Skip to main content

Full text of "The Acts of the Apostles explained.."

See other formats 


/a.. 2. 3.  o5". 


PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^^ 


Presented    by(S\fi/Or'c(  S.  Vxo  O\rA^0r\~I3:ZD.' 


O 


Division 


I)5ZL2.5 


Section  .f..f^.D..LiO 

I8(p7 


THE 


ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES 


EXPLAINED 


JOSEPH  ADDISON  ALEXANDER 


IN   TWO    VOLUMES 
VOLUME   I 

THIRD    EDITION, 

NEW  YORK : 
OHAPvLES  SCPJBNER  &  CO.,  654  BROADWAY. 

1807. 


Ejtteekd,  accordmg  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1S57,  bj 

JOSEPH  ADDISON  ALEXANDEB, 

1*  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  United  States  District  Ck)nrt  for  the  District  of  New  Jersey. 


J0H5  F.  ISOT, 

BEOTTTZa,  AST)  rXXCTROTTTZB, 

i?  ic  50  Greene  Street, 
ye^  York. 


PREFACE. 

The  materials  of  ttiis  book  wexe  collected  in  a  course 
of  academical  instruction,  and  prepared  for  publication, 
in  the  first  instance,  with  a  view  to  the  peculiar  wants 
of  mmisters  and  students.  But  after  the  first  chapter 
was  in  tj-pe,  the  writer  was  induced  to  recommence 
the  work  upon  a  new  plan,  in  the  hope  of  making  it 
more  srenerallv  useful,  by  the  reduction  of  its  size,  and 
the  omission  of  all  matter  supposed  to  be  interesting 
only  to  professional  or  educated  readers.  This  will 
account  for  the  prominence  given  to  the  EngHsh  ver- 
sion, the  exclusion  (for  the  most  part)  of  the  Greek  text, 
and  the  absence  of  any  detailed  reference  to  other 
writers.  It  will  be  found,  however,  that  the  constant 
subject  of  tlie  exposition  is  the  iaspired  original,  and 
that  one  of  its  main  objects  is  to  perfect  the  translation, 
so  as  to  place  the  Enghsli  reader  as  nearly  as  possible 
on  the  same  footing  with  the  student  of  the  Gi^k 


PEBF ACE. 


text.  In  attempting  to  effect  the  change  of  form 
already  mentioned,  it  has  sometimes  been  difficult  to 
obliterate  all  trace  of  the  original  design ;  but  this,  it 
is  hoped,  will  be  considered  rather  a  literary  blemish 
than  a  practical  inconvenience.  The  numerous  cita- 
tions have  been  carefully  selected,  for  the  benefit  of 
those  who  wish  to  master  the  analogy  and  usage  of  the 
Scriptures ;  and  the  frequent  reference  from  one  part 
of  the  commentary  to  another  is  intended  to  fit  it  for 
occasional  consultation  as  well  as  for  continuous  perusal. 
It  may  not  be  superfluous  to  add,  that  the  purpose  of 
the  work,  as  indicated  by  the  title,  is  simple  explanation 
of  the  sense  and  illustration  of  the  history,  leaving  all 
further  uses,  and  among  the  rest  all  practical  improve- 
ment, to  those  who  may  avail  themselves  of  its  as- 
sistance, and  especially  to  such  as  may  employ  it  in 
historical  as  well  as  exegetical  instruction, 
Peinceton,  June  1,  1867. 


INTRODUCTION. 


The  Biblical  History  consists  of  two  great  parts,  contained  in 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments  respectively.  The  New  Testa- 
ment  portion  naturally  falls  into  two  divisions ;  the  Gospel 
History,  or  Life  of  Christ,  from  his  birth  to  his  ascension ;  and 
the  Apostolical  History,  from  his  ascension  to  the  close  of  the 
canon.  The  Apostolical  History  may  again  be  subdivided 
into  two  parts ;  a  connected  narrative,  extending  from  our 
Lord's  ascension  to  the  second  year  of  Paul's  captivity  at 
Rome;  and  a  body  of  detached  and  incidental  statements, 
scattered  through  the  other  books  of  the  New  Testament. 

The  materials  of  this  last  class  may  be  used  to  illustrate 
and  complete  the  other,  but  are  not  to  be  confounded  or  in- 
corporated with  it.  This  is  forbidden,  first,  by  the  uncertain 
chronological  relations  of  these  insulated  data  to  the  forma? 
history  recorded  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  For  example, 
the  account  of  Paul's  visits  to  Jerusalem  and  Corinth,  as  given 
in  the  Acts  and  in  his  own  Epistles,  although  no  doubt  per- 
fectly  consistent,  cannot  be  reduced  to  one  harmonic  view, 
except  by  probable  approximation,  quite  sufficient   for   all 


IV  INTEODtJCTION. 

necessary  uses,  whether  exegetical  or  apologetical,  but  not 
for  a  precise  specification  of  the  corresponding  points  in  the 
collateral  or  parallel  authorities.  The  same  thing  is  still  more 
emphatically  true  as  to  the  dates  of  Paul's  Epistles,  some  of 
which  are  still  disputed,  and  the  rest,  though  commonly 
agreed  upon,  are  still  not  so  absolutely  certain  as  to  justify 
their  being  made  a  part  of  the  authoritative  narrative,  and 
put  upon  a  level  with  the  facts  there  positively  stated. 

Another  objection  to  the  actual  insertion  of  these  supple- 
mentary details  into  the  history  is  the  violence  done  to  its  in- 
tegrity and  unity,  as  being  not  a  mere  collection  of  materials 
but  a  regular  historical  composition,  the  plan  and  character  of 
which  depend  as  much  on  the  omission  or  exclusion  as  upon 
the  introduction,  both  of  general  topics  and  minute  particu- 
lars. The  choice  between  these  rests  exclusively  with  the  his- 
torian, and  any  foreign  interference,  though  it  may  enrich  the 
composition  as  a  storehouse  of  materials,  must  impair  its  one- 
ness, as  an  intellectual  creation,  and  the  realization  of  a  defi- 
nite idea.  The  omissions  in  any  of  the  sacred  histories  are 
not  inadvertent  or  fortuitous,  much  less  the  fruit  of  ignorance 
or  want  of  skill,  to  be  supplied  by  subsequent  interpolation, 
hut  belong  to  the  original  design  and  must  be  left  untouched, 
excepting  in  the  way  of  illustration  and  interpretation.  This 
is  the  use  which  it  is  here  proposed  to  make  of  the  detached 
and  incidental  facts  found  elsewhere,  in  explaining  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles,  as  a  complete  and  independent  history,  con- 
structed on  a  rational,  consistent  plan,  designed  to  make  a 
definite  impression  and  to  answer  a  specific  purpose. 

This  description  can  be  fully  verified  by  nothing  less  than 
a  detailed  examination  of  the  book  itself;  but  a  compendious 
statement  of  the  grounds  on  which  it  rests  will  be  given  in  its 
proper  place  below,  as  a  part  of  this  general  introduction.  In 
the  mean  time  its  truth  may  be  assumed  and  used  to  prove 
that  the  book  is  not  a  mere  farrago  of  heterogeneous  frag- 
ments, or  a  collection  of  independent  documents,  or  a  series 
r»f  anecdotes  or  desultory  recollections,  but  the  continuoitf 


INTRODUCTION.  f 

and  systematic  product  of  a  single  mind.  The  conclusion  thus 
drawn  from  the  unity  of  purpose  traceable  throughout  the 
book  is  confirmed  by  its  marked  uniformity  of  style  and  man- 
ner. While  the  Greek  of  this  book  is  comparatively  classical 
and  pure,  it  has  peculiarities  of  language,  not  the  less  real  be- 
cause slight  and  unimportant  in  themselves,  distinguishing  its 
style  from  every  other  except  that  of  the  third  Gospel,  which, 
besides  a  general  resemblance  not  to  be  mistaken,  coincides 
with  it  in  some  of  its  iru)st  striking  singularities  of  thought 
and  diction.  This  remarkable  coincidence  creates  of  course  a 
strong  presumption  that  the  two  books  which  exhibit  it  are 
works  of  the  same  author.  This  presumption  is  still  further 
strengthened  by  the  fact,  that  the  two  together  make  up  an 
unbroken  history,  the  one  beginning  where  the  other  ends,  to 
wit,  at  the  Ascension.  It  is  further  strengthened  by  the  later 
book's  purporting  on  its  face  to  be  the  sequel  or  continuation 
of  another,  the  contents  of  which,  as  there  described  (Acts  1, 
1),  exactly  correspond  to  those  of  the  third  gospel.  It  is  still 
further  strengthened  by  the  circumstance  that  both  books  are 
inscribed  to  the  same  man  (Theophilus),  and  seem  to  have 
been  primarily  meant  for  his  instruction.  AU  these  considera- 
tions go  to  confirm,  and  are  themselves  confirmed  by,  the 
unanimous  tradition  of  the  ancient  church,  that  the  third 
Gospel  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  are  works  of  the  same 
author. 

In  attempting  to  determine  who  the  author  was,  we  find 
that  this,  hke  all  the  other  histories  of  Scripture,  is  anonymous. 
Even  the  titles  of  the  Pentateuch  and  Gospels,  though  correct, 
are  traditional,  and  form  no  part  of  the  text  itself.  This  usage 
is  the  more  remarkable  because  the  contrary  is  uniformly  true 
as  to  the  prophecies,  in  all  of  which  the  writer's  name  is  given, 
not  excepting  the  Apocalypse,  in  which  John  names  himself 
repeatedly,  although  he  never  does  so  in  his  Gospel,  nor  in 
either  of  his  three  Epistles. 

When  we  look  into  the  Acts  for  some  internal  indication 
>f  its  origin,  we  find  in  certain  parts  (ch.  xvi.  xx.  xxi.  xxvxi. 


Wl  INTEODUCTION. 

xxviii)  the  first  person  plural  {we  and  us)^  implying  that  the 
writer  was  an  eye-witness  of  the  circumstances  there  recorded, 
which  in  all  such  cases  are  detailed  with  an  unusual  precision 
and  minuteness  as  to  times  and  places,  showing  that  the  form 
of  speech  in  question  is  not  merely  accidental  or  unmeaning, 
but  expressive  of  a  personal  and  Hvely  recollection  on  the  part 
of  the  historian. 

Some  have  attempted  to  account  for  this  phenomenon  by 
supposing  that  these  portions  of  the  narrative  were  taken  from 
the  notes  or  journals  of  those  actually  present,  and  incorporat- 
ed Tvdthout  change  into  the  history.  But  this  is  to  get  rid 
of  a  supposed  improbability  by  means  of  one  still  greater,  since 
tne  supposition  of  two  wiiters  is  less  obvious  and  natural  than 
that  of  one.  For  if  we  may  assume  without  proof  that  the 
historian  derived  this  part  of  his  materials  from  one  who  wit- 
nessed the  events,  much  more  may  we  assume  that  the  histo- 
rian witnessed  them  himself.  It  may  be  said,  indeed,  that  if 
this  were  the  case,  the  same  form  of  expression  would  have 
been  employed  throughout.  To  this  it  may  be  answered,  in 
the  first  place,  that  the  writer,  although  constantly  present, 
might  refer  to  himself  only  when  directly  acting  or  concerned 
In  the  events  related ;  and  in  the  next  place,  that  he  may  not 
have  been  always  personally  present,  which,  as  we  shall  see,  is 
probably  the  true  solution. 

Another  objection  to  the  supposition  of  incorporated  docu 
ments  from  other  sources  is,  that  a  writer  who  was  capable  of 
planning  and  composing  such  a  history  as  this,  would  be  l-uca- 
pable  of  thus  inserting  extracts  from  the  manuscripts  of  others 
in  their  crude  state,  without  either  intimating  that  they  were 
su  or  assimilatiug  them  in  form  to  his  own  context. 

The  only  remaining  supposition  is,  that  the  writer  of  the 
history  was  at  least  occasionally  one  of  Paul's  travelling  com- 
panions. Now  of  these  we  know  that  some  of  the  most  emi- 
nent, particularly  Silas  and  Timothy,  were  present  upon  some 
of  the  occasions  here  recorded,  and  we  therefore  naturally 
think  of  them,  or  one  of  them,  as  probably  the  writer.     But 


INTEODUCTION.  VK 

to  this  there  are  objections  both  internal  and  external.  The 
use  of  the  first  person  begins  at  Troas  and  ceases  at  Philippi 
(16, 10. 18)  ;  but  Snas  and  Timothy  had  joined  Paul  long  be- 
fore (15,  40.  16,  3),  and  were  with  him  in  Thessalonica  and 
Berea  (17,  1.  14),  and  afterwards  rejoined  him  in  Corinth 
(18,  5.)  Yet  in  all  these  movements,  there  is  no  mdication  of 
the  writer's  presence  by  the  use  of  the  first  person.  And 
when  this  peculiar  form  of  speech  does  re-appear,  it  is  so  em- 
ployed as  to  distinguish  Timothy  at  least  from  the  historian, 
by  expressly  saying,  "  these  (among  whom  he  is  by  name  in- 
cluded) going  before,  waited  for  us  at  Troas  "  (20,  4.  5.)  An- 
other objection,  both  to  Timothy  and  Silas,  as  the  author  of 
the  history,  is  that  so  eminent  a  name  would  have  been  per- 
petuated by  tradition,  which  is  only  too  apt  to  connect  such 
names  with  famous  writings  and  achievements,  as  for  instance 
to  make  aU  the  persons  mentioned  in  the  Acts  and  Apostolical 
Epistles  bishops  of  the  places  where  they  seem  to  have  resided. 
In  the  present  case  it  would  be  wholly  unaccountable,  that 
such  names  as  those  of  Timothy  and  Silas  should  be  dropped 
or  exchanged  for  one  otherwise  unknown. 

This  is  the  name  of  Luke,  whom  an  ancient  and  uniform 
tradition  recognizes  as  the  author,  both  of  the  third  Gospel 
and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  The  only  supposition  that  ac- 
counts for  the  origin  of  this  tradition  is  the  simple  supposition 
of  its  truth.  It  may  therefore  be  added  to  the  internal  evi- 
dence already  state'i,  as  a  ground  for  the  conclusion  that  the 
writer  of  both  books  was  Luke,  who  is  three  times  named  in 
Paul's  epistles,  once  as  a  companion  (2  Tim.  4, 11),  once  as  a 
fellow-labourer  (Philem.  24),  and  once  as  a  beloved  physician 
(Col.  4, 11.)  This  is  absolutely  all  the  information  with  respect 
to  Luke  afforded  directly  by  the  books  of  the  ^N'ew  Testament, 
though  other  facts  have  been  deduced  from  these  by  inference 
and  combination.  The  name,  in  its  original  form  {Znj.cas)^  is 
most  probably  contracted  from  Lucanus,  Lucius,  or  Lucilius, 
this"  termination  {as)  being  commonly  used  in  such  abbrevia^ 
vions,  as  in  Demas  from  Demetrius,  Silas  from  Silvanus.  Antl 


Vm  INTRODUCTION. 

pas  from  Antipater,  &c.  On  the  ground  that  such  contracted 
names  were  often  borne  by  freedmen  or  emancipated  slaves, 
and  that  Greek  slaves  were  in  that  age  the  physicians  of  their 
Roman  masters,  Grotius  builds  the  fanciful  hypothesis  that 
Luke  was  a  freedman  of  the  Lucian  or  Lucilian  family.  A 
less  extravagant  but  still  precarious  conjecture  would  identify 
him  with  the  Imcius  of  Acts  13, 1  and  Rom.  16,  21.  Connect- 
ed with  the  former  name,  perhaps,  is  the  old  tradition  of  his 
being  born  or  resident  at  Antioch,  and  there  first  introduced 
to  Paul's  acquaintance.  From  the  way  in  which  he  is  sup- 
posed to  be  distinguished  from  the  "  circumcision  "  (in  Col.  4, 
11),  some  infer  that  he  was  certainly  a  Gentile,  which  is  also 
thought  to  be  confirmed  by  his  apparent  reference  to  Gentile 
rather  than  to  Jewish  readers.  The  notion  that  he  was  a 
painter  is  comparatively  recent  and  perhaps  occasioned  by  a 
misconstruction  of  some  reference  to  his  graphic  or  descriptive 
mode  of  writing  history.  Some  have  imagined  that  Paul  calls 
him  a  physician  in  a  metaphorical  or  spiritual  sense,  as  Christ 
called  his  first  disciples  "  fishers  of  men."  But  even  this  de- 
scription presupposes  that  they  had  been  literally  fishermen, 
and  no  good  reason  can  be  given  for  the  special  application  of 
this  name  to  Luke's  spiritual  ministry,  unless  it  was  descrip- 
tive of  his  secular  profession.  It  is  probable,  however,  from 
Philem.  24,  that  he  exercised  the  cure  of  souls  as  well  as 
bodies.  The  traces  of  his  medical  profession,  found  by  many 
in  his  writings,  although  faint  and  doubtful,  will  be  noticed  as 
they  present  themselves  in  the  progress  of  the  exposition. 

This  remarkable  dearth  of  information  as  to  Luke,  beyond 
his  name,  profession,  and  the  general  fact-  that  he  was  one  of 
Paul's  most  intimate  associates,  and  perhaps  for  many  years 
his  medical  attendant,  gives  the  more  importance  to  the  uni- 
form tradition  of  the  early  church,  not  only  that  he  wrote 
these  books,  but  that  he  wrote  them  under  Paul's  direction 
and  control,  thereby  imparting  to  them,  in  addition  to  the 
common  seal  of  inspiration,  the  specific  stamp  of  apostolical 
authority.    Another  tradition  represents  the  second  Gospel  as 


JNTKODUCTION.  IX 

biistaining  a  similar  relation  to  Mark  as  its  immediate  author, 
and  to^  Peter  as  its  apostolical  endorser,  and  the  source  fi*ora 
which  some  of  its  most  interesting  statements  were  du-ectly 
drawn.  These  traditions,  though  intrinsically  not  improbable, 
may  possibly  have  sprung  fi'om  the  supposed  necessity  of  giving 
to  the  second  and  third  gosj)els,  though  not  written  by  apostles, 
an  equality  of  rank  and  honour  with  the  first  and  fourth, 
which  were  so  written. 

However  this  may  be,  the  canonical  authority  of  Acts  has 
never  been  disputed  in  the  church  at  large,  the  book  having 
always  formed  a  part  of  the  New  Testament  Canon,  as  far 
back  as  its  history  can  now  be  traced.  It  was  rejected  by 
some  ancient  heretics  for  obvious  reasons,  as  opposed  to  their 
peculiar  notions ;  by  the  Manichees,  because  it  represents  the 
Holy  Spirit  (and  not  Manes)  as  the  promised  Comforter ;  by 
the  Encratites,  because  it  showed  their  meritorious  absti- 
nences to  be  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine  and  the  practice 
of  the  early  church ;  by  the  Ebionites,  because  it  proved  the 
ceremonial  law  to  be  a  temporary  institution;  by  the  Mar 
cionites,  because  it  recognized  it,  while  it  lasted,  as  divine  and 
sacred.  On  the  other  hand,  the  book  is  found  in  aU  the  an- 
cient catalogues  of  orthodox  or  catholic  authority,  and  quoted 
(or  referred  to)  by  the  earliest  Christian  writers,  fi'om  Clement 
of  Rome  in  the  first  century  to  Irenseus  at  the  close  of  the 
second,  in  whose  extant  works  a  modern  writer  has  discovered 
more  than  thirty  citations  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 
That  the  book  was  not  received  from  the  beginning  as  canoni- 
cal, has  been  inferred  by  some  from  an  expression  of  Chrysos- 
tom,  that  many  in  his  day  were  not  aware  of  its  existence. 
But  this,  if  genuine,  which  has  been  doubted,  is  a  mere  rhe- 
torical hyperbole,  intended  to  rebuke  in  strong  terms  the 
neglect  of  this  important  part  of  Scripture.  The  same  thing 
might  be  said  now,  in  the  same  sense,  as  to  other  books,  the 
canonicity  of  which  has  never  been  disputed. 

It  is  no  doubt  true,  that  certain  parts  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, in   ancient  as  in  modern   times,  were  more  read  and 


X  INTKODUCTION. 

therefore  better  known  than  others.  It  must  be  remembered 
that  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  were  separately  wi'itten, 
and  origmally  circulated  one  by  one,  but  gradually  gathered 
into  groups  or  classes,  and  eventually  mto  one  complete  col- 
lection. One  of  the  earliest  divisions  of  the  canon,  which  wt 
know  to  have  prevailed  before  the  time  of  Origen,  was  into 
two  unequal  parts  called  Gospel  and  Apostle  ;  the  first  con- 
taining the  four  Gospels  by  themselves,  not  as  superior  to  the 
rest  in  inspiration  or  authority,  but  only  in  dignity  of  subject, 
as  exhibiting  the  Life  of  Christ,  and  also  as  the  chronological 
basis  of  the  whole,  corresponding  to  the  Books  of  Moses  in 
the  Hebrew  Canon.  The  other  division,  being  not  only  larger 
but  more  miscellaneous,  was  familiarly  subdivided  into  several, 
one  containing  Paul's  Epistles,  another  the  Apocalypse,  another 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  another  the  Cathohc  Epistles, 
the  two  last,  however,  being  often  jomed  together,  that  is, 
written  in  one  volume. 

That  these  conventional  di^'isions  of  the  Canon  were  not 
transcribed  with  equal  frequency,  we  learn  from  a  comparison 
of  extant  manuscripts.  Of  those  collated  by  the  modern 
critics  (excluding  JLectionaries^  or  selected  lessons  used  in 
ancient  worship)  it  may  be  stated  in  round  numbers,  that  the 
Gospels  are  found  in  above  five  hundred,  the  Epistles  of  Paul 
In  about  three  hundred,  the  Catholic  Epistles  and  the  Acts  in 
above  two  hundred,  and  the  Book  of  Revelation  in  about  one 
hundred.  Of  the  two  hundred  manuscripts  (or  more)  con- 
taining Acts,  eight  or  nine  are  of  the  Uncial  or  most  ancient 
class,  written  in  capital  letters,  for  the  most  part  without  ac- 
cents, breathings,  stops,  or  even  spaces  between  the  words,  the 
common  use  of  all  which  is  a  sign  of  later  date.  Among  these 
are  the  four  oldest  copies  of  the  Greek  Testament  known  to 
be  extant,  and  distinguished  in  the  latest  critical  editions  by 
the  four  first  letters  of  the  alphabet.  A.  The  Codex  Alexan- 
drinus,  in  the  British  Museum.  B.  The  Codex  Vaticanus,  in 
the  Papal  Library  at  Rome.  C.  The  Codex  Ephraemi,  in  the 
Imperial  Library  at  Paris.    D.  The  Codex  Bezse,  in  the  Uni- 


INTRODUCTION.  XI 

versity  Library  at  Cambridge.  The  precise  d^e  of  these  manu- 
scripts is  still  disputed,  but  is  now  commonly  agreed  to  range 
from  the  fourth  to  the  sixth  centuries  inclusive.  From  this  it 
follows  that,  although  the  extant  copies  of  the  Acts  are  far 
less  numerous  than  those  of  the  Gospels  or  of  Paul's  Epistles, 
they  include  the  very  manuscripts  whose  aid  is  most  important 
in  determming  the  true  text  even  of  those  other  books. 

Besides  the  preservation  of  the  Greek  text  in  these  copies, 
the  book  has  also  been  preserved  in  several  ancient  versions, 
the  most  important  of  which  are  the  Syi'iac  Peshito,  made  in 
the  third  if  not  the  second  century,  and  the  Latin  Yulgate, 
made  by  Jerome,  on  the  basis  of  an  old  Italic  version,  near 
the  close  of  the  fourth  century.  Other  early  versions,  from 
the  third  to  the  ninth  century,  are  the  Egyptian  in  two  dia- 
lects, the  Ethiopic,  Gothic,  Armenian,  Georgian,  Arabic,  and 
Slavonic.  Occasional  reference  will  be  made,  in  the  following 
exposition,  to  some  modern  versions,  more  especially  to  Lu- 
ther's, and  the  six  old  English  versions,  those  of  Wiclif  (1380), 
Tyndale  (1534),  Cranmer  (1539),  the  Geneva  Bible  (1557),  the 
Rhemish  Version  (1582),  and  King  James's  Bible  (1611),  the 
last  of  which  is  stiU  in  common  use.  T^wo  of  these,  Wiclif 's 
and  the  Rhemish,  are  translations  of  the  Vulgate ;  Cranmer's 
is  little  more  than  a  reprint  of  Tyndale's,  with  a  few  unimpor- 
tant variations ;  the  same  is  true,  but  in  a  less  degree,  of  the 
Geneva  Bible;  while  the  common  version,  though  to  some 
extent  influenced  by  all  the  others,  is  founded  mainly  upon 
Tyndale's,  with  occasional  changes  for  the  worse  and  for  the 
better,  but  a  frequent  adherence  to  him  even  when  in  error. 

Besides  mere  versions  or  translations,  this  book  has  been  a 
favourite  subject  of  interpretation,  more  or  less  minute  and 
thorough,  from  the  earliest  to  the  present  times.  In  addition 
to  the  interest  belonging  to  it  as  part  and  parcel  of  the  sacred 
history,  it  possesses  great  importance  in  connection  with  the 
most  exciting  questions  of  Ecclesiology,  as  furnishing  the  sole 
authentic  record  of  the  primitive  church-government  and  or^ 
ganization.     Hence  it  has  been  interpreted  in  every  variety  of 


ni  INTEODUCTION. 

form,  from  the  most  elaborate  and  learned  to  the  most  popu 
lar  and  practical,  as  well  in  general  expositions  of  the  Bible, 
or  of  the  New  Testament,  as  in  special  works  on  this  book  in 
particular.  Besides  formal  commentaries  on  the  text,  this 
part  of  Scripture  has  received  much  illustration  from  a  class 
of  writers  who  have  sought  rather  to  present  the  substance 
of  the  history  in  popular  and  interesting  forms.  Among  the 
latest  and  best  specimens  of  this  kind  may  be  named  the  Apos- 
tolical History  of  Baumgarten,  and  the  Life  and  Letters  of  St. 
Paul  by  Conybeare  and  Howson,  and  as  a  masterly  elucidation 
of  a  single  passage,  the  Voyage  and  Shipwreck  of  St.  Paul  by 
Smith  of  Jordanhitt.  The  plan  and  limits  of  the  following  ex- 
position forbid  particular  citation  of  the  many  works  consulted 
in  preparing  it. 

The  oldest  known  division  of  the  Greek  text,  by  Euthalius, 
who  lived  in  the  sixth  century,  was  into  forty  chapters.  The 
present  division  into  twenty-eight  was  made  by  Cardinal 
Hugo,  m  the  thirteenth  century,  to  facilitate  the  use  of  his 
Concordance  to  the  Latin  Vulgate,  and  was  not  adopted  in 
the  copies  of  the  Greek  text  till  the  fifteenth  century.  The 
division  into  verses  first  appears  in  the  margin  of  Stephens'  edi- 
tion (1551),  and  is  said  to  have  been  made  by  him  during  a  jour- 
ney between  Paris  and  Lyons.  The  actual  separation  of  the 
verses,  by  printing  them  in  paragraphs,  appears  for  the  first 
time  in  Beza*s  edition  (1565),  and  although  discontinued  in 
the  latest  publications  of  the  Greek  text,  still  prevails  in  most 
editions  of  the  English  Bible  and  of  other  modern  versions. 
The  history  of  these  divisions  should  be  clearly  understood, 
not  only  to  prevent  their  being  thought  original,  or  even 
ancient,  but  also  to  deprive  them  of  an  undue  influence  upon 
the  exposition  of  the  text  itself  The  distinction  of  the  chap- 
ters in  this  book  is  often  injudicious  and  unskilful,  and  at 
best,  these  conventional  divisions  are  mere  matters  of  me- 
chanical convenience,  like  the  paragraphs  and  pages  of  a 
modern  book. 

But  while  we  make  use  of  these  mechanical  contrivances 


INTEODUCTION.  XIU 

for  ease  of  reference  and  consultation,  they  must  not  be  suf- 
fered to  usurp  the  place  of  a  more  rational  division  growing 
out  of  the  relations  of  the  history  itself,  as  a  methodical  and 
systematical  whole,  designed  to  answer  a  specific  purpose. 
The  ideas  of  most  readers  as  to  this  point  are  derived  from 
the  familiar  title.  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  But  this  title  is  re- 
garded by  the  critics  as  traditional,  and  forming  no  part  of  the 
text,  but  added  by  a  later  hand.  It  is,  however,  very  ancient, 
being  found  in  all  the  oldest  copies,  though  with  some  variety 
of  form.  That  the  book  appeared  at  first  without  a  title,  or 
that  its  title  has  been  lost  and  another  substituted  for  it,  seem 
to  be  equally  improbable  hypotheses,  unless  it  be  assumed 
that  it  was  first  sent,  as  a  sort  of  historical  epistle,  to  The- 
ophilus,  and  afterwards  provided  with  a  name  when  brought 
mto  more  general  circulation. 

Even  this  title  does  not  mean,  however,  nor  is  the  book  in 
fact,  a  history  of  the  twelve  apostles,  most  of  whom  are  barely 
named  in  the  first  chapter.  It  is  not  the  biography  of  Peter 
and  Paul,  as  Apostles  by  way  of  eminence ;  for  each  of 
them  is  prominent  in  one  part  only,  and  the  whole  life  of  nei- 
ther is  recorded  in  detail.  It  is  not  a  general  history  of  the 
Apostolical  period,  as  distinguished  from  the  ministry  of  Christ 
himself;  for  many  interesting  facts  belonging  to  that  subject 
are  omitted,  some  of  which  have  been  preserved  in  the  Epis- 
tles.   But  the  book  before  us  is  a  speciajl  history  of  the 

PLANTING  AND  EXTENSION  OF  THE  CHUKCH,  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.  That  this  is  really  the 
theme  and  purpose  of  the  history,  any  reader  may  satisfy  him- 
self by  running  through  it  with  this  general  idea  in  his  mind, 
observing  how  the  prominent  points  answer  to  it,  and  that 
as  soon  as  this  idea  is  exhausted  the  book  closes,  in  a  way 
that  would  be  otherwise  abrupt  and  harsh.  The  same  thing 
may  be  ascertained  in  more  detail  by  using  this  description  as 


nV  INTRODUCTION. 

a  principle  or  method  of  division,  without  any  forced  or  arti- 
ficial process,  simply  letting  the  history  divide  and  subdivide 
itself  in  reference  to  its  subject  and  design,  as  these  have  been 
already  stated.  Such  an  analysis,  though  presupposing  a  de- 
tailed examination  of  the  book,  may  be  presented  here  as  a 
preliminary  basis  of  the  exposition. 

^  The  whole  book  naturally  falls  into  two  great  parts,  each 
hf  which  may  be  grouped  around  a  central  figure.  The  sub- 
ject of  the  first  part  is  the  planting  and  extension  of  the  Church 
among  the  Jews  by  the  ministry  of  Peter.  The  subject  of  the 
second  is  the  planting  and  extension  of  the  Church  among  the 
Gentiles  by  the  ministry  of  Paul.  It  is  not  as  individuals,  nor 
merely  as  Apostles,  that  these  two  men  occupy  so  large  a 
space  and  a  position  so  conspicuous,  but  as  the  chosen  leaders 
in  these  two  distinct  but  harmonious  movements.  "We  have 
therefore  no  details  of  their  biography  except  so  far  as  these 
are  needed  to  illustrate  this  important  period  of  church-history. 
It  may  also  be  observed  that  neither  is  presented,  even  in  his 
own  sphere,  to  the  absolute  exclusion  of  the  other ;  but  the 
spheres  themselves  are  so  connected  as  to  show  that  both  be- 
long to  one  great  system.  Peter,  the  Apostle  of  the  Circum- 
cision, introduces  the  first  Gentile  to  the  Christian  Church. 
Paul,  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  preaches  always  "  to  the 
Jew  first"  when  he  has  the  opportunity,  not  only  in  the  open- 
ing of  his  ministry  at  Damascus  and  Jerusalem,  but  down  to 
its  very  close  at  Rome.  With  this  important  quaUfication, 
the  fii'st  part  of  the  history  (ch.  i-xii)  may  be  described  as  that 
of  Peter  and  the  Church  among  the  Jews,  and  the  last  (ch. 
xni-xxviii)  as  that  of  Paul  and  the  Church  among  the  Gentiles. 
Looking  now  at  the  first  of  these  divisions  (i-xii),  in  which 
Peter  is  the  central  figure,  and  the  Church  among  the  Jews  his 
field  of  labour,  we  can  almost  see  it  subdivide  itself  into  two 
successive  processes  or  series  of  events,  distinctly  and  succes- 
sively exhibited.  The  first  is  the  formation  and  maturing  of 
a  mother-church  and  model-church  within  the  precincts  of  the 
holy  city,  nurtured  and  trained  by  apostolic  care  to  be  not 


I'iNTRODUCTlON.  XV 

©nly  the  beginning  or  the  germ,  but  for  a  time,  and  in  a  cer- 
tain sense,  the  representative  of  all  the  other  churches  in  the 
world,  or  rather  of  the  one  undivided  body,  to  which  all  other 
churches  are  related,  not  as  separable  portions,  but  as  living 
members.  This  original  and  normal  church  is  here  presented 
in  its  unimpau'ed,  undivided  state,  from  its  inception  to  its 
temporary  dissolution  and  the  wide  dispersion  of  its  members 
and  materials  on  the  death  of  Stephen  (i-vii).  This  affords  a 
natural  transition  to  the  second  process  here  recorded  (vni- 
xii),  that  of  sudden,  simultaneous  radiation  from  the  central 
point  in  various  directions,  spreading  the  light,  which  had 
been  hitherto  confined,  to  other  regions,  and  accomplishing 
the  purpose  revealed  centuries  before,  that  the  law  should  go 
forth  from  Zion,  and  the  word  of  the  Lord  from  Jerusalem 
(Isaiah  2,  4). 

Let  us  now  for  a  moment  fix  our  eye  upon  the  former  of 
these  subdivisions  (i-vii),  and  allow  it,  as  it  were,  to  fall  apart, 
without  mechanical  contrivance  or  coercion,  into  topics  or  his- 
torical phenomena,  precisely  as  they  lie  upon  the  surface,  or 
succeed  one  another  in  the  progress  of  the  narrative.  The 
whole  book  opens  with  two  preliminary  incidents,  by  which 
the  way  is  prepared  for  the  organization  of  the  church  and 
the  commencement  of  its  history.  The  fii'st  is  the  Ascension 
of  our  Lord,  connecting  this  whole  narrative  with  that  of 
which  it  is  the  sequel  (Luke  24,  51),  and  at  the  same  time  open- 
ing the  way  for  the  effusion  of  the  Spirit,  which  was  not  to  be 
expected  till  the  Son  had  returned  to  the  bosom  of  the  Father 
(John  14,  26.  15,  26.  16,  7.)  The  other  is  the  choice  of  an 
Apostle  to  supply  the  place  of  Judas,  that  the  theocratical  or 
patriarchal  form  of  the  new  organization  might  be  perfect 
when  the  Spirit  came  to  give  it  life  (ch.  i). 

These  preliminary  incidents  are  followed  by  the  great 
events  of  Pentecost,  the  birth-day  of  the  Christian  Church, 
the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit,  and  the  gift  of  tongues,  Peter's 
sermon  and  the  baptism  of  three  thousand,  with  a  picture 
of  the  social  and  the  spiritual  state  of  the  newly  organized 
community  (ch.  ii). 


XVI  INTRODUCTION. 

Tlien  follows  a  succession  of  vicissitudes,  by  which  the  in* 
fant  church  was  purified  and  hardeneij,  an  alternate  series  ol 
disturbances  and  trials  from  without  and  from  within,  whicli 
at  the  time  of  their  occurrence  may  have  seemed  fortuitous, 
but  which  can  now  be  seen  to  form  a  chain  of  disciplinary 
providences,  all  preparatory  and  conducive  to  intended 
changes  (ch.  in-vn). 

First,  a  miracle  of  healing  gives  occasion  to  another  pub- 
lic exhibition  of  the  Gospel,  and  this  to  an  attack  upon  the 
Church  by  the  authorities,  resulting  in  a  triumph  of  the  truth, 
increased  zeal  and  boldness  in  its  propagation,  and  more  rapid 
growth  of  the  new  body  both  in  numerical  and  spiritual 
strength  (ch.  in-rv). 

But  to  warn  the  Church  of  other  dangers  fi'om  a  very  dif- 
ferent quarter,  which  had  hitherto  perhaps  been  unsuspected, 
God  permits  her  purity  and  peace  to  be  disturbed  by  a  com- 
motion from  within,  the  first  appearance  of  hypocrisy  and  sec- 
ular ambition  in  the  infant  body,  but  immediately  disarmed 
of  its  pernicious  influence  on  others  by  a  signal  indication  of 
divine  displeasure,  which  not  only  punished  the  original  offend- 
ers, but  deterred  all  hke  them  from  presumptuous  imitation. 
By  another  alternation,  too  exact  to  be  fortuitous,  the  next 
disturbance  is  again  ah  extra^  a  concerted  movement  of  the 
High  Priest  with  the  Sadducean  party,  to  suppress  the  preach- 
ing of  the  resurrection,  and  by  that  means  of  the  new  religion ; 
a  proceeding  only  saved  from  being  murderous  by  Pharisaic 
policy  or  wisdom,  and  resulting,  as  before,  in  the  triumphant 
propagation  of  the  new  faith,  in  defiance  of  the  Jewish  rulers 
(ch.  v). 

The  next  vicissitude  presents  a  second  movement  from 
within,  but  wholly  different  from  the  first,  and  owing  not  to 
ialse  profession  or  corrupt  ambition,  but  to  jealousy  of  races 
and  administrative  discontents,  allayed  by  the  erection  of  a 
new  church-office,  and  the  consequent  appearance  of  a  new 
and  interesting  character,  whose  preaching,  miracles,  and  con 
troversial  triumphs  over  Jewish  bigotry  and  prejudice,  result 


INTRODUCTION.  XVU 

in  his  arrest  aud  accusation  at  the  bar  of  the  great  national 
consistory,  before  which  he  concisely  recapitulates  the  history 
of  Israel  as  the  chosen  people,  shows  the  temporary  nature  of 
their  cherished  institutions,  and  unmasks  their  national  apos- 
tasy and  treason,  with  a  clearness  and  a  pungency  which  rouses 
them  to  madness,  and  precipitates  the  terrible  but  glorious 
translation  of  the  first  Christian  martyr  (ch.  yi-vii). 

The  death  of  Stephen  is  the  signal  for  a  general  persecution, 
which  at  first  appears  to  threaten  the  complete  extinction  of  the 
Church,  but  in  fact  only  changes  its  condition  from  a  local  and 
confined  to  an  expansive  and  aggressive  one.  This  great  dis- 
aster, like  a  terrible  explosion,  served  to  scatter  the  materials 
and  seeds  of  fire  into  distant  regions,  where  they  kindled  many 
shining  fights  and  opened  many  sources  of  congenial  heat, 
to  warm  and  illuminate  the  nations.  This  radiating  process 
is  the  subject  of  the  second  subdivision  which,  beginning 
where  the  other  closes,  with  the  martyrdom  of  Stephen,  in  a 
series  of  contemporaneous  views  exhibits  the  extension  of  the 
Church  in  various  directions,  still  returning  at  the  close  of  each 
description  to  the  point  of  original  departure,  thus  disclosing 
at  the  same  time  the  relation  of  the  incidents  themselves  and 
the  peculiar  structure  of  this  portion  of  the  history,  as  not 
consecutive  but  parallel  (ch.  VHi-xn). 

From  the  centre  of  the  movement  and  the  highest  point 
of  observation  in  Jerusalem,  we  first  see  Phifip  on  his  mission 
to  Siimaria,  followed  by  two  Apostles,  introducing  to  the 
Church  the  excommunicated  heretics  of  that  despised  and 
hated  region ;  then  proceeding  with  a  new  commission  to 
thx3  south,  receiving  the  first-fi'uits  of  Ethiopia,  and  acting  as 
a  pioneer  until  he  reaches  Cesarea,  where  the  history  leaves 
him  for  the  present  (ch.  vin). 

Looking  back  to  the  scene  of  Stephen's  martyrdom,  we 
Bee  the  young  man  at  whose  feet  the  actors  in  the  tragedy 
deposited  their  garments,  setting  out  as  a  fanatical  persecutor 
to  Damascus,  but  arriving  there  an  humble  convert,  then  ap- 
pearing as  a  champion  of  the  faith  which  he  had  once  sought  to 


XVm  INTKODUCTION. 

destroy,  forced  to  flee  for  his  life,  but  repeating  the  same  pro- 
cess at  Jerusalem,  and  finally  returning  to  his  native  land  and 
city,  not  now  as  a  destroyer,  but  a  founder  and  a  buildei  of 
the  church  there  (ch.  ix). 

Returning  once  more  to  the  starting  point,  the  history  ex- 
hibits Peter  on  an  Apostolic  visitation  of  the  churches,  work- 
ing miracles  at  Lydda  and  at  Joppa,  disabused  by  vision  of 
his  Jewish  prepossessions  in  relation  to  the  Gentiles,  and  then 
called  to  Cesarea,  where  he  openly  receives  into  the  church  a 
Roman  officer  and  his  dependants,  as  the  pledge  and  foretaste 
of  a  glorious  harvest  to  be  reaped  by  other  hands,  but  as  yet 
requiring  to  be  justified  before  it  can  be  sanctioned  by  the 
brethren  in  Judea  (ch.  ix-xi). 

Looking  forth  for  the  last  time  fi'om  Jerusalem,  we  see  a 
nameless  company  of  Cyprians  and  Cyrenians  preaching  Christ, 
not  only  to  the  Jews,  but  to  the  Gentiles  of  the  Syrian  metro- 
polis ;  their  efforts  seconded  by  Barnabas  irom  Jerusalem  and 
Saul  from  Tarsus ;  the  new  name  of  Christian  first  applied  at 
Antioch,  destined  now  to  be  a  secondary  centre  to  the  Gen- 
tile world,  and  yet  maintaining  its  own  filial  relation  to  her 
mother  at  Jerusalem,  by  sending  help  for  the  approaching 
famine  by  the  hands  of  her  two  most  honoured  ministers 
(ch.  xi). 

The  institution  of  this  radiating  centre  for  the  heathen 
world  concludes  the  first  division  of  the  history,  the  transition 
to  the  second  being  furnished  by  a  narrative,  connected  equally 
with  both,  of  what  befel  the  mother  Church  while  Barnabas 
and  Saul  were  on  their  mission  of  mercy  in  Judea ;  the  Hero- 
dian  persecution  at  Jerusalem,  the  death  of  James  the  Elder, 
the  imprisonment  of  Peter,  his  miraculous  deliverance  and  de- 
parture from  Jerusalem,  the  dreadful  end  of  the  persecuting 
Herod,  the  return  of  Barnabas  and  Saul  to  Antioch,  in  order 
to  be  ready  for  the  opening  of  the  second  act  of  this  grand 
drama,  in  which  both  for  a  time  and  one  of  them  throughout 
had  to  act  so  conspicuous  a  part  (ch.  xii). 

In  the^  second  great  division  of  the  book  (ch.  xiii-xxvnii 


INTRODUCTION.  tit 

Paul  is  tlio  central  figure,  and  the  Gentile  church  his  field  of 
operations.  It  divides  itself  without  constraint  into  two  parts, 
corresponding  to  two  different  conditions  under  which  the 
great  Apostle  laboured,  which  may  be  distinguished  as  his 
Active  and  Passive  Ministry,  or  less  equivocally  as  his  Apos- 
tleship  at  large  and  his  Apostleship  in  bonds,  the  turning 
point  or  bounding  Une  being  fixed  by  his  arrest  at  Jerusalem 
and  subsequent  captivity. 

The  former  of  these  subdivisions,  Paul's  active  ministry,  or 
his  Apostleship  at  large  (ch.  xiii-xxi),  may  be  resolved  into 
Missions,  and  the  Missions  classed  as  Foreign  and  Domestic ; 
not  of  course  in  the  familiar  sense  of  this  distinction,  but  em- 
ploying the  second  of  these  terms  as  a  convenient  designation 
of  his  official  journeys  to  Jerusalem;  the  other,  as  usual,  denot- 
ing visits  to  the  heathen  with  a  view  to  their  instruction  and 
conversion.  The  two  sorts  of  missions  thus  distinguished  are 
not  entirely  separate  in  the  history,  but  intermingled,  no 
doubt  in  the  order  of  their  actual  occurrence  (ch.  xiii-xxi). 

We  have  first  the  solemn  separation,  by  express  divine 
authority,  of  Barnabas  and  Saul  to  this  important  work-;  their 
setting  out  from  Antioch,  and  sailing  from  Seleucia  to  Cyprus ; 
their  preaching  in  the  synagogue  at  Salamis,  and  journey 
through  the  isle  to  Paphos ;  the  hostility  and  punishment  of 
Elymas  the  sorcerer  and  false  prophet,  and  the  conversion  of 
the  Roman  Proconsul.  At  this  juncture  Saul  assumes  a  new 
position,  as  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  takes  the  place  of  Barna- 
bas as  leader  of  the  mission,  and  is  thenceforth  known  exclu- 
sively as  Paul.  From  the  native  land  of  Barnabas,  they  now 
proceed  to  that  of  Paul,  where  Mark,  then*  minister,  forsakes 
them.  From  Pamphylia  they  pass  into  Pisidia,  at  the  capital 
of  which  province  Paul  delivers  his  first  apostohcal  discourse 
on  record,  and  announces  to  the  unbelieving  Jews  his  mission 
and  commission  to  the  Gentiles.  Being  driven  to  Iconium,  he 
there  renews  the  same  experience.  At  Lystra,  by  a  miracle  of 
healing,  he  excites  the  heathen  population  to  do  sacrifice,  but 
by  q,  sudden  change  of  feeling,  owing  to  the  machinations  of 


XX  INTRODUCTION. 

the  Jews  who  had  pursued  him,  he  is  stoned  and  left  for  dead^ 
but  soon  proceeds  to  Derbe,  where  his  mission  terminates. 
Returning  as  he  came,  he  organizes  churches  in  the  cities  pre- 
viously visited,  and  coming  back  to  Antioch,  the  point  from 
which  he  had  set  out,  he  reports  his  proceedings  to  the  church 
there  and  resumes  his  former  labours  (ch.  xni-xiv). 

This  mission  to  the  GentUes  in  their  own  lands,  naturally 
raises  the  question  whether  they  must  first  be  Jews  before 
they  can  be  Christians.  The  affirmative,  maintained  by  certain 
teachers  from  Judea,  gives  occasion  to  a  warm  dispute  at  An- 
tioch, in  con|equence  of  which  Paul  and  Barnabas  are  sent  up 
to  consult  the  mother  Church  in  its  representative  character, 
maintained  by  the  continued  presence  and  co-operation  of  Apos- 
tles. The  decision  of  this  body  in  favour  of  Paul's  conduct^ 
at  the  instance  of  Peter  and  James,  is  reduced  to  writing  and 
sent  back  to  Antioch,  where  Paul  and  Barnabas  now  again  re- 
sume their  labours.  While  they  are  thus  employed,  Paul 
proposes  to  revisit  the  field  of  their  first  mission,  to  which 
Barnabas  consents,  but  on  condition  that  John  Mark  shall 
again  attend  them.  Paul's  refusal,  with  the  sharp  dispute 
arising  from  it,  leads  to  their  temporary  separation,  which  is 
overruled,  however,  as  a  means  of  multiplying  labourers  ;  for 
whUe  Barnabas  and  Mark  proceed  to  Cyprus,  Paul  revisits 
Asia  Minor,  having  filled  their  places  with  two  new  asso- 
ciates, Silas,  a  leading  member  of  the  mother  church,  and 
Timothy,  a  convert  of  his  own  in  Lycaonia  (ch.  xv). 

This  second  mission  seems  to  have  been  undertaken  with- 
out any  express  intimation  of  the  divine  purpose  ;  for  we  find 
them  vainly  trying  to  efiect  an  entrance  into  several  provinces 
of  Asia  Minor,  and  from  some  peremptorily  excluded  by  the 
Holy  Spirit.  This  mysterious  failure  and  repulse  are  not  ex- 
plained until  they  come  to  Troas,  near  the  site  of  ancient 
Troy,  and  opposite  to  Greece,  whence  the  hosts  of  Agamem- 
non came  against  it.  From  this  memorable  battle-field  a 
very  different  war  is  to  be  carried  into  Europe,  which  is  now 
for  the  first  time  to  receive  the  Gospel.    At  this  interesting 


INTRODUCTION.  XXI 

juncture,  Paul  is  warned  in  vision  to  go  over  into  Macedonia, 
where  so  many  of  his  triumphs  were  to  Be  achieved,  and 
where  he  proceeds,  in  the  face  of  the  most  violent  resistance, 
both  fi'om  Jews  and  Greeks,  to  lay  the  foundations  of  those 
Macedonian  churches,  now  immortalized  by  intimate  and  in- 
destructible association  with  his  three  canonical  epistles  to  the 
I*hiUppians  and  Thessalonians  (ch.  xvi). 

Havmg  fixed  these  central  points  of  influence  in  Northern 
Greece,  and  one  perhaps  less  lasting  at  Berea,  he  proceeds  to 
Athens,  the  most  famous  seat  of  ethnic  art  and  science.  Here 
he  shows  his  versatility  of  talent  and  his  apostolical  wisdom 
by  his  formal  and  colloquial  discourses  in  the  synagogue,  the 
market,  and  the  areopagus,  adapting  his  instructions,  with  ex- 
traordinary skill,  to  the  capacities  and  wants  of  those  whom 
he  addressed.  Although  apparently  without  effect  on  the 
philosophers  who  heard  him,  his  appeals  at  Athens  were  re- 
sponded to  by  some,  including  one  at  least  of  high  rank,  and  he 
left  behind  him  even  there  the  germ  or  the  basis  of  a  Christian 
church.  At  Corinth,  the  chief  city  of  Achaia,  he  stays  longer 
and  accomplishes  more  visible  results  by  founding  that  impor- 
tant Church  to  which  he  afterwards  addressed  two  of  his  long- 
est and  most  interesting  letters  (ch.  xvii). 

Having  thus,  as  it  were,  taken  possession  of  the  most  im- 
portant points  in  Greece,  he  turns  to  Ephesus,  the  influential 
capital  of  Asia  Proper,  as  another  fortress  to  be  won  and  oc- 
cupied for  Christ.  At  present  he  attempts  only  to  reconnoitre 
the  defences  of  the  enemy  while  on  his  way  back  to  the  east, 
reserving  his  attack  upon  them  as  the  work  of  his  thii*d  mis- 
sion. This  design  he  is  enabled  to  accomplish,  in  a  residence 
of  three  years,  during  which,  by  teaching  and  by  miracle,  he 
not  only  gained  the  respect  and  esteem  of  the  most  enlight- 
ened classes,  but  drew  off  many  thousands  from  the  worship 
of  Diana  and  the  practice  of  the  occult  arts.  "  So  mightily 
grew  the  word  of  God  and  prevailed"  (ch.  xviii-xix). 

This  triumph  over  heathenism,  in  one  of  its  impregnable 
strongholds,  seemed  to  leave  but  one  great  post  unoccupied, 


XX11  INTKODUCTION. 

the  citadel  of  Rome  itself,  to  which  accordingly,  while  still  at 
Ephesus,  he  turned  his  thoughts,  saying,  "  I  must  also  see 
Rome."  But  here  a  most  extraordinary  part  of  the  divine 
plan  or  purpose  is  disclosed.  Instead  of  sailing  from  Ephesus 
to  some  Italian  port,  as  he  no  doubt  might  have  done  mth 
ease,  he  first  revisits  Greece,  and  then,  accompanied  by  seven 
representatives  of  Gentile  Christianity,  as  well  as  by  his  be- 
loved physician,  who  seems  now  to  have  rejoined  him,  he  de- 
liberately sets  his  face,  not  to  the  west  but  to  the  east,  per- 
forms a  miracle  of  healing  or  resuscitation  at  the  place  where 
he  had  seen  his  Macedonian  vision,  puts  an  end  to  his  third 
mission  by  a  solemn  and  affecting  valedictory  address  to  the 
Ephesian  elders,  and  then  journeys  towards  Jerusalem,  thoiigh 
warned  at  every  step,  and  sometimes  by  inspired  men,  of  the 
danger  there  awaiting  him  (ch.  xx-xxi). 

This  persistency  in  rushing  upon  certain  peril,  in  the  face 
of  such  dissuasives,  is  entirely  unaccountable  except  upon  the 
supposition  of  an  express  divine  command,  requii'ing  it  for 
some  mysterious  and  momentous  purpose.  And  accordingly, 
on  putting  all  the  facts  together,  it  becomes  quite  certain  that 
instead  of  journeying  at  once  to  Rome,  and  there  establishing 
the  last  great  centre  of  his  operations,  he  was  secretly  directed 
to  revisit  Palestine,  and  there  make  a  last  appeal  to  his  own 
countrymen,  by  whom  it  was  foreseen  that  he  would  be  re- 
jected and  delivered  to  the  Gentiles,  thus  prefiguring  or  sym- 
bolizing, in  his  own  experience,  the  transfer  of  the  Gospel  from 
the  one  race  to  the  other,  and  arriving  at  his  final  destination, 
not  as  he  once  expected,  in  the  use  of  his  own  freewill  and 
discretion,  but  as  a  prisoner,  accused  by  his  own  people,  and 
removed  by  his  own  appeal  to  the  tribunal  of  the  emperor. 
We  have  here  then  the  transition  from  his  active  to  his  pas- 
sive ministry,  or  rather  from  his  free  and  unconfined  apostleship 
to  that  which  he  so  long  exercised  in  bonds  (ch.  xxi-xxvni). 

As  Paul  is  still  the  central  figure  of  the  history,  this  last 
division  may  be  readily  resolved  into  Apologies,  defences  of 
himself  and  of  the  Gospel,  upon  various  occasions  providential- 


INTRODUCTION.  XXlll 

ij  afforded,  and  to  various  auditories  both  of  Jews  and  Gentiles, 
who  are  brought  into  a  remarkable  and  interesting  juxtaposi- 
tion both  with  him  and  with  each  other,  as  accusers,  persecu- 
tors, judges,  and  protectors.  His  first  Apologies  are  to  the 
Jews,  but  in  the  presence  of  the  Romans ;  one  to  the  people 
from  the  castle-stairs  adjacent  to  the  temple,  and  the  other  at 
the  bar  of  the  great  national  council.  His  third  and  fourth 
defences  are  addressed  to  Roman  Governors,  but  in  the  pres- 
ence of  a  Jewish  delegation  from  Jerusalem,  the  former  before 
FeUx  and  the  latter  before  Festus,  both  as  it  would  seem  in 
the  Praetorium  at  Cesarea.  His  fifth  Apology  was  to  Agrippa, 
representing  both  the  Jewish  and  the  Roman  power,  and  con- 
tained a  fuller  statement  of  his  true  relation  to  the  old  religion, 
and  his  claim  to  be  regarded  as  a  genuine  and  faithful  Jew 
(ch.  xxii-xxvi). 

His  extraordinary  mission  being  thus  accomplished,  he 
again  turns  his  eyes  to  Rome,  as  the  distant  but  conspicuous 
goal  of  his  career,  which  he  at  length  attains,  but  as  a  prisoner, 
and  after  having  suffered  shipwreck  by  the  way,  a  sort  of 
symbol  representing  the  vicissitudes  through  which  the 
C/hurch  was  to  attain  her  ultimate  and  universal  triumphs. 
Having  made  one  more  appeal  to  unbelieving  Israel,  as  repre- 
sented by  the  Jews  at  Rome,  and  having  finally  abandoned 
them  to  their  judicial  blindness,  he  turns  wholly  to  the  Gen- 
tiles, and  establishes  the  last  great  radiatiug  centre  from 
which  light  was  to  be  shed  upon  the  world,  until  the  light 
itself  was  turned  to  darkness  (ch.  xxvii-xxvin). 

Whether  the  view,  which  has  been  now  presented,  of  the 
nistory  considered  in  its  internal  structure  and  its  mutual  rela- 
tions, is  a  true  and  natural  or  false  and  artificial  one,  can  only 
be  determined  by  a  patient  process  of  detailed  interpretation. 


THE  ACTS 


OP 


THE    APOSTLES 


CHAPTEE  I. 


This  chapter  contains  the  prelimmaries  of  the  Apostolical 
Church  History,  which  does  not  properly  begin  until  the  day 
of  Pentecost.  The  time  included  in  the  chapter  is  a  period 
of  n'early  fifty  days,  divided  into  two  unequal  intervals. 
The  two  main  incidents  recorded  are  our  Lord's  Ascension 
and  the  designation  of  a  new  Apostle.  The  book  itself 
purports  to  be  the  sequel  of  Luke's  Gospel  {iV  and  begins 
where  that  ends,  at  our  Lord's  Ascension  (2) ;  but  iirst 
tells  '  V  the  interval  of  forty  days  was  spent  (3),  and 
more  p.a-ticularly,  what  passed  at  the  final  meeting  be- 
tween Christ  and  his  Apostles  (4 — 8).  Then  follows  an 
account  of  the  ascension  itself  (9),  and  the  heavenly  assurance 
of  Christ's  second  coming  (10, 11),  the  return  of  the  eleven  to 
Jerusalem  (12),  with  a  list  of  their  names  (13),  and  some 
account  of  their  associates  and  emplojanents  (14).  During 
the  interval  between  Ascension  Day  and  Pentecost,  Peter 
addresses  an  assembly  of  disciples  (15),  representing  the  apos- 
tasy and  death  of  Judas  as  events  predicted  in  the  ancient 
scriptures  (16-20),  alleging  the  necessity  of  filling  the  vacated 
place,  and  stating  the  necessary  qualifications  (21,  22).     Of 


2  ACTS  1,  1. 

the  two  tlius  eligible  (23),  after  prayer  for  the  divine  decision 
(24,  25),  one  is  chosen  by  lot  to  be  the  twelfth  Apostle  (26). 

1.  The  former  treatise  have  I  made,  O  Theopliilus, 
of  all  that  Jesus  began  both  to  do  and  teach. 

This  verse  describes  the  whole  book  as  the  sequel  or  con- 
tinuation of  another,  by  the  same  writer,  and  containing  the 
history  of  our  Saviour-s  personal  ministry  on  earth.  Formcf 
treatise  might  be  more  exactly  rendered  ^rs^  hooh  or  diS' 
course.  Herodotus  applies  the  same  Greek  word  {koyov)  to 
the  divisions  of  his  history.  It  is  not  so  much  Si.  former  treatise^ 
or  distinct  work,  that  is  here  referred  to,  as  a  first  instalment 
of  the  same  that  is  continued  in  the  book  before  us.  Have  I 
made^  or,  more  definitely,  did  make^  made^  at  a  particular 
time,  well  known  to  the  person  here  immediately  addressed. 
As  to  this  person,  we  have  no  historical  or  certain  informa- 
tion, although  various  conjectures  are  proposed  respecting 
him.  The  name,  according  to  its  Greek  etymology,  denotes 
a  Friend  of  God,  and  has  by  some  been  taken  as  an  ej^ithet, 
equivalent  to  "  Christian  Reader  "  in  a  modern  preface.  But 
besides  being  in  itself  improbable,  this  notion  is  refuted  by 
the  reference  to  his  previous  acquaintance  with  the  history,  in 
Luke  1,  4,  as  well  as  by  the  honorary  title  there  applied  to 
him.  As  that  title  is  repeatedly  applied  in  this  book  (23,  26. 
24,  3.  26,  25)  to  the  Koman  governors  or  procurators  of 
Judea,  some  have  hastily  concluded,  that  the  person  here 
addressed  was  one  of  high  official  rank.  This,  though  pos- 
sible, is  not  susceptible  of  proof  from  such  imperfect  data ; 
and  the  same  thing  may  be  said  of  the  attempt  to  prove  that 
he  was  resident  in  Italy,  because  the  writer  seems  to  presup- 
pose a  knowledge  of  that  country,  while,  in  writing  of  others, 
he  often  gives  minute  geographical  details.  The'  tradition 
that  he  was  a  high  priest  mentioned  by  Josephus,  rests  upon  a 
mere  comcidence  of  names,  and  is  intrinsically  most  improbable. 
The  most  that  can,  with  any  plausibility,  be  gathered  from 
the  book  itself,  is  that  Theopliilus  may  have  been  a  Christian 
resident  at  Rome,  at  whose  request  the  book  was  originally 
written.  The  whole  question  is  of  less  importance,  as  the 
mswiption  of  the  history  to  this  man  has  probably  afiectcd  its 
consents  and  form  as  little  as  a  modern  dedication.  Of  all^ 
i.  e.  about ^  coiicerning  all^  thus  pointing  out  the  subject  of  the 
former  treatise,  or  earlier  division  of  the  history.     All,  in  the 


ACTS  1,  1.  2.  3 

original,  is  plural,  and  means  all  things.  It  is  not  a  hyper- 
bole or  exaggeration,  but  a  relative  expression,  meaning  all 
that  was  included  in  the  writer's  plan  or  necessary  to  his 
purpose.  Began  is  not  a  pleonastic  or  superfluous  expression, 
but  emphatic,  and  suggestive  of  two  important  facts.  The 
first  is,  that  what  our  Saviour  did,  he  did  for  the  first  time ; 
no  one  ever  did  it  before  him.  The  second  is,  that  what  he 
thus  began  in  person  upon  earth  was  afterwards  continued  b\ 
his  Apostles,  under  the  influence  and  guidance  of  his  Spirit. 
Doth  seems  to  make  a  marked  distinction  between  doing  and 
teaching ;  but  the  one  may  be  understood  as  comprehending 
all  ofiicial  acts  not  included  in  the  other.  Thus  explained,  the 
verb  to  do  refers  especially,  but  not  exclusively,  to  our 
Saviour's  miracles.  The  first  hooh^  or  former  treatise^  thus 
described,  is  no  doubt  the  Gospel  accordmg  to  Luke,  which 
is  addressed  to  the  same  persou,  v^aitteninthe  same  style,  and 
exactly  corresj^onds  to  this  description. 

2.  Until  the  day  in  which  he  was  taken  up,  after 
that  he  through  the  Holy  Ghost  had  given  command- 
ments unto  the  Apostles  whom  he  had  chosen. 

As  the  first  verse  represents  this  book  to  be  the  sequel  or 
continuation  of  another,  so  the  second  draws  the  line  between 
them,  or  defines  the  point  at  which  the  one  closes  and  the 
other  opens.  This  j)oint  of  contact  and  transition  is  afibrded 
by  our  Lord's  ascension,  which  is  really  recorded  in  both 
narratives.  (See  Luke  24,  50.  51.)  Until  the  day^  the  very 
day,  a  form  of  speech  implying  a  j^recise  chronological  speci- 
fication. I7i  ichich^  on  which  or  during  which,  the  prejwsi- 
tion  not  being  expressed  in  the  original,  which  simply  means 
the  day  ichich^  or  still  more  exactly,  what  day^  a  construction 
not  imcommon  in  old  English,  and  still  used  in  poetry.  Taken 
up^  and  taken  hack^  i.  e.  to  heaven,  both  which  ideas  are  sug- 
gested by  the  Greek  verb  (aveXri<}>^r]),  which  moreover  has 
peculiar  force  from  its  position  at  the  end  of  the  sentence, 
until  the  day  i?i  which,  after  etc.,  he  teas  taken  up.  The  second 
clause  describes  what  Christ  had  done  before  he  was  taken 
up.  The  six  words,  after  that  he  had  given  commandments, 
correspond  to  one  in  Greek  (efreiXa/xevos),  a  past  particij^le, 
the  exact  sense  of  which  is,  having  charged  or  commanded. 
This  may  refer,  either  to  the  whole  period  of  forty  days  men- 
tioned in  the  next  verse,  or  to  the  last  interview  between  our 


4  ACTS  1,  2.3. 

Lord  and  his  Apostles,  on  the  very  day  of  his  ascension.  Tha 
latter  is  more  probable,  because,  in  the  original,  the  verse 
before  us  closes  with  the  words  taken  iip^  and  the  next  verse 
seems  to  go  back  to  the  previous  interval  of  forty  days.  The 
reference  may  then  be  specially,  though  not  perhaps  exclu- 
sively, to  the  great  apostolical  commission  recorded  by  Mat- 
thew (28,  18-20)  and  Mark  (16, 15.  16),  as  well  as  to  the 
specific  charge  recorded  in  Luke  24,  49,  and  in  v.  4  below. 
The  apostles  are  here  mentioned  as  a  well  defined  and  well 
known  body  of  men,  whose  vocation  and  mission  had  already 
been  recorded  by  this  writer  (Luke  6,  12-16),  though  their 
names  are  afterwards  repeated  for  a  special  reason.  (See  below, 
on  V.  13.)  Sad  chosen^  more  exactly,  did  choose^  chose  out 
for  himself,  which  is  the  full  force  of  the  Greek  verb  (e£eXe- 
^aro).  Through  the  Holy  Ghost:  these  words,  in  the  ori- 
ginal, stand  between  the  verbs  commanded  and  chose^  and 
are  by  some  connected  with  the  latter,  whom,  he  chose  through 
the  Holy  Spirit.  But  although  there  is,  in  either  case,  a 
transposition  foreign  from  our  idiom,  the  usual  construction  is 
more  natural  and  jdelds  a  better  sense,  as  the  interesting 
question  here  is,  not  how  he  had  chosen  them  at  first,  but 
how  he  charged  them  and  instructed  them  at  last.  The 
Avords,  thus  construed,  may  denote  either  the  spiritual  in- 
fluence imder  which  our  Saviour's  mediatorial  acts  were  all 
performed,  or  the  influence  by  which  his  last  instructions  were 
accompanied,  and  by  which  the  apostles  were  enabled  to  obey 
them.  Here  again,  the  second  explanation  is  more  obvious, 
and  better  suited  to  the  context,  which  would  lead  us  to 
expect,  not  a  mention  of  the  spiritual  gifts  which  our  Saviour 
had  received,  but  of  those  which  he  bestowed  on  this  occasion. 

3.  To  whom  also  he  showed  hhnself  ahve  after  his 
passion,  by  many  infallible  proofs,  being  seen  of  them 
forty  days,  and  speaking  of  the  things  pertaining  to  the 
kingdom  of  God. 

Before  proceeding  to  describe  our  Lord's  ascension,  Luke 
reverts  to  the  long  interval  between  that  event  and  his  resur 
rection,  showing  how  it  had  been  spent,  and  what  important 
purposes  it  answered.  The  first  of  these  was,  that  the  mmds 
of  the  apostles  were  convmced  of  his  identity,  and  of  his 
having  actually  risen  from  the  dead.  To  lohotn  refers,  of 
fcourse,  to  the  apostles,  who  had  just  been  mentioned,  and  who 


ACTS  1,  3.  6 

not  only  witnessed  his  ascension,  but  saw  and  conversed  with 
him  for  many  days  before  it.  Also  is  not  unmeaning  or  sn- 
perfluous,  but  marks  the  recurrence  to  a  time  preceding  that 
referred  to  in  the  second  verse.  As  if  he  had  said :  although 
this  was  his  last  meeting  with  them  after  his  resurrection,  it 
was  not  the  first ;  for  besides  this  final  charge  immediately 
before  ascending,  he  also  showed  himself^  etc.  This  last  verb 
{7rap€(TT7](r€v)  Strictly  means  presented,  placed  before  or  near 
one  (23,  33),  and  is  elsewhere  used  in  reference  to  resurrec- 
tion or  resuscitation  (9,  41) ;  but  besides  this  physical  and 
strict  sense,  it  sometimes  means  to  place  before  the  mind  or 
prove  (24,  13).  Both  these  ideas  may  be  here  suggested, 
that  of  sensible  exhibition  as  the  means,  and  that  of  rational 
conviction  as  the  end.  Showed  himself  is  therefore  a  felici- 
tous translation,  as  the  same  double  sense  belongs  to  the 
nsage  of  the  English  verb,  shoio  being  often  equivalent  to 
prove.  Alive,  literally  living,  after  his  passioji,  literally  after 
suffering,  or  after  he  had  silffered,  i.  e.  suffered  death.  This 
absolute  use  of  the  verb  to  suffer  in  the  sense  of  dying,  is  a 
common  idiom  in  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament.  (See 
Luke  22,  15.  Acts  3,  18.  17,3.  Heb.  9,  26.  13,  12.  1  Peter 
2,  21.  3,  18.  4,.  1.)  What  he  showed  in  this  case  was  that 
he  was  living  after  being  dead,  not  only  vivus  but  redi- 
vivus.  (See  Rev.  1,  18.  and  compare  Rom.  11,  15.)  The 
proofs  of  this  were  not  only  many  but  infallible,  conclusive 
or  convincing.  This  epithet  is  not  expressed  in  Greek,  but  is 
really  included  in  the  meaning  of  the  noun  (reK/xT^piot?),  which 
is  used  by  Plato  and  Aristotle  to  denote  the  strongest  proof 
of  which  a  subject  is  susceptible.  The  particle  before  it 
properly  means  in,  i.  e.  in  the  use  of  such  proofs,  and  is  there- 
fore an  emphatic  equivalent  to  by,  which  only  denotes  instru- 
mental agency  or  means  to  an  end.  Being  seen  of  them,  or 
more  exactly,  appearing  to  them,  i.  e.  from  time  to  time,  not 
constantly  seen  by  them,  as  before  his  passion.  This  distinc- 
tion is  suggested  not  only  by  the  participle  here  used  (oTrra- 
vo/xevos^,  but  also  (according  to  Chrysostom)  by  the  preposi- 
tion (ota)  before  forty  days,  which  is  not  expressed  in  the 
English  version,  but  which  means  through,  during,  in  the 
course  of,  any  given  time.  According  to  this  view,  every 
appearance  of  our  Saviour,  in  the  interval  between  his  resur- 
rection and  ascension,  was  an  apparition,  not  in  the  sense  of 
an  optical  illusion  or  a  superstitious  fancy,  but  in  that  of  a 
miraculous  or  preternatural  manifestation  of  his  person  on 


e  ACTS  1,  3.4. 

particular  occasions,  as  a  proof  of  his  idtmtity  and  resurrec- 
tion. Forty  clays^  the  length  of  the  interval  just  mentioned, 
and  known  to  us  only  from  this  passage,  which  enables  us 
moreover  to  determine  the  interval  between  the  Ascension 
and  the  day  of  Pentecost.  (See  below,  on  2,  1.)  The  other 
use  to  which  our  Saviour  put  the  longer  of  these  intervals  was 
that  of  conversation  and  instruction.  Bpealcing^  not  merely 
talking,  but  authoritatively  teaching  and  declaring.  Of  is 
not  in  the  original,  and  is  superfluous  in  the  translation. 
He  not  only  spohe  of  or  about  the  things^  etc.,  but  he 
uttered  or  declared  the  things  themselves.  Pertaining 
to^  concerning,  is  expressed  in  the  original,  and  indicates 
the  subject  of  our  Lord's  authoritative  declarations.  This 
w^as  the  hingdom  of  God^  denoting  in  its  widest  sense  the 
Church  under  all  its  forms  and  dispensations,  and  including 
therefore  the  Theocracy  or  Je^\dsh  Church,  but  here  referring 
more  especially,  no  doubt,  to  the  Messiah's  kingdom,  or  the 
new  form  under  which  the  Church,  or  chosen  people,  was 
about  to  be  re-organized.  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  tiie 
last  days  of  our  Lord  on^earth  were  still  employed  in  w^ords 
and  acts  relatmg  to  the  great  end  of  his  mission,  and  in  strict 
accordance  with  his  words  and  acts  in  early  childhood.  Wist 
ye  not  that  I  must  he  about  tny  Father^ s  busiiiess  f  (Luke  2, 
49.)  In  this  he  furnishes  a  model  and  example  to  his  peoj^le, 
not  only  in  their  last  days,  but  throughout  their  lives. 

4.  And  being  assembled  together  with  them,  com- 
manded them  that  they  should  not  depart  from  Jeru- 
salem, but  wait  for  the  promise  of  the  Father,  which 
(saith  he)  ye  have  heard  of  me  : 

This  is  the  command,  or  one  of  the  commands,  referred  to 
in  V.  2,  as  given  on  the  day  of  the  ascension,  at  the  last  meet- 
ing between  Christ  and  his  disciples.  Assembled  together^  or 
more  simply,  tnet^  having  (or  being)  met  with  them,  not  acci 
dentally  or  unexpectedly,  but  most  probably  by  previous 
appointment.  The  translation,  lodging  with  them^  rests  upon 
a  diflerent  reading  (o-wai;A.t^o/>ia/os),  that  of  eating  with  them^ 
on  an  ancient  but  erroneous  explanation  of  the  common  text 
(o-vt-aAt^o/xevos),  perhaps  suggested  by  the  analogy  of  Luke 
24,  43.  John  21,  13.  Acts  10,  41.  The  active  construction, 
having  assembled  (or  assembling)  them^  gives  a  good  sense, 
but  is  less  agreeable  to  Greek  usage.     Commanded  is  a 


ACTS  1,  4.5.  7 

different  verb  from  that  in  v.  2,  and  denotes  a  peremptory 
order,  sucli  as  a  military  word  of  command.  That  they  should 
not  depart^  literally,  not  to  he  parted  or  divided^  either  by 
physical  or  moral  force.  This  is  the  meaning  of  the  Greek 
v-erb  (xwpt^ecr^at)  for  the  most  part  in  the  classics,  and  always 
in  the  Scriptures.  See  18,  1.  2,  where  it  seems  to  imply  selt- 
constraint  or  effort,  and  compare  Rom.  8,  35.  Heb.  V,  26. 
I  Cor.  7,  10.  11.  15.  Philem.  15.  There  is  no  need  of  dilut- 
ing it  in  this  case,  so  as  to  mean  mere  departure.  The  ex- 
pression seems  to  have  been  chosen  for  the  very  purpose  of 
conveying  the  idea,  that  they  must  not  allov>^  themselves  to 
be  either  drawn  or  driven  from  Jerusalem,  until  the  time 
prescribed  had  fully  come.  The  original  order  of  the  words 
is,  from  Jerusalem  not  to  he  parted.  Wiclif's  version  of  the 
next  clause  is,  abide  the  behest  of  the  Father.  The  promise 
of  the  Father  was  the  promise  given  by  him,  not  merely  in 
the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament  (such  as  Joel  3, 1.  Zech. 
2,  10),  all  which  were  summed  up  in  that  of  John  the  Baptist, 
mentioned  in  the  next  verse ;  but  through  our  Lord  himself, 
as  he  expressly  adds.  (See  Luke  24,  49.  John  14,  16.  15,  26. 
16,  1.  13,  and  compare  Matt.  10,  20.  John  20,  22.)  The 
promise  is  here  put,  by  a  natural  metonymy,  for  its  fulfilment. 
Heard  of  me  is  ambiguous  in  English  ;  but  the  context  here 
determines  it  to  mean  heard  from  me.  This  abrupt  transition 
from  the  indirect  to  the  direct  form  of  expression,  by  the  sub- 
stitution of  the  first  for  the  third  person,  is  not  uncommon  in 
the  best  Greek  writers,  and  a  favourite  idiom  of  the  historians, 
both  Greek  and  Latin.  For  scriptural  examples  of  the  same 
thing,  see  Gen.  26,  27.  Deut.  21,  3.  Ps.  2,  3.  6.  91, 14.  Luke 
5, 14.  Acts  17,  3.  23,  22.  Most  modern  versions  preclude  all 
ambiguity  by  the  insertion  of  the  words  said  he. 

5.  Tor  Jolm  truly  baptized  with  water,  but  ye  shall 
be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  not  many  days  hence. 

This  verse  assigns  the  reason  for  the  command  in  v.  4, 
namely,  because  it  was  necessary  to  the  execution  of  the 
divine  purpose,  as  revealed  by  John  the  Baptist,  when  he 
taught  that  the  rite  which  he  administered  was  only  a  pre- 
cursor,  pledge,  and  type  of  that  extraordinary  influence,  foi 
which  they  are  commanded  here  to  v/ait,  as  for  something 
that  must  necessarily  precede  the  renovation  of  the  Church 
and  the  commencement  of  their  own  official  functions.     (See 


8  ACTS  1,  6. 

Matt.  3, 11.  Mark  1,  8.  Luke  3, 16.  John  1,  33.  Acts  11,  16.) 
But  had  not  the  Spirit  been  ah'eady  given  ?  Yes,  to  indivi- 
dual believers,  and  indeed  to  the  apostles  in  a  body  (John  20, 
22) ;  but  not  in  such  a  mode  or  measure  as  was  necessary, 
both  for  themselves  and  for  the  church  at  large.  Truly ^  or 
indeed^  is  the  inadequate  equivalent  in  English  of  a  particle 
(/xcV),  which,  with  its  correlative  (8e)  in  the  next  clause,  gives 
the  verse  an  antithetical  or  balanced  form  extremely  common 
in  Greek  prose.  This  relation  of  the  clauses  may  be  other- 
wise, but  still  imperfectly,  exj^ressed  m  English.  '  As  John 
baptized  with  water,  so  ye  shall  be  baptized  etc'  '  Though 
John  baptized  with  water,  yet  ye  must  be  baptized'  etc.  The 
extraordinary  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  repeatedly  de- 
scribed, both  in  the  language  and  the  types  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, as  poured  on  the  recipient.  Thus  the  standing  symbol 
of  official  gifts  and  graces  is  the  rite  of  unction  or  anointing, 
as  described  or  referred  to,  in  the  Law  (Lev.  8,  12),  the  Psalms 
(133,  2),  the  Prophets  (Isai.  61, 1),  and  the  Gospel  (Luke  4, 
18).  The  official  inspiration  of  Moses  was  extended  to  the 
seventy  elders  by  h&iVi^  put  \ipon  them  (Numb.  11,  17.  25.  26. 
29),  and  the  highest  spiritual  gifts  are  promised  in  that  ex- 
quisite expression,  "  until  the  Spirit  be  poured  upon  us  from 
on  high."  (Isai.  32,  15.)  This  effusion  is  the  very  thing  for 
which  they  are  here  told  to  wait ;  and  therefore,  when  they 
heard  it  called  a  baptism,  whatever  may  have  been  the  pri- 
mary usage  of  the  word,  they  must  have  seen  its  Christian 
sense  to  be  compatible  with  such  an  application,  particularly 
as  they  must  have  known  it  to  be  used  in  Hellenistic  Greek 
to  signify  a  mode  of  washing  where  immersion  was  excluded, 
such  as  that  of  tables  or  couches,  and  the  customary  pouring 
of  water  on  the  hands  before  eating,  as  still  practised  in  the 
East.  (See  Mark  7,  4.  8.  Luke  11,  38.)  With  their  fixed  Old 
Testament  associations,  when  assured  that  they  were  soon  to 
be  baptized  loith  the  Holy  Ghost^  they  would  naturally  think, 
not  of  something  into  which  they  were  to  go  down,  but  of 
something  to  \)q  p>oured  %ipon  thein  from  on  high.  The  inde- 
finite expression,  holy  sp>irit^  might  without  absurdity  be 
taken  as  a  parallel  to  loater  in  the  first  clause,  each  then  de- 
noting a  baptismal  element  or  fluid.  But  the  personal  sense 
of  Holy  Spirit  is  so  frequent  and  predominant  in  Scripture, 
that  the  presumption  must  be  always  in  its  favour  ;  and  that 
presumption  is  confirmed  in  this  case  by  the  very  absence  of 
the  article  in  Greek,  which  may  be  understood  as  implying 


ACTS  1,  5.6.  9 

ttat  the  phrase  had  come  to  he  regarded  as  a  personal  or 
proper  name.  With,  literally  m,  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  may 
either  be  a  synonymous  expression,  or  expressive  of  more  inti- 
mate relation,  and  perhaps  of  the  essential  difference  between 
a  mere  material  element  and  one  not  only  living  but  divine. 
N'ot  many  days  hence,  literally,  not  after  these  many  days. 
All  the  old  English  versions,  from  Wiclif 's  to*  the  Rhemish, 
have  either  after  or  icithin  these  few  days. 

6.  When  they  therefore  were  come  together,  they 
asked  of  him,  saying,  Lord,  wilt  thou  at  this  time 
restore  again  the  kingdom  to  Israel  ? 

The  construction  of  the  first  clause  is  ambiguous,  as  it  may 
also  be  translated,  they  then  (or  so  then  they)  icho  had  come 
together  asked  etc.  This  makes  it  doubtful  whether  vs.  4  and 
6  refer  to  different  meetings  or  the  same.  In  favour  of  the 
former  supposition  is  the  circumstance  that  otherwise  the 
mention  of  their  having  come  together  is  superfluous,  unless 
we  understand  it  of  their  gathering  around  him,  to  propose 
the  question  ;  and  this  is  hardly  consistent  with  the  usage  of 
the  Greek  verb  {arvve\^6vTe<i).  On  the  other  hand,  the  natural 
impression  made  by  the  whole  context  is  that  of  one  continued 
conversation.  The  question  happily  is  one  of  little  exegetical 
importance.  Asked  of  him.  Here,  as  in  v.  3,  of  seems  su- 
perfluous, at  least  in  modern  English.  The  Greek  verb  is  a 
compound  one,  perhaps  denoting  to  interrogate  or  question, 
with  formality  and  earnestness.  IVilt  thou  restore,  or  more 
correctly,  art  thou  restoring,  or  about  to  restore  ?  The 
precise  form  of  the  original  is  foreign  from  our  idiom,  tliough 
not  unusual  in  Greek.  Lord,  if  thou  art  restoring,  i.  e.  (tell 
us)  if  thou  art  restoring,  etc.  The  verb  itself  is  applied  both 
to  physical  and  moral  changes,  as  for  instance  to  the  healing 
of  a  withered  limb  (Matt.  12,  13),  the  miraculous  recovery  of 
sight  (Mark  8,  25),  and  the  revival  of  the  old  Theocracy,  to 
be  effected  by  Elijah  at  his  second  coming  (Matt.  17,  11. 
Mark  9,  12).  The  essential  idea  is  that  of  return  to  a  previous 
state,  Avhich  had  been  lost  or  mterrupted.  The  question 
shows,  neither  an  absolute  misapprehension  of  the  nature  of 
Christ's  kingdom,  nor  a  perfectly  just  view  of  it,  but  such  a 
mixture  of  truth  and  error  as  might  have  been  expected  from 
their  previous  history  and  actual  condition.  That  the  king- 
dom of  Israel  was  to  be  restored,  they  were  justified  in  think- 
VOL.  I. — •!* 


10  ACTS  1,  6.  7. 

ing  by  such  prophecies  as  Isai.  1,  26.  9,  7.  Jer.  23,  6.  33, 15. 
17.  Dan.  7,  13. 14.  Hos.  3,  4.  5.  Amos  9, 11.  Zech.  9,  9.  They 
were  only  mistaken,  if  at  all,  in  expecting  it  to  be  restored  in 
its  primeval  form.  Some  have  miderstood  them  as  protesting 
against  its  restoration  to  the  people  who  had  so  lately  put  our 
Lord  to  death.  His  reply  shows,  however,  that  the  gist  of 
the  inquiry  was  not  Israel,,  but  at  this  tiine. 

7.  And  lie  said  unto  tliem,  It  is  not  for  you  to 
know  (the)  times  or  (the)  seasons,  which  the  Fatliei 
hath  put  in  his  own  power. 

This  is  our  Lord's  answer  to  their  curious  inquiry  as  to 
the  time  fixed  for  the  erection  of  his  kingdom.  The  first 
word  answers  to  the  continuative  particle  in  Greek  (Se),  which 
may  be  rendered  either  and  or  hut.  It  is  not  for  you.,  lite- 
rally, it  is  not  yours.,  i.  e.  your  province  or  your  jDrivilege, 
your  duty,  or  your  share  in  the  great  work  now  going  for- 
ward. Tbues  and  seasons  are  not  synonymes,  but  generic 
and  specific  terms,  the  one  denoting  intervals  and  periods, 
the  other  points  and  junctures,  like  era  and  epoch  in  modern 
English.  By  supplying  the  article,  our  version  puts  a  limita- 
tion on  the  words,  which  may  be  true,  but  is  not  found  in  the 
original.  It  was  not  the  times  or  seasons  of  this  one  case 
merely,  but  ti7nes  or  seasons  generally,  that  they  were  for- 
bidden to  pry  into.  Father  may  here  be  put  for  God,  as 
opposed  to  creatures,  without  regard  to  the  distmction  of 
persons ;  or  for  the  Father,  as  distinguished  from  the  Son. 
(See  Mark  13,  32.  and  compare  Matt.  20,  23.)  Perhaps  our 
Lord  here  speaks  of  the  Father's  knowledge  rather  than  his 
own,  in  order  to  divert  the  minds  of  his  disciples  from  the 
subject.  Put  m  his  oicn  power  seems  to  mean  that  they 
were  not  so  of  necessity,  but  made  so  by  an  arbitrary  act  of 
will.  This  is  not  only  an  incongruous  idea  in  itself,  but  vv^ould 
have  been  otherwise  expressed  in  Greek.  The  verb  {Wero) 
has  no  doubt  the  same  meaning  as  in  19,  21,  viz.  determi7ied 
or  resolved^  and  the  next  phrase  {Iv  i^ovaia)  the  same  as  in 
Matt.  21,  23.  27.  The  whole  clause  will  then  mean,  which  the 
Father  hath  fixed  (or  settled)  in  (the  exercise  of)  his  own 
power  (or  authority.,  both  physical  capacity  and  moral  right). 
This  is  a  general  reproof  of  all  excessive  curiosity  in  reference 
to  such  times  or  seasons  as  have  neither  been  explicitly  re- 


ACTS  Ij  7.  8.  11 

vealed,  nor  rendered  ascertainable  by  ordinary  means.     (See 
Deut.  29,  29.) 

8.  But  ye  shall  receive  power,  after  tliat  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  come  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  witnesses  unto 
me,  both  in  Jerusalem  and  in  all  Judea,  and  in  Sama- 
ria, and  unto  the  uttermost  part  of  the  earth. 

This  verse  contrasts  what  they  were  not  to  know  with 
wliat  they  might  know,  as  a  sort  of  consolation  or  compensa- 
tion for  the  repulse  which  they  had  just  experienced.  They 
were  not  to  have  the  knowledge  which  they  sought,  but 
something  better  for  themselves  and  others.  The  knowledge 
which  they  needed  was  rather  knowledge  of  the  past  than  of 
the  future.  The  prophetic  gift  is  not  excluded,  but  implicitly 
denied  to  be  the  primary  function  of  the  Apostolic  office, 
which  w^as  testimony,  not  prediction.  He  cures  their  morbid 
curiosity  (says  Calvin)  by  recalling  them  to  present  duty.  If 
they  really  expected  to  be  kings,  at  once  and  in  the  worldly 
sense,  these  words  must  surely  have  sufficed  to  disabuse  them. 
Poicer  may  here  be  either  a  cause  or  an  effect :  the  power  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  exerted  on  them,  or  tlie  power  wrought  in 
them  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  In  favour  of  the  latter  is  the 
parallel  expression  in  Luke  24, 49,  "  until  ye  be  endued  with 
power  from  on  high,"  which  could  not  have  been  said  of  a 
divine  perfection.  The  power  then  is  their  extraordinary 
preparation  for  their  work,  including  the  gifts  of  tongues,  of 
teaching,  and  of  miracles.  The  margin  of  our  Bible  gives  a 
diffi3rent  construction  of  this  first  clause,  ye  shall  receive  the 
p)Oicer  of  the  Holy  Ghost  coming  %ipon  you.  There  are  two 
grammatical  objections  to  this  syntax;  the  absence  of  the 
article  before  the  noun  (^^oioer),  and  the  position  of  the  parti- 
ciple {comi7ig).  The  modern  philological  interpreters  prefer 
the  absolute  construction  of  the  genitives,  the  Holy  8pi7'it 
coming^  i.  e.  by  his  coming,  at  his  coming,  when  he  comes, 
or  as  the  text  of  our  translation  has  it,  after  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  come  upon  you.  The  same  verb  is  applied  elsewhere 
to  the  divine  agency  in  the  miraculous  conception  of  our 
Saviour  (Luke  1,35).  Instead  of  icitnesses  unto  or  for  m^ 
(/xot),  some  of  the  oldest  manuscripts  have  my  witnesses  (ftov), 
without  material  effect  upon  the  sense.  They  were  to  be  wit- 
nesses of  all  that  they  had  seen  and  heard  from  the  beginning 
of  their  intercourse  with  Christ  (John  15,27.  Luke  24,18), 


12  ACTS  1,  8.9. 

his  doctrines,  miracles,  life,  death,  resurrection,  and  ascension, 
(See  below,  v.  22.  ch.  2,32.  10,39.41.  22,15.  26,16.)  The 
Greek  word  for  ioit7iess  (fxaprvs)  is  not  here  used  in  its  later 
sense  of  martyr  (see  below,  on  22,  20),  as  the  grand  func- 
tion of  the  apostolic  office  was  no  more  martyrdom  than  it 
was  prediction.  The  gradation  in  the  last  clause  corresponds 
to  the  great  periods  of  the  history  recorded  in  the  book 
before  us.  Both  in  Jerusalem  and  all  Judea,  not  merely  in 
the  capital,  as  might  perhaps  have  been  expected,  but  through- 
out the  country.  All  Judea  may  mean  all  the  rest  of  that 
province  besides  the  capital  (as  in  Isai.  1, 1.  2, 1.  3, 1),  or  Judea 
in  the  wide  sense,  as  denoting  the  whole  country.  This  last 
is  not  forbidden  by  the  mention  of  Samaria,  the  inhabitants 
of  which  were  not  considered  Jews  (John  4,  9),  and  which  is 
here  introduced  as  a  sort  of  neutral  ground  or  frontier  between 
Jews  and  Gentiles.  This  wider  sense  is  also  favoured  by  the 
circumstance  that  Galilee  is  not  named,  although  some  have 
thought  it  to  be  mentioned  m  the  last  words,  which  must 
then  be  rendered,  the  uttermost  (^xirt)  of  the  land.  But  this 
limitation  of  the  sense  is  forbidden  by  the  obvious  climax,  or 
progressive  enlargement  of  their  field  of  labour  to  its  utmost 
limits,  as  well  as  by  the  clear  analogy  of  other  places,  where 
any  but  the  strongest  sense  is  inadmissible.  (See  below,  on 
13,  47,  and  compare  Isai.  49,  6.)  Uttermost  {part)^  or  extreme 
(point),  of  the  earth.  This  and  other  kindred  phrases  are 
employed  in  the  Old  Testament,  to  signify  all  nations,  not 
excepting  the  remotest.  (See  Ps.  2,  8.  19,  4.  67, 1.  72,  8.  Isai. 
48,  20.  Zech.  9, 10.)  Unto  does  not  fully  represent  the  Greek 
preposition  (ews),  which  can  only  be  expressed  in  English  by 
such  strengthened  forms  as  out  to,  eve7i  to,  as  far  as,  all  sug- 
gesting the  idea  of  great  distance.  Chrysostom  hints  at  the 
remarkable  contrast  between  this  charge  and  their  original 
commission  (Matt.  10,  5).  "  Go  not  into  the  way  of  the  Gen- 
tiles, and  into  (any)  town  of  the  Samaritans  enter  ye  not." 
(Compare  Matt.  15,  24.)  The  time  of  this  restriction  had 
expired,  and  the  last  great  apostolical  commission  is  entirely 
catholic  and  ecumenical. 

9.  And  when  he  had  spoken  these  things,  while 
they  beheld,  he  was  taken  up,  and  a  cloud  received 
him  out  of  their  sight. 

The  preliminaries  of  our  Lord's  ascension  having  been 


ACTS  I.  9.  13 

described,  the  historian  now  records  the  Ascension  itself. 
TFheji  he  had  spoke?!.,  literally,  having  spoken.  The  past 
participle  (etTroV)  implies  that  his  discourse  Avas  finished,  not 
interrupted  by  his  disappearance.  While  they  beheld.,  lite- 
rally, they  beholding.  It  was  not  behind  their  backs,  or  while 
they  were  looking  in  a  different  direction,  but  in  full  view, 
and  as  an  actual  object  of  their  vision,  that  our  Lord  ascended. 
TaJcen  up  would  be  a  perfectly  correct  translation,  if  it  did 
not  seem  to  make  the  verb  {iTrrjp^'q)  coincide  exactly  with 
the  one  in  v.  2  (ttveA.7}(^^7;),  as  descriptive  of  the  whole  trans- 
action, beginning  on  earth  and  ending  in  heaven ;  whereas  it 
signifies  the  first  stage  or  incipient  act  of  the  Ascension,  that 
of  rising,  or  rather  being  raised,  above  the  surface  of  the 
ground.  The  nearest  equivalent  in  English  would  be,  he  teas 
lifted.  By  a  cloud  some  understand  a  dark  or  thunder  cloud, 
like  that  at  Sinai  (Exod.  19, 16) ;  others  a  luminous  or  briglit 
cloud,  such  as  that  which  overhung  the  transfiguration  (Matt. 
TV,  5.)  The  mtervention  of  a  cloud  may  have  been  designed 
to  answer  two  important  purposes ;  first,  that  of  making  our 
Lord's  transit  from  earth  to  heaven  more  distinctly  visible ; 
and  then  that  of  recalling  to  the  minds  of  the  spectators  the 
awful  but  familiar  symbol  of  Jehovah's  presence  under  the 
Old  Testament  (Exod.  16,  10.  19, 16.  24,  15.  18.  33,  9. 10.  40, 
34-38.)  Received  is  a  very  inadequate  translation  of  the 
Greek  verb  (vTrekapev),  which  primarily  means  to  raise  a  thing 
by  getting  under  it,  and  then  to  catch  up  or  raise  suddenly, 
as  a  wind  or  storm  does.  This  sense,  which  is  common  in  the 
classics,  is  entirely  appropriate  here,  and  marks  the  second 
step  or  stage  of  the  Ascension.  A  cloud  caught  him  up  (and 
away)  out  of  their  sight.,  or,  more  exactly,  from  their  {very) 
eyes.  Here  again  we  are  reminded,  that  they  were  actually 
looking  on  and  saw  the  whole  proceeding,  till  the  object 
passed  the  natural  and  necessary  boundary  of  vision.  This 
distinguishes  the  case  from  every  other  like  it ;  not  only  from 
the  fabled  apotheosis  of  Hercules  amidst  the  smoke  of  his  own 
funeral-pile,  and  that  of  Romulus  during  an  eclipse,  with  the 
addition,  in  both  cases,  of  a  preternatural  and  fearful  storm ; 
but  also  from  the  fiery  translation  of  Elijah  (2  Kings  2, 11), 
the  difference  between  which  and  our  Lord's  ascension  has 
been  thought  to  prefigure  that  between  the  spirit  of  the  old 
and  new  economy,  or  of  the  Law  and  Gospel.  (Compare  Luke 
9, 52-56.)  It  is  characteristic  of  the  sacred  history,  that 
Luke's  whole  narrative  of  this  astonishing  occurrence,  in  the 


1*  ACTS  1,  9.  10. 

book  before  ns,  is  confined  to  this  one  verse,  the  context  hav 
mg  reference  to  what  occurred  before  and  afterwards.  And 
yet  it  is  not  a  mere  reiteration  of  his  previous  account,  which 
is  also  comprised  in  a  single  sentence.  (See  Luke  24,  51,  and 
conij3are  Mark  16, 19.)  From  Luke's  mention  of  the  eleven 
and'them  tliatioerexoitli  them  (Luke  24,  33),  and  the  unbroken 
narrative  that  follows  there,  it  has  been  inferred  that  there 
were  many  witnesses  of  the  Ascension;  but  the  narrative 
before  us  makes  the  natural  impression,  that  this  grand  sight 
was  confined  to  the  Apostles. 

10.  And  while  they  looked  stedfastly  toward  heaven, 
as  he  went  up,  behold,  two  men  stood  by  them  in 
white  apparel. 

They  looked  stedfastly^  or  rather,  they  were  gazmg.  The 
Greek  verb  strictly  denotes  tension  or  straining  of  the  eyes. 
The  word  translated  lohile  corresponds  to  our  as,  and  like 
it  may  express  either  time  or  resemblance.  If  the  latter 
meanmg  is  assumed  here,  the  sense  of  the  whole  clause  will 
be  that  they  were  like  {mer^  gazing^  or  icere  as  (if)  gazioig^ 
into  heaven.  But  the  temporal  meaning  (when  or  while)  is 
preferred  by  almost  all  hiterpreters.  Toward  heaven  might  be 
more  correctly  rendered  into  heaven.  They  gazed  not  only 
at  but  into  heaven,  as  if  to  penetrate  its  secrets  and  discern 
their  now  invisible  Redeemer.  As- he  loeiit  up,  Hterally,  he 
advancing  or  proceeding,  the  direction  of  his  course  being 
not  expressed  but  suggested  by  the  context.  All  this  is  in- 
tended to  evince  more  clearly,  that  our  Saviour  did  not  vanish 
or  miraculously  disappear  (compare  Luke  24,  31),  but  simply 
passed  beyond  the  boundary  of  vision,  behold,  as  usual,  in- 
troduces something  unexpected  or  surprising.  While  they 
were  gazing  into  heaven,  ttoo  ?nen  stood,  or  rather  had  stood 
(or  taken  their  stand)  beside  them.  White  cqyparel,  or  white 
garments,  as  in  such  connections  elsewhere,  seems  to  signify 
not  colour  merely,  but  a  preternatural  efiiulgence.  (See  Matt. 
17,  2.  Mark  9,  3.  Luke  9,  29.)  This  has  led  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  men  here  mentioned,  though  in  human  form,  were 
angels,  like  the  strangers  who  aj^peared  at  the  "resurrection, 
and  to  whom  both  designations  are  applied  by  difierent  evan- 
gelists. (Compare  Matt.  28,  2.  John  20, 12,  with  Mark  IG,  5. 
Luke  24,4.)  Some  have  thought  it  not  unlikely,  that  the 
same  two  angels  reappeared  on  this  occasion ;  but  a  still  more 


ACTS   1,  10.  11.  16 

striking  supposition,  which  I  owe  to  the  suggestion  of  a  friend, 
is  that  these  two  men  were  Moses  and  Elijah,  who  had  been 
present  at  the  transfiguration,  and  there  talked  with  Jesus  of 
his  exodus  about  to  be  accomplished  at  Jerusalem  (Luke  9, 
31.)  There  is  something  sublime  in  the  idea,  that  the  great 
prophetic  Legislator  and  Reformer,  Avho  had  come  from 
heaven  to  be  present  at  the  momentary  anticipation  of  the 
Mediator's  glory,  now  appeared  again  as  witnesses  of  his  de- 
parture to  take  final  and  perj^etual  possession  of  it.  This 
hypothesis  may  help  us  to  account  for  the  abruptness  and  con- 
ciseness of  the  narrative,  as  if  the  writer,  for  the  moment, 
thought  of  the  Transfiguration  and  Ascension  as  immediately 
successive,  losing  sight  of  all  that  intervened,  and  therefore 
mtroducing  the  same  persons  T\ithout  naming  them  again.  It 
also  gives  unspeakable  authority  and  interest  to  the  promise 
in  the  next  verse,  as  proceeding  from  two  most  illustrious 
prophets  of  the  old  economy.  After  all,  however,  this  idea, 
fruitful  as  it  is,  must  be  regarded  as  a  mere  conjecture. 

11.  Which  also  said,  Ye  men  of  Galilee,  why 
stand  ye  gazing  up  into  heaven  ?  This  same  Jesus, 
which  is  taken  up  from  you  into  heaven,  shall  so  come 
in  like  manner  as  ye  have  seen  him  go  into  heaven. 

Here,  as  in  v.  2  above,  the  also  is  by  no  means  super- 
fluous, but  adds  to  the  smiple  meaning  of  the  verb,  that  they 
did  not  merely  take  their  stand  by  the  disciples,  which  was 
sufficient  of  itself  to  awe  them,  but  also  audibly  addressed 
them.  Men  of  Galilee^  or  Galilean  3Ien,  or  still  more' 
closely,  Men^  Galileans^  that  is.  Men  (who  are  also)  Galileans. 
This  designation,  which  was  afterwards  derisively  applied  to 
Christians,  can  of  course  have  no  such  meaning  here,  but  is 
rather  a  respectful  recognition  of  those  present,  as  the  coun- 
trymen and  tried  friends  of  the  person  who  had  just  ascended. 
The  same  idea  is  suggested  by  the  use  of  the  word  trans- 
lated me7i  (ai/Spe?),  which,  in  ancient  usage,  approaches  to  the 
modern  sense  of  gentlemen^  in  this  and  other  like  combina- 
tions. (See  below,  v.  16.  2,  14.  22.  17,  22,  etc.)  Why  stand 
«/e,  or,  adhering  closely  to  the  form  of  the  original,  why  have 
ye  stood  (or  been  standing^  so  long)  loohing  into  heaven  f 
The  word  gazing^  which  is  here  used  by  four  of  the  old  Eng- 
lish versions,  would  have  been  more  appropriate  in  v.  10, 
where  they  all  have  looked.     The  question  of  the  two  men 


16  ACTS  1,  11.  12. 

seems  to  involve  an  indirect  reproof  of  their  forgetfulness  or 
unbelief  of  wliat  their  Lord  himself  had  told  them.  This 
was  betrayed  by  their  excessive  and  continued  wonder  at  his 
disappearance,  as  if  they  had  expected  him  to  stay  on  earth 
for  ever,  though  the  promise  of  the  Paraclete,  which  he  had 
just  renewed  to  them,  was  formally  suspended  on  his  ovm 
departure,  and  return  to  the  bosom  of  the  Father  (John  ]  6, 
7.)  Their  astonishment,  moreover,  seems  to  show  that  they 
despaired  of  ever  seeing  Christ  himself  again ;  whereas  he 
had  repeatedly  declared  that  he  would  come  again  (John  14, 
3) ,  and  in  the  very  way  that  he  had  now  dej)arted,  i.  e.  in  a 
cloud  (Luke  21,  27),  or  as  it  is  variously  expressed  by  the 
Evangelists,  i?i  clouds,  07i  the  clouds,  or  loith  the  clouds  of 
heaven.  (See  Mark  13,  26.  14,  62.  Matt.  24,  30.  26,  64, 
in  several  of  which  places,  the  English  versions  have  gra- 
tuitously changed  the  preposition.)  The  question  of  the  two 
men  was  intended  therefore  to  recall  them  to  themselves, 
and  to  remind  them  that,  instead  of  stupidly  and  idly  gazing 
after  one  who  was  no  longer  visible,  they  should  rather  sho\\' 
their  love  to  him  by  instantly  obeying  his  farewell  commands, 
and  trusting  his  repeated  promise  to  return,  which  they  ac- 
cordingly repeat,  as  if  to  show  their  own  implicit  confidence 
in  its  fulfilment.  In  like  man7ier,  literally,  what  manner,  an 
expression  similar  to  what  day  m  v.  2  above.  The  Greek 
phrasS  (6V  r^o-nov)  never  mdicates  mere  certainty  or  vague 
resemblance  ;  but  wherever  it  occurs  in  the  New  Testament, 
denotes  identity  of  mode  or  manner.  (Compare  Matt.  23, 
37.  Luke  13,  34.  Acts  7,  28.  2  Tun.  3,  8.)  Ham  seen,  or 
more  exactly,  saio,  the  form  of  the  original  imj^lying  that  the 
sight  was  over  when  these  words  were  uttered.  The  verb 
itself  is  not  the  ordinary  verb  to  see,  but  one  impljdng  some 
unusual  or  striking  spectacle,  the  root  of  our  word  theatre 
and  all  its  cognate  forms.  We  read  nothing  more  of  the  two 
men,  who  may  have  disappeared  as  suddenly  as  Moses  and 
Elijah  at  the  Transfiguration  (Mark  9,  8.)  It  would  seem,  at 
least,  perhaps  from  the  conciseness  of  the  narrative,  that  the 
Eleven  thought  no  more  of  them,  but  in  their  eagerness  to 
do  as  they  were  bidden,  turned  their  backs  on  those  by 
whom  the  admonition  was  conveyed  to  them,  mthout  in- 
quiring whence  they  came,  or  what  was  now  become  of  them. 
(See  below,  on  8,  39.) 

12.  Then  returned  they  unto  Jerusalem  from  the 


ACTS  1,  12.  17 

mount  called  Olivet,  which  is  from  Jerusalem  a  sa"b- 
bath-day's  journey. 

This  verse  and  the  two  followhig  furnish  the  transition 
from  the  first  to  the  second  principal  event  recorded  in  the 
chapter  We  have  here  the  return  of  the  Eleven  from  the 
place  of  tl  e  Ascension  to  the  Holy  City.  JJnto^  or  more  ex- 
actly, into  Jerusalem^  denoting  not  mere  approach  or  arrival, 
but  actual  entrance,  as  appears  from  the  verse  followmg. 
In  the  next  clause  the  original  construction  is  peculiar — 
frotn  a  mounts  the  {one)  called  Olivet — as  if  he  had  said, 
'they  returned  from  a  mountain  where  all  this  occurred, 
and  which,  it  may  be  added,  w^as  called  Olivet.'  This  name 
is  borrowed  from  the  Vulgate  ( Oliveti)  and  is  found  in  all 
the  English  versions,  except  that  of  Geneva,  which  has  Olive 
Hill.  The  Latin  word  is  used  by  Cicero,  and  means  an  olive- 
yard  or  orchard.  The  Greek  word  occurs  only  here  in  the 
New  Testament,  but  often  in  the  Septuagint  version,  with  a 
similar  form  meaning  vineyard.  The  name  is  given  here,  and 
sometimes  by  Josephus,  to  the  high  ridge  on  the  east  side 
of  Jerusalem,  beyond  the  Kedron,  elsewhere  called  the  Mount 
of  Olives  (Zech.  14,  4.  Matt.  21,  1.  Mark  11,  1.  Luke  19,  29. 
John  8,  1.)  The  English  Bible  also  uses  the  form  Olivet  in 
2  Sam.  15,  30,  where  the  Hebrew,  Greek  and  Latin  have  the 
Mount  of  Olives.  It  still  bears  the  tree  from  which  it  takes 
its  name,  but  not  in  such  abundance  as  of  old.  The  old 
tradition,  mentioned  by  Eusebius  in  the  early  part  of  the 
fourth  century,  that  Christ  ascended  from  the  summit  of  the 
mountain,  seems  to  contradict  the  statement  in  Luke  24,  50. 
51,  that  lie  led  them  out  as  far  as  JBethany.^  which  was  on  the 
eastern  side  of  Olivet,  and  fifteen  furlongs  from  Jerusalem 
(John  11,  18) ;  whereas  the  distance  of  the  mount  itself  is 
here  described  as  little  more  than  half  as  great.  The  sabbath- 
day^s  journey.,  or  as  it  might  be  more  exactly  rendered  sab- 
bathes  icay  or  walk,  was  not  a  long  one,  as  the  use  of  the 
word  journey  has  led  many  English  readers  to  imagine,  but 
a  space  of  .two  thousand  tjubits,  between  seven  and  eight  fur- 
longs, the  extent  to  which  the  Jews  were  allowed,  by  the  tra- 
dition of  the  elders,  to  leave  home  upon  the  sabbath.  The 
measure  is  supposed  to  have  been  borrowed  from  the  space 
between  the  people  and  the  ark,  when  they  passed  over 
Jordan  (Josh.  3,  4.)  The  distance  seems  to  be  here  stated 
only  for  the  purpose  of  conveying  the  idea,  that  the  Moimt  of 


18  ACTS   1,  12.  13. 

Oli  ves  was  not  far  from  the  city.  This  idea  is,  besides,  expressed 
in  Greek  by  a  word  omitted  in  the  common  version,  namely, 
near  (eyy^'s).  The  literal  translation  of  the  clause  is,  ichich  is 
near  Jerusalem^  having  a  sahbatli's  icalk  (between  them.) 
The  word  having  (fx^^)  is  also  omitted  in  the  English  version, 
by  a  double  inadvertence,  with  which  our  translators  are  not 
often  chargeable.  Some  take  the  Greek  word  in  the  sense 
of  distant^  w^hich  belongs  however  only  to  the  compound 
form  {cLTrexov).  There  is  no  allusion  to  the  customary  sabbath 
promenade  of  the  inhabitants,  but  only  to  a  measure  of  dis- 
tance, with  which  all  Jewish  readers  were  familiar. 

13.  And  when  they  were  come  in,  they  went  np 
into  an  upper  room,  where  abode  both  Peter  and  James 
and  John  and  Andrew,  Philip  and  Thomas,  Bartholo- 
mew and  Matthew,  James  (the  son)  of  Alpheus  and 
Simon  Zelotes,  and  Judas  (the  brother)  of  James. 

The  entrance  mentioned  in  the  first  clause  may  be  either 
that  into  the  city  or  that  into  the  house.  Aoi  iqyper  room^ 
not  any  room  above  the  ground-floor,  which  would  be  other- 
wise expressed  in  Greek ;  much  less  a  garret  or  inferior 
apartment ;  but  a  com.paratively  spacious  room  reserved, 
both  in  Greek  and  Jewish  houses,  for  the  use  of  guests  or  for 
unusual  occasions.  (See  below,  on  9,  39.  20,  8.)  The  original 
expression  has  the  article  {the  upper  room)^  which  may  mean 
the  only  one  belonging  to  the  house  ;  but  as  no  house  is  spe- 
cified, it  seems  ratlier  to  refer  to  something  previously  men- 
tioned or  already  known.  This  is  altogether  natural  if  we 
suppose  them  to  have  still  frequented  the  same  upper  room, 
in  which  they  had  partaken  of  the  Passover,  and  which  had 
been  designated  by  the  Lord  in  a  remarkable  manner  (Matt. 
26,  18.  Mark  14,  15.  Luke  22,  12.)  This  is  much  more 
probable  than  that  they  had  procured  another  place  for  their 
assemblies,  either  in  a  private  house  or  in  the  precincts  of  the 
temple.  Even  supposmg  that  they  could  have  been  accom 
modated  in  one  of  the  chambers  or  small  houses  which  sur 
rounded  the  courts  of  the  temple,  they  could  have  had  n( 
reason  for  preferring  it  to  one  already  consecrated  by  th 
presence  and  the  farewell  words  of  their  ascended  Master 
It  is  probable,  indeed,  that  strangers,  who  continued  in  Jeru- 
ealem  from  Passover  to  Pentecost,  commonly  retained  tho 


ACTS  1,  13.  19 

same  rooms  during  the  whole  interval.  Besides,  an  apart- 
ment belonging  to  the  temple  would  hardly  have  been  sim- 
l^ly  called  an  ui^per  room.  The  statement  in  Luke's  Gospel 
(24,  53)  that  after  their  return  from  the  Ascension,  "they 
were  continually  in  the  temple,  praising  and  blessing  God," 
means  nothing  more  than  our  familiar  phrase,  that  any  one 
is  always  at  church.  To  the  argument  derived  from  the 
propriety  or  fitness  of  the  first  Christian  meetings  being  held 
within  the  precincts  of  the  Jewish  sanctuary,  it  has  been  re- 
plied, that  there  was  nothing  more  distinctive  of  the  new  dis- 
pensation than  its  freedom  from  the  local  and  ritual  restric- 
tions of  the  old.  Though  neither  of  these  reasons  can  be 
deemed  conclusive,  they  may  serve  at  least  to  neutralize  each 
other.  Where  dbode^  or  literally,  were  ahiding^  a  form  of 
expression  which  implies  continued,  but  not  necessarily  a  con- 
stant residence.  The  Greek  verb  is  jDromiscuously  used  to 
signify  both  permanent  and  temporary  occupation.  The 
requisitions  of  the  text  and  context  are  quite  satisfied  by  the 
assumption,  that  they  daily  assembled  in  the  upper  room,  or 
at  the  most  spent  a  large  part  of  their  time  there,  in  the  acts 
and  services  described  below.  We  have  then  a  catalogue  of 
the  Apostles,  introduced,  as  some  suppose,  because  they  were 
now  re-assembled  and  re-organized  after  their  dispersion 
(Matl.  26,  56.  Mark  14, 50.)  But  besides  that  they  had  several 
times  met  since  that  defection  (Matt.  28,  16.  Mark  16, 14. 
Luke  24,  36.  John  20,  19.26.  21, 14),  a  distinct  enumeration 
of  their  names  would  have  been  natural,  not  to  say  necessary, 
as  an  introduction  to  the  apostolical  history.  This  is  the 
fourth  list  contained  in  the  New  Testament  (compare  Matt. 
10,  2-4.  Mark  3, 16-19.  Luke  6, 14-16),  and  m  some  points 
different  from  all  the  rest.  Although  no  two  of  these  cata- 
logues agree  precisely  in  the  order  of  the  names,  they  may 
all  be  divided  into  three  quaternions^  which  are  never  inter- 
changed, and  the  leading  names  of  which  are  the  same  in  all. 
Thus  the  first  is  always  Peter,  the  fifth  Philip,  the  ninth 
James  the  son  of  Alpheus,  and  the  twelfth  Judas  Iscariot. 
Another  difference  is  that  Matthew  and  Luke's  Gosjoel  give 
the  names  in  pairs,  or  two  and  two,  while  Mark  enumerates 
them  singly,  and  the  list  before  us  follows  both  these  methods, 
one  after  the  other.  A  third  distinction  is  that  this  list  adds 
no  titles  or  descriptions  to  the  leading  names,  but  only  to 
those  near  the  end.  Both  Peter ^  hke  a  similar  expression  in 
V.  8,  moans  not  only  Peter  but  the  others  also.     This,  with 


20  ACTS  1,  13. 

his  uniform  position  at  the  head  of  the  list,  marks  distinctly 
his  priority,  not  as  a  superior  in  rank  and  office,  but  as  a  repre- 
sentative  'and  spokesman  of  the  rest,  like  the  foreman  of  a 
jury  or  the  chairman  of  a  large  committee.  This  priority, 
which  often  incidentally  appears  throughout  the  Gospel  His- 
tory (e.  g.  Matt.  15,15.  16,16.  17,24.  18,21.  19,27.  Mark 
10,28.  11,21.  Luke  8, 45.  12,41.  18,28.  22,32.33.  John  6, 
68.  13,  24),  so  far  from  amounting  to  a  primacy  or  permanent 
superiority,  was  less  an  advantage  to  himself  than  a  con- 
venience to  his  brethren,  and  indeed  occasioned  some  of  his 
most  serious  errors  and  severest  trials.  (See  Matt.  16,  16.  22. 
26,  33.  51.  58.  Mark  8,  32.  14,  29.  47.  54.  66.  Luke  22,  34. 
50.55.  John  13,8.  36.37.  18,10.11.16.)  It  is  now  a  very 
general  belief,  that  the  affecting  scene  in  John  21, 15-17,  was 
Peter's  restoration  to  the  apostleship,  from  w^hich  he  had 
fallen  for  a  time  by  the  denial  of  his  master  ;  the  three  ques- 
tions and  injunctions  there  recorded  corresponding  to  his 
three  acts  of  apostasy.  Be  this  as  it  may,  we  find  him  here 
resuming  the  position  which  he  occupied  before  and  is  to 
occupy  throughout  a  large  part  of  the  present  history.  The 
other  names  are  all  familiar  from  the  Gospels.  James  and 
Jolin^  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  and  Sons  of  Thunder,  early  called 
to  be  disciples  and  apostles  (Matt.  4,  21.  10,  2.  Mark  1,19.  29. 
3,17.  Luke  5,10.  6,14),  and  with  Peter  frequently  distin- 
guished from  the  rest  as  confidential  servants  and  companions 
of  our  Saviour  (Matt.  17,1.  Mark  5,  37.  9,2.  13,3.  Luke  8, 
51),  while  John  was  admitted  to  a  still  more  intimate  and 
tender  friendship  (John  13,23.  19,26.  21,7.20.)  Traits  of 
their  character  appear  in  Mark  10,35-41.  Luke  9,52-56. 
Andrew.,  the  brother  of  Simon  Peter,  and  placed  next  to  him 
by  Mark,  but  here  postponed  to  the  two  sons  of  Zebedee. 
On  one  or  two  occasions  in  the  Gospel  history,  we  find  him 
incidentally  referred  to,  as  attending  on  the  Master  and  con- 
versing with  hmi  (Matt.  4, 18.  10,2.  Markl,  16.  29.  3,18.  13, 
3.  Luke  6, 14.  John  1,40.44.  6,8.  12,22.)  The  same  thing 
may  be  said  of  PA^7^p,  his  townsman  and  associate  (Matt.  10, 
3.  Mark  3,18.  Luke  6,14.  John  1,44-49.  6,5-7.  12,21.22. 
14,  8.  9.)  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  these  two  apostles  are 
known  only  by  Greek  names,  though,  according  to  the  custom 
of  the  age,  they  may  have  had  Hebrew  ones  besides.  Thomas^ 
elsewhere  surnamed  Didymus  (the  Twin,  a  Greek  translation 
of  his  Aramaic  name).  He  also  appears  now  and  then  in  close 
attendance  on  his  master  and  peculiarly  devoted  to  him, 


ACTS  1,  13.  14.    .  21 

although  chiefly  remembered  for  refusing  to  believe  that 
Christ  was  risen  from  the  dead,  until  assured  of  it  by  oc- 
ular inspection  (John  11,16.  14,5.  20,24-29.  21,2.)  JBartho- 
lomew  is  commonly  supposed  to  be  the  same  with  the  N'a- 
thanael  of  John's  Gospel,  chiefly  because  it  seems  improbablb 
that  one  so  highly  honoured  by  the  Saviour,  and  so  intimately 
known  to  the  Apostles,  should  be  excluded  from  their  number, 
while  a  person  otherwise  unknown  was  admitted  to  it.  (See 
John  1,46-50.  21,2.)  Matthew  the  Publican,  also  called 
Levi  and  the  Son  of  Alpheus,  whose  vocation  and  first  inter- 
course with  Christ  are  recorded  by  himself  and  others.  (See 
Matt.  9,  9.  10,3.  Mark  2, 14.  3,18.  Luke  5,  27-29.  6,15.) 
James  of  Alpheus^  i.  e.  as  is  commonly  supposed,  his  son, 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  Judas  of  Jaones  is  no  less  generally 
understood  to  mean  his  brother,  although  some  assume  the 
same  ellipsis  in  both  places,  and  make  Jude  the  son  of  a  James 
otherwise  unknown.  By  comparing  the  evangelists,  it  seems 
that  Jude,  or  Judas  not  Iscariot,  was  also  called  Lebbeus  and 
Thaddeus.  (See  Matt.  10,3.  Mark  3,18.  Luke  6,16.  John 
14, 22.)  Between  James  and  Judas  appears  the  name  of 
Simooi^  surnamed  here  Zelotes,  in  reference  either  to  his 
ardent  temper,  or  to  his  previous  connection  with  the  party 
of  the  Zealots,  v/hose  fanatical  zeal  ultimately  caused  the 
downfall  of  the  Jewish  state,  and  of  whose  organized  existence 
there  are  traces  even  in  the  book  before  us.  Zelotes  seems  to 
be  the  Greek  translation,  as  Ga^ianites  is  the  Greek  form,  of 
an  Aramaic  name  denoting  Zealot.  The  Greek  word  for 
Canaanite  is  altogether  difierent.  The  meaning  Canaite  (in- 
habitant of  Cana)  rests  upon  another  reading.  (See  Matt.  10, 
4.  Mark  3, 18.  Luke  6,  15.) 

14.  These  all  continued  with  one  accord  in  prayer 
and  supplication,  with  (the)  women,  and  Mary  the 
mother  of  Jesus,  and  with  his  brethren. 

To  the  names  of  the  Apostles  is  now  added  an  account  of 
their  employments  during  the  interval  between  Ascension 
Day  and  Pentecost.  These^  whose  names  have  just  been  enu- 
merated. All^  without  exception,  none  of  the  eleven  being 
absent  at  this  interesting  juncture.  Continued^  literally,  xoere 
continuing  {oy persevering)^  a  construction  similar  to  that  m 
the  preceding  verse,  were  dwelling  (or  abiding).  The  Greek 
verb  here  used  strictly  denotes  personal  attendance,  sticking 


22  ACTS  1,  14. 

close  to  any  thing  or  person,  particularly  that  of  a  superior, 
and  is  then  transferred  to  perseverance  in  duty,  such  as  that 
of  public  worship,  and  particularly  prayer.  With  one  accord^ 
or  one  mind^  as  the  Greek  word  j^roperly  denotes,  implying 
unanmiity  of  sentiment  and  concert  or  agreement,  as  well  as 
mere  coincidence  of  time  and  place.  Prayer  and  supplica- 
tion. The  last  word  is  omitted  in  the  Vulgate,  and  in  seve- 
ral of  the  oldest  manuscripts  and  latest  critical  editions.  It 
is  not  a  mere  tautology,  however,  as  the  word  translated 
prayer  originally  signities  the  votive  or  j^romissory  part  of 
worship,  that  which  man  presents  to  God ;  while  the  one  trans- 
lated supplication  properly  means  want,  then  desire,  and  then 
the  exj^ression  of  it,  whether  addressed  to  God  or  man.  The 
two  (if  both  be  genuine)  are  here  joined  to  express  the  whole 
idea  of  devotional  address  to  God.  With  the  women.,  or,  as 
Calvin  and  some  others  understand  it,  with  their  loives.  But 
this,  according  to  Greek  usage,  would  require  the  insertion 
of  two  words,  to  wit,  the  article  and  pronoun  [iclth  the  icioes 
of  them).,  neither  of  which  is  found  in  the  original.  The  strict 
translation  is,  loith  womeii.,  i.  e.  with  women  as  well  as  men ; 
these  services  were  lunited  to  neither  sex.  There  is  no 
express  reference  to  those  particular  women  who  accompanied 
our  Lord  from  Galilee,  witnessed  his  crucifixion,  watched 
his  burial,  and  rejoiced  in  his  resurrection  (Luke  8,  2.  3.  23, 
55.  24,1.  Matt.  27,  55.  56.  Mark  15,47.  16,1.  John  19,  25.) 
Some  of  these  were  no  doubt  present ;  but  the  fact  is  expli- 
citly asserted  only  of  his  mother.  This  is  her  last  appearance 
in  the  history,  a  striking  comment  on  the  false  position  which 
the  church  of  Rome  assigns  to  her,  and  from  which,  if  it  were 
well  founded,  she  might  be  exj^ected  to  fill  much  the  largest 
space  in  all  that  follows.  According  to  one  old  tradition,  she 
died  early  in  Jerusalem;  according  to  another,  she  accom- 
panied John  to  Ephesus  and  lived  to  an  advanced  age.  With 
his  brethren.,  or  his  brothers.,  probably  the  same  who  accom- 
panied his  mother  upon  several  remarkable  occasions  in  the 
Gospel  History  (John  2,  12.  Matt.  12,46-50.  Mark  3,31-35. 
Luke  8, 19-21),  and  w^ould  therefore  seem  to  have  been  mem- 
bers of  her  household.  Beyond  this,  who  his  brethren  were, 
has  been  a  subject  of  dispute  for  ages.  The  bearing  of  this 
question  on  the  personal  identity  and  apostolical  authority  of 
James,  the  so-called  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  will  claim  attention  in 
its  proper  place.  (See  below,  on  12, 17.  15, 13.  21, 18.)  In  the 
case  before  us,  it  is  of  little  exegetical  importance,  wliether  w« 


ACTS   1,  14.  15.  23 

suppose  his  brethren  to  have  been  the  sons  of  Joseph  and 
Mary,  or  her  nephews,  or  the  nephews  of  her  husband,  or  his 
children  by  a  former  marriage  ;  all  which  opinions  have  been 
plausibly  defended.  The  only  fact  certainly  revealed  here  is, 
that  among  those  who  united  in  the  prayers  of  the  Apostles 
at  this  interesting  juncture,  were  the  nearest  relatives  of 
Christ  liimself. 

15.  And  in  those  days,  Peter  stood  up  in  tlie  midst 
of  the  disciples  and  said — the  number  of  names  together 
were  about  an  hundred  and  twenty — 

Here  begins  the  second  topic  or  occurrence  recorded  in 
this  chapter,  the  election  of  a  new  Apostle.  We  have  first 
the  proj^osition  made  by  Peter  (15-22),  and  in  this  verse  a 
specification  of  the  time  and  place.  In  those  clays^  an  indefi- 
nite expression  elsewhere  used  with  great  latitude,  but  here 
restricted  by  the  context  to  the  ten  days,  which  constitute 
the  difference  between  the  forty  mentioned  in  the  third  verse 
and  the  fifty  denoted  by  the  name  of  Pentecost.  (See  below, 
on  2, 1.)  We  have  no  means  of  determining  at  what  part  of 
this  interval  the  occurrence  here  recorded  took  place.  It 
seems  most  natural  however  to  suppose  that  it  happened  near 
the  end  of  the  ten  days,  and  perhaps  on  the  very  eve  of  Pen- 
tecost. Peter^  as  might  have  been  expected,  takes  the  lead 
on  this  occasion,  in  the  exercise  of  that  representative  pri- 
ority, with  which  he  had  so  long  been  invested,  and  to  which 
he  had  been  recently  restored.  Stood  iix?^  or  arose^  implying 
more  publicity  and  form  than  belongs  to  a  mere  conversation. 
In  the  midst  of  the  disciples^  i.  e.  among  them,  or  surrounded 
by  them,  without  any  reference  to  exact  position.  After 
writing  the  word  said^  but  before  recording  the  words  uttered, 
the  historian  guards  against  the  error  of  supposing  that  this 
speech  was  made  to  a  small  or  select  audience.  The  number 
of  names  together  were  might  have  been  more  exactly  ren- 
dered, there  was  a  croicd  of  names  together.  The  first  Greek 
"noun  {o)(ko^)  does  not  mean  mere  number ;  nor  a  very  great 
absolute  number,  which  a  hundred  and  twenty  is  not ;  but  a 
promiscuous  assemblage,  as  distinguished  from  a  corporate  or 
official  body,  such  as  that  of  the  Apostles.  (See  below,  on 
19,  26.  33.  35.)  Names  is  not  synonymous  with  pe^^soois^  either 
here  or  elsewhere  (Rev.  3,  4.  11,13),  but  implies  registration, 
and  that  again  supposes  some  degree  and  k?ud  -of  o^-g-^^^^ 


24  ACTS  1,  15.  16. 

tion.  The  distinction  here  suggested  is  not  that  between 
males  and  females,  only  the  former  being  registered  in  ancient 
times ;  nor  that  between  distinguished  names  and  unknoTVTi 
persons  ;  but  the  word  is  meant  to  qualify  the  one  before  it, 
by  suggestmg  that  although  the  meeting  was  promiscuous 
rather  than  oiRcial,  it  was  not  a  nameless  rabble,  but  a  gather- 
ing of  persons  known  by  name,  and  therefore  one  by  one,  to 
be^  disciples.  Whether  these  were  all  Galileans,  or  all  iVes- 
byters,  or  Presbyters  and  Bishops,  or  representatives  of  con 
gregations,  there  is  nothing  in  the  text  or  context  to  deter- 
mine. It  is  highly  improbable,  however,  although  frequently 
asserted,  that  this  meeting  comprehended  the  whole  body  of 
believers,  even  in  Jerusalem.  (See  John  2,  23.  3,  26.  7,  31. 
11,  45.  48.) 

16.  Men  (and)  bretliren,  this  scripture  must  needs 
have  been  fulfilled,  which  the  Holy  Ghost  by  the  mouth 
of  David  spake  before  concerning  Judas,  which  w^as 
guide  to  them  that  took  Jesus. 

Peter  begins  by  showing  that  the  apostasy  and  death  of 
Judas  had  been  long  before  predicted,  and  could  not  tlierc- 
fore  fail  to  happen.  3Ien  {and)  hretlvren  is  a  combination  simi- 
lar to  that  in  v.  1 1,  although  very  differently  rendered.  While 
men  has  the  same  respectful  import  as  in  that  case,  the  use  of 
the  word  'brethren  recognizes  them  as  fellow  Christians.  The 
singular  form  scripture  does  not  necessarily  denote  a  single 
passage  (as  in  Luke  4,  21),  but  here  includes  the  two  quota- 
tions in  V.  20  below.  Must  needs  have  heen^  or  it  was  neces- 
sary (eSet)  that  it  should  be  fulfilled,  as  it  has  been,  in  the 
death  of  Judas.  (Compare  the  present  of  the  same  verb  in  v. 
21  below.)  The  prediction  here  referred  to  is  not  only  spoken 
of  as  scripture^  i.  e.  written  by  divine  autliority,  but  expressly 
ascribed  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  its  ultimate  author,  and  to 
David  only  as  the  vehicle  or  chamiel  of  communication.  We 
have  thus  the  testimony,  both  of  Peter  and  of  Luke,  to  the 
inspiration  and  Davidic  origin  of  the  psalms  in  question. 
Sjxtke  before^  not  merely  spake  of  old  or  formerly,  but  fore- 
told or  predicted  long  before  the  event,  an  act  necessarily 
implying  inspiration  and  prophetic  foresight.  Goncemmg 
Judas  cannot  be  grammatically  construed  with  fulfilled,  so  as 
to  mean  that  although  spoken  of  another  it  was  verified  in 


ACTS  1,  16.  i;.  25 

him.  This  is  forbidden  by  the  collocation  of  tb^  v/ords  and 
by  the  preposition  (Trcpt),  Avhich  can  only  uidicate  the  tlieme 
or  subject  of  the  prophecy  itself.  Which  was  gulde^  or  more 
exactly,  whc  became  a  guide^  implying  defection  and  apostasy ; 
he  had  been  a  friend  and  an  apostle,  but  he  afterwards  became 
a  guide  to  those  who  seized  him.  In  both  these  clauses,  the 
original  construction  has  a  participial  form,  tJie  {one)  becoming 
guide  to  the  (7nen)  seizing  liim.  The  reference  is  of  course  to 
the  arrest  of  Jesus  in  the  garden  of  Gethsemane  (John  18, 
2.  3).  One  of  the  oldest  commentators  (Chrysostom)  directs 
attention  to  this  mild  and  almost  negative  description  of  the 
crime  of  Judas,  and  ascribes  it,  not  improbably,  to  Peter's 
painful  recollection  of  his  own  denial  of  his  master,  which 
had  only  been  prevented  by  that  master's  intercession  (Luke 
22,  32)  from  being  equally  complete  and  fatal.  This  is  cer- 
tainly more  natural  and  candid  than  the  charge,  which  some 
have  brought  against  Peter,  of  uncharitable  harshness,  in  re- 
ferring to  Iscariot  at  all,  when  his  own  analogous  but  tem- 
porary fall  was  still  so  recent. 

17.  For  he  was  numbered  with  us,  and  had  obtained 
part  of  this  ministry. 

This  verse  assigns  a  reason  why  the  proi:>hecy  and  its  ful- 
filment concerned  them  especially,  to  wit,  because  Judas  had 
been  one  of  them,  not  only  in  appearance  or  in  name,  but  by 
actual  and  personal  participation.  Numbered  with  us  implies, 
not  only  registration  or  enrolment,  like  the  use  of  the  word 
names  in  v.  15,  but  also  a  definite  and  well-known  number, 
namely,  that  of  twelve,  which  was  by  no  means  arbitrary  or 
unmeaning,  as  we  shall  see  below.  As  if  he  had  said, '  he  helped 
with  us  to  make  up  that  significant  and  sacred  number,  which 
has  now  been  broken  and  must  be  restored.'  Or  the  word 
may  be  referred,  in  a  less  emphatic  sense,  to  the  whole  body 
of  believers,  and  the  mention  of  his  apostolic  ofiice  be  restricted 
to  the  last  clause.  Part  of  this  ministry  might  seem  in 
English  to  denote  a  portion  as  distinguished  from  the  whole. 
But  both  the  verb  and  noun  {obtained  part)  have  reference 
in  Greek  (cAa^c  tov  KXrjpov)  to  the  ancient  practice  of  distri- 
buting by  lot,  though  secondarily  applied  to  any  allotment,  oi 
appointment  not  dependent  on  the  will  of  the  recipient, 
whether  the  bestowing  powder  be  divine  or  human.  The  clause 
might  be  more  exactly  renaerea,  snared  the  allotment  of  this 

2 


26  ACTS  1,  17.  18. 

ministry.  The  ministry  in  question  is  of  course  the  apostle 
ship,  to  which  the  same  word  is  applied  by  Paul  (Rom.  11, 13.) 
Both  the  Greek  and  the  English  word  strictly  denote  service^ 
although  commonly  suggestive  of  official  power.  It  is  a  iine 
remark  of  -^schines,  that  office,  when  conferred  by  an  elec- 
tion, is  not  a  lordship  {a.pxq)  but  a  service  (StaKovta). 

18.  Now  this  (man)  purchased  a  field  with  the 
reward  of  iniquity,  and  falling  headlong,  he  burst  asun- 
der in  the  midst,  and  all  his  bowels  gushed  out. 

Having  mentioned  the  treachery  of  Judas,  and  his  long 
connection  with  the  college  of  Apostles,  Peter  reminds  his 
hearers  of  his  frightful  end  ;  not  as  something  new  to  them, 
or  something  which  they  had  forgotten,  for  the  facts  were  too 
recent  and  notorious  to  be  so  presented  ;  but  to  impress  upon 
their  minds  the  actual  and  terrible  fulfilment  of  the  divine 
threatening.  There  is  no  need,  therefore,  of  regarding  this 
verse  as  a  parenthetical  remark  of  the  historian,  which  mdeed 
is  forbidden  by  the  form  of  the  original,  where  now  is  not  a 
single  but  a  double  particle  (/^cv  ow),  employed  to  mark  the 
interruptions  and  resumptions  of  a  continuous  discourse,  like 
so  then  in  the  pauses  and  transitions  of  a  narrative.  Such  an 
expression  would  be  wholly  out  of  place  in  the  beginning  of 
an  insulated  note  or  comment,  interrupting  the  thread  of  the 
discourse.  This  may  be  regarded  as  contemptuous,  a  mean- 
ing which  it  sometimes  has  in  Classical  as  well  as  Hellenistic 
Greek.  Peter  is  here  speaking,  not  as  a  historian  but  as  an 
orator,  to  those  already  well  acquainted  with  the  facts,  and 
therefore  in  no  danger  of  misapprehension.  He  contrasts  the 
loss  and  gain  of  the  betrayer ;  he  had  lost  his  office  and  hi& 
soul,  and  he  had  gained — a  field,  a  piece  of  ground,  which 
only  served  to  perpetuate  his  infamy !  The  disproportion 
here  suggested  is  still  greater  than  the  one  involved  in  our 
Saviour's  awful  question.  What  is  a  man  profited  if  he  gain 
the  whole  world  and  lose  his  own  soul  ?  Purchased  is  not 
so  good  a  version  of  the  Greek  verb  as  acquired  or  gained. 
There  is  therefore  really  no  disagreement  between  Peter's 
oratorical  and  Matthew's  plain  historical  account  of  the  same 
natter,  according  to  which  it  was  the  priests  who  bought  the 
Potter's  Field  with  the  betrayer's  wages  after  he  was  dead 
(Matt.  27,  7.)  Nor  is  it  even  necessary  to  apply  the  legal 
maxim,  qui  facit  per  alium  facit  per  se,  or   to  cite  the 


ACTS  1,  18.  27 

universal  practice  of  describing  one  as  building,  planting, 
saving,  or  destroying,  when  he  only  uses  means  or  instru- 
ments. In  all  such  cases  there  is  a  conscious  purpose,  and 
at  least  a  mediate  or  indirect  co-operation,  on  the  part  of 
the  prime  agent,  which  is  here  entu*ely  wanting.  A  fields 
or  literally,  a  place^  but  like  the  latter  word,  applied  fa- 
miliarly to  landed  property,  estates,  or  residences.  With, 
the  reioard^  or  rather,  out  of^  from^^  the  wages  of  iniquity^ 
not  merely  as  the  means  of  acquisition,  but  the  source, 
the  fountain,  of  his  infamous  celebrity.  Iniquity^  injustice, 
with  particular  allusion  to  our  Saviour's  lawless  condem- 
nation, but  including  also  the  more  positive  idea  of  corrup- 
tion and  malignity,  as  causes  and  occasions  of  the  treachery 
of  Judas.  Falling  headlong^  literally,  becoming  prone  ox- 
prostrate,  an  expression  often  used  by  Homer  in  connection 
Avith  verbs  of  falling,  which  completely  justifies  the  common 
version  from  the  charge  of  introducing  an  idea  not  contained 
in  the  original.  Burst  asunder  :  the  original  verb  primarily 
signifies  a  bursting  noise,  but  secondarily,  the  rupture  which 
occasions  it.  In  the  miclst^  not  of  us,  or  of  a  circle  of  specta- 
tors, as  the  common  version  might  suggest  to  English  read- 
ers, but  as  Wiclif  has  it,  i7i  the  middle^  i.  e.  of  his  body. 
Giished  out^  or  rather,  as  the  form  is  passive,  they  were  spilt, 
poured  out,  or  shed  forth.  This  shocking  description  of  the 
death  of  Judas  may  be  reconciled  with  Matthew's  simple  state- 
ment that  he  hanged  himself  {}ii2itt.  27,  5),  by  merely  supposing 
what  is  constantly  occurring  in  such  cases,  that  the  rope  or 
branch  from  which  he  was  suspended  broke,  and  he  was  vio- 
lently thrown  upon  the  ground,  with  the  efiect  above  described. 
As  no  one  can  deny  that  the  two  statements  are  compatible, 
the  only  difiiculty  is  that  the  two  Apostles  should  record 
entirely  difierent  parts  of  the  transaction.  The  solution  is 
afibrded  by  the  difference  of  the  circumstances  under  which 
the  two  accounts  were  given,  and  which  has  been  already 
mentioned.  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 
usual  custom  passes  over  the  minute  details.  Peter,  orally 
addressing  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  Evangelist, 
many  years  later,  no  less  wisely  and  naturally  leaves  out  alto- 


28  ACTS  1,  18.  19. 

gether.  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,  if  the  witnesses 
were  credible,  and  any  cause  could  be  assigned  for  their  re- 
lating two  distinct  parts  of  the  same  transaction. 

19.  And  it  was  known  unto  all  the  dwellers  at  Je- 
rusalem, insomucli  as  that  field  is  called  in  their  proper 
tongue,  Aceldama,  that  is  to  say,  the  Field  of  Blood. 

We  here  learn  from  Peter  himself,  that  what  he  is  relating 
is  no  news  or  fresh  discovery  to  his  hearers,  but  a  fact  noto- 
rious to  all  Jerusalem,  and  already  perpetuated  by  a  descrip- 
tive and  commemorative  name.  It  loas  hnown^  or  rather  it 
became  hnown  or  notorious,  i.  e.  from  the  very  time  of  the 
occurrence,  and  of  course  had  so  continued  till  the  time  of 
Peter's  speaking.  Insomuch  as  is  an  awkward  and  obscure 
expression,  found  in  none  of  the  older  English  versions,  most 
of  which  have  insomuch  that^  while  the  oldest  of  all  (Wiclifs) 
gives  the  simple  and  exact  translation,  so  that.  The  common 
version  must  not  be  confounded  with  the  similar  phrase  inas- 
much as,  which  is  equivalent  in  meaning  to  because.  In  their 
'proper  tongue,  i.  e.  their  own  language  or  peculiar  dialect,  an 
Aramaic  modification  or  corruption  of  the  Hebrew,  spoken  by 
the  Jews  from  the  time  of  their  captivity  in  Babylon,  and 
often  called  by  modern  writers  Syro-Ghaldaic,  which  is  apt 
however  to  suggest  the  false  idea  of  a  compound  language 
formed  by  the  mixture  of  two  others,  rather  than  that  of  a 
correlative  or  parallel  derivative  from  a  common  source.  As 
Peter  seems  to  speak  of  the  language  as  a  foreign  one,  some 
understand  by  it  the  dialect  of  Judea  or  Jerusalem,  as  distinct 
from  that  of  Galilee.  But  although  there  Avas  certainly  a  per- 
ceptible difference  (Matt.  26,  73.  Mark  14,  70),  it  was  proba- 
bly not  greater  than  that  which  now  distinguishes  the  Enghsh 
from  the  Scotch  and  Irish,  and  would  scarcely  have  been 
made  so  prominent  by  Peter,  even  if  his  hearers  were  all  Gali- 
leans like  himself,  which  is  by  no  means  certain.  Some  have 
inferred,  therefore,  that  these  cannot  be  the  words  of  Peter, 
and  that  this  verse,  at  least,  if  not  the  one  before  it,  must  bo 
a  parenthetical  addition  by  the  hand  of  the  historian.  But 
the  utmost  that  can  be  inferred  is  that  the  clause  immediately 
before  us  was  so  added,  which  may  be  admitted  without  any 
derogation  from  tlie  credit  of  the  narrative  or  the  authenti- 


ACTS  1,  19.  20.  29 

city  of  the  discourse.  If  a  French  orator  shoiild  alhide  to 
the  original  meaning  of  the  word  tuileries  in  speaking  of  the 
famous  palace,  an  English  reporter  of  his  speech  could  scarcely 
fail  to  add,  "which  in  French  means  a  brick-kiln,"  without 
dreaming  that  the  reader  would  suppose  these  words  to  have 
been  uttered,  or  that  their  insertion  would  impair  the  credi 
bility  of  the  report.  Aceldama  is  easily  reducible  to  two 
words  (x73"j  bpn),  of  frequent  occurrence  in  the  ancient  Ara- 
maic versions,  and  equivalent  in  meaning  to  Luke's  Greek 
translation,  JField  of  Blood.  This  name  would  readily  suggest 
two  ideas,  that  of  our  Lord's  judicial  murder,  to  which  he  was 
betrayed  by  Judas,  and  the  subsequent  suicide  of  Judas  him- 
self.    (See  Matt.  27,  8.) 

20.  Por  it  is  written  in  the  book  of  Psalms,  Let  his 
habitation  be  desolate,  and  let  no  man  dwell  therein  : 
and,  His  bishopnc  let  another  take. 

In  the  preceding  verses  (17-19)  the  Apostle  seemed  to 
have  lost  sight  of  his  main  purpose,  as  propounded  in  v.  16  ; 
but  he  now  returns  to  it,  in  such  a  way  that  the  aj^parent  in- 
terruption fortifies  his  argument.  Having  stated  in  general, 
that  the  apostasy  of  Judas  was  the  subject  and  fulfilment  of  a 
prophecy,  and  having  dwelt  upon  the  fearful  circumstances 
of  his  death,  he  now  shows  what  particular  predictions  had 
been  terribly  verified  in  these  events.  The  logical  connection 
is  with  V.  16.  The  scripture  concerning  Judas  must  be  ful- 
filled— and  there  is  such  a  scri23ture — -foo*  it  is  written^  etc. 
But  the  intervening  verses,  though  in  formx  a  digression,  have 
prepared  the  mind  for  the  citation,  and  so  make  it  more  im- 
pressive than  it  could  have  been,  if  immediately  subjoined  to 
the  general  proposition  m  v.  16.  As  if  he  had  said,  'these 
are  awful  realities,  still  fresh  in  every  memory,  and  yet  they 
were  predicted  many  centuries  ago,  for  it  is  loritten.,  etc' 
The  original  expression  is  still  stronger,  for  it  has  been  writ- 
ten (yeypttTTat).  The  BooJc  of  JPsalms  is  here  distinctly 
recognized,  as  a  collection  well  known  to  his  hearers,  and 
acknowledged  by  them  as  a  part  of  the  divine  revelation  com- 
prehended in  the  Hebrew  Canon.  The  indefinite  term  scri}^ 
ture^  used  in  v.  16,  is  here  defined,  not  only  by  the  mention 
of  the  book,  but  by  the  actual  quotation  of  two  passages,  tho 
first  from  Ps.  69,  25,  the  other  from  Ps.  109,  8.  They  are  not 
combined  throutrh  inadvertence  or  mistake,  as  some  have 


30  ACTS  1,  20.21. 

foolishly  alleged,  but  from  a  clear  and  profound  view  of  theij 
mutual  connection,  as  belonging  to  the  same  class,  and  admit- 
ting of  the  same  interpretation.  This  is  not  to  be  regarded 
as  a  mere  accommodatiooi  of  the  language  to  a  subject  alto- 
gether different  from  that  at  first  intended,  which  is  incon. 
sistent,  not  with  inspiration  only,  but  with  common  sense, 
especially  as  these  alleged  predictions  are  here  made  tha 
ground  and  warrant  of  an  important  jDublic  measure.  Those, 
however,  who  reject  the  notion  of  accommodation,  are  by  no 
means  agreed  as  to  the  j^rinciple,  on  which  the  cited  passages 
may  be  applied  to  Christ  and  Judas.  Some  regard  the  whole 
of  both  psalms  as  exclusively  and  strictly  Messianic,  and  ex- 
plain the  confession  in  Ps.  69,  5,  as  relating  to  imputed  sin. 
Others  suppose  one  part  to  relate  to  the  Messiah  and  his  ene- 
mies, while  the  remainder  in  both  cases  has  respect  to  David 
or  some  other  ancient  sufferer.  A  third  hypothesis  applies 
the  whole  to  David  and  his  adversaries, in  a  lower  sense,  but 
in  a  higher  sense  to  Christ  and  Judas.  To  avoid  the  incon- 
veniences attending  all  these  exegetical  hypotheses,  some 
modern  writers  make  the  subject  of  these  Psalms,  and  others 
like  them,  a  generic  or  ideal  person,  representing  a  whole 
class,  to  wit,  that  of  the  righteous  under  persecution,  and 
apply  them  to  Christ,  not  exclusively  but  eminently,  as  the 
highest  and  most  perfect  representative  of  that  class,  although 
some  strokes  of  the  description  are  true  only  of  inferior  ex- 
amples. The  quotations,  as  recorded,  are  taken  from  the 
Septuagint  version,  with  a  few  slight  variations.  Habitation^ 
in  Hebrew,  an  enclosure  or  encampment ;  in  Greek,  a  shelter 
for  the  night,  with  special  reference  to  shepherds  and  their 
flocks,  and  thence  transferred  to  farm  or  coimtry  houses,  but 
here  used  in  the  generic  sense  of  home  or  dwelling.  Bishop- 
ric^ though  in  itself  correct,  because  a  mere  corruption  of 
the  Greek  word,  suggests  foreign  ideas  by  its  modern  usage 
and  associations.  The  marginal  translation  in  our  Bible 
{charge  or  office)  is  not  only  free  from  this  objection,  but 
much  nearer  to  the  meaning  of  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  words, 
which  both  denote  official  visitation  and  inspection. 

21.  22.  Wherefore,  of  these  men  which  have  com- 
panied  with  us,  all  the  time  that  the  Lord  Jesus  went 
in  and  out  among  us,  beginning  from/  the  baptism  of 
John,  unto  that  same  day  that  he  w^s  taken  up  from 


ACTS   1,  21.  22.  "  3": 

US,  must  one  be  ordained,  to  be  a  witness  with  us  of 
his  resiurection. 

This  is  the  practical  conclusion  of  the  argument,  the 
proposition  with  which  Peter  closes  his  address.  The  first 
word  indicates  the  logical  connection.  Wherefore^  or  there- 
fore^ i.  e.  since  the  apostolical  office  is  ordained  of  God,  and 
this  first  breach  in  it  was  foreseen  a,nd  predicted  by  the  Holy- 
Spirit  centuries  ago,  it  must  be  the  divine  will  and  purpose, 
that  its  integrity  should  be  preserved.  In  the  English  ver- 
sion of  this  sentence,  there  is  an  unusual  departure  from  the 
original  order  of  the  words,  a  change  not  only  needless,  as  in 
multitudes  of  other  cases,  but  in  this  case  really  injurious 
to  the  force  and  clearness  of  the  passage.  Thus  the  Avord 
must^  in  the  middle  of  v.  22,  stands  in  Greek  at  the  beginning 
of  the  whole  sentence,  which  is  its  natural  and  proper  place, 
as  it  contains  the  sum  of  the  conclusion  drawn  from  all  that 
goes  before.  It  is  necessary  therefore  (Set  ovv)  that  the 
place  of  Judas  should  be  filled,  as  afterwards  expressed. 
The  necessity  alleged  was  proved,  but  not  created,  by  the 
prophecy,  which  was  a  mere  announcement  of  God's  will  and 
purpose.  Peter  then  proceeds  to  state  the  necessary  quali- 
fications, or  to  define  the  class  from  which  the  new  Apostle 
must  be  taken.  The  grand  qualification  was  familiar  inter- 
course with  Christ  and  his  immediate  followers  throughout 
his  public  ministry,  and  a  consequent  capacity  to  bear  witness 
of  his  words  and  actions.  3Ie')i  (di/Spcoi/),  not  in  the  vague 
sense  of  persons  or  human  bemgs,  but  in  the  distinctive  sense 
of  males,  or  men  not  women.  W^hich  have  companied  loith 
us,  or  more  literally,  those  gomg  (or  who  went)  with  us.  As 
the  Greek  verb  really  answers  both  to  come  and  go  in  Eng- 
lish, it  might  here  be  rendered  coraiiig  a7id  going,  i.  e.  moving 
about,  or  in  various  directions.  The  essential  meaning, 
although  not  the  form  of  the  original,  is  well  expressed  by 
companied  tcith  us.  The  idea  evidently  is,  that  the  candidate 
must  not  only  have  believed  Christ's  doctrines  and  submitted 
to  his  teaching,  as  a  discijDle  in  the  widest  sense,  but  formed 
a  part  of  that  more  permanent  body,  which  appears  to  have 
attended  him  from  place  to  place,  throughout  the  whole 
course  of  his  public  ministry.  This  last  idea  is  ex23ressed  iu 
a  peculiar  idiomatic  form,  all  the  time  that  (or  more  exactly, 
in  which,  during  which)  the  Lord  Jesus  xoent  in  and  out 
among  us.    To  go  (or  come)  iu  and  out  is  a  Hebrew  phrase, 


32  ACTS  1,  21.  22. 

denoting  constant  and  habitual  movement,  sometimes  applied 
to  the  whole  course  of  life  (Deut.  28,  6.  10.  John  10,  19), 
sometimes  restricted  to  official  action  (l  Sam.  18, 13.  16.  Acts 
9,  28.)  Among  us  does  not  fully  reproduce  the  sense  of  the 
original  expression,  which,  according  to  the  usage  of  the 
Greek  words,  rather  means  upon  us,  i.  e.  over  us,  above  us, 
as  our  head  and  leader.  This  important  idea  of  superiority 
IS  merged,  by  the  English  version  and  most  others,  in  the 
minor  one  of  mere  association  or  companionship.  But  how 
was  this  period  to  be  computed  or  defined  ?  By  fixuig  its 
extremities,  as  Peter  does  in  v.  22.  The  construction  of  be- 
gmniiig  is  ambiguous  in  English  ;  but  in  Greek,  its  very  form 
shows  that  it  must  be  construed  wdth  the  Lord  Jesus,  and 
vienotes  the  beginning  of  his  active  ministry.  The  starting 
point  w^as  the  baptism  of  John.  This  does  not  mean  the 
baptism  of  our  Lord  him^self  by  John,  which  Avould  be  other- 
wise expressed,  and  which  throws  the  terminus  a  quo  too  far 
back,  as  the  public  ministry  of  Christ  did  not  begin  as  soon 
as  he  had  been  baptized  ;  nor  would  it  have  been  possible  to 
find  men  w-ho  had  constantly  attended  him  from  that  time  to 
the  day  of  the  election  ;  so  that  this  construction  would  make 
the  prescribed  condition  Tin  impossible  and  therefore  an  absurd 
one.  The  baptism  of  John  no  doubt  means  his  entire  minis- 
try, so  called  from  the  peculiar  rite  by  which  it  w^as  distin- 
guished, just  as  the  circumcision  means  the  Jewish  church  or 
party,  and  the  cross  is  often  put  for  the  Gospel  or  the  Chris- 
tian religion.  The  precise  point  indicated  is  not  the  begin- 
ning but  the  close  of  John's  preparatory  ministry,  with  vfhich 
the  beginning  of  our  Lord's  is  exjolicitly  connected  by  the 
statement  in  the  Gospels,  that  "after  John  w^as  put  into 
prison,  Jesus  came  into  .Galilee,  preaching  the  gospel  of  the 
kingdom  of  God."  (Mark  1,  14,  compare  Matt.  4,  12.  17.) 
I7?ito  that  same  day  is  a  strong  but  not  inaccurate  translation, 
as  the  Greek  preposition  (eoas)  is  the  same  used  in  a  local 
sense  above  (v.  8),  and  here  means  quite  to,  or  until  the  very 
day  in  question.  Taken  up  from  us  suggests  two  ideas,  that 
of  their  own  loss,  and  that  of  their  own  presence  as  eye- 
witnesses. Ordained,  like  bishopric  (in  v.  20),  has  acquired  a 
fixed  ecclesiastical  meaning,  wholly  foreign  from  the  Greek 
word  here  used,  which  means  simply  to  become,  or  more  em- 
phatically, to  be  made.  A  loitness  of  his  resurrection,  the 
great  key-stone  of  the  Christian  system,  presupposing  his  life 
and  death  as  necessary  antecedents,  and  implying  his  ascen- 


ACTS   1,  22.  23.  81 

sion  and  exaltation  as  necessary  consequents.  Hence  the 
extraordinary  prominence  given  to  this  fact  in  the  first 
preaching  of  the  gospel  (2,  32.  3,  15.  4,  10.  5,  30.  10,  40.  13, 
33.  17,  18.  31.  25, 19.  26,  23),  and  in  the  doctrinal  parts  of  the 
ISTew  Testament.  (See  particularly  1  Cor.  15,  12-20.)  Wiih 
us,  not  by  himselfj  or  independently  of  those  already  con- 
stituted Avitnesses,  but  as  a  member  of  that  organized  and 
indivisible  body,  to  which  this  great  trust  had  been  jointly 
committed.  The  end,  as  well  as  the  beginning,  of  this  long 
and  pregnant  period,  differs  very  much  in  the  translation  and 
original.  As  the  first  word  in  Greek  is  (Set)  micst,  or  it  is 
necessary,  so  the  closing  words  are  07ie  of  these.  Although 
our  idiom  would  hardly  have  admitted  of  this  collocation,  yet 
it  ought  to  be  observed  that  by.  connecting  this  phrase  with 
the  word  onen  in  the  first  clause  of  verse  21,  the  English 
version  unintentionally  suggests  an  idea,  which,  although  it 
may  be  true,  is  not  expressed  in  the  original,  to  wit,  that  the 
choice  was  to  be  made  from  among  those  actually  present ; 
whereas  these,  in  its  original  position,  does  not  mean  these 
now  before  you,  but  these  whom  (or  such  as)  I  have  now 
described. 

23.  And  tliey  appointed  two,  Joseph  called  Bar- 
sabas,  wlio  was  surnamed  Justus,  and  Matthias. 

This  verse  records  the  execution  of  the  plan  proposed  by 
Peter.  The  act  described  has  been  referred  by  some  to  the 
eleven,  and  by  others  to  the  whole  assembly  of  an  hundred 
and  twenty.  In  the  absence  of  any  thing  to  solve  this  doubt, 
and  in  accordance  both  with  Greek  and  Hebrew  usage,  the 
verb  may  be  indefinitely  construed,  as  equivalent  in  meaning 
to  a  passive,  they  were  set  up  or  appointed.  The  process 
itself  seems  identical  with  that  called  in  modern  parlance 
nomination  as  distinguished  from  election,  i.  e.  the  propound- 
ing of  a  limited  number,  out  of  which  the  choice  is  to  be 
made.  But  a  dififtculty  here  arises,  as  to  the  authority,  by 
which  this  preliminary  step  was  taken.  If  the  apostles  or 
disciples  v\'ere  competent  to  choose  two,  why  not  to  choose 
one  ?  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  ultimate  decision  was  neces- 
sarily referred  to  God  himself,  what  right  had  this  assembly 
to  restrict  his  choice  to  two  whom  they  had  previously  fixed 
upon  ?  The  only  escape  from  this  dilemma  is  afforded  by  a 
supposition,  in  itself  entirely  natural,  that  these  two  were  tho 


S4  ACTS  1,  23. 

only  persons  present  or  within  reach,  who  possessed  the  ne. 
cessary  qualification.  It  is  by  no  means  probable  that  many 
could  be  found,  who  had  companied  with  the  disciples  during 
the  whole  period  of  Christ's  ministry,  and  who  were  there- 
fore competent  to  act  as  his  official  witnesses.  Some  have 
imagined,  it  is  true,  that  the  whole  body  of  believers  present 
upon  this  occasion  were  thus  qualified  ;  but  this  is  a  gratuitous 
assumption,  and  intrinsically  most  improbable.  The  explana- 
tion just  proposed  may  seem  to  be  at  variance  with  the  fact 
that  these  two  persons  were  appointed ;  but  this  is  equally 
at  variance  with  the  subsequent  divine  decision.  To  appoint 
two  new  apostles  and  then  ask  God  to  choose  one  of  them, 
would  certainly  have  been  both  foolish  and  irreverent.  The 
truth  is  that  the  Greek  verb  (^a-Trjaav)  simply  means  the^ 
placed  (or  set  up)  these  two  men  as  duly  qualified,  and  then 
left  the  decision  to  their  Lord  and  Master.  The  part  per- 
formed by  the  apostles  or  disciples  in  this  grave  transaction 
was  entirely  ministerial,  and  consisted  in  ascertaining  who 
were  eligible,  on  the  principles  laid  down  by  Peter,  and  then 
placing  the  men  thus  selected  in  the  presence  of  the  multi- 
tude, or  rather  before  God,  as  objects  of  his  sovereign  choice. 
Joseph  called  Barsahas^  a  name  very  similar  to  two  others 
which  occur  below,  Joses  surnamed  Barnabas  (4,  36),  and 
Judas  surnamed  Barsahas  (15,  22.)  Some  have  regarded 
the  three  forms  as  accidental  variations  of  the  same  name ; 
but  the  difference,  though  slight,  is  sanctioned  by  the  highest 
manuscript  authority,  as  well  as  by  the  fact  that  in  the  later 
cases  there  is  no  allusion  to  the  earlier,  nor  any  intimation 
that  the  persons  were  identical.  The  name  Barsabas  is  of 
doubtful  etymology,  but  is  commonly  explained  to  mean  a 
son  of  swearing  (or  an  oath).  His  third  name  is  a  Latin  one, 
and  may  have  been  imposed  by  Romans,  as  a  testimony  to 
his  character.  It  was  not  uncommon  with  the  Jews  of  that 
age  to  have  Gentile  names  as  well  as  Jemsh  ones.  (See  be- 
low, on  12,  12.  13,  6.  S.  9.)  From  the  triple  name  of  this  man, 
and  his  being  named  first,  it  has  been  inferred  that  he  was  the 
choice  of  the  apostles,  and  that  Matthias  was  put  forward 
oiAj  pi'o  forma  or  in  obedience  to  express  command.  If  so, 
their  expectations  were  defeated,  and  from  this  imaginary  dis- 
appointment Calvin  draws  the  lesson,  that  the  favourites  of 
men  are  not  necessarily  the  favourites  of  God ;  a  wholesome 
doctrine,  but  one  resting  on  a  firmer  basis.  One  of  the  names 
must  of  necessity  stand  first,  and  all  of  Joseph's  are  recited 


ACTS  1,  24.  25.  35 

for  the  same  reason,  no  doubt,  that  he  bore  them,  namely,  to 
distinguish  him  from  other  Josephs. 

24.  And  they  prayed  and  said,  Thou,  Lord,  which 
knowest  the  hearts  of  all  (men),  show  whether  of  these 
two  thou  hast  chosen. 

The  presentation  of  the  candidates  is  now  followed  by  ai 
appeal  to  the  divine  decision.  Prayed  and  said^  or  more 
exactly,  praying  said  ;  the  acts  were  not  successive  but  coin- 
cident. (See  below,  on  16,  25.)  It  has  been  disputed  whether 
this  prayer  was  especially  addressed  to  Christ.  In  favour  of 
that  supposition  is  the  uniform  usage  of  the  word  Lord  in  the 
New  Testament,  together  with  the  obvious  j)ropriety  of  leav- 
hig  the  selection  of  a  new  apostle  to  him  by  whom  the  twelve 
had  been  originally  chosen.  (See  above,  on  v.  2.)  The  as- 
cription of  omniscience  to  the  Saviour  is  in  perfect  keeping 
with  such  passages  as  John  2,  24.  25.  21,  17.  Rev.  2,  23,  and 
entirely  consistent  with  the  application  of  the  same  term  to 
God  in  ch.  15,  8  below.  Which  knoioest  the  hearts  is  a  neces 
sary  but  enfeebling  paraphrase  of  one  Greek  word  (KapSto 
yvtoo-Ttt)  meaning  heart-Jc7ioioer^  and  resembling  in  form  Homer's 
favourite  epithet  of  Zeus  or  Jupiter,  cloud-gatherer  or  cloud 
compeller  (re</)eX7;yep€Ta),  but  how  much  more  sublime  and 
worthy  of  a  spiritual  being  !  Whether  is  here  used  in  its  old 
English  sense,  as  a  pronoun,  equivalent  to  which  or  which  one. 
The  word  translated  show  has  a  peculiar  propriety,  because 
used  in  Attic  Greek  to  signify  the  public  announcement  of  the 
result  of  an  election.  It  is  altogether  different  from  the  verb 
so  rendered  in  v.  3  above.  Mast  chosen^  already,  for  thyself, 
which  accessory  ideas  are  suggested  by  the  tense  and  voice 
of  the  original  verb  (e^eAe^w.) 

25.  That  he  may  take  part  of  this  ministry  and 
apostleship,  from  which  Judas  by  transgression  fell, 
that  he  might  go  to  his  own  place. 

Even  in  the  act  of  asking  the  divine  decision,  they  dis- 
tinctly state  for  what  end  they  desire  it,  or  for  ^hat  specific 
purpose  one  of  these  two  men  was  to  be  chosen.  That  he 
may  take  part  might  have  been  more  simply  and  exactly  ren- 
dered to  take  pai%  i.  e.  to  take  his  share,  or  lot,  or  his  allotted 
6bar<i.     The  Greek  noun  is  the  same  as  in  v.  17  above;  but 


36  ACTS   1,   25.  26. 

Bome  old  manuscripts  have  place  {tottov).  Ministry  and  apos- 
tlesMp  is  not  a  mere  liendiadys  meaning  apostolical  ministry, 
but  a  generic  and  specific  term  combined,  the  one  denoting 
service  in  general,  the  other  a  particular  office.  (See  above, 
on  V.  17.)  J^y  transgression  fell  is  a  para^^hrase  rather  than  a 
version,  and  introduces  a  new  figure,  that  of  fiiUing,  which  is 
not  in  the  original.  A  close  translation  would  be,/rom  v^hich 
Judas  transgressed  or  apostatized.  That  he  might  go^  like  that 
he  might  take  part  above,  is  a  needless  departure  from  the  in- 
finitive construction,  which  is  equally  correct  and  more  con- 
cise, to  go  to  his  own  place.  Various  eiforts  have  been  made 
to  escape  from  the  obvious  but  fearful  sense  of  these  words. 
Some  refer  them,  not  to  Judas,  but  to  the  new  apostle,  who 
was  chosen  to  go  into  his  oicn  place.,  a  most  superfluous  addi- 
tion, and  still  more  so  if  we  understand  by  own  place  that  which 
Judas  had  left  vacant.  Who  is  ever  chosen  to  supply  his  own 
place,  or  to  fill  the  own  place  of  his  predecessor  ?  Both  these 
constructions  are  objectionable  also  on  account  of  the  harsh 
syntax  which  they  both  assume,  and  the  imusual  sense  put 
upon  the  Greek  verb  (TropevOrjvaL),  Avhich  does  not  mean  simply 
to  go,  but  to  go  away,  depart,  or  journey.  (See  above,  on  v. 
10,  where  it  is  applied  to  Christ's  ascension.)  Another  expla- 
nation grants  the  reference  to  Judas,  but  by  his  own  place  un- 
derstands his  house,  his  field,  his  new  associates,  or  the  scene 
of  his  self-murder.  All  these  are  ingenious  but  unnatural  ex- 
pedients to  avoid  the  plain  sense  of  the  words,  as  substantially 
synonymous  with  what  is  elsewhere  called  the  place  of  torment 
(Luke  16,  28.)  The  same  sense  is  put  by  the  rabbinical  inter- 
preters on  Num.  24,  25,  Balacim  rose  up  and  loent  and  re- 
turned to  his  (oicm)  place  ;  and  similar  expressions  are  applied 
by  Plato  to  a  future  state  of  retribution.  The  essential  idea 
may  be  that  of  fitness  and  condignity,  including,  in  the  case 
before  us,  by  a  sort  of  fearful  irony,  a  contrast  or  antithesis 
between  the  place,  of  which  Judas  had  proved  so  unworthy, 
and  the  place  for  which  he  had  exchanged  it,  and  which  suited 
him  exactly. 

26.  And  they  gave  fortli  their  lots,  and  the  lot  fell 
upon  Matthias,  and  he  was  numbered  with  the  eleven 
apostles. 

We  have  here  the  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter  by  the 
final  designation  of  a  new  apostle.     It  has  been  disputed 


ACTS   1,  26.  37 

»<^hetlier  it  was  only  the  eleven,  or  the  whole  assembly,  that 
gam  forth  their  lots.  The  very  question  assumes,  either  that 
this  was  au  election,  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  expression, 
and  that  lots  means  votes  or  ballots^  which  is  utterly  at  vari- 
ance with  the  usage  of  the  word  and  with  the  circumstances 
of  the  case  ;  or  that  their  lots  means  the  lots  of  the  apostles 
or  assembled  brethren ;  whereas  it  means  the  lots  of  the  two 
candidates,  i.  e.  the  lots  y»diich  were  to  choose  between  them, 
and  were  probably  inscribed  with  their  respective  names. 
Especially  must  this  be  the  sense  if  we  adopt  the  reading  of 
the  oldest  manuscripts  and  latest  editors,  which  changes  their 
lots  into  lots  for  them.  This  makes  it  wholly  ununportant 
who  performed  the  mere  external  act  of  drawing,  shaking,  or 
the  like,  which  seems  to  be  intended  by  the  phrase  they  gave 
lots,  an  expression  also  used  in  the  Old  Testament,  though 
sometimes  confounded  in  our  version  with  the  more  familiar 
formula,  to  cast  lots.  The  precise  mode  in  which  the  lots  were 
used  can  only  be  conjectured,  or  inferred  from  analogous 
cases  in  the  classics,  as  for  instance  in  the  third  book  of  the 
Iliad,  where  the  lots  were  cast  into  a  helmet,  after  prayer  for 
the  divme  direction,  and  the  one  that  first  came  out  when 
shaken  was  decisive  of  the  question.  The  same  thing  is 
here  expressed  by  the  figurative  j^hrase,  the  lot  fell  upon 
Matthias,  perhaps  with  some  allusion  to  the  maxim  of  the 
wise  man,  that  "  the  lot  is  cast  into  the  lap,  but  the  whole 
disposing  thereof  is  of  the  Lord."  (Prov.  16,  33.)  The  valid- 
ity of  this  whole  proceeding  has  been  questioned,  upon  several 
grounds ;  because  there  is  no  express  command  recorded ; 
because  Peter  was  habitually  rash  and  forward  ;  because  the 
Holy  Ghost  was  not  yet  given  to  qualify  them  for  such  func- 
tions ;  because  we  read  nothing  more  of  Matthias  in  the  his- 
tory ;  and  lastly,  because  Paul  is  thus  excluded  from  the 
number  of  the  twelve  apostles.  To  these  specious  arguments 
it  may  be  answered,  that  a  command  is  often  left  to  be  in- 
ferred from  the  recorded  execution,  and  vice  versa  ;  that  this, 
although  proposed  by  Peter,  was  no  more  his  act  than  that 
of  the  whole  body ;  that  the  choice  Avas  really  the  act  of 
neither,  but  of  God  himself;  that  the  history  is  equally  silent 
as  to  most  of  the  ap<5stles  ;  and  that  Paul  might  with  more 
probability  be  reckoned  the  successor  of  James  the  Son  of 
Zebedee  than  of  Judas  Iscariot ;  or  rather  that  he  was  not 
one  of  the  twelve  at  all,  but  an  additional  apostle  for  the  Gen 
tiles,  as  the  twelve  were  the  apostles  of  the  circumcision. 


38  ACTS  1,  26. 

Add  to  all  this,  that  they  who  had  been  called  the  eleven  since 
the  death  of  Judas,  are  afterwards  called  the  twelve^  and  that 
while  Saul  was  still  an  enemy  of  Christ ;  and  consider  the 
e5:treme  improbability  that  so  much  space  would  have  been 
given,  in  so  brief  a  history  and  at  such  a  juncture,  to  an  un- 
authorized proceeding  of  this  nature,  not  omittmg  even  the 
accompanying  prayer,  and  yet  without  the  slightest  intima- 
tion of  its  being  uncommanded,  and  consequently  null  and 
void.  But  apart  from  these  considerations,  the  whole  ques- 
tion, if  there  is  one,  seems  to  be  determined  by  the  last  words 
of  the  narrative  itself,  which  admit  of  but  one  natural  inter- 
pretation, namely,  that  Matthias  was  now  reckoned,  by  divine 
right,  as  the  twelfth  apostle.  (Compare  Matt.  28,  16.  Mark 
16,  14.  Luke  24,  9.  33,  with  Acts  2,  14.  6,  2.) 


CHAPTEE  II. 


Here  begins  the  Apostolical  Church  History,  to  which  the 
events  recorded  in  the  preceding  chapter  were  preliminary. 
The  two  topics  first  presented  are  the  events  of  Pentecost 
(1-41)  and  the  condition  of  the  infant  Church  (42-47.)  Under 
the  first  head  are  described  the  gift  of  tongues  (1-4),  with  its 
effect  npon  the  foreign  Jews  who  witnessed  it  (5-12),  the 
frivolous  or  malignant  charge  of  drunkenness  (13),  and  Peter's 
Pentecostal  sermon  (14-36),  in  which  he  first  repudiates  the 
odious  charge  (14),  and  then  declares  what  they  beheld  to 
be  the  very  effusion  of  the  Spirit  promised  by  the  Prophet 
Joel  (15-18),  as  a  part  and  token  of  a  great  revolutionary 
change  (19.  20),  which  would  be  ruinous  to  all  who  did  not 
trust  in  the  appointed  Saviour  (21),  whom  he  shows  to  be  no 
other  than  the  man  whom  they  had  crucified  but  God  had 
raised  (22-24),  as  David  had  predicted  in  the  sixteenth  psalm 
(25-28),  in  terms  which  could  not  be  applied  to  David  him- 
self (29),  but  must  refer  to  the  Messiah  (30.  31),  and  had 
been  fulfilled  in  Jesus  (32),  who  was  really  the  author  of  the 
present  miracle  (33),  being  now  exalted,  according  to  another 
pro23hecy  of  David  (34.  35),  which  was  also  inapplicable  to 
himself,  and  had  only  been  fulfilled  in  Jesus,  whom  he  there- 
fore concludes  to  be  the  true  Messiah  (36.)     Then  follows  the 


ACTS  2,  1.  38 

effect  of  tliis  discourse  upon  the  hearers  (37),  and  Peter's  fur- 
ther exhortations  and  instructions  in  reply  to  their  inquiries 
(38-40),  with  the  consequent  addition  of  three  thousand  con- 
verts to  the  church  by  baptism  in  that  single  day  (41.)  The 
remainder  of  the  chapter  is  occupied  with  a  description  of 
their  social  state  and  mode  of  life,  from  that  day  onward 
(43-46),  and  of  their  steady  growth  in  poj^ularity  and  num- 
bers (47.) 

1 .  And  when  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  fully  come, 
they  were  all  with  one  accord  in  one  place. 

The  writer  here  begins  his  account  of  the  reorganization 
of  the  church  by  an  exact  specification  of  the  time  when  it 
occurred.  The  day  selected  for  this  great  event  was  one  of 
the  three  yearly  festivals  prescribed  in  the  Mosaic  Law.  It 
is  one  of  the  most  interesting  features  of  that  system,  that 
these  annual  observances  were  not  mere  arbitrary  institutions, 
but  connected,  in  the  minds  of  those  observing  them,  w^ith 
three  distinct  sets  of  associations,  the  first  derived  from 
nature,  the  second  from  experience,  the  third  from  the  prom- 
ises of  God  and  the  expectations  of  his  people.  Thus  the 
Passover,  the  first  in  time  and  dignity,  was  associated,  in  the 
revolution  of  the  seasons,  with  the  early  harvest ;  in  the  na- 
tional recollections  of  Israel,  with  the  exodus  from  Egypt ; 
and  in  his  hopes,  with  the  advent  and  sacrifice  of  the  Messiah. 
The  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  or  of  Trumj)ets,  had  a  like  three- 
fold association,  with  the  vintage  or  ingathering  of  fruits, 
with  the  journey  through  the  wilderness,  and  with  the  rest 
that  remaineth  for  the  people  of  God.  These  two  great  feasts 
were  placed  at  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  the  half-year,  to 
which  the  annual  solemnities  of  the  ceremonial  system  were 
confined.  Between  them  w^as  a  third,  but  nearer  to  the  Pass- 
over, from  which  it  took  its  name,  both  in  Hebrew  and  in 
Greek.  It  was  celebrated  at  the  end  of  seven  weeks  (or  a 
week  of  weeks)  from  the  second  day  of  the  Passover,  or  Feast 
of  Unleavened  Bread,  i.  e.  the  sixteenth  day  of  the  month 
Nisan  (Lev.  23, 15.  16.)  Hence  it  was  called  the  Feast  of 
Weeks  (Ex.  34,  22.  Deut.  16, 10.)  From  the  Greek-speaking 
Jews  of  later  times,  it  received  the  equivalent  name  of  Pente* 
cost  or  Fiftieth^  1.  e.  the  feast  of  the  fiftieth  day  after  the 
sixteenth  of  Nisan.  The  Greek  adjective  thus  used  became 
a  substantive,  and  is  so  employed  in  the  verse  before  us, 


40  ACTS  2,1. 

where  it  is  not  to  be  construed  with  festival  or  day  undei  • 
stood,  but  taken  as  the  proper  name  of  the  festival  or  day  it- 
self. It  might  have  been  expected  from  analogy  that  this 
anniversary,  like  the  other  two,  would  have  its  threefold  as- 
sociations, natural,  historical,  and  typical  or  prophetical.  It 
is  remarkable,  however,  that  only  one  of  these  can  be  dis- 
tinctly traced  in  the  Law  itself.  This  is  the  first,  as  we  know 
hat  Pentecost  occurred  at  the  completion  of  the  harvest  or 
cereal  ingathering,  and  w^as  therefore  sometimes  called  the 
feast  of  harvest  (Ex.  23,  16),  and  the  day  of  the  first  fruits 
(K'um.  28,  26),  because  its  distinctive  rite  was  the  oblation  of 
two  loaves,  as  a  sample  and  acknowledgment  of  the  harvest 
(Lev.  23,  17.)  But  with  what  historical  event  was  it  asso- 
ciated, past  or  future  ?  That  it  had  no  such  association,  like 
the  Passover  and  Feast  of  Trumpets,  is  antecedently  improba- 
ble ;  but  none  such  is  recorded.  Jewish  tradition  has  filled 
the  chasm,  as  we  learn  from  the  Talmud  and  Maimonides,  by 
affirming  that  the  Pentecost,  or  fiftieth  day  after  the  sixteenth 
of  Nisan,  was  the  very  day  on  which  the  law  was  given  from 
Mount  Smai.  This  ingenious  combination,  if  it  be  not  rather 
a  collateral  tradition,  is  entirely  consistent  with  the  facts  and 
dates  of  the  Mosaic  record,  and  may  therefore  be  allowed  to 
supply  the  omission,  though  we-  cannot  account  for  the  omis- 
sion itself.  If  this  be  granted,  as  to  the  historical  significance 
of  Pentecost,  its  typical  significance  mil  be  found  in  the  pas- 
sage now  before  us,  that  is  to  say,  in  the  selection  of  this  day 
for  the  reorganization  of  the  church,  which  may  be  said  to 
have  been  organized  at  first,  or  at  least  to  have  received  its 
ceremonial  form,  on  the  same  day  many  centuries  before.  It  is 
no  trivial  result  and  recommendation  of  this  view,  that  it 
completes  what  seems  (but  only  seems)  to  be  imperfect  in 
the  ceremonial  calendar,  by  clothmg  this  third  feast  with  the 
same  threefold  associations,  which  the  Law  expressly,  or  by 
necessary  implication,  has  attached  to  the  other  two.  Why 
this  day  was  chosen  is  perhaps  sufficiently  explained  by  the 
coincidence  or  correspondence  between  these  two  great  acts 
of  organic  legislation.  As  additional  reasons  it  may  be  ob- 
served that  the  selection  of  one  of  the  great  yearly  feasts 
secured,  not  only  a  great  concourse  of  the  native  Jews,  but  a 
fuU  representation  of  the  foreign  Jews  or  Hellenists ;  and 
that  the  death  and  resurrection  of  our  Saviour  having  been 
associated  with  the  Passover,  it  was  natural  and  convenient 
that  the  next  great  movement  in  the  erection  of  liis  kingdom 


ACTS  2,  1.  2.  41 

eliould  be  likewise  associated  with  the  next  great  annual  olv 
servance  of  the  Jewish  church  and  the  Mosaic  Law.  Accord- 
ing to  Chrysostom,  another  reason  was,  that  the  same  persons 
might  be  mtnesses  of  both  events.  That  some  importance  and 
significance  belong  to  the  selection  of  the  time,  appears  to  be 
implied  in  the  expression  of  the  verse  before  us,  lohen  the  day 
of  Pentecost  was  fully  come^  or  retaining  the  peculiar  form  of 
the  original,  in  the  fulfilling  {of)  Pentecost^  i.  e.  when  the 
appointed  and  therefore  necessary  interval  had  quite  elapsed. 
The  corresponding  festival  in  Christian  calendars  is  W^hitsu7i- 
day^  which,  although  so  called  for  a  different  reason,  is  the 
fiftieth  day  after  Easter.  In  Luke  9,  51,  the  same  Greek 
phrase  is  applied  to  the  mere  approach,  and  not  the  actual 
arrival,  of  a  certain  time ;  but  there  the  time  itself  is  more 
indefinite,  being  not  the  day^  but  the  days^  of  his  assumption. 
The  plural  form  is  also  employed  here,  but  inaccurately,  by 
-Jie  Vulgate.  On  what  day  of  the  week  this  Pentecost  oc- 
curred has  been  a  subject  of  dispute  for  ages,  but  is  happily 
a  question  of  no  moment.  All  is  a  strong,  but  not  a  definite 
expression,  i.  e.  not  one  that  determines  what  precise  number, 
or  Avhat  specific  class  of  persons,  were  assembled  upon  this 
occasion.  It  must  therefore  be  interpreted  by  the  foregoing 
narrative,  in  which  we  read  of  two  assemblages,  the  first  of 
eleven  (1,4),  and  the  second  of  a  hundred  and  twenty  persons 
(1,  15.)  The  proximity  of  this  last,  and  the  strength  of  the 
expression  all^  &eem  to  forbid  its  restriction  to  the  twelve, 
but  not  its  extension  to  a  greater  number  than  a  hundred  and 
twenty.  Indeed,  as  there  is  reason  to  beheve  that  this  last 
was  a  fortuitous  assemblage,  representing  a  much  larger  body 
of  believers  (see  above,  on  1,  15),  it  seems  most  probable  that 
all  here  designates  that  body,  and  aflirms  its  j^resence,  not 
in  all  its  indi^ddual  members,  nor  in  just  the  same  who  were 
convened  before,  but  in  such  numbers  that  the  crowd  (o;)(Xos 
1,  15)  was  a  full  and  fair  representation  of  the  aggregate 
body.  The  two  phrases  previously  used  to  signify  coincidence 
of  place  and  purpose,  are  here  combined,  in  order  to  express 
more  fully  the  kindred  but  distinct  ideas  of  local  convention 
or  assemblage,  and  of  concert  and  intelligence  as  to  its  pur- 
pose. They  were  not  merely  together^  or  in  one  i^lace^  as  they 
might  have  been  without  design,  but  they  were  there  with 
one  accord  and  by  previous  agreement. 

2.  And  suddenly  there  came  a  sound  irom  heaven. 


4^  ACTS  2,  2.  3. 

as  of  a  rushing  mighty  wind,  and  it  filled  all  the  house 
where  they  were  sitting. 

Tlie  effusion  of  the  Spirit  was  preceded  and  accompanied 
by  sensible  signs  addressed  to  the  ears  and  eyes  of  those  as- 
sembled. The  first  impression  was  that  of  an  extraordinary 
noise,  preparing  them  for  the  still  more  extraordinary  sight 
that  was  to  follow.  This  sound  came  suddenly^  and  conld  not 
therefore  be  referred  to  any  natural  external  cause.  It  came 
from  heaven^  which  may  refer  both  to  the  sensible  impression 
of  a  sound  descending  from  above,  and  to  its  real  supernatu- 
ral origin,  as  caused  by  God  .himself.  The  natural  sound 
which  it  resembled  most  was  that  of  a  strong  wind ;  but  it  was 
something  more,  as  appears  from  the  comparative  expression 
as,  which  would  be  otherwise  superfluous.  The  word  trans- 
lated rushing  is  a  passive  participle,  meaning  home  or  carried^ 
and  is  properly  descriptive  of  involuntary  motion  caused  by  a 
superior  power,  an  idea  not  suggested  by  the  active  partici- 
ples rushing^  driving^  or  the  like,  which  seem  to  make  the 
wind  itself  the  operative  agent.  The  other  epithet  in  Greek 
means  more  than  mighty,  being  expressive  not  only  of  a 
quality  but  of  an  effect,  moUn%  destructive.  The  noun  itself, 
which  these  words  qualify  is  not  the  ordinary  term  for  wind, 
but  a  stronger  one  answering  to  blast  or  gust.  The  whole 
phrase  therefore  is  descriptive  of  a  powerful  tempestuous  com- 
motion of  the  air  by  some  extraordinary  cause.  (Vulg.  adve- 
nientis  S2nritus  vehementis.)  Such  a  phenomenon  was  spe- 
cially appropriate  in  this  case,  on  account  of  the  generally 
recognized  analogy  between  breath  or  wind  and  spiritual  influ- 
ences, which  may  be  traced  in  various  languages,  for  instance 
in  our  own.  The  point  of  resemblance  seems  to  be  an  in- 
visible cause  producing  visible  eftects.  It  filled  all  the  house, 
i.  e.  the  sound,  not  the  wind,  which  is  only  mentioned  in  the 
way  of  comparison.  The  house  where  they  were  sitting  was 
no  doubt  the  same  in  which  they  were  accustomed  to  assem- 
ble (see  above,  on  1, 13.)  The  form  of  expression  is  far  more 
natural  in  reference  to  a  private  dwelling  or  a  hired  lodging, 
than  to  the  temple  or  any  of  its  appurtenances.  The  sup- 
posed difficulty  as  to  its  capacity  assumes  that  a  private  house 
iould  not  be  a  large  one,  and  is  further  removed  by  the  obviou8 
assumption  that,  although  the  commotion  began  in  the  house, 
the  crowd  may  have  assembled  in  the  open  air. 


ACTS   2,  3.  43 

3.  And  there  appeared  unto  them  cloven  tongues, 
like  as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each  of  them. 

