Full text of "Biblical commentary on the New Testament"

See other formats

V. 3

BIBLICAL COMMENTARY

THE NEW TESTAMENT,

DR. HERMANN OLSHAUSEN,

PROFESSOR OP THEOLOGY IN" THE UNIVERSITY OF ERLANGEN.

TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN

FOR Clark's foreign and theologicai, library.

FIRST AMERICAN KDITION.

REVISED AFTER THE FOURTH GERMAN EDITION,

A. C. KENDRICK, D.D.,

professor op greek in the university op ROCHESTER.
TO WHICH IS PREFIXED OLSHAUSEN'S

PROOF OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE WRITINGS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
TRANSLATED BT DAVID FOSDICK, JR.

VOL. Ill

NEW YORK:
SHELDON & COMPANY, PUBLISHERS,

498 & 500 BROADWAY.
1866.

Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 185T, by

SHELDON, BLAKEMAN & CO.,

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of

New York.

BTESEOTTPED BK PBHTTED BT

THOMAS B. SMITH, PUDNET & RUS

82 & 84 Beekmaii>Btreet, N. Y. 79 John-street

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

FIEST PART.

OF THE SUFFERINGS AND DEATH OF JESUS CHRIST.

[continued from volume n.]

PASS

I 1, The Last Meal of Jesus with his Disciples, Continued 9

t 2. Jesus' Struggle in Gethsemane, and his Arrest. Matth. xxvl 36-56 ; Mark xiv.

32-52 ; Luke xxiL 40-53 ; John xviiL 1-11 34

i 3. Examination of Jesus before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrim — Peter's Denial.

Matthew xxvL 57-75; Mark xiv. 53-72; Luke xxiL 54-71; John xviiL

12-27 47

I 4 Proceedings before Herod and Pilate. Matthew xxvii. 1-31 ; Mark xv. 1-20 ;

Luke xxiii. 1-25 ; John xviii. 28-38, xix. 1-16 59

I 5. Crucifixion and Death of Jesus. Matthew xxvii. 32-56 ; Mark xv. 21-41 ;

Lukoxxiiu 26-49; John xix. 17-30 83

6. The Burial of Jesus. Matthew xxviL 57-66; Mark xv. 42-47; Luke irviii.

60-56; Johnxix. 31-42 99

SECOND. PART.

of the resurrection of JESUS CHRIST.

I 1. The History of the Resurrection. Matthew xxviii. 1-15 ; Mark xvL 1-11 ; Luke

xxiv. 1-12 ; John xx. 1-18 114

2. Further Appearance of Christ on the day of his Resurrection. Luke xxiv.

13-43 ; Mark xvi. 12-14 ; John xx. 19-29 122

3. Concluding Verses of the Four EvangeUsts. Matthew xxviii. 16-20 ; Mark

xvi. 15-20 ; Luke xxiv. 44^53 ; John xx. 30, 31 133

4. Appendix to John's Gospel John xxi. 1-25 146

COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

Introduction 159

First Chronological Table 167

Second Chronoloqical Table 168

FIRST PART.

from THE ascension OF CHRIST TO THE CONVERSION OF PAUL.

§ 1. Christ's Ascension — Choice of an Apostle, Acts i. 1-26 173

§2. Celebration of the First Pentecost. Acts ii. 1-47 189

IT TABLE OF CONTENTS.

pAaa

§ 3. CureofaLamoMan. Act3 iii. 1-26 216

§4. First Imprisonment of Peter, Acts iv. 1-31 224

§ 5. The Community of Goods. Acts iv. 32— v. 11 223

§ 6. Second Trial of the Apostles. Acts v. 12-42 236

§ 1. History of Stephen. Acts vi. 1— viii. 1 242

§ 8. Spread of the Gospel beyond Jerusalem. Acts viiL L 40 262

SECOND PART.
FROM Paul's conversion till his skcond missionary journey.

1. History of the Conversion of Paul. Acts ix. 1-30 274

2. First Preachmg to the Gentiles. Acts ix. 31 — x. 48 287

3. First Proceedings on Account of the Gentile Christians — Paul's Stay in Antioch,

and Journey to Jerusalem. Acts xi. 1-30 301

4 Peter's Imprisonment and Deliverance — Herod's Death. Acts xii. 1-25 304

5. Paul's First Missionary Journey. Acts xiii. 1 — xiv. 28 311

6. The Apostolic Council. Acts xv. 1-35 .'. 326

7. Second Missionary Journey of Paul. Acts xv. 36 — ^xviii. 22 340

THIRD PART.
*'ROM Paul's third missionary journey till the first captivity at rome.

I 1. Paul's Third Missionary Excursion — Abode in Ephesus. Acts xviii. 23 — ^xix. 41 366

5 2. Paul's Journey from Ephesus to Jerusalem, Acts xx. 1 — xxi. 16 377

5 3. The Apprehension of Paul in Jerusalem. Acts xxi. 17— xxiii. 10 388

3 4 Paul's Deportation to Caesarea and Imprisonment there. Acts xxiii. 11 — xxvi.

32 394

^ 5. Paul's Journey from Caesarea to Rome. Acts xxvii. 1 — xxviii. 15 403

3 6. Paul's Stay in Eome. Acts xxviii. 16-31 405>

GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL.

§ 1. Of the Life and Ministry of St. Paul in general 417

§ 2. The Peculiarities of St. Paul's Character 423

§ 3. Order of Succession of St. Paul's Epistles 428

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS— INTRODUCTION.

§ 1. Of the Genuineness and Integrity of the Epistle 439

§ 2, Time and Place of the Composition 444

§ 3. Of the Roman Church 446

§4. Argument of the Epistle 456

§ 5. The Value and PecuUar Character of the Epistle 460

§ 6, Literature 464

TABLE OF CONTENTS. ▼

FIRST PART.

THE INTRODUCTION.

(L 1-17.)

pAoa
L The Salutation, i. 1-7 467

2. Introduction, i. 8-17 476

SECOND PART.

* THE DOCTRINAL EXPOSITION.

(L 18— xL 36.)

A. SECTION I.

On the Sinfulness op the Human Race. — (i. 18 — iii. 20.)

3. Condition of the Heathen "World, i. 18-32 484

4. Condition of the Jews. ii. 1-29 496

5. Comparison of the Jews and Gentiles, iii. 1-20 518

B. SECTION II.

The Description of the New "Way op Salvation in Christ. — (iii. 21 — v. 11.)

6. The Doctrine of Free Grace in Christ, iii. 21-31 528

7. Abraham Justified by Faith, iv. 1-25 551

8. Ofthe Fruits of Faith, v. 1-11 564

C. SECTION HI.

Op the Vicarious Office op Christ. — (v. 12— vii. 6.)

9. Parallel between Adam and Christ, v. 12-21 572

IC. The Believer is Dead to Sin. vi 1 — vii. 6 673

ORDEE OF THE SECTIONS OF THE GOSPELS IN
VOLUME III.

ABRANGBD AFTER EACH GOSPEL.

ST MATTHEW.

PAOS

CHAPTER xxvi 36-56 34

" xxvL 57-75 47

" xxvii. 1-31 59

« xxviL 32-56 83

PAOS

CHAPTER xxviL 57-66 99

" xxviiL 1-15 114

" xxviiL 16-20 133

ST. MARK

PAOK

CHAPTER xiv. 32-52 34

" xiy. 53-72 47

" XT. 1-20 59

«• XT. 21-41 83

CHAPTER XV.
" xvi.

" xvi.

" xvi

PAOS

42-47 99

1-11 114

12-14 122

15-20 133

CHAPTER xxiL
" xxii.

" xxiiL

ST. LUKE.

PAOI

40-53 34

54r-71 47

1-25 59

xxiiL 26-49 83

CHAPTER xxiii 50-56

" xxiv. 1-12

" xxiv. 13-43

" xxiv. 44-53

PAOB

99
114
122
133

fJTTAPTF.R -rviii.

1-11

ST. J

PAO«

OHN.
CHAPTER xix.

" xviu.

12-27

" TTV,

" xviiL
xix.
xix

28 et seq

1-16

17-30

" XX.
" XX.

" xxi.

PAOB

31-42 99

1-18 114

19-29 122

30,31 133

1-25 146

ORDER OF THE SECTIONS OF THE GOSPELS.

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

(TFTAPTKTI

. L
iL
iii.
W.
iv.

vi.

viiL

ix.

L
i.
L
iL
ui.

1-26.

1-47.

1-26.

1-31.
32— V.
12-42.

1— vii

1-40.

1-30.
31— X.

1-30.

1- 7

PAGE

173

CHAPTER

ANS.

CHAPTER
li
II
II

xii.
xiii.

XV.
XV.

xviii

XX.

xxi.
xxiii.
xxviu
xxviiL

iiL 21
iv. 1
V. 1-
V. 12-

1-25

1— xiv. 28

1-35

36— xviii. 22...
23— xix. 41....

1— xxi. 16...
17— xviii. 10...
11— xxvi. 32...

1— xxviii.l5..
16 31...

PAOB

.. 304

.... 189
216

.. 311
.. 326

.... 224

340

II
II
II

11....

i. 1 . . .

48*.'.'.'.

.... 229
.... 237
.... 242
.... 262
.... 274
.... 287
. . .. 301

.. 366
... 377
.. 388
.. 394
.. 403
.. 409

—v. 11..

CHAPTEB

ROM

PAGE

. . . . 467

PAOH

.. 529

8-17....
18-32

.... 476
484

-25

.. 551

-11

.. 664

1-29. . . .
1-20. . . .

.... 496
.... 518

-21

.. 673

COMMENTARY

THE GOSPELS

§ 1. The Last Meal of Jesus with his Disciples, Continued.

Yer. 29. — As his true disciples, and children of the Spirit, the
Saviour bequeaths the kingdom to them as an inheritance. The
strict signification of dtariOenat (whence diadrJKTj^ Testament) must be
retained, and can in no way (as Kuinoel, Henneberg, and others
would have it) be resolved into the general signification " to prom-
ise." It is precisely the analogy of the transmission of earthly
dominion from Father to Son, that leads to the idea of an inher-
itance which the Lord again at his departure leaves to his disciples
as a sacred legacy. (Comp. remarks on John xvii. 22.)

Ver. 30. — The manner in which the kingdom is described evi-
dently forbids the supposition, as was previously remarked, that the
apostles were completely involved in the Jewish notions of the
Messiah, for if such were the case, the Saviour would not assuredly
have confirmed them in their errors. (Comp. the observations upon
the tadieiv koI -nivuv in Matth. viii. 11, xxvi. 29 ; Luke xiv. 15.
Upon the Kadi^ecv im dpovojv, a. r. X. Matth. xix. 28 in the Commen-
tary.) The words tv r^ fiaotXeia [lov are wanting in very good codices.
Perhaps to many transcribers they seemed superfluous, after the Inl
TTJg TpaTre^Tjg ^ov. The reading KaOLOTjaOe^ and the usual one Kadioeadej
in respect of authorities are about equal. But the origin of the for-
mer is more simply explained than that of the latter ; for the prece-
ding tadirjTe koI TTivr]Te easily accounts for Kadlariade being written.
It is not inconceivable, that the words which follow, addressed to
Peter, as related by Luke, were spoken immediately after. But as
was observed in our general survey of the sequence of events in the
Lord's supper, the parallel passages in John xii. 31-38 render this
supposition improbable. For as John preserves the order of sequence
^ry accurately, whilst Luke, in this part of his history, evidently neg-
lects it, and it is incredible that the Lord would have uttered the same
or entirely similar words twice in reference to the same event ; we

10 Matthew XXVI. 21-23.

must, with John, transfer the passages in Luke xxii. 31-38, more
towards the end of the repast, to which their import is perfectly-
suited. Luke has here merely delivered in an abridged form the
elements of the discourse in which finally very interesting thoughts
are preserved to us.

In accordance with the sequence of the individual events in the
supper as above ascertained, the next incident of the feast which
claims our attention is the complaint of the Lord concerning the
betrayer, which was followed by his withdrawal (Matth. xxvi. 21,
seq.; Mark xiv. 18, seq.; John xiii. 21, seq.; Luke xxii. 21-23).
This connects itself most fitly and suitably with the Saviour's pre-
vious promise to his faithful disciples; his joy on their account
must, by contrast, have awakened his sorrow for the conduct of the
traitor.

With regard to the less suitable position of the words which be-
long to this event in Luke, the necessary explanation has been al-
ready given. The narrative of John, however, as was elsewhere
remarked, comes under discussion here : for the variations in the
accounts which become comprehensible only through John's narra-
tion, require a special synoptical treatment. For instance Luke not
only places the words concerning the traitor too late — since he re-
presents them as having been uttered after the supper — but also
merely gives them by allusion. Matthew and Mark, indeed, give
them more expressly, but their account might lead to the supposi-
tion that Jesus had openly and aloud uttered the words 6 ^ju/3ai/)af
usT^ ifiov, ovTog fie irapad^aEi, he that hath dipped with me, etc. John
alone makes the whole proceeding plain by his statement. But in
Matth. xxvi. 25, one fact appears to have been supplied which is
wanting in John ; our attention will now be turned to the manner
in which this fact may be annexed to the history.

Ver. 21, 22. — During the meal (eodiovTCJv avrijv) the Lord was
powerfully afiected with sorrow and depression of mind, at the re-
flection that one of his disciples would betray him. (John xiii. 21,
irapaxOT] roi nvevnari.) From design, however, he now expressed
these thoughts openly, partly perhaps in the hope that the power
of his sorrowing love might yet afiect the heart of the ill-fated dis-
ciple— (compare on this the particulars at Luke xxii. 22) — and in
the event of the contrary happening, to occasion his withdrawal, by
informing him that his black design was discovered. But even here
the Saviour exercised the highest forbearance ; for he did not com-
plain of Judas's conduct to the other disciples, much less did he ex-
press indignation against the traitor himself, or upbraid him for his
iniquity, but allowed him to depart under a convenient pretext
(John xiii. 27, seq.) *

Ver. 23. — The disciples, dismayed at this disclosure of their mas«

Matthew XXVI. 23. 11

ter, and in their innocence rather seeking the guilt in themselves*
than charging it on any one else, though they might have in some
measure anticipated the behaviour of Judas, ask Jesus (dnopov^ievoi
nepi Tivog Xeyei^ John xiii. 22), " Is it I ?"

According to the account of Matthew and Mark, the Lord ap-
pears to have given a thoroughly explicit answer to this question,
since he says, " He who dippeth with me in the dish, he it is." But,
in the first place, the question of Judas, " Whether it was he ?"
Matth. xxvi. 25, appears on this supposition altogether superfluous ;
and, secondly, this open answer is in contradiction to the forbearing
manner in which John represents the Saviour to have acted.

We must, therefore, without doubt, complete the narratives of
Matthew and Mark from that of John. To the question of John,
which Peter suggested, Jesus replied, m a low voice, " He it is for
whom I shaU sop a morsel." Even thus, a discrepancy still re-
mains, but reaUy an unessential one. According to Matthew and
Mark, Judas at that instant dipped in the dish with Jesus. Ac-
cording to John, Jesus dipped a morsel and handed it to Judas.
But to this unessential difierence no importance whatever can be
attached. It is sufficiently explained by supposing, that in order
to avoid mentioning Judas by name, Jesus gave John a sign by
which he might know the betrayer. At aU events, however, we
must say that John has certainly given the correct account of the
occurrence ; the other two Evangelists have narrated it in a some-
what modified manner. The view defended by Henneberg, accord-
ing to which the 6 inf3dfag [ler' eixov in Matthew and Mark merely sig-
nifies, " One of my household companions, who daily eats and drinks
with me," is altogether erroneous ; for that applied to each of the
disciples, and would therefore have been no answer whatever to the
question, " Is it I ?"

Finally, the dipping of the sop took place, as related by John,
in entire accordance with the customs of the feast. The head of
the family took from the passover cake a piece (i/^w/itov), dipped it
in the bitter liquor (^lO'■"l!^) and gave it to the persons at table in
turn. Hence if we suppose that at the question of John, " who is
it ?" the turn of Judas was just come, then the selection of tliis partic-
ular sign is simply explained from the occasion. (Tpu/3Aiov or rpvftXioVj
is explained by Suidas through mvaKiov, patina, paropsis. In the
LXX. for nnyjj, Exodus xxv. 29.)

The discourse of Christ now connects the destiny of the Son of
Man with a higher necessity, Luke xxii. 22 — Kara to (bpiaiitvov^ soil.
vTTo Tov 6eov. This necessity is the will and ordination of God which

* But John and Peter, who were most developed in character amongst the disciples,
were clear to themselves, that, in them, the possibility of such a deed could not be sup-
posed- They appear to have asked, not " Is it I ?" but merely, " "Who is it ?"

12 Matthew XXVI. 23.

are made known in the prophecies of Scripture. Matthew and
Mark have " as it is written concerning him" (KaOcjg yeyapanTai
-nepi avTov). Compare upon the prophecies here meant, Luke xxiv.
26, 27 ; 1 Cor. xv. 4. The vndyeiv in Matthew and Mark, like
nopeveaOat in Luke, agrees with the Hehrew jj^n in the signification,
*•' to die." (Compare Genesis xv. 2.) But the necessity of the
Lord's will being accomplished in its purely objective aspect, does
not destroy the man's subjective free agency. Compare observa-
tions on Matth. xxvi. 54. There is no predestination of evil ; com-
pare Commentary, Part I. on Matth. x. 1, xiii. 10, seq., xxiv. 1.
Hence, therefore, the curse of the Lord comes upon " him through
whom the Son of Man goeth." The form of execration : " it were
good for him," etc., is an expression of the deepest abandonment, of
utter perdition. It is so strong, that it intimates the exclusion of
every hope. For the winning, no matter how late, of eternal life,
must assuredly render it a blessing to be born. The declaration
" It were better for him that he had never been born," may be re-
' garded as the strongest among all the expressions of Scripture in
support of the doctrine of eternal perdition. (Compare John xvii.
12; vlbg T-qg d-nuiXda^. In the Old Testament, Job iii. 11 ; Jere-
miah XV. 10, XX. 14. (Upon the development of evil in Judas,
and upon his condemnation in general, compare the particulars at
Matth. xxvii. 9.) John further subjoins a remarkable statement,
xiii. 27, in the parallel passage " after the sop then Satan entered
into him" (jieTa to ipoifjitov tots elaTjWev elg ekelvov 6 l^aravdc;^. These
words refer back to John xiii. 2, and at Luke xxii. 3, have a real
parallel. From the comparison of these passages, we may infer that
the expression entered is not to be strained, for Luke speaks of the
entrance of the Devil into the heart of Judas, in the same connex-
ion in which John first uses the expression, " he put the thought
into his heart," i. e., exercised upon him a more subtle, less imme-
diate influence. The meaning of the statement then is clear and
intelligible ; it expresses the lowest depth of moral debasement.
But I cannot assent to the observations of Liicke (Part II. p. 482),
where he terms the expression a figurative one. With the same
propriety we might designate the operation of the Holy Ghost a
figurative expression, which Liicke, however, will not acknowledge.*

* Liicke, on this subject, in his second edition, remarks, that " He does not call the
agency of the Devil a figurative expression; but the particular words eia^?.6Ev elg IkeIvov
6 laravug." This certainly is an important distinction. I acknowledge that I previ-
ously understood his words as Schleiermacher interprets them; that, every mention of
the Devil and his agency was explainable from a tropical usus loquendi. Yet, even of
the daf/XOev f<V, I cannot concede that it is a mere figure, i. e., a figure without a real
truth corresponding to it.

Certainly we must not conceive the workings of the Devil materially ; by this I mean,
that they must not be reduced from a purely spiritual influence to a material one more oi

Matthew XXVI. 25. 13

If the existence of a kingdom of darkness is certain, its agency
must also be admitted, and that an altogether real though not a ma-
terial agency. Perhaps it was to guard against gross material
views of the operations of the world of evil, that the aforesaid
scholar selected the above expression. But such passages are impor-
tant, especially in John, for they shew that in the gospel he teaches
the same doctrine concerning the Devil which he expresses in the
Kevelation, and which all the writers of the New Testament
support.

According to John's observation, the accomplishment of the dark
deed of Judas followed immediately upon his receiving the sop from
the Kedeemer (jxera to ipufilov). It is not improbable that he either
understood the question put by the Evangelist to Christ, or suspected
its import, when taken in connexion with the subsequent action of
Jesus ; and that this inflamed his malignity. But it must ever
remain worthy of consideration, that this presenting of the bread to
Judas proved to him a curse, as immediately after, in the supper
the bread was to the faithful disciples the medium of blessing.

Ver. 25. — In conclusion, Matthew remarks that Judas also asked
the Lord " Is it I ?" and that the Lord answered plainly ov elnag
(precisely similar in the Latin, " tu dixti ;" compare Plant. Mercat.
1, 2, 52.) This statement seems to stand in contradiction to John
xiii. 28, according to which passage the design of Judas remained
unknown to all the disciples. The simplest explanation of this, is
the supposition that Judas, agitated with shame and wrath at see-
ing himself detected, probably stammered out also the same ques-
tion as the other disciples ; but either they did not observe it, or
else both it and the answer of Jesus were uttered briefly and in a
low voice, so as not to fix the attention of the disciples.

John and Peter however knew him to be the traitor, but they
might not have thought that the moment for executing his design
was so near. According to John's account, which on this point is
very careful, the Redeemer himself called upon Judas to hasten
the prosecution of his purpose (o ttoleX^j ■noirjaov rdxiov). In these
words, it is self-evident, there is no incitement to the deed, but
only a summons to withdraw from the circle of his disciples, and
hasten the accomplishment of that upon which he had already-
determined. The disciples might easily misunderstand the mean-
ing of these words ; and John himself, who knew that Judas was

less subtil. But, as the operations of the Devil are to be deemed real generally, so also
is the entering (claepxeaOai). As the sacred influences of the Spirit of God gradually take
possession of a man, until God himself makes his abode in the man, so also the evil
powers of darkness. As God, although he must be regarded as the supreme personality,
enters and makes his abode in created personalities; so also the Prince of Darkness
enters into the souls of those who lay themselves open to his influence.

14 Luke XXII. 31.

the traitor, might not have thought, as has been remarked, that the
completion of the treason was so near. Hence they formed differ-
ent surmises concerning his withdrawal, but by no means probable
ones ; for, as it was already night, purchases could not be made,
nor even alms distributed conveniently. (Upon yAwatro/cojuov, con-
sult the remarks on John xii. 6.) John concludes his account with
the picturesque words " and it was night" {rjv 6e vvf), which along
with the chronological reference to the closing day, suggest also the
idea that it was the season in which darkness had power. (Luke
xxii. 53.) Upon the retirement of the representative of darkness
from the Lord's presence, his love, like a long-restrained stream,
broke forth in the words, " Now is the Son of Man glorified," etc.,
the exposition of which we have already given at John xiii. 31,
et seq.

To the following words in John (and other passages), the ele-
ments of a discourse which Luke alone gives, xxii. 31-38, bear a
great resemblance. Only that the former for the most part omits
what .is personal, up to the passage John xiii. 36-38, and gives
rather what is general ; whilst Luke, on the other hand, narrates
more in detail what had direct reference to Peter ; on this account,
both naiTatives may be easily explained independently of each other.

This conversation of the Lord with Peter follows very appropri-
ately upon the complaint concerning the betrayer. The latter en-
tirely succumbed under the temptation. Peter, on the contrary —
although by his natural diposition exposed to the assaults of the
enemy, and though he fell, yet, in the radical and essential integrity
of his soul, he had power, through faith and repentance, to rise once
more from his fall ; nay, that very event was to work for his high-
est good by thoroughly subduing his old nature, and thus preparing
him to become an efficient labourer in the kingdom of God. The
admonition on the part of the Saviour, of his approaching fall must
also have produced a beneficent humiliation in the Apostle's mind,
and restrained him from all exultation over the unhappy Judas.

This conversation must also have occurred before the institution
of the supper, for according to Matth. xxvi. 30, the hymn with
which the supper concluded immediately preceded the departure to
the Mount c£ Olives, and the extended discourses recorded by John
chaps, xiv. — xvii., in which these words cannot be included, had
been pronounced previously.

But, above all, the question still arises, how are the words
(Matth. xxvi. 30-35 ; Mark xiv. 26-31) to be connected with the
preceding passage of Luke ? Both the Evangelists, Matth. xxvi.
30, and Mark xiv. 26, place the words after the conclusion of the
supper, so that they might have been spoken, perhaps, on the way
to the Moimt of Olives. It is very possible indeed that the Re-

Luke XXII. 31. 15

deemer reverted again to the same circumstance, and John xvi. 31 .
32, seems to indicate something of the kind. I must, however,
confess, that in consequence of the demonstrably close connexion
with the passage in Luke, it appears to me more probable that the
whole was deUvered in one connected discourse. It will be at least
convenient in our exposition to consider the account of Matthew and
Mark at the same time with that of Luke, for in aU essential par-
ticulars they are identical.

The discourse of Jesus, when Judas had left the room, might
weU commence with the general observation " all ye shall be of-
fended" (n dv r e g vfielg OKavdaXiadrjotade), Matth. xxvi. 31, which
forms an antithesis with the above " one of you" etc. (elg tf v/uwv
napaSdoaei jue). (Matth. xxvi. 21.) The discourse is evidently in-
tended to damp every self-approving emotion. (Upon oKavdaXi^eo-
6ai, compare the Commentary, Part I. on Matth. xviii. 6.) The
necessity of this phenomenon, the Lord refers to a prophecy in the
Old Testament, Zech. xiii. 7. The passage is, in its connexion, like
the last chapters of Zechariah generally, very difficult. It contains,
however, unmistakeable references to the Messiah, as Christ's em-
ployment of it in the passage under discussion clearly shews. The
accounts of Matthew and Mark accord exactly in the citation ;
(Matthew merely subjoins rfjc noiixvTjg). This agreement again is a
hint which directs to some sort of use which, according to this cita-
tion, Mark might have made of Matthew ; for the LXX. read :
nard^aTS rovg TTocfiivag koI eKO-ndoare rd irpolSaTa. (The Alexandrine
MS. reads -ndra^ov and StaaKopmadi^aovTai. But this, perhaps, is a
correction after the citation in the New Testament.) The Hebrew
text has the imperative of the singular ?{n. But the hypothesis which
has been put forth, of a proverbial usage of the words, is evidently
forbidden by the yiypanrai yap, for it is written. The thought im-
plies, finally, the uniting, connecting, sustaining work of Christ.
He is the living, power-diffusing centre of his church, as it were the
heart of the body. If he suffer, all suffer with him. The incidental
intimation that the Lord would, after the resurrection, go into Gali-
lee (Matth. xxvi. 32), will be touched upon at the passages, Matth.
xxviii. 7 ; Mark xvi. 7. Here the only question is, " How are we
to understand the connexion of these words in Matthew and Mark.?"
They manifestly indicate to the dispersed disciples a general place
of rendezvous. " There, in Galilee," Jesus means to say, " you shall
again see me after the dispersion."

From the general words of Christ, " all ye," etc. {ndvTeg vfieXg
aKavSaXiaOrjaeaOe), the reply of Peter (" though all be offended yet
will not I,") forms a natural transition to the special address to him
(Luke xxii. 31). "It is precisely <Aow," answers Jesus, "who art
destined to the sorest conflict." The expression " Satan hath

16 Luke XXII. 32.

SQUght you that he may sift you as wheat" (6 oaravdg E^rjrfiaaro
vjiag Tov oividoac d)(; rbv oItov) expresses the following idea : " There
are in the course of our moral development moments in which man
is assailed by the whole power of evil, with all its temptations. In
such moments, whatever is really good in the man survives the test ;
, but what is impure becomes also manifest. This discriminating
agency is referred to the Kepresentative of evil (Satan), for the rea-
son that sin in all its forms is regarded as subject to him ; the Divine
agency assumes the merely negative form of yielding to the world of
sin, of holding back the powers of grace. (Comp. the extended
representation in the prologue to Job, which corresponds entirely
with this idea.) The object of -such sifting m, first, the establishing
and perfecting of goodness in its elements ; and, secondly, the ripen-
ing of the germs of evil, in order that they may be finally separated.

The reference of Satan to human personages, whether to San-
hedrists, or to Judas himself, who might have sought to lead the
other disciples astray, is to be rejected here, as also in the account
of the Lord's temptation, as without either historical or exegetical
support. Compare Matth. xvi, 23. {livtdoai, occurs only here. It
comes from oiviov, Vannus, a winno wing-machine. Compare Matth.
iii. 12. In sense it is equivalent to -neipdl^eiv^ but denotes the
strongest forms of temptation.)

Ver. 32. — In this sifting, Judas proved like chaff. Peter was
made to fall, but in faith he raised himself again. Of this the Lord
admonished him prophetically, and refers the victory of his faith to
his own prayer in his behalf. This remarkable reflection leads to
the subject of intercession. For we cannot here prevent the ques-
tion arising, did the Saviour pray for Judas also ? On this the
Scripture gives no decided statements. But from the idea of
intercession the question may be answered in the following man-
ner.

Intercession, even that of the Saviour himself, must be regarded
as not intended to destroy the free agency of those for whom it is
made. It is well calculated therefore to sustain the resolution of a
mind determined toward goodness, but it cannot constrain to good,
the resisting disposition in the mind. Hence it is a rational hypo-
thesis that whilst Judas yet hesitated within himself whether or not
he should yield himself up to the black purposes of his heart, so
long may the Lord have followed him with prayer that the victory
might incline to the better side. But, after he had wholly resigned
himself in will to those purposes, the act was already virtually per-
formed ; and, in that case, the power of the Spirit could only prove
detrimental by aggravating the guilt of Judas, who was now des-
perately determined in opposition to its impulse. (Compare on this
subject the direct reference in 1 John v. 16, where prayer for him

Luke XXII. 33, 34. 17

who lias committed a sin unto death is represented as unneces-
sary.)

When this surrender on the part of Judas took place, cannot be
decisively determined. According to John xiii. 11, Jesus knew ab-
solutely that Judas was to be his betrayer ; and, according to vi.
64, knew it even from the beginning, that is, from the calling.
Now the prayer for Peter had for its object his perseverance in the
faith, not his fidelity nor his preservation from the fall. The
fall, like a salutary crisis in a perilous disease, seems to have been
necessary for Peter, in order thoroughly to destroy the old man in
him, and to achieve a permanent victory for the new. To raise
himself immediately again from his fall, it was only necessary that
Peter should firmly maintain his faith in the Lord's forgiving love
On his recovery from the fall, through faith and repentance (com-
pare remarks at Matth. xxvi. 75), therefore depended his efficiency.
He, the rock of faith, after his conversion, was to strengthen the
weak in faith. These words of Christ, " I have prayed for thee,"
etc., are also, in so far, very important, as they shew that faith is
not the work of man, but the work of God in him. Man's work is
merely not to strive against the faith-producing power of God.
(The " brethren" (ddeXcpoi) are all Christians generally, the Apostles
and immediate friends of the Lord not excluded. " The Acts of the
Apostles," shew that it was Peter who strengthened the wavering
faith of the other disciples. 'EmarQi^eLv^ = a?©, is here to be un-
derstood as meaning iierdvoia, that is, spiritual conversion. Kuin-
oel's observation that the first mention of the fall of Peter occurs
at verse 34, is very easily explained when we reflect that the Iva
lirj eaXet-T] r] marig oov presupposes the fall. The MSS. D.K, and
many others, have the reading eKXl-nrj^ but mXeh'q is better ascer-
tained.)

Yer. 33, 34. — The natural security of Peter, and his confidence in
his own power and good intentions, were so great that he did not at-
tend even to this premonition of the Saviour. Yet Jesus forewarned
him of his denial most unequivocally. Here Ave are not at all to
conjecture any insincerity in the mind of Peter. He meant ingenu-
ously what he professed. But in his inexperience he knew not how
often, with the permission of God, all inward power fails to man,
and how, in such a state of inward nakedness and destitution, an
humble faith in the power of God alone can accomplish the victory.
In the momentary feeling of his power, and in proud self-confidence,
he believed himself invincible, even in the most severe conflict.
(Mark, in the passage parallel to this, xiv. 30, writes, i] 6lg dXeK-opa
(pcjvrjoaij before the cock crows tioice. This expression goes upon
the supposition that the cock crows about midnight, and then
again towards morning. [4>cjmv, = unp^.] On this account the

18 Luke XXII. 35-38.

morning watch, was named dXeKTopocpuvia, cock-crowing, Mark xiii.
35.) According to Matthew xxvi. 35, Peter, conscious of his o^vn
sincerity, did not receive in quiet this distinct announcement of his
fall, but boasted once more that he would accompany Jesus even to
death. Such self-will, bordering upon obstinacy, entirely accords
with the character of Peter ; there is therefore nothing improbable
in this statement of Matthew.

Ver. 35-38. — The following passage, which is peculiar to Luke,
is involved in much obscurity. Christ evidently means to represent
his approaching passion as the profoundest depth of his humiliation.
To that conclusion we are led by ver. 37, in which the kol fierd dv6-
juwv IXoyiadrj, and he ivas reckoned among transgressors, from Isaiah
liii. 12, adds to the general idea of the suiFering and death of the
Lord, still further the particular one (t'rf tovto) that he should die,
not as a righteous person, but with the appearance of unrighteous-
ness, and amongst malefactors. (The LXX. read here : iv roiq
dvonoig. We must, further, not lose sight of the fact that our
Lord himself explains this passage from Isaiah liii. as referring
to himself, which, for the general view of that important chapter,
is of the utmost consequence. TeXeadrivat. has here a like signifi-
cation with TTATjgoOTjvac ; as has r^Xog t%etv with TxXr]^ovadai. But
it is remarkable that the fulfilment of all the prophecies refer-
ring to the Lord {rd ■nepl tiiov) should be associated with this point
of time, even previous to the arrest. For the Scriptures proph-
esy, also, of the Lord's coming in his glory ; and even of particular
incidents in the sufierings of the Lord, e. g., " / thirst," and " A
bone of him shall not he broken," John xix. 28-36, which were
fulfilled subsequently. The simplest explanation is, that the
Saviour probably comprehended the prospective sufferings which
should end his earthly being as one continued act. The expression
rd -nepl ejj,ov rtXoq txei should then be rendered in the following
manner, " What stands written of me, as regards this earthly
life, with all which it involves, is being fulfilled." Thus the
events, apparently still future, are included in the present.) The
Saviour now contrasts this last disastrous time, in which dark-
ness had power (Luke xxii. 53) with the former times of blessing.
The description of that time of blessing is expressed in words taken
from the instructions given to the Apostles, Matth. x. 9, 10. (Com-
pare the Commentary, Part I. on this passage.) All external things
were then supplied to them without care, and this external abun-
dance was a type of the power of the Spirit abounding within them.
But with this time of blessing now stands in contrast the time of
conflict and necessity, in which they must carefully provide all that
they are able to procure.

So far, then, the connexion is clear, and the meaning of the

Luke XXII. 35-38. 19

figurative discourse easily intelligible.* But the subjoined 6 f.i7\ k%wv
ncjXTjadru) to ludriov avrov kol dyopaadro) ^dxaipav, let him that hath
not, etc., together with the remark of the disciples, and the answer
of Jesus, present a difficulty. First : as regards the //^ ^%cjv, it
evidently stands in contrast with the t^^v, but the object of this
antithesis does not appear. This difficulty has led some to the
explanation of aparw, " to make away with, to sell." So that
the meaning would be, " he who has scrip or purse, let him sell
them ; he who has them not, let him sell his mantle, and buy a
sword." But then the important contrast with verse 35 falls quite
away ! — not to dwell upon the perversion of language, that alQetv
should be rendered, " to sell." It is obvious that the Lord means to
say, " then might every one leave scrip and purse at home ; but
now must he who has them take both with him." Hence the pas-
sage is better to be understood thus : he who has anything, let him
take with him what he can, and also a sword ; but he who has noth-
ing, let him seek to supply himself at least with a sword, even at
the greatest sacrifices — tjuariov, a symbol of what is most necessary.
The fii] tx(^v may then be taken as equivalent to ovdlv k;^wv =

The second difficulty lies in the mentioning of a sword. It nat-
urally excites surprise that the Saviour, the King of Peace, should
wish to incite his friends to external resistance ! But, with this,
were it at all conceivable, the iKavov ka-i, it is enough, verse 38,
would not accord, for there were only two swords, and just as little
the words of Christ to Peter, " put up thy sword into the sheath,"
Matth. xxvi. 52, when he was about to make use of it. Those inter-
pretations of the passage, which assume an error in the translation, or
which take jxdxaipa for a butcher's knife, so that it is parallel with
QaXdvTLov and -rrripa, as articles requisite for a journey, are the mere
resorts of despair as to the passage. The only correct explanation is
that which takes -f^dxacQa like (iaXdvTiov and TTTJpa, in a figurative sense,
^he expressions cannot here have reference to journeying, for no jour-
ney was contemplated ; they merely intimate to them, to hold them-
selves in a state of preparation, to make ready. In just the same
way, jMxaiQa, sword, relates to defence, not, however, to bodily, but
to spiritual defence. It is therefore the sword of the Spirit that ia
meant (Eph. vi. 17), with which they should provide themselves.

* Cf. diss. "Winterbergii in Velthusen syll., vol v. p. 104, seq. Here the knot is cut
asunder. In this a misunderstanding of Christ's words on the part of the disciples is as-
sumed. De Wette appears altogether obscure and confused in his explication of this
passage. He complains that I understand tlie passage as " figurative, or even in a double
sense," and yet his explanation comes out to be nearly the same. At the conclusion
Uavov koTc is, in the most open manner, explained as it was by me: " In a twofold sense;
two swords are enough, and there is enough on this subject. You suraly do not under*
stand me." Where, then, is the exegetical cocsistency ?

20 LuK^E XXII. 35-38.

The meaning of the whole passage, then, is this : " Formerly in the
days of blessing, the Lord cared and struggled for you, ye needed
not to provide anything ; all flowed to you ; but henceforth, in the
evil days, you must employ all your cares and efforts in order to
coEect whatever suitable means you possess for subserving the pur-
poses of spiritual life : but especially you need the sword of the
Spirit, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and to main-
tain the field. Possess yourselves of that sword, therefore, though
it cost you the most intense efforts, renounce everything earthly,
even that which is most necessary, that you may belong only to
that which is imperishable, and to him alone, who is from everlast-
ing, and may receive his power."

(Compare, on the distinction of gbod and evil days, the remarks
on Luke xxii. 53.) Now the disciples misunderstood this concealed
meaning of the words of Jesus ; they were thinking of iron
swords, and replied that they already had some. The Eedeemer
felt that it would be useless, at such a moment, to enter into ex-
tended details which might simplify his meaning ; for the disciples
were too widely mistaken to allow a hope of bringing them to the
right position for forming a proper judgment ; he therefore uttered
his iKavov lore, it is enough, as we give an evasive answer to chil-
dren, when we feel the impossibility of making ourselves intelligible
to them.

The phrase Ikuvov ean includes a kind of double meaning, since
it may be taken in reference to the two swords, in the sense " two
swords suffice," as well as in reference to the whole dialogue, in the
signification, " there is enough on this subject, I see you do not yet
understand me." The suggestion of irony in the meaning, " Yes,
your two swords will do, that will be a fine protection," seems to
me unsuited to the solemn earnestness of the Lord, (In the He-
brew, the word a": corresponds with luavov, in the formulfe ; csV a-n,
npy in ; or ^^ a-} compare Gesenius' lexicon, under an.)

Finally, The history of the institution of the holy supper, forms*
the conclusion of the account of the Lord's last meal. (Matth. xxvi.
26-29 ; Mark xiv. 22-25 ; Luke xxii. 19, 20— compare with these
passages 1 Cor. xi. 23-26.) The immediately preceding exhorta-
tions to repentance, and the several admonitions of Jesus, consti-
tute, as it were, the confession sermon, which should lead the dis-
ciples to strict self-examhiation. (1 Cor. xi. 28.) After Judas had
withdrawn, and when all that was necessary had been spoken, the
Baviour proceeded to the institution of a sacred ordinance, which he
left to his church, as an ever-enduring remembrancer, until his sec-
ond coming.

In the profound and secluded quiet of this little circle of disci-
ples, the Kedeemer performed the unostentatious act which was to

Luke XXII. 35-38. 21

"become of world-wide interest.*-' But alas ! even that repast of love
has, up to the present day, been an object of the most violent and
long-continued controversies that the history of the church and its
doctrines records.f The simple words of the institution have hence
been forced to bear meanings the most various and contradictory.
Exegesis, however, would utterly mistake its purpose, should it enter
into the detail of interpretations which have been invented in sup-
port of the views of one party or another ; this is the business of
dogmatic history. Exegesis ought to seek immediately to transport
the reader into that train of ideas which the Saviour must have had
in speaking the words, and the disciples in hearing them. True, the
interpreter must present openly his individual view in connexion
with the prevailing opinions.

First, however, it should not be overlooked that the view enter-
tained by the disciples concerning the Sacrament of the altar, cannot
be considered as perfect at the institution of the sacred feast itself.
On the contrary, it is most probable that they by no means appre-
hended the fubiess of the ideas which the Saviour associated with it.
We find them, before the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, still so un-
developed and crude in all their notions, that it is probable they
would not, until after that event, fully understand the profound
import of the transaction, especially as we have no reason whatever
to suppose that Christ connected with the act any explanation of

* The supper has not, as many seem to think, its extraordinary interest in the mere
historical (act, that in the course of centuries it has furnished occasion to so much dispu-
tation and conjecture, and that millions have regarded, and still regard it, as a precious
iewel of the church: but it has its prominent significance purely in itself. One of the
profoundest metaphysical problems — the question of the relation of spirit to matter —
comes under discussion, as iu the doctrines of the resurrection and glorification of the flesh
generall}'. so particularly in that of the holy Supper. From the various fundamental
views on tliis problem developed themselves also the various theories regarding the sup-
per. Idealism appears in the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, in which
matter is volatallzed into spirit. Dualism is expressed in the view of Zuinglius, in which
spirit and matter are rigidly and absolutely dissevered. Realism distinguishes, on the
contrary, the Luthero-Calvinistic interpretation which neither confounds nor separates
spirit and matter, but conceives both as existing in their true connexion and mutual de-
pendence. The doctrine of the two natures in Christ, is, accordingly, the ante-type for
the doctrine of the relation of the higher and lower in the supper. As in Christ divinity
and humanity are united, without the one being deprived of its identical nature by tlie
other ; so also in the supper, the word of God unites itself with matter and consecrates it
"or the sacrament. " Accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum." In these words
of Augustine rests the only true canon for the doctrine of the sacraments.

f The latest treatises upon the supper, are by Scheibel — Breslau, 1823; by Schnltz —
Leipzig, 1824; by Schulthess — Leipzig, 1824; by Lindner — Leipzig, 1831 ; Sartorius has
given a review upon the latest treatises on the doctrine of the supper in the Evaog. R.
Zeitung, 1832, Maiheft. Compare, also, Eisenlohr in " Klaiber's Stud.," B'. i. h. i. s. i., ff.
Upon tlie question, " In his last meal held with the Apostles, had Jesus an intention to
found a religious ordinance ?" compare further, " Upon the substance of the holy sup-
per," by Moser : examine the latter, with reference t(i Steudel's essays in the Tiibinger
Zeitschrift Jahrg. 1832-1833.

22 Matthew XXVI. 26.

its nature.

the inference, that the blessing of participating in the supper de-
pends not on the degree of purity in our apprehension of its nature,
but on the sincerity of the desire after power and assistance from
above — always supposing that the mind's eye is not wilfully closed
to correct conceptions. Hence members of all ecclesiastical organi-
zations, however various their conceptions of the supper, may par-
take in its blessings, provided they only have faith, that is, spiritual
susceptibility to the powers of life, which Christ tenders in this
ordinance.

But again, exegesis, in order to call up in our minds the train of
ideas which the Lord himself, and the Apostles, after their illumin-
ation by the Holy Ghost, had severally as to the institution and
observance of the sacred supper, should not separate the ordinance
from ecclesiastical practice, from the authentic declarations of the
Scriptures concerning the nature of the supper, or from the general
connexion of the Christian doctrines. Such a separation would
equally betray us into error.

First. As regards the ecclesiastical practice, it must have its
influence upon our views, since the discussion concerns a service
which was to be repeated. Were an expositor unfolding the narra-
tives of Matthew and Mark only, and on mere grammatical prin-
ciples, he might infer that Christ had only intended to take a final
leave of his disciples, by means of a symbolic service, representing
his death, and that he had not thought at all of ordaining its repe-
tition.* On the other hand he might infer from John xiii. 14-17, that

* It appears diflBcult, concerning the first supper, to retain the full significance of
the Sacrament ; inasmuch as the ivork of Christ was not yet completed, his body not
yet thoroughly glorified, the Holy Ghost not yet shed forth. "We might believe that this
first participation possessed only a typical character ; that it was after the resurrection
that the entire power of the ordinance was first to be recognized. A remembrance of the
Lord's death could not, in fact, have place in the first supper. For this event was still
prospective. The breaking of the bread and the distributing of the cup possessed rather a
prophetic character. It was, in the first instance, an ante-type, and, after death, became an
after-type. Kniewel, in his book " of the Christian religion," Danzig, 1835, p. 218, expresses
himself to the effect that, in the first supper, the disciples as yet enjoyed but tlie sacra-
ment of the old covenant. But, according to that view, the founding of the sacrament of the
new covenant would certainly be altogether wanting I Besides, the disciples, even before
the supper, ate the paschal lamb. Much rather must we believe that "the first supper
was the event which fulfilled the Old Testament type ; the elevation of the shadow into
the substance." Zinzendorf advances the preposterous opinion, that, in the first supper
before the passion, it was only the bloody death-sweat of Jesus that was partaken of.
But, besides the repulsiveness of this theory, the struggle of Gethsemane took place pos-
terior to the instituting of the supper. Compare Acta hist. Eccl. vol. xx. p. 806. To
those who hold that the glorification of Christ's humanity commenced only with the resur-
rection or ascension to heaven, it is really incomprehensible how Jesus, before his passion,
could have dispensed his flesh and blood. To them nothing remains but to say " that
Christ created his own flesh and blood from nothing." According to our view of the glo«
rifled humanity — a view which appears to grow essentially clearer upon closer examina*

Matthew XXVI. 26. 23

the intention of Jesus was that the feet-washing should he repeated.
But the ecclesiastical practice of the primitive church, which
was established by the Apostles, whom we must regard as the
authentic interpreters of the meaning of the Lord, exhibits the direct
contrary to both inferences. And since the accounts of Luke and
Paul furnish the positive command for repeating it in the institu-
tory words of the ordinance, it is clear that Matthew and Mark
took it for granted as known to their readers from ecclesiastical
practice.

Secondly. As regards the authentic declarations of Scripture,
amongst these are to be especially reckoned the passages in 1 Cor.
X. 16, 17, xi. 23-29, and in a certain sense also, John vi., (on which
consult the particulars in the commentary). In these passages a
specific spiritual character is ascribed to the supper. Self-examin-
ation is enjoined previous to its reception, and a blessing or cui'se
annexed as its sanctions. These considerations overturn the Zuing-
lian notion, " that the supper was merely a commemorative meal ;"
a view which makes no specific character conceivable in the supper.

Finally. As to the question, " How does the specifically higher
quality in the supper stand related to the elements ?" The an-
swer to this question requires that we should regard the connexion
in which this doctrine stands with the whole remaining cycle of
gospel doctrines, according to that fundamental principle of inter-
pretation, the analogy of the faith. The chief point for considera-
tion in the doctrine of the supper, is the teaching of the Scriptures
as to the relations oijlesh and spirit generally, and the glorification
of the body in particular, Now, where the biblical doctrine of the
Resurrection, and of the spiritual body {a^iia nVEvnariKov) ^ 1 Cor.
XV. 44, seq,, which believers obtain in it, are denied ; and where
the Spirit and Body are held to exist in rigid Dualism, without
any approximation ever occurring, there must naturally be an at-
tenuation of whatever is specific in the supper into a general spirit-
ual influence such as is experienced in prayer. In like manner, the
Catholic tlieory of Transubstantiation is proved erroneous, when
tested by the analogy of the faith. For as the Word on becoming
flesh (John i, 14) did not transform flesh into its own substance, nor
itself into that of flesh, but as always, even in the glorification of the
body of Christ, humanity and Deity were united in him, so also in
the supper. Hence according to the monophysite doctrine of Tran-
substantiation held by the Catholics, the supper appears as a re-
peated sacrifice; a view at once opposed by the circumstance, that

tion, from whatever point we proceed — the full efficacy of this first supper becomes com-
pletely obvious. The Saviour already bore the glorified body within himself The mortal
body enveloped it as the shell does the kerneL Therefore the influence of his glorified
corporeity might even then have proceeded from him.

24 Matthew XXVI. 26.

Christ in tliat case must liave sacrificed himself, pj-ior to the true
sacrifice which he ofiered on Golgotha ; for he instituted the supper
before his death. We may, however, as we have said, regard the
original institution of the supper, like the Old Testament sacrifices
as typical of the coming sacrifijial death of Christ, and in like man-
ner we may look upon the constantly-renewed repetition of the sup-
per, as a representation of it.* This, however, is only one and not
the most essential of the many references which meet and blend in
the last supper, like flowers in a garland.

In accordance with what has been said, I hold that Luther's no-
tion of the holy supper is that which coincides most completely, in
all essentials, with ecclesiastical practice, with the authentic decla-
rations of the institutory words, and with the harmony of the Scrip-
ture doctrines. According to my conviction, the Scripture teaches
that in and under the elements of the holy supper, the Redeemer
who now sits in his glorified humanity at the right hand of God,
dispensed Ms glorified bodily nature (which certainly can never be
dissevered from a spiritual and Divine existence) his spiritualized
flesh and blood, to the faithful, to be a 0ap//a«:ov Tijg ddavaoiag^ medi-
cine of immortality, as Ignatius terms it ; a germ of new life even
for their bodies, yet to be awakened. (Compare the remarks on
John vi. 54, seq.) My view, however, deviates in this from that of
Luther, first, that I do not consider it included in the idea of the
supper, that all who partake of it receive the Lord's body. For al-
though the Lord's body is received, yet it is surely not received
through the mouth (as Luther says — compare the passage in Scheibel
on the supper, p. 344) since it is a spiritual body. This, at the least,
is a mode of expression, which, even though it may be correctly ex-
plained, would still be foreign to the Scriptures, and which, on ac-
count of its liability to misconception, is better avoided. Where
the organ of the spiritual body as deficient, that is the mouth of
faith, especially where no new spiritual man requiring spiritual
nourishment has been born through baptism, there the body of the
Lord cannot be received. But where there are in one who has been
born again gross faithlessness, and consequent apostacy from the
faith, in that case the power of the supper thrusts the man away
from itself; just as the Holy Ghost departs from, and does not en-
ter into such an one. (Upon 1 Cor. xi. 29, from which passage

* Scheibel probably intends merely to promulgate this representative character of the
supper, when he would have it thought to be a sacrificial repast. This expression would
seem at the same time to suggest the idea, that as men used to bind themselves together
for the attainment of some common object, by a sacrificial meal; in like manner, the sup-
per is to be the partly spiritual, partly material bond of union to believers. Paul, 1 Cor.
X. 17, gives prominence expressly to this relation, in regarding the faithful many as one
body — (as many bread corns form one loafj — ^because they are partakers of the same
bread.

Matthew XXVI. 26 25

Bome persons seek to prove the contrary, compare the Comment-
ary.)

Secondly J according to my persuasion, the lohole Christ is not
received in the supper, but an influence from him, and specifically
as glorijied. The notion that the entire Christ is received in the
supper, led to the doctrine of the ubiquity of the body of Christ,
and of the right hand of God. This, regarded as personal ubiquity,
is certainly not biblical. The only truth contained in this repre-
sentation is as follows. The Lord, by virtue of his union of natures,
can operate even with his humanity on behalf of all. As the sun
sends forth its beams over all, so the Saviour breathes from himself
a vivifying power. This power, being alike Divine and human, is
able to transform man in spirit, soul, and body, and is received where-
ever there exist the moral capacities for receiving it. But every
operation of Christ contains the power of producing him complete in
the mind,* as the spark begets the flame from which it sprang.
(Compare John iv. 14.)

As in the person of the Saviour are united the Divine and the
human natures distinct yet inseparable, so also in the supper the
power of Christ is associated with the bread and wine, without the
one destroying, or even altering, the essential nature of the other.

If we regard in this light the individual accounts concerning
the supper, it is clear, in the first place, that 1 Cor. xi. 23, seq.

* This thought should not be overlooked, since without it my views might be misun-
derstood, when I say that '• not the whole Christ, but an influence of him, is present in the
supper." In Luther's doctrine of the ubiquity of the body of Christ, there lies, on the one
hand, something bordering on the views of the Docetic Monophysites — (which comes out
particularly in the conclusion, that the right hand of God is everywhere ; which is un-
doubtedly contrary to the meaning of the sacred writers)— and so far it is erroneous.
But, on the other hand, Luther was perfectly correct in stating it as a necessary con-
dition of the presence of the flesh and blood of Christ in the supper, that the glorified
humanity of Christ should be able to accompany the omnipresent agency of the Son of
God.

"We may, however, hold this latter opinion without admitting the Lutheran doctrine
of the ubiquity of Christ and of the right hand of God, if we discriminate between the
individual personality of the God-man, and the influence proceeding from him. True,
however, this influence cannot be considered afj absolutely distinct from Christ, nor so
understood, for otherwise, it would follow that it is not Christ that is in the supper, but
something else, to wit, his influence. Rather should we maintain, that everything which
is in Christ, and which proceeds from him, even his Divinely human efficiency, imriakcs of
his nature. For example, in this efBcacy he himself is present, viz., in the germ, or in tho
ability of producing himself; as in the spark rests the capacity to produce tho greatest
flame, in susceptible materials. Similarly, the soul which participates in the real effi-
ciency of Christ, receives therewith the power to become like him. In him the Divine
implanted seed calls forth a new spiritual production, which transforms first the soul and
then the body also, and which, without that efficiency of the Saviour, never could have
been produced. Sartorius, in the spirited essay in the" Evang. R. Zeitung, Jahrg. 1833,
Feb.,"' on thecommunicatloidiomatum, has defended to the last point the strictly Lutheran
view of the ubiquity. (Concerning the ubiquity of the right hand of God, compare the par-
ticulars in Matth. xxvi. 62, et seq.).

26 Matthew XXVI. 26.

must be considered as the chief passage. For Matthew and Mark
relate but briefly, presuming on their readers' knowledge from the
practice of the church, whilst in John the history of the institution
is entirely wanting, as the passage in John vi merely alludes to the
supper (compare upon the grounds of this omission the remarks on
John xiii. 1) and even Luke, although on the whole following Paul,
particularly in the rovro ttoleIte elg t?)v tjuf/v dvdfivrjaiv^ do this in re-
membrance of me (Luke xxii, 19), still but follows him ; and above
all, the apostle declares, 1 Cor. xi. 23, that he had received instruc-
tions immediately from the Lord concerning what should be the
practice of the church in respect to this ordinance. It may be said
therefore that the Eedeemer has in this passage explained his intent
in founding the supper (upon the -napeXaliov dnb rov Kvplov com-
pare the Comm. on 1 Cor. xi. 23) ; and therefore the passage can-
not be unregarded in interpreting the Gospels. As regards fur-
ther the /orm of the service, it was observed in the introduction to
this paragraph, that a dividing of bread and a sending round of sev-
eral cups of wine, during the singing of psalms, was customary in
every paschal feast. To this custom the Saviour gave a profounder
import, since he viewed the breaking of the bread and the distribu-
tion of the wine as symbols of his vicarious death upon the cross.
The doctrine of Transubstantiation, when carried out to its complete
consequences, the regarding of the supper as an actual repetition of
the sacrifice itself, is a view in absolute contradiction to the practice
of the ancient church, as well as to the uniform tenor of Scripture
doctrine. It was, as we have already observed, merely to represent
in figure the one offering by which he perfected all who are sancti-
fied, Hebrews x. 14. The essence of the holy supper consists in the
tvord accompanying the external rite, which, as the word of God, is
spirit and life (John vi. 63), and operates accordingly. In the next
place, we have to notice the expressions '■Hake, eat, drink" {Xd(3e-e,
^dysTE, m'ere), which are preserved by Matthew and Mark only ;
and in Mark the two latter words are wanting. (Several codices, it
is true, have the reading payers, but it has been merely received
into their text from Matthew.) These words express the receptive
position of the disciples, who represent the church ; Christ is the
dispenser, satisfying with himself their spiritual hunger and thirst.
Through him the church is nourished. From this relation it follows
that the Lord himself could not have partaken of the bread and
wine with the disciples. We have here no allusion to a parting
feast in which all, as co-ordinate, enjoy the same food, in token of
internal union, but nourishment received, as by the infant at the
mother's breast. The idea of reciprocity therefore is excluded.*

* This was erroneously believed by Chrjsostom, who in his exposition of Matthew,
Homily 72, says— 'd kavrov alfia, koI. avrb^ inu.

Matthew XXVI. 26. 27

We are warranted, therefore, in the inference, that according to
the intent of the sacred ordinance, no self-communion of the clergy,
such as is usual not only in the Catholic church, but also here and
there in the Evangelical church, ought to be practised. The offici-
ating clergyman occupies, so to speak, the place of Christ, They
who partake of the sacred supper form the church. In self-commun-
ion, the clergyman unites in himself both characters, which seems
to be contradictory. (Compare Russwurm upon the self-communion
of the Evangelical churches. Hanover, 1829.) Where, however,
the custom is already established, and men cannot be persuaded that
it is inappropriate, the Lord will grant his blessing even upon such a
form of the solemnity. The next point for discussion is the words
designating the element to be partaken : " this is my body," etc.
(tovto tan to ociiidnov, to ali^id jiov). In the Aramaic language, which
Jesus no doubt spoke in the immediate circle of his disciples, the
words uttered were probably ■'■^^•s tt-n i^^ N?n, or, perhaps, more cor-
rectly, according to Scheibel (in a passage quoted elsewhere, 135),
■«35A s^n m, ■'x^-Niin-nt. At least tjiii is in any case more correct than
-1B3, which corresponds to the Greek odp^^ since assuredly, in reo-ard
to these significant words, the greatest precision of expression was
observed by the Evangelists, and all the four Evangelists have aw/za,
body, which is the more striking, as the following alfia should rather
lead to oap^, which latter expression, moreover, occurs in John vi.
The reason why body (aajf-ta) is here selected, may be understood from
the statements of Luke''-' and Paul. The subjoined expression
" given, broken for you" (yntp vuCjv didonevov, kX6(.i,£vov) ^ imperatively
requires it. Since, for instance, oCofxa, body, indicates the physical
organism as a whole (whether dead or living), of which organism the
living substance is called adp^, its lifeless substance Kpmq ; hence
to the idea of its being destroyed by death (which the kX^iisvov,
referring to the breaking of the sacrificial cakes, signified) — only
aQ){xa could refer. (Compare upon the v-rrlp viiCJv Sidonevov, ekxvvo-
fxevovj in reference to the atoning vicarious death of Christ, and also
concerning nepl noXXCJv^ the detailed explanation in Comm. Part I.
on Matth. xx. 28.)

Thus, the Saviour compared the ivJiole cake (n^*), which he
broke, to his body. Yet he did not give to each the whole body, but
as he did a part of the cake, so he gave to each a part of the body,
that is adg^, ficsh.-\ According to the intent of the ordinance, adgl

* The dependence of Luke upon Paul — compare Introduction Part I., s. 17, seq.—
appears unmistakably in the words of the institution of the supper.

f This view concerning the brpaking of broad in the supper, as typical of the desfruo-
tion of what is inferior, in order to the calling forth of what is superior, appears also in
" Osshelaleddin" — in Tholuck's Bluthensammcl, s. lO-t — who sings —
When blossoms fall superior fruits arise.
When bodies die, then spirits mount the skies ;

28 Matthew XXVI. 26.

might just as properly have been used ; only that, on account of the
symbolical reference to his death, Jesus chose oCjfia, body, equivalent
to qia. In alna,hlood, there was no difficulty whatever, since the whole
quantity of it could be expressed only by the same term as a part.
But as each person did not receive the entire hody, neither did each
receive the whole of the blood ; that is, each did not drink the entire
cup-full, signifying all the blood, but all partook of the one cup ;
thus the one Christ dispensed himself amongst them all, in order that
he might live in them, and they in him. Klfxa, blood, then, as con-
joined with odp^,Jles7i (for which expression aw/^a is to be taken in the
institutory words), constitutes the other half of our physical being.
y^hiht Jlesh is the more material part, blood is conceived as that
which animates the flesh, the bearer of the i^vxri — Genesis ix. 4 ;
Deut. xii. 23. The two, therefore, with the Spirit {TTvev[ia), com-
plete our human nature.*

So is destruction destined to disclose,

Else from its womb the immortal ne'er had rose.

Hence, thus in parts must broken be the bread.

That man thereon be nourishingly fed.
* Lueke, in an interesting programme for Christmas, 1837, has brought afresh under
discussion the question, " How ought the twofold form of communion, by means of bread
and wine, to be regarded?" I cannot, however, agree with his conclusion, which leads
altogether to the Zuinglian view of the supper. The chief idea of the supper he makes
the founding of the new covenant, through the sacriSce of Christ, which is symbolically
represented in the supper. This idea then would first be brought home to the con-
sciousness of the disciples by their partaking of the bread, but in the reception of the cup
alone would it be truly and perfectly expressed. But the idea of Christ's presence in
the supper, Lucke fails to find. The sentence, tovto noiiiTe elg ti]v k/jfjv uvupvriaiv,
" this do in remembrance of me" (p. 8) he regards as showing clearly, on the contrary,
mortis meditationem esse primariam, quin potius unicam in sacra coena. Such a conclu-
sion as this may be deduced from the institutory words regarded simply as such. These,
however, as containing the mystery, in order to be perfectly understood, necessarily re-
quire illustration from the important doctrinal discourse of Jesus, John vi., and the Pau-
line explanations, 1 Cor. x. 11. Prom them we infer that the supper was unquestiona-
bly intended as a symbolical representation of the sacrifice of Christ: that the dvufivriaic,
remembering, was to refer to the historical event of Christ's death ; and that the rite
symbolizes a sealing of the covenant ; but that besides, and even above all this, there
is in this pregnant ordinance an actual distribution of his real existence itself. (Com-
pare on this subject the explanations in the Commentary on the passages quoted.) Now,
the reason why this participation was made in a twofold form, might be the following.
First, the form of the festival, which was one of eating and drinking, required it. At
tlie paschal meal they ate the lamb, and drank of the cup : Christ adopted this usage,
and this custom, and filled it with higher powers. Secondly : the symbolical representa-
tion of the death required a distinction between the blood and the body, in order to
bring before the mind tho idea of the shedding of the blood. Lastly: body and blood
(aufia and aliia) denote the totality of humanity. Body alone would represent only its
material part. The bhod as the bearer of the psychical element should also be embraced.
It is on this account, probably, that aQua not aup^, was employed in the institutory
words ; because the latter forms tho antithesis with 7rvev/ia, but au/ia with ipvx'j. The
immediate question, however, is not concerning spiritual communication in the supper,
but of the communication of humanity ; which is constituted of soul and body. And
further, the choice of the expression body, in the institutory words, may be accounted

Matthew XXVI. 26. 29

The question, it is now self-evident, is not now of the agency of
the Spirit, it \%fiesh and blood (odp^, al^a), which the Redeemer dis-
tributes in the supper to his believing followers. The annexed pro-
noun has naturally a peculiar force, " my flesh," etc. ((rJi/ia jiov, ulfid
fiov). In themselves JlesJi and blood are powerless, John vi. 63 ;
Rom. vii. 18. They cannot even inherit, much less bestow, the
kingdom of God, 1 Cor. xv. 50. But the flesh and blood of Christ,
which are imperishable and glorious, possess the power of eternal
life. He who eats and drinks of them shall have life in himself, and
will be raised up at the last day. (John vi. 53, seq.)

With this heavenly flesh and blood the Lord feeds his disciples,
as a mother from her bosom nourishes her infant child with her own
blood. Schultz (loc. cit. p. 93, seq.) thinks that we may speak of
earthly and heavenly bodies (oi^imTa eiriyeLa, eirovpavia), but not of
spiritual flesh {odp^ Trvevf^ia-tKri), or the like. By mere accident this
expression certainly does not occur in the New Testament ; but still
a body consists necessarily of flesh, whether of a merely earthly, or
glorified nature. We see therefore no intrinsic impropriety in apply-
ing the epithet to flesh. In strict consistency with his Ditalism,
which makes an absolute separation between matter and spirit,
Schultz was forced to assert, that there could not be a spiritual body
((T6j//a TTvevjuari/cov),* since for ever, according to his system, spirit and
body are beside, not in each other — a doctrine which is certainly un-
known to the holy Scriptures.

But according to this conception of body and blood, the query
now occurs, how could Jesus, in instituting the sacred ordinance,
have spoken of his glorified body, when he yet bore the mortal
body ? The expressions in Luke and Paul, " given, shed for you,"
seem to favour the opinion, that the body which the Lord intended
to distribute, was not the glorified one, but that which was natural,
capable of sufiering, and of being nailed to the cross.

Yet even the most zealous defenders of this view admit that the
body of the Lord communicates the energies of eternal life ; it can-
not therefore resemble the perishable sinful human body. The sen-
timent that it was the body which was afterwards nailed to the cross, is
important to them only as enabling them to combat the notion of

for from the fact that it signifies our physical nature as a whole, our collective organism;
with which, also, the idea of breaking better agrees. Still, as dwelt upon above, when
regarded alone and in itself, we may speak of the flesh of Christ in the supper.

* 2(J/ia, body, must be taken as equivalent to ovcla, substance, as Tertullian uses corpus
(= substantia) ; and hence says of spirit " est corpus sui generis." Schultz seems to unite
with the conception of crw/za, only the abstract idea of something entire and distinctly
individualized. But accordingly to this, what is a spiritual body ? "What in fact individ-
ualizes the spirit except the body ? No one would wish to revive the Gnostic doctrine
of an upor, that is, of a principle individualizing and limiting spirits: and still it is a power-
ful proof how difiBcult it is, without the hypothesis of a glorified corporeity, to fix the in-
dividuaUty of spirits.

30 Matthew XXVI. 26.

an ideal, aethenal docetic body, in order to maintain tlie reality of
the body of Christ. And in this relation the assertion is entirely
correct ; though it might with propriety be differently expressed, so
as to assert most emphatically the reality and identity of the body
of Christ hefore and after the resurrection, in opposition to all the
docetic errors ; and yet distinguish perfectly between Christ's body
as glorified, and as not glorified. But the communicating of the
flesh and blood of Christ could never proceed naturally except from
the former. If we now suppose that the glorification of the Lord's
body was gradually perfected (on this subject, compare the Com-
mentary, Part I, on Matth. xvii. -1, and the remarks in the history
of the resurrection), then will its efficaciousness, prior to its return
from the dead, contain nothing whatever surprising, any more than
the fact that the Saviour could by breathing impart the Holy Spirit
(John XX. 22), although the spirit was not fully poured out till a
later period, John vii. 39. In the mortal body the immortal one
already rested ; as in the regenerated, the new man lives, though
enveloped by the old. The resurrection was merely the breaking
forth of the butterfly from the chrysalis, within which it had long
since been fully matured.

To€-6 koTi^ this is, therefore, are the only words which remain for
examination ; words which were long regarded as the key to an un-
derstanding of the whole passage. Schultz, however (p. 116, seq.),
is certainly right when he remarks that nothing can be proved from
this formula in favour of either the one or the other view of the sup-
per. Were the Catholic view intended to be sustained by the word •
of Scripture, then juere/zop^w^T/, or something similar, would be ne-
cessary.*

But regarded under a strictly grammatical view tovto Ioti, will
bear the meaning of " this signifies" just as well as of " this is,
actually." So that from these words merely, we cannot decide
between the views of Luther and Zuinglius. (Of the numerous ex-
amples quoted by Schultz, concerning tovto Iotl, compare the fol-
lowing : 1 Peter i. 25 ; Philemon, ver. 12 ; Luke xii. 1 ; Hebrews
X. 20 ; and on the tropical use of elvcL, generally consult John xv.
1-5, xiv. 6, X. 7-9 and elsewhere).

The phrase may, however, have the other signification, viz., "it
is in deed, and in truth." In the passage itself there is no decisive

* If, however, the doctrine of transubstantiation had been so stated that we might re-
gard the transformation of elements only as occurring at the mortient of consecration and
participation, there could be little biblical opposition to it. But the passages (1 Cor. x. 16,
xi. 26) speak of the bread, even aftei; consecration, and whilst being partaken of, in a
way that, by forced construction only, can be made to harmonize with the Catholic view.
In conclusion, it is much to be regretted that this method of comprehending the dogma
does not obtain as the prevailing one in the Greek and Latin churches ; for by means of
it a great part of their corrupt practice would fall away of itselC

Matthew XXVI. 27, 28. 81

ground for the one view rather than the other ; but the authentic
declarations of Scripture, and the general scope of its doctrines,
combined with the practice of the most ancient churches, lead to a
decision in favour of the strict acceptation of the words. (Compare
my remarks in the " Evang. Kirchen-Zeit. Jahrg. 1834, N. 48. The
institutory words of the ordinance contain the mystery, but not its
elucidation.)

Ver. 27, 28. — We must still notice the expression " blood of the
new covenant" (aqia T/jg Kaiv/jg diaOrjicTjg)^ which occurs in Matthew
and Mark, and for which Luke and Paul use, " the new covenant in
my blood" (fj Kacvfj SiaO/jKT] tv rw ifiuj a"iiari). The two formulae are
not essentially distinguishable. Both comprehend the relation of
the Redeemer's shed blood, to the new life established according to
the New Testament. The only question that arises is, " What is
the proper foundation of this relation ?" Evidently, the remission
of sins, for without shedding of blood there is no remission (com-
pare upon this thought the comment upon Hebrews ix. 22). In the
New Testament, sin is no longer borne with by the Divine patience,
as under the economy of the Old Testament, Rom. iii. 25 ; but,
through the reconciliation perfected by Christ's vicarious death
it was done away (Coloss. ii. 14), since he became a curse for us. Gal.
iii. 13. Hence, both the above modes of expression might be chosen,
in so far as the new relation of men to God was established by the
shedding of the blood of the Lord.*

The assertion that in the supper the Lord represented his death
not as an expiatory but as a covenant sacrifice, which is made by
Dr. Paulus in his edition of Usteri's Paul, Lehrbegriff, in the
Heidelb. Jahrbiicher, 1831, September, p. 844, is completely con-
tradicted by the expressive clause in Matth. xxvi. 28, enxwofievov
eig dcpeaiv d^apriCjv^ shed for the remission of sins. But Luke and
Paul have merely the definite injunction : rov-o TToielre elg rrjv e[i^v
avdiivT]CLv^ this do, etc. The passage in 1 Cor. xi. 26 determines ac-
curately both the nature of the remembrance, and its limit in time.

* Lindner, in his treatise on the Lord's Supper, Leipzig, 1831, has deduced from the
latter passage the view, that " the very thing which Christ dispensed in the supper was
the forgiveness of sins." But this representation is surely incorrect. True, wherever
Christ is present there is forgiveness of sins, and, since he is present in the supper, it
cannot be received without remission of sins. But the specific character of the supper
consists not in that fact ; it rather assumes the forgiveness of sins as its negative side, and
completes it by a positive element, to wit, the imparting of new and higher life. The
general forgiveness of sins is so far assumed that only the baptized and faithful can par-
take of the supper. The continued daily remission of sins is symbolized by the feet-
washing which occurred before the institution of the supper, of which remission, confes-
sion and absolution constitute the subsequent representation ; moreover, the Christian
comes as one who has already received the forgiveness of sins ; in whom the germ of the
new life already rests ; but who in this new life must now be nourished and strengthened
with heavenly food.

32 Matthew XXVI. 29.

The former refers especially to the death of Christ, as that in which
his atoning and pontifical work was concentrated. The latter ex-
tends to the Parousia (axptg ov eXd^).

The solemnization of the holy supper was therefore to be a per-
petual symbolical repetition of the great act accomplished on Gol-
gotha, by which the world was reconciled to God, and thus to
announce to the world {KarayyeXere rov Odvarov rod kvqIov) its recon-
ciliation ; just as, under the economy of the Old Testament, every
sacrifice preached that Adam had fallen, and that a restoration of
human nature was necessary. But whilst the Jewish sacrifice only
awakened a desire for the forgiveness of sins, the holy supper act-
ually and energetically nourishes men with the bread that came
from heaven to give life to the world. The supper therefore neces-
sarily presupposes baptism, but baptism does not conversely presup-
pose the supper.

Only they who are born after the flesh can partake of material
food ; and in like manner only those who are born after the Spirit
can enjoy spiritual food. And as the act of birth can take place
but once, whilst the using of food must be frequently repeated, so
also baptism is to be performed but once, whilst the stopper must be
often solemnized.

This analogy is apparently overturned by the facts, that the
supper appears to have been instituted prior to the institution of
baptism, and even before the glorification of Christ. (Compare
Matth. xxviii. 18.) But if we reflect that baptism had long before
been practised by John the Baptist, and by the apostles (compare
John iv. 1, et seq.), and that in Matthew (xxviii. 19) the Lord
merely enjoins the ordinance as a perpetual and universal obser-
vance for all nations, this apparent contradiction will be removed.
Had the Saviour instituted the supper as the glorified Kedeemer
after his resurrection, it might easily have led to an entirely ideal
view of the sacrament. But the more imminent was the danger of
this error, as the history of the first centuries shews, the more care-
fully was it to be here avoided.

Ver. 29. — But the object of thus representing, under the aspect
of the supper, the Lord's death for the sins of the world, could pos-
sess a significancy only so long as the Lord was separated from his
church below. After his glorious return, the supper will assume a
difierent form. To this points the conclusion of the Lord's dis-
course, according to Matthew and Mark, in which he declares that
he will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until he does it in
the kingdom of his heavenly Father. (On the right position of
these words, compare Luke xxii. 16.) It must not be overlooked that
Luke has the words three times (chap. xxii. 16, 18, and 30), from
which it seems highly probable that the Lord uttered them several

Matthew XXVI. 29. 33

times, during the last supper. From these words we might think our-
selves warranted to infer, that surely the Lord himself partook of the
supper with the disciples. The words, "my body, my blood" (aCJud
uov, alfid fiov), however, contradict this supposition too completely.
It is much simpler to assume that the drinking of the fruit of the
vine {nielv t/c rov yevvrjiiarog Ttjg dune^ovy^ refers to the cup of wine
used previously, Luke xxii. 17, from which the Lord also drank. We
are also specially led to this conclusion, by the passage in Luke xxii.
16, where it is said of the paschal lamb, " I will no longer eat of it"
etc. {oi-Khi ov fifj </)ayw i^ avrov tcjg otov^ k. t. A.) Here it is clear,
that the discourse could not have referred to the bread in the sup-
per, but to the passover. So that the meaning of the words is as;
follows " in the kingdom of God I will hold a new paschal feast
with you."

As to the import of the particular idea (compare the observa-
tions relative to this subject, in the first part of the Commentary
Luke xxii. 30), many persons, influenced by the prevailing Ideal-
ism, have accustomed themselves, in contempt of the resurrection
and glorification of the flesh, to regard it as involving merely the
general idea of joy. " There shall we enjoy ourselves more inti-
mately, more spiritually with one another, than here." Were this
notion correct, we should be justified in asserting that the thought
was conveyed in words exceedingly liable to mistake, especially by
the disciples, who were involved doubtless in gross material views
of the Messiah. Without doubt thosef are nearer to the grammat-
ical truth— (looking particularly to the orav avro -ntvo) kuivov) — who
confess, " that this passage clearly expresses the Jewish idea of a
banquet that should take place in the Idngdom of the Messiah ;
where what was physical would also be glorified." But the opinion
most conformable to the doctrine of Scripture, is that this very idea
of the marriage supper of the lamb (SeXnvov rov ydfiov rov dpvcov,
Eevelation xix. 9), has an independent truth. All anxiety about
materialism in this view, is sufficiently removed by the observation
that in the world of the glorified, everything will be glorified. Ac-
cordingly, the idea of a covenant feast with the Lord, must be con-
ceived under a spiritualized and glorified form in the world of the
resurrection

Thus understood then, this thought furnishes an admirable con-
clusion to the feast. Glancing away beyond the period of the
gradual development of that kingdom of God, which like a grain

* It should be carefully noted that Jesus does not say, " iK tovtov tov noTTjptov," but
"iK TOVTOV TOV -/evfrjuaTn^.'" The ovrof evidently forms the antithesis with Kaivo^, and
therefore the discourse in these words refers to the festival in general.

f The explanation of this passage, from the association of Christ with his disciples
after hia resurrection, is altogether untenable ; for this time alone is never called ^aaiXeia
TOV Qeov.

34 Matthew XXVI. 36.

of mustard seed, is in the world growing and maturing amidst many
conflicts, the Lord transports himself with his disciples into that
consummated harmony of existence in which even the material
world appears correspondent with the spiritual (Rom. viii. 8, 18,
seq.), and Paradise is restored.

Hence as in paradise the only food made use of was that af-
forded by plants, so also the Saviour, instead of the bloody pass-
over, instituted a bloodless festival of the most simple means of
nourishment, from which the higher elements of life were infused
into man, as he once, by eating of the fruit, became subject to the
power of death. Comforted then by this glance into the recovered
paradise, the Lord advances against the Cherub's sword which must
pierce the heart of every one who enters there, but over whose ter-
rors Jesus has triumphed on behalf of all who by faith appropriate
his merits to themselves.

§ 2. Jesus' Struggle in Gethsemane, and His Arrest.

(Matth. xxvi. 36-56 ; Mark xiv. 32-52 ; Luke xxii. 40-53 ; John xviiL 1-11.)

After the conclusion of the supper,* followed immediately, as
we have already remarked, by the discourses recorded by John, chs.
xiv. — xvii. (which without doubt were delivered in the festival cham-
ber) ; the Saviour with his disciples hastened out of the city, from
which his gracious presence was now withdrawn.

Jesus went over the mountain stream Cedron to the Mount of
Olives. Kedpdjv = -p-np. from i^jp to be dark, black. Perhaps the
name is derived from the depth of the densely-grown forest valley
through which the brook flowed. The reading tc5v /cedpwv, arose
certainly from the ignorance of transcribers, who thought they
ought to regard the name as a plural form. The brook flowed be-
tween the city and the Mount of Olives, and poured itself into the
Dead Sea. It is often named in the Old Testament. (Comp. 2
Sam. XV. 23 ; 1 Kings ii. 37, xv. 13 ; 2 Kings xxiii. 4-6. Upon
opog Tu>v iXaiojv comp, in the Commentary Part I. on Matth. xxi. 1.)
Here, either upon or near the Mount of Olives, was a country-seat
— X(^ptoVj Matth. xxvi. 36 ; Mark xiv. 32, with a garden, K/'jirog = *}>
John xviii. 1, 2, which Jesus had often visited with his disciples,
and which was well-known to Judas ; thither the Lord proceeded.

TeOarj^avTj or Tedorjfiavei is the name given by Matthew and Mark
to the estate, that is t<yqv ma oil-press, or olive-press. Scarcely had

* Matth. xxvi. 30, applies vfivt/ffavreg to the psalms which were wont to be sung at
the conclusion of the feast. They are called " the great hallelujah." Compare the for^
going description of the proceedings in solemnizing the Jewish passover.

Matthew XXVI. 36. 35

he arrived, when he retired into the deep solitude of the garden.
The rest of the disciples may have remained in the house with the
friendly owner of the garden ; only three ventured to accompany
him, and heheld the mighty struggle of his soul. These were they
who were also present at the transfiguration (compare Matth. xvii.
1, seq.) Hence they were able to estimate alike the exaltation and
the humiliation of the Lord's life. {'Adijuovecj from ddijiKov, sorrow-
ful, distressed ; it is a strong expression for agony, trembling or
fainting of soul. Symmachus uses it for titav, Psalm Ixi. 3, and for
TBn Psalm cxvi. 11.)

We have now arrived at the event, which may be regarded as the
beginning of the passion of Christ, in the narrower sense of the
word, and it is but meet to make a pause in our consideration of
particulars, and to review the general course of development in the
Saviour's life.*

That suffering without measure, should burst in upon the holy
one of God, seems to be the less surprising, that the noblest of the
human race have .been exposed to great privations and bitter con-
flicts ; and the sufferings of Jesus only now became visible ; they
had long burdened him invisibly.f The sinfulness of the world,
the unbelief, want of love, and ignorance, of men, had been long
causes of acute suffering to the heart of the Son of God. But in
the latter moments of his earthly pilgrimage, they were concentra-
ted into greater intensity. To the observer, however, it appears
wonderful, that the Saviour in such suffering, did not stand alto-
gether unmoved, like the rock in a tempest, but that he trembled,
moaned, and implored his heavenly Father to avert the agonizing
hour ! If we compare the demeanor of Jesus with the conduct of
other sages, even such as lived before his time, of Socrates for ex-
ample, or of noble Christian martyrs, as Huss, Polycarp, and others,
these persons appear to have displayed more steadfastness and
courage, than we discover in the bearing of Christ. The follow-
ing observations may help to render this phenomenon comprehensible.

First, It must not be overlooked, that the Gospel reveals a view
of life, in which, stoical indifference, hardihood, and inflexibility in
reference to pain and suffering of every kind, do not appear as the

* (Compare on this subject my essay in Knapps' Christoterpe Jahrg. 1832, p. 182,
seq.) which contains a further detail of the thoughts liere intimated. Here, however, I
would observe : that the symbohc character of the names Cedron, Gethsemane, Golgotha,
is not to be overlooked. Throughout the whole of the sacred Scriptures, runs the con-
ception of names as a very significant index to the characters of persons or relations. The
es.say of Dettinger in the "Tiibinger Zeitschrift," 1837, p. 4, 1838, p. 1, contains a defence
of the historical character of this narrative concerning tho agony of Christ, against the
attack of Strauss, which is eminently worthy of being studied.

■j- Clem. Alex, quis dives salvetur, c. 8, Segaars' edition, p. 22, nuaxet (5t' Vf^uc o
0UT71P dwb yevtaeuc fJ^XPi- '''o^ ariiieiov. Id est: — usque ad crucem. The pilgrimage of a
ginfiil world was, to the holy one of God, necessarily a continuous sufiFering and sympathy.

36 Matthew XXYI. 36.

most exalted virtues. On the contrary, it honours and carefully
fosters the tender susceptibilities of meekness, of compassion, of
sympathy, and is not ashamed of tears, nor of the true, natural ex-
pression of anguish, or of terror. However, it should be well ob-
served, that the Lord did not tremble before the rude populace, who
would have misunderstood the true expression of his sorrows, but
only in presence of his most confidential friends. The former would
have been contrary to decorum, the latter was not.

Secondly, The faintness of Jesus did not arise from the fear of
visible enemies, or under physical pain.* His struggle was an in-
visible agony of the soul ; a sense of being forsaken of God (com-
pare remarks on Matth. xxvii. 46); a contest against the power
of darkness (compare Luke xxii. 53) ; for as, in the beginning of his
ministry, the Saviour was tempted by the enemy though the medium
of desire, so now at its end was he assailed through the medium of
fear. Compare in the Comm., Vol. I. p. 275.

Finally, the suffering of the Lord was not something that af-
fected merely his own individual life (Heb, ii. 10) ; it stood in con-
nexion with the development of humanity at large. (Compare the
particulars at Matthew xxvii. 45, seq.) Christ suffered and endured
as the representative of mankind collectively. He bore their guilt.
Hence his sufferings have a special character, and cannot be com-
pared with any other sufferings. But it is not the fainting alone
that is surprising in the following statement concerning the Lord,
but also the fluctuation in his inward resolution. If we compare
the confident faith and victorious courage which breathe through the
intercession of Christ as high priest, John xvii., it will appear
truly astonishing that, after a few hours the Saviour could appear
involved in such an inward struggle as that in which he is repre-
sented in the passage about to be considered. We can hence con-
ceive how some, as particularly Usteri and Goldhorn,f have from this
circumstance come to the opinion that the narrative of the Synop-
tical Evangelists, concerning the struggle of Jesus in Gethsemane,
is probably erroneous, since, in the minute narrative of John, who
alone of the Evangelists was an eye-witness of the occurrence, there
is no mention of it. (Luke contains the account, abridged certainly,
but stiJl essentially similar to those of Matthew and Mark.) But
the supposition that the Saviour could not have endured any such
inward struggle of the soul cannot be sustained against the abun-

* The view, that prospective extreme bodily suffering called forth the Redeemer's
struggles, altogether obscures, and even annihilates the very essence of his messianic
character. "Were it correct, Christ would in truth have exhibited much less firmness of
soul, not only than many martyrs, but even than many unregenerate and immoral men
who have borne far greater tortures without blenching.

% 4 The former in the celebrated critical essay concerning John, the ktter in a distinct
vdniDzschirner's Magazine, vol. I. Part 2.

Matthew XXVI. 36. 37

dant proofs of the fact ; for in the first place, John himself speaks
of such a struggle in other passages of his Gospel. (Compare John
xii. 20, seq.) And, in the next place, the other writers of the New
Testament (Heb. v. 7, seq.), also the prophecies of the Old (Psalm
xxii. 19; Isaiah liii.), have all included the idea of yielding and faint-
ing in their portraiture of the Messiah. A milder mode of represent-
ing the matter, has therefore been chosen by those who say that " the
struggle in Gethsemane certainly occurred ; and that the first three
Evangelists have merely assigned to it the wrong place; that it be-
longs in fact to an antecedent time, that to which John xii. 20, seq.
transfers it."

Such a transposition might certainly be possible ; but the event
mentioned by John xii. 20, occurred under totally difierent circum-
stances, and therefore if the silence of John be deemed so decisive,
we must assume not only a chronological inversion, but also an act-
ual misrepresentation of the event on the part of the Synoptical
writers. . But his silence cannot justify such an assumption, for in
John there occur frequent omissions of matters which the others
have carefully recorded.*

The fact is easily explained if we can only assign a cause which
would account for such sudden fluctuations in the inner life of
Jesus ; but such a cause presents itself to us in the phenomenon
which frequently occurs in the experience of believers (as in the
case of the Apostle Paul, according to 2 Cor. xii,), and may at least
be employed by way of analogy, to show that a sudden withdrawal
takes place, of those higher powers of the spirit which determine
the tone and feeling of the soul.

That such a forsaking occurred on the cross, the evangelical his-
tory expressly asserts, Matth. xxvii. 46. In the history of the temp-
tation we found ourselves obliged to assume it. (Comp, Comm.,
Part I. on Matth. iv. 1.) — Nothing is therefore more natural, than
here also to suppose something similar. By this assumption alone,
does the greatness of the struggle of Jesus on the one hand, and
of his victory on the other, appear in its full significance. Whilst
a Socrates can conquer, only so long as he remains in the full pos-
session of his spirit's undiminished energy, the Redeemer triumphed
over the whole power of darkness, even when forsaken by God, and
by the fulness of his own Spirit. — The further expansion of this
thought is given in the treatise published in " the Christoterpe."

* I hold it impossible to assign for this omission any other causes than those which
have been mentioned. We might suppose that John had his Gnostic readers in view, in
omitting an account which might have given ofifence by shewing weakness in C hrist.
But the same reason ought to have prevented John from making any allusion whatever
to the event. This supposition would therefore prove too much, and consequently prove
nothing, even granting we were disposed to assign it any force whatever.

38 Matthew XXVI. 36.

The apprehensions expressed by Dettinger on this subject (in
the work quoted before, p. 108) are entirely unfounded. He asks
whether " spirit" here signifies the Divine nature, or only the spir-
itual principle of human nature ? I answer, both. A contest,
whilst in full possession of the Divine nature, is a nonentity. Hence
the Scripture teaches us, Philip, ii. 7, that God, in becoming
man, emptied himself of the fulness of Divine power. This abne-
gation reached its maximum point when (as in Gethsemane, and on
the cross), the Saviour was totally forsaken by the Father, The
mode of conceiving this abnegation and abandonment is a matter ot
peculiar difficulty, but this difficulty rests in the subject itself, not
in my representation ; nor is it at all greater than that involved in
the doctrine of the incarnation, and in other doctrines. Meanwhile,
nothing can be more perverse than to say, with De Wette, that the
withdrawal of God is a doctrine alike unphilosophical and immoral,
since it destroys the omnipresence of God. This by no means fol-
lows, if we regard the withdrawal of God only as actual, not as
ESSENTIAL. An Omnipresence of God thus actually distinct, must
at all events be assumed, otherwise everything is involved in chaos.
The Omnipresent is present in various ways, in heaven, in hell, in
the heart of the righteous, and in the heart of the godless, respect-
ively. God, in his absolute freedom, possesses also the free exercise
of his attributes. As (according to Rom. iii. 25) he suspended, in
the ages before Christ, the full exercise of his justice, so, in like
manner, God may restrain the gracious operation of his nature.
Viewed in this light, the oneness, of the person of the God-man is
not destroyed by the Divine withdrawal. God is thus revealed in
him, not as the gracious, but as the Just God, that is, he sustains,
as representative of mankind, the wrath of God. The objections ct
Dettinger and De "Wette proceed from an incorrect view of the rela-
tion of the Divine attributes to his Being. God is not constrained,
through any innate necessity, to render the collective attributes of
his nature always and on all occasions operative. His freedom dic-
tates the form of their display. Finally, the supposition, that, in
Gethsemane, a like withdrawal of God from Christ took place, as
on the cross, does not sufficiently explain the fainting of the garden.
Also in his humanity as such, we must believe that there was, agree-
ably to the ordinance of God, a state of helpless destitution, of
complete exposure to the assaults of the power of darkness, which
state, assuming the distinction between soul {'ipvxr]) and spirit
(jTvevna), we can conceive as a limitation of the power of the latter.
What thus occurs in sinful man, as a consequence of sin (viz., the
weakening of the energy of the spirit, and a separation of the soul
from the body in death), he, as the representative of mankind, be-
came liable to of his own free wiU. In his sinless soul he achieved

Matthew XXVI. 38, 39. 39

the complete victory ; became obedient unto death, even the death
of the cross ; and learnt perfect obedience in that he himself suf-
fered : Philip, ii. 8 ; Heb. ii. 17, 18, iv. 15. According to this in-
terpretation, we need not at all suppose, as Dettinger, agreeing
with Strauss, does in a passage quoted — that the soul resembles a
lake, which ebbs and flows according as its conducting canals are
closed, or its sluices opened. Rather should we abandon the unbib-
lical view of the identity of soul and spirit. As a man may lose
his body without annihilation of his personality, so also may he lose
the spirit. The soul is the sustainer of both.

Yer. 38, 39. — The confession of his profound sorrow, and the im-
ploring request to his disciples to strengthen him, by their proxim-
ity and their watching, form a wonderfully impressive contrast with
the mission of Christ, and with the very object of these sufferings.
He, the helper of the whole world, confesses to those to whom he
brings help his own need of assistance, and seeks from these very
persons the aid which they are unable to render ! (ILepUvnog occurs
in Mark vi. 26, and in Luke xviii. 23, 24. It is formed after the
analogy of iTEpixaprjg/-^) The ^ 'ipvx'r} fiov does not stand merely for
iy6 : it is different from rb TTvevfxd fiov. The former signifies rather
what is purely human, that which moves the feeling ; the latter
means the spiritual consciousness. Compare John xiii. 21, where
the personal feeling is less intended, hence irapaxOt] tw Trvevfian is
employed. Compare John xi. 33. When about to pray, Jesus re-
moved to some distance from his disciples, and fell upon his face on
the ground. (Luke subjoins, with more exact statement, (bael XLdov
l3oXi]v, xxii. 41. The phrase dnearrdad-rj an' avrCJVj expresses the sud-
denness and violence of the Saviour's movements.) Mark gives the
prayer itself in the most detailed manner ; for, besides the '^passing
away of the cup" (compare Matth. xx. 22) he also mentions the
passing by of the hour of suffering. Remarkable in this supplication
of the Saviour, is the prayer of the Son, based upon the omnipotence
of the Father {-navra dvvard ooi), to remove from him the hour of
suffering. With a definite knowledge of the will of the Father,
there seems to be expressed a contrary will on the part of the Son.
But, first, this supplication must on no account be taken as isolated
or dissevered from the appended words, ttXtjv ovx w?" eyw 0t-Aw, dXX'
(if av, yet not as I ivill, hut as tJiou loilf. In the first petition, the
weakness of the flesh (2 Cor. xiii. 4), alone finds utterance, which the
Saviour must necessarily have partaken of, for otherwise his agonies
would have been merely the semblance of suffering. In the second
prayer there is the expression of the victorious spirit. Again, it
must not be overlooked, that the wish to be exempted from death,

* The words are from the passages of the Psalms xli. 5-11, xiii. 5, which probably
recurred to the memory of the Saviour in the heavy hour of his sufferings.

40 Matthew XXVI. 40, 41.

and from the bitter path of suffering, is not a sinful one, but rather
a pure and holy wish. For death is the reward of sin, and, as such,
bitter even to sinful creatures, to whom, in some respects, it may
be regarded as a release from distress and misery. How much more,
then, must it have excited a shuddering horror in the pure unspotted
soul of Jesus ! It would have argued a false and beggarly spirit, at
once stupid and unfeeling, if, with no living, genuine, soul-thrill-
ing utterance of the terror inspired in his holy human soul by the
dark valley of death, he could have descended into it.* This feature,
80 far from impairing the sacred picture of Christ, is essential to its
complete perfection,

A higher necessity required, however, that this feeling, in itself
entirely legitimate, should now be subdued. It was not the irre-
sistible will of the Father which urged the Son on to this bitter
death, for the Divine will of the Son was one with that of the Fa-
ther, But the conflict of absolute justice with mercy, in a word,
•the mystery in the work of redemption for the race of man, demanded
a complete sacrifice ; and a voluntary yielding to this higher neces-
sity, which was impossible without a severe struggle against human
sensibility, we find intimated in this sublime and sacred moment.
With the victory in Gethsemane, therefore, everything was already
virtually completed ; the Father's will itself was fully apprehended
by the soul of Jesus, And as in human conflicts the mind becomes
tranquil when the resolution has been unalterably formed, so also
we discover it here, in the life of the Redeemer. Hence the struggle
in Gethsemane was even more fearful than that on Golgotha — (com-
pare Heb. V. 7) ; as ordinarily with excitable minds the prospect of
danger is more painful than the danger itself with all its terrors.

Ver, 40, 41. — After this, his first victory over the assaults of
darkness, Jesus returned to the three disciples, and found them
sleeping, heedless of his admonition. The comment of Luke xxii.
45 — " dnb Trjg XvTTTjg" — that they were sleeping for sorrow, may be
explained thus : their trouble, by reason of the violent mental ex-
citement it called forth, is to be understood as the cause of their
exhaustion and sleepiness. In accordance with this view, elg Xvtttjv
stands in the LXX, for '^j^, faint, sick. Addressing Peter, as their
speaker, the Lord again exhorted them to watchfulness and prayer,

* Luther calls attention also to the perfection of Christ's bodily organization, and the
acuteness of suiTering it must have occasioned. "We men," he -wTites, "conceived and
born in sin, have an impure, hard flesh, which does not soon feel. The fresher and sounder
the man is, the finer the skin, and the purer the blood, so much the more does he feel,
and is susceptible of what befalls him. Now, since Christ's body is pure and sinles?,
whilst ours is impure, we therefore scarcely feel the terrors of death in one fifth of the
degree in which Christ felt them, since he was to be the greatest martyr, and had to
Bufifer death's estremest terrors." — Compare the Sermon on Christ's Passion in the Garden,
Leipzig edition, Part XVI. 187,

Matthew XXVI. 42-44. 41

■with the warning that both lessen the danger of temptation. Here
the train of ideas is manifestly as follows. "An abandonment to sor-
row, and its consequent emotions, diminishes the dominant energy of
the spirit, and thus facilitates the victory of indwelling sin ; whilst
resistance to the besetting disposition, and prayer, which supplies
man with fresh energy from the spiritual world, secure us against
temptation." Hence, also, Christ refers us to the weakness of hu-
man nature (// aap^ doOevijg), which hinders the execution of that
which man's nobler part (jrveviia, in Paul, vovg) would prefer. Com-
pare particulars on the words in Romans vii. 22, 23.

Ver. 42-44. — A second and a third time does the Redeemer re-
tire to pray ; and as often as he returns does he find the disciples
sleeping, entirely subdued by the power of darkness. Luke does
not record this threefold struggle, but mentions it compendiously,
as if only one prayer had taken place ; but beyond doubt the
more exact description of Matthew and Mark is the more correct.
The three assaults through the medium of fear, stand parallel to
the three stages in the history of the temptation. In Luke xxii.
43, 44, some incidents are adduced which have escaped the other
two Evangelists. These two verses are wanting in the manuscripts
A.B. 13, 69, 124, and others. Some MSS., as E.S. 24, 36, attach
asterisks to them. Nevertheless they are authentic. The omissions
and signs originated perhaps in the apprehension that the strength-
ening of Jesus by an angel would have made him appear too deeply
humbled, and the words might favour Arianism. (This passage
further belongs to those in which, under the term dyyeXog, angel, no
external appearance,* no visible personage should be understood.
The angel certainly appeared to Christ alone (w007; avrQ), and prob-
ably inwardly, in his spirit. The strengthening by the angel is,

* It is'surprising that a man like Dettinger (in the passage quoted elsewhere, 1835)
could take ofifence at this conclusion, imagining that through this hypothesis the histor-
ical truth of tlie account might be damaged. " It is better," he says, "to state openly,
■with Strauss, that it is a mythical decoration." I thought the words, " There is here
under the uyye/iof, no appearance to be understood, as of a visible personality," indicated
my meaning plainly enough, to make such misconceptions impossible ; but since they
are not so considered, I shall explain myself more particularly. I distinguish two sorts
of angelic appearances ; first, those where the appearing angel personally comes in view
to him to whom the vision is imparted; and secondly, purely spiritual appearances.
Of the first kind was the angelic vision which, according to Luke i. appeared in the temple
to Zacharias ; of the second was the one here mentioned. In this hypothesis I am de-
cided, by the relation of angelic visions to the other forms of revelation from the superior
world. They belong to the inferior class of revelations ; and hence are not suited to him
upon whom all the angels of God ascend and descend, John i. 51. Add to this that the
angel was here to reveal nothing, but merely strengthen Christ in his human nature.
"ELcre, therefore, the personality of the angel disappears, and his appearance, in fact, ia
but equivalent to the expression " there flowed in upon him power from on high."' Tiiia
view of the angels as powers, with the personality dismissed, ia particularly revealed in
the Old Testament, in the doctrine of the cherubim. But this is not the place to enter
into its details.

42 Matthew XXVI. 47.

therefore, to be understood as an afflux of spiritual power to the
Redeemer, in his extremest agony of abandonment.) How an angel
could strengthen Christ — in whom the eternal word of the Father
had become flesh (John i. 1-14), may be conceived, by assuming
that in the season of temptation and of struggle, the fulness of his
Divine life withdrew itself, so that the human soul of Christ was
that which struggled,^ and which was strengthened. Without doubt
we must conclude that this strengthening followed the threefold
prayer, of which Luke alone makes no mention ; it is then parallel
to Mark i. 13, where it said, after the temptation was ended, " the
angels ministered to him" (ol dyyeXoi dtrjKovovv avroi). The follow-
ing Koi yevonevog k. t. A., is then to be understood as the pluper-
fect, and signifies that the aid was given at the very height and
crisis of the struggle. Although this inference is grammatically ad-
missible (compare Winer's Gr. s. 251), yet still, the Koi yevoi^evog,
when taken in connexion with the following eyhero de, seems to
contradict it. Hence we can only say that Luke in this place has
not recorded with precision the sequence of the events. ('Aywvia is
often equivalent to aywv, struggle, strife. Then it means agony,
faintness, death-struggle. In the New Testament it occurs in this
passage only. 'BtcTeviarepov is from enTevTJg, used also of prayer,
Acts xii. 5.)

As a physical expression of the Saviour's fearful struggle, Luke
mentions further that he "sweat as it were great drops of blood" (ISpug
(haei OpoiifioL aliiaroq). Although, on the authority of medical state-
ments, we can believe that in the highest state of mental agony, a blood
exudation may take place (compare the passages in Kuinoel, vol. ii.
p. 654), still we must acknowledge that in those words of Luke,
only a comparison of the sweat with drops of blood is directly ex-
pressed. In relation to real drops of blood, oxret, as if, would be
altogether out of place. But the point of comparison is twofold ;
first, that the sweat of Christ assumed the form of drops, which sup-
poses a high degree of agony ; and then, that these drops, through
their largeness and weight, loosened themselves and fell to the earth.
Possibly, as a third point of comparison, the red color was super-
added, which would lead to the notion of an exudation from the
veins. Still this is not decidedly expressed in the words ; but neither
are the words directly contradictory of this hypothesis ; and since
in the church it has become the general acceptation, there is no
reason to deviate from, and still less to contend against it.

Ver. 47, seq. contains an account of Christ's capture. After
Jesus had wrestled through the heavy struggle, tranquillity and full
self-possession were again restored to him ; so that to Judas and the
company that attended him he appeared in striking majesty. Mark
and Luke record the occurrence in an abridged form ; but Matthew

Matthew XXVI. 47. 43

and John narrate it in detail, and mutually complete eacli other's
accounts. Concerning the preparations for the seizure of Jesus,
John informs us xviii. 3. The high priests, uncertain whether the
disciples of Christ would not defend him, had taken with them not
only some of those who guarded the Temple (t/c rwv d^xi-^p^^v vnTjp-
ira^), but also a company of Koman soldiers, ('H oirelpa means pro-
perly a cohort, compare Acts x, 1, xxvii. 1. A cohort at the time
of Augustus was 555 men strong. In this passage there is naturally
meant only a division of the cohort stationed in Jerusalem.) The
soldiers had not only furnished themselves with weapons, but also
with torches {(pavot), of pitch or wax, and with lanterns {Xainrddeg),
in which oil was burned.

These torches — since (as it was the passover), it must necessa-
rily have been moonlight — were required, either from the heavens
being overcast, or from the apprehension that Jesus had concealed
himself in the house, or in the garden. Now according to Matthew
and Mark, Judas, who conducted the troop, had preconcerted a sign
with the soldiers (Mark xiv. 44 has the expression ovootjuov^ which
occurs but this once in the New Testament ; it signifies a sign
agreed upon by several persons), whereby they might easily recog-
nize Jesus, viz., that he would kiss him.

The contrast presented in this selection of the natural expres-
sion of affection as a signal of the most detestable treachery, is dis-
closed in the words of Christ at Luke xxii. 48 : 'lovda, ^iXrina-L tov
vlov TOV dvOptoTTov TTapadid(^g ; Judas^ hetrayest thou, etc. But John
xviii. 4, et seq., gives a still more particular account concerning the
incidents of Judas's approach with the soldiers. The Lord, in the
fullest consciousness as to the significance of the moment (eldcbg ndv-
ra TO ip^ofieva ett' avTov), went to meet them, enquired whom they
sought, and surrendered himself to them, saying : "I am he."
Here John (xviii. 6) mentions that they went backwards and fell to
the ground {airriXdov elg rd ottioo) Koi tneaov xo-jJ'ai).

We need not postulate a particular miracle to account for this
action ; the person of Jesus himself is the miracle, and the majesty
which beamed forth from him might easily have affected, in the pro-
foundest manner, men who knew of him, and in part might have
heard him (John vii, 46). Indeed, similar incidents have occurred
in the lives of men, as in that of Marius, for example, whose mere
rude energy of aspect exercised a commanding influence. Besides,
it is self-evident that the act of falling down ought not to be con-
sidered strictly as having extended to all without exception, nor as
a lightning-like and complete prostration. But spiritual impres-
sion was powerful enough to make itself physically observable
in their timorous retreat, during which one or more feU to the
earth. The account of Judas's kiss, by Matthew, as Liicke part

44 Matthew XXVI. 52, 53.

II. p. 599, observes, corresponds witli the account of John, if
we suppose that Judas advanced alone before the others. When
the Lord saw Judas and was kissed by him, he accompanied
him to meet the approaching troop, in order to defend his disciples,
and on this occasion the armed men fell down, overwhelmed by
the power of his spirit. In the protection which the Saviour thus
visibly afforded to his disciples, John discovers a fulfilment of the
word of Christ xvii. 12, the proper intention of which, however,
refers unquestionably to the eternal preservation of their souls. This
shews how the disciples of the Lord themselves discerned in his
pregnant words manifold meanings, a fact, which, as Tholuckjustly
remarks, is not unimportant to the understanding of the Old Testa-
ment prophecies.

The proposal of one disciple to defend themselves with the two
swords in their possession, Luke xxii. 38, is minutely recounted by
John ; he even mentions Peter as the disciple (from whose charac-
ter, such a daring attempt might have been anticipated), and also
the servant of the high priest, whose name was Malchus. Since
John was known in the house of the high priest (John xviii. 15),
this circumstance is easily explained. According to John xviii. 26,
he also Imevv the relatives of this Malchus. Moreover, both John
and Luke remark particularly, that it was the right ear which was
cat off. But Luke alone recounts the sudden healing of the wound,
Luke xxii. 51. This best explains why Peter withdrew unharmed ;
astonishment at the cure absorbed general attention. According to
John xviii. 11, the Lord after commanding Peter to put up his
sword into his sheath, uttered merely these words so full of import :
TO TTOTjjptov b 6t6o)KS fioi 6 TTarrip, ov [ifj ttlo) avr6, the clip which my
Father, etc. ; Matth. xxvi. 52, 53, gives the address more in detail

Our surprise that a somewhat long discourse was delivered to
Peter, under the existing circumstances, vanishes when we assume
that the words were uttered during the healing. The attention
of all was directed to this event, and that rendered it possible for
Christ to impart the necessary hint to Peter.

First, the words of Jesus : " they that take the sword shall
perish by the sword" {ol Xa(36v-eg [xaxa'pav, iv fiaxaipa dnoXovvrai),
doubtless refer to Peter, according to Gen. ix. 6, Rev. xiii. 10.
An arbitrary self-defence against magisterial ordinances is placed
in the same category with murder. The reference of the words
to the Jews as maintained by Euthymius Zigabenus, viz., " these
my murderers shall yet be destroyed," is altogether untenable.
The choice of the word fidxacpa, was evidently suggested by the
preceding, dnoarpexpov gov rrjv [idxaipav. And what follows places
the help of God in contrast with the self-sufficiency of Peter. Par-
allel with this is the expression : idre ewf tovtov^ suffer thus far,

Matthew XXVI. 52, 53. 45

Luke xxii. 51, whicli some refer to the officers thus, Suffer mc to
delay so long, to wit, until Malchus' ear shall be healed. It is bet-
ter to take the words as an injunction to the disciples — " Stay ! thus
far and no further !"

Again, the thought concerning the twelve legions of angels, is
very remarkable. The number twelve might have been selected
with reference to the number of the disciples, and the term, legion
(Aeyewv) alludes evidently to the heavenly host {o-paria ovpdviog,
Luke ii. 13, corresponding to the n;,n^ nss). Thus the general idea
is : " think you that I need earthly aid from you, so few as you are,
when the heavenly assistance of the hosts of God stands at my bid-
ding ?" UagaoTTJoEi, by Hebrew idiom, for irapaoTTioat, comp. Ge-
senius' Lehrgeb., p. 771. The striking feature however in the words
is the J] doKelg ore ov dvva[j,ai apri ; or thinkest that I cannot noio ?
— that is, even now, though it has proceeded so far — napaKaX^aaij k.
T. X. From these words the Lord would seem to affirm the pos-
sibility that he needed not to proceed to his death ; of which yet
the words immediately following (ver. 54, on ovto) del yevtoOai), em-
phatically express the necessity. At the passage in Matth. xxvi.
24, we discussed the relation of necessity and freedom. There, how-
ever, the necessity of Christ's death was compared with the freedom
of action in Judas, who betrayed him. Here, on the contrary, the
possibihty of evading death seems to have rested in Christ himself.
But even here we can understand this possibility as subjective only.
In Christ's humanity, there existed ever the possibilitas peccandi,
and therefore the possibility of his not entering freely into the
higher necessity ; but since in the person of the Lord humanity ap-
peared not isolated, but in union with his divinity, a union becom-
ing gradually more intimate, and in his approaching glorification,
presupposing already a total penetration of the humanity by the
divinity, there was also in Christ an objective impossibility to will
otherwise than in accordance with God's eternal counsel. In this
relation, therefore, we meet in Christ the same union of opposites
as in other respects, Jesus, in his human soul, with unconstrained
resignation, yielded himself to the eternal counsel of the Father ;
" no man took his life from him, he laid it down of himself." John
X. 18 (comp. in the Commentary, Part I., Matth. iv. 1. — Compare
upon the niog ovv TrXTjpoyOCJoLv al jQacpai ; a thought which is re-
peated in ver. 5Q, our observations on Matth. xxvi. 24).

The Scripture is the revealed will of God, and so far the record
of necessity. Its prophecies are independent of the truth or infidel-
ity of man : they are fulfilled unconditionally ; yet without destroy-
ing this freedom of will. In the concluding verses, Matth. xxvi. b5,
56, however, the Saviour further rebukes the officers, that they had
come with weapons, as against a robber. He reminds them of his

46 Matthew XXVI. 52, 53.

free open teaching in the Temple, and thus exposes their depravity,
in that they were afraid of the people. But this also must have
happened {tovto 6e bXov yeyovev) in order that the prophecy (Luke
xxii. 37, Isaiah liii. 12) might he fulfilled. According to Luke xxii.
53, there follows here a sentence full of significance : This is your
hour and the power of darkness {avrt] v[j,oJv ianv t} ^pa, koI tj e^ovoia
70V oKOTovc). Irony here, in the sense of, " You, bad men, prefer
the night for the accomplishment of your deeds," is out of the
question ; partly, because it would be unbecoming in the Saviour
on such an occasion, and partly because the expression " power of
darkness" is unsuited to such a meaning. The interpretation de-
fended by Kuinoel, " this is the time given you of God for the
prosecution of your design, and the power of your sin," is, in the first
member of the sentence, doubtless correct ; but as regards the
second, the expression " power of darkness" does not refer fittingly
to the sin of the officers themselves. Darkness (aKorog) does not
signify sin in one or another individual ; this is always called
dfiap-La ; but the sinful element, generally ; the antithesis of Light
{(pojg). Hence these remarkable words express the thought, that
even what is sinful can attain to reality only in accordance with the
will of God (which we conceive, in reference to evil, as working
negatively, quoad formale actionis, i. e., as permitting), and in cer-
tain times God permits the Light to prevail, and at other times the
darkness, according to his own wisdom. (Compare John ix. 4, and
Luke xxii. 55.) The moment in which the Holy One of God could,
by the sin of men, be brought to the cross, was the culminating
point of evil generally. But in reaching that it destroyed itself, and
thus revealed its own nothingness, since the murder of the Just One
expiated the sins of the whole world.

According to the prophecy of the Lord, Matth. xxvi. 31, the
disciples of the Saviour were now scattered, Matth. xxvi. 56. Mark
xiv. 51 relates further the particular incident of a young man,
lightly clothed, who was apprehended, but escaped, leaving his
linen garment in the soldier's grasp. This incident becomes sig-
nificant only on the assumption that the person of whom it is related
is in some way remarkable. To me it appears most probable, that
hers Mark writes concerning himself. (The pleonastic union of elf
Tig occurs in the New Testament at John xi. 49. Cornpare Winer's
Grammar, 4th edit. p. 105, where elg stands for the indefinite ar-
ticle, John vi. 9. — Tig or elg would have been sufficient, livdcov,
either from Sidon, or perhaps from the Hebrew y']i> (compare Ge-
senius' Lexicon under this word), is equivalent to Xevnov^ linen gar-
ment. The veavioKoi, youths, who apprehended the young man
were the vnTjperai ap;^;£ep£wi/, servants of the chief priests, John
xviii. 3.)

Matthew XXVI. 57. 47

§ 3. Examination of Jesus before Caiaphas and the San-
hedrim. Peter's Denial.

(Matth. xxvi. 57-15 ; Mark xiv. 53-72 ; Luke xxii. 54-71 ; John xviii. 12-27.)

John xviii. 12-14 := (Matth. xxvi. 57 ; Mark xiv. 53 ; Luke
xxii. 54.)

A correct apprehension of the scene, which reveals itself to our
view in what follows, requires a description of the judicial institu-
tions of the Jews at the time of Christ. It was already observed at
Matth. V. 21, X. 17, that the Jews in all considerable towns (indeed,
according to the Talmud, in all towns of a population exceeding
120) had lesser tribunals, entitled, ^^ little Sanhedrim." There
were two of these in Jerusalem. As the highest tribunal, however,
there existed in Jerusalem the great Sanhedrim = (V"^"^'?)? which
consisted of 71 persons. The origin of this tribunal they derived
from Moses himself, who named 70 elders (Numbers xi. 16), who,
with him as president, made out the 71. But the Greek name
points to a much more recent time, and comes evidently from the
word* owtdgtov. Ezra, perhaps, founded the tribunal ; but cer-
tainly the name first arose during the Greco- Syrian dynasty.

The composition of the tribunal was as follows. The officiating
high priest (dpxi^^P^^?) , was the president for the time : he bore the
name k'ws, that is prince, princeps. Secondly, to it belonged the dis-
charged high priests ; the twenty-four presidents of the classes of
priests — Matth. ii. 24 — who also were called dpxt-epelq ; the rulers of
the synagogues {TTpeafSvTepot), and other persons of consideration who
were acquainted with the law {ypannarelg). For their meetings
they had a particular locality. In cases of emergency, the meetings
were held also in the dwelling of the high priest, and such was the
case in the examination of Christ. To the cognizance of this court
belonged all important cases, but peculiarly all spiritual affairs. Now,
since they had denounced Jesus as a false Messiah, they naturally
drew his case before their tribunal. Meanwhile, if their malice had
not subsequently determined them to put Christ to death, they
might have entirely completed his prosecution. Forty years, how-
ever, before the destruction of Jerusalem, and three before the
death of the Lord, the Komans took from the Sanhedrim the juris-
diction concerning life and death, and hence the judgment was trans-
ferred to Pilate. (Comp. J. D. Michaelis' " Mos. Pvecht." Part I.
p. 50, seq. — Winer's " Keallex," p. 677, seq. — Buxtorf Lex. p.
1513, seq.) It is remarkable, that (according to John xviii. 13)

* Twice only in the New Testament is the Sanhedrim called Upeaf^vTepiov, namely,
in Luke xxii. 66, and in Acts xxiL 5.

48 Matthew XXVI. 57.

Christ was not conducted hj tlie guard directly to tlie officiating
lugh priest, Caiaplias, but to his father-in-law, Annas,'-' who had
been high priest prievously (Josephus. Antiq. xviii. 2) but was de-
posed, under Tiberius, by the Koman procurator, Valerius Gratus.
In his stead, Ismael was appointed, then Eleazer, the son of Annas,
next Simon, the son of Caraithus ; and, lastly, in the year a. d. 26,
Joseph or Caiaphas, the son-in-law of Annas.

It is probable that this Annas, having been formerly high priest
himself, and being the father of one high priest, and the father-in
law of two, thus possessed much influence.f Perhaps also he was
even vicar (lao) of the officiating high priest, and on that account
they would probably first request his advice concerning the difficult
question before them. Finally, the palace of Annas may have been
so situated, that it was first reached by the guard with Jesus under
arrest. Accordingly, it appears that Jesus was detained here until
the Sanhedrim was assembled in the palace of Caiaphas. The latter
supposition seems the more worthy of adoption, as it is uncertain
whether Annas sustained that office; and since no proper examina-
tion occurred in his palace, we may conjecture that he admitted
Jesus to his presence chiefly through curiosity, and only incidentally
directed a few questions to him. But John, in mentioning the
name of Caiaphas, calls attention to his previous statement that
this Caiaphas had first counselled the execution of one on behalf of
all (comp. John xi. 49, 50), by way of intimating the certain issue
of the present trial.

