., 3440.

tain the innocence of the Jews to the destruction of the Christians. But
Luke must have called attention to such a connection,’ and that the more
as the simple azodoyeiofa, tomake a defence, points quite naturally to the
accusation of the Christians 1eferred to. —xarac. r. x.] moving his hand up
and down,’ for a sign that he wished to speak. — r@ dyuw | before the people.*
— duoc is as in ver. 80, and the arodoyecoNae cannot therefore be meant to
be a defence of the Jews ‘ and of the oyoc.°

Vv. 84, 85. *Ore ’Iovdaide éor:] Alexander was a Jewish Christian ; but his
Christian position was cither unknown to the mob, or they would listen to
nothing at all from one belonging to the Jewish nation as the hereditary
enemy of the worship of the gods. — ér:yvovrec] Nominative participle, hav-
ing reference to the logical subject.*— xaracreitac] after he had quisted." —
The ypayparets, who had come up in the meantime, perhaps being sent for,
is the city-secretary,* to whose office belonged the superintendence of the
archives, the drawing up of official decrees, and the reading of them in the
assemblies of the people.* —ri¢ yap «.r.A.] who is there then, etc. With yép
the speaker glances back on his cfforts to calm them as completely justijied,
since there is certainly zo one who does not know, etc. The question in-
troduced with yép therefore states the metive of the xaraoreidac.© Thus viv-
idly does the question fit into the poistion of affairs. — ry 'Egeciuy mékr]
with patriotic emphasis. — On vewxdpoc, properly temple-sweeper, temple-keep-
er,"'as an honourable epithet of cities, particularly in Asia, in which the
temple-service of a divinity or of a deified ruler has its principal seat.!* — zo
dioreréc] that which fell from Zeus. That this was the dyadua fallen from
heaven,!® was obvious of itself. The image of Artemis in the temple of
Ephesus—according to Vitruvius, ii. 9, of cedar ; according to Plin. xvi. 40,
of the wood of the vine ; according to Xen. Anab. v. 8. 12, of gold, or at
least gilt ; and according to others of ebony—was given out as such. On
the figure of the image, "® see Creuzer, Symbol. II. p. 176 ff. It represented the
goddess with many breasts.'* According to our passage it must have been
rescued at the burning of Herostratus, at least according to general opinion.

1 Otto, p. 108, makes up the scene more
artificially, and that so as to make Alexander
even the soul and the secret spring of the
whole uproar. According to Hauerath, the
author gives designedly only a fragmentary
account of the Jewish-Ciristian Alexander,
because the conduct of the Jewish-Christians
at that time did not suit the concilatory object
of his book.

2 Comp. xii. 17, xii. 16, xxi. 40, where, how-
ever, the verb is joined with the dative, which,
therefore, also D, al. (Bornemann) have here.

3 Herod. vil. 161; Plat. Prot. p. 359 A;
Lucian. Gal!.3. See Bernhardy, p. 79.

4 Bengel, Ewald.

& Otto.

See Winer, p. 529 (E. T. 710); Buttmann,
néeul. Gr. p. 256 (E. T. 298).

7 Plut. Mor. p. 07 E; Joseph. Anié. xiv. 9
1,1. 1.2.

6 Thuc. vil. 19, 6 ypanparevs 6 THs wéAews.

*See van Dale, i.c., p. 423 f.; Hermann,
Stualsallerth. § 127. QW, 147. 6.

10Comp. N&gelsbach on the Iliad, p. 59,
ed. 3. [A-C.

11 Xen. Anab. v. 8. 6; Plat. Legg. 6, p. 759

12 See van Dale, /.c., p. 300 ff.; Valckenaer,
p. 570 f.; Krause, de civit. neocoris, Hal. 1844 ;
Hermann, gottesd. Alterth. § 12. 7.

13 Kur. Iph. 7. 9t7 ; Herodian, {. 11.2.

4 See Spanheim, ad Callim. in Dian. 28 ;
Wetstein in loc.

16 With enigmatical words on forehead
girdle, and feet ; see upon it Ewald, Jah79.,
II. p. 175 f.

16 Muliimammiam, Jerome.

TUMULT QUELLED BY THE TOWN CLERK. 377

Ver. 87. T'ép] justifies the expression used, xporeré¢, rashly, without con-
sideration.

Ver. 38. Obv] accordingly, since these men are neither robbers of temples,
etc. On éyew mpdg teva Adyov, an utterance, i.e. complaint, see examples in
Kypke, II. p. 103. — ayopaim] by Griesbuch, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and
Bornemann, following Suidas, accented aydéparo:,' are judicial assemblies ; in
construing it, civoda is to be conceived as supplied.?—xai avdirara: ciciv]
and there are proconsuls, The plural is here also® the plural indefinite of
the category. Arbitrarily Calvin and Grotius hold that the proconsul and
his legate are meant. Bengel correctly says: ‘‘de eo quod nunquam non
eese soleut.”’

Vv. 89, 40. But if you desire anything further thereupon, beyond matters
of private law, i will be discussed, cleared up, in the lawful assembly of the
veople.* On reparréipw see the critical remarks. 5— xa yap xevduv.} for we
even run the risk of being charged with tumult—ordoeuc : genitive of accusa-
tion—on account of this day. ydp gives the reason why the speaker in the
latter case, ver. 839, has relegated the matter to the évvouoc éxxAyo. ric
ohuepov is not to be connected with ordceuc.£— undevd¢ airiov . . . rabrac]
there being no reason, on the ground of which we shall be in a position to give
account of this concourse. und, airiov, taken as masculine,’ would less accord
with the prudence of the speaker, who with wise forbearance clothes the
threatening in a form embracing others, including his own responsibility.—
Very wisely, on the whole, has the politically adroit man of business, in the
first instance, by way of capitatio benevolentiae praised the Ephesian worship
of Diana in its unendangered world-wide fame; then from this inferred
the unseemliness of such a hasty proceeding ; further, pointed Demetrius
and his companions tu the legal form of procedure in their case; and
finally, put on the people the lasting curb of the fear of- Roman punish-
ment.® — xai travra eimdv x.t.A.] obrug EcBece tov Yuudv’ Gorep yap padiug &&d~-
wreTal, ovTwW Kai padiug oBévvvrat, Chrysostom.—How lightly Baur deprives
this whole history of its historical character, may be seen in his Paulus, I.
p. 217, ed. 2.

} But reeon xvii. 5.

2 Comp. Strabo, xiii. p. 629; Vulg.: con-
ventus forensds.

3 Comp. xvii. 18.

4“ Qui a magietratu civitatis convocatur et
regitnr,”’ Groting; in contrast to this illegal
conconree, comp. on vv. $3, 30.

5 Comp. Plat. Phaed. p. 107 B : ovder Cyrijoere
wepoarrépe. ,

® Vulgate, Lather, Calvin, and others. So
also Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 154 (BE. T. 177%).
Certainly the ordcewo wep is in keeping with
dyxaAsio@as wept tivos, xxill, 20, xxvi.7. Bat

it may be urged, on the other hand, that such
a position of the preposition after the noun
(Kriiger, § Ixvili. 4.2; Kahner, § 626) is not
usual in the N. T., and also that the ypayparevs
in his speech was too diplomatically prudent
to designate, on his part, the affair exactly as
a tumult (ovacis). In hia mouth it ts only s
concnourss (avetpody).—We may add, that in
Greek writers wpogxaAcioGa, with the simple
genitive, fs the usual expression.

7 Vulgate.

8 vv. 35-40.

378 OHAP. XIX.—NOTES.

Nores sy American Eprrosr.
(1°) Ephesus. VY. 1.

Ephesus was the greatest city of Asia Minor, and the metropolis of a province
said to embrace no less than five hundred cities. It was situated on the
Cayster, and built partly on the two mountains Prion and Coressus, and partly
on the valley between them. It had a commodious harbor, and lay on the
main road of traffic between the east and the west, a position favorable alike
to inland and maritime commerce, It was a free city of the Roman Empire,
and self-governed. It was full of elegant buildings; and its markets were
supplied with the choicest products of all lands, and adorned with works of
art of every kind. They supplied the writer of the Apocalypse with the vivid
and glowing description given in Rev. xviii. 12,13. Its theatre was one of the
largest ever erected, said to be capable of holding 30,000 persons, The city
was the resort of all nations, and its population was numerous and multi-
farious.

‘It was more Hellenic than Antioch, more Oriental than Corinth, more
populous than Athens, more wealthy and refined than Thessalonica, more
sceptical than Ancyra or Pessinus, It was, with the single exception of Rome,
by far the most important scene of the apostle’s toils, and was destined in after
years to become not only the first of the seven churches of Asia, but the seat
of one of those great Cicumemical Councils which defined the faith of the
Christian world.’’ ( Farrar.)

The temple of Diana, built of white marble, was magnificent in extent, 425
feet in length and 220 feet in breadth, with 127 columns 60 feet high, each
said to be the gift of a king, and many of them adorned with rich ornamenta-
tion in bas-relief. It was the glory of the city, and one of the wonders of the
world. The sun in his course, it was said, shone on nothing more splendid.

Ephesus was specially famous for two things—the worship of Diana and
the practice of magic—and it was the headquarters of many defunct supersti-
tions, which owed their continuance to various orders of priests. The general
character of the inhabitants was in very bad repute. Renan, basing his views
upon numerous ancient authorities, writes: ‘‘It might have been called the
rendezvous of courtesans and viveurs, The city was full to repletion of magi-
cians, diviners, mimics, and flute-players, eunuchs, jewellers, amulet and metal
merchants, and romance writers. The expression, Ephesian novels, indicated,
like that of Milesian fables, a style of literature, Ephesus being one of the cities
in which they preferred to locate the scenes of love stories. The mildness of
the climate, in fact, disinclined one to serious things Dancing and singing
remained the sole occupation ; public life degenerated into bacchanalian revels.
Good studies were thrown aside.’ Nothing now remains of the magnificent
metropolis of Asia but a miserable Turkish village. The once thronged harbor
is now & malarious marsh. The ruins alone are grand. The vast theatre may
still be traced, but of the proud temple not one stone remains above another.
It is said that some of the pillars may still be seen in the Mosque of St.
Sophia at Constantinople.

NOTES. 379

(3°) Whether there be any Holy Ghost. V. 2.

The persons referred to were believers in Jesus as the Messiah, but they
were imperfectly instructed, and had as yet a very imperfect Christian experi-
ence. From the fact that they seem to hold the same relation to Sohn and
Jesus as Apollos did, they were probably converts under his first ministry. It
is not conceivable that they could have received even the baptism of John with-
out knowing something of the Holy Spirit, his existence and personality ; as
Bengel justly remarks, ‘‘ They could not have followed either Moses or John
the Baptist without hearing of the Holy Ghost.'’ The words then must mean
that they believed in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Messiah, and were baptized
into that faith, but they had not heard anything about the descent of the Holy
Spirit at Pentecost, and the marvels that followed. That the question and
answer both had reference to the special rather than ordinary gifts of the Spirit
is obvious when we refer to verse 6, where we are told that ‘‘ the Holy Ghost
came upon them ; and they spake with tongues and prophesied.” The baptism
of John was simply provisional and preparatory. He taught his disciples to
believe in Jesus as the Messiah already come ; and belief implied obedience ;
and obedience baptism im his name. Archbishop Sumner gives the following
paraphrase of the passage : ‘‘ You are the disciples of Christ. Have the gifts
of the Spirit been bestowed on you as on other congregations of disciples ?
Have any prophesied? Any spoken with tongues? Any done wonderful
works? Their answer signifies that they had not heard whether such a power
of the Holy Ghost was granted at all. The Holy Ghost they knew. But they
had not heard of such an effusion of the Spirit as Paul alluded to, or known
that they were to expect it.”’

(x*) Exorcists. V. 13.

‘‘ Such professed exorcists were numerous in the days of the apostles. Our
Lord himself alludes to them, when he says, ‘ If I by Beelzebub cast out devils,
by whom do your children cast them out?’ The Ephesians were specially ad-
dicted to astrology, sorcery, incantations, amulets, exorcisms, and every kind
of magical imposture, and persons of this class flocked to the city. They pro-
fessed that their magical arts were derived from Solomon. Josephus refers to
this, and also mentions a certain root which, being brought to those who were
possessed, quickly expelled the demons from their bodies. Seven sons of
‘Sceva, wbo was probably a chief ruler of the synagogue, practised this art, and
impiously pronounced as a cabalistic sign the sacred name of Jesus. About
this time, also, the celebrated thaumaturgist,Appolonius of Tyana, is supposed
to have visited Ephesus. The worship of Diana and the practice of magio
were almost indissolubly connected, and a species of writings were manufac-
tured and sold to the credulous purchaser, which when pronounced were used
as a charm, and when written carried as an amulet. “ Among them were the
words askion, kataskion, liz, tetras, damnameneus, and aéséa, which for sense and
efficiency were about on a par with the daries, derdaries, astataries or ista pista
sista, which Cato, the elder, held to be a sovereign remedy for a sprain, or the
shavriri, vriri, trirt, riri, iri, ri, which the rabbies taught as efficacioas for the
expulsion of the demun of blindness.”’ (Furrar.) Among such a people Paul
preached the gospel of Jesus, and wrought many real miracles in his name,

380 CHAP. XIX.—NOTES.

(u*) He dismissed the assembly. V. 41.

There is a striking resemblance between the tumult at Ephesus and that at
Philippi. They were Both distinguished from all other persecutions men-
tioned in the Acts, in that they were not caused by the Jews, but by Gen-
tiles ; both also originated in interested motives, the loss of gain; both were
characterized by senseless rioting and cruel violence, and in both the actors
were restrained from proceeding to extreme measures. At Ephesus, when the
mob was at the height of excitement, wild uproar, and blind fury, the town
clerk by a well-timed and admirable aidress appeased their wrath and dis.
missed the crowd. He showed them that such senseless and noisy conduct
was undignified, as the universality and magnificence of their worship was
unimpeachable ; that their course with regard to these men was unjusti-
fable, as they could prove nothing illegal or criminal against them ; that it
was entirely unnecessary, as other means of redress were open to them ; and
that it was hazardous, as if might involve them in difficulty with the Roman
government. Dick suggests the following reflections on this passage: That
opposition to the gospel arises from the depraved passions of men—avarice,
ambition, and love of pleasure ; that the sacred name of religion has often
been prostituted to serve the most infamous purposes ; that the concurrence
of a multitude in support of a cause is no proof of its justice; and that God
reigns and carries on the designs of his government amid all the commotions
of the world, and constrains the very wrath of man to praise him. Taylor gives
these : That self-interest perverts the judgment, and that it speaks ill for a
trade when its prosperity is destroyed by the success of the gospel. Schaff
adds another lesson : That which profits the purse may injure the soul.

CRITICAL REMARKS. . 381

CHAPTER XX.

Ver. 1. wai aorac.] ABD E ®, min. vss. have xa rapaxadéoas, doxac. 80
Lachm. Yet D has roAAd before rapaxaA. (so Born.), and E «ai before acrac,
Other witnesses have «ai wapax. aozac. re. So Rinck. wapaxad, has certainly
preponderant attestation in its favour, but against the internal decisive con-
sideration, that no reason is apparent for its subsequent omission, whereas it
might very easily suggest itself from ver. 2 and xvi. 40 as a pious marginal
remark to aorac. — Ver. 4. Ilipsov] is wanting in Elz, and is condemned by
Mill as an addition from tradition. But it has greatly preponderant attesta-
tion, and might be passed over quite as well on the ground of a varying tradi-
tion, as by mistake of the transcribers on account of the similar sound of the
initial syllable in the following name. — Ver. 5. ovro:] Lachm. reads otros dé,
after A BE &, min. A connective addition. — Ver. 7. fav) Elz. has rov pabn-
tov, in opposition to A B D E, min. Chrys. Aug. and most vss. An interpola-
tion on account of the following adroic. Still stronger witnesses support }uey
in ver. 8, for which Elz, has }joay. — Ver. 9. xa8nnevos] Instead of this, xabe{d-
pevoS (Lachm. Tisch. Born.) is preponderantly attested. Comp. on ii. 2,—
Ver. 11. dprov] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read rdv dpruv, according to A B C D* &°,
Rightly ; the article was neglected after ver. 7, because its force was overlooked.
— Ver. 15. xat weiv. év Tpwy., T7] ABC EX, min. have merely rj dé. So Lachm.
Several vss. and some more recent codd. have «ai r7. But there was no occasion
for the insertion of eiv. ev Tp., whereas its omission is very capable of explana-
tion, because Trogyllium was not situated in Samos, as the context seemed to
say. — Ver. 16. xexpixer] Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch.
Born., according to greatly preponderating evidence. But Elz. Scholz have
éxpive. A church-lesson begins at ver. 16, and therefore the tense, which has
its reference in what precedes, was altered. — 7v] Lachm. reads ein, following
considerable witnesses. A grammatical improvement. — Ver.18. After mpds
avrév A has ouod éytwv atroy, which Lachm. adopted ; others have énoOvuadév ; and
others oudce évrwv airav ("0 Born., according to D). Different additions for the
sake of completion. — Ver. 19. Before daxp. Elz. has rodAov, which already
Griesb. rejected, according to decisive testimony. A strengthening addition
from 2 Cor. ii. 4. — Ver. 22. According to decisive testimony read éyo, with
Lachm. Tisch., after dedeu. — Ver. 23. yor] is wanting in Elz., but is decidedly
attested, and was easily passed over as quite unnecessary. — ye] is, according
to decisive evidence, to be placed after OAliwe:s (Lachm. Tisch.). Born. has
pot év ‘TepoooAvuas, according to D, vss. Lucif., and that only after pévovory.
But soz is a mechanical repetition from the preceding, and é»v ‘Tepoood. is an
addition by way of a gloss ; the two, moreover, are not equally attested. — Ver.
24, add’ oidevds . . . euavtT@] very many variations. Lachm. has add’ obdevds
Adyov Exa, ovd? rrototpas THY Wuy)y Tiyiav Euavty. Tisch. reads add’ obdeviis Adyov
rotoppac THY Wurhy Teuiav éuavty, according to BC D** &*, vas. Lucif. Born.
reads essentially ag Lachm., yet adding po: after 2Zyw, and pov after yuy7v. The

382 CHAP. XX., 1-4.

Recepla is founded on E G H, Chrys. Theophyl. Oec. ; but G, Chrys. haye not
pov. The reading of Lachm. (A D* &%, min. Valg.), as well as the Recepia, are
to be considered as alterations and expansions of the reading of Tisch., which
was not understood. -— After dpéyov pov Elz, Scholz have pera yapas, which is
wanting in A B D &, min. Lucif. Ambr. and several vas. A scholion. — Ver.
25. rot Geni) is wanting in A BCX, 13, 1b*, 36, Copt. Syr. p. Arm. Chrys.
Rightly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. A supplementary addition. D has
tov 'Inoot, So Born. — Ver. 26. éya] Considerable witnesses have eiyu:, which
Griesb. has recommended and Lachm. adopted. Rightly; éyo came from
xviii. 6. — Ver. 28. rot Kupiov] Elz. has rod Geo’, which is adhered to among
recent critics (following Mill, Whitby, Wolf, Bengel, and others), by Scholz,
Alford, Rinck, Lucubr. crit. p. 82f. The weight of evidence is externally de-
cisive for tod Kupiou; A C* DE, 13, 15, 18, 36, 40, 69, 73, 81, 95°, 130, 156,
163, 180, Copt. Sahid. Syr. p. (on the margin) Arm. Aeth. Constitutt. (ii. 61),
Ir. (iii. 14), Eus. (on Isa. xxxv.), Ath. (ad Serap. 1 in ms.), Didym. (de Sp, S.
11), Chrys. Lucif. Aug. Jer, al. rod Oro} is found among uncial mss. only in
B &, and, besides, only in about twenty more recent and inferior codd., and
among vss. in the Vulg. Syr. p. (in the text) ; but among the Fathers in none
before Epiph. and Ambros. See the more detailed statement of the evidence
in Tisch. The internal decisive argument for r. Kupicv lies in the fact that in
the Pauline Epistles éx«a. r. Kup. never occurs, but éxxd. r, Oeot eleven times ;
hence at our passage the Pauline expression was written on the margin as a
parallel, and then, welcome to hyper-orthodoxy (already in Ignat.ad Eph. 1,
and in Tert. ad uz. ii. 3, there is found the expression blood of God, which
others, even Ath., censured as unbiblical ; see Wetstein and Tisch.), was taken
into the text and transmitted. This appears far more accordant with the dog-
matic tendency of those times and the monastic spirit than the usual justifica-
tion of roi Geot: ‘‘Probabilius est ob sequentia mutatum, quam e scriptis
Pauli illatum esse’’ (Rinck, l.c.). The readings rot Kupiov Geot, rod Geod x.
Kvpiorv, and rod Kupiouv x, Oeod (this latter Griesb, recommends, without, how-
ever, approving it, but Matth. received it), are combinations of the original
reading with the Pauline parallel written on the margin. Teller’s and van
Hengel's proposal to read only rijv éxxd, is destitute of all critical support. —
rou aiuatos Tow idsiov] Elz, has rov idiov aiparos, in opposition to ABC DER,
min, vss. Ir. Lucif. An alteration, which arose from the adoption of r. O00,
in order to establish the interpretation of the blood of God. —- Ver. 29. After
tyo Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have ydp, against A C* D &, min. Vulg. Fathers. The
more to be rejected, as others read ér: éyd (B), others zyd dé (X*), others still
xa éys. A connective addition. roiro also, which Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have
after olda, has such preponderating evidence against it, and in such essential
agreement with those witnesses which condemn jép, that it cannot be con-
sidered as original, although, taken by itself, it might be more easily omitted
than added. — Ver. 32. After tuds Elz. Scholz have adeAgoi, which Lachm.
Tisch. Born. have deleted, according to ABD &, 33, 34, 68, Syr. Erp. Copt.
Sahid. Vulg. Jer. If it had been original, there is no apparent reason for its
omission ; on the other hand, its insertion at this solemn passage was very
natural.— oixod.] Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Born. But Elz. Scholz,
Tisch. have érorxod., against decisive testimony. A more precise definition
corresponding to the persons in question; and therefore, also, D E, vas, add
vuas. — Ver. 35. trav Adyor] G and more than thirty min. Vulg. Sahid. Arm,

pene ens a

PAUL IN GREECE. 383

Aeth, Chrys. Theophyl. have rov Adyor. So Rinck. Others have roi Adyov after
min.; so Bengel. Both are alterations, because only one saying of Christ

afterwards follows. ——'The order pdAAov didéva: (Elz. inverts it) is decidedly
uttested.

Vv. 1-3. Mera d2 rd wate. r. Sépuf.] is simply a statement of time, not, 2s
Michuelis, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, and Hug hold, the motive of departure, for
which there is no hint in the text,! and against which the resultless char-
acter of the tumult testifies. — doracduevoc| here of the farewell salutation,
combined with kissing and embracing, vale dicere.* —airotc] the Mace-
donian Christians. —'EAAdda] 7.6. ’Ayatav, xix. 21. Luke alternates in his
use of the appellations well known as synonyms, which, after xix. 21,
could occasion no misunderstanding. This against Schrader, who under-
stands 'EAA. here of the districts lying between the Peloponnesus and
Thessaly and Epirus, especially of Attica, and would have the journey to
Corinth only inferred from xix. 81. — rojoag re pjvag rpeic] certainly for the
‘most part in Corinth.* That Luke, moreover, gives us no information of
the foundation of the church at Corinth, and of the apostle’s labours
there, is just one of the many points of incompleteness in his book. — rai
imroorp. | namely, to Asia (ver. 4), from which he had come. The genitize
depends directly on yrduy.' :

Ver. 4. "Axpt tij¢’Aciac®] excepting only the short separation from Phi-
lippi to Troas, ver. 5, where those companions (cuveizero), having journeyed
before the apostle, waited for him. The statement is summary, not ex-
cluding the sailing before from Philippi to Troas, the Asiatic emporium ;
but Tittmann® erroneously judges : ‘‘eos usque in Asiam cum Paulo una
fuisse, deinde praeivisse eumque expectasse.’’ Vv. 5,6 are at variance
with this. Nor is there, with Wieseler, p. 293, and Baumgarten, to be arti-
ficially deduced from dyp: r#¢ 'Aciac the meaning: ‘‘up to that point from
which people crossed to Asia;’’ so that Luke would oddly enough have
indicated nothing else than as far as Philippi. On ovvérec9a, only here in
the N. T., comp. 2 Macc. xv. 2; 8 Macc. v. 48, vi. 21; very frequent in
the classics. — Of Sopater, the son of Pyrrhus, of Beroea, and whether he
is identical with Sosipater, Rom. xvi. 21, nothing is known. The other
companions were two Thessalonians, Aristarchus* and Secundua, entirely
unknown ; further, an inhabitant of Derbe, Caius, thus different from the
Macedonian, xix. 29; for Derbe belonged to Lycaonia ;* Timotheus, whose
dwelling is supposed as known and therefore is not specified ;° and lastly,
the two Asiatics, Tychicus and Trophimus." It was nothing but arbitrary
violence, when Ernesti, Valckenaer, and Kuinocl, in order to identify

1 See on the contrary, xix. 21. . have taken place for the eake of ver. 5. It és,
2 As Xen. Anabd. vil. 1.8, 40; Hel. iv.1.3; however, approved by Lekebusch.
Cyrop. ii. 1. 1. * Synon. N. T. p. &.
8 The anakolathic nominative, as in xix. 84. ¥ xix, 29.
4 As In xiv. 9. xxvil. 20. Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 5. ®§ Sec on xiv. 6.
The omission of dxp: +r. "Acie¢ is not ® Sce on xvi. 1. (iil. 12.

strongly enough attested by BX, 13, Vnlg. Aeth. © Eph. vi 81 ; Col. iv.7; 2 Tim. fv. 12; Tit.
Erp. Beda, particularly as it might ca-fly 13 xxi, 90; 2 Tien. ty. 28.

004 CHAP. Xx., 5-10.

Caius—how extremely frequent was the name !—with the Caius of xix. 12
and to make Timothy a native of Derbe, wished to put a comma after dio
and then to read Aepf. 62 Tiyz.' Following the same presupposition, Ols-
hausen contents himself with merely putting a point after Taioc and then
taking «ai in the signification of also/ And for this even-Wieseler* has
declared himself, appealing to the parallelism of the language, according
to which, from Ozccadoux. onwards, the nomen gentilitium is always placed
first. But the parallelism is rather of this nature, that the nomen gentili-
tium first follows after, Bepo:, then precedes, Occcadovx., then again follows
after, AepB., and lastly, again precedes, ‘Aovay., thus in regular alternation.
We may add, that no special reason for such a numerous escort is indicated
in the text, and hypotheses* referring to the point amount to mere subjec-
tive fancies.

Vv. 5, 6. 'Huac] Luke had remained behind at Philippi, xvi. 40. Now,
when Paul, on his present journey back through Macedonia, cume to Phi-
lippi, Luke again joined him. But the above-mentioned seven companions
(vitor) journeyed before—wherefore ? is unknown ; possibly to make prepa-
rations for the further sea voyage—to Troas, and there waited the arrival
of Paul and Luke. For ovro cannot, without arbitrariness, be otherwise
referred than to all the seven above mentioned, which is not precluded by
xxi. 29, xxvii. 2, and thereby, no doubt, our passage is- decisive against
the hypothesis that Timothy speaks in the jueic.‘ Hence the supporters of
that hypothesis are necessarily reduced to refer, as already Beza und Wolf
have done, ovra: merely to Tychicus and Trophimus,® — pera rag qyép. rev
af.] Paul remained over the Paschal days* in quietness, keeping holy the
festival of his people in Christian freedom.’ —azpi¢ juep. révre] specifies
Gype tivoe® i.e. how long the Epyecba lasted from the sailing from Philippi,
namely, up to five days.*° The reading reurrain '° is a correct gloss. — yuépas
éxta| a full week." More is not to be sought behind this simple statement
of time, in opposition to Baumgarten, II. p. 48 f.

Ver. 7. But on the first day of the week. That the Sunday was already
at this time regularly observed by holding religious assemblies and Agapae,
cannot, indeed, be made good with historical certainty, since possibly the
observance of the Agapse in our passage might only accidentally occur on
the first day of the week, because Paul intended to depart on the following

1 Heinrichs: xai Ti. Aep8. Lachmann, whole Gentile church ; comp, aleo Lange, II.
Praef. p. ix., conjectured xai AepB. Tigzd6. He p. 291. Such fnventions are purcly fancifal.
places a point after Tiud3d., and makes the &¢, 4 See Introduction, § 1.
read by him after obra, ver. 5, to be resump- § Steiger on Col. p. 837; Schenkel in the
tive (repeating the 8¢ after "Accavot), which, ns Stud.u. Krit. 1841, p.65; U.rich, Bleek, Betér.
the discourse is not interrupted by parentheses, I. p. 52; de Wette, Lachmann.

would be without motive and forced. 6 a.p. 59.
3p. 26, and in Herzog's Hncyki. XXI. p. 7 Comp. Chrys.
276. ® Heliod. iv. 19. 65.

* According to Schneckenhbnrger, they are ® Comp. on Luke fi. 37; Plat. Mor. p. 791 E.
the collection - commissioners of the chief 10D, Born.
churches; according to Baumgarten, they 11 Comp. xxi. 4.
appear, fn their number correspondirg to the 19 See on Matt. xxvill. 1; 1 Cor. xvi. 2.
deacons in Jerusalex, as representalives of the 18 xAdoras Gproy ; see on il, 42

PLOT AGAINST PAUL 385

day, and since even 1 Cor. xvi. 2, Rev. i. 10, do not necessarily distinguish
this day as set apart for religious servicss. But most probably the observance
of Sunday is based on an apostolic arrangement — yet one certainly brought
about only gradually and in the spirit of Christian freedom ' — the need of
which manifested itself naturally, importance of the resurrection of Jesus
and of the effusion of the Spirit ut Pentecost, and indeed neeessarily, in the
first instance, when the gospel came to be diffused among the Gentiles who
had no Sabbath festival ; and the assumption of which is indispensable for
the explanation of the early universal observance of that day, ry rov 7Aiov
Aeyouévy huépg mavrav xara rode h aypov¢ pevévTwy éni Td avrd ovvédevoic yiverat,*
although for a long time the observance of the Sabbuth along with it was
not given up by the Jewish Christians and even by others * —a circum-
stance which was doubtless connected with the antignostie interest.
Rightly, therefore, is the uia roy oaBB. in our passage regarded as a day of
special observance.‘ The observance of Sunday was not universally intro-
duced by law until a.p. 821 by Constantine.* — avroic] to the assembled.
Luke changes his standpoint, previously 7udv, as the discourse was held
with the Christians of that place. — péyps peoov.} On Sunday, not Saturday,
evening they had assembled for the love-feast. On refvecy and its compounds,
used of long speaking, see Heind.°

Vv. 8-10. 'Hoap d2 Aaur. ix.] therefore the fall of the young man could
at once be perceived. The lamps served for the lighting up of the room,
for it was night ; but perhaps at the same time for heightening the solem-
nity of the occasion. According to Ewald, Luke wished to obviate the
evil reports concerning the nocturnal meetings of the Christians ;’ but they
remained withal nocturnal and thereby exposed to suspicion, — Whether
Hutychus was a young man serving," which at least is not to be inferred
from the occurrence of the name among slaves and freedmen,’ the text does
not say. —éni ric Yupid.] on the open window, i.e. on the window-seat. The
openings of the windows in the East, having no glass, were sometimes with
and sometimes without lattice-work.'° So they arc still at the present day.
— xaragepsuevoc x.t.A.] falling into a deep sleep. xatagépecda: is the proper
word for this among Greek writers,'' usually with ei¢ irvov."? Observe the
logical relation of the participles< But as there sat (xadefsz., see the critical
remarks) a young man, falling, in his sitting there, into deep sleep during the
prolonged discourse of Paul, he fell, overpowered by the sleep, from the third
story, etc.'*— The discourse continued for a longer time'4 than the young man

1 §8ee Neander in the Deutsch. Zetlschr. * ad Plat. Gorg. p. 465 D; Pflugk, ad Kur.

1850, p. 2038 ff. Med. 1851. _
3 Justin, Apol. I. 67; comp. c. Tryph. p. 4; 7 Comp. Calvin and Bengel.
Ignat. ad Magnes. 9; Barnab. 15. ® Rosenmitiller, Heinrichs.

3 Constitt. ap. fi. 50. 2, vil. 28. 2, can. 66;
Orig. Hom. 28 ; Eus. ifi. 27,

4 See on the whole subject, Augnati, Denkw.
Hi. p. 84 ff.; SchOne, wer. die kirchi.

® Artem. fil. 88 ; Phacdr., 8, pro.

1@ Seo Winer, Realw.

11 Comp. aleo Aquila, Ps. Ixxv. 6.

12 Lucian, Dial. mer. ii. 4: Herodian, fi. 1.

Gebrdushe, L. p. 885 ff. ; Neandcr, opost. X. I.

p. 198; Ewald, p. 164 ff.; Harnack, chirieil.

Gemeindegott-sd. p. 115 ff.
® See Gleseler, X. G.I. 1, p. 974, ed. 4.

8, 11. 9. 6. Comp. Hom. Od. vi. 3: trv «.
Kandry apnudros,

38 As to éwi wAcioy comp. on iv. 17.

34 xviil, 20.

386 CHAP. Xx., 11-17.

had expected. — ard rov irvoi] axé denotes the proceeding from, the power
producing the effect,' and the article denotes the sleep already mentioned.’
—ipdn vexpdg] he was taken up dead. The words affirm nothing else than
that the young man actually fell down dead and was taken up dead, Chrys.:
dia Touro aroSavay, iva [lavAov axotoy, Calvin, Beza, and others ; recently
Schneckenburger, Schwegler, Zeller, and Baumgarten ; and only so under-
stood has the fall, as well as the conduct of the apostle in ver. 10 and the
result, the significance which can have induced its being narrated, namely,
asa raising from the dead.* This we remark in opposition to the view which
has become common, as if d¢ vexpdc were used, ‘apparently dead.’’ * —
ixérecev avt@ x.t.A.] not in order to evamine him, but in order to revive him
by his contact, in a way similar to the procedure of Elisha and Elijah.* —
LQ OopvBeiobe’ 4} yap yux) x.r.A.] Thus he speaks, obviating the consternation
of those present,* when he had convinced himself of the successful inter-
vention of his miraculous influence. His soul is in him, t.e. he is living! 4
pux? avrov, not év air¢g, has the emphasis, not spoken without a lively feeling
of victory. The young man had, in fact, been but now dyvyoc. Accord-
ingly there is no ambiguity of the words, in which Lekebusch asserts that
we desiderate an added ‘‘ again,’’ and would explain this ambiguity on the
ground that the author himself was not quite convinced of the miraculous
nature of the incident.”

Vv. 11, 12. On account of the discoursings the intended partaking of
the Agapae* had not yet taken place. But by the fall of the young man
these discoursings were broken off ; and now, after Paul had returned to
the room, he commences, as the father of a family among those assembled,
the so long deferred meal — he breaks the bread, and euts, and discourses
at table° until break of day, whereupon he thus, oiruc, after all that is
mentioned in avaBd¢ . . . avyjc,’® leaves the place of meeting. After his
departure, they, ‘‘ qui remanserant apud adolescentem,"’ !' brought the lad
alive into the room, and they, those assembled, were by this greatly * com-
forted over their separation from the apostle, who had left behind such a
onpeiov Of his miraculous power. — xAdoa¢ rév (see the critical remarks) éprov
stands in definite reference to xAdoa: dpr., ver. 7, and therefore the article
is put. Piscator, Grotius, Kuinoel, and others erroneously hold that a
breakfast is meant, which Paul partook of to strengthen him for his jour-
ney, and that therefore yevsdu. is subjoined. But the Agape was, in fact,
a real meal, and that therefore yevodéu. denotes nothing else than that Paul

had begun to partake of it. It is only added to bring more prominently

1 Bernhardy, p. 222; Buttmann, newt. Gr.
p. 277 (BE. T. 822).

3 Matt. 1. 24.

* Baur’s criticiam in the case, however,
converts an event which was in itself natural
into a parallel in a miraculons form with the
raising of the dead narrated of Peter in chap.
ix.

* De Wette; comp. Ewald.

® 2 Kings iv. 84; 1 Kings xvii. 17 ff.

6 Comp. on «® GopuB., Dem. dé cor. 35.

7 Sec, on the other hand, Oertel, Paulus ta
a. Aposteigesch. p. 147.

8 Ver. 7.

® Comp. Chryeostom.

10 Sce, Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 262 (EB. T.
806).

it Krasmus.

12 oF perpiws, often so with Plutarch, also in
Isocratcs and others.

SERVICES AT TROAS. 387

forward this partaking as having at length taken place. — du:Agoac, as in
Luke xxiv. 14; more familiar than d:adey., ver. 9.1 — gyayor] they brought
him, so that he came into the midst of them; but only now, so that thus
subsequently to his revivul,* he must have gradually recovered, in order to
be able to return into the room. — rév aida] he must consequently have
been still very youug. — Cavra] Opposed to vexpdc, ver. 9, and for the joyful
‘confirmation of the words of the apostle, ver. 10.

Ver. 13. ‘Hyeic] without Paul. —*’Acooc, a seaport in Mysia, south of
Troas, opposite Lesbos, é¢’ vyydov x. dfto¢ x. dvoavédou rérov, Steph. Byz. —
qv dvarerayz.| middle,* for he had so arranged, namely, that they should
from thence (éxeifev) receive him on board (avadauB.). —airéc] He for his
part chose the route by land, probably because he had a particular official
object in view. More arbitrary are the suggestions of Calvin, that it took
place valetudinis causa ; of Michaelis and Stolz, that he wished to escape
the snares of the Jews ; of Lange, that he acted thus in order to withdraw
himself from the circle of his too careful protectors ; and of Ewald, that
he did so in order to be solitary.

Vv. 14, 15. Eic r#v "Acoov] The element of the previous movement — the
notion of coming-together — still prevails.‘ So also the landing cic Zdpov,
ver, 15. — MirvAgvy, the beautiful ® capital of Lesbos, on the east coast. —
avrixpb} over against.°—xal yelv. tv Towy.] Thus on the same day they had
sailed over from Samos, where they had touched (rapeBaA.), to Trogyllium,
a town and promontory on the Ionian coast,’ distant only forty stadia, and
there passed the night. On the different modes of writing the name Tpuwy.,
see Bornemann.

Vv. 16, 17. The ship was thus entirely at his disposal, probably one
hired specially for this voyage. — rapard. r. "Egecov] he sailed past Eph.;
for in the chief church of Asia, to which Paul stood in such intimate .
relation, and where he also would encounter his opponents,® he would have
been under the necessity of tarrying too long. In order to avoid such
prolonged contact with friend and foe, because on account of the aim of
his journey he might not now spend the time® in Asia, he arranged the
interview with the presbyters, which was to subserve the longing of his
parting love as well as the exigency of the threatening future, not at the
very near Trogyllium, but at Miletus, distant about nine geographical
miles from Ephesus. —¢i duvar. gv avrp] if it should be possible for him.
Direct form of expression.'° Of another nature is the conception in xxvii.
89: et divawro. — yéveoOa] in the sense of coming, as in John vi. 25.1! —
néuypac] as in Matt. xiv. 10, and in the classical writers. He caused them
to be summoned to him by an embassy to Ephesus.

Vv. 18, 19. ‘‘In hac concione* praecipue huc insistit Paulus, ut, quos

3 Comp. x. 24. 8 1 Cor. xvi. 9.

2 Ver. 10. ® xpovorp., comp. Arietot. Rheé. ili.8; Plut.
® Winer, p. 246 (B. T’. 828). Mor. p. 22% B.

* Kithner, IT. p. 817. 1¢ Kihner, § 846.

® Hor. Od. 1.7.1, Zp. i. 11. 17. 1! Luke xxli. 40, af. Comp. xx!.17, xxv. 15.
* See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 444. 13Qn the Pauline character of thie speech

? Strabo, xiv. p. 686 f.; Plin. W. H. v. 29. (ia opporition to Baur, id. d. Pastoralbr. p.

388 CHAP. XX., 18-24.
Ephesi creaverat pastores, swo exemplo hortetur ad munus suum fidelitcr
peragendum,’’ Calvin. It is aclear and true pastoral mirror.—Only the
Ephesian ' presbyters were assembled ; not, as Iren. iii. 14. 2 relates, those
also of the neighbouring churches, —an error which arose, perhaps, on ac-
count of ver. 28, from the later episcopal dignity. — ard mpdrne . . .
*Aciav] belongs to the following war . . . éyevdéuyv, to which it is emphat-
ically prefixed,” not to éricrac6e ; for the point was not the continuity of
the knowledge of those addressed, but that of the apostolic conduct.
Tholuck, with justice, here calls attention to the frequency and force of
the self-witness, which we meet with in Paul.? The reason thereof lies in
his own special consciousness ;* and it is wrong to find in the self-witness
of this speech the apologetic fabrication of a later adorer.*— The jirst
day; see xviii. 19. On wef tu. éyevdu., comp. Vil. 38.—rTo Kupigy] to
Christ, as His apostles. — pera wdc. rarecvogp.| with all possible humility,
MOAAG yap eldy rig Taretvogpocbunc.* — daxptwv.|] See on ver. 31.

¥v. 20, 21. ‘Qc obdév x.7.A.] sets forth more precisely the rac. — rot uy
vayy.] contains the design which would have been present in the breor. :
how I have held back (dissimulavi) nothing of what was profitable, in order not
ta preach and to teach it to you, etc. So also ver. 27: for I have not been
holding back, in order not, etc. The u# extends to both infinitives. That
dissimulare might have taken place from the fear of men, or in order to
please men.’ — On oidév treore:Aduny, comp. Dem. 54, ult. : révf ardde, ovdev
wrooreAduevoc terapprotacua, and 980. 22: undév trooreAAduevoy und’ aio zuve-
pevav, also 415. 2: wera wappyoiac dtadexOyvar undév irooreAAduevov, according
to Becker.* — rév cvugepdvrwv} ‘‘ Haec docenda sunt ; reliqua praecidenda, *’
Bengel.* — ryv cic r. Oedv perav.| the repentance, by which we turn to God.” It
is not, with Beza, Bengel, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, to be referred only to the
Gentiles, and ziory «.r.A. to the Jews; for the call to this werdvoa was ad-
dreased also to the Jews, inasmuch as they were unfaithful to God, not
indeed by idolatry, but by immorality and hypocrisy... Bengel, more-
over, aptly remarks: Repentance and faith are the ‘‘summa eorum quae
utilia sunt.”’

Ver. 22. 'Idot] Singular, although addressed to several.'* — éyé] apostolic
sanse of personal significance in the consciousness of his important and mo-
mentous destiny. — dedenévoc rp mvebyarc] cannot denote the shutting off of any

98), see Tholack in the Stud. u. Krit. 1889, p.
305 ff.; Neander, p. 478 ff. According to Baar
and Zeller, the whole speech (according to
Schneckenburger, only part of it) is an apolo-
getic fiction. Ewald correctly remarks: ‘‘ to
doubt its historical character in general, is
folly itself..".—Precisely this speech, and that
to the Athenians, chap. xvii., bear most de-
cidedly and most directly the impress of vivid
originality. See aleo Klostermann, Vindiciae
Lue. p. 40 ff.; Trip, Paulus, p. 206 ff.

1 ris éxxAno., ver. 17.

3 Comp. on 1 Cor. xv. 2; Winer, p. 622 (E.
T. 702).

®1 Cor. iv. 16. xi. 1; 2 Cor. 1.12; Phil. rii.
17, al. ; comp. Trip, p. 214 ff.

#1 Cor. iv. 4, xv. 10.

6 See particularly, Zeller, p. 278.

®Oecnmenius. See also Theile, ad Zp.
Jac. p 6 ff. [Cor. iy. 8, af.

7 But see Gal. ii. 14, 1. 10; Rom. 1. 16; 1

8Isocr. p. 134C; Diod. Sic. xifi. 70; aleo
Plat. Ap. Soer. p. 2% A; and Stallb. in doc.;
Krebs, Obes. p. 241.

* Comp. 1 Cor. vii. 85, xii. 7.

10 Comp. iil. 19, viii. 22, xxvi. 20.

32 Rom. ii. 8. Comp. Mark {. 15.

13 See on Matt. x. 16.

: PAUL AT MILETUS. 389

inward glimpse into the future, which is first expressed afterwards and in plain
terms.' Since, moreover, the Holy Spirit first comes in at ver. 28, and since
the being fettered was first to befall the apostle in Jerusalem, ver. 28, those views
are to be rejected, which explain 7é rvriua Of the Holy Spirit and dedeptyor
of the being fettered. Accordingly, the words are-neither to be taken as:
bound :to the Holy Spirit,* i.e. dependent on Him, my first edition; nor:
constrained by the Holy Spirit ;* nor: fettered, i.e. already as good as fet-
tered, I go at the instigation of the Holy Spirit ;* nor yet: jfettered, i.e. vin-
cula praesentiens, in my spirit ;* but Paul expresses his consciousness of in-
ternal binding: bound, i.e. compelled and urged in my spirit, dative of more
precise limitation. He knows, that as regards his journey to Jerusalem,
he follows a necessity present to his higher self-consciousness and binding
its freedom,—an irresistible internal drawing of his higher- personal life.°
—ra évavrg . .. eidac] The relation to ver. 23 is as follows: Paul knew
not specially what was to hefall him at Jerusalem, but only in general it was
testified to him by the Holy Spirit in every city, that bonds and afflictions
were awaiting him there.

Ver. 28. Magy orc] except that, only knowing that.'— 1d wveiya 1d aycor]
namely, by prophets,* who made this known to me. This explanation, and
not any reference to an internal intimation of the Spirit, is required by
xara wéAv, city by ie at which I arrive on this journey. That Luke has
not as yet mentioned any such communication, does not justify the suppo-
sition of an unhistorical prolepsis,’ as he has related the journey, ver. 14 ff.,
only in a very summary manner.

Ver. 24. According to the reading aA’ obdevi¢ Adyou motoipar Tiy pox
rusiav guavtp (see the critical remarks), this verse is to be interpreted : But
of no word do I account my soul, my life, worthy for myself, i.e. the preserva-
tion of my life for my own personal interest 1a not held by me as worth speaking
of. According to the Recepta, as also according to Lachmann, it would
have to be taken as: but to nothing do I take heed, I do not trouble myself
about any impending suffering, even'my life is not reckoned to me valuable for
myself.’ — d¢ redei@oa x.7.A.] purpose in this non-regarding of his own life :
in order, not to remain stationary half-way, but to jinish my course, etc.”
— kal riv diaxoviay x.7.A4.] Expexegesis of the preceding figurative expres-

1 Hahn, Theol d. N. 7.1. p. 412.
2 Rom. vit 2; 1 Cor. vil. 97.
3 Beza, Calvin, Caloviue, Kypke, and oth-

Trois péev Soxoverw elvar rod pnoerds rimsos, rois
8 afioe rod wavrés, and on ovSevde Aédyou,

' ers.
| 4 Oecnmentus, Theophylact, who put the
comma after dedeu.
® Rrasrous, Grotius, Wolf. Bengel, Morus.
Comp. Heinrichs, Kuinoel, de Wette,

Lange, Ewald, Hackett. On &Se8euévos, comp.

Plat. Rep. viii. p. 567 C. naxape dpa...
avayxp Sd8erat, h mpocrarre, avTe «K.7.A,

* Plat. Phaed. p. 57 B; Soph. . 418.

® Comp. xili. 2, xxi. 4, 11.

® Schneckenburger, p. 185.

1° On seucav, comp. Plat. Soph. p. 216 C:

Herod. iv, 28: Aéyou dfco» (worthy of mention),
Thac. vi. 64. 2.

11 On Adyor worety revos, comp. Wetstein and
Kypke ; and on Aéyor éxev reves (Lachmann).
Herod. {. 62, i. 62, {. 115, az. (Schweigh. Lez.
Herod. Tl. p. 76); Theocr. it. 88; Tob. vi.
15.

12 On Spdéuos, comp. xiii. 25; 2 Tim. iv. 7;
Gal. ii. 2; Phil. ii. 16; 1 Cor. {x.24. On we
with the infinitive in the telic sense, ace
Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. 173, and in the
Sache. Stud 1846, p. 60; Sintenis. ad FPlut.
Them. 2%. Only here soin the N. T.

390 CHAP. XX., 25-28.

sion. — rd evayy. T. xdp. Tr. Oeov] the knowledge of sulvation, whose con-
tents is the grace of God, manifested in Christ. Comp. xiv. 38.

Ver. 25 points back to ver. 22, now representing the separation there an-
nounced, for which vv. 28, 24 have prepared them, as one of perpetuity for
the life in time. — éy4] emphatic, as in ver. 22,-and with deep emotion. —
The olda, 5re ovuére x.7.A.,' rests, according to ver. 23, on the conviction which
he has now (viv) obtained by the communications of the Holy Spirit re-
ceived from city to city concerning the fate impending over him at Jeruss-
lem, that the imprisonment and affliction there awaiting him would termi-
nate only with his death. And he has not deceived himself! For the
assumption that he was liberated from Rome and returned to the earlier
sphere of his labours, is unhistorical.”, But precisely in connection with
the unfulding of his destination to death here expressed by him with such
certainty, there passed into fulfilment his saying pointing to Rome,* how-
ever little he himself might be able at this time to discern this connection ;
and therefore, probably, the thought of Rome was again thrown tempora-
rily into the background in his mind. The fact, that he at a later period
in his imprisonment expected liberation and return to the scene of his
earlier labours,‘ cannot testify against the historical character of our speech, *
since he does not refer his olda in our passage to a divinely-imparted cer-
tainty, and therefore the expression of his individual conviction at this
time, spoken, moreover, in the excited emotion of a deeply agitated mo--
ment, is only misused in support of critical prejudgments. With this cer-
tainty of his at this time,—which, moreover, he does not express as a sad
foreboding or the like, but so undoubtedly as in ver. 29,—quite agrees the
fact, that he hands over the church so entirely to the presbyters as he does
in ver. 26 ff. ; nor do we properly estimate the situation of the moment, if
we only assume, with de Wette, that Luke has probably thus composed the
speech from his later standpoint after the death of the apostle. According
to Baumgarten, II. p. 85 ff., who compares the example of King Hezekiah,
the olda «.r.A. was actually founded on objective certainty: God had
actually resolved to let the apostle die in Jerusalem, but had then gra-
ciously listened to the praying and weeping of the Gentile churches. But
in such passages as Philem. 22, there is implied no alteration of the divine
resolution ; this isa pure fancy. — tpeic mavrec, év oi¢ di7ABor] all ye among
whom I passed through. In his deep emotion he extends his view; with
this address he embraces not merely those assembled around him, nor
merely the Ephesians in general, but at the same time, all Christians,
among whom hitherto he had been the itinerant herald of the kingdom.
In ver. 26 the address again limits itself solely to those present.

Vv. 26, 27. 4:5] because, namely, this now impending separation makes
such a reckoning for me a duty. — papripopuac| I testify, I affirm.* — év 79 ofp.
yuEpg] ‘‘hoc magnam declarandi vim habet,’’ Bengel: it was, in fact, the

' He does not aay: that I shall nol see you. 3 xix. 21.
but he says: fhat you shall not see me. He 4 Philem. 22; Phil. ii. 24.
has not Ais own interest in view, but theirs. * Baur, Zeller.

2 See on Zom. Iutrod. § 1. ® See on Gal. v. 8.

ADDRESS TO THE ELDERS. 391

parting day. — drt xa@ap. eiys (see the critical remarks) : that Iam pure from
the blood of all,! i.e. that I am free of blame in reference to each one, if he,
on account of unbelief, falls a prey to death, z.¢. to the eternal ardAzia.
Each one is affected by his own fault; no one by mine. xafapdg aré* is not a
Hebraism, D7 *p} ; even with Greek writers xafap. is not merely, though
commonly, joined with the genitive,? but also sometimes with amd.‘ —- ot
yap ureore:A.| brought forward once more in accordance with ver. 20; so
extremely important was it to him, and that, indeed, as the decisive
premiss of the xafapég eiue x.7.A. — tyv Bovdgy rov Oevi] the divine counsel
war’ tox, t.e. the counsel of redemption, whose complete realization is
the Baciiea rot Geov, the Messianic kingdom ; hence here avayy. . . . Ocoi,
in ver. 24 diauapr. . . . Oeov, and in ver. 25 xypboc. r. BacA. r. Geot, denote
one and the same great contents of the gospel, although viewed according
to different aspects of its nature. — zacav] the whole, without suppressing,
explaining away, or concealing aught of it.

Ver. 28. Oiv] Therefore, since J am innocent, and thus the blame would
be chargeable on you. — éavroic x. w. r. mosuviy] in order that as well ye your-
selves, as the whole church,* may persevere in the pure truth of the gospel.®
On the prefixing of éavrac, comp. 1 Tim. iv. 16. — 1d my. 1. ay. 2fero] This
was designed to make them sensible of the whole sacredness and responsi-
bility of their office. The Holy Spirit ruling in the church has Himself
appointed the persons of the presbyters, not merely by the bestowal of His
gifts on those concerned, but also by His effective influence upon the recog-
nition and appreciation of the gifts so bestowed at the elections.” — em-
xéroug, also very common with classical writers, as overseers, as stewards,®
denotes the officiul function of the presbyters, ver. 17, and is here chosen,
not mpecBurépouc, because in its literal meaning it significantly corresponds
to the woipaivecr. ‘‘Ipso nomine admonet velut in specula locatos esse,’’
etc., Calvin.’ The figurative '° roiuaivecy comprehends the two elements, of
official activity in teaching, further specially designated in Eph. iv. 11 ;"
and of the oversight and conduct of the discipline and organization of the
church. For the two together exhaust the émoxomeiv.* — On r. éxxAno. Tov
Kupiov see the critical remarks.’» With the reading rot Oeot this passage
was @ peculiarly important locus for the doctrine of the divinity of Christ
and the communicatio idiomatum against the Socinians. See especially Calo-
vius, — #v repterojoato x.7.A.] which He has acquired, for His possession, '* by
His own blood, by the shedding of which He has redeemed believers from

* Comp. on xvili. 6. ® How little ground this passage gives for
2 Tob. ill. 14. the hierarchical conception of the epiritual
> Bernhardy, p. 174. office. sce on Eph. iv. 11; Hdfling, Kirchen-
* Kypke, II. p. 108 f. werf. p. 2690 f.
* Luke xii. 82; John x. 1 ff. 40 Ian. xl. 11; Jer. il. 8; Ezek. xxxiv. 2;
* See vv. 20, 30. John x 14, xxi. 15; and see Dissen, ad Pind.
7 See on xiv. 23. Comp. xiii. 2, 4. Ol. x 9, p. 1M.
8 The comparison of the Atheman esicxoro 1 Comp. 1 Tim. fii. 2.

in dependent cities, with a view to explain 12 1 Pet. v. 2.

this official name (Rothe, p. 219 f.; see on 13 Comp. Rom. xvi. 16; Matt. xvi. 18.

these also Hermann, Staatealterth. § 157. 8), 44 Eph. 1. 14; Tit. ii. 14; 1 Pet. 11. 9.
introduces something heterogeneous.

392 CHAP. XX., 29-~35.

the dominion of the devil and acquired them for Himself as heirs of His
eternul salvation. ‘‘ Hic ergo grex est pretiosissimus,’’ Bengel.'

Vv. 29, 80. ’Ey] with similar emphasis, as in ver. 25: After my depart-
ure—J know it—not only will enemies from without intrude among you—
Ephesian Christians, as whose representatives the presbyters were present—
wlio will be relentlessly destructive to the welfare of the church; but also
within the church itself, out of the midst of you, will men with perverse
doctrines arise. — That by the very common figure of ravenous? wolves? is
not meant, as Grotius supposes, persecutio sub Nerone, but false teachers
working perniciously, is rendered probable by the very parallelism of ver.
30, and still more certain by the relation of ciceAzic. to uera ryv deiEiv pov,
according to which Paul represents his presence as that which has hitherto
withheld the intrusion of the Aix«oc,—a connection which, in the case of its
heing explained of political persecutors, would be devoid of truth. — docéc¢
is here not arrival, as almost constantly with Greek writers, but departure,
going away.‘ Paul does not specially mean his death, but generally his
remocal,® on which the false teachers necessarily depended for the assertion
of their influence. Moreover, his prediction without doubt rests on the
observations and experiences * which he had made during his long ministry
in Ephesus and Asia. He must have known the existence of germs in
which he saw the sad pledge of the truth of his warning ; and we have no
reason to doubt that the reality corresponded to this prediction. At the
time of the composition of the Epistie to the Ephesians, the false teachers
may not yet have been working in Ephesus itself, but in Colossae and its
neighbourhood these — they were Judaists of an Essene-Gnostic type —
had made themselves felt,’ and in Asia Minor generally the heretics of the
First Epistle of John and probably also of that of Jude are to be sought,
not to mention those of the Apocalypse and Pastoral Epistles. The
indefinite and general expressions, in which the fulse teachers are here
described, correspond to the character of prophetic foresight and prediction.
According to Zeller, a later wiiter has by these sought to conceal his other-
wise too gluring anachronism ; whereas Baur finds the sectarian character,
such as it existed at most toward the close of the first century, so definitely
delineated, that he, from this circumstance, recognizes a vaticinium post
eventum ! Thus the same expression is for the one too indefinite, and for
the other too definite ; but both arrive at the same result, which must be
reached, let the Paul of the Book of Acts speak as he will. — aroor@y x.r.A. ]
to draw away, from the fellowship of true believers, after them. ‘* Charac-
ter falsi doctoris, ut velit ex se uno pendere discipulos,’’ Bengel.®

Ver. 31. [pyyopeire ‘‘ verbum pastorailc,’’ Bengel,*—and that, encouraged
by the recollection of my own example, pvyuovebovres, Gre x.7.A. — Tpteriar}

1 Comp. on Eph. 1. 14; 1 Cor. vi. 20, vil. 23; § Discesstonem, Vuigate.

1 Pet. i. 7, 19. * Comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 9.
3 Vehementea, comp. Bapvratos avraywenorys, 7 See Introduction to Colossians, § 2.
Xen. Ages. 11, 12. 8 On oriow avr., comp. v. 37.
3 Matt. vii. 15; Luke x.8; John x. 18, *Comp. wpocdxere éavrots eat sarrt Ty

4 Dem. 58, pen.; Herod. vii. 58. worsvigp, Ver. 28.

DUTY OF ELDERS, 393

See on xix. 10. — uerd daxpiwv] extorted both by afflictions' and by the
sympathetic fervour with which Paul prosecuted his quite special (éve
éxaorov) pastoral care.* -- vixra x. yuép.] See on Luke ii. 37. vb«xra is here
placed first, because it most closely corresponds to the figurative ypvyopeire.
— As to the idea of voviecia, admonition, see on Eph. vi. 4.

Ver. 32. And now I commend you to God (xiv. 28) and to the word of His
grace (ver, 24),—entrust you to Him to protect and biess you, and to the
gospel to be the rule of your whole conduct, —to Him who is able to build up,
to promote the Christian life, and to give you inheritance, a share in the
Measianic blessedness, among all who are sanctified, consecrated to God by
faith. — ro duvauévy] is, with the Vulgate, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Grotius,
Wolf, Bengel, de Wette, and others to be referred to God ; so that a very
natural hyperbaten occurs, according to which xa? ro Adyw ric yaptrog avrod
oppears as an inserted annexation to the general and main element rg Ocy
of an accessory idea, which was not to be separated from rm Oe, but
which also does not prevent the continuance of the address by a more
precise description of rm Gey bearing on its object.* We should, in reading,
lay the emphasis on rq Geg, and pass on more quickly over xai rm Adyw . . .
avrov. Others refer rw dwvau. to rm Adyw, and understand the Adyo¢ either
correctly of the doctrine,‘ or erroneously, opposed to Luke’s and Paul's
mode of conception, of the personal, Johannean, Logos.’ But such a per-
sonification of the saving doctrine,* according to which even the dotvac
xAnpovouiav, evidently an act of God ! is assigned to it, is without scriptural
analogy.’ — As to xAypovouia, transferred from the allotted share in the pos-
session of Palestine non) to the share of possession in the Messianic king-
dom, see on Matt. v. 5; Gal. iii. 18; Eph. i. 11.°

Vv. 33-35. Paul concludes his address, so rich in its simplicity and
deeply impressive, by urging on the presbyters the complete disinterested-
ness and self-denial, with which he had Jaboured at Ephesus, as a rézorc °
for similar conduct.!° Reason for this: not the obviating of a Judaistic
reproach," not a guarding of the independence of the church in the
world ;”? but the necessity of the avr:AauBaveoba: trav acbevodvruv, ver. 36. —
apy. # xpve. 7) iuav.] specification of what are usually esteemed the most
valuable temporal possessions.'* — avroi} without my needing to say it to
you. — xai roig ater wer éuov] Thus also for his companions, to their
necessities, he applied the gain of his manual labour. —aira:}] he shows
them, and certainly they were not soft and tender. — rdvra trédecta tuir,
ore] either in all points * I have shown to you, by my example, that ; or, all things

1 Ver. 19. “ ° 2 Thess. 1ii. 9.
22 Cor. xi. 20, fi. 4. 10 Comp. 1 Cor. 1x. 4#%.; 2 Cor. xi. 7 %., xil.
3 Comp. Bernhardy, p. 459. 14 ff ; 2 Thess. ili. 8 #.
¢ Erasmas, Heinrichs, Kuinocl, Lange, and 11 Olshausen.
others. 13 Baumgarten.
6 Gomarue, Witsius, Amelot. 13 Comp. Jas. v. 2, 8.
© Jas. i. 21. 14 1 Cor. x. 38 ; see on Eph. iv. 15; Lobeck,

7 Comp. Col. 1.12 f.; Gal. lv.7; Luke xif. ad Aj. 1402; Kithner, § 557 A.4 Lachmann,
$2. (18. whom Klostermann follows, refers wéyta to
®On «vy 7. gyacu., comp. xxvi. 18; Eph.!. ver. 34, as Beza already proposed. But if

394 CHAP. XX., 35-38.

I have showed to you, by my example, in reference to this, that, etc.' The for-
mer is simpler. — ovrw] so labouring, as I have done, so toiling hard.* Not:
my fellow-labourers in the gospel,*® which, at variance with the context, with-
draws from oiru¢ its significance. It is the ezample-giving ovtuc.‘ — rev
Go8evoivrwy] is, With Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Calovius, Er. Schmid,
Bengel, and others, including Neander, Tholuck, Schneckenburger, Baum-
garten, to be explained of those not yet confirmed in Christian principles and
dispositions.* These might easily consider the work of one teaching for
pay as a mere matter of gain, and thus be prejudiced not only against the
teacher, but also against the doctrine.* Rut if, on the other hand, the
teacher gained his livelihood by labour, by such self-devotion he obviated
the fall of the unsettled, and was helpful to the strengthening of their
faith and courage.” This is that avriAauBavecba trav acGevoivrar, in which
Paul wished to serve as a model to other teachers and ecclesiastical rulers..
Others’ render it: that they should help ¢he poor and needy by support; °
which meaning would have to be derived not from the wsaus loquendi of
aodev. taken by itself, but, with Kuinoel, ‘‘ qui non possunt laborando sibi
ad vitam tuendam necessaria comparare,’’ from the context.'° But the recom-
mendation of liberality is remote from the context; the faithfulness and
wisdom of the teacher manifesting itself in gaining his own support by
labour, of which the text speaks, must have a spiritual object, like the
teaching office itself ''—not the giving of alms, but the strengthening of the
weak in faith. The more naturally this meaning occurs, the less would
Paul, if he had nevertheless meant the poor, have expressed himself by
ao8evotytuv, but rather by mrwyoy or a similar word. —pvnuoveverv . . .
AauBdavev| and to be mindful of the saying of the Lord Jesus, namely, that He
Himself has said: It is blessed—i.e. dlise-giving ; the action itself according
to its moral nature, similarly to the knowing in John xviii. 8, is conceived
as the blessedness of the agent—rather (potius) to give than receive, ‘The
two being compared, not the latter, but rather the former, is the paxépiov."’
The special application of this general saying of Christ is, according to the
connection in the mind of the apostle, that the giving of spiritual benefits,
compared with the taking of earthly gain as pay, bas the advantage in con-
ferring blessedness ; and the naxapiérng itself is that of eternal life according
to the idea of the Messianic recompense, Luke vi. 20 ff., 38, xiv. 14. — The
explanatory ér:, dependent on pvyyov., adduces out of the general class of say
Aoy. tr. Kup. a single saying’® instead of all bearing on the point.— Whether

so, Paul, in ver. 24, would evidently have
said too much, especially on account of «ai rois
ovo: per’ énov.