The  audible  sign  was  followed  by  one  addressed  to  the 
sense  of  sight.*  Appeared  unto  them^  or,  as  some  explain  the 
Greek  words,  loere  seen  upon  them^  i.  e.  by  others ;  but  the 
common  version  is  more  agreeable  both  to  the  context  and 
to  usage.  (See  Matt.  17,3.  Mark  9,4.  Luke  1,11.  22,43. 
24,  34.  Acts  7,  2.  26.  30.  35.  9,  17.  16,  9.  26,  16.)  The  form 
of  the  original  is  passive  and  means  strictly,  icere  seen  by  them. 
Cloven  should  rather  be  distributed^  so  that  one  appeared  on 
each.  (Vulg.  linguae  dispertitae)  The  common  version, 
which  implies  that  each  tongue  was  divided  into  two  or  more, 
as  represented  in  most  paintings  of  the  scene  before  us,  is  at 
variance  with  the  usage  of  the  Greek  verb  (Sta/tcpt^d/xci/ai), 
which  sometimes  denotes  moral  separation  or  estrangement 
(Luke  11,  17. 18.  12,  52.  53),  but  never  physical  division.  Its 
usual  sense  of  distribution  or  allotment  may  be  seen  by  a  com- 
parison of  Matt.  27,  35.  Mark  15,  24.  Luke  22, 17.  23,  34,  and 
V.  45  below.  Tongues  may  be  regarded  as  a  metaphorical 
description  of  the  natural  appearance  of  all  fire,  as  in  Isai., 
5,  24,  from  which  comes  the  classical  figure  of  a  lambent 
flame  ;  but  here  there  is  moreover  an  evident  allusion  to  a 
special  miraculous  resemblance,  prefiguring  the  extraordinary 
gift  that  was  to  follow.  Like  as  of  fir  e^  or  more  exactly,  as 
if  offire^  i.  e.  the  appearance  of  these  tongues  was  the  same 
as  if  they  had  been  really  composed  of  fire,  but  without  for- 
bidding the  conclusion  that  they  were  so.  This  comparative 
expression,  like  the  one  in  the  preceding  verse,  leaves  room 
for  doubt  as  to  the  presence  of  material  fire  or  of  a  real  wind. 
A  similar  dubiety  exists  in  Luke's  account  of  the  bloody 
sweat  (Luke  22,  44),  and  of  the  visible  descent  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  upon  our  Saviour  at  his  baptism  (Luke  3,  22.)  The 
very  frequency,  however,  of  this  form  of  speech  in  Luke's 
writings  makes  it  proper  not  to  press  it,  as  a  proof  that  the 
appearance  was  unreal.  It  sat  upon  each  of  them.  The  sin- 
gular number  has  been  variously  explained,  as  referring  to 
Spirit  in  the  next  verse,  or  to  fire  in  this,  or  to  the  whole  ap- 
pearance {to  (fiatvofxevov)  viewed  as  one,  or  to  the  distribution 
previously  mentioned,  which  implied  that  07ie  of  the  tongues 
sat  on  each.  As  this  last  is  the  preferable  construction,  it 
affords  an  additional  objection  to  the  version  cloven  tongues^ 
which  leaves  the  singular  verb  {it  sat)  without  satisfactory 


44  ACTS  2,  3.  4. 

,v«fsolution.     Each  of  them^  i.  e.  of  these  assembled  upon  this 

^occasion.     There  is  nothing  to  restrict  or  qualify  the  Avide 

A*      expression  used  in  v.  1,  or  to  limit  what  is  here  said  to  the 

•  ^      .  tAYelve   apostles.     The   whole   assembly   was   collectively   a 

representation  of  the  body  of  believers,  now  about  to  be  re- 

.V-        organized  upon  a  Christian  basis,  and  perpetuated  as  the 

N  -^       Christian  Church.     This  representative  character  accounts  for 

the  want  of  precise  specifications  as  to  the  names  and  number 

of  those  present,  and  precludes  the  necessity  of  trying  to  sup- 

•  ply  the  omission  either  by  reasoning  or  conjecture. 

4.  And  tliey  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost, 
vand  began  to  speak  with  othen  tongues,  as  the  Spirit 
V   ^.v.^gave  them  utterance. 

I  vJ  'v^  \      The  sensible  signs  of  an  extraordinary  spiritual  influence 
^j  ,  I  :Jare  followed  by  the  influence  itself,  and  this  again  by  a  sensi- 
>!^  i)le  efiect,  afibrding  external  proof  of  its  reality.     The  repeated 
^  ^-^.-use  of  the  word  all  shows  that  this  eftect  was  not  confined  to 
K  ^;^''the  Apostles.     No  one  could  have  been  disposed  to  doubt 
A^  ^'-^^that  the  extraordinary  gift  extended  to   all  the  A2)ostles^  if 
0^  J  : vouchsafed  to  any ;  but  the  very  feeling  which  leads  us  to 
>    'S^^ "doubt  its  further  extension,  shows  the  necessity  of  sa}ing  they 
^  "5-  ^were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost^  if  such  were  really  the 
*Vi  ^'-case.     This  expression  is  a  favourite  one  mth  Luke  (4,  8.  31. 
^^HJ^$. -6,3.5.  7,55.9,17.  11,24.  13,9.52.  Luke  1,  15.  41.  67.  4,1), 
.1  *  "-"    and  denotes  afresh  illapse  and  extraordinary  influence  of  the 
^"^j     divine  agent,  not  excluding   previous  communications,  but 
J  ^|--s     always  impl}Tiig  the  reception  of  supernatural  gifts  or  powers. 
(  .     .  <  (Compare  Luke  24,  49.  Acts  1,  8.)     Here  the  precise  nature 
v'^m''-    of  the  gift  is  particularly  stated ;  they  heg an  to  speak  icith 
r"^  :;     other  tongues.     Began  is  no  more  pleonastic  here  than  in  the 
5^*  5  -  first  sentence  of  the  book,  but  conveys,  as  it  does  there,  the 
i  T'twofold  idea,  that  what  is  here  recorded  happened  for  the 
' "   first  time,  and  that  it  was  afterwards  repeated  or  continued. 
Other  tongues  can  only  mean  languages  difierent  from  their 
own,    and    by    necejisary  implication,   previously   unknown. 
(Vulg.  Unguis  variis.)     In  our  Saviour's  promise  of  this  gift 
before  his  Ascension  (Mark  16,  17),  he  uses  the  equivalent 
expression,  oieio   tongues.,   i.  e.  new  to  them.     The  attem[)t 
to  make  these  phrases  mean  a  new  style  or  a  new  strain, 
or  new  forms  of  expression,  is  not  only  unnatural  but  in- 
consistent with  the  foUovrlng  narrative,  where  every  tiling 


f  •* 


ACTS  2,  4.  46 

implies  a  real  difference  of  language.  Some  have  imagined 
that  the  miracle  was  wrought  upon  the  ears  of  the  hearers, 
each  of  whom  supposed  what  he  heard  to  be  uttered  in  his 
mother  tongue.  But  this  is  a  gratuitous  and  forced  assump- 
tion, and  at  variance  with  the  fact  that  the  use  of  other 
tongues  appears  to  have  preceded  the  arrival  of  the  foreign 
witnesses,  whose  hearing  is  supposed  to  have  been  thus  al- 
fected.  The  design  of  this  gift  was  not  merely  to  facilitate 
the  preaching  of  the  gospel.  It  is  nowhere  historically  men 
tioned  as  contributing  to  that  result.  Its  necessity  for  that 
end  was  in  a  great  measure  superseded,  at  least  within  the 
Roman  Empire,  by  the  general  use  of  the  Greek  language. 
That  it  was  not  a  permanent  and  universal  knowledge  of  all 
the  tongues  spoken  in  the  countries  visited  by  the  Apostles, 
is  inferred  by  some  from  14,  11,  where  the  use  of  the  vernacu- 
lar language  seems  to  be  mentioned,  as  an  explanation  of  the 
tardiness  with  which  Paul  and  Barnabas  rejected  the  idola- 
trous honours  of  the  heathen  Lycaonians.  While  the  gift  of 
tongues  may,  in  particular  emergencies,  have  answered  this 
important  purpose,  it  had  other  uses,  even  regarded  as  a 
transient  or  momentary  inspiration.  It  served,  like  any  other 
miracle,  but  with  a  special  propriety  and  force,  to  prove  the  ' 
reality  of  an  extraordinary  spiritual  mlluence,  which  might , 
otherwise  have  been  denied  or  doubted.  And  it  served,  as 
a  symbol,  to  prefigure  the  vocation  of  the  Gentiles,  whose 
excision  from  the  church  or  chosen  people  had  been  typified 
of  old  by  a  corresponding  prodigy,  the  miraculous  confusion 
of  tongues  at  Babel.  As  the  moral  unity  of  mankind  had 
been  then  lost,  it  was  now  to  be  restored,  by  the  preaching 
of  the  Gospel  to  all  nations.  To  this  historical  connection 
between  diversities  of  language  and  the  spiritual  condition  of 
the  world,  there  seems  to  be  allusion  in  the  frequent  use  of 
the  word  tongues  in  prophecy  to  designate  nations.  (See 
Isaiah  66,  18.  Dan.  3,  4.  V.  Rev.  5,  9.  V,  9.  10, 11.  11,  9.  13,  7. 
14,  6.  17,  15.)  While  the  practical  design  of  this  gift,  as  an 
aid  in  preaching,  would  confine  it  to  one  sex  and  a  small  class 
of  believers,  its  demonstrative  and  symbolical  design  made  it 
equally  appropriate  to  others.  Its  original  exercise  was  not 
in  mere  talk,  the  generic  Greek  term  (AoXeti/)  being  qualified 
by  one  (d7ro(^^eyy6o--9at)  which  primarily  means  to  speak  out^ 
clearly  or  aloud,  and  secondarily,  to  utter  something  weighty 
or  authoritative,  in  which  sense, it  is  the  root  of  the  word 
apophthegm.    (Compare  v.  14,  4,  18,  26,  25.)    Even  this  utter- 


46  ACTS  2,  4.5. 

ance,  however,  was  not  left  to  their  own  choice  or  discretion, 
but  directed  by  the  same  divine  influence  which  enabled  them 
to  speak  at  all.  They  spoke  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance. 
literally,  to  utter  (Vulg.  dabat  eloqui),  i.  e.  gave  the  capacity 
and  right  to  do  so.  Cranmer  and  the  Geneva  Bible  mark 
the  identity  of  the  divine  agent  by  rendei'ing,  the  same  Spirit. 

5-  And  there  were  dwelling  at  Jerusalem  Jews,  de- 
vout men,  out  of  every  nation  under  heaven. 

Publicity  was  necessary  to  the  effect  of  this  great  miracle, 
both  as  a  symbol  and  a  proof  of  special  divine  agency ;  and 
witnesses  accordingly  had  been  provided.  The  word  trans- 
lated dwelling  does  not  of  itself  denote  either  permanent  or 
temporary  residence,  but  rather  the  act  of  settling  or  begin- 
ning to  reside,  as  in  Matt.  2,23.  4,13.  12,45.  Luke  11,26. 
Acts  7,  2. 4,  whether  the  subsequent  abode  be  temporary,  as 
in  Heb.  11,  9,  or  permanent,  as  in  Acts  9,  32.  17,  26,  and  often 
in  the  book  of  Revelation,  where  it  is  a  favourite  expression 
for  the  general  idea  of  inhabitation.  There  is  nothing  there- 
fore to  confine  the  Word  here  to  Jews  who  had  come  to  end 
their  lives  in  Jerusalem,  as  they  have  done  in  all  ages,  or  to 
such  as  had  come  merely  to  attend  the  feast.  The  special 
reference,  if  any,  would  be  naturally  to  the  latter.  All  that 
is  expressly  said,  however,  is  that  there  were  then  present 
at  Jerusalem,  either  as  visitors  or  constant  residents,  repre- 
sentatives of  every  nation  under  heaven.  This  is  a  natural 
hyperbole  belonging,  not  to  artificial  rhetoric,  but  to  the 
dialect  of  common  life.  It  loses  something  of  its  strength 
when  compared  with  the  statements  of  Philo  and  Josephus, 
that  there  were  Jews  then  settled  in  every  country  upon 
earth.  There  is  also  an  allusion  to  the  language  of  Gen.  11, 
4,  confirming  the  assumed  relation  of  the  gift  of  tongues  to 
the  confusion  there  recorded.  These  representatives  of  all 
nations  were  themselves,  as  might  have  been  expected,  Jews, 
and  of  the  serious  or  devout  class,  such  as  were  believers  in 
the  prophecies  and  looking  for  the  consolation  of  Israel.  (Com- 
pare Luke  2,  25.  38.)  The  Greek  epithet  (evXa/Sus:)  originally 
signifies  cautious,  timid,  but  in  Hellenistic  usage  is  applied  to 
the  fear  of  God.  The  Geneva  Bible  has  expressly,  Jeios  that 
feared  God  ;  Wiclif,  after  the  Vulgate,  religious  men.  Some 
have  supposed  it,  like  the  similar  phrase,  fearing  God.,  to  be 
descriptive  of  proselytes  from  heathenism  (10,  2.  22.  13,  16. 


ACTS   2,  5.6.  47 

26)  ;  but  its  application  to  Simeon,  if  I'xOt  to  Ananias  (22,  12), 
shows  it  to  be  properly  expressive  of  a  certain  type  of  Jewish 
piety.  (See  below,  on  8,  2.)  Its  introduction  here  is  not  un- 
meaning, as  it  shows  that  the  effusion  of  the  Holy  Ghost  waa 
attested  by  the  most  competent  and  trustworthy  witnesses, 
Jews  of  the  most  serious  and  perhaps  most  bigoted  character, 
who  at  the  same  time  represented  every  nation  under  heaven. 
It  is  an  admissible,  though  not  a  necessary  supposition,  that 
this  concourse  at  Jerusalem  had  some  connection  with  the 
general  expectation  of  a  great  deliverer,  which  prevailed  at 
this  time,  not  in  Israel  only  (Luke  2,  25.  26.  38.  3,  15.  19,  11 
John  1,  20.  21),  but  among  the  Gentiles,  as  attested  by  Sue* 
tonius  and  Tacitus. 

6.  Now  when  this  was  noised  abroad,  the  multitude 
came  together,  and  were  confounded,  because  that 
every  man  heard  them  speak  in  his  own  language. 

The  first  clause  is  more  literally  rendered  in  the  margin 
of  the  English  Bible,  when  this  voice  was  made.  The  exact 
form  of  the  original  is,  this  voice  having  happened^  or  come 
into  existence,  i.  e.  become  audible.  The  common  version 
seems  to  take  voice  in  the  sense  of  rumour  or  report ;  but 
there  is  no  such  usage  either  in  classical  or  hellenistic  Greek. 
Some  identify  it  with  the  noise  of  v.  2,  and  voice  is  certain 
ly  applied  elsewhere  to  inarticulate  sounds,  as  that  of  the 
wind  (John  3,  8),  of  a  trumpet  (Matt.  24,  31),  of  thunder 
(Rev.  6,  1),  wings  and  chariots  (Rev.  9,  9),  waters  (Rev.  14, 
2),  etc.  But  as  it  properly  denotes  the  human  voice,  it 
seems  best  here  to  understand  it  of  the  voice  of  the  disciples 
speaking  in  other  tongues.  The  singular  number  {voice,  for 
voices)  is  collective,  and  as  natural  in  this  case  as  in  4,  24,  and 
in  the  phrases,  voice  of  many  angels,  voice  of  harpers  and 
musicians  (Rev.  5,  11.  18,  22.)  The  voice  of  the  disciples 
would  at  first  attract  the  notice  of  those  near  at  hand,  and 
then,  by  an  influence  of  which  we  have  continual  examples, 
gather  a  still  larger  audience.  The  multitude  is  neither  the 
multitude  accustomed  to  assemble  at  the  temple,  from  which 
some  have. drawn  an  inference  as  to  the  scene  of  these  events ; 
nor  the  multitude  ready  to  assemble  upon  such  occasions,  or 
what  we  call  'the  mob' ;  but  the  large  body  of  foreign  Jews 
described  in  the  preceding  verse,  and  providentially  provided 
as  witnesses  of  this  great  miracle.    Having  said  that  there 


48  ACTS  2,  6.  7. 

were  such  men  in  the  city,  the  historian  noT\'  says  that  the 
whole  mass  of  them  (to  ttXt^^os)  came  together,  when  these 
strange  sounds  became  audible.  He  then  describes  the  effect 
produced  upon  them  by  this  su\gulaii  phenomenon.  Con- 
foimded  means  originally  poured  together^  and  describes  the 
mixture  of  liquids,  but  is  secondarily  applied  to  any  confused 
mixture,  as  of  people  in  a  tumult  (19, 32.  21, 31),  or  of 
thoughts  in  the  mind,  as  in  9,  22  and  here.  The  Greek  verb 
is  peculiar  to  this  book  of  the  New  Testament.  The  margin 
of  our  Bible  has  troubled  in  mind  j  the  older  English  ver- 
sions read  astonied^  astonied  in  thought^  or  astonied  in  mind. 
The  cause  of  their  confusion  or  perplexity  is  expressly  stated. 
The  form  of  the  last  clause  in  the  original  is,  because  they 
hecird^  each  one  in  his  oicn  dialect^  them  speaking.  Dialect 
a  kindred  form  to  dialogvx^  originally  means  discourse  or  con 
versation ;  then  mode  of  speech,  style,  or  diction ;  then  di- 
versity of  language,  whether  national  or  provincial.  Oicn  is 
emphatic ;  not  merely  in  a  language  which  he  understood, 
but  in  his  own  particular,  peculiar  tongue.  What  could  this 
possibly  mean,  if  the  other  tongues  were  merely  higher  strains 
or  smgularities  of  diction  ?  Some  have  strangely  under- 
stood this  clause  to  mean,  that  each  of  those  who  came  to- 
gether heard  all  the  disciples  speaking  in  his  own  tongue ; 
and  on  this  interpretation  rests  the  notion  that  the  miracle 
was  not  wrought  on  the  tongues  of  the  disciples,  but  the  ears 
of  those  who  heard  them.  This  is  certainly  not  the  sense 
suggested  by  the  words  to  an  unbiassed  reader.  They  evi- 
dently mean  no  more  than  that  each  of  the  witnesses  heard 
his  own  language  spoken,  whether  by  one  or  more.  Another 
objection  to  this  view  of  the  passage,  as  already  stated,  is, 
that  the  fact  of  their  speaking  in  other  tongues  is  distinctly 
mentioned,  as  something  j^revious  to,  and  therefore  indepen- 
dent of,  the  concourse  and  confusion  here  recorded. 

7.  And  they  were  all  amazed  and  marvelled,  saying 
one  to  another,  Behold,  are  not  all  these  which  speak 
Galileans  ? 

Amazed  and  marvelled  are  not  descriptive  of  something 
Subsequent  to  the  confusion  mentioned  in  v.  6,  but  either 
mere  specifications  of  the  term  there  used,  or  expressive  of 
the  inward  state  by  which  the  outward  confusion  was  pro- 
duced.    The  verbs  themselves  are  not  synonymous  in  Greek, 


ACTS  2.  1,  49 

but  generic  and  specific  forms  of  the  same  idea.  The  first 
(e^to-rai/To)  means  properly  to  be  out  of  one's  normal  condi- 
tion, and  when  applied  to  the  intellect,  to  be  beside  one's 
self,  with  any  strong  emotion.  It  is  the  root  of  our  word 
ecstasy^  applied  in  English  usage  to  extreme  degrees  of  joy, 
whereas  the  Greek  noun  is  appropriated,  in  the  same  vray,  to 
extreme  degrees  of  wonder.  As  if  he  had  said,  they  were 
beside  themselves  with  wonder.  This  specific  application  of 
the  term  is  then  directly  given  by  the  second  verb,  th'iy  mar- 
velled. Their  wonder  was  expressed  in  mutual  ejactdations  ; 
not  that  each  of  them  uttered  these  precise  words,  but  that 
this  was  the  sum  and  substance  of  what  they  said  to  one  an- 
other. (See  below,  on  4, 16.  24.)  Their  surprise  is  furthermore 
denoted  by  the  particle  behold.  (See  above,  on  1,  10.)  The 
particular  description  of  the  twelve  as  Galileans  has  been  va- 
riously explained.  Some  take  it  as  synonymous  with  Chris- 
tians^ which  is  both  irrelevant  and  contrary  to  usage ;  irrele- 
vant, because  it  mattered  not  of  what  religion  the  men  were, 
to  whom  this  power  was  imparted  ;  it  was  no  more  wonderful 
in  Christians  than  it  would  have  been  in  Jews  or  Gentiles : 
contrary  to  usage,  because  Galilean  had  not  yet  become  the 
designation  of  a  sect  or  a  religion.  (See  above,  on  1,  11.) 
Others  suppose  the  speakers  to  have  reference  to  the  igno- 
rance and  barbarism  of  the  Galileans,  and  the  consequent 
contempt  with  which  they  were  regarded,  even  by  the  other 
Jews.  (See  John  1,  46.  7,  52.)  Their  very  dialect  seems  to 
have  been  difierent  from  that  of  the  Jews  properly  so  called 
(Matt.  26,  73.  Mark  14,  70) ;  but  this  was  a  difierence  too 
slight  to  have  attracted  the  attention  of  foreigners,  and  one 
which  could  not  have  increased  their  wonder  at  the  gift  of 
tongues.  So  far  as  education  and  learning  were  concerned, 
the  Gahleans  were  no  doubt  inferior  to  the  other  Jews,  and 
this  might  seem  to  make  the  wonder  greater,  that  they  should 
now  be  heard  speaking  in  tongues  which  they  had  never 
learned.  But  on  the  other  hand,  the  Galileans  were  espe- 
cially accustomed  to  free  intercourse  with  foreigners  ;  partly 
because  their  country  was  a  thoroughfare  between  Judea  and 
the  countries  to  the  north  and  east ;  partly  because  Galilee 
itself  had  a  mixed  population,  especially  that  part  of  it  called 
(it  may  be  for  that  very  reason)  Galilee  of  the  Gentiles  (Isai. 
9,  1.  Matt.  4,  15.)  In  this  point  of  view,  it  would  be  rather 
less  than  more  strange  that  they  should  speak  foreign  tongues. 
The  true  solution  seems  to  be,  that  Galileans  here  means 

3 


50  ACTS  2,  7.8 


Jews  or  inhabitants  of  Palestine,  the  local  designation  beiiig 
substituted  for  the  general  one,  simply  because  it  happened 
to  apply ;  just  as  Frenchmen  might  express  their  surprise  at 
the  correctness  with  which  French  was  spoken  by  a  Scotch- 
man or  an  Irishman,  although  his  native  tongue  be  neither 
Scotch  nor  Irish,  but  English.  The  strangers  might  have 
said,  Are  not  these  which  speak  all  Jews  or  natives  of  Pales- 
tine ?  But  as  they  saw  them  to  be  chiefly  from  one  district, 
they  naturally  use  the  local  or  provincial  name.  Some  have 
inferred  from  this  expression,  that  all  the  followers  of  Christ 
were  Galileans ;  others,  that  only  the  Apostles  are  referred 
to.  But  the  language  is  sufiiciently  explained  by  the  large 
proportion  of  disciples  from  that  province,  and  by  the  promi- 
nence of  the  Apostles.  It  should  also  be  observed,  that  the 
words  are  not  affirmative  but  interrogative,  and  uttered  not 
by  those  who  knew  the  fact,  but  by  a  crowd  of  strangers, 
judging  merely  from  aj^pearances,  and  speaking  from  the  im- 
pulse of  the  moment. 

8.  And  how  hear  we  every  man  in  our  own  tongue 
wherein  we  were  born  ? 

The  logical  connection  is  more  clearly  indicated  in  the 
Geneva  version,  hoio  then  ?  i.  e.  if  they  are  all  Galileans,  how 
is  it  that  they  speak  our  languages  ?  The  question  is  only  an 
additional  expression  of  surprise,  an  indirect  assertion  that 
the  fact  is  unaccountable.  The  construction  seems  to  be  dis- 
turbed by  the  insertion  of  every  man  or  each  one  ;  but  with- 
out it,  they  might  seem  to  have  spoken  all  one  language,  and 
the  writer  seems  resolved  that  the  reader  shall  remember  the 
diversity  of  dialect  among  these  strangers.  In  order  likewise 
to  preclude  all  doubt  as  to  the  other  tongues  of  v.  4,  he  not 
only  here  repeats  the  strong  expression  own  tongue  from  v. 
6,  but  adds  the  still  stronger  one,  in  which  we  were  horn, 
equivalent  in  meaning  to  the  common  phrase,  our  mother 
*.ongue  or  native  language.  This  strange  accumulation  of 
terms  necessarily  denoting  literal  diversity  of  language,  is  not 
only  unaccountable  but  perfectly  unmeaning,  if  (as  some 
allege)  the  wonder  consisted  merely  in  the  use  of  unusual  ex 
pressions  or  a  style  of  extraordinary  elevation.  How  could 
either  of  these  modes  of  speech  be  called  by  any  hearer  his 
own  dialect  in  which  he  was  born  ?  If  the  terms  used  in  this 
narrative  do  not  express  diversity  of  language,  in  the  obvious 


ACTS   2,  8.  9.  51 

and  proper  sense,  it  is  impossible  for  that  idea  to  be  clothed 
in  words  at  all.  Some  complete  the  construction  of  the  sen 
tence  by  supplying  (as  the  object  of  the  verb  %oe  hear)  them 
speaking  /  but  the  true  completion  of  the  syntax  is  contained 
in  V.  11  below,  where  the  same  verb  {a.KovoiJ.^v)  is  repeated  and 
the  sentence  closed,  after  the  long  parenthesis  in  vs.  9,  10. 

9.  Parthians  and  Medes  and  Elamites,  and  the 
dwellers  in  Mesopotamia,  and  in  Judea  and  Cappado- 
cia,  in  Pontus  and  Asia ; 

The  sentence  is  continued  from  the  foregoing  verse.  The 
long  list  of  names  which  follows  is  a  specification  of  the  pro- 
noun loe  in  V.  8.  '  We  who  are  Parthians,  etc'  As  we  have 
here  recorded,  not  the  very  words  of  any  individual  speaker, 
but  the  sum  and  substance  of  what  all  said,  we  may  suppose 
each  man  to  have  mentioned  his  own  country,  or  one  man  to 
have  mentioned  several,  without  detracting  in  the  least  from 
the  fidelity  and  fulness  of  the  record.  The  names  are  neither 
chosen  nor  arranged  at  random,  but  follow  each  other  in  a 
certain  geographical  order,  beginning  at  the  north-east,  and 
then  proceeding  to  the  west  and  south.  The  first  three  de- 
note races  adjacent  to  the  Caspian  Sea,  and  all  belonging  to 
the  ancient  Persian  empire.  During  the  interval  between 
the  Old  and  the  New  Testament,  that  empire  had  been  par- 
tially resuscitated  by  the  Parthians,  who  became  a  formidable 
hinderance  to  the  progress  of  the  Roman  arms  in  Asia.  From 
these  north-eastern  tracts  he  passes  to  Mesopotamia,  so  called 
from  its  position  between  the  two  great  rivers,  Tigris  and 
Euphrates.  There  is  here  an  apparently  unnecessary  change 
in  the  construction  of  the  sentence.  Instead  of  proceeding 
simply  to  enumerate  the  races  or  inhabitants  of  countries,  he 
enumerates  the  countries  themselves,  prefixing  the  participle 
dwelli7ig  or  inhabiting^  until  the  end  of  the  next  verse,  when 
the  original  construction  is  resumed.  The  only  reason  that 
can  be  suggested,  even  by  conjecture,  for  this  change  of  form, 
is  that  there  was  probably  no  gentile  noun  in  use  derived 
from  Mesopotamia  (and  answering  to  Mesopotamians)^  and 
that  having  been  obliged  to  use  a  circumlocution  with  respect 
to  that  name,  Luke  continued  it  through  this  verse  and  the 
next.  From  Mesopotamia  he  passes  over  to  the  peninsula  of 
Asia  Minor,  and  as  Judea  lay  between,  he  introduces  it, 
although  not  properly  belonging  to  a  catalogue  of  foreign 


62  ACTS  2,  9.  10. 

countries  represented  at  Jerusalem.  It  is  then  equivalent  to 
saying,  '  We,  as  well  as  those  inhabiting  Judea.'  Some  ac- 
count for  its  insertion  from  the  fact  already  mentioned,  that 
the  dialect  of  Galilee  was  different  from  that  of  Judea  proper, 
and  that  Jews  (in  the  local  sense)  might  therefore  joia  in  the 
expression  of  surprise  at  hearing  a  Galilean  speaking  their 
own  language.  But  this  was  nothing  new  to  them,  unless  we 
arbitrarily  assume  that  their  provincialisms  were  miraculously 
rectified.  Another  explanation  is  that  Luke,  writing  proba- 
bly at  Rome,  surveys  the  countries  rather  from  that  pomt  of 
view  than  from  Jerusalem.  At  all  events,  there  can  be  no 
ground  for  a  change  of  text,  by  omitting  Judea  altogether, 
or  by  changing  it  to  Syria^  Arinenia^  Bitliynia.,  Lydia^ 
India^  or  Idumea^  all  of  which  have  been  suggested.  Of 
Asia  Minor  five  provinces  are  named,  viz.  Pontus  on  the 
north  coast,  Fampliylia  on  the  south  coast,  Gappadocia  and 
JPhrygia  in  the  mterior,  and  on  the  west  coast  Asia^  in  its 
oldest  and  most  restricted  sense.  Modern  geography  applies 
this  name  to  one  of  the  great  primary  divisions  of  the  eastern 
hemisphere  or  old  world,  and,  v.ith  the  qualifying  adjunct 
Minor^  to  the  peninsula  between  the  Black  Sea  and  the  Ar- 
chipelago. But  neither  of  these  is  its  original  and  proper 
application,  which  was  restricted  to  the  provinces  along  the 
western  coast  of  that  peninsula.  According  to  Pliny,  it  in- 
cluded Mysia,  Lydia,  and  Caria,  and  nearly  or  exactly  coin- 
cided with  the  ^olis  and  Ionia  of  still  older  geographers. 
Whatever  doubt  there  may  be  as  to  its  precise  extent,  there 
can  be  none  as  to  its  relative  position,  on  the  shore  of  the 
Egean  Sea  and  opposite  to  Greece.  In  this  ancient  and  re- 
stricted sense,  Asia  is  used  throughout  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles, the  alleged  exceptions  being  more  than  doubtful.  (See 
below,  on  19,  26.  27.  21,  27.  24,  18.  27,  2.)  In  later  times  it 
was  extended  to  the  whole  peninsula,  and  finally  attained  its 
present  latitude  of  meaning,  as  a  correlative  of  Europe,  Africa, 
and  America. 

10.  Phrygia  and  Pampliylia,  in  Egypt,  and  in  the 
parts  of  Libya  about  Cyrene,  and  strangers  of  Home, 
Jews  and  Proselytes  ; 

From  the  central  and  southern  provinces  of  Asia  Minor 
he  crosses  the  Mediterranean  to  Africa,  in  which  he  singles 
out  two  well-knov^l  and  adjacent  countries  on  the  northern 


ACTS  2,  10.  53 

coast.  Libya^  lying  west  of  Egypt,  was  divided  by  tlie  old 
geographers  into  three  parts,  one  of  which  was  called  Libya 
Pentapolis  or  Pentapolitana^  from  its  five  noted  cities.  One 
of  these  was  Gyrene^  a  Greek  colony  and  seaport,  from  which 
the  whole  region  was  sometimes  called  Libya  Cyreniaca. 
(See  below,  on  6,  9.  11,  20.  13,  1.)  The  periphrastic  descrip- 
tion,  Libya  about  (or  towards)  Gyrene^  is  very  similar  in  form 
to  those  which  Dio  Cassiiis  and  Josephus  apply  to  the  same 
country.  From  Libya  Luke  proceeds  to  Italy,  as  here  rej)re- 
senting  the  whole  west.  At  this  point  the  series  of  accusa- 
tives governed  by  the  participle  in  v.  8  is  concluded,  and  the 
original  construction  reappears.  The  irregularity  of  form  is 
greater  in  English  than  in  Greek,  because  the  translators 
have  gratuitously  changed  the  participle  {inhahiti7i.g)  into  a 
noun  and  preposition  (dwellers  ^V^),  which  last  they  have 
omitted  before  some  names  and  inserted  before  others, 
whereas  the  form  of  the  original  has  no  such  inequality. 
Strangers  of  Home  does  not  mean,  as  some  have  imagined, 
strangers  at  Home^  which  would  be  wholly  out  of  place,  as 
well  as  contrary  to  usage,  but  strangers  from  Rome^  Roman 
strangers,  at  Jerusalem.  Here  again  the  Greek  word  is  a 
participle  and  means  sojourning,  temporarily  residing.  The 
distinctive  meaning  of  the  Greek  verb  may  be  traced  in  its 
derivative  epidemic^  applied  in  medicine  to  the  temporary 
prevalence  of  diseases,  as  distinguished  from  those  which  are 
endemic  or  at  home,  i.  e.  permanently  established  in  j^articu- 
lar  locahties.  By  Jeics  we  are  here  to  understand  those  born 
such,  natural  descendants  of  Abraham  and  Israel,  as  opposed 
to  converts  from  the  heathen,  called  irpocnjXvroL,  advenae,  or 
new  comers.  Wiclif  uses  the  word  comelings  to  translate 
eTrtSi^/xowres,  though  in  etymology  it  seems  to  coincide  exactly 
with  Tvpoa-qXvToi.  The  latter  is  rendered  by  Tyndale  converts., 
and  paraphrased  in  the  Geneva  Bible,  those  that  loere  con- 
verted  to  the  Jewish  religion.  The  combmation  of  the  two 
words  here  includes  all  sorts  of  Jews  there  represented.  The 
position  of  the  words  is  somewhat  strange  and  has  been  vari- 
ously explamed.  Some  suppose  that  they  were  meant  to 
apply  only  to  the  Romans ;  but  for  this  no  reason  can  be 
given.  Others  regard  them  as  qualifying  the  whole  cata- 
logue ;  but  this  is  not  completed  till  the  next  verse.  On  the 
whole,  perhaps,  the  best  solution  is,  that  the  qualifying  phrase, 
though  really  applicable  to  the  whole,  is  introduced  just  here 
because  it  here  occurred  to  the  writer.    As  if  he  had  said, 


54  ACTS  2,  10.  11. 

'  Sojourners  of  Rome,  including,  as  in  all  the  other  cases  } 
have  named,  both  native  Jews  and  Gentile  converts.' 

11.  Cretes  and  Arabians;  we  do  hear  them  speak 
in  our  tongues  the  wonderful  works  of  God. 

The  names  here  added  do  not  violate  the  order  previously 
followed,  but  complete  the  circle,  as  it  were,  by  passing  from 
the  extreme  west  (Italy)  to  the  extreme  south  (Arabia),  be- 
tween which  two  extremes  the  important  island  Crete  (now 
Candia)  lies  in  a  direct  line.  This  conclusion  of  the  catalogue 
is  followed  by  that  of  the  whole  sentence  begun  in  v.  8,  the 
connection  being  made  clear  by  the  repetition  of  the  leadmg 
verb  (we  hear),  of  which  the  proper  names  preceding  consti- 
tute the  complex  subject.  Our  toiigues  corresponds  to  oicn 
tongue  (Gr.  ovm  dialect)  in  v.  8.  Wonderful  loorks  is  a  cor- 
rect paraphrase,  but  not  an  exact  version,  of  the  Greek  word 
(/xeyaXeta),  which  corresponds  more  nearly  to  tnagnificent,  as 
an  expression  of  the  highest  admiration.  (Vulg.  magnalia.) 
As  the  noun  is  not  expressed,  and  as  Xenophon  repeatedly 
applies  the  adjective  to  words  or  sayings,  it  might  here  be 
understood  as  meaning  that  they  heard  the  disciples  speaking 
the  wonderfid  loords  of  God,  i.  e.  words  relating  to  hun  and 
m spired  by  him.  But  the  reference  to  works  or  acts  is  fa- 
voured by  the  use  of  the  Greek  word,  in  the  Septuagint  ver- 
sion of  Ps.  71,  19,  to  translate  a  Hebrew  one  (r.ibns),  derived 
from  a  corresponding  root  and  constantly  applied  in  the  Old 
Testament  to  the  divme  attributes  and  acts.  (See  Job  5,  9. 
9,  10.  37,  5.)  Still  more  decisive  is  the  analogy  of  Luke  1, 
49,  the  only  other  instance  of  its  use  in  the  New  Testament, 
where  it  is  joined  directly  with  the  verb  to  do.  There  is 
nothing  in  the  text  or  contex:t  to  determine  what  specific  acts 
are  here  referred  to  ;  but  it  may  be  safely  affirmed  that  the 
eifusion  of  the  Spirit  upon  this  occasion  was  at  least  included. 
Some  who  deny  the  gilt  of  tongues,  in  the  sense  of  a  plurality 
of  languages,  make  this  the  emphatic  word  of  the  whole  sen- 
tence, and  suppose  the  wonder  to  consist  in  the  greatness  of 
the  matter,  and  not  in  the  mode  of  the  expression.  It  was 
the  glorious  works  of  God,  as  uttered  by  the  disciples  under 
a  special  divine  influence,  that  filled  these  Jews  with  wonder. 
But  even  granting  this  to  be  an  adequate  occasion  of  the  feel- 
ing here  expressed,  how  could  it  have  been  clothed  m  words 
by  saying  that  each  of  the  spectators  heard  them  speak  his 


ACTS   2,  11.  12.  13.  65 

language,  his  own  dialect,  his  mother  tongue  ?  If  these 
phrases,  and  the  other  tongues  of  v.  4,  may  be  made  to  mean 
an  elevated  spiritual  strain  or  style,  the  fruit  of  strong  ex. 
citement,  or  even  of  a  real  inspiration,  but  without  effect 
upon  the  dialect,  then  all  interpretation  is  uncertain,  and  the 
most  important  end  of  language  nullified. 

12.  And  tliey  were  all  amazed,  and  were  in  doubt, 
saying  one  to  another,  What  meaneth  this  ? 

This  may  be  taken  either  as  an  emphatic  repetition  of 
what  had  been  already  said,  or  as  a  direct  continuation  of  the 
narrative.  In  the  latter  case,  the  meaning  is,  that  their  mu- 
tual interrogations  led  to  no  satisfactory  result,  for  they  were 
still  astonished  and  perplexed.  In  addition  to  the  verb  ex- 
plained above  (on  v.  7)  and  here  repeated,  Luke  employs 
another  very  strong  expression  to  describe  the  extent  of  their 
confusion.  From  a  Greek  noun  meaning  passage  {iropo'^) 
comes  the  adjective  iinpassahle  {airopos),  or  when  applied  to 
persons,  having  no  passage,  outlet,  or  way  of  escape.  From 
this  again  is  formed  the  verb  (dTropeco)  to  be  shut  up  or  at  a 
loss,  and  its  emphatic  compound  (8ta7ropea))  to  be  utterly  or 
wholly  at  a  loss,  which  is  the  word  here  used.  This  continued 
uncertainty  betrayed  itself  in  further  questionings,  of  Avhich 
an  example  is  here  given  in  a  very  idiomatic  form.  TT/iat 
ineaneth  this  is  no  doubt  the  correct  sense,  but  the  form  of 
the  original  is,  what  will  (or  would)  this  be  f  Examples  of 
the  same  mode  of  expression  have  been  quoted  from  Herodo- 
tus, Anacreon,  and  other  classics.  The  nearest  approach  to 
the  original  in  any  English  version  is  by  Wiclif,  what  wole 
(will)  this  thing  he  ?  Weaker  and  less  exact  is  the  Geneva 
version,  what  may  this  thing  he  f  From  this  extended  and 
minute  description,  it  is  clear  that  the  historian  considered  it 
important  for  his  purpose,  that  the  reader  should  be  strongly 
impressed  with  the  helpless  confusion  and  extreme  astonish- 
ment of  these  beholders. 

13.  Others  mocking  said,  These  men  are  full  of  new 
wine. 

Thus  far  the  language  and  the  conduct  of  the  witnesses 
have  been  described  as  altogether  serious  and  earnest.  ISToav 
another  and  a  very  different  tone  is  audible.     The  apparent 


56  ACTS   2,  13. 

inconsistency  between  the  all  of  v.  12  and  the  others  i>f  v.  13 
may  be  solved  in  two  ways.  One  is  by  supposing  that  Ave 
here  have  an  example  of  a  form  of  speech  common  to  all  lan- 
guages, but  particularly  frequent  in  the  Greek  and  Hebrew, 
and  consisting  in  the  use  of  an  absolute  expression  to  be  quali- 
fied immediately  by  one  which  follows.  Resolved  into  our 
idiom,  the  sense  would  be,  '  all  were  astonished  and  per- 
plexed excepting  some  who  mocked  and  said,'  etc.  But  this 
solution,  although  perfectly  admissible  in  case  of  exegctical 
necessity,  is  not  imperatively  needed  here,  as  there  is  yet  an- 
other, still  more  satisfactory.  This  consists  in  limitmg  the 
application  of  the  word  all  in  v.  12  to  the  foreign  Jews  and 
proselytes  just  mentioned,  and  api)lyiug  the  others  of  v.  13  to 
the  natives  of  Judea  or  Jerusalem.  The  reason  of  this  dif- 
ference will  appear  below.  Mock'mg^  or  making  a  jest  of  the 
whole  matter.  Some  of  the  oldest  manuscripts  and  latest 
critical  editions  have  a  stronger  form  than  that  in  the  received 
text  (8taxA.€i;a^oi/T€b),  which,  without  altering  the  sense,  makes 
the  expression  more  emphatic  and  intensive.  Full^  literally 
yj/M,  saturated,  sated,  the  idea  of  excess  being  necessarily 
suggested  by  the  Greek  word.  N'eio  wine  might  be  more 
exactly  rendered  sxoeet  wine^  as  the  Greek  word  properly  de- 
notes sv/eetness,  and  altliough  sometimes  applied  in  classic 
Greek  to  the  fresh  grape-juice  before  fermentation,  is  also 
used  of  those  fermented  wines,  in  which  the  sweetness  was 
retained  by  a  peculiar  process,  and  some  of  which  were  unu- 
sually strong.  The  very  phrase,  drunh  with  siceet  wi?ie,  is 
employed  by  Athena^us,  The  same  Greek  word  is  used  in 
the  Septuagint  version  of  Job  32,  19,  to  represent  the  common 
Hebrew  term  for  wine,  in  a  connection  where  the  reference 
to  fermentation  is  not  only  certain  but  essential  to  the  mean- 
ing. But  apart  from  these  authorities,  the  reference  to  new 
wine,  in  the  sense  of  unfermented  must  or  grape-juice,  would 
be  here  a  gross  absurdity.  The  very  nature  of  the  case,  as 
well  as  Peter's  answer,  shows  the  charge  to  have  been  not 
merely  that  of  drinking  but  of  being  drunk.  Some  have  used 
this  as  an  argument  against  the  actual  diversity  of  languages, 
which  could  not  (it  is  said)  have  been  ascribed  to  drunken- 
ness. But  even  supposing  the  charge  to  have  been  serious, 
what  could  more  naturally  have  suggested  it,  than  the  very 
mixture  of  strange  languages,  which  to  the  great  mass  of 
these  native  Jews  must  have  been  an  unintelligible  jargon? 
Ft  is  indeed  a  strong  though  incidental  proof  of  authenticity, 


^-^  ACTS   2,  13.  14.  51 

^  -    that  this  great  mh-acle  is  represented  as  affecting  these  two 
v\  i    classes  in  so  different  a  manner,  yet  so  perfectly  in  keeping 
j^    with  their  situation.     A  fictitious  writer  might  very  naturally 
J  ^-i  have  described  them  as  affect dd  all  alike,  forgetting  that 
j      ^  while  every  additional  diversity  of  dialect  would  furnish  a 
ll  },   fresh  proof  of  divine  agency  to  some  among  the  foreign  wit- 
^  »^  N^  nesses,  the  same  cause  would  render  the  whole  scene  still 
i  '^  ^    nore  confused  and  apparently  absurd  to  the  resident  or  native 
j  V"  4  Jews.     This  necessary  difference  between  the  cases  would 
v<;  J^Y^  suffice  to  account  for  the  levity  with  Avhich  the  latter  class 
d  ix   ^^^o^^'^^^  the  whole  matter,  without  referring  it  to  any  radi- 
^\ij  cal  diversity  of  character,  which  cannot  be  historically  shown 
O^nj   to  have  existed.     Language  which  conveys  no  meaning  almiost 
^--,  invariably  excites  a  ludicrous  emotion  in  the  hearer.     Another 
'^  if>,^ observation  to  be  made  upon  this  charge  of  drunkenness  is, 
(4  J  '  that  it  affords  a  further  refutation  of  the  notion  entertained 
^  ^^"^  by  Cyprian  and  Erasmus^,  that  the  miracle  Avas  wrought  upon 
]^^  the  ears  of  the  spectators,  so  that  each  thought  he  heard  his       J  j 
i^  v>  vernacular  language.     For  in  that  case,  these  Jerusalemites       I " 
«*>  0  would  have  understood  what  they  heard,  and  could  have  had       ;^ . 
^  5^  DO  pretext  for  the  charge  of  drunkenness,  unless  it  had  refer-       5  ' 
^  >^^   ence  merely  to  the  excitement  and  enthusiasm  of  the  speak-     ^ 
ii,-^"^  ers.     It  was  this  frivolous  aspersion,  rather  than  the  serious      ^ 
^  N  X  inquiries  of  the  devout  Jews,  that  gave  occasion  to  the  great     ^  < 
^-  ^   apostolical  discourse  which  follows.  <>$  1 

V\-'  14.  But  Peter,  standing  up  with  the  eleven,  lifted  's^^ 
><**nI  up  liis  voice  and  said  unto  tlieni,  Ye  men  of  Judea,  and\^"'  ^ 
'S^io^all  (ye)  that  dwell  at  Jerusalem,  be  this  known  unto  you^\^v^ 
^  /  3  and  hearken  to  my  words.  ; 

*j  ;;  !•.>•  The  Apostles  repudiate  the  charge  of  drunkenness  and 
^:5\Vexplain  the  true  nature  of  the  whole  occurrence.  Peter,  as 
^  >  "usual,  is  the  spokesman,  acting  no  doubt  by  divine  suggestion. 
^<  -and  with  the  tacit  acquiescence  of  his  brethren.  (See  above, 
^-•on  1,  15,  and  below,  on  5,  3.  29.)  With  the  eleve?i,  himself 
5^ being  the  twelfth.  (See  above,  on  1,  26.)  The  meaning  ia 
-•not  that  they  came  together  when  they  heard  of  the  aspersion 
•rl^  least  upon  them,  but  that  they  repelled  it  on  the  spot,  and  as 
<0  J  ^  oon  as  it  was  uttered.  /Standing  up  is,  in  several  of  the 
^  yS  4  Ider  English  versions,  rendered  stejyped  forth,  or  came  for- 
/  mir^^i"*^-  But  the  proper  sense  is  that  of  standing  up  or  rising, 
5  j  ^  i  as  a  preliminary  to  the  act  of  public  speaking.     The  particu 


58  ACTS  2,  14. 

*ar  mention  of  this  gesture  is  a  favourite  idiom  of  Luke'si 
(See  below,  5,  20.  11, 13.  17,22.  25,  18.  27,  21,  and  compare 
Luke  18,  11.  40.)  With  the  eleven  naturally,  though  not  ne- 
cessarily, implies,  that  the  eleven  stood  up  with  him.  It  may 
indeed  mean  only  that  they  kept  together  as  one  body  ;  but 
in  eitlier  case,  the  idea  of  unity  and  concert  is  essential.  They 
not  only  were,  but  were  seen  to  be,  governed  by  one  purpose, 
actuig  under  one  commission.  It  was  important  that  Peter 
should  be  recognized  as  not  speaking  in  his  own  name,  but  as 
representing  the  whole  body,  which  was  itself  the  representa- 
tive of  Christ,  in  the  organization  and  administration  of  his 
church  or  kingdom.  That  what  follows  was  a  speech  or  ser- 
mon, not  a  private  and  informal  talk  to  a  few  chance  hearers, 
is  implied,  not  only  in  the  act  of  rismg,  but  in  that  of  lifting 
up  his  voice,  or  speaking  so  as  to  be  heard  by  a  great  num- 
ber. There  is  no  need  of  diluting  the  full  import  of  the 
phrase,  so  as  to  mean  merely,  he  began  to  speak.  Said  is  a 
very  feeble  version  of  the  Greek  verb,  which  is  the  same  with 
that  employed  at  the  end  of  v.  4,  and  there  explained  to  sig- 
nify the  solemn  and  authoritative  utterance  of  something 
weighty  and  important  m  itself.  Men  of  Jiidea  is  a  similar 
expression  to  3fen  of  Galilee  in  1, 11,  and  strictly  means  3Ien 
Jews  or  Jewish  Men.  It  has  here  a  local  rather  than  a  reli- 
gious sense,  and  is  correctly  rendered  in  the  common  version. 
It  is  nearly  equivalent  to  native  Jews  or  Hebrews.  That  the 
foreign  Jews,  however,  were  included  in  the  object  of  address, 
is  intimated  by  the  wider  phrase,  and  all  inhabitbig  Jerusa- 
lem^ which  does  not  mean  the  foreign  Jews  expressly  or  dis- 
tinctively, but  comprehends  them  with  the  natives  under  one 
generic  formula.  That  the  Greek  verb  does  not  of  itself 
mean  either  permanent  or  temporary  residence,  see  above,  on 
V.  5.  Be  this  hnoion  unto  you  is  equivalent,  m  modern  phrase, 
to  saying,  I  have  something  to  communicate  or  make  known, 
with  an  implication  that  it  is  not  without  interest  and  impor- 
tance to  the  hearers.  The  formula  is  found  in  this  book  only, 
(See  below,  4,  10.  13,  38.  28,  28.)  The  remaining  introduc- 
tory phrase,  hearhen  to  my  words^  bespeaks  attention  to  what 
follows,  with  a  slight  suggestion  that  it  may  prove  to  be 
Bomethmg  not  only  unexpected  but  unwelcome.  Analogous, 
in  this  point,  are  the  words  which  Shakspeare  puts  into  the 
mouth  of  Brutus,  when  about  to  justify  the  death  of  Cesar. 
"  Hear  me  for  my  cause,  and  be  silent  that  you  may  hear." 
The  word  translated  hearkeyi  (Vulg.  aurihus  percipite)  is  a 


ACTS  2,  14.  15.  69 

later  Greek  verb,  unknown  to  the  fclassics,  and  apparently 
formed  in  imitation  of  a  Hebrew  verb  common  in  the  Psalms, 
and  usually  rendered  in  our  Bible,  give  ear.  Both  verbs  are 
derived  from  the  noun  ear^  which  is  probably  the  case  like- 
wise with  the  English  hear.  This  introduction,  though  un- 
studied and  entirely  natural,  is  not  without  rhetorical  merit 
and  eflect.  The  discourse  itself,  which  follows,  has  peculiar 
interest,  not  only  as  the  first  in  time,  the  earliest  specunen  of 
apostolical  preaching,  but  also  as  a  public  exposition  of  the 
principles  on  which  the  church  was  to  be  organized,  pro- 
pounded at  the  organization  itself.  Though  often  repeated, 
and  by  some  distinguished  writers,  it  is  far  from  being  true, 
that  this  discourse  consists  simply  and  entirely  of  historical 
facts.  How  can  this  be  a  correct  description  of  a  passage,  in 
which  no  less  than  three  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament  are 
expounded  and  applied,  with  a  formal  refutation  of  a  diflerent 
exposition  ?  The  truth  is  that  the  mere  historical  facts,  so 
far  from  making  up  the  whole,  are  rather  assumed  or  inci- 
dentally referred  to,  while  the  body  of  the  discourse  is  argu- 
mentative and  exegetical.  In  this,  it  resembles  the  first 
preaching  generally,  and  is  a  model  for  our  owti,  which  ought 
not  to  be  the  telling  of  a  story  merely,  but  the  logical  and 
practical  interpretation  of  the  word  of  God.  Another  false 
view  of  this  great  discourse  is  that  which  makes  it  whoUy  de- 
sultory and  even  incoherent.  Though  informal,  it  is  perfectly 
consecutive  and  even  symmetrical  m  structure.  It  first  repu- 
diates the  charge  of  drunkenness  (14) ;  then  shows  what  had 
occurred  to  be  the  fulfilment  of  a  signal  prophecy  (15-21) ; 
and  then  demonstrates  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  (22-36.) 
The  details,  as  well  as  the  transitions,  of  this  scheme,  and  its 
•  coherent  unity,  will  be  pointed  out  as  we  proceed. 

15.  For  these  are  not  drunken,  as  ye  suppose,  see- 
ing it  is  but  the  third  hour  of  the  day. 

This  is  the  negative  part  of  the  defence,  or^the  denial  of 
the  false  solution,  which  had  been  suggested,  of  the  gift  of 
tongues.  Brief  as  it '  is,  it  includes  three  distinguishable 
points.  The  first  is  the  categorical  denial,  or  direct  rei)u- 
diation  of  the  odious  charge.  These  men  are  not  driuik- 
en.,  i.  e.  drunk^  the  form  of  the  adjective  when  absolutely 
used,  while  drunken  is  usually  followed  by  the  noun.  The 
next  point  is   an  mdirect   suggestion   that  the   charge  was 


60  ACTS  2,  15. 

groundless  and  gratuitous,  a  mere  assumption  without  proof 
or  reason.  This  is  the  full  force  of  the  phrase,  as  ye  suppose^ 
or  rather,  assume^  take  for  granted.  For  the  primary  mean- 
ing of  the  Greek  verb,  as  applied  to  bodily  motion,  see  above, 
on  1,  9.  Its  metaphorical  or  secondary  sense  oi  taking  up)  an 
opinion,  or  assicnmig  a  fact,  especially  without  proof,  is  of 
frequent  occurrence  in  Herodotus,  Xenophon,  and  Plato. 
The  third  point  is  an  argument  or  proof,  that  they  could  not 
be  drunk,  drav.n  from  the  time  of  day.  The  ancient  Hebrews 
reckoned  the  day  from  evening  to  evening  (Gen.  1,  5.  Lev. 
23,  32),  and  are  thought  to  have  divided  the  day  and  night, 
i.  e.  the  varying  periods  of  light  and  darkness,  each  into  three 
watches.  (See  Judges  V,  19.  Ex.  14,  24.  1  Sam.  11,  11.  Lam.  2. 
1 9.)  The  later  Jews  adopted  the  Roman  division  of  the  night 
into  four  watches  (Matt.  14,  25.  Luke  12,  38.  Mark  6,  48.  13, 
35),  and  of  the  day  into  twelve  hours  (John  11,  9),  reckoning 
from  sunrise  or,  as  an  average,  from  six  o'clock.  The  third 
hour,  according  to  this  computation,  would  fall  between  what 
we  call  eight  and  nine.  At  or  about  this  time  of  day  the  effu- 
sion of  the  Holy  Ghost  took  place,  and  from  this  circumstance 
Peter  seems  to  argue  that  what  they  had  now  witnessed  could 
not  be  the  effect  of  intoxication.  But  wherein  does  the  proof 
lie,  or  the  argument  consist  ?  Who  was  to  determine  when  in- 
toxication could  begin,  or  to  forbid  its  being  reckoned  as  the 
cause  of  its  apparent  effects  ?  Some  suppose  an  allusion  to 
religious  usage.  The  third  hour,  in  the  sense  explained  above, 
was  the  first  of  the  three  stated  hours  of  daily  prayer,  ob- 
served by  the  Jews,  without  express  divine  command,  but 
probably  in  imitation  of  David  and  Daniel  (Ps.  55,  17.  Dan.  6, 
10.  13.)  The  other  two  hours  of  prayer  are  also  mentioned 
in  this  book.  (See  below,  3,  1.  10,  9.)  From  this  fact,  and* 
the  alleged  Jewish  practice  of  abstaining  from  all  food  and 
drink  until  this  hour,  some  explain  the  clause  as  meaning  that 
the  charge  of  drunkenness  was  inconsistent  with  their  charac- 
ter and  habits  as  devout  Jews.  But  the  charge  itself  virtu- 
ally called  in  question  their  pretensions  to  this  character,  and 
could  not  therefore  be  disproved  by  claiming  it.  A  much 
more  obvious  and  simple  explanation  is  that  which  supposes 
the  third  hour  to  be  mentioned,  not  as  an  hour  of  prayer,  but 
simply  as  an  early  hour  of  the  day  at  which  intoxication 
would  imply  the^most  intemperate  and  reckless  habits.  A 
etriking  parallel  is  furnished  by  a  passage  in  one  of  Cicero's 
Philippics,  where   he   characterizes  the  license  practised  at 


ACTS  2,  15.  16.  61 

Antony's  villa  by  saying  that  they  revelled  there  from  nine 
o'clock.  {Ab  hora  tertia  hihebatiir^  ludebatur^  vomehatur.)  But 
still  it  maybe  asked,  if  such  thmgs  were  done,  why  might  they 
not  be  done  in  this  case ;  and  how  could  a  mere  reference  to  the 
early  hour  be  an  answer  to  the  implied  charge  of  early  revels  ? 
The  answer  to  this  question  seems  to  be,  that  although  such 
intemperance  was  possible,  it  was  credible  only  in  the  case  of 
habitual  and  reckless  drunkards  (1  Th.  5,  7),  and  the  impu- 
tation of  this  character  to  Peter  and  his  brethren  carried  its 
refutation  with  it.  The  clause  may  then  be  paraphrased  as 
follows.  'As  to  the  charge  of  drunkenness,  it  refutes  itself; 
for  unless  you  mean  to  class  us  with  the  lowest  revellers  and 
debauchees,  which  all  who  see  us  see  to  be  absurd,  it  is  in- 
conceivable that  all  of  us  should  be  already  drunk  at  this 
early  hour  of  the  day.'  K  to  any  the  Apostle's  reasoning, 
m  answer  to  this  charge,  should  still  seem  inconclusive,  let  it 
be  observed  that  he  does  not  undertake  a  formal  refutation 
of  so  frivolous  an  accusation,  which  may  not  have  been  seri- 
ously intended  even  by  its  authors,  but  merely  makes  use  of  it 
in  a  single  sentence,  as  an  introduction  or  transition  to  the 
true  solution  of  this  wonderful  phenomenon,  contained  in  the 
next  sentence.  This  view  of  the  connection  may  be  rendered 
clear  by  paraphrase  as  follows.  'Passing  by  the  charge  of 
drunkenness,  as  too  absurd  to  be  repelled  except  by  simply 
reminding  you  how  early  in  the  morning  it  still  is,  I  now 
proceed  to  tell  you  the  true  meaning  of  the  strange  things 
which  you  have  just  seen  and  heard.'  Here  again  the  transi- 
tion is  so  natural  and  easy,  yet  so  logical  and  suited  to  the 
speaker's  purpose,  that  it  does  not  more  effectually  clear  him 
from  the  charge  of  rhetorical  artifice  or  tricks  of  speech,  than 
it  does  from  the  more  common  one  of  artlessness,  not  only  in 
this  good  sense,  but  in  that  of  rudeness  and  unskilfulness,  a 
helpless  incapacity  to  use  language  as  the  vehicle  of  thought 
with  clearness  and  coherence.  Let  those  who  are  continually 
thus  describing  the  inspired  writers  learn  to  lo6k  at  home. 

16.  But  this  is  that  which  was  spoken  by  the 
Prophet  Joel. 

The  negative  defence  is  followed  by  the  positive  ;  the 

alse  explanation  by  the  true.     The  sum  of  it  is ;  this  is  not 

ntoxication,  it  is  inspiration,  and  the  fulfilment  of  a  signal 

prophecy.     In  all  such  cases,  it  is  necessary,  first,  to  identify 


62  ACTS  2,  16.  17. 

tlie  passage ;  then,  lo  ascertain  the  form  of  the  quotation ; 
and  tinally,  to  fix  ilio  sense  in  which  it  is  applied.  The  first 
question  is  determined  here,  partly  by  the  mention  c^  the 
Prophet's  name,  omitted  in  some  copies,  manuscript  and 
printed,  but  without  sufficient  reason ;  and  more  completely 
by  the  actual  existence  of  the  j^assage  quoted  in  the  text  of 
the  Old  Testament.  The  Greek  preposition  (Sta),  more  dis- 
tinctly than  the  English  (5y),  denotes  the  instrumental  cause 
or  agent,  and  might  be  correctly  rendered  through.  '  Spoken 
by  God  through  (or  by  means  of)  the  Prophet  Joel.'  The 
whole  form  of  expression  implies,  that  Peter's  hearers  were 
familiar  with  the  name  of  Joel,  not  only  as  a  ^Titer,  but  an 
inspired  writer,  or  Old  Testament  Prophet.  The  personal 
history  of  Joel  is  unknown  and  unimportant  with  respect  to 
the  interpretation  of  this  passage.  The  precise  date  of  his 
writings  is  disputed,  but  the  best  authorities  refer  them  to 
the  reign  of  Uzziah,  at  least  eight  centuries  before  the  date 
of  these  events.  The  passage  quoted  is  the  first  five  verses 
of  the  third  chapter  in  the  Hebrew  text,  corresponding  to 
the  last  five  verses  of  the  second  chapter  in  the  Septuagint 
and  English  versions.  The  words  are  quoted  fl-om  the  for- 
mer, but  with  several  variations.  Some  suppose  this  passage 
to  have  formed  a  part  of  the  temple-service  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  and  allege  that  it  is  still  so  used  by  the  Caraites 
or  anti-talmudical  Jews.  But  this  usage,  even  if  sufficiently 
attested,  may  be  of  later  date. 

17.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days,  saith 
God,  I  will  pour  out  of  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh ;  and 
your  sons  and  your  daughters  shall  prophesy  ;  and  your 
young  men  shall  see  visions,  and  your  old  men  shall 
dream  dreams. 

It  shall  Z>e,  happen,  or  come  to  pass,  is  the  common  mode 
of  introducing  a  particular  prediction  in  the  Old  Testament. 
The  time  of  the  event  is  indefinitely  stated  in  the  Hebrew, 
afterwards^  here  rendered  somewhat  more  specific  by  the 
paraphrase,  in  the  last  days.,  i.  e.  in  the  days  of  the  Messiah, 
or  in  the  last  days  of  the  old  dispensation,  the  very  days  of 
which  we  are  now  reading.  Saith  God  is  neither  in  the  He- 
brew text  nor  in  the  Septuagint  version,  but  supplied  by  the 
Apostle,  to  remind  his  hearers  who  is  speaking,  not  only  as  a 


ACTS  2,  17.  6S 

means  of  making  the  words  quoted  more  impressive  and  an 
thoritative,  but  of  making  tliem  intelligible,  by  supiDlying  the 
subject  of  the  sentence,  which  is  here  detached  from  its  con- 
nection. For  the  use  of  pouring,  as  a  figure  for  abundant 
gifts  and  influences,  see  above,  on  1,5,  and  compare  Pro  v.  1, 
23.  Isai.  44,  3.  Zech.  12, 10.  Instead  of  the  origmal  expression, 
2your  out  my  jSjnrit,  the  Septuagint,  followed  by  Peter,  has 
the  partitive  form,  of  my  Sjnrit^  intended  to  suggest  ,as  some 
have  thought,  that  the  gift  was  not  exhausted,  that  the  resi- 
due of  the  Spirit  was  with  God  (Mai.  2,  15),  and  would  still 
be  bestowed  upon  the  church.  All  flesh  is  an  idiomatic  He- 
brew phrase,  sometimes  denoting  the  whole  animal  creation 
(Gen.  6, 17),  but  more  usually  all  mankind  (Gen.  6,  12.)  To 
prophesy  has  here  its  usual  sense,  to  speak  by  inspiration,  or 
under  a  special  divine  influence.  The  idea  of  prediction  or 
foretelling  is  not  the  primary  et}Tnological  sense,  nor  even  the 
prevailing  one  in  usage.  The  collective  or  aggregate  expres- 
sion, all  fleshy  is  defined  and  strengthened  by  the  specific  men- 
tion of  both  sexes,  various  conditions,  and  all  ages.  Sons  and 
daughters  is  explained  by  some  as  a  comprehensive  descrip- 
tion of  the  whole  race,  but  there  seems  to  be  no  reason  for 
departing  from  its  strict  sense  as  denoting  the  two  sexes, 
male  and  female  ofispring.  Thus  imderstood,  the  phrase 
would  seem  to  confirm  the  previous  conclusion,  that  the  gift 
of  tongues  had  been  imparted  to  the  whole  assembly,  includ- 
ing men  and  women.  The  objection  that  the  gill  could  not 
be  exercised  by  women,  who  are  commanded  to  kee])  silence 
m  the  church  (1  Cor.  14,  34.  35.  1  Tim.  2,  11. 12),  applies  only 
to  the  permanent  use  of  this  miraculous  endowment  in  the 
service  of  the  church,  and  not  to  its  primary  exhibition  as  a 
sign  or  as  a  symbol.  (See  above,  on  v.  4.)  The  next  two 
clauses  of  the  prophecy  are  inverted  without  any  visible  de- 
sign, unless  it  be,  as  some  have  thought,  to  render  prominent 
the  case  of  the  apostles,  who  were,  for  the  most  part,  in  the 
prime  of  life.  K  any  distinction  was  intended  to  be  made 
between  the  parallel  expressions,  dreams  and  visions^  the 
latter  may  denote  day-dreams,  waking  visions,  and  the  former 
visions  seen  in  sleep,  or  dreams  properly  so  called.  As  we 
do  not  read  of  any  such  eflfects  at  Pentecost,  the  terms  of  the 
prediction  must  have  been  understood  by  the  apostles  as 
figures  or  types  of  extraordinary  spiritual  influence,  and  not 
as  the  precise  forms  in  which  the  promise  was  to  be  fulfilled. 
The  prominence  given  to  miraculous  endowments  is  to  be 


64  ACTS  2,  17.  18.  19. 

explained  by  theii*  peculiar  fitness  to  evince  tlie  reality  and 
designate  the  subject  of  the  spiritual  operation,  and  not  by 
their  intrinsic  superiority  to  what  are  called  the  ordinary  in- 
fluences of  the  Spirit,  and  which  are  really  included  in  thf. 
promise  of  the  Prophet  as  here  quoted. 

18.  And  on  my  servants  and  on  my  handmaidens 
I  will  pour  out  in  those  days  of  my  Spirit ;  and  they 
shall  prophesy. 

This  is  a  repetition  of  the  promise  in  the  verse  preceding, 
with  a  simple  substitution  of  male  and  female  servants  for 
sons  and  daughters.  As  the  antecedent  probabilities  are 
adverse  to  a  sheer  tautology,  mthout  qualification  or  addi- 
tion, we  must  look  upon  this  verse  as  designed  to  add  diver- 
sity of  rank  to  that  of  age  and  sex.  The  word  translated 
and  at  the  beginning  of  the  sentence,  is  not  the  simple  copu- 
lative (K-at),  as  in  the  Septuagint,  but  a  strengthened  form 
(Kttt  ye),  impl}dng  an  emphatic  addition  to  what  was  said  be. 
fore,  q.  d.  nay  more,  not  only  sons  and  daughters  but  servants 
and  handmaidens.  Not  only  shall  the  weaker  sex,  but  the 
hmnblest  of  both  sexes,  be  admitted  to  participate  in  this 
great  honour.  The  Greek  words  corresponding  to  servaoits 
and  handmaidens  are  masculine  and  feminine  forms  of  the 
word  which  properly  denotes  a  slave.  The  repetition  of  the 
partitive  form  {of  my  S2)irit)  shows  that  it  was  not  accidental 
or  unmeaning  in  the  verse  preceding.  The  last  clause,  they 
shall  prophesy^  is  added  by  the  Apostle  to  remove  all  ambi- 
guity and  doubt  as  to  the  effusion  of  the  Spirit  promised.  As 
if  he  had  said :  '  the  Spirit  which  I  thus  pour  out  will  be  one 
of  pro2)hetic  inspiration.'  This  precise  specification,  in  a  case 
where  general  and  comprehensive  terms  might  seem  apjn'o- 
priate,  arises  from  the  fact  that  this  was  the  precise  form  in 
which  the  promise  was  fulfilled  at  Pentecost.  The  gift  of 
tongues  was  not  a  mere  philological  contrivance  for  the  use 
of  pubhc  speakers,  but  a  real  inspiration,  extending  to  the 
matter  as  weU  as  the  expression,  so  that  those  who  shared  in 
It  were  heard,  not  only  speaking  foreign  tongues,  but  in  those 
tongues  declaring  the  wonderful  or  glorious  works  of  God. 
(See  above,  on  v.  11.) 

19.  And  I  will  show  wonders  in  heaven  above,  and 


ACTS  2,  19.  20.  65 

signs  ir/  the  earth  beneath  ;  blood  and  fire  and  vapour 
of  smoke. 

To  the  promise  Peter  adds  the  threatening  wliich  attends 
it  in  the  prophecy,  not  merely  for  the  purpose  of  rounding  the 
period  or  completing  the  quotation,  but  as  a  solemn  warning 
to  his  hearers  that,  as  the  promise  had  begun  to  be  fulfilled, 
the  execution  of  the  threatening  might  be  no  less  confidently 
looked  for.  Or  perhaps  the  true  view  of  the  matter  is,  that 
this  is  not  a  threatening  in  the  strict  sense,  as  distinguished 
from  a  promise,  but  a  prophecy  of  great  revolutionary 
changes,  clothed  in  famiUar  figures  drawn  from  the  prophetic 
dialect  of  scripture.  (Compare  Isai.  13,  10,  34,  4,  etc.)  The 
revolution  thus  foreshadowed  was  that  through  which  Israel 
Avas  to  pass  at  the  change  of  dispensations,  and  of  which  the 
outpouring  of  the  Spirit  at  Pentecost  was  a  certain  premoni- 
tion. y/oPode7's  and  sig?is  are  absolute  and  relative  expres- 
sions for  the  same  thing,  viz.  miracles.  The  first  word,  both 
in  Greek  and  English,  represents  them  as  they  are  in  them- 
selves, portents  or  prodigies  (Vulg.  2^'^odigia).  The  other 
indicates  their  use  or  purpose,  as  signs  or  proofs  of  something 
else,  the  divine  existence,  will,  or  presence,  the  divme  lega- 
tion of  the  prophets  and  apostles,  or  the  truth  of  their  official 
teachings.  The  Vv'ord  translated  show  properly  means  give^ 
and  is  so  rendered  by  Wiclif  and  the  Rhemish  version. 

20.  The  sun  shall  be  turned  into  darkness  and  the 
moon  into  blood,  before  that  great  and  notable  day  of 
the  Lord  come. 

These  are  prophetic  figures  for  great  and  sudden  revolu- 
tionary changes.  (Compare  Isai.  13,  10.  34,4,  etc.)  Before 
that  day,  the  change  shall  be  as  great  as  the  dissolution  or 
extinction  of  the  heavenly  bodies  would  be  in  the  fran^  of 
nature.  Notable^  remarkable,  extraordinary,  corresponds  to 
a  Greek  word  {hvi^avy])  meaning  manifest,  conspicuous,  illus- 
trious, and  that  to  a  Hebrew  one  (^<'J''-^)  meaning  feared  or 
fearful.  The  day  of  the  Lord  is  not  only  the  day  appointed 
and  foretold  by  him,  but  his  own  day,  in  a  more  emphatic 
sense,  a  day  appropriated  to  himself,  to  the  execution  of  his 
purpose  and  the  vindication  of -his  honour.  (See  Isai.  2,  12.) 
The  day  meant  is  that  great  day  of  judicial  visitation,  which 
may  be  said  to  have  begun  with  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 


C6  ACTS  2,  21.  22. 


by  Titus,  and  is  to  end  in  what  we  call  the  Day  of  Judgment. 
The  portentous  sights  described  by  Josephus  and  Tacitus  as 
seen  both  by  Jews  and  Romans  during  the  last  siege  of  Jeru- 
salem, may  be  regarded  as  among  the  outward  signs  fore- 
told, but  not  as  the  main  subject  of  the  prophecy,  which  is 
symbolical. 

21.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  whosoever  shall 
call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved. 

The  Apostle  closes  his  quotation  with  the  Prophet's  cheer- 
ing assurance  of  salvation  to  every  one  who  looks  to  and 
confides  in  the  true  Saviour.  It  shall  cone  to  2^ciss^  literally, 
it  shall  be^  as  given  in  all  the  older  English  versions  except 
Cranmer's  and  King  James's.  (See  above,  on  v.  17.)  Invo- 
cation is  here  mentioned  as  an  act  of  worship.  Even  if  the 
call  meant  be  only  a  call  for  help,  it  implies  omniscience  and 
almighty  power  in  the  object  of  address.  (See  below,  on  7, 
59.  9,  14.  21.  22,  16.)  The  forensic  usage  of  the  same  Greek 
verb  to  denote  an  appeal  (as  in  25,  11.  12.  21.  25.  26,  32.  28, 
19)  implies  a  recognition  of  judicial  sovereignty.  Lord  cor- 
responds, in  the  Septuagint  version,  to  the  Hebrew  Jehovah^ 
the  incommunicable  name  of  God,  considered  as  the  God  of 
Israel.  The  constant  application  of  the  Greek  equivalent 
(Kupios)  in  the  New  Testament  to  Jesus  Christ,  is  a  strong 
proof  of  his  divinity.  For  such  an  application  of  the  prophecy 
this  verse  prepares  the  way,  and  at  the  same  time  for  another 
great  division  of  the  apostolical  discourse. 

.  22.  Ye  men  of  Israel,  hear  these  words.  Jesus 
of  Nazareth,  a  man  approved  of  God  among  you,  by 
miracles,  wonders,  and  signs,  which  God  did  by  him  in 
the  midst  of  you,  as  ye  yom^selves  also  know  ; 

It  is  universally  agreed  that  Peter  here  introduces  a  new 
topic,  or  in  other  words,  that  this  is  the  beginning  of  a  new 
division  of  his  speech,  namely  that  in  which  he  asserts  and 
proves  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus.  It  seems  to  be  commonly 
assumed,  however,  that  the  transition  is  abrupt  and  arbitrary 
as  if  he  had  merely  taken  advantage  of  the  charge  against 
him  and  his  brethren,  to  bring  forward  an  entirely  different 
subject.  This  view  of  the  passage,  however  it  may  favour 
the  idea,  that  a  rational  coherence  is  not  to  be  looked  for  in 


ACTS  2,  22.  67 

the  sacred  writers,  may  be  easily  refuted  by  a  simple  state- 
ment of  the  true  connection.  Having  met  the  charge  of 
drunkenness,  first  briefly  and  negatively,  by  a  flat  denial  and 
the  suggestion  of  a  single  reason  why  it  could  not  possibly  be 
true  (v.  15) ;  then  fully  and  afiirmatively  by  representing  what 
was  thus  ascribed  to  wine  as  the  work  of  the  Spirit  prom- 
ised ages  before  by  an  inspired  prophet  (16-18),  he  quotes 
from  the  same  context  a  warning  and  a  promise  well  adapted 
to  excite  the  fears  and  hopes  of  those  who  heard  him,  and  to 
turn  their  thoughts  upon  the  practical  question  of  their  own 
salvation  (19-21.)  Whosoever  shall  call  upon  the  name  of 
the  Lord  shall  he  saved.  But  what  Lord  ?  Not  the  absolute 
Elohim,  or  the  half-revealed  Jehovah,^  of  the  old  economy,  as 
they  might  naturally  have  supposed.  What  Lord  was  meant 
then  ?  Why  the  very  man  whom  they  had  crucified,  and 
whom,  in  the  remainder  of  this  sermon,  he  proves  to  be  the 
true  Messiah.  This  analysis  is  certainly  as  simple  and  natural 
as  any  other,  while  it  gives  a  perfect  continuity  and  unity  to 
the  discourse.  According  to  it,  the  leading  thoughts  of  the 
Apostle  are  as  follows.  This  is  not  drunkenness  but  inspira- 
tion— it  was  predicted  centuries  ago — on  the  fulfilment  of 
that  promise  is  suspended  your  personal  salvation — and  the 
promised  Saviour  is  the  man  whom  you  have  crucified.  No 
wonder  that  in  introducmg  such  a  doctrine,  the  apostle  takes 
a  new  start,  and  conciliates  afresh  the  indulgence  of  his  hear- 
ers. Men  of  Israel  is  not  a  merely  local  or  genealogical 
description,  but  a  formal  recognition  of  their  national  and  eccle- 
siastical character  as  representatives  of  the  chosen  people. 
As  if  he  had  said  :  '  Thus  far  I  have  addressed  you  as  natives 
of  Judea  and  professors  of  the  true  religion  ;  but  I  now  appeal 
to  you  still  more  emphatically,  as  belonging  so  the  Israel  of 
God,  and  in  that  capacity  entreat  you  still  to  hear  me.'  Hear 
these  words  is  one  of  those  expressions  which  are  almost  uni- 
versally slurred  over  in  the  reading,  as  mere  exj^letives,  un- 
meaning forms  of  speech,  affording  a  transition  from  one  topic 
to  another,  or  intended  to  impart  a  sort  of  finish  and  com- 
pleteness to  the  composition.  But  in  multitudes  of  cases, 
these  neglected  formulas  are  pregnant  and  emphatic  clauses, 
upon  which  depends  the  force,  if  not  the  meaning,  of  the  con- 
text. Li  the  case  before  us,  the  Apostle  again  intimates  (as 
in  the  opening  of  the  whole  discourse,  v.  14)  that  he  expected 
contradiction  and  impatience  upon  their  part.  '  Who  then  is 
the  true  and  only  Saviour,  by  invoking  whom  you  may  escape 


68  ACTS   2,  22. 

destruction?  In  answering  this  question,  I  am  under  the 
necessity  of  shocking  your  most  cherished  prepossessions  and 
convictions  ;  but  nevertheless  hear  me,  inasmuch  as  this  is  a 
matter,  not  of  idle  speculation,  but  of  life  and  death,  a  ques- 
tion of  salvation  and  perdition.'  Having  thus  prepared  them 
for  the  introduction  of  an  unexpected  or  at  least  unwelcome 
topic,  he  delays  no  longer,  but  with  fine  rhetorical  elFect,  if 
not  design,  immediately  names  Jesus,  as  the  theme  of  what 
he  further  has  to  say.  Jesus  of  Nazareth  {oy  from  JSFazareth) 
is  the  literal  translation  of  a  phrase  used  by  the  same  apostle 
on  a  subsequent  occasion.  (See  below,  on  10,  38.)  But  here, 
and  in  every  other  case  where  it  occurs  in  this  book  (3,  6. 
4,  10.  6,  14.  22,8.  26,9),  the  original  expression,  though 
equivalent  in  sense,  is  somewhat  difterent  in  form,  and  might 
be  more  exactly  rendered,  Jesus  the  Nazarene.  The  avoid- 
ance of  this  form  by  our  translators  is  without  apparent 
reason,  and,  though  unimportant  in  itself,  has  the  unfortunate 
eifect  of  hiding  or  obscuring  from  the  merely  English  reader 
the  direct  and  intimate  connection  of  this  title  with  a  dif- 
ficult but  interesting  statement  of  Matthew  (2,  23),  which 
seems  most  probably  to  mean,  that  all  or  many  of  the  prophe- 
cies of  Christ's  humiliation  were  summed  up,  as  to  substance, 
in  his  reputed  birth  and  real  residence  at  an  obscure  town  of 
a  despised  province,  and  as  to  form  or  expression,  in  his  being 
habitually  called  The  Nazarene.  Some  suppose  that  there 
can  here  be  no  allusion  to  its  reproachful  or  contemptuous 
import,  because  used  by  an  apostle.  But  even  when  em- 
ployed by  Christ  himself  (as  in  22,  8),  the  allusion  to  this 
usage  is  not  only  evident  but  prominent.  '  I  am  that  Naza- 
rene, whose  very  home  is  a  reproach  to  him,  and  whom  thou 
Paul  hast  often  cursed  and  scoffed  at,  by  that  hated  name.' 
Thus  too  it  is  used  by  the  Apostles,  who  appear  to  have 
delighted  in  recalling  this  opprobrious  description  and  apply- 
ing it  to  their  master's  highest  exaltation,  so  that  he  reigns 
and  triumphs  by  the  very  name  which  was  expected  to  con- 
sign him  to  eternal  infamy.  In  the  case  before  us,  it  is  not 
to  be  lost  sight  of,  that  the  great  Apostle,  in  jDropounding  the 
unwelcome  theme  of  his  remauiing  argument,  propounds  it 
under  this  offensive  form,  not  merely  Jesus,  but  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,  the  Nazarene,  As  if  he  had.  said :  '  I  may  well 
entreat  you  still  to  hear  me  while  I  name  the  true  and  only 
Saviour ;  for  the  one  whom  I  intend  to  name,  is  he  whose 
name  is  already  a  proverb  of  reproach  among  you,  and  whon^ 


ACTS  2,  22.  69 

perhaps  you  have  this  very  day  reviled  and  derided  as  the 
Nazarene?  Havmg  named  him,  as  a  person  whom  they  well 
knew,  he  describes  him  as  one,  with  whose  pretensions  and 
credentials  they  were  all  familiar.  He  speaks  of  him,  not  as 
an  adventurer,  or  one  whose  character  vras  yet  to  be  estab- 
lished, but  as  one  already  proved  {to  he)  from  God.  This  is 
most  probably  the  true  sense  of  the  j^hrase  ambiguously  ren- 
dered in  our  Bible,  approved  of  God.  The  word  approved., 
like  the  apjyi'ohaium  of  the  Yulgate,  from  which  it  seems  to 
have  been  copied,  was  once  used  as  a  synonyme  of  proved. 
Vv^ebster  quotes  two  instances  from  one  line  of  Milton. 
"  Wouldst  thou  ajyprove  thy  constancy  ?  Approve  first  thy 
obedience."  But  this  sense  is  now  obsolete,  and  the  only 
idea  which  the  word  conveys  here  to  a  modern  reader,  is  a 
false  one,  namely,  that  of  moral  approbation  or  approval. 
The  idea  meant  to  be  conveyed  is  that  of  proof  or  attestation. 
This  is  not  essentially  affected  by  the  different  grammatical 
constructions  which  have  been  proposed.  '  A  man  from  God, 
attested  (or  accredited)  by  miracles,  etc'  '  A  man  accredited 
from  (i.  e.  by)  God  through  miracles,  etc'  '  A  man  accredited 
(or  proved  to  be)  from  God  by  miracles,  etc'  The  words 
from  God  do  not  refer  to  the  divinity  of  Christ,  which  would 
be  otherwise  expressed,  and  would  here  be  out  of  place,  at 
the  beginning  of  a  series  of  expressions  all  relating  to  our 
Lord's  humiliation.  From  God  expresses  his  di^-ine  legation, 
the  commission  or  authority  under  which  he  acted  as  the 
teacher  of  mankind  and  the  foimder  of  a  new  religion.  This 
commission  was  attested  by  his  miracles,  to  which,  besides 
the  two  terms  used  in  v.  19  {loonders  and  signs).,  the  Apostle 
here  applies  one  meaning  powers.,  forces.,  i.  e.  exhibitions  or 
exertions  of  a  power  above  that  of  man.  The  translation 
miracks,  although  it  designates  the  proper  objects,  fails  to 
distinguish  the  three  terms  applied  to  them,  expressive  of 
their  source,  their  use,  and  their  intrinsic  quality,  as  poicers., 
signs.,  and  loonders.  These  miracles  are  then  ascribed  to 
God  as  the  efiicient  cause,  and  to  Christ  as  the  instrumental 
agent,  which  God  did  by  him..  For  the  true  sense  of  the 
preposition  (8ta),  see  above,  on  v.  16.  This  representation  is 
entirely  consistent  TS'ith  the  proper  deity  of  Christ,  since  he 
is  really  mcluded  under  both  descriptions,  his  human  instru 
mentality  being  subject  to  his  o^m  di^dne  agency,  as  well  as 
to  the  Father's.  It  is  also  in  keeping  with  1:hat  true  subor- 
dination of  the  Son  to  the  Father,  which  the  Scriptures  teach, 


70  A  C  T  S  2,  21^  23. 

and  which  the  Church  has  always  held  fast,  even  when  tempted 
to  abjure  it  by  the  hope  of  leaving  heresy  without  excuse. 
It  is  rendered  necessary,  in  the  case  before  us,  by  the  speaker's 
purpose  to  exhibit  our  Lord  in  "the  form  of  a  servant"  and 
a  messenger  from  God.  Observe  the  confidence  with  which 
Peter  here  appeals  to  the  knowledge  and  the  memory  of  his 
hearers.  The  attestations  or  credentials  of  Christ's  ministry 
and  mission  had  not  been  presented  at  a  distance,  or  in  a 
corner,  but  in  the  midst  of  you  (iv  fxea-id  v/xcov),  sent  or  ad- 
dressed directly  to  you  (ets  vynas),  as  the  parties  to  be  con- 
vinced and  satisfied.  This  last  idea  is  less  clearly  expressed 
in  the  common  version,  among  you.  It  is  again  suggested  in 
the  last  words  of  the  verse,  where  the  appeal  is  a  direct  one 
to  themselves,  as  ye  yourselves  do  Jcnoiv  (or  also  hioio.) 

23.  Him,  being  delivered  by  the  determinate  coun- 
sel and  foreknowledge  of  God,  ye  have  taken  and  by 
wicked  hands  have  crucified  and  slain. 

Ilim^  i.  e.  the  person  thus  described  ;  a  method  of  resump- 
tion not  unusual  after  so  long  an  interruption  of  the  syntax. 
Delivered,  not  bestowed,  as  some  explain  the  Greek  word 
(€k8otov),  but  in  violation  of  its  usage,  which  requires  the 
meaning  giveot  %ip,  surrendered.  Some  refer  this  to  the 
treachery  of  Judas,  but  most  readers  and  interpreters  sup- 
pose it  to  express  the  divine  act  of  giving  Christ  up  to  the 
mercy  of  his  enemies,  or,  in  other  words,  permitting  him  to 
suffer.  The  word  translated  counsel  properly  means  will,  as 
appears  both  from  etymology  and  usage.  Determinate  is  not 
detennined,  in  the  moral  sense  of  resolute,  intrepid,  but  deter- 
mined,  in  the  physical  or  proper  sense  of  bounded,  defined, 
settled,  as  opposed  to  what  is  vague,  contingent,  or  indefinite. 
The  dative  may  be  either  one  of  cause,  hy  the  loill,  or  of  rule 
and  measure,  according  to  the  will,  most  probably  the  latter. 
The  same  relation  of  Christ's  death  to  the  divine  decree  is 
formally  asserted  in  the  prayer  of  the  Apostles  (4,  28),  and  less 
distinctly  by  our  Lord  himself  (Luke  22,  22),  in  both  which 
cases  the  expressions,  although  not  identical,  are  very  similar 
to  those  here  used.  Ye  have  taken  might  be  more  exactly 
rendered  ye  tooJc,  or  rather  ye  received,  as  the  correlative  of 
given  up,  and  not  as  denoting  the  original  or  independent  act 
of  taking.  God  gave  him  and  they  took  him.  What  God 
permitted  they  performed.     By  wicked  hands  might  seem  to 


ACTS  2,  2ii.  11 

mean  no  more  than  with  wicked  hands,  i.  e.  your  own,  which 
adds  no  new  idea  to  the  general  one  of  murder  expressed  in 
the  next  clause.  But  as  the  word  translated  loicked  (dvo/xwi/), 
and  which  properly  means  lawless,  is  applied  by  Paul  (1  Cor. 
9,  21),  in  its  primary  etymological  sense,  to  the  heathen  as 
xGithout  law  or  a  written  revelation  of  the  divine  will,  some 
have  understood  the  phrase  to  mean  either  lawless  (i.  e.  Ge^i- 
tile)  hands,  or  hands  of  lawless  ones  (i.  e.  Gentiles.)  It 
seems  no  sufficient  reason  for  preferring  this  construction, 
that  the  language  is  otherwise  too  harsh  for  the  Apostle's 
purpose  of  conciliation,  if  not  inconsistent  with  his  own  con 
cession  in  3, 17  below.  The  main  design  of  his  discourse 
was  to  convince  them  of  their  own  guilt,  and  nothing  tending 
to  promote  that  end  can  be  inconsistent  with  it.  But  a 
stronger  reason  for  referring  these  expressions  to  the  Gen- 
tiles is  afforded  by  the  fact  that  the  oldest  manuscripts  and 
latest  editors  read  ha7id  {x^tpos)  for  hands  (xetpwy),  thus  re- 
quiring the  construction,  by  the  hand  of  laioless  men,  and 
suggesting  the  idea  of  some  secondary  agency,  through 
which  the  malice  of  the  Jews  was  gratified.  Now  such  an 
agency  was  that  of  Pilate  and  the  Roman  soldiers,  the  use 
of  which  was  certainly  a  fearful  aggravation  of  the  crime  of 
Israel,  because  they  not  only  rejected  and  murdered  their 
Messiah,  but  gave  hhn  up  to  the  power  of  the  Gentiles.  (See 
below,  on  4, 27.)  The  word  translated  crucified  means 
properly  transfixed,  and  is  applied  in  the  classics  to  impale- 
ment and  to  the  fastening  of  human  heads  on  poles  or  stakes. 
It  may  here  be  understood  in  the  specific  sense  of  nailing  to 
the  cross,  and  is  perhaps  contemptuously  used,  to  aggravate 
the  suicidal  folly  of  the  Jews,  who,  instead  of  welcoming 
their  long  expected  Prince,  took  him  and  nailed  him  to  a 
tree.  We  have  here  a  curious  instance  of  the  variations 
even  in  the  authorized  editions  of  the  Latin  Vulgate.  Those 
published  in  the  last  years  of  the  sixteenth  century  translate 
this  word  afiligentes,  while  those  of  later  date  expunge  the 
interpolated  letter  and  read  affigentes.  The  original  con- 
struction is,  having  nailed  (or  crucified)  ye  sleio.  This  last 
verb  (di/etXcre,  dvetAare)  is  a  favourite  with  Luke,  occurring 
twenty  times  in  his  two  books,  and  only  tmce  in  the  rest  of 
the  New  Testament.  It  does  not  mean  directly  to  kill,  but 
to  despatch,  to  maJce  away  with,  English  phrases  which  are 
constantly  applied  to  murder,  though  they  do  not  necessarily 
exj)ress  it.     It  is  clear  from  this  verse  that  the  guilt  of  those 


12  ACTS  2,  23.  24. 

who  mnrdered  Christ  was  neither  caused  nor  nullified  by 
God's  determinate  counsel  and  foreknowledge.  Even  Chrys- 
ostom  refers  to  the  analogy  of  Joseph's  case  (comparing 
Gen.  45,  8  with  50,  20),  as  shoeing  how  consistent,  both  in 
scripture  and  experience,  are  the  doctrine  of  God's  sover- 
eignty and  that  of  human  freedom  and  responsibility. 

24.  T\'Tiom  God  hatli  raised  up,  having  loosed  th 
pains  of  death,  because  it  was'  not  possible  that  he 
should  be  holden  of  it. 

With  their  treatment  of  the  Saviour  he  contrasts  that  of 
God  himself.  When  God  gave  him  up,  they  took  him ;  but 
when  they  crucified  him,  God  raised  him.  This  is  a  favourite 
antithesis  ^dth  Peter,  and  repeatedly  recurs  in  his  discourses. 
(See  below,  on  3,  14.  15.  4,  10.  5,  30.  31.  10,  39.  40.)  The 
Greek  verb  (di/tcrr-^/xt),  in  its  active  tenses,  always  means  to 
raise  up  ;  from  what  or  to  what  is  determined  by  the  context. 
It  is  applied  to  raising  from  the  dead  by  Homer  in  t]ie  last 
book  of  the  Iliad  (551).  Loosing  pains  is  an  unusual  com- 
bination, perhaps  arising  from  the  use  of  the  second  word 
((iStvas)  in  the  Septuagint,  to  represent  a  Hebrew  one,  winch 
has  the  double  sense  of  cord  and  sorroic.  (Compare  Isai. 
13,  8.  with  Ps.  18,  5.)  Thus  the  two  Greek  nouns  may  have 
become  associated,  and  their  corresponding  verbs  convertible. 
The  very  combination  here  used  appears  also  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint version  of  Ps.  39,  2.  It  is  the  less  unnatural  because 
the  verb  to  loose  has  a  figurative  sense  (relax)  no  less  appro- 
priate to  pains  than  its  proper  sense  (untie)  to  cords.  The 
Greek  noun  strictly  means  the  pains  of  parturition,  which  are 
often  used  as  figures  of  intense  but  temporary  suflfering.  (See 
Isai.  26,  17.  John  16,  21,  etc.)  Impossible^  both  physically, 
as  a  condition  inconsistent  with  his  deity,  and  morally,  because 
the  divine  plan  and  purpose  made  his  resurrection  neces- 
sary. The  verb  (KpaTctcr-^at)  which  in  classical  Greek  denotes 
conquest  or  superiority,  in  the  New  Testament  always  means 
to  hold  or  to  be  holden  fast,  either  in  a  literal  or  figurative 
sense,  but  never  jDcrhaps  without  some  trace  of  its  original 
and  proper  import,  as  for  instance  in  the  case  before  us, 
where  the  sense  is  that  he  could  not  be  permanently  lield  fiist 
by  death  as  a  captive  or  a  conquered  enemy. 


ACTS  2,  25.  26.  73 

25.  For  David  speaketh  concerning  liim,  I  foresaw 
the  Lord  always  before  my  face ;  for  he  is  on  my  right 
hand,  that  I  should  not  be  moved. 

The  alleged  impossibility  is  now  confirmed  by  the  testi- 
mony of  David,  which  is  also  cited  as  a  further  proof  of  our 
Lord's  messiahship.  Besides  the  evidence  afforded  by  his 
miracles  (22)  and  resurrection  (24),  he  v/as  the  only  subject 
in  which  a  certain  signal  proj^hecy  had  been  or  could  be 
verified  (25-32.)  For  the  sake  of  the  connection  the  Apostle 
quotes  the  entire  passage  (Ps.  16,  8-11,)  but  the  proof  of  his 
position  is  contained  in  the  last  part  of  it.  This  may  account 
for  some  apparent  incoherence  of  the  clauses  beginning  with 
the  word /br.  The  first  of  these,  however,  has  respect  co  the 
assertion  at  the  end  of  the  preceding  verse.  It  could  not  be, 
for  he  had  said  it  should  not  be.  The  passage  is  quoted  in 
the  Septuagint  version,  almost  without  variation.  The  six- 
teenth Psalm,  here  ascribed  to  David,  is  so  described  also  in 
the  title  of  the  Psalm  itself,  nor  is  there  any  internal  evidence 
of  later  date.  Concerning  hvn^  literally,  to  or  towards  hlm^  i.  e. 
in  reference  or  relation  to  liim.  The  Greek  phrase  (ets  amov) 
has  the  same  sense  in  Luke  19,  9.  Eph.  5,  32.  Foresavj^  in 
English,  has  respect  to  time,  and  means  saio  beforehand  ;  but 
the  verb  here  has  respect  to  place  and  means  saw  before  7ne, 
v/hich  idea  is  also  expressed  by  the  next  phrase  (ivioinov  fxov.) 
This  repetition  is  not  found  in  the  Hebrew,  where  the  verb 
means  to  set  or  place.  The  general  sense,  in  either  case,  is 
that  of  constant  recognition  or  remembrance.  At  the  right 
hand  is  not  only  a  post  of  honour,  but  a  position  of  defence  or 
protection.  (See  Ps.  73,  23.  121,  5.)  That  I  should  not  be 
moved  is  a  slight  modification  of  the  sim])le  future  used  in 
the  original.  The  Greek  verb  {aakcv^ui)  is  applied  both  to 
bodily  and  mental  agitation  (17,  13.  2  Thess.  2,  1.) 

26.  Therefore  did  my  heart  rejoice  and  my  tongue 
was  glad ;  moreover  also,  my  flesh  shall  rest  in  hope. 

Therefore.,  on  account  of  this  assurance  of  divine  protec- 
tion. My  tongue  corresponds  to  ray  glory  in  Hebrew,  and 
may  be  regarded  as  a  very  ancient  exposition  of  that  phrase 
preserved  in  the  Septuagint  version,  and  according  to  which 
the  tongue  (i.  e.  the  faculty  of  speech)  is  regarded  as  the 
glory  of  the  human  frame,  or  as  the  instrument  of  the  divine 

4 


74  ACTS  2,  26.  27.  28. 

praise.  Moreover  also  introduces  an  emphatic  addition,  as  in 
V.  18.  Not  only  this,  but  more,  my  very  flesh,  etc.  JP^esh 
seems  here  to  mean  the  body  as  distinguished  from  the  soul. 
The  verb  translated  rest  originally  means  to  pitch  a  tent,  en- 
camp, and  then  to  sojourn  for  a  time ;  that  mode  of  life  being 
constantly  opposed  to  permanent  abode  in  houses.  Hope  is 
hardly  an  adequate  equivalent  to  the  Hebrew  word  (n::3), 
wliich  in  this  connection  denotes  confident  security.  The  con- 
secution of  the  tenses,  did  rejoice,  was  glad,  shall  rest,  is 
closely  copied  from  the  Hebrew. 

27.  Because  thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul  in  hell, 
neither  wilt  thou  suffer  thine  Ploly  One  to  see  corrup- 
tion. 

because,  or  that,  introducing  the  ground  or  subject  of  the 
confidence  expressed  in  the  preceding  verse.  In  hell,  lit- 
erally, to  or  mto,  corresponding  to  a  Hebrew  phrase,  which 
means  not  merely  to  leave  in  but  to  abandon  or  give  up  to. 
The  Geneva  Bible  has  m  grave.  Hell,  in  its  old  and  wide 
sense  of  the  unseen  world  (hades),  the  world  of  spirits,  the 
state  of  the  soul  separated  from  the  body,  without  any  refer- 
ence to  happiness  or  misery.  The  essential  meaning  is,  thou 
wilt  not  leave  my  soul  and  body  separate.  /Suffer,  literally, 
give,  grant,  permit,  a  use  of  the  verb  also  found  m  Xenophon 
and  Homer.  (See  below,  on  10,40.)  Holg  One  answers  to 
a  Hebrew  word  which  properly  denotes  an  object  of  the 
divine  favour,  but  suggests  the  idea  of  a  corresponding  charac- 
ter. In ,  both  senses,  it  is  peculiarly  appropriate  to  Christ. 
Bee  corruption,  or  exjDcrience  dissolution.  Comj^are  the 
phrase  see  death,  Luke  2,  26.  There  are  two  Hebrew  nouns 
of  the  same  form  (nnd)  but  of  different  derivation,  one  de- 
noting the  grave  and  the  other  putrefaction.  The  first  would 
here  be  false,  if  not  unmeanmg: 

28.  Thou  hast  made  known  to  me  the  ways  of  life ; 
thou  shalt  make  me  full  of  joy  with  thy  countenance. 

The  gist  of  the  quotation  was  contained  in  the  preceding 
verse.  The  conclusion  of  the  psalm  is  added  to  express  the 
same  idea  still  more  strongly  by  contrast.  There  is  but  one 
verb  in  the  Hebrew  of  this  verse,  and  that  a  future,  thou 
ihalt  make  me  know.    Instead  of  the  second  verb,  the  He- 


ACTS  2,  28.  29.  15 

brew  has  an  abstract  noun,  satiety  or  fulness,  which  may 
either  be  governed  by  the  verb  at  the  beginning,  or  construed 
with  the  verb  is,  as  in  the  English  version  (of  Ps.  16,  11.) 
With  thy  countenance  is  a  literal  translation  of  a  phrase  which 
means,  however,  in  thy  presence.  The  last  clause  of  the  psalm 
is  omitted,  as  unnecessary  to  the  speaker's  purpose.  It  is 
also  to  be  borne  in  mind,  that  as  all  devout  Jews  were  familiar 
with  the  passage,  and  could  easily  supply  what  was  omitted, 
it  mattered  less  to  what  length  the  quotation  was  extended. 

29.  Men  (and)  brethren,  let  me  freely  speak  unto 
you  of  the  Patriarch  David,  that  he  is  both  dead  and 
buried,  and  his  sepulchre  is  with  us  unto  this  day. 

The  respectful  and  conciliatory  compellation,  men  and 
brethren  (see  above,  on  1,  16),  does  not  indicate  a  change  of 
subject  here,  the  connection  with  what  goes  before  being  as 
close  and  intimate  as  possible.  But  this  form  of  address  im- 
plies again  that  he  had  need  of  their  indulgence,  or  had  some- 
thing to  say  which  might  oifend  their  prejudices.  Tlie  same 
thing  is  suggested  by  what  follows,  let  me  speah,  or  retaining 
the  form  of  the  original,  {it  is  or  let  it  be)  permitted  (lawful  or 
allowable)  to  say  to  you  loith  boldness  (Trapp-qo-Las:)  or  freedom 
of  speech,  implying  that  what  he  said  might  be  considered  too 
free,  or  not  entirely  consistent  with  becoming  reverence  for 
the  2mtriarch  or  founder  of  the  royal  family.  The  same  title 
is  applied  in  the  New  Testament  to  Abraham  (Heb.  7,  4)  and 
to  the  sons  of  Jacob  as  the  fathers  of  the  twelve  tribes  (Acts 
7,  8.)  The  Rhemish  version  of  the  next  clause  is  much  better, 
that  he  died  and  icas  buried.  There  is  then  no  tautology  in 
adding  that  his  sepidchre,  memorial  or  monument,  is  with  ^(s, 
or  amony  us,  i.  e.  in  the  city  and  not  merely  in  the  suburbs, 
or  more  generally,  in  the  comitry,  near  us,  and  in  our  posses- 
sion. It  could  be  still  identified  in  the  reign  of  Adrian,  if  not 
in  the  days  of  Jerome,  but  has  since  been  lost  sight  of.  But 
wherein  lay  the  boldness  or  presumption  of  asserting  this 
familiar  and  notorious  fact  ?  How  could  any  one  deny,  that 
David  had  died  and  been  buried,  or  be  shocked  by  hearing 
it  affirmed  ?  This  question  is  connected  with  the  drift  and 
structure  of  the  whole  passage.  It  was  not  the  fact  of  David's 
death  and  burial,  at  which  Peter  expected  them  to  stumble, 
but  at  the  conclusion  which  he  meant  them  to  draw  from  it, 
and  which  is  not  expressed.     That  conclusion  was,  that  this 


16  ACTS  2,  29.  30. 

remarkable  prediction,  which  they  were  no  doubt  accustomed 
to  apply  to  David,  could  not  apply  to  him  at  all,  but  must 
have  reference  to  another.  This  was  a  doctrine  sufficiently 
at  variance  with  their  prepossessions  to  account  for  Peter's 
so  respectfully  asking  leave  to  state  it.  But  what  is  the 
reasoning  by  which  he  reaches  this  conclusion  ?  It  is  this, 
that  as  the  prophecy  declares  that  the  speaker's  soul  should 
not  continue  separate  from  his  body,  nor  his  body  itself  expe- 
rience dissolution,  it  could  not  apply  to  David, /or  he  did  die 
and  loas  huried^  and  had  long  since  mouldered  in  the  grave, 
still  designated  by  a  well-known  monument  among  them. 
Precisely  the  same  argument,  but  m^ore  concisely  stated,  is 
employed  by  Paul  m  his  first  apostolical  discourse  on  record. 
(See  below,  on  13,  35-37.)  This  express  and  argumentative 
denial,  that  the  words  can  be  applied  to  David,  excludes  not 
only  the  ty}>ical  but  also  the  generic  method  of  interpreta- 
tion, which  was  adopted  in  1,  20  above.  At  all  events,  the 
words  cannot  be  understood  of  both  in  one  and  the  same 
sense,  consistently  with  Peter's  declaration ;  and  the  only 
sense  in  which  they  are  true  of  David,  that  of  future  resur- 
rection, was  wholly  irrelevant  to  Peter's  proof,  that  Jesus 
was  the  Messiah  of  the  prophecies.  In  order  to  preserve 
what  seems  to  be  the  obvious  allusion  of  the  Psalmist  to  his 
own  case,  some  eminent  interpreters  suppose  the  words  to  be 
appropriate  to  David  only  as  he  was  in  Christ,  represented  by 
him  and  a  member  of  his  body.  But  how  could  it  be  said, 
even  on  this  hypothesis,  that  David's  soul  and  body  were  not 
permanently  severed,  and  that  his  body  did  not  see  corrup- 
tion ?  Whereas  this,  as  Peter  afterwards  affirms,  was  lite- 
rally true  of  Jesus  and  of  him  alone. 

30.  Therefore,  being  a  Prophet,  and  knowing  that 
God  had  sworn  with  an  oath  to  him,  that  of  the  fruit 
of  his  loins,  according  to  the  flesh,  he  would  raise  up 
Christ  to  sit  on  his  throne  ; 

SiGce  David,  then,  was  not  and  could  not  be  himself  the 
subject  of  this  prophecy,  who  was  ?  A  person  altogether  dif- 
ferent and  posterior  by  many  ages.  This  of  itself  vras  not 
incredible  to  those  who  knew  that  David  was  a  Prophet^  in 
the  strict  as  well  as  in  the  wider  sense,  i.  e.  endowed  by  inspi- 
-ation  with  a  knowledge  of  the  future.    This  general  descrip- 


ACTS   2,  SO.  31.  17 

tion  is  then  followed  by  a  reference  to  a  specific  promise,  that 
contained  in  2  Sam.  7,12-16,  and  repeated  in  Ps.  89,3.4. 
132,  11,  forming  the  basis  of  all  the  Messianic  Psalms,  and 
frequently  referred  to  in  the  other  prophecies.  Its  lowest 
sense  is  that  of  mere  unbroken  succession ;  but  this  is  evi- 
dently not  the  whole,  from  the  extraordinary  gratitude  ex 
pressed  by  David,  and  from  his  singular  language  in  2  Sam, 
7,  19  (compared  with  1  Chr.  17,  17),  where  it  seems  to  be  im- 
plied, if  not  expressed,  that  this  was  not  a  personal,  nor  even 
a  national  assurance,  but  a  universal  one  concerning  the  whole 
race.  The  same  thing  is  clear  from  the  fact  that  this  promise 
constitutes  a  link,  which  would  otherwise  be  wanting,  in  the 
chain  of  Messianic  Prophecies,  by  applying  specifically  to  the 
house  of  David,  what  had  been  successively  applied  to  those 
of  Seth,  Shem,  Abraham,  Isaac,  Jacob,  Judah.  Several  of 
the  oldest  manuscripts  and  latest  critical  editions  omit  the 
Vv^ords,  according  to  the  flesh  would  raise  up  Christy  so  that 
the  clause  reads,  knowing  that  God  had -suborn  icith  an  oath 
to  him  that  of -the  fruit  of  his  loins  {one)  should  sit  upon  his 
throne.  Besides  the  external  evidence  in  favour  of  this  read- 
ing, it  relieves  the  text  from  an  enfeebling  and  embarrassing 
anticipation  of  what  follows  in  the  next  verse.  There  the 
Apostle  finally  identifies  the  j^erson  of  whom  David  wrote. 
Here  he  is  only  showing,  in  the  general  and  in  the  way  of 
introduction,  that  David  might,  without  absurdity,  be  under- 
stood as  speaking  of  a  person  difierent  from  himself  and  long 
posterior,  because  he  was  a  prophet,  and  because  he  had 
received  a  most  explicit  promise,  sanctioned  by  the  oath  of 
God,  that  he  should  have  perpetual  succession  on  the  throne, 
a  promise  which  had  been  already  broken,  if  restricted  to  his 
natural  descendants. 

31.  He  seeing  this  before,  spake  of  the  resuiTection 
of  Christ,  that  his  soul  was  not  left  in  hell,  neither  his 
flesh  did  see  corruption. 

Having  sIiotvti  that  David  could  not  mean  himself,  and 
that  he  might  mean  one  who  was  to  five  long  after  him,  the 
Apostle  positively  and  authoritatively  tells  them  whom  he 
iid  mean.  He  referred  not  to  his  OAvn  still  future  resurrec- 
tion— the  only  sense  in  which  he  could  have  said  this  of  him- 
self^— but  to  another  resurrection,  future  when  he  wrote,  but 
now  already  past,  and  therefore  furnishing  at  once  the  explan- 


78  ACTS   2,  31.32.  33. 

ation  and  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy.  This  was  the  resur^ 
rection  of  Christy  not  as  a  personal  but  as  an  official  title,  tM 
Messicih^  the  Anomted  One,  the  Prophet,  Priest,  and  King 
of  Israel,  of  whom  the  ancient  prophets,  priests,  and  kings 
were  merely  representatives,  filling  his  place  until  he  came, 
and  for  whose  coming  the  whole  race  had  been  impatiently 
looking  for  a  course  of  ages.  Not  content  with  saying  simply 
that  he  spoke  of  the  Messiah's  resurrection,  Peter  shuts  out 
all  evasion  and  mistake  by  repeating  the  ipsissima  verlja  of 
the  prophecy  in  question  and  applying  them  to  Christ,  of 
w^hom  alone  it  was  predicted,  and  of  whom  alone  it  is  histori- 
cally true,  that  his  soul  was  not  left  disembodied  after  death, 
and  that  his  body,  though  it  died,  was  not  corrupted. 

32.  This  Jesus  hatli  God  raised  up,  whereof  we  are 
all  witness<3s. 

But  one  more  step  was  wanting  to  complete  this  process 
of  triumphant  argument,  and  that  step  is  here  taken.  It  was 
not  enough  to  show,  as  Peter  had  done,  that  the  prophecy 
could  not  relate  to  David,  or  that  it  might  relate  to  one  long 
after  him,  or  even  that  it  did  relate  to  the  Messiah,  unless  he 
could  identify  the  individual.  The  importance  of  distinguish- 
ing between  our  Lord's  joersonal  name  and  his  official  title  is 
peculiarly  apparent  here,  where  the  neglect  of  it  converts  into 
a  mere  tautology  the  last  link  of  a  concatenated  argument. 
What  he  said  in  the  preceding  verse  was,  that  David  spake 
of  the  Messiah's  resurrection.  What  he  here  says  is,  that 
this  Messiah  was  no  other  than  the  Jesus  whom  they  cruci- 
fied. Why  so  ?  Because  in  him,  and  him  alone,  the  prophecy 
has  been  fulfilled.  The  Messiah  was  to  rise  from  the  dead — 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  has  risen  from  the  dead — therefore  the  two 
must  be  identical.  But  where  is  the  proof  that  Jesus  rose  ? 
The  evidence  is  twofold,  human  and  divine.  God  bore  wit- 
ness in  the  very  act  of  raismg  him.  This  Jesus  hath  God 
raised  %(p.  We  bear  witness  of  the  same  thing,  not' only  the 
Apostles,  whose  primary  function  was  to  testify  of  this  event 
(1,  8.  22),  but  a  multitude  of  others  who  had  seen  him  since 
his  resurrection  (1  Cor.  15,  6.) 

33.  Therefore,  being  by  the  right  hand  of  God 
exalted,  and  having  received  of  the  Pather  the  promise 


ACTS  2,  33.  79 

of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  hath  shed  forth  this  which  ye 
now  see  and  hear. 

Having  thus  identified  the  subject  of  the  sixteenth  psalm, 
first  negatively  with  a  person  different  from  the  writer,  then 
positively  with  the  Messiah,  and  then  personally  with  the 
Nazarene  whom  they  had  crucified,  he  now  describes  the 
present  state  and  employments  of  the  glorious  though  despised 
Redeemer.  His  humihation  being  past,  and  its  design  accom- 
plished, he  is  now  exalted^  lifted  up,  or  raised  on  high,  both  in 
a  local  sense,  i.  e.  in  heaven,  and  in  the  sense  of  freedom  from 
all  suffermg  and  superiority  to  all  created  powders,  whether 
friendly  or  adverse.  Compare  the  same  Apostle's  language 
in  1  Pet.  3,  22,  and  that  of  Paul  in  Eph.  1,  20-22.  The 
right  hand  is  a  scriptural  figure  for  active  power.  In  a 
local  sense,  it  is  the  post  of  honour.  Either  of  these  ideas 
would  be  here  appropriate,  exalted  hy  God's  right  hand,  as 
the  instrument,  or  to  his  right  hand,  as  the  place  of  exaltix- 
tion.  In  favour  of  the  former  is  the  Greek  usage  of  the 
dative  case  (Se^ta)  vfhich  rarely  denotes  place,  but  often  means 
or  instrument.  In  favour  of  the  other  is  the  use  of  right 
hcmd  in  the  passage  quoted  in  the  next  verse.  After  all  tliat 
has  been  said  against  the  assumption  of  a  double  sense,  as 
contrary  to  nature  and  the  very  use  of  words,  there  are  mul- 
titudes of  phrases  in  all  languages  which,  though  intended  to 
convey  one  idea  directly,  not  only  may  but  must  suggest  an- 
other. Thus  the  hearers  of  Peter,  upon  this  occasion,  could 
not,  without  i».  process  of  reflection,  separate  the  two  familiar 
senses  of  God's  right  hand  from  each  other.  The  only  ques- 
tion is,  whicJi  is  the  primary  and  which  the  secondary  mean- 
ing ;  and  this  question  is  of  little  exegetical  importance  here, 
because  botl)  are  so  agreeable  to  fact  and  to  the  context.  It 
was  hy  as  weJl  a.s  to  God's  right  hand  that  our  Lord  had  been 
exalted,  i.  e.  by  the  exertion  of  divine  power,  and  to  the  en- 
joyment oi  divine  honours.  Besides  this  general  participa- 
tion in  the  honours  of  the  Godhead,  Peter  mentions  a  specific 
gift  bestowed  by  the  Father  on  the  Son  as  Mediator,  and  by 
him  upon  his  Church.  The  promise  may  be  put  for  the  thing 
proniisedy  as  in  1,  4,  but  with  this  distinction,  that  the  genih 
tive  in  that  case  indicates  the  giver,  but  in  this  the  gift  itself. 
Or  promise  may  be  taken  in  its  proper  sense,  and  the  per- 
formance sought  in  the  ensuing  clause.  In  favour  of  the  first 
construction,  though  apparently  less  simple,  is  the  fact  that 


80  ACTS   2,  33.  34.  35. 

the  Son,  and  not  the  Father,  is  the  agent  in  the  last  clause. 
Ilavmg  received  of  the  Father  the  Holy  Sjnrit  premoiisly 
promised^  he  has  shed  forth^  i.  e.  poured  out,  a  figure  imply- 
ing both  abundance  and  descent  from  above,  this  (Sjnrit),  or 
more  probably,  this  (yift)-,  as  Cranmer  renders  it,  this  {in- 
fluence) ^  ichich  ye  noio  see  and  hear.  The  Rhemish  version 
mai-ks  the  reference  to  the  Spirit  by  the  singular  combination, 
this  ivho7n^  copied  from  the  Yulgate  {hunc  quern.)  Some 
refer  the  two  verbs  to  the  acts  and  gestures  of  the  disciples 
and  to  the  gift  of  tongues  respectively.  But  why  should  the 
sight  of  the  fiery  tongues  be  exchided,  which  in  all  probability 
was  not  confined  to  the  disciples  ?  On  the  whole,  however, 
such  exact  distinctions  are  superfluous,  the  two  senses  or  per- 
ceptions being  mentioned  simply  to  include  all  that  they  had 
Avitnessed.  Instead  of  7ioto,  some  manuscripts  and  editors 
read  both,  without  a  change  of  sense.  By  thus  ascribing  the 
phenomenon,  which  had  occasioned  his  discourse,  to  Jesus, 
Peter  completes  the  picture  of  his  master's  exaltation,  and  at 
the  same  time,  comes  back  to  the  point  from  which  he  started, 
by  a  natural  yet  masterly  transition,  showing  any  thing  but 
want  of  skill  or  helpless  mcoherence. 

34,  35.  ~FoY  David  is  not  ascended  into  the  heavens, 
but  he  saith  himself,  The  Lord  said  nnto  my  Lord,  Sit 
thou  on  my  right  hand,  until  I  make  thy  foes  thy  foot- 
stool. 

Having  shown  the  resurrection  of  Christ  to  be  the  subject 
of  an  ancient  prophecy,  he  nov/  proves  the  same  thing  of  his 
exaltation.  The  argument  is  rendered  still  more  parallel  and 
uniform  by  drawing  the  proof  from  the  same  part  of  the 
Old  Testament.  The  passage  cited  is  the  first  verse  of  Psalm 
110,  which,  like  Psalm  16  above,  is  declared  to  be  inappli- 
cable to  David.  The  same  thing  had  been  previously  afl^irmed 
by  Christ  himself  (Matt.  22, 41-46),  but  on  adifierent  ground, 
to  wit,  that  David  calls  him  Lord  or  Sovereign.  Here  tho 
ground  is  the  same  as  in  the  previous  exposition  of  Ps.  16,  to 
Avit,  that  the  prophecy  never  was  fulfilled  in  Daidd.  It  conld 
only  be  fulfilled  in  one  who  had  ascended  into  heaven  and  sat 
down  on  the  right  hand  of  God.  But  no  one  pretended  or 
imagined  that  David  had  so  done  ;  whereas  Christ  did  thus 
ascend  and  reign,  as  the  Apostle  had  affirmed  in  the  preceding 
verse.     Here  then  were  two  signal  Messianic  Prophecies,  nni- 


ACTS  2,   35.36.  81 


versally  recognized  as  such  and  universally  ascribed  to  David, 
neither  of  which  could  be  applied  to  David  as  its  subject, 
both  of  which  must  have  respect  to  the  Messiah,  and  both  of 
wliich  had  been  fulfilled  in  Jesus !  The  apparent  play  upon 
words  in  the  phrase,  The  Lord  said  to  my^  Lord^  is  found  only 
in  the  Greek  and  other  versions.  The  original  expression  is, 
Jehovah  said  to  my  Lord.  The  strong  expression  in  the  last 
clause  of  v.  35  for  total  subjugation  may  be  borrowed  from 
.an  actual  usage  of  ancient  warfare.  (See  Josh.  10,  24.)  The 
exact  form  of  the  original  is  copied  in  the  Rhemish  version, 
the  footstool  of  thy  feet. 

36.  Therefore  let  all  the  house  of  Israel  know  as- 
suredly, that  God  hath  made  that  same  Jesus,  whom 
ye  have  crucified,  both  Lord  and  Christ. 

This  is  the  conclusion  which  the  speaker  draws  from  his 
whole  argument,  or  rather  which  he  leaves  the  house  of  Israel 
to  draw  for  themselves.  (See  above,  on  v.  29.)  The  prefa- 
tory formula  is  not  to  be  neglected,  any  more  than  in  v.  22 
above.  It  refers  the  decision  of  the  question  to  the  Jewish 
Church  itself,  but,  by  the  use  of  the  phrase,  let  it  know.,  sug- 
gests that  all  dispute  is  at  an  end,  that  nothing  now  remains 
but  to  accept  the  only  possible  conclusion.  This  is  indicated 
also  by  the  qualifying  adverb,  assuredly.,  or  tnost  certainly 
(Wiclif ),  or  for  a  surety  (Tyndale) .  According  to  strict  rule  and 
usage,  the  phrase  translated  all  the  house  means  rather  every 
house  {qy  family)  of  Israel.  But  as  there  is  great  license 
with  respect  to  the  insertion  of  the  article,  v/hich  constitutes 
the  difference  of  meaning  here,  the  common  version  is  sub- 
stantially correct.  The  Greek  word  (da</)aX(os)  corresponds  in 
etymology,  and  partly  m  its  usage,  to  infallibly.,  i.  e.  without 
the  fear  or  possibility  of  error.  The  common  version  follows 
Tyndale  and  Cranmer  in  a  transposition  of  the  list  clause, 
which  is  not  only  needless,  but  injurious  to  the  emphasis  and 
beauty  of  the  sentence.  The  Greek  collocation,  as  retained 
by  Wiclif,  the  Geneva  Bible,  and  the  Rhemish  version, 
closes  the  sentence  with  the  words,  this  Jesus  lohom  ye  cimci- 
^*ec7,  which  has  'h^Qn  quaintly  but  expressively  described  as  the 
Bting  in  the  end  of  the  discourse.  Besides  the  loss  of  this 
peculiar  beauty,  the  inversion  has  occasioned  the  omission  of 
a  pronoun  in  the  clause  immediately  preceding.  The  literal 
translation  is,  God  made  him  Lord  and  Christy  or  still  more 
4* 


82  ACTS  2,  36. 

closely,  both  Lord  mid  Christ  him  hath  God  made — ihis  Jesus 
'xhom  ye  crucified.  The  him  is  commoniy  assumed  to  be 
Buperliuons  (as  in  the  Greek  of  Matt.  8,  1.  5.)  But  this  is  an 
hyi^othesis,  seldom  adopted  now  by  the  best  writers,  and  only 
admissible  in  case  of  urgent  exegetical  necessity.  Others  go 
to  the  opposite  extreme  by  making  it  mean  Lord  himself  in 
allusion  to  the  double  Lord  of  v.  34  and  Ps.  110, 1.  'The 
Lord  who  said  to  David's  Lord,  Sit  thou,  etc.  has  made  Jesus 
himself  to  be  that  Lord.'  But  this  construction  seems  too  arti- 
ficial. A  much  more  simple  one,  and  intermediate  between  the 
omission  and  exaggeration  of  the  pronoun,  supposes  the  sense  to 
be  grammatically  complete  without  the  words  this  Jesus,  etc., 
and  these  words  to  be  superadded  as  an  emphatic  supplement 
or  afterthought.  God  hath  made  him  (to  be)  both  Lord  and 
Christ — this  Jesus  ichom  ye  crucified.  Here,  as  in  v.  27  and 
elsewhere,  it  is  important  to  take  Christ  in  its  official  preg- 
nant sense,  as  distinguished  from  a  mere  name  or  personal 
designation.  In  the  latter  sense,  it  would  have  been  absurd 
to  say  that  God  had  made  Jesus  to  be  Christ,  i.  e.  to  be  him- 
self; but  it  is  highly  significant,  and  expressive  of  a  most  im- 
portant fact,  to  say  that  God  made  Jesus  to  be  the  Christ  or 
the  Messiah.  The  verb  made  in  this  clause  may  be  under- 
stood in  two  ways  ;  as  expressing  the  divine  decree  or  consti- 
tution, which  attached  the  office  of  Messiah  (as  explained 
above  on  v.  31)  to  the  person  of  Jesus  the  Nazarene  ;  or  as  a 
declaratory  act,  that  of  setting  forth,  exhibiting  our  Lord  in 
this  high  character.  While  the  latter  is  undoubtedly  im- 
plied, as  an  actual  efiect  of  the  Saviour's  exaltation,  the  former 
seems  to  be  the  thing  immediately  expressed,  both  by  the 
verb  tnade,  which  is  never  a  mere  synonyme  of  shoiced,  de- 
clared, and  by  the  whole  connection,  which  requires  that  Peter 
should  conclude  by  affirmmg,  not  only  the  divine  attestation 
of  our  Lord's  Messiahship,  but  also  its  divine  authority  and 
constitution.  If  this  be  the  correct  construction,  •  Ijord  can- 
not mean  a  divine  person,  in  allusion  to  the  first  Lord  (or 
Jehovah)  of  v.  34,  for  the  Father  did  not  make  the  Son  to  be 
God,  but  must  mean  a  mediatorial  sovereign.  This  Christ 
was  made  to  be,  as  well  as  the  Messiah,  and  because  he  was 
Messiah,  the  two  characters  or  offices  being  indivisible.  The 
second  person,  lohom  ye  crucified,  especially  in  Greek,  where 
the  pronoun  [vfx€L<;)  is  pecuharly  emphatic,  carries  home  the 
fearful  charge  of  having  disowned  and  murdered  the  Messiah 
to  his  hearers,  both  as  individuals,  so  far  as  they  had  taken 


ACTS   2,  36.  37.  83 

pai't  in  that  great  crime,  and  as  the  representatives  of  Israel, 
the  ancient  church,  or  chosen  people  If  those  critics  who 
consider  it  their  duty  to  exalt  the  inspiration  of  the  sacred 
writers,  by  denying  them  all  intellectual  and  literary  merit, 
can  improve  upon  the  logic  or  the  rhetoric  of  this  great  apos- 
tolical discourse,  or  even  on  the  force  and  beauty  of  this  per- 
oration, let  them  do  it  or  forever  after  hold  their  peace. 

37.  Now  when  tliey  heard  this,  they  were  pricked 
111  their  heart,  and  said  unto  Peter  and  to  the  rest  of 
the  Apostles,  Men  (and)  brethren,  what  shall  we  do  ? 

The  personal  bearing  of  the  whole  discourse,  but  more 
particularly  of  its  close,  was  not  without  effect  u^^on  the 
hearers.  This  effect  is  described  by  a  strong  but  intelligible 
jSgure.  They  were  irricked^  pierced,  perforated,  not  in  body, 
but  in  hearty  i.  e.  mind  or  soul,  as  distinguished  from  the 
body.  The  specific  reference  to  the  conscience  is  not  sug- 
gested by  this  word,  but  by  the  context.  Xor  is  that  refer- 
ence an  exclusive  one,  the  effect  described  extending  to  the 
whole  mind,  in  the  way  of  rational  conviction  no  less  than  in 
that  of  compunction^  a  word  of  Latin  origin,  analogous  in 
figurative  import  to  the  one  which  Luke  here  uses.  Peter's 
argument,  imanswerable  on  their  own  avowed  and  cherished 
principles,  must  have  convinced  them  that  the  man  whom 
they  had  crucified  was  the  Messiah,  and  that  if  so  they  had 
been  guilty,  not  only  of  judicial  murder,  but  of  blasphemy 
and  treason  to  their  rightful  sovereign.  Their  desperate  per- 
plexity was  well  expressed  by  the  question,  what  shall  we  do  f 
i.  e.  what  ought  we  to  do,  as  a  matter  of  duty,  and  what 
must  we  do,  as  a  means  of  safety  ?  Their  putting  this  ques- 
tion to  the  other  (or  retnaining)  apostles^  does  not  imply  that 
these  had  also  spoken,  but  only  that  Peter  was  considered  as 
the  sj)okesman  of  them  all,  and  that  they  concurred  in  what  he 
said,  as  well  as  that  the  twelve  were  still  together  and  collec- 
tively accessible.  It  may  also  show  the  eagerness  with  which  the 
awakened  hearers  crowded  round  these  witnesses  of  the  Mes 
siah,  repeating  and  reciprocating  Peter's  compellation,  Men 
and  brethren^  as  if  conscious  of  some  new  and  intimate  rela 
lion,  over  and  above  that  of  mere  Judaism,  civil  or  religious. 

38.  Then  Peter  said  unto  them,  Kepent,  and  be    , 


S4  ACTS  2,  38. 

baptized,  every  one  of  yon,  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins.,  and  ye  shall  receive 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Although  the  question  was  addressed  to  all  the  Apostles, 
Peter  agaui  answered  for  the  rest,  in  the  language  both  of 
exhortation  and  of  promise.  Two  distinct  acts  afe  required, 
one  inward  and  one  outward.  The  first  verb,  according  to 
its  etymology  and  classical  usage,  denotes  afterthought,  re- 
flection, and  then,  by  a  natural  association,  change  of  mind, 
inciudmg  both  the  judgment  and  the  feelings.  In  the  Greek 
of  the  ^ew  Testament,  it  is  applied  to  change  of  mind  in 
reference  to  moral  good  and  evil,  and  more  especially  tc 
one's  own  character  and  conduct.  Regret  or  sorrow  is  only 
one  of  its  ingredients.  Evangelical  repentance,  in  its  widest 
sense,  is  an  entire  revolution  of  the  prmciples  and  practice, 
of  the  heart  and  life.  Nothing  less  than  this,  or  what  directly 
led  to  it,  could  be  required  of  these  Jewish  bigots  v»'ho  had 
murdered  Christ.  The  Geneva  version,  amend  your  lives^  is 
too  restricted  and  one-sided  ;  that  of  Wiclif  and  the  Rhemish, 
do  ye  penance.,  now  conveys  a  false  idea,  but  was  originally 
only  a  close  copy  of  the  Vulgate  i^pcenitentiara  agite)^  which 
was  no  doubt  intended  to  convey  precisely  the  same  sense 
with  the  original.  (See  below,  on  3,  19.)  The  change  of 
mind  required  Avas  to  be  attested  by  an  outward  act :  repent 
and  he  baptized.  Even  granting  that  this  Greek  verb  origi- 
nally meant  to  immerse,  i.  e.  to  dip  or  plunge — a  fact  which 
is  still  earnestly  disputed — it  does  not  follow  that  this  is 
essential  to  its  meanmg  as  a  peculiar  Christian  term.  On 
the  contrary,  analogy  would  lead  us  to  suppose  that,  like 
other  Greek  terms  thus  adopted,  it  had  undergone  some 
modification  of  its  etymological  and  primary  import.  As 
'preshyter  no  longer  suggests  personal  age,  nor  deacon  menial 
service,  nor  supper  a  nocturnal  meal,  as  necessary  parts 
of  their  secondary  Christian  meaning,  why  should  this  one 
word  be  an  exception  to  the  general  rule,  and  signify  a  mere 
mode  of  action  as  no  less  essential  than  the  act  itself?  Even 
if  it  could  be  shown  that  immersion  was  the  universal  ancient 
practice,  both  of  Jews  and  Christians,  it  would  prove  no  more 
than  the  universal  practice  of  reclining  at  meals  and  mixing 
wine  with  water.  Least  of  all  can  it  be  shown  that  Peter,  in 
requiring  this  vast  crowd  to  be  baptized  upon  the  spot, 
intended  to  insist  on  their  complete  submersion  under  water 


ACTS  2,  38.  85 

as  the  essence  of  the  rite  prescribed.  Besides  the  arbitrary- 
character  of  such  a  supposition  iii  itself,  it  is  forbidden  by  the 
obvious  analogy  between  water  baptism  and  the  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  which,  as  we  have  already  seen  (on  1,  5), 
from  the  time  of  Moses  to  the  time  of  Christ,  had  always 
been  conceived  of,  not  as  an  immersion,  but  as  an  affusion  oi 
effusion,  an  abundant  pouring  from  above.  With  such  asso- 
ciations, when  the  multitude  were  told  to  he  baptized^  they 
v/ould  of  course  thmk,  not  of  the  depth  of  the  water,  or 
their  own  position  with  respect  to  it,  but  of  the  water  itself 
and  of  its  application,  as  a  well  known  token  of  repentance 
on  the  one  hand,  and  of  regeneration  on  the  other.  The 
fu'st  of  these  associations  had  already  been  established  in 
most  Jewish  minds,  if  not  by  the  baptism  of  proselytes,  the 
antiquity  of  which  is  still  disputed,  yet  by  that  of  John  the 
Baptist,  which  is  expressly  called  the  haptism  of  repentance. 
(Mark  1,  4.  Luke  3,  3.  Acts  13,  24.  19,  4.)  The  other  asso- 
ciation, that  of  baptism  mth  regeneration,  was  of  older  date, 
having  its  origin  in  natural  relations,  and  confirmed  by  the 
significant  ablutions  of  the  ceremonial  law,  which  were  de- 
signed to  keep  this  very  doctrine  in  connection  with  the 
doctrine  of  atonement,  as  disj^layed  in  the  sacrificial  ritual, 
before  the  minds  of  all  devout  believers  in  the  law  of  Moses. 
In  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  is  not  the  formula  by  which 
they  were  to  be  baptized,  and  therefore  different  from  the 
one  prescribed  by  Christ  himself  (Matt.  28,  19),  but  a  descrip- 
tion of  the  rite  as  Christian,  and  not  merely  Jewish,  much 
less  heathen,  baptism,  or  an  unmeaning  form,  connected  with 
no  religious  creed  whatever.  (See  below,  on  8,  16.  19,  5.) 
In  the  name  of  Christy  i.  e.  by  his  authority,  acknowledging 
his  claims,  subscribing  to  his  doctrines,  engaging  in  his  ser- 
vice, and  relying  on  his  merits.  The  beneficial  end  to  which 
all  this  led  was  the  remission  of  sins.  The  first  Greek  noun 
(a<^eo-tv),  derived  from  a  verb  (a<^t7y/xt)  which  means  to  let  go^ 
is  applied  by  Plutarch  to  divorce,  by  Demosthenes  to  legal 
discharge  from  the  obligation  of  a  bond,  by  Plato  to  the 
emancipation  of  a  slave,  and  to  exemption  from  punishment, 
which  last  is  its  constant  use  in  the  i^ew  Testament.  The 
whole  phrase,  to  (or  toioards)  remission  of  sins,  describes 
this  as  the  end  to  which  the  question  of  the  multitude  had 
reference,  and  which  therefore  must  be  contemplated  also  in 
the  answer.  To  this  implied  promise  of  forgiveness,  Peter 
idds  an  express  one,  that  they  should  receive  the  gift  of  the 


86  ACTS   2,  38.39. 

Holy  Ghost.  It  has  been  disputed  whether  this  denotes  pai 
ticipation  in  tlie  miraculous  endo^vments  just  imparted  to  the 
twelve,  or  only  those  internal  influences  which  we  are  accus- 
tomed to  call  spiritual  in  a  special  sense,  and  which  the  scrip- 
tures represent  as  absolutely  indispensable  to  all  regeneration 
and  salvation.  But  as  these  were  only  different  operations 
of  one  and  the  same  Spirit  (1  Cor.  12,4-12),  the  assurance 
may  be  understood  both  as  a  promise  of  his  ordinary  sancti- 
fying agency,  to  be  experienced  by  all  believers  now  and  for 
ever,  and  also  as  a  promise  of  extraordinary,  temj^orary  gifts, 
to  answer  a  specific  end,  on  this  occasion. 

39.  For  the  promise  is  unto  you,  and  to  your  chil- 
dren, and  to  all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the 
Lord  our  God  shall  call. 

This  verse  contains  an  explanation  of  the  promise  just  pro- 
miscuously made  to  the  whole  multitude.  Spiritual  influence, 
the  great  gift  of  Christ  to  his  church,  was  not  confined  to  his 
immediate  followers  or  their  first  converts,  but  intended  to 
embrace  all  classes  and  all  generations  of  those  whom  God 
should  call^  i.  e.  choose,  designate,  and  actually  bring  into 
communion  with  his  Son  through  faith.  The  promise  was 
addressed  to  themselves  and  to  their  children,  as  in  the  cove- 
nants of  the  Old  Testament,  an  expression  favouring  the  sup- 
position that  their  children  were  to  be  baptized  with  them, 
but  not  necessarily  requiring  it,  as  some,  though  less  natu- 
rally, understand  these  words  of  later  geneTations.  But 
Peter  is  here  dealing  with  the  contemporary  race,  as  repre- 
sented by  his  hearers,  and  would  therefore  seem  to  mean  by 
their  children  those  already  in  existence,  and  especially  those 
present  upon  this  occasion.  All  afar  off  is  likewise  a  dis- 
puted phrase.  Some  would  refer  this  also  to  succeedmg  gene- 
rations ;  but  this  is  forbidden  by  the  usage  of  the  Greek  word 
(^taKpav),  which  relates  to  space,  not  time.  Others  apply  it  to 
the  Jews  dispersed  in  distant  countries ;  but  all  Jews  were 
so  accustomed  to  equality  of  privileges  in  their  o^vn  religion, 
that  such  an  assurance  would  have  been  superfluous.  Besides, 
the  greater  part  of  those  whom  he  addressed  belonged  to  this 
class,  and  could  not  therefore  be  distinguished  from  the  you 
(v/xtv)  of  the  first  clause.  A  third  opinion  is,  that  all  afar  off' 
denotes  Gentile  converts.  It  has  been  objected  that  Peter 
himself  was  not  initiated  into  this  great  doctrme  till  long 


ACTS   2,  39.  40.  87 

after.  (See  below,  on  10,  28.  34.)  Some  have  endeavoured 
to  evade  this  objection,  by  admitting  that  Peter  did  not  fully 
understand  his  own  words.  But  both  the  objection  and  the 
answer  rest  upon  a  misconception,  as  to  Peter's  views  at  dif- 
ferent periods  of  his  history.  He  never  could  have  thought 
that  the  Gentiles  were  excluded  from  the  church  or  from  sal- 
vation. There  Avas  no  such  exclusion,  even  under  the  restric- 
tive institutions  of  the  old  economy.  All  the  Gentiles  in  the 
world  might  have  shared  the  privileges  of  the  Jews,  by  com- 
plying with  the  prescribed  conditions.  Peter's  error  consisted 
hi  believing  that  these  conditions  still  existed  under  the  gos- 
pel, or  in  other  words,  that  Gentiles  must  become  Jews 
before  they  could  be  Christians.  Of  this  error  he  was  not 
yet  disabused  ;  but  there  was  nothing  in  it  to  prevent  his  ap- 
[)lying  the  expressions  here  recorded  to  the  Gentiles.  The 
only  condition  w^hich  he  recognizes  is  the  call  of  God,  without 
regard  to  difterence  of  rank  or  nation.  In  the  first  clause  of 
this  verse,  the  older  English  versions  supply  icas  made  after 
iwomise. 

40.  And  with  many  other  words  did  he  testify  and 
exhort,  saying,  Save  yourselves  from  this  mitoward 
generation. 

We  have  here  an  interesting  intimation  both  as  to  the 
quantity  and  quality  of  Peter's  apostolical  instructions  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost.  As  to  the  first,  we  learn  that  all  his  w^ords 
are  not  recorded,  but  that  icith  many  other  (literally  more) 
icords  he  did  testify^  etc.  (Vulg.  aliis  vefrhis  plurimis.)  This 
admits  of  several  suppositions,  as  to  w^hat  is  given  in  this 
chapter.  It  may  be  regarded  as  a  summary  or  abstract  of 
all  that  the  Apostle  said,  or  as  a  full  report  of  one  discourse, 
besides  which  others  were  delivered,  but  have  not  been  left 
on  record.  The  first  is  the  more  natural  hypothesis,  because 
it  is  not  easy  to  conceive  of  what  material  the  others  were 
composed,  or  why  they  were  considered  requisite,  as  every 
thing  essential  seems  to  be  included  in  the  one  here  given, 
and  the  terms  of  the  narrative  are  satisfied  by  simply  sup- 
posing, that  the  ideas  here  recorded  were  expressed  at  greater 
length,  and  with  such  rej^etitions  and  amplifications  as  were 
guited  to  render  them  universally  intelligible.  As  to  the 
quality  or  character  of  Peter's  preaching,  it  is  indicated  by 
two  verbs,  testify  and  exhort.    The  first  expresses  the  complex 


88  ACTS  2,  40.  41. 

idea  of  testimony,  argument,  and  solemn  affirmation,  and  ia 
therefore  frequently  applied  in  this  book  to  the  preaching  of 
the  Gospel.  (See  below,  8,25.  10,42.  18,5.  20,21.23.24. 
23,  11.  28,  23.)  The  other  verb  is  also  one  of  comprehensive 
import,  mcluding  the  ideas  of  summoning,  commanding,  and 
persuading.  As  the  first  describes  the  theoretical  or  doc- 
trinal part  of  the  apostolical  preaching,  so  this  may  be  re- 
garded as  expressive  of  its  practical  and  hortatory  element. 
They  testified  to  what  men  should  believe,  and  exhorted  them 
to  what  they  ought  to  do.  As  a  sample  or  a  summary  of 
these  exhortations,  we  are  told  that  Peter  said.  Save  your- 
selves^ etc.  The  Greek  verb  (o-co^T^re)  is  a  passive  form,  and 
although  there  are  some  instances,  in  which  this  aorist  seems 
to  have  the  meaning  of  the  middle  voice,  there  can  be  no 
reason  for  departing  from  the  strict  sense,  when  it  suits  the 
context  better,  as  in  this  case.  Such  a  departure  is  the  more 
gratuitous,  because  the  reflexive  meaning  {save  thyself)  is 
elsewhere  expressed  by  an  entirely  difterent  form  of  the  same 
verb  (o-ojo-ov  o-eavroi/).  (See  Matt.  27,  40.  Mark  15,  30.  Luke 
23,  37.)  The  sense  of  the  form  here  used  is,  be  saved^  i.  e. 
consent  that  God  shall  save  you,  from  (the  character  and  des- 
tiny of)  this  imtotoard  generation.  The  English  word  unto- 
vmrd  is  defined  by  its  opposite,  tovmrd^  and  its  cognate  ad- 
jective, toioardly^  the  first  of  which  is  used  by  Shakspeare, 
and  the  last  by  Bacon,  in  the  sense  of  docile,  manageable, 
tractable.  The  negative  form,  therefore,  means  perverse,  in- 
tractable, and  is  no  inaccurate  translation  of  the  Greek  word 
here  used,  which  means  crooked^  both  in  a  physical  and  moral 
sense.  (See  Luke  3,  5.  Phil.  2,  15.  1  Pet.  2,  18.)  Its  appli- 
cation here  is  founded  on  the  description  of  Israel  by  Moses 
in  Deut.  32,  5,  where  the  Septuagint  version  has  this  very 
phrase.  The  crooked  generation  is  the  mass  of  unbelieving 
Jews,  not  considered  as  a  race  or  nation,  which  is  not  the 
usage  of  the  Greek  word  (yei/ca?),  but  as  a  contemporary 
generation,  out  of  which  the  penitent  are  urged  to  extricate 
themselves  by  consenting  to  be  saved. 

41.  Then  they  that  gladly  received  his  word  were 
baptized,  and  the  same  day  there  w^re  added  (unto 
them)  about  three  thousand  souls. 

The  Apostle's  exhortation  meets  with  a  prompt  and  gene- 
ral response.     There  is  the  same  ambiguity  of  construction  in 


ACTS  2,  41.42.  89 

the  first  clause  as  in  1,  6.  The  common  version,  tliey^  that 
gladly  received  his  word,  seems  to  draw  a  distinction  between 
two  classes,  those  who  did,  and  those  who  did  not,  gladly 
receive  the  Apostle's  word.  It  seems  more  natural,  however, 
to  understand  this  clause  as  relating  to  the  whole  body  of 
those  mentioned  in  v.  37,  as  asking  what  they  should  do. 
IViey  then  gladly  received  his  v;ord,  etc.  The  idea  of  cheer- 
fulness and  joy  is  twice  expressed,  being  really  included  in 
tiie  verb,  according  to  Greek  usage,  and  then  separately  indi- 
cated by  an  adverb.  To  the  supposition  that  these  converts 
were  baptized  by  immersion,  it  may  be  objected,  besides  the 
greatness  of  the  number  and  the  shortness  of  the  time,  that 
Jerusalem  has  always  been  remarkably  destitute  of  water, 
the  fountain  of  Siloam  being  its  only  constant  source.  That 
the  three  thousand  went  out  in  procession  to  this  fountain,  or 
that  many  were  baptized  in  swimming-baths  or  cisterns  be- 
longing to  public  establishments  or  to  private  dwellings,  or 
that  these  difficulties  were  miraculously  overruled  for  the  oc- 
casion, are  conceivable  hypotheses ;  but  whether  they  are 
probable  or  preferable  to  the  simple  supposition  that  the 
water,  like  the  Holy  Ghost  in  spiritual  baptism,  and  the  blood 
in  ceremonial  purifications,  was  poured  or  sprinkled — every 
reader  must  determine  for  himself.  The  saine  day  evi- 
dently qualifies  baptized  as  well  as  added,  because  it  was  by 
baptism  that  the  additions  were  efiected.  Added  unto  them 
seems  to  mean  to  those  mentioned  in  the  first  clause,  but 
these  were  themselves  the  persons  added.  It  is  better,  there- 
fore, Y>-ith  the  Geneva  Bible,  to  supply  unto  the  church  from 
V.  47,  i.  e.  to  the  previously  existing  body  of  believers, 
amounting,  as  some  think,  to  a  hundred  and  twenty,  but 
probably  a  much  larger  number.  (See  above,  on  1,  14.  2,  1.) 
About,  literally  as,  as  if,  implies  that  the  following  number 
is  a  round  one.  (See  above,  on  1,  15.)  The  use  of  the  word 
soids  for  persons  in  enumeration  is  an  idiom,  not  only  of  the 
Hebrew  (Gen.  46,  27)  and  the  Hellenistic  Greek  (v.  43.  3,  23. 
7, 14.  27,  37),  but  of  many  other  languages. 

42.  And  they  continued  stedfastly  in  the  apostles* 
doctrine  and  fellowship,  and  in  breaking  of  bread,  and 
in  prayers. 

The  history  of  Pentecost  may  be  said  to  close  sviih.  the 
lji<>ceding  verse,  what  follows  being  an  account  of  the  condi- 

'   '   ■         -         i 


90  ACTS  2,  42. 

tion  of  the  infant  clinrch,  from  that  day  onward.  Continued 
stedfastly^  or  as  the  Rhemish  version  more  exactly  renders  it, 
were  persevering.  For  the  exact  sense  of  the  Greek  verb,  see 
above,  on  1,  14.  Here,  as  in  many  other  cases,  doctrine  doe? 
not  mean  the  truth  taught,  but  the  act  or  mode  of  teaching. 
(See  Matt.  7,  28.  29.  22,33.  Mark  1,  22.  27.  4,2.  11, 18.  Luke 
4,  32.  1  Tim.  4, 13.)  What  is  here  affirmed  is  not  their  ad- 
lierence  to  a  certain  system  of  behef,  but  their  personal  at- 
tendance on  the  actual  instructions  of  the  twelve.  Thus 
instruction  followed,  if  it  did  not  precede,  baptism  ;  or  rather 
it  both  followed  and  preceded,  for  these  converts  were  not 
heathen,  but  religiously  trained  Jews,  and  Peter  had  in- 
structed them,  before  they  were  baptized,  in  many  icords^ 
besides  those  here  recorded.  (See  above,  on  v.  40.)  But 
even  if  they  had  been  received  without  instruction,  that 
would  be  no  warrant  for  a  similar  proceeding  now,  when 
there  are  no  apostles  and  extraordinary  gifts  have  ceased. 
The  teaching  here  meant,  however,  is  not  merely  that  of 
catechumens,  to  prepare  them  for  admission  to  the  church, 
but  that  which  is  essential  to  the  Christian  life,  and  for  the 
sake  of  which  the  convert  is  admitted  to  the  church,  as  to  the 
school  of  Christ.  The  word  translated  fellowship  is  very  com- 
prehensive in  its  import  and  various  in  its  applications,  corre- 
spondmg,  more  or  less  exactly,  to  our  words  community^ 
communion^  and  communication.  Its  rarest  sense,  at  least  in 
the  New  Testament,  is  the  vague  ooie  of  society  or  social  in- 
tercourse. It  might  be  applied,  with  strict  propriety  of  lan- 
guage, to  the  community  of  goods  described  in  the  ensuing 
verses ;  to  mutual  participation  of  the  same  food,  whether 
social  or  sacramental ;  and  to  the  interchange  of  charities  by 
alms  or  any  other  species  of  beneficence.  All  these  are  so 
appropriate  and  essential  to  the  Christian  character,  that  it  is 
desirable  to  comprehend  as  much  of  them  as  possible  in  this 
description.  We  may  therefore  understand  the  historian  as 
saying  that  the  infant  church  was  constantly  engaged  in  mu- 
tual communion,  both  by  joint  repasts  and  sacramental  feasts 
and  charitable  distribution.  This  last  is,  in  actual  usage,  the 
prevailing  application  of  the  word  in  the  New  Testament. 
(See  Rom.  15,  26.  2  Cor,  8,  4.  9, 13.  Heb.  13,  16.)  But  the 
fact  is  that  the  three  senses  run  into  each  other,  as  the  three 
practices  were  really  inseparable  in  the  primitive  or  infant 
church.  Its  whole  organization  and  condition  was  as  yet  that 
of  a  family,  so  that  all  their  acts  performed  in  common  par- 


ACTS  2,  42.  43.  44.  91 

took  more  or  less  of  a  religious  character.  It  was  at  their 
social  meals  that  their  charities  were  dispensed ;  it  was  at 
these  same  meals  that  the  eiicharist  was  administered ;  so  that 
all  these  elements  must  be  combined  to  make  up  the  full 
sense  of  apostolical  communion  [KOLvuivta.)  According  to  the 
connnon  version,  this  word,  as  well  as  doctrine,  is  dependent 
on  apostles  ;  J  they  adhered  to  their  teaching  and  continued 
in  communion  with  them.'  But  in  Greek,  communion  is  a 
separate  and  independent  item  in  the  catalogue.  They  con- 
tinued, first,  in  the  apostles'  doctrine ;  then,  in  communion, 
not  with  them  alone,  but  with  the  body  of  believers.  The 
general  idea  of  communion  is  then  rendered  more  specific  by 
the  mention  of  the  breaking  of  bread.  As  this  was  the  begin- 
ning, or  the  initiatory  act,  of  an  ancient  Jewish  meal,  it  may 
be  put  for  Ihe  repast  itself,  or  for  the  eucharist  that  followed, 
or  for  both,  as  being  then  inseparable.  The  devotional  char- 
acter of  all  these  services  is  shown  by  the  addition,  aiid  in 
prayers.  Such  was  the  social  state,  and  such  were  the  em- 
ployments, of  the  church,  as  reorganized  at  Pentecost  and  in 
Jerusalem.  The  Avhole  might  be  summed  up  as  consisting  in 
apostolical  teaching,  mutual  communion,  common  prayer. 

43.  And  fear  came  upon  every  soul,  and  many 
wonders  and  signs  were  done  by  the  Apostles. 

While  their  internal  state  was  such  as  has  been  just  de- 
scribed, their  outward  state  was  one  of  safety  under  the 
divine  protection.  This  safety  was  secured  by  a  prevailing 
sentiment  of  awe  (^oySos),  not  alarm  or  dread  of  injury,  in- 
spired origmally,  no  doubt,  by  the  great  events  of  Pentecost, 
but  afterwards  maintained  by  miracles,  here  as  in  vs.  19.  22, 
described  as  signs  and  wonders^  wrought  by  the  Apostles. 
This  connection  of  the  clauses  may  be  made  clear  by  supply- 
ing between  them,  '  and  in  order  to  maintam  this  fear.'  Game 
in  the  first  clause,  and  icere  done  in  the  second,  are  transla- 
tions of  the  same  Greek  verb  (eytVero),  which  strictly  means 
became,  came  to  pass,  or  happened. 

44.  And  all  that  believed  were  together,  and  had 
all  things  common. 

Such  was  the  unity  of  feeling  and  afiection  in  the  infant 
church  that,  notwithstandhig  their  numerical  increase,  they 


92  AC  TS  2,  44.55. 

seemed  to  constit  ate  a  single  household,  with  identity  of  in* 
terest,  and  even  of  possession.  All  that  believed,  those  be- 
lieving, the  believers.  This  is  one  of  the  names  given  in  the 
history  to  those  who  followed  Christ  and  were  professors  of 
the  new  religion.  The  phrase  is  elliptical  for  those  who  be- 
lieved in  Jesus  as  the  true  Messiah.  Were  together  does  not 
mean  that  they  assembled  or  resided  in  one  place,  for  their 
numbers  rendered  this  impossible  ;  nor  that  they  now  began 
to  meet  in  stated  but  distinct  assemblies,  an  idea  which  the 
words  do  not  express.  The  sense  of  unity  in  heart  and  pur- 
pose, vrhich  the  word  has  elsewhere  (see  above,  on  1,  15.  2,  1, 
and  compare  the  Septuagint  version  of  Ps.  133,  i),  is  perfectly 
appropriate  here,  and  better  suited  to  the  context,  both  be- 
fore and  after,  than  that  of  outward  local  convocation.  As 
one  specification  of  this  general  description,  it  is  added,  thei/ 
had  all  thi?igs  conunon,  i.  e.  no  one  regarded  his  possessions 
as  belonging  absolutely  to  hunself,  but  as  a  trust  for  the 
benefit  of  others  also. 

45.  And  sold  tlieir  possessions    and  goods,   and 
parted  them  to  all  men,  as  every  man  had  need. 

The  proof  of  this  disinterested  spirit  was  afforded  by  the 
fact  that,  when  there  was  occasion,  they  actually  sold  such  of 
their  possessions  as  were  necessary  for  the  comfort  and  relief 
of  others.  Parted,  divided,  distributed,  allotted.  The  words 
necessarily  denote  nothing  more  than  what  is  often  exempli- 
fied at  present,  except  so  far  as  this  ancient  Hberality  was 
modified  by  the  more  intimate  relation  which  existed  among 
Christians  then,  as  members  of  one  family  or  household. 
There  is  nothmg  said  of  a  compulsory  renunciation  of  all  indi- 
vidual property,  either  as  a  di^dne  institution  or  a  voluntary 
self-denial.  Such  a  renunciation  is  indeed  at  variance  with 
facts  recorded  in  the  later  history.  (See  below,  on  5,  4.)  Of 
those  who  understand  it  to  be  here  meant,  some  regard  it  as 
a  normal  and  commanded  state,  which  ceased  on  the  depart- 
ure of  the  church  from  its  prmiitive  simplicity,  and  vrill  return 
when  that  returns.  Others  m^ake  it  a  divine  but  tem2)orary 
constitution,  suited  to  the  mfant  stage  of  Christianity,  but 
not  required,  nor  even  possible,  in  its  maturity.  A  third 
view  is,  that  it  was  a  mistaken  though  well  meant  attempt  to 
continue  in  the  church  at  large  the  mode  of  life  adopted  by 
our  Lord  and  his  Apostles.     Whether  the  fact  assumed  in  ail 


ACTS   2,  45.  46.  93 

these  hypotheses  is  really  recorded,  either  here  or  m  the 
parallel  passage  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  chapter,  is  a  question 
which  will  there  present  itself  again.  (See  below,  on  4,  32. 
34.)  The  distinction  sometimes  made  between  the  words 
translated  possessio7is  and  goods,  as  denoting  what  is  now 
called  real  midi  personal  property,  has  no  more  foundation  in 
Greek  usage  than  the  one  made  by  Wiclif,  who,  instead  of 
goods,  has  cattle.  The  second  Greek  word  corresponds  to 
our  word  sidjstance,  as  applied  to  wealth.  i^vX^.  possessiones 
et  substantias.)  So  far  is  KT^yuara  from  meaning  real  or  im- 
movable estate,  that  in  Homer  it  almost  always  denotes  jewels 
or  oClier  hoarded  treasure,  and  the  Attic  vvriters  sometimes 
put  it  in  antithesis  to  land  (aypos),  sometimes  to  money  (xp"^- 
/xara).  The  two  words  are  substantially  equivalents,  here  put 
together  to  express  more  fully  the  one  idea  of  property  or 
wealth.  Here,  as  often  elsewhere  in  the  English  Bible,  the 
vrords  7na?i  and  7ne7i,  though  not  distinguished  by  italics,  are 
supplied  by  the  translators,  who  appear  to  have  considered 
them  essential  to  the  meanm^,  although  modern  usage  would 
allow  the  ma?i  to  be  replaced  by  one,  and  the  men  to  be 
omitted  altogether  :  and p)arted  thern  to  all,  as  every  one  had 
need.  This  insertion  of  the  word  man,  as  a  sort  of  pronoun, 
is  a  favourite  idiom  of  the  old  English  versions.  That  it  had 
a  pronominal  force,  analogous  to  that  of  the  same  word  in 
German,  may  be  inferred  from  1  Cor.  2, 11,  where  it  is  ap- 
plied to  God. 

46.  And  they  continmng  daily  witli  one  accord  in 
the  temple,  and  breaking  bread  from  house  to  house, 
did  eat  their  meat  with  gladness  and  singleness  of 
heart.  ^ 

The  writer  here  returns  to  his  description  of  their  daily 
habits  and  religious  spirit,  which  he  interrupted  at  the  close 
of  V.  42,  to  mention  the  effect  produced  on  others  (43),  and 
the  means  of  their  subsistence  (44.  45.)  Their  religious  life 
is  here  presented  under  its  two  aspects,  public  and  private. 
For  the  sense  oi  continuing  with  one  accord,  see  above,  on  1, 
14.  This  daily  attendance  at  the  temple  is  referred  by  some 
to  meetings  of  their  own  within  the  sacred  enclosure.  This 
opinion  seems  to  be  confined  to  those  who  understand  the 
house  lohere  they  were  sitting,  in  v.  2  above,  lo  be  a  chamber 
of  the  temple.     By  others,  what  is  here  said  is  referred  to  the 


94  ACTS  2,  46. 

daily  temple  service,  or  at  least  to  public  prayer,  in  the  ai> 
pointed  place,  and  at  the  stated  hours.  If  this  be  the  correct 
interpretation  of  the  passage,  we  have  here  the  first  intima- 
tion of  the  singular  fact,  that  although  the  ceremonial  law, 
of  which  the  temple  was  a  part,  had  been  abrogated  by  the 
advent  and  sacrifice  of  Christ,  the  apostles  considered  them- 
selves bound,  or  at  least  authorized,  to  treat  it  with  respect, 
so  long  as  it  was  suffered  to  continue  in  existence.  Some 
have  explained  this  as  an  act  of  mere  political  obedience ;  but 
its  combination,  here  and  elsewhere,  with  their  spiritual  wor- 
ship and  their  whole  religious  life,  without  a  trace  of  any  such 
distinction  between  secular  and  sacred  as  the  one  alleged, 
appears  to  show  that  their  attendance  at  the  temple  was  as 
really  a  part  of  their  religion  as  their  meeting  elsewhere. 
The  probable  design  of  this  paradoxical  arrangement  was  to 
shield  the  new  religion  from  the  charge  of  being  hostile  to 
the  old,  or  essentially  distinct  from  it,  and  to  show  the  iden- 
tity of  the  church  under  both  dispensations,  by  allowing  one, 
as  it  were,  to  overlap  the  other,  or  the  two  to  coexist  for  a 
time,  instead  of  establishing  the  Christian  church  on  ground 
left  absolutely  vacant  by  the  total  destruction  of  the  ancient 
system.  A  precisely  similar  relation  had  subsisted  for  a  time 
betAveen  the  ministry  of  John  the  Baptist  and  the  public 
ministry  of  Christ  himself,  and  may  be  said  indeed  to  have 
prefigured  the  one  mentioned  in  the  case  before  us.  The 
evils,  which  might  easily  have  sprung  from  this  arrangement, 
if  continued  longer,  were  prevented  by  the  speedy  and  en- 
tire destruction,  not  only  of  the  temple  and  the  ceremonial 
system,  but  of  the  civil  organization,  with  which  the  Jewish 
church  had  for  ages  been  identified.  One  incidental  evil, 
which  did  really  arise  from  this  peculiar  providential  consti- 
tution, was  the  state  of  uncertamty  and  strife,  in  which  the 
Jewish  Christians  long  continued,  with  respect  to  the  observ- 
ance of  the  law,  and  the  way  in  which  the  Gentiles  should  be 
brought  into  the  church,  until  all  reasonable  doubt  was  ended 
by  the  great  ecclesiastical  and  national  catastrophe.  Of  these 
unhappy  errors  and  disputes  we  shall  have  instances  enough 
in  the  ensuing  history.  (See  below,  on  10, 1.  15,  1.  18,  18. 
21,  20.  21.)  From  house  to  house  is  Cranmer's  version ; 
Tyndale  has  in  every  house;  the  Vulgate,  circa  domos. 
Compare  in  every  city  (Kara  TroXtv)  Tit.  1,  5.  But  the  best 
i  authorities  are  now  in  favour  of  explaining  it  to  mean  in  the 
'\,  house  pr  at  home,  as  distinguished  from  the  foregoing  phrase, 


ACTS  2,  46.  47.  95 

in  the  temple.  This  philological  decision  is  confirmed  by  the 
repeated  use  of  the  same  Greek  words  in  Paul's  epistles,  to 
describe  a  church,  or  stated  meeting  of  believers,  in  a  pri- 
vate dwelling.  (See  Rom.  16,5.  1  Cor.  16,  19.  Col.  4,  lo. 
Philem.  2.)  The  whole  clause  then  describes  the  two  great 
parts  of  their  religious  life,  j)ublic  and  private,  or  as  Jews 
and  Christians.  Breaking  bread  at  home^  or  in  lyrivate  houses, 
as  we  have  already  seen  (in  v.  42),  exclusively  denotes 
neither  social  repasts  nor  sacramental  services,  but  both,  in 
that  most  intimate  conjunction,  which  was  one  of  the  charac- 
teristic features  of  the  infant  church,  but  which  can  no  more 
be  revived  by  us,  than  the  innocent  simplicity  of  childhood, 
or  the  habits  of  a  father's  house,  can  be  contmued  in  mature 
age  and  in  distant  homes.  That  the  reference  to  the  eucha- 
rist  is  at  least  not  exclusive,  may  be  seen  from  the  ensuing 
phrase  they  took  their  meat,  or  more  exactly,  they  partook  of 
nourishment.  The  remauider  of  the  verse  describes  the  tem- 
per or  the  spirit,  in  which  all  these  acts  and  duties  were  per- 
formed, viz.  with  gladness,  or  rather  exultation,  the  Hellenis- 
tic word  here  used,  being  one  of  great  strength,  and  with 
singleness  (Tyndale),  or  simpleness  (Wiclif),  or  simplicity 
(Rheims),  which  seems  to  be  the  corresponding  negative 
expression,  by  which  every  feelmg  is  excluded,  that  could 
mar  this  picture  of  exquisite  but  childlike  happmess.  The 
quality  described  is  not  mere  sincerity,  or  freedom  from 
hypocrisy,  but  singleness  of  purpose,  aim,  and  motive,  as 
opposed  not  only  to  deceit,  but  to  complexity  of  mind  and 
character.  This,  too,  in  its  perfection,  or  its  highest  mea- 
sures, appertains  peculiarly  to  the  early  stages  both  of  indi- 
vidual and  social  progress.  It  is  therefore  eminently  well- 
placed  in  this  portrait  of  the  iDrimitive  or  infant  church. 

47.  Praising  God,  and  having  favour  with  all  the 
people.  And  the  Lord  added  to  the  church  daily  such 
as  should  be  saved. 

The  first  words,  praising  God,  close  the  description  of 
their  spiritual  state  and  mode  of  life.  He  winds  up  all  by 
saying  that  they  praised  God.  This  evidently  means  some- 
thing more  than  that  praise  formed  a  part  of  their  worship. 
The  phrase  is  obviously  intended  to  describe  their  whole 
life  as  a  life  of  praise  to  God.  It  is  not  so  much  an  ad- 
ditional particular  in  the  description  as  a  pregnant  summary 


96  ACTS  2,  41. 

of  the  whole.     As  if  he  had  said,  '  In  a  word,  they  only  lived 
to  praise  God  and  glorify  their  master.'    The  eflect  produced 
by  all  this  upon  others  had  before  been  represented  as  reli 
gious  awe,  maintained  by  a  succession  of  miraculous  perform- 
ances.    But  this  might  have  seemed  to  imply  that  the  popu- 
lar feeling  towards  the  new  society  was  one  of  distance,  if 
not  of  aversion.     It  is  therefore   added  here,  that  they  had 
favoiir  icith  the  people^  not  with  one  class  merely,  buticith  all 
the  people^  as  a  Avhole,  and  as  a  body.     There  is  obvious  allu- 
sion to  the  constant  use  of  this  expression  [rov  \a6v)  to  denote 
the  people  by  way  of  eminence,  the  chosen  people,  the  people 
of  God.     The  Jews  collectively,  no  doubt  with  individual 
exceptions,  favoured  them.     This  state  of  public  feeling  is 
remarkable,  and  seems  to  be  recorded,  on  account  of  the  un- 
happy and  inexplicable  change  which  afterv>-ards  took  place. 
But  as  yet,  they  enjoyed  popular  as  vrell  as  divine  favour. 
This  last  was  manifest  m  their  mcrease,  not  merely  by  great 
sudden  movements,  such  as  that  of  Pentecost,  but  also  by 
constant  though  insensible  accretion,  thus  exemplifying,  in  the 
experience  of  the  infant  church,  both  the  great  methods  of 
advancement  by  which  she  has  since  been  growhig,  culture 
and  revival.     This  daily  increase  is  described  as  a  divine  work 
and  the  v>'ork  of  Christ  himself.     The  sudden  change  from 
God  to  Lord^  in  this  short  verse,  can  only  be  expiaiocd  by 
supposing  that  the  writer  intended  to  describe  the  Great 
Head   of  the  church  as  personally  adding   to  its  numbers. 
This  is  the  first  historical  use  of  the  word  church  (iKKXrjo-La)  in 
application  to  the  body  of  believers  after  its  reorganization. 
In  the  gospel  of  Matthew  it  is  twice  applied  to  the  sam.e 
body  by  our  Lord  himself  (Matt.   16,  18.  18,  17),  but  m  the 
way  of  anticipation.     The  Greek  word,  which  expresses  the 
idea  of  evoking,  calling  out,  also  suggests  that  of  convoking, 
calling  together,  and  is  therefore  most  appropriate  to  the 
Christian  "church,   as  a  select  organic  body,   called  out  by 
di^dne  choice  from  the  mass  of  men,  and  called  together  by 
divine  authority  as  a  spiritual  corporation.     The  Greek  vrord 
was  familiar  to  the  Jews,  not  only  as  applied  to  the  political 
assemblies  of  the  Grecian  states,  in  which  sense  it  occurs  be- 
low, 19,  39,  but  also  as  applied  in  their  own  Septua^int  ver- 
fiion  to  the  host  or  congregation  of  Israel.      Having  thus 
been   used   for   centuries   to    designate   the  ancient  Jewish 
Church,  it  was  peculiarly  appropriate  as  an  expression  for  the 
Church  of  Christ.     To  this  body,  now  possessing  an  organic 


ACTS  2,  47.  97 

constitution,  the  Lord  added  daily  such  as  should  be  saced. 
This  awkward  periphrasis,  borrowed  from  the  Vulgate  {qitl 
salvifierent)^  has  occasioned  no  small  stir  among  the  Calviii- 
ists  and  their  opponents  in  the  Church  of  England,  who  have 
warmly  disputed  w^hether  it  should  be  translated,  those  who 
had  been  saved,  or  those  who  were  in  the  act  of  being  saved, 
or  those  who  were  in  the  way  of  salvation ;  whereas  Luke 
simply  says  the  saved^  as  an  additional  description  of  the 
same  class  whom  he  calls  believers  in  v.  44.  It  might  as  well 
be  queried  whether  that  expression  denotes  those  who  had 
believed,  or  would  believe,  or  were  believing.  Men  are  said 
to  be  saved  in  reference  not  only  to  the  final  consummation 
but  to  the  inception  of  the  saving  work.  Of  every  penitent 
believing  sinner,  we  may  say,  mth  equal  truth,  that  he  will 
certainly  be  saved,  and  that  he  has  been  saved  already. 
There  is  therefore  no  occasion  for  doctrinal  dispute  afforded 
by  the  simple  statement,  that  the  Lord  daily  added  saved  (or 
saved  07ies)  to  the  churchy  which  is  the  order,  as  well  as  the 
true  sense,  of  the  original.  The  Vulgate  adds  to  this  verse 
an  apparently  unmeaning  phrase  {in  id  ipsion^)  which  is  re- 
tained by  Wiclif  {in  the  same  thing^)  and  is  really  the  first 
words  of  the  following  chapter. 


CHAPTER  III. 


Thus  far  the  infant  church  had  enjoyed  the  favour  both  of 
God  and  man.  But  this  state  of  tilings  was  not  designed  to 
last.  Opposition,  and  even  persecution,  were  essential  to  the 
execution  of  the  divine  purpose,  not  only  as  a  means  of  moral 
discipline,  but  also  as  a  means  of  outward  growth.  The  new 
religion  was  not  to  be  a  national  or  local  one,  but  catholic 
and  ecumenical.  In  order  to  attain  its  end,  it  must  be  spread; 
and  in  order  to  be  spread,  it  must  be  scattered ;  and  in  order 
to  be  scattered,  it  must  undergo  strong  pressure,  from  withm 
and  from  without.  The  history  now  presents  to  us  the  series 
of  providential  causes  by  which  these  efiects  were  brought 
about.  The  subject  of  the  next  two  chapters  is  the  first  at- 
tack upon  the  church,  occasioned  by  a  signal  mii-acle  and 
apostolical  discourse.  Chapter  HI  relates  to  the  occasion, 
Chapter  IV  to  the  attack  itself.    At  a  certain  time  and  place, 

VOL.  T. — 5. 


98  ACTS  3,  1, 

distinctly  specified  (l),  Peter  and  John  perform  a  miracle  of 
healing  (2 — 8),  which  attracts  attention  and  occasions  a  great 
concourse  (9 — 11),  of  which  Peter  takes  advantage  to  dis- 
claim the  honour  of  the  miracle  (12),  and  give  it  all  to  Christy 
whose  treatment  at  their  hands  he  sets  forth  with  several 
aggravating  circumstances  (13 — 15),  and  contrasts  with  the 
evidence  of  his  divinity  afforded  by  this  miracle  which  they 
had  witnessed  (16.)  Then,  with  a  sudden  and  affecting 
change  of  tone,  he  represents  their  great  crime  as  the  fruit 
of  ignorance  (17),  and  as  the  execution  of  a  divine  purpose 
(18),  not  to  extenuate  their  guilt  but  to  encourage  their 
repentance  (19),  which  he  also  urges  by  the  promise  of 
Clirist's  coming  (20,  21)  as  the  Prophet  of  his  people  fore- 
told by  Moses  (22,  23),  Samuel  and  the  other  prophets 
(24),  in  whose  predictions,  as  well  as  in  the  patriarchal 
promises  (25),  and  in  Christ  himself  as  their  fulfilment, 
the  children  of  Israel  had  a  primary  interest  and  right, 
but  only  on  condition  of  personal  repentance  and  conver 
sion  (26.) 

1.  Now  Peter  and  John  went  up  together  into  the 
temple,  at  the  hour  of  prayer,  (being)  the  ninth  hour. 

Out  of  the  multitude  of  miracles  performed  by  the 
apostles  after  Pentecost  (2,  43),  Luke  singles  one,  not  merely 
on  account  of  its  intrinsic  magnitude  and  great  pubhcity, 
but  chiefly  on  account  of  its  connection  Avithj  the  progress 
of  events  and  the  condition  of  the  infant  church,  as  having 
furnished  the  occasion  of  a  new  apostolical  discourse,  and 
of  the  first  hostile  movement  from  without.  This  first  verse 
specifies  the  place,  the  time,  and  the  performers  of  the 
mu-acle.  There  is  something  striking  in  the  mutual  relations 
of  Peter  and  John,  as  they  may  be  traced  in  the  history. 
After  their  joint  mission  to  prepare  for  the  last  passover 
(Luke  22,  8),  they  seem  to  have  been  inseparable,  notwith- 
standing the  marked  difference  in  their  character  and  con- 
duct. Peter  alone  denied  his  master  ;  John  alone  continued 
with  him  to  the  last.  (See  John  18,  15.  19,  26.)  Of  Peter's 
fall  John  would  seem  to  have  been  the  only  apostolical  wit- 
ness. Yet  we  find  them  still  together  at  the  sepulchre,  and 
ill  Galilee  after  the  resurrection  (John  20,  2.  21,  7.)  It  is  an 
observation  of  Chrysostom,  that  Peter's  question  (John  21, 
21),  Lorcl^  what  shall  this  man  do?  was  prompted  rather  by 


ACTS  3,  1.  2.  99 

affection  than  by  curiosity.  Here  again  we  find  tfiem  still 
together  (eVl  ro  avro),  an  expression  implying  not  mere  coin- 
cidence of  place  but  unity  of  purpose.  (See  above,  on  1,  15. 
2,1.44.)  Went  up  is,  the  appropriate  expression  for  the 
physical  and  moral  elevation  of  the  temjole.  At  the  hour 
(inl  T^v  uipav)  might  perhaps  be  more  exactly  rendered 
toicards  (i.  e.  just  before)  the  hour.  All  the  English  versions, 
prior  to  king  James's,  have  the  strange  expression,  the  ninth 
hour  of  prayer^  which  may  however  mean  no  more  than  the 
paraphrase  given  in  our  Bible.  The  ninth  hour  of  the  day, 
corresponding  to  our  three  o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  was 
the  third  stated  hour  of  prayer,  according  to  the  Jemsh  cus- 
tom, being  probably  the  hour  of  the  evening  sacrifice. 
(See  above,  on  2,  15.)  Here,  as  in  2, 46  above,  there  is 
nothing  in  the  text  or  context  to  determine  for  what  pur- 
pose the  Apostles  visited  the  temple,  or  rather  nothing  to 
determine  whether,  in  addition  to  their  private  devotions, 
they  took  part  in  the  ceremonial  service.  For  the  reasons 
in  favour  of  supposing  that  they  did,  see  above,  on  2,  46. 

2.  And  a  certain  man,  lame  from  his  mother's 
womb,  was  carried,  whom  they  laid  daily  at  the  gate 
of  the  temple  which  is  called  Beautiful,  to  ask  alms 
of  them  that  entered  into  the  temple. 

To  show  the  certainty,  as  well  as  greatness,  of  the  cure 
effected,  the  case  is  here  described  as  one  of  long  standing 
and  of  general  notoriety.  It  was  not  a  case  of  lameness  by 
disease  or  accident,  but  one  of  congenital  infirmity.  It  was 
also  one  with  which  the  people  were  familiar,  from  its  daily 
exliibition  in  one  of  the  most  public  situations  of  the  city. 
The  practice  of  placing  objects  of  charity  at  the  entrances 
of  temples,  both  on  account  of  the  great  concourse  and  the 
supposed  tendency  of  devotional  feelings  to  promote  those 
of  a  charitable  kind,  was  common  among  Jews  and  Gentiles, 
and  is  still  kept  up  in  some  parts  of  the  Christian  world.  No 
antiquarian  research  has  yet  succeeded  in  determining  which 
gate  of  the  temple  or  its  area  is  here  meant,  or  in  accounting 
for  the  name  here  given  to  it.  As  the  Greek  adjective 
(wpat'av)  was  not  commonly  employed  to  express  the  general 
idea  of  beauty,  but  rather  that  of  youthful  bloom  and  fresh- 
ness, which  seems  wholly  inappropriate  to  such  an  object,  i^ 


100  ACTS  3,  2.  3. 

has  been  explained  as  the  corruption  of  some  oriental  name 
no  longer  ascertainable.  But  the  wider  Hellenistic  usage  of 
the  word  is  clear  from  its  being  applied  to  feet  (Rom.  10, 15) 
and  whited  sepulchres  (Matt.  23,  27.)  The  more  common 
opinion  is,  that  the  gate  meant  is  the  great  eastern  gate  of 
the  temple-enclosure,  corresponding  to  the  entrance  of  the 
temple  itself,  and  described  by  Josephus  as  suj^erior  in  size 
and  decoration  to  all  the  others,  being  wholly  covered  with 
Corinthian  brass.  The  material  fact  here  implied,  if  not  ex- 
pressed, is  that  this  was  the  most  frequented  entrance  to  the 
temple,  and  was  therefore  chosen  by  the  cri2:)ple  or  his  friends, 
as  his  place  of  habitual  solicitation.  Here,  as  in  many  other 
instances,  the  Rhemish  version  {Specious)  violates  our  idiom, 
by  closely  copying  the  mere  form  of  the  Vulgate  (Sjyeciosa), 
even  where  it  makes  no  sense  in  English.  Wiclif,  although 
equally  a  copyist  of  the  Vulgate,  had  shown  far  more  taste, 
as  well  as  knowledge  of  the  language,  by  his  simple  Saxon 
version  {Fair).  The  word  translated  alms^  like  charity  in 
English,  denotes  a  feeling  or  a  prmciple,  but  is  secon- 
darily applied  to  its  outward  manifestation  or  effect.  The 
two  verbs  laid  and  carried^  although  similar  in  form,  must  be 
carefully  distinguished,  as  relating  to  distinct  times.  They 
(i.  e.  others,  or  his  friends)  laid  {him)  daily  at  the  gate  of 
the  temple^  and  had  probably  been  doing  so  for  many  years. 
But  he  icas  carried^  or  in  modern  phrase,  was  being  carried^ 
to  the  customary  place,  on  this  occasion,  just  as  Peter  and 
John  were  gomg  in. 

3.  Who,  seeing  Peter  and  John  about  to  go  into 
the  temple,  asked  an  alms. 

About  to  go  is  expressed  in  Greek  by  a  participle  and  in- 
finitive, the  first  of  which  {jxiX\ovro.i)  has  no  equivalent  in 
English,  the  verb  denotmg  merely  the  idea  of  fiiturity,  to  he 
about  to  do  the  act  expressed  by  the  dependent  verb.  The 
Vulgate  version  {inci2)ientes),  copied  by  Wiclif  {beginning  to 
enter),  goes  as  much  too  far  in  one  direction  as  mtending  or 
designhig  in  the  other.  Tpidale  and  Cranmer  have  the  sin- 
gular and  now  obsolete  ellipsis,  would  into  the  temple.  There 
is  another  verb  in  the  last  clause  not  expressed  in  the  English 
version.  Ashed.,  in  the  original,  is  asked  to  receive,  a  plcv 
onasm  even  in  Greek,  but  one  of  which  there  are  examples, 
after  verbs  of  asking,  both  in  Classical  and  Hellenistic  writers. 


ACTS  3,  3-5.  '  101 

(See  below,  on  7,  46.)  A7i  alms  has  been  recrarded  by  cer 
tain  hypercritics  as  a  solecism  or  a  blunder.  The  final  letter 
is  not  here  the  sign  of  the  j^liiral  number,  but  one  of  the  con- 
sonants of  the  Greek  word  (eXe-qixoavinf)  of  which  the  English 
is  a  mere  corruption,  like  ^x^Zsy  of  ^:)ar«?y5^5.  (See  above, 
on  V.  2.) 

4.  And  Peter,  fastening  his  eyes  upon  him,  mtb 
John,  said.  Look  on  us. 

Fastening  his  eyes  is  the  same  verb  Avith  looked  stcdfastly 
in  1, 10  above.  Here  too  it  might  be  rendered  gazing  into  him. 
This  act,  though  formally  affirmed  of  Peter  only,  the  Greek 
participle  (drei/tcras)  being  singular  in  form,  is  ascril3ed  to  both 
Apostles  by  the  words,  icith  John.,  which  indeed  may  be  said 
of  both  the  verbs,  between  v>^hich  this  parenthetic  phrase  is 
placed.  It  was  Peter  that  looked  and  Peter  that  spoke,  but 
he  performed  both  acts  icith  John^  i.  e.  John  looked  and 
spoke  at  the  same  time,  or  Peter  looked  and  spoke  for  both. 
The  latter  is  more  probable,  at  least  in  reference  to  the  act 
of  speaking.  The  intent  look  may  have  been  designed  in 
part  to  ascertain  the  man's  condition  and  to  verify  his  story ; 
but  also,  no  doubt,  to  arrest  his  own  attention  and  prepare 
him  for  what  followed,  which  was  likewise  the  design  of  the 
command,  look  on  (or  at)  us. 

5.  And  he  gave  heed  unto  them,  expecting  to  re- 
ceive something  of  them. 

The  literal  meanmg  of  the  first  clause  is,  he  fixed  (or  kept 
fi,xed)  on  thetn.  "We  may  supply  either  mind  (as  in  Luke  14, 
7.  1  Tim.  4,  16)  or  eyes.,  more  probably  the  latter,  as  the 
verse  describes  his  obedience  to  the  previous  command  of 
the  Apostles,  look  on  us.  The  original  order  of  the  last 
clause  is,  cupecti^ig  something  from  them  to  receive.  This 
graphic  yet  natural  account  of  the  successive  steps,  by  which 
the  cripple  was  restored,  imparts  to  the  whole  narrative  a 
life-like  character  of  authenticity,  which  can  neither  be  mis- 
taken nor  assume^. 

6.  Then  Peter  said.  Silver  and  gold  have  T  none, 
but  such  as  I  have  give  I  thee.  In  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ  of  Nazareth,  rise  up  and  walk. 


102  *  ACTS  3,  6. 

Then^  in  the  original,  is  nothing  but  the  usual  continuative 
particle  (Se)  translated  and  at  the  beginning  of  v.  5.  Silver 
and  gold  are  put  for  money,  the  kind  of  alms  which  the  lame 
man  had  asked  (3),  and  was  expecting  to  receive  (5.)  Have 
I  none^  literally,  ^s  not  (or  exists  not)  to  me.  It  might  be 
supposed  that  we  have  here  a  literal  Greek  version  of  what 
Peter  said  in  Aramaic,  as  this  is  the  usual  periphrasis  for  the 
verb  to  have,  which  is  unkno'wn  to  the  Semitic  family  of  lan- 
guages. But  this  supposition  seems  to  be  forbidden  by 
the  occurrence  of  that  verb  in  the  next  clause.  Such 
as  I  have  might  have  been  more  briefly  and  exactly 
rendered,  ichat  I  have.  This  may  refer  specifically  to 
the  gift  of  healing  which  he  was  about  to  impart,  or  more 
generally  to  the  power  of  working  miracles  with  which 
he  was  entrusted.  But  as  this  power  does  not  appear  to 
have  been  constant  or  unlimited,  the  first  construction  seems 
entitled  to  the  preference.  Give  I  thee.,  or  retaining  still 
more  closely  the  original  arrangement,  tchat  I  have,  this  to 
thee  I  give.  The  demonstrative  pronoun  {tovto)  is  omitted  in 
our  version,  but  adds  something  to  the  force  of  the  ex- 
pression. These  authoritative  words  might  seem  to  arrogate 
an  independent  power  to  the  speaker,  but  for  what  directly 
follows.  The  apostolical  miracles  were  all  performed  in  the 
name  of  Christ,  according  to  his  own  command  and  promise 
(Mark  16,  17.  18.  John  14,  12.)  This  fact  is  expressly  men- 
tioned in  some  cases  (see  below,  on  9,  34.  16,  18),  and  suf- 
ficiently implied  in  others  (see  below,  on  9,  40.  14,  9.  10.  28, 
8.)  Our  Lord's  own  miracles  were  not  wrought  even  in  the 
name  of  God,  but  by  his  own  authority,  and  yet  in  intimate 
conjunction  with  the  Father  (John  11,  41.  42.)  I7i  the  name 
here  means  by  the  authority  of  Jesus,  '  as  his  representative 
and  in  his  behalf  I  command  thee.'  The  form  of  expression 
in  2,  38  is  somewhat  different.  The  preposition  there  usea 
(cTTt)  suggests  the  additional  idea  of  dependence  or  reliance. 
Jesus  Christ  of  Nazareth,  in  Greek,  the  Nazarene,  with  an 
allusion  to  the  contemptuous  usage  of  the  name.  (See  above, 
,on  2,  22.)  The  combination  thus  arising  is  remarkable,  and 
represents  our  Lord  as  being  at  once  the  Saviour  of  his 
people  from  their  sins  (Matt.  1,  21),  the*  Messiah  of  the 
prophecies  (Acts  2,  31),  and  yet  an  object  of  contemptuous 
neglect  (Matt.  2,  23.)  The  command,  arise  and  walk,  is 
rendered  still  more  laconic  and  abrupt  by  the  omission  of 
the  first  verb  in  some  ancient  manuscMpts  and  late  editions. 
Tn  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  the  Nazarene,  walk  ! 


ACTS   3,  1,  8.  103 

7.  And  he  took  him  by  the  right  hand  and  Kfted 
him  up,  and  immediately  his  feet  and  ancle-bones  re- 
ceived strength. 

In  this,  as  in  many  of  our  Saviour's  miracles,  the  healing 
word  was  attended  by  an  outward  act  or  gesture,  serving  to 
connect  the  miraculous  effect  with  the  person  by  whom  it 
was  produced.  (See  Matt.  8,  15.  9,  25.  14,  31.  20,  34.  Luke 
7,  14.)  Immediately^  on  the  spot,  or  on  the  matter,  as  the 
Greek  word  (7rapaxp^/^a)  might  be  etymologically  rendered. 
The  common  word  for  feet  is  not  here  used,  but  one  which 
properly  means  steps^  and  is  then  transferred  from  the  effect 
to  the  cause.  Both  senses  of  the  word  are  found  in  Sopho- 
cles. The  two  words  a7icle  hones  are  used  to  represent  one 
(a-j>vpd)  sim2)ly  meaning  ancles.  Received  strength^  literally, 
were  strengthened  or  7nade  firm.  The  particularity  of  this 
description  is  among  the  traces,  found  by  some  in  Luke's 
writings,  of  his  medical  profession. 

8.  And  he,  leaping  up,  stood  and  walked,  and  en- 
tered Avith  them  into  the  temple,  walking  and  leaping 
and  praising  God. 