The most difficult circumstance in this section is the synoptical
relation of the four Evangelists. For whilst John states expressly
that Jesus was conducted first to Annas, and only mentions subse-
quently his being sent to Caiaphas (xviii. 24), the Synoptical wri-
ters relate only the examination in Caiaphas' palace. There also
they place the denial by Peter, whilst John leaves it doubtful whe-
ther it occurred in the palace of Annas or in that of Caiaphas ; for
he mentions that incident before (xviii. 15-18), as well as after
(xviii. 25-27), the sending of Christ to Caiaphas. In ancient times
it was attempted to solve this difficulty by very violent means ; ver.
24 was transferred to ver. 13, after the npCjrov. One MS. has this

* As regards the form of the names, in the New Testament, of the two ofBcia'inghigh
priests, 'Avvag is derived either from isn or -^ly. Dr. Paulus, in his Exegctical Manual,
Part I. § 1, p. 346, declares for the latter. ^ Caiaphas is properly the name Joseph, as is ob-
served by Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 3, 2. Kaiui/iaf is synonymous with Usvpoc, and is
formed from N2''3, Cephas = rock. Caiaphas should have been the true rock of the
Church of God, 'but he was its caricature ; and Simon Peter came, as the rock of the
new church, into his place. Compare the succession of high priests at the time of
Christ, together with the passages quoted as proofs, in Schraders' "Leben Pauli," a. 1, ff.

f In determining who were eligible to the high priesthood, a sort of nepotism must
have arisen. They were chosen generally from those influential families which were
called yevof apxiepariKov, Acta iv. 6.

Matthew XXVI. 57. 49

reading still, and in the Philoxenian translation, ver. 24 is marked
on the margin as interpolated. But the difficulty is more easily
removed by taking the d-neareLXe in ver. 24 as the pluperfect tense.
Thus everything related concerning the trial of Christ and the
denial of Peter would be referred to the palace of Caiaphas.
LUcke and Meyer declare themselves entirely in favour of this hy-
pothesis, and the enallage thus assumed certainly involves no essen-
tial difficulty. Compare Winer's Grammar, p. 251, where many
passages quoted from profane writers prove that the aorist may be
employed for the pluperfect. But the absence of any particle of
transition, as well as the position of ver. 24, seem wholly adverse to the
hypothesis. Had the words stood after ver. 18, such an assumption
would have been more tenable : as it is, it would involve at leasfe
extreme negligence in John as a writer. If we confine ourselves to-
John, it seems clearly his intention to inform us that a trial took
place in the palace of Annas, and that Peter was present in that
palace. Without the Synoptical narratives, no one could have un-
derstood his account differently. For these reasons I declare myself
with Euthymius, Grotius, and others, favourable to the supposition
that John intended to correct and complete the Synoptical accounts^
and therefore he supplies the notice of the examination in the
palace of Annas. That there can be an error in the account of John
we cannot imagine, for he was an eye-witness, and has narrated the
circumstances with care and minuteness ; so minute is he indeed in
this part of his history, that he has given even the kinship of the
high priest's servant (xviii. 26) : what he has added concerning the
examination by the high priest (ver. 19-23), has no resemblance to-
that held before Caiaphas, and therefore cannot possibly be identi-
fied with the latter.

Add to this, that the Synoptical writers, who were not present at
the scene, and who therefore had everything from report, might
easily have misapprehended the place, especially since both Annas
and Caiaphas were called high priests. When informed that such
or such an incident occurred in the palace of the high priest, they
would immediately think of Caiaphas, the officiating one, and
transfer everything to him. This John easily corrects, but what
they had fully and exactly recorded, viz., the decisive examination
in the palace of Caiaphas,"' this he passes over entirely.

The course of events would accordingly be as follows : When
the guard conducted Jesus into the city, they brought him at once

* In his last edition, Tholuck comes to the conclusioa that ver. 24 may be merely a
gloss, wliich some reader of the gospel subjoined, to meet the misconception that the
events recorded should be referred to the palace of Annas. But such a hypothesis could
be justified only if our critical authorities indicated the epuriousness of the passage, verse
24. But such is by no means the case.

50 John XVIII. 15-18.

to the house of Annas, which they arrived at first ; partly, as we
have remarked, that he might be detained there till the Sanhedrim
were summoned ; and partly perhaps that Annas might gratify a
desire to see and speak with him. Annas commenced a conversa-
tion with Christ, hut in consequence of his reply, one of the ser-
vants smote the Redeemer ; and whilst Annas, who had satisfied his
curiosity, and saw that from Christ's answers he could extract noth-
ing, withdrew himself, the multitude practised their outrages upon
the holy person of Christ. Peter, under the protection of John, had
pressed into the outer court, but he denied that he knew the Lord,
when urged to confess that he knew him. One of these denials
occurred just at the moment — ver. 24, 25 — ^in which Christ was
being led away to Caiaphas, whence Jesus could regard him with a
glance full of meaning. On reaching the palace of Caiaphas, the
Saviour was immediately brought to trial ; and the judgment, and
transference to Pilate, succeeded without interval. In this place,
therefore, there was no conceivable opportunity in which the rude
iU-treatment of Christ could have occurred. According to Matth.
xxvi. 67, 68, Mark xiv. 65, it would seem to have taken place in the
presence of the Sanhedrim ; but this is at all events incompatible
with the dignity of the highest tribunal of the land, a dignity
which would be at least externally preserved. Luke xxii. 64r-71,
gives the whole examination as a supplement merely, and therefore
there is nothing to be inferred from his allocation of these events.
But how natural everything appears, if we regard the rudeness
which a menial ventured to practise against Jesus, in the very pre-
sence of Annas, as a signal which, after his withdrawal, called forth
still more numerous expressions of insolence. Left alone with the
prisoner, the common crowds of soldiery and guards of the Temple
could dare to mock him ; but at the palace of Caiaphas the guards
were not thus left in company with Christ. The only objection to
this interpretation is the fact, that, according to the general as-
sumption, John was acquainted with Caiaphas, not with Annas. If,
however, we reflect that both the high priests were nearly related,
it will be plain that an acquaintance with the one almost implies
an acquaintance with the other. As regards the title dpxiepevg, it
is well known that it was bestowed not only upon the officiating,
but also upon the retired or superseded high priests,

John xviii. 15-18, 24-27. — According to the sequence of events
laid down, we shall now consider Peter's denial,* and the examina-
tion of Christ before Annas. Both events took place nearly simul-
taneously. Crowds of soldiers and guards of the Temple, together
with the servants of the high priest, filled the fore-court. In a haU

* Compare the treatise by Rudolph upon the denial of Peter, in Winer's " Zeitschr.
£ Wisseusch Theol. h. 1, s. 109, flF."

John XVIII. 15-18. 61

whicli ran out to the fore-court, Annas probably spoke witb the
Saviour, during which Peter was questioned without, and the ques-
tion was repeated as they led away Christ to Caiaphas. As regards
the " other disciple," ver. 15, there can be no doubt that, by this ex-
pression, John signifies himself. The objections to this view are
altogether without weight. The most plausible is that John being the
son of a Galilean fisherman, could scarcely have had a personal ac-
quaintance with the high priest ; but as we have frequently re-
marked, we are by no means to think the circumstances of Zebedee
contemptible. We might suppose that John was acquainted with
the domestics only of the high priest ; but the expression yvuorbg tc5
dpxtepel, known to the high priest, renders this improbable ; and we
must not forget that extraordinary complications often bring to-
gether persons whose positions in society are most dissimilar. Fur-
ther, in the particulars of the denial of Peter, John deviates again
from- the Synoptical writers. These mention three acts of denial,
John speaks of but two. It may indeed be said that in the second
denial John distinguishes two separate acts (ver. 25, 26), in the first
of which several persons inquire of Peter, fi^ koX av in tc5v ixadr^rcjv
avTov el; art thou also, etc.; in the second, only one, a servant
(dovXog), makes the inquiry. This will not, however, reconcile the
two accounts, for, according to Matth. xxvi. 71, and Mark xiv. 69,
the second question, as well as the first, proceeded from a damsel.
Besides, Luke does not agree with Matthew and Mark, since he,
xxii. 58, speaks of a dovXog, where those two name a damsel ; and
where they speak of the whole surrounding concourse, Matthew
xxvi. 73, Mark xiv. 70, he mentions a second individual (male)
servant.

Attempts to reconcile such slight differences are altogether un-
profitable ; we must take them as they are given. They are a
security for the independence of the evangelical naiTative, and
therefore only help to promote the object of the Scriptures. In
accordance with Christ's antecedent prophecy, however (Matth.
xxvi. 75) the threefold denial must have, without a doubt, actually
occurred. John's purpose is here not to give a complete report of
the event, but merely to determine correctly its locality. To the three-
fold denial, the thrice-repeated question, John xxi. 1, et seq. also
adverts. The palace of the high priest was, without doubt, a large
and magnificent building. It enclosed a court {avXrj) in which were
stationed the soldiers, who, in consequence of the coldness of the
night, had kindled a fire. This court lay deeper than the principal
building, to which they ascended probably by a staircase (Mark xiv.
66). A colonnade, which was usually covered in, extended to the
street (npoavXiov, Mark xiv. 68, nvkiov in Matth. xxvi. 71); through
this colonnade lay the passage into the court. Here a damsel was

52 John XVIII. 15-18.

stationed as doorkeeper, Jolin xviii. 17. (The EomaDS and Greeks
had men for doorkeepers ; the Jews, women, generally. Compare
2 Samuel iv. 6 ; Acts xii. 13.) This portress seems to have recog-
nized Peter, who at the beginning fled with the other disciples, but
soon followed Christ at a distance (jiaKpodev), and, by the influence
of John, was admitted immediately to the house ; she probably re-
cognized him by his appearance, and by his terror, which must have
been excessive to have attracted such general notice. He had fol-
lowed the Lord to see what would be the issue {l6eLv ro riXog^ Matth.
xxvi. 58), and already evidently feared the worst. The damsel
keeping the door fixed a piercing glance oq him {ififSXi'tpaaa avToi,
Mark xiv. 67, dreviaaaa avroi, Luke xxii. 56), and asked him about
his connexion with the " Nazarene." Here Peter made one denial.
And now, to remove himself from the place of danger, he hastened
to the Pylon (Matth. xxvi. 71 ; Mark xiv. 68), in which was the
door that led to the street. But here another damsel questioned
him, and agaia the weak disciple, with an oath, denied his Master.
This fresh question prevented Peter from leaving the court. He
drew near the blazing watch fire, and, with afiected boldness, seated
himself amongst the servants of the Temple, who were keeping
guard. John xviii, 18-25. For an hour (Luke xxii. 59), Peter
kept himself quiet here, and remained unnoticed. This occasioned
him probably to make some enquiries concerning Jesus ; and now
all knew him from his accent to be a Galilean. (Matth. xxvi. 73 ;
Mark xiv. 70. The pronunciation of the Galileans was broader and
flatter than that of the inhabitants of Judea. Compare Buxt. Lex.
page 434.) One in particular, a relative of Malchus, whose ear
Peter smote ofi", and who himself was present at the capture of
Jesus (John xviii. 26), declared that he knew him. But again
Peter denied his Lord. On this occasion the cock crowed. This
predicted sign recalled the warning of Christ to the disciple's
memory, and a penitent feeling gained predominance in his soul.
Luke, xxii. 61, significantly observes that the Lord turned around,
and that his glance pierced Peter's heart. This fully corresponds
with John xviii. 24, et seq, according to which Jesus was just being
led to Caiaphas, when the last denial of Peter occurred. Hence, as
he must have passed through the court and the Pylon, he could
have glanced at the disciple. Upon his master disappearing, the
disciple too hastened out, and wept bitterly, Mark xiv. 72. (The
import of eml3aXo)v tiiXaie,'^ is doubtful. Fritzsche, however, defends
very thoroughly the ancient explanation of Theophylact, in which
im8aX6v is explained by iniKaXvipdfievog t7]v KEcpaX-qv. The act of

* Com. Ver. " "When he thought thereon he wept." 'Eni^aluv, casting upon, sciL
bis mind =- throwing his mind upon, thinking upon: or, with Theoph., "casting (sciL his
garment) upon" •= covering his head. The former meaning seems preferable. — [K-

John XVIII. 15-18. 53

' veiling is confessedly a natural expression of humiliated sorrow,
and accordingly tliis meaning very well corresponds with the circum-
stances. Fritzsche, indeed, thinks that Peter, hy this act, sought to
conceal himself ; hut I cannot concur in this view, for the very rea-
son that the sudden veiling would have made him recognizahle rather
than the contrary. General usage sufficiently corroborates this ac-
ceptation of the term, which is not at all the case with other inter-
pretations, as for example that which supplies rovg d<pdaX[xovg, the
eyes, and translates, " directing to Jesus the eyes, or tov voOv, the
mind," and understands the words thus, viz., " giving heed, he
wept." Perhaps, however, it would be best to regard the par-
ticiple EJTt,(iaXu)v as in parallelism with m/cpw^, and to understand it
as intimating the violence of the weeping. 'Em/JaAwv, like bpudv, is
frequently used to signify violent emotion.)

This narrative concerning Peter, presents us the first significant
figure, representing aU the weak and timorous amongst the faithful,
in that grand picture which the history of the Lord's sufierings un-
folds. The most energetic, the most zealous amongst the disciples,
appears utterly feeble, utterly wretched ! " The Spirit was willing,
but, alas ! the flesh was weak." How touching the simplicity with
which the Evangelists relate this deep fall of the chief amongst
Ihem. They do not soften down its harshness : they plainly state
that a damsel ask:ed him. But, as they do not excuse Peter, neither
do they criminate him, nor express wonder at his conduct. Without
any comment whatever, they state the simple fact. We, however,
cannot and must not exclude reflection, and we are compelled to ask
ourselves the question : " how was it possible that Peter, this reso-
lute disciple, to whom Christ had expressly foretold his fall, could,
even when no danger threatened him, deny his Lord so decidedly ?"'^
The denial would be more conceivable if he had had death in pros-
pect as the alternative. But the examination had in truth no ref-
erence to the followers of Christ : Peter was thus terrified at the
question of a maiden. According to a merely superficial interpre-
tation of the narrative, there appears here a psychological enigma.
But, if we penetrate more deeply into the scene, then, in order to
an explanation in the case of Peter, precisely as in the case of
Christ's struggle in Gethsemane, we shall be forced to recognize in-
ternal causes.

It was the hour of the power of darkness (Luke xxii. 53) which
had in so inconceivable a way impaired and obscured the spiritual

* Dr. Paulus, indeed, undertakes to defend the denying Apostle. He is of opinion
that Peter did not tell a lie, because no one possessed the right of asliing him. " Nothing
is less to bo objected against him," he says, than " the Saviour's language in respect to
' confessing him before men.' " — Exposition of the Gospels, Bk. iii. p. 649. This astounding
assertion, however, needs no further confutation. We merely mention it here as a psycho-
logical curiositf

54 John XVIII. 19-23.

energy of the disciple, that he could not only deny Christ, but also •
remain exposed to the danger of repeating his crime after he had
once denied him. There befel Peter, on this occasion, a more than
merely human temptation (compare 1 Cor. x. 13), which was neces-
sary to cure him of his self-approving delusion, and to make him a
mirror for others ; a temptation from which our Lord hath taught
us to pray for deliverance in the Lord's prayer, and from which Peter
would have escaped if he had previously humbled himself, in obe-
dience to the word of his Master. Thus the Lord practises towards
his people the most various kinds of discipline, for the perfecting of
their spiritual life. As Peter's fall tended ultimately to his salva-
tion, so to the others did their ^^reservation from it. As his faU led
the proud Peter to humility, so their preservation in the same peril
under which Peter succumbed, confirmed the rest of the disciples
immoveably in their confidence in that Divine grace which had
preserved them.

Yer. 19-23. — Here commences the discourse of Annas with
Christ. It was evidently the offspring of mere inquisitiveness rather
than a formal examination. As afterwards Herod, so on this occa-
sion the high priest, desired to look upon the extraordinary man,
and to see something wonderful effected by him. Hence, also, the
form of Christ's answer. It would, in fact, not have been suitable
for a judicial examination. The party accused, whether rightly or
wrongfully, and even when interrogated in an illegal manner, ought
both to hear and to answer the language of official authority.
This submission to the magistracy we find observed by the Saviour,
in the most delicate manner. He replied decorously even to the
unjust, wicked judges, or where all defence would have been in
vain, he kept silence (Matth. xxvi. 68). Here, however, there was
no judicial relation whatever, for Annas was no longer high priest.
On this account the Lord could censure the impertinent and per-
haps malignant curiosity of the priest. The demeanour of Christ,
under his rude maltreatment by the servant, is also worthy of notice.
We have here an authentic practical exposition of the command,
Matth. V. 39. As was observed in the Commentary, Part I. on
Matth. V. 43, it would have been an encouragement to further inso-
lence, if the Saviour had not asserted his right to legal protection,
since the injury was done him in the presence of the servant's mas-
ter, whose duty it was to reprimand him.

When he was afterwards abandoned, a solitary prey to the rude
caprice of the soldiery, there remained to the Kedeemer no other
weapon than that of silence ; for an appeal to justice made in the
midst of outrage, is merely a provocative of further outrage. This
one act of violence finally became (probably after Annas had re-
tired), a signal to several others (Matth. xxvi. 67, 68 ; Mark xiv.

Matthew XXVI. 59-61. 55

65 ; Luke xxii. 63-65). It is wonderful that the spirit of prophecy-
considered it not unsuitable to its dignity, to predict this maltreat-
ment minutely, Isaiah 1. 6, Micah v. 1, and at the same time to
sketch the state of mind which the Holy One of God opposed to the
wicked multitude. " The Lord helpeth me," says the Messiah in
Isaiah 1. 7, " therefore am I not put to shame : therefore have I set
my face like a flint." Here is expressed unwavering, faith in Grod's
eternal love, even in the deepest abandonment. In like manner,
the prophet, in another passage, depicts that inexpressible meekness
and patient resignation which no mockery could disturb, when he
says ; " He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he opened not
his mouth, as a lamb that is brought to the slaughter, and as a
sheep that is dumb before her shearers." (Isaiah liii. 7.) To estimate
the entire greatness of this conduct, we should constantly remember
that the mocked One was the Eternal Word of the Father, that for
our sakes had become flesh, and endured all this for us ! !

Matthew xxvi. 59-61 ; Mark xiv. 55-59 ; Luke xxii. 66-71.

After the Lord had been led away to Caiaphas (John xviiii, 24)
immediately followed the formal trial before the collected Sanhe-
drim. In the interim, according to Luke xxii. QQ, ere the Sanhedrim
had assembled, the morning dawned. Matth. (xxvii. 1) and Mark
(xv. 1) transfer the judgment to the morning, and John xviii. 28
the leading away of Jesus to the judgment hall of Pilate. If, how-
ever, we consider that the first gray of dawn may be called morning,
there wiU be no discrepancy between the two accounts. Besides,
the summoning of the whole Sanhedrim might well have occupied
so much time that the chief part of the night would have elapsed.

As respects now the position held by this high council, the ex-
amination of the cause of Christ was not in itself irregular. This
tribunal was not merely permitted, but was expressly bound to test,
according to the word of God, the pretensions of every one laying
claim to be a prophet, or the Messiah (compare Matth. xxi. 23, in
the Commentary, Part I). But it was, first, a false proceeding of
the Sanhedrim to arrest Jesus, since they had already received, in
reply to their inquiries, the most open declarations of his dig-
nity as the Messiah : and again to seek, contrary to their better
knowledge, false witnesses against the Holy One of God. It is
manifest that they had prepared these pretended witnesses against
him beforehand, for otherwise they could not have procured them
during the night. In this proceeding their ill-will towards Christ
is expressly manifested, and therefore he preferred keeping silence
during their accusations. It was in the further inquiry only, that, true
to the obligations of the subject, he expressed himself before his un-
just judges. There appeared first against Christ several false wit-
nesses, according to prophecy, Ps. xxvii. 12. But, as Mark observes

56 Matthew XXVI. 62-66.

(xiv. 56), their statements did not coincide ; they contradicted one
another in their depositions. (The reading is uncertain in the text
of Matth. xxvi. 60. The usual text reads : koI ovx evpov^ koI ttoXXCjv
ipevdofiapTvpuv -irpoceXdovTOiv ovx ^vpov. According to the best author-
ities, this reading contains the thought to be expressed, only some-
what amplified by transcribers. Griesbach and Schulz have restored
the text as follows : teal ovx ^'^pov noXXCJv xpevSoiic^rvpuv npoaeXdovTav.'^
At last, however, there came two witnesses who impeached the
words of Christ relative to the destruction of the Temple. We have
already, John ii. 19, 20, discussed the question, to what extent these
latter persons could be styled /a?se witnesses, since Christ in fact did
utter this language.'-'

Matth. xxvi. 62-66 ; Mark xiv. 60-40. — When, now, Caiaphas,
who presided over the assembly, perceived that by these means
nothing was to be gained in favour of their design, he sought to
neutralize the silent, yet eloquent, testimony of Christ against the
false witnesses. He summoned him to defend himself, and, as Jesus
still kept silence, he adjured him to declare if he was Christ, Ijhe
Son of Grod, to which question the Saviour then answered with a di-
rect affirmative. Immediately before this decisive question and
answer should probably be placed that language in Luke xxii. 67,
68, which declares the Saviour's motive for keeping silence. The
latter Evangelist precedes it, it is true, with the question, el ov el b
Xpfarof, dne 7)fuVj if thou art the Christ, tell us; yet this may be classed
with those slight inaccuracies of arrangement, of which several in-
stances occur in the last chapters of Luke ; for, in verse 69, the
declaration of Christ's sitting at the right hand of God does not
concur happily with his alleged motive for silence. But it stands
very appropriately before the question of the high priest, and softens
down what would otherwise seem harsh in Christ's utter silence at
the high priest's question. It is probable, therefore, that the Lord
only delayed his answer in order to give them the impression that
he knew how useless would be any defence, since his death was al-
ready resolved upon. Thus he preserved decorum before the magis-
tracy, which, even in its degeneracy, is God's ministry, and yet, by
his conduct, bore witness against the iniquity with which they des-
ecrated their sacred office.

In the question of the high priest, " Christ" (Xptarog), and " Son
of God" {vlog Tov Qeov), are again placed together. But since the
name " Son of God" here stands last, nothing can be more simple
than to regard it as a further determination of the first expression.
But, because the high priest uses the name " Son of God," it does

* How such an assertion offended the Jews, who were so attached to the sensible
Temple, is shewn in Acts vi. 13, 14, where thej accused Stephen of having said some-
thing similar.

Matthew XXVI. 62^66. 57

net follow that it was then generally recognized. We must rather
(in accordance with John x. 33), understand the question thus :
" Art thou THE Son of God, whom thou professest thyself to be T*
The sequel shews that the high priest — as previously the people —
regarded this pretension as blasphemy,* which would not have been
the case, had he only declared that he was the Messiah. The accu-
sation, " he has declared himself to be the Son of God," was, in it-
self, a charge involving life and death ; for it was, as the passages
in John v. 18, x. 33, prove, held to be blasphemy. On the other
hand, the accusation, " he hath declared himself to be the Messiah,"
would have required proof before the Sanhedrim that he was not the
Messiah ; but nowhere in the trial of Christ is there any reference
to such proof. It is, moreover, evident that the Pharisees could not
allow the adducing of proofs of this Messiahship, for Jesus had per-
formed too many miracles to fail in witnesses to his Messiahship.
This passage serves as a decisive proof that " Son of God" at the
time of Christ, was not a usual title of the Messiah. (Compare upon
vioq Tov Qeovj Luke i. 35, and Matth. xvi. 16. 'E^ogd^o) = dpiu^o) =
s^st-n, Mark v. 7 ; Genesis xxiv. 3. The name " Living God" {Qeb^
^ojv) in this connexion, seems to signify God as the omnipresent
punisher of falsehood.)

Now the open and solemn affirmation of Christ that " he was
the Son of God," and the direct statement of his future manifesta-
tion in the glory of the Father, is very important, because it en-
ables us to perceive how the commands of the Sermon on the Mount
(Matth, V. 34) are to be understood ; namely, that they should not
bind believers in their relations to the world. Again, it is impor-
tant, because in it Jesus officially expresses, before the highest theo-
cratic authority, that which hitherto he had but privately taught.
Thus Christ at once confirmed the idea of Messiah's character, and
the certainty that in him this idea was perfectly realized. At the
same time this address of Christ brought before the consciousness
of the Sanhedrists, in all its force, the significance of that moment.
They were compelled to recognize that they were then pronouncing
judgment on the king of their people, on him of whom all the
prophets had prophesied. This open declaration of the Saviour
thus determined essentially the character of their guilt. At this
sublime moment the discourse of Christ assumes a character of kingly
dignity. He speaks as the Lord of heaven, not as a helpless prisoner ;
and the confession of his Messiahship is followed by the threatening
of his second advent.

As so often in the Gospel history, there is presented here also
a grand and profoundly afi"ecting contrast. The judge of the living

* Compare on this subject the comment on John xix. Y, where the charge against
Christ before Pilate was, " He hath called himself God's Son."

58 Matthew XXVI. 62-66.

and the dead stands as an accused prisoner before a human judge,
and is by him condemned ! yet in this humiliation the Saviour
gives a glimpse of that glory in which he shall yet appear as judge
of all the world, even of his judges. {UXijv is used adversatively,
but, in the beginning of the discourse = Vsn , as imo, utique.)
For an' apri Luke xxii. 69 has diro rod vvv : it is best referred
merely to the sitting at the right hand of God, which revealed
itself immediately in the spiritual agency of Christ ; for then we
entirely avoid the difficulty as to how Christ can represent him-
self, even now, as coming. And, again, the idea of " coming" {tp-
Xeadai), would properly be associated with dpn, now, but not with
d7r' dpTL, henceforth ; which latter expression would represent Christ's
coming as continuous, whereas it is assuredly but a single event.
If, however, we wish to retain the connexion, then the thought
must be explained of the speedy coming in glory, according to
Matth. X. 23, xvi. 28, xxiv. 30. The idea of the coming in glory
is, according to Matth. xxiv. 30, to be assumed as known ; but the
KadTJadai iic 6e^iG)v, sitting at the right hand, requires here a particu-
lar discussion. Instead of this expression, there occurs in one place,
with a slight modification of the meaning, tcrrw?- t/c de^iwv, standing
at the right hand (Acts vii. 65, 56), and in a few places, elvai iv 6e^-
ig., being at the right hand (Rom. viii. 34 ; 1 Peter iii. 22 ; Heb. i.
3, viii. 1). The formula does not occur in any of John's writings,
not even in Revelation. Yet the Apocalypse describes Christ as
sitting on the throne of the Father. (Rev. iii. 21, xxii. 1, 3.) To
understand the force of this form of expression, it is of the utmost
importance to observe, that it is never said of Christ, before his in-
carnation, that "he sat at the right hand of God." Thus, doubt-
less, the expression refers to the exaltation of his glorified humanity,
in which the Lord is represented as partaker in the Divine sover-
eignty of the universe.* But the reasons of the writers of the New
Testament for selecting this particular designation are doubtful.
J. D. Michaelis understands it to imply a reference to the Ark

* From this fundamental idea Luther's theory of the " ubiquity of the right hand of God"
is to be estimated ; a theory which he surely could never have sanctioned had not the Re-
formers objected to his doctrine of the " ubiquity of the body of Christ," the sitting at tho
right hand of God. For if it be said that the right hand of God is omnipresent, the
reality of Christ's glorified body is manifestly annihilated. The anxiety, lest in this
restricting of the right hand of God, the omnipresence should be involved, is just as un-
founded as the notion that, supposing the soul dwells in a man's head, the filling of hia
whole organism by tho soul's being may be considered as destroyed. God, as is self-evi-
dent, is everywhere present, yet, as we formerly observed, he reveals himself variously
in the hearts of the righteous and the godless, in heaven and upon earth respectively.
The being of God in heaven — the highest concentration of his power — is that which is
meant by the right hand of God, and Christ's sitting on the right hand of Go-'', ac-
cordingly means nothing more than his being associated in the most intimate communion
■with the Father, and in the exercise of all the Divine attributes, and his participation in
the Divine universal sovereignty.

Matthew XXVII. 1, 2. 59

of the Covenant, which is represented as the throne of God ; but it
is not evident how with the Ark of the Covenant the precise idea of
the right hand can acquire significancy. Better, therefore, to regard
the position on the right hand as a place of honour, as is done by
Knapp (scr. var. arg. p. 39, seq.), who refers to the general custom
of all nations. (Comp. J,ust. Lipsius quis locus honestior priscis,
dexter, an sinister ? opp. i. p. 759, seq. Callimachi hymn, in ApoU.
V. 30, says of Apollo : 6vva-ai yap, kixei Lii de^tbg riaratS') The ex-
pression implies therefore the most exalted honour, a participation
in God's universal sovereignty. Accordingly, Christ was convinced of
this, even in the depth of his humiliation, and ventured to urge it
upon his unjust judges. When we consider the solemn earnestness
and energy of spirit with which the Lord must have uttered these
words, we may conjecture that a dark foreboding, that he might
have spoken truly, must have sent a thrill of terror through the
priests. But they had proceeded too far to retreat. In hypo-
critical sorrow the high priest (though inwardly he must have re-
joiced at having thus entrapped Christ through his own confession)
rent his garment, (compare Joshua vii. 6 ; Judges xi. 35 ; 2 Samuel
i. 11), declared Jesus a blasphemerf (John x. 33), and the Sanhe-
drim condemned the Lord of Glory ! They hated even unto death
him who loved them even unto death ! They certainly had not a
thoroughly clear knowledge that he was the Lord of Glory (1 Cor.
ii. 8 ; Acts iii. 17 ; Luke xix. 42). The very fact of his being made
prisoner they may have regarded as a proof that he was not the
Messiah, still less the Son of God. Yet their depraved hearts were
still affected by the splendour of his Divine nature ; and it was only
because they had closed up the eyes of their spirit through fear of
learning too much, and being forced to abandon their sinful courses,
that they did not attain to a perfectly clear understanding. Hence
their very ignorance was their guilt, and the fearful curse of this
guilt was, that they became in their blindness the murderers of the
Holy One of God.

§ 4. Proceedings before Herod and Pilate.

(Matth. xxviL 1-31 ; Mark xv. 1-20 ; Luke xxiii. 1-25 ; John xviiL 28 et seq. xix.
to V. 16.)

Matth. xxvii. 1, 2. The sitting of the Sanhedrim was held on
the night of Jesus' arrest. Now when morning approached, the

* "For he is able, since he sits at the right hand of Jove." — [K.

f Hero we ought to give prominence to the fact, that if the Lord were not indeed and
iu truth the being whom he professed himself to be, then must he rightly have been so
denominated. Hence, every hypothesis which disputes the heavenly dignity of Christ ia
liable to the danger of damaging his moral character.

60 Matthew XXVII. 3-10.

council sentenced him to death, and led him away to Pilate ; for
the Jews themselves had been deprived of the jurisdiction con-
cerning life and death. Compare Joseph. Antiq. xx. 6. (On the
remark of John, " that the Jews went not into Pilate's hall of
judgment," that they might be able to eat the passover, we have
already given the necessary explanation, Matth. xxvi. 17. Under
the word passover, the Chagigah must be understood, for it was
eaten on the same day, and they would have been debarred from
partaking of this feast by the defilement contracted by entering a
heathen house. It would not have excluded them from partaking
of the paschal lamb, because this was not slaughtered and eaten
until the following day, when they would be again clean accord-
ing to law.) In this place Matthew completes the history of the
unhappy Judas, who becomes the second figure in the sublime pic-
ture of Christ's passion. The history of Judas is impressed with a
peculiar and unique character ; we shall therefore collect here all
the particulars referring to him and to the condition of his spirit.

Ver. 3-10. — We shall first consider the statements made con-
cerning his external fortunes. Judas, when he perceives the issue
of his treachery, terrified, and seized with remorse, cast down the
pieces of silver* before the high priests. (MercjueAo/zai is also used
to express true repentance [jiETdvoLo]. Compare Matth. xxi. 29, 32.
But here it signifies remorse for the consequences of sin merely, not
for the sin itself.) That feeling of remorse proceeded from a lively
consciousness of his having betrayed an innocent person, for as such
he had known Christ. (Compare upon atjua dddov Matth. xxiii. 35,
where alua dkaLov is employed.) With icy coldness the hypocritical
Pharisees repel f the ill-fated wretch : they lay on him the burden
of the guilt, and persuade themselves that they are free from it ;
whilst they were in all respects like him, culpable in the highest de-
gree. (2i) oxpei, Attic for oij)xi,X is parallel with the Hebrew ■'s^ nn?,
■>^5n1, 1 Samuel xxv. 17. The LXX. give : vvv yvCtdi koL 16k av ri
-nocTjoeig.) Reduced to despair by this cheerless reply, he threw the
money from him and hanged himself The ev roi vaai, in the temple,
in this passage causes a considerable difficulty ; since the vaog, the
temple proper, might be entered by the priests only. If we sup-
pose that the money was thrown in through the opened veil into

* The expression: rpiuKovTa dpyvpia, is after the Hebrew {^ps, which is often con-
nected with VpW- Here, doubtless, 30 shekels— about 15 dollars— are meant. There is
something contemptuous in the fact that this was the lowest price of a slave. Compare
Exodus xxi. 32. Zechariah xi. 12.

f The Pharisees expressed that shameful exultation, which often arises in the human
heart, when one sees a brother fallen into sin. Tet in this emotion, hateful as it is, there
is also expressed, from the greater depth of the mind, the wish to be free from sin. In
BO far, therefore, it is a corrupted expression of what is the nobler elements in man.

X Compare similar forms in "Winer's Grammar, s. 72.

Matthew XXVII. 3-10. 61

the holy place, then of necessity el^ should be used, and besides, this
would be an extraordinary act. Hence, it is better to assume that
vaog in this passage is employed somewhat loosely, like lepov, and
that the scene occurred in some outer hall.) Luke, however, in the
Acts of the Apostles, seems to come into opposition with the dn-qy-
^aro, hung himself, of Matthew. In Luke's history, for instance, it
is mentioned that Judas fell headlong downwards (TrpT/vr/f yevofie-
vog), and burst asunder (iXdKTjoe n^oog- Aa/ct'w signifies primarily
to sound, to crash — then, to tear asunder with a crashing noise,
iXaKTjae = dieppdyrf), so that his bowels gushed out. To reconcile
this disagreement, very violent and altogether untenable hypotheses
have been framed. Some would have dnrjy^aTo refer to his trouble of
mind, " he was benumbed with agony and remorse." Others would
understand npTjvrjg yevonsvog like dmjy^aTOj "he hanged himself."
Rather than give assent to these forced interpretations, we would
prefer the supposition that a twofold tradition obtained concerning
the fate of Judas, since in such secondary matters, variations else-
where occur. Yet we must confess that the accounts may be so
connected as to permit the conjecture that Judas hanged himself,
and, falling down, was so injured that his bowels gushed out. We
may then translate the TrpTjvfjg yevoiievog, " as he fell down prone,"
i. e., upon his belly.*

After Judas had got rid of the money, a new trait of hypocrisy
displayed itself in the high priests. As it was blood-money, they
would not place the thirty pieces of silver in the treasury of the
Temple, lest they should defile it ; but they had no consciousness
of their own sin in condemning the innocent ! (KopfSavag, -ja-ij? is
the sacred treasure of the Temple, which was kept in seven chests
called trumpets n'ns'.B^ Comp. Mark vii. ll.f Tcht) aifiarog, the re-
ward of blood, money paid for the betrayal of one who was inno-
cent. They therefore applied the thirty pieces of silver to the pur-
chase of a place of burial for pilgrims (^evoi). Matthew designates
this field definitely as the " potter's field" (6 dypbg rov Kepanecog). The
article intimates that there was a spot which bore the name of the
potter's field ; either because it belonged to a potter, or because
potters' clay abounded there. The field was now called dypbg alfiarog,
field of blood = dKeXdaiid, Acts i. 19, after the Hebrew nw^ V^h.
According to Acts i. 18, Judas would seem to have acquired posses-
sion of the place himself But tTcr^aaro %cjptov Ik iiloOov is easily ex-
plained so as to obviate such an impression ; the purchase, to wit, is

* Papias seems to have held another tradition concerning the end of Judas, judging
from (Ecumenius on Acts i. 18, and from Theophylact on the same passage and on Matth.
xxviL 5. It was, that Judas was crushed to death by a carriage, by v^hich therefore
his suicide would entirely be done away with. Comp. Schleiermacher's essay concerning
the evidence of Papias, in "Ullmann's Studien," year 1832, heft. 4, a. 743,

f See on the treasury at Mark xii. 41-44. — K.

62 Matthew XXVII. 3-10.

attributed to Judas himself, because it took place in consequence of
his deed of treachery.) Matthew discovers the fulfilment of a pro-
phecy in this occurrence. But, first, it is very remarkable that the
prophecy mentioned does not occur in Jeremiah.* Several manu-
scripts read, instead, Zechariah and Isaiah. The latter name has
nothing whatever to do with the quotation, and has been introduced
into this passage merely through the neglect of transcribers, for
there does not occur in Isaiah anything at all resembling the pas-
sage before us. But in Zechariah there is in fact a passage bearing
an affinity to Matthew's quotation, Zechariah xi. 13, 14. The sim-
plest solution of the difficulty is therefore to suppose that the Evan-
gelist mistook the name of the prophet, or the earliest transcribers
might have read some contraction of the name falsely ; or perhaps
there was no name at all there first, and some transcriber supplied
it erroneously. Yet this hypothesis seems contradicted by the rela-
tion of the passage in Matthew to that in Zechariah. Between the
two passages, there is but a distant resemblance. On the one hand
allusions in Zechariah which must have appeared important to
Matthew, are entirely wanting in the citation (e. g. the throwing
down of the money in the Temple, which Matthew particularly
mentions, ver. 5) ; whilst on the other hand Matthew adds circum-
stances wholly unknown to Zechariah. Some have thought there-
fore that this citation (of Matthew) must be traceable to an apoc-
ryphal writing, and consequently to an apocrypha of Jeremiah.
This view has been deemed particularly plausible from the circum-
stance, that Jerome declares he had seen such an apocrypha.f (So
specially Kuinoel.) But this apocrypha, which is in the Hebrew
language, like others under the name of Jeremiah in the Arabic
and Sahidic languages, was not written till after the birth of Christ.
We have no trace whatever of such apocryphas existing prior to
that event. They sprung rather from the great religious excite-
ment which characterized the first centuries after Christ. Then
probably the originators of such writings made use of this particu-
lar passage, in order to foist upon Jeremiah a book of which this
passage formed the basis. (So Fritzsche rightly at the passage.)
Hence even Jerome declares himself favourable to the hypothesis,
that the quotation was from Zechariah. Whether then the Evan-
gelist confounded the names, or in after times the name of
Jeremiah crept in falsely, matters but little. If we but compare
the passage more closely with the original text, we shall see that
everything which Matthew gives is contained also in Zechariah.

* The reference of the quotation to .Xeremiah xxxii. 6, et seq., is so uncertain that it
deserves no regard.

f Compare my History of the Gospels, p. 57.

Matthew XXVII. a-10. 63

There fails only the one reference in Matthew, which the prophet
plainly predicted,* viz., that of throwing down the money.

But the order of thought is different, and also Matthew does not
follow the LXX., hence the discrepancy appears greater. As re-
gards the appended statement of Matthew, t^v tiiitjv tov TertfiTjutvov,
bv ETiitriaavTo dno vlC)v 'I<Tpa7/A, it is clearly referable to Zechariah xi.
12, 13, where the LXX. for tliiti read ijnadoq, and have doKifid^eoOai
for Tindadai. (In the Hebrew ■'":5ip is put for fnadog ^ov.) The He-
brew n:s'.»r:-VN which the LXX. give by elg rb xi^vevrripiov, i. e. into
the smelting furnace, is by Matthew, conformably to his object,
more precisely determined by the subjoined dypog. Finally, the
words mdd ovvera^s iiot icvpiog in Matthew correspond to the elire
KvQLog TTpog fie in the LXX. The nadd, = KaO' a, which is iden-
tical with Kad6g, occurs only in this passage of the New Testa-
ment. Hence the only question to be considered is, whether this
passage (Zechar. xi. 12, 13) is really to be understood as referring to
the Messiah. Now, as regards its exposition, the second half of
Zechariah is one of the most difficult parts of the Old Testament.
(Compare on its authenticity, Hengstenberg's treatise upon Daniel,
Berlin, 1831, Appendix.) But, however we may conceive this
part of the oracle of Zechariah as a connected whole, we shall be
obliged to acknowledge that it is full of remarkable allusions to the
Messiah. (Compare especially Zech. ix. 9 ; x. 11 ; xii. 10 ; xiii. 1,
6, 7 ; xiv. 7.) Although, therefore, as it seems to me, the immediate
reference of this passage is not to the Messiah, yet, without doubt,
the people of Israel are regarded as a type of the future Saviour,
and their fortunes as prophecies are therefore typical of his.

After this discussion of the historical statements concerning the
end of Judas, let us now proceed to an estimate of his personal
character.f On this subject the question immediately suggests

* Comp. Hengstenberg's Gliristology, vol. ii., s.s. 258, 465, seq. This scholar thinks
that the difficulty can be solved by tins means, viz., he, as in Mark i. 2, 3, supposes that
the prophet Zechariah, in the passage Zech. xi. 12, 13, has had reference to the antecedent
prophecies of Jeremiah : particularly Jeremiah chs. xviii. xixl Now since Matthew quoted
the passage from Zechariah, he would, if this view hold good, have attributed the pro-
phecy to its first source, namely, Jeremiah, whence it was drawn by Zechariah himself.

But the correctness of the assumption, that Zechariah drew from Jeremiah, seems
to me to have been left unproved by Hengstenberg. In the two chapters of Jeremiah,
the 18th and 19th, the discourse refers to the potter only, as in Romans ix. 21, seq., to
wit, in so far as he is a symbol of creative agency. The cruse purchased from the potter,
which Jeremiah dashes to pieces before the ancients of the people, symbolizes tlie Divine
retributive justice. On the contrary', Zechariah's train of thought refers to the ingratitude
of Israel, which blinded that people to the inestimable grace of Jehovah. How tliis thought
can have been borrowed from these chapters of Jeremiah, I confess I cannot perceive.

f It is remarkable how the most opposite extremes combined in the cliaracter of tho
people of Israel. That which was holiest, just as that which was most unholy in its nature,
issued from them; the most exalted fidelity, and the blackest treachery! la Genesis

64 Matthew XXVII. 3-10.

itself : from what motive could the Lord have called him into prox-
imity with himself ? Certainly the fearful sin into which he fell
became possible only through that calling. The easy answer,
" Christ made a mistake in the selection," must be rejected, partly
because it tends to impugn the character of the Saviour, and partly
because it stands in manifest opposition to John vi. 64-70. As
Jesus knew perfectly what was in man (John ii. 25), he knew what
was in Judas, and therefore that he would betray him. We must
therefore penetrate deeper into this difficult question.*

It is no true benefit to a man if the evil germ which lies within
him does not advance directly to maturity. Hence, if Judas had
not actually betrayed Christ, yet that would not have changed his
nature, and, therefore, have profited him nothing. Again, his prox-
imity to Christ might and ought to have been to him a means of
facilitating the annihilation of the germ of iniquity within him.
Judas, accordingly, was in this respect like all persons to whom
abundant means of spiritual support have been vouchsafed, but who
neglect to profit by them. We may say, " it were better for him
that this privilege had not been extended to him," but in that case,
all possibility of help would have been removed. The case of Judas,
however, assumes a peculiarity of character by the fact that a ne-
cessity of effecting the deed seems to have been imposed on him.
According to the prophecies of the Old Testament, Christ was to
die. His death was to become the foundation of the world's re-
demption. It seems, therefore, that there must have been some
one who should betray him, and hence that Judas only had the
misfortune to be obliged to play his part, but was a stranger to its
guilt. This remark leads us back to what has been already fre-
quently touched upon, the relation of free will to necessity ; on this
subject consult the observations on Matthew xxvi. 24. There the
Saviour expresses the necessity for his own death, yet declares, that
notwithstanding this, the whole burden of the guilt rested upon
Judas ; that is, that he had acted freely. To sit brooding over this
abyss leads to nothing. The human mind must ever come to the
conclusion already expressed, that in God everything is necessary, in
man everything is free ; that, consequently, the Divine knowledge

xlix. 17, the treachery of Judas is perhaps prophetically intimated. , If so, we itay
thence conclude that he was descended from the tribe of Dan.

* Compare Doctor Schollmeyer's treatise, " Jesns and Judas," Luneberg, 1836. He
is of opinion that the sinfulness of Judas was not developed until after his entrance into
the company of the Apostles, and thus that the Lord did not err when he chose him.
But, still the question remains to be answered : for what reason did Jesus retain him
amongst his followers, till he had an opportunity of carrying out his wicked intention ?
Thus the difficulty is by this view not solved, but removed further off; the more so, since
Jesus must have foreknown that the germ of sinfulness, hereafter to be developed, was
already existing in the heart of Judaa.

Matthew XXVII. 3-10. 65

of man's moral development and action is necessarily the knowledge
of them as free. The same difficulty which is here presented to
us, is involved also in every sinful development of life ; it by no
means belongs peculiarly to the history of Judas. We ought to
remember, in respect to Judas, that his selection was not accidental,
but that Jesus, from his profound knowledge of mar's inmost na-
ture, had chosen the twelve ; then it will be evident that he could
not exclude Judas, For this high calling brought Judas into this
position ; this alone gave a possibility of his salvation, though
certainly with this possibility was associated the alternative, which,
through Judas's free self-determination, became the actual conse-
quence, namely, that he might despise the offered grace, and plunge
himself into the abyss of perdition.

If we now glance at the gradual development of his sinful
nature, we find that the Scriptures specify covetousness as his
master passion, John xii. 6. This vice is called in 1 Timothy
vi. 10, pii^a ndvTcov tu>v «a«:a5v, the root of all evil. The meaning
of which we may easily comprehend, if we reflect that the es-
sence of covetousness is nothing else than absolute self-seeking,
self-appropriation.* In the accumulating of external wealth, this
passion appears in its rudest form only. Spiritually, it is the sinful
tendency to an absolute appropriation of everything to its individ-
ual self. All the efforts of Judas for the promotion of the kingdom
of God, proceeded without doubt from the expectation of becoming
some great personage. Vain wishes of the kind may have shewed
themselves in the minds of the other disciples also, but their hearts
were filled with a diff'erent love from that of self The design of
Judas developed itself but gradually. The petty dishonesties on
which he ventured, and after which he yet could bear the presence
of the Holy One, without repenting and confessing his sin, gradu-
ally hardened his heart, and subjected him to the influence of the
power of darkness. And now, when the hour came that it had full
authority, and when it infused hellish thoughts into his heart,
all power of resistance failed him. The pieces of money which the
priests offered to him blinded his perverted judgment. (Matth.
xxvi. 14.) His better nature may have struggled long against the
Satanic thought, but the fetters of darkness had now bound him :
he yielded himself captive. The tragic fate of the unhappy disci-
ple, together with the remorse that arose in him, upon beliolding
the consequences of his act, have in modern times given occasion to
many divines to extenuate his guilt, and to attribute to Mm this
and the other less guilty motive for his deed. Viewed in one aspect,
such attempts certainly are evidences of a charitable judgment,

* Meanwhile this lust, because it is like the sinfulness which rejects God, is the rea-
son why, in Ephes'ans v. 5, the covetous man is called elduXoXuTpTjg.

66 Matthew XXVII. 3-10.

which loves to view the sin of a hrother in the mildest light. But
in another point of view they are conversely not unfrequently evi-
dence of a want of moral earnestness and decision, and of secret
horror of beholding the whole extent of that sin's development,
whose germs we trace in our own breast.

It is in the faithful disciple only, who acknowledges the sin
within himself in all its magnitude, and who has learned by the
power of the Saviour to control and subdue it — that lenity of judg-
ment appears associated with that full power of truth, which in re-
ference to sin expresses itself by calling what is evil, " evil." If
genuine repentance had been awakened in Judas, he would have
expressed sentence of condemnation against himself ; and in accord-
ance with truth, have entitled his sin a fearful, a devilish act ; a
sin, of such deep premeditation, that it could only result from the
full development of a completely wicked life. But his weak re-
morse was merely horror at the consequences of his deed, and there-
fore could lead to nothing but despair. But although this morally
strict view of the conduct of Judas must be maintained, yet we can
by no means ascribe to him an ordinary character. The remorse he
felt for his deed, although a fearful evidence of his unbelief — for had
he any feeling of the love that was in Christ, he would have sunk
into his arms — nevertheless clearly proves, that his better self was
capable of shuddering at the fruits of his crime, whilst his suicide,
the new sin, offspring of the first, still removes him from the rude
ordinary character, that would enjoy quietly the fruits of its trea-
son. But even the sublime spiritual calling, which had introduced
him into the circle of the apostles, only plunged him into the deeper
perdition, upon his so entirely missing its object. Common men
become petty villains, if they yield themselves to the power of dark-
jiess ; great characters become greatly wicked, when once they allow
sin to dominate within them. Granting, then, that Judas pre-
sented to himself every possible kind of exculpation for his treachery;
that his vanity had been wounded by the reprimand of Jesus (John
xii. 7); that his ambition desired a speedier revelation of the Mes-
siah's kingdom, and that he hoped to hasten it, by delivering Jesus
into the hands of his enemies, convinced that Jesus could at any
time free himself by a miracle ; still his deed is not essentially al-
tered by such considerations. His traitorous act acquires its fearful
character, not from the external circumstances of the perpetration,
but from the radical feehng out of which it grew. This was alien-
ation from Grod, the absence of faith and love ; attachment to the
creature, and to his own mere self ; hence his first sin became in
turn parent to another, and his end was that he went to his own
place. Acts i. 26.

We might imagine, that in his fiery self-willed nature, Peter

Matthew XXVII. 11-14. 67

would have conceived the thought, that if he were only to deliver
Christ into the hands of his enemies, he must of necessity reveal
his glory ; but supposing anything of the kind, we shall be obliged
to admit, that however similar in external respects, there would yet
be a specific internal difference between his act and that of Judas.
For assuming that it was actually done by Peter, and that the Sa-
viour was condemned, as happened after the treason of Judas, how'
would Peter then have demeaned himself ? Sorrow indescribable
would have seized him : but because in Peter such pervcrseness
would at least have been uprightly meant, he would not have relin-
quished his faith in Christ's pardoning love. His sin would therefore
have led him, not to a sorrow that has no hope, but to the true re-
pentance of faith — and thus his deed would have become, not the
parent of fresh disobedience, but a source of thorough regeneration.
(Upon the literature of the question just treated, compare Hase's
Leben Jesu. s. ] 63, ff.)

Yer. 11-14. — In all the following section the Evangelists mutu-
ally supply each other's omissions very admirably. Matthew and
Mark give only brief notices of the trial of Christ before Pilate.
Matthew, however, introduces the interesting incident concerning
the dream of Pilate's wife, xxvii. 19. Luke communicates the pro-
ceedings before Herod, xxiii. 4-12. But John narrates the most im-
portant circumstance, that is, the conversation of the Lord with the
Koman statesman. By these communications we are placed in a
proper position to take a deep glance into the heart of Pilate, and
to regard him as the third significant figure in the picture of Christ's
last moments. Thus whUst Peter represents the weak in faith, and
Judas those who apostatise and go over to the ranks of the Lord's
declared enemies, Pilate stands before us in the character of a nat-
ural worldly-minded man ; of one who indeed is not void of suscep-
tibility to Divine influences (nothing of which shews itself in the
Pharisees), but who is immersed in the scepticism of the then fash-
ionable world ; and who, bound by worldly regards of every kind,
sacrifices his conscience to circumstances, for circumstances are his
god. Pontius Pilate was the fifth procurator of Judea, and tho
successor of Valerius Gratus. Compare the first chronological table
following the introduction to the Acts of the Apostles.

In the thirteenth year of the reign of Tiberias, he entered upon
his office, Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 2. He bears here the name T^yejuwv,
but his proper official title was tmrpoTTog. The former title was
specially given to the independent administrators of the Roman
provinces, viz., to proconsuls (dvOvndroi^), and propraetors (avria-
TpaTijyoig). But the title was also frequently given to the procu-
rators (e-iTponocg) who yet were properly subject to those former
officers ; a practice resembling the custom, which prevails at present,

68 Matthew XXVII. 11-14.

of placing each officer by courtesy a step higher in rank than that
to which he is actually entitled. Compare Acts xxiii. 24, xxiv. 1,
xxvi. 30. The procurator of Judea was subject to the proconsul of
Syria, who resided in Caesarea. According to the account of Jose-
phus, Pilate was guilty of much oppression, and practised many
cruelties against the Jews. To these, however, he may have been ex-
cited, partly by their frequent insurrections and his dread of Tiberias,
and partly because it was customary with all the Koman officers of
state, in the provinces, to practise extortions of every kind. Johu's
accurate portraiture is decisive in regard to his real character. He
was susceptible to Divine influences ; he believed against his will,
in Christ. But the scepticism, which at that time influenced so
many of the nobility, and his fear of man, caused him also to fall.
According to the account of John xviii. 29-32, Pilate enquired into
the grounds of the accusation brought against Jesus. He might
have already heard much concerning Jesus — which conjecture is
sustained by the dream of his wife — and have known that it was on
account of spiritual matters the Jews persecuted him.* Hence he
requested that they would take him before the forum of the Sanhe-
drim, and punish him according to their own law. But this they
refused to do, observing that he was adjudged worthy of death,
but that the execution of the sentence was not permitted to them
by law.

It has been noticed above, that — according to Josephus (Antiq.
XX, 6), with which the accounts of the Kabbis coincide — the Jews
lost the authority to decree punishment of death forty years before
the destruction of Jerusalem. Accordinglyf the passage is to be
taken entirely simply as implying that the Jews require Pilate
to acknowledge and approve of the sentence of death they had
passed. But, because of the stoning of Stephen (Acts vii), several
scholars have supposed that it must be inferred, that the high coun-
cil retained the capital jurisdiction in affairs of religion, and there-
fore, that in this case the appeal to the Koman jurisdiction was
adopted only because they wished to put Jesus to death from polit-
ical motives, as an usurper of the kingdom. But it is in no wise to
be discovered on what ground the high priests could have sentenced
him as a political criminal. We must say that the evangelical his-
tory at least contains no trace of an indication leading to any special
purpose therein. We see rather, from John's careful description,
that the sole cause of the political charge was their hope by that

* Compare Matthew xxvii. 18, from which passage we may see that Pilate ju-lged
quite correctly as to the position of the Pharisees, relatively to Jesus. If not previously,
yet from the fact of their arresting Jesus, he must have learned it, since te was obliged
to issue orders to the Roman soldiers for that purpose. But it is probable that the fame
of Jesus had already reached him.

Matthew XXVII. 11-14. 69

allegation to conquer the obstinacy of Pilate. To this it must be
added, that the stoning of Stephen was not the legal punishment of
a criminal, but the tumultuous vengeance of the mob. In short,
every other explanation of our passage bears a forced character!
For example, in the words " It is not lawful for us to put any one
to death" {r'jiuv ovk t^eoriv dnoicreivai ovStva), we must supply '' on
account of political offences," or "on the Sabbath day," as Augustin
thinks, who is followed by Kuinoel ; but for these changes of the
text, there manifestly is no ground whatever. It was, however, by
no means an indifferent circumstance, that, according to the ordi-
nance of God, the Saviour was to be delivered over to the jurisdic-
tion, of the Eomans ; for, since the Jews did not inflict the
punishment of crucifixion, which, for heavy offences, the Romans
decreed to such persons as were not Roman citizens ; therefore this
manner of punishment was the consequence of the transference of
Christ to the Roman authorities. Nay, even if Pilate had been pli-
ant, and sentenced Christ immediately upon the religious accusa-
tions, he would probably have delivered him to the Jews to be stoned.
But, when the Jews saw themselves compelled to charge him with
political offences, then Pilate was obliged, through his soldiers, to
execute him according to the Roman law.

This fact appeared important to John, xviii. 32, who considered
it to be a fulfilment of one of Christ's prophecies concerning the
manner of his death. (Compare John viii. 28, xii. 32, 33, with
Matth. XX. 19, and the comments on the latter passage.) But this
prophecy was full of significance, not merely as foreteHing an acci-
dental circumstance, but also because crucifixion is conceived as a
symbol replete with manifold allusions (on which we shall subsequent-
ly enlarge), and then, because the crucifixion connects itself essenti-
ally tvith the resurrection. Cruel as was tliis mode of execution, yet
it did not destroy the bodily organization, nor deform it, like stoning,
and other death-punishments. Hence, Divine wisdom ordained that
the Son of God should be executed in this way, that his sacred body
might be preserved from any species of mutilation.

Now the following dialogue of Christ with Pilate (John xviii. 33,
et se|.), clearly proves that, at first, there was no mention made of
political accusations. The conversation turns upon the notion of
the Messiah's kingdom, whence it is evident that the Jews at first
accused him as a false Messiah only. The same appears from
Matt, xxvii. 11, and Mark xv. 2. Luke xxiii. 2, on the contrary, has,
at the very beginning of the trial, given prominence to the political
element, which, however, must be assigned to a later stage of the
examination. Now, when Pilate saw that, during all these accusa-
tions, the Lord maintained a calm and dignified silence, he mar-
velled at the extraordinary phenomenon (Matth. xxvii, 12 13 •

70 John XVIII. 33-38.

Mart XV. 3-5). He therefore ordered Jesus, who was hitherto
standing before the multitude of people, to be led into the PraBto-
rium, and there held with him a private conversation.

John xviii. 33-38. — In order to a distinct apprehension of the
proceedings of Pilate with Christ, we must endeavour to realize to
ourselves the scene. The Procurator occupied the palace which in
former days was the palace of Herod, in Jerusalem, an extensive
and stately edifice. (Joseph. Antiq. xv. 9, 3, B. J. I. 21, 1.) In
front of this building stood the judgment-seat (Bf/jua, John xix. 13),
on which Pilate sat when he adjudicated amongst the Jews. But,
in order to speak with Christ in private, he several times entered the
palace. (John xviii. 33, xix. 9.) This palace, like the residence
of Annas, had a vestibule or court (avA^), in which was stationed
a cohort of Koman soldiers (Matth. xxvii. 27 ; Mark xv. 16), and
which was enclosed towards the street by a Pylon through which a
door conducted. The Jews would not enter through this lest they
should be defiled, John xviii. 28. They therefore remained outside,
standing around the judgment-seat. The edifice itself, together
with the court, is called by the Evangelists Trpaircjpiov, as is seen in
Mark xv. 16, where it is said : ol OTpanCJTai dTTTJyayov avrbv tou) rrjg
avXjjg, 0 ioTL npaLrtjQiov, Hence, when it occurs in the history of
Christ's sufierings, no difierent sense of the word need be supposed.
The meaning is different in Acts xxiii, 35, where it is used — not for
the official residence of the Koman magistrates — but merely for
" Palace." (So also in Sueton. August. 63, 72. Calig. 37, Titus
8.) In like manner it occurs in Philippians i. 13, in a different
sense.

Pilate having retired into the Praetorium (probably merely to the
court), immediately ordered Jesus to be brought before him (t^wvTycre
Tov 'Irjaovv), and asked him if he ivas the King of the Jeivs. ' The
Lord's reply as to whether Pilate made this inquiry merely of himself,
leads to the conclusion that, in the public accusation which had been
brought against him at the commencement of the trial, the expres-
sion King of the Jeios (6 j3aoiXev^ tCjv ^Iov6ato)v) had not occurred.
It was therefore important to Christ, as helping to inform him of
Pilate's disposition towards him, to know in what sense he took the
expression, whether as a Roman, in a merely external sense, referring
to a political ruler, or in the Jewish sense of the theocratic king,
Messiah. Pilate, in reply, declared publicly that he was no Jew,
and therefore that he was incapable of judging concerning questions
of the Jewish religion, but that the high priest had brought Christ
before his tribunal, as one who ought to be punished.

When the Saviour perceived that Pilate rightly understood the
state of the case, and that no misapprehension was to be appre-
hended, he openly declared that he was a sovereign, and had a

John XVIII. 33-38. 71

kingdom, ver. 36.* The nature of this kingdom, however, he de-
scribed but negatively, " It is not of this world." The proof of this
was given by the Saviour, in a way strikingly calculated to impress
the Roman procurator ; viz., Jesus had suffered himself to be arrested
without making any resistance to the orders of the magistrates, thus
giving it to be understood that he wished to undertake nothing of a
hostile character.

These words of the Lord, " My kingdom is not of this world"
(rj PaoiXeia i] inrj ovk tariv ek tov Koofjiov rovrov)^ have been employed
by many to prove that the kingdom of Christ should be understood
as confined to the internal or moral world. But, in this instance,
the discussion merely concerns the relation of Christ's kingdom to
the kingdoms of the world : (e/c points to the origin of the Idngdom
of God as not from the kooixo^, like the kingdoms of the earth) ; but
in no way whatever does it limit the extent of the kingdom of Grod
itself Like the kingdom of truth, it has a necessary tendency to
become universal and all-prevalent, and to transform not only the
spiritual, but ultimately also the material world.

From the idea of a kingdom, Pilate now gives prominence to the
idea of the hing, and repeats the question whether he considered
himself a king, to which Christ simply gives an afiSi-mative reply.
Very many interpreters, and particularly Tholuck,t perceive mock-
ery and contempt in this question of Pilate. But to me the gravity
of the Redeemer's answer seems not at all consistent with such a
view. Besides, the subsequent portraiture of the process which was
going on in Pilate, testifies that his mind was affected. The demean-
our of Christ had made an impression upon him ; he imagined at
least something noble and dignified in the Redeemer. But the
more precise explanation which the Lord added to his declaration,
embraces the idea of hing in its profoundest essence.

For, first, he states his origin to be above this world, by which
he also designates his kingdom itself as not of this world. (In
y^evvrjiiac, the act of his birth is signified, in ElrjXvda elg tov kooiiov,
abiding existence in the world ; the two forms of expression are

* The Lord confessed his regal dignity in presence of the highest political authority,
and his sonship to God before the highest theocratic council.

f In the last edition of his commentary, Tholuck, however, declares himself favour^
able to the opinion that, in the exclamation of Pilate, there may be perceived an expres-
sion of sorrowful complaint that the truth should be veiled from mortals. With justice
he recaUs attention to the scepticism which at the time of Christ had taken possession of
'many distinguished "Romans and Greeks, who regarded as vain every more profound in-
quLnr after truth. In this sense, Pliny the elder, in the preface to his natural history,
penned the words: "Solum certum est, nihil certi esse, nee miserius quidquam homine,
nee superbius." The fearful laxity of morals at that time, must doubtless, to a great
degree, be traced to this profound scepticism. The revelation of eternal truth alone was
able to breathe new life into human nature, thus ruined and m progress towards utter
dissolution.

72 John XVIII. 33-38.

therefore not equivalent.) Here, however, lie appears as a con-
queror for that truth, which constitutes his true kingdom ; or rather
as a sovereign, who, having been absent from his kingdom, comes to
resume its possession (Luke xix. 12). Every one who springs from
his kingdom (bears the truth in him, and is born of it), hearkens to
its call, and rallies beneath its banner. This announcement ought
evidently to have been an incentive to Pilate to acknowledge him-
self as a friend of truth, a subject of him who was truth itself ;
but unbelief was too deeply rooted in his heart. The summons of
Christ thrilled his spirit, but worldly fetters restrained him from
obeying it. And here the question arises : " Who then, in this sin-
ful world, can be said to he of the truth ?" If, however, we compare
John X. 14, we shall see that this expression cannot signify perfect
sinlessness, but only a susceptihility to the truth ; for the Apostles
hearkened to the voice of Christ, but that they were not sinless is
sufficiently shewn by the denial of Peter. There are unsusceptible
dead souls in which the voice of truth awakens no echo ; but there
are other spirits whose inmost nature vibrates when a sound of the
eternal truth reaches them : for they feel that it alone has power to
still their secret yearnings. The Kedeemer, the Lord and king of
truth, calls alj such to himself, and his will strives to rule without
limit in their hearts. Pilate, therefore, trained in the Hellenic phi-
losophy, knew very well that the Lord had used the term truth in its
most absolute sense (John i. 14), but the possibility of attaining to
a knowledge of absolute truth was to him doubtful.

Like so many of the noblest men of that singularly stirring time,
Pilate had fallen a prey to scepticism. He had passed through the
circle of philosophical systems without having discovered the truth,
and the question, " What is truth ?" {ri eanv dXrjdeia) only ex-
presses his despair of finding the truth : instead of mockery or scorn,
therefore, these words seem rather a sad utterance of utter despond-
ency.*

The Roman, deeply affected, breaks up the dialogue ; and, hea-
then though he was, defends the king Messiah against the Jews,
against the people of the theocracy, Christ's own heritage (John i.
11), who were breathing nothing but vengeance against the Holy
One of God ! He proposes to them, that according to the custom
of releasing a prisoner at the feast, he should grant them the im-
prisoned Jesus, the Christ. But here the question arises, whether
— according to the account of Luke xxiii. 7-17, seq. — this proposal
of Pilate to set Jesus at liberty ought not to be placed after his

* As tho answer to the question " What is truth ?" the only correct Biblical answer
is, " Christ is truth." For absolute eternal truth is not a mere representation nor a rela-
tion of any kind, it is both Essence and Being. Now the Spirit is the true being, but tho
Spirit is Person, and Christ is the most exalted personaUty.

John XXIII. 33-38. 73

transmission to Herod .? Any formal discrepancy between Luke
and John is in no way involved in this question, for the latter does
not mention the sending of Christ to Herod at all ; but the verses
39-40 of John xviii., connect themselves so immediately with the
foregoing transaction, that everything favours the conclusion, that
John meant the events to be regarded as having transpired in this
order. If we consider that John has here narrated with uncommon
precision, whilst, in this part of the evangelical history, Luke ap-
pears to be much less careful ; and, further, if we take into consid-
eration, that it was the first refusal of Pilate to pronounce judgment
upon Christ which gave occasion to the political accusations before
mentioned (Luke xxiii. 5), which, in turn, occasioned the sending
of Christ to Herod ; it will appear highly probable that the whole
scene, in which the people desired the liberation of Barabbas, ought
to be referred to the period previous to the sending of Christ to
Herod. As regards the custom of releasing a prisoner at the feast,
it is uncertain whether it was of Roman or Jewish origin. Accord-
ing to Livy, Book V. 13, during the Lectisternia, of the Romans, all
prisoners were freed from their fetters. Here, however, there appears
to be only one spoken of who was to be set at liberty ; hence it may
be the more probable conclusion that it was a Jewish custom.
There is something so very natural in it, that even at the present
day it prevails in many states, especially in the East, and even in the
West something similar takes place upon the accession of a new king
to the throne.

According to Matth. xxvii. 15, seq. ; Mark xv. 6, seq. ; Luke
xxiii. 13, seq., besides the Saviour, there was proposed to them an-
other prisoner for liberation ; one who in an insurrection had com-
mitted a murder. (Mark xv. T ; Luke xxiii. 19.) This man, of
whom nothing else is known, was called Bapa,3/3a5- = k£n n?. But
it is remarkable that three manuscripts, besides the Armenian and
a Syrian translation, give him in addition the name Jesus {'Irjaovg).
That this reading is very ancient, is shewn by Origen in his exposi-
tion of this passage in Matthew. He observes that " many manu-
scripts also had not the name 'Irjaovg" (consequently the greater
number must have had it), and that it might have been added by
heretics. Griesbach has sought to deprive these words of Origen of
all their significance, by remarking that Origen's declaration was
contained only in the Latin translation, in which much was cor-
rupted, and therefore it might not have emanated from Origen at all.
But this conjecture is utterly improbable, for no doctrinal interest
could be subserved by the interpolation. If the passage is actually
from Origen, it is in the highest degree probable, that 'Irjaovg Bapa/3-
3dg is the coirect reading. This father, for instance, indicates how
'Irjoovg might have disappeared from the text. It was thought un-

74 Matthew XXVII. 15-23.

seemly that a murderer should have also borne the sacred name of
Jesus, and hence Barabbas only was retained in the text.

It is a most striking circumstance that two Jesuses should have
thus met, as that Pilate's question should take the form, " whether
do you wish that I should release that Jesus, who is named Christ,
or that one who is called Barabbas ?" How applicable the words :
" ludit in humanis Divina potentia rebus" to this transaction !

We find more than once, particularly in the history of Christ's
suffering, similar marvellous instances of providential control in
matters apparently unessential. But even the other name, Barab-
bas, is specially significant ; it means " Son of the Father." All
therefore, which in the Kedeemer existed in essence, appeared in the
murderer in caricature. It is not improbable even that his whole
enterprise had been a caricature of the Most Holy ; that probably
he had pretended to the plenipotential character of the Messiah.*
But the blinded multitude, in their phrenzy, chose the hellish cari-
cature, in preference to the heavenly original.f All the endeavours
of Pilate, who weU knew the secret motive of the high priests for
their hatred against the Saviour (namely, envy, for they feared that
through him they should lose the favour of the people, Matth. xxvii.
18 ; Mark xv. 10), were fruitless. The high priests demanded the
release of Barabbas, and desired that Jesus might be crucified.

As the procurator from the judgment seat thus strove to save
Christ from the hands of the blood-thirsty priests, he received a
message from his wife directing his attention to the righteous char-
acter of the person whom he was called upon to judge, Matth. xxvii.
l9. She was named, according to tradition, Claudia Procula,^ and

* It is quite in the order of things, that, in giving prominence to such allusions, unbe-
lief and estrangement from God will see only a reprehensible play of the fancy. But if
unbelief were to express itself without reserve, it would say precisely the same of similar
allusions, which are stated by the writers of the holy Scriptures themselves; for instance,
that preserving the limbs of Christ from being broken, and the streaming forth of water
and blood from his wounded side, should be significant. But he, to whom the Bible is
the true word of God, and who believes that Christ is indeed the Son of the living God,
will know how both this and similar references are to be estimated.

\ The ideas which stir within the soul, and strive to take form and utterance in ac-
tion, always appear caricatured in the impure minded. They are affected by them
without being able to grasp their true form and import. At the time of Christ, the striv
ing after freedom was, as in our time, universal; the idea in this struggle was correct,
but the manner in which its realization was sought was false, for it referred merely to
externals, and by that means did injury in all its relations. Whom the Son maketh free,
he alone is truly free, John viii. 36.

X So Nicephorus names her, in his Church History, i. 30. Of late day. some persons
have regarded the account of Procula's dream as an interpolation in the text of Matthew
of a subsequent period ; but without a trace of probabihty. It is a prurience peculiar to
modern critics to desire, by the charge " Interpolation" or otherwise, to remove every pe-
culiarly interesting feature of the evangelicf' history, that everything may be thoroughly
commonplace.

Luke XXIII. 4-12. 75

had accompanied her husband into the province. According to
Tacitus, Ann. iii. 33, it was forbidden to the officers of the Romaii
government to take their wives into their respective provinces in
company with them ; but the mandate was not rigorously enforced.
She had probably heard a great deal concerning Christ, and knew
therefore the danger to which her husband was exposed of perpe-
trating an awful act of guilt, by passing on him sentence of condem-
nation.

The strange conceits that the vision of Procula was a piece of
sorcery on the part of Christ, in order to save himself ! or even of
the devil to hinder Christ's atoning death, require no refutation.
Yet, in considering this remarkable event, we cannot avoid inquir-
ing after the purpose for which an overruling Providence permitted
this intimation. For since the death of Christ was pre-ordained,
the effect of this dream could be injurious only ; foi it must have
augmented the responsibility of Pilate, who already knew too much
to be innocent, and yet was too firmly bound by worldly lust to
venture boldly fo defend the right. It may be said, hovrever, first,
that the dream might have been advantageous to Procula herself,
and it is not impossible that by its silent agency she was converted
to faith in Christ. But again, above all, we must guard ourselves,
as has been frequently remarked, against so conceiving the idea of
necessity as if it circumscribed individual freedom. Looking at the
man subjectively, there remained at any moment the perfect possi-
bility to Pilate of releasing Christ, and even of confessing him ;
just as it was possible that those members of the Sanhedrim favour-
able to Christ, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, might openly
confess their faith, and effect a reversal of the sentence of the coun-
cil. True, if anything of the kind had happened, the world's his-
tory would have been entirely different ; and this leads us back to
that higher objective necessity, which still rests only in God, not in
human individuals, whose actions, though /ree, carry into perfect
effect the Divine necessity. Thus it consisted with the councils of
God, since Christ's death was not merely an apparent but a verit-
able result of human sin, that to Pilate everything should be brought
home that could give him certainty concerning the innocence of
Christ. If Pilate's own guilt was aggravated by this, it was only
the curse of his want of truth, which made even his susceptibility
for what was godly, and all the offered means for its discovery, tend
to his destruction, since they could not bring him to a decision for
that which was good.

Luke xxiii. 4-12. — In order to recall Pilate from his exertions
on behalf of the Saviour, the priests brought an accusation against
Jesus which, with Pilate, was more serious ; they accused liim of
political offences. Jesus was charged with having excited an insur-

76 Luke XXIII. 4-12.

rection of tlie people (Luke xxiii. has at ver. 2 SiacjTpicpEiVj at ver. 5
dvaoecetVj and at ver. 14 d-noarQi<pnv) ^ and witli having dissuaded
them from paying the tribute, Luke xxiii. 2. The power of dark-
ness had so completely blinded them, that they did not see the con-
tradiction involved in tlieir desiring the actual insurrectionist to be
released, and falsely charging with insurrection him who had deliv-
ered the precept, " render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's."
(Matth. xxii. 21.) But whilst, to the anxious Pilate, they repeated
these dangerous accusations, with the most virulent emphasis (ver.
5 Eiriaxvov^ ver. 23 Kariaxvov)^ they also mentioned that he had com-
menced his operations in Galilee. Luke xxiii. 5.

This statement is eagerly seized upon by the unhappy Pilate,
who hoped he might thus free himself from the burden of the
responsibility, by devolving it upon some one else, whilst at the
same time he was evidently placing in jeopardy the life of the
Righteous One, which he should have shielded with his own, since
Herod could have taken the resolution to surrender him, as his own
subject, to death. Here then we find him already toppling to his
fall. The transfer of Christ to the jurisdiction of Herod was but a
brief respite for his smitten conscience. Herod Antipas, who was
then ruler of Gralilee (compare the first chronological table after the
introduction to Acts) was in Jerusalem at the time of the solem-
nization of the feast. Pilate therefore ordered that Christ should
be conducted to him. Here, however, it must have appeared that
Jesus was not born in Galilee, but in Judea. Herod on this ac-
count sent him back, without having brought the case to a hearing.
From this condition of things, then, the conduct of Christ towards
him is to be explained. Though Herod was in so far the ruler of
Christ's district, as Christ had lived a long time in his territory, yet
he was not born under him, nor did he, as an accused person, stand
before him as his official judge. Here, therefore, Jesus gave as
little satisfaction to the reprehensible curiosity of the wonder-seek-
ing prince as to that of Annas, in his former conversation. (In ver.
8, 9, havo^ is employed = noXvg, e^ Itcavov scil. xpo^ov.) The desire
of Herod here mentioned, proves that the fame of Christ, and of his
works, had been generally spread abroad. The vindictive priests
finally had accompanied the Lord to Herod. They surrounded
him, and accused him violently. (Ver. 10, evrovcjg only once again
in the New Testament, Acts xviii, 28.) But when Herod saw no
miracle performed, he ascribed it to the want of power in Jesus,
with his body-guard made sport of Jesus, and sent him back again
to Pilate, clothed, in mockery, in an (old) purple mantle.

(Ver. 11. — The oTparevfiaTa here mentioned were the followers in
the suite of Herod who had attended him to Jerusalem. The word
elsewhere, in the New Testament, signifies invariably an army.

John XIX. 1-16. 77

Kuinoel cites erroneously, Acts xxiii, 10, for tlie meaning of body
guard. The Aa/irrpof, which indicates the colour of the garment
Christ wore, expresses the brightness of the colour, and may just as
well signify a white colour as any other. According to John xix. 5,
and Matth. xxvii. 28, however, it is most probable that the robe
was of a purple colour, and therefore must have been a scoff at the
kingly dignity of the Lord.) In conclusion, Luke notices further,
that on this day Pilate and Herod were reconciled to each other,
for formerly they were at variance. It cannot now be shewn,
whether it was the cruelty of Pilate to some of Herod's subjects
(Luke xiii. 1) that had excited this enmity. Nor is it said that the
sending of Christ to Herod was the occasion of their reconciliation.
We are informed merely that both events occurred on the same
day. This observation would be entirely superfluous, had not Luke
meant something more profound. This deeper idea of Luke was
the significant fact, that it frequently happens, when anything
more noble is to be opposed, that the interests of worldly men, pre-
viously hostile to one another, unite to smother in its birth the for-
eign element ; and this arises, though not always consciously, from
the correct apprehension, that the unrestrained development of this
adverse element would annihilate all their interests together.
Hence, individual considerations are merged in the preservation of
the whole. The persecutions of the church exhibit the same drama
at large. Psalm ii. 2.

John xix. 1-16. — With what feelings must Pilate have observed
the tumultuous concourse again wending towards his palace ! He
had hoped that he had freed himself from the responsibility, and
it is again devolved upon him ! He repeats that he finds no fault
in Jesus, and reminds them that Herod also had found none. (Luke
xxiii. 13-16.) Still, to give some satisfaction to their wild hatred,
he commands Jesus to be scourged. In his view, this must have
been an act of lenity ; for he meant by it, if possible, to save the
life of Jesus (Luke xxiii. 16, 22 ; John xix. 1). Whilst the soldiers
scourged Jesus in the court of Pilate, he probably retired into the
interior of his dwelling.* In his absence, the soldiery indulged
their ungoverned passion, in mockery of the sublime prisoner.f
But without knowing what they did, they were bodying forth a
profoundly significant symbol, which awakens a multitude of most
strikingly contrasted thoughts. They crown with a coronet of

* Tholuck thinks, with others, that the mockery was enacted in the presence of Pilate.
This view is incredible, if but for the reason that the dignity of his magistracy could not
Buffer it.

f Both Matthew xxvii. 26, et. seq., and Mark xv. 15, et seq., place somewhat inex-
actly the scourging and the mockery of Christ subsequently to his being sentenced. The
mockery of Christ may have been repeated after Pilate had withdrawn, but certainly not
the scourging.

78 John XIX. 1-16.

thorns the king of heaven and earth, as if to intimate how painful
to him was the sovereignty he exercised over the souls of millions.
When they had thus invested the Redeemer, Pilate again led him
forth from the court,* in his attire of sorrow, and exhibited to the
people their king, in his crown of thorns, exclaiming, " behold the
man !" (Me 6 dvdpunog). The only true interpretation of this ex-
pression is that which regards it as the overflow of the Soman's
deepest sympathy with the fate of the being who had exercised on
him so mighty an influence. Those views are wholly unsatisfactory
which derive from the words scorn or mockery, or the purpose of
presenting to the Jews their king, as an insignificant, not a formid-
able personage. To conceive Pilate as a thoroughly superficial man
of the world, destroys the profound character of the scenes between
him and Christ. He appears to have felt but too much of the great-
ness of the Lord, and yet to have rendered himself thereby infinitely
more culpable than he would have been otherwise.

The view we have here taken of Pilate is coiToborated, first, by
his scepticism, to which thoroughly superficial minds are never at-
tracted ; and again by his subsequent conversations with the Lord,
which disclose, in a striking manner, the inward struggle of the un-
happy Roman, and reveal the germ of belief which would fain un-
fold itself in his heart.

But while the rude Roman who had grown up amid the din of
battle, and had familiarized himself with cruelty and sternness, was
thus seized with a feeling of tender sympathy upon beholding in his
crown of thorns, the king in whom were so wondrously commingled
heavenly majesty and the deepest humiliation — the attendants of
the sanctuary, who all their life-long had been employed about the
sacred law and its prophecies, vociferated their merciless " Crucify
him, crucify him \" Once more did Pilate desire to deliver him
over to them for punishment, which, in that case, could not have
been the punishment of death; but they longed for his blood.
They therefore brought forward a new accusation, which was pun-
ishable with death according to the law, viz., " that he was a blas-
phemer, because he made himself out to be the Son of G-od," verse
7. This passage proves clearly that the Jews did not employ " Son
of God" as = " Christ" or " King of the Jews," because they had
previously charged Jesus with having assumed the latter title, whilst
the other appears to have been perfectly new to Pilate. Moreover,
in this name alone did they perceive a blasphemy, which, by the
law, demanded death. Compare on John x. 34, et seq., and also
Leviticus xxiv. 16. This new statement terrified still more the al-

* Verse 5 is a parenthetical sentence, which interrupts the discourse of Pilate. He
■went forth, verse 4, addressed the people, and during his address, the Redeemer came
forth through the door, from the court, and shewed himself to the people.

John XIX. 1-16. 79

ready frightened Pilate (jidXXov ecpofi/jdi]). He descended once more
from his judgment seat, ordered Jesus to be led into the Prastorium,
and began to enquire more particularly concerning his origin. As
the earthly origin of Christ was already manifest, by his having
been sent to Herod, the enquiry " whence art thou" {■noOev el av)
could refer to the name " Son of God," only.* Pilate thus wished
to know if he actually was of higher origin : a son of God. His
notion of " a son of God," like that of the centurion (Matth. xxvii.
54), may in some respects have been very obscure ; but in any case,
he must, if only in the most indefinite and general manner, have
conceived it as denoting a heavenly being. The fact that such a
conception could be, though but remotely, suggested to this sceptic,
decidedly contradicts the idea that he was superficial. By the pre-
sence of the essence, his empty system of scepticism was overturned.
The reality of Divinity affected him by its indwelling power,
whilst he, in theory, denied its actuality. The deep and hidden
necessities of his nature, which from misunderstood speculation
had conducted him to scepticism, now made themselves felt with all
their power. The eye of his mind saw light, and he could no longer
persuade himself that the light was not. What glory and dignity
must therefore have shone forth from the being of Christ, that, in
his lowest humiliation, under a Jewish form, so hateful to the hea-
then, and in his raiment of mockery, it could thus triumph over the
mind of Pilate ! But now the Saviour answered no further to the
question of Pilate. He perceived that Pilate would not be able to
fight through the battle, therefore he wished not to lead him into
greater temptation. This silence, however, impressed the Roman
at once with amazement and anxiety ; he sought to compel Christ
to answer, by reminding him of his own authority. But the Lord
employs this allusion to Pilate's power, in order to admonish the
magistrate of a superior power, which was above even him. By this
remark, he once more awakens the feeling of dependence in his judge,
but at the same time intimates by his language, with holy self-reli-
ance, that he knows himself to be controlled by the superior power of
God, and not by his. Yet with deep sympathy for the condition of the
unhappy man, the merciful Redeemer added — foreseeing the issue of
Pilate's moral struggle — that those hard-hearted priests, who not
only thirsted for his own blood, but had also brought Pilate into so
heavy a temptation, had sinned more heavily than he. Thus the
accused, the deeply humbled, here again appears, as he appeared
before the Sanhedrim, the judge and commander of the Roman
governor, whilst he computes the amount of his sin, and suffers a
ray of hope for pardon to shine in upon him. If those priests per-
haps sinned against the Holy Ghost, or at least bordered upon that

* Compare concerning the nodev in this sense, the passage, John vii. 27, 28.

80 John XIX. 1-16.

sin, Pilate doubtless sinned only against the Father or against the
Son of Man, and that in proportion to the lesser degree of his moral
or religious consciousness, therefore, if not here, at least above, there
might be forgiveness for him. (Compare upon Matthew xii. 31.)

With lofty dignity must the Saviour have thus spoken to
Pilate ! And yet Pilate, instead of feeling offended at him, began
now to strive for his deliverance with earnestness, as if he had not
done so from the beginning. His exertions, however, were powerless.
The secret ties of this world's love held his feeble moral nature in
fetters. At the popular exclamation, " thou art not Caesar's friend,"
(ovK d (piXog rov Kaioapog'), he was a fallen man. The name " friend
of Csesar," is not to be apprehended in the sense of the honorary
title, amicus Cassaris ; but must be understood of loyal adherence
— fidelity towards the emperor. The meaning then is, "If you
liberate this man, you prove that you are not faithful to the em-
•peror." Now, to a Tiberius,* a mere suspicion was as bad as an
actual offence. Therefore Pilate hastily commanded Jesus to be led
forth, seated himself upon the judgment seat, and after he had
again cried out, " Behold your king !" (Jde 6 [iaaiXevg vfiCJVj verse
15), now perhaps, less in order to excite compassion, than to shew
his scorn of the people, who had so cruelly urged him to act in op-
position to his conscience — he delivered the Saviour over to them to
be crucified. (Ver. 13. — The place where the (^rjim stood was named
Xi06arpo)Tov, equivalent to wraj. The Hebrew name indicates the
elevation of the place, from siaa to be high ; the Grreek for a
Mosaic paving which formed the floor beneath the (i7]ixa. The Roman
magistrates and generals carried similar pavimenta tessalata with
them on their journeys into the provinces. [Compare Sueton. Caes.
46.] Upon the TrapaaKevrj rov -ndoxa compare the comm. on Matt.
xxvi, IT. The expression must be understood as relating to the
usual day of preparation, that is Friday, which was called the
preparation day of the passover, because it occurred during the
feast. This conclusion is supported in an especial manner by the
fact, that the Synoptical writers distinctly name the -napaoKevq as
the day of the Saviour's death. (Matth. xxvii. 62 ; Mark xv. 42 ;
Luke xxiii. 54.) Mark indeed subjoins the further explanation
0 hri, 'npo(jd(3l3aTov. And' besides, John writes napaaKevi] tG>v lovdatojv^
for the same day, which can in no case be understood as relating to
the preparation day of the Paschal Festival, and indeed this ex-
pression is never used in that sense in any other connexion.)

There remains a chronological difficulty in determining the hour
at which the passing of the sentence took place. John, in this pas-
sage, names the sixth hour as that of the sentence, whilst, accord-

* Tacitus, writing of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, says, " Majestatis crimen omnium
accusationum complementum erat."

John XIX. 1-16. 81

ing to Mark xv. 25, the third hour was that of the crucifixion. If
this passage of Mark were the only one under discussion, we should
certainly prefer the account of John ; but according to Matthew
xxvii. 45 ; Mark xv. 33 ; and Luke xxiii. 44, when the sixth hour
arrived, the Saviour had already hung a long time on the cross. I
declare myself favourable, with Theophylact, Beza, Bengel, and
Liicke, to the reading rpi-r] in the text of John, for the following
reasons : Several MSS. (as D.L.) read Tpirrj in John ; the numeral
signs of 3 and 6 may be easily mistaken one for the other ; and besides
it might easily have happened that some transcribers transposed the
events, and, as in John, no further specification of the hour occurs,
they might, on the authority of Matthew xxvii. 45, and the parallel
passages, have transferred the number 6 from the crucifixion to the
time of the sentence.

Should it be thought necessary, however, to defend the tKrrj, as
Tholuck does, who thinks it improbable that any discrepancy could
have crept into the MSS., if the correct number stood in them orig-
inally, we must suppose that the variation in the statements of the
hour arose probably from that division of the day which divided it
into four sections of three hours each. Hence, the second section of
the day included the time from the third to the sixth hours. Of
this section, then, Mark mentions the beginning, John the end..
But even according to this view, there will yet remain a discrepancy
on the part of John ; since the passages Matth. xxvii. 45, and par-
allels, shew that at the sixth hour the Saviour had already hung a
long time on the cross. Perhaps, therefore, we should prefer to this
the hypothesis of Rettig, who here, and at John i. 39, iv. 6, applies
the mode of computing the hours from midnight to midnight ;
which Aulius Gellius, Noct. Att. iii. 2, and Pliny, Nat. Hist. ii. 77,
shew to have been the practice of the Romans. The fact that John
wrote for the people of Asia Minor accords well v\dth this hypothe-
sis ; but less so the circumstance, that according to John xviii. 28,
it was already morning when they led Jesus away to Pilate. The
proceedings before Pilate and Herod, must, however, have consumed
considerable time. Compare Ullman's Stud. Jahrg. 1830, h. 1. s.
101, flP.

Finally, it is recorded by Matthew alone, xxvii. 24, 25, that
Pilate, by a symbolical act, in the view of the multitude excused
himself from guilt in the murder of the Lord. But his having
pronounced the sentence, as well as his declaration, that he whom he
delivered to them to be crucified was a righteous person, must natur-
ally render that but an empty ceremony. (Compare upon the sym-
bolical act, Deut. xxi. 6. 'AOCJog diro = ya, ■'ijs.) But the blinded multi-
tude cried out, to alfia avrov t^' 7)iJ.dg koI inl rd reKva ^/uwv, his blood
6e, etc., with which imprecation they were unwittingly invoking the

82 John XIX. 1-16.

greatest blessing, because, whilst the blood of Abel cries for ven-
geance, the blood of Christ calls only for forgiveness (Heb. xii. 24).
After the departure of Pilate, who had now released Barabbas to
the people, the barbarous soldiery may, as was observed above, have
further mocked the Saviour, who still wore the purple robe and
the crown of thorns. When they were about to lead him to the
place of execution, however, they again clothed him with his own
raiment (Matth. xxvii. 31 ; Mark xv. 20), and then laid upon him
the cross.

In this place, upon concluding the examination of Christ before
Pilate, some notice concerning the fate of the unhappy Roman wiU
not be inappropriate. No account is given us of the effect pro-
duced upon Pilate by the tidings of the resurrection. According to
Josephus, he afterwards indulged in such gross oppressions and mal-
versations, in his province, that, in the last year of the reign of
Tiberius, the Proconsul of Syria deposed him from his government,
and exiled him into Gaul. (Compare Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 5 ; Taci-
tus' Annals, xv. 44.) As to what the ecclesiastical fathers recount
concerning the Actis of Pilate, which he is said to have sent to the
Emperor Tiberius, in relation to the death of Christ, and which oc-
casioned him, as asserted by tradition, to procure Christ's admission
amongst the number of the gods, the story is doubtless tricked out
with legendary ornaments. But, according to the evangelical his-
tory, it is in the highest degree probable that Pilate did actually
write to Tiberius on the subject ; for, since the affair had reference
to political relations, Pilate would not have wished that any infor-
mation whatever concerning the king of the Jews should reach
Eome before his own report. But, now that he had sentenced Jesus
to death, he had no longer any motive to conceal his favourable
opinion concerning the Saviour.

Hence, from the favorable opinions of Pilate concerning Christ,
a legend might have originated in after days, that Tiberius had or-
dered that Christ should be admitted by the Senate into the num-
ber of gods. Justin Mart. Apol,, i. 76-84 ; Tertullian's Apol. v.
21 ; Eusebius. Eccles. Hist. ii. 2 ; Epiph. hasr. L. 1. Compare
Winer's Bibl. Realworterb. under this word.

Matthew XXVII. 32. 88

§ 5. Crucifixion and Death of Jesus.

(Ifatth. xxvli. 32-56; Mark xv. 21-41 ; Luke xxiii. 2&-49; John x\x. 17-30.)

In the following description of the Saviour's crucifixion and
death, the narrative of John falls far short of completeness. On
the other hand, however, Luke supplies several particulars which
render the awful scene remarkably vivid, and which are peculiar to
him. Of these, for example, are the address of Jesus to the women
of Jerusalem who were lamenting over the Lord (Luke xxiii. 27, et
seq.), and the transaction with the two malefactors (Luke xxiii. 39,
et seq). Some few particulars, also, are peculiar to Matthew, chiefly
the description of the astonishing phenomena that occurred at the
death of the Kedeemer (Matth. xxvii. 51, et seq.)

In wild haste the high priests now, contrary to all usage, caused
the scarcely sentenced prisoner to be conducted to the place of exe-
cution. Guarded by Roman soldiers (of the German legion, which
was stationed in Palestine), the guiltless Jesus,* the Lamb of God
that beareth the sins of the world, goes forth bearing his cross (John
xix. 17).

The symbolical expression, " take his cross" (Xan(idveLv tov arav-
Qov avTov) (Matth, x. 38, xvi. 24), is sublimely consecrated by this
affecting incident. But the Redeemer was probably so exhausted
from the severe conflicts of both his body and soul, that he sank be-
neath the heavy burden. They were therefore obliged to compel
another, a certain Simon of Gyrene, to bear the cross for him who
was the helper of all. It is a common opinion, since Grotius, that
this Simon was known to be an adherent of Christ, and was chosen
on that account. This supposition, however, appears to me but
little probable, for the reason that, if he were such, he would cer-
tainly have been in the city, and present at the examination of
Christ ; but since he was coming in from the country, it seems to
me the more probable opinion that he had not known Christ previ-
ously. Perhaps, however, this service which Simon rendered to the
Redeemer may have been the means of leading him to God, so that

* Those who love myths should seek the Christian myths in the Christian poets, where
they are found clothed with all the charms of fancy, not in the historical contemporaries
of Christ. Dante and Calderon stand prominent among these. In his beautiful drama,
" The Prophetess of Morning," the Spanish poet has invented a marvellously beautiful
myth concerning the wood of the cross. He makes it to have sprung from a shoot of the
tree of life, which withered after Adam's fall in Paradise. Had the history of Jesus been
an embellished legend only, there would have been no want of all kinds of fabulous po-
etic descriptions, concerning the potency of his blood, his garments, and such like, since
even in ordinary martyrdoms, superstition has employed itself in misapplying to various
purposes the blood and raiment of :hose who have suffered.

84 Luke XXIII. 27-34.

his bodily toil was recompensed with a heavenly reward. At all events,
that both Simon and his family afterwards attached themselves to
Christ, we infer from MarFs statement (ver. 21)that he was the father
of Alexander and Kufus, persons who must undoubtedly have been
known to the first readers of the Gospel. (Upon dyyapeveiv^ compare
the Commentary on Matth. v. 41.) In Christ's progress to the place
of execution, he was accompanied by many, especially by persons of
the female sex, who uttered their tender sympathy with wailings and
tears (Luke xxiii. 27-34) . But the words which the Lord spoke to
those sympathizing hearts cannot but surprise us. They bear no
consolatory, beneficent character, but are rather of terrific import.
We cannot, however, suppose that those believing women who, ac-
cording to Luke xxiii. 48, et seq., beheld the death of the Lord from
a distance, were amongst this company of females. To the former,
tl^ese words would not, in fact, have been appropriate, because they
certainly had no reason to be alarmed at the heavy retribution of
which Jesus spoke as approaching, since, according to the promise
of the Lord, they were, like Noah and Lot, to be preserved from it.
(Compare Matth. xxiv. 37, et seq.) And then the sympathy of
these women must be regarded less as a true expression of their full
consciousness concerning the event that was then occurring, than as
that mere natural feeling of pity which we find so frequently ex-
pressed by the excitable female sex. Nevertheless, it certainly made
a grateful impression on the Saviour, to perceive this warm sym-
pathy and compassion after the rude violence he had suffered. But
his lofty spirit, even in the prospect of a bitter death, thought not
upon his own personal gratification, which would have been pro-
moted had he tendered these women his cordial thanks, and thus
caused the gentle stream of their tears to flow afresh, and secured
to himself their praise. Rather did he desire to secure to their
well-meaning hearts a permanent blessing. But this could result
only from their being brought in sincere repentance to a full con-
viction of the magnitude of the event, and its necessary conse-
quences. Therefore the Saviour exhorted them to turn their atten-
tion from him to themselves, not to weep for him but for themselves.
They, as members of the populace, partook of the guilt of the people
(compare at Acts ii. 23), and the punishment of the people must
therefore fall upon them also. The magnitude of this retribution is
described by the Saviour in Old Testament language (Isaiah ii. 10-
19 ; Hosea x. 8 ; and Rev. vi. 16). With a proverbial form of ex-
pression, in which the righteous are compared to green trees, and
the godless to dry, he concludes his-address to them, whose pur-
port tended to awaken in them a consciousness of their aliena-
tion from God, and to occasion them to seek with earnestness the
way of salvation. (Upon Powog compare Luke iii. 5.) Now there

Luke XXIII. 27-34. 85

were also led forth with Christ two malefactors (Luke xxiii. 32),
who were crucified with him on Golgotha, one on his right hand,
and the other on his left (Matth. xxvii. 38 ; Mark xv, 27, 28 ; John
xix. 18), The word of prophecy (Isaiah liii. 12), juera dvoixcjv t-Xoyiadri,
he loas reckoned among transgressors , was therefore literally fulfilled
in Christ, in a manner which could not have heen expected (Mark
XV. 28). The quotation in the text of Mark is wanting, however,
in several codices, especially A.B.C.D. ; it appears therefore here not
to be authentic, but to have been derived from Luke xxii. 37, as its
having been thus supplied is easily explained, whilst its omission
would be difficult to account for.

As regards the crucifixion itself, it was accomplished at the
common place of execution, called the Kpaviov rorrof, or according to
Luke xxiii. 33, the nQaviov^ (the latter is a literal translation of
the Hebrew ri'^aVa, Chaldee xriViVi — skull,) the place of a skull, from
the accumulated skulls of the wretched persons who had there lost
their lives.-"" Eespecting the manner of the crucifixion, only one
point further needs to be investigated, viz., whether it was also cus-
tomary to nail the feet of the crucified, or only to bind them.

The whole church, both ancient and modern, understand this in
accordance with the prophecy of Psalm xxii. 17, in connexion with
Luke xxiv. 39, in which latter passage the risen Redeemer even
shews his pierced feet. The first person in modern times who has
asserted the contrary is Dr. Paulus, and he is followed by Rosen-
miiller, Kuinoel, and Fritzsche. The only positive fact which they
have adduced in support of their view, is that the feet were bound.
But this was done also with the arms, whilst it is acknowledged that
the hands were pierced through. Hence the binding does not ex-
clude, but rather implies the nailing. Again : there are several
distinct authorities for the nailing of the feet, particularly Plautus
Mostellaria, Act. ii. sc. 1. v. 1^ : TertuUian adv. Marc. iii. 19. The
principal work is that of Justus Lipsius de cruce, Antwerp, 1595.
Amongst modern works, Hengstenberg's Christology, Bd. i. s. 183, fi:
should be compared, and the very circumstantial and erudite treatise
of Biihr, preacher in Baden, in Heidenreich's and Hiifi'd's Zeitschr.
f. Prediger-Wisseuschaften, Bd. ii. h. 2 and 3. The two latter op-
pose Dr. Paulus. This scholar, in his rejoinder, appeals to Socrat.
H.E.I., i. 17, according to which, Helena, the mother of Constantine,
found only two nails near the cross. But to this legend we can at-
tach no historical importance, for it is not founded upon any proved
fact. The Zeitschrift fur die Giestlichkeit des Erzbisthutas Frei-

* According to the Christian myth, Golgotha was the place where Adam was buried.
Out of the grave of the Old Adam sprung forth the second Adam, who, like ripe fruit, hung
on the tree of life. "With this myth should be compared the Manichacan view of the
'Itiaov^ TtcOijTuc, who is regarded as bemg diffused throughout all nature

86 Luke XXIII. 27-34.

burg (Jalirg. 1830, heft 5, s. 1, ff.), also contains very instractivo
statements on this subject.

Just before crucifixion, the Komans were accustomed to present
to the wretched culprits a stupefying drink — wine mingled with
myrrh — in order to deaden their sensibility to the awful agonies of
this dreadful punishment. Mark xv. 23, contains the usual expres-
sion olvog iafxvpvcofievog (from onvpva^ = -ife, Matth, ii. 11); Matthew,
on the contrary, has the expression, o^og iiera xoXi](; iieiiiyiievov. This
expression, indeed, and that of Mark, may be reconciled as to sig-
nification. For o^oc was nothing else than the common sour wine,
and %oA?;, like vvS (for which word it is employed by the LXX. in
Psalm Ixix. 22), was used for bitters of every kind. Compare, how-
ever, Luke xxiii. 36, where it is expressly included under the acts
of mockery practised by the soldiers, that they gave o^og to the Sa-
viour. And in Psalm Ixix. 21, it is reckoned amongst the sufferings
of Messiah that he should receive o^og and x^M- Thus there is cer-
tainly no doubt that the Evangelist understood this very event to
be an aggravation of his sufferings. That such cruelty was not the
original intention in giving the drink by no means contradicts this
conclusion. For, although apparently an act of charity, still it was
the expression of a most unholy charity. To the Saviour it assumed
the appearance of a fresh mockery ; therefore as soon as he had
tasted the drink, he rejected it, for he did not desire to meet death
otherwise than in the full possession of his consciousness. Probably
it was whilst being nailed to the cross that the Lord uttered the
affecting prayer : rrarep a0ef avroXg • ov yap oldaai ri noiovai, Father,
forgive them, etc. The address " Father" directly expresses the
fact that even at this moment, when he was fixed upon the cross,
he was vividly conscious of his sonship to God. In his prayer, he
included not only the soldiers who were carrying the crucifixion into
effect — these were mere irresponsible instruments, and even guilt-
less in what they were doing, that guilt excepted which they them-
selves incurred by unnecessary violence. The Saviour's prayer, in
its widest comprehension, embraced all those who were in any way
inculpated in his death. It had reference, therefore, also to the
high priests, and to Pilate. But if ignorance of the true character
of the deed they perpetrated seems to be rendered prominent' as a
ground for their forgiveness, it is still true, as we remarked at
Matth. xxvii. 1, that as their very ignorance of the fact that they
were murdering the holy one of God was itself their guilt, the high-
priestly intercession of the Lord was necessary in order to their for-
giveness. Compare, further, the observations upon Acts iii. 17, and
1 Cor. ii. 8.

The Synoptical Evangelists notice but briefly the parting of the
raiment of Jesus, and the superscription upon the cross. But these

John XIX. 19-24. 87

events are very circumstantially narrated by John xix. 19-24, It
was customary among the Eomans, as it is still, in the Turkish em-
pire, in all executions of persons, to suspend a tablet which expressed
the cause of their punishment. In the official language of the
Romans, this was called Titulus. (Suetonius. Caligula, cap. 32,
and Domitian, cap. 10.) At the beginning, Pilate may have or-
dered the superscription to be made out without special regard tc
its import ; but when he noticed that the form in which it was com-
posed was unacceptable to the priests, whom he detested, he adhered
firmly to it, and would admit of no alteration. The subtle priests
apprehended an evil impression from the circumstance that Jesus
was represented as " King of the Jews," without limitation of mean-
ing to the title : this was thought to correspond too closely with
those passages of the Old Testament, in which the Jews are described
as despisers of their king, and the king himself as deeply Humbled,
passages which might thus be employed as means of proving that
Jesus was the true Messiah ; hence in their position their fear was
not without reason. After the crucifixion had been completed, the
four soldiers who had been appointed to that duty, took their sta-
tions round the cross, and divided the garments of Jesus into four
parts, but cast lots amongst themselves for his tunic, which was
formed of a single web. The Evangelist here makes a reference to
Psalm xxii. 18, in which this proceeding is foretold with astonish-
ing precision, furnishing a new proof of the manner in which the
Lord, in himself and in his fate, represents the greatest and the
least in unparalleled union. (The citation follows the LXX. closely.
In the passa^*?, Matth. xxvii. 35, the same quotation occurs, but it
is rejected by the best critics. Without doubt it was written on the
margin from John, and gradually became incorporated with the text.)
The A;t~wv, = tnjhs, was the under garment, and was made in one
piece. The epithets seem to intimate its costliness, so that thus
the Saviour was not clothed remarkably meanly. Even in this re-
spect he observed the middle course. The expressions appacpog and
v(pavrbg 6l' oXov, occur only in this place. They signify the unity of
the weft, which was without seam, or the uniting of several pieces.''
Thus hung the Son of God between earth and heaven, sacrificed
upon the beam of the cross as upon his altar, like a patient lamb,
bearing the sin of the world, and still the measure of his sufferings
was not yet filled up. They who passed by blasphemed him, and
the priests, with venomous malignity, shouted out in mockery, the
words he had spoken (Matth. xxvii. 39, et seq.) According to
Luke xxiii. 36, even the soldiers also mocked him. (These partic-

* The ecclesiastical fathers understand this account of the garment of Christ in an
allegorical sense, and explain it to signif/ the one indivisible Church of the Lord upon
earth.

88 Luke XXIII. 39-43.

ulars were partially prophesied in Psalms xxii. 7, et seq. The wag-
ging of the head is often mentioned in the Old Testament as a
gesture of ridicule. Compare Job xvi, 4 ; Psalm cix. 25 ; Isaiah
xxxvii. 22, Luke xxiii. 35 has the word tKfivicTrjpL^eiv, on which com-
pare our remark at Luke, ch. xvi. 14. — As regards the allusion to
the words of Christ concerning the destruction and rebuilding of the
Temple, the same holds good which we remarked at Matth. xxvi.
61 ; the language is perverted, in that to the Saviour is ascribed
the destruction {KaraXvetv) whilst he vindicates to himself only the
building (oIkoSoi^ieIv). The abbreviated form Kard(3a for KardjBrjdi, oc-
curs frequently in the New Testament. In Kev. iv. 1, we find dvdfSa^
and in Acts xii. 7, and Ephes. v. 14, dvdora, but the longer form is
the more usual. (Compare Winer's Gramm. p. 72.) In Matthew
xxvii. 42, and the parallel passage of Mark xv. 32, the readings vary
remarkably in the construction of TnareveiVj for it is sometimes with-
out an object, and sometimes connected with avrco or in' av-ov. The
Evangelists probably read variously, and indeed the readings err'
avT^ in Matthew, and at'Tw in Mark, are respectively correct. In
Matth. xxvii. 43, the d diXei av-ov is after the LXX. in the passage,
Psalm xxii., where these words stand for ^a ysh •'3.

Luke xxiii. 39-43. — Whilst now it is stated without any distinc-
tion by Matth. xxvii. 44 and Mark xv, 32, that those who were cruci-
fied with Jesus ridiculed him also, Luke records more precisely the
fact that but one thus inculpated himself Concerning the other,
he remarks, on the contrary, that in the prospect of approaching
death, he besought Christ that he might be admitted into his king-
dom, and that the Saviour granted him his prayer. Over this little
narrative is shed a mysterious charm.

Firsts so unexpected is the joyful and sublime incident which it
recounts in the midst of a multitude of the most mournful events,
that it takes us by surprise. Whilst all the disciples disperse them-
selves, the faithful John alone excepted, who stands at the foot of
the cross — whilst Judas betrays his Lord, and Peter denies him —
whilst, from both the priests and the people, wild enmity pours forth
against the Saviour — and whilst Pilate displays his weakness, living
faith appears under the most unfavourable circumstances in a rob-
ber and murderer, with most marvellous power. As long as Christ
remained unfastened to the cross, many a votary might have cher-
ished the hope that he would even yet free himself by a miracle.
But who could have deemed the pierced right hand of Him who
was fastened upon the cross sufficiently powerful to sustain and
conduct the spirit through the dark valley of death ? Who could
have esteemed him who was himself dying the death of a criminal,
worthy to command the gates of Paradise .?

Even granting that this unhappy man still possessed some no-

Luke XXIII. 39-43. 89

bility of character ; granting that he might a.so have previously
heard something concerning Christ, and have experienced many
powerful emotions, he still remains for ever an actual demonstration
of the fact that Jesus Christ came to save sinners, and stands
whilst time endures, as a hero of the faith, since he believed when
faith forsook even the very persons who had previously professed
aloud that they acknowledged in Christ the Son of the living God.
Again, the unprejudiced observer will perceive, in the history of
Christ's suiferings, a certain character which our int»oduction hinted
at, and which has been but too frequently misunderstood, that is, its
symbolical character.* The suffering Christ, as a symbol of a ful-
ness of truths the most profound, and relations the most significant,
speaks a language to the world which his living word could scarcely
have uttered.

Conceive now, apart from this or that dogmatic view, the his-
tory of the dying Jesus just as it is given by the Evangelists,
and we are constrained to acknowledge that even the most bound-
less imagination could never have produced a romance correspond-
ing to this reality. The imagination usually pictures forth its
objects according to analogy, but there is here something altogether
transcending analogy ; a new product of Divinely creative power.
The same being, who was in the beginning with the Father, who
could say, " he that seeth me seeth the Father," that ''men should
honour the Son even as they honour the Father," relinquishes
aU his glory in order to assume our flesh and blood (John i. 1-
14, V. 23, xiv. 9, xvii. 24), and hangs naked upon the tree of
the cross. Already sunk deep in poverty, he now abandons every-
thing, in order, by his poverty, to make us rich, 2 Cor. viii. 9. Yet
do all his own forsake him and throw away their faith. But mur-
derers and heathens, consciously and unconsciously, believe, and
bear witness of his Divine sonship, and of his work of redemption.
Above his head, which is crowned with thorns, as typical of the suf-
fering which the sin-defiled earth, the mother of thorns, prepared
for him, stands his sacred name. The cross, like an unfolded banner,
publishes, in the three chief languages of the earth, that it is the
king of honours whom humanity has nailed to it. His arms are
extended as if they would embrace the world for whose salvation he
yet thirsts, though it thrusts him from it (John xix. 28). On his
left hangs the infidel malefactor, who with the barbarous mob ridicules
the holy one of God. On his right is the sinner brought to repent-

* Compare Calderon's Prophetess of the Morning, as translated by the Lord of Mals-
burg, vol 4, 8. 76, et seq., where the symbolic character of the history of the crucifixion
is employed with profound sagacity. To each also of its picturesque descriptions this char-
acter lends its due charm and spiritual import. Christianity is thus also a fruitful principle
in regard to art, since it presents the most profound ideas in a pictorial form.

90 Luke XXIII. 39-43.

ance ; so that around the Saviour of the world the various repre«
sentatives of the human race are assembled — representatives alike
of those who are lost and of those who are saved. In his deep
humiliation, however, the Saviour now exercises none the less acts
of Divine glory. He receives the homage of a believing soul, he
opens to him the gates of the kingdom of heaven. The cross of
Christ becomes a throne; the place of skulls, the tribunal of uni-
versal judgment.* As regards the particulars of this record, there
have not been wanting attempts to rob them of their grand char-
acter ; yet, without exception, these attempts have issued in utter
weakness.

The prayer of the thief : fj-vrjadrjTi fiov, Kvpie, brav tXdxit; iv ry
(iaoLXda oov, Lord remember me, etc., some would understand, as
requesting a mere friendly reminiscence in the world of the blessed.
But it is clear that t^x^adai h rg (SaoiXeia Gov,^come in thy kingdom
(i. e., entering into his kingdom, and then abiding there), cannot
possibly be said of mere happiness. But if the man thought that
in Christ he addressed the Messiah, and had applied to him the
representations concerning the suflPei-ing Mesiiiah ; then the aston-
ishing circumstance would be, that this man could do so whilst the
disciples themselves failed to make the application. On this matter,
however, there is nothing explained further. But the sublime
promise of Christ : djxfjv At'yw gol, arjuepov jier' ljj,ov taxi t^ tw trapa-
detao), verily I say unto iJiee, to-day, etc., has been superficialized to
such a degree by some, that they render the words thus : " I to-day ,
say unto thee" {i. e. noio, so that the comma is made to stand after
orjfiepov), " thou yet shalt enter into Paradise. God is love, and he
will yet make thee also happy." But, as Kuinoel observes on this
passage, the impressive a/x^v Aeyw ooi, does not at all harmonize
with such a mere assurance, one which any person could have ex-
pressed.

It is manifest that the evangelical history so represents the in-
cident that the two essential elements of salvation, faith and repent-
ance, existed in the mind of the man. That these elements might
have had their preparatory causes is very probable. But that does
not destroy the astonishing character of the occurrence, that with a
faith generating repentance, this man could embrace Christ at a mo-
ment in which it could be done by no one else.

As to the term jrapadeiaog, it appears, as we remarked at Luke
xvi. 24, et seq., by no means synonymous with heaven, heavenly
world. This passage leaves, on this point, no doubt whatever. For

* The suffering Christ is also naturally a type of the church's destiny, and of that
of many of its individual members. The church also will yet appear as abandoned of
God, and forgotten by her children. And murderers and heathen, to whom grace is
given, will be the only witnesses in her to bear testimony to her Divine origia

John XIX. 25-27. 91

Bince GTjfiepov, to-day, is annexed, and since it is expressly stated
that the soul of Christ, at his death, went into Hades to the dead
(1 Peter iii. IS), it follows that Christ could say, " Thou shalt be
with me" (eorj juer' ifiov), only if the soul of the person crucified with
him went also to the general assembling-place of the dead.'"'

Further, the entire condition of the robber will lead us to this
conclusion. For readily as we acknowledge him a truly con-
verted man, yet we cannot in any way speak of him as a regenerated
man, one to whom it is allowable to apply the word of promise,
" Where I am, there also shall my servant be ;" especially since as
yet Christ was not exalted to the right hand of God. True, in 2 Cor.
xii. 4, the heavenly world (Tpirog ovpav6<;\ seems to be styled Para-
dise : but as we observed previously, the Jews distinguish the itpper
or heavenly paradise (Jlapddetaog rod Qeov, Kev. ii. 7), from the lower
Paradise. The latter is synonymous with KoXnog 'Af3padiJ,, bosom of
Abraham, and signifies the place of joy in the kingdom of the dead,
as Teevva signifies the place of sufiering. (The form of the name
Uapddetaog = e^n? Hosea iv. 13 ; Ecclesiastes ii. 5, springs con-
fessedly from the Persian. The word primarily denotes a plea-
sure garden, a park, and hence is used for any pleasant place of
residence.

John xix. 25-27. — To this infinitely sublime scene, where the
Saviour acts as Lord of the heavenly world, another event attaches
itself which shews how the Lord, in his most violent struggle, along
with the sublimest objects of his life, remembered also the little earthly
interests, from which he seemed to have been far removed. In the
power of perfect love, which is ever regardless of self, and consults
the happiness of others, he remembers Mary his mother. Whilst
her Divine Son hangs upon the cross, that sword of which Simeon
once prophesied to her, pierces through her soul (Luke ii. 35). All
that she had experienced in the happiest periods of her life, now
becomes darkened to her ; doubts agitate her soul. The moment
of her own new birth is come : the earthly mother of Christ must
now also spiritually bear the new man, the Christ within us ! To
John, the faithful disciple, it is natural to suppose that no exhorta-
tion was necessary to induce him to take to his own home the mo-

* Samuel, whose spirit had been evoked from the dead by the witch of Endor, ad-
dressed Saul in the contrary sense where he said, " to-day shalt thou and thy sons be
with me (in Sheol)." 1 Samuel xxviii. 19. [To those who reject the above interpreta-
tion of 1 Pet. ill 18, in regard to Christ's descent into the place of departed spirits, tliia
argument of Olshausen's will of course have no weight. To me this interpretation seema
indefensible by any legitimate exegesis. Also the distinction here drawn between con-
version and regeneration seems unfounded in the New Testament. And if the dying
robber was to be with the Saviour in Paradise, and this conceived by the Jews as the
" bosom of Abraham," the abode of the faithful of all previous ages, it is difficult to seo
what higher blessings the Saviour could have promised him, or to recognbo any dislino
tion made between him and other believers.. — [K.

92 Matthew XXVII. 45-50.

tlier of his Lord.* She dwelt indeed in the bosom of love, so that
nothing could ever have been wanting to her. But for her sate the
Lord spoke from his cross the word of consolation. The feeling of
abandonment would have been too powerful to her, therefore Jesus
presents to her a second sou, instead of the beloved one she deemed
herself to have lost.