1 ore = eis éxetvo, rc, a8 in John il. 18, ix.
17; 2Cor. 1.18; Mark xvi. 14, é¢ al.

2 Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 12.

® Klostermann.

# Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 24, 26; Phil. it). 17.

5 Comp. Rom. xiv. 1, xv. 1; 1 Cor. ix. 22;
1 Thess. v. 14; 2 Cor. xi. 21.

1 Cor. ix. 12.

7 Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 14.

®§ Chrysostom, Oeccumenius, Theophylact,
e¢ al., inctuding Wetatein, Heinrichs, Kuinoel,
Olshausen, de Wettc, Hackett.

* Comp. Eph. iv. 28.

10 Comp. Arist. Pac. 686; Eur. Suppl. 488 :
Herod 1{i. 88. See Valckenaer, ad Herod. vili.
51; and Raphel, Herod. én ioc.

13-1 Cor, 1x. 12.

12 Comp. xv. 15.

NOTES. , 395

Paul derived this saying, not preserved in the Gospels,' from oral or written
tradition, remains undecided.—References to the same saying : Constitt. ap.
iv. 3. 1: éwei xai 6 Kiptog paxdpiov elrev elvas tov didévta ixep tov 2auBavovra,
perhaps also Clem. 1 Cor. 2: qdrov didévreg % AauBavovres. Analogous profane
sayings’ may be seen in Wetstein. The opposite: dvéyro¢ 6 didoic, evruzie &
6 AauBdvev, in Athen. viii. 5.

Vv. 36-38. What a simple, true,* tender, and affecting description ! —
xategidovy] denotes frequent and fervent kissing.‘ — @ewpeiv] to behold, is
chosen from the standpoint of the ddvwepzevo.. On the other hand, in ver.
25, dpeobe. — mpoéweur.| Of giving @ convoy, a8 in xv. 8, xxi. 5.

Nores By AMERICAN Eprror.

(m*) After the uproar. V. 1-3.

Meyer correctly remarks this statement indicates the time, but not the
motive, of the apostle’s departure, as he had previously determined to leave
Ephesus, where he had remained longer than at any other city—three years.
The extent of his success is attested by the conduct of Demetrius and his fel-
low-craftsmen. The brief record given by Luke may be supplemented by a
reference to the Epistles to the Corinthians, written about this time. The
narrative condenses months of active labor into a single verse. The apostle
having sent a deputation to Corinth, and also written a letter to that church,
took an affectionate farewell of the church at Ephesus. He sailed from
Ephesus to Troas, where, a door being opened, he preached for a time, while
he awaited the arrival of Titus with tidings from Corinth. Titus came not,
and the apostle, filled with anxiety as to the effects his severe letter might pro-
duce, crossed over into Macedonia, where he met Titus, who brought tidings
which relieved and gladdened the faithful, yet tender-hearted apostle, and was
the occasion of a second letter to Corinth. Six years had elapsed since Paul
first visited Macedonia, and was beaten and imprisoned at Philippi. He
doubtless now revisited the scenes of his former labor ; and also during this
period evangelized the western part of Macedonia, as he formerly had done the
eastern. The entire province of Macedonia was evangelized, as the apostle had
visited each of the four districts into which it was divided. The three months
he was in Greece—the province of Achaia—was spent mainly at Corinth, its
capital. At this time and from this place he wrote the Epistle to the
Romans, and probably the Epistle to the Galatians. When about to leave Cor-
inth, the Jews entered into a conspiracy to take his life, probably when he
was leaving the port. The plot being discovered, the apostle left by land, -
accompanied by several companions, among whom Luke seems to have been
one, as the first person again appears in the narrative. When it is said that

1 Seo on the dicta dypada of Christ, Fabric. that which the preadytera received from it, as
Cod. Apoer. N. T. pp. 821-885 ; Ewald, Jahrd. that which ‘*¢the reader of the Book of Acts is

VI. 40f., and Gesch. Chr. p. 288. meant to receive from the previous narrative,"
3 Artemidor. tv. 8. Zeller, p. 274.

3 It borders on wantonness to affirm that 4 Comp. on Matt. xxvi. 49; Lake xv. 2.
this impression of the speech is not so much

396 CHAP. XX.—wNOTES.

his companions went into, or as far as Asia, ‘‘ it is not implied that they went
no farther than to Asia ; Trophimus and Aristarchus and probably others ac.
companied him to Jerusalem.’ (Alford.) Luke remained with Paul at Phi-
lippi till after the Passover. Whether Paul, in the exercise of his Christian
liberty, kept the festival, as Meyer states, cannot be determined, though we
do not think it probable. The rest of the company preceded the apostle to
Troas, probably for the purpose suggested by Meyer.

(w®) T2v exxAnoltay tod Kupiov, V. 28.

In his critical remarks Meyer discusses this reading at considerable length,
and concludes that the evidence is in favor of xvpiov. On the text he remarks :
“ With the reading roi Ocoi, this passage was a peculiarly important locus for
the doctrine of the divinity of Christ.’’ Gloag uses the reading of Tischendorf,
xuptov, but adds “ not that, in itself, it seems preferable.’ Six different read-
ings of this passage are given by Davidson; only the two already mentioned are
entitled to consideration. Alford, who formerly approved of the reading
xupiov, writes : ‘‘On the whole then, weighing the evidence on both sides, see-
ing that it is more likely that the alteration should have been to xvpiov than
to Ocot ; more likely that the speaker should have used Ocod than xupicv ; and
more consonant to the evidently emphatic position of the word, I have, on
final revision, decided for the received reading, church of God, which on first
writing I had rejected.”’

Bloomfield gives the reading, Ocod, and prefixes the words xwpiov xai. Plump-
tre favors the received reading. Wordsworth inclines to Geod. Hackett thinks
the external testimony preponderates in favor of xupiov; but Ooi agrees best with
the usage of Paul. The phrase “ church of God’’ occurs in the Epistles of Paul
eight times, and “churches of God” three times ; but the expressions ‘‘ church
of the Lord ’’ and “ church of Christ” never occur in his epistles, and “ churches of
Ohrist’’ only once. Alexander, Abbot, Jacobus, and Schaff approve the received
reading, and it is retained in the Revised Version. ‘‘ @cov is now the undoubted
reading of the Vatican, and of the newly discovered Sinaitic mss. Upon the
whole, we are disposed to think that the preponderance of evidence is in favor
of the reading nv exxAncluy rod cod.” (Gloag.) Though authorities are very
evenly divided, we may unhesitatingly receive the text as in our English ver-
sions.

(0°) Paul's farewell address at Miletus. : V. 18-38.

This address seems to be recorded just as it was delivered, in the words, we
had: eunoet said the tones, of the speaker. Taylor, speaking of this address,
says : “‘ For depth of pathos and fervor of appeal it seems to me to be well-nigh
unrivalled, even in Holy Writ. It quivers all through with emotion. There is
love in every sentence, and a tear in every tone. We cannot read it without a
choking utterance snd a moistened eye.” Furrar writes thus : “After these
words, which so well describe the unwearied thoroughness, the deep humility,
the perfect tenderness of his apostolic ministry, he knelt down with them all
and prayed. They were overpowered with the touching solemnity of the
scene, He ended his prayer amid a burst of weeping, and as they bade him

NOTES. 397

farewell—anxious for his future, anxious for their own—they each laid their
heads on his neck and passionately kissed him.’’ ‘‘If Paul inspired intense
hatreds, yet, with all disadvantages of person, he also inspired intense affec-
tion.”
Renan says : “ Then they ali knelt and prayed. There was naught heard but ,

a stifled sob. Paul's words, ‘ Ye shall see my face no more,’ had pierced their .
hearts. In turn, the elders of Ephesus fell on the apostle’s neck and kissed
him.” ‘ Tears are thrice mentioned in this short passage—tears of snffering

(19) ; of pastoral solicitude (31) ; and of personal affection (37)."’ (Monod.) Paul
“was a man of strong convictions and great force of character ; but also pos-
sessed of exquisite tenderness and a wealth of affection. If he had tu endure
the strongest enmities he also won for himself the deepest and most enduring
friendships. At once so gigantic and so gentle, his personality was a great
power, and seemed wholly to overshadow his companions and followers,
though, in themselves, men of great excellence and worth, suoh as Timothy,
Titus, Silas, Luke, and others. No man holds a higher place in the esteem and
affection of the Christian world than Paul.

398 CRITICAL NOTES.

CHAPTER XXII.

Ven. 3. xarnyonuev] ABER, 34, Vulg. al. have xar7A8ouev. SoLachm. Agloss.
— Ver. 4. Both aveup. dé (Tisgh.) and rovs before pad. (which Beng. Matth.
Rinck condemn) have decided attestation. — avrov] A E G, 68, 73 have atrois ;
so Lachm. Alteration to suit oirives. ‘* Ubicunque in 8s. s, atrod repertum est,
scrupulum legentibus injecit,” Born. — ava3.] Lachm, Tisch. read émf., ac-
cording to important testimony. Rightly; the more usual word was inserted.
— Vv. 5, 6. rpoonvéauefa, Kai aoraodpevo:] Lachm. and Tisch. read mpocevéa-
pevoe amnoracduefa, and then «ai before ére38. SOABCER, min. Rightly.
The Recepla has arisen partly through a simplifying resolution of the participle
mpocevsunevo., and partly through offence at the compound axacraleoba: not
elsewhere occurring. —- Ver, 6. exéGnuev|] Lachm. reads evéZ., and Tisch. dvé,3.
The witnesses are much divided. As, however, a form with N is at all events
decidedly attested, A C &* having uNef., and B E &** eNef. ; avéBnuev is to
be preferred, instead of which évéZ., the more usual word for embarking,
slipped in, and éve3. was inserted from ver. 2, comp. xxviii. 2. — Ver. 8. After
é€eA9. Elz. has of rep. tr. TladAov (comp. xiii. 13), against decisive testimony.
With é£ea@. there begins a church-lesson. — Ver. 10, ud» is condemned by
A BC i, min., as an addition. — Ver. 11. re airov] AB C D EX, min. have
éavrod. Approved by Griesb. Rinck, and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born., and
rightly on account of the decisive testimony. Orig. also testifies for it
(éavTdov yetpov K.T.A.). —TaS yeipas x. T. 4édaS}] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read 1. dd.
x. T. x., preferred also by Rinck, following important witnesses (not A), but
evidently a transposition, in accordance with the natural course of the action.
— by 'lepovo.] Born. reads «is ‘lepovo., but only according to D, min. Chrys.
Epiph. It arose from a gloss (Orig. : ameA@évra cis ‘Iepove.).— Ver. 14. On
decisive evidence read with Lachm. and Tisch. roi Kupiov rd OéAnua yivicbw. —
Ver. 15. éxiox.] Elz. Scholz read arock., only according to min. ; so that it
must be regarded as a mere error of transcription. The decidedly attested
ériox. is rightly approved or adopted by Mill. Beng. Griesb. Matthaei, Knapp,
Rinck, Lachm. Tisch. The readings sapack. (C, 7. 69, 73) and droraédu. (D,
Born.) are interpretations. — Ver. 20. #61] Approved by Griesb., and adopted
by Lachm. Tisch. , according to ABC EG &, min. Chrys. Theophyl. and most
vss. Elz. Scholz, Born. read xvpiov, against these decisive witnesses.-—’lovdai-
wv] Lachm. Tisch. read év rois ’Iovdaios, which is to be adopted, according to
ABCE, min. Vulg. Aeth. Copt. The év rg 'Iovdaia in D, Syr. Sahid. Jer. Aug.
speaks also for this (so Born.). The Recepta was occasioned by the following
Tov werioTreuadtwy, after which accordingly in some Fathers ’lovdaiwy has found
its place, &, Oec. and some min. have merely ray wemor., which makes all
these additions suspicious, yet the testimony is not sufficiently strong for their
deletion. — Ver. 21. ravras] deleted by Lachm., according to A D* E, 13, Vulg.
Copt. Jer. Aug. The omission appears to be a historical emendation. — Ver.
24, yvooovra:] Elz. reads yvoct, in opposition to ABCD E ®, min. Aug. Jer.

- Ln wo ye. wy y f, ¥i

VOYAGE TO TYRE. 399

and some vss. A continuation of the construction of iva. — Ver. 25. éxeoreiaa-
pev]) Lachm. Born. read amreoreidauev, according to B D, 40, and some vss.
Rightly ; the Recepia is from xv. 20. — undév to py is wanting in A BX, 13, 40,
81, and several vss. Condemned by Mill and Bengel, and deleted by Lachm.
But if it had been added, the expressions of xv. 28 would have been used. On
the other hand, the omission was natural, as the direct instruction pydev rotodrov
Typeiv is not contained in the apostolic decree. — Ver. 28, The form rayrayzz is,
with Lachm. and Tisch., to be adopted according to decisive evidence; it is
not elsewhere found in the N. T. — Ver. 31. ovyxéyvra:] Lachm. and Born. read
ovyxuvera, according to A B D & (in C. ver. 31 to xxii. 30 is wanting). With
this preponderating testimony (comp. Vulg. : confunditur), and as, after ver. 30,
the perfect easily presented itself as more suitable, the present is to be pre-
ferred. — Ver. 32. rapaAaZ.] Lachm. reads Aafdv, only according to B. — Ver. 34,
€36wv] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read éregavovr, according to A B D E 8, min.,
which witnesses must prevail. — yu) duuduevos dé] Lachm. Tisch, Born. (yet
the latter has deleted dé) read yu?) duvayeévov d2 atrov, according to decisive testi-
mony. The Recepia is a stylistic emendation. —So xpalov, ver. 36, is to be
judged, instead of which x«pdlovres is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be preferred.

Vv. 1, 2. ’Aroorac#.] denotes the painful separation, wrung from them
by the consciousness of necessity.!.— On the small island Cos, now Co, or
Stanchio in the Aegean Sea, celebrated for its wine and manufacture of
costly materials for dress, see Kuster.*— 7d Ildrapa] a great seaport of
Lycia, with an oracle of Apollo active only during the six winter months.’
— diarepav| which was in the act of sailing over. For avax6jvac, comp. on
xiii. 13.

(p*). Ver. 3. 'Avagavévrec d2 riv Kirp.] but when we had sighted Cyprus.
The expression is formed analogously to the well-known construction
rexiorevua Td evayyéAcov and the like.‘ — evdvezov] an adjective to air#v.® —
tig Zupiav] towards Syria.*—xarayecbat, to run in, to land, the opposite of
avdyecfa,’ often with Greek writers since the time of Homer. — éxcioe yap
. . » yéuov] for thither the ship unladed its freight ; éxeioe denotes the direc-
tion toward the city which they had in view in the unlading in the harbour.
— arogoprif.] does not stand pro futuro, in opposition to Grotius, Valcke-
naer, Kuinoel, and others, but 7 arog. means: i wae in the act of tis un-
lading.®

Ver, 4. 'Avevpdvrec] See on Luke ii. 16. The Christians there (rotc a8.)
were certainly only few,® so that they had to be sought out in the great city
of Tyre. zavrwy . .. réxvorc, ver. 5, also points to a small number of
Christians. — dia rov rvetiparoc] 80 that the Holy Spirit, speaking within
them, was the mediating occasion. The Spirit had testified to them that
a fate full of suffering awaited Paul in Jerusalem, and this in their loving

1 See on Luke xxii. 41. Gr. p. 164 (KE. T. 189). (stein,

2 De Co insula, Hal. 1888. On the accuea- ¢ See Kihner, § 685, and examples in Wet-
tive form, see Locella, ad Xen. Eph. p. 165 f. * See on Gal. t. 21.

$ For its ruins, see Fellows, Asia Minor, p. tT vv. 1,2 xxvil. 2, xxviil. 12; Lake v. 11.
219 f. ® Comp. Winer, p. 828 (EK. T. 489).

4 Winer, p. 244 (EB. T. 826) ; Buttmann, newt. ® See xi. 19, xv. 8.

400 CHAP. XXI., 5-9.

zealous care they took as a valid warning to him not to go to Jerusalem.
But Paul himself was more fully and correctly aware of the will of the
Spirit ; he was certain that, in spite of the bonds and sufferings which the
Spirit made known to him from city to city, he must go to Jerusalem, xx.
22 (Q*).

Vv. 5, 8. ‘Efaprica:] cannot here denote to jit out,' to provide the neccs-
saries for the journey, partly because the protasis: ‘‘ but when we fitted
out in those days’’—not: Aad fitted out—would not suit the apodosis, and
partly because in general there was no reason for a special and lengthened
provisioning in the case of such a very short voyage. Hence we must
adhere to the rendering usual since the Vulgate (ezpletis diebus) and Chry-
sostum (rAypaoa:): but when it happened that we completed the seven days of
our residence there, 7.¢. when we brought these days to aclose. And that éfap-
rifecy was really so used by later writers, is to be inferred from the similar
use of araprifew.* — civ yuvarki x. texv.] the more readily conceivable and
natural in the case of the small body of Christians after so long a stay.
Baumgarten finds here the design of a special distinction of the church. —
éxi rdv aiycaa.| on the shore, because this was the place of the solemn parting.
Hammond, overlooking this natural explanation, imagined quite arbitrarily
that therc was a mpocevyf#? on the shure. — az7zoracducba (see the critical
remarks): we took leave of one another.‘ Lachmann® unnecessarily con-
jectures avryoracdéucha. — tic ra idia] to their habitations.°— Whether the ship
prepared for the voyage (rd rAoiov) was the same in which they had arrived,
cannot be determined.

Ver. 7. Acaviecv} to complete entirely, only here in the N. T., but very often
in classical writers, particularly of ways, journeys, and the like. But we,
entirely bringing to an end (dtavicavrec 18 contemporaneous with xatyvrjoaper)
the voyage, arrived from Tyre, from which'‘we had sailed for this last stage,
at Ptolemais, from which we now continued our journey by land. —r. rAobr]
from Macedonia, xx. 6. [lroAeudic, the ancient 15), even yet called by the
Arabs \(, by the Europeans St. Jean d’ Acre, on the Mediterrancan Sea, be-
longing to the tribe of Asher,’ but never possessed by the Jews,® reckoned
by the Greeks as belonging to Phoenicia,® and endowed by Claudius with
the Roman citizenship.

Vv. 8, 9. Ka:odp.] See on viii. 40, — What induced the travellers to make
their journey by way of Caesarea? Baumgarten thinks that, as representa-
tives of the converted Gentiles, they wished to come in contact on the way
only with Gentile churches. No; simply, according to the text, because
Philip dwelt in Caesarea, and with this important man they purposed to
spend some time in the interest of their vocation. — row evayy. dvrog éx Tov
éxtaé] Since it was not his former position as overseer of the poor, but his

a
1 Lucian, V. H. i. 88; Joseph. Anté. fil. 9. *Comp. on John xvi. 82, xix. 27; and see
2; comp. 2 Tim. iil. 17. Valekenaer, p. 581 f.
2 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 447. 7 Judg. i. 18.
3 See on xvi. 18. ® Hence Hiros. Giitin. f. 48. 8: “In Acone
4 Himerius, p. 184. est terra Israelitica et non." {v. 17.

® Praef. p. LX. ® Ptol. v. 15; Strabo, xvi. p. 768; Plin. NW. H.

TO CAESAREA. 401

present position as evangelist, that made him so important to the travellers,
namely, through his participation in the calling of a teacher, the words are
not to be rendered : because he was one of the seven, vi. 5;' but the comma
after evayy. is to be deleted (so also Tisch. Born.), and the whole is to be
taken together: who was the evangelist out of the seven. He was that one of
the seven, who had embraced and prosecuted the calling of an evangelist.
The fact that he now dwelt at Cacsarea presupposes that he no longer
filled the office which he held in Jerusalem. Perhaps the peculiar skill in
teaching which he developed as an emigrant” was the reason why he,
released from his former ministry, entered upon that of an evangelist. To
regard the words évroc éx r. éxrd as an addition of the compiler,* and also
to suspect 6 evayyeAcorgc,* there is no sufficient reason. Hvangelists were
assistant-missionaries, who, destined exclusively for no particular church, .
either went forth voluntarily, or were sent by the apostles and other teach-
ers of apostolic authority nuw here and now there, in order to proclaim the
evayyéAcoy of Jesus Christ, and in particular the living remembrances of
what He taught and did,* and thereby partly to prepare the way for, and
partly to continue, the apostolic instruction.* — Euseb. iii. 31, 89, v. 24, fol-
lowing Polycrates and Caius, calls ¢his Philip an apostle, which is to be re-
garded as a very early confusion of persons, going back even to the second
century and found also in the Constiét. ap. vi. 7. 1, and is not to be disposed
of, with Olshausen, to the effect that Eusebius used axéorotoc in the wider
sense, which considering the very sameness in name of the apostle and
evangelist, would be very inappropriate. But Gieseler’s view also’ that
the apostle Philip had four daughters, and that ver. 9 is an interpolation by
one who had confounded the apostle with the deacon, is to be rejected, as
the technical evidence betrays no interpolation, and as at all cvents our nar-
rative, especially as a portion of the account in the jiret person plural, pre-
cedes that of Eusebius. — Ovyarépes mapféiva] virgin ® daughters.° — rpoorr. |
who spoke in prophetic inspiration, had the yapioua of rpopyreia.'""-—The whole
observation in ver. 9 is an incidental remarkable notice, independent of the
conncction of the history; " to the contents of which, however, on account of

1 Comp. Winer, p. 127 (E. T. 168), de Wette.

T viii. 5 ff. , 26 ff.

* Zeller.

‘ Steitz in the Stud. u. Krit. 1868. p. 510.

® They had thus in common with the apostles
the vocation of the evayyeAcgecdar ; but they
were distinguished from them, not merely by
the circumstance that they were not directly
called by Christ, and so were subordinate to
the apostiex, 2 Tim. iv. 5 and did not possess
the extraordinary specifically apostolic yapio-
para; bu: aleo by the fact that their minietry
had for its object lees the summing up of the
greuzt doctrinal system of the goepel (like the
preaching of the »posties) than the communi-
cation of historical incidents from the ministry
of Jeaus. Pelagius correctly remarks: “Omnis
apostolus evangelista, non omnis evangelista

apostolue, sicut Philippus.”’ See generally,
Ewald, p. 285f., and Jahrd. II. p. 181 ff.—
Nothing can be more perverse han, with Sepp,
to interpret the appellation evangeli+t in the
case of Philip to mean, that he had brought
the Gospel of Matthew into its present form.
The evangelists were the oral bearers of the
gocpel before written gospels were in exist-
ence.

¢ Eph. iv. 11; Eus. 7.2. iil. 87.

? Stud. w. Krit. 1889, p. 189 ff.

® Intactae.

®On the adjective wapdevos, comp. Xen.
Mem. 1.6.2: dvyarépas wapddvous, Cyrop. iv.
6. 9; Lobeck, ad Aj. 1190.

10 See on xi. 27.

11 If this circamstance war meant to be re-
garded (in accordance with Joel iil. 1 [i!. 28})

402 CHAP. XXI., 11-16.

its special and extraordinary character, the precept in 1 Cor. xiv. 34, 1 Tim.
ii. 12, is not to be applied ; nor yet is any justification of the life of nuns
to be founded on it, with the Catholics.' Baumgarten thinks that the
virginity of the daughters corresponds to the condition of the church,
which looks forward to her betrothal only in the future. This is exegetical
trifling * (R’).

Vv. 10, 11. ’Esizevévrwv)] without a subject (see the critical remarks).*
-—-"AyaBoc} There is no reason against the assumed identity of this person
with the one mentioned in xi. 28. Luke’s mode of designating him, which
does not take account of the former mention of him, admits of sufficient
explanation from the special document giving account of this journey,
which, composed by himself before his book, did not involve a reference

- to earlier matters, and was left by him just as it was ; nor did it necessarily

require any addition on this point for the purpose of setting the reader
right. — dpac] he took it up, from the ground, or wherever Paul had laid it.

—dfoac . . . wédac] as also the old prophets often accompanied their

prophecies with symbolic actions.‘ On the symbol here, comp. John xxi.
18. — éavrov] hie own, for it was not his girdle, but Paul's. This self-
binding is to be conceived as consisting of two separate acts. — 1d rv. 7. ay.]
whose utterance I, namely, as His organ express (8°).

Vv. 12-14. Oi évrémia] the natives, the Christians of Caesarea, only here
in the N. T., but classical. — ri roceire xAaiovres ;] What do ye, that ye weep ?
Certainly essentially the same in sense with ri xAaiere ; but the form of the
conception is different. Comp. Mark xi. 5, also the classical oiov roeig with
the participle.*—«. ovvép. pu. tr. xapd.] and break my heart, make me quite
sorrowful and disconsolate. The owfpirrev had actually commenced on
the part of those assembled, but the firm ¢roiyur éyw «.r.4. of the apostle
had immediately retained the upper hand over the enervating impressions
which they felt. ‘‘ Vere incipit actus, sed ob impedimenta carct eventu.’’ °
The verb itself is not preserved elsewhere, yet comp. 6pirrecv rv puxfy, and
the like, in Plutarch and others. — yép] refers to the direct sense lying at
the foundation of the preeeding question: ‘‘do not weep and break my
heart,”’ for I, I for my part, etc. Observe the holy boldness of conscious-
ness in this éyé. — ei¢ Iepove.] Having come to Jerusalem." — inép roi av. |
Bee on v. 41, 1x. 16. — jovydoauer] we left off further address.* —z. Kuptov|
not ‘‘ quod Deus de te decrevit,’ but the will of Christ. The submission of

as “‘a sign of special grace with which the
Holy Spirit had honoured this church in the
unclean Cacearea ** (Baumgarten), Lake must
of necessity have indicated this point of view.
The suggestion, that we ought to be finding
purposes everywhere without hint in the text,
leads to extravagent arbitrarinees.

3 See Cornelius a Lapide, Comp. Luke ii.
86.
3 According to Clem. Al. Strom. vi. 52 (and
in Euseb. iii. 30. 1), some of the daughters at
least were married.

3 Matthiae, § 568; Buttmann, neut. Gr.p.

271 (E. T. 316).

“Tea. xx.; Jer. xill.; Ezek. iv., al. See
Grotius ; Ewald, Proph. 1. p. 38.

* Heind. ad Plat. Charm. p. 166 C.

* Schaefer, ad Zur. Phoen., Pors.%9. Comp.
on Rom. fi. 4.

7 Comp. vili. 40. Isaeus, de Dicasog. hered.
p. 55: modduov, ei¢ by . .. arodvicxovet.
Buttman, newt. Gr. p. 27 (BE. T. 884).

* Comp. xi. 18.

® Kainoel and de Wette, following Chrysos-
tom, Calvin, and others.

PAUL AT JERUSALEM. 403

his friends expresses itself with reference to the last words of the apostle,
ver, 18, in which they recognised his consciousness of the Lord’s will.

Vv. 15, 16. 'Emcoxevac.] after we had equipped ourseloes—praeparati, Vulg.—
made ourselves ready ; i.e. after we had put our goods, clothes, etc., in a
proper state for our arrival and residence in Jerusalem.’ The word, oc-
curring here only in the N. T., is frequent in Greek writers and in the
LXX. Such an equipment was required by the feast, and by the intercourse
which lay before them at the holy seat of the mother church and of the
apostles. Others arbitrarily, as 1f wrofiy:a stood in the text ;* ‘‘ sarcinas
jumentis imponere,’’ Grotius. — ray pafyr.| ac. tevég.® — ayovrec wap’ » Eevo-
Oapev Mvac.) who brought us to Mnason, with whom we were to lodge in Jeru-
salem. So correctly Luther. The dative Mvdco. is not dependent on
ayovrec,* but to be explained, with Grotius, from attraction, so that, when
resolved, it is: dyovre¢ rapa Mvdoova, rap’ » fevad.* The participle dyovrec
indicates what they by ovv7Ad. o. juiv not merely wished (infinitive), but at
the same time did: they came with us and brought us, etc.*— Others’
take the sense of the whole passage to be: adducentes secum apud quem hos-
pitaremnr Mnasonem. Likewise admitting of justification linguistically
from the attraction ;° but then we should have to suppose, without any
indication in the context, that Mnason had been temporarily resident at
Caesarea precisely at that time when the lodging of the travellers in his
house at Jerusalem was settled with him.—Nothing further is known of
Mnason himself. The name is Greek,’ and probably he was, if not a Gen-
tile-Christian, at any rate a Hellenist. Looking to the feeling which pre-
vailed among the Jewish Christians against Paul,'® it was natural and pru-
dent that he should lodge with such a one, in order that he should enter
into further relations to the church. —dpyaiw uad.] So much the more
confidently might Paul and his companions be entrusted to him. He was
a Christian from of old, not 8 vedguroc, 1 Tim. ili. 6; whether he had al-
ready been a Christian from the first Pentecost, or had become so, possibly
through connection with his countryman Barnabas, or in some other
manner, cannot be determined.

1 The erroneous reading dwroee., though de-
defended by Olshaueen, would at most admit
the explanation : after we had conveyed away
our baggage (Polyb. iv. 81. 11; Diod. Sic. xiii.
91; Joseph. Anti, xiv. 16. 2), according to
which the travellers, in order not to go as
pilgrims to the feast at Jernsalem encumbered
with much luggage, would have sent on their
baggage defore them. The leaving behind of
the snperfuous baggage at Caerarea (Wolf,
Olshausen, and others), or the laying aside of
things nnworthy for their entrance into and
residence in Jerusalem (Ewald), would be
purely imported ideas. Valckenaer, p. 564,
well remarks : ‘‘Pntidum est lectiones tam
aperte mendoeas, ubi verae repertac fuere, in
sanctisefmis libris relingui."*

2 Xen. Hell, vil. 2. 18.

2 Winer, p. 548 (BE. T. %87) ; Battmann, neul.
Gr. p. 188 (E. T. 188). :
* In opposition to Knatchball, Winer, p. 201
(BE. T. 268 f.), and Fritzsche, Conject. I. p. 42 ;

and eee on fi. 83.

§ See on Rom. fv. 17. Bornemann, Schol. in
Lue. p. 177 (comp. on Roeenmfller, Repert. II.
p. 258) ; Battmann, p. 244 (E. T. 284); Diseen,
ad Dem. de cor. p. %88 f.

* See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 773; Bernbardy,
p. 477.

’ Vuigate, Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Calvin,
Wolf.

® Kitbner, II. 808; Valckenaer, Schol. I. p.
686 : Hermann, ad SopA. BH. G8. 681.

®Ael. V. H. til. 19: Athen. vi. p. 94 OC, 9%
B; Lacian, Phtlope. 2.

1@ vv. 20, 2°.

404 CHAP. XXI1., 17-25.

Vv. 17-19. Tevou.] having arrived at ; xiii. 5. — of adeAgoi] the Christiana,
to whom we came,—Mnason and others who were with him. It was not
until the following day, ver. 18, that they. with Paul at their head, pre-
sented themselves to the rulers of the church. Accordingly, there is not
to be found in this notice, ver. 17, any inconsistency with the dissatisfac-
tion towards Paul afterwards reported ;‘ and oi adeAg. is not to be inter-
preted of the apostles und presbytyrs.* — ovv jyuiv| witnesses to the historical
truth of the whole narrative down to ver. 26: those who combat it are
obliged to represent this civ juiv as an addition of the compiler, who
wished ‘‘ externally to attach ’’ what follows to the report of an eye-wit-
ness.*— pic 'IdcwBav] the Lord’s brother, xii. 17. xv. 18. Neither
Peter nor any other of the Twelve can at this time have been present in
Jerusalem; otherwise they would have been mentioned here and in the
sequel of the narrative.‘ — ov] rotrwy a. Usual attraction.

Vv. 20, 21. The body of presbyters—certainly headed by its apostolic ®
chief James as spokesman—recognizes with thanksgiving to God the merits
of Paul in the conversion of the Gentiles, but then represents to him at
once also his critical position towards the Palestinian Jewish-Christians,
among whom the opinion had spread that he taught all the Jews living in
the diacwopd among the Gentiles, when preaching his gospel to them, apos-
tasy from the law of Moses. This opinion was, according to the principles
expressed by Paul in his Epistles,* and according to his wisdom in teaching
generally, certainly erroncous ; but amidst the tenacious overvaluing of Mo-
saism on the part of the Judaists, ever fomented by the anti-Pauline party,
it arose very naturally from the doctrine firmly and boldly defended by
Paul, that the attainment of the Messianic salvation wus not conditioned by
circumcision and the works of the law, but purely by faith in Christ. What
he had taught by way of denying and guarding against the value put on
Mosaism, so as to secure the necessity of faith, was by the zealous Judaists
taken up and interpreted as a hostile attack, as a direct summons to apos-
tasy from the Mosaic precepts and institutions. See Ewald, p. 568 ff., on
these relations, and on the greatness of the apnstle, who notwithstanding,
and in clear consciousness of the extreme dangers which threatened him,
does not sever the bond with the apostlic mother-church, but presents him-
self to it, and now again presents himsclf precisely amidst this confluence
of the multitude to the feast, like Christ on his last entrance to Jerusalem.
— Veupeic] is not, with Olshausen, to be referred to the number of the pres-
byters present, who might represent, as it were, the number of believers:
for only the presbyters of Jerusalem were assembled with James,’ but to the
Judaean Christians themselves, Christians of the Jewish land, the view of

1 Baar. time died, and risen, and ascended into heaven.

2 Kuinoel, According to other forms of the vurioasly-

§ Zeller, p. 52%. See, in opposition to this coloured legend, it occurred twelve years after
wretched shift, Ewald, Jahrd. IX. p. 66. the death of Jesus. See Sepp, p. 68 ff.

4 Nevertheless, on the part of the Catholics ® Gal. i. 19.
(see Cornelius a Lapide), fhe presence af all * See especia'ly Rom., Gal., and 1 Cor.
the apostles is asenmed ; Mary having at that 7 Ver. 138.

ADDRESS AND VOW. 405

whose many myriads might present itself to Paul at Jerusalem in the great
multitude of those who were there, especially at the time of the feast. —
méoa pupiadec] @ hyperbolical expression! of a very great indefinable num-
ber,? the mention of which was to muke the apostle the more inclined
to the proposal about to be made; hence we are not, with Baur,*® to un-
derstand orthodozr Jews as such, believing or unbelieving. The words,
according to the correct reading (see the critical remarks), import: ow
many myriads among the Jews there are of those who are believing, i.e. to how
many myriads those who have become believers among the Jews amount.
— Cnduwrai r. véuov] zealous observers and champions of the Mosaic law.*—
xaTnx79noar} they have been instructed* by Judaistic anti-Pauline teachers.
Actual instructton,* not generally audierunt,’ nor bare suspicion,* is expressed.
— ph wepiréuvery avtove x.7.A.]® according to the notion of commanding,
which is implied in Aéyov.!° —roi¢ 29eor] observing the Mosaic customs,''—The
antagonism of Judaism to Paul is in this passage so strongly and clearly
displayed, that the author, if his book were actually the treatise with a
set purpose, which it has been represented as being, would, in quite an in-
comprehensible manner, have fallen out of his part. In the case of such a
cunning inventor of history as the author, according to Baur and Zeller,
appears to be, the power of historical truth was not so great as to extort
‘against his will’’ ? such a testimony at variance with his design.

Vv. 22, 28. Ti obv gor:;] What is accordingly the case? How lies then the
matter ?'3 The answer rovro roijocov has the reason for it in the first instance
more precisely assigned by the preliminary remark, wévrucg . . . é29AvOac :
a multitude, of such Jew-Christians, must, inevitably will, come together,
assemble around thee, to hear thee and to observe thy demeanour, for, etc.
That James meant a tumultuary concourse, is not stated by the text, and
is, on the contrary, at variance with the sanguine dei ; but Calvin, Grotius,
Calovius, and many others erroneously hold that 7/70. cuve2t, refers to the
convoking of the church, or “* to the united body of the different household-
congregations—in that case rd 7270. must at least have been used. — eiyyv
dy. é¢' éavr.)] having a vow for themselves. This é9' égavray represents the
having of the vow as founded on the men's own wish and self-interest, and
accordingly exhibits it as a voluntary personal vow, in which they were not
dependent on third persons. The use of é9’ éavroy in the sense of for one-
self, at one’s own hand,‘and the like,’® is a classical one," and very common."

? But yet, comp. with i. 15, ii. 41, fv. 4, Gal.
i, 22, an evidence of the great progress which
Christianity had thus made in Palestine with
the lapse of time. :

2 Comp. Luke xii. 1.

$1. p. 290. ed. 2.

4 Comp. Gal. i. 14.

® Luke 1.4; Acts xvili. 25; Rom. ii. 185 1
Cor. xiv. 19: Gal. vi.6; Lucian, Asin. 4.

* Comp. Chrysostom.

T Vulg.

§ Zeller.

® The Jewiah-Christians zealous for the law

muet thus have continued to circumcise the
children that came to be born to them.

19 §ee on xv, 24.

1} Comp. roy vosor dvAaccwy, ver. 28. The
dative is as in ix. 81.

13 Banr.

38 See on 1 Cor. xiv. 15: Rom. iil. 9.

1480 Lange.

»® xviii. 18. (correct.

_ 30 RS reads ad’ éavrey, a gloss substantially

17 Xen. Anad. il. 4. 10; Thac. v. 67. 1, viii.
8. 11. ({p. 296.
18 Hermann, ad Viger. p. 850; Kfibner, II.

406 CHAP. XXI., 24-27.

A yet more express mode of denoting it would be : avroi é¢’ cavrév. With

this position of the vow there could be the less difficulty in Paul's taking

it along with them ; no interest of any other than the four men themselves
‘was concerned in it. Moreover, on account of ver. 26, and because the
point here concerned a usage appointed in the law of Moses, otherwise than
at xviii. 18, we are to understand a formal temporary Nazarife vow, under-
taken on some unknown occasion.!

Ver. 24. These take to thee, bring them into thy fellowship, and become with
them a Nazarite—dayvioby7:, be consecrated, LXX. Num. vi. 3, 8, corresponding
to the Hebrew V3IN—and make the expenditure for them, én’ avroic, on their
account,* namely, in the costs of the sacrifices to be procured.* ‘More
apud Judaeos receptum erat, et pro insigni pietatis officio habebatur, ut in
pauperum Nasiraeorum grutiam ditiores sumtus erogarent ad sacrificia,
quae, dum illi tonderentur, " offerre necesse erat,’’ Kypke.* The attempt of
Wieseler,* to explain away the taking up of the Nazarite vow on the part
of the apostle, is entirely contrary to the words, since ayvizecfa:, in its em-
phatic connection with vy avroic, can only be understood according to the
context of entering into participation of the Nazarite vow, and not generally
of Israelitish purification by virtue of presenting sacrifices and visiting the
temple, asin John xi. 55. — iva évpjo.] contains the design of danay, ex’
ait., in order that they, after the fulfilment of the legal requirement had
taken place, might have themselves shorn, and thus be relcased from their
vow. The shearing and the burning of the hair of the head in the fire of
the peace-offering, was the termination of the Nazaritic vow.* — xai yracor-
Ta x.T.A.} and all shall know: not included in the dependence on iva, as in
Luke xxii. 80. — ov] as in ver. 19. — uvdév éori] that nothing has a place, is
existent, so that all is without objective reality.’ —xai airdc] aleo for thy
own person, whereby those antinomistic accusations are practically refuted.
On orozeiv, in the sense of conduct of life, see on Gal. iv. 25.

Ver. 25. *‘ Yet the liberty of the Gentile Christians from the Mosaic law
remains thereby undiminished ; that is secured by our decree,’’ chap. xv.
The object of this remark is to obviate a possible scruple of the apostle as
to the adoption of the proposal. — yueic arecteiAauey (see the critical
remarks), we, on our part, have despatched envoys, after we had resolved that
they have to observe no such thing, nothing which belongs to the category of
such legal enactments. The notion of deiv® is implied in the reference of
KpivavTec, necessarium esse censuimus.® — ei ud pvAdccecBa x.7.A.] except that
they should guard themselves from, etc..° On ovdAdocecSai = OF triva, to guard
oneself from, comp. 2 Tim. iv. 15.1! — This citation of the decree of the

41 Num. vi., and see on xviil.18. See on such ® p. 105 ff., and on Gal. p. 580.
vows, Kiel, Archaol. I. § 67; Oehler in Her. See Num. vi. 18.

vog's Encyk. X. p. 205 ff. 7 Comp. on xxv. 11.
3 See Bernhardy, p. 230. * See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 788 ff.; Bchoem.
* Num. vi. 14 ff. ad Ie. p. 307 f.
See Joseph. Antt. xix.6 1. Bell. ti. 18.1; * Comp. ver. 91.

Mischn. Nasir ti. 5.6; Wetstein, in loc., also 10 See xv. 28. (vif. 140.

Oehler, de. p. 210. . '! Wisd. L 11; Ecclus. xix. 9; Herod. 1. 108,

NAZARITE VOW. 407

apostolic synod told Paul wh:.t was long since accurately known to him,
but was here essentially pertinent to the matter. And for Paul himself
that portion of the contents of the decree which was in itself indifferent
was important enough, in view of those whose consciences were weak,' to make
him receive this reminiscence of it now without an express reservation of
his higher and freer standpoint, and of his apostolic independence, —a
course by which he complied with the dovAcvecy tH xaipo, Rom. xii. 11.

Vv. 26, 27. James had made his proposal to Paul—by a public observance
of a custom, highly esteemed among the Jews, and consecrated by Moses,,
practically to refute the accusation in question—in the conviction that the
accusation. was unfounded, and that thus Paul with a good conscience,
without contradiction of his principles, could accept the proposal.* And
Paul with a good conscience accepted it; in which case it must be pre-
sumed that the four men also did not feqard the Nazarite vow as a work of
justification ;* otherwise Paul must at once on principle have rejected the
proposal, in order not to give countenance to the fundamental error, op-
posed to his teaching, of justification by the law, and not to offer resistance
to Christ Himself as the end of the law.‘ In fact, he must have been alta-
gether convinced that the observance of the law was not under dispute, by
those who regard him as an opponent of it, in the sense of justification by
the law ; otherwise he would as little have consented to the proposal made
to him as he formerly did to the circumcision of Titus ; and even the furnish-
ing of explanations to guard his action, which Schneckenburger * supposes
that we must assume, would not have sufficed, but would rather have
stamped his accommodation as a mere empty show. Moreover, he was pre-
cisely by his internal complete freedom from the Jaw in a position, without
moral self-offence, not only to demean himself as, but really to be, a gvddo-
owv tov véuov, where this gvAdocecy was enjoined by love, which is the fulfil-
ment of the law in the Christian sense, ‘° as here, seeing that his ohject was
—AS u) Oy avro¢ UTd véuor, but as évvouoc Xpovov—to become to the Jews ac
‘Iovdaiog, in order to win them.’ Thus this work of the law—although to
him it belonged in itself to the oru:yeia tov xdcuov °—became a form, deter-
mined by the circumstances, of exercising the love that fulfils the law,
which, however different in its forms, is umperishable and the completion
of the law.® The step, to which he yielded, stands on the same footing

11 Cor, vill. t f.; Rom. xiv. 1 ff.

3 For if James had, 1n spite of Gal. ii. 9. re-
garded Paul as a direct adversary of Mosaism.
he would. on account of what he well knew
to be Paul's decision of character, have cer-
tainly not proposed a measure which the lat-
ter could not but have immediately rejected.
It remains possible, however, that, though
not in the case of James himself, yet among
a portion of the presbyters there was still not
complete certainty, and perhaps even differ-
ent views prevailed with regard to what was
to be thoaght of that accusation. In this case,
the proposal was a test bringing the matter to

decisive certainty, which was very correctly
calculated in view of the moral etedfastness
of the apostie's character.

® They were atill weak brethren from Juda-
ism, who etill clave partially to ceremonial
observances. Calvin designatcs them as nov-
éces, with a yet tender and not fully formed
faith,

4 Rom. x. 4.

® p. 65.

8 Rom. xiii. 8, 10.

71 Cor. 1x. 10 ff.

* Gal. iv. 3; Col. ii. 8.

® Matt. v 1%.

408 CHAP. XXI., 27-29.

with the circumcision of Timothy, which he himself performed,' and is
subject essentially to the same judgment. The action of the apostle, therc-
fore, is neither, with Trip, following van Hengel,* to be classed as a weak
and rash obsequiousness, this were indeed to Paul, near the very end of his
labours, the moral impossibility of a great hypocrisy ; nor, with Thiersch,
are we to suppose that he in a domain not his own had to follow the direc-
tion of the bishop ;* nor, with Baumgarten,‘ are we to judge that he, by
here externally manifesting his continued recognition of the divine law,
‘* presents in prospect the ultimate disappearance of his exceptional stand-
point, his thirteenth apostleship,’’* which there is nothing 1n the text to
point to, and against which militates the fact that to the apostle his gospel
was the absolute truth, and therefore he could never have in view a re-es-
tablishment of lezal customs which were to him merely ona rav peArdvrur.*
Not by such imported ideas of interpreters, but by a right estimate of the
free standpoint of the apostle,” and of his love bearing all things, are we
prevented from regarding his conduct in this passage, with Baur, Zeller,
and Hausrath, as un-Pauline and the narrative as unhistorical.* — cis avraic
Gyviadeic] consecrated with them, i.e. having entered into participation of
their Nazarite state, which, namely, had already lasted in the case of these
men for some considerable time, as ver. 23 shows. They did not therefore
only now commence their Nazarite vow,* but Paul agreed to a personal par-
ticipation in their vow already existing, in order, as a joint-bearer, to bring
to a close by taking upon himself the whole expense of the offerings. Ac-
cording to Nasir. i, 3,° a Nazarite vow not taken for life lasted ut least
thirty days, but the subsequent accession of another during the currency of
that time must at least have been allowed in such a case as this, where the
person joining bore the expenses. —cioge cic r. iep.] namely, toward the
close of the Nazarite period of these men, with which expired the Nazarite
term current in pursuance of the ovy airoic dyuodeic for himself. — diay) éA-
Awv] notifying, namely, to the priests," who had to conduct the legally-ap-
pointed sacrifices,"* and then to pronounce release from the vow.'* The con-
nection yields this interpretation, not : omnibus edicens,' or ™ with the help
of friends spreading the news, which in itself would likewise accord with
linguistic usage.!§ — rjv éxrAgpworv Tov quep. T. Gyv.] 3.e. he gave notice that
the cowed number of the Nazarite days had quite expired, after which only the
concluding offering was required. This idea is expressed by éwe ov mpoc-
yvéx9n x.t.4., which immediately attaches itself to ry éarAgpworv x.1.A. : the

11 Comp. Thue. vii. 73. 4; Herodian, 11.2. 5:
Xen. Anad.1 6. 2.
32 Num. vi. 18 ff.

1 xvi. 8. (981 ff.
2In the Godegeleerd. Bijdrazen, 1859, p.
$ But eee Gal. ii. 6.

411. p. 149. 18 The compound (inlernuntiare) is purpose-
5 Rom. xi. 25 ff. ly chogen, becanse Paul with his notice acted
© Col. ii. 17. aa internuntius of the four men. So com-

monly sayyeAAey is need in Greek writers,
where it signifies fo nolify, (o make known.

7 1 Cor. 1ii. 21 ff.
® See, on the other hand, Neander, p. 483 ff.

Lekebusch, p. 275 ff.; Schneckenburger in the
Stu. u. Krié, 1853, p. 566 ff.

® Neander.

10 Comp. Joseph. Bell. ii. 15. 1.

Comp. also 2 Macc. i. $8.
1¢ Grotlus.
13 Bornemann.
46 Luke ix. 60; Rom. ix. 17.

FULFILMENT OF THE YOW. 409

Sulfdment of the Nazarite days, until the offering for each individual was pre-
sexted by them, 80 that éwe ob wpooqvé x97 x.7.A. contains an objective more pre-
cise definition of the txzAypwore added jsrom the standpoint of the author:
which fulfilment was not earlier than until there was brought, etc. Hence,
Iuke has expressed himself not by the optative or supjunctive,’ which
Lachmann, Praef. p. ix., has conjectured, but by the indicative aorist, ‘‘ the
fulfilment up to the point that the presentation of the offering took place.”’
Wieseler arbitrarily * makes ug ov dependent on cioge: ra iepdv, supplying
‘‘and remained there.’*‘—Observe, further, that in eirav Paul himself is now
sncluded, which follows from oir avroi¢g ayviodeic, as well as that évdc éxdorov
is added, because it is not one offering for all, but a separate offering for
each, which is to be thought of (T°). — Ver. 27. ai érré quépat} is commonly
taken as: the seven days, which he up to the concluding sacrifice had to spend
under the Nazarite vow which he had jointly undertaken, so that these days
would be the time which had stil) to run for the four men of the duration
of their vow. But against this may be urged, first, that the éxrAjpwore tov
qu. T. ayy., Ver. 26, must in that case be the future fulfilment, which is not
said in the text; and, secondly and decisively, that the ai érra yu., with
the article, would presuppose a mention already made of seven days.* Text-
ually we can only explain it as: the well-known seven days required for this
purpose,‘ so that it is to be assumed that, as regurds the presentation of the
offerings,* very varied in their kind, the interval of a week was usual. Incorrect,
because entirely dissociated from the context, is the view of Wiescler,* that
the seven days of the Pentecostal week, of which the last was Pentecost itself,
are meant. So also Baumgarten, and Schaff.’ See, on the other hand,
Baur,°® who, however, brings out the seven days by the entirely arhitrary
and groundless apportionment, that for each of the five persons a day was
appointed for the presentation of his offering, prior to which five days we
have to reckon one day on which James gave the counsel to Paul, and a
second on which Paul went into the temple. On such a supposition, be-
sides, we cannot see why J.uke, in reference to what was just said, vrép évic
éxaotov airav, should not have written: ai wévre guépat. — oi aro rt. ’Aciag
‘Tov’.] ‘‘Paulus, dum fidelibus—the Jewish-Christians—placundis intentus
est, in hostium—the unconverted Asiatic Jews—furorem incurrit,”’ Calvin.
How often had those, who were now at Jerusalem for the feast of Pente-
cost, persecuted Paul already in Asia! —év 7 iepw] To see the destroyer
of their ancestral religion in the temple, goaded their wrath to an outbreak.
— ovwézeov] xix. 82.

Vv. 28, 29. T. rérov rovr.] vi. 14. — ére re wai “EAAnvac «.t A.] and, besides,
he has also, further, in addition thereto, brought Greeks, Gentiles, into the
temple. As to re xai, see on xix. 27. That by ra iepév we have to under-

1 Comp. xxiii. 12. jam paene expletis,”’ etc.; aleo Ewald, p. 571.
3 Comp. already Erasmus, Poraph. ® According to Num. vi. 18 ff.
§ Comp. Judith vill. 15; comp. vii. 80. 6 p. 110, and on Gai. p. 587; comp. Beza.

$Comp. Erasmus, Paraphrase;: “ Totum 7p. 48 ff.
hoe septem diebns erat peragendum ; quibus ® In the theod. Jahrb. 1849, p. 482 ff.

410 CHAP. XXL, 30-38.

stand the court of the Jeraelites,' is self-evident, as the court of the Gentiles
was accessible to the Greeks.* —*EAAzvac] the plural of category, which
ver. 29 requires ; so spoken with hostile intent. — Ver. 29 is not to be made
a parenthesis. — goav yap mpoewpaxérec x.t.A.] there were, namely, people, who
had before, before they saw the apostle in the temple, ver. 27, seen 7ro-
phimus in the city with him. Observe the correlation in which the rpocep.*
stands with Seacduevo:z, and the év rg wéAe with év re iepp on the one hand,
and with ei¢ rd iepdy on the other. So much the more erroncous is it to change
the definite rpo, before, into an indefinite formerly, which Otto‘ dates back
even four years, namely, to the residence in Jerusalem mentioned in xviii.
22. Beyond doubt the zpo does not point back farther than to the time of
the present stay in Jerusalem, during which people had seen Trophimus
with Paul in the city, before they saw the latter in the temple. — Tpégcpov
tov 'Egéccov] see xx. 4. Among those, therefore, who accompanied the
apostle ayp: r7¢ ‘Aciac, Trophimus must not have remained behind in Asia,
but must have gone on with the apostle to Jerusalem.* — évéu:fov] The par-
ticular accusation thus rested on a hasty and mistaken inference ; it was
an erroneous suspicion expressed as a certainty, to which zealotry so easily
leads | — év évdusfov orc] comp. John viii. 54.

Ver. 80., "Ew row iepov] in order that the temple enclosure might not be
defiled with murder ; for they wished to put Paul to death, ver. 32. Ben-
gel and Baumgarten hold that they had wished to prevent him from taking

refuge at the altar. But the right of asylum legally subsisted only for
persons guilty of unintentional manslaughter.* — ixdeiod.} by the Levites.
For the reason why, see above. Entirely at variance with the context,
Lange’ holds that the closing of the temple intimated the temporary svs-
pension of worship. It referred only to Paul, who was not to be allowed
again to enter.

Vv. 81-83. But while they sought to kill him, to beat him to death, ver..
32, information came up, to the castle of Antonia, bordering on the north-
west side of the temple, to the tribune of the Roman cohort." ° — ry yiarcapxe)
asimple dative, not for mpd¢ rav x."° — ex’ abroic] upon them." — éxéA. de9ivar|
because he took Paul to be an at that time notorious insurgent, * abandoned
to the self-revenge of the people. In order, however, to have certainty on

1Qn the ecreen of which were columns,
with the warning in Greek and Latin : py decry
GAASHUAOY évTOS TOU ayiov mpoctevas, Joseph.
Bell. v. 5. 2.

* Lightfoot, ad Matth. p. 58 f.

3 The wpo is not /ocal, as in ii. 25 (my former
interpretation), but, according to the coutext.
temporal. The usus loguendi alone cannot
here decide, as it may beyond doubt be urged
for elther view; see the lexicons, So also is
it with wspoideiv, The Vulgate, Erasmus,
Luther, Castalio, Calvin, and others neglect
the spo entirely. Beza correctly renders :
antea viderant.

* Pastoralbr. p. 284 ff.

* Comp. on xxvii. 2.

¢ Therefore they would hardly suppoee that
Paul would fly to the altar. Besides, they
had him sure enough! See Ex. xxi. 18, 14;
1 Kings fi. % ff. Comp. Ewald, AXerth. p.
228 f.

7 Apostol. Zettatt. II. p. 806.

® Claudius Lysias, xxili. 26.

*On dacs, comp. Dem. 738. 16. 1893. 6:
Pollux, viii. 6. 47 f.; Susannah 55; and ece
Wetatein. [IL p. 33.

10 See Bornemann and Rosenmflller, Reper!.

11 On «cararpéexay, forun down, comp. Xen.
Anab. v. 4. %, vii. 1. 20.

13 Ver. 38.

-~ Uh WB.

- §$§o xxii. 24, xxfif. 10, 16, $2.

ARREST OF PAUL. 411

the spot, he asked, the crowd : rig av ein nat ri éore wetounx.| who he might be,
subjective possibility, and of what he was doer —that he had done something,
was certain to the inquirer.! — ci¢ rv mapeuBoAqy] in castra,® i.e. to the flacd
quarters of the Roman soldiery, the military barracks of the fortress.*

Vv. 35, 36. ‘Eri r. avaBadu.] when he came to the stairs leading up to
the fortress.‘ See examples of the form fadudc, and of the more Attic
form Bacuds, in Lobeck.* — ovvéBy Baotal. avrév] brings forward what took
place more markedly than the simple ¢Gaord{ero. Either the accusative, as
here, or the nominative may stand with the infinitive.* — aipe airév] The
same cry of extermination as in Luke xxiii. 18.7. On the plural xpdfovrec,
see Winer.*

Vv. 37, 38. Ei df€eore x.t.A.] a8 in xix. 2; Luke xiv. 8; Mark x. 2.
‘“‘Modeste alloquitur,”? Bengel. —'EAAnuori yiwooxeg] understandest thou
Greek? A question of surprise at Paul's having spoken in Greek. The
expression does not require the usually assumed supplement of Aadeiv,*® but
the adverb belongs directly to the verb y:vdoxecc. —ovx apa ov el x.7.A.]
Thou art not then, as I imagined, the Egyptian, etc. The emphasis lies on
oun, 80 that the answer would again begin with ov."' Incorrectly, Vulgate,
Erasmus, Beza, and others: nonne tu es, etc. — The Egyptian, for whom
the tribune had—probably frofn a mere natural conjecture of his own—
taken Paul, was a phantastic pseudo-prophet, who in the reign of Nero
wished to destroy the Roman government and led his followers, collected
in the wilderness, to the Mount of Olives, from which they were to see
the walls of the capital falldown, Defeated with his followers by the
procurator Felix, he had taken to flight ;"* and therefore Lysias, in conse-
quence of his remembrance of this event still fresh after the lapse of a
considerable time," lighted on the idea that the dreaded enthusiast, now
returned or drawn forth from his long concealment, had fallen into the

-hands of popular fury. — rerpaxsoy:A.] Josephus gives the followers of

the Egyptian at rp:cuvpiove ; but this is only an apparent inconsistency with
our passage, for here there is only brought forward a single, specially re-
markable appearance of the rebel, perhaps the first step which he took with
his most immediate and.most dangerous followers, and therefore the read-
ing in Josephus is not to be changed in accordance with our passage, in
Opposition to Kuinoel and Olshausen.'* — How greatly under the worthless

1Comp. Winer, p. 261 (E. T. 373) : Kiihner, 11 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 186. Comp.
ad Xen. Anab. 1. 8. 14. Banmlein, Partik. p 261.

*See Sturz, Dial. Al. p. 80; Lobeck, ad 12 Joseph. Bell, 11. 18. 5, Ant?. xx. 8. 6.
Phryn. p. 877. 13 For different combinations with a view to
the more exact determination of the time of
this event, which, however, remains doubtful,
® Ad Phryn. p. 3%. see Wieseler, p. 76 ff., Stdlting, Beitr. s.
* See Stallb. ad Piat. Phaed. p. 67 C. Ewegese d. Paul. Br. p. 190 ff.

7 Comp. Acts xxii. 22. 14 Belj. lc.

® p. 490 (E. T. 660). Comp. v. 16. 18 Bot there remains in contradiction both
® Neh. xiii. 94. : with our passage and with the rpicpvpions of
1° Comp. Xen. Anad. vil. 6.8, Qyrop. vil.5. Josephus himself, his statement, Ant. xx. 8.

* Joseph. Bell. Jud. v. 5. 8.

81: roves Zupor émioranevovs, comp. Gracce
nescire in Cic. p. Flacco, 4.

6, that 400 were alain and 200 taken prisoners ;
for in Bell. 11. 18. 5, he informs us that the

412 CHAP. XXI., 39, 40.

Felix the evil of banditti' prevailed in Jerusalem and Judaea generally, see
in Joseph. Anti. xx. 6 f.

Vv. 39, 40. Lam indeed (uév)—not the Egyptian, but—a Jew from Tarsus,
and so apprehended by thee through being confounded with another, yet £
pray thee, etc. — av3puroc] In his speech to the people Paul used the more
honourable word avyp.* — oix aozjpov] See examples of this litotes in the
designation of important cities, in Wetstein ad loc.* A conscious feeling
of patriotism is implied in the expression. — xarvéo. r. x.] See on xii. 17. —
sorAge dé aryz¢ yevou.| ‘*Conticuere omnes intentique ora tenebant."’ *— rg
‘EBp. d:ad.] thus not likewise in Greek, as in ver. 87, but in the Syro-
Chaldaic dialect of the country, in order, namely, to find a more favourable
hearing with the people. — We may add, that the permission to speak granted
by the tribune is too readily explainable from the unexpected disillusion
which he had just experienced, ver. 39, to admit of its being urged as a
reason against the historical character of the speech,® just as the silence
which set in is explainable encugh as the effect of surprise in the case of
the mobile oulgus. And if the following speech, as regards is contents, does
not enter upon the position of the speaker towards the law, it was, in
presence of the prejudice and pussion of the multitude, a very tise pro-
cedure simply to set forth facts, by which the whole working of the apostle
is apologetically exhibited.

Norges py American Eprror.

(Pp?) Rhodes and Patara. V. 1.