His  leaping  up  or  ont  {k^aX\6\x^voi)  is  understood  by  some 
as  a  spontaneous  sign  of  joy,  which  is  undoubtedly  the  mean- 
ing of  the  uncompounded  verb  {oX\.6y,^voi)  in  the  other  clause. 
But  this  very  fact  seems  to  show,  that  the  compound  form 
rather  denotes  the  act  of  leaping  up  from  his  recumbent 
posture,  or  the  incipient  attempt  to  walk.  We  have  then  a 
regular  gradation  in  the  cure  ;  his  limbs  were  strengthened  ; 
he  sprang  up  ;  he  walked,  or  in  "Wiclif 's  antique  English, 
loandered.  The  mention  of  the  fact,  that  he  entered  with 
them  into  the  temple,  reminds  the  reader  that  all  this  oc- 
curred between  the  arrival  of  the  two  apostles  at  the  gate 
of  the  temple  and  their  passage  through  it.  The  acts  de- 
scribed in  the  last  clause  were,  at  the  same  time,  proofs  of 
his  real  restoration,  and  expressions  of  his  gratitude  and  joy. 
Wal/cing,  or  as  the  Greek  word  properly  denotes,  icalki7ig 
ahout^  walking  freely,  without  help  or  hinderance,  as  a  man 
would  naturally  do,  who  had  been  thus  restored,  as  if  to 
satisfy  himself  that  the  change  was  real,  and  to  try  the  ex- 
tent of  his  recovered  powers.    That  the  man  who  had  been 


104  ACTS  3,  8.  9.  10. 

healed  was  not  without  religious  feeling,  is  evinced  by  the 
additional  words,  pt'aisiiig  God. 

9.  And  all  the  people  saw  him  walking  and  praising 
God. 

The  repetition  in  this  verse  is  not  a  mere  tautology,  but 
doubly  emphatic,  as  implying,  on  the  one  hand,  that  the  mira- 
cle v.as  public  and  notorious,  and  on  the  other  that  it  gath- 
ered a  great  multitude,  to  whom  Peter  presently  addressed 
himself.  Here,  too,  as  in  2,  47,  all  the  people  does  not  mean 
a  promiscuous  rabble  accidentally  assembled,  but  the  chosen 
people,  the  Jewish  church  or  nation,  represented  by  the  wor- 
shippers then  gathered  at  the  temple.  As  if  he  had  said,  '  this 
miracle  was  not  done  in  a  corner,  but  in  the  holy  place  and 
in  the  presence  of  the  people,  Avho  distinctly  saw,  Avalking 
about  the  sacred  courts,  and  loudly  praising  God  for  his  re- 
covery, the  very  man  whom  they  had  seen  for  many  years 
lying  daily  at  the  entrance  of  that  very  enclosure,  a  cripple 
and  a  beggar.' 

10.  And  they  knew  that  it  was  he  which  sat  for 
alms  at  the  Beautiful  Gate  of  the  temple,  and  they  were 
filled  with  wonder  and  amazement  at  that  which  had 
happened  unto  him. 

The  material  point  here  is  the  unquestioned  identity  of 
him  who  had  experienced  the  cure.  Plad  the  miracle  been 
wrought  upon  a  stranger,  its  moral  eifect  upon  others  would 
have  been  far  less  than  it  was,  when  the  people  universally 
recognized  him  as  the  crippled  beggar,  whom  they  were  ac- 
customed to  see  lying  helpless  in  a  certain  spot,  and  that  one 
of  the  most  public  and  frequented  in  the  city.  Luke  saysj 
not  only  that  it  Avas  the  same  man,  but  that  they  kneio  or 
recognized  him  (cTreyiVwo-Kov)  as  the  same.  The  other  clause 
describes  the  natural  effect  of  this  unhesitating  recognition. 
The  sight  of  this  man  walking,  in  the  free  use  of  his  limbs, 
and  loudly  thanking  God  for  his  recovery,  excited  feelings  of 
the  highest  wonder,  not  unmixed  with  awe,  at  this  indication 
of  God's  special  presence  and  activity  among  them.  The  word 
rendered  mnazement  is  the  noun  corresponding  to  the  verb 
employed  in  2,  7  above,  and  there  explained.  The  word  trans- 
lated wonder  is  confined,  in  the  New  Testament,  to  Luke's 


ACTS  3,  10.  11.  I0i> 

wi'itings  (Luke  4,  36.  5,  9),  though  the  verbal  root  is  also  used 
by  Mark  (1,  27.  10,  24.  32.)  Though  not  so  stated  iu  the  lexi- 
cons, it  seems,  at  least  in  Hellenistic  Greek,  to  have  combined 
the  primary  idea  of  wonder  or  astonishment  Avith  that  of  fear 
or  awe,  especially  in  such  a  case  as  this,  and  others  just  re- 
ferred to,  Avhere  the  wonder  was  excited  by  a  special  indica- 
tion of  the  divine  presence.  The  strongest  English  version  is 
the  lihemish,  exceedingly  astonied  and  aghast.  What  had 
happened  or  occurred  to  him^  the  change  which  he  had  sud- 
denly experienced,  and  which  could  not  be  referred  to  any 
natural  or  ordinary  cause. 

11.  And  as  the  lame  man  which  was  healed  held 
Peter  and  John,  all  the  people  ran  together  unto  them, 
in  the  porch  that  is  called  Solomon's,  greatly  wondering. 

The  six  words,  the  lame  man  lohich  loas  heated^  correspond 
to  three  in  Greek  {jov  ta^eVro?  x^^o^)?  which  might  be  more 
concisely  rendered,  the  heeded  cripple.  Instead  of  these  words, 
some  of  the  critical  editions  have  the  simple  pronoun  (avroS^ 
he.  The  original  construction  is,  he  (or  the  healed  cripple) 
holding  Peter  and  John.  The  idea  that  he  was  afraid  of  a 
relapse  is  much  less  natural  than  that  he  clung  to  them  with 
thankfulness  and  admiration  as  the  human  instruments  of  his 
deliverance  and  restoration.  In  strict  agreement  with  the 
language  of  v.  4,  John  is  here  not  only  said  by  the  historian, 
but  acknowledged  by  the  man  himself,  to  have  jomed  in  the 
performance  of  the  miracle  ;  whether  by  word  or  deed,  or 
simply  by  his  silent  presence  and  concurrence,  must  be  matter 
of  conjecture.  It  is  a  natural,  though  not  a  necessary  suppo- 
sition, that  this  holding  fast  was  subsequent  m  time  to  the 
acts  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  verses.  After  proving  the 
reality  of  his  recovery  by  walking  and  leaping,  and  his  grati- 
tude to  God  by  vocal  praise,  he  may  have  run  back  to  his  two 
benefactors  and  embraced  them  in  the  manner  here  described. 
This  fact  may  be  mentioned  to  account  for  the  great  con- 
course which  unmediately  ensued,  and  which  perhaps  would 
have  been  less,  if  the  lively  gestures  of  the  restored  cripple 
had  not  partially  diverted  the  attention  of  the  people  from 
himself  to  the  Apostles.  It  was  to  them.,  i.  e.  to  Peter  and 
John;  that  all  the  people^  in  the  same  emphatic  sense  as*  in  v. 
9  above,  ran  together  in  or  to  (cttc)  the  porch.,  the  {one)  called 
Solomon'' s^  a  form  of  expression  which  implies  that  there  were 

VOL.  I. 5* 


106  ACTS  3,  11.  12. 

others,  but  that  this  was  the  most  noted  and  frequented. 
The  word  translated  porch  {(r-roa)  means  a  y^2jlz2^  or  a  colon- 
nade,  such  as  were  attached  to  the  Greek  temples,  and  em- 
ployed as  places  of  instruction  by  the  Greek  philosophers,  to 
one  of  whose  sects  or  schools  (the  Stoics)  this  very  word  has 
given  name.  Several  such  porticoes  or  colonnades  surrounded 
the  courts  of  Herod's  temple  at  Jerusalem,  and  one  of  them 
is  described  by  Josephus  as  "  the  work  of  Solomon."  This 
would  account  for  the  name  and  the  pre-eminence  of  this  par- 
ticular piazza,  as  implied  here  and  in  John  10,  23,  where  we 
learn  that  Christ  himself  was  accustomed  to  frequent  it.  It 
also  enables  us  to  fix  in  general  its  relative  position,  which, 
according  to  Josephus,  was  ujDon  the  eastern  side,  or,  as  some 
understand  him,  at  the  eastern  end  of  the  south  side  of  the 
area  of  the  temple.  It  is  an  old  opinion  that  the  wing  or  pin- 
nacle [TTTepvyiov)  mentioned  in  the  history  of  our  Lord's 
temptation  (Matt.  4,  5.  Luke  4,  9),  was  some  elevated  point 
of  this  same  structure.  Greatly  wondering  is,  in  Greek,  a 
single  word,  and  that  an  adjective  (eK^^a/x/?ot),  em^Dhatic  or  in- 
tensive in  its  form,  and  corresponding  in  its  etymology  and 
meaning  to  the  verb  and  noun  exj^lained  above,  on  the  pre- 
ceding verse.  Placed  at  the  close  of  the  whole  sentence,  it 
describes  the  crowd  as  still  cimcized  or  aicestrucJc^  and  implies 
that  the  effect,  at  first  produced  by  the  miracle  itself,  so  far 
from  being  weakened  or  effaced,  was  at  its  height,  when 
Peter  entered  on  the  following  discourse. 

12.  And  when  Peter  saw  (it),  he  answered  unto 
the  people,  Ye  men  of  Israel,  why  marvel  ye  at  this  ? 
or  why  look  ye  so  earnestly  on  us,  as  though  by  our  own 
power  or  holiness  we  had  made  this  man  to  walk  ? 

With  the  wisdom,  by  which  the  Apostles  after  Pentecost 
were  characterized,  Peter,  who  now  re-appears  alone  as  their 
spokesman,  when  he  saw  what  is  recorded  in  the  foregoing 
verse,  to  wit,  the  concourse  of  the  people  and  their  even  more 
than  natural  amazement^  instantly  embraced  the  opportunity 
agaiQ  to  preach  Christ  tc  a  portion  of  the  multitude  by  whom 
he  was  betrayed  and  murdered.  Answered  is  explained  by 
some  as  a  pleonastic  synonyme  of  said^  or  began  to  speah  ; 
by  others  as  relating  to  their  thoughts  or  looks.  But  al- 
though there  are  examples  of  the  latter  usage  elsewheie, 


ACTS  3.  12.  13.  107 

there  is  no  need  of  resorting  to  it  liere,  where  the  strict  sense 
is  so  perfectly  admissible  ;  the  verbal  expression  of  their  won- 
der, although  not  recorded,  being  almost  necessarily  imj^lied. 
'  When  Peter  saw  the  concourse  of  the  peoj)le  and  their 
wonder,  as  expressed  by  looks  and  words,  he  answered.'  His 
reply  was  addressed  to  the  people^  not  as  a  mere  mob,  but  as 
men  of  Israel^  assembled  at  the  sanctuary  and  representing 
the  whole  Jewish  nation.  Why  marvel  ye  at  this  {maji)^  or 
at  this  {thing)  which  has  happened  to  him,  either  of  which 
constructions  is  admissible.  The  question  does  not  mean, 
that  there  was  nothing  wonderful  in  what  had  happened,  but 
that  their  surprise  was  either  excessive  in  degree,  or  of  the 
WTong  kind,  i.  e.  disposed  to  rest  in  the  mere  instruments, 
without  looking  beyond  them  to  the  efficient  cause,  which 
last  idea  is  expressed  in  the  remainder  of  the  verse.  Look 
earnestly  is  still  the  same  verb  as  in  1,  10.  Instead  of 
poioer  and  godliness^  some  versions  have  two  synonymes, 
strength  and  pov:er.  But  extraordinary  piety  (evae/Sua)  was 
commonly  associated  with  the  idea  of  peculiar  divine  favour, 
both  being  expressed  in  Hebrew  by  the  same  word  (see 
above,  on  2,  27) ;  and  this  idea  was  near  akin  to  that  of 
superhuman  power.  As  though  ice  had  m,ade,  literally, 
as  having  made  (i.  e.  caused  or  enabled)  this  man  tu 
walk. 

13.  The  God  of  Abraham  and  of  Isaac  and  of  Ja- 
cob, the  God  of  our  fathers,  hath  glorified  his  son  Jesus, 
whom  ye  dehvered  up,  and  denied  him  in  the  presence 
of  Pilate,  when  he  was  determined  to  let  (him)  go. 

The  miracle  which  so  amazed  them  was  not  wrought  by 
magic,  or  by  any  unknoT\Ti  power,  but  by  that  of  Jehovah, 
their  own  God,  and  the  God  of  their  Fathers.  To  express 
this  idea  more  emphatically,  he  employs  the  customary  for- 
mula, in  which  the  three  first  patriarchs  are  separately  named. 
(See  Ex.  3,  6.  15.  Matt.  22,  32.)  He  thus  reminds  them  that 
tlie  new  religion  was  essentially  identical  with  the  old,  and 
that  God  had  himself  done  honour  to  the  man  whom  they 
had  crucified;  the  same  contrast  as  in  2,  24  above,  and  v.  15 
below.  Glorified^  by  this  extraordinary  miracle,  performed 
in  Christ's  name,  and  by  his  authority.  The  word  translated 
^on  is  not  the  one  commonly  so  rendered  (l-io's),  but  another 


108  ACTS  3,  13.  14. 

(Trats)  used  both  for  son  and  servant  (Matt.  8,  6.  8.  13.  14,  2, 
Luke  12,  45,  etc.)  In  this  dubious  or  double  sense,  it  is  ap. 
plied  to  David  and  to  Israel  collectively  (Luke  1,  54.  69),  as 
sustaining  both  a  servile  and  a  filial  relation  to  Jehovah,  and 
as  representatives  of  the  Messiah,  to  whom  the  title  therefore 
belongs  by  way  of  eminence.  (Compare  Matt.  12,  18,  and  see 
below,  on  v.  26.  4,  25.  27.  30.)  Delivered  up^  abandoned,  to 
his  enemies  or  executioners.  The  idea  of  treacherous  be- 
trayal, though  not  necessarily  included  in  the  meaning  of  the 
verb,  may  be  suggested  by  it,  as  in  its  application  to  Judas 
Iscariot  (Matt.  10,  4.  26,  16.  21.  46.  27,  3.  etc.)  The  essential 
idea  is  that  of  putting  into  the  power  of  another,  whether  by 
treachery  or  force  (Matt.  5,25.  10,17.19.21.  18,34.  24,9. 
10,  etc.)  The  gross  injustice  of  this  treatment  to  an  innocent 
man  was,  in  their  case,  aggravated  by  peculiar  circumstances, 
which  the  Apostle  now  proceeds  to  specify.  The  first  was 
that  it  involved  a  formal  rejection  of  their  own  Messiah.  Y^e 
de7iied  him  to  be  what  he  was,  and  what  he  claimed  to  be, 
the  Prophet,  Priest,  and  King  of  Israel.  This  was  in  fact 
disowning  and  renouncing  all  for  the  sake  of  which  the  Jews 
existed  as  a  nation.  The  second  aggravating  circumstance 
suggested  is,  that  this  rejection,  ruinous  and  wicked  as  it  was 
in  itself,  was  rendered  still  more  heinous  by  its  having  been 
committed  in  the  presence  of  a  heathen  ruler,  representing 
the  great  dominant  power  of  the  Gentile  world.  Je  denied 
him  in  the  presence  of  Pilate.  (See  John  19, 15.)  But  even 
this  was  not  all.  They  rejected  their  Messiah,  not  only  before 
Pilate,  but  against  his  will  and  better  judgment.  This  idea 
might  seem  to  be  expressed  by  the  words  translated  in  the 
presence.,  which  may  also  be  rendered  to  the  face  ;  but  Greek 
usage  is  m  favour  of  the  former  sense.  The  aggravation  now 
in  question  is  expressed  in  the  last  clause,  tohe7i  he  icas  deter- 
mined  to  let  him  go.,  or  as  Tyndale  has  it,  judged  hbn  to  he 
loosed.  The  original  construction  is,  he  (or  Jiimself)  deter^ 
minijig.,  etc.  It  is  a  shght  coincidence,  but  not  unworthy  of 
remark,  that  the  Greek  verb  here  used  {aivoXvciv)  is  the  very 
one  which  Luke  elsewhere  j)uts  into  the  mouth  of  Pilate  him- 
self (Luke  23,  16.) 

14.  But  ye  denied  the  Holy  One  and  the  Just,  and 
desired  a  murderer  to  be  granted  unto  you. 

There  is  a  double  antithesis  here,  tending  to  aggravate 


ACTS  3,  14.  15.  109 

tneir  guilt  still  further.  They  had  not  only  demanded  the 
condemnation  of  the  innocent,  but  also  the  acquittal  of  the 
guilty.  But  more  than  this  :  they  had  rejected  the  Messiah 
and  preferred  a  murderer !  (See  Matt.  27,  21.  John  18,  40.) 
Holy  and  Just  are  epithets  expressive  not  only  of  his  inno- 
cence before  the  law  (Matt.  27,  19.  24),  but  in  a  higher  sense, 
of  his  peculiar  character  and  mission  as  the  Holy  One  of  God 
(Mark  1,  24.  Luke  1,  35),  whom  the  Father  had  sanctified 
and  sent  into  the  world  (John  10,  36.)  The  Just  or  {Bight- 
eous)  One  is  a  common  description  of  our  Lord  in  the  New 
Testament.  See  below,  on  7,  52.  22,  14,  and  compare  1  John 
2,  1.  Murderer^  in  Greek,  a  man^  a  7nurderer^  the  last  noun 
having  all  the  force  of  an  adjective,  a  murderous  man,  i.  e. 
one  guilty  of  murder.  Compare  the  phrase,  me??-,  hrethfen^ 
in  1,  15  above.  Ghxmted^  not  as  an  act  of  justice,  but  of 
favour.  (See  below,  on  25,  11.  16.  27,  24,  and  compare 
Philem.  22.) 

15.  And  killed  the  Prince  of  Life,  whom  God  hatli 
raised  from  the  dead,  whereof  we  are  witnesses. 

Nay,  they  had  preferred  a  murderer,  not  only  to  an  inno- 
cent or  just  man,  not  only  to  their  own  Messiah,  but  to  the 
prince  of  life  himself  The  word  translated  prince  (apxT/^^) 
is  so  translated  also  in  5,  31  below,  but  in  Heb.  2,  10,  it  is 
rendered  captain^  and  in  Heb.  12,  2,  author.  This  example 
may  suffice  to  show  the  want  of  jDerfect  uniformity  even  in 
the  best  translations,  and  the  inexpediency  of  urging  the 
mere  language  of  such  versions,  mthout  reference  to  the 
original.  The  figure  used  is  no  more  regal  here,  or  martial 
in  Heb.  2,  10,  than  in  Heb.d2,  2,  where  there  seems  to  be  no 
trace  of  either.  Most  interpreters  prefer  the  Yulgate  version 
here  (ciuctorem)^  as  better  suiting  the  antithesis  between  the 
giver  of  life  audits  destroyer.  (See  John  1,  4.  5,  25.  10,  28.) 
This  climax  of  antitheses  and  aggravations  is  rhetorically 
striking  and  eftective.  Having  brought  it  to  its  height  in 
the  first  clause  of  this  verse,  Peter  reverts  to  the  old  contrast 
between  Christ's  treatment  by  divine  and  human  hands.  (See 
above,  on  2,  23.  24.)  They  killed  him  and  God  raised  him. 
Instead  of  the  ambiguous  term  {avicTT-qo-ev)  used  in  2,  32,  we 
have  here  the  unequivocal  though  figurative  phrase,  awakened 
{rjyupev)  from  (cimong)  the  dead^hut  with  the  same  addition 
as  in  that  case,  of  which  (or  of  whom)  loe  are  icitnesses. 


110  ACTS  3,  16. 

10.  And  his  name,  tliroiigli  foith  in  his  name,  hath 
made  this  man  strong,  whom  ye  see  and  know  ;  yea, 
the  fiiith  which  is  by  hnn  hath  given  him  this  perfect 
soundness  in  the  presence  of  you  all. 

This  verse  assigns  a  cause  for  the  effect  which  they  had 
witnessed.  The  effect  was  that  the  infirm  man  had  been 
made  strofig,  and  restored  to  perfect  soioidness.  The  Greek 
word  (oAoK/Vrypta)  orignially  means  an  undivided  or  entire  in- 
heritance, but  by  the  hiter  writers  is  applied  to  bodily  integ- 
rity and  soundness.  The  causes  to  which  this  effect  is 
ascribed  are  the  name  of  Christ  and  faith^  each  of  which 
is  mentioned  twice,  with  a  singular  complication  of  the  two 
together.  In  the  lirst  clause  it  is  expressly  said  that  the 
mwie  of  the  Lord  of  Life  had  strengthened  the  hitirm  man. 
If  the  following  words  are  exegetical  of  these,  the  meaning 
is,  his  }iame^  that  is,  faith  i?i  his  name.  But  as  the  order  of 
the  clauses  is  inverted,  and  the  preposition  (cVt)  cannot  mean 
that  is,  the  second  clause  (in  English)  must  be  understood  as 
pointing  out  the  means  by  which,  or  the  reason  for  which, 
the  name  of  Christ  had  wrought  this  wonder.  His  name,  by 
means  (or  on  account)  of  laitli  in  that  name,  had  restored 
this  nuin  to  perfect  soundness.  This  studied  repetition  of  the 
word  7iame  shows  that  it  cannot  be  a  mere  periphrasis  foT 
himself  (See  above,  on  1,  15.)  It  must  either  mean  the  in- 
vocation of  his  name,  the  fact  that  the  miracle  was  wrought 
avowedly  by  his  authority  and  delegated  power ;  or  the 
actual  exertion  of  that  power,  as  the  name  of  God  in  the 
Old  Testament  so  often  means  the  manifestation  of  his  attri- 
butes, especially  in  outward  act.  The  first  explanation  is 
more  simple  and  agrees  better  with  what  follows,  through 
faith  in  his  name,  i.  e.  through  faith  in  him  whose  name  had 
been  invoked,  or  in  whose  name,  and  by  whose  represen- 
tative, the  miracle  had  been  performed.  (See  below,  on  19, 
17.  26,  9.)  The  preposition  here  translated  through  is  not 
the  one  commonly  so  rendered  (8ta),  but  another  (cvrt)  which, 
in  such  connections,  properly  means  on  or  for.  Some  here 
explain  it,  for  faith,  i.  e.  for  the  purpose  of  producmg  faith  ; 
but  this  is  unexampled  in  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament ;. 
vv^hereas  the  preposition  often  sio-niiies  by  means  of  or  because 
of  (e.  g.  Matt.  4,  4.  19,  9.  Mark  3,  5.  Acts  4,  9.  21.  26,  6.) 
On  the  whole,  the  meaning  seems  to  be,  that  the  perfect 
restoration  of  the  (Tipple  was  the  work  of  him  in  whose 


ACTS  3,  16.  17.  Ill 

name  and  by  Avhosc  authority  the  miracle  was  wrought,  and 
that  the  condition  upon  which  he  acted,  was  tliat  of  faith  in 
nimself  as  thus  invoked.  But  tliis  faith  is  furthermore  and 
otherwise  described  as  the  faith  v'hich  is  hy  (or  through) 
him.  Tlie  only  natural  interpretation  of  these  words  is  that 
wliich  makes  tliem  represent  Christ  as  the  author  or  procuring 
cause,  as  well  as  the  end  or  object,  of  the  faith  in  question. 
(Compare  Heb.  12,  2.)  But  by  whom  was  this  faith  exer- 
cised, or  whose  faith  was  it  that  had  wi'ought  such  wondeis  : 
The  most  obvious  answer  to  this  question  would  be,  faith  on 
the  part  of  the  man  healed.  Nor  is  there  any  thing  to  con- 
tradict or  peremptorily  exclude  this  answer.  Some  of  the 
Fathers,  followed  by  some  modern  wiiters,  have  alleged  that 
in  their  early  miracles,  both  Christ  and  his  Apostles  dispensed 
with  faith  in  the  recipient  as  a  previous  condition  of  relief, 
although  they  afterwards  required  it.  But  this  is  a  mere  con- 
jecture founded  on  the  silence  of  the  narrative  in  certain 
cases.  We  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  their  practice 
was  consistent  if  not  uniform,  nor  can  any  reason  be  imagined 
why  they  should  require  faith  afterwards  and  not  at  first. 
Interpreters,  however,  have  been  commonly,  disposed  to  un- 
derstand by  laith,  in  this  place,  that  of  the  Apostles  them- 
selves, which  we  know  to  have  been  necessary,  from  the 
words  of  Christ  on  a  remarkable  occasion  (Matt.  17,  20.) 
Three  circumstances  are  insisted  on,  in  this  verse,  as  en- 
hancing the  proof  of  Divine  agency,  to  wit,  the  notoriousness 
of  the  man's  previous  condition  ((whom  ye  see  and  know)^  the 
completeness  of  his  restoration  {this  perfect  soundness)^  and 
its  publicity  {in  the  presence  of  you  all.) 

17.  And  now,  brethren,  I  wot  that  through  igno- 
rance ye  did  (it),  as  (did)  also  your  rulers. 

And  noio  is  a  common  formula,  denoting  a  transition  to 
some  other  topic,  or  the  application  of  what  has  been  already 
said.  (See  below,  on  10,  5.  13,  11.  20,  22.  22,  16.  26,  6.)  It 
may  here  be  regarded  as  equivalent  to  saying,  'and  now, 
since  you  are  guilty  of  this,  what  hope  remains  ?  '  The  appel 
lation  brethren  indicates  his  fellow-feeling  and  desire  for  their 
welfare.  (See  above,  on  1,  16.  2,  29.  37.)  Of  the  verse  itself 
two  very  different  views  may  be  taken.  The  more  obvious 
and  common  one  regards  it  as  a  merciful  concession  on  the 
part   of  the  Apostle,  an   extenuation  of  his  hearers'  guilt. 


112  ACTS  3,  17.  la 


This  is  not  only  a  natural  explanation  of  the  language,  1DU\ 
one  recommended  by  the  striking  analogy  of  Christ's  prayer 
for  his  murderers  (Luke  23,  34),  and  Paul's  declaration  with 
respect  to  himself  (l  Tim.  1,  13.  Compare  1  Cor.  2,  8,  and 
see  below,  on  13,  27.)  To  meet  the  objection,  that  whatever 
palliation  might  exist  in  the  case  of  the  multitude,  there 
could  be  none  in  the  case  of  their  rulers,  it  has  been  pro- 
posed to  construe  the  words  thus,  that  through  ignorance  ye 
did  as  your  rulers  did^  thus  making  a  most  marked  distinction 
between  these  two  classes.  But  this  construction,  though 
ingenious,  is  forbidden  by  the  phrase  as  also  {oxnrep  kul), 
which  indicates  comparison,  not  contrast.  If  then  the  verse 
contains  a  concession  or  extenuation,  it  must  comprehend  the 
rulers  no  less  than  the  people.  Some  deny,  however,  that 
there  is  any  such  extenuation,  and  suppose  the  ignorance 
here  mentioned  to  be  merely  that  of  God's  design  in  suffering 
all  these  things  to  happen.  '  I  know  that  you  acted  in  igno- 
rance of  God's  design,  and  so  did  your  rulers  ;  but  this  only 
aggravates  your  guilt  without  retarding  the  complete  exe- 
cution of  his  plan ;  he  has  effected  his  own  purpose,  and 
now  calls  you  to  rej^entance.'  This  view  of  the  passage 
avoids  the  difficulties  of  the  other,  and  agrees  w^ell  with  the 
next  verse,  which  undoubtedly  describes  what  had  taken 
place  as  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy.  The  principal  objections 
are  the  restricted  sense  of  ignorance,  which  it  assumes,  and 
the  parallel  passages  before  referred  to.  Wot  is  the  old  Eng- 
lish verb  to  Icnoio,  of  which  loist  and  to  toit  are  other  forms, 
unwitting  and  unioittingly  derivatives.  Through  ignorance, 
or  more  literally,  according  to  (or  in  proportion  to)  your  igno- 
rance. Miulers  is  Cranmer's  version  ;  Wiclif  has  princes,  Tyn- 
dale  heads,  the  Geneva  Bible  governors. 

18.  But  those  tilings,  wliich  God  before  had  showed 
by  the  mouth  of  all  his  prophets,  that  Christ  should 
suffer,  he  hath  so  fulfilled. 

The  death  of  Christ,  although  a  crime  on  your  part,  was 
the  execution  of  a  divine  purpose,  as  predicted  by  the  ancient 
prophets.  Before  had  showed  is  more  exactly  rendered  in 
the  Rhemish  version,  by  a  single  word,  as  m  Greek,  fore- 
showed.  The  Greek  verb,  however,  does  not  mean  to  show, 
but  to  announce  beforehand.  By  the  mouth,  a  common  phi-ase 
for  instrumental  agency,  when  exercised  in  words,  as  by  the 


ACTS  3,  18.  19.  113 

handis,  where  the  reference  is  to  act.  (See  above,  on  1, 16. 
2,  23.)  All  his  prophets^  i.  e.  the  whole  series  of  Old  Testa- 
ment Prophets,  viewed  as  one  organic  body  or  official  corpo- 
ration. Whether  each  particular  book  contams  such  a  pre- 
diction, is  a  question  of  no  more  importance  than  the  question 
whether  one  is  found  m  every  chaj^ter  or  on  every  page.  The 
ancient  prophets  constitute  one  great  representative  body 
(see  l)elow,  on  v.  22),  whose  utterances  are  not  to  be  viewed 
as  merely  those  of  indi\iduals.  The  obvious  meaning  is  that 
the  point,  to  Avhicli  the  whole  drift  of  prophetic  revelation 
tended,  was  the  death  of  Christ.  For  the  New  Testament 
usage  of  the  verb  to  suffer^  see  above,  on  1,  3.  So  fulfilled^  in 
the  origmal,  fidfilled  so,  or  as  Tyndale  has  it,  thusicise,  i.  e.  in 
the  great  events  which  you  have  lately  witnessed. 

19.  Repent  ye,  therefore,  and  be  converted,  that 
your  sins  may  be  blotted  out,  when  the  times  of  refresh- 
ing shall  come  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord ; 

The  first  verb  is  here  exactly  rendered  by  the  Yulgate 
(jDoe?^^Yem^?^^),  and  somewhat  less  so  by  its  English  copyist? 
(be  repentant,  he  penitent),  and  yet  the  Greek  word  (/xeravoi}- 
o-are)  is  identical  v/ith  that  in  2,  38.  The  exhortation  to  repent 
is  here  accompanied  by  one  to  he  converted,  or  Hterally  to 
turn,  the  Greek  verb  being  of  the  active  form.  It  may  either 
be  taken  as  the  same  thing  Avith  repentance  ;  or  as  the  outward 
change  of  life  corresponding  to  the  inner  change  of  mind ;  or 
as  a  generic  term,  denoting  the  entire  moral  revolution,  of 
which  repentance  is  a  necessary  part.  (See  above,  on  2,  38.) 
Listead  of  remission,  we  have  here  the  stronger  figure  of  ab- 
stersion or  obhteration.  The  Greek  verb  is  apphed  by  Xeno- 
phon  to  the  erasure  of  a  name  from  a  catalogue  or  roll.  It 
may  here  denote  the  cancelling  of  charges  against  any  one, 
and  thus  amounts  to  the  same  thing  with  the  remission  of 
2,  38.  The  metaphor  of  blotting  out  occurs  several  times  else- 
where (e.  g.  Ps.  51,  9.  109, 14.  Isai.  43,  25.  Jer.  18,  23.  Col. 
2,  14.)  The  word  translated  times  is  the  same  that  is  so  ren- 
dered in  1,  7.  It  may  here  denote,  still  more  specifically,  set 
times  or  appomted  times.  The  Greek  word  tor  refreshing 
admits  of  a  twofold  derivation  (from  ^v^  and  ^vxoi),  according 
lo  which  it  properly  denotes  either  cooling  and  relief  from 
heat,  or  the"  recovery  of  breath  after  exhaustion.  In  either 
CAse,  the  essential  meaning  is  the  same,  although  the  first  ia 


114  ACTS  3,  19. 

the  idea  naturally  suggested  by  the  English  word  refreshing. 
What  is  here  meant  is  relief  from  toil  or  suffering,  not  without 
an  implication  of  more  positive  enjoyment.  What  times  are 
thus  described  depends  upon  a  previous  question  as  to  the  con- 
nection of  the  clauses  and  the  grammatical  construction  of  the 
sentence.  Wheoi  corresponds  to  a  compound  particle  in  Greek 
(oTTws  av),  which  always  elsewhere  (Matt.  6,  5.  Luke  2,  35 
Acts  15,  17.  Rom.  3,  4),  hke  the  uncompoimded  form  (ottws), 
when  followed  by  the  same  mood  (Matt.  2,  8.  23.  5,  45.  6,  4. 
16.  18.  8,  17),  denotes  the  final  cause  or  the  effect  {so  that,  in 
order  that.)  This  gives  a  perfectly  good  sense,  so  far  as  this 
verse  is  concerned,  to  wit  that  their  repentance  would  be  fol- 
lowed by  relief  from  the  sense  of  guilt  and  God's  displeasure. 
But  this  reference  to  personal  experience  may  seem  to  be  ex- 
cluded by  the  promise  of  Christ's  commg  in  the  next  verse, 
which  can  hardly  be  applied  to  any  thing  internal.  In  order 
to  harmonize  the  two  expressions,  our  translators  make  the 
particle  a  particle  of  time,  showing  ichen  their  sins  were  to  be 
blotted  out.  But  this,  besides  its  violation  of  a  imiform  and 
constant  usage,  has  the  grave  inconvenience  of  postponing 
their  repentance,  or  at  least  their  absolution,  to  some  fiiture 
time,  if  not  to  what  we  are  accustomed  to  call  Christ's  second 
advent.  How  could  the  Apostle  urge  them  to  repentance  by 
a  promise  that  their  sins  should  be  cancelled  as  soon  as  the 
times  of  refreshing  were  come  ?  Even  if  the  interval  were 
very  short,  this  limitation  of  the  offer  of  forgiveness  is  entirely 
at  variance  Avith  the  whole  analogy  of  faith  and  scripture. 
This  translation,  therefore,  which  has  been  copied  fi-om  the 
Vulgate  into  all  the  Enghsh  versions,  must  be  set  aside  upon 
a  double  ground  ;  because  it  violates  the  usage  of  the  language 
to  obtain  a  sense  which  in  itself  is  not  a  good  one.  If  the 
stress  of  exegetical  necessity  were  such  as  to  justify  a  forced 
interpretation  of  the  particle  (oVw?  av),  it  would  be  better  to 
take  it  in  the  sense  of  now  that,  and  refer  it  to  the  present  or 
the  past,  and  not  the  future.  'Repent  and  be  converted  to  the 
blotting  out  of  your  sins,  now  that  times  of  refreshing  (i.  e.  the 
long  expected  times  of  the  Messiah)  are  come  from  the  presence 
of  the  Lord,  and  (now  that)  he  has  sent,  etc'  This  would 
render  the  whole  passage  clear  and  coherent,  if  it  could  be 
philologically  justified.  But  as  our  task  is  to  interpret  what 
is  written,  in  accordance  with  the  general  laws  and  usages  of 
language,  we  are  bound  to  reject  every  explanation  which 
supposes  oTTtos  av  to  be  a  particle  of  time,  until  some  clear  ex- 


ACTS  3,  19.  20.  US' 

ample  of  that  sense  can  be  discovered.  Coming  back,  then, 
to  the  only  sense  justified  by  usage,  we  must  understand  the 
times  of  refreshing  (or  relief)  to  be  in  some  way  suspended 
upon  their  repentance  as  a  previous  condition.  From  the 
presence  of  the  Lord  (i.  e.  of  God  in  Christ)  denotes  the  source 
of  the  refix3shing  to  be  heavenly  and  divine,  and  the  authority, 
on  which  the  promise  rests,  to  be  absolute  and  sovereign. 
The  divine  face  or  presence,  in  such  cases,  may  suggest  the 
idea  of  his  court  or  royal  residence,  from  which  his  messengers 
go  forth  to  execute  his  orders.  (Compare  Mattt.  18, 10.  Luke 
1,  19.  16,  22.  Heb.  1,  14.)  Lookmg  simply  at  this  verse,  the 
times  of  refreshing^  as  observed  already,  might  denote  nothing 
more  than  the  relief  from  pain,  and  other  pleasurable  feelings, 
which  accompany  repentance  and  conversion.  Whether  any 
other  meaning  is  required  by  the  context,  is  a  question  which 
can  be  solved  only  by  determimng  the  sense  of  the  next 
verses. 

20.  And  he  shall  send  Jesus  Christ,  which  before 
was  preached  unto  j'^ou. 

The  objections  to  this  version  have  been  already  stated,  as 
well  as  to  the  version,  now  that  he  has  sent,  etc.,  which  last 
would  otherwise  afford  the  best  sense.  The  only  grammatical 
construction,  as  we  have  already  seen,  is  so  that  (or  i?i  order 
that)  he  mag  setid  Jesus  Christ,  here  presented  as  a  motive  or 
a  reason  for  repenting  now.  But  to  what  sending  do  the 
words  refer  ?  Not  to  our  Lord's  first  advent  or  appearance 
as  a  Saviour,  which  had  already  taken  place,  but  either  to  his 
visible  return  hereafter,  or  to  his  presence  in  the  hearts  of  in- 
dividuals. The  last  agrees  best  with  the  context,  as  a  motive 
to  immediate  personal  repentance,  but  the  first  with  aU  analogy 
and  usage,  as  the  Father  is  not  elsewhere  said  to  send  tbe 
Son,  as  he  is  said  to  send  the  Spirit,  into  the  hearts  of  men,  as 
a  matter  of  inward  and  invisible  experience,  but  into  the 
world,  as  a  literal  external  fact  of  history.  (Compare  Gal.  4, 
4  and  4,  6.  See  also  Luke  4,43.  John  1,10.16.17.  3,34.  5, 
36.  6,14.  8,42.  9,39.  10,36.  11,27.42.  12,46.  16,28.  17,3. 
8.18.21.23.25.  18,37.  20,21.  1  John  4,  9.  10.  14.  1  Tim.  1, 
15.  Heb.  10,  5.)  Whatever  be  the  sense  of  the  particular  ex- 
pressions, it  is  clear  from  the  whole  drift  of  the  discourse,  that 
Peter  here  connects  the  times  of  refreshing  and  the  mission 
of  the  Saviour,  as  identical,  or  at  the  least  coincident  events. 


116  ACTS  3,  20.  21. 

with  the  repentance  and  conversion  which  he  urges  on  his 
Jewish  hearers.  This  being  held  fast,  as  undoubtedly  involved 
in  every  possible,  that  is  to  say,  grammatical  construction  of 
his  language,  some  latitude  of  judgment,  if  not  license  of  con- 
jecture, may  be  tolerated  as  to  the  question  w^herem  the 
connection  of  these  things  consists.  In  this  sense,  and  to  this 
extent,  the  passage  may  be  paraphrased  as  follows.  '  I  exhort 
you  to  repentance  and  conversion,  and  I  hold  up,  as  induce- 
ments to  these  necessary  acts,  the  delightful  feelmg  of  refresh- 
ment and  relief,  w^hich  has  been*rendered  possible  by  God's 
gift-  of  his  Son  to  be  a  Saviour,  and  of  his  actual  appearance 
for  that  purpose,  in  accordance  with  a  previous  divine  appoint- 
ment '  or  divine  announcement,  according  as  the  common  text 
(7rpoK€Kr)pvyixevov,  preached  or  proclamied  before),  or  that  of  the 
old  manuscripts  and  latest  editors  (7rpoKe;)(etpta-/xeVoi/,  appointed 
or  ordained  before)  may  be  preferred. 

21.  Whom  (the)  heaven  must  receive,  mitii  the  times 
of  restitution  of  all  things,  which  God  hath  spoken  by 
the  mouth  of  all  his  holy  prophets,  since  the  world 
began. 

That  the  tunes  m  question  were  still  distant,  is  implied  in 
the  accomit  here  given  of  Christ's  local  habitation  during  the 
mterval.  The  before  heaven^  although  not  so  distinguished  in 
the  English  Bible,  is  supphed  by  the  translators,  not  only  with- 
out reason,  but  almost  in  violation  of  our  idiom,  which  prefixes 
the  article  only  to  the  plural  number  of  this  noun  (the  heavens.) 
Its  insertion  here  would  scarcely  deserve  notice,  if  it  did  not, 
by  its  A^ery  smgularity,  occasion  a  false  emphasis,  of  which  the 
original  knows  nothing.  The  construction  of  this  first  clause 
is  ambiguous,  as  heaven  may  be  either  the  subject  or  the 
object  of  the  verb  receive.  The  latter  is  preferred  by  Luther, 
Tyndale  and  Cranmer,  who  must  receive  heave7i^  i.  e.  take 
possession  of  it,  occupy  it,  hold  it.  But  the  Greek  verb 
(Se^ao-^at)  does  not  mean  actively  to  take  or  seize,  but  pas- 
sively or  simply  to  receive  or  accept  what  is  given  by  another. 
This  sense  though  not  irreconcilable  with  Luther's  explana- 
tion, agrees  much  better  with  the  one  now  commonly  adoptecL 
*  In  the  mean  time,  i.  e.  until  God  shall  send  Christ  and  the 
times  of  refreshing  from  his  presence,  he  is  conmiitted  to  the 
heavens  as  a  sacred  trust  to  be  delivered  up  hereafter.'     The 


ACTS  3,  21.  117 

^-wi^teV-i  )t^init7  {hd^  i>c'^:>tes  an  actual  necessity  already  in  exist- 
enorr,  ki^^i  txn-Aiig  fi-om  tVoa's  settled  and  avowed  plan  of  pro- 
cedure. (See  alDove,  on  1^  ib.  i^l.)  By  heaven  we  are  here  to 
understand  that  place,  or  portion  of  the  universe,  where  God 
manifests  his  presence  to  glonied  saints  and  holy  angels. 
Beyond  this  relative  description,  we  have  no  account,  and  can 
have  no  cwiception,  of  its  locality.  To  true  believers  the 
most  interesting  attribute  of  heaven  is  the  one  here  specified, 
to  wit,  that  the  incarnate  Son  or  v^tod  resides  there.  He 
then  adds  a  third  description  of  the  times,  to  which  he  had 
directed  their  attention.  Besides  bein^*  tunes  of  refreshing 
(19),  and  of  the  Saviour's  mission  (20),  ttiey  are  also  to  be 
tiines  of  7'estitutio7i.  The  Greek  word  is  tr\e  noun  correspond- 
ing to  the  verb  explained  above,  on  1,  tt.  The  indefinite 
expression  is  defined  by  the  specification  oi  the  things  to  be 
restored,  namely,  all  things  lohich  God  horn  spoken^  etc. 
This  has  led  some  to  take  restitution  in  the  sens^  c^i  fulfilment 
or  accon%ijlishment^  as  being  more  appropriate  \o  prophecy. 
But  this,  besides  being  destitute  of  all  authority  iVom  usage, 
does  not  even  suit  the  context ;  for  the  thmgs  to  be  restored 
or  reinstated  are  not  the  predictions  but  the  things  predicted. 
As  to  the  phrases,  hy  the  inoiith  and  all  the  prophets^  see 
above,  on  v.  18.  They  are  here  called  holy^  not  so  much  in 
reference  to  personal  as  to  official  character.  As  Aaron,  in 
liis  character  of  High  Priest,  was  the  saint  or  holy  one  of  God 
(Ps.  106,  16),  notwithstandhig  his  infirmities  and  eriors,  so  the 
Prophets  are  collectively  described  as  holy^  not  as  Having  all 
been  emuiently  pious,  but  as  having  all  been  consecrated,  set 
apart,  devoted,  to  a  special  service,  in  discharge  oi  which,  and 
not  as  individuals,  they  uttered  the  predictions  here  referred 
to.  Or  rather,  to  retain  the  Apostle's  strong  and  favourite 
expression,  it  was  by  their  mouth  that  God  spoke.  Since  the 
vmrld  hegan  is  not  a  version  but  a  paraphrase.  Of  old  or 
from  eternity  would  be  more  faithful  to  the  form  of  the  origi- 
nal (ctTr'  atcovos),  which  is  found  only  in  Luke's  writmgs  (see 
below,  on  15,  18,  and  compare  Luke  1,  70),  as  the  correlative 
phrase  (ets  rov  alihva)  is  a  favourite  idiom  of  John's  (see  John 
4,  14.  6,  51.  58,  and  passim.)  But  the  first  is  too  weak,  and 
the  last  too  strong,  in  this  connection.  The  Greek  noun 
means  duration,  and  especially  indefinite  duration,  sometimes 
rendered  more  specific  by  the  context  in  particular  cases, 
wliich  require  the  sense  of  age,  hfetime,  dynasty,  or  other 
gi-eat  but  variable  periods  (Matt.  12,  32.  13,  39.  40.  49.  24,  3 


118  ACTS  3,  21.  22. 

Mark  10,  30.  Luke  16,  8.  18,  30.  20,  3i.  35.)  Sometimes,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  absence  of  all  Umitation,  if  not  something 
still  more  positive,  imparts  to  it  the  full  sense  of  eternity 
(Mark  3,  29.  Rev.  1,  6.  18,  and  passim.)  Li  this  case  it  may 
either  be  indefinitely  taken  as  equivalent  in  meaning  to  our 
legal  phrase,  from  time  immemorial^  or  as  a  relative  expres- 
sion having  more  specific  reference  to  the  oX<siv  or  cycle  of  the 
old  economy,  already  virtually  at  an  end  and  now  fast  verging 
to  a  visible  conclusion.  All  the  holy  prophets  from  (the  be- 
ginnmg  of  the  prophetic)  period  or  dispensation^  Avhich  is 
tantamount  to  saymg,  ever  since  there  were  prophets  in  exist- 
ence. This  is  clearly  the  opposite  extreme  to  the  final  resti- 
tution mentioned  just  before,  which  does  not  therefore  mean 
the  restoration  of  all  moral  agents  to  a  state  of  perfect  hohness 
and  happiness,  but  simply  the  completion  or  the  winding  up 
of  that  stupendous  plan  which  God  is  carrying  into  execution, 
with  a  view  to  his  o^vn  glory  and  the  salvation  of  his  elect 
people.  This  consummation  may  be  called  a  restitution^  in 
allusion  to  a  circle  which  returns  into  itself,  or  more  probably 
because  it  really  involves  the  healing  of  all  curable  disorder 
and  the  restoration  to  communion  with  the  Deity  of  all  that 
he  has  chosen  to  be  so  restored.  Till  this  great  cycle  has 
achieved  its  revolution,  and  this  great  remedial  process  has 
accomplished  its  design,  the  glorified  body  of  the  risen  and 
ascended  Christ  not  only  may  but  must,  as  an  appointed 
means  of  that  accomphshment,  be  resident  in  heaven,  and  not 
on  earth. 

22.  For  Moses  truly  said  unto  the  fathers,  A  pro- 
phet shall  the  Lord  your  God  raise  up  unto  you,  of 
your  brethren,  Hke  unto  me :  him  shall  ye  hear  in  all 
things,  whatsoever  he  shall  say  unto  you. 

The  for  coimects  this  with  the  20th  verse,  and  verifies  the 
statement  there  made,  that  Jesus  Christ  had  been  fore- 
ordained of  God.  The  intervening  verse  is  a  digression  or 
parenthesis  relatmg  to  his  present  and  future  abode.  This  is 
the  fourth  prophecy  expounded  in  this  book  by  Peter ;  so  far 
was  he  from  deahng  in  mere  narrative  or  exhortation.  (See 
above,  on  1,  20.  2,  16.  25.  34.)  It  is  also  his  third  exegetical 
argument  in  proof  of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus.  The  passage 
quoted  is  still  found  in  Deut.  18, 15. 19.     The  omission  of  the 


ACTS   3,  22.  23.  119 

words  to  the  fathers  in  the  oldest  manuscripts  is  therefore  of 
no  moment.  The  quotation  is  made,  with  scarcely  any  variar 
tion,  from  the  Septuagint  version.  The  substitution  of  tho 
plural  {you)  for  the  singular  {thee)  not  only  leaves  the  sense 
unaltered,  but  is  fully  justified  by  a  similar  change  in  tho 
original.  The  truth  is  that  the  singular  form  there  has  refer- 
ence to  Israel,  as  a  collective  or  ideal  person.  The  objection 
to  the  application  here  made  of  this  prophecy,  derived  from 
the  original  connection,  may  be  obviated  by  extending  it  to 
the  whole  series  or  succession  of  prophets,  representing  Christ 
and  terminating  in  him.  The  correctness  of  the  Messianic 
application,  here  and  in  7,  37  below,  is  confirmed  by  the  his- 
torical fact,  that  tliis  prophecy  was  never  understood  to  be 
fulfilled  in  any  intervening  prophet,  and  that  when  John  the 
Baptist  came,  he  was  asked,  not  only  whether  he  was  Christ, 
i.  e.  the  Messiah,  or  Ehjah  his  forerunner,  but  also  whether 
he  was  "  the  prophet,"  or,  as  the  Enghsh  versions  render  it, 
"that  prophet,^'  the  august  but  nameless  subject  of  this  very 
promise.  (See  John  1,  21.  25.)  The  resemblance  between 
Christ  and  Moses,  as  prophets,  mediators,  legislators,  founders 
of  new  dispensations  etc.  is  obvious  enough.  The  superiority 
of  Christ  is  argumentatively  urged  in  the  epistle  to  the  He- 
brews (3,  3-6.)  It  may  be  doubted,  however,  whether  like 
me,  in  the  prophecy,  was  not  designed  to  qualify  the  words 
immediately  preceding,  '  one  of  yourselves,  belonging  to  your 
OAvn  race  and  lineage,  as  I  do.'     {Truly  (/>tej^),  as  in  1,  5.) 

23.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  that  every  soul, 
which  will  not  hear  that  Prophet,  shall  be  destroyed 
from  among  the  people. 

This  is  merely  the  conclusion  of  the  passage,  the  essentia 
part  of  which  was  quoted  in  the  verse  preceding.  (See  above, 
on  2,  25.)  At  the  same  time,  it  served  to  remind  the  hearers, 
that  this  question  of  Messiahship  was  no  vain  speculation,  but 
a  practical  question  of  the  utmost  moment  to  themselves. 
(See  above,  on  2,  19-21.)  That  prophet  is,  in  this  case,  the 
oxact  translation  of  the  Greek  words  {tov  irpo<j>riTov  kmivov.) 
The  phrase  with  which  the  quoted  passage  closes,  I  will 
require  it  of  him^  is  a  pregnant  one,  and  means  far  more  than 
strikes  the  eye  at  once.  To  express  this  latent  meaning,  the 
Septuagint  version,  Iicill  take  vengeance^  is  by  no  means  too 
strong.     In  the  verse  before  us,  the  Apostle  brings  it  out  still 


120  ACTS  3,  23.  24.  25. 

more  emphatically,  by  emplopng  the  customary  legal  formula 
for  the  highest  theocratical  punishment,  that  of  excision  from 
the  church  or  chosen  j)eople.  (See  Ex.  12,  15.  19.  Lev.  7, 
20-27.) 

24.  Yea,  and  all  the  prophets,  from  Samuel  and 
those  that  follow  after,  as  many  as  have  spoken,  have 
likewise  foretold  of  these  days. 

It  was  not  Moses  only  that  predicted  the  times  of  the 
Messiah,  but  the  whole  series  of  the  Hebrew  prophets.  This 
idea  is  expressed  in  a  peculiar  but  intelligible  manner,  all  the 
prophets  from  Samuel  and  those  that  folloio  after.  Placmg 
Moses  by  himself  as  the  Prophet  by  way  of  eminence,  he 
sums  up  all  the  rest  as  Samuel  and  his  successors.  Samuel  is 
mentioned  (here  and  in  Ps.  99,  6)  as  the  next  great  prophet 
after  Moses,  the  first  who  remarkably  resembled  him  in  per- 
sonal character  and  official  position,  and  whose  doiegated 
work  was  to  bring  back  the  theocracy,  as  near  as  might  be, 
to  the  ground  where  Moses  left  it,  and  from  which  it  had  de- 
clined during  the  agitated  period  of  the  judges  and  the  inter- 
rujDtion  of  prophetic  inspiration  (1  Sam.  3,  1.)  The  words 
and  {froon)  those  that  folloio  after  seem  to  express  no  more 
than  had  been  expressed  already  in  the  words  all  the  prophets 
from  (or  after)  Samuel ;  but  this  redundancy  rather  makes 
the  meaning  clearer  than  obscures  it. 

25.  Ye  are  the  children  of  the  prophets,  and  of  the 
covenant  which  God  made  with  our  fathers,  saying  unto 
Abraham,  And  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  kindreds  of  the 
earth  be  blessed. 

But  why  should  he  refer  to  prophecies  so  ancient  ?  What 
had  the  contemporary  race  to  do  with  the  old  prophets  and 
the  Abrahamic  covenant  ?  The  answer  to  this  question,  which 
might  readily  arise  in  any  mind  not  thoroughly  imbued  with 
the  true  theocratical  spirit,  was  exceedingly  important,  to 
define  the  scope  of  the  Old  Testament  economy,  as  temporary 
m  its  OAvn  duration,  but  tending  to  ulterior  and  general  re- 
sults. The  Apostle  teaches  them  that  they  (aitd  those  who 
should  come  after  them)  were  included  in  the  scope  of  the  old 
prophecies  and  the  stipulations  of  the  patriarchal  covenant. 


ACTS  3,  25.  20.^  121 

This  is  expressed,  in  a  peculiar  oriental  form,  by  calling  them 
the  sons  of  the  prophets.  This  cannot  mean  literal  descend- 
ants, which  could  be  true  of  only  some  among  them,  and  is 
wholly  inapplicable  to  the  next  phrase,  (so7is  or  children)  of  the 
covenant.  The  only  sense  that  will  apply  to  both  is  tliat  of  a 
hereditary  interest  and  intimate  relation  to  the  promises  and 
prophecies.  (Compare  Matt.  8,  12.  Heb.  6,  17.  Gal.  3,  29.) 
The  form  of  expression  may  have  been  suggested  by  the  men- 
tion of  Samuel,  and  the  historical  association  between  his  name 
and  the  prophets  over  whom  he  presided  (1  Sam.  10,  5.  10),  and 
who  seem  to  have  been  afterwards  called  sons  of  tlie  prophets 
(1  Kmgs  20,  35.  2  Kings  2,  3.  4,  1.  5,  22.  6,  1.  9,  l),  an  ex- 
pression commionly  supposed  to  denote  pupils  (whence  the  com- 
mon though  not  scriptural  phrase,  "  schools  of  the  prophets,") 
but  admitting  also  of  a  very  diiterent  interpretation,  namely, 
that  of  adlierents  to  the  prophets  of  Jehovah  under  the  schis- 
matical  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes.  With  the  same  essential 
meaning,  that  of  intimate  relation  and  hereditary  interest,  the 
Jews  whom  Peter  was  addressing  might  be  justly  called  sons 
of  the  prophets  and  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant.  This  wide 
scope  of  the  promise  he  establishes  by  citing  the  assurance 
three  times  made  to  Abraham  (Gen.  12,  3.  18,  18.  22,  18),  and 
repeated  successively  to  Isaac  and  Jacob  (Gen.  26,  4.  28,  14), 
that  in  their  seed  aU  the  nations  of  the  earth  should  be  blessed. 
The  substitution  of  kmdreds  or  families  for  tribes  or  nations, 
has  of  course  no  effect  upon  the  sense.  As  to  the  seeming  in- 
consistency of  these  views  with  Peter's  scruples  at  a  later 
period,  see  above,  on  2,  39,  and  below,  on  10,  34.  35. 

26.  Unto  you  first  God,  having  raised  up  his  Son 
Jesus,  sent  him  to  bless  you,  in  turning  away  every  one 
of  you  from  his  iniquities. 

As  the  large  views  opened  in  the  foregoing  verse  might 
seem  to  reach  beyond  the  case  of  those  to  whom  he  now  ad- 
dressed himself,  the  Apostle  here  returns  to  his  immediate 
subject,  by  adding  to  the  certain  truth,  that  the  promise  was 
to  all  the  nations  of  the  earth,  the  no  less  certam  truth,  that 
it  was  first  to  Israel.  The  expression  is  the  same  that  Paul 
employs  in  teaching  the  same  doctrine,  to  the  Jew  first  and 
also  to  the  Greek  (Rom.  1, 16.  2,  9. 10.)  Raised  up  is  an  am- 
biguous Greek  verb  (di/ao-rrjo-as),  which  sometimes  means  to 
toring  into  existence,  sometimes  to  raise  from  the  dead.  (For 
VOL.  T. — 6. 


122  ACTS  3,  26. 

examples  of  both  senses  in  the  same  context,  see  above,  on 
2,  30-32.)  If  the  former  meaning  be  adopted  here,  the  next 
clause  {sent  him^  etc.)  must  relate  to  our  Lord's  first  advent ; 
if  the  latter,  to  his  coming  by  his  Spirit  after  his  ascension. 
It  is  not  impossible  that  here,  as  in  multitudes  of  other  cases, 
both  ideas  were  meant  to  be  suggested,  but  mth  difierent 
degrees  of  prominence.  (See  above,  on  2,  33.)  The  meaning 
of  the  verse  will  then  be,  that  what  God  had  promised  to  the 
fathers  he  had  performed  to  the  children  by  the  advent, 
death,  and  resurrection  of  his  Son  in  the  form  of  a  servant, 
whose  original  appearance  was  for  their  salvation,  and  al- 
though rejected  and  despised  by  many,  was  renewed  ui  what 
they  had  so  lately  witnessed,  the  ofier  of  forgiveness  being 
still  made  on  the  same  conditions  to  all  who  would  consent 
to  turn  aw^ay  from  their  iniquities.  The  Vulgate  and  some 
other  versions  make  the  verb  {aiTO(TTpi<^€Lv)  reflexive  or  m- 
transitive,  in  every  o?ie^s  turning  or  converting  himself.  But 
the  common  version,  w^hich  makes  every  one  the  object,  not 
the  subject  of  the  verb,  is  simpler  and  in  keeping  with  the 
uniform  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  as  to  God's  efficiency  in 
man's  conversion.  (For  a  Hke  ambiguity  of  syntax,  see 
above,  on  v.  21,  and  for  the  pregnant  sense  of  TratSa,  on  v.  13.) 
This  last  clause  is  mtended  to  preclude  the  favourite  and  fatal 
Jewish  error,  that  the  patriarchal  promises  and  covenants 
would  be  fulfilled  to  Abraham's  descendants,  irrespective  of 
their  personal  repentance  and  conversion.  If  saved  at  all,  it 
must  be  from  their  sins,  not  in  them.  God  had  sent  his  Son 
to  bless  them,  not  by  conniving  at  their  guilt  or  leaving  it 
unpunished,  but  by  turning  every  one  away  ffom  his  iniqui- 
ties. To  bless  you,  literally,  blessing  you,  in  the  very  act  of 
executing  this  commission.  A  comparison  of  this  discourse 
with  that  recorded  in  the  second  chapter  will  disclose  that 
mixture  of  variety  and  sameness,  which  is  the  surest  test  of 
authenticity.  Had  both  discourses  been  identical  in  sentiment 
and  structure,  or  had  both  been  utterly  unhke,  the  case  would 
have  been  equally  suspicious.  But  when  both  agree  and 
difi'er,  just  as  any  speaker  may  agree  and  differ  with  himself 
on  different  occasions ;  when  we  find  the  same  unstudied  but 
effective  rhetoric  and  logic,  the  same  mode  of  interpreting 
the  prophecies,  the  same  mode  of  appealing  to  the  conscience, 
yet  without  a  trace  of  studied  repetition,  and  with  marked 
peculiarities  of  thought  and  style,  distinguishing  the  tAvo  dis- 
courses from  each  other,  not  as  incompatible  or  uncongenial, 


ACTS  3,  26.  123 

but  as  harmonious  products  of  the  same  mind  acting  under 
varied  circumstances  and  excitements ;  the  hypothesis  of 
forgery  or  fraudulent  imitation  becomes  vastly  more  incredi- 
ble than  that  of  genuineness,  oneness,  and  identity  of  author- 
ship.  And  this  again  creates  a  general  presumption  in  behalf 
of  Luke's  habitual  fidelity  as  a  reporter. 


CHAPTEK  lY. 


As  the  foregoing  chapter  describes  the  occasion  of  the  first 
assault  upon  the  church  fi-om  without,  so  this  describes  the 
assault  itself  (1-22)  with  its  efiects  (23-37.)  The  discourse  of 
Peter,  occasioned  by  the  healing  of  the  lame  man,  rouses  the 
jealous  indignation  of  the  Jewish  rulers,  and  especially  the 
party-spirit  of  the  Sadducees  (1,  2),  in  consequence  of  which 
the  two  Apostles  are  imprisoned  (3),  but  a  multitude  again 
embrace  the  new  religion  (4.)  Being  questioned  by  the  San- 
hedrim (5-7),  Peter  ascribes  the  miracle  to  Christ  (8-10),  the 
Messiah  whom  they  had  rejected,  but  whom  God  had  exalted 
(11)  and  revealed  as  the  true  and  only  Saviour  (12.)  Aston- 
ished at  their  boldness  (13),  and  embarrassed  by  the  presence 
of  the  man  who  had  been  healed  (14),  the  rulers,  in  a  private 
conlerence  (15),  confess  the  fact  of  the  miracle  (16),  but  deter- 
mine to  arrest  its  effects  (IV),  by  forbidding  them  to  preach 
Christ  (18.)  Peter  and  John,  leaving  the  rulers  to  judge 
for  themselves,  announce  their  own  determination  to  obey  God 
rather  than  man  (19.  20.)  The  rulers  threaten  but  dare  not 
punish  them,  on  account  of  the  jDublicity  and  popularity  of  what 
had  happened  (21.  22.)  Reporting  all  this  to  their  brethren 
(23),  Peter  and  John  unite  with  them  in  prayer  to  Gcd,  as  the 
Creator  (24),  and  as  the  author  of  an  ancient  prophecy  (25),  in 
which  the  rulers  of  the  earth  are  represented  as  arrayed  against 
the  Lord  and  his  Anointed  (26),  and  Avhich  they  acknowledge 
to  have  been  fulfilled  by  the  enemies  of  Christ  (27),  who  thus 
imintentionally  executed  the  divine  plan  (28.)  The  petition 
of  the  prayer  is,  that  God  would  embolden  them  (29)  and 
glorify  their  Master,  by  continued  tokens  of  his  favour  and  his 
presence  (30)  ;  which  petition  was  granted,  both  by  sensible 


124  ACTS  4,  1. 

signs  and  spiritual  influences  (31 .)  After  this  triumphant  issue 
of  the  first  trial  through  which  the  infant  church  was  called  to 
pass,  the  historian  describes  her  as  still  perfectly  united  and 
inspired  -svith  love  (32),  sustaiaed  by  apostolical  testimony  and 
divine  grace  (33),  sharing  each  others'  secular  advantages 
(34),  under  the  guidance  and  control  of  the  Apostles  (35.) 
This  general  description  is  exemplified  by  two  particular  cases, 
one  of  which  illustrates  the  reality  and  power  of  the  ruling 
principle  (36.  37) ;  the  other,  of  an  opposite  description,  is 
recorded  in  the  following  ch-apter. 

1.  And  as  tliey  spake  unto  the  people,  the  Priests, 
and  the  Captain  of  the  Temple,  and  the  Sadducees,  came 
upon  them  — 

It  was  not  to  be  expected  that  the  freedom  of  speech  exer- 
cised by  Peter,  in  addressing  the  multitude  assembled  at  the 
temple,  would  be  sufiered  to  continue  undisturbed  by  the  au- 
thorities. Came  upon  them  (iTria-Trjo-av)^  implying  sudden 
movement  or  appearance,  is  a  favourite  verb  of  Luke's,  occur- 
ring only  thrice  in  any  other  part  of  the  New  Testament. 
(See  below,  6,12.  10,17.  11,11.  12,7.  17,5.  22,13.20.  23, 
11.  27.  28,  2,  and  compare  Luke  2,  9.  38.  4,  39.  10,  40.  20, 1. 
21,  34.  24,  4.)  The  2^f^^ests,  i.  e.  those  then  on  duty  in  the 
temple,  who  were  bound  ex  officio  to  prevent  all  disturbance 
m  the  sacred  precincts.  This  was  especially  incumbent  on  a 
certain  body  of  Levites,  whose  commander  is  called  in  the 
Apocrypha  the  prefect  (Trpoo-TarT^?)  of  the  temple.  A  similar  office 
may  be  traced  m  the  Old  Testament.  (See  Jer.  20, 1.  1  Chron. 
9, 11.  2  Chron.  31, 13.)  The  term  used  here  (o-rpaxTTyos)  is  a 
mihtary  one,  from  which  some  have  inferred,  that  the  person 
meant  was  a  Roman  officer,  the  commander  of  the  garrison 
stationed  in  the  castle  of  Antonia,  at  the  northwest  corner  of 
the  temple-area.  (See  below,  on  21,  31.)  But  in  the  latter 
chapters  of  the  book,  this  officer  is  repeatedly  designated  by 
another  title  (xtXtap^os),  which  is  also  applied  by  John  (18, 12) 
to  the  leader  of  the  Roman  detachment  that  arrested  Jesus. 
Nor  is  it  probable  that  the  religious  scruples  of  the  Jews, 
which  were  always  respected  by  their  conquerors,  would  have 
Buffered  a  heathen  solcher  to  act  as  the  guardian  of  their  tem- 
ple. The  application  of  the  title  general  or  captain  (arpaT-qyos) 
to  officers  not  strictly  mihtary  is  justified,  not  only  by  the 
{luthority  of  Josej^lius,  who  uses  it  to  designate  the  levitical 


ACTS  4,  1.  125 

officer  described  above,  but  also  by  classical  usage.  Having 
been  extended  from  the  generals,  properly  so  called,  to  the 
ministers  of  war  in  Athens,  it  was  afterwards  applied  to  other 
pubhc  functionaries,  and  is  used  by  Polybius  to  describe  the 
Roman  Consuls.  As  there  may  have  been  several  such  offi- 
cers, who  served  at  the  temple  in  turn,  there  is  no  need  of 
putting  a  different  sense  on  the  plural  form  in  Luke  22,  4.  52 
Some  have  attempted  to  distinguish  the  several  motivos  of 
the  parties  joining  in  this  opposition,  by  supposing  that  the 
officer  of  the  watch  objected  merely  to  the  breach  of  order  in 
the  sacred  place,  the  priests  to  the  assumption  of  the  teachers' 
office  by  unauthorized  j)ersons  (Matt.  21,  23),  and  the  Saddu- 
cees  to  the  doctrine  taught  by  the  Apostles,  as  described  more 
particularly  in  the  next  verse.  The  Sadducees  were  not 
merely  a  religious  sect,  but  a  political  party.  They  differed 
from  the  Pharisees,  not  only  as  to  certain  doctrines  and  the 
obligation  of  the  oral  law,  but  also  in  their  national  and  patri- 
otic  feelings,  and  their  greater  disposition  to  assimilate  them- 
selves to  the  surrounding  nations.  The  very  name  Pharisee 
most  probably  means  Separatist,  not  in  the  modern  sense,  nor 
in  allusion  to  their  personal  strictness  and  austerity,  but  rather 
as  defining  the  position  which  they  occupied  in  reference  to 
other  nations,  by  insistmg  upon  every  thing  peculiar  and  dis- 
tinctive, and  affecting  even  to  exaggerate  the  difference  be- 
tween the  Gentiles  and  themselves.  This,  which  was  at  first, 
i.  e.  after  the  return  from  exile,  and  even  later,  under  the  first 
Maccabees  or  Hasmonean  princes,  the  true  national  and  theo- 
cratical  spirit,  by  degrees  became  corrupt,  by  losing  sight  of 
the  great  end  for  which  the  old  economy  existed,  and  worship- 
ping the  Law,  with  its  traditional  additions,  as  a  system  to  be 
valued  for  its  own  sake,  and  designed  to  be  perpetual.  The 
opposition  to  this  great  national  party  arose  chiefly  from 
the  Sadducees,  a  name  of  doubtful  oiigin,  but  commonly 
traced,  either  to  the  name  of  a  founder  (Zadok),  or  to  a  He- 
brew word  denoting  righteous  (p*^"^^).  At  first,  they  seem  to 
have  objected  merely  to  the  narrow  nationality  of  their  oppo- 
nents, and  to  have  aimed  at  smoothing  down,  as  far  as  possi- 
ble, the  points  of  difference  between  Jews  and  Gentiles,  com- 
bining the  Mosaic  faith  ^Yith.  the  Greek  philosophy  and  civili- 
ation,  and  renouncing  whatever,  in  their  own  manners  and 
eligion,  appeared  most  offensive  or  absurd  to  cultivated  Gen- 
tiles. But  this  dangerous  process,  of  assimilation  could  not  be 
carried  far  witho'it  rejecting  matters  more  essential ;  as  we 


126  ACTS  4,  1.  2. 

find  that  the  Sadducees  did,  not  only  with  respect  to  the  ora. 
law  or  Pharisaical  tradition,  but  also  with  respect  to  several 
miportant  doctrines,  and,  as  some  think,  to  the  greater  part 
of  the  Old  Testament ;  but  this  point  is  disputed.  The  Sad- 
ducees here  mentioned  may  have  been  private  individuals,  but 
were  more  probably  in  public  office,  as  we  know  from  other 
parts  of  this  same  history,  that  the  power  was  divided  between 
these  two  great  j^arties.     (See  below,  on  5,  IV.  23,  6.) 

2.  Being  grieved  that  they  taught  the  people,  and 
preached  through  Jesus  the  resurrection  from  the  dead. 

This  verse  assigns  the  motive  for  the  attack  mentioned  in 
the  one  preceding.  It  has  been  disputed  whether  two  dis 
tinct  subjects  of  complamt  are  here  assigned,  or  only  one  ;  and 
also  whether  the  whole  verse  relates  to  all  the  parties  named 
before,  or  the  first  clause  to  the  Priests  and  the  last  clause  to 
the  Sadducees.  According  to  the  latter  view,  the  Priests 
were  offended  that  the  Apootles  should  presume  to  teach  at 
all,  the  Sadducees  only  that  they  taught  a  certain  doctrine. 
The  principal  objection  to  this  viev/  of  the  passage  is,  that  it 
assumes  an  artificial  structure  of  the  sentence,  and  distin- 
guishes too  narrovvly  between  the  Priests  and  Sadducees  as 
independent  agents,  whereas  they  may  have  been  to  some 
extent  identical.  (See  below,  on  5, 17.)  Being  grieved^  or, 
as  Tyndale  has  it,  talcing  it  grievously^  though  not  an  incor- 
rect, is  an  madequate  version  of  the  Greek  word  (8ta7rovoi;/>(,ej/ot), 
which  has  the  same  sense  here  as  in  the  classics,  namely,  hard- 
worhed^  exhausted  by  labour,  and  then,  by  a  natural  transition, 
wearied,  out  of  patience,  from  the  long  continuance  or  fre- 
quent repetition  of  the  cause,  whatever  it  might  be.  In  this 
case,  they  were  tired  of  hearing  the  Apostles,  and  resolved 
that  they  should  teach  no  longer.  (See  below,  on  16,  18,  and 
compare  the  Septuagint  version  of  Gen.  6,  6.  Ecc.  10,  9.)  The 
people^  i.  e.  the  chosen  people,  the  people  of  God,  as  m  2, 47, 
3,  9. 11. 12.  23.  4,  1.  Yfhat  offended  them  was  not  the  shnple 
act  of  popular  instruction,  but  the  assumption  of  a  right  to  be 
masters  of  Israel  (John  3, 10)  or  the  Jewish  Church.  Breached 
is  too  specific,  from  its  familiar  associations,  to  convey  the 
exact  sense  of  the  Greek  verb  (KarayyeAAetv),  which  means 
simply  to  announce  or  proclaim.  Through  Jesus  seems  to 
mean  that  they  proclaimed  a  general  resurrection,  to  be  ef- 
fected or  obtained  through  him.     But  this,  though  true  and 


ACTS  4,  2.  127 

sufficiently  taught  elsewhere  (e.  g.  1  Cor.  15, 21.  1  Thess.  4, 
14),  is  not  the  meaning  of  the  words  here  used,  but  rather  that 
they  taught  the  doctrine  of  a  resurrection,  as  proved  and  ex- 
em  pUfied  in  that  of  Christ.  So  Paul  says  (1  Cor.  4,  6),  "that 
ye  might  learn  in  us,''^  i.  e.  by  our  example.  The  double  article 
in  Greek,  before  and  after  resurrection,  has  a  force  entirely 
lost  in  the  translation,  as  implying  that  the  noun  is  ambiguous, 
and  that  its  sense  must  be  determined  by  what  follows.  Like 
its  verbal  root  (explained  above,  on  2,  24),  it  may  be  appUed 
to  any  rise,  or  any  act  of  raising ;  as  it  is  by  Plato  to  the  act 
of  rising  up  before  one  as  a  token  of  respect ;  by  Sophocles  to 
rising  out  of  sleep ;  by  Demosthenes  to  the  rebuilding  of  a 
wall.  It  is  true  that  in  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  it 
always  means  the  resurrection  from  the  dead ;  but  it  is  not 
surprising  that  Luke,  who  wrote  for  Gentile  readers,  should 
preclude  mistake  by  this  express  specification,  both  here  and 
in  Luke  20,  35,  where  the  use  of  the  article  is  precisely  simi- 
lar. As  if  he  had  said  :  '  they  taught  the  doctrine  of  a  rising, 
not  from  sleep,  or  from  a  low  condition,  or  the  hke,  hutfro^n 
tJie  deacV  This  last  is  not  an  abstract  term,  as  it  seems  to  have 
come  to  be  in  English,  and  as  Tyndale  formally  translates  it 
{death),  but  strictly  means, /rom  {among)  the  dead,  from  their 
society,  or  from  a  share  in  their  condition.  The  very  fact 
which  they  proclaimed,  to  ^Y\t,  that  Christ  had  risen  from  the 
dead,  was  fatal  to  one  favourite  dogma  of  the  Sadducees  (Matt. 

22,  23.  Mark  12,  18.  Luke  20,  27.  Acts  23,  8.)  This  accounts, 
not  only  for  their  wrath  on  this  occasion,  but  for  the  general 
and  otherwise  inexplicable  fact  that,  while  the  Pharisees  are 
most  conspicuous  and  active  in  the  Gospels,  as  the  opponents 
of  our  Lord  hunself,  the  Sadducees  became  so  in  the  history 
before  us,  as  the  enemies  and  pei*secutors  of  his  servants. 
They  had  httle  fault  to  find  with  the  new  doctrine,  so  long  as 
it  denounced  the  pharisaical  traditions  and  corruptions,  but  as 
soon  as  the  hated  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  had  been  prac- 
tically verified  by  that  of  Christ,  they  lost  all  patience  with 
the  men  who  preached  it,  and  became,  for  a  time  at  least,  the 
most  mahgnant  of  their  persecutors.     (See  below,  on  5,  17. 

23,  6.)  Less  obvious  and  certain,  although  not  entirely  desti- 
tute of  truth,  is  the  distinction,  made  by  some,  between  the 
Sadducees  as  m;^re  disposed  to  quarrel  Avith  Christ's  doctrine, 
and  the  Pharisees  with  his  morahty,  especially  his  treatment 
of  themselves  and  then*  pretensions. 


128  ACTS  4,  3.4. 

^  3.  And  they  laid  hands  on  them,  and  put  (them)  m 
hold  unto  the  next  day  ;  for  it  was  now  eventide. 

Their  first  step  was  to  arrest  and  imprison  the  two  Apos 
ties,  not  as  a  punishment,  but  for  safe-kee^nng,  which  wouiti 
not  be  an  erroneous  translation  of  the  Greek  phrase  {eU  Trjp-q- 
trtv),  although  most  interpreters  prefer  the  local  sense  oipriso7i^ 
on  account  of  the  parallel  expression  in  5,  18,  where  this  sense 
is  supposed  to  be  required  by  the  addition  of  the  epithet  com- 
mon or  public.  The  English  version  there  has  prison^  but 
here  hold  (Wiclif,  loard)^  which  corresponds  almost  exactly  to 
the  strict  sense  of  the  Greek  word.  JJ^ito  the  next  day^  or  the 
m,orrow.  The  original  expression  is  an  adverb  (avptov,  to-mor- 
row) used  to  quahfy  the  word  day  understood.  Eventide  is  a 
fine  old  English  word,  now  obsolete  m  prose,  equivalent  to 
evening-time.  This  last  clause  may  imply  that  it  was  either 
unlawful  or  unusual,  or  more  probably  than  either,  incon- 
venient to  assemble  the  Sanhedrim  at  night,  or  on  so  short  a 
notice.  As  they  entered  the  temple  at  the  ninth  hour  (v.  1), 
i.  e.  about  three  in  the  afternoon  (see  above,  on  3,  1),  and  as 
Peter's  discourse  was  probably  much  longer  than  the  report 
of  it  here  given  (see  above,  on  2,  40),  it  must  have  been  near 
evening,  hi  the  strict  sense  of  the  term,  as  denoting  dusk  or 
twilight.  There  is  no  need,  therefore,  of  resortmg  to  its  wider 
usage,  as  denoting  the  vWiole  afternoon,  or  to  the  Hebrew 
reckoning  of  a  double  evening  (c;';'3-irn)  between  noon  and 
night.  See  Ex.  12,  6.  16,  12.  29,"39.'41.  30,  8.  Lev.  23,  5. 
Num.  9,  3.  28,  4,  m  all  which  places  the  phrase  translated  in 
the  evening  or  at  even^  MteraUy  means,  between  the  {two)  eve- 
nings, 

4.  Howbeit  many  of  them  which  heard  the  word 
believed ;  and  the  number  of  the  men  was  about  five 
thousand. 

The  preachers  were  arrested,  but  as  Paul  expresses  it, 
(2  Tim.  2,  9),  the  word  of  God  was  not  bound.  Li  order  to 
bring  out  this  antithesis  more  clearly,  the  translators  have  em- 
ployed the  strong  adversative  howheit^  i.  e.  notwithstanding  or 
in  spite  of  all  this,  to  express  the  continuative  particle  (Se), 
wliich  is  not  always  even  rendered  hut.  (See  above,  on  1,  7.) 
The  v:ord  is  a  phrase  several  times  used  in  this  book  for  the 
Gospel,  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  the  new  rehgion.     (See  below 


ACTS   4,  4.  129 

6,4.  8,4.  11,19,  14,25.  16,6.  17,11.)  Still  more  frequent 
are  the  phrases  word  of  God  or  of  the  Lord^  of  which  this  is 
an  abbreviation,  (See  below,  v.  31.  6,  2.  7.  8,  14.  25.  11,  1. 
12,24.  13,5.7.44.40.48.49.  15,35.30.  10,17,13.  18,11.  19, 
10.  20.)  Other  forms,  occasionally  used  in  the  same  sense_ 
are  icord  of  scdvation  (13,  20),  word  of  grace  (14,  3.  20,  32), 
loordofthe  Gos2Jel  {15,1.)  This  sense  is  perfectly  appropri- 
ate here,  but  less  specific,  and  perhaps  less  natm-al-,  than  that 
of  speech,  discourse,  which  also  occurs  elsewhere.  (See  below, 
6,  v>.  14,  12.  20,  7.)  The  effect  here  spoken  of  is  not  ascribed 
to  the  hearing  of  the  Gospel  elscAvhere  or  before,  but  to  the 
hearing  of  it  as  it  had  been  now  proclaimed  by  Peter.  (See 
above,  on  2,  41.)  Believed,  i.  e.  received  it  as  true,  and 
trusted  in  the  Saviour  whom  it  offered.  This  is  one  of  the 
standmg  scriptural  expressions  fOr  the  saving  change  described 
in  modern  religious  phraseology  as  getting  religion,  becoming 
j)ious,  becoming  a  Christian,  or  obtaining  a  hope,  with  respect 
to  all  which  harmless  but  needless  innovations  on  the  primi^ 
tive  church  dialect,  it  may  well  be  said,  "  the  old  is  better" 
(Luke  5,  39.)  Two  questions  have  been  raised,  as  to  the  num- 
ber stated  in  the  last  clause  of  the  verse.  The  first  is,  whether 
it  includes  the  three  thousand  of  2,  41,  or  is  to  be  added  to 
that  number,  making  a  total  of  about  eight  thousand.  The 
former  is  more  probable,  for  two  reasons ;  first,  because  the 
sentence  otherwise  contains  an  enfeebling  tautology,  which 
ought  not  to  be  assumed  without  necessity.  The  first  clause 
is  then  unmeaning  and  superfluous — 'many  believed,  five 
thousand  believed ' — whereas,  upon  the  other  supposition,  the 
two  clauses  are  ahke  essential  to  the  meaning — '  many  were 
added  upon  this  occasion,  so  that  the  whole  amoimted  to  five 
thousand.'  Another  reason  for  preferring  this  construction  is 
derived  from  the  Greek  verb  (eyerjy^T^),  which  does  not  mean 
simply  that  the  number  was,  but  that  it  became  (or  came  to 
'be)  five  thousand,  a  distinction  often  overlooked  in  the  imme- 
diate English  versions.  (See  above,  on  1,  16.  19.)  Those 
founded  on  the  Vulgate,  such  as  WicHf 's  and  the  Rhemish, 
here  as  elsewhere,  coj^y  it  almost  too  closely  (factiis  est,  was 
wxide.)  There  is  less  force  in  the  argument,  which  some  have 
urged,  that  Solomon's  porch  (3,  11)  could  not  probably  con- 
tarn  more  than  five  thousand  persons.  It  is  equally  improba< 
ble  that  it  could  contain  so  many,  and  still  more  so,  that  the 
crowd  was  compressed  into  the  porch  itself,  instead  of  filling 
the  vast  court  into  v\'hich  it  opened.     (See  above,  on  2,  2.) 

VOL.  I.— 6* 


130  ACTS  4,  4. 

Another  gratuitous  assumption  in  this  argument  is,  that  all 
the  previous  converts  were  still  present  in  Jerusalem  and  at 
the  temple,  whereas  many  of  the  foreign  Jews  had  probably 
gone  home ;  unless  we  add  a  third  assumption,  namely,  that 
what  is  here  recorded  took  place  immediately  after  Pentecost, 
if  not  in  the  evenmg  of  the  day  itself.  But  this,  besides  being 
perfectly  gratuitous,  and  therefore  just  as  easily  denied  as 
affirmed,  is  hardly  consistent  with  the  general  description 
above  given  (2,  42-47)  of  the  condition  of  the  church,  not 
merely  on  the  day  of  its  erection,  but  from  that  day  onward, 
during  a  time  long  enough  at  least  for  the  display  of  benevo- 
lent aifections  there  described,  as  well  as  to  justify  the  use  of 
the  expression  that  "the  Lord  added  daily  to  the  church" 
(2,  47.)  A  more  legitimate  though  not  conclusive  argmnent, 
additional  to  those  drawn  from  the  language  of  the  verse  is, 
that  if  five  thousand  were  converted  by  this  one  discourse,  its 
effect  far  transcends  that  of  the  one  at  Pentecost,  which  never- 
theless seems  to  be  recorded  as  a  signal  and  unique  result, 
intended  to  do  special  honour  to  the  organization  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church.  The  second  question  in  relation  to  this  number 
is,  whether  it  includes  both  sexes,  or  is  limited  to  males.  In 
favour  of  the  latter  supposition  is  the  uniform  Greek  usage, 
in  which  the  generic  and  specific  terms  for  men  (av^pwTrot  and 
aj/Spes)  are  seldom  interchanged.  The  absolute  force  of  this 
consideration  is  impaired  by  the  occurrence  of  exceptions, 
some  of  which  are  very  doubtful,  in  the  Greek  of  the  New 
Testament  (e.  g.  Matt.  14,35.  Luke  11,31.32.  Rom.  4,8. 
James  1,  12.  20.  23),  as  well  as  in  the  classics  (e.  g.  m  the  fa- 
vourite Homeric  phrase,  dvSpwv  re  ^caiv  re,  and  the  no  less 
favourite  Platonic  one,  ttus  dvTJp,  in  the  sense  of  every  one  or 
every  body.)  This  usage,  although  rare,  is  sufficient  to  destroy 
the  necessity  of  holding  fast  the  strict  sense  here,  if  exegeti- 
cally  inconvenient.  Of  those  who  so  explain  it,  some  under- 
stand it  as  implying  what  is  expressed  m  Matt.  14, 21,  "five  thou- 
sand men  besides  women  and  children'^''  (compare  15,  38),  which 
would  raise  the  aggregate  much  higher.  Others,  with  far 
less  j)robability,  assume  that  the  first  converts  may  have  been 
literally  all  men  in  th,:;  strict  sense,  especially  if  Solomon's 
porch,  as  some  allege,  was  not  accessible  to  female  worship- 
pers, who  were  restricted  to  the  Court  of  the  Women,  as 
they  are  at  this  day  to  the  latticed  galleries  of  the  syna- 
gogues. The  ambiguous  term  souls  in  2, 41,  and  the 
explicit  ones,  both  men  and  wo7nen  in  5,  14,  have  been  used 


ACTS   4,  4.5.  131 

as  arguments  on  both  sides  of  the  question ;  some  alleg- 
ing that  the  very  mention  of  both  sexes  in  the  latter  case 
shows  clearly  that  the  verse  before  us  has  respect  to  only  one, 
while  others  no  less  plausibly  contend,  that  the  laconic  and 
ambiguous  -  expression  here  must  be  explained  by  the  une- 
quivocal language  of  the  parallel  passage.  The  whole  ques- 
tion is  more  curious  than  important,  as  we  know  that  there 
were  multitudes  of  female  converts  not  long  after  (5,  14)  ; 
and  even  on  the  lowest  computation  of  the  numbers  in  the 
case  before  us,  the  increase  of  the  Church  Avas  wonderfully 
great  and  rapid.  The  insertion  of  this  parenthetical  state- 
ment, m  a  narrative  of  suifermg  and  persecution,  suggests  in 
a  most  striking  and  exhilarating  manner  God's  sovereign  in- 
dependence, even  of  his  chosen  and  most  highly  honoured 
instruments. 

5.  And  it  came  to  pass  on  the  morrow,  that  their 
rulers  and  elders  and  scribes  — 

The  sentence  is  completed  in  the  next  verse.  The 
first  phrase  {it  came  to  pass),  as  common  in  history  as  the 
future  (it  shall  come  to  2^cfss)  in  prophecy  (see  above,  on  2, 
17),  here  indicates  the  resumption  of  the  main  subject,  after 
the  brief  digression  in  v.  4.  On  (he  morrow,  a  similar  ex- 
pression to  the  one  in  3,  1,  might  be  rendered  towards  the 
tnorning  or  the  next  day,  implying  that  the  Sanhedrim  sat 
very  early,  but  is  usually  understood  as  referring  merely  to 
the  day  and  not  the  hour.  Their  nders  may,  without  the 
least  absurdity,  refer  to  the  apostles  or  disciples,  who  were 
still  subjects  of  the  Jewish  government ;  but  most  interpreters 
assume  a  prolepsis  or  anticipation  of  something  mentioned 
afterwards.  But  as  the  Jews  are  not  particularly  named  there, 
it  is  better  to  assume  a  free  construction  with  a  reference 
to  the  people  generally,  or  their  representatives  mentioned 
in  the  first  verse.  A  similar  use  of  the  same  pronoun 
(avToJi/)  without  an  expressed  antecedent,  occurs  in  Matt.  4, 
23.  In  the  use  of  the  third  person  {their  rulers)  some  find  an 
indication,  that  Luke  wrote,  in  the  first  instance,  not  for  Jews 
but  Gentiles.  Riders  is  best  explained  as  a  generic  term,  in- 
cluding the  two  clauses  mentioned  afterwards,  elders  and 
scribes.  These  are  two  of  the  orders  represented  in  the 
national  council,  which  is  said  to  have  been  composed  of 
seventy-one  persons  in  imitation,  if  not  in  actual  continuation, 
of  the  seventy  elders  who  assisted  Moses  (Num.  11,16.)   From 


132  ACTS  4,  5. 

Synedrion^  the  Greek  word  meaning  Session  or  Consistory 
and  frequently  applied  to  this  later  council  (v.  15.  5,  21.  27. 
34.  41.  5,  12.  15.  22,  30.  23,  1.  6.  15.  20.  23.  28.  24,  20),  comes 
the  Hebrew  or  Aramaic  fomi  Scmhedri'm^  by  which  it  is 
now  usually  designated.  The  High  Priest  was  the  President 
of  this  assembly.  (See  below,  on  7,  1.  23,  2.)  By  elders  some 
have  understood  the  rulers  of  the  synagogues  (Mark  5,  22. 
Luke  8,  41,  49.  13,  14.  See  below,  on  13,  15.  18,  8.  17.)  But 
this  was  only  a  later  designation,  or  perhaps  a  real  modifica- 
tion, of  an  older  institution,  that  of  the  theocratical  eldership, 
composed  of  the  hereditary  chiefs  of  tribes  and  heads  of 
families,  the  natural  as  well  as  legal  representatives  and 
rulers  of  the  people  under  the  patriarchal  system,  which 
seems  to  have  survived  all  changes  in  the  Hebrew  state  from 
its  foundation  to  its  downfall,  and  may  still  be  traced  in  other 
nations,  bemg  nothing  more  than  an  extension  of  domestic 
government,  and  therefore  scarcely  more  destructible  or 
mutable  than  the  family  relation  upon  which  it  rests.  The 
elders,  who  composed  a  part  of  this  ,great  council,  sat  there 
as  the  proper  representatives  of  Israel,  considered  as  the 
church  or  chosen  people.  The  Scribes  of  the  New  Testament 
are  sometimes  said  to  have  been  clerks  or  secretaries  to  the 
magistrates,  appointed  to  assist  "them  in  the  administration 
of  the  laws.  But  this  was  a  Roman  custom,  rendered  neces- 
sary by  the  military  profession  of  most  provincial  governors  ; 
v/hereas  among  the  Jews  no  such  necessity  existed.  The 
more  common  exj^lanation  is  that  they  were  copyists  or  tran- 
scribers of  the  law.  To  this  it  has  been  objected,  that  the 
copies  of  the  law  in  circulation  were  scarcely  numerous 
enough  to  occupy  so  large  a  body  of  Scribes  as  seems  to 
have  existed  in  our  Saviour's  time  (Luke  5,  17.)  It  is  also 
objected  that  this  theory  leaves  unexplained  the  authority 
evidently  exercised  by  these  men  (Matt.  23,  2),  which  was 
far  too  great  to  be  wielded  by  mere  coppsts,  even  of  the 
Scriptures.  It  is  said,  in  reply,  that  they  were  also  expound- 
ers of  the  law  ;  but  this  (it  is  alleged)  has  no  necessary  con- 
nection with  the  business  of  transcription.  The  truth  lies, 
not  between  the  two  contending  parties,  but  on  both  sides. 
The  Scribes  were  copyists,  but  they  were  more.  They  were 
official  guardians  or  conservators  of  the  sacred  text,  in 
which  work  they  succeeded  Ezra,  the  first  Scribe,  in  this 
sense,  upon  record.  (See  Ezra  7,  6. 10.  11. 12.  21.  ISTeh.  8,  4. 
9.  13.    12,  26.)     As  he  was  commissioned  to  complete  the 


ACTS  4,  5.  133 

canon  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  so  the  later  Scribes  were  to 
preserve  it  unimpaired  from  generation  to  generation.  This 
could  only  be  secured  by  the  most  scrupulous  transcription, 
and  accordingly  the  care  which  has  been  exercised  in  this 
way  by  the  Jewish  Scribes  is  utterly  unparalleled.  Even 
what  seems  to  be  their  superstitious  and  absurd  excess  is  only 
the  exaggeration  and  abuse  of  a  most  wise  precaution.  The 
severe  rules  by  which  new  Hebrew  manuscripts  are  still 
judged,  and  even  the  most  beautiful  condemned  if  blemished 
by  a  few  mistakes,  are  relics  of  an  immemorial  custom,  and 
bear  witness  to  the  care  Avith  which  the  Hebrew  text  has 
been  preserved  for  ages.  Thus  a  transcriber  of  the  law,  or 
he  who  officially  had  charge  of  its  transcription,  was  some- 
thing very  different  from  an  ordinary  copyist.  His  work  was 
not  mechanical  but  critical,  analogous  to  that  which  now  en- 
grosses some  of  the  most  learned  men  of  modern  times.  The 
qualities  required  for  this  work  were  at  the  same  time  quali- 
fications for  the  work  of  exposition.  Thus  the  Scribes  were 
naturally  the  interpreters,  as  well  as  the  conservators  of 
•Scripture,  and  are  therefore  frequently  called  laioyers  (vo/xtKot), 
not  in  the  modern  sense  of  advocates  or  aids  in  litigation, 
but  in  that  of  jurists,  men  officially  employed  about  the  law, 
and  sometimes  doctors  (i.  e.  teachers)  of  the  law,  (vo/xoStSao-- 
KaA-ot),  both  which  expressions,  chiefly  used  by  Luke,  would 
seem  to  be  convertible  mth  Scribes.  (Comj^are  Matt.  5,  20. 
Mark  2,  16.  Luke  5,  30  with  Luke  5,  17.  7,  30.  14,  3,  and  see 
below,  on  5,  34.)  Now  as  the  Jewish  state  was  a  theocracy, 
in  which  law  and  religion  were  identified,  these  lawyers  and 
doctors  of  the  law  were  at  the  same  time  theologians  and 
religious  teachers.  That  this  important  office  or  profession 
should  be  represented  in  the  Sanhedrim,  is  far  less  surprising 
than  that  English  prelates  should  be  members  of  the  House 
of  Lords.  Such  being  the  office  of  the  Scribes,  even  on  the 
supposition  that  its  primary  function  was  the  preservation 
and  perpetuation  of  the  sacred  text,  there  can  be  no  need  of 
discarding  the  common  derivation  of  the  name,  in  Hebrew, 
Greek,  and  Latin,  from  the  verb  to  icrite,  in  order  to  derive 
it  from  a  noun  denoting  scripture  (">SD,  ypa/jt/xara),  and  so  to 
make  it  mean  directly  scripturist  or  hiblist,  an  idea  necessarily 
suggested  by  the  nature  of  the  office,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  but  not  necessarily  included  in  the  meaning  of  the  name. 
These  two  classes,  the  elders  or  hereditary  representatives, 
and  the  scribes  or  spiritual  guides  of  Israel,  are  here  put  foJ* 


134  ACTS  4,  5.6. 

the  Sanhedrim,  of  which  they  formed  a  necessary  part.  The 
omission  of  the  priests,  as  a  class,  in  this  description,  may  be 
explained  from  their  having  been  already  mentioned  as  prime 
movers  in  this  whole  transaction  (v.  1),  whose  presence  there- 
fore would  be  taken  for  granted  as  a  matter  of  course ;  or  from 
the  fact  that  many  of  the  Scribes  were  priests,  as  the  same 
essential  functions  were  discharged,  in  ancient  times,  by  the 
sacerdotal  tribe  of  Levi  (Deut.  33,  10.  2  Chron.  17,  8.  9), 
and  Ezra  himself  was  both  a  Priest  and  Scribe  (Ezra  7, 
11.12.) 

6.  And  Annas  the  High  Priest,  and  Caiaphas,  and 
John,  and  Alexander,  and  as  many  as  were  of  the  kin- 
dred of  the  High  Priest,  were  gathered  together  at 
Jerusalem. 

Having  described  the  Sanhedrim  in  general  terms,  by 
naming  two  of  its  constituent  orders,  Luke  mentions  sepa- 
rately several  of  its  most  distinguished  members  present 
upon  this  occasion,  beginning  mth  the  High  Priest,  as  the 
President.  But  a  difficulty  here  arises  from  the  fact,  that 
Caiai^has,  who  is  knoA^ii,  from  Josephus  as  well  as  from  the 
Gospels  (Matt.  26,  3.  5.  John  11,  49.  18,  18.  24),  to  have  been 
the  actual  high  priest  at  this  time,  is  named  in  the  second 
place  without  a  title,  while  his  predecessor  Annas  is  named 
first,  and  expressly  called  High  Priest.  The  confusion,  which 
undoubtedly  exists  in  relation  to  this  matter,  is  not  the  fault 
of  the  historian  but  of  the  times,  and  corresponds  exactly  to 
the  actual  condition  of  the  Jewish  priesthood  under  the 
Roman  domination.  While  the  office  was  continued  and 
regarded  in  its  true  light,  as  the  representative  of  the  the- 
ocracy, its  authority  and  sanctity  were  greatly  lessened  in 
the  eyes  of  all  devout  Jews,  by  the  arbitrary  interference  of 
the  Romans  with  its  constitution  and  succession.  According 
to  the  law,  there  could  be  only  one  High  Priest,  and  he  the 
hereditary  representative  of  Aaron  (Ex.  9,  44.)  The  office 
therefore  was  for  life,  and  the  incumbent  immovable  by  any 
but  divine  authority.  To  this  part  of  the  system,  with  an 
inconsistency  not  easily  accounted  for,  the  Romans  seem  tc 
have  paid  no  respect  whatever,  but  to  have  deposed  and  ap- 
pointed  the  High  Priest  at  pleasure,  only  limiting  their 
choice,  so  far  as  now  appears,  to  the  sacerdotal  race  and 


ACTS  4,  6.  135 

lineage.  Some  idea  of  tne  length  to  which  they  pushed  this 
license  may  be  gathered  from  the  fact  recorded  by  Josephus, 
that  no  less  than  five  sons  of  the  Annas  here  named  were 
High  Priests  successively,  besides  himself  and  his  son-in-law 
Caiaphas.  In  consequence  of  this  usurped  authority  and 
flagrant  violation  of  the  Law,  there  were  sometimes  several 
men  living  who  had  been  High  Priests,  a  thing  unheard  of 
and  impossible  in  better  times.  The  eflect  of  this  was  two- 
fold ;  first,  to  weaken  and  confuse  the  feeling  of  allegiance  to 
these  titular  heads  of  the  theocracy ;  and  secondly,  to  intro- 
duce great  latitude  and  looseness  in  the  use  of  the  official 
title.  Those  who  still  held  fast  to  their  integrity  as  Jews, 
could  not  acknowledge  more  than  one  High  Priest,  or  recog- 
nize the  claims  of  any  man  whose  predecessor  was  still  living. 
Thus  he  whom  a  Roman  or  Herodian  called  High  Priest, 
might  have  no  such  character  in  the  estimation  of  a  Zealot  or 
a  Pharisee.  This  state  of  things  may  throw  some  light  upon 
the  passage  now  before  us.  Annas,  who  was  probably  a  man 
of  energy  and  talent,  had  been  High  Priest,  and  although 
displaced  by  secular  authority,  was  still  the  only  High  Priest 
in  the  eyes  of  any  strict  or  conscientious  Jew.  Even  if  his 
first  appointment  was  irregular,  he  probably  had  no  pre- 
decessor living,  and  being  of  the  sacerdotal  race,  was  the 
nearest  representative  of  Aaron.  But  the  title  and  the  actual 
authority  were  now  in  the  possession  of  his  son-in-law  Caia- 
phas, or,  as  Josephus  calls  him,  Joseph.  By  some,  the  one 
would  be  regarded  as  the  true  High  Priest,  by  some  the 
other,  by  a  third  class  neither.  As  the  older  and  most 
probably  the  abler  man,  as  well  as  the  earliest  incumbent,  and 
perhaps  the  legitimate  successor  of  Aaron,  Annas  would  ne- 
cessarily retain  a  large,  if  not  the  largest  share  of  influence, 
through  all  the  changes  that  succeeded  his  removal,  especially 
as  several  of  his  successors  were  his  own  sons,  and  the  one 
who  held  his  place  at  tliis  time  was  his  son-in-law.  Under 
such  circumstances,  nothing  but  prejudiced  or  morbid  skepti- 
cism can  discover  inconsistency  or  error,  either  in  the  lan- 
guage of  this  passage,  or  in  Luke's  mention  of  these  two  men 
in  his  gospel  (3,  2)  as  being  both  High  Priests  at  once,  which, 
in  the  sense  above  explained,  was  literally  true.  John  and 
Alexander^  from  the  position  here  assigned  them,  were  no 
doubt  well  known  members  of  the  priestly  race.  Some  have 
attempted  to  identify  them  with  historical  persons  of  that 
age ;  the  first  with  Johanan  Ben  Zaccai,  mentioned  in  the 


136  ACTS  4,  6.  7. 

« 
Jewish  traditions  as  an  eminent  contemporary  priest;  the 
other  with  a  brother  of  the  famous  Jewish  Avi-iter  Philo,  who 
was  Alabarch  or  chief  of  the  Jews  at  Alexandria.  But  no 
concKision  can  be  dra^oi  from  the  names,  which  were  both 
extremely  common ;  the  Hebrew  name  Johanan,  on  accomit 
of  its  meaning  {Jehovah  favours)  ;  the  Greek  name  Alex- 
ander on  account  of  the  kind  treatment  of  the  Jews  by  the 
Macedonian  conqueror,  in  consequence  of  which  his  name  is 
said  to  have  been  given  to  all  the  males,  at  least  of  the  sacer- 
dotal race,  who  were  born  during  the  year,  or  on  the  anni- 
versary, of  his  visit  to  Jerusalem.  There  can  be  no  doubt, 
however,  that  the  persons  here  meant  were  well  known  to 
Luke  and  to  many  of  his  early  readers.  The  next  clause  has 
been  variously  explained,  as  denoting  the  chiefs  of  the  twenty- 
fOur  courses,  into  which  the  family  cf  Aaron  was  divided ;  or 
the  Hneal  descendants  of  his  eldest  son ;  or  the  various  per- 
sons who  had  filled  the  office  of  High  Priest.  If  another 
conjecture  is  worth  stating,  it  may  be  that  the  words  are 
intended  to  describe  the  family  of  Annas,  so  remarkable  as 
having  furnished  half  a  dozen  High  Priests  without  lineal 
succession,  and  therefore  worthy  to  be  called  that  archi- 
sacerdotal  (or  high-priestly)  race.  This  distinction,  it  is  true, 
was  acquired  chiefly  after  these  events,  but  might  be  gener- 
ally known  when  Luke  recorded  them.  At  Jerusaletn^  ac- 
cording to  the  latest  critical  editions,  iyi  (iv)  Jerusalem.  The 
common  text  has  to  or  into  (ets)  Jenisalem^  which  some  ex- 
plain as  a  mere  interchange  of  prepositions,  but  which  rather 
implies,  that  all  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrim  were  not 
residing,  or  at  least  not  actually  present,  in  Jerusalem.  (See 
a  similar  expression  in  1,  12  above.) 

7.  And  when  tliey  liad  set  them  in  the  midst, 
they  asked,  By  what  power,  or  by  what  name,  have  ye 
done  this  ? 

After  the  constitution  of  the  court  we  have  the  formal 
arraignment  of  the  prisoners.  In  the  midst  is  by  some  un- 
derstood to  mean  in  the  exact  centre  of  the  circle,  or  the 
semicircle,  in  which  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrim  are 
represented  by  tradition  as  habitually  sitting.  But  it  much 
more  probably  has  the  same  sense  as  m  1, 15  above,  where  no 
Buch  formal  arrangement  can  be  thought  of.  The  essential 
meaning,  although  ui  a  loose  form,  is  conveyed  by  Tyndale's 


ACTS  4,  ^.8.  137 

version,  set  the  others  before  them.  Then  follows  the  judi- 
cial interrogation,  no  doubt  conducted  by  the  High  Priest, 
as  in  5,  27,  and  7,  1,  below.  The  question  is  similar  to 
that  put  to  Christ  hunself  (Matt.  21,  23),  but  with  a  dif- 
ference entitled  to  attention.  Instead  of  asking,  as  in  that 
case,  by  what  authority  {i^ovo-Lo)^  i.  e.  moral  or  legal  right, 
they  ask  by  what  power  (8wa/xet),  i.  e.  physical  capacity  or 
force^-and  by  what  name  (ovo/xart)  they  had  done  this.  The 
preposition  before  all  these  words  is  in,  i.  e.  in  the  use  or 
exercise  of  what  power  etc.  (See  above,  on  1,  3.)  Name 
seems  here  to  have  the  same  sense  as  in  3,  6.  16,  although 
some  suppose  a  reference  to  the  magical  use  of  the  divine  and 
other  names  by  the  exorcists  and  enchanters  of  that  day. 
(See  below,  on  19,  13,  and  compare  Matt.  12,  27.)  The  ques- 
tion then  implies  a  suspicion  of  some  occult  and  forbidden 
means  in  the  performance  of  the  miracle  ;  for  to  that  the  pro- 
noun this  must  be  referred  immediately,  if  not  exclusively. 
To  refer  it,  as  some  do,  to  the  speech  of  Peter,  or  as  others, 
to  the  speech  and  miracle  together,  is  less  natural.  The 
question  then  is,  '  in  the  use  of  what  mysterious  power,  and 
as  whose  representatives,  or  by  the  invocation  of  whose  name, 
have  you  effected  this  extraordinary  cure  ? ' 

8.  Then  Peter,  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  said 
unto  them,  Ye  rulers  of  the  people,  and  elders   of 

Israel ! 

Peter  again  speaks  for  hunself  and  John.  This  is  his  fourth 
speech  recorded  in  the  book  before  us.  (See  above,  1,  15.  2, 
14.  3,  12.)  What  Avas  before  said,  as  to  sameness  and  variety, 
might  be  here  repeated.  (See  above,  on  3, 12.)  Filled  with 
the  Holy  Ghost,  not  only  by  a  previous  or  constant  inspira- 
tion, but  by  an  iimnediate  and  peculiar  impulse,  having 
special  reference  to  this  occasion.  (See  above,  on  2,  4,  and 
compare  the  promise,  Mark  13,  11.)  Under  this  influence,  he 
not  only  addresses  the  assembly  with  respect,  but  recognizes 
its  members  m  their  official  character  and  dignity.  Rulers 
of  the  people  and  elders  of  Israel  may  be  taken  as  equivalent 
descriptions  of  the  whole  body,  since  the  rulers  of  the  chosen 
people,  under  the  patriarchal  system  (see  above,  on  v.  5), 
were  not  elective  but  hereditary  magistrates.  Or  the  two 
titles  may  be  so  distinguished,  that  the  last  shall  be  descrip- 
tive of  these  natural  representatives,  and  the  first  of  persons 


138  ACTS   4,  8.  9. 

holding  ofiice,  independently  of  this  hereditaiy  rank,  or  in 
addition  to  it. 

9.  If  we  this  day  be  examined  of  the  good  deed 
(done)  to  the  impotent  man,  by  what  (means)  he  is 
made  whole  — 

The  sentence  is  completed  in  the  next  verse.  This  exor 
dium,  like  those  of  Peter's  previous  discourses  (see  above, 
on  2,  15.  3,  12),  although  perfectly  unstudied,  and  suggested 
by  the  circumstances  under  which  he  spoke,  is,  even  rhe- 
torically, striking  and  effective.  The  one  before  us  is  distin- 
guished from  the  others  by  a  tone  of  irony  resembling  and 
perha}:is  directly  copied  from  our  Lord's  memorable  saying  to 
the  Jews  (John  10,  32),  "Many  good  works  have  I  showed 
you  from  my  Father  ;  for  which  of  those  works  do  ye  stone 
me  ?"  If  (ei)  does  not  always  imply  doubt,  but  is  sometimes 
equivalent  to  since^  or,  as  the  Geneva  Bible  here  translates 
it,  forasmuch  as.  (See  below,  on  11,  17,  and  compare  John 
7,  4.)  In  this  case,  however,  it  is  better  to  retain  the  proper 
sense,  not  only  on  the  general  prmciple  of  always  giving  it 
the  preference,  but  because  it  strengthens  the  ex^n'ession,  l5y 
rei:>resenting  what  was  done  as  something  strange  and  scarcely 
credible,  as  though  he  had  said,  'if  it  can  be  true  that 
you  arraign  us  for  this  act  of  kindness.'  The  Greek  vei  b 
(avaKpLv6/x€'^a)  is  confined,  in  the  New  Testament,  to  Luke 
and  Paul,  who  use  it  frequently,  and  ahnost  always  in  the 
sense  of  judicial  investigation,  literal  or  figurative.  (See 
below,  on  12,  19.  17, 11.  24,  8.  28, 18,  and  compare  Luke  23, 
14.  1  Cor.  2,  14.  15.  4,  3.  4.  9,  3.  14,  24.)  As  it  implies  accu- 
sation and  authority,  examiiied  is  too  weak  here,  unless  un- 
derstood to  mean  called  in  question,  called  to  account,  re- 
quired to  explain  and  justify  one's  conduct.  The  cognate 
noun  (dva/cpto-is)  is  used  in  like  manner.  (See  below,  on  25, 
26.)  This  day^  to-day^  adds  point  and  force  to  the  hypo- 
thetical expression  if  etc.  '  Have  we  lived  to  see  the  clay 
when  men  are  called  in  question  for  their  good  deeds  ?  '  The 
effect  is  further  heightened  by  the  Greek  noun  (cuepyeo-ta), 
which,  both  in  etymology  and  usage,  has  the  general  sense 
of  good  conduct  or  behaviour,  and  the  specific  one  of  active 
kindness  or  beneficence.  The  English  versions  are  weakened 
by  the  needless  introduction  of  the  definite  article,  "  the  good 
deed  done  to  t?ie  impotent  man,"  instead  of  "  a  good  deed 


ACTS  4,  9.  10.  139 

done  to  an  impotent  man,"  which  is  the  form  of  the  original. 
Another  less  gratuitous  departure  from  that  form  is  the  in- 
sertion of  the  participle  done^  to  represent  a  simple  genitive 
construction  (cuepyco-ta  dv-^pwTrot;),  which  could  not  have  been 
retained  in  our  idiom,  but  might  have  been  more  closely- 
copied  by  simply  substituting  to  for  of.  A  third  addition  in 
the  version,  of  which  the  English  reader  has  no  intimation, 
is  that  of  the  word  means ^  which  may  be  justified  by  the 
analogy  of  Matt.  5,  13,  where  the  same  phrase  {kv  tlvl),  al- 
though not  so  translated,  must  be  so  understood.  But  the 
context  here  rather  favours  the  translation  in  whonij  i.  e.  in 
whose  name,  as  in  vs.  V  and  10.  (For  a  similar  construction 
of  the  preposition  in  a  similar  connection,  compare  Luke  11, 
19.)  Impotent.,  or  more  exactly,  weak.,  infirm.  Is  made 
whole.,  literally,  has  heen  saved.,  which,  in  its  widest  sense, 
means  saved  from  all  evil,  natural  and  moral  (see  below,  on 
V.  12),  but  is  sometimes  used  specifically  to  denote  deliver- 
ance from  bodily  suflerings  considered  as  efiects  of  sin.  (See 
Matt.  9,  21.  22.  27,  42.  Mark  5,  23.  6,  56.  10,  52.  Luke  8,  36. 
50.  IV,  19.  18,  42.  John  11,  12.)  In  many  of  these  places 
our  translators  use  the  verb  to  heal  or  make  whole  ;  whereas 
Wiclif  even  here  translates  m,ade  safe. 

10.  Be  it  known  unto  you  all,  and  to  all  the  peo- 
ple of  Israel,  that  by  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  of 
Nazareth,  whom  ye  crucified,  whom  God  raised  from 
the  dead,  (even)  by  him  doth  this  man  stand  here 
before  you  whole. 

The  exordium  or  preamble,  which  may  almost  be  de- 
scribed as  sarcastic  or  ironical  in  tone,  is  followed  by  a  formal 
and  most  solemn  answer  to  the  question  of  the  Sanliedrim, 
addressed  not  merely  to  themselves,  but  through  them  to  the 
people  of  Israel,  the  chosen  peoi^le,  whom  they  represented. 
This  implies  that  the  fact  declared  was  one  of  national  con- 
cern, and  less  directly  that  the  crime  of  crucifying  Christ 
was  that  of  Israel  as  a  nation.  The  formula,  he  it  knoion., 
occurs  repeatedly  in  this  book.  (See  above,  on  2,  14.  36,  and 
below,  on  13,  38.  28,  28.)  The  Greek  adjective  (yvworToV)  is 
one  of  Luke's  favourite  expressions,  being  used  only  thrice  in 
other  parts  of  the  New  Testament.  If  we  (^^tels)  in  v.  9  is 
emphatic,  as  it  is  in  v.  20,  there  may  be  the  same  antithesis 


140  ACTS  4,  10. 

in  this  case  as  in  that.     '  If  we  must  listen  to  your  questioni 
and  reproofs  in  relation  to  this  good  deed,  you  must  listen  in 
your  turn  to  us.     Be  it  known,  etc.'     By  the  name^^  literally, 
in  the  name^  as  in  the  question  of  the  Sanhedrim.     (See 
above,  on  v.  7.)     The  accumulation  of  descriptive  terms  in 
this  verse  is  remarkable.     Jesus  (the  Saviour),  Christ  (the 
Messiah),  the  Nazarene  (as  such  an  object  of  contempt,  but 
-a  subject  of  prophecy),  the  Crucified  (by  the  hands  of  men), 
the  Kisen  (or  raised  by  the  power  of  God.)     The  same  con- 
trast between  Christ's  treatment  at  the  hands  of  God  and 
man,  is  here  presented  as  in  both  the  previous  discourses. 
(See  above,  on  2,  23.  24.  3,  14.  15.)     The  design,  in  all  three 
cases,  is  to  bring  this  great  personal  and  public  crime  home 
to  the  consciences  of  those  who  heard  him.     The  even^  sup- 
plied in  the  beginning  of  the  last  clause,  is  mtended  to  iden- 
tify the  subject  of  the  sentence,  still  more  clearly  than  it  is 
in  Greek  by  the  repetition  of  the  particle.    By  him^  literally, 
in  this^  which  may  be  referred  directly  to  the  person  of  the 
Saviour,  or  still  more  naturally  to  his  name,  which  makes  the 
parallelism  of  the  clauses  more  exact.    In  what  name  ?  .  .  .  , 
in  the  name  of  Jesus  .  ,  .  .  in  this  {7iame)  etc.     So  much  is 
comprehended  in  the  name,  as  here  used   (see  above,  on  3, 
16),  that  nothing  is  lost,  but  something  gained,  by  this  con- 
struction.    Here^  though  not  expressed  in  the  original,  is  no 
gratuitous  addition,  being  really  included  in  the  verb  (vrap- 
€<Trr)Kcv),  which  means  to  stand  by  or  7iear.    (See  above,  on  1, 
10.)     The  same  idea  is  expressed  by  the  addition  of  the 
words  before  you,  in  your  sight,  in  which  he  appeals  to  their 
own  senses  as  eye-witnesses.     From  this  we  learn  that  the 
man  who  had  been  healed  was  also  present,  either  of  his  own 
accord  as  a  spectator,  or  cited  by  the  council  as  a  vvitness,  or 
as  a  prisoner  with  the  two  apostles.      W7wle,  not  only  as 
opposed  to  mutilation  or  the  loss  of  limbs,  but  in  the  sense 
of  sound  or  healthy.     If  the  question  of  the  Sanhedrim  (v. 
7)  contains,  as  some  suppose,  a  tacit  reference  to  the  law  in 
Deut.  18,  19-22,  where  so  much  is  said  of  speaking  m  the 
name  of  God,  as  opposed  to  that  of  other  gods,  it  is  remark- 
able that  Peter,  in  reply,  speaks  only  i?i  the  name  of  JesuSy 
which  was  either  a  direct  violation  of  that  law,  or  an  indirect 
assertion  of  the  deity  of  Christ.     It  is  highly  probable  indeed 
that  the  continual  reiteration  of  this  phrase  by  the  Apostles 
has  some  reference  to  its  emphatic  repetition  in  the  passage  of 
the  law  just  cited.     An  old  Greek  manuscript,  supposed  to 


ACTS  4,  10.  11.  141 

have  been  used  by  the  Venerable  Bede,  and  now  deposited 
at  Oxford,  adds,  and  in  no  other. 

11.  This  is  the  stone  which  was  set  at  nought  of 
you  builders,  wliich  is  become  the  head  of  the  corner. 

There  being  no  formal  reference  to  scripture  here,  as  there 
is  in  several  previous  cases,  some  have  supposed  the  words 
here  quoted  to  be  merely  a  proverbial  expression  of  the  fact 
that  what  men  slight  and  overlook  is  often  afterwards  exalted. 
But  although  the  sajdng  may  have  been  proverbial  likewise, 
yet  since  Christ  himself  had  quoted  the  same  words  as  "wi'it- 
ten"  (Luke  20,  I'Z),  and  as  something  which  his  hearers  must 
have  "  read  in  the  scriptures"  (Malt.  21,  42),  and  since  they 
are  still  extant  in  the  Book  of  Psahns  (118,  22^,  there  can  be 
no  doubt  that  this  is  a  sixth  (if  not  a  seventh)  prophecy,  ex- 
pounded and  applied  by  Peter  since  the  opening  of  this  his- 
tory. (See  above,  on  1,  16.  20.  2, 16.  25.  34.  3,  22.)  The  form 
is  substantially  that  of  the  Septuagint  version,  but  with  the 
substitution  of  the  stronger  term  (e^oD-^evr/^ets),  nullified^  made 
nothing  of,  treated  as  nothing,  for  the  more  exact  but  weaker 
one  ((XTreSoKt/xaa-av)  rejected  or  repudiated.  Tyndale  adapts  it 
to  the  figure  of  a  building  by  translatmg  cast  aside.  The  idea 
no  doubt  is  that  of  a  stone  thrown  aside  as  worthless  or  unfit 
by  the  builders  of  a  house,  but  afterwards  selected  as  the 
head  (not  the  top-stone,  but  the  chief  foundation)  of  the  corner^ 
where  the  strength  of  the  structure  is  supposed  to  reside  lq 
the  juncture  of  the  walls.  Its  appropriateness  to  Christ  has 
never  been  denied,  but  only  its  original  reference  to  him  as 
its  munediate  subject.  Besides  those  who  find  here  another 
case  of  mere  accommodation  (see  above,  on  1,  20),  some  who 
grant  the  correctness  of  the  application,  grant  it  only  in  a 
typical  or  secondary  sense,  while  others  make  the  whole 
psalm  a  direct  and  exclusive  prophecy  of  Christ.  Interme- 
diate between  these  two,  but  nearer  to  the  first,  is  the  hypo- 
thesis, that  this  psalm  was  fii'st  sung  at  the  laying  of  the 
corner-stone  of  Zerubbabel's  temple,  as  described  in  the  third 
chapter  of  Ezra;  that  the  immediate  reference  is  to  that 
structure,  which  however  was  itself  a  type,  not  only  of  the 
church  or  chosen  people,  in  whom  God  resided,  but  of  Christ, 
in  whom  he  was  to  dwell  in  a  far  higher  and  yet  stricter  sense, 
and  by  whose  advent  the  material  temple  would  be  super- 
seded.   This  symbolical  relation  of  the  ancient  sanctuary  to 


142  ACTS  4,  11. 

the  person  of  our  Lord  is  not  an  exegetical  expedient  for  the 
explanation  of  this  passage,  but  the  only  hypothesis  by  which 
that  feature  of  the  ceremonial  law  can  be  accounted  for,  or 
Christ's  own  language  on  the  subject  vindicated  from  the 
charge  of  fanciful  caprice.  It  was  because  the  tabernacle  and 
temple  were  designed  to  teach  the  doctrine  of  divine  indwell- 
ing, by  giving  God  a  home  among  his  people,  similar  to  theirs, 
until  he  should  take  up  his  permanent  abode  in  human  nature 
by  the  incarnation  of  his  Son ;  it  was  only  for  this  reason,  and 
on  these  conditions,  that  the  Son  himself,  without  a  mere 
play  upon  words,  or  an  evasion  utterly  unworthy  of  him, 
could  say,  "  Destroy  this  temple,  and  in  three  days  I  will  raise 
it  up,"  when  in  fact  he  only  ''  spake  of  the  temple  of  his  body  " 
(John  2,  19-21.)  Since  then  the  temple  was  intended  to  pre- 
figure Christ,  there  can  be  nothing  fanciful  or  forced  in  ap- 
plying what  was  said,  in  the  first  instance,  of  that  temple  to 
"  the  temple  of  his  body  "  or  his  theanthropic  person.  That 
such  an  application  was  not  altogethei-  novel,  vre  may  learn 
from  the  hosannas  of  the  multitude  in  honour  of  our  Saviour's 
Messianic  entrance  to  the  Holy  City  (Matt.  21,  8.  9.  Mark  11, 
8-10.  Luke  19,  36-38) ;  the  expressions  there  used  being 
taken  from  this  very  Psalm  (118,  26),  which  must  there- 
fore have  been  commonly  regarded  as  in  some  sense  a  Mes- 
sianic prophecy.  The  very  word  Hosanna  is  the  Save  now 
(or  I  pray)  of  Ps.  118, 25,  almost  as  nearly  as  the  Hebrew  words 
could  be  expressed  by  the  Greek  alphabet.  There  is  peculiar 
beauty  in  the  application  made  by  Peter,  since  it  raises  the 
image  of  Messiah's  kingdom,  as  a  palace  or  a  temple  still  un- 
finished, and  the  very  men  whom  he  addresses  as  the  regu- 
larly constituted  builders  {you  builders^  more  exactly,  you  the 
builder s)  who,  with  fatal  blindness,  had  rejected  the  chief  cor- 
ner-stone of  the  whole  structure,  and  were  now  confounded 
because  God,  in  spite  of  them,  had  set  it  in  its  proper  place. 
It  would  be  hard  to  frame  a  figurative  exhibition  of  these 
great  events,  more  striking  in  itself  or  more  appropriate  to 
those  whom  the  Apostle  was  addressing,  than  the  one  fur- 
nished ready  to  his  hand  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  already 
used  for  the  same  purpose  by  his  Lord  and  Master.  The  same 
application  is  implied  in  Paul's  description  of  the  church,  or 
the  body  of  believers,  as  "  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the 
apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief 
corner-stone"  (Eph.  2,  20.)  A  kmdred  prophecy,  referring 
more  exclusively  to  the  Messiah,  is  that  in  Isai.  28,  16,  twice 


ACTS  4,  11.  12.  U3 

explicitly  applied  to  Christ  by  Paul  (Rom.  9,  33.  10,  11),  and 
once  by  Peter  in  his  first  epistle  (2,  6.)  In  reference  to  both 
these  passages  it  might  be  said,  as  Peter  here  says  with  respect 
to  one  of  them,  "  this  is  the  stone,"  i.  e.  '  this  man,  whom  you 
crucified  but  God  raised  from  the  dead,  is  the  very  stone,  of 
which  you  have  so  often  read  or  heard  in  your  own  scriptures, 
as  a  stone  rejected  by  the  builders,  but  replaced  by  God  him- 
self  at  the  foundation  of  his  spiritual  temple,  i.  e.  of  his  church 
or  kingdom.' 

12.  Neither  is  there  salvation  in  any  other,  for  there 
is  none  other  name  under  heaven,  given  among  men, 
whereby  we  must  be  saved. 

The  Apostle,  here  as  elsewhere,  brings  his  reasonings  and 
expositions  to  a  practical  conclusion.  (See  above,  on  2,  38-40. 
3,  26.)  He  gives  them  solemnly  to  understand,  that  the  mis- 
take which  they,  as  builders  of  the  temple,  had  committed, 
was  not  merely  theoretical  or  exegetical,  but  practical  and, 
if  persevered  in,  fatal,  to  themselves  and  others.  He  reminds 
them  that  the  character  ascribed  to  the  Messiah  was  not 
merely  one  of  dignity  and  honour  to  himself,  but  of  vital  in- 
terest to  others  also.  The  system,  of  which  he  was  the  cor- 
ner-stone, was  a  system  of  salvation,  and  the  only  one  which 
God  had  sanctioned  or  revealed.  Name  is  here  used  in  allu- 
sion to  its  frequent  repetition  in  the  foregoing  context,  and 
of  course  with  the  same  latitude  of  meaning.  No  other  per- 
son, no  other  authority,  no  other  invocation,  etc.  may  be  all 
included.  Tinder  heaven^  i.  e.  in  the  world,  or  on  the  earth. 
(See  above,  on  2,  5.)  Given^  i.  e.  by  authority,  bestowed  by 
God,  from  whom  all  saving  methods  must  of  course  proceed. 
Amo7ig  men  is  not  simply  to  men^  as  the  objects  of  the  favour, 
but  among  them,  with  a  reference  to  its  diffusion.  '  No  other 
method  of  salvation  has  been  made  known  and  diffused  among 
mankind  by  God's  authority.'  Whereby^  or  more  exactly, 
wherein^  in  tchich^  not  only  by  it  as  the  means,  but  in  the 
possession,  use,  and  application  of  it.  (See  above,  on  v.  7.) 
Must  he  saved^  not  only  may,  as  a  matter  of  option  or  of  right, 
but  must,  as  a  matter  of  necessity,  if  saved  at  all.  This  text 
is  often  weakened  in  quotation  by  the  change  of  must  to  may 
or  can.  Because  the  verb  saved  is  applied  in  the  original  of 
V.  9  to  corporeal  healing,  some  insist  upon  the  same  interpre- 
tation here,  as  if  Peter  meant  to  say  that  there  was  no  other 


144  ACTS  4,  12.  13. 

name,  the  invocation  of  which  could  eifect  a  miraculous  cure. 
But  ai3art  from  the  unworthiness  and  incongruity  of  this  in- 
terpretation in  itself  considered,  and  the  absence  of  all  usage 
or  analogy  to  recommend  it,  an  argument  against  it  may  be 
drawn  from  the  obvious  parallelism  or  correspondence  of  the 
verb  to  he  saved  and  the  noun  salvation^  which  is  never,  in 
the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  applied  to  the  healing  of 
disease,  whereas  it  is  the  standmg,  not  to  say,  the  technical 
expression  for  the  whole  remedial  work,  vv^hich  the  Messiah 
was  expected  to  accomplish,  and  of  which  his  personal  name 
{Jesus)  was  significant  (Matt.  1,21),  the  great  salvation  (Heb. 
2,  3),  which  was  to  go  forth  from  the  Jews  (John  4,  22),  and 
which  the  Apostles  preached  to  Jews  and  Gentiles  (13,  26. 
47),  the  greatest  gift  of  God  to  man,  and  so  described  both 
here  and  elsewhere  (Isai.  9,  6.  2  Cor.  9, 15.  Eph.  1,  22.  2  Tun. 
1,  9.)  This  salvation,  although  something  infinitely  more  than 
bodily  relief  or  heahng,  comprehends  it,  as  the  whole  includes 
the  smallest  of  its  parts,  and  as  the  least  cflect  must  cease 
with  the  cessation  of  its  cause.  Even  on  earth,  especially 
when  Christ  was  personally  present,  the  restoration  of  health 
w^as  often  but  the  outv/ard  and  accompanying  sign  of  spiritual 
healing,  or  at  least  the  type  and  pledge  to  others  of  a  blessing 
not  immediately  experienced.  And  in  the  case  of  all  who 
shall  be  ultimately  saved,  the  lower  sense  of  this  expression 
will  be  certainly  included  in  the  higher,  not  by  an  arbitrary 
constitution,  but  by  a  natural  and  rational  necessity.  "  The 
inhabitant  shall  not  say,  I  am  sick,  (because)  the  people  that 
dwell  therein  shall  be  forgiven  their  iniquity."  (Isaiah  83,  24. 
See  also  Rev.  21,  3.  4.) 

13.  Now  when  they  saw  the  boldness  of  Peter  and 
John,  and  perceived  that  they  were  unlearned  and  ig- 
norant men,  they  marvelled,  and  they  took  knowledge 
of  them,  that  they  had  been  with  Jesus. 

Nov)  is  not  an  adverb  of  time,  but  a  continuative  particle 
(Se),  which  might  as  well  be  rendered  and  or  but.  (See  above, 
on  v.  4.)  It  is  remarkable  that,  although  the  effect  of  this 
discourse  is  here  distinctly  stated,  as  in  the  case  of  Peter's 
Pentecostal  sermon  (2,  37),  the  effect  itself  was  altogether  dif- 
ferent. We  read  here  of  no  compunction  or  alarni,  no  inquiry 
what  they  must  do,  and  therefore  no  additional  instructions 


ACTS  4,  12.  145 

as  to  that  point.  The  only  hnpression  here  described  is  that 
of  wonder  and  perplexity.  Looking  at  these  two  cases  by 
themselves,  we  might  be  led  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  Gospel 
prevailed  only  in  the  humbler  classes,  and  that  the  rulers 
were  beyond  its  reach.  Such  a  distinction  seems  in  Ihct  to 
have  been  made  by  the  leading  enemies  of  Christ  themselves. 
"  Have  any  of  the  rulers  {apxovTojv)  or  of  the  Pharisees  believed 
on  him  ?  As  for  this  rabble  (o'xAos),  who  know  not  tlie  law, 
they  are  accursed  "  (John  7,  48.  49.)  But  this  proud  boast, 
if  not  false  when  originally  uttered,  was  afterwards  falsilied 
by  the  event.  It  would  even  seem  that  this  relation  of  the 
rulers  and  the  rabble  was  reversed ;  for  we  read  in  the  same 
Gospel  (12,37.42),  that  "although  he  had  done  so  many 
miracles  before  them,  they  (the  o'xAos  of  v.  34)  believed  not  in 

him nevertheless  even  of  the  rulers  {Koi  ck  twv 

apxovTiov)  many  believed  on  him,  but  because  of  the  Pharisees 
did  not  confess  him,  lest  they  should  be  put  out  of  the  syna- 
gogue." Of  this  class  some,  we  know,  did  afterwards  confess 
him,  such  as  Nicodemus  and  Joseph  of  Arimathea  (John  19, 
38.  39),  and  the  same  Vv'as  probably  the  case  with  others. 
Whether  these  were  present  on  the  occasion  now  before  us, 
we  have  no  means  of  deterimning.  It  is  most  probable  that 
thay  were  not,  since  no  dissent  or  opposition  is  recorded,  as 
in  John  7,  50.  51 ;  but  even  if  they  were,  being  already  con- 
verts, they  had  no  cause  for  compunction,  and  the  rest  re- 
mained insensible,  not  because  they  were  Pharisees  or  rulers, 
but  because  they  were  abandoned  to  themselves,  by  that  mys- 
terious but  not  unjust  discrimination,  which  may  still  be 
traced  in  the  dissimilar  effects  produced  by  the  same  truth, 
from  the  lips  of  the  same  preachers,  upon  different  companies 
or  individuals.  The  verb  translated  saw,  though  not  the  same 
with  that  in  1, 11,  has  much  of  the  same  force,  denoting  not 
mere  sight  but  contemplation,  the  act  of  viewing  as  a  specta- 
cle or  show.  The  idea  is,  not  simply  that  they  saw  the  bold- 
ness of  the  two  Apostles,  but  that  they  surveyed  it  for  some 
time  before  they  could  account  for  it.  One  of  the  latest 
"WT-iters  on  this  passage  understands  it  as  ascribing  their  won- 
der to  the  boldness  of  these  men  who  had  so  lately  left  their 
master  and  been  scattered  (Matt.  26,  bQ.  Mark  14,  50.^  But 
this  puts  too  confined  a  sense  upon  the  word  (Trappryo-iai/)  trans- 
lated boldness,  which  signifies  not  merely,  nor  accordmg  to  its 
derivation  mainly,  bravery  or  courage,  but  freedom  and  readi- 
ness of  speech,  as  opposed  to  hesitation  and  reserve,  no  less 

VOL.  I. — 7. 


146  ACTS  4,  13. 

than  to  timidity  or  cowardice.  See  above,  on  2,  29,  and  be- 
low,  on  vs.  29.  31.  28,  31.  With  respect  to  the  joint  mention 
of  the  two  Apostles,  as  concurring  in  the  words  and  deeds  re- 
corded, see  above,  on  3,  4. 11.  There  is,  however,  a  distinction 
in  the  Greek,  which  is  entkely  lost  upon  the  Enghsh  reader. 
Not  only  is  the  name  of  John  postponed  to  that  of  Peter,  but 
also  to  the  noun  which  governs  it.  The  nearest  English  imi- 
tation  would  be,  seeing  Peter'^s  boldness  and  Johii's.  Per- 
ceived^ or  more  exactly,  axjprehending^  the  latin  etymology  of 
which  corresponds  to  that  of  the  expression  here  used  (KaraXa- 
ySd/zcvot),  i.  e.  forming  a  conception  of  something  not  known  or 
correctly  understood  before.  Some  understand  it  to  mean 
having  learned  (or  ascertained)  by  information  from  others  ; 
but  it  rather  signifies  perceiving,  apprehending,  from  their  own 
observation  of  the  prisoners'  appearance,  language,  and  de- 
portment. Unlearned^  or,  adhering  more  closely  to  the  form 
of  the  original  (dypa/x/xaToi),  illiterate^  unlettered.  It  does  not 
necessarily  imply  gross  ignorance,  or  inability  to  read,  since 
the  Greek  root  (ypa/x/Aara)  means  something  more  than  letters 
in  the  lower  sense  of  alphabetical  characters,  namely,  letters 
in  the  higher  sense  of  learning,  literature,  education.  Among 
the  Jews  it  had  particular  reference  to  scriptural  or  sacred 
learning,  as  the  only  kind  much  cultivated  by  them,  so  that 
the  adjective  here  used  is  virtually  the  negative  or  opposite 
of  the  noun  (ypaja/xarevs)  translated  scribe  (see  above,  on  v.  5), 
and  means  without  scholastic  or  rabbinical  training.  Igno- 
rant seems  simply  an  equivalent  expression,  but  the  Greek 
word  (iSicoTat)  has  a  different  derivation  and  a  marked  signifi- 
cancy  of  its  own.  Its  primary  sense  is  that  of p^'ivate  persons., 
as  opposed  to  kings  by  Homer,  to  rulers  by  Herodotus,  to 
military  officers  by  Xenophon,  and  to  the  state  or  body  politic 
by  Thucydides.  A  secondary  sense  is  that  of  one  without 
official  or  professional  knowledge,  in  which  sense  Thucydides 
opposes  it  to  the  physician,  and  Plato  to  the  poet  and  musi- 
cian. This  approaches  very  nearly  to  the  wider  use  of  our 
word  layman.,  which  is  perfectly  consistent  with  its  derivation 
(from  \a6<i,  people).,  its  specific  opposition  to  the  clergy  (kA^pos; 
see  above,  on  1, 17)  being  merely  conventional  and  matter  of 
usage.  Accordingly  the  oldest  English  versions,  made  di- 
rectly  from  the  Greek,  translate  the  phrase,  unlearned  men 
and  lay  people  (Tyndale),  xmlearned  and  lay  men  (Cranmer.) 
The  same  is  probably  the  sense  of  Wiclif 's  version,  imlettered 
and  levxl  men.,  the  bad  moral  sense  of  lev^d  belonging  to  a 


ACTS  4,  13.  '       147 

later  usage.  By  a  further  change  the  Greek  word  (tStwrr;?) 
came  to  have  the  general  sense  of  ignorant,  uneducated.  If 
this  wide  meaning  be  preferred  here,  the  two  epithets  are 
nearly  synonymous,  as  in  the  Geneva  version,  unlearned  men 
and  without  knowledge.  (Comj^are  2  Cor.  11,6,  where  iSio> 
Ti^s  TO)  Aoyw  is  translated  rude  in  speech^  the  very  phrase  which 
Shakspeare  puts  into  the  mouth  of  his  Othello,  "  Rude  am  I 
in  speech,  etc.")  From  the  sense  of  ignorant  arises,  by  a 
natural  association,  that  of  imbecile  or  foolish,  which  belongs 
however  only  to  the  modern  derivative  form  {idiot  or  ideot)^ 
and  not  at  all  to  the  original  Greek  usage ;  so  that  Matthew 
Henry  undesignedly  misleads  the  English  reader  when  he 
says,  "  they  were  idiots  (so  the  word  signifies) ;  they  looked 
upon  them  with  as  much  contempt  as  if  they  had  been  mere 
naturals^  and  expected  no  more  from  them,  which  made  them 
wonder  to  see  what  freedom  they  took."  This  is  a  gross  ex- 
aggeration of  the  feeling  here  imputed  to  the  rulers,  and  one 
founded  solely  on  the  version ;  for  "  so  the  word  signifies"  only 
in  the  modern  tongues.  Even  the  milder  and  better  authen- 
ticated sense  of  ignorant  is  not  entitled  to  the  preference  in 
this  case,  on  accbunt  of  the  tautology  which  it  produces,  and 
because,  according  to  a  recognized  hermeneutical  principle, 
the  presumption  is  always  in  favour  of  the  primary  or  strict 
sense,  in  the  absence  of  specific  reasons  for  departing  from  it. 
The  best  sense,  therefore,  of  the  whole  descriptive  phrase  is 
that  of  uneducated  men  and  private  individuals  or  laymen, 
with  an  implication  of  obscurity  and  want  of  experience  as 
public  speakers.  (The  Rhemish  version  has  uiileltered  men 
and  of  the  vulgar  sort.)  Marvelled^  wondered,  were  aston- 
ished and  unable  to  account  for  what  they  saw.  (See  above, 
on  2,  7,  where  the  same  verb  is  used,  both  in  Greek  and  Eng- 
lish.) Took  knoioledge  of  is  an  unusual  expression,  here  em- 
ployed to  represent  a  Greek  verb  (eTrcyiVwo-Kov),  which,  though 
sometimes  only  an  mtensive,  meaning  to  know  fully  (Luke  1, 
4.  1  Cor.  14, 37.  2  Pet.  2, 21),  or  to  receive  mformation 
(Luke  7,  37.  23,  7),  is  also  used  in  the  New  Testament  (e.  g. 
Matt.  14,  35.  17,  12.  Mark  6,  33.  54.  Luke  24,  16.  31),  as  well 
as  by  the  best  Greek  writers,  in  the  specific  sense  of  recog- 
nizing, knowing  again,  a  thing  or  person  known  before.  (See 
above,  on  3,  10.)  The  choice  Ues  here  between  this  sense  and 
that  of  learning,  ascertaining,  from  others ;  but  as  no  such 
source  of  information  is  referred  to  in  the  text  or  context,  the 
former  meaning  seems  entitled  to  the  preference.      'They 


148  ACTS   4,  13.  14. 

recognized  them  as  men  whom  they  had  seen  with  Jesus.* 
There  is  no  improbability  in  this,  since  rulers  are  particularly 
mentioned  m  some  cases  as  attending  on  our  Lord's  instruc- 
tions. (See  Matt.  21,23.  Luke  18,18.  John  12,42.)  It  is 
not,  however,  necessary  to  restrict  the  recognition  here  de- 
scribed to  recollection  of  their  persons.  It  is  equally  natural, 
and  may  be  more  so,  to  explain  it  of  an  inference  drawn  from 
the  matter  or  the  manner  of  their  preaching,  as  sufficient  to 
show  that  they  had  kej)t  the  company  of  Jesus.  The  pluper- 
fect form,  they  had  been^  is  substantially  correct,  though  not 
an  exact  copy  of  the  Greek,  which  strictly  means,  they  were^ 
i.  e.  they  were  (once)  with  Jesus  as  companions,  or  were  (still) 
with  Jesus  as  disciples  or  adherents ;  most  probably  the  for- 
mer, the  idea  of  discipleship  or  partisan  attachment  being 
rather  implied  than  expressed,  both  here  and  in  Mark  14,  G. 
There  still  remains  a  question  of  some  moment  Avitli  respect 
to  the  connection  of  the  clauses.  Some  understand  this  last 
clause  as  a  part  of  what  they  wondered  at,  or  as  their  reason 
for  considering  them  ignorant  unlearned  men.  '  They  mar- 
velled at  their  readiness  of  sj^eech,  recognizing  them  as  former 
associates  of  Jesus,  and  therefore  of  course  ignorant  and  com- 
mon men.'  But  this  construction  is  at  variance  with  the  natu- 
ral consecution  of  the  sentence,  which  first  describes  the 
Sanhedrmi  as  struck  wi):h  the  Apostles'  freedom  of  speech, 
then  as  noting  or  observing  their  illiterate  and  low  condition, 
and  finally  as  recognizmg  or  recalling  their  connection  with 
Jesus.  The  only  natural  interpretation  of  this  last  particular 
is  that  which  understands  it,  not  as  a  reason  for  their  w^onder 
but  a  remedy,  the  means  by  which  they  finally  accounted  for 
what  seemed  to  them  at  first  so  unaccountable.  While  the 
form  and  manner  of  the  men's  discourse  betrayed  their  want 
of  education,  and  especially  of  rabbinical  training,  its  substance 
and  its  spirit  seemed  to  indicate  a  higher  source,  and  this 
could  be  found  only  in  their  intercourse  with  Jesus,  whose  ex- 
traordinary T/isdom  and  authority  in  teaching  could  not  be 
disputed,  even  by  his  enemies.  (See  Matt.  7,  29.  22, 16.  Mark 
1,22.  12,14.32.  John  7,  15.46.)  The  peculiar  copulative 
(re),  which  some  would  render,  they  both  marvelled  and  took 
knowledge  (see  above,  on^  1,  1.  13),  is  compatible  with  both 
constructions,  and  cannot  therefore  help  us  to  decide  between 
them. 

14.   And  beliolding  the  man  which  was  healed 


ACTS  4,  14.  14g 

standing  witli  them,  tliey  could  say  nothing  against 

(it). 

This  verse  describes  the  embarrassing  position  of  the  San- 
hedrim, produced  not  merely  by  the  eloquence  or  reasoning 
of  the  Apostles,  but  by  the  miracle,  which  served,  as  a  divine 
attestation  to  the  truth  of  their  pretensions  and  their  doc- 
trines. This  they  would  gladly  have  denied  or  called  in  ques- 
tion ;  but  how  could  they,  with  the  man  himself  before  their 
eyes,  perhaps  brought  thither  by  themselves  as  a  prisoner  or 
a  witness?  (See  above,  on  v.  10.)  The  man  lohich  icas 
healed,  in  Greek,  the  healed  {man.)  The  word  standing  seems 
to  be  emphatic.  It  was  not  his  simply  being  iclth  them,  in 
their  company,  that  silenced  these  grave  rulers,  but  his  stand- 
ing there,  erect  like  other  men,  a  sight  which  every  moment 
must  recall  to  mind  the  miracle  just  v/rought.  A  beautiful 
parallel  has  been  cited  from  the  Gospel  History  (Mark  5,  15), 
where  the  same  stress  may  be  laid  upon  the  act  of  sitting, 
i.  e.  sitting  in  an  orderly  and  decent  manner,  or  sitting  at  all, 
instead  of  roving  and  raving,  as  a  proof  that  the  maniac  had 
been  suddenly  restored  to  reason.  Coidd  say  nothing  against 
(it)  is  a  free  translation,  in  which  the  last  word,  although  not 
so  distinguished  in  the  English  Bible,  is  supplied,  in  order  to 
complete  the  construction,  but  without  a  grammatical  ante- 
cedent. The  literal  version  is,  theg  had  nothing  to  feply, 
or  still  more  closely,  to  say  hack,  in  the  v/ay  of  contradiction 
or  denial.  That  the  verb  to  have  ever  m.eans  to  he  able,  is  a 
common  but  precarious  assertion,  insufficiently  supported  by 
such  passages  as  Matt.  18,  25,  where  the  strict  sense*  is 
properly  retained  in  our  translation,  and  Mark  14,  8,  where 
the  exact  sense  is,  what  she  had  she  did,  meaning  no  doubt 
what  she  had  at  her  command  or  in  her  power ;  but  thi? 
ellipsis  does  not  change  the  meaning  of  the  verb  itself.  The 
other  verb  is  common  in  the  classics,  although  rare  in  the 
New  Testament.  The  only  other  instance  of  its  use  is  in  a 
promise  of  our  Lord,  which  may  be  said  to  have  received  its 
first  fulfihnent  in  the  case  before  us.  "  Settle  it  therefore  in 
your  hearts  (i.  e.  when  delivered  into  synagogues  and  prisons, 
and  brought  before  kings  and  rulers  for  his  name's  sake)  not 
to  meditate  before  what  ye  shall  say  in  your  defence  (d7roAoy?y- 
^rjvai) ;  for  I  will  give  you  a  mouth  and  wisdom,  which  all 
your  adversaries  shall  not  be  able  to  gainsay  {avTUTrelv)  or 
withstand."     (Luke  21,  14.  15.) 


150  AC  TS  4,  15.  16. 

15.  But  when  tliey  had  commanded  them  to  gc 
aside  out  of  the  council,  they  conferred  among  them- 
selves. 

Unwilling  to  commit  themselves  by  rash  concessions  in  the 
presence  of  the  prisoners,  they  first  confer  among  themselves, 
resjjecting  what  they  are  to  say  and  do.  £ut^  and,  or  so  then. 
(See  above,  on  v.  13.)  Tf^e^z  they  had  commanded  is  a 
periphrastic  version  of  the  participle,  having  commanded. 
To  go  aside^  or  more  exactly,  to  icithdraw  or  go  away 
{airck^eiv).  The  exclusion  of  the  prisoners  was  not  an  act  of 
violence,  or  even  of  contempt,  but  like  that  of  ambassadors 
from  the  Greek  assembhes  after  they  had  spoken,  a  custom 
often  mentioned  by  Thucydides,  and  not  without  its  counter- 
parts in  modern  usage,  as  for  mstance  in  the  practice  of  courts 
martial  and  the  trial  of  impeachments.  Conferred  or  as  the 
Greek  word  threio  (or  laid)  together^  i.  e.  compared  opinions 
on  a  given  subject.  Among  themselves^  literally,  to  each 
other. 

16.  Saying,  What  shall  we  do  to  these  men  ?  For 
that  indeed  a  notable  miracle  hath  been  done  by  them, 
is  manifest  to  all  them  that  dwell  in  Jerusalem,  and  we 
cannot  deny  (it.) 

We  have  here,  not  the  very  words  of  any  individual,  but 
the  sum  and  substance  of  what  all  said.  (See  above,  on  2,  V.) 
The  question  has  been  idly  raised,  how  Luke  became  acquaint- 
ed with  these  secret  consultations.  To  the  obvious  answer, 
that  he  wrote  by  inspiration,  it  has  been  objected,  not  without 
some  truth,  that  mspiration  was  intended  to  supply  the  de- 
ficiencies of  knowledge  otherwise  obtained,  but  not  gratui- 
tously to  replace  it.  What  wrs  known,  however,  from  other 
sources,  if  incorporated  in  a  revelation  by  divine  command, 
has  all  tlie  authority  of  an  original  divine  suggestion.  There 
is  no  need  therefore  of  attempting  to  discriminate  between 
these  elements  of  revelation.  If  Luke  had  human  sources  of 
intelligence,  he  doubtless  drew  upon  them,  by  divine  permis- 
sion or  command ;  but  if  he  had  not,  this-  is  so  far  from  im 
pairing  the  credit  of  his  narrative,  that  on  the  contrary,  it 
adds  to  it,  by  making  the  divine  authentication  of  his  state- 
ments more  exclusive  and  direct.     To  the  unbeliever  in  hia 


ACTS  4,  16.  17.  151 

inspiration,  it  may  be  a  question  of  some  interest  and  moment, 
whether  he  was  personally  present  upon  this  occasion,  or  re- 
ceived his  information,  viva  voce  or  in  writing,  from  converted 
priests  or  rulers  who  were  members  of  the  Council.  But  to 
those  whose  judgments  are  convinced  and  satisfied  by  over- 
whelmuig  evidence,  that  this  whole  history  is  more  than  a 
mere  human  composition,  these  inquiries  must  be  matters  of 
comparative  indifference,  because  neither  needing  flor  admit- 
ting of  a  certain  answer.  The  form  of  the  question  in  the 
first  clause  is  precisely  similar  to  that  in  2,  37,  that  is  accord- 
ing to  the  common  text,  for  several  of  the  oldest  manuscripts, 
instead  of  shall  we  do  (Troirjo-oixev,)  read  mai/  or  ca7i  we  do 
(ttoitJo-co/xo/),  both  here  and  in  2,  37  above.  Indeed,  not  in 
fact,  171  truth,  or  really  (see  below,  on  v.  27),  but  simply  the 
continuative  particle  (fteV),  usually  answering  to  hut  (Se),  and 
really  without  an  equivalent  in  our  idiom.  (See  above,  on  1, 
3,  where  it  is  translated  truly))  Notable  is  not  a  happy  ver- 
sion, either  here  or  in  2,  20,  where  it  answers  to  a  Greek 
word  altogether  different  in  form  and  meaning.  The  expres- 
sion here  used  (and  explained  above,  on  v.  10)  strictly  means 
well  known,  familiar,  and  implies  unquestionable  certainty  ;  a 
miracle  knovyn  to  have  been  wrought,  and  therefore  unde- 
niable. The  other  adjective  means  nearly  the  same  thing, 
namely,  manifest  or  evident,  but  instead  of  bemg  applied  to 
the  miracle  itself,  is  applied  to  the  fact  of  its  occurrence,  as 
something  visible  and  clear  to  all  Jerusalem.  The  word  here 
put  for  miracle  is  that  which  strictly  means  a  sign  or  proof 
of  something  else.  (See  above72,  19.  22.)  This  is  therefore 
a  concession,  not  only  of  the  fact,  but  of  its  logical  conse- 
quences and  results.  This  nice  distinction  is  observed  in  the 
Rhemish  version  {a  notorious  sign.)  Them  that  dwell  in, 
literally,  those  inhabiting.  (See  above,  on  2,  5.)  Ca7i  is  not 
a  mere  auxiliary,  but  an  independent  verb,  we  are  not  able. 
It  is  again  supplied,  as  in  v.  14,  but  its  antecedent  is  in  this 
case  obvious,  to  mt,  sign  (or  miracle)  immediately  preceding. 

17.  But,  that  it  spread  no  further  among  the  peo- 
ple, let  us  straitly  threaten  them,  that  they  speak  hence- 
forth  to  no  man  in  this  name. 

This  verse  records  the  poor  expedient,  to  which  they  were 
reduced  in  their  perplexity.  The  words  are  still  those  of  the 
Sanhedrim  in  private  consultation.     The  word  translated  but 


152  ACTS  4,  17. 

is  not  the  copulative  particle  (Se)  so  rendered  in  v.  15,  but 
the  proper  adversative  (dAXa),  corresponding  to  the  previous 
concession.  '  ThougJi  the  miracle  is  perfectly  notorious,  and 
it  Avere  foUy  to  deny  it,  yet  let  us  do  what  we  can  to  hinder 
its  effect.'  Sjyi'ead  no  further^  (literally,  inore^  or  to  a  greater 
degree)  is  commonly  explained,  as  in  the  Vulgate  {ne  divul- 
getur)^  of  the  miracle,  'that  it  may  be  no  further  known  or 
heard  of.'  To  this,  though  perhaps  the  obvious  construction, 
there  are  grave  objections.  In  the  first  place,  what  could 
they  have  gained  by  the  s-uppression,  in  the  country  or  the 
provmces,  of  what  was  already  known  to  "all  inhabiting 
Jerusalem  ?  "  If  it  be  true  that  Paris  is  France,  how  much 
more  true  was  it  that  Jerusalem  was  Jewry,  as  being  not 
merely  its  political  centre,  but  the  seat  of  the  theocracy,  the 
chosen  and  exclusive  sphere  of  the  ceremonial  law,  in  whicn 
alone  its  most  important  rites  could  be  performed,  and  from 
w^hich,  as  the  heart  of  the  whole  system,  vital  influences  not 
only  did  but  were  mtended  to  go  forth  to  the  extremities. 
K  the  fact  in  question  was  notorious  in  Jerusalem,  to  foreign 
no  less  than  to  native  residents,  it  mattered  little  whether  it 
sprciid  further  in  Judea  and  Samaria  and  Gralilee  or  not.  But 
even  if  it  had  been  never  so  desirable  to  check  the  spread  of 
this  report,  how  could  it  be  accomplished  ?  And  especially, 
how  could  it  be  accomplished  by  the  means  here  proposed, 
i.  e.  by  threats  and  prohibitions,  not  to  state  this  fact,  but  to 
speak  in  this  name,  i.  e.  to  preach  Christ  ?  The  entire 
irrelevance  and  insufficiency  of  this  expedient  to  prevent  al] 
further  knowledge  of  the  miracle,  evinces  that  the  end  Avhich 
they  proposed  to  gain  was  something  else ;  and  as  the  end 
may  be  determined  by  the  means,  it  seems  to  follow  that, 
unless  they  were  berelt  of  reason,  their  forbidding  them  to 
speak  in  Christ's  name  was  intended,  not  to  stop  the  news  of 
Avhat  had  lately  happened,  but  to  stop  the  progress  of  the  new 
religion.  The  grammatical  objection  to  this  explanation,  that 
the  nearest  antecedent  is  not  doctrine  but  miracle^  is  very 
feeble,  as  the  tacit  change  of  subject  in  successive  sentences 
is  one  of  the  most  natural  and  common  licenses  in  any  lan- 
guage, and  particularly  frequent  in  the  Scriptures.  An  ex- 
ample is  afforded  by  this  very  context,  vs.  10,  11,  where  a 
rigid  application  of  the  rule  contended  for  would  make  the 
corner-stone  to  be  not  Christ  but  the  recovered  cripple! 
The  force  of  this  objection  may  be  further  weakened  by 
observing  that  the  miracle  is  called  a  sig7i^  i.  e.  a  proof  or 


ACTS  4,  11.  18.  153 

attestation  of  the  truth  of  the  new  doctrine.  There  is  there* 
fore  scarcely  even  a  grammatical  irregularity  in  making 
the  new  doctrine  itself  the  subject  of  the  verse  before 
us.  As  a  positive  argument  in  favour  of  this  view,  it  may 
be  stated  that  the  primitive  form  (i/e/xoo)  of  the  Greek  verb 
(SLaveixrj^rj)  rendered  spread,  was  familiarly  applied  to  the 
eating  of  a  cancer  or  malignant  sore,  and  that  Paul  uses  the 
derivative  noun  {vofxrjv)  as  a  figure  for  doctrinal  and  moral 
corruption  (2  Tim.  2,  17.)  What  could  be  more  natural  than 
such  a  figure,  as  applied  to  the  new  doctrine  by  its  virulent 
opposers  ?  This  explanation  agrees  well  too  with  the  phrase 
among  tliepeojjle,  or  more  accurately,  into  the  people ;  'lest 
it  eat  into  the  body  of  the  church  or  chosen  people,  as  a  gan- 
grenous ulcer.'  JStraitly  threaten,  literally,  threaten  with  a 
threatening,  which  is  often  represented  as  a  peculiar  Hebrew 
idiom,  although  examples  may  be  found  in  every  language. 
Some  of  the  oldest  manuscripts  and  latest  editors  omit  the 
noun ;  but  Luke  employs  a  similar  combination  elsewhere 
(Luke  22,  15.)  The  double  negative  in  Greek  {rio  more  to 
speak  to  no  mari)  does  not  cancel  the  negation  as  in  Latin, 
but  enforces  it.  Threaten  them  that  they  speah  (or  more  ex- 
actly, to  speali)  is  a  pregnant  phrase  meaning  to  forbid  with 
threats,  as  the  means  employed  to  make  the  prohibition 
eifectual.  In  this  oiame  is  not  the  phrase  so  rendered  in  v. 
10,  and  in  3,  6  above,  and  meaning  by  the  authority,  or  as  the 
representative,  but  that  employed  in  2,  38  above,  and  strictly 
meaning  either  for  or  on  the  name,  i.  e.  for  its  sake,  or  in  re- 
liance on  it.  Some  suppose  the  omission  of  the  name  itself 
to  be  either  superstitious  or  contemptuous  ;  but  see  the  next 
verse. 

18.  And  tliey  called  them,  and  commanded  them 
not  to  speak  at  all  nor  teach  in  the  name  of  Jesus. 

We  have  here  the  execution  of  the  plan  proposed  in  the 
preceding  verse.  It  is  remarkable  how  frequently  the  par- 
ticipial construction  is  resolved  by  our  translators  hito  finite 
tenses,  as  if  foreign  from  our  idiom,  although  to  modern  ears 
there  is  nothing  offensive  in  the  literal  translation,  having 
called  them  they  commanded.  (The  second  them  is  omitted 
by  the  latest  critics,  as  not  found  in  the  oldest  manuscripts  and 
versions.)  Commanded,  peremptorily  required  or  ordered. 
(See  above,  on  1,  4,  where  the  same  verb  is  employed,  and 

VOL.  I. — V* 


154  ACTS  4,  18.  19. 

below,  on  5,  34.)  At  all,  in  the  translation,  seems  to  qualify 
the  first  verb  only,  but  in  Greek  it  stands  before  both  nega- 
tives, and  therefore  qualifies  both  verbs.  The  Greek  phrase 
(to  Ka%X.ov)  properly  means  wholly,  altogether  (corresponding 
to  the  Latin  omiiino),  but  in  negative  constructions  must  be 
rendered  7iot  at  all,  by  no  mea7is,  or,  with  the  older  English 
versions,  on  no  inan7ier  (Wiclif),  in  no  loise  (Tyndale).  The 
distinction  made  by  some  between  speaJc  and  teach  as  denoting 
private  talk  and  public  speech  respectively,  is  not  consistent 
with  the  usage  ,of  the  first  Greek  verb  (cp^eyyecr^aL),  which, 
although  not  so  strong  as  its  compound  (dTro^^eyyco-ifai)  used 
above  in  2,  4.  14,  still  denotes  the  act  oi  S2:)eaking  out  or  speak- 
ing loud,  and  is  therefore  more  appropriate  to  public  than  to 
private  talk.  The  true  distinction  is  that,  while  both  verbs 
here  refer  to  public  speaking,  the  first  relates  more  to  the 
sound  or  utterance,  the  second  to  the  matter  uttered'  or  the 
subject  of  discourse.  The  common  version  therefore,  with  a 
slight  transposition,  is  correct,  not  at  all  to  speak  or  teach. 
In  the  name  is  precisely  the  same  phrase  as  in  the  verse  pre- 
ceding. The  addition  of  the  name  itself  refutes  the  notion 
that  it  was  suppressed  through  fear  or  in  contempt,  unless  we 
arbitrarily  suppose  it  to  be  added  here  by  the  historian,  or 
assume  a  diflerence  between  what  they  proposed  to  say  and 
what  they  did  say. 

19.  But  Peter  and  John  answered  and  said  unto 
them,  Whether  it  be  right,  m  the  sight  of  God,  to 
hearken  unto  you  more  than  unto  God,  judge  ye  ! 

The  same  remarkable  conjunction  of  the  two  Apostles, 
which  has  run  through  the  entire  previous  narrative,  here 
occurs  again,  perhaps  because  the  words  recorded  are  a  sum- 
mary of  what  both  said  at  greater  length,  although  this  is  by 
no  means  a  necessary  supposition.  (See  above,  on  3,  1.  4.  11. 
4, 1.13.)  Ansioered  is  never  wholly  pleonastic  (see  above,  on 
3,  12),  and  has  here  its  full  force,  as  the  words  that  follow  are 
a  direct  reply  to  the  command  recorded  in  the  verse  pre- 
ceding. The  same  remark  apj^lies  to  if  (ct)  or  lohether.  (See 
above,  on  v.  9.)  As  right  (Wiclif,  rightful)  by  itself  might  have 
been  understood  to  mean  only  lawful,  in  a  lower  sense,  i.  e. 
allowed  by  human  laws,  they  add  before  (or  in  the  sight  of) 
God,  i.  e.  in  his  estimation,  or  according  to  his  judgment, 
which  is  the  meanmg  of  the  Greek  phrase  elsewhere."    (See 


ACTS  4,  19.  165 

be^ow,  on  8,  21,  and  compare  Luke  1,  6.  Rom.  3,  20.)  Hear 
or  hearken  never  of  itself  means  to  obey^  but  that  idea  ia 
often  necessarily  implied,  as  in  3,  22.  23  above,  Luke  10,  16. 
16,31.  John  5,24.  8,47,  and  in  the  dialect  of  common  life, 
where  men  are  said  to  hear  or  not  to  hear  advice  or  instruc- 
tion, by  a  natural  figure,  without  any  reference  to  Hebrew 
usage.  The  word,  however,  suggests  more  than  obedience, 
namely,  attention  and  intelligence,  as  necessary  antecedents. 
More  is  by  some  translated  rather^  on  the  ground  that  more 
implies  mere  difference  of  degree,  whereas  the  question  was 
not  which  should  be  obeyed  the  most,  but  which  should  be 
obeyed  at  all.  The  parallel  cited  in  support  of  this  correction 
(Luke  18, 14)  is  not  entirely  in  point ;  for  there,  from  the  na- 
ture of  the  case,  the  denial  of  the  Pharisees'  justification  must 
be  absolute ;  whereas  the  Apostles  cannot  mean  to  say  that 
men  are  not  bound  to  obey  human  magistrates  at  all,  but 
merely  put  the  question,  whether  they  are  bound  to  give 
those  magistrates,  the  preference,  when  their  authority  con- 
flicts with  God's.  Another  difi*erence,  of  no  small  moment, 
is  that  in  the  Gospel,  the  word  [iiaXkov)  here  translated  more 
does  not  occur  at  all,  but  merely  the  conjunction  {rj)  than^  or 
according  to  the  oldest  text,  its  strengthened  form  (t)  yap), 
leavmg  the  term  of  comparison  itself  to  be  supplied  from  the 
connection.  There  is  no  objection,  therefore,  to  the  version 
more^  even  considered  as  expressing  a  mere  difference  of  de- 
gree, although  it  may,  agreeably  to  English  usage,  have  pre- 
cisely the  same  sense  that  is  proposed  to  be  expressed  by 
rather.  The  concluding  words,  judge  ye,  admit  of  two  inter- 
pretations somewhat  different,  in  emjDhasis  and  force,  if  not 
in  their  essential  import.  One  meaning,  and  perhaps  the  one 
most  commonly  attached  to  them,  is,  'you  may  judge  for  us; 
we  are  willing,  in  a  case  so  clear,  to  abide  by  your  decision.' 
The  other,  and  to  my  mind  the  most  striking  and  impressive, 
is,  'you  may  judge  for  yourselves,  and  take  the  consequences 
of  your  own  decision ;  but  as  for  us,  we  cannot  but  speak, 
etc'  (See  below,  w^otl  the  next  verse.)  The  noble  principle 
implied,  if  not  expressed,  in  these  words,  was  not  wholly  un- 
known, even  to  the  more  enlightened  heathen.  Parallels, 
more  or  less  exact,  have  been  cited  from  Herodotus  and 
Livy ;  but  by  far  the  nearest  and  most  striking  is  one  found 
in  Plato's  Defence  of  Socrates,  where  the  philosoi^her  is  made 
to  say,  "  You,  oh  Athenians,  I  embrace  and  love,  but  I  wilJ 
obey  God  (aaXXov)  more  (or  rather)  than  you." 


156  ACTS  4,  20. 

20.  Por  we  cannot  but  speak  (the  things)  which  we 
have  seen  and  heard. 

This  verse  must  be  read  in  the  closest  connection  with  the 
one  before  it,  on  account  of  the  antithesis  between  the  first 
and  second  person,  indicated  by  the  pronoun  wc^  which  in 
Greek  is  not  necessary,  as  it  is  in  English,  to  distinguish  the 
person  of  the  verb,  and  therefore  when  inserted  is  most  com- 
monly emphatic.  (See  above,  on  v.  10.)  This  affords  an- 
other argument  m  favour  of  the  explanation  just  proposed  of 
the  words  judge  ye.  '  Yoic  may  judge  for  yourselves;  we 
have  already  judged  for  ourselves.'  The  meaning  then  is,  not 
that  the  Apostles  ask  the  council  to  judge  for  them,  what 
they  ought  to  do,  but  quite  the  contrary.  In  v.  19,  they  ex- 
l^ress  their  indifference  to  the  judgment  of  the  rulers ;  in  v. 
20,  their  own  settled  resolution.  The  true  connection  may 
be  made  clear  by  a  paraphrase.  '  Whether  God  would  ap- 
prove our  listening  to  your  commands  in  preference  to  his, 
you  may  determine  for  yourselves ;  but  whatever  your  deter- 
mination may  be,  our  course  is  clear,  we  cannot  hut^  etc' 
This  last  is  an  idiomatic  English  version  of  a  Greek  phrase 
strictly  meaning,  we  are  not  able  not  to  apeak.  The  first  verb 
is  the  same  as  in  tlie  last  clause  of  v.  16.  Cannot  hut  is  not 
yet  obsolete  in  EngHsh,  but  is  often  erroneously  replaced  by 
the  correlative  expression,  can  hut^  which  is  altogether  dif- 
ferent in  meaning.  In  the  present  case,  icc  can  hut  speak 
would  mean  'we  can  only  speak,  we  can  do  no  more  than 
speak,'  whereas  we  cannot  hut  speak  means  '  we  must  speak, 
we  cannot  avoid  speaking.'  An  additional  argument  in  fa- 
vour of  the  view  which  has  been  taken  of  v.  1 9,  may  be  drawn 
from  the  remarkable  analogy  of  Josh.  24,  15,  where  the  very 
same  antithesis  occurs,  but  unambiguously  stated.     "  Choose 

you  this  day  whom  ye  will  serve but  I,  and  my  house, 

wx  will  serve  the  Lord."  (See  below,  on  6,  4.)  The  tilings,^ 
though  wanting  in  the  Greek,  is  not  distinguished  by  italics 
m  the  English  Bible,  no  doubt  because  it  was  considered  as 
essential  to  the  translation  of  the  plural  pronoun  (a)  which  or 
what.  The  things  meant  are  of  course  the  works  and  Avords 
of  Jesus,  of  which  they  were  the  w^itnesses,  appointed  by  him- 
self (see  above,  on  1,  8.  22.  '2,  32.  3,  15),  a  trust  which  would 
have  been  betrayed  if  they  had  ceased,  as  required  by  the 
council,  "  to  speak  or  teach  in  the  name  of  Jesus."  The 
verbs  aro  aorists  and  properly  refer  to  tune  already  past. 


ACTS  4,  20.  21.  15^i 

what  {things)  we  saw  and  heard^  while  Jesus  was  on  earth, 
and  we  were  his  companions.  There  is  some  loss  of  emphasis, 
though  not  of  clearness,  in  the  English  version,  from  the  ne- 
cessary change  of  collocation  in  accordance  with  our  idiom. 
The  original  order  of  the  sentence  is,  not  able  are  we^  idtat 
(things)  we  saio  and  heard^  not  to  speah. 

21.  So  when  they  had  further  threatened  them, 
they  let  them  go,  finding  nothing  hoAV  they  might  pmi- 
ish  them,  because  of  the  people ;  for  all  (men)  glorified 
God  for  that  which  was  done. 

The  construction  m  the  first  clause  is  similar  to  that  at  thci 
beginning  of  1,  6.  2,  41,  except  that  one  continuative  particle 
(Se)  is  substituted  for  another  (ykv  ovv).  There  is  here,  how- 
ever, no  such  ambiguity  as  in  those  cases,  since  the  subject 
of  the  sentence  must  be  the  magistrates,  to  whom  the  answer 
in  the  two  foregoing  verses  was  addressed.  Here  again  the 
participial  construction  is  avoided  in  the  English  version, 
although  perfectly  agreeable  to  modern  usage  and  retamed  in 
the  next  clause.  A  more  exact  translation  would  be,  they 
then  (or  they  however)  having  further  threatened  them.  Fur- 
ther^ or  more,  or  in  addition,  is  expressed  in  Greek,  not  by  an 
adverb,  but  by  a  compound  verb,  in  which  the  particle 
prefixed  {irpo^^  to)  joins  to  the  meaning  of  the  verb  itself  the 
idea  of  addition  or  repetition.  The  power  thus  to  modify  the 
radical  idea  of  a  word,  without  the  addition  of  another,  is  one 
of  the  chief  excellencies  of  the  Greek  language,  and  enhances 
the  difiiculty  of  exact  translation  mto  English,  which  possesses 
the  same  power  in  a  far  inferior  degree.  Examples  of  the 
same  thing  may  be  found  in  Luke  10,  35,  where  the  words 
thou  spendest  more  correspond  to  a  single  word  in  Greek, 
compounded  with  the  same  joreposition ;  and  m  Luke  19,  16, 
where  the  verb  translated  gained  is  of  the  same  form  and 
means  gained  besides  or  in  addition  to  the  capital.  Further 
threatened^  i.  e.  in  addition  to  the  threats  proposed  in  v.  17^ 
and  no  doubt  actually  joined  to  the  commands  in  v.  18,  though 
not  particularly  mentioned.  Let  them  go,  released  them,  or 
discharged  them,  no  doubt  by  a  formal  and  judicial  act, 
whereas  the  English  version  rather  suggests  the  idea  of  mfor- 
mally  allowing  their  escape.  (See  above,  on  3, 13,  where  the 
same  Greek  verb  is  used  in  reference  to  Christ  and  Pilate.) 


353  ACTS  4,  21. 

The  use  of  the  verb  finding  is  like  that  in  Luke  5, 19,  imply, 
ing,  in  both  cases,  previous  search  and  effort.  Some  would 
supply  fault  or  charge  from  Luke  23,  14,  but  that  introduces 
an  idea  not  necessarily  suggested  here,  where  not  finding 
rather  signifies  discovering  no  means  or  way  of  doing  what 
they  wished.  Another  singular  Greek  idiom,  entirely  foreign 
from  our  oAvn,  and  therefore  not  apparent  in  the  version,  is 
the  use  of  the  article  to  qualify  a  whole  clause  or  member  of 
a  sentence,  where  to  us  it  seems ,  entirely  superfluous,  and  in- 
deed would,  without  explanation,  convey  no  idea  to  an  Eng- 
lish reader.  Thus  in  the  verse  before  us,  the  exact  form  of  the 
middle  clause  is,  not  finding  the  how-they-niight-piinish-them^ 
the  last  five  words  (corresponding  to  three  Greek  ones)  being 
treated  as  a  noun.  \n\h  which  the  article  agrees,  and  which 
the  participle  governs.  The  nearest  approach,  of  which  our 
idiom  admits,  is  by  the  use  of  a  demonstrative,  not  finding 
this  (namely)  hoio  they  might  punish  them.  This  peculiar 
form  of  speech  is  particularly  frequent  m  Luke's  writings  (see 
below,  on  22,  30,  and  compare  the  Greek  of  Luke  1,  62.  9,  46. 
22,  4.  23.  37),  but  is  also  used  by  Mark  (9,  23)  and  Paul  (Rom. 
8,  26.  13,  9.)  The  reserve  here  mentioned  did  not  spring 
from  any  equity  or  moderation  m  the  rulers,  but  was  practised 
07%  account  (or  because)  of  the  people.  These  words,  "from 
their  position,  both  in  Greek  and  English,  might  appear  to 
qualify  the  verb  immediately  preceding ;  but  as  this  construc- 
tion would  destroy  the  sense  (how  they  might  punish  them 
because  of  the  people),  it  is  another  illustration  of  the  fact 
that  there  are  exceptions  to  all  rules,  and  that  a  most  im- 
portant function  of  sound  exegesis  is  to  ascertain  them,  with- 
out unduly  multiplying  or  reducing  the  amount  of  such  gram- 
matical irregularities,  if  such  they  may  be  called.  (See  above, 
on  V.  17.)  The  common  sense  of  every  reader  leads  him  here 
to  overleap  the  nearest  antecedents,  and  connect  this  qualify- 
ing clause  with  one  of  the  remoter  verbs,  'they  let  them  go 
^not  finding,  etc.)  on  account  of  the  people ' — or,  '  not  finding 
(how,  etc.)  on  account  of  the  people.'  The  fact  in  either  case 
remains  the  same,  that  they  were  hindered  from  punishing 
the  two  Apostles,  by  the  state  of  public  feeling,  which  must 
therefore  have  been  clear  and  unambiguous.  How  did  they 
know  it  ?  JBecaase  all  loere  glorifying  God  for  ichat  had 
happened.  The  use  of  the  imperfect,  not  regarded  in  the 
English  versions,  adds  to  the  essential  meaning  the  accessory 
notion  of  continued  action.     They  not  only  did  so  when  they 


ACTS  4,  21.  22.  159 

saw  the  miracle,  but  now,  upon  the  next  day,  they  were  slill 
employed  in  the  same  manner,  while  the  Sanhedrim  was  sit- 
ting, and  most  probably  within  hearing  of  the  praises  of  the 
multitude.  The  word  translated  glorified  is  sometimes  used 
in  that  sense  by  the  best  Greek  writers,  but  most  commonly 
in  that  of  thinking  or  opining,  being  of  opinion.  Both  these 
senses,  although  seemingly  remote,  may  be  reduced  to  the 
same  radical  idea  (So^'a,  an  opinion),  in  its  two  distinct  phases, 
that  of  the  opinion  entertamed  by  a  person  upon  any  subject, 
and  that  of  the  opinion  entertained  of  Imn  by  others,  more 
especially  when  this  is  highly  favourable,  and  thus  the  same 
word  which  denotes  opinion  may  be  used  to  denote  fame  or 
glory.  Tyndale  has  lauded^  Cranmer  praised^  and  Wiclif 
clarified^  a  curious  example  of  the  gradual  restriction  to  ma- 
terial processes  of  words  which  once  expressed  intellectual 
and  spiritual  acts ;  unless  the  supposition  be  preferred,  that 
the  Reformer  simply  copied  too  closely  the  mere  letter  of  his 
Vulgate  {darificcdjcint).,  thus  committing  the  same  error  which 
he  shunned  in  3,  2,  while  the  other  English  copyist  of  Jerome 
(the  Rhemish  version),  which  was  there  betrayed  into  the 
solecism  of  a  specious  gate^  has  here  the  same  form  with  King 
James's  Bible,  glorified,  (For  the  meaning  of  the  preposition 
for  {iTTi),  see  above,  on  3,  16.  4,  17.)  That  which  icas  done^ 
or  more  exactly,  fior  the  (thing)  happened^  come  to  p)ass^  or, 
as  the  Rhemish  version  has  it,  chanced.  This  refers  of  course 
to  the  miracle  of  healing,  which  had  given  occasion  to  the 
whole  proceeding.  We  learn  from  this  verse,  that  the  oppo- 
sition of  the  rulers  to  the  infant  church  had  not  yet  extended 
to  the  body  of  the  people.     (See  below,  on  5,  13.) 

22.  For  the  man  was  above  forty  years  old,  on  whom 
this  miracle  of  healing  was  shewed. 

The  length  of  time  during  which  he  had  been  crippled  is 
not  mentioned  to  enhance  the  miracle  itself,  as  if  a  case  of 
shorter  standing  might  have  been  more  easily  restored,  but  to 
show  the  notoriety,  both  of  his  previous  condition  and  oi  the 
sudden  change  which  had  been  wrought,  precluding  all  possi- 
bility of  error  or  deception,  and  accounting  for  the  popular 
effect  described  in  the  preceding  verse.  '  All  were  still  gloria 
lying  God  for  such  a  signal  and  unquestionable  miracle,  in 
which  there  could  be  no  suspicion  of  illusion  or  collusion,  as 
ihe  subject  of  the  cure  had  been  born  a  cripple  and  was  now 


160  ACTS  4,  22.  23. 

more  than  forty  years  of  age.'  Above  forty  years  old^  lite, 
rally,  of  more  (than)  forty  years.  On  whom  is  the  version  of 
a  Greek  phrase  implying  motion  and  rest  over  and  npon  an 
object  (see  above,  on  1,  21),  and  suggesting  therefore  the  idea 
of  an  mliuence  or  power  from  above,  and  at  the  same  time  of 
a  permanent  effect.  Tliis  miracle  of  healing^  Vulg.  signum 
istud  sanitatis.  Tyndale's  inexact  translation  of  the  last  verb 
{sheioed)  is  retamed  in  our  Bible.  The  Greek  verb  is  one  that 
has  rei^eatedly  occurred  before  (e.  g.  in  vs.  4.  5. 11. 16.21)  and 
means  had  happened^  come  to  pass,  or  been  performed.  Wic- 
lif  still  adheres  closely  to  the  letter  of  the  Vulgate,  tlie  m.an  in 
whom  that  sign  of  health  was  made.  The  peculiar  form  of 
the  original  is,  07i  wihoin  had  come  (or  come  to  pass)  the  sign — 
this  (sign)  of  healing. 

23.  And  being  let  go,  tliey  went  to  their  o^vn  (com- 
pany), and  reported  all  that  the  chief  priests  and  elders 
had  said  unto  them. 

And  in  this  verse,  noio  in  v.  13,  hut  in  v.  15,  and  so  m  v. 
21,  are  aU  translations  of  the  same  Greek  particle  (Se) ;  nor  is 
there  any  reason  for  the  variation  but  the  taste  of  the  trans- 
lator. Li  the  next  phrase  {hemg  let  go)  the  participial  con- 
struction is  retained  in  our  version,  although  Tyndale  has  the 
usual  periphrasis,  as  soo7i  as  they  icere  let  go.  (For  the  mean- 
ing of  the  Greek  verb,  see  above,  on  v.  22.)  Went^  or  came^ 
the  Greek  verb  being  used  for  both  in  different  connections. 
(See  above,  on  1,  21.)  There  is  nothing  answering  to  com- 
pany in  Greek,  nor  is  it  necessary,  either  to  complete  the 
sense,  or  to  accommodate  the  English  idiom,  as  may  be  seen 
from  John  1,  11.  13,  1,  in  which  two  places  the  translation  has 
his  own  three  times,  without  supplying  any  thing,  while  in 
Acts  24.  23,  it  is  translated  his  acquaintance.  The  meaning 
here  is  their  oion  people^  friends.,  or  as  the  oldest  English  ver- 
sions have  it,  fellows.  The  Vulgate  (suos)  is  much  nearer  to 
the  Greek  than  its  Rhemish  copy  (theirs.)  The  neuter  (to 
lSlo)  is  used  to  signify  one's  home.  (See  below,  on  21,  6,  and 
compare  John  16,32.  19,27.)  Both  forms  are  combined  in 
that  remarkable  sentence,  "  he  came  unto  his  ovrn  (to.  ISlo.)  and 
his  own  (ol  lSlol)  received  him  not"  (John  1,  11.)  As  the  lan- 
guage is  designedly  indefinite,  it  is  wiiolly  arbitrary  to  restrict 
it  by  conjecture.  All  that  we  can  gather  from  the  context  is, 
that  a  particular  assembly  must  be  meant,  and  not  a  generaJ 


ACTS   4,  23.  161 

visitation  of  the  dispersed  Christians.  Reported  (i.  e.  carried 
back)  is  an  excellent  translation  of  the  Greek  verb  (a-TnT^/y^i- 
A.av),  which,  though  it  may  originally  mean  no  more  than  to 
announce^  is  scarcely  ever  used  in  the  New  Testament,  with- 
out some  unplication,  more  or  less  distinct,  of  previous  inter- 
course between  the  parties.  (See  below,  on  5,  22.  22,  20,  and 
compare  Matt.  2,  8.  8,  33.  11,  4.  28,  8.  10.  Luke  7,  22.  14,  21, 
and  many  other  places,  where  this  special  sense  is  not  admitted 
by  the  lexicons,  though  no  less  natural  than  m  the  others.) 
Instead  of  elders  cmd  scribes^  put  for  the  whole  Sanhedrim  in 
v.  5,  we  have  here  chief  pj^iests  cmd  elders.  As  the  first  of 
these  titles  (apxtepets),  though  always  rendered  in  the  English 
version  chief  p)i'iests^  is  the  plural  of  the  one  translated  high 
priest  in  v.  6,  and  elsewhere  (see  below,  5,  11.  21.  24.  27.  7, 1. 
9,  1.  22,  5.  23,  2.  4.  5.  24,  1.  25,  2),  it  becomes  a  question  who 
are  meant  by  high  p/riests  in  the  plural  number.  The  prin- 
cipal 02:)inions  are,  that  it  denotes  the  near  relations  of  the 
High  Priest  (see  above,  on  v.  6) ;  or  the  heads  of  the  twenty- 
four  courses  into  which  the  priesthood  was  divided  by  David 
(1  Chron.  24, 1-19.  Luke  1,  5)  ;  or  the  natural  elders  and 
hereditary  chiefs  of  the  house  of  Aaron ;  or  priests  appointed 
over  certain  parts  of  the  temple  service ;  or  finally  several  of 
these  combined.  As  all  these  explanations  are  conjectural, 
and  none  of  them  entirely  accounts  for  the  extension  to  these 
priests  of  a  title  properly  belonging  to  the  one  High  Priest ; 
it  may  be  worthy  of  consideration,  whether  this  usage,  at  least 
ui  the  book  before  us,  may  not  have  arisen  from  the  strange 
confusion  m  the  high  priesthood  which  has  been  described 
above  (on  v.  6) ;  so  that  chief  pi^iests  really  means  high  priests.^ 
i.  e.  all  such  as  had  been  high  priests  de  facto  under  the  Ro- 
man domination,  however  small  their  niunber  may  have  been 
at  this  time,  since  the  two  who  are  expressly  mentioned  (An- 
nas and  Caiaphas,  see  above,  on  v.  6)  are  sufficient  to  explain 
and  justify  the  plural  form.  The  question  is  of  less  importance 
here,  because  the  phrase  high  pyi^iests  is  evidently  joined  with 
scribes.,  to  designate  the  Sanhedrim,  by  nammg  two  of  it? 
component  classes,  whether  few  or  many.  What  the  two 
Apostles  now  reported  to  their  brethren  Avas  not  so  much  the 
violence  which  they  had  sufiered  as  the  words  of  their  op- 
pressors. The  Greek  word  (oo-a)  rendered  all  that  is  applied 
in  the  classics  both  to  magnitude  (Jiow  great)  and  to  number 
{jiow  many)  /  but  according  to  the  lexicons,  the  latter  sense 
predominates  in  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament.     Our  ver- 


162  ACTS  4,  23.  24. 

sion  uses  great  and  somewhat  arbitrary  license  in  translating 
it  which  (John  21,25),  what  (Mark  6,80),  whatsoever  (Lnke 
4,  23),  all  that  (Acts  14,  27),  all  things  that  (15,  4),  hoio  many 
things  (2  Tim.  1,  18),  how  great  things  (Mark  5,  19.  20),  lohat 
great  things  (Mark  3,  8.)  If  it  ever  has  the  more  emphatic 
meaning,  a  specific  reason  must  be  given  for  diluting  it,  and 
no  such  reason  can  be  given  here.  The  best  sense  seems  to  bb 
how  great  things^  as  expressed  by  Wiclif,  and  referring  to  the 
threatenings  of  v.  17.     (See  below,  on  v.  29.) 