In reference to the persons who are mentioned as standing near
the cross (John xix. 25), it is to be observed, that according to
Matth. xxvii. 55, and the parallel passages, the persons named along
with others (Luke xxiii. 49, even says ■ndv-eg ol yvuarol avrov, where
it is plain the ndvreg is not to be pressed), beheld the occurrence
from a distance (jxaKpodev). This statement harmonizes very simply
with the description of John, if we suppose that afterwards some
few of them approached near to the cross. Of the disciples, only
the faithful John seems to have thus ventured. Amongst the
women yet a third Mary is named, besides Mary the mother of
Jesus, Maiy Magdalene, and Salome. John (xix. 25), expressly
calls her the sister of the mother of Jesus, and the wife of a certain
Cleopas. But Matthew and Mark distinguish her as the mother of
James (whom Mark xv. 40, names " James the less,") and of Joses.
If on this point we compare Matthew xiii, 55, it will appear, that
amongst the so-called brethren of the Lord {d6eX(poi<; rov Kvptov),
were the two persons thus named. Hence the supposition is ren-
dered very probable, that those brothers of Christ were sons of his
mother's sister, and consequently his cousins. The name " James
the less" seems employed to distinguish, as an ordinary disciple, that
brother of the Lord thus named, from James the Apostle. Accord-
ing to John vii. 5, and Acts i. 14, it is quite certain that amongst
the twelve there was no brother of Jesus.

Matthew xxvii. 45-50. — After these aftecting incidents upon
Golgotha, the moment at length approached in which " the prince
of life" expired (Acts iii. 15). The sublimity of this moment seems
to have been symbolically solemnized even by nature herself ; whilst
the light of the world appeared to be extinguished, darkness, from
the sixth until the ninth hour, extended itself over the whole land,
(r^ is to be understood of the land of Palestine.) Luke remarks
further, and very expressly, " the sun was darkened" {taKorioOr] 6
i]Xioc;). This might be explained by the supposition of a solar
eclipse, were it not that, the full moon occurring at the period of
Easter, forbids such an hypothesis.

But, on the other hand, nothing hinders the supposition of other
general physical causes to account for this darkening, for neither is

* This passage is to me decisive ou the question, that Mary had no actual son, else
would not the Saviour have entrusted his mother, as a solitary vridow, to a stranger.
This would have been an open slight to the brother.

Matthew XXVII. 45-50. 93

it mentioned that anything peculiarly miraculous was involved in it,
nor can there be any object subserved in making such an assump-
tion. There is merely suggested the idea, that with the Lord of
Nature the creation itself sufi'ered : that it spread around the tra-
gedy of Golgotha the curtain of night, to veil the guilt which was
now being consummated, and for that object God could control and
direct even natural phenomena.'-' The Scriptural doctrine of
Providence, which excludes all chance coincidences, warrants no
other view of this event than that which we have given.f As the
moment of his death drew near, there returned yet a severer trial for
the Saviour. It was the last of his mortal life, replete with trials,
but perhaps the severest, since the soul was forcibly divorced from the
bonds of the sacred body, which was of necessity the more exquisitely
sensible to agony because of its freedom from sin. To this event
applies in general what was observed on Matthew xxvi, 36, et seq.,
in reference to the conflict of Christ in Gethsemane ; but what we
had to assume, in order to explain the phenomena of that conflict, is,
here clearly expressed. Here the Saviour, in the words of Psalm
xxii. 1, openly complains of his being forsaken of God. Every at-
tempt to superficialize this mysterious exclamation must be rejected
at the outset. The Saviour does not give utterance to this senti-
ment because the 22d Psalm contains it. In accordance with the
essential truth and harmony of his whole life, the Saviour spoke no

* Concerning the darkness at the death of Jesus, compare the treatise by Grausbeck,
Tubingen, 1835. How deeply it lies in human nature to regard natural events symbolic-
ally as manifesting a sympathy between the life of nature and the incidents of humanity,
is shewn by parallel passages from the profane writers. Amongst the passages of Virgil,
Georgic L 463, et seq., is particularly worthy of note :

Sol, tibi signa dabit ; solem quis dicere falsum.

Audeat ? Ille etiam csecos instare tumultus.

Ssepe monet, fraudemque et operta tumescere bella.

Ille etiam exstincto miseratus Csesare Romam ;

Quam caput obscura nitidum ferrugine {i. e. caligine) texit,

Impiaque seternam timuerunt ssecula noctem.
Such parallels are so little calculated to favour a mythical interpretation of the evan*
gelical history, that they afford decisive evidence of its historical character. In the
history of Immanuel, appear realized in their perfect truth the confused and variously dark-
ened presages and presentiments of humanity. The passage quoted from Virgil acquires
a peculiar interest, if we compare the description by Dante (Inferno, Canto 34), where
the death of Cajsar and that of Christ are brought forward in connexion, in that the
poet discovers in the former sufferer, the representative of all earthly power, and in the
latter the possessor of all spiritual might. Judas, Brutus, and Cassius appear to the poet
as the greatest criminals in the history of the world, and as such are placed in the lowest
depth of hell.

f The darkness and the earthquake seem clearly intended to be represented by the
Evangelists as miraculous. That this miraculous character is not mentioned is in accord-
ance with their general mode of describing such events. But how else are we to account
for those phenomena ; and assuredly if miracles clustered about the commencement of our
Lord's earthly life, they are no less fitting attendants on its tragic and awful cloae.~[K.

94 Matthew XXVII. 45-50.

word which did not perfectly correspond with the reality. But to
refer the abandonment merely to his outward sufferings, is forbid-
den by every more profound conception of it ; for the most extreme
physical suffering is no abandonment to him whose internal nature
is filled with Divine energy and happiness. But the magnitude of
the sufferings of Christ consisted in the fact that his physical tor-
ments were united with the divestiture of his soul of all spiritual
energy. His bodily nakedness was, as it were, a type of his being
inwardly divested of all heavenly adornments. When we reflect
that such abandonment was experienced by him who had said, " I
and my Father are one ; he that seeth me seeth the Father also ;
the Father leaveth me not alone" (John viii. 29), we shall perceive
that the object of that abandoment, like that of the death of Christ
generally — (which is to be regarded only as the acme of all suffer-
ings)— must have been unique and infinitely great. (Compare the
Conim. on Matth. xxvi. 36, where intimations of the ensuing dis
cussion have been given.)

According to Scripture itself, this object was twofold. First,
the course of suffering, and the agonizing withdrawal of God from
him, were necessary to render perfect the human personality of the
Lord himself. In the epistle to the Hebrews we have the clearest
and most direct statements to this effect. Sufferings, it is said
(Heb. ii. 10), had made the captain of salvation perfect ; and,
although he was the Son of God, yet, in that which he suffered, did
he learn obedience (v. 8, 9, vii. 28). In this epistle especially, pro-
minent reference is made to the compassion of Christ. Thus it is
said, ii. 17, in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his
brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in
things pertaining to God. (Compare Heb. iv. 15.)

But, secondly, the Saviour in himself, and in his personality, at
the same time perfected all those whom he, as the second Adam,
bore potentially in himself ; as it is mentioned in Heb. x. 14, " by
one offering, hath he perfected for ever them that are sanctified."
But this " perfecting of all" has both a negative and a positive char-
acter, which indeed always stand in close connexion, yet cannot be
regarded as interchangeable. The negative character consists in
cancelling the guilt of the sinful life, reconciliation with God ; ■•' the

* Compare on the idea of satisfaction, the profoundly intelligent essay, published, with
a particular reference to Goshel, on this question, in Tholuck's "Litter. Anzeiger, Jahrg.
1833, Num. 10, fif," with which should be compared the particulars in the observations
on Rom. iii. 25. When Schleiermacher, in his " Glaubenslehre," interprets reconciliation
as merely " reception into the community of the blessedness of Christ," there disappears
manifestly the necessary objective feature (which with him is always thrown into the
background), namely, the harmonizing of justice and grace in the Divine nature itsel£
Ritzsch ChristL Lehre. s. 186, in the forcible style of a realist, expresses this opinion

Matthew XXVII. 45-50. 95

forgiveness of sins. As will be explained at Komans iii. 25, and
Hebrews ix. 22, this negative efficacy would have been impossible,
in consequence of the absolute justice of God, without the shedding
of blood ; in submitting to which condition the Saviour presented
the most exalted manifestation of the voluntary self-devotedness of
•sacrificial love. In this respect, therefore, the dying Redeemer
appears as the " lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the
world." The positive character consists in the communication of
a higher principle of life ; emancipation from the slavery of sin ; the
creation of the new man, of Christ within us. This latter element
is indicated by the resurrection which is the necessary sequel of
Christ's death. The death of Jesus indicates the former (or negative
character), the ultimate point of his self-sacrificing love (Rom. vi.
1, et seq.) In regard to the idea of his abandonment, it is necessary
still to remind the reader that no Gnostic ideas, such as the with-
drawal of the celestial Christ, so that only the man Jesus suffered,*
are to be accepted.

Passages such as John viii. 29, xvi. 32, shew that the union of
the Divine and human natures in Christ was such that they were
and are immiscible, and at the same time inseparable. The aban-
donment therefore took place as a hiding only of Divinity, not as a
proper removal of it. (As regards the form of the citation, Mark
XV. 34: gives the Aramaic text more closely. For the Hebrew 'HAi, =
•"Vn, he has 'EAwi = ^ri^N. For the Hebrew "spstn both have the
Aramaean ■'ip)'?®. The vocative form Oet- in Matthew is entirely
unusual. Compare Winer's Gramm. p. 62, and upon Iva H in the
signification of " Wherefore," p. 145.)

In the following verses (47 et seq.) we are informed that the by-
standers misunderstood the exclamation of Christ. They thought

very fitly thus : " Christ, folio-wing the impulse of Diviae mercy, constituted himself a
principle of life and death."

* Sartorius, in the excellent treatise upon the relation of the Divine and human na-
tures in Christ (in den dorpatischen Beitriigen, ersten Heft, im auszuge in der Evang. K.
Zeit. Feb. 1833), expresses himself concerning the relation of the Divine nature in Christ
to the sufferings of his human nature, in the following manner: — "God limited the ful-
ness of the Divine nature in the human by the veil of the flesh, but without, on that ac-
count, altering it. In the same manner as the eye, when it lets down the eyelid, suffers
no change or limitation in the nature or possession of its peculiar faculty of operating at
an immense distance; but merely experiences a restraint in the exercise of this faculty.
"Without this enshrouding, no incarnation, in the form of a servant, would have been pos-
sible, because the infinite brightness of deity would have repelled altogether the darkness
of human suffering. But the shadows of death in this manner surrounded the veiled
majesty. Or rather, not merely do its shadows obscure that majesty ; but through the
unity of the Divine and human consciousness, the veritable /eeKn*; of sufferings penetrated
the very mind of deity. Thus, though the soul, by its very nature, is immortal and lives,
whilst the body is dying, and after the body is dead, yet by reason of its personal union
with the body, it experiences, in the unity of consciousness, all the bodily pains of eick-
nesa, and all the horror of death.

96 Matthew XXYII. 45-50.

he called for Elias, who was expected as tlie forerunner of the Mes-
siah. Several commentators have been disposed to regard these
words as additional mockery, but this is not intimated by a single
syllable. We must rather infer, that a secret horror now overspread
their minds, a feeling which the most daring are often the first to
experience, and that it subsequently affected them powerfully
(Matth, xjsvii. 54, Luke xxiii, 48). Those rude mockers may have
feared that there might be something real in the Messiahship of the
crucified Jesus, and have trembled at the thought that Elias might
appear in a tempest. Psychologically considered, this conclusion is
very probable. For even the rudest nature, when it has wearied
itself with mockery and insult against suffering innocence, feels it
necessary to pause, and .some nobler feeling, if only the terror of a
guilty conscience, for a time assumes the mastery. Hence, when
the Lord cried out " I thirst" (John xix. 28, 29), a person immedi-
ately ran and presented him with a draught. (John calls to mind
that even this exclamation fulfilled a prophecy, Psalm Ixix. 21. In
the iva TeXetuOfi = TrXrjQcjdi], the 'Iva must not be referred to Jesus
as if his only object in uttering the exclamation was the fulfilment
of this prophecy ; it must be referred to the general purpose of God.
The reference of the formula to eMwf, which is maintained by Ben-
gel and Tholuck, I regard as entirely untenable ; 'iva in this passage
must be taken reXiKoJg. — Whilst Matthew and Mark mention that
the sponge filled with sour wine ({Ifof), was tied upon a reed, John
says more particularly it was tied upon a stalk of hyssop. This
plant has indeed but a short stalk, but the cross was very low, and
only a short reed was requisite for the object contemplated.) After
Jesus had received the drink, he cried yet again, with a loud voice,
and expired. According to John xix. 30, the Redeemer uttered
the words, " it is finished" (rereAecrrai). That this expression did
not refer to what was merely physical, is evident from the preceding
sentence, " Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished"
(el6u)g 6 ^Irjaovg, on Travra 7'j6t) TETeXeoTai). But, irrespective of
this, reflection upon the personal character of the Lord will lead to
a more comprehensive sense of this weighty expression. Ever
filled with the remembrance of the sublime objects of his mis-
(sion, he now regarded them as completely fulfilled and accom-
plished.* His victory over all the assaults of darkness, was the
pledge of his complete triumph, just as by Adam's fall all was lost.
(Compare Eom. v. 12, et seq.) According to Luke xxiii. 46, Jesus,

* The Christian poet has expressed himself in accordance with this interpretation :
" That too, -which day and night I perfect,
Is by e'en thee, in me perfected."
The perfection of every particular is therefore not needed in the first insta-jce, but will be
received in faith from the riches of Christ.

Matthew XXVII. 51-54. 97

in conformity with Psalm xxxi. 5, added the words, ndreg, elg x^^^P"-^
GOV napadTJaoimc rb nvev^d (xov, Father, into thy hands, etc. In the
address, " Father," he expresses the full consciousness of his son-
ship, which was undisturbed even by his extreme sufferings. But
while the soul of Christ went to the dead in Sheol (1 Pet. iii, 18),
his hodij rested in the grave, and his spirit returned again to the
Father. In the resurrection, all three were again conjoined in har-
monious unity.

Ver. 51-54. — To this plain description, given without comment
or reflection, of the greatest incident in the history of the world, the
turning-point of the old and new worlds, the Synoptical writers add
an account of certain phenomena which accompanied and followed
it, in which the material universe, by physical occurrences, gave
witness of that which was accomplished,* as in the visions of angels
the sympathy of the spiritual world took utterance at the birth of
Jesus.f At the moment when the Prince of Life (Acts iii. 15), ex-
pired, the earth quaked, the rocks were burst asunder, and the veil of
the Temple was rent. (In Matth. the ml ISov affirms that these were
simultaneous occurrences.) Luke has anticipated their date in his
account xxiii. 45. The KararreTaaiia corresponds to the Hebrew fis.hs,
which signifies the curtain in front of " the Holy of Holies :" the
curtain in front of the holy place was called SiOtt, which is rendered
by KciXvuna in the LXX. (Compare the words in Gesenius' lexicon.)
Here again it is quite indifferent whether we regard the earthquake
as a usual one or not. For mere chance, as is self-evident, must be
totally excluded ; and therefore the event must for ever remain a
profoundly significant symbol. With the death of the Saviour, a
light penetrated into all that was hidden. The graves were opened.
Hades and its dead beheld the celestial radiance. The barred en-
trance to the heaven of Grod, which was typified in the earthly tem-
ple, was thrown open to man. Now when those who stood around
observed those movements of nature, an indistinct apprehension led

* Iq the Christian Treasury of Song, the ethical importance of these occurrences is
Btrikingly represented in those celebrated lines :

If) when Christ dies, creation heaves around,
Thou too, my soul, shouldst not unmoved be found.
Da selbst die creatur sich regt,
So, sey auch du, mein herz bewegt.
f In the critical periods of man's moral history, the creation always appears in pecu-
liar co-operation with the spirit. Interesting parallels of this kind are furnished by a
comparison of the history of the fall with the history of Christ's sufferings. By the tree of
knowledge, mankind fell : by the tree of the cross, he was restored. In the garden (Eden),
the first Adam ate the fruit and fell ; in the garden (Gethsemane), the second Adam con-
quered, and in the garden he enjoyed in the grave the Sabbatic rest. In fruit (of the tree
of knowledge) the first man ate to himself death : in i\\e fruit of the vine believers at the
Lord's supper enjoy eternal life. Sin caused those thorns to grow which were to form the
regal coronet of the Son of God.

98 Matthew XXVII. 51-54.

them to the correct conclusion, that there was a connexion hetween
these appearances and the crucifixion of Christ. The Roman cen-
turion even uttered his conviction, that this person might well have
"been a Son of* God. (According to Luke xxiii. 47, he gave glory to
God, [ido^aoe rov 0e6v] — he was probably a proselyte — and termed
Jesus a diicaiog, righteous man.) (Comp. Matth. xxvii. 19.) In
Mark xv. 39, the description is inaccurate, in that there appears not
the proper reference to the earthquake. Even the rest of the mul-
titude, who came merely to see a sight, were seized with a feeling of
horror. They smote upon their breasts and turned away ; they
knew not that they had just beheld an event which the angels de-
sired to contemplate (1 Peter i. 12). Matthew subjoins, by way of
anticipation, a very remarkable statement. He informs us, that at
the earthquake not only did the graves (cut in the rocks) open, but
that many of the saints arose, and (subsequently) went into the holy
city, and appeared there to many. The only interpretation of this
statement which, next to the literally historical one, can gain cur-
rency, is the mythical. For the so-called natural one which connects
the loss of some dead bodies, which the earthquake had thrown from
their graves, with certain casual dreams of some citizens of Jeru-
salem, is assuredly too meagre.* But the mythical interpretation
in so extraordinary an occurrence, certainly appears to commend
itself ; and hence it is no wonder that the numerous opponents of
the doctrine of a bodily resurrection all incline towards it.

Here, however, as in all similar cases, the nearness of the time
would not permit the construction of a myth, since numerous con-
temporary witnesses of the event would have been able to contradict
it. The defenders of the mythical view may, however, in this case,
take refuge under that hypothesis respecting this Gospel which as-
sumes it to be not written by the Apostle Matthew himself, in the
form in which we possess it. Now, improbable as this conjecture
appears to me, yet we may at any moment concede its probability,
and still maintain decisive ground against interpreting the passage
mythically, namely, that this view is formed wholly in contradiction
to analogy, and even to the generally received dogmas of the faith.
Christ himself was regarded assuredly as the "ngui-oTOKog tic rdv ve-
KpoJv. the first-born from the dead (Coloss, i. 18 ; Rev. i. 5) — a view
with which this statement (of Matthew) appears to be irreconcila-
ble. Hence a myth would undoubtedly have interpolated this state-
ment into the account of the resurrection of Christ, not into that
of his death. But, if the resurrection of the dead in general has
been once recognized by Christian consciousness, then this occur-

* Just as little does the notion of Stroth, that the passage is not authentic, need a
particular con tradiction. (Compare Eichhorn's Bibl. B. ix.) For this latter conjecture^
no proofs, external or internal, can be adduced.

John XIX. 31-37. 99

rence expresses merely the simple thought (which in another rela-
tion was previously mentioned at Luke xiv. 14, respecting the
righteous of the New Testament dispensation) that the resurrection
took place gradually, and that with the Saviour the saints of the
ancient covenant attained to the glorification of the body (Isaiah
xxvi. 19). In any case, the hypothesis of the late Steudel (" Glau-
benslehre," p. 455), with which Krabbe (" Von der Sunde," p. 297)
agrees, is altogether untenable ; namely, that there is no mention
at all of a bodily resurrection, but only of mere apparitions of the
dead, thus furnishing a guarantee of their life. This hypothesis is
contradicted in the most decided manner, by the plain meaning of
the words " many bodies of sleeping saints arose" (noXXd adjfiara twv
KeKot[i7]fievo)v dyio)v Tj-yepdrj). A bodily resurrection, with which there
should be associated a subsequent liability to death, is, of course, in-
conceivable ; hence there remains no other tenable view than that
which we have explained, and which corresponds most closely with
the entire Scripture doctrine of the resurrection. The difficulty just
touched upon respecting the relation of these risen ones to Christ,
as the " first-bom of the dead" (this discussion cannot be affected
by the cases of Enoch and Elijah, because they did not taste death
at all) might be removed by supposing that the actual going-forth
out of their graves did not occur until after the resurrection of the
Lord ; so that " after the resurrection" Qxsrd rriv t'yepatv) should be
taken in connexion with " coming forth" {k^eXdovre^). The death of
Christ thus appears as a blow which vibrated through and shook all
things, but his resurrection as the proper act of quickening to the
sleeping world of the saints. The first advent of the Saviour pos-
sesses in this event a peculiar grace, by which it appears aU the more
recognizable as a type of the future glorious appearing of the Lord.
Everything which shall yet occur in its fullest extent in the Parou-
sia,* was thus indicated partially in Christ's first advent.

§ 6. The Burial of Jesus.

(Matthew xxvii. 57-66 ; Mark xv. 42-47 ; Luke xxiii. 50-56 ; John xix. 31-42.)

After the soul of Jesus had forsaken the pure temple wherein it
had dwelt, his sacred body was not left unregarded, as the mere in-
significant envelope of a heavenly phenomenon ; a wondrous provi-
dence of God hovered over it, and averted from it every kind of
injury revolting to the feelings. John (xix. 31-37), conscious of

* Compare Rev, xi., where the resurrection of the two witnesses, the earthquake ac-
companying that event, the opening of the temple of God, which stands parallel with tho
rendmg of the veil, and other incidents, are described.

100 John XIX. 31-37.

the importance of this circumstance, has given the most careful
information concerning its particulars. In this account we possess
as decisive a guarantee as was possible, in a physical point of view,
of the reality of the death of Jesus ; and also a proof of the sig-
nificance which Christian feeling attaches to our corporeal nature.
Christianity is ffir from conforming to that comfortless view which
regards the body as merely the prison of the human spirit ; a view
which conducts to rigid asceticism only. And just as foreign is it
from the hollow notion that sin arises merely from the attractions
of sense, and hence that death and sin cease along with our sen-
suous appetites, a view which favours Epicureanism. Rather does
the Gospel regard it as the object of the connexion between body
and soul, that the former should be glorified as the temple of the
Holy Spirit, so that the language of a profound thinker is thor-
oughly scriptural, "without body no soul, without corporeity no
bliss,"

According to the Jewish custom (Deut. xxi. 22, 23), the bodies
of persons who had been executed, were required to be removed on
the same day on which they died. The Jews besought Pilate,
therefore, that they might end the lives of those who were crucified,
as it was then the preparation day before the Sabbath.* (Uapaa-
KEvrj, so named also by Mark xv, 42, and by Luke xxiii. 54, who calls
the succeeding Sabbath " great" because occurring during the Pas-
chal festival.) It was customary to break the limbs of those who
were sufi'ering crucifixion, and who were invariably persons of the
meanest condition, in order to hasten their death. This was done

* Compare the observations on Matth. xxvi. 17, and John xix. 14. Liicke errone-
ously supposes, from John xix. 31, that a view of the -irapaaKev^ contrary to that conveyed
by the above passages may be deduced, since he says, " The annexed expletive would
have no object, if the mipaaKevi/ was the ordinary Sabbatical one." On the other hand,
however, Tholuck has correctly remarked (on John xiii. 1, s. 250) that the addition is
BufiBcieutly explained, from the circumstance that the Sabbath, falling during the Paschal
festival, although not coinciding with the first holy-day of the Passover, thereby gained a
particular dignity. Besides, in the latter case no mention would have been made of a
great Sabbath day, by way of distinction, for if the first day of the Passover \^ere to fall
upon a Sabbath, so must the last also. As we have already remarked on Matth.
xxvL 17, all the Evangelists are agreed unanimously in respect to the week days of the
passion week ; it is only concerning the time of the paschal feast that they seem to vary
in their accounts. Hitzig's representation of the case ("Easter and Pentecost," p. 38),
which concedes the correctness of John in opposition to the Synoptical writers, is un-
tenable, for the following reason, namely, because, between the Sabbath, in which the
Lord lay in the grave, and the day of the resurrection, he quite arbitrarily intercalates
a au(i(iaTov devreponpuTov. But this hypothesis nothing in the evangelical history can
justify, except, apparently, the statement (Matth. xii. 40) that the Messiah would rest in
the earth thrne days and three nights. Yet, however we may explain this passage, in no
case could the succession of the days of the passion-week be determined from it ; and
least of all, in its explanation, could so obscure an expression as au^[iaTov devreponptf
Tov, be here introduced. Compare Luke vl 1.

John XIX. 31-37. 101

with clubs, after which a stroke on the breast terminated the suffer-
ings of the unhappy beings. (Compare Lactant. Instit. Div. iv. 26.)
Pilate probably sent a special division of soldiers on this duty.
These accomplished the punishment, in reference to the two male-
factors ; but when they came to Jesus (whom, it seems, they had
not seen expire), they found that he was dead already.

In order, meanwhile, to assure themselves of his death, one of
the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and immediately there
flowed forth blood and water. But in other respects they did not
touch him, so that, by the most remarkable adjustment of minute
circumstances, his body was to be left free from mutilation. (Nvaaw,
in ver. 34, certainly often signifies only to scratch, but it signifies
also " to wound deep," " to pierce into." As, for instance* in the
Iliad of Homer, E. v. 45, et seq. •

Tdv fitv up' 'Idofievevg 6ovpiKXvTbg eyx^l fiaKp^
Nt;f , liT-uv i^vijSriaofiei'Ov, Kara 6e^ibv (^/xov.

In immediate sequence it is then mentioned that he who was
wounded with this spear-thrust died.) John was himself an eye-
witness of this transaction. With the most energetic impressivenesa
he gives assurance of the truth of his record (ver. 35), in order to pro-
duce faith in his readers. At the same time he introduces two
quotations from the Old Testament in which these events were inti-
mated, namely. Exodus xii. 46, and Zechariah xii. 10. The former,
Ex. xii. 46, refers to the paschal lamb,* of which a bone was not to
be broken. In this, John therefore discovered a type of the Saviour.
(In the Septuagint the passage reads thus : koI dorovv ov awTQiipe-e
cm' avTov.) In the second passage, Zech. xii. 10, not only the wound-
ing of Christ, but also the circumstance that his wounds should be a
mark by which he might be known, in the first instance to the Jews,
and then to the world at large ; compare particularly the passage
Kev. i. 7. The translation which John gives is not different from
that of the LXX. by mere accident, but was made expressly in ref-
erence to the existing fact, in accordance with the original text.
The LXX. have, for instance, koX emPXt-ipovrai npog jie, dvd' c5v Karcop-
X'qoavTo.f John could not at all have employed the passage for his
object in this form. He therefore translated the Hebrew ?i;?t; n^q.x nw
that is, the very person whom they pierced dg bv t^eKtvTTjaav. The
LXX. could not make these words intelligible, as said concerning
God. They therefore took ">p.7 in the sense of " to despise," and
explained the words nrx ns as ii?x?.

* Upon the question whether the paschal lamb was a sacrifico, and therefore capable
of being regarded as a type of the atoning Christ, compare the observations upon Matth.
xtvi 17.

f Pliavorinua explains the KaTupxr/aavTO hj tvinai^av, " tbej ridiculed" " mocked."

102 John XIX. 31-37.

After this general explanation of the passage, the question now
arises, for what reason did John attach so much importance to this
fact ? We might suppose that it was intended as a proof of the
certainty of the death of Jesus. And in modern times it has been
actually so regarded ; yet we nowhere find any trace in the ancient
church that the reality of Christ's death was doubted. Nor are such
doubts at all accordant with the views of Christian antiquity.

It is far more probable that this account (of John) had reference
to docetic views, and was meant therefore to establish the reality of
the corporeity of Christ. This conclusion is further sustained by
the observation of Celsus, that many Gnosticizing Christians ascribe
to Christ a kind of ichor, because they regard his body as aetherial.
(Compare my History of the Gospels, p. 350.) The remarkable
way in which John understands the water and the blood which
issued from the wound in the side of Jesus, as symbolical, will be
particularly treated on at 1 John v. 6, et seq. A second question,
however, besides what John immediately intended in these words, is
the following, namely, " What says the passage to us ?"

Since some have begun to doubt whether the Lord actually died
on the cross, the account here given by John has been employed, as
was just observed, in order to prove that the spear-thrust, which
most probably penetrated the pericardium which was filled with
water, and the heart, must have caused the death of Christ, if there
had been life yet in him. And so much is clear, that the design of
the soldier in giving the spear- thrust was to end his life,* if he per-
haps should have only fallen into a swoon. It certainly is more ad-
visable, in so important an inquiry as that concerning the truth of the
death of Christ, not to conduct it upon external data exclusively,
which, by the doubting mind, may be readily interpreted either for
or against the fact. Since the fact of his death (as we observed in
reference to the accounts of the awakening of the dead) cannot be
demonstrated on external grounds,f we must adduce internal proofs
of the fact, which will be more particularly examined in the history of
the resurrection. At present we shall content ourselves with making
this general remark on the subject, that it must be regaded as a par-
ticular providence of God, that in the Eedeemer the heart should
have been pierced, and the conduits of the blood opened in his

* This has been discussed upon medical principles by the physician Gniner, and
more recently by Schmidtmann. Compare also the treatise entitled " Is the death of
Jesus to be understood as merely an apparent death ?" In Klaiber's Stud. voL 2, H. 2,
p. 84, et seq.

I The piercing of the heart would indeed have been an absolutely mortal wound, but
as the heart is not here expressly named as the part that was wounded, to him who
wishes to doubt, the resource is constantly available of regarding the wound as a less
dangerous one. The Scriptures will never force men to believe, hence they permit on
this point a possibility of doubt to the unbelieving.

Matthew XXVII. 57-61. l03

nands and feet, yet without destroying or altering nis perfect
organism.

After this event, the Synoptical Evangelists (see Matth. xxvii.
57-61, and parallels, and compare therewith John xix. 38-42), re-
cord the exertions of certain influential friends of Jesus in reference
to his body. John (ver. 39) names Nicodemus, and alludes to his
former ^dsit to Jesus by night (John iii. 1, et seq.) The principal
person, however, was Joseph of Arimathea. {'Apiiiddata is either men,
Bamah, in the tribe of Benjamin, mentioned in Matth. ii. 18, and called
in Syriac «^«"n, or since that town is called 'Pa^d by Matthew, it
was probably c^rrnn, a city in the tribe of Ephraim (1 Sam. i. 1),
which the LXX. call by the name of 'ApanaOatji.)

This city, it is true, stood originally in the territory of the Sa-
maritans, but it was afterwards annexed to Judea, 1 Maccabees xi.
28-34 : and hence Luke xxiii. 51 might with propriety designate it
as a city of the Jews.

This worthy man was a disciple of the Lord, but the fear of
man had hitherto prevented him from openly professing his attach-
ment to Jesus, John xix. 38. Meanwhile what he could not pre-
vail on himself to do whilst Jesus was living, he had resolution
to do now that he was dead. He besought Pilate for the body of
Christ. Notwithstanding his infirmity, Joseph certainly belonged
to the nobler minded class of the Jewish people, who waited with
longing expectation for the fulfilment of all the prophecies. (Com-
pare upon the TrpoaSexsoOai rfjv PaaiXetav rov Geov, the Comm. on
Luke ii. 25.) He was a man of a benevolent character (Luke xxiii.
50, dyadog Kal SiKaiog), wealthy (Matth. xxvii. 57), and an influential
member of the Sanhedrim (£vo%?/ficjv BovXevnjg^ Mark xv. 43).

Many would have him to have been a counsellor of Arimathea ;
but this supposition is forbidden by Luke xxiii. 51, in which passage
it is expressly mentioned that he had refused his concurrence in the
sentence against Jesus, or rather that he opposed it. Jesus then
may have been sentenced by a majoi'ity of voices in the Sanhedrim,
whilst such men as Gamaliel and others may have voted in opposi-
tion to the view of the majority. (IvyicaTaTideodai sell. 'i/'/]0oj', signi-
fies calculum adjicere — to add one's vote. It occurs here only in the
New Testament, yet in Acts i, 26, the synonyme ovyKara^Tjcpi^eadat.
It is frequent in the Septuagint. Compare Exodus xxiii. 1-32.)
After Pilate had learned that Jesus was dead, from the centurion,
who had been commanded to hasten the death of those that were
crucified, Mark xv. 44, he granted his body to Joseph. (The
tdojpriaa-o, in Mark xv. 45, is to be understood in its proper force ;
but thoroughly avaricious men, such as Verres (Cicero in Ver. v. 45,
51), required to be paid for delivering up the bodies of condemned
persons to be interred by their relatives or friends.) Joseph, when

104 Matthew XXVII. 62-63.

he had received the boon, enfolded the body of Jesus in a roll of
linen, with a mixture of sweet spices (John xix. 39), placed it in a
new sepulchre in his garden, and rolled a stone to its front. The
fact of the sepulchre having been new, and unused, is noticed as a
mark of honour. It was probably the vault intended for the inter-
ment of his own family, which Joseph devoted to the body of Christ.
But the whole proceeding took place hastily, for the Sabbath was
already drawing nigh, Luke xxiii. 54. Still some of the devoted
women who had faithfully accompanied their beloved Master from
Galilee, followed him even to his grave, where they sat down, sunk
in dejected sorrow (Matth. xxvii. 61), in order to see precisely how
his body was placed.

After their return, they prepared at home an ointment of sweet
spices, in order, immediately after the Sabbath, to place the be-
loved body in a meet condition for its rest. For on the Sabbath-
day itself they reposed, according to the ordinance (tvroA?/) of
the law (vojxo^) of Moses. (Upon oivScjv, compare at Mark xiv.
51. John, for the same word, employs, xix. 40, 666via = Ksipiaij
compare at John xi. 44, by which are meant the swathes in which
it was customary to enfold the corpses — 'EvrvXcaoo) (Mark has
eveiXeco) , to wrap up. In Hebrew "rj^s. Compare Buxtorf's Lexicon,
p. 1089.)

The burying places of the Jews were frequently hewn out in
rocks (/laro/^ew from Aa^ and rifivu)) : a block of stone closed up the
door-way, or horizontal entrance, (Comp. at John xi. 38.) Luke
has the usual expression Xa^tvrog, xxiii. 53, from Aaf and ^ew, to polish,
to hew out smoothly.) A difficulty still appears in the narration of
John, where he states that Nicodemus provided a mixture of myrrh
and aloes of about 100 pounds (piyna aiJ.vpv7]g koi dX67]g tjoel Xirgag
inarov.') (John xix. 39.) If we take the pound here, as with the
Romans and Greeks, to have contained twelve ounces, the quantity
appears too great. Hence Michaelis would understand under the
litra a lesser weight. But that this can signify such a lesser weight,
is entirely without proof. "We must consider, therefore, that this
extraordinary quantity of spices was employed, partly as an expres-
sion of profound reverence (like the superfluous quantity of oint-
ment used by Mary, John xii. 1, et seq.), and partly in order to
surround with it the whole body of Jesus.

Ver. 62-66. — " The morrow, which is the day after the prepara-
tion" (r^ 6e tnavpwVj 7]Tig iorl iitTo, ttjv 7rapacrK£vr/v), is a remarkable
mode of characterizing the Sabbath. Such a designation could
not of course be ordinarily applied, since the most important day
would not be mentioned after the less important one. Yet here
this mode of expression is perfectly in place, because the prepara-
tion, from the fact that the death of Christ occurred upon it, had

Matthew XXVII. 62-66. 105

acquired a greater importance than belonged to the Sabbath.
(Compare the particulars in my programme upon the authenticity
of Matthew.)

The struggle and contest being completed, the Sabbath was now
the day of rest* for the friends of the Lord. Yet the enemies of
Christ rested not. The torture of a guilty conscience drove ,them
again to Pilate. They told him of the prophecy concerning the re-
surrection, and requested that a watch might be placed over the
sepulchre until the third day. At this communication, what a feel-
ing must have agitated Pilate, may be conceived, by reflecting how
powerfully he had been affected already, upon learning that Jesus
had called himself the Son of God. Perhaps he gave his consent so
hastily, in order that he might receive certain information as to what
might occur relative to Jesus. True, the least conceivable thing to
him, in theory, was the return (to life) of a dead person, yet the
diviner element often prevails over unbelief, through the medium
of sentiment ; and the most sceptical may still be deeply super-
stitious, since the uneradicable feeling of invisible realities main-
tains its ground in spite of speculation. (Kovarwdta is among the
many Latin words, which specially, in reference to military trans-
actions, passed over to the Greeks and other people.) But as to the
sepulchre of Christ being surrounded by a Eoman guard, modern
criticismf has disputed the fact upon very specious grounds. Many
objections to it disprove themselves, as, for instance, that it is
improbable the Jews would on the Sabbath have requested the
guard from Pilate, or that the apostles would subsequently, when
arraigned before them, have appealed to this fact Other arguments
however, require investigation.

And first, the silence of the other three Evangelists is remark-
able, since this event so strongly confirmed the truth of the resurrec-
tion. If, however, we take in connexion the subsequent statement
of Matthew xxviii. 11-15, it will be evident that the Evangelists
might have had a positive reason for leaving untouched the occur-
rence regarding the guard. For if once such a report, as that the
disciples had stolen away the body of Christ, gained currency, it

* The significance of the great (quiet) Sabbath is not yet rightly understood in the
church, as is shewn by the fact that it is not solemnized as it ought to be, and not less
by our own want of more suitable hymns for the day, which yet as the day of rest of
him who is life itself, as the repose, after his creation of the second Adam, has so lofty a
poetic significancy. But the two chief features of the great Sabbath, in a dogmatical
sense, are— that it constitutes a type of the rest of the general church in the kingdom of
God — and that the soul of Jesus was meanwhile active in SheoL But the church baa
not yet rightly tasted the rest, nor carried out completely in practice the important doc-
trine of the descent into hell. Hence the neglect of this day.

f Comp. Stroth in Eichhorn's Repertorium, vol. ix,, and Dr. Paulus' Comm. " de cub*
todia ad sepulchrum. Jesu disposita, Jenae, 1795."

106 Matthew XXVII. 62-66.

is manifest that they could not employ the occurrence (of the watch)
against sceptics as a proof of the resurrection ; as in fact Matthew
does not apply it to that purpose, but merely reports it.

But, secondly, some have adduced an important objection from
this very narrative itself (Matth. xxviii. 12), which states that the
Sanhedrists held a formal sitting (ov(j.f3ovXtov Xa[36vTEg), in conse-
quence of information given by the soldiers, and in this assembly
passed a resolution to bribe the soldiers. Such a proceeding ap-
pears inconsistent with the decorum of such a college, and also with
the later declarations of Gamaliel (Acts v. 34), who desired merely
to leave it to time to discover whether or not there was anything
Divine in the newly arising church of Christ. It would seem also
that such a piece of deception could not have escaped the knowl-
edge of Pilate, who, considering the position he stood in towards
the Pharisees, would have been well inclined to expose it. To the
fact that the women, whilst going to the sepulchre, had no thought
about the watch, I should attach no importance, for the guard had
received no orders to prevent the body of Jesus from being properly
arranged. Besides, they may not have had any knowledge of the
entire occurrence during the Sabbath. Whether these difiSculties
can be completely obviated or not, I do not know ; but a certain
hesitancy, still remains in my mind. Pilate indeed might himself
also wish that the resurrection of Jesus should prove to be without
foundation, oppressed as he was by a feeling of guilt, and hence re-
main silent about the matter. But I cannot believe that such a
cheat would have been sanctioned by the resolution of a college,
especially since such men as Gamaliel, Joseph of Arimathea, and
Nicodemus, were members of it. Still, equally untenable is the
hypothesis that the whole account is but a tradition of a later date.
Matthew, who, as an eye-witness of the event, wrote in Jerusalem
at a time when many persons must still have been present there
who had a contemporaneous knowledge of the fact, could not have
adopted an entirely false statement of this kind concerning an
event wliich had become so notorious. Hence, the most prudent
course is to accept the statement as essentially correct in its facts,
but to concede an inaccuracy ia the account of the assembling of
the Sanhedrim.* Probably Caiaphas, as officiating high priest, dis-

* This concession to neologizing scepticism on the part of Olshausen, is almost inex-
plicable. He would seem to have forgotten his own vivid portraiture of the growing and
bitter hatred with which the heads of the Jewish Theocracy regarded the Saviour, and
to overlook the anxious and breathless interest with which they would await the results
of that recent crucifixion which had occurred amidst such solemn phenomena. It was
surely natural that they should procure a guard to watch tlie tomb (with a sort of latent
hope, not so much of preventing the stealing of the body, as of preventing its miraculous
resurrection), and when this guard unanimously assured them of the Lord's wonderful

Matthew XXVII. 62-66. 107

posed of the case alone, in an underhand way, and in this accep-
tation the narrative contains nothing at all improbable. Compare
Ease's Leben Jesu,p. 194.

disappearance, it is not only probable that the Sanhedrim should assemble, but incredible
that it should not. The attempt to bribe the soldiery to a falsehood, is the resort of des-
peration— a natural consummation of their malignant and infatuated opposition to one
whose life had been a career of miracles. Nor would Joseph, Nicodemus, and Gamahel,
be more likelj to arrest their fury in this crisis of the tragic scene, than in its previous
Btages. — [K.

SECOND PART.

OF THE RESURRECTION OP JESUS CHRIST.
(Matth. xxviii. ; Mark xv. ; Luke xxiv. ; John xx., xxi.)

The death of the Lord, and the shedding of his blood (Heb. ix.
22), were essentially involved in the prosecution of the work of
redemption. But it was equally necessary that death should be
vanquished* by his subsequent reswj'edion.-f The very notion of a
Saviour from sin and death, involves, as a necessary consequence, the
idea of that Saviour being himself sinless ; and therefore incapable,
except by his voluntary self-devotion to that death which was
necessary to the redemption of man, of dying, but, on that very ac-
count, incapable also of being holden by death. By his death, and
by the resurrection essentially connected with it, he stripped of
authority him who had the power of death (Heb. ii. 14), in order
that men, his brethren reconciled to God by his death, might be re-
deemed and translated into a new life. Hence the death and resur-
rection of Jesus represent the two parts of his collective ministry ;
the negative as well as the positive. (Rom. vi. 1, seq.)

From what has just been stated, it appears that the resurrection
was an event in the highest degree essential to the completion
of the sublime development of the Saviour's life, and it is in this
light that the history of the apostolic church represents it. The
resurrection was the great fact which the apostles published,
properly that alone. After the ascension to heaven, and the out-
pouring of the Holy Ghost, which were the first acts of the glorified
Saviour, those disciples who exhibited such weakness but a few days

* Amongst interesting treatises upon the resurrection, the reader should consult
Griesbacli, "De fontibus unde Evangelistae suas de resurrectione Domini narrationea,
bauserint," Jense 1793. Niemeyer, " De evangelistarum in narrando Christi in vitam
reditu dissensione," Halle, 1824. Further, compare the treatises by Velthusen in " Syl-
loge Commentt., vol. iv. page 77, et seq.," and by Seller in the same work, vol. vi. page
503, et seq. (The latter treats rather of the ascension.) And especially as regards the
nature of the resurrection, Krabbe on the doctrine of sin and death (Hamburg, 1836),
p. 275, et seq.

+ In connexion with the following observations upon the resurrection, consult what
is stated at Acts L 11, concerning the ascension into heaven.

Matthew XXVIII. 1. 109

before when Jesus was arrested, appeared thoroughly transformed
in their moral nature ; endowed with invincible boldness, with wis-
dom, calmness, and clearness of intelligence.

The origin of the Christian church is an incontrovertible matter-
of-fact proof, that a great event, a decisive transaction, must have
taken place, which was capable of supplying to its founders the per-
severing energy necessary for such an enterprise,* But this signi-
ficance of the resurrection appears only as we hold that the Saviour
did not rise again with the mortal body which he bore before his
crucifixion."}" Should we think, like many well-meaning persons,
that the Saviour, when truly dead, was again quickened by an act
of Divine Omnipotence, without any transformation having taken
place in his body, we fail to see in what the importance of this fact
consists. The raising of Lazarus would in that case have been a
precisely similar event, and in no manner could the apostle Paul (1
Cor. XV.), have been able to represent this occurrence as the founda-
tion of the faith, and the consummation of the victory over death and
the grave, since the body of Christ would have still continued sub-
ject to death. It would in that case be the ascension (to which the
advocates of this view are accustomed to attribute the glorification
of Christ's body), that must be viewed as the victory over death ; but
this cannot be, since all the apostles regarded the ascension as only
a consequence of the resurrection, which last event was to them the
chief and peculiar fact. Assuredly then this mode of apprehending
the resurrection, and of which even Tholuck approves (on John xx.
19, 20) could never have been maintained for a moment, if the state-
ments relating to the appearances of the risen Redeemer did not
seem to vouch for its correctness. The Lord, for instance, appeared
with a body possessing flesh and bone (Luke xxiv. 39), a body
which bore in it the wounds he received (John xx. 27) ; one that
partook of food (Luke xxiv. 42) ; one, in short, bearing a complete
resemblance to an ordinary mortal body : such expressions and
statements seem unsuited to the idea of a glorified body. Yet,
weighty as these remarks appear at the first view, they will be
found, upon more careful investigation, to be altogether untenable.

In the first case, for example, 'the spiritual body (oCJua nvevna-

* Hase, in his "Leben Jesu," s. 199, says, with entire correctness, "It is not the
essence of Christianity that depends on the resurrection, but its manifestation. The church
was founded by means of it." But it is bard to discover how the scholar just named can
ascribe this importance to the event of the resurrection, whilst he regards it as merely an
awakening from apparent death.

f This has been ably demonstrated by Krabbe (loc. cit. p. 300, et seq.) In the pas-
sage, Eom. vi. 9, the apostle asserts the impossibility of a recurrence of death to the risen
Saviour. This passage, taken m connexion with Philippians iii. 21, where a au/^a r^f
66^Tic is attributed to Christ, warrants the inference, that Paul himself regarded the body
of Jesus as glorified in the resurrection, since with the resurrection the glory of Christ

110 Matthew XXVIII. 1.

TiKov) must not "be confounded with the spirit (rrvevfio), properly so
called.* According to the express representation of the Apostle
Paul, the animal hody (oojua ipvxticov) becomes a spiritual one {nvev-
ftariKov) in the resurrection, hut it still remains a true body. Fur-
ther, if we consider that whilst the body of Christ, from his birth
upwards, with all its similarity to ours, was yet also very different
(since to it appertained a possibility, but not the necessity of
deathf), and hence the alteration it underwent during the process
of glorification was less striking ; we shall understand on the one
hand how the disciples could recognize him, and examine the marks
of his wounds, and on the other hand, why they discerned in him
an alteration so great that frequently they did not know him.
This consideration acquires the greater weight if we assume that the
process of glorification went on during the forty days (after his re-
surrection), and was not thoroughly perfected until the period of
his ascension to heaven. Lastly, in the history of the resurrection
(Luke xxiv. 42), no mention is made of his partaking of food from
necessity : its sole object was to convince those who were present of
the reality of his body. But finally, it is always assumed in Scrip-
ture (Rev. xxii. 2), that the bodies of the glorified partake of food,
though indeed, any accompanying physical process is expressly ex-
cluded (1 Cor. vi. 13). According to Gen. xviii. 8, even the three
men who appear to Abraham — (of whom one was the Angel of the
Lord, kut' i^oxrjv, that is, Jehovah), actually partake of food, though
they must be regarded as destitute of corporeity, and merely in-
vested with apparent bodies. The difficulties involved in the
hypothesis, of the glorified nature of the Lord's body in the resur-
rection, may therefore be thus removed : and at any rate they are
not of a nature to lead us astray in the essential point of this whole
occurrence, namely, that the Redeemer must have so arisen that
henceforth it is impossible for him to die again, which could only be
the case with a glorified body. The case is entirely different with
those who are not merely doubtful as to the time of the glorifica-
tion, but w^ho regard with suspicion the doctrine, although they do
not deny the resurrection. Alas, that modern philosophy, in ac-
cordance with its predominating idealism, should not yet be able to
appreciate the idea of a glorification of the body and of matter gen-
erally ! (Compare at Romans viii. 19, et seq.) But a few men
(especially Schubert and Steffens), distinguished equally as natur-

* Hase (" Leben Jesu," p. 202), is chargeable with this confusion in representing the
doctrine of a glorified body as docetic. The entire distinctness of the two doctrines is
best shewn by the opposition of the earliest Christian Fathers to doceticism, while yet,
■without exception, they taught the glorification of the body.

f That this character belonged to the body of Christ is indicated, for instance, by the
■walking of the Lord upon the sea^ his transfiguration, and other events of the evangelical
history.

Matthew XXVIIl. 1. Ill

alists and as philosophers, have acknowledged its truth and impor-
tance.*

The sacred Scriptures do not recognize that Dualism, which is
involved in the doctrine of an absolute separation of matter and
spirit. As in man the spirit appears in matter and united with it,
so are we taught by Scripture that it exerts an influence on matter,
defiles, sanctifies it, and, at last, even transforms it. Instead of
making this profound and comprehensive doctrine their own, and
gradually testing its philosophical power, some persons at once trans-
fer everything it includes into the region of mythology. The mere
idea of a return of one who had come from the world of spirits into
that world is all that, in their view, is expressed in the resurrection.
But the sober narratives of the Evangelists, which have descended
from a purely historical period, and were written by actual eye-wit-
nesses of the fact, stand — as we have already observed more than
once — in the most glaring contrast with the hypothesis of a mytJi.
And, besides, when we resolve the fantastic splendour of the myth,
we discover beneath it a reality that annihilates the idea of a Re-
deemer, and which yet must be received for truth, if we reject the
representation of the Evangelists. If, to wit, the bodily frame of
the Lord did not in fact arise, and that in a glorified state, then the
very victor over the grave must somewhere, and in some way, have
become a victim of the gTave,f were his spirit to have returned to
the realm of spirit.

After these remarks, there stiU remains to be noticed a view
which does not so much conceive the resurrection in a peculiar
light, as totally de7iy it. One class of the advocates of this view
(Dr. Paulus and Henneberg), maintain the fact itself, but in the

* It is surprising that the Holy Scriptures do not, for the purpose of elucidating the
relation between the new body and the old nature from whose elements it evolves itselfj
make use of so immediate an analogy, as that of the butterfly and the chrysalis, from
which it releases itself. Its reason seems to spring from the fact that Holy Scripture
leaves animal life generally in the background, and borrows its figures more frequently
from vegetable nature. The twilight existence of animals, and their half developed,
psychical, and yet unconscious character, unfits them for the illustrating of the pheno-
mena of that conscious spirit-life which struggles forth even from the faint dawn of child-
hood.

f Thus Hase, in his " Leben Jesu,'" s. 204, expresses it openly.

X The view that Christ's body was raised spiritual and glorified, seems not only con-
firmed by the general character of the risen Saviour's intercourse with his disciples (which
was occasional, rare, and mysterious), but demanded by the relation which his resurrec-
tion sustains to that of his people. If they rise from the dead with spiritual bodies, he,
who in all things was made like unto his brethren, sliould, as the "first fruits," rise in
like manner. Nor need we suppose a 2Jrocess of glorification continued to his ascension,
nor, again, appeal to his walking on the sea, as proof of an original difference of his body
from that of men in general. The walking on the sea was a miracle ; and resulted, not
from any peculiarities of his physical organism, but, like all his other miracles, from the
power of the indwelling Divinity. — f K.

112 Matthew XXVIII. 1.

resurrection of Christ allow only an awakening from a swoon. By
the holders of the view we first touched upon, who maintain that
the Saviour rose again in his mortal body, this opinion of Dr.
Paulus and Henneberg cannot be easily confuted from external
grounds. For the medical proofs of the reality of Christ's death,
from the wound made by the spear-thrust, are at least not irresist-
ible.* But, on the other hand, according to our interpretation, this
hypothesis has not the slightest degree of importance. For, assum-
ing that the Redeemer was only apparently dead, yet that circum-
Btance by no means impairs the significance of this event. For this
does not consist in the return of Jesus to life (this had also hap-
pened in the case of others without possessing any special weight),
but in the impossibility of dying again, which, with this return, was
given in the glorification of his body. This latter view necessarily
assumes a peculiar agency of God in the resurrection, and can never
be deceived by the flimsy hypothesis of an apparent death. But,
leaving aside all uncertain physical proofs, we have further, in
Christ's prophecies of his death, an immovable foundation whereon
to base our conviction of its reality. As in the case of Lazarus, and
all other dead persons who were awakened to life, it is only from the
word of Christ we can conclude with certainty that they were dead;
(since he openly declared, in cases where death had not taken place,
that the persons only sleptf ). So the word of Christ — the true wit-
ness— is the rock whereon alone rests the certainty that " He was
dead, and is again alive" (Rev. i. 18).

Attempts have not been wanting to obviate those clear, direct
expressions of Jesus, in reference to his prospective death and resur-
rection, which we have in Matthew xvi. 21, xvii, 22, xx. 19 ; in
Mark viii. 31, ix. 31, x. 34 ; and in Luke xviii. 33 ; besides the less
definite passages, Matthew xii. 40, xvi. 4. But so very weak are
the grounds upon which it is sought to make it appear probable
that these were put into the mouth of Christ, post eventum, by the

* Compare Bretschneider's essay in opposition to Dr. Paulus concerning the apparent
death of Jesus, in "Die Studien," 1832, h. 3, p. 625, et seq. He exposes an instance in
■which Dr. Paulus misunderstands Josephus, vit. c. 75, from which he concluded that
men, after having hung three days upon the cross, had been restored to life ; but, as Bret-
Bchneider shews, the passage contains nothing of the kind.

\ Compare my explanation of the awakening of the daughter of Jairus, Comm. Part
1. on Matth. If we must invert the signification of the simple, distinct declaration of
Christ, "The maiden is not dead, but she sleepeth," into the assertion; "The maidon
sleepeth not, but she is dead," I confess that I cannot see how wo can speak of any cer-
tain results of Exegesis. [But see the notes of Ebrard and the present editor on that
passage. There can be, of course, no doubt that the Saviour uttered the truth : the only
question is, how he meant to be understood. Here the whole discussion of the evidences
of the real or apparent death of Jesus is totally irrelevant with one who admits the his-
torical authority of the EvangeUsts. We have the same reason to believe that he waa
dead aa that he was crucified.] — [E.

Matthew XXVIII. 1. 113

disciples, that only the irresistible consciousness that in this way-
alone was the great fact itself lilicly to be rendered suspicious, could
have induced the originators of this attempt to lend to these grounds
the slightest importance. For in the first place it is said " the
risen Kedeemer appealed to the prophecies of the Old Testament
(Luke xxiv, 46), but not to his own."* But any one may easily
see forwhat reason the Lord made reference to the Old Testament ;
because, for example, it plainly devolved upon him, under such cir-
cumstances, to demonstrate to the disciples the common connexion
of the New Testament and the Old Testament economies with his
personal fortunes. A reference to his own former words would
therefore be of no importance to his object.

Again — some persons refer to the hopelessness of the disciples,,
which would not have been conceivable, if they had known anything
of the resurrection. But if we consider how hard it is to believe in
the fact of the resurrection, so hard, indeed, that even after the
lapse of 1800 years, many are still unable to believe it, although •
the church has received the doctrine among its most indispensable
articles of belief, we shall be disposed to form a milder judgment of
the apostles' inability to believe in the resurrection before it had
taken place, nor shall we be able to ascribe to that circumstance the
slightest force in disproof of the clear prophecies of the Eedeemer.
Peter did not believe that he could deny Christ, although it was
foretold to him, not to mention other circumstances, which shew
that the Lord had uttered many sayings which the disciples were
not able entirely to comprehend.f There now remains to be noticed
by us, only that obsolete opinion, which (like the Wolfenbiittle
Fragmentist) employs the seeming discrepancy that exists amongst
the four Evangelists, in order to make it probable that there was a
deception in the whole occurrence of the resurrection. Now the
account would have been far more suspicious, if, in unessential
points, it were entirely free from discrepancy. It is now perfectly
harmonious in the main facts of the narrative, but moves indepen-
dently in reference to secondary matters. Assuming, further, that

* Luke xxiv. 6-8. The angel, too, refers to Christ's prophecies conceming the resurrec-
tion. This circumstance leads to the conclusion, that the apostles had noticed similar
pre-announcements of it in his discourse, which in after times they called to mind. The
Lord's appealing to the Old Testament had besides the most important signi6cance in his
lips, since he acknowledged it as the eternal word of God, Matthew v. 17.

f A remarkable external evidence of the resurrection of Jesus is contained in the
passage, 1 Cor. xv. 6, from which it appears that many of the 500 disciples who beheld
the risen Lord in Galilee, were living at the time when the Apostle wrote to the Corinth-
ians. A more striking fact, in contradiction to the hypothesis, that the history of the
resurrection is of a mythical character, is scarcely imaginable. The defenders of the
myth have not, in the feeling of their weakness, attempted to invalidate sxich decisive
evidences as these — evidences which, in connexion with the admitted authenticity of
the Pauline epistles, possess all the more importance.
Vol. III.— 8

114 Matthew XXVIII. 1.

the discrepancies were utterly inexplicable, yet even this circu in-
stance would not damage the credibility of what is essential in the
narrai»ive. But an explanation of particulars will shew that these
variations are but free modes of conceiving the same occurrences,
such as generally occur where several persons, unconnected one with
another, recount the same event. (Upon the literature of this ques-
tion compare Hase's Leben Jesu, p. 196, § 135, and the subsequent
paragraph.)

The history of the resurrection possesses a peculiarity of charac-
ter from the fact that the Holy Scriptures themselves make use of
it, to typify the spiritual and corporeal resurrection, alike of the
individual Christian and of the whole church. Particularly Paul
(Rom. vi.) treats of baptism, in the twofold reference of that ordi-
nance, to immersion and emersion, as symbolizing the death and
resurrection of Christ.

§ 1. History of the Eesurrection.

(Matthew xxviii. 1-15 ; Mark xvi. l-ll ; Luke xxiv. 1-12 ; John xx. 1-18.)

The act of the resurrection itself, like every new process of pro-
duction, is enveloped in obscurity. The writers of the New Testa-
ment make mention only of what they themselves saw when the
sepulchre was already empty. The creative energies wrought in si-
lence, and unobservedly, and wove, for the sublime person of the
Lord, as it were, a raiment of celestial light, worthy of investing the
King of the world of light. Even so, no human eye beheld how, at
that moment, when the energies of life flowed into them, the bodies
of the saints arose, to typify that the anticipated resurrection at
the end of time will also be an unseen act of Divine omnipotence.
The great Sabbath on which the Lord rested from his work, was
spent by the male and female friends of Jesus, in pious association,
still thinking that they had lost him whom their souls loved. But,
in their love, this mistake did not lead astray their love, for, carried
out to its proper consequences, it would have forced them to con-
clude definitely that Jesus was not the Messiah. Nay, scarcely
had the light of another day begun to dawn, when they hastened to
complete the anointing of the Lord's body. Now in the account of
this visit of the women to his tomb, very remarkable diflerences
appear amongst the Evangelists. These require to be stated at the
outset. In the first place, then, the Synoptical writers are in the
main unanimous.

Mary Magdalene, and Mary the wife of Cleopas (and according
to Mark, Salome, and to Luke, Johanna, the wife of Chuza, Luke

Matthew XXVIII. 1. 115

xxiv. 10, comp. Luke viii. 3), went about day-break (Mark xvi, 2),
to the sepulchre with spices. On their way, they were conversiug
on the difficulty they should find in rolling away the stone from
the entrance to the sepulchre (Mark xvi. 3). But as they drew
nigh to the tomb, they found that the stone was removed, and near
the sepulchre they saw an angel.

Here the first discrepancy occurs ; Luke (xxiv. 4) deviates from
Matthew and Mark, by mentioning two angels, whilst they make
mention of one only. These angels address the women, inform them
of the Saviour's resurrection, and direct them to publish the tidings
to the disciples. Luke (xxiv. 7, 8), in the address of the angel,
contains something indeed which the other two writers have not,
but the only formal discrepancy appears at Mark xvi. 8, in which
passage it is said : " They said nothing to any one."

At this point Luke breaks off his account, only remarking in a
cursory manner at xxiv. 11, 12, that the apostles did not believe
the report of the women, but yet that Peter hastened to the sepul-
chre. The other two append the additional fact, that Christ him-
self appeared on the occasion. Matthew observes that he met the
women when they were returning. Mark speaks merely of his ap-
pearance to Mary Magdalene, without particularizing how she had
separated herself from the other women (Matth. xxviii. 9, 10, and
Mark xvi. 9, 10). Now if we had only the accounts of the Synop-
tical Evangelists, the narrative might be regarded, to all intents
and purposes, as unanimous. For, so far as the number of the angels
is concerned, to any one who desires such minute accuracy, it is suf-
ficient to say, that that apparent diversity occurs in the statement,
because Matthew and Mark allude only to the angel that spoke to
the women, whilst Luke mentions also the less active heavenly mes-
senger. And the words of Mark, ovdevl ovdtv el-rrov^ they said nothing
to any, ver. 8, will harmonize easily with the whole account, provided
we limit them, by supplying the clause : " in the first moments" of
their astonishment. To this we are guided by the following i(j)o-
fiovvro yap, for they were a/raid. The deviation of Mark's account
appears to be most conspicuous (Mark xvi. 9) where he suddenly
names Mary Magdalene alone, and states that Jesus appeared first
to her. Still, if we had not the narrative of John, even this diver-
' sity would not appear at all essential, for . we need only to suppose
that a separation took place between Mary and the other women,
which has been left unmentioned, in order to regard the two state-
ments as nearly coincident. But the question assumes a totally differ-
ent aspect, when we compare the synoptical narrative with that of
John. According to the latter, Mary Magdalene went alone to the
sepulchre, whilst the morning was yet dark ; she found the stone rolled
away from it, and hastened back immediately to Peter and John,

11 G Matthew XXVIIl. 1.

to whom she expressed her apprehensions that the body of the Lord
had been taken away by some persons. On hearing this, the "two
disciples ran to the sepulchre. John arrived at it first, but Peter
ventured to enter the sepulchre before him. After they had con-
vinced themselves that the body of the Lord was not there, they
returned back, Mary, however, still remained at the sepulchre
weeping. Whilst she sat thus, she beheld two angels, and imme-
diately after this vision, she beheld Jesus also, upon which she
hastened to the disciples, and mentioned what she had seen. (John
XX. 1-18.)

On a first view, there appears no similarity whatever between
this account and that of the Synoptical Evangelists. Only in the
passing observation of Luke xxiv. 12, that Peter entered into the
sepulchre, is there any appearance of an echo to the narrative of
John, and so also in Mark xvi. 9, 10, where it is stated that Jesus
appeared first to Mary. But upon closer investigation it will be
seen that this great discrepancy, by the help of some inconsiderable
assumptions, resolves itself into perfect harmony, and that the sev-
eral accounts blend together exactly as they might be expected when
several persons, in narrating the same transaction, state merely those
pprtions of it which they had observed themselves.

Even the accounts of several eye-witnesses concerning events
that occur in their very presence, almost always present a diversity
of character, since the manner in which these events are conceived
of, varies with the point of. view from which each has contemplated
them. Griesbach and Hess have therefore adopted the following
method of harmonizing the several narratives in opposition to the
unhistorical objections to the truth of the resurrection, which have
been founded upon these discrepancies.

The narratives of the Synoptical writers form two parallel series :
John recounts merely what he himself had witnessed, but the others
derived the knowledge of what they relate from others, probably
from one of the women. Now, by simply assuming that Mary sep-
arated herself from the other women, came at first to the sepulchre
alone, and then summoned Peter and John thither, the parallelism
of the two accounts will become plain and perspicuous. The order
of the events will then be as follows : early in the morning, Mary
betakes herself to the sepulchre in company with the other women.
But, hastening in advance of her female companions, to her aston-
ishment she finds the sepulchre empty. Immediately Mary runs in
haste to Peter and John. In the meanwhile, the other women ar-
rive, see the angels, and receive their commands and tidings. After
they had gone away, Mary arrives with the two disciples, who, hav-
ing seen the empty sepulchre, return home. Mary still remains by
the tomb, weeping. And now the angels appear to her also, and

Matthew XXVIII. 1-10. 117

next the Lord himself. After this appearance of the Lord •which
was witnessed by Mary alone, the Saviour again revealed himself to
the women, who were returning from the sepulchre. With this in-
terpretation all discrepancies vanish.

There is only one circumstance against which any one can object,
namely, if the events occurred so near one to another, how could
Mark (xvi. 9, 10) have declared so decisively that the Lord appeared
first to Mary ? The other women certainly saw him about the same
time, or at least so soon afterwards that the fact of Maiy's having
Been him first could not be specially remarked. Now add to this
that Mark, in this account, deviates from Matthew, and thus the
latter alone relates that Jesus shewed himself to the women on their
return, then, in relation to this point, it is perhaps more probable
that Matthew somewhat loosely extended to all the women tlie ap-
pearance, which had been witnessed by Mary only. This discrep-
ancy, however, is so unimportant that it serves rather to establish
that freedom and independence of the Evangelists, which they
exhibit in connexion with the most perfect accuracy in the principal
details. After these general remarks, we shall treat the particular
events according to the above sketched parallel.

Ver. 1-10, and the parallel passages in the Synoptical authors.
As respects, first, the fixing of the dates, the expression diayevon^vov
Tov oa(3i3dTov, in Mark (xvi. 1), serves to explain the oipe oa(3i3dr(ov
in Matthew. For instance, od(i(3a-ov = naw, also in the plural {rd
ad(i(ia-a), was used for the one day of Sabbath. (Compare the Sep-
tuagint version of Exodus xx. 10, and Leviticus xxiii. 32.) 'Oi/^e
is, however, used in the sense of " after." It occurs, indeed, in the
New Testament only here, but it occurs also in this signification in
profane writers. (Compare Philostratus, Vit. Apoll, iv. 18, ?V^- ^iva-
T^ptcjv, ^^ after the mysteries." Thucyd. iv. 93, and ^lian, V. H. ii. 23.
"With i-KpcooKovoij supply w^pg,, to which dvardXavrog tov 7)Xlov (Luke
xxiv. 1), and opdpov padiog (Mark xvi. 2), correspond. John (xx. 1)
has oKOTLag tn ovarjg, which must be understood of the morning twi-
light, and thus coincides with the statements of the other Evangel-
ists.) Now, the day itself on which the women went forth to the
sepulchre is called by all the Evangelists unanimously i^ca aa(3(3dTCJv^
that is, the first day of the week, since pais used = im (the same
phrase occurs in 1 Cor. xvi. 2), and od(3l3aTa also signifies " the
week" (Luke xviii. 12).

The following verses (2-4), peculiar to Matthew, describe the
occurrence of the -resurrection itself, or at least of the incidents
immediately accompanying it. We might suppose Matthew in-
tended here no historical account, but merely inferred the facts
from the existing phenomena, the ISov, lo, thus merely giving vivacity
to his picture. But the slight, definite touches, the dneKvkcae tov

118 Matthew XXVIII. 1-10.

XidoVj rolled away the stone, and more particularly the eKdOrj-iC
indvoj avTov, sat upon it, do not allow this hypothesis. Hence
we must refer the account to witnesses, perhaps to one of the
•watch. ('Idea = ri^-ya. Like every celestial vision, this one also
appears amid a halo of light, darpa-rrri, Luke xxiv, 4, tv iaO?]aemv
dorpaTTTovaaig. To this the white raiment also points.) On ver. 4,
and the passage (xi. 15), which is connected with it, compare the
remarks made at Matth. xxvii. 62-66. As the women approached
the sepulchre, they beheld the angels.* Luke only (xxiv, 5) de-
scribes the profound impression which this vision made upon them.
These celestial messeugers, as the women drew nigh, made known
to them the resurrection of the Lordf (verse 6, the Lord [6 nvpLog] ,
in the mouth of the angels, is significant); and reminded them
(Luke xxiv. 6-8), of the promise of Jesus relative to this fact.

Here, too, the women were commissioned to make known to the
disciples, that he would go before them into Galilee. This we learn
from Matthew, and from Mark xvi. 7.| The latter, moreover, ex-
pressly names Peter. In verse 10, Jesus himself repeats this in-
junction, and* in verse 16, it is stated that the disciples went to
Galilee. The object of this arrangement, which Jesus had pre-
viously intimated, on the occasion of the supper, Matth. xxvi. 32,
was, without doubt, no other than this : — The Lord regarded it as
more appropriate for the disciples to receive his last commands
amidst the stillness and seclusion of Galilee, than in the tumult of
the metropolis.

The first appearances of the Lord in Jerusalem, were only in-
tended to convince the doubting disciples that he was truly risen.
In the verses 9, 10, with which Matthew concludes the subject, the
Kpardv^Todag, clasping his feet, is to be understood merely as a ges-
ture of supplication which had been elicited hj fear. Compare the
closer investigation at John xx. 17. Mark (v. 9-11), makes men-
tion only of the vision seen by Mary Magdalene, with the remark
that out of her Jesus had cast seven devils. (Compare at Luke
viii, 2, and Matthew xii. 45.) This circumstance renders strikingly
prominent the fact that the gracious Saviour revealed himself first
to the meanest and most wretched of his followers who stood most
in need of his assistance, but who receiving it were also inflamed
with the most ardent love towards him. The disciples, meanwhile,

* Like the commencement of the Lord's life upon earth, this beginning of his glori-
fied life was also adorned with kindred angel-visions, visible to many persons. The
other visions of angels, of which we meet with occasional mention, as having appeared
to Christ, seem to have been internal revelations only.

f In Luke xxiv. 5, the sentence, ri I^titeIte tov ^Qvra /uera tQv vcKpQv, the word !^uv
must be interpreted emphatically, " him who is the life itself." Compare John i. 4.

X On the authenticity of the concluding portion of Mark's Gospel, see our observa^
tions on Mark xvL 15.

John XX. 1-18. 119

in consequence of the death of Christ, were as yet so bewildered in
mind, that they yielded no credence to the joyous tidings of their
Lord's resurrection, notwithstanding that he himself had previously
so often and so positively foretold it to them. (According to Luke
xxiv. 14, they declared that the report of the women was mere
^ijpog, that is, like the Latin, nugpe, a deceptive, vain word or thing.)
John XX. 1-18. — From this point the narrative of the Synopti-
cal Evangelists has its parallel in that of John. The latter pro-
ceeds first to relate of himself and Peter, that they were led to the
sepulchre by Mary, who had previously hastened thither. Impelled
by love, John was- swifter in running than Peter. But he shrank
from entering the sanctuary of the resurrection. The daring, reso-
lute Peter, on the contrary, went directly into the sepulchre. Al-
though at this time Peter had not as yet obtained immediately from
the Lord the pardon of his grievous sin, yet, so steadfast was his
faith in Christ's pardoning love, that not for a moment would he ac-
knowledge himself to be excluded from- his Lord. But how deeply
the affectionate soul of John was impressed by the scene of that
great event is manifest from the simple circumstance that he (ver.
6, 7), minutely describes how the interior of the sepulchre was fur-
nished. The grave clothes = ddovia (Luke xxiv, 12, compare John
xi. 44) and the napkin which had enwrapped the head of Jesus, lay
there, the latter folded and in a separate place. ('EyT?;Ataaco, means
" envelope," but means also " to fold." Compare Matth. xxvii. 53.)
As the same circumstance is also noticed in Luke xxiv. 12, it must
have had some special meaning. Tholuck very properly observes that
it determines the t-niorevGev, he helteved, ver. 9. For instance, at the
first, when John was speaking to Mary, he like her, might have be-
lieved that the body of Jesus had been stole7i aiuay ; but when in
the sepulchre he perceived not the slightest trace of disorder, but
found everything carefully arranged, there arose in him real faith
in the Lord's resurrection. Hence the ySeioav which follows in ver.
9 is not, as Tholuck would have it, to be taken as pluperfect. We
need only translate the passage thus : " they understood not the
Scripture in this relation." This application of the words to their
faith in the resurrection is at all events more appropriate than to
conjecture with Liicke and others that they refer merely to their cre-
dence of the report of Mary. (On the Old Testament prophecies
of the resurrection, compare the observations made at Luke xxiv.
46, and 1 Cor. xv. 5.) After this occurrence, whilst the disciples
betook thcmslves to their homes, Mary remained behind, weeping
alone at the sepulchre. Looking into it she now beheld two angels,
who were sitting, the one at the head and the other at the feet,
where the body of Jesus had lain. This passage justifies the infer-
ence that angels can at pleasure render themselves visible or invisi-

120 John XX. 1-18.

ble. For we are witliout doubt to understand that these were the
same angels whom the women had seen previously, and who had
remained present, but invisible. Mary Magdalene might not at
first have thought they were angels : hence, probably, her quiet,
childlike answer to their question. In like manner she did not at
first know Jesus when, on turning round, she saw him. As she
happened to be in the garden, she supposed that he was the gar-
dener.* (K7]TTovp6c, from Kj'iTTog and ovQog, overseer, occurs here only
in the New Testament.) But immediately upon hearing his voice
she knew the Lord, and exclaimed with exultant transport 'FafSPowL
(Comp. Mark x. 51.)

Probably Mary, whilst thus speaking, ran to embrace the Lord's
feet (according to Matth. xxviii. 9, the other women did likewise).
Then the Lord addressed to her the enigmatical words, [irj [iov
d-TTTov. Of the many attempts which have been made to explain
these words, all those which would alter the text should be rejected
at the very outset. Of this icind are the conjectures of Gersdorf and
Schulthess, ov [lov utttov^ do tJiou touch me ; and of Vogel, ju^ ov
nroovj fear not. The critical authorities perfectly establish the cor-
rectness of the usual reading i^t] fiov d-rov. But of its import vari-
ous explanations have been suggested, which must also be deemed
obsolete, and may, therefore, be dismissed at once. To these belong,
first, the interpretation, which makes diTTeadat = pa^, adhcerere,
" to delay ;" so that the meaning of the passage would be, " hasten
to thy brethren without delay," etc. Another is, that which re-
gards the attempt at touching the Lord on the part of Mary, as de-
signed to assure herself whether the body of Christ was real or not,
so that the ^rj [lov d-rrrov would be a reproof to her unbelief. But
apart from all other grounds, the context by no means harmonizes
with either of these interpretations. For, on such an occasion, the
momentary homage which Mary offered to her heavenly friend was
not at all an action to deserve the repulse that " she should not
delay !" And how the subsequent oviro) yap dva(3ej3r]Ka is at all
consistent with the alleged unbelief, we cannot see.

There remain therefore only the following interpretations of the
words which merit particular notice. And first, the view promul-
gated by Augustine, and commended by Beza, which regards
dnTeadat as employed figuratively of " a mental concerning one's self

* Even Tholuck, referring to this circumstance, offers the suggestion that after his re-
surrection Jesus might really have ■worn clothes belonging to the gardener. Questions
such as, "Whence did Christ get the necessary raiment?" "How could he vealk vfith
his pierced feet ?" are suggested only by the belief that he rose again in a mortal body.
According to our interpretation, as little do such queries merit any answer as does the
analogous one, "From whence did the angels obtain their white raiment?" — [This is
treating the matter far too leniently. To concede Christ's miraculous resurrection, and
then seriously ask questions like the above, is, on any hypothesis, simple stupidity.] — [K.

John XX. 1-18. 121

about a thing ;" so that the meaning would he, " Cling not to this
my earthly appearance, for I shall yet experience a heavenly exalta-
tion." This sense is appropriate, and haimonizes with the connex-
ion ; hut the tropical interpretation of dTrreaOai. is so harsh, and the
ovnu) would follow it so unfittingly, that we cannot assent to this
mode of explanation. Secondly, other interpreters, especially Tho-
luck, understand d-reaOat as referring to the attitude of worship
(jTpoaKvvTjaig), and supply -rrodCJv or yovdruv^ like the embracing of
knees which frequently occurs in Homer, and in the Old Testament,
2 Kings iv. 27. The meaning would then be, " Do not worship me,
I am not a heavenly being, I must first be glorified." But how
could he utter that who had said, " all men should honour the Son
even as they honour the Father ;" " he who seeth me seeth the Fa-
ther" (John V. 23, and xiv. 9) ; and who, immediately after, per-
mitted Thomas to exclaim, " My Lord and my God" (6 icvpiog p.ov
Kol 6 deog fiov, John xx. 28) ? But granting we concede that the Divine
worship of Christ was not to begin until after his ascension to the
Father, then the subsequent words of Christ, " to my Father and
to your Father, to my God and to your God," would not at all con-
sist with this prohibition of worship. It is manifest that these
words of the Saviour express the idea of an approximation of the
disciples to the person of Christ. So that the meaning of the words
is, " The same God is mine, and yours ; we are brethren." But if
the IJ.7] [xov d-rov referred to the prohibition of worshipping Christ,
then the language should have brought out the infinite difference be-
tween Christ and his disciples, in which case the course of thought
would be as follows : " Worship me not, for I am not yet glorified ;
but when 1 shall have been glorified, and thereby exalted above you
infinitely, then worship me." There remains,* therefore, thirdly, only

* Krabbe, in his work "on Sin," p. 316, et seq., presents another exislanation of thia
difficult passage, somewhat similar to that previously given by Chrysostom and Erasmus.
He thinks the meaning of the words to be this — "Do not touch me; that is, think not
that the former intimacy can still subsist between us. My relation to you has become
different from what it was, and, as such, you must henceforth regard it. Still thou hast
not erred by calling mo f)a(3i3ovvi, for such I am, thy risen Lord : but I have not yet as-
cended to niy Father." This interpretation commends itself to us, when taken in refer-
ence to the account of Mary's anointing of the feet of Jesus. But Krabbe himself has
already observed that the ov-u yap dvaiii[ir]iia which follows, does not, according to this
view, connect itself naturally with the jir] jiov a--ov. For the supplying of the sentence,
"thou hast not erred in calling me f)u;33i)vi>c, for such I am," etc., is manifestly altogether
arbitrary. Neither will the difficulty be avoided by taking this latter interpretation of
the passage in a somewhat modified manner. IfJ for instance, we should conclude, ac-
cording to the view of Augustine, that the meaning of the words is this, " Rest not satis-
fied with my tangible nature, but become exalted by faith to an apprehension of the
spiritual nature of the Son of God. The former will vanish from you. The latter will
remain with you, ever present. For I go to my Father, to whom you also shall hereafter
approach," then the ovttu, as we have already observed, entirely militates against this
thought. This combination, " touch me not, for I am not yet ascended," etc., leads me

122 Luke XXIV. 13.

the interpretation proposed loj Schleierraacher.* If we conceive the
occurrence of the resurrection and of the glorification of Christ, in
their essential nature, it becomes a natural thought that all which
checks this is to be avoided. In the " ascending to his Father," is
thus indicated, as a necessary consequence, the completion of the
Saviour's glorification. Thus also the words dvaf3a[vo) -npbg rbv
nareQa /zov, Koi narepa vjj,gjv, I ascend to my Father' and your Father ^
which follow, completely harmonize with the preceding. For in the
ju^ juou arrrov there seemed something repulsive ; this impression the
following thought does away, in that the Lord seems to say to his
disciples, " Since I became like you, ye shall become, as I am, by
regeneration true children of God, my brethren."

^ 2. FuRTHEK Appearances of Christ on the Day of
THE Resurrection.

(Luke xxiv. 13-43 ; Mark xvi. 12-14; Jolm xx. 19-29.)

The Lord, according to his promise, would probably have shewed
himself to his disciples only in quiet Galilee, if they had been able
immediately to attain to a living faith in his resurrection. But the
statements of the women who were first privileged to behold the
Saviour did not satisfy them. They were unable, on the strength
of those statements, to rise to an unwavering faith. John, however
(xx. 8), was probably convinced of the truth of Mary's report After
the first day the risen Redeemer does not appear to have again re-
vealed himself to the disciples in Jerusalem. The other acknowl-
edged appearances all took place probably in Galilee. Yet that we
may understand precisely the character of Christ's association with
his disciples after his resurrection, so far as the documents before us

back from every other exegesis, to the interpretation of Schleiermacher, which is sustained
by tlie context, although I am by no means insensible to the singularity of the thought.
The explanation given by De Wette, perhaps allows more of its proper force to tho
ovtlu, where he gives the following as the meaning of the passage : " Mary finds her en-
tire satisfaction in the appearance of Jesus, and with this feeling would embrace him. But
Jesus reminds her of the fact that this content of hers was as yet premature." But in
this view, we hardly see how the touching can be an expression of satisfaction, or how
the prohibition, fir/ /nov utttov, can be an injunction not to seek such satisfaction.

* Schleiermacher's festival sermons, the fifth collected edition, Berlin, 1826, p. 303,
in the incomparably beautiful sermon entitled " The Resurrection of Christ a type of our
new life." His words in reference to this passage are as follows: "When the Saviour
at first appeared to Mary, he then, as if fearful and susceptible, his glorified life being
new to him, said, ' Touch me not ; I am not yet ascended to my God and to your God ;'
but, after a few days, he presented himself to Thomas, and required him heartily to test
the reality of his body, to thrust his hand into his side, etc."

Luke XXIV. 13. 123

allow, we must first investigate minutely several difficulties, wliicli
are presented to us in this part of the evangelical history. For, in
the first place, the question suggests itself, have the Evangelists
recorded all the appearances of the Lord ? or may there not have
occurred many others, of Avhich we are not informed 7 Upon com-
paring 1 Corinthians xv. 6, et seq., we find that the Apostle Paul
even there makes mention of certain revelations of the Saviour, con-
cerning which the Gospels are silent ; particularly those with which
Peter and James were privileged. The omission of these hy the
Evangelists is explainable, however, from the fact that the Saviour,
for special reasons, shewed himself to these two disciples alone — to
Peter probably the appearance was made on account of his denial
of the Lord, but to James (the brother of the Lord) because hith-
erto he had never been able to believe in Jesus. (John vii. 5,
Acts i. 14.) Both these appearances had thus, as their object,
individual instruction, and hence presented nothing of general in-
terest.

The Apostle Paul speaks of another appearance still, besides the
two noticed. At this over five hundred brethren were present, many
of whom were yet living at the time when Paul wrote his epistles to
the Corinthians. But this appearance was probably that of which
the Synoptical Gospels make mention, as having happened in Galilee
(compare at Matth. xxviii. 16, et seq.) Hence it appears to me most
probable that no other appearances took place than those of which
we are informed. Jesus shewed himself, as he had promised, only
to his disciples, and even to them but in unfrequent visions. On
this account his association with his disciples after his resurrection,
acquires a certain peculiarity of character. To the Pharisees, and
to all who had not turned to Christ with a full purpose of heart, his
resurrection was a sign, like that of Jonah, invisible, and presented
merely to their faith. The Lord could not reveal himself to them
in his glory, for had he done so, and they had then resisted him,
their culpability would have been greatly aggravated ; and if, on
the other hand, they had yielded themselves to him, the presump-
tion would have been, that a change thus wrought through the senses
could be no truly spiritual one, but produced by fear only. But if
any, by the influence of the risen Redeemer, were brought to render
honour to the truth without having seen him, it might be taken for
granted that they had yielded their hearts to the light. Had the
risen Saviour, therefore, appeared to all or to any of his opponents,
nothing but injury could have been the result ; no good would have
been effected.

But, as regards the disciples, they had previously enjoyed fully
the privilege of the Lord's constant intercourse with them. And
now it was only necessary to give them, as it were, their complete

124 Luke XXIV. 13-1.4.

perfection, and to consecrate them to their work, that they might
become complete instruments for the service of God's kingdom.
Sence the Lord, after his resurrection, shewed himself to them only
on particular, sacred occasions, and in the most impressive and mys-
terious manner. We find, also, that the disciples, as often as they
beheld the Saviour, were invariably seized with a secret dreoA, which
mingled in a peculiar manner with their joy at possessing him who
was the beloved of their soul. Still, they knew distinctly that they
now possessed him in a manner different from what they had formerly;
for when, in his ascension into heaven, the Saviour withdrew alto-
gether from them, they were filled with joy, and did not in any way
sorrow, as previously, for they knew that Christ would remain pres-
ent with them in spirit, and be at the same time himself exalted to
sit at the right hand of God.

The questions. Where the Lord abode in the time intermediate
between his appearances, and how he supported himself, have arisen
in modern times, from indistinct views concerning the nature of the
risen Kedeemer's life. (In Christian antiquity, the fundamentally
correct views of the resurrection which prevailed, afforded no ground
for such questions.) But if we reflect that, even prior to the resur-
rection, the Saviour walked upon the waves of the sea, and fed thou-
sands with a few loaves, Ave may well take it for granted that after
the resurrection the glorified Saviour would have been still less re-
strained by physical laws ; and therefore that the necessities incident
to human nature could have had no application whatever to him
when glorified.

Ver. 13-24. — The first appearance of Jesus on the resurrection
day itself (besides those at the sepulchre) was that which Luke
details at length (xxiv. 13-24), and which Mark briefly glances at
(xvi. 12-14). Two disciples were on their way to Emmaus. Of
these one was named Cleopas {KXeoirag = KXcdndg. He was perhaps
the relative of Jesus, John xix. 25). It was then the afternoon, for
it was evening when they returned, John xx. 19. {'Knfiaovg or 'Aju-
fiaovg, was, as is mentioned by Josephus, B. J. vii. 6,* 6, a little
village distant from Jerusalem a Sabbath day's -journey, that is,
sixty stadia. This village must not be confounded with the city of
the same name, which lay at a distance of t^venty miles from Jeru-
salem, and which in after times received the name of Nicopolis. It
was at this latter city that Judas Maccabeus defeated Georgias, the
Syrian general. Compare I Maccab. iii. 40-57 ; also Winer's Real-
lex, p. 382.) The two disciples were conversing together concerning
the great events of the few past days, when, without being recog-
nized, Jesus himself joined company Avith them. On this Luke
(xxiv, 16) remarks that " their eyes were holden" (ol ocpOaXfiol avrCjv
iicparovvTo). But Mark (xvi. 12) gives prominence to the fact that

Luke XXIV. 13-24. 125

Christ himself appeared in another form (tv htpa fiopcpy). We may
assume both : on the part of the Lord a veiling of his person, and
of the disciples that their eyes were holden. But all conceptions of
disfigurement by sorrow and the like, should be rejected as utterly
unscriptural. We should rather maintain that the strangeness of
the Lord's appearance was in part a consequence of his veiy glorifi-
cation, and might partly be intended by him. There is a greater
difficulty in the question, " What were the Lord's reasons for not
revealing himself openly at first, and for withdrawing when he was
recognized ?" They were drawn probably from the personal char-
acter of the two disciples. They appear (ver. 21) to have been en-
tirely in error as to the Messiahship of Jesus, and hence were in
need of some powerful support to their faith. This the Saviour
vouchsafed, by explaining to them the doctrine of Christ's vicarious
death, as taught by the Scriptures. But if Jesus had made himself
known to them before he had convinced them by the force of Scrip-
tural proofs, his appearance would have overpowered them so far
that they would have been incapable of calm investigation. For
this reason, the revelation of his person did not take place tiU his
chief object was eiSected.

The Saviour opened the conversation by inquiring the cause of
their sadness. (iKvdpcjTrog, consult Matth. vi. 16.) To this Cleopas
made answer, and recalled to him the great and well-known events
of the few preceding days. (IlapoiKeZv, like ai-;, does not merely sig-
nify to tarry as a stranger in a place, but means also generally, " to
dwell," " to belong to the place." See Genesis xxiv. 37.) Dr. Pau-
lus thinks that the summary account of the fate of Jesus contained
in the 19th and following verses, contains the language of the two
disciples, and that one spoke the 19th and 20th, and the other those
that follow. To this supposition he has been led by the circum-
stance that verses 19 and 21 seem to contradict each other : accord-
ing to the 21st verse they would seem to have given up all hope,
whilst, according to verse 19th, Jesus is still called a prophet. If,
then, we suppose that the two disciples held different views of Christ,
that one, for instance, still preserved more faith than the other, this
apparent contrariety would be explained.

But as it is not intimated, by a word, that verse 21 follows as
from a different speaker, this supposition can be scarcely maintained.
It is more correct to understand the expression " he who was to re-
deem Israel" (6 jut-AAcjv Xvrpovodai rbv 'Icrpar/A.), of the Messiah, and
to separate it from the idea of the prophet, ver. 19. The disciples
might have doubted whether Jesus was the Messiah, and yet have
believed him to be a prophet. Many of the prophets had been put
to death, therefore the death of Jesus could not have destroyed their
belief in his prophetic dignity. But of the Messiah they seemed

126 Luke XXIV. 25-35.

still to have entertained the indistinct popular notions (which, how-
ever, were by no means the general views of the enlightened classes
amongst the Jews, compare at John i. 29); hence they were con-
vinced that by the death of Jesus his Messianic work was annihi-
lated. In their view, then, the "redeeming of Israel" had certainly
but a very subordinate, perhaps in part a political significance. The
words that ensue, in verses 22-24, express finally the reports con-
cerning the resurrection of Christ, to which, however, these disciples
could as yet yield no credence. Their words, however, corroborate
the twofold appearance of Jesus, that to the women, which the Sy-
noptical writers relate, and that witnessed by Peter and John, which
is recorded by the latter ; and this testimony is the weightier, that
it cannot have been intentionally introduced into the narrative of
Luke, as he has not mentioned at all the transaction with these
two disciples.

Verses 25-35. — Upon this lament of theirs the Lord addressed to
them his discourse of reproof and of consolation. He first repre-
hended the want of susceptibility manifested by the disciples, as to
the predictions so clearly made by the prophets. {'Kvorjro^ is by no
means synonymous with (ii^advg t^ Kapdia : the former signifies an
incapacity of the vovg, the latter an unsusceptibility of the Kapdia :
so that, taken together, the two expressions describe the want of
susceptibility of the whole man, both in head and heart.) Secondly,
Christ adduces the individual prophecies of Scripture concerning
himself, and expounds them to the two disciples, shewing them
that the sufiering of the Messiah was necessarily connected with his
entire work, and with his glorification. (Comp. on this subject the
remarks made on John xiii. 31, and on Matthew xxvii. 46.) It was
this divinely decreed necessity which was expressed in the prophecies
of the Old Testament. Tliey refer as well to the resurrection of the
Lord as to his death. (Comp, Luke xxiv. 46, and 1 Corinth, xv.
3, 4.) Christ now led the disciples into the true spiritual appre-
hension of those prophecies by going through them singly (Luke
xxiv. 44, specifies Moses, the prophets, and the Psalms). This pas-
sage affords a proof that our present classification of the Old Testa-
ment Scriptures into nnSn, ta-'xas, and cj-^n-ns, prevailed, even at the
time of Christ, for the last class is named " the psalms," because
the psalms constituted the first book of the division.) This last
statement is of the utmost importance to us, inasmuch as it justifies
us in regarding the explanations of the Old Testament prophecies
which the apostles give us in their writings, as the authentic expo-
sitions of the Saviour himself. They thus acquire a degree of secu-
rity and stability, which, to all unprejudiced judges, must elevate
them to the character of demonstrations of the faith which cannot
be shaken. The prophecies given by the Spirit of God are also

John XX. 19-23. 127

again interpreted by the Lord of all Spirit (2 Peter i. 20), so that a
secure ground of faith is afforded to all doubts springing from a gen-
uine feeling of want, and only to wilful scepticism, as is fit, does it
remain possible in regard to every prophecy to say, " the Lord would
certainly not have applied this with the others to himself" These
passages, together with Matthew v. 17, constitute the most certain
demonstration of the Divine inspiration of the Old Testament from
the lips of the Lord himself : so that with faith in the Redeemer, we
receive not n;ierely prospective faith in the divinity of the New Tes-
tament, but also retrospective faith in the divinity of the Old.

After this conversation the Lord desired to withdraw, since his
chief object had been attained. But he, unknown though he was,
so dear when known, had filled their hearts with the marvellous en-
ergy of love. They were not able to bear separation from him. He
therefore entered the house with them, and disclosed himself to
them, in the act of breaking of bread. But immediately afterwards
vanished from before their eyes.

It needs no argument to prove that, alike in the av-oq a^avroq tye-
vero d-n' avrCJv, he vanished from their sight, ver. 31, and in the avrdv
diT}vot.x07]aav ol d(bdaX[ioi, their eyes loere opened, no mere ordinary
recognition and quick departure were intended by the Evangelist.
Their zeal was so great, that they would certainly have followed
him. The only correct interpretation of the passage is that all the
incidents of his appearance, his coming, his allowing himself to be
recognized, his departure, involve something mysterious. Although
his identity remained, yet were his being and nature more exalted,
more consecrated than formerly. His appearances, although cor-
poreal, were yet similar to those of celestial beings.

Finally, the kyhejo drr' av-wv, in the words quoted, need not be
so connected that the yeveodat d-6 rivog should be employed in the
sense of, " to withdraw from one." The dcjyavrog is evidently not in
liarmony with this construction. Rather the dir' avrojv (with which
we might supply iTOQevonevog) is a subjoined intimation that Jesus
not merely became, or remained invisible, but withdrew himself en-
tirely. After this occurrence, therefore, the two disciples hastened
thence, to the assembling-place of the apostles, where the latter
met them, with the tidings that the Lord had appeared to Peter
(1 Cor. XV. 5). This intelligence they requited with an account of
what they themselves had experienced.

John XX. 19-23. — Scarcely had the two disciples from Emmaus
entered the place, w:hen the Lord himself also stood in the midst of
them. In their accounts of this new appearance Luke and John
mutually supplement each other. The latter describes the scene
itself. The former passes over the scene, but labours to give the
strongest and most direct assurances of the reality of the Lord's

128 John XX. 19-23.

corporeity, a matter of wliicli John makes but cursory mention.
As regards, then, the place in which the disciples were assembled,
John (ver. 19), mentions that they had shut the doors through fesir
of the Jews. Even in early times, interpreters discovered something
miraculous in Christ's entering, when the doors were closed. Some
thought that the doors were opened in a miraculous way. So
Jerome, who here employs the words : creatura cedente Creatori.
Others would make it appear that the Lord entered through the
closed doors, as if the words were 6ta tu)v dvpuiv KeicXEiantvtdv. So
thought Theophylact, who also expresses the unscriptural notion,
that the Saviour arose without the stone having been removed from
the sepulchre. (Comp. Matthew xxviii. 2.) It is plain that the
text in no way justifies such hypotheses, and that the passage is
falsely applied in support of any dogmatical views, as by the
Lutheran divines, to prove the doctrine of the ubiquity.

Still, definitely as we reject the view which makes the act a onon-
strous one, we are equally compelled to combat that whicb designates
this appearance of Christ as an ordinary coming. This is contra-
dicted, not only by the t.oT7] elg to ij-ioov^^'-' he stood in their midst,
which points to something of a sudden character, but also by that
important passage, John xx. 30, in which the appearances of the
Lord are designated as signs (cTjixda) : compare the particulars at
this passage. In every one of those o-qfiela^ for instance, according
to the correct interpretation of the disciples, there was revealed to
them something exalted and celestial ; for the Lord himself ap-
peared to them as of a super-terrestrial nature ; and this extraordi-
nary characteristic was indicated by his entering suddenly, without
any previous intimation.

In this view alone the subsequent pains taken by the Lord to
convince them that his was a real body, becomes explicable. Had
he entered in the same manner as the others, no such effort would
have been required.

It is here, for the first time, mentioned that the Lord said to the
assembled disciples : elp^vrj vfuVj peace be to you ; which saying he
afterwards (verse 21), repeated with emphasis. This was quite a
usual form of salutation amongst the Jews (csV aiVc). But in the
lips of the glorified Eedeemer, it bo^-e not only a higher significance
— as wishing them temporal and eternal peace, but also an essential
power. As the Lord entered, they were thrilled with a feeling of
sacred peace. They felt that they were in immediate proximity

* The re.petitioii of these words, when taken in connexion with the formula, tuv
6vpC)v KEK?-Eio/ievuv, verse 26, without in the latter case any mention being made con-
cerning " their fear of the Jews," points to something of profound significance. More-
over, (pavepovadai is employed descriptively of the appearances of the risen Saviour, in
which is manifestly expressed the fact, that they were the entrances of an exalted being,
like the Divine or angeUc visions (John xxL 1).

John XX. 19-23. 129

with the Holy One. Hence then the supposition, that in the form
of Jesus a spirit had appeared. (Luke xxiv. 37, -nvevim is employed
similarly to (pdvraana, Matth. xiv. 26.) To the apostles the notion
of a spirit may have been just as obscure as is that of a ghost to per-
sons in our day. But in both cases opinions agree, that it consists
in a bodiless apparition.

It was for the Lord to disabuse their minds of this docetic illu-
sion. The essential character of the resurrection did not consist in
the returning again of the spiritual principle : but in the reneival
of corporeal life. When, therefore, the Saviour, to prove that his
was a real body, shewed them (Luke xxiv. 38-43) his hands and his
feet, bearing the marks of his wounds, and even ate in their very
presence ; no argument can be raised from this occurrence, as was
previously remarked, in disproof of the fact, that the body of Christ
was a glorified body, for though it was glorified, it was still truly a
hody. Yet we are not warranted to infer, that he ate from any real
necessity of food, a thing incompatible vnth. the nature of a glorified
body. His eating should be simply regarded as a proof of the real-
ity of his body. The reason why many most estimable theologians
imagine that such passages as these militate against the opinion
that the body of Christ was glorified at the resurrection, is, that
they do not in reality believe in the glorification of the body at all,,
but hold the monophysite view of its complete annihilation by the
spirit. The thoroughly idealizing tendencies of our day have con-
ducted to this view, which, is nevertheless, in the most decided
terms, repudiated by holy writ. (Comp. 1 Cor. xv., and 2 Timothy
ii. 18.) Profoundly characteristic of human nature is the remark
(ver. 41), that the disciples were filled with joy, and yet could not
bring themselves to believe firmly that it was the true Jesus whom
they saw before them ! - Man feels a secret horror in the presence of
all purely spiritual being divested of the corporeal covering. The
appearance of Christ became precious to them, and a source of
blissful transport, only when they felt certain as to the reality of
his body.

In this circumstance an indirect support is afi'orded to the con-
clusion that God is not the author of death (Wisdom of Solomon i.
13) ; that the severance of the connecting bonds between the soul
and body is opposed to nature, and that only in this union can the
soul find its full satisfaction. ('Orrrdf, from ^Trraw, broiled or roasted
(Luke xxiv. 42). ^sleXiocLov ktjplov, the honey of bees, in distinction
from that of grapes or of fruits.) John xx. 20 barely hints at this
incident, as he wished immediately to recount it still more minutely
in connexion with Thomas. He mentions, however, another and very
remarkable circumstance. He states that the Lord once more and
most impressively uttered the words, " Peace be unto you," then
Vol. III.— 9

130 John XX. 19-23.

remiuded them of their Divine mission, and, breathing upon them,
said, " Receive ye the Holy Ghost." These words may be regarded
as renewing their installation in the apostolic office, and as confirm-
ing their exalted prerogatives. (Upon the forgiving and retaining
of sins, compare at Matthew xvi. 19.)

That something of this kind should be performed by the risen
Saviour seems in the highest degree appropriate ; the disciples
must as it were receive from him fresh assurances of that which
had been previously promised ; but this event seems less suited to
the resurrection day itself, since, in addition to other considera-
tions, Thomas was not present, who was nqt to be excluded from
the apostleship. This renewed consecration would seem to have
occurred far more appropriately at the ejid of the forty days, for the
ratification of the choice of the apostles would have formed a noble
conclusion to the earthly ministry of Christ. To this also the ac-
counts given by the Synoptical Evangelists of the last commands of
Jesus, by which the apostles were anew authorized as messengers
to mankind, would be admirably suited. I feel almost inclined to
suppose that John (as shall be presently proved of the Synoptical
writers) here narrates compendiously, and therefore assigns to this
appearance things which did not transpire until afterwards. The
account that follows concerning Thomas is not contradictory of this
hypothesis, for it is manifestly only supplementary ; its object being
to describe the means by which that disciple was brought to believe
in the resurrection of Christ.

John concludes his Grospel at the 20th chapter and 31st verse ;
for the 21st chapter is beyond question a sabsequent addition to the
completed work. But, besides, I regard the opinion that the Xapere
TTvevfia ay<ov, receive the Holy GJiost, should be understood barely of
the anticipated outpouring of the Spirit at the Pentecost, as alto-
gether untenable. The symbolical act of breathing on the disciples
becomes an empty ceremony, if it be regarded as unaccompanied by
any spiritual influence. The communication of the Spirit to the
disciples should rather be understood as proceeding by gradual
augmentation. Upon their being sent forth the first time (Matth.
X.), the disciples received a superior degree of spiritual power ; the
Lord here augments that gift ; and at Pentecost the fulness of
the Spirit was poured out upon them. With the possession of
the Spirit was connected the power of forgiving sins .and that of
not forgiving, that is, of retaining them ; for, in his nature lie
the conditions through which alone such power becomes explicable
and secured against abuse. (Compare at Matth. xvi. 19.) To
draw a distinction between this communication of the Spirit and
the pouring forth of the Holy Ghost at the Pentecost, not merely
in degree but also in kind, and indeed so as to refer the former to

John XX. 24-29. 131

Banctification and to the apostolical office, and the latter (the out-
pouring at the Pentecost) to miraculous gifts, is inadmissible, for
the reason that, according to Matth. x. 1, et seq., the apostles, long
previously to Pentecost, had been endowed with miraculous gifts.
The symbolical act of breathing does not occur elsewhere in the sacred
Scriptures. But, with the meaning of -rrveviia (from Trvt-cj, to breathe),
it is self-explained how in all languages, the expressions that have
been framed to convey the signification of spiritual communications
have all been borrowed from " breathing." On this statement com-
pare Knapp. Scr. Var. Arg. pp. 29, et seq., in the treatise upon 2
Pet. i. 19-21. Compare also in my Opusc. Acad, the treatise upon
Heb. iv. 12, 13, pages 4 and 8.

Ver. 24-29. — At the beginning of this paragraph we remarked
that probably none of the later appearances of Christ occurred in
Jerusalem. Amongst these I include that which was witnessed by
Thomas eight days after the resurrection, verse 26. John relates
this appearance less for its own sake than to explain the absence
of Thomas on the former occasion. At the same time, however,
his precise description of the way in which Thomas was convinced
of the reality of Christ's body, might have been especially in-
tended by John for such of his readers as held docetic views,
and who likewise found it difficult to believe in the true human-
ity of the Lord. It has been already observed that Thomas's con-
duct indicates a predominance of the reflective faculties ; so that
we may style him the rationalist'-' amongst the apostles. To such
characters the essential reception of the Divine nature is usually
very difficult, for in them the active powers of the mind have a
controlling influence over the passive, and they deem it possible
only to attain conceptions of Divinity, never to arrive at its true
possession. If, however, the power of Divine truth once assert its
supremacy in their moral nature, then the ideal edifice which their
reason had framed is razed efiectually, and their recognition of
the heavenly element expresses itself in bold faith. Thus it was
with Thomas. Once convinced, he exclaimed, " My Lord and my
God" (6 KvQLoq \iov^ Kol 6 Qeog /zov. The nominative with the
article stands, by a Hebrew idiom, for the vocative). Many attempts
have been made to represent these words of Thomas as a mere ex-
clamation, not at all indicating belief. But they are all disproved by
the grammatical connexion of the words taken in their psychological
relation to the character of Thomas. That the evil custom preva-

* On this passage Tholuck strikingly remarks : " We may see that a passion for the
marvellous was by no means a fault common to all the Jews. Moreover, it can hardly
be a myth that a disciple had doubted thus. His incredulity becomes to us, accordingly,
a very convincing proof of the ti 'th of the resurrection. 'Dubitatum est ab illo,' says
Leo the Great, 'ne dubitetura nobis. "

132 John XX. 24-29.

lent among us of using the name of God as a mere exclamation ex-
isted also among the Jews, cannot be demonstrated ; and is incred-
ible, when we consider the stringent character of their law. Such
an exclamation would have been a transgression of the command,
" Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." Be-
sides, the words, " he said to him," demand a personal reference to
Christ, and the only conclusion to which we can come is, that
Thomas styled Jesus God.

Some have asserted that on this occasion Thomas applied to
the Kedeemer an epithet which expressed more than he would
have uttered in moments of self-possession and consciousness.
Were this assertion made in reference to the earlier condition of
the apostle, I should readily grant it ; but to affirm it of his subse-
quent state of mind, as if in a moment of excitement he had said
more than he meant, is altogether unpsychological. Such natures
as that of Thomas, when once conquered by heavenly influences,
hold their belief the more firmly, that they have been brought to
conviction by almighty power itself, which must have been em-
ployed to subdue their obstinate resistance. We must hence rather
thus conceive this incident, to wit, that this manifestation of Christ
was the moment in which Thomas was thoroughly illuminated by
Divine light, and renewed in his inner nature, so that now for the
first time the Lord was manifested to him, not merely in his out-
ward form, but also to the inner man, in his Divine glory.

But beyond, all question, the name " my God" presupposes that,
as Thomas knew, Christ had claimed Divine honours for himself, and
these previously unintelligible or ofiensive expressions now dawned
upon him in their full import. Thus Christ's revelations of him-
self were attended by the most exalted effects ; in the case of
Peter, of James, and of Thomas, especially ; completing, as they
did, the gradual renewing of their minds, and their regeneration.
Upon these disciples the appearances of Christ produced an effect
exactly similar to that produced upon the Apostle Paul by the
revelation made to him on his journey to Damascus.

The reply of Jesus to the address of Thomas still further con-
firmed the humbling impression experienced by the apostle from
the whole transaction. For Jesus directed his attention to the fact,
that his scepticism was the result of sin, especially of the one-sided
predominance of one mental power, the understanding, by which
susceptibility to Divine influences, and the power of spiritual per-
ception are narrowed and circumscribed. (Upon the relation between
faith and sight, compare at 2 Corinthians v. 7.)

Matthew XXVIII. 16-20. 133

§ 3. Concluding Verses of the Four Evangelists.

(Matth. xxviii. 16-20 ; Mark xvL 15-20 ; Luke xxiv, 44-53 ; John xx. 30, 31.)

In comparing the concluding portions of all tlie four Gospels with
one another, we discover that they involve a certain indefiniteness. In
Matthew xxviii. 16, it is indeed expressly stated, that the Lord ap-
peared to his disciples in Galilee, as he had promised ; and even the lo-
cality of the appearance is particularly mentioned. But as he says
nothing of the ascension into heaven, we are left in darkness as to the
manner in which the discourses delivered at this appearance, and
which seem to have been his final farewell discourses, stand related
to the great concluding event of the Lord's life upon earth. Mark
alludes briefly to the ascension into heaven, but gives, in the
verses immediately antecedent, 15-18, the elements of discourses
which are closely related to those at the conclusion of Matthew.
These, however, unite themselves so loosely by the vague transi-
tion, " and he said to them" (ver. 15), with the preceding, that we
might easily believe the Redeemer had uttered them at his appear-
ance on the evening of the resurrection-day. In like manner, Luke
separates, indeed, his account of the ascension from the rest of the nar-
rative ; but the verses 44-49, connect themselves so loosely with the
preceding, tbat it is doubtful whether the discourses they record
were uttered during the Saviour's last appearance or not. Finally,
John, after his account concerning Thomas, concludes his gospel at
XX. 30, 31, with a brief statement of a general character : for chap-
ter xxi. is a supplement afterwards added to the work. Here, there-
fore, the parting words of the Saviour, as given in the Synoptical
Gospels, are entirely wanting, nor do the passages in chapter xxi.
which mention the Saviour's appearance in Galilee, contain any ac-
count of them ; they touch merely on personal matters, chiefly re-
lating to Peter.

This is a very striking fact, and requires explanation. We
should have supposed that the Evangelists would have felt bound to
relate the history of the resurrection in the most circumstantial
manner, since each successive appearance of the risen Lord, with
all that happened on each occasion, would have been additional evi-
dence of the truth of the resurrection. But, instead of this, they
record them in a general and indefinite manner, without distin-
guishing accurately the several appearances of the Lord, and leav-
ing it quite uncertain whether the discourses which they adduce
were delivered on this or the other occasion. Yet upon a closer
examination, we shall find in the very features of their narrative a
striking internal truth.

184 Matthew XXVIII. 16-20.

Omitting these purely personal references, wliicli mark, for exam-
ple, the appearances on behalf of Thomas and Peter, one common
character belonged in all probability to all the appearances of the
Lord. They were in no way designed to impart any new informa-
tion, or unfold any fresh aspect of his ministry, but rather to con-
firm that faith in his person, the foundation of which had been
already laid. Hence the appearances were upon the whole few in
number, and probably also but brief and transitory. In compre-
hensive intimations, the Saviour informed the disciples of things
pertaining to the kingdom of God, Acts i. 3, of the prophecies of
the Old Testament concerning himself, Luke xxiv. 44 ; and of their
own destination as labourers in the cause of God. The Evangelists,
therefore, on account of the similarity of the truths uttered on these
occasions, might easily not only confound the several appearances,
but might also with entire appropriateness comprehend under a few
leading thoughts the different discourses of the Lord. A more
particular investigation is here necessary* of the critical question
as to the authenticity of the conclusion of Mark's Gospel (xvi.
9-18).

The testimony afforded by codices and other critical aids, is of
such a kind as to render the opinion perfectly conceivable that this
section is not authentic. J. D. Michaelis declares himself favourable
to this view, and is followed by Griesbach, Grats, Bertholdt, Schul-
thess, Schultz, and Fritzsche. Fully as the last-named scholar
thinks the spuriousness of this section proved, that conclusion can
be by no means regarded as established, since the celebrated names
of Storr, Matthai, Eichhorn, Kuinoel, Paulus, Schott, and Saunier,
among its defenders, shew that much may be adduced in proof of
its authenticity. But perhaps the most decisive points in reference
to the question have been overlooked even by the defenders them-
selves. These we shall briefly place before the reader.

If we consider the critical authorities only, they undoubtedly make
the section appear suspicious. The passage is wanting in all the exist-
ing codices, except in codex B, Some, however, have asterisks, and
others scholia,t at this section. Several fathers of the church also
mention that Mark xvi. 9-18 is wanting in many codices. This is
plainly asserted, not only by Euthymius, and Victor of Antioch, but
even by Jerome and Eusebius : ancient and unimpeachable wit-
nesses, The former of these, in one passage (opp. vol. iii..96), even

* On tho critical opinions concerning the conclusion of Mark, compare the Appendix
to Rodiger's Synopsis, p. 235, etc.

f In the codex L. there certainly occurs in a marginal note an entirely different re-
cension of the concluding section of Mark. It roads as follows: (psperal nov koI ravra.
nilvra ii tu. TraprjyyeTi/^iva role irepi rbv Uerpov avvrofiuc e^r/yyecTMv. Mera Je ravra
Kol avrbr 6 Irjaovc dnb uvaroXijc Kol uxpi dvceug i^aTreareiXe 61 avruv rb Upbv koI u(^daf>
Tov KTipvyjia rijg aiwvlov curjjpia^.

Matthew XXVIII. 16-20. 135

mentions that almost all the Greek manuscripts want the section in
question : yet in another passage (opp. vol. ii. 193), he himself hmits
this to a number. Probably Eusehius did not meet with the section
in his manuscripts, or at least regarded it as unauthentic ; for his
canons conclude with verse 8. Irengeus, however (iii, 16), early as
he wrote, acknowledges the section in question as part of the Gos-
pel of Mark. Now, that these are very remarkable phenomena,
cannot be denied ; yet they embrace substantially, all the argu-
ments against the authenticity of the passage. Some have indeed
adduced the fact, that the manuscripts which retain the passage
furnish a multitude of various readings, by which, spurious addi-
tions to the text usually betray themselves. If, however, we com-
pare this section with the history of the adulteress, John viii. 3-
11, we shall be ready to acknowledge that this argument rests upon
a very slender foundation. There are many passages of unques-
tioned authenticity, which exhibit many more discrepancies than
the concluding portion of Mark. In like manner there is no weight
whatever in the objection, that as Mark had said, xiv. 28, and xvi.
7, that Jesus would reveal himself to the disciples in Galilee, if he
had written this concluding section, he would undoubtedly have re-
corded the appearance of Jesus in Galilee ; and as tliis is not done,
the composition must be attributed to some other person. For, a
comparison of ver. 15-18 with Matth. xxviii. 16, will manifestly
shew that Mark actually describes Christ's appearing in Galilee,
and therefore the omission of any express mention of Galilee merely
exhibits a want of circumstantial precision in the narrative, such as
is frequent even in the best historical writers.

But let us, in deference to those important critical doubts, admit
for a moment that the passage is not authentic, in that the addition
of it to the defective codices may be explained, but not its omission
from those which contained it at first. Will the whole matter, then,
be quite plain and easy of comprehension ? I very much question
it. How then has this appended section originated ? Is it per-
chance from materials furnished by tradition, or from apocryphal
gospels ? This no one will maintain ; for the conclusion of Mark
contains no peculiar accounts marked by fulness of detail. Is it
then from our received gospels ? If so, its composer must have in-
tentionally excluded the Gospel of John from his notice, because
he recounts nothing which that Gospel contains ! Now, such an
exclusion would be altogether inexplicable ; for it is certain that, in
after times, when the Gospel collection had been formed, no one
would have taken his information from Matthew and Luke to the
utter neglect of John ! And any one who might have desired to
conclude the Gospel of Mark by. adding a compendious survey of the

136 Mark XVI. 9-20.

appearances of Christ, would without doubt have drawn materiak
from John.

But even making the improbable supposition that, in order to
construct a conclusion to the Gospel of Mark, some person availed
himself merely of Matthew and Luke, does this supposition suflSce
to explain its character ? At a first glance it seems sufficient, in-
asmuch as Mark gives, in a condensed form, all that the other two
Evangelists narrate in detail. Upon inquiring more particularly,
however, we must acknowledge that even this hypothesis cannot be
maintained. For, if the conclusion of Mark's Gospel were such a
mere compilation as we have supposed, we should discover in it a
slavish adherence to the sources from whence its information was
derived. But, on the contrary, although this section contains no
entirely new account (the same indeed is true of the whole Gospel
of Mark), yet it exhibits new and peculiar features which accord
perfectly with the entire manner and style of this Evangelist, so
that it is impossible to suppose it the work of any mere compiler.
To these features belong the words in ver. 12 : tcpavepcoO'q tv trepa
/iop0g, he appeared in another form, and that entirely peculiar ex-
pression, yXwaaaig icaivatg XaXetv, to speak with neio tongues, in ver.
17, and similarly, all which is adduced in ver. 18, under the signs
to be expected by the apostles in their ministry,^such as the touch-
ing of serpents, the drinking of deadly substances, and the praying
over the sick. Now, since no foreign character betrays itself in the
style, we must acknowledge that the spuriousness of this con-
cluding section cannot be regarded as completely established ; es-
pecially since we can assign no imaginable reason why Mark should
have left his narrative uncompleted. He certainly never could have
meant to conclude with the words i(l)ol3ovvTo yap, at ver. 8. The
hypothesis put forth by Michaelis to explain this circumstance be-
trays, by its weakness, how little that is satisfactory can be said on
this point. He is of opinion that Mark derived his information
from Peter ; that Peter, when he was thrown into prison, was un-
able to make further communications to the Evangelist, and conse-
quently that Mark was obliged to break off his narrative abruptly.
But surely we must not imagine that the Evangelist so carefully
restricted hi ir. self to the narrations of Peter. Even assuming that
such had been the case, still Mark could have found the means of
composing a brief conclusion to his Gospel ; to say nothing of the
fact that other persons, besides Peter, had knowledge of the appear-
ances of Christ, from whom he could derive the necessary informa-
tion. What a plain aspect does the case assume when, on the other
hand, we proceed upon the supposition that this concluding section
is authentic ! The concluding portion was severed from the manu-
script. It might have been written upon a separate parchment

Matthew XXVIII. 16-20. 137

from that which contained the rest of the Gospel. This principal
parchment concluded with the words t^o/SoOiro yap. The transcri-
ber, who followed this codex, left out of his copy the concluding
verses ; and persons who noticed this want attempted of themselves
(as is proved by codex L.) briefly to finish the Gospel. In the greatest
number of manuscripts, meanwhile, the authentic conclusion was
preserved, and by these means the two recensions of Mark, the com-
plete and the incomplete one, have come down to us.