The island of Rhodes was famous for its natural beauty and great fertility.
So genial was its climate, that it was proverbially said the sun shone every
day in Rhodes. Its chief city, of the same name, which signifies rosy, was
celebrated for its excellent schools and extensive commerce. Cicero and other
young noble Romans made it their university. There stood the colossal brazen
statue of Apollo, one hundred and twenty-seven feet in height, which was rc-
garded as one of the wonders of the world. It long remained a place of im-
portance, and, in the middle ages, was famous as the residence of the Knights
of St. John, by whom it was rescued from the Saracens in 1310, and held by
them until it was conquered in 1523 by Solyman the Magnificent. It now be-
longs to the Turks, who have long oppressed the people,-and its prosperity
has ceased. Its gardens still, however, are filled with delicious fruits, and there
are the ruins of an old fortress and the cells of the knights to be seen.

greater part were e'ther cantured or slain. 1 rey oixcapev, the dagqermen. see Sulcer.
Bat this contradiction 1s simply chargeable to Ther. 11. p. 957: the article denotes the class
Josephus himself, as the incompatibility of | of men.

his statements discloses a historical error, 2 Schaefer. ad Long. p 408. See xxil. 3.
concerning which our passage shows de- > Comp. Jacobs, ad Achill. Tat. p. 718.
cisively that it was committed either in the * Virgil. Aen. ii. 1.

aseertion that the greater part were captured #1. 19.

or slain, or in the statement of the numbers * Baor. Zeller.

in Andtt. (.c,

NOTES. 413

At Patara, a seaport of Lycia, near the mouth of the river Xanthus, was a
famous oracle of Apollo, which was held as scarcely inferior to that at Delphi,
hence Horace describes the god as the ‘‘ Delius et Patarens Apollo.’’ Here
the apostle Janded, and embarked in another vessel. The place is now in ruins,
its harbor filled with sand-banks, its temple demolished, and its oracles dumb.

“The oracles are dumb ;
No voice nor hideous hum
Rans through the archéd roof in words deceiving :
Apollo from his shrine
Can no more divine,
With hollow shriek the steep of Delphos leaving;
No nightly trance or breathéd spell
Inspires the pale-eyed priests from the prophetic cell.’
(MMilton.)

(q°) Disciples at Tyre. V. 4.

A small church had been gathered here, probably through the labors of some
of the dispersion, possibly by the preaching of Philip. While waiting for the
departure of the vessel, the apostle spent a week with these disciples, and we
can well imagine what a precious season they enjoyed, and we wonder not that
they all—men, women, and children—came to the shore with him, nor that,
having intimation of the trials and sufferings which awaited the apostle at Je-
rusalem, they sought to dissuade him from going. We must ever distinguish
between the divine intimations and human inferences. These disciples at Tyre
had received some foreshadowings of coming affliction to Paul, yet had not
received so full a revelation of the divine mind, as was given to Paul, hence
their counsel was opposed to his decision. The period of seven days ‘‘ men-
tioned at Troas, and again at Puteoli, seems to indicate that Paul arranged to
be at Troas, Puteoli, and Tyre over the Sabbath, and to partake with them of
the Lord's Supper.”’

(n°) Philip's four daughters. V. 9.

The remarks of Meyer on this verse are just. Gloag observes : ‘‘ This remark
does not seem to be merely incidentally introduced ; but is probably an indi-
cation that the daughters of Philip, influenced by the spirit of prophecy, fore-
told the sufferings which awaited the apostle at Jerusalem.” Howson says:
“ There seems to have been an organization at Ephesus of ‘ widows’ of an ad-
vanced age, who spent their days in charitable work in connection with the
church. But we find no trace of any order of virgins in the early church."’
ITackett writes : ‘‘ Luke mentions the fact as remarkable, and not as inany way
related to the history. It is hardly possible that they too foretold the apostle's
approaching captivity.’ Alford says : ‘‘ To find an argument for the so-called
‘honor of virginity’ in this verse only shows to what resources tuoce will
stoop who have failed to apprehend the whole spirit and rule of the gospel in
the matter.” Alexander remarks : They ‘‘ were inspired, literally, prophesying,
" not as public teachers, but in private, perhaps actually prophesying in the
strict sense, at the time of Paul's arrival, i.e. predicting what was to befall him,
like the Tyrian disciples." ‘‘ Their virginity is probably referred to only asa

414 CHAP. XXI.—NOTES,

reason for their being still at home, and not as having any necessary connec
tion with their inspiration.’’ We concur fully in the remarks of Dr. Viylor -
** At this time his four unmarried daughters, who were possessed of the gift of
prophecy, were living under his roof; and though it is not said in so many
words that they foretold what was to happen to the apostle, yet it seems likely
that they also renewed the warnings which he had already so frequently re-
ceived,’’ and he justly adds in a note, there seems no foundation whatever for
the notion of Plumptre that they were under a vow. Furrar says: “* The
house of Philip was hallowed by the gentle ministries of four daughters, who,
looking for the coming of Christ, had devoted to the service of the gospel their
virgin lives.’’

(8*) Tarried many days. V. 10.

The phrase is literally more days, rendered by the words some, several, im-
plying that he spent a longer time there than in other places on the way, or
than he had intended to spend at least a number of days— probably two weeks.
He left Philippi with the design of reaching Jerusalem before Pentecost. He
was at Philippi during the Passover. And from the Passover to Pentecost
there are fifty days. We may reckon the time thus: From Philippi to Troas
5 days, at Troas 7. To Assos and Mitylene 1, to Chios, Samos, and Miletus 3 ;
at Miletus and to Cos about 3; Rhodes and Patara 2; to Tyre 2; at Tyre7 :
Ptolemais 2 ; to Cesaraea 1. Making 33 days in all, leaving 17 to spend at Cesa-
raea ; and to go to Jerusalem, which would not require more than 2 days.

(1) Paul purifying himself. V. 26.

The views of Meyer on this act of the apostle are fully expressed, and com-
mend themselves to general acceptance—that the apostle acted in full view of
the absolute truth of the gospel, and in the exercise of Christian freedom and
condescending charity. Alford says: ‘‘ James and the elders made this pro-
posal, assuming that Paul could comply with it salva conscientia ; perhaps also
as a proof to assure themselves and others of his sentiments ; and Paul ac-
cepted it salva conscientia. But this he could only have done on one con-
dition, that he was sure by it not to contribute in these four Nazarites to the
error of justification by works of thelaw.’’ Paul, in compassion to the weak
faith of his Jewish brethren, associated himself with four members of the
church who had a vow, and this he did, without implying that it was neces-
sary for any, and certainly not for the Gentile Christians, to do the same thing.
Neander writes : ‘‘ Let us recollect that the failh in Jesus as the promised Mes-
siah was the fundamental doctrine, on which the whole structure of the church
arose. Accordingly the first Christian community was formed of very hetero-
geneous materials, It was composed of such as differed from other Jews only
by the acknowledging of Jesus as the Messiah ; of such as stil] continned bound
to the same contracted Jewish notions, which they had entertained before ;
and of such as by coming to know Jesus more and more as the Messiah in the |
higher spiritual sense, were becoming more completely freed from their beset-
ting errors. As Christ himself had faithfully observed the Mosaic law, so the
faithful observance of it was adhered to at first by all believers.’ FMurrar re-

NOTES, 415

marks: ‘‘ Still there were two great principles which he had thoroughly
grasped, and on which he had consistently acted. One was acquiescence in
things indifferent for the sake of charity, so that he gladly became as a Jew to
Jews that he might save Jews ; the other that, during the short time which
remained, and under the stress of the present necessity, it was each man’s duty
to abide in the condition wherein he had been called. His objection to Le-
vitism was not an objection to external conformity, but only to that substitution
of externalism for faith, to which conformity might lead. He did not so much
object to ceremonies as to placing any reliance on them. He might have wished
that things were otherwise, and that the course suggested to him involved a
less painful sacrifice.’ Gloag observes : “ According to Paul’s views the cere-
monies of the law were matters of indifference ; he himself appears to have
observed them, though with no great strictness ; hence he felt himself at
liberty to accommodate himself to the conduct of others in these indifferent
things. And it was this very liberality of spirit, this freedom of action, that
enabled him to comply with the request of James and the elders. Christian
love, which was the grand moving principle of his conduct, caused him to
accommodate himself to the views of the Jews, when he could do so without
any sacrifice of principle, in order to remove their prejudices."’

Schaff says : ‘‘ And as to Paul, he was here not in his proper Genti)e-Chris-
tian field of Jabor. His conduct, on other occasions, proves that he was far
from allowing himself from being restricted in this field. He reserved to him-
self entire independence in his operations. But he stood now on the venera-
ble ground of the Jewish-Christian mother church, where he had to respect the
customs of the Fathers, and the authority of James, the regular bishop or pre-
siding elder. Clearly conscious of already possessing righteousness and talva-
tion in Christ, he accommodated himself, with the best and noblest intentions,
to the weaker brethren.”’

416 CRITICAL REMARKS.

CHAPTER XXII.

Vex, 1. vuvi] is decided by its attestation. Elz. has viv.— Ver. 2. mpoorguver)
Tisch. Born. read rpoogwvei, following DE min. Theoph. Oec. Rightly ; the
Recepta is a mistaken alteration in accordance with xxi. 40, from which
mpooegurnoev is inserted in G, min. — Ver 3. ,év] is wanting in important wit-
nesses ; deleted by Lachm. Born. But its non logical position occasioned the
omission. — Ver. 9. «at éugdoBor éyévovro] is wanting in A B H &, min. and sev-
eral vss, Deleted by Lachm. But the omission is explained by the homoeo-
feleuton. Had there been interpolation, évren from ix, 7 would have been used.
— Ver. 12. evoeB75] is wanting in A, Vulg. Condemned by Mill. On the other
hand, B G HX, and many min. Chrys. Theophyl. have evAav,s, which Lachm.
and Tisch. read. The omission of the word is to be considered as a mere
transcriber’s error ; and «'Aaj7s is to be preferred, on account of the prepon-
derance of evidence. — Ver. 16. avro] Elz. has roi Kvpiov. against decisive
attestation. An interpretation, for which other witnesses have 'I7cov. — Ver.
20. Zregadvov] is wanting only in A, 68, and would fall, were it not so decidedly
attested, to be considered an addition. But with this attestation the omission
is to be explained by an error in copying (ZregavOY rOY). — After cuvevdocav
Elz. has rg avacpéce: avrov. which, however, is wanting in A BD E X&, 40, and
some vss., and has come in from vili. 1 (in opposition to Reiche, nov. descript.
Codd. N. T. p. 28). — Ver. 22. xa@jxev] Elz. has x«a$jxov, supported by Rinck,
in opposition to decisive testimony. — Ver. 23. afpa] D, Syr. Cassiod. have
otpavév. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Born. But the evidence is
too weak, and op, bears the character of a more precise definition of arpa. —
Ver. 24. eiotyeo8a:] Elz. has dyeo@a:, against greatly preponderating evidence.
F1Z was absorbed by the preceding O%. eiras is to be read instead of zor,
according to decisive testimony, with Tisch. and Lachm. — Ver. 25. mpoéreivar]
has, among the many variations,—porrecvev (Elz.), mpoereivavro, mpooérevay,
mpooétetvey, Tpoofre:vey,—the strongest attestation. The change of the plural
into the singular is explained from the fact that the previous context contains
nothing of a number of persons executing the sentence, and therefore 6 yrA/-
apzos was still regarded as the subject. Ver. 26. Before <i Elz. has dpa,
against ABC E ®&, min. Vulg. and other vss. So also Born., following D G H,
min. ves. Chrys. Certainly ‘‘ vox innocentissima ’’ (Born.), but an addition hy
way of gloss according to these preponderating witnesses. — Ver. 30. rapa]
Lachm. and Born. read ind, according to ABC E &, min. Theophyl. Oec. The
weight of evidence decides for ixé. — After Avcev atr. Elz. has ard r. decudvy.
An explanatory addition, against greatly preponderating testimony. — Instead
of ovve2Geiv Elz. has é26civ, against equally preponderant evidence. How easily
might ZYN be suppressed in consequence of the preceding ZEN !— mdr ra
ovvédpov] Elz. has dAov rd ovvédp. aitéy, against decisive evidence, although
defended by Reiche, /.c. p. 28.

PAUL’S SPEECH TO THE MOB, 417

Vv. 1-3. 'AdecAgoi «. rarépec] quite a national address.' Even Sanhe-
drists were not wanting in the hostile crowd ; at least the speaker presup-
poses their presence. — axotoare x.7.A.] hear from me my present defence to
you (w*). Astothe double genitive with axovey, comp. on John xii. 46.
_— After ver, 1, a pause. — éyo uév] Luke has not at the very outset settled
the logical arrangement of the sentence, and therefore mistakes the correct
position of the uév, which was appropriate only after yeyevy. Similar ex-
amples of the deranged position of pzév and dé often occur in the classics.*
— avareSpaupévog . . . véuov] Whether the comma is to be placed after
raity® or after TauadA,* is—seeing that the meaning and the progression
of the speech are the same with either construction—to be decided simply
by the external structure of the discourse, according to which a new ele-
ment is always introduced by the prefixing of a nominative participle :
yeyevunuévoc, avatedpauputvor, weradevpévoc: born at Tarsus in Cilicia, but
brought up in this city, Jerusalem, at the feet of Gamaliel,*inetructed
according to the strictness of the ancestral law. The latter after the general
avareSpaup. x.t.A. brings into relief a special point, and therefore it is not
to be affirmed that rapa r. 6d. Tau. suits only rerad.* — rapa rove médag] a
respectful expression, <7v roAAHv mpd¢ Tov dvdpa aldd decxvbc,* to be explained
from the Jewish custom of scholars sitting partly on the floor, partly on
benches at the feet of their teacher, who sat more elevated on a chair.®
The tradition that, until the death of Gamaliel, the scholars listened in a
standing posture to their teachers,° even if it were the case,’ cannot be
urged against this view, as even the standing scholar may be conceived as
being at the feet of his teacher sitting on the elevated cathedra."'— xara axpiB.
tov marpyov vépov] i.e. in accordance with the strictness contained in, living and
ruling in, the ancestral law. The genitive depends on axpi8. Erasmus,
Castalio, and others connect it with werad., held to be used substan-
tively: carefully instructed in the ancestral law. Much too tame, as care-
ful legal instruction is after avaredp. . . . mapa tr. wéd. Tayvad. understood
of itself, and therefore the progress of the speech requires special climactic
force. — The rarpyo¢g véuoc is the law received from the fathers,"* i.e. the
Mosaic law, but not including the precepts of the Pharisees, as Kuinoel
supposes—which is arbitrarily imported. It concerned Paul here only to
bring into prominence the Mosatcally orthodox strictness of his training ;

1 Comp. on vil. 2

28ee Banmiein, Partik. p. 168; Winer, p.
520 (E. T. 700.)

3 Alberti, Wolf, Griesbach, Heinrichs, Kul-
noel, Lachmann, Tischendorf, de Wette.

10 But see on Luke il. 46.

1 Matt. xxiil. 2; Vitringa, lc. p. 165£

13 Hermann, ad Viger. p. 777.

13 Tlarpga mév ta dx warépww cis viovs xw-
pouvra, Ammonius, p. 111. Concerning the

4 Calvin, Beza, Castallo, and most of the
older commentators, Bornemann.

5 See on v. #4.
**De Wette.

7 Chrysostom.

8 Schoettg. in loc.; Bornemann, Schol. in
Lue. p. 179.

* Vitringa, Synag. p. 166 f.; Wagenecil, ad
Sola, p. 988.

difference of warpwos, rarpios, and warpixds,
not always preserved, however, and often
obscured by interchange in the codd., see
Schoemann, ad Je. p. 218; Maetzn. ad Lycurg.
p. 127; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. Il. p. 581 f. On
warpwos vduos, comp. 2 Macc. vi. 1; Joseph.
Antt. xii. 8.3; Xen. Hell. ii.8. 2; Thuc. vii.
76.6; warp yopor. Comp. xxiv. 14, xxviii.
1%.

418 CHAP, XXII., 4-21.

the other specifically Pharisaic element was suggested to the hearer by the
mention of Gamaliel, but not by r. rarp. vénov. Paul expresses himecif
otherwise in Phil. iii. 5 and Gal. i. 14: — CyAwrye drdpy. rot Oevd] 30 that I
was a vealot for God, for the cause and glory of God, contains a special
characteristic definition to weraderuévog . . . véuov.' ‘* Uterque locus
quiddam ex mimesi habet ; nam Judaei putabant se tantum tribuere Deo,
quantum detraherent Jesu Christo,’’ Bengel.

Vv. 4, 5. Tatr. r. dd6y] for Christianity was in his case the evident cause
of the enmity.* — ay: Gavdrov] Grotius appropriately remarks: ‘‘ quantum
scil. in me erat.’’ It indicates how far the intention in the idiwga went,
namely, even to the bringing about of their execution. — 6 dpyep.] The
high priest at the time, still living.’ — zaprepei] not futurum Aiticum, but :
he is, as the course of the matter necessarily involves, my witness. — xai av
ro xpeoBut.| and the whole body of the eldere.* — mpdc rovg adeAguic] 4.¢. to the
Jews. Bornemann : against the Christians. Paul would 1n that case have
entirely forgotten his pre-Christian standpoint, in the sense of which he
' epeaks ; and the Hostile reference of roé¢ must have been suggested by the
context, which, however, with the simple ézor. defdu. rpdc is not at all here
the case. — xal roe éxcioe, t.¢. cig Aauacndv, dvrac] also those who were thither.
Paul.conceives them as having come thither, since the persecution about
Stephen, and so being found there; hence éxcice does not stand for éxei, 80
still de Wette, but is to be explained from a pregnant construction com-
mon especially with later writers. °

Vv. 6-11. See on ix. 8-8. Comp. xxvi. 13 ff. ixavdv] é.¢. of consider-
able strength. It was a light of glory’ dazzling him; more precisely
described in xxvi. 12. — Ver. 10. dv réraxrai co: wotjaa:| what is appointed
to thee to do; by whon, is left entirely undetermined. Jesus, who appeared
to him, does not yet express Himself more precisely, but means: by God,
ver. 14, — Ver. 11. d¢ d2 obx évéBderov] but when I beheld not, when sight
failed me; he could not open his eyes, ver. 13." |

Vv. 12-15. But Ananias, a religious man according to the lav, attested * by
all the Jews resident in Damascus, thus a mediator, neither hostile to the
law nor unknown ! — dvdBdepov . . . avéBaewa cic adrév] avaBAérerv, which
may signify as well to look up, as also visum recuperare,” has here "' the for-
mer meaning, which is evident from cic avréy: look up! and at the same
hour I looked up to him. We are to conceive the apostle as sitting there
blind with closed eyelids, and Ananias standing before him. — zpoeyerp. |
has appointed thee thereto.'* — rdv dixasov] Jesus, on whom, as the righteous,"

2 Comp. Rom. x. 2. ®Comp. on the absolute ¢uprAdcrev, Ken.

® Comp. on odés, ix. 2, xviii. 25, xix. 0, 28. Mem. iii. 11. 10 ; 2 Chron. xx. 24.

3 See on ix. 2. ® Praised, comp. x. 22, vi. 8.

* Comp. on Luke xxii. 66, and the yepovcia, 1° See on John ix. 11, and Fritzsche, gd
v.21. ; Mare. p. 38.

§ See ix. 2. 31 It ia otherwise in ix. 17, 18.

®Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 44; comp. ii. 39, 32 See on fii. 20; comp. xxvi. 16.
xxi. 3. 132 Cor, v. 21.

¥ Ver. 11.

PAUL'S SPEECH. 419

the divine will to save, rd 6éAnza avrov, was based.'—mpi¢ mévr. avip.]
Direction of the éog vdpr., a8 in xiii. 81: to all men.*

Ver. 16. Ti péAdecc;] Why tarriest thou? uéAAew so used only here in the
N. T.; frequent in the classics, The question is not one of reproach, but
of excitement and encouragement. — éréAovoat ré¢ dyapr. cov] let thyself be
baptized, and thereby wash away thy sins. Here, too, baptism is that by
means of which the forgiveness of the sins committed in the pre-Christian
life takes place.* Calvin inserts saving clauses, in order not to allow the
grace to be bound to the sacrament. As to the purposely-chosen middle
forms, comp. on 1 Cor. x. 2. — émixad. 1d dvopa avrov] Wolf appropriately
explains: ‘‘ postquam invocaveris atque ita professus fueris nomen Domini,
as the Messiah. Id ecilicet antecedere olim debebat initiationem per bap-
tismum faciendam.”’

Vv. 17, 18. With this the history in ix. 26 is to be completed. — xa? rpo-
cevyouévov pov) & transition to the genitive absolute, independent of the case
of the substantive.‘ — éxordoe] see on x. 10. The opposite: yiveofa: ev
éavrg, xii. 11. Regarding the non-identity of this ecstasy with 2 Cor. xiii.
2 ff., see in loc. — ob mapadéé. 0. r. papr. Tepi éuov] wept éuov is most naturally
to be attached to +. waprop., as paprupeiy wepi is quite usual, very often in
John. Winer® connects it with xapad. Observe the order: thy witness
of me.

Vv. 18-21. ‘‘T interposed by way of objection * the contrast, in which
my working for Christianity, my yaprupia, would appear toward my former
hostile working,’ which contrast could not but prove the truth and power
of my conversion and promote the acceptance of my testimony, and °—
Christ repeated His injunction to depart, which He farther specially con-
firmed by 67: éyo sig éOvy paxpay éfanoor. oe.”’ “ Commemorat hoc Judaeis
Paulus, ut eis declararet summum amorem, quo apud eos cupivit manere
jisque praedicare ; quod ergo iis relictis ad gentes iverit, non ex suo voto,
sed Dei jussu compulsum fuisse,’’ Calovius. — avroi éxicr.] is necessarily to
be referred to the subject of rapadéfovra:, ver. 18, to the Jews in Jerusalem,
not to the foreign Jews.’ — éyo juny «.t.A.] LT wae there, etc. —xai avréc| e
ipec, a8 well as other hostile persons. On ovvevdox., comp. viii. 1. — Ver.

1 Comp. ifi. 14, vil. 5%

® That is, according to the popular expres-
sion : Defore all the world. Frequently so fa
Isocrates. See Bremi, ad Panegyr. 28, p. 2%.
Bat the universal destination of the apostle is
implied therein. Comp. ver. 21.

2 Comp. the Homeric awoAupaiverdar, I. 1.
118 f., and Nagelsbach in loc. Comp. li. 38;
Eph. v. 26; and sce on 1 Cor. vi. 11.

4See Bernhardy, p. 474; Ktihner, § 681;
Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. $18 A.

§ p. 180 (EB. T. 172).

* Ewald, p. 488, understands ver. 19 f. not
as an objection, but as assenting : ** however
humanly intelligible it might strictly be, that
the Jews would not hear him.” But the ex-
traordinary revelation in iteelf most naturally

presupposes in Paul a human conception de-
viating from the intimation contained in it,
to which the heavenly call runs counter, as
often aleo with the prophets (Moses, Jerc-
mish, etc.), the divine intimation encountors
human ecruples. If, moreover, the words
here were meant as assenting, we should nec-
esuarily expect a hint of it in the expression
(euch as; vai, cdpre).

7 In which I was engaged in bringing be-
lievers to prison (¢vAaxi¢., Wisd. xvili. 4), and
in scourging them (Matt. x. 17), now in this
synagogue, and now in that (xara rés ouvey.).
Comp. xxvi. 11.

® Ver. 21.

® Heinrichs,

420 CHAP. XXII., 22-29.

21. éyé] with strong emphasis. Paul has to confide in and obey this 7. —
éfarooreA@] This promised future sending forth ensued at xiii. 2, and how
effectively |! see Rom. xv. 19. —ei¢ 27] among Gentiles.

Vv. 22. “Aype robrov rov Adyov] namely, ver. 21, cime mpdc ue’ wopevov, bre et¢
&0vn uaxp. t£aroor. ce. This expression inflamed the jealousy of the children
of Abraham in their pride and contempt of the Gentiles, all the more that
it appeared only to confirm the accusation in xxi. 28. It cannot therefore
surprise us that the continuation of the speech was here rendered impos-
sible, just as the speech of Stephen and that of Paul at the Areopagus was
broken off on analogous occasions of offence, which Baur makes use of
against its historical character. — ov yap xafjxev x.t.A.] for it was not fit that
he should remain in life; he ought not to have been protected in his life,
when we designed to put him to death.!

Ver. 23. They cast off their clothes, and hurled dust in the air, as a symbol
of throwing stones,—both as the signal of a rage ready and eager person-
ally to execute the alpe ad ri¢ ypc tov rowovrov! The objection of de Wette,
that in fact Paul was in the power of the tribune, counts for nothing, as
the gesture of the people was only a demonstration of their own vebement
desire, Chrysostom took it, unsuitably as regards the sense and the words,
of shaking out their garments—ra ivatia éextivaooovres xovoptov EBadov’ Gore
xaderwripay yeviobar tTHv ordoty Tov7o Tolovelv, 7 Kat goBjoar BovAduevoe Tov
Gpyovra. Wetstein, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Hackett, and others explain it of
waving their garments, by which means those at a distance signified their
assent to the murderous exclamations of those standing near; and the
throwing of the dust at all was only signum tumultus. But the text con-
tains nothing of a distinction between those standing near and those at a
distance, and lence this view arbitrarily mutilates and weakens the unity
and life of the scene. The irr. +. iudz. is not to be explained from the
waving of garments in Lucian ;* but—in connection with the cry of exter-
mination that had just gone before—from the laying aside of their garments
with a view to the stoning,® to which, as was well known, the Jews were
much inclined.‘

Ver. 24. It is unnecessarily assumed by Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and de Wette
that the tribune did not understand the Hebrew address. But the tumult,
ouly renewed and increased by it, appeared to him to presuppose some
secret crime. He therefore orders the prisoner to be brought into the bar-
racks, with the command eirac,® to examine him by the application of
scourging,® in order to know on account of what offence’ they so shouted to
him—to Paul.* — avrg] for the crying and shouting were a hostile reply to
_ him, 22, 23." Bengel well remarks: ‘‘ acclamare dicuntur auditores verba

1 xxi. 31. Comp. Winer, p. 265 (E. T.) 352. i. 5. 8. (273).

2 De ealtat. 83 (but see the emendation of *See Buttmann, neuvt. Gr. p. 236 f. (E. T.
the passage in Baet, ad Aristaenet. epp. p. 580, ® averageodar, Susannah 14, Judg. vi. 29, not
ed. Boisson.); Ovid, Amor. {ii 2. 74 (when it = preserved in Greek writers, who have cfera-
iy a token of approbation, see Wetstein). Ceodas,

3 Ver. 20, vii. 58. 7 xiii. 28, xxiii. 2%, xxv. 18, xxvili. 18.

4v, 26, xiv. 19; John x. 31. On pirray ca ® Comp. xxiii. 18.
iuar., comp. Plat. Rep. p. 473 E: Xen. Anad. » On emg. rem, comp. Plut. Pomp. 4.

PLEA OF ROMAN CITIZENSHIP. 421

facienti.’’ '— Moreover, it was contrary to the Roman criminal] law for the
tribune to begin the investigation with a view to bring out a confession by
way of torture,* not to mention that here it was not a slave who was to be
questioned.* As in the case of Jesus,‘ it was perhaps here also the content-
ment of the people that was intended. Comp. Chrysostom : azide rg éfoveia
xpara (the tribune), xai éxeivore rpd¢e ydpiv woiei . . . drug ravcee Tov exeivwr
Suudv adixov dvra.

Vv. 25-27. 'Q¢ d2 rpotrevav avrdy roi¢ inac.] But when they had stretched
him before the thongs. Those who were to be scourged were bound and
stretched on a stake. Thus they formed the object stretched out before the
thongs, the scourge consisting of thongs. Comp. Beza: ‘‘quum autem
eum distendissent loris, caedendum.”’* The subject of mpoér. is those charged
with the execution of the punishment, the Roman soldiers. Following
Henry Stephanus, most expositors, among them Grotius, Homberg, Loesner,
Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshausen, take mporeivecy as equivalent to mpofdAdev
(Zonaras : xporeivovow’ avti tov wpuriWéact nai mpoBdAdAovra:): cum lorie eum
abtulissent 8. tradidissent. But mporeivery never means simply tradere, but
always to stretch before, to hold before, sometimes in the literal, sometimes in
a figurative’ sense. But here the context, treating of a scourging, quite
demands the entirely literal rendering. Others take roi¢ ixaocw instrumen-
tally,® of the thongs with which the delinquent was either merely bound,°
or, along with that, was placed in a suspended position.’° But in both
cases not only would roi¢ iuaow be a very unnecessary statement, but also
the rpo in mpoér. would be without reference ; and scourging in a sus-
pended position was not a usual, but an extraordinary and aggravated, mode
of treatment, which would therefore necessarily have been here definitely
noted. — ri dvO0. ‘Puu. x. axardxp. x.7.A.] See on xvi. 87. The problematic
form of interrogation: whether, etc.,* has here a dash of irony, from the
sense of right so roughly wounded. The «ai is: in addition therelo. Ato
Ta éyxAjuara’ nai 7d dvev Adyou xai Td ‘Pwuaiov dvra, Chrysostom. On the uon-
use of the right of citizenship at Philippi, see on xvi. 23. — Ver. 27. Thou
arta Roman? A question of surprise, with the emphatic contemptuous
ov (v*).

Vv. 28, 29. ‘Eya roAAob xeoad. x.7.4.] The tribune, to whom it was known
that a native of Tarsus had not, as euch, the right of citizenship, thinks
that Paul must probably have come to it by purchase, and yet for this the
arrested Cilician appears to him too poor. With the sale of citizenship, it
was sought at that time '*—by an often ridiculed abuee—to fill the imperial

hand, of friendship, of a hope, of an enjoy-
ment, and the like, aleo of pretexts. See
Bornemann, Schol. in Lue. p. 181 f., Valek-
enaer, ad Callim. fragm. p. 2A. [torés.*’
®Comp. Vulg.: “cum adstrinrissent eam
® Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, de Dieu, Ham-

1Com. xii. 2: Lake xxiti. $1; 3 Mace.
2L.1,D. @. 18. {vii. 13.
3.8, édid.

4 John xix. 1.

6 Comp. dbuduli cottadi, Plant. Trin. iv.8 4.
*On inde of the leathern whip, comp. al-

ready Hom. /J. xxiii. 863; Anthol. vi. 14;
Artemidor. if. 53.

7 For example, of the holding forth or offer-
ing of conditions, of a gain, of money, of the

mond, Bengel, Michaelis, also Luther.
1° Scaliger, Ap. ii. 146, p. 962.
1! Comp. on}. 6.
82 Dio Cass. Ix. 17.

422 CHAP. XXIL, 30.

chest.'— eya d2 xal yeyévynua:] But I am even 90 (xai) born, namely, as
‘Pwxaioc, 80 that my wodireia, as hereditary, is even yevvadrepa! a bold
answer, which did not fail to make its impression. —xai 6 yA. d2 zoof.]
and the tribune also was afraid. On xai.. . dé, atque etiam, see on John
vi. 51. ‘* Facinus est, vinciri civem Romanum ; scelus, verberari ; prope
parricidium necari,”’* And the binding had taken place with arbitrary
violence before any examination." It is otherwise xxiv. 27, xxvi. 29. See
on these two passages. Therefore dedexdc, which evidently points to xxi.
38, is not to be referred, with Béttger‘ to the binding with a view to scourg-
éng, on account of ver. 30; nor, with de Wette, is the statement of the
fear of the tribune to be traced back to an error of the reporter, or at all
to be removed by conjectural emendation.® And that Paul was still bound
after the hearing,* was precisely after the hearing and after the occurrences
in it in due order.” —xat 5r:] dependent on i¢of.: and because he was in the
position of having bound him.

Ver. 830. Td ri xaryy. wapd r. ‘Iovd.}] is an epexegetical definition of rd
aogartc. The article, as in iv. 21. The ri is nominative.* — iAvoey avrév]}
Lysias did not immediately, when he learned the citizenship of Paul, order
him to be loosed, but only on the following day, when he placed him
before the chief priests and in general the whole Sanhedrim.® This was
quite the proceeding of a haughty consistency, according to which the Roman,
notwithstanding the £¢08797, could not prevail upon himself to expose his
mistake by an immediate release of the Jew. Enough, that he ordered
them to refrain from the scourgiung not yet begun; the binding had at
once taken place, and so he left him bound until the next day, when the
publicity of the further proceedings no longer permitted it. Kuinoel’s
. view, that 2Avoev refers to the releasing from the custodia militaries, in which
the tribune had commanded the apostle to be placed, bound with a chain
to a soldier, after the assurance that he was a Roman citizen, is an arbitrary
idea forced on the text, as ZAvoey necessarily points back to dedexéc, ver. 29,
and this to xxi. 88. — xarayayéyv] from the castle of Antonia down to the
council-room of the Sanhedrim.'® Comp. xxiii. 10.

Norges spy AMERICAN Eprron.
(u*) Paw’s defence. YV.1.

In this speech to the multitude, the apostle gives a skilfully arranged ac-
count of his past experience and conduct with the view of allaying the fanati-

'Comp. Wetstein and Jacobs, ad Dei.
BPpigr. p. 1T7.—Sce examples of ceddAacoyr,
capital, sum of money,—as to the use of which
in ancient Greek (Plat. Legg. v. p. 748 C) Beza

® Rinek : Seddépuuc.

7 See Boi tcer, U.c.; Wiereler, p. 377.
®Comp. Thue. i. 95. 2: aédiaca wodA® cary

was mistaken—in Kypke II. p. 116.

* Cic. Verr. v.66. Comp. on xvi. 37.

8 During émprisonment preparatory to trial
binding was legally admissible, so far as it
was connected with the custodia milifaris.

4 Beitr. II. p. 6.

yopecro avrov vro twy "EAAyjver, Soph. 0. 2.
520.

* rove apxeepeis Kai way Td ovwddp., COMP.
Mats. xxvi. 59; Mark xiv. 55,

1° See also Wiceeler, Belir. 2. Wirdig. d.
Hv. p. 211.

NOTES. 423

cal excitement of many of the Jews, and of replying to their unfounded accu-
sations against him. He avows himself to be a Jew, both by birth and train-
ing ; refers to his former fierce persecutions of the Christians ; gives an ac-
count of his wonderful and memorable conversion ; explains how he was bap-
tized and admitted into the fellowship of the disciples by a pious Jew, and re-
fers to his labors among the Gentiles. Throughout the address, he depreciates
himself, exalts Christ, and makes conversion to him an epoch in a man’s life.
It is interesting to note how the addresses delivered by Paul on this occasion,
and when brought before Agrippa, differ from each other, and from the narra-
tive given by Luke, and yet how they harmonize in all material points. The
discrepancies in the several statements present no serious difficulties to any,
except those who seek to find and multiply contradictions in Scripture. A
careful consideration of the object which the apostle had in view in each of
his addresses will furnish a natural explanation of the various changes in the
narrative of the events. In the ninth chapter we have a historical outline of
the main facts of the case, and in his speeches, the apostle, drawing upon his
own distinct recollection of the facts, gives prominence to such aspects of the
event as were best adapted to the emergency of the occasion. Howson remarks :
‘“ If indeed there were, in these instances’’—the accounts of the conversion
of Cornelius and of Paul—‘ mere reiteration in the speeches of Peter and Paul
of narratives previously given, we should have no ground for casting any im-
putation on the authority of the Acts of the Apostles. But, in fact, there is
much more than reiteration. The same story is told more than once, but so
retold ag to have in the retelling a distinct relation to the speaker and the audi-
ence.” It is observable that in speaking to the Jews from the stairs of the
castle, Paul not only uses the Hebrew dialect, but gives a Jewish coloring to
the entire narrative ; while, when addressing Agrippa and his associates in the
royal hall, in keeping with the place and the parties, he gives the story a strong
Gentile coloring, speaking of the hostility of the Jews, and of the persecuted
Christians as saints.

(v5) Art thou a Roman? V. 27.

When the apostle in his address referred to his being sent to the Gentiles,
the national pride of the Jews was wounded, and their intense bigotry aroused.
With a wild and cruel fanaticism, they shonted, ‘‘ Away with him, away with
such a fellow from the earth ; for it is not fit that he should live.” ‘‘ Thus be-
gan one of the most odious and despicable spectacles which the world can wit-
ness, the spectacle of an Oriental mob, hideous with impotent rage, howling,
yelling, cursing, gnashing their teeth, flinging about their arms, waving and
tossing their bluo and red robes, casting dust into the air by handfuls, with all
the furious gesticulations of an uncontrolled fanaticism.’’ Paul was rescued
from the maddened mob by Lysias, the chief captain, who, however, ordered
him to be examined under the scourge. When bound and ready for the tor-
ture, Paul quietly asked whether it were lawful to scourge a Roman citizen.
The centurion, to whom this question was addressed, hastened to inform and
warn the commandant, who came immediately to Paul, and said to him, ‘‘ Art
thou a Roman ?’’ as if the fact were almost incredible, and added, ‘* The privi-
lege of citizenship cost me much.” To this Paul, with great dignity replied, ‘I

424 CHAP. XXII.—NOTES.

have been a citizen from my birth.” By the Lex Porcia, Roman citizens were ex-
empted from all degrading punishment, such as that of scourging. The words,
civis Romanus sum, acted like a magical charm in disarming the violence of
provincial magistrates. It was the heaviest of all the charges brought by
Cicero against Verres, that he had violated the rights of citizenship. ‘* Facinus
est vincere civem Romanum, scelus verberare, proper parricidium necare ;
quid dicam in crucem tollere?’'—It is a crime to bind a Roman citizen ; a
heinous iniquity to scourge him ; next to parricide to kill him ; what shall I
say to crucify him ?—-and further, “Whoever he might be whom you were hurry-
ing to the cross, were he even unknown to you, if he but said he was a Roman
citizen, he would necessarily obtain from you, the pretor, by the simplest
mention of Rome, if not an escape, yet at least a delay of his punishment.”’
According to the Roman law, it was death for any one falsely to assert a claim
to the immunities of citizenship, one of which was exemption from the lash.
‘* Tex porcia virgas ab omnium civium Romanorum corpore amovit’’—The Por-
cian law removes the rod from the bodies of all Roman citizens, The claim of
Paul was acknowledged. It is probable that in return for some important ser-
vice rendered, or sum of money paid, Paul's father or grandfather had ob-
tained this distinction, hence Paul received it by inheritance.

CBITICAL REMARKS. 425

CHAPTER XXIII.

VER. 6. vids baprcaiwy] approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born.,
according to A BC &, min. Syr. Vulg. Tert. But Elz. and Scholz have vids
dapicacov. The sing. was inserted, because people thought only of the relation
of the son to the father. — Ver. 7. AaAyoavros}] Lachm. reads sixdyvroS, only ac-
cording to A E §, min. — rov Zadd,] The article is to be deleted with Lachm.
Tisch, Born. on preponderating evidence. — Ver. 9. of jpaypateis Tov pépovs TOY
¢apic.}] A E, min. Copt. Vulg. have rivés twv dapic.; so Lachm. But BC 8,
min. vss. and Fathers have rivis tov ypaypatiwv sod pép, r. bapic.; 80 Born.
Lastly, G H, min. Aeth. Oec. have jpappuareis tod pép. r. bapio.; 80 Tisch. At
all events, r:<$ is thus so strongly attested that it must be regarded as genuine.
It was very easily passed over after avacravreS. But with tives the genitive roy
ypauuar x.7.A, originally went together, so that the omission of r:vés drew after
it the conversion of rév ypauuar. into ypaypateis (Tisch.) and oi ypappureis (Elz. ).
The reading of Lachm. is an abbreviation, either accidental (from homoeoteleu-
ton) or intentional (from the deletion of the intervening words superfluous in
themselves). We have accordingly, with Born., to read: rivéS tov ypayparéwv
Tov wep. Tév dapio.— After dyyeAos Elz. has, against greatly preponderating
testimony, 7) Jeovazyauev, Which was already rejected by Erasm. and Mill as an
addition from v. 39, and following Griesb., by all the more recent editors
(except Reiche, l.c, p. 28). — Ver. 10. evAasnGeis] Preponderant witnesses have
indeed gofnfeis, which Griesb. has recommended and Lachm. adopted ; but
how easily was the quite familiar word very early substituted for evAat., which
does not elsewhere occur in that sense in the N. T.!— Ver. 11. After 6apoee:
Elz. has Ilavde, in opposition to A B C* E &, min. vss. Theophyl. Oec. Cassiod.
Ambrosiast. An addition for the sake of completeness. Ver. 12. overpogay oi
’lavdator) Elz. Rinck read rivis rwv lovdaiwy ovotp., in opposition to A BCE &,
min. Copt. Syr. p. Aeth. Arm Chrys. Occasioned by ver. 13.— Ver. 13.
nainodauevat is to be read instead of memoinxéres, with Lachm. Tisch. Born., on
decisive testimony. — Ver. 15. After dws Elz. has aipiov. An addition from
ver. 20, against decisive evidence. — xpos tuds] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read es
vas, following A B E &, lo"- Sahid. Rightly; woos is the more usual. — Ver.
16. +H evedpav] B G H, min. Chrys. Theophyl. Oec. have rd évedpor, which
Griesb. and Rinck have recommended, and Tisch. and Born. (not Lachm. ) have
adopted. But the preponderance of the Codd. is in favour of rj» tvédpuvy. The
neuter was known to the transcribers from the LXX., therefore the two forms
might easily be interchanged. — Ver. 20. ueAAovres] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read
u€Adwy, after A B E, min. Copt. Aeth. The very weakly attested Recepia is
from ver, 15. &* has uéAAov, R°* wedAdvrwy, — Ver. 25. weptéxovcav] Lachm.
Born. read éyovcay, according to BE &, min. Neglect of the (not essential)
compound. — Ver. 27. ai7év] is wanting in A BE &, min. Chrys. Oec. Deleted
by Lachm. and Born. But how easily was the quite unessential word passed
over! — Ver. 30. weAAewv éoeotac] Lachm. Born, have only éceo@ai, according to

426 7 CHAP, XXIII., 1-4.

ABE, min. But the future infinitive made uéAsew appear as superfluous ;
there existed no reason for its being added. — After éceo%a. Elz. Scholz have
ind Tov 'lovdaiwy, which is deleted according to preponderant evidence as a
supplementary addition. Instead of it, Lachm and Born. have é& avrav (with
the omission of ééavr7s), following A E &, min. vas. But && adruy is also to be
regarded us a marginal supplement (as the originators of the émijouv2y are not
mentioned), which therefore displaced the original éfaur7s. — The conclusion
of the letter 24swoo is wanting in A B 13, Copt. Aeth. Sahid. Vulg. ms. Deleted
by Lachm. Tisch. Born. ; and rightly, as it is evidently an addition from xv.
29, from which passage H, min. have even éf/wod:.— Ver. 34. After avayy. dé
Elz. has é fyeusv, against decisive testimony. — Ver. 35. éxeAevoé re] Lachm.
Tisch. Born. reud xeAevoas, after A B E &** (&* has xeAevoavros) min. Syr. p.
The Recepia is a stylistic emendation.

Vv. 1, 2. Paul, with the free and firm look, arevicac r@ ovvedp., in which
his good conscience is reflected, commences an address in his own defence
to the Sanhedrim, and that in such a way as—without any special testimony
of respect! for the sacred court, and with perfect freedom of apostolic self-
reliance, which is recognisable in the simple avdpe¢ adeAooi—to appeal first
of all to the pure self-consciousness of his working as consecrated to God.
The proud and brutal* high priest sees in this nothing but insolent pre-
sumption, and makes him be stopped by a blow on the mouth from the
continuance of such discourse. — macy ovved. ay.] with every good conscience,
so that in every case I had a good conscience, i.e agreeing with the divine
will. — In the cys at the commencement is implied a moral self-conscious-
ness of rectitude. — reroAirevuac ty Oew)] I have administered—and still ad-
minister, perfect—mine office for God, in the service of God ;‘ dative of desti-
nation. He thus designates his apostolic office in its relation to the divine
polity of the church.° — 6 d2 apycepeds ’Avaviac} Ver. 4 proves that this * was
the high priest actually discharging the duties of the office at thetime. He
was the son of Nebedaeus,’ the successor of Joseph the son of Camydus,°
and the predecessor of Ishmael the son of Phabi.® He had been sent to
Rome by Quadratus, the predecessor of Felix, to answer for himself before
the Emperor Claudius ; ho must not, however, have thereby lost his office,
but must have continued in it after his return.” As ver. 4 permits for a
apxiep. only the strict signification of the high priest performing the duties,
and not that of one of the plurality of apyepeic, and as the deposition of
Ananias is a mere supposition, the opinion defended since the time of
Lightfoot," by several more recent expositors, particularly Michaelis,
Kichhorn, Kuinoel, Hildebrand, Hemeen, is to be rejected,—namely, that
Ananias, deposed from the time of his suit at Rome, had at this time only

1 Comp. iv. 8, vii. 2. 8 Antt. xx. 1. 8, 5. 2.

8 Joseph. Anti. xx. 8f. [xx. 19. ® Antt, xx. 8. 8, 11.

91 Tim. 1.5, 19; 1 Pet. fil 16. Comp. on 10 Amtt. ux. 6.2, Bell. il. 12. 6.

« Rom. ¢. 9. 11 See Anger, de femp. rat. p. 92 ff.

§ See on Phil. 1. 27. 12 In opposition to van Hengel inthe Godgel.
f Sce Krebs, Odse. Flav. p. 244 ff. Bijdrag. 1862, p. 1001 ff., and Trip, p. 251 i.

7 Joseph. And. xx. 5. 2. 13 p. 119 (comp. ad. Joh. p. 107).

a — ww eo WwW

PAUL BEFORE JEWISH COUNCIL. 427

temporarily administered (usurped) the office during an interregnum which
took place between his successor Jonathan and the latter’s successor
Ishmael. Against this view it is specially to be borne in mind, that the
successor of Ananias was Jshmael, and not Jonathan, who bad been at an
earlier period high priest ;' for in the alleged probative passages,? where
the murder of the apyepeic Jonathan is recorded, this apyep. is to be taken
in the well-known wider titular sense. Lastly, Basnage* quite arbitrarily
holds that at this time Ishmael was already high priest, but was absent
from the hastily (?) assembled Sanhedrim, and therefore was represented
by the highly respected‘ Ananias. — oi¢ wapeor. avrp| to those who, as
officers in attendance on the court, stood beside him, Luke xix. 24. — rorr.
avrov Td or.) to smite him on the mouth.*

Ver. 3. The words contain truth freely expressed in righteous apostolic
indignation, and require no excuse, but carry in themselves (nai ov «ay x«.1.A.)
their own justification. Yet here, in comparison with the calm meekness
and self-renunciation of Jesus,* the ebullition of a vehement temperament
is not to be mistaken. — irre cd véAAe 6 Ode is not to be understood as
an imprecation,’? but—for which the categorical uéAdn is decisive—as a
prophetic announcement of future certain retribution ; although it would be
arbitrary withal to assume that Paul must have been precisely aware of
the destruction of Ananias as it afterwards in point of fact occurred—he
was murdered in the Jewish war by sicarii.* — roiye xexov.] figurative desig-
nation of the Aypocrite, inasmuch as he, with his concealed wickedness,
resembles a wall beautifully whitened without, but composed of rotten
materials within.® — xai oi] thou too, even thou, who yet as high priest
shouldest have administered thine office quite otherwise than at such
variance with its nature. —«pivey] comprises the official capacity, in which
the high priest sits there ; hence it is not, with Kuinoel, to be taken in a
future sense, nor, with Henry Stephanus, Pricaeus, and Valckenaer, to be
accented «xpivav. The classical rapavouziv, to act contrary to the law, is not
elsewhere found in the N. T.

Vv. 4, 5. Tlapeorérec}] as in ver. 3.—rdv apyep. tr. Geod] the holy man,
who is God’s organ and minister. —ov« dev x«.t.A.] I-knew not that he is
high priest. It is absolutely incredible that Paul was really ignorant of
this, as Chrysostom,'® Oecumenius, Lyra, Beza, Clarius, Cornelius a Lapide,
Calovius, Deyling, Wolf, Michaelis, Sepp, and others!' assume under vari-

! Joseph. Anit. xvilt. 4. 3. 5. 8.
2 Antt. xx. 8.5, Bedd. ii. 18. 3.

tion. Luke would have mentioned ft, be-
cause otherwise the reader could not but
3 Ad an. 66, § 24. understand the execution as having ensued.

4 Ant. xx. 9. 2 8 Jgseph. Bell. ii. 17. 9.

® Comp. as to the avros placed first, on John * See Senec. de provid. 6; Ep. 115; Suicer,

ix. 15, xi. 32, al,

¢ John xviil, 23; comp. Matt. v. 39.

t Camerazius, Bolten, Kuinoel. Observe
the prefixing of the rvmreav, which returns
the blow just received in a higher sense
on the high priest. That the command of
the high priest was not executed (Baum-
garten, Trip), is an entirely arbitrary aseump-

Thes. II. p. 144. Comp. Matt. xxiii. 27.

10 Rejecting the fronical view, Chrysostom
says: xali ofdipa waidona, wy ei8evar avrdy,
Ore apxeepevs dori: bcd praxpov pew ewaveAdcrra
xpévov, nH aovyywdueroy 84 curexee ‘lovdaine,
Opevra &@ cai éxeivor dy Te Merge peTa WOAAiY
xaos érépey. [Trip.

311 Comp. aleo Ewald, Holtzmann, p. C84,

428 CHAP. XXIIL, 5~7%.

ous modifications. For, although after so long an absence from Jerusalem
he might not have known the person of the high priest—whose office at
that time frequently changed its occupants—by sight, yet he was much too
familiar with the arrangements of the Sanhedrim not to have known the
high priest by his very activity in directing it, by his seat, by his official
dress, etc. The contrary would be only credible in the event of Ananias
not having been the real high priest, or of a vacancy in the office having
at that time taken place,’ or of such a vacancy having been erroneously
assumed by the apostle,* or of the sitting having been an irregular one,—
not at least superintended by the high priest, and perhaps not held in the
usual council-chamber,—which, however, after xxii. 30, is the less to be
assumed, seeing that the assembly, expressly commanded by the tribune,
and at which he himself was present,? was certainly opened in proper
form, and was only afterwards thrown into confusion by the further saga-
cious conduct of the apostle, ver. 6 ff. Entirely in keeping, on the other
hand, with the irritated frame of Paul, is the ironical mode of taking it,‘
according to which he bitterly enough—and adeAgoi makes the irony only
the more sharp—veils in these words the thought: ‘‘a man, who shows
himself so unholy and vulgar, I could not at all regard as the high priest.”’
Comp. Erasmus. What an appropriate and cutting defence against the
reproach, ver. 4! It implies that he was obliged to regard an apyepets,
who had acted so unworthily, as an oi apyepetc.* Others, against lin-
guistic usage,’ have endeavoured to alter the meaning of oix gdecv, either :
non agnosco, 80, with various suggestions, Cyprian, Augustine, Beda, Pisca-
tor, Lightfoot, Keuchen, and others, or non reputabam, so Simon Epis-
copius, Limborch, Wetstein, Bengel, Morus, Stolz, Kuinoel, Olshausen,
and others, also Neander, so that Paul would thus confess that his conduct
was rash. This confession would be a foolish one, inconsistent with the
strong and clear mind of the apostle in a critical situation, and simply
compromising him. Baumgarten has the correct view, but will not admit
the irony. But this must be admitted, as Paul does not say ovx éyvuy, oF
the like ; and there exists a holy irony. Lange* imports ideas into the
passage, and twists it thus: ‘‘Just because it is written, Thou shalt not
curse the ruler of thy people, and ye have cursed the hiyh priest of our
people, Christ, for that reason I knew not that this is a high priest.”
Zeller understands the words, left by de Wette without definite explana-
tion, as an actual untruth, which, however, is only put into the mouth of
the apostle by the narrator. But such a fiction, which, according to the

1 Bat see on ver. 2.
_%3This hypothesis caonot be accepted, as
Paul had already been for so many days in
Jerusalem; therefore the interpretation of
Beelen : “ je ne savais pas, qu'il y eft un sou-
werain Pontife,” is a very unfortunate ex-
pedient. apxzep. did not require the article any
more than in John xviii. 18, xi. 49, 51.

3 Ver. 10.

4 sues already in Chrysostom, further, Cal-

vin, Camerarius, Lorinus in Calovius, Marnix-
ius, in Wolf, Thiess, Heinrichs ; comp. also
Grotius.

* Baur also, I. 287, ed. 2, recognises the ad-
missibility of no other view than the ironicaé ;
but even thus he sees in it an element of the
unworthiness of the (fictitious) story.

7 Comp. on vil. 18.

8 Apost. Zettalt. Il. p. 814.

PAUL’S SPEECH. 429

naked meaning of the words, would have put a lie into the mouth of the
holy apostle, is least of all to be imputed to a maker of history. The excep-
tionableness of the expression helps to warrant the certainty of its original-
ity. —yéyparra: yép| gives the reason of our ovx gdecv. In consequence,
namely, of the scriptural prohibition quoted, Pau] would not have spoken
xaxac against the high priest, had not the case of the oix gdev occurred, by
the conduct of the man. The passage itself is Ex. xxii. 28, closely after
the LXX.: a ruler of thy people thou shalt’ not revile = xaxoAoyeiv, xix. 9.
The opposite: ed eiweiv, to praise, ev Afyerv.* The senarian metre in our
passage is accidental * (w’).

Vv. 6, 7. Whether the irony of ver. 5 was understood by the Sanhedrists
or not, Paul at all events now knew that here a plain and straightforward
defence, such as he had begun,* was quite out of place. With great pres-
ence of mind and prudence he forthwith resorts to a means—all the more
effectual in the excited state of their minds—of bringing the two parties,
well known to him in the council, into collision with one another, and thereby
for the time disposing the more numerous party, that of the Pharisees, in
Javour of his person and cause. He did not certainly, from his knuwledge
of Pharisaism and from his previous experiences, conceive to himself the
possibility of an actual ‘‘internal crisis’’ among the Pharisees ;* but by
the enlisting of their sectarian interests, and preventing their co-operation
with the Sadducees, much was gained in the present position of affairs,
especially in presence of the tribune, for Paul and hig work. — év r@ ovvedp. |
so that he thus did not direct this exclamation (é«pafev) to any definite in-
dividuals. —éyd apc. cigs, vide dapic.} t.e. J for my part am a Pharisee, a
born Pharisees. The plural ¢éapicatuy refers to his male ancestors, father,
grandfather, and perhaps still further back, not, as Grotius thinks, to his
father and mother, as the mother here, where the sect was concerned, could
not be taken into account. We may add, that Paul's still affirming of
himself the ¢aprcaiov elva: is as little untrue as Phil. iii. 5, ‘in opposition to
Zeller. He designates himself as a Jew, who, as such, belonged to no other
than the religious society of the Pharisees ; and particularly in the doctrine
of the resurrection, Paul, as a Christian, continued to defend the confession
of the Pharisees, in opposition to all Sadduceeiam, according to its truth
confirmed in the case of Christ Himself.” His contending against the legal
righteousness, hypocrisy, etc., of the Pharisees, and his consequent labour-
ing in an anti-Pharisaical sense, were directed not against the sect in itself,
but against its moral and other perversions. Designated a Jew, Paul still
remained what he was from his birth, a Pharisee, and as such an orthodor
Jew, in contrast to Sadducean naturalism. — epi éAr. xat avaor. vexp. éyo
kpiv.] on account of hope, etc. ; hope and—and indeed, as regards its object—
resurrection of the dead it is, on account of which I (¢y6 bas the emphasis of
the aroused consciousness of unjust treatment) am called in question.°

2 Fntare, see on Matt. 1. 21. § Baumgarten.
2 Hom. Od. 1. 03 ; Xen. Mem. ii. 8. 8. * It is otherwise with Phil. ili. 5, é& “Efp.
> Winer, p. 506 (E. T. 796). Tiv.1f,

4 Ver. 1. ® Comp. xxiv. 15, xxvi. 6-8.

430 CHAP. XXIII., 8-14.

As the accusations contained in xxi. 28, ovroc . . . diddoxuy,' were nothing
else than hateful perversions of the proposition: ‘‘This man preaches a
new religion, which is to come in place of the Mosaic in its subsisting
form ;”’ and as in this new religion, in point of fact, everything according
to its highest aim culminated in the hope of the Messianic salvation, which
will be realized by the resurrection of the dead:* so it fellows that
Paul has put the cause of the xpivoza: in the form most suited to the
critical condition of the moment, without altering the substance of the
matter us it stood objectively.* —ordéorw tov dapio. nai Ladd.| without repe-
tition of ra» (see the critical remarks) : the Pharisees and Sadducees, the
two parties conceived of together as the corporatiun of the Sanhedrim,‘
became at variance,* and the mass — the multitude of those assembled — tas
divided (x").

Ver. 8. For the Sadducees, indeed, maintained, etc. — unde dyyedov pire
svevna| not even angel or spirit, generally. The pre rvevpa is logically sub-
ordinate to the yd? dyy., inasmuch as rveiya is conceived as being homo-
geneous with dyyeAor ; for ra augérepa divides the objects named into two
classes, namely (1) avécraccs, and (2) dyyeAog and mvetyua. Hence pydé before
dyyea. is to be defended, and not, in opposition to Fritzsche, ad Marc. p.
158, and Lachmann, to be changed into pyre.® In the certainly very im-
portant codd.* which have s#re, this is to be viewed as a grammatical cor-
rection, originating from the very old error, which already Chrysostom has
and Kuinoel still assumes: augdérepoy . . . nai wepi rptGv AapuPaverat. —
The Sadducees* denied —as materialists, perhaps holding the theory of
emanations —that there were angels and spirit-beings, t.e. independent
spiritual realities besides God. To this category of xvebuara, denied by
them, belonged also the spirits of the departed ; for they held the soul to
be a refined matter, which perished (ovvagavica:) with the body.® But it is
arbitrary, with Bengel, Kuinoel, and many others, to understand under
xvevua anima defuncti exclusively. Reuss’® has a view running directly
counter to the clear sense of the narrative.

Ver. 9. The designed stirring up of party-feeling proved so succeseful,™

1The untruth added to these accusations,
Gre re eae “EAAnvaes «.7.A., Paul might here
with reason leave entirely out of considera-
tion.

31 Cor. xv.

3 The procedure of Paul in helping himeelf
with dialectic dexterity was accordingly this :
he reduces the accusations contained in xxi.
28 to the pure matter of fact, and he grasps
this matter of fact (the announcement of the
Messianic kingdom) in that form which was
necessary for his object. ‘‘ Non deerat Paulo
humana etiam pradentia, qua in bonum evan-
gelii utens, columbac serpentem utiliter mis-
cebat et inimicorum dissidfis fruebatur,”
Grotius.

« Comp. on Matt. ffi. 6.

§ xy. 2.

®See Klotz, ad Dever. p. 709; comp. also
Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 315 (EK. T. 367), and on
Ga). i. 12.

TABCER.

8 See on Matt. ifi. 7.

® Joseph. Anté. xvifi. 1.4, Bell. ii. 8. 24.

10 In Herzog’s Encyki. XIII. p. 204.

11 Baur and Zeller, following Schnecken-
burger, p. 144 ff., contest the historical
character of this event, because the two
parties had already s0 long been rubbing
against each other, that they could not have
been so inflamed by the apple of discord
thrown in among them by Paul; the sequel
also contradicting it, as Paul a few days after-
wards was accused by the chief priest and
Sanhedrim before Felix. But m this view
sufficient account is not taken of the frequent-

CONSPIRACY TO SLAY PAUL. 431

that some scribes,! who belonged to the Pharisaic half of the Sanhedrim,
rose up and not only maintained the innocence of Paul against the other
party, but also, with bitter offensiveness towards the latter, added the
question : But if a spirit has spoken to him, or an angel? The question is an
aposiopesis,* indicating the critical position of the matter in the case sup-
posed, without expressing it, guid vero, si, etc. We may imagine the words
uttered with a Jesuitically-treacherous look and gesture toward the Saddu-
cees, to whom the speakers leave the task of supplying in thought an
answer to this dubious question. — rvevya] is not, with Calovius and others,
to be taken of the Holy Spirit, but without more precise definition as: a
spirit, quite as in ver. 8, where Luke by his gloss prepares us for ver. 9. —
eAdAnoev| giving him revelation concerning the éAmi¢ and avdoracic, ver. 6. A
reference precisely to the narrative, which Paul had given of his conversion
at xxii. 6 ff., is not indicated.

Ver. 10. Mi dtacxacég] that he might be torn in pieces." The tribune saw
the two parties so inflamed, that he feared lest they on both sides should
seize on Paul —the one to maltreat him, and the other to take him into
their protection against their opponents — and thus he might at length
even be torn in pieces, a8 a sacrifice to their mutual fury ! — éxéA. rd orpdr.
wataB. «.t.A.|] he ordered the soldiery to come down from the Antonia, and to
draw him away from the midst of them. The reading xaraPyva: xai is a cor-
rect resolution of the participial construction.‘

Vv. 11-14, Whether the appearance of Christ encouraging Paul to fur-
ther stedfastness was a vision in a dream, or a vision in a waking state,
perhaps in an ecstasy, cannot be determined, in opposition to Olshausen,
who holds the latter as decided ° (¥*). —ei¢ “‘Iepovc. and ei¢ ‘Péu.] The
preacher coming from without preaches into the city.° Observe also, that
Jerusalem and Rome are the capitals of the world, of the East and West.
But a further advance, into Spain, were it otherwise demonstrable, would
not be excluded by the intimation in this passage, since it fixes no fermi-
nus dd quem.’— Ver. 12. avorpogyv] a combination,® afterwards still more
precisely described by cvvwzociay, a conspiracy. That the conspirators were
zealots and sicarii, perhaps instigated by Ananias himself, concerning whom,
however, it is not demonstrable that he was himself a Sadducee, as Kuinoel
thinks, is not to be maintained. Certainly those Asiatics in xxi. 27 were
concerned in it. —ol ‘Iovdaios] the Jews, as the opposition. This general
statement is afterwards more precisely limited, ver. 13. — avefeu. éavrobe]

ly quite biind vehemence of passion, when 1 * Og partis suae,”” Bengel.

suddenly and unexpectedly aroused, in parties
whose mutual relations are strained. As this
vehemence, particularly in the presence of
the tribune, before whom the sore point of
honour was touched, might easily overleap
the boundaries of discretion and prudence ;
#0 might the prudent concert for a joint ac-
cneation subsequently take place, when the
fit of passion was over. Comp. also Baum-
garten, II. p. 197 f.

2 Comp. on John vi. 62; Rom. ix. 2.

2 Comp. Symm., 1 Sam. xv. 38 ; Herod. fil.
18: Dem. 186. 15; Lacian, Asin. 88.

4 See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 774.

§ Bee on xvi. 9.

*Comp. Mark xiv.9. See on Mark 1. 30,
aleo on iz. 28, xxvi. 20.

7 In opposition to Otto, Pastoralor. p. 171.

® xix 4; 1 Macc. xiv. 44; Polyb. iv. 94.6

432 CHAP. XXIII., 15-23.

they cursed themselves, pronounced on themselves, in the event of transgres-
sion, the OT, the curse of divine wrath and divine rejection, declaring that
they would neither eat nor drink’ until, etc. See on similar self-impreca-
tions, which, in the event of the matter being frustrated, without the per-
son’s own fault, could be removed by the Rabbins, Lightfoot in Zoc., Selden.’
— iwc] with the subjunctive, because the matter is contemplated directly,
and without av.2— Ver. 14. roic apy. x. t. tpeoB.] That they applied to the
Sadducean Sanhedrists, is evident of itself from what goes before. — avabép.
ava¥euario.| Winer, p. 434 (EB. T. 584).