24.  And  when  they  heard  that,  they  hfted  up  their 
voice  to  God  with  one  accord  and  said,  Lord,  thou 
(art)  God,  which  hast  made  heaven  and  earth,  and  the 
sea,  and  all  that  in  them  is  — 

The  effect  of  their  threatenings,  as  reported  by  the  two 
Apostles,  was  to  call  forth  so  remarkable  a  prayer  from  the 
assembled  brethren,  that  it  has  been  left  on  record,  in  its  sub- 
stance, if  not  at  full  length.  (For  the  meaning  of  the  phrase 
with  one  accord^  see  above,  on  1,  14.  2,  1.  46.)  Lifted  up 
their  voice^  or  prayed  aloud,  not  merely  in  their  hearts,  but 
Avith  their  lips  and  tongues.  But  how  could  all  do  this  at 
once,  and  m  the  same  words  ?  This  question  has  been  va- 
riously answered.  Some  suppose  a  special  inspiration,  promp- 
ting the  same  thoughts  and  Avords  in  all  who  were  assembled. 
There  is  nothing  incredible  in  this  to  those  who  admit  the 
possibility  of  inspiration.  But  the  case  supposed  is  certainly 
so  rare,  that  we  are  not  bound  to  assume  it,  if  the  words 
admit  of  any  other  explanation,  without  violence  either  to 
the  text  or  context.  Some  accordingly  su2:>pose  that  this  was 
a  liturgical  form,  already  introduced  into  the  infant  Church, 
and  used  on  this  occasion  as  peculiarly  appropriate  to  the 
existing  juncture  or  emergency.  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that 
this  very  singular  opinion  has  found  more  favour,  at  least 
recently,  with  German  than  with  Anglican  interpreters.  To 
the  obvious  objection,  that  the  prayer  is  here  recorded  as  a 
sudden  outburst  of  devout  emotion  and  desire,  provoked  by 
what  the  worshippers  had  just  been  told,  it  is  replied,  that 
there  is  nothing  in  the  prayer  exclusively  relating  to  its  prox- 
imate occasion,  or  forbidding  its  repeated  use  in  other  like 
emergencies.  Another  objection,  not  so  easily  disposed  of,  is 
that  this  hypothesis  assumes  the  existence  of  a  certain  practice 


ACTS  4,  24.  163 

in  the  mfant  Church,  not  only  without  definite  authority  from 
Scripture,  but  in  opposition  to  its  whole  drift  and  tenor.  For 
whatever  use  ingenious  theorists  may  make  of  insulated  terms 
or  passages,  a  thousand  unsophisticated  readers  might  peruse 
the  whole  New  Testament,  without  once  thinking  of  a  form 
oT  ]:)rayer,  any  more  than  of  a  rosary  or  a  crucifix.  Besides, 
if  Christian  forms  of  prayer  had  been  already  introduced-^ 
and  no  one  will  contend  that  this  was  borrowed  from  the 
Jews — how  does  it  happen  that  we  have  but  this  one  speci- 
men preserved  to  us  ?  Whereas  its  i^reservation  becomes  al- 
together natural  when  we  regard  it,  not  as  the  recital  of  a  form, 
however  earnest  and  devout,  but  as  the  fruit  of  sudden  and 
spontaneous  imj^ulse,  growing  out  of  the  history,  and  therefore 
forming  just  as  much  a  part  of  it  as  Peter's  Pentecostal  sermon, 
or  his  answer  to  the  arrogant  injunction  of  the  Sanhedrim, 
recorded  in  this  chapter.  The  only  other  argument  that  need 
be  urged  against  this  paradoxical  interpretation,  is  that  ac- 
cording to  the  warmest  friends  and  most  accredited  historians 
of  Liturgies  in  our  day,  they  were  not  forms  concocted  and 
prescribed  at  once,  but  gradual  collections  and  notations  of 
such  prayers  as  had  first  been  orally  repeated  until  they 
became  the  natural  expression  of  religious  feeling  to  the  mul- 
titudes who  used  them,  and  were  finally  reduced  to  ^\Titing, 
not  as  something  new  but  something  old,  not  as  a  cause  but 
an  effect  of  devotion  in  the  Church,  developed  and  matured 
by  the  experience  of  generations,  or  perhaps  of  ages.  If 
this  be  the  true  genesis  of  liturgies,  on  which  some  of  their 
highest  claims  to  admiration  arc  now  founded,  there  is 
somethmg  ludicrous  in  the  idea  of  a  peculiar  Christian 
liturgy  so  early  introduced  and  established  at  Jerusalem, 
that  the  disciples,  upon  this  unexpected  and  remarkable  occa- 
sion, could  express  their  strongest  feelings  and  desires  in  a 
form  already  known  to  all  of  them.  At  all  events,  it  may  be 
safely  said,  that  neither  the  hypothesis  of  a  special  revelation, 
nor  that  of  a  familiar  written  form,  is  so  self-evidently  true 
as  to  preclude  all  possibility  or  need  of  a  more  natural  inter- 
pretation. Two  still  remain  to  be  considered,  one  of  which 
appears  to  have  commanded  the  assent  of  most  interpreters 
in  all  times  and  churches.  This  is  the  simple  supposition, 
that  they  are  all  said  to  have  lifted  up  their  voices  with  one 
accord,  because  they  all  united  in  the  prayer  of  one,  just  as 
we  now  speak  of  a  whole  congregation  praying,  when  a  sin- 
gle voice  is  audible,  whether  the  prayers  be  written  or  un- 


164  ACTS  4,  24. 

written.  This  exi^ression  becomes  still  more  natural  if  we 
assume  that  the  whole  company  gave  audible  assent  to  the 
expressions  of  their  spokesman,  which  we  know  to  have  been 
the  ancient  practice,  both  of  the  Jewish  and  the  Christian 
Church.  (See  Deut.  27,  15-26.  1  Chron.  16,  36.  Ps.  106,  48. 
1  Cor.  14,  16.)  The  remaining  explanation  is,  that  all  did 
actually  pray  aloud,  and  each  one  for  himself,  and  that  Luke 
here  gives,  not  the  exact  Vr^ords  of  any  one  among  them,  but. 
the  substance  of  the  spirit  of  the  prayers  of  all,  clothed  in  ex- 
pressions of  his  own,  or  rather  m  words  taught  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  (Aoyots  8tSaKTots  TTvcvfiaTos,  1  Cor.  2,  13).  The  advan- 
tage of  this  exi^lanation  is,  that  it  enables  us  to  take  the 
words,  they  lifted  tip  their  voice  with  one  accord^  m  their  most 
natural  and  proper  sense.  The  advantage  of  the  other  is,  that 
it  enables  us  to  look  upon  the  words  here  recorded  as  those 
actually  uttered.  Both  are  in  strict  accordance  with  the 
usage  of  this  book,  as  the  eleven  are  said  to  have  prayed 
(1,  24)  when  every  thing  in  the  connection  would  lead  us  to 
regard  the  words  as  those  of  Peter ;  and  in  another  case, 
where  this  is  also  the  most  probable  assumption,  both  his 
words  and  actions  are  ascribed  equally  to  John  (compare  vs. 
18  and  13  of  this  chapter,  and  see  above,  on  3,  4.  11.)  On 
the  other  hand,  there  are  repeated  instances,  m  the  foregoing 
context,  where  the  words  ascribed  to  a  plurality  of  persons 
seem  to  be  a  summary  or  abstract  of  what  all  said  m  another 
form  and  at  greater  length  (compare  v.  16  of  this  chapter, 
and  see  above,  on  2,  7-12.)  Each  of  these  two  hypotheses 
will  probably  commend  itself  to  some  minds  as  entitled  to  the 
preference,  while  most  unbiassed  readers  will  agree  that  both 
are  more  entitled  to  belief,  than  either  of  the  two  first  men- 
tioned, as  requiring  less  to  be  assumed,  and  offering  less  vio- 
lence to  usage  and  analogy,  but  at  the  same  time  meeting  all 
the  requisitions  of  the  narrative.  The  form  of  the  prayer 
itself  is  worthy  of  particular  attention.  The  petition  occupies 
the  smallest  part  (vs.  29,  30),  being  added,  as  a  sort  of  sup- 
plement or  afterthought,  to  the  invocation  of  the  Most  High 
as  Creator  of  the  Universe  (v.  24),  and  to  an  exposition  of 
the  second  Psalm  as  a  prophecy  of  Christ  (vs.  2-28),  the  lai-ge 
space  occupied  by  which  makes  it  still  more  improbable,  that 
this  was  a  prescribed  form  of  devotion  in  the  infant  Church. 
The  address  to  God  in  this  verse  has  a  peculiarity  of  form  not 
visible  in  the  translation.  The  word  here  rendered  Lord  is 
not  the  common  one  (Kvpte,  1,  6.  24),  but  the  Greek  term  for 


ACTS   4,  24.  25.  165 

a  master  as  distinguished  from  his  slaves,  and  is  repeatedly 
so  used  in  the  New  Testament  (1  Tim.  6,  1.  2.  Tit.  2,  9.  1  Pet. 
2,  18.)  In  its  wider  application  by  the  classical  writers, 
it  denotes  any  one  possessed  of  absolute  authority  or  power ; 
hence  our  English  despot,  with  its  odious  associations.  In  a 
good  sense,  Euripides  and  Xenophon  apply  it  to  the  gods ; 
and  this  religious  use  has  been  retained  in  several  passages 
of  the  New  Testament,  where  the  full  force  of  the  original 
ex])ression  is  not  felt  in  the  translation  (e.  g.  Luke  2,  29. 
Jude  4.  Rev.  6,  10.)  Paul  and  Peter  both  apply  the  term  to 
Christ  (2  Tim.  2,  21.  2  Pet.  2,  1.)  .In  the  case  before  us,  it 
has  reference  to  God's  creative  power,  and  his  sovereign  au- 
thority over  his  creatures  thence  arising,  as  appears  from  the 
remainder  of  the  verse.  The  word  God  is  omitted  in  the 
oldest  manuscripts  and  latest  critical  editions.  The  word  art 
is  supplied  m  our  translation,  although  not  distinguished  by 
italics.  Most  interpreters  omit  it  and  regard  this  verse,  not 
as  a  complete  proposition,  but  as  a  description  of  the  being 
here  addressed.  Oh  Lord^  icho  didst  mahe  (or  according  to 
the  common  text,  the  God  icho  made)  heaven  and  earth  and 
sea,  with  their  contents,  here  put  for  the  whole  frame  of  na- 
ture or  material  universe.  Here  agam  the  Greek  verb  has  a 
participial  form,  and  strictly  means  the  (o7ie)  maJcing  or  hamng 
made.  The  article  should  either  have  been  inserted  or  omitted 
before  all  the  nouns.  The  inequahty,  in  this  respect,  belongs 
entirely  to  the  version  ;  in  the  Greek  the  words  aU  have  the 
article,  though  our  idiom  does  not  require  it.  This  address 
to  God  as  the  Creator,  and  by  necessary  consequence  the 
providential  ruler  of  the  world,  prepares  the  way  for  another 
description  in  the  next  verse. 

25.  Who  by  the  mouth  of  thy  sen^ant  David  hast 
said,  Why  did  the  heathen  rage,  and  the  people  im- 
agine vain  things  ? 

This  is  the  eighth  prophecy  expounded  in  this  book  (see 
above,  on  v.  11),  a  sufficient  commentary  on  the  notion  that 
it  is  a  desultory  series  of  anecdotes  or  reminiscences.  Servant 
is  the  word  translated  son  in  3, 13  above.  As  there  explained, 
it  really  expresses  both  relations,  but  with  different  degrees 
of  emphasis.  When  applied  to  Christ,  the  prominent  idea  is 
that  of  son ;  when  apphed  to  David,  that  of  servant.  (See 
below,  on  v.  27.)     The  Vulgate  here  has  piierU  but  its  Eng- 


166  ACTS  4,  25. 

lish  copyists  have  not  ventured  to  write  hoy.  Wiclif  indeed 
has  a  different  reading,  also  found  in  some  Greek  manuscripts, 
our  father  David.  The  quotation  is  from  the  second  Psahu 
(vs.  1. 2),  which  is  explicitly  declared  to  be  the  inspired  work  of 
David  and  a  prophecy  of  Christ.  The  first  of  these  descrip- 
tions  is  confirmed  by  the  relation  of  the  psalm  to  those  which 
follow,  and  which  are  all  acknowledged  to  be  David's,  as  well 
as  by  the  internal  structure  of  the  psalm  itself  The  imagery 
of  the  scene  presented  is  evidently  borrowed  from  the  warlike 
and  eventful  times  of  David.  He  cannot,  however,  be  him- 
self the  subject  of  the  composition,  on  account  of  the  univer- 
sal dominion  there  ascribed  to  the  king,  and  the  general 
revolt  of  subject  nations,  the  solemn  declaration  of  his  filial 
relation  to  Jehovah,  and  the  absence  of  any  thing  answering 
to  the  whole  description  in  the  history  of  David,  or  of  any 
other  earthly  sovereign.  These  considerations  exclude  David, 
even  as  the  primary  or  inferior  subject  of  the  psalm,  a  com- 
plex and  unnatural  assumption  here,  which  can  only  embar- 
rass the  interpretation.  Even  those  writers,  who  give  to 
other  prophetic  psalms  a  more  generic  meaning  (see  above, 
on  2,  25),  are  disposed  to  regard  this  as  an  exclusive  Messianic 
prophecy.  As  such  it  was  explained  by  the  oldest  Jewish 
interpreters,  and  as  such  it  is  repeatedly  applied  in  the  New 
Testament;  the  seventh  verse  by  Paul  (13,33.  Heb.  1,5); 
the  ninth  by  John  (Rev.  2,  26.  27.  12,  5.  19,  15.)  Who  hast 
said,  literally,  the  {one)  saying  (or  having  said),  correspond- 
ing to  the  similar  construction  in  v.  24,  and  giving  an  addi- 
tional description  of  the  being  here  addressed,  as  the  God  of 
revelation  no  less  than  of  nature,  as  the  God  who  made  the 
world  and  who  inspired  the  prophets.  This  passage  was  cor- 
rectly used  by  IrenjBus  and  Theophylact,  against  those  Gnos- 
tics who  denied  that  the  Supreme  God  was  the  author  of  the 
Scriptures  or  the  maker  of  the  universe.  The  Septuagint 
version,  which  is  closely  adhered  to,  is  peculiarly  expressive 
in  the  verse  before  us.  The  Greek  word  here  translated  rage 
origmally  signifies  the  neighing  and  snorting  -  of  a  spirited 
horse,  but  is  figuratively  used  for  any  noisy  or  obtrusive  indi- 
cation of  self-confidence.  The  other  verb  properly  denotes 
solicitous  and  anxious  forethought  (Mark  13,  11.  1  Tim.  4, 
15.)  The  most  expressive,  although  not  the  most  exact,  of 
the  English  versions  here  is  Wiclif  s,  heathen  inen  gnashed 
with  teeth  together.  Two  of  the  most  familiar  names  applied 
by  the  Jews  of  that  time  to  the  great  deliverer  whom  they 


ACTS  4,  26.  27.  167 

expected,  are  derived  from  this  psalm,  namely,  Christ  (oi 
Messiah)  and  Son  of  God,  (See  John  1,  49.  Matt.  26,  63. 
Mark  14,  61.) 

26.  The  kings  of  the  earth  stood  up,  and  the  rulers 
were  gathered  together,  against  the  Lord  and  against 
Ijis  Christ. 

The  quotation  from  the  second  psalm  is  still  continued. 
Stood  xip^  or  as  Wiclif  more  exactly  renders  it,  stood  nigh. 
The  Greek  verb,  which  occurs  above  in  v.  10,  like  the  Hebrew 
one  to  which  it  corresponds,  does  not  of  itself  denote  hostihty, 
but  simply  the  act  of  aj^pearing  in  one's  presence,  or  approach- 
ing him,  for  any  purpose.  The  idea  of  enmity  and  opposition 
is  suggested  by  the  context,  and  particularly  by  the  preposi- 
tion twice  used  in  the  last  clause.  Gathered  together^  imply- 
ing coincidence  of  time,  place,  and  purpose.  (See  above,  on 
1,  15.  2,  1.  44.  3,  1.)  The  Hebrew  verb  originally  means  to 
sit  together,  but  with  special  reference  to  taking  counsel.  The 
Lord  and  his  Christy  is,  in  the  Hebrew,  Jehovah  and  his 
Messiah,  Christ  (Xpicrrds),  from  the  verb  (xp'^w)  to  ajioint^  is 
used  in  the  classics  only  as  an  adjective,  and  only  of  the  sub- 
stance so  applied.  Its  higher  sense  and  personal  applica- 
tion are  pecuhar  to  the  Hellenistic  Greek.  The  Septuagint 
constantly  employs  It  to  translate  (n^tj^)  the  HebrcAv  for 
Anointed.  Messiah  and  Christ  are  therefbre  Hebrew  and 
Greek  equivalents,  and  are  so  explained  in  the  New  Testament 
itself  (John  1,42.  4,25.) 

27.  jFor  of  a  truth,  against  thy  holy  child  Jesus, 
whom  thou  hast  anointed,  both  Herod  and  Pontius 
Pilate,  with  (the)  Gentiles,  and  the  people  of  Israel,  were 
gathered  together  — 

This  verse  justifies  the  application  of  the  prophecy  to  Jesus, 
by  showing  the  agreement  of  the  circumstances.  For  is  there- 
fore to  be  taken  in  its  strict  sense  as  a  logical  connective. 
*  This  is  really  a  prophecy  of  him,  for,  etc'  Of  a  truths  not 
merely  doubtless^  as  the  Geneva  Bible  has  it,  but  in  fact.,  hte- 
rally,  really,  as  opposed  to  a  mere  verbal  correspondence  or  a 
fanciful  accommodation.  The  Greek  phrase  is  used  four  times 
besides  by  Luke  and  twice  by  Mark.    It  is  once  translated 


168  ACTS  4,  27. 

truly  (Luke  20,  21),  once  in  truth  (Mark  12, 14),  and  once  the 
truth  (Mark  12,32),  but  in  all  the  other  cases  of  a  ti-ath  (10, 
34.  Luke  4,  25.  22,  59.)  In  this  part  of  the  sentence,  several 
of  the  oldest  manuscripts  and  versions,  followed  in  quotation 
by  some  early  Fathers,  introduce  the  words,  in  this  city  (or, 
according  to  the  Codex  Alexandrinus,  in  this  thy  city)^  which  is 
accordingly  adopted  as  the  true  text  by  the  latest  editors.  It 
is  supposed  to  correspond  to  the  words,  upon  my  holy  hill  of 
Zion^  in  the  second  psalm.  Against  is  not  the  same  preposi- 
tion that  is  twice  used  in  the  foregoing  verse,  but  that  em- 
ployed in  V.  22  and  1,  21,  denoting  motion  over  and  upon  an 
object.  Its  true  equivalent  is  on^  as  in  our  phrase  to  make  an 
attack  or  assault  on  one.  Holy^  as  here  applied  to  Christ,  de- 
notes not  only  character  but  office,  not  only  his  exemption 
from  all  moral  taint,  but  his  peculiar  consecration  to  the  work 
which  his  Father  gave  him  to  do  (John  10,  36.  17,  4.  18.  19. 
See  above,  on  3, 14.  21.)  Child  is  the  word  translated  son  in 
3,  13,  and  servatit  in  v.  25  above,  Avhere  its  twofold  usage  is 
explained.  Hast  anointed^  didst  anoint,  i.  e.  Vvhcn  lie  was 
sent  into  the  world.  This  denotes  not  merely  consecration  \\\ 
general,  but  special  preparation  for  his  work  by  the  influences 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  of  which  unction  is  a  symbol  in  the  Old 
Testament.  (See  above,  on  1,  2.  5.  2,  30.  31.  36.  38.  3,  6.  18. 
20.  4,  10,  and  compare  Isai.  61, 1.  Luke  18,  21.)  There  is 
also  an  allusion  to  the  use  of  the  word  Christ  in  the  preceding 
verse.  As  if  he  had  said,  '  whom  thou  didst  consecrate  by 
unction  to  the  office  of  a  Prophet,  Priest,  and  King,  and  v/ho 
is  therefore  the  Anointed  One  foretold  in  this  and  other  an- 
cient scriptures.'  Both  Herod  and  Po7itius  Pilate^  not  only 
one  or  separately,  but  both  together  by  a  remarkable  conjunc- 
tion, making  the  fulfilment  still  more  striking.  ^Vith  the 
Ge7itiles^  or  with  nations^  as  the  article  is  not  expressed  in 
Greek,  although  the  sense  of  Gentiles  is  required  by  the  ob- 
vious antithesis  with  peoples.  This  plural,  which  has  never 
obtained  currency  in  English,  although  used  by  LoA\'th  and 
other  writers  of  authority,  is  not  so  necessary  here  as  in  a 
multitude  of  other  cases,  where  the  idea  of  plurality  is  an  es- 
sential one,  and  yet  unsusj^ected  by  the  English  reader.  So 
impossible  did  such  a  plural  seem  to  our  translators,  that  at 
least  in  one  case,  they  avoid  it  by  a  circumlocution,  which  is 
not  only  awkward  but  conveys  a  wrong  idea.  (See  Gen.  25, 
23,  where  the  words  tioo  manner  of  people  are  a  mere  periph- 
rasis for  two  peoples.,  the  Hebrew  phrase  being   similar  in 


ACTS  4,  27.  169 

form  to  that  preceding  it,  two  nations.)  The  plural  form  is 
not  so  necessary  here,  because  it  seems  to  have  been  chosen 
merely  as  a  parallel  to  nations^  while  it  really  agrees  in  sensg 
with  the  usual  expression  people^  as  applied  to  Israel  (see 
above,  on  2,  47.  3,  9.  11.  12.  23.  4,  1.  2.  8.  10. 17.  21) ;  whereas 
in  V.  25,  it  denotes  the  Gentries,  or  perhaps  all  nations,  com- 
prehending both.  Another  explanation  of  the  plural  form 
here  is,  that  it  denotes  the  tribes  of  Israel,  which  composed 
the  nation,  and  are  sometimes  used  to  designate  it,  even  when 
there  is  no  reference  to  any  separate  or  local  action  of  the 
tribes  as  such.  (Compare  Ps.  105,37.  122,  4.  Isai.  49,  6.  63, 
17,  and  see  below,  on  26,  7.)  The  main  idea  here  is,  that  the 
prophecy  had  been  fulfilled  in  its  widest  sense,  for  the  nations 
had  combined  against  the  Christ,  both  Jcavs  and  Gentiles. 
Some  suppose  Herod  to  be  mentioned  as  belonging  to  the  lat- 
ter, on  account  of  his  Idumean  lineage  and  irreligious  charac- 
ter. It  seems  more  natural,  however,  to  regard  him  as  the 
representative  of  Israel,  at  least  in  this  afiair,  as  Pilate  repre- 
sents the  Roman  Empire  or  the  Gentiles.  The  idea  is  at  least 
as  old  as  Chrysostom,  that  in  the  Greek  verb  {(Tvvy]x^r}<Tav), 
which  was  also  used  in  v.  26,  and  literally  means  tJiey  loere 
brought  together^  there  is  an  allusion  to  the  ominous  reconcilia- 
tion of  these  two  men,  at  the  time,  if  not  by  means,  of  their 
concurrence  in  the  unjust  condemnation  of  our  Saviour  (Luke 
23,  12.)  The  Herod  meant  is  Herod  Antipas,  a  younger  son 
of  Herod  the  Great  (Matt.  2,  1.  Luke  1,  5),  who  became  te- 
trarch  of  Galilee  and  Perea  on  his  father's  death,  and  is  often 
mentioned  in  the  Gospels,  especially  in  the  history  of  John 
the  Baptist,  whom  he  put  to  death.  (See  Matt.  14,  1-12. 
Mark  6,  14-29.  Luke  3,  1-19.  9,  7-9.  13,  31.  23,  7-15.)  His 
elder  brother  Archelaus  having  been  removed  from  the  eth- 
narchy  of  Judea  (Matt.  2,  22),  it  was  annexed  to  the  great 
Roman  province  of  Syria,  the  governors  of  which  ruled  it  for 
some  years  by  their  deputies  (procuratores.)  Of  these  pro- 
curators Pontius  Pilatus  was  the  sixth,  on  whose  recall  it  was 
attached  to  the  kingdom  of  Herod  Agrippa  (see  below,  on  12, 
1),  and  after  his  death  fell  again  into  the  hands  of  procurators, 
among  whom  were  the  Fehx  and  the  Festus  of  this  history. 
(See  below,  on  23,  24.  24,  27.)  It  is  somewhat  curious  that 
the  first  word  in  the  Greek  of  this  long  verse  ((rwTJx^r/o-ai/) 
stands  last  in  the  translation.  For  a  similar  but  more  im- 
portant change  of  collocation,  see  above,  on  1,  21.  22.  The 
Greek  order  is,  "  they  were  gathered  of  a  truth  (lq  this  city) 

VOL.  I. — 8 


170  ACTS  4,  28.  29. 

against  thy  holy  child  Jesus,  whom  thou  hast  anointed — 
(namely)  Herod,  etc."  Wichf 's  antique  version  of  the  last 
clause  is,  JEroude  and  Pounce  Pilat  icith  heathen  inen^  etc. 
He  elsewhere  calls  the  procurator  Pilate  of  Pounce. 

28.  Por  to  do  whatsoever  thy  hand  and  thy  counsel 
determined  before  to  be  done. 

Here,  as  in  2,  23  above,  the  guilt  of  those  who  put  our 
Lord  to  death  is  brouo-ht  into  the  closest  juxtaposition  with 
the  divine  purpose,  which  it  was  the  means  of  carrying  into 
execution ;  another  proof  of  the  compatibility,  assumed  rather 
than  aflirmed  in  scrij^ture,  between  God's  sovereignty  and 
man's  responsibility.  For  is  not  the  logical  connective  (yap) 
used  at  the  beginning  of  v.  27,  but  a  pleonastic  sign  of  the  in- 
finitive, still  sometimes  heard  in  English  as  a  colloquial  or  pro- 
vincial idiom,  and  retained  in  French  {pour  f aire)  as  a  correct 
and  elegant  expression.  So  much  less  do  some  distinctions 
between  good  and  bad  grammar  depend  upon  any  law  of 
mind  or  language,  than  on  accidental  usage  and  association. 
The  Greek  verb  (Troi^crat)  is  dependent,  not  on  anointed^ 
w^hich,  although  preferred  by  some,  is  an  impossible  construc- 
tion, on  account  of  the  intervening  words,  but  upon  assembled 
or  brought  together^  which,  although  still  more  remote  in  the 
original,  is  separated  from  the  verb  to  do  only  by  its  own 
nominatives  and  qualifying  phrases.  (For  the  true  sense  of 
the  words  translated  counsel  and  determined^  see  above,  on  2, 
23.  For  that  of  hand  in  such  connections,  see  above,  on  2, 
33,  and  below,  on  11,  21,  and  compare  Luke  1,  71.  74.) 

29.  And  now,  Lord,  behold  their  threatenings, 
and  grant  unto  thy  servants,  that  with  all  boldness 
they  may  speak  thy  word  — 

The  first  phrase  in  Greek  {koX  to.  vvv)  is  an  instance  of  as 
singular  an  idiom  as  that  in  v.  21  above,  and  like  it  consist- 
ing in  a  use  of  the  neuter  article,  which  cannot  be  retained 
or  reproduced  in  English.  Mechanically  copied  it  would  be, 
and  the  {thioigs)  7iow,  which  may  be  an  elliptical  expression 
meaning,  '  and  now  (as  to)  the  things  which  have  been  men- 
tioned.' The  addition  of  the  article  distinguishes  this  phrase 
from  that  in  3,  17,  where  now  is  rather  logical  {these  tliingt 
being  so)  than  temporal  in  meaning  {at  this  time.)     Precisely 


\ 


ACTS  4,  29.  171 

the  same  words  that  are  here  used  occur  also  in  20,  32.  27, 
22,  below,  and  without  the  and  in  17,  30,  in  all  w'hich  cases 
they  contrast  past  time  with  the  present  or  the  future.     So 
here,  the  disciples,  after  speaking  of  what  had  been  said  and 
done,  in  a  kind  of  historical  preamble,  now  present  their  pe- 
tition or  prayer  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term.     It  is  worthy 
of  note,  that  though  they  pray  for  personal  protection,  it  is 
only  as  a  means  to  the  discharge  of  their  official  functions, 
and  is  really  postponed  to  their  petition  for  the  moral  gift  of 
boldness  and  fidelity.     Behold^  or  look  itpon  (eTriSe  or  £</)tSe), 
in  the  only  other  place  where  it  occurs  (Luke  1,  25),  implies 
a  favourable  look  or  visitation,  which  idea  may,  however,  be 
suggested  by  the  context.     Or  if  it  be  inherent  in  the  verb 
itself,  it  may  be  here  referred,  not  to  the  threats  or  their 
authors,  but  to  those  against  whom  they  were  uttered.    '  Look 
with  favour  on  (the   objects  of)   their  threatenings.'     It  is 
much  more  natural,  hovrever,  and  affords  a  more  emphatic 
sense,  to  give  the  verb  its  strict  and  simple  meaning,  and  to 
understand  the  clause  as  signifying  'keej)  thine  eye    upon 
their  threatenings,'  that  they  may  not  be  accomplished.     The 
threatening s  are  those  of  vs.  17  and  21  above.     Grant  is  in 
Greek  the  ordinary  verb   to  give.     Thy  servants,  literally 
slaves,  the  Greek  word   (SovAots)   being   the   correlative  of 
lord  OY  master  (SeWora)   in  v.  24.     The  two  together  are 
descriptive  of  absolute  authority  on  one  hand  and  of  absolute 
subjection  on  the  other,  but  without  implying  either  tyranny 
or  slavish  fear,  for  these  are  not  essential  but  accessory  ideas, 
superadded  to  the  strict  sense  by  the  habitual  abuse  of  power 
and  submission  to  it.     The  word  slave,  therefore,  can  no  more 
be  used  in  actual  translation  here  than  despot  in  v.  24,  or 
idiot  in  v.  13,  though  the  reason  is  not  perfectly  the  same  m 
all  three  cases.     It  is  indispensable,  however,  to  the  emphasis 
or  full  force  of  the  passage,  that  we  understand  both  lord 
and  servants  in  the  very  strongest  sense  that  can  be  called  a 
good  one,  i.  e.  free  from  every  implication  of  either  oppres- 
sion or  of  degradation.     The  infinitive  construction  in  the 
last  clause   {with  all  boldness  to  speak  thy  loord)  is  again 
exchanged  for  a  subjunctive  one  {that  with  all  boldness  they 
may  speah  thy  icord),  not  without  some  loss,  both  of  concise- 
ness and  of  force,  from  the  suggestion  of  contingency  or 
piere  possibility,  rather  than  of  certain  and  direct  results. 
(For  the  true  sense  of  boldness  or  freedom  of  speech,  see 
above,  on  v.  13,  and  2,  29.)     The  meaning  of  all  boldness 


172  ACTS  4,  29.  30. 

may  be  either  absolute,  entire^  perfect^  the  highest  possiblft 
degree  of  boldness  ;  or  it  may  be  relative,  every  kind  and  all 
degrees  of  boldness  that  can  be  required  for  the  performance 
of  our  ministerial  work.  This  work  is  itself  described  as  the 
speaking  of  God's  word,  i.  e.  acting  as  an  organ  of  communi- 
cation between  God  and  man,  or  more  precisely,  preaching 
Christ,  and  thereby  making  known  the  new  religion.  (See 
above,  on  v.  4.) 

30.  By  stretching  forth  thine  hand  to  heal,  and 

that  signs  and  wonders  may  be  done,  by  the  name  of 

thy  holy  child  Jesus. 

This  verse  defines  the  way  in  which  they  desire  their  peti- 
tion to  be  granted.  The  boldness  of  the  servants  was  to  be 
secured  by  displaying  the  power  of  their  master.  To  the 
figure  of  a  hand,  employed  above  in  v.  28,  is  now  added  that 
of  stretching  it  out,  or  exerting  the  power  which  the  hand 
denotes.  The  nearest  approach  m  Enghsh  to  the  form  of  the 
origmal  is,  in  stretcMng  (or  according  to  the  common  text, 
in  thy  stretching)  out  thy  hand  (Rhemish,  in  that  thou  stretch 
forth  ;  Tyndale,  so  that  thou  stretch  forth.)  Their  demand 
is  not  now  for  miracles  of  vengeance  or  destruction,  such  as 
fire  from  heaven  (Luke  9,  54),  but  for  miracles  of  mercy. 
To  heal^  literally,  for  healing.  (Compare  sign  or  miracle  of 
healing  in  v.  22,  and  for  the  sense  of  signs  and  wonders^  see 
above,  on  2, 19. 22. 43.)  The  verb  of  the  second  clause  (ytVeo-^at) 
depends  on  the  verb  ^z ye  in  v.  29.  'Grant  miracles  to  take 
place,  or  to  be  performed.'  The  first  clause  merely  quahfiea 
or  amplifies  the  previous  petition,  '  give  us  boldness  by  per- 
forming miracles  of  healing.'  The  addition  of  the  words  signs 
and  wonders  may  appear  to  indicate  some  other  kinds  of  mira- 
cles than  those  of  healing ;  but  as  the  clauses  are  co-ordinate 
and  not  successive,  this  is  really  another  way  of  saymg  the 
same  thing,  or  rather  an  express  specification  of  the  figurative 
terms  preceding.  *  Stretch  out  thy  hand  for  heaUng,  i.  e 
enable  us  to  work  miracles  of  that  kind.'  By  the  name  is  not 
the  phrase  so  rendered  in  v.  10,  nor  that  translated  in  the 
name  in  v.  18,  but  still  a  third  (Sta  rov  6v6{xaT09),  strictly  mean- 
ing through,  by  means  of,  his  naine  (see  above,  on  vs.  16.  25), 
and  therefore  really  including  both  the  others.  Holy  child 
Jesus  has  precisely  the  same  meaning  as  in  v.  27  above. 


ACTS  4,  31.  173 

31.  And  when  they  had  prayed,  the  place  was 
shaken  where  they  were  assembled  together,  and  they 
were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  they  spake  the 
word  of  God  with  boldness. 

This  verse  contains  the  answer  to  the  prayer  immediately 
preceding,  first  in  a  momentary  sensible  manifestation  of  God's 
presence,  then  in  the  permanent  moral  efiect  which  they  had 
asked,  secured  by  a  new  or  greater  spiritual  influence.  W7ien 
they  had  prayed  is  in  Greek  a  participial  and  absolute  con- 
struction, they  haviny prayed.  The  common  version,  though  it 
does  not  reproduce  this  form,  is  more  correct  than  Tyndale's, 
as  S0071  as  they  had  prayed.^  there  being  nothmg  to  determine 
the  precise  length  of  the  interval  between  the  prayer  and  the 
response  ;  and  although  they  were  probably  immediately  suc- 
cessive, it  is  not  so  said,  and  we  have  no  right  to  msert  it.  The 
place  where  they  icere  assembled  (or  brought  together^  the 
same  verb  as  in  vs.  26,  27),  though  as  usual  not  further  spe- 
cified, was  probably  the  house  ichere  they  were  sitting  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost  (see  above,  on  2,  2),  of  which  scene  this 
was  a  partid  repetition,  on  a  smaller  scale  and'  in  a  narrower 
circle,  but  with  precisely  the  same  spiritual  and  an  analogous 
sensible  efiect.  As  there  the  sound  of  wind  filled  the  house, 
so  here  the  place  itself  Avas  shaken.  The  sign  here  given  of 
God's  presence  was  familiar  to  the  saints  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment (Ex.  19.  18.  Ps.  68,  8),  and  it  is  not  perhaps  surprising 
that  the  same  belief  prevailed  among  the  heathen,  whether 
from  tradition  or  a  natural  association.  The  example  usually 
cited  is  a  well  known  passage  in  the  third  book  of  the  ^neid, 
which  certainly  does  bear  a  remarkable  resemblance  to 
the  words  before  us.  The  permanent  effect,  prefigured  by 
this  sign,  and  produced  by  the  spiritual  influence  that  fol- 
lowed, was  that  according  to  their  OAvn  petition,  they  did 
speak  the  icord  of  God  with  boldness^  sustained  mternally  by 
new  illapses  of  the  spirit,  and  externally  by  new  miraculous 
performances,  attesting  the  divine  presence  and  protection 
(see  above,  on  2,  43.)  This  triumphant  issue  of  the  first  per 
secution,  which  the  Church  sustained,  prepares  the  way  foi 
another  descrij^tion  of  its  social  state,  or  it  may  be  more  cor. 
rect  to  say,  for  the  resumption  of  the  previous  description 
(2,  42-47),  which  was  dropped  or  interrupted,  to  relate  this 
first  attack,  and  now  that  this  is  seen  to  have  had  no  injurious 


174  ACTS  4,  31.  32. 

effect  upon  the  Church,  is  resumed  and  continued  in  the  r& 
mamder  of  the  chapter. 

32.  And  the  multitude  of  them  that  beheved  were 
of  one  heart  and  of  one  soul,  neither  said  any  (of  them) 
that  ought  of  the  (things)  which  he  possessed  was  hi? 
own,  but  they  had  all  things  common. 

A  characteristic  feature  of  this  history  of  the  infant  church 
is  the  repeated  alternation  of  particular  narratives  and  gen- 
eral descriptions,  suggestive  and  illustrative  of  one  another. 
The  detailed  account  of  what  occurred  upon  a  single  day,  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  is  followed  by  a  picture  of  the  condition 
of  the  church  for  an  undefined  period  ensuing.  (See  above, 
on  2,  42.  4,  4.)  This  again  is  interrupted  by  the  account  of  a 
particular  occurrence,  tilling  the  whole  of  the  third  cliapter 
and  a  large  part  of  the  fourth,  but  near  the  close  of  the  latter, 
passing  again  into  the  form  of  a  more  general  description, 
not  relatmg  to  a  single  day  or  i^omt  of  time,  but  to  a  period 
of  some  length,  although  not  defmed,  being  no  doubt  the 
whole  time,  v/hether  long  or  short,  during  which  the  Church 
continued  undivided  and  restricted  to  Jerusalem ;  a  period 
the  history  of  which  is  contained  in  the  first  seven  chapters 
of  the  book  before  us.  Due  attention  to  this  structure  of  the 
narrative  would  have  saved  the  world  many  crude  sugges- 
tions, as  to  the  total  want  of  plan  and  method  in  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles.  We  have  here  the  second  alternation  of  the 
kind  just  mentioned,  the  remainder  of  this  chapter  corre- 
sponding to  the  last  six  verses  of  the  second.  It  is,  in  fact, 
the  same  description,  interrupted  and  resumed,  with  some 
repetitions  and  some  new  additions.  The  earlier  passage  (2, 
42-47)  is  not  to  be  considered  as  relating  to  an  earlier  period 
and  the  later  (4,  32-37)  to  a  later  ;  but  both  are  synchronous 
or  co-extensive  as  to  time,  including  the  whole  history  of  the 
primitive  or  infant  church,  as  it  existed  at  Jerusalem.  While 
the  sameness  of  the  two  accounts  is  quite  sufficient  to  sustain 
this  view  of  their  relation  to  each  other,  they  are  far  from 
being  mere  reiterative  duplicates,  the  passage  now  before  us 
adding  several  new  points,  both  of  fact  and  of  expression. 
The  original  form  of  the  first  clause  is  still  more  beautiful 
and  striking.  Of  the  multitude  (or  mass)  of  those  believing  (or 
believers)  ivas  t/ie  heart  and  the  soid  one.    (For  the  meaning 


ACTS  4,  32.  lib 

of  Tov  7rXr]%v<;,  see  above,  on  2,  6  ;  for  that  of  tcov  Trio-Tcvo-avTwv, 
on  4',  4.)  Strongly  analogous  to  this  is  the  Greek  proverb 
(Svo  (fiiXoL  if/vxq  fJiLo)  "two  friends,  one  soul,"  and  the  de- 
linition  of  friendship  ascribed  to  Aristotle  by  Diogenes  Laer- 
tius  [fJLLa  \f/vxf]  Suo  (Toj/xacriy  ivotKovcra) ^  "one  soul  residing  in 
two  bodies."  There  could  scarcely  be  a  stronger  expression 
of  the  unity  prevailing  in  the  infant  church,  and  not  confined 
to  sentiment  or  language  merely,  but  extending  to  the  inter- 
change of  social  advantages  and  legal  rights.  Neither  said 
any  of  ihem  is  still  stronger  in  the  Greek,  7iot  one  said^  or 
still  more  exactly,  was  saying^  used  to  say^  the  form  of  the 
verb  denoting  not  a  single  but  habitual  action.  Ought  of  the 
{thi?igs)  which  he  possessed,  or,  a9ig  of  the  {things)  belonging, 
(literally  existing)  to  him.  (See  the  same  verb  in  2,  30.  3,  2. 
6.)  The  infinitive  construction  is,  as  usual,  avoided  m  our 
version  ;  the  exact  translation  is,  to  he  his  oion  (tStov,  as  in  1, 
7.  19.  25.  2,  6.  8.  3,  12.  4,  23),  or  as  the  Romans  called  it,  his 
Ijeeidium,  from  which  comes  our  adjective  peculiar,  properly 
descriptive  of  exclusive  rights  or  property.  But  if  all  were 
required,  or  expected  as  a  thing  of  course,  to  throw  what  they 
possessed  into  a  common  fund,  what  was  there  meritorious 
or  remarkable  in  no  man's  calling  what  he  had  his  own,  i.  ;i. 
no  man's  saying  what  every  body  would  have  known  to  be 
untrue  ?  It  is  vain  to  urge  that  this  is  unfairly  pressing  the 
expression  said ;  for  if  it  means  no  more  than  that  the  case 
was  so  in  fact,  there  is  an  end  of  argument  from  words  or 
phrases.  If  it  be  said,  that  it  relates  to  language,  but  to  lan- 
guage used  before  the  surrender  of  the  property,  and  indi- 
cating the  spirit  by  which  it  was  prompted,  there  is  still 
something  strange  in  the  expression,  'no  one  said  that  his 
possessions  were  his  own,'  when  he  w^as  under  the  necessity 
(legal  or  moral)  of  abjuring  them.  This  argument  may  seem 
to  apply  only  to  compulsory  abandonment  of  property,  and 
not  to  voluntary  self-impoverishment  or  assimilation  to  the 
general  condition.  But  if  this  voluntary  act  was  universal 
and  without  exception,  it  is  still,  to  say  the  least,  a  strange 
expression,  that  of  all  who  thus  renounced  their  property, 
not  one  saidji  it  was  his  own,  either  before  or  after  he  re- 
nounced it.  It  is  not  contended  that  the  language  is  un- 
meaning, or  even  unintelligible,  but  only  that  it  is  unnatural, 
and  not  what  might  have  been  expected,  in  describing  a  com- 
plete and  universal  abjuration  of  all  mdividual  property  by 
these  believers.     '  Kot  one  spoke  of  any  of  the  things  be- 


JVC  ACTS  4,  32.33. 

longing  to  him  as  his  own.'  How  much  simpler  to  have  said, 
'no  one  retained  them,  or  continued  to  make  use  of  them.' 
But  on  the  other  hand,  how  apt  and  how  expressive  is  this 
language  on  the  supposition  that,  while  every  man  who  had 
possessions  still  retained  them,  he  was  so  inspired,  not  mth 
mere  philanthropy  or  pity,  but  with  a  sense  of  Christian  one- 
ness, that  he  did  not  speak  of  his  possessions  as  his  own,  but 
as  belonging  to  the  church  at  large.  It  may  be  laid  down  as 
a  law  of  sound  interpretation,  that  where  one  view  of  a  pas- 
sage makes  its  terms  unmeaning,  and  another  gives  them  a  pe- 
culiar emphasis  and  point,  then,  other  things  being  equal,  i.  e. 
both  being  grammatical  and  philologically  unexceptionable,  the 
last  is  necessarily  entitled  to  the  preference.  The  conclusion 
thus  reached  helps  us  to  another  in  relation  to  the  last  clause, 
which  is  repeated  from  2,  44,  with  the  imimportant  change 
(not  regarded  in  our  version)  of  a  Greek  idiom  {they  had  all 
things  common)  into  a  Hebrew  one  {all  things  icere  common 
to  them.)  (See  above,  on  3,  6.)  If  these  expressions  may, 
without  violence,  be  used  to  describe  either  an  absolute  com- 
munity of  goods  arising  from  the  personal  renunciation  of  all 
property,  or  a  virtual  community  of  goods  arising  from  the 
practice  of  the  most  disinterested  and  self-sacrificmg  Chris- 
tian love  ;  and  if  the  terms  immediately  preceding  are,  as  we 
have  seen,  far  more  apj^ropriate  and  significant  upon  the 
latter  supposition ;  then  we  need  resort  to  none  of  the  hy- 
potheses already  stated  (see  above,  on  2,  44),  to  account  for 
a  literal  or  absolute  community  of  goods,  which  really  had 
no  existence.  Both  these  conclusions  haA^e  been  drawn  from 
these  two  passages  exclusively,  without  regard  to  the  cor- 
roborative evidence  supposed  to  be  contained  in  other  places, 
yet  to  be  considered.  (See  below,  on  vs.  34-37,  and  on 
5,  4.  12,12.) 

83.  And.  with  great  power  gave  the  Apostles  wit- 
ness of  the  resurrection  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  great 
grace  was  upon  them  all. 

Such  was  the  social  and  spiritual  state  of  the  church,  both 
before  and  alter  the  first  onset  from  without,  which  seems  to 
have  had  no  efiect  upon  it,  but  for  good.  In  the  mean  time 
the  Apostles  did  not  sufier  any  thing  to  divert  their  minds 
from  their  great  oflicial  function,  that  of  testifying  to  Christ's 
resurrection,  which,  for  reasons  before  given,  may  be  under- 


ACTS  4,  33.  U1 

stood  as  comprehending  the  whole  work  of  preaching  ^Jhrist 
and  making  known  the  new  rehgion.  (See  above,  oa  1,  22. 
2,  32.  3, 15.  4,  2.)  This  they  did  tcit/i  great  poioer^  not  merely 
force  of  argument  or  eloquence,  but  in  the  exercise  of  that 
extraordinary  spiritual  power,  with  which  they  were  invested 
for  this  very  purpose,  and  by  which  they  Avere  enabled,  both 
to  testify  of  Christ,  and  to  confirm  their  testimony  by  the  evi- 
dence of  signs  or  miracles.  (See  above,  on  2,  43.)  All  this 
may  be  considered  as  included  in  the  great  pouer  heve  as- 
cribed to  the  Apostles.  The  verb  translated  gai^e  often  means 
to  give  back^  pay  or  repay  (e.  g.  Matt.  21,  41.  22,  21.  Mark 
12,  IV.  Luke  20,  25.  Rom.  13,  7,  in  which  j^Iaces  it  is  trans- 
lated render)  ;  and  this,  though  given  in  some  lexicons  as  a 
secondary  sense  to  that  of  giving  out  or  aicay^  appears  to  be 
the  primary  and  proper  one  in  Attic  and  Homeric  usage. 
Here,  however,  the  idea  seems  to  be  that  of  giving  forth  or 
uttering^  with  or  without  an  implication  of  freeness  and  com- 
pleteness. As  our  version  sometimes  introduces  the  article 
without  necessity  (see  above,  on  1,  7.  14.  4,  9),  so  here  (as  in 
1,  13,  and  elsewhere)  it  omits  it.  There  is  force,  if  no  addi- 
tional idea,  in  the  definite  expression,  the  testimony  of  the  re- 
surrection^ i.  e.  not  a  mere  spontaneous  attestation  which  they 
volunteered  upon  their  own  authority,  but  that  formal  and 
official  testimony,  which  they  had  been  chosen  and  commis- 
sioned to  present.  The  English  word  witness^  which  was 
once  equivocal,  is  now  used  chiefly  of  the  person  testifying, 
the  sense  of  testimony  being  confined,  perhaps  exclusively,  to 
one  phrase,  that  of  hearing  witness.  The  Lord  Jesus^  as  in 
1,21,  the  only  other  case  where  we  have  met  with  it  in  this 
book,  is  a  pregnant  combination  of  the  Saviour's  personal  de- 
signation with  that  descriptive  title,  which  exhibits  him  not 
only  as  the  mediatorial  sovereign  (see  above,  on  2,  36),  but  as 
the  Jehovah  of  the  old  economy  and  Hebrew  scriptures.  (See 
above,  on  2,  21.)  To  the  great  power  of  the  first  clause  cor- 
responds the  great  grace  of  the  second.  This  word,  which 
means  favour  in  the  general,  though  commonly  applied  to 
that  of  God,  and  therefore  properly  translated  grace^  is  also 
used  to  denote  human  favour  or  good-will,  as  in  the  only  place 
where  we  have  previously  met  with  it,  to  wit,  in  the  parallel 
description  to  the  one  before  us.  (See  above,  on  2,  47.)  This 
might  seem  decisive  here  in  favour  of  that  sense,  or  rather 
application,  of  the  word ;  but  it  is  better  still  to  comprehend 
them  both,  as  perfectly  compatible  and  perfectly  appropriate. 

VOL,  I. — 8* 


178  ACTS  4,  33.  34. 

The  old  cry  against  a  double  sense,  besides  its  emptiness  in 
general,  may  here  be  met  by  an  appeal  to  Luke's  expressions 
elsewhere,  "Jesus  increased  in  wisdom  and  stature,  and  in 
favour  (xapiTt)  with  God  and  man"  (Luke  2,52.)  If  the  same 
word  may  be  thus  used  expressly  to  denote  both  kinds  of 
grace  or  favour,  why  may  it  not  be  used  eiliptically,  i.  e.  by 
Itself,  to  suggest  the  same  ideas  ?  Had  Luke,  in  that  place, 
left  the  word  to  explain  itself,  it  might  have  been  as  plausibly 
asserted  as  in  this  place,  that  it  could  not  be  intended  to  de- 
note the  favour  both  of  God  and  man ;  and  yet  we  now  know 
from  his  own  authority  that  this  assertion  would  have  been 
a  false  one.  Upon  them  is  the  right  translation,  not  in  them 
Wiclif)  or  vnth  them  (Tyndale),but^^^:>o;^  them^  as  descending 
from  above,  in  reference  to  the  grace  of  God,  which  may 
be  regarded  as  the  primary  though  not  the  only  meaning. 
For  reasons,  which  have  been  already  given  (see  above, 
on  2, 1),  all  does  not  mean  all  the  Apostles,  which  would 
be  a  most  superfluous  specification,  but  all  the  believers, 
whom  they  represented,  who  are  the  subject  of  the  verse 
preceding,  and  to  whom  the  writer  now  returns  in  the 
verse  following.  It  is  not  unworthy  of  remark,  that  the  re- 
tention of  the  Greek  collocation  in  the  English  version  of  this 
sentence,  to  a  greater  extent  than  usual,  not  only  makes  the 
copy  more  exact  and  faithful,  but  by  a  slight  inversion  com- 
mon in  our  older  writers,  improves  its  beauty  to  the  eye  and 
ear. 

34.  Neither  was  there  any  among  them  that  lacked ; 
for  as  many  as  were  possessors  of  lands  or  houses  sold 
them,  and  brought  the  prices  of  the  things  that  were 
sold  — 

The  sentence  is  completed  in  the  next  verse.  There  is 
certainly  some  harshness  and  iiTCgiilarity  in  this  abrupt  return 
to  the  community  of  goods,  which  seemed  to  have  been 
finally  disposed  of,  in  the  verse  preceding.  But  the  fault  is 
that  of  the  translation,  which  omits  the  very  word  mdicative 
of  the  connection.  Neither  icas  there  should  have  heen  for 
neitJier  was  there^  or  still  better,  for  there  was  not^  as  the  par- 
ticle (ouSe)  can  here  have  no  effect  but  .that  of  simply  nega- 
tiving the  idea  of  the  verb  that  follows.  The  omitted  for 
(ydip)  shows  that  this  is  the  reason  or  the  explanation  of  some- 
thing that  precedes,  not  necessarily  the  nearest  antecedent 


ACTS  4,  34.  179 

(see  above,  on  v,  21),  although  that  must  always  be  entitled 
to  the  preference,  where  other  things  are  equal.  The  only 
choice  in  this  case  lies  between  v.  32  and  v.  33.  Kthe  former 
be  preferred,  the  latter  must  be  read  as  a  parenthesis.  '  They 
had  all  things  common  (and  with  great  powxr  the  Apostles, 
etc.)  for  there  was  no  one,  etc'  To  this  construction  there 
are  two  objections.  In  the  first  place,  it  leaves  wholly  unex- 
plamed  the  introduction  of  the  facts  recorded  in  v.  33,  which 
is  then  not  only  parenthetical  in  form,  but  foreign  from  the 
context  and  an  awkward  interruption  of  the  sentence.  In  the 
next  place,  the  logical  connection  between  vs.  32  and  34  is 
only  apparent  and  not  real ;  for  how  could  it  be  said  that 
they  had  all  things  common  because  {ov  for)  there  icas  no  o?ie 
destitute  among  them^  unless  we  arbitrarily  give /or  the  sense 
of  so  ^Aa^,  and  confound  cause  and  eifect  by  a  preposterous 
inversion.  It  is  vam  to  say  that  this  and  other  particles  are 
often  used  with  great  latitude ;  for  besides  the  gross  exag- 
geration of  the  general  fact  alleged,  it  cannot  justify  the 
preference  of  the  lax  use  to  the  strict  one,  when  the  latter 
may  be  held  fast,  and  a  better  sense  obtained,  by  a  diiferent 
construction.  Such  a  construction  is  the  other  above  men- 
tioned, which  supposes  for  to  introduce  the  reason  of  the 
statement  immediately  preceding :  '  great  grace  was  upon 
them,  for  (or  because)  there  w^as  no  one  destitute  among 
them.'  Besides  the  two  advantages  of  giving  for  its  proper 
sense  and  getting  rid  of  the  parenthesis,  the  sense  evolved  by 
this  construction  is  a  good  one.  They  enjoyed  both  divine 
and  human  favour,  the  one  as  the  cause,  and  the  other  as  the 
consequence,  of  their  extraordinary  freedom  from  distress. 
The  favour  of  God  w^as  evinced  by  there  being  no  distress 
among  them,  and  the  samxC  thing  gave  them  popularity  and 
credit,  as  a  people  freed  from  poverty  and  all  its  evils  through 
the  favour  of  their  God,  not  by  enriching  them,  but  by  dis- 
posmg  every  one  among  them  to  regard  what  he  possessed  as 
the  property  of  others  also,  and  to  deal  wdtli  it  accordingly. 
The  verb  translated  icas  is  not  the  common  verb  to  be^  but 
one  origmally  meanmg  to  begin^  and  then  to  come  into  ex- 
istence, but  most  frequently  employed  without  any  percepti- 
ble allusion  to  this  origin,  as  in  2,  30.  3,  2.  3,  6,  above.  If  any 
such  allusion  should  be  here  assumed,  the  meaning  might  be, 
that  no  one  after  this  became  poor,  which,  however,  is  at  va- 
riance with  the  known  facts  of  the  history.  (See  below,  on 
11,29.  24,  17,  and  compare  Rom.  15,26  )     Any  that  ladcedy 


180  ACTS  4,34. 

literally  any  poor  or  destitute  (person.)  The  Greek  adjectire 
which  occurs  only  here  in  the  New  Testament,  properly  means 
wanting  or  deficient  in  any  thing,  but  is  absolutely  used  to 
signify  without  the  means  of  subsistence  or  the  necessaries  of 
life,  by  Xenophon  and  in  the  Septuagint  version  of  Deut.  15, 
4.  7.  The  condition  here  described  is  not  one  of  affluence  or 
wealth,  but  one  of  freedom  from  distress  and  want.  The 
second /or  is  unambiguous,  and  evidently  indicates  the  ground 
or  cause  of  this  surprising  absence  both  of  poverty  and  riches. 
(Compare  Prov.  30,  8.)  It  was  because  those  who  had  lands 
or  houses  sold  them  and  distributed  to  those  who  had  not. 
Lands^  literally,  2^^cices^  grounds,  the  same  noun  that  is  trans- 
lated j^e^c?  in  1,  18,  above.  As  many  as  [oa-oi)  is  the  mascu- 
line form  of  the  word  translated  all  that  in  v.  23.  It  does  not 
necessarily  mean  all,  as  that  word  is  occasionally  added  to 
strengthen  it  (see  above,  3,  22.  24,  and  below,  5,  36.  37)  ;  but 
neither  is  the  idea  of  totality  excluded,  as  appears  from  its  use 
in  2,  39.  4,  6.  23.  In  this  respect,  it  approaches  very  nearly 
to  our  English  such  as,  which  may  be  applied  to  all  or  less 
than  all,  according  to  the  context.  Even  the  absolute  term 
all  (Trai/res)  must  be  restricted  in  the  parallel  passage  (2,  44. 
45),  or  we  are  brought  to  the  conclusion,  that  all  loho  believed 
sold  their  goods  and  distributed  to  all.  But  if  all  had  prop- 
erty to  sell,  the  sale  itself  Avas  nugatory  and  superfluous,  un- 
less the  object  had  been  simply  to  put  all  upon  a  level  by  a 
common  sustentation  fund ;  and  this  idea  is  excluded  by  the 
words,  as  each  had  need,  implying  something  more  than  ine- 
quality, to  wit,  the  existence  in  some  cases  of  actual  necessity. 
In  the  case,  however,  more  immediately  before  us,  no  restric- 
tion is  required,  as  the  adjective  has  reference  not  to  all  be- 
lievers (as  in  2,  44),  but  to  all  proprietors  of  lands  or  houses. 
Thus  the  parallel  passages  explain  each  other.  Perhaps  the 
best  translation  here  would  be, /or  as  many  oioners  of  lands 
or  houses  as  there  were,  or  as  existed  in  the  infant  church. 
We  thus  retain,  not  only  the  original  arrangement,  which  is 
always  an  advantage,  unless  purchased  at  the  cost  of  some- 
thing more  important,  but  a  certain  shade  of  difference  be- 
tween the  two  verbs  of  existence,  not  unlike  that  between  our 
expressions  were  and  there  were.  Sold  them  and  brought  is 
another  departure  from  the  Greek  participial  construction, 
selling  brought.  The  word  translated  price  commonly  means 
honour  (e.  g.  John  4,  44.  Rom.  2,  V.  1  Pet.  1,  7,  and  through- 
out the  writmgs  of  John,  Paul,  and  Peter),  tut  in  this  book 


ACTS  4,  34.  35.  181 

always  cost  or  value  (see  below,  on  5,  2.  3.  7, 16.  19, 19)  with 
the  single  exception  of  28,  10,  which  Is  disputed.  Both  senses 
are  reducible  to  one  radical  idea,  that  of  worth ;  whether 
that  of  persons,  as  acknowledged  by  respectful  words  and 
actions,  doing  honour  to  the  object ;  or  that  of  things,  as  esti- 
mated and  expressed  in  price  or  value.  The  latter  sense  is 
here  determined  by  the  qualifying  genitive,  of  the  {things)  sold, 
another  participial  construction  and  another  resolution  of  it 
in  our  version,  of  the  things  that  were  sold. 

35.  And  laid  ^hem  down  at  the  Apostles'  feet ;  and 
distribution  was  made  unto  every  (man),  according  as 
he  had  need. 

The  sentence  is  continued  from  the  verse  preceding.  It 
was  the  owners  or  proprietors  there  mentioned  who  performed 
this  act.  Laid  them  down  is  in  Greek  simply  ^^/acec?  {ov put) 
them.  At  thefeet  (i.  e.  by  or  near  the  feet)  is  as  close  an  ap- 
proximation to  the  Greek  as  our  idiom  permits.  The  Vulgate 
version  {ante  pedes),  copied  of  course  by  Wiclif  and  the  Rhe- 
misli  {before  thefeet),  is  not  a  mere  capricious  variation,  but  a 
classical  expression  of  the  same  idea.  Thus  Cicero  (for  Fiaccus) 
speaks  of  a  certain  weight  or  sum  of  gold  as  having  been  paid 
"before  the  feet  of  the  praBtor  in  the  forum"  {ante  pedes 
prcetoris  in  for  o  expensiim.)  That  feet  are  here  put  for  the 
person,  the  A2?ostles^  feet  for  the  Apostles  themselves,  is  a 
sample  of  the  same  kind  of  interpretation  which  makes  7iames 
mean  persons  likewise,  and  affirms  began  and  ansicered  to  be 
always  pleonastic.  (See  above,  on  1,  1.  15.  2,  4.  3,  12.)  The 
examples  cited  in  the  present  case  prove  nothing,  namely,  5,  9 
and  Rom.  10, 15,  in  both  which  cases  the  feet  are  mentioned, 
not  for  the  whole  body,  but  as  organs  or  mstruments  of  loco- 
motion. Some  have  inferred  from  Y,  58,  that  the  idea  meant 
to  be  conveyed  is  that  of  a  deposit  for  safe-keeping;  but 
there  is  surely  an  important  difference  between  laying  clothes 
at  a  man's  feet  and  laying  money  there.  That  it  is  not  a  mere 
figure,  but  expresses  Avhat  was  actually  done,  may  be  inferred 
from  the  repetition  of  the  words  in  the  next  verse  and  in  5,  2 
below.  In  the  absence  of  explicit  information  and  analogy  or 
usage,  we  may  lawfully  resort  to  natural  association,  for  the 
probable  design  of  this  proceeding.  Viewed  in  this  light,  it 
would  seem  to  imply,  first,  the  presence  and  the  presidence 
of  the  Apostles  in  the  meetings  of  believers  ;  next,  their  great 


182  ACTS  4,  35. 

superiority  in  rank  and  autliority  to  all  the  others,  even 
though  mvested  with  high  office  ;  then,  the  fact  that  these  pe- 
cuniary gifts  had  a  religious  character,  or  were  regarded  as 
oblations,  votive  offerings ;  and  last,  not  least,  that  this  whole 
work  of  reheving  the  necessitous,  although  sustained  by  pri- 
vate contribution,  was  considered  not  a  personal  affair,  but  a 
public  or  ecclesiastical  proceeding,  and  was  therefore  meta^ 
phorically  placed  at  the  Apostles'  feet,  i.  e.  implicitly  subjected 
to  the  apostolical  control  and  management,  just  as  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  sales  were  literally  placed  there,  not  for  con- 
venience or  safe-keeping  merely,  for  the  hand  would  then 
have  served  a  better  purpose,  but  as  a  sort  of  emblematical 
acknowledgment  of  what  has  now  been  stated  as  the  natural 
import  of  the  act  itself.  The  last  and  most  important  of  these 
implications,  namely,  that  the  distribution  of  the  sums  con- 
tributed was  regulated,  not  by  the  contributors  but  the  Apos- 
tles, may  be  gathered,  partly,  from  the  order  of  this  sentence, 
in  which  the  statement  of  the  fact  in  question  is  immediately 
followed  by  the  act  of  distribution ;  and  partly  from  the  narra- 
tive contamed  in  the  sixth  chapter,  w^here  the  whole  proceed- 
ing presupposes  such  authority  in  the  Apostles.  (See  below, 
on  6,  1.)  The  rule  or  principle  of  distribution  is  the  same 
precisely  as  in  2,  45.  The  only  difference  of  form  is  in  the  use 
of  the  Avords  all  and  each  or  every  one.  The  word  man^ 
w^hich  to  some  may  seem  exclusive,  as  it  is  in  1,  21  and  else- 
where (see  above,  on  v.  4),  corresponds  to  nothing  in  the 
Greek,  but  is  the  pleonastic  noun  or  pronoun,  so  profusely 
used  by  our  translators.  (See  above,  on  2,  45.)  Another 
seeming  difference,  but  confined  to  the  translation,  is  the 
change  of  as  (2,  45)  into  according  as.  The  latter  is  the  more 
exact  translation  of  the  Greek  phrase,  w^hich  is  identical  in 
both  the  places.  Both  in  its  simple  and  augmented  form 
{KaOoTL  and  KaOoTL  av),  it  is  peculiar  to  Luke's  writings.  (Com- 
pare Luke  1,  7.  19,  9,  and  according  to  the  latest  critics,  17, 
31  below,  where  the  common  text  has  Stdrt.)  Etymologically, 
as  compounded  of  a  preposition  and  a  pronoun,  it  means  after 
or  according  to  lohat,  while  the  addition  of  the  particle  (av) 
imparts  to  it  a  doubtful  or  contingent  character,  Hke  ever  in 
the  English  word  u^herever,  i.  e.  'be  it  where  it  may.'  So 
here,  the  rule  of  distribution  is  the  need  of  the  recipient,  be 
it  what  it  may,  implying  both  contingency  and  'inequality  in 
different  cases. 


ACTS  4,  36.  183 

36.  And  Joses,  who  by  the  Apostles  was  surnamed 
J3araabas,  which  is,  being  interpreted,  the  Son  of  Con- 
solation, a  Levite,  and  of  the  country  of  Cyprus  — 

The  sentence  is  completed  in  the  following  verse.  We 
have  here  exemplified  again  that  feature  in  the  structure  of 
this  history,  described  above  (on  v.  32)  as  a  frequent  alterna- 
tion of  particular  narrative  and  general  description.  Having 
fully  described  the  spirit  of  self-sacrifice  and  mutual  be- 
nevolence pervading  the  whole  body  of  believers  at  this 
period,  Luke  illustrates  this  description  by  the  statement  of 
two  cases,  one  of  a  favourable  and  the  other  of  an  opposite 
description.  The  first,  being  simply  intended  to  illustrate, 
by  an  eminent  example,  Vv'hat  had  just  been  said  of  the  whole 
church,  is  briefly  stated  in  a  single  sentence  (vs.  36,  37.)  The 
other,  being  introduced,  not  merely  for  the  sake  of  the  an- 
tithesis or  contrast,  but  as  introductory  to  further  changes,  is 
described  more  fully,  but  thrown,  in  the  conventional  division 
of  the  text,  into  another  chapter  (5,  1-11.)  The  first  or  fa- 
vourable case  is  that  of  Joses  or,  according  to  the  reading  of 
the  oldest  manuscripts  and  versions,  Joseph^  of  which  some 
regard  the  first  form  as  a  familiar  Jewish  variation.  He  is 
further  distinguished,  not  by  an  ordinary  surname,  but  by 
one  derived  from  the  Apostles  (according  to  the  latest  critics, 
(XTTo  Tojv  dTTco-ToAwi/),  wMch  sccms  clcarly  to  imply  that  the 
name  given  had  respect  to  some  ofiicial  gift  or  quality.  The 
Hebrew  or  Aramaic  etymology  of  JBarnctbas  has  never  yet 
been  satisfactorily  ascertained.  The  form  most  commonly 
assumed  (nxn33-"i3)  denotes  a  son  of  prophecy  or  inspiration  ; 
and  as  one  important  function  of  the  New  Testament  Prophets 
(or  inspired  teachers)  was  persuasive  exhortation,  as  a  means 
of  enforcing  doctrinal  instruction  (see  above,  on  2,  40),  it  is 
not  improbable  that  in  the  author's  Greek  translation  of  the 
name,  the  last  word  {TrapaKXijaeojs:)  has  its  primary  sense  of  ex- 
hortation (or  p)ersuasio7i^  13,  15.  15,  31.  Rom.  12,  8.  1  Cor. 
14,  3.  2  Cor.  8,  4.  1  Tim.  4,  13.  Heb.  12,  5.  13,  22),  rather 
than  its  secondary  sense  of  consolation  (9,  31.  Luke  2,  25. 
Rom.  15,  5.  2  Cor.  1,  3.  6.  7.  7,  4.  7. 13.  Phil.  2. 1.  2  Thess.  2, 
16.  Philem.  7.  Heb.  6,  18.)  It  will  then  describe  him  as  a 
zealous  and  successful  preacher  or  exhorter,  which  agrees  well 
with  his  character  and  conduct  as  described  in  11,  23.  24. 
The  natural  import  of  the  words  is,  that  he  had  already  been 
tlms  surnamed  when  he  made  his  gift;  but  all  that  they 


184  ACTS  4,  36.37. 

necessarily  imply  is  that  he  was  so  distinguished  before  this 
history  was  written.  (See  above,  on  v.  6.)  He  is  still  fur- 
ther described  as  a  Lemte,  or  as  paraphrased  by  Wiclif,  of 
the  lineage  of  Levi.  As  some  Levites  formed  a  part  of  the 
Diaspora,  or  general  dispersion  of  the  Jews  among  the  na- 
tions, after  the  Babylonish  conquest,  and  even  after  the  return 
from  exile,  Barnabas  is  furthermore  distinguished  as  a  Cy- 
prian  by  birth  or  by  descent  (yeVet),  which  is  better  paraphrased 
in  Tyndale's  version  {a  Cyprian  born)  than  in  King  James's 
{of  the  country  of  Cyprus)  That  this  is  the  same  Barnabas, 
who  acts  so  conspicuous  a  part  in  the  sequel  of  this  history 
(see  below,  on  9,  27,  and  compare  1  Cor.  9,  6.  Gal.  2,  1.  9.  13. 
Col.  4,  10),  has  probably  never  been  disputed.  As  to  Ms  con- 
nection with  Cyprus,  see  below,  on  13,4.  15,39.  As  to  the 
identity  of  Barnabas  and  Barsabas^  see  above,  on  1,  23,  and 
below,  on  15,  22. 

37.  Having  land,  sold  it,  and  brought  the  money, 
and  laid  it  at  the  Apostles'  feet. 

The  sentence  is  continued  and  completed  from  v.  36.  It 
represents  a  single  individual  as  doing  what  was  said  in  v.  34 
to  have  been  done  by  all  proprietors  of  lands  and  houses. 
Saving  land^  literally,  afield  being  (or  belonging^  to  hhn.  The 
word  translated  land  is  different  from  that  in  v.  34  and  1,18, 
and  is  the  common  Greek  term  for  di  field.  Some  have  thought 
this  statement  inconsistent  with  the  law  (Num.  18,  20-24. 
Josh.  18,  7),  excluding  the  Levites  from  a  share  in  the  land  of 
Canaan.  To  this  it  has  been  variously  answered,  that  he  may 
have  abandoned  it  for  that  very  reason  ;  that  the  law  did  not 
extend  to  Cyprus,  where  the  land  may  have  been  situated ; 
that  it  did  not  extend  to  individuals,  but  only  to  the  tribe  as 
such,  which  is  inferred  from  Jer.  32,  9.  It  may  be  added 
that  the  tribe  itself  was  excluded  only  from  a  continuous  and 
compact  portion  of  the  promised  land,  but  not  from  holding 
cities  and  their  suburbs  and  adjacent  pastures  for  their  flocks 
and  herds.  (See  Numb.  35,  1-5.  Josh.  21,  1-42.)  For  prices 
(v.  34)  we  here  have  money ^  (xRVf^^)-)  elsewhere  written  in  the 
plural  number  (Matt.  10,  23.  24.  Luke  18,  24.  Acts  8, 18.  20. 
24,  26),  although  the  same  use  of  the  singular  is  found  in  He- 
rodotus and  other  classics.  The  word  for  selling  is  also  dif- 
ferent from  that  before  used,  though  substantially  synonymous. 
If  the  distinction  made  by  lexicographers  be  just,  to  wit.  that 


ACTS  4,  37.  185 

the  verb  employed  in  v.  34  originally  signified  trafiic  beyond 
seas,  it  might  seem  more  appropriate  to  this  case,  especially 
on  the  supposition  that  the  land  sold  lay  in  Cyprus.  But 
why  was  this  case  singled  out  and  placed  on  record,  while  so 
many  others  were  passed  by  in  silence  ?  Some  have  answered, 
as  the  first  case  of  the  kind  that  happened ;  others,  as  the  case 
of  one  so  highly  honoured  and  so  eminently  useful.  As  if  he 
had  said,  '  among  the  many  who  thus  showed  their  benevo- 
lence and  zeal,  was  one,  with  whose  name  you  have  long  been 
familiar,  or  are  yet  to  meet  repeatedly  in  this  same  history.' 
Now  both  these  explanations — and  there  seems  to  be  no  other 
worthy  of  attention — presuppose  that  there  was  something 
remarkable  in  what  is  here  ascribed  to  Barnabas.  But  if  all 
were  required  to  abandon  their  possessions,  or  if  all  did  in 
point  of  fact  abandon  them,  wherein  lay  the  distinction  of  this 
single  case,  or  what  mattered  it  who  did  first  what  all  did  as 
a  matter  of  course  afterwards  ?  To  say  that  this  case  set  the 
fashion  or  example,  is  not  only  a  gratuitous  assertion,  but  sup- 
plies by  mere  conjecture  what  would  no  doubt  have  been 
clearly  and  emphatically  stated,  as  the  most  important  part 
of  the  transaction.  The  only  satisfactory  solution  is  the  one 
already  given  (see  above,  on  v.  34),  to  wit,  that  these  were 
voluntary  acts  of  genuine  benevolence,  among  w^hich  that  of 
Barnabas,  thougli  not  more  meritorious  than  others,  was  more 
interesting  to  Luke's  readers,  for  one  of  the  two  reasons  which 
have  been  suggested,  either  as  the  first  in  time,  or  far  more 
probably,  because  of  his  subsequent  celebrity.  This  then  may 
be  reckoned  as  a  further  proof,  that  the  community  of  goods, 
described  above,  was  not  a  social  regulation  or  an  article  of 
primitive  church  polity,  but  the  natural  and  necessary  acting 
out  of  the  principle  of  oneness,  or  identity  of  interest  among 
the  members  of  Christ's  body,  arising  from  their  joint  relation 
to  himself;  a  principle  expressly  taught  in  scripture  and  re- 
ceived by  all  believers,  and  though  far  less  oj^erative  than  it 
should  be,  no  less  capable,  when  nurtured  and  developed,  of 
producing  such  fruit  now,  than  in  the  first  church  at  Jerusa. 
lem,  where  every  thing  external  helped  to  foster  and  mature  it. 


186  ACTS  5,  1. 


CHAPTEK  Y. 

This  conventional  division  of  the  text  contains  the  first  re- 
corded case  of  hypocritical  profession  in  the  infant  church 
(1-4),  with  the  severe  but  necessary  means-  used  to  prevent 
its  repetition  (5-11),  and  the  consequent  increase  of  true  con- 
versions, and  of  popular  respect  and  faith  in  the  miraculous 
gifts  of  the  Apostles,  leading  to  innumerable  cures  (12-16), 
but  also  to  a  new  attack  upon  the  church  (17-32),  which 
seemed  about  to  end  in  the  death  of  the  Apostles,  when  pre- 
vented by  the  interposition  and  advice  of  a  distinguished 
Pharisee  (33-39),  in  consequence  of  which  they  were  sub- 
jected to  a  minor  though  disgraceful  punishment,  but  joy- 
fully continued  to  assert,  both  in  public  and  in  private,  the 
Messiahship  of  Jesus  (40-42.) 

1.  But  a  certain  man  named  Ananias,  with  Sap- 
pMra  liis  wife,  sold  a  possession  : 

To  the  eminent  example  of  self-sacrificing  charity,  exhib- 
ited by  Barnabas  (4,  36.  37),  the  history  now  adds,  by  way 
of  contrast,  one  of  a  very  different  description,  yet  springing 
from  the  same  peculiar  state  of  things,  and  showing  the 
abuses  to  which  it  might  afford  occasion,  by  converting  into 
a  mere  form  or  fashion,  what  was  at  first,  and  continuexl  stiU 
to  be  in  most,  the  spontaneous  impulse  of  a  genuine  affection. 
Such  perversions  are  continually  taking  place  wherever  there 
are  zealous  and  extensive  efforts  to  do  good  in  any  way.  The 
real  charity  and  zeal  of  some  are  copied  outwardly  by  others, 
not  always  with  deliberate  hy]30crisy,  but  often  from  a  super- 
ficial short-lived  sympathy.  From  this,  as  weU  as  other  evils 
since  prevailing,  the  primitive  church,  even  under  the  control 
of  the  Apostles,  was  not  wholly  free  ;  and  her  experience  is 
Iiere  left  on  record  "for  our  learning"  (Rom.  15,  4),  and  "for 
our  admonition,  upon  whom  the  ends  of  the  world  are  come " 
(1  Cor.  10,  11.)  The  excessive  regard  paid  to  the  division 
of  the  chapters,  although  often  infehcitous  and  injudicious, 
bides  from  many  readers  the  most  intimate  connection  be- 
tween this  narrative  and  the  conclusion  of  the  fourth  chap- 
ter ;  an  effect  not  wholly  counteracted  by  the  melancholy  but 
(as  Matthew  Henry  calls  it)  which  stands  at  the  beginning  of 


ACTS  5,  1.  2.  187 

this  verse,  and  which,  in  Greek,  is  nothing  more  than  the 
continuative  particle  (Se)  so  constantly  employed  throughout 
this  history.  The  antithesis  is  indicated  not  so  much  by  this 
as  by  the  whole  connection  when  continuously  read.  A  cer- 
tain man  is  an  idiomatic  English  phrase,  often  apphed  to 
^ases  where  there  is  no  certainty  at  all,  and  simply  meaning 
somebody  or  some  man  (Lat.  quidam.)  Here,  where  the 
aoun  tnan  is  expressed,  the  indefinite  pronoun  (tis)  merely 
intimates,  that  he  was  otherwise  or  previously  unknoAvn  to 
the  reader.  JSfamed^  literally,  hy  name.  Ananias  is  the 
Greek  form  corresponding,  in  the  Septuagint  version,  both 
to  IIana7iiah  (Dan.  1,  6)  and  Ananiah  (IS'eh.  3,  23),  which 
are  more  unlike  in  Hebrew  than  in  English  letters.  Both 
were  auspicious  names,  one  denoting  the  favour,  and  the  other 
the  protection,  of  Jehovah  (see  above,  on  4,  6)  which  ac- 
counts for  the  repeated  occurrence  of  the  Greek  form,  even  in 
this  history,  as  the  name  of  different  persons.  (See  below,  on 
9,  10.  23,  2.)  The  other  name,  which  is  variously  written  in 
the  manuscripts  (Sappheira,  Sapphira,  Saphphira,  Saphphura), 
is  commonly  identified  with  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  words  for 
a  sapphire  (Ex.  24,  10.  Rev.  21,  19),  but  by  some  with  an 
Aramaic  adjective  denoting  fair  or  beautiful  (Dan.  4,  9.  18  ; 
hi  tlie  English  Bible,  4,  12.  21).  In  either  case,  the  names 
(as  Bengel  hints)  were  too  good  for  their  o^\mers.  With 
here  implies  what  is  expressed  hi  the  next  verse,  not  mere 
joint  action,  but  preconcert  and  conspu-acy.  It  really  means, 
therefore,  in  the  closest  and  most  intimate  conjunction  with 
her.  Possession^  although  afterwards  defined  (see  v.  3),  is 
correctly  rendered  here  as  an  indefinite  expression,  the  plural 
of  which  occurs  above  (2,  45.)  The  specification  is  needlessly 
anticipated  here  by  the  Vulgate  {agrum)  and  its  Rhemish 
copyist  (a  j9^ece  of  lajid.)  The  verb  in  'this  clause,  and  the 
act  which  it  expresses,  are  the  same  as  in  the  case  of  Barna- 
bas, and  other  "  owners  of  lands  or  houses,"  mentioned  at  the 
close  of  the  last  chapter  (4,  34.  37.) 

2.  And  kept  back  (part)  of  the  price,  (his)  wife 
also  being  privy  (to  it),  and  brought  a  certain  part,  and 
laid  it  at  the  Apostles'  feet. 

The  sentence  is  continued  from  the  first  verse.  Kept 
lacky  literally,  set  apart^  appropriated^  but  ^dth  special  refer- 
ence, in  classical  usage,  to  embezzlement  or  peculation.    The 


188  ACTS  5,  2.3. 

old  Greek  lexicograpliers  (Hesychiiis  and  Suidas)  define  it  by 
a  compound  verb  (tStoTroteoj)  meaning  to  make  one's  own^  not 
in  a  good  sense,  but  in  that  of  stealing  (kActttw)  or  embezzling. 
The  only  other  instance  of  its  use  in  the  New  Testament, 
besides  the  next  verse,  is  in  Titus  2,  10,  where  it  is  translated 
purloining^  and  relates  to  the  dishonest  practices  of  slaves  or 
servants.  The  whole  phrase  might  be  here  expressed  in  Eng- 
lish, he  abstracted  from  the  price^  without  supplying  part^ 
which  is  implied  but  not  expressed  in  the  original.  (Wiclif, 
defrauded  of  Whitby,  defalked  from.)  The  word  for  jr?rice 
is  the  same  that  was  explained  above,  on  4,  34.  His  icife^  or 
less  respectfully,  the  vj07nan^  as  the  pronoun  is  suppressed. 
(See  above,  on  1,  14.)  £eing  privy ^  literally,  being  conscious 
or  aware^  or,  as  the  Greek  verb  primarily  signifies,  knowing 
(the  same  thing)  icith  him.  (See  below,  on  12,  12.  14,  6,  and 
compare  1  Cor.  4,  4,  where  the  sense  of  cooisciousness^  or  co7i- 
scie7ice,  is  determined  by  the  pronoun,  by  or  to  myself)  In 
the  rest  of  the  verse,  the  terms  used  in  4,  34.  35,  are 
studiously  repeated,  as  if  to  show  how  perfectly  the  cases 
were  ahke  in  mere  external  form  and  circumstances.  To  the 
eye  of  uninspired  man,  Ananias  did  precisely  what  was  done 
by  Barnabas  and  many  others.  The  essential  difierence  be- 
tween the  cases  is  expressed  by  the  addition  of  the  words,  a 
certain  part.,  another  instance  of  the  English  idiom  which 
occurs  at  the  beginning  of  v.  1.  The  Greek  phrase  (]ix,ipo<i  n) 
might  be  more  exactly  rendered,  some  part.,  suggesting, 
although  not  directly  expressing,  the  idea  of  a  small  part, 
which  is  also  implied  in  the  whole  context,  as  the  reservation 
of  the  larger  share  seems  to  assign  a  more  adequate  motive 
for  reserving  any.  This  explanation  of  the  phrase  gives  a 
peculiar  aggravation  to  the  sin  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira,  and 
to  that  extent  assists  us  in  explaining  the  severity  with  which 
they  were  punished. 

3.  But  Peter  said,  Ananias,  why  hath  Satan  filled 
thine  heart,  to  lie  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  to  keep  back 
(part)  of  the  price  of  the  land  ? 

Peter  again  acts  as  the  representative  and  spokesman  of 
the  twelve,  whose  presence,  however,  is  implied  in  the  plural 
form  {apostles)  at  the  end  of  the  preceding  verse.  {But.,  as 
in  V.  1.)  Satanic  a  Hebrew  word,  meaning  an  adversary  or 
opponent,  whether  in  war  (1  Kings  5,  4)  or  Utigation  (Ps. 


ACTS  5,  3.  189 

109,  6),  often  applied  to  human  enemies,  but  in  one  place  to 
an  angel  (Num.  22,  22),  and  with  the  article  (2  Sam.  24,  1), 
or  as  a  proper  name  without  it  (1  Chron.  21,  l),  to  the  Evil 
Spirit,  or  the  Prince  of  fallen  angels,  as  the  adversary  and 
accuser  of  mankind  (Job.  1,  Y.  2,  2.  Zech.  3,  1.  2.  Compare 
Rev.  12,  9.  10.)  In  this  sense  and  application,  it  is  nearly- 
equivalent  to  the  Greek  Ata/?oXo5  (Rev.  12,  9.  20,  2)  and  Latin 
Diaholus^  meaning  slanderer,  mformer,  false  accuser,  to  which 
the  English  Devil  may  be  easily  traced  back,  through  the  in 
termediate  forms  of  the  French  {Biable)  and  Italian  [Diavolo). 
As  the  same  being  is  the  tempter  of  our  race  from  the  begin- 
ning (2  Cor.  11,  3),  the  name  jSatan  sometimes  has  that  special 
meaning  (Matt.  4,  10.  16,  23.  Mark  8,  33),  and  is  so  used 
here.  But  while  the  sin  of  Ananias  is  referred  to  this  Satanic 
influence,  the  question  (why  f )  represents  it  as  a  voluntary- 
act,  thus  as  it  were  making  both  agents  jointly  responsible. 
Filled  thy  heart  is  not  so  strong  an  expression  as  the  one 
appHed  to  Judas  (John  13,  27),  although  the  influence  de- 
scribed may  be  the  same.  This  influence  is  never  represented 
as  coercive,  but  as  persuasive  and  resistible  (James  4,  7.)  To 
Jill  the  hearty  however,  must  mean  something  more  than  to 
suggest  or  to  encourage.  Taking  heart  in  the  generic  sense 
of  mind  or  sold  (see  above,  on  2,  37),  the  idea  seems  to  be 
that  of  occupying  or  engrossing  the  whole  man  with  some  par- 
ticular desire  or  purpose.  To  lie,  or  as  the  Greek  verb  with 
the  accusative  is  used  by  the  purest  Attic  TSTiters,  to  deceive, 
which  is  the  marginal  translation  in  our  Bible.  The  verb  is 
the  same  as  in  the  next  verse,  but  the  syntax  different.  The 
verb  itself  does  not  mean  to  belie,  as  some  would  here  explain 
it  (i.  e.  to  belie  the  Holy  Spirit,  either  in  himself  by  false 
profession,  or  in  the  Apostles  by  questioning  their  inspiration), 
but  to  cheat  by  lying.  Some  refer  the  act  to  Ananias,  some 
to  Satan,  a  difference  of  little  exegetical  importance,  on  ac- 
count of  their  inseparable  union  in  responsibility  and  guilt. 
There  is  no  need  of  giving  to  the  verb  a  merely  tentative 
meaning  (sought  or  attempted  to  deceive),  as  it  does  not  here 
express  the  actual  result,  but  the  desire  or  purpose,  with 
which  Satan  filled  the  heart  of  Ananias.  The  intimate  gram- 
matical connection  of  the  two  verbs  shows  that  one  is  a  spe- 
cification of  the  other,  or  that  the  way  in  which  he  sought  to 
deceive  the  Holy  Ghost,  was  by  keeping  back,  etc.  This 
last  verb  (explained  above,  on  v.  2),  with  the  same  preposi- 
tion (ttTTo),  occurs  in  the  Septuagint  version  of  Josh.  7,  1,  in 


190  ACTS  5,  3.  4. 

reference  to  the  sin  of  Achan,  between  which  and  that  of 
Ananias  some  of  the  older  writers  have  discovered  even  too 
great  a  resemblance.  The  generic  term  possession  (in  v.  1 ) 
is  now  defined  or  specified  as  land^  literally,  place  (see  above, 
on  1, 18.  4,  34.)  Tyndale  uses  here  the  old  word  lyvelod, 
which  seems  to  be  identical  with  livelihood^  i.  e.  subsistence, 
or  the  source  from  which  it  is  derived,  namely,  property  or 
income. 

4.  Whiles  it  remained,  was  it  not  thine  own  ?  And 
after  it  was  sold,  was  it  not  in  thine  own  power  ?  Why 
hast  thou  conceived  this  thing  in  thine  heart  ?  Thou 
hast  not  lied  unto  men,  but  unto  God. 

Willies  is  an  antiquated  form  of  while  or  whilst.  There 
is  nothing  corresponding  to  it  here  in  Greek.  The  hteral 
translation  of  the  clause  is,  remaining  did  it  not  remain  to 
thee  ?  (Wiclif,  whether  it  ujisold  zoas  not  thine  f)  So  in  the 
next  clause,  heioig  sold  (or  having  been  sold)  loas  it  not  f  etc. 
This  shows  conclusively,  that  no  compulsory  abandonment  of 
property,  or  absolute  community  of  goods,  existed  in  the 
primitive  church.  (See  above,  on  2,  44.  45.  4,  32.)  The  sen- 
tence, it  is  true,  is  interrogative,  not  affirmative  (see  above, 
on  2,  7)  ;  but  the  form  of  interrogation  (^Wth  ovyi)  is  one  used 
when  an  affirmative  answer  is  expected.  (See  Matt.  20,  13. 
Luke  12,  6.  John  11,  9.  Rom.  3,  29.)  Was  {vTrrjpx^v).,  existed 
or  subsisted  (see  above,  on  4,  34.  37),  has  here  very  nearly 
the  force  of  coiitinued  or  remained.,  as  in  the  first  clause. 
Power.,  not  physical  but  moral,  authority,  discretion.  (See 
above,  on  1,  7.  3,  12.  4,  7.)  The  sin  of  Ananias  was  therefore 
perfectly  spontaneous  and  gratuitous,  without  coercion  or 
constraint  ah  extra.  He  was  not  required  to  sell  his  land,  or 
having  sold  it,  to  devote  the  proceeds  to  a  public  use.  His 
freedom  from  aU  antecedent  obligation  so  to  do,  is  the  very 
soul  of  this  expostulation,  robbed  of  which  it  becomes  utterly 
unmeaning.  If  Peter  knew  that  Ananias  had  no  choice,  but 
was  compelled  to  give  up  all  that  he  possessed  when  he 
became  a  Christian,-  these  upbraidmg  questions  would  have 
been  a  cruel  mockery.  Why  is  not  the  same  Greek  form  as 
in  the  verse  precedmg.  There  the  words  mean  strictly,  for 
(or  on  account  of)  what  f  (Sta  Tt;)here  (and  hi  Luke  2,  49), 
the  expression  is  elliptical  and  seems  to  mean,  hoio  (is  it) 


ACTS  5,  4.  191 

tha%  as  Tyndale  here  translates  it,  or  lohat  (is  the  reason) 
that  f  {tl  on; )  or  the  full  form  may  be  that  in  John  14,  22  (ri 
yiyovev  otl})  what  has  happened  that  f  Conceived^  liter  ally  jt>w? 
ovj^laced.  A  similar  Hebrew  phrase  is  used  to  denote  purpose 
(Dan.  1,  8)  or  serious  consideration  (Mai.  2,  2.)  See  below, 
on  19,  21,  and  compare  Luke  1,  66.  This  thing^  or  retaining 
the  original  and  full  force  of  the  Greek  word  (-Trpay/xa  from 
Trpdacroi,  to  do),  this  deed  or  actio7i.  JOied  is  here  construed, 
not  with  the  accusative,  as  in  v.  3,  and  in  the  classical  Greek 
usage,  but  with  the  dative.  Some  regard  this  as  a  mere 
dialectic  variation,  belonging  to  the  Hellenistic  Greek,  but 
identical  in  sense  with  the  accusative  construction.  It  seems 
hard,  however,  to  account  for  both  forms  bemg  used  in  two 
successive  sentences,  unless  there  is  some  difference  of  mean- 
ing. If  there  is  such  a  difference,  it  is  probably  that  between 
deceiving,  as  the  end,  and  lyi?ig,  as  the  means  of  its  accom- 
plishment. (See  above,  on  v.  3.)  N'ot  unto  men,  so  much  as 
unto  God,  as  some  explain  it ;  or  not  unto  men  at  all,  since  all 
regard  to  them  is  swallowed  up  in  that  due  to  God  (compare 
Ps.  51,  4) ;  or  not  unto  (us  as)  men,  but  as  the  vehicles  and 
organs  of  the  Holy  Ghost.     (See  Matt.  10,  20.   Acts  13,  2. 

15,  28.)  The  reference  is  then  not  merely  to  the  presence 
and  inhabitation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  all  believers  (l  Cor.  3, 

16.  6,  19),  but  to  his  special  and  authoritative  acting  through 
the  Apostles  ;  so  that  disobedience  to  their  rightful  apostol- 
ical authority  is  represented  as  resistance  to  the  Holy  Ghost. 
(See  V,  51  below,  and  compare  1  Thess.  4,  8.)  The  use  of 
the  terms  God  and  Holy  Ghost,  in  these  two  verses,  as  con- 
vertible expressions,  has  always  and  most  justly  been  regarded 
as  a  strong  proof  both  of  the  personality  and  the  divinity  of 
the  Spirit.  In  allusion  to  this  doctrine,  and  to  one  of  its 
heretical  opponents  in  the  early  church,  the  Venerable  Bede 
says,  the  Scripture  here  condemns  the  heresy  of  Macedonius 
before  Macedonius  was  born.  The  sin  of  Ananias  is  so  clearly 
and  precisely  said  to  have  been  that  of  lying  to  and  trying  to 
deceive  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  it  is  strange  men  should  ever 
have  disputed  whether  it  was  sacrilege  or  avarice,  ambition 
or  vainglory.  All  these  were  undoubtedly  included ;  but 
the  grand  specific  charge  against  him,  twice  alleged  by 
Peter,  is  that  of  lying  to  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  interpretation 
of  the  passage  has  been  hindered  and  embarrassed,  from  the 
earliest  times,  by  the  neglect  of  this  obvious  and  simple  fact, 
and  the  attempt  to  make  the  guUt  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira 


192  ACTS  5,  4.5. 

lie  in  their  violation  of  a  vow,  by  which  they  had  consecrated 
all  their  property  to  God,  so  that  in  withholding  what  they 
did,  they  were  not  only  guilty  of  the  crime  of  sacrilege,  but 
(as  one  of  the  Fathers  here  observes)  of  self-robbery  or  steal- 
ing their  own  money !  Such  refinements  are  often  handed 
down  from  age  to  age,  in  the  tradition  of  the  pulpit,  or  by 
one  interpreter  transcribing  others,  till  the  true  sense,  obvious 
and  simple  though  it  be,  is  supposed  to  be  condemned  by  the 
Judgment  of  the  church,  or  lost  sight  of  and  forgotten.  How- 
ever complicated  the  offence  of  Ananias  may  have  been,  the 
head  and  front  of  his  offending,  as  declared  by  the  Apostle, 
was  his  lying  to  the  Holy  Ghost. 

5.  And  Ananias,  hearing  these  words,  fell  down 
and  gave  up  the  ghost ;  and  great  fear  came  on  all 
them  that  heard  these  things. 

Gave  up  the  ghost  is  not,  as  the  English  reader  might  sup- 
pose, a  Greek  or  Hebrew  idiom,  introduced  into  our  language 
by  too  servile  a  translation,  but  an  idiom  of  our  own,  retained 
in  all  the  English  versions  subsequent  to  that  of  Tyndale. 
Wiclif 's  simple  but  expressive  words  are,  fell  down  and  was 
dead.  The  Greek  verb  [i^ixj/v^e)  means  breathed  out,  i.  e.  his 
life  or  soul,  as  the  ellipsis  is  supplied  by  Euripides  and  Virgil. 
Our  word  expire  (from  the  Latin  exspiro)  originally  means 
the  same.  The  phrase  employed  in  the  translation  is  one  of 
the  very  few,  in  which  the  word  ghost  still  retains  its  strict 
sense  as  a  synonyme  of  spirit.  The  other  forms  in  which  it 
lingers  are  Iloly  Ghost  and  ghostly,  as  applied  to  spiritual 
guides  or  teachers.  With  these  exceptions,  English  usage 
now  restricts  the  word  to  the  supposed  return  of  disembodied 
spirits.  As  to  the  immediate  cause  of  the  death  of  Ananias 
there  are  various  opinions.  The  earlier  neologists  of  Ger- 
many, belonging  to  the  so-called  natural  (or  naturalistic) 
school  of  exegesis,  in  their  eagerness  to  get  rid  of  one  mira- 
cle, almost  assumed  another,  by  ascribing  the  sudden  death 
to  fright  or  apoplexy,  not  perceiving  that  its  occurring  when 
it  did,  and  in  the  case  of  man  and  wife,  is  enough  to  render 
even  such  a  death  miraculous.  One  writer  of  the  same  class, 
but  more  bold  and  reckless,  alleges  or  insmuates  that  Peter 
actually  killed  him  with  a  concealed  weapon,  and  that  Luke 
relates  merely  what  was  seen  by  the  spectators.  Apart  from 
these  monstrosities  of  exposition,  there  is  a  question,  even 


ACTS  b,  5.  19S 

among  those  who  are  agreed  in  considering  the  death  of 
Ananias  as  a  signal  act  of  the  divine  justice,  namely,  Avhether 
this  act  was  performed  through  Peter,  or  without  his  know- 
ledge and  co-operation.  It  is  commonly  assumed,  as  a  matter 
of  course,  that  Ananias  was  destroyed  by  a  judicial  word  or 
act  of  the  Apostle,  as  the  representative  of  God  or  Christ. 
But  there  is  no  such  intimation  in  the  narrative  itself,  the 
terms  of  which  are  perfectly  consistent  with  the  supposition 
or  conclusion,  that  the  sudden  death  of  Ananias  was  as  much 
a  matter  of  surprise  to  Peter  as  to  others,  and  that  his  first 
knowledge  of  the  divine  will  upon  this  occasion  vv'as  derived 
from  the  appalling  sight  of  the  dissembler  lying  lifeless  at  his 
feet.  We  have  no  right  to  affirm  this  as  unquestionably  true ; 
but  we  have  still  less  right  to  affirm  the  contrary,  and  thus 
give  colour  to  the  charge  of  cruelty  and  rash  vinclictiveness 
against  the  great  Apostle.  False  as  such  charges  are,  on  any 
exegetical  hypothesis,  it  is  not  wise  to  give  them  even  an  oc- 
casion or  a  pretext,  by  gratuitously  representing  as  his  own 
act,  what  the  language  of  the  narrative  allows  us  to  regard  as 
the  immediate  act  of  God.  If  the  Avriter  had  intended  to 
exhibit  the  Apostle  as  a  minister  of  wrath  or  vengeance, 
would  he  not  have  left  on  record  some  judicial  sentence, 
some  express  premonition  of  the  stroke  that  was  to  follow, 
such  as  Paul  uttered  in  the  case  of  Elymas  the  sorcerer  (see 
below,  on  13,  11),  or  at  least  such  a  warning  and  exhortation 
as  Peter  himself  addressed  to  Smion  Magus  (see  below,  on  8, 
20-23  ?)  But  whether  used  directly  against  Peter,  or  indi- 
rectly against  God  himself,  the  charge  of  rashness  and  undue 
severity  may  be  repelled,  without  resorting  to  the  ultimate 
unanswerable  plea  of  the  divine  infallibility  and  sovereignty, 
by  the  complex  aggravations  of  the  sin  committed,  as  em- 
bracing an  ambitious  and  vainglorious  desire  to  obtain  the 
praise  of  men  by  false  pretences ;  a  selfish  and  avaricious 
wish  to  do  this  at. as  small  expense  as  possible  ;  a  direct  false- 
hood, 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  imposture  or  to  punish 
it ;  a  complication  and  accumulation  of  gratuitous  and  aggra- 
vated crimes,  which  certainly  must  constitute  a  heinous  sin — 
if  not  the  one  unpardonable  sin — against  the  Holy  Ghost 
(Matt.  12,  31.  32.  Mark  3,  29.)  That  Ananias  had  a  view  to 
his  support  from  the  common  fund,  while  secretly  retaining 
feomethmg  of  his  own,  presupposes  a  more  Uteral  and  strict 

VOL.  I. — 9 


104  ACTS  5,  5.  6. 

community  of  goods  than  we  have  found  recorded.  If  the 
property  sold  by  Ananias  was  so  vahiable  that  he  could  hope 
to  gain  a  name  by  giving  it  away,  and  yet  reserve  a  portion 
for  liimself,  the  hope  of  sharing  in  a  common  sustentation- 
fund  could  hardly  have  been  much  of  a  temptation.  As  addi- 
tional reasons  for  inflicting  so  severe  a  stroke,  it  has  been 
said,  that  an  example  of  severity  was  specially  required  in 
the  beginning  of  tlie  Christian  dispensation,  analogous  to 
those  of  Nadab  and  Abihu  under  Moses  (Lev.  10,  1-3)  and 
to  that  of  Achan  under  Joshua  (V,  1-26.)  That  the  punish- 
ment, though  just  in  itself,  was  specially  intended  to  deter 
men  from  repeating  the  oflence,  is  rendered  probable  by  its 
actual  effect,  as  here  recorded.  Great  fear  (both  terror  and 
religious  awe)  came  (i.  e.  came  to  pass  or  happened)  upon  all 
tJian  that  heard  (literally,  those  hearing)  these  {things.)  The 
last  word  (ravra)  is  omitted  by  the  oldest  manuscripts  and 
latest  editors,  without  effect  upon  the  meaning.  The  only 
question  is,  whether  the  clause  describes  the  hnpression  made 
by  the  death  of  Ananias  upon  those  who  witnessed  it,  or 
on  a  wider  circle  who  were  reached  by  the  report  of  it. 
The  objection  to  the  latter,  which  is  certainly  the  natural 
import  of  the  words — since  the  persons  present  would  be 
rather  spoken  of  as  seeing  than  as  hearing  what  had  happened 
— is  that  such  a  statement  seems  misplaced  between  the  death 
of  Ananias  and  that  of  his  wife,  which  happened  so  soon  after- 
wards. But  this  may  be  explained  in  either  of  two  ways. 
The  first  is  by  supposing  a  prolej^sis  or  anticipation,  which  is 
altogether  natural  in  such  a  case,  the  writer  going  on  to  tell 
what  impression  this  fearful  stroke  eventually  made,  and  then 
returning  to  complete  his  narrative  of  what  occurred  at  once. 
*This  sudden  death  of  Ananias  caused  a  universal  dread  in  all 
who  heard  it,  and  so  did  that  of  his  companion  in  wickedness, 
which  I  shall  now  relate.'  The  other  method  of  solution  is  to 
understand  the  language  of  this  verse,  without  prolepsis,  as 
describing  the  immediate  effect  produced  by  the  news  of 
Ananias's  death,  which,  as  in  all  like  cases,  would  be  spread 
with  groat  rapidity,  especially  if  the  event  took  place  in  an 
assembly  of  disciples,  as  to  which  point,  see  below,  on  v.  7. 

6.  And  the  young  men  arose,  wound  him  up,  and 
carried  (him)  out,  and  buried  (him.) 

Some  understand  by  the  young  (or  more  exactly,  younger) 


ACTS  5,  6.  1.  195 

m€w,  a  class  of  officers  or  servants  in'  the  primitive  churchy 
chiefly  on  two  grounds  ;  first,  tliat  the  correlative  term  elders 
(TTpes^vrepoL)  is  SO  used,  and  sometimes  contrasted  with  (v€wt€- 
poi)  the  one  which  here  occurs  (1  Tim.  5, 1.  1  Pet.  5,  5.  Tit. 
2,  6)  :  and  secondly,  that  the  word  here  has  the  article  and 
therefore  must  denote  a  well-defined  and  well-known  class. 
As  to  the  first  of  these  reasons,  it  would  serve  as  well  to  prove 
that  because  the  Enghsh  elder  is  a  title  of  office,  there  must  be 
a  corresponding  class  of  officers  called  yoimgers.  It  may  also 
be  observed  that  the  alleged  opposition  between  the  two 
Greek  words  occurs  chiefly  where  presbj-ter  or  elder  has 
its  natural  or  personal,  and  not  its  technical  official  sense.  As 
to  the  other  reason,  it  is  difficult  to  see  in  what  respect  an 
order  of  church-servants  would  be  any  more  entitled  to  a  defi- 
nite description  than  the  younger  men  of  the  community,  or 
rather  of  the  company  present  upon  this  occasion,  who  might 
naturally  be  expected,  with  or  without  an  order  or  a  sign  from 
the  Apostles,  to  perform  the  unpleasant  duty  here  assigned  to 
them.  The  mam  fact  is,  hoAvever,  that  the  word  in  question 
never  occurs  again  as  an  official  title.  VTound  him  up^ 
wrapped  him  in  his  own  clothes,  or  shrouded  hun  in  grave- 
clothes.  The  last  is  not  so  probable,  considering  the  haste 
with  which  the  burial  was  performed.  Carried  out  might 
seem  to  refer  merely  to  the  house,  but  the  analogy  of  Luke 
7,  12.  John  11,  31,  and  the  well-known  usage  of  the  Jews, 
seem  decisive  in  fiivour  of  referring  it  to  the  city.  From  the 
ancient  sepulchres  still  extant  in  the  Holy  Land,  it  would 
seem  that  the  usual  mode  of  burial  was  in  lateral  excavations, 
either  in  the  hill-sides  or  in  artificial  vaults  and  natura! 
caverns. 

7.  And  it  was  about  the  space  of  three  hours  after 
when  his  wife,  not  knowing  what  was  done,  came  in. 

It  is  not  an  improbable  conjecture,  that  Ananias  and  Sap- 
phira  are  described  as  coming  into  the  Apostles'  presence  at 
two  successive  hours  of  prayer,  the  interval  between  which 
was  three  hours.  (See  above,  on  2,  15.  3,  1.)  This  would 
imply  that  the  incidents  recorded  here  took  place  in  a  meet- 
ing for  worship.  But  see  what  is  said  above  (on  2,  42.  46)  as 
to  the  mode  of  life  among  the  primitive  Christians.  The  first 
clause  admits  of  two  grannnatical  constructi«jns.  The  simplest 
is  the  one  adopted  in  our  version,  which  makes  S2mce  (or  ^>^- 


196  ACTS  5,  1.  8.  9. 

terval)  the  subject  of  the  verb  at  the  beginning.  'There  waa 
(or  there  elapsed)  an  interval  of  about  three  hours,  and  (then) 
his  wife,  etc.'  The  other,  which  is  harsher,  but  preferred  by 
the  highest  philological  authorities  gives  to  the  first  verb 
(eyevero)  its  frequent  sense  of  happened,  came  to  pass,  and  con- 
strues the  following  words  absolutely,  as  in  Matt.  15,  32. 
'  And  it  came  to  pass — a  space  of  about  three  hours  (later) — 
that  (literally,  and)  his  wife,  etc'  This  use  of  and,  in  the  last 
clause  of  a  sentence,  especially  after  a  specification  of  thne,  is 
a  common  Hebrew  idiom,  and  as  such  often  used  in  the  Greek 
of  the  New  Testament.  (See  for  example  Luke  9,  28,  where 
the  structure  of  the  sentence  is  the  same  as  here.)  What 
was  done,  or  rather,  what  had  happened,  i.  e.  to  her  husband. 
How  she  had  remamcd  so  long  in  ignorance  of  what  must 
have  been  generally  known,  is  not  revealed,  and  it  is  idle  to 
conjecture.  Such  exceptions  are  not  only  possible,  but  fa- 
miliar matters  of  experience. 

8.  And  Peter  answered  unto  her,  Tell  me  whether 

ye  sold  the  land  for  so  much  ?     And  she  said,  Yea,  for 

so  much. 

Answered,  not  merely  said  (see  above,  on  3,  12),  but  re- 
pfied,  as  some  think,  to  her  salutation,  or,  as  others,  to  her 
looks  or  to  her  thoughts.  Tell  me  is  in  "Wiclif 's  version. 
Woman,  say  to  me.  The  word  translated  sold  here  and  in 
7,  9  below,  is  the  middle  voice  of  the  verb  rendered  gave  in 
4,  33  above.  It  has  been  disputed  whether  so  much  repre- 
sents a  specific  sum  which  Peter  named,  or  the  money  lying 
at  his  feet  at  which  he  pointed,  or  whether  it  here  means  so 
little,  which,  however,  is  at  variance  mth  usage.  Yea,  yes, 
the  usual  Greek  particle  of  affirmation. 

9.  Then  Peter  said  unto  her,  How  (is  it)  that  ye 
have  agreed  together,  to  tempt  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  ? 
Behold,  the  feet  of  them  which  have  buried  thy  hus- 
band (are)  at  the  door,  and  shall  carry  thee  out. 

Then  is  not  an  adverb  of  time,  but  the  conjunction  (Se), 
translated  a7id  at  the  beginning  of  the  three  preceding  verses. 
How  is  it  that,  the  very  phrase  translated  why  in  v.  4.  These 
variations  in  the  version,  though  intrinsically  unimportant, 


ACTS  5,  9.  197 

are  occasionallj  noticed,  lest  the  English  readei  should  sup- 
pose a  difference  of  meaning,  Avhere  there  is  not  even  one  of 
form,  in  the  original.  Ye  have  agreed  toget]iei\  literally,  it 
was  concerted  by  you  (or  between  you.)  It  is  plain  that  this 
preconcert  or  conspiracy  was  viewed  by  the  Apostle  as  a 
serious  aggravation  of  the  sin  committed ;  not  only  because 
each  was  bound  to  hinder  or  dissuade  instead  of  helping  and 
encouraging  the  other ;  but  because  this  previous  agreement 
showed  the  sin  to  be  deliberate  and  presumptuous,  and  cut 
off  all  excuse  or  palhation  that  might  otherwise  have  been 
derived  from  haste,  ignorance,  or  inconsideration.  The  sin 
itself  is  here  described  as  that  of  tempting  God,  i.  e.  trying 
his  patience,  or  putting  to  the  test,  and  thereby  impiously 
questioning,  not  merely  his  omniscience,  but  his  veracity  and 
power  to  punish.  The  term  is  repeatedly  applied  to  God 
(Deut.  6,  16.  Matt.  4, 1.  Luke  4,  12.  Heb.  3,  8.  9),  and  once 
to  Christ  (1  Cor.  10,  9),  but  here  to  the  Sinrit  of  the  Lord, 
i.  e.  of  God,  or  according  to  the  prevalent  New  Testament 
usage,  of  Christ  himself.  See  above,  on  1,  24.  2,  21,  and  com- 
pare the  Spirit  of  his  Son^  Gal.  4,  6.  See  also  John  14,  26. 
15,  26,  where  the  Spirit  is  said  to  be  sent,  not  only  in  the 
Son's  name  by  the  Father,  but  from  the  Father  by  the  Son 
himself.  The  same  relation  of  the  divine  persons  is  expressed 
in  2,  33  above.  Ananias  and  Sapphira  had  consi^ired  to  tempt 
the  omniscient  Spirit,  by  agreeing  to  practise  a  deception  on 
the  men,  in  whom  he  manifestly  dwelt  in  an  extraordinary 
manner,  and  through  whom  he  now  spoke  and  acted,  as  the 
ruler  and  the  guardian  of  his  infant  church.  The  connivance, 
or  rather  the  complicity  of  Sapphira  in  her  husband's  sin — for 
she  is  evidently  treated,  both  by  Peter  and  by  Luke,  not  as  a 
mere  accessory,  but  as  a  co-ordinate  and  independent  party 
to  the  whole  transaction — vv^as  so  clear  to  her  own  conscience, 
and  to  others  from  her  prompt  and  categorical  reply  to  the 
judicial  question  put  to  her  by  Peter,  that  he  thinks  no  fur- 
ther trial  necessary,  but  contents  himself  with  simply  an- 
nouncing her  participation  in  the  punishment,  as  well  as  in 
the  sin,  of  her  husband.  Some  have  argued  from  the  sen- 
tence here  pronounced  by  Peter  on  Sapphira,  that  he  must 
have  acted  likewise  as  a  judge  in  the  case  of  Ananias.  (See 
above,  on  v.  5.)  The  conclusion  might  be  valid  if  the  premi- 
ses were  true,  i.  e.  if  what  is  here  recorded  were  a  formal  and 
authoritative  sentence,  instead  of  being,  as  it  is,  a  mere  pre- 
diction.    Even  the  word  shall,  used  by  our  translators,  con- 


198  ACTS  5,  9. 

veys  too  strong  a  sense  to  modern  readers.  There  is  nothing 
to  show  that  the  Greek  verb  means  more  than  that  tJiey  will 
(or  are  about  to)  do  for  her  what  they  have  just  done  for  her 
husband.  Carry  out^  i.  e.  for  burial,  from  the  house,  and 
probably  from  the  city  also,  as  in  v.  6.  This  w^as  known  to 
Peter,  not  by  mere  conjecture,  nor  by  reasoning  from  analogy, 
but  no  doubt  by  express  revelation,  which  is  perfectly  con- 
sistent with  the  view  already  taken  of  his  agency  in  executing 
the  divine  will  upon  Ananias.  Although  it  may  have  pleased 
God,  in  the  first  instance,  to  eflect  his  purpose  without  any 
previous  intimation  to  his  servant,  in  order  to  disburden  him 
of  all  responsibility  for  so  severe  and  sudden  an  infliction  ;  yet 
as  soon  as  the  divine  will  had  been  made  known  by  the  death 
of  Ananias,  it  seems  altogether  natural  that  Peter  should 
resume  his  ordinary  functions  as  a  Prophet  and  Apostle.  Be- 
hold (or  Zo),  as  usual,  announces  somethmg  unexpected  and 
surprismg  (see  above,  on  1, 10.  2,  7),  as  this  declaration  must 
have  been  to  her  whom  he  addressed,  and  who  had  just  come 
in,  "  not  knowing  what  had  happened  "  (v.  7.)  The  idea  that 
feet  may  be  put  for  the  whole  person  (see  above,  on  4,  35-37), 
seems  to  be  favoured  .here  by  the  construction  of  that 
word  as  the  subject  of  the  verb  in  the  last  clause,  'behold 
their  feet  are  at  the  door,  and  shall  carry  thee  out,''  which 
could  be  said  only  of  the  hands,  if  particular  members,  in  the 
strict  sense,  were  intended.  But  the  true  construction  is,  and 
they  (not  the  feet,  but  their  owners,  who  had  buried  Ananias) 
shall  carry  thee  oict.  At  the  door  has  by  some  been  regarded 
as  a  figure  for  at  hand,  within  reach,  and  the  w^hole  cla'ise  as 
meaning,  that  death  and  burial  were  as  near  to  her  as  they 
had  been  to  her  husband.  But  this  sense  may  be  obtained, 
and  in  a  much  more  striking  form,  without  departing  from 
the  literal  interpretation  of  the  clause  as  meaning,  that  the 
young  men  who  had  buried  Ananias  were  returned,  and  either 
waitmg  fit  the  door  or  in  the  act  of  entering.  If  the  former, 
there  is  no  need  of  assuming  a  long  interval  between  their 
going  and  returning ;  if  the  latter,  it  is  easily  explained  by 
the  necessity  of  burying  the  dead  without  the  city.  Some 
preparation  also  for  the  burial  may  have  been  required,  al- 
though not  as  much  as  usual,  and  not  including  (as  some  in- 
terpreters suggest)  the  digging  of  a  grave,  which  is  a  transfer 
of  our  own  associations  to  a  very  diflerent  mode  of  buriaL 
(See  above,  on  v.'  6.)  According  to  the  literal  interpretation 
of  this  clause,  Peter's  knowledge  of  the  fact,  that  they  were 


ACTS  5,  9.  10.  199 

at  the  door,  may  have  been  derived  from  a  divine  suggestion, 
or  from  hearing  their  approach,  or  from  both,  as  in  the  case 
of  Abijah,  who  was  warned  of  a  visit  from  the  wife  of  Jero- 
boam, and  yet  "  heard  the  sound  of  her  feet  as  she  came  in  at 
the  door"  (1  Kings  14,  5.  6.)  Them  which  have  buried  is  in 
Greek  those  burying  (or  having  buried^ 

10.  Then  fell  she  down  straightway  at  his  feet  and 
yielded  up  the  ghost ;  and  the  young  men  came  in  and 
found  her  dead,  and  carrying  (her)  forth  buried  (her) 
by  her  husband. 

Peter's  prophetical  announcement  to  Sapphira  is  instanta- 
neously fulfilled.  Then^  see  above,  on  v.  9.  Straightway^ 
the  same  word  that  is  rendered  immediately  in  3,  7,  and  there 
explained.  At  his  feet^  in  evident  allusion  to  the  fact  men- 
tioned in  V.  2  (compare  4,  27.)  As  the  money  had  been  laid 
at  the  Apostles'  feet,  so  now  the  deceivers  fell  down  dead 
upon  the  same  spot ;  for  the  same  thing,  although  not  dis- 
tinctly mentioned,  was  no  doubt  true  of  Ananias  also.  Yielded 
up  the  ghost  may  seem  to  be  a  stronger  expression  than  the 
one  in  v.  5  ;  but  in  Greek  they  are  identical.  So  too  is  the 
carrying  forth  of  this  verse  mth  the  carried  out  of  that.  The 
young  men^  namely,  those  who  had  removed  Ananias  (v.  6.) 
The  argument  derived  from  the  analogy  of  the  comparative 
forms  (Tfpeo-jSvTepoL,  elder,  and  vewrepoi,  younger)  in  favour  of 
regarding  both  as  technical  official  titles  (see  above,  on  v.  6), 
is  considerably  weakened  by  the  younger  being  here  called 
simply  young  or  youths  {veavto-Koi).  On  the'  other  hand,  sup- 
posing these  expressions  to  be  used  in  their  popular  and  sim- 
ple sense,  there  is  not  only  nothing  strange  in  the  promiscuous 
use  of  the  comparative  and  positive  degree,  but  an  obvious 
significancy  in  the  former  where  it  stands  (see  v.  6),  as  sug- 
gestive of  the  reason  for  their  undertaking  this  unpleasant 
duty,  namely,  that  it  would  have  been  unbecoming  to  devolve 
it  on  their  elders.  In  any  civifized  society  or  company,  the 
younger  men  would  feel  themselves  in  honour  bound  to  act  in 
such  emergencies,  without  official  right  or  obligation,  not 
merely  on  account  of  their  supposed  strength  and  activity, 
but  also  from  a  natural  and  reasonable  disposition  to  relieve 
or  spare,  not  only  women  and  children,  but  the  older  men. 
Where  the  line  between  the  ages  should  be  drawn,  is  a  ques- 
tion theoretically  difficult  enough,  but  one  which  would  not 


200  ACTS  5,  10.  11. 

give  the  slightest  trouble  in  a  practical  emergency.  Caine  in 
and  found  her  dead^  though  not  decisive,  seems  to  favour  the 
opinion  that  the  foregoing  verse  relates  to  their  actual  return 
from  the  place  of  burial.  The  Codex  Beza  and  the  Syriac 
version  here  repeat  the  word  which  means  to  shroud  or  wrap 
up  in  V.  6  above.  Though  no  part  of  the  text,  it  may  be  sup- 
plied or  understood,  like  the  expression  at  his  feet  in  the  pre- 
ceding clause.  JBy  her  husband^  literally,  to  (i.  e.  close  to) 
lier  husband^  implying  proximity  and  juxtaposition.  The 
Greek  word  (Trpd? ),  with  the  accusative,  strictly  denotes  mo 
tion  to  or  towards  an  object,  and  may  here  be  used  because 
the  verb  includes  the  idea  of  rem.oval.  The  same  preposition 
is  substituted  here,  in  what  is  now  regarded  as  the  true  text, 
for  another  {irapa)  meaning  by  or  «#,  in  the  phrase  at  his  feet ^ 
repeated  from  v.  2  above.  The  same  idea  {by  or  at)  is  ex- 
pressed by  still  a  third  preposition  (cTrt)  in  v.  9,  as  well  as  in 
3,  10.  11  above.  The  speedy  burial  of  this  unhappy  pair  has 
been  often  cavilled  at,  and  variously  justified.  The  naked 
reference  to  'divine  authority,  without  a  positive  command  on 
record,  is  a  virtual  concession  that  the  act  admits  of  no  excuse 
on  ordinary  prmciples,  and  also  fails  to  guard  against  untimely 
imitation.  The  alleged  practice  of  the  Jews,  from  the  time  of 
the  Captivity,  to  bury  on  the  day  of  death,  is  historically 
doubtful,  and  by  no  means  an  example  for  the  Christian  world. 
The  physical  necessity,  arising  from  the  climate,  is  also  doubt- 
ful, or  at  least  exaggerated  and  at  variance  with  scriptural 
examples.  The  true  explanation  seems  to  be,  that  the  usual 
reason  for  delaying  burial  did  not  exist  in  this  case.  That 
reason  is  the  propriety  of  ascertaining  that  the  death  has 
taken  place  before  the  body  is  interred.  But  here  there  was 
neither  doubt  as  to  the  fact  nor  interment  in  the  proper  sense. 
The  bodies  were  most  probably  deposited  uncoffined  in  the 
horizontal  niches  of  an  open  sepulchre  above  ground  (see 
above,  on  v.  6.)  But  it  matters  little  whether  this  were  so  or 
not,  as  the  Apostles,  who  presided  at  this  awful  scene,  must 
certainly  have  kno^vn  that  Ananias  and  Sapphira  were  com. 
pletely  dead. 

11.  And  great  fear  came  upon  all  the  church,  and 
upon  as  many  as  heard  these  things. 

The  effect'  of  these  judgments  w^as  an  universal  sense  of 
awe  and  dread.    The  first  and  last  words  of  the  verse  agree 


ACTS   5,  11.  201 

exactly  with  the  second  clause  of  v.  5  ;  the  change  of  all  that 
io  as  many  as  existmg  only  in  the  English  version.  This  co- 
incidence of  form  seems  to  favour,  though  it  cannot  of  itself 
establish,  the  opinion  that  v.  5  is  a  prolepsis  or  anticipation 
of  the  statement  here  made  in  its  proper  place.  The  only  dif- 
ference between  the  two  is  that  the  general  expression,  all 
those  hearing  these  things^  is  preceded,  in  the  verse  before  us, 
by  the  more  specific  phrase,  the  lohole  church.  This  is  the 
second  instance  of  the  use  of  this  word  in  the  book  before  us, 
or  the  first,  according  to  some  ancient  manuscripts  and  recent 
critics,  who  omit  the  word  (iKKkruria)  in  2,  47.  It  may  here 
mean  either  the  assembly  in  whose  presence  these  events  took 
place,  or  the  whole  body  of  believers.  But  at  this  stage  of 
the  re-organization,  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  two 
ideas  were  coincident,  that  is  to  say,  that  those  who  met,  es- 
pecially for  worship,  were  in  fact  the  whole  body  or  its  stand- 
ing representatives.  Whether  Tyndale  and  Cranmer,  in 
translating  the  word  congregation^  meant  to  put  the  more  re- 
stricted sense  upon  it,  may  be  doubted,  as  this  English  word 
had  once  a  v/ider  usage.  Thus  Knox  calls  the  Church  of 
Christ  his  "  Congregation,"  and  the  same  name  was  long 
borne  by  the  whole  body  of  the  Reformed  in  Scotland.  Besides 
the  general  objection  to  the  punishment  of  Ananias  and  his 
v>ife  as  cruel,  it  has  been  accused  of  undue  relative  severity 
compared  with  that  of  Elymas  the  Sorcerer  (see  below,  on  13, 
11),  and  with  the  suj)posed  impunity  of  Simon  Magus  (see 
below,  on  8,  24.)  In  explanation  of  this  seeming  dispropor- 
tion, it  has  been  suggested,  that  such  rigour  was  particularly 
needed  at  the  very  outset  (see  above,  on  v.  5) ;  and  that  Ana- 
nias and  Sapphira  had  most  probably  experienced  the  extraor- 
dinary influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  having  "fallen  away," 
could  no  more  be  "renewed  to  repentance"  (Heb.  6,  4-6), 
having  really  committed  the  unpardonable  sin  (Matt.  12,  31. 
32.  1  John  5,  16.)  The  same  considerations  have  been  used 
to  justify  the  sudden  death  of  these  two  persons  without  pre- 
vious notice,  and  without  opportimity  or  space  for  repentance 
(Heb.  12, 17.)  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  such  apologies  are 
called  for,  only  where  the  Scriptures  are  ^concerned,  and  that 
no  man  thinks  it  needful  thus  to  "  vindicate  the  ways  of  God 
to  man,"  in  reference  to  the  multitudes  of  cases,  in  which  un- 
converted sinners  are  continually  swept  into  eternity  A^dthout 
immediate  warning  and  without  repentance. 

VOL.  I. — 9* 


202  ACTS  5,  12.  13. 

12.  And  by  the  hands  of  the  Apostles  were  maiij 
signs  and  wonders  wrought  among  the  people;  and 
they  were  all  with  one  accord  in  Solomon's  porch. 

As  the  impression  made  by  the  events  of  Pentecost  was 
strengthened  and  maintauied  by  a  succession  of  miraculous 
performances  (2,  43)  ;  so  now,  the  effect  of  the  tremendous 
judgment  upon  Ananias  and  Sapphira  was  continued  or  in- 
creased in  the  same  manner.  The  terms  used  in  the  two  pla- 
ces are  almost  identical.  As  to  the  additional  expression,  ^y 
the  hands,  implying  instrumental  agency,  see  above,  on  2,  23. 
3,  18,  and  below,  on  7,  25.  As  to  the  other  phrase  here  added, 
in  (or  among)  the  people,  see  above,  on  2,  47.  3,  9. 11. 12.  4, 
1.  2.  21.  The  last  clause  has  reference  to  neither  of  the  near- 
est antecedents,  the  Apostles  or  the  people,  but  to  the  whole 
body  of  disciples.  (See  above,  on  2,  1.  4.  4,  31.)  This  clause 
has  been  understood  to  mean,  that  as  the  number  of  disciples 
had  become  too  great  to  be  accommodated  elsewhere,  their 
religious  services  were  now  held  in  the  spacious  portico,  where 
Peter  had  addressed  the  people  in  relation  to  the  healing  of 
the  lame  man.  But  whatever  acts  of  worship  or  instruction 
may  have  been  performed  there,  it  is  more  natural  to  under- 
stand the  words  here  used  in  a  wider  sense,  as  meamng  that 
Solomon's  Porch,  at  all  times,  doubtless,  one  of  the  most  pub- 
lic places  in  Jerusalem  (see  above,  on  3,  11),  now  became  the 
favourite  resort  and  promenade  of  the  disciples,  as  it  may 
have  been  of  Christ  himself  (see  John  10,  23),  which  would 
give  it,  in  their  eyes,  a  kind  of  consecration,  similar  to  that  of 
"the  upper  room,"  where  they  had  last  eaten  with  him  (1,  13) 
and  "  the  house  where  they  were  sitting  "  on  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost (2,  2.)  The  clause  does  not  refer  to  a  particular  assem- 
blage on  a  certain  day,  but  to  their  habit  of  convening  there 
by  common  consent  {rja-av  oixo^vfxaSov),  though  not  perhaps  by 
any  formal  rule  or  resolution.  Here  again,  the  record  of  ^mr- 
ticular  occurrences  is  gradually  merged  in  a  description  of 
what  took  place  during  a  longer  and  less  definite  interval  of 
time.     (See  above,  on  2,  42.  3,  1.  4,  32.  36.) 

13.  And  of  the  rest  durst  no  man  join  himself  to 
them ;  but  the  people  magnified  them. 

The  relation  of  the  rest  to  all  in  the  preceding  verse  is  like 
that  of  o^Aers  to  the  same  .word  in  2,12.13.     Here  it  only 


ACTS   5,  13.  203 

shows,  however,  that  the  all  of  v.  12  is  a  relative  expression, 
meaning  all  the  disciples,  and  not  all  the  people.  The  word 
translated  joi7i  themselves  originally  means  to  be  glued  or 
stuck  fast ;  then,  as  a  neuter  verb,  to  cleave  or  adhere  to  any 
thing  or  person.  It  is  almost  confined,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, to  Luke  and  Paul,  bemg  once  used  by  Matthew  (19,  5) 
and  once  in  a  doubtful  text  of  the  Apocalypse  (18,5.)  Its 
strength  of  meaning  is  evinced,  not  only  by  its  primary  usage, 
as  above  described,  and  as  exemplified  in  Luke  10,  11,  but 
by  its  application  to  the  most  intimate  of  all  personal  relations, 
that  of  marriage  (Matt.  19,  5,  compare  1  Cor.  6, 16),  and  by 
the  words  to  which  it  is  opposed  (as  in  Rom.  12,  9.)  Even 
where  it  seems  to  have  a  weaker  sense,  the  stronger  is  admis- 
sible, and  therefore,  uj)on  general  principles,  entitled  to  the 
preference.  (See  below,  on  8,29.  9,26.  10,28.  17,34,  and 
compare  Luke  15, 15.  1  Cor.  6,  11.)  We  are  bound,  there- 
fore, to  explain  it  here,  not  merely  of  association  or  familiar 
mtercourse,  but  of  conjunction  and  adhesion,  either  in  the  lite- 
ral and  local  sense  of  personal  contact,  or  in  the  metaphorical 
and  moral  sense  of  joint  profession  and  organic  union.  This 
usage  of  the  word  sufiices  to  exclude  some  of  the  many  expla- 
nations of  the  first  clause  of  the  verse  before  us;  such  as 
Lightfoot's  notion,  that  the  twelve  Apostles  were  henceforth 
regarded  with  more  deference  by  the  hundred  and  eight  pres- 
byters (12-fl08=120,  see  above,  on  1,  15) ;  and  that  of  other 
writers,  that  the  same  thing  is  afiirmed  as  to  the  body  of  dis- 
ciples. That  these,  or  any  part  of  these,  ^should  not  have 
dared  to  come  in  contact  or  associate  with  the  twelve,  is  alto- 
gether inconsistent  with  the  general  impression  made  by  this 
whole  narrative,  or  rather  by  the  whole  New  Testament,  in 
reference  to  the  social  relations  of  the  infant  church.  (See 
above,  on  2,  42-47.  4,  32.  33.)  The  same  objection  does  not 
lie  agamst  the  old  and  prevalent  opinion,  that  the  rest  here 
means  the  unconverted  multitude,  who  were  deterred  by 
what  had  taken  place  from  either  joining  or  assailing  the  disci- 
ples. But  this  last  sense  (assailmg)  is  entirely  foreign  from  the 
usage  of  the  Greek  verb,  and  the  other  (joining)  makes  the 
clause  directly  contradictory  to  what  is  stated  in  the  next 
verse,  namely,  that  great  multitudes  did  join  them,  both  of 
men  and  women.  Two  evasions  of  this  argument  have  been 
attempted ;  one  by  making  this  verse  and  the  next  successive 
as  to  time — 'the  rest  were  at  first  afraid  to  jom  them,  but  the 
people  still  admired  them,  and  by  degrees  the  number  of  be- 


204  ACTS  5,  13. 

lievers  multiplied,  etc' — a  construction  wliicli  supposes  the 
decisive  terms,  "  at  first "  and  "  by  degrees  "  or  "  afterwards," 
to  be  omitted,  which  can  never  be  assumed  except  in  case  of 
exegetical  necessity,  that  is,  when  it  enables  us  to  clear  up 
what  is  otherwise  hopelessly  obscure;  and  this  is  not  the 
present  case,  as  we  shall  see.  The  other  evasion  is  by  making 
a  distmction  between  Joining  (13)  and  heUevi7ig  (14),  so  as  to 
restrict  the  latter  to  the  faith  of  miracles,  or  faith  in  the 
power  of  the  Apostles  to  perform  them  ;  a  distinction  wholly 
arbitrary  in  itself,  and  directly  contradicted  by  the  fact  that 
these  believers  were  added  to  the  Lord  (14).  As  another 
sample  of  the  singular  diversity  of  judgment  in  relation  to  this 
clause,  it  may  be  added,  that  some  eminent  interpreters  sup- 
pose the  rest  to  be  contrasted,  not  with  all  (12),  but  with  the 
people  (13),  and  therefore  to  denote  the  rest  of  the  wealthy 
and  superior  class,  who  were  deterred  by  the  fate  of  Ananias 
and  Sapphira,  as  well  as  by  the  proofs  of  superhuman  power 
afforded  by  the  miracles  of  the  Apostles,  from  uniting  them- 
selves with  them,  as  they  would  otherv/ise  have  done.  This 
is  commonly  rejected  as  a  forced  interpretation,  and  is  justly 
liable  to  such  a  censure,  on  account  of  the  antithesis  which 
it  assumes,  and  on  which  it  appears  to  rest.  But  this  antithe- 
sis is  not  essential  and  may  easily  be  modified  in  such  a  way 
as  to  entitle  this  interpretation  to  the  preference  over  every 
other,  except  one  y>diich  will  be  afterwards  presented.  The 
modification  consists  in  making  the  rest  refer,  not  to  the  people 
in  the  next  clause,  but  to  Ananias  and  8app)hira  in  the  fore- 
going context.  The  rest  Avill  then  mean  others  of  the  same 
class,  or  rather  the  same  character,  i.  e.  ambitious,  worldly, 
and  dishonest  people,  who  might  otherwise  have  joined  the 
church  as  hypocritical  professors,  under  some  momentary  im- 
pulse, or  with  some  corrupt  design,  sufficient  to  outweigh  the 
fear  of  persecution,  which  indeed  at  this  time  must  have  been 
extremely  slight,  but  who  were  now  deterred,  by  a  regard 
to  their  own  safety,  from  incurring  even  the  remote  risk  of  a 
fate  like  that  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira.  This  agrees  well  with 
the  foregoing  context,  in  which  Luke  has  been  describing  the 
effect  produced  by  that  catastrophe  and  afterwards  main- 
tained by  other  miracles,  to  all  which  it  is  certainly  a  natural 
conclusion  or  apj^endix,  that  the  salutary  fear  thus  engendered 
was  the  means  by  Avhich  it  pleased  God  to  preserve  the  church; 
in  this  its  infant  state,  from  the  intrusion  of  impure  and  hypo- 
critical professors.    The  only  objection  to  this  view  of  t^e 


ACTS  5,  13.  205 

passage  is  its  not  accounting  for  the  local  specification  which 
unmediately  precedes,  and  seems  to  separate  the  cause  and 
the  efiect  from  one  another  in  a  very  unusual  and  puzzling 
manner.  '  The  fear  produced  by  this  event  was  heightened  by 
the  miracles  which  followed — and  the  disciples  now  habitually 
occupied  the  porch  of  Solomon — and  no  more  hypocrites,  like 
Ananias  and  Sapphira,  dared  to  join  them.'  This  is  certainly 
no  natural  association  of  ideas,  although  not  absolutely  fatal 
to  the  exposition  which  involves  it,  ii*  no  other  can  be  found 
that  is  not  open  to  the  same  objection,  and  at  least  as  satis- 
factory in  other  points.  The  question  then  is,  whether  the 
first  clause  of  v.  13  can  be  so  explained,  that  the  last  clause 
of  V.  12  shall  not  be  an  abrupt  interpolation  or  parenthesis, 
but  a  natural  and  necessary  member  of  the  sentence.  This 
can  only  be  effected  by  supposing  that  the  writer,  in  the  first 
clause  of  v.  13,  instead  of  reverting,  as  the  other  exegetical 
hypothesis  assumes,  to  the  moral  effects,  which  he  had  been 
describing,  vv'hen  he  paused  to  speak  of  the  locality  in  ques- 
tion, is  still  speaking  of  that  same  locality,  as  now  by  common 
consent  given  up  to  the  disciples,  and  generally  recognized  as 
their  appropriated  place  of  meeting.  The  whole  coimection, 
thus  explained,  may  be  paraphrased  as  follows.  '  The  death 
of  Ananias  and  Sapphira  filled  the  public  mind  with  awe,  and 
this  was  afterwards  maintained  by  a  contmued  series  of  mira- 
cles, in  consequence  of  which  the  disciples  were  allowed  to 
constitute  a  body  by  themselves,  without  molestation  or  in- 
trusion from  without ;  and  as  they  had  now  gradually  formed 
the  habit  of  assembhng  daily  in  the  porch  of  Solomon,  no 
others  ventured  to  mix  with  them  there,  but  the  people  were 
contented  to  look  on  as  mere  spectators  from  the  courts  ad- 
joining, and  continually  magnified  (i.  e.  admired  and  praised) 
them,  as  a  company  among  whom  God  was  present  in  a  new 
and  most  extraordinary  manner.'  Besides  the  difference  be- 
tAveen  these  two  interpretations,  with  respect  to  the  connec- 
tion  of  V.  13  with  v.  12,  they  also  differ  as  to  the  precise  sense 
of  the  verb  to  join  themselves  ;  the  one  referring  it  to  union 
with  the  church  by  profession,  the  other  to  mere  external 
contact  or  joint  occupation  of  the  same  place.  But  as  both 
tliese  meanings  are  legitimate  deductions  from  the  etymology 
and  usage  of  the  Greek  verb,  as  explained  above,  the  choice 
between  the  two  constructions  cannot  rest  upon  this  differ- 
ence, but  must  be  decided  by  a  view  ol  the  whole  context. 
Ajid  as  the  one  last  stated  is  the  simplest  and,  without  de- 


206  ACTS  5,  13.  14. 

£)arting  from  the  natural  import  of  the  words,  gives  clearness 
and  coherence  to  an  otherwise  perplexed  and  interrupted 
context,  it  appears,  upon  the  whole,  to  be  the  true  interpreta- 
tion. 

14.  And  believers  were  the  more  added  to  the 
Lord,  multitudes  both  of  men  and  women. 

Believers  is  in  Greek  a  participle  and  means  helievmg  (men 
or  persons.)  Some  connect  it  with  the  Lord  (believing  in  or 
on  him),  which  is  a  possible  construction  ;  but  the  one  given 
in  the  version  is  not  only  simpler  and  more  obvious,  but  also 
recommended  by  its  unambiguous  occurrence  elsewhere.  (See 
below,  on  11,  24.)  On  the  other  supposition,  added  means 
added  to  the  churchy  as  in  the  common  text  of  2,  47.  The 
ellipsis  is  the  same  as  in  2,  41.  Added  to  the  Lord^  i.  e.  to 
Christ,  as  the  Head  of  the  Church,  which  is  his  body,  and  of 
which  all  converts  become  members.  Some  of  the  oldest 
writers  on  the  passage  have  observed,  that  Luke  no  longer 
gives  specific  numbers,  an  omission  which  enhances  the  idea 
of  increase.  As  to  the  mention  of  both  sexes,  see  above,  on 
4,  4.  The  distinct  mention  of  female  converts,  for  the  first 
time,  may  have  been  occasioned  by  the  melancholy  end  of 
Sapphira,  as  if  the  writer  had  intended  to  suggest,  that  the 
place  left  vacant,  not  only  by  the  husband  but  the  wife,  was 
speedily  supplied  by  many  true  behevers  of  the  same  sex.  It 
is  plainly  impUed  that  these  accessions  took  place,  not  at  once, 
but  during  an  indefinite  period.  (See  above,  on  v.  12.)  The 
statement  here  made  has  already  been  referred  to,  as  a  proof 
that  the  first  clause  of  the  preceding  verse  cannot  mean  that 
the  people  were  deterred  by  fear  from  joining  the  disciples, 
as  professors  of  the  new  religion.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is 
entirely  reconcileable  with  either  of  the  two  interpretations 
of  that  clause,  which  were  left  to  the  decision  of  the  reader. 
According  to  the  one  first  stated,  the  idea  is,  that  although 
no  more  Ananiases  or  Sapphiras  joined  the  church,  it  was  re- 
plenished with  a  multitude  of  true  converts ;  according  to 
the  other,  that  although  the  unconverted  mass  remained  aloof 
as  admiring  spectators,  many  were  continually  passing  from 
their  ranks  to  those  of  the  believers,  and  the  numbers  thus 
subtracted  from  the  adverse  party  were  of  course  added  to 
the  host,  the  household,  and  the  body  of  the  Lord.  There 
is  a  subtle  difference,  in  English  usage,  between  more  and  the 


ACTS  5,  14.  15.  207 

more.  *  Believers  were  more  added'  would  mean  simply 
more  than  ever,  or  continually  more  and  more.  '  Believers 
were  the  more  added'  means  that  the  addition  was  greater 
on  account  of  something  previously  mentioned,  and  which 
might  have  seemed  to  threaten  diminution.  In  the  other 
places  where  the  Grfeek  phrasa  {{xaXXov  Se)  is  used,  it  is  trans- 
lated but  rather  (l  Cor.  14,  1.  5.  Eph.  4,  28.  5,  11),  or  rather 
(Gal.  4,  9),  and  might  have  been  so  rendered  here,  'biit  be- 
lievers (instead  of  being  lost  or  lessened)  were  rather  added 
to  the  Lord,  etc'  In  this  case,  however,  there  is  not,  as  in 
the  others,  any  reference  to  what  immediately  precedes, 
namely,  the  people  magnified  them,  but  either  to  the  first 
clause  of  V.  13,  or  to  some  remoter  antecedent,  as  for  instance 
to  the  death  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira,  which,  instead  of  di- 
minishing the  number  of  conversions,  caused  them  to  abound 
the  more.  The  simplest  spitax  is  to  make  this  clause  a  part 
of  the  preceding  verse.  '  None  dared  to  join  them,  but  the 
people  magnified  them  and  believers  were  more  and  more 
added  to  the  Lord.' 

15.  Insomuch  that  they  brought  forth  the  sick  into 
the  streets,  and  laid  (them)  on  beds  and  couches,  that 
at  the  least  the  shadow  of  Peter  passing  by  might  over- 
shadow some  of  them. 

The  original  construction  of  the  first  clause,  so  as  to  bring 
out  the  sick,  etc.  connects  it  still  more  closely  with  what  goes 
before  than  in  the  common  version,  where  they  brought  might 
seem  to  be  indefinite,  and  to  mean  nothing  more  than  that 
the  sick  were  brought  forth  (see  above,  on  1,  23)  ;  whereas  the 
hteral  translation  above  given  identifies  the  subject  of  the 
verb  with  persons  previously  mentioned.  But  with  whom  ? 
Or  on  what  preceding  verb  is  the  infinitive  dependent  ?  Few 
questions  of  construction  in  the  whole  book  have  been  more 
disputed.  The  older  writers,  with  surprismg  unanimity,  pass 
over  the  immediate  context,  to  discover  a  remoter  antecedent, 
throwing  what  is  thus  passed  over  into  a  parenthesis.  But 
as  to  the  extent  of  this  parenthesis,  they  disagree  among 
themselves.  Some  begin  it  in  the  middle  of  v.  12,  and  read, 
by  the  hands  of  the  Apostles  onany  signs  and  wonders  were 

performed  among  the  people so  that  they  brought,  etc. 

This  is  the  arrangement  of  the  text  in  the  Geneva  Bible, 


208  ACTS  5,  15. 

copied  by  King  James's  version.  Others,  regarding  such  a 
long  parenthesis"  as  neither  natural  nor  needful,  place  the 
Deginning  at  the  end  of  v.  13,  and  read,  the  ijeojple  magniiied 
them so  that  they  brought  out  the  sick,  etc.  The  cur- 
rent of  opinion  among  modern  critics  and  pliilologists  is 
adverse  to  the  assumjDtion  of  parentheses  at  all,  especially  in 
plain  historical  prose,  without  some  urgent  exegetical  neceg- 
eity.  Such  a  necessity,  indeed,  is  here  assumed  by  those  who 
plead  for  the  constructions  above  given,  and  who  seem  to  be 
agreed,  however  much  they  differ  otherwise,  that  the  last 
words  of  V.  14  and  the  first  Vfords  of  v.  15  cannot  possibly 
belong  together.  It  is  hard,  however,  to  perceive  the  ground 
of  this  grammatical  assimiption.  "What  better  reason,  than 
the  multitude  of  converts,  could  be  given  for  the  multitude 
of  cures  performed  ?  Without  insisting  that  believers  in  v. 
14  simply  means  believers  in  the  wonder-working  gifts  of  the 
Apostles — which  indeed,  as  we  have  seen  above  (on  v.  13),  is 
inconsistent  with  the  fact  that  they  were  added  to  the  Lord — 
and  without  insisting  that  the  passive  faith  of  miracles  was 
always  accompanied  by  saving  faith  ;  we  know  that  the  con- 
verse of  this  proposition  must  be  true,  or  in  other  words,  that 
saving  faith  included  that  of  miracles,  or  trust  in  the  miracu- 
lous endowments  of  Christ's  servants  ;  so  that  the  multiphca- 
tion  of  believers  would  be  naturally  followed  by  more  numer- 
ous applications  for  miraculous  relief.  There  is  nothing 
therefore  to  forbid  the  obvious  construction  of  the  clauses  as 
immediately  successive,  without  any  parenthesis  at  all,  and 
believers  were  more  added  to  the  Lord,  multitudes  both  of  men 
and  women,  so  as  to  bring  (or  so  that  they  brought)  forth  the 
sick,  etc.  The  sense  obtained  by  this  construction  is  indeed 
much  better  than  the  one  afforded  by  assuming  a  parenthesis ; 
for  the  apostolical  miracles  were  rather  the  efiect  than  the 
cause  of  this  great  concourse,  and  the  people's  magnifying 
them  (13)  is  not  so  good  a  reason  for  that  concourse  as  the  in- 
crease of  faith  and  the  multiplication  of  true  converts.  TMs 
view  of  the  passage  has  moreover  the  advantage  of  confirming 
what  we  know  in  other  ways,  that  the  miracles  of  Christ  and 
his  Apostles  were  not  always  the  prime  motive  of  the  multi- 
tudes who  followed  them,  but  often  secondary  to  the  craving 
for  instruction  and  salvation.  (Compare  Luke  5,  1.)  Lnto 
hardly  expresses  the  fall  force  of  the  Greek  particle  (Kara) 
which  sometimes  means  alo7ig  (8,  26.  25,  3.  26, 13)  or  through 
(8,1.  11,1.  15,23.  24,12.)      The  sick  were  laid   along   thg 


ACTS   5,  15.  209 

streets,  tliroiigliout  their  whole  length,  to  await  the  approach 
of  the  Apostles.  Streets,  literally,  broad  {ways),  in  the  sin- 
gular denoting  the  main  street  of  a  town  or  city  (Rev.  11,  8. 
21,  21.  22,  2.  Judg.  19,  15.  20.  LXX),  and  m  the  plural  its 
thoroughfares  or  Avide  streets,  as  contrasted  with  its  nairow 
streets  or  lanes  (Luke  14,  21),  and  especially  considered  as 
public  places  of  resort  (Matt.  6,  5.  12,  19.  Luke  10,  10.  13, 
26.)  A7id  laid,  literally,  a7id  to  put  or  ^:>Zace,  the  infinitive 
construction  being  still  continued.  The  word  translated  into 
properly  means  doim  to,  i.  e.  from  the  houses,  or  alo?ig,  un- 
plying  that  they  lay  there  and  awaited  the  approach  of  the 
Apostles,  which  agrees  exactly  with  the  intimation  m  the 
other  clause,  and  dependent  upon  so  as  (or  so  that)  in  the  be- 
ginning of  the  sentence.  JBeds  and  couches,  so  that  even  the 
most  lielpless  and  bedridden  were  included  in  this  dispensation 
of  healhig  power.  In  the  oldest  manuscripts,  the  first  word 
is  diminutive  in  form  {KXivapiiav),  as  well  as  in  the  Yulgate 
{lectuUs),  denoting  small  beds  that  were  easily  carried,  ^eds 
may  either  have  its  proper  sense  or  that  of  bedsteads,  which, 
though  no  longer  used  in  the  East,  were  well  known  to  the 
ancients.  The  oldest  and  the  latest  writers  are  agreed  in 
supposing,  that  the  two  words  here  used  were  intended  to 
describe  the  couches  of  the  rich  and  poor,  a  distinction  coun- 
tenanced, if  not  required,  by  a  phrase  of  Cicero's  {non  modo 
lectos  verwn  etiam  grabbatos),  from,  which  some  have  inferred 
that  the  second  noun  (KpajS/Sarwv,  Kpa/^aroov,  or  Kpaf^arTOiv)  is 
of  Latin  origin,  Avhereas  the  modern  Greek  philologists  de- 
scribe it  as  a  Macedonian  word,  used  only  by  the  latest 
writers.  (Tyndale's  translation  here  is,  beds  and  pallets^ 
The  original  construction  in  the  last  clause  is,  that,  Peter 
coming^tJie  shadow  might,  etc.  At  the  least  (Tyndale,  at  the 
least  loay)  is  in  Greek  a  compound  or  contracted  particle 
(kclv  for  KoX  edv),  meaning  originally  and  if,  and  repeatedly  so 
used  (Mark  16,  18.  Luke  13,  9.  James  5,  15),  but  sometimes 
more  emphatically,  even  if  {Matt.  21,  21.  26,  35.  John  8, 14. 
10,  38.  11,  25),  or  if  even  (Heb.  12,  20),  and  then  absolutely 
or  elliptically,  if  but  or  if  only  (2  Cor.  11, 16),  which  is  the 
meaning  here  and  in  a  passage  of  the  gospels,  where  precisely 
tiie  same  thing  is  said,  in  reference  to  the  fringe  or  border  of 
our  Saviour's  garment  (Mark  6,  56.)  The  crowd  was  so  great 
and  so  incessant,  that  many  could  do  nothing  more  than  place 
tliemselves,  or  their  afilicted  friends,  under  the  shadow  of  the 
Apostles,  and  especially  of  Peter,  as  the  most  conspicuous 


210  ACTS  5,  15.  16. 

and  active,  as  he  came  by  or  along  (ipxo/xivov.)  But  tliis  wai 
in  itself  as  powerless,  and  by  divine  appointment  as  effectual, 
as  any  word  or  deed,  by  which  the  miracle  was  commonly 
connected  with  the  person  of  the  thaumaturge  or  wonder- 
worker. (See  above,  on  3,  7.)  Far  from  being  supei-stitious, 
it  was  rather  a  strong  proof  of  the  people's  faith,  analogous 
to  that  which  Christ  commended  in  the  woman  with  the  issue 
of  blood  (Matt.  9,  22),  but  especially  in  the  centurion  (Matt. 
8, 10),  who  believed  that  Christ  could  heal  his  servant  with- 
out personal  contact  or  even  being  present.  In  order  that 
these  miracles  of  healing  might  extend  to  all  who  sought 
them,  and  yet  be  visibly  connected  with  the  persons  who 
performed  them,  it  pleased  God  that  their  shadow  should,  in 
this  case,  answer  the  same  purpose  with  the  words  and  ges- 
tures used  on  other  occasions.  This  seems  much  more  natural 
than  the  supposition,  that  the  writer  pauses  here  to  mention 
a  pitiable  superstition  which  had  no  effect  whatever,  or  was 
mercifully  made  effectual  in  spite  of  its  absurdity  and  sinful- 
ness. As  to  the  Popish  argument  in  favor  of  the  primacy  of 
Peter,  from  the  virtue  here  ascribed  to  his  very  shadow,  this 
is  an  error  in  the  opposite  extreme,  but  one  refuted  by  the 
great  Apostle's  representative  position,  and  by  the  similar 
statement  elsewhere  with  respect  to  Paul.  (See  below,  on  19, 
12.)  So7ne  ofthein,  i.  e.  some  one  of  them,  the  first  pronoun 
(tlvl)  being  singular  in  Greek.  This  qualifying  phrase  has 
reference  rather  to  the  hopes  of  the  recipients  than  to  the 
actual  effect,  as  appears  from  the  last  clause  of  the  next 
verse.  The  Codex  Beza  and  another  uncial  manuscript  make 
an  addition  to  this  verse  in  somewhat  different  forms,  one  of 
which  is  copied  by  the  Vulgate  and  its  followers  (et  libe- 
rarentur  ab  infirmitatihus  suis.) 

16.  There  came  also  a  multitude  out  of  the  cities 
round  about  unto  Jerusalem,  bringing  sick  folks,  and 
them  which  were  vexed  with  unclean  spirits ;  and  they 
were  healed  every  one. 

The  concourse  and  the  miracles,  described  in  the  preced- 
ing verse,  though  locally  restricted  to  Jerusalem,  were  not 
confined  to  its  inhabitants.  The  idea  of  confluence  or  con- 
course is  more  clearly  expressed  in  the  original,  which  means, 
^ere  came  together.    Also  represents  a  double  particle  iu 


ACTS  5,  16.  21] 

Greek  (8e  Kat),  wliicli,  although  strictly  meaning  nothing  more 
than  and  (or  hu^j  als-o^  has  in  usage  an  emphatic  sense, 
equivalent  to  'nay  more'  or  'besides  all  this.'  (Compare 
Kttt  ye,  2,  18  above,  and  the  remark  there.)  A  multitude^  or 
more  exactly,  the  multitude^  a  much  stronger  expression, 
meaning  the  whole  mass  of  the  people  (see  above,  on  2,  6), 
^\'hieh  Avas  no  doubt  literally  true,  though  not  without  indi- 
vidual  exceptions.  The  impression  made  by  this  as  well  as 
by  the  Gospel  History,  is  that  these  great  movements  com- 
prehended the  whole  body  of  the  population,  which  was  thus 
made  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  claims  of  Jesus  and  the 
doctrine  of  his  servants.  Another  variation  from  the  form  of 
the  original  consists  in  the  insertion  of  the  small  word  ou% 
which  materially  modifies  the  meaning.  '  A  multitude  out  of 
the  surrounding  cities '  is  a  very  different  thing  from  '  the  mul- 
titude (or  mass)  of  the  surrounding  cities.'  The  former  might 
have  come  and  left  the  vast  majority  at  home ;  but  no  such 
sense  can  be  attached  to  the  exact  translation.  Hound 
about  is  m  Greek  a  single  word  {iripL^Y  a  rare  and  strength- 
ened form  of  a  coimnon  preposition  (Trept),  here  used  as  an 
adverbial  adjective  (tojj/  7rept|  TrdAewi/),  and  therefore  well  ex- 
pressed m  English  by  surrounding.  The  noun  which  it  qual- 
ifies would  here  be  more  exactly  rendered  by  the  generic  term 
toicns,  in  its  proper  English  sense,  as  including  villages  and 
cities.  It  is  no  doubt  put  for  the  whole  country ;  partly 
because  the  population  hved  ahnost  entirely  in  towns  great  or 
small ;  partly  because  these  towns  represented  the  more  rural 
districts,  wliich  were  civilly  dependent  on  them.  The  omission 
of  the  preposition  (ets)  before  Jerusalem,  in  some  old  manu- 
scripts and  late  editions,  can  have  no  effect  upon  the  sense, 
which  must  still  be  that  of  motion  towards  the  holy  city. 
The  crowd  are  not  described  as  merely  bringing  (ayovTcs)  but 
as  bearing,  carrying  (cfi^povres)  the  sick,  literally,  strengthless, 
weak,  infirm,  but  applied,  like  the  last  English  word,  not  only 
to  debihty,  but  to  bodily  disease.  The  -yfovdi  folks  (ov  2^eople) 
is  not  in  the  original,  which  might  have  been  exactly  rendered, 
the  infirm  (or  sick.)  Besides  this  general  description  of  the 
objects  upon  which  these  healing  miracles  were  wrought,  the 
writer  mentions  a  specific  malady,  because  of  its  extraordinary 
prevalence  at  that  time,  its  pecuUai-ly  distressing  character,  its 
strange  complication  of  moral  and  physical  disorder,  and 
above  all,  its  mysterious  connection  with  the  unseen  world  and 
with  another  race  of  spirits.    These  are  called  unclean  or 


212  ACTS  5,  16. 

impure  in  a  moral  sense,  essentially  equivalent  to  wicked^  but 
suggesting  more  directly  the  idea  of  corruption,  as  existing 
in  themselves  and  practised  upon  others.  These  are  the 
angels  or  ministering  spirits  of  the  Devil,  who  feU  with  him, 
or  have  since  been  added  to  him,  as  believers  are  added  to  the 
Lord  (v.  14),  and  are  co-operating  with  him  as  the  tempters 
and  accusers  of  mankind.  (See  above,  on  v.  3,  and  compare 
Matt.  25,  41.)  To  these  fallen  and  seducing  spirits  our  race 
has  ever  been  accessible  and  more  or  less  subjected  ;  but  when 
Christ  was  upon  earth,  they  were  permitted  to  assume  a  more 
perceptible,  if  not  a  more  complete  ascendency,  extending  to 
the  body  and  the  mind,  and  thus  presenting  the  worst  forms 
of  insanity  and  bodily  disease  combined.  That  these  demo- 
niacal possessions  are  not  mere  poetical  descriptions  of  disease  or 
madness,  but  the  real  acts  of  spiritual  agents,  is  apparent  from 
the  personality  ascribed  to  them,  as  well  as  from  their  being  so 
explicitly  clistmguished  from  all  other  maladies,  as  m  the  case 
before  us  ;  while  the  fact  that  they  did  reaUy  produce  disease 
abundantly  accounts  for  their  being  sometimes  so  described 
and  constantly  connected  \\A\h  corporeal  illness.  The  extror 
ordinary  prevalence  of  these  disorders  in  the  time  of  Christ, 
while  we  scarcely  hear  of  them  in  any  other  period  of  history, 
may  be  partly  owing  to  the  fact,  that  what  is  always  going  on 
in  secret  was  then  brought  to  light  by  his  authoritative  inter- 
position ;  and  partly  to  the  fact,  that  the  stupendous  strife 
between  the  "  seed  of  the  woman  "  and  the  "  seed  of  the  ser- 
pent" (Gen.  3,  15),  which  gives  complexion  to  all  human  his- 
tory, then  reached  its  crisis,  and  these  demoniacal  possessions 
were  at  once  the  work  of  Satan,  as  a  means  of  doing  evil,  and 
of  God,  as  a  means  of  doing  good,  by  glorifying  him  whom 
he  had  sanctified  and  sent  into  the  world.  (See  John  10,  36. 
17, 1.  5.)  Every  expulsion  of  a  demon  by  our  Lord  hunself, 
or  in  his  name  by  his  Apostles,  was  a  triumph  over  his  great 
enemy,  not  only  in  the  unseen  v/orld  but  upon  earth,  m  the 
sight  of  men  as  well  as  angels  (Luke  10,  17.  18.  John  12,  31. 
16,  11.)  This  immediate  relation  of  these  strange  phenomena 
to  Christ's  person  and  official  work,  accounts  for  their  absence 
both  before  and  since,  as  well  as  for  the  impotent  resistance 
of  the  e\il  ones  themselves,  and  their  extorted  testimony  to 
the  character  and  rank  of  their  destroyer.  (See  Matt.  8, 
29-32.  Mark  5,  7,  9,  26.  Luke  4,  33-35.  41.  8,  28.  29.)  It 
explains  likewise  the  distinct  mention  of  this  class  of  mh-acles, 
both  liere  and  elsewhere  (e.  g.  Matt.  4,  24.  8,  16.  28,  33.  Mark 


ACTS  5,  IG.  IV.  213 

1,34.  6, 18. 16, 17.18.  Luke  8,  2.  36),  as  being  in  themselves  the 
most  surprising  of  all  cures,  and  at  the  same  time  the  most  pal- 
pable of  all  attestations  to  the  Messiahshij)  and  Deity  of  Jesus. 
Yexed  (Wiclif,  travailed)^  literally,  thronged  or  crowded^  the 
original  expression  being  a  derivative  of  '6yXo<i  (see  above,  on 
],  15),  as  our  words  perturbed^  disturbed^  etc.,  are  of  the  sy- 
nonymous word  turba.  As  the  Greek  word,  though  employed 
by  later  writers  in  the  vague  sense  of  annoying  or  harassing, 
has  in  earlier  usage,  such  as  that  of  Herodotus  and  ^schylus, 
the  specific  sense  suggested  by  its  etymology,  namely,  that  of 
harassing  with  crowds  or  mobbing,  there  is  no  absurdity  in 
supposing,  both  here  and  in  the  other  place  where  it  occurs 
(Luke  6,  18),  an  allusion  to  the  grarwi  peculiarity  and  fearful 
aggravation  of  such  sufferings,  namely,  the  co-existence  of  two 
spiiitual  agents  in  connection  with  a  single  body,  one  the 
tyrant,  one  the  slave  ;  a  state  of  things  which  could  not  better 
be  expressed  in  one  word  than  by  saying  they  were  crowded^ 
thronged^  by  evil  spirits.  (See  Mark  5,  9.  Luke  8,  30.  11,  26.) 
But  terrible  as  this  condition  was,  we  know  that  it  was  not 
incurable,  and  that  although  the  Apostles  had  once  failed, 
through  want  of  faith,  to  work  a  dispossession  (Matt.  17,  14-21. 
Mark  9,  18.  19.  Luke  9,  40.  41),  yet  now,  though  the  Master 
was  no  longer  with  them,  when  demoniacs  were  brought  to 
them  in  crowds  fi-om  the  surrounding  country,  they  were  all 
healed^  or  retaining  the  emphatic  collocation  of  the  Greek 
text,  they  loere  healed  all.  The  less  exact  but  expressive  ver- 
sion, every  one^  is  that  of  Tyndale. 

• 
17.  Then  the  High  Priest  rose  up,  and  all  they 
(that  were)  with  him,  which  is  the  sect  of  the  Saddu- 
cees,  and  were  filled  with  indignation. 

Here  begins  another  alternation  or  transition  from  more 
general  description  to  particular  narration.  (See  above,  on  2, 
42.  4,  32.  36.  5,  12.)  li  then  were  an  adverb,  meaning  at  that 
time,  (as  in  1,  12.  4,  8),  it  might  indicate  a  mere  chronological 
connection  between  what  is  here  related  and  what  imme- 
diately precedes,  as  if  he  had  said,  '  about  the  same  time  other 
things  occurred  entirely  distinct  from  these.'  But  as  it  is  the 
usual  continuative  particle  (8e),  by  which  the  members  of  the 
previous  narrative  are  linked  together,  it  denotes  a  much  more 
intimate  relation,  and  suggests  that  this  new  attack  upon  the 
church  was  not  only  preceded  but  occasioned  by  the  state  of 


214  ACTS  5,  17. 

things  described  in  vs.  12-16.  It  was  not  only  when  (or  after) 
the  believers  were  so  greatly  multiplied,  and  the  people  so 
impressed  by  the  miracles  of  the  Apostles,  but  for  that  very 
reason,  that  this  new  assault  was  made,  which  may  be  regarded 
as  the  second  hostile  movement  from  without,  the  first  being 
that  recorded  in  4,  1-22,  as  the  afiair  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira 
was  the   earHest   disturbance  from  within.    (See  below,  on 

6,  1.)  In  this,  as  in  the  former  case  (4,  1),  the  hostile  parties 
are  the  Priesthood  and  the  Sadducees ;  but  here  the  move- 
ment has  a  still  more  national  or  public  character,  because 
the  High  Priest  is  particularly  mentioned.  As  we  have  no 
clew  whatever  to  the  length  of  the  interval  between  these 
several  occurrences,  the  safest  as  well  as  the  most  natural 
presumption,  is  that  Annas  is  the  person  here  intended.  (See 
above,  on  4,  6.)  Mose  up^  literally,  risi7ig  or  having  risen. 
This  is  a  neuter  or  intransitive  form  of  the  verb  explained 
above,  on  2,  24.  32.  3,  22.  26.  It  is  a  favourite  of  Luke's,  and 
not  unfrequent  in  the  other  books  of  the  New  Testament.  In 
some  cases,  it  has  obviously  the  literal  or  local  sense  of  rising 
from  one's  seat  or  bed  (e.  g.  Matt.  9,  9.  Mark  1,  35.  Luke  4, 
16,  29.  39.  John  5,  8.)  In  a  scarcely  figurative  sense,  it  is 
applied  to  resurrection  from  the  dead  (Matt.  17,  9.  Mark  6, 
14.  Luke  9,  8.  John  20,  9.)  In  other  cases,  it  seems  to  have 
the  vague  sense  of  rousing  or  addressing  one's  self  to  action, 
without  reference  to  actual  corporeal  movement  (e.  g.  Mark 

7,  24.  10,  1,  50.  Luke  1,  39.  4,  29,  etc.)  As  in  many  of  these 
instances,  however,  the  strict  sense  is  admissible,  or  at  least  an 
allusion  to, it,  that  sense  is  of  course  entitled  to  the  preference, 
without  some  reason  for  departing  from  it.  (See  above,  on 
4,  9.)  This  is  peculiarly  the  case  here,  as  the  same  word 
occurs  twice  in  the  Gospels  (Matt.  26,  62.  Mark  14,  60)  in  re- 
lation to  pubhc  acts  of  the  High  Priest.  Upon  this  ground, 
some  understand  it  here  as  meaning,  that  the  High  Priest  rose 
up  from  his  seat  in  the  Sanhedrim,  or  in  some  private  consul- 
tation with  his  allies  mentioned  in  the  other  clause.  But  this 
explanation  overlooks  a  material  difierence  between  this  case 
and  the  two  last  cited,  namely,  that  in  them  the  High  Priest 
had  been  represented  as  presiding  in  the  Council,  whereas  here 
there  is  nothing  of  the  kind  referred  to  in  the  previous  con- 
text, but  the  act  of  rising  up  is  introduced  abruptly.  Anothc 
explanation  gives  the  verb  the  emphatic  sense  of  rising  up  in 
opposition  or  against  (Beza,  insurgens^)  which  may  seem  to 
be  sustained  by  the  analogy  of  Mark  3,  26 ;  but  there  the 


ACTS  5,  17.  215 

object  is  expressed,  and  the  idea  of  hostility  conveyed,  not  by 
the  verb  but  by  a  preposition.  Most  interpreters  have  there- 
fore acquiesced  in  the  third  meaning  above  given,  namely, 
that  of  addressing  one's  self  to  action ;  which  is  certainly  far 
better  than  the  favourite  notion  of  a  certain  school,  that  it  is 
pleonastic,  or  in  other  words,  means  nothing  at  all.  The  ad- 
ditional idea  which  it  here  suggests  is  that  of  previous  inac- 
tion. Since  the  first  abortive  eflbrt  to  arrest  the  progress  of 
the  new  religion  (4, 18.  21.  31),  the  authorities  would  seem  to 
have  been  passive  or  indifferent,  but  now  aroused  themselves 
again  to  action.  All  they  that  were  with  him,  or  more  exactly 
cill  those  vnth  hiin,  is  supposed  by  some  to  mean  the  othei 
priests,  or  the  other  members  of  the  Sanhedrim;  but  no  such 
vague  and  loose  description  of  official  persons  occurs  elsewhere. 
Still  more  imlikely  is  the  sense  of  relatives  or  private  friends, 
wliich  some  support  by  a  reference  to  4,  6. 13.  The  only  satis- 
factory interpretation  is  that  which  makes  the  clause  mean, 
those  (now  acting)  icith  him,  m  his  opposition  to  the  church, 
implying  that  it  was  not  his  o^vn  personal  or  party  friends. 
This  precludes  the  inference,  which  some  have  drawn  from 
these  expressions,  that  the  High  Priest  was  himself  a  Saddu- 
cee.  We  know  from  Josephus,  that  a  son  of  Ananus  (or 
Annas),  bearing  the  same  name,  attached  himself  to  that  sect ; 
but  all  our  information  on  the  subject  tends  to  the  conclusion, 
that  both  Annas  himself  and  Caiaphas  were  Pharisees.  (See 
below,  on  23,  6.)  What  is  here  described  is,  therefore,  not  a 
party-organization,  but  a  coahtion  of  distinct  and  hostile  par- 
ties for  a  special  purpose,  not  unlike  that  of  Herod  and  Pilate 
against  Christ.  (See  above,  on  4,  27,  and  compare  Luke  23, 
12.)  Which  is  the  sect,  in  Greek,  the  sect  being,  or  the  exist- 
hig  sect.  The  participle  does  not  agree  (as  it  appears  to  do 
in  English)  ^\ith  the  nouns  preceding,  but  with  that  w^hich 
follows  (t7  ovo-a  atpeo-tg).  This  is  explained  by  some  as  a  case 
of  the  grammatical  figure  called  attraction,  and  equivalent  in 
meaning  to  (oi/res  y\  alpeai^)  being  the  sect,  i.  e.  '  they  who  acted 
with  the  High  Priest,  upon  this  occasion,  were  the  sect  of  the 
Sadducees.'  But  this,  though  true  and  necessarily  implied, 
can  hardly  be  the  meaning  of  the  words  here  used.  The  par- 
ticiple {being)  seems  intended,  from  its  feminine  and  singular 
form,  not  to  identify  the  allies  of  the  High  Priest  mth  the 
Sadducees,  but  rather  to  describe  the  Sadducees  themselves, 
as  an  existing,  long  established,  well-known  body.  (See  be- 
low, on  13,  J,  where  the  same  imusual  expression  is  employefl 


il6  ACTS  5,  17. 

m  reference  to  the  church  at  Antioch.)  The  authors  of  the 
movement  then  are  here  described  as  the  High  Priest  and 
those  acting  with  him,  the  existing  (i.  e.  previously  existing, 
or  perhaps  still  existing)  party  of  the  Sadducees.  Sect^  al- 
though now  fixed  by  prescription,  is  not  perfectly  appropriate 
to  these  great  Jewish  parties.  The  Greek  word  (aipcons)  ori- 
ginally means  the  act  of  taking,  then  a  choice,  a  preference, 
especially  of  certain  views  or  principles,  philosophical,  reli- 
gious, or  pohtical.  Its  nearest  equivalents,  as  thus  applied, 
are  school  and  party,  w^ithout  any  necessary  unplication  of 
erroneous  doctrine  or  improper  practice.  Thus  the  word  is 
used  in  Greek  to  designate  the  Stoical  syste^n  of  philosoj^hy  ; 
and  Cicero,  referring  to  a  certain  person's  philosophical  pref- 
erences, says,  171  ea  haeresi  est.  Later  ecclesiastical  usage  ap- 
propriated it  to  doctrinal  departures  from  the  orthodox  or 
catholic  faith,  which  is  the  only  meaning  of  its  English  deriva- 
tive {heresy.)  But  in  the  ISTew  Testament,  the  Greek  word  still 
retains  its  older  application  to  the  party  holding  an  opinion, 
rather  than  to  the  opinion  itself.  Even  in  1  Cor.  11,  19.  Gal. 
5,  20.  Tit.  3,  10.  2  Pet.  2,  1,  the  immediate  reference  is  rather 
to  schismatical  divisions  than  to  doctrinal  corruptions,  although 
these  are  necessarily  implied.  In  other  parts  of  the  book  be- 
fore us,  it  is  apj^lied  to  Pharisaism  (15,  5.  26,  5,)  and,  in  an 
unfavourable  sense,  to  Christianity  itself  (24,  5.  14.  28,22.) 
In  all  these  cases,  the  word  heresy  is  as  inappropriate  as  idiot 
in  4,  13,  or  despot  in  4,  24,  though  the  three  English  w^ords  are 
not  even  corruptions  of  the  Greek  ones  (like  cdms,  pcdsy.^ 
bishop),  but  direct  derivatives,  formed  by  a  simple  change  of 
termination.  So  far  is  mere  coincidence  of  origin  or  form 
from  proving  words  to  be  synonymous.  There  is  not  the 
same  objection  to  the  word  sect,  used  by  our  translators  here 
and  elsewhere  (15,  5.  26,  5,)  and  now  established  as  a  stereo- 
typed technical  expression  in  relation  to  the  Pharisees  and 
Sadducees.  The  word,  however,  should  be  carefully  exj^lained 
and  clearly  understood,  as  not  implyuig  what  its  general 
usage  now  includes,  to  ^^At,  distinct  organization  and  a  sepa- 
rate worship,  but  merely  a  diversity,  in  certain  points  of  theory 
and  practice,  between  persons  holding  the  same  creed  and 
joining  in  the  same  devotions.  If  a  word  were  now  to  be 
selected  for  the  first  time,  it  is  plain  that  this  idea  Avould  be 
better  expressed  by  the  term  school,  when  doctrinal  diversities 
are  specially  in  question,  and  the  tevinparty,  when  the  reference 
is  rather  to  practical  matters  of  authority  or  discipline.    Such 


ACTS  6,  17.  18.  217 

were  the  relations  of  tlie  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  who,  far 
from  being  independent  sects  or  churches,  in  the  modern 
sense,  were  two  opposing  factions  in  the  same  great  church 
and  body  politic,  continually  striving,  with  alternate  or  varia- 
ble success,  for  the  predominance,  and  at  this  time  probably 
sharing  the  great  offices  between  them.  As  to  their  distinctive 
views  and  practice,  and  the  motives  of  the  Sadducees  in  per 
secuting  the  Apostles,  see  above,  on  4, 1.  They  are  liere  said 
to  have  been  filled  mth  jealousy  or  party-spirit.  Indignation 
is  a  sense,  of  which  there  seems  to  be  no  clear  example,  either 
in  classical  or  hellenistic  usage.  According  to  its  etymology 
and  primary  usage,  the  Greek  word  (C^Aos)  denotes  any  w^arm 
aflection  or  enthusiastic  impulse,  either  in  I'avour  of  or  opposi- 
tion to  a  given  object,  thus  coinciding  almost  perfectly  Avith 
its  derivative  in  English  {zeal.)  But  besides  this  Avider  sense, 
it  has  the  more  specific  one  of  jealousi/.,  wiiich  some  high  au- 
thorities pronounce  a  Hebraism,  but  which  occurs,  though 
rarely,  in  the  purest  Attic  writers,  and  is  really  a  slight  modi- 
fication of  a  meaning  common  in  the  best  Greek  usage,  that 
of  eager  rivalry  or  emulation,  whether  good  or  bad,  and  there- 
fore opposed  by  Plato  to  envy  {<f>06vos),  while  Hesiod  con- 
founds them.  In  the  case  before  us,  the  Avord  necessarily 
suggests  the  ideas  of  zeal,  party  spirit,  and  malignant  jealousy 
or  envy,  all  of  which  are  perfectly  appropriate. 

18.  And  laid  their  hands  on  the  Apostles,  and  put 
them  in  the  common  prison. 

The  first  step  of  this  movement  is  the  same  as  in  the  for- 
mer case,  to  wit,  arrest  and  imprisonment,  not  as  a  punish- 
ment, but  with  a  view  to  their  arraignment  and  trial.  (See 
above,  on  4,  3.)  The  subject  of  the  sentence  is  the  same  as  in 
V.  17,  the  High  Priest  and  the  Sadducees  wiio  acted  Avith  him. 
laid  their  hands  is,  in  several  of  the  oldest  manuscripts,  laid 
hands  (or  laid  the  hands)  without  the  pronoun.  This  abbre- 
viated form  is  A^ery  common  (see  Matt.  26,50.  Luke  20, 19. 
John  7,  30.  44.  Acts  12, 1.  21,  27.)  There  is  but  one  certain 
instance  of  the  other  (Luke  21,  12  ;  in  Mark  14,  46,  the  text 
is  doubtful.)  This  is  not  a  mere  figure  for  arrest,  but  a  literal 
descrij^tion  of  the  act  by  Av^hich  it  is  effected.  There  is  no 
ground  whatever,  in  the  text  or  context,  for  the  sujjposition 
that  Apostles  here  means  Peter  and  John,  of  which  restrict e*  I 
use  there  is  no  example  elsewhere,  unless  it  be  in  14,  4.  li, 

VOL.  T.— 10 


218  ACTS  5,  18.  19. 

where  Apostles^  as  we  shall  there  see,  has  itself  a  different 
meaning.  In  every  other  case,  throughout  this  history,  th6 
Apostles  means  the  twelve  as  a  collective  body.  (See  below, 
on  V.  29.)  Prison  is  the  word  translated  hold  in  4,  3,  but  in 
a  different  case,  and  preceded  by  a  different  preposition.  The 
noun,  according  to  Greek  usage,  is  an  abstract,  meaning  ciis- 
tody  or  keeping^  and  is  so  used  in  a  moral  sense  by  Paul 
(l  Cor.  7, 19.)  The  only  classical  example  of  the  local  mean- 
ing {2^riso7i)  is  said  to  be  a  dubious  expression  of  Thucydides. 
Tiiat  sense  is  thought  to  be  required  here  by  the  adjective, 
which  might  however  be  applied  to  the  confinement  as  well  as 
to  the  prison.  The  adjective  itself  is  apt  to  be  misappre- 
hended by  the  English  reader,  from  the  equivocal  language 
of  the  version.  Commooi  prison  naturally  calls  up  the  idea 
of  promiscuous  association  between  prisoners  of  various  rank 
and  character  ;  and  this  has  actually  been  insisted  on  by  some 
interpreters,  as  an  intentional  insult  to  the  twelve,  or  at  least 
a  serious  aggravation  of  their  suffermgs.  But  the  English 
word  most  "probably,  and  the  Greek  word  most  certainly, 
means  nothing  more  than  pid)lic^  belonging  to  the  people 
(S^/xos)  or  the  whole  community,  and  not  to  any  individual. 
Though  common  in  the  classics,  it  is  found  only  in  this  book 
of  the  New  Testament,  and  exceptmg  in  the  case  before  us, 
only  as  an  adverb  (Sv^/xotrta),  which  is  once  translated  openly 
(16,  37),  and  twice  publicly  (18,  28.  20,  20),  but  might  have 
been  still  more  exactly  rendered  by  the  corresponding  English 
phrase,  i7i  public. 

19.  But  (the)  angel  of  (the)  Lord  by  night  opened 
the  prison  doors,  and  brought  them  forth,  and  said  : 

From  this  imprisonment  they  were  delivered,  not  as  be- 
fore, through  the  fears  or  policy  of  their  oppressors  (4,  21)^ 
but  by  a  divine  interposition.  {But^  and,  or  then.  See  above, 
on  V.  17.)  The  angel  of  the  Lord  is  an  expression  used  in  the 
Old  Testament  to  designate  the  Angel  of  Jehovah's  presence, 
whom  the  church  has  commonly  identified  with  the  second 
person  of  the  trinity.  According  to  Greek  usage,  the  words 
here  employed  denote  an  angel  of  the  Lord,  which  may  how- 
ever be  an  imitation  of  the  Hebrew  idiom,  in  which  a  noun  gov- 
erning another  does  not  take  the  article,  however  definite  its 
sense  may  be.  In  this  very  title,  for  examjle,  the  word  angeo 
is  without  the  article  («"»>T?  T|i<^»).     But  as  the  phrase  itself, 


ACTS  5,  19.  20.  219 

in  tliis  emphatic  sense,  belongs  to  the  Old  Testament  exclu- 
sively, and  as  we  have  no  reason  to  ascribe  this  deliverance 
to  a  personal  appearance  of  the  Son  of  God,  the  more  indefi- 
nite or  Greek  construction  of  the  words  (an  angel)  seems  en- 
titled to  the  preference.  The  absence  of  the  article  before 
Lord  rests  upon  a  different  usage,  namely,  that  of  its  omission 
before  proper  names,  to  which  class  this  word  (Kvptos),  as  the 
Greek  representative  of  the  Hebrew  Jehovah^  may  be  properly 
considered  as  belonging.  The  deliverance  took  place  by 
night  (8ta,  through  or  in  the  course  of,  as  in  1,  3),  probably  in 
order  to  increase  the  terror  and  surprise  which  it  occasioned. 
It  was  effected,  not  by  a  miraculous  suspension  of  the  laws  of 
nature,  but  by  simply  opening  the  doors  of  the  prison,  no 
doubt  so  insensibly  as  not  to  be  perceived  by  those  who 
guarded  it,  although  there  may  have  been  a  supernatural  effect 
produced  upon  their  senses,  as  in  other  cases.  (See  Matt.  28, 
4.  Luke  24,  16.  John  20,  14.)  The  pretence  that  this  is  Im 
poetical  or  oriental  figure  for  the  release  of  the  Apostles  by 
the  jailor,  or  the  guards,  or  any  other  human  intervention, 
has  been  long  since  exploded  as  a  sheer  absurdity,  or  unmasked 
as  an  indirect  denial  of  the  truth  of  Vv^hat  is  here  recorded. 
By  a  strange  revolution  of  opmion,  many  of  the  same  class  of 
unbelievers,  who  could  once  resort  to  such  means  of  evasion, 
rather  than  abandon  their  old  Sadducean  error  (see  below,  on 
23,  8),  noAv  profess  to  be  in  actual  and  confidential  intercourse 
witli  spirits  in  the  other  world.  Brouglit  tliemfortli^  literally, 
bringing  (or  having  brought)  them  forth.  This  participial 
construction  is  extended,  by  some' manuscripts  and  editors,  to 
tlie  preceding  verb  {opening  for  opened^  That  this  miracu- 
lous deliverance  v/as  not  intended  merely  for  their  own  relief, 
but  for  a  higher  end,  appears  from  the  instructions  of  the 
angel,  given  in  the  next  verse. 

20.  Go,  stand  and  speak  in  the  temple  to  the  peo- 
ple all  the  words  of  this  life. 

Go  is  not  a  mere  expletive  or  pleonasm,  as  it  often  is  in 
English,  but  has  here  its  full  sense,  go  away.,  depart  hence, 
linger  here  no  longer.  (See  above,  on  1,  10. 11.  25.)  As  they 
had  been  released,  not  merely  to  enjoy  freedom,  but  to  exer- 
cise their  ministry,  the  angel  here  exhorts  them  to  renew  it. 
Stand  and  speak.,  literally,  standing  (or  having  taken  your 
stand)  spadk.     (For  the  use  ^f  the  verb  stand  in  such  conneo 


220  ACTS  5,  20.  21. 

tions,  see  above,  on  2, 14.)  In  the  temple  (tepo))  i.  e.  in  th« 
sacred  enclosure,  as  distinguished  from  the  edifice  itself,  which 
is  denoted  by  another  word  (vaos,  Matt.  23,  35.)  They  were 
to  preach  there  the  whole  Gospel,  all  the  words  of  this  life. 
Most  interpreters  regard  this  as  an  instance  of"  the  figure 
called  hypallage,  equivalent  in  sense  to  all  these  words  of  life^ 
i.  e.  living  or  life-giving  doctrines.  (Compare  John  6,  68. 
Acts  7,  38.  John  12,  50.  17,  3.)  Other  examples  of  the  same 
construction  are  supposed  to  be  found  in  13,  26  below,  and  in 
Rom.  7,  24.  But  some  deny  the  hypallage  in  any  of  these 
cases,  or  at  least  retain  the  obvious  construction  here,  exj)lain- 
ing  all  the  words  of  this  life  to  mean  all  the  doctrines  or  in- 
structions, which  are  necessary  to  make  known  to  Israel  this 
new  form  of  their  own  religion,  as  a  rule  of  life  here,  and  a 
means  of  everlasting  life  hereafter.  (For  a  like  use  of  the 
word  way,  see  below,  on  9,  2.  19,  9.  23.  22,  4.  24,  14.  22,  and 
compare  the  fuller  forms,  13,  10.  16, 17.  18,  25.  26.  2  Pet.  2, 
2. 15.  21.)  Their  angelic  commission  (see  above,  on  1,11)  was 
not  merely  to  talk  but  to  preach,  not  privately  but  publicly, 
not  in  the  streets  but  in  the  temple,  not  to  the  rulers  but  the 
people,  not  a  part  of  the  truth  necessary  to  salvation,  but  all 
the  words  of  this  life.     (See  below,  on  20,  27.) 

21.  And  when  they  heard  (that),  they  entered  into 
the  temple,  early  in  the  morning,  and  taught ;  but  the 
High  Priest  came,  and  they  that  were  with  him,  and 
called  the  council  together,  and  all  the  senate  of  the 
children  of  Israel,  and  sent  to  the  prison,  to  have  them 
brought. 

Whe7i  they  heard  that,  literally,  hearing  or  having  heard  ; 
that  is  supplied  by  the  translators.  The  teniple,  i.  e.  the  sa- 
cred enclosure,  as  in  the  preceding  verse.  Early  in  the  morn- 
ing, just  about  (or  just  before)  daybreak.-  The  Greek  noun 
sometimes  means  the  dawn,  sometimes  the  morning-twilight. 
The  preposition  under,  both  in  Greek  and  Latin,  is  applied  to 
time,  when  the  idea  to  be  expressed  is  that  of  indefinite  near- 
ness. Taught,  i.  e.  preached,  taught  publicly,  as  the  angel 
had  directed  them.  But  (Se,)  and,  or  then.  TJie  High  Priest 
und  those  with  him  is  exactly  the  phrase  used  above  in  v.  17, 
with  the  omission  of  the  word  all.  Here  again  it  means  those 
acting  with  him  upon  this  occasion,  i.  e.  the  Sadducees,  as 


ACTS  5,  21.  221 

there  expressed.  It  is  rather  implied  that  they  were  not,  than 
that  they  were,  his  nsual  confederates  or  associates.  Came^ 
literally,  heiiig  (or  becoming)  near^  at  hand,  or  present.  The 
Greek  word  is  seldom  used  in  the  Ne^v  Testament,  except  by 
Luke,  Avith  whom  it  is  a  favourite  expression.  (See  below,  on 
vs.  22.  25,  where  it  occurs  again.)  It  is  nearly  equivalent,  in 
this  case,  to  our  phrase,  being  on  the  groimd^  implying  rather 
than  expressing  previous  arrival.  There  is  no  need  therefore 
of  inquiring  to  what  spot,  or  what  apartment  of  the  temple, 
they  now  came.  That  they  were  not  in  the  same  part  of  the 
vast  enclosure  with  the  Apostles,  who  were  probably  as  usual 
in  Solomon's  porch  (v.  12),  is  clear  from  what  follows,  but 
creates  no  difficulty,  as  the  courts  of  Herod's  temple  were 
both  large  and  many.  Senate^  or  eldership,  the  Greek  word 
bearing  the  same  relation  to  (yepcav)  an  old  ina7i^  that  senate 
does  to  the  correspondmg  word  in  Latin  (senex.)  Neither 
primitive  nor  derivative  occurs  more  than  once  in  the  New 
Testament.  (See  John  3,  4.)  The  latter  is  applied  m  the 
classics  to  the  highest  council  of  the  Doric  States,  particularly 
Sparta.  In  the  Septuagint  version,  it  is  used,  as  a  collective, 
to  translate  the  plural  elders^  when  considered  as  the  repre- 
sentatives and  rulers  of  the  whole  people  (as  in  Ex.  3, 16.  18. 
Deut.  27,  1),  or  of  any  particular  locality  (as  in  Deut.  19,  12. 
21,  2.)  In  the  Apocrypha  it  signifies  the  Sanhedrim,  and  is 
so  used  also  by  Josephus.  Luke  elsewhere  uses  the  synony- 
mous term  presbytery^  from  presbyter  or  elder.  (See  below, 
on  22,  5,  and  compare  Luke  22,  66.)  The  Yulgate  and  the 
older  English  versions,  have  a  plural  form  {seniores^  eldermen^ 
ancients^  elders.)  The  only  question  here  is  whether  it  is 
merely  a  synonymous  expression  with  the  one  before  it  (to 
(TweSptov) ;  or  denotes  the  elders,  as  a  part  of  the  Sanhedrun ; 
or  a  body  of  elders  not  included  in  it.  Some  infer  from  the 
use  of  the  word  all^  that  instead  of  a  mere  representation  of 
the  elders,  as  in  orduiary  cases,  the  High  Priest  and  his  asso- 
ciates, upon  this  occasion,  summoned  the  whole  eldership,  so 
far  as  it  was  within  reach.  A  striking  analogy  Avould  then  be 
furnished  by  the  Great  Consistory  of  the  Reformed  Dutch 
Churches.  One  thing  is  certain,  that  the  body  now  assembled 
was  a  regularly  constituted  Sanhedrim,  identical  in  law  with 
that  before  which  Peter  and  John  had  been  arraigned  (v.  6. 
^),  and  as  such,  ordered  the  Apostles  to  be  brought  before  it, 
The  word  translated  prison  is  not  that  used  above  in  v.  18, 
but  a  derivative  of  the  verb  (Sew)  to  bmd,  from  which  comea 


222  ACTS  5,  21.  22.  23. 

(p€(Tfx6s)  a  band  or  bond,  from  this  (Secr/tw-nys)  a  bondman  oi 
prisoner,  and  from  this  (S^crixoiTypiov)  a  place  of  bondage.  2h 
have  them  hrouglit^  or  more  exactly,  for  them  to  he  brought. 
The  unusual  length  of  this  verse,  though  admitting  readily  of 
subdivision,  is  probably  a  mere  inadvertence  of  the  learned 
printer,  to  v>^hom  we  are  indebted  for  this  whole  arrangement. 
(See  the  Introduction,  p.  xii.) 