Matth, xxviii. 16-20. — As regards particular incidents, the nar-
rative of Matthew alone requires any special investigation, with
which that of Mark blends into a continuous account. The state-
ments of Luke were in part (xxiv. 44-46) explained at Luke xxiv. ,
26 (partly on account especially of the K7]pvx0i'jvai iie-dvotav) , what
follows is to be compared (see remarks at Acts v. 31). Finally,
the last two verses (48, 49) contain only the promise of the outpour-
ing of the Holy Ghost, and the command to tarry in Jerusalem till
it should be accomplished. Upon ef vi/jouf, compare at Luke i. 78.
*'E,v6voaadai = 102^, like the parallel expression Xpiarbv ivdCoaaOaij
putting on Christ, must be understood of a process that thoroughly
penetrates and takes possession of the soul. Upon the brief narra-
tives of Mark and Luke relating to the ascension, as well as upon
all which comes under discussion in connexion with it, and especially
on the omission of this narrative by Matthew and John, compare
particulars at Acts i. 9, et seq.

The concluding words of Matth. xxviii. 16-20, are strikingly
significant. First, this Evangelist remarks that the ensuing dis-
courses of the Lord were delivered by him upon his having appeared
as he had promised, Matth. xxviii. 7, in Galilee ; he even mentions
that the Lord, -vv-hilst uttering them, stood upon a mountain. Tra-
dition itself does not specify the locality more particularly. This
appearance of Jesus, however, is perhaps identical with that alluded
to in 1 Corinth, xv. 6, at which five hundred of the brethren were
present. True, the words of Christ, as given in the narrative, ap-
pear to have been addressed to the twelve merely, or at most to
them in common with the seventy. We can only suppose, however,
that the Lord, on this occasion, as on several others of a similar
kind, directed some parts of his discourse to those who were stand-
ing nearest to him. There is then nothing to militate against the
opinion that these appearances were identical. For on the whole,
the solemnity of the discourse appears well suited to an elevated
scene which the vast numbers assembled together on the occasion
also indicate, consisting probably of all the persons who, up to that
time, had become believers in the Lord. This helps also to explain
how it was possible (as stated in verse 17) that many could still
doubt. Such incredulity, on the part of the apostles themselves, at

138 Matthew XXVIII. 16-20.

that time, is certainly hardly conceivable ; hut to many of the dis-
ciples in Galilee, who then saw the Lord for the first time, it might
have been, as it was with the ajjostles in the beginning. Beza con-
jectures ovde for ol Si Idiaraoav ; but no manuscript supports that
reading. Now, during this appearance in Galilee, at the termina-
tion of wliich it is probable the Lord took a solemn leave of his dis-
ciples, he represented himself to them as the Lord of both heaven and
earth. Compare Matth. xi. 27, John xiii. 3, and xvii. 2. From the
context it might seem that the expression merely referred to (Christ's
moral dominion, since, in immediate connexion with it, there follows
the command to teach the nations. But the tv ovpavc^, in heaven,
is so very express, that it must necessarily refer to more than moral
dominion ; but even apart from this, the teaching of all nations, as
commanded by Christ, presupposes on his part more than mere earth-
ly power. For under it a mere diddoKELv (communication of opinions)
cannot be intended, which, in fact, at the conclusion of the verse,
is expressly distinguished from it. Their mission was to win over the
whole man to the Gospel, to accomplish which no power would be
sufficient except that which they were to receive from a higher, a
Divine sphit. From this point of view, the connexion of ideas
between verses 18 and 20 becomes perfectly clear. For the bold
mandate to go forth and make disciples of all nations, which, in
the feeling of their impotence, may have humbled the apostles,
appeared practicable through the might of him who was sending
them.

In the 19th verse there follows the important institution of the
sacrament of baptism.^'-' The words which directly refer to this in-
stitution, standing in the midst of the sentence, constitute, as it
were, the very kernel of the command. This kernel, however, is
enveloped, as it were, in the thoughts, both immediately preceding
and following. We shall first consider these latter.

Some have manifestly altogether misunderstood this passage (as
we have already intimated) in interpreting the fxadrjrevoare as some-
thing which should precede baptism, as if the meaning of the words
had been, "frst instruct, then baptize them." But the grammat-
ical construction does not warrant such a mode of interpretation,
for the two participles PanTl^ov-eg and SiddoKovreg are precisely what

* There is something remarkable in the fact that baptism was instituted after the
Lord's Supper. It seems to be implied in the relation of the two sacraments, that bap-
tism should occur antecedently to the supper. For only the baptized, who has been born
again, may partake of the heavenly food. However, as the disciples, according to John
iv. 2, baptized at a still earlier period, we are compelled to regard the transaction in the
following light: Baptism was not now instituted for tlie first time, but was appointed by
Christ for every one who should afterwards enter the Church, aud at the same time filled
with power from on high. Doubtless the disciples at first baptized IsraeUtes only, aud
their earlier baptism was not essentiallj different from the baptism of John.

Matthew XXVIII. 16-20. 139

constitute the fiadrjTeveiv, And again, that view is contradicted by
the apostolic practice, in which instruction never preceded baptism.
On the contrary, baptism followed upon the mere confession that
Jesus was the Christ. But when, through baptism, the believer
had become a member of the community of the saints, then, as
such, he participated in the progressive courses of instruction which
prevailed in the church. To this the diSdoKovreg avrovg rrjpelv -navraj
naa irereiXdnT]v vjuTv, teaching them to observe all things, etc., which
follows the command concerning baptism, immediately refers (comp.
at Acts ii. 38).* But as the object of this ministration, appear " all
the nations" (Trdv-a rd Edvrf). In this passage, therefore, we behold
Christ occupying the position of comprehensive universality, in
accordance with which the whole human race is the object of his
reconciling efficacy. (On the more restricted view of his ministry,
comp. at Matthew x. 5, 6.) Under his sacred influence, sent to
them from above, and which shall never cease, the Lord desired
that all the nations of the earth should attain to spiritual life, and
development. Yet his church was not assuredly to remain as a
merely spiritual community in love and faith. It was also to
exhibit itself visibly in external manifestation. To this leads the
institution of an external rite, by which all his disciples were to be
consecrated. But that at the beginning even the apostles did not
catch this comprehensive meaning of the words, is shewn in the
history of Peter (Acts x. 9, et seq.) — to whom it was gTadually un-
folded by the Spirit. The recension of Mark xvi. 15, who connects
the TTOQevdev-eg eig rbv icoafiov dnavra with the KTjpvaoEiv ro evayyEXiov
idarj -fi Kriaei, is somewhat peculiar. Now, a glance shews that the
.atter expression, the K-loig, is here equivalent to the foregoing /coa-
log. When Lightfoot, therefore, on this passage, appeals to that
Rabbinical use of language which makes nSi-ja, that is, creatures,
created beings, to be used of the heathen, he unwarrantably restricts
the meaning of the expression ; for the gospel was surely still to be
preached to the Jews also. Hence, chiefly with reference to Colos-
sians i. 15 and 23, and Hebrew^s iv. 13, this phrase is usually inter-
preted as of like significance with -avreg drOpco-ot. These latter
passages, however, should be differently rendered. In Col. i. 15,
the KTLmg is put for creation universally. In Col. i. 23, it should be
rendered as referring to the whole earth, all that is under heaven.
In Heb. iv. 13, KTioig, without the article, stands for an individual
created thing. Still, without the article, KTcoig may doubtless sig-
nify humanity ; yet rrdaa iniaig certainly cannot. The latter form-
ula, from the nature of the case, must always denote the universe.

* Tho connexion of the fiadrjTEvaaTtyiMh. the ^aTrri^ovreQ and diducKOvrer, however,
undeniably intimates, that in uttering those words the Saviour had no immediate thought
of infant baptism. Compare on this subject tho observations at Acts xvi. 14, 15.

140 Matthew XXVIII. 16-20.

Hence the passage under discussion must not be taken as indicating
mankind in positive separation from the world of created things
generally, as it is understood by most. This view tends to ejfface a
profound idea which pervades the whole New Testament, viz., that
with the gospel is united the glorification of all created things, by
a process which commences, it is true, with the human race, but
gradually penetrates all things. (Compare the particulars at Eom.
viii. 19, seq.) The iirlai^ is therefore put for humanity, but only in
so far as humanity is the flower of the whole creation.*

The baptismal formula itself, is all that now remains to be
explained. It is plain from the outset, that the Lord intended to
institute a perpetual rite which should be binding upon the church
in all ages, and in which alike baptism and teaching refer to all
nations. From this it follows, therefore, that the baptism ordained
by Christ differed essentially from the baptism of John, which pos-
sessed but a temporary significance. (Compare at Matth. iii. 13.)
The Christian sacrament of baptism was not to be merely a baptism
of repentance {(id-nTiciia rrig fieravoiag), but rather a symbol of the
second birth, coincident with the external ordinance. (Comp. at
John iii. 5.) Hence, as at John iii. 3, salvation is made dependent
on regeneration, so in the parallel (Mark xvi. 16) could it be made
dependent on baptism and the faith which it necessarily presup-
poses. The second half of the verse, however, which merely opposes
to "believeth" "believeth not" (without adding "and is not bap-
tized") serves to indicate that the internal process of regeneration
is essentially necessary to salvation ; but that in certain cases the
external ordinance of baptism, which, according to the original insti-
tution, coincides with it, may be dispensed Avith.f By the intro-
ducing of paedo- baptism,^ the position which this ordinance occupied

* The expression of the pious Hildegard is full of spirit : " When God created the
world, he impressed on man the stamp of the whole creation, as we inscribe on a small
bit of parchment the events and dates of a whole year. For this reason, in the language
of God, man is designated ' every creature,' " Compare Sailer's Letters from all Centu
ries, vol. iv. p. 14.

■j- The ancient church was therefore perfectly correct in acknowledging even unbap-
tized persons, who, during the persecutions had confessed Christ, and been put to death
in consequence, to be true believers. But had these confessors remained alive, obedience
to the command of the Lord would have impelled them to seek baptism.

I Under the correct impression, that infant baptism cannot itself be regeneration, our
chi;rch has ordained that baptized children cannot partake of the Lord's supper before
confirmation, which otherwise, as regenerate persons, could not be refused to them. But
yet infant baptism is not without effect. The Holy Ghost can, even in the mother's
womb, operate upon the babe. Luke i. 41. The operation of the Holy Ghost in infant
baptism, cannot, however, be regarded as overthrowing the dominion of hereditary sin-
fulness. This has never been asserted in the Lutheran doctrines. (Comp. the observar
tions on Acts xvi. 14, 15.) Taken in this sense, namely, as destroying the dominion of
hereditary sin, regeneration, without consciousness, and without a personal appropriation
of grace, is perfectly inconceivable. Upon the application of Christian baptism to thoso

Matthew XXVIIL 16-20. 141

is changed. PaBdo-baptism is certainly not apostolic. But it be-
came necessary in the church, when once the supernatural commu-
nication of the powers of the Holy Spirit had ceased. The external
rite then retrograded to the position occupied by the baptism of
John, and receives its necessary completion only through confir-
mation.*

The meaning of the words : PanTi^eiv elg rb uvofia rov Trarpof, koc
rov vlov, Koi Tov ayiov nvevfiaTog, to baptize into the name, etc., is
best learned from such passages as 1 Cor. i. 13, x. 2, in which bap-
tism, elg TO ovojia Tlavkov and elg rov Mwcr^v, is spoken of. The
PanTi^iv elg riva, baptizing into any one, signifies baptism as involv-
ing a binding obligation ; a rite, whereby one is pledged ; and the
sublime object to which baptism binds, consists of Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost. ("Ovojua = Dp, signifies here again the very essence of
God himself.)

The unbaptized are therefore regarded as not possessing essential
connexion with God ; as separate from God. This sinful aliena-
tion, which is, at the same time, the source of all human misery,
both external and internal, is removed by baptism and regeneration.
The Divine power is wedded to the human soul, which thus be-
comes itself the parent of a higher heavenly consciousness.f But
it is worthy of notice that the Saviour does not here give the name
of God directly, but the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
as the exalted object to which the votary of baptism becomes
pledged. -This is the only passage in the Gospels in which the Lord
himself names the three Divine persons together. In many pas-
sages the Saviour, it is true, describes both the Son and the Holy
Ghost individually as Divine personalities. Here, however, they ap-
pear together, and are styled in common the object to which be-
lievers bind themselves by baptism. The elements of the doctrine
of the Trinity are thus given in Christ's identical words. But the
dogma is presented in an entirely undeveloped form, and the un-
folding of the mystery is committed to the scientific activity of the
church. The established doctrine of the church on this subject is

who had received the baptism of John previously, comp. the observations at Acts xix 1,
et seq.

* According to this, it cannot be asserted that infant baptism is necessary to salvation,
for the inward act of regeneration, which is possible only with consciousness, cannot be
supposed in connexion with it. The confusion of the baptism of John (and of pasdo-
baptism, which stands parallel to it), with the baptism which is specifically Christian, was
first made prevalent in the church by Augustine, and has since prevailed in it.

■j- In Ullman's Studien, 1832, H. 2, s. 410, et seq.. Dr. Bindseil of Hallo explains the
words (ianri^eiv ftf ovofia rov narpog, k. t. X., " first, as an expression of subjection (bet-
ter, of obligation) to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and secondly, as also necessarily in-
timating an elevation of the recipient to superior dignity." But the formula, in itself|
does not at all signify the latter thought, although it is implied doubtless in the relation
of the ordinance.

142 Matthew XXVIII. 16-20.

essentially that of the Bible also, but the symbolically derived term
Person involves a degree of inconvenience, and may easily lead to
error. Human language, however, furnishes no expression by which
the connexion between a unity of essence with an independence of
consciousness, in Father, Son, and Spirit can be more appropriately
indicated. We cannot therefore charge the teachers of the church
with error because they have made choice of this expression. We
can only lament the imperfection of human language, which ren-
ders it inadequate to designate the most exalted and absolute rela-
tions which are clearly comprehensible to the purified reason only,
by precise ideas, and words corresponding with them in clearness.

The chief error to which the word " Person" leads, and which
has constantly been opposed by all the more profound teachers of the
church, and especially by Augustine, in his acute and profound work
on the subject of the Trinity, is this. We are led by it to conceive
of Father, Son, and Spirit as locally or mechanically distinct from
one another, whilst we should view them as livingly interpenetrating
one another. To this view we may advantageously oppose what-
ever there is of truth in Sabellianism (which rightly recognizes this
unity in the existence of the Deity), yet without adopting at the
same time its erroneous denial of the individual independency of
consciousness in Father, Son, and Spirit. In the commentary on
Matthew xii. 32, and John i. 1, I have intimated my views of the
Trinity. But to facilitate our survey, I shall here state them again
in a condensed form. The only means we possess for illustrating the
unity of the essence, and the severalty of consciousness in the God-
head, consists in the corresponding analogy which we find in the
spiritual nature of man, the image of God. As in man there is not
only spiritual being, but also the knowledge of that being, so
also in the Divine nature, if we apprehend it as a living God,
not as a dead notion, we must suppose both being and the knowl-
edge of its peculiar being. This knowledge which God possesses
of himself is designated as the Son : in him dwells the Father
himself, and through him effects everything that he does effect.
But, as all the powers of the Father concentrate themselves,
as it were, in his self-consciousness, so do they also continually
revert from the Son to their primary source, the Father, and
this return is designated as the Holy Ghost. This view explains
the phraseology of Scripture, where it is said that." the Father
draws to the Son," but, " the Son leads, in the Holy Ghost, back
again to the Father." The manifestation of the influence of Fa-
ther, Son, and Holy Ghost, thus presents a climax. All knowledge
of God proceeds from the Father, as absolute poioer, through the
Son, as perfect love, to the Holy Ghost, as complete holiness. But
regarded conversely, the Holy Ghost leads back directly to the

Matthew XXVIII. 16-20. . 143

Father, so that the end again issues in the beginning. And thus,
in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is represented the eternal being
of God in its essential internal movement and interaction. If
according to this explanation it may appear difficult to under-
stand how inward actions of the Divine Being can appear as
an individual ponsciousncss, it is explained by the consideration
that the activities of the absolute Spirit are, in accordance with
its nature, pure life, being, and consciousness. To apprehend,
however, the idea of the individual as something limited and
bounded within itself, and totally separated from all other spirit-
ual life, would be the very error which has been already pointed
out ; and the Scriptures, in their entire mode of expression, shew
that in this sense it apprehends neither the Son nor the Holy Ghost
as a person. The Son, indeed, appears individualized in the person
of Jesus, but he labours by regeneration to transform all humanity
into his own nature, on Avhich account the whole church is simply
called Christ (1 Cor. xii. 12); and the Holy Ghost also appears
shed abroad in the hearts of all believers, like the Father, who
is omnipresent throughout the whole universe. As, therefore,
the consciousness of God in itself can be conceived of only as all-
comprehending, so also must the notion of Person under the true
idea of the doctrine of the Trinity, be understood in an all-com-
prehensive sense. By this means a great deal of the difficulty
which, from the earliest times, has surrounded the doctrine of the
Trinity, will be obviated.

Apart from this, the important passage before us presents yet
another question for discussion, namely, " Whether, in the institu-
tory loords quoted, the Lord did or did not intend to establish a
fixed formula of baptism ?" This question would not have been
suggested at all, had the other portions of the New Testament
Scriptures shewn that the disciples, in administering baptism, em-
ployed these words. But, instead of this, we find that, even in the
history of the Acts of the Apostles, as often as baptism is mentioned
it is performed only elg, or inl rb ovon-a, h roi dvofmri 'Irjaov, or
Xpcarov.^ In the first place, however, the act of baptism itself is
in no passage thus described, but the fact of baptism merely indi-
cated. We cannot, therefore, infer from the use of these phrases
that the complete formula given by the Saviour was not employed.
These phrases might have been intended merely to distinguish
baptism as a Christian ordinance, from that of John. Add to
this that there are several passages (Acts xix. 2, comp. with ver.

* From this circumstance, and because the formula of baptism is not mentioned in
Mark, Teller would deduce the conclusion that the passage in Matthew is not authentic!
— a hypothesis which has no foundation whatever, and arose merely from hostility to the
doctrine of the Trinity.

144 Matthew XXVIII. 16-20.

5, Tit, iii. 4, ff.), in which the Son and the Holy Ghost are named
in such a connexion with baptism as to render it highly probable
that the names form part of the formula used in that ordinance,
whilst at the same time the most ancient Christian writers (Jus-
tin Martyr, for instance), quote the words of the passage before us
as the baptismal formula. (Compare Just. Mar. Apol., 1, p. 93,
in my " Monum. Hist, Eccl," vol, ii. p. 167.) As in the institution
of the holy supper, so also in the institution of baptism, the
Saviour would without doubt have employed the most suitable
words to signify the spiritual character of the ceremony. And
from this, therefore, arises the church's obligation to retain the
practice of using these words as the formula for the administra-
tion of this sacrament. The ancient church, however, exercised
considerable freedom in everything that regarded the mere ex-
ternals of the ordinance ; and therefore it may well have hap-
pened, that in single instances they baptized in the name of Jesus
only. That this was the fact appears from the later controversies
maintained by Cyprian on the baptism of heretics. (Compare
Cypriani epist. 73, in my " Monum, Hist, Eccl." vol. ii. p. 118,
note.) Such a baptism, performed solely in the name of Jesus, was
however not less valid than if accompanied by the complete for-
mula. For Christ implies alike the Father, and the Holy Ghost ;
but the converse will not hold, that the Father implies the Son.
Such modern phrases, therefore, as " to baptize into the eternal
love," are to be rejected as unchristian. They would be more ac-
cordant with the Old Testament dispensation.

The Saviour now in conclusion sustains his command to the little
band of his disciples, to impart new life to the whole world, by the
promise of his own almighty assistance, which should never fail
them. (The owrtXeia rov alCovog, must here again be und2rstood as
referring to the period of growth and development assigned to the
PaaiXeia rov Qeov, for only during this period lasts the struggle
which renders the help of Christ necessary. In the kingdom of God,
the Lord Jesus is also present, it is true, but there his presence is to
be regarded as the fountain of blessedness, not as a protection amidst
dangers. On this subject, compare at Matth, xxiv, 3,) The pas-
sage in Mark xvi. 17, 18, describes particularly the abundant assist-
ance which the church is to receive from the presence of Christ,
during the continuance of her struggles, and especially mentions
the tokens (arjjxda) of his power which the disciples should experi-
ence.* Sufficient examples occur in the Acts of the casting out of

* Some would hold this passage also as unauthentic. But the critical authorities, and
even its own contents, clearly testify to its authenticity. For, surely the mention of the
drinking of deadly substances would not have been introduced if the passage had been
interpolated, becaiise no accredited example of that sign can be adduced.

John XX. 30, 31. 145

demons, and of the healing of sick persons, and even of the touching
of serpents there occurs one well known account (Acts xxviii. 3).
On the other liand, there is no instance whatever of the drinking
of deadly poisons {davdoifiov scil. (f>dpfiaK.ov) ^ and, as we noticed pre-
viously, this very fact aflfords evidence of the genuineness of this
passage in Mark.* (Upon the yXcjoaaig XaXelv, compare particulars
at Acts ii. 4.) The expletive clause Kaivalg yXcjoaacg XaMioovoi oc-
curs here only. Every hypothesis concerning it encounters some
difficulty, since neither the languages nor the tongues were in the
proper sense of the word neiv ; and it is certainly harsh to under-
stand ueio (Kaivalg) as completely synonymous with other (iripaig,
Acts ii, 4). The simplest course perhaps is to suppose, in accord-
ance with 1 Cor. xiii. 1, that the speech of him who spake with
tongues (yAwacrg XaXojv) was sometimes regarded as an angelic lan-
guage, and hence designated as a new language.f The plural form
may be explained from the fact that (as is shewn by 1 Cor. xiv.) the
speaking with tongues manifested itself in several distinct forms,
especially in praying and singing in the spirit.

John XX. 30, 31. — If we compare the conclusion of the fourth
gospel, that of John, with the beginning of the same work, we dis-
cover an admirable closing up. John concludes the history of
Thomas with the words : " blessed are they who have not seen and
yet have believed" (jxaKapioL ol iir) ISovregj ical Tnarevaavreg'). In this
is contained, though indirectly, the most powerful admonition to the
reader, namely, that although we have not beheld the Lord with
the bodily eye, we should believe in the announcement of him who
dwelt amongst men full of grace and truth. And to awaken this
faith, to convince his readers of the fact, that Christ the Messiah
was the true Son of God, was the great object of John's GospeL
For as the logos, who is the life (John i. 4), imparted this life to
John, through faith, so the disciple of love would render this blessed
life accessible to his readers. In order, meanwhile, to leave to his
readers an open eye for further surveys of the infinitely copious life
of Christ, John intimates that he had not related everything, but
only many things, so that much still remained for that spirit of in-
quiry which his own work should have awakened in them. As
Liicke and Kuinoel correctly interpret it, the " signs" (or]iJ.ua), in the
present connexion, can refer only to the appearances of the risen Ee-
deemer. Tholuck, on account of the concluding verse (ver. 31), would
refer the expression to all the miracles previously mentioned. But wo

* It is mentioned, in an apocryphal writing, that John drank poison without sustain-
ing any injury, Fabricii codex, apocr. vol. ii. p. 575, et seq , but the legend was perbajw
suggested by thispassj.ge in Mark.

f Rather explain new as " new to them, " such as the apostles were before unao-
quainted with ; new not absolutely, but relatively. — [K.
Vol. III.— 10

146 John XXI. 1.

shall be more correct in supposing that ver. 30 stands in immediate con-
nexion with that which directly precedes it, and then follows the con-
clusion. This therefore will be the connexion : " Much still remains
to be narrated concerning the appearance of the Lord, but what has
been here stated, as well as what was stated formerly, furnishes a
sufficient basis of faith in the Kedeemer." But again, the appear-
ances of Christ are themselves called orjiida, signs, just as (pavepova-
dm, manifested himself, i^ "^^^^ elsewhere in reference to them, a
circumstance which must be regarded as favouring the hypothesis,
that in the opinion of the Evangelists, the Saviour arose from the
grave with a glorified body.-^ Finally, verse 31 expresses directly
the main object of the gospel, as we observed in our introduction to
the Gospel of John. John's representation, however, of Jesus as
the true Christ and the Son of God, was immediately designed for a
special class of opinions in the ancient church, though without losing
sight of more general objects. Finally, " Son of God" {vlbg rov
Qeov), in this passage, is evidently to be regarded from the Christian
point of view, as explanatory of the Xpiorog ; so that from this it
cannot be inferred that vlbg rov Qeov was a well-known and usual
name for the Messiah amongst the Jews of that age. Compare on
this point the remarks made at Luke i. 35.

With this statement of his object, John appropriately concludes
his work in a manner calculated to excite in his readers a conscious-
ness of the obligation laid upon them by the announcement that
the promised Saviour had appeared.

§ 4. Appendix of John's Gospel.

(John xxi. 1-25.)

The fact that the last chapter of John's gospel forms a sup-
plement to the entire work is so plain, and now so generally ac-
knowledged, that it needs no further proof But on the question,
" Who should be regarded as the composer of this appendix ?"
commentators have not, as yet, been able unanimously to agree.
The only result of all the investigations of this subject which com-
mends itself as tenable, is that which regards the last two verses
only as not written by John, while the whole remaining portion of
the chapter was added to the complete Gospel by the Evangelist
himselff

* Doubtful His appearances would be signs {aijfiela) simply as proving his resurreo
tion, and the term <j>avepovadai (shewed himself), might apply simply to the rareness of
these appearances. The risen Lord did not, as before, associate with his disciples, but only
occasionally appeared to them. Still the/act of his glorified body seems indubitable. — [K.

f Compare, on the authenticity of the concluding chapter of John, Guerike's Beitrage^
vol. i., 8. 67, et seq.

John XXI. 1. 147

To this effect, Tholuck, in particular, expresses himself. Those
scholars who deny the authenticity of the whole chapter (at the
head of whom stand Schott and Liicke), whether they assume as
its author some definite person (e. g., the preshyter John), or even
some one unknown, or with Grotius attribute its composition to
the Ephesian church, borrow their weightiest reasons for this view
merely from the last verse. The natural hyperbole of ver. 25 cer-
tainly docs not accord with the spirit of John, which dictated the
most beautiful moderation of expression. Just as little does the use
of the plural olda^iev in verse 24 correspond with the beginning of the
statement, ovrog iartv 6 iiaBr]Triq 6 fxapTvpCiv Trepl tovtcjv koI ypd'ipa^
-avra. Kuinoel and Weber have proved most satisfactorily that
no sufficient reason can be adduced for rejecting the larger part of
the chapter, since all the manuscripts contain it ; the ideas are
characteristic of John ; and even in style it presents no distin-
guishable differences.

The only objections, therefore, against the authenticity of the
chapter must arise from its contents. These contents unquestion-
ably present much that is surprising, and in any case, therefore, the
question is forced upon us, " What could have influenced John to
append sucli statements to his gospel, after he had already brought
it to a conclusion ?" To reason from the contents of a passage to
its genuineness is always a questionable course, even though it con-
tain matter deviating widely from the spirit and modes of thought
of the alleged author. No such deviation can here be pointed out,
though the contents of the chapter, when compared with the earlier
portions of this Evangelist's gospel, appear poor and without signi-
ficance. This will hold good of the first half at least of the chapter
so long as it is interpreted literally, since a successful draught of
fishes is the only incident it recounts. But in the second half, on
the other hand, an event is recorded, which might certainly have oc-
casioned the Evangelist to touch upon it in a special supplementary
note, namely, a report that he should remain living until the future
advent of the Lord. But if this had been the sole motive of John
for composing this appendix, what purpose could be subserved by
such a lengthened,, unmeaning preface concerning the occurrence
upon the lake of Gennesareth ? To this question, no completely
satisfactory reply can be afforded by those who defend the authen-
ticity of the chapter, so long as they controvert the symbolical''*
mode of interpreting it, which formerly obtained currency amongst
the most spiritual and intellectual fathers of the church,f and

* Upon the STmbolical acta of Christ generally, compare in the Commentary, Part I.,
at Matthew xxL 19.

f I shall here quoto the words of Augustine, who in essentials correctly explains the
passage, although perhaps he goes too far in discovering the significance of minutise. Ho

148 John XX f. 1-6.

which in this section of the evangelical history receives the most
undeniable supports from the narrative itself.

Through the entire second half of the chapter, the symholic
character manifestly prevails. The "girding/' the "stretching
forth of the hands," the " following," the " tarrying," cannot in any
case be understood in a merely literal sense. The same symbolical
character may therefore be very simply extended to the first half
also, to which the application of such a character is the more justi-
fiable and appropriate, that the very words of Christ in reference to
a perfectly similar incident recorded elsewhere (Luke v, 4) entirely
authorize the symbolical interpretation. (On this point compare
the full investigation in the Comm. Part I.) The fact that through-
out the entire chapter, not John, but Peter, plays the principal
part, testifies manifestly and emphatically in favour of its authen-
ticity, and against the assumption that it was composed at a later
period by any other historian. Had it been subjoined by some teacher
in the church, who was a disciple of John, he would, without a
doubt, have drawn his picture more to give prominence to John. But
here we have an entirely candid history, written sine ira et studio.

John xxi. 1-6. The two concluding verses of the Gospel, (xx.
30, 31) are ignored, and the subsequent narrative attached directly
to the last appearance of Christ, by the fierd ravra, after this.
(Compare chap. xxi. 14.) The fact, that according to the narrative
in the twenty-first chapter, the disciples prosecute their worldly
vocation, loses its surprising character when we reflect that even
Paul, during the course of his apostolic labours, constantly practised

refers the draught of fishes to the anticipated spiritual agency of Peter. But he places
the draught of fishes in parallelism with the analogous account of Luke v., and de-
clares himself on the subject in the following manner: — Hoc loco qualiter in seculi fine
futura sit ccclesia dominus significat, alia piscatione significavit qualiter nunc sit. Quod
autem illud fecit in initio pi'sedicationis suae hoc, vero post resurrectionem suam, hinc
ostenditiDam capturam piscium, bonos et malos significare, quos nunc habet ecclesia;
istam vero tantummodo bonos, quos habebit in ajternum, completa in fine hujus seculi
resurrectione mortuarum. Deniqae ibi Jesus non sicut hie in Uttore stabat, quando jus-
sit pisces capi : sed ascendens in unam navim, quaj erat Simonis, rogavit eum, ut a terra
reduceret pusillum et in ea sedens docebat turbas, ut cessavit autem loqui, dixit ad Si-
monem: "due in altum et laxate retia vestra in capturam." Et illic quod captum est
piscium in naviculis fuit, non sicut hie rete extraxerunt in terram. His signis et si qua
alia potuerint rcperiri, ibi ecclesia in hoc scculo, hie vero in fine seculi figurata est; ideo
iUud ante, hoc autem post resurrectionem domini factum est, quia ibi nos Christus signi-
ficavit vocatos, hie resuscitates. Ibi retia non mittuntur in dexteram, ne solos signifi-
cent bonos, uec in sinistram, ne solos malos, sed indifferenter: "laxate," inquit, "retia
vestra in capturam," ut permixtos intelligamus bonos et malos. Hie autem iniquit :
" Mittite in dexteram navigii rete ut significaret eos, qui stabant ad dexteram, solos bonos."
Ibi rete propter significanda schismata rumpebatur, hie vero quoniam tunc jam in ilia
Bumma pace sanctorum nulla erant schismata, pertinuit ad evangellstam dlcere : " et cum
tanti essent, non est scissum rete. Tanquam illud respiceret ubi scissum est et in iUius
maU comparatione commondaret hoc bonum." Cf. Opera Augustini edit. Benedict. voL
ilL p. 691, et seq.

John XXI. 7-14. 149

his handicraft also. On this occasion, the appearing of Jesus was
again sudden : without the disciples having observed his approach,
he was standing before them.

(In verse 4, elg is not = iv : rather connect with the toTTj the pre-
vious movement. Ugooipdycov = oxpov^ a relish, that which is eaten
with bread.)

Yer. 7-14. — By the miraculous draught of fishes, the beloved
disciple discovered the gracious presence of the Lord, and the ex-
citable Peter at once hastens to him by swimming. {Vvfivog expresses
here one merely clad with his under garment. He therefore wrap-
ped an over-garment around himself, in order probably to appear
fully clothed on the sbore. Some have falsely interpreted the Inev-
6vT7]g of the under garment, but that is called vTrodvrrjg^ as indicated
also by its etymology.) In the sequel of this account, verse 9, it is
surprising, that when the disciples were come with the ship to the
shore, they found a fire of coals, food (d-ipaptov^ here fish roasted on
the coals), and bread. Some writers have abandoned themselves to-
very wild notions in the explanation of this circumstance (as, e. g.,
that all this was produced out of nothing !) which need no particu-
lar disproof. Still, in whatever manner we regard the statement,
the fact is very remarkable, even if we adopt the simplest suppo-
sition, viz., that the Lord had caused these preparations to be
made upon the shore. It may be asked for instance, for what
purpose aU this ? Such refreshment was alike unnecessary for
the risen Eedeemer and for the disciples, who had their dwellings
in the neighbourhood ; and, would not these external preparations
hinder that powerful influence upon their inner nature, which Jesus
assuredly contemplated in appearing to them ? These questions
are answered only by the supposition that the whole account is
symbolical. To the inhabitants of western countries, this style
of conveying instruction may appear somewhat strange ; in the
East, however, it is the usual method, and upon all less de-
veloped capacities of conception, is calculated to produce a deep
impression.

How powerfully, for example, would the draught of fishes remind
the disciples, and especially Peter, of their first vocation by the
Saviour, and the blessed results promised to their ministry ! In
like manner the food provided for them here by the Saviour after
their completed toil, would intimate that blissful feast which he
prepares for his people with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in the king-
dom of God.* Viewed in this light, the whole transaction attains

* Augustine (loc, cit. s. 594) in his interpretation of the passage, considers that it con-
tains an allusion to the Lord's Supper, for he says; "Piscis assus, Christus est passus;
ipse est panis, qui de coelo descendit ; huic incorporatur ecclesia, ad participandum, beati*
tudi: em sempitemam."

150 John XXI. 15-17.

meaning and significance, and the connexion of what follows with
it becomes obvious. (The remark that this was the third appear-
ance of Jesus is correct, if it be limited to those appearances which
were witnessed by several disciples at the same time.)

Ver. 15-17. — According to the interpretation just given, the
second half of the chapter follows the first naturally and easily, and
the two form a complete whole.

After the prophetic glance, vouchsafed to the apostle, at the
greatness of his future ministry, the Lord directs his attention to
the conditions on which it should depend. Love to Christ, and vol-
untary self-devotion, are its indispensable requirements. That the
threefold question of the Lord had a reference to the threefold
denial of Peter, is too obvious to be overlooked. But Tho-
luck's conjecture that the Lord, after some intermediate speech
with the other disciples, which is omitted in the narrative, turned,
first with the second question, and next with the third, to Peter,
to me appears anything but probable. For the immediate reit-
eration of the question directly and consecutively, would power-
fully contribute to the impression, which the Lord intended to
produce. At the first, Peter remains perfectly tranquil, and ap-
peals to the knowledge of the Lord himself; but at the last ques-
tion he is sensible that the object of Jesus is to produce within him
a salutary feeling of humiliation, and he becomes troubled. Yet he
could with heartfelt truth appeal to his love of the Saviour, and be-
cause that was the case, the Lord therefore now affixed the seal to
his blessed commission, in the (iooKe ra -QolBa-d [lov, feed my sheep.
There is still, however, another circumstance, which Tholuck, in his
exposition of this passage seems to me to have mistaken. For ex-
ample, he would have the question " lovest thou me more than
these ?" {dyaTTdg fie TrXelov tovtcjv ;) in ver. 15, to refer retrospect-
ively to Matth. xxvi. 33, where Peter is stated to have said, " though
all should be offended for thy sake, yet will not I be ofiended ;"
as if Christ had desired to awaken in Peter the conviction that he
had erred respecting his own character. But, as we remarked in our
comment upon Matth. xvi. 19, Peter did in fact possess a certain
spiritual eminence above the other disciples, in the power of effect-
ive, external action.

It might therefore be said of him with perfect truth, that he
loved the Lord with more energy than did any of the others. And
that the Saviour would not deny this, is manifest from the fact that,
without Peter's having made any such apology as, " I love thee far
less than do the others, since I could deny thee," he yet appointed
him the shepherd of his flock. The object of Jesus was, therefore,
not to prove to Peter that he felt no love to him, for Peter really
did possess it, nay, he possessed it even when he denied him, or

John XXI. 18, 19. 151

lie would never have been able to rise again so speedily to the en-
joyment of faith, after the waves of darkness had rolled over his
head. The object of the questions was therefore this alone : to
lead the apostle to perfect poverty of spirit, and to emancipation
from the thraldom of self But this consists not in affirming that
we have no love, when we really possess it ; such a profession would
indicate an ignorance of ourselves or a false humility. It rather so
reveals itself as to lead man not to ascribe all that he discovers with-
in himself of the operations of grace to himself, as a secure unalien-
able possession ; but to regard them as presents of no absolutely
enduring character, but which the Lord, who bestowed them, can
again, whenever he pleases, withdraw. Thus the soul remains hum-
ble, feeling its own littleness even amid all the adornments of Di-
vine grace, which it never claims as its absolute possession. But
that was what Peter had done ! The ardour of love which, in
the fulness of the spirit, inlflamed his soul, took entire possession
of him ; he felt himself strong as a hero ; but when this fulness of
power forsook him, he denied his Lord, in the prospect of imagined
dangers.

Finally, as to the Catholic church referring this passage to the
primacy of the Pope, the remarks hold which were made at Matth.
xvi. 19. What is here said to Peter, as the representative of the
apostles, refers equally to them all. But that Peter must certainly
be regarded as their representative, cannot be denied.* The asser-
tion that this representative character involved a superior plenipo-
tentiary power, or a succession, is, however, just as incapable of
proof, and as unlikely as that in general the collective body of the
twelve was perpetuated after their death.

Ver. 18, 19. — Upon the promise by which the Saviour confided
to Peter the office of pastor over believers, there follows immediately
a solemn admonition concerning the end of his earthly pilgrimage.
Although he was to be great in the kingdom of God, still the issue
of his career was to be painful and abhorrent to the natural human
will. The figurative words in which this admonition was couched,
would have been surrendered still more than they have been to the
caprice of interpreters, had not the Evangelist himself subjoined
their explanation. According to tradition, Peter died upon the
cross, Eusebius' Hist. Eccles. ii. 35. And the most ancient teachers
in the church understood the words as referring to hisf crucifixion.

* Clirysostom, who knew nothing of any primacy, expresses himself to the same effect
on this passage : 6 JliTpog rr/v npoaTaaiav ivsTtiaTevdr) rCJv aSeXipuv. Cyprian also ac-
knowledges Peter as the representative of the apostles, but even at that period transferred
this character to the Bishop of Rome. Compare Cypriani Ep. 65, in my Monum. Hist
Eccles. IL p. 50.

f Tertulliani Scorpiacae, cap. 15, tunc Petrus ab altero vincitur, cum cruel adstrir^*
gitur.

152 John XXI. 20-23.

It is only in modern times that it has been thought the worda
might be understood merely of his arrest, since, if they were re-
ferred to the crucifixion, the girding must have taken place pre-
vious to the stretching out of the hands. A fitting parallel with
this is furnished in Ads xxi. 11, where the prophet Agabus binds
his hands and feet with Paul's girdle, as a sign of his imprison-
ment. Yet it has been justly stated that, like all proj)hetic inti-
mations, the passage is both brief and obscure. Hence it remains
indefinite whether the girding (^oywvetv^ should be referred to
the binding of his hands on his being arrested, or to his being
bound to the cross. It is sufficient meanwhile that the expressions
selected migJit refer to his cruci%:ion, and it may well have hap-
pened that this more definite meaning of the words first dawned
upon John when he heard of the martyrdom of Peter. But the
passage refers not merely to the stretching forth of hands, and to
being bound, but also to the contrasted conditions in youth and
in old age. The mention of Peter's youthful condition is commonly
wholly overlooked ; it is regarded as void of significancy in itself,
and as merely placed in antithesis to death in old age. It is plain,
however, that we should not understand the one half only as typi-
cal, and the other half as literal ; both must be taken figuratively,
and both literally.

Primarily, therefore, the passage asserts simply, that, in youth,
man exults in the full freedom of his powers, but in old age, feels
himself bound in many ways by his infirmities, and requires the help
of others. Both these divisions then are significant. They refer
to youth and age in the spiritual life (1 John ii. 13, 14). In the
fulness of spiritual power, Peter acted boldly and vigorously, in
the manner which seemed best to himself. But, in his age, he was
to be restrained in many ways ; fiercely persecuted, and neces-
sitated against his own will to be an active agent in various circum-
stances. These dealings had a disciplinary object : they were to
cause the disciple to forego his own will, and to divest him of all
selfishness. The climax of the discipline was the death by cruci-
fixion of Peter himself, in which was literally fulfilled that which in
its more general sense, he had long previously experienced to be
true. The interpretation proposed by Fikenscher — " with increas-
ing age, thou shalt become more and more the servant of another
(namely, of God) — who will gird thee and employ thee. as he may
please," — is in itself, no doubt, very appropriate, but does not har-
monize with the connexion.

Verses 20-23. — Upon this particular discourse of the Lord to
Peter, there follows another, which, in connexion with the accom-
panying declarations of the Evangelist, presents a very enigmatical
character. The Kedeemer says to Peter, Follow me. That the

John XXI. 20-23. 153

words were accompanied by an action, seems plainly intimated
by what follows. The " follow me" {aKoXovdec iioi) cannot possibly
be understood as a mere trope, for the scene is circumstantially
described. Christ went some distance away, Peter followed him
— but, on the way, Peter looked around and perceived that John
also was coming after them. This occasioned him to ask the ques-
tion, " Lord, and what of this man ?" {nvpie, ovrog 6e tI ;) The reason
of the Evangelist for writing so expressly concerning himself on this
occasion, suggests itself immediately. This order in which they fol-
lowed, reminded him of the last paschal-feast of Christ (xiii. 25),
when John occupied a nearer place to the Lord than Peter. On
that occasion Peter did not venture to put a question directly to the
Kedeemer, but conveyed it to him through John. Now their rela-
tions to Christ seemed inverted ; Peter appears to be the nearer,
and to have, as it were, supplanted John. This addition was there-
fore very important, in order to make manifest the relations of Peter
and John respectively to Christ. To the apparently jealous, or at
least anxious-sounding question of Peter, Jesus now replied : eav
avrov 0c-Aw fievsLv, twf tpxofiai, ri Trpog oe ; ov aKoXovdec \ioi, if I
will, etc.

Many of John's contemporaries understood the tarrying of the
continuance of his earthly life. This explanation is rejected by the
Evangelist, who then merely repeats the words of Christ just cited,
but without assigning their meaning. Let us now inquire how this
passage may be understood. First, let us take the words in a merely
external sense, and try how their meaning may be apprehended.
We suppose that Jesus desired to make some private communica-
tion to Peter, and on that account commanded Peter to follow
him. John, who may not have known this, follows Peter, and the
latter therefore calls out to Christ : " Lord, what shall this man do ?"
But in this case, the reply of Christ, " If I will," etc., is wholly
inappropriate. For there are but two cases conceivable : either
it seemed right to Christ that John should accompany them, and
he intended a reproof to Peter, in which case his language should
have been, " let him come with us quietly," or, " he may hear what
we say," or something similar, or, he meant to reprove John's ill-
timed attendance upon them ; the words would then have been,
" do not follow us, remain where you are." It is impossible to dis-
cover how Christ could then employ the fieveiv, tarry, for the disciple
did not remain, but went with them. Besides, in this interpretation
of the passage, the twf tpxonai, till I come, \^ altogether unintelligible.
For if we take it in tlie simplest sense, " until I return," viz., from
his walking aside with Peter, the reply would not be against, but
favourable to Peter. For while it was his wish that John should
not come after them, yet the reply appears plainly to convey a re-

154 John XXI. 20-23.

proof to Peter. Besides, apart from the difficulty of understand-
ing the words in themselves, it would be inexplicable how tlie report
concerning John could have arisen from an occurrence so purely
commonplace ; for that report, although false, unquestionably origi-
nated from some cause. We are therefore compelled to admit that
the interpretation of the occurrence, as a merely external event, is
untenable, and that all who have sought to establish it, have dealt
in arbitrary conjecture. They take, for example, the /xtVetv, tarry,
either as " be with me," or, " remain with me," and then the twf
tpxoimL, until I come, has no meaning ; for we speak of returning
only to one in whose presence we are not ; but, in this case, accord-
ing to the hypothesis, both Peter and John remained present with
the Lord. For what purpose, then, this added clause ? Or, again,
they supply with the iiiveiv the word o)6e, " If I will that John re-
main here;" but it was precisely Peter's wish that John should not
go with them ; thus the language would have been in accordance
with the desire of Peter, which does not correspond with the fact.

Finally, if we decide that the emphasis should be laid upon the
0t'Aa), I 10 ill, "I can command him either to remain or to come
with us, thou hast nothing to say in the matter," then, as we have
not tyw deX(j), this mode of completing the thought is too harsh to
allow our supposing that John required it of his readers ; especially
since it must have been his chief object here to make himself clearly
understood, as he had to controvert a false interpretation of the
words.

But the whole passage, dark as it appears, becomes plain and
luminous, if, as we have already proposed, the whole be understood
as a symbolical transaction, to which we are further guided by the
girding in verse 18. The Lord desired to point out still more pre-
cisely to Peter the way which he should walk on earth. It was the
way of following Christ, and bearing the cross in a severe conflict
with the world. By certain steps which he took, Jesus symbol-
ically represented this ; which steps occasioned Peter again to
draw nearer to the Lord. Whatever may appear surprising in the
representation will be removed,, if we imagine ourselves spectators
of the living scene. That which now lies before us cold and dry,
in lifeless letters and words, was, in the actual scene, enlivened
by the Saviour's significant and spiritual expression. Whilst he
communicated to the disciple the final disclosures regarding his des-
tiny, his look, his bearing, formed a living commentary upon the
external act which he performed. We must therefore suppose that
the disciple perfectly understood all that was thus signified. With-
out this, the whole proceeding would have been absolutely devoid
of meaning. This assumed, all that follows has a significancy in
perfect accordance with our explanation. Peter, somewhat depressed

John XXI. 20-23. 155

by the prospect of the difficult way which he was to travel, asks,
when he sees John following them, " Lord, how then will it fare
with this man ?" As this question, however, did not proceed from
a perfectly pure state of mind, but from a somewhat envious glance
at the more tranquil destiny of John, the discourse of Christ assumes
a certain tone of reproof Jesus explains to him " that his, Peter's,
part was to follow the Lord ; that he was not to look to the course
of another," and that "John should remain until he would come."
Now it is plain that "tarry" (^iveiv) is the converse of " follow"
{dKoXovdetv), namely, a peaceful, quiet, waiting for the coming of
Lord. But some referred this coming to the second advent, and
concluded that John should Kve to behold it (2 Cor. v. 4).* The
Evangelist denies this interpretation, and in an impressive manner
repeats the words of Jesus, leaving the discoveiy of their import to
the acuteness of the reader himself The Lord's coming manifestly
referred only to the death of the discipte.f Hence the meaning is,
" John shall tarry, living in quiet and peace, until the moment
when the Lord shall come to call him hence. Peter, in the midst
of trials and contests, shall follow his Lord even to the cross." But
here the reflection will occur to many, that to follow the Lord in
this sense could not have been enjoined as the peculiar duty of Pe-
ter, since the same obligation devolves equally upon all Christians
whence it cannot be admitted that John was to be exempted from
it. This remark is perfectly true in some respects, and certainly
no person can be entirely exempted from the duty of thus follow-
ing the Lord. But with equal certainty experience testifies that
the spiritual development of believers assumes very distinct aspects.
In one it is a continuous, heavy, and bitter series of sufferings ;
his whole life is a constant bearing of the cross. With many, life
glides smoothly onwards, unchequered by any grievous disasters,
and gently also do they pass into their eternal home. Such differ-
ences, it is obvious, do not occur by chance, but according to the
providence of the Lord ; since all destinies, which are wisely ordered
in congruity with the characters of men, must subserve the object of
perfecting the moral life. Now in Peter and John (compare the
introduction to John) we perceive, as it were, the representatives of
two entirely different courses of life ; of that which is powerfully

* When, reganlless of this passage, many persons, both in ancient and modern times,
would attribute to John a longevity extending to Christ's second advent, it is certainly a
strange misinterpretation of his most public declaration. Augustine mentions the report,
that although John was buried, he still breathed in the grave, so that the earth which
covered him moved.

f The selection of the expression iug tpxofiai can be explained only from the view
entertained by the first Christians, that the second coming of Christ was near at hand.
(Compare at Matth. xxiv. 1.) But in this passage the meaning of the expression ia mod-
ified by its connexion.

156 John XXI. 24, 25.

agitated, and of that whicli attains its development in tranquillity
and peace. The prophecy of the Lord directly points to this fact, and
that without at all limiting the general truth, that to every man
" strait is the gate, and narrow the way which leadeth unto life,"

Ver, 24, 25. — ^It has been already observed in the critical intro-
duction to this chapter, that its concluding words never proceeded
from John the Evangelist, but were probably appended to it by some
person unknown. When penning the first words, he may probably
have had in view the parallel passage in John xix. 35 (comiDare also
3 John V. 12); and in what follows them, may have had regard to
John XX. 30. But he pursues the two parallels with so little skill that
he immediately betrays himself to be an imitator. The concluding
hyperbole, particularly, is altogether foreign to the spirit of John.
It must have been very early interpolated, however, for it is found
in all the manuscripts.

Here we close our observations upon the history of the Lord's
sublime life — a life which, issuing from the depths of Divinity, and
planting itself in the depths of humanity, reveals even in its hu-
miliation,* an incomparable, all-transcending lustre, glory, and
beauty. The glorified Saviour, as the perfected fruit of this life's
development, returns to the bosom of the Father, from which the
impulse of love had sent forth the eternal Word. But Christ left
behind him in the world the impress of his own character, and also
a little circle of friends, in whose hearts his spirit had found an
abode. This little company was the germ of a new world — the
embryo of an unimagined future. A single millenium had not
elapsed before this newly created world began to assert the sovereignty
of Christianity over the earth. " The life, nature, and essence
of Christ had become a legacy to the world. One century strug-
gled for his sepulchre ; a second contended concerning his flesh and
blood ; and a third made his revealed will the subject of their dis-
putations." Yet however painful it was, and still is, to see sin thus
frequently striving, there is an abundant source of consolation in
the reflection, that the object of such strife is he who came to make
an end of all animosity, the Prince of Peace. He will also finally
tranquillize the strife about himself.

* An appropriate conclusion to tliis account is furnished by that noble passage in the
"Dammerungen Fiir Deutschland" of Jean Paul: — " There once trod our earth a single
being, who, by his sole moral omnipotence, controlled other ages, and founded an im-
mortality pecuUarly his own. He, gently blooming, and tractable to influences from on
high, like the sunflower, but in his ardour and power of attracting, a sun, he, still with
mildness of aspect, drew alike himself, nations and ages to the universal and original
sun. It is the meek Spirit whom we name 'Jesus Christ.' If he was, then there is a
Provideno©— or rather ho was it"

THE

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

Poana linguarum dispersit homines, drau J
Baguarum disperses in unum populum collegit

GBOTIOa.

INTRODUCTION.

It lias been our practice hitherto to treat but briefly the intro-
ductions to the several books, inasmuch as we must refer for special
investigations to discussions embraced in the science of Introduction.
la the case of the Acts of the Apostles, there is need of still fewer
introductory remarks, because, in the first place, with respect to most
of the questions which are handled in introductions, there is little to
be said in reference to this treatise : their importance is smaller here
than in the other books of the New Testament ; the genuineness of
the work, to give but one example, having scarcely ever been
doubted. In the second place, the necessary biographical notices, es-
pecially respecting Paul, will naturally present themselves both in the
exposition of the book of Acts itself, and also more fully still in the
exposition of the Pauline epistles and in the general introduction to
them, on which account, to save repetitions, they are here entirely
omitted. And finally, with respect to c.hronology, although it is
certainly a very important subject and plainly belongs to an intro-
duction to the Acts, yet its peculiar nature is such that, on account
of its mathematical and astronomical aspects, a fundamental and
independent investigation of it is practicable only to a few, and yet
without this investigation, detailed communications on the subject
are of little value. I have therefore satisfied myself with giving in
the exposition short notices, according to the best authorities, as
hints to those readers who wish to see their own way in this intricate
region : for deeper researches application must be made to the chro-
nological works themselves.

It has already been remarked in the introduction of the Gospel
of Luke (see Comm. Part I., sect. 6), that the Acts of the Apostles
forms only the second part of the historical work which that Evan-
gelist prepared for Theophilus (Luke i. 1 ; Acts i. 1).* This con-

* In the Gospel all references to the Acts ara wanting ; the question therefore sug-
gests itself whether Luke, while composing tlie one designed to add the other. Per-
haps the plan of the Acts was first formed after the completion of the Gospel ; yet it is
highly probable that there was no great interval of time between the composition of the
two. — The opinion of Mayerhoff, which he has expressed in his introduction to the
writings of Peter, t!iat it was not Luke, but Timothy, who wrote both the Acts of the
Apostles and the Gospel that bears Luke's name, has already been sufficiently refuted.

160 INTRODUCTION.

nexion with the Gospel furnishes a powerful argument in defence of
the genuineness of the book of Acts. Everything in fact which
serves for a proof of the genuineness of the Gospel, proves the same
thing in reference to the Acts, in consequence of their unity as a
literary production. And as withal there is nothing in the book
itself tending to awaken suspicion, no one has affirmed its spuri-
ousness in the proper sense of the term ; the most that has been at-
tempted has been to bring into doubt the credibility of some of the
sources which Luke has employed. In this way, for example, are
we to understand the doubts which De Wette (Introd. to the New
Test. p. 203) has expressed against the book of Acts. And the
history of the book in the most ancient times accords entirely with
what we have stated. The Acts of the Apostles was never assailed
in the church catholic ; and therefore it was ranked among the
homologoumena. (Compare Euseb. H. E. III. 25.) Individual
sects indeed of later origin, as the Severians (Euseb. H. E. IV. 29),
the Marcionites (Tertul. cont. Marc. V. 2), the Manichasans (Au-
gust. Epist. 237) rejected the Acts, but only on dogmatical grounds,
and without holding the work to be fictitious. It is quite recently
that Baur (Tubing. Zeitscrift, 1836, H. 3) has attempted for the
first time to transfer to the Acts of the Apostles the mythical char-
acter which Strauss has ascribed to the Gospels. He sets it down
altogether as a historical romance, and regards the whole work as an
apologetic fiction in defence of the Apostle Paul against the assaults
of the followers of Peter ; and this he holds to be proved by the
circumstance that the author always gives designed prominence to
the fact, that Paul preached first to the Jews, and then went to the
Gentiles when the Jews rejected him. But the utter emptiness of
this hypothesis has been already exposed by Kling. (Studien, 1837,
Part 2.)

Yet, although the Acts of the Apostles was always acknowledged
by the great body of the primitive church, it was not one of those
books of the New Testament that were widely circulated and much
read. The Gospel of Luke, it is probable, excited more general in-
terest, particularly as the history of Paul and Peter, wherever these
apostles had been heard themselves, would be orally communicated;
and therefore the former half of Luke's work was more frequently
transcribed, and was placed at an ealier period in the Gospel col-
lection. With most correct appreciation, however, the church
admitted the Acts of the Apostles also into the Canon of the New
Testament ; here it forms a more essential link in the chain : it is
as it were, the stem, shooting up immediately from the root of the
Gospels, and bearing the rich crown of the epistles as its blossoms.

(Compare on this point Tlioluck'3 Credibilty, p. 136, and Bleek's Review in the Studien,
1836, No. 4.)

INTRODUCTION. 161

The separation, however, of the book of Acts from the Gospel
has had the effect, first, of causing a separate title to he affixed to
it, and secondly, of exposing its text to greater corruption than
that of the Gospel. The corruptions of the text appear particu-
larly in the codices D. and E., which exhibit very marked interpola-
tions in the Acts of the Apostles. They are not, however, to be ■
regarded as constituting a separate recension of the book ; the
interpolations bear evident traces of having sprung incidentally
from the difficulties of the narrative, or of being short notices that
have been appended. Their great prevalence in the Acts could
spring only from the fact that for a long period this book was but
little read in the church,* and thus the opportunity was wanting of
immediately removing spurious additions, by the comparison of
different copies. The more widely, it is plain, that any composition
is circulated, and the more numerous the copies which are taken
from it, the more difficult must it be for spurious additions to spread
themselves through the whole mass of manuscripts in circulation.
The title of the book npd^eig tCjv dnoaroXov was certainly not pre-
fixed to the Acts by Luke : for the manuscripts differ very much
with respect to it ; he would himself probably have named it Xoyog
devrepoc. But still the name would very readily suggest itself, after
the separation of the book from the Gospel, since even in profane
authors npd^eig occurs in the signification of '^ res gestce," proceed-
ings. (Comp. Xenoph. Cyrop. I. 3, 1.) It is certain, however, that
the name of the canonical book was not derived from the apocry-
phal irpd^ecg, but the reverse ; the canonical is the older work, and
furnished the occasion for the forgery of the other.

As to the time and place of the composition of the book of Acts,
the necessary statements have already been made in the remarks
upon the Gospel of Luke. I have only here to add, that De Wette
is certainly wrong when he concludes from Luke xxi. that the Gos-
pel as well as the Acts of the Apostles must have been written
after the destruction of Jerusalem. The exact references of that
chapter to this great event, can furnish no ground at all lor suppos-
ing the predictions which it contains to have been written after the
event ; because even in the Old Testament there are found entirely
similar predictions. (Comp. the Commentary on Matth. xxiv.)

Again, the design and language of the Acts of the Apostles are
determined by the fact that the book is addressed to Theophilus.

* Even at the close of the fourth century, Chrysostom, at. the commencement of his
exposition of the Acts, writes: noXXolg tuvto to jii.ji'klov oiJ' otl iarl yvupi/xov iartv. In
this, however, there is probably something of rhetorical exaggeration. We know that
the book of Acts was regularly read in the Greek Church between Easter and Pentecost,
and according to Augustine, the same custom prevailed in Africa too. This book of
Scripture therefore could not possibly be so utterly unknown to Christians. (Comp.
Bingham orig. vol vi. 63, etc.)
Vol. IIL— 11

162 INTRODUCTION.

As to its design, the circumstance in question clearly shews that it
was primarily of a private nature : it was intended to give The-
ophilus, who, as was remarked at Luke i. 3, was probably a distin-
guished Roman, and had been converted to the gospel, information
both respecting the character of Christ and the first formation of
the church. Theophilus accordingly stands before us as the repre-
sentative of enquiring heathens in general ; and the Acts of the
Apostles is a book most thoroughly adapted to the wants of such.
It makes its readers accurately acquainted only with the individuals
who had laboured among the Gentiles, especially in Rome itself,
viz., Peter and Paul ; and yet it treats only of their labours beyond
the limits of Rome and Italy, for what happened there is presup-
posed by Luke to be known. In like manner we find the way in
which the gospel passed from the Jews to the Gentiles described
with peculiar miuuteness, as in the history of Cornelius, and how the
relation between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians was settled;
yet so that we are not entitled to regard it as the main design of the
author, to exhibit the transference of Christianity from the Jews
to the Gentiles. The marked prominence which is given to points
relating to this matter, is rather an incidental result of the very-
ample account we have of Paul, by whose ministry this transfer
was effected. Any aim of a different kind, such as perhaps a his-
tory of all the apostles, or a general history of missions, or of the
Christian church, is not to be ascribed to the author, because there
is none to which the contents of the book properly adjust them-
selves. Now, these circumstances plainly lead to the conclusion
that the Acts of the Apostles could not have been written in any
other than the Greek tongue : and the same remark has already
been made as to the first part of the work, viz., Luke's Gospel.
The Hellenic tongue, in fact, was the general medium of literary
communication at the time ; and as Luke himself was of Greek
origin, nothing was more natural than that he should use this lan-
guage. The decided Hebraisms of the work have been supposed to
furnish an argument, rendering it probable that Luke wrote the
Acts in Hebrew, or rather in Aramaic ; but it has been forgotten
that the author's own style must be carefully distinguished from the
language of the original documents which he employed. (Comp.
Comm. on Luke i. 1-4.) For as we have seen that Luke employed
documents in preparing his Gospel, we must suppose the same
thing with respect to the Acts of the Apostles. Unfortunately we
have never yet received from the celebrated critic, to whom we
are indebted for so accurate an investigation of Luke, the promised
treatise on the Acts ; but, at all events, the leading idea stands se-
cure, that in the case of the Acts too, Luke elaborated his work
from documentary sources. Whether Schleiermacher entertained

INTRODUCTIOK. 163

the same view of the Acts of the Apostles, which he has defended
in reference to the Gospel, viz., that the author inserted his docu-
ments without change, I Imow not ; but at all events I cannot ac-
quiesce in this idea. As in the Gospel, so I find in the Acts too,
upon the whole, with the exception of a few passages (see, for ex-
ample, what is stated at chap. xiii. 1), a free treatment of the docu-
ments employed, which for the most part, betray themselves to. us
only by the style, deviating perceptibly from that of Luke himself.
To specify, therefore, with precision, where one document ends and
another begins, I hold to be a very questionable proceeding.

In hke manner, it is impossible to state with certainty any par-
ticulars respecting the origin of the documents ; but we may reject
without scruple, all conjectures as to the use of the apocryphal
TTpd^Eig by Luke. For these apocryphal Acts came into existence,
as was formerly remarked, at a much later period ; and, besides,
the historical documents of the Acts of the Apostles have not a
syllable in them that savours of the apocryphal character. Far
more probable is it that Luke, in reference to events which he had
not observed as an eye-witness, consulted, for information on single
incidents, journals or memoirs whose credibiHty he had sufficiently
ascertained (Luke i. 4). It has, indeed, been doubted in recent
times, whether Luke ever relates anything as an eye-witness.
Schleiermacher even alleged that the passage in which the narrative
proceeds in the plural, furnish no certain proof that Luke journeyed
along with Paul, for the plural might proceed from the author of
the travels consulted by Luke, who appears to have been Timothy.
Mayerhoff followed out this supposition so far, as to declare that
Timothy was the author of the whole book of the Acts, as has
aheady been mentioned. Bleek, in the review of Mayerhoffs work,
referred to above (p. 159), while he is opposed to the idea that
Timothy was the author of the Acts, yet thinks that there is cer-
tainly some truth in the supposition, that Luke is not to be viewed
as included under the plural form. The same view has also been-
maintained by UMch in the Sudien. for 1837, Part 2. Now,
although there is certainly much that appears to favour this new
observation, yet I have not been able to convince myself of its souid-
ness, and I shall adduce the grounds which have determined my
judgment at Acts xvi. 12. Here I only remark that, if the view
were established, it could have no influence upon the credibility of
the Acts ; for this rests not upon the circumstance of Luke's being
an eye-witness, which in any case applies only to the smallest and
least important part of the work, but upon the apostolic authority
of Paul, and upon the testimony of the ancient church, which had
the gift of trying not only the genuine and the spurious, but also
the Divine and the human.

164 INTRODUCTION.

And what holds good of the historical parts of the Acts of the
Apostles, that for the most part at least they were compiled from
written documents, must also be supposed in reference to the
speeches, which, doubtless, in general formed integral portions of the
documents which Luke employed. Only, of course, it cannot be
supposed, that these speeches were written down on the spot as they
were delivered. We have only to imagine to ourselves affecting situ-
ations, the parting, for example,- of Paul from the Ephesian elders
at Miletus, Acts xx. 17, etc., to feel the incongruity of this supposi-
tion. The speech of Paul on the occasion referred to, so greatly
moved the minds of all who were present, that they burst into tears.
Who, in such circumstances, thinks of mechanically writing down
the spoken living words ? It may be apprehended, indeed, that, if
no writing took place at the moment, all security for the credibility
of the speeches is gone. But this fear, as has already been remarked
in the introduction to the Gospels, plainly proceeds from a want of
faith in the power of the Spirit of truth. If we do not suppose this
I Spirit to have been at work in the mind of the writer of the Acts,
'and of the apostles under whose eye he wrote, then we have no
j guarantee at all for the contents ; but, if such an influence of the
Spirit be acknowledged, then no harm can result from the freer view
of the speeches indicated above. This, however, does not oblige us
to deny that notations might be made of many impressive speeches,
a few hours or days after they were delivered. Rather is it in the
highest degree probable that this was the case from the nature of
many discourses, as, for example, the speech of Stephen ; for the
contents of this speech are so peculiar, that we can scarcely conceive
it to have been constructed without any notations."* We must not,
however, insist upon a lileral reproduction of what was spoken, but
rather be satisfied with holding that the essential matter of the
most abbreviated discourses, and, above all, the spirit which breathed
in them, is communicated to us. And thus these discourses per-
fectly fulfil the important service which, as also the whole book of

* This is rather strongly expressed. Still, it is true that the inspiration possessed by
tlft sacred penmen does not require us to suppose that they employed none of the ordi-
nary methods of preserving the memory of important events and declarations. Doubt-
less they made notations of such things as they wished to remember, and doubtless they
investigated with care whatever they were about to record. Luke plainly mentions
that he had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, or, as the words
rather mean, that ho had carefully examined or traced out, nap7iKo?.ov6)]K6-i, all things
from the very first, before proceeding to write to Theophilus. The inspiration of the
Holy Ghost did not suspend the faculties of the apostles : their powers of memory and
judgment and imagination were all in vigorous exercise when they wrote and spoke,
and hence the individual peculiarities that characterize their writings. But their un-
equalled distinction was this, that they were infallibly guarded from error, and guided
to truth. The Spirit of the Most High gave them understanding. They spake as they
were moved by the Holy Ghost. — Te.

INTRODUCTION. 165

the Acts in its historical portions, they were designed to perform
for the later ages of the church. They afford us a perfectly just
view of the labours of the apostles in teaching, and of the collective
inner life of the earliest churches. In this respect the Acts of the
Apostles is a work whose value to the church is quite inestimable ;
and, if by any mischance she had been robbed of it, there would
have been a gap in her history which nothing could supply. Even
although the lost writings of Papias and Hegesippus were still at
our command, the want of the book of Acts would be most sensibly
felt, because it communicates to us nothing but genuine informa-
tion, whereas in those works truth appeared largely mingled with
error, and we should have been unable in all cases to separate the
one from the other with certainty.

With respect to treatises upon the Acts of the Apostles, the ex-
positions of Clemens Alexandrinus (in the vTTOTvndyaei^), of Origen,
of Diodorus of Tarsus, of Theodoras of Mopsuestia, have perished.
Of Chrysostom only there are preserved to us fifty-five homilies on
this book. But they are not to be ranked amongst the best produc-
tions of this great preacher, so that some have been disposed even
to doubt their genuineness. Their inferiority, however, is accounted
for by the consideration that he must plainly have composed this
commentary amid manifold interruptions, and therefore must have
bestowed less pains upon it than upon his other expository works.
From a later period, we have the commentaries of CEcumenius and
Theophylact. In more recent times, with the exception of exposi-
tions of the Acts contained in the general works of Grotius, Wolf,
and others, we have very few special commentaries upon the book.
Besides Limborch's great work (Rotterdam 1711), we must particu-
larly notice the Dissertationes in Acta Apostolorum of J. E. Chr.
Walch (Jena, 1756-1761, 3 vols.) ; the exposition of Moras, edited
by Dindorf (Leipsic, 1794, 2 vols.) ; a translation of the Acts, with
Annotations, by Thiess (Leipsic, 1800). In Koppe's New Test.,
vol. iii., there is an exposition of the Acts by Heinrichs (Gcittingen,
1809). The most recent exposition is that of Kuinoel (Leipsic,
1818). Stier has written upon the speeches in the Acts (2 parts,
Leipsic, 1829, 1830).--' Menken's work, styled " Blicke in das leben
des Apostels Paulus" (Bremen, 1828), embraces an exposition of
chapters xv. — xx. of the Acts. Among recent commentators upon
the whole New Testament, Meyer as yet is the first who has handled

* Stier attempts to point out most precise arrangements in the speeche.s of the Acts;
but in my judgment this method of treating the book, which had already prevailed ia
the school of Baumgarten, is not serviceable to the exegesis of it. In another quarter
too, I refer to Seyler (in UUman's Studien, 1832, part L, page 44, etc.), a similar treat-
ment of the text of the New Testament is recommended. But the thoughts in the New
Test, and in the Holy Scriptures generally, appear to be not so much arranged after a
logical method, as united by a higher unity of spirit.

166 INTRODUCTION.

the Acts. [De Wette's Kurze Erkliirung der Apostol. GTeschichte.
Leipsic, 1848. Commentary on the Original Text of the Acts of
the Apostles by H. B. Hackett. Boston, 1852.]— [K.

Finally, as respects chronology/^ it is only here and there that
Luke specifies the interval of time between the occurrences whicb
lie narrates, and even then only in general periods of two or three
years. (Compare Acts xx. 31, xxiv. 27, xxviii. 30.) He usually
confines himself to indefinite expressions " in those days," " at that
time" (fcv TavTai<; rjixigaig, Kar' knelvov tov Kacpov)^ from which chro-
nology can derive but little assistance. However, he mentions some
occurrences which are recorded in profane history, and whose date
therefore can be in some measure ascertained. From these points
chronologists have endeavoured with remarkable sagacity to form an
arrangment of the leading events in the Acts of the Apostles.
Among such points may be mentioned particularly, (1) the famine
under Claudius Cassar, which the prophet Agabus predicted (xi.
28) ; (2) the expulsion of the Jews from Rome by the same Em-
peror (xviii. 2) ; (3) the entrance upon office of the procurator
Porcius Festus (xxiv. 27). By means of these ascertainable points
we may with some probability arrange in chronological order the
leading events of the Acts ; though how far our arrangement falls
short of historical certainty, is apparent from the great multitude of
different computations which have been derived from them. The
uncertainty, besides, of the year of Christ's birth and death increases
the chronological difficulties. I confine myself to the task of laying
before my readers two chronological tables. The one presents a
view of political circumstances in connexion with the parallel events
of the Acts, according to my own opinion of the chronology, in
which, upon the whole, I have followed Hug ; the other presents a
comparative view of the different computations that have been
made respecting the leading events of the Acts. For the latter the
learned world is indebted to Dr. Groschen (see Ullmann's Studien,
year 1831, H. 7), who has most kindly permitted me to insert it in
my exposition of the Acts. For the relationships which subsisted
between the different branches of the Herodian family, I refer to
the genealogical tree, which Karl von Raumer has admitted i nto
his geography of Palestine. (2d Edit., p. 373.)

* Compare the chronological work: Bud. Anger de tomporum in Actia Apostolonun
ratione. Lipsiae, 1833.

( 157 ;

FIRST CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.

^raof

Diony- Emperors.

Rulers of PakstiM.

Rulers of
Neighbouring

Events in the Book of Acts.

»U&.

States.

Tiberius.

JtJDEA.

GALILEE.

0AUL0N1TI8

ABILENIt. CnALOIfl.

Roman

Herod

procurators

Antipas.

govern the

Philip.

country.

■

Philipf.

33. Ascension of Christ.

35. Conversion of Paul.

Pilate
displaced.

Caligula.

Antipas
displaced.

38. Paul's first journey to
Jerusalem, Acts ix.
26, compared with
GaL i. 18.

Herod Agrippa governs the whole
of Palestine.

Claudius.

Ljsanias.

Herod,
brother
of Agrip-
pa.

41. Paul goes with Barna-
bas to Antioch, Acts
xL25.

Famine in Palestine.

44. Paul's second journey

Agrippaf. Acts xii. 20, etc.

to Jerusalem.

Roman procurators govern the

First m ission ary jour-

land.

ney of Paul, Acts
xiii. 1, xiv. 28.

Herodf
Agrippa
min. fol-

49. Paul's return to Anti-
och, Acts xiv. 28.

•

lows.

Expulsion of the Jews from Rome,

Lysa-

52. Paul's third journey

Acts xviii 2.

niasf.

to Jemsalem, Acts
XV. ; Gal. ii. 1.
Towards end of the
year second mis-

Chalcis is

sionary journey.
53. Paul in Corinth.

Agrippa minor re-

ceives Gaulonitis

assigned

and Abilene.

to Syria.

Nero.

55. Pentecost. Paul's
fourth journey to
Jerusalem.
Third missionary jour-
ney.

56, 51

56, 57. Stay in Ephesus.

60. Paul's tifth journey to
Jerusalem.
Imprisonment.

Porcius Festua ifl procu-
rator.

62. Paul's trial oefore Por-
eius Fcstus.

63. Paul's arrival in Rome.

66. Completion of Book of
Acts.
Second imprisf nment

Gessius Floras, procura-

tor.

67. Death of the Apostle.

Nerof.

Jewish war.

( 168)
SECOND CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.

EVENTS.

1
EusebitLS.

Eieronymus.

Baronius.

Usher

Calvisiut.

Birth of Christ.

2 or 1 before

Chr. aera,

6 Jan.

2 or 1 before
Chr. aera,
25 Dec.

3 before
Chr. sera,
25 Dec.

5 before
Chr. aera,
25 Dec.

3 before
Chr. sera,
in October.

Baptism.

29
6 Jan.

Death.

32
March.

33
3 April.

Stoning of Stephen.

32
26 Dec.

Conversion of Paul.

Paul's first journey
to Jerusalem, Acts
ix.; Gal. i. 18.

The second, Acts xi.
12.

The third, Acts xv. ;
Gal. ii. 1.

49
14 years after
conversion.

14 years after
first journey.

48
14 years after
conversion.

The fourth, Acts
xviii. 22.

»2

A problematical
journey to Jerusa-
lem, Gal. iL 1.

The fifth journey
and imprisonment.

56, about
Pentecost.

Paul's journey to
Rome.

56, Nov. the
2 years refer
to Fehx.*

Paul's arrival in
Rome.

57, May

59
in Spring.

Deliverance from
imprisonment.

After 2 years

Return to Rome.

67?

Death.

67
29 June.

See note page 172.

SECOND CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.

169

EVENTS.

Bengel.

7
Vogel.

Susskind.

Eichhorn.

10
Schmidt.

Birth of Christ.

4 before

Chr.
25 Dec.

3 before
Chr. sera.

3 before

Chr.

begin, of Mar

4 before Chr
aera?

Baptism.

2,1
8 Nov.

29
begin. March

BO,

Death.

6 April

Stoning of Stephen

Conversion of Paul

37 or 38

Paul's first journey
to Jerusalena, Acts
ix. ; Gal. i. 18.

40 or 41

Never made.

The second, Acts xi.
12.

41-44

Gal il 1,

46, 14 yrs. af.

conversion.

44
GaL i. 18.

The third, Acts xv. ;
GaL ii. 1.

47, 14 years

after the first

journey.

47
14 years after
conversion.

47?

The fourth, Acts
xviii. 22.

50 '

A problematical
journey to Jerusa-
lem, Gal, iL 1.

•

The fifth journey
and unprisonment.

53, about
Pentecost.

in Summer.

Paul's journey to
Rome.

Paul's arrival in
Rome.

in Spring

59 or 60

63 62
in Spring. in Spring.

Deliverance from
imprisonment.

Did not take Did not take
place. place.

Return to Rome.

1
?

Did not take
place.

Death.

67
29 June.

65-68

170

SECOND CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.

EVENTS.

Eoenlieti.

12
BertkoJdt.

Hdnrichs.

Kuinoel.

15
Eug.

Birth of Christ

1 before
Chr. aera
in Feb.

Baptism.

29, in Feb.

Death.

Stonmg of Stephen.

37 or 38

Conversion of PauL

36-38

Paul's first joarney
to Jerusalem, Acts
ix. ; Gal. L 18.

39-41

The second, Acts xi.
12.

14 years after
conversion
Gal. iL 1.

44, 4 years

after
conversion.

44, 4 years

after

first journey.

44, 4 years

after
conversion.

The thu-d, Acts xv. ;
GaL ii. 1.

49?

52, 14 years

after
first journey.

The fourth, Acts
xviii. 22.

54*
Easter.

Not made.

55, about
Pentecost.

A problematical
journey to Jerusa-
lem, Gal. iu. 2.

The fifth journey
and imprisonment.

59 or 60

58, after
Pentecost.

Pentecost

Paul's journey to
Kome.

61 or 62

Paul's arrival in
Rome.

62 or 63

Spring.

60
Sprmg.

62
Sprmg.

Deliverance from
imprisonment.

64 or 65

Return to Rome.

66 or 67

Death.

SECOND CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.

171

EVENTS.

16 a.

Sanckmente
and Ideler.

Schrader.

18
Hemsen.

Schoit.

20
Fdlmoser.

Birth of Christ.

1 before
Chr. aira^
in 25 Dec.

Baptism.

25 end, or
26 beginning.

Death.

29, 15 April,
ace. to Ideler.

Stonmg of Stephen.

16 b.
De Wette.

Conversion of Paul.

35-38

40 or 41

Paul's first journey
to Jerusalem, Acts
ix. ; Gal. i.l8.

38-41

42 or 43

The second, Acts xi.
12.

44 end, or
45 beginning.

The third, Acts xv. ;
Gal. u. 1.

52, 14 years

after
first journey.

47 or 48,
4 years after
first journey.

52
14 years after
first journey.

The fourth, Acts
xviiL 22.

16 b.

De Wette.

51, about
Pentecost.

55, about
Pentecost.

I problematical
journey to Jerusa-
lem Gal. iii. 2.

56, 14 years

after the
first journey.

The fifth journey
and imprisonment.

59
Pentecost.

58
Pentecost.

Paul's journey to
Rome.

Paul's arrival in
Rome.

Spring.

62
Sprmg.

Spring.

61
Spring.

Deliverance irom
imprisonment.

Did not take
place.

1
Return to Rome.

Did not take
place.

Death,

64 or 65

NOTATIONS FOR THE SECOND CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.

1. Eusebii Chronicon. Hist. Eccl. i. 5, ii. 1, 22, 26, iii. 1, vii. 32,
vii. 1.

2. Hieronymi Chronicon. Ed. Vallarsii, T. viii. Catal. Viror.
illust. c. 5. Comment, in Jes. c. 2.

3. Baronii Annales, vol. I.

4. TJsserii Annales. Genevae, 1722, p. 568.

5. Calvisii opus Chronologicum. Francof, 1620, p. 424.

6. Bengelii ordo temporum. Stuttg. 1741, p. 218.

7. Vogel, Versuch liber Chronologische Standpunkte der Lebens-
gescbichte Pauli. In Gabler's Journal fiir auserlesene theologiscbe
Literatur, Bd. 1, st. 2.

8. Siiskind, neuer Versucb uber chronolog. Standpunkte in Ben-
gel's Archiv. Bd. 1, st. 1.

9. Eichhorn's Eiul. ins N. T., B. i. s. 440 ; Bd. ii. s. 48 ; Bd. iii.
s. 32, ff., 364, ff.

10. Schmidt (J. E. Chr.) Chronologie der Apostelgeschichte, in
Keil's und Tzschirner's Analecten, Bd. iii. st. 1, s. 128, ff. Einl. in
N. T. Giessen, 1804, s. 184, ff.

11. Hanlein Einl. ins N. T. 2te Aufl. Erlangen, 1809, Bd. iii. s.
158, s. 298, ff

12. Bertholdt, Einl. Bd. v. 2te halfte s. 2693, ff.

13. Heinrichs Acta Apostolorum, Gott. 1809.

14. Kuinoel Comment, in Acta Apostolorum, Lips. 1818.

15. Hug's Einl, 3te Aufl. Bd. ii., s 307 ff.

16. 'Sanclementii de vulgaris serse emendatione Kom. 1793.
Ideler's Handb. d. Chronologie Th. ii. s. 366, ff.

16. ^De Wette's Einl. ins N. T. s. 212.

17. Schrader's Apostel Paulus.

18. Hemsen, der Apostel Paulus.

19. Schotti Isagoge in N. T. P. 189, sqq.

20. Feilmoser's Einl. ins N. T. 2 te. Aufl. Tiibingen 1830. S.
308, ff. ; 318, ff

In the second chronological table, see page 168, where Paul's journey to Rome, as
fixed by Baronius, is stated, the words are added, " the two years refer to Felix." The
two years meant are those mentioned in Acts xxiv. 27, which all chronologists, with the
exception of Baronius, have understood to refer to Paul's captivity ; but Baronius under-
stands them to refer to Felix, and therefore he places the apostle's arrival in Rome in the
same year as his fifth journey to Jerusalem. In this he is undoubtedly wrong, for the
administration of Felix had lasted a number of years, as is plain from Acts xxiv. 10 ; and
there being no special event in his life mentioned to which the two years can apply, we
are shut up to the conclusion that they refer to the imprisonment of Paul in Cesarea.—
Te.

EXPOSITION

OP THK

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

PART FIRST.

FROM THE ASCENSION OP CHRIST TILL THE CONVERSION OP
PAUL.

(Acts i. 1 — viii. 40.)

§ 1. Christ's Ascension. Choice of an Apostle.

(Acts i. 1-26.)

The first part of the Acts of the Apostles contains a short gen-
eral survey of the earliest occurrences in the church. With the
ascension, which was already noticed at the close of the Gospel,
Luke here sets out, that he may first describe in connexion with it
the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, and then recount the first results
of the preaching of the Gospel. Respecting the source of the infor-
mation which is here communicated to us, unfortunately we are not
now able to state any particulars. The hypothesis has indeed been
advanced, that Luke, in this first part of the Acts of the Apostles,
may have used documents belonging to the school of Peter, because
notices of Peter predominate in it. But this is the case only in ap-
pearance, and consequently the hypothesis is dejDrived of all foun-
dation. It is true, indeed, that after Pentecost Peter stands forth
almost as the only speaker ; but this happens, not because we have
Petrine documents, but because, in fact, Peter was the leading
speaker of the young community. From whatever quarter therefore
the accounts might come, provided only they were true, Peter must
occupy the most prominent position. As early, however, as the v.
and viii. chapters, this apostle begins to appear incidentally, and in
the vi. and vii. his name does not occur, a circumstance by no means
favourable to the hypothesis in question. We think it best, there-
fore, to leave undetermined what is unknown, and to content
ourselves with a careful examination of the precious fragments
themselves, respecting the apostolic church, which the narrative of
Luke presents to us.

174 Acts I. 1-5.

Vers. 1, 2. — The Evangelists commence their narratives with the
coming of the Kedeemer from the world of holiness and bliss into
this world of sin and sorrow ; Luke, on the other hand, in this
second part of his work, commences with the return of the Lord
into the bosom of the Father. This return itself, however, is also
in another point of view, a coming of Christ (see Comm. on John
xiv. 3), because his departure was the condition on which was sus-
pended the coiumunication of the fulness of the Spirit (John xvi. 7),
through whom the Lord now lived among his disciples, not in a
mere bodily and outward manner, but dAvelling in them constituted
the principle of their life. Hence the grand history of what Jesus
did and taught (Acts i. 1) does not conclude with his departure to
the Father ; but Luke now first begins it in a higher strain ; for
all the subsequent labours of the apostles are but an exhibition of
the ministry of the glorified Kedeemer himself, who was the prin-
ciple that operated in them all.

Before our author particularly describes the sublime scene of
Christ's departure (already indicated in Luke xxiv. 50-53), he ex-
pressly connects his second book with the first, viz., his Gospel.
{Aoyog is to be taken in the signification of book, treatise, = nso,
comp. 1 Chron. xxix. 29, in the Septuagint.) In the clause, o)v
Tjp^aro 6 'Irjaovg k. t. A., interpreters commonly take ijp^aro as pleo-
nastic ; but it is better to retain the proper meaning of this word,
and to make the implied contrast lie between the ministry of our
Lord upon earth, and his subsequent invisible ministry. (Com-
pare Winer's Gram. p. 539, etc.) As forming the conclusion of
Christ's work upon earth, the dvdXrjipig is named (compare at
dvEXri<pdr( the parallel dvecpepero in Luke xxiv. 51), which took place
after all his commands and charges to the apostles were com-
pleted. (Compare John xiv. 15, xv. 12-17.) In the construction
there is an uncertainty about the connexion of 6t,d -KveviiaTog dyiov ;
and there is difficulty alike whether we connect it with ivTeiXdixevog
or with dveX7](j)6rj ; hence, the general opinion has been in favour
of joining it with ovg l^eXt^aro. Finally, the entire period is some-
what incomplete, the jutV having no Si to follow it. The author
would have added : " from this point I now continue my nar-
rative in a second treatise," but was drawn aside from his pro-
posed construction by the mention of the apostles. (Comp. Winer's
Gram., p. 500.)

Vers. 3-5. — The first sentence (ver. 1, 2) is plainly shewn, by its
connexion with the following one, to want its conclusion : the rbv
fiev TTpu)Tov should naturally have had a 6 6s devTepog following it.
But from the word dveXritpOr} Luke immediately takes occasion to
proceed to the fact of the ascension, after briefly touching upon the
interval between the passion and the final departure of Christ. The

Acts I. 6-8. 175

presence of the Saviour, for forty days, he mentions first of all, as a
perfectly authenticated fact,* and then he brings into view what
was the great subject of our Lord's conversations with his disciples,
viz., the whole compass of the interests of the kingdom of God. For
we must distinguish between /Uywv negl t% fiaoiXeiag and Aeywv rd
negl rijg fSaoLAeiag, the latter of which phrases expresses the thought
just indicated. The circumstances also lead to the conclusion that
Christ would confide to his disciples, during these last moments of
his personal presence, all that he had yet to say respecting the king-
dom. (It is plain, finally, from verse 6, that the word jSaoiXeia can-
not here denote the Christian religion, as Kuinoel supposes. On
the idea of the (3aocXeia consult the Comm., Part I., upon Matth.
iii. 2.)

The only particular command of Christ to his disciples, given
during this period of forty days, which Luke mentions, is the one to
wait patiently for the promise of the Spirit's baptism : with this
baptism the public ministry of the apostles was to take its rise. (On
this subject compare Luke xxiv. 49, and Matth. iii. 11.) The style
changes suddenly from the indirect form to the direct, as is fre-
quently the case with Luke (e. g., Acts xvii. 3, xxii. 24, xxiii. 22).
There is a grammatical difficulty in this passage connected with the
word ovvaXi^oi-ievog in ver. 4. First of all, as respects the reading,
many codices have owavXi^oiievog, which means " dwelling together,
living together." The codex D. reads owaXiaKonevog fier' dvrCiv,
meaning, according to the signification of the verb, " to make ex-
penses together," " to be at joint expenses," " to live together."
But both readings are unanimously rejected by critics, and the
conjecture of Hemsterhusius (who would read GwaXi^oixevoig) as
little deserves to be approved or admitted into the text, though
this reading certainly would make the construction much more sim-
ple. But as to the reading which must stand as the right one, the
question presents itself how the participle owaXi^ofievor ought to
be understood. It may be connected with avrolg as passive, or be
taken as a middle with avrovg supplie. The latter view has been
preferred by Heinrichs and Kuinoel, on tfie ground that naprjyyetXev
requires avrdlg to be connected with it : yet there is no certain ex-
ample to be found of the use of the word in the middle voice. The
verb avvaXi^u) finally = ovvadpoi^o), to assemble, convene : it comes
from the Ionic dhjg, = the Attic dOpoog, " confertus" : from which
is derived the adverb dXig, meaning " in crowds," also equivalent
to oXug, " enough, sufficient." It is the Latin " salis," from which
" satis" was formed.

Vers. 6-8.— From Luke xxiv. 49, 50, it may be plainly perceived

* The word tekutjpiov, which occurs in no other part of the New Testament, embodiei
the idea of settled, fixed, accredited. See Wisdom of Solomon, v. 11, xix. 13.

176 Acts I. 6-8.

that the meeting mentioned in verse 4, and the one in verse 6, are
not the same. The promise of the baptism of the Spirit, and the
command to tarry for it at Jerusalem, were given by the Lord before
his last meeting with the disciples upon the Mount of Olives, where
the words that follow were spoken. (Compare verses 9 and 12.)
The connexion accordingly is this : " After Jesus had collected bis
disciples, he commanded them not to leave Jerusalem. When they
were afterwards assembled together anew, and that for the last time,
they inquired of the Lord whether he would now establish the king-
dom to Israel (and whether they perchance should have to continue
waiting in Jerusalem for the inauguration of it"). Meyer supposes
that it is not the earlier appearance of Christ in Jerusalem which is
incidentally mentioned by Luke in the 4th verse ; but that the 4th
and 6th verses relate to the very same meeting, at which Jesus only
enforces anew the direction previously given. But the supposition
is inadmissible, because the last appearance in verse 6 is introduced
as quite a new topic by ol fiev ovv, whereas verse 4 follows only as a
brief reference to oixTavofjiEvog and >^EyG)v in verse 3 : verse 4 contains
as yet no independent narrative, but merely forms the connexion
with the close of the gospel, and the introduction to what follows in
the declaration of the continued presence of the apostles in Jerusa-
lem. The meaning of the question respecting the nearness of the
kingdom of God cannot appear in any respect doubtful. The disci-
ples expected, in accordance with their earthly views of the Messiah,
a splendid visible introduction of the kingdom of God, accompanied
perhaps with a political movement against the Romans, and with
respect to this event they inquire whether it should take place just
now. Ideas, therefore, like those of Lightfoot — " thou wilt assur-
edly not now set up thy kingdom for the wicked Jews, who killed
thee upon the cross ?" or " wilt thou indeed now, when the hatred
of the rulers is so strong, and our power so small, wilt thou erect
the banner of thy kingdom ?" — need no serious refutation.* But,
at the same time, there is no tolerable pretext for conceiving the
answer of Christ to be of such a nature as would t«,ke away aU pros-
pect of a future manifestation of his kingdom as a dominion. It
is obvious rather, as has been already remarked (Matth. iii. 2, xix.
28), that the very idea of the " kingdom" implies that it shall one
day burst out from its secret character, and display itself in a visible
and external shape. Although, therefore, there were stUl obscurities
in the views of the disciples respecting the kingdom, yet the Re-

* This latter view was not that of Lightfoot, but of Barkeyus, advanced in the
Biblioth. Hagana, T. i. p. 603. He supposed that the words of the disciples expressed
astonishment and admiration that, in the cu"cumstances of the case, with so little ap-
parent probability of success, their Master should propose to restore the kingdom to
IsraeL

Acts 1. 6-8. 177

deemer did not judge it necessary to sift them, because they could
not fail to attain the more spiritual idea by the power of the Spirit
whom they were to receive. He expresses himself only in reference
to the time, but in such a manner as neither to fix anything respect-
ing it, nor yet to deny, which would have been a negative fixing.
(See on this subject at Matth. xxiv. 1.) The time of the manifes-
tation of God's kingdom, he declares, it is not given to the disciples,
nor to any of mankind at all to know, but it is a thing reserved for
the omniscience of the Father. And the circumstance that father
stands here in the text, and not God, renders the passage similar to
the words of Mark xiii. 82 (consult the Coram. Part I. p. 902)^
where the knowledge of this period is denied even to the Son. How-
ever, the two passages are by no means to be identified : the passage
in Mark xiii. 32 might indeed be explained from the limitation (/ct-vw-
Gig) of the Son of God, but here such an explanation is negatived by
the connexion, for the words were spoken by the glorified Kedeemer,
in whom humiliation {Kevcootc;) can have no more place. Here, there-
fore, we must suppose our Lord only teaches his disciples that such
knowledge reaches beyond the position of man as such, for whom it
would not be advantageous : of his own relation to the Father he
says nothing at all here ; but as the invisible Father dwelt in him,,
and was glorified in him (John xiii. 31), so could his knowledge in
no respect be difierent from the knowledge of the Father himself.

(Kespecting dnoKadiaTdveiv, see Comm. on Matth. xvii. 11. Here
the idea " of bringing again into the ancient condition" looks back
to the splendour of the kingdom of David, which the Jews expected
the Messiah to restore. The excellent among them, however, con-
ceived this glory to rest upon true godliness and devotion, which they
expected the Messiah to instil into his people. The expression
XQovot Koi Kaipoi probably follows that of Daniel ii. 21, n;5>st^ ""Sy?, for
which the Seventy employ the same two words. In XP^'^'^^ it is rather
simple time that is expressed, " tempus," in Kaipog the relations and
circumstances of time, " opportunitas.'')

As if to compensate for the knowledge which he thus denied to
his disciples regarding the times, the Redeemer promises them the
power of the Holy Ghost (Luke xxiv. 49) by which they were to be
constituted, not so much prophets of the future,* as witnesses of
the past. It is the mighty works of God in and upon Christ, for
the salvation of the world, especially his resurrection from the dead,
which the apostles were to proclaim to the world. From Zion the
light goes forth (Isaiah ii. 2), and spreading in ever- widening circles,
it fills the globe. We are not required by the phrase tug iaxdrov

* The gift of prophecy is not, of course, here denied to the apostles : it is only repre-
flented as not lying at the very foundation of their office. The unveiling of the future
appears in a decided manner only in some of them, as, for example, the Evangehst John.
Vol. III.— 12

178 Acts I. 9-11.

TTjg yijg, to the extremities of the earth, to defend the untenable po-
sition that the apostles themselves went into all lands : these words
of Christ rather apply through the apostles to all future generations
of teachers, and find in them their fulfilment. (See Comm. on
Matth. X., where Christ's instruction of tl^e apostles embraces, at
the same time, the elements of all the instruction needed by teach-
ers.) To refer the words to -Palestine is wholly unsuitable, for the
parts of Palestine have been already mentioned : toxarov rijg yy^
corresponds to the Hebrew 5£-)Nn rrjijj. Ps. xix. 5.

Ver. 9-11. — In these verses the act of the ascension itself is de-
scribed.* With respect first of all to the scene, it is portrayed so
simply that we cannot possibly misunderstand it, but by some over-
refinement. The Redeemer was raised on high before the eyes of
his disciples, and then received by a cloud, most probably a cloud of
light, which removed him from their view. (Instead of eTrf/QOrj here
Luke has, xxiv. 51, duarr] dix' avriov koI dveipepero etc tov ovpavov, and
Mark, xvi. 19, dvEXri<pdri elg rov ovpavov, as in Acts i. 2.) Luke names
(xxiv. 50) as the place where the ascension took place, the neigh-
bourhood of Bethany (t^r/yaye avrovg t^w 'o)g elg Brjdavcav), with
which agrees the statement in verse 12, that the disciples returned
from the Mount of Olives, at the foot of which Bethany lay. The
same place, therefore, where the deepest humiliation of our Lord
occurred, viz., in the conflict of Gethsemane, witnessed also his sub-
limest elevation. (Compare Zech. xiv. 4, Ezek. xi. 23.) Blessing
his disciples, and setting them apart as the champions of truth and
righteousuess, the Saviour left the scene of his tears and prayers.
(Compare Luke xxiv. 50, 51, ical l-dpag rag %eipaf avrov evXoyriaev
avTOvg, ical tyevero iv rw evXoyelv avrov avrovg diearrj an' avrcov.^ And
while the disciples were gazing intently after him, suddenly there
stood by their side (without their having noticed whence they came),
two men in white raiment, that is, in heavenly robes of light, who
suggested to them the fruitlessness of thus looking with the bodily
eye after Christ, and rather directed their thoughts to his future re-
turn, when they should behold him coming as they had now seen
him depart. That this view of the scene is the only one which cor-
responds to the mind of the narrator, should be acknowledged even
by those who deny the reality of the fact : if we compare particu-
larly Mark xvi. 5, Luke xxiv. 4, with Matth. xxviii. 2, John xx. 12,
it is manifest that the latter passages represent as angels the men
in white rohes named in the former ; and therefore it admits of no
doubt at all, that here too we must understand angels to be meant
by the sacred historian. In like manner the phrase ovrog tXevaerai,
bv rpo-nov iOedaaaOe k. t. A., refers, beyond all question, to the visible

* Compare the discussion of Seiler in Velthuseu Sylloge Commeatt. vol. vi. p. 503,

860.

Acts I. 9-11. 179

return of our Lord in his glorified humanity, which is taught by all
the New Testament writers (comp. Comm. on Matth. xxv. 31, xxiv.
1), and, with this at the same time his previous departure is also
described as a going to the Father, a sitting down at the right hand
of God. (Mark xvi. 19.)

All attempts, therefore, to explain the facts of the case on natu-
ral principles, by referring them to a withdrawment of Christ amid
thunder and lightning and thick clouds, are liable to the objection
of thrusting into the text what is not there. And again to take
this view of the matter, that the narrators supposed indeed their
Master to be exalted to heaven, but this merely from a misunder-
standing of some such occurrence as is indicated above, is a view
alien to the moral character of Christ, who never could lend himself
to the device of using accidental external circumstances to deceive
his disciples, that they might be led to suppose him elevated to
heaven, while he continued to live concealed in some unknown
region.*

There is far more plausibility in the mythical view of the occur-
rence before us, which makes a reference to analogous cases in
history, such as those of Hercules, Romulus, and others.f The
fundan:^ental fact is, on this principle, altogether set aside : we
only retain the idea that he who comes from God must again re-
turn to God ; this idea is legibly stamped upon the account even as
it is given to us by Luke. Yet in truth this view is only in ap-
pearance more moderate and historical than the former. To leave
the fact uncertain, embraces the very same error, from which the
explanations on natural principles take their rise. For every one
must immediately say to himself, since Christ was a historical per-
sonage, he must have left the earth upon which he lived in a defi-
nite manner. Now, if his departure did not take place in the way
recorded, which some will have to be mythical, then there remains
no other than the common exit ; and thus we see ourselves con-
ducted to conclusions which impair the character of Christ, equally
with those to which the former view led us.^ Add to this what was

* The utmost extreme of this view was presented in the hypothesis of Brennecke
(Liineburg, 1819), who supposed that Christ continued to labour for twenty -seven years
after his crucifixion, in concealment ; for he considers the appearance of Jesus to Paul as
proof of his continued presence upon the earth. The absurdity of this view is its own
refutation.

f With respect to these analogies, let it not be overlooked that they are in no way
correspondent: cf a glorification of the o-JJ/za, no mythology knows anything: the hea-
then apotheoses are only deifications of the yl'vxv-

X The beautiful conclusion of the life of Jesus by Haso (p. 204), "His departure was
not the sad parting of a mortal, but the blessing of a glorified being, who promised yet
by his love with the deity to love on immortal among his disciples ; and he does re-
main with us," sinks down, therefore, to mere words; because shortly before, Chribt'a
grave was presupposed, and with it the sad parting of a mortal

180 Acts I. 9-11.

formeily remarked in reference to the mythical view of the history
of the Saviour's childhood, that the composition of the Acts of the
Apostles lies too near the historical occurrences, to allow time for a
circle of mythical legends to have formed themselves around the
person of Jesus. However, the advocates of this view make their
appeal here to a circumstance which at first sight must appear sur-
prising. They remind us that the ascension, if it really occurred,
is 80 important an incident in the history of Christ, that in none of
the gospels could it be overlooked ; it is the keystone of the whole,
without which the building cannot be completed. Nevertheless,
this keystone is wanting in the Gospel of Matthew, who yet was an
eye-witness ; nay, it is even wanting in John, for whose delineation
of Christ it would have been doubly important ; setting out, as he
does, from the original state of the Logos with the Father, thither
also there would have been an evident propriety in following him
back. Besides, it is remarked that no other apostle speaks of the
occurrence, neither Peter, nor Paul, nor James : it is only the two
penmen of the New Testament who were not eye-witnesses, Mark
and Luke, who narrate the ascension, whence it would seem not im-
probable that they drew their narrative from impure sources. This
observation is by no means without weight, and I confess that for a
long time I was disquieted by it, because I could nowhere find a
satisfactory explanation of the fact. What at last presented itself
to me as an explanation, after carefully considering the circum-
stances of the case, I will now attempt shortly to unfold.*

First of all, it has already been often justly remarked, that
references to the ascension are not so entirely wanting as has been
supposed. In the Old Testament, it is true, passages, such as Ps.
ex. 1, contain but mere hints, which can be directly applied to the
ascension only on the authority of the New Testament ; but yet,
in 2 Kings ii. 11, we are presented with an obvious prefiguration of
it in the history of Elijah.f It would therefore, very readily sug-
gest itself to the Rabbins, who transferred everything glorious and
beautiful in the Old Testament to the Messiah, to suppose also
that he should ascend to heaven. (Compare Schoettgen, Jesus der
wahre Messias, Leipsic, 1748, p. 844, etc.) And, what is of more
weight, Jesus himself refers to it, not only in the expression, so often
repeated in the last chapters of John, " I go to the Father" (vndyo)
npbg Tov -naregd), but also more definitely in the passage John vi.

* Hai3e, in his life of Jesus, who decides in favour of the mythical view of the refiur-
rection, declares the silence of the eye-witnesses to he altogether inexplicable. And to
what point he was led by this mythical view appears from the words, " as the grave of
Moses, so also his was not seen." Had he then a grave, he who swallowed up death
for ever? ! (Hase, as cited above, page 204.)

f I designedly mention only Elias, because the departure of Enoch and Moses is not
represented expressly as a bodily glorification.

Acts I. 9-11. 181

62, " if then ye see the Son of Man ascending where he was before"
(idv ovv Oeuptjre ~ov vlbv tov dvOgdj-nov dvafiaivovra onov i]v to TrgorepovY
where the connexion, as well as the words " Son of Man" plainly
point to an exaltation of his human nature. In the apostolic epis-
tles, in fine, there are passages, such as 1 Tim. iii. 16 (dveArjfpd?] iv
rfd^T/), which contain manifest allusions to the fact in question ; and
even other passages, such as Ephes. ii. 6, iv. 8, and 1 Pet. iii. 22
{nopevOelg elg rbv ovgavov, where, besides, the mention of the dvdaraaig
immediately precedes), are not to be overlooked, nor yet any of
those declarations which represent Christ as sitting continually at
the right hand of God, particularly Matth. xxvi. 64. However, it
must be acknowledged that in most of these passages the specific
circumstance distinctive of Christ's ascension, viz., his bodily eleva-
tion, is not expressly brought forward, and, therefore, many of them
might be applied to persons who have blissfully fallen asleep, e. g.
the words " he has gone to heaven,"*

But, again, suppose that the declarations of Mark and Luke re-
garding the ascension were wanting likewise, and tha-t we were
quite at liberty to imagine to ourselves the end of Christ's earthly
life ; should we then be able to conceive any other departure of the
Lord, that would recommend itself to the consciousness of Chris-
tians ? Since allowing that the Saviour was not a mere phantom,
as supposed by the Docetas, but lived in a real human body upon
the earth, we are necessarily driven to suppose, if the glorification
of his body be not admitted, that a separation of his soul from his
body again took place. But this separation must be death, and
therefore we must say that in some way Christ died again, and that
his soul returned to his Father. But where, then, is the victory of
Christ over death ? What becomes of the significancy of the re-
surrection, which all the apostles have celebrated as the great work
of God, and as the foundation of faith ? (Comp. Comm. on 1 Cor.
XV.) It has already been remarked, in the history of the resurrec-
tion, that the raising of Christ is significant only as being the
climax of C^^, life, in that Christ conquered death in his humanity,
and rose with a glorified immortal body. But what boots a resur-
rection, that is followed by a new death ? If the Redeemer, there-
fore, is at all to be and to continue what he is to the church, the
conqueror of sin and death, his departure from this world cannot be
conceived to have been different from what the Evangelists declare.
Now let this be granted, and the question will present itself in quite
a different shape. The fact of the ascension is certain, on internal
grounds, and the only question that now remains is, why this con-

* Ephes. ii. 6 is a passage particularly worthy of notice, because Paul there views
the resurrection and ascension of Christ as an image of the resurrection and exaltatioa
of believers.

182 Acts I. 9-11.

eluding scene receives so little prominence in the apostolic writings?
To this question we find a sufficient answer in the relation, which
the resurrection and the ascension necessarily bear to one another.
The ascension, as the concluding act of our Lord's career upon the
earth, did not by any means appear to the apostles so significant as
it does to us : in their view it was only a consequence of the resur-
rection. They had already become accustomed, after their master's
death, to regard him as absent and gone ; they had no continuous
enjoyment of his presence after he rose from the dead : there was
always something sudden and unexpected in his individual appear-
ances, and each might be the last. And though, indeed, the ascen-
sion was an express leave-taking and a solemn .departure, yet even
after it, Jesus appeared again, for example, to Paul.'"" The ascen-
sion itself, therefore, was really not an act of special significance ;
the moment of our Lord's departure appeared like a fleeting instant,
and therefore there was no feast of the ascension known to the
ancient church.f Everything of importance, in a doctrinal point
of view, was concentrated in the resurrection ; with it closed the
earthly career of Christ : the ascension, and also the outpouring of the
Spirit, which was connected with the ascension and dependent upon
it, are only results of the resurrection, viewed as the glorification
of the body, and consequences of the victory over death. Whilst
in the incarnation divinity was born into flesh, the resurrection is,
as it were, a birth of the flesh into spirit ; and the ascension is the
return of the glorified body into the eternal world of spirit, with
which the sitting of the glorified Eedeemer at the right hand of
God, and his participation in the Divine government of the world,
must necessarily be viewed as connected. As therefore the earthly"
sinks by the essential tendency of its nature down to the earth, so
likewise does an inward impulse guide the heavenly back to its
source. The Kedeemer, therefore, glorified in a body, could not
leave his spiritual body upon the earth, but he took it with him into

* Heuce, too, the apostle Paul (1 Cor. xv. 8) enumerates, along with the other ap-
pearances of Christ, the appearance of him with which he himself was favoured, although
it did not take place till after the ascension, and he speaks of the resurrection without
making any mention of the ascension at all.

f In the days of Augustine and Chrysostom, the ascension was indeed celebrated in
the church, and because they did not know the origin of the feast that commemorated
it (adscensio, uvu?iT]ipi.^), they traced it back to the apostles; but in the writings of the
fathers of the first three centuries, there is no trace of it to be found. (Comp. Binghami
origg. eccl. vol. ix. p. 126, ssq.) How much, too, the importance of the feast of ascen-
sion has fallen below that of the feast of Easter, in the estimation of Christians, is plain
from our collections of sacred psalmody. The abundance of admirable hymns for Easter
stands in glaring contrast with the few and rather unimportant songs which refer to the
ascension. The cause of this fact undoubtedly is nothing but this, that the imagination
of poets has not found in the event any peculiar idea, but a mere consequence of the
resurrection.

Acts I. 12-14. 183

the world of spirit. And in accordance witli the representative
character which Christ bears in relation to mankind, the whole race
was elevated in him, and he now draws up to his own elevation his
faithful people, and grants to them to sit upon his throne, as God
has granted to him to sit upon his throne. (Rev. iii. 21.) If but
one Evangelist, therefore, had neglected to mention the resurrection
of Christ, the omission would have been inexplicable, but the omis-
sion of the ascension in the Gospels of Matthew and John is merely
to be regarded as a record of one fewer of the appearances of Christ.
That the risen Redeemer has ascended to heaven with his glorified
body, and sits on the right hand of God, lies at the foundation of
the whole apostolic view of his ministry ; and without this idea
neither the significant rite of the supper, nor yet the doctrine of the
resurrection of the body, can be retained at all with consistency.
And, therefore, in fact, the New Theology has not hitherto been
able properly to incorporate with itself either the one or the other,
because, on account of its prevailing ideal tendency, it has misun-
derstood the import of the ascension.

Vers. 12-14. — Luke next gives an account of the return of the
disciples to Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives. (The usual name
of this mountain [see Comm. on Matth. xxi, 1] is Sgog twv tXaiiov.
The name here employed, opog rov iXaMvog^ is found in this pas-
sage only of the New Testament, but it also occurs in Josephus,
Au't. vii. 9, 2. It comes from the e/latwv, olivetum, a place planted
with olive trees. The LXX. use it for nn. . Exod. xxiii. 11.) This
mountain lay, it is well known, near to the city, at the distance of
a Sabbath day's journey. (The Jews might walk on the Sabbath two
thousand yards, or seven and a half stadia or furlongs. Josephus
states the distance of the Mount of Olives sometimes at six furlongs
[Ant. XX. 8, 6], and sometimes at five [Bell. Jud. i. 5, 2], according as
he reckoned from the top of the mountain or the foot. Here we have
only an indefinite statement.) When Luke intimates in verse 13
that the apostles assembled in a private house {v-nepCdov = tA;i an
upper chamber,* which was usually constructed in the form of a
hall, and therefore commonly served for meetings, Acts ix. 37, xx.
8) ; it is but an apparent contradiction to the statement in Luke
(xxiv. 53), that they were in the temple. For the added dia-rcavrog,
continually, shews that it is not there meant to be affirmed that
they went directly from the Mount of Olives to the temple, but rather
that, as pious, God-fearing men, they were frequently to be found in
the common sanctuary of the nation. But in the passage before us
the discourse relates to an immediate meeting, after the return from
the Mount of Olives. (Respecting the list of the apostles, see th.e

* Undoubtedly it was in the house of a family friendly to them, perhaps in the same
vhere the last supper was observed.

184 Acts I 15-17.

Comm. on Matth. x. 2, Mary, the motlier of Jesus, is mentioned
by name, as a mark of respect, and indeed for the last time. It
is not to be overlooked that the brothers of Christ are distinguished
from the eleven apostles, for this circumstance clearly shews that
none of them can have belonged to that body. It is not to be
doubted, however, that they were now attached to the Gospel,
and perhaps had been so from the time of Christ's appearance to
James, 1 Cor. xv. 7. Comp. the Comm. on John vii. 5, and Matth.
xiii. 55.) Although the Lord had now left the disciples, and they
stood alone like sheep among wolves, yet they were filled with a
blessed joy. (Luke xxiv. 52.) They had learned that by means of
tbe resurrection of Christ, the foundations of the kingdom of God
were immoveably laid, and that all their hopes should be realized.
Therefore they joined together in heartfelt prayer, that the purposes
of God towards mankind might be carried into effect through them.
From the definite statement of the individual fact {ore elaiiXdov, dve-
(3r](7av\ the words ov rjoav naranivovreg and •^<7av TrpofT/caprepovvref,
form a transition to a more general statement. Here in the place
indicated they were loont to assemble for prayer. (Comp. verse 15.)
The word ^nodvuadov^ unanimously, in verse 14, also in chap. ii. 1,
46, is significant : it occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only in
Eom. XV. 6. It denotes that oneness of life in the disciples which
was displayed in a living community of feeling and consciousness.

Ver. 15-17. — During the days that intervened between the
ascension and the day of Pentecost (ii. 1) the apostles proceeded
to the election of a new member of the apostolic college in the room
of Judas. First of all, in reference to this transaction, it seems
strange, that when the Eedeemer himself had not supplied the va-
cancy during the forty days that followed his resurrection, the apos-
tles did not wait till they received the Holy Ghost. In that case
they might have been able to dispense with the use of the lot,
which necessarily betrays a deficiency of the gift of discerning
spirits : if Peter, for instance, had had this gift of the Holy Ghost,
then he could at once, by heavenly guidance, have selected a new
apostle. But this would have been a proceeding obviously opposed
to all propriety, for one apostle could not nominate another : all of
them required to be appointed by the same Lord.* Their use of the
lot therefore only gave expression to the idea, that they wished to

* In this circumstance probably we can find tbe reason wby in tlae ancient churcb
the teachers of religion were not also appointed by lot. The apostles were named imme-
diately by the Lord, and therefore the filling of the vacancy which had occurred was also
left to him. But the overseers and teachers of the individual churches were always
named by the apostle who planted them, and the church kept up the number by election.
It is only at a late period that traces of election by lot are to be found in Spain (see
Binghami orig. eccl. vol. ii. 80), but it was probably the very passage before us which led
to the adoption of the practice when it did arise.

Acts I. 15-17. 185

decline the decision themselves, and put it wholly into the hands of
the Saviour. But, at all events, this occurrence will always remain
a remarkable proof of the lawfulness of the lot, in those cases where
a decision needs to be given, in which it transcends the ability of
man to discover what is right. It is well known that in such cases
the church of the United Brethren use the lot ; and, according to
the latest accounts regarding the practice, they use it with such
prudence that scarcely any well grounded objection can' be made
to it.

But further, in the speech of Peter there is exhibited a manifest
consciousness of the importance of the office which was conferred
upon him and all the apostles, and of the completeness of the body
which the twelve were designed to form. And just because they
were to stand purely as the representatives of Israel (com p. Comm.
at Matth, x. 1), even Paul himself afterwards could not be ranked
in the apostolic circle, for es the apostle of the Gentiles, he did not
belong to the number of the twelve.

And finally, our admiration is excited by the calmness and the
clear conscience with which Peter speaks of Judas in this first
speech which he delivers. Tliough he had himself so deeply fallen,
he could, after receiving pardon as a penitent, take that lead among
the disciples to which the Lord had called him, without being held
back by a false humility, and proceed to supply the place of Judas
who had destroyed himself in despairing remorse. So greatly do
sins difier from one another in their consequences, according to the
state of mind from which they proceed ! Only let the heart be at
bottom sincere and true to God, and the soul may soon rise again
from a very deep fall.

The whole body of the little church at Jerusalem amounted at
that time only to one hundred and twenty souls. ("Ovofta, name,
is here employed to denote the person himself. The word is used
in the same manner in Rev. iii. 4, where it stands plainly for " men"
(av0pw7rot). Among profane authors this usage is only to be found
in poetical diction. For ird to avTo, = i^h:, we find only once Kara
TO avTo, viz., in Acts xiv. 1. This phrase, im rb avro, occurs chiefly
in the writings of Luke and Paul, though also in Matth. xxii. 34,
In signification it refers usually to place [sc. ;\;6)ptoi'], yet sometimes
also, as in Acts iii. 1, to time, in the sense of " at the same time,
together." It unites therefore in itself, like "i;^:, difterent refer-
ences.) The passages to which Peter refers in this speech, as relat-
ing to Judas, are cited in verse 20. In accordance with the uni-
versal doctrine of Scripture, the word of prophecy is here considered
as necessarily reaching its fulfilment. That this objective necessity
does not interfere with the subjective free determinations of the
mind, but that God recognizes free actions as such, has already been

186 Acts I. 18-20.

repeatedly noticed. (It is probably in such passages as verse 17,
KXrjpog ryg dtanoviagj comp. verse 25, that we are to seek the origin
of the word clerus, as applied to the spiritual functionaries of the
church. . At the veiy beginning of the church, it was supposed, we
must find the commencement also of the spiritual office ; and this
name very naturally presented itself in the case of the apostles as the
representatives of that office. KXfjpog denotes the lot, then, whatever
is distributed by lot, as "V|^s, and then generally that which is dis-
tributed ; here it means a thing conferred by God, which of course
implied that the individual who had received the special blessing
was laid under special obligations to God in return,'^ KXTjpog dia-
Koviag must therefore be translated, ''munus ministerii," but the
expressions are by no means synonymous, as Heinrichs and Kuinoel,
assert.)

Vers. 18, 19. — These two verses appear not to belong to the
original speech of Peter. As the miserable end of Judas was uni-
versally known in Jerusalem (ver. 19), it is improbable that Peter
should have here detailed it so minutely.f The verses, therefore,
are most properly to be regarded as a historical supplement of Luke,
who in his Gospel had mentioned no particulars respecting the fate
of Judas. This supposition will appear the more plain and natural,
when it is considered that this view must at any rate be taken of
verse 19, because we must suppose that Peter spoke in Hebrew, and
therefore we cannot imagine that a translation of the word 'AkeA-
daixd would occur in his speech. Meyer, however, is right in saying
that, inform, these verses are to be considered as belonging to the
apostle's speech. Kegarding the particular circumstances mentioned
in them, as well as the fate of Judas generally, and the purchase of
the piece of ground made by the priests, see the details in the Com-
mentary at Matthew xxvii. 5.

Yer. 20. — According to this view, then, the citations from the
Old Testament connect themselves immediately with the 16th
verse where mention of them is made. The first passage is taken
from Ps. Ixix. 25.J In the LXX. it stands thus : yevrjOriTO) tj tnav-
Xiq avTU)V r]pr]iJ,(jO[j.evT] koX iv ToXg aK7]v6fiaciv avribv urj toro) 6 KaroLKiov.
Probably the passage is quoted only from memory, for the varia-
tions from the LXX. are not material. The employment of the
singular number, however, is plainly intentional, to mark the better

* Thus speaks Jerome, Epist. ii. ad Nepot., ministri Dei propterea vocantur clerici,
vel quia de sorte sunt Domini, vel quia ispo Dominus sors id est pars clericorum est. See
Bingliami orig. eccl. vol. i. 50.