Ver. 15. 'Yyeic] answering to the subsequent jjeic dé. Thus they arrange
the parts they were to play. — civ r@ ovvedpiy] non vos soli, sed una cum col-
legis vestris, of whom doubtless the Pharisees were not to be allowed to
know the murderous plot, guo major significationi sit auctoritas, Grotius. —
dru avtov x.t.A.] design of the éygavioate r. yA. From this also it follows
what they were to notify, namely, that they wished the business of Paul to
be more exuctly taken cognisance of in the Sanhedrim than had already
been done.* — rov ave. avt.] The design of éroiyoi éopev.°— mpd rov &)yioa
atr.}] 80 that you shall have nothing at all to do with him.

Vv. 16-20. Whether the nephew of Paul was resident in Jerusalem ;
whether, possibly, the whole family may have already, in the youth of the
apostle, been transferred to Jerusalem, as Ewald conjectures, cannot be de-
termined (z°). — rapayev.] belongs to the vivid minuteness with which the
whole history is set forth.— Ver. 18. The centurion on military duty,
without taking further part in the matter, simply fulfils what Paul has
asked. — 6 déopto¢g Ilavdoc] he is now, as a Roman citizen, to be conceived
in custodia militaris.°— Ver. 19. émAaB. 62 ric xerp.| ‘ut fiduciam adoles-
centis confirmaret,’’ Bengel. — avaywp. xar’ idiav] in order to hold a private
conversation with him, he withdrew, with him, without the addition of a
third person, perhaps to a special audience-chamber.’ — Ver. 20. drc] recita-
tive. — ovvédevto] have made an agreement to request thee.*— dc uéAA.] 4.6.
under the pretext, as if they would.®

Vv. 21, 22. And now! they are in readiness to put into execution the
aveteiv avtdév,! expecting that on thy part the promise, to have Paul brought on
the morrow to the Sanhedrim, will take place. — éxayy. is neither jussum"™
nor nuntius,'® but, according to its constant meaning in the N. T., promissio.
— éxAaa.] he commanded to éell it, to divulge it, to no one."* — éveg. mpd¢ pe]
Oratio variata. See on i. 4.

Ver. 28. Abo revéc] some two; see on xix. 14.'5 It leaves the exact num-

1 yevoacda, ver. 14, expresses boih.

3 de Synedr. p. 106 f.

8 Fritzeche, ad Matih. p. 499; Winer, p. 279
(E. T. 871.)

4 Comp. xxiv. 22.

62 Chron. vi. 23; Ezek. xxi. 11; 1 Macc. ill.
58, v. 39, xili. 37. Comp. also ver. 20.

* Comp. on xxii. 80. See on xxiv. 27.

7 Comp. Luke ix. 10.

® Comp. on John ix. 2.

® See Pflugk, ad Kur. Hee. 1152. It is other-
wise in ver. 15: in the opinion, as, etc.

10 xai wuv, see Hartung, Partikell. Lp. 135.

11 Comp. ver. 15.

12 MOnthe, Rosenmilller.

13 Beza, Camerarius, Grotius, Alberti, Wolf ;
Henry Stephanus even conjectured arayy.

14 Comp. Dem. 8o. 2%; Judith vii. 9; not
elsewhere in N. T. (wif. 19.

18 Comp. Thuc. vili. 100. 5: reves 8¥0. Luke

a on. EL, |

~ Fr ™ Fa

RESCUED BY LYSIAS. 433

ber in uncertainty.'— So considerable a force was ordered, in order to
secure against any possible contingency of a further attempt. — orpariérac]
is, on account of the succeeding imzeic, to be understood of the usual Roman
infantry,” milites gravis armaturae, distinguished also from the peculiar
kind of light infantry afterwards mentioned as def:0Ad Bor. — deftoAd Bove]
a word entirely strange to ancient Greek, perhaps at that time only current
colloquially, and not finding its way into the written language. It first
occurs in Theophylactus Simocatta,* and then again in the tenth century.‘
At all events, it must denote some kind of force under the command of
the tribune, and that a light-armed infantry, as the def:oA. are distinguished
both from the cavalry and from the orparid;. That they were infantry,
their great number also proves. It is safest to regard them as a peculiar .
kind of the light troops called rorarii or celites, and that either as jacula-
tores, javelin-throwers,’ or funditores, slingers, for in Constant. Porphyr.*
they are expressly distinguished from the aagittarii, or bowmen,’ and from
the targeteers, the peltastae, or cetrati.* Detailed grounds are wanting for
a more definite decision.° The name deéioA., those who grasp with the right
hand, ia very naturally explained from their kind of weapon, which was
restricted in its use to the right hand, it was otherwise with the heavy-
armed troops, and also with the bowmen and peltastae. This word has
frequently been explained’® halberdiers, life guardsmen, who protect the
right side of the commander, to which, perhaps, the translation of the Vul- .
gate :"' lancearios, from the spear which the halberdiers carried, is to be re-
ferred. Already the Coptic and Syriac p. translate stipatores. Meursius,’
on the other hand: military lictora."* But even apart from the paesages of
Theophyl. Simocatta, and Constant. Porphyr., of whom the latter particu-
larly mentions the deéoA. alongside of the purely light-armed soldiers, and
indeed alongside of mere ordinary soldiers : the great number of them is
decisive against both views. For that the commander of a cohort should
have had a body-guard, of which he could furnish two hundred men for
the escort of a prisonor, is just as improbable, as that he should have had
as many lictors at his disposal. On the whole, then, the reading defcoBdéAour
in A, approved by Grotius and Valckenaer, is to be considered as a correct

1 Krfiger, § 11. 16. 4.

3 weloa orparuera, Hercdian, 1. 12. 19.

3In the seventh century. The passage in
question, fv. 1, ie as follows: wspoorarra 3¢
mai SeftorAdBas Suvayeoiw ixwnAareiy «. Tas
atpawols wdcas xaragdariferda:. From this

it only follows that they must have been 8

light-armed force. (Wetstein).
“In Constant. Porphyr. Themai. 1. 1 (see
§ Liv. xxii. 21.
® of 82 Aeyduevor rovppdpxas cig Uwovpylay Tar
etparyyey éraxdyncay. nuove 64¢ rovovroy
fine roy éxovra vd davrdy orpatiwrag Tofo-
dépove wevraxocious, ai weATAgTES TMaKOTIOVS,
nai e€corAd Bove dcarée.
7 rofoddp.

8 See Liv. xxxi. 96.

® Ewald, p. 577, now explains it from Aaf¥,
grasp of the sword; holding that they were
spiculatores cum lancete (Sueton. Claud. 88) ;
and that they carried their sword, not on the
Jeft, but on the right. But we do not see
why this was ‘neceseary for the eake of using
their spears by the right hand. The sword
on the Jeft side would, indeed, have been least
a hindrance to them in the usec of the spear.
Earlier, Ewald took them to be elingers.

1@ Following Suidas: wapagvAaxcs.

1! Aleo Ath. and Sabidic.

13 In the Gloesar.

13 ** Vanam nimirnm injiciebant maleficia.”

14 Syr. jaculantes dewira ; Erp. jaculatores.

434 CHAP. XXIIL, 24-35.

interpretation, whether they be understood to be javelin-throwers cr sling-
ers. — amd rpirns Spac rig vuxror | Jrom this time, about nine in the evening,
they were to have this force in readiness, because the convoy was to start,
for the sake of the greatest possible security from the Jews, at the time of
darkness and of the first sleep.

Ver. 24. Krévy re rapacryoa] still depends on eizev, ver. 28. The speech
passes from the direct to the indirect form.' — x«ri#vyq] earcinaria jumenta.*
Whether they were asses or pack-horses, canuot be determined. Their
destination was: that they, the centurions to whom the command was
given, should make Paul mount on them, and 80 should bring him uninjured to
Feliz the procurator. The plural number of the animals is not, with Kuinoel,
to be explained ‘in usum Pauli e¢ militis ipsius custodis,’’ but, as iva éef. 7.
Maia, requires, only in usum Pauli, for whom, as the convoy admitted of
no halt,* one or other of the «r7v7 was to accompany it as a reserve, in order
to be used by him in case of need. — On Feliz, the freedman of Claudius—
by hia third wife son-in-law of Agrippa I. and brother-in-law of Agrippi II.,
and brother of Pallas the favourite of Nero,—that worthless person, who
‘‘per omnem saevitiam ac libidinem jus regium servili ingenio in Judaea
provincia exercuit,’’* and after his procuratorship was accused to Nero by
the Jews of Caesarea, but was acquitted through the intercession of Pallas,
see Walch.*

Vv. 25, 26. Tpdyac] adds to elrev, ver. 28, a contemporaneous accom-
panying action. Such passports, given with transported prisoners, were
called at a later period, in the Cod. Theodos., elogia. — repiéx. tT. Towov rovr. ]
which contained the following form ; rbroc,® the same as zpéros, elsewhere,’
corresponds entirely to the Latin ezemplum, the literal form, the verbal con-
tents of a letter.°— The lie in ver. 27° is a proof that in what follows the
literal expression is authentically contained ; therefore there is no reason,
with Olshausen, to regard the letter as a literary production of Luke. A
documentary source, it is true, from which the verbal form came to him,
cannot be specified, although possibilities of this nature may well be
imagined.— rq xpariory] See on Luke, Introd. § 3."°

Vv. 27-30."' ovAAnp.| without the article: after he had been seized. Ob-
serve, that Lysias uses not rdv dyfpwrov, but with a certain respect, and that
not only for the Roman citizen, but also for the person of his prisoner, 7.
dvdpa. — éerAduny avrov, uafdov drt ‘Pop. éorc] contains a cunning falsification
of the state of the facts ;'* for ver. 28 comp. with xxii. 80 proves that the
tribune did not mean the second rescue of the apostle, xxiii. 10. There-
fore the remark of Grotius is entirely mistaken, that ua» denotes ‘ nul-

1 See on xix. 27. ? Kypke, IT. p. 119; Grimm. on 1 Mace. x1.

2 Caes. Bell. civ. 1. 81. 29.
Svv. 31, 32. ® Cic. ad Div. x. 5: “ literae binae eodem
‘Tac. Hiet. v. 9. exemplo.”
5 Diss. de Felice Judaeor. procur. Jen. 1747 ; ® Sce in. boc.
Ewald, p. 549 ff.; Gerlach, d. Rdm. Statthalter 10 Comp. xxiv. 8, xxvi. 2. (19 ff.
in 8yr.u. Jud. p. % ff. 11 See xxi, 80-44, xxil. 26, 27, 30, xxiii. 1 @.,

mA “8

= a = —_ ww. Vea aS

PAUL INTRODUCED TO BELIX. 435

lum certum tempus’’ but merely xai éuafov gencrally ;' and so is Beza’s
proposal to put a stop after atréy, and then to read: padov d2 drt x.7.A. —
avrév.* — Ver. 80. ujveleiong . . . éoeoda:] The hurried letter-writer has
mixed up two constructions: (1) uyvdeione dé pot EextBovage tHe weAAobons Eceo-
Yar, and (2) ugvdévrog? dé por ExcBovdiy pédAew éccoda.* Similar blendings
are also found in the classics. As to the import of yzyviev, see on Luke
xx. 87. ;

Vv. 31-34. Antipatris, on the road from Jerusalem to Caesarea, built by
Herod I., and named after his father Antipater, was 26 miles, thus 5}
geographical miles, distant from Caesarea.* — dia r7¢ vuerég}] as in xvii. 10.
Inexact statement a potiori ; for, considering the great distance between
Jerusalem and Antipatris, about 8 geographical miles, and as they did not
set out from Jerusalem before uine in the evening,’ besides the night a part
of the following forenoon must have been spent on the journey to Anti-
patris, which must, moreover, be conceived of as a very hurried one; yet the
following night is not, with Kuinoel,* to be included. — Ver. 32. iacavre¢
x.t.A.] thus from their own foresight, because such a strong force was un-
necessary at the distance which they had reached, and might be required
in case of an uproar at Jerusalem, not according to the literal command of
the tribune, ver. 28. — rove irzeic] not also the defioAdBous, whom they took
back with them, as may be concluded from their not being mentioned. —
Ver. 38. virwec] ‘‘ad remotius nomen, secus atque expectaveris refertur.’’ °
—xai r. MavA.] simul et Paulum, — Ver. 34. Felix makes only a preliminary
personal inquiry, but one necessary for the treatment of the cause and of
the man, on a point on which the elogium contained no information. —
rotas] is qualitative: from what kind of province. Cilicia was an imperial
province.

Ver. 85. Acaxoboozac] denotes the full and exact hearing,’ m contrast to
what was now held as merely preliminary. — rd mpa:tépiov rov "Hp.| was the
name given to the palace which Herod the Great had formerly built for
himself, and which now served as the residence of the procurators. From
our passage it follows that the place, in which Paul was temporarily kept
in custody, was no common prison,'’ but was within the praetorium. The
determination of the manner of the custodia reorum depended on the pro-
curator,'* and the favorable elogium might have its influence in this respect.

' Nor does it mean, as Otto suggests: “‘on ‘ and see, moreover, Matthiae, § 472; Winer, p.

which occasion (in consequence of which) I
learned.”” The Vulgate, Erasmus, and Cel-
vin correctly render : cognifo, comp. Phil. if.
19. Beza also correctly renders by edoctua,
with the remark: ‘' Dissimulat ergo tribunis
id, de quo reprehendi jure potniasct."’ Cas
talio anticf{pated the misinterpretation of Gro-
tius and Otto: ‘“‘eripni ao Romanum esse
didioi."* And so also Lather. The padwy ori
«.7.A. is nothing elee than éxiyvoi¢ ir: ‘Po-
mates dore xxii. 29. Comp. xvi. 38.

2 Compare on this resumption after a long
intervening sentence, Plat. Rep. p 306 A;

139 f. (E. T. 184.)

3 Comp. Polyaen. fi. 14 1.

4S8ee Grotius in loc.; Fritzsche, Conjectur.
I. p. 39 f.; Winer, p. 598 (E. T. 710.)

§ Bornemann, ad Xen. Anabd. iv. 4. 18.

® See Robinson, III. p. 27 ff.; Ritter, Araz.

7 Ver. &. [XVI. p. 571.

® Against ver. 39.

® Ellendt, Lew. Soph. IT. p. 368.

10 Xen. Oeo. 11. 1. Cyrop. iv. 4.1; Polyb. fil,
18. 4; Dorvill. ad Char. p. 670.

iy, 18.

12 L. 1, D. xlviil. 8.

436 CHAP. XXIII.—NOTES.

Nores py Awgenican Eprror.
(w*) I did not know that he is the high priest. V. 5.

Scarcely had the apostle commenced his defence before the Jewish council,
when Ananias, the high priest, in a spirit of injustice and brutality which
characterized his general conduct, ordered him to be smitten on the mouth.
‘* Stang by an insult so flagrant, an outrage so undeserved, the naturally chol-
eric temperament of Paul flamed into that sudden sense of anger, which
ought to be controlled, but which can hardly be wanting in a truly noble char-
acter.”” And he exclaimed, ‘God shall smite thee, thou whited wall.”” His
attention being directed, by some one standing by, to his severe utterance, he
immediately ‘‘ apologized with exquisite urbanity and self-control.’” Meyer
thinks the apostle’s reply was ironical ; but this seems inconsistent with the
character of the apostle, and the appeal to Scripture would in that state of
mind be akin to irreverence. Numerous other explanations have been offered,
the most satisfactory, though not free from objections, is that given by Bengel,
Neander, Hackett, Schaff, Howson and others ; which supposes that Paul meant
that he did not recollect or consider that it was the high priest whom he was
addressing. Gloag also approves, generally, of this solution. Farrar suggests
that ‘‘ in a crowded assembly he had not noticed who'the speaker was. Owing
to his weakened sight, all that he saw before him was a blurred white figure, is-
suing a brutal order, and to this person, who, in his external whiteness and in-
ward worthlessness, thus reminded him of the plastered wall of a sepulchre,
he had addressed his indignant denunciation. That he should retract it, on
learning the hallowed position of the delinquent, was in accordance with that
high breeding of the perfect gentleman, which in all his demeanor he habitually
displayed.’’ This is the view which Alford, though not entirely satisfied with
it, prefers. We concur with Jaylor, who adopts this view, that Paul did not
know what person had given the command to smite him, and adds, “If I am
asked for an explanation of this ignorance of Paul, I find it in one or other of
three suppositions : either the high priest did not wear the official robes by
which he was usually distinguished ; or he was not at that time president of
the council ; or, more simply still, the near-sightedness of the apostle prevent-
ed him from recognizing the official dignity of the man who spoke so roughly.”
After discussing at length the various hypotheses concerning the meaning of
the words used by Paul, Eadie comes to the conclusion: “that the apostle
had not the knowledge present to his mind that it was the high-priest whom
he was addressing. He does not formally apologize, but perhaps he intimates
that the words might have been differently couched, that he might have ut-
tered the malediction more solemnly, and with less of personal feeling mingled
up with it. Nor does he retract it, though he may regret that it did fall upon
@ successor of Aaron.”’

(x*) Pharisees and Sadducees. V. 7.

The apostle, perceiving from the interruption which had already taken
. place, that all hope of a full hearing or fair treatment was vain, with com-
mendable policy threw an apple of discord into the council. He knew that

NOTES. 43%

the council was composed of Pharisees—with whom he held many things in
common, such as the resurrection of the dead, the coming of the kingdom of
G:od, the advent of the Messiah, and the intercourse of God with men, by
means of angels, visions, and dteams—and of Sadducees, who denied all these
doctrines and the idea of the supernatural generally. Therefore he said, ‘‘ Iam
a Pharisee, and am being judged about the hope of the resurrection.” The two
parties, which had long entertained toward each other an internecine enmity,
now disagreed, and the strife became so violent that the apostle’s life was
again in jeopardy ; but the chief captain interfered, and rescued him out of
their hands. Josephus says : ‘‘ The Pharisees are those who are esteemed most
skilful in the exact explication of their laws. These ascribe all to fate and to
God, and yet allow that to act what is right, or the contrary, is principally in
the power of men. They say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls
of good men only are removed into other bodies, but that the souls of bad
men are subject to eternal punishment. The Sadducees take away fate entirely,
and suppose that God is not concerned in our doing or not doing what is evil,
and they say that to act what is good or what is evil is at men’s own choice,
They also take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the
punishment and reward in Hades.”’

Some, as Furrar, question the propriety of the course pursued by Paul at
this crisis. But Alford justly says, ‘‘ Surely no defence of Paul for adopting
this course is required, but all admiration is due to his skill and presence of
mind.’’ Thomas writes: “Do not get a wrong impression of Paul's policy.
Though we have seen him on various occasions displaying great accommoda-
tiveness—now taking part in a Nazarite’s vow, in order to disarm the unrea-
soning hostility of his countrymen ; now putting forward all the considera-
tions which truth would authorize, in order to conciliate the mind of his Jew-
ish audiences ; now availing himself of his Roman citizenship, in order to-
avoid the infliction of a cruel and unjust torture ; and now, in the case before
us, taking advantage of the doctrine that divided his judges, in order to avoid
their verdict of condemnation —in none of these strokes of policy is there the
slightest approach to the disingenuous, the evasive, the shifting. In all
there is an unbending honesty and an invincible courage.”

(x*) The Lord stood by him. V. 11.

We have in the Acts the record of three such experiences in the life of Paul,
after the Lord Jesus was seen of him on his way to Damascus. One in Cor-
inth, when he was “in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling ;’’ one
on board the vessel during a long severe storm at sea ; and another in the pres-
ent instance. On this passage Alford has the following excellent remarks :
‘* By these few words, the Lord assured him of a safe issue from his present
troubles, of an accomplishment of his intention of visiting Rome, of the cer.
tainty that he should preach the gospel and bear testimony there. So that
they upheld and comforted him in the uncertainty of his life from the Jews,
in the uncertainty of his liberation from prison at Caesarea, in the uncertainty
of his surviving the storm in the Mediterranean, in the uncertainty of his fate
on arriving at Rome. So may one crumb of divine yrace and help be multi-
plied to feéd five thousand wants and anxieties.’’ Jacobus says on this verse :
“It was a personal appearing of our Lord to Paul, not in a dream, but in an

438 CHAP, XXIII.—NOTES.

apparition, in which he was seen by Paul, as standing beside him, and was
heard as addressing him.’’ Alexander says: “Standing by, or over, him, per-
haps as he lay upon his bed, though not necessarily in a dream, but rather in
® waking vision.” He regards this divine message to Paul as an unqualified
approval of the course he had been led to take before the council. In this
opinion Barnes concurs : “The appearance of our Lord in this case was a proof
that he approved the course which Paul had taken before the Sanhedrim.”’

(z*) Paul's sister's son. VY. 16.

This is the only direct reference in Scripture to Paul’s family. It is uncer-
tain whether Paul’s sister resided in Jerusalem, or whether the young man may
have come up to Jerusalem with Paul, or had been sent thither for his educa-
tion, as his uncle was before him. We know not even whether the act of
kindness was prompted merely by natural affection, or by Christian sympathy
as well, All that we know is that this obscure youth, probably only a lad, ren-
dered to his celebrated uncle a very important service, the mention of which
has immortalized his memory.

CRITICAL REMARKS. 439

CHAPTER XXIV.

Var. 1. rév mpeo8.} Lachm. and Born. read peo. rior, according to A B E
®, min. Sahid, Arm. Sahid. Arm. Syr. p. Vulg. Theophyl. ric» was written
on the margin as a gloss (see the exegetical remarks). — Ver. 3. xaropSuputrwr)
Lachm. and Born. (following A B E &)read dcop§auarwy. which already Griesb.
recommended. Neither occurs elsewhere in the N. T. The decision is given
by the preponderance of evidence in favour of d:op8., which, besides, is the less
usual word. — Ver. 5. ordo.v) AB EX, min. Copt. Vulg. Chrys. Theophyl. Oec.
have ordce:s. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Born. And
rightly ; ordocv was easily enough occasioned by the writing of ordocs instead
of crdoes (comp. &). — Vv. 6-8. From xa? xara to tm) oé is wanting in A B G H
%, min. vss. Beda. And there are many variations in detail. Condemned by
Mill, Beng., Griesb., and deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly ; it is a com-
pletion of the narrative of the orator. Had the words been original (Matth.
and Born. defend them), no reason can be assigned for their omission. For
xatd T. fuer. véu. NOeA. xpivey in the mouth of the advocate who speaks in the
name of his clients could be as little offensive as the preceding éxparjoayev ;
and the indirect complaint against Lysias, ver. 7, was very natural in the rela-
tion of the Jews to this tribune, who had twice protected Paul against them.
But even assuming that this complaint had really caused offence to the tran-
scribers, it would have occasioned the omission of the passage merely from
mapeAbuv, not from «at card. — Ver. 9. ovverefevro) is decidedly attested, in
opposition to the Recepta cuvéfevro. — Ver. 10. etfuuérepov]) A BE ®&, min. Vulg.
Ath. have et4uuus. Approved by Griesb., following Mill and Bengel ; adopted
by Lachm. Tisch. Born. But how much easier it is to assume that the reference
of the comparative remained unrecognised, than that it should have been
added by a reflection of the transcribers !— Ver. 11. év 'Tepove.} Lachm. Tisch.
Born. have, and also Griesb. approved, eS Iepovc., according to A E H &, min.
This weight of evidence is decisive, as according to the difference in the rela-
tion either preposition might be used. Ver. 12. émicicrac.y) Lachm. reads
éxinraciy, according to ABE &, min. A transcriber's error.— Ver. 13. After
dyvavrac Lachm. and Born. have oo, according to ABE &, min., and several
ves. Some have it before drv. ; others have, also before div., sometimes po: and
sometimes pe (80 Mill and Matth.). Various supplementary additions. — Ver.
14. rois év trois] Elz. has merely ¢» rois. But against this the witnesses are
decisive, which have either roi$ év trois (80 Griesb., Scholz, and others) or simply
rois (so Lachm. Tisch. Born., following Matth.). If rois év roiS were original
(so ***), then it is easy to explain how the other two readings might have
originated through copyists—in the first instance, by oversight, the simple rois
(A GH ®&* vss. Theophyl. Oec.), and then by way of explanation éy roiS (B).
If, on the other hand, rois were original, then indeed the resolution of the
dative construction of the passive by év might easily come into the text, but
there would be no reason for the addition of rois before év.— Ver. 15. After

440 CHAP. XXIV., 1-3.

éceo$a: Elz. Scholz have vexpov which, in deference tv very important evidence,
was suspected by Griesb. and deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. A supplemen-
tary addition. — Ver. 16, xai atrés] so ABCEG X&, min. vas. Approved by
Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. But Elz. Scholz have 02 aires.
The reference of «ai was not understood, and therefore sometimes dé, sometimes
J? xai was put. — Ver. 18. év vis] ABC E B®, min. have év ais, which Griesb.
recommended, and Lachm., Scholz, Born. adopted. But the fem., in spite of
the preponderance of its attestation, betrgys its having originated through the
preceding mpuogupus. — rev?s dé] Elz. has merely rives, against decisive testi-
mony. The dé was perplexing. — Ver. 19. éé«:] B G H, min. Sahid. Aeth. Slav.
Chrys. 1, Oec. have de?. Recommended by Gries»., and adopted by Peng. and
Matth. But éde: is preponderantly attested by A C E &, min. Syr. utr. Copt.
Vulg. Chrys. 1, Theoph., and is much more delicate and suitable than the de-
manding dei. — Ver, 20. ri] Elz. has ei r:, against decisive witnesses. From
ver. 19. — Ver. 22. avefua, d2 avr. 6 b7Acé] Adopted, according to decisive tes-
timony, by Griesb. and all modern critics except Matth. But Elz. has axovoas
62 ravra 6%. aveii. avrovs, which Rinck defends. An amplifying gloss. — Ver.
23. airév] Elz. has rdv MNavddov, against decisive attestation. —} mpocipyeoPar]}
wanting inABCE 8, min., and several vss. ; amplifying addition, perhaps
after x. 28. — Ver. 24. After ry yvvacxi Elz, has avrov, and Lachm. : rq idi¢ yuvacai.
The critical witnesses are much divided between these three readings ; indeed
several, like A, have even idig and airov. Butin view of this diversity, both
ii@ and giro appear as additions, in order to fix the meaning conuz on rg
yuvaxi, — After Xpioré6v BE G &* min, Chrys. and several vas. have 'I7oodr,
which Rinck has approved, and Lachm., Scholz, Born. adopted. A frequent
addition, which some vss. have before Xpiorov. — Ver. 25. rov péAAovros xpiuaros)
Tov KpiuaToS Tov wéAAovtus (Lachm. Tisch. Born.) is preponderantly attested,
and therefore to be adopted. So also Elz., which, however, adds écroGac
(deleted by Scholz) ; and Tisch. has again inserted it, following G H min. and
some Fathers. The word, just as being in itself quite superfiuous, would have
to be received, if it were more strongly attested. — Ver. 26. After NavAod Elz.
has o7wS Avoy aizév, against preponderating testimony. A gloss. — 27. ydpiras]
Lachm. and Born. read yapira, according to A BC &* and some min. ; E G &**
min. have yap.v. Thus for ydpiras there remains only a very weak attesta-
tion (H, min. and some Fathers ; no vss.). The best attested reading, yap:ra,
is the more to be adopted, as this accusative form, not elsewhere used in the
N. T. (although to be read also in Jude 4), could not but occasion offence.

Ver. 1. Mera dé révre juép.] The point of commencement is not to be reck-
oned, with Cajetanus, Basnage, Michaelis, Stclz, Rosenmiuller, Morus,
Hildebrand, as the arrest of Paul in Jerusalem,—an opinion which has
arisen from an erroneous computation of the twelve days in ver. 11,—nor
yet with Calovius, Wetstein, and others, as the arrival of Paul at Caesarea,
but as! his departure for Caesarea. We may add that the popular mode of
expression does not necessarily denote that the fifth day had already elapsed,
but may just as well denote on the fifth day.* That the latter view is to be
assumed here, see on ver. 11. — pera trav mpec3.) of course, not the whole

1 Sce on ver. 11. 2 Comp. Matt. xxvii. 68, and see on Matt. xii. 40.

PAUL ACCUSED BY TBRTULLUS. 44}

Sanhedrists, but deputies who represented the council. It is obvious, withal,
that the two parties in the Sanhedrim, after the variance temporarily aroused
between them,' had in the interva] bethought themselves of the matter,
and united against the common enemy, in order to avert his eventual ac-
quittal by the Roman authority.—Tertullus, a common Roman name,* was
an orator forensis,*® a public causidicus, Such speakers, who were very nu-
merous in Rome and in the provinces, bore the classical name of the public
orators : pyropec,* in the older Greek ovviyopo:,* the advocates of the accusers.
— éveg. TO Hy. xata Tov M1.] they laid information before the procurator against
Paul, That this took place in writing, by a libel of accusation,® is not
adirmed by the text, which, by xaré3y and the xAnOévrog dé airov immediately
following, does not point to more than oral accusation.’ The reciprocal
rendcring, comparuerunt,* isan unnecessary deviation from the usage in the
N. T., xxiii, 15, 22, xxv. 2, 15; John xiv. 21 f.; Heb. xi. 14, and else-
where also not capable of being made good.°

(a‘) Vv. 2, 8. After the accusation brought against Paul the accused is
summoned to appear, and now Tertullus commences the address of accu-
sation itself, and that, after the manner of orators,’ with a captatio benevo-
lentiae, yet basely flattering, to the judge. — The speech, embellished with
rhetorical elegance, is to be rendered thus: As we are partaking, con-
tinuously, of much peace through thee, and as improvemenis have taken place
Sor this people on all sides and in all places through thy care, we acknowledge it,
most excellent Feliz, with all thanksgiving. Observe here, (1) that the orator
with wo2Age eipyunc x.7.A. praises Felix as pacator provinciae, which it was a
peculiar glory of procurators to be ;'' (2) that the object of dmrodezdueda is
evident of itself from what precedes; (8) that mavry re xai ravrayod is not
to be referred, as usually, to arodex., but, with Lachmann, to y:vopéver,
because, according to the flattering character of the speech, diopSup. yevou.
requires a definition of degree, and it is arbitrary mentally to supply roAAdv.
— diopSdépuara (see the critical remarks) are improved arrangements in the
state and nation.'"* xarop9euara would be successes, successful accomplish-
ments, '? — wdvry] only here in the N. T., not semper, but towards all sides,
quoquoversus, as in all classical writers ; with iota subscriptum, in opposition
to Buttmann and others,'*— On arodézeo3ai, probare, ‘‘admittere cum as-
sensu, guudio, congratulatione.’’ }*— How little, we may add, Felix, although
he waged various conflicts with sicarii, surcerers, and rebels,'? merited this

1 xxill. 6 ff.
" 8 See Wetstein.

3 See Barth, ad Claudian. p. 76.

*See Photius, p. 488, 12; Thomas Mag.,
Suidas.

§ Dem. 1187. 5, 1849. pen.; Lucian. Jo. 26;
Hermann, Staateaiterth. § 142, 14.

® Camerarius, Grotias.

7 Comp. xxiil. 15 xxv. 2, 15.

® Beza, Luther, Castalio, Wolf, and othcrs,
following the Vulgate.

* Comp. Bornemann in Rosenmilicr, Re-
pert. II. p. $71; Krebs, p. 252 f.

10 See Grotlus in loo.

1) See Wetatein.

12 Comp. Polyb. fil. 118. 18: ai ree» wodrrevpd-
ter S&iopdwoes, Arist. Pol. 111.13; Plut. Num.
17, af. On the Greek idiom of the word, see
Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 260 f.

13 See Raphel, Poly. in loc. ; Lobeck, .c.

14 Vulgate and others.

15 See Ellendt, Lew. Soph. IT. p. 498.

16 Reiske, Ind. Dem. p. 66; sce Loesner, p.
229: Krebs in loc.

17 Joseph. Bell. ii. 18. 2, And. xx. 6. 5f.

442 CHAP. XXIv., 4-11.

praise on the whole, may be seen in Tacitus ;* and what a contrast to it was
the complaint raised against him after his departure by the Jews before the
emperor !?

Ver. 4. That, however, I may not longer, by a more lengthened discourse
than I shall hold, detain thee, keep thee from thy business.? — Acéévruv is
not to be supplied with ovyréuwc,4 but it contains the definition of measure
to dxotcaz, The request for a hearing of brief duration is, at the same time,
the promise of aconcise discourse. — ry of éExcex.|] with thy, thine own pe-
culiar, clemency.*

Vv. 5-8. Kal xara ... éri cé is to be deleted. See the critical re-
marks (B‘).—cipdévrec yap «.t.A.] The structure of the sentence is anacoluthic,
as Grotius already saw. Luke has departed from the construction ; instead
of continuing, ver. 6, with éxparjoayev abrév, he, led astray by the preced-
ing relative construction, brings the principal verb also into connection
with the relative.*— The yép is namely." — Examples of Aoudc and pestis,
as designating men bringing destruction, may be seen in Grotius and Wet-
stein.® — ryv olxouu.] is here, in the mouth of a Roman, before a Roman
tribunal, to be understood of the Roman orbis terrarum.’ — rpwrocrdryy |
front-rank man, file-leader.."°—raév Nafwpalwy] a contemptuous appellation
of Christians us the followers of Jesus of Nazareth, whose presumed de-
scent from Nazareth stamped Him as a false Messiah.'! — &¢ xai 1. iepov
x.T.A.] who even the temple, etc.’? — Ver. 8. rap’ ob] refers, as the preceding
mention of Lysias is spurious, to Paul, to whom, however, it could not
have been referred, were the preceding portion genuine, in opposition to
Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Limborch, Rosenmiiller, who have, moreover,
arbitrarily understood avaxpivac of a quaestio per tormenta; it denotes
judicial examination generally. — dv] =a by attraction—That we have
not before us the speech of Tertullus, in a quite exact reproduction is obvi-
ous of itself, as the source of the narrative could only be the communica-
tion of Paul. The beginning, so much in contrast with the rest, is doubt-
less most faithfully reproduced, impressing itself, as it naturally did, alike
as the commencement of the imposing trial and by reason of the singularly
pompous flattery, with the most literal precision on the recollection of the
apostle and, through his communication, on the memory of Luke.

Ver. 9. LuveréVevto x.1.A.] but the Jews also jointly set upon him; they
united their attack against Paul with that of their advocate, inasmuch as
they indicated the contents of his statements to be the true state of the
case.!8 — gdoxovrec] comp. xxv. 19; and see on Rom. i. 22.

1 Hist. v. 9, Ann. xii. 54. xv). 97.
2 Joseph. Ant. xx. 8.9 f. 7 See on Matt. i. 18.
On éyxérreay, see Valckenaer, Schol. p. ® Grimm on 1 Mace. x. 61.
600 f. éwi wActoy, as in xx. 9: Jadith xiil. 1. ® See on Luke ik 1.
See on iv. 17. Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 572 B: emi 10 Thuc. v. 71, 2, and Kriiger in loc.

wiéov e£7}x quer cireiv. 32 John vii. 42.
Kuinoel, Olshauren, and others. 12 Comp. ér: re «ai, xxi. 28.
§ See on 2 Cor. x. 1. 13 Comp. on cuverridexar, Plat. PA. p. 16

*Comp. Winer, pp. 830, 528 (E. T. 442,710); A; Xen. Cyrop. iv. 2.3; Polyb. i. 31. 2, 11. 3
Buttmann, p. 262 (E. T. 298). Comp.on Rom. 6; alsoin the LXX.

PAUL’S DEFENCE. 443

Ver. 10. In what a dignified, calm, and wise manner does Paul open his
address |! — éx roAAv érov] therefore thou hast an ample judicial experi-
ence as regards the circumstances of the nation and their character.
‘‘ Novus aliquis praeses propter inscitiam forte perculsus esset tam atroci
delatione,’’ Calvin. — Feliz entered on the procuratorship after the ban-
ishment of his predecessor Cumanus, in the year 52.' Even in the time of
Cumanus he had great influence, particularly in Samaria, without, how-
ever, being actually governor of that country, as is incorrectly stated in
Tac. Ann. xii. 54 in contradiction to Josephus, or of Upper Galilee, as is
erroneously inferred by Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Hildebrand, and others.? He
was thus at this time* probably in the seventh year of his procuratorship.‘
— xpityy] is not, with Beza, Grotius, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others (after
05v), to be taken generally as praefectus, rector, but specially as judge ;
for the judicial position of Felix in his procuratorship was the point here
concerned.*® — eiiduudérepov] the more cheerfully, namely, than I would be:
able to do if thou wert still new in this judicial office. — rd epi iuavrov
arodoyoipat] I bring forward in defence the things concerning myself.*

Ver. 11. Paul adds a more special reason subordinate to the general one
(ver. 10), for his eti0upuérepov . . . azodoyotua:. Since he had returned from
abroad only twelve days ago, and accordingly the ground of facts on which
they wished him condemned * was still quite new, the procurator, with his
long judicial experience among the Jewish people, could the less avoid the
most thorough examination of the matter. —ot mAetoug . . . uépas dexadto]
without 7, which Elz. has as a gloss.°—ag’ ¢ avéByv] from the day on
which® Ihad come up. This is the day of the accomplished avaBaivewv, the
day of the arrival, not of the departure from Caesarea.” As to the reckon-
ing of the twelve days, it is to be observed : (1) That by the present cio: the
inclusion of the days already spent at Caesarea is imperatively required.
Hence the assumption of Heinrichs, Hildebrand, and others is to be re-
jected as decidedly erroneous: ‘‘ Dies, quibus P. jam Caesarese fuerat, non
numerantur ; ibi enim (!!) in custodia tumultum movere non poterat.’’ ”
(2) That ob rieiove ciot permits us to regard as the current day on which the
discussion occurred, cither the twelfth or the (not yet elapsed) thirteenth ;

1 According to Wieseler, 58; see Joseph.
Ant. xx. 7. 1.

* From Joseph. Bell. ii. 12. 8. See Anger,
de temp. rat. p. 88 ; Wieseler, p. 67 f. ; comp.
also Gerlach, /.¢c., p. 75; Ewald, p. 549.

3 See Introduction, § 4.

4 To reduce the é woAAwy ériow to three years
(Btélting, Belir. z. Haeg. d. Paul. Br. p. 192),
even apart from the duration of the govern-
ment of Felix being thereby assumed as much
too short (ver. 97), ia rendered exegetically im-
poeeible by the expression itself. For acaplatio
benevolentiae, 60 definiie (érwr) a statement of
time, if by woAAwy were meant only three
years, would be very inappropriate, as the
words would contain a‘ flat uniruth. How

easily would a more flexible expression have
presented itself for such a purpose, such as é&x
woAAou xpévov, or ef ixaymy (OF wAccovwy) érwy |

® On the participle with éxcordéy., see Winer,
p. 824 (B. T. 485).

* Comp. Plat. Crif. p. 54 B, Phaed. p. 69 D,
Conv. p. 174 D, and Stallb. in loc., Pol. iv. p.
420 B, 458 C; Dem. 927. 18, 407.19; Thuc. ili,
63. 4.

T 7d iepoy éweipace PeByAwoa, COMP. Xxi. VW.

® See on iv. 22.

® ad’ hs, 8c. nuepas, COMp. On }. 2, BW.

19 Wieseler. Comp. xi. 2; Kfithner, § 444;
Winer, p. 256 (E. T. 848).

1! Kuinoel.

444 CHAP. XXIV., 12-15.

as, however, Paul wished to express as short a period as possible, the latter
view is to be preferred. There mecoruing!y results the following calcula-
tion :—
I. Day of arrival in Jerusalem, xxi. 15-17.
II. Meeting with James, xxi. 18 ff.

III. } Undertaking of the Nazarite vow and offerings, xxi. 26.
IV.
V. ¢ The seven days’ time of offering broken off by the arrest, xxi. 27.
VI.
VIL. | Arrest of the apostle, xxi. 27 ff.
VIII. Paul before the Sanhedrim, xxii. 80, xxiii. 1-10.
IX. } Jewish conspiracy and its disclosures, xxiii. 12 ff. On the same

day Paul, before midnight, is brought away from Jerusalem,
xxiii, 28, 31.
X. } Mera dé wévre guépas x.7.A., xxiv. 1.
XI. |
XII.

XIII. ) The current day.

It further serves to justify this calculation: (1) that it sufficiently agrees
with the vague statement in xxi. 27: de dé dueAdov ai extra quépar ovvreAcioda,
to place the arrest on the ji/th day of that week ; (2) that, as terminus a quo
for pera révre quépac, xxiv. 1, the ninth day may not only be assumed gen-
erally, because the immediately preceding section of the narrative, xxiii. 81
ff., commences with the departure of Paul from Jerusalem, but is also
specially indicated by the connection, inasmuch as this pera wévre juép. BO COr-
responds to the rj 62 érxaipiov, xxili. 82, that there is presented for both
statements of time one and the same point of commencement, namely, the
day on which the convoy, after nine in the evening, left Jerusalem. Anger’
deviates from this reckoning in the two points, that he places as the first of
the five days, xxiv. 1, the day of the arrival at Caesarea ; and he does not
include at all in the reckoning the day on which Paul came to Jerusalem,
because Paul reached it, perhaps, only after sunset. But the former is un-
necessary,” and the latter would not only be at variance with Paul’s own
words, ag’ 7¢ avéByv mpooxuvyga. év 'Tepouc., ver. 11, by which the day of ar-—
rival was included, but also would bring the reckoning of the apostle into
contradiction with xxi. 17, 18 (rg dé érevoy). Wieseler* hus reckoned the
days in an entirely different manner—but in connection with his opinion,
not to be approved, that the érra quépar in xxi. 27 are to be understood of
the Pentecostal week—namely : two days for the journey to Jerusalem ; the
third day, interview with James; the fourth, his arrest in the temple, Pen-
tecost ; the ji/th, the sitting of the Sanhedrim; the sizth, his removal to
Caesarea ; the seventh, his arrival there; the twelfth, the departure of Ana-
nias from Jerusalem, xxiv. 1; the thirteenth, the hearing before Felix. —
rpooxurfowy| thus with quite an innocent and legally religious design. —
ei¢ ‘Iepovc.] (see the critical remarks) belongs to avéByv.

3 De temp. rat. p. 110. 3 See above. ®p. 108 f.., and on Gal.p. 588.

PAUL’S DEFENCE. 445

Vv. 12-21. In the following speech Paul jirst disclaims the accusations
of his opponents generally and on the whole as groundless ;! then gives a
justifying explanation of the expression mpwrocraryy ri¢ Tov Nalup. aipéo., by
which they had maliciously wished to bring him into suspicion ;* and
lastly refutes the special accusation : «a2 rd lepdv éeip. BeByAdoac.*

Vv. 12, 18. ’Emiotoracw] uproar.‘ — Both after obre év raic cvvay. and after
oi're xara trav wéduv, throughout the city, eipév ue wpdc tiva diadcydpevor, 7 érioi-
oraaty roovvtTa byAov is mentally to be supplied.*

Vv. 14, 15. Aé] opposes the positive confession, which now follows, to
the preceding merely negative assurance ;° but, doubtless, I confess: ‘* As a
Christian I reverence the same God with the Jews, follow the same rule of
faith, and I have the same hope on God, that there shall be a resurrection, ’’
etc.. Thus, notwithstanding that malicious mpwroordryy tic tov Nal. aip.,
I am in nowise an enemy of the existing religion, protected by the Roman
laws! And with full truth could this ‘‘confessio ingenua, voluntaria,
plena’’' be furnished by Paul,® as he recognised in Christianity the com-
pletion of the divine law and the fulfilment of the prophets; and this rec-
ognition, us regards the law, necessarily presupposes the belief in all that
ts written in the law, namely, in its connection with the fulfilment effected
by Christ,*® although the law asarule of justification has reached its end
in Christ. — xara riv oddv x.7.4.] according to the way, which, etc., according
to the Christian mode of life,'' — qv Aéy. aipeotv] for Tertullus had, ver. 5,
used aipeorc, in itself a vor media, school, party,"* in a bad sense, a echismatic
party, sect. — ry warpgw Cea] the God worshipped by the ancestors of my
nation and from them received.'* How inviolable were even to the heathen
their ancestrul gods ! 4 — miorebwv x.r.A.] is now that which is emphatically
indicated by oirw : in this way: namely, believing all things, etc.'* — xara rir
vopov| throughout the law-book, — éArida éywv] contains a characteristic circum-
stance accompanying micretwy waot x.T.A. —xai avtoi otra} even they them-
selves there, is spoken decxvixac to those present ns the repregentatives of the
nation in the transaction. It was natural that this point of view in its gen-
erality, should admit no reference to the Sadducean deviation from the
national belief of the resurrection, or at all to special differences concerning
this dogma. It is just as certain that Paul understood dicaiwy and adixuv
morally, and not according to the sense of the self-conceit of the descendants
of Abraham."* — rpoodéxovra:] expectant. The hope is treated as objective.”

ivv. 12, 13. 1¢ Rom. x. 4.
3 vv. 14-16. 11 xxfl. 4, ix. 2, xix. 28.
3 vv. 17-21. [Ap. 1. 20. 13 See Wetstein on 1 Cor. xf. 19.

4LXX. Nom. xrvi. 9, xvi. 40; Joseph. ¢.
§ Sec examplesof sapacriaa, to present, i.e.

13 xxif. 3
14 See Wetstein and Kypke. IT. p. 192 f., and

to make good, to prove, in Kypke, II, p. 121
f.; Morus, ad Longin. p. 43; and from Philo
in Loesner, p. 280 f.

6 vv. 1%, 13.

? Bengel.

*In opposition to Baur and Zeller; alo
Schneckenburger, p. 147 f.

®° Comp. Rom. ill. 81, xl. 8 #. ; Gal. lil. 8.

on the expreasion, very common also among
the Greeks, Lobeck, Aglaoph. p. 1206, 768 ff. ;
Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. 588 f.

18 Comp. Bornemann in Rosenmfiler, Re-
pert. TI. p. 27%; Bernhardy, p. 284.

16 Bertholdt, Christol. pp. 176 ff., %8 f.).
Comp. on Luke xiv, 14.

17 See on Rom. vill. %. Comp. Bur. Ak.

446 CHAP. XXIV., 16-22.

Ver. 16, ’Ev rotry] on this account, as in John xvi. 20. It refers to the
whole contents of the confession just expressed in vv. 14, 15, as that on
which the moral striving, which Paul constantly (d:arayr.) has, has its
causal basis. — xai airdéc] e¢ ipse, like other true confessors of this faith and
this hope. — doxa] J exercise myself, i.e. in eo laboro, studeo ;' often also in
classical writers with the infinitive.* — spac rdv Oedv x.1.A.] ethical reference. *
The good conscience, xxiii. 1 is conceived as having suffered no offence,‘ i.e.
as unshaken, preserved in its unimpaired equilibrium.

Ver. 17. Ac’ érév dé rAeibvur] interjectis autem pluribus annis. The dé leads
over to the defence on the special point of accusation in ver. 6. Regarding
d:4, after. Paul means the four years, which bad elapsed since his last
visit to Jerusalem,’ How does the very fact of this long alibi, preceding
the short period of my present visit, witness against that accusation !| — ei¢
Td ESvoc you] for my nation. What a contrast in this patriotic love to the
hostile calumnies of his accusers! And Paul might so speak, for the Greek
and Asiatic contributions which he had brought’ were destined for the
support of the Jerusalem Christians, who for the most part consisted of
native Jews. If he conveyed alms for these, he assisted in them his nation,
in doing which he cherished the national point of view, that the Gentiles,
having become partakers of the spiritual blessings of the Jews, owed cor-
porcal aid to these in turn.* — zpocgopac] i.e. festival offerings. The perform-
ance of these had been among the objects of the journey. The taking on
him the Naearite offerings was only induced after his arrival by circum-
stances. Whether Paul defrayed the expenses of the Nazarite offerings
from the contribution-moneys,’ is neither here nor elsewhere said, and can-
not be determined.

Vv. 18, 19. ‘Ev olc¢, during which, applies to the mpocgopdc, during which
sacrificial occupations.’’ ‘‘Qraeci, licet alius generis nomen praecesserit,
saepe neutro plurali pronominis utuntur, generalem vocabuli notionem
respicientes.’?'°— jyvopzévov] purified, as a Nazarite," thus, in an unobjection-
able and holy condition, without multitude and without tumult. — A point
is not, with Griesbach, Scholz, and de Wette, to be placed after SopiBov,
because otherwise rivé¢ dé «.7.4. would be an imperfect sentence, which the
simplicity of the structure of the discourse '? does not justify our assuming.
Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Bornemann have correctly put only a comma.
It is accordingly to be explained in such a way, that Paul with eipw .. .

131; Job ii. 9; Isa. xxvili. 10; Tit. if. 18;
and comp. on Gal. v. 5.

1 Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 389 C.

3 See Sturz, Lex. Xen. I. p. 489.

3 Rom. vy. 1.

4 ampoon., here passive, comp. on Phil. i. 10.

§ Not while (in opposition to Stélting, Betlr.
3. Reegese d. Paulin. Briefe, 1869, p. 163 f),
as if Paol would say: while IT hare done this
(the adoxety x.7.4.) already for several years :
which neither stands in the text, nor would
be suitable after the &:awayrds already expresa-

ing far more. Bengel gives correctly the
practical significance in this statement of
time. See on Gal. il. 1.

* xviii. 22.

71 Cor. xvi. 1 ff; 2 Cor. vili.9; Rom. xv.
25.
8 Rom. xv. 27.

* Baumgarten.
1° Kohner, ad Xen. Anad. vii. 7.14. Comp.
Matthine, p. 987; Poppo, ad Thue. ili. 97. 8.
19 See xxl. 27.
13 It is otherwise In ver. 5 f.

HIS CONFINEMENT. 447

rivég 62 x.7.A. glances back to what was suid in ver. 5 f., which had sounded
as if the Sanhedrists had found him. On the other hand, rivég dé forms
the contrast, introducing the actual position of the matter, in which dé
withal refers to suppressam aliquam partem sententiae,' thus: Thereupon
there found me—not these, as they asserted, ver. 5,—but doubtless certain
Asiatic Jews.* — ides] The sense of the praeterite, and that without dy», is
here essential; for the Asiatics must have appeared, like the Sanhedrists,
before the procurator, if they, etc. That this did not happen, is a fact of the
past.® — ei re Exouev, in 80 far as they should have ought, subjective possibility.
On «i with the optative, and in the following sentence the indicative, see
Bernhard y.*‘

Vv. 20, 21. Or else® let these there, pointing to the Sanhedrists present,
say what wrong they found in me, while I stood before the Sanhedrim, unless in
respect to this one exclamation, which I made, etc. — ordvrog pov «.t.A. forbids
us to refer oiro: to the Asiatic Jews, ver. 18.°— 4 wepi puag ratty guvic)
The comparative 4 after ri without GAAo is found also in the classics.’ The
article is not placed before ¢wvjc, because the sense is: mepl rabryg mac obone
owvi¢.* The exclamation, xxiii. 6, was really the only one which Paul had
made in the Sanhedrim. epi refers back to adixnua. In respect of this ex-
clamation I must have offended, if they have found an adixmuainme! In
this one exclamation must lie the crime discovered in me! A holy irony.
— #¢ instead of 7v, attracted by gur7r.°

Ver. 22. With the frank challenge to his accusers'® Paul closes his speech.
But Felix, who declares that he wished still to institute a further examina-
tion of the matter with the assistance of Lysias, decides for the present on
an adjournment: aveBarero avrobs, ampliavit eos, both parties. He pro-
nounced until further investigation the non liquet,'' and for the time being
adjourned the settlement of the accusation.'* — axpiBtorepov ridig ra repi riz
édov] The only correct interpretation is: because he knew more exactly what
referred to Christianity.'* As Felix had been procurator for more than six
years, and as Christianity was diffused everywhere in Judaea, even in
Caesarea itself, it was natural that he should have an axpiBéorepoy knowl-
edge of the circumstances of that religion than was given to him in the
present discussion ; therefore he considered it the most fitting course to
leave the matter still in suspense. In doing so he prudently satisfied, on
the one hand, his regard for the favour of the Jews'* by not giving Paul his
liberty ; while, on the other hand, he satisfied his better intelligence about

1 Hermann, ad Philoctet. 16. ®Kfibner, ad Yen. Anad. iv. 7.5. Comp.

* Comp. Bornemann, Schol.in Luk. p. 18,
and in Rosenmiiller, Reper?. II. p. 278.

* Comp. Buttmann, neul. Gr. p. 187 (B. T.
216 f.).

4p. 306 f.; Winer, p. 276 (E. T. 387).

6 As certainly those absent can make no
statement, comp. Baeumlein, Partiz. p. 126 f,

¢ Ewald. Comp. ver. 15.

TAlciphr. Zp. ili. 21; Plat. Crié. p. 58 E;
Kiihner, § 747, A. 1. Comp. on John xill. 10.

Stallb. ad Plat. Apol. 18 A, Gorg. p. 810 D.

* Buttmann, neul. Gr. 247 (E. T. 287).

10 vv, 20, 21.

11 Cic, Cluent, 28, Brisson. formul.

12 See on the judicial term dvaPdAAcoda:
(Dem. 1042 ult.), Wetstein, and Kypke, II. p.
1298 f.

13 Ver. 14.

14 Comp. ver. 27.

448 CHAP. XXIV., 23-27.

Christianity, by which, notwithstanding his badness in other respects, he
felt himself precluded from pleasing the Jews and condemning the apostle.
This connection, which in essentials the Vulgate, Chrysostom, Erasmus, ,
Luther, Castalio, Wolf, and others' have expressed, has been often mis-
taken. Beza and Grotius, followed by Rosenmiller, Heinrichs, and Ewald, ©
regard axpiBéorepov . . . ddov a8 part of the speech of Felix: ‘‘ Ubi exac-
tius didicero, quid sit de hac secta, et ubi Lysias venerit, causam illam ter-
minado.? But so late a bringing in of the citéy is entirely without prece-
dent in the N. T.? Michaelis and Morus resolve cidac by gquamquam ; not-
withstanding his better knowledge of Christianity, Felix did not release
Paul. But this resolution is the less suggested by the relation of the parti-
ciple to the verb, as afterwards, ver. 23, the specially mild treatment of the
apostle is expressly stated. According to de Wette,* the sense is: ‘* As
he needed no further hearing of the accused, and it was only necessary now
to hear the tribune.’’ But the reference to the tribune is only to be re-
garded as a welcome pretezt and evasion: an actual hearing of Lysias would
have been reported in the sequel of the history. Lastly, Kuinoel errone-
ously renders: when he had inquired more exactly, which cidéc does not
mean. — 1a xaf tpuac] your matters, not: your misdeeds," as if it were ra xa?
bpav.*

Ver. 23. Asaraé.] belongs, like eizav, to avefarero ; and, yet ré has prepon-
derant testimony against it, having given orders.*—rnypeiofa abriv x.r.A.| thet
he should be kept in custody and should have relazation. He was to have res/,* to
be spared all annoyance.® Usually dveorv is understood of release from chains,
custodia libera, gudaxy &decpno¢;' but without indication of this special
reference in the text, and against ver. 27. From +4 éxarovrdpyy it is rather to
be inferred that the present custody was the usual custodia militaris, in
which, however, Paul was to be treated with mildness and to he left with-
out other molestation. — kai uydéva xodie] the construction is active: and
that he, the centurion, should hinder no one. —rév idiwv aitov] is not to be
understood of the Jewish servants of the procurator, but of those belonging
to the apostle, They were his friends and disciples, among whom were per-
haps also relatives.""| They were allowed to be at hand and serviceable for
the satisfaction of his wants,

Ver. 24. Mapayev.}] denotes the coming along of Felix and Drusilla to the
prison,’? where they wished to hear Paul. Grotius thinks that it refers to
the fetching of Drusilla as his wife, which took place at this time. But
this must have been more precisely indicated, and is also not chronologically

1Comp. Bengel: ‘‘consilia dilatoria, tuta
mundo in rebus divinis.”’

3 Grotius.

* See alzo Bornemann, and RosenmfOller,
Repert. TI. p. 281 f.

4 Comp. Wetatein.

® So Bottger, Beitr. II. p 12, as a threat to
the Jews.

* On d&kayveo., comp. xxili. 15.

7 Comp. ceActcas, xxili. 35.

* “Requiem,” Vulgate.
* Comp. Plat. Pol. ix. p.500 B: yaAdoa re
Polyb, 1. 66,10: dveotg «ai oyoAy.
Joseph. Ant, rvill. 6.10: dude piv yap «ai
THPHTU FY, META PEPTOL averews THE ei¢ THY
fiatray, So correctly also Wiceeler, p. 381.

1 Arrian. il. 15.7; see on it, Geih, Geach.
d. Rim, Criminalprocesses, p. 563 f.

1! yxili, 16,

13 xxiii, 8S.

Koi Geet.

ADDRESS BEFORE FELIX AND DRUSILLA. 449

suitable, as the marriage of Felix with Drusilla occurred much earlier.'
— On the beautiful Drusilla, the third wife of Felix,* the daughter of
Agrippa I. and sister of Agrippa u1., who was at first betrothed to Antiochus
Epiphanes, the prince of Commagene, but afterwards, because the latter
would not allow himself to be circumcised, was married to Azizus, king of
Emesa,’ and lastly was, with the help of the sorcerer Simon, estranged from
her husband and married by Felix, whose first wife, according to Tac.
Hist. v. 9, the granddaughter of Antony and Cleopatra,‘ is said to have been
also called Drusilla.* — pererépzy. r. T1.] certainly at the desire of his Jewish
wife, whose curiosity was interested about so well-known a preacher of
Christ.

Vv. 25, 26. What a sacredly bold fidelity to his calling! Before one,
who practised all manner of unrighteousness and incontinence—the victim of
his lust sat beside him !—‘‘ cuncta malefacta sibi impune ratus,’’ * Paul, his
defenceless prisoner, discoursed on righteousness, continence, and the impend-
ing last judgment. Such is the majesty of the apostolic spirit in its axddetEig.”
The extraordinary phenomenon strikes even the heart of Felix ; he trem-
bles (c‘). But his ruling worldliness quickly suppresses the disturbing
promptings of his conscience ; with the address of a man of the world, the
conference is broken off; Paul is sent back to his prison; and Felix—re-
mains reprobate enough to expect from such a man, and in spite of the Lex
Julia de repetundis, a bribe, and for this purpose in fact subsequently to hold
several conversations with him, —1ré viv éxov] for the present.* — xatpov dé
peraa.] tempus opportunum nactus. Here consequently Paul had spoken
axaipwc.* — A comma only is to be placed after peraxad. ce, as éArifwv, ver.
26, does not stand for the finite verb, but is a further definition to arexpif.
Also before é:6, wherefore, a comma only is to be placed. — ypyyara) Certainly
Felix had not remained in ignorance how the love of the Christiaris had
their money in readiness for Paul. ‘‘Sic thesaurum evangelii omisit infeliz
Feliz,’’ Bengel.

Ver. 27. Aceriag 62 2.npw8. | namely, from the commencement of the imprison-
ment at Caesarea.—On the time of the accession of Festus, 61; see Introd. §4.‘°
— ydpira (see the critical remarks) xaraféofa, to lay down, deposit, thanks sor
himsel?, i.e. to earn for himself thanks,"' to establish claims to their gratitude.
An old classical expression."? Grotius aptly says: ‘‘ Est locutio bene Graeca

158 or 54. See Wieseler, p. 80.

2 Suet. Claud. 28.

3 Joseph. Anti. xx. 7. 1.

4 Suetonius, ic., calle him ‘‘térium regi-
naram maritam.’’ We know only the two.

§ See Gerlach in the Luther. Zeilechr. 1869,
p. 68 f.; Ewald, p. 556 ff.

71 Cor. if. 4.

® See Kypke, II. p. 194; Bornemann and
Rosenmfiller, Repert. II. p. 22.

20 What Wieseler has further urged in
favour of the year 60 in his most recent

learned investigation (Beitr. s. Wirdig. d.
Roang. p. 822 ff.) docs not remove the
chief objection that, accurding to Josephus,
Poppeea, about the time (card rdp xaipov)
that Festus succeeded, was no longer the
mistress, but the wife of Nero. Especially
when the disconrse ie of an empress, » yvvi is
least of all to be lightly paeeed over ; on the
contrary, it is to be presumed that the ex-
pression is meant, and is to be understood,
strictly.

1 xxv. 9.

13 Herod. vi. 41. Sce Kriger on Thuc. i.
$8. 1.

450 CHAP. XXIV.—NOTES.

. - « quales locutiones non paucas habet Lucas, ubi non alios inducit
loquentes, sed ipse loquitur, et quidem de rebus ad religionem non perti-
nentibus.’’ The form ydpira, only here and in Jude 4 in the N. T., is also
found in classicul poets and prose writers, although less common than yépu.
— dedexévov] According to what was remarked on ver. 23, Paul had not
hitherto been released from chains ; and therefore we have not to suppose
that Felix on his departure changed the captivity of the apostle, which was
previously free from chains,’ into the custodia militaris allowable even in
the case of Roman citizens, in which the prisoner was bound by a chain to
the soldier who kept him. This period of two years in the life of the
apostle, we may add, remains to us, as far as the Book of Acts goes, so
completely unknown, that we are not in a position’? tu maintain that no
letters of his from that interval could be in existence. — Of Porcius Festus,
the better successor of Felix, little is known except his energetic measures
against the sicarii.* He died in the following year, and was succeeded by
Albinus, whose knavery was yet surpassed by that of his successor, Gessius
Florus.

Norges py AMeERIcAN Eprror.

(a4) Tertullus began to accuse. V. 2.

Lysias, the chief captain, had sent Paul under a strong military escort to
Cassarea to appear before the Roman governor Felix. Thus Paul returned to
that city in a very different style from that in which he left it, a short time
before. Then he was attended by a little caravan of humble disciples, now in
the midst of a Roman body-guard, with all the pomp of martial display. Then,
however, as a preacher bound, but only in spirit, to go to Jerusalem ; now, as a
prisoner bound in chains, destined to along imprisonment. The -officer in
charge took Paul at once to the governor, and delivered the letter which had
been intrusted to him by Lysias. Felix read the letter, inquired to what prov-
ince the prisoner belonged, and intimated his intention of trying the case
when his accusers arrived.