22.  But  when  the  officers  came,  and  found  them 
not  in  the  prison,  they  returned  and  told : 

But^  as  in  v.  21.  Came  is  the  same  verb  as  in  that  verse. 
Officers^  civil  not  military.  The  Greek  word  originally  means 
a  rower,  then  any  sailor,  then  any  labourer,  then  any  servant 
or  dependent,  in  Avhich  sense  it  is  apphed  to  the  attendant  in 
a  synagogue  (Luke  4,  20),  and  still  more  frequently  to  officers 
of  justice,  the  mmisterial  agents  of  a  court  or  magistrate.  The 
later  Greek  historians  use  it  to  describe  the  Roman  lictors. 
It  here  denotes  the  officers  attending  on  the  Sanhedrim  to  ex- 
ecute its  orders,  precisely  as  in  Mutt.  26,  58.  Mark  14,  54.  65. 
John  7,  32.  45,  46.  18,  3. 12.  18.  22.  19,  6.  The  older  English 
versions  here  have  ministers.  Prison  is  still  a  third  Greek 
word  for  th^it  idea,  entirely  different  in  form  from  both  the 
others,  but  resembling  that  in  v.  18,  as  being  properly  an  ab- 
stract {guard  or  loatcJiing)^  and  almost  exclusively  so  used  in 
the  classics.  Returned  and  told.,  returning  (or  having  re- 
turned) told,  reported,  brought  back  word,  as  in  4,  23  above. 

23.  Saying,  The  prison  truly  found  we  shut  with 
all  safety,  and  the  keepers  standing  without  before  the 
doors ;  but  when  we  had  opened,  we  found  no  man 
within. 

Prison.,  as  in  v.  21.  Truly  (/w-eV),  as  in  1,  5,  here  answering 
to  hut  (Se)  in  the  other  clause.  Shut.,  i.  e.  shut  fast  or  fastened, 
the  Greek  expression  being  stronger  than  our  dosed.,  as  ap- 
pears from  John  20,  19.  26,  v/here  the  mere  closing  or  shutting 
of  the  doors  would  have  been  no  protection.  'With  all  safety .^ 
in  complete  security  or  certainty.  All.,  as  in  4,  29.  (Cran« 
mer,  with  all  diligence.  Tyndale,  as  sure  as  was  possible.) 
Without  (e't'oo)  is  omitted  in  the  oldest  manuscripts  and  latest 
critical  editions.     It  was  probably  inserted  as  a  counterpart 


ACTS  5,  23.  24.  223 

to  within  (ecrw).  Wlien  we  had  opened^  literally,  having 
opened.  No  man^  no  one,  nobody.  (See  above,  on  2,  45.) 
They  were,  therefore,  the  only  prisoners,  unless  2yriso7i  here 
means  ward  or  cell^  or  unless  the  others  were  set  free  at  the 
same  tune.     (See  below,  on  16,  26.) 

24.  Now  when  the  (High)  Priest,  and  the  Captain 
of  the  Temple,  and  the  chief  priests,  heard  these  things, 
they  doubted  of  them,  whereunto  this  would  grow. 

The  noio  of  this  verse  is  the  hut  of  that  before  it.  When^ 
literally,  as^  the  comparative  particle  being  used,  both  in 
Greek  and  English,  as  a  particle  of  time.  (See  above,  on  1, 
10.)  The  HigJi  Priest  is  in  Greek  simply  the  Priest^  and  even 
that  is  omitted  in  several  of  the  oldest  manuscripts  and  ver- 
sions, but  probably  on  account  of  the  unusual  expression. 
The  Priest^  i.  e.  by  vray  of  eminence,  the  High  Priest.  Or 
the  title  may  be  used  generically,  without  reference  to  minor 
distinctions,  as  in  Ps.  110,  4.  Heb.  V,  17.  Of  the  former  usage 
there  are  some  examples  elsewhere.  Thus  in  one  of  the 
Apocryphal  books  (1  Mace.  15,  l),  Antiochus  is  said  to  have 
written  to  Simon,  "  the  Priest  and  Etlmarch  of  the  Jews ; " 
whereas  the  letter  itself,  which  immediately  follows,  is  ad- 
dressed to  "the  Grand  or  High  Priest  (tepa /xeyaAw)."  The 
same  use  of  the  sunple  term  occurs  in  Josephus.  As  to  the 
captain  of  the  temple^  see  above,  on  4, 1.  (Vulg.  magistratus 
tempU.)  He  is  mentioned  again  here,  because  as  the  conser- 
vator and  guardian  of  the  sacred  place,  he  shared  in  the  soli- 
citude of  the  national  rulers.  As  to  the  chief  pyt^iests^  see 
above,  on  4,  23.  Cranmer  inverts  the  usual  distinction  and 
reads  Chief  Priest  and  high  priests.  Tyndale  has  Chief 
Priest  of  all.  Poiihted  is  not  strong  enough  to  represent  the  • 
Greek  verb,  which  means  that  they  were  utterly  perplexed 
and  at  a  loss.  (See  above,  on  2,  12,)  Of  them^  concerning 
or  about  them,  is  by  some  referred  to  thmgs,  but  by  most  to 
persons,  namely,  the  Apostles*  They  were  wholly  at  a  loss, 
and  knew  not  Avhat  to  think  of  them,  or  expect  from  them, 
Whereunto  this  woidd  grow^  literally,  what  this  woidd  become. 
It  is  different  therefore  from  a  phrase  resembling  it  in  form 
ri  av  CL7]),  what  it  inight  5e,  what  it  was^  which  is  elsewhere 
used  in  connection  with  the  same  verb.  (See  above,  on  2,  12, 
and  below,  on  10, 17.)     The  question  here  was  not  what  it  waa 


224  ACTS  5,  24.  25.  26. 

that  they  beheld,  but  what  it  would  be,  if  they  failed  to  use 
preventive  measures.  This  seems  to  be  the  meaning  of  the 
Vulgate  version  [de  illls  quidnamfieret)^  which  is  better  imi- 
tated by  the  Khemish  {what  icoidd  befall)  than  by  Wiclif 
(ichat  was  done).  Even  some  modern  writers  understand  the 
words  to  mean,  hoio  it  had  happened.,  which  is  wholly  ungram- 
matical. 

25.  Then  came  one  and  told  tliem,  saying,  Behold, 
the  men,  whom  ye  put  in  prison,  are  standing  in  the 
temple,  and  teaching  the  people. 

Then  is  the  word  translated  now  in  the  preceding  verse. 
Came.,  coming,  or  having  come,  the  same  verb  as  in  vs.  21.  22. 
One.,  some  one,  somebody.  (See  above,  on  v.  1.)  Told.,  re- 
ported, brought  back  word,  implying  perhaps  that  he  had 
been  sent,  or  gone  of  his  own  accord,  to  bring  intelligence. 
The  verb  told.,  and  the  noun  prison.,  are  the  same  as  in  v.  22. 
3ehold.,  as  usual,  introduces  something  unexpected  and  sur- 
prising. (See  above,  on  1,  10.  2,  V.  5,  9.)  Are  standing  and 
teaching  is  a  better  version  than  the  older  one  of  Tyndale, 
stand  and  teach.  The  original  order  is,  are  in  the  temple^ 
standing  and  teaching.,  i.  e.  not  in  conversation  merely,  but  in 
public  discourse.  (See  above,  on  v.  20.)  The  people.,  in  the 
usual  emphatic  sense,  almost  equivalent  to  the  church.  (See 
above,  on  4,  1.) 

26.  Then  went  the  captain  with  the  officers,  and 
brought  them  without  violence,  for  they  feared  the  peo- 
ple, lest  they  should  have  been  stoned. 

Then  (not  Se  but  rori)  is  the  adverb  of  time,  properly  so 
rendered,  and  serving  not  merely  to  continue  the  narrative 
(like  then  in  the  preceding  verse),  but  to  mark  the  succession 
of  events.  It  was  after  the  report  recorded  in  v.  25,  and  in 
consequence  of  it,  that  tliis  step  was  taken.  Went.,  literally, 
going  aicay.,  as  in  4, 15  above.  The  captain.,  i.  e.  of  the  tem- 
ple, as  the  Geneva  Bible  adds,  w^hile  Tyndale  reads,  the  ruler 
of  the  temple  loith  the  ministers.  The  persons  here  described 
as  acting  are  the  commander  of  the  Levitical  guard  (see  above, 
on  4,  1),  and  the  executive  or  ministerial  servants  of  the  San- 
hedrim (see  above,  on  v.  22.)  Without  molence.,  literally,  not 
with  violence  (or  by  force),  wliich  implies  that  the  Apostlea 
VOL.  I. — 10* 


ACTS  5,  26.  27.  225 

offered  no  resistance.  Lest  they  should  have  been  stoned  is 
Tyndale's  awkward  version,  retained  in  King  James's  Bible. 
The  exact  translation  is,  in  order  that  they  might  not  he  stoned, 
("Iva,  omitted  in  some  ancient  manuscripts,  is  retained  as 
genuine  by  the  latest  critics.)  The  clause  therefore  cannot 
be  dependent  on  the  verb  feared^  which  would  require  a  dif- 
ferent conjunction  ;  although  this  construction  is  required  by 
the  parenthesis  in  most  editions  of  the  English  Bible.  The 
true  parenthesis,  if  any  be  assumed,  includes  only  the  words, 
for  they  feared  the  people^  and  the  true  construction  is,  not 
xoith  violence^  lest  they  should  he  stoned.  The  stoning,  so  often 
mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  is  not  mere  pelting,  as  an 
act  of  popular  violence,  but  an  ancient  theocratical  expression 
of  abhorrence  for  some  act  of  blasphemy  or  treason  to  Jeho- 
vah. This. form  of  capital  punishment,  for  such  it  was,  had 
been  preferred  to  others  in  the  law,  because  it  made  the  death 
of  the  offender,  not  the  act  of  a  hated  executioner,  but  that 
ot  all  the  people  who  were  present,  and  especially  of  those 
who  had  acted  as  informers  and  witnesses.  From  this  arose 
the  peculiar  Jewish  custom  of  taking  up  stones  to  stone  one, 
as  a  sort  of  testimony  against  him.  (See  below,  on  7,  58.  59. 
14,  19,  and  compare  John  8,  5.  10,  31-33.  11,  8.  2  Cor.  11,  25.) 
To  stone,  as  a  transitive  verb,  is  Hellenistic ;  in  the  classics,  it 
means  to  throve  stooies,  and  is  followed  by  a  preposition.  Such 
was  the  popular  regard  for  the  Apostles,  that  the  men  sent  to 
arrest  them  were  afraid,  not  merely  of  bodily  injury,  but  of 
being  denounced  and  disowned  by  the  people,  as  imtrue  to 
the  theocracy  and  law  of  Moses. 

27.  And  when  they  had  brought  them,  they  set 
(them)  before  the  council,  and  the  High  Priest  asked 
them  : 

Aoid,  but  (22),  now  (24),  then  (25).  When  they  had 
brought,  having  brought.  Set,  set  up,  presented,  as  in  1,  23, 
Before  (literally,  iii)  the  council,  i.  e.  in  the  place  of  their  as- 
sembly (see  above,  on  4,  15),  or  still  more  naturally,  in  the 
midst  (see  above,  on  4,  7),  or  in  the  presence,  of  the  Sanhe- 
drim itself.  The  High  Priest  presides  in  the  assembly  and 
conducts  the  judicial  examination,  as  he  afterwards  did  in  the 
case  of  Stephen  and  of  Paul.  (See  above,  on  4,  5,  and  below, 
on  7, 1.  23,  2.  3.)  This  authority  was  not  derived  from  the 
Sanhedrim,  bnt  inherent  m  the  office  of  High  Priest,  in  whom 


226  ACTS  5,  27.  28. 

was  concentrated  and  summed  up  the  representation,  net  only 
of  the  family  of  Aaron  and  the  tribe  of  Levi,  but  of  Israel  as 
a  Tv^hole,  and  through  it  of  all  God's  elect,  or  the  invisible 
church,  of  which  the  chosen  people  was  the  type  and  repre- 
sentative ;  while  on  the  other  hand,  he  prefigured  the  Mes- 
siah. This  ofiicial  representation,  both  of  the  Body  and  the 
Head,  made  the  High  Priest  at  all  times,  but  particularly 
when  the  royal  and  prophetical  ofiices  were  in  abeyance,  the 
visible  head  of  the  theocracy,  entitled,  not  by  popular  choice 
but  by  divine  right,  to  preside  in  its  most  dignified  assemblies. 

28.  Saying,  Did  not  we  straitly  command  you, 
that  ye  should  not  teach  in  this  name  ?  And  behold, 
ye  have  filled  Jerusalem  with  your  doctrine,  and  intend 
to  bring  tliis  man's  blood  upon  us. 

The  reference  is  to  the  injunction  upon  Peter  and  John, 
recorded  in  4,  18.  The  critical  editions  now  omit  the  nega- 
tive (ou),  as  does  the  Vulgate,  so  as  to  read,  we  straitly  com- 
7nanded  you^  etc.  In  favour  of  the  common  text  is  the 
expression  asked  (or  questio?ied)  the??!,  in  v.  27.  Straitly, 
literally,  loith  commandment,  an  expression  similar  to  straitly 
threaten  (threaten  ^Hth  a  threatening)  in  4,  17.  The  inten- 
sive force  of  the  added  noun  may  be  variously  ex]3ressed 
in  English;  strictly,  expressly,  absolutely,  peremptorily,  etc. 
Here,  too,  the  suppression  of  Christ's  name  is  commonly  re- 
garded as  contemptuous  ;  but  see  above,  on  4,  18.  It  maybe 
added  that,  according  to  Je^^-ish  notions  and  traditions,  the 
suppression  of  a  name  is  rather  reverential  than  contemptuous, 
as  appears  from  the  immemorial  refusal  to  pronounce  the  name 
Jehovah,  and  the  singular  interpretation  of  Lev.  24, 15.  16, 
upon  wliich  it  rests.  A7id  behold,  contrary  to  what  we  had 
expected,  and  to  our  surprise.  (See  above,  on  v.  25.)  Filled 
Jerusalem  is  not  a  Hebraism  but  a  natural  hy]>erbole,  common 
to  all  languages.  It  appears  in  a  much  stronger  form  in 
2  Kings  21, 16,  where  we  read  that  "Manasseh  shed  innocent 
blood  very  much,  till  ne  nad  filled  Jerusalem  from  one  end  to 
another."  Doctrine^  i.  e.  teachmg  ('you  have  taught  this 
new  religion  in  all  parts  ot  Jerusalem ')  not  belief  ('  you  have 
converted  all  Jerusalem  to  your  rehgion ')  a  concession  which 
would  hardly  have  been  made  by  the  High  Priest.  (See 
above,  on  2,  42.)      Intend,  literally,  wish,  but  often  with  an 


ACTS  5,  28.  29.  30.  227 

implication  of  design  and  plan,  as  well  as  mere  desire.  (See 
below,  on  v.  33.  12,4.  15,37.  18,  27.  19,  30.  28,  18,  and  com- 
pare Matt.  1,  19.  2  Cor.  1,  15. 17.)  To  Iring  blood  upon  the 
head  is  a  peculiar  Hebrew  idion,  meaning  to  make  one  answer 
for  the  death  or  murder  of  another.  (See  below,  on  18,  6, 
and  compare  Ezek.  33,  4.  Matt.  23,  5.  27,  25.)  One  of  the 
Fathers  here  remarks  that  the  High  Priest  had  forgotten  the 
fearful  imprecation,  by  which  he  and  his  followers  had  assumed 
the  very  responsibility,  which  he  charges  the  Apostles  with 
desiring  to  fasten  on  them.  The  reference  here,  however,  is 
not  so  much  to  the  divine  vengeance  as  to  that  of  the  people, 
whom  the  rulers  had  misled  and  urged  on  to  this  dreadful 
crime,  but  whose  feelings  had  already  undergone  a  violent  re- 
action, which  might  well  seem  threatening  to  their  faithless 
guides.     (As  to  this  man^  see  above,  on  this  name.) 

29.  Then  Peter  and  the  (other)  Apostles  answered 
and  said,  We  ought  to  obey  God  rather  than  men. 

The  origmal  form  of  the  first  clause  is  peculiar,  one  verb 
agreeing  with  J^eter  in  the  singular,  and  the  other  with  Aj^os 
ties  in  the  plural.  This  seems  to  mean  that  Peter  alone  spoke, 
but  that  aU  the  Apostles  spoke  through  him.  {Then,  as  in  v 
25,  not  as  in  v.  26.)  We  ought  should  rather  be  we  must, 
expressing  not  mere  obligation  but  necessity.  (See  above,  on 
1,  16.  22.  4,  12.)  The  same  principle  is  here  avowed  as  m  4, 
19.  20,  but  in  a  more  positive  and  pointed  form.  Instead  of 
the  verb  hear  or  hearhen  there  used,  we  have  here,  not  the  or- 
dinary verb  to  obey,  but  a  compound  form  of  it,  denoting  sub- 
mission to  government  or  constituted  authority  (apx^)-  I^  is 
the  word  translated  to  obey  magistrates  in  Tit.  3, 1.  Besides 
the  essential  idea  of  obedience,  it  here  suggests,  that  God  is 
superior  to  man,  not  only  in  power,  but  in  rightful  authority. 
The  translation  rather,  contended  for  by  some  in  4, 18,  is  here 
adopted  by  the  translators  themselves. 

30.  The  God  of  our  fathers  raised  up  Jesus,  whom 
ye  slew  and  hanged  on  a  tree. 

Here  again  we  have  the  favourite  antithesis  or  contrast 
between  Christ's  treatment  at  the  hands  of  God  and  man, 
which  may  be  described  as  the  key-note  of  this,  as  of  the  three 
previous  discourses  of  Peter.     (See  above,  on  2,  23.  24.  26.  3 


228  ACTS  5,  30.  31. 

13. 15.  4, 10.)  The,  God  of  our  fathers^  our  own  national  and 
covenant  God.  The  our  identiiies  the  speaker  and  the  hear- 
ers,  as  belonging  to  the  same  race  and  believing  the  same 
scriptm-es.  liaised  up^  Uterally,  aroused,  awakened,  i.  e.  from 
the  sleep  of  death.  (See  above,  on  3, 15.  4, 10.)  Slew  is  none 
of  the  verbs  commonly  employed  in  that  sense,  but  one  strictly 
meaning  to  handle,  manage,  and  applied  by  the  later  classics, 
hke  our  despatch^  both  to  the  transaction  of  business  and  the 
destruction  of  Hfe.  (See  below,  on  26,  21,  the  only  other 
place  where  it  occurs  in  the  Xew  Testament.)  Hanged  on  a 
tree,!,  e.  crucified.  (See  below,  on  10,39,  and  compare  Gal. 
3, 13.  1  Pet.  2,  24.)  The  word  translated  tree  has  no  such 
usage  in  the  classical  Greek  writers  of  an  early  date,  but  cor- 
responds to  wood  in  EngUsh.  In  the  Hellenistic  dialect  it  cor- 
responds to  the  Hebrew  word  (73)  denoting  both.  The 
contrary  change  has  taken  place  in  our  word  tree,  which  once 
had  a  T\ider  meaning  than  it  now  has,  as  appears  from  such 
copapounds  as  axle-tree,  saddle-tree,  gallows-tree.  This  ambi- 
guity of  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  words  has  some  importance 
in  connection  with  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy.  Crucifixion 
was  a  punishment  unkno^\Ti  to  the  law  of  Moses  or  the  prac- 
tice of  the  Jews  till  introduced  by  foreign  conquerors.  The 
hanging  mentioned  in  the  law  (Deut.  21,  22)  is  the  posthumous 
exposure  of  the  body  after  being  otherwise  put  to  death. 
And  yet  the  curse  pronounced  on  such  is  so  framed  as  to  be 
strictly  appUcable  to  the  case  of  crucifixion,  the  terms  hang- 
ing on  a  tree  being  appropriate  to  both,  but  only  on  condition 
that  the  word  tree  be  considered  as  equivalent  to  icood.  The 
ancient  hanguig  was  most  probably  on  trees,  in  the  literal 
sense  of  the  expression  ;  the  later  crucifixion  was  on  wooden 
crosses  framed  expressly  for  the  purpose. 

31.  Him  hath  God  exalted  with  his  right  hand  (to 
be)  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour,  for  to  give  repentance  to 
Israel,  and  forgiveness  of  sins. 

Sim,  literally,  this  (one),  i.  e.  the  very  one  whom  you  thus 
crucified.  JExalted,  or  as  TjTidale  has  it,  lift  up.  With  his 
right  hand,  by  the  exertion  of  his  power,  and  to  Ids  right 
Imnd,  i.  e.  to  a  share  in  that  power  and  in  the  dignity  con- 
nected with  it.  (See  above,  on  2,  23.)  To  he,  or  as  a  Prince 
and  Saviour  already,  which  last  is  preferred  by  some  inter- 
preters.    (The  Rhemish  version  is,  this  Prince  and  Saviour 


ACTS   5,  31.  82.  229 

hath  God  exalted)  JP)'in<:e,  captain,  author  ;  (see  above,  on 
3, 15.)  JFhr  to  give  (see  above,  on  -i,  28.)  To  give  rejyentance 
is  not  merely  to  give  time  for  it  (as  Philo  says,  8t8oxn  ^6vov 
CIS  fjieravoiav),  or  place  for  it  (as  QiimtLlian  says,  detis  locum 
jKenitentice,  compare  Heb.  12, 17),  but  to  give  the  grace  of 
repentance,  i.  e.  power  and  disposition  to  repent.  The  old 
sense  of^:>6;?a/?c6  may  be  seen  in  Wiclif's  version  of  this  clause 
{that  2)t/ia?ice  icere  given).  Forgiveness  is  the  word  translated 
remission  in  2,  38,  and  there  explained.  The  express  mention 
of  Israel,  as  the  object  of  this  favour,  is  not  mtended  to  re- 
strict it  to  the  Jews ;  but  either  to  intimate  the  priority  of 
the  ofier  made  to  them  (see  above,  on  3,  26)  ;  or  to  embrace 
the  spiritual  Israel,  the  entire  church  of  God's  elect  (see  Rom. 
9,  6) ;  or  more  probably  than  either,  to  assure  the  contempo- 
rary Jews,  who  had  been  implicated  in  the  murder  of  their 
o^vn  Messiah,  that  even  this  most  aggravated  sin  was  not  be- 
yond the  reach  of  the  divine  forgiveness,  if  repented  of;  to 
bestow  both  which  gifts,  i.  e.  repentance  as  the  means,  and 
forgiveness  as  the  end,  was  the  very  purpose  for  which  Christ 
had  been  exalted  as  a  Prince  and  Saviour. 

32.  And  we  are  his  witnesses  of  these  things,  and 
so  is  also  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  God  hath  given  to 
them  that  obey  him. 

Some  of  the  oldest  manuscripts  omit  his  before  icitnesses^ 
without  material  eflect  upon  the  sense.  Things,  literally, 
tcords  or  sagings.  It  may  be  doubted  whether  the  Greek 
word  ever  has  the  vague  sense  of  things,  -^-ithout  some  refer- 
ence to  their  being  spoken,  promised,  or  conunanded.  See 
below,  on  10,37,  and  compare  Luke  1,  37.  2,19.  51.  Li  the 
last  two  places,  our  version  renders  the  same  word  things  and 
sagings,  although  the  comiection  is  precisely  similar.  Some 
suppose  an  allusion  here  to  the  words  of  this  life  in  v.  20, 
where  the  same  Greek  word  is  used.  They  again  assert  theii- 
apostolical  commission  as  witnesses  for  Christ  (see  above,  on 
1,  8.  22.  2,  32.  40.  3, 15),  but  with  a  remarkable  addhion, 
claiming  to  be  joint-witnesses  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  whom  the 
Lord  had  promised  (John  15,  26)  in  that  very  character.  (See 
below,  on  15,  28,  and  compare  Heb.  10,  15.)  The  testimony 
of  the  Spirit,  here  referred  to,  is  not  that  spoken  of  in  Rom. 
8, 16,  as  involved  in  the  experience  of  all  believers,  but  an 
outward  testunony  corroborating  that  of  the  Apostles.     This 


230  ACTS  5,   32.  33. 

could  only  bo  aiTorded  by  the  miraculous  endowments  of  the 
first  discij^les,  vv'ho  are  here  described  as  those  obeying  God^ 
with  manifest  allusion  to  the  principle  avowed  in  v.  29,  the 
Greek  verb  being  the  one  there  used  and  explained,  as  de« 
noting  obedience  to  the  rightful  authority  and  government  of 
God. 

33.  When  they  heard  (that),  they  were  cut  (to  the 
heart),  and  took  counsel  to  slay  them. 

The  effect  of  this  discourse  was  very  different  from  that 
upon  the  day  of  Pentecost,  although  the  terms  used  to  de- 
scribe it  are  somewhat  similar.  WJie7i  they  heard  that^  or 
more  literally,  they  hearing.  Cut  to  the  heart.,  literally,  sawn 
through.  As  the  Greek  verb  is  sometimes  used  with  teeth.,  to 
signify  the  act  of  sawmg,  grinding,  or  gnashing  them,  some 
suppose  that  to  be  its  meaiung  here.  But  besides  the  absence 
of  the  noun  which  indicates  this  meaning  elsewhere,  it  is  for- 
bidden by  the  analogy  of  7,  54,  where  the  same  verb  is  used, 
with  the  addition  of  the  noun  hearts.,  to  denote  that  the  effect 
was  an  internal  mental  one.  The  same  noun  is  added  in  2,  37, 
but  to  a  milder  verb  {pricked  or  pierced).  The  effect  here 
described  is  probably  a  mixture  of  conscious  guilt  with  re- 
vengeful wrath,  as  expressed  m  the  Geneva  Bible,  they  hrast 
(burst)  for  anger.  (Vulg.  dissecahantur.  Wiclif,  were  tor- 
mented. Tynd.  they  clave  asunder.  Rhem.  it  cut  them  to  the 
heart.)  This  feeling  led  to  a  new  step  in  the  march  of  perse- 
cution. Listead  of  idle  threats  and  prohibitions  (see  above, 
on  4, 17. 18),  they  now  conceived  the  thought  of  capital  pun- 
ishment and  bloody  persecution.  Took  cou^isel.,  deliberated, 
or  consulted,  denotes  mutual  conference  and  comparison  of 
views,  as  in  4,  15.  But  the  verb  here  used  more  probably 
means,  formed  the  plan  or  purpose.,  nearly  equivalent  to  i7i- 
tended.  (See  below,  on  15,  37,  where  determined  is  too  strong, 
as  co7isulted  is  too  weak  in  John  12,  10.)  Tyndale's  sought 
means  is  not  a  version  but  a  paraphrase.  Several  of  the  oldest 
manuscripts  and  versions  read  [I^ovXovto)  they  wished.,  which, 
as  explained  above  (on  v.  28),  amounts  to  nearly  the  same 
thing ;  but  the  common  text  (i/SovXevovro)  is  retained  by  the 
latest  critics.  Slay  is  not  the  verb  translated  slew  in  v.  30, 
but  the  one  used  in  2,  23,  and  there  explained. 

34.  Then  stood  there  up  on-e  m  the  council,  a  Phari- 


ACTS  5,  34.  231 

see,  named  Gamaliel,  a  doctor  of  the  law,  had  in  repii^ 
tation  among  all  the  people,  and  commanded  to  put  the 
Apostles  forth  a  little  space. 

These  sanguinary  measures  are  prevented  by  the  interpo- 
sition of  a  new  and  interesting  character.  TJien  stood  there 
up  is  TjTidale's  version  ;  a  more  literal  translation  would  be, 
and  arising.  One  (rts),  some  (one),  a  certain  (man  or  person.) 
See  above,  on  v.  1.  In  the  council^  and  by  necessary  implica- 
tion, a  member  of  the  body.  In  what  capacity  he  sat  there, 
is  afterwards  explained.  A  Pharisee.,  and  therefore  not  one 
of  the  party  which  was  actmg  in  conjunction  with  the  High 
Priest,  and  in  opposition  to  the  new  religion.  (See  above,  on 
V.  17.)  Gamaliel.,  an  old  and  honourable  name  in  the  tribe  of 
Manasseh  (IsTum.  1,  10.  2,  20.)  There  is  no  reason  for  dis- 
puting the  identity  of  this  man  with  the  Gamaliel  of  the  Tal- 
mud, a  grandson  of  the  famous  Hillel,  and  a  son  of  Simon 
(supposed  by  some  to  be  the  Simeon  of  Luke  2,  25),  himself 
so  eminent  for  wisdom,  and  especially  for  moderation,  that  his 
death  is  represented  in  the  Jewish  books,  as  the  departure  of 
true  Pharisaism  from  Israel.  ISTor  is  there  any  ground  for 
doubt,  that  this  was  the  Gamaliel  at  v/hose  feet  Saul  of  Tarsus 
sat.  (See  below,  on  22,  3.)  A  doctor  (i.  e.  teacher)  of  the 
law.,  in  Greek  one  compound  w^ord  (vofjiohSda-KaXo^),  used  only 
by  Luke  and  Paul  (Luke  5,  17.  1  Tim.  1.7),  and  either  con- 
vertible with  scribe  and  Icmyer,  or  a  specific  designation  of 
those  scribes  and  lavf  yers,  who  were  recognized  as  public  and 
authoritative  teachers.  (See  above,  on  4,  5.)  It  was  in  this 
capacity  or  character,  no  doubt,  that  Gamaliel  acted  as  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Sanhedrim.  Had  in  reputation  (Tyndale,  had  in 
authority)  is  a  paraphrase  of  one  Greek  word  (tlixlos  from 
Tt/x^,  honour,  see  above,  on  4,  34),  meaning  honoured,  highly 
valued,  precious,  dear  (Wiclif,  icorshipful.)  To  all  the  peo- 
ple., as  distinguished  from  the  rulers  or  the  higher  classes. 
He  might  therefore  be  regarded  as  the  leader  of  the  opposi- 
tion to  the  dominant  party,  which  was  now  that  of  the  Sad- 
ducees,  or  under  Sadducean  influence.  Commanded  is  not 
the  word  so  rendered  in  1,  4.  4, 18,  but  the  one  used  in  4,  15, 
in  a  precisely  similar  connection.  This  seems  to  favour  the 
distinction  made  by  some,  but  not  recognized  by  others,  be- 
tween the  first  of  these  verbs  (-n-apayyeAAw),  as  denoting  an 
absolute  or  peremptory  order,  and  the  other  (KeXcuw),  as  de- 
noting rather  an  authoritative  exhortation,  and  applied  by 


232  ACTS  5,  34.  35 

Herodotus  and  Homer  even  to  the  petitions  or  requests  of  an 
inferior.  In  this  connection,  it  approaches  very  nearly  to  the 
modern  usage  of  2^'^o])osed  or  moved,  but  with  an  implication 
of  authority,  official  or  personal,  on  the  part  of  him  who  made 
the  proposition.  At  all  events,  it  furnishes  no  ground  for  the 
inference,  which  some  have  drawn,  that  Gamaliel  was  pre- 
siding in  the  Sanhedrim,  a  dignity  belonging  ex  officio  to  the 
High  Priest.  (See  above,  on  v.  27,  and  with  respect  to  the 
exclusion  of  the  prisoners,  on  4,  15.)  Some  of  the  latest 
critics,  follo^^Hing  the  Vulgate  and  several  ancient  manuscripts, 
instead  of  the  apostles,  read  the  men.  To  put  forth  is  the 
English  equivalent  of  an  idiomatic  Greek  phrase  (e^w  Troirjcrai) 
meaning  literally  to  make  out  or  outside.  Tyndale  and  Cran- 
mer  have  aside,  as  King  James's  version  also  has  in  4,  15. 
Another  idiomatic  phrase  follows  (/^paxvrt),  originally  mean- 
ing something  short,  and  then  some  little,  whether  appUed  to 
quantity  (as  in  John  6,  7),  or  to  distance  (as  in  Acts  27,  28), 
or  to  time  (as  in  Luke  22,  58),  which  last  is  here  preferred  by 
most  interpreters,  and  may  have  been  intended  by  our  own 
translators,  although  they  have  retained  Tyndale's  ambiguous 
phrase,  a  little  space,  which  rather  seems  to  have  a  local 
meaning. 

35.  And  said  imto  them,  Ye  men  of  Israel,  take 
heed  to  yourselves,  what  ye  intend  to  do,  as  touching 
these  men. 

Them,  is  without  a  grammatical  antecedent,  as  the  same 
pronoun  is  in  4,  5  above.  The  apphcation  of  a  rigid  rule 
would  represent  Gamaliel  as  addressing  the  Apostles.  (See 
above,  on  4, 17.)  To  supply  this  omission,  one  old  version 
and  one  old  Greek  manuscript  read,  said  to  the  rulers  and  the 
counsellors.  Gamaliel's  speech  is  interesting  in  itself,  and  on 
account  of  the  effect  w^hich  it  produced,  but  also  as  a  specimen 
of  Jewish  oratory,  wholly  distinct  from  that  of  the  Apostles, 
and  exhibiting  just  that  degree  of  sameness  and  variety  which 
might  have  been  expected  from  the  circumstances  of  the  case. 
(See  above,  on  3,  26.)  After  a  prefatory  warning  (35),  he 
refers  to  two  historical  examples  (36.  37),  and  then  lays  down 
and  apphes  to  the  case  before  them  an  important  principle  of 
action  (38.39.)  3Ie7i  of  Israel  (as  in  2,22.  3,  12)  remmds 
them  that  they  are  acting  in  a  national  or  theocratical  capaci- 
ty, and  may  be  likened  to  the  warning  given  to  our  church. 


ACTS  5,  35.  36.  233 

courts,  when  about  to  exercise  judicial  functions.  Tahe  heed 
IS  in  Greek  an  elliptical  expression,  meaning  hold  to  or  apply 
(the  mind),  i.  e.  advert,  attend.  With  the  dative,  it  means 
to  pay  attention  or  regard  (as  in  8,  6.  10,  11.  16, 14) ;  with  a 
preposition  (cxtto),  to  beware  of,  to  avoid  (as  in  Matt.  6, 1. 
Luke  20,  46) ;  with  a  reflexive  pronoun  (eawots),  to  take  heed 
to  one's  self,  to  be  on  one's  guard  (as  in  20,  28.  Luke  12, 1. 
IV,  3.  21,  34.)  This  is  the  meaning  here,  where  the  Sanhe- 
drim are  warned,  not  only  of  error,  but  of  danger  to  them- 
selves. The  remamder  of  the  verse  admits  of  two  construc- 
tions. One  connects  the  words  as  touching  these  men  (Tyn- 
dale's  antiquated  phrase  for  as  to  or  concerning  them)  with 
the  verb  to  do.  '  Be  careful  (or  consider  well)  what  you  are 
about  to  do  to  these  men.'  This,  though  natural  enough  in 
English,  is  in  Greek  made  less  so  by  the  collocation  of  the 
ncntence,  in  which  the  words,  ye  are  about  to  do^  come  after 
these  men^  not  before  it.  This  mconvenience  is  avoided  by 
the  other  sjTitax,  which  connects  concerning  these  men  with 
the  words  precedmg.  '  Take  heed  to  yourselves,  as  touching 
these  men,  what  ye  are  about  to  do.'  Intend  is  not  the  verb 
so  rendered  in  v.  28,  but  that  employed  in  3,  3,  and  there  ex- 
plained as  signifying  mere  futurity,  to  he  about  to  do  the  act 
denoted  by  the  verb  that  follows. 

36.  For  before  these  days  rose  up  Tlieudas,  boast- 
ing himself  to  be  somebody,  to  whom  a  number  of  men, 
about  four  hundred,  jomed  themselves ;  who  was  slain, 
and  all,  as  many  as  obeyed  him,  were  scattered  and 
brought  to  nought. 

In  support  of  his  advice,  he  adduces  two  historical  exam- 
ples, both  familiar  to  his  hearers,  and  perhaps  still  fresh  in 
their  recollection,  before  these  days  is  an  indefinite  expres- 
sion, not  so  strong  as  that  in  15,  17,  and  intended  merely  to 
suggest,  that  the  case  before  them  was  by  no  means  new. 
Arose^  or  stood  up^  does  not  mean  rebelled^  or  made  an  insur- 
rection iinsurrexit)^  which  is  neither  the  classical  nor  scrip- 
tural usage  of  the  Greek  verb  (see  above,  on  v.  17),  but  ajp- 
pcared^  came  forward.  (See  below,  on  7,  18,  and  compare 
Heb.  7,  15.)  JBoasti7ig^  Hterally,  saying.  Somebody^  i.  e. 
some  great  one,  as  it  is  more  fully  expressed  in  reference  to 
Simon  Magus.     (See  below,  on  8,  9,  and  compare  the  well 


234  ACTS  5,  36. 

known  phrase  of  Juvenal,  si  vis  esse  aliquis.)  Joined  iliem^ 
selves^  a  compound  form  of  the  verb  used  above  in  v.  13,  and 
there  explamed.  The  latest  editors  adopt  another  reading 
(irpoaeKXiSr]),  which  originally  means  leaned  towards  or  inclined 
to,  but  in  its  secondary  usage,  coincides  very  nearly  with  the 
common  text  {-Trpoa-eKoWrjS^r})^  both  denoting  adherence  or  ad- 
hesion. Slaioi^  despatched,  made  away  with,  as  in  v.  33,  and 
in  2,  23  above.  All  as  many  as,  see  above,  on  4.  34.  Obeyed 
is  properly  a  passive,  meaning  were  persuaded,  and  is  never 
used  to  signify  compulsory  obedience.  It  is  therefore  pe- 
culiarly expressive  of  the  voluntary  deference  paid  to  party 
leaders  and  religious  teachers.  Scattered,  or  rather,  dissolved, 
disorganized.  Were  brought  to  nought,  or  came  to  nothing 
(see  above,  on  4, 11),  in  obvious  allusion  and  antithesis  to  his 
thinking  himself  somebody  or  something.  Josephus  also  gives 
the  history  of  an  impostor  {y6r]<i),  by  the  name  of  Theudas^ 
who  drew  a  great  part  of  the  people  after  him,  and  promised 
to  divide  the  Jordan,  but  was  seized  and  beheaded  by  order 
of  the  Roman  Procurator  of  Judea.  But  this  was  in  the 
reign  of  Caligula  or  Claudius.  The  supposed  anachronism 
has  been  variously  solved,  by  dating  the  events  here  recorded 
several  years  later  than  the  usual  chronology ;  by  charging 
the  error  on  Josephus ;  by  identifying  Theudas  with  some  one 
of  the  many  such  insurgents,  whom  Josephus  mentions  under 
other  names ;  or  lastly  by  supposing  two  of  the  same  name, 
one  recorded  by  Jose|)hus  and  the  other  by  Luke.  This  last, 
which  has  been  the  common  explanation  since  the  time  of 
Origen,  is  favoured  by  the  fact,  that  the  Theudas  of  Josephus 
was  beheaded,  and  could  not  therefore'liave  been  cited  by 
Gamaliel,  as-a  proof  that  such  pretenders  should  be  lell  to 
themselves,  without  official  interference.  Such  a  coincidence 
of  names,  though  not  to  be  assumed  without  necessity,  is  com- 
mon enough  in  history  and  real  life  to  be  admissible  where 
such  necessity  exists,  especially  in  this  case,  where  the  name 
in  question  is  said  to  have  been  common,  even  among  Greeks 
and  Romans.  This  explanation  would  be  stUl  more  satisfac- 
tory if  it  could  be  shown,  as  some  assume,  that  Theudas  was 
the  name  of  a  father  and  a  son,  who  successively  excited  in- 
surrections. The  essential  point  to  be  observed,  however,  is 
that  therQ  is  no  ground  for  charging  Luke  with  ignorance  or 
error.  Such  a  charge  is  in  the  last  degree  improbable,  con- 
sidering how  often  such  apparent  mconsistencies  are  reconciled 
by  the  discovery  of  new  but  intrinsically  unimportant  facts ; 


ACTS  5,  36.  37.  235 

and  also  that  the  error,  il'  it  were  one,  must  have  been  imme- 
diately discovered,  and  would  either  have  been  rectified  at 
once,  or  made  the  ground  of  argumentative  objection. 

37.  After  this  man  rose  up  Judas  of  Galilee,  in  the 
days  of  the  taxing,  and  drew  away  much  people  after 
him  :  he  also  perished,  and  all,  (even)  as  many  as 
obeyed  him,  were  dispersed. 

This  man  is  also  mentioned  by  Josephus,  once  as  a  Gaulo- 
nite,  but  in  several  places  as  a  Galilean,  one  name  perhaps  de- 
noting his  place  of  residence,  the  other  that  of  his  nativity. 
In  the  days  of  the  taxing^  or  as  Tyndale  has  it,  in  the  time 
when  tribute  hegcvn^  which  seems  to  mean,  at  the  beghming  of 
the  Roman  domination.  But  this  is  a  mere  paraphrase,  and 
most  interpreters  apply  the  words  to  a  particular  measure  of 
the  Roman  government  in  Palestine,  of  such  a  nature  as  to 
furnish  a  convenient  date  or  epoch.  The  word  translated 
taxing  primarily  means  transcription,,  then  inscription  or  en- 
rollment, both  of  things  and  persons,  being  applied  by  Plato 
to  the  registration  of  proj)erty,  by  Polybius  to  that  of  men 
liable  to  military  duty,  by  Josephus  to  a  census,  both  of  citi- 
zens and  their  estates.  Li  Luke  2,  2,  it  denotes  such  a  census 
or  assessment,  taken  with  a  view  to  taxation,  under  Cyrenius 
(the  Greek  form  of  Quirinus),  Proconsul  of  Syria.  This  same 
Cyrenius  is  said  by  Josephus  to  have  vanquished  and  de- 
stroyed the^Galilean  rebel  Judas  j  a  coincidence  of  much 
more  Aveight  in  favour  of  the  narrative  before  us,  than  any 
difference  or  doubt,  as  to  minute  chronology  or  other  circum- 
stances, ought  to  have  against  it.  Tried  by  the  rigid  rule, 
which  many  would  apply  in  this  case,  the  most  accredited  his- 
torians, ancient  and  modern,  might  be  constantly  convicted  of 
mistake  or  falsehood.  It  was  against  this  census,  or  the  taxa- 
tion which  it  had  m  view,  that  Judas  roused  the  people  to  re- 
isistance,  as  inconsistent  with  their  national  and  theocratical 
immunities.  Josephus  mentions  the  destruction  of  his  sons, 
but  not  his  oa\ti,  which  is  explicitly  asserted  here.  That 
■ui'iter  also  represents  him  as  the  founder  of  a  sect  or  party, 
which  survived  him.  This  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  state- 
ment that  his  followers  were  dispersed^  as  the  Greek  verb  here 
used  properly  denotes  the  scattering  of  mdividuals  by  sudden 
violence  ;  whereas  the  verb  of  the  preceding  verse  expresses 


236  ACTS   5,  37.38. 

rather  the  entire  dissolution  of  an  organized  body,  as  for  in* 
stance  the  disbanding  of  an  army,  to  which  Xenophon  applies 
it.  Drew  away^  incited  to  apostasy^  a  word  derived  from  the 
Greek  verb  here  used,  as  well  as  in  the  Septuagint  version  of 
Deut.  7,  4.  13,  10,  where  it  denotes  the  act  of  turning  others 
from  the  worship  of  Jehovah.  For  a  very  different  use  of  the 
same  verb  as  an  intransitive,  see  the  next  verse. 

38.  And  now  I  say  unto  you,  refrain  from  these 
men  and  let  them  alone ;  for  if  this  counsel,  or  this 
work,  be  of  men,  it  will  come  to  nought ; 

He  here  applies  the  principle,  deducible  from  the  cases 
which  he  had  just  cited,  to  the  case  in  hand.  A7id  7iow  marks 
the  transition  from  the  past  to  the  present  or  the  future  in 
the  speaker's  mind.  (See  above,  on  4,  29.)  I  say  unto  you 
is  not  an  unmeaning  or  superfluous  expression,  but  an  indica- 
tion of  the  speaker's  earnestness,  and  of  the  importance  he 
attached  to  what  he  was  about  to  say.  (See  above,  on  2,  22. 
29.)  Refrain^  literally,  stand  off^  stand  aloof,  a  neuter  or  in- 
transitive form  of  the  verb  used  in  the  preceding  verse.  (For 
other  examples  of  the  same  sense,  see  below,  on  12,  10.  15, 
38.  19,  9.  22,  29.)  Let  them  alone^  or  more  exactly,  suffer 
them^  permit  them,  i.  e.  to  go  on,  to  do  as  they  are  doing. 
The  suppression  of  the  second  verb  is  not  uncommon  in  the 
best  Greek  writers.  The  second  clause  assigns  the  ground  or 
reason  of  the  exhortation  in  the  first.  Counsel  and  icorh  are 
related  to  each  other  as  plan  and  execution ;  wb^t  they  wish 
or  purpose,  and  what  they  have  actually  done  or  are  now  doing. 
The  prmciple  here  laid  down  is  a  general  but  not  an  universal 
one,  Gamaliel  could  not  mean  to  say  that  every  human 
scheme  must  fail,  which  is  notoriously  false.  His  words  may 
be  qualified  or  limited  in  two  ways.  Of'iuen  (literally  out  of\ 
i.  e.  arising  or  originating  from  men)  may  be  understood  to 
mean  without  regard  to  God  or  in  defiance  of  him.  But  a 
still  more  natural  and  satisfactory  solution  is  afforded  by  re- 
ferring the  entire  proposition  to  such  cases  as  the  one  in  hand, 
i.  e.  attempts  to  introduce  a  new  religion,  or  at  least  new 
modes  of  faith  and  practice.  Of  these  it  may  be  truly  and 
emphatically  said  that  if  they  are  of  men^  i.  e.  of  human  ori 
gin,  they  must  eventually  co'ine  to  nought.  The  Greek  verb 
thus  translated  is  a  kindred  form  to  one  in  v.  36,  not  that 
rendered   brought  to  nought^  but  scattered.     The  essential 


ACTS  5,    38.  39.  287 

weaning  in  both  compounds  is  solution,  dissolution,  that  kind 
of  destruction  which  consists  in  or  arises  from  internal  sepa- 
ration or  disintegration,  such  as  the  ruin  of  the  temj)le,  in 
which  not  one  stone  was  to  be  left  upon  another,  and  to  which 
this  verb  is  applied  by  the  evangelists.  (See  Matt.  24,  2. 
Mark  13,2.  Luke  21,  6,  and  compare  Matt.  21,61.  27,40. 
Mark  14,  58.  15,  29.  2  Cor.  5,  1.  Gal.  2,  18.)  The  expression 
is  peculiarly  appropriate  to  that  internal  dissolution  which, 
even  in  the  absence  of  all  outward  force,  awaits  every  system 
of  religious  faith  which  has  a  merely  human  origin. 

39.  But  if  it  be  of  God,  ye  cannot  overthrow  it, 
lest  liaply  ye  be  found  even  to  fight  against  God. 

This  is  the  alternative  hypothesis,  which  he  suggests,  as 
no  less  possible  than  that  propounded  in  the  former  verse. 

Of  God  corresponds  exactly  to  of  men  in  v.  38,  and  therefore 
means,  proceedmg  from  him,  as  its  origin  or  source.  Cannot^ 
or  according  to  the  text  adopted  by  the  latest  critics,  will  not 
be  ahle^  the  future  form  suggesting  still  more  strongly  than 
the  present,  the  idea  of  remote  contingency.  The  parallelism 
of  the  verses,  and  of  Gamaliel's  suppositions,  is  partially  hid- 
den from  the  English  reader,  by  a  needless  variation  in  the 
rendering  of  the  same  Greek  verb,  the  overthrow  of  this  verse 
being  the  same  with  the  come  to  nought  of  that  before  it.  An- 
other various  reading  in  the  text  is  them  for  it^  which  seems 
sufficiently  attested,  but  has  no  material  effect  upon  the 
meaning,  as  it  merely  substitutes  the  men  themselves  for  their 
work  or  counsel.  Between  the  clauses  some  supply,  as  a  con- 
necting thought,  *  and  ye  ought  not  to  attempt  it,  lest  etc' 

Ye  he  found,  i.  e.  prove  unexpectedly  to  be  so,  as  the  same 
form  of  the  same  verb  means  in  Matt.  1, 18.  To  fight  against 
God  gives  the  sense,  but  not  the  form  or  the  peculiar  force 
of  the  original,  in  which  these  four  words  are  replaced  by  one, 
and  that  one  not  a  verb,  but  an  expressive  compound  adjec- 
tive {Godfighting,  or,  taken  absolutely  as  a  noun,  Godfight- 
ers.)  It  is  unknown  to  the  classics,  but  is  used  by  one  of  the 
old  Greek  translators  to  represent  a  Hebrew  word  for  giants^ 
which  he  probably  confounded  with  the  Titans  of  the  Greek 
mythology.  A  verb  compounded  of  the  same  elements  (^eo- 
fiaxeoj)  is  found  in  Euripides,  and  in  the  received  text  of  23,  9 
below.  Very  extreme  views  have  been  taken  of  this  speech 
and  of  its  author's  character  and  motives.     The  old  opinion. 


238  ACTS  5,  39.40. 

found  with  various  embellishments  in  several  early  writers, 
that  Gamaliel  was  a  Christian,  of  the  same  class  \vith  Nicode- 
mus  and  Joseph  of  Arimathea,  is  inconsistent  with  the  high 
position  which  he  has  maintained  in  the  tradition  of  the  Jews 
(see  above,  on  v.  34),  if  not  with  Paul's  allusion  to  him  as  his 
own  instructor  in  the  strictest  form  of  Pharisaical  religion  (see 
below,  on  22,  3.)  That  the  speech  itself  is  an  authoritative 
statement  of  the  true  principle  to  be  adopted  and  applied  in 
all  such  cases,  is  as  groundless  an  opinion  as  its  opposite,  to 
wit,  that  there  is  no  truth  at  all  in  the  doctrine  here  pro- 
pounded, but  only  a  sophistical  apology  for  temporizmg  unbe- 
lief. The  common  sense  of  readers  in  all  ages  has  avoided 
both  extremes  by  regarding  the  speech  as  an  argument  ad 
hominem^  designed  to  show,  and  actually  showing,  that  his 
hearers,  on  their  own  principles,  were  bound  to  take  the  course 
here  recommended,  as  a  matter  both  of  duty  and  of  safety. 
If  they,  as  conscientious  Jews,  believed  the  new  religion  to 
be  altogether  human  in  its  origin,  and  utterly  without  divine 
authority,  and  yet  could  neither  question  nor  explain  away 
the  miracles  by  which  it  was  attested,  they  were  bound  to  do 
precisely  what  Gamaliel  here  advises,  i.  e.  nothing  at  all.  The 
position  of  the  rulers  who  continued  to  reject  Christ  had  be- 
come extremely  difficult  and  dangerous.  Umv^illing  to  ac- 
knowledge him  as  the  Messiah,  yet  unable  to  refute  his  claims, 
or  to  deny  the  evidence  by  which  they  were  attested,  their 
only  safety  was  to  sit  still  and  observe  the  progress  of  events. 
A  resort  to  violence  was  full  of  peril  to  themselves,  and  yet 
on  this  the  council  seemed  resolved.  There  could  not,  there- 
fore, have  been  wiser  comisel,  under  the  circumstances  of  the 
case,  than  that  here  given  by  Gamaliel,  whether  prompted  by 
habitual  aversion  to  all  rash  and  hazardous  expedients ;  or  by 
jealous  opposition  to  the  Sadducees,  from  whom  the  proposi- 
tion came ;  or  by  a  secret  misgiving  that  the  new  religion 
might  be  true.    . 

40.  And  to  liim  tliey  agreed ;  and  when  tliey  had 
called  the  Apostles  and  beaten  them,  they  commanded 
them  that  they  should  not  speak  in  the  name  of  Jesus, 
and  let  them  go. 

To  him  they  agreed  might  seem  to  mean  that  they  were 
previously  of  the  same  opinion,  and  therefore  assented  to  it 


ACTS  5,  40.  41.  239 

as  it  "was  pronounced  by  him.  But  the  original  expression 
means,  tliey  were  persuaded  or  convinced^  and  implies  a  change 
of  mind  eifected  by  Gamaliel's  speech.  This  was  the  more 
remarkable  because  he  seems  to  have  been  one  of  the  minor- 
ity. (See  above,  on  vs.  34.  36.)  Whe7i  they  had  called^  etc., 
literally,  having  called  the  apostles^  having  beaten^  they  corn- 
indiided  them.  This  cruel  inconsistency  shows  the  perplexity 
to  which  they  were  reduced.  The  scourging  could  not  be  in- 
tended as  a  means  of  inquisition  or  discovery  (see  below,  on 
22,  24),  for  there  was  nothing  to  discover ;  but  only  as  a 
punishment,  too  light  if  they  were  guilty,  too  severe  if  they 
were  innocent.  This  kind  of  punishment  was  common  among 
the  Jews,  from  the  time  of  Moses  (Deut.  25, 1-3)  to  the  time 
of  Paul  (2  Cor.  11,  24),  who  seems  to  distinguish  between  dif- 
ferent forms  or  methods  of  infliction.  The  word  here  used,, 
which  properly  means  flaying^  denotes  the  severest  kind  of 
scourging.  This  punishment  was  also  thought  peculiarly  dis- 
graceful (rt/xojpta  aX^-^KjT-r],  as  Josephus  calls  it.)  Their  subjec- 
tion to  the  scourge  had .  been  explicitly  predicted  by  their 
Master  (Matt.  10,  17),  and  was  a  necessary  part  of  their  con- 
formity to  his  example  (Matt.  27,  26.  Luke  23,  6.)  Ordered 
not  to  speali^  as  in  4,  18,  where  the  terms 'here  used  have  been 
already  explained.  This  repetition  of  a  measure,  which  be- 
fore had  proved  entirely  ineifectual,  illustrates  the  degraded 
position  of  the  rulers,  while  the  scourging  shows  their  impo- 
tent mahgnity. 

41.  And  they  departed  from  the  presence  of  the 
council,  rejoicing  that  they  were  counted  worthy  to 
suffer  shame  for  his  name. 

So  then  {fxcv  ovv,  1,  6. 18.  2,  41)  they  departed  {iiropevovro,  1, 
10. 11.  25.  5,  20)  rejoicing  from  the  presence^  etc.  One  of  the 
Fathers  notes  it,  as  a  characteristic  of  the  first  disciples,  that 
they  are.  so  often  represented  as  rejoicing  under  circumstances 
naturally  suited  to  awaken  opposite  emotions  (see  below,  on 
13,  52,  and  compare  Luke  24,52.)  Counted  worthy  to  suffer 
shame,  a  beautiful  antithesis  (the  honour  to  be  dishonoured, 
the  grace  to  be  disgraced)  far  more  pointed  and  expressive 
than  the  famous  words  of  Seneca,  sometimes  quoted  as  a  paral- 
lel. (Digni  visi  sumus  Deo  in  quihus  experiretur  quantum 
humaiia  natura  pati  posset.)  For  his  name,  not  merely  for 
being  called  by  liis  name,  but  for  the  sake  of  all  that  it  im- 


240  ACTS  5,  41.  42. 

plies,  his  doctrine,  his  messiahship,  his  service,  his  divinity. 
The  oldest  manuscripts,  and  all  the  ancient  versions,  omit  his 
(avrov)^  not  only  without  loss,  but  with  advantage  to  the  sense, 
or  at  least  to  the  force  and  beauty  of  the  passage.  The  name 
is  then  used  absolutely,  like  the  word  (see  above,  on  4,  4),  and 
the  way  (see  below,  on  9,  2),  for  the  name  above  every  name 
that  is  named,  at  w^hich  every  knee  must  bow.  (Phil.  %  9. 
10.  Eph.  1,21.  Heb.  1,4.) 

42.  And  daily  in  the  temple,  and  in  every  liouse, 
they  ceased  not  to  teach  and  preach  Jesus  Christ. 

Besides  the  immediate  and  more  personal  eifect  of  this 
maltreatment  on  the  feelings  of  the  sufferers,  as  described  in 
the  precediag  verse,  the  historian  records  its  permanent  effect 
on  their  official  conduct,  namely,  that  they  did  precisely  what 
they  were  commanded  not  to  do.  To  make  this  prominent, 
the  terms  of  the  prohibition  are  repeated.  (See  above,  on  4, 
18.  5,40.)  Emry  clay^  both  in  the  temple  and  at  home,  in 
private  houses,  not  in  every  house,  which  would  be  an  inap- 
propriate and  gratuitous  hyperbole.  (See  above,  on  2,  4G.) 
Ceased  not,  as  might  have  been  expected,  and  as  they  had 
been  explicitly  commanded.  Teaching  and  preaching  are 
specifications  of  the  speaking  forbidden  in  v.  40.  They  may 
either  correspond  to  the  private  and  public  ministrations  pre- 
viously mentioned,  or  be  descriptive  of  all  their  ministrations, 
whether  public  or  j^rivate,  as  instructive  and  yet  cheering, 
communicating  truth  and  at  the  same  time  joyful  tidings  or 
good  news,  which  is  the  full  sense  of  the  verb  here  rendered 
preach,  whereas  the  other  verbs  so  rendered  elsewhere  simply 
mean  to  pubhsh  or  proclaim.  (See  above,  on  3,  24,  and  below, 
on  8,  5.)  The  one  here  used  sometimes  governs,  as  an  active 
verb,  the  persons  preached  to  (see  below,  on  8,  25.  40),  a  con- 
struction also  used  with  its  derivative  in  modern  English  {to 
evangelize  a  country  or  the  icorld),  but  not  when  the  accusa- 
tive denotes  the  subject  of  the  preaching,  as  in  8,  4. 12.  35, 
and  in  the  case  before  us,  where  the  Rhemish  version  violates 
our  idiom  by  its  slavish  imitation  of  the  Vulgate  {to  evcmgelize 
Jesus  Christ).  The  last  words  of  the  verse  are  to  be  under- 
stood as  in  2,  38.  3,  6.  20.  4,  10,  not  as  personal  names  but  as 
official  titles,  meaning  Savioicr  and  Messiah  ;  or,  as  in  2,  36, 
where  Jesus  is  the  subject  and  Christ  the  predicate — *  teach- 


ACTS  6,  1.  241 

ing  as  a  doctrine,  and  proclaiming  as  good  news,  that  Jesus  is 
the  Christ,'  i.  e.  the  anomted  and  predicted  Prophet,  Priest, 
and  King  of  Israel. 


CHAPTEE  yi. 


To  prepare  the  way  for  the  extension  of  the  Church,  a  differ- 
ence is  permitted  to  arise  within  it  (1),  in  consequence  of 
which  the  twelve  assemble  the  disciples  (2),  and  propose  a 
cure  for  the  existing  evil  (3.  4),  which  is  accordingly  applied 
by  the  appointment  of  seven  men  to  dispense  the  charities  of 
the  church  (5.  6.)  A  great  addition,  from  the  most  important 
class  of  Jews,  ensues  upon  this  measure  (7.)  One  of  the  seven 
is  involved  in  a  controversy  with  certain  foreign  Jews  (8-10), 
who  by  false  charges  rouse  the  populace,  and  arraign  him  be- 
fore the  Sanhedrim  as  a  blasphemer  and  a  traitor  to  the  Mo- 
saic institutions  (11-14.)  All  this,  with  the  account  of  his 
extraordinary  aspect  at  the  bar  (15),  is  introductory  to  his 
masterly  defence,  recorded  in  the  following  chapter. 

1.  And  in  those  days,  when  the  number  of  the  dis- 
ciples was  multiplied,  there  arose  a  murmuring  of  the 
Grecians  against  the  Hebrews,  because  their  widows 
were  neglected  in  the  daily  ministration. 

Those  days  is  an  indefinite  expression,  sometimes  relating 
to  an  interval  of  a  few  days  (as  in  1, 15),  sometimes  to  one  of 
many  years  (as  in  Matt.  3, 1),  but  always  implying  some  con- 
nection between  what  precedes  and  follows.  It  may  here  be 
understood  to  mean,  '  while  they  were  thus  engaged  in  preach- 
ing Christ '  (see  5,  42.)  The  disciples  rmdtiplying  is  the  lite- 
ral translation.  JDiseiples^  not  in  the  restricted  sense  of  apos- 
tles (Luke  6, 13),  but  in  the  wider  sense  of  learners^  pupils  in 
the  school  of  Christ,  a  favourite  expression  for  behevers,  con 
verts  to  the  new  religion  (sfee  below,  on  9,  26.)  Arose,  Kte- 
rally,  happened,  came  to  pass,  or  into  existence;  imj)]ying 
that  the  dissatisfaction  was  a  new  thing  and  subsequent  to  the 
increase  just  mentioned.     Murmuring  or  whispering,  any  sup- 

VOL.  I. — 11 


242  ACTS  6,  1.2. 

pressed  talking,  sometimes  indicative  of  fear  (John  Y,  12. 13), 
but  commonly,  as  here,  of  discontent  (Phil.  2, 14.  1  Pet.  4,  9^^ 
Gh^ecians  {Hellenists)^  not  Greeks  {Hellenes)^  but  Jews  using 
the  Greek  language  in  their  worship,  and  therefore  applied  to 
the  "vrhole  class  of  foreign  or  Greek-speaking  Jews,  as  distin- 
guished from  the  Hebreios^  or  natives  of  Palestine  and  others, 
who  used  the  Hebrew  scriptures,  and  spoke  the  Aramaic  dia- 
lect before  described  (on  1,  19.)  Between  these  races  there 
was  no  doubt  constant  jealousy  or  emulation,  although  no  real 
difference  of  faith  or  practice ;  and  this  party-spirit  many  seem 
to  have  carried  with  them  mto  the  Christian  Church  on  their 
conversion.  Widoics  are  often  specified  in  Scripture,  as  par- 
ticular objects  of  compassion,  both  divine  and  human,  and 
therefore  may  be  said  to  represent  the  whole  class  of  helpless 
sufferers.  (See  Ex.  22,  22.  Deut.  10,  18.  1  Tim.  5,  3.  4.  5.) 
But  here  no  doubt,  the  complaint  was  a  specific  one  respect- 
ing widows  in  the  proper  sense.  Neglected^  literally  over- 
looked^ not  necessarily  implying  ill-will  or  contempt,  but 
merely  such  neglect  as  might  arise  from  their  bemg  less  known 
than  the  natives.  The  jealousy  of  the  races  may  have 
prompted  the  complaint,  without  affording  the  occasion  for  it. 
Ministration^  dispensation,  distribution,  probably  of  food,  to 
which  the  Greek  word  properly  relates,  and  which  agrees  best 
with  its  being  daily.  The  charities  of  the  infant  church  were 
connected  originally  with  its  social  meetings  and  repasts  (see 
above,  on  2,  42,  and  compare  ISTeh.  8. 10),  although  no  doubt 
afterwards  extended,  as  occasion  served,  to  domiciliary  and 
pecuniary  aid.  This  verse  confirms  the  previous  conclusion, 
that  there  was  no  absolute  community  of  goods,  or  common 
sustentation-fund,  from  which  all  might  draw  alike. 

2.  Then  the  twelve  called  the  multitude  of  the  dis- 
ciples unto  (them),  and  said,  It  is  not  reason  that  we 
should  leave  the  word  of  God,  and  serve  tables. 

Then^  so,  Jnit,  or  and,  as  in  v.  1.  The  twelve,  now  com- 
plete  by  the  election  of  Matthias  (1,  26),  and  acting  as  an 
organized  and  organizing  body,  evidently  authorized  to  ma- 
ture the  constitution  of  the  church,  by  providing  for  emergen- 
cies as  they  arose.  The  one  before  us  being  of  a  popular  or 
social  nature,  they  refer  it  to  the  aggregate  body  of  beUevers, 
but  themselves  prescribe  the  mode  of  action;  thus  applying 


ACTS  6,  2.  3.  243 

and  exemplifying  two  great  principles  of  apostolical  cliurcli 
polity,  the  participation  of  the  people  in  the  government  of 
the  body,  and  its  subordination  to  divinely  constituted  officers. 
Galling  or  having  called^  i.  e.  summoned  or  convened  them 
in  the  presence  of  the  twelve.  The  multitude^  not  merely  a 
great  number,  but  the  whole  mass  or  aggregate  body  of  be- 
lievers, as  distinguished  from  its  subdivisions  and  from  the 
Apostles.  Disciples  has  precisely  the  same  meaning  as  in  v. 
1.  Not  reason^  literally,  not  pleasing^  acceptable,  agreeable, 
i.  e.  to  God  or  to  Christ,  and  to  us  as  his  vicegerents.  The 
idea  of  right  or  proper^  although  not  expressed,  is  necessarily 
implied.  That  we  should  leave  .  .  .  and  serve,  literally,  /br  us 
leaving  ,  .  .  to  serve.  The  word  of  God,  i.  e.  the  duty  of  dis- 
pensing and  proclaiming  it,  the  propagation  of  the  new  reli- 
gion (see  above,  on  4,  4.)  jServe  tables,  i.  e.  wait  upon,  attend 
them.  The  Greek  verb  is  the  one  corresponding  to  the  noun 
{ministration)  in  v.  1.  Its  being  here  combined  with  taUes 
shows  that  the  latter  is  not  to  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  money- 
tables,  counters,  banks  (which  it  has  in  Matt.  21,  12.  Luke  19, 
23),  but  in  that  of  dining-tables,  boards  at  which  men  eat  (as 
in  16,  34.  Mark  7,  28.  Luke  16,  21.)  There  is  no  reference 
to  what  we  call  communion-»tables,  except  so  far  as  sacra- 
mental and  charitable  distributions  were  connected  in  the 
practice  of  the  infant  church. 

3.  Wherefore,  bretliren,  look  ye  out  among  you 
seven  men  of  honest  report,  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
wisdom,  whom  we  may  appoint  over  this  business. 

Wherefore,  because  the  two  employments  are  thus  incom- 
patible, and  one  of  them  has  much  the  stronger  claim  on  us. 
brethren,  not  brethren  in  the  ministry  but  in  the  faith  (see 
above,  on  1,16.)  Look  out,  literally,  look  at,  visit,  or  in- 
spect, for  the  purpose  of  discovering  the  necessary  qualifica- 
tions. Among  you,  Hterally,  out  of,  from  among  you,  of 
yourselves,  belonging  to  your  body  (see  above,  on  3,  22.) 
3Ie7i,  not  in  the  vague  sense  of  persons,  but  in  the  specific 
sense  of  males,  not  women  (see  above,  on  4,  4.)  Seven  has 
been  variously  explained,  as  a  number  arbitrarily  selected,  or 
for  some  reason  of  convenience,  now  unknown ;  or  because 
seven  nations  are  supposed  to  have  been  represented  ;  or  be- 
cause the  church  was  now  divided  into  seven  congregations ; 
or,  most  probably  of  all,  because  of  its  sacred  associations. 


244  ACTS  6,  3.4. 

whicli  may  all  perhaps  be  traced  back  to  the  institution  of  the 
Sabbath,  by  the  consecration  of  one  day  in  seven  to  God's 
special  service.  (See  Gen.  2,  3.  T,  2.  3.  8,  10. 12.  41,  2.  Lev. 
23,  16.  25,  8.  Num.  23.  1.  Josh.  6,  4.  Job  5,  19.  Prov.  9,  1. 
Mic.  5,  5.  Zech.  3,  9.  4,  2.)  This  is  sufficient  to  account  for 
its  selection,  where  any  other  number  might  have  served  as 
well,  but  not  to  prove  it  necessary,  as  it  was  considered  after- 
wards, and  formally  declared  by  one  of  the  early  councils. 
Rome,  at  one  time,  we  are  told,  had  forty  presbyters  and  only 
scA^en  deacons.  Of  honest  report^  literally,  testified^  attested^ 
i.  e.  certified  by  others  to  be  what  they  ought  to  be  (see  below, 
on  lb,  22.  16,  2.  22, 12.)  Full  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  both  of  his 
ordinary  sanctifying  influences,  and  of  his  extraordinary  pre- 
ternatural endowments.  Wisdom,  not  merely  practical  skill 
or  professional  experience,  but  heavenly  prudence,  teaching 
how  to  act  in  all  emergencies.  We  may  appoint  (or  accord- 
ing to  another  reading,  wiU  appoifit),  place,  constitute,  estab- 
lish. (See  below,  on  7,10.27.35.  17,15.)  Business,  lite- 
rally, Qieed,  necessity  (2,  45.  4,  35.  20,  34.  28,  10),  or  neces- 
sary business,  implymg  a  present  and  particular  emergency. 

4.  But  we  will  give  ourselves  continually  to  prayer, 
and  to  the  ministry  of  the  word. 

But  we,  emphatically  (see  above,  on  4,  20),  we  on  our  part, 
as  distinguished  from  the  persons  thus  selected.  Prayer,  not 
personal  devotion  merely,  but  the  business  of  conducting  pub- 
lic worship,  as  the  ministry  (or  dispensation)  of  the  word  (see 
above,  on  v.  2),  evidently  means  the  work  of  preaching  or  pub- 
lic and  official  teaching.  Will  give  ourselves  continually  cor- 
responds to  one  Greek  verb,  the  same  that  occurs  above,  in 
1, 14.  2,  42.  46,  and  there  explained,  meaning  to  adhere  to  or 
attend  upon  a  person  or  a  duty.  We  have  here  the  apostol- 
ical decision  as  to  the  relative  importance  of  alms-giving  and 
instruction,  as  functions  of  the  ministry.  Whether  the  Apos- 
tles had  previously  discharged  both  and  now  relinquished  one, 
or  whether  they  should  here  be  understood  as  decUning  to 
assume  a  burden  which  they  had  not  borne  before,  there  is 
nothing  in  the  text  or  context  to  determine.  The  first  idea 
is  perhaps  the  one  conveyed  by  the  language  of  the  passage 
to  most  readers. 


ACTS  6,  5.  245 

5.  And  the  saying  pleased  the  whole  multittide: 
and  they  chose  Stephen,  a  man  full  of  faith  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  Phihp,  and  Prochorus,  and  Nicanor, 
and  Timon,  and  Parmenas,  and  Nicolas  a  proselyte  of 
Antioch ; 

Saying^  word,  discourse,  or  speech.  The  idea  of  plan 
or  proposition  is  implied  but  not  expressed.  Pleased^  lite- 
rally, pleased  before,  or  in  the  sight  of,  an  imitation  of  the 
common  Hebrew  idiom,  to  be  good  or  right  in  the  eyes  of  any 
one  (see  Gen.  41,  37.  45, 16.  1  Sam.  29,  6.  2  Sam.  17,  4.  1  Chr. 
13,4.  2  Chr.  30, 4.  Esth.  1,21.)  The  whole  multitude^  ap- 
parently without  exception  or  dissent,  which  seems  to  ,  show 
the  absence  of  mahgnant  jealousy  and  party-spirit.  Chose^  or 
as  the  Greek  verb  properly  denotes,  chose  out  for  themselves. 
(Sse  above,  on  1,  24,  where  the  same  form  is  apj)lied  to  the 
divme  choice.)  Faith  here  takes  the  place  of  wisdom  in  v.  3, 
not  because  the  words  are  synonymous  or  the  things  identi- 
cal, but  because  the  wisdom  there  meant  is  a  fruit  of  faith, 
and  therefore  something  more  than  secular  prudence  or  skiU 
in  business.  This  descrij^tion  is  not  applied  expressly  to  all 
the  seven  ;  for  then  it  would  have  had  the  plural  form  and  the 
last  place  in  the  sentence.  But  its  limitation  to  Stephen  does 
not  imply,  that  the  others  were  destitute  of  these  gifts,  which 
had  been  required  in  all  (v.  3) ;  nor  even  that  they  were  in- 
ferior, for  why  should  such  inequality  exist  in  men  appointed 
at  the  same  time  to  the  same  vv^ork  ?  The  true  explanation 
is,  that  this  whole  narrative  is  simply  introductory  to  Stephen's 
martyrdom,  and  he  is  therefore  singled  out  and  rendered 
prominent  among  the  seven,  not  only  in  this  general  descrip- 
tion, but  in  vs.  8-10.  Hence  it  appears,  moreover,  that  we 
have  not  here  a  formal  history  of  the  institution  of  an  office  in 
the  church,  but  at  most  an  incidental  notice  of  it,  as  the  occa- 
sion of  a  subsequent  discussion,  persecution,  and  diffusion  of 
the  gospel.  (See  below,  on  8, 1.  4.)  As  all  the  names  are 
Greek  names,  it  is  not  improbable  that  these  men  were  se- 
lected from  among  the  Hellenists,  to  silence  their  complaints ; 
either  by  a  generous  concession  of  the  Hebrews,  who  agreed 
that  this  whole  business  should  be  managed  by  their  foreign 
brethren ;  or  by  adding  seven  Grecians  to  the  Hebrew  almo- 
ners before  existing,  whose  official  action  had  been  called  in 
question.     The  inference  from  the  Greek  names  is  not  conclu* 


246  ACTS  6,  5.  6. 

sive,  as  many  Jews  had  double  names  in  that  age  (see  abovCj 

on  1,  23.  4,  36) ;  but  this  does  not  account  for  the  concurrenco 
of  so  many  Greek  names,  without  Hebrew  equivalents,  and  in 
connection  Avith  a  strife  between  the  races.  Nicolas  the 
proselyte  of  Antioch.,  literally,  the  Antiochean  proselyte^  or 
convert  from  Heathenism  to  Judaism,  and  now  to  Christianity. 
Some  have  inferred  from  this  description,  that  the  other  six 
were  Jeios  by  birth,  although  not  Hebrews^  in  the  sense  ex- 
l^lained  above  (on  v.  1) ;  others,  that  they  were  likewise  prose- 
lytes, but  of  Jerusalem  not  Antioch.  A  third  hy^^othesis,  that 
three  were  Hebrews,  three  Greeks,  and  one  proselyte,  is 
purely  conjectural  and  madmissible,  because  no  heathen  con- 
verts had  as  yet  been  directly  introduced  into  the  church  (see 
above,  on  2,  39,  and  below,  on  10,  34.  35.)  The  old  opinion, 
that  this  Nicolas  was  the  founder  of  the  Nicolaitans,  con- 
demned in  Rev.  2,  6. 15,  seems  to  be  a  mere  conjecture  from 
the  similarity  of  names,  and  in  the  absence  of  ail  proof  j  does 
gross  injustice  to  one  of  the  men  chosen  by  the  Church,  ap- 
proved by  the  Apostles,  ar.d  described,  at  least  by  necessary 
implication,  as  full  of  wisdom  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  Fhilip^ 
not  the  Apostle  (see  above,  on  1, 13),  who  was  one  of  those  to 
be  relieved  by  this  appointment,  but  another  person  of  the 
same  name,  who  becomes  conspicuous  in  the  sequel  of  the  his- 
tory. (See  below,  on  8,  5.  40.  21,  8.)  Prochorus^  Nicanor^ 
Timon^  and  Parmenas^  are  names  recorded  only  here. 

6.  AVhom  they  set  before  the  Apostles  :  and  when 
they  had  prayed,  they  laid  (theu^)  hands  on  them. 

8et^  placed,  caused  to  stand,  the  verb  translated  appointed 
in  1,  23.  In  both  cases  it  denotes  the  presentation  of  the  per- 
sons found  to  possess  the  prescribed  qualitications.  Election, 
m  the  proper  sense,  is  not  suggested  by  this  word,  but  expli- 
citly recorded  in  the  context  (v.  5.)  The  subject  of  this  verb 
is  the  collective  term,  the  onultitiide^  but  not  of  the  verbs  in 
the  last  clause ;  for  if  the  people  performed  all  the  acts,  the 
presentation  was  superfluous.  When  they  had  prayed^  lite- 
rally, having  prayed^  or  praying^  as  the  two  acts  were  most 
probably  performed  at  once.  That  of  prayuig  was  a  solemn 
recognition  of  their  own  dependence  on  a  higher  power.  The 
imposition  of  hands  is  a  natural  symbol  of  transfer  or  commu 
nication,  whether  of  guilt,  as  in  the  sacrificial  ritual  (Lev.  2,  2. 
8,  13),  or  of  blessmg  (Gen.  48, 14.  Matt.  1ft,  13.)     In  the  New 


ACTS  6,  6.  1.  247 

Testament,  we  find  it  accompanying  certain  signal  gilts,  aa 
that  of  bodily  healing  (Matt.  9,  18.  Mark  6,  5.  7,  32.  8,  23. 
16,  18.  Luke  4,  40. 13,  13),  that  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (Acts  8, 17. 
19,  6),  and  in  one  case  both  together  (Acts  9, 17.)  In  the 
case  before  us,  it  denotes,  not  only  delegation  of  authority, 
but  also  the  collation  of  the  special  gifts  required  for  its 
exercise.  This  might  seem  to  render  doubtful  the  propriety 
of  using  it  in  modern  ordiuations,  where  no  extraordinary 
gifts  are  thus  imparted;  but  even  when  performed  by  the 
Apostles,  it  was  only  as  a  sign,  without  intrinsic  efficacy  of  its 
own.  In  the  case  before  us,  it  has  even  been  disputed  whether 
the  act  was  that  of  ordination  to  a  permanent  office  in  the 
church,  or  only  that  of  designation  to  a  temporary  service, 
like  that  of  Barnabas  and  Saul  in  13,  3  below.  But  although 
the  title  deacon  is  not  used  in  this  passage,  nor  indeed  in  this 
whole  book,  yet  the  judgment  of  the  church  has  m  all  ages 
recognised  this  as  the  institution  of  that  office,  the  continuance 
of  which  ui  other  places  and  iu  later  times  is  inferred  from 
1  Tim.  3,  8. 12.  Phil.  1, 1.  Rom.  16, 1.  What  were  the  func- 
tions of  the  office  thus  created,  has  also  been  a  subject  of  dis- 
pute ;  some  inferring  from  the  circumstances  of  its  institution, 
that  its  only  work  was  that  of  charitable  distribution,  or  at 
most  of  secular  economy ;  while  others  argue  from  the  fact 
that  Stephen  preached,  and  Philip  both  preached  and  baptized, 
that  the  seven  deacons  were  already  ministers  when  called  to 
this  work,  or  that  the  diaconate  itself  was  only  an  inferior  de- 
gree or  order  in  the  Christian  ministry.  To  this  it  may  be 
answered  that  the  ministerial  acts  of  Philip  were  performed, 
not  as  a  deacon,  but  by  virtue  of  another  office,  that  of  an 
evangelist  (see  below,  on  21,  8) ;  and  that  Stephen,  if  he  really 
performed  such  acts  at  all,  may  have  performed  them  in  the 
same  capacity.     (See  below,  on  8,  5.  11,  30.) 

7.  And  the  word  of  God  increased ;  and  the  num- 
ber of  the  disciples  multipHed  in  Jerusalem  greatly ;  and 
a  great  company  of  the  priests  were  obedient  to  the 
faith. 

The  word  of  God  is  here  an  elliptical  expression  for  its 
effect  upon  the  minds  of  men,  in  the  way  of  conviction  and 
conversion,  and  its  increase  is  the  growth  or  enlargement  of 
the  church.  It  seems  to  be  implied,  thoi%h  not  explicitly  af- 
firmed, that  this  effect  was  promoted  by  the  measure  just 


248  ACTS  6,  7.8.      ' 

before  described,  the  ordination  of  the  seven  almoners  or  dea 
cons.  It  may  have  operated  thus  ia  two  ways ;  first,  by  allay- 
ing the  incipient  divisions  in  the  church  itself,  and  thus  re- 
moving one  chief  obstacle  to  its  advancement ;  then,  by  bringing 
into  public  view  and  into  contact  with  the  foreign  Jgavs  espe- 
cially, such  men  of  their  own  kindred  as  the  seven  must  have 
been.  Besides  the  general  description  of  uicrease  here  given, 
a  particular  accession  is  recorded,  from  the  most  important 
class  of  the  conmiunity,  the  Priests.  Some  have  thought  this 
incredible,  on  two  grounds ;  first,  on  account  of  their  peculiar 
zeal  and  obstinacy  as  opponents  of  the  Gospel ;  and  secondly, 
because  we  find  them  subsequently  active  as  its  enemies  and 
persecutors.  But  no  degree  or  kind  of  opposition  to  the  truth 
is  inaccessible  to  savmg  grace ;  and  if  there  were  above  four 
thousand  priests  at  the  return  from  the  captivity,  their 
number  must  have  been  so  great  noAV  that  a  crowd  might  be 
converted,  and  yet  leave  enough  to  carry  on  the  persecution. 
There  is  no  need  therefore  of  changing  JPriests  to  Jews,*\vhiGh. 
makes  the  phrase  almost  muneaning,  or  of  adopting  forced 
constructions,  e.  g.  '  a  multitude  beheved  (and  among  them 
some)  of  the  priests ' — or  '  a  rabble  of  priests '  (i.  e.  the  lowest 
members  of  the  priesthood.)  Were  obedient  to  (literally, 
obeyed)  the  faith,  i.  e.  submitted  to  the  Gospel,  as  a  system 
of  belief  and  practice.  (Compare  Paul's  similar  expression 
for  obedience  to  the  faith,  Rom.  1,  5.)  This  was  not  the  first 
time  that  great  numbers  of  the  most  mtelHgent  and  influential 
Jews  embraced  the  doctrine  of  the  Saviour.  (See  above,  on 
4,  13.)  It  was  no  doubt  one  of  the  means  used  to  prepare  for 
the  diffusion  of  the  Gospel  not  long  after.     (See  below,  on  8, 1.) 

8.  And  Stephen,  full  of  faith  and  power,  did  great 
wonders  and  miracles  among  the  people. 

That  the  growiih  of  the  church  mentioned  in  v.  7  was 
occasioned  or  promoted  by  the  appointment  of  the  Seven,  is 
confirmed  by  Luke's  returning  here  to  Stephen  and  continuing 
his  history.  JF'ull  of  faith  (or  according  to  the  latest  critics, 
grace)  and  power  is  a  third  variation  of  the  same  essential 
formula.  (See  above,  on  vs.  3,  5.)  Vtj  power  we  are  here  to 
understand  preternatural,  extraordinary  power,  as  appears 
from  the  remainder  of  the  verse.  Wonders  and  miracles,  or 
prodigies  and  signa^  are  two  of  the  descriptive  epithets  ap- 
plied to  miracles  before.     (See  above,  on  2, 19.  22. 43.  4,  30t 


'      ACTS  6,  8.  9.  249 

5,  12.)  This  is  the  first  instance  of  miraculous  performances 
by  any  one  not  an  Apostle  (see  below,  on  8,  6.  7),  and  may 
serve  to  illustrate  the  remarkable  position  occupied  by  Ste- 
phen, who  was  evidently  more  than  a  deacon  in  the  strict  and 
ordinary  sense.  Among  the  people^  literally,  in  the  people^  not 
as  mere  spectators,  but  as  subjects  and  recipients.  The  im* 
perfect  tense  {I-koUi)  refers,  not  to  a  point  of  time,  but  to  a 
longer  though  indefinite  period. 

9.  Then  there  arose  certain  of  the  synagogue,  which 
is  called  (the  synagogue)  of  the  Libertines,  and  Cyre- 
nians,  and  Alexandrians,  and  of  them  of  Cilicia  and  of 
Asia,  disputing  with  Stephen. 

Then  arose  certain^  or  more  exactly,  and  some  arose^ 
i.  e.  aj^peared,  came  forward,  and  addressed  themselves  to 
action.  (See  above,  on  1,15.  5,17.34.30.37.)  Some  of 
those  of  the  synagogue.  This  Greek  Avord  originally  means 
collection^  and  is  properly  applied  to  things,  but  in  the  Hel- 
lenistic dialect  to  persons  also,  like  our  English  meeting.  It 
;'s  frequently  applied  in  the  Septuagint  version  to  the  whole 
congregation  of  Israel,  as  an  aggregate  and  corporate  body. 
During  the  Babylonish  captivity,  it  seems  to  have  been  trans- 
ferred to  the  divisions  of  this  body,  in  their  separation  and 
dispersion,  and  more  especially  to  their  assemblies  for  religious 
worship.  After  the  second  great  dispersion  of  the  Jews,  oc- 
casioned by  the  Roman  conquest  and  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem, the  synagogues  assumed  the  form  of  organized  societies, 
with  a  peculiar  constitution  and  discipline,  from  which  that  of 
the  Christian  Church  is  commonly  supposed  to  have  been 
copied.  It  is  doubtful,  however,  whether  synagogues,  in  this 
later  sense,  existed  in  the  time  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles, 
when  the  word,  though  sometimes,  like  the  English  churchy 
school^  courts  etc.  transferred  to  the  place  of  meeting,  prop- 
erly denoted  the  meeting  itself,  not  as  an  organic  body,  but 
as  an  assembly  of  the  people  for  a  special  purpose.  In  Jeru- 
salem, where  multitudes  of  foreigners  were  gathered,  to  at- 
tend the  feasts  or  as  permanent  settlers,  it  was  natural  that 
those  of  the  same  race  and  language  should  convene  together, 
both  for  worship  and  for  social  intercourse  ;  and  this  accounts 
for  the  extraordinary  number  of  synagogues,  alleged  by  the 
Jewish  tradition  to  have  existed  in  Jerusalem  before  its  down* 

VOL.  I. — 11* 


250  ACTS  6,  9. 

fall  (480),  an  incredible  number  if  we  understand  by  syna« 
gogues  distinct  organizations  of  a  public  and  a  formal  nature, 
but  possible  enough  if  nothing  more  be  meant  than  gatherings 
of  the  people,  in  larger  or  smaller  circles,  for  religious  pur- 
poses. Of  such  synagogues  we  have  clear  traces  in  the  verse 
before  us  ;  but  how  many  are  here  mentioned,  is  a  subject  of 
dispute.  The  ambiguous  construction  of  the  sentence  allows 
us  to  suppose  either  one  or  five  such  bodies  to  be  here  referred 
to — i.  e.  the  synagogue  of  the  Libertines,  Cyrenians,  Alexan- 
drians, etc. — or,  the  synagogue  of  the  Libertines,  and  that  of 
the  Cyrenians,  and  that  of  the  Alexandrians,  etc.  Between 
these  extremes  lie  the  possible  hypotheses  of  three  synagogues 
(1.  of  the  Libertines,  2.  of  the  Cyrenians  and  Alexandrians, 
3.  of  the  Cilicians  and  Asians) — or  two  (l.  of  the  Libertines, 
Cyrenians,  and  Alexandrians  ;  2.  of  the  Cilicians  and  Asians.) 
Still  a  difierent  construction,  and  perhaps  the  simplest,  is  to 
connect  synagogue  only  with  the  first  name,  and  to  under- 
stand the  rest  of  individuals  belonging  to  the  nations  men- 
tioned. 'Some  of  the  (members)  of  the  synagogue  called 
(that)  of  the  Libertines,  and  (some)  Cyrenians  and  Alexan- 
drians, and  (some)  of  those  from  Cilicia  and  Asia.'  However 
the  question  of  construction  may  be  settled,  the  essential  fact 
affirmed  is  still  the  same,  to  wit,  that  the  opponents  of  the 
Gospel  here  described  were  chiefly  or  entirely  foreign  Jews, 
and  from  the  two  great  regions  of  North  Africa  and  Asia  Mi- 
nor. (As  to  Asia  and  Cyrene,  see  above,  on  2,  9. 10.)  Aleoo 
andrians^  inhabitants  of  Alexandria,  the  great  commercial 
city  of  Egypt,  founded  by  Alexander  the  Great,  and  under  his 
successors  inhabited  by  a  multitude  of  Jewish  colonists,  so  that 
it  became  the  chief  seat  of  Hellenistic  learning.  Cilicia  was 
the  south-eastern  province  of  what  v/e  call  Asia  Minor,  and 
the  native  country  of  St.  Paul,  who  was  born  at  Tarsus,  its 
chief  city.  (See  below,  on  9,11.30.  11,25.  21,39.  22,3.) 
Libertines  is  understood  by  some  to  be  a  national  or  geo- 
graphical name  like  the  rest,  either  put  by  an  error  of  the 
copyist  for  Libyans  (see  above,  on  2, 10),  or  denoting  the 
people  of  Lihertum^  a  city  of  Proconsular  Afi*ica.  But  as  all 
the  ancient  manuscripts  agree  with  the  received  text,  and  as 
Libertum,  if  it  then  existed,  was  too  obscure  to  be  largely 
represented  in  Jerusalem,  the  great  body  of  interpreters  iden- 
tity the  word  with  the  latin  libertini^  meaning  fi.'eedmen  or  the 
sons  of  emancipated  slaves,  and  suppose  it  to  denote  hero 
Roman  proselytes  of  that  class,  whom  Tacitus  describes  as 


ACTS  6,  9.  10.  11.  251 

numerous  in  Rome  itself,  or  the  sons  of  Jews  carried  captive 
into  Italy  by  Pompey  ^nd  afterwards  set  free.  Either  of 
these  is  much  more  probable  than  the  opinion,  that  these 
Libertines  were  slaves  set  free  by  Jewish  masters  and  residing 
at  Jerusalem,  where  they  formed  a  separate  sj-nagogue  or 
congregation,  either  from  necessity  or  choice.  The  moral 
sense  of  libertine^  as  meanmg  a  hcentious  liver,  is  of  later 
date.  (Compare  the  corresponding  difference  of  idiot  and 
despot^  in  ancient  and  modern  usage,  as  explained  above,  on 
4,  13.  24.)  Disputing^  or,  as  the  Greek  word  signifies  accord- 
ing to  its  etymology  and  classical  usage,  seeking  (or  inquiring) 
together^  but  in  the  New  Testament  always  with  an  implica^ 
tion  of  dissension  and  debate.  Arose  disputing  may  imply 
that  the  discussion,  which  at  first  was  private,  became  gene- 
rally known  and  public.  With  Stephen^  not  pei'haps  exclu- 
sively, but  only  as  the  first  and  best  known  of  the  seven  ;  or 
his  name  may  be  particularly  mentioned  for  the  reason  before 
given  (on  v.  5),  that  this  whole  account  is  introductory  to 
that  of  Stephen's  martyrdom  and  its  effect  on  the  condition 
of  the  church.  It  is  no  improbable  conjecture,  that  his  minis- 
try among  the  Christian  Hellenists  may  have  brought  him 
into  contact  and  collision  with  their  unbelieving  relatives  and 
friends.  The  subject  of  this  controversy  may  be  gathered 
from  the  following  account  of  his  arraignment  and  defence. 

10.  And  they  were  not  able  to  resist  the  wisdom 
and  the  spirit  by  which  he  spake. 

Another  fulfilment  of  the  promise  in  Luke  21,  15  (see 
above,  on  4, 14),  and  another  variation  of  the  formula  em- 
ployed above  in  vs.  3.  5.  8.  The  analogy  of  v.  3  here  pre- 
cludes the  vague  and  somewhat  modern  sense  of  spirit^  i.  e. 
energy  or  vigour,  as  well  as  the  more  genuine  but  lower  one 
of  intellect  or  sense,  and  requires  that  of  Holy  Spirit,  if  not  as 
a  person,  as  an  influence.  The  relative  {by  lohich)  agrees  in 
form  with  spirit  only,  but  in  sense  Avith  wisdom  likewise,  al- 
though our  idiom  would  use  diflerent  jDrepositions  to  denote 
the  two  relations.  He  spoke  with  wisdom^  for  he  spoke  by 
inspiration. 

11.  Then  they  suborned  men,  which  said.  We  have 
heard  him  speak  blasphemous  words  aganist  Moses, 
and  (against)  God. 


252  ACTS  6,  11.  12. 

Then^  in  the  proper  sense,  at  that  time,  or  after  what 
had  just  been  mentioned.  The^,  the  Libertines  and  Hel. 
lenistic  Jews,  whom  Stephen  had  vanquished  in  debate.  Sub' 
orned,  i.  e.  procured  indirectly  or  unfairly,  but  specially  ap- 
plied in  English  law  to  the  procuring  of  false  testimony.  The 
Greek  verb  means  both  to  substitute  (e.  g.  a  supposititious 
child),  and  to  suggest  or  prompt,  which  is  also  appropriate  to 
false  swearing.  Which  said,  literally,  saying.  The  Greek 
idiom,  which  prefixes  that  (ort)  to  the  words  quoted  or  re- 
peated, cannot  be  retained  in  English.  Speak,  literally,  speak- 
ing, talking.  Blasphemous,  in  Demosthenes  and  later  clas- 
sics, means  abusive  or  calumnious  (as  in  2  Pet.  2,  11.  2  Tim. 
3,  2),  but  in  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  is  specially  a|)- 
plied  to  railing  words  when  spoken  of  divine  things  or  of  God 
himself.  (See  1  Tim.  1, 13,  and  compare  the  cognate  noun  and 
verb,  blasphem^e  and  blasphem^y,  whi^h  are  of  frequent  use  in 
the  New  Testament.)  Against,  hterally,  to  or  toioards,  a  par- 
ticle which  indicates  the  subject  of  discourse,  the  idea  of  hos- 
tihty  being  suggested  by  the  context.  (See  above,  on  2,  25.) 
The  second  against  is  supplied  in  the  translation.  Moses  and 
God  is  not  an  irreverent  or  preposterous  inversion,  but  a  preg- 
nant combination,  which  may  be  thus  resolved  and  amplified, 
'  against  Moses,  our  great  legislator,  and  by  necessary  conse- 
quence, against  the  God,  whose  representative  he  was,  and 
from  whom  all  his  legislative  power  was  derived.'  Compare 
the  words,  "  it  seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Spirit  and  to  us," 
in  15,  28  below. 

And  they  stirred  up  the  people,  and  the  elders, 
«  ilie  scribes,  and  came  upon  (him),  and  caught  him, 
and  brought  (him)  to  the  council, 

..urred  up,  literally,  moved  together,  agitated  at  the  same 
ume,  in  reference  either  to  what  goes  before  or  follows.  If 
the  former,  the  verb  must  be  construed  with  the  remoter  sub- 
ject, those  Avho  procured  the  witnesses,  and  who  are  then  de- 
scribed as  adding  popular  agitation  to  subornation  of  perjury, 
as  a  means  of  destroying  Stephen.  If  the  latter,  the  subject 
of  the  verb  may  be  the  witnesses  themselves,  and  the  commo- 
tion mentioned  the  effect  of  their  misrepresentations.  Both 
{r-i)  the  people,  as  an  aggregate  body,  and  the  elders  and  the 
scribes,  as  its  representatives  and  rulers.  (See  above,  on  4,  5.) 
Came  upon  him,  unexpectedly  or  suddenly  (see  above,  on  4, 


ACTS   6,  12.  13.  14.  253 

1),  probably  while  engaged  in  teaching  or  discussion.  Caught 
him^  seized  and  carried  him  along  with  them,  as  the  Greek 
verb  properly  denotes,  being  appUed  in  the  classics  to  an  eagle 
and  a  storm.  To  the  council^  literally,  into  it,  i.  e.  into  the 
place  where  it  assembled  (see  above,  on  5,  2 '7),  or  into  the 
midst  of  the  assembly  itself. 

13.  And  set  up  false  witnesses,  which  said,  This 
man  ceaseth  not  to  speak  blasphemous  words  against 
this  holy  place,  and  the  law. 

And  also  (re)  set  up^  as  in  v.  6,  and  in  1,  23.  False  wit- 
nesses^ not  in  the  sense  of  mere  inventors,  fabricators,  or  gross 
liars,  but  in  that  of  unfair  and  perverse  reporters,  who,  even 
in  repeating  what  he  really  had  said,  distorted  it  and  caused 
it  to  produce  a  false  impression.  (Compare  Matt.  26,  59-62. 
Mark  14,  55-60.)  Which  said^  literally,  saying^  as  in  v.  11. 
This  man  is  perhaps  contemptuous;  but  see  above,  on  4,  17. 
18.  Ceaseth  not^  an  evident  exaggeration,  intended  to  aggra- 
vate the  charge  which  follows.  To  speah^  literally,  speaking. 
Blasphemous  is  omitted  by  the  latest  critics,  as  an  interpola- 
tion from  V.  11,  not  found  in  the  oldest  manuscrij^ts.  The 
sense  is  then  to  utter  words^  an  emphatic  equivalent  to  speak. 
Instead  of  Moses  and  God  (v.  11),  the  objects  of  the  blasphe- 
my are  here  described  as  this  (or  according  to  the  latest 
critics,  the)  holy  place^  i.  e.  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  or  more  pre- 
cisely, the  temple,  and  the  law^  i.  e.  the  theocratical  and  cere- 
monial system,  of  which  it  was  the  visible  heart  and  centre. 
(See  above,  on  4,  11.  5,  27.) 

14.  For  we  have  heard  him  say,  that  this  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  shall  destroy  this  place,  and  shall  change  the 
customs  (or  rites)  which  Moses  delivered  us. 

This  is  not  a  merely  formal  variation  of  v.  13,  but  a  more 
precise  specification  of  the  general  charge  recorded  there. 
'  He  is  guilty  of  that  charge,  for  we  have  heard  him  saying 
thus  and  thus.*  If  this  was  contemptuous  in  the  preceding 
verse,  it  is  doubly  so  here,  being  jomed  with  the  derisive  title, 
Jesus  the  Nazarene.  (See  above,  on  2,  22.  3,  6.  4,  10.)  De- 
stroy^ the  same  verb  that  is  used  above  in  5,  38.  39,  and  there 
eiplauied.     This  place^  the  temple  and  the  city,  as  in  v.  13, 


254  .  ACTS   6,  14.  15. 

A 

considered  as  the  centre  of  the  whole  Mosaic  system,  the  con 
geries  of  customs  (f^^^?),  rites,  or  rather  institutions,  which 
Moses  delivered,  revealed,  communicated,  by  divine  authority, 
to  be  handed  down  from  one  generation  to  another ;  which 
last  idea  would  also  be  suggested  by  the  Greek  verb,  as  the 
root  of  the  noun  meaning  tradition.  (Compare  Mark  7,  13, 
where  both  occur ;  and  for  a  very  different  sense  of  the  verb, 
see  above,  on  3,  13.)  This  charge  was  no  doubt  true  so  far 
as  it  related  to  the  doctrine,  that  the  new  religion,  or  rather 
the  new  form  of  the  church,  was  to  supersede  the  old.  Its 
falsity  consisted  in  the  representation  of  the  two  as  hostile  or 
antagonistic  systems,  and  of  the  change  as  one  to  be  effected 
by  coercion  or  brute  force. 

15.  And  all  that  sat  in  the  council,  looking  sted- 
fastly  on  him,  saw  his  faoj  as  (it  had  been)  the  face  of 
an  angel. 

All  that  sat,  literally,  all  the  (persons)  sitting.  In  the 
council  itself,  as  members  of  the  body,  or  m  the  council-cham- 
ber, as  spectators  ;  it  is  doubtful,  however,  whether  any  such 
were  present.  Looking  stedfastly  on  him  is  in  Greek  still 
stronger,  gazing  into  him.,  as  if  to  read  his  very  soul,  an  em- 
phatic expression  for  the  most  intense  and  eager  curiosity,  the 
same  phrase  that  is  used  above  in  1,  10.  3,  4,  and  below,  in  V, 
55.  13,  9.  This  clause  stands  first  in  the  original  {and  gazing 
at  him,  all  those  sitting  in  the  council  saw,  etc.)  As  it  had 
been,  literally,  as  if,  as  though,  without  a  verb  expressed.  In 
the  history  of  David,  he  is  four  times  compared  by  others  to 
an  angel  (or  the  angel)  of  God,  but  always  in  reference  to  in- 
tellectual or  moral  quahties,  his  goodness  (l  Sam.  29,  9)  or  his 
wisdom  (2  Sam.  14, 17.  20.  19,  27.)  An  analogous  comparison 
to  that  before  us,  but  still  stronger,  is  the  one  addressed  by 
Jacob  to  Esau  (Gen.  33, 10),  "  I  have  seen  thy  face,  as  though 
I  had  seen  the  face  of  God,  and  thou  wast  pleased  with  me." 
This  is  clearly  a  hyperbolical  descrij^tion  of  a  friendly  or  be- 
nignant countenance,  and  many  understand  the  words  before 
us  as  a  similar  description  of  the  calmness  and  serenity  ex- 
pressed in  Stephen's  looks.  It  seems  more  natural,  however, 
to  explain  them  of  a  preternatural  glow  and  brightness,  like 
the  shining  of  the  face  of  Moses  when  he  came  down  from 
Mount  Sinai  (Ex.  34.  29.)  In  either  case,  the  comparison  with 
an  angel  is  not  intended  to  convey  a  definite  idea  of  the  actuaj 


ACTS  7,  1.  2.  256 

appeai-ance — as  we  know  neither  how  an  angel  looks  nor 
whether  all  angels  look  alike — but  merely  to  suggest  the 
tliought  of  something  superhuman  and  celestial. 


CHAPTEIi  YII. 


This  chapter  contains  Stephen's  defence  before  the  council 
(1-53)  and  his  execution  (54-60).  His  defence  is  drawn  en- 
tirely from  the  Old  Testament  history,  and  is  designed  to 
show,  that  all  God's  dealings  with  the  chosen  people  pointed 
to  those  very  changes  which  Stephen  was  accused  of  having 
threatened.  This  he  proves  by  shomng,  that  the  outward 
organization  and  condition  of  the  church  had  undergone  re- 
peated change,  under  Abraham  (2-8),  Joseph  (9-16),  Moses 
(17-44),  David  (45-46) ;  that  the  actual  state  of  things  had 
no  existence  before  Solomon  (47)  ;  that  even  this  was  mtend- 
ed  from  the  beginning  to  be  temporary  (48-50) ;  and  lastly, 
that  the  Israelites  of  every  age  had  been  unfaithful  to  their 
trust  (9.  25.  27.  35.  39-43.  51-53.)  The  remamder  of  the 
chapter  describes  the  effect  of  this  discourse  upon  the  council 
(54),  Stephen's  heavenly  vision  (55.  56),  and  his  death  by 
stoning  (57-60). 

1 .  Then  said  the  high  priest,  Are  these  things  so  ? 

The  High  Priest,  as  president  of  the  council  and  chief 
magistrate  of  the  nation,  interrogates  the  prisoner,  as  when 
our  Saviour  was  crucified  (Matt.  26,  62.  Mark  17,  60.  John 
18,  19.)  The  verse  is  connected  in  the  closest  manner  with 
the  one  before  it  by  the  continuative  particle  (8e)  here  ren- 
dered then.  Are  these  things  so?  hterally,  whether  these 
{things)  so  have  (themselves)  ?  This  idiomatic  phrase,  equiva- 
lent to  are,  occurs  again  below  (17,  11.  24,  9.)  These  thi7igs, 
namely,  those  alleged  by  his  accusers  (6,  11.  13). 

2.  And  he  said,  Men,  brethren,  and  fathers,  heark- 
en. The  God  of  glory  appeared  unto  our  father  Abra- 
ham, when  he  was  in  Mesopotamia,  before  he  dwelt  in 
Charran, 


856 

To  the  phrase.  Men  (and)  Brethren^  used  by  Peter  (l,  26 

2,  29).  Stephen  adds  J^ithers,  either  to  distinguish  his  judges 
from  the  mere  spectators,  or  as  a  twofold  description  of  the 
tbrmer,  first  as  his  countrymen  or  fellow  Jews,  then  as  his 
superiors,  the  Senators  or  Conscript  Fathers  of  his  nation 
(see  above,  on  5,  21.)  The  same  form  of  address  is  elsewhere 
used  by  Paul  (22,  1),  perhaps  not  without  allusion  to  the 
speech  before  us,  of  which  other  recollections  have  been 
traced  iu  the  Apostle's  writings.  The  exhortation  to  IteoTj 
found  in  both  these  places,  and  also  in  the  introduction  to 
Paul's  speech  at  Antioch  iu  Pisidia  (13,  16),  seems  to  imply- 
that  something  mi^rht  be  said  which  would  offend  their  preju- 
dices, and  that  patience  would  therefore  be  required  on  then- 
part.  (See  above,  on  2, 14.  29.)  After  thus  bespeaking  their 
attention,  he  appeals  at  once  to  history,  not  for  the  ii^brma- 
tion  of  his  hearers,  whose  Jewish  education  and  tanuliarity 
with  Scripture  he  assumes,  but  simply  for  the  purpose  of  his 
argument.  As  his  first  object  was  to  show  the  outward 
changes,  through  which  the  church  or  chosen  people  had 
already  passed,  he  begins  with  the  event  from  which  it  de- 
rived its  separate  existence,  the  calling  of  Abraham.  77ie 
God  of  glory,  not  merely  the  glorious  God,  or  the  God  wor- 
thy to  be  glorified  (Ps.  29,  1.  Kev.  4,  11),  but  more  specifical- 
ly, that  God  who  sensibly  revealed  himself  of  old,  which  is  a 
standing  sense  of  glory  ("si-2,  8o^a)  iu  the  Old  Testament 
(e.  g.  Ex.  24,  16.  Isai.  6,  3.  Ps.  24,  7-10),  here  employed  by 
Stephen  iu  allusion  to  the  charge  of  blaspheming  Moses  and 
Jehovah  (6,  11.)  For  the  same  reason  he  caUs  Abraham  our 
father^  thus  professing  his  adherence  to  the  national  traditions 
and  associations  with  respect  to  their  great  foimder.  Ap- 
peared^ was  seen  (see  above,  on  2,  3),  may  denote  any  special 
and  direct  divine  communication,  but  is  properly  expressive 
of  such  as  were  conveyed  by  vision,  or  addressed  to  the  sense 
of  sight.  Tr/f6/i  he  icas^  Hterally,  heing.  Mesopotamia^  a 
term  of  physical  rather  than  political  geography,  denoting  the 
region  between  the  Tigris  and  Euphrates.  (See  above,  on  2, 
9.)  Like  other  ancient  names  of  this  kind,  it  is  used  with 
considerable  latitude.  Thus  Ammianiis  Marcellinus  mentions 
Ur  (of  the  Chaldees  or  Chaldea)  as  a  town  of  Mesopotamia, 
and  Josephus  makes  it  include  Babylonia  itself.  So,  too,  the 
poet  Lucan  calls  Charran  (Haran)  Assyrlas  Carras^  the 
scene  of  the  femous  defeat  of  Crassus.  This  confusion  of 
terms  arose,  no  doubt,  at  least  in  part,  from  the  want  of  defi- 


ACTS  7,  2.  3.  4.  257 

nite  boundaries.  There  is  therefore  no  nustake  here,  either 
in  geography  or  history,  as  some  have  alleged,  because  in  Gen. 
12,  1,  Abram  is  said  to  have  been  called  after  his  removal  to 
Haran.  But  even  admitting  the  pluperfect  form  of  the  Eng- 
lish version  there  {tfoe  Lord  Md  said)  to  be  inexact,  it  is  highly 
probable  (and  seems  to  be  at  least  implied  in  Gen.  15,  7.  Xeh. 
9,  7),  tliat  he  had  been  called  before,  and  thus  induced  to 
eave  his  native  country.  That  such  repetitions  of  the  divine 
communications  were  not  foreign  to  the  patriarch's  experience 
we  may  learn  from  Gen.  12,  3.  18,  18.  22, 18.  That  the  first 
call  is  not  explicitly  recorded  in  its  proper  f»lace,  is  not  sur- 
prising in  so  brief  a  history.  Upon  this  obvious  and  natural 
interpretation  of  the  narrative  iu  Genesis,  rests  the  Jewish 
tradition,  preserved  both  by  Philo  and  Josephus,  that  Abram 
was  t^-ice  called,  once  in  Ur  and  once  in  Haran.  Jjwdt^  or 
more  exactly  settled^  took  up  his  abode  (see  above,  on  2,  5.) 

3.  And  said  unto  him.  Get  thee  out  of  thy  country, 
and  from  thy  kindred,  and  come  into  the  land  which  I 
shall  shew  thee. 

These  words  are  from  the  Septuagint  version  of  Gen.  12, 
1,  the  foiTQ  in  which  Stephen  seems  to  have  adduced  them,  as 
he  was  probably  a  Hellenist  or  Greek  Jew  (see  above,  on  6, 
5),  and  that  language  was  no  doubt  ^miliar  to  his  judges. 
The  only  variations  from  the  SeptuagiQt  are,  that  he  omits 
the  [jhrase,  and  frora  thy  father^ s  hou^  as  being  really 
included  in  the  more  generic  one,  and  from  thy  kindred ;  and 
also  that  the  article  before  land  is  omitted  in  the  common 
text,  but  not  in  the  oldest  manuscripts.  Con\e^  in.  the  origi- 
nal, is  properly  an  adverb  (^etpo),  meaning  hsre  or  hitfier! 
sometimes  coupled  with  a  verb  of  motion  (as  in  Matt.  19,  21. 
Mark  10,  21.  Luke  18,  22),  sometimes  elliptically  used  without 
it  or  in  place  of  it  (as  here  and  in  John  11,  43.  Rev.  17,  1.  21, 
9.)  Ttoe  land  tcfdch  I  shaU  show  tfu&e  is  too  definite ;  the 
true  sense  is,  whatever  land  {rpf  av)  I  show  thee  (or  tn^iy  show 
tloee)^  implying  uncertainty,  and  therefore  strong  feith,  upon 
Abram's  part.  A  beautifril  comment  is  afibrded  by  the  last 
clause  of  the  parallel  passage  in  Heb.  11,  8,  "he  went  out  not 
knowinsc  whither  he  went." 

4.  Then  came  he  out  of  the  land  of  the  Chaldeans, 
and  dwelt  in  Charran:    and  from  thence,  when  his 


258  ACTS  7,  4.5. 

father  was   dead,  lie   removed   him  into   this   land^ 
wherein  ye  now  dwell. 

Then^  in  the  proper  sense,  as  a  particle  of  time,  meaning 
afterwards  or  next.  Gatne  he  out^  literally,  having  come  out, 
{Dwelt^  as  in  v.  1.)  Whe^z  his  father  was  dead^  or  more  ex- 
actly, after  his  father  died.  This  seems  to  contradict  the 
chronological  statements  of  the  Old  Testament,  that  Terah 
was  70  years  when  he  beg^at  Abram  (Gen.  11,26);  that 
Abram  was  YO  when  he  left  Haran  (Gen.  12,4);  and  that 
Terah  lived  to  be  205  (Gen.  11,  32),  i.  e.  60  years  after  the 
migration  of  Abram  into  Canaan.  The  difficulty  has  been 
variously  solved;  by  reading  (in  Gen.  11,32)  145  for  205, 
which  seems  to  be  a  mere  conjectural  emendation  of  the  Sa- 
maritan Pentateuch;  or  by  imderstauding  Stephen's  words 
of  Terah's  spiritual  death,  according  to  an  old  tradition  found 
in  Philo,  and  probably  founded  upon  Josh.  24,  2  (compare 
Judith  5,  6.  7),  that  Terah  in  his  old  age  apostatized  to  idola- 
try, so  that  Abram  was  justified  in  leaving  him,  although  he 
lived  long  after  and  died  in  Haran  (Gen.  11,  32) ;  or  far  more 
probably  than  either,  that  the  age  given  in  Gen.  11,  26,  is  that 
of  Terah  when  he  begat  his  eldest  son,  as  in  the  preceding 
genealogies,  and  that  Abram  was  not  the  eldest  son,  but  put 
first  on  account  of  his  great  eminence,  as  Napoleon  might  be 
named  first  in  a  fist  of  the  Bonapartes,  though  not  the  eldest. 
This  would  enable  us  to  fix  the  birth  of  Abram  at  such  a  dis- 
tance from  that  of  his  elder  brother  or  brothers,  as  would 
bring  his  seventy-fifth  year  after  the  natural  death  of  his 
father.  Either  of  these  possible  solutions  is  more  probable 
than  the  supposition  of  so  gross  an  error  on  the  part  of  Ste- 
phen. Wherein^  hterally,  whereinto^  into  which,  the  verb 
implying  previous  removal,  not  of  themselves  but  of  their 
fathers.  (See  the  same  construction  in  the  Greek  of  12,  19. 
Matt.  2,  23.  Mark  1,  39.)  Ye  is  emphatic  (see  above  on  4, 
20),  as  opposed,  not  only  to  their  fathers,  but  to  Stephen  him- 
self, as  a  Hellenist  or  foreign  Jew. 

5.  And  he  gave  him  none  inheritance  in  it,  no,  not 
(so  much  as)  to  set  his  foot  on :  yet  he  promised  that 
he  would  give  it  to  him  for  a  possession,  and  to  his 
seed  after  him,  when  (as  yet)  he  had  no  child. 

So  far  was  the  present  complex  and  imposing  system  from 


ACTS  7,  5.6.  269 

existing  in  the  timp,  of  Abram,  that  he  had  not  even  foot-hold 
in  the  land  as  a  possessor.  JSfone^  or  more  exactly,  not.  Bi- 
heritcmce^  property  which  he  could  transmit  to  his  heirs.  In 
it^  this  land,  just  mentioned  in  v.  4.  JSFo  not  is  a  single  word 
in  Greek,  meaning  simply  not  or  nor.  So  much  as  to  set  his 
foot  071,  literally,  a  foot-step,  or  a  stepping-place  for  his  foot. 
The  same  phrase  is  used  in  the  Septuagint  version  of  Deut.  2, 
5.  (Compare  Gen.  8,  9.)  It  is  here  put  for  the  smallest  space 
or  quantity,  without  regard  to  any  definite  measure.  (Tyn- 
dale,  Cranmer,  and  Geneva,  the  breadth  of  a  foot.)  But  how 
does  this  eonsisi/  with  Abraham's  purchase  of  a  hereditary 
burial  place  (Gen.  23,  20.  50,  13)  ?  We  may  understand  the 
words  to  mean  that  he  had  not  yet  given  him.,  or  still  more 
exactly,  did  not  give  him.,  i.  e.  in  the  first  years  of  his  resi- 
dence, the  smallest  portion  of  the  land  of  Canaan.  This  is  all 
that  was  necessary  for  Stej^hen's  purpose,  which  was  simply  to 
show  what  changes  had  already  taken  place  in  the  condition 
of  the  chosen  people  since  the  calling  of  Abraham.  His  later 
acquisition  might  be  reckoned  as  one  of  these  changes,  and 
would  therefore  rather  strengthen  than  impair  his  argument. 
Yet.,  Hterally,  and.,  which  is  here  equivalent,  however,  to  and 
{yet).  He  gave  him  none  of  it  at  first,  and  but  little  of  it  after- 
wards, but  promised  him  the  whole  for  his  descendants.  Pro- 
mised., insured,  or  assured,  which  is  the  full  force  of  the  original. 
That  he  looidd  give,  literally,  to  give.  For  a 2)ossession,  a  Greek 
v/ord  specially  appropriated  in  the  Septuagint  version,  to  the 
occupation  of  the  promised  land.  (See  Geu.  17,  8.  Num.  32, 
5,  and  compare  v.  45  below.)  Wlien  as  yet  he  had  7io  child, 
literally,  {there)  not  being  to  him  a  child,  is  added  to  enhance 
the  faith  of  Abram,  who  believed  a  promise  made  expressly  to 
his  offspring,  when  as  yet  he  had  none. 

6.  And  God  spake  on  this  wise,  That  his  seed 
should  sojourn  in  a  strange  land ;  and  that  they  should 
bring  them  into  bondage,  and  entreat  (them)  evil  four 
hundred  years. 

Having  given  the  substance  of  the  promise,  he  now  gives 
its  form,  or  rather  one  of  the  forms  in  which  it  is  recorded. 
The  citation  is  made  from  the  Septuagint  version  of  Gen.  15, 
13. 14,  with  a  few  unimportant  variations,  chiefly  in  the  order 
of  the  words.  On  this  wise,  an  old  English  phrase,  synony- 
mous with  in  this  way  or  manner.    The  original  is  one  word, 


260  ACTS  7,  6. 

meaning  so  or  thus.  Seed,  offspring  or  posterity.  /Should 
soJour?i,  literally,  shall  be  sojourning,  or  a  sojourner,  a  tempo- 
rary resident,  as  in  v.  29  below  (compare  the  verb  in  Luke  24, 
18.)  The  futm*e  belongs  to  the  direct  form  of  quotation,  in 
which  the  very  words  used  are  repeated,  but  the  third  person 
{his  seed)  to  the  indirect  form,  which  only  gives  the  substance. 
A  strange  land,  not  unknown,  but  foreign ;  not  their  o-s^m, 
belonging  to  others.  They,  i.  e.  the  land,  often  put  for  its 
mhabitants.  That  they  shoidd  bring  them  into  bondage 
(Wiclif,  make  them  subject  to  servage),  literally,  and  they  shall 
enslave  it,  (i.  e.  the  seed  of  Abram,  which  is  a  collective.)  En- 
treat them  evil,  or  in  modern  English,  treat  them  ill.  Here 
again  the  original  is  one  word,  corresponding  to  abuse  or  mal- 
treat. (See  below,  on  v.  19.  12,  1.  18, 10.  In  14,  2,  it  has  an 
intellectual  or  moral  sense.)  Four  hundred  is  a  round  number 
for  four  hundred  and  thirty,  and  is  so  used  likewise  by  Jo- 
sephus.  In  Ex.  12,  40.  41,  it  is  expressly  said  that  the  sojourn 
of  Israel  in  Egypt  lasted  430  years,  and  that  they  came  out  on 
the  very  day  when  the  430  years  were  completed.  But  Paul 
speaks  of  the  law  (Gal.  3,  17)  as  having  been  given  430  years 
after  the  promise  to  Abraham.  This  might  be  understood  to 
mean  at  least  so  long,  because  the  longer  the  interval  the 
stronger  the  Apostle's  argument.  But  as  this  does  not  ac- 
count for  his  using  that  specific  number,  and  as  the  genealogi- 
cal tables  seem  to  indicate  a  shorter  period,  a  better  solution 
is  to  understand  the  430  years  of  Ex.  12,  40  to  include  the 
previous  residence  in  Canaan,  as  weU  as  that  in  Egypt.  The 
difference  between  these  two  sojourns  being  merely  circum- 
stantial, and  the  main  idea  being  that  of  an  expatriated, 
homeless  state,  it  was  more  important  to  tell  how  long  they 
were  in  such  a  state,  than  how  much  of  this  period  was  spent 
in  Egy]3t.  This  is  a  possible,  though  not  a  very  obvious,  con- 
struction of  the  terms  used  in  Exodus,  which  may  be  under- 
stood as  meaning,  that  the  whole  period  of  exclusion  from  the 
actual  possession  of  the  promised  land,  including  both  their 
residence  in  Egypt  and  their  previous  nomadic  life  in  Canaan, 
was  430  years,  and  that  this  period  expired  on  the  day  of  the 
exodus  from  Egypt.  This  solution  is  at  least  a  very  old  one, 
being  found  not  only  in  Josephus,  but  in  the  Samaritan  text 
and  the  Septuagint  version,  both  which  add,  "  and  in  the  land 
of  Canaan,"  while  the  former,  and  a  very  ancient  copy  of  the 
lutter,  insert  after  Israel,  "  and  then-  fathers."  These  are  not 
to  be  regarded  as  independent  witnesses,  nor  as  exhibiting  the 


ACTS  7,  6.  7.8.  261 

true  text,  which  has  no  doubt  been  preserved  in  the  Masora, 
or  critical  tradition  of  the  Jews.  But  the  emendation  shows 
how  early  the  diificulty  was  perceived,  and  this  means  used 
for  its  solution. 

7.  And  the  nation  to  whom  they  shall  be  in  bond- 
age will  I  judge,  said  God :  and  after  that  shall  they 
come  forth,  and  serve  me  in  this  place. 

The  quotation  from  Genesis  is  here  concluded.  To  whom^ 
hterally,  to  whomsoever  (w  cav),  because  it  had  not  been  ex- 
pressly named.  As  if  he  had  said,  '  and  that  nation,  whatever 
it  may  be,  &c.'  See  above,  on  v.  3,  where  a  similar  expression 
(^1/  ay)  is  employed.  Shall  he  in  bondage^  or  shall  serve  as 
slaves^  is  the  translation  of  a  single  Greek  word,  differing  only 
in  a  single  letter  from  the  one  just  used  in  the  transitive  or 
active  sense  of  enslaving  or  bringing  into  bondage.  Will  I 
jiidge^  deal  justly  with,  do  justice  to,  and  as  a  necessary  con- 
sequence, imphed  but  not  expressed,  condemn  and  punish. 
Said  God  is  suppUed,  as  in  Peter's  quotation  from  the  Prophet 
Joel  (see  above,  on  2,  17),  to  remind  the  hearers  that  these 
words  were  still  those  of  a  divine  speaker  and  must  therefore 
be  fulfilled,  and  at  the  same  time  to  reUeve  the  syntax,  which 
was  somewhat  embarrassed  by  the  mixture  (before  mentioned) 
of  direct  and  indirect  quotation.  After  that^  literally,  after 
these  {things).  They  refers  to  the  remoter  antecedent,  the 
collective  phrase,  his  seed  fin  v.  6).  Gome  forth^  or  out  of 
Egypt.  And  shall  serve  (or  worship)  me  in  this  place  is  im- 
phcitly  contained  in  Gen.  15,  16  {they  shall  return  hither)^ 
though  the  form  of  expression  is  borrowed  from  a  promise 
made  to  Moses,  when  about  to  carry  into  execution  the  one 
made  to  Abram.  See  Ex.  3,  12,  ye  shall  serve  God  upon  this 
mountain^  i.  e.  Horeb  (v.  1),  for  which  Stephen  substitutes  in 
this  place^  an  expression  which  may  be  appHed  to  a  whole 
country,  as  when  Xenophon  says,  "this  place  was  called 
Armenia." 

8.  And  he  gave  him  the  covenant  of  circumcision  : 
and  so  (Abraham)  begat  Isaac,  and  circumcised  him 
the  eighth  day  ;  and  Isaac  (begat)  Jacob ;  and  Jacob 
(begat)  the  twelve  patriarchs. 


262  ACTS   '7,  8. 

Another  outward  change  was  the  subjection  of  the  chosen 
people  to  the  distmctive  rite  of  circumcision.  Abram  was 
called  and  justified  while  yet  uncircumcised  (compare  Rom.  4, 
10-12) ;  but  circumcision  afterwards  was  peremptorily  re- 
quired. He  gave  him^  i.  e.  God  gave  to  Abram.  Gave^  not 
merely  as  a  favor  or  a  privilege,  bat  as  a  duty  to  be  done,  a 
aw  to  be  obeyed.  Covenant^  originally,  disposition  or  ar- 
angement^  commonly  applied  in  the  classics  to  a  testamentary 
iisposition  of  one's  property,  a  last  will,  but  in  Scripture,  with 
he  probable  exception  of  Heb.  9,  16.  17,  to  a  mutual  arrange^ 
ment  or  agreement,  binding  on  both  parties.  A  covenant  of 
circumcision  may  be  either  circumcision  itself,  as  a  covenanted 
stipulated  rite,  or  a  covenant  of  which  circumcision  was  the 
sign  and  seal.  (See  Gen.  17, 10.  11,  where  both  these  ideas 
seem  to  be  expressed,  and  compare  Gen.  9, 12.)  aS'o,  i.  e.  ir. 
tliis  new  condition  or  relation,  under  this  new  covenant,  not 
as  an  ordinary  progenitor,  but  as  one  sustaining  a  peculiar 
federal  relation,  both  to  God  and  to  jDOSterity.  This  is  much 
better  than  to  make  it  a  connective  or  continuative  particle, 
equivalent  to  so  then  in  colloquial  narration,  which  is  other- 
wise expressed  in  Greek.  (See  above,  on  1,  6. 18.  2,  41.  5,  41.) 
The  emphatic  v/ord  is  not  hegat  but  circumcised^  as  if  he  had 
said,  '  aU  the  other  patriarchs  were  born  under  this  covenant 
of  circumcision.'  This  idea  is  obscured  in  our  translation  by 
repeating  the  first  verb  alone,  instead  of  repeating  both  {begat 
and  circumcised)^  or  neither,  leaving  the  reader  to  supply 
them  from  the  first  clause,  as  in  the  Rhemish  version  [Isaac 
Jacobs  and  Jacob  the  twelve  patriarchs) .  The  mere  genealogy 
or  lineal  succession  was  entirely  irrelevant  to  Stephen's  pur- 
pose, as  weU  as  perfectly  familiar  to  his  hearers.  The  mam 
idea  of  the  verse  is,  that  the  patriarchs  who  followed  Abraham 
were  all  born  under  a  covenant  or  dispensation,  which  had  no 
existence  when  he  was  himself  called  to  be  the  Friend  of  God 
(Isai.  41,  8.  James  2,  23)  and  the  Father  of  the  Faithful 
(Rom.  4,  1 1. 16.)  The  recital  of  these  sunple  and  familiar  facts 
IS  perfectly  unmeaning,  unless  intended  to  establish  Stephen's 
proposition,  that  the  outward  condition  of  the  chosen  people 
had  already  undergone  repeated  changes,  quite  as  great  as 
those  which  he  was  charged  with  blasphemy  for  having 
threatened.  Patriarchs^  founders  of  distinct  families  or  races. 
See  above,  on  2,  29,  and  compare  the  use  of  the  primittv© 
toun  elsewhere  (Luke  2,  4)  to  denote  the  lineage  o^JJa-v-id 


ACTS  7,  9.  263 

9.  And  the  patriarclis,  moved  with  envy,  sold  Jo- 
seph into  Egypt ;  but  God  was  with  him, 

The  next  important  change  in  the  condition  of  the  chosen 
race  was  the  migration  into  Egypt,  providentially  secured  by 
the  sale  of  Joseph  as  a  slave  there.  Stephen  dwells  on  the 
particulars  of  this  change  more  than  was  absolutely  necessary 
for  his  argument;  partly,  because  of  their  extraordinary 
character,  evincing  the  whole  series  of  events  to  be  the  exe- 
cution of  a  divine  plan  ;  but  also  for  the  purpose  of  suggesting 
an  analogy  between  Joseph's  treatment  by  his  brethren  and 
that  of  Christ  by  their  descendants.  Here  then  begins  an- 
other thread  of  the  discourse,  running  parallel  to  that  which 
we  have  thus  far  traced,  and  adding  to  the  proof  that  the  ex- 
isting state  of  things  was  not  immutable,  a  proof  derived  from 
the  same  source  that  Israel  had  always  been  unfaithful  to  his 
trust  and  his  advantages.  This  course  of  defection  and  rebel- 
lion is  here  tacitly  traced  back  to  the  treacherous  and  cruel 
conduct  of  the  sons  of  Jacob  toward  theii*  innocent  and  hel]> 
less  brother.  The  motive  assigned  is  not  indignation  (Tyn- 
dale,  Cranmer,  and  Geneva),  nor  mere  emulation  (Rheims), 
but  jealousy  and  envy.  (See  the  use  of  the  kindi-ed  noun  in 
5,  17  above.)  The  original  expression  is  a  single  word,  envy- 
ing or  having  envied.  Sold^  see  above  on  5,  8,  where  the 
same  verb  is  employed,  as  well  as  in  the  Septuagint  version 
of  the  history  of  Joseph  (Gen.  37,  27.)  Sold  into  Egypt  is  a 
pregnant  construction,  which  implies  (without  expressing) 
motion  or  removal.  The  very  same  construction,  both  of  verb 
and  noun,  occurs  m  the  Septuagint  version  of  the  passage  just 
referred  to  (Gen.  37,  36.)  But^  literally,  and^  but  with  a 
really  adversative  effect,  producing  an  antithesis  like  that  in 
2,  23.  24.  3,  14.  15.  4,  10.  5,  30,  between  divine  and  human 
treatment  of  the  same  person,  thus  confirming  the  existence 
of  a  typical  relation,  or  a  recognised  analogy,  between  the 
sufferings  of  Christ  and  Joseph.  The  suggestion  of  this  par- 
allel, however  slight,  was  really  equivalent  to  saying,  '  As  you 
nave  now  dealt  with  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  your  fathers 
dealt  with  the  deliverer  of  theu'  nation,  showing  even  then 
the  same  unthankful  and  rebellious  disposition  which  we  see 
in  you.'  God  was  with  him^  in  a  providential  sense,  as  his 
protector  and  preserver,  which  is  the  lower  of  the  two  ideas 
conveyed  by  the  prophetic  name  Immanuel  or  God  with  us 


264  ACTS  7,  9.  10.  11. 

(Isai.  7, 14.  Matt.  1,  23).  What  was  tine,  in  tliis  lower  sense, 
of  Joseph,  was  true,  and  in  the  highest  sense,  of  Christ. 

10.  And  delivered  him  out  of  all  his  afflictions,  and 
gave  him  favour  and  wisdom  in  the  sight  of  Pharaoh 
king  of  Egypt ;  and  he  made  him  governor  over  Egypt 
and  all  his  house. 

This  is  a  mere  amplification  of  the  last  clause  of  the  ninth 
verse,  showing  in  what  respect  or  what  sense  God  was  with 
him.  Delivered^  extricated,  plucked  out  (Matt.  5,  29.  18,  9.) 
See  below,  on  v.  34.  12,11.  23,27.  26,17.  Afflictions^  lite- 
rally, pressures^  straits,  distresses.     See  below,  on  v.  1 1.  11,19. 

14,  22.  20,  23.  Favour  and  wisdom^  i.  e.  gave  him  favour  by- 
giving  him  extraordinary  wisdom,  both  as  an  interpreter  of 
dreams  and  as  a  statesman.  This  wisdom  was  exhibited  he- 
fore  (over  against,  opposite,  in  presence  of)  Pharaoh.  The 
subject  of  the  last  verb  may  be  either  God  or  Pharaoh ;  but 
the  former  gives  a  more  striking  sense  by  making  Joseph's 
exaltation  altogether  a  divine  act.  Made  him  governor 
(Wiclif,  ordained  him  sovereign).  The  verb  means  properly 
to  set  down  in  a  place  (see  below,  on  17, 15),  then  to  set  %ip^ 
constitute,  appoint  (see  above,  on  6,  3,  and  below,  on  vs.  27, 
35.)  Governor.,  literally,  leader.,  or  still  more  exactly,  leading 
(ma7i),  chief  magistrate,  prime  minister  (see  below  on  14,  12. 

15,  22,  and  compare  Matt.  2,  6,  and  the  antithesis  in  Luke  22, 
26.)  This  last  idea  is  also  expressed  by  his  being  placed  over 
the  royal  household.     (See  below,  on  8,  27.  12,  26.) 

11.  Now  there  came  a  dearth  over  all  the  land  of 
Egypt  and  Canaan,  and  great  affliction  ;  and  our  fathers 
found  no  sustenance. 

He  now  relates  the  other  part  of  the  strange  providential 
scheme,  by  which  Joseph  was  made  the  means  of  bringing 
his  whole  family  to  Egypt.  Now,  and,  or  but,  the  usual  con- 
tinuative  (8e).  A  dearth,  a  famine,  a  destitution  or  deficiency 
of  food.  Came  over,  or  upon,  implying  not  mere  prevalence 
but  judicial  infliction  by  a  higher  power.  The  form  of  expres- 
sion is  closely  copied  from  the  original  history  (Gen.  41,  54. 
42,  5),  with  which  most  of  Stephen's  hearers  were  as  well  ac- 
quainted as  himself.     Our  fathers,  here  and  in  the  next  verse, 


ACTS  7,  11.  12.  13.  266 

has  been  thought  to  express  a  kind  of  sympathetic  feeling  for 
the  sufferings  of  the  patriarchs ;  but  it  is  rather  an  assertion 
of  the  speaker's  kindred  or  relation  to  his  hearers,  as  descended 
from  a  common  ancestry.  (See  above,  on  3, 13.)  Found  7io 
(literally  not^  or  did  not  find)  sustena7ice,  provisions,  victuals. 
The  Greek  word  is  plural  and  applied  in  the  classics  only  to 
the  food  of  cattle  (fodder),  which  sense  it  also  has  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint  version  (Gen.  24,  25.  32.) 

12.  But  when  Jacob  heard  that  there  was  com  in 
Egypt,  he  sent  out  our  fathers  first. 

J^ut  is  the  word  translated  now  in  v.  1 1 .  Jacob  hearing  (of) 
corn  being  in  Egypt  is  nearer  the  form  of  the  original.  Corn^ 
in  the  generic  sense  of  grain  or  bread-stuffs,  which  is  its  proper 
English  usage.  The  particular  reference  is  no  doubt  to  wheat, 
for  which  Egypt  was  flxmous  in  the  ancient  world,  and  with 
which  it  afterwards  supplied  Rome  itself.  (See  below,  on  27, 
6.  38.  28,  11.)  Sent  out^  sent  off  or  away,  the  compound 
Greek  verb  bemg  very  emphatic  and  conveying,  at  least  some- 
times, the  idea  of  an  authoritative  peremptory  sending,  almost 
equivalent  to  driving  out  or  off  (e.  g.  in  Luke  1,  53.  20,  10. 
11.)  But  in  other  cases  it  denotes  a  simple  mission,  or  at 
most  a  distant  one.  (See  below,  on  7,  30.  11,  22.  12,  11.  17, 
14.  22,  21.)  Our  fathers^  see  above,  on  v.  11.  Firsts  i.  e.  a 
fii'st  time,  implying  that  they  went  more  than  once,  and  that 
nothing  extraordinary  happened  till  their  second  visit. 

13.  And  at  the  second  (time),  Joseph  was  made 
known  to  his  brethren,  and  Joseph's  kindred  was 
made  known  unto  Pharaoh. 

At  the  second  {time),  or  in  the  second  (visit)  of  the  patri- 
archs to  Egypt.  Was  made  known  occurs  twice  in  this  one 
verse,  a  repetition  only  foimd  in  the  translation,  the  original 
expressions  being  altogether  different.  The  first  is  a  single 
word,  the  passive  of  a  Greek  verb  used  by  Plato  in  the  sense 
of  knowing  again,  recognizing.  (For  another  verb  expressing 
that  idea,  see  above,  on  3, 10.  4,  13.)  Ife  was  recognized  by 
(or  again  made  Jcnown  to)  his  brethren.  Although  used  in 
the  Septuagint  version  (Gen.  45,  l)  to  translate  a  reflexive 
verb  (he  made  himself  Jcnown),  it  is  not  itsejf  reflexive,  but  a 
simple  passive.  The  other  i^hrase  translated  icas  made  hnoxon 
VOL.  I. — 12 


266  ACTS  7,  13.  14. 

denotes  strictly  became  manifest^  i.  e.  was  discovered  or  dis- 
closed. Josepli^s  Idndred^  not  his  kinsmen,  but  his  descent, 
extraction,  race,  or  family^  considered  as  an  abstract  not  a 
concrete  term,  like  that  used  in  the  next  verse.  (See  above, 
on  4,  36.) 

14.  Then  sent  Joseph,  and  called  his  father  Jacob 
to  (him),  and  all  his  kindred,  threescore  and  fifteen 
souls. 

Then  sent  Joseph^  Gr.  and  Joseph  sending.  To  him  is  not 
expressed  in  Greek,  but  may  be  considered  as  included  in  the 
verb,  which  means  sent  for^  while  the  middle  voice  has  the 
usual  reflexive  meardng.  (See  below,  on  10,  32.  20,  17.  24, 
25.)  His  kindred^  or  according  to  the  oldest  manuscripts,  the 
kindred^  the  family,  in  the  concrete  sense,  as  denoting  persons. 
(For  the  corresponding  abstract  term,  see  above,  on  v.  13.) 
Threescore  and  fifteen  souls^  i.  e.  seventy-five  persons.  (See 
above,  on  2,  41.  43.  3,  23).  Omitted  in  our  version  is  the 
preposition  in^  which  stands  before  these  words  in  Greek,  both 
here  and  in  the  Septuagint  version  of  Deut.  10,  22.  Some 
suppose  it  to  be  put  for  a  Hebrew  prefix,  corresponding  both 
to  in  and  with.  Examples  of  the  latter  sense  are  found  in  Hel- 
lenistic Greek,  not  only  that  of  the  Apocrypha  (1  Mace.  1,  17. 
7,  28),  but  that  of  the  New  Testament  (Luke  14,  31).  But 
although  Jacob  might  have  been  sent  for  loith  seventy-five 
others,  how  could  this  be  said  of  the  whole  family  f  Another 
explanation  gives  to  in  the  same  sense  as  in  our  phrase  con- 
sistbig  in.,  i.  e.  composed  of  seventy-five  persons.  But  besides 
this  grammatical  question,  there  is  one  of  more  importance  in 
relation  to  this  clause.  The  nimiber  here  given  (75)  is  also 
found  in  the  Septuagint  version  of  Gen.  46,  27.  Ex.  1,  5,  and 
in  some  very  ancient  copies  of  Deut.  10,  22,  whereas  the  He- 
brew text,  in  all  these  places,  has  the  round  number  (70). 
This  difierence  has  been  variously  explained,  by  supposing  that 
though  only  seventy  went  down  vdth  Jacob,  Joseph  invited 
{called  for)  seventy-five,  the  supernumerary  persons  being 
three  wives  ot  Jacob  and  two  sons  of  Judah,  whom  Joseph  did 
not  know  to  be  dead ;  or  that  in  addition  to  the  66  mentioned 
in  Gen.  46,  26,  Stephen  reckoned  the  twelve  mves  of  Jacob's 
sons,  omitting  Judah's,  who  was  dead,  and  Joseph's,  who  was 
iu  Egypt,  as  well  as  Joseph  himself,  for  the  same  reason ;  or 
lastly,  that  in  Gen.  46,  20,  the  Septuagint  adds  the  sons  of 


ACTS  7,  14.15.  267 

Ephraim  and  Manasseh,  from  the  genealogy  in  1  Chron.  7, 
14-21,  while  the  Hebrew  text  omits  them,  because  not  born 
until  afterwards.  In  one  of  these  three  ways,  the  variation 
of  the  Septuagint  from  the  Hebrew  may  be  readily  accounted 
for.  Stephen's  adhering  to  the  former  may  be  then  explained, 
by  supposing,  either  that  he  quoted  the  most  current  and  fa- 
miliar version  without  alteration,  in  a  matter  of  so  little  mo- 
ment in  itself  or  in  relation  to  his  o^vn  immediate  purpose  ;  or 
that  he  spoke  in  the  language  of  the  country,  and  that  the 
quotation  was  recorded  in  its  present  form  by  Luke.  But 
this  last  would  only  shift  the  charge  of  error,  not  remove  it ; 
and  that  Stephen  spoke  most  probably  in  Greek,  see  above, 
on  V.  3  But  either  of  tliese  suppositions  is  more  reasonable 
than  that  Stephen  was  himself  mistaken,  or  that  the  Hebrew 
text  is  wrong,  and  that  he  meant  to  correct  it. 

15.  So  Jacob  went  down  into  Egypt,  and  died,  he, 
and  our  fathers  — 

The  sentence  is  completed  in  the  next  verse.  Stephen  now 
comes  to  the  critical  change  in  the  condition  of  the  chosen 
people,  for  which  vs.  9-14  were  a  preparation.  So  is  not  the 
same  Greek  word  as  in  v.  8  above,  but  merely  the  continuative 
particle  (8e),  so  constantly  occurrmg  and  so  variously  rendered, 
and  (v.  6),  now  (v.  11),  but  (v.  12),  then  (v.  14.)  Died,  lite- 
rally, ended  (sc.  his  life.)  This  elliptical  use  of  the  verb,  which 
is  the  only  one  found  in  the  New  Testament,  is  sanctioned  by 
the  usage  of  the  best  Greek  writers,  from  Herodotus  to  Xeno- 
phon.  He  aiid  our  fathers  connects  the  verb  died^  which  is 
singular  in  form,  with  Jacob's  sons  as  well  as  with  himself  A 
similar  construction  occurs  in  John  2,  12,  and  in  the  common 
text  of  Matt.  12,  3.  The  whole  clause  is  equivalent  to  saying, 
'  Jacob  went  down  into  Egypt,  and  so  did  our  fatkers^^  i.  e. 
his  sons,  the  patriarchs^  or  founders  of  the  twelve  tribes  of 
Israel.  (See  above,  on  v.  8.)  Went  doion  sometimes  denotes 
literal  descent  from  a  higher  to  a  lower  level,  or  at  least  from 
the  interior  to  the  sea-coast  (as  in  8,  26.  16,  8,  below).  In 
other  cases,  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  expression  is  thus  used, 
or  with  reference  to  the  moral  as  well  as  local  elevation  of  Je- 
rusalem (see  below,  on  24, 1.  22.  25,  6.  V.)  In  the  case  before 
us,  there  may  be  allusion,  either  to  the  physical  difference  be- 
tween Palestine  and  Egypt,  as  a  hilly  and  a  level  land  respect- 
ively ;  or  to  the  moral  difference  between  the  Holv  Land  and 


268  ACTS  7,  15.  16. 

any  heathen  country ;  or  to  both  these  pomts  of  dissimilitude 
together. 

16.  And  were  carried  over  into  Sychem,  and  laid 
in  the  sepulclire  that  Abraham  bought,  for  a  sum  of 
money,  of  the  sons  of  Emmor,  (the  father)  of  Sychem. 

•Carried  over,  transferred,  or  removed ;  a  compound  form 
of  the  verb  following,  laid,  put,  or  placed.  Sychem,  a  Sep- 
tuagint  form  of  the  Hebrew  Shechem  (Gen.  33, 18. 19.  34,  21). 
A  later  Aramaic  form  is  Sychar  (John  4,  5.)  The  Romans 
called  the  town  Flavia  Neapolis,  of  which  the  present  name, 
Nahlus  or  Nahulus,  is  an  Arabic  corruption.  In  the  time  of 
Christ,  it  w^as  already  a  chief  city  of  the  Samaritans,  and  has  so 
continued  ever  since.  Siepulchre,  memorial,  monument  (see 
above,  on  2,  29).  A  sum  of  money,  literally,  a  price  of  silver 
(see  above,  on  4,  34.)  Emor  or  JE'}nmor,  the  Greek  form  of 
the  Hebrew  Hamor  (Gen.  33,  19.  34,  2.)  The  Yulgate  and 
its  followers  supply  son  instead  of  father,  but  the  latter 
agrees  better  with  the  narrative  in  Genesis  (33, 19.  34,  2. 4. 
6.  8. 13. 18.  20.  24.  26.)  As  Jacob  was  buried  iu  the  cave  of 
Machpelah  at  Hebron  (Gen.  49,  30.  50,  13),  the  first  verb  in 
this  verse  must  refer  to  his  sons,  whose  place  of  burial  is  not 
designated  in  the  Old  Testament.  ('  Jacob  went  down  into 
Egyi^t  and  died  there,  and  so  did  our  fathers,  and  were  removed 
to  Shechem.')  It  is  highly  probable,  however,  that  their 
bodies  were  transported,  like  their  father's,  into  Canaan,  ex- 
cept Joseph's,  which  would  naturally  be  retained,  as  that  of 
an  Egyptian  ruler,  in  the  land  of  his  adoption  till  the  exodus. 
Another  reasonable  supposition  is,  that  they  were  all  removed 
together,  but  that  Joseph's  bones  alone  are  mentioned  (Ex. 
13,  19.  Josh.  24,32),  on  account  of  the  recorded  oath  (Gen. 
50, 25.)  It  is  far  less  improbable  that  these  facts  were  omitted 
in  the  history,  than  that  the  remains  of  the  eleven  patriarchs 
were  left  to  moulder  in  the  land  of  bondage.  This  conclusion 
is  confirmed  by  the  tradition,  both  of  the  Jews  and  early 
Christians,  that  all  the  sons  of  Jacob  were  buried  at  Shechem. 
Which  Abraham  bought  of  the  sons  of  Emor.  But  accord- 
ing to  Gen.  33, 19,  this  purchase  was  made  by  Jacob ;  whereas 
Abraham  had  bought  a  place  of  burial  n^ar  Hebron,  from 
Ephron  and  the  Hittites  (Gen.  23,  3-20.)  This  apparent  con- 
tradiction has  been  variously  explained,  by  reading  Jacob  for 
Abraham  f  or  by  omitting  Abraham,  and  construmg  the  verb 


ACTS  7,  16.  17.  269 

mth  Jacob  in  v.  15,  or  "s\dth  an  indefinite  subject  {ooie  hoiigJit 
it  =  it  was  bought),  both  which  emendations  of  the  text  are 
destitute  of  manuscript  authority ;  or  by  suj^posing  a  concise 
and  therefore  an  obscure  aUusion  to  both  purchases — '  which 
Abraham  (and  Jacob)  bought  of  the  sons  of  (Heth  and)  Em- 
mor ' — ;  or  by  admitting  a  confusion  of  the  two  transactions 
in  the  mind  of  Stephen,  who  was  not  an  inspired  historian. 
But  as  he  was  under  an  extraordinary  influence,  and  endowed 
with  extraordinary  spiritual  gifts,  including  that  of  msdom 
(see  above,  on  6,  3.  5.  8. 10) ;  and  as  Luke  has  preserved  his 
words  without  correction,  w^hich,  although  it  might  evince 
his  candor  and  veracity,  is  hardly  consistent  ^vith  his  task  as 
a  historian;  this  last  hypothesis  (that  Stephen  erred),  even  if 
admissible  in  case  of  exegetical  necessity,  is  far  less  natural 
and  probable  than  either  of  the  others.  With  respect  to  the 
concurrence  or  accumulation  of  supposed  inaccuracies  in  this 
one  verse  (as  to  Jacob's  burial,  that  of  the  Patriarchs,  and 
Abraham's  purchase),  so  far  from  proving  one  another,  they 
only  aggravate  the  improbability  of  real  errors  having  been 
committed  in  such  quick  succession,  and  then  gratuitously  left 
on  record,  when  they  might  have  been  so  easily  corrected  or 
expunged.  This  circumstance,  when  duly  weighed,  makes 
the  assumption,  even  of  unusual  constructions  or  of  textual 
corruptions,  however  improbable  on  general  grounds,  com- 
paratively easy.  In  all  such  cases,  it  is  necessary  to  consider 
the  difficulties  which  attend  the  supposition  of  mistake  or  con- 
tradiction, as  well  as  that  of  truth  and  consistency,  especially 
as  skeptical  critics  and  their  Christian  folloAvers  are  accus- 
tomed  to  look  only  at  one  side  of  the  question.  In  this  case, 
for  example,  it  is  easy  to  cut  the  knot  by  assuming  a  mistake 
on  Stephen's  part,  but  not  so  easy  to  account  for  its  being 
made  by  such  a  man,  addressing  such  an  audience,  and  then 
perpetuated  in  such  a  history,  without  correction  or  exposure, 
for  a  course  of  ages. 

17.  But  when  the  time  of  the  promise  drew  nigh, 
which  God  had  svvoni  to  Abraham,  the  people  grew  and 
multiphed  in  Egypt  — 

The  sentence  is  completed  in  the  next  verse.  We  Lave 
here  a  transition  from  the  times  of  Joseph  to  those  of  Moses, 
as  the  next  stage  in  the  progress  of  the  chosen  people. 
[But  =  so  in  V.  15.)      Wheii^  lit.  as,  the  Greek  word  being 


no  ACTS  7,  17.  18. 

elsewhere  always  expressive  of  resemblance  (see  above,  2,4, 
22)  not  of  tinie,  as  its  primitive  or  uncompounded  form  some- 
times is  (see  above,  on  1,10.  5,  24.)  Here  it  probably  means 
in  proportion  (or  according)  as^  and  intimates,  not  only  abso- 
lute increase,  but  a  progression  in  its  rate  or  ratio,  which 
agrees  well  with  the  obvious  unplication  in  the  history  (Ex. 
1,  7.  12.  20),  that  the  growth  of  Israel  in  Egypt  was  j^reter- 
natural,  if  not  miraculous.  The  time  of  the  promise  is  the 
time  that  had  itself  been  promised ;  or  the  promise  may  be 
put  for  its  f.iliilment.  (See  above,  on  2,  33.)  '-  Sioorn  (co/xo- 
o-ev),  or  according  to  the  latest  critics,  ^:)rom^5ec?,  agreed  ifijxo- 
X6yr](T€v).  There  is  no  oath  mentioned  in  the  passage  more 
immediately  referred  to  (Gen.  15,  ?  3);  but  there  is  in  the 
parallel  promise  (Gen.  22, 16).  According  to  Maimonides, 
every  divine  assurance,  such  as  that  in  Gen.  15,  13,  is  equiva- 
lent to  an  oath ;  and  such  a  sanction  is  undoubtedly  im|>lied 
in  every  covenant  or  stipulation  between  God  and  man.  The 
people^  not  yet  organized  as  a  nation,  but  preparing,  by  this 
very  increase,  to  become  one,  greio  and  multiplied^  or  more 
exactly,  loas  midtiplied^  the  active  and  passive  being  probably 
combined,  as  an  exhaustive  or  complete  expression  of  the 
whole  idea.  Or  j)erhaps  the  one  may  be  intended  to  express 
spontaneous,  natural  increase,  and  the  other  that  which  was 
extraordinary,  or  produced  by  the  immediate  act  of  God. 
Here,  and  throughout  this  whole  discourse,  the  speaker  is  not 
giving  a  historical  lesson,  but  reminding  his  hearers  of  the 
most  familiar  facts,  for  a  specific  purpose.  (See  above,  on  v. 
2.)  Having  shown  the  djvine  independence  of  all  outward 
forms,  by  reciting  the  extraordinary  changes  which  occurred 
in  the  experience  of  the  Patriarchs,  he  proceeds  to  show  the 
same  thing,  by  exhibitmg  the  still  more  startling  contrast  be- 
tween Patriarchal  freedom  and  Egyptian  bondage  on  the  one 
hand,  and  the  Mosaic  dispensation  on  the  other.  With  a  view 
to  this,  he  mentions  the  condition  of  the  people  while  in  bond- 
age, and  the  proiddential  means  by  which  the  next  change 
was  prepared  for  and  eventually  brought  about. 

18.  Till  another  king  arose,  which  knew  not  Jo- 
seph. 

The  sentence  is  completed  from  the  foregoing  verse.  Until 
is  not  to  be  mterpreted  exclusively,  i.  e.  as  meaning  that  the 
growth  then  ceased,  but  negatively,  i.  e.  as  meaning  merely 


ACTS   7,  18.  19.  271 

that  it  had  not  ceased  before.  '  This  process  of  increase  was 
still  in  operation,  when  a  new  king  arose^  etc'  This  verb 
does  not  imply  rebellious  usurpation  (see  above,  on  5, 17.  36. 
37.  6,  9),  nor  even  accession  to  the  throne,  which  is  suggested 
by  the  word  kmg  and  the  context,  but  appearance  m  the 
world  or  on  the  field  of  history.  Another  king^  not  only  nu- 
merically difierent,  but,  as  the  Greek  word  sometimes  means, 
diverse  in  kind  or  quality.  (See  above,  on  2,  4,  and  compare 
1  Cor.  14,21.  Mark  16,12.  Rom.  7,23.  Gal.  1,6.  James  2, 
25.  Heb.  7,  11, 15.  Jude  7.)  This  may  refer,  either  to  his  ig- 
norance of  Joseph,  or  to  his  being  of  another  house  or  dy- 
nasty, as  stated  by  Josephus.  Various  attempts  have  been 
made,  both  by  ancient  and  modern  writers,  to  identify  this 
"new  king"  (Ex.  1,  8),  but  without  success.  Who  knew  not 
Joseph  is  by  some  supposed  to  mean,  who  did  not  love  him  or 
regard  him,  or  remember  his  great  public  services,  as  reasons 
for  kmd  treatment  to  his  brethren  and  descendants.  But  no 
clear  example  can  be  cited  of  the  Greek  or  Hebrew  verb  in 
this  sense  (the  most  plausible,  1  Thess.  5, 12,  admitting  of  a 
strict  interpretation),  and  the  proper  one  is  perfectly  appro- 
priate, to  wit,  that  the  new  king  was  partially  or  wholly  igno- 
rant of  Joseph  and  his  public  measures,  either  from  lapse  of 
time  or  intervening  revolutions.  The  idea  of  hidifference  or 
enmity,  at  all  events,  is  not  expressed  by  this  phrase  {knew 
not),  but  suggested  by  the  context. 

19.  The  same  dealt  subtilly  with  our  kindred,  and 
evil  entreated  our  fathers,  so  that  they  cast  out  their 
young  children,  to  the  end  they  might  not  live. 

The  same,  or  this,  i.  e.  this  king  who  knew  not  Joseph. 
The  pronoun  refers  to  the  remoter  antecedent,  as  in  4,  11. 
Dealt  suhtilly,  outwitting,  circumventing,  by  the  use  of  indirect 
and  crafty  means  to  break  the  strength  of  Israel,  both  by  ex- 
cessive labor  and  by  promoting  the  exposure  of  their  children. 
The  Greek  verb  is  borrowed  from  the  Septuagint  version  of 
Ex.  1, 10.  Our  kindred,  family,  or  race,  as  in  4,  6  above,  and 
13,  26  below,  where  the  same  word  is  translated  stock,  as  it  is 
in  the  Rhemish  version  here  {circumventing  our  stock  ;  Wiclif^ 
beguiled  our  kin)  Moil  entreated,  or  in  modern  English,  ill 
treated,  maltreated,  persecuted.  (See  above,  on  v.  6.)  Our 
fathers,  as  in  vs.  12.  15  ;  compare  v.  2.  &o  that  they  cast 
out  makes  the  infanticide  the  mere  result  of  this  atrocious 


272  ACTS   7,   19.  20.21 

persecution,  while  the  Greek  seems  to  make  it  the  design  oi 
Pharaoh.  Cast  out  (or  ex2)ose)^  hterally,  tnade  exposed^  as  wo 
say,  made  known  and  the  like  (see  Matt.  12, 16.  John  7,  23.) 
To  the  end^  in  order  that,  implying  purpose,  either  that  of 
Pharaoh  in  oppressing  them,  or  that  of  the  oppressed,  in  their 
despair  desiring  to  exempt  their  children  from  the  sufferings 
which  they  felt  themselves.  Might  not  live,  literally,  be  pre- 
served alive  (as  in  Luke  17,  33  ;  compare  Mark  8,  35),  a  com- 
mon Hellenistic  meanmg  of  the  verb,  which  in  the  Classics 
denotes  procreation.  (See  the  Septuagint  version  of  Gen.  6, 
19.  Ex.  1,  17.) 

20.  In  which  tmie  Moses  was  born,  and  was  ex- 
ceeding fair,  and  nourished  up  in  his  father's  house 
three  months. 

As  the  word  translated  time  does  not  denote  a  period  but 
a  juncture  (see  above,  on  1,  7,  and  compare  3,  20),  it  might 
be  better  to  translate  the  phrase  here,  at  which  time,  i.  e. 
when  the  crafty  and  cruel  persecution  of  the  Israelites  by  the 
Egyptians  was  at  its  height.  It  was  at  this  crisis  in  the  histo- 
ry of  the  chosen  people,  that  their  great  deliverer  came  into 
the  world.  Exceeding  fair,  or  as  it  is  translated  in  the  mar- 
gin of  the  English  Bible,  fair  to  God,  which  is  variously  ex- 
plained to  mean  like  God  (divinely  fair),  a  common  expression 
in  the  classics ;  or  through  God  (made  so  by  him) ;  or  before  - 
God  (in  God^s  sight  or  estimation) ;  or  ^mi-^\j  very  fair,  as  an 
idiomatic  periphrasis  of  the  superlative,  of  which  other  exam- 
ples are  supposed  to  occur  in  1  Cor.  3,  6.  2  Cor.  1,  12.  10,  4. 
Col.  2,  19.  The  Greek  adjective  means  civic  as  opposed  to 
rustic  ;  then  urbane  or  polished ;  then  agreeable  or  pleasant ; 
and  then  beautiful,  or  rather  (according  to  Aristotle)  pretty^ 
as  applied  to  familiar  and  diminutive  objects.  In  Heb.  11,  23, 
the  same  word  is  rendered  proper,  in  the  old  English  sense  of 
fair  or  handsome.  Some  suppose  this  beauty  of  the  child  to 
have  been  supernatural,  as  an  indication  of  what  was  in  reserve 
for  him,  and  the  reason  of  his  being  concealed  three  months. 
Josephus  describes  him  as  "  divine  in  form,"  and  the  Roman 
historian  Justin  also  speaks  of  his  extraordinary  beauty.  The 
house  of  his  father,  i.  e.  Amram  (Ex.  6,  20.) 

21.  And  when  he  was  cast  out,  Pharaoh's  daughter 
took  him  up,  and  nourished  him  for  her  own  sou 


ACTS   7,  21.  22.  273 

"When  he  icas  cast  out  (or  exposed)^  in  Greek,  him  being 
exposed^  or  according  to  several  of  the  oldest  manuscripts, 
he  being  exposed.  One  old  version  adds,  by  his  people^  another, 
by  his  mother^  a  third,  along  (or  ^V^)  the  river^  wliicli  is  also 
found  in  several  Greek  manuscripts,  and  is  retained  in  Wiclif 's 
English  {put  out  in  the  flood)  Pharaoh's  daughter  is  named 
by  several  of  the  ancient  writers,  but  so  discordantly  as  to 
evince  that  the  names  are  fictitious  or  conjectural.  Toole  him. 
up^  not  out  of  the  water,  which  would  have  been  otherwise 
expressed  in  Greek,  but  rescued,  saved  him,  as  opposed  to 
his  exposure,  the  two  Greek  verbs  being  those  employed  in 
the  classics  to  express  the  same  two  acts.  JSFourished  up^ 
nursed,  brought  up,  the  active  form  of  the  same  verb  that  oc- 
curs in  the  preceding  verse.  For  her  oicn  so?^,  as  (or  to  be) 
a  son  for  herself.  This  last  idea  is  also  expressed  by  the  mid- 
dle voice  of  the  Greek  verb.     (See  above,  on  1,  2.  24.) 

22.  And  Moses  was  learned  in  all  the  wisdom  of 
the  Egyptians,  and  was  mighty  in  words  and  in  deeds. 

The  consequence  of  this  adoption  v»^as  an  education  such  as 
Moses  could  not  have  received  otherwise.  Learned  seems 
here  to  be  not  an  adjective  but  a  participle,  in  the  old  sense  of 
taught^  instructed^  which  is  the  meaning  of  the  Greek  verb. 
The  wisdom  of  Egypt  was  proverbial  in  the  ancient  world, 
being  rivalled,  in  the  general  estimation,  only  by  that  of  the 
East,  the  region  of  the  Tigris  and  Euphrates,  which  was  re- 
garded as  the  cradle  of  the  human  race,  and  the  fountain-head 
even  of  Egyptian  knowledge.  In  this  oriental  wisdom  Daniel 
was  instructed  (Dan.  1,4),  and  both  are  joined  in  describing 
that  of  Solomon,  which  "  excelled  the  wisdom  of  all  the  chil- 
dren of  the  East  country  and  all  the  wisdom  of  Egyj^t "  (l  Kings 
5,  10  ;  in  the  Enghsh  Bible,  4,  30.)  Philo  pretends  to  enume- 
rate the  branches  of  knowledge,  in  which  Moses  was  instruct- 
ed, includmg  astrology  and  magic,  but  coromits  a  gross 
anachronism  when  he  adds  that  the  rest  of  the  encyclopedia 
(or  circle  of  the  sciences)  he  learned  from  Grecian  teachers; 
whereas  even  Pythagoras  and  Plato  are  represented  in  the 
Greek  tradition  as  disciples  of  Egyptian  sages.  The  last  clause 
describes  the  effect  of  this  instruction  upon  Moses.  Mighty 
in  words  and  deeds  (or  as  the  oldest  manuscrij^ts  and  versions 
have  it,  his  deeds)^  is  supposed  by  some  to  be  at  variance  with 
bis  own  description  of  hmiself  as  "  slow  (»f  speech  "  (Ex.  4,  10) ; 

VOL.  I. — 12* 


2-ii  ACTS  7,  22.  23. 

to  remove  which  contradiction,  words  has  been  taken  in  the 
sense  of  writings,  doctrines,  laws,  predictions,  and  deeds  (or 
works)  in  that  of  miracles  or  military  feats,  such  as  Josephus 
ascribes  to  Moses  when  he  makes  him  the  conqueror  of  Ethi- 
opia. Another  solution  is  to  give  the  whole  phrase  a  pro- 
verbial sense,  as  meaning  strong  in  every  way,  in  theory  and 
practice,  ia  judgment  and  in  action,  as  Thucydides  describes 
Themistocles,  "most  able  both  to  say  and  do."  The  necessity 
of  all  these  explanations  is  removed  by  the  simple  observation 
that  the  passage  in  Exodus  relates  to  readiness  or  fluency, 
but  this  to  energy  and  force  of  speech. 

23.  And  when  he  was  full  forty  years  old,  it  came 
into  his  heart  to  visit  his  bretlnren  the  children  of  Israel. 

This  is  Tyndale's  version;  Wiclif  gives  the  first  clause 
more  exactly  {ivhen  the  time  of  forty  years  teas  filled  to  hhn) 
This  chronological  specification  is  nowhere  else  contained  m 
Scripture,  but  agrees  well  with  the  old  Talmudical  tradition, 
that  Moses  vras  forty  years  in  the  Egyptian  court,  forty  years 
in  the  land  of  Midian,  and  forty  years  with  Israel  in  the  desert. 
(See  below,  on  v.  30,  and  compare  Ex.  7,  7.  Deut.  34,  7.) 
Another  tradition,  of  inferior  authority,  assigns  him  twenty 
years  of  age  at  this  time.  Forty  years^  Gr.  a  time  of  forty 
years^  or  still  more  literally,  a  fm^ty-year  time.  'When  he 
was^  etc.,  Gr.  as  {this  time)  was  fulfilling^  or  in  modern  phrase, 
was  being  fulfilled,  i.  e.  was  drawing  to  a  close.  The  divine 
delay  in  fashioning  such  instruments  has  often  been  contrasted 
with  the  haste  and  impatience  of  corresponding  human  pro 
cesses.  Came,  literally,  came  up,  rose,  ascended,  a  favouriie 
expression  in  the  Septuagint  version  (e.  g,  Isai.  65,  17.  Jer.  3, 
16.  32,  35.)  The  subject  of  the  verb  is  not  a  noun  understood 
(such  as  plan  or  thought,  compare  Luke  24,  38),  but  the  verb 
to  visit,  which  in  the  New  Testament  has  a  very  pregnant 
meaning,  as  it  almost  invariably  (the  only  exception  being  that 
in  6,  8,)  means  to  visit  for  the  purpose  of  assisting  or  relieving, 
v/hether  the  action  be  ascribed  to  God  (Luke  1,  68.  78.  7,  16. 
Acts  15,^14.  Heb.  2,  6)  or  man  (Matt.  25,  36.  43.  James  1,  27.) 
The  unfavourable  sense  of  visiting  to  punish  prevails  in  the 
Old  Testament  (e.  g.  Ps.  89,  33.  Jer.  14, 10.)  The  most  ap- 
propriate  sense  m  this  place  is  the  primary  one  of  looking 
after,  which  implies  that  Moses  now  conceived  the  purpose, 
not  of  simply  going  to  see  his  brethren,  but  of  attending  to 


ACTS  7,  23.  24.  .    275 

their  interests,  becoming  their  i:)rotector ;  and  that  not  merely 
as  a  scheme  or  notion  of  his  own,  but  no  doubt  as  a  divine 
communication  or  suggestion,  wh,ich  "  came  up  into  his  mind 
(or  heart)." 

24.  And  seeing  one  of  them  suffer  wrong,  he  de- 
fended (him),  and  avenged  him  that  was  oppressed,  and 
smote  the  Egyptian. 

One  of  them^  literally,  some  {pne)^  or  a  certain  {man)^  as 
the  same  pronoun  is  translated  in  3,  2.  5,  1  above.  That  it 
was  one  of  the  Israelites  themselves,  is  assumed  as  perfectly 
well  known  to  Stephen's  hearers,  and  also  that  the  wrong-doer 
was  an  Egjq^tian.  This  confirms  what  was  said  above  (on  vs. 
2,  17),  that  he  is  not  communicatmg  information,  but  reason- 
ing from  familiar  facts.  Suffer  wrong^  literally,  wronged  or 
injured.  That  the  injury  consisted  in  blows  or  other  bodily 
violence,  is  probable,  but  not  afiirmed.  Defended^  literally, 
warded  off^  averted  from  one's  self;  but  the  use  of  the  middle 
voice,  in  the  sense  of  defending  others,  is  found,  though  rarely, 
in  the  purest  Attic  writers.  By  inserting  him^  the  English 
version  seems,  at  first  sight,  to  distinguish  between  him  that 
suffered  wrong  and  him  that  loas  oppressed ;  whereas  the 
Greek  construction  is,  defended  and  avenged  the  oppressed 
(o7ie.)  Avenged.,  however,  is  too  strong  a  word,  at  least  in 
modern  English,  to  express  the  Greek  phrase,  which  means 
properly  did  justice  to  (maintained  the  right  of)  the  oppressed. 
Compare  Luke  18,  7.  8,  where  avenge  is  equivalent  to  vindicate 
or  right.,  as  a  judicial  act.  The  strong  sense  of  the  same  word 
in  Rom.  12,  19.  Heb.  10,  30,  is  determined  by  the  context, 
both  in  the  original  and  the  quotation.  Oppressed.,  literally, 
worn  out.,  broken  down  by  hard  work  (see  a  kindred  form  in 
4,  2  above,  and  16,  18  below),  w^hich  may  here  refer,  not 
merely  to  the  struggle  which  Moses  witnessed,  but  to  previous 
maltreatment  and  oppressive  bondage.  And  smote.,  not  as  an 
additional,  distinct  act,  but  smitiyig.,  as  a  simultaneous  act, 
or  rather  as  the  mode  in  w^hich  the  act  of  defence  and  vindi- 
cation was  performed.  The  Greek  verb  m.eans  properly  to 
hnoclc  or  heat ;  then  to  wound.,  and  when  emphaticall)'  used 
(like  the  corresponding  Hebrew  word)  to  wound  mortally,  to 
kill,  which  is  expressly  recorded  by  Moses  himself  (Ex.  2,  12.) 
It  is  an  old  and  not  improbable  opinion,  that  the  Egyptian 
was  one  of  Pharaoh's  overseers  or  taskmasters,  by  whom  the 


276  ACTS  7,  24.  25. 

Israelitee  were  driven  to  their  work  (Ex.  5,  6. 10. 14),  and  that 
the  wrong  or  injury  here  meant  was  an  aggravated  case  of 
their  habitual  severity. 

25.  Tor  he  supposed  his  brethren  would  have  un- 
derstood, how  that  God  by  his  hand  would  deliver  them ; 
but  they  understood  not. 

By  inserting /br  and  the  auxiliaries  would  and  would  have, 
the  translation  seems  to  limit  what  is  here  said  to  the  single 
act  of  slaying  the  Egyptian,  either  as  one  justified  by  his  offi- 
cial mission,  or  as  a  sign  and  symbol  of  the  mission  itself.  But 
supposed  or  thought  (Wiclif,  guessed)^  being  in  the  imperfect 
tense,  denotes  continued  or  habitual  belief;  he  was  thinking, 
or  used  to  think,  before  he  did  this,  that  his  brethren  (or  ac- 
cording to  the  latest  critics,  the  hrelhreii)  understood  (did 
actually  know)  that  God^  by  his  hand  (i.  e.  the  instrumental 
agency  of  Moses)  not  would  deliver,  but  does  deliver,  i.  e. 
is  about,  or  has  begun  to  do  so,  the  speaker  throwing  him- 
self into  the  time  of  which  he  speaks,  and  using  such  ex- 
pressions as  Moses  himself  might  have  employed.  Deliver 
them,  Gr.  gives  to  them  deliverance  (or  salvatioii.)  Some 
suppose  their  not  understanding  this  to  be  here  represented 
as  a  fault  or  sin,  since  they  had  seen  so  many  proofs  of 
an  extraordinary  providence,  and  special  divine  purpose,  in 
the  life  of  Moses.  Others  suppose  the  fault  to  be  upon  the 
side  of  Moses,  who,  although  divinely  called  to  this  great 
work,  had  prematurely  entered  on  it,  before  the  people  had 
been  made  acquainted  with  his  high  vocation.  A  third  opinion 
is  that  there  was  fault  on  both  sides,  rash  zeal  and  revengeful 
f;er  on  the  part  of  Moses,  unbelief  and  stupidity  on  that  of 
•"rael,  to  punish  which  their  liberation  was  deferred  for  forty 
years,  and  Moses  sent  for  the  same  term  into  such  complete 
inaction  and  obscurity,  that  when  God  called  him  to  the  ac- 
tual discharge  of  his  important  functions,  he  refused  to  under- 
take it  (Ex.  3, 11.  13.  4,  1. 10. 13.)  The  allusion  to  the  failure 
of  the  ancient  Israel  to  recognize  their  temporal  deliverer, 
no  doubt  involves  one  to  the  still  more  fatal  error  of  their 
children  in  mistaking  and  disowning  the  Messiah.  As  if  he 
had  said,  *  Your  rejection  of  Christ  proves  nothing  with  respect 
to  the  truth  of  his  pretensions ;  since  your  fathers  for  a  time 
rejected  Moses.'  This  parallel  is  afterwards  suggested  still 
more  clearly  (see  below,  on  v.  35.) 


ACTS  7,  26.  2V7 

26.  And  the  next  day,  he  shewed  himself  unto 
them  as  they  strove,  and  would  have  set  them  at  one 
again,  saying.  Sirs,  ye  are  brethren  ;  why  do  ye  wrong 
one  to  another  ? 

This  is  the  proof  of  what  had  just  been  affirmed,  to  wit, 
that  the  people  did  not  recognize  him  as  the  great  deliverer 
whom  they  expected.  JSfext  day^  hterally,  coming  or  coming 
on^  ensuing,  following  (Wiclif,  the  day  suing))  It  is  joined  in 
like  manner  with  night  once  below  (23, 11),  and  several  times 
used  without  a  noun,  but  agreeing  mth  day  understood  (16, 
11.  20, 15.  21,  18.)  The  Hebrew  text  has  secorA  day  (Ex.  2, 
13),  in  reference  to  his  first  appearance  as  recorded  in  v.  25. 
(See  above,  on  v.  13.)  Shoioed  himself  to  them.,  literally,  loas 
seen  hy  them.,  the  same  form  of  expression  as  in  2,  3.  The 
context  shows  that  this  was  something  more  than  a  fortuitous 
appearance  or  encounter.  It  was  rather  a  deliberate  and  for- 
mal presentation  of  himself  in  a  public  or  official  character. 
The  conimon  version  therefore  {showed  himself  unto  them)  is 
correct  considered  as  a  paraphrase.  As  they  strove.,  literally, 
to  them  strimng  {quarreling  or  fighting.)  The  Greek  verb  is 
elsewhere  used  in  the  New  Testament  to  signify  a  war  of 
words,  disputing,  wrangling  (John  6,  52.  2  Tim.  2,  24.  James 
4,  2.)  But  as  the  Septuagint  frequently  applies  it  to  a  bodily 
struggle  or  contention  (e.  g.  Ex.  21,  22.  2  Sam.  14,  6),  it  is 
better  so  to  understand  it  here.  To  them  may  refer  to  the 
"two  men  of  the  Hebrews,"  mentioned  in  Ex.  2,  13,  and  here 
assmned  to  be  both  well  known  and  remembered  by  the  hear- 
ers (see  above,  on  v.  24)  ;  or  it  may  be  regularly  construed 
with  the  nearest  antecedent,  brethren.,  and  the  combatants 
supposed  to  represent  the  whole  mass,  because  suffi3red  so  to 
act  -without  constraint  and  hinderance,  or  because  they  were 
in  fact  congenial  spirits  and  fair  samples  of  the  general  body. 
Here,  as  in  v.  25,  the  would  have  of  all  the  immediate  Enghsh 
versions  weakens  the  sense,  which  is,  he  drove  them  together 
into  xnace.,  i.  e.  he  authoritatively  required  them  to  be  at 
peace,  by  virtue  of  his  office,  either  entered  on  before  the 
time,  or  disowned  by  the  people.  (See  above,  on  v.  25.)  Set 
them  at  one  again.,  i.  e.  reconciled  or  brought  together. 
Atonement.,  in  old  English,  denotes  reconciliation  (Rom.  5, 11.) 
Neither  eftbrt  nor  persuasion  is  expressed  by  the  verb,  but 
an  act  of  authority.  By  a  singular  coincidence,  the  same  verb 
i&  repeatedly  employed  by  Homer  (but  without  the  additiou 


278  ACTS  7,  26.  27. 

of  the  words  to  peace)  in  the  opposite  sense  of  setting  against 
each  other  or  causing  to  fight,  ^irs^  literally,  men^  gentlemen 
(see  above,  on  2, 14) ;  but  some  connect  it  Avith  the  next 
word,  so  as  to  mean  men-hrethren^  i.  e.  men  who  are  brothers, 
kinsmen,  countrymen,  and  of  the  same  rehgion.  This  was  a 
reason  both  for  not  fighting  and  for  not  provoking  others,  as 
suggested  in  the  follow^ing  question.  Why  (the  same  word 
as  in  4,  25  above)  do  ye  icrong  (or  treat  tmjustly)  one  another  f 
The  passive  j)articiple  of  the  same  verb  occurs  in  the  first 
clause  of  V.  24. 

27.  But  he  tliat  did  his  neighbour  wrong  thrust 
him  away,  saying,  Who  made  thee  a  ruler  and  a  judge 
over  us  ? 

The  first  words  imply  that  one  of  the  two  was  simply  act- 
ing in  self-defence  Hke  the  Hebrew  of  v.  24  (compare  Ex.  2. 
11.)  The  original  construction  is,  the  {one)  wronging  the 
neighbour.  This  last  word,  which  in  Greek  is  properly  an 
adverb  meaning  7iear^  and  vath  the  article,  the  (one)  near  (or 
9iext),  has  here  its  Scriptural  or  Hebrew  sense  of  fellow-man, 
but  probably  with  some  allusion  to  the  more  intimate  relation 
of  these  combatants,  expressed  in  the  preceding  verse  by 
brethren.  Thrust  him  away,  or  pushed  hun  back,  both  in  the 
literal  and  proper  sense  of  a  corporeal  movement,  and  in  the 
figurative  one,  v/hich  it  suggests  or  symbolizes,  of  rejecting 
with  disdain,  a  meaning  found  not  only  in  the  Septuagint 
version  (e.  g.  Jer.  6,  19.  Hos.  9, 17),  and  in  the  best  Greek 
wiiters  (such  as  Herodotus,  Thucydides,  and  Plato),  but  also 
in  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament  (Rom.  11,  1.  2.  1  Tim.  1, 
19),  and  in  this  very  book  (see  below,  on  13,  46.)  In  the  last 
clause  this  expressive  action  is  translated  into  words.  The 
question  is  equivalent  to  a  strong  negation,  or  at  least  to  a 
demand  for  his  authority,  like  that  addressed  to  Christ  (Matt. 
21,  23)  and  his  apostles  (see  above,  on  4,  7)  by  the  rulers  of 
Israel.  The  jealous  feeling  thus  expressed  is  the  same  that 
was  entertained  towards  Lot  in  Sodom  (Gen.  19,  9),  and  seems 
to  be  referred  to  by  our  Lord  in  decHning  all  judicial  inter- 
ference with  men's  property  or  secular  affairs  (Luke  12, 14.) 
Made,  constituted,  placed,  appointed,  as  in  v.  10  and  in  6,  3. 
Over  us,  precisely  the  same  phrase  that  occurs  in  1,  23  above ; 
but  the  latest  critics  change  the  case,  though  without  a  change 
of  meanmg.     Huler  and  judge  may  be  generic  and  specific 


ACTS   V,  27.  28.  29.  279 

terms  denoting  the  same  thing,  as  in  4,  5,  or  distinctive  terms 
for  what  would  now  be  called  judicial  and  executive  authority. 
(Wiclif,  v:ilio  ordained  thee  prince  and  doomsman  on  us  P) 
This  taunting  question  shows  that  Moses  was  regarded,  not 
as  a  mere  intruder  or  officious  friend,  but  as  asserting  some 
official  right  to  interfere  between  them.  And  as  this  agrees 
exactly  with  the  previous  narrative,  especially  with  vs.  23,  24, 
as  we  have  just  explained  them,  the  reproaches  cast  by  some 
uiterpreters  upon  the  angry  Hebrew,  for  putting  so  uncharitar 
ble  a  construction  on  an  act  of  simple  kindness,  are  entirely 
undeserved. 

28.  Wilt  thou  kill  me,  as  thou  didst  the  Egyptian 
yesterday  ? 

So  far  from  acknowledging  this  act  of  homicide  as  proving 
his  official  right  to  interfere,  he  taunts  him  with  it  as  an  act 
of  lawless  violence,  and  insinuates  a  charge  that  he  w^as  seek- 
ing to  repeat  it.  The  peculiar  form  of  the  interrogation  {[j-'^), 
and  the  emphatic  introduction  of  the  pronoun  (o-u),  make  the 
original  much  stronger  than  the  version,  and  almost  equiva- 
lent to  saying,  '  Surely  thou  dost  not-  mean  to  kill  me,  etc' 
The  verb  repeated  in  this  clause  is  the  one  translated  took  uj) 
in  V.  21  above,  but  here  used,  as  in  2,  23.  5,  33.  36,  in  the 
sense  of  despatchmg,  making  away  with,  or  destroying.  As, 
literally,  ichat  mamier^  the  idiomatic  phrase  employed  in  1, 11, 
and  always  denoting,  not  mere  general  resemblance,  but 
specific  similarity  of  form  or  circumstances  ;  so  that  there  is 
probably  a  covert  and  ironical  allusion,  not  only  to  the  fact 
that  he  had  killed  an  Egyptian,  but  to  the  circumstances  not 
here  mentioned,  though  recorded  in  the  Pentateuch  by  Moses 
himself  (Ex.  2,  12),  that  he  did  it  secretly  and  hid  the  body. 
As  if  he  had  said,  '  Perhaps  you  mean  to  murder  me  and  hide 
my  body  in  the  sand,  as  you  did  yesterday  to  the  Egyptian.' 

29.  Then  fled  Moses  at  this  saying,  and  was  a 
stranger  in  the  land  of  Midian,  where  he  begat  two 
sons. 

The7i^  and,  or  but,  as  in  the  two  preceding  verses.  The 
sense  oithen  (immediately  or  forthwith)  is  sufficiently  expressed 
by  the  following  phrase,  at  (literally  m)  this  saying^  i.  e.  in 
the  very  act  or  time  of  hearing  it.     When  it  is  said  (Matt, 


/ 


280  ACTS  7,  29.  30. 

12,41.  Luke  11,32),  that  the  Nmevites  repented  at  th€ 
preaching  of  Jonah,  the  idea  may  be  likewise  that  of  instanta* 
neons  or  simultaneous  action  ;  but  the  form  of  expression  dif- 
fers more  in  the  original  than  in  the  version.  'Was  a  stranger^ 
literally,  became  a  sojourner^  implying  change  as  well  as  actual 
condition,  and  suggesting  what  he  left  and  lost,  as  Avell  as 
what  he  found.  The  Greek  noun,  in  the  classics,  means  one 
who  dwells  or  settles  by  another,  but  in  Hellenistic  usage  ir 
apphed  specifically  to  domesticated  aliens  (e.  g.  Gen.  15, 13. 
Ex.  2,  22),  and  in  this  place  is  synonymous  with  Moses's  de- 
scription of  himself  as  "  a  stranger  in  a  strange  land."  The 
land  {of)  Madian,  being  without  the  article,  might  seem  to 
mean  a  land  (called)  JIadian,  but  for  the  like  expression  in 
V.  36  {J^and  of  Egypt)  ^  where  no  such  explanation  is  admissi- 
ble. Madian  is  a  sort  of  intermediate  form  or  compromise 
between  the  Hebrew  Midian  and  the  Greek  Madiam^  the 
name  of  one  of  Abraham's  sons  by  Keturah  (Gen.  25,  2),  also 
applied  to  his  descendants,  a  nomadic  tribe  who  roved  about 
the  desert  between  Moab,  Sinai,  and  the  Red  Sea,  and  are 
therefore  found  in  dififerent  and  distant  places.  (Compare 
Ex.  3, 1.  18,  5.  Num.  31,  2.  Judg.  6,  1.)  The  last  clause 
means  that  though  he  Still  felt  himself  a  stranger,  he  was  so 
far  settled  and  domesticated  among  these  people,  as  to  be  a 
husband  and  a  father.  (Compare  Ex.  2,  21,  22.  4,  20.  18, 
1-6.) 

30.  And  when  forty  years  were  expired,  there  ap- 
peared to  him,  in  the  wilderness  of  Mount  Sina,  an 
Angel  of  the  Lord,  in  a  flame  of  fire  in  a  bush. 

This  translation  of  the  first  clause  is  found  in  all  the  Eng- 
lish versions  except  Wiclif^s,  who  retains  the  true  sense  of  the 
verb  {filled)^  though  not  the  original  construction,  which  is 
that  of  the  genitive  absolute,  forty  years  having  been  fulfilled 
(or  completed.)  See  above,  on  v.  23,  and  2,  1.  This  marks 
<he  close  of  another  period  of  forty  years  in  the  history  of 
Moses.  Tlie  wilderness  of  Mount  Sinai  is  the  jdesert  tract, 
through  which  extends  the  mountainous  range  of  JSoreb. 
This  is  the  distinction  made  by  the  highest  modern  geogra- 
phical authorities,  although  tradition  recognizes  Horeb  and 
Sinai  as  northern  and  southern  peaks  of  the  same  mountain. 
This  tradition  seems  to  have  arisen  from  the  fact  that  Moses, 
in  his  farewell  discourse,  no  longer  designates  the  scene  of  his 


ACTS   1,  30.  31.  32.  281 

divine  legation  by  its  proper  name  of  Sinai^  as  lie  does  in  the 
earlier  books,  but  applies  to  it  the  general  name  of  Horeh. 
(Compare  Ex.  19,  11.  18,  20.  23.  24,  16.  34,  4.  29.  32.  Lev.  7, 
38.  25,  1.  26,  46.  27,  34,  with  Deut.  1,  6.  4,  10.  15.  15,  2.  18, 

16.  29,  1.)  Appeared  to  him^  literally,  was  seen  hy  him^  as  in 
V.  26  and  2,  3.  An  angel  (or  according  to  the  Hebrew  idiom, 
the  anget)  of  the  Lord^  see  above,  on  5,  19.  This  is  ex- 
plained by  certain  modern  interpreters  to  mean  some  natural 
object,  such  as  a  bush  struck  by  hghtning  and  instantly  ex- 
tinguished ;  by  some  Christian  writers,  an  extraordinary  sensi- 
ble impression  of  God's  presence ;  by  others  a  created  angel ; 
but  by  most  interpreters  in  every  age,  the  second  person  of 
the  Godhead,  even  then  appearing  as  the  revealer  of  the 
Father  (Matt.  11,  27.  Luke  10,  22.)  A  flame  of  fire  is  in 
several  of  the  oldest  manuscripts,  as  in  the  Septuagint  version 
of  Ex.  3.  2,  afire  offlame^  i.  e.  according  to  a  well-knoT^Ti  He- 
brew idiom,  a  flaming  fire.  In  a  bicsh,  literally,  of  a  bush, 
which  gives  the  whole  phrase  an  exceedingly  peculiar  form, 
although  the  sense  is  clear. 