\ So most interpreters, perhaps correctly. The English translator regards the verses,
however, as necessary to the speech of Peter, as preparatory to the citation from the
Psalms ver. 20. Tet this certainly required no such minute account as is here given. — [K.

X In the Hebrew it is the 26th verse, which runs thus: B;!''nv!J5'=? w'?"'^? cnn-'tJ— ^npi
■2,'D'i ini—Vx.

Acts I. 21, 22. 187

the reference of the passage to Judas. But in this there is ly no
means any disfigurement or essential alteration of the sense. Judas
is rather viewed as representing the ungodly in general, and the senti-
ment which is applicable to them all, holds good of him pre-emi-
nently. On this principle it is to he explained how the passage
admits of being applied to Judas, and the word ^navXtg ( = olicia, and
occurring only here in the New Testament), to his apostolic office.*
We need not at all suppose that David, in the strict and proper sense,
had a view of Judas and his office clearly before his mind ; but he
scanned deeply the fundamental relations between good and evil, as
developed in the histoiy of the world. For it is God's plan to permit
evil indeed to bear sway for a time over the good, but he at length
sends forth judgment, and drives evil from its possession. Then
the place of evil is supplied by a good which repairs its disasters.
This deep thought was exhibited typically in the life of David, and
it was realized in a great historical event in the case of Judas, but
it shall one day be fully vindicated in the complete triumph of the
good. The second passage is quoted from Ps. cix. 8, and cor-
responds word for word with the LXX. To this Psalm the same
remarks are entirely applicable, as have been made regarding Ps.
Ixix. There too, David, the representative in his day of all godly
living, is described as being in his persecutions a type of the Mes-
siah. ('EmoKonrj corresponds to the Hebrew ""p.s, office.)

Vers. 21, 22. — It is not inward qualifications which Peter here
brings forward as requisite to an apostle, but something altogether
external, viz., constant intercourse with Christ and his circle of fol-
lowers. This might in fact appear a mistaken view when we con-
sider that Paul, who enjoyed no such intercourse, yet laboured far
more than Matthias, who was chosen. But it must not be overlooked
that three years' intercourse with Christ was the farthest possible from
a thing purely external, and that it must influence most decidedly
the character of the individual : either he would enter upon a really
pious life, or he would sink as deep into sin as Judas. The heavenly
light which proceeded from Christ left no room for indecision. The
idea of Peter, accordingly, must be conceived in this manner, " we
can choose none, but one who has already approved himself" We
do not find any respect at all paid to richness of natural endow-
ments in the choice of the apostles. The majority of those w'ho
were chosen by Christ himself appear to have been in no way pre-
eminently distinguished by talents. Integrity, truth, and experience
were the only qualities that were looked to, and these qualities are
still of most importance in the church of Christ. Again, it is the
resurrection only {dvdaraaig), which Peter prominently exhibits,
although he also mentions the ascension. It was not witnesses of
* On the 69th Psahn in general, see the Comm. on John iL It.

188 Acts I. 23-26.

the ascension the church, needed, but of the resurrection, for tlie
former was a necessary consequence of the latter. (The phrase
eloigx^^^^'- ^"^^ t:^ipx£<^Oai is formed upon the model of the Hebrew
nssi NO, and denotes the close and intimate intercourse of life.)

Ver, 23. — Two persons, who possessed the qualifications required,
were now appointed as candidates, viz., Barsabas and Matthias.
The former had three names, like Thaddeus among the apostles.
(Comp. Comm. on Matth. x. 3.) For 'Iwcr?/0, however, some codices
read 'luorj^, and for BapoajSdv, codex D., in particular, has BapvdjSav.
Both names appear to have been frequently interchanged with the
kindred forms. This Joseph Barsabas has been confounded by tran-
scribers with the well known Joses Barnabas mentioned in chap. iv.
36,''' and there, too, indeed, some codices read Bapaal3(3dg. (The
etymology of BaQaa[3dc is unlmown. Grotius explains it to mean
son of an oath, from -la and »?w. The name Justus was borrowed
by the Jews from the Latin tongue, and assumed the form of "'^s'v)

Vers. 24-26. — The question presents itself, to whom is this
prayer addressed ? The word Kvpie, lord, placed absolutely, denotes
in the New Testament almost universally the Son ;t and, besides,
the words dvddei^ov bv i^eXe^o), show toliom tliou hast chosen, are- de-
cisive. The apostles are messengers of Christ ; it is he who selects
them, and of him they are to bear witness. Here, therefore, we have
the first example of a prayer offered to the exalted Redeemer, which
furnishes indirectly the strongest proof of his divinity. (Kapdio-
yv6aTT]g is equivalent to 2^ in.'^j Jerem. xvii. 10 ; comp. John ii. 25.)
Of Matthias, who was chosen, history gives no particular informa-
tion. [AiSovat, KXripovg = Vn'.a -jris, Lev. xvi. 8. I,v'yKaTaxp7)(f)L^eadaL,
" to be chosen with general consent," occurs nowhere else in the
New Testament.

There has been found some difliculty in the statement these
verses make concerning Judas, that he went into his own place {elg
rbv roTxov rov IdLov). False principles of moderation have created a
wish to shun the obvious sense of the words, and therefore Tropev-
dTjvai, go, has been made to refer back to XaPelv, take, and ronog, place,
has been understood to mean office ; so that the sense of the whole
lias been made this : shew. Lord, whom thou hast chosen to receive
the office, and to enter into the situation thus devolving upon him.
But this exposition is so ungrammatical and violent, that it cannot
maintain its ground for a moment ; for as the words tf rj g -napefiT]
'1ov6ag stand between Xafielv and TTopevdTjvai, it is perfectly clear,

* Against the identity of the two men you have decisive evidence in the chapter men-
tioned above, iv. 36 ; where, certainly, if Barnabas had been the same with Barsabas,
some reference to this fact was to be expected. "What Ullman (Studien 1828, ii., page
377, IT.) has adduced in favour of their identity, has not convinced me of it.

f Consult "Winer's treatise, de sensu vocum, Kvptoc et 6 Kvpiog, in actt. epist. apost.
Erlangae, 1828.

Acts II. 1. 189

that without Kat these two infinitives cannot be connected. The
explanations too, which, referring the clause to Judas, understand
the word place of the grave, or of his habitation, and make the
meaning to be that he withdrew himself entirely from the company
of believers, deserve just as little attention. Nothing is left, there-
fore, but to regard "his own place" (ronog idiog) as a euphemistical
designation of the place of punishment, to which it was befitting
that Judas should be consigned on account of his sins. (One codex
has dUaiog roTrog, meaning, according to the fundamental significa-
tion of this word : " What is due to any one, what righteously be-
longs to him.") Although this undoubtedly is the meaning of the
words, yet interpreters have not brought into clear relief the contrast
formed by ronog Idiog with tnavXig and tTTioicorryj in ver. 20. The"
heavenly position in the kingdom of light and truth to which Judas
was called, but which he lost by his unfaithfulness, has standing
opposed to it the kingdom of darkness, whose powers drew him down
to themselves. As the iron between two magnets, so stands the
soul between the powers of light and of darkness ; and the prin-
ciple to which it yields the supremacy, draws it upwards or down-
wards to itself.

§ 2. Celebration of the First Pentecost.*

(Acts ii. 1-4*7.)

Yer. 1. — And now the sacred number of the twelve was again
restored to its completeness, and the closed circle of the disciples
were waiting in prayer for the promise of the Father (i. 4). Nor
did the Redeemer, exalted to heaven to the right hand of power,
leave them long alone (John xiv. 18); he opened the streams of the
celestial world, and in the language of Isaiah xlv. 8, made the heav-
ens drop from above, and the clouds pour down righteousness. The
fulness of the Spirit from above, which had vanished with the sin of
mankind, returned once more ; and by means of that fulness there
was laid in the church of Christ the foundation of the kingdom of
God upon earth. Broken into fragments by sin, mankind were
melted together anew into a holy unity ; and to seal this restored
unity, the diversity of languages, which was the consequence of the
breach made by sin, was neutralized. The effect, it is true, lasted
only for a brief period, but still it served as a real pledge of the
])ermanent condition one day to be expected. This great fact,

* See the discussion by Haso in "Winer's Zeitscrift f. wissench. Theol. part ii. page
264, ff. Likewise Schneckenburger uber die Pfingstbegebenlieit in den Beitragen. p.
16. etc

190 Acts II. 1.

however, the birthday of the young church, the new birth of Israel ac-
cording to the Spirit, is preserved to us only in the one short narrative
of Luke ; and therefore it is not easy to form to one's self a clear con-
ception of the event, the more especially as there are difficult collateral
points connected with the main question. We begin our statement
with an explanation of the text, that we may first investigate care-
fully what the author designed to communicate : we shall then subjoin
a vindication to the consciousness of Christians of what he declares, as
also remarks upon other views that have been taken of the event.

And first, with regard to the time of the occurrence, there is a
diflS.Culty in the words, iv ra> ovunXrjQovadat -iiv Tjnegav rTJg rtevra-
Koartjg, lohen the day of Pentecost, etc. The word ovixTrkr^povoOai or
rrXrjpovadai, applied to points of time, denotes invariably, in the New
Testament, the reaching of a limit which refers back to an earlier
period. Here the view is directed back to the feast of the Passover,
and on the arrival of Pentecost, the interval between the two feasts
was, as it were, filled up. The words before us therefore cannot be
translated, " when the day of Pentecost approached," but '' when it
was reached." (Ivn-XrjpovoOat occurs elsewhere in this sense only at
Luke ix. 51 ; but TrXrjpovodai, like kVb in the Okl Testament, occurs
with singular frequency, especially in Luke. Also in Mark i. 15,
John vii, 8.) Further, the phrase rijitpa ri'ig 7TevTj]Koa-rjg, must not
be translated " the fiftieth day ;" the Greek for that would be ///^epa
TTevrrjiwari] ; but " the day of Pentecost," nevrrjKoaTr] having acquired
quite the force of a substantive. The supplying of eoprq is altogether
unnecessary, but it is not absurd, as Meyer maintains, any more
than our phrase " feast of Pentecost" ( Pfingstfest). He erroneously
supposes that nev-riKoarfi topri] would mean the fiftieth feast ; but
that this is not the case, is clear from a passage in Tobias ii. 1, ev
ry TTEVTTjKOOTy coprfj, rj eariv dyia irtTo, t/3(5ojuadwv. 2 Macc. xii. 32.
Among the Jews Pentecost was called n'^y-asn An^ the feast of (the
seven) weeks, that is, of seven weeks (Deut. xvi. 9, Tobias ii. 1).
It was celebrated as a memorial of the giving of the law of Moses
on Mount Sinai, and also as a harvest festival.* It corresponded
therefore entirely to the Christian Pentecost, inasmuch as it cele-
brated the establishment of the Old Testament covenant, when God
wrote his law outwardly upon tables of stone, while now he wrote it
with the finger of the Spirit upon the living tables of the heart.
The reference also to the harvest had its spiritual significance, be-
cause at the Christian Pentecost the complete harvest, as it were, of
the Jewish people, those, to wit, who had been brought to the fruit
of true repentance and renewal of heart, were gathered in and con-

* la the former respect it is called n"i':Mri Mhcto, the festival of the law. In refer-
ence to ll-e first fruits it is called by Philo eopri/ ■KpuTO-yEvvrjfiuTuv, equivalent to ^\%
D'^ntssn See Numb. xxviiL 26.

Acts II. 1. 191

secrated to God. The name TrevTTjKoa-j], pentccost, takes its rise
from the relation of this feast to the Passover ; for it was to be cele-
brated on the day following the completion of seven weeks or forty-
nine days, and consequently fell upon the fiftieth day. Still, there
is a question respecting the point from which the fifty days were
counted. According to the appointment of Moses (Lev. xxiii. 15),
the fifty days were reckoned from the day after the first day of the
Passover, or from the sixteenth day of Nisan ; for it is said in the
passage referred to 'r^-z-sr\ nnh«w, where ria» denotes the first day of
the Passover, which was observed as a Sabbath. Now since, accord-
ing to the accounts given regarding the time of the feast, the Pass-
over, in the year of our Lord's death fell so, that the first day of the
feast lasted from Thursday evening at six o'clock till Friday evening
at the same hour, it follows of course that it was from Friday even-
ing at six o'clock that the fifty days began to be counted. The fif-
tieth day fell, therefore, it appears, upon Saturday, while the whole
church, so far as we can trace the history of Pentecost, have cele-
brated the feast on Sunday. For a solution of this difficulty, an
appeal is made to a different exposition of Lev. xxiii. 15. While
the Jews, trained in the schools of the Kabbins and Pharisees, ex-
plain Msr of the first day of the Passover, the Karaites understand
it of the real Sabbath, that occurred during the paschal feast, which
it is known lasted eight days. But it is at once an objection to this
view, that we cannot well transfer the custom of the Karaites back
to the time of Christ ; at least we have no evidence at all to warrant us
to do so. The practice of the church, however, when more narrowly
considered, is not at all inconsistent with the reckoning stated above,
and, therefore, we may entirely discard that uncertain hypothesis.
We must merely avoid being misled by the different commencement
of a Jewish day. Undoubtedly the Jewish Pentecost in the year
of our Lord's death fell upon Saturday, but it began at six o'clock
in the evening, when the Sabbath was at a close, and it lasted till
six o'clock on Sunday evening. As the church, therefore, has quite
rightly fixed the day of the Redeemer's death upon Friday, although
the Passover began on Thursday evening at six o'clock, so also has
it with equal propriety fixed the first Pentecost upon the day which
occurred exactly seven weeks after the resurrection. In those con-
gregations of the primitive church, which, at first, according to Jew-
ish custom, observed Easter on the day of the week on which it fell
by the reckoning, they would also, without doubt, assign Pentecost
to the day of the week which came round at the expiration of seven
weeks after Easter, but, when the custom became general of statedly
observing Easter upon Sunday, the whole church likewise celebrated
Pentecost on the seventh Sunday after Easter."*

* Tho state of the case would, indeed, be quite different, if Hitsig's view were right;

192 Acts II. 1.

There is another considerahle difficulty, with respect to the place
where the event recorded occurred. As we know (ii. 15) the hour
of the day exactly, viz., nine o'clock in the morning, which was one
of the solemn hours of prayer among the Jews, we cannot suppose
that in the morning of the first Pentecost, the apostles would not
be assembled in the temple for prayer. The great multitude of
men, too, of so many different nations that streamed in upon them,
appears to point to the temple, the central jjoint to which all eagerly
flocked. Yet, on the other hand, the expression oXo^ ohog in verse
2, seems to indicate a private house, in which case the scene would
be entirely altered ; and particularly it would be inexplicable, how
so many persons, and of so various classes, could assemble round the
apostles. But the accounts given by Josephus respecting the con-
struction of the temple, guide us here to the right conclusion. Ac-
cording to his description, the main building was surrounded by
thirty rooms, which he names ohovg (Joseph. Antiq. viii. 3, 2), and
it is probable the apostles, along with their little company, assembled
in one of these spacious apartments. And thus the solemn inaugu-
ration of the church of Christ presents itself as an imposing spectacle
in the sanctuary of the old covenant. The weightiest objection
which can be brought against these views, arises from the idea that
the Pharisees would hardly have permitted the apostles to assemble
in the temple. But let it be considered that hitherto the apostles
had been treated as quite harmless people, and that probably there
was no need of any special permission for such a meeting, because
these halls, being employed for various purposes, stood to some ex-
tent open, and were accessible to every person, and the objection
loses all its force. Without this supposition, the whole occurrence
must appear of a far less significant character. As the crowning
inauguration of Christ took place in the temple (John xii. 28), so
behoved it also to be the case with the founding of the church.
Here the hundred and twenty assembled (i. 15) (that is ten times
twelve), and by their preaching and help at baptizing (ii. 41) the
number immediately grew to three thousand (that is twenty-five
times one hundred and twenty). Without doubt, therefore, we
must suppose that not the twelve only, but the whole hundred and
twenty received the Holy Ghost, for this gift was to be common
and accessible to every believer. It was therefore bestowed upon
the first little company of decided believers for further diffusion
among all who should become connected with them. Certainly,

•which is developed in the circular letter to Ideler, entitled " Ostem und Pfingsten zur
Zeitbestimmung im Alten und Neuen Testament," Heidelberg, 1837, page 7, etc. Accord-
ing to the view there given, the Passover and Pentecost were not moveable feasts at alL
But the correctness of thi^ view appears to me a matter of doubt. However, I venture no
judgment on this difficult question. I have rather desired that it might please the vene-
rable man to whom the letter is addressed, to express his opinion of Hitzig's view.

Acts II. 2, 3. 193

however, the twelve possessed the Holy Ghost in a different way
from the other believers, as is indicated particularly by the circum-
stance that they only at first appear to have been gifted with the
power of communicating the Spirit. (See Commentary on Acts
viii. 15.)

Vers. 2, 3. — If we examine the text, then, quite without preju-
dice, it will be seen that the historian presents the astonishing oc-
cuiTence in this light. While the disciples were sitting in the
apartment, there suddenly arose a rushing noise (?/a;oc means any
sound, but especially a rushing or whistling sound), which appeared
to come downwards from heaven : it might be compared to the
rushing of a mighty wind that sweeps along, and it filled the spa-
cious hall gradually, although moving quickly onwards. The whole
description is so picturesque and striking, that it could only come
from an eye-witness. After these sounds, there are described the
sights that accompanied them. The disciples saw (w(jfl9?/crav avrolq
can only be understood thus : " there appeared to them," that is,
they saw, not " there were seen upon them," " visas sunt super illos")
fiery flames, which seemed to proceed from a common centre, but
disparted and divided themselves : these flames touched each of the
company, and rested upon them, and they now all felt themselves to
be filled Avith a high and holy principle of life, and they began to
speak with tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

(In the phrase yXCoaaai (boel nvpug, tongues as of fre, the word
yXoJaoa, tongue, like yoV in Isaiah v. 24, must be 'understood in the
sense of flame.* And d)aei, as if, is inserted, because, although the ap-
pearance was indeed one of fire, yet its efiects shewed it to be different
from an actual earthly flame. The word diaiMgi^ouevog refers to an
original unity, which resolved itself into parts. The author mani-
festly intends that we should form to ourselves the idea of a fiery
stream, which divided itself, and whose radiations spread over all
and rested upon them. The ^eveiv of John corresponds entirely to

As respects the explanation of this occurrence, it may be al-
leged, in the first place, that the disciples saw and heard everything
in a state of ecstai^ or trance, and that accordingly the gathering
crowds (verse 6) heard not the rushing noise, but were attracted to
the place by the sound of the disciples' voices. But a trance hap-
pening at the same time to many persons, let it even be but to
twelve, is a thing utterly unheard of. We must therefore suppose
assuredly something external which produced this common ecstasy,
the more especially as it was attended with real consequences, since
the apostles after this occurrence suddenly stand forth and teach as

* Better perhaps to regard the flame as tongue-shaped (and hence symbolicaJ) which
disparted so that a like flame Sjjt on each.^K.
V^OL. III.— 13

194 Acts LI. 2, 3.

inspired witnesses of Christ, and preach the Gospel. Others, there-
fore, are inclined to suppose there was some physical phenomenon in
the air, a thunder-storm or electric meteors, which as declarations
of God from heaven in favour of the apostles, were interpreted as
the fulfilment of the promise of the Father. But neither can this
supposition prove satisfactory ; for, in the first place, other men, too,
must have seen these atmospheric phenomena, and could not there-
fore have had occasion to wonder at the event ; and, secondly, an
interpretation put by the apostles upon a thunder-storm, could never
have secured that lasting power which accrued to them from the
scene, and least of all could it have given rise to such peculiar exhi-
bitions as the yXtoaoaig XaXelv, " speaking with tongues," which
lasted for many years in the church. Nor again is the mythical
view of the occurrence, which is grounded upon the idea prevalent
among Jews as well as Gentiles (see Schoettgen on this passage, Liv.
i. 39, Virg. ^n. ii. 680, seq.), that in peculiar circumstances rays ol
light have played around distinguished persons, here at all admissi-
ble. For, not to advert to the circumstance that we cannot allow
the possibility of myths arising in the time of the eye-wtnesses,
and passing over the consideration that this myth would be formed
contrary to all analogy, the gift of tongues being a thing wholly un-
precedented ; this view would lead to the conclusion that the power
which subsequentlydisplaj^ed itself in the ministry of the apostles was
a mere heightened action of their own life, a conclusion that would en-
tirely set aside the peculiar work of the Holy Ghost. Those who
cannot reconcile themselves, therefore, to the occurrence, must still
confess, that it is the author's design to declare that ,a higher and a
heavenly power came upon the apostles, amid audible and visible
manifestations ; and the very existence of the church obliges them in
any case to suppose that there must have been something to produce
so mighty a change in the timid disciples. Many have found this in
the resurrection of Christ (Ease's Life of Jesus, page 196) ; but
not one of the disciples taught publicly before Pentecost : it was on
the day and in the hour of the outpouring of the Spirit, that the
church was first permanently established, and thereafter it grew
from day to day and from century to century.

Now, let us only disengage ourselves from the prevailing ideas
respecting the relation between sj)irit and matter (of which we have
already said something in the history of the resurrection), and
much of the difficulty which these ideas have been the means of
spreading over the history of Pentecost will disappear. An abso-
lute separation of the spiritual world from the material is altogether
incapable of proof, and is in the highest degree improbable, because
the very constitution of man himself furnishes us with an example
of spirit acting in matter. The essence of the Absolute Spirit,

Acts II. 4-11. 195

which is love, implies moreover the power of imparting himself, and
the supposition that spirit can receive spirit, that two such homo-
geneous natures may be united, involves nothing which should re-
strain us from adopting it : nay, the consciousness of spiritual
poverty, along with the greatness of man's conscious destination,
necessarily gives indication that a higher fulness shall one day sup-
ply the want that is felt. Hence, too, throughout the whole of the
Old Testament, the longing desire and promise of a spiritual ful-
ness to be poured down upon mankind. The only thing in the
narrative before us, according to the view we have given, which
might still occasion doubt, even to the man who readily admits the
idea of spiritual communication, is the fact that here the spiritual
power displays itself in physical effects, which it is feared may tend
to materialism. But this, too, on closer consideration, is very easily
explained. It is not said that the spiritual is itself material, which
certainly would be inconceivable, but only that the spiritual, in its
manifestation, was accompanied with physical effects. And to as-
sume even this to be contradictory, is to regard every outward man-
ifestation of the inward spiritual life in man, nay his very existence,
which exhibits spirit in a material covering, as also a contradiction,
which will be maintained by none.

Vers. 4-11. — The entire following description of the occurrence,
serves for the illustration of the mysterious gift of tongues, which
was now manifested in accordance with the promise given in Mark
xvi. 17. The feast had brought Jews from all parts of the world
to Jerusalem, who were assembled in the Temple at the hour of
prayer ; and pressing forward where the sound proceeded from the
chamber of meeting, they were astonished to hear the company
speaking in their several dialects. We are at once led to ascribe to
the historian the idea, that an effect was here wrought exactly the
reverse of the separation that once took place among the nations by
the confusion of tongues (Gen. xi. 7). The outpouring of the Spirit
of God, through the instrumentality of the gift of tongues, melted
together again the broken fragments into a new unity. Hence the
minute catalogue of nations, which are enumerated according to
their order of position, from east to west, from north to south, in
order to indicate the whole world : every one hears his own speech,
and feels that the wall of separation which divided him from his
brethren is taken away. The yX6oaaiq XaXelv^ speaking with
tongues^ appears therefore plainly to mean speaking in various dia-
lects, so that all who were present understood what was advanced.
There is some inexactness certainly in the words : d^ tKaorog rJKovov
T^ idla SiaXeKTU) XaXovvroyv avrutv in verse 6 ; for every one of the
multitude could not hear every disciple speaking in his own lan-
guage : manifestly, however, it is merely an indefiniteness of ex-

196 Acts II. 4-11.

pression : the meaning must be, that every one of the collect-
ed throng heard his own language from some one of the disciples.
This is clear from the speech which Luke, in the 7th and follow-
ing verses, puts into the mouth of the multitude, for of course
these words could not be spoken in such a shape : what individuals
may have actually said or thought of individual speakers, is ex-
hibited by Luke in the form of their collective judgment respecting
the whole.

(Respecting evXafiijg in verse 5, see the Comm. on Luke ii. 25. —
KaToiKeXv = imdTjfxelVj denotes a short stay or sojourn in a place, like
the Hebrew a»;, in Gen. xxvii. 44. Twv vnb tov ovpavov soil, ovtuv^
•' that are under heaven," is a picturesque form of expression to
denote extension on every side. — Ver. 6, avyxvvoixai, in the sense of
being amazed, perplexed, " confundi," occurs in the New Testa-
ment only in the Acts [ix. 22, xix. 32, xxi. 31.]— Verse 7. The
question, "Are not these Galileans ?" [ovx ovtoi VaXLXaloL)\, is to
be explained on the ground of the well-known deficiency of educa-
tion which prevailed in Galilee, and which left no room for expect-
ing strange and distant languages among them, — Vers. 9-11. The
catalogue of the nations of the Gragco-Eoman world is plainly con-
structed according to a rule. Those in the east are first mentioned,
then those in the north, next those in the south, and finally those
in the west. The western nations are thrown together under the
title of 'Fo)[j,atoi ;"••'•• and in conclusion, it is remarked of all the na-
tions mentioned, that both Jews and Proselytes (for the passage
does not refer at all to Gentiles, who had no occasion to come to the
feast) were present from amongst them. And by way of supple-
ment, Cretes and Arabians are mentioned, somewhat unconnectedly
with the rest. The only strange thing in the list of countries is
that Judea, 'loufJam, verse 9, is likewise mentioned ; as it is for-
eign nations that are to be enumerated, and the discourse relates to
an event that happened in Jerusalem, the mention of Judea ob-
viously does not seem appropriate. But when it is considered that
Luke wrote in Rome, one easily sees why in his enumeration, com-
mencing with the distant east, he shoald also name Judea ; respect is
had to the position of his Roman readers. Theophylact, however,
has omitted the word : TertuUian and Augustine read Armenia ;
others have conjectured India, Bithynia, or the like. India is inap-
propriate, for being the most easterly country, it should have stood
first, but Bithynia fits admirably. The very difficulty, however, of
the reading 'lovcJota, must prevent conjecture from prevailing against

* The addition of kni6ri/j.ovvT£c shews that they were not merely Roman citizens
dwelling elsewhere, but that they resided in Rome itself and were therefore properly
Romans — " Strangers of Rome."

Acts II. 4-11. 197

the manuscripts. — Verse 11, neyaXeta sciL cpya, equivalent to niV'ia
Ps. Ixxi. 19.*)

But to consider more closely the gift of speaking with tongues
(jXuaaaig ?iaAelv) first exhibited at Pentecost, it certainly is a most
remarkable phenomenon. Whilst of almost all the great features
in the gospel history, there are not only intimations in the Old Tes-
tament, but also anticipations among the Rabbins and analogies
among other nations, this phenomenon has absolutely nothing akin
to it, a circumstance of itself sufficient to divest the mythical ex-
planation of every shadow of probability. And yet it is this very
wonder of speaking with tongues which occurs with such frequency
in the church, for in the apostolic times, and in the times too of
primitive Christianity, it very copiously accompanied the communi-
cation of the Holy Ghost. Without the detailed information, how-
ever, which the apostle Paul gives us in 1 Cor. xiv. respecting this
gift and its relation to " prophecy" {iTpo(prjTEta) and to the " inter-
pretation of tongues" {tpnr]VEia yAcjaawi^), it would be quite impossi-
ble for us to acquire clear views on the subject. And for that reason
the particular consideration of it must be delayed till we reach the
passage referred to. At present I shall only give a prehminary
abstract of my view, and also a survey of the principal opinions re-
specting this mysterious gift.

First, with respect to the names which this gift (1 Cor. xii. 4-11)
bears in the New Testament, we find, besides the phrase irepaig
yXwaoaig XaXelv also naivaZg yXuiaaatg XaXelv in Mark xvi. 17, and fur-
ther simply, yXcoaaaig and yXuaarj XaXelv^ also yX6oaxi npooevxeodai,
rpdXXeiv or -tpaXubv tx^Lv^ yhr\ yX(^aaC)v (xii. 28); also simply, yXCoaaai
(xiii. 8), or yXdoaa (xiv. 26). In Irenasus (v. 26) the phrase irav-
Todanalg yXdjaoaig XaXelv occurs. (Com p. the leading passages in 1
Cor. xii. and xiv.) It is probable that the words XaXelv, Trpoaevx^a-
6aLj and ipdXXeiv denoted the different forms in which the gift ap-
peared, the last word, for example, denoting the poetical and
musical form of it. (See the Comm. on 1 Cor. xiv. 15.) As to the
point whether the name yevrj yXcjoocdv also denotes a peculiar form
of the gift, consult the Commentary on.l Cor. xiv. 10.

Again, with respect to the views which have been entertained of
the gift of tongues, we may consider some of them as abandoned.
To this class belongs the old orthodox opinion, that the gift of
speaking all the languages of the world was bestowed once for aU

* The passage adduced by the Apostle Paul, iu 1 Cor, xiv. 21, from the Old Testa-
ment, is of such a kind, that apart from his citation of it, it would never have been re-
garded as referring to the yXuaaaig 7.ale7v. See the exposition of this passage, 1 Cor.
xiv. 21. Ps. Ixxxvii. G, is a passage of the Old Testament particularly deser\-ing of
attention, because undoubtedly we may recognize in it an intimation of the gift of
tonsruos.

198 Acts II. 4-11.

upon the apostles, as a permanent endowment to fit them for their
apostolic oflBce. This idea is repugnant to history, hecause, not
only had the apostles their interpreters, but many persons also re-
ceived the gift of tongues whose office it by no means was to preach
the gospel to all nations. (Compare Acts x. 46 regarding Corne-
lius.) In like manner we may regard as set aside the view which
Cyprian, Gregory of Nazianzen, and at a later period, Erasmus and
Schneckenburger have defended, that the miracle lay not in the
speakers but in the hearers, the apostles speaking in their usual man-
ner, and the hearers supposing each that he heard his own language.
If this hypothesis, which rests particularly upon the form of expres-
sion used in verse 6, were tenable, then we must at the same time
suppose that the primitive tongue was again made known by the
Spirit to the apostles, and that each of the hearers thought he
found his own dialect in it. This is the view of the gift which Bill-
roth (on 1 Cor, xiv.) has attempted to uphold, and I confess that
his argument, taken in connexion with this statement of Baur, has
made me waver in piy opinion. This explanation is attended with
the special advantage of bringing out quite clearly the contrast be-
tween Pentecost, as the period of a restored unity of speech, and
the confusion of tongues at the building of Babel. But I feel my-
self too much hampered by the text, both here and in 1 Cor. xiv.,
to be able to adopt this opinion as my own. Especially, does the
expression yhr] yXo)aoC)v (1 Cor. xii. 28), appear to me incompatible
with this hypothesis.* ^

And if these explanations are untenable, equally must we dis-
miss the so-called natural explanation of the event, which makes
the whole fact, so full of significance, degenerate into a mistake.
We are required to suppose that the Christians who spoke were
Persian and other Jews, and that they prayed in their own lan-
guage, and when a great storm brought many others to the place,
who took the Christians for men of Galilee, they were filled with
astonishment, and fancied it was speaking with strange tongues
which they heard. In this manner even Meyer understands the gift
of tongues, but at the same time he supposes that Luke has disfigured
the historical fact, and imagined there reaUy was a miraculous speak-
ing in strange languages. Most extraordinarily, he supposes that
he has found a support for this superficial view in verse 15, because he
imagines that if all present, even the apostles, who were Galileans
by birth, had spoken in strange languages, then Peter would not

* Yet with Neander (Apost. Zeitalt. B. I. p. 112, note 1) we might explain this ex-
pression of the different forms in which the pift of tongues presented itself as npoaevxea-
Oai, tpullELv, and the hke. (Comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 15.) But if we observe the manner in
which, with reference to the name yevt] y^MoaCyv, the words yhr] ^uvuv are employed in
xiv. 10, we find ourselves obliged to renounce this expedient.

Acts II. 4-11. 199

have said " these are not drunken" (ov yap ov-oi iieOvovaiv)^ but " we
are not drunken" (ov yap ruielg iieOvoiiev). But on the principle of
this conclusion the apostles would be the only persons who did not
speak with tongues, while yet Paul declares, in 1 Cor. xiv. 18, that
he spoke with tongues more than all of them. That this explana-
tion suits none of the later passages, in which mention is made of
the communication of the Spirit, is so clear that there is no need of
any remarks upon the subject.

Between the extremes which have been mentioned, there lie in-
termediate views, which may be the subject of controversy. This
much we may regard as generally acknowledged at the present day,
that an elevated tone of mind, and one bordering upon ecstacy, was
an essential element implied in speaking with tongues. A more
vivid conception than the older theologians had reached, of the way
and manner in which the Spirit works upon the mind, has gradu-
ally brought about this acknowledgment. (Compare the remarks
on the eKoraaig at Acts x. 9.) The description given by Paul leads
also necessarily to the same conclusion, as the particular exposition of
1 Cor. xiv. Avill further shew. The power of the higher Spirit seized
the soul of the inspired person so strongly, that his own consciousness
(voig) was depressed, and he declared things that lay quite beyond
his o^vn individual point of view. The state of tranquil clearness
under the full influence of the Spirit, and of perfect consciousness,
constitutes the nQo^TjTeta, prophecy, which stands higher than the gift
of tongues. That on the occasion of Pentecost the whole company
were under a powerful excitement, is plain from the expressions
(verses 12, 13) that were uttered by the gathering crowds. But
here the question presents itself, how this exalted spiritual condition
was manifested, and why it received the name it bears, for every
state of ecstacy (^Koraocg) was not speaking with tongues. The
answer of this question brings out views which differ widely from
one another. At this point, however, the philological investigation
of the word yXoJaaa becomes indispensable. TXcJaaa has three sig-
nifications : 1, tongue ; 2, language ; 3, an antiquated poetical or
provincial word.

The first signification Bardili and Eichhorn have attempted to
establish here, supposing that when the disciples spoke in the state
of ecstacy, they did not utter distinctly articulate sounds, but only
a kind of stammer. They appeal in defence of this view particularly
to 1 Cor. xiv. T-9, where speaking with tongues is compared with
indistinct tones from an instrument. But this comparison does not
refer to the single sounds of an instrument, but to the whole melody
produced upon it ; and therefore it can only be the obscurity usu-
ally prevailing in the speeches taken as a wliole of the person who
spoke with tongues (yXcoaoaig XaXCjv) that is indicated, and not the

200 Acts II. 4-11.

inarticulateness of single words, which would have made the dis-
course unintelligible even to the interpreter. Besides, -there is the
philological argument against this supposition, that it would always
require the phrase yXdjaoij Xa?.e7v to be used, while yet we have the
plural yXcjaaaig applied even to an individual speaker (1 Cor. xiv. 6).
This first signification of the word must therefore, at all events, be
abandoned. All the greater vigour, however, has been displayed of
late in defending the third of the significations specified above.
Bleek* has shewn, by ample details, what indeed was not doubted,
that yXdcaa may mean "an old provincial expression." [Besides
other passages, he appeals in particular to the words yXdaaai Kara
ttoXel^ occurring in the " Anecdotis Gr^ecis" of Becker, by which are
meant the provincialisms of particular Greek cities. TX^oarpa is
used quite synonymously with yXuaoa, and is by no means the ex-
planation of a provincialism or rare poetical expression, as is usually
supposed. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (de verb, or composi. c. 25)
calls poetical expressions yXojaorjfiariKal X.e^etg. Now, following this
signification of ykoJoaa, Bleek supposes that the yXcooaaig XaXeTVj
meant an inspired address uttered in the common language, but in-
termixed with unusual poetical expressions. But he himself con-
fesses, that although all other passages of the New Testament in which
this gift is mentioned might appear favourable to his hypothesis,
yet the history of Pentecost is not so ; for the first and abiding im-
pression made by Luke's statement is, that the gathering strangers
heard the disciples speak not in poetical and uncommon diction, ex-
hibiting here and there an Arabic and Egyptian phrase, but in their
own language, and accordingly yXdooa and dtakEKTog are inter-
changed with one another in verses 6, 8, 11. Bleek, therefore, can
only construct a negative argument here, in that he attempts to
shew that the idea of the use of foreign tongues involves an incon-
sistency, and ought therefore, notwithstanding what the text seems
to affirm, to be rejected.f But the correctness of this assertion may

* In Ullmann's Studien, 1829, part i., page 33, etc.

f A miracle always involves "an inconsistency" with the ordinary laws of nataro.
To explain it by these laws is to destroy it. The only required warrant for admitting it
is the clear declaration of the word of God, and this most assuredly, when we can see a
high moral purpc.se to be subserved by it. Both conditions are here fulfilled. The sacred
writer obviously intends to describe a miracle ; and the occasion, viz., that on which the
glorified Redeemer signalizes his return to his Father by sending forth the Spirit, and
formally inaugurating the spiritual dispensation, as manifestly justifies it, as did the intro-
duction of the old dispensation, or the birth of Christ. And as the miracle is timely, so in
character it is strikingly appropriate. The old economy was ushered in amidst storm and
earthquake ; the birth of Christ by a vision of angels to the Jews and of a star to the Gen-
tiles, intimating that the light of the world was born : and so the special epoch of the
Spirit is inaugurated by a miraculous gift of tongues, intimating that all nations are to
share in its blessings. No miracle could be more striking as a sign to the assembled
Strangers, or as a symbol of the character of the apostolic ministry. The subsequent appeal

Acts II. 4-11. 201

be easily controverted, and this leads us to the consideration of the
second meaning of yAwcraa, viz., language.

Of the appropriateness of this signification in the passage before
us there can be no question, for, in Acts ii. 6, 8, 11, as has already
been remarked, the words yXdcoa and SidXtiiroq are manifestly inter-
changed, of which the latter can never stand for poetical expressions:
besides the whole description accords with the supposition, that the
apostles spoke in foreign languages. But it appears surprising that
in no other part of the New Testament is there anything expressly
said of speaking in foreign languages : on the contrary, it is only the
sublime and the obscure which are exhibited in the speeches of those
who speak with tongues (yAwaaaif). For this reason I dissent from
the old and certainly untenable supposition, already opposed in these
pages, that the gift of tongues was the permanent power of speaking
foreign languages. To me it appears that the gift of speaking with
to«gues was frequently manifested, simply in the way Bleek de-
scribes, as a kind of elevated speaking in which single uncom-
mon words might be introduced ; but first, it was not always so ;
and secondly, I am persuaded that the name was not borrowed from
the unusual expressions. We must rather maintain, in accordance
with the account of Pentecost given by Luke, that on that occasion
the gift undeniably displayed itself in the employment of foreign
languages. But the power of using them was not a permanent en-
dowment, but only an ability communicated for the time, and was
displayed as part of the gift, only when the gift was exhibited in its
highest form. The miraculous features of the gift must of course
be acknowledged as such, although there are analogies which enable
us to soften down its startling aspect."'-' The foreign tongues in which

to magnetism is every way gratuitous. If it had force, we ought to see the powerful im-
pulses of Christian love operating similarly now. But, although its ardour stimulates the
mental powers, and accelerates the processes of study, it exhibits not the slightest tondency
to supersede them. — [K.

* Neander, in his excellent and exceedingly instructive work on the times of the
apostles (part i. p. 17), affirms that different foreign languages cannot here be spoken of,
because in all the regions that are named, the Greek tongue was at that time tlie prevail-
ing one. But this view, I think, is only the consequence of the general notion which
this learned man entertains of the nature of the gift of tongues. Neander considers this
gift only as the original index of the great change which Christianity accomplishes in tho
hearts of men, and he appeals for proof to such passages as Luke xxi. 15. (Apost. Zoit.
p. 19 .) He supposes, however, that afterwards the expression, " speaking with tongues,"
was fixed particularly to denote that inspired speaking, in which the consciousness of the
speaker liimself disappeared. But, in reference to the passage before us, this view ap-
pears to have little to recommend it: for Luke's intention in giving the catalogue of na-
tions could be nothing else, than to indicate that all the languages of the world were un-
derstood. Neander supposes he is able to justify his view by passages from tho Fathers,
but the places he quotes are of such a kind as are quite compatible with other views of
the gift of tongues. The passage from Irenu^us, v. 26, in particular, presenting the ex-
pression iravTodmratg y7.uaaaig \aluv, which does not at all occur in the New Testa*

202 Acts II. 4-11.

these persons spoke, were only such as were used by strangers actu-
ally present : no apostle spoke Chinese, because no individual from
China was there. If we think of the imparted Spirit as the princi-
ple of love and true communion {Kotvuvia), then we may imagine
how his communications rendered a meeting of hearts possible, and
in this way led to a transference of one into another. When the
fire which filled the apostles, passed from them into the hearts of
the strangers, so as to make them also believe, then too the language
of the strangers went over from them to the apostles. There is
presented, in the very different sphere of animal magnetism, a phe-
nomenon which afibrds an illustration of this transference. We find
that somnambulists speak languages, of which at other times they
are ignorant, when they are brought into connexion with those who
know them. This in like manner is a fact which can only be ex-
plained by supposing the inward life of different individuals to be
communicated to one another. At Pentecost the gift of tongfles
appeared in its full power, and displayed itself in the speaking of
foreign languages. From this first exhibition of it it took its name,
which in the full form ran thus ; " to speak with other or new
tongues" (trepatt: or KaLvalg yXcjaoaig XaXelv)^ or more shortly, " to
speak with tongues or a tongue" {yX6aaaig, or yXu)ooy XaXelv), also
" kinds of tongues" (yivr] yXcjoaiov), see 1 Cor. xii. 28, and Comm. on
1 Cor. xiv. 10, and the same name continued to be employed after-
wards, even when the gift was not so fully manifested. In the
phrase yXcjaoacg XaXelv, then, the signification of language is the
only one that is applicable to yXCJaaa, and this signification too
brings out plainly the meaning of yAciaag XaXelv, for this form arose
from the fact that sometimes there was only speaking in one for-
eign language. But, with Bleek's view of yXoJooa, this phraseology
is always improper, because no person could display the gift of
tongues in a speech by the employment of a single provincialism or
antique word.

(Eegarding the details, see Comm. on 1 Cor. xiv. Of works on
the subject before us, a full enumeration is given by Kuinoel at the
passage, and by Bleek in the work mentioned above. The most
important are : J. A. Ernesti opusc. theol. pag. 455-477. Bardili
significatus primitivus vocis npo(j)7]Ti]g. Getting. 1786. Eichhorn,
allgem. Bibl. der biblischen Literatur Bd. I. iii. Herder, von der
Gabe der Sprachen, Kiga, 1794. Storr, notitiae hist, in epist. Pauli
ad Coiinthios, Tubingas, 1788. Melville observationes de dono lin-
guarum, Basil, 1816. Again Bleek's excellent treatise in the Stu-

ment, points evidently to an actual speaking in different languages. But the declarations
of the Fathers, proceeding as they did upon the principle that the gift was known from
observation, are of too general a kind to allow anything decisive to be inferred from them
respecting its nature.

Acts II. 12-16. 203

dien of UUman und Umbreit as cited above, together >vith the
supplement to it, 1830, part i. page 45, etc. The latter has refer-
ence to my remarks, which are to be found in the same journal,
1829, Part III. p. 538, etc. ; 1830, P. I. p. 65, etc. ; 1831, Part
III. p. 566, etc. The papers of Baur and Steudel in der tUbinger
Zeitscrift fiir Theologie, are unusually instructive, 1830 and 1831.
Consult also the article of Scholl in Klaiber's Studien, Bd. iii. p. i.,
1831, p. 168, ff., and that of Baiimlein in the same work, Bd. vi, p.
2, 1834, p. 40, ff. On the Catholic side Weihart has expressed
himself on the subject in the Jahrb. fiir Theol. und Christ). Phil.,
Bd. V. p. 2, p. 288, ff. Frankf. A. M. 1835. Again, the gift of
tongues is handled by Flatt, in a special appendix to the first epistle
to the Corinthians, p. 414-448, and by Billroth at the 14th chap, of
the first epistle to the Corinthians, and finally by Jiiger, in his
exposition of the epistles to the Corinthians, Tubingen, 1838,
appendix, p. 186, etc.)

Verses 12-16. — In few words, Luke further describes the uncer-
tainty of the strangers who had come together : the more timid
natures among them apprehended some danger from this violent
excitement, the more bold mocked at it. Yet plainly this mockery is
not to be regarded as bitter and malignant mockery, but as good-
humoured jesting. Their observation of the scene was in fact accu-
rate, for the outward appearance did resemble drunkenness (Ps.
xxxvi. 9) ; and therefore Peter, in the speech that follows, censures
their allegation but mildly.

Here Luke communicates to us the first preaching of the Gospel
by the apostles, and thus the institution of the preacher's office ap-
pears connected with the very founding of the church. All the
peculiarities of the apostolic preaching {lajgvyna) we discover in this
first discourse. It embraces no reflections or reasonings upon the
doctrine of Christ, no enunciation of new and unknown dogmas,
but simply and alone the o^'^oclamation of historical facts. The
apostles appear here quite in their proper character as witnesses of
what they had experienced ; the resurrection of Jesus forms the
central point of their testimony. In the later development of the
church, it is true, preaching could not be limited to this bare pro-
clamation : it was gradually directed to the additional object of
guiding believers onward in knowledge. Yet never in preaching
ought the simple declaration of the mighty works of God, such as is
here made by Peter, to be wanting for those whose hearts have not
yet been penetrated by the word. This disciple is here again pre-
sented to us, notwithstanding his denial of Christ, as the organ of
the apostolic company : he is, as it were, the mouth by which they
make themselves understood — their speaker. (Am;\;A.et?afw = the
more common ;^;Aeua^w, corresponds entirely to ^mal^eiv. — TXevKor =

204 Acts II. 17-21.

i:;', Jobxxxii, 19, LXX. — 'Evojri^eadat ■= yinn appears to belong to
the Alexandrian dialect.

Ver. 17-21, — For the purpose of leading the assembled Jews to
the meaning of the spectacle before them, Peter quotes in detail a
remarkable prediction from the Old Testament (Joel iii. 1-5), in
which the outpouring of the Spirit w^as promised. The idea of
spiritual communication was quite familiar to the prophets of the
Old. Testament, as has already been remarked. ; they had themselves
experienced, in a lively manner, the breathing of the Spirit, and yet
still tbere remained to them the feeling of a void and of longing
desire : hence they were able to conclude, from the analogy of devel-
opment, which displays itself in ever-enlarging results, that one day
an infinitely richer fulness of the Spirit would be poured out, not
upon a few merely, but upon all flesh, upon the entire community
of those who were concerned for salvation. And to this conclusion
the Spirit of prophecy afi&xed in their minds the seal of perfect cer-
tainty. Hence, besides Joel, several other prophets speak of the
effusion of the Spirit to be expected. (Com p. Numb. xi. 29 ; Isaiah
xxxii. 15, xliv, 3 ; Ezek. xxxvi, 25, xxxix. 29) ; but Peter quotes
the passage before us, because it describes not only the outpouring
of the Spirit, but also its effects, and that too in such a manner as
to furnish an explanation of the inspired state in which the assem-
bled believers were seen to be. The speaking with tongues, together
with the whole excitement, which displayed itself not only in the
men but also in the women (i. 14), Peter comprehended under the
7rpo(f>r]TevetVj prophesying, which Joel promises. He says, therefore,
as it were, " behold, we all prophesy ! instead of the few single
prophets of the Old Testament, the whole people are now filled
with the prophetic spirit." The words quoted agree essentially
with the original text and the Septuagint, but as they are quoted
from memory, it is not surprising that there are transpositions and
unimportant additions. One deviation, however, from the Hebrew
and the Septuagint, must not be overlooked. Just at the begin-
ning, Luke (verse 17) writes earai iv ralg eaxdraig rjnepaig, it shall
he in the last days. This expression is surprising, because it was
not yet the last time when the Spirit fell upon the apostles.
Besides, the Septuagint has only torat iierd ravra, and the Hebrew
"(? ''"iny ^'r^, which expression appears far more suitable to Peter's
purpose. But this passage is to be explained from the idea of the
apostles, which pervades the whole of the New Testament, that
with the advent of Christ in the flesh the end of things was really
at hand. Therefore the apostle quotes also the verse in which men-
tion is made of the terrible signs connected with the future : this
description is designed to excite to repentance by means of fear,

Acts II. 22-24. 205

while verse 21* allures to it by the exhibition of mercy. (See the
particulars in the Comm. on Matth. xxiv. 1. Kespeeting the prom-
ised wonders, too, compare the prophetical passages of the New
Testament, Matth. xxiv. 2 ; 2 Pet. ii. 3 ; Rev. viii.) Besides this
deviation, there is also in the Hebrew text of Joel, a remarkable
difference from the Septuagint, with which latter the passage as
given by Luke entirely agrees. While in the Hebrew it is said,
with comprehensive generality, ""iTn-nN ^^rj'ij*, Luke and the Septua-
gint have tKxeoJ d-b rov nvevnarog [lov. By this latter mode of ex-
pression, the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, powerful and mighty as
it was, is yet characterized as a partial effusion ; so that the pre-
diction of Joel in its original form still remains for the future,
when the complete fulness of the Divine Spirit is to be conferred
upon the church, which shall then have received into her bosom the
countless races of mankind. (Comp. Comm. Part I., at Luke iv.
18, 19.)

Vers. 22-24. — The predictions of the Old Testament referred to
by Peter afforded a proof that the new economy, now brought imder
the notice of the gathering multitude, was the fulfilment of proph-
ecy, the flower, as it were, of the ancient stem. The apostle, there-
fore, now appeals to his hearers with the view of awakening their
hearts to repentance, and thus preparing them to receive the rich
grace of the Gospel. He reminds them of their wickedness in put-
ting Jesus to death. But it would seem that Peter was accusing
the innocent, for it is inconceivable that the strangers from afar,
who had come to Zion only under the impulse of longing desire, and
in obedience to the law, should have taken part in the murder of the
Holy One ; and even supposing there were some of the multitude
who had joined in the crj", " crucify him, crucify him," why does
Peter accuse them all, without distinction, of so heinous a crime,
when assuredly they were not all in the same condemnation .?f
Now, strange as such language sounds to man in his natural isola-
tion, in which he fancies himself separate from all his brethren, and
bearing alone his own guilt and merit, it yet appears a simple truth
to him who feels himself connected by the social principle with the
great whole of humanity. What any one member of the community

* Regarding verse 21, see Comm. on Rom. x. 13.

f ix.j-er makes the apostle's charge rest simply upon the fact, that Jesus was put to
death by the Sanhedrim, the highest court of justice among the Jews, and that therefore
his death wafi a judicial murder, perpetrated in the name of the whola nation. But in that
case Peter should have said the very thing which Meyer improperly starts as an objection
to my view, " We have killed him," for Peter and the other apostles belonged to the Is-
raelitish nation too. What Peter here says to the Jews, may be said at all times and
among all nations. It was the sin of mankind that brought Jesus to the cross. And he
only is free from this sin who has confessed it with penitence and faith, and received
pardon. Now as this was the case with the apostles, Peter could not speak in the first
person.

206 Acts II. 22-24.

performs, he recognizes as the deed of the community ; what any-
one man performs, he recognizes as the deed of the race. Every-
thing good, therefore, awakens in him sympathetic joy ; everything
evil, pify ; for he shares in them hoth. Of all evil, in particular, he
discovers the root in his own heart, which, in unfavourable circum-
stances might have borne all the bitter fruits which it anywhere
tends to produce. But the murder of the Holy One of God is the
very highest point of development which sin could reach ; and always
and everywhere it is the nature of sin to hate him (and hatred is
murder itself, 1 John iii. 15) who has come to exterminate it. Just
as far, therefore, as sin prevails in man, does hatred against the
Lord possess him ; for Christ and sin are always opposed to one
another, they seek each other's destruction ; first of all, sin kills the
Prince of Life, but, when his life is reproduced by its own power, it
finally destroys sin. This profound connexion of the individual with
the whole race, the hearers of Peter apprehended, although properly
as matter o^ feeling only, with entire correctness. Not one of them
declares he is innocent of the death of the Lord, but on the contrary
the word of the Spirit, like a sword, pierced them through the heart
(verse 37), and they recognized in the death of Christ a common
act of the human race, which contracted a common guilt. For a
fuller consideration of this subject, see Comm. on the leading pas-
sage respecting it, Rom. v. 12, etc,

(On the ideas expressed by 6vvantg, repaf, arnieiov, see at Matth.
viii. 1. The word dnodeucwui here indicates the authentication which
the miracles referred to were intended to give to the Divine mission
of Christ. 'Atto is not = vtto, as Kuinoel supposes, but indicates
that the miraculous power proceeds from God, — "EkSotov with Xafp-
(3dv£Lv, as with dovvai, occurs frequently, especially in Josephus, in
the sense of " delivering into the power of any one, or receiving,"
With TTpooTT'q^avTeg supply oTavgCJ. — The higher necessity that ex-
isted for the death of Christ has already been treated in detail in
the history of the passion at Luke xxii. 22. BovA^ and vpSyvcooig
denote will and knowledge, which in God must necessarily be viewed
as one. '^Qiaixevog expresses the fixedness and absoluteness of the
Divine will. See particulars at Rom. viii. 29.)

The sin of man, however, was retrieved by God's mercy, which
called back the crucified Redeemer into life. In the simple thought
of ver. 24 there is only one thing doubtful, how we are to understand
the words ovk r]v dwarbv KQareladac avrov^ it was not possible that he
should be holden; whether it was impossible that the bonds of
death should hold him, because he was himself the life, and conse-
quently also the resurrection, or because God designed to raise him.
But both reasons coalesce, when we keep in view, that it was even
the will of the Father, that the Son should have in himself the foun-

Acts II. 25-31. 207

tain of life (John v. 26); whence also it is sometimes said the Father
raises the Son, and sometimes the Son himself resumes life (John x.
18). (Tlie expression cjSlveg Oavdrov corresponds entirely to the He-
brew rr» •'Vih. The Septuagint sometimes renders the phrase by
axoLvia [Ps. cxix. 61], and sometimes by wdZvsf [Ps. xviii. 5], because
the Hebrew word unites the two significations of "cord" and " birth-
pains." In the pure Greek tongue, (j)6lveg has only the latter signifi-
cation, but in the Hellenistic it acquired the other, too, as they are
conjoined in the Hebrew word. In the passage before us, Xvecv and
KpaTELv plainly point to the signification of " band or cord" as the
proper one.* — The reading aSov instead of Oavdrov ^ is supported by
such weighty authorities, that it stands at least upon a level with it ;
in the sense there is no difterence, for Hades is to be conceived only
as the place of the dead, and thus identical with Bdvarog.

Vers. 25-31. — To exhibit the correspondence between the fact
of the resurrection and the predictions of the Old Testament, Peter
quotes a passage (following the Septuagint exactly) from Ps. xvi.
8-11, and subjoins an exposition of these verses (29-31). In this
exposition he shews that the words of the psalm were not applicable
to David, because he was dead and buried. His explicit declaration
makes a typical view of the words quite inadmissible ; for in no
sense has the prediction been fulfilled in David, that he should not
see corruption. We must here accordingly, as in Psalm ex., ac-
knowledge a real direct prophecy. Yet we are not to view it as
having no subjective connexion with David : even in direct predic-
tions some such connexion must always be supposed as the ground-
work. In, the case before us, it may be thus conceived, that in
David the dread of corruption and of the dark valley of death awak-
ened the longing desire of victory over it ; and this the prophetic
Spirit led him to see realized in the person of the Messiah. Now
in Psalm xvi. death is contemplated in its tAvofold operation, first,
in relation to the body, and secondly, to the soul. The body is rep-
resented as guarded against the last effect of death, viz., corruption
(6ia<pdopd)j and the soul is described as beholding indeed the dark
place of shades, but as speedily delivered fi;om it, and restored to
the kingdom of light. The exactness with which these points were
realized in the development of Christ's life, makes the prediction
one of the most remarkable in H0I3" Writ. While his sacred body
was untouched by corruption, and rose from the grave, his soul went
to the dead (1 Pet. iii. 18), f but speedily returned again, and

* Meyer, on this passage, doubts whether, ia the Hellenistic dialect uiViv was used in
the signification of " band, fetter." The passages quoted by Schleusner in his Lexicon on
the Septuag., torn. v. p. 571, sqq. might teach him better.

•f- The passage, properly interpreted, furnishes no support to this opinion. " My
souV' = ^CBJ, is a well-known emphatic Hebraism for "me." Hades, the abode of the
dead' then, by metonymy, for death. Thus the two clauses are in strict Darallelism, the

208 Acts II. 32-36.

ascended with his glorified body to the eternal mansions of
Hght.

(irpowpw/iT/v, in verse 25, expresses the idea of contemplating an
object, " having it before the eyes." The expression t/c de^iCJv =
•«5'^>s-«tt, involves here the idea of help, support. For tj yXioaod iiov
the Hebrew text has ''l^as, = i) ^o^a i«ov. Probably the Seventy,
who, like Luke, have yAwcraa, already read the original differently :
perhaps their Hebrew MSS. had ■';'.bV KaraoKTjvovv = -jsw, denotes
rest in the grave. On the subject of Hades, comp. Comm. on Luke
xvi. 23, With elg adov we must obviously supply olicov. — Ver. 27.
As to the reading TT^.^:: ^^ P^- ^^^- 1^? see De Wette's Commentary
on the passage before us. In the expression 6dbg ^ojyjg, in verse 28,
the material and the spiritual are intimate]y combined. The train
of thought would refer ^w?/ primarily to the outward life ; but the
highest manifestation of the life that overcomes death is never
to be conceived apart from the inward life which is bestowed by
the Spirit [Trvev/xa]. In verse 29 David is called the patriarch,
which the Seventy, in 1 Chron. xxiv, 81, put for niasn ttji<-). Comp,
Acts vii. 8, 9 ; Heb. vii. 4, The supposed tomb of David was pil-
laged by Joannes Hyrcanus and Herod, Comp, Joseph. Arch. vii.
15, 3, xiii. 8, 4. — In verse 30, Peter refers to Ps, Ixxxix. 4, 5, and
cxxxii, 11, which represent David in his peculiar relation to the
Messiah, not simply as one of his ancestors, but also as the prefigu-
ration of the theocratical kingdom. This position pre-eminently
fitted him for receiving those prophetic views into the future, which
the apostle had just explained to his hearers. The reference, how-
ever, to these passages is only of a general kind ; and therefore
Kapnbg rTjg oacpvog is put for i^a '''^s, while more strictly KotXtag would
have been employed. .With eic Kaprrov supply nvd.)

Vers. 32-36. — Along with the resurrection of our Lord, Peter
also mentions his ascension, with which the outpouring of the Holy
Ghost was most closely connected. In this respect, too, Peter again
compares David with Christ, and shews that he himself styled the
Messiah his Lord, and foretold his sitting at the right hand of God.
And thereupon the apostle demands of the house of Israel that they
acknowledge him who a few weeks before was crucified as their Lord
and Messiah : And they believe I A stronger proof cannot well be
imagined than this, that it was the power of the Holy Ghost which
made the words of the preacher move the hearts of the hearers ! To
all Jews the cross of Christ Avas a stumbling-block, and yet they
recognize, on the word of a private individual, the crucified and
deeply abased Jesus as their Saviour.

(In verse 32 ov is not to be understood as neuter. The apostles

latter interpreting the former : — " Thou wilt not leave me in the power of death, nor suffer
thy Holy One to see corruption." — [K.

Acts II. 37-41. 209

are the witnesses of Christ, and not merely of his resurrection.
This is clear from the parallel passage in chap. v. 31, where it is
said I'lfielg ea[j,EV avrov fxdprvQeg rdv prjimrcdv tovto)v. In ver. 33, ry
6e^ca vipMOeig is not to be understood as meaning "exalted by the
right hand of God," but " exalted to the right hand of God," as is
shewn by ver. 34 and the parallel passage in chap. v. 31. The con-
nexion, it is true, of the dative with verbs of motion is rare, and
occurs almost solely in poetical diction. But the represen«'ation
here given partakes somewhat of a poetical strain. For particulars
on the point consult Winer's Gramm. p. 191, seq. — Ver. 33, respect-
ing t~ayytXi.av Xa(3o)v irapa rov narpog see Comm. on John xiv. 16. —
Ver. 34. The quotation is taken from Ps. ex. 1. Comp. on the
Psalm remarks at Matth. xxii. 44.)

Vers. 37-41. — To tlie question of the hearers, " What shall we
do ?" the apostle replies by admonishing them to repentance and
faith, both of which are presupposed in baptism. It is not to works
of one kind or another he points, but to an inward change of heart.
MeravorjaaTE in ver. 38 defines more narrowly the import of Karavvr-
TEoOac Ti] Kapdia. This expression, as here employed, denotes not
predominantly the idea of pain, as is usually alleged, but indicates
in general the idea of being struck or arrested. The discourse of
Peter touched them to the inmost soul, and excited feelings of
every kind, sad as well as joyful, for the apostle had let them see,
that the promises of the prophets were now fulfilled. (The proper
signification of ica-avv-TO) is " to pierce," " compungere," hence " to
excite," " to awaken.") In ne-dvoLa^ repentance, on the other hand,
the idea of pain predominates. The admonition of Peter is ac-
cordingly to be conceived thus : " First of all, enter profoundly into
your sin, that you may feel the full sorrow it should inspire, and
long for a thorough conversion." With this repentance baptism is
then connected, which necessarily presupposes faith, because it re-
quires an acknowledgment of Christ as the Messiah. And baptism
is accompanied with the remission of sins (^dtpeaig dfiapTLiov)^ as a re-
sult. This is the negative side of the blessing, the removal of the
old man, which is a necessary preparation for the positive side, the
communication of the Spirit, with which the establishment of the
nciu man takes place. Quite correctly, therefore, does Luther say,
that "where there is the forgiveness of sins, there is life and bless-
edness ;" for a reconciled heart, as such, possesses the gift of the
Holy Ghost, although not in the form in which it was displayed in
the apostolic church. (Compare Acts viii. 15.) If now we com-
pare the description given in Matth. iii. 11 of the baptism of John,
its relation to the baptism of Christ will appear quite obvious.
The former aims at the awakening of repentance {slg fiExdvoiav),
the latter begins where the former ends : it presupposes repentance

Vol. III.— U

210 Acts II. 37-41.

(jierdvoia) together with faith, which it confirms and seals, and it
communicates a real heavenly power. There is a diflSculty still in ver.
39, where Peter represents tliose likewise who are far away (ol eig
IxaKpdv), as called to receive the Holy Grhost. The question presents
itself, whether Peter here referred to the Gentile world. It has
been supposed that what is mentioned in the tenth chapter obliges us
to doubt this, and to refer the expression either to the Jews scattered
through the Gentile world, or taking the idea of time, as Beza does,
to the remotest posterity. Let it be considered, however, that Peter,
according to chap, x., did not doubt the calling of the Gentiles, but
only whether they were to be called without passing through Juda-
ism, and it will be evident that all reason disappears for excluding
from the language of the apostle a reference to the Gentiles. Kather .
the words, " Whomsoever the Lord our God shall call" (daovg av
TTpooicaXearjrat Kvpiog 6 Qeog tjiiiov) necessarily point to the Gentiles,
for the Israelites could not then be called for the first time, as they
were already in possession of God's gracious covenant. (Respecting
baptism in the name of Jesus, see Comm. on Matth. xxviii. 19.)
The words of Peter which are recorded, are only a brief specimen
of his more detailed admonitions, from which the author adduces yet
one other exhortation : " save yourselves from this perverse genera-
tion" (adiOrire dixo Tjjg yevedg rrjg oiioXidg ravrrjg.') Icj^eodai, saved, is
here to be understood as referring to the judgments, described above
in verses 19 and 20 as near : so that there is plainly suggested a
comparison with the flood or the destruction of Sodom, " Save
yourselves like Noah or Lot, getting out from amongst this un-
toward generation, that is doomed to destruction." Teved anoXtd
agrees with Deut. xxxii. 5 ; comp. Phil. ii. 15. iKoXiog denotes
primarily " crooked" (Luke iii. 5), then, as applied to moral subjects,
" impure, sinful."

As the hearers received with joy (d<7[xivo)g) the intelligence of
salvation presented by Peter, baptism was immediately administered
to three thousand persons. Thus, along with the preaching of the
word, the sacrament of baptism was at once dispensed on the day
of Pentecost, and that too no longer, like the apostolic baptism
which preceded the outpouring of the Spirit, as a mere baptism
oi repentance, but as the baptism of regeneration:^' This baptism,

* Respecting tlie question, -wlietliei- tliose who had beea baptized by John tlie Bap-
tist were again baptized by the apostles, see the remarks on chap. xix. 5. It is difficult,
however, to answer the question how the baptism of three thousand persons could be
performed in one day, according to the old practice of a Complete submersion, the more
especially as in Jerusalem there was no water at hand with the exception of Kidron and
a few pools. But to have baptized so many persons in three would necessarily have ex-
cited in the highest degree the attention of the authorities The difiBculty can only be
removed by supposing that they already employed mere sprinkling, or that they baptized

Acts II. 42-47. 211

however, took place without any preparatory instruction. It was
after baptism that the teaching (Sidaxrj), mentioned inverse 42, was
first given, which was probably, however, confined to the proof of
the Messiahship of Christ from the Old Testament ; and hence we
may see that it was not dogmas upon which the apostles laid stress,
but the disposition and bent of the mind.'^' The man who received
the proclamation of the Gospel with susceptible mind, who professed
faith in Christ, who was penetrated with the new principle of the
higher life brought by the Saviour to mankind, was for that reason
baptized, and by this means his faith was confirmed and sealed, the
powers of the Spirit were imparted to him, and he was thus sepa-
rated from the world, and became a saint, dyiogj 7]yiaofiivog. But in
proportion as the original power and fulness of the Spirit disap-
peared in the church, the necessity would become the more urgent for
making instruction precede baptism, because the communication of
clearer views respecting the specific nature of Christianity, was the
only means, in the more lifeless period of the church, of giving to
the weaker influences of the Spirit, as they came upon the mind,
that right direction which he himself at an earlier period had in-
stinctively, as it were, imparted to sincere minds, by his more pow-
erful working. The church, therefore, in its gradual development,
followed exactly the course of development in the individual. As
in the child simplicity of mind prevails, and though life certainly is
present, there is not the clear consciousness of the properties of life,
so was it in the young church : it is in youth that the intellectual
faculties begin to assert their pre-eminence, and so also in the church
the need of Christian knowledge gradually made itself apparent, a
need which, in the great mass, presents itself as the requirement of
instruction before baptism. The perfection of the church wiU be
the return of the original immediateness of life, connected with per-
fect clearness of knowledge.

Vers. 42-47. — With the special account of the first Christian
discourse of Peter and its efiects, there is connected in the follow-
ing verses a general view of the life of the church in Jerusalem.
Passages thus bearing a general character are intermixed in the

in houses ia tubs; formal submersion in rivers or larger quantities of water probably took
place only where the locality conveniently allowed it.

* Neander, in the work cited above, page 28, observes correctly, that we must not
regard the three thousand who were converted in one day as aU at once transformed
into thorough Christians : without doubt the very suddenness of the change that took
place in their condition would leave much of a heterogeneous character connected witl*
them. But, on the other hand, again, it must not be overlooked, that this sudden coi -
version undoubtedly produced in the thousands mentioned a specific change. As a tree
always continues an improved one, although below the precious graft water shoots con-
tinue to grow ; so also were those minds, which had been put by the leaven of the Gos-
pel into spiritual fermentation, really born again, although in them the old man was not
yet annihilated.

212 Acts II. 42-47.

Acts of the Apostles witli special accounts of particular occur-
rences ; at first the general statements are longer (iv. 32-35, v. 12-
16), then they become shorter (v. 42, vi. 7, viii. 25, xii. 24, 25), and
at last they cease altogether after xiii. 1, and the narrative becomes
a connected particular account. Now, as this coincides exactly with
the point where the particular accounts of the apostle Paul and his
journeys commence (xiii. 1), it is certainly more than probable that
this interchange of special accounts with general views, in the first
half of the Acts of the Apostles, is to be traced to the manner in
which the book was formed. The general observations have either
proceeded from Luke himself, and been inserted between the special
accounts drawn from documents of particular occurrences, or they
are the concluding statements of those documents themselves. I
would declare myself for the former view, if in the general observa-
tions there appeared any perceptible difference of style ; but so
little is that tiie case, that in them, just as in the special accounts,
the Hebrew colouring of the language can be very plainly recog-
nized. The language from the beginning of the xiii. chapter has a
far less heterogeneous stamp ; and therefore it is in the highest de-
gree probable, that in the second half of the work, Luke wrote
less from documents lying before him, than from his own knowledge.
Further, the general view itself, which is presented to us in this
passage, is by no means without interest, because with a few touches
it describes the mode of life in the most ancient Christian church,
and exhibits the earliest ele7nents of loorsJiip.^' The peculiar spirit
of the gospel is exhibited by this description quite clearly before
our eyes. Those men who had poured in from curiosity to see what

* Although the gospel teaches that God is to be worshipped in spirit, it yet requires
an outward form of worship. The Eedeemer designed to found a visible church, which
necessarily presupposes an external service of God (cultus). "Worship accordingly
exists in the Cliristian church not merely for the sake of the weak, but also for the most
advanced, in whom the old natural man that needs an outward form still lives ; worship
too is instituted, not merely for the proclamation of the Gospel to unbelievers, but it
."Jso embraces an element of pure adoration for the faithful. The worship of the church
is designed for a perpetual thank-offering of believers, which is presented to the Lord for
his propitiatory sacrifice of ever-during* validity (1 Pet. ii. 5; Heb. xiii. 15). This ele-
ment of adoration, with spurious objectiveness, has acquired in the Catliolic church an
undue predominance, while in the Eeformed church, with spurious subjectiveness, the
preacher and his discourse have too much supplanted the element of adoration. The
middle course is the right one, and it requires the two to be so distributed that the min-
ister may stand forth, not only in his subjectiveness as a teacher, but also as a true
"liturgus," that is, as the organ through which the adoration of the church receives ex-
/)ression. According to this view Divine service has two essentially different halves;
first, the preaching of the gospel, which is designed partly to convert unbelievers, and
partly to advance believers in knowledge; secondly, adoration, which has its central
point in the eucharist, the great thank-offering of the church, and a symbolical represen-
tation at the same time of the sacrifice of Christ. For these ideas I am indebted to the
spirited preface of the Romish hymn book, in which (page Ixxxvi. etc.) they are dovel'
oped in an uncommonly attractive and convincing manner.

Acts II. 42-47. 213

was going on, we find here knit together hy the uniting spirit of
Christ into a living brotherhood. The young church of Christ had
but few peculiarities in its outward form, or even in its doctrine :
the single discriminating principle of its few members was, that
they all recognized the crucified Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah.
This confession would have been a thing of no importance, if it had
only presented itself as a naked declaration, and would never in
Buch a case have been able to form a commimity, that would spread
itself in a few years over the whole Roman empire ; this confession
of Jesus as the Messiah acquired its value, only through the power
of the Holy Ghost passing from the apostles as they preached to the
hearers, for he brought the confession from the very hearts of men
(1 C(jr. xii. 3), and like a burning flame made their souls glow with
love. By the power of this spirit, therefore, we not only behold the
first Christians in a state of active outward fellowship, but we find
them also internally changed : the narrow views of the natural man
are broken through, they have their possessions in common, and
they regard themselves as one family.

The first thing which is named as an element of Christian wor-
ship, is the 6i6axri tu)v dnooroXcjv, teaching of the apostles. As the
original form of church order was borrowed from the Jewish Syna-
gogue, we may conclude that the apostolic teaching would have
writings of the Old Testament for its basis. Its specific Christian
character was derived from the circumstance, that predictions of
the Old Testament were exhibited in their fulfilment in the person
of Jesus of Nazareth. As, however, no instruction preceded bap-
tism, the teachers of the church, in their lessons from the Old Tes-
tament, must have provided, according to circumstances, for the
advancement of believers in all parts of knowledge, which, particu-
larly among the Gentile churches, must have been imperatively
necessary.

The second point, viz., the iioLvu)via, felloivship, is attended with
more difficulty. The word cannot possibly be understood of the
general fellowship of the Spirit, for this could not have been repre-
sented as a separate particular, being in fact the general principle
from which everything else proceeded. And to connect the word
with KXdmg dprov^ breaking of bread, so that Koivcjvia and KXdaig
may be viewed as a hendiadys, is plainly precluded by the repetition
of Kai, which places icoLvcjvia upon a level with the other three
particulars. It only remains therefore that we understand iioivwvia^
as not only Mosheim (de rebus Christianis ante Const, p. 113, seq.),
but also the most recent interpreters of the Acts of the Apostles do,
to signify the bestowment of outward means of support, whether in
money or goods.'-' To express this idea, the Apostle Paul uses the
* Neander supposes that Koivuvia can only mean the whole of the common intercourae

214 Acts II. 42-47.

word frequently (Kom. xv. 26 ; 2 Cor. viii. 4, ix. 13), and in so far
as such a physical Kotvoivia, if I may use this expression, was col-
lected and remitted to strangers, it was called also SiaKovla, min-
istry. (Acts xi. 29, compared with 2 Cor. viii. 4, ix. 13.) As the
passage before us, however, speaks of the meetings of believers
for the worship of God, this circumstance gives to noivuvia a modi-
fied signification. It must denote such gifts as were presented in
the public assemblies. But these are precisely what were named" at
a later period oblations, in which therefore we must recognize a
primitive Christian institution. Mosheim rightly observes that the
offering of Ananias, mentioned in chapter v., must have been such
an oblation.

There are fewer difficulties connected with the third point, viz.,
the KXdmg rov ciprov, breaking of bread.''' The whole question,
whether common or sacred repasts should be understood by the ex-
pression, loses its importance, when it is considered that the ancient
Christians were in the habit of eating together daily, or holding the
love-feast, and never took the common meal without observing the
Lord's Supper. In the apostolic church at Jerusalem there appears
to have obtained, as is plain from the very idea of a community of
goods, a family union of aU believers in the strictest and most pro-
per sense. Accordingly, they took food together daily (verse 46),
that is, they celebrated the " agapae," and to the common meal the
Lord's Suj)per likewise was daily appended. In the African church,
where the ancient Christian institutions maintained their ground, in
other respects, for the longest period, we yet find even in the days
of Tertullian the supper separated from the " agapse." (See Nean-
dei-'s Tertullian, p. 153, etc.) In the first century it was probably
everywhere celebrated, conformably to the last meal of Christ, in
connexion with a common meal. *

In the last place, prayers are mentioned, which are connected
especially with the celebration of the Lord's Supper. There is no
mention made of singing, but it is certain that at a very early
periodf it was an element of Divine service. (Plin. Epist. x. 97,
in Olshaus. Histor. Eccles. veteris Monum., vol. i. p. 24. Affirma-

of Christians, of which two parts, viz., the fellowship of meals and that of prayer, are
particularly brought into view. But this supposition, as it seems to me, is untenable, be-
cause everything in the enumeration refers to the worship of God, as the first named
word (5£(5a;t7 plainly shews : if Neander's view were the right one, then /coivw^ra would
uecessarily have been mentioned first. See Neander's Gesehichte def Pflanzung und
Leitung, etc., page 30, note.

* The Catholic church employ this expression for the purpose of proving from Scrip-
ture the administration of the Lord's Supper " sub una specie" in the days of the apostles.
(Compare the confut. conf. Aug. in Meyer's Ausg. der symbol. Biicher, p. 543.) Of course,
however, this name has been given to the whole act only a potion.

f According to Acts xvi. 25, Paul and Silas sang in prison, but this perhaps should
only be understood of the rythmical utterance of a psalm in prayer.

Acts II. 42-47. 215

bant Christiani quod essent soliti stato die* ante lucem conveuire,
carraenque Christo quasi Deo dicere secum invicem.) Perhaps we
may su[)pose that the prayers were spoken, not merely by one in
the name of all, but by all in common ; and if we suppose, at the
same time, that perhaps psalms were read as prayers, then we might
find something of the nature of song in the rhythmical utterance
which the Jews were accustomed to employ in the reading of Scrip-
ture. Yet it is more probable that church singing first arose along
with Christian poetry, which did not appear before the beginning of
the second century.

To render the blessed joy of the little company of believers the
more conspicuous by contrast, the fear {(p6f3og) of those who did not
beHeve is brought into view. All who were of susceptible minds
traced the mighty power of the Spirit, and this could not but first
of all excite fear. Yet from these did the church recruit her ranks
(ver. 47). In contrast with the fear of the unbelievers, the active
unity of the Christians is pourtrayed. As to the meaning, first of
all, of the phrase elvai tnl rb avro, the number of the converts (ver.
41) forbids us to refer it to one place of meeting ; and, indeed, the
words nar' oUov in verse 46 lead to the conclusion that there were
houses in several parts of the city where they met. The collective
body of the faithful had therefore been obliged to divide themselves
into smaller societies, and thus was the establishment of various
churcheSj and the appointment of church oflSce-bearers brought about,
as we find was the case at an early period in the larger cities. The
more particular consideration of the community of goods, intimated
in verses 44, 45, we defer till we come to the exposition of chap,
iv, 32, etc., a passage that is more decisive on the subject. From
the passage before us, taken by itself, nothing further can be gath-
ered than that a highly excited spirit of beneficence led the fol-
lowers of Christ to regard their property and goods as common, and
to support the poorer brethren. But from chap. iv. 32, etc., it has
been supposed that a common chest was formed of the proceeds of
all goods that were sold, a view which will be afterwards more nar-
rowly considered. (K.r7]iJ.ara denotes here " houses, lands, real pro-
perty ;" v-dp^eig, on the other hand, means " moveable j)Ossessions.")
Verse 46 may appear a repetition of verse 42, but in this verse the
stress is to be laid upon the opposition between ev tc5 iepui and Kar^
ohov. The latter expression cannot be understood to mean, as

♦ According to this question, it appears that by the time of Pliny the daily meeting
had been given up ; and, according to the nature of things, it could only continue so
long as the number of believers was small. In the lesser churches, however, they might
meet daily till a later period. The observance, too, of love feasts, became difficult as tho
churches became larger. The church of the United Brethren, it is well-known, have in-
troduced them again. See respecting their rise, Spangenberg in his life of Zinzendorf
ToL iii., page 446, etc.

216 Acts III. 1-10.

Erasmus and Kuinoel suppose, from " house to house." Doubtless
there must have been, on account of the large number of believers,
several places of meeting, and they may have changed from one to
another ; but this is not expressed in the words before us. It is
rather the private that is placed in opposition to the public. The
earliest Christians of the church at Jerusalem had not ceased to
associate with the Jews in the services of the Temple, they only
held their Christian institutions in connexion with the ordinances of
the Old Testament, and, so little did this appear to the people an
incompatible thing, that they wished well to the Christians. But
so soon as the fickle multitude perceived, in addition to the loving
spirit of the brotherhood of believers, the moral earnestness which
reigned among them, they changed their views, and began to perse-
cute the Christians. (See chap. xii. 1, etc.) The Christian church
in Jerusalem in its outward appearance may have had at first much
resemblance to the societies of the Essenes, because like them it
presented the spectacle of an intimate union of hearts. But in its
inward character the church stood immeasurably higher, because in
it the union of souls was a reality, established by a uniting heavenly
power, while among the Essenes, it was something wrought by
themselves, and therefore, as in all associations of a sectarian kind,
unreal, and mingled with much impurity.*

(UpooKaoTEpelv is commonly construed with the dative, when we
are speaking of tilings to which the continuance relates ; but in
Rom. xiii. 6, it is connected with elg. Applied to plaee it is followed
by ev, as in the apocryphal book of the history of Susanna, verse
7. — The word dcpeXoTrjg occurs no where else in the New Testament.
It is similar to acpiXeia, which Josephus (Arch. iii. 12, 2) uses for
dXoKXrjpia, " integritas," in a physical sense. Transferred to spirit-
ual things it denotes, like aTTAoT??^, simplicity or singleness of heart.
The adjective d^eXrig is derived from ^eXXog, (peXog, (^teXa, in the Mace-
donian dialect, which denotes a stone, and therefore the words -rredia
d(peXri mean level fields, without rocky inec[ualities,)

§ 3. Cube of a Lame Man.

(Acts. iii. 1-26.)

Vers. 1-10. — After the general description which has now been
presented to us, there again follows a detailed particular statement
respecting the cure of a lame man, with which a discourse of Peter
is connected. Luke had already, in chap. ii. 43, made mention in
general terms of the miracles of the apostles ; but now for the first

* In particular, a spiritual conceit was spread among the Essenes, which went so far
that tlie mernbers of the higher classes regarded themselves as polluted by simple con-
tact with the humbler brethren.

Acts III. 11-13. 217

time there is an occurrence of the kind described in detail. The
narrative itself, however, embraces nothing peculiar (sec the re-
marks on miraculous cures in general, in the Commentary on Matth.
viii. 1), only it must not be overlooked that Peter (ver. 6) performs
the cure not in his own name, nor in the name of God, but in the
name of Jesus. By no means therefore did he consider himself as
possessing independently the power of healing, but simply as the
instrument of Christ : he was conscious to himself that it was the
power of the Lord which wrought by him. There is here presented
indirectly a striking proof of the higher nature of Christ. The view
of Thiess, tliat the man only pretended to be lame, is a lame view,
and needs no serious refutation. As to the particulars of the narra-
tive, w^e are informed that Peter and John went to the Temple at
one of the usual hours of prayer, and found a lame man at one of
the gates.

(It has already been mentioned in reference to tm to avrS at
chap, i, 15, that it must be understood here not of place, but rather
of time, and be taken in the signification of " together," " at the
same time." This idea was lost sight of by a number of tran-
scribers ; and therefore they annexed i-l to uvto to the close of the
second chapter, while they left out Ty EUKXriala. The new chapter
they then began with nt-rpo^- de k. t. A., or with h TaXg ij^epaig iicEivaig.
The critical authorities, however, sufficiently establish the common
text.)

The gate beside which the lame man sat, is named ?/ upaia, the
beautiful. The name probably took its rise from the magnificence of
the gate, and it is likely that the same gate is here meant to which
Josephus (Bell. Jud. v. 5, 3) gives this name, and which is styled by
the Rabbins ic-^J, probably from the bas-relief lily work in Corin-
thian brass (see 1 Kings vii. 19), with which, according to the ac-
count of Josephus, the door was covered. In reply to the entreaty
of the infirm man, Peter declares that he has no earthly help to
give, but he has something greater to bestow ; and at his touch the
lame man rises and is able to walk. (Verse 3. Aa/3etv, by a well-
known Greek idiom, with words of giving, is redundant. — At verse
5 supply vovv to i-neXxs ; the outward look is necessarily implied
along with the attention of the mind. — Ver. 7. 'EoTepecodrjaav indi-
cates that the man's lameness had its origin in debility. Bdaig
denotes commonly the step, but here in connexion with fT<j&vpa, the
ankles, it denotes the sole of the foot, together with its muscles and
ligaments.)

Vers. 11-13. — The man who was healed immediately attached
hhnself to his benefactors, and followed them with a great multi-
tude of people to the porch of Solomon. (With respect to this
porch, see Comm. on John x. 23. — KpareZv, to hold, is here employed

218 Acts III. 14-16.

like pa^, to denote an inward attachment, a cleaving of the mind to
another.''' The LXX., in 2 Sam. iii. 6, have translated j>th in a
similar connexion by KpareXv.) And here Peter began (see on dnoic-
piveadai the Comm. at Luke i. 60), and spoke to the people. The
address of the apostle which follows has very much resemblance to
the first one : the very same ideas in substance are expressed ; the
Messiahship of Jesus is proved from the Old Testament, and the
people are summoned to repent and believe on him. Only in verses
20 and 21 there is introduced a peculiar thought, in the promise of
times of revival. In the first place, the apostle puts away from
himself all the honour of the cure, and ascribes it to the Lord,
whom God had glorified. (In verse 12, some transcribers have
taken ofience at the connexion of dyvafiig and evaejSeta; and have
therefore, instead of the latter word, written e^ovola. But there is
no ground at all for this change. Piety is viewed, on account of
the connexion of the pious individual with God, as imparting a
real power.) In verse 13 there is the peculiarity of the name ■nalg
Qeov being applied to Christ, and it is repeated in chap. iii. 26, iv.
27-30. After the observations of Nitzsch (in Ullmann's Studien,
1828, Part II. page 331, etc.), no one probably will ever again be
disposed to maintain that the expression is identical with vlog rov
Oeov. It has already been remarked, in the Commentary on Luke
i. 35, that -aig corresponds to the Hebrew word n:??, which is so fre-
quently applied to the Messiah, particularly in the second part of
Isaiah. The LXX. translate it by naXg, which word occurs also in
Matth. xii. 18 in a citation from the Old Testament. According to
the same usage, David also is called rraTg in Acts iv. 25, and the
people of Israel in Luke i. 54-69. This name accordingly stands
less related to the person of our Lord than to his office ; and, con-
sidering the frequent use of ^a» in the Old Testament, we may with
more propriety wonder that in the New Testament naXg is so seldom
applied to Christ, than that it is so used at all. In verse 13, Kara
TTpoaconov is to be explained with Meyer : ye denied him in the pre-
sence of Pilate.

Vers. 14-16. — For the purpose of placing their sin in all its
hideousness before the minds of the people, Peter contrasts their
conduct towards the Redeemer with their conduct towards Barabbas.
The name, apx^jjog rrjg ^o^ijg, 2^Tince of life, is in this passage pecu-
liarly applied to the person of our Lord. In Acts v. 31, we find

* Meyer, on this passage, insists that the physical signification of holding fast ought
to be here retained. His translation is: "but when he held Peter and John fast, that
is, seized them and held by them." But in this case undoubtedly x^P'^'i- would have
been added. The signification of Kparelv is not altered by my view of the passage ;
the word is only explained as referring not to a physical seizing and holding, but to a
spiritual.

Acts III. 17-19. 219

dpxny^? liai ouTTJp, and in Heb. ii. 10 dpxrjybg Trjg acjTTjpiag. Critics
in general attempt to shew that the proper signification of dpxrjyog
is " author." Much light is thrown upon the meaning of the word
by the passage in Heb. xii. 2, where dpxqyog and -eXeMTrig T^g
maTEO)g stand together. Recording to this connexion the significa-
tion of " beginning, conducting to something," suits the word ; al-
though indeed this by no means stands in contradiction to the sense
of " producing." The word life must here (comp. John i. 4) be
taken in the absolute sense, and in the most comprehensive applica-
tion. It embraces not only the higher spiritual life, which Christ
has introduced into the world, and to which he guides his followers;
but also the conquest of physical death by the resurrection. And
now in verse 16 to this Jesus whom they had despised, the miracle
is ascribed, which was filling the multitude with astonishment.
The construction of the sentence, however, is not quite plain. If
with Kuinoel we translate em ri^ Triarei rov dvonarog avrov : " propter
fiduciam in Christ! auxilio repositam ;" then the second half of the
verse exhibits a complete tautology, which is not removed even by
putting a point after ta-epeojae, and attaching to ovofia avrov to what
follows. The passage becomes intelligible only by translating t-i -fj
moTEi, "for faith," or "to faith ;" that is, healed the infirm man
for the purpose of leading him, as well as others, to faith in his
name. So Hemrichs rightly. With respect again to the expression
^ moTtg Tj dl avrov J the faith lohich is through him, in the second half
of the sentence, Kuinoel likewise errs in regarding it as quite
synonymous with the forms niang elg avrov or -niarig avrov. This
mode of expression is plainly designed to represent the -niang as
something called into existence by grace, in ojDposition to a self-
originated and therefore inefficient opinion. 'OXoKXTjpia is here to
be understood only of physical " integritas :" the substantive (see
James i. 4) occurs no where else in the New Testament.

Vers. 17-19. — After addressing them with severity, the apostle
turns round again, and brings into view the higher necessit}'' which
the prophecies have declared to be connected with the death of
Christ,* and thus mitigates their guilt. It has already been re-
marked at Luke xxiii. 34, that their ignorance {dyvoia) by no means
entirely removes their guilt, since it was itself deserving of blame ;
but certainly it has a mitigating efiect (1 Cor. ii, 8) ; and we cannot
well say, in accordance with these passages, that the chief priests
and members of the Sanhedrim who put Christ to death, committed
the sin against the Holy Ghost. (See Comra. Matth. xii. 32.)

By the extenuation thus made, the way is now paved for a sum-

* There is mention here expressly made of all the prophets, which many regard as
a nyperbolical expression, and therefore modify it to mean some. But, according to the
typical view of sacred history, ft ia perfectly true that they aU prophesy of Christ.

220 Acts III. 20, 21.

mons to repentance and conversion. Conversion (emoTp^fpetv) im-
plies also the faith, of which mention has already been made in the
16th verse. As the first consequence of penitence and conversion,
appears the forgiveness of sins, which again must be considered as
involving life and blessedness. To denote this remission {dcpemg rCJv
dfiaprioiv) i:^aXei(pu, blot out, is here employed, which occurs in a
figurative acceptation only in this passage. At the bottom of this
figurative usage lies the idea of a bond (Col. ii. 14) which is can-
celled. The same image is found in the Old Testament, for example
in Isaiah xliii, 25, T^.^^^ "'^'^ ""^'^j where the Seventy also use

Vers. 20, 21. — A peculiarity, as has already been observed, of
this discourse of the apostle, is its mention of times of refresh-
ing. The very different explanations which have been given of this
passage, are to be judged of altogether in accordance with the obser-
vations which I have prefixed to the leading passage respecting
the last things, viz., Matth. xxiv. 1. The alleged fact that the
apostle conceives the times of refreshing (jiaiQol dvaipv^eug) to be
q[uite close at hand, has led some interpreters to regard the time of
death as what is meant, others the abrogation of the Jewish cere-
monial law, or perhaps a delay of the judgments impending over the
Jews, or the warding off of persecutions. These different conjectures,
however, need no serious refutation. They may be looked upon as
antiquated, as the only tenable reference of the words is to the times
of the Messiah. Still, it is a question whether the times of restitu-
tion (pcpovoL aTTOKaTaoTdaeog) in verse 21, and the times of refreshing
in verse 20, be identical, or whether the former expression refers to
the future, and the latter to the present. According to the funda-
mental ideas of the New Testament, both views, considered in
themselves, might be entertained, for we notice a double form of
representation in the doctrine of the " kingdom of God," of which
the seasons of refreshing are the realization ; first, one which repre-
sents the kingdom of God as ah-eady present ; secondly, another, as
still future. (See Comm. Part i. at MattL iii. 2.) But the gram-
matical connexion admits only the first view, which regards the two
expressions as identical, and as not referring to the present time.
Without doubt the apostle Peter, as well as all the disciples, and
the whole apostolic church, regarded the coming of Christ as near at
hand, but still always as future. If the reference of verse 20 to the
present be maintained, then the words onug dv tXOo)oi — kol dnoaTeiXy
must be translated " cum venerint, et Deus miserit," as Kuinoel
supposes. But this translation is inconsistent, not only with the
particle dv, which is not connected with the conjunction ottw^, except
when the end is conceived as attainable only in the future, but also
with the employment of orrwf with the subjunctive, for it can mean

Acts III. 20, 21. 221

" when, as" only with the indicative. (Comp. Passow's Lex. under
this word, and Winer's Grammar, p. 285.) The coming of Christ
{i. e., his parousia) is therefore to be conceived as coincident with the
times of refreshing, and his sojourn in the heavenly world closes with
his return to the earth for the completion of his work. The conver-
sion of men, therefore, and the diffusion of faith in Christ, are the
condition of the speedy approach of that blessed time, a thought
which occurs again in 2 Pet. iii. 9. The expression occurring here,
Kaipol dvaipv^etog, times of refreshing, is easily explained. Life in this
sinful world is conceived as a time of conflict and distress, and it is
followed by rest in the kingdom of the Messiah. The phrase is only
to be found in this passage of the New Testament, and has but
feeble parallels in the Old Testament, as for example, 2 Sam. xxiii. 7.
Probably it takes its origin from a comparison of the Messianic era
with a Sabbath day in the higher sense, which, it is known, was veiy
current among the Jews.

(The drzb npoaoJTTov = ■'52», which is by no means quite synony-
mous with TTpb npoacj-nov = ■':eV, embodies the idea that the refresh-
ing proceeds from the Lord, that he himself produces it. Instead
of the common reading, TTpoiceKrjpvyfievov^ many and important manu-
scripts [A, B, C, D, E, and fifty-three others], besides several ver-
sions, read ■npoKexecQiojj.evov, which, ' as the more unusual reading,
certainly deserves the preference. Upox^tpi^^odat occurs only in the
Acts of the Apostles [xxii. 14, xxvi. 16], in the sense of " appoint-
ing," '" electing to something." Properly it means " to take in hand,
to purpose, to determine." It is found in the best profane writers,
and the Seventy also use it frequently, as in Joshua iii. 12, for np.V.)
The 21st verse contrasts with the coming of Christ to this world,
his heavenly condition, described in the words d^xeodai ovpavov,
which is not to be referred so much to the act of reception as to
the state of possession and authority. For the view of the words
which takes ovpavov as the subject in this sense, " the heaven must
receive him," which, after Beza's example, Ernesti, Kuinoel, and
Schott have defended, although it is certainly not inadmissible
on grammatical grounds, yet must give place to the otlier, because
it is an unscriptural view to conceive heaven like an independent
agent, receiving Christ into itself, while it is he, as Lord and King,
who takes it and holds it in possession. With as little propriety
can we take the former of these statements, as we can say the
throne receives the king upon it. Beza, without doubt, has been
led to this idea by his views as connected with the reformed Church.*

* This passage has always been differently interpreted by tbo Lutheran and the Re-
formed churches ; and if Beza might be unduly biassed to the one side, OLshausen him-
eelf might lean in a similar manner to the other. The Lutheran Church has viewed
hv as the subject, and understood the meaning of the clause to bo that Christ took

222 Acts III. 20, 21.

The form of concord expressly rejects this interpretation (sol. declar.
art. vii. towards the end).*

As the period of the Kedeemer's return, the Messianic era is
again mentioned, which is here styled the " time of the restitution,
of all things" {xpovog aTTOKaraaTdoeoig Trdvrov). This connexion of
ideas occurs only here, though in Hebrews ix. 10, there is to be
found the very similar expression Kaipb^ dtoQOcjoeojg. On the import
of the limitation, however, no doubt can arise, if we keep in view
the relation of the Kedeemer to this sinful world : Christ is the re-
storer of the fallen creation, and therefore the word d-noKardoTaaiq
derives from his redeeming power its peculiar meaning, viz., that ol
bringing back to its originally pure condition. It would seem, in-
deed, from the connexion of the passage, that Travrwv, of all tMngs,
had reference only to what the prophets have spoken, but not to
the universe of things or relations. But the prophets have really
spoken of all things, and therefore the expression dvoKa-doTaaig -ndv-
TOiv denotes the restitution of ererything. That rravrtov is not to
be understood as masculine, is self-evident.

(The substantive d-noKardaraai^ does not occur elsewhere in the
New Testament, but the verb does, being applied to physical resto-
ration, as in Matth. xii. 13 ; Mark viii. 25 ; Luke vi. 10, and also

possession of the heavens : their feeling has been that the omnipresence of Christ would
be coinpromised by saying that the heavens receive or contain him. The Reformed
Church, again, make ovpavov the subject, and translate, as in our version, whom the heav-
ens must receive : their idea has been that the simple object of the clause is to describe
Christ as dwelling now not on earth, but in heaven. The words, doubtless, are ambigu-
ous in construction, and admit of either rendering, for the verb MxsadaL is to be found in
both shades of meaning. The cases, however, are more numerous where it is appUed to
a place receiving or containing a person, than to a person taking possession of a place.
Indeed, only one passage has been produced from Euripides, Ale. 817, in support of the
latter meaning,* and the bearing of it has bee ., .isputed, so that on mere philological
grounds the interpretation of the Reformed Church deserves the preference. Nor is there
much force in our author's argument that it is unscriptural to conceive of the heavens as
receiving Christ, receiving him as a place does the person who enters it. Was he not,
without prejudice to his omnipresence and Divine authority, in this world for a term of
years; and why might he not, with as little prejudice to these attributes, be described as
received into heaven when he left this world, to remain there till the period specified in
the text? Calvin expresses himself with more moderation than those who followed him
in the Reformed Church. Ceterum loquutio est ambigua: quia tam intelligere possumus
Christum ccelo capi vel contineri quam coelum capere. Ne ergo verbum dubiae significa-
tionis urgeamus: sed eo contente simus quod certum est, Christum, interea dum sepe-
ratur ultima rerum omnium instauratio nou alibi quam in coelo quseremdum esse, Calv.
in loc. — [Tr. * It has here no such meaning. — [K.

* The Form of Concord (Concordienforrael) here mentioned is one of the symbolical
books of the Lutheran Church, though not so important a one, nor so universally acknowl-
edged as the Confession of Augsburg. It was called the book of Torgaw, from the place
where it was composed in the sixteenth century, and the book of Concord, from the pur-
pose it was designed to serve. It became the source, however, of many disputes, and wai
violently opposed, not only by the Reformed Church, but by some also of the most distin-
gu'flhed Lutheran ihurches and divines. — [Tr.

Acts III. 22-26. 223

to spiritual, as in Mattb. xvii. 11 ; Acts i. 6. — At the close of verse
21 there are some various readings. The text. rec. has inserted
mivTCJv before dyicjv Trpo^T/rcjv, but it should be erased, as doubtless
an interpolation from the 18th verse. But an' aiCjvog, is improperly
omitted in some manuscripts ; it is not so definite a period as is im-
mediately specified in what follows, and may hence be referred to
the whole series of God's promises with respect to the restoration of
men, in that there are also prophets mentioned in the New Testa-
ment who were prior to the deluge. See Jude ver. 14.)

Vers. 22-26. — Looking back to the admonition to repentance
(ver. 19), the apostle adduces some passages from the Old Testa-
ment,* in which the necessity of recognizing the great Messianic
prophet is exhibited with peculiar force. First of all, the well-
known passage in Deut. xviii. 15, 18, 19, is cited. The language of
the Septuagint is followed in the main ; but the words of the 15th
and. 18th verses are united, and in the 19th, instead of licdiiirjfju) ii
avToVj we have t^oXodpevdrjaerat t/c rov Xaov (Heb. '»>:» ®"'"'<). From
the connexion, certainly, the passage seems to refer primarily to
the -order of prophets in general, but as the prophetical character is
exhibited in the Messiah in the highest, nay, in absolute perfection,
the passage applies to him too in the very highest sense. In this
view the words o)g lut ("'i'tt^) must have a decided reference to the
legislative character, which was exhibited in Moses, and afterwards
appeared only in Christ. In its relation to the Old Testament, the
threatening of the 23d verse refers to external, in its relation to the
New, to spiritual punishment, and in this respect coiTCsponds en-
tirely to the words of our Lord, "he that believeth not is condemned
already" (o iif] vLarEvuyv 1)67] Kth-pirai, John iii. 18). All promises
belong primarily to the seed of Abraham, according to the Divine
appointment, and upon that consideration Peter grounds the invi-
tation to his hearers, to appropriate to themselves the blessing that
is in Christ. The quotation in verse 25 is taken from Gen. xii. 3, or
xviii. 18, xxii. 18. It is almost exactly in the words of the Septua-
gint, which, instead of -narpLal reads tdvrj or (jivXai. The words viiiv
TrpwTov o Qeoq — djTEoreLXev avrov, in verse 26, contain an intimation
of the universality of the grace that is in Christ, that is, of the
introduction of the Gentiles into the Christian church, which the
prophets had so frequently foretold ; for it was not against this in-
troduction, considered in itself, that Peter at a later period (chap, x.)
entertained scruples, but only in so far as it was to take place di-
rectly, without the reception of the law on the part of the Gentile
converts.

* Respecting the want of precision in the words: ttuvtcc ol Trpo<j))jTai ujzd 'Lafiovf/X koI
TLJv Kode^JiQ 6(701 i2.uXTi<yav, consult "Winer's Grammar, p. 464.

224 Acts IV. 1-7.

§ 4. FiEST Imprisonment of Peter.

(Acta iv. 1-31.)

The auspicious opening bloom of the young church of Christ
could not fail speedily to attract the attention of those who occupied
the seat of Moses. But as they were themselves the murderers of
the Son of God, and would not humble themselves before him to re-
ceive themselves also the pardon of their sins, which was offered to
them by the apostles preaching in their presence, they fell of conse-
quence into the new sin of seeking to quench the Si)irit. Yet their
first undecided procedure against those who announced the resurrec-
tion of the crucified Jesus, plainly evinces that a smitten conscience
bore witness to them, of their alienation from God and their struggle
against the defenders of true piety. But soon we behold them grow
more daring, and by gradually working upon the mass of the people,
they excite the fickle multitude against the Christians, as despisers
of the national sanctuaries.

Vers. 1-7. — In the power of the Spirit the apostles continued to
preach, and their word wrought so powerfully, that already about
five thousand men believed. (Iia verse 4, compared with chap, v
14, it seems that men only are named exclusive of women. It
might, therefore, be supposed that the number of the Christian
community was much greater. But at first perhaps it might be
only men that were added to the church. In all likelihood this
occurrence must be placed only a few days after Pentecost, for it is
hardly to be supposed that the priests would not interfere at once,
for the purpose of extinguishing the flame as speedily as possible.)
The conversion of so many was the source of vexation to the whole
party of priests, but above all to the Sadducees ; whose views were
directly impugned by the preaching of the resurrection. (Compare
the Commentary on Matth. iii. 7, and xxii. 23.) The person who
took the active part in the arrest of Peter (for John appears in all
these transactions only as the companion of Peter, without any in-
dependent agency),* is described as the orparrjybg rov leQov, captain
of the temple. It has been erroneously supposed that the express-
ion denotes a Eoman officer ; but it should rather be understood as
meaning the captain of the Levitical guard of the Temple who was
on duty. This guard had the charge of preserving tranquillity in the

* This may bo explained partly from the circumstance, that these sections of the Acts
of the Apostles were taken from some writing or from several short memoirs, which
originated with the school of Peter ; but the character of John, too, on the other hand,
renders it probable that he did not at the first display very great energy. (Compare the
Commentary on John, page 4.)

Acts IV. 8-12. 225

neighbourhood of the Temple ; and the pretence, that the apostles
were disturbing the peace, was made to furnish an occasion for their
arrest. Comp. Josephus, Arch. xx. 6, 2. B. J. ii. 12. 6 ; in 2
Maccab. 4, where TTQoaTdrrjg tov lepov is the title used. As it was
already late (verse 3), the examination was delayed till the follow-
ing day, when the Sanhedrim assembled^

(The form iyevTJdrij in verse 4, does not occur in the Attic
writers, though frequently found in the koiv?) didXeKTog. Compare
Lobeck ad Phryn. page 108. Kespecting dpxovTeg -npEaPvTtQOL and
ypafinarelg, as also respecting Caiaphas and Annas, see particulars
at Matth, xxvi. 57. At the same place too see regarding ytvog dpxi-e-
pariKov. Nothing is known of the two other persons whose names
are mentioned. Lightfoot on this passage supposes that John cor-
responds to an individual, of whom intelligence is preserved in the
Talmud. He is called Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai, and is de-
scribed as a priest of distinction. Far more improbably has it been
conjectured, that Alexander may be the brother of Philo ; for he
was Alabarches of Alexandria, and could not therefore be a mem-
ber of the Sanhedrim in Jerusalem. (Compare Eusebius Hist. Ecc.
ii. 5, and the note of Valesius on the passage, Alabarches meant
the highest magistrate of the Jews in Alexandria and all Egypt.)

Vers. 8-12. — The Sanhedrim had interrogated the apostles re-
specting their authority to teach publicly, a question which undoubt-
edly was competent to them. (Consult the Comm. on Matth. xxi.
23.) Peter now replies to their question, by appealing to a decided
miracle, the healing of the lame man, as his authority ; and he
ascribes this miracle to the power of Jesus of Nazareth.* The
adducing of the miracle was entirely natural, for miracles were to
be the means of establishing the authority of a prophet (compare
the passage quoted, viz., Ps. cxviii. 22), but the second point is re-
markable. According to Jewish principles, the prophet was required
to perform his miracles in the name of Jehovah the true God ; but
the apostles wrought theirs in the name of Jesus. In this way,
therefore, they indirectly declared him to be their Lord and God :
they announced that in him God dwells and is manifested ; and the
members of the Sanhedrim would undoubtedly understand their
■v/ords to mean, that they proclaimed themselves to be messengers

* In verse 8 it ia expressly mentioced, that Peter spoke these -words Tzlrjadelg irvev'
fiaToq uyiov. The same thing is said in iv. 31, xiii. 9, and very frequently of Paul. In
this we are not simply to recognize the general idea, that the apostles spoke at the sug-
gestion of the Holy Ghost, and not by their own ability; but we are rather to see an
evident proof) that the Holy Ghost, who was always really working in them, was at
these moments producing effects that were peculiarly palpable. In the inward spiritual
life of the apostles, therefore, we must distinguish between periods of high excitement
and periods of less elevation (see Comm. on 2 Cor. xii.) ; and the expression before us
denotes the former.

Vol. III.— 15

226 Acts IV. 13-18.

of Jesus, and recognized in Mm a Divine majesty. With undaunted
boldness Peter now reproaclies them with having rejected this cor-
ner stone of the spiritual temple, while yet it was Christ only in
whom there was salvation for them. He therefore, the impeached
humble citizen, preaches the way of salvation to the godless minis-
ters of the sanctuary ! (Respecting the quotation from Ps. cxviii.
22, consult Comm. at Matth. xxi. 42.)

The 12th verse is attended with peculiar doctrinal difficulties : it
confines the " salvation" so strictly to Christ, that the question may
present itself, Hoav then can those who have never heard of him, be
or become ou^onevoty saved ? Quite inadmissible is the expedient
to which some have had recourse, of making the ourrjpLa relate only
to what is physical, because the subject previously under consider-
ation has been the healing of the lame man. It is plain from the
preceding citation in the 11th verse, that oo)T7]pLa can only mean the
Messianic salvation, which Christ bestows. Nevertheless it was a
total misunderstanding of this passage, from which however the
primitive church stood clear, to explain it so as to exclude unbap-
tized children and Gentiles from the salvation. The ancient fathers
rightly conceived every exhibition of superior excellence, even in the
heathen world, to be the effect of the Xoyog onepiia-iKog (so expressly
says Justin Martyr, page 51 c), and for all, to whom no ray of
Divine light had penetrated, they opened up in the " descensus
Christi ad inferos" the possibility of obtaining salvation. But as
the circle can only have one centre, so also the Divine being alone
can be the Saviour, and this is the deep thought of the apostle's
language. Not without reason, therefore, is the general expression
ovK toTiv more narrowly defined in the second clause by the words
ev 0) del oco07}vai, by which the possibility of any other way of sal-
vation is most decidedly excluded. But the one Logos (Adyof),
has very various forms of manifestation ; in consequence of which
there arises an apparent variety of ways of access to God. (On
the expression 6e6ohevov h dvOpcoTToig, consult Winer's Grammar,
page 177.) In respect to the sense, it may be said that iv stands
for the dative ; but grammatically it is more correct to give it the
signification of " among," making the thought this : " there is no
other name given," that is, " exhibited" among men, and at the
same time,^b?' men.

Ver. 13-18. — The Sanhedrim were unable, partly because they
were restrained by the power of the Spirit of truth speaking in the
apostles, and partly because they feared the people (verse 18), to
adopt any severe measures against the preachers of the resurrection
of the crucified Jesus. They dismissed the apostles with an un-
meaning admonition. (The two expressions dypdi^fiaroc and IStcorai
appear to be synonymous, for the latter as weU as the former fre-

Acts IV. 19-22. 227

quently denotes the unlearned as opposed to the learned. Suidas
explains it by dypdiJuaTog, dfiadijg. But the word is also applied to
the lowly as distinguished from the great and the wealthy, and
therefore it is best to give it this sense for the purpose of making a
distinction between it and dypdnfiaTog. This latter word, finally,
implies nothing more than the want of formal Kabbinical training ;
for, where this was wanting, the Pharisees, whose minds were quite
ossified, were unable to recognize any higher knowledge as existing.
Atavtjtzw, " to divide, to disperse," and thence " to propagate,"
occurs in no other part of the New Testament.)

Vers. 19-22. — Although the apostles openly declare that they
cannot comply with the admonition given to them, yet the chieif
priests dismiss them without punishment, merely adding a threat
Perhaps it was their hope that by mildness they might most effi-
ciently suppress the growing sect, which appeared to them so dan-
gerous. But the apostles at once gave utterance to the great
principle, which is repeated by them (chap. v. 29) at their second
imprisonment, that we must obey God rather than man. The
relation of this principle to the general command, to obey " the
government" as the minister of God (Rom. xiii. 1), is attended with
some difficulty, especially when, as in the case before us, that power
enjoins no positive sin, but only negatively forbids something.
Many enthusiasts and rebels have misapplied this principle to the
defence of their insane or mischievous undertakings. Now, such an
abuse cannot be prevented by restrictions and regulations, because
this principle, like every other, is regulated in practice by the char-
acter of those who apply it, whose depravity may pervert what is
most excellent. But, in its purely objective character, the highest
freedom of the believer maintains no conflict at all with his unquali-
fied obedience to the government, even though it be an unrighteous
one. He moves, in fact, with his old and new man, as it were, in a
twofold world. In the one character he is placed in subjection to
earthly relations, and therefore willingly gives to Cassar what is
Caesar's ; but in the other he is a member of the spiritual world,
and therefore gives to God what is God's, And because he thus
leaves to the earthly power whatever belongs to it, he secures to
himself perfect liberty of deciding in accordance with a higher will,
in whatever does not belong to it. But every misapplication of the
principle has really the earthly element in view, to obtain which,
the heavenly is only used as a means. "Where such obliquity does
not disturb the inward vision, the proper relations of the two com-
mands will be easily perceived. Peter appeals, therefore, with
respect to the truth of the principle that God's command rises above
that of man, to the moral feeling of the Sanhedrim themselves, and
they were unable to resist it. (In verse 20 we must with Lachmann

228 Acts IV. 23-31.

prefer ddaiiev as the more unusual Alexandrian form, which is also
found sometimes in the LXX. See 1 Sam. x. 14 ; 2 Sam. x. 14.
In verse 21 firidh must be taken as an absolute accusative ; it stands
for fi7)dand or nTjdandg.^

Vers. 23-31. — After their release the apostles repaired to their
friends, who broke out into a praj^er of thanksgiving to God. {"Idioi
cannot mean all Christians, for all could not assemble in one place,
but only the household church of the apostles, those with whom
they were accustomed to unite in social prayer, compare xii. 12 ; it
cannot mean, as Meyer supposes, the other apostles.) It is self-
evident, that this prayer of thanksgiving was either uttered by one
in the name of the rest, or that the common feeling of all is exhib-
ited in these words. The latter idea is favoured by the expression ;
" they with one accord raised their voices to God" (unodvfiadbv ^pav
0wv?)v npbg rbv 6e6v) . And in this case the form of the thoughts be-
longs either to Luke, or perhaps rather to the author of the memoirs
which he employed in constructing his narrative. Meyer's supposi-
tion is quite inadmissible, that the prayer which follows may have
been a form that was in use in the church of Jerusalem ; we thus
improperly transfer to the primitive church the usages of a later
time. In the prayer, the concluding verses only (29, 30) touch upon
the fact to which the whole scene refers ; and they do so only cur-
sorily, in the entreaty that the threatenings may be averted. The
first verses are entirely occupied with the fruitless persecutions of
the Redeemer, a thing which appears unseasonable. But on closer
consideration this is seen to express a very deep feeling, which
affords a strong warrant for the correctness of the narrative. The
apostles were so thoroughly engrossed with the person of Christ and
his affairs, their own individual concerns were thrown so much into
the background, and it was so exclusively Christ's cause which ap-
peared to them intrinsically important, that they saw even in their
own sufferings nothing but persecutions directed against Christ.
Their prayer therefore concerned itself only about him ; and their
desire looked exclusively to this, that they might be enabled to
glorify him. Of the omnipotence of God, mention is made, to bring
into view the fact, that he is able everywhere to give help. (On
dfiCTTTOTT/c, comp. Comm. on Luke ii. 29.) This power of the Almighty,
which protects against all the rage of men in rebellion against
heaven, is strikingly portrayed in Psalm ii. 1, 2, which passage is
quoted exactly according to the LXX., and explained as referring
to Christ. (Vers. 27, 28.) The second Psalm is very frequently
applied to Christ in the New Testament.* (Acts xiii. 33 ; Heb. i.

* Peter ascribes it to David, although both the Hebrew text and the LXX. have no
inacription. In this he follows the general opinion of the Jews, which ascribes to iJavid

Acts IV. 32. 229

5, V. 5 ; Rev. ii. 26, 27, xii. 5, xix. 15.) Granting e\en that the
Psalm may have a historical basis, and may relate to the installa-
tion of a king in Israel, yet the peculiar reference of it to the Messiah,
the universal king, cannot be mistaken. (Com p. Hengstenberg'?
Christology, vol. i. page 95, etc.) The hostility of the world is so
little able to overthrow God's plan, that it is compelled to become
the means of accomplishing it. (Ver. 29.) This idea of a Divine
necessity in the free actions of men has already been considered at
Matth. xxvi. 24.

(Respecting Ivari^ see at Matth. xxvii. 46. — ^pvarro) = wi-^j is
applied primarily to neighing horses, then it denotes, " to storm,"
" to rage." — In verse 27, i-n' dXTjdecag is used, as in Luke iv. 25, xxii.
59, by way of asseveration. According to the common text it con-
nects itself immediately with irrl rbv dytov -naldd oov ; while Gries-
bach, following codices A. D. E. and others, has inserted h ry rtoXei
ravrrj. If we compare such passages as Matth. xxiii. 37, Luke xiii.
33, this addition acquires very great force. The Jioly city, Luke
means to say, they have made the seat of infamous treachery. —
Tavvv occurs again in Acts xvii. 30, xx. 32, xxvii. 22. It is used
also by profane writers as synonymous with vvv. Compare Herod,
vii. 104.) After the prayer was concluded, the place where the
disciples were assembled was shaken, and they were all filled with
the Holy Ghost. It has already been remarked at chap, iv. 8, that
the being filled with the Holy Ghost, must be regarded as denoting
a state of unusually high spiritual excitement ; for at Pentecost the
apostles had received the Holy Ghost once for aU. The common
excitement which here foiind place in all who were assembled was,
like the outpouring of the Spirit described in chap, ii, 2, accom-
panied with an external manifestation, viz., the shaking of the place.
Now, a common earthquake is as little to be supposed in this place,
as a common storm at chap. ii. 2 ; for both of these must have
struck the city, and not merely the place of meeting. But certainly
there is something parallel to this occurrence in the view of the
ancients, for they regarded earthquakes as a sign from the gods.
(Virg. Mn. iii. 89.) The earthquake was to them as a gigantic
exhibition of the power of the gods, a token of their presence, and
thus of their favour.

§ 5. The Community of Goods.

(Acts iv. 32— V. 11.)

After the special narrative thus given, there follows again a gen-
eral view of the state of the church in Jerusalem. (Compare at IL

all Psalms whose authors are not definitely marked. "With respect to the second Psalm,
the correctness of this view is not to be doubted.