The Jews, probably because ignorant of Roman law, engaged the services of
a Roman barrister of eminent ability, persuasive eloquence, and probably of
great reputation, to make the charges against the apostle. From the outline
given of his speech, he was evidently a practised pleader, and a voluble, plau-
sible orator. “ Augustine says : ‘‘ Eloquence is the gift of God, but the eloquence
of a bad man is like poison in a golden cup.” He commences with a fulsome
and flattering compliment to Felix, which he certainly little deserved, since,
though he suppressed some bands of brigands with much vigor and decision,
he kept a number of sicarii in his employment, and inflamed the dissatisfac-
tion and fanned a spirit of sedition among the Jews. Te was both covetous
and cruel, and was one of the worst governors ever placed over Judea. He is
reported to have been more criminal than the very robbers whom he put to

1 Bnt see on ver. 23. *See Joseph. Anti. xx. 8.9 f.to xx. 9.1,
2 With Ewald and Otto, Bell, ti, 14.1.

NOTES. 451

death, “‘ ipse tamen his omnibus erat nocentior.” Next Tertullus apologizes for
intruding even for a brief space upon the time and attention ot the governor,
and proceeds to make his charges against Paul, which were threefold : First, he
accuses him of sedition; as being a pest in the community, a disturber of the
peace, and one who excited factions among the Jews. The next count in the
indictment was heresy ; as being a ringleader in the sect whom he contemptu-
ously calls the Nazarenes—a term of reproach, here first used, which has been
often applied to the followers of Christ. Jews and Mohammedans both still use
it. This charge had at least the merit of truth, as Paul was unquestionably a
standard-bearer among those thus stigmatized. The last accusation was, sac-
rilege ; as going about to profane the temple—a serious charge, but utterly un-
founded. Having thus made an orderly and formal indictment against the
apostle of treason against Rome, schism against Moses, and profanity against
the gods, the clever and crafty advocate insinuates that the Sanhedrim would
have judged Paul righteously had Lysias nut interposed, and farther gets the
elders to assent to all he had stated. The governor intimated to Paul that he
might now reply to the charges laid against him. ‘‘ Nou ignoravit Paulus artem
rhetorum movere laudendo.'’ He first states that he could proceed with his
defence more cheerfully and hopefully because, for so long a period, his judge
had been cognizant of affairs in Judea. He replies to each of the charges and
refutes them in succession. He had not caused any disturbance of the public
peace, or raised any opposition to the Roman law ; he had only been a few days
in the country, and he challenged any one to prove that he had said or done
anything contrary to the law: he had excited no tumult in the temple, in the
synagogues, or in the city. As to the charge of schism, he frankly avowed that
after the way they called the sect of the Nazarenes he worshipped the God of his
fathers, the God of the Jews. As Lange expresses it, “ By these words Paul
maintains that, along with his Christian faith, he was a true Jew ; for Chris-
tianity is the fulfilment and truth of Judaism.”’

As to the charge of polluting the temple, it was utterly baseless, as after
an absence of years he had gone thither, had purified himself, for the pur-
pose of presenting offerings, and had been guilty of no act of impropriety
whatever ; and he closed by challenging any member of the Sanhedrim present
to say whether, when on trial before that council, any such accusation had
been laid against him, and stated further that the only disturbance arose
among themselves concerning the doctrine of the resurrection, which the ma-
jority of them believed in, as he did. The reply of the apostle was conclusive
and triumphant, and he ought to have been acquitted at once, but Felix remand.
ed him to jail for further examination.

(B*) According to our law, etc. VY. 6.

On the genuineness of this passage Alford encloses it in brackets and writes:
‘‘The phenomena are common enough in the Acts of unaccountable insertions.
But in this place it is the omission which is unaccountable, for no similarity
of ending, no doctrinal reason can have led to it.” Hackett says : ‘‘ The pas-
sage is of doubtful authority.” ‘‘ It is urged for the words that their insertion
answers no apparent object, and that they may have been dropped accidental-
ly.” Plumptre remarks : ‘‘ The word may have been either the interpolation of a

452 CHAP. XXIV.—NOTES.

ascribe, or a later addition of the writer.” Gloag observes : ‘‘ The genuineness
of the entire passage has been calledin question. The external evidence is de-
cidedly against its reception. On the other hand the internal evidence is rather
in favor of the words. Without them the speech of Tertullus is apparently de-
fective, and awkward in point of construction.’’ Wordsworth considers the pas-
sage genuine and Jacobson says : ‘‘ The clause is recognized by the Syriac and
the Vulgate, and the report of the speech is exceedingly brief and meagre with-
out it,’’

(ot) Feliz trembled. V. 26.

Felix by vile means had seduced the wife of Azizas, the daughter of Herod
Agrippa, from her allegiance to her husband, and had married her. Probably
at her request, as she could scarcely be entirely ignorant of the events con-
nected with the disciples and their persecutions, Felix sent for Paul, to hear
from him concerning his beliefs ; and right nobly did the dauntless apostie
discharge his duty. Paul had been often summoned before Felix. Now Felix is
arraigned before Paul. And as the prisoner reasoned before the governor and his
princess, both of them notoriously and consciously guilty, the cruel, rapacious,
and blood-stained ruler was profoundly stirred and agitated. Looking back on
his stained past, and constrained for a moment to peer into the fature certain
retribution, he trembled. And well he might, for testimony the most irrefragable
from both Jewish and Pagan sources show ‘“‘ how greedy, how savage, how
treacherous, how unjust, how steeped with the blood of private and public
massacre’’ he had been during his government of Samaria and Palestine.
Tacitus says that in “the practice of all kinds of lust, crime, and cruelty, he
exercised the power of a king, with the temper of a slave.”” He trembled, but
he trifled with his awakened conscience and said,** Go.’’ Better far that a man’s
conscience should never be awakened at all, than that it should be awoke with
its reproofs, and be disobeyed. Dr. Taylor deduces the following lessons from
the incident : The twofold power in conscience to sustain and condemn, as il-
lustrated by Paul and Felix ; the danger of stifling conviction ; the hypocrisy
of procrastination, the fettering influence of sin.

‘‘ To-morrow and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death.”

CBITICAL REMARKS. 453

CHAPTER XXYV.

Ver, 2. 6 apyrepevs] of dpytepeis is decidedly attested. Recommended by
Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. The singular arose from xxiv. 1. —
Ver. 4. eiS Kaccdp.] so Lachm. Tisch. Born., according to preponderating testi-
mony. Elz. Scholz have év Kaccapeca. An interpretation. — Ver. 5. rovry] A B
C EX, min. Arm. Vulg. Lucifer. have droxev. So Lachm. and Born. But how
easily, with the indefiniteness of the expression éi rc éorly év «.7.4., Was aromov
suggested as a gloss, perhaps from a recollection of Luke xxiii. 41! This then
supplanted the superfluous rovry. Other codd. have rovty drorov. And Grorov
is found variously inserted. — Ver. 6. ob mAeiuvS oxtd } déxa] so Griesb. Lachm.
Tisch. Scholz, Born. But Elz. has rAeious # dexa, in opposition to ABC &,
min, Copt. Arm. Vulg. As the oldest codd., in which the numbers are written
as words, likewise all the oldest vss. (of which, howover, several omit ov, and
several ob rAziovs), have dara, it is very probable that in later witnesses the
number written by the numeral sign 7 was absorbed by the following 7,
Finally, the omission of o} was suggested by év rdaye., ver. 4, as it was thought
that diarpipas d2 . . . déxa must be taken as a contrast to év réyec (he promised
to depart speedily, yet he tarried, etc.).— Ver. 7. airiduata] Griesb. Scholz,
Lachm. Tisch. read airiipyara, which is so decidedly attested that, notwith-
standing that this form does not occur elsewhere, it must be adopted. — gépor-
Te§ xata Tod [lavAov] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read .«aragépovres, following A BC &,
Io. 40, Vulg. Lucifer. The Recepta is one interpretation of this; another is
érigép. tro II. in E, — Ver. 11. ydop] ABC E ®, min. Copt. Slav. Chrys. Theo-
phyl. 2, have ov, which Griesb. has approved, and Lachm. Tisch. Born. have
adopted. Rightly ; « uty odv adind seemed entirely at variance with the pre-
ceding obdév ndixnoa, — Ver. 15. dixyv] A B®, min. Bas. have caradixny. Rec-
ommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Born. An interpretation. —
Ver. 16, Afte® avfpwrov Elz. Scholz have eS arudeav. It is wanting in pre-
ponderating witnesses, and is an addition of the nature of a gloss. — Ver. 18.
exégepov] Lachm, Tisch. Born. read égepov, according to decisive testimony. —
After tr v. éyé A C* have zovnpdy (80 Lachm.), and B E ®** sornpdy (so Born. ).
Two different exegetical additions. — Ver. 20. rovrwr) has decisive attestation.
But Elz. Scholz have rovrov, which (not to be taken with Grotius and others as
the neuter) was occasioned by the preceding 4 IlavAos and the following ei
Jovdorto, —Ver. 21. avaréupw is to be adopted, with Lachm. Tisch. Born., accord-
ing to preponderating testimony, instead of zéuyu. The reference of the com-
pound was overlooked. — Ver. 22. ¢97, and afterwards o dé, are deleted by
Lachm. Tisch. Born., according to A B &; and rightly. They were added by way
of completion. — Ver, 25. caradaddéuevoS] Lachm. and Born. read xareAaGéuny,
following A B OE ®** lo, Vulg. Copt. Syr., which witnesses also omit xai
before atrod. A logical emendation. — Ver. 26. oxo, ts ypdapa:] Lachm.
Tisch. Born. read oxo, ti ypdyw according to A BC, min. The Recepia isa
mechanical repetition from the preceding.

454 CHAP. XXV., 1-11.

Ver. 1. Naturally it was the interest of Festus, both in his official and
personal capacity, after he had entered upon his province as procurator of
Judaea, i.e. after having arrived in it, soon to acquaint himself more fully
with the famous sacred capital of the nation which he now governed. —
éxcBaiverr, with the dative.’ — ry éxapyia ;* for the procurators were also
called érapyot.*

Vv. 2, 3. ’Evegdvoay «.r.A.] See on xxiv. 1. — of apyepeic} see the critical
remarks, as in xxii. 30; consequently not merely the acting high priest,‘
who at that time was Jehmael, son of Phabi, and successor of Ananias.’*
—xal oi xpara tay "Iovdaiwv}] thus not merely the mpecfitepo, xxiv. 1. The
opposition now came forward in a larger spiritual and secular representation
of the nation against the enemy of the national religion. It is true that
most of these rparo: were without doubt Sunhedrists, and therefore also
Festus names them directly @ potiori rpeoBirepa ;° but this does not justify
the assertion of Grotius, that Luke here uses zpara: as equivalent to mpeo8.
So also de Wette and Ewald. Ver. 5 is opposed to this view. — airotye-
vot dpi x.7.A.] desiring for themselves favour against him.” — drac x.7.A.) The
design of rapexdA. avr. — évédpav rocovvrec x.T.A.] an accompanying definition
to wapexddovy . . . ‘Iepovoadgu, giving a significant explanation of the pecu-
liar nature of this proceeding : inasmuch as they thereby formed a snare, in
order to put him to death, through assassins, by the way.

Ver. 4. For the reasons of the decision, see ver. 16. — By rypeiofa . . .
éxmopeveota:, the reply of refusal: ‘‘ Paul remains at Caesarea,’’ is expressed
indirectly indeed, but with imperative decidedness, Observe in this case
the rypeiofa: emphatically prefixed in contrast to ueraréuy., ver. 8. — cic
Katoép.] In Caesarea, whither he was brought in custody." — Notice the
contrast between the Jewish baseness and the strict order of the Roman
government.

Ver. 5. The decidedly attested order of the words is: oi oby é& tpiv gow
dtvara.* ol duvaroi év ty. are: the holders of power among you, i.e. those who
are invested with the requisite official power, for making a public com-
plaint in the name of the Jewish nation. Thus the usual literal meaning
of duvaréc is to be retained, and it is neither to be explained, with Erasmus,
as idonei; nor, with Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Homberg: quibus commodum
est ; nor, with Bengel: those who are strong for the journey; nor, with
Er. Schmid and Wolf : quibus in promptu sunt accusandi capita. Certainly
if ol mpdro, ver. 2, were the same as oj rpecBirepoa, then of duvaroi év tpiv
would be unsuitable, as those persons in power were just the Sanhedrists ;
wherefore oi tparoe must include also other prominent persons. —ovyxaraf. |
having gone down with me. — el te éotiv] namely, an object of accusation.

1 Bee Thuc. vii. 70. 5; Diog. L. i. 19; Diod. 8 xix. 22, xxi. 13.

xvi. 66; Pind. Nem. iii. 19. ® Lachmann, Tischendorf, Bornemann.
2 xxiil. 34. See on ejmilar intervening insertions of @yex,
8 See Krebs in loc. Kihner, ad Xen. Mem. ili. 5. 18; Bornemann,
¢ As in xxiv. 1. ad loc.; Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 472 D.
§ See Joseph. Anté. xx. 8. 8, 11. 10 Comp. Castalio, de Dieu, and others.
* Ver. 15. : 11 Thue. vi. 80. 2; Diod. xii. 80; Wied. x.

7 Com, ver. 15. 13; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 898.

PAUL'S TRIAL AND APPEAL 455

Vv. 6, 7. Acarpipac . . . déxa] includes the whole brief stay of Festus at
that time among the Jews at Jerusalem (év avroic), not merely the time
that had elapsed since the rejection of that proposal. — repitoryoay| stood .
round Paul, as is evident from the preceding zrapay. d2 avrov.! Grotius and
Kuinoel incorrectly bold that it is to be referred to rd Biya. — roAAa xai
x.t.A.] asin John xx. 80. —airsépara {see the critical remarks), instead of
aitiduara, accusations, is not elsewhere preserved.* — xaragépovreg (see the
critical remarks), they brought against him.*

Ver. 8. They were not in a condition to prove them, seeing that he stated ©
Sor his vindication, that, etc.‘ — obte x.r.4.] These were consequently the
three principal points to which the rojAa xai Bapéa aitidouara of the Jews
referred,* to which they now added the political accusation, as formerly
against Jesus. |

Ver. 9. Xdpiv xatafécfa:] see on xxiv. 27.—OfAeic... em’ tpod;
Grotius correctly renders: visne a Synedrio judicari me praesente? For that
Festus meant a8 xpiveofla: by the Sanhedrim, is evident of itself from cig ‘Iepoo.
avaB. and éxei. — én’ éuov] coram me. Bengel aptly observes: hoc Festus
speciose addit.— Paul must be asked the question, 6éAs:¢, because he had
already been delivered over to the higher Roman authority, and accord-
ingly as a Roman citizen could not be compelled again to renounce the
Roman tribunal.—Ilf Festus had previously * without ceremony refused the
request of the Jews, which was at variance with the course of Roman law,
he now shows, on the other hand, after they had conformed to the ordi-
nary mode of procedure, that he was quite willing to please them. Cer-
tainly he could not doubt beforehand that his 6éAe¢ would be answered in
the negative by Paul; yet by his question he made the Jews sensible at
least that the frustration of their wish did not proceed from any indisposi-
tion on his part.

Ver. 10. Paul gives a frank and firm refusal to that request, both posi-
tively—émi rov Shu. Kaio. «.r.A.—and negatively—'Iovdaioug obdév x.1.A., to
the Jews I have committed no offence. —ini t. Bip. Kaicapocg] for ‘‘ quae acta
gestaque sunt a procuratore Caesaris, sic ab eo comprobantur, atque sia Cae-
sare ipso gesta sint.” — xaAdwv] namely, than appears to follow from your
question. Paul makes his judge feel that he ought not to have proposed
that 6éAer¢ x.r.A. to him at all, as it could not but conflict with his own
better conviction.

Ver. 11. From his preceding declaration that he must be judged before
the imperial tribunal, and not by Jews, Paul now reasons® that he accord-
ingly by no means refuses to die, if, namely, he is in the wrong; but in
the opposite case, etc. In other words: ‘‘ Accordingly, I submit myself
to the penalty of the Roman law, if I am guilty; but, if,’ ete. And, in
order to be sure of the protection of Roman law, amidst the inclination of

1 Comp. ver. 18. [of airiaccs. ® Comp. xxi. %8, xxiv. 5 f.
3 Yet Enst. p. 1498, 21, hae airiworrs instead © Ver. 4.
3 Gen. xxxvil. 2; Dent. xxii. 14. 7 Ulpian LZ. J. D. de qfle. procuratorie.

4 On arodcyeioGa. with én: (more frequently ® ody, as the correct reading instead of yép,
with oc), comp. Xen. Qec. xi. 22. seo the critical remarks.

456 CHAP. Xxv., 12-18.

Festus to please the Jews, he immediately adds the appeal to the Empe-
ror (pD‘). — ei... ado) If I am at fault.! The idea of the word presup-
poses the having done wrong,* therefore the added «al déov bay. rémp. con-
tains a more precise definition of ad:xd, and that according to the degree.
—ov Tapatrovuat x.T.A.] non deprecor.*—rd arodaveiv] ‘‘id ipsum agi, notat
articulus.’’ *— ci 62 obdév éariv dv] but if there exists nothing of that, of which
they, etc. «ov is by attraction for rovrev a.* — divara:] namely, according
to the possibility conditioned by the subsisting legal relations. — avroi¢
xapicacta| to surrender me to them out of complaisance.* — Kaicapa énxad.] I
appeal to the Emperor.’ Certainly the revelation, xxiii. 11, contributed to
Paul's embracing this privilege of his citizenship.® ‘' Non vitae suae, quam
ecclesice consulens,’’ Augustine accordingly says, Ep. 2.

Ver. 12. The conference of Festus with the council acting as his advi-
sers, as may be inferred from the answer afterwards given, referred to the
question whether the érixAjoic of the Emperor was to be granted without
more adv. For in cases of peculiar danger, or of manifest groundlessness
of the appeal, it might be refused. The consiliarii® of the provincial
rulers were called also mépedpor, assessores.'! — After éincxéxa., the elsewhere
usual note of interrogation, which simply spoils the solemnity and force of
the answer, is already condemned by Grotius.—Baumgarten thinks that,
from the appeal to Caesar, which in his view will not have been pernicious
to Paul, and from xxvii. 24, it may be inferred that the Acts of the Apos-
tles is decidedly favourable to the supposition of a liberation of Paul from
the Roman imprisonment. Too rash a conclusion. Neither the appeal
nor xxvii. 24 points beyond Rome. To Rome he wished to go (appeal), and
was to go, xXVil. 24. |

Ver. 18. This Marcus Agrippa was the well-meaning, but too weak,
Herod Agrippa 11., son of the elder Agrippa, grandson of Aristobulus, and
the great-grandson of Herod 1. Soon after the death of his father’? he
received from Claudius, at whose court he was brought up," the principality
of Chalcis, and instead of this, four years afterwards,“ from the same
eriperor, the former tetrarchy of Philip and Lysanias, along with the title
of King ;'* and at a later period, from Nero, a further considerable increase
of territory. He did not die till the third year of Trajan, being the last-
reigning prince of the Herodian house.'’* — Bepvixy, also Beronice and Bere-

1 See Kriiger, Inder. Xen. Anad. ; Jacohitz,
ad Luc. Ttm,. 2, p. % f.; Heind. ad Plat.
Protag. § 4, p. 468 f.

2 Kohner, ad Yen. Anab. i. 5. 12.

® Comp. Joseph. Vis. 29; Herod. i. 24:
Wuxny 5¢ wapacreduevoy. Lys. adv. Sim. $4:
afua 2... . ef pdy adi, undepias ovyyrouns
Tvyxdvecy.

4 Bengel. Comp. Buttmann, neuf. Gr. p.
226 (EB. T. 262).

§ Comp. xxiv. 8; Luke xxiii. 14.

® See on fil. 14.

7 See examples from Plutarch of éwucad. in
Wetstein; also Plut. Graech. 16; in Dem.

and others ; .é¢:évat.

8 See Grotius in loc.- Krebs, de provocat.
Pauli ad Caea. in his Opuec. p. 143 ff.

® See Geib, ic. p. 684 f.

30 Snet. 7%. 33.

1! Suet Galda, 19. See generally, Perizonius,
de Praetorto, p. 718; Ewald, p. 326.

33 xfi, 28.

18 Joseph. Anéé, xix. 9. 2, xx. 1. 1.

14 a.v. 53.

18 Joseph. Anté. xx. 7. 1.

18 See Ewald, p. 5855 ff.; Gerlach in the Zu-
ther. Zeitschr. 1869, p. 62 ff.

FESTUS AND AGRIPPA. 457

nice,' was his sister, formerly the wife of her uncle Herod the prince of Chal-
cis, after whose death she lived with her brother, —probubly in an incestuous
relation,*—a state of matters which was only for a short time interrupted
by a second marriage, soon again dissolved, with the Cilician king Pole-
mon.® At a later period still she became mistress of the Empcrors Ves-
pasian and Titus.‘ — acracduevoc] It was quite in keeping with the relation
of a Roman vassal, that he should welcome the new procurator soon after
his accession to office.

Ver. 14. The following conversation between Festus and Agrippa most
naturally appears not as a communication by an ear-witness,* but as drawn
up by Luke himself as a free composition ; for he had the materials for
the purpose in his accurate information, received from Paul, as to the
occurrence set forth in ver. 7 ff. — avédero] he set forth, enarravit, Gal. ii. 2.
His design in this was * to learn the opinion of the king ; for Agrippa, as an
Tdumean, as belonging himself to Judaism,’ and especially as chief over-
seer of the temple and of the election of high priest,* was accurately
acquainted with the state of Jewish affairs.

Vv. 15, (16. Airobuevor x.7.A.] asking for punishment against him. That
dixnv® is so to be taken, according to its very frequent use by the classical
writers,’ is shown by ver. 16.'' — rpiv 7] refera to the conception of con-
demnation contained in yapijecda:. As to the principle of Roman law here
expressed, see Grotius.'? On the optative with piv after a negative clause,
when the matter is reported ‘‘ ut in cogitatione posita,’’ see Klotz, ad Devar.
p. 726.

Vv. 17-20. After they had therefore come together here,'* I made no delay,
etc. '4— Ver, 18. repi ov| belongs to oradévrec.'® — airiav épepov (see the criti-
cal remarks) : they brought no accusation. The classical expression would be
aiz. excoépecv.'® — dv, instead of Exeivev G, bre vduuv éyo] In the case of a
man already so long imprisoned, and assailed with such ardent hostility,
Festus very naturally supposed that there existed some peculiar capital
crimes, chiefly, perhaps, of a political nature. It is true that political
charges were alsu brought forward,'’ but ‘‘ hinc iterum con jicere licet, imo
aperte cognoscere, adeo futiles fuisse calumnias, ut in judicii rationem
venire non debuerint, perinde ac si quis convicium temere jactet,’’ Calvin,
— Ver. 19. rept rij¢ idiag deodaiu.| concerning their own religion. Festus
prudently uses this vor media, leaving it to Agrippa to take the word in a

' 4.6. equivalent to @epen«n, Sturz, Dial.
Maced. p. 31.

32 Joseph. Ant?. xx. 7. 3.

3 Joseph. Anéé. xx. 7. 5.

11 Comp. the passages with air. six. in Wet-
stein.

12 in loc., and on xvi, 87. Likewise as to
the Greek law, see Dissen, ad Dem. de cor.

4 See Gerlach, /.c. p. 160.
® Riehm, Kuinoel. 13 To Caesarea, just as in ver. 24.
6 See ver. 26 f. 14 See examples of avafoAny woveicGas (comp.
7 Comp. xxvi. 27; also Schoettg. Hor. p. avafddArAccOa, xxiv, 93) in Wetetein.
481. 38 Comp. ver. 7.

§ Joseph, Anéi. xx. 1. 3.

® Comp. 2 Thess. 1.9; Jude 7.

10 See Reiske, Ind. Dem. p. 162 f.; Ast, Lex
Plat. I. p. 688.

46 Herod. 1.263; Thuc. vi. 76; Plat. Legg.
ix. p. 856 E; and often in the orators, or
exayey Dem. 275. 4),

17 Ver. 8.

458 CHAP. XXV., 21-27.

good sense, but reserving withal his own view, which was certainly the
Roman one of the Judaica superstitio.' — ¢7v] that he lives, namely, risen and
not again dead. Moreover, the words xai xepi tivog "Inoot . . . Cv bear
quite the impress of the indifference and insignificance which Festus
attached to this very point, inasmuch as, in regard to the redvyxdror, he
does not even condescend to designate the mode of death, and, as regards
the ¢7v, sees in it an empty pretence.*— Ver. 20. amupobyevos] but I, uncer-
tain on my part. Quite in accordance with the circumstances of the case—
for before the king Festus might not lay himself open to any imputation
of partiality—Luke makes the procurator keep silence over the real motive
_ of his proposal, ver. 9. — cic ri epi tobTwv Cyr.) reyarding the investigation
to be held on account of these to me 80 strange matters.* Instead of eg rH
x.t.A.,4 Luke might have written only rv x.r.4.,° OF rie x.1.2.°

Ver. 21. After, however, Paul had appealed to be kept in ward" for the cog-
nizeance® of Augustus, etc. — ztyp79qvac} is not equivalent to cic rd tap79.,°
but it is the contents of the expressed appeal, namely, the legul demand
which it contained. After this appeal had been in law validly made, no
further proceedings might be taken by the authorities at their own instance
against the appellant.'° — airéy] is not to be written airdy, as there is no
reflexive emphasis. — ZeBacréc] Venerandus, the Lat. Augustus, the well-
known title of the emperors since the time of Octavianus."! — fue ov ava-
néupo (see the critical remarks |) is direct address."

Ver. 22. The narrative of Festus has excited the Jewish interest of the
king, so that he also, on his part («. avré¢), wishes to hear the prisoner. —
éBovadunv] quite like our: J wished,“ namely, if it admitted of being done."
Calvin erroneously infers from the imperfect that Agrippa had previously
cherished a wish to hear Paul, but had hitherto refrained from expressing
it, in order not to appear as if he had come for any other reason than to
salute Festus. — aipiov aroboy . . . avrov] The wish of the king is very
welcome to the procurator. Why? see ver. 26.

Ver. 23. davracia, show, pomp, raparourh.'*—rd axpoarfprov " is the audience-
chamber appointed for the present occasion. That it was, as is assumed,
just the usual judgment-hall, is at least not conveyed in the words. —
civ te Toig K.T.A.}] réis placed after ob, not after zA:épy., because the ctv

2 Quinctil. iii. 8. Comp. on xvil. 23.

3 épacxey, Comp. XXxiv. 0. (vi. 16. 2.

3 ¢hryows, in the judicial sense, as in Pol.

4 Comp. Soph. 7rach. 1288.

*As AH actually read. Heind. ad Jat.
Crat. p. 409 C.

® Stallb. ad Flat. Rep. p. 857 D.

7 Ver. 4.

8 Judicial decision, Wiad. ili. 18, and often
in the classical writers.

® Grotius, Wolf, Heinrichs, and others.

10 See Wetstein on ver, 11.

11 See generally, Fincke, de appellationibd.
Caesarum honorif. et adulator. usque ad Ha-
drian., Regiom. 1867. avros yevouevos apxn
ocBagmov cat tots éwecra, Philo, Leg. ad Ca-

tum p. 1012. Vell. Paterc. ii.91: Dio Cass.
liih. 16 ; Herodian, ii. 10. 19, iil. 18.7; Strabo,
Vii. p. 291.

12 On avareumrew, fo send up, of the trans-
port of prisoners to Rome, comp. Polyb. 1. 7.
12, xxix. 11.9; Lucian. Zor. 17; and Jacob
tn loc. See also on Luke xxiii. 7.

13 Comp. on xxiii. 12,

14 Germ. : ich wollte.

18 Comp. Rom. ix. 8; Gal. iv. 20. See Wi-
ner, p. 265 f. (E. T. 858).

26 1 Macc. ix. 87, ambitio (Nep. x.2. 2). See
Polyb. xv. 25. 5, xvi. 21. 1, xxxii. 12.6: Diog.
L. iv. 58: Jacobse, ad Del. epigr. p. 152; and
Wetstein.

37 Plut. Moral. p. 45 F, 987 D. Caz. 22.

AUL AND AGBEIPPA, 459

is again mentally supplied before avdpaa.! By roic ycddpyouc, there were
Jive cohorts, and therefore five tribunes in Caesarea—and by dvdpac: . . .
nmoAewe are meant the principal military and the prominent civil personages
of the city. — Instead of roic¢ war’ éfuxyv odor, o classical writer would say
ruig t&dyzorg OF ésoxwrarots.*

Vv. 24, 25. Oewpere| Indicative. — wav rd 2AgO0¢] appears to conflict with
vv. 2 and 15, and is at all events an exaggeration. But bow natural is it
to suppose that the persons there named were accompanied by an impetuous
crowd! Hence also éimodvres. On évérvydv po, they have approached me,
in a hostile spirit towards him.? On évddde, comp. xxv. 17. — nai avrod dé
tovrov] and, on the other hand,‘ this person himself, itemque ipse ille.

Vv. 26, 27. "Acgatéc z:] something trustworthy, whereby the emperor, 6
ntptoc, Dominus, the appellation declined by Augustus and Tiberius, but ac-
cepted by their successors, * may inform himself certainly concerning the state
of matters. Such a fixing of the real cirfa had not been possible for the pro-
curator, who had to draw up the literae dimissoriae, 80 long as the proceed-
ings were constantly disturbed and confused by intentional fabrications
of the Jews. — avaxpic.] A preliminary examination, ‘‘judicis edocendi
causa.’?*—In o72 7: yodyu (see the critical remarks) ypaywo is the fu-
ture:’ what I am to write. — adoyov] unreasonable, absurd.® Without elva:.”
—ra¢ kar’ abrov aitias] This was_just the aogadéc, which was still wanting
to the procurator. Without having made himeelf clear as to the contents
of the charges brought against Paul, he would have been obliged frankly
to report to the emperor that he was in ignorance of them. Olshausen,
however, is hasty in holding that, with the placing of the apostle before
Agrippa the prediction of the Lord'* was now for the first time fulfilled. We
know far too little of the previous history of the other apostles to take
this ground. Perhaps the elder James and Peter had already stood before
Herod.'! But Paul stood here for the first time before a king, who, how-
ever, is by no means to be considered as the representative of the power of
the heathen world, as Baumgarten supposes, as Agrippa was himself a Jew,"*
ruled over the Jews, was by Paul addressed as a Jew," and was, in fact, even
regarded as representative of the Jews.“

? See Bchoemann, ad eae. p. 8% f. ; Stallb.
ad Plat. Crit. p 48B.

2On the periphrastic card, see Winer, 396
{E. T. 528).
3? Comp. 1 Macc. viii. 89, x. 61; 2 Macc. iv.
96. (51.

4xas ... 8¢ as in xxii. 20; see on John vi.

& See Wolf and Wetstein, also Dongt. Anal.
p. 96; Fincke, /.c.

* Grotius. See aleao Heind. ad Piat. Phaedr.
p. 877 E.; Hermann, Staatealterth. § 141.1.

7 See on Phil. i. 2.

8 Thuc. vi. 85. 1, Plat. Gorg. p. 619 E, Apol,
p. 18 C,

* See Sauppe, and Kiihner ad Xen. Mem.
i. 1.5.

10 Matt. x. 18; Mark xill. 9.

11 Agrippa 1., xii. 2, 8 f.

12 See on ver. 14.

18 yxvi. 8, 27.

14 See wap’ piv xxvL. 8,

460 CHAP. XXV.—NOTES.

“

Notes BY AMERICAN Eprror.

(p‘) I appeal to Cesar. V. 11.

For two years the mercenary and unprincipled Felix kept Paul in prison at
Caesarea. It has been supposed by some that during this period, Luke, hav-
ing free access to Paul, wrote his gospel, and perhaps a part of the Acts under
his direction. On account of a formal impeachment by the Jews, Felix was re-
called to Rome to answer their accusations, and Festus, a man of a very differ-
ent character, was appointed as his successor. He seems to have been an up-
right and honorable man, who entered upon the duties of his office with energy,
activity, and decision. Owing to the excited state of mind among the Jews at
the time, and their embittered feelings against Paul, his case was at once
brought before Festus. The new governor without delay visited Jerusalem,
the ancient capital of the province, with a view to become acquainted with the
characteristics of the people whom he had been appointed to govern.

When there, the chief men among the Jews came to him, and asked, as a
special favor, that he would give judgment against Paul at once, or order him
to be sent to Jerusalem for trial. This was done with the sinister design of as-
sassinating him while on the way. The answer of Festus was dignified and
worthy of the office he held : ‘* Let his accusers come to Cesarea, and he shall
be tried there.’’ As soon as Festus returned Paul is brought again before the
court. The Jews passionately and clamorously reiterate their former charges
of treason, heresy, and sacrilege, which the apostle meets with a calm and em-
phatic denial. With the view of putting an end to a scene so disorderly and
offensive to his sense of Roman decorum, Festus asks Paul whether he was
willing to transfer the question from Roman back to Jewish jurisdiction.
Paul’s reply is prompt and decided, and reveals the dauntless and heroic spirit
of the man. “Iam either guilty or not ; if guilty, I fear not the sentence of
death from the tribunal at which I now stand ; but if I am innocent, as a Ro-
man citizen, no man can deliver me into the hands of the Jews ; I appeal to
Casar.’’ The right of appeal from a subordinate court to the emperor was
one of the privileges of citizenship ; and no unnecessary impediment could be
interposed against such appeal. Festus therefore, having consulted his coun-
sellors, granted the appeal and said, “ Unto Cesar thou shalt go” —%“ Casarem
appellasti ; ad Cesarem ibis.” So Paul was again remanded to prison until ar-
rangements could be made to forward him to Rome. Particular importance
was attached to the right of appeal from the judgments of provincial magis-
trates. The magic power of this one word appello is described as similar to
that of the talismanic phrase, Civis Romanus sum. Indeed the two things coin-
cided. (Alexander.)

(E*) Unto my lord. VY. 26.

‘O xvptoc—dominus—lord. Gloag says: “In the use of this title we have
an instance of the extreme accuracy of the historian of the Acts.” This title
was declined by the first two emperors, Augustus and Tiberias. Caligula ac-
cepted it, but it was not a recognized title of any emperor before Domitian. Of

NOTES. 461

Augustus, Tertullian writes : “ Augustus imperii formator ne dominum quidem
dici se volebat’’—Augustus, the founder of the empire, did not wish any one
to call him lord. And Suetonius writes : “ Dominum se appellari, ne a liberis
quidem, aut nepotibus, vel serio vel joco, passus est” —He suffered not him-
self to be addressed as lord, even by his own children or grandchildren,
whether in jest or earnest.

Antoninus Pius was the first who put this title on hiscoins. Polycarp, who
was acontemporary of some of the apostles, and who suffered martyrdom at an
advanced age, refused to utter it.

462 CRITICAL REMARKS.

CHAPTER XXVI.

Ver. 1. txép} Lachm. Tisch. Born. read epi, upon decisive evidence. —
Ver. 3. After déoua: Elz. Scholz have cov, which is deleted by Lachm. Tisch.
Born., according to A B E &, min. Aeth. Syr. p. Arm. Vulg. A supplementary
addition. — Ver. 6, eis] Elz. Scholz have mpés. eis has A BE &, min. in its
favour ; is recommended by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. ;
p6s is explanatory, in accordance with xiii. 32. — After rar. ABC E ®&, min.
Chrys. Theophyl. and many vss. have judy. Adopted by Griesb. Scholz,
Lachm., and in view of the considerable preponderance of testimony, rightly.
The unnecessary pronoun was easily passed over. — Ver. 7. The critically
established order of the words is: é¢yxadoduar tnd ‘lovdaiwy (not urd twv “Toud.,
as Elz. has) JaocAedy. So Lachm. Born. Tisch. ’Ayoltra, which Elz. and Scholz
have after Baorded, is an addition opposed to greatly preponderant testimony.
— Ver. 10. gvAaxais] decisive witnesses have éy gv. ; so Griesb. Scholz, Lachm.
Tisch. Born. — Ver, 12. év ofS xai] xai is wanting in ABC EJ %, min. and sev-
eral vss. Deleted by Lachm. and Born. ; and on that preponderating testi-
mony with the more right, as the frequent xai after the relative was éasily
added mechanically. — 17s rapa rév] Lachm. and Born. have merely rv, ac-
cording to A. E J, min. vss. (B % omit only rapa). But r7s might be just as
easily left out after the syllable 77S, as rapa might be overlooked as super-
fluous, If only rév stood originally, there was no reason why it should be
completed from ver. 10. Therefore the Recepia is to be retained. — Ver. 14.
Aadoicav zpécue x. Aéyoveav]) Lachm. and Born. read Aéyovcay pds pe, following
ABCJ ¥&, min. vss. to which also E, min., having $wv7S Aeyotons pds pe,
are to be added. But the comparison of ix. 4, xxii. 7, occasioned the abbrevi-
ation. — Ver. 15, 6 dé] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read 6 d2 Kupios, according to very
considerable testimony. The Recepfa is from ix. 5 (see the critical re-
marks thereon). — Ver. 16. eldes] BC* (?) 137, Arm. Syr. p. Ambr. Aug. have
eldés xe. More precise definition, although defended by Buttmann in the Stud.
u. Krit. 1860, p. 360. — Ver. 17. Instead of #yd, Elz. Scholz have vov, against
decisive testimony. — Ver. 20. After mpdzcv Lachm. Born. Tisch. have re as in
AB *&. Inserted for closer connection with «ai Tepoo. Comp. the following
Te... Kal. — eS nacav) eS is'wanting in AB ®&, and is deleted by Lachm.,
but is indispensable, and might be easily enough passed over after the syllable
os. — Ver. 21. The article is wanting before 'Iovdaio in BG &*, which Butt-
mann approves: it was easily overlooked on account of the similarity of the
following syllable, but would hardly be added, comp. vv. 2, 3, 7.— Ver. 22.
mapa] aé has the stronger attestation (Lachm. Tisch. Born. ). — uaprvpovuevos ]
ABGH &, min. Chrys. Theophyl. have yaprupéuevoS. Approved by Griesb.,
adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. A correction, See the exegetical remarks. —
Ver. 25. 6 dé] Lachm. and Born. read 6 d2 MavAos, which, indeed, has important
attestation, but has the suspicion of having arisen from the very usual practice
of writing the name on the margin. — Ver. 28. &¢7] is to be deleted, with Lachm.

PAUL’S ADDRESS. 463

Tisch., according to important witnesses (including &).— yevéo6a:] Lachm.
and Born. read rojoa, after A B X, loti-three min. Copt. Syr. p. (on the mar-
gin). This variation is connected with the reading MMEIOHI (instead of zeie:S),
but which is found only in A, and along with ro:joa: is of the nature of a gloss. '
— Ver. 29. roAAg) Lachm. Tisch. Born. read yeyddy, after AB &, min. Syr.
utr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. Rightly ; roAA@ involuntarily intraded itself as a con-
trast of dAlyy. —Ver. 30. avéorn re) Elz. has xal radra eixévro$ aébrod avéorn,
against A B &, min. Syr. Erp. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. An amplification.

Vv. 1-3. 'Excroémerai coc] it is, herewith, permitted to thee to speak for thy-
self, i.e. to defend thyself.? —éxreivac ryv yeipa] after stretching forth his
hand, is not equivalent to the «xaraceicac rg yxerpi, xii. 17, xiii. 16, in opposi-
tion to Er. Schmid and Hammond, because this latter had for its object the
oyav of the hearers ;? but it conveys a trait descriptive of the solemnity of
this moment: Paul comes forward in the attitude of an orator, with all the
ingenuousness and candour of a good conscience, although the chain hung on
his hands.‘ Comp. in contrast to the simple gesture of Paul, the artificially
rhetorical one in Apuleius :* ‘‘ Porrigit dextram et ad instar oratorum con-
format articulum, duobusque infimis conclusis digitis ceteros eminentes
porrigit.’” According to Lange’s fancy, it is an intimation that ‘‘he
stretched out his hand at length for once to an intelligent judge.’’ — Tow true
and dignified is also here * the conciliatory exordium, with which Paul com-
mences his speech ! — urd ‘Iovdaiwy] by Jews, generally, not: by the Jews,
comp. xxv. 10. In regard to Jewish accusations, Paul esteemed himself
fortunate that he was to defend himself before Agrippa, as the latter was
best informed about Jewish customs and controversies. — Ver. 3. uddova
yréotny dvta oe] as thou art most, more than all other authoritics, cognizant.
The speech, continuing by a participial construction, is joined on in an ab-
normal case, as if an accusative expression had been previously used." The
view of Bornemann is very harsh, as 6.0 déoza: entirely closes the previous
construction, and commences 8 new sentence of the speech: that Paul has
put the accusative, because he had it in view to continue subsequently with
ait® . . . axovoai pov, but omitted to do so on account of wdvrav...
Cnrnudrwv. — xara ‘Toud.| among Jews throughout.*

Vv. 4, 5. Mév ovv] introduces, in connection with the preceding exor-
dium, the commencement now of the defence itself.° — Bivo.w] manner of
life.** Not preserved in Greek writers. — ryv am’ apyic . . . ‘Iepoo.| a sig-
nificant epexegesis of nv éx veéryroc, for the establishment of the following
igaoe K.T.A. — TpoyivoonovTec . . . Saptoaiuog] my manner of life... know
nll Jews, since they knew me from the outset, since the first time of my be-

1 Expressing the meaning : thou believest fo * Comp. xxiv. 10.

make me a@ Christian. Nevertheless Lach- 7 Such as weds oe ... adwodoyeioda, Plat.
mann, Pra¢/. p. x. considers the reading of A Apol. p. 24B. Less simply Buttmann, newt.
as correct. (7 16. Gr. p. 272 (E. T. 817). Sec on Eph. i. 18, and

2 Comp. Soph. Aj. 151, Zt. 645; Ken. Hist.{. Stallb. ad. Plat. Rep. p. 886 B.

3 xii, 17. ® See Winer, p. 874 (E. T. 499).

4 Ver. 20. * See Banmlein, Partik. p. 181.

5 Metamorph. {i. p. 54. 10 Ecclus. Praef. 1, Symm. Ps, xxxvili. 6,

ape me ——~ Rae! $a

464 CHAP. XXVI., 6-10.

coming known—namely, that J, according to the strictest sect of our religion
(Apyoxeiac), have liced as Pharisee. This ¢apicaioc, calling that axpif. aipeorw
by its name, stands with great emphasis at the close. Notice generally the
intentional definiteness with which Paul here describes all the circumstances
of the case, to which belongs also the emphatic repetition of r7v.? — In zpo-
yivaok., po, before, contains the same conception, which is afterwards still
more definitely denoted by dvwiev. They knew Paul earlier than merely
since the present encounter, and that indeed dvubev, from the beginning,?
which therefore, as it refers to the knowing and not to %yoa, may not be
explained : from my ancestors.‘ — iav 0éAwot papropeiv] if they do not conceal
or deny, but are willing to testify it. ‘‘Nolebat autem, quia persentis-
cebant, in conversione Pauli, etiam respectu vitae ante actae, efficacissimum
esse argumentum pro veritate fidci Christianae,’’ Bengel.*

Vv. 6, 7. As I was known from of old by every one as 8 disciple of the
strictest orthodoxy, so it is also now far from being anything heterodox, on
account of which I stand accused (éoryxa xpivdépevoc),—it is the universal,
ardently-cherished, national hope, directed to the promise issued by God
to our fathers. — én’ éArid:] on account of hope toward the promise, etc.
That Paul means the hope of the Messianic kingdom to be erected, the hope of
the whole eternal «Azpovoyia,* not merely the special hope of the resurrec-
tion of the dead,’ the following more precise description proves, in which
the universal and unanimous solicitude of the nation is depicted. He had
preached of this hope, that the risen Jesus would realize it,® and this was
the reason of his persecution.*® — cic rove marépag judy] issued to our fathers.
On the order of the words, the participle after the substantive, see Kithner.'°
— eic qv refers to the érayyeAia. — 1d dwhexagudAov judy] our twelve-tribe-stock, a
theocratically honourable designation of the nation asa whole.'! The word
is also found in the Protevang. Jacobi, 1: 16 dwdexaoxnrrpov tov 'Iopaza.'* To
understand the expression historically, it need only be remarked, that even
after the exile the collective body of the people actually consisted of the
twelve tribes; in which view the circumstance, that ten tribes did not re-
turn from the exile, did not alter anything in the objective relation, and
could not destroy the consciousness, deeply interwoven and vividly bound
up by history and prophecy with the whole national character, that every
Jew, wherever he was, belonged to the great unity of the dwdexdguAov, —to
say nothing of the fact that all the members of the ten tribes did not go
into exile, and of the exiled all did not jointly and severally remain in
exile. The question, therefore, as to the later fate of the ten tribes * does
not belong to this place. — éy éxreveig x.7.4.] with constancy attending to the

1 xxii. 3. 9 See also xxviii. 20.

2 See Bornemann in ioe. 10 Ad Xen. Anad. v. 3. 4

3 Luke i. 8. 11 Comp. Jas. i. 1.

4 Beza, 13 See Thilo én loc., p. 166 f. ; Clem. 1 Cor.
§ Comp. xxii. 19 f. 55, comp. chap. 31, p. 76.

6 Heb. ix. 15. 12 Quite analogous is 8exadvAos, Herod. v.
7 Grotius. 66; comp. terpadvdAcs in the same place.

® Comp. xili. 82 f. 14 See especially Baumgarten.

THE RESURRECTION. : 465

worship of God, as well by the TDA, sacrijficium juge,’ as by prayer and
every kind of adoration. Comp. on Luke ii. 87, where also, in order at
once to give prominence to the earnestness of the constant worship, viaxra
precedes, — xaravrjoa:) to arrive, as if at a goal, which is the contents of the
promise.” The conception AayuBaverv ryv érayyeA.* is analogous. The reali-
zation of the Messianic promise is also here represented as attaching itself
to the pious preparation of the nation.‘ — 7d 'Iovdaiwy] by Jews! placed
at the end, brings into emphatic prominence the contrast. The absurdity
and wickedness of being impeached by Jews concerning the hope of the
Messianic kingdom were to be made thoroughly palpable.

Ver. 8. The circumstance that Paul made the resurrection of Jesus the
foundation of his preaching of the Messianic kingdom, had specially pro-
voked the hatred of the Jews. This resurrection they would not recog-
nise,® and therefore he continues—in his impassioned address breaking
away from what had gone before, and in the person of the Jewish king
addressing the Jews themselves as if present (rap’ iviv)—with the bold
inquiry: Why is it esteemed as incredible with you? etc. Beza and others,
also de Wette and Lange, place after ri a note of interrogation: How? Is
it incredible? etc. But it tells decisively against this view that the mere
ri is not so used ; ri ydp, ri ody, or ri dé would be employed. — ei 6 Ocd¢ vexp.
éycipet] if God, as He has done in the instance of Jesus, raises the dead.* ei
is neither equivalent to or,’ nor is it the problematic whether ;* the more
especially as the matter under discussion is not that of doubt or uncer-
tainty on the part of the Jews, but that of their definite unbelief, which is
absurd.

Vv. 9, 10. In consequence of this unbelief (uév odv), I myself was once a
decided opponent of the name of Jesus.— éofa éuzavro] mihi ipsi videbar.
See examples in Wetstein. The view of Erasmus, Culovius, de Dieu, and
Vater, who connect ézavré with deiv, is to be rejected; for deiv with the
dative, although not without example in classical writers,* is foreign to
the N. T. éuavr@ has the emphasis of his own personal opinion : I had the
sel f-delusion, that I ought to exert myself. ‘‘ Tanta vis errantis conscien-
tiae,’’ Bengel. — mpd¢ rd dvoua} in reference to the name, namely, in order to
suppress the confession and invocation of it. Observe how Paul uses ‘Iyooi
tov Nacswp. according to his standpoint as Saul. —%] which wodda évavria
mpaéa I also actually did.’"* This is then more particularly set forth by xai
(and indeed) mroddove x.7.A. Murk the difference between mpdoceyv and
roiv."» — trav ayiwy] spoken from the Christian standpoint of the apostle,
with grief. The éy6 also has painful emphasis — avaip. re air. xarfveyxa
yyoov| and when they were put to death, when people were on the point of
executing them, J have given vote thereto, calculum adjeci, i.e. I have as-

1 See Ewald, Aléerth. p. 171. ? Luther, Beza, Grotius, and others,

> Comp. on Phil. ffi. 7. ® De Wette and others.

311.28; Gal. if1.14; Heb. ix 15, xi. 18, ® Xen. Hem, iil. 3. 10, Anad. ill. 4. 83, Ovecon.
4 Comp. ill. 20 f. vii. 20; eee Kfibner, § 551, note 5; Schoem.
§ xxv. 19. 10 Comp. Gal. ii. 10. {ad Je. p. 880,

* Comp. Vulgate, Erasmus, and others, 3! Sec on John iff. 90.

466 CHAP. XXVI., 11-20.

acnted, ovvevdéunoa, xxii. 20. The plural ava. avr. is not, with Grotius,
Kuinoel, and others, to be referred merely to Stephen, but also to other
unknown martyrs, who met their death in the persecution which began
with the killing of Stephen.' Elsner and Kypke make the genitive de-
pendent on xavyveyxa, and in that case take «aza- in a hostile reference.”
flarsh, and without precedent in linguistic usage ; avarp. avr. is the geni-
tive absolute, and xavyzv. is conceived with a local reference, according to
the original conception of the yjeor, the voting-stone, which the voter de-
posits in the urn. Classical authors make use of the simple eépe» peor,’
also of diagépecv, OF éxigép., OF avagép., OF Exgép. Y. But to catvagépecy in our
passage corresponds the classical r:0évar yor.‘

Vv. 11-13. Kara wdcae +. ovvay.} throughout all the synagogues in Jeru-
salem, going from one to another and searching out the Christians in all.’
—Tipwpav avrovc)] taking vengeance on them, dragging them to punishment.‘
The middle is more usual. — S2acgqueiv] namely, rav ‘Incovv, which is obvi-
ous of itself, as the object of the specific reverence of Christians.” Whether
and how far this qvdyxal. Brace. was actually successful, cannot be deter-
mined. — éwe xai ei¢ rag &&w wdéAecc] till even unto the extraneous cities, outside
of Palestine. By this remark the following narrative has the way signifi-
cantly prepared for it. — év oi¢] in which affairs of persecution.* — pe- éSove.
x. emirp.| with power and plenary authority. ‘‘ Paulus erat commissarius,”’
Bengel. — yuépacg péicac] At noon, yeonuBpiac,” genitive of the definition of
time." On the non-classical Greek expression uécy quépa, see Lobeck."* —
xara tiv éd6v] along the way." — trip tr. Aaurp. t. gAiov}| surpassing the bright-
ness of the sun.\4

Vv. 14, 15. See on ix. 4 ff; comp. xxii. 7 f.—rj "Efp. diad.] It was
natural that the exalted Christ should make no other lunguage than the
native tongue of the person to be converted the medium of his verbal reve-
lation. Moreover, these words confirm the probability that Paul now spoke
not, as at xxi. 40, in Hebrew, but in Greek. — oxAnpév cor rpdg xévtpa Aaxzi-
Cew| hard for thee, to kick against goads! i.e. it is for thee a difficult under-
taking, surpassing thy strength, and not to be accomplished by thee,"® that
thou, as my persecutor, shouldest contend against my will. "H dé rpory azo
vay Bowv’ Tav yap ot GTaxTot KaTa THY yewpyiay KevTpiduevoe bd aporvTog, AaKzi-
Covor TO Kévrpov Kai uaAdAov wAhrrovrar.**

Vv. 16-18. *AAdd] ‘‘ Prostravit Christus Paulum, ut eum humiliaret ;
nunc cum erigit ac jubet bono esse anjmo,’* Calvin. — ei¢ roito yap] ei¢ revz0

1 Comp. vifi. 1, ix. 1.

* Comp. caraynpicer. {quently.

3 Plat. Legg. vi. p. 766 B, p. 767 D, and fre-

4Plat. Tim. p.51 D; Ear. Or. 754; Dem.
$62. 6, and frequently.

® Comp. xxil. 19.

10 Comp. xxii. 6.

11 Bernhardy, p. 145.

13 Ad. Paryn. p. 3% f.

13 xxv. 8, viil. 36.

14 See Winer, p. 376 (E. T. 502).

16 Compare Gamailiel’s saying, v. 39.

18@Schol. ad Pind. Pyth. ii, 178. Comp.
Aesch. Agam. 1540 (1634): «pods xévrpa pa

7 Jas. 11.7%; comp. Plin. Zp. x. 97; Suicer,
Thea. 1. p. 687.

§ Comp. xxiv. 18,

¥ Polyb. iti. 15. 7; 3 Mace. xilf. 14.

Adxrige. See other examples from Greek and
Roman writers in Grotius and Wetstein ; aleo
Blomfield, ad Aesch. Prom. 881: Elmal. ad
Eur. Bacch. 734.

PAUL’8 ACCOUNT OF HIS CONVERSION. 467?

points emphatically to what follows, mpaye:picacBa: x.7.2., and yap assigns
the reason for what precedes, avéory3¢ 4.7.A.. — mpoxerp.| in order to appoint
thee. He was, indeed, the oxebog éx2oyize, ix. 15. — dv re deOfoopai cat| ay is
to be resolved into covrwv a; but opbjooua: is not, with Luther, Bengel, and
others, including Bornemanp, to be taken as causative, cidere Jaciam, but
purely passive, I shall be seen. The é contained in dy is equivalent to dr 4,
on account of which.” Consequently : and of those things, on account of which
I shall appear to thee, tibi videbor.* — eSatpoiuevds oe] is an accompanying defi-
nition to detjcouai ou: rescuing thee, as thy deliverer, from the people, i.e.
nar’ é€oxqv, the Jewish nation, and from the Gentiles, from their hostile
power.‘ Calvin appropriately says: ‘‘Hic armatur contra omnes metus,
qui eum manebant, et simul praeparatur ad crucis tolerantiam.’’ — ic obc]
is not, with Calvin, Grotius, and others, to be referred merely to rev ivav,
but, with Beza, Bengel, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, de Wette, to rot Aaod x. 7. Ovav
together, which is required by the significant bearing of vv. 19, 20. —ézoo-
zteAAw} not future, but strictly present. — avoSac de0aduovc av7av] contains
the aim of the mission. And this opening of their eyes, i.e. the susceptibility
for the knowledge of divine truth, which was to be brought to them by
the preaching of the gospel,® was to have the design: roi émorpépat, that
they may turn themselves ; on account of ver. 20, less admissible is the ren-
dering of Beza and Bengel : ut convertas, axé axdrore cig pac, from darkness to
light, i.e. from a condition, in which they are destitute of saving truth, and
involved in ignorance and sin, to the opposite element, xai (ard) rae éfovoiag
cud Larava x.7.A. The two more precise definitions of émorpépac apply to
both, to the Jews and Gentiles ; but the latter has respect in its predomi-
nant reference to the Gentiles, who are afeo év To xéoug,* under the power
of Satan, the dpywy roi xoopov trebtov, Eph. ii. 2.— rov AaBeiv airoig doeow
. .. ec¢ éué] This now contains the aim of rot éexovpépat x.7.A., and so the
ultimate aim of avoigat dpOaduvirg ai7av.— KAnpov ev toi¢g Hy:aou.|] See on xx. 82.
—iores TH ei¢ Eué) belongs to AaBeiv. Faith on Christ, as the subjective
condition (causa apprehendens) of the forgiveness of sins and the attainment
of the Messianic salvation, is with great emphasis placed at the close; the
Jorm also of the expression has weight.

Vv. 19,° 20. "Ofev] Hence,* namely, because such a glorious ministry has
been promised to me. — ov« éyevdunv] i.e. non praestiti me.'° — Observe the
address to the king, as at ver. 18 in the narrative of the emergence of the
Christophany, so here immediately after its close; in both places, for the
purpose of specially exciting the royal interest. — rj cipaviy oxracig] the
heavenly vision, because it came ovpavdbev.'! — sig macdv te THY xdp. 7. “Tovd, |

1 See on iff. 2, xxii. 14. Gal. 1.4, LXX. and Apocr. ; Dem. 286. 2, a.)
2 See Stallb. ad Plat. Symp. p. 174A; El- 6 The opposite: xxviii. 27; Rom. xi. 8.
lendt, Lear. Soph I. p. 374; especially Soph. * Ver. 2.
Oed. T. 788, where Sv péy ixéunv is likewise 7 Eph. fi. 12.

to be resolved into rovrwy &' & ixduny. ® Ver. 19 proves the resis(idill’y of the in-
2 Comp. Winer, p. 246 (E. T. 820), who, how- = finences of grace,

ever, withont reason, contradicts himself, p. ® Matt. xiv. 7.

135 (EB. T. 178). 10 See Kihner, ad Xen. Anabd. i. 7. 4.

4On <éfacp., comp. vil. 10, xif. 14, xxl. 87; ‘1 Ver. 12.

468

The statement is threefold: I preached, (1) to them in Damascus, (2) to
the city Jerusalem, ‘Iepocodivorc, simple dative, no longer dependent on é»,
and unto all the land of Judaea ;' (3) to the Gentiles." Thus Paul indicates
his whole ministry from his conversion till now.* Consequently there is here
no contradiction with Gai. i. 22.4 It was also the interest df the apostle,
persecuted by the Jews, to put his working for the Jews into the fore-
ground. The shift to which Hofmann, J.c., resorts, that the apostle does
not at all say that he has preached in ull Judaea—he certainly does say so
—but only that his preaching had sounded forth thither, is the less re-
quired, as he here summarily comprehends his whole working. — zpdocovrag]
accusative.’ — Paul certainly gives the contents of his preaching in a form
remindiny us of the preaching of the Baptist ;* but he thus speaks, because
he stands before an assembly before which he had to express himself in the
mode most readily understood by it, and after a type universally known
and venerated, for the better disclosure of the injustice done to him (évexa
robrov, ver. 21!); to set forth here the nvorzpcoy of his gospel, with which
he filled up this form, would have heen quite out of place. Without reason,
Zeller and Baur’ find here a denial of the doctrine of justification by faith
alone ; an opinion which ought to have been precluded by the very riore
TH ei¢ eué, ver. 18, which leaves no doubt as to what was in the mind of the
apostle the specific qualification for peravoeiv . . . mpdoaovrac.

Vv. 21, 22. "Evexa rofrwv.] because I have. preached this peravociv and
émiorpégecy among Jews and Gentiles. — diayeip.] Beza correctly explains :
‘‘manibus suis interficere.’’® — égixovpiag obv . . . Gcov] This odv infers
from the preceding éep. diazerp. that the éornxa aype tHe putp. rabrne is
effected through help of God, without which no deliverance from euch ex-
treme danger to life could come. Observe withal the triumphant éoryxa, JZ
stand, keep my ground ! — paprupobpevog pexp@ te xal peydAw] as one witnessed
to by small and great, i.e. who has a good testimony from young and old.®
Accordingly, paprupotevoc is to be taken quite regularly as passive, and that
in its very current sense ;'° while w:cpy and peydAw are the datives usual
with the passive construction."" The wsual rendering, following the Vul-
gate: witnessing to small and great,'* i.e. ‘‘instituens omnis generis hom-
ines,’’!® arbitrarily assumes a deviation from linguistic usage, as paprupeio ac
is always used passively, on which account, in 1 Thess, ii. 12, the reading

CHAP. XXVI., 21-24.

® See on v. 30. Comp. xxi. 80, 31.

® viif. 10.

10 Ag in vi. 3, x. 22 ai.

11 8ee on Matt. v, 21, inetead of which urd

1 gis, as In Luke villi. 84, and freqnently ; see
on ix. 28, xxiii. 11,

2 The wpwroy belongs only to rots é¢» Aana-
ox@, not also to ‘IepovoA. (Hofmann, XN. 7.

I. p. 118), as between Damazcns and Jerusa-
lem, in the consciousness of the apostle (Gal.
§. 18), there lay an interval of three years,

® See ver. 21.

4 Zeller.

®See Bornemann, ad Xen. Anad. i. 2.1;
Kithner, ad Afem. i. 1.9; Breitenb. ad Oecon.
i. 4.

® Luke iii. 8.

T See also his neufest. Theol. p. 388.

is used in x. 22, xvi. 2, xxfi. 12.

12 Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, Bengel, and
others take pcxp +r. «. weydA. in the sense of
rank : fo persons of low and of high degree.
This is historically unsuitable to the correct
view of naprvpovpu., a8 Paul was despised and
persecuted by the great of this world. The
wisdom, which he preached, was not at all
theirs, 1 Cor. il. 6 ff. .

18 Kuinoel.

PAUL’S REPLY TO FESTUS. 469

paprupépevo: is necessarily to be defended.’ See Rinck,? who, however, as
also de Wette, Baumgarten, Ewald, declares for the reading paprupdu. ; this,
although strongly attested (see the critical remarks), is an old, hasty
emendation, which was regarded as necessary to suit the dative. But in
what a significant contrast to that deadly hatred of his enemies appears
the statement :* ‘‘ By help of God I stand till this day, well attested by small
and great’?! The following words then give the reason of this paprupot-
pevog: because I set forth nothing else than what (ov = totruv a) the prophets,
etc. — yeAAévrev] On the attraction, see Lobeck ;* and on the expres-
sion ra uéAdovra yiveofat, Jacobs.*

Ver. 23 is to be separated simply by a comma from the preceding:
What the prophets and Moses have spoken concerning the future, whether —
whether, namely—the Messiah is exposed to suffering, etc. Paul expresses
himself in problematic form (et), because it was just the point of debate
among the Jews whether a suffering Messiah was to be believed in, as in
fact such an one constantly proved an offence unto them.’ ‘‘ Res erat
liquida ; Judaei in guaestionem vocarant,’’ Bengel. Paul in his preaching
has said nothing else than what Moses and the prophets have spuken as
the future state of the case on this point; he has propounded nothing
new, nothing of his own invention, concerning it. a@yréc¢, passidilis,® not,
however, in the metaphysical sense of susceptibility of suffering, but of the
divine destination to suffering: subjected to suffering.® The opposite arabhc
in classic writers since the time of Herodotus.’ — The other point of the
predictions of Moses and the prophets, vividly introduced without a con-
necting particle, in respect of which Paul had just us little deviated from
their utterances, is: whether the Messiah as the first from the resurrection of
the dead, as the first for ever risen, as mpwréroxog éx trav vexpav,'! will proclaim
light * to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles. The chief stress of this sen-
tence lies on mwparoc é& avacr. vexpdv ; for, if this was, in accordance with
the O. T., appropriated to the Messiah as characteristic, thereby the
oxdvdadov of the cross of Christ was removed. <A/ter His resurrection Jesus
proclaimed light to all the Gentiles by his self-communication in the Holy
Spirit, whose organs and mediate agents the apostles and thejr associates
were, 4

Ver, 24. While he was thus speaking in his defence, Festus said with a loud
voice, Thou art mad, Paul! raira is to be referred to the whole defence, '*
now interrupted by Festus—observe the present participle—but in which
certainly the words spoken last (obdév éxrd¢ x«.7.A.) were most unpalatable

1 Bee Likjemann fn loo. awoBaddyras.
3 Zucubr. crit. p. 91. 10 Comp. Jurtin. ¢. Tryph. xxxvi. p. 188 D:
3 Ver. 21. wadnros Xprcros wooedyrevdn pddAcw elves,
4 Ad Aj. 1006; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 261 11 Col. 1. 18; comp, 1 Cor. xv. 38.
(EB. T. 308), 13 Asin ver 18. :
® Ad Philostr. p. 680. 13 See on Eph. |i. 17.
6 John xii. 34. 14 Comp. on Col. 4. 12
71 Cor. 1. 23; Gal. v. 11. 16 ney. Th Guy, Bee On xiv. 10.
® Vulgate. 16 Ag to awoAcy. m1, see On Luke xii. 11,

®Plut. Felop. 16: rb Ovyrew cel webyroy

470 ' CHAP. XXVI., 25-28.

to the cold-hearted statesman, and at length raised his impatience to the
point of breaking out aloud. His profane mind remained unaffected by
the holy inspiration of the strange speaker, and took his utterances as the
whims of a mind perverted by much study from the equilibrium of a sound
understanding. His yuaivy! was indignant earnestness ; with all the more
earnestness and bitterness he expressed the idea of eccentricity by this
hyperbolical yaivy, the more he now saw his hope of being enlightened as
to the true state of matters grievously disappointed.’ That solicitude of
the procurator,* which naturally governed his tone of mind, was much too
anxious and serious for a jest, such as Olshausen takes it to be. Nor does
peyaAy TH gwr@ suit this, on which Chrysostom already correctly remarks :
ovTw iv x. Opyic } guvf. The explanation, thou art an enthusiast / is nothing
but a mistaken softening of the expression.* However the furor propheti-
cus may be nourished by plunging into roAAG ypayuara, the pafvy in this
sense is far less suited to the indignation of the annoyed Roman; and that
Paul regarded himself as declared by him to be a madman, is evident from
ver. 25 (aAyleiag x. awppoo.).—Ta woAAd oe ypauuata] multae literae,‘ the
much knowledge, learning, with which thou busiest thyself.° Not: the
many books, which thou readest,* for, if so, we cannot see why the most
naturally occurring word, f:GAiaor BiBAo, should not have been used.—The
separation of woAAé from ypdéy. by the interposition of ce puts the emphasis
on soAAd. Bengel correctly adds: ‘‘ Videbat Festus, naturam non agere
in Paulo ; gratiam non vidit.”’