31.  When  Moses  saw   (it),  he  wondered  at  the 

sight,  and  as  he  drew  near  to  behold  it,  the  voice  of 

the  Lord  came  unto  him. 

The  original  construction  is,  and  Moses  seeing ....  and  he 
approaching.  Admired  (or  wondered  at)  the  sight,  either  in 
the  simple  sense,  as  denoting  an  object  of  vision,  or  in  the 
stronger  one  of  a  supernatural  spectacle,  as  in  9,  10. 12.  10,  3. 

17.  19.  11,  5.  12,  9.  16,  9.  10.  18,  9,  from  which  it  will  be  seen 
that  this  is  one  of  Luke's  favourite  expressions,  being  found 
elsewhere  only  in  Matt.  17,  9.  To  behold,  or  rather  to  observe, 
i.  e.  more  closely  than  he  could  while  at  a  distance.  (See  be- 
low, on  11,  6.  27,  39,  and  compare  Matt.  7,  3.  Luke  6,  41.  12, 
24.  Heb.  3,  1.  James  1,  23.  24.)  Came,  literally,  became,  or 
came  into  existence,  became  audible,  precisely  as  in  2,  5  above. 

32.  (Saying),  I  am  the  God  of  thy  fathers,  the  God 
of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of 
Jacob.     Then  Moses  trembled  and  durst  not  behold. 

Some  of  the  oldest  manuscripts  and  versions  omit  the 
name  of  God  before  Isaac  and  Jacob.  The  form  is  then  the 
same  as  in  3, 13  above.     In  either  case  it  is  a  solemn  claim  to 


282  ACTS  7,  32.  33. 

be  the  God  who  covenanted  with  the  Patriarchs,  and  accord 
ing  to  our  Saviour's  own  interpretation  (Matt.  21,  32),  was 
still  their  God  as  living  spirits,  one  day  to  be  reunited  with 
their  bodies.  This  was  probably  the  first  divine  communica- 
tion to  Moses  since  his  flight  from  Egypt.  (See  above,  on  v. 
25.)  Trembled^  literally,  becoming  tremulous,  a  natural  sign 
of  fear.  (See  below  on  16,  29,  and  compare  Heb.  12,  21.) 
Behold^  look,  observe,  as  in  v.  31. 

33.  Then  said  the  Lord  to  him,  Put  off  thy  shoes 
from  thy  feet,  for  the  place  where  thou  stand^st  is  holy 
ground. 

Then  said^  and  said,  so  said,  as  m  vs.  29.  32.  The  Lord 
to  him^  Gr.  to  him  the  Lord.  Put  off^  ht.  loose^  untie  (as  in 
Mark  1,  7.  Luke  3,  16.)  Thy  shoes,  Ut.  thy  sole  (or  sandal), 
any  thmg  bound  under  the  foot.  The  smgular  form  is  applied, 
as  a  collective,  to  both  shoes,  like  the  French  chaussure, 
meaning  shoes  and  stockings,  or  whatever  is  worn  upon  the 
feet.  From  thy  feet,  or  rather,  of  thy  feet,  belonging  to  them, 
or  now  on  them.  The  Syriac  version  has  '  the  land  (or  ground) 
on  which  thou  standest  is  holy.'  The  holiness  was  moveable 
and  temporary  (except  as  a  matter  of  memory),  arising  from 
the  momentary  presence  of  Jehovah.  The  expression  of  rev- 
erence or  awe  by  uncovering  the  feet  is  very  ancient,  being 
enjomed  by  Pythagoras  ("Unshod  sacrifice  and  worship  "), 
who  had  probably  learned  it  in  Egypt.  (See  also  Josh.  5,  IV.) 
The  ground  of  it  is  not  clear,  as  it  can  scarcely  have  been 
transferred,  as  some  imagine,  to  God's  presence  fi'om  the 
floors  of  palaces  or  private  houses,  even  supposing  that  the 
custom  there  existed.  As  the  same  thmg  is  expressed  among 
ourselves  by  uncovering  the  head,  it  may  be  a  mere  accidental 
habit  or  association.  The  most  probable  solution  perhaps  is, 
that  it  symbolized  the  putting  away  of  all  impurity,  to  which 
the  feet  are  pecufiarly  exposed  in  walking  (compare  John  13, 
10),  more  particularly  in  the  East,  where  the  Mahometans  still 
leave  their  slippers  at  the  entrance  of  their  mosques.  From 
Juvenal's  alluding  to  this  custom  in  connection  with  the  Sab- 
bath, it  would  seem  to  have  been  known  to  him  only  as  a 
Jewish  practice.  Though  not  explicitly  enjoined,  it  is  implied 
in  the  silence  of  the  law  as  to  any  covering  of  the  feet,  amidst 
such  particular  directions  as  to  head-dress  and  other  parts  of 
the  sacerdotal  costume.     Chrysostom  points  out  Stephen's 


ACTS   7,  33.  34.  283 

tacit  argument  against  the  perpetuity  and  absolute  necessity 
of  the  temple,  from  the  holiness  ascribed  to  any  place  where 
God  chose  to  reyeal  himself. 

34.  I  have  seen,  I  have  seen,  the  affliction  of  my 
people  wliich  is  in  Egypt,  and  I  have  heard  their  groan- 
ing, and  am  come  down  to  dehver  them.  And  now 
come,  I  will  send  thee  into  Egypt. 

The  literal  translation  of  the  first  words  is,  Seeing  I  have 
seen,  a  form  of  expression  much  more  frequent  in  Hebrew 
than  in  Greek,  though  found  in  both,  the  very  same  verb  being 
so  used  by  Lucian  (tScby  etSov)  and  Arrian  (iScbv  oTSa.)  It  may 
either  be  intensive  ('I  have  indeed  seen'),  or  may  suggest 
the  additional  idea  of  distinctness,  frequency,  duration,  or 
the  like.  (See  above,  on  4, 17,  where  the  form  is  sunilar, 
but  not  the  same.)  Afflictw?i,  or  more  exactly,  02^2^'essio7i, 
maltreatment,  the  noun  corresponding  to  the  verb  used  in  v. 
6.  19  above,  and  in  12, 1.  18,  10  below.  I}Iy  peo2?le,  belonging 
to  me,  although  not  yet  formally  organized  as  such,  nor  fully 
conscious  of  our  mutual  relation.  Which  is  in  Egypt,  ht. 
the  {one)  in  Egypt,  as  distinguished  from  all  others.  Groan- 
ing (or  sighing)  under  their  oppressions,  whether  addressed 
to  God  as  a  complaint,  or  uttered  merely  as  a  natural  expres- 
sion of  distress.  A^n  come  doion,  or  more  exactly,  came 
doicn,  from  heaven  which  is  God's  throne  (Isai.  66,  1.  Matt. 
5,  34)  i.  e.  became  visible  on  earth.  God  is  often  represented 
as  coming  down  to  see  for  himself  before  he  punishes.  (See 
Gen.  11,  5.  18,  21,  and  compare  Ps.  144,  5.)  To  deliver,  see 
above,  on  v.  10,  and  below,  on  12,11.-23,27.  26, 17,  in  aU 
which  cases  the  same  verb  is  used.  And  now,  since  this  is  so, 
as  in  3,  17  above,  and  10,  5.  13, 11.  20,  22.  25.  22, 16  below. 
Come,  or  retaining  the  original  adverbial  form,  here  !  hither  ! 
(See  above,  on  v.  3.)  I  will  send,  or  according  to  the  oldest 
copies  extant,  let  me  send,  the  same  form  being  used  in  the 
Sej)tuaguit  version  of  Ex.  3,  10.  The  explanation  of  the 
aorist  subjunctive  as  a  future,  although  sanctioned  by  Greek 
usage,  is  unnecessary  here,  where  a  proposition  is  at  least  as 
natural  as  a  peremptory  order. 

35.  This  Moses,  whom  they  refused,  saying.  Who 
made  thee  a  ruler  and  a  judge  ?  the  same  did  God  send 


284  ACTS   V,  35. 

(to  be)  a  ruler  and  a  deliverer,  by  the  hands  of  the  An 
gel  which  appeared  to  him  in  the  bush. 

The  repetition  of  the  pronoun  this  is  highly  emphatic,  both 
here  and  in  the  beginning  of  the  next  three  verses ;  but  it 
does  not  mean  this  great  onan^  which  is  as  arbitrary  as  to 
make  it  constantly  expressive  of  contempt.  (See  above,  on  6, 
14.)  Refused^  denied  to  be  what  he  was,  i.  e.  a  messenger 
from  God  (see  above,  on  v.  27.)  The  refusal  of  the  one  man 
was  virtually  that  of  all ;  for  all  were  of  the  same  mind,  and 
this  was  a  fortuitous  disclosure  of  the  general  feehng.  The 
same  (or  this),  i.  e.  the  very  same  whom  they  rejected  forty 
years  before,  (if  not  by  word  or  deed,  in  thought  and  will,)  and 
no  one  else.  The  question  is  repeated  from  v.  27,  with  the 
omission  of  over  us,  and  even  this  is  found  in  some  old  manu- 
scripts. i)id  God  send,  or  according  to  the  latest  critics,  has 
sent.  To  he  (or  as)  a  rider,  see  above,  on  5,  31.  Three  of  the 
oldest  manuscripts  read,  hoth  a  rider  and  deliverer,  i.  e.  not 
only  a  ruler,  which  they  had  denied  him  to  be,  but  a  deliverer, 
which  was  vastly  more.  Deliverer,  literally,  redeemer,  from  a 
verb  which  means  to  buy  back  from  captivity  by  payment  of 
a  ransom.  The  noun  occurs  only  here ;  but  the  cognate  forms, 
redeem,  redemption,  ransom,  are  repeatedly  applied  to  Christ. 
(See  Matt.  20,  28.  Mark  10,  45.  Luke  1,68.  2,38.  24,21.  Heb. 
9, 12.  1  Pet.  1,  8.)  As  there  is  c\ddent  allusion  to  the  parallel 
between  Christ  and  Moses,  and  as  the  deliverance  from  Egypt 
was  a  type  of  that  from  sin,  there  is  no  need  of  diluting  the 
expression  so  as  to  mean  mere  deliverance,  without  reference 
to  ransom  or  redemption  in  the  proper  sense.  Even  in  refer- 
ence to  this  temporal  salvation,  if  it  could  not  be  said  of  Mo- 
ses, it  could  be  said  of  God,  whose  messenger  and  instrument 
he  was,  that  he  had  bought  his  people  out  of  bondage,  by  a 
natural  and  not  uncommon  figure.  (Seelsai.  45,  13.  14.)  By 
the  hands,  lit.  in  the  hand,  which  may  mean  under  the  pro- 
tection and  control  of  the  uncreated  Angel  who  accompanied 
the  chosen  people.  (See  Ex.  14, 19.  32,  34.  Isai.  63,  9.)  But 
the  five  oldest  manuscripts  read  with  the  hand  (Vulg.  cum 
mana),  wliich  may  mean,  'clothed  Tvdth  the  power  of  the 
Angel,'  but  more  probably  describes  him  as  the  organ  of  com 
munication  between  God  and  Moses.  (See  the  Septuagint 
version  of  Num.  15,23.  2  Chron.  29,25.)  The  Angel  who 
appeared  might  also  be  grammatically  rendered,  the  Angel  of 
him  (i.  e.  of  the  God)  loho  app>eared  to  him  in  the  hush.    But 


ACTS   7,  35.  36.  285 

this  construction  is  less  obvious  and  altogether  needless,  as 
we  read  expressly,  both  in  Ex.  3,  2,  and  in  v.  30  above,  that 
it  was  an  Aigel  that  appeared  to  him.  Both  readings,  in 
and  with  {the  hancH)^  may  have  arisen  from  too  close  an  imita. 
tion  of  the  corresponding  Hebrew  phrase  (ifa),  in  which  the 
preposition  corresponds  to  several  distinct  particles  in  Greek ; 
or  it  may  be  a  pleonastic  form  for  the  dative  of  cause,  manner, 
and  instrument.  (See  above,  on  1,  3.  5.  4,  7.  9. 10.  12.)  Either 
is  more  probable  than  the  supposition,  that  the  in  (h)  is  merely 
tlie  last  two  letters  of  the  preceding  verb,  repeated  by  mis- 
take. The  meaning  of  the  whole  verse  seems  to  be,  that  God 
had  rebuked  the  mcredulous  and  disobedient  Israelites  in 
Egypt,  by  sending  the  same  man,  whom  they  had  taunted 
with  aspiring  to  judicial  authority,  to  exercise  far  higher  func- 
tions, namely,  those  of  a  national  liberator  and  protector. 

36.  He  brought  them  out,  after  that  he  had  shewed 
wonders  and  signs  in  (the)  land  of  Egypt,  and  in  the 
Red  Sea,  and  in  the  wilderness,  forty  years. 

This  verse  describes  the  third  great  period  of  forty  years 
in  the  life  of  Moses.  (See  above,  on  vs.  23.  30.)  He  brought 
them  out  is  not  sufficiently  emphatic,  a  defect  which  some  ver- 
sions, ancient  and  modern,  have  attempted  to  supply  (Pesh. 
this  is  he  loho  brought  thetn  out.  Wicl.  this  Moses,  Tynd. 
and  the  same).  The  full  force  of  the  clause  is,  this  (same  man) 
did  bring  thein  out.  He  not  only  received  the  commission, 
but  he  executed  it.  He  was  the  actual  leader  of  the  Exodus, 
the  great  migration  to  which  Israel  owed  its  national  exist- 
ence. His  divine  legation  was  attested,  not  only  by  success, 
but  by  miracle.  After  that  he  had  implies  that  all  the  signs 
and  wonders  were  previous  to  the  exode,  which  is  inconsistent 
with  the  remainder  of  the  verse.  The  aorist  participle  strictly 
means  having  wrought.,  but  sometimes  denotes  a  simultaneous 
action  (Yulg./(XC^ews.  Tynd.  shewing  ;  see  above,  on  v.  14,  and 
on  1,  24.)  It  may  even  mean  by  working  miracles,  as  in  10, 
39,  whom  they  sleio  and  hanged^  i.  e.  slew  by  hanging,  though 
the  Hteral  translation  seems  to  imply  that  he  was  dead  be- 
fore his  crucifixion.  For  wonders  and  signs.,  the  Peshito  has 
signs  and  wonders  and  weighty  deeds.  For  land  of  Egypt., 
several  of  the  oldest  manuscripts  have  the  land  Egypt.,  others 
simply  Egypt.  In  the  Red  Sea  is  by  some  translated  on  or 
{tt  the  Bed  Sea  ;  but  the  in  refers  to  the  miraculous  change 


286  ACTS  Y,  36.37. 

WTOuglit  upon  the  sea  itself,  to  the  passage  of  the  Israelites 
through  it,  and  to  Pharaoh's  destruction  in  it.  The  Bed  Sea, 
in  the  earher  Greek  wi'iters,  is  what  we  call  the  Indian  Ocean, 
with  its  two  great  arms,  the  Persian  and  Arabian  Gulfs,  to 
the  last  of  which  the  name  is  given  in  the  Septuagint  version. 
It  was  called  Red,  as  some  of  the  ancients  thought,  from  the 
colour  of  the  water  ;  but  even  Quintus  Curtius  speaks  of  this 
as  an  ignorant  mistake,  and  derives  the  Greek  name  from  that 
of  an  old  king  (Erythra.)  The  moderns  trace  it  to  the  colour 
of  the  sea-weed  which  abounds  in  it,  and  from  which  it  was 
called  in  Hebrew  (and  in  the  Peshito  here)  Ya?n  Suph  {Mare 
Algosum)  the  Sea  of  Seaweed.  The  name  Red  Sea  is  still 
applied  to  the  same  narrow  gulf  between  Arabia  and  Africa, 
about  1400  miles  in  length,  through  the  northern  extremity 
of  which  the  Israelites  passed  (Ex.  14,  21.  22.)  Local  tradi- 
tion still  identihes  the  spot  as  the  Bahr-al-Kolsum  or  Sea  of 
Destruction,  ia  allusion  to  the  fate  of  Pharaoh's  host  (Ex.  14, 
28.)  The  ancient  Christian  historian  Orosius  says  that  the 
traces  of  the  chariot-wheels  were  visible  in  his  time  !  All  the 
miracles  here  mentioned  are  included  in  the  forty  years  ;  the 
actual  error  in  the  wilderness,  though  often  so  described  in 
round  numbers  (Num.  14,  33.  Josh.  5,  6.  Neh.  9,  21.  Am.  2, 
10),  lasted  only  tliirty-eight  years  (Deut.  2,  14.) 

37.  This  is  that  Moses  which  said  unto  the  children 
of  Israel,  A  Prophet  shall  the  Lord  your  God  raise  up 
unto  you  of  your  brethren  like  unto  me  ;  him  shall  ye 
hear. 

This  is  the  Moses  presupposes  their  acquamtance  with  the 
history  and  prophecy,  which  last  had  been  quoted  and  applied 
by  Peter  (see  above,  on  3, 22),  and  to  this  there  may  here 
be  an  allusion.  As  if  he  had  said,  '  this  is  the  author  of  that 
prophecy  so  lately  quoted  and  interpreted  before  you.'  Mo- 
ses was  not  only  a  type  of  the  Messiah,  but  the  author  of  one 
of  the  most  striking  testimonies  to  him.  The  Lord  is  omitted 
in  the  oldest  manuscrijots  and  versions  (except  the  Peshito^, 
and  may  have  been  inserted  from  the  parallel  passage  (3,  22;, 
foi  the  purpose  of  assimilation.  This  may  also  be  the  case 
with  your,  which  is  omitted  in  several  of  the  oldest  manu- 
Bcripts,  while  two  read  our.  Like  unto  me^  lit.  as  one,  i.  e.  ac- 
cording to  some,  as  {he  raised  up)  me.  Some  copies  of  the 
Vulgate  connect  it  with  what  follows  {tanquam  me  audietis. 


ACTS  7,  37.  38.  287 

Wicl.  as  me  ye  shall  hear  Jiim.)  Most  refer  the  liJce  me  to 
his  dignity  and  rank  (see  Num.  12,  8.  Deut.  34,  10)  ^  but  it 
may  relate  to  from  your  brethren^  one  of  yourselves,  as  I  am 
(see  above,  on  3,  22.)  Some  suppose  it  to  describe  Christ  as 
the  end  of  the  law  (Rom.  10,  4.)  Him  shall  ye  hear  is  omitted 
by  the  oldest  manuscripts  and  fathers,  and  is  regarded  by 
some  modern  writers  as  another  effort  at  assimilation  on  the 
part  of  the  transcribers.  The  inference  that  Jesus  was  this 
prophet  (John  1,  21.  25.  6,  14),  Stephen  leaves  the  Sanhedi'im 
to  draw  for  themselves  (see  above,  on  2,  36),  with  its  neces- 
sary consequence  that  they,  not  he,  dishonoured  Moses,  by 
refusing  to  aknowledge  and  obey  the  Prophet  whom  he  had 
so  solemnly  predicted. 

38.  This  is  he  that  was  in  the  church  in  the  wil- 
derness, with  the  Angel  which  spake  to  him  in  the 
Mount  Sina,  and  with  our  fathers ;  who  received  the 
lively  oracles  to  give  unto  us. 

There  is  here  a  contrast  or  antithesis  (like  that  ia  2,  23.  24. 
3, 15.  4,  10.  5,  30)  between  the  treatment  of  the  same  person 
at  the  hands  of  God  and  man.  The  Moses  whom  they  so  con- 
temptuously sUghted,  was  the  chosen  organ  of  communication 
between  Israel  and  Jehovah,  throughout  the  error  in  the  wil- 
derness. According  to  the  best  interpreters,  in  the  church  in 
the  icilderness  is  a  parenthetical  specification  of  the  time  and 
place,  and  the  main  proposition  is  that  Moses  loas  with  the 
Angel  (then  another  parenthesis)  and  with  our  fathers^  i.  e. 
the  mediator  or  interpreter  between  them.  The  idea  of  inti- 
mate and  confidential  intercourse  with  either  party  is  rather 
implied  than  expressed.  (See  above,  on  4,  13,  and  below,  on 
20,  18,  and  compare  Mark  16, 10.)  Church  (Tynd.  congrega- 
tion^ Rh.  assembly)  is  by  some  understood  to  mean  the  actual 
assemblage  at  the  giving  of  the  law,  because  the  next  clause 
refers  to  a  specific  time  and  place  ;  but  it  does  so  only  to  iden- 
tify the  Angel,  without  necessarily  restricting  what  precedes 
to  that  particular  juncture.  '  The  Moses  who  communicated 
with  the  Old  Testament  church  throughout  the  error  in  the 
wilderness,  was  the  same  who  acted  as  the  organ  of  the  divine 
Angel  at  the  giving  of  the  law.'  The  last  clause  may  then 
have  reference  either  to  the  legislation  or  to  the  subsequent 
divine  communications.  Oracles^  di\ine  responses  or  author- 
itative declarations.     The  Greek  word  (Xoyia)  has  \;een  van- 


288  ACTS  7,  38.  39.  40. 

ously  explained  as  a  diminutive  of  (Xdyos)  word^  meaning  a 
brief,  condensed,  and  pregnant  utterance ;  or  as  the  neuter 
of  an  adjective  (Ad-^tos)  meaning  rational,  profound,  wise,  and 
as  a  substantive,  a  T\ise  saying.  Herodotus  and  Thucydides 
apply  it  to  the  responses  of  the  oracles  (compare  Rom.  3,  2. 
Heb.  5, 12.  1  Pet.  4,  11.)  Lively^  i.  e.  living  or  alive;  not 
because  uttered  mva  voce^  which  is  both  unworthy  and  at 
/ariance  with  usage ;  but  either  as  the  words  of  the  living 
Grod,  or  as  being  in  themselves  efficacious  and  especially  life- 
i^ivm^.  (Compare  John  6,  51.  Heb.  10,  20.  1  Pet.  1,  23.) 
Even  the  law  is  such  in  its  own  nature  (Rom.  7, 12.)  The 
Vulgate  and  the  oldest  English  versions  have  the  words  (Tynd. 
word)  of  life.  Lively  oracles  is  the  Geneva  version.  Moses 
is  here  represented,  not  as  the  author,  but  as  the  recipient,  of 
these  authoritative  revelations. 

39.  To  whom  our  fathers  would  not  obey,  but 
toust  (him)  from  them,  and  in  their  hearts  turned 
back  again  into  Egypt. 

The  to  at  the  beginning  is  a  violation  of  the  English  idiom, 
copied  from  TjTidale  by  the  other  old  translators,  and  arising 
from  the  needless  substitution  of  obey  for  the  original  expres- 
sion, he  (or  become)  obedient  which  is  retained  only  in  the 
Rhemish  Bible.  Would  not  is  more  than  an  auxihary  and 
means  loere  not  willing.,  did  not  choose.  The  repetition  of  the 
verb  thrust  away  (from  v.  27)  suggests  the  idea  that  they  still 
repeated  or  contmued  the  same  act  which  was  at  first  per- 
formed by  their  representative  on  that  occasion.  As  he  re- 
fused the  Prophet's  mediation  in  the  quarrel  with  his  neigh- 
bour, so  the  people  refused  his  mediation  betwetn  them  and 
God.  Turned  bach  again  into  Egypt  does  not  refer  to  the 
attempt  of  the  children  of  Israel  hterally  to  retrace  their  steps 
(see  Num.  14,  4,  and  compare  Ex.  16,  3.  17,  3),  as  may  be 
inferred  from  Ex.  32,  1.  4.  Neh.  9,  18,  where  they  ask  for 
the  God  who  brought  them  out  of  Egypt,  not  for  one  who 
should  conduct  them  back  again.  The  reference  is  rather  to 
their  Egyptian  spirit  and  propensities,  their  lingering  attach- 
ment to  the  idolatries  of  their  native  country.  (See  Ezek.  20, 
5_8.  24.)  In  their  hearts.,  i.  e.  their  thoughts  and  their  de- 
su-es,  as  distinguished  from  their  outward  movements. 

40.  Saying  unto  Aaron,  Make  us  gods  to  go  before 


ACTS   V,  40.  41.  289 

US ;  for  (as  for)  this  Moses,  which  brought  us  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt,  we  wot  not  what  is  become  of  him. 

This  verse  explains  the  statement  in  the  one  before  it,  that 
they  turned  back  in  (or  with)  theii*  hearts  to  Eg}^t.  How  V 
By  saying  unto  Aaron,  &g.  Gods  might  be  taken  as  too 
close  a  translation  of  the  plural  Elohim^  if  the  latter  were  not 
construed  with  a  plural  verb  in  the  passage  quoted  (Ex.  32,  1, 
compare  Gen.  20,  13.  35,  7.)  It  is  variously  explained  as  a 
categorical  plural,  denoting  the  whole  class,  though  immediate- 
ly referring  to  a  single  object ;  or  by  supposing  that  the  peo- 
ple asked  for  a  plurality  of  idols,  but  that  Aaron  made  them 
only  one.  To  go  before  us,  literally,  who  shall  go  before  us, 
as  Jehovah  had  gone  before  them  in  the  pillar  of  cloud  (Ex. 
13,  21),  and  as  unages  Avere  carried  by  the  heathen  in  their 
marches.  The  meaning  is  not,  who  shall  guide  us  back  to 
Egyjjt  ?  see  above,  on  v.  39.  The  second  clause  assigns  the 
ground  of  their  request,  to  wit,  the  absence  of  Moses,  not 
merely  as  a  strenuous  opponent  of  idolatry,  but  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  Jehovah,  whose  place  they  proposed  to  fill  by  a 
visible  representation  of  the  divine  being.  This  is  commonly 
regarded  as  contemptuous ;  but  in  Hebrew  and  the  Septuagint 
it  is  this  man,  and  the  Hebrew  noun  is  one  of  a  respectful  mi- 
port.  Besides,  how  else  could  this  (man)  be  expressed,  if  no 
contempt  at  all  were  intended  ?  This  consideration,  with  the 
opposite  sense  put  by  some  upon  the  same  pronoun  in  v.  35 
above,  shows  how  precarious  such  assumptions  are,  although 
sustained  by  the  authority  of  eminent  interpreters.  This 
3Ioses  has  no  verb  agreeing  with  it,  but  is  placed  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  clause  as  a  nominative  absolute,  which  some 
regard  as  a  mere  negligence  of  style,  but  others  as  intended 
to  enhance  the  sarcasm,  or  at  least  the  emphasis*.  Other  ex- 
amples of  the  same  construction  may  be  seen  in  Matt.  12,  36. 
John  15,  2.  7,  38.  Acts  20,  3.  Gal.  1,  20.  Wot^iot,  know  not. 
Wiclif  ha?  a  still  more  antiquated  form  {ice  icitten  not.)  What 
is  become  of  him,  literally,  what  has  happened  to  him. 

41.  And  they  made  a  calf  in  those  days,  and  offered 
sacrifice  unto  the  idol,  and  rejoiced  in  the  works  of 
their  own  hands. 

The  first  verb  in  Greek  occurs  only  here,  and  is  supposed 
to  have  been  coined  by  Stephen,  or,  if  he  did  not  speak  in 

VOL.  I. — 13 


290  ACTS  V,  41.  42. 

Greek,  by  Luke.  The  nearest  equivalent  in  English  would 
be  calf-made.  Offered^  literally,  led  up.,  i.  e.  to  or  upon  the 
altar,  or  caused  to  ascend.,  which  is  the  meaning  of  a  Hebrew 
verb,  from  which  comes  the  noun  translated  hurnt-offering., 
but  strictly  meaning  what  ascends.,  i.  e.  upon  the  altar  as  a 
victim,  or  from  the  altar  in  the  form  of  vapour.  The  Greek 
phrase  here  used  occurs  also  in  Herodotus,  and  in  the  Septua- 
giiit  version  of  1  Kings  3,  15.  The  idol  (Wiclif,  mawmel^  i.  e. 
the  golden  calf,  designed  no  doubt,  like  the  calves  of  Jero- 
boam (l  Kings,  12,  28),  to  represent  Jehovah  (Ex.  32,  4),  but 
under  a  forbidden  form,  borrowed  from  the  Egyptian  worship 
of  Osiris,  one  of  their  ancient  kings,  the  reputed  inventor  of 
the  plough,  and  tutelary  god  of  agricultural  labour,  worshipped 
under  the  form  of  a  bull,  rejoresenting  the  productive  power 
of  nature,  called  Apis  at  Memphis  and  Mnevis  at  Heliopolis. 
Analogous  appearances  are  furnished  by  the  colossal  bulls 
lately  found  at  Nineveh,  and  by  the  ox  as  a  cherubic  symbol 
(Ezek.  1, 10.)  Rejoiced.,  made  merry  (Ex.  32,  6),  not  as  a 
mere  fortuitous  accompaniment,  but  as  an  essential  part  of  the 
idolatrous  service  (see  1  Cor.  10,  7.)  Rejoiced  in.,  not  merely 
on  account  of,  or  in  reference  to,  but  in  the  possession  of,  and 
in  the  closest  union  Avith,  the  works  of  their  own  hands.,  not 
the  idol  alone,  called  works  for  emj^hasis ;  or  as  the  product 
of  united  labour ;  but  the  idol  with  all  that  appertained  to  it, 
the  altar,  implements  of  sacrifice,  &c.  Bengel  observes  that 
God  alone  has  a  right  to  rejoice  in  the  work  of  his  own  hands 
that  man  may  rejoice  in  the  works  of  God,  but  as  soon  as  he 
begins  to  rejoice  in  his  own  works,  he  becomes  an  idolater. 

42.  Then  God  turned  and  gave  them  up  to  wor- 
ship the  host  of  heaven,  as  it  is  written  in  the  book  of 
the  Prophets,  O  ye  house  of  Israel,  have  ye  offered  to 
me  slain  beasts  and  sacrifices,  by  the  space  of  forty 
years,  in  the  wilderness  ? 

Then.,  and,  but,  or  so.  Turned  and  gave  is  by  some  un- 
derstood  to  mean  gave  again.  But  this,  though  a  Hebrew 
idiom,  is  not  a  Hellenistic  one,  the  first  verb  in  all  supposed 
xamples  which  have  been  adduced,  expressing  a  distinct 
and  independent  act.  Another  construction  sui^plies  them  j 
he  turned  them  from  one  form  of  idolatry  to  another.  A 
third  supplies  his  mind,  his  manner,  or  his  hand.     It  is  now 


ACTS  7,  42.43.  291 

commonly  agreed,  however,  that  the  verb  has  here  a  re- 
flexive meaning,  as  in  English,  and  is  equivalent  to  saying, 
turned  himself^  or  turned  aioay  in  ^nger,  as  Isaiah  says 
(64,  10),  "he  was  turned  to  be  their  enemy."  A  cognate 
verb  is  used  below  (15, 16),  in  the  favourable  sense  of  turmng 
back  or  being  reconciled.  Gave  them  up^  not  merely  suffered 
them,  but  condemned  or  punished  by  suffering  them,  as  in 
Rom.  1,  24.  26.  28.  The  host  of  Heaven  sometimes  means  the 
angels  (as  in  1  Kings  22, 19.  Ps.  103,  21.  148,  2.  Luke  2,  13), 
but  more  frequently  the  heavenly  bodies  (as  in  Deut.  4,  19. 
2  Kings  17, 16.  Isai.  34,  4.  (Wiclif,  the  knighthood  of  heaven ; 
Tyndale,  the  stars  of  the  sky ;  Cranmer  and  Geneva,  the  host 
of  the  sky.)  Because  they  chose  to  worship  the  true  God 
under  a  forbidden  form,  he  gave  them  up  to  Sabaism,  so  called 
from  the  Hebrew  word  for  host.  The  book  of  the  Prophets^ 
i.  e.  either  the  twelve  minor  prophets,  which  were  reckoned 
in  the  Jewish  canon  as  a  single  volume ;  or  in  a  wider  sense, 
the  whole  body  of  the  prophets,  as  the  second  great  division 
of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  The  quotation  is  from  Amos  5, 
25-27,  in  the  words  of  the  Septuagint  version.  The  interro- 
gation (with  /xt})  anticipates  a  negative  answer  ('you  did  not 
— did  you  ? ')  and  is  therefore  equivalent  to  a  strong  negation. 
This  has  been  variously  understood  as  meaning,  that  they 
literally  offered  no  sacrifices  in  the  desert,  which  is  inconsist- 
ent Avith  the  plain  terms  of  the  history ;  or  that  their  offerings 
were  only  occasional  and  few ;  or  that  the  offerers  themselves 
were  few ;  or  that  they  did  not  offer  from  right  motives  and 
in  a  right  spirit ;  or  that  they  sacrificed  to  devils,  not  to  God 
(Lev.  17,  7.  Deut.  32,  17.)  As  if  he  had  said,  '  Was  it  to  me  (or 
to  your  idols)  that  ye  offered  in  the  ^vilderness  ? '  Slain  beasts 
(or  victims^  Rhem.  Vers,  hosts)  and  sacrifices.,  i.  e.  offerings  ot 
all  sorts,  animal  and  vegetable,  as  the  Hebrew  w^ords  express, 
although  the  Septuagint  version  fails  to  make  the  distinction. 

43.  Yea,  ye  took  up  the  tabernacle  of  Moloch,  and 
the  star  of  your  god  Remphan,  figures  which  ye  made 
to  worship  them ;  and  I  will  carry  you  away  beyond 
Babylon. 

Jea,  literally,  and.,  as  if  he  had  said,  '  and  (while  ye  thus 
withheld  from  me  the  service  which  was  due)  ye  took  up  tfcc' 
Took  up.,  i.  e.  as  some  explain  it,  carried  in  procession ;  but 
unless  we  refer  the  whole  verse  to  the  idolatry  of  later  tiraes, 


292  ACTS  7,  43. 

it  cannot  be  supposed  that  Moses  would  have  tolerated  such 
unblushing  heathenism  in  the  camp  of  Israel,  any  more  than 
he  connived  at  the  unlawful  worship  of  Jehovah  under  the 
form  of  a  golden  calf.  (See  above,  on  v.  41.)  Others,  with 
more  probability,  assume  a  reference  to  the  secret  carr}ing 
about  and  worshipping  of  small  shrines,  shnilar  to  those  of  the 
Ephesian  Artemis  or  Diana.  (See  below,  on  19,  24.)  Taber- 
nacle^  literally,  te^it^  may  then  denote  the  shrine  itself,  as  Di- 
odorus  Siculus,  the  Greek  historian,  m.entions  the  "sacred 
tent"  carried  in  the  van  of  the  Carthagmian  army.  At  the 
same  time,  there  is  evident  allusion  to  the  tent  or  tabernacle 
of  Jehovah ;  as  if  he  had  said,  '  instead  of  carrying  my  taber- 
nacle (or  at  the  same  time  that  you  carried  it),  you  took  up 
that  of  Moloch?  The  Hebrew  name  is  Molecli^  an  ancient 
form  of  the  noun  melech  {Jcing)^  sometimes  written  as  a  proper 
name,  Milcom  (1  Kmgs  11,5.33.  2  Kings  16,3.  23,13), 
which  bears  a  strong  resemblance  to  the  word  here  used  by 
Amos,  and  denoting  properly  your  king.  But  as  this  idea  is 
suggested  or  expressed  by  all  the  forms,  there  is  no  need  of 
supposing  that  the  Greek  translator  confounded  any  one  of 
them  with  any  other.  Moloch  was  the  national  god  of  the 
Ammonites  (1  Kings  11,  7),  worshipped,  according  to  the 
Rabbins,  imder  the  form  of  a  brazen  image  with  outstretched 
arms,  into  which,  when  heated,  children  were  thrown  as  offer- 
ings and  burnt  alive.  This  horrid  superstition  was  long  jDrac- 
tised  in  the  valley  of  Hinnom  on  the  south  side  of  Jerusalem 
(1  Kings  11,7.  2  Kings  23,  10)  ;  and  that  it  was  not  unknown 
in  the  time  of  Moses,  is  clear  from  its  express  and  repeated 
prohibition  in  the  law  (Lev.  18,  21.  20,  2.  Deut.  12,  31.  18, 
10.)  The  reference  of  yoicr  king  to  Moloch,  therefore,  is  in 
perfect  keeping  with  historical  analogy.  In  the  next  clause 
there  is  a  transposition  of  the  Hebrew  words,  which  does  not 
necessarily  affect  the  sense.  JRernphan  is  not  in  the  original, 
unless  it  be  identified  with  Chiun  (l^^s),  which  some  inter- 
preters explain  as  an  appellative,  denoting  framework,  stand, 
or  pedestal,  but  which  may  also  be  so  pointed  as  to  read  JS^e- 
va?i^  and  this,  according  to  some  eminent  interpreters,  might 
easily  be  changed,  by  successive  transcription,  into  Mevan^ 
Hefan  (or  Rephaii)^  Remphan^  as  it  is  variously  written  in  the 
manuscripts  both  of  Acts  and  Amos.  Another  mode  of  recon- 
ciling the  Greek  and  Hebrew  forms,  instead  of  assuming  a 
corruption  in  the  text,  identifies  the  two  as  Semitic  and 
Egyptian  names  of  Satnrn.,  both  as  a  planet  and  a  deity, 


ACTS  7,  43.  44.  293 

which  some  go  further  and  ^identify  with  Moloch,  thus  ac- 
counting for  the  human  \ictims  offered  up  to  both,  and  for  the 
mention  of  a  star  in  the  passage  now  before  us,  as  well  as  of  the 
heavenly  host  in  the  preceding  verse.  By  Coptic  scholars,  Rera' 
phmi  is  variously  explained  to  mean  "  light-giver,"  "  dweller  in 
heaven,"  and  "  king  of  heaven,"  on  which  ground  some  sup- 
pose it  to  denote  the  sun.  Figures^  forms,  or  types,  imich  ye 
made^  Heb.  and  Sept.  for  yourselves^  to  which  Luke  or 
Stephen  adds  by  way  of  explanation,  to  adore  (or  worsJiip) 
And  {therefore^  as  expressed  in  the  Geneva  Bible),  I  iclli 
remove  you  (as  the  same  version  has  it),  i.  e.  make  you 
migrate  (as  in  v.  4  above).  All  the  other  English  versions 
have  trcmslate  you.  Beyond  (Wiclif,  into)  Babylon  substi- 
tuted for  beyond  Damascus  (Am.  5,  27,  Heb.  and  Gr.), 
which  is  not  an  error  or  an  inadvertence,  but  designed  to 
bring  the  prophecy,  without  any  real  change  of  meaning,  into 
contact  and  agreement  with  the  historical  associations  of  the 
people  in  relation  to  tlie  Babylonish  exile. 

44.  Our  fathers  had  the  tabernacle  of  witness  in 
the  wilderness,  as  he  had  appointed,  speaking  unto 
Moses,  that  he  should  make  it  according  to  the  fashion 
that  he  had  seen. 

The  tabernacle  of  Moloch  naturally  suggests,  by  way  of 
contrast,  the  tahernade  of  loitness  or  testimony.  This  is  the 
phrase  constantly  employed  in  the  Septuagint  to  translate  a 
Hebrew  one  meaning  the  tabernacle  of  congregation.,  or  rather 
of  appointment.,  not  the  tent  belonging  to  the  congregation  or 
host  of  Israel,  nor  the  tent  in  which  they  were  accustomed  to 
assemble,  but  the  tent  where  God  appomted  to  meet  with 
them,  or  the  place  of  meeting  between  God  and  Israel,  or  Mo- 
ses as  their  representative.  (See  Ex.  25,  22.  Num.  17,  19,  in 
the  English  Bible,  17,  4.)  The  Greek  translators  seem  to  have 
confounded  this  phrase  with  another,  sometimes  applied  to 
the  tabernacle,  as  a  witness  of  the  covenant  between  Jehovah 
and  his  people,  or  as  containing  the  tables  of  the  law,  which 
were  a  divine  testimony  against  sin.  (See  Num.  9,  15.  18,  2. 
17,  22.  23,  in  the  English  Bible,  17,  7.  8.)  The  use  of  both 
Dames  in  the  law  makes  the  substitution  in  the  case  before  us 
v/holly  unimportant.  Our  fathers  had.,  literally,  was  to  our 
fathers.,  which  is  the  reading  of  the  oldest  manuscripts  and 


294  ACTS  7,  44.45. 

latest  critics.  The  common  text  is,  loas  in  (i,  e.  among)  our 
fathers.  Aj^pointed^  arranged,  ordered,  see  below,  on  18,  2. 
20, 13.  23,  31.  24,  23.  Bpeaking^  more  exactly,  the  {one) 
speahing^  or  as  it  is  translated  in  the  margin  of  our  Bible,  he 
who  spake.  The  command  referred  to  is  the  one  recorded  in 
Ex,  25,  9,  40.  26,  30.  (Compare  Heb.  8,  5.)  While  the  pre- 
ceding verse  establishes  one  part  of  Stej)hen's  argument 
that  founded  on  the  national  unworthiness,  this  verse  estab- 
lishes the  other,  that  derived  from  the  comparatively  recent 
origin  and  frequent  changes  of  the  sanctuary.  Not  only 
the  temple,  but  the  tabernacle  which  preceded  it,  had  no 
existence  till  the  exodus  from  Egypt,  the  divine  command  to 
make  it  being  still  on  record  in  the  books  of  Moses.  Fashion^ 
type,  or  model,  the  same  word  that  is  rendered yt^wre  in  v.  43. 

45.  Which  also  our  fathers  that  came  after  brought 
in  with  Jesus  into  the  possession  of  the  gentiles,  whom 
God  drave  out  before  the  face  of  our  fathers,  unto  the 
days  of  David. 

The  tabernacle  thus  2-)lanned  and  constructed  lasted  only 
till  the  time  of  David.  Which^  from  its  form  m  Greek,  can 
have  no  antecedent  except  tahernade  in  v.  44.  Also,j  i.  e.  not 
only  its  origin,  but  its  later  history,  is  perfectly  well  known. 
Our  fathers  again  identifies  the  speaker  with  the  hearers,  as 
belongmg  to  the  same  race  (see  above,  on  vs.  2,  12,  15.)  That 
came  after^  literally,  succeeding  {one  another)^  or  still  more 
probably,  receiving  {from  each  other)  ^  and  transmitting  by 
succession,  which  aj^proaches  very  nearly  to  the  idea  of  in- 
heriting.  Brought  in^  i.  e.  into  the  promised  land,  or  land  of 
Canaan,  which  there  was  the  less  need  of  expressly  naming, 
because  Stephen  was  within  its  borders  when  he  spoke.  It  is 
as  if  he  had  said,  brought  in  here  (or  hither).  Jesus,  the  Sep- 
^uagint  form  of  Joshua,  occurs  also  m  Heb.  4,  8,  and  in  both 
cases  creates  some  confusion  in  the  minds  of  English  readers. 
With  Jesus,  i.  e.  when  they  followed  Joshua,  or  marched 
along  with  him,  to  conquer  Canaan.  Brought  in.... into,  an 
inelegant  if  not  ungrammatical  construction,  seems  to  mean 
that  the  fathers  brought  the  tabernacle  into  possession  of  tht 
Gentiles,  which  must  either  signify  that  they  were  in  possession 
of  the  tabernacle,  or  it  of  them ;  but  the  former  is  untrue  and 
the  latter  unmeaning.     Still  more  incorrect  and  arbitrary  is 


ACTS   7,  45.46.47.  295 

the  explanation  of  possessio7i  as  equivalent  to  land  possessed, 
or  territory/,  since  the  Greek  word  means  the  act  of  seizure  or 
of  taking  possession.  The  true  construction  of  the  clause  is, 
which  our  fathers  (i.  e.  the  younger  race  who  came  m  under 
Joshua)  inheriting,  receiving  by  succession  (from  the  older 
race,  who  came  out  of  Egypt,  and  by  whom  it  was  construct- 
ed), brought  in  (to  the  land  of  promise,  when  they  came 
themselves)  with  Joshua,  in  (or  ai)  the  conquest  (forcible  pos- 
session, capture)  of  the  nations  (who  had  previously  occupied 
it.)  This  use  of  possession  to  mean  dispossession,  or  the  act 
of  dispossessing,  corresponds  exactly  to  that  of  the  Hebrew 
verb  (d'i'nin)  m  speaking  of  this  very  matter.  (See  Ex.  34, 
24.  Num.  32,  21.  Deut.  4,  38.)  Drave  out,  hterally,  pushed 
(or  thrust)  out,  is  a  very  strong  expression,  near  akin  to  those 
in  vs.  27,  39  /ibove.  Before  the  face,  literally,  from  the  face 
(oY  p^resence),  implying  liight  and  total  disappearance.  In  the 
lamous  inscription,  which  Procopius  professes  to  have  seen  in 
Africa,  recording  the  arrival  and  settlement  of  fugitives  from 
Canaan  there,  a  similar  expression  is  employed  ("  who  fled 
from  the  face  of  the  robber,  Joshua  the  son  of  Nun.")  Until 
the  days  of  David,  if  connected  with  the  words  immediately 
preceding,  describes  the  expulsion  of  the  Canaanites  as  gradu- 
al, and  not  completed  till  the  reign  of  David.  But  this,  al- 
though historically  true,  would  not  have  been  expressed  by 
the  aorist  (e^oocrev),  which  denotes  an  act  performed  once  for 
all.  Nor  is  it  relevant  to  Stephen's  purpose  to  relate  how  the 
Canaanites  were  driven  out,  but  rather  to  describe  the  con- 
dition of  the  sanctuary  during  that  long  interval.  From 
Joshua  to  David,  God  abode  among  his  peoj^le  in  a  moveable 
tent,  which  was  often  shifted  from  place  to  place,  and  handed 
doAvn  from  one  generation  to  another. 

46.  47.  Who  found  favour  before  God,  and  de- 
sired to  find  a  tabernacle  for  the  God  of  Jacob ;  but 
Solomon  built  him  an  house. 

A  new  era  in  the  history  of  the  sanctuary  opens  with  "  the 
days  of  David,"  which  had  just  been  mentioned  (v.  45.)  The 
repetition  of  the  verb  to  find  can  hardly  be  unmeaning  or  for 
tuito<us.  He  did  find  favour  before  God  (i.  e.  in  his  presence 
or  his  estimation,  as  in  4,  19.  6,5  above),  as  to  many  other 
matters,  or  in  general ;  but  this  did  not  satisfy  him,  he  desired 
to  find  something  more,  to  wit,  a  dwelling  for  Jehovah.    De- 


296  ACTS  V,  47.48. 

stVec?  (Cranmer,  would  fain  have  fou7id)^  ov  moie  exactly, 
aslced  (as  a  favour)  /or  Jiimself  (the  idea  suggested  by  the 
middle  voice,  as  in  3,  14  above),  asked  permission,  begged 
leave,  which  agrees  exactly  with  the  governing  desire  and 
cherislied  purpose  of  his  life,  so  beautifully  expressed  in  the 
132d  Psalm.  To  find^  v^\\ich  occurs  there  also,  and  cannot 
therefore  be  a  mere  allusion  to  the  same  verb  in  the  first 
clause,  may  refer  to  the  discovery  of  the  place  where  the  tem- 
|i!e  Avas  to  be  erected,  which  vras  made  knoAvn  to  David  by  a 
special  revelation  (1  Chr.  21,  22.  26.  22,  1).  The  use  of  the 
Avord  tabernacle^  in  all  tlu>  English  versions,  makes  a  false  an- 
tithesis between  it  and  house  in  v.  47 ;  as  if  David  had  only 
sought  to  pitch  a  tent,  and  Solomon  had  actually  built  a 
house ;  whereas  the  first  Avord  (not  the  same  that  had  been 
used  in  v.  44,  but  a  deriA'ative  or  cognate  form)  means  any 
shelter,  being  applied  in  classical  usage  to  the  cover  of  a  Avag- 
on  or  a  bed  &c.,  and  here  denotes  precisely  the  same  thing 
Avith  house.  There  is  really  a  tacit  contrast  between  Davicl 
and  Solomon,  in  faA^our  of  the  former,  Avhich  is  apt  to  be  neg- 
lected, but  Avithout  AA^hich  Stephen's  aa^ojcIs  cannot  be  fully  un- 
derstood. Solomon,  notAvithstanding  his  Avisdom  and  the 
splendour  of  his  reign,  holds  a  very  inferior  place  to  David  in 
the  Scriptures,  bemg  scarcely  mentioned  after  the  close  of  his 
OAvn  history,  and  only  as  a  sort  of  executor  to  his  father. 
This  being  Avell  known  to  the  priests  and  scribes  whom  Ste- 
phen Avas  addressing,  he  employs  it  to  enforce  his  argument, 
but  tacitly  and  indirectly,  lest  he  should  appear  to  speak  in- 
decorously of  so  great  and  Avise  a  king  as  Solomon.  What  is 
thus  suggested  or  implied  may  be  brought  out  more  distinctly 
by  a  paraphrase.  '  So  far  is  a  permanent  and  solid  temple 
from  being  essential  to  acceptable  Avorship,  that  CA^en  David, 
the  favourite  of  Jehovah,  the  man  after  God's  own  heart, 
Avhose  darlmg  Avish  it  was  to  find  a  shelter  and  a  home  for  his 
diA^ine  protector,  was  not  sufiered  to  erect  the  house  which  he 
had  planned,  ancl  for  Avhich  he  had  collected  the  materials,  bur 
it  Avas  Solomon  who  built  it ! '  (Wiclif,  Solomon  huilded  the 
house  to  him.)  God  of  Jacob  (in  allusion  to  Ps.  132,  2.  5), 
i.  e.  the  national  and  covenanted  God  of  Israel,  as  the  chosen 
people. 

48.  Howbeit  the  Most  High  dwelleth  not  in  tem- 
ples made  with  hands,  as  saith  the  Prophet : 


ACTS  V,  48.  49.  297 

The  sentence  is  continued  in  the  following  verse,  to  which 
the  last  clause  of  this  verse  refers,  and  not  to  the  preceding 
words,  which  are  a  summary  or  paraphrase  of  Solomon's  own 
language  at  the  dedication  of  the  temple.  "  Will  God  indeed 
dwell  on  the  earth  ?  Behold,  the  heaven  and  heaven  of  hea- 
vens cannot  contain  thee;  how  much  less  this  house  that  I 
have  builded !  »  (1  Kings  8,  27.  2  Chron.  6,  1.  2.  18.)  These 
words,  considering  by  whom  and  in  what  circumstances  they 
were  uttered,  cannot  involve  an  absolute  condemnation  of  ma- 
terial temples,  but  only  of  their  abuse.  Under  the  ceremonial 
law,  the  doctrine  of  God's  presence  wdth  his  people  was  sym- 
bolized by  gi^ong  him  a  home  among  them,  and  resembling 
theirs,  a  tent  while  they  were  wandering,  a  solid  house  when 
they  were  permanently  settled.  But  this  was  a  temporary  in- 
stitution, and  any  attempt  to  prolong  it,  after  the  time  set  for 
its  abrogation,  was  contrary,  not  only  to  the  gospel,  but  to 
the  spirit  of  the  law  itself.  No  stronger  proof  of  this  could 
be  adduced  than  the  testimony  of  Solomon,  the  very  builder 
of  the  temple  w^hich  they  now  almost  worshipped  as  immuta- 
ble ;  for  the  temples  built  by  Solomon,  Zerubbabel,  and  Herod; 
were  regarded  as  historically  and  morally  identical.  That 
Solomon  is  not  named,  or  his  words  exactly  quoted,  w^ill  ap- 
pear less  strange  if  this  verse  and  the  one  before  it  are  thrown 
together  as  a  single  sentence,  v/hich  will  also  remove  the  ine- 
quahty  in  the  division  of  the  text.  As  if  he  had  said,  '  Solomon 
indeed  did  build  the  temple  ;  but  you  know  w'ho  said,  when  it 
was  dedicated,  that  the  Most  High  dwelleth  not  &c.'  Howheit^ 
copied  by  our  version  from  three  older  ones  (Tyndale,  Cranmer, 
and  Geneva),  is  in  Greek  the  usual  adversative  (dAAa),  properly 
answering  to  but  in  English,  whereas  but  (Se)  m  v.  47  might  as 
well  have  been  translated  and  or  then.  The  Most  High  varies 
strangely  in  the  old  English  versions ;  Wiclif  has  the  High 
God ;  Tyndale  and  Cranmer,  he  that  is  highest  of  all ;  Gene- 
va, the  3Iost  Highest  /  Rheims,  the  Highest^  which  is  nearest 
to  the  form  of  the  original.  Temples  is  omitted  by  the  oldest 
manuscripts  and  latest  critics,  having  probably  crept  into  the 
text,  by  assimilation,  from  17,  24  below.  The  Rhemish  version 
supplies  houses^  Wiclif  things  y  the  Vulgate  nothing  {irnanu- 
factis.) 

49.  Heaven  is  my  throne,  and  eartli  is  my  footstool; 
what  house  will  ye  build  me,  saith  the  Lord,  or  what 
ib  the  place  of  my  rest  ? 

VOL.  I.— 13* 


298  ACTS  7,  49. 

This  is  the  saying  of  the  Prophet  cited  at  the  close  of  the 
preceding  verse.  The  unskilful  division  of  the  text  throws 
the  whole  into  confusion.  The  true  division  would  have  been 
as  foJlows.  '  47.  And  Solomon  built  him  a  house,  but  (Solomon 
well  knew  and  publicly  declared  that)  the  Most  High  dwelleth 
not  in  hand-made  (temples).  48.  As  (likewise)  saith  the 
Prophet,  Heaven  is  my  throne,  etc'  The  quotation  is  made 
from  the  Septuagint,  with  few  and  unimportant  variations. 
The  Prophet  quoted  is  Isaiah  (66,  1.  2),  and  the  passage  that 
in  Avhich  he  wmds  up  all  his  prophecies  with  an  express  pre- 
diction of  the  change  of  dispensations,  of  the  time  when  Je- 
hovah would  no  longer  dwell  in  temples  (v.  1)  but  in  human 
hearts  (v.  2) ;  when  the  ritual,  although  divinely  instituted, 
would  be  no  less  hateful  than  idolatry  itself  (v.  3),  and  they 
who  still  cling  to  it  would  be  fearfully  but  righteously  re- 
quited (v.  4.)  This  remarkable  prophecy  is  doubly  appropriate 
to  Stephen's  purpose  ;  first,  as  a  declaration  of  the  general 
truth  before  affirmed  by  Solomon,  and  therefore  showing  that 
the  same  doctrine  was  maintained  by  the  prophets  between 
him  and  Christ ;  and  then,  as  a  pointed  and  direct  prediction 
of  the  very  changes  that  were  taking  place  when  Stephen 
spoke.  A  Httle  amplified  and  paraphrased,  the  meaning  of  the 
sentence  is  as  follows.  '  The  arbitrary  unessential  nature  of 
all  temples  was  affirmed  by  Solomon  in  dedicating  his  ;  a  doc- 
trine afterwards  repeated  by  Isaiah  in  the  very  act  of  point- 
ing out  the  temjDorary  nature  of  the  ceremonial  law,  denounc- 
ing the  divine  wrath  upon  those  who  should  still  cling  to  it, 
when  abrogated  by  the  same  authority  that  first  enacted  it, 
and  formally  predicting  the  precise  change,  which  I  am 
charged  with  having  blasphemously  threatened  ! '  Throne^ 
in  all  the  older  Enghsh  versions,  is  sea%  which  is  the  primary 
usage  of  the  Greek  word,  with  particular  reference  in  Homer 
to  a  high  seat  with  a  footstool ;  in  Herodotus  (with  royal)  to 
a  chair  of  state ;  and  in  Xenoj^hon  (without  it)  to  a  throne 
in  the  restricted  sense,  which  is  the  one  belonging  to  the 
word  in  the  New  Testament.  Will  ye  build  is  the  true  sense 
of  the  Hebrew  word,  and  therefore  more  correct  than  the 
common  version  of  Isaiah.  Place  of  my  rest^  i.  e.  my  perma- 
nent abode  after  wandering  so  long  without  one,  a  frequent 
description  of  the  temj^le  as  contrasted  v:ith  the  tabernacle 
which  preceded  it.  (See  2  Sam.  1.  6.  2  Chron.  6.  41.  Ps.  132, 
8. 14.) 


ACTS  7,  50.  51.  299 

50.  Hath  not  my  hand  made  all  these  (things)  ? 

The  division  of  the  verses  here  was  probably  made  in 
imitation  of  the  Hebrew,  where  this  sentence  is  the  first  clause 
of  the  second  verse,  but  forming  only  a  small  part  of  it,  and 
as  the  rest  is  not  here  quoted,  it  would  have  been  better  to 
put  all  Isaiah's  words  with  Stephen's  prefatory  formula  to- 
gether, instead  of  dividing  them  among  three  verses,  thus 
obscuring  the  connection,  and  attaching  the  form  of  quotation 
{as  the  Pro2:)het  says),  not  to  the  language  of  Isaiah,  but  to 
that  of  Solomon  or  Stephen  himself.  We  have  here  the  most 
considerable  variation  from  the  form  of  the  original,  as  well 
as  of  the  Greek  version,  an  interrogation  (hath  not,  etc.  ? ) 
being  substituted  for  an  afiirmation  {cill  these  hath  my  hand 
made),  but  without  a  change  of  meaning,  since  the  question 
admits  only  of  an  affirmative  answer.  The  passage  in  Isaiah 
presents  a  striking  climax.  First,  the  temples  made  by  men 
are  contrasted  with  the  great  material  temple  of  the  universe ; 
tlien  this  is  itself  disparaged  by  Jehovah  as  his  own  handi- 
work, and  still  more  in  comparison  with  a  nobler  temple  of  a 
spiritual  nature,  the  renewed  and  contrite  heart.  (Compare 
Isai.  57,  15.  Ps.  34, 18.  138,  6.  2  Cor.  6,  16.)  A  bare  citation 
would  of  course  suggest  the  whole  connection  to  the  minds 
of  Stephen's  judges. 

51.  Ye  stiff-necked  and  micircumcised  in  heart 
and  ears  !  Ye  do  always  resist  the  Holy  Ghost :  as 
your  fathers  (did),  so  (do)  ye. 

One  of  Stephen's  lines  of  argument  was  now  completed. 
He  had  shown,  by  a  simple  but  masterly  historical  deduction, 
the  temporary  nature  of  the  ceremonial  law,  and  of  the  tem- 
ple as  a  part  of  it,  concluding  with  a  reference  to  Solomon  him- 
self, and  to  Isaiah,  who  had  foretold  the  same  changes  now 
foretold  by  Stephen.  What  link  could  have  been  added  to 
this  chain  of  proof?  Had  he  pursued  the  history  and  multi- 
plied quotations,  as  he  might  have  done  from  Jeremiah  (7,  4) 
and  other  later  prophets,  he  would  only  have  consumed  time 
and  patience  without  adding  to  the  strength  of  an  argument 
already  finished  and  wound  up  by  citing  the  great  builder  of 
the  temple  and  the  great  evangelical  prophet,  as  authorities 
to  prove  that  the  temple  itself  was  designed  to  answer  a  tem- 
porary purpose,  and  that  no  sin  or  folly  could  be  greater  than 


300  ACTS  7,  51. 

that  of  trying  to  make  it  answer  any  other.  All  that  was  left 
then  was  to  take  up  and  complete  his  other  line  of  argument, 
designed  to  show,  by  means  of  the  same  history  which  he  had 
been  expounding,  that  the  Jews  had  always  been  unfaithful 
to  their  trust,  and  that  the  abrogation  of  the  present  system 
was  not  only  necessary  to  the  execution  of  God's  purpose  as 
revealed  from  the  beginning,  but  a  righteous  retribution  of 
the  sins  of  those  by  whom  the  system  was  administered. 
Having  prepared  the  way  for  this  conclusion  by  referring  to 
the  sms  of  Joseph's  brethren,  and  of  the  IsraeUtes  in  Egypt 
and  the  wilderness,  he  now  suggests  the  conclusion  itself,  not 
by  a  formal  inference,  but  by  a  terrible  invective,  summing  up 
all  that  he  had  said  on  this  point  in  a  brief  description  of  the 
men  whom  he  addressed,  and  of  the  nation  which  they,  repre- 
sented. There  is  no  need,  therefore,  of  supposing  any  inter- 
ruption in  the  thread  of  his  discourse,  much  less  a  passionate 
excitement  caused  by  an  appearance  of  hostility  or  inattention 
in  his  hearers.  Such  an  assumption  is  not  only  quite  gra- 
tuitous, but  docs  dishonour  to  the  memory  of  Stephen,  by 
ascribing  to  a  sudden  fit  of  anger  what  was  really  suggested 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  besides  the  folly  of  supposmg  that  a  grave 
historian,  and  above  all  an  inspired  one,  would  leave  on  record 
an  unfinished  sj)eech,  which  never  reached  the  point  (as  some 
imagine)  where  it  might  have  done  some  good  to  those  who 
heard  it.  This  whole  idea  of  a  sudden  interruption  and  a 
violent  apostrophe  is  founded  on  the  notion,  that  this  long 
discourse  of  Stephen  is  a  rambling  talk  which  never  comes 
to  any  point,  and  therefore  must  have  been  unfinished  ;  or  at 
most  a  desultory  incoherent  compend  of  the  national  history, 
which  could  not  be  complete  unless  brought  down  to  date ; 
whereas  the  speech  is  a  historical  argument,  in  which  the 
fiicts  are  rather  presupposed  than  formally  related ;  and  as 
soon  as  it  has  reached  the  conclusion  aimed  at,  it  is  instantly 
arrested.  Thus  understood,  the  meaning  of  the  verse  before 
us  is  that,  as  the  ancient  Israel  had  always,  as  a  nation,  been 
rebellious  and  unfaithful,  so  the  present  generation  had  exactly 
the  same  character,  and  therefore  might  expect  the  evils 
threatened  to  their  fathers.  To  them  the  Prophets  had 
applied  the  same  reproachful  epithets  which  Stephen  here 
applies  to  his  accusers  and  his  judges.  Stiff-necked,  rebel- 
lious, like  a  stubborn  ox,  refusing  to  receive  the  yoke,  is  never 
said  of  individuals  as  such,  but  only  of-  a  race  or  a  contem- 
porary generation.     (See  Ex.  32,  9.    33,  3.  5.  34,  19.  Deut.  9 


ACTS  7,  51.  301 

6.  13.)  In  one  place  (Deut.  10,  16)  Moses  has  connected  it, 
as  Stephen  does  in  this  place,  with  the  figure  of  a  heart  un- 
circumcised.  (See  also  Lev.  26,  41.  Deut.  30,  6.  Jer.  9.  2Q. 
Ezek.  44,  1.)  That  of  an  ear  imcircumcised  is  also  used  by 
Jeremiah  (6,  10.)  These  expressions  denote  tar  more  than 
impurity  or  insensibihty,  however  great.  Whatever  circum- 
cision may  have  sjinboHzed,  or  naturally  represented,  of  a 
moral  nature,  it  was  chiefly  regarded  by  the  Jews  as  a  dis- 
tinctive sign  of  their  relation  to  Jehovah  as  his  people,  and 
entire  segregation  from  all  other  races.  The  thought  most 
readily  suggested  by  the  epithet  uncircimicised.,  so  common 
in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  (e.  g.  Gen.  34,  14.  Ex.  12,  48.  Judg. 
14,3.  15,18.  iSam.  14,  6.  17,26.36.  31,4.  2  Sam.  1,  20.  1 
Chr.  10,  4.  Isai.  52,  1.  Jer.  9,  25.  Ezek.  28,  10.  31,  18),  is  not 
that  of  personal  uncleanness,  whether  physical  or  moral ;  but 
that  of  national  and  ecclesiastical  exclusion  from  the  favour 
of  Jehovah  and  the  privileges  of  his  people.  Its  nearest 
equivalent,  as  here  applied,  is  heathenish^  the  most  insulting 
name  that  could  be  given  to  a  Jev»^  in  any  age  or  any  country, 
as  implying  not  merely  social  degradation  and  inferiority,  but 
treason  to  Jehovah  and  unfaithfulness  to  Moses,  by  a  violation 
of  the  most  solemn  and  important  trust  that  God  had  ever 
confided  to  a  people.  The  comj^ound  terms,  imcircumcised  in 
heart  and  ears^  mean  therefore,  those  who  hear  and  think  and 
feel  like  gentiles,  Hke  the  heathen  ;  and  their  sudden  apphca- 
tion  to  the  Sanhedrim,  instead  of  necessarily  implying  a  de- 
parture from  the  theme  of  his  discourse,  is  rather  a  tremen- 
dous summing  of  it  up  in  the  conclusion,  that  these  proud 
representatives  and  rulers  of  the  chosen  people  were  in  fact 
mere  heathen.  Some  conception  of  the  force  of  this  con- 
cluduig  blow  may  be  obtained  by  supposing  one  impeached 
among  ourselves  to  describe  the  senate  at  whose  bar  he  stands 
as  slaves  and  negroes.  Even  tliis,  however,  is  without  the 
sting  belonging  to  the  charge,  not  only  of  political  and  social 
infamy,  but  of  religious  apostasy  and  rej)robation.  Far  from 
being  an  ungovernable  burst  of  passion,  this  was  the  other 
great  conclusion  at  which  Stephen  had  been  aiming  from  the 
first,  and  which  was  now  established  by  irrefragable  proofs, 
not  only  with  respect  to  the  contemporary  race,  but  also  to 
preceding  generations,  whose  accumulated  guilt  might  justly 
be  rewarded  with  the  loss  and  abrogation  of  those  very  insti- 
tutions wliich  had  been  the  object  of  their  trust  and  worship. 
(Sec  Matt.  23,  32.35.  36.  Luke  11,50,  and  compare  2,  40.) 


302  ACTS  7,  51.52. 

Resist^  lit.  fall  against^  implying  active  as  well  as  passive  op« 
position  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  the  divine  author  of  all  reve- 
lation, whether  history  or  prophecy,  doctrine  or  precept,  law 
or  gospel.  Ye  do  always  is  addressed  to  the  whole  race  of 
Israel,  past  and  present,  as  a  collective  or  ideal  person,  as  ex- 
plained in  the  remainder  of  the  sentence,  which  is  greatly 
weakened  in  translation  by  supplying  did  and  do,  instead  of 
construing  all  the  nominatives  with  one  verb.  '  As  your  fathers 
10  yourselves  are  ever  resisting  the  Holy  Ghost.'  (Wicl.  as 
your  fathers,  so  ye.     Rhem.  as  your  fathers,  so  ye  also.) 

52.  Which  of  the  Prophets  have  not  your  fathers 
persecuted  ?  And  they  have  slain  them  which  shewed 
before  of  the  coming  of  the  Just  One,  of  whom  yc 
have  been  now  the  betrayers  and  murderers. 

It  now  becomes  still  more  clear,  that  Stephen's  speech  is 
not  unfinished,  from  the  way  m  which  he  comes  back  to  his 
starting-point,  and  makes  a  most  effective  application  of  the 
facts  recited  to  his  own  case.  The  first  clause  is  a  specification 
of  the  sweeping  charge,  that  both  they  and  their  fathers  had 
constantly  withstood  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  he  spoke  to  them, 
not  only -in  the  Law,  but  in  the.  Prophets,  who  were  really  his 
messengers  and  spokesmen.  The  form  is  not  affirmative  but 
mterrogative,  and  does  not  necessarily  exclude  a  qualified  or 
palliative  answer.  It  is  not  therefore  strictly  hyperbofical  ; 
but  even  if  it  had  been  a  direct  assertion,  that  they  had 
rejected  and  maltreated  every  prophet  who  had  ever  come  to 
them,  so  natural  a  figure  could  be  quarreled  with  by  none  but 
captious  cavillers  or  hypercritical  grammarians.  (See  above, 
on  3,  24,  and  compare  Matt.  23,  34-36.  Luke  13,  33.)  There 
may  seem  to  be  a  reference  to  two  distinct  classes  in  the  two 
first  clauses  of  this  verse  ;  but  the  second  only  gives  a  more 
particular  description  of  the  prophets  who  had  just  been  spoken 
of,  by  mentioning  their  great  ofiicial  function,  that  of  fore- 
telling {shelved  before  is  Tyndale's  version)  the  Messiah,  who 
is  here,  as  in  3,  14  above,  emphatically  called  the  Just  {One), 
that  is,  innocent  before  the  law  of  what  he  had  been  charged 
with,  and  intrinsically  righteous  (Wicl.  the  rightfzd  man. 
Tynd.  that  just.)  The  original  construction  is,  did  not  your 
fathers  iDersecute  and  kill  tJiose  foretelling,  etc.  Ye  have  been, 
or  more  exactly,  have  become,  by  virtue  of  your  late  proceed- 


ACTS   7,  52.  53.  303 

ings.  Betrayers^  (Wicl.  traitors)  is  a  term  applied  elsewhere 
(Luke  6,  16)  to  Judas  Iscariot.  Betrayers  and  murderers 
express  two  of  the  blackest  crimes  which  one  man  can  com- 
mit against  another,  both  which  are  here  charged  home  by 
Stephen  on  his  judges,  and  through  them  upon  the  people 
whom  they  represented.  Now  and  ye  stand  m  emphatic 
opposition  to  the  ancient  times  and  former  generations,  which 
had  just  been  mentioned.  This  antithesis,  however,  only 
serves  to  aggravate  the  guilt  of  those  immediately  addressed, 
ill  comparison  even  with  the  guilt  of  their  progenitors ;  for 
these  had  only  persecuted  prophets,  whereas  those  had  both 
betrayed  and  murdered  the  Messiah,  to  predict  whose  advent 
the  old  prophets  had  been  sent  from  God.  Of  this  great  per- 
sonal and  public  crime  he  thus  remmds  them,  with  a  view  not 
only  to  their  own  conviction  but  to  his  defence,  as  showing 
that  the  mere  -fact  of  his  prosecution  no  more  proved  hun 
guilty  of  the  crimes  alleged,  than  the  bloody  persecution  of 
the  Prophets,  and  of  Christ  himself,  could  have  a  similar 
effect  in  their  case. 

53.  Who  have  received  the  law  by  the  disposition 
of  angels,  and  have  not  kept  it. 

The  obvious  meaning  of  the  vei'se  is  that  the  Jews,  as  a 
nation,  had  betrayed  the  highest  trust,  and  proved  them- 
selves unworthy  of  the  greatest  honour  ever  granted  to  a 
people.  They,  the  recipients  and  depositaries  of  an  exclusive 
revelation,  had  themselves  endeavoured  to  defeat  the  very 
end  for  which  it  was  vouchsafed  to  them.  Beyond  this,  accu- 
sation or  invective  could  not  well  be  carried.  In  pomt  both 
of  rhetoric  and  logic,  Stephen  could  not  have  concluded  more 
effectively.  There  is  no  ground,  therefore,  for  the  favourite 
idea  of  interpreters  and  editors,  that  his  voice  was  here 
drowned  by  the  cries  of  his  infuriated  hearers,  and  that  not 
only  the  discourse  but  the  sentence  is  unfinished,  as  indicated 
even  to  the  eye,  in  some  editions  of  the  Greek  text,  by  the 
mode  of  printing.  TF7io  ought  rather  to  be  ye  who^  as  the 
form  of  the  Greek  relative  is  one  employed,  not  merely  to 
continue  or  connect  the  sentence,  but  to  introduce  a  further 
description  of  its  subject.  As  if  he  had  said,  'and  this  has 
been  done,  not  by  Gentiles,  but  by  you,  the  very  people  who 
received  the  law,'  etc.  Only  the  emphasis,  and  ]iot  the  mean- 
ing, of  the  passage  is  dependent  on  the  doubtful  and  disputed 


804  ACTS  7,  53. 

words  translated  hy  the  dis2yositio7i  of  angels.  Whatever 
may  be  their  specific  meanmg,  they  are  evidently  meant  to 
aggravate  the  charge  here  brought  against  the  Jewish  nation, 
\jy  exalting  and  ennobling  that  pecuhar  system,  under  which 
they  lived,  in  which  they  trusted,  and  of  which  they  boasted, 
but  against  which  they  were  nevertheless  guilty  of  the  worst 
conceivable  oifence,  to  wit,  that  they  refused  to  keep  (i.  e. 
observe,  obey)  it.  Another  undisputed  fact  is,  that  the  aggra- 
vating circumstance  suggested  is  the  agency  of  angels  in  the 
giving  of  the  law  ;  the  only  question  is,  in  what  that  agency 
consisted.  The  Greek  noun  (Siarayas)  rendered  dis2:>ositioii 
(after  the  Rhemish  Bible,  Avhereas  Wiclif,  Tyndale,  and  Ge- 
neva have  ordinance^  and  Cranmer  ministration)  occurs  only 
once  in  the  Septuagint  version  (Ezra  4,  11)  and  nowhere  in 
the  classics ;  but  its  general  meaning  is  determined  by  its 
obvious  deduction  from  the  verb  employed  -  in  v.  44  above, 
and  by  the  usage  of  a  kindred  noun  (Stara^ts)  to  signify  ar- 
rangement, disposition,  applied  by  Herodotus  to  the  drawing 
up  of  troops,  and  by  Polybius  to  a  will  or  testamentary  order. 
In  accordance  with  tliis  usage,  some  would  give  it  here  a  mili- 
tary sense,  among  troops  of  angels^  in  allusion  to  their  pres- 
ence on  Mount  Smai,  which,  though  not  recorded  hi  the 
history,  appears  to  be  implied  in  Deut.  3-3,  2.  3  (where  the 
word  angels  is  actually  inserted  by  the  Sei^tuagint  version), 
and  still  more  clearly  in  Ps.  68,  17.  Gal.  3,  19.  Heb.  2,  2.  The 
sense  obtained  by  this  construction  is  a  good  one  in  itself, 
and  sufiiciently  sustained  by  the  analogy  of  Scripture.  The 
only  objection,  but  perhaps  a  fatal  one,  is  the  meaning  which 
it  puts  upon  the  preposition  (eis)  contrary  to  all  Greek  usage. 
The  same  objection  lies,  at  least  in  some  degree,  against  the 
common  explanation,  hy  (or  tlirougli)  the  ministration  of 
angels.,  which  agrees  well  with  Paul's  language  in  the  places 
above  cited ;  but  in  both  those  places  the  preposition  (Sia) 
properly  means  hy  or  through.  The  only  meanings  of  the  one 
hero  used  that  can  be  justified  by  usage  are  at.,  upon.,  in  refer- 
ence to  tune  (as  in  Matt.  12,  41),  and  as,  for  (as  in  v.  21  above.) 
Assuming  the  latter,  an  old  Greek  interpreter  exj^lains  the 
clause  to  mean,  that  they  received  the  law  as  {or  for)  angelie 
institutions.,  i.  e.  such  as,  if  observed,  would  have  made  them 
hke  or  equal  to  the  angels  (Luke  20,  36.)  Assuming  the  other, 
we  obtain  the  much  more  natural  and  obvious  idea  of  a  law 
received  at  the  orders  (or  command)  of  angels.,  not  as  its 
authors  or  as  legislators,  wbich  is  sometimes  made  an  argmnent 


ACTS   7,  53.  54.  305 


against  this  explanation,  but  as  messengers  or  heralds,  through 
whom  the  di\dne  communications  passed,  as  a  military  word 
of  command  does  fi'om  rank  to  rank,  or  from  officer  to  officer, 
until  it  reaches  the  whole  corps  or  amiy.  The  silence  of  the 
history,  as  to  any  such  proceeding  at  Mount  Sinai,  only  raises 
a  presumption,  which  can  easily  be  set  aside  by  countervailing 
evidence,  and  such  would  seem  to  be  afforded  by  the  passages 
already  cited,  and  especially  by  Paul's  repeated  declaration, 
that  it  was  through  angels  that  God's  word  was  spohen  (Heb. 
2,  2),  and  his  laio  enacted  or  ordained  (Gal.  3,  19),  the  very 
verb  from  which  the  noun  before  us  is  immediately  derived. 
This  explanation  is  moreover  recommended  by  its  really  in- 
cluding the  one  first  proposed  {among  troops  of  angels)^  but 
with  an  additional  suggestion  that  they  were  not  mere  spec- 
tators, and  without  a  violation  of  Greek  idiom  or  usage.  In 
comparison  with  this,  no  attention  need  be  given  to  the  many 
other  senses  which  have  been  proposed  ;  by  Chrysostom,  for 
instance,  who  refers  it  to  the  angel  in  the  burnmg  bush,  and 
by  Lightfoot,  who  takes  angels  in  its  primary  sense  {messen- 
gers) and  then  apphes  it  to  the  prophets,  as  inspired  ex- 
pounders of  the  law.  It  is  this  angehc  agency  or  ministra- 
tion in  the  giving  of  the  law  that  Stephen  here  employs  to 
aggravate  the  guilt  of  those  who  had  not  kept  it.  At  the 
same  time,  this  allusion  to  a  preternatural  and  superhuman  in- 
cident in  sacred  history,  as  well  as  to  a  spectacle  or  scene  of 
unexampled  grandeur,  and  connected  with  the  great  trans- 
action from  which  Israel  derived  his  national  existence  and 
pre-eminence,  imparts  to  the  conclusion  of  this  speech,  which 
Bome  regard  as  broken  and  unfinished,  a  rhetorical  sublimity, 
which,  added  to  its  logical  and  moral  force,  entitles  it  to  take 
rank  witli  the  noblest  specimens  of  ancient  eloquence. 

54.  When  they  heard  these  (things),  they  were  cut 
to  the  heart,  and  they  gnashed  on  him  with  their 
teeth. 

Wheji  they  heard  is  more  exactly  rendered  in  the  Rhemish 
version,  and  hearing.  These  {things)^  i.  e.  the  thmgs  uttered 
m  vs.  51-53,  if  these  are  an  abrupt  apostrophe,  and  an  ex- 
pression of  excited  feeling,  unconnected  with  what  goes  before 
(see  above,  on  v.  51.)  But  according  to  the  view  which  we 
have  just  been  takmg  of  the  passage,  there  is  nothing  to  pre- 
vent our  understanding  these  things  of  the  whole  discourse. 


306  ACTS  7,  54.  55. 

consisting,  as  it  does,  of  a  concatenated  argument,  whose 
logical  conclusion  is  at  the  same  time  a  powerful  in^?ective. 
The  drift  of  Stephen's  speech  towards  this  conclusion  must 
have  been  long  suspected,  if  not  clearly  seen,  by  so  attentive 
and  intelligent  an  audience  ;  but  when  it  was  actually 
reached  and  formally  propounded,  and  in  terms  so  terribly 
insulting,  it  is  not  to  be  considered  strange,  that  even  priests 
and  scribes  expressed  their  brutal  spite  by  noises  borrowed 
from  the  brutes  themselves.  The  word  translated  gnashed 
originally  means  any  audible  but  inarticulate  outburst  of  pain 
or  rage,  such  as  groaning,  roaring,  bellowing,  etc.  Its  specific 
meaning  is  determined  here  by  the  addition  of  the  word  teeth^ 
even  without  which  Homer  uses  it,  according  to  some  eminent 
philologists,  in  this  sense,  although  others  understand  it  of 
the  cry  uttered  by  the  wounded  warrior  in  the  agony  of 
death.  On  him^  or  ovei'  him^  not  merely  at  him^  v/hich  they 
might  do  at  a  distance,  whereas  this  implies  a  rushing  move- 
ment towards  him,  which  is  afterwards  expressed  (in  v.  57.) 
Wiclif  has  grenoieden  (grinned  ? )  with  teeth  on  him.  The 
preceding  clause  is  variously  rendered  in  the  older  versions 
(Wicl.  w^ere  diversely  tormented.  Tynd.  their  hearts  clave 
asunder.  Gen.  their  hearts  burst  for  anger.  Rhem.  Avere  cut 
in  their  hearts.)  The  Greek  verb  is  the  same  with  that  in 
5,  o3,  and  there  explained  as  literally  meaning  they  were  saioii 
through^  here  defined  or  specified  by  the  addition,  (m)  their 
hearts.  It  evidently  means  more  than  rage  or  self-exasper- 
ation, as  explained  both  by  ancient  and  by  modern  lexicog- 
raphers. The  strength  of  the  expression,  and  the  obvious 
analogy  of  2,  37  (they  were  pricked,  or  pierced,  in  their 
hearts),  seem  to  indicate  a  more  complex  and  violent  emotion, 
which  may  be  supposed  to  have  consisted  in  the  simultaneous 
combination  of  a  strong  conviction,  both  of  mind  and  con- 
science, with  unbending  pride,  vindictive  spite,  and  furious 
anger,  which  together  were  no  doubt  suflacient  to  saw  through 
their  very  hearts. 

55.  But  he,  being  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  looked 
up  stedfastly  into  heaven,  and  saw  the  glory  of  God, 
and  Jesus  standing  on  the  right  hand  of  God. 

Being^  not  the  ordinary  verb  of  existence,  but  one  em- 
ployed repeatedly  above  (2,  30.  3,  2.  6.  4,  34.  37.  5,  4),  and 
originally  meaning  to  begin,  or  to  begin  to  be,  but  used  as 


ACTS  7,  55.  307 

early  as  Herodotus  and  ^schylus  in  the  general  sense  of 
being  or  existing  (see  above,  on  4,  34.)  If  any  accessory 
idea  is  suggested  here,  it  is  rather  that  of  being  stiil,  or  con- 
tinuing to  be  (see  above,  on  5,  4.)  The  fact  here  mentioned 
is  intended  to  explain  the  vision  which  follows  as  a  special 
revelation.  Looked  up  stedfastly^  or  more  exactly,  gazing 
into  heaven  (see  above,  on  1,  10.  3,  4.  12.  6,  15.)  l7ito  heaven 
does  not  necessarily  imply  that  he  could  see  the  sky  from 
where  he  stood,  but  merely  that  he  looked  up  towards  it ; 
all  the  rest  was  preternatural,  ecstatic  vision.  As  such,  the 
process  was,  of  course,  inscrutable  and  indescribable.  In 
Avhat  sense,  or  in  what  way,  Stephen  saw  this  glorious  sight, 
whether  by  a  miraculous  extension  of  his  bodily  vision,  or  by 
mere  removal  of  all  intervening  obstacles,  or  by  the  presen- 
tation of  a  visionary  object,  or  by  a  miraculous  impression 
on  his  mind,  there  is  no  need  of  inquiring,  as  the  actual  effect 
must  still  have  been  the  same,  and  must  have  seemed  so  even 
to  himself  It  is  enough  to  knov/  that  this  effect  was  super- 
natural and  wrought  upon  him  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  also 
that  it  was  confined  to  Stephen,  as  appears  from  the  conduct 
of  his  judges,  recorded  in  the  next  verse.  The  glory  of 
God^  i.  e.  a  sensible  manifestation  of  his  presence.  (See  above, 
on  \.  2.)  On  the  right  hand  of  God^  as  the  post  of  honour 
and  coequal  power.  (See  above,  on  2,  33.  34.  5,  31.)  Stand- 
ing^ not  sitting,  as  he  is  usually  represented  (Matt.  26,  64. 
Mark  16,  19.  Eph.  1,  20.  Col.  3, 1.  Heb.  1,  3.  13.  8,  1.  10,  12. 
12,  2.)  Some  regard  this  as  an  unimportant  difference,  not 
meant  to  be  significant,  as  Paul  and  Peter  elsewhere  simply 
say  that  he  "  is  at  the  right  hand  of  God,"  without  defining 
his  position  (Rom.  8,  34.  1  Pet.  3.  22.)  But  most  inter- 
preters, especially  since  Gregory  the  Great,  explain  the 
standing  posture  as  implying,  that  he  had  risen  from  his 
throne  to  meet  or  to  assist  his  servant.  The  local  phrase, 
though  uniformly  rendered,  for  the  most  part,  in  the  English 
Bible,  is  considerably  varied  in  the  Greek,  right  being  some- 
times in  the  singular  (ev  Se^ta),  and  then  agreeing  with  ha^id 
understood,  and  sometimes  in  the  plural,  either  dative  (as  in 
Mark  16,  5),  or  genitive,  (as  in  Matt.  27,  38.  Mark  15,  27. 
Luke  23,  33,  and  here),  in  which  cases  it  agrees,  not  with 
hands^  but  with  parts^  sides,  or  places.  The  particle  prefixed 
is  sometunes  ^7^,  but  here  and  often  elsewhere  from^  an  idio- 
matic equivalent  to  at  or  on  in  English.  Wicl.  on  the  right 
half  of  the  virtue  of  God. 


308  ACTS  7,  56.  57. 

56.  And  said,  Behold,  I  see  the  heavens  opened, 
and  the  Son  of  Man  standmg  on  the  right  hand  of 
God. 

Behold,^  as  usual,  introduces  something  unexpected  and 
surprising.  (See  above,  on  1,  10.  2,  7.  5,  9.  25.  38.)  I see^  oi 
rather,  I  survey,  contemplate,  implymg  something  grand  and 
solemn  in  the  object.  (See  above,  on  3,  IG.  4,  13,  and  com- 
pare 1, 11.)  The  heavens  opened^  not  merely  cpen^  as  Tyndale 
and  his  followers  have  it,  but  just  opened,  i.  e.  to  the  view 
of  Stephen.  Some  cit6  as  a  parallel  a  line  from  Virgil  {video 
mediicm  discedere  coelum)  describing  a  flash  of  lightning ;  but 
no  such  idea  is  suggested  by  the  Greek  words  here,  any  more 
than  in  the  account  of  our  Lord's  baptism  (Matt.  3,  16.  Mark  1, 
10.  Luke  3,  21.)  The  Son  of  Man^  which  here  replaces  Jesus  in 
the  foregoing  verse,  is  nowhere  else  in  the  Xev/  TcstaniL'iit 
applied  to  Christ,  except  by  himself.  Stephen's  use  of  the 
phrase  here  is  not  sufficiently  exi3]ained  by  the  fact,  that  Jesus 
appeared  in  his  human  form  and  as  the  representative  of  man- 
kind, unless  we  furthermore  suppose  a  reference  to  his  Messi- 
anic claims  and  honours.  '  I  see  the  heavens  opened  to  my 
view,  and  him  who  used  to  call  himself  the  Son  of  Man  on 
earth,  now  standing  as  the  Son  of  Man  in  the  highest  place 
of  honom-  and  authority.' 

57.  Then  they  cried  out  with  a  loud  voice,  and 
stopped  their  ears,  and  ran  upon  him  with  one  accord. 

Then  they  cried,  literally,  and  crying.  (Tynd.  then  they 
gave  a  shout.)  One  or  two  manuscripts  have  crying  in  the 
genitive  singular,  {lie)  crying,  or  {Stephen)  crying ;  but 
Greek  usage  would  require  the  noun  or  pronoun  to  be  ex- 
pressed. Cried  out  with  a  loud  (literally,  a  great)  voice^ 
some  understand  to  mean,  that  they  called  upon  him  to  be 
silent ;  but  it  seems  rather  to  denote  a  confused  clamour, 
some  crying  one  thmg,  some  another,  as  expressly  stated  on 
a  different  occasion.  (See  below,  on  19,  32.)  Stopyped,  hterally, 
held  fast  by  pressing,  as  the  same  verb  means  in  other  appli- 
cations. (Compare  Luke  8,  45.  22,  63.)  This  act,  which  is  v^ 
natural  expression  of  unwiUingness  to  hear,  appears  to  have 
been  practised  both  by  Jews  and  Gentiles,  as  a  special  gesture 
of  abhorrence,  on  the  utterance  of  blasphemy  or  impious  lan- 
guage.    The  tumultuous  excitement  here  described  may  seem 


ACTS  Y,  57.  58.  309 

incredible  in  a  grave  national  assembly,  and  especially  in  one 
of  a  religious  character.  But  it  is  perfectly  in  keepiog  ^\4th 
the  treatment  of  Paul,  and  of  our  Lord  himself,  before  the 
same  tribunal.  (See  beloAV,  on  23,  2,  and  compare  John  18, 
22.)  It  also  agrees  well  with  what  we  know,  from  other 
sources,  of  the  growing  fanaticism  of  the  Zealots,  Avhich  pre- 
cipitated, if  it  did  not  cause,  the  final  downfall  of  Jerusalem, 
and  with  it  the  destruction  of  the  Hebrew  state,  and  of  the 
Jewish  Church,  in  its  legitimate  and  ancient  form.  (See 
above,  on  1,  13.)  Man  upon  him  is  in  Greek  stiU  stronger, 
the  verb  originally  meaning  to  rouse,  urge,  drive,  and  then  as 
an  intransitive,  to  rush^  which  last  is  the  most  exact  equivalent 
in  this  place.  With  07ie  accord^  not  merely  at  the  same  time, 
but  with  one  spontaneous  unpulse,  as  if  the  movement  had 
been  previously  agreed  upon.  The  original  expression  is  a 
single  word,  which  has  occurred  repeatedly  before  in  this 
book.     (See  above,  on  1,  14.   2,  1.  46.  4,  24.  5,  12.) 

58.  And  cast  him  out  of  the  city,  and  stoned  him  ; 
and  the  witnesses  laid  down  their  clothes  at  a  young 
man's  feet,  whose  name  was  Saul. 

The  Ijlasphemcr  in  the  wilderness  was  stoned  without  the 
camp  (Lev.  24,  14),  and  the  same  form  was  observed  in  the 
case  of  N^aboth  (1  Kings  21,  13.)  Li  the  case  of  an  idolater, 
the  law  explicitly  requires,  that  "  the  hands  of  the  witnesses 
shall  be  first  upon  him  to  put  him  to  death,  and  afterwards 
the  hands  of  all  the  people"  (Deut.  17,  7.)  This  law  was  de- 
signed, no  doubt,  to  regulate  the  zeal  of  informers  and  ac- 
cusers, by  requiring  them  to  act  so  conspicuous  a  part  in  the 
execution  of  the  sentence  founded  on  their  testimony.  Li 
order  to  perform  this  duty  with  convenience,  as  the  stones 
first  cast  are  said  to  have  been  very  large,  they  were  obliged 
to  free  themselves  from  the  encumbrance  of  their  long 
and  flowing  upper  garments^  which  is  the  precise  sense  of  the 
word  here  rendered  clothes.  Laid  down,  or  as  the  Rhemish 
version  more  exactly  renders  it,  laid  off,  the  oth«r  idea  being 
implied  but  not  expressed,  at  (near  or  by)  the  feet,  the  same 
phrase  that  occurs  above,  in  4,  35.  37.  5,  2. 10.  From  the 
analogy  of  those  passages,  it  might  seem  to  denote  here,  not 
a  mere  deposit  for  safe-keeping,  which  would  hardly  have 
been  mentioned,  but  the  recognition  of  some  oflficial  authority 
or  dignity  in  the  person  mentioned.     (See  below,  on  20,  10.) 


310  ACTS  7,  58.  59. 

But  perhaps  the  true  view  of  the  matter  is,  that  a  circum 
stance,  which  in  itself  was  wholly  unimportant,  is  introduced 
into  the  narrative  because  of  its  connection  with  the  first 
appearance  of  a  person  so  illustrious,  and  so  conspicuous  in 
the  sequel  of  this  very  history.  You?ig  man,  youth,  is  used 
both  in  Greek  and  Hebrew,  with  great  latitude,  and  therefore 
furnishes  no  certain  measure  of  Ms  age  at  this  time.  His  de- 
scription of  himself  to  Philemon  (v.  9)  as  Paul  the  aged,  even 
m  the  largest  computation  of  the  interval  consistent  with 
known  facts,  would  seem  necessarily  to  show  that  at  the  time 
of  Stej^hen's  death,  he  had  long  passed  the  period  of  adoles- 
cence. It  is  by  no  means  certain,  therefore,  that  he  was  still 
sitting  "  at  the  feet  of  Gamaliel,"  (another  instance  of  the 
phrase  implying  superiority  of  rank  and  office,)  which  some 
regard  as  highly  improbable,  because  the  conduct  here  de- 
scribed was  so  much  at  variance  with  Gamaliel's  own  advice  (see 
above,  on  5,  38.  39.)  But  disciples  are  not  always  as  forbear- 
ing as  their  teachers ;  and  in  this  fanatical  excitement,  even 
Gamaliel  himself  may  have  yielded  to  the  torrent  of  un- 
governable zeal.  Saul,  the  same  name  with  that  of  the 
ancient  king,  who  was  also  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  (see 
below,  on  13,  21,  and  compare  Rom.  11,  1.  Phil.  3,  5),  from 
which  some  have  inferred  that  the  Apostle  was  his  descend- 
ant. The  name  is  sometimes  wiitten  in  its  original  Hebrew 
form  (as  in  9,  4. 17.  22,  7. 13.  26, 14),  but  usually  with  a  Greek 
termmation  (as  in  8,  1.  9, 1.  11,  25.  13,  1,  and  here.) 

59.  And  they  stoned  Stephen  calHng  (upon  God) 
and  saying,  Lord  Jesus,  receive  my  spirit. 

The  repetition  of  the  statement,  that  they  stoned  Stephen, 
has  been  variously  understood,  as  distinguishing  the  formal 
execution  from  rude  pelting  by  the  way ;  or  the  general 
stoning  by  the  peoj^le  from  the  preliminary  stoning  by  the 
witnesses ;  or  as  a  mere  resumption  and  continuation  of  the 
narrative,  after  the  parenthetical  statement  with  respect  to 
the  witnesses  and  Saul.  A  more  important  question  is, 
whether  this  was  a  judicial  execution  or  an  act  of  tumult- 
uary violence.  In  favour  of  the  former  supposition  are  the 
facts,  that  Stephen  was  arraigned  before  a  regular  assembly 
of  the  Sanhedrim  (6,  12.  15)  ;  that  he  and  the  witnesses  had 
Deen  judicially  examined  (6,  11.  13.  7, 1)  ;  and  that  the  law 
of  Moses  was  punctiliously  complied  with  in  the  act  of  stoning 


ACTS   V,  59.  311 

(v.  58.)  It  is  objected,  that  we  read  nothing  of  a  formal  sentence ; 
but  the  same  omission  is  observed  in  cases  where  we  know 
that  all  the  legal  forms  were  meant  to  be  complied  with,  as  in 
that  of  Naboth  (1  Kings  21.  13.)  A  much  stronger  argu- 
ment is  that  derived  from  John  18,  31,  where  the  Jews  them- 
selves say,  "  it  is  not  lawful  for  us  to  put  any  one  to  death  " 
This  is  commonly  understood  to  mean,  that  the  Romans  had 
deprived  them  of  the  power  of  life  and  death  ;  and  we  find 
in  the  Talmud  a  tradition,  that  the  Sanhedrim  did  lose  this 
power  about  fofty  years  before  the  destruction  of  the  temple. 
But  if  this  were  so,  how  shall  we  account  for  Paul's  repeatedly 
speaking  of  himself  as  having  aided  in  persecuting  the  disci- 
ples imto  death?  (See  below,  on  22,4.  26,10.)  Although 
this,  and  similar  expressions  in  Josephus,  may  be  explained 
upon  the  supposition,  that  the  Jews  could  pass  a  sentence  of 
death  (Matt.  26,  66.  Mark  14,  64),  but  could  not  execute  it, 
some  have  preferred  the  explanation  of  John  18,  31,  proposed 
by  Cyril  and  Augustin,  who  suppose  the  incapacity  alleged 
there  to  be  merely  ceremonial  and  temporary,  arising  from 
the  sacredness  of  the  season  ;  so  that  being  equally  unwilling 
to  defer  their  vengeance  and  to  desecrate  their  feast,  they 
asked  Pilate  to  do  for  them  what  they  did  not  feel  at  liberty 
to  do  for  themselves.  But  even  if  the  common  explanation 
of  that  passage  be  adopted,  it  is  not  impossible  that  the  per- 
secution unto  death,  of  which  Saul  speaks,  was  permitted  or 
connived  at  by  the  Roman  governor,  and  therefore  not  a  vio- 
lation of  the  rule  which  John  records.  As  to  the  passionate 
and  furious  dejDortment  of  the  judges,  it  has  been  explained 
already  (on  v.  58)  as  the  effect  of  violent  excitement  actuig 
on  the  growmg  fanaticism  of  the  Zealots,  and  analogous  to 
outbursts  of  vindictive  feeling,  which  have  sometimes  accom- 
panied the  execution  of  not  only  regular  but  righteous  sen- 
tences in  modern  times.  There  is  neither  necessity  nor  war- 
rant, therefore,  for  assuming  a  distinction  in  the  narrative 
between  the  judges  and  the  populace,  referring  what  was 
formal  and  judicial  to  the  one  class,  and  what  was  lawless  and 
tumultuous  to  the  other.  From  all  that  we  know  of  these 
Jewish  rulers,  they  were  capable  of  any  thing  that  could  be 
perpetrated  by  the  peoj)le,  whose  worst  excesses  upon  pre- 
vious occasions  had  been  instigated  by  themselves.  (See 
Matt.  27,  20.  Mark  15,  11.  Luke  23,  23.)  U^pon  God  is  intro- 
duced by  the  Geneva  version  and  King  James's,  no  doubt 
with  a  good  design,  but  with  a  very  bad  effect,  that  of  sep 


312  ACTS   7,  59. 

arating  Stephen's  invocation  from  its  object,  and  obscuring, 
if  not  utterly  concealing,  a  strong  proof  of  the  divinity  of 
Christ.  Galling^  not  merely  naming  or  addressing,  but  in- 
voking, calling  to  one's  aid,  which  is  the  meaning  of  the 
middle  voice  of  this  verb  in  the  best  Greek  writers.  The 
object  of  the  invocation  is  aj^parent  from  the  invocation  itself 
which  immediately  follows.  Galling  upon  God  a7id  saying 
Lord  Jesus  may  have  been  intended  by  the  translators  to 
identify  these  objects  in  the  strongest  manner ;  but  besides 
the  impropriety  of  such  interpolations,  even  for  such  a  pur- 
pose, the  actual  impression  is  most  probably  the  contrary,  to 
wit,  that  there  are  two  distinct  acts  here  recorded,  that  of 
calling  upon  God,  and  that  of  saying  Lord  Jesus,  whereas 
these  acts  are  spok'en  of  as  one  and  the  same,  in  the  Greek 
and  in  several  of  the  older  versions.  (Vulg.  invocantem  et 
dicentem.  Tyndale  and  Cranmer,  calling  on  and  sayi7ig.) 
The  religious  invocation  of  our  Lord  was  not  only  })ractised 
by  the  first  disciples,  but  gave  rise  to  one  of  their  most  common 
appellations.  In  this  very  book,  they  are  repeatedly  described 
as  those  who  "call  upon  this  name"  (9,  14.  21),  which  can 
only  mean  the  name  of  Christ,  because  the  general  invocation 
of  the  name  of  God  was  no  distinction,  being  common  both 
to  Jews  and  Christians,  and  in  a  wide  sense,  to  the  heathen 
also.  This  usage  makes  it  highly  probable,  that  even  the  less 
definite  expression,  calling  on  the  natne  of  the  Lord  (2,  21. 
22,  16.  Rom.  10,  12.  13),  was  designed  to  have  the  same  spe- 
cific meaning.  Li  the  face  of  all  this,  it  is  folly  to  deny  that 
invocation  implies  worship,  and  worse  than  folly  to  pretend 
that  Jesus^  in  the  last  clause  of  the  verse  before  us,  is  a  geni- 
tive {Lord  of  Jesus  !)  Besides  the  grammatical  objection, 
that  this  construction  would  require  the  article  in  Greek,  it  is 
condemned  by  the  analogy  of  Rev.  22,  20,  where  no  one  can 
deny  that  the  very  same  phrase  means  Lord  Jesus,  and  in- 
volves a  recognition  of  him  in  the  twofold  character  of  a 
Sovereign  and  a  Saviour.  The  petition  is  nbt  that  he  Avould 
take  away  his  fife  or  suffer  him  to  die,  as  in  the  case  of  Elijah 
(1  Kings  19,  4)  and  of  Jonah  (4,  3),  but  that  he  would  receive 
or  accept  his  soul  when  separated  from  his  body.  This  prayer 
of  Stephen  is  not  only  a  direct  imitation  of  our  Lord's  upon 
the  cross  (Luke  23,  46),  but  a  further  proof  that  he  addressed 
hun  as  a  divine  person,  since  he  here  asks  of  the  Son  precisely 
what  the  Son  there  asks  of  the  Father. 


ACTS   V,  60.  313 

60.  And  he  kneeled  down  and  cried  with  a  loud 
voice,  Lord,  lay  not  this  sin  to  their  charge.  And 
when  he  had  said  this,  he  fell  asleep 

He  Jcneeled  down^  literally,  placing  the  hnees^  i.e.  upon  the 
ground  (as  in  9,  40.  20,  36.  21,  5.  Luke  22,  41.)  Paul,  in  suni- 
lar  cases,  speaks  of  hending  the  knee^  as  a  preliminary  act  to 
that  here  mentioned.  (See  Rom.  11,  4.  14,  11.  Eph.  3,  14. 
Phil.  2,  10.)  In  the  case  before  us,  this  movement  may  have 
been,  not  merely  an  expression  of  religious  feeling,  but  a 
symptom  of  exhausted  strength  {Khera.  falling  on  his  knees) ^ 
as  in  Luke  23,  34.  Some  with  less  probability  suppose  him 
to  have  kneeled  up^  or  risen  from  a  prostrate  to  a  kneehng 
posture.  This  last  prayer  of  the  martyr  is  also  copied  from 
our  Lord's  upon  the  cross  (Luke  23,  34.)  Lay  not  to  their 
charge^  a  correct  paraphrase  though  not  an  exact  version 
of  the  Greek,  which  strictly  means  do  not  set  (or  pjlace)^  i.  e. 
to  their  account,  or,  as  some  explain  it,  do  not  fix  (or  establish) 
this  against  them.  Another  sense  is  that  suggested  by  the 
usage  of  this  verb  in  Homer  (and  in  Matt.  26,  15)  to  denote 
the  act  of  weighing  money,  which  was  the  most  ancient  mode 
:)f  paying  it.  Do  not  weigh  their  sin,  or  reckon  it,  iu  dealing 
out  to  them  what  they  deserve.  The  essential  meaning  of 
the  prayer  is  stiU  the  same  on  all  these  suf)positions.  Jle  fell 
a^leejy  may  simply  mean  he  died,  a  figure  common  in  the  dia- 
lect of  Homer,  and  perhaps  in  every  other ;  but  it  more 
probably  implies  that  the  martyr  died  a  peaceful  death,  not- 
withstanding the  fury  of  his  murderers  and  the  violent  means 
by  which  he  lost  his  life.  The  same  exquisite  figure  reappears 
in  Paul's  description  of  departed  Christians  as  those  who  are 
fallen  asleep^  in  Christ  (1  Cor.  15, 18),  and  those  who  sleep 
in  Jesus  (1  Thess.  4, 14.) 


CHAPTEE  Yin. 

Feom  the  history  of  the  undivided  Mother  Church,  we  now 
pass  to  that  of  its  extension  in  successive  or  contemporary 
radiations,  occasioned  by  what  seemed  to  be  a  great  disaster, 

VOL.  I. — 14 


314  ACTS  8,  1. 

but  resulting  in  tlie  wide  and  rapid  spread  oi  tne  new  doo 
trine,  and  in  the  formation  of  affiliated  churches,  at  various 
central  points  of  influence  throughout  the  empire.  The  con- 
ventional division  of  the  text  has  thrown  into  the  chapter 
now  before  us  the  commencement  of  this  process,  beginning 
with  its  proximate  occasion,  in  the  persecution  following  the 
death  of  Stephen  (1-3),  and  the  consequent  dispersion  of  be- 
lievers (4),  among  whom  the  historian  selects,  as  an  eminent 
example,  Phihp  and  his  mission  to  Samaria  (5-8),  with  its  re- 
markable success,  both  real  and  apparent  (9-1 3),  followed  by  an 
apostolical  commission  from  Jerusalem  (14-17),  and  the  public 
conviction  of  a  spurious  convert  (18-24).  Before  or  after  the 
return  of  the  Apostles  to  the  Holy  City  (25),  Philip  receives 
a  new  commission  (26)  to  become  the  instructor  and  baptizer  of 
an  Ethiopian  ruler  (27-39),  after  which  he  preaches  in  a  num- 
ber of  important  towns,  including  Cesarea,  where  the  history 
now  leaves  him  (40),  and  where  he  reappears  long  after  (21,  8.) 

1.  And  Saul  was  consenting  unto  his  death.  And 
at  that  time  there  was  a  great  persecution  against  the 
church  Avhich  was  at  Jerusalem,  and  they  were  all 
scattered  abroad,  tlu'oughout  the  regions  of  Judea  and 
Samaria,  except  i^ie  Apostles. 

We  have  here  one  of  the  most  striking  instances  of  care- 
lessness,  or  want  of  judgment,  in  the  division  of  the  chapters 
and  verses.  Not  only  is  this  first  verse  of  unusual  and  need- 
less length  (see  above,  on  5,  21),  but  it  is  made  so  by  annex- 
ing to  it  what  would  have  sufficed  to  form  another  {cmd  they 
v^ere  all  scattered^  etc.),  and  by  prefixing  to  it  what  should 
have  been  the  conclusion  of  the  foregoing  verse  and  chapter 
{find  Scad  was  consenting  to  his  death.)  Was  consenting  is 
the  true  sense  of  the  participial  construction,  which  denotes 
not  a  momentary  act  (Tynd.  consented)^  but  continued  or 
habitual  action.  (See  above,  on  1,  10.  13,  14.)  Consenting^ 
i.  e.  agreeing,  acting  in  concert,  with  the  murderers  (Luke 
11,  48.  Rom.  1,  32.  1  Cor.  7,  12. 13),  not  merely  approving  or 
assenting  to  the  murder.  Death  is  too  negative  a  version  of 
the  Greek  word,  which  is  the  noun  corresponding  to  the  verli 
translated  slay  in  5,  33.  36,  and  hill  in  7,  28,  and  here  used  Id 
the  active  sense  of  kilHng,  murder.  (For  Paul's  account  ot 
his  own  share  in  this  transaction,  see  below,  on  22,  20,  an« 


ACTS  8,  1,  315 

compare  26, 10.)  At  that  time,  lit.  in  that  day,  which  is  some- 
times used  indefinitely  by  the  Prophets  (e.  g.  Isai.  2,  11.  Jer. 
39,  17.  Ez.  29,  21.  Hos.  2,  18),  but  in  the  ISTew  Testament 
always  seems  to  mean  that  very  day,  whether  spoken  of  the 
past  (Matt.  13,  1.  22,  23.  Mark  4,  35.  John  5,  9.  Acts  2,  41), 
or  of  the  future  (Matt.  V,  22.  Mark  2,  20.  4,  35.  Luke  17,  31. 
John  14,  20.  16,  23.  26)  ;  the  more  indefinite  idea  being  ex- 
pressed by  the  plural  form,  m  those  days  (Matt.  3,  1.  24,  19. 
Mark  11,  9.  8,  1.  13,17.24.  Luke  2,  1,  4,2.  9,36.  21,23. 
Acts  2,  18.)  It  was  therefore  on  the  very  day  of  Stephen's 
death  and  burial,  and  as  an  immediate  consequence,  that  this 
persecution  began.  There  icas,  or  more  exactly,  there  arose, 
began  to  be,  or  happened.  (See  above,  on  7,  52.)  For  church, 
Tyndale,  Cranmer,  and  the  Geneva  Bible  have,  as  usual,  co7i- 
gregation.  (See  above,  on  5,  11.)  Wliich  was  at  Jerusalem, 
Ht.  the  {one)  in  Jerusalem.  The  disciples,  although  now  so 
numerous  (see  above,  on  2,  41.  4,  4.  5,  14.  6,  1.  7),  are  spoken 
of  as  still  constitutuig  one  body.  They  were  all  scattered, 
more  exactly,  all  were  scattered,  as  they  is  not  expressed  in 
Greek,  and  has  no  grammatical  antecedent  except  church. 
All  has  been  variously  understood,  as  a  natural  hyperbole  for 
most  or  many  /  as  denoting  all  the  preachers  (see  v.  4)  ;  or 
as  strictly  meaning  all,  with  the  exception  mentioned  in  the 
last  clause,  many  of  whom,  however,  afterwards  returned,  so 
that  the  church  did  not  become  extinct,  or  require  to  be  or- 
ganized afresh,  the  presence  of  the  twelve  being  indeed  suf- 
ficient to  preserve  its  existence  and  identity.  Throughout  is 
here  the  best  equivalent  for  the  Greek  preposition,  which 
means,  in  diflferent  connections,  down,  along,  among,  etc. 
(See  above,  on  2,  10.  5,  15.)  Galilee  is  again  omitted  (as  in 
1,  8),  perhaps  because  Judea  and  Samaria  was  a  customary 
designation  of  the  whole  country  (but  see  below,  on  9,  31)  ; 
or  because  something  not  recorded  really  prevented  the  dis- 
persed from  visiting  that  province,  so  highly  honoured  by  the 
long-continued  residence  of  Christ  himself,  and  possibly  for 
that  very  reason  less  in  need  of  visitation  now.  Except 
(Wicl.  out-takeii)  the  Apostles  seems  to  be  at  variance  with 
our  Lord's  express  command  to  them,  "  When  they  persecute 
you  in  this  city,  flee  into  another"  (Matt.  10,  23.)  This  has 
been  variously  explained  by  supposing,  that  the  twelve,  from 
the  awe  with  which  they  were  regarded,  or  for  some  other 
reason  now  unknown,  escaped  the  persecution ;  or,  which  ia 
the  simplest  and  most  obvious  solution,  that  the  general  rule. 


316  ACTS  8,  1.  2. 

laid  down  in  Matthew,  was  suspended  or  qualified  by  special 
revelation.  Apart  from  the  command  in  question,  it  is  easy 
to  imagine  reasons  why  they  should  remain  at  the  centre  of 
operations,  as  the  constituted  organizers  and  administrators 
of  the  system  which  had  just  been  set  in  motion,  and  as  such 
imparting  to  the  one  church  of  Jerusalem  a  representative 
and  normal  character,  in  consequence  of  which  its  acts  were 
binding  on  the  whole  body,  v/hen  extended  even  into  other 
countries.  (See  below,  on  15,  2.  6,  22.  23.  16,  4.)  According 
to  an  old  tradition,  which  Eusebius  has  copied  from  an  earlier 
writer,  the  Apostles  were  required  to  stay  twelve  years  in 
Jerusalem ;  but  this  has  no  foundation  in  the  history  itself, 
nor  any  intrinsic  probability  to  recommend  it.  The  general 
dispersion  here  described  may  be  regarded  as  the  first  fulfil- 
ment of  the  double  or  repeated  promise,  that  the  law  should 
go  forth  from  Zion  and  the  word  of  the  Lord  from  Jerusalem 
(Micah  4,  2.  Isai.  2,  3.) 

2.  And  devout  men  carried  Stephen  (to  his  burial), 
and  made  great  lamentation  over  liim. 

After  stating  the  general  effect  of  Stephen's  death,  to  wit, 
the  persecution  and  dispersion,  the  historian,  before  following 
the  exiles,  as  he  does  in  this  and  several  ensuing  chapters, 
pauses  to  tell  us  what  became  of  Stephen's  body,  and  what 
Saul  was  doing  in  the  mean  time.  Such  interruptions  and  re- 
sumptions are  so  natural  and  common  in  all  history,  that  it  is 
hard  to  understand  the  objections  made  in  this  case,  and  the 
various  propositions  to  amend,  transpose,  or  strike  out,  as  the 
only  means  by  which  the  text  can  be  made  intelligible  or  co- 
herent. There  is  no  need  even  of  assuming  a  double  contrast 
or  antithesis,  between  the  persecution  and  the  burial,  and 
then  betVv^een  the  devout  men  and  Saul.  The  whole  objection 
rests  upon  the  prevalent  but  shallow  notion,  that  the  slightest 
deviation  from  the  order  of  time,  in  the  narration  of  events, 
if  it  does  not  vitiate  the  truth,  at  least  impairs  the  form  of 
history,  whereas  such  deviations  are  continually  practised  by 
the  best  historians,  as  well  as  in  the  dialect  of  common  life. 
There  is  indeed  a  certain  beauty  in  these  momentary  pauses 
and  returns  to  something  previously  mentioned,  for  the  pur 
pose  of  completing  it  before  proceeding  further,  that  4s  far 
more  pleasing  to  a  cultivated  taste  than  inflexible  adlierence 
to  a  mathematically  straiglit  line,  without  looking  to  the  right 


ACTS  8,  2.  317 

hand  or  the  left.  That  the  sequence  of  ideas  in  the  narrative 
before  us  is  entirely  natural  and  easy,  may  be  made  clear  by 
a  paraphrase.  '  The  martyrdom  of  Stephen,  in  which  Saul  so 
heartily  concurred,  produced  a  general  persecution  and  dis- 
persion of  believers  from  Jerusalem,  none  bemg  left  there  for 
a  time  but  the  Apostles ;  and  yet  this  did  not  deprive  the 
martyr's  body  of  religious  burial,  for  devout  men  bore  him  to 
his  grave  and  mourned  for  him,  while  Saul  was  actually 
ravaguig  the  church  and  searching  every  house  for  Chris- 
tians.' Devout  men^  a  phrase  used  above  (2,  5)  in  application 
to  the  foreign  Jews  who  witnessed  the  efiusion  of  the  Spirit 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  As  in  that  case  it  denotes  the 
serious  and  sincere,  as  distinguished  from  the  frivolous  and 
hypocritical,  so  here  it  seems  to  mean  the  just  and  consci- 
entious, as  distinguished  from  the  bigoted  and  the  fanaticat 
The  objection  to  the  explanation  of  these  words  as  describing 
disciples  of  Christ,  is  not  that  they  vrould  not  have  been  per- 
mitted to  perform  the  act  here  mentioned,  for  they  might 
have  braved  the  prohibition,  and  thereby  provoked  the  i3er- 
secution  ;  but  it  is  that  the  epithet  here  used  is  nowhere  else 
applied  to  Christians.  (See  above,  on  2,  5,  and  belovf,  on  22, 
12.)  Carried^  hterally,  gathered^  brought  together,  as  applied 
to  fruits  by  Xenophon,  and  in  the  Septuagint  version  of  Job 
5,  26,  where  it  is  also  metaphorically  used  of  burial,  as  it  is 
by  Sophocles,  while  Plutarch  and  Thucydides  apply  it  to  the 
literal  collection  of  dead  bodies  on  a  field  of  battle  to  be 
burnt.  The  common  version  is  derived  from  the  Geneva 
Bible  ("certain  men  fearing  God  carried  Stephen  among 
them  to  be  buried,")  whereas  Tyndale  and  Cranmer  render 
the  verb  dressed^  perhaps  confounding  it  with  that  used  in 
5,  6,  and  the  Rhemish  version  has  the  singular  periphrasis, 
took  order  for  Stephen's  funeral.  The  simplest,  and  perhaps 
the  best,  of  all  the  English  versions  is  the  oldest  (Wicl.  good 
men  hurled  Stephen^  Lameyitation^  literally,  heating.,  in 
allusion  to  the  ancient  practice  of  beating  the  breast,  as  a 
sign  of  mourning.  (Analogous,  both  in  etymology  and  usage, 
is  the  Latin  planctus  from  plango^  Over.,  not  merely  in  the 
figurative  sense  of  about,  concerning,  but  in  the  literal  and 
local  sense,  implying  that  they  mourned  while  standing  (or 
hanging)  over  the  dead  body.  Some  have  made  it  an  objec- 
tion to  the  reference  of  this  clause  to  devout  Jews,  that  they 
could  not  be  expected  to  express  such  sorrow  as  is  here  de- 
scribed.    But  why  not,  if  they  were  his  countrymen,  his  rela- 


318  ACTS  8,  2.  3. 

tives,  liis  private  friends  ?  Such  ties  are  not  necessarily 
destroyed  by  religious  diflerences,  however  great ;  and  this 
is  a  much  more  satisfactory  solution  than  the  one  derived 
from  the  alleged  custom  of  the  moderate  and  pious  Jews  to 
bury  those  whom  they  regarded  as  unjustly  put  to  death. 
This,  if  sufficiently  attested,  would  explain  the  act  of  burial, 
but  not  the  great  lamentation  over  Stephen,  unless  that  be 
ascribed  to  other  mourners,  i.  e.  the  disciples,  which,  although 
a  possible  construction,  is  by  no  means  obvious  or  natural. 
The  case  may  seem  analogous  to  that  in  6,  6,  where  the  sub- 
jects of  the  two  successive  verbs  are  diflerent ;  but  in  that 
case,  the  subject  of  the  last  clause  is  expressly  mentioned  in 
the  first.  "  Whom  they  (the  people)  set  before  the  Apostles, 
and  they  (the  Apostles)  laid  their  hands  upon  them."  But 
^n  the  ^case  before  us  the  only  subject  named  is  the  devout  men 
of  the  first  clause.  It  is  better,  therefore,  on  the  whole,  to 
understand  this  great  lamentation^  not  J»  a  public  or  sectarian, 
but  as  a  personal  or  private  mourning,"perhaps  made  more  in- 
tense by  what  they  loohcd  upon  as  Stephen's  apostasy  from 
God  and  Moses  (6,  11.) 

3.  As  for  Saul,  he  made  havoc  of  the  church,  en- 
tering into  every  house,  and  hahng  men  and  women, 
committed  them  to  prison. 

The  connection  between  this  and  the  i^receding  verse 
would  be  correctly  indicated  by  translatmg  (Se),  instead  of 
as  for ^  loliile^  or  in  the  7nean  time.  The  idea  is,  that  all  these 
things  were  going  on  at  once,  or  nearly  at  the  same  time, 
devout  men  bearing  Stephen  to  his  burial,  disciples  flying 
from  Jerusalem,  and  Saul  still  driving  them  before  him. 
Hade  havoc  (Tyndale,  Cranmer,  and  Geneva),  literally,  vmsted 
(Rhemish  version),  i.  e.  laid  waste,  ravaged,  as  a  beast  of  prey 
does ;  then  transferred  to  human  tyranny  and  persecution. 
(Compare  the  similar  expressions  used  in  9,  21  below,  and  m 
Gal.  1,  13.)  Into  every  house  (Tyndale,  Cranmer,  and  Geneva), 
or  from  house  to  house  (Rheims),  should  rather  be  translated 
into  houses^  as  distinguished  from  more  public  places.  (See 
above,  on  2,  46.)  Haling  (in  the  first  edition  of  King  James's 
Bible  written  hailing)  is  an  old  English  form  of  haiding^  i.  e. 
violently  pulling,  dragging.  As  the  Greek  verb  is  repeatedlji 
applied  by  Luke  (17,  6.  12,  58)  to  the  bringing  up  of  accused 
persons  before  magistrates,  it  may  mean  nothing  more  in  this 


ACTS  8,  3.4.5.  319 

case  ;  but  the  strict  and  strong  sense  is  entitled  to  the  prefer- 
ence,  not  only  as  such,  but  because  proceedings  of  this  kind 
must  always  be  attended  with  some  force  or  violence.  Saul's 
agency  in  these  imjDrisonments  is  more  than  once  referred  to 
by  hunself.  (See  below,  on  22,  4.  5.  26, 10.)  This  form  of 
persecution  was  expressly  predicted  by  our  Lord  (Luke 
21,  12.) 

4.  Therefore  they  that  were  scattered  abroad  went 
every  where  preaching  the  word. 

Therefore  (Cranmer  and  Geneva)  should  be  so  then.,  as  a 
resumptive  and  continuative  particle,  the  same  that  is  used 
above,  in  1,  6.  2,  41.  5,  41,  and  there  explamed.  The  writer, 
having  paused  to  tell  us  what  became  of  Stephen  and  of  Saul, 
now  resumes  his  narrative  of  the  dispersion,  not  by  repeat- 
ing what  he  said  in  v.  1,  but  by  advancing  a  step  further.  As 
he  there  said  that  all  (except  the  twelve)  were  scattered,  he 
now  says  that  all  who  were  thus  scattered  preached  the  word. 
Some  would  infer  from  this,  that  none  but  preachers  were  ex- 
pelled ;  but  it  is  far  more  natural  to  understand  the  verse  as 
referring,  not  to  preaching  in  the  technical  or  formal  sense, 
but  to  that  joyful  and  spontaneous  diffusion  of  the  truth, 
which  is  permitted  and  requu'ed  of  all  believers,  whether  lay 
or  clerical,  ordained  or  unordained.  Weyit  every  ichere 
(T}Tidale,  Cranmer,  Geneva),  literally,  we7it  through  (Rheims, 
passed  through,  Wiclif,  passed  fortli),  i.  e.  through  the  coun- 
try, or  its  towns  ;  but  when  absolutely  used,  it  is  nearly  equiv- 
alent to  u^ent  about.  (See  belovr,^on  v.  40,  and  10,  38.)  The 
icord,  a  common  abbreviation  for  the  icord  of  God,  the  Gos- 
pel, or  the  new  rehgion.  (See  above,  on  4.  4.)  Preaching, 
proclaiming  it,  as  good  news  or  glad  tidings.  (See  above,  on 
5,  42.)  Here  again  the  Rhemish  version  violates  om*  idiom 
by  the  barbarous  translation,  eiKingelizing  the  word.  "We 
have  here  a  signal  illustration  of  the  providential  law,  accord- 
ing to  which  what  appears  to  be  an  u-retrievable  calamity,  is 
not  only  overruled,  but  designed  from  the  beginning,  to  pro- 
mote the  very  cause  which  it  seems  to  threaten  with  disaster 
and  defeat. 

5.  Then  Philip  went  down  to  the  city  of  Samaria, 
and  preached  Christ  unto  them. 

The  general  statement,  that  the  dispersed  disciples  carried 


320  ACTS  8,  6. 

with  them  the  glad  tidings  of  salvation,  through  whatever 
region  they  might  pass,  is  now  exemplified  by  one  specific  in- 
stance out  of  many,  chosen  either  as  the  fii'st  in  time,  or  as 
relating  to  a  race  who  occupied  a  sort  of  intermediate  position 
between  Jews  and  Gentiles.  (See  above,  on  1,  8.)  The  con- 
nection would  have  been  better  indicated  by  a  simple  copu- 
lative {and)  than  by  an  adverb  of  time  [theoi).  Philip^  not  the 
Apostle  (see  above,  on  1,  13) — for  he  would  then  be  an 
exception  to  the  previous  exception  in  the  last  clause  of  v.  1, 
but  one  of  the  Seven  (6,  8),  who  may  have  been  pecufiarly 
exposed  to  persecution,  as  the  colleagues  of  Stephen,  or  be- 
cause their  ofiice  brought  them  into  frequent  contact  and  col- 
lision with  the  unbelieving  Jews.  (See  above,  on  G,  9.)  He 
is  no  doubt  the  same  person  described  in  21,  8,  as  an  Evan- 
gelist, perhaps  from  the  circumstances  here  related.  His 
being  expressly  so  described  relieves  all  difiiculty  as  to  a 
Deacon's  preaching,  without  requiring  us  to  grant  that  it  be- 
longed, as  a  necessary  fuuction,  to  that  office.  His  being 
called  a  Preacher,  or  Evangelist,  so  late  in  the  history,  is  no 
objection,  as  that  description  must  be  retrospective,  and  as 
Philip,  if  ever  entitled  to  be  thus  called,  must  have  been  so 
when  he  preached  Christ  to  the  Samaritans.  The  city  of  Sa- 
maria  can  in  English  only  mean  the  city  (called)  ^amaria^ 
the  royal  residence  of  the  kings  of  Israel  for  two  hundred 
years,  from  the  time  of  Omri,  by  whom  it  was  founded  (1 
Kings  16,  24.  2  IGngs  IV,  5.  6)  on  the  summit  of  an  insulated 
hill  in  the  central  plain  or  table-land  of  Palestine,  a  site  de- 
scribed by  travellers  as  unsurpassed  in  the  whole  country  for 
combined  richness,  strength,  and  beauty.  Nothing  could 
seem  more  natural  than  that  some  of  the  dispersed  disciples 
should  visit  the  Samaritans,  to  whom  their  Master  had  hunself 
done  so  much  honour  at  an  early  period  of  his  ministry 
(John  4,  40),  and  that  in  so  domg  they  should  make  the 
ancient  caj^ital  the  centre  of  their  operations.  Yet  to  this 
obvious  and  in  English  only  meaning  of  the  passage  there  are 
several  objections,  some  of  which  have  little  force,  but  others 
are  less  easily  disposed  of.  One  objection  is,  that  the  old  city 
was  no  longer  in  existence  ;  but  we  learn  from  Josephus,  that 
although  destroyed  by  Hyrcanus,  it  had  been  rebuilt  by  Ga- 
binius,  and  beautified  by  Herod  the  Great.  It  is  alleged, 
however,  that  this  new  or  renovated  city  was  not  caUed 
Samaria^  but  Sehaste^  the  Greek  equivalent  of  Augusta^  in 
honour  of  Augustus  Caesar.     This  is  true,  but  it  is  also  true 


ACTS  8,  5.  321 

that  old  names  seldom  die  in  popular  and  local  usage ;  and 
that  this  was  not  the  case  with  the  name  Samaria^  we  know 
from  its  occasional  occurrence  in  the  writings  of  Josephus. 
But  even  granting  that  the  place  was  in  existence,  and  might 
still  be  called  Samaria,  its  designation  here  by  that  name  is 
less  probable,  because  in  every  other  passage  where  the  name 
occurs,  it  means  the  province,  not  the  city.  (See  Luke  IV,  11. 
John  4,  4.  5,  1.  Acts  1,  8.  9.  31.  15,  3.)  It  might  still  by  pos- 
sibility have  that  sense  in  this  context ;  but  m  v.  9,  the  wide 
one  is  required  by  the  use  of  the  word  nation  {IQvoi)^  which 
could  not,  iA  accordance  vath  Greek  usage,  be  applied  to  the 
j)opulation  of  a  single  city ;  and  m  v.  14,  although  the  same 
doubt  may  exist  as  in  the  case  before  us,  the  wide  sense  is  at 
least  as  natural  as  the  restricted  one.  Strong  as  these  reasons 
are  against  Ihnitmg  the  name  to  the  city  of  Samaria,  they  are 
made  still  stronger  by  the  genitive  construction,  which,  though 
perfectly  familiar  to  all  English  readers,  occurs  but  rarely,  if 
at  all,  in  classic  Greek,  and  only  once  besides  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament (2  Pet.  2,  6),  and  even  there  admits  of  another  ex- 
planation, as  referring  not  to  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  alone,  but 
to  the  towns  dependent  on  them.  If,  in  spite  of  all  these  ar- 
guments from  usage,  this  should  still  seem  to  be  the  only 
natural  import  of  the  city  of  Samaria^  it  may  finally  be 
urged,  that  the  original  expression  is  indefinite,  i.  e.  without 
the  article,  and  strictly  means  a  city  of  Samaria.  The  simi- 
lar expression,  city  of  David  (Luke  2,  4),  is  not  perfectly 
analogous,  as  we  might  call  Bethlehem  David's  city^  but 
could  hardly  call  Samaria  JSa77iaria''s  city.  The  conclusion 
from  all  these  considerations  seems  to  be,  that  the  historian 
here  speaks,  not  of  the  city  called  Samaria,  but  of  some  other 
place  belonging  to  that  province ;  the  distinction  being  just 
the  same  with  that  between  "  the  city  of  New  York,"  which 
is  applicable  only  to  one  place,  and  "  a  city  of  New  York," 
which  is  appropriate  to  many.  To  the  question  what  town 
of  Samaria  is  meant,  if  not  the  ancient  capital,  no  certain 
answer  can  be  given.  It  may  stilL  be  the  capital,  though  not 
expressly  so  described,  just  as  "  a  city  of  New  York  "  may 
vaguely  designate  "  the  city  of  New  York,"  as  well  as  any 
other.  Or  it  may  be  some  place  unknown  to  history,  and 
wholly  unimportant  in  itself,  perhaps  the  first  town  of  Samaria 
to  which  Philip  came,  where  he  instantly  preached  Christ 
without  delay,  and  where  the  general  reception  of  the  gospel 
might  be  justly  represented  (in  v.  14  below)  as  the  act  of 

VOL.  I. — 14* 


322  ACTS   8,  5. 

Samaria,  i.  e.  of  the  race  or  nation,  represented  by  these  early 
com^erts  or  first  friiits  of  apostolic  labour.  Or,  a^'oiding  both 
extremes,  the  place  meant  may  be  Sychar,  the  ancient  She- 
chem,  a  city  famous  in  primeval  history,  more  lately  honoured 
by  a  two  days'  residence  of  Christ  himself,  and  ever  since, 
until  the  present  day,  the  chief  seat  and  centre  of  the  Samari- 
tan race  and  religion.  (See  above,  on  7, 16.)  That  no  good 
ground  can  be  assigned  for  the  suppression  of  the  name  is 
true,  but  as  a  purely  negative  objection  or  argument  a 
siUntio^  can  hardly  neutralize  the  cumulative  reasons  for  in- 
terpreting Samaria  in  a  wide  sense,  and  a  city  in  a  vague 
one.  But  whatever  may  be  the  particular  place  meant, 
the  essential  fact  is  still  the  same,  that  it  belonged  to  the 
Samaritans^  a  mixed  or,  as  some  suppose,  a  purely  heathen 
race,  introduced  by  the  Assyrians  to  supply  the  place  of  the 
ten  tribes  (2  Kings  17,  24),  and  afterwards  partially  assimi- 
lated to  the  Jews  (ib.  25-41),.  by  the  rece^jtion  of  the  law  of 
Moses,  and  the  professed  Avorship  of  Jehovah  on  Mount 
Gerizun,  involvmg  a  rejection  of  the  sanctuary  at  Jerusalem, 
from  the  rebuilding  of  which,  after  the  Babylonish  exUe,  they 
were  excluded  by  the  restored  Jews  (Ezra  4,  1-3.)  At  the 
time  of  the  Advent,  they  were  expecting  the  Messiah,  but 
only,  it  should  seem,  in  his  prophetic  character  (John  4,  25), 
for  which  reason,  and  because  of  their  entire  segregation  from 
the  Jews  (John  4,  9),  our  Saviour  did  not  scruple  to  avow  his 
Messiahship  among  them  (John  4,  26.  29,  42),  and  to  gather 
the  first  fruits  of  an  extra- Judaic  church  (John  4,  39),  with 
the  cheering  promise  of  a  more  abundant  harvest,  to  be 
reaped  by  his  Apostles  (John  4,  35-38.)  Of  this  promise  we 
have  here  the  first  fulfilment,  and  at  the  same  time  the  in- 
cipient transition  of  the  gospel  from  the  Jews  to  the  Gentiles, 
between  whom  the  Samaritans  might  be  regarded  as  a  link, 
or  as  a  frontier.  (See  above,  on  1,  8.)  To  them  Philip  now 
preached  Christ  or  the  Jlessiah,  i.  e.  proclaimed  that  he  was 
come,  and  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  he.  As  all  this  had 
been  taught  by  Christ  himself  at  Sychar,  that  may  be  re- 
garded as  an  argument,  though  far  from  a  conclusive  one, 
against  supposing  that  place  to  be  here  particularly  meant ; 
since  Philip  is  not  said  to  have  taught  doctrmes  altogether 
new,  and  since  just  such  a  rej^etition  of  renewal  of  his  work 
had  been  predicted  by  our  Lord  himself  (John  4,  35-38.) 
Uiito  them,  i.  c.  to  the  inhabitants,  the  grammatical  antece' 


ACTS  8,  5.  6.  323 

dent  being  latent  in  the  name  or  description  of  the  place,  as 
it  is  ill  Galilee^  Matt.  4,  23,  and  church  in  v.  1  above. 

6.  And  tlie  people  with  one  accord  gave  heed  nnto 
those  things  which  Philip  spake,  hearing  and  seeing 
the  miracles  which  he  did. 

The  previous  preparation  of  the  ground,  by  the  visit  of 
our  Saviour,  may  have  contributed  to  the  success  of  Philip's 
ministry.  The  people^  literally,  the  croicds  or  midtitudes^  a 
word  implying  not  mere  numbers,  many  as  opposed  to  few, 
but  promiscuousness,  masses  as  opposed  to  classes.  (See  above, 
on  1,  15.  6,  7.)  Gave  heed^  lit.  applied  (the  mind),  i.  e. 
attended,  paid  attention  to  his  teaching.  (See  above,  on  5, 
So.)  It  may  imply  belief  here,  as  it  seems  to  do  in  vs.  10.  11, 
and  in  16,  14.  Tlie  {things)  spohen  by  Philip^  as  described 
in  the  last  clause  of  v.  5,  i.  e.  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  and 
the  doctrine  of  salvation  through  him.  The  common  version, 
perhaps  in  order  to  remove  an  ambiguity,  transj^oses  unani- 
mously^ or  with  one  accord,  from  its  original  position,  which 
IS  after  the  things  spohen  by  Philip^  both  in  Greek  and  in 
the  old  English  versions.  The  Rhemish  even  joins  it  to  the 
last  clause,  by  its  punctuation  of  the  sentence  (with  one  accord 
hearing  and  seeing.)  For  the  meaning  of  the  word  itself,  see 
above,  on  1, 14.  2,  1.  2,  46.  4,  24.  5,  12.  7,  57.  Hearing  and 
seeing  may  either  mean  hearing  (of  the  miracles)  and  seeing 
them,  i.  e.  seeing  some  and  hearing  of  others;  or,  hearing  {them) 
and  see'mg  the  miracles^  i.  e.  hearing  the  things  S23oken  by 
Philip,  and  seeing  the  miracles  which  he  performed.  3fira- 
cles,  literally,  sig)is  ;  see  above,  on  2,  19.  22,  43.  4,  16.  22,  30. 
5,  12.  6,  8.  V,  36.)  Hearing  and  seeing .^  literally,  in  the  (act, 
or  at  the  time  of)  hearing  and  seeing.,  not  in  (consequence 
of)  hearing  and  seeing.,  i.  e.  because  they  heard  and  saw, 
which,  though  implied,  is  not  expressed.  (See  above,  on 
7,  29.)  As  in  our  Saviour's  day,  so  now  hi  that  of  the  Apos- 
tles and  Evangelists,  the  masses  were  attracted  and  impressed, 
not  merely  by  the  miracles  performed,  but  also  by  the  truth 
proclaimed.  (See  above,  on  5,  15,  and  compare  Luke  5,  1.) 
The  two  inducements  mutually  fortified  each  other.  The 
miracles  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles  were  designed,  not  merely 
to  relieve  distress  and  prove  their  own  divme  legation,  but  to 
open  men's  hearts  to  instruction,  and  to  serve  as  signs  and 


324  ACTS  8,  6.  7. 

pledges  of  a  spiritual  healing,  with  which  bodily  relief  was 
often  really  connected.  (See  above,  on  4, 12.)  The  posses- 
sion of  the  same  extraordinary  powers  by  Philip  and  by  Ste- 
phen (6,  5.  8)  shows  that  the  description  there  was  only  for- 
mally restricted  to  the  latter. 

7.  Por  unclean  spirits,  crying  with  loud  voice, 
came  out  of  many  that  were  possessed  with  them  ;  and 
many  taken  with  palsies,  and  that  were  lame,  were 
healed. 

Lest  the  incidental  reference  to  Philip's  miracles  (in  v.  6) 
should  be  overlooked  or  misconceived,  the  fact  is  now  ex- 
j^licitly  asserted,  and  with  some  minuteness  of  detail.  As  if  he 
had  said,  '  I  speak  of  miracles,  for  out  of  many  of  those  hav- 
ing unclean  spirits,  etc'  As  to  the  prominence  given  here 
and  elsewhere  to  this  class  of  miracles,  see  above,  on  5,  16. 
The  frequent  mention  of  the  demons  as  crying  when  they 
came  out  (Mark  1,  26.  3, 11.  9,  26.  Luke  4,  41)  may  arise 
from  the  flict,  that  the  cry  was  evidently  not  uttered  by  the 
patient,  in  the  free  use  of  his  vocal  organs,  and  therefore 
proved  the  reality  of  the  possession.  The  construction  of 
this  verse  is  ambiguous,  as  unclean  spirits  may  be  either  the 
object  of  the  verb  had^  or  the  subject  of  the  verb  came  out. 
In  the  former  case,  the  literal  translation  is,  {from)  many  of 
those  hamng  unclean  spirits^  crying  icith  a  loud  voice  {these) 
loent  out ;  in  the  other,  {froiri)  many  of  those  having  {them)^ 
evil  spirits,  crying  with  a  loud  voice,  loent  out.  The  essential 
meaning  is  of  course  unaffected  by  this  question  of  construc- 
tion. The  Vulgate  and  its  followers  read,  '  many  of  those 
having  unclean  spirits,  crpug  with  a  loud  voice,  went  out,' 
which  apparently  absurd  construction  is  found  in  the  text  of 
the  three  oldest  manuscripts,  and,  if  received  as  genuine,  may 
be  explained  as  an  irregular  expression  of  the  same  idea,  the 
demoniac  being  substituted  for  the  demon,  either  intention- 
ally, on  account  of  their  intimate  union,  or  by  a  natural  and 
unimportant  negligence  of  style.  To  this  worst  class  of  mala- 
dies are  added  two  of  the  most  common  and  severe,  but  not 
preternatural  affections.  Taken  with  p)alsies,  literally,  p)Cira' 
lyzed,  both  English  words  being  derived  from  the  Greek  one 
here  used,  which  is  almost  confined  to  Luke  (the  only  other 
instance  being  Heb.  12, 12),  while  the  corresponding  adjective 


ACTS  8,  7.  8.  9.  -325 

{paralytic,  never  used  in  any  of  tlie  English  versions,  bnt 
invariably  expressed  by  a  circumlocution)  is  found  only  in  the 
other  evangelists.  (Compare  the  Greek  of  Matt.  4,  24.  8,  6. 
9,  2.  6.  Mark  2,  3.  4.  5.  9.  10,  ^ith  that  of  Luke  5,  18.  24, 
9,  33.) 

8.  And  there  was  great  joy  in  that  city. 

The  happy  effect  of  Philip's  mission  upon  these  Samaritans 
is  beautifully  set  forth  in  this  one  short  sentence,  which  is  not, 
hoYfever,  fully  reproduced  in  EngHsh.  There  was  (eyeVero), 
there  came  to  be,  began  to  be,  arose,  or  happened,  impljnng 
a  great  change  and  neAV  occasion  of  rejoicmg.  (See  above, 
on  V.  1,  and  on  7,  29.)  There  seems  to  be  allusion  to  the  pro- 
verbial joy  of  harvest  (Isai.  9,  3.  16,  9),  as  predicted  by  our 
Saviour,  in  relation  to  this  very  people  (John  4,  35.  36.)  That 
city  is  compatible  mth  any  supposition  as  to  the  particular 
place  meant,  but  seems  more  natural  if  spoken  of  a  to^Yn  not 
named  before,  than  if  applied  to  the  famous  city  of  Samaria. 
For  the  Tvdde  sense  of  the  word  translated  city^  see  above,  on 
5,6  (p.  211.)  The  Joy  here  mentioned  is  to  be  restricted, 
neither  to  the  natural  enjoyment  of  recovered  health,  in  one's 
own  person  and  in  that  of  others,  nor  to  the  mteUectual 
pleasure  of  acquiring  knowledge  and  discovering  truth,  nor 
to  the  spiritual  happiness  arising  from  conversion  and  as 
surance  of  forgiveness,  but  must  be  understood  as  compie 
bending  all  these  elements,  and  therefore  justly  called  a 
great  joy. 

9.  But  there  was  a  certain  man  called  Simon,  which 
beforetime  in  the  same  city  nsed  sorcery,  and  be- 
witched the  people  of  Samaria,  giving  out  that  him- 
self was  some  great  one. 

The  field  presented  in  this  city,  although  highly  promismg, 
was  not  unoccupied  when  Philip  entered  it.  A  certain  man^ 
hy  name  Simon  (the  precise  form  of  expression  used  above  in 
5,  1),  was  there  before  him  {Tvpovwripxcv)^  using  sorcery^  or 
practising  the  profession  of  a  Magus.  This  word,  of  Persian 
origin,  but  found  in  the  Old  Testament  (Jer.  39,  3),  as  well  as 
in  the  Classics,  is  said  to  have  been  originally  the  name  of  a 
Median  tribe,  but  was  afterwards  emj^loyed,  like  Chaldee  or 
Chaldean  (Dan.  2,  2.  4,  VI),  as  a  generic  designation  of  tne 


326  ACTS  8,  9. 

priests,  philosophers,  and  men  of  science,  in  the  Persian 
empire.  Such,  no  doubt,  were  the  Wise  Men  {3fagi)  super- 
naturally  guided  from  the  East  to  Bethlehem,  to  do  homage 
to  the  new-born  King  of  the  Jews  (Matt.  2,  1.)  The  connec- 
tion which  existed  between  ancient  Oriental  science  and  the 
occult  arts,  as  for  instance  between  astronomy  and  astrology, 
occasioned  a  lower  application  of  the  name  to  sorcerers  and 
wizards,  a  secondary  usage  which  may  still  be  traced  m  our 
words  magic  and  magician.  Such  pretenders  to  extraordi- 
nary 230wer  and  knowledge  appear  to  have  been  very  numer^ 
ous  in  the  Apostolic  Age,  their  influence  arising,  no  doubt,  in 
great  measure,  from  their  real  science,  as  compared  with  the 
great  mass  of  their  credulous  contemporaries.  It  is  in  this 
sense,  and  not  in  that  of  mere  juggling,  that  Simon  seems  to 
be  described  here  as  (/xayei;(oi/)  j^ractising  magic,  acting  as  a 
Magus,  in  this  city  of  Samaria,  not  at  a  former  time,  as  might 
seem  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  English  version,  Ibut  imme- 
diately before  Philip's  appearance.  Simo7%  was  before  {hhn) 
in  the  city^  using  sorcery^  etc.  His  success  appears  to  have 
been  very  great,  though  not  precisely  such  as  might  be 
gathered  from  the  version,  and  bewitched  the  loeople^  which 
implies  the  real  exercise  of  some  extraordinary  physical  power, 
whereas  the  Greek  word  only  means  amazing  them,  as  in  2,  7. 
12  above,  and  9,  21  below,  or  at  the  most  maddening,  de- 
priving them  of  reason,  by  excessive  admiration  and  excite- 
ment, the  idea  conveyed  by  the  Italian  phrase,  far  furore. 
The  subjects  of  this  violent  commotion  were  the  people  (or 
more  exactly,  the  nation)  of  Samaria^  not  the  mere  popula- 
tion of  one  city,  but  the  race  uihabiting  the  whole  province 
of  that  name,  and  who  have  been  described  already.  (See 
above,  on  v.  4.)  This  may  perhaps  imply  that  he  was  an 
itinerant  magician,  like  the  "  vagabond  exorcists  "  of  Ephesus 
(see  below,  on  19,  13),  and  like  the  other  sorcerers  of  that 
day,  as  described  by  Josephus  and  the  classical  historians. 
We  may  then  suppose  him  to  have  reached  the  city  here  in 
question  upon  one  of  his  professional  visits,  just  before  Phihp's 
arrival,  although  previously  known  to  the  uihabitants,  as  men- 
tioned in  the  next  verse.  Giving  out  (an  old  English  phrase 
for  declaring  or  professing)  hhnself  to  be  some  great  {one),  or 
rather  some  great  {being),  not  merely  a  distinguished  man,  but 
something  superhuman.  The  expression  is  the  same  as  in 
f),  36  above,  with  the  addition  of  the  epithet  great. 


ACTS  8,  10.  11.  32'; 

10.  To  whom  (they)  all  gave  heed,  from  the  least 
to  the  greatest,  saying,  This  man  is  the  great  power 
of  God. 

They  is  superfluous,  as  in  v.  1.  Gave  heed^  as  in  v.  6,  ex- 
pressing only  Hxed  attention,  but  implying  faith  or  confidence 
in  either  case.  All^  as  in  v.  1,  means  the  mass  or  body  of  the 
people,  without  reference  to  individual  exceptions.  From  the 
least  to  the  greatest  (so  in  all  the  English  versions)  might  be 
more  exactly  rendered,  fro77i  small  to  great^  a  Hebrew  idiom, 
or  a  natural  expression,  for  all  ranks  and  ages,  which  occurs 
again  m  Pleb.  8,  11  (compare  Jon.  3,  5.)  This  man  (Tynd. 
this  felloio)  is  the  ]}oicer  of  God^  not  only  clothed  with  dele- 
gated power  by  God,  but  himself  a  divine  person,  or  at  least 
an  emanation  from  the  Godhead,  in  accordance  with  the 
favourite  theosophy  of  that  day,  afterwards  embodied  in  the 
Gnostic  systems.  Several  of  the  oldest  manuscripts  and  ver- 
sions read,  the  (power)  called  great^  which  may  either  mean 
so  called  but  not  so  really,  or  so  called  in  some  well  known 
theory  or  doctrine,  as  in  Simon's  own  description  of  himself. 
What  he  claimed  to  be  precisely,  we  have  no  means  of  deter- 
minmg.  According  to  different  early  vrriters,  he  professed  to 
be  the  Logos,  the  Messiah,  the  Samaritan  Archangel,  and  the 
Power  of  God  personified,  which  last  is  a  mere  gloss  uj^on  the 
words  before  us.  Jerome  represents  him  as  saying,  "  I  am 
the  Word  of  God,  I  am  the  Paraclete,  I  am  the  Almighty,  I 
am  all  (or  the  whole)  of  God  {omnia  DeiP)  But  this  is  proba- 
bly a  figment  of  later  Christian  origin. 

11.  And  to  him  they  had  regard,  because  that  of 
long  time  he  had  bewitched  them  with  sorceries. 

This  is  not  a  mere  repetition  of  the  statement  in  v.  10,  but 
assigns  a  reason  for  the  fact  there  stated.  The  Enghsh  reader 
would  hardly  suspect  that  had  regard  in  this  verse  is  identical 
with  gave  heed  in  the  one  before  it.  Some  of  the  older  ver- 
sions go  still  further  in  these  heedless  variations.  TjTidale, 
for  exam2:)le,  renders  the  same  Greek  word  gave  heed  (v.  6), 
regarded  (v.  10),  and  set  much  hy  (v.  11),  in  all  which  changes 
he  is  closely  followed  both  by  Cranmer  and  the  Geneva  Bible. 
The  reason  that  they  paid  him  such  attention  is  here  said  to 
ba,  that  he  had  long  bewitched,  as  m  v.  9,  i.  e.  astonished  and 
3onfound#i  them  by  sorceries  (//.ayetats)  or  magical  iUusious, 


328  ACTS   8,  11.  12. 

perhaps  the  fruit  of  his  superior  scientific  knowledge,  but 
which  these  Samaritans  could  neither  call  in  question  nor  ac- 
count for,  and  were  therefore,  so  to  speak,  obliged  to  submit 
to  his  i^retensions,  as  incapable  of  refutation.  There  is  no 
allusion  to  any  physical  effect,  but  only  to  this  moral  influence, 
exerted  by  his  arts,  whatever  they  may  have  been.  (Wiclif, 
who  had  deceived  in  v.  9,  here  has  madded.)  All  this,  we  here 
earn,  was  no  new  thing,  but  had  continued  time  enough^  a 
phrase  used  in  Greek,  as  it  might  be  in  familiar  English,  for  a 
long  time,  but  without  affording  any  definite,  measure  of 
duration.  (See  below,  on  9,  23.  43.  14,  3.  18,  18.  27, 1.  9,  and 
above,  on  5,  37,  where  the  same  term  is  applied  to  quantity 
or  number.) 

12.  But  when  tliey  believed  Philip  preachmg  the 
(things)  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God  and  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ,  they  were  baptized,  both  men  and 
women. 

This  verse  describes  the  striking  change  effected  among 
Simon's  dupes  by  Philip's  preaching.  The  question  whether 
they  believed  has  reference  to  these  alone,  or  to  the  people 
generally,  is  of  no  importance,  as  the  context  shows  that  these 
two  classes  were  identical.  It  is  plain,  at  all  events,  that  what 
is  here  described  was  a  general  conversion  of  the  people. 
One  subject  of  the  preaching  which  produced  it  is  described 
as  the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God,  the  same  ex- 
pression that  was  used  in  1,  3,  with  resj^ect  to  our  Saviour's 
conversations  with  the  twelve  before  his  ascension.  The 
oldest  manuscripts  omit  the  {things),  and  read,  concerning  the 
hingdom  of  God,  without  material  effect  upon  the  sense, 
which  is  still,  that  Philip  told  them  all  about  it,  not  the  mere 
fact  of  its  existence,  but  its  history,  doctrines,  duties,  hopes, 
yet  all  as  good  news  (evayyeXt^o/xeVo).)  The  other  subject  of 
his  preaching  was  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  i.  e.  all  denoted 
by  these  names,  one  of  which  means  the  Saviour  of  his  people 
(Matt.  1,  21)  and  the  other  their  Messiah,  or  Anointed  Prophet, 
Ppiest,  and  lung.  Into  this  name,  i.  e.  into  union  with  Christ, 
and  subjection  to  him,  in  all  these  characters,  the  Samaritan 
believers  were  introduced  by  the  initiatory  rite  of  baptism, 
vvhich,  unlike  that  of  Judaism,  was  administered  alike  to  hoth 
men  and  wome^i.    The  same  minute  exactness  isi^bservablo 


ACTS  8,  12.  13.  329 

in  what  is  said  above  (v.  3),  with  respect  to  the  extent  and 
rnthlessness  of  Saul's  persecution,  in  which  neither  sex  was 
spared. 

13.  Then  Simon  himself  believed  also,  and  wlien 
he  was  baptized,  he  continued  with  Philip  and  won- 
dered, beholding  the  miracles  and  signs  which  were 
done. 

Then^  not  afterwards,  but  at  the  same  tmie.  And  (8e 
Simon  also  himself  believed^  as  well  as  his  adherents,  who  ha 
just  been  mentioned.  Not  only  the  followers,  but  the  leader, 
beheved.  With  what  kind  of  faith,  is  an  old  subject  of  dis- 
pute, and  various  answers  have  been  given  to  the  question, 
chiefly  in  the  form  of  technical  distinctions,  e.  g.  with  a  his- 
torical, speculative,  temporary  faith,  etc.  These  designations 
may  be  all  correct ;  but  they  throw  little  light  upon  the  his- 
tory, the  most  obvious  sense  of  which  is,  that  the  sorcerer 
believed  to  all  appearance  as  the  rest  did  ;  he  professed  belief, 
became  a  convert  in  the  view  of  others,  and  in  the  customary 
way,  by  submitting  to  the  rite  of  baptism.  If  Philip  vras  de- 
ceived, this  only  shows  that  he  was  not  omniscient,  or  even 
competent  to  read  the  heart.  If  he  was  not  deceived,  his 
sufferance  of  Simon's  false  profession  is  analogous  to  that  of 
Judas  by  our  Lord  himself  (John  6,  64.  '70.  11.)  Simon's  own 
motive  has  been  variously  exj)lained  and  understood.  Most 
probably  he  went  at  first  with  the  multitude  to  hide  the 
shame  of  his  desertion  and  defeat.  With  this  may  have  been 
combined  a  vvisli  to  know  the  secret  of  Philip's  miraculous 
performances,  and  perhaps  to  add  this  higher  magic  to  his 
own,  so  as  to  do  really  what  he  had  before  done  only  in  a^^pear- 
ance  or  pretence.  For  this  j)urpose,  havmg  been  baptized, 
and  thus  admitted  to  free  intercourse  with  Philip,  he  not  only 
continued  with  him^  as  the  English  versions  somewhat  feebly 
render  it,  but  was  cleaving  (or  adhering)  to  him^  the  intrinsic 
strength  of  the  expression  being  heightened  by  the  participial 
construction,  which  suggests  the  idea  of  continuance  or  j^er- 
severance  in  addition  to  that  of  sticking  close  to  PhiUp. 
(Compare  the  use  of  the  same  verb  in  2,  46.  6,  4,  and  of  the 
came  construction  in  1,  14.  2,  42.)  l^eholding,  as  a  curious 
spectator  (see  above,  on  3,  16.  4,  13.  Y,  56.)  Miracles^  hter- 
^Ij,  powers^  i.  e.  exhibitions  and  exertions  of  divine  or  pupi-^i- 


830  ACTS  8,  13.  14. 

human  power.  See  above,  on  2,  22,  where  the  same  word  ia 
joined  with  signs  and  wonders^  to  exhaust  the  idea  of  mirac- 
ulous performances.  The  copies  vary  with  respect  to  the 
order  and  grammatical  form  of  these  words,  but  without 
effect  upon  the  sense,  except  that  several  of  the  oldest  manu 
scripts  and  versions  add  the  epithet  great.  Which  were  dont 
is  a  single  work  in  Greek,  a  participle,  strictly  meaning  hap- 
pened^  come  to  pass.  Wondered^  which  expresses  the  effect 
on  Simon,  is  the  last  word  m  the  origmal  sentence,  and  might 
have  been  consistently  translated,  was  bewitched^  being  sim- 
ply the  passive  of  the  verb  so  rendered  in  vs.  9,  11.  The 
absurdity  of  this  translation  here  ought  surely  to  have  hin- 
dered its  adoption  there.  The  true  sense  in  both  cases  is  that 
of  extreme  Avonder  or  amazement,  which  the  Khemish  Bible 
labours  to  express  here  by  translating,  loas  astonied  with  ad- 
miration. 

14.  Now  when  the  Apostles,  wliich  were  at  Jeru- 
salem, heard  that  Samaria  had  received  the  word  of 
God,  they  sent  unto  them  Peter  and  John. 

Now  represents  the  same  Greek  word  (Se),  and  indicates 
the  same  connection,  with  the  and^  hut^  and  ^Ae;z,  of  the  three 
preceding  verses.  When  the  Ajjostles  heard,  Gr.  the  Apostles 
having  heard  (or  hearing^  'Which  were  at  Jeruscdem,  Gr. 
those  in  Jerusalem,  might  seem  to  mean  that  some  were 
absent,  and  thus  to  contradict  the  last  clause  of  v.  1,  or  to 
imply  an  intervenmg  change  ;  but  it  really  describes  them  as 
all  there,  and  for  that  very  reason  calls  them  tJie  Apostles  in 
Jerusalem.  Samaria,  not  the  city,  whose  reception  of  the 
Gospel  would  have  been  a  small  thing  in  comparison  with  its 
reception  by  the  "  nation  of  Samaria,"  as  it  is  expressed  above 
in  V.  9.  In  the  one  case,  this  great  change  is  affii'med  of  the 
capital  exclusively  ;  while  in  the  other  case,  that  city,  or  some 
other,  represents  the  whole,  as  being  the  first  fruits  of  its  con- 
version, and  at  the  same  time  an  important  step  towards  the 
general  and  unrestricted  preaching  of  the  gospel.  (See  above, 
on  V.  5.)  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  the  college  of 
Apostles,  when  they  heard  (Tynd.  heard  say)  that  Samaria 
had  received  the  word  of  God,  should  send  a  deputation  to 
the  place  where  the  good  work  had  begun,  wherever  it  might 
be ;  not,  as  has  been  variously  imagined,  because  Philip  was 
only  a  Deacon,  for  he  was  more,  as  we  have  seen  above  (on  v. 


ACTS   8,  14.  15.  16.  331 

5);  or  because  they  were  jealous  or  suspicious  of  him ;  or 
because  they  doubted  the  sincerity  or  depth  of  the  Samaritan 
conversions  ;  or  to  show  that  the  Apostles,  though  this  work 
began  without  them,  still  retained  their  old  position  ;  but 
because  they  were  the  constituted  organizers  of  the  church, 
alid  as  such  not  only  authorized  but  bound  to  enter  every 
open  door,  whoever  might  have  opened  it.  As  in  the  original 
mission  of  the  twelve  (Mark  6,  7),  and  of  the  seventy  (Luke 
10,  1),  two  were  sent  together,  and  the  two  commissioned 
upon  this  occasion  were  the  same  whom  we  have  seen  before 
so  constantly  in  company.  (See  above,  on  ch.  3,  1.)  Unto 
thetn^  i.  e.  to  the  Samaritans,  the  plural  subject  latent  in  the 
singular  collective  name  Samaria^  as  in  v.  5  above.  The  word 
of  God^  the  new  revelation  or  religion.  (See  above,  on  v.  4.) 
Ileceived^  not  only  in  the  passive  sense  of  hearing,  but  in  the 
active  sense  of  believing  and  obeying.  They  not  only  had 
the  opportunity  of  being  saved  through  Christ,  but  they  em- 
braced it.  The  position  here  assigned  to  Peter,  however 
honourable  and  important,  is  by  no  means  that,  of  a  superior, 
much  less  of  a  primate. 

15.  Who,  when  tliey  were  come  down,  prayed  for 
them,  that  they  might  receive  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Coming  (or  having  come)  doicn,  see  above,  on  3,  1.  7,  15. 
The  form  of  expression  here  employed,  or  rather  the  fact  here 
recorded,  shows  that  this  gift  was  not  bestowed,  even  medi- 
ately, by  the  Apostles,  but  by  God  directly,  in  answer  to  their 
prayers,  and  sometimes  without  even  that  degree  of  interven- 
tion. (See  below,  on  10,  44.)  This  by  no  means  favours  the 
opinion,  that  the  ApostoUcal  commission  was  sent  down,  sim- 
ply because  Philip,  as  a  Deacon  or  Evangelist,  could  not 
impart  the  Holy  Ghost.  He  certainly  could  pray  for  it,  nor 
is  there  any  intimation  that  his  prayers  would  have  been  less 
effectual  than  those  of  the  Apostles.  The  natural  impression 
on  the  reader  is,  that  John  and  Peter  came  down  with  a  gen- 
eral commission  to  inspect  and  regulate,  and  afterwards  report, 
and  in  the  mean  time  to  instruct  the  people  ;  and  that  while 
engaged  in  executing  this  commission,  they  prayed,  etc. 

16.  For  as  yet  he  was  fallen  upon  none  of  them  ; 
only  they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus, 

As  yet,  literally,  not  yet.  the  Greek  idiom  admitting  of  a 


832  ACTS  8,  16.  1^. 

double  negative  for  emphasis.  Only  implies  that  the  two 
tilings  were  expected  or  accustomed  to  go  together.  (See 
below,  on  9,17.18.  10,47.  19,5.6.)  But  in  this  case,  the 
baptism  of  water  had  not  been  followed  by  the  spiritual  bap- 
tism of  which  it  was  the  sign,  or  rather  by  the  visible  witness 
of  the  Spirit  which  commonly  attended  it.     (See  above,  on 

5,  32.)  Into  the  name^  i.  e.  into  union  with  him,  and  subjection 
to  him,  as  their  Sovereign  and  their  Saviour.  (See  above,  on 
V.  12.)  Several  of  the  older  English  versions,  and  a  few 
Greek  manuscripts,  have  Christ  Jesus^  others  Jesus  Christy 
while  the  Codex  Beza  combmes  two  of  these  readmgs,  Loi'd 
Jesus  Christ.  Fallen  is  omitted  ui  the  Peshito,  and  exchanged 
for  come  in  the  Vulgate  and  the  older  Enghsh  versions.  This 
variation  must  be  euphemistical  or  accidental,  as  it  is  not 
found  in  the  Greek  manuscripts.  Fallen  denotes  the  sudden 
illapse  of  a  superior  power  or  influence.  (See  below,  on 
10,  44.  11,  15.)  The  expression  may  be  borrov\'ed  from 
Ezekiel  11,  5,  "the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  fell  upon  me,  and  said 
unto  me.  Speak."  It  is  elsewhere  in  this  book  applied  to 
other  sudden  seizures,  both  miraculous  and  natural,  as  wonder 
(10,  10),  fear,  (19, 17),  bhndness  (13,  11.)  It  is  evident  from 
this  verse,  that  the  fact  which  it  records  was  regarded  as  a 
strange  one.  Were  baptized  is  not  the  full  sense  of  the  Greek 
phrase  (jSeySaTrrtcr/xeVot  v7rT]pxov),  which  suggests,  if  it  does  not 
express,  the  idea,  that  they  still  remained  baptized  and 
nothing  more.     (See  above,  on  5,  4.) 

17.  Then  laid  they  their  hands  on  them,  and  they 
received  the  Holy  Ghost. 

The  obvious  connection  between  this  verse  and  the  fifteenth 
(v.  16  being  clearly  parenthetical)  shows  that  the  touch  of  the 
Apostles'  hands  merely  symbolized  a  spiritual  gil't  which  had 
been  granted  in  answer  to  their  prayers.     (See  above,  on 

6,  6.)  The  reception  of  the  Holy  Ghost  here  meant  is  doubt- 
less that  of  his  extraordinary  influences,  either  ui  the  way  of 
inspiration,  or  in  that  of  miraculous  endowments,  or  of  both 
combined,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Apostles.  That  the  gifts  con- 
ferred were  not  merely  moral  or  internal,  but  such  as  could 
be  verified  and  brought  to  the  test  of  observation,  is  clear 
from  the  efiect  Avhich  they  produced  on  Simon,  as  recorded  in 
the  next  verse.  Received^  in  the  imperfect  tense,  might  seem 
to  denote  a  repetition  of  the  process  here  described,  but  that 


ACTS  8,  17.  18.  19.  333 

the  other  verb  is  in  the  aorist  form,  and  therefore  must  relate 
to  a  specific  time.  Tlie  imperfect  (were  receivmg)  may  possi- 
bly have  reference  to  what  follows,  and  denote  that  this  so- 
lemnity was  still  proceeding,  when  the  incident  recorded  in 
the  following  verse  took  place.  The  impression  naturally 
made  by  these  three  verses  is,  that  the  baptism  of  these  con- 
verts not  being  followed  by  the  gift  of  tlie  Holy  Ghost,  as  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost  (11,  17),  and  probably  on  subsequent 
occasions,  although  not  recorded  (4,  4.  5,  14.  6,  7),  the  Apos- 
tles, who  had  come  down  to  direct  the  whole  proceeding, 
made  it  the  subject  of  specific  intercession,  and  by  imposition 
of  their  hands,  evinced  that  their  prayers  were  answered. 

18.  And  when  Simon  saw,  that  through  layhig  on 
of  the  Apostles'  hands  the  Holy  Ghost  was  given,  he 
offered  them  money — • 

The  sentence  is  completed  in  the  next  verse.  Wheoi 
Shnon  saic,  Gr.  Simon  behoklmg  (-^eao-a/xevo?,  see  above,  on 
1, 11),  or  according  to  the  latest  critics,  seeing  (tSoV.)  Through, 
denoting  instrumental  agency  (see  above,  on  1,  16.  2,  16.  22, 
23.43.  3,18.21.  4,16.  25,30.  5,12.  7,25.)  The  epithet 
Holy  is  omitted  by  some  manuscripts  and  editors.  Was 
given,  fiterally,  is  given,  the  present  form  bringing  u^  the 
scene  before  us,  as  one  actually  passing.  Money,  HteraUy 
monies,  a  plural  common  in  old  English,  and  still  retained  in 
certain  forms  of  business.  The  Greek  word  is  the  plural  of 
the  one  used  in  4,  37  above,  and  there  explained.  Offered, 
literally,  brought  to,  as  in  Matt.  22,  19.  Mark  10, 13.  Luke 
18,  15,  often  used  to  signify  religious  gifts,  oblations  (as  in  7, 
42  above),  but  here  in  the  intermediate  sense  of  an  offer 
made  to  men. 

19.  Saymg,  Give  me  also  this  power,  that  on  whom- 
soever I  lay  hands,  he  may  receive  (the)  Holy  Ghost. 

The  sentence  is  continued  from  v.  18,  and  completed.  To 
me  also,  not  to  me  as  well  as  others,  but  to  me  as  well  as 
yourselves.  He  asked  not  merely  what  he  saw  them  give, 
but  the  power  of  bestowing  it.  Power,  i.  e.  moral  power, 
right,  authority,  not  physical  capacity  or  strength.  (See 
above,  on  1,  7.  5,  4.)  Holy  Spirit,  being  without  the  ar- 
ticle, may  mean  a  holy  spirit,  and  imply  the  want  of  any 


334  ACTS  8,  19.  20. 

definite  conception  as  to  a  personal  agent.  What  precise 
meaning  he  attached  to  the  j^hrase,  we  have  no  means  of  de- 
termining. He  may  have  used  it  merely  as  he  heard  it  used 
by  others,  without  knowing  what  it  meant  at  all.  Up  to  this 
point,  the  language  used  implies  that  both  the  apostles  were 
distinctly  recognized  as  acting  jointly,  and  as  equal  in  authori- 
ty. They  prayed  (v.  15),  thair  hands  (v.  17),  offered  them  (v. 
18),  give  ye  (v.  19.) 

20.  But  Peter  said  unto  him,  Thy  money  perish 
with  thee,  because  thou  hast  thought  that  the  gift  of  God 
may  be  purchased  with  money. 

Peter  now  assumes  his  usual  position  as  the  spokesman. 
(See  above,  on  1, 15.  2, 14.  38.  3,  6.  4,  8.  5,  3.  9,  29.)  Various 
attempts  have  been  made  to  explain  away  the  seeming  impre- 
cation in  this  verse.  Some  understand  the  words  to  mean, 
'  let  thy  money  remain  with  thee  for  thy  ruin '  (compare  Dan. 
5, 17),  which  is  neither  perfectly  grammatical  nor  any  relief  of 
the  supposed  difficulty.  Others  explain  it  as  a  mere  predic- 
tion of  the  necessary  consequence  or  tendency  of  that  which 
he  w^as  doing.  But  the  true  solution  seems  to  be,  that  Peter 
spoke  by  direct  divine  authority,  and  also  that  the  wish 
is  to  be  qualified  by  the  exhortation  in  v.  22.  As  if  he  had 
said,  '  Perish,  if  you  will  not  repent.'  The  first  money  is  not 
the  word  so  rendered,  in  the  other  clause  and  in  v.  18  above, 
but  the  one  employed  in  7,  16,  and  strictly  meaning  silver^  a 
usage  perfectly  coincident  with  that  of  the  French  argent. 
Perish  with  thee^  literally,  vnth  thee  he  for  ruin  (or  unto  per- 
dition^ Hast  thought^  or  more  exactly,  didst  think,  i.  e.  just 
now,  when  he  made  his  proposition.  The  gift  of  God,  else- 
where called  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (see  above,  on  2,  38, 
and  below,  on  10,  45.)  The  very  terms  imply  gratuity,  the 
Greek  noun  being  used  in  the  accusative  (Swpcav)  as  an  adverb 
corresponding  to  the  Latin  gratis.  (See  Matt.  10,  8.  John 
15,25.  Rom.  3,  24.  2  Cor.  11,  V.  Gal.  2,  21.  2  Thess.  3,  8.  Rev. 
21,  6.  22,  17.)  The  sin  and  folly  of  the  sorcerer's  offer  lay  not 
merely  in  the  thought  of  bribmg  God,  but  in  that  of  purchas- 
ing what,  from  its  very  nature,  could  be  only  a  free  gift. 
With  money,  literally,  through,  by  means  of,  as  in  v.  18. 
Money,  literally,  monies,  as  in  the  same  verse.  (The  Syriac 
version  here  has  worldly  wealth,  or  riches  of  the  world.)  May 
Repurchased  is  a  single  word  in  Greek,  and  the  last  one  in  the 


ACTS   8,  20.  21.  335 

sentence.  It  is  infinitive  in  form  (Krao-^at),  but  ambiguous  m 
meaning,  as  it  may  be  either  active  or  passive.  The  latter 
sense,  though  common  only  in  the  later  writers,  is  found  in 
the  Attic  Greek  of  Thucydicles  and  Euripides.  The  active 
meaning  seems  to  be  forbidden  here  by  the  construction, 
'  thou  hast  thought  to  obtain,'  which,  though  correct  enough 
in  English,  is  not  so  good  Greek  as  the  passive  sense,  '  hast 
thought  the  gift  of  God  to  be  obtained.'  It  is  only  by  a  figure 
of  speech  that  simony^  a  term  derived  from  this  man's  name, 
has  been  applied  to  the  sale  and  purchase  of  ecclesiastical 
office,  which,  however  heinous  it  may  be,  is  something  very 
diflferent  from  offering  to  buy  and  sell  the  Holy  Ghost. 

21.  Tlioii  liast  neither  part  nor  lot  in  this  matter, 
for  thy  heart  is  not  right  in  the  sight  of  God. 

I^ot  content  with  repelling  his  base  offer,  the  Apostle  now 
reveals  to  him  his  spiritual  state,  no  doubt  by  special  revela- 
tion and  immediate  divine  authority.  TIiok,  hast  neither^ 
literally,  there  is  not  to  thee.  Part  and  lot  are  substantially 
equivalent,  the  first  denoting  any  share  or  portion  (see  below, 
on  16,  12),  the  second  one  determined  or  assigned  by  lot  (see 
above,  on  1,  17.  25.)  In  this  matter,  literally,  m  this  word^ 
and  so  translated  by  the  Vulgate  and  its  English  copyists. 
The  immediate  English  versions,  older  than  King  James's, 
all  have  business.  Modern  philologists,  however,  question 
whether  this  sense  of  the  Greek  words  (Adyos  and  prjjxa),  which 
the  old  interpreters  supposed  to  be  derived  from  a  peculiar 
usage  of  the  Hebrew  (^^'7),  ever  occurs  in  the  New  Testament 
at  all.  (See  above,  on  5,  32.)  In  Luke  4,  36,  the  common 
version  is  correct,  namely,  loord,  meaning  word  of  command, 
and  in  Luke  2,  15,  "this  thing  which  is  come  to  pass"  means 
really  "  this  word  (or  divine  declaration)  which  has  been  ful- 
filled." So  too  in  15,  6,  below,  "this  matter"  properly  de- 
notes this  question,  or  this  point  of  doctrine.  Accordingly, 
some  understand  it  here  as  meaning,  this  {new)  doctri7ie  (or 
religion).,  a  sense  at  least  as  old  as  the  Peshito  {in  thisfaith)^ 
and  much  more  natural  than  that  adopted  by  some  modern 
writers,  in  this  speech  (or  speaking).,  with  allusion  to  the  gift 
of  tongues,  as  one  of  those  which  Simon  wished  to  buy  the 
power  of  bestowing,  but  which  is  not  mentioned  in  the  text  or 
context.    Right.,  iTterally,  straight,  an  epithet  applied  both  to 


336  ACTS  8,  21.  22. 

pliysical  and  moral  qualities.  (See  below,  on  9, 11,  and  13, 
10.)  Before  God^  i.  e.  in  his  estimation  (see  above,  on  4, 19. 
7,  46),  with  a  tacit  reference,  as  some  suppose,  to  Philip's 
error ;  but  see  above,  on  4, 13. 

22.  Repent,  therefore,  of  this  thy  wickedness,  and 
pray  God,  if  perhaps  the  thought  of  thine  heart  may  be 
forgiven  thee. 

The  exhortation  to  repent  shows  that  the  case  was  not  en- 
tirely desperate,  while  at  the  same  time  it  qualifies  the  terrible 
denunciation  in  v.  20.  Therefore^  because  otherwise  you  can 
have  no  part  in  this  salvation.  Of  this,  literally,  from  (away 
from)  this,  implpng  not  mere  sorrow  but  conversion.  WtcJc- 
edness,  hterally,  badness,  the  most  general  expression  of  that 
idea  in  the  language,  once  apphed  even  to  mere  physical  evil 
(Matt.  6,  34),  sometimes  used  in  the  specific  sense  of  malice  or 
malignity  (e.  g.  Tit.  3,  3),  but  here  most  probably  in  that  of 
moral  evil,  sin,  depravity.  This  may  either  mean  this  specific 
act  of  sin,  which  he  had  just  committed,  or  this  depravity  of 
thine,  which  thou  hast  just  revealed  to  us.  Pray  God,  or  re- 
taining the  original  construction,  asli,  beseech  of  God.  (The 
oldest  reading  seems  to  be,  the  Lord.)  If  perhaps  is  exactly 
the  expression  used  in  Mark  11, 13,  and  in  both  places  con- 
strued with  the  future,  if  perhaps  the  thought  of  thy  heart 
shall  (or  will)  be  forgiven,  or  remitted,  the  verb  corresponding 
to  the  noun  employed  in  2,  38,  and  there  explained  (see  also 
5,  31.)  If  perhaps  (Wiclif,  if  paradmnture)  is  a  much  more 
correct  translation  than  Tyndale's  (that  the  thought,  &c.,) 
copied  as  usual  by  Cranmer,  and  also  in  the  Geneva  Bible,  but 
with  a  qualifying  phrase  {if  it  be  possible^  Some  suppose  the 
doubt  imphed  in  these  words  to  be  only  a  doubt  of  his  repent- 
ance, to  which  others  object  that  it  would  not  then  be  placed 
between  his  prayer  and  his  forgiveness,  and  refer  it  rather  to 
his  having  possibly  committed  the  unpardonable  sin.  The 
thought  of  thy  heart,  not  merely  thy  opinion  but  thy  purpose, 
the  fruit  not  only  of  a  darkened  mind  but  of  corrupt  affection. 
It  includes  his  false  behef  as  to  the  gift  af  God,  and  his  pre- 
sumptuous effort  to  obtain  it  for  himself,  in  a  way  at  once  un- 
lawful and  impossible.  The  specific  idea  of  an  evil  thought  or 
purpose  is  suggested  by  the  context. 


ACTS  8,  23.  337 

23.  For  I  perceive  that  thou  art  in  (the)  gall  of 
bitterness,  and  (in  the)  bond  of  iniquity. 

As  Simon  had  already  been  baptized  (v.  13),  the  exhorta- 
tion to  repent  might  have  seemed  to  have  respect  to  this  par 
ticular  transgression,  as  a  single  act  of  disobedience.  But  the 
words  of  the  Apostle  show  that  the  whole  work  of  repentance 
and  conversion  was  yet  to  be  performed.  The  original  order 
of  the  sentence  is  for  in  the  gall  of  bitterness  and  bond  of 
iniquity  I  see  thee  being.  Gall  of  bitterness^  like  gall  ana 
wormwood  (Deut.  29,  17),  seems  to  mean  an  intense  bitter, 
and  this  to  be  put  for  poison  (see  Job  20,  14),  from  some 
natural  association,  or  j^erhaps  from  an  opinion,  which  we  find 
in  Pliny,  that  the  venom  of  serpents  resides  in  their  gall.  The 
idea  of  moral  corruption  is  conveyed  by  a  kindred  figure,  root 
of  bitterness  (Heb.  12,  15.)  Bond  of  iniquity^  is  by  some 
translated  bundle  of  unrighteousness^  and  instead  of  being  in 
(ovra  eis),  being  for  (as  in  7,  21.  53),  i.  e.  being  a  mere  bundle 
of  unrighteousness,  as  Shakspeare  says,  "  the  lunatic,  the  lover, 
and  the  j^oet,  are  of  imagination  all  compact^''  i.  e.  entirely 
and  exclusively  made  up  of  it.  The  older  and  more  usual  in- 
terpretation gives  the  first  noun  the  sense  of  bond  or  bondage, 
and  the  preposition  {di)^  its  usual  and  proper  sense  of  into^ 
as  if  he  had  said,  '  thou  art  (fallen  into  and  remainest)  in  the 
bondage  of  unrighteousness.'  Both  figures,  then,  and  especial- 
ly the  last,  suggest  the  idea  of  a  permanent  and  long  continued 
state,  and  cannot  therefore  be  applied  to  a  relapse  or  fall  fi'om 
grace  afler  his  baptism.  There  is,  however,  ^Ul  a  third  inter- 
pretation, of  more  recent  date  than  either  of  the  others,  which 
applies  these  difficult  expressions,  not  exclusively  to  Simon's 
own  condition  at  the  time  when  they  were  uttered,  but  to  his 
future  influence  on  others.  '  I  see  thee  (by  the  light  of  my 
prophetic  inspu'ation)  being  or  becoming  (ovra  6ts,  compare 
the  Hebrew  b  nin)  gaU  of  bitterness  (i.  e.  a  source  of  misery, 
or  a  deadly  poison)  and  a  bond  (bond  of  union,  see  Eph.  4,  3. 
Col.  2,  19.  3,  14)  of  iniquity  (a  centre  of  corrupting  influence 
to  others.)'  Whether  this  be  regarded  as  a  natural  or  even 
an  admissible  construction  of  the  words  or  not,  it  is  certainly 
entitled  to  the  praise  of  ingenuity,  and  also  of  a  singular  agree- 
ment with  the  subsequent  career  and  influence  of  Simon,  as 
preserved  in  the  traditions  of  the  church.  In  any  case,  he  is 
described  by  the  Apostle,  either  expressly  or  by  impHcation, 
as  an  extremely  wicked  man,  who  could  be  saved  from  con- 

VOL.  I. — 15 


338  ACTS   8,  23.  24. 

dign  ruin  only  by  repentance  and  conversion  or  return  cc 
God. 

24.  Then  answered  Simon  and  said,  Pray  ye  to  the 
Lord  for  me,  that  none  of  these  tilings  which  ye  have 
spoken  come  upon  me. 

Then^  as  in  vs.  5,  13,  lY.  Answered^  literally,  answering. 
Ye  is  emphatic.  '  Pray  yourselves ;  do  you  pray  for  me.' 
The  things  which  ye  have  spoJcen  seems  to  be  a  euphemistical 
periphrasis  for  the  perdition  threatened  in  v.  20.  The  plural 
form  may  represent  the  fuhiess  or  variety  of  evils  which  he 
understood  to  be  included  in  that  pregnant  term.  For  come 
upon  r/ze,  Tyndale  and  his  followers  gratuitously  use  the  word 
fall^  which  they  seemed  to  avoid  in  its  proper  place.  (See 
above,  on  v.  16.)  This  request  may  have  been  prompted  by 
mere  dread  of  punishment,  or  it  may  be  regarded  as  a  proof 
of  his  comphance  with  the  exhortation  to  repent.  What  be- 
came of  Simon,  we  are  not  informed,  as  the  narrative  ends 
abruptly  here.  Tradition  represents  him  as  having  persevered 
in  his  iniquity,  and  classes  him  among  the  heresiarchs  of  the 
apostolic  age.  Some  regard  him  as  the  founder  of  the  Si- 
monians  of  the  second  century,  who  held  a  mixture  of  Je^visb 
and  Samaritan  opinions,  with  certain  oriental  theosophic  no- 
tions ;  while  others  deny  all  connection,  even  in  the  names 
From  ten  to  twenty  years  after  these  events,  we  meet  Tvith  a 
Simon  in  Josephus,  who  describes  him  as  a  sorcerer  from  Cy- 
prus, employed  bv  Felix  to  seduce  the  affections  of  the  Jewess 
Drusilla.  (See  below,  on  24,  24.)  The  identity  of  name,  and 
similarity  of  character,  would  leave  no  doubt  that  this  was 
Simon  Magus,  but  for  a  statement  of  Justin  Martyi',  that  the 
latter  was  by  birth  a  Samaritan.  This  is  entitled  to  the  more 
weight  as  Simon  was  himself  a  native  of  that  country,  and  as 
he  designates  the  town  of  Gitton  or  Gitta  as  the  birth-place 
of  Simon,  which  by  some  has  been  identified  with  Citium  in 
Cyprus.  Justin  goes  on  to  say,  however,  that  he  afterwards 
removed  to  Rome,  where  he  was  worshipped  as  a  god,  and 
had  a  column  dedicated  to  him.  By  a  curious  coincidence,  a 
fragment  has  been  excavated  there  in  modern  times,  inscribed 
to  an  Etruscan  deity  {Sononi  JSanco),  which  some  suppose  to 
be  a  part  of  Justin's  column,  and  as  he  was  mistaken  upon  this 
point,  they  infer  that  his  statement  is  entitled  to  no  weight 
whatever.     The  decision  of  this  question  seems  to  be  at  once 


ACTS   S,  24.25.26.  339 

nnimportant  and  impossible.  The  only  certain  trace  of  Simon 
in  history  is  the  use  of  the  word  simony^  which  has  been 
already  mentioned.     (See  above,  on  v.  19.) 

25.  And  they,  when  they  had  testified  and 
preached  the  word  of  the  Lord,  returned  to  Jerusalem, 
and  preached  the  gospel  in  many  villages  of  the  Sa- 
maritans. 

The  preaching  of  the  gospel  among  the  Samaritans  was  not 
confined  to  the  city  where  it  had  begun,  but  extended  to 
many  of  the  smaller  towns,  through  which  the  Apostles  passed 
on  their  return.  For  villages^  Tyndale  has  cities^  Geneva 
toio?is,  Wiclif  coujitries.  They^  i.  e.  Peter  and  John.  When 
they  had,,  hterally,  having  testified.  Here  again  the  apostoli- 
cal preaching  is  described  as  testimony  (see  above,  on  2,  40.) 
Preached  is  repeated  only  in  the  Enghsh.  The  first  of  the 
two  Greek  verbs  literally  means  talking,,  speaking,  as  in  3,  24. 
4,  1. 17.  20.  29.  4,  31.  5,  20.  40.  6,  10.  The  other  verb,  trans- 
lated 2yreached  the  gospel,,  is  the  one  employed  above,  in  vs.  4, 
12,  and  denoting  the  commmiication  of  glad  tidings;  but  in- 
stead of  governing  the  subject  of  the  preachmg,  as  it  does 
there  and  in  5,  42,  it  is  construed  here  Tvith  the  places  where 
they  preached  {evangelizing  the  villages)  a  construction  which 
has  been  retained  in  modern  Engfish.  (See  below,  on'14, 15. 
21.  16,  10.)  Returned,,  is  one  of  Luke's  favourite  Greek 
expressions  (see  above,  on  1,  12.)  Both  this  and  the  last  verb 
have  the  form  of  the  unperfect  tense  in  several  of  the  oldest 
manuscripts,  which  may  imply  a  similar  connection  with  the 
following  verse  to  that  between  vs.  17  and  18.  The  sense  will 
then  be,  that  while  Peter  and  John  were  thus  employed, 
Philip  received  his  new  commission. 

26.  And  the  Angel  of  the  Lord  spake  unto  Philip, 
saying.  Arise,  and  go  toward  the  south,  unto  the  way 
that  goeth  down  from  Jerusalem  imto  Gaza,  which  is 
desert. 