230 Acts IV. 32.

42-47.) This passage only "brings more prominently into view a
particular usage, viz., the community of goods, of which mention
has already been cursorily made in the passage just referred to.*
And in connexion with the general statement respecting the com-
munity of goods, two particular narratives are presented, in which
the use and the abuse of the practice are described. With respect
to this ancient Christian institute, we may now, after Mosheim's
enquiry (" de vera natura communionis bonorum in ecclesia Hiero-
solymitana" contained in " diss, ad hist. eccl. pertin. vol. i. diss, i."),
regard the old view as exploded, which supposed that all property
had ceased among Christians. They must in this case have lived
upon a common fund, which would have speedily wasted away ;
and, instead of the dwellings which were sold, others must have
been hired anew. The passages ii. 45, iv. 35, appear at first
sight to favour this view, because it is there said, " they sold their
possessions and goods" (jd KTTjjxara koc rag vndp^eig kmrrpaaKov)^ lan-
guage which seems to include all possessions, whether moveable or
real, and because in the latter passage, iv. 35, the distribution is
represented as so general, that one is tempted to think of a com-
mon fund out of which every one received what he needed. But
when we investigate the circumstances more narrowly, we come
upon invincible difiSculties, and find ourselves compelled to admit
only an active liberality, which led the more wealthy to sell much
for the support of their poorer brethren ; and so disposed every one
that he managed his own private property as the common property
of all. There is only one circumstance which seems to lead to the
conclusion, that in the earliest time there did in fact prevail in
Jerusalem a proper community of goods. We find the church there
rernarkably poor, so that Paul, in particular, is continually occupied
with collections for the mother church. The fact might be ex-
plained in this manner : in the first glow of love, the believers in
Jerusalem really went too far ; they sold all their possessions, they
lived upon the common fund, and hoped the Lord would soon re-
turn to conduct them into his kingdom. But, when the advent was
delayed, they fell into temporal destitution, and needed support.
From this circumstance too it might be explained why there is not
even a trace of this institute to be found in any other church. It
may be said that the apostles, taught experience by this trial, ceased

* That in the p. ogress of mankind there is a tendency to the aboHtioli of private pro-
perty, is illustrated by the sect of the Simoniaus in France, whose case is worthy of
attention in a history of the church. But this party ridiculously pervert a right feel-
ing, because they strive to establish by external regulations, what can only be elTected by
the power of love operating from within. No power or plan can supply the place of the
omnipotence of love. The gospel establishes in a truly spiritual manner a community of
goods, because, without any external revolutions, it awakens the pure love, which
teaches ua to regard and treat the need of a brother as our own.

Acts IV. 32. 231

to form after the manner of the Essenes, such a common stock, and
nowhere else established it. In opposition to this view, it would he
no proper argument to say, that the apostles must in this case have
either made or allowed an unsuitable regulation ; for the apostles
do not by any means appear infallible, excepting where a matter of
fliith is concerned : in a regulation for the church, therefore, they
might perhaps have conceived wrongly for a moment, and especially
thus as they would have erred in this case : their whole error would
have consisted in applying too pure and heavenly a standard to the
circumstances of an earthly church.*

But other considerations forbid me to regard the foregoing
argumentation as proving that a complete community of goods
prevailed among the primitive Christians. First of all, Peter ex-
pressly declares to Ananias (chap. v. 4), that it was in his own
power either to sell the field or to retain it : it is inconceiva-
ble, therefore, that it could be a law in the church, as it was
among the Essenes, that every one must sell all his goods. Again,
we find in chap. xii. 12, an example of the private possession ot
a house. The poverty therefore of the Christians in Jerusalem,
which is certainly a very remarkable phenomenon, must be ac-
counted for in some other way. Either the church was formed
from amongst the poorest inhabitants of the city, or many, with-
out the restraint of any law, went so far under the infiuence of
spontaneous afi"ection in selling their possessions, as to impoverish
themselves too much, or finally both causes may have operated to-
gether, which is perhaps the most probable opinion. And the way
in which the apostles might be led to the idea of a community
of goods, is very easily conceived, when we consider that separate
possession is nothing but a consequence of sin. (Comj). Comm. on
Luke xvi. 1, etc.) The ideal perfection of man's condition is just
that, in which neither poor nor rich are to be found, but every in-
dividual has his wants supplied. Intimations that such a condi-
tion must one day be realized, are to be found, not only in the
reckless cry after freedom and equality, but also in the most ex-
alted of our race. Pythagoras and Plato were captivated with this
idea : the Essenesf and other small sectarian bodies attempted to

* The statement here made regarding the apostles is pushed too far, nor is there any
ground for it in the practice under notice, for this practice resulted out of the spontane-
ous love of believers, and was not wrong. The apostles were appointed by Christ not
only to proclaim the truth, but also to plant and regulate churches, and they received
the promise of the Holy Ghost to fit them for these duties. Their infallibility therefore
went beyond mere matters of faith, and extended also to the ordinances and institutiona
which they established for tlie churches. Apostolic practice, clearly made out, is a good
rule to us.— [Tr.

f The Essenes really and truly had no private property; all that they earned went
into a common fund, out of which all were supported. (Comp. Joseph. Bell Jud. iL 12.)

282 Acts IV. 36, 37. ,

realize it. But the outward realization of it requires certaiu in-
ternal conditions ; and just because these were wanting, the at-
tempts referred to could not but fail. These conditions, however,
were secured by the Redeemer, who poured pure brotherly love into
the hearts of believers ; but as the church herself still appears in this
world externally veiled, so the true community of goods cannot be
outwardly practised : this will only take place when the kingdom of
God is openly manifested as the victorious and ruling power at the
advent of the Lord.

There are but few individual points to be noticed in these words.
In the first place, it is not without reason that in verse 32 the ex-
pression is employed : " The heart and the soul was one" {yv ?)
Kagdla Kol tj -ipvxr) n'ta). It could not have been said, " the spirit
was one" (to nvevna 'iv ^v), at least this would have conveyed quite
a difierent meaning: it would have referred rather to knowledge
than to feeling. But here the idea to be expressed is, that the
church was feelingly sensible of its community of life ; hence the
soul ('4>i^xv) s-^d. its central point the heart (Kapdia), as the seat of
feeling, are rendered prominent. Again, at first sight, verse 33 ap-
pears to interrupt the connexion, because verse 34 treats anew of
the community of goods. But closer observation makes it plain
that verse 34 does not look back to verse 32, but refers immediately
to verse 33. It was the brotherly love, which displayed itself among
the Christians, that won for them in so high a degree the favour of
the people. Inverse 35 rtdevat ixapa rovg Tiodag rcJv diroaToXcov, place
at the feet, etc., is a symbolical expression, meaning, to place under
their control.

Vers. 36, 3T. — Regarding the well-known Joses, surnamcd Bar-
nabas, of whom mention is so frequently made in the sequel, the
information is here communicated, that, with an upright purpose,
he sold a field, and handed over to the apostles the money realized
by the sale. The alleged identity of Barnabas with Barsabas, and
the difierent reading of the names, have been already sufficiently
considered at chap. i. 23. In this passage the tribe to which Bar-
nabas belonged and the land of his birth are mentioned. (For the
purpose of exhibiting the import of the name Barnabas, Luke
gives a Greek translation of it, vibg TragaicXrioecjg, son of consolation.
It is uncerLuiu, however, what etymology he had before his eyes :
one is most readily led to think of k?;, but this word denotes " to
foretell, to prophesy." Admonition, however, and consolation, are

The question, whether the Essenes had any influence upon the Christian institute of a
community of goods, I would thus answer: " Not upon the institute as such, which orig-
inated solely in Christian love ; but their regulations may perhaps have exercised an
influence upon individual Christians who know them, and may have recommended the
institute to them, and led them to prize it."

Acts V. 1-6. 233

certainly a part of the functions of a prophet ; and therefore Luke
might put napaKX-qaig for TTpocprireia. At least this idea is certainly
not so harsh as the supposition of Grotius, that napaKhjatg stands
strictly for " prophecying," which cannot at all be made good.)

Chap, v., vers. 1-6. — The event which follows embodies a case of
a totally different kind, viz., an example of the abuse which sordid
individuals were tempted to make of the institute of a community
of goods. This is the first trace of a shade, which falls upon the
pure bright form of the young church. A member of the Christian
body misguidedly attempts, along with his wife, to deceive the
apostles and the whole church, by bringing forward a smaller price
than he had received for a piece of ground which he had sold.
Hypocrisy was therefore the proper sin of Ananias and Sapphira.
It is probable that among the new Christians a kind of holy rivalry
had sprung up : every one was eager to place his superfluous means
at the disposal of the church : now this zeal swept along many a
one, who was not in heart properly freed from attachment to earthly
possessions ; and thus it happened that Ananias too sold some pro-
perty, but afterwards secretly kept back part of the price. Vanity
was the motive of the sale, hyjjocrisy the ground of the conceal-
ment : he wished to appear as disinterested as others, and yet
he could not let go his hold of mammon. But still the punish-
ment with which he was visited appears very severe, especially
when compared with the treatment given to far more dangerous
persons, Simon Magus (chap, viii.) and Elymas (chap xiii.) Appeal
indeed is made to the fact that the hypocrisy of Ananias and his
wife was uncommonly daring, and must have undermined, if it had
succeeded, the consideration of the apostles ; and certainly this re-
mark is not without force. But the proper solution can only be
found in this, that these persons had experienced the power of the
Holy Ghost, and yet could abandon themselves to so gross a sin. It
is not the deed therefore itself alone, but also the condition of him
who perpetrates it, which determines the measure of the guilt.
Simon and Elymas were free from the great responsibility which lay
upon Ananias, because they had not the experience of the power of
the Spirit, which we must ascribe to him. Where this experience
existed, even an apparently smaller sin required a severer punish-
ment.

Ananias (n;2:n) and Sajjphira (from 1^20) his wife sold a piece of
land, for the purpose of putting the proceeds into the chest of
the church, but they secretly kept back a part of the price.
(Kryfia might mean a moveable possession, but verse 3 shews
that it here denotes x^plovj a field. — l<ioa(l)i^eaOai from vda^t, "re-
mote, apart." In Homer voacpl^eoOaL occurs both in the sense,
both of physical and moral withdrawment, that is turning away

234 Acts V. 1-6.

from one out of hatred. Later writers use it also as active, in the
signification of " removing, {. e., robbing, stealing." And still more
frequently is the middle voice to be found in this sense in Xenophon,
Polybius, and others. In the New Testament we find it again in
Titus ii. 10, and in the LXX. it occurs in Joshua vii. 1.)

In his address, Peter first exhibits the greatness of the guilt of
Ananias, ascribing the idea of the deception to diabolical influence,
and representing it as directed against the Holy Ghost. The unholy
accordingly appears here in conflict with the Holiest ; as the repre-
sentatives of whom, the apostles are to be regarded (comp. Acts xv.
28) as filled with the Holy Ghost. It would almost seem as if the act
of Ananias were represented as a sin against the Holy Ghost, Avhich
would explain the fact, that all admonition to repentance is want-
ing, and all mention of pardon ; the apostles in this case only exer-
cise their prerogative of retaining sin. (Comp. Comm. on Matth.
xvi. 19.) And from this it follows that the peculiar procedure of
Peter in this afiair is inexiolicable, if we suppose that he learned
by information from others that Ananias committed this fraud : an
external communication respecting the fact could not place the
apostle in a position to determine the degree of the man's inward
guilt. Yet such a determination was necessary to him, if he would
not do injustice to Ananias, and for this therefore nothing but
the power of the Spirit could qualify him. It has already been re-
marked on verse 4, that the words of Peter clearly shew, there was
no obligation resting upon Ananias to seU the ground ; yet that he
might not be outstripped by others, he parted with it, but hypo-
critically kept back a part of the price. Further, the fact that
verse 4 ascribes to Ananias himself, what verse 3 imputes to Satan,
involves no contradiction at all ; nor is it right to say that the
ascription of the evil thought to Satan is only a popular expression
for the simpler idea, that the thought came from the heart of
Ananias himself. The twofold form of expression in these verses, is
one quite suitable to the nature of the circumstances, because the
influence of the devil is not compulsory ; and accordingly the re-
ception into the heart of an evil thought suggested by him requires
the consent of the will. In like manner, the expression in verse 4,
" thou hast not lied unto men, but to God" (ovk iipevao dvOgunotg,
qXXd Tw 6e<p), does not deny that Ananias had lied also to men ;
but as this aspect of his misdeed came not at all into consid-
eration, in comparison with the deceiving of God, the apostle in
energetic speech denies it. Explanations therefore such as these,
" not only to men, or not so much to men as to God," are to be re-
jected as enfeebling the thought. With regard, finally, to the sud-
den death of Ananias, mentioned in verse 5, many interpreters, on
the one hand, explain it as an apoplectic fit brought on by terror ;

Acts V. 7-11. 235

and many, on the other, as a purely supernatural occurrence. This
total separation between the natural and the supernatural is an-
other mistake ; there is nothing to prevent us from supposing that
the death of Ananias might be quite a natural event ; but this sup-
position does not destroy its marvellous character. What is natural
in itself may become miraculous by connexion Avith circumstances
and adjuncts ; and so also here the death of Ananias as connected
with the penal sentence of the apostle, which was spoken in the
power of the Spirit, and like a sword pierced him, while alarmed
on account of his sin, is the miraculous result of a higher and super-
natural adjustment.

The sudden death of Ananias naturally excited a solemn awe in
the minds of all who were present. The servants of the church
buried the lifeless body. Certainly Mosheim is right (comm. de
rebus Christ, ante Const, p. 114), and he is followed by Kuinoel
(Heinrichs leaves the question undecided), in supposing that veoyre-
poig (= veavioKoig in verse 10) denotes not merely some young men,
but the regular servants of the church, who were also in Hebrew
styled B"'":??. The article plainly leads to the conclusion, that it was
not any young people viixo pleased that took charge of the interment,
but certain definite persons, and as, moreover, they performed this
duty unsummoned, we are led to suppose that they regarded it as
belonging to their office. These young men (vecoregoi) are best con-
ceived as occupying a position similar to that of the acoluthi or aco-
lytes at a later period,* The agapee or love-feasts, and the numerous
meetings held, must in fact have made the need of servants be felt,
as early as that of rulers. {IvotsXXg) or nepioTeXXcj is, like ovy-
KOfii^G) in Acts viii. 2, applied to the burial of the dead, and the
whole preparatory steps, like the Latin " pollingere." In the New
Testament it is found only here ; but it occurs also in tlie Septua-
gint, Ezek. xxix. 5, and in profane authors, e. g., Herod, ii. 90. It
denotes, primarily, the dressing of the dead body with a shroud, from
gteXXg), " to place, to set in order, to prepare, to dress," whence aroXi].
In like manner, tiKp^Qeiv = eiferre, is a common expression for
performing the interment of the dead.)

Vers. 7-11. — After the lapse of a few hours, the wife of Ananias

* Keander (AposL Zeitalt. p. 39) advances the opinion that the veurepoi here men-
tioned might be no regular church ofBcers, but only younger members of the church who
undertook the interment. But in this case, doubtless, another expression would have
been chosen instead of veurepoi, and at all events nvic would have been added : the
article points to known individuals. It might rather be supposed that the expression
denotes the deacons, if the existence among deacons of such men as Stephen and Philip
did not render it improbable that employments of this outward kind would bo imposed
upon them. Certainly there were in the church at a very early period persons who were
entrusted with the care of mere external matters, such as the cleaning of the places of
meeting and the like: these might also take charge of the interment of the dead.

236 Acts V. 12.

likewise appeared — and, as she boldly persisted in the concerted
fraud, the same fate befel her. The precision of the narrative dis-
covers itself in the careful fixing of the time (verse 7). The only-
peculiarity of these verses is the idea of " tempting the Spirit of the
Lord" (netpdaai to nvevfxa Kvpiov). Though the expression " to tempt
God," c-r'Vxn noi, occurs frequently, especially in the Old Testament,
yet the phrase " to tempt the Spirit" is found only in this passage.
There is expressed in it the idea that Ananias and Sapphira not
only in general tempted God, as he is made known in the remoter
manifestations of his character, but even supposed that they were
able to conceal their sins from the Holy Ghost, the highest exhibition
of the Divine agency (^evaadai rb Trvevfia aytov, ver. 3), although he
searches not only the depths of the hearts, but even the deep things
of God. (1 Cor. ii. 10.) The view of Pott and Kuinoel is quite
wrong, that to tempt God is exactly the same thing as sinning in
general. It is rather a species of sin, viz., that sin which displays
itself audaciously and presumptuously. Man frequently puts God's
love, and mercy, and omniscience, as it were, to the proof, by his sins ;
and this boldness of the creature against the Creator is called
" tempting God." That in this case covetousness was also at work,
by no means excludes the idea indicated ; for a mere common covet-
ousness would have either wholly restrained Ananias from joining
himself to the church, or at least would have been a motive to for-
bid the sale of his property. In ver. 9 the phrase ri (^eart) on awe-
<l)G)VT]dr] viuv, '' wherefore have ye agreed or concerted together," must
be explained on the principle of the well-known construction of the
passive with a dative. Compare Winer's Gram, page 196. In the
words ISoi) oi Ttodeq k. t. X., we recognize the expression of immediate
knowledge : " behold, we hear the tread of the young men return-
ing.")

§ 6. Second Trial of the Apostles.

(Acts V. 12-42.)

This narrative of matters in the bosom of the church is followed
by a scene of a more public kind, an account of a new imprisonment
of the apostles. It is introduced by a general description of the
healing powers of the apostles (verses 12-16), especially of Peter.
This excited attention in so high a degree, that even from the neigh-
bouring cities sick people were brought to Jerusalem ; which indi-
cates that probably in these cities, too, small bodies of believers
would be formed, because, according to God's appointment, outward
circumstances were always designed to be a means of drawing
attention to the inward spiritual truths which the apostles pro-
claimed.

Acts V. 17-23. 237

(Eespecting the porch of Solomon, comp. Comm. on Acts iii. 11.
It appears to have been the usual place where the apostles met. In
verse 13 the expression " hut of the rest" [riov 6e XoittCjv] is un-
doubtedly to be understood of the multitude of those who were not
yet converted, but whose attention, at the same time, was arrested
by the spiritual power of Christianity. — KoXXdaOai, equivalent to
p?7, is frequently applied to scholars and their attachment to teachers.
The believers remained together, and a certain awe restrained the mul-
titude from mingling themselves with them According to verse 14,
there were many women also who believed : their baptism rendered
the appointment of deaconesses necessary, who, it is probable, ex-
isted from a very early period in the church at Jerusalem, although
they are not expressly named. The devout women among the fol-
lowers of the Lord himself were probably not baptized, any more
than the disciples, who had only received the baptism of John. The
baptism of the Spirit compensated, in their case, for the outward
baptism. — Verse 15. What is mentioned of the shadow of Peter is
to be regarded primarily as a view of the people, but this does not
imply that the view was a mere notion : we must rather suppose
that where pure and childlike faith existed, it was not put to shame.
Certainly, however, it was not the shadow that could heal, but only
the wondrous influence which streamed from the apostle in conform-
ity with his will. The passage is analogous to what is said of the
touching of the hem of Christ's garment.* Comp. Comm. on Matth.
ix. 20. — Verse 16. Uipi^, in the signification of " round about" oc-
curs nowhere else in the New Testament. On the position of the
adverb with respect to the substantive, compare Bernhardy's Syn-
tax, page 323.)

Vers. 17-23.— The statement that follows, of a new imprison-
ment of Peter and several other apostles (verse 29) agrees in sub-
stance with the account of the first imprisonment (iv. 1-22). The
only things peculiar to this narrative, are the mention of their deliv-
erance by an angel (verses 19, 20), and the information respecting
the proceedings in the Sanhedrim itself (verses 33-42). The first
circumstance, however, we pass over here, because it will receive a
minute consideration at the passage in xii. 7, etc., connected with
xvi. 26, etc., where deliverances quite similar are narrated far more
in detail

(Ver. 17. — The expression rj ovaa alpeaig tcjv laddovKatuv^ which
was the sect of the Sadducees, which stands related to the preceding
words, dpxtepevg koI Travreg ol ovv avru), the chief priest and all ivho
were with him, denotes that the high priest and even his family
were attached to this sect, and in a manner represented it. — Verse
20. The phrase prmara rrjg ^ojTjg ravTTjg is a singular one, bec^ause

♦ Something similar is related of Paul in Act3 xix. 12.

238 Acts V. 24-32.

the expression ^w?) avrrj, agreeably to the analogy of aluv ovToq, might
appear to be employed in opposition to ^(^ri [leXXovaa or aiojviog ; but,
in the first place, such a mode of speaking does not occur in the
language of Scripture, although it is quite common in German and
English, and, in the second place it does not suit the connexion,
which would rather have required ^w?) aldjviog. The forced conjec-
ture has been made that for ^ojrjg we should substitute ddov ; which
indeed removes the difficulties, but for want of critical authorities
it cannot be admitted. It is common to regard the expression as a
hypallage for prjuara ravra T?ig ^cjTJg, these words of life, but Winer
[Grammar, p. 519] supposes that the phrase might be better under-
stood thus : " words of the salvation, in proclaiming which the
apostles were just engaged." But this idea is harsh here, because
there has been no mention at all previously made of the proclama-
tion of the gospel. Meyer prefers to understand it thus : " the
words of this life, that is, of the life present to your thoughts and
to your interest," but neither is this simple or plain. Perhaps it is
best, as the hypallage of the pronoun is doubtful, to explain the
words on the principle that reference is made to the fact that it is
the angel, a being from heaven, who is speaking. In this view the
sense will be : " the words of this heavenly life, of which I speak to
you." — Ver. 21, Vepovaia means " council, assembly of the elders :"
it is not found elsewhere in the New Testament. This council of
elders is here distinguished from the Sanhedrim ; it must denote
experienced men, who in particular cases were associated with that
body in their deliberations. In the Apocrypha the word denotes the
Sanhedrim itself Compare 2 Mace. i. 10, iv. 44.)

Ver. 24^28. — Freed from imprisonment, the apostles imme-
diately resumed preaching in the temple, which they only left when
brought away by the astonished officers to be placed before the
court. (The word kpevg, in ver. 24, is remarkable on account of
dpxtEpeig which follows ; and hence may be explained the omission
of it in A.B.D. and other authorities. Without doubt, however, it
is genuine, because it is inexplicable how it could be inserted, 'legevg
is here used absolutely for the high priest, while d^x'-^P^''-^ denotes
the members of the Sanhedrim. — Yer. 28 napayyeXta occurs again in
Acts xvi. 24 ; 1 Thess. iv. 2 ; 1 Tim. i. 5. In connexion with rra-
'payyeXXeLv, however, it is only to be found here, and this addition
as usual gives force to the thought. The chiding words of the San-
hedrim, contain the peculiar expression : fiovXeoOe enayayelv t-0' rmag
TO alfxa. These words doubtless express, not only the apprehen-
sion that the people may hold them guilty of the death of a right-
eous man, but also the consciousness of guilt itself)

Vers. 29-32. — Peter first of all reminded them of his former
public declaration (iv. 19), that we must obey God rather than men ;

Acts V. 32-37. 239

and then lie again proclaims to them that Jesus, who had been put
to death by the Sanhedrim, was raised from the dead, and exalted
to the right hand of God. At the same time, however, he shews
that there was pardon even for their sins in the Saviour.

(Aiaxeipt^eoOat, " to kill, murder," occurs again in chap. xxvi. 27.
KpEfidaOai inl ^vXov = ysn hv nVp, the usual expression in Hebrew
for crucifixion. 'Apx^yog rFig ^w?/?" occurred in chap. iii. 15 : we
need not here, with Kuinoel, suppose the signification to be dif
ferent, because a^yxqyoq stands alone. The leading idea implied
in it is, that the Redeemer goes before men, and prepares the
way for them. In the first passage the ^w?/ is only stated definitely
as the object, which here is not named. The most important idea
in these verses is that embodied in dovvai iierdvoLav^ give reiJeni-
ance, in verse 31. We have already, in Luke xxiv. 47, found re-
pentance in conjunction with remission, appearing as the object of
the preaching of the Gospel. Here, however, there is a more pre-
cise intimation given in the word " give" [Sovvai] that repentance
{jierdvoia] is not a thing which can be produced by the will of
man, but must be effected by grace. To all Pelagian modes of con-
ception therefore, this passage stands in most decided opposition.
Yer. 32. — Their testimony to the events described, the apostles
conceive as borne and supported by the Holy Ghost, whose in-
fluences they at the same time presuppose in the hearts of their
hearers.)

Vers. 33-35. — The wild hatred of the rest, which this discourse
of Peter had excited, was opposed by the wise Gamaliel alone, and
he guided them back to reason.* (Amrrpiw occurs again in chap. vii.
64 : it denotes properly " to saw through or in pieces," then " to
gnash with the teeth, to grow furious," TafiaXt/jX hvi->h)zi, [Numb. i.
10 ; ii. 20] was the instructor of the Apostle Paul. [Acts xxii. 3.]
According to the Talmud, he was the son of one Rabbi Simeon, and
grandson to the celebrated Rabbi Hillel ; and on account of his
piety and rabbinical learning, he had acquired much fame, and
at the time of Christ was president of the Sanhedrim, [Comp.
Lightfoot on this passage, and Comm. on Matth. xxvi. 3.] The
expression tfw ttoluv^ which occurs nowhere else in the New Tes-
tament, bears in verse 34 the signification " to put forth, remove."
It is found also in the best profane authors, e. g., in Xenoph. Cyrop,
iv. 1, 3.)

Vers. 36, 37. — Gamaliel strikes into a historical path, for the
purpose of leading the Sanhedrim to a temperate view of the new

* Respecting Gamaliel and the character of Jewish learning, compare the discussion
of Tholuck in the Studien, 1835, Part ii., on the life and character of the Apostle Paul,
page 367, etc. According to the tradition of the church (Recognit. Clem. i. 65. Phot
bibl, cod, 171), ho was a Christian secretly.

240 Acts V. 36, 37.

phenomenon, wliicli was presenting itself to their eyes. He reminds
them of Theudas and Judas Galilasus,* who both represented them-
selves as the Messiah, but were soon unmasked as deceivers, and he
predicts a similar speedy destruction to Christianity also, if no higher
power were at work in it. First, as to Theudas, Josephus informs
us (Ant. XX. 5, 1) of a rebel of this name, who appeared under the
Proconsul Cuspius Fadus, declared himself to be a prophet, and
promised to the multitude whom he had collected together, that he
would divide the Jordan before them, and lead them through it.
But Eoman troopers scattered the multitude, and killed Theudas.
We naturally at first think of this man ; but he lived under Claudius
Cassar, and therefore much later than the time when Gamaliel ut-
tered this speech. Many interpreters have supposed, that Luke
here gives the speech of Gamaliel freely, and that he falls into an
anachronism, by making him mention a man who appeared a-t a
much later period. If we consider that Luke could hardly possess
such accurate information of the proceedings within the Sanhedrim,
as to be able to give word for word the speech of Gamaliel as it was
spoken, we might feel disposed to conclude that there was such an
oversight committed here. The character of Holy Scripture would
in no respect suffer by this supposition ; but only the literal theory
of inspiration, which must be given up at any rate as opposed to
truth, and as presenting a weak side to the assaults of adversaries.
Infallibility belongs to the Scriptures only in matters of a religious
and moral kind ; in circumstances purely external, it has the full
" fides humana," as much as any other work can deserve it ; but
it is no rule on such points, and therefore not infallible. But
there is one consideration which prevents me from adopting this
opinion as my own ; in verse 37, Judas is expressly placed after
Theudas (juerd tovtov dvioTT] ^\ov6ar), and according to the above
supposition, Luke must have committed a double oversight : in the
first place, he has let Gamaliel name a man who lived after him :
and in the second place, he has put Judas, who appeared under
Augustus, after Theudas who lived under Claudius. That Luke
should have committed the latter mistake, is in fact altogether
improbable, because such false prophets and false Christs must
have strongly attracted the notice of all believers who lived along
with them ; and the time therefore of their appearance we must
regard as universally known among their contemporaries. I decide
therefore in favour of the other view, which supposes an earlier
Theudas under Augustus, of whom Josephus has made no men-

* Comp. on chap. v. 36, 3T, the ample discussion of Dr. Kuhn, in the kath. ZeitschrifL
Jahrb. fur Theol. und Christl, Philos. Von Kuhn, Staudenmaier and others. Frankf. a.
M. 1834. YoL i. Part i. Also Tholuck iiber die Glaubwurdigkeit der evang. Gesch. p.
388. etc.

Acts V. 38, 39. 241

tion.* And this is quite consistent with the circumstance, that
according to the statement of Luke, the whole number of his fol-
lowers was so insignificant that it only amounted to four hundred.

(Respecting the phrase, At-ywv elvat nva tavrov, in verse 36, com-
pare the parallel passage in chap. viii. 9, where the same is used in
full of Simon Magus, with the addition of fteyav to kavrov Aeywv.
Some codices have added jtft'yav here too, but critical authorities are
wanting to prove its genuineness, and it is not even necessary as a
supplement. — The phrase elvai nva forms a contrast with the phrase
that follows, yiveaOai elg ov6ev. — Instead of npoaeicoXXijdTjj there are
found in manuscripts the readings 'rrpoaeKXidj], ■npoaeicX'qdi], TTQoaersdT],
The first of these three, the reading TrgoaeKXidr], has the most critical
authorities in its favour, and perhaps, as being the more unusual
expression, it is to be preferred to the common reading, — AtaXvo)^
" to unloose," here applied to the band of rebels, " to scatter," ==
StaaKopnl^o) in ver. 37.)

The second false prophet was Judas Galilseus, who, as has already
been mentioned, appeared in the days of Caesar Augustus. On the
occasion of the census under the Proconsul Quirinus (comp. Comm.
on Luke ii. 1), this Judas (Josephus Ant. xviii. i. 1) raised a dis-
turbance, and declared that it was not at all allowable to the Jews,
as the people of Grod, to pay taxes to the heathen Romans. Jose-
phus, though not with entire propriety, considers the followers of
this man, wliom we must regard as political fanatics, as the fourth
Jewish sect. The followers of Judas actually maintained their po-
sition till the great Jewish war under Titus.

Vers. 38, 39. — By referring to these rebels, Gamaliel made way
for the declaration, that God's poAver displays itself in shaping
historical events, and that without his will nothing can acquire en-
during stability. Now, with respect to the idea embodied in this
celebrated judgment of Gamaliel, we should of course greatly err, if
we conceived it to mean that man should allow everything to proceed
in its own way, on the ground that that only can secure success
which is accompanied with the blessing of God ; for, according
to this view, it would be necessary to leave untouched every

* Olshause'n seems here very needlessly to go out of his way, to make the statement
that Luke might fall into a mistake, while after all it appears he is convinced there was
no mistake. It is a very large promise which Christ gives to his disciples that he
would send the Spirit, who should bring all things to their remembrance, and guide
them into all truth. Certainly these words of our Lord do not suggest the idea, that it
was in some respects only they were to be infallibly guided, while in others they were
to be left to the risk of mistake. But how, we arc asked, was Luke to know what Ga-
maliel said in the Sanhedrim ? Doubtless, ho gathered it from some sure source, for he
tells us that he investigated every point with accuracy and care (dKpt.Sug). But in what-
ever way ho might learn this and a hundred other things he describes, our security restg
not upon his diligence, but upon the fact that he enjoyed the direction of the Uoly Ghost.
Like the holy men of an earlier age, he spake as he was moved by the Holy Ghost. — Te.

Vol. III.— 16

242 Acts V. 40-42; YI. 1-7.

germinating form of evil. The words of Gamaliel can only
claim to be reckoned wise, if we suppose that he regarded Chris-
tianity neither as a thing manifestly to be rejected, nor yet to
be entirely approved : he knew not what to think of this new phe-
nomenon ; and therefore he left the explanation of it to time, which
could not fail to develope fully its true character. Had he recog-
nized it as decidedly to be reprobated, he would have felt con-
strained to crush it ; had he recognized it as decidedly good, he
would have been obliged to acknowledge it openly as such. It
might be said indeed, that Gamaliel ought rather to have investi-
gated what the nature of Christianity was, than to wait for the
development of it ; but undoubtedly he had instituted researches,''
though without being able to come to a decision. Yet this must
not be made a ground of reproach against him, for the old man
probably Avas no longer sufficiently plastic to be transplanted into
the new elemert of the gospel life, and perhaps it was rather his
destination, like the Baptist, to be perfected in the Old Testament
life. (OEo^dxoc occurs in no other part of the New Testament.)

Yers. 40-42. — In consequence of Gamaliel's advice, the Sanhe-
drim dismissed the apostles again ; and they continued with joy to
preach the gospel. (Yer. 40. — On the beating of the apostles
comp. Luke xxiii. 16. Yer. 41. — With respect to the joy that was
felt under the suffering of persecutions, comp. the remarks on Matth.
V. 10. Yer. 42. — The expression Kar' oIkov stands opposed to iv rio
lepojj and denotes the private meetings which the apostles held in
various parts of the city. Comp. chap. ii. 46.)

§ 7. History of Stephen.

(Acts Yi. 1 — viii. 1.)

Yers. 1-7. — With respect to the first division of this paragraph
(vi. 1-7), it might be supposed that the evangelist's design in it
was to communicate information regarding the public regulations
of the church at Jerusalem. But a closer consideration of the con-
nexion of the passage with what follows renders this supposition
quite improbable, If this were the author's design, we should

* I entirely agree with Neander (Apost. Zeitalter Th. i. s. 5G, etc.) in my view of the
state of Gamaliel's mind. It is not to be supposed that this Jewish scholar was secretly
attached to the gospel : on the contrary he was honoured to the end of his life as a model
of Pharisaic piety. But as a Pharisee, he was moderate and well-intentioned ; and be
may therefore, upon the whole, have received an impression of the character of tno
apostles, which gave him the conviction that these men aimed at nothing decidedly
objectionable. He prevented, therefore, violent means of suppression, and rather left to
the cause its free course, supposing it would probably soon come to nothing of its own
accord.

Acts VI. 1-7. 243

andoubtedly be informed, not only respecting the deacons, but also
respecting the presbyters and their election : nay in this case the
narrative even of the choice of the deacons must have proceeded
quite differently from what it has done ; because the seven that
are mentioned, as will be more clearly shewn immediately, could
not be the only deacons of the church at Jerusalem. The whole
complexion of this narrative makes it nearly certain, that it could
only be designed for an introduction to the history of Stephen :
Luke wished to inform his readers briefly of the occasion on which
this celebrated martyr received an office in the church, and thus
to introduce him as a distinguished member of the body.

With respect to the position of the seven individuals who were
chosen, there can be no doubt that they are to be regarded as
deacons.* We are led to this conclusion not only by the expressions
dtuKovla KaOrjixepcvT] in ver. 1, and diafcoveXv rgaTri^atg in ver. 2, but
also particularly by primitive exegetical tradition. The ancient
church did not venture, in consequence of the number here specified,
to go beyond seven deacons in any church. In the third centuiy
there were in Rome, along with forty presbyters, not more than
seven deacons. (Compare Euseb. H. E, vi. 43.) Certain however
though it be that those newly-chosen individuals are to be regarded
as deacons, it is equally certain that they could not be the first nor
the only deacons. For the service of the church, even at an earlier
period, must have required persons to manage the funds, to take
charge of the sick, and to attend at the love-feasts. At the first
these were chosen from amongst the Jews of Palestine ; but when
the Greek Jews complained of the neglect of their poor, it is prob-
able that the church proceeded to the election of these seven men
from amongst the Hellenists, for they all bear Greek names. Now
if the poor of the Jews of Palestine had been committed to the care
of these men, the same complaint might readily have been repeated
on the other side. Undoubtedly, therefore, there were more than
these seven deacons instated in office in the ancient church of Jerusa-
lem. (Compare Moshemii Comm, p. 118, etc.) That there were also
presbyters appointed from the earliest date in the church of Jeru-
salem, is rendered probable by the very mention of the veojreQot in
chap. V. 6 ; and besides, they are expressly named in the passages
xl 30, XV. 2.f The ecclesiastical duties to be performed, especially

* Some learned men have been disposed to regard as presbyters the individuals
whose election is described in this passage : so the celebrated Canonist J. H. Bohmer (in
his diss. jur. eccL ant. diss. vii. p. 373, etc.) But this view does not at all admit of being
properly established, and ought decidedly to bo rejected.

f Neander (A post. Zeitalt. page 40. etc.) supposes that the deacons were first appointed,
and that until their election all the members of the church at Jerusalem stood upon a
level, so that the apostles themselves were the only rulers and guides. During the first
I or months this may have been the state of matters. But if we consider how rapidly

244 Acts VI. 1-7.

baptizing and the internal government of the church, rendered the
speedy appointment of presbyters absolutely necessary. The proper
work of teaching (diaicovia rov Xojov) the apostles appear at first to
have reserved entirely to themselves. (Compare ver. 4.) It is cer-
tain, however, that from amongst the number of the presbyters, no
bishop had as yet assumed the rule, because the college of apostles
retained the prime direction of affairs. It was when the apostles
left Jerusalem that the need was first felt of unity ; and from that
time James, the brother of the Lord, governed the church as bishop.
(Euseb. H. E. II., 28.)

With respect to the particulars of this section, the indefinite
expression " in those days" (tv Talgrjuepaig TavTaig)^ does not permit
us to fix precisely the chronology of the event. Still, however, it
must be placed in the earliest times of the church, and accordingly
the fact is undeniable, that at a very early period differences dis-
played themselves in the Christian community. The pure ideal
conception of the apostolic church cannot stand before these and
similar facts, which we shall have to consider in the sequel ; but
they prove by no means prejudicial to a temperate estimate of the
life displayed in it. Never can the earthly fellowship of believers
be without blemishes, partly because it always comprehends indi-
vidual unworthy members, partly because even in the best the sin-
ful principle is not yet entirely extinguished ; but never was the
life of faith more purely and powerfully exhibited than in the
apostolic age. And particularly as to the contest before us, it was
really but an emulation of love : each party would have their own
poor taken care of in the best possible manner : we are not to sup-
pose there was any deceitful overreaching of either party by the
otber.

The two contending parties, mentioned in this passage, are the
Hebrews {'E[3paXot) and the Hellenists ('EAA?/warai). By the former
expression we are undoubtedly to understand the Jews of Palestine
who spoke Hebrew, and by the latter the Jews who spoke Greek,
and who had come to Jerusalem from abroad.* The only point

the church increased, how much the time of the apostles was occupied by transactions
with magistrates, by imprisonment, and the like, it will appear, I think, more probable
that very soon men with the gifts of teaching were appointed by them as presbyters, and
persons with powers of management chosen for deacons. (Compare at Rom. xii. 4.) If
we only give up the idea, that Luke designs here to inform us expressly of the election of
the deacons, and if we suppose instead that the whole narrative is just intended as an in-
troduction to the history of Stephen, then there is nothing which can be advanced against
this supposition. Now, that it is not Luke's primary object here to make formal commu-
nications respecting the nature of ecclesiastical offices, plainly appears, in the first place,
from the conciseness of the whole account, and in the second place, particularly from the
circumstance that he says not a word of the presbyters, although they come before us in
chap. xi. 30, and xv. 2, as office-bearers already .appointed in the church.

* The word 'EX7i7]via-al never has the same signification in the New Testament as

Acts VI. 1-7. 245

about which there can be any uncertainty, is whether the 'EXXr^vioTai
include proselytes or not. But since (verse 5) there is one proselyte
to be found among the seven deacons who were chosen, there is no
doubt that this class is included ; and indeed it is difficult to ima-
gine that the proselytes who went over to Christianity should be
kept back in any way, or separated from the rest. It was language
only which established a distinction between the Hebrews and the
Hellenists ; and all proselytes on the very ground of their language
belonged to the latter class.

Again, as to the subject of the contest, the Hellenists affirm that
their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. This pas-
sage confirms the view we have already expressed at chap. iv. 32,
that it was only the poor and the destitute who could be supported
out of the common fund : the widows are here put by synecdoche
for all poor and needy persons. And the expression " daily minis-
tration" {Sianovla Kadfjftegivifj leads to the conclusion, that the assist-
ance was not given in money, but in food, which is also confirmed
by the phrase " serving tables" (6iaicove7.v TQairt^aig) in verse 2. It
is probable that in various parts of the city, in the places of meeting
belonging to the church, there were apartments for eating prepared,
in which the poor were fed free of expense. And thus we see ap-
pearing at the very origin of the church, the charitable feeling,
which is so peculiar to the gospel, and which has produced so many
institutions in the church. (The adjective liaOrjixepivog, formed firom
Had' t'lutpav^ is found in the New Testament only here.)

The matter in question was laid by the apostles before the whole
body. Here accordingly we find the democratical element prevail-
ing in the church ; but it gradually passed through the aristocratical
into the monarchical.* This transition was by no means merely a
result of priestly ambition (though certainly at a later period that
passion was often enough displayed in the church) but a necessary
consequence of the course of events in the church as a whole. So
long, for example, as the Christian spirit continued to display itself
vigorously in the church, the public voice might well be consulted ;
but when this spirit afterwards disappeared, it would have been
ruinous to the church if the plurality of voices had been allowed to
decide. A glance at the rudeness of the masses iji the middle ages
may convince us of the necessity of their being guided by those

''ETiXjjvec;, Greeks, who were not proselytes. In chap. xi. 20, 'EAA7?vcf is the right
reading.

* It must not be overlooked that the multitude here certainly exercise the right of
election, and yet the apostles retain the right of ratifying the choice (oi)f KaTaaTj/aofiev,
verse 3). But, according to the pastoral epistles, the bishops appear to have possessed
the appointment of office-bearers ; there is no trace in them of an election by the church.
Among the Gentile churches, which were often but little confirmed in the faith, it might
be early found by the apostles that a general election was impracticable.

246 Acts VI. 8-10.

above them. Even in the latter part of the apostolic age, as is
plain from the pastoral epistles, the democratic element appears to
have lost ground in the church, and the predominating influence in
the management of affairs proceeds from the body of the teachers.
Finally, the great number of believers, without doubt, made sev-
eral places of meeting necessary for them, in which the assemblies
might be conducted by individual apostles.

In ver. 3, oocpia, wisdom, is taken in the more restricted sense, as
prudence in outward affairs : it is not to be conceived, however, as
a natural talent, but as a gift of the Spirit, for Paul enumerates
the diaicoviaL among the Charismata, 1 Cor. xii. 5. The word %p£fo,
" want, need," is also used synonymously with Xeirovpyia, " office,
employment ;" on the principle that every employment presup-
poses some need. So also in profane authors, e. g., Polyb. vi. 12,
viii. 22.

Ver. 5. — Of the seven deacons that were chosen, Stephen and
Philip (chap, viii.) only are known, Nicolaus has been falsely sup-
posed to be the founder of the sect of the Nicolaitanes : on this
subject see more at Kev, ii. 6. — Ver. 6. Although it was the church
that made the choice, yet the apostles had the right of confirmation
and consecration, as being endowed with the gifts of the Holy
Ghost. The form of consecration was the imposition of hands
with prayer. The x^f'P^^^^'-"', i^'^; '^?^.'':j is a usage found even
in the Old Testament in Gen. xlviii. 14, Numb, xxvii. 18, and which
also occurs in the New, as in Matth. xix. 13, Mark vi. 5. It was
a standing ordinance in the church for the communication of
the Holy Ghost (Acts viii. 17), and for the consecration of office-
bearers (1 Tim. iv. 14 ; 2 Tim. i. 6). The idea embraced in the
laying on of hands was doubtless no other than this, that by means
of it there was effected a communication of the Spirit from the in-
dividual consecrating to the one ordained. It is further expressly
stated in verse 7, that among the increasing number of believers
there were many priests even to be found. They belonged probably
to the sect of the Pharisees, who were far more likely to be subdued
by the power of the truth than the sensual Sadducees. The Essenes
had no priests.

Vers. 8-10. — ^fter the account of the election of Stephen along
with the six other deacons, the narrative proceeds immediately to a
more particular statement respecting him. First of all, it is men-
tioned of hini that he wrought miracles. In him accordingly we
see this gift already removed one step further from its source, for
Christ bestowed it upon the apostles, and they upon Stephen.
Later traces of the gift of healing are to be found even in the second
and third century of the church (compare Justin Martyr, apol. i. p.
45 ; Iren. adv. hser. ii. 56 ; Orig. cent. Cels. vii. p. 334); but the

Acts VI. 11-15. 247

farther we recede from the apostolic age, the more do these very
striking exhibitions of the power of the Spirit become lost to our
view. (Regarding the particular Charismata, see details at 1 Cor.
xii.) Of the Jews, who were connected with the foreign syna-
gogues existing in Jerusalem (compare Comm. on Matth. iv. 23),
several now fell into disputation with the zealous Stephen ; but he
overpowered them all.

It is remarkable that the Libertini are mentioned along with the
names of nations, and that they had a separate synagogue. Per-
haps freedmen (and beyond all doubt, as the name indicates, Roman
freedmen, not Palestinian, as Lightfoot supposed, for the institute
of freedmen was entirely of a Roman character) built the syna-
gogue, and from this circumstance it derived its name ; yet we need
not suppose that freedmen only were connected with it, any more
than that the other synagogues numbered among their members
only men of Alexandria or Cyrene, They had their names either
from their founders, or from the preponderating class of people who
were connected with them. Valckenaer's conjecture of Aif3vaTcv(ov
is very attractive, but wants all critical authority. The supposition
of a city named Libertum is not sufficiently confirmed to permit us
to think of Jews from it. Sickler, in his Ancient Geography, re-
cognizes no city of this name.

Vers. 11-15. — The success of Stephen's ministry raised up a
keen opposition to him. His enemies accused him before the San-
hedrim as a blasphemer of Grod and of the law. And just as in
the case of the accusation brought against the Lord himself (comp.
Comm. on Matth. xxvi. 60, etc.), so here likewise it is said, that
false witnesses appeared against him. These give testimony that
Stephen said, Jesus would destroy the Temple, and change the Jew-
ish manners and customs. In this the Jews, according to their
ideas, might find a blasphemy against the Temple and against
Moses, who had founded and regulated its services, but not any
blasphemy against Grod.* It may be said that indirectly there is
blasphemy against Grod, inasmuch as Moses arranged his religious
institutions by a Divine command ; but that is not sufficient, for it
is only on account of this circumstance that a word against Mosea
could be regarded as blasphemy at all : if he were not viewed as a
messenger sent from God, then no reproachful word uttered against
him would be different from the reproaches thrown upon any other
man. The blasphemies against God (p^ji^ara (iXdocprma elg Oeuv) must
therefore still have some special reference ; and that without doubt
is no other than that which was formed in his assertion of the Di-
vine dignity of Christ. (Comp. Comm. on Matth. xxvi. 65.) But

* la the Talmudic tract styled Sanhedrim (chap. vii. 4) it is said: Lap^latorprofana-
tor Sabbathi, magus et qui ad apostasiam impellit.

248 Acts VI. 11-15.

here again the question presents itself, as at Matth. xxvi. 60, how
these witnesses can be named false (juaprvpe^ ipevdd^)^ when in fact
Stephen did teach Christ's Divine dignity, and declared that God
dwells not in temples made with hands (chap. vii. 48), which con-
tains an indirect intimation that the Temple at Jerusalem might be
dispensed with ? One would expect, not that the witnesses should
be accused of falsehood, but rather the Sanhedrim of a deficiency
in discernment, which prevented them from perceiving that the
ideas promulgated by Stephen did not at all contradict the true
sense of the Old Testament, and consequently the Divine will.
This difficulty, however, will be solved, if here again we supj^ose that
the Jews, with a disposition of mind that regarded things merely
in their outward and material aspects, did not rightly comprehend
the thoughts of Stephen, but took a distorted view of them. What
he had represented as a consequence of the operation of the Spirit
of Chiist, whose design it was to consecrate the world as a great
temple of God, and to guide religion from externals to the heart :
that the Jews conceived as a purpose to be accomplished by vio-
lence ; and thus they ascribe to him the destruction of the Temple,
and the abolition of Jewish usages, things which he had never at-
tempted. Stephen, in fact, blames the Jews that they had not
kept the law of Moses (vii. 53), while, if he had been aiming at
the positive abolition of it, they would have been acting exactly ac-
cording to his wish. The New Testament, therefore, does not
abolish the Old in a violent manner, but only in the way of organic
development, that is, in such a manner, that the eternal and per-
manent substance of the Old Testament is preserved, and passes
over into the New Testament life itself. The Holy Scriptures
testify against all revolution, whether in political or ecclesiastical
affairs ; they, on the contrar}', recommend the gradual remodelling
of what is old, in accordance with the necessities of the times.
The fact, however, that this relation of the gospel to the external
aspect of the Old Covenant, which was thus placed as a hedge be-
tween Gentiles and Jews, came into question in connexion with the
person of Stephen, and not in connexion with one of the twelve
apostles, undoubtedly had its ground, as Baur (in a holiday pro-
gramme of tlie University of Tubingen, of the year 1829), and
Neander (Apos. Zeitalt., page 60, etc.), rightly remark, in the course
of culture through which Stephen had passed. As a Hellenist, he
had undoubtedly from the very first entertained freer notions of the
Old Testament, than was possible for a Jew of Palestine ; and
therefore the Spirit might more readily bring into his view that
aspect of Christianity, by which it was to draw the whole heathen
world within the circle of the higher life, an object that necessarily
presupposes the dissolution of that bond and centre of opiniou

Acts VII. 1-3. 249

formed by the Temple at Jerusalem. Eightly, therefore, may Ste-
phen be styled the forerunner of Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles.
Oat of his blood grew this powerful preacher of the heathen world,
and the echo of the words heard from Stei)hen may have been to
Paul, after his conversion, a leading means of drawing out his min-
istry in the direction of the heathen world.

(Ver. 11. — 'T7To(3d?iXcj occurs nowhere else in the New Testament :
it means primarily " to lay under, to push under," then like the
Latin subornare, " to contrive, instigate, abet," and therefore viroi^Xr]-
TOf is a secret accuser. Josep. Arch. vii. 8, 4. Ver. 13. BXdacprjiia
is undoubtedly spurious : it is merely an interpolation from verse 11.
Ver. 15. The words dxyei nQoau-nov dyytXov describe the glory that
brightened the features of Stephen, supported as he was by the con-
sciousness of the Divine favour. Similar is the expression in 2 Sam.

Xiv. 17, n^MH -,D, dT;'>.Nn ^NVas.)

Chap. vii. 1-3. — The speech of Stephen which follows, exhibits
both in its general structiu-e and in its particular parts, much that
is striking and difficult.* First of all, the address does not seem
strictly appropriate in its general relation to the position of Ste-
phen. It makes only an incidental reference to the charges that
were brought against him (verses 48, 49), and the rest of the dis-
course embraces nothing but a review of the history of the Jewish
nation till the time of Solomon. But this peculiar character un-
questionably imprints upon it the seal of genuineness, for no one
certainly would have thought of framing a discourse of this kind for
the circumstances in which Stephen was placed. Moreover, as there
were many priests, according to chap. vi. 7, connected with the
church, the question can occasion no difficulty, how the speech de-
livered before the Sanhedrim ' could become known. In order to
explain the peculiar character of this discourse, many interpreters
have supposed, that the narrative it gives of the fortunes of the
Jewish people embraces a concealed parrying of all the charges
which had been brought against Stephen. But this view leads to
forced interpretations, as for example, that the history of Abraham
was intended to intimate that there were pious men even before the
building of the Temple, and that accordingly it cannot be service
in the visible temple which alone is acceptable to God. So Grotius.
The simplest view is, that Stephen's reason for narrating the history
of the Old Testament so much in detail, is just to shew the Jews
that he believes it, and thus to induce them, through love of their
national history, to listen with calm attention. For, although the

* Comp. in Heinrichs' Commentary, the sixth and seventh excursus, which refer to
this speech of Stephen. Further, the treatise of Luger (Lubeck 1838) respecting this
au5Course, and the remarks of Lange in the Studien 183G, Part iii. page 725, etc. Above
all, Baur's programme de orationis a Stephano habitae consilio. Tubing. 1829.

250 Acts VII. 1-3.

nature of the history itself waS fitted to make it a mirror to the
hearers, and particularly to bring before their minds the circum-
stance, that the Jewish people in all stages of their progress, and of
Divine revelation, had resisted the Spirit of God, and that conse-
quently it was not astonishing they should now again shew them-
selves disobedient ;* yet it does not appear to me that this object
was definitely kept in view in the discourse, and that for the following
reasons : First, because in this case the mode of exhibiting the history
of the people of Israel would have been different. Stephen would
have brought out the contrast far more decidedly, and would have
paid less attention to secondary points than he has done. And fur-
ther, the Jews would not have listened so quietly, if they had
noticed any trace of such a design. We should therefore be obliged
to suppose that the speech of Stephen had failed of its object, inas-
much as the Jews did not at all perceive that it inflicted any
censure upon them.

Again, it is a characteristic of this address, that it -"ontains so
many references to the Eabbinical tradition, of which traces are also
exhibited in the translation of the LXX., which is frequently fol-
lowed by Stephen.f Eeference has already been made in an earlier
part of the Commentary (at Luke iv. IS) to those deviations of the
LXX. which are received by the New Testament writers ; and I
have remarked that they are by no means at once to be rejected.

* Even Baur, in the treatise already quoted, regards this as the main tliought of the
discourse : Quo amphora fuerint Dei beneficia, eo alieuiorem a Dea se gessisse populum.
But if this really stood before the mind of Stephen as a definite purpose, while he was
speaking, then it will be difQcult to give any reason for the fulness with which accessory
points are handled, which admit of no reference to this main thought. We shall be
obliged therefore to suppose, at the least, that there are other objects besides this, as for
example, to shew that lie is well acquainted with sacred history, that he believes it, and
that he holds it in high honour. Such detailed references to the points of charge against
Stephen, as Meyer and Luger suppose to be in this speech, I cannot find in it, and I re-
gard the effort to make them apparent as quite calculated to mislead. Luger supposes
that, according to my representation, the design of Stephen's discourse was not answered,
inasmucli as the Jews after all did not listen to him when he came to the main point.
In so far as the Jews interrupted him, the failure certainly is a fact; but on every other
explanation, the martyr's speech appears equally in this sense to have miscarried, and in
particular according to the view brought forward by Luger, that his object is to parry
the individual charges, it certainly failed, for the Jews after all killed him. It did not
fail however, in so far as Stephen obtained ample opportunity of declaring his fnith in
the word of God and making it plain to every lover of truth that he was innocent.

\ This reference to traditional elements in the discourse of Stephen • is particularly
striking in this respect, that his whole tendency of mind, more free as being a Hellenist,
does not lead us to expect the like. This circumstance has never, amid the numerous
investigations to which the remarkable speech of Stephen has been subjected, been
sufficiently considered, nor anywhere satisfactorily explained. In any case it obliges us
to suppose that Stephen, though a Hellenist, had yet received a thorough rabbinical edu-
cation, without, however, having allowed himself to become a prey to the narrow-hearted
spirit of Pharisaism.

Acts VII. 1-3. 251

And with respect to these references to tradition, they render it in
fact very probable, that ancient genuine elements were preserved
traditionally among the Jews, which received their higher confirma-
tion by admission into the New Testament. If we consider the
general prevalence of oral tradition among all ancient nations, and
particularly the stationary posture of things which was common
among the Jews, such a descent of genuine traditionary elements
through a succession of centuries will lose the astonishing character
which it seems to have.

The speech commences with Abraham, the ancestor of the Jew-
ish nation, and the first appearance of God with which he was fa-
voured. In the very first verses, however, the historical statement
does not appear to be purely connected with the original sources,
for there is no mention made in Genesis of any appearance of God
before the departure from Ur. The words which are here (ver. 3)
quoted as spoken before the residence in Haran, were spoken, ac-
cording to Gen. xii. 1, during the appearance with which Abraham
was favoured in Haran. It has been attempted to remove the force
of this circumstance by the remark that, according to tradition, the
departure from Ur likewise took place at the command of God. (It
is probable that this opinion was formed in consequence of the pas-
sages in Gen. xv. 7 ; Neh. ix. 7. Compare Philo de Abrah. p. 11,
12. Vol. ii. edit. Mangey. Joseph. Arch. i. 7, 1.) However, the words
of the quotation always appear to stand in the way of this view ;
they are to be found literally, according to the LXX., in the pas-
sage Gen. xii. 1. (But the LXX. has, in accordance with the He-
brew, the additional words, koI tn rov oIkov rov irarpog gov. The
words adi Sevpo are wanting in the Cod. Alex.) Even if therefore,
we chose to refer to that tradition, still we must confess that the
words contained in ver. 3 appear to be transferred from a later
appearance of God to an earlier one. For the supposition of
Luger, that, according to the narrative of Genesis, the theophany
recorded in Gen. xii. 1, did not take place in Haran at all, but
in Ur, the accounts in the eleventh chapter being anticipated
simply for the purpose of completing the external history of Abra-
ham, before the author begins to communicate the spiritual (as if
the external history of Abraham did not continue to be recorded
even after the 12th chapter), is, on account of the connexion between
xi. 31 and xii. 4, quite untenable. It is only the notice of Terah's
death that is anticipated (xi. 32); in other points the narrative ad-
vances regularly forward.

Another difficulty, that Haran (i^h, Xappdv Kdppat, Carrae) is
really situated in Mesopotamia itself, while Abraham here seems to
have departed out of Mesopotamia to go to Haran, is more easily
disposed of. Ur, which Genesis transfers to Chaldea (xi. 31), is

252 Acts VII. 4, 5.

itself, in a somewliat wider sense, a city of Mesopotamia, because
the Chaldeans inhabited the north of Mesopotamia. (Compare
Winer's Keallex. page 253, etc.) There might, therefore, even
before the arrival of Abraham in Haran, be mention made of his
residence in Mesopotamia.

Vers. 4, 5. — In the account of Abraham's migration from Haran
to Canaan, there likewise appears an inconsistency with the narra-
tive in Genesis. It is alleged here that the migration followed after
the death of Terah, the father of Abraham ; but according to Gen-
esis xi. 32, Terah reached the ag3 of 205 years, and therefore he
lived for sixty years after the period in question, for he was 70
years old when he begat* Abraham, and Abraham was 75 when he
removed to Canaan. By altering the number 205 into 145, the in-
consistency would indeed be removed, but that is plainly too violent
a measure ; the only method which is here of any avail, and which
is therefore followed by Michaelis and Kuinoel, is to summon tra-
dition to our aid. And in fact, among the traditions of the Jews,
the opinion has arisen, that Abraham (because the opposite appeared
like a violation of the fourth (fifth) commandment) first left Haran
after the death of his father. But as the book of Genesis ex-
pressly places the literal death of Terah later, they understood the
former death spiritually of his apostacy to idolatry, which obliged
Abraham to leave him.f This view appears to have been followed
here by Stephen., and such indications of his Rabbinical learning
may have been peculiarly attractive to his hearers.^ (Compare
Philo de migrat. Abrah, p. 463, and Lightfoot on this passage.) In
verse 5 the faith of Abraham is commended, who, although no part
of Canaan was yet actually in his possession, and although he had
no children, believed that the land was bestowed upon him and his
posterity. (In ovic t6G)Ke ovtc = ovnoj [compare John vii. 8] ; on his
first arrival, God in fact had not given him anything which he
could call his own in the land. B/]fia nodoc = H.j~*n5 i^ Deut. ii. 5.
Kardaxecjig occurs again in verse 45 as the rendering of the Hebrew
s^Vta, wnx. Compare Gen. xvii. 8, Numb, xxxii. 5, in the LXX.
version.)

* "We may indeed understand den. xi. 26 to mean that Terah was seventy years old
when he began to have children, and we may suppose that Abraham was not the oldest
of his family: but this will not suffice to fill up sixty years.

\ That Terah was odious among the Rabbins as an idolater (Jos. xxiv. 2) is shewn
too by other traditions. Thus it is related that Abraham had broken down the idols of
his father, and was therefore delivered by him to Nimrod. And Kimrod threw Abraham
into a fiery furnace, from which however he escaped without injury. Compare Lightfoot
on this passage.

^ Other explanations, like that of Bengel in the Gnomon : " Abram, dum Thara vixit
in Haran, domum quodammodo paternam habuit in Haran, in terra Canaan duntaxat
peregrinum agens; mortuo autem patre, plane in terra Canaan domum unice habera
coepit," must bo rejected as forced.

Acts VII. 6-16. 253

Vers. 6, 7.— The words of the promise itself are now quoted
agreeably to the passage in Gen. xv. 13 ; but Stephen, or rather
the translator of the speech, which undoubtedly was delivered in
Hebrew, does not follow the LXX. closely. The deviations, how-
ever, have no effect upon the thoughts, excepting that the last
words of verse 7, koI XarpevaovaL \iol iv tw tottw toutoj, are entirely
wanting in the passage in Genesis ; they have probably been taken
from Exod. iii. 12, and blended with the former passage into one
whole. According to Exod. xii . 40, the bondage really lasted 430,
but here the round number merely is given as in Gen. xv. 13.
Respecting the difficulty that springs from the statement in Gal.
iii. 17, compare the remarks on that passage. Ka/cdw occurs likewise
in chapters xii. 1, xviii. 10, and in 1 Pet. iii. 13, in the signification
of " persecuting, maltreating."

Vers. 8-12. — In what follows, the history is pursued further ;
and particularly Joseph's fortunes are treated in detail. It is very
probable that in this detail there floated before the mind of Stephen
a typical relation of the history of Joseph to the Redeemer. (In the
phrase koI tSoKev avrCt 6tadi]Kr]v Trepnofxri^, there is to be seen a blend-
ing of two thoughts : fully expressed, the clause must run : tMwteev
avrCi Trepirofujv, TTJg 6iadt]Kr]g or]jj.eXov. It is not admissible to under-
stand SiaOiJKTj directly in the signification of " command, ordinance."
For ovT(.)g some codices have the easier reading ovrog, but this has
certainly resulted from a correction of the unusual use of ovrcog. We
are not to suppose an interchange of ovrojg and ovrog [compare Winer's
Grammar, page 434], and therefore it only remains that we under-
stand ovTCjg here as a particle of transition in the sense of our words
" then, so," as it occurred in common language. Compare Passow's
Lexicon under this word. In the New Testament, it is similarly
used in Acts xvii. 33, xxviii. 14. — The twelve sons of Jacob are
styled ■naxQcdpxO''', as the heads of the twelve tribes or Trarpcai.
Compare ii. 29. — Koprdonara denotes properly the fodder of cattle ;
but it is here used generally in the wider sense of " means of sub-
sistence.")

Vers. 13-16. — In the statement of the number of Jacob's family
that went down to Egypt, another difference presents itself, for only
seventy persons are mentioned in Gen. xlvi. 27 ; Exod. i. 5 ; Deut.
X. 22 ; but here seventy-five. As the Septuagint likewise mentions
seventy-five souls in the passages referred to, we cannot well say
that Stephen only meant to state a round number, but rather that
he must have followed this version ; and proba.bly the Seventy, or
the tradition which is preserved in their version, included the chil-
dren of Ephraim and Manasseh, and so made up the number, which
in this case, of course, does not so much specify the number of those
that went down, as the number of all the posterity of Jacob.

254 Acts VII. 17-22.

Other difficulties are presented in verse 16, according to whicli
all the patriarchs were buried in Sychem, which Abraham bought
from the sons of Emmor. But, according to Gen. xxxiii. 19, Jacob
bought this field (it was the cave of Machpelah in Hebron that
Abraham bought), and Jacob, moreover, according to Gen. 1. 13,
was buried in Abraham's sepulchre in Hebron : of the other patri-
archs there is nothing mentioned in Genesis, with respect to the
place of their interment. Joseph, however, was buried, according
to Gen. 1. 25, in Sychem, and the other sons of Jacob likewise, ac-
cording to tradition. Yet there is another tradition, which says
they were buried with Abraham in Hebron (Joseph. Arch. ii. 8, 2),
and such a twofold account might readily arise, as Genesis presented
nothing decisive either in favour of the one or the other. In the
passage before us, therefore, ol narepeg rjiiiov may be regarded as
supplying the subject to [lETSTedTjaav^ and thus the one difficulty is
solved. For the removal of the other it has been conjectured that
instead of 'APgadfi we should read 'Iokw/S, or that Abraham's name
should be thrown out, and GjvTJaaro taken impersonally ; but the
manuscripts do not support these conjectures ; and nothing there-
fore remains, unless Ave are disposed to use violent measures, but to
confess that here Abraham I'-as been put for Jacob by the speaker
or by the narrator, a confession which, according to my view of the
relation of the spirit to the letter, is not in the smallest degree
dangerous.*

Vers. 17-19. — In these verses the speech passes on to the history
of Moses, which is treated very fully in what follows. The quota-
tion in verse 18 is taken from Exod. i. 8. The expression " knew
not" (ovK -(jdec) is not to be understood of ignorance properly speak-
ing, but rather of a want of regard for the merits of Joseph. Kara-
oocfiL^eaOc!. is found nov.^here else in the New Testament. It is
borrowed from Exod. i. 10 ; and conformably to the Hebrew c^nnn ;
it denotes " to circumvent or mislead in a crafty manner," " dolose
agere." Zwoyovnadai means primarily to be born alive, and then to
be preserved in life, (Comp. Comm. on Luke xvii. 33.)

Vers. 20-22. — Down to verse 44, the history of Moses is now
related very fully. In these first verses, the remark (ver. 22) that
Moses was instructed in the wisdom of the Egyptians, contains
another reference to Jewish tradition, for Genesis mentions nothing
of the kind. As Moses was brought up in the palace of, Pharaoh, it
was very natural to suppose that he was instructed in the sciences
and arts of Egypt. But certainly, in making this supposition, the
ancients were far from the notion of modern infidelity, that it was
the training he received in Egypt which put him in the condition of

* The same thing is said by Calvin also on this passage : in nomine Abrahae erratum
esse palam est, quare hie locus corrijjendus est.

Acts YII. 23-32. 255

becoming the founder of the political and religious life of the Israel-
ites. All the education of the Egyptians was in the hands of the
priests ; and if their influence therefore had determined the inward
life of Moses, he would necessarily have spread their idolatry among
the Jews, and yet he abolished at once all the traces of it that had
crept in among them. Just as little, therefore as Paul became an
apostle, in consequence of his G-recian education in Tarsus, did
Moses become the great founder of religion, in consequence of the
•wisdom he had learned in Egypt. And yet God might employ the
outward education which Moses had received in Egypt, so as to
make him impart it, under the hallowing influence of the Divine
Spirit that filled him, in an improved shape to the Jews.

(The conjecture that in verse 20, the reading should be doTelog
T^ 0/(finstead of darelog rw 0£c5 is quite unnecessary ; for t<3 Gew is
to be understood like npn^ •'.rsV in Gen. x. 9. In verse 22, the
expression, Swarbg tv Xoyocg is remarkable, for Moses we know had
no gift of eloquence. Nor can the expression be applied to the
eloquence of Moses in writing ; but it admits very well of being
applied to the spiritual power, which fitted him for filling men's
minds with enthusiasm in favour of his convictions. All true elo-
quence, in fact, rests pre-eminently upQn the power of the soul to
win the hearts of men.)

Vers. 23-29. — Eespecting the age of Moses, when he went among
his people, there is nothing determined in the Holy Scriptures :
here too Stephen follows tradition,* which however was not uniform,
for there are other passages which represent him as having been
twenty years old at the time. The slaughter of the Egyptian,
Stephen appears (verse 25) to understand generally as a type of the
office of Moses to protect and to help, for he declares that Moses
hoped his brethren would discover his true character from this
action. Of this there is nothing contained in the statements of the
Pentateuch ; the thought appears to be a reflection of Stephen's
upon the circumstances of Moses ; for there are no traditional ele-
ments that bear upon this passage, at least there is nothing upon
the point in our remains of Kabbinical literature. (The expression,
dvf(3r] tnl Kopdtav is formed upon the model of the Hebrew, :^)>. V? rrVy.
Respecting it comp. 1 Cor. ii. 9. — In verse 26, the Septungint has
7/jut-pa 6ev~epa instead of tTiiovaij. — IweXavveiv is used in the signifi-
cation of " admonishing urgently," " compellere." — Verse 29. Ma-
didn = 1'"^.)

Ver. 30-32. — Of the important occurrence that follows the
exposition belongs to the interpretation of the Pentateuch; but

* In Bereshith Rabba, fol. 115, it is said: Moses in palatio Pharaonis, 40 annos
degit, in Midiane 40 annos, et 40 annos Israeli ministravit. (See Lightfoot on this
passage.)

256 Acts VII. 33-43.

on the subject of the interchange of ayyeXo^ Kvptov and Kvpiog, we
may refer the reader to Steinwender's treatise : Christus Deus in
Vet. Test. Regiom. 1829, p. 6, seq. The words of God are not
accurately repeated : verse 33 should have stood, according to Exod.
iii. 5, 6, before verse 32. (Instead of Trarepwv crov, in verse 32, the
Septuagint has narpog gov, after the Hebrew.)

Vers. 33-36. — In connexion with the words of God, by which he
sends Moses as a messenger to his peoj)le, appears (verses 35, 36)
the first definite allusion to the person of Jesus, on whose account
Stephen stood accused before the Sanhedrim's tribunal. As the
Jews formerly rejected Moses, so now do they reject Jesus ; and yet
God has appointed the one as he did the other to bring them help.
As Moses literally conducted the people out of Egypt throu^ the
Red Sea into the land of promise, so does Christ spiritually guide
through conflict and struggle into the eternal home of heaven.

It is a peculiarity of this passage that in verse 35 Moses bears
the name of AvrpwrT/f, Redeemer. In the Old Testament this word
is used by the Seventy to represent Vkj, but it is only applied to
God (Psalm xviii. 17, Ixxvii. 15) ; in the New Testament it does
not occur elsewhere, the term usually employed to express the idea
being ocjrijp. This, however, is to be regarded as merely accidental,
because all the other words that are formed from Xvrpov are in other
passages applied to Christ. In the case of Moses the epithet Xvrpo)-
rrjg to course bears only an external reference to the deliverance
from Egyptian bondage- but this is to be conceived as a prefiguration
of the redemption from sin, which was accomplished by the Messiah.
('Ev %e<pt corresponds obviously to the Hebrew i^a, and denotes
simply interposition, medium = 6id.)

Vers. 37-40. — Further, we have in regard to Moses his pre-
diction respecting the Messiah, and his intercourse with God^
exhibited to view ; and, in connexion with these points, the unfaith-
fulness of the people, and their apostacy from God. (Respecting
the quotation from Deut. xviii. 18, contained in verse 37, comp.
Comm. on Acts iii. 22. In verse 38 yiveodai, followed by fj-sra, cor-
responds to the Hebrew tv nhvi. — The EKKXrjoia is the collective
body of the Jews who were in the wilderness, between whom and
God, Moses acted as mediator. — On Xoyia ^ojv-a consult Comm. on
John vi. 63 ; 1 Pet. i. 23, And if here the ^w?/, life, is ascribed
to the Mosaic law, this holds of its essential character, which is good
and holy [Rom. vii. 12] ; but in the preceptive form, in which it ap-
pears among men, it has no power to communicate the life. — The
quotation in verse 40 is from Exod. xxxii. 1.)

Vers. 41-43. — The following verses give more precise informa-
tion respecting the idolatry of the Israelites in the wilderness. It
was undoubtedly the Egyptian worship of Apis which led to the for-

Acts VII. 41-43. 257

mation of the golden calf, under which they adored the creative
principle in nature. (The word i-ioaxonoielv was probably first formed
either by Stephen, or if he spoke .before the Sanhedrim in Hebrew,
by the narrator of his speech. It is found nowhere else.) In this
apostacy of the Jews, Stephen rightly discovers a judgment of God,
who punishes sin by sin. Compare Kom. i. 24, etc. But besides
the golden calf the Israelites also practised in the wilderness the
worship of the stars, in reference to which Stephen appeals to a
passage in Amos v. 25, 26, which he quotes exactly according to the
Septuagint, with the exception that in the conclusion Ba(3vXu>vog
stands instead of ^ajmaKov : which variation without doubt results
simply from the fact, that the captivity was better known under
the Dame of the Babylonish.

(^^Tparia rov ovpavov, = d^);'f n xas, Jwst of heaven, denotes the
sun, the moon, and the stars ; inasmuch as these bodies were con-
templated under the idea of heavenly beings. The adoration of the
stars (Sabeanism) formed an integral part of all the ancient systems
of natural religion, because the splendour and magnificence of the
starry sky attracted even the rudest minds, and excited to the wor-
ship of a superior power. — BlfiXog ri^v npocpTjrujv denotes the collec-
tion of the twelve prophets, which it is known were regarded as one
whole.)

The quotation from Amos, however, is not unattended with
difficulty. First of all, the question put with p/, requires undoubt-
edly a negative answer, so that the meaning is " Ye have offered
unto me no sacrifices in the wilderness." But the children of Israel
did ofier sacrifices repeatedly to Jehovah the true God in the wil-
derness ; and therefore the accusation apjjears unfounded. This
difficulty, however, is very easily dispelled by the remark, that we
have here an absolute expression for what is true only relatively,
and the sense accordingly is this, " Ye have served me not alone,
not always." It is an ingenious proposal of Fritzsche (Comm.
on Mark, page 65) to put the mark of interrogation first after the
words TTQooKvvelv avrocg in verse 43 ; for then we escape the whole
difficulty, because Stephen, according to this arrangement, certainly
acknowledges the worship that Avas paid to Jehovah, but finds fault
that it was connected with the worship of idols.

Again, we have here an example to shew that the prophets
themselves recognized ancient traditions. The books of the Penta-
teuch certainly make no mention either of the worship of Moloch,
or of the worship of the stars by the Israelites in the wilderness ;
and Amos, therefore, without doubt, followed in his statements very
ancient traditions. Nothing can be more preposterous than Yatke's
procedure in his biblical theology of the Old Testament, when he
chooses the passage of Amos for a basis upon which to build a new
Vol. III.— 17

258 Acts VII. 44^47.

history of religion, and denies completely the antiquity of the wor-
ship of Jehovah, thus rejecting, on account of this single notice, the
connected accounts of the Pentateuch. With respect to the first
point mentioned, the worship of Moloch, the name (':)V.», t\'r.'^.. ^'^^^^
denotes nothing else than " king, lord," it corresponds therefore to
the name Bel or Baal, which the Canaanitish nations gave to their
idols. Under this name they adored the sun, as the generating
principle ; while the moon, under the tiile of the queen of heaven
(Jerem. vii. 18, xliv. 25), was viewed as the female or conceiving
jjrinciple. (Compare Winer's Reallex under this word.) The oKTjvi]
rov MoAox is to be regarded as a little portable temple, in which the
image of the idol deity (rv-rrog = eMwAov) was set up, and which
could be carried about in travelling. The Kalmucks and other
nomadic tribes have to this day such portable sanctuaries. As to
the second deity that is mentioned, the unknown name 'VeiKpdv is
very differently written in the manuscripts : we find 'Pe0tV, 'Fecpcpd,
'FoiKpd. According to the Coptic, however, the name Remphan, is
the right reading, and it denotes the planet Saturn.'-' The Seventy
have taken this name from the Egyptian dialect, which was familiar
to them, and employed it for the Hebrew i'»3, which stands in the
passage of Amos. In the Arabic the same consonants, only with
different vowels iv^a, likewise denote Saturn, with which too the
statement of Stephen that Remphan is a star (aargov) exactly
agrees ; and thus all indications concur in leading to this point.

Vers. 44-4T. — In the progress of Stephen's speech, there is con-
trasted with the worship which the Israelites, when led away by
temptation, paid to the tabernacle of Moloch, the worship in the
tabernacle of testimony, instituted by God himself under whose
protection and" defence they had been able to take possession of the
holy land of promise. It is obvious that this juxtaposition renders
only the more conspicuous the guilt of that idolatry, from which the
peculiar guidance vouchsafed by God's grace should have guarded
the Jews. (The onrivri rov ixap-vpiov = ly-.-a ^n-x, denotes, it is ob-
vious, the moveable sanctuary which the Israelites used till the time
of Solomon. The Seventy derived it^ from iiy, and therefore
translate it as = r\-if?.. The usual derivation of the word i& from
■ss;;, " to assemble," and thus the phrase signifies the tabernacle of
meeting.) In verse 46, etc., finally, there is a transition to the
charge brought forward at chap. vi. 13, that Stephen had spoken
against the Temple, which receives in what follows a pretty direct
refutation.

* Compare a singular treatise by Jablonski, the great Coptic scholar, upon this name
(Lips. 1731), and in his Pantheon vEgypt prol. p. L. Jablonski, however, certainly errs
in regarding Moloch and Saturn as identical ; the former \yas rather the creative prin-
ciple in nature, and the latter the conservative. The passage before us too, by the juxta-
position of the two idols, indicates their difference.

Acts VII. 48-53. 259

Vers. 48-50. — Without disparaging tbe sanctity of the Temple,
M an image of the heavenly dwelling-place of God, Stephen yet
shews that, according to the words of the prophet himself, no ex-
ternal dwelling-place can contain the eternal ruler of heaven and
earth. By this reference to the prophetic word, he hallows in the
very eyes of his accusers the view of the temple which he had ex-
pressed, and confutes their audacious charge against himself (On
the idea expressed hy the words, 6 vipcorog k. t. A,., comp. the parallel
passage in xvii. 24. The quotation is taken from Isa. Ixvi. 1, 2,
somewhat freely indeed, yet without essential variations. — The ex-
pression vabv x^'^po'^OLrjTov contrasts directly with dxeiQonoLrjTov^ to
which the passage in Acts xvii. 24 points. To the temple of stone
reared hy men stands opposed the universe, as the glorious temple
of the Lord, fashioned by the fingers of Deity ; the former is only a
figure of the latter, and has therefore only a conditional value.)

Vers. 51-53. — There is plainly here an interruption of Stephen
in his speech, as indeed the better editions indicate. The profounder
spirit of prophecy had struck root so little into the people, that the
mention of prophetic declarations respecting the temple was actu-
ally regarded as a violation of the reverence due to it. On behold-
ing the obduracy of his hearers, therefore, Stephen altered the tone
of his discourse : and instead of the gentle manner in which he had
hitherto spoken, he preached now in the fiery language of rebuke.
He declared to his hearers that the same spirit of disobedience and
unfaithfulness, which, according to the testimony of sacred history,
had been displayed by their fathers, bore sway also in them, and
had made them the murderers of the righteous one.

(S/c/lT/porpa^T/zlof is found nowhere else in the New Testament ;
in the translation of the Old Testament it occurs pretty frequently
for the Hebrew ti->-n«;;?. Compare Exod. xxxiii. 3, 5. It expresses
the stubbornness and obstinancy which stand out so prominently to
view in the national character of the Israelites. — The word dneptr-
HTjTog =z hy>,, points to the signification of "unholy, impure," and
the same expression is also in the Old Testament applied to the
heart and the ear, as the internal and external organs of spiritual sus-
ceptibility. Compare Jerem. vi. 10 ; Ezek, xliv. 9. In verse 52,
Jesus is again styled, as in chap. iii. 14, 6 SiKacog, the absolutely
righteous, the perfect one.) Special consideration is due to the
concluding clause of the speech in ver. 53, which declares that the
Jews, though they relied upon the law, and though it had been
given to them with such splendour, yet had not kept it. Without
doubt, Stephen, if he had not been interrupted, would have gone on
to shew, that, with such unfaithfulness, their resistance of the Holy
Ghost who spoke through the apostles was not to be wondered at.
There is something remarkable in the clause here added, ei^ dtarar

260 Acts VII. 54-56.

ydg dyyiXov^ for the Holy Scriptures make no mention of angels
at the giving of the law upon Mount Sinai. Undoubtedly, therefore,
this circumstance must also be traced back to tradition. Traces
of it are to be found even in the Septuagint, which, at the passage
in Deut. xxxiii. 2, adds the words : iic de^icov avrov ayyeXoi ^ler' avrov,
while tlie Hebrew text runs thus : '5sV n^ i-s '.rw-'a, that is, on his
right hand there is the fire of the law for them (or, as in the Eng-
lish version, from his right hand went a fiery law for them), which
probably denotes the Shechinah, the pillar of cloud and the pillar
of fire. Perhaps, however, the Seventy had a different reading
before them, and besides they might very naturally be led to their
translation by the Hebrew words which go before, viz., t^p riha-;\i,
which denote the angelic hosts. The same idea that the giving of
the law took place through angels, is to be found likewise in Psalm
Ixviii. 17, and in Josephus Arch. xv. 5, 3, who, in his recital of the
history of the Israelites, has adopted many traditional elements.
The question, however, still remains, how the words elg diaraydg
ought to be understood. It has been proposed to understand Sia-
rayai of the hosts, the ranks of angels ; in which case the sense
would be : " ye have received the law in the presence of angels."
But the substantive does not occur in this signification, and besides,
the preposition el^ is not suited to it. If we compare the parallel
passages in Gal. iii. 19, and Heb. ii. 2, in which the same idea is ta
be found, then we cannot doubt that dia-ay?] ought here to be
taken in the signification of " appointment, ordination," in which
case elg takes the signification, here quite appropriate, "in con-
sequence of, according to, by." The angels appear therefore here
as the powers mediating between Grod and man.

Vers. 54r-56. — This keen reproof of Stephen, however, did not
bring the hearers to repentance, but only excited their fury to the
highest pitch. "With this raging madness contrasts strikingly the
calm serenity of the martyr, absorbed in contemplation of the Lord.
(On dtarrplu) comp. Comm. on chap. v. 33.) With respect to the
vision of Stephen, we are not to think of any external spectacle, but
of an internal vision in the state of ecstacy. Meyer's remark,
" that Stephen may have been able to see heaven through the win-
dows of the chamber of session," i« therefore, to speak mildly, en-
tirely gratuitous. His countenance beamed with a heavenly glory,
but what he beheld, those who were around him learned only from
his words.

(Ao^a eeoii is to be understood like the Hebrew n;n^ n'lss, and to
be explained of the heavenly splendour which surrounds every .Di-
vine appearance. — Kespecting the opening of the heavens, see the
Comm. on Matth. iii. 17. — The special object, however, of his glr-ri-
ous vision was the person of the Lord ; elsewhere Christ alone ap-

Acts VII. 57-60. 261

plies to himself the name Son of Man {vlbg tov dv0pu)7:ov); but
Stephen here gives it to Jesus for the purpose of making it plain
that he sees him in his human form, in the well-known beloved
form in which he walked upon the earth. There is a peculiarity in
the expression here twice repeated, " standing on the right hand of
God" karibra t/c de^Mv tov Qeov [comp. Comm, on Matth, xxvi. 62-
64], for it is usually sitting at the right hand of God that is spoken
of. But long since Gregory the Great undoubtedly gave the right
explanation of the phrase, in a passage adduced here by Kuinoel.
He says : "sedere judicantis et imperantis est, stare vcro pugnantis
vel adjuvantis. Stephanus stantem videt, quern adjutorem habuit."*
Horn. xix. in festum adscensionis. Compare Knapp. scr. arg. p. 47,
Note.)

Vers. 57-60. — In these words of the martyr the Jews saw an-
other act of blasphemy, and therefore ihey only hastened his death.
As the Komans had taken away from the Jews the power of life
and death (compare at John xviii. 31), the execution of Stephen
must be regarded as a tumultuous act ; at the same time this sup-
position is not without difficulty, because the whole occurrence, ac-
cording to vi. 12, took place before the Sanhedrim. Perhaps the
Sanhedrim, for the purpose of avoiding any collision with the
Koman authorities, pronounced no formal judgment, but connived
at the execution, which was perpetrated by some fanatics. The
witnesses (vi. 13) were required, according to the Jewish custom, to
throw the first stones at the condemned individual, as if to shew
their conviction of his guilt. (The first tXiOo^oXow^ ver. 58, is to be
regarded as anticipating the subsequent more minute narration of
the event.) In the passage before us the circumstance too is worthy
of notice, that we find a prayer expressly addressed to Jesus.
What the Kedeemer said to his heavenly Father : " into thy hands
I commend my spirit," the same thing does Stephen say to Christ,
" receive my spirit" (de^ai to nvevixd fiov). There lies in this a stronger
argument for the doctrine of the Divine dignity of Christ, than in
many other passages wliich are usually adduced as proof-passages
in favour of it, when it is considered with what severity the Old
Testament denounces every ascription of Divine prerogatives to any
being who is not God. The opposers of the diviuity of Christ must
therefore, in consistency, pronounce every prayer to the Lord Jesus
to be idolatry. But Stephen, on the contrary, proceeds quite in ac-
cordance with the command contained in John v. 23 ; and the same
view of it has been taken by the church in all ages. In order,
therefore, to set aside this troublesome passage, it has been proposed
to understand the words Kvpie 'It](jov thus, " God, who art the Father

* That is "silling marks the judge, and the ruler; slanding, the combatant and aux-
iliary. Stephei saw him standing in his character of defender." — [K.

262 Acts VIII. 1-4.

and Lord of Jesus !" an explanation which is sufficiently charac-
teristic, and deserves to be known.

Here Paul comes before us for the first time as a furious perse-
cutor of the church of God : the murder of Stephen he regards as
a deed pleasing to God. The word veavlag, young man, affords only
an approximate determination of his age, because it is applied to
persons between the ages of twenty-four and forty. (In the prayer
of Stephen that his enemies might be forgiven, in ver. 60, the phrase
[iTj oTTJaxig deserves to be noticed. It is used in the sense of " retri-
buere," as in Matth. xxvi. 15, agreeably to the Hebrew usage of ^^a?,
to weigh, to weigh for one. In its complete shape the expression
stands thus, iordvai ev ^'vyw, to place upon the balance. Compare
Schleusner's Lexicon on the LXX., under the word Iottjui. Herodo-
tus ii. 65 uses loTdvat oradiM in the same manner.

§ 8. Spread of the Gospel Beyond Jerusalem.

(Acts viii. 1-40.)

Vers. 1-4. — Thus now the blood of the first martyr of the church
was shed ; but even here there was exhibited a proof of the truth
of Tertulhan's declaration : " sanguis martyrum semen Christian-
orum." The dispersion of the Christians from Jerusalem had the
effect of spreading the Gospel through the neighbouring regions.
Only J udea and Samaria are immediately named, because it is pro-
bable that Galilee had churches from the beginning, for many friends
of Christ lived there (compare ix. 31) ; but there can be no doubt
that Christianity spread itself at this period through Phoenicia also
and Cyprus and Antioch. See chap. xi. 19, 20. The apostles (viii.
1), however, considered it their duty for some time at first to abide
in the central point of the church.

With respect to the arrangement of the first verses of this chap-
ter, the 2d and the 3d ought properly to stand at the beginning,
because they are immediately connected with the death of Stephen.
The concluding words too of the foregoing paragraph : lavXog de 7]v
GvvevdoKu)v ry dvaipKOEL avrov, with which the sentence t-yh>ero dt
K. T. A. stands connected, do not appear to fit well their place in
the arrangement. The supposition of a process of abridgment,
applied to the sources of information lying before the author, fur-
nishes the best explanation of the present state of the text. — ^(On
ovyKajjii^eiVj in verse 2, compare the parallel passages in v. 6, 9, It). —
KoTTETog, from KonreaOaij "to smite oneself in token of soitow," de-
notes lamentation for the dead, compare Gen. 1. 10. — The dvdpeg
evXaPeXg, devont men, who buried the corpse of the martyr, are not

Acts VIII. 5-11. 263

to "be viewed as believers, but as pious Jews who regarded Stephen
as innocent : believers would have been styled brethren. — Avfiai-
vo[iai is only found here in the New Testament ; it is = TropOt-w,
which Paul himself, in Gal. i. 13, applies to his persecutions of the
church.)

Vers. 5-8. -Luke does not proceed to give us comprehensive ac-
counts of the missionary labours of the Christians wlio had fled from
Jerusalem : he only communicates some particulars respecting the
ministry of another of the seven deacons, viz., Philip : he gives an
account first of his preaching in Samaria, and next of the conver-
sion of the chamberlain of Queen Candace. As to the question
who this Philip was, it would seem that ho was not the apostle of
this name, for the apostles had not yet left Jerusalem, and besides,
in viii. 14, he is expressly distinguished from them. Probably ho
was Philip the deacon, vi. 5, who also appears in chap. xxi. 8 as
" the Evangelist, being one of the seven" (evayyeAiCTxr)^, wv t« tcjv
k-To). The city of Samaria, in which Philip first preached the gos-
pel, is not named : perhaps it was Sychem, where, according to
John iv., Clirist had already found so much acceptance. ■•■' In general,
Samaria with its inhabitants appears to have been very much dis-
posed to receive Divine things ; but, at the same time also, very
accessible to the misleading influence of false teachers. The re-
moteness of the district may have guarded the inhabitants from that
corruption into which the inhabitants of Judea had to a great
extent fallen ; and thus there might be preserved actively among
them the simple faith in a restorer of all things, viz., the Mes-
siah, whom they styled arc-n or =-pn. Compare Gesenius progr.
de theol. Samarit. a. 1822. Philip too paved for himself an entrance
into their minds, by deeds of striking external aspect, which both
turned the eyes of men upon him, and proved him to be the mes-
senger of God to their souls.

Vers. 9-11. — In Samaria Philip now came in contact with a man
named Simon, who belonged to that numerous class of religious
deceivers (yorj-al), by whom the various countries were overrun in
the days of the apostles. This Simon is no other than the one who
is distinguished in church history by the surname of Magus. Ac-
cording to the account of Justin Martyr, he was a native of Gitton
in Samaria (Just apol. p. 69, ed Sylb.), which agrees well with the
circumstance, that here he is represented as pursuing his practices

* Kuinoel understands the words «/f ntj?,iv tFjc ^afiapeiar, in ver. 5, to refer to the
capital city itselij which bore the same name as the country ; but in this case the article
should have been prefixed to 7z6?uv. Tiie 14th ver. on which the critic in question relies,
because he supposes the whole land had not yet received the gospel, is only to bo under-
stood of a very wide diffusion of the truth. That Samaria means hero the land and not
the city, is clearly shewn by the 9th verse, where, if the opposite were the case, avr^f
would be the reading, as iT6?ug has preceded.

264 Acts VIII. 9-11.

among the Samaritans. The accounts given by Josephus (Arch.
XX. 7, 2) of a similar individual of the same name, who at the
instigation of Felix (xxiv. 24) lent himself to the seduction of
Drusilla from her husband, are not applicable to Simon Magus,*
For the former, as Josephus relates, was a Cyprian by birth, the
latter, according to Justin, was a Samaritan ; but it seems alto-
gether unreasonable to doubt the correctness of Justin's narrative,
as he had every opportunity of knowing the native country of
Simon, being himself a Samaritan of Sychem, and he could have
no possible interest in misrepresenting the truth. Besides, Felix
lived too late to allow us to suppose that Simon Magus could still be
actively engaged in those regions where he was Procurator ; for Simon
appears to have early left the East, and to have betaken himself to
Kome, the rendezvous of all deceivers of this kind.

The ancient Fathers of the church consider Simon Magus as the
Father of the Gnostics, nay, of all heretics. This view is certainly
wrong, inasmuch as we cannot trace the doctrines of the later false
teachers directly from Simon ; but there is this amount of truth in
the idea, that in Simon we first behold the heretical element pene-
trate into the church, and it is this that constitutes the peculiar
interest of the occurrence that follows. The essence of heresy, ac-
cording to the proper Christian sense of the word, as it is defined
in the pastoral letters and catholic epistles, is not merely error in
matters of faith, which might find place in many an upright be-
lieving mind in the earliest times of the Christian church simply
from a want of thorough mental training, but the intermixture
of Christian ideas and doctrines with a totally foreign element.
This intermixture we first find in Simon Magus" : he was indeed
overcome by the power of the Christian principle, but he did not enter
with sincerity into it. His conduct externally was not so gross as
that of Ananias ; the ideas of the Gospel moved him mightily, and
the powers which it displayed threw him into astonishment ; but as
Ananias could not let go his gold, so Simon could not prevail upon
himself to give up his spiritual possession, viz,, his dominion over
the souls of men : but he mingled with his circle of notions the
Christian ideas, and, as it were, drew down the Christian element into
that sphere of life, in which he himself continued. This mode of
procedure couid not but neutralize the whole purpose of Christianity,
whose power was designed to establish a new principle of associa-
tion among men, and to draw all to it ; measures were therefore

* Yet Neander declares himself inclined to the supposition of the identity of the two.
(Compare Zeitalt. part i. page 80.) Let it be considered, however, how many such sorce-
rers there were at that time in all the provinces of the Roman empire, and how common
the name of Simon was among the Jews ; and we must admit, without hesitation, that
the two men were different, particularly as the minuter circumstances, which are com-
municated by equally unsuspected witnesses, vary so much from one another.

Acts VIII. 9-11. 265

necessar}' against such heretical systems, severe in proportion to the
ruinous character of the deceptive a]ppearance, which they acquired
from the Christian ideas admitted into them. At first it is probable
Simon Magus had no formal system : he was merely one of that
numerous class of men, who, under the equivalent names of Chaldtei,
matheniatici, yoj]Tal, f-idyot, ensnared the minds of men with delusive
practices, and might also state some particular philosophical specula-
tions respecting angels and the world of spirits, or at the least, pre-
tended an acquaintance with them. It was Christianity, with its
fulness of ideas, which first gave an impulse to systematic develop-
ment. Whether Simon Magus, with the help of infernal powers,
may have performed real wonders, or only imposed upon men, is
a question which cannot be definitely settled, since the text of the
narrative before us gives no decision upon the point. At all events
he had sufficient audacity to represent himself as a superior and
heavenly being. The conflict which arose between this man and
the Gospel, gives an uncommonly vivid picture of the proceedings
of that age of excitement, which witnessed the promulgation of
Christianity. The longing everywhere awakened after something
higher, led them to attach themselves to all who affirmed that
they bad been favoured with glimpses of the spiritual world : every
one of these persons pretender* to have the power of working signs
and wonders ; and thus they beguiled the minds of men still more.
Through this mass of superstition, through the labyrinth of this
wild endeavour, Christianity could penetrate only by means of
a fullness of spiritual power which might destroy all those phan-
toms and illusive systems that were endeavouring to copy it.
The miracles performed by the messengers of God, and the power
of the Gospel to transform the heart and mind, excited not only
the astonishment of the multitude, but also of the sorcerers
themselves, who perceived here the genuine power of God, to
which they only pretended. An example of this we behold in
Simon : he bowed before the power of the cross, and was baptized;
but his corruption was a barrier to his reception of the Holy Ghost,
and therefore he blended with his own unsanctified feelings the
heavenly ideas which he had learned, and became a more danger-
ous adversary of the church, than either Jews or Gentiles were or
could be.

As from ndyog (on this word see at Matth. ii. 1) [xayevco and
y.ayeia were formed, so from yo-qg came the forms yorjTevco and
yorj-eta. Both words are found in the New Testament only here.
As Simon's own declaration respecting himself, we find first ad-
duced merely the words "saying that he was some great one"
(Atywv elvai iavrov /leyav); but this expression is more narrowly de-
fined by the words employed to describe the opinion of the people

266 Acts VIII. 12, 13.

respecting him, " saying this is the Great power of God" {Xiyovreg
ovTog iariv i] dvvancg tov Qeov t] KaXoviiKvr} fieydXr]), which can only be
regarded as the echo of what the sorcerer had boastfully given out
respecting himself. Now, in the first place, this vain ostentation
forms a glaring contrast with the humility of the apost'es, who,
although really filled with the powers of the heavenly world, yet
most sharply reprehended all undue estimation of their own persons ;
they desired to be regarded as nothing but weak instruments, and
their illustrious works were designed to glorify not themselves, but
only the eternal God and his Son Jesus Christ. Again we find in
the expression " the great power of God" {dvvafxtg rov Qeov tj ixeydXTJ),
precisely the mode of speaking which was adopted afterwards by the
Gnostics. Heinrichs supposes that the Samaritans had only by
some misunderstanding applied this name to Simon, that he may
only in reality have said " God's great power works this and that
by me," and that they have imagined he meant to give himself
this name. But this is by no means in accordance with the spirit
of those sorcerers. They supposed, like the Gnostics, a multitude
of Divine dwdfieig who had emanated from the eternal first principle
of light, and that one of these elevated beings styled ^ons, now
appeared among men in the person of Simon. Jerome mentions
(Comm. on Matth. ch. rxiv.) that Simon said of himself : ego sum
sermo Dei, ego sum speciosus, ego paracletus, ego omnipotens, ego
omnia Dei. Now, although this declaration refers doubtless to the
views of Simon after he was acquainted with Christianity, yet it
points out of what the man was capable ; and if he ventured, at a
later period, to arrogate to himself all the prerogatives of Christ, in
acknowledgment of whom he had submitted to baptism, it is surely
not at all improbable that before this he had persuaded himself that
he had brought down the powers of the angelic world to the earth.
And the magnitude of his pretensions, as often happens, imposed
upon men to such a degree that they resigned themselves entirely
to his influence, from which nothing but the higher power of the
gospel, vanquishing all the wiles of the sorcerer, could extricate
them.

Vers. 12, 13. — Without external miraculous signs, it would have
been altogether impossible for the heralds of the gospel to gain the
attention of men engrossed with what struck the senses, to their
doctrine of the crucified Son of God, and their preaching of repent-
ance and faith ; but the mighty works which they performed,
brought to them all susceptible hearts, and proved the exciting
means of faith. Even Simon was astonished when he saw the mir-
acles of Philip, which had nothing of the deceitful appearance of
his tricks, but, on the contrary, bore the impress of real miracles of
God, and he had himself baptized. Some may be disposed to regard

Acts VIII. 14^17. 26T

this as an act of deceit on the part of the sorcerer, and they may
think Philip should rather not have baptized him, in order not to
aggravate his guilt. But it is far more probable that the request
for baptism really indicated a temporary improvement in the life of
Simon : he was overcome at the moment by the heavenly power of
the truth, and he surrendered himself to it for a time, and to a cer-
tain degree. Yet it was only to a certain degree ! He allowed not
the light to penetrate into the concealed depths of his heart ; there
was no thorough humiliation of the man. And therefore it naturally
happened that he soon attempted to apply Christianity itself, as a
more efficacious instrument, to the same purposes for which he had
hitherto emyloyed his arts of sorcery.

Vers. 14-17. — The occasion for this attempt was furnished to
Simon by the journey of some of the apostles to Samaria. This
journey took its rise in the circumstance, that the Samaritans who
believed, although they were baptized by Philip, yet had not received
the Holy Ghost through him : to impart the Spirit, the apostles
now hastened to the new churches. This information contains
something very remarkable, for one naturally inquires, why did not
Philip himself communicate the Holy Ghost, of which he was assur-
edly a partaker ? That he had the Holy Ghost is shewn, partly by
the miracles which he performed in the power of the Spirit, and
partly by such passages as chap. viii. 29, 39. Kuinoel attempts to
set aside all that seems surprising in this, by the observation that
the apostles really had in view the further instruction of those who
were baptized on the simple confession of Jesus as the Messiah, and
that then along with this instruction the communication of the
Holy Ghost was first to take place. He appeals on this point to
Hebrews vi. 2, in which passage baptism appears to be followed by in-
struction, and then by the laying on of hands. But this learned man
has himself, in his exposition of the epistle to the Hebrews, which has
just appeared, rectified this mistake. In the passage referred to, vi.
2, the phrase, Parmonuv didaxi'ig is not to be separated in translating,
as if mention were first made of baptism and then of instruction ;
but the two words are to be taken together, and (ia-nnoixCJv regarded
as the genitive of the object. We must therefore go back to what
has been already remarked at John iv^ 2. As the Eedeemer did not
himself baptize, but only caused it to be done by his disciples, so
also the apostles, after the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, did not
themselves baptize, but left the rite to be performed by their asso-
ciates.'' (Compare Comm. on Acts x. 48, and 1 Cor. i. 14, etc.)

* The manner in which this practice was transmitted to the church in after times,
may be seen in Binghaini origg. vol. L page 319, iii. SiS. The custom which still pro-
vails in the Catholic church, of confining confirmation, as a symbol of the communicatiou
of the Spirit, to the episcopal office, is to be traced up to the fact bifore ua.

268 Acts VIII. 18-23.

The ground of this arrangement was probably, first, that in the ear-
liest times of the church, when thousands connected themselves
with it at the same time, the act of baptizing so many would have
encroached too much upon the time of the apostles ; and again, the
Holy Ghost wrought, as it were, with more concentrated power in
the Twelve than in other believers, and therefore the laying on of
hands, as the means of imparting the Spirit, was confined to them
alone. When the act of baptism thus appeared dissociated from
the communication of the Spirit, it then acquired a position similar
to what infant baptism obtained at a later period, from which it
may be concluded that in the latter there can be nothing opposed
to the spirit of Christianity. Finally, how variously baptism stood
related to the communication of the Spirit in the apostolic age, may
be seen from chap. x. 44, etc., where we find that the Holy Ghost
was imparted to Cornelius and his household even before they were
baptized. It cannot, therefore, be said that the restriction of the
power of imparting the Holy Ghost to the apostles was founded
upon any intrinsic necessity : it was rather a practice peculiar to
that time. After their death, when, it is true, the intensity of the
Spirit's operations had already greatly diminished, others communi-
cated the gift of the Spirit by the laying on of hands ; and even at
a later period, when the extraordinary phenomenon which at first
accompanied the communication of the Spirit had entirely disap-
peared, the laying on of hands was efficacious in imparting powers
of the Spirit that wrought inwardly. (Verse 16. On the expres-
sion BaTTTi^eiv elg 6vo[ia 'Irjoov, compare the remarks at Matth.
xxviii. 19.)

Verse 18-23. — When Simon perceived the extraordinary effects
of the laying on of the apostles' hands, in the gifts which were ex-
hibited, particularly the speaking with tongues, he attempted to
procure fur himself with money the power of communicating the
Spirit, an attempt upon which the brand of infamy, as is known to
all, was afterwards fixed in the church, when the name of simony
was given to every purchase of spiritual dignities. It is a character-
istic feature of Simon that he not only wished to obtain the Spirit
himself, but also to purchase the power of communicating the gift
to others. Hence we plainly perceive that spiritual ambition, the
secret source of the efforts of all founders of sects, animated him ;
the power which he desired, he believed would furnish him with the
means of still further imposing upon men.* Yet, although Peter

* Striving after the noblest gifts, after the Spirit himself after virtue and perfection,
is pleasing to the Lord only when it proceeds from an humble heart, which does not
wish to make a show with his gifts, and to rule, but to serve. Nay, a self-willed striving
after powers from on high, with a sordid purpose in view, is an abomination to the Lord,
and, as the history of all enthusiasts shews, it brings the greater ruin upon themselvea
and the church.

Acts VIII. 18-23. 269

rebulves him With the utmost severity on account of this proposal,
he does not by any means cast him off entirely, but rather calls upon
him to repent, and to pray for the forgiveness of his sins. Now,
here the mildness of the apostle apppears as surprising as the sever-
ity shewn in the case of Ananias. We have already noticed the
fact at chap. v. 1, that Simon had not yet experienced in himself
the power of the Holy Ghost ; and sordid therefore as he was, it
might still be said of him that he knew not what he was doing.
The circumstance that he had made a trade of religion, was the
cause why he had never received it in its heart-changing power, but
only prized it according to the amount of show which it was capable
of making. Peter might appear to him a greater conjuror than he
supposed himself to be, and it was his hope that he might procure
from him, for a good recompense, the art of acquiring control over
the powerful principles which govern the universe. His susceptibil-
ity, however, of spiritual impressions, similar to what we find in the
Old Testament in the case of Balaam, the father of all false proph-
ets, still left room for hoping that the truth would gain the vic-
tory in his heart, and therefore Peter preaches repentance to him.
Ananias, on the other hand, was possessed of a thoroughly sordid
disposition, and this prevented even the attempt being made to
exert any further beneficial influence upon him.

(In ver. 20 the words dvai, elg dncdXeLav are to be understood
neither of ecclesiastical excommunication, to which the expression
is never applied, nor yet of eternal perdition, because this idea
■would be inconsistent with the admonition to repentance which
follows. The expression is rather to be understood only relatively,
as pointing to the result of the course wliich Simon was pursuing,
if no change should take place. — In ver. 21, KXijpog is used agree-
ably to the analogy of the Hebrew word rr^n?. Compare Col. i. 12. —
Aoyog is not to be taken here like "12^1 in the signification of " thing,"
" matter," as if denoting the Holy Ghost, the promised gift of
God : but it means the gospel generally, in whose blessings it
is here denied that Simon has any share. — The phrase Kapdia evOna,
= -ie>n ih^ denotes internal purity of heart. The gospel sets no
value upon the opulence of talents with which a man may have
been endowed, but only upon the disposition of the mind in refer-
ence to the will of God ; it is the upright only to whom God shews
favour. — In verse 22, i-Kivota = 6i.av6i]na, 6i,aXoytan6g, On the con-
nexion of the word with Kapdia, see the Comm. on Luke i. 51.
The idea of an evil thought is not necessarily embraced in the
meaning of inivoia ; it is only by the connexion that this idea is
here associated with the word. In verse 23, elg does not stand for
tv ; but the previous idea of motion is rather to be supplied : " I
see that thou hast fallen into sin, and art now in it." — XoA^ mKpiag,

270 Acts VIII. 24-28.

equivalent to %oA?) mKpd, denotes, according to Hebrew usage, what
brings mischief and ruin, because the ideas of bitterness and poison
run together. Compare Gesenius' Lexicon, under the word rT;'i».
The word ovvdeofiog, " bond, fetter," occurs in Ephes. iv. 3 ; Col.
ii. 19, iii. 14, in a good sense, being applied to love and peace.
Sin is here conceived as a chain, from whose power man needs
to be released. The first half of the verse, ovra elg X^^^V'^, might
be thus understood : " thou hast become bitterness itself," eI^ being
taken agreeably to the analogy of the Hebrew V ; but the second
half requires the meaning of elg indicated above, because it is an
incongruous image to regard the sinner himself as cvvSeanog, a
bond.)

Vers. 24, 25. — The rebuke was not without effect. Simon be-
sought the apostles for their prayers, because he felt that his conduct
could not be pleasing to God. But true humility does not appear
to have called forth this appeal, for the subsequent course of his life
shews that he continued in his evil ways. (The government of
evayyeki^eaOai varies between the dative and the accusative.)

Vers. 26-28. — With this narrative of the progress of the gospel
among the Samaritans, there is connected another, which points to
the diffusion of the doctrine of the cross among the remotest nations.
Withal, too, the simplicity of the chamberlain of Meroe forms a
remarkable contrast with the craft of the magician who has just been
described. The same Philip received an intimation to betake him-"
self to the road leading to Gaza. (Td^a, a very ancient city, is men-
tioned even in Gen. x. 19, and is called in Hebrew my. It was one
of the five principal cities of the Philistines. Alexander the Great
destroyed it, but it was rebuilt by Herod the Great. The additional
clause [avTT) tarlv tprjuog] might indeed be referred not to the city,
but only to the way leading to it ; but Josephus [Bell. Jud. ii. 33]
mentions that a band of insurgents destroyed among^ other places
Gaza also. The word tprjiiog may therefore be properly referiied to
Gaza itself. See Tholuck on the credibility of the Gospel History,
p. 881.)

An officer of Queen Candace, who probably had journeyed to
Jerusalem to a festival, was pursuing this road to Gaza, and he was
reading in his chariot the prophet Isaiah, This latter circumstance
points to the Jewish origin of the man, for proselytes were seldom
acquainted with the Hebrew tongue ;* he is called Ai0toi/', only from
the place of his residence. (Eunuchs proper could not enter into

* The reading of Isaiah is not, indeed, a decisive proof of his Jewish descent, for he
might be reading the Septuagint. But the word nepioxTJ refers probably to the division
into Haphtaroth, which we cannot suppose existing in the Septuagint. Besides, there
were many Jews living in Arabia and Meroe, so that the supposition of his Jewish de-
scent cannot appear improbable.

Acts VIII. 29-33. 271

the congregation of the Lord, Deut. xxiii. 1, and therefore probably
this Ethiopian was only a distinguished officer of his princess, viz.,
her treasurer. The word evvovxog, like o-^^o, is used to denote in
general a high officer of state, a signification which even 6vvdari]g
has here, though it commonly denotes an independent ruler. The
name Ethiopia was employed by the ancients to denote indefinitely
the lands of South Africa, as India was applied to the south of Asia.
But here it is the kingdom of Meroe in IJpper Egypt that is meant,
as we learn from the accounts of Pliny,"* who mentions that it was
governed by queens, who bore the name of Candace as a title of
office.)

It is worthy of notice here that in ver, 26 we find dyyeAo^ nvpioVj
angel of the Lord, but in ver. 29, -rrvevna, spirit. This confirms the
view we have expressed at John i. 52, that by angels we are by no
means always to undei-stand beings appearing as individuals, but
often spiritual powers. Hence also in ver. 26, we are not to suppose
the actual appearance of an angel, but an inward spiritual commu-
nication which was made to Philip. Now here we behold this
disciple surrendering himself with child-like faith to the guidance
accorded from above : he goes not his own way, but the impulses of
the Spirit guide all his steps. Without cavilling he lets himself be-
taken by the Spirit to a desert road : and lo 1 even there he finds
an opportunity of preaching the word.

Vers. 29-33. — Philip heard the Ethiopian reading (either he read
himself aloud, or listened to one that read to him), and began con-
versation with him by asking whether he understood what he read.
With touching simplicity the eunuch acknoAvledges that the sense
eluded him, and he receives Philip as a messenger sent from God
into his chariot, who straightway saw, that it was the celebrated
passage in Is. liii. which he had been reading.

{KoXXdaOaL in ver. 29, corresponds exactly to the Hebrew p?-;;. —
In ver, 31 dpd ye is interrogative, and differs from dpaye, which in-
dicates a conclusion. See at xi. 18. — Ver. 32. tteqiox'^] occurs only
here in the New Testament ; it denotes, as ruTnia, and ^wptov, a sec-
tion in a book.) The verses of Is. liii. 7, 8, are quoted exactly accord-
ing to the Septuagint, even to unimportant deviations; but the
Hebrew text differs from the translation of the Seventy, in verse 8
very considerably. Gesenius renders the original text exactly thus :
" From calamity and judgment he was taken away, and who of his
contemporaries regarded it that he was taken from the land of the liv-
ing." Instead of hsbisis the Seventy appear to have read 'bsck, and nsi

* Plin, Hist. Nat. vi. 35. lie makes mention of Meroe, an island in the Nile, where
the chief city lay, and then continues: "ajdificia oppidi pauca, regnare femiuam Canda-
cem, quod nomen multisjam annis ad reginas transiit; delubrum Hammonis, et ibi reli-
giosum et toto tractu sacella.

272 Acts VIII. 34-38.

thej have understood as referring to the life of the party himself that
is spoken of, and not to his contemporaries. However, this variation
does not at all affect the connexion in which the words are here pre-
sented ; it is a more important question whether Philip rightly ex-
plains the passage, in referring it to the Messiah. For the solution
of this question, it is necessary to view the fifty-third chapter in
connexion with what goes before from the fortieth chapter onwards,
as well as with what comes after. The same servant of the Lord
(n;n^ nay) who is here presented as suffering, is described both be-
fore and afterwards, partly in similar, and partly in different situa-
tions. If we survey therefore the whole scope of the discourse, we
shall understand why doubts should be entertained about referring
the passage to the Messiah, because the servant is often directly
called Israel or Jacob, and is described in the plural, for which
reason either the people of Israel, or distinguished personages
among them, or the whole order of prophets, have been sup-
posed to be meant. Other views, such as those which regard the
prophet Isaiah himself, or king Hezekiah, as the subject of the pas-
sage, are to be altogether dismissed ; but the views first mentioned
do not at all stand in direct contradiction to the Messianic : on the
contrary, the Messiah is the representative of the people, and espe-
cially of the better and enlightened part of them, and the people
again are a type of the Messiah. To him, therefore, in the last
resort, and with the highest emphasis, the whole refers, without
excluding however subordinate references. From this point of
view the whole majestic picture of the second half of Isaiah is
sketched ; and therefore the comprehensive exposition of it must
have a respect to all these different points. (See Umbreit's Ab-
handl. liber den Knecht Gottes. In the Studien, 1828, p. 2, page
295, etc.)

Vers. 34-38. —Nothing hinders us from supposing in this case,
that Philip entered into more detailed explanations than was pos-
sible in preaching to great multitudes, whose wants were very vari-
ous, and answered questions proposed by the stranger. The pas-
sages of Scripture only formed a ground- work for his instructions.
(Vpa<p{], denoting single passages of Scripture, is of frequent occur-
rence : see Mark xv, 28.) And in this way are we to account for
the desire of the chamberlain to be baptized, because Philip, with-
out doubt, had made mention of the institution of baptism by the
Lord. At a later period, however, offence was taken at the precipi-
tation with which the baptism appeared to have been administered,
and therefore an ample clause was added, embracing a kind of confes-
sion of faith of the treasurer. But the different shapes in which this
clause appears are of themselves sufficient to raise doubts of its
genuineness, which are carried to certainty by the agreement of the

Acts VIII. 39, 40. 273

best codices A.C.G. aud others, in omitting it.* It has already been
remarked that baptism ensued upon a single confession of the Mes-
siahship of Jesus, of which the treasurer, whose heart had obviously
been prepared by grace, might readily be convinced.

Vers. 39, 40. — After the discharge of this duty Philip returned,
and came by way of Ashdod to Cassarea, where (Acts xxi. 8) he
dwelt. (The phrase nveviia icvptov "jpnaae, the Spi7'it of the Lord
snatched, does not authorize the supposition of a supernatural re-
moval : dpna^eiv only expresses the idea of speed, and nvsvim that of
suggestion from above. — "A^cjrog, Hebrew Ti"t•^<, Ashdod, like Gaza,
was one of the five cities of the Piiilistines, and lay north of this
city, — KaiCTo'peta, Ccesarea, is here the well known city lying upon
the Mediterranean Sea, which was the seat of the Jewish procura-
tors. It was built by Herod the Great, and named in honour of
Augustus. At an earlier period there stood upon the site of it a
tower, which bore the name of Straton [Joseph., Arch. xiv. 8-11],
and therefore the city was often called Cfesarea Stratonis, in dis-
tinction from Cffisarea Philippi, Matth. xvi. 13 ; Mark viii. 27.)

The Abyssinians, it is known, trace up their conversion, though
erroneously, to the influence of this treasurer, whom tradition names
Indich ; their conversion was first efiected in the fourth century by
Frumentius and ^Edesius. The conversion of the treasurer appears
to have produced no efiects upon the country from which he came,
but to have been limited to his own personal benefit.

* The clause here referred to is the whole of the 3Tth verso. — Tb.
Vol. III.— 18

n.
PART SECOND.

FEOM PAUL'S CONl^RSION TILL HIS SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY.
(Acts ix. 1 — ^xviii. 22.)

§ 1. HiSTOR-X OF THE CONVERSION OF PaUL.
(Acts ix. 1-30.)

The second part of tlie Acts of the Apostles loses to a great ex-
tent the general character which was apparent in the first part :
the work indeed hecomes almost entirely an account of the life of
Paul. Peter, it is true, does not altogether disappear from the nar-
rative, hut the principal communications which are made respect-
ing him, have reference to the great controversy of apostolic times
about the calling of the Gentiles, which must have been peculiarly
interesting to Luke in respect to his general aim, and the specific
purpose of his work. We cannot therefore regard the para-
graphs, from chap. x. 1, to xi, 18, and in chap. xv. 6, etc., as intro-
duced for the sake of Peter, but rather to justify the conduct of
Paul by the authority of another apostle. Yet there are some other
sections, such as chap. ix. 31-43, and xii. 1, etc., which have refer-
ence simply to the Apostle Peter, and discover therefore still a ten-
dency to contemplate other apostles besides Paul, and a gradual
transition of the work into a form completely special. General ob-
servations respecting the condition of the whole church, such as those
we found in the first part, are now altogether wanting. On the
other hand, the powerful character of the Apostle Paul, whose en-
trance into the church imparted, as it were, a new activity to the
Christian life, stands forth so prominently in this second part, that
it engrosses all attention to itself.* The ground of this fact, that
Paul occupies so conspicuous a place in the apostolic church, is to
be sought not alone in the greatness of his intellect, and in his zeal
and faithfulness, but mainly in the circumstance that the Twelve
were primarily destined for the people of Israel, and only turned

* A connected view of the life of Paul is prefixed to the Commentary on the epistles
ofPauL

Acts IX. 1. 275

in part to the Gentiles when the Jews, with obstinate unbelief,
rejected the word of reconciliation, Paul's proper destination, on the
other hand, was to be a messenger to the Gentile world. Although,
therefore, the Twelve were not wanting to the work set before them,
yet their power did not reach so full a development, as we perceive
in the case of Paul.