Ver. 25. ‘0 dé] pera écecneiac aroxpivduevoc, Chrysostom.—<aArbeiag x. cwdpos.
piuata] words, to which truth and intelligence, sound discretion, belong. aAffea
may doubtless accompany enthusiastic utterance, but it is a characteristic
opposed to madness. For passages in the classics where cugpooivy is opposed
to pavia, see Elsner and Raphel.* — avog6fyyoua:] ‘* aptum verbum,”’ Bengel.
See on ii. 4.

Ver. 26. In proof (yép) that he spoke truly, and in his sound mind, Paul
appeals to the knowledge of the king, in quo plus erat spei, Calvin. — repi
tobrwy and re trovrwy refer to what Paul had last said concerning the Mes-
siah, which had overpowered the patience of Felix and drawn from him
the yaivy.* rovro is the same, but viewed together as an historical unity.
éxioraua: With wept is not found elsewhere in the N. T., but often in Greek
writers. — ovdév}] like nihil, in no respect.” Taken as accusative of object,
it would be inappropriate, on account of ri;'° while, on the other hand, B
has not ri.—Observe also the correlates ériorara: and Aavddvew placed at
the beginning. — or . . . év ywrig] A litotes: not in a corner (év xpurr@), but
publicly in the sacred capital of the nation." ‘

1 Comp. Soph. O. R. 1300: ris o°, & tARHpOv, 7 Plat. Prof. p. 883 B: 6 éxet cudpociryr

spocdBy pavia. Hyouvro elvac Tadndy Acyew, évravda paviay.
3 xxv. 2. Comp. also Luke viil. 85; 2 Cor. v. 18.
3§o0 Kuhn (in Wolf), Majus (Odes. IV. p. ® Comp. on ravra, ver. 214.

11 ff.), Loesner, Schleusner, Dindorf. ® Kihner, ad Yen. Anad. vi. 6. 12.
4 Vulgate. 10 HIunce A E %** min. omit it (so Lachmann
8 See on John vil. 15. and Bornemann.

PAUL’S APPEAL TO AGRIPPA. 471

Ver. 27. Instead of adding to the ‘‘ for this was not done in a corner’ us
a second reason, ‘‘and the prophets in whom the king believes have fore-
told it,’? in the increased vehemence of his impassioned discourse ' Paul
turns to the king with the question: Believest thou the prophets? and im-
mediately himself answers the question with confidence: J know that thou
believest ! Thus with fervent earnestness he suddenly withdraws the sacred
subject from merely objective contemplation, snd brings it as a matter of
conscience home to the king's consciousness of faith. Paul could reason-
ably say without flattery, oida, oz: mioreberc, Since Agrippa, educated as a
Jew, could not have belief in the truth of the prophecies otherwise than as
a heritage of his national training, although it had in his case remained
simply theory, and therefore the words of the apostle did not touch his
heart, but glanced off on his polished and good-natured levity.

Ver. 28. The king is of course well-meaning enough not to take amiss
the burning words, but also, as a luxurious man of the world, sufficiently
estranged from what is holy instantly to banish the transiently-felt impres-
sion with haughtily contemptuous mockery. Tho conduct of Pilate in
John xviii. 38 is similar to this and to ver. 82. —év odiyw is to be taken as
neuter, and without supplement,* namely: With little (év, instrumental) thou
persuadest me to becomea Christian! This sarcasm is meant to say: ‘‘ Thus
summarily, thus brevi manu, you will not manage to win me over to Christian-
ity.’’ Appropriately, in substance, Oecumenius : év dAiyy rovréoti: dt’ Odi yu
pyuatur, év Bpaxéoe Adyore, Ev OAiyy didackadia, ywpi¢c ToAAoY mévov Kal ovvexor¢
dadégseac. Most expositors either adopt the meaning * sometimes with and
sometimes without the supplement of ypdvw: in @ short time;‘ or:* pro-
pemodum, parum abest, quin. So also Ewald, who calls to his aid the 3 of
value, for a little, i.e. almost. But in opposition to the view which takes
it temporally, may be decisively urged the reading yeyédw, to be adopted
instead of roAA@ in ver. 29 (see the critical remarks), an expression which
proves that Paul apprehended ¢év odiyy in a quantitative sense ; and there is
no reason in the context for the idea, to which Calvin is inclined, following
Chrysostom, that Paul took the word in one sense and the king in another.
The samé reason decides against the explanation propemodum, which also
is not linguistically to be justified, for there must have been used either
dAiyou,* OF oAiyov dei OF wap’ OAiyov.’ — Lastly, that the words of the king are to
be taken ironically. and not, with Heinrichs and many other expositors, as an
earnest confession, is evident even from the very improbability in itself of such
a confession in view of the luxurious levity of the king, as well as from the
name Xpioriavéy, which, of Gentile origin,* carries with it in the mouth of

1 Comp. Dissen, ad Dem de cor. pp. 186,

2 As in Eph. iit. 8 (wee in loe.). [846.

® Calvin, Wet-tein, Kuinoel, Olehausen, Ne-
ander, de Wette, Lange.

4 Pind. Pyth. vill. 181; Plat. Apol. p. 2 B;
and see the passages in Raphc!, Polyd. ; comp.
the analogous &' dAiyou, Thuc. i. 77. 4, if 85.
2, lil. 48.8. Schaefer, ad. Boe. Blips. pp. 101,
558; and see on Eph. iif. &

§ Chrysostom, Valla, Luther, Castalio, Beza,
Piscator, Grotius, Calovius, and others, to
which also the modica ex parte of Erasmus
comes in the end.

* Plat. Prot. p. 361 C, Phaedr. p. 38 E;
Btalib. ad Plut. Rep. p. 368 B( Wolf, ad Dem.
Lept. p. %8).

7 Bernhardy, p. 268.

® See on xi. 26.

472 CHAP. XXVI., 29-32.

a Jew the accessory idea of heterodoxy and the stain of contempt.! Schneck-
enburger also would have the expression to be earnestly meant, but in fa-
vour of the apologetic design imputed to the Book of Acts (F‘).

Ver. 29. In the full consciousness of his apostolic dignity, Paul now
upholds the cause of the despised Xpiorcavdv yevéoda: as that which he would
entreat from God for the king and ali his present hearers, and which was
thus more glorious than all the glory of the world. — evgaiuyy av rp Oe] T
would indeed, in case of the state of the matter admitting it, pray to Gud.*
Edxzeoda:; with the dative, fo pray to any one, only here in the N. T., but
very frequently in classical writers. — In what follows oyuepov belongs to -.
axovovrdg p., not to yevéoda:,* as is to be inferred from év ueyaAw.—xai ev
bniyw Kal év weyddy ov pdvov oé x.t.A.} that as well by little as by great, —whether
in the case uf one, little,‘ and in the case of another, much,* may be em-
ployed as a means for the purpose, * — not merely thou, but also all . . . were
such also as Tam, Christians. On xayé, comp. 1 Cor. vii. 7.7 — rapexrd¢ rev
desudv tobrwv}] The chains which had bound him in prison, and were again
to bind him,* chaining him, namely, after the manner of the custodia mili-
turis to the soldiers who watched him, he bore now hangiuy down freely
on his arm.’ The sapexric x.7.4., although to the apostle bis chains were
an honour,” is ‘‘suavissima ér:Jepareia et exceptio,’? | in the spirit of love.

Vv. 30-32. Perhaps this bold, grand utterance of the singular man had
made an impression on the king’s heart, the concealment of which might
have occasioned embarrassment to him, had he listened any longer: Agrippa
arose and thereby brought the discussion at once to aclose. With him
arose, in the order of rank, first the procurator, then Bernice, then all who
sat there with them (oi ovyxadjuevoc abroic). After they had retired from
the audience chamber (avayupjoavec), they communicated to each other
their unanimous opinion, which certainly amounted only to the superficial
political negative : this man, certainly by the most regarded as a harmless
enthusiast, practises nothing which merits death or bonds. But Agrippa
delivered specially to Festus his opinion to this effect: this man might,
already, have been set at liberty,'* if he had not appealed unto Caesar, by which
the sending him to Rome was rendered irreversible.'* — rpdcoe:] Practises.

Ewald, Mkewise following the

11 Pet.iv 16.

*See on this use of the optative with a»,
Fritzsche, Conject. I. p. 34 £.; Bernhardy, p.
410; Krfiger, § 54, 3. 6.

8 Chrysostom.

4 See on ver. 28.

® xémwos «. wévos ev ty didacKxadrig, Oecume-
nius, reading év woAAg.

* The interpreters who take ¢v dA‘yp as
dbreri tempore (<ee on ver. 28) here translate
(according to the reading woAAq): ** be it for
short or for long’? (de Werte). Those who
tke éy oAcye as propemodum, tranvlnte : non
propemodnm tantum, sed plane’ (Grotius).
With onr view of éy dAcye, tho reading ev
woAAg Inakes no difference of mean ng from

ey peyadw.
reading «vy pey., takes ey aleo here cousixt
ently in the sense of value: by litte and by
much, that is, by al J wish, etc.

7 Baenmlein, Parttk. p. 158.

® Comp. on xxiv. 28, 27, xxvili. 30.

® Comp. Justin. xiv. 4, 1.

10 Eph. iff. 1, iv. 1; Philem. 1. Comp. Phil.
i. 17 f.

. 11 Bengel.

18 Not “dimitti potcrat,’’ Vulg. Luther, and
others. See in opposition to this. and on the
expression without ay. Buttmann, neut. Gr.
pp. 187, 19% (KR. T. 216, 226). Comp. a!so
Nigelsb. on the [liad, p. 430, ed. 3.

18 See Grotlus,

NOTES. 413

Grotius rightly remarks: ‘‘agit de vitae instituto:’’ hence in the present.'
—The ‘‘recognition of the innocence of the apostle in all judicatures ’’* is
intelligible enough from the truth of his character, and from the power of
his appearance and address; and, in particular, the closing utterance of
Agrippa finds its ground so vividly and with such internal truth in the
course of the proceedings, that the imputation of a set purpose on the
author’s part * can only appear as a frivolously dogmatic opinion, proceed-
ing from personal prepossessions tending in a particular direction. The
apostle might at any rate be credited, even in’ his situation at that time,
with an amodeisig wrebuaros x. Suvdpews, 1 Cor. il. 4.

Nores sy Amenican Eprror.
(¥*) Almost thou persuadest me. V. 28.

While Festus was in a state of perplexity in respect to Paul, a distinguished
visitor came to congratulate him on his accession to his exalted position. This
was Agrippa, the great grandson of Herod the Great, and at that time King of
Chalcis.* Subsequently his kingdom was greatly enlarged. He was the brother
of the infamous Drusilla, who lived with Felix, and of the equally infamous
Bernice, who lived with himself, and who accompanied him at this time to the
city which their great-grandfather had built, and where he miserably perished.
During their visit Festus took occasion to refer to the perplexing case of the
prisoner Paul ; he informed Agrippa of the madness which sesmed to inspire
the Jewish people at the mere mention of the name of Paul, and of the futile
results of the trial just concluded. He stated further that the questions at
issue pertained to their own religious or superstitious observances, and to one
Jesus, who had been crucified by them, but whom Paul affirmed to be alive,
and further that the prisoner had declined to be tried again by the Sanhedrim
and had appealed to the emperor.

On hearing this recital Agrippa expressed a wish to hear the man. So Fes-
tus, willing to gratify his princely guests, ordered the auditorium in the palace
to be prepared, and invited the officers of the army and the chicf men of the
city to attend ; and as the Herods were vain and fond of show, he arranged a
gorgeous procession, so that Agrippa and Bernice came in royal state, ‘‘ she,
doubtless, blazing with all her jewels, and he in his purple robes, and both
with the golden circlets of royalty around their foreheads.” Into the presence
of this vain, weak king and his radiantly beautiful but notoriously profligate
companion, and the vast, brilliant assemblage Paul, shackled and pale from
long imprisonment, is brought.

Festus opened the proceedings, which were in no sense a trial, as the appeal
to Cesar arrested all further legal proceedings, with stating the reasons for
calling such an assembly, and by making some complimentary allusions to
Agrippa, stating also clearly that he found the prisoner had done “ nothing
worthy of death.’’

1 Comp. John ili. 30; Rom. {. 82 aj. ; John ®“‘In order that, with the Gentile texti-
vil. 51. monies, xxv. 18, %, a Jewish one might not
3 Zeller, comp. Baur. be wanting,” Zeller.

474 CHAP. XXVI.—NOTES.

The king intimated that Paul might now make his address. The apostle,
undaunted by the pompous inanities of reflected power around him, with calm
dignity and perfect self-possession makes his own defence against the churge
of heresy, and specially offers a powerful plea for the truth of Christianity.
He expressed himself as pleased to have the privilege of speaking in the pres-
ence of one who, from his training, was a competent judge of the questions
at stake. He asked for a patient hearing, and once more narrated the familiar
story of his wonderful conversion from the bigoted, fiery, persecuting spirit he
had formerly manifested against Christ and his followers, to a firm belief that
the Messianic hopes of his people had been actually realized in Jesus of Naz-
areth, who had risen from the dead. He showed that he was no heretical
schismatic, but had kept the law of Moses, and firmly believed that the
promise given to the Jews of a Messiah was now fulfilled ; that the very thing
for which he was accused was the great hope of the Jewish nation ; that the
cause he now espoused he once hated, and conscientiously and violently per-
secuted with a zeal and bitterness more intense than their own; that this
change in his convictions and the commission he received to preach Jesus and
the resurrection were divine ; and that his work was in strict accordance with
the prophets of the Old Testament.

Festus, strack by the earnest enthusiasm of the eloquent prisoner, interrupts
him with the excited exclamation, “ Paul, thou art mad; these writings have
turned your brain!’’ Paul with perfect calmness and exquisite courtesy re-
plies, ‘‘ Iam not mad, most noble Festus ; what I have said is the sober, well-
attested truth, as the king himself can witness, for these marked events did
not take place in a corner.” Then turning to the king he asked, ‘‘ Believest
thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.’’ Agrippa, unwilling to be led
into a discussion of this kind, replied with good-natured contempt, a scarcely
suppressed smile, and courtly wit, perhaps with derisive irony, ‘‘ You will soon
be making mea Christian /” Paul, casting his eye over the splendid and numer-
ous audience, gave a most earnest and sincere reply to the bantering jest of the
king. Raising his manacled hand, he said : ‘‘ I would have wished God, both
in little and in much, not only thee, but also all those hearing me to-day, to
become such as I also am, except these bonds.”

**No more he feels upon his high-raised arm
The ponderous chain, than does the playful child
The bracelet, formed of many a flowery link ;
Heedless of self, forgetful that hia life
Is now to be defended by his words,
He only thinks of doing good to them
That seek bis life." (Graham.)

After a brief consultation with each other Festus and Agrippa agreed that
Paul might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed to Casar ; but now,
to Cwsar he must go.

The answer of Agrippa to Paul has been variously rendered as the language
of sincere conviction, bitter irony, or courtly jest. Some render.the phrase
évddiyy, almost ; others, with Meyer, render the clause, with few words, or lighily ;
some render: in a littie time, which may be taken either in earnest or in jest ;
others render : in a small measure, or somewhat. As to the spirit of the reply, the
general opinion of recent critics concurs with Meyer, that the words were ut-

NOTES. 475

tered in irony or jest. Alford, Eudie, Lange, Abbott, Plumpire, Schaff, Bloomfiedd,
Hackett, and Taylor substantially agree with Meyer ; on the other hand, Calvin,
Bengel, Stier, Alexander, Jacobus, Barnes, and Thomas, with some variations,
agree in regarding the language as sincere. The Revised Version is decidedly
in favor of Meyer’s view, ‘‘ With but little persuasion thou wouldst fain make
me & Christian.”

7 a * ~ cat ied

476 CRITICAL REMARKS,

CHAPTER XXVILI.

VER. 2. péAdovr:] So A B &, min. and most vss. Approved by Mill., Bengel,
and Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. The usual péAAovres is an alter-
ation in accordance with the preceding ériBdvre$.— TovS] Lachm, reads eis rovs,
following AB ® min. Other codd. have éxi. Different supplementary addi-
tions. — Ver. 3, wopevOévra] Lachm. reads ropev$évri, following A B ¥® min.
A hasty correction on account of éxérpewe. — Ver. 12. xdxei@ev] Lachm. and
Scholz read éxeifev, following A BG ®& min. vss. Chrys. But the want of a
reference of the «ai in what goes before easily occasioned the omission. —Ver.
19. 24écwav] Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Born., after A B CX,
min. Vulg. The Recepta is éfpipauev. As this might just as easily be inserted
on account of atréyepes, as éfs:pav on account of éroiotvro, the preponderance
of witnesses has alone to decide, and that in favour of 244.pav. — Ver. 23. The
order ravry tH vuxti (Lachm. Tisch. Born., also Scholz) is decidedly attested.
"Ayyedos is to be placed, with Lachm, Tisch. Born., only after Aarpetw (A BC &,
min.) and éyé is to be adopted (with Lachm. and Born.) after eiu/, on the evi-
dence of A C* &, min. vss. ; it might very easily be suppressed before ». — Ver.
27. éyévero] A, lo 68, Vulg. have ézeyfvero. So Tisch. ; and rightly, as the
very unusual compound (only again in xxviii. 13) was easily neglected by the
transcribers. — According to preponderating attestation, card (instead of els) is
to be read in ver. 29 with Lachm. Tisch. Born.; comp. vv. 17, 26, 41. —
éxrécwopev] Elz, has éxrécworv, against decisive testimony. Alteration to suit
the following 1byovro. — Ver. 33. mpocAaféuevac] Lachm. reads npocAapBavdpevor,
merely in accordance with A, 40. But the part. pres. is to be viewed as an al-
teration to suit mpocdoxdyres. — Ver. 34. veradapeiv] Elz. has mpoo’afeiv against
preponderant testimony. From ver, 33. — reseira:] Griesb. Lachm. Scholz,
Tisch. Born. read avoAeira:, which indeed has weighty attestation in its favour,
but against it the strong suspicion that it was borrowed from Luke xxi. 18.
This tells likewise against the Recepta éx, instead of which a:é is to be read,
with Lachm. Tisch. Born. It is less likely that meceirac should have been taken
from the LXX. 1 Kings i. 52; 1 Sam. xiv. 45; 2 Sam. xiv. 11.— Ver. 39.
éBovAeioavro] Lachm. and Born. read é@ovAevoyvro after BC 8, min. But on
account of the preceding imperfects, the imperfect here also was easily brought
in; and hence is to be explained the reading (explanatory gloss) éSovAovro in
A, min, — Ver. 41. réy xuydrwy] has in its favour C @ H ®** and all min. Chrys.
and: most vss., and is wanting only in A B &*. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.
There is, however,—especially as with r7¢ :dS a definition, although not
necessary, is probable,--amidst such strong attestation less a suspicion of its
being a supplementary addition, than a probability that the transcribers con-
founded this rév with the rov of ver. 42 and thus overlooked rév xvudror.
Besides, it would have more naturally suggested itself to a glossator to write on
the margin 775 Qaddoo. than r. cuudrwy, which does not again occur in the whole
narrative of this voyage.— Ver. 42. Elz. has d:agvyor. But Griesb. Lachm.

VOYAGE TO ITALY. AU?

Tisch. read d:agvyy, which is attested, indeed, by A B C X, min., but has arisen
from the usual custom of the N. T. in such combinations to put not the opta-
tive, but the subjunctive. — On the variations in the proper names in this
chapter, see the exegetical remarks,

Ver. 1.’ Tot arorAeiv jpac] contains the aim of the éxpify. ‘‘ But when, by
Festus, decision was made, to the end that we should sail away.’ The
nature of the ‘‘ becoming resolved ’’ (xpiveo@a:) implies that the object—the
contents of the resolution—may be conceived as embraced under the form
of its aim. The modes of expression: xeAebecy iva, eimeiv iva, OéAecv iva, and
the like, are similar; comp. ver. 42, Bova? éyéveto, iva.?— uae] Luke
speaks as'a fellow-traveller. — apedidovy] namely, the persons who were
entrusted with the execution of the éxpiéy. — érépovg is purposely chosen,
not dAAouc, to intimate that they were prisoners of another sort, not also
Christians under arrest.” érepoc in xv. 35, xvii. 84, also is to be similarly
taken in the sense of another of two classes, in opposition to de Wette. —
oveipn¢e ZeBaor.] cohortis Augustae, perhaps: the illustrious, the imperial,
cohort. eBacr, is an adjective.‘ Probably, for historical demonstration
is not possible, it was that one of the five cohorts stationed at Caesarea,
which was regarded as body-guard of the emperor, and was accordingly
employed, as here, on special services affecting the emperor. We have no
right, considering the diversity of the names used by Luke, to hold it as
identical wlth the omeipa 'Iradxh, x. 1, 80 Ewald. ‘Weiseler® finds here the
cohors Augustanorum, imperial body-cohort, at Rome, consisting of Roman
equites, of the so-called evocati,* whose captain, Julius, he supposes, has
been at this very time on business at Caesarea, and had taken the prisoners
with him on his return. In this way the centurion would not have becn
under the command of Festus at all, and would have only been incidentally
called into requisition, which is hardly compatible with the regulated de-
partmental arrangements of Rome in the provinces ; nor is there in the text
itself, any more than in the oveipa ‘Irad:xf, x. 1, the least intimation that we
are to think of a cohort and a centurion, who did not belong at all to the
military force of Caesarea. Schwarz,’ with whom Kuinoel agrees, con-
ceived that it was a cohort consisting of Sebastenes, from Sebaste, the cap-
ital of Samaria, as in fact Sebastene soldiers are actually named by
Josephus among the Roman military force in Judea.* But the calling a
cohort by the name of a city, the cohort of Sebaste, 1s entirely without ex-

1Comp. on chap. xxvii. the excellent trea-
tise of James Smith, The Voyage and Ship-
wreck of St. Paul, London 1848, ed. 2, 1856;
VOmel, Progr., Frankf. 1850; in respect of
the languaye, Klostermann, Vindiciae Luc.
VII. —In Banmgarten there {s much allegoriz-
ing and play of fancy; he considers the apostle
as the frue Jonah, and the ship's crew as a
representative of tha whole heathen world. —
Hackett treats chap. xxvii. with special care,
having made usc of many accounts of travels
and notes of navigation.

2 See alan Luke fv. 10.

* Comp. Luke xxifi. 38; Tittmann, Synon.
N. T. p. 135 f ; and see on Gal. {. 7.

4 Comp. Away LeBaor. in Joseph. Antt. xvil-
5.1: the imperial harbour (in Caesarea).

§ Chronol, p. 831, and Deitr. 2. Wirdig. d.
Ev. p. 8&5 (comp. Wotstein).

Tac. Ann. xiv. 15; Sucton. Nero, 5; Dio,
Ix. 20, Ixifl. 8.

7 De cohorte Ital. et Aug., Altort, 1720.

§ Antt. sx. 6.2, Bell. it. 12. 5.

478 CHAP. XXVII., 1-8.

ample ; we should necessarily expect L<Sacr7av,' or an adjective of locality,
such as LeBaornvf, after the analogy of ‘Irad:acq, x. 1. — Nothing further is
known of the centurion Julius. Tacitus*® mentions a Julins Priscus as cen-
turion of the Praetorians ; but how extremely common was the name !

Ver. 2, ’En:Bdvrec] with dative, see on xxv. 1.—Aoly 'Adpap.] @ ship
which belonged to Adramyttium, had its home there, the master of which
resided there. '‘Adpaytrriov, or ’Adpaytrreov,® was a seaport of Mysia, and
is not to be confounded with Adrumetum on the north coast of Africa,‘ be-
cause amidst all the variations in the codd. (‘Adpayuvrivg, ’Adpaxveryva,
’Arpanutnv@, 'Adpaupurivm) the v in the middle syllable is decidedly pre-
ponderant. — uéAdovri wAciv x«.t.A.] The ship, certainly a merchant-sbip,
was thus about to start on its homeward voyage. The prisoners were
by this opportunity to be brought to the Asiatic coast, and sent
thence by the opportunity of another vessel® to Italy. — roi¢ xara +r. 'Aciay
rérouc] to navigate the places situated along Asia, on the Asiatic const.* —
‘Aptorépyov|* Thus he also had from Asia* come again to Paul; Trophi-
mus® already joined him at Jerusalem. But whether Aristarchus accom-
panied Paul as a fellow-prisoner *° does not follow with certainty from Col.
iv. 10."

Ver. 8. Eig Xeddva] unto Sidon, into the seaport.” — ypzo8a: rivi] to have
intercourse, fellowship, with any one."* The fact that the centurion treated
Paul so kindly may be sufficiently explained from the peculiar interest,
which a character so lofty and pure could not but awaken in humane and
unprejudiced minds. It may be also that the procurator had specially
enjoined a gentle treatment. — ropevdévra is to be analysed as accusative
with infinitive.’ — xpd¢ r. gidovc] Without doubt Paul had told the cen-
turion that he had friends, namely, Christian brethren,’ in Sidon. §8till
the centurion would not leave him without military escort, as indeed his
duty required this.**

Vv. 4, 5. ‘Yrerdebo. r. Kirpov] We sailed under Cyprus, so that we re-
mained near the shore, elevated above the levelof the sea, because the
(shifting) winds were contrary, and therefore made a withdrawal to a dis-
tance from the northern shore not advisable. —xara r. KiAix.] along.
Just 20 ver. 7,.—xaTd Zadudrvyv ; comp. ver. 2.— Mipa] or, as Lachmann,
following B, reads, Méppa—it is neuter, yet the feminine form was also
used'’—was a seaport of Lycia, only twenty stadia from the coast.'* The

1 Joseph. Bell. il. 12.6: “ tAny trmder xadov- ® See on xxi. 29.
mévny SeBactyvey.”’ 10 Ewald.
2 Hist. ii, 92, iv. 11. 11 See in loe.
3 For several other modes of writing the 13 Comp. xxi. 8, xxvi. 12.
name, see Steph. Byz. ¢.v.; Poppo, ad Thuc. 13 See Wetatein, and Ruhnk. ad Tim. p. 101.
I. 2, p. 441 f. 14 See on xxvi. 30, and Lobeck, ad Soph.
4 Grotius, Drnsius, Richard Simon. Aj. 1008.
® Ver. 6. 18 fx. 19.
* On the accurative, see Winer, p. 210 (E. T. 1 Comp. Grotians, “cum milite.”
28)); Thuc. vi. 68. 2: wAdovres ra re éwéxewva 17 See Steph. Byz. a.v.
TS XueeAias. Pauean. 1. 85. 18 Strabo, xiv. p. 981. Forbig. Geogr. II. p.

7 See xix. 20, xx. 4; Col iv. 10; Philem. 2%, 256.
® xx. 4,

FAIR HAVENS. 479

readings Atorpa or Atorpay,' and Zytpvav,? are explained from want of ac-
quaintance with that name of a town. -

Vv. 6, 7. Whether the Alerandrian ship was freighted with grain, which
at Jeast is not to be proved from ver. 38, or with other goods, canuot be
determined ; as also whether it was by wind and weather, or affairs of
trade, that it was constrained not to sail directly from Alexandria to Italy,
but first to run into the Lycian port. — wAéov] It was already on its voyage
from Alexandria to Italy. — éveB. uac] he embarked us, put us on board,
a cox nautica* (a*). See examples in Palairet and Wolf.— Ver. 7. But
when we had made slow way for a considerable number of days, and had come
with difficulty toward Cnidus, into its neighbourhood, thus in the offing,
having passed along by Rhodes, 80 that the wind did not allow us to land at
Cnidus, we sailed under Crete, near Salmone. The wind thus came from the
north, so that the vessel was drawn away from Cnidus and downward
towards Crete.—zpocrdvroc} finds a definite reference in the immediately
preceding xara ryv Kvidov, and hence the view of Grotius, following the
Peshito, that rectum tenere cursum should be supplied, is to be rejected. —
Cnidus was.a city of Caria on the peninsula of Cnidia, celebrated for the
worship of Apbrodite and for the victory of Cimon over Pisander.‘ — The
promontory Ladudvz, on the east coast of Crete, is called in Strabo,® Sadpénior,
and in Dionys.° Zaauwvle.

Ver. 8. Tapadéyecba:] corresponds entirely to the Latin legere, oram, to
sail along the coast.‘ This keeping to the coast was only with difficulty
(uddcc) successful. — avr4v refers to r. Kpfrgv. — Nothing is known from
antiquity of the anchorage KaAoi Aiuévec—Fair Havens * (u‘). — The name
is perhaps, on account of ver. 12 (avev@érov «.7.4.), to be considered as
cuphemistic. The view that the place is identical with the town called by
Stephanus Byzantinus Kad? axrf, is improbable, because the Fair Havens
here was not a town, as may be inferred from the appended remark:
éyyic qv wba Aac. — fv] not éori. The preterite belongs to the graphic de-
scription. They saw the neighbouring city. The town Aacaia also is en-
tirely unknown ; hence the many variations, Aacéa,"! *AAacca, "* Thalassa,'*
Thessala.'* The evidence in support of these other forms is not strong
enough to displace the Recepta,'® seeing that it is also supported by B x*,
which has Aaooaia. Beza conjectured ’Ejala;'* but such a conjecture, es-
pecially in the case of Crete with its hundred cities, was uncalled for.

1A, Copt. Vulg. Fathera.

2 $1, Beda. e

2? Baumgarten, II. p. 873 f., collects the nau-
tical expreasion of this chapter, adducing,
however, much that belongs to the general
language.

4 See Forbiger, Geogr. II. p. 221.

8x. p. 727.

6 Perieg. 110.

7 Diod. Sic. xiii. 3, xiv. 55.

® Tt ts certainly the bay etill called Limenes
kai, Pococke, Morg. II. p. 861. Comp. Smith,
p. 88, ed. 2. Sce, moreover, on the abovo

localities generally, Hocck, Xreta, I. p. 489
ff.
®*Comp. Kriger, and Kfihner, Ad Xen.
Anabd. i. 4.9; Breitenb. ad Xen. Hier. ix. 4.

16 Yet seo on ruins with this name, Smith,
p. 262.

11 BR, min.: eo Tiechendorf,

13 A, 40, 96, Syr. p. on the margin; eo Gro-
tins, Lachmann, Ewald.

33 Vulgate, Aethiopic.

14 Codd. Lat., et al.

18G. H.

1¢ Plin, NV. ZZ. iv. 1%

480 : CHAP. XXVII., 9-14.

Ver. 9. ‘Ixavod 62 yp. diay.] namely, since the beginning of our voyage.
—-ioécs} Bee on this late form, instead of wAci, Lobeck.' — da rd xai r.
vnareiay 46n waped.] because also, even, the fasting was already past.* The
woreia, xar’ é€oxfv, is the fasting of the great day of atonement, which
occurred on the 10th of Tisri.* It was thus already after the autumnal
equinox, when navigation, which now became dangerous (émogad.), was
usually closed.‘— rapvec 6 11.}] He had experience enough for such a counsel.*

Vv. 10, 11. @ewpd}) when I view the tumult of the sea. — re . . . wéAAecy
goecGa:] A mixing of two constructions, of which the former is neglected
as the epeech flows onward.* — pera iBpewc] with presumption. Paul warns
them that the continuance of the voyage will not take place without temer-
ity. Accordingly wera ifp. contains the subjective, and (wera) moAAne Cnuiac
ov udvoy x.7.A. the objective, detriment with which the voyage would be
attended. The expositors—Ewald, however, takes the correct view—
understand era ofp. of the injuria or saevitia tempestatis. But as the defi-
nition tempestatis has no place in the text, the view remains a very arbi-
trary one, and has no corresponding precedent even in poets.’ The whole
utterance is, moreover, the natural expression of just fear, in which case
Paul could say jx4y without mistrusting the communication which he re-
ceived in xxiii. 11; for by rodaje the Cyyia rév yvyzov is affirmed, not of
all, but only of a great portion of the persons on board. He only reccived
at a later period the higher revelation, by which this fear was removed
from him.* He speaks here in a way inclusive of others (juov), on account
of their joint interest in the situation. A special ‘‘entering into the fellow-
ship of the Gentiles ’’° is as little indicated as is the assumption that he did
not preach out of grief over the Jews. The present time and situation
were not at all suitable for preaching. — éreiOero uadrAov] roi éureipwg Exoret
HGAAov mpdc Td wAeiv, } éxiBary aretpy vavtix#c, Oecumenius. So the opposite
view of the steersman and captain of the ship, vatxAnpoc, prevailed with
the centurion. By reason of the inconvenience of the haven for wintering,
the majority of those on board came to the resolution, etc., ver. 12.

Ver. 12. "Aveviérov] not well situated, Hesychius and Suidas, elsewhere
not found; the later Greeks have dioferoc. They ought, according to
the counsel of Paul, to have chosen the least of two evils, — spdc¢ rapa-
xetpactay] for passing the winter.'° — xaxeiber] also from thence. As they had
not hitherto lain to with a view to pass the winter, the resolution come to
by the majority was to the effect of sailing onward from thence also"! —

1 Ad Phryn. p. 438, Paralip. p. 178.

3 According to Bleek and de Wette, this
Jewish definition of time, as well as that con-
tained in xx. 6, betrays a Jewish-Chritian
author. But the definitions of the Jewish
calendar were generally, and very natarally,
adopted In the apostolic church. Comp.
Schn ckenburger, p. 18.

3 Lev. xvi. 29 ff., xxiii. 26 ff.

4 See Wetstein.

§2 Cor. xi, 25,

6 See Heind. ad Plat. Phaed. p.68C ; Winer,
p. 318 (BE. T. 428); Raphel, Polyd. in loc.
Comp. on xix. 27, xxifl. 23 f.

7 Comp. Pind. Pyth. 1. 78: vaveicrovoy Uppy
ier, Anthol. 111. 22. 58 : &cicava Gaddrrys UBpiy.

® See vv. 23, 24.

® Baumgarten.

10 Diod. Sic. xix. 68, and more frequently in
Polybius. Comp. xxviii. 11.

11On édervro BovAgy, comp. Judg. xix. 80;
Ps. xili. 8.

FROM MYRA TO CRETE. 481

eituc Sbvatvro] t.e. in order to try, whether perhaps they would be able.! — The
haven ¢oiu¢ is called in Ptolem. iii. 17, docrcxotc, and the adjacent town
doimé. Stephanus Byzantinus, on the other hand, remarks: doinxove wéAcc
Kpatyc. Perhaps the two names were used in common of the haven and
the city. Whether the haven was the modern Jwtro, is uncertain.*—

— Aip is the A/fricus, the south-west wind, and Xépo¢ the Caurus, the -
north-west.‘ The haven formed such a curve, that one shore stretched
toward the north-west and the other toward the south-west (1‘).

Ver. 18. But when gentler south winds had set in*—this was the motive of
the following défavrec. As, namely, Mair Havens, where they were, and also
Phoeniz farther to the west, whither they wished to go, lay on the south
coast of the island, the south wind was favourable for carrying out their
resolution, because it kept them near to the coast and did not allow them
to drift down into the southern sea. — xexpargxévas] to have become masters of
their purpose, that is, to be able safely to accomplish it. Examples in
Raphel, Polyb. —dpavrec] namely, the anchor, which is understood of
itself in nautical language : they weighed anchor.* — dacov mapedty. r. Kpfr. |
they sailed closer, than could previously, ver. 8, be done, along the coast of
Crete. docov, nearer, the comparative of dyp:, is not only found in poetry
from the time of Homer, but also in prose.” The Vulgate, which Erasmus
follows, has: cum sustulissent de Asson, so that thus AZXON is connected
with dpavrec and regarded as the name of a city of Crete ;° hence also Elz.,
Mill, Scholz have *Accov, as & proper name. But as this translation is at
variance with the words as they stand, Luther, Castalio, Calovius, and
several older expositors have taken ‘Accov as the accusative of direction :
cum sustulissent Assum. But, even if the little town had really been situ-
ated on the coast, which does not agree with Plin. l.c., the expression
would have been extremely harsh, as dpavrec does not express the notion
of direction; and not only so, but also the mere accusative of direction
without a preposition is only poetical,’ and is foreign to the N. T.

Ver. 14. *Efade] intransitive: fell upon, threw itself against it; often
in the classical writers after Homer. —xar’ avry¢] refers to the nearest
antecedent Kpfryy, not’? to mpobfc. — dveuog rupuvixds| The adjective is
formed from rredv, a whirlwind, and is found also in Eustathius,"! — Eipo-
KAbdwv] the broad-surging, from etpoc, breadth, and xdivu. It is weually ex-
plained: Zurus jfluctus excitans, from Eipoc, the south-east wind, and
«Aiduv. But this compound would rather yield an appellation unsuitable
for a wind: south-east wave, fluctus euro excitatus. EipuxAtduv."* from evpte,

1 See Hartung, Partikell. IT. p. 206. 1, al. [iv.12.
3 In opposition to Smith, p. 88. see Hackett. 8*Agos in Steph. Byz., Asta in Plin. H. N.
%See Alberti, Odse. p. 274; Kypke, II. p. ® Kithner, II. p. 204.

184 f. 10 T.uther.
4 See Kapp, ad Aristol. de mundo Erc. ITI. 1! See Wetatein.
5 brorvevo., Arist. prod’. viil. 6; Heliodor. 13 Defended by Toup, Amend. in Suidam,
iif. 3. IST. p. 536. Comp. Etym. M. p. 772, 31: rude
* See Bos, Evline., ed. Schaefer, p. 14 f. yap €or. } Tov aveuov oddépa voy, Ss ai evpuK.

7 Herod. lif. 62, iv. 6; Joseph. Ant. 1. 2%. Avdww xareiras.

482 CHAP. XXVII., 15-17.

according to the analogy ef evpuxpelwv, evpupédov, evpvdivyc, etc., would cer-
tainly be more suitable to the explanation broad-surging ; but on this very
account the reading EvpuxAtduy in B** 40, 188, is not to be approved with
Griesbach, but to be considered as a correction. Lachmann and Borne-
mann, followed by Ewald, Smith, and Hackett, have Eipaxtawy, according
to A x (Vulg. Cassiod.: Huroaquilo), which also Olshausen, after Eras-
mus, Grotius, Mill, Bengel, and others, approves ; the best defence of this
reading is by Bentley, in Wolf, Cur. This would be the east-north-east
toind ; the compound formed, as in evpdvoroc,’ euroauster, euroafricus. But
the wofds of the text lead us to expectra special actual name (xadobpu.) of
this particular whirlwind, not merély.a designation of its direction. It is
difficult also to comprehend why'‘such an easily explicable name of a wind
as Huroaquilo, evpaxbAwv, should have been converted into the difficylt and
enigmatic EipoxAtduv. Far more naturally would the converse take place,
and the EvpoxAtduv, not being understood, would be displaced by the sim-
ilar Evpaxtaw formed according to the well-known analogy of Eipévoroc
x.t.A.; 80 that the latter form appears a product of old emendatory conjec-
ture. Besides, EipaxtAwy, if it were not formed by a later hand from the
original EipoxAtduwy, would be an improbable mixture of Greek and Latin,
and we do not see why the name should not have had some such furm as
EvpoBoptac 3 axbAwy = aguilo, is nowhere found (3*).

Ver. 15. Luvaprach.| but when the ship was hurried along with the whirl-
wind. —On avrogfadueiv, to look in the face, then to withstand.* — éxidévrec]
may either, with the Vulgate, data nave fiatibus ferebamur, Luther, Elsner,
and many others, be referred to 1d sAoiov, or be taken in a reflerive sense: *
we gave ourselves up and were driven.‘ The former is simpler, because r.
mAotov precedes. .

Ver, 16. KAabdy, or according to Ptol. iii. 7 KAatdoc, or according to Mela
ii. 7 and Plin. iv. 20 Gaudos, according to Suidas Kavdé, was the name of
the modern Gozo to the south of Crete. From the different forms of the
name given by the ancients must be explained the variations in the codd.
and vss,, among which Kaida is attested by B x** Syr. Aeth. Vulg.,
adopted by Lachmann, and approved by Ewald. We cannot determine
how Luke originally wrote the name; still, as most among the ancients
have transmitted it without 2, the A, which has in its favour A G H x* vas.
and the Greek Fathers, has probably been deleted by subsequent, though
in itself correct, emendation.-— ric oxdgyc] they could scarcely become
masters * of the boat, belonging to the ship, which swam attached to it,
when they wished to hoist it up,* that it might not be torn away by the
etorm.

Ver. 17. And after they had drawn this up, they applied means of protection,
undergirding the ship, This undergirding * took place, in order to diminish

1 Gel. if. 22. 10. 5 wepcxparets, Simmias in the Anthol. I. p.
2See Schweigh. Lex. Polyd. p. 87. Comp. 187, Jacobs.

Ecclus. xix. 6; Wiad. xii. 14. “Vv. 17, 80.
* Raphel, Wolf, Bengel, Kypke. 7 Polyb. xxvii. 8. 8.

¢ Comp. Lobeck, ad Aj. 250.

A STORM AT SEA. 483

the risk of foundering, by means of broad ropes,! which, drawn under the
ship and tightened above, held its two sides more firmly together.* By
BonGeiacs is to be understood all kinds of helpful apparatus * which they had
in store for emergencies, as ropes, chains, beams, clamps, and the like.‘
The referring it to the help rendered by the passengers,° which was a matter
of course amidst the common danger, makes the statement empty and un-
necessary. — goBobpuevol re x.7.A.] and fearing to strike on the nearest Syrtis.
It is entirely arbitrary to understand rv ipriv, without linguistic prece-
dent, in the wider sense of a sandbank,* and not of the African Syrtis. Of
the two Syrtes, the Greater and the Lesser, the former was the nearest. As
the ship was driven from the south coast of Crete slong past the island of
Clauda, and thus ran before the north-east wind, they might well, amidst
the peril of their situation, be driven to the fear lest, by continuing their
course with full sail, they might reach the Greater Syrtis ; and how utterly
destructive that would have been !| ’ —éxzirrew, of ships and shipwrecked
persons, which are cast, out of the deep, navigable water, on banks, rocks,
islands, shoals, or on the land, is very common from Homer onward.* — 1d
oxevoc| the gear, the tackle, is the general expression for all the apparatus of
the ship.” The context shows what definite tackle is here meant by specify-
ing the aim of the measure, which was to prevent the ship from being cast
upon the Syrtis, and that by withdrawing it as far as practicable from the
force of the storm driving them towards the Syrtis. This was done by
their lowering the sails, striking sail, and accordingly choosing rather to
abandon the ship without sails to the wind, und to allow it to be driven
(obrwe égépovro), than with stretched sails to be cast quickly, and without
further prospect of rescue, on the Syrtis. Already at a very early date 7d
oxevog Was justly explained of the sails, and Chrysostom even read ra ioria.
According to Smith, the lowering of the rigging is meant, by which the
driving of the ship in @ straight direction was avoided. But this presup-
poses too exact an acquaintance with their position in the storm, consid-
ering the imperfection of navigation in those times ; and both the follow-
ing description, especially ver. 20, and the measure adopted in ver. 29,
lead us to assume that they had already relinquished the use of the sails,
But the less likely it is that in the very exact delineation the account
of the striking of the sails, which had not hitherto taken place, in opposi-
tion to Kypke and Kuinoel, should have been omitted, and the more defi-
nitely the collective meaning is applied in rd oxevoc, the more objectionable

2 bwogwpara, tormenta.

2 Yct it is doubtful whether the procedure
was not such, that the ropes ran ina horizon-
tal manner right ruund the ship (Boeckh,

4See Wetatein.

* Grotius, Heinsius, and others.

78ee Herod. ili. 25f., iv. 178; Sallust. Jug.

Stallb. ad Piat.i.c.). Bnt see Smith. Comp.
Plat. Rep. p. 616 C: olow ra vrogapara trav
Tpijpwr, olrw wacay fuvdxav Thy wepipopay;
Athen. v. 37; and sec generally Boeckh, Ur-
kunden tb d. Seewesen des Attischen Staats,
p. 133 ff.; Smith (The Ships of the Ancients), p.
173 ff. ; Hackett, p. 426 ff.
3 Aristot. Bhet. il. 5.

78f.; Strabo, xvil. p. 834 f.

* Locella, ad Xen. Eph. p. 289; Stallb. ad
Piat, Phil. p. 18 D.

® Plat. Crit. p. 117 D3; ceever ica rpujpecs
wpoojxer, Dem. 1145. 1: oxedy rpcnpapxixa,
1145. 9; Xen. Oee. vill. 12. Polyb. xxii. 26. 18;
and see Hermann, Privataiterth. § 60. 20.

484 CHAP. XXVII., 18-25.

appears the view of Grotius, Heinsius, Kuinoe], and Olshausen (after the
Peshito), that +d cxevoc is the mast. Still more arbitrary, and, on account
of égépovro, entirely mistaken is the rendering of Kypke: ‘‘ demittentes
ancoram,”’ and that of Castalio and Vatablus: ‘‘ demissa scapha ;’’ see, on
the other hand, ver. 80.

Vv. 18, 19. "ExBodqy érotodvro] they made a casting out, i.e. they threw
overboard the cargo.' For the lightening of the vessel in distress, in order
to make it go less deep and to keep it from grounding, they got rid in
the first instance of what could, in the circumstances, be most fitly dis-
pensed with, namely, the cargo; but on the day after they laid hands even
on the oxev) rod rAoiov,* t.e. the ship’s apparatus,—the utensils belonging to
the ship, as furniture, beds, cooking vessels, and the like. The samc
collective idea, but expressed in the plural, occurs in Jonah i. 5. .Others*
understand the baggage of the passengers, but this is at variance with row
mAotov ; instead of it we should expect gudv, especially as airéyetpec pre-
cedes. Following the Vulgate, Erasmus, Grotius, and many others, includ-
ing Olshausen and Ewald, understand the arma navis, that is, ropes, beams,
and the like belonging to the equipment of the ship. But the tackling is
elsewhere called ra 87Aa, or ra oxen, from oxevoc, and just amidst the danger
this was most indispensable of all.—atréyzecpec}] with our own hands,‘ gives to
the description a sad vividness, and does not present a contrast to the conduct
of Jonah, who lay asleep,* as Baumgarten in his morbid quest of types imagines.

Ver. 20. Mare d2 #Aiov x.r.A.] For descriptions of storms from Greek and
Roman writers, which further embellish this trait, see Grotius and Wetstein. °
— énixeioba:] spoken of the incessantly assailing storm.’ —Aaméy] ceterum in
reference to time, i.e. henceforth.* — hua} not guiv, which would not have
been suitable to Paul,’ nor yet probably to his Christian companions.

Vv. 21, 22. The perplexity had now risen in the ship to despair. But,
as the situation was further aggravated by the fact that there prevailed in
a high degree (roAAfc) that abstinence from food which anguish and despair
naturally bring with them, Paul came forward in the midst of those on
board (éy uéoy avrov), in the first instance with gentle censure, and after-
wards with confident encouragement and promise. — On aorria, jejunatio,
comp. Herod. iii. 52 ; Eur. Suppl. 1105 ; Arist. Hth. x. 9; Joseph. Anét. xii. 7.
1.!° — rére] then, in this state of matters, as in xxviii. 1.1! — oraGeic x.r.A.] has

1 Had the ship been loaded with dallast,
and this been thrown out (Laurent), we should
have expected a more preciee designation
(€épna). The oxevi, too, would not have been
included in the category of things thrown out
at once on the following day, but after the
ballast would have come, in the firat instance,
the cargo. The ship was without doubt a
merchant-vessel, and donbtless had no bal-
last at all. Otherwise they certainly would
have commenced with throwing the latter out,
but would not thereupon have at once passed to
the oxev}. Dem. 926. 17; Aesch. Seyi. 769; Arist:
Bth. iii. 1; Pollux, i. 90; LXX. Jonah 1. 6.

- am mm

2 Diod. Sic. xiv. 79.

8 Wetsteln, Kypke, Rosenmiiller, Kuinoel.
« Hermann, ad Sopk. Ant. 1160.

§ Jonah 1. 5.

‘Ali. 2, p. 234, a,

T See Alberti, Odss. 279; Wolf, Cur.

8 See Vigerus, p. 22, and Hermann thereon,
p. 106; Kiihner, ad Anab. ii. 2. 5.

9 yxill. 11.

10 Volg.

11 So also in the classics after participles,
Xen. Cyr. 1, 5.6; Dem. 33. 5, 60. 18.

PAUL’S ADDRESS ON BOARD. 485

here, as in xvii. 22, ii. 14, something solemn. — atrév] not jyav; for the
censure as well as also primarily the encouragement was intended to apply
to the sailors. — ide pév] it was necessary indeed. This uév does not stand in
relation to the following «ai, but the contrast—possibly : but it has not been
done—is suppressed.' Bengel well remarks: ‘‘xal modestiam habet.’’ —
xepdjoa. x.T.A.] and to have spared us this insolence® and the loss suffered.
ravtyy points to the whole present position of danger in which the ifpic,
wherewith the warnings of the apostle were despised and the voyage vent-
ured, presented itself in a way to be keenly felt as such. xepdaivecv, of that
gain, which is made by omission or avoidance.* The evil in question is con-
ceived as the object, the non-occurrence of which goes to the benefit of the
person acting, as the negative object of gain. Analogous to this is the
Latin lucrifacere, see Grotius.‘ — aroBodp yap Wyte x.t.A.] for there shall be
no loss of a soul from the midst of you, except loss of the ship, i.e. no loss of
life, but only the loss of the ship. An inaccuracy of expression, which con-
tinues with 7/7, as if before there had simply been used the words amof.
yap ovd. goraz.*»—To what Paul had said in ver. 10, his present announce-
ment stands related as a correction. He has now by special revelation
learned the contrary of what he had then feared, as respected the appre-
hended loss of life.

Vy. 28-25. “Ayyetoc] an angel (K‘). But naturally those hearers who
were Gentiles, and not particularly acquainted with Judaism, understood
this as well as rov Ocod x.r.A. according to their Gentile conception, of a mes-
senger of the gods, and of one of the gods. — of iui éya, @ nal Aarpeiw} to
whom I belong, a8 His property, and whom I also, in accordance with this
belonging, serve.* Paul thus characterizes himself as intimate with God,
and therewith assures the credibility of his announcement, in which rot
@cov with great emphasis precedes the dyyeAoc «.1r.A. (see the critical re-
marks). On éyé (see the critical remarks), in which is expressed a holy
sense of his personal standing, Bornemann correctly remarks: ‘‘ Pronomen
Paulum minime dedecet coram gentilibus verba facientem.’’ — xexydpiorai co
6 @edc] God has granted to thee, i.e. He has saved them, according to His
counsel, for thy sake.’— Here, too,* the appearance, which is to be re-
garded as a work of God, is not a vision in a dream. The testimony and
the consciousness of the apostle, who was scarce likely to have slumbered
and dreamed on that night, are decisive against this view, and particularly
against the naturalizing explanation of Eichhorn,’ Zeller, and Hausrath.
De Wette takes objection to the mode of expression xeydptora: x.t.A., and is
inclined to trace it to the high veneration of the reporter; but this is
unfair, as Paul had simply to utter what he had heard. And he had heard,
that for his sake the saving of all was determined. Bengel well remarks:

18ee Ktihner, § 783, note. p. 430; Baeum- Phryn. p. 740 f.
lein, Partik. p. 168. Comp. on xxvill. 22. 5 Comp. Winer, p. 587 [E. T. 789].
3 See on ver. 10. * Comp. Rom. i. 9.
*See examples in Bengel, and Kypke, II. 7 See on iil. 14.
p. 189 f. ® Comp. on xvi. 10,
On the form xepsiica, see Lobeck, ad ® Bibi. LIT. p. 407, 1064.

486 CHAP. XXVII., 26-34.

‘¢ Non erat tam periculcso alioqui tempore periculum, ne videretur P., ques
necessario dicebat, gloriose dicere.’’ — obtw¢ nal’ dv rp.] comp. i. 11.

Ver. 26. But—dé, leading over to the mode of the promised deliverance—
we must be cast! on some island. This assurance, made to Paul probably
through the appearance just narrated, is verified ver. 41 ff. But it is lightly,
and without reason assigned, conjectured by Zeller that vv. 21-26 contain
a vaticinium post eventum on the part of the author.

Vv. 27-29. But after the commencement of the fourteenth night, namely,
after the departure from Fair Havens,* while we were driven up and down*
in the Adriatic sea, about midnight, the sailors descried, etc. 'The article was
not required before the ordinal number,‘ as a special demonstrative stress°®
is not contemplated, but only the simple statement of time. On vié éreyé-
vero (see the critical remarks), the night set in.°—6' Adpiarc] here and frequently,
not in the narrower sense’ of the Golfo di Venetia, but in the wider sense
of the sea between Italy and Greece, extending southward as far as, and
inclusive of, Sicily.°—spocdyev] that it approaches to them.® The opposite is
Gvaywpeiv, recedere, See Smith and the passages in Kuinoel. The conjec-
ture of the sailors (vrevéovv) had doubtless its foundation in the noise of
the surf,’ such as is usual in the vicinity of land. — On podiZerv, to cast the
sounding lead,'' and on épyvé,'* a measure of length of six feet, like our
fathom.* — diacrgoavrec| note the active: having made a short interval, i.e.
having removed the ship a little way farther.“ — dexanévre] With this de-
crease of depth the danger increased of their falling on reefs,'* such as are
frequent in the vicinity of small islands. —réccapac].'*® For the different
expressions for casting anchor, see Poll. i. 108 (1‘).

Ver. 30. While they were lying here at anchor longing for daylight,
nixovro juépav yevéoba, ver. 29, the sailors, in order with the proximity of
land to substitute certainty for uncertainty, make the treacherous attempt
to escape to land in the boat, which they had already let down under the
pretence of wishing to cast anchor from the prow of the ship, and thus to
leave the vessel together with the rest of those on board to their fate. Cer-
tainly the captain of the vessel,!’ whose interest was too much bound up
with the preservation of the ship, was not implicated in this plot of his
servants; but how easily are the bonds of fidelity and duty relaxed in

1 éxwecety, 8€6 ON Ver. 17.

2 Comp. vv. 18, 19.

3 d:adep., zee the passages in Wetstein and
Kypke, II. p. 141, and Philo, de migr. Abr. p.
410 E.

notus."' Horat. Od. 1.8. 15.

® * Lucas optice loquitur nautaram more,”
Kypke. See Cic. Quaest. acad. iv. %.

10 Smith.

11 Bodis, in Herodotus xaraweparypia. See

4 Poppo, ad Thue. fi. 70. 5.

6 Amels on Hom. Od. xiv. 241.

*Comp. Herod. viii. 70; Thuc. iv. 2%;
Polyb. 1. 11. 15, fi. 23. 5.

7 Plin. iil. 16. 20.

8 Comp. Scherzer, statistisch commercielle
Ergebnisse, p. 51: “ During the European win-
ter a sailing vessel may he often forced to lose
fourteen days or more by a persistent south-
east wind in the Adriatic Gulf... See For-
biger, Geogr. II. p. 16 ff. ‘‘ Hadriae arbiter

the passages from Eustathiusin Wetstcin.

42 Concerning the accent, Gdttling, p. 138.

13 See Herod. ii. 169; Beckh, meiral. Un-
ters. p. 210 ff.

14Comp. Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 41 (EK.
T. 47).

18 garda Tpaxets Térous.

16 Comp. Caes. Bell. civ. 1. 25: ‘‘ Naves qua-
ternis ancoris destinabat, ne flactibus move-
rentur.”*

17 The vaveAnpos, ver. 11.

FEARS AND HOPES. 487

vulgar minds when placed in circumstances of perilous uncertainty, if at
the expense of these bonds a safe deliverance may be obtained ! — rpogdce
Oo... peAAdvrav] The genitive is absolute, subordinate to the preceding
xzadac., and xpogdce:' is adverbial,? as in classical writers the accusative
axpégaccyv more commonly occurs.* Hence: on pretence as though they would,
etc. — éxreivecy] extendere.‘ They affected and pretended that by means of
the boat they were desirous to reach out anchors* from the prow, from
which these anchors hung,® into the sea, in order that the vessel might be
secured not only behind,’ but also before. Incorrectly Laurent renders : ‘‘ to
cast out the anchors farther into the sea.’’ Against this, it is decisively
urged that ayxtpac is anarthrous, and that éx rpdépac stands in contrast to éx
axpbuvys, ver. 29.

Vv. 81, 32. Paul applied not first to the captain of the vessel, but at once
to the soldiers, because they could take immediately vigorous measures, 3s
the danger of the moment required ; and the energetic and decided word
of the apostle availed. —ovra . . . tueic] Correlates. Paul, however, does
not say queic, but appeals to the direct personul interest of those addressed.
— owlijvat ov dbvacbe} spoken in the consciousness of the divine counsel, in
so far as the latter must have the fulfilment of duty by the sailors as tho
human means of its realization (m‘). — éxeceiv] to fall out. We are to
think on the boat let down into the sea,® yet hanging with its fastened end
to the ship—when the soldiers cut the ropes asunder.

Ver. 33. But now, when he had overcome this danger, it was the care of
the prudent rescuer, before anything further, to see those on board strength-
ened for the new work of the new day by food. But until it should become
day,—so long, therefore, as the darkness of the night up to the first break
of dawn did not allow any ascertaining of their position or further work, —
in this interval he erhorted all, etc. — recoapeck. ofp. putpav x.t.A.] waiting,
for deliverance, the fourteenth day to-day, since the departure from Fair
Havens, -ye continue without food. dora holds with dared. the place of a
participle.® — undév xpocraB.| since ye have taken to you (adhibuistis) nothing,
no food. This emphatically strengthens the do:ro. That, however, the
two terms are not to be understood of complete abstinence from food, but
relatively, is self-evident ; Paul expresses the ‘‘ insolitam cibi abstinentiam’’
earnestly and forcibly."

Ver. 34. Tpd¢ rio ter. owr.] on the side of your deliverance, © salute vestra,
i.e. corresponding, conducing to your deliverance."* Observe the emphatic
tyetépac ; your benefit I have in view. — ovdevdc yap x.r.A.] assigns the reason

1Comp. Luke xx. 47; ‘Thuc. v. 83. 1, vi. * See the passages in Winer, p. 826 [E. T.
3 Bernhardy, p. 180. [76.1. 487]; Kriigeron Thue. i. 84. 2, and Kfibner,
3 Dorv. ad Charit. p. 819; Kriigeron Thuc. ad Xen. Mem. |. 6.2.

fil, 111.1, on ws, comp. on 1 Cor. iv. 18, and 10 Calvin.

see Xen. Anad. i. 2. 1. 11 Comp. qwoAAfes, ver. 21.
4 Volg. 12 Comp. Thuc. fil. 580. 1, v. 105. 8; Plat.
6 ‘* Fune eo usque prolato,*’ Grotius. Gorg. p. 459C; Arr. An. vii. 16.9. Seeon
® Pind. Pyth. tv. $42, x. 80. this use of wpés with the genitive (only found
7 Ver. 20. here in the N. T.), Bornhardy, p. 964; Winer,

® Ver. 30. p- 850 [E. T. 467 f.}.

488 CHAP. ‘XXVIL., 35-40.

for the previous mpoc r. tuerép. owrnpiag. For your deliverance, I say, for,
etc. In this case their own exertions and the bodily strengthening neces-
sary for this purpose are conceived as conditioning the issue. —On the
proverbial expression itself, which denotes their being kept utterly exempt from
harm, comp. Luke xxi. 18; 1 Sam. xiv. 45; 2 Sam. xiv. 11; 1 Kings i. 52.

Vv. 35, 36. Like the father of a family’ among those at table, not, as

Olshausen and Ewald suppose, notwithstanding that most of the persons
» were heathens, regarding the meal as a Christian love-feast, Paul now, by
way of formal and pious commencement of the meal, uttered the thanks-
giving-prayer—for the disposition towards, and relative understanding of,
which even the Gentiles present were in this situation susceptible—over
the bread,* broke it, and commenced to eat (ipfaro éotiev). And all of them,
encouraged by his word and example, on their part followed. — rpocedaf.
tpogic| partook of food.* It is otherwise in ver. 83, with accusative.

Ver. 37. And what a large meal was thus brought about ! — The number
276 may surprise us on account of its largeness ;‘ but, apart from the fact
that we have no knowledge of the size and manning of the Alexandrian
ship, ver. 6, it must, considering the exactness of the entire narrative, be
assumed as correct ; and for the omission of d:axdora: the single evidence of
B, which has ds, is too weak.