An  angel  of  the  Lord  (see  above,  on  5,  19)  cannot  without 
absurdity  be^  resolved  into  a  suggestion  of  Philip's  own  mind. 
Although  it  is  not  said  that  an  angel  appeared  (see  below,  on 
12,  23),  a  personal  agency,  exterior  to  himself  is  even  more 


340  ACTS  8,  26. 

explicitly  referred  to  here,  than  in  v.  29  below.  The  command 
appears  to  have  been  given  in  Samaria.  If  it  were  said  to 
have  been  given  in  a  dream,  arise  might  be  understood  to 
mean,  arise  from  sleep  or  out  of  bed.  (Compare  Matt.  2, 13. 
14.  20,  21,  where  the  verb,  however,  strictly  means  to  awalce.) 
In  the  absence  of  any  such  intunation,  it  seems  rather  to 
mean,  address  yourself  to  action  (see  above,  on  1, 15.  5,  17 
C,  9.)  Go^  go  away^  journey,  travel  (see  above,  on  1,  10.  11 
25.  5,20.41.)  Toward,  see  below,  on  27,  12,  and  compare 
Phil.  3,  14.  The  south,  literally,  mid-day,  i.  e.  the  place  of 
the  sun  at  noon.  (Precisely  similar,  in  etymology  and  usage, 
is  the  German  Jiz^^a^.)  He  is  not  required  to  go  to  Jeru- 
salem, but  to  get  upon  the  road  leading  thence  to  Gaza. 
Going  down,  see  above,  on  v.  5.  Gaza  is  one  of  the  oldest 
places  mentioned  in  the  Bible.  It  first  occurs  in  Gen.  1,  19, 
as  a  frontier  town  of  the  Canaanites  ;  in  later  history,  as  the 
southernmost  of  the  five  cities  of  the  Philistines,  to  whom  it 
really  belonged,  even  after  it  was  formally  assigned  to  Judah 
(Josh.  15,  47.  Judg.  1,  18.)  It  was  the  scene  of  one  of  Sam- 
son's most  remarkable  exploits  (Judges  16,  3.)  It  was  be- 
sieged by  Alexander  the  Great,  and  destroyed  by  Alexander 
Jannseus,  rebuilt  by  the  Koman  General  Gabinius,  and  given 
by  Augustus  to  Herod,  after  Avhose  death  it  was  attached  to 
the  province  of  Syria.  Which  is  desert,  literally,  this  is  desert, 
forming  an  independent  clause  or  sentence,  but  connected  in 
,the  closest  manner  with  what  goes  before.  The  demonstrative 
pronoun  may  refer  grammatically  either  to  the  city  or  the 
road.  According  to  some  ancient  writers,  there  was  a  new 
Gaza,  distinct  from  the  ruins  of  the  old,  destroyed  by  Alex- 
ander, and  the  words  in  question  were  intended  to  direct 
Philip  to  the  latter,  as  if  he  had  said,  -that  is,  the  desert  one.' 
But  besides  the  want  of  satisfactory  evidence  in  favour  of  the 
fact  alleged,  why  should  the  places  be  distinguished  here, 
unless  they  were  so  far  apart,  that  different  roads  led  to  them 
from  Jerusalem,  in  which  case  their  identity  would  be  de- 
stroyed. One  ingenious  modern  writer  understands  the 
words  as  a  remark  of  the  historian,  in  reference  to  the  town 
itself  having  been  again  destroyed  durmg  the  Jewish  war ; 
but  this  would  make  the  date  of  composition  later  than  we 
have  any  other  reason  for  believing  it.  For  these  or  other 
reasons,  most  interpreters  suppose  the  clause  to  be  descrij^tive 
of  the  road,  as  Arrian  speaks  of  a  road  desert  for  want  of 
U^ater,     The  words  may  then  have  been  intended  to  guide 


ACTS  8,  20. 'r<.  341 

Philip  to  the  least  frequented  of  the  ro.ids  which  appear  to 
have  existed  between  these  two  places,  or  added  by  the  wnter 
(as  in  John  6,  10),  to  bring  the  scene  more  vividly  before  the 
reader.  But  according  to  Greek  usage,  the  article  is  indis- 
pensable in  distinguishing  between  two  objects.  Of  those 
who  refer  it  to  the  road,  some  suppose  it  to  be  indicated  as  a 
proper  place  for  meditation,  others  as  a  sort  of  type  or  symbol 
of  spiritual  desolation,  like  the  desert  in  Isai.  40,  3.  Matt.  3,  3. 
But  perhaps  the  simplest  and  most  natural  interpretation  of 
the  words  is  that  which  understands  them  as  implying,  that 
there  was  something  strange  in  the  command,  r.nd  in  the  inci- 
dent which  folio v/ed  its  execution.  As  if  Luke  had  said,  '  an 
angel  sent  him  to  the  road  between  Jerusalem  and  Gaza, 
which  might  well  have  seemed  a  singular  direction,  since  it  is 
a  desert  road,  in  which  he  was  not  likelv  to  encounter  travel- 
lers, much  less  to  meet  with  such  an  adventure  as  did  there 
befall  him.'  Any  of  these  exegetical  hypotheses  is  far  more 
probable  than  that  of  a  gloss  or  spurious  addition  to  the  text, 
the  origin  of  which  would  be  as  unaccountable  as  it  is  desti- 
tute of  all  external  evidence,  the  words  ii^  question  bemg 
found  apparently  in  all  Greek  manuscripts  without  exception. 

27.  And  he  arose  and  went,  and  behold,  a  man  of 
Ethiopia,  an  eUnuch  of  great  authority,  under  Candace, 
queen  of  the  Ethiopians,  who  had  the  charge  of  all  her 
treasure,  and  had  come  to  Jerusalem  for  to  worship  — 

The  sentence  is  comjoleted  in  the  next  verse.  We  have 
here  disclosed  the  purpose  of  the  strange  command  recorded 
in  V.  26.  According  to  a  very  common  scriptural  usage, 
Philip's  obedience  is  stated  in  the  terms  of  the  command 
itself,  he  arose  and  icent.  Behold^  as  usual,  denotes  some- 
thing unexpected  (see  above,  on  1, 10.  2, 1.  5,  9.  25,  28.  V,  56), 
and  is  peculiarly  appropriate  here,  because  the  mission  was 
itself  a  strange  one.  As  if  it  had  been  said,  '  he  obeyed  the 
angelic  order,  unaccountable  as  it  appeared,  and  though  the 
road,  to  which  he  was  directed,  was  a  desert  one,  he  soon 
saw  whom  he  had  been  sent  to  meet.'  A  man  of  Ethiopia^ 
more  exactly  an  Ethiopian  man^  or  still  more  closely,  a  rnan^ 
an  Ethiopian.  (See  above,  on  1,  11.  16.  2,  5.  14.  22.  29.  37. 
3,12.14.  5,35.  Y,  2.)  Ethiopia  is  the  Greek  name  corre- 
sponding to  the  Cush  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  less  extcn- 


342  ACTS  8,  27.  28. 

sive,  being  restricted  to  the  country  watered  by  the  Nile; 
south  of  Egypt,  corresponding  to  the  ISTubia  of  modern 
geography,  with  the  adjacent  parts  of  Abyssinia.  JEumich 
originally  means  a  chamberlain^  and  is  so  translated  here  by 
Tyndale  and  Cranmer.  Its  secondary  meaning  is  derived 
from  the  oriental  practice  of  employing  emasculated  men  as 
guardians  of  the  harem.  The  wider  meaning  of  the  term, 
which  is  found  in  the  Septuagint  version  of  Gen.  37,  36.  39, 
seems  to  be  required  in  the  case  before  us  by  the  prohibitory 
law  of  Deut.  23,  1  (2.)  His  office  then  would  be  the  same 
with  that  held  by  Blastus  in  the  court  or  family  of  Herod 
Agrippa  (see  below,  on  12,  20.)  In  early  times,  offices  of 
state  were  not  so  carefully  distinguished  as  at  present  from 
those  of  the  royal  household.  Of  great  authority^  literally, 
a  dynast  oy  potentate^  a  term  applied  to  princes  (Luke  1,  52) 
and  to  God  himself  (1  Tim.  6,  15),  but  here  denoting  one  in 
power,  and  especially  in  office,  under  a  sovereign,  as  the  word 
is  also  used  by  Xenophon  and  Plutarch.  The  plural  is  ap- 
plied in  the  Septuagint  version  to  the  "  house  of  Pharaoh " 
(Gen.  50,  4.)  Candace^  a  common  or  hereditary  title  of  the 
queens  who  for  many  years  succeeded  one  another  in  the 
island  of  Meroe,  belonging  to  the  ancient  Ethiopia,  as  we 
learn  from  Strabo,  Dio  Cassius,  and  Phny.  Had  the  charge 
of  all  her  treasure^  literally,  was  over  it,  a  phrase  correspond- 
ing to  the  Hebrew  title,  over  the  house  or  palace  (Isai.  22, 15), 
and  to  the  kindred  Greek  phrase,  oijer  the  hed-chamher  (see 
below,  on  12,  20.)  Both  offices  may  have  been  united  in  this 
person,  if  eunuch  has  the  wider  sense  above  suggested.  By 
a  curious  coincidence,  the  chamberlain  of  London,  and  some 
other  cities,  is  the  treasurer.  Treasure  is  here  used  to  trans- 
late a  word  said  to  be  of  Persian  origin,  and  specially  applied 
to  royal  treasure.  (Thus  Quintus  Curtius  says,  I^ecuniain 
regiam  gazam  Persae  vocant ;  and  Cornelius  Nepos  describes 
the  office  here  in  question  by  the  title,  grazae  regiae  custos.) 
And  had  come,  more  exactly,  icho  had  come.  To  worship  is, 
in  Greek,  not  an  infinitive  but  a  future  participle,  which  occurs 
again  in  24,  11  below  (compare  John  12,  ^0.)  It  is  evident 
from  this  that  he  was  either  a  Hellenist  or  foreign  Jew  by 
birth,  or  a  proselyte  from  heathenism  to  the  Jews'  religion. 

28.  Was  returning,  and,  sitting  in  his  cliariot,  read 
Esaias  the  Prophet. 


ACTS  6,  28.  29.  348 

The  sentence  is  completed  from  the  verse  preceding.  Me- 
turning^  a  favourite  Greek  verb  of  Luke's  (see  above,  on  v. 
25,  and  on  1,  12.)  Was  returning  represents  exactly  the  form 
of  the  original,  which  is  the  same  as  in  v.  13  above.  As  he  was 
no  doubt  returning  to  his  own  country  by  the  way  of  Egypt, 
his  first  stage  or  journey  was  from  Jerusalem  to  Gaza.  In 
(literally,  on)  his  chariot  implies,  in  this  connection,  an  equi- 
page suited  to  his  rank,  including,  no  doubt,  one  or  more 
attendants  (see  below,  on  v.  38.)  Head^  in  the  imperfect 
tense,  was  reading^  i.  e.  at  the  time  when  JPhilip  first  caught 
sight  of  him.  That  this  was  in  compliance  with  a  Jewish 
maxun,  extant  in  the  Talmud,  is  not  half  so  probable  as  that 
he  was  induced  to  search  the  Scriptures  by  what  he  had  seen 
and  heard  while  at  Jerusalem.  Was  reading^  probably  aloud, 
which  some  regard  as  the  precise  sense  of  the  Greek  verb, 
and  which  is  certainly  its  meaning  m  such  places  as  13,  27. 
15,  21  below  (compare  2  Cor.  3,  15.  1  Thess.  5,  27.)  That  the 
Ethiopian  was  attended,  as  the  great  men  of  that  day  often 
were,  both  on  journeys  and  at  home,  by  an  anagnost  or 
reader,  is  a  perfectly  gratuitous  assumption,  without  any  thing 
to  countenance  it  in  the  text  or  context.  JEJsaias,  the  Greek 
form  of  Isaiah,  or  rather  of  the  Hebrew  (^n^^ir*^),  from  which 
both  forms  depart  so  mi^.ch,  that  it  would  have  been  better  to 
use  one  exclusively  in  the  translation  of  both  Testaments. 
(See  above,  on  7,  45.)  The  projyhet,  not  necessarily  by  way 
of  eminence,  but  the  well-kno^^^i  prophet  of  that  name,  unply- 
ing  the  existence  of  hh  writings,  and  their  general  reception 
as  a  part  of  the  Old  Testament  canon.  Some  interpreters 
assume  that  he  was  reading  the  original,  and  then  infer  from, 
this  assumption,  that  he  was  a  Hebrew  (see  above,  on  6,  1) ; 
but  it  is  far  more  probable  that  he  was  reading  it  m  Greek,  as 
the  Septuagint  version  had  its  origin  in  Egjqjt,  through  which 
country  he  had  passed  and  w  o-s  about  to  pass  again,  and  was 
in  common  us*i  among  the  Jews  there,  even  in  their  sjTia- 
gogue  service. 

29.  Then  the  Spirit  £aid  unto  PMip,  Go  near,  and 
join  thyself  to  this  chariot. 

It  is  evident  that  PhiUp  was  to  be  gradually  apprised 
of  W'hat  he  had  to  do  on  tliis  remarkable  occasion.  An  auo:el 
sends  him  to  a  desert  road ;  he  there  sees  a  chariot ;  -wliich 
he  is  now  required  to  join.     The  Spirit  of  this  verse,  and  the 


344  ACTS  8,  29.  30. 

angel  of  v.  26,  although  coincident,  are  not  identical,  the 
Spirit  bemg  the  divine  authority  or  power,  of  which  the 
angel  Avas  the  instrument  or  agent.  (See  above,  on  5, 19. 
V,  30.  35.  38.  53.)  Go  near^  literally,  go  to^  the  idea  being  not 
that  of  mere  approach,  but  of  actual  arrival  and  immediate 
contact.  (See  below,  on  9, 1.)  Join  thyself  is  not  a  mere 
tautology,  but  expresses  something  more,  to  wit,  the  act  of 
sticking  to  the  chariot,  not  losing  sight  of  it  or  leaving  it, 
until  the  divine  purpose  was  accomplished.  (For  the  usage 
of  the  Greek  verb,  simple  and  compound,  see  above,  on  5,  13, 
and  below,  on  9,  26.  10,  28.  17,  34.) 

30.  And  Philip  ran  thither  to  him,  and  heard  him 
read  the  Prophet  Esaias,  and  said,  Understandest  thou 
what  thou  readest  ? 

In  obedience  to  this  order,  the  authority  of  which  he 
seems  not  to  have  questioned  for  a  moment,  Avhatever  may 
have  been  the  mode  of  the  divine  communication,  Philip  takes 
the  first  step  towards  its  execution,  by  hastening  to  place  him- 
self within  the  stranger's  reach,  and  listening  to  him  as  he 
read  aloud.  Han  thither  is  the  Geneva  version  ;  Tyndale  and 
Cranmer  render  more  exactly,  ran  to  {hi7n.)  Ileard  him 
read  (Wicl.  more  hterally,  reading^  the  Prophet  Isaiah,  and 
a  passage  so  peculiarly  imj^ortant  and  obscure,  that  it  prompted 
the  abrupt  inquiry,  with  which  he  accosted  the  traveller. 
The  form  of  the  original  interrogation  (upa  ye)  seems  to  antici- 
pate a  negative  answer  ;  as  if  he  had  said,  '  you  surely  do  not 
know  what  you  are  reading,'  perhaps  with  some  allusion  to 
the  rapidity  or  seeming  nonchalance,  with  which  the  Ethiopian 
pronounced  the  passage.  The  verb  translated  read  is  a  com- 
pound form  of  that  translated  know,  so  that  their  combination 
(ytvcoo-Kcis  a  dvaytvtoo-Kct?)  gives  a  point  to  the  original,  which 
cannot  be  retained  in  any  version.  It  is  worthy  of  remark, 
as  one  of  the  resemblances  in  language  between  Luke  and 
that  Apostle,  under  whose  hifluence  an  uniform  tradition 
represents  him  as  having  composed  both  his  books,  that  Paul 
has  the  very  same  lusus  verhoriini  in  2  Cor.  3,  2,  (ytvcoo-Ko/Ao^ 
Kol  dvayiV(j)(TKOfjL€vr})  known  and  read  of  all  men.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  suppose,  that  Phihp  listened  for  some  time  before 
accosting  him,  but  that  just  as  he  came  up  to  him,  he  heard 
enough  of  what  he  read  to  know  that  it  was  in  a  certain  pas- 
sage of  Isaiah. 


ACTS   8,  31.  32.  33.  345 

31.  And  he  said,  How  can  1,  except  some  man 
should  guide  me  ?  And  he  desired  Philip  that  he 
would  come  up  and  sit  with  him. 

The  EiiRiich's  question  may  contain  a  gentle  intimation 
that  he  thought  the  tone  of  the  inquiry  unbecoming  or  un- 
reasonable. As  if  he  had  said,  '  How  can  you  expect  a 
stranger  without  aid  to  comprehend  what  puzzles  your  most 
icarned  doctors?'  Some  mcm^  some  one,  somebody;  see 
above,  on  2,45.  4,35.  Guide  me^  a  figure  for  instruction, 
used  by  Christ  himself  (see  Matt.  15,  14.  Luke  6,  39.  John 
16,  13,  and  compare  Matt.  23,  16.  24.  Rom.  2,  19.)  The  spe- 
cific reference  in  all  these  cases  is  to  the  guidance  of  the 
blind.  How  can  If  has  a  peculiar  form  in  the  original 
(ttcus  av  Svvaiixrjv),  which,  according  to  the  nice  distinctions  of 
the  Greek  idiom,  expresses  in  a  high  degree  the  speaker's 
doubt,  if  not  as  to  the  absolute  intrinsic  possibility,  at  least 
as  to  the  actual  and  present  practicability  of  the  thing  in 
question.  '  What  reason  have  you  to  suppose  me  capable  of 
understanding  it  without  assistance  ? '  Besides  the  modest 
self-depreciation  of  this  answer,  it  implies  a  suspicion,  if  no 
more,  that  the  stranger  who  thus  suddenly  accosted  him  was 
just  such  a  guide  and  helper  as  he  needed.  This  feeling  he 
expressed  still  more  clearly  by  inviting  Philip  to  ascend  the 
chariot.  Desired^  literally,  called  for,  invited  (as  in  28,  20),  or 
entreated  (as  in  16,  39.)  This,  Avhich  would  have  been  an  act 
of  hospitable  kindness,  in  any  case  whatever,  to  a  solitary  tra- 
veller on  foot  in  that  secluded  road  (v.  26),  derives  a  higher 
character  and  meaning  from  the  few  words  which  had  pre- 
viously passed  between  them,  and  becomes  expressive,  not  of 
mere  compassion  or  a  wish  for  company,  but  also  for  instruc- 
tion in  the  word  of  God. 

32.  The  place  of  the  Scripture  which  he  read  was 
this,  He  was  led  as  a  sheep  to  the  slaughter,  and  like 
a  lamb  dumb  before,  his  shearer,  so  opened  he  not  his 
mouth.  33.  In  his  humiliation  his  judgment  was 
taken  away,  and  who  shall  declare  his  generation  ?  for 
his  life  is  taken  from  the  earth. 

Th  e  particular  context  oy passage  {^e.pio^  of  the  Scripture^ 
which  the  Ethiopian  Avas  reading  when  Philip  interrupted 
him,  is  still  extant  in  Isaiah  53,  7.  8.     It  is  quoted  by  Luke,  as 
VOL.  I. — 15* 


346  A  C  T  S  8,  83.  34. 

it  was  no  doubt  read,  in  the  Septuagint  version,  with  a  few 
unimportant  verbal  variations  from  the  common  text,  such  as 
the  present  participle  for  the  aorist,  the  insertion  of  his  before 
generation^  etc.  The  second  sentence  quoted  is  among  the 
most  disputed  and  obscure  in  the  Old  Testament ;  but  all  that 
is  necessary  to  the  understanding  of  the  narrative  is  what  all 
interpreters  admit,  that  like  the  verse  before  it,  it  describes 
the  sufferings  of  an  innocent  and  unresisting  victim.  Nothing 
here  depends  on  the  precise  sense  of  the  words,  because  they 
are  quoted,  not  as  the  part  which  particularly  exercised  the 
Eunuch's  mind,  but  as  that  which  he  happened  to  be  reading 
aloud  when  Philip  joined  him ;  and  also  because,  as  after- 
wards appears,  the  question  that  perplexed  him  was  not  in 
reference  to  the  sense  of  these  words,  but  in  reference  to  their 
subject,  or  the  person  of  whom  they  were  written.  The  solu- 
tion of  this  question  would  not  be  promoted  in  the  least  by 
the  most  complete  enumeration  of  the  senses,  which  have 
been  put  upon  the  words  themselves  by  different  interpreters ; 
because,  on  any  exegetical  hypothesis  whatever,  it  might 
still  be  asked,  to  whom  they  were  intended  to  apply.  (Some 
account  of  the  different  interpretations  may  be  found  in  the 
writer's  notes  upon  the  passage  of  Isaiah.) 

34.  And  the  Eunuch  answered  Philip  and  said,  I 
pray  thee,  of  whom  speaketh  the  Prophet  this,  of  him- 
self, or  of  some  other  man  ? 

This  is  a  further  answer  to  the  question,  with  which  Philip 
had  begun  the  conversation  (see  above,  on  v.  30.)  The  an- 
swer is  indeed  itself  a  question,  but  this  mode  of  reply  is  very 
frequent  in  the  dialect  of  Scripture  and  of  common  life.  At 
all  events,  there  can  be  no  sufficient  ground  for  the  jejune  in- 
terpretation of  ansicered  as  pleonastic,  or  in  other  words,  as 
meaning  nothing.  The  whole  tendency  of  thorough  and  con- 
sistent exposition  is  to  reduce  the  number  of  factitious  and 
imaginary  pleonasms.  The  Eunuch's  question  is  an  interest- 
ing one,  as  exhibiting,  not  only  his  own  state  of  mind,  but 
that  of  the  contemporary  Jews,  the  status  qumstionis  of  the 
controversy  then  existing,  as  to  the  subject  of  this  signal 
prophecy.  Without  attempting  to  determine  whether  all  the 
views  proposed  by  later  writers,  and  recorded  in  the  workg 
upon  Isaiah,  had  been  broached  so  early,  it  is  clear  that  one 
of  the  most  plausible  was  known,  or  had  at  least  occurred  to 


ACTS  8,  34.  35  347 

this  inquirer,  althougli  far  more  probably  suggested  by  his 
intercourse  with  Jewish  doctors,  and  perhaps  with  Christians, 
at  Jerusalem.  This  was  the  doctrine,  here  proposed  as  an 
alternative,  that  Isaiah  was  speaking  of  himself,  not  as  a  pri- 
vate individual  but  as  a  prophet,  or  a  representative  of  all  the 
prophets  as  a  class.  This  doctrine  w^hich,  in  one  form  or 
another,  has  found  many  advocates  in  later  times,  is  here 
suggested,  either  as  the  only  other  known  to  the  speaker,  or 
as  the  only  one  entitled  to  be  brought  into  comparison  with 
the  old  and  still  prevailing  application  of  the  words  to  the 
Messiah,  which  probably  would  never  have  been  called  in 
question,  if  it  had  not  become  necessary  as  a  means  of  com- 
bating the  claims  of  Jesus.  Perhaps  this  ingenious  evasion 
had  been  recently  invented  or  discovered,  and  the  Ethiopian 
had  heard  the  passage  thus  expounded  at  Jerusalem,  but 
could  not  fully  acquiesce  in  this  interpretation.  It  was  pro- 
bably in  this  state  of  uncertainty  respecting  it,  that  he  was 
reading  it  agam  when  Philip  first  accosted  him,  and  frankly 
owned  his  incapacity  to  solve  the  doubt,  without  assistance 
from  some  other  quarter.  He  little  dreamed,  as  we  may  well 
suppose,  that  such  assistance  was  at  hand,  expressly  fur- 
nished by  an  Angel  (v.  26)  and  the  Holy  Spirit  (v.  29.)  There 
are  no  doubt  many  other  cases,  in  which  such  help  has  been 
afforded  no  less  opportunely,  though  without  the  same  ex- 
traordinary circumstances. 

35.  Then  Philip  opened  his  mouth,  and  began  at 
the  same  scripture,  and  preached  unto  him  Jesus. 

That  the  subject  which  engrossed  the  Eunuch's  mind  was 
not  the  exact  sense  of  the  verses  quoted  from  Isaiah,  is  fur- 
thermore apparent  from  the  fact  that  Philip,  instead  of  dwell- 
ing upon  that  one  passage,  merely  used  it  as  the  starting-point 
or  text  of  a  discourse  on  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus.  The  idea 
of  a  regular  discourse,  as  distinguished  from  a  simple  conversa- 
tion, is  suggested  by  the  otherwise  unmeaning  statement,  that 
he  opened  his  mouthy  i.  e.  began  to  speak  with  continuity  and 
some  formality  of  method.  The  wide  scope  of  his  argument 
is  shown  by  his  simply  beginning  from  this  scripture^  i.  e.  the 
one  which  had  been  the  occasion  of  his  speaking  at  all.  The 
subject  and  spirit  of  his  sermon  are  denoted  by  the  phrase 
inadequately  YQx\diQXQ.di^ preached  unto  him  Jesus.  The  defect 
lies  in  failing  to  convey  the  full  force  of  the  verb,  which,  from 


348  ACTS  8,  35.36. 

its  very  form  and  derivation,  must  suggest  to  every  reader 

of  the  Greek,  the  joyous  and  exhilarating  nature  of  the  truths 
taught,  as  good  news  or  glad  tidings  of  salvation,  an  idea  not 
by  any  means  inseparable  from  the  simple  act  of  preaching, 
either  in  its  first  sense  of  proclaiming,  or  in  its  secondary 
sense  of  exhortation  and  religious  teaching.  (See  above,  on 
V.  25.)  This  idea,  so  distinctly  legible  m  the  original,  has 
been  retained  by  some  translations,  e.  g.  in  the  Rhemish,  with 
its  usual  violation  of  the  English  idiom  {evangelized  unto  him 
Jesus)  ^  and  by  Luther  {preaclied  to  Khn  the  evangel  of  Jesus.) 
There  is  also  a  meaning  in  the  name  itself,  of  which  we  are 
continually  tempted  to  lose  sight,  by  the  inveterate  habit  of 
regarding  it  as  a  mere  i^ersonal  designation,  no  more  dis- 
tinctive or  significant  than  those  in  common  use  among  our- 
selves ;  whereas  Jesus.,  as  we  have  often  had  occasion  to 
observe,  was  designed  from  the  beginning  to  be,  not  a  mere 
convenience  like  a  label  or  a  number,  but  a  pregnant  descrip- 
tion of  him  to  whom  it  was  applied,  before  his  birth,  by  an 
angel,  as  the  Saviour  of  his  people  from  their  sins.  (See 
above,  on  vs.  12.  16.)  That  he  was  such  a  Saviour,  and  the 
very  one  predicted  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  w^as  the  doc- 
trine now  propounded  and  established  in  Philip's  exegetical 
and  argumentative  discourse  to  his  companion. 

36.  And  as  they  went  on  their  way,  they  came 
unto  a  certain  water ;  and  the  Eunuch  said,  See  (here 
is)  water  ;  what  *doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized  ? 

The  efiect  of  Philip's  discourse  is  indirectly  but  expres- 
sively suggested  by  a  little  incident,  recorded  without  com 
ment  and  with  perfect  simplicity.  The  road,  as  we  have  seen 
above  (v.  26),  v/as  desert,  running  probably  along  or  through 
a  dry  and  barren  tract.  Of  this  w^e  are  reminded  by  the 
statement,  not  that  they  went  their  vmy^  whichi  would  be  say- 
ing httle,  but  that  they  were  travelUyig,  along  the  (same)  road^ 
when  their  attention  was  awakened  by  their  coming,  not  to  a 
certain  loater^  which  might  seem  to  mean  a  well  known  lake 
or  stream,  of  which  the  region  seems  to  have  been  wholly 
destitute,  but,  as  the  Greek  words  properly  denote,  to  some 
water.,  the  indefinite  expression,  hke  that  in  5,  2,  suggesting 
naturally  the  idea  of  a  small  degree  or  quantity.  The  sudden 
and  perhaps  unexpected  sight  of  this  slight  interruption  to 
th*  dryness  of  the  road,  at  once  suggested  to  the  Eunuch's 


ACTS  8,  36.37.  340 

mind  the  thought  of  baptism,  and  without  deliberation  or 
delay,  he  seems  to  have  proposed  it.  See,  lo,  behold,  {here 
is)  water,  where  it  might  least  have  been  expected.  (See 
above,  on  v.  27.)  The  consecution  of  the  clauses  seems  to 
show  that  he  considered  nothing  but  the  want  of  water  as 
a  reason  for  delaying  the  profession  of  his  faith.  There  could 
not  be  a  stronger  or  more  beautiful  expression  of  the  strength 
of  his  convictions  or  of  Philip's  argument  by  which  it  was 
effected.  The  readiness  with  which  the  Ethiopian  made  this 
proposition  has  been  supposed  by  some  to  imply  a  previous 
familiarity  mth  proselyte  baptism  as  a  Jewish  practice.  But 
besides  the  historical  uncertainty  which  overhangs  this  custom, 
and  the  high  authorities  by  which  it  is  denied,  it  seems  scarcely 
natural  that  one  who  had  already  been  baptized  at  his  recep- 
tion into  Judaism,  should  expect,  as  a  matter  of  course,  to  be 
baptized  again,  when  convinced  of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus ; 
unless  indeed  he  knew  that  this  rite  was  an  essential  one,  pre- 
scribed by  Christ,  himself;  and  if  he  did  know  this,  there  can 
be  no  need  of  resorting  to  the  dubious  assumption  of  a  Jewish 
baptism,  to  explain  vrhat  is  as  well  or  rather  better  under- 
stood without  it.  Tlie  most  obvious  and  natural  solution  is, 
that  Philip's  argumentative  discourse  included  and  perhaps 
wound  up  with  an  explicit  statement  of  the  way  in  which  new 
converts  must  profess  their  faith  and  be  received  into  the 
church,  and  that  the  Eunuch,  as  the  strongest  possible  expres- 
sion of  assent,  proposed  to  do  what  he  had  just  been  told  he 
must  do,  and  for  which  the  outward  means  were  providen- 
tially presented,  at  the  very  moment  when  they  could  be  used. 

37.  And  Philip  said,  If  thou  behevest  with  all 
thine  heart,  thou  mayest.  And  he  ansAvered  and  said, 
I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God. 

This  verse  is  excluded  from  the  text  by  the  latest  critics, 
because  wanting  in  several  of  the  oldest  manuscripts  and 
versions,  while  in  many  copies  which  contain  it,  there  is  a 
diversity  of  form,  both  in  the  words  themselves  and  in  their 
order,  which  is  commonly  considered  a  suspicious  circum- 
stance. The  interpolation  is  accounted  for,  as  an  attempt  to 
guard  against  the  practice  of  precipitate  admission  to  the 
church,  in  favour  of  which  this  verse  might  with  some  plausi- 
bility have  been  alleged.  But  on  the  other  hand,  it  may  be 
argued  that  the  verse,  though  genuine,  was  afterwards  omit- 


S50  ACTS  8,  37.38. 

ted,  as  unfriendly  to  the  practice  of  delaying  baptism,  which 
had  become  common,  if  not  prevalent,  before  the  end  of  the 
third  century.  It  is  moreover  found  in  many  manuscripts, 
including  some  of  the  most  ancient,  and  is  quoted  as  a  part 
of  this  context,  not  only  by  Cyprian  but  by  Irenseus.  It  is 
therefore  one  of  those  cases,  in  which  the  external  testimony 
may  be  looked  upon  as  very  nearly  balanced,  and  in  which  it 
is  the  safest  course  to  let  the  scale  of  the  received  text  and 
traditional  behef  preponderate.  At  the  same  time,  let  it  be 
observed  that  even  if  the  verse  should  be  expunged,  there 
would  be  nothing  taken  from  the  text  that  is  not  easily  sup- 
plied from  other  places,  and  indeed  implied  in  what  imme- 
diately precedes  and  follows ;  not  only  in  the  act  of  baptism, 
but  in  the  proposal  of  the  Eunuch,  as  explained  above,  and 
really  involving  just  such  a  profession  of  his  faith  in  Jesus, 
as  Philip,  in  the  verse  before  us,  more  exphcitly  requires. 

38.  And  he  commanded  the  chariot  to  stand  still, 
and  they  went  down  both  into  the  water,  both  Philip 
and  the  Eunuch,  and  he  baptized  him. 

The  expression  in  the  first  clause  shows  that  he  was  not 
driving  it  himself,  but,  as  might  have  been  expected  from  his 
rank,  was  accompanied  by  one  or  more  domestics.  That  they 
went  down  i7ito  the  icatei\  can  prove  nothing  as  to  its  extent 
or  depth.  Without  insisting,  as  some  writers  have  done,  that 
the  Greek  phrase  (ets  to  vSwp)  may  mean  nothing  more  than 
to  the  water's  edge,  its  stronger  sense  is  fully  satisfied,  if  we 
suppose  that  they  stood  in  it,  which  in  any  language  would 
be  naturally  expressed  by  saying,  they  went  into  it.  That  the 
phrase  does  not  necessarily  imply  submersion,  is  moreover 
clear  from  the  consideration,  that  such  an  inference  would 
prove  too  much  for  those  who  draw  it,  namely,  that  the  bap- 
tizer  must  himself  be  totally  immersed.  For  not  only  is  there 
no  distinction  made,  but  it  is  twice  said  expressly,  in  two  dif- 
ferent forms,  as  if  to  preclude  all  doubt  and  ambiguity, 
that  both  {afxcpoTepoi)  went  down  into  the  water^  both  (o  re) 
Philip  mid  the  JEiinuch.  If  the  verb  and  preposition  neces- 
sarily imply  immersion,  they  imply  it  equally  in  either  case. 
If  they  do  not  necessarily  imply  it  in  the  one,  there  can  be  no 
such  necessary  implication  in  the  other.  This  is  not  used  as 
an  argument  to  prove  that  there  was  no  immersion  here,  but 
simply  to  prevent  an  unfair  use  of  the  expression,  as  conclu- 


ACTS    8,  38.  39.  351 

sively  proving  that  there  was.  The  same  negative  effect  may 
be  promoted  by  a  simple  illustration  from  analogy.  Suppose 
them  to  have  stopped  for  a  similar  yet  altogether  different 
purpose,  one  requiring  no  complete  immersion,  such  as  that 
of  washing  the  face  or  hands.  How  could  this  have  been 
more  conveniently  accomphshed,  especially  by  orientals,  travel- 
ling either  barefoot  or  in  sandals,  than  by  simply  standing  in 
the  water ;  and  how  could  it  be  otherwise  expressed  by  the 
historian,  without  gratuitous  minuteness  or  circumlocution, 
than  by  saying  just  what  Luke  says  here,  that  they  stopped 
the  chariot  and  "  both  went  down  into  the  water."  All  that 
is  contended  for  is  this,  that  terms  which  might  be  naturally 
used  in  cases  where  there  is  no  immersion  at  all,  cannot  pos- 
sibly be  made  to  prove,  in  any  one  case,  that  there  was  im- 
mersion. To  the  very  different  question,  in  what  character, 
or  by  what  right,  Philip  administered  the  ordinance,  the  nar- 
rative itself  affords  no  certain  answer.  All  that  it  is  necessary 
to  insist  upon,  according  to  the  principle  just  stated,  is  that  it 
cannot  be  sho^^Ti  to  have  been  done  by  Philip  as  a  deacon, 
and  as  a  necessary  function  of  that  office.  This  negative 
position  may  be  fully  justified  by  the  existence  of  alternative 
hypotheses,  either  of  which,  to  say  the  least,  is  as  probable  as 
that  just  mentioned.  The  fact  that  Philip  is  described  below 
(21,  8),  not  only  as  "one  of  the  Seven"  (named  in  6,  5),  but 
first  and  most  distinctively  as  "  the  Evangelist,"  if  not  enough 
to  prove  that  he  baptized  in  this  capacity,  is  certainly  sufficient 
to  rebut  the  proof  that  he  baptized  as  a  Deacon.  The  lapse 
of  time  between  the  case  before  us  and  the  place  where  he  is 
called  an  Evangelist,  creates  no  difficulty,  since,  as  we  have 
seen  above  (on  v.  5),  his  previous  labours  in  Samaria  were 
precisely  such  as  we  should  look  for  in  this  class  of  ministers, 
whether  the  title  be  explained  to  mean  a  Missionary,  or  a 
Preacher  clothed  with  temporary  and  extraordinary  powers. 
(See  below,  on  21,  8.)  These  two  questions  have  been  here 
discussed  at  some  length,  fOr  the  purpose  of  exemplifying  an 
important  principle,  to  wit,  that  while  we  have  no  right  to 
draw  positive  conclusions,  in  defence  of  our  own  usages  and 
doctrines,  from  passages  admitting  of  a  different  interpre- 
tation, we  are  equally  bound  to  resist  all  similar  abuses,  and 
to  see,  so  far  as  in  us  Hes,  that  others  do  not  handle  the  word 
of  God  deceitfully  (2  Cor.  4,  2.) 

39.  And  when  they  were  come  up  out  of  the  water, 


352  ACTS  8,  39. 

the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  caught  away  Philip,  that  the 
Eunuch  saw  him  no  more,  and  he  went  on  his  way  re- 
joicing. ^ 

The  first  words  of  this  verse  correspond  to  those  used  in 
the  one  before  it,  and  must  be  explained  accordingly.  If  im- 
mersion is  described  in  one  case,  so  is  emersion  in  the  other, 
but  mth  equal  reference,  as  before,  to  both  the  persons.  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  they  icent  down  into  the  icater^  only  so  far 
as  to  stand  in  it,  then  their  coining  up  out  of  the  water 
means  no  more  than  that  they  ceased  to  stand  there,  whether 
the  up  and  down  have  reference  to  the  bank  or  to  the  chariot. 
The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  cannot  possibly  mean  less  than  a  spe- 
cial divine  influence  exerted  upon  Philip's  movements  ;  nor  is 
there  any  good  ground  for  denying  that  it  means  a  divine 
person.  (See  above,  on  1,  5,  and  compare  v.  29.)  Caught 
away  is  often  applied  elsewhere  to  corporeal  seizure  (John  6, 
15.  10, 12.  Acts  23,  10.  1  Th.  4,  17.  Rev.  12,  5),  though  some- 
times mth  a  figurative  application  (Matt.  11,12.  13,  19.  John 
10,  28.  29.  Jude  23),  and  in  one  case  with  unquestionable 
reference  to  a  supernatural  or  spiritual  rapture,  "  whether  in 
the  body  or  out  of  the  bo^y,"  he  who  experienced  it  could 
not  tell  (2  Cor.  12,  2.  4.)  But  it  is  never  applied  elsewhere  to 
mere  mental  mipulse,  and  has  therefore  been  most  commonly 
here  understood  of  a  miraculous  removal  of  Philip  from  the 
place  where  he  had  just  baptized  the  Eunuch,  and  of  course 
from  the  sight  of  the  Eunuch  himself.  Some  deny,  however, 
that  the  words  necessarily  denote  more  than  the  hurrying  of 
Phihp  away  by  a  divine  communication,  without  any  miracu- 
lous disappearance  or  passage  through  the  air.  That  the 
Eunuch  saws  hhn  no  7nore^  is  Tyndale's  inexact  construction, 
implying  that  the  reason  of  his  seeing  him  no  more  was  his 
having  been  miraculously  snatched  away ;  whereas  the  mean- 
ing of  the  Greek  is,  and  the  Eunuch  saio  him  no  more^  for 
another  reason,  stated  in  the  next  clause.  And  he  went^ 
another  inexact  translation  from  the  same  source,  the  correct 
one  being,  for  he  went.  The  reason,  therefore,  given  in  the 
text  for  Philip's  being  seen  no  more  by  the  Eunuch,  is  not 
the  Spirit's  catching  him  away,  but  the  Eunuch's  going  on  his 
way  rejoicing.  The  sequence  thus  suggested  by  the  Greek 
words  or  a  close  translation  is,  that  the  Spirit  hurried  Philip 
from  the  spot,  and  the  Eunuch  saw  him  no  more,  neither 
searching  nor  waiting  for  him,  but  proceeding  on  his  own 


ACTS  8,  39.  40.  353 

way  homeward,  too  much  absorbed  in  the  joy  of  his  conver- 
sion to  think  even  of  the  instrument  by  whom  it  was  effected. 
For  a  similar  effect  of  an  analogous  cause,  though  not  the 
same  precisely,  see  above,  on  1,  11.  12.  In  the  case  before 
us,  the  miraculous  vanishing  of  Philip,  if  affirmed,  must  not 
be  made  to  rest  on  an  inexact  translation. 

40.  But  Philip  was  found  at  Azotus ;  and  passing 
through,  he  preached  in  ?ill  the  cities,  till  he  came  to 
Cesarea. 

No  stress  is  to  be  laid  upon  the  Jnit^  Avhich  is  the  usual 
continuative  particle  (8e),  and  might  as  Yv'ell  have  been  trans- 
lated and,  as  it  is  in  vs.  30,  31,  34,  36,  37,  39.  Was  found 
seems  certainly  to  favour  the  conclusion  that  the  separation 
between  Philip  and  the  Eunuch  was  produced  in  some  extra- 
ordinary vv'ay.  Those  who  deny  this  understand  it  to  mean 
merely  that  he  icas  there,  or  loas  present  there,  for  which  the 
usual  equivalent  in  Hebrew  is  the  passive  of  the  verb  to  find. 
This  analogy,  however,  is  scarcely  sufficient  to  explain  the 
use  of  an  expression  so  significant  in  this  connection.  And 
even  if  we  take  it  in  the  stronger  sense  of  being  next  seen  in 
Azotus,  this  at  once  suggests  that  he  had  reached  that  place 
in  some  extraordmary  manner.  There  is  therefore  a  pre- 
sumption, although  not  conclusive  evidence,  in  favour  of  this 
ancient  and  most  prevalent  interpretation.  Azotus  is  the 
Greek  or  Latin  form  of  Ashdod,  one  of  the  five  capitals  of 
the  Philistines  (Josh.  13,  3.  1  Sam.  51,  6.  4),  belonging  nomi- 
nally to  the  tribe  of  Judah  (Josh.  15.47.)  It  is  still  in  ex- 
istence as  an  unimportant  village,  mider  the  slightly  altered 
name  of  Esdud.  Here  Philip  seems  to  have  resumed  his  mis- 
sionary labours,  either  because,  as  some  suppose,  he  was  trans- 
ported thither  through  the  air,  or  because  the  country  be- 
tween Ashdod  and  the  place  where  he  had  left  the  Eunuch 
was  a  wilderness,  affording  no  opportunity  of  preachhig. 
Passing  through,  or  coming  through,  is  rendered  in  the  older 
English  versions  (Tyndale,  Cranmer,  and  Geneva),  and  he 
loalked  throughout  the  country,  i.  e.  the  country  between 
Azotus  and  Cesarea.  This  last  is  not  the  Cesarea  mentioned 
in  the  Gospels  (Matt.  16,  12.  Mark  8,  27),  but  an  ancient  sea- 
port on  the  Mediterranean,  formerly  called  Straton's  Tower, 
rebuilt  and  beautified  by  Herod  the  Great,  and  named  by  him 
in  honour  of  Augustus.     Josephus  calls  it  one  of  the  great 


354       '  ACTS   8,  40. 

towns  of  Palestine,  chiefly  inhabited  by  Greeks.  It  was  here 
the  Roman  governors  resided  after  Judea  had  been  taken 
from  the  Herods  and  annexed  to  Syria.  (See  below,  on 
9,  30.)  To  this  important  city  Philip's  course  was  now  di- 
rected, at  the  end  of  a  missionary  tour,  the  length  of  which 
we  have  no  means  of  determining.  We  only  know  that 
passing  through  (the  intervening  country)  he  preached  in  all 
the  cities^  or  retainmg  the  original  expression,  he  evangelized 
them  all,  by  publishing  the  good  news  of  salvation.  That 
Cesarea  now  became  his  permanent  abode,  or  at  least  the 
centre  of  his  operations,  although  not  expressly  stated,  is  ex- 
tremely probable,  because  in  the  only  other  place  where  he 
is  again  mentioned,  he  is  not  only  still  at  Cesarea,  but  sur- 
rounded by  a  family  of  adult  children.  (See  below,  on  21,  8;  9.) 


CHAPTER  IX. 


This  division  of  the  text  contains  two  narratives,  both  relating 
to  the  spread  of  the  church  after  the  martyrdom  of  Stephen, 
but  entirely  distinct  from  one  another,  and  rather  parallel 
than  successive.  The  first  (1-30)  records  the  conversion  of 
Saul,  his  early  ministry,  and  subsequent  return  to  his  own 
country;  the  second  (31-43)  a  visitation  of  the  churches  in 
Judea  by  Petei",  during  which  he  performed  two  signal  mira- 
cles at  Lydda  and  Joppa.  These  accounts,  though  thrown 
into  a  single  chapter,  are  not  to  be  read  as  one  continued  nar- 
rative, but  rather  as  the  record  of  two  independent  radiations 
from  a  common  centre ;  the  historian,  at  the  close  of  the  first, 
reverting  to  the  point  from  which  he  had  set  out,  to  wit,  the 
death  of  Stephen,  the  ensuing  persecution,  and  the  consequent 
dispersion  of  the  church  from  Jerusalem  in  various  directions. 
While  the  two  parts  of  this  chapter  must  be  thus  distin- 
guished, the  second  (31-43)  is  connected,  in  the  closest  man- 
ner, with  the  narrative  contained  in  Chapter  10,  and  in  the 
first  eighteen  verses  of  Chapter  11,  the  subject  of  which  nar- 
rative is  the  conversion  of  Cornelius,  or  rather  the  reception 
of  the  first  Gentile  convert  into  the  church,  without  first 
passing  through  the  vestibule  of  Judaism.    To  this  import^^nt 


ACTS  9,  1.  355 

portion  of  the  apostolical  history,  the  latter  part  of  the  chap- 
ter now  before  us  is  directly  introductory.  A  due  regard  to 
this  relation  of  the  chapters  will  not  only  show  how  inju- 
dicious the  division  often  is,  but  aid  the  reader  in  obtaining  a 
clear  view  of  the  historian's  design  and  method,  which  may 
otherwise  seem  dark  and  doubtful. 

1.  And  Saul,  yet  breathing  out  threatenings  and 
slaughter  against  the  disciples  of  the  Lord,  went  unto 
the  High  Priest  — 

Yet  or  still  connects  what  follows  with  the  statement  in 
8,  1,  to  which  point  the  narrative  goes  back,  so  that  whaf  in- 
tervenes may  possibly  have  happened  at  the  same  time  with 
the  events  about  to  be  recorded.  As  if  he  had  said,  '  While 
Philip  was  thus  occupied,  Paul  was  still  persecuting  the  disci- 
ples.' (See  above,  on  8,  4,  and  below,  on  v.  31.)  Breathing 
out,  or  more  exactly,  hreathi7ig  in,  inhaling,  i.  e.  as  some  ex- 
plain it,  living  in  an  atmosphere  of  rage  and  murder  ;  or,  ac- 
cording to  others,  simply  breathing,  as  the  verb  often  means 
in  classic  Greek,  the  idea  of  expiration  being  then  implied, 
though  not  expressed,  with  an  allusion  to  the  panting  or  snort- 
ing of  wild  beasts,  or  to  flowers  breathing  odour.  The  Peshito 
renders  the  word/w??,  and  some  critics  suppose  a  correspond- 
mg  Greek  word,  not  unlike  in  form,  to  be  the  correct  reading 
(e/xTrA-ews  for  e/^Tn/ecoi/.)  But  no  such  change  is  either  author- 
ized or  needed,  as  the  coihmon  text  conveys  a  strong  and 
suitable,  though  somewhat  indefinite  idea,  namely,  that  of 
passionate  excitement  outwardly  exhibited  in  word  and  deed, 
i.  e.  by '  threatening,  (not  threatenings,  as  in  all  the  Enghsh 
versions)  and  murder,  either  actual  or  meditated  and  intended. 
The  disciples  of  the  Lord,  those  who  acknowledged  the  au- 
thority of  Christ  as  their  Master,  in  the  twofold  sense  of  an 
instructor  and  a  sovereign.  Went,  literally,  going,  of  his 
own  accord,  a  strong  proof  of  his  sincerity  and  zeal.  To  the 
Sigh  Priest,  the  acknowledged  head  and  representative  of 
the  theocracy,  particularly  since  the  abohtion  or  suspension 
of  the  prophetical  and  regal  offices  in  Israel.  Who  was  High 
Priest  at  this  time,  can  only  be  conjectured,  as  the  time  itself 
is  far  from  being  certain,  the  opinions  of  interpreters  ranging 
through  a  period  of  ten  years  (from  A.  D.  31  to  41.)  This 
uncertainty,  however,  has  no  more  efiect  npon  the  clearness 
of  the  history  than  the  similar  question  with  respect  to  the 


356  ACTS  9,  1.  2. 

nativity  of  Christ.  Caiaphas,  under  whom  our  Lord  was  put 
to  death,  appears  to  have  remained  in  office  till  the  Passover 
of  the  year  37,  when  he  was  removed  by  Yitellius,  the  Pro- 
consul of  Syria,  to  whose  province  Judea  was  attached,  and 
his  place  filled,  first  by  Jonathan,  and  after  a  few  weeks  by 
Theophilus  (see  above,  on  1, 1)  who  held  it  till  he  was  dis- 
placed by  Agrippa,  A.  D.  41.  Both  these  were  sons,  as  Caia- 
phas  was  son-in-law,  of  Ananus  or  Annas.  One  of  them  is 
probably  the  High  Priest  to  whom  Paul  went  on  this  occasion, 
as  recorded  here  and  afterwards  acknowledged  by  himself, 
v/ith  an  appeal  to  the  High  Priest  and  Elders,  as  witnesses  of 
what  he  said.    (See  below,  on  22,  5.) 

2.  And  desired  of  him  letters  to  Damascus,  to  the 
synagogues,  that  if  he  found  any  of  this  way,  whether 
they  v/ere  men  or  women,  he  might  bring  them  bound 
unto  Jerusalem. 

The  sentence  is  completed  from  the  first  verse.  Desired^ 
literally,  asJced^  but  in  the  middle  voice,  meaning  asked  for 
himself  or  as  a  favour,  showing  his  forAvardness  and  zeal  in 
persecution.  (See  above,  on  3,  14.  7,  46.)  Ofhim^  literally, 
from  him^  not  in  his  private  but  official  capacity.  Letters, 
lilce  the  Latin  literae^  may  mean  a  single  letter ;  but  this  con- 
struction is  unnecessary,  as  synagogues  is  in  the  plural.  With 
respect  to  these  bodies,  see  above,  on  6,  9.  Those  in  foreign 
parts  had  probably  more  of  a  distmct  organization.  The 
power  of  the  High  Priest  over  these  societies  was  merely 
moral  and  ecclesiastical,  but  not  on  that  account  less  real, 
as  we  may  learn  from  that  of  the  Pope  in  many  Christian 
countries.  Damascus  is  perhaps  the  oldest  city  in  the  world, 
being  mentioned  in  the  history  of  Abraham  (Gen.  14, 15.  15,  2.) 
It  was  afterwards  the  capital  of  a  kingdom,  v>^hich  appears  to 
have  been  raised  up  as  a  rival  and  a  scourge  to  that  of  the 
ten  tribes,  with  which  it  was  destroyed  by  the  Ass}a-ians. 
(1  Kings  11,  23-25.  2  Kings  16,  9.)  The  city,  however,  still 
retained  its  importance,  and  is  flourishmg  to  this  day.  It  is 
finely  situated  in  a  fertile  plain,  betvv^een  the  mountain-chains 
of  Libanus  and  Anti-Libanus,  at  a  point  where  several  of 
the  great  caravan  routes  come  together.  The  JeT\dsl>  popu- 
lation of  the  place  was  very  large,  Josephus  saying  that  ten 
thousand  Jews  were  massacred  there  at  one  time  under  Nero. 


ACTS  9,  2.3.4.  *        357 

The  gospel  may  have  been  carried  thither  after  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost or  the  death  of  Stephen.  If  he  found  any  seems  to 
imply  a  doubt,  but  according  to  Greek  usage  may  mean, 
whomsoever  he  there  found.  Of  this  loay^  hterally,  of  the 
icay^  i.  e.  the  new  way  of  life  and  way  of  salvation.  (See 
above,  on  5,  41.)  The  original  expression  is,  of  this  way 
heing^  which  last  word  is  omitted  in  the  Enghsh  versions  or 
connected  with  what  follows,  ichether  they  loere  men  or  women 
But  the  Greek  construction  is,  of  this  way  being.,  both  m,en 
and  women.  (See  above,  on  8,  3. 12.)  Bound.,  either  liter- 
ally tied,  chained,  or  metaphorically,  under  arrest,  in  custody. 
In  the  absence  of  any  reason  to  the  contrary,  the  first  is  enti- 
tled to  the  preference.  This  commission  seems  to  unply  the 
connivance  of  the  Roman  government,  so  that  the  same  con- 
spiracy of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  which  put  Christ  to  death,  (4, 
27)  pursued  his  followers  even  into  foreign  j)arts. 

3.  And  as  he  journeyed,  he  came  near  Damascus,  and 
suddenly  there  shined  romid  about  him  a  light  from 
heaven. 

As  he  journeyed^  literally,  in  the  journeying.,  in  the  very 
act  of  going  forward.  He  came  near.,  literally,  it  happened 
(came  to  pass)  that  he  drew  near,  or  approached.  The  omis- 
sion of  the  first  verb  is  confined  to  the  authorized  version ; 
the  older  ones  have  chanced.,  fortuned.,  or  befell.  Shined.,  or 
more  exactly,  flashed  around  him.,  the  Greek  verb  being 
properly  applied  to  lightning.  It  is  not,  however,  a  mere 
flash  of  lightning  that  is  here  described,  but  a  continued 
light  from  heaven,  illuminating  the  place  for  some  time.  A 
light.,  or  more  simply  and  emphatically,  light.,  without  the  ar- 
ticle. From  heaven  not  only  indicates  the  apparent  or 
visible  direction,  but  implies  the  supernatural  or  celestial 
source  of  the  illumination.     (See  above,  on  2,  2.) 

4.  And  he  fell  to  the  earth,  and  heard  a  voice  say- 
ing unto  him,  Saul,  Saul,  why  persecutest  thou  me  ? 

The  impression  on  the  sense  of  sight  is  followed  by  one 
upon  the  sense  of  hearing.  Fell.,  literally,  /ai^w?^  or  having 
fallen.  Saul  is  here  written  in  the  proper  Hebrew  form, 
which  agrees  exactly  with  the  statement  elsewhere,  that  the 
v^oice  addressed  him  in  the  Hebrew  tongue  (see  above,  on  7, 


358  •  ACTS  9,  4.5. 

58,  and  below,  on  26,  14.)  The  repetition  of  the  name  adds 
solemnity  and  earnestness.  (Compare  Luke  10.  41.  13,  25. 
22,  31.) 

5.  And  he  said,  Who  art  thou,  Lord  ?  And  the 
Lord  said,  I  am  Jesus,  whom  thou  persecutest.  It  is 
hard  for  thee  to  kick  against  the  pricks. 

Lord^  not  S>h\  which  would,  in  this  connection,  be  incon- 
gruous. He  seems  to  have  some  suspicion  of  the  truth,  or  at 
least  to  be  aware  that  he  is  m  communication  with  some  su- 
perhuman being.  The  Lord^  i.  e.  the  person  whom  he  had 
thus  addressed,  and  who  was  really  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
I  am  Jesus  (that  Jesus)  whom  thou  persecutes^  or  art  perse- 
cuting. He  thus  identifies  himself  with  his  people,  not  as  an 
aggregate  body  merely,  but  as  individuals,  according  to  the 
principle  which  he  had  formerly  laid  down,  when  teaching  his 
disciples  how  they  might  indulge  their  feelings  of  attachment 
to  him,  even  in  his  absence.  "  Liasmuch  as  ye  have  done  it 
unto  one  of  the  least  of  these  my  brethren,  ye  have  done  it 
unto  me."  (Matt.  25,  40.)  The  situation  here  described  may 
be  compared  to  that  of  Balaam,  when  the  Angel  of  the  Lord 
said,  "  I  have  come  out  to  withstand  thee,  because  thy  way  is 
perverse  before  me."  (Numb.  22,  32.)  There  is  also  a  re- 
semblance to  the  incident  recorded  in  John  18,  4-6,  where  our 
Saviour  says  to  those  who  came  forth  to  arrest  hun,  "  Whom 
seek  ye  ?  They  answered  him,  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  Jesus 
saith  unto  them,  I  am  he.  As  soon  as  he  had  said  unto  them, 
I  am  he,  they  went  backward  and  fell  to  the  ground."  Com- 
mon to  both  scenes,  although  not  in  the  same  order,  is  the 
sudden  and  violent  prostration,  and  the  solemn  recognition 
of  the  Saviour's  person.  It  is  hard  for  thee  to  hick  against 
the  pricks^  is  found  in  no  Greek  manuscript  at  this  place,  but 
in  several  old  versions,  and  is  now  commonly  agreed  to  be  an 
interpolation  from  26,  14  below.  It  owes  its  origin,  no  doubt, 
to  the  practice  of  the  ancient  copyists,  in  making  parallel  pas- 
sages complete  each  other.  Nothing  of  course  is  lost  by  its 
exclusion  from  the  verse  before  us,  into  which  it  seems  to 
have  been  first  introduced  by  Erasmus.  The  clause  itself  is  a 
proverbial  one,  of  frequent  occurrence  in  the  Greek  and  Latin 
classics,  being  found  in  Pindar,  ^schylus,  Euripides,  Plautus, 
and  Terence.  Hard.,  not  difficult  but  painful,  dangerous ; 
not  hard  to  do,  but  hard  to  bear.     Pricks.,  i.  e.  sharp  points. 


ACTS  9,  5.  6.  1,  359 

specially  applied  to  the  stings  of  insects,  and  to  the  goads  or 
pointed  staves  employed  in  driving.  The  idea  meant  to  be 
conveyed  is  not  merely  that  of  vain  resistance  to  the  irre- 
sistible, but  that  of  a  resistance  which  incurs  new  injury  or 
suffering.  '  Cease  thy  vain  resistance  to  my  will  and  power, 
which  can  only  render  thee  worse  and  thy  condition  more 
deplorable.'  The  sentence  has  no  bearing  on  the  doctrine  of 
irresistible  grace.  It  was  not  grace  which  Saul  had  been 
resisting,  but  authority  and  evidence.  The  first  effect  of 
grace  was  to  subdue  him. 

6.  And  he,  trembling  and  astonished,  said,  Lord, 
what  wilt  thou  have  me  to  do  ?  And  the  Lord  said 
nnto  him,  Arise,  and  go  into  the  city,  and  it  shall  be 
told  thee  what  thou  must  do. 

In  all  Greek  manuscripts  this  verse  begins  with  the  word 
arise^  and  is  a  direct  continuation  of  the  previous  address.  The 
case  is  different,  however,  from  that  of  the  supposed  inter- 
I3olation  in  v.  5.  There,  the  insertion  of  the  words  can  be  ac- 
counted for,  by  assimilation  to  another  passage.  Here,  the 
inserted  words  are  such  as  occur  nowhere  else,  which  makes  it 
harder  to  account  for  their  insertion,  unless  they  existed  in  the 
oldest  copies,  now  no  longer  extant.  Their  genuineness  is 
also  favoured  by  their  appropriateness  or  congruity,  and  the 
absence  of  any  thing  to  cause  suspicion  of  a  later  forgery.  The 
effect  produced  on  Saul  himself  {trembling  and  astonished) 
is  just  what  might  have  been  expected,  and  the  question  put 
into  his  mouth  [Lord^  what  wilt  thou  have  me  to  do  f )  has 
been  a  formula  of  pious  resignation  and  devotion  for  a  course 
of  ages.  On  the  other  hand,  the  absence  of  the  words  in  aU 
Greek  copies,  and  their  various  forms  in  versions  and  quota- 
tions, have  led  some  of  the  most  cautious  critics  to  regard 
them  as  a  paraphrastic  gloss. 

7.  And  the  men  which  journeyed  with  him  stood 
speechless,  hearing  a  voice  but  seeing  no  man. 

Tliose  journeying  with  him^  his  fellow-travellers,  perhaps 
a  caravan  which  he  had  joined,  but  possibly  soldiers  or  officers 
of  justice,  who  attended  him  to  aid  in  the  execution  of  his 
commission.  JStood,  i.  e.  stood  still,  stopped,  as  opposed  to 
gomg  forward,  not  to  sitting  down  or  lying  prostrate.     (See 


360  -  ACTS  9,  7.  8.  9. 

below,  on  26, 14.)  If  we  give  the  verb  its  strict  pluperfect 
sense  (see  above,  on  1, 10),  the  idea  is  that  they  had  stopped 
or  stood  still  when  they  saw  the  light,  although  they  after- 
wards fell  prostrate.  Speechless^  a  word  used  in  the  classics 
to  denote  those  deaf  and  dumb.  (See  the  Septuagint  version 
of  Isaiah  56, 10,  and  compare  that  of  Prov.  17,  28.)  iVb  man^ 
no  one,  nobody ;  see  above,  on  4,  35. 

8.  And  Saul  arose  from  the  earth,  and  when  his 
eyes  were  opened,  he  saw  no  man ;  but  they  led  him 
by  the  hand  and  brought  him  into  Damascus. 

The  first  indication  of  a  moral  change  is  that  afforded  by 
Saul's  childlike  obedience  to  the  voice  of  his  new  master. 
Arose^.  or  more  exactly,  was  aroused  or  raised,  implying 
passive  rather  than  active  obedience,  and  perhaps  that  he  was 
in  a  kind  of  trance  or  waking-dream,  but  not  ^hat  the  inci- 
dents recorded  were  imaginary ;  for  they  were  witnessed  by 
others  as  well  as  by  himself.  When  his  eyes  icere  opened 
does  not  mean  merely,  after  he  had  opened  them,  but  even 
when  his  eyes  were  open.  Saw  no  one^  does  not  mean  merely, 
as  in  V.  7,  that  the  speaker  was  invisible,  but  that  Saul  could 
see  no  one  whatever,  being  blind.  Led  him  by  the  hand 
is  one  compound  verb  in  Greek,  which  might  be  rendered 
hand-led  (compare  calf -made  in  7,  41),  and  is  used  by  Anacreon 
and  other  classics,  with  particular  reference  to  blindness.  They 
led  may  either  be  indefinitely  construed  as  equivalent  to  the 
passive  form  in  22,  11,  oi  referred  to  the  men  of  the  preceding 
verse,  who  are  expressly  represented  as  the  agents,  in  the 
parallel  account  just  cited.  Into  Damascus  may  imply 
proximity  ;  but  see  the  same  phrase  in  v.  2  above.  Local  tra- 
dition still  identifies  the  scene  of  this  transaction  at  a  bridge 
not  far  from  the  city.  The  contrast  between  Saul's  designed 
and  actual  entrance  into  Damascus,  though  susceptible  of 
very  high  rhetorical  embellishment,  is  left  by  the  historian, 
with  characteristic  moderation  and  simplicity,  to  the  imagi- 
nation of  the  reader. 

9.  And  he  was  three  days  without  sight,  and  neither 
did  eat  nor  drink. 

The  physical  effect  of  this  event  was  to  be  neither  perma- 
nent nor  momentary.     He  was  not  merely  dazzled  for  an 


ACTS  9,  9.  10.  3C1 

instant,  nor  was  he  blinded  for  the  rest  of  life  ;  but  he  was 
three  days  without  sight  (literally,  7iot  seeing.)  Ate  not 
neither  drank.,  expresses  total  abstinence ;  nor  is  there  any 
reason  for  extenuating  the  expression.  According  to  the 
Jewish  mode  of  computation,  the  three  days  may  either  have 
been  three  whole  days,  or  one  whole  day  and  portions  of  two 
others.  The  fast  or  abstinence  itself  has  been  variously  un- 
derstood, as  a  natural  expression  of  Saul's  penitence  and 
grief;  or  as  a  medicinal  appliance  for  the  restoration  of  his 
sight ;  or  as  the  spontaneous  effect  ot  his  abstraction  from 
his  ordmary  thoughts  and  occupations,  and  his  absorption  in 
che  care  of  his  salvation.  (See  below,  on  27,  21.  33.)  Three 
days  some  suppose  to  have  been  chosen,  m  allusion  to  the 
nistory  of  Jonah,  or  to  our  Saviour's  burial.  (See  Jon.  1,  17. 
Matt.  12,  39.  40.) 

10.  And  there  was  a  certain  disciple  at  Damascns, 
named  Ananias,  and  to  him  said  the  Lord  in  a  vision, 
Ananias.     And  he  said.  Behold,  I  (am  here).  Lord. 

As  a  ncAV  character  is  here  introduced,  the  first  words 
might  be  translated  now  there  was.  A  disciple.,  i.  e.  of  Christ, 
a  believer,  a  converted  Jew,  as  we  know  from  ch.  22,  12.  A 
certain  disciple.,  see  above,  on  5,  1.  In  Damascus.,  where  he 
may  have  taken  refuge  from  the  persecution  at  Jerusalem 
(8, 1),  as  it  is  not  probable  that  all  who  fled  remained  within 
the  limits  of  the  Holy  Land.  It  is  equally  possible,  however, 
that  he  may  have  been  a  native  of  Damascus,  or  a  Jew  re- 
siding there,  but  present  in  the  Holy  City  on  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost ;  or  afterwards  converted  by  the  agency  of  some  one 
who  had  witnessed  the  effusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  been 
driven  into  exile  on  the  death  of  Stephen.  He  is  not  here 
mentioned  as  the  sole  disciple  in  Damascus ;  and  we  know 
from  V.  14  below,  that  there  were  others.  Named  (literally, 
hy  name)  Ananias.,  precisely  as  in  5,  1.  (See  also,  23,  2.  24, 
1.)  The  Lord.,  i.  e.  the  Lord  Jesus,  as  in  v.  5.  In  a  vision., 
either  in  the  wide  sense  of  a  revelation,  a  divine  communica- 
tion, or  in  the  strict  sense  of  a  divine  or  preternatural  appear- 
ance. (See  below,  v.  12,  and  compare  7,31.  10,  3. 17. 19.  11,  5. 
12,  9.  16,  9. 10.  18,  9.)  Said  in  a  vision  does  not  necessarily 
imply  that  there  was  only  a  verbal  revelation,  but  rather  that 
the  words  were  uttered  by  a  visible  speaker.  Behold  me 
(Wicl.  lo,  I)  is  a  close  translation  of  the  usual  response  iu 
VOL.  I. — 16 


362  ACTS  9,  10.11. 

Hebrew  to  a  call  by  name,  equivalent  to  saying  see  me^  but 
usually  rendered  in  the  English  Bible,  Behold  I  am  here  (aa 
in  Gen.  22, 1.  27),  but  sometimes  simply,  here  am  I  (as  in 
Gen.  22,  11),  although  the  idea  thus  omitted  is  the  one  really 
expressed,  that  of  presence  being  only  impUed.  When^  ad- 
dressed to  a  superior,  this  formula  suggests  the  accessory  idea 
of  readiness  for  service,  or  of  promptness  to  obey. 

11.  And  the  Lord  (said)  unto  him,  Arise  and  go 
into  the  street  called  Straight,  and  inquire  in  the 
house  of  Judas  for  one  called  Saul  of  Tarsus  ;  for  be- 
hold, he  prayeth. 

The  particle  at  the  beginning  is  the  same  as  ui  v.  10,  and 
might  here  be  rendered  so  or  then. .  There  is  no  need  of 
assuming  a  grannnatical  ellipsis  of  the  verb  said.  It  is 
rather  an  abbreviated  formula,  Hke  the  names  prefixed  to  the 
parts  in  a  dramatic  dialogue.  Arising  go  is  not  an  unmean- 
ing pleonasm,  but  either  a  command  to  address  himself  to 
action  (see  above,  on  8,  26.  27),  or  still  more  probably,  a 
literal  command  to  stand  up  or  arise,  i.  e.  from  sleep  or  out  of 
bed,  if  the  vision  was  a  dream,  as  in  many  other  cases.  Aris 
ing  go^  go  away,  depart,  implying  not  mere  motion,  but  entire 
change  of  place.  (See  above,  on  1, 10.  11.  25.  5,  20.  41.  8,  26. 
27.  36.  39.  9,  3.)  Street^  a  Greek  word  corresponding  to  the 
Latin  vicus^  and  denotmg  properly  a  lane  or  alley,  as  opposed 
to  a  wide  street  or  broad  way.  (See  above,  on  5,  15.)  This 
is  the  only  street  named  in  the  New  Testament,  and  by  a  cu 
rious  coincidence,  if  nothing  more,  Damascus  stUl  exhibits 
what  is  rare  in  oriental  towns,  a  long  straight  street,  running 
through  its  whole  length  from  east  to  west,  and  probably 
marking  the  direction  of  the  one  to  which  Ananias  was  com- 
missioned. Inquire^  literally,  seek^^  as  m  all  the  older  English 
versions.  The  house  is  more  definite  than  the  original,  which 
strictly  means  a  house  of  Judas.,  i.  e.  a  house  belonging  to 
one  Judas,  who  seems  to  be  referred  to  as  a  person  quite  un- 
known to  Ananias,  although  some  consider  it  more  probable 
that  Judas  was  a  Christian  or  converted  Jew.  It  is  no  less 
robable,  however,  that  he  was  an  old  friend  or  acquaintance, 
or  his  house  one  of  public  entertainment,  or  that  Saul  had 
made  arrangements  to  reside  with  him  before  his  actual 
arrival.     Judas,  Jude,  or  Judah^  being  a  national  name,  was 


ACTS  9,  11.  12.  363 

still  more  common  than  Ananias^  there  bemg  four  of  that 
name  mentioned  in  this  book,  besides  several  others  in  the 
Gospels.  (See  1,  13.  5,  37.  15,  32,  and  compare  Matt.  1,  2.  3. 
Luke  3,  26.  30.  Mark  6,  3.  John  6,  VI.  14,  22.)  One  called 
Saul  of  Tarsus^  literally,  Saul  by  name^  a  Tarsean^  i.  e.  a 
Tarsean  named  Saul.  Tarsus^  the  capital  of  Cilicia,  the  south- 
eastern province  of  Asia  Minor,  described  by  Xenophon  as 
a  great  and  flourishing  city,  and  by  Strabo  as  a  seat  of  science 
equal  or  superior  to  Alexandria  and  Athens.  Even  allowing 
this  to  be  extravagant,  the  truth  wliich  it  exaggerates  must 
be  sufficient  to  evince  that  Paul's  advantages  or  opportunities 
of  early  education  were  among  the  best  afforded  by  the  Ro- 
man Empire  or  Augustan  Age,  and  to  explain  the  frequent 
indications,  in  Ms  writings  and  discourses,  of  familiarity  with 
classical  literature.  Behold^  or  lo^  as  usual,  introduces  some- 
thing strange  and  unexpected.  lie  prayeth  (or  is  praying) 
is  not  given  as  a  proof  that  he  would  now  be  found  at  home  ; 
but  either  means  that  he  was  asking  for  the  very  thing  about 
to  be  bestowed;  or  is  descriptive  of  conversion,  as  in  modern 
phrase  a  convert  is  often  represented  as  a  praying  man.  After 
his  three  days'  struggle  he  begins  to  pray,  which  shows  that 
he  is  ripe  for  restoration  to  his  eyesight,  and  admission  to  the 
church  by  Christian  baptism. 

12.  And  hath  seen  m  a  vision  a  man  named  Ana- 
nias coming  in  and  putting  his  hand  on  him,  that  he 
might  receive  his  sight. 

Some  make  this  the  beginning  of  a  new  sentence,  contain- 
ing a  remark  of  the  historian,  that  while  Ananias  was  receiv- 
ing this  command,  Saul  saw  it  executed  in  a  vision.  But  the 
only  natural  interpretation  is  the  obvious  and  common  one, 
which  makes  this  a  direct  continuation  of  the  reason  given  m 
the  end  of  the  preceding  verse,  why  he  should  go  in  search 
of  Saul ;  for  lo  he  prayeth^  and  hath  seen  in  vision  a  man 
nayned  (literally,  by  name)  Ananias.  The  whole  vision  being 
supernatural,  the  name  could  be  as  readily  suggested  as  the 
rest.  How  often,  in  our  ordinary  dreams,  do  we  seem  to  be 
aware,  not  only  of  a  person's  looks,  but  of  his  name  and  char- 
acter. This  expression  seems  to  decide  the  question,  whether 
Saul  and  Ananias  were  before  acquainted ;  for  if  that  had 
been  the  case,  the  natural  expression  would  be,  and  hath  seen 
thee^  not  a  m.an  named  AnaniaSy  which  can  only  me(\n,  with- 


364  ACTS  9,  12.  13 


out  a  forced  construction,  that  he  saw  a  man  whom  he  had 
never  seen  before,  but  whom  he  knew  at  once  to  be  named 
Ananias.  The  coincidence  of  two  distmct  communications, 
at  or  near  the  same  time,  and  for  the  same  purpose,  but  to 
different  persons,  while  it  served  to  prepare  them  for  a  subse- 
quent meetmg,  tended  also  to  preclude  the  supposition  of  an 
accident  or  mere  imagination,  Avhich,  though  possible  in  one 
case,  could  not  well  occur  in  two,  without  a  supernatural  oc- 
casion and  direction.  Another  instance  of  the  same  thing  is 
afforded  by  the  visions  of  Peter  and  Oornehus  in  the  follow- 
ing chapter. 

13.  Then  Ananias  answered,  Lord,  I  have  heard 
by  many  of  this  man,  how  much  evil  he  hath  done  to 
thy  saints  at  Jerusalem. 

It  is  a  curious  thought  of  Chrysostora,  that  this  commis- 
sion was  intrusted  to  one  otherwise  unknown,  that  there 
might  be  no  pretext  for  assertmg  Paul's  apostleship  to  be  de- 
pendent upon  human  teaching.  This  obscurity  of  Ananias 
makes  it  more  surprising  that,  instead  of  catching  at  the 
offered  honour,  he  declined  it,  or  at  least  suggested  difficul- 
ties which  might  serve  as  an  excuse  for  doing  so.  It  is 
worthy  of  remark  how  often  this  kind  of  resistance,  on  the 
part  of  God's  most  honoured  instruments,  occurs  in  Scripture. 
The  most  striking  instances  are  those  of  Moses  (Ex.  3,  11. 13. 
4, 1. 10. 13)  and  Jeremiah  (1,  6.)  The  motive  of  refusal,  in 
the  case  before  us,  has  been  variously  understood  to  be  the 
fear  of  personal  injury  from  Saul,  which  is  absurd,  since  he 
had  just  been  described  to  him  as  blind  and  praying ;  or  in- 
dignation and  a  wounded  sense  of  justice,  that  this  cruel  per- 
secutor should  be  made  the  object  of  divine  compassion,  and 
himself  the  channel  of  communication  (compare  Jon.  4,  1-11) ; 
or,  more  probably  than  either,  incredulity,  a  real  incapacity 
to  credit  what  he  heard,  or  to  beheve  that  such  a  change  was 
possible.  Thus  understood,  the  spirit  of  his  answer  is  not,  as 
an  old  Greek  commentator  paraphrases  it — 'See  to  whom 
thou  art  betraying  me  ;  I  fear  lest  he  take  me  to  Jerusalem  ; 
why  dost  thou  put  me  in  the  lion's  mouth  ?  '-^but  rather, 
'  Can  it  be  that  this  arch-bigot  and  fanatic  is  approachable  by 
me  on  such  an  errand  ? '  As  in  other  cases  of  the  same 
kind,  the  resistance  shows  a  childhke  candor  and  simplicity, 
as  weU  as  confidential  intercourse  between  the  servant  and 


ACTS   9,  13.  14.  365 

tne  master.  By  many^  literally,  from  many^  i.  e.  many  years, 
as  some  explain  it,  which,  according  to  Greek  usage,  means, 
for  many  years  (or  for  a  long  time)  past.  But  the  obvious 
construction  supplies  men  or  2^ersons^  as  the  sources  of  his  in- 
formation. This  implies  an  interval  of  some  length  since  the 
begiiming  of  the  persecution,  and  a  considerable  emigration 
of  the  exiles  to  Damascus,  unless  we  suppose  Ananias  to  have 
heard  the  news  from  others,  or  in  other  places.  Of  (about, 
concerning)  this  mem  is  perhaps  contemptuous.  (See  above, 
on  4, 10.  6,  14.  7,  40.)  How  much  evil^  literally,  how  many 
(or  how  great)  evils.  See  above,  on  2,  39.  3,  22.  24.  4,  G.  23, 
28.  34.  5,  36.  37.)  He  hath  done^  or  adhering  to  the  strict 
sense  of  the  aorist,  he  did^  i.  e.  before  he  came  here.  8aints^ 
or  holy  ones,  is  here  used  for  the  first  time  to  describe 
discij)les  or  beUevers.  It  is  still  disputed  which  of  the  two 
leading  senses  of  the  Greek  word,  and  the  corresponding 
Hebrew  one,  is  the  original,  and  which  the  secondary  mean- 
ing, intrinsically  j^ure  and  free  from  taint,  or  separated,  set 
apart  to  sacred  uses.  But  in  both  these  senses  it  may  be  ap- 
plied to  Christians ;  as  a  consecrated  or  peculiar  people,  and 
as  such  required  to  bo  personally  holy,  or  as  actually  sancti- 
fied, at  least  in  part.  Thus  Christ  himself  is  called  "  the  Holy 
One  of  God"  (Mark  1,  24),  "whom  the  Father  hath  sanctified 
and  sent  into  the  world"  (John  10,  36.)  Thus  too  his  follow- 
ers are  called  "the  sanctified"  (20,  32)  and  "saints,"  not  only 
here  and  in  vs.  32.  41  below,  but  in  the  formal  titles  or  origi- 
nal mscriptions  of  several  apostolical  ej^istles  (Rom.  1,  7. 
1  Cor.  1,  2.  2  Cor.  1,  1.  Eph  1,  1.  Phil.  1,  1.  Col.  1,  1.)  The 
derisive  use  of  the  word  "  saints  "  by  irreligious  men,  as  an 
ironical  description  of  believers,  rests  on  the  false  idea  that 
it  involves  a  claim  to  perfect  holiness  ;  whereas,  even  giving  it 
the  strongest  sense,  as  an  expression  of  intrinsic  quality,  it  is 
descriptive,  not  of  what  God's  people  claim  to  be  already,  but 
of  what  they  ought  to  be,  and  hope  to  be  hereafter. 

14.  And  here  he  hath  authority  from  the  chief 
priests,  to  bind  all  that  call  on  thy  name. 

And  (even)  here,  in  Syria,  in  Damascus,  in  this  foreign  city. 
This  seems  to  be  expressive  of  surprise  at  Saul's  far-reaching 
zeal,  which  could  not  be  content  to  spend  itself  at  home. 
(See  below,  on  26,  11.)  The  Greek  adverb  (wSe)  in  classical 
usage  has  the  sense  of  so  or  thus,  but  the  local  sense  of  here 


366  ACTS  9,  14.  15. 

is  common  in  the  later  writers,  and  found  by  some  philologistg 
even  in  Herodotus  and  Homer.  Authority^  delegated  right 
and  power  ;  se^-  above,  on  8,  19.  Chief  priests^  see  above,  on 
4,  23.  5,  24.  To  Vmd^  arrest,  imprison ;  see  above,  on  v.  2. 
All  that  call  on  thy  name^  not  those  who  are  called  (or  call 
themselves)  by  thy  name,  which  would  be  otherwise  ex 
pressed,  as  in  ch.  15,  IV  below ;  but  those  who  invoke  thee, 
call  ujDon  thee  for  help  and  protection,  and  recognize  thee  as 
an  object  of  worship.  This  is  the  true  sense  of  the  phrase  in 
Greek  as  well  as  Hebrew,  and  may  be  distinctly  traced  in  the 
usage  of  both  Testaments.  (See  above,  on  2,  21.  7,  59,  and 
compare  the  Septuagint  version  of  Gen.  13,  4.  Deut.  32,  3. 
Ps.  98,  6.  Joel  2,  32.)  In  answer  to  the  question,  how  Ananias 
knew  the  fact  here  stated,  some  suppose  that  he  had  learned 
it  from  the  Christians  of  Jerusalem,  to  whom  the  plans  of  so 
fanatical  an  enemy  could  scarcely  be  unknown.  Others  object 
that  there  Avas  not  sufficient  time  or  frequency  of  intercourse 
between  Damascus  and  Jerusalem,  to  render  such  communi- 
cation possible ;  but  this  is  mere  conjecture.  It  is  no  less 
probable,  however,  and  perhaps  the  simplest  supposition,  that 
the  object  of  Saul's  journey  was  divulged  by  his  companions, 
especially  if  they  were  associated  with  him  m  his  work  of 
persecution,  but  unable  or  unwilling  to  pursue  it  after  the 
defection  of  their  leader. 

15.  But  the  Lord  said  unto  him,  Go  thy  way,  for 
he  is  a  chosen  vessel  unto  me,  to  bear  my  name  before 
the  Gentiles,  and  kings,  and  the  children  of  Israel. 

His  objection  is  entirely  disregarded,  and  the  command 
emphatically  repeated.  Go  thy  vmy  (in  modern  English,  go 
away)  is  another  form  of  the  same  verb  that  is  used  above  in 
V.  11.  'Go  where  I  have  sent  thee,  without  doubt  or  appre- 
hension ;  for  this  man,  hitherto  known  only  as  a  persecutor 
of  my  people,  is  a  chosen  instrument  or  vessel,  by  whom  and 
in  whom  my  name  and  doctrine  are  to  be  conveyed  and  up- 
held, in  the  presence  of  nations  and  their  kings,  as  well  as  of 
the  chosen  people.'  Chosen  vessel^  literally,  vessel  of  choice 
(compare  Rom.  9,  21-23.  2  Cor.  4,  7.  2  Tim.  2,  20.  21.)  This 
idiom,  although  more  common  in  Hebrew,  is  also  found  in 
classic  Greek.  The  original  noun  {a-Kevo^)  corresponds  both 
to  instrument  and  vessel^  or  rather  to  utensil^  or  implement^ 
including  both.     Unto  me,  not  only  chosen  by  me,  but  pre* 


■     ACTS  9,  15.  16.  867 

pared  for  me  and  devoted  to  me.  To  hear^  carry,  the  same 
verb  that  is  used  above  in  3,  2,  and  below  in  15,  10.  21,  35,  in 
all  which  cases  it  means  not  only  to  convey,  but  to  support  or 
hold  up,  both  which  ideas  are  appropriate  in  this  figurative 
application.  Saul  was  chosen  and  commissioned,  not  only  to 
diffuse  but  to  maintain  the  gospel.  The  idea  of  exalting, 
glorifying,  here  assumed  by  some,  is  not  expressed  by  the 
Greek  verb,  but  may  be  considered  as  implied  in  this  connec- 
tion. JBefore  nations^  or  according  to  the  latest  critics, 
before  both  (re)  natio7is  and  kings^  indefinitely  spoken  of  as 
two  great  ranks  or  classes,  before  whom  Saul  was  to  act  the 
dangerous  but  honourable  part  assigned  him,  as  the  "  Apostle 
of  the  Gentiles"  (Rom.  11,  13),  by  way  of  eminence,  but  not 
exclusively,  a  qualification  here  suggested  by  the  last  words 
of  the  verse,  and  (also  before)  the  children  of  Israel^  con- 
sidered as  the  ancient  church  or  chosen  people.  As  to  the 
fulfilment  of  this  promise,  see  below  on  vs.  20-22.  13,  46.  25, 
23.  26,32.  27,24.28,17.  Rom.  11,  13.  15,16.  Gal.  2,  8.  2 
Tim.  4,  16.  17. 

16.  For  I  will  show  him  how  great  things  he  must 
suffer  for  my  name's  sake. 

The  for  has  reference  to  something  intermediate,  implied 
but  not  expressed.  Some  suppose  it  to  be  '  fear  not,'  or  '  fear 
nothing  further  at  his  hands  ;'  but  see  above,  on  v.  13.  The 
connecting  thought  may  be,  '  nor  is  he  to  be  merely  active  in 
my  service,  but  passive  also.'  The  persecuting  days  of  Saul 
were  over,  and  the  tables  were  now  turned.  He  who  had 
hitherto  made  others  sufier  for  the  truth,  was  now  to  suffer 
for  it  in  his  turn.  There  is  an  exquisite  mixture  of  severity 
and  tenderness  in  tliis  disclosure ;  of  severity  in  sentencing 
this  "  chosen  vessel "  to  endure  as  well  as  labour  ;  of  tender- 
ness in  intimating  that  this  purpose,  though  explicitly  declared 
to  Ananias,  was  to  be  more  gradually  made  known  to  the 
suflerer  himself  I  will  show  him  is  in  Greek  a  most  expres 
sive  phrase,  meaning,  I  will  partly  show  him,  or  begin  to  show 
him,  I  am  giving  him  a  glimpse  of  what  he  is  to  suffer.  The 
pronoun  has  more  emj)hasis  in  the  original,  and  may  perhaps 
mean,  I  and  not  thou,  i.  e.  do  thy  part,  as  it  has  been  assigned 
to  thee,  and  I  will  do  mine,  by  disclosing  to  him  what  he  is  to 
suffer.  How  great  (Genev.  how  inany)  things  seems  to  be 
an  allusion  to  how  great  (or  how  inany)  evils  in  v.  13,  although 


363  ACTS  9,  16.  17. 

the  antithesis  is  obscured  in  English  by  the  needless  variation' 
of  the  version.  The  sense  may  then  be,  'Think  no  more  how 
much  suffering  he  has  caused,  for  I  am  now  about  to  show  him 
how  much  he  is  to  suffer  in  his  turn.'  For  my  nmne^  for  the  sake 
of  that  religion  and  that  master,  whom  he  lately  persecuted, 
even  unto  death  (see  above,  on  v.  2,  and  below,  on  22,  4.)  All 
this  was  to  be  shown  to  Saul,  not  merely  m  a  providential  way 
or  by  experience,  but  by  prophetic  intimations,  such  as  those 
recorded  in  20,  23  and  21,  11.  (See  also  1  Cor.  15,30-32. 
2  Cor.  1,  8-10.  4,  8-12.  6,  5.   11,  23-28.  12, 10.) 

17.  And  Ananias  went  his  way,  and  entered  into 
the  house,  and  putting  Ins  hands  on  him,  said.  Brother 
Saul,  the  Lord,  even  Jesus  that  appeared  unto  thee  in 
the  way  as  thou  earnest,  hath  sent  ine,  that  thou 
miizhtest  receive  thy  sight,  and  be  filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

Bemg  satisfied  by  the  divine  assurance  that  the  persecutor 
of  the  new  religion  had  himself  embraced  it,  Ananias  now  ac- 
cepts and  executes  his  singular  commission.  ^Vent  his  icay^ 
i.  e.  went  aioay^  the  strict  translation  of  the  Greek  verb,  which 
is  not  the  same  as  that  in  v.  16.  Another  compound  form  of 
the  same  simple  verb  is  that  translated  entered.  Then  went 
away  Ananias  and  went  in.  The  Jiouse^  i.  e.  the  house  of 
Judas,  spoken  of  in  v.  11,  and  therefore  definitely  mentioned 
here,  as  something  already  known  to  the  reader.  This  implies 
that  he  had  prcAdously  sought  for  it,  as  commanded  in  v.  11. 
I^nposing  upon  him  the  hands^  as  the  Apostles  did  in  Samaria, 
but  with  a  solemn  declaration  of  the  authority  by  which  he 
did  it.  Brother  Saul^  in  Greek  (and  Wichf 's  version)  Said 
(my)  brother^  by  which  address  he  recognizes  him,  not  only 
as  a  fellow  man,  but  as  a  fellow  Jew,  and,  at  least  prospec- 
tively, a  fellow  Christian.  The  Lord  hath  sent  me  ;  this  was 
his  commission.  The  Lord.,  as  in  vs.  10.  11.  13.  15.  It  is 
here  explamed  by  Ananias  hunself,  as  meaning  the  Lord  Jesus, 
that  very  Jesus  who  had  appeared  to  (or  been  seen  by)  him 
(see  above,  on  2,  3.  7,  2.  26.  30.  35.)  As  thou  camest^  lite- 
rally, which  thou  camest^  i.  e.  to  Damascus.  (See  above,  on 
V.  3.)  Appeared.,  i.  e.  as  some  explain  it,  revealed  himself, 
declared  his  will,  communicated  with  thee ;  w'hile  others  re- 
gard it  as  a  proof,  that  Saul  saw  the  person  of  Christ,  as  w^ell 
as  heard  his  voice  (v.  4).    It  is  said  indeed  that  he  saw  no  one  ; 


ACTS  9,  17.  18.  369 

but  this  might  mean  that  Christ  had  vanished ;  or  rather,  that 
after  Saul  arose,  he  could  see  no  one,  havmg  lost  his  sight. 
That  Paul  did  literally  see  Christ  after  his  ascension,  he  affirms 
himself  in  one  of  his  e^^istles  (1  Cor.  15,  8),  Avhere  the  context 
relates,  not  merely  to  divine  communications,  but  to  actual 
appearances  of  the  Lord's  body.  And  if  Paul  saw  him  only 
once,  it  was  most  probably  at  this  tune  ;  so  that  the  strict  in- 
terpretation of  the  words  of  Ananias  {the  one  seen  hy  thee)  is, 
on  the  whole,  entitled  to  the  preference.  The  design  of  hia 
commission  is  described  as  twofold,  outward  and  inward, 
bodily  and  spiritual.  The  physical  effect  was  to  be  the  restora- 
tion of  sight.  The  Greek  verb  primarily  means  to  look  up 
(as  in  22,  13  below,  and  m  Matt.  14,  19.  Mark  6,  41.  7,  34.  8, 
24.  16,4.  Luke  9, 16),  but  is  used  by  Xenophon  in  the  sense  of 
opening  the  eyes  again,  and  by  Herodotus  and  Plato  in  that 
of  recovering  the  sight,  which  is  its  common  usage  in  the 
Gospels,  even  in  speaking  of  one  born  blind  (John  9,  11.  15. 
18.)  The  other  effect  was,  that  he  might  be  Jllled  loith  the 
Holy  Ghost,  a  stronger  expression  than  receive  the  Holy 
Ghost  (John  20,  22.  Acts  8, 15.  17.  19;  compare  2,  4.  4,  8.31. 
6,  3.  5.  7.  55.)  It  is  therefore  the  more  worthy  of  remark, 
that  the  instrumental  agency  employed  was  the  imposition  of 
the  hands  of  one  whom  we  do  not  even  know  to  have  been  a 
deacon  or  evangehst  like  Philip,  much  less  an  apostle.  This 
makes  it  still  less  probable  that  Peter  and  John  were  sent 
down  to  Samaria  simply  because  Philip  could  not  give  the 
Holy  Spirit  (see  above,  on  8,  15-17.)  That  gift  was  so  pecu- 
liarly divine,  that  the  external  medium  was  comparatively  un- 
important. 

18.  And  immediately  there  fell  from  his  eyes  as  it 
had  been  scales,  and  he  received  sight  forthwith,  and 
arose  and  was  baptized. 

The  declaration  of  the  purpose  for  which  Ananias  came  is 
followed  by  the  record  of  its  instantaneous  accomplishment, 
which,  with  the  express  divine  command,  shuts  out  the 
idea  of  a  natvu-al  cure.  As  it  had  been  (literally  as  if,  see 
above,  on  2,  3.  6,  15)  is  understood  by  some  to  mean,  that 
Saul's  sensations  were  like  those  which  would  have  been  pro- 
duced by  the  falling  of  scales  from  his  eyes ;  but  as  it  is  ex- 
pressly said  that  something  fell,  the  only  question  is  whether 
it  vas  scales  or  somethhig  like  scales ;  and  this  is  a  point  of  no 

VOL.  I. — 16* 


370  ACTS  9,  18.  19. 

importauce.  The  Greek  word  is  applied,  not  only  to  the  scale* 
of  fish  but  to  egg-shells,  and  the  rind  or  husk  of  plants,  and 
even  to  metallic  flakes  or  laminae.  Heceived  sights  saw  again, 
or  looked  up,  as  in  v.  17.  Forthwith^  on  the  spot,  the  same 
word  that  is  used  above,  in  3, 1.  5, 10.  Only  the  bodily  effect 
is  explicitly  recorded ;  but  the  other  is  imphed,  so  that  few 
readers  probably  observe  the  omission.  As  Saul  had  no 
doubt  been  looking  forward  to  the  restoration  of  his  sight,  as  a 
final  attestation  of  the  truth  or  reahty  of  what  he  had  expe- 
rienced, and  consequently  of  the  divine  favour  towards  him 
and  divine  will  respecting  him,  it  put  an  end  to  his  suspense, 
and  Hsmg  (from  his  previous  prostration  and  inaction)  he  was 
baptized,  a  sign  both  of  his  initiation  into  the  Christian  church, 
and  of  that  spiritual  renovation,  without  which  mere  external 
membership  must  be  for  ever  worse  than  unavailing. 

19.  And  when  lie  had  received  meat  he  was 
strengthened.  Then  was  Saul  certain  days  with  the 
disciples  which  were  at  Damascus. 

As  Saul's  preternatural  condition  was  now  ended,  he  was 
once  more  dependent  upon  natural  and  ordinary  means  for  his 
subsistence.  To  mark  this  transition,  we  are  told  expressly 
that  he  broke  his  fast,  and  taking  (or  having  taken)  food,  was 
strengthened,  or  retaining  the  active  form  of  the  original,  he- 
came  (or  grew)  strong.  Then  (or  and,  so,  but)  Saul  was  (or 
literally,  haid  became,  implying  change  of  character,  as  well 
as  of  relations)  with  the  disciples,  i.  e.  avowedly  a  member  of 
their  body.  He  did  not  simply  continue  with  them,  but  be- 
came something  to  them  that  he  had  not  been  before.  This 
implies,  not  only  that  there  were  disciples  there  besides  Ana- 
nias (see  above,  on  vs.  2. 14),  but  also  the  existence  of  an  or- 
ganized body,  of  which  Paul  now  publicly  avowed  himself  a 
member,  and  became,  as  stated  in  the  next  verse,  a  zealous 
and  successful  minister.  Certain  days,  in  modern  English 
some  days,  an  indefinite  expression,  suggestive  of  a  smaller 
rather  than  a  greater  number.  Some,  however,  understand 
it  as  including  the  three  years  preceding  his  return  to  Jerusa- 
lem after  his  conversion  (Gal.  1, 1 8),  while  others  introduce  them 
between  vs.  19.  20,  or  under  the  many  days  of  v.  23,  or  after 
V.  25.  This  variation  shows  that  the  narrative  itself  does  not 
contain  sufficient  data  for  the  solution  of  the  question,  which 


ACTS  9,  19.  20.  21.  371 

may  for  that  very  reason  be  regarded  as  more  curious  than 
important. 

20.  And  straightway  he  preached  Christ  in  the 
synagogues,  that  he  is  the  Son  of  God. 

Straighticay  (or  immediately^  as  the  same  word  is  trans- 
lated in  V.  18),  i.  e.  without  ceremonious  delay  or  human  m- 
struction,  but  as  soon  as  he  had  been  baptized  and  reheved  of 
his  bodily  infirmity.  This  verse  relates  not  to  the  end  but  the 
beginning  of  the  "  certain  days."  In  the  synagogues^  imply- 
ing a  plurality,  as  in  v.  2  ;  but  see  above,  on  6,  9.  This  fact 
and  the  license  given,  even  to  strangers,  to  address  the  people 
(see  below,  on  13,  15),  made  the  synagogues  important  means 
of  access,  not  to  the  Jews  alone,  but  to  the  more  devout  and 
serious  Gentiles,  who  were  often  present  at  the  Jewish  wor- 
ship, and  appear  to  have  regarded  it  with  great  curiosity,  and 
often  with  an  interest  still  deeper.  Preached^  in  its  primary 
sense,  proclaimed  or  heralded,  an  idea  not  conveyed  exactly 
by  the  first  word,  on  account  of  its  ofiicial  and  professional  as- 
sociations. The  imperfect  tense  in  Greek  implies  repeated  or 
continued  acts.  He  did  not  merely  preach  once,  but  was 
wont,  accustomed,  used  to  preach.  Christ  (the  Messiah)  was 
the  subject  of  his  preachmg,  and  the  doctrine  which  he  taught 
was,  that  the  promised  Prophet,  Priest,  and  King  of  Israel, 
foretold  in  the  Old  Testament,  was  to  be  a  divine  person. 
The  reading  adopted  by  tlie  latest  critics  {Jesus  for  Christ) 
only  makes  the  doctrine  more  specific  by  applying  it,  not 
merely  to  the  office,  but  to  the  person,  of  the  true  Messiah. 
The  Son  of  God^  i.  e.  a  partaker  of  his  nature,  a  divine  being. 
Some  give  the  phrase  a  lower  sense,  as  merely  meaning  the 
Messiah ;  but  this  confounds  it  with  the  Son  of  3Ian  (see 
above,  on  7,  56),  and  the  subject  of  the  sentence  with  its  pre- 
dicate. 

21.  But  all  that  heard  (him)  were  amazed  and  said. 
Is  not  this  he  that  destroyed  them  which  called  on  this 
name  in  Jerusalem,  and  came  hither  for  that  intent, 
that  he  might  bring  them  bound  unto  the  chief  priests  ? 

And  amazed  (2,  7.  12.  8, 13)  were  all  those  hearing^  the 
natural  effect  of  a  change  so  sudden  and  complete.  And  said, 
as  Chrysostom  observes,  not  to  Saul  himself,  whom  they  were 


372  ACTS  9,  21.22. 

afraid  or  ashamed  to  question,  but  to  themselves  or  one  an 
other.  The  interrogation  (is  not  this)  implies  a  wonder  rising 
almost  to  incredulity,  as  if  they  had  said,  '  No,  this  surely  can- 
not be  the  same.'  Destroyed^  literally,  wasted^  desolated,  Hke 
an  enemy  in  war,  a  different  word  from  that  in  8,  3,  but  the 
same  with  that  twice  used  by  Paul  himself,  in  speaking  of 
this  very  subject.  (See  Gal.  1,  13.  23,  where  the  English 
version  needlessly  employs  two  different  verbs  in  translating 
vhe  same  Greek  one.)  Those  invohing  this  name^  i.  e.  in  their 
prayers  or  worship,  which  had  now  become  a  distinctive  mark, 
and  therefore  an  expressive  designation,  of  all  believers  or  dis- 
ciples. (See  above,  on  2,  21.  V,  59.  9,  14.)  And  hither^  to 
Damascus;  see  above,  on  v.  14.  Came^  or  according  to  the 
common  text,  had  come^  i.  e.  before  this  amazing  change,  im- 
plymg  that  he  had  abandoned  his  design.  For  that  hitent^ 
literally,  for  this^  i.  e.  for  this  same  purpose  ;  an  aggravating 
circumstance  before  alluded  to,  that  Saul,  not  satisfied  with 
persecuting  the  church  at  home,  had  volunteered  to  persecute 
it  in  Damascus.  (See  above,  on  v.  2,  and  below,  on  26. 11.) 
Bounds  as  in  vs.  2. 14.)  To  the  chief  priests^  i.  e.  to  their  bar 
or  judgment-seat,  before  the  Sanhedrim,  of  which  they  were 
the  leadhig  members.     (See  above,  on  4,  23.  5,  24.  9,  14.) 

22.  But  Saul  increased  the  more  in  strength,  and 
confounded  the  Jcavs  which  dwelt  at  Damascus,  proving 
that  this  is  very  Christ. 

The  more,  in  EngHsh,  means  that  this  effect  was  promoted 
by  the  very  wonder  just  described  ;  but  the  original  expres- 
sion simply  means  5^^7^  more,  (as  in  5,  14),  i.e.  the  more 
he  preached  the  greater  was  his  power  and  success.  Increased 
in  strength,  literally,  was  strengthened  or  ^nade  poicerfid,  a 
favourite  verb  of  Paul's.  (See  Rom.  4,  20.  Eph.  6, 10.  Phil. 
4,  13.  1  Tim.  1,  12.  2  Tim.  2,  1.  Heb.  11,  34,  and  compare  the 
uncompounded  form  in  Col.  1,  11.)  He  increased  not  only  in 
the  strength  of  his  convictions,  but  m  the  force  of  his  defence 
and  in  the  power  of  his  persuasion.     By  some  this  clause  is 

jcangely  understood  as  an  allusion  to  Saul's  sojourn  in  Arabia, 
*i6  a  time  of  intellectual  and  spiritual  discipline,  designed  to 
strengthen  him  for  after  service.  Tliis  would  never  have  oc- 
curred to  any   reader,  but  for  the  supposed  necessity  of  find 

ag  some  allusion  to  that  sojourn  in  this  context,  and  the  difii- 
vMilty  of  determining  at  what  point  it  shall  be  inserted  (sco 


ACTS  9,  22.  23.  24.  378 

above,  on  v.  19.)  But  without  admitting  ignorance  on  Luke's 
part,  as  to  so  important  an  event  ia  the  Apostle's  hfe,  the 
two  accounts  are  perfectly  consistent ;  and  although,  the  one 
before  us  would  suggest  to  no  mind  the  idea  of  his  absence 
from  Damascus,  it  contams  nothing  in  the  least  at  variance 
with  that  idea  when  suggested  otherwise.  All  that  is  here 
expressed,  however,  relates  directly  to  the  time  when  he  re- 
sided there,  and  makes  a  strong  impression,  not  only  of  his  dili- 
gence and  courage  hi  his  new  vocation,  but  of  his  success.  It 
was  not  merely  wonder  that  his  public  appearance  in  behalf 
of  Christ  excited.  All  were  amazed  (v.  21),  and  the  Jews  were 
confounded^  a  verb  j^roperly  expressive  of  mixture  by  pouring 
together,  but  metaphorically  applied  to  mental  confusion,  ming- 
ling and  bewildering  the  thoughts,  so  as  to  prevent  all  clear 
perception  and  conclusive  reasoning.  Proving^  literally,  put- 
ting together  or  combining,  i.  e.  various  proofs  and  arguments, 
or  prophecies  with  their  fulfilment.  The  Greek  verb  is  con- 
fined to  Luke  and  Paul,  who  employ  it  in  several  diflferent 
shades  of  meaning  (see  below,  16,  10.  19,33.  1  Cor.  2,  16), 
besides  the  primary  and  strict  one  (Eph.  4, 16.  Col.  2,  2. 19.) 
Very  Christy  in  Greek  simply  the  Christ. 

23.  And  after  that  many  clays  were  fulfilled,  the 
Jews  took  counsel  to  kill  him. 

As  days  enough  were  filled^  or  being  filled,  an  indefinite 
expression,  which  appears  to  be  deliberately  chosen,  as  best 
adapted  to  convey  the  knowledge  which  was  meant  to  be  im- 
parted, and  which  no  speculation  or  conjecture  can  make  more 
determinate.  (See  above,  on  7,  23.  30,  and  compare  2,  1,  and 
Luke  9,  51.)  Took  counsel,  or  consulted,  deliberated,  plotted 
together.  The  idea  of  concert  and  collusion  is  expressed  by 
the  compound  form;  the  simple  verb  occurs  above,  in  5,  33, 
followed  by  the  one  here  rendered  kill,  and  there  slay.  (See, 
also,  2,  23.  5,  36.  7,  28.) 

24.  But  their  laying  await  was  known  of  Saul,  and 
they  watched  the  gates  day  and  night  to  kill  him. 

But,  as  in  vs.  21.  22,  or  aiid,  as  in  v.  23.  Laying  aioait^ 
in  some  editions  laying  icait,  in  modern  Enghsh  lying  in 
wait.  The  simple  meaning  of  the  Greek,  however,  is  conspi- 
racy or  plot.     (Compare  the  kindred  verb  in  v.  23.)     Known 


574  ACTS  9,  24.  25. 

of  Saul^  i.  e.  known  by  him,  or  made  known  to  him  (see 
below,  on  23,  16),  either  by  report  or  by  divine  communica- 
tion. They  loatched^  or  more  exactly,  they  were  iDatching^  i.  e. 
when  the  incident  recorded  in  the  next  verse  happened.  As 
if  he  had  said,  '  while  they  were  actually  watching  the  gates 
of  the  city,  to  seize  him  as  he  went  out,  he  escaped  in  another 
way.'  Day  and  nighty  not  necessarily  for  many  days  and 
nights,  perhaps  for  only  one.  It  may  mean  simply  that 
they  watched  the  gates  a  whole  day  and  night  to  seize 
him.  We  learn  from  the  Apostle's  own  account  in  one 
of  his  epistles  (2  Cor.  11,  32),  that  it  was  "the  governor  (or 
ethnarch)  under  (literally,  of)  King  Aretas  (that)  kept 
(guarded  or  garrisoned)  the  city  (of  the  Damascenes,  a  phrase 
omitted  in  King  James's  Bible,  though  expressed  in  all  the 
older  English  versions)  wishing  to  seize  me."  The  only  con- 
temporary Aretas  known  to  history  is  a  kuig  of  Arabia  Pe- 
traea,  resident  at  Petra,  whose  daughter  had  been  repudiated 
by  Herod  Antipas,  for  the  sake  of  his  niece  and  sister-in-law, 
Herodias  (Matt.  14,  3.  Mark  6,  17.  Luke  3,  19.)  This  led  to 
a  war,  in  which  Herod  was  defeated  and  his  anny  destroyed. 
Vitellius,  then  governor  of  Syria,  was  ordered  by  Tiberius  to 
help  him ;  but  while  on  his  way  to  Petra,  he  received  news  of 
the  emperor's  death,  and  retired  into  winter  quarters.  It  may 
have  been  during  this  inaction  of  the  Roman  forces,  that  Are- 
tas gained  possession  of  Damascus.  This  is  at  least  more 
probable  than  that  his  deputy  or  viceroy  simply  happened  to 
be  there  at  the  time;  or  that  this  ethnarch  was  a  Jewish 
magistrate,  appointed  or  confirmed  by  the  Arabian  king  ;  or, 
most  improbable  of  all,  that  Areta  in  Corinthians  is  the  name 
of  the  ethnarch  himself,  '  Areta  the  ethnarch  of  the  king,'  i.  e. 
of  the  Roman  Emperor.  The  two  accoimts  are  perfectly  con- 
sistent, and  together  teach  us,  that  the  agency  of  this  Arabian 
chieftain  in  forbidding  Saul's  escape  was  instigated,  if  not  pur- 
chased, by  the  Jews  of  Damascus. 

25.  Then  the  disciples  took  him  by  night,  and  let 
(him)  down  by  the  wall  in  a  basket. 

Then^  as  in  vs.  13,  19.  The  disciples^  or  followers  of 
Christ,  who  seem  to  be  again  referred  to,  both  as  numerous 
and  as  acting  in  concert  or  association.  Some  of  them  were 
no  doubt  Saul's  own  converts.  Took  him^  taking  him,  or 
having  taken  him,  hy  night  relating  equally  to  both  words,  a 


ACTS  9,  25.  26.27.  375 

construction  not  so  obvious  in  English.  Taking  may  be  a 
pleonastic  expression,  common  in  all  languages,  or  may  imply 
that  some  constraint  was  used  by  the  disciples.  J?y  ^^^  wall^ 
i.  e.  through  the  wall  of  the  city,  the  strict  sense  of  the  Greek 
expressions  (8ia  rov  rd^ovi)^  which  are  also  used  by  Paul  him- 
self (2  Cor.  11,  32),  with  the  additional  circumstance,  that  he 
was  let  down  through  a  window,  i.  e.  through  the  window  of 
a  house  upon  the  city  wall.  (See  Josh.  2,  15,  where  the  Sep- 
tuagint  version  has  the  same  Greek  word  for  window.)  The 
words  translated  basket  in  the  parallel  accounts  are  diflferent, 
though  no  doubt  interchangeable.  By  a  curious  coincidence, 
a  similar  diversity  exists  in  the  history  of  our  Saviour's  miracu- 
lously feeding  the  four  and  five  thousand  ;  the.w^ord  for  basket 
being  different  in  all  these  cases.  (See  Matt.  16,  9.  10,  and 
compare  the  parallel  passages.) 

26.  And  when  Saul  was  come  to  Jerusalem,  he  as- 
sayed to  join  himself  to  the  disciples ;  but  they  were  all 
afraid  of  him,  and  believed  not  that  he  was  a  disciple. 

Being  come^  or  having  arrived,  the  same  verb  that  is  used 
in  5,  21,  and  there  explained.  Assayed^  tried,  endeavoured, 
implying  that  he  failed  in  his  attempt.  To  join  himself^  the 
same  verb  as  in  5,  13.  To  the  clisci2yles,  as  a  body,  as  a  church, 
not  merely  to  their  families  or  persons.  All  feared  him^  not 
believing  that  he  is  a  disci2:)le,  thmkmg  it  impossible  that  he, 
who  had  so  lately  persecuted  Christ  in  his  disciples,  should 
now  be  himself  a  convert.  See  above,  on  v.  13,  and  for  the 
present  tense  {he  is)  on  7,  35.  All  may  either  mean  all  the 
individuals  to  whom  he  applied,  or  express  the  unanimous 
action  of  the  church  as  such.  This  implies  that  Paul  had  not 
been  constantly  in  public  view  smce  his  conversion,  and  fa^ 
vours  the  opinion,  that  the  greater  part  of  the  three  years 
since  that  event  had  been  passed  in  Arabia,  and  even  there 
perhaps  in  retirement  rather  than  in  public  labour. 

27.  But  Barnabas  took  him  and  brought  him  to 
the  Apostles,  and  declared  unto  them  how  he  had  seen 
the  Ijord  in  the  way,  and  that  he  had  spoken  to  him, 
and  how  he  had  preached  boldly  at  Damascus  in  the 
name  of  Jesus . 


376  ACTS  9,  27. 

From  this  embarrassing  and  mortifying  situation  Saul  is 
freed  by  Barnabas,  with,  whom  the  history  has  previously 
made  us  acquainted,  as  one  of  the  earliest  and  most  signal  in- 
stances of  hberality  in  the  infant  church.  (See  above,  on  4, 
36.  37.)  The  same  Cyprian  Levite,  whose  conduct  was  before 
contrasted  with  the  selfish  ambition  and  hypocrisy  of  Ananias, 
is  here  seen  acting  a  no  less  noble  part  in  behalf  of  this  sus- 
pected, not  to  sa)  rejected  convert.  Though  not  affirmed,  it 
seems  to  be  implied,  that  they  had  no  previous  acquaintance 
with  each  other.  Took  him^  either  literally  by  the  hand  (as 
in  23,  19.  Mark  8,  23.  Heb.  8,  9),  or  metaphorically,  under  his 
protection  (as  in  Heb.  2,  16),  or  more  probably  than  either,  in 
his  company,  along  with  him,  as  when  one  friend  takes  an- 
other, to  present  or  introduce  him  to  a  third,  which  is  exactly 
the  idea  here.  To  the  Ai^ostles^  not  to  the  disciples,  or  pro- 
miscuous body  of  believers,  by  whom  he  had  alreadv  been  re- 
pelled, but  to  the  twelve,  who  had  both  the  official  right  and 
the  spuitual  gift  to  determine  his  true  character,  and  who,  it 
should  seem,  had  not  yet  been  consulted,  although  some  sup- 
pose them  to  have  joined  or  acquiesced  m  Saul's  rejection, 
until  satisfied  by  Barnabas  that  he  was  a  true  convert.  De- 
clared (related,  or  detailed  historically)  to  them,  (not  merely 
that  but)  how  (i.  e.  in  what  manner,  under  what  circumstan- 
ces, including  those  of  time  and  place)  in  the  road  (by  the 
way,  on  his  journey  to  Damascus),  he  saw  the  Lord  (i.  e.  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  as  in  v.  17  above),  and  that  (not  how,  as 
in  the  other  case,  but  simply  that)  he  talked  to  him  (i.  e.  the 
Lord  to  Saul.)  This  was  enough  to  settle  the  whole  ques- 
tion. He  to  whom  the  ascended  and  exalted  Saviour  had  ap- 
peared and  spoken  was  fit  company  for  any  man.  But  more 
than  this ;  the  man  thus  signally  distinguished  by  recei\Tng  the 
Lord's  personal  instructions,  had  proved  faithful  to  his  trust 
by  manfully  obeying  them.  In  Damascus,  in  the  very  city 
whither  he  was  going  with  authority  to  seize  all  believers, 
whether  men  or  women  (see  above,  on  v.  2.)  Preached 
boldly,  or  spoke  freely,  the  verb  corresponding  to  the  noun 
used  above  in  2,  29.  4,  13.  29.  31,  and  there  explained.  Di  the 
name  of  Jesus,  as  his  disciple,  by  his  authority,  and  in  asser- 
tion  of  his  claims  as  the  Messiah.  (See  above,  on  vs.  14.  15. 
16.  21.)  The  two  reasons  for  receiving  Saul,  suggested  by 
this  narrative  of  Barnabas,  were,  first,  his  miraculous  conver 
sion,  and  secondly,  his  ministerial  fidelity ;  the  one  attested 
by  the  visible  form  and  audible  voice  of  his  ascended  Lord ; 


ACTS  9,  27.  28.  29.  377 

the  other  by  his  public,  plain,  and  fearless  proclamation  of 
that  Lord,  as  his  own  Sovereign  and  Redeemer. 

28.  And  he  was  with  them,  coining  in  and  going 
out,  at  Jerusalem. 

In  consequence  of  this  interposition,  Saul  was  recognized 
by  the  Apostles,  and  m  deference  to  their  authority  no  doubt 
oy  the  disciples  also,  as  a  convert  and  a  minister,  in  which  ca- 
pacity he  teas  (or  continued)  with  them,  not  merely  as  a  guest 
or  a  companion,  but  associated  wdth  them  and  taking  part  in 
their  official  labours.  Coming  in  and  going  out,  literally, 
going  in  and  going  out,  a  phrase  synonymous  though  not 
identical  with  that  employed  m  1.,  21  {came  in  and  came  oiU) 
and  there  explained.  In  Jerusalem  seems  to  be  added,  to  re- 
move all  ambiguity  and  prevent  the  reader's  taking  this  as  a 
continuation  of  w^hat  Barnabas  related  of  Saul's  labours  at 
Damascus,  whereas  it  is  Luke's  record  of  his  labours  at  Jeru- 
salem. 

29.  And  he  spake  boldly  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  and  disputed  against  the  Grecians;  but  they 
went  about  to  slay  him. 

Spake  boldly  (Hterally,  speaJdng  freely)  is  identical  in 
Greek  with  the  ^j>reacAec7  boldly  of  v.  27,  and  describes  Saul  as 
doing  at  Jerusalem  precisely  w^hat  he  had  done  at  Damascus. 
The  construction  of  the  words  here  is  ambiguous,  some  manu- 
scripts and  printed  copies  joining  them  immediately  with  what 
precedes — '  going  in  and  going  out  at  Jerusalem,  and  preach- 
ing boldly  in  the  name  of  Jesus.'  Others  make  them  the  be- 
ginning of  another  verse — '  and  preaching  boldly  in  the  name 
of  Jesus,  he  both  talked  and  disputed  with  the  Grecians.' 
JBoth  iji),  not  only  discoursed  in  a  didactic  way,  but  reasoned 
and  disputed.  Against,  hterally,  to  or  at,  not  in  their  ab- 
sence or  behind  their  backs,  but  in  their  presence,  to  their 
face.  The  Grecians,  Hellenists,  or  foreign  Jews  (see  above, 
on  6,  1,  and  below,  on  11,  20),  of  w^hom  Saul  w^as  himself  one ; 
the  same  class,  and  possibly  some  of  the  same  persons,  with 
whom  Stephen  had  contended  (6,  9),  and  by  w^hom  he  was  de- 
stroyed. A  sunilar  effect  was  now  produced  upon  them  by 
the  arguments  of  Saul.  They  weiit  about,  an  old  English 
phrase  meaning  sought,  attempted,  which  is  also  used  in  tho 


378  ACTS  9,  29.  30.  31. 

authorized  version  of  John  7, 19,  Rom.  10,  3,  to  express  a 
verb  which  means  to  seek ;  whereas  the  one  employed  here 
means  to  take  in  hand  or  undertake^  and  is  confined  m  the 
New  Testament  to  Luke.  (See  below,  on  19,  13,  and  com- 
pare Luke  1,  1.)  To  slay  him^  the  same  verb  that  is  trans- 
lated kill  hini^  in  v.  23. 

30.  Whicli  when  the  brethren  knew,  they  brought 
hun  down  to  Cesarea,  and  sent  him  forth  to  Tarsus. 

JBut  the  brethren  knoioing  (or  discovering  it),  brought  him 
down^  &c.  Which  and  when  are  both  supplied  by  the  trans- 
lators. The  brethren^  followers  of  Christ,  behevers  in  the  new 
religion,  called  the  disciples  in  v.  25.  It  is  worthy  of  remark 
how  promptly  and  unitedly  the  brethren  or  disciples  acted  in 
both  cases,  not  as  individuals,  but  as  a  body,  no  doubt  accus- 
tomed thus  to  act  in  concert.  Brought  him  down^  the  usual 
expression  in  describing  motion  from  the  inland  to  the  sea- 
coast,  or  in  any  direction  from  the  Holy  City.  (See  above, 
on  7,  15.  8, 15.  26.)  Cesarea  here  is  not,  as  some  suppose, 
Cesarea  PhiUppi,  near  the  sources  of  the  Jordan,  but  the  sea- 
port of  that  name,  where  PhiUp  was  left  at  the  close  of  the 
last  chapter.  (See  above,  on  8,  40.)  Sent  him  forth  or  off^ 
or  still  more  exactly,  sent  him  out  away^  a  favourite  expres- 
sion of  our  author  (see  above,  on  7,  12,  and  below,  on  11,  22. 
12,  11.  13,  26.  17,  14.  22,  21,  and  compare  Luke  1,  53.  2,  10. 
11),  the  only  other  writer  who  employs  it  being  Paul  (Gal.  4, 
4.  6.)  It  imphes  great  distance,  and  is  here  applied  no  doubt 
to  a  voyage  by  sea.  Tarsus^  his  native  j^lace,  to  which  the 
history  thus  brings  him  back  and  for  the  present  leaves  him. 
(See  above,  on  v.  11,  and  below,  on  11,  25.) 

31.  Then  had  the  churches  rest  throughout  all 
Judea  and  Galilee  and  Samaria,  and  were  edified,  and 
walking  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord,  and  in  the  comfort  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  were  multipUed. 

This  is  marked  in  some  editions  of  the  text,  and  explained 
by  some  interpreters,  as  the  conclusion  of  the  narrative  of 
Paul's  conversion,  and  as  meaning  that  in  consequence  of 
that  event,  the  churches  of  Palestine  enjoyed  repose  from 
persecution,  and  an  opportunity  as  well  of  outward  as  of  in- 
ward growth.     But  Paul  was  not  the  only  persecutor;  nor 


ACTS    9,  31.  379 

could  his  conversion,  especially  if  it  were  the  only  case,  imme- 
diately give  peace  to  all  the  churches,  or  save  himself  from 
being  persecuted  afterwards.  (See  Gal.  5,  11.  Rom.  15,  31.) 
Besides,  his  new  commission  seems  to  have  been  limited  to 
foreign  cities  (see  above,  on  v.  2,  and  below,  on  26,  11),  and 
its  termination  could  not  therefore  have  afforded  peace  to 
all  the  churches  of  the  Holy  Land.  This  erroneous  view 
of  the  connection  has  arisen  partly  from  the  use  of  the 
word  rest,  implying  previous  suffering  or  disturbance,  to 
translate  a  word  which  is  always  rendered  peace,  except  in 
this  book  (see  above,  on  V,  26,  and  below,  on  24,  2)  ;  and 
partly  from"  the  use  of  the  word  then,  to  represent  a  phrase 
which  properly  means  so  then,  and  marks  the  resumption 
of  a  narrative  before  interrupted.  (See  above,  on  8,  4.  25.) 
The  point  to  which  the  writer  here  reverts  is  no  doubt 
the  dispersion  consequent  upon  the  death  of  Stephen.  The 
verse  is  then  introductory  to  a  new  subject,  Peter's  visitation 
of  the  churches  after  the  first  force  of  the  persecution  had 
been  spent.  ISTotwithstanding  all  that  they  suffered,  the 
churches  of  Palestine  were  now  highly  prosperous.  It  is  not 
necessarily  implied  that  persecution  had  entirely  ceased,  nor 
need  we  assiuue  a  reference  to  the  profanation  of  the  temple 
by  Caligula,  as  a  reason  for  its  ceasing.  All  that  is  here  re- 
corded is  the  growth  and  prosperity  of  the  Jewish-Christian 
churches.  What  really  implies  that  they  were  not  now 
persecuted,  is  that  Peter  could  be  absent  from  Jerusalem. 
(See  above,  on  8,  1.)  Edified,  i.  e.  built  up,  a  favourite  figure 
in  the  New  Testament,  not  foi^  mere  numerical  increase  and 
outward  organization,  but  for  internal  growth  and  spiritual 
IDrogress  (1  Cor.  8, 1.  10.  10.23.  14,4.17.  1  Thess.  5,  H.) 
Walking,  not  merely  in  the  sense  of  living,  habitually  acting, 
but  in  that  of  advancing,  making  progress.  The  fear  of  the 
Lord,  the  spirit  and  practice  of  the  true  religion,  with  special 
reference  to  fear  in  the  restricted  sense.  Consolation,  exhor- 
tation, or  instruction  (see  above,  on  4,  36.)  The  Phemish 
version  {repletiished  with  the  consolation  of  the  Holy  Ghost), 
though  not  incompatible  with  classical  usage,  is  at  variance 
with  that  of  the  Hellenistic  Greek,  according  to  which  the  verb 
here  used  means  only  to  multiply,  in  the  active  or  passive 
sense.  The  construction  is  ambiguous,  as  we  may  either  read, 
by  the  consolation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  were  multiplied,  or,  as 
in  the  common  version,  walking  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord  and 
the  consolation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  were  multiplied.  The  es« 
Bential  meaning  is  the  same  in  either  case. 


380  ACTS  9,  32.  33.  34. 

32.  And  it  came  to  pass,  as  Peter  passed  througli- 
out  all  (quarters),  lie  came  down  also  to  the  saints  which 
dwelt  at  Lydda. 

During  this  auspicious  period  of  prosperity  and  growth  in 
the  infant  churches  of  the  Holy  Land,  an  incident  occurred, 
or  came  to  pass,  which  was  closely  connected  with  subsequent 
events  of  great  importance.  This  was  a  general  visitation  of 
the  churches  by  the  Apostle  Peter,  in  the  course  of  which, 
passing  through  all,  i.  e.  through  all  parts  of  the  country ;  or 
through  all  its  cities ;  or  through  all  the  places  where  the 
church  had  been  established ;  or,  as  some  supply"  the  ellipsis, 
through  (i.  e.  among)  all  the  saints,  believers,  or  disciples  in 
the  Holy  Land.  (Compare  the  similar  expressions  used  by 
Paul  in  20,  25,  and  Rom.  15,  28.)  Li  the  course  of  this  official 
journey,  he  came  doimi  (see  above,  on  8,  15.  26),  not  only  to 
a  multitude  of  other  places  not  here  named,  but  also  to  the 
saints  (see  above,  on  v.  13)  inhahiting  Lydda.  This  was  the 
Ziod  of  the  Old  Testament,  built  or  rebuilt  after  the  return 
from  Babylon  (1  Chron.  8,  12.  Ezr.  2,  33.  Neh.  7,  37.  11,  35), 
and  afterwards  known  by  the  Greek  name  of  Diospolis.  Here 
Richard  Coeur-de-Lion  built  a  church  to  St.  George,  the  ruins 
of  which  are  said  to  be  still  visible. 

33.  And  there  he  found  a  certain  man  named 
Eneas,  which  had  kept  his  bed  eight  years,  and  was 
sick  of  the  palsy. 

Found,  or  met  with,  unexpectedly,  as  seems  to  be  sug- 
gested by  the  use  of  this  expression.  The  Greek  form  of  the 
name  (JEneas)  has  led  some  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  suf- 
ferer, who  had  kept  his  bed  (literally,  lying  doion  upon  a  bed 
or  couch)  since  or  for  (literally,  from,  see  above,  on  v.  13) 
eight  years,  was  a  Gentile ;  while  others,  with  more  reason 
although  not  conclusively,  infer  from  the  previous  mention  of 
the  saints,  that  he  was  certainly  a  Christian.  A^id  vms  sick 
of  the  palsy,  literally,  who  was  paralyzed  or  paralytic.  (See 
above,  on  8,  7,  and  compare  Luke  5,  18.  24.) 

34.  And  Peter  saith  unto  him,  Eneas,  Jesus  Christ 
maketh  thee  whole ;  arise  and  make  thy  bed. 

Calling  him  by  name,  in  oi'der  to  secure  his  attention  and 


ACTS   9,  34.  35.  381 

identify  the  object  of  address,  the  Apostle  solemnly  assures 
him  that  he  is  already  healed,  and  that  the  power  by  which 
the  miracle  was  wrought  is  that  of  Jesus  Christ.  He  does 
not  even  name  himself  as  the  instrumental  cause,  or  invoke  the 
name  of  Christ  (as  in  3,  6),  but  expressly  represents  him  as 
the  efficient  and  immediate  agent.  Maketh  thee  lohole^  or 
more  emphatically  and  yet  more  exactly,  Jesus  Christ  is  heal- 
ing thee^  now,  at  this  moment,  even  while  I  speak.  This  form 
of  expression  shows,  in  the  clearest  manner,  the  Apostle's  full 
persuasion  of  the  truth  of  what  he  says,  which  is  also  sug- 
gested by  the  following  command.  Arise,  stand  up,  an  act 
which  a  moment  sooner  would  have  been  impossible,  and  the 
failure  to  perform  which  now  would  have  covered  Peter  with 
confusion,  and  exposed  him  to  contempt,  if  not  to  punishment, 
as  an  impostor.  Make  thy  bed,  literally,  spread  for  thyself, 
which  some  have  strangely  understood  of  spreading  a  table  or 
providing  food;  out  which  refers  to  the  spreading  of  his 
couch,  or  the  arrangement  of  the  bed-clothes,  both  which,  in 
the  East,  are  comparatively  simple  operations.  The  command 
does  not  refer  to  future  practice — '  henceforth  make  thy  own 
bed,  and  no  longer  be  dependent  on  the  help  of  others ' — ^but 
to  an  immediate  act,  affording  proof  of  his  entire  restoration, 
by  performinof,  on  the  spot  and  in  a  moment,  what  for  eight 
years  he  had  not  been  able  even  to  attempt.  If  he  had  not 
done  it,  how  pitiable  would  have  been  the  attitude  of  the 
Apostle  !  How  complete  the  refutation  of  his  claims  to  repre- 
sent a  divine  person,  by  whose  power  the  cure  had  been  ef- 
fected !  But  he  was  not  to  be  thus  disgraced.  The  success 
of  the  experiment  was  instantaneous,  as  appears  from  the  con- 
cise but  most  expressive  statement,  that  the  paralytic  instantly 
arose,  and  no  doubt  made  his  bed,  as  he  was  ordered. 

35.  And  all  that  dwelt  in  Lydda  and  Saron  saw 
him,  and  turned  to  the  Lord. 

There  was  nothing  secret,  either  in  the  previous  condition 
of  this  man,  or  in  the  change  which  he  experienced.  In  both 
states  he  was  a  familiar  object.  All  saw  him,  not  once  for  all, 
or  at  the  moment  of  the  cure,  but  often,  or  from  time  to  time. 
This  statement  comprehends,  not  merely  the  inhabitants  of 
Lydda,  where  Eneas  lived,  and  where  the  miracle  was 
wrought,  but  those  of  the  whole  tract  or  region,  here  de- 
scribed by  its  ancient  name  of  Saron  (Sharon),  meaning  ori- 


382  ACTS  9,  35.  36. 

ginally  any  plain,  "but  specially  applied  to  that  along  the  Medi- 
terranean coast  between  Cesar ea  and  Joppa,  once  so  famous 
for  its  fertility  that  it  is  sometimes  joined  mth  Lebanon  and 
Carmel,  as  a  proverbial  type  or  emblem  of  luxuriant  vegeta- 
tion. (See  Isai.  33,  9.  35,  2.  65,  10,  and  compare  1  Chr.  27, 
29.)  And  turned  (literally,  loere  turned)  to  the  Lord^  is  not 
the  statement  of  an  additional  event,  unconnected  with  the 
miracle  except  by  chronological  succession.  Nor  does  it 
quahfy  the  all  of  the  preceding  clause,  and  mean  that  all  whc 
had  already  been  converted  saw  him  after  he  was  healed  ;  for 
the  verb  is  not  in  the  pluperfect  tense,  and  the  sight  of  the  re- 
stored paralytic  could  not  well  have  been  confined  to  the  dis- 
ciples ;  an  objection  only  partially  removed  by  saying  that, 
although  they  could  not  be  the  only  witnesses,  they  might  be 
the  only  ones  appealed  to  by  a  Christian  writer.  Besides,  the 
terms  here  used  are  descriptive  of  new  converts,  which  is  the 
uniform  and  constant  sense  of  turning  to  God,  or  to  the  Lord 
(Jesus  Christ),  the  first  form  being  chiefly  usecj  of  Gentile  and 
the  last  of  Jewish  converts.  (Compare  15,  19.  20.  21,  with 
11,  21.  2  Cor.  15,  3.  16.)  The  true  sense,  therefore,  is  that  the 
healing  of  Eneas  was  the  occasion  of  a  general  conversion  to 
the  new  religion  in  that  part  of  the  country.  '  They  saw  the 
miracle  and  turned  to  God.'  This  is,  no  doubt,  a  reastm  for 
this  one  case  being  singled  out  from  many  of  the  same  kind 
and  particularly  stated,  not  because  it  was  intrinsically  more 
important,  but  because  it  was  connected  with  this  progress  of 
the  truth,  and  with  other  great  events  about  to  be  recorded. 

36.  Now  there  was  at  Joppa  a  certain  disciple 
named  Tabitlia,  which  by  interpretation  is  called  Dor- 
cas :  this  woman  was  full  of  good  works  and  almsdeeds 
which  she  did. 

The  healing  of  Eneas  was  connected  with  another  miracle, 
which  led  to  similar  results  in  that  part  of  Judea,  and  imme- 
diately prepared  the  way  for  Peter's  memorable  visit  to  Cesa- 
rea,  described  in  the  next  chapter.  Now^  not  a  particle  of 
time  but  of  narration  ;  see  above,  on  v.  10.  Joppa^  the  Greek 
form  of  the  Hebrew  Japho  (Josh.  19,  46.  2  Chr.  2,  16.  Ezr. 
3,  7.  Jon.  1,  3)  and  the  Arabic  Jaffa^  in  all  which  names  the 
initial  letter  is  a  "vowel  or  a  semivowel  nearly  equivalent  to 
our  y  at  the  beginning  of  a  word,  although  pronounced  in 


ACTS  9,  36.  37.  383 

English  as  a  double  consonant.  The  place  so  called  is  a  sea- 
port on  the  Mediterranean  coast  of  Palestine,  described  by 
Plmy  as  extremely  ancient,  and  in  Scripture  as  the  point  where 
materials  were  landed  for  the  building  both  of  the  first  and 
second  temple  (2  Chr.  2, 16.  Ezr.  3, 1.)  The  harbour  was  a 
bad  one,  but  the  best  upon  the  coast,  until  Herod  the  Great 
made  an  artificial  port  at  Cesar ea.  (See  above,  on  v.  30  and 
8,  40.)  Hence  Joppa  was  conspicuous  in  history  for  ages,  as 
well  as  for  the  changes  w^hich  it  underw^ent,  havmg  been  re- 
peatedly demolished  and  rebuilt.  Since  the  first  Crusade,  it 
has  been  the  landing  place  for  Christian  pilgrims,  and  visited 
by  almost  every  traveller  in  the  East.  It  was  sacked  by  Na- 
poleon m  1797,  and  witnessed  the  famous  massacre  of  prison- 
ers. The  Hebrew  name  means  beautiful,  and  probably  al- 
ludes to  its  appearance  at  a  distance.  It  occurs  in  the  New 
Testament  only  in  this  narrative.  (See  below,  vs.  38.  42. 43. 
10,  5.  8.  23.  32.  11,  5.  13.)  Here  Peter  was  commissioned  to 
perform  a  miracle  still  greater  than  the  one  at  Lydda.  The 
subject  of  it  is  described  as  a  female  convert  or  disciple.  Ac- 
cording to  the  custom  of  the  age  and  country  (see  above,  on 
1,  13.  23.  4,  36),  she  had  two  names,  one  Greek  {Dorcas)  and 
the  other  Aramaic  {Tabitha),  both  denoting  a  gazelle  or  ante- 
lope. The  double  name  may  possibly  imply  a  mixed  popula- 
tion, w^hich  is  quite  as  probable  in  Joppa  as  in  Cesarea,  where 
we  know  from  Josephus  that  it  did  exist.  (See  above,  on  8, 
40.)  If'ull  of  (or  abounding  in)  good  works,  an  expression 
sometimes  signifying  virtuous  or  pious  acts  in  general,  and 
sometimes  acts  of  charity  and  kindness  in  particular.  (See 
above,  on  4, 9,  and  compare  Rom.  2,  7.  13,  3.  2  Cor.  9,  8. 
1  Tim.  5,  10.  3,  17.)  The  latter  meaning  is  required  here  by 
the  specific  statement  following.  Alms-deeds,  or  ahns,  as  the 
same  word  is  translated  in  3,  2.  3  above.  Did,  in  the  imper- 
fect tense,  used  to  do,  habitually  practised. 

37.  And  it  came  to  pass  in  those  days  that  she  was 
sick  and  died,  whom,  when  they  had  washed,  they  laid 
her  in  an  upper  chamber. 

In  the  life  of  this  exemplary  person  a  remarkable  event  oc- 
curred, or  came  to  pass,  in  those  days,  i.  e.  during  Peter's 
residence  at  Lydda.  Having  sicPened  (or  been  sick)  she  died, 
Whe7i  they  had  icashed,  literally,  having  washed.  The  form 
of  the  Greek  word  is  masculine  and  plural,  and  describes  the 


384  ACTS  9.37.38.39. 

agents  in  the  most  general  way  ■without  regard  to  sex.  The 
masculine  is  thus  generically  used,  not  only  in  Hebrew,  bat  in 
the  best  Greek  writers,  a  striking  instance  being  found  in 
Xenophon.  In  an  upper  room^  see  above,  on  1,  13.  The 
Greek  phrase  may  possibly  here  mean,  up  stairs^  or  in  the 
upper  story. 

38.  And  forasmuch  as  Lydda  was  nigh  to  Joppa, 
and  the  disciples  had  heard  that  Peter  was  there,  they 
sent  unto  him  two  men,  desiring  (him)  that  he  would 
Qot  delay  to  come  to  them. 

Lydda  being  near  to  Joppa^  to  Tvdt,  ten  or  twelve  miles,  on 
the  highway  to  Jerusalem.  The  disciples  (of  Christ),  still  act-. 
mg  as  a  body  (see  above,  on  v.  30.)  Had  heard^  literally, 
having  heard^  as  the  report  of  the  first  miracle  had  spread 
throughout  the  plain  of  Sharon  (see  above,  on  v.  35,)  There^ 
literally,  in  it^  i.  e.  Lydda.  Desiring^  exhorting,  or  entreat- 
ing (see  above,  on  2.  40.  8,  31.)  .  Woidd  not  delay ^  literally, 
not  to  delay^  hesitate,  or  put  off  coming,  applied  in  classic 
Greek  especially  to  hesitation  caused  by  fear  or  sloth.  In- 
stead of  the  infinitive  to  delay ^  the  oldest  manuscripts,  fol- 
lowed by  the  Vulgate,  have  the  second  person,  do  not  delay. 
To  come^  literally,  to  come  (or  pass)  through^  i.  e.  through  the 
intervening  space  (see  above,  on  v.  32,  and  on  8,  4.  40.)  To 
ihem^  as  far  as  to  them  (see  above,  on  1,  8.) 

39.  Then  Peter  arose  and  went  with  them.  When 
he  was  come,  they  brought  him  into  the  upper  cham- 
ber ;  and  all  the  widows  stood  by  him,  weeping  and 
showing  (the)  coats  and  garments  which  Dorcas  made, 
while  she  was  with  them. 

Then^  as  in  vs.  19.  25.  Arose^  put  himself  in  motion,  or 
addressed  himself  to  action.  (See  above,  on  5, 17.34.  8,  26. 
9,11.)  Went  loith  them^  whether  simply  to  console  the 
mourners,  or  -^vith  the  expectation  of  restoring  her  to  life,  the 
narrative  does  not  inform  us.  There  is  no  such  objection  to 
the  supposition  of  a  previous  divme  communication,  as  there 
was  in  relation  to  the  death  of  Ananias.  (See  above,  on  5,  5.) 
When  he  was  come  they  brought  him^  literally,  lohom  being 
come  they  brought  (or  led)  up  into  the  upper  chamber^  men- 


ACTS  9,  39.  40.  3S5 

tioned  in  v.  37,  where  the  body  was  laid  out.  All  the  widoios 
may  mean  those  of  Joppa,  as  a  class,  having  charge  of  the  sick, 
like  the  deaconesses  of  the  apostohcal  churches  (compare 
1  Tim.  5,  9. 16)  ;  or  the  widows  for  whom  Dorcas  had  pro- 
vided by  her  charities  (see  above,  on  6, 1,  and  compare  1  Tim. 
5, 16.  James  1,  27.)  In  the  latter  case,  the  garments  shown 
were  those  which  they  then  wore ;  in  the  former,  those  which 
she  had  left  for  distribution.  Coats  and  garments^  or  accord- 
ing to  the  strict  sense  of  the  Greek  words,  under  and  upper 
garments  (see  above,  on  7,  58),  the  tunic  and  robe  or  gown, 
which  still  constitute  the  oriental  costume  of  both  sexes. 
Which^  literally,  as  many  as,  but  not  necessarily  denoting  all 
(see  above,  on  vs.  13.  16,  and  4,  34.)  Made,  in  the  imperfect 
tense,  which  may  either  mean  she  used  to  make  them,  or  was 
actually  making  them,  when  seized  with  her  last  illness. 
While  she  was  with  them,  literally,  with  them  bemg  (i.  e.  when 
she  still  lived.) 

40.  But  Peter  put  (tliem)  all  forth,  and  kneeled  down 
and  prayed,  and  turning  (him)  to  the  body,  said,  Tabi- 
tha,  arise.  And  she  opened  her  eyes  ;  and  when  she 
saw  Peter,  she  sat  up. 

In  imitation  of  his  Master  at  the  house  of  Jairus  (Matt.  9, 
25.  Luke  8,  51),  where  Peter  was  one  of  the  three  suffered 
to  attend  him,  the  Apostle  now  excludes  all  the  rest  from  the 
chamber  of  death,  and  kneeling  down  {jjlacing  the  Icnees,  as 
in  7,  60),  invokes  the  divine  interposition,  thus  again,  but  in 
another  form,  acknowledging  his  own  part  in  the  whole  trans- 
action to  be  merely  instrumental.  (See  above,  on  3,  6.  16.  4, 
10.)  Then,  instead  of  saying,  as  he  did  to  Eneas  (v.  34), 
"  Jesus  Christ  is  healing  thee,"  he  turns  to  the  corpse  and  ad- 
dresses it  directly,  in  an  authoritative  tone,  commanding  the 
dead  woman,  by  her  Aramaic  name,  and  no  doubt  ui  the 
Aramaic  language  of  the  country  (see  above,  on  1, 19),  to 
arise  from  the  place  where  she  was  lying.  Taming,  in  the 
primary  corporeal  sense,  as  distinguished  from  the  metaphori- 
cal or  moral,  which  occurs  above  in  v.  35.  Presumj)tuous  or 
mad  as  this  command  might  well  have  seemed,  it  is  immedi- 
ately obeyed,  by  a  succession  of  acts  showing  the  return  of 
life.  When  she  o2:)ened  her  eyes,  which  had  been  so  long 
closed  in  death,  they  rested  upon  Peter,  whom  she  no  doubt 
saw  to  be  a  stranger  and  alone  in  the  apartment.  Roused  by 
VOL.  I. — 17 


886  ACTS  9,  40.41.42. 

this  unexpected  sight,  she  finally  sat  up,  thereby  evincing  the 
completeness  of  the  miracle,  and  her  own  entire  resuscitation. 
Nothing  could  be  more  natural  and  simple,  or  at  the  same 
time  more  graphic,  than  this  narrative. 

41.  And  he  gave  her  (his)  hand,  and  lifted  her  up, 
and  when  he  had  called  the  saints  and  widows,  he  pre- 
sented her  alive. 

Having  described  the  acts  of  the  resuscitated  woman,  Luke 
describes  those  of  Peter  after  her  revival.  Gave  her  his  hand 
and  lifted  her  up^  not  because  she  was  too  weak  to  rise  with- 
out help  or  to  stand  alone,  for  the  recovery,  in  all  such  cases, 
was  complete  and  instantaneous ;  but  rather  in  the  way  of 
welcome  or  congratulation.  Gave  his  hand^  implying  that 
she  took  it,  and  was  not  therefore  altogether  passive.  He 
then  calls  in  the  witnesses  whom  he  had  before  excluded 
(v.  40),  the  saints  (behevers  or  disciples)  in  general,  and  the 
widows,  previously  mentioned  (v.  39)  as  cliief  mourners,  in 
particular.  To  these  he  no'w  2y>^^sents  her  living^  the  same  ex- 
pression that  is  used  in  1,  3,  and  there  explained.  The  whole 
account  suggests  the  idea  of  dehberation  and  composure,  as 
opposed  to  that  of  hurry  and  excitement  on  the  part  of  Peter, 
or  of  possible  delusion  on  the  part  of  the  spectators. 

42.  And  it  was  known  throughout  all  Joppa ;  and 
many  believed  in  the  Lord. 

As  in  the  other  case  at  Lydda  (v.  35),  the  historian  now 
records  the  effect  of  this  great  miracle,  first  stating  its  pubU- 
city  and  notoriety.  It  became  known  (see  above,  on  1,  19, 
and  below,  on  19,  17)  throughout  (see  above,  on  v.  31,  and 
below,  on  10,  37)  allJoppa.  This  circumstance  is  introduced, 
not  merely  for  its  own  sake,  or  to  show  the  certainty  of  the 
event,  but  also  for  the  purpose  of  suggesting  an  important 
providential  end  which  it  promoted.  Many  believed  in  the 
Lord^  or  rather  on  him,  the  Greek  preposition  suggesting  the 
idea  of  rehance  or  dependence,  as  in  1, 17  above,  and  15,  31.  22, 
19  below.  (Compare  Rom.  4,  24.)  It  also  denotes  motion  to- 
wards an  object,  and  thus  suggests  the  idea  of  conversion,  as 
involved  in  that  of  faith,  or  inseparable  from  it.  The  Lord, 
i.  e.  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  as  the  wider  sense  of  God  would 
here  be  too  indefinite.     (See  above,  on  v.  35.) 


ACTS  9,  43.  387 

43.  And  it  came  to  pass,  that  he  tarried  many  days 
in  Joppa,  with  one  Simon  a  tanner. 

Having  shown  how  Peter  came  to  be  in  Joppa  at  all,  the 
narrative  now  explains  how  he  happened  to  be  still  there, 
when  the  incidents  recorded  in  the  tenth  chapter  came  to  pass. 
Though  suddenly  brought  thither  in  a  great  emergency,  he 
had  determined  or  consented,  for  some  reason  which  is  not  ex. 
plained,  to  stay  there.  It  came  to  pass  (or  happened)  may 
imply,  that  this  was  not  his  expectation  or  original  intention ; 
that  he  did  not  mean  to  stay  there,  yet  it  so  happened  or 
turned  out.  Many  days^  literally,  days  enough^  as  in  v.  23. 
5,  37.  8,  11.  A  strong  impression  of  exactness  and  personal 
knowledge  of  the  facts  related,  is  made  by  the  writer's  intro- 
duction of  an  otherwise  unimportant  circumstance,  to  wit,  the 
very  house  where  Peter  lodged  at  Joppa.  With^  in  Greek  a 
preposition  which,  when  construed  with  the  dative  or  accusa- 
tive, denotes  juxtaposition,  by  or  alongside  of  (see  above,  on 
4,  35.  37.  5,  2.  10.  7,  58,  and  compare  Luke  9,  47.)  In  its  more 
figurative  use,  it  is  applied  especially  to  eating  with  a  person 
(Luke  11,  37.  19,  17),  or  to  lodging  with  him  (see  below,  on 
10,  6.  18,  3.  20.  21,  7.  8.  16,  and  compare  John  1,  40.  4,  4.) 
The  Apostle's  host  on  this  occasion  was  a  namesake  of  his  own, 
but  distinguished  by  his  occupation  as  a  currier  or  tanner, 
which  was  regarded  by  the  Jews  as  an  imclean  one,  from 
which  some  have  needlessly  inferred,  that  Peter  was  already 
free  from  Jewish  prejudice;  while  others  argue,  still  more 
gratuitously,  that  he  and  his  office  were  held  in  little  honour 
by  the  people  of  Joppa. 


CHAPTEK  X. 


Tnis  chapter  is  entirely  occuj^ied  with  one  great  subject,  the 
first  reception  of  converted  Gentiles  to  the  Church,  without 
passing  through  the  intermediate  state  of  Judaism.  To  this 
narrative,  9,31-43  is  an  introduction,  and  11,  1-18  an  appen- 
dix. The  narrative  itself  describes  the  providential  means,  by 
which  the  representatives  of  the  Gentile  world  on  one  hand. 


388  ACTS  10,  1. 

and  the  chosen  instrument  of  their  reception  on  the  other 
were  prepared  for  their  respective  parts  in  this  transactioi). 
These  means  consisted  of  two  visions  or  divine  communica* 
tions,  one  to  Cornelius,  assuring  him  that  God  had  purposes 
of  mercy  towards  him,  and  directing  him  to  seek  an  interview 
with  Peter  (1-8) ;  the  other  to  Peter  himself,  informing  him 
that  the  old  partition  between  Jews  and  Gentiles  was  now 
broken  down,  and  directing  him  to  meet  the  advances  of  Cor- 
nelius (9-20.)  In  obedience  to  this  order,  he  accompanies  the 
messengers  to  Cesarea  (21-24),  and,  after  correcting  the  cen- 
turion's error  as  to  his  own  person  (25-26),  avows  the  change 
which  he  had  recently  experienced  (27-29),  receives  a  formal 
statement  of  the  message  to  Cornelius  (30-33),  and  preaches 
Christ,  as  the  Judge  and  Saviour  both  of  Jews  and  Gentiles 
(34-43.)  While  he  is  speaking,  the  new  converts  are  bap- 
tized with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  then  with  water  (34-47),  after 
which  Peter  still  continues  with  them,  no  doubt  to  instruct 
them  in  the  doctrines  and  duties  of  their  new  religion  (48.) 

1.  There  was  a  certain  man  in  Cesarea  called  Cor- 
nelius, a  centurion  of  the  band  called  the  Italian 
(band)  — 

The  beginning  of  this  narrative  is  less  abrupt  in  Greek, 
where  the  usual  continuative  particle  (Se)  connects  it  closely 
with  what  goes  before.  Those  who  regard  it  as  the  com- 
mencement of  an  entirely  new  subject,  overlook  the  bearmg 
of  the  miracles  recorded  at  the  close  of  the  ninth  chapter  on 
the  history  that  follows.  It  was  while  Peter  was  still  resident 
at  Joppa,  and  therefore  easily  accessible  from  Cesarea,  that 
the  incidents  recorded  in  this  chapter  happened.  Cornelius^ 
a  familiar  but  honourable  name  iu  Latin,  being  that  of  a  dis- 
tinguished Roman  family.  A  centurion  was  strictly  the  com- 
mander of  a  hundred  men ;  but  the  title  was  apphed,  with  some 
degree  of  latitude,  to  those  who  led  the  subdivisions  of  a  le- 
gion. The  hand  here  probably  means  such  a  subdivision. 
The  Italian^  probably  so  called  because  composed  of  Romans, 
although  stationed  in  the  East,  as  the  European  officers  and 
soldiers  in  India  are  distinguished  from  the  native  troops  or 
sepoys.  The  Italian  legion^  spoken  of  by  Tacitus,  v,^as  subse- 
quently organized  by  Nero,  and  would  not  have  bcien  desig- 
nated by  the  term  here  iised  (o-Tretpa.)  The  same  phrase  is 
employed  by  Anian,   and  an  old  inscription  mentions  " the 


ACTS  10,  1.  2.  3.  389 

cohort  of  Italian  volunteers  whicli  is  in  Syria."  The  main 
facts  here  are  the  country,  the  profession,  the  rank,  and  the 
residence  of  the  man  who  was  to  represent  Gentile  Christian- 
ity, in  its  first  encounter,  so  to  speak,  with  the  Jewish  type  or 
aspect  of  the  same  reUgion. 

2.  A  devout  man,  and  one  that  feared  God  with 
all  his  house,  which  gave  much  alms  to  the  people,  and 
prayed  to  God  alway. 

His  character  and  previous  religious  history.  Devout^ 
pious,  reverent,  not  merely  in  the  heathen  sense,  but  as  the 
fruit  of  divine  grace.  Feared  God^  i.  e.  the  one  true  God,  as 
opposed  to  the  many  gods  of  heathenism.  With  all  his  house, 
or  household ;  not  alone,  or  merely  in  his  otvti  person,  but  as 
the  teacher  and  example  of  those  dependent  on  him.  Which 
gave  much  cdms,  or  rather,  lyractising  7nany  charities,  not 
merely  to  the  poor  in  general,  but  to  the  people,  i.  e.  the  chosen 
people,  the  children  of  Israel,  among  whom  he  lived  and  from 
whom  he  had  learned  the  true  religion.  Praying  to  God,  or 
asking  of  God,  i.  e.  lookuig  to  Jehovah,  or  the  God  of  Israel, 
and  not  to  idols,  for  the  supply  of  his  necessities  in  general, 
and  for  spiritual  guidance  in  particular.  This  is  not  the  de- 
scription of  a  proSelyte,  m  any  technical  or  formal  sense,  but 
of  a  Gentile  whom  divine  grace  had  prepared  for  the  imme- 
diate reception  of  the  Gospel,  -without  passing  through  the  in- 
termediate state  of  Judaism,  although  long  familiar  with  it, 
and  indebted  to  it  for  such  knowledge  of  the  word  of  God  as 
he  possessed. 

3.  He  saw  in  a  vision,  evidently,  about  the  ninrn 
hour  of  the  day,  an  angel  of  God,  coming  in  to  him,  and 
saying  unto  him,  Cornelius  ! 

The  means  used  to  bring  this  representative  of  the  Gentile 
world  into  contact  with  the  new  religion.  Saw  is  construed 
directly  with  a  man  in  v.  1.  by  the  latest  critics,  who  omit  the 
verb  in  that  verse,  and  make  one  long  sentence  of  the  three, 
*  A  certain  man  in  Cesarea,  named  Cornelius,  a  centurion  <fec. 

devout  and  fearing  God  &c saw.'     In  a  vision^ 

not  a  dream,  wliich  Avould  be  otherwise  expressed  (as  in  Matt. 
2,  lo. }  Q.  22),  but  a  supernatural  communication,  addressed  not 


S90  ACTS  10,  3.4. 

merely  to  the  mind,  but  to  the  senses.  (See  above,  on  7,  31. 
9, 10. 12.)  Evidently^  clearly,  certainly,  not  doubtfully  or 
dimly.  About  (literally,  as  if^  i.  e.  as  if  it  were)  the  ninth 
hour  (after  sunrise,  see  above,  on  2,  15),  not  far  from  three 
o'clock  m  the  afternoon.  The  object  thus  and  then  seen  was 
a7i  angel  of  God^  a  messenger  sent  by  him  from  the  other 
world,  belonging  to  a  race  of  superhuman  spirits,  but  no  doubt 
clothed  in  human  form.  The  popular  idea  of  winged  angels 
is  derived  from  the  cherubim  (Ex.  25,  20)  and  seraphim  (Isai. 
6,  2),  but  is  never  suggested  by  any  of  the  narratives  of  angelic 
visits  to  this  world  and  its  inhabitants.  Coming  in  to  hini^ 
into  his  house  and  presence,  like  an  ordinary  visitor,  and  ad- 
dressing him  familiarly  by  name. 

4.  And  when  he  looked  on  him,  he  was  afraid,  and 
said,  AVhat  is  it,  Lord  ?  And  he  said  unto  him,  Thy 
prayers  and  thine  ahns  are  come  up  for  a  memorial  be- 
fore God. 

Gazing  (intently  looking)  at  him,  and  becoming  fearful^ 
not  afraid  of  personal  injury,  but  awe-struck  at  the  presence 
of  a  superhuman  being,  which  must  have  been  betrayed  by 
somethmg  in  the  stranger's  aspect.  What  is  (it)  f  i.  e.  what 
is  the  occasion  of  your  coming  ?  Prayers  and  alms,  the  two 
kinds  of  religious  service  previously  mentioned,  as  the  proofs 
of  the  centurion's  devout  regard  to  the  divine  will  and  the 
true  religion.  Come  up,  ascended,  in  allusion  to  the  v:ii;o'ir 
of  the  ancient  offerings.  For  a  memorial,  to  remind  God,  as 
it  were,  of  the  offerer's  existence  and  necessities ;  another 
allusion  to  the  ceremonial  law,  in  which  this  name  is  given  to 
apart  of  the  burnt-offering.  (See  Lev.  2,  2.  Num.  5,  21.)  Be- 
fore God,  not  merely  in  his  judgment  or  his  estimation,  as  in 
8,  21,  but  in  his  presence,  in  the  place  where  he  manifests  his 
glory.  Intrinsic  merit  or  efficacy  is  no  more  ascribed  in  these 
words  to  the  good  works  of  Cornehus  than  to  the  oblations 
from  which  the  figure  or  comparison  is  taken.  It  was  not  as 
a  reward  of  what  Cornelius  had  thus  done,  that  the  Lord  now 
favoured  and  distinguished  him;  but  this  distinguishing  favour 
was  itself  the  cause  of  those  devotional  and  charitable  habits, 
which  had  been  recognized  in  heaven  as  being  what  they  were, 
not  meritorious  claims  to  the  divine  blessing,  but  experimental 
proofe  that  it  had  been  bestowed. 


ACTS  10,  5.  0.  7.  391 

5.  And  now  send  men  to  Joppa,  and  call  for  (one) 
Simon,  whose  surname  is  Peter : 

As  this  vision  was  not  intended  merely  to  astonish  or  to 
please  Cornelius,  but  to  prepare  for  his  reception  into  the 
Church,  the  angelic  assurance  of  the  divine  favour  is  imme- 
diately succeeded  by  directions  as  to  his  own  duty.  A7id 
91010,  since  God  has  purposes  of  mercy  towards  thee,  send  to 
(or  i7ito)  Joppa,  where  Peter  had  been  left  at  the  close  of  the 
last  chapter  (9,  43.)  Men,  and  by  implication,  chosen  men,  or 
men  fit  for  such  a  service  (see  below,  on  v.  V.)  Call  for,  lite- 
rally, send  for,  a  compound  form  of  the  preceding  verb.  07ie 
before  Simon  is  supplied  by  the  translators.  Both  names  are 
given  to  identify  the  person. 

6.  He  lodgeth  with  one  Simon  a  tanner,  whose 
house  is  by  the  sea  side  :  he  shall  tell  thee  what  thou 
oughtest  to  do. 

Minute  directions  how  he  should  find  Peter.  Lodgeth 
with,  or  is  entertained  by ;  for  it  may  have  been  a  case  of 
Christian  hospitality.  A  tanner,  see  above,  on  9,  43.  To 
whom  there  is  a  house  by  the  sea,  perhaps  on  account  of  his 
occupation,  and  perhaps  at  a  distance  from  the  town,  as  the 
Mishna  requires  in  the  case  of  such  employments. 

7.  And  when  the  angel  which  spake  unto  Cornelius 
was  departed,  he  called  two  of  his  household  servants, 
and  a  devout  soldier  of  them  that  waited  on  him  con- 
tinually. 

As  soon  as  the  vision  is  concluded,  he  takes  the  necessary 
measures  to  obey  the  order  which  he  had  received,  employ- 
ing for  this  purpose  three  of  his  own  household,  two  domes 
tics,  or,  as  the  word  originally  means,  two  members  of  his 
family,  and  a  military  servant,  who  was  his  constant  personal 
attendant,  as,  in  some  modern  armies,  officers  are  waited  on 
by  soldiers.  This  man  is  described  as  like  his  master  or  com- 
mander in  religious  character,  and  therefore  peculiarly  well 
fitted  for  the  service  now  assigned  to  him.  Although  not  af- 
firmed, it  seems  to  be  implied,  that  the  other  two  messengei-s 
were  Iike-mindoi ;  so  that  wo  have  here  the  interesting  case 


392  ACTS   10,  8.  9.  10. 

of  a  whole  Gentile  household,  brought  by  intercourse  with 
Jews,  and  by  the  grace  of  God,  to  the  very  threshold  of  the 
true  religion. 

8.  And  when  lie  liad  declared  all  (these)  things 
unto  them,  he  sent  them  to  Joppa. 

Such  being  their  character,  he  does  not  send  them  blind- 
fold, but  states  the  whole  case  to  them.  Declared^  expounded, 
or  detailed,  the  verb  from  which  exegesis  is  derived,  but  spe- 
cially applied  in  Greek  to  historical  narration.  (See  below, 
on  15,12.14.  21,19,  and  compare  Luke  24,35.)  All  these 
things^  including  the  \ision,  the  divine  command,  and  the  ex- 
pected revelation. 

9.  On  the  morrow,  as  they  went  on  their  journey, 
and  drew  nigh  unto  the  city,  Peter  went  up  upon  the 
house-top  to  pray,  about  the  sixth  hour : 

While  the  centurion's  messengers  are  on  their  way,  the 
other  part  of  this  providential  scheme  is  set  in  motion,  by  the 
vision  of  Peter,  answering  to  that  of  Cornelius.  Ori  the  mGr- 
row^  or  the  next  day,  after  they  set  out.  They  journeying^  or 
moving  onwards,  and  approaehing  (or  heing  7iear)  to  the  city  (or 
town  of  Joppa.)  Tlie  house^  or,  as  some  editions  read,  the  house- 
top^ the  flat  roof,  to  which  the  word  {Sojixa)  is  apphed  in  later 
Greek,  while  its  English  derivative  {dome)  denotes  a  j)eculiar 
kind  of  roof,  and  that  not  a  flat  one.  To  p/ray^  a  frequent  use 
of  the  oriental  roof,  on  account  of  its  elevation  and  retirement. 
The  sixth  hour  after  sunrise,  one  of  the  three  stated  hours  of 
prayer.     (See  above,  on  2,  15.) 

10.  And  he  became  very  hungry,  and  would  have 
eaten ;  but  while  they  made  ready,  he  fell  into  a  trance, 

Peter  is  prepared,  in  mmd  and  body,  for  the  extraordinary 
revelation  which  awaits  him.  Woidd  have  eaten^  literally, 
wished  to  taste  {food)-,  an  expression  used  in  classic  Greek, 
even  of  a  full  meal.  While  they  made  ready ^  literally,  they 
fveparing,  They^  i.  e.  his  friends,  the  people  of  the  house,  a 
form  of  expression  famihar  to  the  dialect  of  common  life. 
Preparing^  either  his  noon-day  meal,  or  in  anticipation  of  it, 
and  at  his  request.     He  fell  into  a  trance^  in  Greek,  there  fell 


ACTS  10,  10.  11.  12.  393 

on  him,  an  ecstasy^  a  preternatural,  abnormal  state  of  mind, 
preparing  liim  for  the  reception  of  the  vision.  (Compare  the 
corresponding  verl)  in  2,  V.  8,  9.  11,  13.)  Mil  on  him,  by  a 
sudden  influence  or  illapse  from  above,  produced  by  a  supe- 
rior power.     (See  below,  on  v.  44.) 

11.  And  saw  heaven  opened,  and  a  certain  vessel 
descending  unto  liim,  as  it  had  been  a  great  sheet,  knit 
at  the  four  corners,  and  let  down  to  the  earth : 

The  vision  itself  corresponds  to  his  bodily  condition. 
While  his  thoughts  are  running  upon  food,  it  is  exhibited  in 
great  abundance  and  variety,  but  in  an  extraordinary  manner, 
showing  that  somethmg  was  intended,  very  different  from  the 
satisfaction  of  the  appetite,  or  even  the  relief  of  an  unusual 
hunger.  A^id  saw,  or  rather,  and  beholds,  surveys,  implying 
something  strange  and  striking  in  the  object  of  vision.  (See 
above,  on  3,  16.  4,  13.  8,  13.  9,  7.)  Heaven  opened,  as  in  V,  56, 
exceiDt  that  the  number  here  is  singular,  not  plural.  Sheet, 
sail,  or  cloth,  the  Greek  word  denoting  the  material  rather 
than  the  shape.  Knit,  literally,  tied,  bound,  fastened.  Cor- 
7iers,  hterally,  beginnioigs,  but  in  Greek  used  also  to  denote 
extremities  or  ends.  It  may  here  mean  the  ends  of  chains  or 
cords  by  which  the  sheet  seemed  to  be  fastened  to  something 
above,  or  the  ends  of  the  sheet  itself,  which  must  then  be  con- 
ceived as  gathered  up  and  tied,  so  as  to  be  capable  of  holding 
its  contents. 

12.  Wherein  were  all  manner  of  fourfooted  beasts 
of  the  earth,  and  wild  beasts,  and  creeping  things,  and 
fowls  of  the  air. 

Tlie  contents  vv^ere  as  surprising  as  the  vessel,  comprehend- 
ing all  kinds  of  animals — beasts,  birds,  and  creeping  things — 
including  therefore  both  the  two  great  classes,  which  the  Law 
of  Moses  and  the  Je^^dsh  practice  recognized,  the  Clean  and 
Unclean.  (See  Lev.  xi.  and  Deut.  xiv.)  This  is  the  grand 
idea  meant  to  be  conveyed,  and  it  was  therefore  as  indifferent 
to  Peter  as  it  ought  to  be  to  us,  into  how  many  classes  a 
zoologist  would  have  divided  them,  or  what  might  be  the 
strictly  scientific  apphcation  of  the  terms,  qiiadrupeds  of  the 
earth,  beasts,  reptiles,  and  birds  of  heaven,  or  of  the  air.  (See 
Gen.  1,  20.)  The  distinctive  names  might  have  been  more 
numerous  or  less  so,  more  precise  or  less  so,  without  varying 

VOL.  I. — 17* 


594  ACTS  10,  12.  13.  14. 

the  essential  fact,  that  the  vessel  seen  by  Peter  in  his  trance 
or  vision,  contained  all  manner  (i.  e.  all  kinds)  of  animals, 
both  clean  and  unclean.  Wild  beasts  is  a  correct  translation 
of  a  single  Greek  word,  which  is  usually  so  applied. 

13.  And  there  came  a  voice  to  him,  Rise,  Peter ; 
kill  and  eat. 

Still  more  surprising  than  what  Peter  saw  was  what  he 
heard.  A  voice  came^  literally,  became,  i.  e.  became  audible, 
to  him,  not  merely  heard  by  him,  but  addressed  to  him.  The 
voice  may  have  proceeded  from  the  open  vessel,  but  more 
probably  from  the  open  heaven  (v.  11.)  Mise  (literally, 
rising)  may  imply  that  he  was  on  his  knees,  or  lying  down,  or 
sitting.  It  may  also  be,  however,  a  command  to  rouse  him- 
self from  a  previous  condition  of  inaction  or  repose.  (See 
above,  on  9,  6.  11. 18.)  Kill  is  in  Greek  a  verb  denoting  sa- 
crificial slaying,  or  the  act  of  killing  with  a  reference  to  some 
religious  purpose.  The  use  of  this  significant  expression, 
which  is  not  to  be  diluted  or  explained  away  without  neces- 
sity, shows  that  the  following  command  {and  eat)  refers  not 
merely  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  appetite,  but  to  those  ceremo- 
nial restrictions,  under  which  the  law  of  Moses  placed  the 
Jews,  both  in  their  worship  and  in  their  daily  use  of  necessary 
food.  As  if  the  voice  had  said,  '  From  among  these  animals 
select  thy  offering  or  thy  food,  without  regard  to  the  distinc- 
tion between  clean  and  unclean.' 

14.  But  Peter  said,  Not  so,  Lord;  for  I  have  never 
eaten  any  thing  that  is  common  or  miclean. 

Peter  responds  to  this  command  as  any  conscientious  Jew 
or  Jewish  Christian  would  have  done,  by  representing  it  as 
inconsistent  with  the  whole  previous  tenor  of  his  life.  I^ot 
so,  not  at  all,  by  no  means.  The  emphasis  and  positiveness 
of  this  refusal  is  in  curious  contrast  with  the  title  of  respect 
which  follows,  and  which  can  scarcely  be  translated  Sir  in  this 
connection,  but  must  imply  that  he  regarded  the  voice  as  that 
of  a  superhuman  if  not  a  divine  speaker.  (See  above,  on  9, 
5.  6.)  Even  such  authority  was  not  immediately  sufficient  to 
break  the  force  of  prejudice  and  habit.  The  thought  to  be 
BuppUed  between  the  clauses  is,  '  I  cannot  do  it  now,  because 
I  never  did  before.'     I  have  never  eaten  (more  exactly,  never 


ACTS  10,  14.  15.  395 

did  eat)  any  thing  (literally,  all  or  evwy)  i.  e.  all  that  came 
to  hand,  without  discrunmation.  The  reference  is  not  to  any 
personal  peculiarity,  but  to  that  restrictive  law  of  food,  which 
constituted  one  of  the  most  striking  points  of  difference  be- 
tween Jew  and  Gentile,  and  one  of  the  most  operative  means 
of  separation,  as  it  does  to  this  day.  Common^  not  appropri- 
ated, set  apart,  or  consecrated,  which  some  regard  as  the  ori- 
ginal or  primary  sense  of  Ao/y.  (See  above,  on  9,  13.)  Others 
make  the  essential  idea  to  be  that  of  purity,  the  opposite  of 
which  is  also  here  expressed  {wiclean.)  Taken  together, 
therefore,  they  exhaust  the  idea  of  unholy  or  profane,  which 
was  present  to  the  mind  of  the  Apostle.  The  general  fact 
which  he  affirms  is  that  he  had  always  lived  as  a  strict  Jew, 
and  therefore  separate  from  other  people.  The  particular  sign 
of  this  seclusion  here  referred  to — the  distinction  of  food — 
served,  at  the  same  time,  as  a  type  or  emblem  of  a  moral  dif- 
ference, the  Gentiles  being  to  the  Jews,  in  this  respect,  what 
unclean  animals  were  to  the  clean. 

15.  And  the  voice  (spake)  unto  him  again  the  second 
time,  What  God  hath  cleansed,  (that)  call  not  thou  com- 
mon. 

The  voice^  or  more  exactly,  a  voice,  implying  that  the 
speaker  still  remained  invisible.  Agahi,  a  second^  (time),  an 
emphatic  reduphcation,  which  seems  intended  to  make  the 
parts  in  this  dramatic  dialogue  as  distmct  as  possible.  The 
same  effect  is  promoted  by  the  suppression  of  the  verb  (said) ; 
see  above,  on  9,  11.  The  literal  translation  of  the  last  clause 
is.  What  {thhigs)  God  hath  purified  do  thou,  not  render  com- 
mon, or  treat  as  such,  a  phrase  representing  one  Greek  verb 
{koivov),  which  has  no  equivalent  in  English,  unless  we  coin  for 
the  occasion  some  such  form  as  communify.  The  two  verba 
in  this  clause  correspond  to  the  two  adjectives  in  Peter's  an- 
swer. Gall  not  common  is  a  version  justified  by  the  analogy 
of  certain  causatives  in  Hebrew,  which  are  used  in  a  declara- 
tive sensfe,  and  in  a  ceremonial  apphcation.  (E.  g.  to  purify, 
1.  e.  to  pronounce  pure ;  to  pollute,  i.  e.  to  pronounce  polluted, 
Lev.  13,  3.  6.  8.  11.)  But  the  proper  causative  sense  of  making 
common  or  unclean  is  not  only  appropriate,  but  much  more 
pointed.  *  What  God  has  haUowed  do  not  thou  attempt  to 
unhallow.'  This  reply  of  the  unseen  speaker  to  Peter's  true 
but  proud  profession  of  Levitical  fidehty  and  strictness  must 


396  ACTS  10,  15.  16.  17. 

have  been  surprising  and  at  first  confounding.  Instead  of  re. 
cognizing  his  pretensions  to  the  praise  of  ceremonial  perfeo> 
tion,  the  person,  whose  authority  he  had  just  acknowledged 
by  addressing  him  as  Lord,  denies  the  truth  and  value  of  the 
distinction  altogether.  It  is  not  a  mere  precaution  against 
error  in  the  application  of  the  ceremonial  principle,  but  an  ab- 
rogation of  the  principle  itself.  Peter  is  not  simply  put  upon 
his  guard  against  the  error  of  regarding  as  imclean,  according 
to  the  Jewish  standard,  what  was  really,  according  to  that 
standard,  clean.  He  is  warned  against  the  far  worse  error  of 
continuing  to  recognize  that  standard  as  itself  obligatory,  after 
it  had  ceased  to  be  so.  Hitherto  there  had  been  a  distinction 
between  clean  and  unclean,  both  in  meats  and  persons.  Hence- 
forth there  could  be  none  ;  for  what  had  been  unclean  for  ages 
by  divine  authority  was  now  pronounced  clean  by  the  same  ; 
and  what  had  thus  been  constituted  clean  could  not  be  ren- 
dered common  by  the  exercise  of  any  human  power  or  au- 
thority. 

16.  This  was  done  tlirice,  and  the  vessel  was  re- 
ceived up  again  into  heaven. 

This^  i.  e.  the  whole  scene,  including  sights  and  sounds, 
the  \dsion  and  the  dialogue.  Was  done^  happened,  came  to 
pass  ;  the  same  verb  that  is  used  with  voice  in  v.  13.  Thrice 
is  in  Greek  a  peculiar  idiomatic  phrase  (ctti  rpts),  the  nearest 
approach  to  which  in  Enghsh  is,  for  three  times,  or  on  three 
occasions.  An  analogous  though  different  expression  is,  to 
the  number  of  three.  Received  up^  or  taken  back,  or  both, 
which  seems  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  same  verb  in  the  first 
sentence  of  the  book.  (See  above,  on  1, 1.)  This  repetition 
of  the  revelation,  no  doubt  in  precisely  the  same  form,  may 
have  been  intended  partly  to  impress  it  on  the  memory,  but 
chiefly  to  preclude  the  suspicion  of  its  being  a  mere  dream  or 
fancy.  Again^  or  according  to  the  oldest  manuscripts  and 
latest  editors,  immediately^  the  former  having  probably  been 
introduced,  by  assimilation,  from  11, 10.     (See  above,  on  9,  5.) 

17.  Now  while  Peter  doubted  in  himself  what  this 
nsion  which  he  had  seen  should  mean,  behold,  the  men 
which  were  sent  from  Comehus  had  made  inquiry  for 
Simon's  house,  and  stood  before  the  gate. 


ACTS  10,  17.  18.  19.  397 

ITow  is  the  particle  translated  but  in  v.  14,  and  not  trans- 
lated at  all  in  vs.  16,19.  While,  literally,  as  ;  see  above,  on  1, 10. 
5,  24.  V,  23.  8,  36.  9,  23.  10,  7.  Doubted,  was  perplexed,  or 
at  a  loss,  the  same  verb  that  is  used  above,  2,  12,  and  there  ex- 
plained. (See  also,  on  5,  24.)  Should  mean,  or  more  exactly, 
what  it  was,  or  might  he.  (See  above,  on  5,  24,  where  a  simi 
lar  though  not  the  same  expression  is  employed.)  Behold,  lite- 
rally, and  behold,  a  form  of  expression  foreign  from  our  idiom, 
but  common  in  Hebrew  and  in  Hellenistic  Greek.  (See 
above,  on  1, 10.  8,  27.)  Which  were  sent,  literally,  those  sent, 
or  the  (men)  sent.  From  Cornelius,  not  merely  by  him,  but 
away  from  him,  implying  that  he  remained  at  home.  Had 
made  inquiry,  literally,  having  asked  ov  inquired.  (See  above, 
on  1,  6.  5,  27,  where  another  compound  of  the  same  verb  is 
employed.)  Perhaps  the  flill  force  of  the  one  here  used  is, 
having  ascertained  or  found  out  by  inquiry.  Before  the 
gate,  or  at  the  porch  or  vestibule,  the  front  side  of  an  oriental 
house,  through  which  is  the  entrance  to  the  open  court  with- 
m.     (See  below,  on  12, 14.  14, 13.) 

18.  And  called,  and  asked  whether  Simon,  which 
was  surnamed  Peter,  were  lodged  there. 

And  called,  literally,  callbig  or  having  called,  i.  e.  as  some 
explain  it,  having  called  some  one  out  to  them ;  but  the  abso- 
lute sense  of  calling,  i.  e.  raising  the  voice,  shouting,  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  knocking,  rmging,  and  the  like,  gives  an  equally 
good  meaning  and  is  equally  agreeable  to  usage,  while  it 
makes  the  syntax  simpler,  by  assuming  no  grammatical  elhpsis 
of  the  object.  Ashed,  in  the  imperfect  tense,  were  asking,  at 
that  very  moment.  The  Greek  verb  is  not  the  same  with  that 
in  the  preceding  verse,  but  one  employed  above  in  4,  7,  and 
below  in  v.  29.  21,  33.  23,  19.  20.  23,  34.  The  form  of  the 
interrogation  is  the  same  as  in  1,  6,  and  gives  the  very  words 
of  the  inquirers,  (tell  us)  if  Simon,  the  (one)  sur named  Peter., 
lodges  (or  is  lodged)  here.     (See  above,  on  v.  6.) 

19.  While  Peter  thought  on  the  vision,  the  Spirit 
said  unto  him,  Behold,  three  men  seek  thee. 

Peter  pondering  (revolvmg,  or  turning  it  over  in  his  mind^ 
which  last  is  the  etymological  import  of  the  Greek  verb)  about 
(concerning,  as  to)  the  vision  (the  extraordinary  sig]]t  which 


398  ACTS  10,  19.  20.21. 

he  had  just  seen),  the  Spirit  (i.  e.  the  Divine  or  Holy  Spirit, 
see  above,  on  8,  29)  saitl  to  him^  Behold  (or  lo^  implying 
something  unexpected  and  surprising,  see  above,  on  1,  10.  2, 
7.  5,  9.  25.  28.  7,  56.  8,  27.  36.  9, 10.  11),  three  me?i  are  seeking 
(asking  or  inquiring  for)  thee.  This  coincidence  of  time,  be- 
tween Peter's  anxious  meditations  and  the  inquiries  of  the 
men  from  Cesarea,  brings  the  two  parts  of  the  providential 
scheme  into  conjunction  and  co-operation. 

20.  Arise  therefore,  and  get  thee  down,  and  go 
with  them,  doubting  nothing  ;  for  I  have  sent  them. 

JBut  arise  (not  therefore,  which  is  never  so  expressed  in 
Greek),  i.  e.  while  they  are  seeking  thee,  do  thou,  on  thy  part, 
stand  up  (from  thy  sitting  or  recumbent  posture ;  or  arouse 
thyself,  address  thyself  to  action,  see  above,  on  v.  13),  and  go 
down  (of  which  get  thee  doion  is  an  old  English  equivalent), 
and  depart  (set  off  or  journey,  see  above,  on  9,  3.  11.  15.  31) 
with  them,  doubting  nothing,  i.  e.  as  to  nothing,  asking  neither 
who  nor  what  they  are.  The  Greek  verb,  in  its  active  form, 
means  first  to  separate  or  sever ;  then  to  distinguish  or  dis- 
criminate ;  and  then  to  determine  or  decide.  (See  belew,  on 
15,  9,  and  compare  1  Cor.  4,  7.  Matt.  16,  3.  1  Cor.  11,  29.  31. 
14,  29.)  The  middle  means  to  differ,  either  with  others,  i.  e. 
\o  dispute,  or  with  one's  self,  i.  e.  to  hesitate  and  waver.  (See 
below,  on  11,  2,  and  compare  Jude  9  with  Matt.  21,  21.  Mark 
11,23.  Rom.  4,20.  14,23.  James  1,6.  2,4.)  Either  the 
second  or  the  last  of  these  is  here  appropriate — '  not  at  all 
hesitating  so  to  do ' — or,  '  not  distinguishing  without  a  dif- 
ference, making  no  gratuitous,  invidious  distinction  between 
Jew  and  Gentile.'  The  latter  seems  entitled  to  the  preference, 
as  involving  an  allusion  to  the  heavenly  lesson  he  had  just  re- 
ceived. For  I  have  sent  them,  not  immediately,  but  through 
the  Angel  (v.  6)  and  Cornelius  (v.  8.) 

21.  Then  Peter  went  down  to  the  men  which  were 
sent  unto  him  from  Cornehus,  and  sa  d,  Behold,  I  am 
he  whom  ye  seek  \  what  is  the  cause  wherefore  ye  are 
come? 

Then  (and,  but,  or  so)  Peter  descending  (going  down 
stairs  from  the  flat  roof  where  he  saw  the  vision)  to  the  men 


ACTS   10,  21.  22.  899 

(still  standing  in  the  porch  or  at  the  front  door),  said^  Beholdy 
(i.  e.  see  me,  here  I  am,  as  in  9,  10),  Z  mn  he  whom  ye  seek 
(or  after  whom  ye  are  inquiring,  compare  John  18,  4-8.) 
What  (is)  the  cause  (reason  or  occasion)  wherefore  (i.  e.  for 
or  on  account  of  which)  ye  are  coine^  (or  more  exactly,  ye 
are  present,  ye  are  here.)  Peter,  as  Chrysostom  observes, 
shows  that  he  had  no  thought  of  concealing  himself  from  them, 
by  first  making  himself  known  and  then  inquirmg  why  they 
sought  him.  It  is  characteristic  of  the  man  and  the  apostle 
that  he  aflects  no  knowledge  which  he  did  not  possess,  and 
notmthstanding  the  two  divine  communications  which  had 
just  been  made  to  him,  aclmowledges  his  ignorance  of  what 
had  not  been  thus  revealed.  The  words,  sent  from  Cornelms^ 
are  wanting  in  the  oldest  manuscripts  and  versions,  and  sup- 
posed by  modern  critics  to  have  been  inserted  from  a  lection- 
ary  or  collection  of  lessons  to  be  used  in  public  worship,  into 
which  they  had  been  introduced  to  make  the  narrative  intel- 
ligible and  complete. 

22.  And  they  said,  Cornelius  the  centurion,  a  just 
man,  and  one  that  feareth  God,  and  of  good  report 
among  all  the  nation  of  the  Jews,  was  warned  from 
God  by  a  holy  angel  to  send  for  thee  into  his  house, 
and  to  hear  words  of  thee. 

The  centurion  should  be  a  centurion^  as  in  Greek,  referring 
to  a  person  not  yet  known  to  Peter,  but  intended  to  be  made 
known  by  this  very  description.  The  definite  form  is  the  less 
appropriate,  as  there  were  many  Roman  officers  of  this  rank 
in  the  Holy  Land.  (See  below,  on  21,  32.  22,  25.  23,  17.  23. 
24,  23.  27,  1,  and  compare  Matt.  8,  5.  27,  54.  Mark  15,  44.) 
For  devout  or  pious  in  v.  2,  we  have  here  the  more  generic 
term,  just  or  righteous  (see  above,  on  3,  14.  4,  19.  7,  52.) 
Fearing  God^  literally,  the  God^  i.  e.  the  true  God,  or  the  God 
of  Israel  (see  above,  on  v.  2.)  Of  good  report  among ^  or 
more  exactly,  testified  (attested,  certified,  to  be  such  as  they 
had  just  described  him,  not  only  by  his  countrymen  and 
fellow  Gentiles,  but)  hy  all  the  nation  (or  the  whole  nation) 
of  the  Jews,  a  natural  hyperbole  denotmg  all  the  Jews  of 
Cesarea,  or  more  indefinitely,  Jews  in  general,  as  distinguished 
from  the  Gentiles.  War7ied  from  God,  the  same  verb  that  ia 
used  in  Matt.  2, 12.  22.  Heb.  8,  5.  11,  7.  12,  25,  and  originally 


400  ACTS  10,  22.  23. 

meaning  to  transact  bnsiness,  more  particularly  money-matters^ 
then,  to  negociate  or  confer  on  state  affairs  ;  and  then,  to  give 
an  answer  after  such  negociation,  in  which  last  sense  it  is  used 
by  Demosthenes  and  Xenophon.  By  a  still  further  elevation 
and  restriction  of  the  meaning,  it  is  applied  to  the  responses 
of  the  oracles,  and  in  the  Scriptures  to  divine  communications, 
more  especially  those  made  to  individuals.  The  sense  of  warn- 
ing is  required  by  the  context  in  Matthew  and  Hebrews  ;  but 
in  this  place  it  may  either  have  the  general  sense  of  a  divine 
communication  or  mstruction,  or  the  more  specific  one  of  a 
divine  response,  i.  e.  to  the  prayers  of  Cornelius  for  diviue  di- 
rection. (See  above,  on  v.  2,  and  for  a  very  different  use  of 
the  same  verb,  below,  on  11,  26.)  From  God  is  supphed  by 
the  translators  as  really  included  in  the  meaning  of  the  verb. 
By  a  holy  (i.  e.  an  unfallen)  angel^  as  distinguished  from  "  the 
devil  and  his  angels"  (Matt.  25,  41.  2  Cor.  11,  14.  12,  7.  Rev. 
12,  19.)  To  seyidfor  thee^  not  to  come  in  person,  which  may 
be  stated  as  a  reason  for  the  absence  of  Cornelius.  A7id  to 
hear  words  of  thee  (i.  e.  from  thee,  spoken  by  thee),  an  addi- 
tion to  the  narrative  in  v.  6,  the  last  clause  in  the  common 
text  of  that  verse  being  omitted  by  the  oldest  manuscripts 
and  latest  critics,  as  an  imauthorized  assimilation  to  9,  6.  (See 
above,  on  9,  5.) 

23.  Then  called  lie  them  in  and  lodged  (them.) 
And  on  the  morrow,  Peter  went  away  with  them,  and 
certain  brethren  from  Joppa  accompanied,  him. 

Then,  or  rather,  therefore,  i.  e.  because  they  came  on  such 
an  errand.  Called  them  (more  exactly,  calling,  or  hamng 
called  them)  in,  which  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  they 
were  stiU  without  and  he  v>^ithin  the  house ;  for  it  may  mean 
inviting  them  (in  whicji  sense  Aristophanes  employs  the  same 
verb),  not  to  cross  the  threshold  merely,  but  to  take  up  their 
abode  there  for  the  night.  Lodged  them,  or  rather,  e7iter' 
tained  them,  including  all  the  rites  of  hospitality,  which  may 
be  also  meant  in  vs.  6  and  18.  On  the  morroic,  or  the  next 
day  after  their  arrival,  as  the  same  phrase  in  the  ninth  verse 
means  the  day  after  they  left  Cesarea.  We^it  away,  hterally, 
went  out,  i.  e.  from  the  house  and  from  the  city.  Certain 
hrethren,  literally,  some  of  the  brethren,  i.  e.  disciples  or  con- 
verted Jews  (see  below,  ou  v.  45),  whose  names  and  number 
«re  not  given  here,  although  the  latter  is  recorded  in  11,  12 


ACTS  10,  23.  24.  25.  401 

below.  From  Joppa^  not  merely  belonging  to  it,  although 
that  idea  is  of  course  suggested,  but  coming  from  it  upon  this 
occasion.  We  are  not  told  whether  Peter  took  them  with 
him  by  divine  command ;  or  as  a  wise  precaution,  the  utility 
of  which  appears  from  the  next  chapter  (see  below,  on  11,  12)  ; 
or  merely  as  companions  and  friends,  their  use  as  witnesses 
then  forming  no  part  of  his  own  plan,  though  it  did  of  God's. 
Wiclif  adds  expressly,  that  they  he  (i.  e.  might  be)  witnesses 
to  Peter.  But  their  errand  may  have  been  still  more  impor- 
tant.    (See  below,  on  v.  46.) 

24.  And  the  morrow  after,  tliey  entered  into  Ce- 
sarea ;  and  Cornelius  waited  for  them,  and  had  called 
together  his  kinsmen  and  near  friends. 

The  morrow^  the  next  day  after  leaving  Joppa,  which  was 
thirty  miles  from  Cesarea.  Cornelius  loas  waiting  for  them, 
perhaps  implying  that  they  were  longer  on  the  way  than  he 
expected.  It  may  mean,  however,  nothing  more  than  his 
anxiety  to  meet  with  Peter.  Saving  called  together,  not 
merely  to  do  honour  to  his  visitor,  but  for  their  own  instruc- 
tion, his  kinsmen,  from  which  some  infer  that  Cesarea  was  his 
native  place,  or  at  least  that  he  had  formed  intimate  connec- 
tions in  the  country.  Near  friends,  in  the  older  English  ver- 
sions special  friends,  and  in  Greek  necessary  friends,  which 
may  either  denote  natural  relations,  not  dependent  on  the  will 
of  the  parties,  or  the  closest  intimacy,  making  their  society 
essential  to  his  comfort  or  his  happiness.  The  main  fact  is  the 
same  in  either  case,  to  wit,  that  the  centurion  had  gathered 
his  most  intimate  acquaintances  and  friends,  to  share  in  the 
divine  communication,  which  he  expected  to  receive  through 
Peter.  As  this  would  hardly  have  been  done  without  some 
preparation  or  predisposition  upon  their  part,  it  would  seem  to 
imply  a  previous  work  of  grace  among  these  Gentiles,  leading 
them  to  Christ,  even  before  they  came  in  contact  with  his 
gospel  or  his  ministers. 