But it was in a very wonderful manner that the grace of the
Lord made Paul so important an instrument in the church ; for
without any traceable process of transition it converted him at once
from being a persecutor into a most devoted advocate. And thus
Paul, quite irrespectively of the force of his eloquence, proclaimed
at once, by the simple fact of his conversion, the power of Christ,
wliich could not be said equally of those who had followed the Lord
from the beginning. Of the remarkable occurrence itself we possess,
not counting the numerous passing references to it in the letters of
Paul, three detailed accounts ; first the one here given by Luke,
and then two others by Paul himself. (Acts xxii. 1-16, xxvi. 9-
18.) In the former of these two passages, Paul explains, in a public
speech at Jerusalem, the grounds which had led him to become a
believer in Christ. He mentions his birth in Tarsus of Cilicia, his
being reared in Jerusalem, and instructed in the law by Gamaliel ;
and he appeals, in reference to his zeal for the Mosaic institutions
and against the Christians, to the testimony of the high priest and
the whole Sanhedrim. And then follows a detailed account of the
appearance of the Lord. In the other passage, Paul speaks before
King Agrippa and Festus, and describes the occurrence to them
with the same minuteness. The credibility of these accounts is not
a little heightened by the circumstance that they do not literally
agree, but treat the subject with freedom of narration. Along with
exact agreement in essentials, we find therefore unimportant varia-
tions, by which doubts of the credibility of the accounts, involving
the fictitious character of both speeches of Paul, are rendered ex-
ceedingly difficult. Besides, if we consider that his change of views
brought no honour to the Apostle Paul but disgrace, procured for
him no earthly hapj^iness but only sufferings, then every attempt
to exhibit the occurrence as a fraud or a delusion must fiill to the
ground. Further, we cannot suppose a trance in which everything
appeared to the apostle internally,* because the occurrence was wit-
nessed by his attendants ; and therefore there are only two views
of the event left which can possibly be defended : either we are to

* Tho passage in 2 Cor. xjl. 1, etc., in which Paul describes a trance that happened
to him must not at all be taken into account here, as Neander (Apost. Zeitalter, Th. 1, 8.
110, note) ha3 already excellently remarked. For that trance constitutes an exalted mO'
meni in the renovated life of Paul ; but the appearance at Damascus coincides with the
commencement of his new life.

276 Acts IX. 1.

suppose a real appearance of the glorified Eedeemer, or we must
explain the change in the apostle on psychological grounds, which
coincided accidentally with a natural phenomenon in which Paul
supposed he saw an appearance of Christ.

The latter view is defended hy the most recent theologians, Hein-
richs, Rosenmiiller, Kuinoel, Eichhorn (Allgem. Bibl. der bibl. lit.
Bd. 6), Bohme (Henke's Museum, vol. 3), and others. The older
theologians defend the former view ; and the work of an English-
man named Littleton (translated by Hahn, Hanover, 1751), who
was himself converted by the history of Paul's conversion, is par-
ticularly worthy of notice. The older theologians however erred in
this, that they frequently overlooked the importance of those
psychological processes in the mind of Paul, to which later theo-
logians have drawn attention. It is not to be denied that the
mind of a Paul, who persecuted the Christians with an honest pur-
pose, but ignorantly, must have been deeply impressed with the
joyful faith of a Stephen. His knowledge of the Scriptures, too,
could not fail to suggest to him passages which appeared to
confirm the Messiahship of Jesus. In his heart, therefore, there
might be a violent struggle, and he might have to fight against the
truth forcing itself upon his mind, a state which, although not out-
wardly apparent, yet internally would prepare the way for the de-
signs of God in reference to him. We may therefore quite properly
connect the supposition of internal preparations in the apostle, with
the miraculous appearance which Christ made to him.

But on the other hand, modern theologians of any impartiality
must confess, that they do violence to the text when they assert that
these psychological processes, assisted merely by some natural phe-
nomenon, effected the conversion of Paul. Were they to say it can
be conceived possible, that Paul might have been converted by
means of a flash of lightning darting down before him, much
doubtless might be said in favour of this idea : the holy Norbert, it
is well-known, was converted by such an occurrence : but here we
have to do, not with possibilities, but with facts respecting which
we have most precise accounts. The defenders therefore of the
natural view of the occurrence in question, must say that Paul per-
suaded himself he saw the Lord in the flash of lightning, and that
this view of the natural phenomenon was communicated by him to
Luke and to the whole Christian church. In that case the three
accounts that are given could at least be explained without any
subtle refinement. However, no proof is needed to shew how much
this supposition is opposed to sound psychological views. The
Apostle Paul certainly exhibits in his whole conduct, if ever any
person did, the utmost distance from all fanaticism : in the vis-
ionary, feeling and fancy have the unqualified mastery, but this is

Acts IX. 1, 2. 277

80 little the case witli Paul, tliat in him the dialectic element pre-
ponderates, which implies a predominance of the intellect. And
would a man so constituted have been able to imagine that he held
a long conversation with some person, while a flash of lightning
darted near him to the ground ; and that not merely at the first
moment of the occurrence, but many years afterwards ? The thing
is not merely improbable, but altogether unnatural. To this, it
must be added, that if we should suppose Paul deceived himself
once as to his having seen the Lord, then we must suppose this to
have occurred repeatedly with him ; for we find that he declares
himself that he had seen Jesus several times (comp. Acts xviii. 9 ;
xxiii. 11 ; 2 Cor. xii. 9), which manifestly rendere the whole hypothesis
more contradictory still to the character of Paul. We may there-
fore say, without being unjust, that it is nothing but dogmatic views
which have recommended to so many recent theologians the explan-
ation on natural principles : if they had been able to adopt the
biblical doctrine of the glorification of the Lord's body, they would
not have regarded an appearance of the glorified Kedeemer as a
thing so inconceivable. But where it is supposed that, though a
spiritual immortality must be conceded to Christ, yet he laid down
his body again, there certainly a personal appearance of the Lord,
such as is here related, must occasion great difficulties.

Vers. 1, 2. — The commencement of the account of Paul's con-
version plainly looks back to chap. viii. 1-3. Saul was so furious
against the Christians, that he was not satisfied with persecuting in
Jerusalem, but also endeavoured to destroy believers at a distance.
Why he went particularly to Damascus, which lay north from Jeru-
salem beyond the boundaries of Palestine, it is difficult to deter-
mine :* perhaps numbers of the Christians, who fled after the
martyrdom of Stephen, had gone to that quarter, where perhaps
there may have been formed immediately after Pentecost a small
Christian society. (The word if-nzveuv is taken from the image of a
wild raging beast ; it is usually construed with the accusative,
though sometimes also with the genitive. In chap. xxvi. 11, we
find instead of it, tjUjuaivo/tevof.) The passage in xxvi. 10, 11, brings
into view some additional notices respecting the persecutions which
Saul stirred up ; in particular, he mentions there that he had given
consent to the death of numbers of Christians, as well as to the
murder of Stephen ; that is, by his authority as the commissioned
agent of the Sanhedrim, with whose president, the high priest, Paul
stood in direct communication, he had sanctioned these deeds. (The
phrase, Ka-a<f)Epeiv -0^00^, is applied to judicial sufirage : it retains
almost exactly this proper signification, when we view Paul, in

* According to chap, xxvi 12, however, Paul before his journey to Damascus, had
already persecuted the Christiana in other cities.

278 Acts IX. 3, 4.

these persecutions, as representing in a certain measure the author-
ities.) Without any reason, this plain declaration of Paul has heen
doubted, because no other who died in the persecution is named but
Stephen ; and it has been supposed, that using the plural, he only
employed an enallage numeri. But the powerful impression which
the persecution made upon the Christians in Jerusalem, leads
directly to the supposition that Stephen was not the only sufferer in
it ; he only was mentioned, simply because he was the most distin-
guished among those who died. Further, in chap, xxvi. 11, it is
adduced as a peculiar mark of the hatred which burned in the
bosom of Paul against the Christians, that he sought to compel
them to utter blasphemies {flXaa(pT]}idv). It is not indeed expressly
said whom they were to blaspheme, but it is self-evident, that Christ
is the being meant. And this incident certainly presupposes a fear-
ful height of rage in the heart of Paul ; and the conviction after-
wards reached of its great wickedness, explains the deeply humble
feeling which he expresses, whenever after his conversion he makes
mention of his earlier state, and compares it with the compassionate
grace which the Lord had nevertheless poured out upon him. Finally
it is plain from chap, ix, 14, xxii, 5, xxvi. 12, that Paul acted in
these persecutions as the official agent of the authorities. But the
Sanhedrim considered all Jews in all lands as under their jurisdic-
tion, and as Damascus at that time (see Comm. 2 Cor. xi, 32) was
under the government of a prince very favourably disposed to the
Jews, viz,, Aretas, they could easily effect the removal of Christians
from this city to Jerusalem. The Jews, moreover, were so numer-
ous in Damascus, that according to Josephus (Bell. Jud. i. ii, 25),
ten thousand of them perished there in the reign of Nero.

Vers, 3, 4. — In the neighbourhood of Damascus, and according
to tradition, upon a bridge near the city, a brilliant ligho shone
around the apostle, and he heard himself called by his name. The
account of Luke here, as respects both the facts and the speeches,
is shorter than either of the accounts given by Paul himself. But
it admits of no doubt that in both respects the latter, as full ac-
counts, are to be preferred. Luke might readily present the narra-
tive in an abbreviated form, as not feeling so lively an interest in
the particulars ; but Paul himself would naturally be disposed to
describe the occurrence in all its details. It is a remark quite in
harmony with the constitution of the mind, that in the case of
events which exert a deep influence upon the life, even apparently
trifling circumstances are deeply imprinted upon the memory ; and
it excites an agreeable feeling, when recalling the fact, to make
mention also of these minute points, because the mind is assured
as it were by them of the reality of the occurrence, and of the ac-
curacy of the recollection of it. Thus Paul, besides mentioning

Acts IX. 3, 4. 279

the sudden light and the voice, brings into view also these circum-
stances, that it was about mid-day (xxii. 6, xxvi. 13), that the light
surpassed the brightness of the sun (xxvi. 13), that the voice spoke in
the Hebrew tongue (xxvi, 14), and that all his attendants fell along
■with him to the ground (same passage). Now, although it must
be allowed that (pug, light, and ^wi^?/, voice, might signify lightning
and thunder, yet the additional circumstance of the voice speak-
ing in Hebrew, totally overturns the possibility of thus ex-
plaining the words ; not to mention that in chapter ix, 17, 27,
Ananias and Barnabas declare in plain terms, that Paul saw
Jesus, a fiict upon which moreover Paul, in his whole apostolic
ministry, grounds the peculiar position which he took in relation to
the other apostles who had lived with the Lord. In the parallel
passage, xxvi. 14, there is added to the words of Jesus, " Saul, Saul,
why persecutest thou me ?" (I,aovX, laovX, rt jtis 6iG)i{Et.g;) the pecu-
liar expression, "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks" {aicXrjQov
ooL TTpbg Ktv-pa Xatcri^en'). As to the words, Ksvrpov denotes, as also
PovKEvrpov, a scourge furnished with sharp points (from k£v-e(S), em-
ployed for driving horses and oxen. Aau-i^eLv denotes to strike with
the foot (from Aaf), to strike out behind like a horse. To kick
against the pricks therefore means to increase one's pain by resist-
ance, a proverbial mode of expression which often occurs in Latin
and Greek authors. (See Terent. Phorm. i. 2, 27, adversus stimulum
calcare. Pindar. Pyth. ii. 174. ^schyli Agamemn. v. 1683. Eu-
ripidis Bacch. v. 791.)

Further, this passage is one of the most striking of those in
which grace is apparently represented as irresistible. The meaning
of the words is really nothing else than this : " thy resistance to
the urging power of grace helps thee not : thou mnst surrender
thyself to it." It might indeed be alleged that it is not said
ddvvarov ooi, but only attXrjpov aoc ; and that therefore a degree of re-
sistance might be imagined in Paul, which grace might not have
overcome. But according to my conviction, this explanation has
more verbal subtilty than truth ; according to the sense and con-
nexion of the passage, oKk-qpov ooi must mean here much the same
as ddvvarov, so that what is meant is that Paul really could not at
that time resist the constraining power of grace. But although we
readily acknowledge this sense in the passage before us. we do not
therefore approve of Augustine's doctrine of gratia irresistibilis.
This doctrine is that the gratia in the elect overcomes resistance
not only at particular times, but throughout the whole of life, so
that the loss of grace by unfaithfulness is impossible. Although
we assert that the appearance of the Lord to Paul at this time
carried along with it an overcoming power of grace, yet we do not
deny that later in the life of this apostle there were moments when

280 Acts IX. 6-7. '

by unfaithfulness lie might have forfeited the grace given to him.*
Yet that grace at particular junctures may display itself thus irre-
sistibly in the heart, is sufficiently confirmed by the experience of
countless numbers. And it is not difficult to see, in the case of the
apostle Paul, how this experience must not only have operated with
decisive influence upon the development of his future life, but also
have been a leading principle in the formation of his doctrinal sys-
tem. He, so proud of his legal piety, saw himself, by his very zeal
for the law, which he imagined well-pleasing to God, converted into
a murderer of the saints of God and an opposer of the Messiah, the
prince ; and yet the Lord did not cast him out of his sight, but
even chose him for a witness of his power over the souls of men, for
a herald of the gospel to the heathen world. In this contrast there
must have been something so overpowering, that even the strong
soul of a Paul broke under it ; and this very rupture and fall of
what was old, was at the same time the commencement of a new
condition in the world of the apostle's mind. The outward appear-
ance of the Kedeemer therefore, and the outward light which
dazzled his bodily eye, were but the outward aspect of the whole oc-
currence ; its true inward meaning is to be found in the entrance of
the light of a higher world into the depths of the apostle's mind,
where, hovering over tlie waters of his soul humbled and purified in
repentance, that light called forth from the water and the spirit, a
new, a higher, a heavenly consciousness, the new creature in Christ
Jesus. After such an experience it naturally became the business
of Paul's life to preach the power of grace, and to shew by his own
example, how possible it was for the Lord of glory, to make even his
bitterest enemies a stool for his feet, that is, to transform them into
the most enthusiastic friends.f

Vers. 5-7. — In the verses which follow, it is necessary first to

* That the most exemplary Christians do frequently in fact resist both their own con-
victions and the motions of the Spirit within them cannot be denied ; but whether any
one who has been truly regenerated ever so resists the Spirit as to forfeit grace altogether,
and to become a child of the devil again, is a very different question. Admonitions to
perseverance, warnings against resisting the Spirit, do not prcve that such forfeiture ever
takes place ; for the progress of believers is secured not by physical force, but by influ-
ences operating upon tliem as rational and immortal beings. There are passages of
Scripture which seem to place it beyond all doubt that where regeneration has really
taken place, the new spiritual life, whatever fluctuations It may undergo, is never extin-
guished. John manifestly proceeds upon this principle when he concludes from the
apostacy of certain individuals that they had never really been Christians:. " They went
out from us, but they were not of ua ; for if they had been of us they would no doubt
have continued with us : but they went out that they might be made manifest that they
were not all of us." 1 John 11. 19. — [Ta.

f All powerful preachers of grace, especially Luther and Augustine, have in a simi-
lar manner, by the power of inward experience, reached their conviction of it, and by
means of the powerful utterance of that conviction they have been able to win whole
centuries to the same belieC

Acts IX. 5-7. 281

settle the text. As the three narratives do not agree in all points,
transcribers endeavoured to smooth down the differences. In par-
ticular, they supplemented the shorter statement of Luke, from the
two longer ones in Paul's discourses. From chap. xxii. 8 they have
added to 'It]oovc in chap. ix. 6 the word 6 Na^wpaZof ; and after dicjKetg
there occurs a very long addition in the textus receptus, in which
particularly the phrase OKXrjpov ooi Trpof Kivrpa XaKri^eiv is borrowed
from chap. xxvi. 14. According to the testimony of Codices, how-
ever, these words are inserted here from the speech of Paul in chap,
xxvi. 14, and therefore they are omitted by the best critics. Besides,
we find real variations in the narratives. According to chap. ix. 7,
all the attendants of Paul stood, according to chap. xxvi. 14, they
fell to the ground : according to chap. ix. 7, they heard indeed the
voice but saw no person, according to chap. xxii. 9, they heard noth-
ing, but they saw the light. How this difference is to be explained,
in accordance with the principle that literal agreement must exist
between the different narratives of Holy Writ, I do not see. To say
that some of the attendants remained standing, while others fell,,
and that some of them saw the light and others heard the voice, is
inadmissible here, because it is expressly said in chap. xxvi. 14 that
they all fell down. And to suppose two occurrences of the kind,,
and distribute the varying accounts between them, would produce
still greater confusion, for how can it be made probable that the
Lord would appear twice to Paul on the way to Damascus ? We
must therefore take the Scripture account simply as it presents itself
to us. There are plainly here variations in the narratives, exactly
like those we often find in the Gospels, but they refer to unessential
incidents, and are so far therefore from affecting the credibility of
the event as a whole, that they rather confirm it. Certainly, how-
ever, Paul's own statements deserve the preference above those of
Luke, whose accounts, moreover, are represented in a very abbrevi-
ated form, and who might readily transpose some of the circum-
stances, as he was not an eye-witness.*

* Olshausen recognizes tie inspiiation of the Holy Scriptures, but some of the state-
ments made above seem rather to trench upon that fundamental principle. Plenary in-
spiration undoubtedly implies that, whaiever apparent discrepancies may be found between
dififerent portions of the "Word of God, loere can be no real disagreement. Now, surely
the discrepancies commented upon by tlie author are merely apparent, and too much has
been made of them. The two statements, "they heard the voice, but saw no man," and
"they heard nothing, but saw the light," are by no means opposed to one another; for
surely they might see the light and yet see no person, and they might hear the voice so
far as the sound of it was concerned, and yet not hear the words that were addressed to
Paul The two statements combined intimate that they saw the light, but saw not the
person of Jesus, that they heard the sound of his voice, but did not catch his words. And,
as to the other alleged disagreement between the statements, that they fell to the ground
and stood speechless, they may be reconciled on the principle that they refer to dififerent
instants of time. They might stand speechless for a little, and then fall during the pro-

282 Acts IX. 5-7.

And finally, tlie speeches too in these verses difier from one an-
other. The passage xxii. 10 agrees indeed in substance completely
witt ix. 6, hut it differs so much the more from xxvi. 16-18. Instead
of the short direction contained in tue first two narratives, to go to
Damascus and there learn everything, chap, xxvi, 16-18 presents
a detailed speech of Christ to Paul. Of Ananias and his speeches
there is no mention made at all in chap, xxvi., while, on the other
hand, in chap. ix. 15, 16, and xxii. 14, the very same points occur
in tTie speech of Ananias which are to he found in chap. xxvi. 16,
etc., in the speech of Jesus. The idea, therefore, very naturally sug-
gests itself, that in chap. xxvi. Paul has transferred what Ananias
said to Christ himself, on the principle : quod quis per alium facit,
id ipse fecisse putatur. It may be objected, indeed, to this idea,
that Paul expressly appeals to the fact of the Lord's having appeared
to him, and instructed him (comp. Galat. i. 12), and therefore it may
be alleged that the words in question must be ascribed to Christ
himself But on closer consideration new difficulties rise up against
this view, which oblige us to go back to the former one. In the
first place, the declaration in the Epistle to the Galatians refers to
the doctrine of Christ, which Paul professes to have received from
no apostle, but immediately from the Lord by inward revelation; but
here in chap. xxvi. there is no mention made of doctrine at all in the
speech of Christ. And again it appears that we cannot well sup-
pose Jesus to have uttered a long speech, because it is expressly
remarked that Paul would receive the necessary communications in
Damascus. The appearance of Christ, therefore, was to operate
more by jjower of impression, and calm instruction was afterwards
to be given by Ananias. This arrangement, at the same time, was
wisely adapted to the character of Paul. To him, as a proud Phar-
isee, well versed in law, it might be a wholesome humiliation to
receive from a man of little education, as Ananias probably was,
instruction respecting the way of eternal life. The only way, there-
fore, in Ivhich we can hold the speech of chap. xxvi. to be real words
of Clu-ist, is to suppose that Paul has transferred words of the Lord
that were spoken on the occasion of a later appearance (compare
xxii. 18-21) to the earlier one, and blended them with it. Which
of these views may be preferred is to me indifferent.* (In chap. ix.

gress of the scene, overcome by their augmenting alarm, or they might fall at first, struck
down by the suddenness of the occurrence, and afterwards rise, but only to stand in
speechless terror. Or perhaps elari'iKEiaav in Luke may not refer to the standing posture
as distinguished from prostration, but simply to tlie fact of their being rivetted to the spot
as distinguished from advancing on their journey. Even in the case of an uninspired au-
thor, a charge of contradiction is not advanced if any plausible method of reconciling two
statements can be pointed out ; and surely the sacred penmen are entitled, at the very
least, to the benefit of the same rule of judgment. — [Tb.

* There appears to be no good ground for the conclusion to which Olshausen here

Acts IX. 8-19. 283

7, the rare word hveog deserves notice, instead of wliich we find in
chap. xxii. 9, Sfi(po(3og. The better mode of writing it is tveog, and
the word denotes properly " dumb/' then also, " speechless through
terror." It occurs nowhere else in the New Testament.)

Vers. 8-16.— -Blinded by the splendour of the appearance, which
was designed for him alone (a flash of lightning must have equally
blinded his attendants), Paul was led by the hand to Damascus
(xxii. 11). The whole of the scene which follows is peculiar to the
narrative before us. Luke describes minutely what happened to
Ananias, and that too with a local knowledge of the city (verse
11 specifies the street and residence of Paul), which presupposes
a very sure source of information. A remarkable thing in this
account is that mutual adaptation of the operations of Divine grace,
which is so manifestly displayed. The same God who hears prayers
prompts them also, and works again in another heart to bring about
their fulfilment. So here the Lord shews to Ananias Paul in
prayer, and to Paul again Ananias approaching with the needful
aid. Whether we suppose Ananias and Paul to have been previ-
ously acquainted with one another or not, does not at all materially
influence the state of the fact. The objections of Ananias, and the
removal of them by the Lord, display, in a very touching manner,
the childlike relation of the believing soul to its Redeemer : Ananias
speaks with him as a man does with his friend.

(The word dyioL in verse 13, corresponding to the Hebrew c-'ttji;?,
denotes in the New Testament, as applied to Christians, not the
highest degree of moral excellence, but only the fact of being dis-
tinguished from the great mass of Jews and Gentiles, aild living in
the fellowship of the Spirit of Christ. [See particularly at Rom.
i. 7.] Respecting oKevog iKXoyrjg, ver. 15, comp. Comm. at Rom.
ix. 21, etc. The expression here is plainly opposed, not to the
reprobate, but only to those who have a less extensive sphere of in-
fluence. In verse 16 the apparent threatening, vnodeL^o) avrO) oca
del. . . TTadelVj embraces really a promise of grace, and thus forms a
striking thought ; for to sufi'er for the Lord is the highest grace of
which the believer can be accounted worthy. Matth. v. 10, etc.)

Vers. 17-19. — Of the relations of the passage in chap. xxvi. 16-
18 to the speech of Ananias, we have already spoken at vers. 5-7 :

comes. It rests simply upon the fact that Paul is directed to go to Damascus for the
informatiou he needs, whence it is concluded to be improbable that Christ would say so
much to him personally. But there is no inconsistency in supposing that Christ might
say to him all that is mentioned in the three verses 16-18, of chap, xxvi., and that yet
be might be instructed at much greater length by Ananias. "We are not to suppose that
Ananias said nothing to Paul but what is stated in the llth verse of this 9th chapter
He probably conversed with him much during his sojourn in Damascus, so that the ad-
dress of Christ might just sufiSce for an introduction to the fuller communications to be
received in Damascus, and a means of authenticating them to Paul. — [Tr.

284 Acts IX. 17-19.

the narrative before us gives tbe words of Ananias, but very brief-
ly, and at xxii. 12, etc., they are found a little more full. On the
other hand, chap. ix. 17-19 describes most minutely the healing of
•Paul : it is represented as eflfected very suddenly, and through the
laying on of the hands of Ananias. We are not to suppose from
the words ver. 18, d-nmeaov dnb tcov d(pdaXiiQv avrov (haei XeniSeg^ that
there was an actual falling off of anything ; the word o)oeI sufficiently
shews that there was only a feeling in the eyes, when they received
the power of light again, similar to what usually accompanies the
falling off of scales — Aeni^ denotes properly a scale or scurf : it is
applied to diseases of the eye in Tobit ii. 9, vi. 10.*

In the passage xxii. 14, etc., the speech of Ananias confines it-
self to the general calling of Paul to the apostolic office for all men,
which indeed indicates his destination to the Gentiles, though it
does not clearly express it, like xxvi. 16. We need only remark
that chap. xxii. ver. 16 (drroXovoai rag duapriag gov) plainly repre-
sents baptism as an act of cleansing from sin (the dcpeoig^rojv d^ap-
TiCiv). Comp. at Titus iii. 5.f In chap. xxvi. 16, etc., however,
Paul is expressly appointed as the witness of Christ among the
Gentiles, and by this appointment he receives the peculiar position
in reference to the Twelve, which we find him through his whole
life maintaining. At the same time it is intimated that he, as the
representative of the world of light, is called to the exalted duty of
delivering men from the power of darkness and its prince. (In ver.
17, E^aipovnEvog is to be referred to deliverance from dangers : the
phrase etc rCJv idvCJv forbids our regarding it as synonymous with
EKXeKTog. On the expression KX/jpog iv rdig i]yLaoiiEvoLg in ver. 18, see
at Colos. i. 12.)

And here now it is a highly important circumstance, that the
Apostle Paul by no means becomes, simply by this wonderful call-
ing, received from the Lord himself, a member of the church, but
he must also receive baptism. In this the objective character of
the sacraments appears beyond all mistake : they cannot be set
aside on account of the immediate operations of the Spirit, but re-
quire to be administered, if it be at aU possible ; for exceptions must
be admitted, as when martyrdom for the faith supplies the want of

* Olshausen seems here to have fallen into a mistake. The word that is used in Tobit
in both the passages referred to is ?i£VKufia. In another passage, however, of the same
book, xi. 13, the verb ?.e7Ti^u is employed to denote the falUng ofif of the /.evKuf^ara. Kal
kTiemadrj utto tud Kuvduv tuv ocpdal/iijv avrov ru TiEVnu/xaTa. — [Tk.

f It should, however, be added, that the expression is not to be literally interpreted.
The rite of baptism standing in close connexion with the forgiveness of sins, following
upon and symbolizing it, comes very naturally in emphatic, figurative phraseology to be
put for it. " "Wash away thy sins" in baptism, is thus an elliptical and forcible expres-
sion, equivalent to " submit to that baptism which attends upon and indicates the romis-
Bion of sin." Baptism without faith could certainly not bring salvation, and faith, under
circumstances where baptism is impossible, will be accepted of God. — [K.

Acts IX. 20-25. 285

baptism. We must not, however, suppose that Paul in his baptism
received the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands of an apostle
in the usual manner. In that case he would have been placed in a
position of dependence with reference to the Twelve, which he him-
self most keenly repudiates. (Galat. i. 12.) Probably the true state
of the case was this, that Paul, like Cornelius, chap. x. 45, etc., re-
ceived the Holy Ghost directly, and that before baptism. Baptism
of itself placed him in no position of dependence, any more than the
baptism of Christ made him dependent upon John the Baptist : but
probably the communication of the Spirit would have had this effect,
if it had taken place through the instrumentality of an apostle.

Vers. 20-25. — According to Acts Paul went immediately {ev-
0t-wf) after his conversion into the synagogues of Damascus, and
preached Clu-ist : according to Galat. i. 17, he withdrew soon after
it to Arabia. How long he remained there is not mentioned in
Galatians. We may unite the two accounts by supposing that Paul
at first made the attempt to teach immediately, but then felt that
he required a period of quietness to collect himself and to commune
with his own mind, and therefore went for some time to Arabia.*
Such an interval of repose must indeed have been essentially neces-
sary to the apostle, because the revolution of his ideas was too vio-
lent, not to require an arranging of them, and a settling of them by
the Old Testament. The point to which all the effort of the apostle

* This view, which is also supported by Schrader, of the object of Paul's residence la
Arabia, has recently found an opponent in Neander (Apost. Zeitalt. Th. i. S. 115, Note).
The grounds, however, upon which this learned man attempts to make it appear that the
apostle went to Arabia only for the purpose of preaching, have not appeared to me satis-
factory. In the first place Neander is of opinion that Paul, if he had retired for the pur-
pose of collecting himself^ would have written " into the desert of Arabia" (e/f Ipriftov
'kpapia^), or simply '• into the desert" {elg tpi^fiov). But one docs not gee the necessity
why this form of expression should have been chosen to express that idea; Paul did not
need to go to a desert to collect his thoughts, and to arrange his new ideas, he might re-
side for a time in any city in Arabia. Besides, it docs not appear to Neander probable,
psychologically considered, that Paul, after Ananias had comforted him in solitude, should
again have gone into solitude ; he would rather have sought society. But intercourse
with believers, and preaching of the gospel as an apostle, are sui'ely to be distinguished
from one another. As Paul himself, in his pastoral letters (see 1 Tim. iii. 6), gives the
injunction that novices are not to teach, it appears to me very unlikely that he should
himself have immediately entered upon his apostolic office. His first preaching in Da-
mascus is probably to be regarded only as a testimony borne to what God had done in
him : such testimony was necessary, because otherwise his conversion would have assumed
the appearance of something clandestine. But after this testimony was publicly given,
the apostle could not but feel the necessity of having his thoughts absorbed with the new
world which had unfolded itself to him, which was hardly possible during his apostolic
journeys. As three years, therefore, had been spent by the disciples in immediate inter-
course with the Lord, so the same period was enjoyed also by Paul as a time of training.
During this time the glorified Redeemer, unseen, but inwardly near to the apostle, formed
him into the powerful instrument, which he was afterwards honoured by the Church aa
being. For further particulars consult the exposition of Galat. i. 17.

286 Acts IX. 26-30.

was first directed was naturally the Messiahship of Jesus* and that
in the higher view in which Christianity exhibits the Messiah,
namely, as the Son of God. (Ivyxvvcj denotes here "to confound,
to bring into perplexity." See Acts ii. 6. IvuPtfid^u) properly means
" to join to one another," in which sense it occurs, e. g., in Ephes.
iv. 16. Here it denotes " to prove, to confirm, to join, as it were,
reasons firmly to one another." It refers doubtless to Rabbinical
arguments, such as Paul had been conversant with in the schools of
the Pharisees.)

Luke mentions but briefly (Acts ix. 23-25) the persecutions
which the Jews at Damascus raised against Paul, whom they
regarded as an apostate. From 2 Cor. xi. 32, where Paul him-
self makes mention of these occurrences, we learn that the gov-
ernor of king Aretas of Arabia (^edvdgx'>l^ 'Apera rod fiaotXecjg)^
supported the hostile Jews in their designs against the apostle.
Aretas, in his conflicts with Herod Antipas, had made himself mas-
ter of a part of Syria. (Joseph. Arch, xviii. 5, 1.) Paul escaped
from Damascus, only because the Christians let him down in a bas-
ket through an opening in the city wall. (Comp. Comm. on 2 Cor.
xi. 32.)

Vers. 26-30. — The account of Paul's return to Jerusalem, which
Luke here gives, may lead to the supposition, that after a short
time he went back thither : but the passage in Gal. i. 17, 18, shews
that, after fleeing from Damascus, he withdrew to Arabia, then came
back to Damascus,"}* and first revisited Jerusalem after three years.
Probably this time, respecting the employment of which no express
information is given to us, was spent by the apostle in making a
thorough revision of his ideas. The internal change in Paul was
exceedingly violent ; he needed repose, that he might free himself
entirely from his old principles, and become thoroughly grounded
in the new to which he had been drawn. And this long absence
perhaps explains, why the believers in Jerusalem were still afraid
of Paul. Certainly they had heard of his conversion, but as nothing
had been known of him for three years, they might fear that he had
fallen away again. But Barnabas brought him to the apostles, and
bore witness to the reality of his conversion. Yet it is surprising
that Barnabas needed first to describe to the apostles how he had
been converted. But as three years had elapsed, during which
time they had heard nothing of him, the true state of matters might
have escaped their memory : at first they might not consider the

* In verse 20, instead of the common reading XpiarSv, ^[rjaovv should stand.

f The incident of being let down through an opening in the wall appears to have oc-
curred on the occasion of Paul's second visit to Damascus, which Luke does not distin-
guish from the first, because he entirely omits the journey to Arabia ; for farther particu-
lars, see Comm. on Gal. i. 16, etc.

Acts X. 31. 287

event of his conversion to be so important, as his commanding per-
sonal qualities afterwards shewed it to be. Further, according to
Gal. i. 18, 19, Paul met only Peter and James in Jerusalem. And
of course the more definite words of the apostle there exhibited,
must be allowed to modify the more general statement of Luke.
The evangelist had not been personally acquainted with the early
occurrences in the life of the apostle ; and therefore this account of
them could not be expected to be so precise.

In Jerusalem too Paul made the attempt to preach the Gospel
(verse 28), but it was to be anticipated, that here his labours would
be few. The Christians recognized him as the old enemy of their
church, and might not be able to admit him so soon to their fall
confidence. The Jews viewed him as an apostate, and therefore
shunned him. Besides, according to Acts xxii. 17, etc., the apostle
was favoured with a vision of Christ in the Temple, although it was
one purely spiritual (tV tiia-daei)^ by which he was directed to the
Gentile world as the scene of his apostolic ministry. As soon,
therefore, as some opposition to Paul appeared in Jerusalem on the
part of the Hellenists,* the brethren there sent him away, after a
stay of fourteen days (Gal, i. 18), by way of Csesarea, to his native
city Tarsus, the metropolis of Cilicia. It appears from Acts xv.
23-41 that churches existed in Cilicia, and there can be no doubt,
therefore, that Paul employed his time in Tarsus in preaching the
Gospel to his countrymen, for during his first missionary excursion
he did not touch upon Cilicia at all.

(According to Gal, i. 21, Paul's journey to Tarsus lay through
Syria, and therefore Cgesarea must not be understood as the well-
known city upon the Mediterranean sea, but Csesarea Philippi,
on the borders of Syria. Proceeding by land from Jet'usalem
to Tarsus, Paul would not have chosen the longer way by Ctesa-
rea Stratonis. The phrase Ka-TJyayov elg must mean merely " to
bring on the way to Csesarea," because that place is too far re-
moved from Jerusalem to render it probable that an escort would
go all the way.)

§ 2. First Preaching to the Gentiles.

(Acts ix. 31— X, 48.)

It has already b^en observed at the commencement of the
second part of Acts, that the accounts which it embraces respecting
Peter, were not communicated so much to set before us the minis-

♦ There is no iuconsistency between this and the statement of Acts xxii. 17, 18, that
the vision of Christ caused him to depart, because they would not receive his testimony.

Acts X. 31-43.

i f P.t»r a., to shew in what manner the Gospel was first car-
try of Pf ^[;;„',. °f 'J^'LuUe wrote mainly for Gentile readers, he
::XtuX fe" ve^ s^titious to mate it plain to them, that
Ztoportanf event wL hronght about quite in aecordance w.th
Go'd'sTurpose. It is true the — s respectmg ^neas and Ta-

occurrences we find o^y qmte ge ^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^^

rKesDectino- olKodojielv see Comm. on 1 Cor. in. lu, e^c. Y , "f "^^
(Kespectin^ f- _napa/cA7jai? is considered at John xiv.

ohhese places. Consult Gesem^^^^ ^^^^ .^ ^.^,^„^^^, ,

il^oSelSHn the occurrence -d^l^-rrertl^^

reader to the ohservat.ons "^^e at John x. M-Pcct °| ^^S^ .^

eral subject of raismg from *<= dcai (Th^ name P ^^^_^

Acts X. 1. 289

brew name comes from naia, or ";2i3, a roe, a gazelle, of whicli the
Syriac form is xn-'at?. See Buxtorf. Lex. Talm. p, 848. — Ver. 36,
TrAy/pT/?- dyaOoJv tpyoiv. In a similar manner, James iii. 17 uses nearog.
It is a Hebraism, the adjective nVw being thus applied to invisible
possessions. Further, verse 39 shews in what the good works of
Tabitha consisted. — (On the import of tpya, see at Rom. iii. 21. — In
verse 36, fxadrjrgia is a peculiar form, found in the New Testament
only here. Elsewhere it occurs in Diog. Laert. iv. 2. The more
common form is imd7]rpig. Consult Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 256.)

Chap. X. 1. — With these occurrences is connected the important
narrative of the conversion of CorneUus, the first-fruits of the whole
Gentile world to the church of Christ. It appears surprising that
the Apostle Peter, who laboured in the power of the Holy Ghost,,
and to whom the prophecies of the Old Testament respecting the^
calUng of the Gentiles (see Comm. on Matth. viii. 10) could not be
unknown, needed a special lesson on the point that the Gentiles
were to be admitted into the church. But here it must not be
overlooked that Peter was by no means uncertain about the en-
trance of the Gentiles into the church considered in itself, but only
about the point whether they could be admitted without being cir-
cumcised, and taking upon themselves the obligation of the law.*
The Divine authority of the Old Testament being presupposed, it
was by no means so easy to regard this as possible, and agreeable to
the will of God. In the law of Moses, circumcision was instituted
for all times, with the threatening that the uncircumcised should
be cut off from the people of God (Gen. xvii. 10, 14) ; no prophet
had expressly predicted that circumcision was ever to cease : the
supposition therefore that would most readily suggest itself was,
that the Gentiles must first go through the intermediate stage of
Judaism, in order to reach the church of Christ. The proper idea
of the position of the Gentiles in reference to the church was first
given by the typical view of circumcision, which indeed is expressed
with sufficient clearness in the Old Testament (Deut. x. 16, xxx.
6 ; Jerem. iv. 4) ; but without an explicit exhibition of the relation
between the circumcision of the Spirit, and that of the flesh. One
might indeed suppose that the Spirit who guides into all truth
(John xvi. 13), would have immediately disclosed to the apostle
this relation ; and that he would have needed therefore no further
instruction on the point. But let us only conceive the Spirit, not
as a power suddenly overwhelming the mind with truths of every

* This solves the doubts which De Welte expresses on Matth. xxviii. 19, how the
apostles could have any scruple to baptize Gentiles, when the Lord had expressly com-
manded that all nations should be baptized. Peter had no scruple at all with respect to
this point, but only how far he could baptize Gentiles, without at the same time binding
them to the observance of the whole Old Testament law, and therefore also of circuia-
cision.
Vol. III.— 19

290 Acts X. 1-8.

kind, but as a higlier principle which, penetrating the soul, leads it
on gradually from step to step into the depths of Divine knowledge ;
and then the event, which is here related to us respecting Peter,
will stand in no way opposed to the statement, that he was filled
with the Holy Grhost. Yet the reason why a peculiar arrangement
of God took place, for the pu^-pose of instructing Peter respecting
this question, and through him guiding to certainty all who were in
doubt, is to be found in the importance of the question. The re-
ception of the Gentiles into the church, without laying upon them
the obligation of circumcision and the law, was, on the one hand,
the public declaration of the universal character of the Gospel, the
removal of the hedge which separated Jews and Gentiles (Ephes, ii.
14) ; but, on the other hand, this very reception was also the signal
for an internal division of the church into Jewish and Gentile Christ-
ians. The Jews of the Pharisaic sect who had entered into the
church, could not raise themselves to the purely spiritual and typ-
ical view of circumcision ; they held firmly by the necessity of en-
tering through the old covenant in its outward form into the new,
and according to the literal view of the Old Testament, as well as
the words of Jesus in Matth. v. 17, they had so much in their
favour, that it was difficult to refute them : They were able there-
fore; even at a later period, to make a strong impression upon
Peter (Gal. ii.), and for this very reason this apostle needed that
powerful support to his conviction, which the occurrences here nar-
rated must have furnished him. The need of being confirmed in so
extraordinary a manner, in the principle of the freedom of the Gen-
tiles from the law, does not stand in any contradiction to the char-
acter of Peter, in which firmness and depth were conspicuous, but
arises necessarily out of it. His very depth was the reason why he
found the question exceedingly difficult to answer ; his earnest faith
in the word of God in the Old Testament, his reverence for eveiy
syllable of it, made him feel keenly the difficulties which the objec-
tions of the strict Jewish Christians started ; and in order that
here, in a business of decisive moment, he might not be without
certain warrant, nor follow any merely subjective opinion of his own,
but act according to the will of God, he received this extraordinary
assistance through a symbolical vision.

Vers. 1-8. — First of all, Luke gives a description of the charac-
ter and circumstances of Cornelius, and of the vision which was im-
parted to him. He dwelt in Caesarea, the political capital of the
country, and the seat of the highest Roman authorities ; he was a
centurion in the Italian band or cohort, and without doubt there-
fore a Roman by birth, or at least from Italy. (The legions that
were stationed in the eastern provinces consisted for the most part
of native soldiers. Particular cohorts, however, were formed of Ital-

Acts X. 1-8. 291

ians, and these were called Italian cohorts.) And here it is surpris-
ing that Cornelius is described exactly as a proselyte, " pious and
fearing God" (evaejSrjg Kai ({>ol3ovfievog rov Oedv), with which character
the representation of ver. 22 particularly harmonizes, '* and attested
by all the nation of the Jews" (jiaQTvpovnevog re vtto oXov rov tdvovg,
Tcjv 'lovdaccjv) . This circumstance appears in fact to destroy the
importance of the whole narrative, for if Cornelius was already a
Jewish proselyte, his conversion cannot be regarded as the com-
mencement of the entrance of Gentiles into the church ; yet it is
surely represented as such in what follows (x. 45, xL 1), and Peter
too names Cornelius (x. 28) dXXocpvXog (= •'■isj Isaiah xi. 6), while
he adds that it was not permitted to him as a Jew to hold inter-
course with him. On account of this difficulty it has been proposed
to take the expression (po[3ov^evor rbv Qeov in a more general signifi-
cation, without reference to the condition of a proselyte : but first
this phrase, like oejSoiievog rbv Qeov and Trpocr/yAvrof, is the usual de-
scription of Gentiles favourable to Judaism, and again the singular
with the article rbv Qeov does not permit that it be regarded as a
description of heathen devoutness. The difficulty under consider-
ation is best explained by considering minutely the condition of
proselytes among the Jews. There were, it is known, two classes of
proselytes, those of the gate (i»"in ■'■^a), and those of righteousness
(?"!?•! ■'':!r*). The latter received circumcision, and formally passed
over into the Jewish church ; the former, on the other hand, bound
themselves only to the observance of the so-called precepts of Noah
(see Comm. on Acts xv, 20) ; these proselytes of the gate, therefore,
as being uncircumcised, were always regarded as unclean, and at the
best were viewed as a kind of middle class between Jews and Gen-
tiles. It was probably supposed that all proselytes of the gate
would gradually allow themselves to be circumcised ; and this in-
termediate stage was perhaps only appointed, not to frighten away
by too rigid requirements at first those Gentiles who displayed a
leaning to Judaism. If then we suppose that Cornelius was a
proselyte of the gate, and consequently uncircumcised, which ac-
cords with the words in chap. xi. 1-3, in which Cornelius and his
friends are styled uncircumcised (aKQo(ivariav t^ovrfif), then all the
descriptions which occur in what follows are quite appropriate ; and
the new feature of the case was -this, that Cornelius, without becom-
ing a proselyte of righteousness, was immediately baptized in the
name of Jesus. Meyer's objection to this view, that it is improbable
there were no proselytes before this who had entered the church,
and that therefore, according to our supposition, the histor}^ of Cor-
nelius would present nothing at all peculiar, is easily obviated by
the supposition, which has a solid ground in the circumstances of
the case, that proselytes of righteousness, who were of course cir-

292 Acts X. 9-16.

cumcised, had already been admitted into the ChristiAfi ccmniauitj,
but no proselytes of the gate, that is, none who were uncircumcised :
this first took place in the case of Cornelius, and herein lies the
great importance of his admission. For on account of the high
value which the Jews attached to circumcision, the grand question
was, whether persons could become Christians without circumcision.

With respect to the vision of the angel next mentioned, with
which Cornelius was favoured, nothing leads to the conclusion that
it occurred otherwise than as a purely internal phenomenon (tv
iKardati), as in the 10th verse.* As it was late in the day, viz.,
three hours after noon, it is altogether probable that the fasting of
Cornelius had augmented his susceptibility of spiritual impressions
(for in fact wc do not find that any one has had such appearances
immediately after a full meal), but it does not follow from this, that
the whole occurrence was the mere product of an excited imagina-
tion ; at least that is certainly not the meaning of the narrator,
•which we must first of all ascertain by exegetical means. It is not
improbable (see at chap. x. 37) that Cornelius had already heard of
Christianity, and that the object of his prayers was to obtain light
from above respecting this new religion.

(In verse 4 the words dve(3r](jav al Trpoaevxai gov elg nvrjuoovvov^
thy prayers have come up for a memorial, are a well-known form
of expression adapted to human views and feelings. See Exod. ii.
23. Probably it takes its origin from a comparison of prayers with
sacrifices, as the smoke rising up to heaven was viewed as an index
of the acceptance of the sacrifice. In the 5th and 6th verses there
is no particular stress to be laid upon the circumstance that the
trade of a tanner, on account of his being occupied with the skins of
slain beasts, was held in contempt among the Jews : were anything
of the kind designed, a clearer indication of it would have been
given.)

Vers. 9-16. — ^In conjunction with the vision of Cornelius there
occurred by God's direction another, which was imparted to Peter
about the same time. Of this vision it is expressly said in verse
10 : eneneaev l-n' avrbv ticaraaig.-f The word ttcoTaaig denotes prima-

* The word ^avepQc seems inconsistent with the view advocated by Olshausen, and
rather favours the idea that an angel actually appeared to Cornelius in his waking mo-
ments. The statements made too regarding the entrance and departure of the angel in
verses 3-7, as well as the hour of the day when the occurrence took place, lead to the
same conclusion. Olshausen appeals to the 10th verse, but it tells against himself, for it
is there plainly said that an iKaraaiQ fell upon Peter, while nothing of the kind is said
regarding the angelic vision of Cornelius. — [Tb.

f The word eKaraai^ is used by Philo (quis rer. div. hser. edit. Pfeiffer. vol. iv. p. Ill,
seq.) in a fourfold sense. In the highest form it denotes the evdeoc KaroxuriK?'] re /lavta,
^ TO npo(^T)TiKbv yhog XPV'''°-I- -A.n example of this sort he finds (p. 114), in the history of
Abraham, in Gen. xliii. 10, where it is said: •Kepi 6H/?iiov 6va/iuc luaTaaig i-KEirenev irrl
Tov 'Ajipaufi. And this form of the iKaraaig can only be imparted to the wise man, for

Acts X. 9-16. 293

nly the condition of being put out of one's self ; and is therefore
frequently applied to terror and astonishment, as in Mark v. 42 ;
Luke V, 26 ; Acts iii. 10. By way of eminence, however, it is ap-
plied to a state of spiritual excitement, which is also indicated by
the expressions elvac or yiveaOac iv irvevfiaTt^ being, or becoming in
the Spirit, as in Kev. i. 10 ;* and (pepeadat vnb rov -nvevnaTog, being
moved by the Spirit, in 2 Peter i. 21, denotes something similar. It
is a remarkable description of the tKoramg, which Paul gives in 2
Cor. xii. 2, 3, when he declares that he knew not whether that which
occurred to him occurred in the body or out of the body. And
hence it plainly follows, that the depression or removal of the hu-
man consciousness, which, however, must be conceived as connected
with an exaltation of the heavenly consciousness, constitutes the
specific character of the SKaraocg (which has its analogies in som-
nambulism), during which, too, the Spirit exerts a mighty influence
upon the soul. States which at least came very near to t/coTaacg^
appear also to have prevailed among the prophets of the Old Tes-
tament. Sudden seizure by the power of the Spirit (expressed here
by the tTrtneoev tn' avr6v,fell upon him), is indicated hj the well-
known phrases, •'V? ri'p''^ hn, the Spirit of Jehovah was upon me, and
•>V? njn* i;:, the hand of Jehovah loas upon me ; and Ezekiel, in
particular, shews how states of ecstacy were connected with this
seizure. Now, although sach occurrences are represented as opera-
tions of grace, yet Paul, who describes them most carefully in his
Epistles to the Corinthians, intimates, that they by no means form
the highest stage of development in the spiritual life ; it is better
under the full influence of the Spirit, to be able to maintainf a

to him alone does God draw near, that he may inspire him as his instrument and per-
meate his soul: fiovu 6h co(iiC> ravr' iipapfioTret, enei koI /uovoq upyavov Qeoii kariv ijxovv,
Kpovofievov, Kol Tr?.7]TT6fievov dopurug vn' avTov. In the sequel of his representation (p.
119), Philo then describes more minutely the nature of such a genuine prophetic ecstacy,
and gives an allegorical exposition of the passage respecting Abraham. As the day lasts
BO long as the sun. shines, so the earthly lower consciousness endures while the under-
standing continues active. But when a higher Divine power drives back the lower
human power, then the earthly consciousness fades, but a higher and more comprehen-
eive consciousness dawns upon the man. The mortal, says Philo, cannot dwell along
•with the immortal, and therefore must the earthly light evanish at the entrance of the
Divine light, and it is only when the latter is withdrawn that the former reappears. This
description is so lively and picturesque, that undoubtedly we must suppose PhOo had not
only observed such ecstacies in others, but had also been partaker of them himself.

* It is by no means meant, that wherever the words iv nvev/xan occur, a state of
ecstacy is to be understood : on the contrary, it is only the two forms of expression speci-
fied that are so used. The Holy Ghost frequently, nay commonly, appears to operate
in the state of consciousness, without producing a remarkable exaltation of the spiritual
Ufe.

f A mi-stake on this point was the peculiar error in the doctrine of the Montanista
respecting the state of ecstacy ; they erroneously regarded this lower form of the reve-
lation of the Spirit as the highest, and thus hindered the advancement of the church to
a higher life.

294 Acts X. 9-16.

state of clear consciousness, (For further particulars, see at 1 Cor.
xiv. 32.) Accordingly we do not find that the Kedeemer himself
ever appeared in states that even bordered upon the tKoraaig : in
him the highest influence of the Spirit was always connected with
the clearest consciousness.

(The sixth hour was one of the usual hours of prayer ; and the
Jews frequently went to pray upon the flat roof {em to 6C)na\ where
they were alone under the open sky. — Tlpoa-neLvo^ occurs nowhere
else in the New Testament ; it signifies very hungry, for -rrpog fre-
quently heightens the signification. — In verse 11, the words oKevoq
TL u)g dduvTjVj denote something indefinite and general that belonged
to the vision ; the appearance perhaps might be compared to a great
sheet fastened to the corners of the sky. — 'Apx^j stands here as in xi.
5, in the signification of " end, extremity," in which sense it is also
found among profane writers. The repetition mentioned in verse
16, denotes the certainty and reliableness of the instruction im-
parted by the vision.)

And here the question presents itself, in what relation the ar-
rangements of this vision stood to the laws of food in the Old Tes-
tament. (Lev. X. 11.) Assuming, indeed, that those laws of Moses
were not at all designed to suggest higher instruction, and that the
vision here described was a mere imagination of Peter, then there is
no difficulty in allowing one fancy to be abrogated by means of
another.* But the dignity of the word of God .cannot consist with
such suppositions. According to Matth. v. 17, nothing entitles us
to choose out portions from the Old Testament, that may deprive
them of their Divine character ; and as little does the New Testa-
ment permit the supposition, that events so important as the con-

* With much ingenuity Neander (Apost. Zeitalt, p. s. 92, etc.) handles this occurrence.
He says: "There came together two tendencies of his nature, the higher want of his
Spirit, the power of the Divine, which overcame his Spirit, and the power of the animal
want over his lower nature. In this way it happened that the Divine and the natural
were mingled together, not so, that the Divine -was obscured by the mixture, but so, that
the Divine employed the reflection of the natural as an image or vebicle for the truth
to be revealed. The Divine light, which, breaking through the atmosphere of traditional
notions, was about to rise in his soul, displayed itself in the mirror of sensuous images
that proceeded from the present want of his animal nature." This representation, how-
ever, might be readily misunderstood. In the first place, it might be imagined that
Peter's view of the difference between clean and unclean beasts, as well as of the separ-
ation between Jews and Gentiles, was absolutely false, as belonging to the circle of
traditional notions. But this, on the supposition of the Divine authority of all the Old
Testament institutions, cannot be allowed; on the contrary, the ordinances respecting
unclean beasts, and the separation of the Jews from the Gentiles, though only temporary
appointments, were yet really valid until the coming of the Messiah, and therefore their
abolition for the Messianic times required to be then expressly declared. Again, Xean-
der's representation might be misunderstood, as if it intimated that the feeling of hunger
was the real cause of the whole occurrence; while according to his view it was only the
subjective handle which Divine grace laid hold of^ for the purpose of making the apostl»
acquainted with a point which was pecuUarly difficult to him.

Acts X 17-22. 295

version of the Gentiles were brought about by the dreaming of an
apostle. But according to this stricter view, the New Testament
appears in this case to abrogate the Old, which assuredly stands
opposed to the express declaration of Christ in Matth. v. 17. Now
here we might just say, that in Christ all the types of the Old Tes-
tament attained their end, that the laws of food were part of these
types, and that accordingly in their outward form they have ceased,
after they have been spiritually fulfilled. But it is very difficult to
make out a real typical character for the laws of food : for although
here unclean beasts plainly denote the Gentiles (verse 28), yet they
have this reference only because the Gentiles, on account of their
eating unclean beasts, were themselves esteemed unclean. The
conjecture therefore forces itself upon us, that in the distinction
between clean and unclean beasts, some other circumstances were
looked to. It is difficult indeed in regard to all to make this good,
but the eating of serpents and other reptiles was probably forbidden
on no other gTound than this, that in fact in such disgusting beasts
they saw something impure.* A clear intimation in favour of this
idea is furnished in ver. 15, where it is said : a 6 Qebg EKaddpLoe^ av jj,^
KotvoVj ivJiat God hath cleansed, etc. Here the idea of the impurity
of certain beasts is recognized, because " cleansing" {tiadagt^eiv) can
only be apphed to that which is unclean. And it makes no differ-
ence whether we take the word in the sense of " making clean," or
" declaring clean," for the latter necessarily presupposes the former.
(Consult Comm, on Matth. viii. 3.) According to the connexion in-
deed the aorist has reference to the vision, and the first announce-
ment made in it, dvaov koi (pdye, slay and eat (verse 13) ; but the
reason why at this time, and under these circumstances, the declar-
ation ensued, is to be sought in more general grounds, viz., in the
completed redemption, which is regarded as a restitution of the
whole creation. The laws of food accordingly, from their nature,
retained their importance only until, by the redemption of Christ,
that which occasioned them was overcome. We cannot therefore
say that they are here abolished as something opposed to Christianity,
but they only appear like all else, j^uIJiUed by the work of redemp-
tion.

Vers. 17-22. — Peter, still uncertain about the purpose of this
vision, received upon the spot an inward notice from the Spirit
(feiTTEv avTO} -b TTvev^a, see chap. viii. 29), that some strangers were
waiting for him. (Verse 19. The common reading IvOvnovfievov has
been rightly regarded by Griesbach as inferior to the other reading
dievOvfiovfi^vov : this compound is found in the New Testament only
here, and, as the more unusual form, deserves the preference. —

* Respecting the degradation of the unconscious creature, see the remarks made at
Romans viii. 18, eta

296 Acts X. 23-33.

Verse 20. Respecting diaKpiveaOai compare Matth. xxi. 21 ; Mark
xi, 23. — Verse 22. Respecting xprniaTi^eLv^ see Comm. on Matth.
ii. 12.)

Vers. 23-29. — The behaviour of Cornelius on the arrival of Peter
at his house (verse 25) shews plainly how undeveloped his religious
views still were. To judge by the apostle's words, his adoration was
no mere form of courtesy, but he regarded Peter as a being en-
dowed with supernatural powers. Probably therefore he had not
been able altogether to disengage himself from heathen ideas, and
he might suppose Peter to be the son of some god or a hero. Now,
as Cornelius, notwithstanding this, received the Holy Ghost, and
that too before baptism (verse 44), we see here again how incompar-
ably more important in the religious life are the desire and inward
longing of the heart, than correctness of ideas ; it was such feelings
alone which made the Roman captain so acceptable to God.*

(In verse 25, the codices A.B.D.E. insert rov before eloeXdeiv^
which, as the more difficult reading, ought to receive the preference.
Yet this connexion of the genitive of the infinitive with tyevero, is
to be viewed as an extreme use of this construction with the in-
finitive, of which there is elsewhere no example. [See Meyer on
this passage.] — Verse 29, dvavnppTJTug occurs nowhere else in the
New Testament. Hesychius explains it by dvaixcpipSXayg. The
phrase, tIvl Xoyo), occurs again in 1 Cor. xv. 2. It may be explained
by eni supplied ; Xoyog^ like "la^, is used in the sense of XPW"' ^^
TTpdyiia.)

Yers. 30-33. — The minuteness with which Cornelius describes
his vision, gives to the narrative an air of simplicity, which renders
it probable, that the account as communicated to us by Luke, has
been drawn from a very excellent source, to be sought for perhaps
among the friends of Cornelius himself f (Verse 30.) Hcinrichs,

* The supposition that the prostration of Cornelius was intended as an act of wor-
ship, seems quite inconsistent with the character of Cornelius as one who feared God {rbv
Qeov), the Jehovah of the Hebrews. The act itself does not necessarily imply such wor-
ship, nor is this proved with any certainty from the address of Peter, " Arise, for I also
am a man." This language may spring from a misapprehension of Cornelius' purpose, or
(which seems to me more probable), may be simply an emphatic mode of deprecating
such excessive honour: — " Arise, I am no Divine being that I should receive sucli marks
of reverence." — [K.

\ This remark of Olshausen seems to lead to the conclusion that he considered some
portions of Scripture as more entitled to credit than others, on account of the sources
from which they have been drawn. Such a notion is utterly inconsistent with sound
views of inspiration, and would render valueless the whole word of God, for who is to
decide what portions came from the best sources ? Paul gives us the right view, when
Le says "that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." Yet the remark of Olshausen
embodies a certain amount of truth. The several portions of Scripture, though all equally
inspired, yet differ from one another, and all exhibit the impress of the mental peculiar-
ities of their respective penmen, who must have written therefore not as mere machine^

Acts X. 34-36. 297

who is followed too by Meyer, errs in understanding the words, dnb
TerdpTTjg 7iii^pag — tjiitjv vTjarevcjv^ to mean that Cornelius had been
fasting four complete days, down to the time when Peter arrived,
for in that case the present tense must have been used ; the mean-
ing rather is : "I was fasting at the time I received the vision, viz.,
four days ago, down to the same hour of the day at which we are
now speaking." Meyer, however, differs from Heinrichs in this, that
the latter places the vision upon the fourth day of the fast, the
former upon the first. Meyer's view is plainly quite untenable, for
the idea of the writer is that God, in consequence of the disposition
first manifested by Cornelius, favom-ed him with the vision ; but this
disposition shewed itself by means of the long fasting, and conse-
quently the vision must have taken place at the end of it.*

Vers. 34-36. — This statement of Cornelius awakened the aston-
ishment of Peter at the proceedings of God's grace. (Respecting
TrpoacjTToX/j-rrjgj consult Comm. on Matth. xxii. 16.) He saw that the
Gospel in its comprehensive agency was appointed to draw to itself
all those who, whatever nation they might belong to, bore within
themselves a holy longing and upward striving after God.f This
passage is one of those which, through a complete mistake of the
depth of the Gospel principles, are misapplied to the purpose of
proving from the Holy Scriptures themselves, the pretended super-
fluousness of Christianity, and the sufficiency of virtue. It has been
supposed to prove that the apostles themselves taught, that the fear
of God and virtuous conduct (epyd^eoOai rijv ducaioavvrjv) are per-
fectly sufficient to guide to blessedness, and that for gaining this
end there is no need of faith in the specific doctrines of Christianity.
But the shallowness of the religious indifference displayed in these

but as intelligent beings exercising their different powers of mind. The peculiar air of
simplicity therefore, which pervades this passage, mayhavo originated in the circumstance
that Luke, who was very diligent in the investigation of facts, had some document before
him, which had been written upon the spot, and which therefore preserved the minutest
details. But this could be no reason for our receiving the narrative with peculiar favour.
The claim of the narrative to our implicit belief, rests altogether upon the fact, that Luke
wrote by inspiration, though the peculiar hue it wears may have originated in the manner
supposed by Olshausen. — [Tr.

* Meyer's view seems improbable, both on account of the verb " I was" {"/f^r/v), and
because it seems aside from Cornelius' purpose to speak of his continued fasting after he
saw the vision : Heinrich's still more, as it allows no time for the sending for and coming
of Peter. If the fasting continued four days, it must, I think, have been a period termi-
nating with the angelic appearance. I think, however, Olshausen right, and the uTrb te-
rdpTTig j'lfiepag, I regard as a loose construction mcanmg, " four days ago from the commence-
ment of the day up to this hour," etc. — [K.

f The holy longing and striving after God here spoken of, cannot be supposed to be
the native growth of man's own corrupt heart. Doubtless the Spirit of God was at work
in the breast of Cornelius, while he fasted and prayed, previously to the visit of Peter ;
and the desires excited within him were gratified by the good providence of that God
who turns not away from those who seek him. The appetite, as well as the food, in
Bpiritual matters, comes from God. — [Tr.

298 Acts X. 34-36.

statements, appears plainly from the circumstance, that they ascribe
to man, without any help beyond himself, the ability to fear God
truly, and to practise righteousness in the full sense of the term.
And again the connexion of the whole narrative clearly shews that
the position hitherto occupied by Cornelius did not suffice for him,
because he now received baptism ; not to mention that the right
view of verse 36 requires that the words SeKrbg avrut tan tov Xoyov
be connected together. There is indeed a great difference between
those Gentiles who labour according to their knowledge, to keep the
law, and those who make no such effort (Kom. ii. 13, 14) ; but the
Operation of this difference is, that those who do by nature the works
of the law, are in the way of being more easily led to the higher
stage of spiritual life which the Gospel discloses. The general prin-
ciple therefore, that out of Christ there is no salvation, is only con-
firmed by this passage, which makes the blessing of an earnest
faithfulness to the law consist in its leading to Christ, Hence the
expressions (poPelaOai rov Qeov and tpyd^ecjdai 6iKaioavv7]v denote, ac-
cording to the connexion, devoutness of a legal kind, the diKaioavvr)
Kara voixov. (On this point see the remarks at Luke i. 6, and Eom.
iii. 21.)

In the grammatical connexion of verses 35-37, unnecessary dif-
ficulty has been found. As ov in verse 36 is wanting in some
codices, tov Xoyov has been understood by some in the sense of
" this doctrine," and the passage has been translated " this doc-
trine," viz., that God accepts also pious Gentiles, God has sent or
imparted to the Israelites. But first the omission of ov is not the
reading critically established, and again the idea does not suit the
connexion, for the calling of the Gentiles into the church of Christ
had not hitherto been seen to be founded in the principles of the
Gospel. Nor can the conjectural reading of ox; for bv at all make
good its claim, as it is wholly destitute of critical authority. It
would be better to decide in favour of the connexion of ov Xoyov
with viiel^ olSare in the 37th verse, which has been defended, not only
by Heumann and Bolten, but also by Heinrichs and Kuinoel.* With
this view, however, there are two important difficulties connected,

* Meyer too has decided in favour of this view : he so understands the passage as
to make tliree accusatives dependent upon oldare in verse 37, viz., tuv "koyov in ver.
36, /i////a in ver. 37, and 'Ijjaovv in ver. 38 ; but the highly forced character of this con-
nexion, appears in the translation which he appends, not to mention that, according to
this view, the clause ovTog egtl ttuvtuv Kvpto^ must be taken as a parenthesis, although
the connexion requires the main emphasis to fall upon it. It is upon the principle that
Chri^ is Lord of all, that the warrants rests tor the calling of all. My view of the passage
has been completely misunderstood by Meyer. It does not govern the accusative tov
2.6yov by KaraXafilSuvo/iai, in verse 44, but connects it with Ssktoc avTu) iart, in this sense :
" he is acceptable to him in reference to the word which God sent to the Israelites, that
is, 80 as to have part in this word."

Acts X. 37-43. 299

viz., first the parenthesis ovt6^ ion 7TdvT0)v Kvpiog, and secondly, the
clause that follows, to jevoilevov pTma, which must be taken as in
apposition with Adyof, so far removed from it. On the other hand,
everything is plain, when we understand ov Xoyov as the accusative
absolute, and connect it with SeKrbg av-io ton. The expression, bv
dntoTEiXe -o7g vloi^ 'Iapa?/A, must then be understood in this manner :
which word he sent^rs^ to the children of Israel, but as Christ is
Lord of all (Trdv-oyv being masculine, and not neuter for the uni-
verse*), it appertains also to all men.

Vers. 37-43. — Peter next brings forward an account of the lead-
ing occurrences in the life of Christ, and in conclusion presents him
to the view of his heathen hearers, as the judge and Saviour even
of the Gentile world. It is worthy of notice that Peter here, in the
words " ye know," presupposes the history of Christ to be already
known to Cornelius and his friends : vfielg refers to the irdvTEg ■/jiielg
of verse 33. It is not improbable, therefore, as we have already in-
timated at verse 1, that Cornelius was in a state of inward conflict,
uncertain whether he should regard Christianity as of Divine origin
or not. And from this uncertainty might proceed his earnest prayer,
which God, on account of his sincerity regarded, and in an extraor-
dinary manner gave, him full assurance resjDecting the way in which
he should go.

(The phrase KaradwaoTevofxevoi. vnb rov 6ia[36Xov in verse 38 occurs
only here, as being a designation of demoniacs. The verb occurs also in
James ii. 6. It maybe remarked that Peter, without any special
occasion, touches here upon the doctrine of the Devil, even before
Gentiles who did not know it, which is not favourable to the theory
of accommodation. — Ver. 41. UpoxeiporovEO) is found nowhere else in
the New Testament. On ovucpaydv and ovuttieXv^ see Luke xiii. 26.
It is a most important idea in these verses, that Christ is appointed
Kpi~r]q 0vT(i)v koI vsKpoJv, a Judge of living and dead. Of the
tliouglit itself mention has already been made at Matth. xxv. 32 ;
John V. 27 ; see also 2 Cor. v. 10 ; 2 Thess. i. 5, etc. And the ex-
pression here chosen occurs again in 2 Tim. iv. 1, and 1 Pet. iv, 5,t
in which latter epistle the language manifestly is quite similar to
that of Paul. The only question that still presents itself is this,
what is the distinction drawn between the living and the dead ?
Does it mean this : " Christ judges not only those who shall still be

* "Winer in his Gramm. p. 499, decides in favour of the supposition that the construc-
tion is left incomplete (anacoluthon), and remarks in opposition to my explanation, that
it would deprive the words which follow of all proper grammatical connexion. I cannot
see wherein he can fail to trace the connexion in what follows: if we understand the words
ovTo^ loTL TTuvTuv Kvpioc, as forming an independent sentence in the sense, " he is Lord
of all, and therefore also your Lord," the discourse moves on in the very best connexion.

f In the passage in 1 Pet. iv. 5, the connexion points primarily to those who are liter'
ally dead, but to such as are at the same time spiritually dead.

300 Acts X. 44^8.

alive at his return, but also those already dead ?" This cer-
tainly appears very improbable, when it is considered that in
this view all the pious of preceding times would be styled dead,
while yet the Redeemer expressly says of them : " God is not the
God of the dead, but of the living ; they all live to him." Luke
XX. 38. Comp, Comm. on Matth. xxii. 32. And besides, the di-
vision of mankind would thus be very unequal, because the number
of those who have died in the course of thousands of years, can by
no means come into comparison with those who shall be alive at the
end of the world.* Certainly, therefore, it is more correct to under-
stand the living of those who enjoy spiritual life, and the dead of
those who remain spiritually dead ; which makes the distinction a
more important one, and renders the phrase parallel to all those
passages which treat of the judgment of the good and the bad.)

Vers. 44-48. — It is quite a peculiarity in connexion with the
account of the conversion of Cornelius, that the Holy Ghost, who
manifested himself here also by the gift of tongues {yXo)aaaL<; XaXelv),
was imparted before baptism. A consideration of the import of
baptism, and its relation to the gift of the Spirit, makes this appear
a remarkable occurrence ; for it is first in baptism, and in regenera-
tion which coincides mth it, that the new man in whom the Holy
Ghost dwells is fully born. We must suppose, in the case of Cor-
nelius, that regeneration took place before baptism ; as indeed the
baptism of adults always presupposes faith, and therefore also the
commencement of regeneration. The outward act of baptism,
therefore, is not to be regarded as absolutely indispensable ; and ac-
cordingly the church has always considered unbaptized persons, who
suffered martyrdom for the faith, as having in the baptism of blood
received at the same time the baptism of water and of the Spirit.
Still, however, there is something singular in the case before us :
there is nothing similar to it to be found : and probably, therefore,
the correct view of the subject is, that this unusual proceeding took
place /or the sake of Peter. It appears from his subsequent conduct
that the immediate reception of the Gentiles into the church of
Christ had always appeared to him a matter of difficulty ; and there-
fore in this first decisive case the Divine compassion came to his

* Yet we cannot for a moment suppose that the Redeemer means to deny the litercn
doalh of those whom he declares to live to God. On the contrary he is speaking expressly
of the dead. Nor is there weight in Olshausen's second argument founded on the unequal
distribution which is thus made of tlie races ; for this is a matter of no importance what-
ever to the statement, whose purpose was simply to represent Christ as the judge of
all. And as, at the Saviour's second coming, there were to be two widely-distinguished
classes, those who slept in their graves, and those who had never tasted death, it was
appropriate, in describing his judicial functions, to represent them as extending over
both; and this the more, aa it was uncertain to which class the persons addressed might
belong.— [K.

Acts XI. 1-18. 301

help, and revealed to him in an undoubted manner that the Gen-
tiles were not to be excluded from the noblest privilege of believers,
the gift of the Holy Ghost. The importance of this circumstance
Peter himself afterwards (chap. xi. 15) expressly sets forth. The
view of Meyer, that the communication of the Holy Ghost before
baptism, has its ground " only in the elevation of the mind to the
proper pitch for receiving the gift," is untenable ; because this
might be the case with many, to whom nevertheless the Spirit was
not imparted before baptism. This takes place not at all by any
internal necessity, but in consequence of a free action of God.*

§ 3. FiKST Proceedings on Account of the Gentile Chris-
tians. Paul's Stay in Antioch and Journey to Jeru-
salem.

(Acts xi. 1-30.)

Vers. 1-18. — In what a momentous aspect this event of the en-
trance of the Gentiles into the church of God was viewed, plainly
appears from the account that follows. Not only all believers in
Jerusalem, but even the apostles themselves, were unable rightly to
explain the conduct of Peter, and therefore they called him to ac-
count. It is plain therefore that they occupied essentially the same
position, and it would probably have been difficult for Peter to
justify himself fully before them, if he had not been able to appeal
to such extraordinary occurrences. The simple statement of them,
however (xi. 4-17), sufficed to convince the whole body of believers,
that it was the will of God that Gentiles should be received into the

* Some further remarks will be made on the author's views of baptism and regenera-
tion at chap. xvi. 15, where he more fully expresses them. He seems in general to
regard regeneration as the consequence of baptism, and yet in this paragraph he allows
that the inward change of regeneration should at least be begun before the outward rite
of baptism takes place. It is plain too from his remarks on Lydia, xvi. 15, that he con-
siders the very first inclination of the mind to God as the result of a Divine influence.
Faith and a change of heart, then, ought to go before baptism. They are the proper
preparation for it ; a9d if they are wanting, baptism will be fcund altogether unable to
produce them. Baptism will never of itself regenerate a soul. The author seems to over-
look the distinction between the ordinary and extraordinary influence of the Spirit There
were ordinary influences, such as Lydia experienced, which were absolutely necessary to
the very first right feeling, and which of course must precede the faith and baptism of
adults, not follow them. But there was also in primitive times an extraordinary influ-
ence of the Spirit, which displayed itself in a palpable manner, and which was often ex-
hibited after baptism. This extraordinary influence, though following baptism, was not
connected with it, our author allows, by any internal necessity, but depended altogether
upon the will of God. And much less could the ordinary influence that produced faith,
and that of course preceded baptism, be itself in any sense a consequence of baptism.
The regeneration of faith should always go before baptism, and it is vain to look to bap-
tiam for it.— [Th.

302 , Acts XI. 19-24.

churcli without being placed under the Mosaic law. Yet it appears,
from the course of the proceedings respecting the Gentile Christians,
that the doubts of the stricter Jewish party were not absolutely set
at rest by Peter's statement. (See Comm. on chap, xv.) As the
narrative of Peter agrees entirely with the account already given, it
needs no special explanation.

(In verse 3, StaKpcveodac denotes not simply " to be uncertain," as
in verse 12, but also " to dispute." It is so used in the Septuagint
in Ezek. xx. 35. — In verse 15 it is not necessary, because Peter had
already spoken a long time, to understand dp^aodai as a pleonasm,
for the word only presupposes the intention of proceeding yet much
further. — In ver. 16 there is a reference to chap. i. 5. — Verse 18.
On apaye, see Mattb. vii, 20, xvii. 26. It must doubtless be distin-
guished from the interrogative dpd ye in Acts viii. 30. — On 6ovvai
ficTdvoiav^ see Acts v. 31.)

Vers. 19-24, — This first attempt to preach the Gospel to Gen-
tiles was speedily followed by others ; and it was in Antioch first,
beyond the limits of Palestine, that Greeks were admitted into the
church. Kuinoel supposes that this happened in consequence of
the intelligence of the conversion of Cornelius, but there is not a
word to indicate this. On the contrary, the mission of Barnabas to
Antioch makes it more probable, that they had ventured there on
their own responsibility to baptize Gentiles. To prevent however
the abuses which might possibly in this way creep in, the mother
church sent down Barnabas on a visitation. This notice is very im-
portant, because it discloses the apostolic conception of the church.
The apostles did not allow churches to spring up here and there in
a state of isolation, but they connected them all with themselves,
and with the living organization which they represented. The
church as an organic whole, as the body of the Lord, needs a con-
trolling power, an ecclesiastical government. With respect to the
mention made of those who were scattered abroad by the per-
secution after the death of Stephen,* it is not Luke's object here
to narrate this circumstance as for the first time ; he simply looks
back to it, as something that is past (see Comm, on Acts ix. 30), in
order to shew that even in Antioch the Gospel was at first preached
only to Jews ; it was not till the arrival^of some men of Cyprus and
Cyrene that an alteration took place. Who these men were is not
known ; perhaps they might be the individuals named in chap. xiii.

* Winer, in his Grammar, p. 374, hesitates whether irrl with the dative ^retpdvif), In
verse 19, sliould not rather be understood in the sense of against. It seems preferable,
however, to give it the meaning of after. The reading Hrecpdvov is a subsequent correc-
tion. [ETTt with dative properly "on condition of, on occasion of, regarding." So pro-
bably here, "on occasion of Stephen." To render it " after Stephen," is harsh. Besides,
as the English translator justly observes, the persecution, though it continued after Ste-
phen, commenced before his death,] — [K.

Acts XI. 25, 26. 303

1 ; at all events they were Jews or proselytes, but in their native
country, holding intercourse with honourable Gentiles who had
adopted milder views of their position in reference to the Divine
economy of grace.

(In verse 19, the phrase diaarraptvTeg uTrb OXi^eojg is best under-
stood with Winer [Gram. p. 356] to mean, " on the occasion of the
persecution." — Verse 20. The question here presents itself, whether
the reading of the textus receptus 'EXXr^viordg, or the reading
T.XXT]vagj deserves the preference. The greater number of manu-
scripts certainly support the former reading, but A.D., and several
versions and fathers, present "EXXr^vag. Besides, the connexion ab-
solutely requires this reading. The preaching of the Gospel to
Hellenists, that is, to Jews who spoke Greek, or to proselytes of the
gate, could not at all be brought forward as a new thing, for it
had already taken place at the first Pentecost. But 'EXXrjviGTTJg can
by no means be employed to denote Gentile or heathen Greeks. —
Verse 21, Xelp Kvpiov corresponds to f^^n' "i:. See Gesenius under the
word ^;. — Verse 22. On dg or -npog to ovg clkoveiv^ see Comm. on
Luke i. 44, xii. 3 ; Matth. x. 27. The words 6ieXddv twg intimate
that Barnabas, even on the way to Antioch, had churches to visit.
Verse 23. lipodeatg must be understood of " a firm purpose, a reso-
lution of the will," as in 2 Tim. iii. 10.)

Vers. 25, 26. — Barnabas, who appears to have been the first to
recognize the importance of Paul to the Christian cause, did not
immediately return to Jerusalem, but probably sent a written state-
ment in reference to the commission with which he had been en-
trusted. He rather set out for Tarsus, brought Paul thence, and
remained with him a whole year in Antioch. Through their influ-
ence Christianity spread extraordinarily, and it was here first that the
name of " Christians," which afterwards became the predominant
one, originated. This name proceeded from the Gentiles, and, as the
form of it shews, from Komans, to whom the acknowledgment of
Christ appeared to be the distinguishing feature of the new sect;
they were called Nai^wpaZot by the Jews, to indicate their despicable
origin. (Acts xxiv. 5.) The name certainly did not take its rise
among the Christians themselves, because it is not used in the New
Testament in a good sense.* (See Acts xxvi. 28 ; 1 Pet. iv. 14.)
In reference to %p?/ua-r^«v consult the Comm. at Matth. ii. 12. The
meaning of the word here " to give a name," which is very common
among profane writers after Polybius and Diodorus, occurs else-

* See Tacitus, Ann. xv. 44, auctor nominis ejus Christus Tiberio impcritante per pro-
curatorem Pontium I'ilatum supplicio affectus erat. But at a later period the Christians
took the name to themselves, and frequently, as is plain from the Fathers, made use of a
play upon the word xpfl'^'''o^> which, pronounced according to the Itacism, sounds like
xpianavoi, to shew that even their name declared they were good people.

304 Acts XII. 1.

where in the New Testament only at Kom. vii. 3. It is used es-
pecially where mention is made of giving names or titles of office,
according to the radical meaning of the word, " to manage affairs
of state."

Ver. 27-30. — There is only one circumstance connected with
the time of Paul's sojourn in Antioch mentioned by Luke, viz., the
arrival of a prophet named Agabus (according to Grrotius from sav
to love), who foretold that a famine was at hand in Palestine. (See
a particular consideration of the nature of the New Testament pro-
phets in Comm. at 1 Cor. xiv.) Since we know that in the fourth
year of Cldudius Cassar a famine did prevail in Palestine (three
other such calamities befel Greece and Italy under the government
of the same Caesar), we thus obtain, as has already been remarked
in the introduction to the Acts of the Apostles, an important
chronological datum. According to the reckoning of Hug, wbich
in the main we follow, the fourth year of Claudius coincides with
the forty-fifth year after the birth of Christ.* The delegates from
Antioch might perhaps reach Jerusalem about the time of Easter,
to deliver their gifts of love. (Compare Hemsen's Apostle Paul, p.
50. Note, according to Acts xii. 4 and 23.) From the fact that
they delivered these to the presbyters, and not to the apostles, it
cannot be concluded that the latter had left the city : the account
that follows rather contradicts this conclusion. But we perceive
from this circumstance, that the apostles had already completely
relinquished the government of the church, and committed it to the
hands of the elders. So soon as the apostles began to labour out of
the city, although they returned to it again as their head-quarters,
it became indispensable to establish a regular government for the
church. Yet that the apostles always retained the supreme direc-
tion of the whole, is manifestly apparent from Acts xv. 2.

§ 4. Peter's Imprisonment and Deliverance. Herod's Death.

(Acts xii. 1-25.)

During the continuance of Paul and Barnabas in Jerusalem, re-
specting the length of whichf nothing is stated (see chap. xii. 25),

* According to the account of Josephus (Arch. xx. 2, 6, and 5, 2), Queen Helena of
Adiabene had corn brought from Eygpt and distributed among the poor, in this famine.

\ Bengel (ordo temporum, p. 274) fixed it without any ground, at three years, be-
cause he had dated the conversion of Paul so very early. If the interval had been so
long, we should certainly have had more accounts of it. (Compare Hemsen's Apostle
Paul, p. 51.) Besides, if we suppose, as we must, that the journey of Paul to Jerusalem
mentioned in Galat. ii. 1, is not the one here recorded, then it becomes the more proba-
ble that the stay on this occasion was only short and unimportant, and therefore was not

Acts XII. 1-11. 805

there occurred a new persecution of the Christians, in which one of
the apostles themselves suffered martyrdom. This is the last nar-
rative in Acts which has reference to Peter, and perhaps Luke
recorded it only because Paul was present at the time, and might
often therefore have made mention of it. Besides, the contrast
between the deliverance of Peter and the terrible death of the per-
secutor of believers, contained something so striking, that for that
reason Luke might suppose he ought not to withhold this occurrence
from his readers. Meyer's idea that the things mentioned respecting
Peter in what follows, took place during Paul's journey to Jerusalem,
and not while he was there, is improbable, because the distance to
Antioch was not so considerable. The supposition that Paul may
have first visited the other churches of Palestine, and therefore have,
been very late in reaching Jerusalem, is not favoiured by what is said
in chap. xi. 30, xii. 1-25.

Vers. 1, 2. — The new persecutions against the Christians pro-
ceeded from King Herod Agrippa. After Caligula's death he re-
ceived from Claudius, who favoured him greatly, the sovereignty
over Judea and Samaria (Joseph. Arch. xix. 4). This circumstance
enabled him to persecute the Christians in Jerusalem itself, and
James the elder, the son of Zebedee, was put to death there. Of
the ministry and fortunes of this man nothing further is known ;
only Clement of Alexandria (in a fragment of his 'TTrorvncjaeig pre-
served in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. ii. 9), states that the accuser of
James, when he was led to death, agonized by the gnawings of con-
science, professed faith himself in the crucified Eedeemer, besought
the forgiveness of James, received it, and then suffered martyrdom
along with him.

Vers. 3-5. — To gratify the people, whose first good will towards
the Cln-istiaus (Acts ii. 47) had speedily changed into hatred, Herod
went further, and about the time of the Paschal feast, threw Peter
also into prison, probably with the view of exhibiting in his execu-
tion a very startling example to the numerous visitors at the feast.
Peter was guarded according to the custom of the Komans : four
times four soldiers had the charge of him, changing according to the
night-watches. Tvt^o of these, according to verse 6, kept watch in
the prison itself, and two before the door of it. Meanwhile the
church prayed fervently to God for the imprisoned apostle, 'Etcrev^g
is often applied to prayer, as in Luke xxii. 44 ; Acts xxvi. 7. It
expresses the spiritual effort put forth in earnest prayer.

Vers. 6-11. — The account which follows of the deliverance of
Peter from imprisonment, illustrates the shorter account of a simi-
lar occurrence which is communicated in chap. v. 17, etc.; and it

counted by tlie apostle in the enumeration of his journeys to Jerusalem. (See a more
particular consideration of this point at Gal. iu 1.)
Vol. III.— 20

306 Acts XII. 6-11.

also readily admits of being compared witli the wonderful deliver-
ance of Paul and Silas from imprisonment at Philippi, recorded in
chap. xvi. 26, etc. An impartial comparison of these narratives
may perhaps leave it uncertain for a moment, whether real visible
appearances of angels are meant in them ; and this again accounts
for the fact, that we find the more recent interpreters adopting very
different views of these occurrences. According to Hazel, it was a
thunder-storm combined with an earthquake which delivered Peter,
and this natural phenomenon was described by him after the Jew-
ish mode of speaking as an angel. According to Eichhorn,* who is
followed by Heinrichs, Peter was delivered by Christian friends, or
by the keeper of the prison himself, but he did not well know him-
self to whom he owed his deliverance, and therefore supposed he
must ascribe it to a Divine messenger. Kuinoel expresses himself
undecidedly ; while all the old interpreters understood the angelic
appearance in the literal sense. Now with respect to the first view,
it is undeniable that natural phenomena of a certain kind are styled
angels (comp. Comm. on John v. 4); and there can be no doubt
that in chap. xvi. 26, etc., it is an earthquake only that must be
thought of, for even the text refers to nothing else ; but the repre-
s ;ntation made in the passage before us does not permit this
t 'pposition, because the 7th and 8th verses describe the angel as
e ''-ting wholly like a person : the like description is never found where
ratural powers are styled angels. Far mgre plausible is the other
^iew, which supposes Peter himself not to have known how his de-
liverance was effected. This idea appears to be favoured by the
words in verse 9, ovic ydei^ on dhjOtg tan to yivoiievov did tov dyyt/lou,
"he Jcneio not that it luas true," etc., taken in connexion with verse
11, according to which latter passage Peter first comes to himself
in the street, and appears now to conclude that an angel must have
delivered him. But these words cannot establish that view, because
in the^rs^ place, it was contrary to the principles of the Christians
to deliver either tiiemselves or others from such dangers by fraudu-
lent artifices. But certainly on this view it must be supposed that
sither the jailor or the soldiers were bribed by Peter's deliverer ;
and should it be said that the jailor himstlf might be favourably
disposed to the apostles, yet not the less would he have violated his
duty, if he had let the prisoners escape. Again, this view gives no
explanation of the unconscious condition of Peter : amid so many
occurrences and incidents, he could not fail to overcome the oppres-
sion of sleep, and to recognize the friend that was helping him.
Finally, the fact that the soldiers did tiot awake, as is plain from
verse 18, till the morning, but little accords with this view. They
must therefore have been thrown into so profound a slumber by a

* Compare Eichhorn in the " Allgm. Biblioth. der bibL Literatur. Bd. iii. p. 361," etc.

Acts XII. 7-19. 307

sleeping-drauglit, which would make the hypothesis rather compli-
cated ; for we are debarred from supposing that they were privy to
the transaction by the 19th verse, which informs us that the king
caused them to be punished. The only matter therefore which can
properly be made a question here, is whether we are to suppose a real
angelic appearance or only a vision. Now certainly the occurrence
did bear some resemblance to an ecstatic vision, for Peter himself
took this view of it for a time (verse 9) : but the reality of the effects
which were connected with it (which in reality is denoted by the ex-
pression dAi]deg elvat in vers. 9 and 11) does not permit the supposi-
tion of a mere vision (opa^ia), and it was on this very ground that
Peter himself came to the conclusion that he had been favoured
with an actual visit from an angel. A mere mental vision is never
accompanied with physical eftects. That he might be uncertain,
however, for a moment, whether it was a vision he saw or a real
angelic appearance, is to be explained from the fact, that every
manifestation from the higher order of existences is attended with a
powerful excitement of soul, which produces a state of mind akin to
ecstacy. And this may easily render it uncertain whether the whole
be something purely internal, or whether there be also something
outward : the grand criterion in favour of the latter is the appear-
ance of real visible results.

(Ver. 7. — Some codices, instead of the stronger word nard^agj have
the milder vv^ag. The stronger word, it is probable, appeared to many
transcribers not quite suitable to an angel. — Ver. 11. UgoadoKla stands
for the thing expected, namely, the act of punishment.)

Vers. 12-19. — Peter repaired, after he had assured himself as
to the neighbourhood where he was, to the residence of a certain
woman Mary, where he knew that the disciples were in the habit of
meeting. According to the concurrent view of all interpreters, this
Mary was the mother of the Evangelist Mark, who is mentioned here
by his full name John Mark. The great precision of the account given
of the arrival of Peter furnishes a proof of its coming from original
sources ; perhaps it was obtained from Mark himself. Finally, there
is presented to us here at this early period, an example of assembHes
of Christians held during the night : these were probably introduced
at first only for the purpose of eluding observation when they met
and separated, but afterwards in a securer state they were retained
for a length of time, on account of the greater solemnity of nocturnal
meetings. Yet it was these meetings which not only gave occasion
to the heathen to fabricate many malicious reports, but also in all
probability made it easy for the immoral Gnostic parties to practise
their excesses. The church therefore acted wisely in forbidding, at
a later period, all assemblies during the night.*

* C *^.*are Bingham origg. voL v. p. 329, seq.

308 Acts XII. 12-19.

A difficulty is presented in verse 15, in which it is stated that
the disciples who were assembled, on being assured by the maid
Rhoda that Peter was at the door, exclaim : "It is his angel"
(6 dyyeXoq avrov eariv). We have already, at Matth. xviii. 10, re-
ferred to this passage, and intimated that it expresses the idea of
guardian angels, who are assigned to each individual person. Some
indeed have tried to take the word dyyeXog here in the sense of mes-
senger, but it is obvious that the connexion is altogether opposed to
this idea, because it could not be conceived that Peter should have
sent a messenger out of the prison during the night. It might be
imagined however that dyyeXog here, like iveviia in Luke xxiv. 39,
bears the signification of " apparition, phantom ;" and in this case
the disciples might have supposed that the spirit of Peter appeared
to them before his approaching death, as if bidding them farewell,
or gi"v^ng them a sure premonition of his decease. But, in the first
place, there is no indication in the Bible that such appearances of
the soul during the life-time of a man were considered possible ;
and again, it not only cannot be proved, but it is intrinsincally
improbable^ that dyyeXog should be used to express this idea.
The phrase dyyeXog avrov therefore cannot well be understood
otherwise than as meaning "his guardian angel," so that here
again we find the idea indicated in Matth. xviii. 10. In the ex-
position of our Lord's words occurring in that passage, we left it
undetermined, whether these guardian angels were to be considered
as assigned to each individual person, or as the representatives of
certain larger bodies, whole nations for example, or classes. The
passage before us plainly favours the former idea, because the Apos-
tle Peter has an angel attributed to himself alone. In this shape
the idea was taken up by the church in the first century (compare
the treatise of Schmidt referred to at Matth. xviii. lO),""-'-' for they
assigned to every man not only a good, but also an evil angel. But
how far these ideas can be reckoned as belonging to the specific cir-
cle of Christian doctrine, is certainly a matter of questipn, because
the exclamation in the text proceeds from persons who cannot be
regarded as authorities by us. They were indeed believers, and
were under the influence of the Holy Grhost, but it is only to the
apostles that we are warranted to ascribe such an influence of the
Spirit as excluded all admixture of uncertain and one-sided popular
notions. Certainly the popular view of guardian angels here ex-
pressed is grounded upon a saying of Christ ; but this, as we have
seen, is presented in too general a shape for firm doctrinal principle
to be derived from it. I feel therefore most inclined, according to
the intimation already made in the Comm. at Matth. xviii. 10, to

* Schmidtii historia dogmatis de angelis tutelaribua, in Illgeu's Denkschrift. Leipz,
1817.

Acts XII. 12-19. 309

suppose that there is here expressed the thought that there lives in
the world of spirit a pre-existing ideal of every individual, to be real-
ized in the course of his development, and that the higher con-
sciousness, which dwells in man here below, stands in vital connexion
with kindred phenomena in the spiritual world. In the case where
a human conscience resigns itself to the influence of evil, its de-
velopment in evil will likewise be completed in the kindred existences
that, correspond to it in the world of evil."'

(Ver. 12. — The word owidcjv is not to be referred to the reviving
consciousness of Peter, but to the consideration of what was around
him, agreeably to the sense it bears in chap. xiv. 6. Otherwise
there would be a manifest tautology between this and ver. 11, where
mention has already been made of the return of perfect conscious-
ness.)

In this passage James, the brother of the Lord, is first presented
as an important personage in the church at Jerusalem.f He is
expressly distinguished in verse 17 from all the other brethren,
and to him first information of the occurrence which had taken place
is sent. Undoubtedly therefore he already stood forth distinguished
as a bishop among the presbyters^ as leader of the whole body. The
name Episcoijus (t-iaKo-og) indeed as indicative of the first among
the presbyters, may have come into use at a subsequent period, but
certainly in all churches of any considerable magnitude the oflfice
very early existed, for their afi:airs must by all means have required
a guiding head.lj: (In ver. 19 d-ax6uvat must be understood, like the

* This is a very strange idea. The author does not attempt to furnish any argument
in its support, nor is it easy to see where such argument could be found. At the pas-
sage in Matthew to which reference is made, he throws out the same idea, though with
more hesitation, and describes the angels mentioned as corresponding to Zoroaster's Fe-
vers. These imaginary existences of the Median Reformer were the original archetyi;e3
of all rational beings, and particularly of men. They existed before men, but with a
view to their existence, and every man has one of them mystically united to himself,
his original spiritual double selC Among the Parsees every man sincerely adores his
Ferver. The whole is a mere fency, and Olshausen's idea is no better. It is a needless
and groundless mystification. There may not, as he argues, be ground in the words of
our Lord, Matth. xviii. 10, for the inference that each individual has a guardian angel ;
and if, for the reason stated by our author, we are not warranted to regard the words of
those who were assembled in the house of Mary as more definitely settling the question,
surely the natural inference is that, without assigning individual angels to indiwdual
men, we should rest satisfied with the general principle that the angels do take a-.i in-
terest in the affairs of this world ? Because the Scriptures only teach the general doc-
trine of the guardianship of angels, and do not assign particular angels to particular men,
are we tlierefore warranted to jump to the conclusion that every man lias an "alter ego,"
another self; in the world of spirits, growing with his growth, and forming the same
habits ? The words of our Lord seem to refer to the same truth as the apostle does in
Heb. i 14, Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister to them ? etc. — [ Te.

f That no other James than the brother of the Lord is here referred to, is undoubted,
because the elder James, the brother of John, was already killed (xii. 2) ; p.nd the other
apostle of this name, the son of Alpheus, receives no further notice in history.

\ Olshausen here allows that at first bisiiops and presbyters were the same. An j in

310 Acts XII. 20-25.

Latin " ducere," of being " led away to punishment." By itself it
might mean simply being led away to prison ; but the preceding
dvaicpivag manifestly shews that Herod had condemned the soldiers
upon the spot.)

Vers. 20-25. — In contrast with the miraculous deliverance of
Peter, the evangelist now exhibits the appalling fate of the perse-
cutor of the children of God, for he proceeds at once briefly to nar-
rate the circumstances in which the punishment of the Almighty
overtook him, and then this account is concluded by a short gen-
eral statement.* — Luke first mentions (vejrse 20) a difference that
took place between Herod and the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon ;
it was this probably, together with the festivities, which brought the
king to Cgesarea (Stratonis). The presence of Herod at Ceesarea,
for the purpose of attending the sports there, is mentioned also by
Josephus (Arch. xix. 7, 2), although he says nothing of any quarrel
with the Tyrians and Sidonians. It is probable matters had not
proceeded to any open rupture between the parties, but had only
gone the length of exasperation on the part of the king. The
Komans would certainly not have permitted a war in the immediate
neighbourhood of their territories. But even the displeasure of the
king was regarded by the inhabitants of the sea-port towns, as so
little in accordance with their interest, that they sued for peace by

fact it admits of no doubt, that in the New Testament the two words are applied to the
same individuals. See Acts xx. 17 and 28 ; 1 Tim. iil. 1 ; Phil. i. 1 ; Titus i. 5-7. The
use of ETTicKOTToc lu thc singular, to denote the first among the presbyters, arose after the
days of the apostles ; there is not an instance of it to be found in any apostolic writing.
That the office of a bishop, as defined by our author, existed in the primitive church, can-
not be proved ; and certainly the argument suggested by him that it was indispensable,
is devoid of all weight. The name TTpeaj3vTEpoL was borrowed from the offices of tho Jew-
ish synagogue, and the name tnioKOTvoi was taken from the common stock of the Greek
language, in which it denoted individuals entrusted with the management of any business ;
and the diSerence between the two names did not lie in their being applied to different
office-bearers, but in the fact that the former expressed the dignity of the offico, and the
latter the nature of its duties. The history of these two words furnislies a striking in-
stance of the capricious changes which language often undergoes : for the word Tvpsapv-
repoi, the more dignified expression, analogous to senators and descriptive of tho rever-
ence due to the men, was degraded to denote the lower order of office-bearers, while the
word tTtlaKOTToi, descriptive of the charge with which tho presbyters were entrusted, was
elevated to denote an order of men who had charge of the presbyters themselves. From
denoting the oversight which tho presbyters took of the church, the only idea suggested
in the Scriptures, it was perverted to denote the oversight which a class unknown to the
Scriptures took of the presbyters. The reference to James in the chapter before us, fur-
nishes no ground for the conclusion Olshausen has drawn ; for whatever may be the
position which he occupied in the church at Jerusalem, it is to be remembered that he
was an apostle, and the question of the authority vested in the apostles is a totally
different one from the relations subsisting among the ordinary office-bearers of the
church.— [Tr.

* Regarding the historical incidents here referred to, consult the excellent remarks of
Tholuck in his Glaubw. der evang. Gesch. p. 165, etc.

Acts XIII. 1. 311

sending deputies, who secured the good grace of Blastus the king's
favourite.

(In vor. 20, Ovfiojiaxdv does not denote, as elsewhere, " to fight,
to wage war with fury," but " to be exasperated in mind." The
word has this sense in Polybius and Plutarch. — 'O tnl tov icoi-dvog
= cubicularius, comp. viii. 27. — The words did to rg^cpeaOai ic. r. A.,
point out the ground on which the inhabitants of the maritime and
trading towns dreaded the hostility of Herod ; they were afraid that
he might injure them in their commercial interests.) With respect
to the account which follows in verses 21-23, Josephus, in the pas-
sage above referred to, describes the occurrence in substantially the
same manner. Upon the second day of the public games, the king
appeared in splendid attire, and sat down upon his throne {Pw").
The acclamations which saluted him on the occasion were probably
raised by the deputies of the Tyrians and Sidonians, together with
their retinue ; for the Jews abhorred such proceedings as idolatry.
And while the king was witnessing the games, Josephus mentions
further, that an owl perched itself over his head upon a rope, which
was stretched for the purpose of drawing a screen over the stage as
a protection from the sun ; the king regarded it as an evil omen,
fell sick, and died after five days of a disease of the bowels. The
statement of Luke (oKO)X7]K6[3go-og yevofievog) may be regarded as
describing more minutely what is mentioned by Josephus ; but that
no visible appearance of an angel is indicated by the words, " an
angel of the Lord smote h-im" (t-ndra^ev avrov dyyeXog Kvpiov), nor
sudden death thus produced, is sufficiently obvious from the con-
nexion of these words with the other phrase, " being eaten by
worms" (yevofievog aKojXrjKofSpojrog) . The angel denotes here merely
the invisible Divine influence, which punished the pride of the king,
who received with satisfaction the idolatrous reverence, and gave
him over to those sufferings which fell upon him. In Acts xiii. 11,
the same idea is expressed by the phrase ;t"P kvqlov, hand of the
Lord, comp. Comm. on John i. 52, v. 4. — According to verses 24,
25, John Mark joined himself to the deputies of the church of An-
tioch, who were returning thither from Jerusalem, viz., Barnabas and
Saul, and came with them.

§ 5. Paul's First Missionary Journey.

(Acts xiii. 1— xiv. 28.)

•

Although Christianity had already spread from Jerusalem
through Palestine, and beyond the limits of Palestine, still the
church continued a stranger to formal missionary efibrt. Casual

312 Acts XIII. 1.

occurrences had hitherto brought about the diffusion of the Gospel,
particularly the persecutions of the faithful in Jerusalem. (Acts
viii. 1.) It was from Antioch that teachers were first sent forth,
with the definite purpose of spreading Christianity, and organizing
churches with regular institutions. (Acts xiv. 23.) These commis-
sioned instructors too maintained a connexion with the church from
which they had been deputed ; they sent accounts to them of their
success ; they returned to them after the completion of their jour-
ney, and they also doubtless received from them assistance of differ-
ent kinds.* As Jerusalem had been the central point of mission-
ary effort to the Jewish Christians, so Antioch after this period
assumed the like position in reference to the Gentile Christians ;
the two cities formed the main poles of life in the primitive apos-
tolic church.f

The first missionary journey of Paul extended by way of Cyprus
only to some of the south-eastern districts of Asia Minor. It was,
as it were, the first timid trial that was hazarded, to carry the Gos-
pel to a distance beyond the limits of the Holy Land. And we can
easily imagine that some uncertainty was at first felt as to the suc-
cess of such journeys. When we consider that a few unlearned and
unknown individuals went forth into the wide, heathen world, with-
out any outward help or support, preaching a crucified Son of God,
to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness ; then
indeed nothing appears more natural, than that their labour should
remain utterly fruitless, and nothing more wonderful and incredible
than that it should produce an effect lasting through centuries.
But although such thoughts might intimidate for a moment the
Christians of Antioch, yet they soon felt assured that they were
only the suggestions of the old man : in the Holy Ghost who filled
their hearts, they recognized without doubt a power that could con-

* This circumstance is in the highest degree important ; it lets us see that the apostles
proceeded upon the principle laid down in Rom. x. 15 : "how shall they preach except
they be sent." The fact of being thus sent is not to be sought, merely in a subjective
inclination, which is ascribed to a supposed movement of the Spirit, but in a regular com-
mission received from the church. Here the church in Antioch sent forth the messengers
in an orderly manner; and thus these messengers themselves acquired an objective sup-
port, and the new churches became connected with the church universal. Even Paul,
although called immediately by the Lord, yet waited for an impulse or invitation from
without, that he might enter upon his proper ministry among the Gentiles. Prom this
procedure, important hints may be deduced with respect to missionary undertakings in
the present day.

f The Gospel not only in primitive times, but also in the subsequent extension of the
church, always fixed itself first in the great cities, and then spread gradually over the
country. The greater variety of wants, and the higb intellectual activity prevailing among
the inhabitants of cities, occasioned Christianity to take root sooner in them. And then
in the neighbourhood of great cities there were soon formed, by the influence proceeding
from them, churches in the country, and in the smajier cities, which is shewn to hav«
happened in the case of Rome, for example, by Acts xxviiu 13, etc

Acts XIII. 1. 313

quer the world, and, moved by tliat power, they also accomplished
the work.

The form which this narrative wears, renders it highly probable,
that it is an extract from a larger account, which was sent perhaps
directly to the mother church by the travelling preachers, and which
Luko adopted into his narrative just as he had received it. This
latter circamstance receives much countenance from the very com-
mencement of the account ; for, after the journey of Barnabas and
Paul to Antioch has been described, they are mentioned among the
other teachers of the church there, as if no one knew of their pres-
ence. But the epitomized form of the narrative displays itself in the
dissimilarity, which prevails in the statements given of the abode
of Paul in different cities : where the original complete accounts
furnished nothing interesting, they were either entirely omitted,
or abbreviated as much as possible. It needs not to be remarked
what authority this supposition imparts even to the missionary
speeches in the account before us : it is very possible that we have
in them the very notations of Paul himself

Ver. 1. — In the enumeration of distinguished persons collected
together at Antioch, the first place is assigned to Barnabas, who
enjoyed very great consideration in the old apostolic church, and
indeed in the earliest times is always named before Paul : it is only
at a later period that he is overshadowed by the great apostle of the
Gentiles, and then he disappears from the history. Of the second
person, Simeon Niger, nothing more is known : Lucius of Gyrene, on
the other hand, is mentioned again in Rom. xvi. 21. The supposition
that ho is the same person as Luke the Evangelist, has nothing
whatever to support it. It is improbable that Luke should have
mentioned himself amongst the most distinguished teachers of the
church, and besides the name Lucas does not come from Lucius,
but from Lucanus. (Comp. Comm. Introd. Sect. vi. Part i. page
147.) The fourth individual, Manaen, is another of whom nothing
further is known : his name comes from cjnste = Trapa/cAT^rof, for
which, in 2 Kings xv. 14, the LXX. have Mavar^/it, but in the
verse before us the liquid letters are interchanged so as to make
'^ava-qv. To mark him out more particularly, it is further stated
that he was the foster-brother of Herod the Tetrarch. I,vvTpo(pog
= dfj-oydXaKTog, denotes one who receives along with another the
milk of a mother or nurse, hence naturally, brought up and trained
together. The Herod here mentioned, it/is obvious from the
chronological relations, is Herod Antipas. The last place is as-
signed to Saul, -whose influence had not as yet spread itself very
widely.

(The word nveg !ij vfanting in some codices. It was supposed
unsuitable to the well-known individuals Barnabas and Paul, who

814 Acts XIII. 2-12.

are named along with the others. But for this very reason, the
reading must certainly be held as genuine. Our hypothesis, that
this narrative is an extract from the original account of the mission,
does not appear at first sight to be favoured by the word rtvit; ; for
a friend writing to persons who are aware of the circumstances, will
not begin thus : r]aav 6e nveq k. t. X. But it is selt-evident that
verses 1-3 are to be viewed as introductory statements, prefixed to
the abbreviated account, and they are probably the words of Luke
himself : it is in verse 4 that the account itself is first presented to
us. On the difference between TTpo(pTjTat and dcddoKaXotj consult
Comm. on 1 Cor, xii. 28.)

Vers. 2, 3. — While these men were assembled together for prayer,
and perhaps for particular conference regarding the work of God
entrusted to them, they were guided by the suggestion of the Holy
Ghost to the idea of sending forth itinerating preachers (evayyeXio-
rai, Ephes. iv, 11). They prepared themselves for this important
work by prayer and fasting, and sent away the missionaries with a
formal ordination. Kuinoel here erroneously takes Xetrovpyelv =
KTjpvTTecv, of the public preaching of the Gospel : the fact that such
an impulse of the Spirit came upon them, does not compoct with
this idea. This suggestion rather befits a quiet small circle, where
the new and grand idea might be duly weighed. AeLrovpyelv (see
Comm. on Luke i. 23) denotes therefore here, like -rrpooKwelVj absorp-
tion in the devout worship of God. In ver. 2, npoaiiEiiXrmai bears
a middle signification, as also in chap. xvi. 10, xxv. 12. (See Winer's
Gram. p. 239) Here, too, as in the whole ancient church,* we find
fasting retained as a good practice : it was a help for gathering in
the mind and drawing it away from earthly things. What was false
in it, as was shown even in the views of the Montanists, was pro-
duced only by the gradual and stealthy introduction of a legal spirit,
which converted it into an opus operatum.

Vers. 4-12. — Barnabas and Paul, the chosen messengers of the
church, took along with them John Mark,f as a help to them in
their apostolic labours. In ver. 5, vTrpeTrjg denotes a less distinguished
teacher, who stood to Paul and Barnabas in a relation of depend-
ence, as is shewn too by the gloss vrnpeTovvra avroig. (See Comm.
on Luke i. 2.) Such vTrrjperai, administered the baptisms (1 Cor. 1.
14) and attended to outward concerns, so that the apostles and
evangelists (Ephes. iv. 11) might be able to devote themselves en-

* Perhaps even at this period fasting was practised chiefly on Friday, the feria sexta,
a custom which was very ancient.

f The words ilxov 6^ kuI 'ludvvrjv inrjpsrrjv, stand so strangely inserted between what
goes before and what follows, that they manifestly appear to be a supplementary remark.
Luke probably introduced them into the account that lay before him, because what fol-
lows in the fifteenth and succeeding verses rendered it necessary that previous mention
should be made of Mark.

Acts XIII. 10. 315

tirely to teacliing. From this it is plain that a gradation among
the teachers of the church is not opposed to the spirit of the Crospel :
every organized body, that seeks to develope itself in the visible
order of things, must present itself with parts of regular connexion
and subordination. And no evil could ever proceed from this ar-
rangement, provided only, as was the case in the apostolic church,
that in the higher orders the greater fulness of the Holy G-host
always prevailed.

Barnabas, a Cyprian by birth (chap. iv. 37), was probably the
occasion of their going first by Seleucia* to Salamis, which lies on
the east side of the island, and thence across the island to Paphos,
which lies on the west side of it, where it is known the worship of
Venus had a great central establishment. Proceeding upon the
principle that the Gospel was designed first of all for the Jews, they
always preached first in the synagogues, and only turned to the
Gentiles when they found themselves rejected by the Jews. (Comp.
ver. 46.) In the chief city, Paphos, the Eoman proconsul, Scrgius
Paulus had his seat, a judicious man (ver. 7), free from Eoman su-
perstition, but who had fallen into the toils of a Jewish conjuror,
named Barjesus. (In some manuscripts this sorcerer ycT/f is called
also BapiT]aovdv or Bapooifia ; perhaps because many transcribers
were unwilling to recognize the holy name of Jesus as given to this
false prophet. Either this man was a Jew from Arabia, or he
had picked up some crumbs of Oriental philosophy : this may be
concluded from the circumstance, that he had taken the name of
'EXv[j,ag, which corresponds to the Arabic y-'a^vi, that is, wise man.)
The same remarks which were made regarding Simon Magus, at
chap. viii. 9, hold good with reference to the spiritual condition of
this man. He used his arts for selfish ends, and sought, therefore,
to obstruct the work of the Spirit in the soul of the proconsul, that
he might hold him fast in his snares, The address of Paul to him
is keen, but still the words dxQi- Kaipov in verse 11, plainly discover
the design of bringing him to the coaeciousness of his guilt and to
true repentance. Such sorcerers were commonly clever notorious
men, but the slaves of their own notions, and often guided in their
undertakings by sordid desires : Paul therefore endeavours, by stern
rebuke, to rescue the good germ that might be in his heart.

(Ver. 10. — 'FadiovQyia occurs nowhere else in the New Testament :
it denotes properly "dexterity, quickness in action," then particu-
larly, in a bad sense "daring cleverness in sin." Ver. 11. 'A^Avf
denotes primarily darkness, then a peculiar disease of the eyes.
Here the connexion with oKorog shews that the latter signification is
to be adopted, the obscuration of sight {a/ioTog) resulting from an

* Which also bears the namo Pieria, and situated at the mouth of the Orontes, is th©
harbour of Antioch, that lies much further up the river.

316 Acts XIIL 13-22.

affection of the eyes (o.x^vq). It is worthy of notice that Paul suc-
ceeded in gaining over so distinguished an individual as the pro-
consul : it is not indeed said that Sergius formally attached himself
to the church by baptism, but the word irrlorevae points at least to
an acknowledgment of Jesus as the Messiah. Now as Saul from
this time (ver. 9) is always called Paul, the ancient supposition*
that he received this name from his protector, is probable in a high
degree. If the apostle had borne two names from the first, and if
it were only intimated here, as Heinrichs supposes, that he had one
name in common with the proconsul, it would remain unexplained
why, in the Acts of the Apostles, and in the Epistles, the name Saul
from this time so completely disappears.

Vers. 13-15. — From Cyprus they proceeded to Perga in Pam-
phylia. Here John Mark left the company, for reasons which
cannot have been good, as subsequent events (see at xv. 37, etc.)
shew. From Perga, the metropolis of Pamphylia, they went far into
the interior to Antioch in Pisidia, upon the borders of Phrygia.
Here Paul and Barnabas on the Sabbath-day entered into the syna-
gogue and sat down, and were invited, as was customary (see Comm,
on Luke iv. 16), to deliver an address.

Vers. 16-22, — The beginning of the discourse, which Paul, in
consequence of this invitation delivered, and in which he expressly
(ver. 17) distinguishes between Israelites and proselytes, bears a
resemblance to that of Stephen, which is contained in chap. vii. : it
embraces a brief review of the history of the people, and of God's
gracious dealings with them. The Jew listens (then as now) to
nothing more readily than to the narrative of Jehovah's dealings
with his people ; such a historical recapitulation therefore formed a
natural captatio benevolentise.f

(Ver. 17. — The connexion of v^povv with the Trapoi-da in Egypt
[see chap. vii. 6] sets aside the idea of exaltation and elevation, for
the people were oppressed ; rather the signification to be adopted
here is " increase of number|," which embraces indirectly the idea
of elevation. This is decisively favoured by Sirach xliv. 21, where
dvvipciaaL is used as parallel with nkTjdvvai : less appropriate is the

* See Jerome de viris illus. sub voce Paulus. The father says : apostolus a primo
ecclesias spolio Proconsule Sergio Paulo Victorise suaj trophjea retulit, erexitque vex-
illum, ut Paulus ex Saulo vocaretur. Augustine gives a singular view of the apostle's
design in choosing the name Paul in the passage: de spin et lilt. c. 7. Paulus aposto-
lus, cum Saulus prius vocaretur, non ob aliud, quantum mihi videtur, hoc nomen elegit,
nisi ut se ostenderat parvum, tanquam minimum apostolorum. (1 Cor. xv. 9.)

f From the resemblance of this first speecli of Paul to that of Stephen, one might
perhaps conclude that there was an effect produced by Stephen upon the character of the
apostle. According to chap. vi. 13, 14, we already see in Stephen a very expanded view
of the Gospel and of the effects which it would produce, and it is in the highest degree
probable that, much as Paul might at first struggle against his view, it yet afterwards
exerted a very important influence upon him.

Acts XIII. 16-22. 317

reference to Sirach 1. 22, where vxpovv ■^fiepag does not mean " to
increase the number of days/' but to " make respectable and impor-
tant in life." The expression fierd Ppaxiovog v\l>r]Xov corresponds to
the Hebrew n^iitss yinra in Exod. vi. 6, that is with an arm raised up
high and ready to help. — In verse 18 the reading iTpocfxxpopTjaev is to
be preferred to the usual reading f:rpoT:o(j>6pTiaev. This latter, indeed,
gives also a sense not unsuitable, Tpo7TO(popETVj denoting " to bear
with the manners and ways of any one" (Cic. ad Attic, xiii. 29);
but as Paul designs here to exhibit the gracious aspect of God's
dealings, this idea does not strictly harmonize with the connexion.
Again, too, rpocpocpoQelv is the rarer word, and transcribers might
readily substitute for it one better known. It denotes " to carry
in the arms like a nurse" (rpo^of), hence " to cherish, to take care of"
Thus the word is used in 2 Maccab. vii. 27, of a mother who is speak-
ing to her son. In a wider sense, too, it is applied to men, as in the
Septuagint, Deut. i. 31. — Ver. 19. Eegarding the seven nations, see
Deut. vii. 1. — Instead of KarcKX'qpodoT'qaEv contained in the textus
receptus, and not found elsewhere in the New Testament, Griesbach
has rightly preferred the reading icareKXrji^ovofirjGev. The use of this
word with a Hiphil signification, " to cause to possess, to give into
one's possession," as in Judges xi. 24, might have escaped many
transcribers, and they might therefore suppose themselves obliged
to prefer that other form. — Ver. 20. The number of 450 years down
to Samuel appears to stand in contradiction to 1 Kings, vi. 1, where
480 years are counted to the building of the Temple. Interpreters
have employed the most violent measures to remove the contradic-
tion, either declaring the passage before us or the one in the Old
Testament to be interpolated, or altering the number, or supposing
that the time is not counted when the Israelites were subject to
foreign nations, in the days of the Judges. Others again have sup-
posed that Paul follows a traditional chronology, which they suppose
also to be found in Josephus [Arch. viii. 3, 1, Bell. Jud. iv. 9, 7J.
But this writer is not consistent with himself, and gives in other
passages [Arch. xx. 10, cont. Apion. ii. 2] quite different chronolo-
gies. The difficulty cannot indeed be completely solved, and there-
fore the supposition, that either here or in 1 Kings vi. 1, there may
be something -wrong in the numbers, is not altogether without
plausibility :* still this is a violent remedy. The following may
contribute towards a solution. It is not Paulas design here to
make exact chronological statements, he gives them only by the
way. They are therefore wanting in reference to the period from
Abraham till the departure out of Egypt, of the leadership of
Joshua, and again of the reign of David. Besides, the ojg indicates
that 450 is a round number. To this add, that while the accusative
* See "Winer's Lex. under the word Zahlen.