Ver. 38. Now, seeing that for some time, and in quite a brief period
must the fate of those on board be decided, further victuals were unncces-
sary—now they ventured on the last means of lightening the ship, which,
with the decreasing depth,* was urgently required for the purpose of driv-
ing it on to the land, and cast the provisions overboard, which, considering
the multitude of men and the previous ao:ria, was certainly still a con-
siderable weight. Chrysostom aptly remarks: obtw Aomwdv ré wav éppipav
ézi tov TlavAov, &¢ nat rdv oirov éxBadeiv. itoc may denote either corn, or
also, as here and often with Greek writers, provisions particularly prepared
from corn, meal, bread, etc. Others* have explained it as the corn with
which, namely, the ship had been /reighted. But against this it may be
urged, first, that this /reighting is not indicated ; secondly, that xopec®. d2
tpogi¢ corresponds to the throwing out of the provisions, and not of the
JSreight ; and thirdly, that the throwing out of the freight had already taken
place,” as this indeed was most natural, because the freight was the
heaviest. ’

Ver. 39. Tv yqv ovk Exeyivwok.] i.e. when it became day, they recognised
not what land it was; the land lying before them (njv yj#v) was one un-
known to them, — xéArov dé riva xarevéovy Exovra aiyiaAév] Thus Luke writes
quite faithfully and simply, I might say naively, what presented itself to
the scrutinizing gaze of those on board : but they perceived a bay which had
a beach. A bay and a beach belonging to it—so much they saw at tne un-
known land, and this sufficed for the resolution to land there, where it was

2 Comp. Luke xxiv. 39. (vi. 11. 8 Ver. 28.
® Matt. xiv. 19, xv. 836; Mark vili.6; Jobn ¢ Erasmus, Lather, Beza, e? al., including
3 Comp. Herod. viil. 90. Baumgarten, Smith, Hackett.

4 See Bornemann in loc, 7 Ver. 18.

SHIPWRECK,. 489

possible. Observe that aty:adde is a flat coast,’ thus suitable for landing, in
distinction from the high and rugged axr7.7 Hence it is not even neces-
sary, and is less simple, to connect, with Winer, ei¢ 6» «.7.A. as modal defi-
vition of aiy:ad. closely with the latter; ‘‘u shore of such a nature, that,”’
ctc. — cic 5y] applies to aiyaA. See ver. 40. For exumples of éfwfeiv, used
of the thrusting a ship from the open sea on to the land, navem éicere,
exrpellere, see Wetstein. On St. Paul's Bay, see the description and chart
of Smith.

Ver. 40. A vivid description of the stirring activity now put forth in
making every effort to reach the shore. 1. They cut the four anchors
round about (repieAdvrec), and let them fall into the sea, in order neither to
lose time nor to burden the ship with their weight. 2. At the same time
they loosened the bands, with which they fustened the rudders to the ship
in order to secure them while the ship lay at anchor from the violence of
the waves, for the purpose of uow using them in movingou. 8. They
spread the top-sail before the wind, and thus took their course (xareiyov)
for the beach (ei¢ rév atytaddv). — ciwy] is to be referred to the ayxtpac,
which they let go by cutting, so that they fell into the sea. Arbitrarily,
following the Vulgate (committebunt se), Luther, Beza, Grotius take it as
‘6 Siwy Td mAoiuy iévae ei¢ THY Gadacoar.’’—That trav rydativy is not to be taken
for the singular, but that larger ships had ¢o rudders,* managed by one
steersman.‘ — 6 dpréuwy] not elsewhere occurring in Greek writers as part
of a ship, is most probably explained of the top-gallant-sail placed high on
the mast.* Labeo points to this view: ‘‘Malum navis esse partem, arte-
monem autem non esse, Labeo ait,*’* in which words he objects to the con-
founding of the artemon with the mast : the mast constituted an integral
part of the ship, but the artemon did not, because it was fastened to the
mast. Luther's translation: ‘‘ mast,’’’ is therefore certainly incorrect.
Grotius, Heumann, Rosenmiiller, and others, including Smith, explain it
of ‘‘ the small sail at the prow of the ship.”’ In this they assume that the
mast had already been lowered ; but this is entirely arbitrary, as Luke,
although he relates every particular so expressly, has never mentioned this.*
Besides, we cannot see why this sail should not have been called by its
technical name dédwv.° Hadrianus, Junius, Alberti, Wolf, and de Wette
understand the mizzen-sail at the stern, which indeed bears that name iu
the present day,'® but for this éxidpouoc,"' is well known to be the old tech-
nical name. — rg mveoboy] sc. aipg, has raised itself quite to the position of
a substantive.'* The dative indicates the reference; they hoisted up the

} Matt. xiii. 2; and see Na&gelsbach on the
Niad, p. 24, ed. 3.
28ee Hom. Od. v. 405, x. 89; Pind. Pyth.

7 Segelbaum.
® Comp. on ver. 17.
* Polyb. xvi. 15.2; Diod. xx. 61; Pollux,

iv. 64; Lucian, Toz. 4.

8 Aelian, V. H. ix. 40.

¢ Bee Smith, p. 9, also Scheffer, de milit. nav.
ii.8; Boeckh, Urkunden, p. 12.

& See especially Scheffer, de milit. nav. 11. 0;
Forcellini, Thea. I. p. 281.

In Jabolen. Dig. lib. 1. tit. 16, leg. 242.

1.91; Liv. xxxvi. 44, xxxvil. 80; Isidor. Orig.
xix.3; Procop. Bell. Vandal. 1. 17.

10 Italian, Artimone, French, voile d'arti-
mon ; see Baysius, de re nav. p. 121.

1) Pollux i. 91.

12 See examples in Bos, ZW., ed. Schacfer,
pp. 82, 40.

490 CHAP. XXVII., 41-44.

sail for the breeze, so that the wind now swelled it from behind. For exam-
ples of éraipev, for hoisting up and thereby expanding the sail, and for
xatéyewv to steer towards, see Kypke, I. p. 144.

Ver. 41. But when they had struck upon a promontory.' — It is altogether
arbitrary to abandon the literal import of d:féAacooc, forming two seas, or
having the sea on both sides, dimaris,? and to understand by réroc di0dA. &
sandbank or a reef, situated after the manner of an island before the
entrance of the bay. This view is supposed to be necessary on account of
ver. 43 f., and it is asked : ‘‘quorsum enim isti in mare se projicerent, si
in ipsum litus navis impegerat prora?’’* But the promontory, as is very fre-
quently the case, jutted out with its point under the surface of the water,
and was covered to so great an extent by the sea, that the ship stranding
on the point was yet separated from the projecting dry part of the isthmus
by a considerable surface of water ; hence those stranded could only reach
the dry land by swimming. Even in Dio Chrys. v. p. 88, by which the
signification of reef is sought to be made good, because there rpayéa x. di8a-
Aarta x. tatviac (sandbanks) are placed together, d:@dA. is not to be taken
otherwise than rézo¢ d:64A. here. — ézdxecAav] éxoxéAAeww may be either tran-
sitive: to thrust the ship on, to cause it to strand,‘ or intransitive: to
strand, to be wrecked.* As rv vaiv is here added, which in the intransitive
view would be the accusative of more precise definition, but quite super-
fluous, the transitive view is that suggested by the text: they thrust the
ship upon, they made it strand. Lachmann and Tischendorf, following
A B* C, have éréxe:Aav, from éxixéAdw, to push to the land, navem appellere.
But neither does this meaning suit, as here it is the ship going to wreck that
is spoken of ; nor can proof be adduced from the aorist form ééxeAa.* —
épeicaca] having jized itself. On épeiderv, used also by the Greeks in an
intransitive sense, comp. Prov. iv. 4. — 4 dé mpiuva édtero «.7.A.] for the
promontory had naturally the deeper water above it the farther it ran
seawards, so that the stern was shattered by the power of the waves. This
shipwreck was at least the fourth’ which Paul suffered.

Vv. 42-44. Now, when the loss of the ship was just as certain, as with
the proximity of the land the escape of those prisoners who could swim
was easily possible, the soldiers were of a mind to kill them; but the cen-
turion was too much attached to Paul to permit it.* Not sharing in the
apprehension of his soldiers, he commanded that all in the ship who knew
how to swim should swim to land, and then the rest, to whom in this way
assistance was ready on shore, were to follow partly on planks and partly
on broken pieces of the ship. — Bova? éyévero, iva] there took place a project,
in the design, ¢hat, etc. ; comp. on ver. 1, and see Nigelsb. on the Iliad, p.

1 As to repew., comp. on Luke x. 80. see Bornemann. In Polyb. iv. 81. 2, ésrucéAAov-
2 See the passages in Wetstein. ves has been introduced by copyista’ mistake
3 Calovius; compare Kuinoel. 72 Cor. xi. 25. [for éwroxéAAorrtes.
4 Herod. vi. 16, vil. 182; Thuc. iv. 28. 5. ® In this remark, ver 43, Zeller conjectures
5So Thue. viii. 102.3; Polyb. i. 20. 15, iv. very arbitrarily a later addition to the original
41. 2, and sce Loesner, p. 240. narrative, which was designed to illustrate the

* Hom. Od. ix. 188, 148, vili. 114: éwéxeAca, influence of the apostle upon the Roman.

ALL ON BOABD SAVED. 491

62, ed. 8, who on such modes of expression appropriately remarks that
the ‘‘ willis conceived as a striving will.’ — aroppirrety, to cast down, intran-
sitive, in the sense of se projicere.' —xal rov¢ Aotrobc] sc. eécévae (6 mari) ent
THY yyv. — éxi caviow| on planks, which were at hand in the ship. — évi rive
Tov Garé Tov TAoiov] on something from the ship, on pieces which had partly
broken loose from it by the stranding, so forming wreck (vavdyiov, épeimiov),
and were partly torn off by the people themselves for that purpose. éi
denotes both times the local being upon, and the change between dative and
genitive is to be regarded as merely accidental.* — In the history of this final
rescue, Bauingarten, II. p. 420, has carried to an extreme the arbitrariness
of allegorico-spiritual fiction.

Remark 1.—The extraordinarily exact minuteness and vividness in the nar- .
rative of this whole voyage justifies the hypothesis that Luke, immediately
after its close, during the winter spent in Malta, wrote down this interesting
description in the main from fresh recollection, and possibly following notes
which he had made for himself even during the voyage — perhaps set down in
his diary, and at a later period trunsferred from it to his history.

Remark 2,—The transition from the first person — in which he narrates as a
companion sharing the voyage and its fortunes—into the third is not to be con-
sidered as an accident or an inconsistency, but is founded on the nature of the
contents, uccording to which the sailors specially come into prominence as
subject. See vv. 13, 17, 18, and 19, 21, 29, 38-41.

Remark 3, If the assumption of the school of Baur as to the set purpose
animating the author of the Acts were correct, this narrative of the voyage,
with all its collateral circumstances in such detail, would be a meaningless bal-
last of the book. But it justifies itself in the purely historical destination of
the work, and confirms that destination.

Nores py Amenroan Eprror.
(a*) And he put us therein. VY. 6.

In no ancient literature have we, in so small a compass, such a minute de-
scription of a voyage and shipwreck as is contained in this chapter of the Acts,
and the account abounds in nautical phrases and words. To account for the
great minuteness of detail with which the voyage is described it has been sup-
posed that Luke kept a diary during the voyage and used it in his history.
The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, by James Smith, Esq., of Jordan Hill, a
work of European reputation, gives a full explanation and illustration of the
entire voyage. “ Mr. Smith has applied his nautical knowledge to the elucida-
tion of this chapter, and by so doing has furnished us with a new and inde-
pendent argument in favor of the authenticity of the Acts.”

Hackett is also particularly full and minute on this and the following chap-
ter. The Greek words éveji3acev nude ei¢ avrdé, rendered put us therein, is a nauti-

1 Ree Schaefer, ad Bos Ed. p. 127.
*Seco Bernhardy, p. 900 f.: Kfihner, § 6%, ad Xen. Mem. 1. 1. 90.

492 CHAP. XXVII.—NOTES.

cal phrase, and means put us on board of it. Hackett remarks : ‘‘ It will be ob-
served that Luke employs such terms with great frequency, and with singular
precision. He uses, for example, not less than thirteen different verbs which
agree in this, that they mark ‘in some way the progression of the ship, but
which differ, inasmuch as they indicate its distance from the land, rate of
movement, direction of the wind, or some such circumstance. With the ex-
ception of three of them, they are all nautical expressions.’’ Doubtless the
writer learned the use of such terms from the sailors themselves.

(a*) Fair Havens. V. 8.

On this harbor Alford writes : ‘‘ The situation of this anchoraye was ascer-
tained by Pococke from the fact of the name stil] remaining.’’ ‘‘ In searching
after Lehena farther to the west, I found out a place which I thought to be of
greater consequence because mentioned in Holy Scripture and also honored by
the presence of St. Paul, that is the Fair Havens, near unto the city of Lasea ;
for there is a small bay about two leagues to the east of Matala, which is now
called by the Greeks good, or fair, havens.’’ Mr. Smith in quoting this pas-
sage adds: ‘‘The most conclusive evidence that this is the Fair Havens of
Scripture is that its position is precisely that where a ship, circumstanced as
St. Paul’s was, must have put in.”

Hackett observes : “ This harbor consists of an open roadstead, or rather two
roadsteads contiguous to each other, which may account for the plural desig-
nation. It is adapted also by its situation to afford the shelter in north-west
winds, which the anchorage mentioned by Luke afforded to Paul's vessel,
Nautical authorities assure us that this place is the farthest point to which an
ancient ship could have attained with north-westerly winds, because here the
land turns suddenly to the north.” Gloag says that Rev. G. Brown iden-
tified the exact situation of Lasea, in the year 1856. He ascertained that the
natives of Crete gave the name of Lasea to some ruins on the coast about five
miles east of Fair Havens. Two white pillars and other remains still mark the
spot.

(*) Toward the north-west and south-west. V. 12.

On this phrase which he renders, looking down the south-west and north-
west winds, #.e., in the direction of these winds, viz., north-east and south-east,
Alford writes : ‘‘ For Aiy and yapoe are not quarters of the compass, but winds ;
and «ard, used with a wind, denotes the direction of its blowing—‘ down the
wind.’ This interpretation, which I.was long ago persuaded was the right one,
I find now confirmed by the opinion of Mr, Smith.” Hackettin a note says : ‘‘ As
this question has excited some interest, it may be well to mention how it is
viewed in works published since 1850. Humphrey (1854) says that Mr. Smith's
passages are not quite conclusive as to SAcrovra xara Aida. He supposes Phe-
nix to be the modern Phineka which opens to the west, and thus adopts the
common explanation of the phrase. Alford (1852), agrees with Smith. [And he
adds to his note on verse 12, this statement : “ See Professor Hackett’s note,
impugning the above view and interpretation. I cannot observe on it, as it
has only come to hand as these sheets are being printed, but it does not alter

NOTES. | 493

my opinion.’’—Am. Ed.] Howson would admit an instance of thet usage in
Josephus, but says the other alleged proofs are untenable or ambiguous. He
mediates between the two opinions by suggesting that the point of view
(3aerovra) is from the sea and not the land, so that «ard Aisa would have its
usual meaning, and yet the harbor open toward the east like Lutro. Words-
worth has a copious note on this question. He reviews the arguments on both
sides, and sums up with the result that we should not abandon the ancient in-
terpretation, or at all events should suspend our decision till we have more
complete topographical details for forming it. Gloag says : ‘‘ There is a differ-
ence of opinion regarding the exact situation of the ancient Phonix. Lutro,
Sphakia, and Franco Castello, places on the south coast of Crete, to the west
of Cape Matala, have each been fixed upon. Most modern commenter are
now agreed that the modern part of Lutro is meant.”’

He adds that Spratt informs us that a wide bay, a little to the west of it, is
still known by the name of Phoenix, and says: ‘‘ Most probably it is this bay
to the west which is meant, as the haven of Lutro is open to the east, and
therefore does not suit the description of it given by Luke, as looking toward
the south-west and north-west, whereas the bay of Phcenice does, being open to
the west.” Ina note he adds further : ‘‘ This view, that Phenix is not Lutro,
but the adjoining bay to the west, is also adopted by Humphrey and by Bishop
Wordsworth.”

(38) Buroclydon. V. 14

Gloag remarks on this word : ‘‘ Alford thinks that it is a corruption by the
Greek sailors of edpaxvAwy, as the last part of that word was not Greek, but Latin.
The addition 6 xaAorjuevog denotes that it was a popular name given to the wind
by the sailors, just as a similar wind in the Mediterranean is now known to
our seamen by the name of the Levanter.” Hackett thinks the name of the
wind denotes the point from which it came, and should probably be written
etpaxvawy, Euroaquilo, as in the Vulgate, a north-east wind, and says the in-
ternal evidence favors that form of the word. In this opinion Alexander, Jacob-
son, Jacobus, and Plumptre substantially concur. The Revised Version gives the
name Euraquilo, which Abbot and Taylor also approves. In popular language
it was a north-easterly gale. Schaff says: ‘‘ We here natarally think of the
beautiful stanza of the Greek hymn of Anatolius containing the me ahd
Tydon.

‘** Ridge of the mountain wave, lower thy crest !
Wail of Euroclydon, be thou at rest !

Sorrow can never be, darknese must fly,
Where saith the Light of light, Peace! ItisI1!’”

(x‘) The angel of God. V. 28.

The literal rendering is, as in the Revised Version, an angel of the God,
whose Iam. The ministry of angels is frequently referred to in the Acts.

This form of expression is natural in addressing idolaters, to whom the idea
of an angel was familiar, as a messenger from the gods, but who had no idea of
the one living and true God. This vision was to Paul a source of strength and
presence of mind, which he was able in some degree to impress on others.

494 CHAP, XXVII.—NOTES.

Slier says : ‘‘ How beautiful is the quiet certainty of the apostle amid the
dangers of the raging sea. Jam God's is the loftiest and inmost confidence of
piety ; J serve him is the consequent appeal to the vitality of his worship."’
Howson characterizes this statement of the apostle as ‘‘ one of the noblest ut-
terances that ever came from the lips of man, aud made more remarkable by
the circumstances under which the words were uttered.”’

(u*) They cast four anchors out of the stern. V. 29.

Some suppose that the four anchors here mentioned was a four-fluked anchor ;
but large vessels often carried several anchors. Athensus mentions a ship that
had eight iron anchors, and the quotation from Cesar by Meyer refers to ships
made fast by four anchors. In general the ancients, like the moderns, an-
chored from the bow. The reason why anchors in the present instance were
cast from the stern was that in that way the progress of the ship would at
once be stopped without swinging round. ‘‘ In the battles of the Nile and of
Copenhagen, Nelson had his ships anchored from the stern, and the fact de-
rives peculiar interest from the statement that he had been reading Acts xxvii.
on the morning of the engagement.” (Plumpire.)

Having cast out the anchors they wished for day. These words vividly por-
tray the straw of hope and fear which made them almost ory : “* And if our
fate be death, give light and let us die.”

(u‘) Except these abide, ye cannot be saved. Y. 31.

Notwithstanding the divine assurance to Paul, means were necessary, and
these were ordained as well asthe end. Paul’s vigilance and the seamen’s skill
and labor were required to effect the divine purpose. OSlier says: ‘‘ We see,
therefore, that God’s promises are conditional ; in this case, the use of ordinary
means and a faithful perseverance in duty to the very last were both requisite.’’

Calvin on this verse writes: “ Paul doth not dispute, in this place, precisely
of the power of God, that he may separate the same from his will and from
means ; and surely God doth not, therefore, commend his (strength or) power
(virtutem suam) to the faithful, that they may give themselves to sluggishness
and carelessness, contemning means orrashly cast away themselves when there
is some certain way of escape. And yet for all this it doth not follow that the
hand of God is tied to means or helps, but when God appointeth this or that
means to bring anything to pass, he holdeth all men’s senses that they may
not pass the bounds which he hath appointed.”

Dr. Chalmers, in a sermon on Acts xxvii. 22 and 31, says : ‘‘ There is no incon-
sistency between these verses. God says in one of them, by the mouth of
Paul, that these men were certainly to be saved, and Paul says in the other of
these verses that unless the centurion and others were to do so and so, they
should not be saved. In one of the verses, it is made to be the certain and
unfailing appointment of God. In the other it is made to depend on the cen-
taurion. There is no difficulty in all this, if you would just consider that God,
who made the end certain, made the means certain also. It is true that the
end was certain to happen, and it is as true that the end would not happen
without the means, but God secured the happening of both, and so gives sure-

NOTES. 496

ness and consistency to the passage before us.” He also says: ‘* There must
be a sad deal of evasion and of unfair handling with particular passages to
get free of the evidence which we find for the doctrine of predestination in
the Bible. And independently of Scripture altogether, the denial of this doc-
trine brings a number of monstrous conceptions along with it. It supposes
God to make a world, and not to reserve in his own hand the management of
its concerns. Though it should concede to him an absolute sovereignty over
all matter, it deposes him from his sovereignty over the region of created
minds, that far more dignified and interesting portion of his works, The
greatest events of the history of the universe are those which are brought about
by the agency of willing and intelligent beings, and the enemies of the doc-
trine invest every one of these beings with some sovereign and “independent
principle of freedom, in virtue of which it may be asserted of this whole class
of events, that they happened, not because they were ordained of God, but
because the creatures of God, by their own uncontrolled power, brought them
into existence. At this rate, even He to whom we give the attribute of omnis-
cience is not able to say at this moment what shall be the fortune or the fate of
any individual, and the whole train of future history is left to the wildness of
accident. All this carries along with it so complete a dethronement of God, it
is bringing his creation under the dominion of so many nameless and undeter-
minable contingencies, it is taking the world and the current of its history so
entirely out of the hands of him who formed it, it is withal so opposite to
what obtains in every other field of observation, when instead of the lawless-
ness of chance, we shall find that the more we attend the more we perceive of a
certain necessary and established order, that from these and other considera-
tions which might be stated the doctrine in question, in addition to the testi-
monies which we find for it in the Bible, is at this moment receiving a very
general support from the speculations of infidel as well as Christian philoso-
phers.’’

496 CRITICAL REMARKS,

CHAPTER XXVIII.

Ven. 1. éxéyvwcav] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read éxéyvwuev, according to A BC
®, min, and most vss. Rightly ; the third person was introduced with a ret-
rospective view to xxvii. 39, through the connection with the concluding
words of xx¥ii. 44. — Ver. 2. aviyavrec] Lachm. Born. read awarrec, according
toA BCR, min. But AN was liable to omission even in itself, and especially
through the preceding N. — Ver. 3. éx] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read dé, which is
decidedly attested, and therefore to be adopted. — diefeAGovea] So Tisch. Born.
Scholz, according to A G H, min. Chrys. Theophyl. But Elz. and Lachm. have
éfeAdovca. The double compound was the more easily neglected as it was not
elsewhere known from the N. T. -- Ver. 5. drorivagac] dzorivagduevos, although
adopted by Scholz and Tisch., is not sufficiently attested by A G H, min. — Ver.
10. riv ypeiav] Lachm. Tisch. Born. have rd¢ ypeiag, according to A BJ &, min.
A gloss on ra mpd¢ T)v ypeiav, after xx. 34. — Ver. 14. éx' avrvig] Lachm. and
Born., following A BJ &, min., read sap’ abroic, which was introduced as ex-
planatory. — Ver. 16. 6 éxardvrapyog . . . oTparomeddpyy] is wanting (so that the
passage continues : érerpazn Tp [1.) in A B ®& lot! 40, Chrys. and most vss. Con-
demned by Mill, Bengel, and other, suspected by Griesb., and deleted by Lachm.
and Tisch. Defended especially by Born. in Rosenm. Repert. II. p. 301 f. The
words, attested by G H and most min. Ar. p. Slav. Theophyl. Oec., have cer-
tainly the suspicion of being an expansion. Yet in opposition to their rejec-
tion we may urge; first, that there are no variations in detail, as is the general
tule with interpolations ; secondly, that the writer of a gloss, instead of ro
orparored., would probably have written the more readily occurring plural; and
thirdly, that in transcribing one might very easily pass from éxarovrAPKOZ
directly to orparomeJAPXH, which corruption would then produce the form of
Lachmann's text. — Ver. 17. avrov] Elz. has rdv [adAov, against A B ®&, min.
Chrys. and several vss. The name came in, because in ver. 17 a separate new
act of the history commences ; therefore also Chrys. has ounce, and indeed at
the beginning of a homily, 7. Tata. — Ver. 19. xaryyopjca:] A BX, min. have
xatnyopeiv, Which Lachm. Tisch. and Born. have adopted. Rightly : xarnyopjoac
is a mechanical alteration, in conformity with érexaAéoacGar. — Ver. 23. yxov] A
BX, min. have 7A90v. Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. The
extremely common word has been involuntarily substituted for the classical
imperfect jxov, not elsewhere occurring in the N. T. — va wepi] Lachm. Tisch.
Born. have only zep/, following A BH &, min. vas. Comp. on viii. 12, xix. 8. —
Ver. 25. fuov) AB &, min. vss. Fathers have tudv, which Lachm. and Tisch.
have adopted. The Recepta is justly supported by Born. The tone and con-
tents of the speech, conveying censure and rejection, involuntarily suggested
the second person to the transcribers. Comp. vii. 51 f. — Ver. 27. idowuac] A B
G H ®&., min. Theophyl. have idanza:, recommended by Griesb. and adopted by
Tisch. Rightly ; see on John xii. 40. — Ver. 28. rd cwr7p.)] Lachm. Tisch. Born.
read rojro 7d cwryp., according to A B x*, min. Chrys. and several vss. The

PAUL AT MALTA. 497

omission of rojro, which has no express reference in the text, is quite in keep-
ing with the inattention of transcribers. — Ver. 29 is entirely wanting in A B E
&, lot 13, 40, 68, Lect. 1, Syr. Erp. Copt. Vulg.ms. In the Syr. p. it is marked
as suspected by an asterisk. Condemned by Mill! and others, deleted by Lachm.,
and Tisch. Very suspicious as an interpolated conclusion of the whole trans-
action (according to ver. 25). Yet it is saved from complete rejection by the
fact, that here also in detail there are only found very immaterial variations. —
Ver. 30. After éueve d¢, instead of which there is to be read, with Tisch., ac-
cording to B 8, lo" 13, evévecvev dé, Elz, has o [lavAoc, against witnesses of very
considerable importance. See on ver. 17.

V.1. Tére] then, after our rescue, we recognised ; looks back to xxvii. 89.
— That by Mediry is to be understood the well-known Malta’ (N‘), and not
—as some of the older commentators’ would infer partly from év rq’ Adpia,
xxvii. 27, partly from Bapfapo, ver. 2, and partly from the observed fact,
which, though true in the present day, cannot at all be made good for
those times, that there are no venomous serpents in Malta—the island now
called Meleda in the Adriatic Gulf, not far from the Illyrian coast,’ is
proved as well by the previous long tossing about of the ship, which was
hardly possible with a continued storm in the Adriatic Gulf, as more es-
pecially by the direction of the further voyage.‘ The local tradition, also,
in Malta, is in favour of it. In the Act. Petri et Pauli 1, the island is
called Tavdouerérn.

Ver. 2. BapBapor} from a Roman point of view, because they were neither
Greeks nor Romans, but of Punic descent, and therefore spoke a mixed
dialect, neither Greek nor Latin. It was not till the second Punic war
that Malta came under the dominion of the Romans.* — ov r. rvyoicav] See
on xix. 11. — rpucead3.] they took us to themselves.’ — dia 7. vezav T. éEgeot. }
on account of the rain which had set in.* — wiyzoc] thus to be accented, al-
though in opposition to a preponderance of codd.,° not yor.

Ver. 8. ’Azd r. Gépu.} (see the critical remarks) on account of the heat.”
The reading é« would have to be rendered : from out of the heat.— dcefea-
foica]."' It denotes that the viper came out from the brushwood in which it
was, and through the layer of the same which was above it.’? — xafjwe ric
xeipd¢ avtov] it seized on his hand.* The reading xa6fparo, recommended by
Griesbach, following C, min. Chrysostom, a/., appears to be an emendation.
That this xafjwe took place by means of a bite, Luke himself makes suffi-

1 Diod. Sic. v. 12; Strabo, vi. 2, p. 27;
Cic. Verv. vi. 46; Ovid. ust. itl. 567 £.: Fertilts
est Melite, atertli vicina Cosyrae, Insula quam
’ Libyet verberat unda frett.

2 Following Constantin. Porph. @. admin-
istr. imper. p. 86 (see in Wolf, and in Winer,
Realtv.).

3 Apoll. Rhod. Arg. iv. 572.

4 vv. 11, 12.

& Beza on xxvii. 41; Smith, VOmel, Hackett.

® Liv. xxi. 51.

7 Comp. on Rom. xiv. 1.

® Comp. Polyb. xviii. 8.7: 80a ror épeotrwra
Ségov.

®See Lipeius, gramm. Unters. p. 44. See
Hom. Od x. 555; Soph. PAW. 17.

10 On the late form depuy. instead of déppa,
see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p 881; see Winer, p.
848 (E. T. 465); Hermann, ad Artet. Nud. 834.

1] Plat. Fol. iii. p. 406 C; Phaed. p. 100 E;
Xen. Anabd. vi. 6. 88; 2 Sam. fi. 28

128ee@ Bornemann, and Kfibner, ad Xeh.
Anabd. vi. 6. 98. [ad AJ. 700.

19 Comp. Arr. Epict. til. 10. 20; Lobeck,

498 CHAP. XXVIII., 4-6.

ciently evident in ver. 4 by xpeudpevoyv . . . & THE yelpd¢ avrov; but it
follows decidedly, and without rashly leaping to a conclusion, from the
judgment, from the expectation, and from the subsequent 2Acyov Yedy air.
elvac of ‘the Melitenses, vv. 4, 6, in all which it is necessarily presuppused
that they, the near bystanders, had actually seen the bite of the serpent.
From this at the same time it follows just as certainly, that the animal must
have been definitely known to the islanders as a poisonous viper. Hence we
must reject the view of Bochart :' “ illigavit se etc., nempe ut . . . mor-
deret, sed eam cohibuit Deus, sicut, leones illos, Dan. vi. 22,’’ and of Kui-
noel :* ‘‘ erat autem vipera ista aut non venenata, etsi Melitenses eam pro
venenata habuerint, aut si erat, insinuavit quidem se Pauli manui, non vero
momordit.’’ The Jatter, also hinted at by Ewald, follows least of all from
éxadev oivddv xaxér, ver. 5, by which the very absence of result, brought
about by special divine help, is placed in cuntrast with the poisonous bite.
Nevertheless, Lange* supposes that the reptile may have hung encircling
his hand without biting, and Lekebusch, p. 882, that Luke had in view
the alternative contained in Kuinoel’s explanation.” Indeed, according to
Hausrath, the judgment in ver. 5 is only ascribed to the islanders by Luke.
They were, as he thinks, aware that there were no poisonous serpents with
them, and that thus the bite was not dangerous. |

Vv. 4, 5. ‘Ex rao zap. ait.] from his hand, so that it hung fastened with
its mouth in the wound.’ — advruc goveic tori x.7.A.] he is at all events a
murderer, etc. From the fact that the stranger, though he had escaped
from shipwreck, yet had now received this deadly bite, the people inferred
that it was the work of Aix;, who was now carrying out her sentence, and
requiting like with like, killing with killing. Perhaps it had been already
told to them that Paul was a prisoner ; in that case their inference was the
more natural. The opinion of Elsner, to which Wolf, Kuinoel, and Lange
accede, that the people might have deduced their inference from the local-
ity of the supposed bite, according to the idea that punishment overtakes
the member with which a crime is committed,‘ is to be rejected for the very
reason, that in fuct from a bite on the hand any other crime committed by
the hand might quite as well be inferred. — ciacev] not sinit,* but sivit ; they
regard the bite as so certainly fatal—On the goddess Aixy, the avenger of
crime,’ Justitia, the daughter of Zeus,°and £(vedpoc or rdpedpoc.* How the
islanders named the goddess to whom Luke gives the Greek name Ai«y, or
whether perhaps they had received the Greek Aixy among their divinities,
is not to be decided. — On the active azorivéacew, to shake off, comp. Luke
ix. 5; Lam. ii. 7.

Ver.6. But when they waited long, not erpectassent, and saw, etc. On Gromov
of abnormal corporeal changes, see examples in Wetstein and Kypke. Not

1 Hieroe. ti. 8, p. 369. 7 Hesiod. Mp. 256 ff.
2 Comp. Heinrichs. § Hesiod. Theog. 902.
8 Apost, Zettait. IU. p. S44f. * Soph. Oed. Col. 1884; Arrian. iv. 9. See
¢ Comp. Kihner, § 628 c. Mitscherlich, ad Hor. Od. ili. 2. 82; Ellendt,
® Spanhelm, ad Caitim in Cer. 64. Les Soph. 1. p. 482; Jacobse, ad Anthol. 1X. p.

° Vulgate, Luther, and others. 845.

CUBES DISEASES. 499

even the expected swelling (mump.) occurred. — cic avréy yivdu.| taking place
on him.' — peraBdArecOa) to turn themselves round, to change, often used even
by classical writers to express change of view or opinion, without, however,
supplying ry yvdurv.? — Gedv avtov elvac] The good-natured people, running
immediately into extremes with the inferiority of their rational training,
think that he is a god appearing in human form, because they could not
reconcile the complete want of result from the poisonous bite of the viper,
well known to them in its effects, with the knowledge which they had de-
rived from experience of the constitution of an ordinary human body.
'YrepBodn ringe Gorep nai trav bzAwv tov év Avaaovig.* Bengel well remarks
‘*aut latro inquiunt aut Deus . . . ; datur tertium ; homo Dei.’’ The peo-
ple themselves do not say (6e6v) that they meant a definite, particular god.*
Zeller finds in ver. 6 simply an unhistorical addition ‘‘in the miraculous
style of our chap. xiv.,’’ which character belongs still more decidedly to
the cures in vv. 8 and 9.

Vv. 7-10. The otherwise unknown Publius, the rparo¢ ri¢ vfoov, is to be
considered as the chief magistrate of the island. But this is not so much to
be proved from the inscription, discovered in Malta, quoted by Grotivs and
Bochart, Geogr. ii. 1. 26—... MPOYAHNZ. INMEYZ. POM. NPQTOS.
MEAITAIQN . . .—as it may, both in that inscription and in this passage,
be justly inferred from the nature of the case itself; for certainly the
Roman governor, that is, the legate of the praetor of Sicily, to which
ptaetorship Malta belonged,® had the jirst rank on the small island. —
avades. juac}) Ver. 10 proves that this yyae applies not to the whole ship’s
company,* but to Paul, Luke, and Aristarchus.’ Certainly the wonderful
course of things in connection with the bite of the viper had directed the
interest of the humanc man to Paul. And Paul repaid his kindness by the
restoration of his sick father. — Ver. 8. muperois] The plural denotes the
varying fever fits. Observe how accurately Luke as a technical eye-wit-
ness designates the disease. — droevrepia] dysentery.* Yet the later neuter
form dvcevrepiy * is so strongly attested that it has been rightly adopted
by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Bornemann.— Vv. 9, 10. éeparebovro]
namely, by Paul, ver. 8.'' The conjecture, based on the following nde,
ver. 10, that Luke as a physician was not unconcerned in these cures,’ is
not only against the analogy of ver. 8, but altogether against the spirit and
tendency of the narrative, and indeed of the book. — rodAai¢ ripaic érin.

1 See on Luke iv. 28; comp. Plat. Mor. p.
T86C: aieis capea . . . ytvdpevar xivjons.

* Dem. 206. 19, 849. 25, and see Kypke,

3 xiv. 11 ff.. Chrysostom.

4 Grotius, Heinsius, Alberti conjecture Her-
cules adefcxaxos; Wetstein, Aesculapius ;
Sepp, one of the two.

5 Cic. Verr. iv. 18.

* So Baumgarten.

7 xxxvii. 2.

® Dem. 1200. 20; Lucian, Philops. 9.

® Herod. vill. 115; Plat. 7tmn.p.86; A; see
Cels. iv. 15.

10 Bee Lobeck, ad Paryn. p. 518.

11 From the popular representation, ver. 9,
it in not to be inferred, with Baumgarten, that
not a single sick person remained uncured in
the island. This Luke would have known
how to bring out with corresponding empha-
sie, especially if he, like Baumgarten, bad
thought on the fulfilment of Ex. xv. 26, and
had conceived to himeelf Malta in a fancifal
manner asemblematic of the completed king-
dom of God.

13 Lekebusch, p. 388.

500 CHAP. XXVIII., 11-15.

huac x.t.A.] They honoured us with many marks of honour ; and when we set
sail, were on the point of sailing, they placed on the ship what was neces-
sary, provisions, and perhaps also money and other requisites for the jour-
ney. Many expositors retider rizai¢ erip., muneribus ornarunt ; but in that
case, as in Ecclus. xxxviii. 1, the context must undoubtedly have sug-
gested this special showing of honour, by rewards.' Even in the well-
known hones habendus medico* the general honos is not to be exclusively
restricted to the honorarium. In 1 Tim. v. 17 also rie is quite generally
honoris. While the very command of Christ, Matt. x. 8, is antagonistic to
the explanation praemiis ornarunt in our passage, the context is also against
it, which represents the actual aid’ asa proof of gratitude differeut from
‘that quite general roAAaic riyaic ériu. yuac, both in point of substance * and
in point of time.* — Tradition makes Publius afterwards bishop of Malta.°
Ver. 11. Mapachuw Acooxotpoc] mapas. is not an adjective, marked with the
Dioscuri, a8 the adjective rapdozuo¢ has always a derogatory reference, e.g.
falsely stumped, stigmatised, ill-famed, etc., but a substantive, so that the
dative is connected with avgzxSyuev : we put to sea. . . with a sign, which
was the Dioscuri. An image of the Dioscuri was, namely, the ship's device,
i.e. the mapdonuov,’ the insigne of the ship. This name was given to the
image of a divinity, of an animal, or of any other selected object, which
was to be found either painted or sculptured on the prow.*— For such a
mapaonyov the image of the Dioscuri was very suitably chosen, as Castor and
Pollux’ were honoured as the dpwyovavra: and generally as protectors in
dangers.’° On the forms under which they were represented, see Miller."
On the modes of writing Acéaxovpo: and A:doxopor, see Lobeck.'* — The men-
tion of the ship’s sign belongs to the special accuracy of the recollection of
an eye-witness. According to Baumgarten, Luke designs to intimate
‘‘that in this vessel there did not prevail that former presumptuous
security, but confidence in a superhuman protection and assistance.’’ So
much the more arbitrarily invented, as we know not what rapéonuov the
wrecked ship had. Luke has noticed the sign in the case of the one, and
not in the other. It is conceivable enough, even without assuming any set
purpose, that after the surmounted disaster his attention was the more
alive to such a special feature in the ship in which they now embarked.
Vv. 12-14. The voyage proceeded in quite a regular course from Malta
to Syracuse, and from that to Rhegium,"* now Reggio, in the Sicilian Straits,

1 Comp. Xen. Anab. vii. 8. 19.
2Cic. ad Div. xvi. 9.

it xiv. 84; the interpretere, ad Hor. Od. i.
14. 14; Stan). ad Aecech. II. p. 761.

3 éwddevro Ta wpds T. xpeiay.

4 ecpais . . . TA Bpds Thy xpecay,

5 avayoudvors.

6 Martyrolog. 21 Jan.

7 Plut. Mor. p. 162 A, and see Wetstein, or
érionpov, Herod. viii. 88.

8 Lucian, Vav.5. See on thia, as well as on
the distinction from the {mage of the Tuceda
navis at the stern, Ruhnken, de tuted. et ins.
nav. p. 5,42; Drackenb. and Ruperti, ad Si.

***Fratres Helenac, lucida sidera,”’ Hor.
Od. 1. 8. 2.

10 8ee Wetstein and Lobeck, Agilaoph. p.
1B f. .

21 Archdol. § 414.

12 Ad Phryn. p. 283; Pflugk, ad Eur Hee.

13 Oder wepreAddvres: from which after we
had come round, from Syracuse round the
eastcrn coast of Sicily. Not: after we had

VOYAGE TO ROME. 501

and then through the Etruscan Sea to Puteoli, now Puzzuolo, near Naples.
-— entyevoutvov Nérou] when thereupon south wind, which favoured the voyage,
had arisen. — The force of éxi is, in all places where éxcyivecSaz occurs of
wind,' not to be overlooked. — devrepaios| as persons, who were on the
second day, .¢. on the second day.” — adcigoic¢] Thus Christianity was already
at that time in Puteoli, whether coming thither from Rome, or perhaps
from Alexandria ? — Ver. 14. mapexAg9npev én’ avroig éxueivar] we were invited
to remain with them. — én’ avroic| beside them.’ Rinck,‘ as also Ewald, pre-
fers the reading éxiueivavrec, and takes® wapsxd. én’ avroic together : we were
refreshed in them; but the participle is much too weakly attested, and
without doubt has only come into the text through this view of mapexa. —
kai ovtwe cig Tt. ‘Pou. 7A0.] and thus, after we had first tarried seven days at
Puteoli, we came to Rome. ipyerda is ‘neither here, in opposition to Beza,
Grotius, de Dieu, Heinrichs, Kuinvel, and many others, nor elsewhere in
the N. T. tre, not even in John vi. 17, where the imperfect is to be observed ;
but Luke narrates the arrival at Rome, and then in ver. 15 inserts by way
of episode something special, which stood in cluse connection with this
arrival ; hence he again joins on ver. 16 by dre dé 7ADouev tig “P. to ver. 14.
Observe at the same time that in ver. 14 etc r. 'Poyu., as the final aim of the
voyage, but in ver. 16 7Adouev, has the emphasis. — Moreover, the conces-
sion of a seven days’ stay, so neur to the end of the journey, testifies how
much Paul possessed the love and confidence of the centurion. The Book
of Acts, however, gives us no information at all how Christianity was
planted in the Italian cities and in Rome.

Ver. 15. Oi adeAgoi] Considering the largeness which we must assume the
church at Rome to have attained, according to Rom. xvi. 3 ff., probably a
numerous representation of it is to be conceived as present. — jziv] appro-
priating dative of the pronoun.® — dxpic 'Arriov 9. x. Tpiav taB.] xal: and,
respectively. Luke narrates from the standpoint of the travellers, These
came first to Forum Appii, a village on the Via Appia, 48 miles from
Rome, and then to Tres-tabernae, Three-booths, an inn ten miles nearer to
Rome ; in both places they were received by the brethren, who thus went
to meet them in two detachments. As they had tarried seven days at
Puteoli, the Roman Christians might have obtained information timeously
enough in order to come so far to meet them with the speed of love and
reverence. —ebyap. 7. Oe@ zAaBe Sdpooc] How natural was it that Paul, to
whom Rome, this ém:rou? rio olxovpévyc™ had for so long been in view as &
longed-for goal of his labours,* should now, at the sight of the brethren, who
had thus from Rome carried their love forth to meet him, glow with grati-
tude to God, and in this elevated feeling receive confidence as to the devel-

sailed round about (Lange, comp. Smith). 17 otpariq, Cyrop. v. 3. 52; Plat. Lach. p.

(144 A

Luke does not express himself with charto-
graphic accuracy.

1 Asin Thue. iv. 80. 1, e¢ al.

3 Herod. vi. 106. Comp. on John xi. 30;
Phi}. fil. 5.

®Comp. Xen. Anabd, vil. 2.1: érduevon éwi

4 Lucubr. crit. p. 98.

&§ Comp. Bengel.

¢ See Bernhardy, p, 96. Comp. Jobn xii.
13; Matt. viii. 4; Judith v. 4.

7 Athen. Deipnos. i. 2.

8 xix, 21, xxiii. 11; Rom. 1.9 f%

502 CHAP, XXVIII., 16-21.

opment of his fate and as to his new sphere of work! According to Baum-
garten, it is true, he saw at the same time in the Roman church, not founded
by any apostle, ‘‘ the identity and continuity” of the Pentecostal church—of
all which the text contains not a hint, as, indeed, such a funcy as to the
founding of the church is by no means justified by the circumstances of the
case being unknown to us.

Ver. 16. The two praefecti practorio, commanders of the imperial body-
guard, had the duty of providing for the custody of accused persons handed
over from the provinces to the Emperor.! That there was at that time only
one praefect, namely Burrus, who died before the beginning of March 62,
and after whose death there were again two, does not follow from the singu-
lar r@ otpator, in opposition to Anger, Wieseler, and others.” It is to be
taken as: ‘‘to the praefectus praetorio concerned,”’ namely, who then had
this duty of receiving,* and to whose dwelling, therefore, the centurion
repaired with a view to deliver over the prisoners. This does not suppose,
as Wieseler objccts, that the praefect received them in person; he had his
subalterns. — xad’ éavrév] for himself’, apart from the other prisoners.‘ This
special favour is explained partly from the report of Festus, which certainly
pointed to no crime,® and partly from the influence of the centurion who
respected Paul, and would specially commend him as having saved the lives
of all on board. — civ r@ . . . orpariry] This was a praetorian,® to whom
Paul, after the manner of the custodia militaris, was bound by the arm
with a chain."

Ver. 17. On the interview which now follows with the Jews it is to be
observed : (1) that Paul even now remains faithful to his principle of try-
ing his apostolic ministry iu the first instance among the Jews, and thereby
even as & prisoner complying with the divine order of the way of salvation :
"Iovdaly te mpatov xat “EAAnn:, Rom. i. 16, and with the impulse of his own
love to his people, Rom. ix. 1 ff., which the painful experiences of the past
had not weakened. (2) He does this after three days, during which time
he had without doubt devoted himself, first of all, to the Roman Christians.*
(3) The fact that he commences his interview with the Jews by a se//-justi-
Jication is—considering the suspicion with which he, as a prisoner, must
have been regarded by them—natural and accordant with duty, and does
not presuppose any ulterior design, such as: to prevent a prejudicial influ-
ence of the Jews on his trial. (4) The historical character of these dis-

1 Plin. Xp. x. 65; Philostr. Viz. scholast. ‘i. apostles. A disagreement botween Paul and
82. the Roman church (Schneckenbarger, p. 122)
2 See Introduction, § 4. fs not at all to be thought of; the church
3 Comp. 6 iepevs, xiv. 18. was not Judaizing, but Panline. According
4 See vv. 23, 30. to Zeller, the author has desired to make Panl
§ xxv. 2, xxvi. 81. appear as the proper founder of that ehurch.
6 Grotius in loc. ; Krebs, Opuse. p. 151. f. But this is erroneous on account even of ver.
7 Ver. ©. Seeon xxiv. 27. 15, where, it in true, Zeller understands only
® That Luke gives no further information isolated believers from Rome, who are as-

concerning the Roman church cannot surprise
us (in opposition to Zeller, p. 878), as the
theme of his book was the ministry of the

sumed therefore not to presuppnse any church
there, as referred to. See, on the contrary,
Ewald, Jahrb. 1X. p. 66 f.

CONFERENCE WITH THE JEWS. 503

cussions with the Jews has unjustly been denied, and they have been
wrongly referred to the apologetic design of the author.’ See the details
below at the passages appealed to. — vera pup. rpeic] in which he might
sufficiently occupy himself at the outset with the Roman Christians who
came to him, as doubtless, in opposition to Zeller, he did in conformity
with his long-cherished desire to see them.* — rodg dvrac réy ’Iovd. mpdrove)
the existing? chiess of the Jews‘ i.¢6. the Jewish leaders at that time in Rome.
— ovdév évavrior x.t.A.| although I have done nothing, etc. This Paul could
say, as he had laboured only to conduct the nation to the salvation ap-
pointed for it, and only to bring the Mosaic institutions to their Messianic
xAgpwo. His antagonism to the law was directed against justification by the
law. This, and not the abolition of the law in itself, was his radical con-
trast to the Jewish standpoint, in opposition to Zeller.* — ray 'Puyaiur]
refers to the procurator in Caesarea, who represented the Romans ruling
over Palestine.

Vv. 18, 19. This observation of the apostle, disclosing his presence at
Rome thus brought about as a position of necessity, completes® the narra-
tive of xxv. 9. After his vindication’ we are to conceive, namely, that
Festus expresses his willingness to release him ; this the Jews oppose,° and
now Festus proposes that Paul should allow himself to be judged in Jeru-
salem,* whereupon the latter appeals to Caesar.'° —oty d¢ rov é0vou . . .
xatryopeiy] thus purely on the defensive, and not in unpatriotic hostility.
— yoy and the present injfinitire (see the critical remarks) refer to what
Paul has to do now in Rome.

Ver. 20. Therefore, because I am here only as a constrained appellant,
and entirely free from any hostile effort, I have invited you, to see you and
to speak with you. Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Schott take it otherwise: ‘ vos
rogavi, ut me viseretis et mecum colloqueremini.’’ But the supplying of
me and mecum is arbitrary, seeing that, in fact, tuac and diy are naturally
suggested by the directly preceding inac ; besides, it is far more in keep-
ing with courtesy for Paul to say that he desired to see and speak with
them, than that he had requested them to see and speak with him. — évexev
yap rao éAridog «.t.A.] now contains the more special reason, in a national
point of view sv highly important, for the arrangement of this interview.
— The éAric rot 'IopanA is to be taken entirely, as in xxvi. 6, of the Mes-
sianie national hope. — On mepixeruar with accusative comp. Heb. v. 2."

Ver, 21. This answer of the Jews makes it probable that Paul in his dis-
course had definitely snggested that they might perhaps have received
written or oral insinuations concerning him from Judaea.—It appears al-
most incredible that neither took place, but we have to weigh the follow-

? Baur, Zeller. ® xxviii. 19.

3 Rom. i. 11 ff. ® xxv. 9.

3 Comp. Rom. xiii. 1. 19 xxv. 11.

4 Comp. Luke xix. 47; Acts xill. 50, xxv. 2. 1! Kypke, Odes. IT. p. 147; Jacobs, ad An-
§ Comp. on xxiv. 14. thol. 1X. p. 75; on +. dAvew ravr., comp, xxvi.
© Comp. xxv. 9. 20.

T xxv. 8,

504 CHAP. XXVHI., 21, 22.

ing considerations :—(1) Before the appeal the Jews had no ground inducing
them to make cummunications regarding him to the Roman Jews in partic-
ular, because they could not conjecture that Paul, then a prisoner in Caes-
area, and whom they hoped to destruy presently, would ever come into
contact with their brethren in the distant West. (2) A/ter the appeal it was
hardly possible for the Jews to forward accounts to Rome before his arrival
there. For the transportation of the apostle, which followed at any rate
soon after the entering of the appeal,’ occurred so late in autumn, and so
shortly before the closing of the navigation,” that there is extreme improb-
ability in the supposition of another vessel having an earlier opportunity
of reaching Italy than Paul himself, whose vessel in spring, after the open-
ing of the navigation, had to sail only the short distunce between Malta
and Puteoli, and that, too, with a favourable wind.? (8) There remains,
therefore, only the possible case, that during Paul's two years’ imprison-
ment at Caesarea evil reports concerning him might have come to the
Roman Jews in some accilental way, not officially, by mcans of private
letters or Jewish travellers. Indeed—considering the lively intercourse
between Judaca and Rome, and the great noise which the labours of the
apostle had made for many years, as well as the strong opposition which
he fad excited among the Jews—it can by no means be supposed that
these labours and this opposition should have continucd unknown to the
Roman Jews.‘ But the xparo: of the Roman Jews here proceed with re-
serve under dread of possible eventualities, and prudently fall back upon
the official standpoint ; and # they affirm—what, taken in all the strict-
ness of the literal sense, might certainly be no untruth —that they on their
part (jueic) had neither received letters concerning him, nor oral notification or
statement of anything evil concerning him. The more impartial they thus
appear and maintain a politic spirit of frankness, the more openly, they at
the same time hope, will Paul express his mind and disclose his purposes.‘
Zeller therefore too rashly seizes on the seeming contradiction to truth in
ver. 21, as warranting the inference that the non-historical character of the
narrative is evident.’ The explanation also to which Olshausen has recourse
appears erroneous: that by the expulsion of the Jews from Rome under
Claudius, the connections, which the Jews of Jerusalem had with them,
were broken off ; that only very slowly and secretly the Roman Jews re-
turned in the first years of Nero; and that therefore those who were in
Palestine were not properly informed of this situation of matters in Rome,

} xxv. 18, xxvii. 1.

3 xxvii 9.

3 xxviii. 18.

4 It has indeed been thought that the Jews

spread of the hostile report to a distance.
§ eAaA.: “in sermone quotidiano.”
* Ver. 22,
7 Comp. Holtzmann, Judenth. u. Christenth.

in their plot againet the life of the apostle.
might have had a motive for not allowing their
exasperation against him to become notorious,
least of all at Rome (see Lange, apostol. Zeit-
alt, 1. p. 106). But ever granting this arbitra-
rily assnmed calculation on their part, the
hostile disposition in Judaea war much too
general (xxi. 21) to admit of control over the

Pp. 785, who suggests that the author wished to
evade touching on the wide opposition he-
tween Paul and Jewish Christianity. But
merely fo evade this point, he wonld bave
needed only to suppress vv. 21, 22. instead of
putting euch a eurprising expression into the
mouth of the Jews.

CONFERENCE WITH THE JEWS. 505

and accordingly made no notification concerning Puul to that quarter.
Even @ priori, such a strange ignorance of the Jews us to the fortunes of
their very numerous countrymen’ in.the tapital of the world is very: im-
probable ; and, from a historical point of view, that expulsion of the Roman
Jews had occurred so many years before, and the edict of banishment was
at all events only of such temporary force’ that the renewed tuleration of
the Jews, permitted either expressly or tacitly, is to be placed even under
the reign of Claudius.?

Ver. 22. 'Aftovysy dé] But we judge—so as, in such lack of information
from other quarters, to be better instructed concerning the circumstances
in which thou art placed —it right ‘—as a claim which, as matters stand, is
no more than right and proper—to Learn from thee—napaé cov has emphasis—
etc. — @ gpoverc] t.¢. what principles and views thou pursuest. — mepi uév yap
tic aipéa. tabr.| for of this party certainly.* rairy¢ has its reference in the
more precise expressions, with which Paul must be presumed to have ac-
companied his évexev yap tye EAwidog rt. 'Iapag2. In the uév without dé the
tucit contrast is to be mentally supplied: ‘ Although thou thyself art un-
known to us.’’° The yap grounds the aéovyev x.7r.A. on the apparently im-
partial interest of obtaining more particular information.—At first view, it
must appear strange that these Jewish xpora in Rome betray so little ae-
quuintance, or none at all, with the great Christian church at Rome, which
consisted, at any rate in part, pf Jewish Christians. This difficulty is not
solved by the arbitrary * assumption that, after the return of the Jews ex-
pelled by Claudius, the Jews and Christians kept aloof from each other and
thus gradually lost acquaintance with one another ;* nor yet by the circum-
stances of such a grent city as Rome, amidst which the existence of the
Christian community might well have escaped the knowledge of the rich
worldly Jews,°—which, considering the relationship of Judaism and
Christianity, would a priori be very improbable. It is rather to be explained,
like the expression in ver. 21, from a cautious sort of official reserve in
their demeanour, not exactly hypocritical '* or intimidated by the Claudian
measures,!! but in which withal the Jewish contempt for Christianity gener-
ally is apparent. The representation here given, according to which thuse
Jews simply avoid any sort of expression compromising them, is by no
means to be used, with Baur and Zeller, against the historical truth of the
occurrence. Its historical character, on the contrary, gains support from
the Epistle to the Romans itself, which shows no trace that in Rome Chris-
tianity had been in conflict with the Jews ;'? and therefore de Wette is
wrong in his remark that, if Luke had only added «xa? wap’ qyiv to ravrazoi,
there would have been no ground of offence (0‘).

1 Dio Caen. xxxvi.6: Suet. Tid. 86: Philo, Gr. p. 318(E. T. 888).

leg. ad Catum, p. 568; Tac. Ann. ii. 8. 7 Comp. aleo on ver. 21.

2 See on xvili. 2, and Anger, temp. rat. p. ® Olxhansen : comp. also Kling in the Stud.
118 f. u. Krit. 1887, p. 302 ff.

3 Sec. moreover, on Rom. Introd. § 2. ® Neander.

4 xv. 38. 1° Tholack.

§ Asto aipdc., ree On Zxiv 14. 1! Philippi, comp. Ewald.

* Comp. on xxvii. 21; also Buttmann, news. 13 See Rom. Introd. § 8.

506 CHAP. XXVIII., 23-31.

Ver. 28. Eig rv Senay] to the lodging, i.e. the dwelling which, after his
arrival at Rome! he was allowed to occupy with a friendly host.* At a later
period he obtained a hired house of his own.* Whether the gevia was the
house of Aguila,‘ cannot be determined. — riclovec] a greater number than
were with him on the former oecasion. — reiduy x.t.A.] and persuading them
of what concerns Jesus, eiduv is neither to be taken as docens with Kuinoel,*
nor dé conatu with Grotius. Paul really did on his part, subjectively, the
reidev, persuadere ; that this did not produce its objective effect in all his
hearers, does not alter the significance of the word.*—azmd . . . row véuou
x.7.A.] starting from it, linking his reiSev to its utterances.’—The opinion
of Béttger,* that Paul was liberated between vers. 22 and 23 is refuted by
ver. 80, compared with ver. 16, as well as by Phil. i. 13 ff., since the Phi-
lippian Epistle was not written in Cacsarea, as Bottger judyes.°

Vv. 25-27. ’AreAbvovro| they departed,” they withdrew. The imperfect is
graphic. — eimdvrog r. IT. pyua ev] after that" Paul, immediately before their
departure, had made one utterance. év: one dictum, instead of any further
discourse: it makes palpable the importance of this concluding saying.
Then follows this p7ua év in the oratio directa (with dri) as far as ver 28.—
xadac) because completely justified as appropriate by the latest result before
them,'*— 1d rvedua 7d Gy:ov] ‘* Quod Spiritum sanctum loquentem inducit
potius quam prophetam, ad fidem oraculi valet.’’"—=spa¢ rove rarépag uay] to
our fathers ;** for the divine command imparted to Isaiah, ropetSyti x.1.2.,
was as such made known fo the fathers.—Isa. vi. 9, 10, almost exactly ac-
cording to the LXX., has its Messianic fulfilment in the obduracy of the
Jews against the gospel,’*—a fulfilment which Paul here announces to the
obdurate, so that he recognises himself 9s the subject addressed by
ropevdyrt. With hearing, auribus, ye shall hear, and certainly not understand ;
and seeing ye shall see, and certainly not perceive. For the heart, the spiritual
vitality, of this people had become fat—obdurate and sluggish, see on Matt.
l.c.—and with their ears they have become dull of hearing, and their eyes have
they closed, in order that they may not** perceive with the eyes, or hear with
the ears, or understand with the heart, or turn themselves, to me, and I, 1.¢.
God, should heal them, of their spiritual malady, by forgiveness and sancti-
fication.""—eiréy (Elz, ciré) is oxytonon.”

1 Ver. 16.

3 Philem., 28.

3 Ver. 80.

4 Olshausen.

® Comp. on xix. 8.

* Comp. on vii. 26; Rom. fi. 4.

7 Comp. on xvii. 2.

® Beitr. I. p. 32 ff.

* See also Wieselcr, p. 411 ff.

10 Polyb. il, 84. 12, v. 98. 6, and frequently.
11 Not when, see ver. 29.

42 Comp. Matt. xv. 7%

13 Calvin ; 2 Pet. i. 21.

14 By quer Paul as little includes himself

(thinking poseibly of his conversion) in the
hardening. as with jus in! Cor. x. 1 (in op-
position to Baumgarten). It is the simple
expression of Israclitish fellowship. Comp.
Rom. tv. 1.

18 Matt. xili. 14f. ; John xii. 40.

16 See on Matt. J.c.

17On the expression, comp. Dem. 797. 3:
Opwvras my Opav Kat axovovras mR axovey,
Aesch. Prom. 448: «Avovres ovx qeovoy, Ja-
cobs, Del. epigr. vii. 1.4 f.; Soph. 0. R. 871:
tTugdo¢ ta 1’ Sra tov re vow ta 7° Super’ ef, —

16 See Gorttling, Lehre tom Accent, p. 58 ;
Winer, p. 50 (EK. T. 58) ; Borncmann in Joc.

PAUL’S CAPTIVITY. 507

Vv. 28, 29. Oiv] because ye are so obdurate and irrecoverable. — dri roic
ESveow x.7.A.] that by my arrival at Rome this (rovro, see the critical re-
marks) salvation of God, i.e. the Messianic salvation bestowed by God, which
is meant in this prophecy, has deen sent, nut to you Jews, but to the Gentiles.'
—avroi] they on their part quite otherwise than you. — xa? axotcovra:] name-
ly the announcement of salvation, which conception is implied in azeoréay
as its mode.* «ai, etiam: non solum missa est iis salus, sed etiam audient,
give ear.” Bengel appropriately observes: ‘‘ Profectionem ad gentes de-
claraverat Judueis contumacibus Antiochiae xiii. 46 ; Corinthi xviii. 6, nunc
tertium Romae ; adeoque in Asia, Graecia, Italia.’’—Ver. 80. év idiy pioddn.]
7.€.in a dwelling belonging to himself by way of hire. This he had ob-
tained after the first duys when he had lodged in the gevia, ver. 23; but he
was in it as a prisoner, as follows from ver 16, from xait azedéyero x.7.A., and
from axwAiruc, ver. 31, nemine prohibente, although he was a prisoner.‘ To
procure the means of hiring the dwelling must have been an easy matter
for the love of the brethren, and support came also from a distance.* —
wavrac] Christians, Jews, Gentiles; not merely the latter, as Baumgarten
arbitrarily limits the word, while with equal arbitrariness he finds in ver.
81 a pointing to the final form of the church, in which the converted Israel
will form the visible historical centre around which the Gentile nations
gather, and then the Parousia will set in. This modern view of Judaistic
eschatology has no support even in Rom. xi. 27 ff. (P*).

Ver. 31. Solemn close of the whole book, which is not to be regarded
as incomplete.* The Gospel also concludes with a sonorous participial end-
ing, but less full and solemn. — xyptoowy «.t.A.] thus his word was not
bound in his bonds.’ — axwiAtruc]® ‘‘ Victoria verki dei. Paulus Romae,
apex evangelii, actorum finis,’’ Bengel (Q‘).

Nores py American Eprror.
(wt) Melita. V. 1.

When the passengers and crew of the ill-fated, stranded vessel had al] safely
landed, they discovered they were on an island named Melita, or Malta, as it
is now called. There can be no doubt that this was the island where the
apostle and his companions spent the winter months. It has been objected
that there are now no poisonous reptiles on the island, or brushwood of any
kind, but both may have abounded at that time, when the island was less pop-
ulous, and not fally cultivated. The people were not barbarous in any other
sense than in using a different language, the Punic. Even at present the Mal-
tese have a peculiar dialect, a mixture of Arabic and Italian. The inhabitants
kindly welcomed the shipwrecked travellers, and, as they were shivering from

1 Comp. Luke ff. 30, iff. 6. ® Phil. iv. 10 ff.
2x. 86, xifi. 26. € See Introd. § 3.
3 Comp. Bornemann, Schol, in Luc. p. 24. ¥2 Tim. ii. 9.