25.  And  as  Peter  was  coming  in,  Cornelius  met 
him,  and  fell  down  at  his  feet,  and  worshipped  (him.) 

And  as  it  came  to  p)CLSS.  that  Peter  entered,  i.  e.  just  as 
Peter  entered,  Cornelius,  meeting  him  {diRd)  falling  at  thefeei 
(of  Peter),  worshipped.    Having  been  directed  by  an  Angel 


402  ACTS  ^0,  25.26.  27. 

to  send  for  the  Apostle,  with  a  promise  of  divine  conmrnnica 
tions  from  him,  it  is  not  surprising  that  Cornelius  should  have 
supposed  him  to  be  more  than  a  mere  man,  or  even  a  divine 
person.  His  feelings  were  perhaps  the  same  as  if  he  had  been 
honoured  with  a  visit  from  our  Lord  himself,  while  yet  on 
earth.  How  could  he  be  expected,  without  previous  uistruc- 
tion,  to  distinguish  so  exactly  between  the  Apostle  and  hvi 
Master,  as  both  appeared  in  human  form,  and  both  exerted 
superhuman  power  ?  This  seems  more  natural  and  satisfac- 
tory than  to  suppose  that  this  Roman  soldier  simply  meant  to 
do  obeisance  in  the  oriental  manner,  which  was  not  in  com- 
mon use  among  the  Jews  themselves,  much  less  among  the 
Romans. 

26.  But  Peter  took  him  up,  saying,  Stand  up,  I 
myself  also  am  a  man. 

Took  Mm  up^  literally,  raised  him^  i.  e.  from  his  prostrate 
attitude.  Some  have  understood  Peter's  words  as  meaning, 
'  I  am  a  man,  as  you  are,  although  of  another  nation,  and  I 
claim  no  right  to  such  profound  veneration,  even  from  a  Gen- 
tile.' But  how  can  we  imagine  that  Cornelius,  who  had  long- 
teen  well  acquainted  with  the  Jews,  at  least  in  Cesarea,  could 
be  so  overwhelmed  by  the  appearance  of  another  Jew  from 
Joppa  ?  The  obvious  meaning  of  the  answer  is,  '  I  am  a  mere 
man  like  yourself,  and  therefore  not  an  object  of  religious 
worship.'  (Compare  the  similar  expressions  in  Rev.  22,  9.) 
It  has  been  well  observed  that  Christ  himself  never  disclaimed 
his  title  to  such  honours,  although  often  offered.  (See  Matt. 
8,  2.  9,  18.  14,  33.  15,  25.  20,  20.  28,  9.  lY.  John  9,  38.) 

27.  And  as  he  talked  with  him,  he  went  in,  and 
found  many  that  were  come  together. 

Conversing  with  him^  not  in  the  restricted  modern  sense 
of  talking,  but  in  the  Latin  and  old  Enghsh  one  of  keeping 
company,  associating,  holding  intercourse,  which  is  the  only 
classical  usage  of  the  Greek  verb  in  its  simple  form,  and  in 
the  single  instance  of  the  compound  which  is  cited  in  the  lexi- 
cons. The  sense  of  talking  is  moreover  less  appropriate,  as  it 
implies  that  something  passed  in  conversation  between  Peter 
and  Cornelius  which  is  not  recorded.  This,  though  not  im- 
possible,  would  mar  the  beauty  and  completeness  of  the  narra- 


ACTS   10,  27.  28.  403 

tive,  -vrhicli  seem  at  least  in  part  dependent  on  the  fact  that 
we  have  here,  upon  divine  authority,  just  what  was  said  and 
done  by  all  the  parties  to  this  great  transaction.  The  ensuing 
dialogue  would  lose  much  of  its  interest,  if  preceded  by  an- 
other, of  which  we  know  nothing.  Both  the  context,  there- 
fore, and  Greek  usage  are  in  favour  of  interpreting  the  clause 
to  mean,  that  Peter  entered  with  Cornelius,  showing  by  his 
whole  demeanour,  not  excluding  what  he  said,  that  he  felt  no 
scruple  in  associating  with  him  upon  equal  terms.  The  last 
clause  discloses  the  additional  circumstance,  that  the  friends 
of  Cornelius,  mentioned  in  v.  24,  were  numerous.  It  may 
also  be  implied,  that  Peter  was  surprised  to  find  so  many 
gathered  to  receive  him. 

28.  And  he  said  unto  them,  Ye  know  how  that  it 
is  an  unlawful  (thing)  for  a  man  that  is  a  Jew  to  keep 
company  or  come  unto  one  of  another  nation ;  but 
God  hath  shewed  me  that  I  should  not  call  any  (man) 
common  or  unclean. 

He  appeals  to  their  own  experimental  knowledge  of  the 
hindrances  to  social  iutercourse  between  the  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles any  where,  but  more  particularly  in  Judea.  Ye  Jcnow^ 
or  more  emphatically,  know  well,  know  for  certain,  or  are 
well  aware,  which  is  the  usage  of  this  Greek  verb  in  the 
classics,  although  less  distinctly  marked  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, where  it  frequently  occurs,  especially  in  this  book.  (See 
below,  on  15,  1.  18,  25.  19,  15.  25.  20,  18.  22,  19.  24,  10.  26, 
3.  26.)  How  that  it  is  an  unlawful  thing  is  an  awkward 
version  of  a  very  simj)le  phrase,  hoio  unlawful  it  is,  or  still 
more  simply,  that  it  is  unlawful.  The  Greek  adjective  is  used 
but  twice  in  the  New  Testament,  and  in  both  instances  by 
Peter  (1  Pet.  4,  3.)  According  to  its  etymology  and  classical 
usage,  it  denotes  what  is  contrary  to  ancient  custom  or  pre- 
scription (^e/At?),  rather  than  to  positive  enactment  (vo/xos) ; 
and  this  agrees  exactly  with  the  case  before  us,  where  the  pro- 
hibition does  not  rest  upon  the  letter  of  the  law,  but  either 
on  its  spirit,  as  interpreted  in  later  times,  or  on  some  tradi- 
tional addition  to  it.  A  man,  a  Jew,  i.  e.  a  Jewish  man,  a 
man  who  is  a  Jew.  (See  above,  on  8,  27.)  The  use  of  both 
terms  is  not  pleonastic,  but  equivalent  to  saying  'for  any 
man,  that  is  (or  at  least)  for  any  Jew.'     To  keep  company^ 


404  ACTS  10,  28.  29. 

literally,  to  stick  fast,  to  adhere,  a  figure  for  the  most  familiar, 
Intimate  association.  (See  above,  on  5, 13.  8,29,  and  below, 
on  17,  34.)  Or  (even)  to  approach^  to  come  to  (i.  e.  into  the 
society  of)  any  alien,  foreigner,  here  pnt,  perhaps  through 
courtesy,  for  a  Gentile,  an  alien  both  in  race  and  religion. 
(Compare  the  Septuagint  version  of  Isai.  2,  6.  61,  5.)  Although 
the  terms  immediately  preceding  this  are  properly  expressive 
of  association  or  companionship  in  general,  the  whole  connec- 
i^ion  gives  them  a  specific  appHcation  to  domestic  intercourse, 
and  more  especially  to  that  of  the  table,  or  participation  in  the 
same  food.  This  has  always  been  avoided  by  the  Jews,  even 
to  the  present  time,  as  necessarily  endangering  the  violation 
of  their  dietetic  laws,  at  least  when  they  are  the  recipients 
and  not  the  givers  of  the  entertainment.  This  practice,  grow- 
ing out  of  the  provisions  of  the  law  respecting  clean  and  un- 
clean meats,  was  so  connected  with  the  common  intercourse 
and  courtesies  of  life,  that  Peter's  hearers  upon  this  occasiour 
must  have  been  all  famihar  with  it,  and  could  therefore  imder- 
stand  his  meaning,  even  when  conveyed  in  general  expressions. 
This  removes  the  objection  that  the  Jews  had  never  practised 
such  entire  seclusion  from  the  Gentiles  as  the  strict  interpre- 
tation of  the  words  would  naturally  indicate.  Some  conjec- 
ture not  improbably  that  these  words  were  immediately  occa- 
sioned by  the  sight  of  the  provision  which  Cornelius  had 
made  for  the  refreshment  of  his  visitors.  £ut,  literally,  and 
(not  8e  but  /cat),  '  Ye  know  that,  and  I  know  this,  for  God, 
etc'  Shewed  me,  not  merely  told  or  taught  me,  but  caused 
me  to  see  it,  in  the  strictest  sense,  i.  e.  revealed  it  by  a  vision. 
That  I  should  not  call,  a  needless  deviation  from  the  form 
of  the  origuial,  which  is,  no  man  commo7i  or  uncUan  to  cally 
except  that  man  m  Greek  emphatically  ends  the  sentence. 
As  if  he  had  said,  '  no  one  so  to  call,  who  is  a  man,  a  human 
being,  a  partaker  of  our  common  nature.' 

29.  Therefore  came  I  (unto  you)  without  gainsaying, 
as  soon  as  I  was  sent  for.  I  ask  therefore  for  what  in- 
tent ye  have  sent  for  me  ? 

For  which  (reason),  i.  e.  because  he  had  received  this  reve- 
lation in  correction  of  his  error,  I  came  (hither,  or  to  yon,  is 
implied,  but  not  expressed  in  the  original)  loithoict  gainsay- 
ing  (contradiction  or  refusal.)  This  last  idea  is  expressed  in 
Greek  by  one  word,  a  compounded  adverb,  similar  in  form 


ACTS  10,  29.  30.  405 

and  usage  to  our  imdeniahly^  but  having  here  the  active  sense 
of  undenyi7igly.  The  statement  of  this  reason  for  his  prompt 
compliance  shows  that  the  true  meaning  of  his  vision  had  not 
been  withheld  from  Peter  till  he  came  to  Cesarea,  but  was 
probably  imparted  to  him,  in  relief  of  his  solicitous  perplexity, 
just  when  he  heard  the  voice  of  the  three  messengers  inquir- 
ing for  him.  (See  above,  on  vs.  17.  18.)  The  communication 
of  the  Spirit  then  made,  as  to  the  arrival  and  the  errand  of 
the  meii  from  Cesarea,  was  most  probably  accompanied  by  a 
disclosure,  perhaps  less  explicit,  but  not  less  convincing,  of  the 
truth  intended  to  be  taught  by  the  symbolical  spectacle,  which 
he  had  just  seen,  and  upon  which  he  was  still  musing.  As 
soon  as  Iioas  sent  for  ^  though  substantially  correct,  is  stronger 
than  the  Greek,  which  is  a  simple  passive  particij^le,  meaning 
having  been  (or  being)  sent  for.  I  ask  then^  or  therefore^ 
not  the  particle  used  in  the  first  clause,  but  that  employed 
above  in  v.  23.  Having  given  the  recent  revelation  as  a  rea- 
son for  his  coming  without  hesitation  or  delay,  he  now  gives 
this  promptness  as  a  reason  for  demanding  further  information, 
or  rather  a  formal  and  authoritative  statement  of  what  he 
must  have  heard  already  from  the  messengers.  For  what 
word  (^oy<i>),  not  thing  or  matter  (see  above,  on  8,  21),  but 
cause  or  reason  (see  below,  on  18,  14,  and  compare  Matt. 
5,  32.)  This  use  of  the  Greek  word  is  not  a  Hebraism,  being 
found  in  Herodotus,  Xenophon,  and  Plato.  Ye  sent  for  me^ 
the  active  form  of  the  same  verb,  of  which  we  have  the 
passive  participle  in  the  first  clause.  (See  above,  on  vs.  5,  22, 
and  below,  on  11, 13.  24,  24.  26.  25,  3.) 

30.  And  Cornelius  said,  Four  days  ago  I  was  fasting 
until  this  hour ;  and  at  the  ninth  hour  I  prayed  in  my 
house,  and  behold,  a  man  stood  before  me  in  bright 
clothing  — 

Cornelius  now  repeats  the  narrative  contained  in  vs.  3-6, 
with  a  few  unimportant  variations.  Four  days  ago^  literally, 
from  the  fourth  day,  which  has  been  variously  understood, 
as  meaning  that  Cornelius  had  been  fasting  four  days  when  he 
saw  the  vision ;  or  that  he  had  been  fasting  four  days  when 
these  words  were  spoken ;  or  that  he  had  been  fasting  from 
the  morning  till  the  ninth  hour  of  the  fourth  day  previous. 
N'o  one  of  these  ideas  is  explicitly  conveyed  by  the  expression, 


406  ACTS  10,  30.  31.  32. 

which  is  certainly  anomalous  ;  but  that  adopted  by  the  Eng 
lish  version  is  in  itself  more  natural  than  either  of  the  others. 
The  essential  meaning,  upon  any  of  these  suppositions,  is  the 
same,  to  wit,  that  the  centurion's  prayers  were  accompanied 
by  fiisting,  which  not  only  proved  the  earnestness  of  his  de- 
votion, but  rendered  him  less  liable  to  be  deceived  by  false 
appearances  or  mere  imaginations.  It  might  also  serve  to 
show  his  conformity  to  Jewish  usages,  not  only  in  respect  to 
listing,  but  to  stated  hours  of  prayer.  (See  above,  on  2,  15. 
3,  1.  5,  7.  10,  9.)  This  was  important  only  as  a  proof  of  the 
sincerity  with  which  he  had  abandoned  heathenism  and  begun 
to  seek  the  one  true  God.  In  ray  {oicn)  house^  in  retu-ement, 
at  home,  as  distinguished  from  all  public  places  of  resort,  and 
showing  that  the  prayers  and  fasting  mentioned  were  of  the 
private  and  unostentatious  kind  described  and  recommended 
by  our  Saviour  (Matt.  6,  5.  6.  16.  17.)  The  centurion's  account 
of  the  angelic  visitation  is  entirely  consistent  ^vith  the  one  in 
V.  3,  although  somewhat  different  in  form.  What  Luke  calls 
an  angel,  Cornelius  caUs  a  man,  because  in  human  form, 
whether  merely  apparent,  or  belonging  to  a  real  body,  worn 
for  the  occasion  and  then  laid  aside,  perhaps  dissolved.  An 
additional  circumstance  here  mentioned  is  the  bright,  effulgent 
dress,  probably  the  same  with  the  white  rajment  of  the  two 
men  upon  Olivet  (see  above,  on  1,  10.)  This  may  be  regarded 
in  both  cases  as  an  emanation  or  reflection  of  the  divine  glory 
(see  above,  on  7,  2),  with  which  these  messengers  from  heaven 
were  invested,  as  a  proof  of  their  legation  and  a  source  of 
awe  to  the  beholders. 

31.  32.  And  said,  Cornelius,  thy  prayer  is  heard, 
and  thine  ahns  are  had  in  remembrance  in  the  sight 
of  God.  Send  therefore  to  Joppa,  and  call  hither 
Simon,  whose  surname  is  Peter  :  he  is  lodged  in  the 
house  of  (one)  Simon  a  tanner,  by  the  sea-side ;  who, 
when  he  cometh,  shall  speak  unto  thee. 

Omitting  the  preliminary  statement  in  v.  3,  he  gives  the 
substance  of  the  Angel's  words  as  there  recorded,  with 
some  freedom  as  to  mere  form  and  expression.  While  the 
simple  phrase,  Aai-e  heen  rememhered^  takes  the  place  of  the 
more  figurative  one  there  employed,  the  prayers  and  alms  are 
here  diWded  and  construed  each  with  a  distinct  verb.    The 


ACTS   10,  32.  33.  40Y 

singular  form  (prayer)  may  have  immediate  reference  to  his 
prayer  on  that  particular  occasion,  which  was  no  doubt  for 
divine  illumination  and  a  clearer  knowledge  of  the  true  reh- 
gion.  It  may  also,  however,  be  referred,  as  a  collective,  to 
the  whole  series  of  his  previous  petitions,  and  as  therefore 
equivalent  to  the  plural  (prayers)  m  v.  4.  In  the  sight  of  God 
is  perfectly  identical  in  Greek  with  before  God  in  the  fourth 
verse.  Then  or  therefore  answers  to  the  and  now  of  the 
fifth  verse,  and  expresses  still  more  strongly  the  connection 
between  God's  purposes  of  mercy  towards  Comehus  and  the 
revelations  to  be  made  by  Peter.  Send  is  here  used  abso- 
lutely without  men^  which  is  sufficiently  imphed.  Call  hither^ 
call  away,  or  call  back,  are  the  usual  senses  of  the  Greek  verb, 
a  different  one  from  that  in  v.  5,  which  properly  means  send 
for.  In  the  House  of  Sirnon^  HteraUy,  in  a  house  (to  wit, 
that)  of  Sirno7i,  takes  the  place  of  the  less  definite  expres- 
sion icith  one  (or  a  certain)  Simon^  m  the  sixth  verse.  When 
he  cometh,  hterally,  being  come,  arrived,  or  being  near  you, 
with  you  (see  above,  on  5,  21.)  Wiff  speak  (or  talk)  to  thee^ 
not  iu  general  merely,  but  with  special  reference  to  the  ques- 
tions which  then  occupied  his  mind,  as  to  the  worship  of  the 
true  God  and  the  method  of  salvation. 

33.  Immediately  therefore  I  sent  to  thee ;  and  thou 
hast  well  done  that  thou  art  come.  Xow  therefore  are 
we  all  here  present  before  God,  to  hear  all  things  that 
are  commanded  thee  of  God. 

Immediately^  or  as  the  Greek  word  etymologically  signifies, 
from  that  same  (moment.)  (See  below,  on  11, 11.  21,  32.  23, 
30,  and  compare  Mark  6,  25.  Phil.  2,  23.)  Then^  or  therefore^ 
as  iu  V.  32,  i.  e.  because  of  this  divine  command  and  promise. 
And  thou,  or  thou  too  ((r6  re),  hast  been  prompt  as  well  as  L 
(See  above,  on  1,  1.  S,  13.  5,  14.  8,  3S.  9. 15.)  ^7^^  tctU 
done^  didst  well,  i  e.  right,  or  as  in  duty  bound,  but  with  an 
implied  acknowledgment  of  Idndness  also,  giving  to  these 
words  a  pleasing  tone  of  courtesy  and  friendliness,  as  well  as 
of  solemnity  and  reverence.  uVbic  tlien  (or  therefore)^  i.  e.  after 
aU  that  we  have  both  experienced,  and  in  these  strange 
and  solemn  circumstances.  We  aU  (or  aU  of  us)  are  present 
before  God,  i.  e.  under  his  omniscient  eye  and  providential 
guidance,  and  with  our  thoughts  and  expectations  fixed  upon 


408  ACTS  10,  33.34. 

him,  to  hear  all  the  {things)^  without  exception  or  invidious 
distinction,  ordered  (or  commanded)  thee  by  God.  It  is  remark- 
able how  clearly  and  explicitly  Cornelius,  t^\dce  in  this  short 
sentence,  distinguishes  the  man  whom  he  at  first  had  wor- 
shipped (v.  25),  and  to  whom  he  still  looked  up  as  an  inspired 
instructor,  from  the  divine  authority  by  which  he  was  com- 
missioned. It  was  not  before  Peter  (although  several  of  the 
oldest  manuscripts  have  thee  instead  of  God)  that  they  con- 
sidered themselves  now  assembled,  but  before  his  Master  ;  it 
was  not  Peter's  own  views  and  opinions  that  they  waited  and 
desired  to  hear,  but  liis  inspired  mstructions  and  communica- 
tions, whatever  they  might  prove  to  be,  even  all  the  things 
enjoined  upon  him,  or  entrusted  to  him,  as  a  messenger  from 
God.  His  claim  to  be  such  does  not  seem  to  have  been  ques- 
tioned by  Cornelius  for  a  moment,  because  amply  attested  by 
the  angelic  message  to  himself.  Both  these  divine  communi- 
cations carried  with  them  their  own  evidence,  excluding  all 
doubt  as  to  their  infallible  authority,  on  the  part  of  those  to 
whom  they  were  addressed. 

34.  Then  Peter  opened  (his)  mouth,  and  said,  Of  a 
truth  I  perceive  that  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons  — ■ 

Opening  his  mouth  suggests  the  idea  of  a  regular  dis- 
course, as  distinguished  from  a  simple  conversation.  (See 
above,  on  8,  35.)  Of  a  truths  really,  certainly,  qualifies  the 
proposition,  rather  than  the  preface  or  preamble,  to  which  it 
is  immediately  attached.  (See  above,  on  4,  27.)  I  perceive. 
or  rather,  seize,  grasp,  apprehend,  comprehend,  something  un- 
known or  imperfectly  understood  before.  (See  above,  on  4, 
13,  and  below,  on  25,  25.)  Hespecter  of  persons^  is  a  single 
word  in  Greek,  which,  with  the  cognate  forms,  respect  of  per- 
S071S,  and  to  respect  persons^  is  of  Hebrew  origin,  and  relates 
to  judicial  partiality,  or  the  preference  of  one  party  to  another, 
upon  other  grounds  than  those  of  right  and  justice.  The 
same  thing  is  repeatedly  denied  of  God  in  Scripture  (Deut. 
10,  17.  2  Sam.  14,  14.  2  Chron.  19,  7.  1  Pet.  1,  17),  and 
prohibited  to  man  (Lev.  19,  15.  Deut.  1,  17.  16,  19.  James  2, 
1.  9.)  What  is  here  denied  is  not  a  sovereign  and  discrimi- 
nating choice,  but  one  founded  on  mere  national  distinctions. 
'  I  now  at  length  understand  that  although  God  bestows  his 
favours  as  he  will,  he  does  not  mean  to  limit  them  hereafter, 
as  of  old,  to  any  one  race  or  people.' 


ACTS  10,  35.  36.  37.  409 

35.  But  in  every  nation  he  that  feareth  him,  and 
worketh  righteousness,  is  accepted  with  him. 

This  verse  has  sometimes  been  abused,  to  prove  that  the 
Knowledge  of  the  Gospel  is  not  necessary  to  tlie  salvation  of 
the  heathen ;  whereas  it  merely  teaches  that  this  knowledge 
is  attainable  by  them,  as  well  as  others.  The  essential  mean- 
ing is  that  whatever  is  acceptable  to  God  in  one  race  is  ac- 
ceptable in  any  other.  Feareth  God  and  worketh  righteous- 
ness are  not  meritorious  conditions  or  prerequisites  to  the  expe- 
rience of  divine  grace,  but  its  fruits  and  evidences.  He  who 
possesses  and  exhibits  these  may  know  that  God  accej^ts  him, 
whatever  his  descent  or  country,  Peter  is  not  expounding 
the  divine  mode  of  dealing  with  the  heathen,  but  confessing 
and  renouncing  his  own  error  in  regarding  the  precedence  of 
his  own  race  as  perpetual.  As  if  he  had  said,  '  Now  I  see 
that  we  have  no  right  to  require  more  than  God  himself;  if 
he  is  satisfied  with  piety  and  good  works  in  a  Gentile,  we  are 
bound  to  be  contented  with  the  same.' 


36.  The  word  which  (God)  sent  unto  the  children 
of  Israel,  preaching  peace  by  Jesus  Christ — he  is  Lord 
of  all  — 

The  construction  of  the  first  clause  is  exceedingly  obscure 
and  has  been  variously  explained.  The  icord  is  an  accusative 
in  Greek  and  may  be  governed  either  by  a  preposition  under- 
stood, {as  to)  the  word  which  God  sent ;  or  by  the  preceding 
verb,  I  (now)  perceive  (or  apprehend)  the  viiordichich  God  sent ; 
or  by  the  following  verb,  the  word  lohich  God  sent  to  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel  ye  know.  The  first,  if  not  the  most  grammati- 
cally regular,  is  much  the  simplest ;  but  the  general  sense  re- 
mains the  same,  on  any  of  these  suppositions,  and  may  thus  be 
paraphrased.  '  As  to  the  word  or  doctrine  of  salvation  (13,  26), 
which  God  has  sent  in  the  first  instance  to  his  ancient  people, 
its  joyful  news  of  peace  and  reconciliation  cannot  be  designed 
for  them  alone,  since  Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  it  is  pro- 
claimed, is  Lord  of  .all  men,  not  of  the  Jews  only.'  (Compare 
Rom.  3,  29.  10, 12.) 

37.  That  word  (I  say)  ye  know,  which  was  pub- 

VOL.  I. — 18 


410  ACTS  10,  37.38. 

lished  throughout  all  Judea,  and  began  from  Galilee, 
after  the  baptism  which  John  preached  — 

'  Ye  know  yourselves  the  word  of  which  I  speak,  the  one 
that  has  become  (known)  throughout  all  Judea.'  Word 
(prjfjia)  may  be  simply  synonymous  with  word  (Xdyov)  in  v.  36, 
or  may  be  meant  to  vary  the  expression,  so  as  to  render  it  in- 
telligible to  the  Gentile  hearers.  As  if  he  had  said,  '  by  Avord 
I  mean  the  new  religion  of  which  you  must  have  heard  as 
something  talked  of  or  rei3orted  throughout  all  Judea.'  To 
the  commencement  of  this  process  he  assigns  two  limits,  tem- 
poral and  local.  It  began  in  Galilee  (see  Luke  23,  49),  and 
folloAved  the  ministry  of  John,  here  called  the  baptism  which 
he  preached  (see  above,  on  1,  22.)  Both  these  facts  are  spoken 
of,  as  well  known  to  the  hearers,  who  indeed  could  hardly  faD 
to  know  them,  living  as  they  did  at  the  seat  of  Roman  power 
in  Judea. 

38.  How  God  anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  with  power,  who  went  about  doing 
good,  and  healing  all  that  were  oppressed  of  the  devil ; 
for  God  was  with  him. 

(Ye  Jcnow)  Jesus  the  (mem)  from  Nazareth,  koto  God 
anointed  Mm.  Even  in  addressing  Gentiles,  he  employs  pe- 
culiar Jewish  forms  of  speech,  but  such  as  must  have  been  fa- 
miliar to  them,  from  their  intercourse  with  Jews,  and  from 
attendance  at  the  synagogues.  In  describing  the  great  subject 
of  the  Gospel,  Pet«r  uses  the  popular  description  of  our  Lord, 
derisive  in  its  origm,  but  now  become  a  title  of  honour.  (See 
above,  on  2,  22.)  Anointed  him.,  endowed  him  with  extraor- 
dinary spiritual  gifts  for  the  performance  of  his  mediatorial 
functions,  and  thus  consecrated  him  to  his  great  offices  as  the 
Messiah.  With  the  Holy  Ghost  and  power.,  i.  e.  with  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  with  power  as  a  necessary  conse- 
quence of  this  endowment.  (See  above,  on  1,  8,  and  compare 
the  combmations  in  6,3.  11,24.  13,52.  John  4,23.  6,63. 
1  Pet.  4,  14.)  The  extraordinary  powers  wliich  our  Lord  pos- 
essed,  are  here  referred  to  as  notorious  to  all  residing  in  the 
ountry,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles.  Another  fact,  assumed  as 
equally  familiar,  is  the  use  which  he  made  of  these  divine  en- 
dowments.    He  did  not  use  them  for  his  own  advantage,  or  in 


ACTS   10,  38.  39.  411 

vengeance  on  his  enemies.  He  went  about^  literally,  went 
through  (life),  or  through  (the  country),  or  among  (the  people), 
doing  good^  not  merely  doing  right,  but  doing  favours,  show- 
ing mercy.  One  particular  form  of  his  beneficence  is  specified, 
as  that  most  universally  appreciated,  and  most  likely  to  be 
heard  of  at  a  distance.  Healing  all  those  oppressed,  overmas- 
tered, tyrannically  treated,  by  the  Devil.  This  name,  which 
occurs  but  twice  in  Acts  (see  below,  on  13,  10),  originally 
means  a  slanderer  or  false  accuser,  and  is  specially  applied  to 
Satan,  as  the  great  adversary  of  our  race.  (See  above,  on  5, 
3,  and  below,  on  6,  18.)  The  reference  here  may  be  specially, 
but  not  exclusively,  to  demoniacal  possession,  since  disease  in 
general  is  elsewhere  ascribed  to  Satanic  influence  (see  Luke 
13,  16.)  For  God  was  icith  him,  both  in  a  providential  sense, 
appropriate  to  any  prophet  or  apostle,  and  in  a  personal  es- 
sential sense,  ap23ropriate  to  Christ  alone.  The  same  double 
sense  belongs  to  the  Hebrew  name  Immanuel  or  God  loith  us 
(Isai.  7,  14.  Matt.  1,  24.)  This  ambiguous  expression  was  pe- 
culiarly adapted  to  the  audience  whom  Peter  was  addressmg, 
none  of  whom  would  have  denied  that  God  was  with  Jesus  in 
the  lower  sense,  and  all  of  whom  were  to  be  taught  that  God 
was  with  him  in  the  higher. 

39.  And  we  are  wdtnesses  of  all  things  which  he 
did,  both  in  the  land  of  the  Jews,  and  in  Jerusalem ; 
whom  they  slew  and  hanged  on  a  tree  : 

To  Cornelius  and  his  fellows  these  things  were  known  only 
by  report ;  but  Peter  and  the  body  of  Apostles  wliich  he  repre^ 
sented  were  eye-witnesses,  ordained  by  Christ  himself  to  pub- 
lish and  attest  them.  All  things  lohich  he  did,  i.  e.  in  public 
or  oflicially  (see  above,  on  1,  1.)  These  are  divided  locally 
into  two  classes,  what  he  did  in  Jerusalem,  and  what  he  did  in 
the  rest  of  Judea,  which  may  here  denote  either  the  province 
or  the  whole  country.  (See  above,  on  1,  8.)  The  last  clause 
should  have  been  connected,  in  the  division  of  the  verses,  with 
the  next,  as  both  together  present  the  favourite  contrast  be- 
tween Christ's  treatment  at  the  hands  of  God  and  man.  (See 
above,  on  2,  23.  24.  3,  15.  4,  10.  5,  30.) 

40.  Him  God  raised  up  the  third  day,  and  shewed 
him  openly  — 


412  ACTS   10,  40,41. 

The  first  clause  belongs  to  the  antithesis  already  men* 
tioned,  and  might  therefore  have  been  added  to  the  foregoing 
verse,  while  the  last  clause  is  connected  in  the  closest  manner 
with  what  follows ;  so  that  this  verse  might  have  been  dis- 
pensed with,  in  the  conventional  division  of  the  text.  Ilim^ 
literally,  this  (one),  or  (this  man.)  liaised  up,  literally, 
awakened  (i.  e.  from  the  sleep  of  death,  see  above,  on  7,  GO), 
or  aroused  (from  its  inaction),  which  are  the  senses  of  this 
Greek  verb  in  the  classics.  (See  above,  on  3, 15.  4,  10.  5,  30.) 
Shewed  him  openly  is  not  a  version  but  a  paraphrase.  The 
strict  translation  is,  and  gave  him  ( i.  e.  caused  or  suffered 
him)  to  he  (or  to  become)  visible  (apparent,  manifest.)  This 
last  word  occurs  only  here  and  in  Rom.  10,  20.  The  obvious 
meaning  of  the  clause  is,  that  our  Saviour  was  not  merely  said 
to  have  arisen  from  the  dead,  but  was  distinctly  seen  alive  by 
others. 

41.  Not  to  all  tlie  people,  but  unto  witnesses  chosen 
before  of  God,  (even)  to  us,  who  did  eat  and  drink  with 
him  after  he  rose  from  the  dead. 

The  Apostle  here  anticipates  and  answers  an  objection, 
which  has  often  since  been  made  to  the  New  Testament  ac- 
count of  Christ's  resurrection,  namely,  that  he  did  not  publicly 
appear  when  risen,  but  was  said  to  have  been  seen  only  by  the 
narrow  circle  of  his  friends  and  followers.  This  was  sufiicient 
to  establish  the  fact,  which  most  men  must  believe,  after  all, 
upon  the  testimony  of  a  few.  It  was  also  well  adapted  to  ex- 
ercise the  faith  of  true  behevers  who  were  not  eye-witnesses, 
and  more  in  keeping  with  the  dignity  and  glory  of  the  risen 
Saviour,  which  would  now  have  been  degraded  by  the  same 
promiscuous  and  unreserved  association  with  men,  that  was 
necessary  to  his  previous  ministry.  The  very  fact  that  no  such 
public  recognition  of  his  person  is  recorded,  though  at  first 
it  might  have  seemed  to  detract  from  the  evidence  of  his 
resurrection,  now  serves  to  enhance  it,  by  showing  how 
free  the  witnesses  of  this  event  were  from  a  disposition  to 
exaggerate,  or  make  their  case  stronger  than  it  was  in 
fact.  N'ot  to  all  the  people,  i,  e.  to  the  Jews,  as  the  word 
usually  means  in  this  book  (see  above,  on  2,  47.  3,  9.  4,  2. 
5,  20.  6,  12.  7,  17.  10,  2.)  The  oftice  of  attestmg  this  event 
had  been  entrusted  to  a  select  few,  who  neither  could  bo 
deceived  nor  had  a  motive  for  deceiving  others ;  who  were 


ACTS  10,  41.42.  413 

not  self-constituted  or  selected  after  the  event,  but  previously 
chosen  by  divine  authority ;  whose  knowledge  of  the  fact 
was  not  obtained  by  hearsay,  or  at  second  hand,  or  founded 
on  a  few  short  distant  glimpses,  but  derived  from  intimate 
although  not  constant  intercourse  with  Christ  in  j^rivate 
after  his  resurrection.  Chosen  before^  a  compound  verb  in 
Greek,  used  in  the  same  sense  by  Demosthenes  and  Plato. 
The  primitive  or  simple  verb  means  to  vote  by  stretching  out 
or  lifting  up  the  hand,  and  then  more  generally  to  elect.  This 
verb  and  the  one  employed  in  1,  17,  are  combined  by  Plato 
to  express  the  two  modes  of  appointment  to  office,  by  vote 
and  by  lot.  Before^  i.  e.  before  the  resurrection,  the  event  to 
be  attested.  {£jve7i)  to  us,  his  immediate  folloAvers,  in  whose 
name  I  now  address  you.  Ate  and  dranli,  i.  e.  partook  of  the 
same  meals,  or,  as  we  should  say,  sat  at  the  same  table.  The 
words  are  not  to  be  severally  understood  but  jointly,  as  de- 
noting the  most  intimate  companionship,  and  therefore  the 
most  perfect  opportunity  of  knowing  or  discovering  the  truth. 
There  is  no  difficulty,  therefore,  arismg  from,  the  fact  that 
his  drinking  with  them  is  not  separately  mentioned  (Luke 
24,  30.  43.  John  21,  13),  much  less  any  reason  for  connecting 
Ihe  last  words  {cifter  his  rising  from  the  dead)  with  the  pre- 
ceding verse,  and  reading  all  that  intervenes  as  a  parenthesis. 
We  who  ate  and  drank  with  him  is  not  a  natural  description 
of  his  followers  and  friends  in  general ;  whereas  their  eating 
and  drinking  with  him  after  his  resurrection  made  them  com- 
petent witnesses  to  that  event. 

42.  And  he  commanded  us  to  preach  unto  the 
people,  and  to  testify  that  it  is  he  which  was  ordahied 
of  God  (to  be)  the  Judge  of  quick  and  dead. 

Commanded  us,  or  peremptorily  required  us  (see  above, 
on  1,  4.  4, 18.  5,  28.  40),  not  leaving  it  to  our  discretion,  but 
making  it  a  part  of  our  official  duty.  To  preach,  i.  e.  j)roclaim, 
publicly  announce,  as  heralds  did.  See  above,  on  8,  5.  9,  20, 
and  compare  the  cognate  noun  as  used  by  Paul  and  Peter 
(1  Tim.  2,  7.  2  Tim.  1, 11.  2  Pet.  2,  5.)  7b  testify/,  a  Greek 
verb  technically  used  in  Attic  law  to  signify  rebutting  proof 
or  testimony,  but  in  the  New  Testament  a  mere  emphatic  or 
intensive  form  of  the  common  verb  meaning  to  bear  Avitness. 
(See  above,  on  2,  40.  8,  25.)  It  may  here  suggest  the  acces- 
sory ideas  of  mcessant,  thorough,  and  explicit  testimony,  or 


414  ACTS   10,  42.43. 

to  use  the  ancient  English  formula,  the  act  of  speaking  tht 
truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth.  What  is 
chiefly  remarkable  in  tliis  verse  is  that  Peter,  in  addressing 
these  Gentiles,  renders  prominent  our  Lord's  judicial  charac- 
ter and  oflice,  just  as  Paul  did  long  after  in  addressing  those 
at  Athens  (see  below,  on  17,  31.)  This  coincidence  would 
seem  to  show  that  to  this  class  of  inquirers  that  particular 
aspect  of  Christ's  dignity  and  power  was  peculiarly  important. 
He  is  the  07ie  designated^  marked  out  or  defined  (see  above, 
on  2,  23.)  {2h  he  or  as)  the  judge  of  quick  (i.  e.  living)  and 
dead^  not  in  the  spiritual  sense  of  saints  and  sinners,  but  in 
the  literal  one  of  all  generations,  past,  present  and  to  come. 
(Compare  Rom.  14,  9.  2  Tim.  4,  1.  1  Pet.  4,  5.) 

43.  To  him  give  all  the  prophets  witness,  that 
through  his  name  whosoever  believeth  in  him  shall  re- 
ceive remission  of  sins. 

As  the  Gentile  hearers,  although  previously  ignorant  of 
Christianity,  had  probably  some  knowledge  of  the  Jewish 
scriptures,  Peter  closes  by  a  general  appeal  to  these  as  like- 
wise testifying  of  Christ,  not  merely  as  a  judge  but  as  a 
saviour.  To  him^  to  this  same  man  w^hom  the  Jcavs  had  slain 
by  hanging  on  a  tree  (v.  39),  all  the  xyrophets  testify^  i.  e.  the 
whole  drill  of  the  prophetic  scriptures  is  m  this  direction. 
(See  above,  on  3,  24.)  The  caviUing  objection  that  this  is  not 
literally  true  of  every  prophet  in  the  Hebrew^  canon,  is  scarcely 
more  unreasonable  than  the  effort  to  refute  it  by  the  citation 
of  particular  predictions.  Instead  of  fortifying  the  Apostle's 
declaration,  this  enfeebles  it,  by  quoting  but  a  small  part  of 
what  he  referred  to,  which  was  not  a  few  detached  expres- 
sions in  the  Prophets  technically  so  called,  but  the  whole  tenor 
of  the  w^hole  Old  Testament,  as  a  prospective  or  prophetic 
revelation.  By  a  beautiful  and  striking  change,  the  view  of 
Jesus  as  a  judge,  which  had  been  just  before  presented,  is  ex- 
changed, at  the  very  close  of  the  discourse,  for  that  of  a  re- 
deemer. "What  the  whole  body  of  prophetic  scripture  teaches, 
is  not  merely  that  he  has  been  designated  as  the  final  judge 
of  quick  and  dead,  which  could  only  excite  terror  and  despair, 
but  also  that  remission  of  sins  (see  above,  on  2,  38.  5,  31)  may 
be  obtained  through  his  name,  not  merely  by  professing  it,  but 
by  means  of  all  that  it  denotes  (sec  above,  on  2,  38.  3, 16.  4, 


ACTS  10,  43.44.45.  415 

12.  6,  28. 40.  8,  12.  9,  27),  by  every  one  believing  in  him,  i.  e. 
trusting  and  relying  on  him. 

44.  While  Peter  yet  spake  these  words,  the  Holy 
Ghost  fell  on  all  them  which  heard  the  word. 

Peter  still  speaJcing^  before  he  had  finished  what  he  meant 
to  say,  and  therefore  unexpectedly  to  him,  and  of  course  with- 
out his  agency  or  intervention.  These  words  might  be  re- 
ferred to  the  whole  discourse  (vs.  34-43),  but  are  more  nat- 
urally understood  of  what  immediately  precedes  (v.  43.)  He 
was  still  uttering  the  last  words  recorded  in  the  context. 
Fell  wpon^  descended  from  above,  implying  suddenness  and 
superhuman  origin.  The  Holy  Ghost  may  here  denote  the 
influence  exerted,  the  effect  produced  by  the  oj)eration  of  the 
divine  agent ;  but  as  the  personal  meaning  is  the  usual  and 
proper  one,  it  seems  best  to  retain  it,  and  to  understand  the 
words  as  a  strong  figure  for  immediate  action  on  a  lower  or 
inferior  object.  (See  above,  on  1,  5.  8,  16,  and  compare  the 
use  of  the  same  figure  in  v.  10  above.)  All  those  hearing 
may  be  strictly  understood,  as  including  a  fresh  spiritual  influ- 
ence, even  upon  those  who  had  before  received  the  Spirit,  not 
excepting  Peter  himself  (as  in  2,  4.  4,  8.  31.  6,  5.  7,  55) ;  or  as  a 
relative  expression,  hke  that  in  vs.  39.  43  (see  above,  on  1,  1), 
meaning  all  whom  it  concerned,  not  all  who  actually  heard, 
but  all  whom  Peter  was  addressmg,  i.  e.  Cornelius  and  his 
company.  The  word  may  either  be  synonymous  with  these 
words  in  the  first  clause  (though  the  nouns  are  different  in 
Greek),  or  signify  the  whole  speech,  as  distinguished  from  its 
last  words,  there  referred  to.  This  sudden  illapse  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  without  previous  baptism  or  imposition  of  hands  (as  in 
8, 17  above,  and  19,  5.  6.  below),  was  probably  intended  to  con- 
firm the  impression  made  by  Peter's  vision  (see  above,  on  v. 
28),  and  to  justify  him  in  administering  baptism  without  pre- 
vious circumcision.     (See  below,  on  v.  47.) 

45.  And  thev  of  the  circumcision  which  beheved 
were  astonished,  as  many  as  came  with  Peter,  because 
that  on  the  Gentiles  also  was  poured  out  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost. 

Were  amazed,  the  same  verb  that  is  used  above  in  8,  9. 11. 

13,  and  there  explained.     The  faithful,  in  the  strict  sense,  i.  e. 


416  ACTS  10,  45.46. 

full  of  faith^  "believers,  converts.  The  English  word  is  still 
sometimes  so  used  when  believers  are  collectively  referred  to 
but  its  usual  sense  is  full  of  faith,  i.  e.  fidelity  (which  is  the 
meaning  of  the  word  in  the  phrases  "  good  "  or  "  bad  faith," 
"keeping  faith,"  etc.)  This  is  also  the  predominant  New 
Testament  usage  (see  1  Tim.  1, 12.  Col.  4,  9.  1  Pet.  5. 12.  1 
John  1,  9)  ;  but  there  are  also  clear  examples  of  the  other 
(see  below,  on  16,  1,  and  compare  John  20,  27.  Gal.  3,  9.  2 
Cor.  6,  15.  Tit.  1,  6.)  These  believers  are  here  more  partic- 
ularly described  as  being  of  (i.  e.  belonging  to,  or  derived 
from)  the  circumcision  (i.  e.  the  religion,  of  which  it  was  the 
badge  or  the  distinctive  rite  ;  compare  the  use  of  baptism  in 
1,  22  above.)  The  whole  phrase  therefore  means  converted 
Jews,  as  all  the  followers  of  Christ  had  hitherto  been.  As 
ma7iy  as  came  with  Peter,  from  Jojjpa  to  Cesarea  upon  this 
occasion  (see  above,  on  v.  23.)  In  addition  to  the  reasons 
there  suggested  for  his  bringing  them,  may  now  be  added,  as 
perhaps  the  chief,  that  they  were  meant  to  serve  as  chosen 
representatives  of  Jewish  Christianity,  and  as  such  to  bring  it 
into  contact  with  the  Gentile  form  of  that  religion,  represented 
by  Cornelius  and  his  company.  The  junction  between  these 
two  branches  of  the  church  was  not  consummated,  either 
objectively  or  subjectively,  i.  e.  in  point  of  fact  or  in  the  judg- 
ment of  these  Jews,  until  they  witnessed  the  astonishing  event 
recorded  here.  Also,  as  well  as  on  themselves,  or  on  the 
Jews.  The  Gentiles,  literally,  the  nations,  i.  e.  all  besides  the 
Jews.  This  vast  body  was  adequately  represented  by  the 
small  number  present,  because  the  principle  established,  even 
in  a  single  case,  extended  equally  to  every  other.  Between 
these  two  representative  bodies  stood  the  great  Apostle,  who, 
though  specially  devoted  to  "the  circumcision"  (Gal.  2,  7.  8), 
was  commissioned,  for  important  reasons,  to  admit  the  first 
Gentile  converts  to  the  church  directly,  without  passing 
through  the  vestibule  or  outer  court  of  Judaism. 

46.  Por  they  heard  them  speak  with  tongues,  and 
magnify  God.     Then  answered  Peter  — 

There  was  no  room  for  doubt  as  to  the  fact  that  the  Spirit 
nad  been  given,  as  there  might  have  been  in  the  case  of  mere 
internal,  spiritual  changes.  These  were  likewise  wrought,  as 
in  every  case  of  genuine  conversion ;  but  besides  these,  there 
were  other  gifts  imparted,  which  were  cognizable  by  the 
senses,  and  thus  served  as  incontrovertible  proofs  of  what  had 


ACTS   10,  46.  47.  417 

taken  place.  (See  above,  on  8,  17.  18.)  The  one  here  men- 
tioned is  the  gilt  of  tongues,  the  same  with  that  described  in 
2,  4,  notwithstanding  the  omission  of  the  epithet  there  used 
{other)  ^  which,  so  far  from  implying  a  difference  between  the 
cases,  is  a  mere  abbreviation,  tacitly  referring  to  the  more 
complete  description  previously  given.  Here  again  it  seem 
still  more  evident  than  in  the  other  case,  that  the  gift  of 
tongues  v>^as  not  intended  merely  as  a  practical  convenience, 
but  as  a  miraculous  token  of  God's  presence,  and  a  type  of  the 
reconciliation  between  Jew  and  Gentile,  whose  alienation  had 
for  ages  been  secured  and  symbohzed  by  difference  of  lan- 
guage. They  did  not  merely  hear  them  say  they  had  re- 
ceived the  Holy  Spirit ;  they  heard  them  (actually)  speaJcing 
with  tongues  (i.  e.  in  foreign  languages),  not  unintelligibly  or 
at  random,  but  like  the  disciples  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  in 
praise  of  God  (see  above,  on  2,  11.)  What  is  there  called 
speaking  the  wonderful  (or  mighty)  loorhs  of  God^  is  here 
more  concisely  expressed,  magnifying  God^  i.  e.  setting  forth 
his  greatness.  Hence  this  occasion  has  been  not  unjustly 
styled  the  Gentile  Pentecost.*  Then^  in  the  strict  sense,  al- 
ter witnessing  this  great  event,  Peter  ansioered^  to  the  praises 
of  the  Gentile  converts,  or  to  the  wondering  exclamations  of 
the  Jewish  brethren,  or  to  the  voice  of  God,  so  audible  in 
what  had  just  occurred.  Any  of  these  suppositions  is  more 
natural  than  that  of  an  unmeaning  pleonasm.  (See  above, 
on  3,  12.    5,  8.) 

47.  Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that  these  should 
not  be  baptized,  which  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost 
as  well  as  we  ? 

The  form  of  interrogation  here  used  (with  /a^ti)  is  equiva- 
lent to  a  strong  negation.  '  Surely  no  one  will  now  venture 
to  forbid,  etc'  (Compare  Matt.  7,  16.  Mark4,  21.  Luke  6,  37. 
John  4,  49.)  The  same  verb  which,  applied  to  persons,  means 
forbid^  when  applied  to  things,  is  better  rendered  by  loith- 
hold^  as  in  Luke  6,  29,  where  to  take  is  supplied  by  the  trans- 
lators. Water,  or  more  exactly,  the  icater  (answering  to  the 
Sph'it)  i.  e.  the  baptismal  water,  or  the  water  necessary  for 
the  purpose.     Although  nothing  can  be  proved  from  this  ex- 

*  CoUigi  etiam  potest  ex  hoc  loco,  non  tantum  necessitati  datas  fuisse 
linguas,  ubi  evangelium  exteris  et  divers:  idiomatis  liominibus  pi-aedicanduni 
erat,  sed  etiam  in  oruamentum  ipsius  evangelii  et  decus. — Calvin. 

VOL.  I.— 1 8* 


418  ACTS  10,  47.  48. 

pression,  it  is  certainly  more  natural  in  reference  to  the  bring* 
ing  in  of  water,  than  to  the  act  of  going  to  it.  Which  have 
received^  being  such  as  have  received,  the  same  form  of  the 
relative  with  that  in  V,  53.  9,  35,  and  there  explained.  The 
reason  here  assigned  is,  that  they  who  had  received  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Spirit  must  certainly  be  fit  for  that  of  water.  Why 
should  the  sign  be  withheld  from  those  who  were  possessed 
of  the  thing  signified  ?  If  God  was  willing  to  accept  them  as 
converted  GentUes,  why  should  man  insist  upon  their  coming 
forward  as  converted  Jews  ?  As  icell  (even  as,  or  just  as) 
ice,  i.  e.  you  and  I,  addressing  those  who  came  with  him  from 
Joppa ;  or  we  the  disciples  of  Christ  in  general,  i.  e.  such  as 
had  received  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  is  an  argument  ad  homi- 
nem,  equivalent  to  asking.  What  higher  evidence  have  you 
and  I,  that  God  has  chosen  us  and  given  us  his  Holy  Spirit, 
than  the  evidence  afforded  by  this  company  of  Gentiles  ? 

48.  And  he  commanded  them  to  be  baptized  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord.  Then  prayed  they  him  to  tarry 
certain  days. 

The  sign  might  have  seemed  to  be  superfluous  after  the 
gift  of  the  thing  signified  ;  but  baptism  is  a  sealing  and  initi- 
atory no  less  than  a  typical  ordinance,  and  is  rendered  neces- 
sary, not  by  utilitarian  reasons,  but  by  express  divine  com- 
mand. It  can  scarcely  be  a  mere  fortuitous  coincidence,  that 
Peter,  Paul,  and  Christ  himself,  should  aU  have  left  this  rite 
to  be  administered  by  others.  "  Jesus  himself  baptized  not, 
but  his  disciples "  (John 4,  2.)  "I  thank  God  that  I  baptized 
none  of  you,  save  Crispus,  etc."  (1  Cor.  1,  14.)  "  Christ  sent 
me  not  to  baptize,  but  to  j^reach  the  gospel"  (ib.  v.  17.)  As 
none  of  these  expressions  can  be  intended  to  detract  from 
the  value  and  importance  of  the  rite  in  question,  they 
may  best  be  explained  as  warning  us  against  the  error  of 
exalting  this  part  of  the  Christian  system  to  a  disproportion- 
ate importance,  which  may  be  just  as  superstitious  as  the 
eucharistical  corruptions  of  popery,  or  the  hierarchical-  ex- 
cesses of  prelacy.  One  idolatrous  extravagance  cannot  be 
corrected  by  another.  The  true  corrective  is  to  keep  all  parts 
of  the  revealed  system,  both  of  faith  and  practice,  in  their 
proper  place.  In  the  name  of  the  Lord,  i.  e.  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  as  several  of  the  oldest  mamjscripts  expressly 
add.     This,  though  it  may  be  no  part  of  the  true  text,  is  un- 


ACTS  10,  48.  419 

doubtedly  the  true  sense,  as  a  baptism  simply  in  the  name  of 
God  woidd  be  without  either  meaning  or  analogy.  The  idea 
meant  to  be  conveyed  is  that  of  Christian  hajyiism^  as  distin- 
guished from  all  others  or  from  none,  and  not  the  formula 
employed  in  the  administration,  which  was  no  doubt  that  pre- 
scribed by  Christ  himself.  (Compare  Matt.  28,  19,  and  see 
above,  on  2,  38.)  In  his  name^  by  his  authority,  professing 
faith  in  him,  vowing  obedience  to  him,  and  entering  into 
union  with  liim.  Then^  when  they  had  been  baptized  accord 
ingly,  they  prayed  (literally  asked)  him  to  tarry  (or,  as  the 
compoimd  Greek  verb  strictly  means,  to  stay  on,  or  stay  over, 
remain  longer  than  he  had  intended)  certain  (literally,  some^ 
or  as  the  older  English  versions  render  it,  a  few)  days.  Thia 
request,  expressive  of  their  hospitable  feeUugs  and  desire  of 
instruction,  was  no  doubt  complied  with. 


CHAPTER  XI. 


Here  again  the  connection  of  the  history  is  obscured  by  the 
division  of  the  chapters,  that  before  us  comprehending  two 
entirely  distinct  subjects,  under  the  form  of  a  continued  nar- 
rative. The  first  part  is  the  sequel  of  the  story  of  Cornehus 
(1-18)  ;  the  second  an  account  of  the  introduction  of  the 
Gospel  into  Antioch,  after  the  disj^ersion  on  the  death  of  Ste- 
phen (19-30.)  The  former  of  these  narratives  contains  Peter's 
statement  and  defence  of  his  own  conduct  in  receivmg  Gentile 
converts  to  the  Church,  without  circumcision  or  other  con- 
formity to  the  ceremonial  law.  Besides  a  brief  accoimt  of 
the  objection  made  to  his  proceedings  at  Jerusalem  (1-3),  we 
have  what  seems  to  be  a  ftill  report  of  his  defence,  consisting 
of  a  plain  historical  recital  of  the  facts,  for  the  most  j^art  in 
the  same  form  as  before,  but  with  some  variations  and 
additions  (4-15),  winding  up  with  an  appeal  to  the  authority 
of  Christ  and  God,  as  having  definitively  settled  the  whole 
question  (16-17),  in  which  conclusion  all  the  brethren,  in- 
cluding those  who  had  at  first  objected,  seem  to  have  cor 
dially  acquiesced  (18.)  The  remainder  of  the  chapter  is  filled 
with  an  account  of  a  fourth  great  radiation  fii-om  Jerusalem, 


420  ACTS  11,  1. 

collateral  to  those  described  in  the  three  foregoing  chapters, 
and  terminating  in  the  capital  of  Syria,  which  was  to  become, 
in  due  subordination  to  Jerusalem,  the  metropolis  or  mother- 
church  of  Gentile  Christianity.  The  principal  particulars  in- 
cluded in  this  narrative  are  the  first  extension  of  the  church 
to  Antioch  and  its  success  there  (19-21)  ;  the  mission  of  Bar- 
nabas, with  a  commission  from  the  mother-church  (22-24)  ; 
his  reunion  with  Saul,  and  their  joint  labours  for  a  year  at 
Antioch  (25-26)  ;  the  origin  of  the  Christian  name  (26)  ;  the 
prophecy  of  Agabus  (27-28)  ;  and  the  mission  of  Barnabas 
and  Saul  to  Judea  (29-30),  during  which  the  events  described 
in  the  next  chapter  took  place  at  Jerusalem,  and  from  which, 
at  the  close  of 'that  chapter,  they  return  to  Antioch  (12,  25.) 

1.  And  the  Apostles  and  brethren  that  were  in 
Judea  heard  that  the  Gentiles  had  also  received  the 
word  of  God. 

Then  (8e)  heard  the  Apostles  and  the  brethren  (to  wit) 
those  being  in  Judea.  It  was  not  to  be  expected  that  these 
singular  occurrences  at  Cesarea  could  long  remain  unknown 
to  the  churches  in  Judea,  which  were  all  composed  of  Jewish 
converts,  many  of  them  zealous  for  the  law.  (See  below,  on 
21,  20.)  Heard^  received  intelhgence,  either  by  common 
fame  or  by  official  information.  The  AiJostles^  who  were 
therefore  still  residing,  either  in  the  Holy  City,  or  with 
some  of  the  affiliated  churches  in  Judea,  and  perhaps  engaged 
in  visiting  them  in  rotation,  after  the  example  of  Peter  (see 
above,  on  9,  31.)  The  brethren^  i.  e.  the  disciples  or  believers 
as  in  1, 15,  and  often  elsewhere ;  or,  in  a  more  restricted 
sense,  the  officers  and  teachers  of  the  churches  here  referred 
to.  Neither  these  nor  the  Apostles  are  said  to  have  formed 
or  expressed  any  judgment  in  relation  to  the  course  pursued 
by  Peter,  until  his  return  recorded  in  the  next  verse.  The 
Gentiles.,  or  the  nations.,  represented  by  Cornelius  and  his 
household,  whose  reception  settled  the  whole  question  (see 
above,  on  10,  45.)  The  word  of  God.,  the  gospel,  the  new 
religion,  as  a  revelation  or  divine  communication.  Received., 
i.  e.  obtained  it,  or  were  favoured  with  it ;  and  more  actively, 
accepted  it,  acknowledged  it  as  true,  and  assented  to  its  terms 
of  pardon  and  salvation.  Their  own  reception  to  the  church, 
though  not  expressed,  is  necessarily  implied. 


ACTS  11,  2.3.4.  421 

2.  And  when  Peter  was  come  np  to  Jerusalem, 
they  that  were  of  the  circumcision  contended  with  him, 

We7it  up,  i.  e.  from  Cesarea ;  see  above,  on  9,  30.  Co?!- 
tended,  literally,  differed  with  him ;  see  above,  on  10,  20. 
There  is  no  allusion  here  to  a  judicial  charge,  but  only  to 
colloquial  or  private  disputation.  With  him  is  literally  to 
him,  at  him,  implying  that  their  objections  were  addressed 
directly  to  him,  having  been  apparently  reserved  till  his  ar- 
rival. They  of  the  circumcision  means  essentially  the  same 
thing  as  in  10,  45,  namely,  Jemsh  converts  or  converted 
Jews,  but  with  the  accessory  notion,  here  suggested  by  the 
context,  of  a  circumcision-party,  or  of  such  as  not  only  had 
been  circumcised,  but  looked  on  circumcision  as  a  duty  not  to 
be  dispensed  with. 

3.  Saying,  Thou  wentest  in  to  men  uncircumcised, 
and  didst  eat  with  them. 

The  substance  of  their  charges  is  now  given,  as  in  many 
other  cases,  in  the  form  of  a  direct  address  to  Peter.  Not 
that  these  very  words  were  uttered  upon  any  one  occasion  ; 
but  what  they  said  on  various  occasions  might  be  thus  summed 
up.  The  charge  expressly  made  is  that  of  going  into  the  so- 
ciety of  the  uncircumcised  and  eating  with  them.  This,  as 
we  know  from  Peter's  own  lips,  was  considered  by  the  Jew? 
unlawful.  It  may  seem  surprising  that  this  lower  and  more 
trivial  offence  against  the  Jewish  usage  should  be  specified, 
when  Peter  had  been  guilty  of  one  far  more  heinous  in  the 
estimation  of  these  Jewish  Christians,  namely,  that  of  bajD- 
tizing  those  who  never  had  been  circmncised.  The  argument 
suggested  is  a  fortiori.  If  mere  association  with  the  Gentiles 
was  unlawful,  how  much  more  their  admission  to  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism.  Or  the  words  of  this  verse  may  be  looked 
upon  as  the  beginning  of  their  accusation,  the  first  charge  in 
their  indictment.  As  if  they  had  said.  You  have  acted  im- 
worthily  of  your  profession  and  your  obligations  as  an  IsraeUte  ; 
for,  in  the  first  place,  you  went  into  the  company  of  Gen- 
tiles, and  by  eating  with  them  either  broke,  or  ran  the  i  isk 
of  breaking,  one  of  our  most  sacred  prece2)ts. 

4.  But  Peter  rehearsed  (the  matter)  from  the  bo- 


422  ACTS  11,  4-10. 

ginning,   and   expounded  (it)   by   order  unto  tlieni; 
saving  — 

Peter's  defence  against  this  accusation  consisted  in  a  bare 
historical  recital  of  the  facts,  with  a  concluding  question, 
showing  how  they  bore  upon  the  point  at  issue.  His  narra- 
tive, though  brief,  was  a  complete  one.  He  began  at  the  be 
ginning,  and  expounded  or  set  forth  the  facts  in  order,  i.  e.  in 
the  order  of  their  actual  occurrence.  The  Greek  word  here 
used  (xa^e^s)  is  peculiar  to  Luke,  who  applies  it  to  time,  sue 
cession,  motion,  and  arrangement.  (See  above,  on  3,  24,  and 
below,-  on  18,  23,  and  compare  Luke  1,  3.  8,  13.)  Nothing 
can  less  resemble  a  forensic  or  judicial  vindication  than  this 
simple  statement,  although  recorded  with  the  same  sort  of 
technical  formality,  that  leads  to  similar  repetitions  in  the 
records  of  our  courts  and  legislative  bodies.  (See  above,  on 
10,  30.)  The  variations  in  this  form  of  the  narrative  from 
those  preceding,  although  unessential,  are  not  unworthy  of 
attention,  as  indicative  of  conscious  accuracy  in  the  writer, 
with  a  certain  fi-eedom  from  restraint,  as  to  the  mere  form  of 
expression  or  minute  details. 

5-10.  I  was  in  the  city  of  Joppa  praying  :  and  in 
a  trance  I  saw  a  vision,  a  certain  vessel  descend,  as 
it  had  been  a  great  sheet,  let  down  from  heaven  by 
four  corners,  and  it  came  even  to  me  ;  upon  the 
which  when  I  had  fastened  mine  eyes,  I  considered, 
and  saw  fourfooted  beasts  of  the  earth,  and  vnld  beasts, 
and  creeping  things,  and  fowls  of  the  air.  And  I 
heard  a  voice  saying  unto  me.  Arise,  Peter,  slay  and 
eat.  But  I  said.  Not  so.  Lord ;  for  nothing  common 
or  unclean  hath  at  any  time  entered  into  my  mouth. 
But  the  voice  answered  me  again  from  heaven.  What 
God  hath  cleansed,  (that)  call  not  thou  common.  And 
this  was  done  three  times ;  and  all  were  drawn  up 
again  into  heaven. 

The  mmute  particulars  of  time  and  place  are  here  omitted 
with  the  circumstance  of  hunger  predisposing  him  to  such  a 
vision.    The  words  ecstasy  (or  trance)  and  sight  (  or  vision)  are 


ACTS   11,  5-10.  11.  12.  13.  423 

repeated  here.  Bound  {ov  fastened)  is  omitted.  Instead  of 
simply  let  down  on  the  earthy  we  have  the  more  specific  form, 
it  came  as  far  as  me^  or  reached  to  me.  From  this  we  learn 
that  it  was  not  a  distant  but  a  near  -view  that  he  had  of  the 
descending  vessel,  into  which,  we  are  here  told,  he  gazed  in- 
tently and  inspected  the  contents,  and  saw  that  they  consisted 
of  the  various  kinds  of  animals,  described  precisely  as  they 
were  in  10,  12.  In  his  answer  to  the  voice  which  sum- 
moned Imn.  to  slay  and  eat,  there  is  a  slight  variation  as  to 
form,  not  substance.  I  never  did  eat  is  exchanged  for  never 
came  into  my  mouth.  For  received  up,^  we  have  here  the  more 
expressive  phrase,  was  drawn  up. 

11.  12.  And  behold,  immediately  there  were  three 
men  already  come  unto  the  house  where  I  was,  sent 
from  Cesarea  unto  me.  And  the  Spirit  bade  me  go 
with  them,  nothing  doubting.  ]\Ioreover  these  six 
brethren  accompanied  me,  and  we  entered  into  the 
man's  house. 

JBehold^  as  usual,  denotes  surprise  at  something  unex- 
pected. Stood  at  or  over^  near  or  hy^  this  idea  bemg  sug- 
gested both  by  the  compound  verb  and  by  the  separate  prepo- 
sition. Nothing  doubting  or  hesitating^  differing  mth  myself, 
or  perhaps  distinguishing  without  a  difference,  by  needless 
scruples.  (See  above,  on  v.  2,  and  on  10,  20.)  Six  brethren — 
tliese^  here  present.  Thus  we  learn  the  number  of  the  men 
who  went  with  him  to  Cesarea,  and  the  fact  that  they  accom- 
panied him  also  to  Jerusalem,  perhaps  as  witnesses  on  this  oc- 
casion. And  ice  came  into  the  house  of  the  mem.  This  defi- 
nite expression,  as  Cornelius  is  not  previously  mentioned  in 
this  context,  either  shows  that  we  have  only  an  abridged  sum- 
mary of  Peter's  speech  and  not  his  very  words,  or  else  must 
be  referred  to  the  prevailing  rumours,  in  which  the  centurion 
was  no  doubt  a  conspicuous  figure.  As  if  he  had  said :  we 
came  into  the  house  of  the  man,  of  whom  yon  have  all  heard 
so  much.  Or  the  allusion  may  be  to  the  charge  in  v.  3,  and 
the  collective  or  indefinite  expression  there  used.  And  ice  came 
into  the  house  of  the  man^  T\ith  whom  (and  his  associates)  you 
now  accuse  me  of  having  eaten  and  kept  company. 

13.  14.  And  he  shewed  us  how  he  had  seen  an 


424  ACTS  11,  13.  14.  15. 

angel  in  his  house,  which  stood  and  said  unto  him, 
Send  men  to  Joppa,  and  call  for  Simon,  whose  surname 
is  Peter,  who  shall  tell  thee  words,  whereby  thou  and 
all  thy  house  shall  be  saved. 

Here  again,  the  definite  expression  [the  anget)  is  not  to  be 
neglected,  or  gratuitously  treated  as  indefinite,  but  considered 
as  implying  previous  acquaintance  with  the  story,  on  the  part 
of  those  who  were  now  hearing  it.  This  shows  that  Petei 
was  repeating  these  details,  not  simply,  or  at  all,  for  informa- 
tion, but  for  argument.  The  same  thing,  indicated  in  the 
same  way,  has  already  been  observed  in  Stephen's  speech  be- 
fore the  council,  where  the  leading  incidents  of  Jewish  his- 
tory are  recapitulated,  not  as  something  new  to  such  an  au- 
dience, but  as  familiar  premises  from  which  he  was  about  to 
draw  an  unexpected  conclusion.  See  above,  on  ch.  7.  In  his 
house^  or  in  his  own  house^  not  abroad,  or  in  a  strange  place, 
where  he  might  have  been  more  easily  deceived,  but  at  home, 
in  private,  and  with  every  safeguard  and  assurance  agamst 
error  or  illusion.  The  word  men  is  omitted  in  some  criti- 
cal editions,  as  a  probable  amendment  of  the  text  by  assimi- 
lation to  10,  5.  Standing^  or  still  more  exactly,  stationed^  as 
the  participle  here  used  has  a  passive  form,  although  equiva- 
lent in  usage  to  an  active  one.  Send^  away^  a  stronger 
expression  than  the  one  employed  in  ch.  10,  5,  and  ety- 
mologically  unconnected  with  the  one  that  follows.  By 
lohich^  hterally,  i7i  which^  i.  e.  in  the  hearing,  or  rather  m  the 
doing  of  which.  The  words  which  Peter  was  to  speak  were 
not  merely  doctrinal  or  theoretical,  but  practical,  preceptive^ 
and  imperative.  They  were  to  tell  him  what  to  do,  and  in 
the  doing  of  it  he  was  to  be  saved,  in  the  highest  and  most 
comprehensive  sense,  that  of  deliverance  from  all  the  evils  of 
his  previous  condition.  Aoid  all  thy  house  or  household^  who 
had  been  before  described  as  sharers  in  his  fear  of  God  (see 
above,  on  ch.  10,  2),  and  no  doubt  in  his  prayers  and  alms  and 
longing  for  salvation.  To  them,  as  well  as  to  himself,  it 
pleased  God  that  the  words  of  Peter  should  be  savingly  ef- 
fectual. 

15.  And  as  I  began  to  speak,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell 
on  them,  as  on  us  at  the  beginning. 

It  is  remarkable  that  Peter  here  gives  no  account  whatever 


ACTS  11,  15.  16.  425 

of  Ms  own  discourse  at  Cesarea,  because  it  was  not  one  of  the 
facts  on  which  he  chose  to  rest  his  vindication.  It  was  not 
what  he  said,  but  what  God  did,  that  furnished  his  apology. 
In  consequence  of  this  characteristic  reticency,  the  account 
before  us,  taken  by  itself,  would  naturally  leave  the  impres- 
sion, that  the  illapse  of  the  Spirit  took  place  before  Peteir 
had  said  any  thing.  And  yet  the  narrative  is  perfectly  con- 
sistent Avith  the  one  in  the  preceding  chapter.  Began  should 
neither  be  explained  away  as  a  pleonasm  or  unmeanmg  super- 
lluity,  nor  interpreted  too  strictly,  as  implying  that  he  had 
just  begun,  or  scarcely  begun,  but  understood  more  freely  as 
denoting  after  he  began,  without  determming  how  long.  The 
nearest  approach  that  can  be  made  in  English  to  the  form  of 
the  original  is,  in  my  heginning^  i.  e.  as,  when,  or  after  I  be- 
gan. There  is  a  double  preposition  in  the  next  clause,  as  in 
V.  11,  the  verb  itself  meaning  to  fall  on.  The  figure  of  falling, 
as  in  10,  10,  denotes  an  influence  or  impulse  from  above, 
i.  e.  from  a  superior  power.  It  is  also  worthy  of  remark  that 
in  this  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  the  act  described  is  that  of  pour- 
ing, not  of  plunging  or  inmiersing.  The  Holy  Spirit  is 
expressed  in  the  original  very  emphatically  and  precisely,  the 
Spirit^  the  Holy  ( One^  The  words  as  also  {wa-n-ep  Kai)  mean 
as  really^  and  as  evidently^  as  on  us,  i.  e.  on  the  Apostles  and 
first  converts  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  This  is  here  called  the 
heginning  of  the  Christian  dispensation  or  the  Christian 
Church,  which  dates  from  the  effusion  of  the  Holy  Ghost  at 
that  time,  corresponding  to  the  organization  of  the  Mosaic 
church  by  the  Theophany  and  giving  of  the  Law  at  Sinai,  which 
Pentecost,  according  to  a  highly  probable  tradition  of  the 
Jews,  was  partly  instituted  to  commemorate.  (See  above,  on 
2, 1.)  The  Greek  phrase  (eV  dpx?f)  is  the  same  with  that  at  the 
beginning  of  John's  Gospel,  and  of  the  Septuagint  version  of 
Genesis.  In  itself  it  is  indefinite  or  relative,  and  simply  means 
at  first.  The  terminus  a  quo  must  be  determined  by  the  con- 
text. The  beginning  here  meant  can  be  only  that  of  the  entire 
series  of  events,  connected  with  the  re -organization  of  the 
Church. 

i.6.  Then  remembered  I  the  word  of  the  Lord, 
how  that  he  said,  John  indeed  baptized  with  water ; 
but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost. 

The  reference  is  probably  to  Chi'ist's  last  interview  with 


426  ACTS  11,  16.  17.  18. 

the  Apostles  (see  above,  on  1,  5,  and  compare  Luke  22,  61.) 
John  indeed  (/xeV),  a  concession  ;  it  is  true,  the  type  has  come, 
but  not  the  antitype.  These  are  constantly  spoken  of,  as  ex- 
actly corresponding.  The  associations  in  the  minds  of  men 
with  one  of  these  would  govern  their  associations  with  the 
other.  If  they  were  accustomed  to  think  of  the  baptismal 
Spirit  as  poured  out  or  down,  they  w^ould  naturally  look  for 
such  effusion  or  affusion  in  the  case  of  the  baptismal  water. 
With  the  Holy  Ghost ^  not  hi  holy  S2nrit.     (See  above,  on  1,  5.) 

17.  Forasmuch  then  as  God  gave  tliem  the  hke 
gift  as  (he  did)  unto  us,  who  beheved  on  the  Lord 
Jesus  Clirist,  what  was  I,  that  I  could  withstand  God? 

This  is  the  argumentative  part  of  the  discourse,  or  the  con- 
clusion to  which  all  the  foregoing  statements  had  been  tend- 
ing. The  sum  of  all  is,  it  was  God  himself  who  had  deter- 
mined the  question.  The  illative  particle  (ow)  at  the  beginning 
has  respect  to  the  precedmg  narrative.  '  Since  then  it  is  evi- 
dent from  w^hat  I  have  related,  that  the  question  was  deter- 
mined by  divine  authority,  and  wholly  independently  of  me, 
nay,  in  total  opposition  to  my  previous  opinions  and  desires,  I 
leave  it  to  yourselves  whether  I  could  have  done  othermse, 
and  whether  I  am  justly  hable  to  censure.'  The  like  gift^ 
literally,  the  equal  gift^  i.  e.  the  same.  Wlio  believed^  hterally, 
having  believed.  This  may  agree  either  with  them  or  ws,  or 
both.  To  them  <is  to  us^  both  having  believed  alike.  The 
position  of  the  pronoun  in  the  last  clause  gives  it  a  peculiar 
emphasis.  I-^who  was  (I)  (that  I  should  be)  able  to  forbid 
Godf  (Compare  Ex.  3,  11.)  To  forbid  or  hinder  God  from 
doing  as  he  pleased,  which  would  be  impious  if  possible,  be- 
comes absurd  fi'om  its  impossibility.  The  argument  amounts 
to  a  reductio  ad  absurdum. 

18.  When  they  heard  these  things,  they  held  their 
peace,  and  glorified  God,  saying,  Then  hath  God  also 
to  the  Gentiles  granted  repentance  unto  life. 

The  effect  of  Peter's  argument  appears  to  have  been  in- 
stantaneous and  complete.  They  who  heard  it  acquiesced^ 
not  merely  held  their  peace,  or  ceased  to  speak  upon  the  sub. 
ject,  but  were  satisfied,  relinquished  the  position  they  had 
taken,  and  assented  to  the  doctrine  and  the  practice  which 


ACTS   11,  18.  19.  427 

they  had  so  strongly  censured.  It  might  denote  mere  cessa- 
tion from  dispute,  without  conviction  or  a  change  of  mind,  as 
in  Luke  14,  3  (4),  where  the  stronger  sense  is  inadmissible,  and 
where,  as  here,  the  silence  was  produced  by  an  unanswerable 
question.  But  that  idea  is  precluded  here  by  the  additional 
statement,  that  they  glorified  God  and  said,  /So  then  (it  is  true 
after  all,  unlikely  as  it  seemed  beforehand,  that)  even  to  the 
Gentiles  (or  to  the  Gentiles  also),  God  has  given  repentance 
unto  life  (or  that  repentance  which  is  necessary  to  salvation.) 
To  the  Gentiles  also,  i.  e.  as  well  as  to  the  Jews,  and  as  di- 
rectly, without  any  intermediate  or  preparatory  process,  in 
the  one  case  more  than  in  the  other.  These  expressions,  all 
implying  joy  at  the  event,  determine  the  quiescence  of  the 
Jewish  Christians  after  Peter's  speech  to  have  been  acquies- 
cence in  his  theory  and  practice,  with  respect  to  Gentile 
converts. 

19.  Now  they  which  were  scattered  abroad  upon 
the  persecution  that  arose  about  Stephen  travelled  as 
far  as  Phenice,  and  Cyprus,  and  Antioch,  preaching  the 
word  to  none  but  unto  the  Jews  only. 

Noic,  or  so  then  ;  see  above,  on  9. 31.  The  point  to  which 
the  author  goes  back,  both  in  this  and  in  the  other  cases,  is 
the  death  of  Stephen,  the  ensuing  persecution,  and  the  conse- 
quent dispersion.  As  this  disaster  had  been  overruled  for  the 
extension  of  the  Gospel  to  Samaria  and  other  quarters,  so  it 
was  made  to  have  the  same  effect  in  this  case.  Upon  the  per- 
secution, literally, /rom  the  affliction  (or  distress),  not  merely 
after  it  in  point  of  time,  or  from  it  in  the  sense  of  springing 
from  it,  but  with  a  distinct  allusion  to  their  fleeing  and  escap- 
ing from  it.  About  Stephen  has  been  variously  understood 
to  mean  over  his  body,  after  his  death,  during  his  time. 
(Vulg.  sub  Stephana;  but  the  translator  probably  read 
o-Te<^avov,  which  is  found  in  some  Greek  MSS.)  and  07i  ac- 
count of  him  or  for  his  sake,  wliich  la«t  is  the  most  natural. 
Tixwelled,  literally,  passed  through  (the  intervening  country.) 
As  far  as  indicates  the  limit  of  their  mission,  but  without 
excluding  intermediate  places.  Phenice  is  the  Greek  name, 
and  Phenicia  the  Latin,  of  the  narrow  tract  of  sea-coast 
north  of  Palestine,  including  Tyre  and  Sidon,  and  famous 
in  the  ancient  world  for  its  extensive  maritime  commerce. 
Cyprus  is  the  ancient  and  modern  name  of  the  large  and 


.428  ACTS  11,  19.20. 

fertile  island  off  the  coast  of  Palestine  and  Asia  Minor, 
noted  of  old  for  the  wealth  and  luxury  of  its  inhabitants. 
Antiooh^  the  capital  of  Syria,  built  by  Seleucus  Nicator  on  the 
south  side  of  the  Orontes,  fifteen  miles  from  its  mouth,  and 
named  m  honour  of  of  his  father  Antiochus.  If  what  is  here 
recorded  took  place  after  the  conversion  of  Cornelius,  which 
is  very  doubtful,  that  event  was  probably  imknown  to  these 
fii'st  missionaries  to  Phenicia,  Syria,  and  Cyprus. 

20.  And  some  of  them  were  men  of  Cyprus  and 
Cyrene,  which,  when  they  were  come  to  Antioch,  spake 
unto  the  Grecians,  preaching  the  Lord  Jesus. 

There  are  two  important  questions  in  relation  to  this  verse, 
one  critical  or  textual,  the  other  more  grammatical  and  exe- 
getical.  The  first  is,  whether  the  true  text  is  Greeks  {eWrjyas) 
or  Grecians  (eXXy/vto-ras),  Gentiles  or  foreign  (Greek-speaking) 
Jews.  (See  above,  on  6, 1.  9,  29.)  The  manuscript  evidence, 
though  dubious  aud  meagre,  is  in  favour  of  the  latter  reading, 
which  is  that  of  the  textus  rece2:>tus.  But  the  other  has  been 
commonly  adopted,  in  the  ancient  versions  and  by  modern 
critics,  chiefly  on  internal  evidence,  namely,  the  supposed  im- 
probability, that  Luke  would  have  recorded,  as  something 
new  or  strange,  the  fact  that  these  dispersed  believers 
preached  the  Gospel  to  the  Hellenists  as  well  as  to  the  He- 
brews, when  it  had  been  preached  to  both  from  the  beginning 
(see  above,  on  2,  5.  6,  1.  9,  29)  ;  whereas  their  preacliing  to 
the  heathen  Greeks  was  really  a  new  thing,  especially  if  pre- 
vious to  the  conversion  of  Cornelius,  or  at  least  without  the 
knowledge  of  that  great  event.  This  reading  (eXX-qvas)  is 
moreover  found  in  two  of  the  most  ancient  copies  (A.  D.),  and 
is  supposed  to  be  required  by  the  antithesis  between  indeed 
(/xcV)  in  V.  19,  and  but  (Se)  in  v.  20.  This  last,  however,  is  an 
argument  of  no  weight,  as  the  particle  in  v.  19  is  not  the  sim- 
ple one,  so  commonly  opposed  to  8e,  but  the  compound  one 
(fjL€v  ow),  answering  to  so  then,  and  employed  in  the  resumi> 
tions  of  a  narrative.  (See  above,  on  8,  4.  9,  31.)  To  the 
manuscript  authorities  it  may  be  answered,  that  the  reading  in 
one  of  them  (D)  is  not  origmal,  but  introduced  by  a  later 
(though  still  ancient)  hand ;  and  that  the  other  (A)  has  the 
same  reading  in  9,  29,  where  it  is  imiversally  allowed  to  be  er- 
roneous. The  remaining  argument  in  favour  of  this  reading 
rests  on  the  assumption,  that  the  writer  must  be  stating  some- 


ACTS  11,  20.  21.  429 

thing  new  or  strange.  But  why  may  he  not  be  simply  under- 
stood as  saying,  that  when  the  refugees  arrived  at  Antioch, 
such  of  their  number  as  were  Hellenists  or  foreign  Jews 
preached  to  the  Jews  of  their  otvti  class  whom  they  found 
ther§,  as  the  Hebrew  or  native  exiles  had  done  on  the  way  to 
their  OAvn  countrymen  ?  The  sense  obtained  by  this  inter- 
pretation is  so  good  in  itself,  and  so  consistent  with  the  con- 
text, that  there  seems  to  be  no  need  of  any  emendation.  The 
other  reading  is  preferred,  however,  by  the  great  majority  of 
critics  and  interpreters,  who  understand  this  as  another  in- 
stance of  the  Gospel  being  preached  among  the  Gentiles,  en- 
tirely independent  of  the  one  recorded  in  the  preceding  chap- 
ter. Of  those  who  thus  explain  the  last  clause  of  the  verse 
before  us,  some  understand  the  first  clause  as  relating  to  the 
Jews  mentioned  at  the  close  of  v.  19.  The  sense  wdll  then  be 
that,  although  the  exUes  from  Jerusalem,  referred  to  in  the 
first  clause  of  v.  19,  preached  exclusively  to  Jews,  their  Jewish 
converts  were  more  hberal  or  fearless,  and  extended  their  in- 
structions to  the  Gentiles  also.  A  more  natural  and  usual 
construction  refers  some  of  them  to  the  exiles  themselves,  and 
understands  them  to  have  either  changed  their  method  of  pro- 
ceeding when  they  got  to  Antioch,  or  to  have  difiered  from 
the  first  among  themselves,  some  preaching  only  to  the  Jews, 
and  others  to  the  Gentiles  hkewise.  All  these  questions  are 
precluded  by  retaining  the  received  text  (eAAryvto-ras),  and  sup- 
posing the  essential  fact  recorded  here  to  be  that  the  first  mis- 
sionaries from  Jerusalem  in  this  du'cction  preached  exclusively 
to  Jews,  the  Hebrews  to  the  native  and  the  Hellenists  to  the 
foreign  class.  The  only  serious  objection  to  this  view  of  the 
passage,  over  and  above  those  which  have  been  already  set 
aside,  is  that  it  then  contains  no  explicit  mention  of  the  first 
extension  of  the  Gospel  to  the  Greeks  of  Antioch,  which  is 
however  necessarily  impHed  in  the  existence  of  the  church 
there,  and  its  subsequent  relation  to  the  whole  field  of  Gentile 
Christianity. 

21.  And  the  hand  of  the  Lord  was  with  them :  and 
a  great  number  beheved,  and  turned  unto  the  Lord. 

The  hand  of  the  Lord,  i.  e.  the  manifest  exertion  of  his 
power.  The  expression  is  an  oriental  and  especially  a  Hebrew 
one.  Precisely  the  same  words  occur  in  reference  to  John  the 
Baptist  (Luke  1,66.)     Very  similar  terms  are  applied  to  hu- 


430  ACTS  11,  21.  22. 

man  influence  in  the  Septimgint  version  of  1  Kings  17,22 
(compare  2  Kings  14,  19.)  The  cognate  figure  of  the  Lord^s 
arm  is  employed  by  Isaiah  (53,  1)  and  quoted  by  John  (12, 
38.)  The  power  here  meant  is  a  spiritual  power  acting 
through  the  truth  as  propounded  in  the  Gospel  and  tending 
to  conviction  and  conversion,  but  not  exclusive  of  miraculous 
ttestations,  which  are  primarily  meant  by  the  same  figure  in 
4,  30.  It  is  a  curious  illustration  of  the  way  in  which  the 
liCxt  was  often  unintentionally  falsified,  that  three  Greek  mss. 
add  to  this  clause  the  words  "  to  heal  iJiera^''  evidently  bor- 
rowed, by  an  error  of  judgment,  or  perhaps  unconsciously, 
from  Luke  5,  17.  With  them  of  course  means  with  these 
preachers  to  the  Gentiles,  who  are  the  subject  both  of  the 
preceding  and  ensuing  context.  The  manifestation  of  the  di- 
vine power  was  a  formal  approbation  of  their  having  preached 
directly  to  the  Gentiles,  and  a  warrant  for  continuing  to  do 
so.  The  Lord^  to  whom  the  converts  turned,  was  God  as 
manifested  in  his  Son.  One  ms.  has  turned  to  the  Lord  Jesus. 
Much  is  here  coupled  with  a  noun  of  multitude,  where  oui 
idiom  requires  great.  (Compare  Mark  5,  24.  John  6,  2.  Acts 
14, 1.  17,  4.  Matt.  9,  37.)  The  conversion  of  Cornelius,  whether 
first  in  time  or  not,  was  meant  to  be  the  type  of  all  accessions 
from  the  Gentile  world  ;  but  it  was  not  necessary  to  this  end 
that  it  should  be  superior,  or  even  equal,  to  the  case  before 
us,  in  the  multitude  of  converts. 


22.  Then  tidings  of  these  things  came  unto  the 
ears  of  the  church  which  was  in  Jerusalem  ;  and  they 
sent  forth  Barnabas,  that  he  should  go  as  far  as  An- 
tioch. 

These  proceedings  at  Antioch,  like  those  at  Cesarea,  could 
not  long  remain  unknown  to  the  mother-church  in  Jerusalem, 
which,  partly  from  its  seniority,  partly  from  its  local  situation, 
and  partly  from  its  connection  with  the  Apostles,  still  con- 
tinued to  be  the  centre  of  mfluence  to  the  Christian  world 
Tidmgs^  literally,  the  word^  not  the  gospel  as  in  v.  1,  but  the 
report  or  news.  Of  these  things^  or  rather,  concerning  them., 
i.  e.  the  Gentile  converts  and  their  teachers.  Came  unto 
(literally,  was  heard  into)  the  ears,  a  Hebrew  idiom.  T/ie 
(one)  in  Jerusalem  is  added  to  explain  and  specify  the  abso- 
lute expression,  the  church,  which,  though  not  inapplicable  in 


ACTS   11,  22.  23.  431 

an  emphatic  sense,  as  we  have  seen,  might  not  be  universally 
intelligible.  The  representation  of  the  body  of  believers  in 
Jerusalem  as  one  church  is  the  more  remarkable  in  this  case, 
because  it  not  only  individualizes  but  personifies  that  body, 
speaking  of  its  ears,  etc.  l7ito  the  ears  does  not  imply  a 
secret  communication,  as  in  Matt.  10,  27  (compare  Luke 
9,  44),  where  that  idea  is  suggested  by  the  context,  and  espe- 
cially by  the  antithesis.  Their  hearing  of  them  is  supposed 
by  some  to  exclude  the  idea  of  their  hearing /rom  them  ;  but 
the  two  are  scarcely  incompatible.  The  plural  verb  {they 
sent)  refers  to  the  collective  term  (chwch)  preceding.  The 
Apostles  are  not  expressly  mentioned,  as  in  ch.  8,  14,  which 
some  regard  a^  an  important  difference  between  the  cases. 
But  the  church  at  Jerusalem  included  the  Apostles  who 
were  there,  as  we  shall  see  below  (on  15,  2.)  Another  sup- 
posed difference  is,  that  the  person  sent  was  not  in  this  case 
an  apostle.  The  high-church  Anglican  divines  maintam  that 
he  was ;  but  Archbishop  Sumner  merely  says  he  was  "  con- 
sidered as  an  apostle,"  and  Alford  admits  that  he  was  not  one 
"  in  any  distinctive  sense."  Barnabas  may  have  been  selected 
as  a  Hellenist  or  Greek  Jew,  and  even  as  a  Cyprian,  as  some 
of  the  first  preachers  of  the  gospel  at  Antioch  were  from  that 
country.  He  may  also  have  been  chosen  as  a  "  son  of  exhor- 
tation" (see  above,  on  4,  36),  and  as  such  well  qualified  to  do 
precisely  what  he  did  on  his  arrival,  as  recorded  in  the  next 
verse.  There  was  also  reference  no  doubt  to  the  moral  and 
spiritual  qualities  there  mentioned.  He  was  not  commis- 
sioned merely  to  Antioch,  but  to  pass  through  (the  inter- 
vening country)  as  far  as  (or  until  he  came  to)  Aiitioch, 
plainly  implying  that  he  was  to  preach  the  gospel  by  the  way 
as  well  as  after  his  arrival.    (See  above,  on  8,  4.  25,  40.  9,  32.) 

23.  Who,  when  he  came,  and  had  seen  the  grace 
of  God,  was  glad,  and  exhorted  them  all,  that  with 
purpose  of  heart  they  would  cleave  unto  the  Lord. 

Having  arrived  (or  got  there),  not  merely  finished  his 
journey  from  Jerusalem,  but  executed  his  commission  by  the 
way.  Seeing  the  grace  of  God,  i.  e.  the  manifest  effects  of  an 
immediate  divine  influence  in  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles. 
The  idea  of  benevolence  or  favour  is  essential  to  the  definition 
of  divine  grace,  but  is  not  the  promment  idea  here.  Some 
late  interpreters  regard  it  as  implied  in  Luke's  expressions, 


432  ACTS  11,  23.  24. 

that  the  effect  upon  the  mind  of  Barnabas  was  unexpected 
both  by  him  and  those  who  sent  him  ;  that  he  went  rather  for 
the  pm-pose  of  correcting  and  controlUng  than  approving  and 
rejoicing  in  the  work  ah-eady  going  on  in  Antioch,  but  found 
the  evidence  too  strong  to  be  resisted,  and  with  true  Chris- 
tian candor  heartily  rejoiced  in  what  he  saw  ;  and  instead  of 
recommending  any  other  method  of  procedure,  simiAy  exhorted 
all  (who  had  beheved  or  been  converted)  with  purpose  of 
heart,  including  the  ideas  of  sincerity  and  constancy  or  perse- 
verance, to  cleave  or  adhere,  to  stand  hy  or  continue  with,  the 
Lord,  in  whom  they  had  beheved,  without  the  slightest  refer- 
ence to  the  ceremonial  law,  as  a  necessary  preparation  for  the 
gospel. 

24.  For  lie  was  a  good  man,  and  full  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  of  faith  ;  and  much  people  was  added  unto 
the  Lord. 

The  connection  between  this  verse  and  the  context  has 
been  variously  understood.  Some  suppose  it  merely  to  assign 
a  reason  for  the  choice  of  Barnabas  as  a  commissioner  to  An- 
tioch. But  this  requires  the  preceding  verse  to  be  explained 
as  a  parenthesis,  and  makes  the  causal  particle  {because)  de- 
pendent on  a  verb  in  v.  22  ;  both  which  constructions  are  un- 
natural. Another  explanation  makes  the  particle  dependent 
on  the  verb  (exhorted)  in  v.  23,  and  suj^poses  this  verse  to 
assign  the  reason  for  the  diligence  of  Barnabas  in  preaching. 
Intermediate  between  these,  and  more  satisfactory  than  either, 
is  the  supposition  that  this  verse  is  to  be  construed  more  di- 
rectly with  the  verb  was  glad  (or  rejoiced),  and  assigns  a 
reason  for  what  might  have  appeared  strange  without  it, 
namely,  that  Barnabas,  instead  of  findmg  fault  or  doubting 
the  reality  of  what  he  saw,  rejoiced  or  loas  rejoiced,  the  form 
of  the  original  verb  being  passive.  This  would  seem  to  con- 
firm the  supposition  that  the  actual  effect  was  somewhat  dif- 
ferent from  what  had  been  expected,  and  required  explanation. 
He  acknowledged  what  he  saw  to  be  the  work  of  God,  and  as 
such  a  subject  of  rejoicing,  because  he  was  a  good  man. 
There  are  two  ways  of  explaining  this  description.  One  gives 
to  good  its  widest  sense  as  the  oj^posite  of  bad,  and  as  a  gen- 
eral expression  for  moral  excellence.  The  other  makes  it 
more  specific  and  exj)ressive  of  a  distinct  quality — not  re- 
ligious zeal  as  some  imagine — but  benevolence  and  gentleness 


ACTS  11,  24.25.  488 

of  disposition,  the  negation  of  that  envious  malignity,  or  even 
that  censorious  asperity,  which  would  have  led  him  to  suspect 
or  question  what  he  saw  without  sufficient  reason.  As  these 
two  senses  are  entirely  consistent,  one  being  really  included 
in  the  other,  it  is  not  at  all  improbable  that  both  were  meant 
to  be  suggested,  one  as  the  primary,  the  other  as  the  secondary 
sense  of  the  expression.  The  connection  of  the  clauses  may 
be  either  that  Barnabas  was  not  only  of  a  good  natural  dispo- 
sition, but  also  under  special  divine  influence ;  or  that  the 
very  goodness  here  ascribed  to  him  was  not  a  natural  endow- 
ment, but  a  fruit  of  the  spirit  and  effect  of  faith.  Full  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  does  not  always  denote  inspiration,  but  may 
signify  the  sanctifying  influence  exerted  upon  all  believers. 
The  last  clause  seems  descriptive  of  the  effects  produced  by 
the  preaching  of  Barnabas  himself,  in  continuation  of  that 
previous  work  which  caused  his  joy.  As  to  the  form  of  ex- 
pression, see  above,  on  2,  41.  47.  5,  14. 

25.  Then  departed  Barnabas  to  Tarsus,  for  to  seek 
Saul: 

If  Barnabas  took  this  step  on  his  own  motion  and  respon- 
sibility, his  motives  may  be  readily  conjectured.  It  is  easy  to 
conceive  that  as  soon  as  he  was  satisfied  that  God  had  called 
him  to  this  field  of  labour,  he  would  think  of  Saul  of  Tarsus 
as  a  suitable  assistant.  He  could  not  have  forgotten  his  mi- 
raculous conversion  and  his  introduction  to  the  Apostles  by 
Barnabas  himself  (9,  27),  the  zeal  with  which  he  had  opposed 
the  Hellenists  or  Greek  Jews  (9,  29)  at  Jerusalem,  and  the 
proofs  which  he  had  given  of  superior  wisdom  and  of  dia- 
lectic skni  in  the  defence  of  the  new  doctrine.  He  may  also 
have  known  something  of  Saul's  designation  as  Apostle  to  the 
Gentiles  in  a  vision  at  Jerusalem  (see  below,  on  22,  21.)  All 
these  are  probable  suggestions,  on  the  supposition  that  Saul's 
call  to  Antioch  was  a  simple  call  from  Barnabas  himself.  But 
there  are  reasons  for  beheving  that  it  came  to  him  from  higher 
authority,  even  in  the  church,  than  that  of  his  intended  fellow- 
labourer.  It  is  highly  improbable  that  Barnabas,  not  claiming 
apostolical  authority,  and  acting  himself  under  a  commission 
from  Jerusalem,  would  imdertake,  upon  his  own  responsibiUty, 
to  share  this  delegated  power  with  another.  It  is  also  worthy 
of  remark,  that  when  the  mother-church,  upon  a  similar  oc- 
casion, sent  a  commission  to  Samaria  (ch.  8, 14),  it  was  not 

VOL.  I. — 19 


434  ACTS  11,  26. 

only  one  of  apostoliGal  rank,  but  composed  of  two  persons,  in 
accordance  with  our  Saviour's  constant  practice  (Matt.  21, 1. 
Mark  6,  7.  11,  1.  14,  13.  Luke  10,  1.  19,  29.)  This  makes  it 
singular,  to  say  the  least,  that  in  the  case  before  us,  Barnabas 
was  sent  alone.  Both  these  apparent  difficulties  are  removed 
by  the  assumption,  that  Saul  was  really  included  in  the  apos- 
tolical commission,  but  not  mentioned  in  the  narrative,  because 
he  was  absent  from  Jerusalem,  and  therefore  was  not  actually 
sent  with  Barnabas,  who  was  aathorized  however  to  associate 
Saul  with  him,  as  soon  as  he  had  satisfied  himself  that  what 
was  going  on  at  Antioch  was  a  genuine  work  of  grace.  This 
supposition  also  supersedes  the  necessity  of  assuming  a  written 
correspondence  between  Barnabas  and  his  superiors  or  con- 
stituents, before  he  went  in  search  of  Saul ;  though  it  does 
not  materially  impair  the  force  of  Calvin's  observation, 
that  the  character  of  Barnabas  is  set  in  an  amiable  light  by 
the  alacrity  with  which  he  called  in  the  assistance  of  a  person, 
whom  he  must  have  kno^m  to  be  his  own  superior,  as  well 
in  fact  as  in  the  divine  purpose.  One  of  the  latest  writers 
cites,  as  a  parallel  from  modern  history,  the  conduct  of  Farel 
with  respect  to  Calvin  himself.  How  long  Saul  had  been  in 
Tarsus  smce  he  left  Jerusalem  (9,30),  can  only  be  conjec- 
tured, as  the  ablest  writers  differ  -widely  in  their  estimate, 
ranging  from  nine  years  to  one,  or  even  to  six  months.  How 
Saul  had  spent  tliis  interval,  is  equally  uncertain.  Some  sup- 
pose that  he  had  been  studying  Greek  hterature  and  philoso- 
phy, in  the  cultivation  of  which  Strabo  represents  Tarsus  as 
surpassing  even  Alexandria  and  Athens  (see  above,  on  9,  11) ; 
or  meditating  on  the  state  of  the  Gentiles  and  the  greatness 
of  the  work  which  lay  before  him  ;  or  enduring  some  part  of 
that  painful  discipline  described  by  himself  to  the  Corinthians 
(2  Cor.  11,23-27.)  The  only  conjecture  which  has  any  his- 
torical foundation  is,  that  during  this  interval  those  churches 
of  Cilicia  were  planted,  which  are  afterwards  referred  to,  as 
already  in  existence  (15,  23.  41),  and  to  wliich  the  Apos- 
tle's declaration  (Rom.  15,  20)  may  have  been  intended  to 
apply.  This  supposition,  while  it  fills  a  chasm  in  the  history 
without  forced  or  gratuitous  assumptions,  is  moreover  recom 
mended  by  its  perfect  agreement  with  the  energetic  charactei 
and  active  habits  of  the  great  Apostle.  The  verb  translatec 
66^6^,  in  the  only  other  place  where  it  occurs  (Luke  2,  44),  de 
notes  a  diligent  and  anxious  search,  and  may  here  suggest 
that  Barnabas  was  doubtful  where  he  should  find  Saul,  audi 


ACTS  11,  25.26.  435 

went  to  look  him  up^  a  phrase  etymologically  corresponding 
to  the  compound  Greek  verb.  The  idea  that  he  had  con- 
cealed himself,  like  Saul  in  the  Old  Testament,  is  quite  gratu- 
itous. The  only  natural  assumption  is,  that  he  was  not  in  Tarsus, 
and  that  Barnabas  was  under  the  necessity  of  seeking  him. 
The  same  idea  is  suggested  by  the  next  phrase,  ham7ig  found 
him^  which  would  seem  to  be  unmeaning  or  superfluous,  if  he 
found  him  without  search  ;  and  perhaps  by  the  statement  that 
he  brought  (or  led)  him  into  Antioch^  in  a  sort  of  friendly 
triumph  or  compulsion.  As  to  Paul's  motive  in  compljdng, 
the  necessity  of  ascertaining  it  is  superseded  by  the  double 
authoiity  to  which  he  yielded,  that  of  God  himself  and  of  the 
mother-church.  And  yet  it  still  remains  true,  as  observed 
by  Chrysostom,  that  in  going  to  Antioch,  he  went  to  a  wider 
field  of  labour,  and  with  higher  hopes  of  usefulness. 

26.  And  when  he  had  found  him,  he  brought  him 
unto  Antioch.  And  it  came  to  pass,  that  a  whole  year 
they  assembled  themselves  with  the  church,  and  taught 
much  people.  And  the  disciples  were  called  Chris- 
tians first  in  Antioch. 

It  came  to  pass^  as  here  used,  is  nearly  equivalent,  in 
modern  English,  to  the  phrase,  '  it  was  (or  is)  a  fact.'  The 
Greek  verb  governs  all  the  others  in  the  sentence,  so  that  tho 
connection  of  the  clauses  is  much  closer  than  in  English.  As 
if  he  had  said,  several  things  happened  now  at  Antioch,  such 
as  the  ministry  of  Barnabas  and  Saul,  and  the  application  of 
a  nevv^  name  to  the  disciples.  The  first  thing  that  is  thus  said 
to  have  come  to  pass  or  taken  place,  is  that  Barnabas  and 
Saul,  for"  a  whole  year,  were  brought  together  m  the  church. 
As  the  same  Greek  verb  is  used  m  the  Septuagmt  version  to 
translate  a  Hebrew  one  denoting  hospitable  entertamment,  or 
the  act  of  taking  strangers  m  or  home,  some  give  it  that 
sense  here,  as  well  as  in  Matt.  25,  35.  38.  43.  '  They  were  en- 
tertained a  whole  year  by  the  church.'  But  there  is  nothing 
in  the  context  to  suggest  that  meaning,  as  there  is  in  all  the 
other  cases.  Others  understand  it  to  denote  the  act  of  meet- 
ing or  encountering  the  enemies  of  the  nev/  religion.  (See 
Matt.  22,  34.  27,  37,  and  compare  Rev.  16,  14.  16.  20,  8.)  But 
in  all  the  other  instances  of  this  use,  the  enemies  are  ex})ressly 
iU'}ntioned.     The  best  sense  therefore,  though  expressed  in  an 


436  ACTS  11,  26. 

unusual  manner,  is  that  they  met  (or  assembled)  in  (and  with) 
the  church,  for  worship  and  instruction.  (See  Matt.  13,  2,  and 
compare  Matt.22, 10.)  The  effect  was  that  they  taught  much 
people,  or  more  exactly,  a  sufficient  crowd,  implying  that  their 
hearers  were  not  only  numerous,  but  of  various  classes  and 
descriptions.  (See  above,  on  1, 15.  5,  37.)  Taught  does  not 
of  itself  imply  conviction  or  conversion,  although  these  en- 
sued in  many  cases,  but  the  communication  of  a  knowledge 
of  the  true  religion,  as  a  necessary  means  to  that  result.  The 
other  thing  that  came  to  pass  was  the  use  of  the  name  Chris- 
tian. The  connection  of  the  clauses,  which  is  very  faintly  in- 
dicated in  our  version,  is  expressed  too  strongly  in  some  others, 
e.  g.  whence  (Luther)  so  that  (Vulgate)  they  were  named 
Christians.  The  labours  of  the  missionaries  and  the  rise  of 
this  new  name  are  not  here  spoken  of  as  wholly  unconnected, 
nor  as  sustaining  a  causal  relation,  but  as  coincident  in  time 
and  place.  It  was  during  this  year  of  missionary  labour  that 
the  name  was  first  applied.  The  disci^yles,  i.  e.  as  some  under- 
stand it,  they  who  were  previously  called  disciples ;  but  the 
new  name  did  not  necessarily  supersede  the  old  one.  Were 
called  is  not  a  passive  verb  in  Greek,  but  the  active  form  of 
the  one  used  above  in  10,  22,  and  there  explained.  It  does 
not  here  mean  to  be  named  by  God  or  by  themselves ;  for 
then  the  name  would  have  occurred  more  frequently ;  where- 
as it  is  used  only  twice  besides,  and  both  times  as  a  term  em- 
ployed by  enemies  or  strangers.  (See  below,  on  26,  28,  and 
compare  1  Pet.  4, 16.)  It  means  here  (as  in  Rom.  7,  3),  that 
they  were  so  called  by  others ;  not  by  the  Jews,  for  they 
would  thereby  have  conceded  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus ;  nor 
by  Greeks,  for  they  would  probably  have  used  another  ter- 
mination (as  La  1,  11.  10,  1) ;  but  by  Romans,  as  the  form  is 
Latin,  like  Herodians  (Matt.  22, 16.  Mark  3,  6.  12,  13),  and 
many  others  found  in  the  contemporary  classics  (such  as 
JPompeiani,  Mariani,  Yitelliani)  The  name  may  possibly 
bave  been  derisive  in  its  origin,  like  others  which  have  after- 
wards been  gloried  in  as  titles  of  nobility  (e.  g.  Huguenots, 
Puritans,  Pietists,  Methodists.)  All  that  it  properly  denotes, 
however,  is  that  they  were  followers  of  Christ,  whether  those 
who  first  applied  the  name  knew  that  it  denoted  the  Messiah 
of  the  Jews,  or  regarded  it  merely  as  the  personal  name  of  a 
ringleader.  Thus  Suetonius  says  that  Claudius  expeUed  the 
Jews  from  Rome,  on  account  of  their  frequent  insurrections, 
prompted  by  one  Chrestus  {assidue  tumidtuaiites  Chresto  im 


ACTS  11,  26.  21.  28.  487 

pulsore)  This  may  be  a  mere  mistake  for  Christo^  or  the 
real  name  of  some  well-knoT\m  Jew  at  Rome.  The  form 
Chrestus  would  be  more  familiar  to  the  Greeks,  and  more 
significant  than  Christus ;  and  we  find  that  Justin  Martyr, 
and  some  other  early  writers,  actually  use  that  form  and  play 
upon  its  meaning  {good)  as  descriptive  both  of  Christ  and 
Christianity.  The  fact  recorded  in  this  clause  is  one  of  the 
three  grounds,  on  which  Chrysostom  claimed  for  Antioch  the 
rank  of  a  metropohs  or  mother-church. 


27.  And  in  these  days  came  prophets  from  Jeru- 
salem unto  Antioch. 

In  these  days  may  be  either  an  indefinite  expression  (see 
above,  on  1,  15.  6,  1),  denoting  merely  a  time  subsequent  to 
that  of  the  events  just  mentioned ;  or  a  specific  one,  denoting 
the  whole  year  spent  by  Barnabas  and  Saul  in  Antioch  (v.  26,) 
which  last  is  the  opinion  of  the  ablest  modern  writer  on  the 
chronology  of  Acts.  Came^  or  more  exactly,  caone  down^ 
the  usual  expression  for  departure  from  Jerusalem.  (See 
above,  on  8,  5.  15,  26.  9,  32.)  The  particular  Greek  verb  here 
used  is  one  of  Luke's  peculiar  terms,  being  used  by  him  fifteen 
times,  and  only  once  besides  in  the  New  Testament  (James 
3,  15.)  Prophets^  inspired  teachers  or  expounders  of  the 
divine  will.  The  prediction  of  futurity  was  only  one  of  the 
prophetic  functions,  but  the  one  exercised  on  this  occasion. 
That  the  Prophets  spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament  were  the 
Seventy  Disciples  (Luke  10,  1),  or  the  Presbyters  of  the  Apos- 
toHcal  Church,  is  not  only  a  gratuitous  assumption,  but  at 
variance  with  the  temporary  office  of  the  Seventy,  who  are 
mentioned  only  in  a  single  passage,  and  with  the  language  ol 
V.  30  below.  The  visit  of  these  prophets  has  been  variously 
explained,  as  a  second  mission,  siniilar  to  that  recorded  in  vs. 
19-21  ;  or  as  a  reinforcement  of  inspired  teachers,  to  relieve 
and  aid  those  who  were  there  already ;  or  as  a  proof  of  con 
stant  intercourse  between  the  two  mother-churches ;  or  as 
a  special  mission  sent  to  warn  the  church  at  Antioch  of  the 
coming  famine,  and  secure  its  contributions  to  the  poor  saints 
at  Jerusalem  (Rom.  15,  26.) 

28.  And  there  stood  up  one  of  them,  named  Agabus, 
and  signified  by  the  Spirit  that  there  should  be  great 


438  ACTS  11,  28. 

dearth  throughout  all  the  world  ;  which  came  to  pass 
in  the  days  of  Claudius  Cesar. 

Stood  up^  or  arose,  implying  that  he  spoke  in  public,  and 
with  some  formality.  (See  above,  on  1, 15.  5,  34.)  One  of 
them^  or  from  (among)  them^  as  they  sat  in  the  assembly. 
Named  Agabus,  literally,  Agabus  by  name  (see  above,  on 
5, 1.  34.  8,  9.  9, 10.  11,12.  33,  36.  10, 1.)  Agahus  seems  to  be 
a  Hebrew  name,  with  a  Greek  or  Latin  termination,  perhaps 
the  same  with  that  m  Ezra  2,  45.  46.  Xeh.  V,  48.  This  man  is 
mentioned  only  here  and  in  21,  10  below,  where  he  reappears 
as  a  prophet  in  the  strict  sense.  Signified^  a  verb  repeatedly 
employed  by  John  in  reference  to  disclosures  of  the  future, 
and  for  the  most  part  with  an  implication  of  obscurity  or  mys- 
tery. (See  John  12,  33.  18,  32.  21,  19.  Rev.  1, 1.)  By  the 
S2?hit,  i.  e.  by  the  aid  or  at  the  instance  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
It  is  more  usual  to  represent  the  Holy  Ghost  as  speaking  by 
the  Prophet,  i.  e.  through  him,  by  his  instrumental  agency. 
(See  above,  on  1, 16.)  Shmdd  be^  was  to  be,  or  was  about  to 
be,  the  same  verb  that  is  used  aLore  in  3,  3.  5,  35,  and  there 
explained.  Great  dearth^  a  great  hunger,  famine,  scarcity  of 
food.  (See  above,  on  7,  11.)  Throughout  all  the  icorld^  liter- 
ally, 071  (or  over)  the  whole  inhabited  (earth.)  This  phrase, 
though  strictly  universal  in  its  import,  is  often  used  in  a  re- 
Btricted  sense.  The  Greeks,  in  their  pecuhar  pride  of  race, 
a]^phed  it  to  their  own  country  ;  the  Romans,  in  Hke  manner, 
to  the  empire.  A  similar  restriction  of  the  term  by  Jews  to 
Palestine  would  be  perfectly  analogous,  though  it  may  not  be 
demonstrable  in  usage.  If  this  sense  were  admissible,  the  pro- 
phecy of  Agabus  might  be  said  to  have  been  ftilfilled  in  the 
fourth,  fifth,  and  sixth  years  of  Claudius,  during  which  many  died 
of  famine  at  Jerusalem,  as  related  by  Josephus,  Eusebius,  and 
Orosius.  There  had  been  a  previous  scarcity  at  Rome  itself, 
in  the  first  and  second  years  of  this  reign,  to  relieve  which 
Claudius  opened  roads  and  a  new  harbour,  and  caused  a 
medal  with  a  corn-measure  to  be  struck  in  memory  of  the 
event,  as  stated  by  Suetonius.  In  the  ninth  year  of  the  same 
reign,  Eusebius  records  a  great  famine  which  prevailed  in 
Greece.  In  the  eleventh,  Rome  was  ^dsited  again  by  scarcity, 
in  consequence  of  which  the  emperor  was  pelted  by  the  peo- 
ple, as  we  learn  from  Tacitus  and  Suetonius.  All  these  were 
local  famines ;  but  as  they  succeeded  one  another  so  rapidly, 
they  may  be  considered  as  together  constituting  one  contin' 


ACTS  11,  28.29.  439 

uous  progressive  famine,  and  correctly  represented  as  a  great 
dearth  which  came  upon  the  whole  empire  (or  the  whole 
known  world)  under  (or  in  the  tune  of)  Claudius.  Cesar  is 
omitted  in  several  of  the  oldest  manuscripts  and  versions,  and 
rejected  by  the  latest  editors  as  spurious. 

29.  Then  the  disciples,  eveiy  man  according  to  liis 
ability,  determined  to  send  relief  unto  the  brethi-en 
vdiich  dwelt  in  Judea  — 

The  effect  of  this  prediction  shows  the  intimate  relation 
which  existed  between  the  affiliated  churches  and  Jerusalem 
the  mother  of  them  all  (Gal.  4,  26.)  The  original  construc- 
tion is,  atul  of  the  discijyles  as  any  one  icas  prospered^  tliey 
determined  each  of  them ^  etc.  The  disciples  are  of  course  the 
Christians  of  Antioch.  As^  in  proportion  as ;  see  above,  on 
7,  17.  TTas  prospered  or  successful,  an  expression  not  sug- 
gestive of  great  wealth,  but  rather  of  sufficiency  or  compe- 
tency to  reheve  the  wants  of  others.  The  same  idea  is  ex- 
pressed by  Plato  almost  in  the  same  words  {Ka&  oa-ov  eiiropa. 
Tts.)  The  same  rule  or  measure  is  prescribed  by  Paul  in 
1  Cor.  16,  2.  Determine  means  originally  to  divide  or  bound ; 
then  to  define  bounds  ;  then  to  define  any  thing  ;  and  lastly 
to  determine  or  decide.  It  is  used  in  the  New  Testament 
only  by  Luke  and  Paul,  and  elsewhere  construed  with  a  noun 
in  the  accusative  (see  below,  on  17,  26.  31,  and  compare  Heb. 
4,  7),  or  as  a  passive  participle  (see  above,  on  2,  23.  10,  42, 
and  compare  Rom.  1,  4.)  This  is  the  only  case  in  wliich  it 
governs  another  verb  in  the  infinitive.  J5^ach  or  every  with  a 
plural  verb  is  no  miusual  construction.  (See  above,  on  2,  6, 
and  compare  Matt.  IS,  35.  John  16,  32.)  Relief  or  mort;  ex- 
actly, for  sei^ice  (or  administration)^  i.  e.  charitable  distri- 
bution, a  frequent  sense  of  the  Greek  noun  (2  Cor.  8,  4.  9, 1. 
12)  and  its  corresponding  verb  (Heb.  6,  10.)  If  the  famine 
was  to  be  a  general  one,  how  could  the  church  at  Antioch  re- 
lieve that  at  Jerusalem  ?  Their  undertaking  so  to  do  implies 
either  a  great  difference  of  wealth,  or  an  earlier  visitation  in 
Judea,  or  an  entire  exemption  of  the  Sp'ian  capital,  or  all  these 
circumstances  in  conjunction.  The  churches  of  Judea  seem 
to  have  been  always  poor,  because,  as  some  suppose,  originally 
gathered  from  the  humbler  classes  (but  see  above,  on  6,  7, 
and  compare  Matt.  27,  57) ;  or  because,  as  others  think,  im- 
poverished by  the  community  of  goods  (but  see  above,  on 


440  ACTS  11,  29.30. 

2,  44.  45.  4.  32.)  In  this  case  the  necessity  is  represented  aa 
arising  from  a  special  and  a  temporary  cause.  The  motive 
of  the  church  at  Antioch,  however,  was  not  mere  natural 
benevolence,  or  even  Christian  charity,  but  a  sense  of  fihal 
obUgation  to  the  mother  church,  analogous  to  that  which 
led  the  Jews  of  the  Diaspora,  although  beyond  the  reach  of 
all  coercion,  to  contribute  largely  to  the  treasury  of  the  tem- 
ple. (See  Mark  12,  41.  43.  Luke  21, 1.  John  8,  20,  and  com- 
pare Rom.  15,  25-27.  1  Cor.  16, 1-4.  2  Cor.  8, 1-15.  9. 1-15.) 

30.  Whicli  also  they  did,  and  sent  it  to  the  elders 
by  the  hands  of  Barnabas  and  Saul. 

The  purpose  thus  formed  was  promptly  carried  into  exe- 
cution. The  affection  of  these  Christians  towards  the  mother 
church  was  shown  not  merely  in  their  words  but  in  their 
deeds.  Which  refers  to  the  determination  mentioned  in  v. 
29.  Z>id  is  in  direct  antithesis  to  determined.  Also  is  em- 
phatic, not  only  said  but  also  did.  The  subject  of  the  verb  is 
of  course  the  plural  noun  disciples.  There  is  nothing  to 
restrict  it,  though  the  act  was  probably  performed  by  the 
church  officers,  (the  elders)  sending  to  the  elders.  These  are 
by  some  understood  to  mean  the  elders  of  the  Jews,  or  their 
hereditary  chiefs  and  representatives  under  the  Patriarchal 
system,  who  are  so  often  mentioned  in  the  Gospels  as  well  as 
the  Old  Testament,  and  in  the  book  before  us  (see  above,  on 

4,  5.  8.  23.  6,  12,  and  below,  on  23,  14.  24,  1.  25,  15.)  This 
supposes  the  donation  from  the  church  at  Antioch  to  have 
been  intended  not  for  the  Christians  of  Judea  in  particular,  but 
for  any  who  might  need  it ;  and  the  same  wide  scope  is  as- 
sumed to  have  existed  in  Paul's  later  collections.  (See  below, 
on  24,  \1.)  Another  explanation  is  that  these  were  Chris- 
tians, but  still  elders  of  the  Jews  by  hereditary  right.  It  is 
commonly  agreed,  howcA^er,  that  the  reference  is  to  office- 
bearers in  the  Church  ;  some  say  the  Apostles,  because  Peter 
and  John  describe  themselves  as  Presbyters  or  Elders  (1  Pet. 

5,  1.  2  John  1.  3  John  1) ;  others,  the  Bishops  of  Judea,  w^ho 
were  to  distribute  the  donation  in  their  dioceses  ;  others,  the 
Seventy  Disciples,  whom  they  identify  with  the  first  Christian 
Presbyters,  inferring  their  perpetual  or  permanent  commission 
from  the  words  of  Christ  in  Luke  10, 19.  This  would  cer- 
tainly account  for  the  extraordinary  fact  that,  while  the  insti- 
tution of  the  Apostleship  and  the  Diaconate  is  giv*H\  in  th^ 


ACTS  11,  30.  441 

history,  the  Presbyterate  or  Eldership,  considered  as  an 
office  in  the  Christian  Church,  is  here  mentioned  for  the  first 
time,  and  that  only  in  an  incidental  manner.  But  this  omis- 
sion admits  of  a  still  more  satisfactory  solution,  because  not 
requiring  any  dubious  assumption  as  to  the  commission  of  the 
Seventy  Disciples.  This  solution  is,  that  the  office  of  Pres- 
byter or  Elder  was  the  only  permanent,  essential  office  of  the 
Jewish  Church,  and  as  such  was  retained  under  the  new  or- 
ganization, without  any  formal  institution,  and  therefore 
without  any  distinct  mention  in  the  history,  such  as  we  find 
afterwards  in  reference  to  the  organization  of  the  Gentile 
churches,  where  the  office  had  no  previous  existence,  and  must 
therefore  be  created  by  the  act  of  ordination  (see  below,  on 
14,  23.)  This  is  a  much  more  probable  account  of  the  insti- 
tution of  the  Christian  Eldership  than  that  which  derives  it 
from  the  constitution  of  the  Jewish  Synagogue,  which  was 
itself  probably  of  later  date,  and,  as  a  separate  organization, 
without  divine  authority.  (See  above,  on  6,  9.)  By  the 
hands^  literally,  the  hancl^  a  common  figure,  more  especially 
in  Hebrew,  for  mediation,  intervention,  instrumental  agency. 
(Compare  the  similar  expression  m  Gal.  3,  19.)  They  did  not 
merely  avail  themselves  of  the  return  of  Barnabas  and  Saul 
at  the  expiration  of  their  year  of  labour  (see  above,  on  v.  26), 
but  appointed  them  expressly  to  this  service,  as  we  learn  from 
12,  25  below.  The  appointment  shows  the  light  in  which 
these  two  men  were  regarded  by  the  church  of  Antioch,  and 
also  the  importance  which  they  attached  to  the  commission 
itself.  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  the  highest  qualifications 
were  required  in  those  who  were  entrusted  with  the  charities 
of  the  church  in  apostolic  times.  As  to  the  precedence  here 
and  afterwards  assigned  to  Barnabas,  see  below,  on  13, 1.  9. 


CHAPTER  Xn. 


During  the  visit  of  Barnabas  and  Saul  to  the  churches  of 
Judea,  a  new  persecution  of  the  Christians  at  Jerusalem  was 
begun  by  Herod  Agrippa,  the  first  of  the  name.  The  history 
3f  this  persecution  is  recorded  in  the  chapter  now  before  us 

VOL.  I. — 19* 


442  ACTS  12,  1. 

(1-19),  with  a  supplementary  account  of  Herod's  death 
(20-24),  and  the  return  of  Barnabas  and  Saul  to  Antioch  (25.) 
The  particulars  belonging  to  the  first  head  are  the  commence- 
ment of  the  persecution  (1),  the  death  of  James  (2),  the  arrest 
of  Peter  (3),  his  imprisonment  (4),  and  the  intercession  of  the 
church  for  him  (5),  his  miraculous  release  (6-11),  his  appear- 
ance at  the  house  of  Mary  (12-16),  and  departure  fromi  Jeru- 
salem (17),  the  search  for  him  and  execution  of  the  guards 
(18-19.)  Under  the  second,  we  have  Herod's  last  visit  to 
Cesarea  (19),  his  negotiation  with  the  Tyrians  and  Sidonians 
(20),  his  public  address  to  them  (21),  the  blasphemous  ap- 
plause bestowed  upon  it  (22),  and  his  death  by  a  judicial 
stroke  (23) ;  after  which,  or  m  the  mean  time,  the  church  pros- 
pered (24),  and  the  deputies  from  Antioch  returned  to  those 
who  sent  them  (25.) 

1.  Now  about  that  time,  Herod  the  king  stretched 
forth  (his)  hands,  to  vex  certain  of  the  church. 

This  chapter  is  connected  with  the  one  before  it  in  the 
closest  manner,  not  only  by  the  usual  continuative  particle, 
now  {and  or  hut)^  but  by  the  phrase,  about  (or  at)  that  time^ 
which,  although  in  itself  indefinite,  is  here  determined  by  the 
context  to  mean  at  the  time  of  the  official  visit  to  Judea  men- 
tioned at  the  close  of  the  last  chai^ter.  (See  above,  on  11,  30.) 
It  is  nowhere  said  that  Barnabas  and  Saul  were  in  Jerusalem  at 
all,  and  as  their  errand  was  "  to  the  brethren  dwelling  in  Ju- 
dea "  (11,  29),  some  suppose  them  to  have  been  deterred  from 
visiting  the  Holy  City  by  the  very  persecution  here  described ; 
while  others,  mth  as  much  or  as  little  probability,  assume  that 
they  were  witnesses  of  what  is  here  recorded,  and  were  even 
present  at  the  meeting  mentioned  in  v.  12  below.  Herod  the 
king^  not  the  one  so  called  in  Matt.  2,  1.  3,  nor  the  one  so 
called  in  Mark  6,  14,  but  the  nephew  of  the  latter  and  the 
grandson  of  the  former,  and  descended  through  his  mother 
from  the  Maccabees  or  Hasmonean  kings  of  Judah.  He  was 
brought  up  at  Rome  with  the  royal  princes,  Caligula  and 
Claudius,  by  whom,  on  their  accession  to  the  throne,  ho  was 
gradually  repossessed  of  the  dominions  of  his  grandfather, 
Herod  the  Great.  He  bore  the  name  of  the  famous  Agrippa, 
which  Luke  applies,  however,  only  to  his  son  (see  below,  on 
25,  13),  while  he  calls  the  father  simply  by  his  family  name, 
Keroct      Notwithstandmg  his  heathen    education,    he  pro- 


ACTS   12,  1.2.  443 

fessed  to  be  a  zealous  Jew,  perhaps  less  from  conviction  than 
from  policy  (see  below,  on  v.  3.)  Josephus,  the  historian, 
describes  him  as  a  mild  and  liberal  but  ambitious  prince, 
which,  with  due  allowance  for  the  flattery  involved  in  the  de- 
scription, is  by  no  means  irreconcileable  with  what  is  here 
recorded.  Stretched  forth  his  hands^  or  more  exactly,  laid 
his  hands  on^  an  expression  often  used  by  Luke,  and  alway 
in  the  sense  of  seizure  or  arrest.  (See  above,  on  4,  3.  5,  18 
and  below,  on  21,  27,  and  compare  Luke  20,  19.  21,  12.)  The 
marginal  translation  in  the  English  Bible  {began)  is  still  less 
exact.  To  vex^  an  English  word  now  chiefly  used  of  petty 
annoyances,  but  in  the  translation  of  the  Bible  having  a  much 
stronger  sense.  (See  for  example  Num.  20,  15.  Judges  16, 
16.  2  Chr.  15,  6.  Job  19,  2.  Ps.  2,  5.  Isai.  63,  10.  Matt.  15,  22.) 
The  Greek  verb  here  used  strictly  means  to  make  had^  and  is 
once  applied  to  moral  influence  (see  below,  on  14,  2),  but  com- 
monly to  persecution  or  oppression  (see  above,  on  7,  6. 19,  and 
below,  on  18,  10,  and  compare  1  Pet.  3,  13.)  Certain  of  the 
churchy  or  more  exactly,  some  of  those  from  (i.  e.  belonging 
to)  the  church.  (See  above,  on  10,  23,  and  compare  10,  45. 
11,  2.)  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  the  Christians  of  Judea, 
or  at  least  those  of  Jerusalem,  are  still  described  as  consti- 
tuting one  church.     (See  above,  on  2,  47.  5, 11.  8,  1.  3.  11,  22.) 

2.  And  he  killed  James  the  brother  of  John  \d\h 
the  sword. 

Killed^  despatched,  or  made  away  with  (see  above,  on  2, 
23.* 5,  33.  7,  28.  9,  23.  29.  10,  39.)  James^  the  son  of  Zebedee, 
one  of  our  Saviour's  earliest  followers  and  most  confidential 
friends  (see  above,  on  1, 13),  never  mentioned  in  the  Gospels 
but  with  John,  as  whose  brother  he  is  here  described,  because 
of  John's  celebrity  in  later  times.  With  the  sword^  most 
probably  by  decapitation.  This  martyrdom  may  be  regarded 
as  the  fulfilment  of  Christ's  words  in  Matt.  20,  23.  John's 
sufierings  were  less  acute  but  more  protracted.  It  is  remarka- 
ble that,  so  far  as  we  know,  one  of  these  mseparable  brothers 
was  the  first,  and  one  the  last,  that  died  of  the  Apostles.  This 
verse  may  be  either  a  specification  of  the  one  before  it  (some 
of  the  church,  among  whom  was  James  the  brother  of  Jolm), 
or  an  additional  fact,  forming  a  kind  of  climax  (not  only  some 
obscure  members  of  the  church,  but  one  of  the  most  eminent 
Apostles.) 


444  ACTS  12,  3.4. 

3.  And  because  he  saw  it  pleased  the  Jews,  he  pro- 
ceeded further  to  take  Peter  also.  Then  were  the  days 
of  unleavened  bread. 

Because  he  saw,  literally,  seeing  or  having  seen.  Pleased, 
literally,  is  pleasiiig  or  acceptable.  The  present  tense  calls  up 
he  scene  as  actually  passing.  (See  above,  on  Y,  25.  9,  26.) 
The  Jews,  not  merely  the  rulers,  but  the  people,  whose  feelings 
towards  the  church  had  undergone  a  great  change  since  the 
time  referred  to  in  2,  47.  5,  13,  during  which  interval  indeed 
the  previous  persecution  had  occurred.  (See  6,  12.  8,  1.) 
The  motive  here  assigned  was  not  necessarily  the  primary  or 
only  one.  It  rather  seems  to  be  implied  that,  having  killed 
James  for  another  purpose,  he  perceived  that  he  had  thereby 
pleased  the  Jews.  This  he  may  have  done  while  gratifying 
some  ambitious  or  malignant  passion  of  his  own.  Proceeded 
further,  literally,  added,  a  Hebrew  idiom,  which  Luke  uses 
elsewhere.  (Compare  Luke  19, 11  and  20,  11.)  To  take^t^Q 
up,  seize,  arrest.  (See  above,  on  1,  16.)  Whatever  may  have 
been  the  motive  for  destroying  James,  Peter  was  probably 
selected  as  the  most  conspicuous  and  best  known  of  our  Lord's 
disciples.  It  can  scarcely  be  regarded  as  fortuitous,  that 
Herod  should  have  laid  his  hands  on  two  of  Christ's  three  most 
intimate  and  confidential  friends  and  followers.  The  specifica- 
tion of  the  time  when  this  arrest  took  place  is  a  strong  thougb 
incidental  proof  of  authenticity.  The^i,  not  the  adverb  of 
time,  but  the  continuative  particle,  translated  and  in  v.  2,  and 
now  in  v.  1.  The  days  of  unleavened  bread  (Luther  and  Tyn- 
dale,  sweet  bread ;  Wiclif,  therf  loaves ;  Rhemish  version 
azymes),  i.  e.  the  festival  week  following  the  Passover,  during 
which  the  use  of  leaven  was  forbidden  in  the  Law.  *  (See  Ex. 
12,  18.  27.  Deut.  16,  3.  8,  and  compare  Matt.  26,  17.  Mark  14, 
1.  12.  Luke  22,  1.  7.)  This  festival  began  on  the  fourteenth 
day  of  the  month  Nisan,  corresponding  partly  to  our  March 
and  April.     (See  below,  on  20,  6.) 

4.  And  when  he  had  apprehended  him,  he  put 
(^him)  in  prison,  and  dehvered  (him)  to  four  quaternions 
of  soldiers,  to  keep  him,  intending  after  Easter  to  bring 
aim  forth  to  the  people. 

Whom  havinq  also  seized  (or  apprehended.)    The  Greek 


ACTS  12,  4.  446 

verb  LS  a  Doric  form  of  one  whicli  means  to  press  or  squeeze, 
but  in  the  Hellenistic  usage,  to  lay  hold  of,  to  hold  fast.  It  is 
applied  by  John  to  the  taking  of  beasts  and  fishes  (John  21, 
3.  10.  Rev.  19,  20),  but  still  more  frequently  to  forcible  arrest 
or  seizure  (John  7,  30.  32.  44.  8,  20.  10,  39.  11,  57.)  Put  into 
prison^  or  confinement;  see  above,  on  5,19.22.25.  8,3.) 
And  delivered^  literally,  delivering^  committing,  or  entrusting, 
which  is  not  a  mere  specification  of  the  preceding  phrase 
('  whom  he  put  into  prison  by  delivering '  etc.),  but  an  addi- 
tional distinct  act,  showing  the  unusual  precautions  taken  to 
secure  a  captive  so  important  ('  whom  he  not  only  put  into 
prison,  but  delivered '  &c.)  Four  quaternions  is  not  a  mere 
periphrasis  for  sixteen^  as  the  Peshito  renders  it,  but  a  tech- 
nical expression  borrowed  from  the  Roman  discipline  or  art 
of  war,  in  w^hich  the  night  was  divided  into  four  watches 
(see  above,  on  2, 15),  and  each  of  these  entrusted  to  four  sol- 
diers, who  succeeded  or  relieved  each  other  every  three  hours. 
These  details  are  found,  not  only  in  the  Jewish  writer  Philo, 
but  in  ancient  military  works,  such  as  those  of  Polybius  in 
Greek  and  Yegetius  in  Latin.  In  the  case  before  us,  four 
armed  men  appear  to  have  been  constantly  employed,  two  in 
the  cell  and  two  before  the  door,  to  watch  one  unarmed  and 
defenceless  prisoner.  To  Jceep^  i.  e.  to  watch  or  guard,  a 
stronger  sense  than  that  attached  to  the  word  Jcee2^  in  modern 
English.  Intending^  literally,  vyishing  or  desiring^  but  with 
the  accessory  notion  of  a  plan  or  purjDose.  (See  above,  on  5, 
28.  33,  and  for  the  usage  of  the  cognate  noun,  on  2,  23.  4,  28. 
5,  38.)  After  Easter^  a  singular  confusion  of  the  Christian 
with  the  Jewish  festival,  transcribed  into  King  James's  version 
from  the  older  ones  of  Tyndale,  Cranmer,  and  Geneva,  while 
Wichf  and  the  Rhemish  Version  go  to  the  opposite  extreme 
of  retaining  the  original  without  translation  {after  pask  or 
pasche.)  There  is  no  imagmable  reason  why  it  should  not  be 
translated  here,  as  in  every  other  place  where  it  occurs,  by 
its  exact  equivalent,  the  Passover,  (See  Matt.  26,  2.  Mark 
14,1.  Luke  2,41.  John  2,13.  1  Cor.  5,7.  Heb.  11,  28,  and 
more  than  twenty  other  instances,  to  wliich  the  one  before  us 
is  the  sole  exception.)  The  word  properly  denotes  the  sacri- 
^fice  and  supper  on  the  fourteenth  day  of  Msan,  but  is  here 
used,  as  in  several  of  the  places  just  referred  to,  for  the  whole 
festival,  described  in  the  preceding  verse  as  the  days  of  un- 
leavened  bread.  To  bring  himforth^  literally,  up}^  as  we  speak 
of  bringing  a  man  up  before  a  court  or  magistrate.     (Compare 


446  ACTS  12,  4.5. 

Luke  22,  66.)  The  Greek  verb  frequently  occurs  in  Acts,  but 
almost  always  as  a  nautical  or  sea-phrase  (see  below,  on  13, 13, 
and  compare  7,  41.  9,  39.  16,  34.)  To  the  people^  not  as 
judges,  but  as  spectators,  in  some  great  assembly,  either  for 
amusement,  or  to  witness  Peter's  execution.  (Compare  the 
case  of  Samson,  Judg.  16,  25.)  Herod's  motive  for  postponing 
this  exposure  of  his  prisoner  may  have  been  some  scruple  of 
his  own,  or  a  regard  to  the  religious  feelings  of  the  people 
whom  he  wished  to  please,  or  quite  as  probably  because  he 
knew  that  durmg  the  paschal  week  their  minds  would  be  en- 
grossed with  its  ceremonies  and  festivities,  and  therefore  less 
fit  to  appreciate  the  treat  which  he  proposed  to  give  them. 

5.  Peter  therefore  was  kept  in  prison  ;  but  prayer 
was  made  without  ceasing  of  the  church  unto  God  for 
him. 

Therefore^  or  rather  so  then^  the  same  compound  particle 
(/xei/  ovv)  which  w^e  have  had  repeatedly  before  in  this  book,  to 
denote  the  pauses  and  resumptions  of  the  narrative,  (See 
above,  on  1,6.  2,41.  5  41.  8,4.25.  9,31,  11,19.)  Kep%\n 
the  same  strong  sense  explained  above  (on  v.  4),  though  the 
verb  is  not  the  same,  but  one  employed  by  Matthew  (27,  36. 
54.  28,  4)  in  the  same  sense,  whereas  in  John  it  always  means 
either  to  preserve  or  to  observe.  (See  John  2, 10.  8,  51,  and 
passim.)  This  is  not  a  mere  reiteration  of  a  fact  already 
stated,  as  the  imperfect  form  of  the  Greek  verb  is  equivalent 
to  the  modern  phrase,  vias  being  Jcept^  i.  e.  when  something 
else  took  place,  recorded  in  the  next  clause.  There  too,  the 
literal  translation  is,  loas  being  niade^  the  clauses  forming  an 
antithesis.  While  he  was  watched,  they  were  praying.  With- 
out ceasing  is  a  paraphrase  of  one  Greek  word,  and  that  an 
adjective  qualifying  prayer^  and  originally  meaning  tight  or 
strained,  but  in  its  figurative  usage  corresponding  to  intense^ 
i.  e.  when  applied  to  prayer,  "  instant  and  earnest,"  as  it  is 
well  explained  in  the  margin  of  the  English  Bible.  Of  (i.  e. 
by)  the  church,  still  regarded  as  one  body,  however  numerous 
its  members  or  its  subdivisions.  (See  above,  on  v.  1,  and  be- 
low, on  V.  12.)  To  God^  not  to  man,  not  to  Herod,  whom 
they  might  have  hoped  to  influence  in  some  way.  For  him 
concerning  him,  in  his  behalf;  not  merely  for  his  libera- 
tion, but  for  a  happy  issue  to  this  trial,  both  to  htm  and  to 
the  cause  f:>r  which  he  suffered.     (See  below,  on  vs.  15,  16.) 


ACTS  12,  6.  7.  447 

6.  And  when  Herod  would  have  brought  him  forth/ 
the  same  night  Peter  was  sleeping  between  two  sol- 
diers, bound  with  two  chains,  and  the  keepers  before 
the  door  kept  the  prison. 

Would  have  brought^  or  more  exactly,  was  about  to  bring. 
Herod's  plan  was  on  the  very  eve  of  its  accomplishment.  7h 
bring  forth  (or  forward)  is  the  true  sense  of  the  verb  here 
used,  a  kindred  form  to  that  in  v.  4,  and  in  this  book  always 
applied  to  prisoners.  (See  below,  on  16,  30.  25,  26.)  The 
same  nighty  or  {in)  that  {very)  nighty  the  one  preceding  the 
day  fixed  for  Peter's  public  aj^pearance.  His  sleeping  proba- 
bly, but  not  necessarily,  implies  composure  and  serenity. 
Bound  with  tioo  chains^  to  the  arms  of  the  two  soldiers,  a 
method  of  confinement  spoken  of  by  other  ancient  writers, 
especially  by  Seneca  {eadeni  catena  et  custodiam  et  militem 
copulat)  and  Josephus,  who  describes  this  very  Herod  or 
Agrippa  as  having  been  so  secured  by  order  of  Tiberius. 
And  the  Iceepers^  or  the  keepers  also  (re),  i.  e.  the  two  remain- 
ing men  of  the  quaternion  (see  above,  on  v.  4.)  Keepers^  in 
the  strong  sense  of  guards  or  watchers.  Before  the  door^ 
either  the  main  entrance  to  the  prison  (see  below,  on  v.  10), 
or  the  door  of  the  particular  ward,  cell,  or  dungeon,  in  which 
Peter  lay.  Kept^  in  the  imperfect  tense,  were  keeping^  guard- 
ing, watching.  The  correspondence  of  the  verb  and  noun  is 
lost  in  the  translation,  unless  we  read,  the  gaolers  kept  the  gaol, 

7.  And,  behold,  the  angel  of  the  Lord  came  upon 
(him),  and  a  light  shined  in  the  prison,  and  he  smote 
Peter  on  the  side,  and  raised  him  up,  saying.  Arise''  up 
quickly  ;   and  his  chains  fell  off  from  (his)  hands. 

Behold^  as  usual,  prepares  the  mind  for  something  unex- 
pected; see  above,  on  11,  11.  The  angel  (or  an  a7igeT)  of  the 
Lord ;  see  above,  on  5,  19.  Ga'iue  upon  him^  or  stood  over 
him;  see  above,  on  4,1.  6,12.  10,17.  11,11,  (Wicl.  stood 
nigh.  Tynd.  was  there  present.  Rhem.  stood  in  presence^  A 
lights  or  simply  light  without  the  article  ;  see  above,  on  9,  3. 
This  light  may  have  proceeded  from  the  Angel,  as  a  super- 
natural and  heavenly  efiulgence ;  or  it  may  have  been  a  sepa- 
rate LHumination,  intended  to  facilitate  the  prisoner's  escape. 
In  the  prison^  literally,  in  the  house  or  dwelling^  a  term  used 


448  ACTS  12,  7.  8.9. 

•in  Attic  Greek,  by  a  peculiar  superstition,  instead  of  the  un- 
lucky word  which  distinctly  denotes  prison.  This  singular 
usage  is  affirmed  by  Plutarch,  and  exemplified  by  Thucydides 
and  Demosthenes.  And  smote  (hterally,  smiting)  Peter^s 
side,  or  pleura,  a  term  still  used  in  anatomy.  As  the  Greek 
verb  elsewhere  means  to  strike  with  violence,  so  as  even  to 
wound  or  kill  (see  Matt.  26,  31.  51.  Luke  22,  49.  50),  we  have 
neither  right  nor  reason  to  give  it,  in  this  one  place,  the  di- 
luted sense  of  striking  gently.  liaised  him,  up,  or  rather 
roused  him,  the  idea  being  not  merely  that  ol  lifting  (as  in  3, 
7)  but  of  awakening  from  sleep,  in  which  sease  the  verb  is 
metaphorically  used  of  resurrection  or  resuscitation.  (See 
above,  on  3,  15.  4, 10.  5.  30.  10,  40.)  Arise  (or  stand  up) 
quickly  (or  in  haste.)  His  chains^  literally,  the  chains,  as  the 
pronoim  in  Greek  is  not  repeated.  Fell  off  from  (or,  as  the 
original  expression  strictly  means,  fell  out  of)  his  hands,  as 
if  he  had  been  holding  and  not  merely  wearing  them. 

8.  And  the  angel  said  unto  him,  Gird  thyself,  and 
bind  on  thy  sandals  ;  and  so  he  did.  And  he  saith 
unto  him,  Cast  thy  garment  about  thee,  and  follow  me. 

Gird  thyself,  or,  according  to  the  text  adopted  by  the 
latest  critics,  gird  (thy  clothes)  around  (thee).  Bind  on 
(literally,  hind  under)  thy  sandals,  which  covered  the  sole  of 
the  foot  only.  (For  the  use  of  the  corresponding  noun,  see 
above,  on  V,  33.)  And  he  did  so  marks  a  stage  or  pause  in  the 
proceeding.  And  he  says  to  him,  a  second  time,  again,  cast 
about  or  throw  around  (thee)  thy  (upper  or  outer)  garment 
(see  above,  on  7,  58.)  And  (now  that  thou  art  fully  prepared) 
folloio  me.  This  command  to  dress  himself  completely  and 
dehberately,  may  have  been  intended  both  to  show  him  the 
reahty  of  what  he  witnessed  and  to  assure  him  of  immediate 
liberation.  This  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  call  to  arise 
quickly.  Hesitation  in  arising  would  have  argued  unbelieving 
doubts;  undue  haste  in  departure  unbelieving  fears.  Both 
were  sufficiently  precluded  by  the  summons  to  stand  uj)  at 
once,  and  by  the  subsequent  instructions  to  resume  every  ar- 
ticle of  dress  which  he  had  laid  aside,  before  he  left  the  prison, 

9.  And  he  went  out,  and  followed  him  ;  and  wist 


ACTS  12,  9.  10.  449 

not  tliat  it  was  linie  which  was  done  by  the  angel,  but 
thought  he  saw  a  vision. 

And  going  (or  coming)  otit,  he  (Peter)  folloioed  (or  woj^ 
following)  him  (the  Angel),  and  (as  he  did  so)  knew  not  (was 
not  certain)  that  it  is  (as  if  present  to  the  writer  or  the  reader, 
see  above,  on  V,  25)  true  (i.  e.  real,  not  imaginary),  the  (thing) 
done  hy  (or  happened,  come  to  pass,  by  means  of)  the  Angel. 
But  (although  uncertain  as  to  this  point)  he  (rather)  thought 
he  saw  (or  seemed  to  see)  a  vision  (a  miraculous  sight  or  ideal 
spectacle),  such  as  he  had  lately  seen  in  Joppa  (10,  11.  12.) 
That  Peter  should  have  been  inclined  to  this  conclusion,  after 
what  he  had  so  recently  experienced,  was  certainly  most 
natural. 

10.  When  they  were  past  the  first  and  the  second 
ward,  they  came  unto  the  iron  gate  that  leadeth  unto 
the  city,  which  opened  to  them  of  his  own  accord; 
and  they  went  out,  and  passed  on  (through)  one  street, 
and  forthwith  the  angel  departed  from  him. 

And  having  past  (or  come  througJi)  a  first  and  second 
ward^  or  subdivision  of  the  prison,  which  is  much  more  natural 
than  to  understand  it  of  a  first  and  second  guai'd  or  watch. 
The  iron  gate  is  spoken  of  as  something  well  known,  or  perhaps 
as  something  usual  in  prisons.  Leadmg  into  the  city  from 
the  interior  of  the  prison,  but  not  necessarily  from  without  the 
walls.  There  is  nothing,  therefore,  to  be  learnt  here  as  to  the 
position  of  the  prison,  with  respect  to  which  there  have  been 
various  conjectures.  Of  his  (in  modern  English,  its)  own  ac- 
cord opened  (was  opened)  to  them  (i.  e.  for  them,  or  before 
them)  to  afibrd  them  passage.  Coming  out^  at  the  iron  door, 
and  therefore  fi'om  the  whole  enclosure  of  the  prison.  Passed 
on^  came  forward  or  proceeded.  Through  is  supplied  by  the 
translators.  Street^  the  same  Greek  word  that  is  used  above 
in  9, 11,  and  there  explained.  One  street^  i.  e.  probably  the 
length  of  one.  The  reference  may  be  either  to  a  particular 
street,  or  to  a  customary  measure  like  our  square,  block,  etc. 
Forthwith^  as  soon  as  they  had  gone  this  distance.  Departed 
is  in  Greek  the  converse  of  the  verb  employed  in  v.  7,  a  rela- 
oion  which  can  only  be  expressed  in  English  by  some  such  com- 
bination as  "  appeared  "  and  "  disappeared." 


450  ACTS   12,  11.  12. 

11.  And  when  Peter  was  come  to  himself,  he  said, 
Now  I  know  of  a  surety,  that  the  Lord  hath  sent  his 
angel,  and  hath  delivered  me  out  of  the  hand  of  Herod, 
and  (from)  all  the  expectation  of  the  people  of  the 
Jews. 

Coming  to  himself  is  not  the  same  phrase  that  is  so  trans 
lated  in  Luke  15,  17,  but  one  that  properly  means,  hei7ig  (or 
beginning  to  be)  in  himself  i.  e.  in  his  natural  or  normal  state, 
as  opposed  to  the  perplexity  and  doubt  described  in  v.  9.  Of 
a  surety^  truly,  really,  or  certainly,  the  adverb  corresponding 
to  the  adjective  in  v.  9.  Sent^  or  more  emphatically,  se7it  out, 
sent  away,  implying  distance  (see  above,  on  7,  12.  9,  30.  11, 
22.)  Delivered  is  a  cognate  form  in  Greek  to  that  translated 
killed  in  V.  2  ;  an  analogous  antithesis  to  that  already  noticed 
(on  V.  10.)  While  one  apostle  was  put  to  death,  the  other 
\vas  put  at  liberty.  The  hand^  power  or  possession.  Expec- 
tation, that  v/hich  they  expected,  namely  his  exposure  and 
most  probably  his  execution.  (See  above,  on  v.  4.)  All  the 
expectation,  the  worst  that  he  had  reason  to  anticipate  with 
dread,  and  they  with  pleasure.  The  people  of  the  Jews,  the 
Jewish  people,  not  merely  individuals,  but  the  w^hole  commu- 
nity, which  seems  to  have  acted  with  great  unanimity,  as  well 
in  showing  favour  as  in  manifesting  hatred.  (See  above,  on 
2,47.  4,21.  5,20.  6,12.) 

12.  And  when  he  had  considered  (the  thing),  he 
came  to  the  house  of  Mary  the  mother  of  John,  whose 
surname  was  Mark,  where  many  were  gathered  to- 
gether praying. 

When  he  had  considered  the  thing  answ^ers  to  one  word  in 
Greek  which  means  considering  (i.  e.  where  he  was,  or  where 
he  would  be  likely  to  find  Christian  friends  assembled) ;  or 
being  aware  (of  his  position,  and  the  place  where  he  was  stand- 
ing) ;  or  being  conscious  (in  a  state  of  consciousness,  as  op- 
posed to  an  ecstatic  one.)  This  last  is  nearly  synonymous 
with  being  iii  (or  coming  to)  himself  in  the  preceding  verse. 
For  the  usage  of  the  Greek  verb,  see  above,  on  5,  2,  and  be- 
low, on  14,  6,  and  compare  1  Cor.  4,  4.  Game  to,  or  up>07i, 
perhaps  implying  that  he  did  so  unexpectedly.  Mary  (or 
Miriam)  being  one  of  the  most  common  Jewish  names,  the 


ACTS   12,  12.  13.  451 

person  here  meant  is  distingnished  by  the  mention  of  her  son, 
who  was  no  doubt  therefore  well  knoAvn.  John  being  also  an 
extremely  common  name,  the  son  is  distinguished  in  like  man- 
ner  by  a  Latin  surname  {3farciis)^  which,  according  to  the 
custom  of  the  age,  was  added  to  his  Hebrew  one.  (See  nbove, 
on  1,  23.  9,  36,  and  below,  on  13,  1.  9.)  This  Johii  Marie  is  no 
doubt  the  same  who  is  mentioned  in  v.  25,  and  reappears  in 
13,  13.  15,  37-39.  He  is  also  supposed  to  be  the  same  whom 
Peter  calls  his  son  (1  Pet.  5,  13),  i.  e.  his  spiritual  son  or  con- 
vert ;  whom  Paul  names  in  three  of  his  epistles  as  his  fellow- 
labourer  (see  Col.  4, 10.  2  Tim.  4, 11.  Philem.  24) ;  and  to  whom 
an  old  and  uniform  tradition  ascribes  the  composition  of  the 
second  gospel.  The  house  of  Mary^  i.  e.  the  house  where  she 
was  living ;  but  whether  as  a  lodger  or  an  owner  we  are  not 
told,  and  are  therefore  not  at  liberty  to  use  this  as  a  proof  that 
individual  property  was  not  abolished  by  the  community  of 
goods  described  in  2,  44.  4,  32,  although  this  negative  conclu- 
sion is  highly  probable  for  other  reasons.  Many  were  gath- 
ered (or  crowded)^  perhaps  according  to  custom,  but  more  pro- 
bably in  reference  to  this  emergency.     (See  above,  on  v.  5.) 

13.  And  as  Peter  knocked  at  the  door  of  the  gate, 
a  damsel  came  to  hearken,  named  Rhoda. 

And  Peter  knocking^  or,  according  to  the  latest  critics,  he 
hnocking.  The  door  of  the  gate^  or  rather  of  the  porch^  the 
front  or  street-door.  Several  of  the  older  English  versions 
have,  the  entry-door.  (See  above,  on  10, 17.)  A  damsel^  maid, 
or  girl,  perhaps  a  member  of  the  family,  but  most  probably  a 
servant,  as  the  Greek  word  is  clearly  so  used  elsewhere  (see 
below,  on  16, 16,  and  compare  Luke  12,  45.  Gal.  4,  22),  and  as 
female  servants  seem  to  have  performed  this  office,  even  in 
great  houses  (see  Matt.  26,  69.  Mark  14,  66.  69.  Luke  22,  56. 
John  18, 17.)  Came,  literally,  came  to  (it,  or  to  the  door) 
from  within.  To  listen,  or  as  the  margin  of  the  English  Bible 
less  exactly  renders  it,  to  ask  who  loas  there.  The  expression 
here  might  seem  to  have  respect  to  some  particular  emergency 
or  danger,  were  it  not  used  in  the  classics  to  denote  the  ordi- 
nary act  of  attending  or  answering  the  door.  Two  of  the 
verbs  here  used  (knock  and  come  to)  are  combined  by  Lucian, 
and  two  (knock  and  listen)  by  Xenophon.  A  similar  Latin 
phrase  is  used  by  Plautus  (fores  ausctdtato.)  Named  (lite- 
rally, hy  name)  Hhoda^  or  rather  HhodCf  as  the  name  is  Greek, 


452  ACTS  12,  13.  14.  15. 

not  Latin,  and  the  latter  form  is  given  even  in  the  Vulgate. 
The  name  denotes  a  rose-bush,  not  a  rose,  as  sometimes  stated, 
which  m  Greek  is  a  related  but  distinct  form  {rhodon.)  Simi- 
lar names,  derived  from  j^lants  or  flowers,  are  Tamar  (palm), 
Hadassah  (myrtle),  and  JSusatitia  (lily.)  For  others  borrowed 
from  the  animal  kingdom,  see  above,  on  9,  36.  The  preserva- 
tion of  this  beautiful  but  unimportant  name  in  the  history  be- 
fore us  is  a  slight  but  striking  proof  of  authenticity. 

14.  And  when  she  knew  Peter's  voice,  she  opened 
not  the  gate  for  gladness,  but  ran  in  and  told  how 
Peter  stood  before  the  gate. 

And  recognizing  Peter's  voice^  which  may  imply  that  he 
was  in  the  habit  of  resorting  to  the  house,  if  not  (as  Matthew 
Henry  says)  that  she  had  often  heard  him  preach  and  pray. 
This  incident  resembles  that  m  Matt.  26,  73.  Mark  14,  70,  ex- 
cepting that  in  that  case  it  was  not  his  voice,  but  his  provin- 
cial dialect,  that  made  him  known.  (For  the  meaning  of  the 
Greek  verb  here  used,  see  above,  on  3, 10.  4, 13.  9,  30.)  For 
gladness^  or  from  joy  ^  a  lifelike  incident,  analogous  to  those  in 
Gen.  45,26.  Luke  24,41.  Told  how^  or  reported  that  (com- 
pare the  use  of  the  same  verb  m  4,  23.  5,  22.  25.  11,  13  above, 
and  in  V.  17  below.)  The  gate^  twice  mentioned  in  this  verse, 
is  properly  the  porch  or  front  part  of  the  building,  as  before 
explained  (on  v.  13  and  10, 17.) 

15.  And  they  said  unto  her,  Thou  art  mad.  But 
she  constantly  affirmed  that  it  was  even  so.  Then  said 
they,  It  is  his  angel. 

They^  i.  e.  the  people  of  the  house,  as  in  10, 10,  or  rather 
those  w^ho  happened  to  be  there  assembled  (see  above,  on  vs. 
5.  12.)  Thou  art  mad^  thou  raA^est,  corresponds  to  one  Greek 
word,  which  is  applied,  in  precisely  the  same  sense,  to  Christ 
himself,  and  to  Paul  (26,  24.  John  10,  20.)  It  is  here  a 
strong  exj)ression  of  their  incredulity.  Constantly  (or  confi- 
dently, steadfastly)  affirmed^  is  also  a  single  word  in  Greek, 
often  used,  in  the  same  sense,  by  Plato  and  the  Attic  oratoi's. 
That  it  was  even  so,  literally,  so  (or  thus)  to  have,  i.  e.  to  have 
itself,  to  be,  the  same  Greek  idiom  that  occurs  above  in  7,  1. 
Then,  the  same  word  that  is  translated  and,  but,  in  the  two 
preceding  clauses.     His  angel,  i.  e.,  as  some  understand  it,  his 


ACTS  12,  15.  16.  453 

messenger^  a  messenger  from  Peter.  This  is  the  original 
meaning  of  the  Greek  word,  and  occurs  in  a  few  places  (Matt. 
11, 10.  Luke  7,  24.  9,  52.  James  2,  5.)  But  this  idea  would 
have  been  expressed  more  naturally  by  the  phrase,  a  messenger 
from  him,  or  one  sent  by  him.  Besides,  a  message  from  Peter, 
guarded  as  he  was,  would  have  been  scarcely  less  surprising 
than  his  personal  appearance.  Most  interpreters,  therefore, 
are  agreed  that  angel  has  here  its  usual  and  higher  sense,  in 
which  it  has  repeatedly  occurred  before.  (See  above,  on  vs. 
7.  8.  9.  10.  11,  and  on  5,  19.  6,  15.  7,  30.  35.  38.  53.  8,  26.  10, 
3.  7.  22.  11,  13.)  Some  understand  by  his  angel  a  preter- 
natural apparition,  supposed  in  the  superstitions  of  some  coun- 
tries to  announce  the  death  of  the  person  represented.  It 
is  a  very  ancient  notion,  that  this  text  confirms  the  doctrine 
elsewhere  taught,  that  every  person  has  his  guardian  angel. 
But  no  such  thing  is  really  suggested,  either  here  or  in  Gen. 
48,  16.  Ps.  34,  7.  Eccl.  5,  6.  Matt.  18,  10.  Heb.  1,  14.  The 
doctrine  of  angelic  guardianship  is  clearly  taught  in  Scripture, 
but  not  that  of  a  particular  angel  guardmg  every  individual. 
Even  if  this  were  the  meaning  of  the  words  before  us,  it 
would  only  show  that  the  primitive  Christians  were  not  wholly 
free  from  superstition.  But  the  words  necessarily  denote  no 
more  than  the  mission  of  an  angel,  which  was  not  more  in- 
credible in  this  case  than  in  that  recorded  just  before  in  this 
same  chapter.    (See  above,  on  vs.  7-10.) 

16.  But  Peter  continued  knocking,  and  when  they 
had  opened  (the  door),  and  saw  him,  they  were  as- 
tonished. 

Continued  is  in  Greek  an  emphatic  compound,  and  might 
be  translated,  still  continued  or  continued  on.  Having  opened 
they  saw  him^  may  refer,  as  before,  to  the  people  of  the  house, 
or  still  more  probably,  to  the  assembled  Christians,  who  would 
naturally  come  out  in  a  body,  on  receiving  the  glad  news  of 
his  arrival.  Were  astonished^  the  same  verb  employed  above 
in  2,  7. 12.  8,  9. 11.  13.  9,  21.  10,  45.  Their  wonder  has  been 
sometimes  represented  as  a  proof  of  weak  faith,  since  they 
could  not  believe  the  very  thing  for  which  they  had  been 
praying.  But  their  prayers  may  not  have  been  exclusively 
for  Peter's  liberation  (see  above,  on  vs.  5.  12)  ;  or  they  may, 
to  use  a  natural  and  common  phrase,  have  thought  the  tidings 


454  ACTS  12,  16.  17. 

too  good  to  be  true.     (Compare  the  case  of  Ananias,  in  9, 
13. 14.) 

17.  But  he,  beckoning  unto  them  with  the  hand  to 
hold  their  peace,  declared  unto  them  how  the  Lord 
had  brought  him  out  of  the  prison.  And  he  said,  Go 
show  these  things  unto  James,  and  to  the  brethren. 
And  he  departed,  and  went  into  another  place. 

JBeckoning^  literally,  shaking  doicn  (or  downwards)^  a  verb 
found  only  in  this  book  of  the  New  Testament,  and  always  of 
the  hand,  as  a  preliminary  gesture  used  by  public  speakers  to 
secure  attention.  (See  below,  on  13, 16.  19,  33.  21,  40.)  To 
hold  their  peace^  or  to  be  silent,  is  in  Greek  a  single  word. 
The  clause  may  have  reference,  either  to  the  ordinary  noise 
of  conversation,  or  more  probably  to  the  unusual  expression 
of  their  joy  at  Peter's  liberation.  Declared^  or  as  the  Greek 
verb  primarily  signifies,  Ud  the  tcay  through  the  m.atter,  or 
went  thi'ough  it  in  the  form  of  a  circumstantial  narrative. 
For  another  instance  of  the  same  verb  and  the  same  construc- 
tion with  how  (see  above,  on  9,  27.)  The  Lord^  i.  e.  God,  or 
more  specifically  the  Lord  Jesus  Chiist  (see  above,  on  1,  24. 
2,36.  9,27.35.42.  10,36.48.  11,21.23.24),  by  the  agency 
or  intervention  of  his  angel.  And  he  said^  or,  and  said, 
which  would  make  the  following  clause  a  command  of  the 
Lord  to  Peter,  (Iteport  to  James  and  to  the  brethren  tJiese 
things),  which  he  was  now  executing.  But  no  such  command 
Ls  mentioned  in  the  previous  context,  and  to  most  interpreters 
and  readers  it  has  always  seemed  more  natural  to  understand 
the  words  as  those  addi'essed  by  Peter  himself  to  the  Chris- 
tians gathered  at  the  house  of  Mary.  As  James  the  son  of 
Zebedee  had  been  already  put  to  death  (see  above,  on  v.  2), 
and  the  only  other  person  of  that  name  who  has  been  previ- 
ously mentioned  in  this  history  is  James  the  son  of  Alpheus 
(see  above,  on  1, 13),  the  reference  must  be  to  him,  imless 
some  reason  to  the  contrary  should  be  suggested  by  the  sub- 
sequent history  (see  below,  on  15, 13.)  He  may  be  particu- 
larly named  here  as  the  only  other  Apostle  then  in  Jerusalem, 
or  as  the  one  to  whom  the  care  of  the  church  there  had  been 
Bpecially  entrusted,  or  on  whom  it  was  now  to  be  devolved  by 
Peter.  And  he  departed  might,  on  the  hypothesis  already 
mentioned,  be  supposed  to  refer  to  the  disappearance  of  the 


ACTS  12,  17.  18.  455 

angel  (see  above,  on  v.  10.)  But  the  literal  translation  {going 
OKt)  is  less  ajDpropriate  to  that  event,  and  the  words  have  been 
almost  universally  apphed  to  Peter's  own  departure  from  the 
house  of  Mary,  or  the  city  of  Jerusalem.  Wetit.,  or  more  em- 
phatically, went  away^  departed,  journeyed  (see  above,  on  1, 
10.11.25.  5,20.41.  8,26.27.36.37.  9,3.11.15.31.10,20.) 
The  use  of  this  word  seems  to  show  that  the  clause  has  refer- 
ence, not  to  his  concealment  in  some  other  quarter  of  the 
Holy  City,  but  to  his  departure  from  it.  This  agrees  well 
with  the  fact,  that  he  appears  no  more  there  as  a  resident 
apostle,  but  only  as  a  member  of  the  Apostolical  Council, 
which  he  may  have  come  expressly  to  attend.  (See  below, 
on  15,  7.)  To  what  other  place  he  now  removed  there  is 
nothing  in  the  text  or  context  to  determine.  Several  names 
have  been  suo:gested  by  conjecture,  such  as  Cesarea  (see  the 
next  verse),  Antioch  (see  Gal.  2,  11),  and  Rome,  in  order  to 
sustain  the  tradition  that  Peter  was  for  many  years  the  bishop 
of  the  church  there,  a  tradition  inconsistent  with  the  absolute 
silence  of  Paul  respecting  him,  in  writing  to  and  fi-om  Rome. 

18.  Now  as  soon  as  it  was  day,  there  was  no  small 
stir  among  the  soldiers,  what  was  become  of  Peter. 

And  (it)  being  (or  becoming)  day.  Small  is  in  Greek  the 
singular  number  of  the  word  iov  few  (see  below,  on  17.  4.  12.) 
Stir^  commotion,  tumult.  The  same  word  is  apphed  by  Luke 
to  a  popular  disturbance  or  riot  (see  below,  on  19,  23),  and  a 
kindred  form  by  Mark  (13,  8)  to  the  same  object,  and  by 
John  (5,  4)  to  a  physical  commotion  of  the  waters.  It  here 
expresses  the  confusion  and  excitement  naturally  caused  by 
the  escape  of  an  important  prisoner,  especially  among  those 
to  whose  keeping  he  had  been  committed.  (See  above,  on  5^ 
22-25.)  As  no  discovery  was  made  till  daybreak,  when 
the  guard  would  be  relieved,  Peter  was  probably  dehvered 
durmg  the  last  or  morning- watch.  (See  above,  on  v.  4,  and 
on  1,  15.)  Among  (or  iyi)  the  soldiers^  of  the  four  quaternions, 
to  whom  the  king  dehvered  Peter  for  safe  keeping.  (See 
above,  on  v.  4.)  The  thought  to  be  supphed  between  the 
clauses  is  *  to  know,'  '  to  discover,'  or  the  hke.  WJmt  was 
becm^ie  of  Peter^  hterally,  what  tJien  Peter  had  become.  Tliis 
has  been  strictly  understood  by  some,  as  implying  that  the 
soldiers  suspected  or  beUeved  him  to  have  been  transformed 
by  magic  into  some  other  form,  and  thus  to  have  escaped. 


456  ACTS   12,  18.  19. 

This  idea  might  have  been  sincerely  entertained  by  heathen 
soldiers,  such  as  Herod's  guards  perhaps  were ;  or  it  might' 
have  been  invented  as  a  cloak  for  what  appeared  to  be 
their  own  neglect  of  duty.  But  the  Greek  words  probably 
mean  no  more  than  our  version  has  expressed,  a  kind  of  indi- 
rect inquiry,  what  had  befallen  or  become  of  Peter.  The 
form  of  the  original,  though  foreign  from  our  idiom,  agrees 
almost  exactly  with  the  French  mode  of  expressing  the  same 
thing  (ce  que  JPierre  serait  devenu.) 

19.  And  when  Herod  had  sought  for  him,  and 
found  him  not,  he  examined  the  keepers,  and  com- 
manded that  (they)  should  be  put  to  death.  And  he 
went  down  from  Judea  to  Cesarea,  and  (there)  abode. 

Having  sought  for  him^  and  not  finding  him^  having  ex- 
amined the  guards^  he  commanded^  etc.  Examined^  judicially, 
a  verb  used  only  by  Luke  and  Paul  (see  above,  on  4,  9.) 
That  they  should  he  put  to  death^  literally,  to  be  led  away^ 
sometimes  without  reference  to  judicial  process  (see  below^, 
on  23,  17.  24,  V,  and  compare  Luke  13,  15.  Matt  T,  13)  ;  some- 
times meaning  to  the  bar,  or  the  j^resence  of  a  magistrate  (as  in 
Matt.  26, 57.  27,  2.  Mark  14,  53.  15, 16.  John  18,  3) ;  sometimes 
to  prison  or  a  place  of  safety  (see  below,  on  23,  10,  and  compare 
Mark  14,  44)  ;  sometimes  to  execution  (as  in  Matt,  27,  31. 
Luke  23,  26.  John  19,  16.)  This  last  is  a  favourite  euphem- 
ism in  the  classics  (see  above,  on  v.  7),  as  when  Pliny  writes 
to  Trajan,  of  the  Christians  who  refused  at  his  tribunal  to 
deny  Christ,  "those  persisting  I  ordered  to  be  led  away" 
{perseverantes  ducijussi.)  This  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  an 
act  of  extraordinary  cruelty  in  Herod,  but  as  a  simple  apph- 
cation  of  the  Roman  military  law,  with  which  he  was  famiUar. 
It  is  not  necessarily  imphed  that  the  miraculous  deliverance 
of  Peter  was  known  either  .to  the  king  or  to  the  guards ;  but 
as  the  latter  could  give  no  account  of  his  escape,  there  seemed 
to  be  no  doubt  that  they  must  either  have  connived  at  it,  or 
slept  upon  their  post,  a  capital  offence  in  Roman  soldiers. 
(See  below,  on  16,  27,  and  compare  Matt.  28, 14.)  The  last 
clause  is  referred  by  some  to  Peter  ;  but  this  construction,  al- 
though not  impossible,  has  never  seemed  so  natural  to  most 
interpreters  and  readers,  as  that  which  understands  the  words 
of  Herod.     From  Judea^  i.  e.  from  the  inland  or  interior,  ^^o 


ACTS   12,  19.  20.  467 

Cesarea^  which  was  on  the  sea-coast,  and  also  near  the  north- 
ern lunit  of  the  provmce.  (See  above,  on  8,  40.  9,  30.  10, 1.) 
As  this  had  been  the  residence  of  the  Roman  procurators,  so 
It  now  was  of  Agrippa  (see  below,  on  23,  35.)  Abode^  not 
necessarily  for  the  same  time,  but  spent  the  time  there  before 
his  death.  The  same  Greek  verb  is  elsewhere  rendered  tarried 
(see  below,  on  25,  6,  and  compare  John  3,  22),  co7itinued  (see 
below,  on  15,  35,  and  compare  John  11,  54),  and  in  one  case 
simply  had  been  (see  below,  on  25,  14),  but  most  frequently  as 
here  (see  below,  on  14,  3.  28.  16, 12.  20,  6.)  Josephus  tells 
us  that  Agrippa  went  to  Cesarea  for  the  purpose  of  celebrating 
games  in  honour  of  the  emperor,  which,  though  not  here  men- 
tioned, is  entirely  consistent  with  the  narrative  before  us. 

20.  And  Herod  was  liiglily  displeased  with  them 
of  Tyre  and  Sidon ;  but  they  came  with  one  accord 
to  him,  and,  having  made  Blastus  the  king's  chamber- 
lain their  friend,  des-ired  peace,  because  their  country 
was  nourished  by  the  king's  (country.) 

Highly  displeased^  literally,  icarring  in  mind^  i.  e.  as  the 
margin  of  our  Bible  renders  it,  bearing  a  hostile  mind,  but 
not,  as  it  is  there  added,  intending  war  ;  for  this  the  Romans 
would  not  have  permitted  between  two  of  their  dependents. 
The  same  objection  lies,  with  stiU  more  force,  against  the  ex- 
planation, furiously  fighting^  although  justified  by  classical 
usage.  Them  of  Tyre  and  Sidon^  Hterally,  the  Tyrians  and 
Sidonians^  the  people  of  the  two  great  cities  of  Phenicia  (see 
above,  on  1 1, 19),  from  whose  foreign  trade  the  country  derived 
all  its  wealth,  being  itself  a  narrow  strip  of  sea-coast,  without 
any  rich  interior,  and  dependent  even  for  the  most  indispen- 
sable supplies  upon  its  neighbours,  and  especially  on  Palestine, 
a  mutual  relation  which  appears  to  have  existed  from  the  time 
of  Solomon,  and  is  expressly  mentioned  by  Ezekiel  in  his 
vivid  picture  of  the  trade  of  Tyre.  (See  1  Kings  5. 11.  Ezra 
3,  7.  Ezek.  27,  IV.)  On  this  account  it  was  their  wisest  policy 
to  live  on  good  terms  with  Agrippa,  who  was  now  the  sove- 
reign of  all  Palestine,  and  may  have  been  disposed  to  look 
upon  Tyre  and  Sidon  as  commercial  rivals  of  the  new  port 
which  his  grandfather  had  created  at  Straton's  Tower,  now 
called  Cesarea.  (See  above,  on  8,  40.  10, 1.)  This  temper 
he  could   easily  indulge  by   checking    the   communication, 

VOL.  I. — 20 


458  ACTS  12,  20.  21. 

and  especially  the  export  of  provisions  to  Phenicia.  With 
one  accord^  unanimously,  by  agreement,  which  may  possibly 
imply  that  they  had  been  at  variance  among  themselves,  but 
now  united  in  a  measure  equally  important  to  both  cities,  and 
indeed  to  the  whole  country.  Came  (or  more  exactly  loere 
present)  to  him^  i.  e.  came  into  his  presence,  sought  an  audi- 
ence. This  they  did  not  directly,  but  through  Blastus^  the 
hinges  chambeTlain^  or  as  it  is  more  literally  rendered  in  the 
margin,  that  was  over  the  king^s  bed-chamber.  In  ancient  courts, 
as  well  as  in  some  modern  ones,  domestic  officers  controlled 
the  sovereign,  and  if  not  his  ministers  of  state,  were  really 
his  confidential  counsellors.  (See  above,  on  8,  27.)  Having 
made  him  their  friend^  literally,  having  persuaded  him^  per- 
haps by  bribes,  but  no  less  probably  by  arguments,  showing 
that  the  interests  of  Herod  coincided  with  their  own.  (See 
above,  on  5,  40,  and  compare  Matt.  28, 14.  Gal.  1,  10.)  De- 
sired peace^  or  rather  asked  it  for  themselves,  which  is  the  full 
force  of  the  middle  voice,  as  here  used.  (See  above,  on  3,  14. 
7,  46.  9,  2.)  Peace^  not  merely  as  oj^posed  to  war,  but  to 
alienation,  rivalry,  or  conflicting  interests.  Because  their 
country^  literally,  for  (or  on  accoimt  of)  their  conntry  being 
nourished^  i.  e.  supplied  with  food,  no  doubt  in  exchange  for 
the  proceeds  of  their  foreign  trade.  The  Mng^s  country^ 
literally,  the  royal^  agreeing  with  country  (or  territory)  under- 
stood, or  repeated  from  the  clause  immediately  preceding. 
They  probably  embraced  the  opportunity,  afforded  by  Agrip- 
pa's  public  or  official  visit  to  a  seaport,  to  negociate  this  re- 
conciliation. 

21.  And  upon  a  set  day,  Herod,  arrayed  in  royal 
apparel,  sat  upon  his  throne,  and  made  an  oration  unto 
them. 

A  set  day^  i.  e.  one  fixed  or  appointed  for  the  purpose. 
We  learn  from  Josephus,  that  it  was  the  second  day  of  Herod's 
games,  or  public  shows,  in  honour  of  his  friend  and  patron, 
Claudius,  perhaps  with  reference  to  his  safe  return  from 
Britain,  which  about  this  time  he  had  reduced  to  its  allegiance 
as  a  Roman  province.  Herod  may  have  reserved  his  an- 
swer to  the  Tyrians  and  Sidonians  for  this  pubHc  occasion, 
from  vanity  and  fondness  for  display,  which  were  his  charac- 
teristic foibles.  Arrayed  in,  or  ratier,  having  put  on,  which 
Is  the  true  force  of  the  middle  voice,  as  in  Luke  1 2,  22.    (Com- 


ACTS   12,  21.  22.  469 

pare  the  active,  Luke  15,  22,  and  the  figurative  use,  Luke  24, 
49.)  Royal  apparel^  or  a  royal  dress,  the  Greek  word  denot- 
ing not  a  single  garment,  but  the  whole  costume.  (See  above, 
on  1,10.  10,  30.)  Josephus  describes  it  more  particularly  as 
a  dress  of  silver,  that  is,  richly  adorned  with  silver  lace  and 
embroidery,  or  actually  made  of  sUver  tissue.  This  circum- 
stance is  also  characteristic  of  Agrippa's  vanity.  8at^  literally 
mdhamng  sat  (down),  or  assumed  his  seat.  Throne  is  else- 
where Yendered  judgme?it-seat  (see  below,  on  18,  12.  16,  17. 
25,6.  10,17,  and  compare  Matt.  27,19.  John  19,  13.  Rom. 
14,  10.  2  Cor.  5. 10.)  The  Greek  word  originally  means  a 
step  or  footstep,  of  which  we  have  one  instance  in  the  book 
before  us  (see  above,  on  7,  5) ;  then  a  ste2:>  or  platforin,  any 
place  ascended  to  by  steps,  such  as  the  rostrum  or  tribunal 
of  a  magistrate,  the  upper  seats  of  theatres,  etc.  This  last 
agrees  well  T\dth  the  statement  of  Josephus,  that  the  meeting 
here  described  was  in  the  theatre  at  Cesarea,  and  with  the 
general  Greek  practice  as  described  by  Valerius  Maximus 
{Legati  in  theatimm,  ut  est  consuetudo  Graeciae,  introducti.) 
Made  an  oration,  or  harangued  the  people,  as  the  Greek  word 
properly  denotes.  To  them,  i.  e.  to  the  Phenician  envoys,  who 
were  no  doubt  formally  addressed,  although  the  speech  was 
really  intended  for  the  people.  K  this  were  not  the  case,  the 
statement  in  v.  20  would  be  quite  irrelevant  and  superfluous. 

22.  And  the  people  gave  a  shout,  (saying,  It  is)  the 
voice  of  a  god,  and  not  of  a  man. 

The  people,  not  the  word  so  rendered  in  vs.  4,  11  above, 
and  often  elsewhere,  and  most  commonly  denoting  the  cliosen 
people  or  the  Jewish  cliurch,  but  one  of  rarer  use  in  the  New 
Testament  and  only  in  the  book  before  us,  but  employed  in 
Attic  Greek  to  signify  the  people  in  their  corporate  capacity, 
the  sovereign  people  of  the  Greek  republics,  more  especially 
when  actually  gathered  for  despatch  of  business.  (See  below, 
on  17,5.  19,30.33.)  So  here,  it  denotes  not  the  populace 
or  mob,  but  the  assembled  people,  called  together  by  author- 
ity^ and  in  the  presence  of  their  civil  ruler.  Gave  a  shout, 
literally,  cried  or  called  to  (him),  i.  e.  responded  to,  applauded 
what  he  said,  by  their  shouts  and  acclamations.  (See  below, 
on  22,  24,  and  compare  Luke  23,  21.)  The  remaining  nine 
words  of  the  version  correspond  to  five  in  Greek,  and  might 
Lave  been  expressed  by  five  in  EngUsh,  God's  voice  and  not 


460  ACTS   12,  22.  23. 

marl's^  whicli  is  moreover  the  original  collocation  of  the  sen- 
tence. It  is  not  a  proposition,  but  an  exclamation,  an  expres- 
sion of  pretended  admiration,  perhaps  begun  by  the  Pheni- 
cian  envoys,  in  acknowledgment  of  Herod's  favourable  answer 
to  their  prayer  (v.  20.)  No  Jew  could  join  in  such  a  cry 
without  being  guilty  of  blasphemy  ;  but  probably  the  meeting 
was  entirely  composed  of  Gentiles,  being  held  in  a  Roman 
amphitheatre,  to  celebrate  a  heathen  festival.  Josephus  states 
the  words  of  the  people  in  a  more  diffuse  and  feeble  form : 
"  Be  propitious  !  If  until  now  we  reverenced  thee  as  a  man, 
yet  henceforth  we  acknowledge  thee  superior  to  mortal  na- 
ture." He  also  represents  the  acclamation  as  called  forth  by 
the  reflection  of  the  rising  sun  from  Herod's  silver  robe  ;  but 
this  is  far  less  natural  and  likely  than  the  statement  in  the 
text,  which  may  however  serve  to  complete  that  of  Jo- 
sephus. 

23.  And  immediately  the  angel  of  the  Lord  smote 
him,  because  he  gave  not  God  the  glory  ;  and  he  was 
eaten  of  worms,  and  gave  up  the  ghost. 

Immediately^  or  on  the  spot,  the  same  word  that  is  so 
translated  in  3,  7,  but  in  5, 10  straighticay^  and  in  9,  \d>  forth- 
with. The  angel  (or  an  angel)  of  the  Lord^  is  not  a  figure 
for  disease  as  sent  by  him,  nor  does  it  here  denote  a  visible 
appearance,  but  an  instantaneous  physical  effect  produced  by 
the  instrumental  agency  of  a  personal  messenger  from  heaven, 
sent  forth  for  the  purpose.  (Compare  Ex.  12,  21.  2  Kings  19, 
35.  2  Sam.  24,  16.  2  Chr.  32,  21.  John  1,  52.  5,  4.)  Josephus 
says  that  Herod  saw  an  owl  perched  upon  a  cord  above  his 
head,  which  he  remembered  to  have  seen  before  when  impri- 
soned by  Tiberius,  and  to  have  been  assured  by  some  one,  that 
although  it  was  immediately  a  favourable  omen,  yet  if  it  ever 
reappeared,  he  might  expect  to  die  within  five  days ;  and  ac- 
cordingly he  represents  him  to  have  lingered  five  days  in 
agonizing  inward  pains.  This  is  not  inconsistent  with  Luke's 
narrative,  which  only  says  that  he  was  smitten,  not  that  he 
expired,  immediately  or  on  the  spot.  Gave  not  God  the  glory., 
or  more  exactly,  glory  to  God.  (Compare  Luke  17, 18.  John 
9,  24.  Rom.  4,  20.  Rev.  4,  13.  14,  7.  16,  9,  in  all  which  cases 
the  article  is  wanting,  while  in  Rev.  19,  7  it  is  expressed.)  The 
meaning  is  not  that  he  failed  to  thank  God  for  his  eloquencCf 
of  which  he  probably  had  none,  but  that  he  allowed  divmo 


ACTS   12,  23.  24.  25.  461 

honours  to  be  rendered  to  himself,  or  as  Josephus  phrases  it, 
"  did  not  rebuke  them,  and  repel  the  impious  adulation."  H% 
icas  eaten  ofioorms^  literally,  being  (or  becoming)  loorm-eaten^ 
an  epithet  apphed  by  Theophrastus  to  decayed  wood,  but  ac- 
cording to  its  et}Tnology  referring  to  the  worm  which  feeds 
upon  dead  bodies.  (Compare  Mark  9,  44.  46.  48.)  A  similar 
death  is  said  to  have  befallen  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  Herod  the 
Great,  and  other  ancient  persecutors  of  God's  people.  That 
Joseplms  speaks  only  of  mtense  pains  in  the  bowels,  while 
Luke  says  he  was  devoured  by  worms,  may  arise  from  the 
natural  desire  of  the  former  to  spare  the  memory  of  Herod 
and  the  feehngs  of  his  children,  or  from  Luke's  professional 
exactness  as  a  j^hysician,  or  from  both  combined.  That  Luke, 
on  the  other  hand,  says  nothing  of  the  owl,  shows  his  freedom 
from  all  fabulous  admixtures  and  embellishments,  even  such 
as  a  Josephus  thought  it  worth  while  to  record.  Gave  up 
the  gJwst,  or  more  exactly,  expired^  i.  e.  breathed  out  (his  life 
or  soul.)  See  above,  on  5,  5. 10.  This  event  took  place,  ac- 
cording to  Josephus,  in  the  fifty-fourth  year  of  Agrippa's  age, 
and  the  fourth  of  his  reign,  during  the  last  three  years  of  Avhich 
he  ruled  the  whole  of  Palestine.  The  date  assigned  to  Herod's 
death  by  the  chronologers  is  the  first  of  August,  A.  D.  44. 


24.  But  the  word  of  God  grew  and  multiplied. 

But^  i.  e.  notwithstanding  Herod's  persecution ;  or  and^  i.  e. 
after  it  had  died  with  him.  The  Greek  word  is  the  usual  con- 
tiuuative  particle  (Se)  and  not  necessarily  more  emphatic  here 
than  in  the  beginning  of  the  next  verse,  where  it  is  translated 
aiid.  Perhaps  the  connection  which  it  indicates  is  this,  that 
in  the  mean  time,  while  these  changes,  whether  prosperous  or 
adverse,  were  occurring,  the  true  rehgion  was  advancing. 
TJie  word  of  God^  i.  e.  the  Gospel  or  the  Christian  revelation, 
here  put  by  a  natural  metonymy  for  the  cause  or  enterprise 
of  which  it  was  the  basis,  or  rather  for  the  body  of  believers 
who  embraced  it,  and  of  which  it  might  be  hterally  said,  that 
it  increased  (or  greio)  both  in  extent  and  power,  and  was  mid 
tiplied^  i.  e.  received  continual  accessions  to  the  number  of  its 
members.  (Compare  the  similar  expressions  in  6,  7  above,  and 
19,  20  below.) 

25.  And  Barnabas  and  Saul  returned  from  Jeru- 


462  ACTS  12,  25. 

salem,  when  they  had  fulfilled  (their)  ministry,  and 
look  with  them  John,  whose  surname  was  Mark. 

JBarnabas  and  Saul,  who  were  previously  mentioned  last 
in  11,  30,  as  having  been  dei^nted  by  the  church  at  Antioch, 
to  bear  its  contributions  to  the  brethren  dwelling  in  Judea,  in 
anticipation  of  the  coming  famine.  The  connection  between 
that  verse  and  the  one  before  us  makes  it  highly  probable,  if 
not  entirely  certain,  that  the  mtervening  narrative  records 
events  which  took  place  during  this  official  visit  to  Judea. 
Whether  they  were  in  the  Holy  City  during  Herod's  perse- 
cution, is  disputed,  some  inferring  that  they  were,  because 
they  are  here  said  to  have  returned  from  Jerusalem  ;  while 
others  explain  this  as  meaning,  that  although  Barnabas  and  Saul 
had  been  durmg  these  occurrences  in  other  places  of  Judea, 
they  returned  from  Jerusalem,  i.  e.  they  came  there  before 
going  home,  or  made  that  their  last  point  of  departure. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  text  or  context  to  decide  this  ques- 
tion, which  is  happily  of  little  moment.  Hamng  fulfilled  the 
ministry  (or  service,)  or  more  precisely,  the  administratio7i, 
charitable  distribution  or  communication,  which  had  been 
committed  to  their  trust.  (See  above,  on  11,  27.  30.)  Barna- 
bas and  Said  is  still  the  order  of  the  names,  and  so  continues, 
until  the  pubUc  recognition  or  appearance  of  the  latter  in  the 
character  of  an  Apostle.  (See  below,  on  13,  1.  9.)  Af^d 
tooh  loith  them  (literally,  taMng  loith  theon  also)  John  the 
{one)  likewise  called  (or  surnamed)  Marh,  who  had  been 
previously  mentioned,  ^\^th  his  mother  Mary  in  v.  12  above, 
and  reappears  in  13,  5. 13,  as  the  companion  of  these  men 
on  their  first  foreign  mission,  thus  imparting  to  the  nar- 
rative a  character  of  oneness  and  coherence,  very  far  re- 
moved from  that  of  accidental  fragments,  independent  docu- 
ments, or  desultory  anecdotes.  With  this  return  of  Barnabas 
and  Saul  to  Antioch  may  be  said  to  terminate  one  great  divi- 
sion of  the  book,  containing  the  history  of  the  planting  of  the 
church  among  the  Jews,  its  first  extension  to  the  Gentiles, 
and  the  institution  of  a  secondary  source  or  centre,  from 
which  light  was  to  be  difi'used  throughout  the  empire,  as  re- 
corded ii>  the  following  chapters. 


END    OF   VOL.    1. 


Date  Due 

j 

Je  ■  a  '4? 

1 

^"  s.-   ,. 

\7 

m  ii> 

±/ 

XI 

JULaAlAittii 

f