4 Comp. Phil. 1. 7. 6 Pla:. Crat. p. 415 D; Herodian. 1, 12. 15.

508 CHAP. XXVIII.—NOTES.

the wet and the cold, they built for thema fire. Paul, ashe did when on board,
gave his personal aid, and gathered some brushwood or sticks, whence came
out a viper which bit him. All attempts to show that either the serpent did not
bite Paul's hand, orif it did, it was not venomous, are justly characterized by
Alford as ‘‘ the disingenuous shifts of rationalists and semi-rationalists."’ The
natives seeing this, with some innate ideas of a righteous retribution, at once
imagined he was a murderer, whom divine vengeance thus overtook. They
expected that he would have fallen down suddenly dead. Sudden collapse
and death ensue often from the bite of serpents. Shakespeare speaks as a true
naturalist of the asp-bitten Cleopatra :

“Trembling she stood and on the sudden dropped.”’
Plumpire, in illustration, quotes the following stanza translated from Lucan :

**Naaidius toiling in the Marsian fields
The burning Prestes bit—a flery flush
Lit up hid face and set the skin a stretch,
And all its comely grace had passed away."

No unpleasant results, however, following in the case of Paul, they changed
their minds and said he was a god. Here the apostle during his stay per-
formed many miraculous cures, which called forth the gratitude and gifts of
the people. Doubtless also Paul lost no opportunity of preaching the great
Healer, in whose name he performed such wonderful cures. About the month
of February, a.p. 61, Paul and his companions started again for Rome, in a corn
ship, whose sign was Castor and Pollux, twin sons of Jupiter and Leda, re-
garded as the tutelar deities, Qev: owrfpec, of sailors, and described by Horace
as fratres Helene lucida sidera. The constellation Gemini, the Twins, is
named from them. The ancients identified them with the phosphoric lights,
sometimes seen on the masts of ships, which promise a fair wind and a pros-
perous voyage, and which are now called the fires of St. Elmo. Touching at
Syracuse and at Rhegium, they came, after a prosperous sail of 180 miles, to
Puteoli, which lies on the northern part of the Bay of Naples, and is described
as one of the loveliest spots on earth. Here the apostle spent a whole week
with brethren.

(0*) This secl . . . spokenagainst, VY. 22.

The apostle received a most affectionate welcome from the brethren in Rome, :
Some of them having gone as far as Appia Forum and the Three Booths, distant
from Rome respectively about forty and thirty miles, to greet him. His sen-
sitive spirit deeply felt this kindness, and he was greatly cheered by it. At last
his long-cherished desire to visit Rome is realized. But in a way he had never
dreamed of. He had not imagined that ‘‘ when he went to the City of the Seven
Hills he should enter it as a prisoner chained to a soldier of the Augustan
cohort.’’ Yet in his visit to the metropolis of the world, trying, and seemingly
hopeless as the circumstances were, Paul accomplished all that he had earnestly
desired. For, as he writes from his prison, all that happened to him proved
favorable for the furtherance of the gospel. He had not the same opportunities
which he found at Athens or at Ephesus. No great hall or hippodrome or even
synagogue was open for his ministrations. He was not even at liberty to go

NOTES. . 509

from house t» house, to the Forum, or the market-place, but he diligently used
such opportunities as were within his power, and was éminently successful
among the Gentiles, specially with the soldiers who guarded him, and even
with those of the royal household. Shortly after his arrival, he sent for the
chief men among the Jews, rulers of the synagogue,.and heads of Jewish fam-
ilies, and, fearing they might have heard some reports injurious to him, he fully
explained the cause of his coming among them asa prisoner. A time being
appointed, many came to hear his account of the gospel of the Crucified, and
a whole day was spent in the discussion. It must have been a striking and
most impressive scene, such an audience in such a place, listening to a
preacher in chains—the man and his theme alike wonderful. He spoke of a
King whose kingdom was grander, more extensive, and more enduring than
the Empire of the Cesars. A fire was kindled in Rome that day which rap-
idly spread throughout the empire. The sect then so bitterly spoken against
und so ably vindicated by Paul, exists still, and is winning its way to the
conquest of the world for Christ. In his conferences with the Jews, the apos-
tle exhibited the satisfactory and conclusive evidences of the truth of the gos-
pel, unfolded the ample provision which it makes for all the deepest wants of
the human heart, and illustrated the happy influence it exerts on all human re-
lations and interests. He expounded and testified and persuaded them con-
cerning Jesus. The majority did not favorably receive his message, but some
were convinced and embraced Christianity.

(P*) Two whole years in his own hired house. V. 30.

All this time Paul was a prisoner of state, and all his expenses were, doubt-
less, cheerfully defrayed by friends in Rome and elsewhere. During the day
he was chained to a soldier, and, in the night, guarded bytwo or more. From
notices in the epistles written during this imprisonment we learn that several
Christian friends, some of whom were very dear to him, were with Paul— Luke,
Timothy and Mark, Epaphras, Aristarchus and Tychicus. His chjef employ-
ment was preaching the gospel. Many a soldier who for six hours was chained
to the arm of the apostle had occasion to bless God that such a privilege had
been his, and not a few of them, doubtless, became true soldiers of the cross
and spread the good tidings through the army, and, as a consequence, more or
less over the land. Many of the brethren also ‘‘ waxing confident by his
bonds, were much more bold to speak the word without fear.’’

From the salutation and allusions contained in the Epistles to the Ephe-
sians, Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon, critics are generally agreed that
they were written during these two years’ imprisonment. There is a simple
grandeur in the concluding sentence of this history which is very impressive.
‘* The mention of the kingdom had been a matter of odium in the eyes of Pilate.”
Now Rome bears its being publicly stated. ‘‘ The victory of the Word of God.
Paul at Rome forms the (apex) climax, or crowning point, of the gospel
preaching, and the end of the Acts which Luke otherwise might have easily
brought on to the death of Paul. He began at Jerusalem, he ends at Rome.”
(Bengel.)

A great many reasons have been imagined why Luke éenatndes his narrative
without giving any account of the end of Paul. Conjecture is as various.as it is

510 CHAP. XXVIII.—NOTES.

vain. Some suppose that Luke intended to write a third treatise, but was pre-
vented by his death ; others that the narrative was carried wp to the time that
Luke wrote. Plumptre with others suggests that the subsequent events were
already known to Theophilus, who was an Italian convert ; but the most prob-
able opinion is that Luke had accomplished the purpose he had i view in
writing. The Acts give an account of the rise of the gospel at Jerusalem, and
closes with its reception at Rome, The writer's work was done; hence, “ with
an emphatic and artistically formed sentence, he concludes his history.”

(Q‘) Paul’s second imprisonment.

However slight may be the grounds of direct testimony it has generally ‘been
believed in all ages, that about the beginning of the year a.p. 64, St. Paul was
tried, acquitted, and liberated, and that after some years of liberty and labor,
he was a second time brought a prisoner to Rome, and there suffered martyr-
dom. The arguments in favor of a second imprisonment are drawn from two
sources : the ancient traditions of the church, and allusions contained in the
pastoral epistles. The unanimity of the ancient church on this point is very
remarkable, yet it is by no means conclusive; though such authorities as
Clement, Tertullian, Eusebius, Chrysostom, and Jerome are quoted. The evidence
to be gathered from the pastoral epistles is clearly in favor of a second im-
prisonment. All who maintain the genuineness of these epistles are con-
strained to adopt this view, or to resort to some more improbable suppositions
to explain the statements they contain. On the genuineness of the pastoral
epistles see Excursus IX. to Farrar's Life of Paul, which concludes with the
following sentence : “ Pauline in much of their phraseology, Pauline in their
fundamental doctrines, Pauline in their dignity and holiness of tone, Pauline
alike in their tenderness and severity, Pauline in the digressions, the construc-
tions, and the personality of their style, we may accept two of them with an
absolute conviction of their authenticity, and the third—the first Epistle to
Timothy, which is more open to doubt than the others—with at least a strong
belief that in reading it we are reading the words of the greatest of the apos-
tles."? For a reply to Davidson in his Introduction to the New Testament, in
which he presents every argument against the Pauline authorship of these
epistles and the credibility of Luke as a historian, and also to the suppositions
of Renan, see Westcolt and Leathes and Howson’s Appendix I. For the argu-
ment drawn from the historical circumstances, the reference to certain heresies,
and the advanced organization of the church alluded to and implied in the
pastoral epistles, I refer to Morrison and to Taylor, who strongly advocates the
certainty of a second imprisonment, and says: ‘‘ So without regard to tra-
dition, and solely on the ground of the evidence which may be distilled from
the pastoral epistles themselves, I have adopted the view that shortly after the
time at which Luke’s narrative in the Acts concludes, Paul was set at liberty
by Nero; and that, after an interval of four or five years’ duration he was
again carried to Rome as a prisoner and put to death.” Plumptre, in an ex-
cursus appended to his Acts, says : ‘‘ If we accept the pastoral epistles as gen-
uine, we are led partly by their style, partly by the difficulty of fitting them
into any earlier period of St. Paul's life, partly by the traces they present of a
later stage of development, both of truth and error, to assign them to a date
subsequent to the two years of the imprisonment of chap. xxiii. 30.”

NOTES, 511

The life of the great apostle, in the interval between the two imprisonments,
is involved in uncertainty. He probably visited Asia, Macedonia, Achaia,
Crete, and Spain. Jerome informs us that Paul was beheaded in the fourteenth
year of Nero, a.p. 68, the same year in which Peter was crucified— Paul's right
of citizenship exempted him from that form of martyrdom. ‘‘Thus, in all prob-
ability, died the most illustrious of all Christian missionaries, the prince of
the apostles, the noblest of the noble army of martyrs.’’ Many ideal portraits
have been drawn of this gifted, many-sided, wonderful, heroic, Christlike man.

One writes :

** Courteous he was and grave ; so meek in mien
It seemed untrue, or told a purpose weak ;
Yet in the mood, he could with aptnegs epeak,
Or with stern force, or show of feelings keen,
Marking deep craft, methought, or hidden pride :
Then came a voice—St. Paul is at thy side.”’

Another writes :

“The third who journeyed with them, weak and worn,
Blear-eyed, dim-visioned, bent and bowed with pain,
We iooked upon with wonder.”

**So they came ;
So entered he our town ; but ere t':e sun
Had lit the eastern clouds, a fever's chill
Fell on him ; parchéd thirst and darting throbs
Of keenest anguish racked those weary limbs ;
His brow seemed circled with a crown of pain ;
And oft, pale, breathless, as if life had fled,
He looked like one in ecstasy, who sees
- What others see not ; to whoge ears a voice,
Which others hear not, floats from sea or sky.
And broken sounds would murmur from his lips,
Of glory wondrous, sounds ineffable.
The cry of Abba, Father, and the notes
Of come strange chant of other lands.
So stricken, prostrate, pale, the traveller lay,
So stript of all the comeliness of form,
Men might have spurned and loathed him passing on
To lead their brighter life—and yet we stayed ;
We spurned him not, nor loathed ; through all the shroud
Of poverty and sickness we could see
The hero-soul, the presence as of One
Whom then we knew not. When the pain was sharp,
And furrowed brows betrayed the strife within,
Then was he gentlest. Even to our slaves
Ho spoke as brothers, winning all their hearts
By that unwonted kindness.”’

‘God buries his workmen, but carries on their work.’’ The emperors are
dead. The Roman Empire has passed away. The City of the Seven Hills is
shorn of her power and glory. The brutal and infamous Nero is remembered
only to be detested and execrated, but the martyred apostle lives in all the
churches of Christendom to-day ; and is revered by millions as the greatest of
human teachers. The kingdom too which he sought to extend and establish,
despite all opposition, is mightier now than when he proclaimed it. It isa
kingdom which cannot be moved, for it is built upon a rock—on Christ Jesus,
the Son of God, the Saviour of the world, who shall yet return and claim it for
his own.

512 CHAP. XXVIII.—NOTES.

(mn) Evidential value of the Acts.

On this subject Dean Howson has published a volume of lectures. The fol-
lowing extract is from an article by Professor Matthew B. Riddle :

‘‘The study of the Book of the Acts suggests two very important points
bearing on the historical accuracy of the Gospels. The most obvious one is,
that if it is itself a true story,— even true in general,—the weapon used by the
early preachers was fact,—fact about Jesus Christ, his life, death, resurrection,
and ascension.

‘‘Granting the exactness of the history we have, in its particular refer-
ence to the main events of our Lord’s life, what is equivalent to o fifth Gospel.
There is, too, this added element, namely, a more specific explanation of the
purpose and significance of these facts.

‘‘Minute usages, topographical peculiarities, and kindred points, may be
found in nearly every paragraph, and each and every such reference can be
used as a test of accuracy. The test has been applied. Volume after volume
has been written on the subject. Every journey has been retraced, every
voyage has been re-made, for the express purpose of verifying the narrative.
Sometimes it has been thought that the writer made a mistake, but in nearly
every such instance renewed investigations, in a few cases new discoveries by
travellers, have shown the accuracy of the record. It has fairly stood every
test, and may well be regarded as the book of history (of all times) which has
been proven most exact. Others may be as accurate; none have been proven
more so. It will be fair to infer that such accuracy would have been impossible
had the book been written very long after the date at which its story ends,
a.p. 63, thirty-three years after the death of Jesus‘Christ. ‘This view is con-
firmed by the use which the writer makes of the pronoun ‘we.’ Is it probable
that he took the trouble to be so carefuj in telling the truth about towns and
temples, harbors and currents, and yet carelessly left this pronoun to suggest
a falsehood about persons?

‘‘It might be said that such a book could he constructed like a historical
romance, after a lapse of fifty or ahundred years. But this isto the last degree
improbable. Walter Scott and Thackeray have written the finest and most
accurate historical romances, and Shakespeare has furnished the grandest
historical dramas. But not one of these three geniuses has succeeded in con-
structing a piece of literature which stands the test as the Book of Acts has
done. Their memory constantly fails them, and their want of accurate knowl-
edge betrays itself repeatedly. Were the Book of Acts o romance, its author
must have been a genius unequalled in literature. Of all the Christian centuries,
the second century shows fewest men of genius; and yet we are asked to be-
lieve that some one in that age polished up the Gospels into their present
shape, and concocted the most accurate of historical romances. It is far easier
to believe that Luke is the author of the work.

‘The ‘evidential value’ of the Book of Acts consists mainly in this: That
it offers presumptive evidence of the strongest character in regard to the main
facts of the gospel history, and in particular proves that the author of the third
Gospel, being the author of this book also, is a writer of tested accuracy, who
tells the exact truth about Jesus Christ. Knowing so well how to be accurate,
if he is false in his story about Jesus Christ, he is wilfully and awfully false.
One must be far gone in hatred of Christ and his cause not to shrink from this
last position.”

FUNK & WAGNALLS

PUBLICATIONS.

JANUARY, 1883.

CONTENTS:
PAGE.
RELIGIOUS AND THEOLOGICAL. ............ccescestesescesceecceeneeees 3-1
MISCELLANEOUS 3551. conic uscounsasiaansesesseeanveseweriasenneeeens 8-12
THE “STANDARD SERIES”............0...ccceeeceeseeeeseeeeeeeseaseees 18-14
THE “CYCLOPHDIA OF PRACTICAL QUOTATIONS”..........000004 + 16-16

NEW YORK:
FUNK & WAGNALLS,

PUBLISHERS AND IMPORTERS,

Io & 12 DEY STREET.

3
“To pirate this book little less than sacrilege.’—Curcaco Booxserimn amp

Swan TIONER.

YWeoune’s Great Concordance.

What the ‘‘ Chicago Bookseller and Stationer”’ thinks of Pirating
this Work.

‘¢-Young’s Concordance is the production of the learned Dr. Robert Young, of Edin
burgh, and the fruit of forty years study of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. It is pro-
nounced the most complete Bible Concordance ever published. To pirate this book and
deprive its venerable author of the legitimate results of his life-labor is little less than
sacrilege. This act cannot be classed among the ordinary crimes of robbery, and it is
certain that no man with a spark of upright humanity in his composition could perpetrate
such an outrage.”—From the April issue, 1881.

OAUTION.

The plates from which the American reprint is bemg printed were made by the late
Ammentcan Book Exonance. Will the respectaile house that has lately bought them, and
now is printing from them what they claim to be a revised edition, acknowledge their
poe eee REMEMBER, these plates were made by the Philo Process, and no revision,

owever complete, will eliminate the fundamental defects found in plates made by that
process. The only cure is their destruction.

DR, YOUNG'S APPEAL TO AMERICAN CHRISTIANS FOR JUSTICE.

“*CHRtsTmaN Frrenps oF America: I have no wish to enter on the question of an
international copyright, for it 1s not the question of one publisher against another—but of
an author who has spent years of labor and thousands of pounds on his work, and who
was anxious to sell his work in Americe at the ala Goro e price.

‘Christian brethren, may I not hope that you will all—singly and conjointly—lift up
your voice and protcst agaiust this piracy and spoliation, and show to the Christian
Churches in Great Britain that you hate ‘robbery for a burnt-offering’? I am your ser-
vant in the Gospel, ROBERT YOUNG, LL.D.”

EDINBURGH, SCOTLAND.

FROM JOHN WALL, D.D., New Yorx.

“Dr. Robert Young’s Analytical Concordance is worthy of the lifetime of labor he has
spent upon it. I decply regret that his natural and just expectation of some return from
its sale on this side the ocean is not realized ; and I hope the sense of justico to a most
eee author will lead to the choice by many purchasers of the edition which Dr.

oung approves—that of Messrs. Funk & Oo., with whom Dr, Youug co-operates in
bringing out here the best edition.

Bw See that the co ou buy has upon the title page the imprint of FUNK
& WAGNALLS. eed td si

PRICE S—1,100 aust pages ati larger than a page in Webster's Unabridged

ictionary), Cloth......... a6 sein Aiw-ava’u Selon uate bie bs GauaaEAS aww 65
Sheep (black) .........0e.00. Sa Gace bie wea gat elaereeimuuwacaeue outa 4 40
elt Im), MOPOG00 i:6:56654.s65-400Gsae saa cpiens. “a wel Gaede osewen 4 65

HENRY WARD BEECHER---Aspects of His Life, with
Analysis of his remarkable pulptt and other abilities BY THOSB
WHO AGREE AND THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH HIM,
as Thomis Armitage, Leonard Bacon, Nowh Porter, John G, Whittier, Joseph Parker,
etc., etc. Elited by LYMAN ABBOTT, D.D. The aim is to present
Mr. Beecher as he is, neither blaming nor praising beyond reason,
A worle that will prove exceed '‘ngly interesting and instructive.

SPURCEON’S IMMENSE WORK---“‘THE TREASURY
OF DAVID.’’ Volumes I, IL, 111., IV., V.and VI, now ready.
See full description on another page.

PUBLICATIONS OF

FUNK & WAGNALLS,

lo and 12 DEY STREET, NEW YORK.

RELIGIOUS WORKS.

Analytical Bible Concordance, Revised Edition.

Analyticul Concoruance to the Bible on an entirely new plan.
in Alphabetical Order, arranged under its Hebrew or
ronunciation.

Meaning of Each, and its

Containing every word
reek original, with the Literal
Exhibiting about 311,000 References,

marking 30,0U0 various readings in the New Testament. With the latest informa-

tion on Biblical Geo hy
English Bible. By Bo
of the

and Antiquities. Designed for tbe simplest reader of
BRET Youna, LL.D., author of ‘‘ A New Literal Translation
ebrew and Greek Scriptures,” etc, etc. Fourth Revised, Authorized Eiition.

Printed on heavy paper. One large volume, 4to, cloth, $3.65; sheep, $4.40; Fr. im.

morocco, $4.65

There is but one authorized and correct edition of Young’s Concordance sold in

America.

Every copy of this edition has on the title- page the words “‘ Authorized

Edition,” and at the bottom of the page our imprint.

S@Vr. Puri Scuarr verifies these corrections.

AMERICAN BIBLE REvisron COMMITTEE,
44 L31BLE Houss, N. Y., June 22, 1881.

Mesers. I. K. Funk & Co.:

** Dear Sirs :—I have at Abe request examined
nally, and had two lite friends exam-
tne, the proof slips of corrections of Young’s
«Analytical Concordance to the Bible,” and a com-
parison of t 6 fourth edition with the first has
convinced us that all thes. corrections have been
made in t.e plates of the fourth edition (1881).
Some of these changes are corrections of
phical crrors ur the errors of copyists; eTs
are the insertions of important references omitted
from the first edition. It is no wonder that, in a
work covering many thousands of references, there
should have ap in the firet edition so many
errors and defects; the wonder is rather that
there are no more. '

“Tam glad to bear this testimony as an act of
Justice to Dr. Young, who has sp.nt so many years
of eself-denying labor upon this work, and has
ap salioh Gf the ai complete Concordance in

e En or any other language.
o Parse Sonarr.’’

Analytical Biblical Treasury.
By Rosrrt Youna, LL.D., author of Analytical Concordance, ete.
(1) Analytical Survey of all the books, (2) Of all the facts, (3) Of all

Themes, Questions,
and plans of Bible lands and _ places.

ConTENTS :
theidioms of the Bible.
together with ma

(4) Bible

Spurgeon says: “Craden’s is child's play com-
pared with this gigantio work.”

(From the New York Tribune.)

“This isthe most important work in religious
literature that has been produced for many years.
It certainly will supersede and lace all ar
works which have preceded it. It ls at once a Con-
cordance in Greek, Hebrew and English Lexicon of
Bible words and a Scriptural Gazetteer, and will be
as valuable to students of the Holy Word as an
Unabridged Dictionary is to the general public.”

[from John Hall, D.D., New York.)

“Dr. Robert Young’s Analytical Concordance is
worthy of the lifetime of labor he has spent upon it.
I deeply regret that his natural and just expecta-
tion of some return from its sale on this side of
the ocean is not realized, and I hope the sense of
justice to a most painstaking author will lead to
the choice, by many purchasers, of the edition
which Dr. Young approvese—that of Mesers.I. K.
Fowx & Co., with whom Dr. Young co-operates in
bringing out here the best edition.’

4to, cloth, $2.00.

anonicitv, Rationalism, etce.,
(5) A complete Hebrew

and English Lexicon tothe Old Testament. (6) Idiomatic use of the Hebrew and

Greek Tenses.

(7) A complete Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament.

Bertram’s Homlietic Encyclopeedia.

A Homiletic Encyclopedia of Ilustrations in Theology and Morals.

A Handbook of

Practical Divinity, an‘ sptdcseroags | on Holy Scripture. Selected and arranged

by Rev R. A.

Bertram, compiler of ‘‘ A Dictionary of Poetical Dlustrations,” ete.

Roya 8vo, cloth, 892 pp., $2.50; sheep, $3.50; half morocco, $4.50.

The London Record.—" Ite illustrations cast day-
light upon more than 4,000 texts of Scripture. A
treasury of practical religion.’’

C. H. Spurgeon.—* ....A very valuable compila-
tion—a golden treasury—an impurtant addition to
a minister’s library.’’

The London Literary World.—‘No book of illus
trations....that, for fullness, freshness, and, above

all, su veneas, is worthy to be compared with
the work.”

Bdinburgh Review.—” Nothing can be more serv-
foeable to students.”

CH” The above works will be sent by mail, postage paid, on receipt of the price.

4 PUBLICATIONS OF FUNK @ WAGNALLS, NEW YORK.

Biblical History and Biography.
A Digest of Biblical History and Biography; being an Introduction to the stady of

the Old Testament Scriptures. By

Rev. James Ganner, author of ‘Theo

Dissertations,” ete. 12m0, cloth, 454 pp. $1.50.

Biblical Notes and Queries.

By Rozert Youna, LL.D., author of the Analytical Concordance tothe Bible.

8vo, cloth, £00 pp.,

Royal

$1.75. ;
This book is made up of Biblical Notes and Queries regarding Biblical Criticism and
Interpretation, Ecclesiastical History, Antiquities, Biograp y and Bibliography, Ancient

and Modern Versions, Progress in

heological Science, Reviews, eto,

It answers thou-

snds of questions constantly presented to the minds of clergymen and Sunday-school

teachers.
Christian Sociology.

By J. H. W. Srocxznsznsc, D.D., Professor in the Theol
berg College. A new and highly commended book. 1

Commentary on Mark.
Critical, Ex
Parents.

cloth, $1.50.

ical Department of Witten-
o, cloth, 382 pp., $1.00,

etical and Homuletical Treatment for the use of Teachers, Pastors and
ew, Vigorous, Practical. By Rev. D. C. Huaues, Editor of the Inter-
national Sunday-School Lesson Department of Tux Hommztiv Monruty.

8vo,

By Arex,

D.D., member of the English Revision Committee, with ener onent bya
uthorized edi-

tim. _8vo, paper, 117 pp., 25 cente; 16mo, cloth, 213 pp., 75 cents. :
P - pA Pp on pp

ersion seems to me almost indis-
peasable. It is important to know the spirit which
animated, and the rules which directed, the labors
ofthe Revisers, as well as the critical reasons which
determined important emendations. All
this is set forth by Dr. Roberts with admirable
perspicuity. I shall urge every member of the
church of which Iam pastor to give 1¢ a careful

The New York Ezaminer and Chronicle says: “It
is very valuable, giving needed facts as to the causes
of the differences of reading which have sprung up
n which bee

on the Scriptures, and the grounds u
n have

changes in the present Revised V.
made.”

Conant’s History of English Bibie Translation.
QO

Revised and Brought

wn to the Present Time by Tuomas J. Conant, D.D., member

of the Old Testament Revision Committee, and Translator for the American Bible
Union Edition of the Scriptures. This History was meal pre f written ts Mrs. H. C,

Conant, the late wife of Dr. T. J. Conant. It is a complete

istory of Bible Revis-

ion from the Wickliffe Bible to the Revised Version. 2 vols., paper, 284 pp.
(Standard Series, octavo, Nos. 65 and 66), 50 cents; 1 vol., 8vo, cloth, $1.00.

Complete Preacher.

The Complete Preacher. A Sermonic Magazine. Containing nearly one hundred

sermons in full, by many of the greatest
8 vols., Svo,

the various denominations,
Cyclopzedia of Quotations.

reachers in this and other countries in
oth. Each $1.60, or, per set, $4.00,

ith fall Concordance and Other Indexes. By J. K. Horr and Anna L. Wazp. Oon-
tains 17,000 Quotations, classified under subjects; nearly 2,000 selections from the
Latin poets and orators; many Latin, French, German and Spanish proverbs: with

50,000 lines of Concordance, making at once available every
Royal 8vo, over 900 pages, heavy paper, in cloth binding, $5.0

in full morocco, $10.00,

Fim. F. T. Frelinghuysen, Secretary of State:
a” a much p-eased with the ‘Cyclopsdia of Quo-
tations.’ ”’

Henry Ward Beecher: “Good all the way through,
espocially the proverbs of all nations.’’

Henry W. Longfellow : ‘Can hardly fail to be a
very euccessfuland favorite volume ”

Wendell Phil'in:: ‘Tis variety and fullness and
the completeness of its index give it rare value to
the acholar.’’

George W. Childs > ** Enclosed find $20 00 for four
eopics, It is unique among books of quotations.”

Abram S. Hewitt: «The completeness of its in-
@iocs is sim ly astonishing. * * Leaves nothing
o be desired.’

uotation. Prioss,
; in sheep, $6.50;

Ba-Speaker Randall: «I send check for . It
is the best book of quotations which I have eoeh *

George W. Curté:: “A handsome volume and a
most serviceable companion.’”’

Oliver Wendell Holmes: “A massive and teeming
volume. it lies near my open dictionaries,’’

Boston Post: “Indispensable as Worcester and
Webster. Must long remain the staadard among
its kind.”

NY. Herald: “By long odds the beat book of
quotations in existence” .
1 Boston Traveler. “Exhaustive and satisfactory.
It is immeasurably the beat book of quotations."’

N. ¥. Times: «Ita Index alone would place it
before all other books of quotations.”

ene eee ec RRND RCPS EVES
EP” 2he above works will be sent by mail, postage paid, on receipt of the price.

PUBLICATIONS OF FUNK &@ WAGNALLS, NEW YORK. 5

Eastern Proverbs and Embiems.
Ilustra ed Old Trnths—selected from over 1,000 volumes, some very rare, and to he
consulted only in libraries in Indis, Russia and other parts of the Continent, or in
the British Museum. All are classified ander subje:ta, enabling teachers end

preechers to fix in the school, the pulpit, or the
means of emblems and illustrations drawn from
This book is the opening of a rich storehouse of emblems and proverbs By

ress, grout spiritual traths b
e deptus of the popular a ;
ev.

A. Long, member of the Bengal Asiatio Society. 8vo, 280 pages. Price, cloth, $1.00.

Fulton’s Replies.

Punishment of Sin Eternal. Three sermons in reply to Beecher, Farrar and Ingersoll.
By Jusrm D. Fouron, D.D. 8vo, paper, 10 centa,

Cilead: An Allegory.

Gilead; or, The Vision of All Souls’ Hospital. An Allegory. By Rev. J. Hyarr
Surrm, Congressman from New York. Revised edition. 12mo, cloth, 350 pp., $1.00.

The Boston Traveller says:—‘ Of all the attempts
at Allegory, but three are worthy of mentiun :
Spenser's *Facrie Queen,’ Bunyan's Gia, Sarr
Progress,’ and J. Hyatt Swnith’s ‘Gilead.’ J. Hyatt
Smith is worthy to be so classed, and ought to be
proud to fall in such good company.”

The Buffalo Courier says:—‘ The same rich :m-

aginative glow suffases his written as well as his
unwritten thought.”

Tbe Philadel Christian Chronicle says:—“ Iti
an allegory of rare power and completeness, and
unless we greatly mistake the publio taste, it can
hardly fail of a large and well-deserved favor with

Codet’s Commentary on Luke.

A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke. B
anslated from the

Theology, Neufchatel.

F. Goprtr, Doctor and Professor of
nd French Edition. With Preface

and Notes by John Hall, D.D. New edition, Pee on heavy peper. 2 vols, paper,

684 pp. (Standard Series, octavo, Nos. 61 an

Howard Crosby, D.D., LL.D., says:—“I consider
Godet a man of soundest learning and purest or-
thodoxy. His Luke would be a most acceptable
publication in the form you suggest.”

Wm. M. Taylor, D.D., says: “I consider Godet
an admirable commentator for clearness and sug-
gestiveness.”

Lyman Abbott, D.D., editor Christian Union, says:
“ Gudet’s Commentary combines the critical and
the spiritual, haps more effectually than any
other with which I am acquainted.’

The Cor ist, Boston, says: “A book of
richest and most permanent value to aid in study-
ing Sabbath-school lessons—clear, ugh, criti-

suggestive, insp.ring.”

The Sunday School Times, Pa., says: ‘‘ Godet’s Com-

Gospel of Mark.

, $2.00; 1 vol., 8vo, cloth, $2

mentary is one for which Christian scbolars should
everywhere be grateful. It is fulland refreshing.”

The Advance, Chionge: Til., stvs: ‘* Prof. Godet is
abundantly learned, thoroughly devout and sound.
His style is fresh and often highly sugges.ive.’’

The Central Christian Advocate, St. Louts, Mo.
says: “In Godet we find the highest orltical still
and a devout spirit. We can commend it without
reserve to teachers and students.”

The Zion's Herald, Boston, Mass., says: “As a
commentator. Godet ia eminently clear, orthodox
and s tive. He meets all the destructive cr. ti-
cism of the hour upon the sacred text and its
authenticity, with a firmness of conviction and
fullness of learning which are refreshing. while in
exegetical and homiletical notes he leaves nothing
to be desired.”

From the Teachers’ Edition of the Revised New Testament, with Harmony or the
Gospels, List of Lessons, Maps, etc, Paper, 15 cents; Cloth, 50 cents.

Haif-Dime Hymn Book.
Standard Hymns
Epwarp P. THwina.

Hand-Book of illustrations.

With Biographical Notes of their Authors.
32mo, paper, 96 pp.

Oompiled by Rev.
Each, 6c.; in lots of fifty or more, 5o.

The Preacher's Cabinet. A Hand-Book of Illustrations. By Rev. Epwazp P. Tawma,
author of “ Drill-Book in Vocal Oulture,” ‘Outdoor Life in Europe,” etc. Fourth
edition. 2 vols., 12mo, paper, 144 pp., 50 centa.

Home Altar. |
The Home Altar: An A
for Family Use.
Strangers. Third ediliun.

Brahop eire rays: “This little volume we
have ay mn and again, and cannot s too
well of it. There will be hardly any need of preach-
ing on family prayers where it circulates.

Rev. Dr. Summers says : ‘It seems impossible to
rea | it, and continue delinquent in regard to the
duty in question. The prayers are all catholic and
scriptural.”

Homiletic Monthly.
The Homiletic Monthly. A

terest and instruction. (Su

B v. Coantzes F. Dems, LL.D
12mo, cloth, 281 pp., 75 cents.

eal in Behalfof Family Worship. With Prayers and Hymns

., pastor of the Church of the

Rev W. H. Hunter, Pittsburgh, says: “ The ap-
peal contained in it for family worship is the most
powerful and persuasive we have ever read, and, it
seoms to us, must be irresistible. ’

Rev. Dr. Crooks says: “It is one of the ablest
essiys on Che aubject we have ever read.”’

Rv. Dr. Wellons says: “The argument in favor
of family worship is perfectly irresistible.”

e of Sermons and other matter of Homiletic in-
iption price, $2.50 per year; single numbers, 25

cents.) Volumes III., IV., V., VI., each 8vo, cloth, 724 pp., $3.00.

The ahane eanvhe entil he cont by matl. dostare batd. om vecetbt af the érsre

6 PUBLICATIONS OF FUNK @ WAGNALLS, NEW YORE.

The Homnillist.

By Davi Tuomas, D.D., author of ‘‘The Practical Philosopher,” ‘“‘The Philosophy of
Happiness,” etc., etc. Vol. XII. Editor’s Series (complete in itself), 14mo, cloth,

368 pp., printed on tinted paper, $1.25.

How to Pay Church Debts.

How to Pay Church Debts, and How to Keep Churches out of Debt. By Rev. Syzvanvs

Sratu, 12mo, cloth, 280 pp., $1.50.

The Appeal, Chicago, Ill., says: ‘“‘ The author has
pen the subject much study, ard the book prom-

es to be of meet value to the thousands of
churches to-day burdened with debt, or struggling
to meet current expenszs.”’

The Christian Union, Now York, says: “To any
troubled church or pastor, pining away under pe-
cu difficulties, the sugges.ions here made can-
not to bring relief.”’

Metropolitan Pulpit.

The Lutheran Odserver, Philadelphia, says : ** The
book contains plane and methods whic have been
successfully tried by pastors and congregation, all
over the country.”

The Presbyterran Journal, Philadelphia, Pa.. sys:
“It gives an abundance of plans and methods for
raising money for each and every department of
hashes work, and will be invaluable for all denom-

ons,’

Metropolitan Palpit,The. Containing carefully prepared Condensations of Leading
Sermons, preached in New York and Brooklyn, Outlines of Sermons preached else-

where, an

much other Homiletic matter.

ol. 1. Royal 8vo, cloth, 206 pp., $1.50.

Vol. I1., cloth, enlarged. (Metropolitan Pulpit and Homiletic Monthly.) Royal 8vo,
388 pp., $2.75. Per set, Vols. I. and IL, $4.00.

Murphy’s Commentary.

A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Witha New Translation
By James G. Munpoy, DD. New edition, unabridged. Wita prefavexn {1 Notes by
Joum~ Hatz, D.D. 2 vols., 8vo, paper, 233 pp., $1.00; 1 vol., cloth, $1.50.

«Thus far nothing hasappeared for half-a-cen-
tury on the Pentateuch so valuable as the present
volume (on Exodus). His style is lucid, animated,
and often eloquent. His pages afford golden sug-
gestions and key-thoughts...... Some of the laws
of inter protation a:e scated with so fresh and natu-

Pastor’s Record.

The Pastor’s Record for Study, Work, Appointments and Choir for one year.

ral a clearness and force that they will permane ,, t'y
stand.” — Melsodisi Quarterly.

**As a critical, analytical, candid, and sensible
view of the Sacred Word, this work stands among
the first.’’—C. ¥ Quarterly.

Pre-

pared by Rev. W. T. W118. 12mo, paper, 50 cents; cloth, 75 cents; leather, $1.00.

Popery.

Popery the Foe of the Church and of the Republic.

Rev. JoserH S. Van Drxe,

B
author of **'‘fhrough the Prison to the Throne,”’ eto. bvo, cloth, 304 pp., $1.00.

The Rev. Alexander 7. McGill, D.D., Protessor in
the Theological Sewinary, Princeton, New Jersey,
gays: “I most earnestly commend it as an effort
of great meri', diligence and skillful array of
the facts which are of such fearful moment to the
Church and to thecountry at this hour. ‘This book
will do great g»od in awaxening the apathy, and
engaging a more earnest iuquiry among Protestant
people respecting the insidious, buay, and baleful
advances of this anti-Christian power.”’

The Rev, Joseph T, Duryea, D.D., Pastor of Cen-

tral Congregational Church, Boston, Mass., says
*“[ have read «ith in‘ersst and fit the work en-
titled, *Popary the Foe,’ ets. It iy an excelient
summary of principles and fasts beariug upon the
controversy with the Papal Church. ‘The arrange-
m3nte and oper are sound and strony. It is a
timely contribution to the cause of trus religion
and civil Hberty. ’

The Rev. M. C. Sutphen, D.D., saye: “‘ Eminently
able and timely. It will go like fire, and I hope
will be a part of tho‘ brighto ss o¢ that coming’
which will destroy the ‘ man of sin.’ ””

Teachers’ Edition of the Revised New Testament.
With New Index and Concordance, Harmony of the Gospels, Map:, Parallel Passages in
fall, snd many other Indispensable Helps. All most carefully Prepared. For

Full Particulars of this Invaluable Work, send for Prospectus.

$1.50.

These Sayings of Mine.
‘« These Sayings of Mine.”

Price in Cloth,

Other Prices from $2.50 to $10.00. (See, on another page, what eminent
clergymen aad others say of this worx.)

Sermons on Seven Chapters of the First Gospel.

B
JoserH Parker, J).D. With an introduction by Dr. Deems. 8vo, cloth, 320 pp., $1.50.

Dr. Hoims in How. Mowry says: “Wo especially
congratulate ourselves tust these ser.uons ar
nted essentially as they were deliverei; they
ave not been r>tonched nor polished; they
aro here just a3 they fell on ths ears of the masses
who listened to th>m at th -ir delivery. in tieir
native roughness a.d brokenne3s. Dr. Pirker ul-
ways has a clear apprehension of tie point he
would make, anil he‘ makes’ directly at it with
the boldnes3and dash of a soldier wisa sto-ming
@ tort. We think we would solect Dr. Parxor to

lead a rtorming par‘y rather than Mr. Spurgeon;
h> ha3 more enthu-iasm, and imparts mor.y to his
followers at a given charge tian the oter great
London preacher. Seeming to forget all rules, Dr,
Parker rushes forward with rasistiess cnergy, and
thrus‘s tae bayonet point of truth right intothe
heart of his antagonist.”

The Lonion Ciristian World Pulpit says: ‘*We
have no hsi' ation in describing thesu.‘cxypositiona,’
for such they really are, as mos* luminous in their
interpratatioa of tho Divine sayings. hey glow

The above works will be sent by mai!, postage paid, on receipt of the price.

PUBLICATIONS OF FUNK @ WAGNALLS, NEW YORE. 7

with hcly fire, and they are inspirational alike to
intellect, conscience and huart. it is pre-eminently
a book for preachers. We pity the Christian who
is not stimulated and helpad by this volume, placed
so easily within the reaco of all. The volum» has
interested us beyond measure at times; it has
thrilled us with vital convictions of truth, and, at
the last page, like ‘Oliver Twist,’ we want more.”
The Boston Cmngregationali.é says: ‘‘ They are ex-
ceedingly stirring sermons in the best sense... .
Tney rouse the reader to taxe fresh courage and

make sturdier efforts in Christ’aname.. . . The
prayers which accompany them are remarkable
for tenderness and power.”

The St. Louts Presbyterian says: “The reader
will find much to delight, much to instruct, much
to edify.’’

Tho Syracuse Northern Christian Advocate says:
*«For richness, originality and vividness of though
and for force of expression, these sermons are 20
surpassed by any in tne English language.”

Through the Prison to the Throne.

Through the Prison to the Throne,

Illustrations of Life from the Biography of

Joseph. By Rav. Josepa S. Van Dysz, author of ‘‘ Popery tae Foe of the Church
and of the Republic.” i6mo, cloth, 254 pp., $1.00.

The Treasury of David.

By Rev. Cuantes H. Spurazon. 8vo, Oloth. Price per volume, $2.00.

Spurgeon’s Authnrization.—‘‘ Messrs. I. K. Funk & Oo. have entered into an arrangé-
ment with me to reprint Taz Treasury oy Davin in the United States. I have every
confidence in them that they will issue it ila Oban worthily. It has been the great

literary work of my life, and I trust it will be as

dly received in America as iu Eng-

land. I wish for Messrs. Funk success in a venture which must involve a great risk

aod much outlay.
Dec. 8, 1881.

“*O, H. SrurGeon.”

Vo'umes I., I, IIL, IV., V. and VI. Now Ready.

Philip Scho ff, D.D., the Eminent Commertator and
the Preside»t of the American Bible Revtsion C.mmit-
tee, says: ‘The most important and practical woik
of the age on the Psalter is‘The ‘Treasury of
David,’ by Charles H. Spurgeon. It is tull of the
forse and genius of this celebrated preacher, and
ries in selections from the entire range of litera-

ura.””

Wiliam BM. Taylor, D D., New York, says: “In
the exposition of the heart ‘THe TREascry or
Davin’ is sui generis, rich in exp2rience and pre-emi-
neatly devotivnal. The exposition is always fresh.
To the preacher it is especialy suggestive.”

John Hall, D.D., New York, sa78: *‘ There are two
questions thas must interest every expositor of the
Divine Word. What dves a particular passago
mean, and to what u eis it to bs appliedin publio
teaching? In tie department of ths lat:er Mr.
Spurgeon’s great work on the Psalms is without an
equal. Eminenily pee 1 in his own teaching,
he has collected in these volumes the best thoughts
of the best minds on the Vaalter, and especially
of that great body lousely groupe. together as the
Puritan divines. I am heartily glad that by ar-
rangements, satisfactory to all concerned, the
Messra. Funk & C>. ar; about to bring this great
work within the reac. of ministers everywhere, as
the Engli h edition is necessarily expensive. I
wish thu highest success tu the enterprise.’’

Wiliam Ormiston, D.D., New York, says: “I oon-
sider ‘ Tue Taeasvey or Davip’ a work of surpasa-
ing excellence, of inestimabls value to ev stu.
dent of the Psalter. It will prove a stan work

Van Doren’s Commentary.

on thePsalms forall time. Tho instructive intro
ductions, the racy original expositions, the numer-
ous quaint illusirations gathered trom wide aud
varied fields, and tha suggestive sermonio lL -:.4,
render the volumes invaluabie to all proacuerr, 14
achiteecss to every minister's library. All 4%
delight inreading the Psalms—and what Ohbris? in
does not ’—will prize this work. Itis a rich cycuw-
padia of te literacure of these ancient odes.’

Theo. L. Cuyler, D.D., Brooklyn, aays: “‘I have

2d Mr. Spurgeon’s ‘TrzasuRy oF Davin’ for
three years, and found it worthy of its name
Whoso goeth in there will find ‘rich spoils.’ As
both my visits to Mr. 3. he spoke with much ene
thusiasm of this undertaking a; one of his favorite
me,hods of enrichiay himsef and vthera.”

Jess B. Tiomas, D D., Bro-kiyn, says: “TI have
the highest conception of the sterling worth of all
Mr. Spurgeon’s publications, and I iacline to ree
gard bis ‘ Treasury or Davin’ as having roceived
more of hisloving labor than any other. I regard
ite publication at a lower price as a great scrvice
to American ible Students.”

W. H. Van Doren, D.D., the Author of the “* Suge
gestive Commeniary,’’ says: ‘A life work of the
Prince of Preachers, No minister of tho Church of
Onbrist fur 1300 years has drawn and held such &
number ofh-arers so long. If the secret of his

wer is here revealed, it will be a Treasury, price

in value, for centuries to come.”

Rev. Henry Ward Beecher says: *‘ Whatever comes
from Spurgeon is presumptively good.”

A Be hog be Commentary on Luke, with Critical and Homiletical Notes. By W.

aN Dongen, D.D. Edited by Prof. James Kernahan, London.

4 vols., paper,

1104 pp. (Standard Series, octavo, Nos. 54-57), $3.00; 2 vols., 8vo, cloth, $3.75.

Spurgeon says: “It teems and swarms with homi-
letio hints.’’

Canon Ryls says: “It supplies an astonishing
amount of thought and oritionm,”*

Bishop Cheeny says: “I know ofno volume in my
library I could not consant to spare sooner.”

Dr. Cvever says: “It is the best mulium in parve
I have ever seen,”*

Be The above works witl be sent by mail, postage paid, on receipt of the price.

8 PUBLICATIONS OF FUNK &@ WAGNALLu, NEW YORK.

MISCELLANEOUS WORKS.

Bulwer’s Novels.

Leila; or, The Siege of Granada; and, The Coming Race; or, The New Utopia. By
Epwarp Buiwre, Lord Lytton. 12mo, leatherette, 284 pp., 50 cents; cloth, 75 centa.

- Carlyle’s Sartor Resartus.

Sartor Resartus; The Life and Opinions of Herr Teufeledrickh. By Taomas Osan
Lyte. Paper, 176 pp. (Standard Series, octavo, No. 60), 25 cents; 8vo, cloth, 60 centa,

Dr. John Lord says: ‘Every page is stamped with | philosopher, snd on the homely topio of the phit
genius. It shows pictures of the struggle of the | osophy of clothes, parame ecb dan together much of
eoul which are wonderful.” the deepest speculation. the finest poetry, the no-

Apple'on'’s Encyclopaedia, 1860 edition, * Carlyle,” blest morals, and the wildest humor that his or

published in Fraser’s the most peculiar and re- The Bep'iet Review aays of his book: * You find
markable of all his works—the quaint, the whim- | passages brimful of humor, scathing in their sar-
sical, the protound, the humorous, and the poetic | casm, crystalline in their simplicity, tearful in
“Sartor Resartus,’ into which he seems to have | their pathos, splendid in their uty. You meet

ured all the treasures of his mind and heart, | a ees like that of a spring morning, a suggest-
der the eccentric guise of a vagabond German | iveness that is electrio to the soul.”
Communism.

Communism not the Best Remedy. A pempols: for the times containing the followin
three great discourses in full: *‘ Social Inequalities and Social Wrongs,” by J. i
Rylance, D.D.; ‘‘How a Rich Man may become Very Poor, anda Poor Man Very
Rich,” by Theodor Christlieb, D.D.; ‘‘ Vanities and Verities,” by Rev.O. H. Spur.
geon. 8vo., paper, 10 cents.

Dickens’ Christmas Books.
A Christmas Carol, The Chimes, The Cricket on the Hearth, The Battle of Life, The

Haunted Man. By Cuanizs Dickens, 2 vols., i r, 270 pp. (Standard Series,
octavo, Nos. 48 and 49), 50 cents; 1 vol., 8vo, clo 5 cents,

Disraell’s Lothair.
Lothair. By Rt, Hon. B. Dmeamtz, Earl of Beaconsfield. 2 vols., paper, 255 pp.
(Standard Neries, octavo, Nos. 61 and 62), 50 cents; 1 vol., 8vo, cloth, $1.00.

Drili Book In Vocal Culture.
Drill-Book in Vocal Culture and Gesture. By Bev. Prof. Epwazp P. Tuwma. Sixth
edition. 12mo, manilla, 115 pp., 25 cents.

Five Remarkable Discourses.

“The Voice of God in us,” by RB. 8. Sronns, D.D.; ‘Jesus as a Poet;” by Troms
Anmitacr, D.D. ‘*Protestantism a Failure”—two lectures delivered by F. C. Ewzr;
“The Signs « f the Times—Is Christianity Failing?” by Hmmy Warp Bexcuxs. &vo,
paper, 66 pp., 15 cents.

Culzot’s Life of Calvin.

Jobn Calvi. By M. Gurzor, Member of the Institute of France. 4to, paper (Stand-
ard Series, No. 47), 15 cents; cloth, 12mo, 160 pp., 50 cents.

How to Enjoy Life.
Cle an’s and Students’ Health; or, Physical and Mental Hygiene, the True Way
to Enjoy Life. By Wrutmm Mason Cornett, M.D., LL.D., Fellow of the Massa-
chnsetts Medical Sccie! y, Permanent Member of the American Medical Association.

Fifth Edition, 12mo, cloth, 360 PP.» $1.00.

in Memcriam.—Wm. Cullen Bryant.
4. Funeral Oration. By Hexgy W. Betzows, D.D. 8vo, paper, 10 cente,

f®- The above works will be sent by mail, pos!age paid, on recetpt of the price,

PUBLICATIONS OF FUNK @ WAGNALLS, NEW YORK. 9

Knight’s History of England.

The Popular History of England. A History of Society and Government from the
Earliest Period to our own Times. By CHarres Kuicutr. Tables of Contents, In-
dex, Appendix, Notes and Letterpress unabridged. 8 vols., 4to, paper, 1370 pp,
(Standard Series, Nos. 12-19), $2.80 ; 2 vols., 4to, cloth, $3.75; 4 vols., $4.40; lvol.,
sheep, $4.00; 2 vols., $5.00 ; 1 vol., Fr. im. morocco, $4.50; 2 vols., $5.50.

This is the must complete, and in every way the most desirable History of England

ever written. The former price of this History was $18.00 to $25.00. .
Lord Brmogham aays: ‘ Not has ever ap- ,; or for frequent reading, it is to be preferred to ever:

peared su r,if anything has m published other.”

equal, to the account of the state of commerce, The very thing required by the popular tast

government and society, at different periods.” of the day.’—Kuinburgh Review.

Neah Porvr. D.D , LL.D., says: ‘The best his- “The best plstory extaut, not only for, but alsc
tory of England, for the general reader, is Knight’s | of, the people.”—aAU the Year Rownd.
Populer H.wery. For asingle history which may ‘‘This work is the very best history of Englant
serve for constant use and reference in the library, that we possess.”’ adon Standard,

Lectures by Pere Hyacinthe.

«Respect forthe Trath,” ‘The Reformation of the Famfly,’ ‘‘The Moral Crisis.”
Translated from the French by Rev. Lzonarp Woorssry Bacon, 8vo, paper, 15 centa,

Leech’s Reply. ;
A Magnificent Reply to Ingersoll’s Attack on the Bible. By 8S. V. Lanon, D.D. 8yo,
paper, 10 cents. :

Robert Raikes Centennial Addresses.

The Addresses delivered at the Robert Raikes Centennial Celebration in New York,
by Rev. Dre. J. P. Newman, Thos. Armitage, Rufus W. Olark, Chas, 8. Robinson
B. 8. Storrs, and others. 8vo, paper, 10 cents. |

S‘andard Series—Class A.

Fifteen Volumes by the most eminent Authors. Being Nos. 1, 2, 6, 6 and 7,9 and
10, 11, 20 and 21, 32, 40, 41, 42, 43 of Standard Series. 15 vols., paper, 670 pp., $2.62,
1 vol, 4to, cloth, $3.50.

Talks to Boys and Cliris about Jesus.

Edited by Rev. W. F. Crarrs. Contains one or more sermons on each of the Interna-
tional 8. 8. Lessons for 1882, by more than thirty of the world’s ablest preachers to
children. An excellent book for holiday presents; finely illustrated by twenty fri!

page engravings. 400 pages 12mo., cloth, $1.50. Same, without illustrations, 75 cents,

LATEST ISSUES.
Talks To Farmers.
A new book of 19 sermons to farmers, by Cuantzes H. Spurazon. The following list
of subjects will show its importance in the way of suggestions to every clergyman whc
has farmers or lovers of nature in his congregation:

1, The Sl ’s Farm. 11. What the Farm Laborers can do, anu
2. The Broken Fence. what they cannot do.
8. Frost and Thaw. 12. The Sheep before the Shearers,
4. The Corn of Wheat dying to bring forth | 13. In the Hay-Field.

Fruit. 14, The Joy of Harveat.
5. The Ploughman, 15. satya Gleaning.
6. Ploughing the Rock. 16, Meal-time in the Oornfields,
7. The Parable of the Sower. 17. The Loaded Wagon.
8. The Principal Wheat. 18, Threshing.
9. Spring in the Heart, 19. Wheat in the Barn.

10. Farm Laborers.
Price $1.00.

Gems of Iliustrations.

From the writings of Dr. Gurmem, arranged under the subjects whion they fllus
trate. mY roe clergyman. A priceless book for clergymen and all publio teach
Ors. ice .OV,

CB” The abvve works will be sent by matl, postage paid, on receipt of the price.

10 PUBLICATIONS OF FUNK &@ WAGNALLS, NEW YORK.

Burial of the Dead.

By Rev. Greoncs Durrie1p, D.D., axp Rev. Sammut W. Durrrep.

A Pastor’s Complete Hand-Book for Funeral Services, and for the consolation and
comfort of the afflicted. This work is a complete handy-volume for all purposes con
nected with the Burial of the Dead, It is arranged, for ease of reference, in four parts.

Entirely practical, wholly uusectarian, and far in advance of all other Manuals og
the kind. Price, Cloth, 75 cents; limp leather, $1.00.

The Deems Birthday Book.
By Sana Keasies Hunt.

This book is being gotten up in beautiful style, making it a very acceptable present
for birthdays or other occasions. It contains some hundreds of the choicest extracts of
the writings and addresses of Dr.Charles F, Deems, the well-known pastor of the Church
of the Strangers, New York.

These extracts are printed on the left-hand pages throughout the book. On the
right-hand pages are printed the days of the year; two dates to each page, one at the to
and one in the middle of the page; for pee i e, on first date page, Junuary 1st is printe
on thetop, an 1 J muary 2d at the middle of the page. Under each date there is space for
a number of friends to write their names, each name to be written under the date of the
birth of the writer, so that at a glance at the book the owner can tell the birthday of each
of his friends.

The book thus serves as a most convenient autograph album.

Each volume contains a number of audéographs of leading clergymen, as Spurgeon,
John Hall, Canon Farrar, Phillips Brooks, etc., etc. At the close there are a number of
blank pages on which are to be written, in alphabetical order, the names of all your
friends contained in the book. The book has fora frontispiece a very fine vignette
portrait of Dr. Deems.

What could be a more pleasing and appropriate present than this book? Every
family should have one.

Price, Cloth, Plain Edges, $1.00; Gilt Edges, $1.25.
The Diary of a Minister’s Wife.

By Atmepu M. Brown.

One editor says of it: ‘*Some Itinerant’s wife has been giving her experience out
of meeting.”

Says one who has lived in the family of a minister for over a quarter of a century:
“It’s funny; yes, it’s very seme Hy but it’s true—it’s all true. Let those who want to
know the ups and downs of the life of a minister and his wife read this book.’’

Another reader says of it: ‘‘I have never read a book in which I was so much inter-
ested and amused atthe same time. Tke story of the triels of Mrs. Hardscrabble with
the ‘ Doolittles’ is alone worth ten times the cost of the book. Every one should buy
it, and let his minister and his wife read it.”

Oomplete Edition, 12mo, 544 pages; Handsomely Bound in cloth, Price $1.50,

What Our Clris Ought to Know.

By Mary J. Srupiey, M.D.

A most practical and valuable book; should be placed in the hands of every girl.

Intelligently read, it will accomplish much in the elevation of the human race,

The book is full of the most practical information—just what every girl ought te
know—m ust know.

Clergymen and others who have occasion to address, in sermon or lecture, girls,
will find this book ‘‘crammed with suggestiveness.”

The author, Dr. Mary J. Studley, was a physician of large practice and great
success. She was a graduate, resident physician and teacher of the natural sciences, in
the State Normal School, Framingham, Mass., also graduate of the Woman’s Medical
College, New York: Dr, Emily Blackwell, Secretary of the Faculty, and Dr. Willard
Parker, Chairman of the Board of Examiners.

Price, $1.00.

JE he above works will be sent by matl, bostage paid, on receipt of the price,

PUBLICATIONS OF FUNK @ WAGNALLS, NEW YORK. li.
¢

The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopzedia of Religious Knowledge.
By Rev. Pao Scuaarr, D.D., LL.D. Having over 300 contributors. In three large
royal octavo volumes, Vol. I. issued November, 1882 ; Vol. II. ready February, 1883;
Vol. Il. ready November, 1883. Cloth, $6.00 ; sheep, $7.50; half morocco, $9.00 ;
fall morocco, gilt, $12.00.
SOLD ONLY BY SUBSORIPTION.
f= If any one desires to examine Vol. I. of this great work before subscribing, he
can do so by sending us his name and address. We will have a canvasser call upon
him, and show him a volume.

Mieyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts
of the Apostles.

The American edition bas an Introduction and Notes by the eminent scholar and
preacher, WirLu1am Orsaston, D.D. Meyer’s series of Great Commentaries on the
New Tes’ament are easily in the front rank of scholarly biblical works. 1 Vol. 8vo,
cloth, price $2.50.

go says: ‘‘ This is a very learned Commentary, of which Bishop Elliot speaks in the highest

Godet’s Commentary on Romans.

The American edition is edited by Tansor W. Cuamners, D.D. Those who purchased
Godet’s Luke need not be told how valuable this new work of Godet’s will prove to
Clergymen. Dr. Howard Crosby says: ‘‘I consider Godet a man of soundest learn-
ing and purest orthodoxy.” 1 vol. 8vo, cloth, price $2.50.

Oehier’s Theology of the Old Testament.
The American edition edited by Prof. Grorcz E. Day, D.D., of Yale College. A very
great work. It has been introduced as a class-book at Yale and other Seminaries.
In both this country and Europe it is universally praised. No Clergyman, or other
Bible student, can afford to be without it. 1 vol. 8vo, cloth, price $2.50.

Analytical Concordance to 8,000 Changes in the Revised
New Testament.
By Rozsget Youna, D.D., LL.D., author of Young's Concordance to the Bible, ete.,
eto, 8vo, 24 pp., price, paper, 49 cents. 12mo, 72 pp., price, paper, 40 cents.

Henry Ward Beecher’s Remarkable Statement of his Doc-
trinal Beliefs and Unbellofs,
Before the Congregational Association of New York and Brooklyn, October 10, 1882.
Price 10 cents.

Young’s Companion to the Revised New Testament.
By Rosert Youna, D.D., author of Young's Concordance, etc., etc. Cloth, 75 cents,

The Rock that Is Higher Than I.
By Rzv. Jonn Enea Jounson. This is a beautiful gift book suitable at all seasons,
8vo, cloth, very neat, 75 cents.

A Compend of Baptism.

By Wirutuam Hammon, D.D. It contains in brief the cream of the literature on the
Baptism controversy. Its aim is, by brief but exhaustive exegesis, to elucidate and
establish the fact clearly that affusion is at least as classical and scriptural a mode of
Baptism as immersion, and that infants are entitled to it as their biblical right.
12mo, cloth, price 75 cents.

GP” The above works will be sent by mail, postage paid, on receipt of the price.

12 PUBLICATIONS OF FUNK &@ WAGNALLS, NEW YORK.

A Commentary on the Catholic Episties.
By Joux T. Demangst, D.D. This commentary is meeting the approval of leading
Clergymen. Itisathorough work. The press is very hearty in its commendatioa-
Svo, pp. 650, price $2.00.

The Gospel by Mark In Phonetic Spelling.

By 0. W. K. Issued to ijlustrate the reform in spelling as suggested by ar able advo-
cate of this movement. Tho system suggested is certainly novel, but has many
arguments in its favor. In our judgment, it is the best yet presented. As a help
to the discussion we commend this ‘‘Gospel of Mark Phonetic.” Price 15 cents,
cloth 40 cents.

Early Days of Christianity.
By Canon Farrar. From the imported plates. Authorized edition without abridge-
ment. Price, cloth 75 cents ; paper 40 cents.

Henry Ward Beecher: Aspects of his Life.

By Lyman Azsort, D.D. Finely Tlustrated. 8vo, 600 pages, cloth, $3.00; sheep, $4.50 ;
half morocco $6.00 ; full morocoo, gilt, $7.00. Memorial copy, extra fine, $10, Sold
only by Subscription.

f® Not for sale at the Bookstores. Send us your address and an agent will call
and show you a copy.

Heroes and Holidays. Ten Minute Sermons to Boys and
pies on the International Sunday-School. Lessons for
| «

These sermons are by the following well-known preachers of the United States and
England: Rev. W. F. Crafts, Rev. J. G. Merrill, Rev. Mark Guy Pearse, Rev. T, L. Cuyler,
D.D., Rev. Richard Newton, D.D., Rev. BR. 8. Storrs, D.D., Rev. Anna Oliver, Rev. B. T.
Vincent, Rev. J. L. Hurlbut, Rev. 8. H. Virgin, Rev. Hiles Pardoe and others. The
book is edited by Rev. W. F. Crafts. It is illustrated with Forty New Cuts and many
incidents and object-illustrations,

This book will be found very helpful to pastors who speak to teachers and scholars
on the lessons, A beautiful book for a Present, Over 454 pages; 12mo, Ilustrated.
Price, in paper, two parts, for each, 30 cents; both, 60 cents; cloth, $1.25.

The Revisers’ English.
A spicy criticism on the English of the Revisers of the New Testament. By Rzv. Gzo
WasHineton Moon, of England. 12mo, cloth, 75 cents.

The Conversion of Children. With Hundreds of Incidents.
By Rev. E. P. Hasmonp, the Children’s Evangelist. A book that should be studied
by all lovers and teachers of children. Price, paper bound, 80 cents ; cloth, 75 ctr.

SruRGEON says: “ My conviction is that our con-| THE CHRISTIAN ar Work, Now York says: “‘A care-
verts from among children are the very best we have. | ful perural must convince the moat skepti al mind
I should judge them to be more numerously genuine | not only that young children are converted, but a
than any other class; more constant,and in the tong | fall belief in the possibility of very young children
run more sohd.” being converted.’

The Child’s Gulde to Heaven; er, Stories for Children.
Also, by Rev. E. P. Hammonp. Price in paper, 10 cents; leatherette, 25 cents,

The Blood of Jesus.
By Rev. Wm. Rem, M. A. With an Introduction by Rev. E. P. Hammond. Price,
paper, 10 eents ; cloth, 40 cents.
Says President Marx Horxmss, of Williams College: “It is the true view of the Gospel and adapted
to do great good.”

BGS” The above works will be sent by mail, postage paid, on receipt of the price.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Critical Exegetical Handbook New Testament 11 volumes"

See other formats