818 Acts XIII. 23-31.

is employed in stating the other numbers mentioned in the passage,
the dative is used for the number 450. Now, according to more
exact Greek usage [see Bernardy's Syntax, p. 116, Kiihner's Gr, B.
ii. p. 218, etc.], the dative denotes not the duration of time, but the
time in which something has resulted or ensued ; the words might
therefore mean : after that, God, in the space of 450 years, gave
Judges till Samuel, and then (from Samuel, viz.) Saul during forty
years, and so on ; so that these forty years, and what follows till the
building of the Temple, were included in the 450 years. This latter
view has been communicated to me by my worthy friend. Dr. Hof-
mann, assistant teacher. It by no means altogether satisfies me,
because the expressions, ^e-d ravra and ttaKtWev^ appear to fix the
limit of the 450 years, a quo and ad quem ; and it is a question
whether the usage of the dative, in reference to the fixing of dates,
be so constantly observed in the New Testament [comp. Winer's
Gram, p. 194J. The view, however, is worthy of consideration.
[Consult the article, Koster on the chronology of the Old Testa-
ment, in the first part of Pelt's Theol. Mitarbeiten.J — Ver. 21. Ke-
garding the duration of Saul's reign, the Old Testament is silent ;
but Josephus sets it down also at forty years. [Arch. vi. 14, 9.] —
Verse 22. The phrase, [ieTaorrjaag avrov^ removing Mm, refers to
Saul's death, but at the same time it indicates the fact, that his
death was the consequence and expression of God's rejection of him.
The quotation is taken partly from Ps. Ixxxix. 20, and partly from
1 Sam. xiii. 14, and is given freely from memory.)

Vers. 23-31. — The speech of Paul mentions the fulfilment of
prophecies, in the sending of Christ and his forerunner John the
Baptist. To Jews and proselytes (verse 26) Jesus is proclaimed as
the promised Messiah. — (In verse 23, the reading awxT/ptav is in-
deed the more difficult, but Kuinoel is wrong in allowing himself to
be led by this consideration to prefer it, for then the name is en-
tirely wanting of him, who in the sequel is always treated as the
Messiah, an omission which the context does not at all warrant.
Mill's supposition, that the abbreviated mode of writing 2PAIN, for
ocoTrjpa 'Itjgovi', gave origin to the reading aurrjpiav, is more than
probable. — Verse 24. The words irpo ttooo^ttov do not, according to
ordinary usage, refer to the person, but to a fact, viz., the dao6og of
Christ ; the original idea consequently expressed in the phrase has
quite disappeared. Further, the mention of the Baptist's preach-
ing leaves no doubt as to the fact, that elaodog does not refer to the
birth of the Redeemer, but to the commencement of his public min-
istry.— Verse 25. Kuinoel is right in stating that the words, ug
inXrjpov rov Sponov, do not refer to the completion or ending of John's
ministry, but to its continuance; otherwise, the aorist must have
been employed. Regarding the words of the Baptist, see Comm.

Acts XIII. 32-36. 319

on Matth. iii. 11. — Verse 27. On rovrov dyvorjaavTsg, see at Acts iii.
17. We need not, with Kuinoel and Hcinrichs, supply avrov to
Kpivavreg inX'qpcooav ; the participle rather stands for iv t^ Kptoei,
" in their decision they fulfilled, without knowing it, the Scriptures."
Ver. 31. On tni with the accusative in statements of time, see Wi-
ner's Grrammar, p. 385.)

■ ■ Vers. 32, 33. — The exhibition of Jesus of Nazareth as the Mes-
siah, is now with the utmost propriety followed by proof adduced
from passages of the Old Testament.— (Ver. 33. 'E/cTrAT/poa) is found
only here, but the substantive iKnXrjpojoig occurs in Acts xxi. 26.
The preposition augments the force of the simple word. The par-
ticiple dvaaT/]oag is not to be referred to the resurrection of our
Lord, as t/c veicpojv is wanting (compare verse 34), and the proof pas-
sage for the resurrection is first brought forward in verse 34 ; but
according to the analogy of the Hebrew q-^Hv! or N-'s-.n, it must be
understood in general of the sending of Jesus. The quotation is
manifestly from Psalm ii. 7. It is remarkable, therefore, that the
reading, which critical grounds require to be preferred, is h rw irpu-
ro) ■^aXpC>. This is to be accounted for on the principle, that the
first Psalm forms merely a general introduction to the whole collec-
tion, and that our second Psalm is properly the first in order. Even
in Hebrew codices we find our second Psalm marked as the first.
[See Rosenmiilleri scholia in Psalm, edit. sec. Vol. i., p. 31, 32.J
With reference to the Psalm itself, see the particulars at Acts iv.
25, 26 ; and with reference to the doctrinal import of the words
here adduced from it, see Comm. on Acts ii. 29.)

Ver. 34-36. — That something new is now brought forward, and
that therefore verses 32, 33 cannot have referred to the resurrection
of Jesus, is plain from the words on Ss — ovTojg eiprjice. The point of
advancement cannot be sought in the words p.r]iiE-i neXXovra k. r. A.,
for they only describe a subordinate thought, illustrative of the lead-
ing idea of the resurrection. In confirmation of the resurrection of
Jesus, as a fact predicted by the prophets, the apostle refers first to
the passage in Isaiah Iv. 3, of which the leading words rd 6ata Aaffid
TO, TTtard are taken from the Scptuagint ; the words on dcjoco vplv are
only added by Paul to bring the passage into connexion, because
the words of the Septuagint StaOijaoixaL vyXv 6ia0j]i{r]v aldovtov repre-
sent the appearance of the Messiah as something future. The Mes-
sianic reference of the passage cited admits of no doubt, because the
words TiiT ■'uor. can only denote the promises of the Messiah given
to David, whose certain fulfilment is declared. But the question
presents itself, how could Paul employ these words to prove the
resurrection ? Undoubtedly the words have no direct reference to
this fact, but indirectly they presuppose it, for since an eternal
kingdom was promised to David, the ruler of this kingdom could

320 Acts XIII. 37-41.

not remain under the power of death. To strengthen, however, the
indefinite prediction by means of a more definite one, the apostle
adduces another passage, Ps. xvi. 10, which has abeady been con-
sidered at chap. ii. 27, where Peter gives the very same explanation
of it as Paul does here, for they both deny the possibility of its pro-
per reference to David.

(In ver. 34, there are verbal allusions to the second quotation in
ver. 35, for vnoa-pe(pecv eig diacpOopdv corresponds to I6e2v diacpdopdv, and
66ou) oaia to ov dcdaeig oocov. — 'Mtjksti by no means requires to be
taken for ^rj : I understand the passage with Winer, Gram., p. 498,
thus : " he will no more be laid in the grave, and in this way be
given over to corruption." The particle refers only to that portion
of the meaning of the verb which had already actually been realized,
viz., the being laid in the grave.* The one phrase therefore, vnoa-
rpicpetv elg diacjidogdv ^ distinguishes itself from the other Idelv dcacpdopdv
in this manner, that the latter denotes corruption and the actual
experience of.it, the former the fact of being exposed to it. The
one of these really happened to the Redeemer, the other not. — Ver.
36. Teved is equivalent to "I'l " lifetime," and the whole phrase
v7T7]pETelv T^ (iovXy Tov Qeov reprcscnts David in his higher position
as an instrument of Divine grace for founding the kingdom of God.
The words TTpoaeridrj rrpbg rovg narepag avrov correspond to the well-
known formula vn'iax Vn ti^^i, and denote his reception into the
happy portion of Hades.)

Vers. 37-41. — It appears remarkable to the Christian conscious-
ness of the church in latter times, that here the Apostle Paul, as
Peter too had done in the speeches of the first half of Acts, lays
stress upon the resurrection only, and not upon the death of our
Lord. Nay, here as it seems, Paul connects the remission of sins
immediately with the resurrection, while yet in his letters he repre-
sents the death of Christ as the source of the forgiveness of sins.
But the mode of instruction pursued by the apostles in this respect
will be fully accounted for, when it is considered that in the mission-
ary discourses by which men were first to be convinced of the Mes-
siahship of Christ, they could not aim at a minute development of
the principles of the Gospel : it was of more importance first to
establish the conviction, that Jesus was the Messiah. But the death
of Christ was a point that gave offence, and required to be thrown
into the background; while, on the other hand, the resurrection

* I think It however still better (in accordance with a common use o? /jltjicetl and ov-
K£Ti both in the classics and in the New Testament), to take the clause with /irjKen in
the following way, " he raised him up from the dead, being no longer about to see cor-
ruption," as he would have done had he not been thtis raised. The /hiksti thus marks not
that which has occurred and wiU occur no more, but that which would have occurred, but
which, under the circumstances described, is no more to be apprehended. Hence its logi-
cal use. See Rom. vii. 17. — fK.

Acts XIII. 42-44. 321

contained the proper power of proof, and to it therefore reference
was mainly made. But Paul did not write his Epistles to unbe-
lievers, for the purpose of guiding them to the truth, but to believers
for the purpose of confirming them in the faith ; and in them there-
fore the proper relation of the death of Christ to God's plan of
salvation required to be definitely exhibited. The same object of
confirming in the faith, Paul had in view also in the discourse which
he addressed to the Ephesian elders, who of course were already be-
lievers, and we notice accordingly that in it too (see chap. xx. 28)
the significance of the death of Christ is clearly displayed. Further,
in verses 38 and 39 the grand idea characteristic of Paul, regarding
the unfitness of the law to guide to true righteousness (diKaioavvrj) ,,
is set forth in such a manner, as to confirm most powerfully the;
genuineness of the speech.

And now the joyous proclamation of grace is followed in the end
of the discourse with an earnest warning, not to disregard through
unbelief the invitation of God. The apostle utters this warning, in
words which are cited by memory from Habak. i. 5. — In ver. 39 the
connexion of 6iKaio)d/jvai with drrb navrav sc. dixapTrji-idToVy denotes
the union of the negative and positive aspects in the work of redemp-
tion,* because not merely is the old removed, but something new is
also created in the mind. (Comp. Rom. vi. 7.) — In ver. 40, the
plural iv Tolg TTpoiprj-aig indicates, as in Matth. ii. 23, that Paul did
not so much design to quote a particular passage, as to express in
words of the Old Testament a thought of frequent recurrence in
the prophets. — 'Acpavi^eoOai. combines, like o?.©, the two significations
of " destruction or removal out of the way," and the " being thrown
into astonishment or terror," and the bond of union between the
two significations is to be found in the physical effect of terror, by
which the consciousness of the individual is for the moment as it
were taken away.

Vers. 42-4:4:. — And now the power of the Spirit, who spoke
through Paul, first laid hold of the minds of the hearers : and they
besought him to speak again in the synagogue. (In ver. 42 the
codices vary so much in their readings, that we see how Kuinoel
was led to regard the whole verse as a gloss. This supposition,
however, cannot well be maintained, because the request to speak

* Neander (ap. Zeitalt. s. 136, Note) is right in observing that the expression diKocu-
dijvat unb vuvtuv is not to be understood as if Paul supposed two justifications, an imper-
fect one under the Old Dispensation, and a perfect one under the New. The expression
is rather to be regarded simply as an explanation of the dtpeai^ u/napriuv. As under the
Old Testament no true forgiveness had place, but only the hope of forgiveness waa
awakened by the hope of a coming Saviour ; so the law too could produce no true right-
eousness. But the real blessing was bestowed by the Gospel, and therefore men received
in it everything, which the Old Testament could only ofifer prefiguratively (Heb. ix.
1, etc)
Vol. III.— 21

322 Acts XIII. 45-49.

on the next Sabbath stands in connexion with verse 44. I prefer
therefore, with Griesbach, the shortest reading, which supplies
" Jews'' as the subjective or nominative to irapeKaXovv. They first
became hostile, it is plain from the 45th verse, when they saw the
throng of Gentiles. The circumstance that Paul and Barnabas ap-
pear to have departed before the meeting was ended, is easily ex-
plained by the consideration, that the e^tovrojv avriov is not placed
historically before the phrase Xvdeiarjg 61 rrjg owaycoy/jg, but is only
anticipated as being the occasion of the leading circumstance in the
narrative, viz., the request that they would appear again. — Mera^v
occurs here, as elsewhere too in the later Greek [see Passow in
Lex.], in the sense of fieTcnetra. [Comp. Plut. inst. lac. c. 42.
Joseph. Bell. Jud. v. 4. 2.] Here the word is sufficiently explained
by the parallel t%o/ievof in verse 44. See on' this word Comm. at
Mark i. 38 ; Luke xiii. 33.)

Vers. 45-49. — The perception of the heart-felt interest taken by
the Gentiles in the Gospel of Christ awakens the envy of the Jews,
who in their narrowness wished to restrict to themselves the bless-
ings of the Messiah. They begin therefore openly to contradict and
revile Paul, which obliges him to withdraw himself entirely from
them. — (Ver. 45. In the best codices, particularly A.B.F., the par-
ticiple avTiX^yovreg is omitted on account of the foregoing avreXeyov.
But unless we suppose this word to have originally belonged to the
text, it is inexplicable how it should have been added : it is better
therefore to view the phrase avriXtyovreg dvTtXeyov as emphatic :
" they contradicted vehemently," as in 1 Sam. vi. 12. — Ver. 47.
Paul shews, from Isaiah xlix. 6, that there was nothing arbitrary in
the calling of the Gentiles, or at all opposed to the plans of God,
but that it was an event already predicted by the prophets. The
words are addressed to the " servant of God," the personage with
whom the predictions of the second part of Isaiah are connected :
on the reference of this designation to the Messiah, we have already
spoken at chap. iii. 13. The citation finally is given in the words
of the Septuagint, yet with an omission and slight change, for in the
Septuagiut the first words run thus : ISoi), dedwKa ae elg StaOTj/crjv yevovg^
elg (pwg iOvCjv. — Ver. 48. In the words uaoi tjaav Terayi^i^voi elg ^cji'jv
alcjvcovj we must recognize the idea which pervades the whole Scrip-
tures, of a prfedestinatio sanctorum. The attempts which have been
made to evade this idea are in the highest degree forced, fur example
the connecting of i-nioTevaav with elg ^wjv alu)vcov. Regarding the
relation of the prtedestinatio sanctorum to the gratia irresisri bills,
and to the reprobatio impiorum, compare Coram, at Rom. ix. — In
ver. 49, the words Si' uX-qg T^g x^^pag probably indicate the difiusion
of the Gospel in the villages and over the country, of which few
traces are found elsewhere in the New Testament.)

Acts XIII. 50-52; XIV. 1-12. 323

Vers. 50-52. — The envious Jews meanwhile rested not until, by
their influence, they had driven away the heralds of peace. Their
influence exerted itself particularly upon honourable women, who
were attached to Judaism. We find that in the apostolic age the
female sex were peculiarly disposed to receive the better elements
of the Jewish system, partly without doubt on account of their
more susceptible nature, and partly also because they could attach
themselves entirely to the economy of the Old Testament without
the troublesome rite of circumcision.

(Vers. 51. — On the symbolic act of shaking off the dust, see
at Matth. x. 14. — Iconium lay on the borders of Lycaonia, Phrygia,
and Pisidia, and therefore it might be sometimes assigned to the
one province and sometimes to the other, the more especially as the
boundaries .of particular districts in Asia Minor were very vari-
able.— Vers. 52, On the joy of the disciples, that is, of the new
converts, notwithstanding the removal of their faithful teachers,
which would in the first instance tend to excite their sorrow, see
V. 41.)

Chap. xiv. 1-7. — After this detailed account of the labours of
Paul at Antioch in Pisidia, Luke subjoins only brief notices of his
further labours, partly because, from the nature of the case, his dis-
courses must have embraced nearly the same topics, and partly be-
cause the consequences that resulted assumed quite a similar shape.
In Iconium also the influence of the doctrine of the cross displayed
itself as a powerful leaven ; but here too the envious feeling of the
Jews took offence at the calling of the Gentiles, and drove the
apostles onwards to Lystra and Derbe. (Ver. 1, the phrase Kara rb
avTo can be taken in no other than the usual meaning of "at the
same time," " together." — Ver. 2. On KaKOG)^ see at chap. vii. 6.
Here it is used in the sense of exacerbare, "to excite, to inflame."
It frequently bears the same signification in Joseplius, [See Arch,
xvi. 1, 2.] — In ver. 3, the signs and wonders are represented as quite
independent of the power of him, through whose instrumentality
they are wrought : the glorified Redeemer is called their author. —
Ver. 6. The name Lystra is employed sometimes as a feminine
noun, and sometimes as a neuter plural, as in verse 8.)

Vers. 8-12. — In Xjystra (on the borders of Lycaonia and Isauria),
the cure of a lame man performed by Paul excited great atten-
tion, and gave rise to a singular scene which Luke minutely de-
scribes. The Gentiles recognized the presence of supernatural powers
in the work of the strangers, who had come to their city ; but
swayed by their mythological notions, they regarded Paul and Bar-
nabas as Mercury and Jupiter, come down again to visit men, as
once they had visited Philemon and Baucis, who had lived in those
very regions, and they wished to offer sacrifice to them. This oc-

324 Acts XIV. 13-20.

currence is interesting, particularly because it shews, that faitli in
the old doctrine of the gods was still more deeply rooted in the
popular mind, than one would have been disposed to imagine. At
the same time, it must not be overlooked that this occurrence took
place in a remote town, to which the philosophical illumination of
the age of Augustus had not yet penetrated. And here the ques-
tion presents itself, whether the unsophisticated simple faith reposed
by the inhabitants of Lystra in the old divinities, made them more
disposed to receive the Gospel, than if they had broken loose from
ancient notions ? When this latter state was connected with an
earnest longing after the true knowledge of God, then certainly it
•was more favourable to the reception of the Gospel, but it was gen-
erally accompanied with a complete despair of all truth ; and com-
pared with this unhappy position, the state of the people of Lystra
undoubtedly deserves the preference. The idea of the influence of
a higher world of spirit upon this lower world, was still current
among them ; and from this they might the more easily be guided
to the one true God, the beams of whose glory they reverenced in
their numerous divinities.

(In ver. 11, mention is made of the speech of Lycaonia. Ja-
blonski, in a treatise contained in the collection of his dissertations
by te Water, has rendered it probable that this was only a corrupted
Greek dialect. — Yer. 12 shews plainly that Paul possessed the gift
of oral address in a high degree : he always took the lead in speak-
ing on missionary journeys. In ver. 13, the words, "Levg 6 -npo ~T]g
TToXecjg wVj Jupiter, who zvas before the city, lead to the conclusion
that there was a temple of Jupiter also in the city. The peculiar
form of expression here exhibited, is to be explained on the principle,
that according to the rude popular notion, the image was really
taken for the God ; a supplying of lepov or vaog is quite inadmis-
sible, as it would require the repetition of the article. Among the
ancients, the ttqottvXoc, or God dwelling in the suburbs, is often dis-
tinguished from the noXLovxog, or God protecting the city itself.
The covering of the gates with garlands has respect to the residence
of the two apostles.)

Vers. 18-20, — Paul and Barnabas were naturally confounded at
these tokens of reverence, and attempted to raise the heathens from
the natural powers which they worshipped in their divinities, to the
one Creator of nature and of all its powers. They succeeded in re-
straining the men from their purpose, but the malignant Jews of
Antioch and Iconium wrought against the apostles, and contrived
speedily to estrange from them the fickle multitude. — (In ver, 14,
the textus receptus reads eloe-nridriaav, but Griesbach has adopted the
more difi&cult and rare reading, e^e-nri6i]aav : the view to be formed
of the scene is this, that the multitude surround the dwelling of the

Acts XIV. 21-28. 325

apostles, and the apostles rush forth from it into the midst of them.
In ver. 15, Paul places the living God Qebg ^Cjv = •«rj Vn, as the
wonder-working Creator, in contrast with the impotent [naraioig]
idols, and himself upon a level with all other men. 'OnotonaOrig
occurs also in James v. 17, in the same signification, " subject to
like sufierings, to like infirmity."

Vers. 16 and 17, embrace thoughts of great dogmatic import-
ance, which however are to receive further consideration in Acts
xvii. 27, 28, and especially in Rom. i. 19, 20, ii. 14, iii. 25. In the
first place, Paul contrasts the present time, as the time of the
Messiah, with former times, in which the heathen world, with no
Buch light as the Jewish nation possessed, lived on in their own ways.
In this thought is to be found the apology for the design of the
people of Lystra, so blasphemous considered in itself But again
this situation of the Gentile world was not sufficient to free them
altogether from guilt; for nature herself, with all the wonderful ar-
rangements which she exhibits, furnished the means of rising to the
idea of the true God, who summoned the whole fabric into being.
This declaration of the 17th verse is worthy of nolice, not only be-
cause it embraces the elements of the argument upon which Natural
Theology rests, but also particularly, because it suggests the idea,
BO important with reference to the biblical view of man, that fallen
human nature is not absolutely dead to every higher feeling, a
thought which stands in close connexion with the whole circle of
Paul's ideas. It need scarcely however be mentioned, that those
persons err egregiously, who employ this and the parallel passages
cited above, for the purpose of proving the sufficiency of man's own
powers. Here too truth lies in the middle. Finally, the words
d[idpTvpog and Kapnocpopog are not found elsewhere in the New Tes-
tament.)

Vers. 21-28. — Without communicating any particulars regarding
the stay of Paul in Derbe, Luke only informs us of the journey
back, which lay through the same places that the apostles had
formerly visited. His second appearance among the churches was
employed in confirming the disciples in the faith, and he also or-
dained elders over them, and settled, as such ordination implied,
their ecclesiastical arrangements. The expresssion in verse 23 is a
peculiar one, ;:^;£fpoTov^(Tai'Ttf avrolg ■ngeafivrtpovg^ electing for them
elders. It does not permit us to suppose there was a free choice on
the part of the church, but intimates that the apostles themselves
Bought out the parties qualified for office. The general mind might
not yet be so much developed, that the business of choosing could
bs committed to the young churches themselves. Often too the

326 Acts XV. 1.

be so small, that the persons were apparent at a glance, to whom
alone offices in the church could be entrusted.

At last the travelling messengers of Christ returned by Attalea
in Pamphylia to the mother church at Antioch, and presented a
report of their proceedings. They regarded themselves therefore
as dependent upon the church in Antioch, an important intimation,
from which it may be concluded, that a loose and isolated itinerancy
of detached individuals for the preaching of the Gospel is not pro-
per. The individual messenger, extraordinary cases excepted, must
always retain his connexion with the church universal, and therefore
must belong to some particular Christian community. The time
the apostles remained in Antioch, is only described in very general
terms as not short, oiic oAtyov, ver. 28. It is common to regard the
afflictions (dXifeig, ver. 22), for which Paul prepares the brethren,
as referring only to the persecutions with which the primitive church
had to contend. But the words of the apostle hold good in refer-
ence to Christians of aU times. (See Matth. v, 11.) For in the
Gospel itself, and in the spirit which it inspires, there is an element
opposed to the world, and tending to excite its opposition. The
world feels that in this power lies its death, and therefore it makes
resistance against it, and seeks to kill the life. It is only the forms
of afflictions therefore that change ; they themselves touch every
believer more or less, but in the hand of God they form a process of
training for eternal life. 2 Tim. iii. 12. — Yer. 27. Regarding Ovga
TTJg mareutg, see 1 Cor. xvi. 9 ; Colos. iv. 3.

§ 6. The Apostolic Council.

(Acts XV. 1-35.)

The transaction which follows is one of the most remarkable
communications to be found in the Acts of the Apostles, although
Luke by no means mentions everything of importance that occurred
during this visit of Paul to Jerusalem : his account must be sup-
plemented from what is stated in Gal. ii. 1-10. (See at that pas-
sage.)

And in the first place, as respects the outward /onw of the trans-
action, this section exhibits the first example of a regular and pub-
lic consultation regarding a subject that affected the whole church.*
As the result too of the deliberations was communicated in a letter to
all individual churches, the application to this assembly of the name
of ihQ first council is really not unsuitable. The practice of dealing

* Tho transactions which are mentioned in chap. xi. 1, etc., have more the form of a
private conference, than of an official public consultation.

Acts XV. 1. 32T

with controverted subjects by means of synods, is deeply grounded
in the nature of Christianity : there is displayed in it that spirit of
fellowship Q(Oivo)vta)j which regards everything single and individual
as belonging to the whole body. This first council, however, doea
not appear to have been composed of deputies from all particular
churches, but the mother church of Jerusalem still stands forth as
predominant. Yet it is not by any means to be regarded as an as-
sembly of one church, but the presbyters of this church rather bear
in the apostolic college, to which they are subordinate, a relation to
the whole church. (Chap. xv. 2, 4, 6, 22.) Whether all the apos-
tles who were yet alive, or only some of them, were collected to-
gether on this occasion, is not expressly mentioned ; but it is the
more probable view, that they were all present.* For, as the mes-
sengers who were sent from the church at Antioch, returned from
time to time to that church, so it is probable that the apostles, jour-
neying from place to place, would occasionally visit the mother
church at Jerusalem, partly to give an account of the success of
their labours, and partly to receive spiritual refreshment from re-
newed intercourse with the brethren. If we take this view of the
circumstance, then it becomes apparent that Jerusalem would be
the heart, as it were, of the body of the church, from which all life
streamed out, and to which it again flowed back. James, therefore,
the bishop of Jerusalem, must necessarily have been of great im-
portance in the church, because, altogether irrespectively of his spir-
itual worth, his position made him as it were the fixed central point
of the church.

And as the form of the transactions here described is highly im-
portant, so also is their substance. They have respect to the point,
which had already at an earlier period come under consideration, of
the conditions under which the Gentiles should be received into the
church. (See chap. x. xi. 1-18.) At that time all had been con-
vinced of the propriety of Peter's conduct (chap. xi. 18); with
many however there must have been doubts remaining, which grad-
ually forced themselves again into notice, and even assumed the
form of a fixed conviction of the opposite. We find this difterent
view represented by certain presbyters of Jerusalem (chap. xv. 4, 5,
7), who had formerly belonged to the sect of the Pharisees. These
men, on account of the importance which they attached to the legal
forms, must have been very suspicious of a principle, whose preva-
lence, it might be foreseen, would one day bring the law into utter
disuse ; they held themselves therefore obliged, only to permit such

* From the circumstance that of the apostles only John and Peter are named in GaL
iL 9, it cannot be concluded that Paul met only these two in Jerusalem : it is not his pur-
pose in this passage to mention all who were present, but only the leading men in the
apostolic college.

328 Acts XV. 1.

a reception of the Gentiles into tlie ehurcli, as was consistent with
maintaining the divinity and perpetual obligation of the Mosaic law
even in its outward forms. It has already been remarked, that this
opinion of the strict Jewish Christians is more plausible than in our
times we are disposed to imagine, a circumstance which accounts for
the numerous and obstinately conducted controversies that existed
in the primitive church regarding this point. When the divinity of
the Old Testament is more or less doubted, as it so commonly is in
our day, so that even many believing men entertain very subordinate
views of this portion of God's word, it is very easy to dispose of
the question regarding the relation of the Gentiles to the law ; but
when we proceed upon the Divine original of the Old Testament,
and consider the strong declarations which it makes regarding the
perpetual obligation of its ordinances, and the curses which it pro-
nounces upon those who disregard them, and when we take into con-
sideration the declarations of Christ himself, for example, in Matthew
V. 11, apparently to the very same effect ; we then can readily com-
prehend, how persons of a somewhat anxious and timid disposition
might not be able to soar uj) to the free spiritual view of the law,
which Paul, with all the might of the Spirit vindicated, and which
assigns perpetuity not to the outward form of the ordinances of the
law, but only to the ideas wrapt up in these coverings, which receive
their absolute fulfilment in the Gospel, and are therefore not lost
although the external forms perish.

This position of circumstances we see that the apostles with
great wisdom consider. They are very far from dismissing, as ob-
stinate opposers of the truth, the rigid Jewish Christians with their
scruples ; they rather recognize these scruples up to a certain point;
but still they cannot deviate from the practice already introduced,
of admitting the Gentiles into the church without circumcision, and
the burden of the law ; they therefore strike upon the middle way
of satisfying the one party by some concessions, while yet they do
not discourage the Gentiles by too burdensome requirements. But
although up to this period the rigid Jewish Christians must appear
to us less worthy of blame, yet their position became essentially
changed after the decrees adopted by the apostles. Those who even
after this still maintained, in opposition to the mind of the apostles
and elders, their former view of the necessity of the Gentiles ob-
serving the whole law, betrayed a wilfulness and regard for their
own opinion, which were manifestly sinful, and which became more
and more censurable the longer they were clung to.

It was from this party, who occasioned so many conflicts to the
Apostle Paul, that the sect of the Ebionites took its rise. The one
error, by which they were separated from the living body of the
church, speedily gave rise to another, viz., the vulgar Jewish view

Acts XV. 1. 329

of the Messiah as merely a distinguished man, by the maintenance
of which they removed themselves entirely from really Christian
ground. Fortunately however during the lifetime of the apostles,
this party had no defenders of any note, James, indeed, the brother
of the Lord, and bishop of Jerusalem, together with the greater
part of the apostles who remained in Palestine, observed for them-
selves, like the Nazarenes of a later period, the law according to the
manner of their fathei^s, but without wishing to impose it upon the
Gentiles. It has been falsely inferred from Gal. ii. 12, that James
himself might be the head of this party of rigid Jewish Christians.
The parties there mentioned, rtvlg aTrb 'la/cw/Sou, certain ones from
James, are not to be regarded as messengers and legates deputed
by the bishop, but only as members of his church, who without and
against his will had stirred up disturbance in Antioch ; and accord-
ingly the expression corresponds entirely to the words in the apos-
tolic epistle (chap. xv. 24) nveg t^ ijfiCJVj certain ones from us, who
assuredly could have no commission, since the apostles altogether
disavow them. Still, however, it remains a remarkable fact, that
these wrong-headed Jewish Christians were able to exercise such an
influence over Peter and Barnabas, as Paul mentions in Gal. ii. 11,
etc., after the question had bften so decidedly settled in their expe-
rience. It has been imagined that this strange circumstance might
be explained, by supposing the Epistle to the Galatians to have
been written before the Ajoostolic Council ; but, in the first place,
chronology is too decidedly opposed to this supposition, for Paul, at
the time of his first journey, had not yet visited Galatia, and again,
even if it could be made probable that the Epistle to the Galatians
was written so early, it would be of no avail to the main point under
consideration.' For surely in the case of Peter, what occurred with
Cornelius, recorded in the tenth chapter, and undoubtedly prior to
Paul's writing to the Galatians, was decisive ; and the question ac-
cordingly presents itself, how it is conceivable that Peter, after such
communications from on high, could again waver ? In the first
place, it must here be remarked, that all parties in the church have
always taught in accordance with the Scripture itself (see Acts xiv.
15), that the apostles did not cease, even after they received the
Holy Ghost, to be sinful men : along with the new man, the old
man too still lived in them : sinful men, therefore, they remained
subject to the possibility of error.* But, in the second place, should

* Excellently does Steudel shew (in his dscussion on Inspiration in der Tubinger
theoL Zeitschrift Jahrg. 1832, h. 3), that tbo truth of the doctrines preached by the
apostles is quite independent of the degree of their personal holiness and advancement,
and rather rests upon purely objective communication of the truth to them from on high.
The same holds good of the Old Testament prophets, some of whom, as the history of
Jonas shews, were very deficient; and the principle too apphes to the servants of the
church in oar own and ux all times. The Christian minister docs not fashion the truth.

330 Acts XV. 1.

it be said, "certainly the apostles were liable to error, bat not
in matters of faith, and the question here relates to a religious
point ;" then let it be considtired that, even in the apostles, we
must suppose moments when the power of the Spirit that wrought
in them retired, and their own subjectivity prevailed. Now if we
suppose that in Peter his own natural biases were for a moment in
the ascendant, when the Jewish Christians came from Jerusalem,
and that they probably assailed him on his weak side, and called
him apostate, the whole occurrence receives a satisfactory explana-
tion. And the authority of Peter* could have been injured only
by his obstinately persisting in his error ; but, as he humbly ac-
knowledged his mistake to Paul, his stumbling only became a
triumph to the cause of the truth. The apostles, like all other
believers, were distinguished from the world, not by never going
wrong, but by the fact that, when they did go wrong, they were
sufficiently humble to acknowledge their mistake, and immediately
to correct it. Nor is the authority of Scripture in any degree affected
by the facts before us : this would only be the case if the error of
Peter were inserted as a truth : then indeed the Scriptures could not
have been composed by the sacred penmen under the full influence''
of spiritual illumination, and could consequently furnish no rule of
faith for all succeeding times. But since they represent the error
of Peter as one removed and overcome by the power of the Spirit,
they are on this very account shewn to be altogether pure and genu-
ine, because they openly acknowledge what is apparently prejudicial
to their authority. But finally, it is decisive of the whole question,
that we cannot, on close consideration, say that the error of Peter
and of the strict Jewish Christians was one properly doctrinal ; the
blessings of the Gospel are certainly not neutralized by the observ-
ance of the law. Suppose therefore the ancient church had stood
to the principle, that every Gentile who wished to join the church
must keep the law ; then indeed the speedy diffusion of Christianity

nor yet the Divine effect springing from it, by his own personal qualities, but that effect
rests upon the inward power residing in the Divine word and in the preaching of Christ.
Tet we mean not to deny, what is evident of itself, that a pastor of eminence and expe-
rience is able to labour more comprehensively and judiciously than one who is deficient
in these qualities; it is only meant to oppose what has become prevalent in our times and
in the evangelical church, an undue estimate of the subjective element, and to vindicate
the objective character of the Christian scheme of salvation.

* With regard to this subject the circumstance must not be overlooked, that Peter
was particularly called, as also tlie rest of the Twelve, to labour among the Jews, while
the Gentile world was expressly assigned to Paul This was not an arbitrary arrange-
ment, but was made with a due respect to their entire constitution and habits. Peter
was reallv more at home in the Jewish element, and for that reason was the less able to
sympathize with the wants of the Gentile Christians. (On this point see Comm. on GaL
ii 7, 9, where the formal distribution of the labours of the apostles among the Jews and
Gentiles is considered.)

Acts XV. 1. 331

would have been greatly hindered, but its essential character would
not have been destroyed. That observance of the law, of which
Paul speaks in the Epistle to the Galatians (v. 4), " Christ is be-
come of none effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the
law ; ye are fallen from grace," is plainly not to be confounded with
the observance here supposed. Paul is opposing the idea, that it is
the observance of the law which makes men righteous before God,
an idea which obviously destroys the essence of the Gospel ; but
Peter might suppose that the reception of the law was a suitable
method of introducing Gentiles into the church, without at all plac-
ing justification in anything else than ftiith in Christ. It was this
only that the strict Jewish Christians wished at first, otherwise the
apostles would have sternly rebuked them, and made no approaches
to them at all : it was afterwards, when polemical ardour sharpened
the points of opposition, that the Judaizing party, out of a false
zeal for the Old Testament and its forms, gradually went to the
extent of impairing entirely the essential character of the New
Testament.

And if the proceeding of Peter is excusable on the grounds stated,
it may also be readily understood and explained how it occurred, if
we consider that the question regarding the relation of the Gentiles
to the law by no means exhausts the whole subject. Paul laboured,
although not positively, yet negatively, to free even the native Jews
on their entrance into the church from the observance of the law.
Now, that was a step further, and it might be exceedingly difficult
to make the lawfulness of it plain to one like Peter, who probably
held that the native Israelites were bound perpetually to observe
the law, and in this way his doubts would be revived in reference
even to the relation of the Gentiles to the law.* This whole ques-

* To guard as much as possible the difficult question of the apostle's liability to error
from all misunderstanding, I submit the following additional remarks. As the prophets
of the Old Testament, according to the remark already made, were not perfect men, so
also the apostles carried their heavenly treasure of the new birth and of the Holy G host
in earthen vessels. They are not witnesses of the truth on account of their own subjective
perfection, but only because God chose them according to his free grace to be instruments
of bis revelation. In accordance with this destination, indications of their liability to error
could only appear in those moments, when they spoke in the mei-e exercise of their ov^a
powers. (Comp. 2 Sam. vii. 3, 4.) But so soon again as they spoke with Divine author-
ity in the power of the Spirit, as heralds of the truth intrusted to them, they were infal-
libly directed by the Spirit who guides into all truth. In earthly matters, therefore, so far
as these were not connected with the faith, or they had received no particular instruction
regarding them, the apostles might err. But with respect to their work as writers of the
Scriptures, no fault or error can be supposed in the religious and moral ideas, because the
work was performed in the most elevated moments of the inward life of faith, and when
their personal character was in the background. When therefore Scripture makes men-
tion of the error of an apostle, the truth of the account lies in this, that it represents the
error as an error. In this way we may recognize the Scripture, as we must do, to be an
infallible witness of the truth in religious and moral ideas, and a clear light shining upon

332 Acts XV. 1-5.

tion, however, regarding the relinquishment of the law in the case
of Jewish Christians, will receive a further consideration at chap,
xxi. 17, etc.

Vers. 1-5. — The whole question regarding the relation of the
Gentiles to the law was hrought under discussion by certain emis-
saries from Jerusalem. (Tcvsq d-rrb rrjg lovdacag is most closely de-
fined by Tcveg i^ rj^ojv in ver. 24.) These men demanded that the
Gentiles should receive circumcision, which, as the more important
and burdensome part stands for the observance of the law in general.
(Comp. ver. 5.) By the expression however, ov duvaade GU)dT\vai, ac-
cording to the remarks already made, we are not to understand that
the Jewish party, instead of connecting salvation (awrT/pm) with
Christ and his redemption, connected it with circumcision — in that
case Paul and the whole church must have altogether denied their
claim to be Christians (see Comm. on Gal. v. 4) — but it must be
understood only as intimating, that the Gentile could not come in
the regular way to the salvation that is in Christ, excepting through
circumcision and the observance of the law. To this the apostles
might suppose it necessary to yield, conceding somewhat to the
weakness of the advocates of this view.

(Vers. 1. — The additional clause, rwv TremarevKOTCJv dnb rrig alpi-
oeo)g Tu>v (^aQtoaMv, although correct as to the substance of the state-
ment, as is plain from ver. 5, is yet not a genuine reading here, but
has been interpolated from the verse in question. — Ver. 2. The
" certain others" are not more particularly defined, but from Gal. ii.
1, where the same journey of Paul to Jerusalem that is here men-
tioned is spoken of, it may be concluded that Titus accompanied
the apostle.* This attendant Paul refused, notwithstanding the
demands of the opposite party, to circumcise, that he might shew
practically the decided character of his principles : it is known that
he acted otherwise in the case of Timothy [chap. xvi. 3].f In the
connexion between verses 4 and 5 a difficulty has been supposed to

the dark pathway of life ; and yet we need not mistake the subjective imperfection of the
apostles (as well as of the mere outward form of Scripture).

* See the particulars regarding the journey, both in the general introduction to the
Epistles of Paul, and at the passage itself in Gal. ii. 1. Probably it took place in the year
52, after the birth of Christ (compare the second chronological table), although accounts
fluctuate between the year 47 and 52 after Christ.

f Paul acted differently in the case of Timothy, but still in both cases he acted con-
sistently with his principles. He refused to circumcise Titus, because those wlio asked
him to do so attached undue importance to circumcision, and made it essential to salva-
tion. They had fallen from grace, GaL v. 4, and he could not countenance them. Besides
Titus was a Greek, Gal. ii. 3. But Timothy was a Jew, by the mother's side, Acts xvi. 1.
And Paul circumcised him that he might shew he did not maintain the unlawfulness of
circumcision in the case of the Jews, provided only they did not substitute it in the room
of the redemption of Christ. As a Jewish custom it was not wrong ; but made indLspeaa-
able to salvation under the Gospel, it was derogatory to the Saviour. — [Tb.

Acts XV. 6-12. 333

exist : Paul and Barnabas were dispatched for the express purpose
of procuring for the Gentiles exemption from the observance of the
law, and hence it has appeared remarkable that they say nothing ot
the occasion of their journey. It has therefore been proposed to
supply Xiyovreg before t^avioTriaav di riveg, so that the 5th verse
might contain an account of the arrival of the persons mentioned in
ver. 1, with whom the controversy had arisen. But this transition
from the indirect fonn of speech to the direct, is manifestly fuU of
harshness, not to mention that the word Xeyovreg occurs once more
in the same verse. It is far more simple to say, that Luke pre-
supposes the occasion of the address delivered by the deputies to
have been already mentioned, and introduces them as giving an
account of their labours with the view of refuting their oppon-ents.
But in Jerusalem too, the strict Jewish Christians rose up imme-
diately against them, and demanded that the Gentiles should observe
the law.)

Vers. 6-12. — ^For the settlement of this difficult question a formal
assembly of the apostles and elders was appointed at Jerusalem *
In this meeting opinions were at first divided. It may therefore be
concluded with certainty, that some even of the presbyters belonged
to the strict Jewish Christians. So far as verse 5 is concerned, it
might still remain uncertain, whether the elders formerly mentioned
were not simply believers (ver. 4), invested with no ecclesiastical
office, but here in the assembly there were only ministers of the
church, and yet there arose a warm dispute {ov^ijTTjmg) about the
question. First of all, Peter arose and detailed his own experience,
which he had already, at an earlier period, laid before the church
(chap. xi. 1, etc.), and by which at that time he had convinced them
of the propriety of his conduct. It does not appear clear how Peter
can call the attempt to impose upon the Gentiles the yoke of the
law, a tempting of God (jTeipdi^eiv rbv Oeov). But the choice of this
expression probably takes its rise from ver. 8, where Peter mentions
the giving of the Holy Ghost to Cornelius and his friends. This
gift furnished an exhibition that could not at all be mistaken of the
Divine will : every deviation from it therefore was a wilful tempting
of God, because he could not possibly give more convincing proofs
of his will.

(Ver. 7. — The phrase a0' rjnepcjv dpxaioiv is formed after the He-
brew £5-^ c^)a;i, Ps. xliv. 2. It points to a considerable time, which
must have elapsed since the conversion of Cornelius. It is fitted to
make the impression that the question, as to its essential features,
has been settled long ago. The tv -qfuv must by no means be
regarded as equivalent to rjnag : that idea is negatived by the

* Regarding the section that follows, see Stier in den Reden der Apostel, Bd. ii. s. 29,
etc.. and Menkens Blicke in das Leben des Apostela Paulas, p. 14, etc.

334 Acts XV. 13-18.

(lov which follows : rather must ejUt- be supplied, and the passage
rendered thus: "God made choice among us'oi me, to preach
first to the Gentiles." — Ver. 9. The expression ry iriaieL Kadaplaa^
rag icapdiag^ cleansing their hearts hy faith, is a peculiar one. The
purifying, sanctifying principle is properly the Spirit, but this is re-
ceived in connexion with faith, and therefore the same effect may
be ascribed to the one, which belongs to the other. — Ver. 10. It is
a remarkable acknowledgment of Peter, that neither they nor their
fathers had been able to bear the law. That the apostle could make
this declaration before the venerable assembly without being contra-
dicted, shews that all were penetrated with the truth of the state-
ment. The sentiment illustrates the important passages of Paul's
writings contained in Rom. iii. 20 and Gal. iii. 10. — Ver, 11. With
the law [i'0;txof] is contrasted, entirely according to the usage alike
of Paul and of John, the grace which has been revealed in Christ
[xciQig : see Comm. at John i. 17 ; Eom. iii. 21.] Finally we
must not refer the words Kad' bv rponov iidKetvoi to the patriarchs,
with the older interpreters, but to the Gentiles, as Kuinoel has al-
ready rightly remarked. )

Ver. 13-18. — After the deputies of Antioch had availed them-
selves of the impression made by the speech of Peter, to get their
own similar experience made known, James at length arose, and by
means of a healing measure endeavoured to soothe the opposite
party, and to bring about an unanimous decision of the assembly.
First of all the bishop mentions the predictions of the Old Testa-
ment regarding the calling of the Gentiles, citing Amos ix. 11, 12.
But here we see not, how the quotation bears upon the point under
review : the opposite party did not object to the reception of the
Gentiles considered in itself : the only question raised was about
the conditions of the reception, but the passage says not in express
terms, that the Gentiles were to be received without the observance
of the law and circumcision. Probably however James dj-ew his
conclusion from the silence of the passage quoted, which does not
at all declare that the Gentiles were first to become Jews in order
to gain admission into the kingdom of the Messiah, but rather de-
scribes them as seeking the Lord in the character of Gentiles.*

(Regarding iTTLaictnTeodai, see Comm. on Luke i. 68. The words
em T<^ dvonari avrov, are after the Hebrew fashion loosely appended,
corresponding to ■'js.a; V?, They are to be viewed as in apposition
with ^aog, and denote the near relation of the people of Israel,
that is, the true spiritual Israel, to God, Rom. ii. 28, 29. — In the

* On this point, see Hengstenberg's remarks (Christology. B. iii. p. 233, etc.), accord-
ing to ■wbicli the quotation acquires signiflcancy only when connected with the declara-
tion of God, made not verbally but virtually in the communication of the Holy Ghost to
the Gentiles.

Acts XV. 19-21. 335

quotation, vers. 16-18, the first verse, upon which less stress is laid,
deviates very far from the LXX., but the last two agree almost ex-
actly. In most manuscripts of the LXX., the words rbv icvqlov are
wanting, but the Alexandrian codex has them. In the concluding
words, further, the phrase yvuoTal an' alCjvog is wanting. But the
last verses deviate entirely from the Hebrew, which runs thus :
D'.Ts? n-'nN'i— nx !;s;n->: ■\yyzh, that is, " to the end that they may possess
the remnant of Edom." In this form the passage could not at all
appear suitable to the purpose of James ; and therefore, if we can
suppose, as is extremely probable, that we possess an exact account
of these important transactions, then it may be concluded, that in
the bosom of the Assembly at this time Greek must have been
spoken, because the passage adduced can only have been cited from
the LXX.»

The expression, oic7]vrj AafSiS^ t^^t nisa, is a figurative name for
his house and family, but David's family stands for the entire na-
tion, of which it forms the central point. — Ver. 17. t</)' ovg, with the
following trr' avrovg, corresponds to the Hebrew nx-s—tr.-'V.s. More-
over the phrase, t-0' ovg iTntceiiXrjTat to ovoiid [lov, divides the Gentile
world into two parts, viz., those upon whom the name of the Lord
is named, and others upon whom it is not named. The former
mean those ordained to eternal life.)

Vers. 19-21.— Instead of laying upon the Gentiles the burden
of the whole law, -and consequently of circumcision, James recom-
mends to enforce upon them only the reception of certain individual
precepts of easy observance. The object of this enforcement was
plainly nothing but this, to meet in some measure the difficulties of
the Jewish Christians, and to lead the Gentile Christians to shun
whatever might prove offensive to their Jewish brethren. In all
this, then, it was clearly indicated that the prohibitions had no ab-
solute value ; once let the Jewish Christians be more thoroughly
freed from Old Testament forms, and the end for which those ordi-
nances were made would no longer exist. Now the ground on
which these particular points were brought into view, is explained
by the circumstance, that they were wont to be laid upon the pro-
selytes of the gate in the so-called seven precepts of Noah. (Com-
pare Buxtorf. lex. rabb. sub voce ia, pag. 407, seq., and Winer's
bibl. Eeallex. under the word proselytes.) This, therefore, is the
import of the arrangement, that the Gentile Christians should not
be obliged to become proselytes of righteousness by circumcision,

* See the note on this subject in the Comm., Part i., at Luke iv. 18, 19. Hengstenbcrg
in the work above referred to, page 235, etc., will not allow there is any difference. Yet
ho himself confesses, that the Alexandrian translators have substituted a general idea
m the room of the particular, which is marked out by Amos as part of the general. Now
my words mean nothing more than this : I readily acknowledge that the particular, viz.,
Edom, is quite suitably extended to the general, viz., the Gentiles {tOinii).

336 Acts XV. 19-21.

but only to live as proselytes of the gate. Those of the seven pre-
cepts of Noah, which are here omitted, viz., the ones regarding blas-
phemy, murder, robbery, sedition, were of such a kind that it was
self-evident to Christians that the like should have no place among
them : in the present instance it was not so much precepts of a
purely moral character, which required to be brought forward, as
precepts which referred merely to the outward life. That the dXio-
yTJuara rcjv eidu)Xcjv are to be understood of an outward act, viz., the
eating of the flesh of sacrifices, is quite clear from the analogous
expression eldoiXodvTa which occurs in the 29th verse. The more
particular distinction made by Paul in 1 Cor. x., between such flesh
of sacrifices as was bought like any other in the shambles, and such
as was eaten in the temple at an idol-festival, is not entered upon by
the assembly : they forbid in the widest sense all eating of sacrifices,
because the Jews took offence at it. The same holds good of the
eating of blood, and, which is the same thing, of that which was
strangled, in which the blood remained congealed.* The Jews had
the utmost abhorrence of the eating of blood, which was grounded
particularly upon the strong declarations of the Old Testament con-
tained in Lev. xvii. 10, 11. In this passage it is not merely said
that Jehovah would set his face against him who eats blood, but
the blood is also represented as the support of the soul, that is, of
the psychical life, and it is placed in connexion with the propitia-
tion, which can only be made by the shedding of blood. (Heb. ix.
22.) This law appears to have been strictly observed by the primi-
tive church (see Euseb. H. E. v. 1), and even in the middle ages
the injunction was frequently given by the spiritual authorities to
avoid the eating of blood.f

The mention of fornication (Tropvem) appears to be quite foreign
to the nature of the other injunctions, and opposed to our view of
the object of these apostolic ordinances. It blends a purely moral
precept with ordinances that refer only to matters of outward ob-
servance. As the Codices present no various readings, conjecture
has been called in to give her assistance, and, instead of -nopvEiag, it
has been proposed to read rropKEiag or x^^P^'^^^' The sense thus
brought out would indeed be very appropriate, but besides the total

* The omission of the words udl tov ■kvik.tov in several critical authorities probably
arose from this, that the two injunctions to abstain from blood and from things strangled
were regarded as identical. The prohibition of blood, and which is the same thing, of
strangled animals, had finally also an internal ground, like all laws regarding food, for
physical and psychical elements that cause derangement ought to be shunned. "When
the mighty power of the Gospel was introduced, most of these might have been abro-
gated, but it was still found necessary to forbid the eating of blood, until the power of
the new Spirit should have entirely developed itself.

f Yet this applies particularly to the Greek church : see the Acts of the second Trul-
lanic Council of the year 692 in Canon 67. In the Latin church Augustine (cont. Faus-
turn xxxii. 13) already took the right view

Acts XV. 19- -21. 387

want of critical authorities to support it, this reading is decidedly
opposed by the circumstance, that among the precepts of Noah
there is no mention made of abstinence from swine's flesh, while for-
nication is expressly introduced among them. If the reading then
be retained, which is supported too by the parallel in xxi. 25, the
difficulty can only be removed by some mode of explanation. Most
of the explanations, however, which have been proposed, are little
worthy of being received. It has been proposed to understand the
word figuratively of idolatry, but it is not possible that among
Christians gross idolatry could require to be thus spoken of ; and if
we refer the word to participation in sacrificial feasts and the eating
of sacrifices, then it coincides with the first injunction. Quite a
failure must the experiment made by Heinsius be pronounced, of
taking Tropveia for dvaia TropviKrj, by which phrase we must under-
stand a sacrifice purchased with the hire of a harlot. To overlook
every other objection, this view refers to a state of matters so grossly
sinful as could not be thought of among Christians. Undoubtedly
the only proper course is to bring into view the greater freedom of
intercourse between the sexes, which prevailed among the Greeks
and Eomans, which was an abomination to the more serious Jews,
and appeared to them in fact a refined species of whoredom. By
the word in question, therefore, which comprehends not only gross
violations of the seventh commandment, but also more polished
sins of this kind^ the assembled brethren enjoin upon the heathen
Christians greater care and circumspection in their intercourse with
the female sex, that they might give no ofience to the Jewish Chris-
tians.

The 21st verse plainly assigns, though veiy shortly, the ground
for the injunctions laid down. The connexion of thought is made
somewhat obscure by the brevity. Some have therefore been led to
inappropriate explanations of it. Some interpreters, as for example
Grotius, have thought of the reading of the Old Testament in Chris-
tian assemblies, and have therefore fancied the idea which connects
the 21st verse with the foregoing, to be this, that the complaint of
the Jewish Christians regarding the Gentile Christians was unreason-
able, since they too read the Holy Scriptures in their meetings.
And even Bengel's view is to be rejected, which makes the 21st
verse give a reason why James does not adduce, besides the passage
from the prophets, one too from the writings of Moses, viz., because
they were sufficiently known. This view is plainly quite untenable,
because the 21st verse is not connected with the quotation, for the
19th and 20th verses lie between them. The yap only permits the
concluding verse to be connected with aTrix^adai, so that the follow-
ing sense comes out : it is proper to enjoin upon the Gentile Chris-
tians the observance of the ordinances in question, because, wherever
Vol. III.— 22

338 Acts XV. 22-29.

the Jews reside the law of Moses is read, and thus those ordinances
are so deeply impressed upon the people's mind, that they cannot
tolerate the neglect of them by the Gentile Christians,

(Ver. 19. — Uapevox^-clv is found only in this passage of the New
Testament. — Ver. 20. As to ethot^XXelVj the meaning of " enjoin
by letter" must be retained, for there were no Gentile Christians in
Jerusalem. This is plain also from Acts xxi. 25. — The word dXta-
y^fiara from dXioyeo), which Hesychius explains by /lioAvvw, is found
only in the Hellenistic dialect. The LXX. use the verb for the
Hebrew Vssa, see Mai. i. 7. The substantive dXiayrma is not to be
found at all in the Greek translations of the Old Testament.)

Vers. 22-29. — After the adoption of the proposals of James, two
deputies were sent back to the churches, where the matter had first
been brought into controversy. Along with the decrees they took
an official letter to the council, which has been preserved to us in
the original by the care of Luk3. The brevity indeed and artless-
ness of the letter might make us doubt for a moment whether it be
the original of the synod's letter which we have, but a closer con-
sideration renders this in the highest degree probable. If the letter
had been copied, it would have been carried out with formal exactness,
with an account of the occasion of the controversy and information
regarding the proceedings ; but in fact this very brevity adapts it
to the precise circumstances for which it was intended. It could be
supplemented and explained by the oral accounts of the deputies, and
everywhere delivered in the churches of the Gentiles as a public
letter : for such an object the form adopted was the only one suitable.

(In ver. 22 there is a difficulty connected with the construction
of ^nXe^mhovg. The jjassive use of the middle form is unusual
[see Winer's Gr. p. 233]; and if we refer it actively to the apostles,
the accusative seems surprising, as does also the nominative ypaxp-
avreg in the 23d verse. The position of EKXe^aiihovq ^ however,
makes its connexion with roig diToaToXotg decidedly more probable,
and then the accusative with Tr^n^pac must be regarded as the accu-
sative before the infinitive. And the following ypdipavreg^ must be
viewed as an instance of incomplete construction. — Of Judas Bar-
sabas, who must not be confounded with Joseph Barsabas men-
tioned in chap. i. 23, no further mention is made in history. Silas, or
in the longer form, Silvanus, is the well-known travelling companion
of Paul. The shorter form of the name is peculiar to the Acts of
the Apostles, the longer is to be found in the letters of Paul — Ver.
23. At first the letter appears to have been directed only to the in-
habitants of certain provinces, who Avere particularly interested in
the controversy ; but that it was designed for general use is plain
from chap. xxi. 25, where we learn that Paul delivered the decrees
wherever the course of his journeys brought him. — Ver. 24. 'Avaa-

Acts XV. 30-35. 339

Kevd^o), means primarily vasa colligere, " to gather articles together
on the occasion of departing," and hence to "journey :" next " to
destroy, to entangle, to perplex." So in Thucyd. iv. 116. It oc-
curs no more in the New Testament. — Yer. 25. The apostles ex-
pressly commend Paul, in order to declare openly that they do
not concur with the charges of the Jewish Christians against him.
TiOevai ipvx^jv equivalent to vti aw. — Yer. 28. Here we find the for-
mula which has become so famous, in consequence of the general
use of it afterwards by councils : tdo^e roi dyto) nvevfian kol tjiuVj it
has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to ws.* Unfortunately, it
cannot be denied that this expression has often been employed, in
cases where the Holy Ghost only appeared and acted in specie bu-
bonis : but such abuse cannot at all prejudice the proper use of the
formula, and if its propriety be allowed anywhere, here undoubtedly
it must be supposed. In the primitive church, the operation of the
Holy Ghost in the apostles was so decidedly recognized, that their
decrees [66yna-a], as such, had binding power. [See chap. xvi. 4.]
Those therefore who opposed the decrees of the apostles, separated
themselves by that very act from the communion of the church ;
and their parties assumed a sectarian form, which led to gradual
decay and final ruin. Connexion with the apostles could alone
maintain connexion with the fountain of life, which in the Spirit of
God was bestowed upon the church.)

Yers. 30-35. — After the fulfilment of their commission, the
deputies of the church at Jerusalem devoted themselves to the
preaching of the Gospel, and Joseph Barsabas returned, after the
lapse of some time ; but Silas remained in Antioch, and attached
himself wholly to the Apostle Paul. — (Yer. 32. The clause koI avrol
'npo(p7]TaL ovreg, being themselves also prophets, is not to be understood
primarily, as in chap. xi. 27, of the gift of predicting future events,
which is not here under consideration. The connexion of these
words with the work of teaching leads to the conclusion, that the
gift of prophecy (jrpocprjTeca), must be here understood, agreeably to
the description of it given by Paul in 1 Cor. xiv,, where see the sub-
ject more particularly considered. But, of course, the foresight of
future events is not in this way excluded : it is only meant that
this is not the necessary form in which prophecy displays itself.
— Yer. 34 is remarkable on account of the plural drreXvdTjaav which
precedes it : the verse is wanting therefore in several manuscripts,
and others add the clause : ^ovog Se lovdag eTTogevdrj. Light, how-
ever, is thrown upon the arrangement of the clause, when it is sup-

* It is self-evident, however, that the words koI tj/iIv do not represent the apostles as
considered separately from the Holy Ghost : they are rather to bo understood as if it
were written Tzvev/iari iv f/ulv. See the discussion by Nitzsch regarding Acts xv. 29, io
Velthusen sylL voL vl page 385, seq.

340 Acts XV. 36-39.

posed that Silas wished at first to go back with Judas, but after-
wards bethought himself and remained. — The word avrov in verse
34 is the abbreviated form for kt:' avrov tov tottov.)

§ 7. Second Missionary Journey of Paul.

(Acts XT. 36— xviii. 22.)

The account of the second missionary journey of Paul is con-
nected, quite indefinitely as to time, with the preceding section.
lAike neither states how long Barnabas had been in Antioch before
his return to Jerusalem, nor how long Paul remained after his de-
parture. It remains therefore quite uncertain, to what the words
fierd Ttvag I'ljiepag, after some days, in ver. 36, are properly to be re-
ferred. They might be supposed to look back to the return of Paul
from Jerusalem, but this does not accord with the words Troitjaav-eg
Xpovov in ver. 33, on which account it is best to regard the depar-
ture of Judas Barsabas, by which the decision of Silas to remain
was fixed, as the period to which the formula refers. Accordingly,
we can only determine the time of this journey from its connexion
with the earlier and later points of Paul's life : the most probable
supposition is, that the commencement of it falls in the year 53
This second missionary tour appears to have proceeded at first,
solely from the desire of visiting the churches already planted. Ir
the end, however, it took a much wider sweep, for it brought the
apostle to Europe. On this account it had quite a peculiar interest
for Luke ; for it must have been of consequence to him, consid-
ering the character of his first readers, to exhibit the introduction
of the Gospel into Europe. Besides, it was shortly before the de-
parture of Paul from Troas that Luke himself first joined his com-
pany, chap. xvi. 10. He hurries therefore rapidly over the events in
Asia, and dwells with peculiar interest on Philippi, the first place in
Europe where Paul succeeded in forming a church. Afterwards too
Luke gives particular information regarding the stay of Paul in
Corinth and Athens.

Vers. 36-39. — But before the time of departure arrived, a con-
test arose between Barnabas and Paul, who were purposing to visit
together the churches which they had planted in cominon, regard-
ing John Mark, who, as we find from chap. xiii. 13, had left them
on the first journey. The manner in which Paul mentions this de-
sertion plainly shews that he blamed it and ascribed it to impure
motives on the part of Mark. It is altogether most probable that
the hardships and dangers of the journey had alarmed the inexperi-
enced youth. Now the conduct of Paul and Barnabas in reference

Acts XV. 40, 41. 341

to this event is striking in more than one respect. Not to mention
the sharp contention* which arose between them,f Paul appears,
although indeed this cannot be imagined, to have permanently-
violated the principle of love, for on account of a single fault he
entirely threw off Mark ; and of Barnabas it might be feared that
love for bis relative (for according to Col. iv. 10, Mark was related
to Barnabas), more than a conviction of his fitness, was the
motive for taking him as a companion ou his missionary journey.
But on closer consideration these surmises are seen to be perfectly
groundless. Mark appears in fact to have deserved a severe casti-
gation, and therefore Paul felt constrained to administer it, although
with no view of casting him off entirely ; and perhaps the severity
of Paul's rebuke might be the means, in the hands of God, of mould-
ing him to be a proper instrument for the kingdom of Christ ; but
if Barnabas had opposed him in the same manner, all hope might
have been at once torn from him, of doing anything for the church.
The mildness of Barnabas towards Mark, we may therefore ascribe
to the conviction that, notwithstanding the momentary transgression
of his relative, there were noble traits in him, which ought not to be
neglected. The concuiTence therefore of two such different influ-
ences, in the treatment of his case, may have been just the fitting
means for training him aright ; and there may be no reproach
due to Barnabas or Paul on account of their conduct ; both
erred only through the heat of self-will, from which the contention
arose.

Vers. 40, 41. — After this Paul chose Silas for his companion, and
went on this occasion by land, through Syria and Cilicia, into the
interior of Asia Minor, to the churches at Derbe and Lystra. Bar-
nabas, on the other hand, sailed first back to Cyprus, but there are
no accounts of the further course of his journey. The one stream of
missionary labour thus became divided into two parts, and the more
regions Avere in consequence supplied with the water of life. — (Ver.
40. The phrase TrapadoOelg ry X'^P'-''^ ''"^^ Qeov vnb ru)v ddeXcpcoVj re-
fers to the official sending forth of the messengers of Christ by the
church.)

* The attempt of many to justify both completely, or at least Paul, I cannot appro\ o.
If both had been perfect men, no contention would have arisen, no exasperation of mind ;
for there must always be two to a quarrel. Nay, there would have been no contention,
if even only one of them had been perfect. Our Lord could never have quarrelled with
any individual I In the case before us, both were indeed right, but they defended their
views in a one-sided manner, and with the heat of self-wilL

f Agreeably to the remarks made at chap. xv. 1, a contention m'ght arise even be-
tween apostolic men, just as between regenerate men in general, but only for a short
time, and doubtless the two apostles soon bethought themselves, and even rebuked their
own hearts. The word napoivofioc denotes any violent excitement of mind. It is to be
found in a good sense in Heb, x. 24.

342 Acts XVI. 1-10.

Chap. xvi. 1-5.* — Of the apostdic labours of Paul, Luke only
mentions in general, that he delivered (ver. 4) the apostolic decrees
(chap. XV. 29) everywhere, and confirmed the churches in the faith.
He makes mention of only one particular occurrence, viz., the call-
ing of Timothy, because this man plays so important a part in the
subsequent history of Paul. Acccording to the account of Luke, it
is doubtful where Timothy really came from. 'E/ceZ, there, in ver. 1
appears to refer mainly to Lystra, which is named again in ver. 2.
If the passage in Acts xx. 4, means that Timothy was from Derbe,
then the mention of Lystra and Iconium in ver. 2 must be explained
on this principle, that Paul adduces in behalf of Timothy not only
the favourable testimony, as we must suppose, of his native city, but
also that of neighbouring cities. (See the exposition of chap. xx.
4.) The notice in verse 3 is a most important one, that Paul for
the sake of the Jews circumcised Timothy, whose father was a
Greek : the father, it appears, if he was not already dead, had not
joined himself to the church ; for it is only the Jewish mother of
Timothy who is called a believer. In this the apostle appears to
have been untrue to his principles, not only in the general, but also
as exhibited in the special fact that he refused to let Titus be cir-
cumcised.— Gal. ii. 3. But the narrative about Titus refers to com-
pulsory circumcision which Paul could not submit to without com-
ing into direct collision with his principles (ovde Tirog rjvo.yKdodrj
7TEpiT[iT]d7]vai), while Timothy willingly submitted to the rite. Where
this voluntary reception of the ceremony took place, nothing could
hinder him from permitting it ; nay, his great principle of becoming
a Jew to the Jews (1 Cor. ix. 20) would rather lead him to desire,
that the heralds of the Gospel should be circumcised, in order that
they might give no offence to the weak Jews. The procedure of
Paul shews accordingly his entire freedom from self-willed dogmat-
ism, and his disinterested devotedness to the work of extending the
kingdom of God. There can be no doubt that Paul immediately
took Timothy along with him. That this adhesion to Paul is first
mentioned in chap. xvii. 15, may be easily explained from the con-
sideration, that Timothy would require to be first initiated in the
work, and therefore in the beginning could do but little. Yet it is
plain from 1 Thess. iii. 1, that Paul, when he was in Thessalonica,
had already employed Timothy on missions.

Vers. 6.-10. — It is remarkable that Luke mentions so briefly the
journey of Paul through Galatia and Phrygia : he is impatient, as
we have already remarked, -to see the apostle arrive in Europe.
From this brevity the disadvantage has arisen to us, that the for-
mation of the important churches of Galatia, as well as the places

* On chaps. xvL — xviii., see the oxcellent remarks of Tholuck in his Credibility, p.
381, etc.

Acts XVI. 6-10. 343

where they stood, have remained quite unknown to us. (See fur-
ther particulars in the introduction to the Epistle to the Galatians.)
It is a remarkable statement too which Luke here makes, that the
messengers of Christ could not preach in Asia (meaning Asia pro-
consularis with its metropolis Ephesus, corresponding to the ancient
Ionia), and Mysia and Bithynia, because the Holy Ghost hindered
them. The manner in which Luke describes this hindrance, is well
adapted to exhibit the operation of the higher spirit {-nveviia) in the
souls of the apostles. The soul {-^vxri) of the individual who had
received the Holy Ghost, was by no means so identified with the
Spirit, that he was not conscious of the difference ; but he could dis-
tinguish the movements of his soul very plainly from the operations
of the Spirit. His own impulses led often, if not to what was sin-
ful (although even this cannot be altogether excluded) yet certainly
to what was false, and what was unsuitable to the circumstances.
The operations of the Holy Ghost in such a case restrained the soul
in its activity, and guided it aright. The influence of the Spirit,
however, did not work as a power that violently compelled, but only
as one that gently guided the will : a sinful opposition to the im-
pulses of the Spirt always remained, objectively considered, a pos-
sible thing, although of course in the apostles as regenerate men the
will was inclined to follow every intimation of the Spirit. In the
passage before us, therefore, eneiQa^ov, endeavoured, denotes the
natural movement of the soul, which regards every place and every
time as equally suitable for preaching : the " not permitting" {ovk
daaev avrovg) on the other hand, denotes the restraining influence
of the Spirit, who took a wider view, and considered the minds of
men in those lands as not yet sufficiently prepared for receiving the
Gospel. It is not improbable too that outward circumstances were
adverse to their ministry in the provinces mentioned ; but Luke
cannot refer primarily to these, for then he would have said 6 Qebg,
or at least 6 Kvpiog ovk eiaaev avrovq. The word -rrveviia always refers
mainly to the inward influence which the apostles experienced in
their hearts.

Ver. 7. — Uvevj-ia 'Itjctov, spirit of Jesus, is a peculiar form of ex-
pression, found no where else in the New Testament. It is want-
ing therefore in several Codices, and even in the Textus Receptus.
The best critics however have adopted it, on account of the diffi-
culty of the reading, following the authority of the manuscripts
A.C.D.F., and several others. The difficulty of the expression
TTveviia 'Irjaov lies in this, that it seems to give countenance to the
idea of the Monophysites, of a mixture of the natures of Christ.
The Holy Ghost, of whom the Lord says in John xvi. 15, " he will
take of mine," may well indeed be styled TTvevfia Xpiarov, and often
is so styled ; but not, as it seems, -nveviia 'Irjaov, because the latter

344 Acts XVI. 11-13.

word refers only to the human nature, while the former describes
the Divine nature of the Son. The employment however of such
forms is very instructive, inasmuch as it shews that the apostles,
although they avoid grossly Monophysite intermixtures of the qual-
ities of the two natures, are yet far removed from the Nestorian dis-
junction of them. The Redeemer is always with them the one
glorious Divine-human person, in whom neither the Divine annihil-
ates or absorbs the human, nor the human the Divine. And the
church would have done well, if with respect to the important doc-
trine of the person of Christ, it had not gone beyond the forms of
expression sanctioned in the Holy Scriptures ; all the sacred penmen
discover in the choice of their dogmatic formulas a moderation,
which keeps them far from every false extreme.

A vision by night now summoned Paul to Macedonia, and im-
mediately he hastened away. This vision is commonly supposed to
have been a dream, but the text does not necessarily lead to this
conclusion, for 6ia wK-oq^ hy night, does not exclude the idea of be-
ing awake. Paul may have seen the vision while praying by night,
as it appears from Acts xvi. 25, he was wont to do. Besides, my
fundamental principle as to the gradation of the modes of Divine
revelation prevents me from admitting the idea of a dream here.
(See Comm. on Matth. i. 18.) Communication by dreams is the
lowest form of revelation, and we do not meet with it elsewhere
in the case of the apostles, who were endowed with the Holy Ghost.
Their visions of ecstacy they always receiyed in a waking condition.
(See Acts x.)

In ver. 10, Luke begins his narrative in the first person,
whence it is plain that he must now have joined the apostle's com-
pany. His modesty, however, does not permit him to enter further
on his own personal circumstances. (Regarding CTi;///3ii3a<^cj, compare
chap. ix. 22.)

Vers. 11-13. — Here the narrative at once assumes a different
character, the information imparted by Luke becoming quite minute.
The most direct course was taken by the island of Samothrace, from
which they came on the following day to the harbour of Neapolis,
in the neighbourhood of which lay Philippi. This city, rendered so
famous by tlic battle fought near it, in which the freedom of Rome
perished, was originally called Kpi^videg, but it was enlarged and for-
tified by Philip of Macedonia, and named after him. Under the do-
minion of the Romans Augustus formed a colony in it, in consequence
of which it received the jus Italicum. It is not clear why Luke calls
it TToXig TTJg fiegidog T7]g MaKsdoviag npuTT]. Macedonia was divided by
jEmilius Paulus into four parts (Liv. xlv. 29), nnd each of these
had a npuyrt] noXig ; but the chief city of the part where Philippi lay
was Amphipolis. Meyer supposes he removes the difficulty by con-

Acts XVI. 11-13. 345

necting the words ttqcott] rroXtg KoXcovia, "it M'as the first Koman colo-
nial city established in Macedonia," but noAig and ko, /jvia are never
combined so as to express one idea. As the article is wanting before
npdJTTjj we might understand the passage, as Kuinoel does, thus,
" one of the first or principal cities of this part of Macedonia," ttJ^-
being viewed as equivalent to Tavrrjg. However, Bengel's view, in
which Heinrichs also concurs, ought to be preferred, according to
which 7TQU)T7] is understood, not of the importance of the city, but of
its situation. Philippi was the first city of this part of Macedonia,
which Paul reached by the course he was pursuing, for Neapolis was
only the port of Philippi.

On the very first Sabbath they visited the assembly of the Jews
in Philippi, and entered into discourse with the female proselytes
whom they found collected there. The Jews commonly had their
places of meeting beside rivers, because they found them requisite
for their washings. The circumstance that they were often without
the city, might be occasioned, as much by the hostility of the Gen-
tiles, as by the desire of the Jews that their usages should attract
the less notice.

(The original signification of the word evoiU^ero, from v6i.iog, "to
prevail as a custom, statute, regulation," must be retained, and
thus we admit here no pleonasm. Eegarding Trpooevxtj, see Comm.
on Matth. iv. 23. It is the abbreviated expression for r\tv. n-'s,
ohog -rrpoaevxrig, Matth. xxi. 13.)

It is here we first find the narrative conducted in the first per-
son, and this leads us to consider more narrowly the view already
touched upon in the introduction, and defended particularly by Bleek
and Ubich, that this form does not spring from the fact of Luke's
having been an eye-witness, but is to be traced up to the author of
the documents which Luke employed, whom the learned men in
question suppose to have been Timothy. But the reasons given do
not appear to me sufficient to establish this assertion. In the first
place an appeal is made to the fact, that Luke does not appear, at
least at that time, to have been so intimately connected with Paul
as this inclasive form of narrative would indicate : it is in his latest
letters that Paul first names Luke, as in Col. iv. 14 ; Philem. ver. 24 ;
2 Tim. iv. 11. But the form of the narrative in question proceeds
from Luke, not from Paul : in the mouth of the latter it would be
an expression of great familiarity, but even the servant may describe
the journey of his master in the first person : how much more then
the assistant of an apostle, although occupying a subordinate posi-
tion ? Again, it is asserted that the cessation of the inclusive form
of narrative, as well as the recurrence of it, coincides with occasions,
as to which we know from other sources that Timothy had either
left the apostle, or had returned to him. That certainly would be

346 Acts XVI. 14, 15.

a consideration of no small importance. No doubt Luke might have
been absent at the same time with Timothy, or have returned along
with him ; but still undeniably such a fact would support the hy-
pothesis, that Timothy was the author of the inclusive form of nar-
rative. But the supposition does not appear to me sufficiently
established. In the very passage before us, the narrative proceeds
as far as chap. xvi. 17 in the first person with "we" (jinuc); and,
from the 19 th verse onwards, there is mention made only of Paul
and Silas as imprisoned. But this does not prove that Timothy had
gone to a distance : he was only not present at the moment of the
arrest, and the same may be supposed with regard to Luke. These
and others might be included among the brethren mentioned in ver.
40, to whom the released prisoners returned. It is true, indeed, at
chap. xvii. 1, the inclusive mode of narration ceases ; but it cannot
be proved that Timothy alone was left behind just at this point.
The supposition that Luke, if the first person was designed to include
himself in the narrative, would have stated when and why he was
anywhere left behind, is plainly of a very precarious nature. On
the other hand chap. xix. 22, speaks decidedly against the supposi-
tion that " we" in the narrative proceeds from Timothy ; for there
we find him sent by the apostle with Erastus to Macedonia. Timo-
thy had therefore been with Paul, and yet the preceding narrative
is not conducted in the first person, as must have been the case on
the supposition we are combatting. But chap. xx. 4 is peculiarly
decisive, for there it is said that Timotheus, along with others, went
before the apostle to Troas, and then ver. 5 proceeds thus : ovtol
TTQoeXOovTeg tuevov 7)ndg h Tpu)ddi, these going before luaited for us in
Troas. The word " us" could not be written by Timothy, for he
was among those who waited for Paul : it still remains, therefore,
the most natural supposition that the form of the narrative in the
first person proceeded from the penman of the Acts himself.

Vers. 14, 15. — Among the women mentioned was Lydia, a native
of Thyatira, a seller of purple, who first believed, and immediately
received baptism.* It is a significant expression that is here used
regarding her, " whose heart the Lord opened" (^ ? <i iivpiog dcrjvoi^e
rrjv Kapdiav)^ and shews that the inclination of the heart towards
the truth originates not in the will of man. The first disposition
to turn to the Gospel is a work of grace. Yet this does not imply
that grace is compulsory, for it remained possible that either the
fear of men or their favour might have impelled Lydia to quench the
workings of it in her heart. There is no trace to be found here
of instruction before baptism : without doubt the rite took place
merely on a profession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah. But for
that very reason it is highly improbable that the phrase oiKog avrrjgj
* On the following sections see Menken's Life of Paul, p. 133, etc.

34T

her household, should be understood as including infant children :
relatives, servants, grown children might be baptized along with
her, for they would be at once carried away by the youthful power
of her new life of faith. There is altogether wanting any conclusive
proof-passage for the baptism of children in the age of the apostles,*
nor can the necessity of it be deduced from the nature of baptism.
To allege that the influences of the Spirit might be at work in the
unconscious child in the very womb is not sufficient, for regenera-
tion, of which baptism, in its proper and perfect character, stands
forth as the medium, is more than a mere reception of higher pow-
ers :f it is a reception of them into the deepest foundations of the
life, and consequently implies a change of the v/hole course of life,
which cannot be conceived to exist without consciousness, and a pro-
fession of surrender to the holy and exalted possessor of these powers.
Still, however, the propriety of infant baptism is undoubted, and the
condition of the church after the close of the third century impera-
tively required its introduction. Bat in this way Christian baptism
sank down to the position, as it were, of John's baptism, and it ac-
quired its full significance only when it was connected with confir-
mation. And as baptism, so also the whole church, had fallen back
to a position of legality, of which the clear consciousness first ap-
peared at the Keformation, and then also the efi'ort was made to
return to the primitive Christian model. (See the Comm, at Matth.
iii. 1, and John iv. 1.) The commencement of the separation between
baptism and regeneration by the gift of the Holy Ghost, we discover
so early as the instructive narrative of the conversion of the Samar-
itans. It was a long time after the administration of baptism by
Philip, that the apostle Peter communicated the Holy Ghost to the
baptized. The practice, too, of baptism by the disciples of Jesus,
before the institution of the sacrament and the outpouring of the
Spirit, presupposes that these points might exist separately. It is

* In the words describing the institution of baptism, in Matth. xxviii. 19, the con-
nexion of ft ad r/T eve IV, discipking, with Pann^eiv, haj^tizing, and 6i6uaKeiv, teaching, ap-
pears quite positively to oppose the idea, that the baptism of children entered at first into
the view of Christ. In the Western church the feeling that infant baptism was not itself
the baptism of regeneration, appeared plainly in the fact that from the earliest times bap-
tized children were first admitted to the sacrament of the Supper after their xi'^'^l^o- If
the child had really been born again in baptism, then the participation in the sacrament
of the Supper ought to have been immediately allowed. According to the Lutheran views
of doctrine, moreover, baptism removes merely the guilt of original sin, but not its domin-
ion, which is first overthrown in regeneration. (See Hutter, rediv. p. 206, not. 10, edit,
tert.) Accordingly, the whole quescion, whether infant baptism be regeneration itself,
appears to depend upon our definition of regeneration. "We view it as the communica-
tion of the higher life of Christ, and consequently as involving the abolition of the domin-
ion of original sin. See the remarks on Rom. vii. 24.

•)• There is a similar distinction in the life of the apostles, between having the Spirit
breathed upon them (John xx. 22), and receiving him when he was poured out on the
day of Pentecost.

348 Acts XVI. 16-24.

best, therefore, to express one's self thus, that the elements of repent-
ance and regeneration, united in the sacrament of baptism, and pre-
figured by immersion and emersion (see Comm. at Kom. vi. 3, etc.),
were separated from one another in the later practice of the church,
when infant baptism came into use. Only the one half is to be seen
in infant baptism itself, the other half appears in confirmation. See
also Comm. on Acts viii. 16-24, etc., and John iv. 2/^

Vers. 16-24. — An event worthy of particular notice, which oc-
curred during the stay of Paul at Philippi, is related by Luke, viz.,
the incident of the soothsaying female slave, who lost her power in
consequence of the apostle's threatening expostulation. Her own-
ers, who had employed her as means of gain, brought about on this
account the apprehension of Paul. After all that has been said at
Matth, viii. 28 regarding demoniacs, the occurrence before us can be
attended with no particular difficulty. Paul treats the slave alto-
gether as one possessed, and commands the evil spirit to come out
of her. That this woman recognized the spiritual qualities of the
apostles, is to be regarded as another instance of a kind of clair-

* The statements here made regarding baptism seem very unsatisfactory. If baptism
and regeneration were originally joined together by Christ in the manner supposed by
Olshausen, then it could not be right in the cliurch afterwards to separate tliem. But
the concession made by the author, that the commencement of the separation between
them appears even in the Scriptures in the case of the Samaritans, might well have sug-
gested the doubt whether he had not misunderstood the original connexion between them.
The case of the Samaritans occurring so early, should in all fairness be regarded, not as
a deviation from the law of Christ, but as a practical illustration of it. The view here
given of baptism, that it is the means or instrument of effecting regeneration, is very open
to objection. There is no warrant from Scripture for supposing that the mere ordinance
of baptism ever produced, or was intended to produce, such effects. It is not the efficient
cause of an inward change, but simply the outward sign: and in the case of adults, the m-
ward change ought to have taken place before the outward sign is used. This is plain from
the fact, that adults, before being baptized, were required to make a profession of faith, and
on the ground of this profession, supposed to be true and faithful, the ordinance was adminis-
tered. Genuine faith, therefore, which even our author allows at chap. x. 44, could not
exist apart from regeneration, was viewed as necessary to the baptism of adults. The inward
change was required to precede the outward sign, and was that indeed which alone made
it proper to adhibit the outward sign. Would no blessing, then, it may be asked, follow
the use of the sign ? Would the baptism be a mere fraitless ceremony ? Far otherwise.
It would be attended with very important consequences. But these consequences would
ensue as the effect of a moral and spiritual influence. It would not be the outward
rite that would produce them, by some mysterious power operating like a charm. The
very act of making a profession of faith, supposing it to be genuine, and the public relin-
quishment of the world for God, would be attended with such exercises of mind, and
such prayer to God for his help, as would, with the blessing of heaven, give a new im-
pulse to the life of faith in the soul. But suppose no inward change to have taken place
— suppose the profession of faith to be hollow and heartless, and the mere administration
of baptism, though performed by the hands of the holiest and most legitimately ordained
bishop that ever lived, would* have no otheiv than a hardening influence upon the souL
Alas for the man who, still unregenerate, trusts to the opus operatum of baptism for an
iuward change of heart. He is seeking for grapes upon thorns, and for figs upon
thistles.— [Tr.

Acts XVI. 16-24. 349

voyance, of which numerous examples are to be found in the Gospel
narratives of the cure of demoniacs. (See on this subject the Comm
on the passages referred to.) The expression Trvev[j.a nvdoyvog, how-
ever, or as A.C.D. read nvOuva, is peculiar to the passage before
us. In later times the word -nvdcov was employed to denote a ven-
triloquist {iyyaoTplnvOoc, iyyaoTpi[idvTac, evTeponavret^, in Hebrew
n'^'x), in which signification Plutarch in particular uses the word.
It has therefore been proposed to apply to this occurrence the
so-called natural explanation, viz., that the slave possessed the gift
of ventrilouqism, but lost it through alarm at the sudden address of
Paul. But, iu the first place, even the choice of the word irvduv
shews that the ancients regarded the gift of the ventriloquist, not
as something acquired by exercise, but bestowed by Apollo, the
possessor and distributor of all soothsaying power. The ttvOcjv was
always a fiavrig, too, or -nvOoXTjUTog, that is, one filled and inspired
by Pythian Apollo. That Luke, as the narrator of the occurrence,
had this view of the matter, is plain from the expression irveviia
TTvdcjvog; and the address of Paul, too, TrapayyeXku aot t^eXOelv
in verse 18, can be explained only on this supposition. On this
view, then, the question arises here, whether Paul really believed
that the spirit of Apollo was in the slave, and was driven out by
him. In answering this question, such passages as 1 Cor. viii. 4, 5,
X. 20, present themselves for consideration. In the first, Paul de-
nies that the heathen gods were anything ; yet in the second he
affirms that one might, by sharing the ofierings of idols, place him-
self in fellowship with demons. Did Paul then imagine that the
Greek divinities were demons, as Justin Martyr, for example, did
(Apol. i. c. 8, 9).^ But on this supposition, 1 Cor. viii. 4 would be
inexplicable. The following view explains the difficulty in a simple
manner. The individualized divinities, Jupiter, Apollo, Venus, Paul
regarded as mere phantoms of the imagination, and therefore he
might say with propriety, they are nothing. But that stage of de-
velopment, at which the Greek poets had delineated those imagin-
ary beings, was the stage of mere natural life, in which man found
himself entirely exposed to demoniacal influences. Paul, therefore,
again was quite right in representing a descent to this stage of life,
as a placing of one's self in fellowship with demons. It is true, he
did not believe, regarding this slave, that Apollo's spirit wrought in
her, for he did not recognize the existence of any Apollo ; but he
had the well-grounded conviction, that her soul was accessible to
demoniacal powers, who abused their hold of her. Like the Ke-
deemer, therefore, Paul would not be praised by demons, and there-
fore he drove them out by his threatening word.

(Ver. 16.— 'Epyacrm, " gain, profit." See Acts xix. 24, 25. The
verb is found in the same sense in John vi. 27. — Ver. 17. The read-

350 Acts XVI. 25-34.

ing v/x7v, of the textus receptus, is probably only the fault of a
transcriber, the second person by no means harmonizes with the
connexion. — Ver. 19. The ap^ovref, who are called orpaTTjyot in verse
20, are the so-called decuriones, who held the office of magistrates
in the colonies. — Ver. 21 refers to the Koman law, which forbade
the introduction of religiones peregrinse, and from which all perse-
cutions of the Christians were derived in a legal manner. [See on
this point Neander's Ch. Hist. vol. 1. p. 122, etc.] — Ver. 24. XvXov,
nervus, was an instrument not simply of detention, but also of pun-
ishment ; a wooden block furnished with holes, into which the feet
were put, and according to the severity of the torture, stretched far
from one another. Origen, in his extreme old age, was obliged to
bear this torture ; and for several days to lie in such an instrument,
with limbs far spread out from one another.)

Ver. 25-34. — Although removed by their imprisonment from the
great scene of labour, the messengers of Christ found even in the
prison a field for their preaching, more confined indeed, but not less
fruitful ; for not only were the prisoners attentive to them, but the
keeper of the prison himself with his house believed in consequence
of what he saw, and through him the abode of crime was changed
for many into a temple of grace. (On the singing of the apostles
by night, see Comm. at chap. ii. 42. It must be understood of the
musical utterance of a psalm in prayer.) With regard to the de-
liverance of Paul and the other prisoners, it has already been re-
marked at chap. xii. 3, that it is quite obviously an earthquake
which is here spoken of But if we compare chap. iv. 31, it will
not be doubtful that the earthquake occurring at this precise mo-
ment, stood connected in the narrator's view with the prayer of the
apostles. It was something like the seal of God for them, and for
all who were present.

In the conduct of the keeper of the prison, the unbelieving
despair that well nigh led to suicide, forms a mighty contrast
with the faith that was rapidly developed in him. Jesus, whose
history in its great leading features was stated by the apostle, is
the object of his faith : Paul requires no works along with this
faith, and mentions aside from it no conditions of salvation :
in it everything else lies enclosed ; good works are its necessary
fruits. If we contemplate this statement of Paul to the jailor of
Philippi, regarding Jesus who was crucified twenty- years before
in Jerusalem, merely in its historical aspects, we can see no rea-
son why it should have exerted such an influence upon the man ;
for in this view there is nothing but gratitude to Paul to form
the bridge by which the jailor may enter into his ideas, and in
that case the apostle might as well have told some legend, which
would have produced for the moment apparently the same efiect.

Acts XVI. 35-40; XVII. 1-4. 351

But if we view tlie preaching of the exalted and glorified Re-
deemer, in connexion with the living power of the Spirit which
proceeded from him, then we may conceive its influence upon the
hearts of men. The remark in ver. 32, that Paul preached not only
to the jailor, hut also to all in his house (iv -f/ okia avrov) is plainly
not favourable to the view, that infant children are included under
this expression, for Paul could deliver no discourse to them. — (Ver.
33. 'EXovoev dnb k. t. A. is a Tmesis for dniX.ovoe. — Ver. 34. liavoud --.
■navoiKet^ that is, avv oXo) rw oiA-cj, occurs nowhere else in the New
Testament.)

Vers. 35-40. — In the morning the magistrates sent messengers
with tlie command to dismiss Paul from prison. Perhaps the earth-
quake had terrified them, or, as is more probable, they had become
convinced of Paul's innocence. Here too we find that Paul does
not understand the command of the Lord in Matth. v. 39, as re-
quiring that a Christian should let the wicked do to him whatever
they think proper, but, on the contrary, he defends himself most
courageously, and demands, on account of his Roman citizenship,
satisfaction for the outrage done to him. He deals with those that
are without, quite according to the jus talionis, whose force only
they are in a condition to estimate. By the lex Porcia more-
over it was decreed, that corporal punishment could not be in-
flicted upon Roman citizens ;* and therefore the right of citizen-
ship was an important means of defence to the apostle against the
daring assaults of the opposers of his work. How Paul acquired
this right is unknown. His native city Tarsus did not possess it ;
it was an urbs libera, that is, it had obtained from Ccesar Augustus
the liberty of governing itself entirely according to its own laws.
Now as Paul, according to chap, xxii. 28, was born a Roman citizen
nothing remains but to suppose, that his father or one of his ances-
tors had acquired the right. It is plain from Josephus, B. J. ii. 14,
that even Jews frequently purcliascd it. (Ver. 35. The pa(3dovxoi were
the lictors of magistrates in the colonies. — Ver. 40. Elg ri]v AvScav^
for which Griesbach has adopted the better supported rrpog, stands
for eig rfjv Avdtag olicov. See Winer's Gram. p. 338.)

Chap. xvii. 1-4. — From Philippi Paul went went by Amphi-
polis and Apollonia (called also 'ArroAAwvia Mvydovtag to distin-
guish it from several cities of the same name), to Thessalonica, the
chief city of the second part of Macedonia. Although Paul only
taught three Sabbaths in this city, yet he succeeded in planting a
flourishing church in it ; a circumstance which shews more than

* See Cicero pro Rabirio c. 4, Porcia lex virgas ab omnium civiura Eomanorora cor-
pore amovit. How frequently use was made of this privilege, is plain from Cic. in
Verr. v. c. 57, ilia vox et imploratio : civis Romanus sum! saepe multis in ultimis terria
opem inter barbaroa et salutem tulit.

352 Acts XVII. 5-15.

any thing else, what an amount of spiritual power must have pro-
ceeded from the apostle.

(Ver. I. — The article i) ovvayo)yi] probably refers to the relation
in which the synagogue of Thessalonica stood to the other syna-
gogues of that region ; they were all probably dependent upon it, so
that in Thessalonica there was something like a chief Eabbinate. —
In ver. 3, there is a sudden transition from the indirect to the direct
style, similar to what occurs in chap, i, 4. — Ver. 4. U^oaKXrjpoio =
par, which only occurs in this passage of the New Testament, is not
at all uncommon in the language of Philo. See Loesneri observ.
Philon. p. 209, seq.)

Vers. 5-9. — But in Thessalonica too hostility against the Gospel
was speedily manifested, and Jason, in whose house Paul resided,
was dragged before the authorities. Here the Christians w^ere
accused of political offences (verse 7) : for it was affirmed that they
regarded Jesus as the true king. This accusation gives us a glimpse
of the Chiliastic tendency of the Christians at Thessalonica, of
which, according to Paul's letters to them, there was a one-sided
development in their views. Why this tendency was displayed
particularly in Thessalonica, we are unfortunately unable to shew
from want of precise information regarding the state of matters
there.

(Ver. 5. — Th^ word dyogaloi denotes men moving about idly in
the market-place. — Ver. 6. JloXirdQxV? — OTparrjyog in chap. xvi. 20.
The word is found nowhere else in the New Testament. — Ver. 7.
'Avaararocd is found also in Acts xxi. 38, and Galat. v. 12. It be-
longs to the later Greek, and is formed from the adjective avdoraTog,
from dvioTTjiu, It denotes primarily " to stir up from one's seat,"
then generally, " to excite tumult, disturbance." — Ver. 9. 'iKavbv
XapPdvELv and also Uavbv ■noieiv^ are juridical expressions for receiving
and giving bail. See Passow's Lex. under this word.)

Vers. 10-15. — Meanwhile, to secure the apostle by all means
from further persecutions, the disciples conducted him to Beroea,
which lay due west from Thessalonica, where Paul found among the
Jews and proselytes a peculiar readiness to attach themselves to the
Gospel. But the enemies of the truth in Thessalonica excited the
multitude in Beroea likewise against him. — (Ver. 11. The word ev)'e-
veorepoi does not refer to noble descent, but to the disposition of the
inhabitants of Beroea, which is particularly described in the follow-
ing words of the verse, their very zealous study of the Scriptures being
praised, for they searched out the oracles of the prophets that were
appealed to by the apostle, and fulfilled in the life of Jesus. —
Ver. 14. There is nothing in w? eni requiring to be changed,
but it is not to be translated as Kuinoel supposes usque ad : on the
contrary d)g with a preposition of motion denotes, either the de-

Acts XVH. 16-21. 353

finite purpose, or the pretext of designing to pursue a certain course.
Here undoubtedly the latter is the meaning. See Winer's Gram,
p. 559. These words therefore do not indicate, as Hemsen (p. 137)
supposes, that Paul proceeded to Athens by sea. The fact that no-
thing is mentioned of the intervening places, does not at all argue
in favour of this supposition ; for how often are whole regions left
unnoticed, through which Paul passed, and where certainly he la-
boured, as for example Galatia ? And the phrase ijyayov avrov in
rer. 15, which indicates an escort going forward, rather favours a
journey by land. — Ver. 15. KadtOTavai, meaning " to accompany, to
convoy," is found so used in the New Testament only here. This
application springs from the signification " to transport something
to a place, to deliver." See Passow's Lex. under the word.) In
consequence of the disturbance thus raised Paul went to Athens ;
but left Silas and Timotheus behind him in Macedonia, without
doubt to confirm the young churches there planted in the faith. (See
1 Tim. iii. 1.)

Vers. 16-21. — In Athens Paul now trod the leading seat of Gre-
cian science and art. Neither he himself, nor the philosophers who
thronged upon him here, anticipated at the time that from the
new doctrine which he brought, a new science and art far transcend-
ing antiquity would be developed. But if the great apostle of the
Gentiles might not clearly apprehend with what power and fresh-
ness the Gospel would operate even in the direction of science ; yet
he carried within him the lively consciousness, that he brought to
the central point of Grecian society, an element of life which as
infinitely transcended its highest imaginations, as the eternal went
beyond the loveliest scenes of a perishable world, and in this con-
sciousness he moved as a spiritual potentate, as a mature man among
a crowd of children, to whom he undertook to explain their presen-
timents and to express them in words. The numerous temples and
altars which Paul found in Athens, led him to perceive clearly the
spiritual wants of the inhabitants ; and contrary to his usual cus-
tom therefore, he spoke here in public places to those whom he met
(ver. 17), while elsewhere he was wont to teach only in synagogues
and private houses. Moreover that they might acquire a connected
view of his doctrine, they invited him to speak upon the hill of
Mars ; for the well-known fickle curiosity of the Athenians was
eager to learn what new thing he was proposing.*

(Ver. 16. — The phrase napcj^vveTO rb nvevna avrov does not so
much express the wrath or bitterness, as the vehement emotion of
sorrow which Paul experienced, when he found the Athenians so far

* Regarding this loquacious curiosity of the Athenians, Seneca says very well : Alex-
ander, qui quod cuique optimum est, eripuit, Lacedaemona servire jubet, Athenas tacere
(Epist. 94).

Vol. III.— 23

354 Acts XVII. 22-25.

led astray in what belonged to religion. KareiScjXog occurs no where
else in the New Testament. It denotes, agreeably to the fre-
quent signification of Ka-d in composition, " containing an abund-
ance of idol images," " full of idols." Compare in ver. 22 the word
Seioidatfiovtarepoi. — Ver. 18. Of the philosophers only the Epicu-
reans and Stoics are mentioned, probably because the adherents
of these schools mingled most in public life, and went abroad into
the great world. The word oirepnoXoyog is found nowhere else in the
New Testament.* It denotes primarily, a little bird that picks up
seeds, then also a poor man, who gathers up grains of corn for his
support. Figuratively it is applied to an ignorant babbler, who
attempts to make use of scraps of knowledge picked up here and
there, which he does not sufficiently understand. Hesych. explains
onepj-ioAoyog by ^Xvapog. Philostratus [vit. ApoU. v. 20] uses also
the verb oTTeQiioXoyelv. — Aainovtov is used in ver. 18 in a good sense,
as frequently in classic Greek. — Ver. 19. "Ageiog -ndyog, Campus
Martins, is the well-known name of a hill in the city of Athens,
with an open space, where the celebrated tribunal of tbe Areo-
pagus had its place of meeting. — Ver. 21. EvKaipeo) corresponds en-
tirely to the Latin vacare, "to be at leisure," with the accessory
idea of devoting this leisure to some particular object.)

Vers. 22-25. — Standing in the midst of Mars hill, Paul now
addressed the Athenians, and with great wisdom he laid hold of a
fact, which had struck him in the city, that he might conduct his
hearers to a deeper knowledge of God, and thus convince them of
their need of redemption.f He availed himself of the inscription
upon an altar, dyvcjaro) 6£w, to an unknown God, to preach to them
the one true God, and altogether departing from the strain of his
discourse in the synagogues, he imparted to them formal instruc-
tions regarding the unity and spirituality of God. Now, with regard
to the circumstance that Paul applied to his purpose the altar with
the inscription mentioned, there are several difficult questions which
require to be considered.

In the first place, it might be apprehended that the apostle was
here guilty of a kind of pious fraud (pia fraus). For acccording to
Polytheistic principles the inscription, Oew ayx^cjarw, cannot be other-
wise understood, than as meaning " to an unknown God," for the
article is wanting, and in the room of this one among many gods,
Paul seems to have substituted the one and only God. This sus-

* Appropriately does Koster (ia Pelt's theol. Mitarb. H. 2, p 133) draw attentioa to
the fact, that in the very place in Athens where Paul spoke, Demosthenes too called his
opponent -(Eschines a a7T£p/io?.6-/oc. (Pro corona, p. 269,'edit. Reiske.) And the very
game accusation, of introducing strange gods (Xenoph. apol. Socr. § 10), was brought
against Socrates, which is here brought against Paul.

f See Stier's excellent exposition of this speech in his work in den Reden der Apostel,
part iu p. 121, etc., and Menken's "Leben Pauli," p. 240, etc.

Acts XVII. 22-25. 355

picion is still further heightened by the circumstance, that we have
absolutely no information regarding any altar in Athens with such
an inscription. In Lucian's dialogue of PhUopater, which however is
not genuine, there is indeed mention made of this altar, but only in
mockery of Paul's speech. On the contrary, Jerome (on Titus i.
12) distinctly affirms, that Paul substituted the singular in the
room of the plural : that the inscription ran thus, Diis Asiee et
Europas et Africse, Diis ignotis et peregrinis ; but as in this form
the apostle could not have used it, in his speech he put the singular
for the plural. In fact, too, Pausanias (descrip. Grrsec. i. 1) states
that in Athens there were altars of unknown gods to be found, and
this we can readily imagine from the principles of Polytheism,
•which would not be unfriendly to the gods of any people, and there-
fore it included them all under the comprehensive name of " un-
known gods." In this case, however, Paul appears to be guilty of
a second error, in having given to the inscription an application,
which was altogether foreign to the meaning of its authors. Eich-
horn has indeed made the supposition (Allg. Bibl. der bibl. Lit. Bd.
iii.), that there might be single altars with the inscription ayvwcr-w
6£aj, for altars might continue standing from remote ages without
any inscription ; and as pious feeling would prevent their removal,
it would be supposed necessary to furnish them with such an in-
scription, because it was not known to what god they had originally
been dedicated. But impartiality obliges us to confess that this is
a mere supposition, which cannot be confirmed by any positive
proof ; and therefore it should not at all be taken into account in
the discussion.

Apart then entirely from this, I still believe that the conduct
of the Apostle Paul is entirely unimpeachable, and that without
committing any pious fraud he might act as he did. First of all,
whether it was really the plural that stood inscribed upon the
altar or not, is a matter of perfect indifierence ; for let it be
considered that, if many unknown gods were mentioned, then it
is self-evident that one might be spoken of The force of the
argument would not have been in the slightest degree altered al-
though Paul had said, that he wished to make known to them one
of the many unhnoivn gods. The only circumstance then that is
really strange is this, that Paul attaches to an expression which
could only denote one of the many gods of Polytheism, the idea of
the one true God; and affirms that they already worshipped, with-
out being aware of it, the God whom he was preaching ; an
affirmation which would seem to be manifestly wrong, and to con-
tradict other passages, in which it is said that the Gentiles are
without God. With reference to this point however it must not be
overlooked, that the apostle by no means excludes the heathen

356 Acts XVII. 26, 27.

world from all knowledge of God (Eom. i. 20); errors of the head
regarding the nature of God might very well be coupled in a Gentile
with an inward longing of the heart after the Divine Being. Now
of this longing, as the proper fountain of religious life, Paul in his
wisdom lays hold ; and seeks to guide it, by the weak threads which
connect it with the higher world, to a profounder knowledge. With
perfect truth therefore he might say, that they, in the inward yearn-
ing of their soul, worshipping this one unknown God as all others,
had always really meant the true living God, although their under-
standing had remained far from him.*

(Ver. 22. — ^eiaidaiixwv occurs nowhere else in the New Testa-
ment : but the substantive is found in Acts xxv. 19. The word is
used by the best Greek authors in a good sense also, as synonymous
with evoefiTJg. The comparative, which Paul here employs, mingles,
in a manner very suitable to the circumstances, praise with delicate
censure.f — Ver. 23. lepdona-a denotes sacred objects in the widest
sense of the word ; proper temples, and also single altars, or sacred
enclosed places. The 24th and 25th verses set out with the most
general manifestations of the Divine being, his creative power and
all-sufficiency. In the close of the verse many more recent Codices
read Kara iravra for Koi to. navTa. This reading with the meaning
" ubique" undoubtedly gives a suitable sense, but still the critical
authorities oblige us to decide in favour of the common reading.
And in this case the article before navra must be referred to all that
is necessary to creatures.)

Vers. 26, 27. — From the doctrine regarding God as the almighty
and self-sufficient Being, the discourse of the apostle makes a tran-
sition to the most important member of the creation, viz., man.
First of all, the apostle confirms the doctrine of the Old Testament,

* The longing after God which is here attributed by the author to the Gentiles, must
not be confounded with that longing after God, which dwells in the bosom of a Christian,
and which David so aflfectingly describes in Ps. xliL It is a totally different feeling. It
is simply that feature of man's constitution by which ho is fitted for becoming a religious
being, and by which he is distinguished from the beasts of the field, which are wholly
unsusceptible of religious emotions. By his very constitution, man feels that he must
look up to some higher being : he is a worshipping creature : and it is iu consequence of
this that all tribes and kindreds have set up for themselves gods of some kind or other.
And these gods are not supposed to be false gods : it is a true God that man desires ; but
though he feels his need of a higher power to direct him, still his mind, darkened by rea-
son of sin, remains an utter stranger to the character of the God who made heaven and
earth. He remains far from God. Still, as our author remarks, the apostle recognizes
the groping of tl^e Gentiles in the dark after something to lay hold of, as a search di-
rected towards the great God who made heaven and earth. WAom therefore ye igno-
rantly worship, him declare I unto you. — [Tr.

f Regarding the multitude of sacred objects in Athens, Pausanias among others says
in Attic, c. 24- 'Adrjvaioi^ Trepiacorepov ri ?) rolg uA^otf ff ra 6eiu lari o770vS//g, the
Athenians are beyond others devoted to religion. (Paul's expression is, " ye are as it were
rather too religious" «=• religious and even somewhat in excess. — [KL)

Acts XVII. 28, 29. 357

which, even according to the most recent physiological and geologi-
cal researches, still presents itself as the most probable, that all men
have sprung from one pair. (Al/ia = antpjia, see at John i. 13.)
Only one question here presents itself, for what reason does Paul
bring this point into view ? Some say for the purpose of combat-
ting the error of the Athenians, that they were sprung from the
soil (autochthones). But the question still presents itself, on what
ground could it appear important to the apostle, to draw the atten-
tion of the assembly to that point ? Paul undoubtedly designed in
this way to represent the contempt in which the Jews were held
among the Grreeks as absurd, and to humble their conceit of their
own superior culture, in room of which the Jews had a far deeper
moral and religious tendency. For this reason, he made it appear
that all tribes were brethren, and that a higher destiny assigned to
the nations their dwelling-places and epoch of development. By
this last thought, the apostle indicates that the fortunes of nations
exhibit no lawless fluctuation, but a course determined by laws
from above.

(Ver. 26. — Upoounov rijg yTjg = ^si^'J ^?^. — 'Opodeoia occurs nowhere
else in the New Testament. Of habitation there is mention here
made, because geographical circumstances and diversities of climate
exert a most important influence upon the formation of national
character.)

It is then represented as the moral duty of man to seek after
God. This ^rjrelv indicates of itself a previous apostacy of man
from God, for before that apostacy he lived in immediate commu-
nion of soul with the source of his being, and of course needed not
to seek after him whom he already possessed. And the seeking
(^rjTelv) is veiy significantly resolved into the two points of feeling
after {\priXa<pdv) and finding (evgtaKsiv). The former expresses the
immediateness of the emotion in which the eternal truth is first
made known, and the latter the higher stage of consciousness in
which man plainly recognizes the peculiarity of that emotion. And
t\\Q possibility of finding God, even Avhen man is far from him, lies
in this, that God remains perpetually near to man. (See at chap,
xiv. 16, 17.)

Vers. 28, 29. — This nearness of God, even to the creature that is
estranged from him, the apostle describes in a very expressive man-
ner. The Divine Being is plainly with him the immanent ground
of all creatures, in some measure the sea of life, in which they all
move. Fear of a jmntheistic view of the world has led men, with-
out reason, to refine upon the expression, Iv avru), in him, and
to understand it in the sense of " by him." The whole sacred
Scripture exhibits, as Paul does here, one God who is inwardly
near to man ; nay, whose eternal word speaks in the depth of his

358 Acts XVII. 28, 29.

heart. (Rom. x. 8.) The teaching of Scripture sufficiently guards
against the abyss of Pantheism,* first, by its doctrine of the reality
of evil, which no Pantheistic system can acknowledge; and, secondly,
by the doctrine of the glorification of the body and of matter in gen-
eral. Where these two bulwarks are held fast, we may quietly com-
mit ourselves to God, in whom we live, and who is in us, without
falling a prey to the all-devouring, all-producing monster of Pan-
theism.

The question, however, still presents itself, how the three points
of living {^r}v)j moving (Kivelodat), and being (elvai), are related to
one another. Storr would regard them as forming an anticlimax,
understanding ^Tjv'in the pregnant sense of blessed life, and elvat
of mere physical existence. It is better however, with Kuinoel,
to view elvai, as the highest point, understanding by it real ex-
istence, the life of the soul ; ^rjv denotes the physical existence of
the body ; while luvelGdat refers to the free activity of the soul.
Such a lively view of God was entertained even by individuals
among the heathen writers, and Paul adduces a passage in which
it is expressed. It is found in Aratus (Phaanom, v. 5), and
also in Cleanthes (Hymn, in Jov. v. 5), although in the latter
writer the words run somewhat differently, viz., thus : eK gov yap
yivog eofitv. The probability is, that Paul was thinking of the
former writer, who was his countryman : at all events Aratus was a
native of Cilicia, although not perhaps of Tarsus itself. There is
evidence of Grecian culture in this and other quotations of the
Greek poets (see 1. Cor. xv. 33 ; Tit. i. 12); but that Paul, as has
been supposed, attended in his native city, which was famed for
schools of rhetoric, a formal course of education in the various
branches of knowledge, cannot be inferred from these quotations.
As he was destined for Rabbinical culture, it seems more probable
to me, that it was rather by private reading and by intercourse with
Greeks, that the apostle acquired his knowledge of the Greek

* It were to be desired, that instead of the word Pantheism, so liable to be misun-
derstood, and so often wrongly understood, another word were chosen to describe the
error which has usually been denoted by this name. The Bible itself sanctions the ex-
pression, " God is all in all," which lies at the foundation of the word Pantheism. The
only question is, how this expression is to be understood. In the East, and also in the
Pantheism of Spinosa, the unity of God and of the universe is so grossly conceived, that
all individuals are regarded as only passing n; edifications of the one original substance.
(See the passages cited at John x. 14, page 493.) Although the Scriptures also say,
TTaira t/c tov Qeov, ev rtj GecJ and etf riji^ Qeov, all things are of God, and in God, and to
God, yet they take their stand upon a rigorous distinction between the eternal and the
created, and the distinctive properties of the created are the possibility of evil and mat-
ter. The possibiUty of evil has reference to this earthly life alone, but materiality forma
even for saints after the resurrection the boundary of individuality. Without a glorified
body, the assurance of individual existence after death would be nothing but an empty
ftBSurance.

Acts XVII. 30-34; XVIII. 1-3. 359

classics. Further, from the passage quoted, nothing precise can be
deduced in reference to the doctrine of the Divine form, because we
cannot ascertain how Paul understood the phrase Odov y^vog. He
uses it only for the purpose of shewing from the mind of man who
springs from God, that the Godhead ought not to be brought down
to a level with objects of sense.

(Ver. 29,— Xapay/ia from x^^Q^^'^^^, " to engrave, to cut out,"
stands very frequently in the Apocalypse for " image, representa-
tion," Rev. xiv. 9, 11, xv. 12, xvi. 2, etc.)

Vers. 30-34. — After this introduction, the apostle proceeds in
his discourse to invite his hearers to repentance (i-ierdvoia), which he
enforces first by the patience of God, who had graciously overlooked
the earlier times of their heathen ignorance, and would not reject
them, and secondly by a reference to the future judgment, which
is to come upon the whole world, at the appearance of him who
rose from the dead. (Regarding v-eptdeXv^ see at Rom. iii. 35,
which, though not verbally, is yet really parallel.) But the men-
tion of a resurrection from the dead prevented the unbelieving
Athenians from lending ear any further to the witness of the truth:
but a few, who were ordained to eternal life, attached themselves to
Paul. Among these are mentioned a woman named Damaris, and
Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus,* which latter individual
acquired great importance during the centuries when mystical writ-
ings forged under his name were regarded as genuine.

Chap, xviii. 1-3. — From Athens Paul betook himself to Corinth,
where he made the acquaintance of a Jew, settled in Rome, but born
in Pontus, named Aquila, who with his wife Priscilla, had recently
come from Italy. (TlpoocjiaTog signifies primarily " recently killed or
slain," from rrpd and ocpd^o), then in general " recent." See Lobeck
ad Phrynich. p. 374.) Luke remarks, also, that the occasion of
their journey had been the command of Claudius Ca3sar, that all
Jews should depart from Rome. Now as nothing is stated regarding
the conversion of this family by Paul, and as they appear very active
in favour of Christianity, the probability is that they had brought
their knowledge of the Gospel from Rome. But the first little
church there might be annihilated by this command of Claudius, and
the Jews, from whom the Christians were not distinguished, might
only gather again in Rome very gradually : and this supposition
throws light upon some points, which would otherwise appear very
dark. (See Comm. on Acts xxviii. 21.) With respect to the ex-

* According to the Constit. Apost. vii. 46, Dionysius was appointed by Paul super-
intendent of the young church in Athens, an assertion which is only indeed a conjec-
ture, but still not an improbable one. Certainly the number of converts in Athens, and
of men fit for office in the church, was not so great that there could bo much room for
Helection.

360 Acts XVIII. 4-11.

pulsion of the Jews by Claudius, it is of importance in this respect,
that it furnishes, as was remarked in the introduction, a point of
contact with profane history, which is of use in settling the chro-
nology. Suetonius (Claud, c. xxv.), and Dio Cassius, (Ix, 6) mention
the occurrence. According to the most probable supposition it falls
in the year 54 after the birth of Christ, or in the thirteenth year of
the reign of Claudius.

The intimate connexion between the apostle and Aquila was
brought about, not simply by the union of their hearts in the faith,
but also by the outward circumstance that they practised the same
handicraft. According to the Jewish custom, which required even
the Eabbins to learn a trade, Paul followed the occupation of a
OKijvonoiog. The Fathers, as for example, Chrysostom, understood
this word to mean a worker in leather, oKVTOTOfiog, because tents
were often made of skins ; but it is more suitable to understand it
of the trade of a tentmaker, which was very much practised in Ci-
licia. The hair of a species of very shaggy goat was there wrought
into a thick stuff like felt, which was very much employed in cover-
ing tents. (See Plin. hist. nat. vi. 28., Veget. de re milit. iv. 8.)
The principal reason why the apostle always practised his trade
during his apostolic ministry was this, that, on account of the numer-
ous opponents who were watching all his movements, he believed it
necessary (xx. 33) to shun every appearance of outward advantage,
which he might derive from his office. The passage, however, in
1 Cor. ix. 14, shews that Paul was not unaware of the duty of those
who received heavenly blessings in the preaching of the Gospel, to
bestow upon the messengers who brought them, a portion of their
earthly treasures. Paul was therefore far removed from the pride
which is ashamed to take : in suitable circumstances he willingly re-
ceived gifts of love, as we find from Phil. iv. 14, etc.

It is ^vrong, certainly, to regard the Jewish custom of learning a
trade, in conjunction with the study of the law, simply as a means of
securing worldly advancement : the true reason of this practice
rather was, that by bodily exercise they might guard against the
temptations to which idleness might lead. Monks and mystics have
often felt the want of such a defence.*

Vers. 4-11.— In Corinth Paul now began to preach among the
Jews and pr^t;elytes, and he taught with great zeal, particukrly after
the arrival of his assistants whom he had left behind in Macedonia.
But the stubbornness of the Jews obliged him once more to renounce
their society, and to turn to the Gentiles.f (There is a difficulty

* Regarding the procedure of the apostle, in supporting himself entirely by the labour
of his own hands, see also the remarks at 1 Cor. ix. 7.

+ Baur, in his effort to combat the historical character of the Acts of the Apostles,
goes so far as to affirm, that Paul himself may have so far excited the opposition of tho

Acts XVIII. 4-11. 361

in the expression owtxeoOat Xoycp in ver. 5. The common text reads
Tcj TTvevi^ia-i. This reading probably arose from the most familiar
signification of awtxeoOai^ Avhich would be supposed the one here
employed. It denotes in the first place " to be held together, to be
pressed," and then " to be distressed, to be filled with anxiety."
[See Luke viii. 41, ix. 43 ; Matth. iv. 24 ; Luke xii. 50.] This sig-
nification accords best with ru) -nvevi.iart ; and therefore A6ya», which
was certainly the original reading, was banished Irom the text. But
the same fundamental meaning of the word, "to be pressed to-
gether," leads quite naturally to another use of it, viz., incitari, " to
be stirred up," for pressure, as in the bending of a bow, produces an
augmentation of power. In this sense Paul plainly uses the word
in 2 Cor. v. 14, r) dydiTT] rov Xpiarov ovvex^i W&g, "the love of Christ
constrains, impels us." This is the signification which we must em-
ploy in the passage before us, and the words accordingly must be
translated : " Paul laboured most zealously in preaching." — Ver.
6. On tlie expression alua inl rijv Ke(pah)v vjuwv, see at Matth.
xxvii. 25.)

Paul laboured for a year and a half in Corinth (ver. 11), and in
this very city, the most luxurious and degraded of Greece, the Gos-
pel celebrated her noblest triumphs ; as if for the purpose of pre-
senting us with a vivid proof of the great apostle's fundamental
principle, that, where sin abounds, grace abounds much more. In
the house of a certain man, Justus, beside the synagogue, Paul held
his meetings ; and Crispus, the superintendent of the Jews, became
himself a believer, together with many Corinthians. In his room, it
is probable, Sosthenes, who is mentioned in ver. 17, was chosen ;
but he appears also, according to 1 Cor. i. 1, to have joined himself
to the church of God. It was probably the accession of so distin-
guished a man as Crispus to the church of Christ, that induced the
apostle to depart from his usual custom of leaving his assistants to
baptize, and to perform the rite himself (1 Cor. i. 14.) The reso-
lution of the apostle, to exercise his ministry for so long a time in
the one city of Corinth, was confirmed, ftccording to vers. 9,. 10, by
the peculiar circumstance that he had there a vision of Christ by
night, who revealed to him that many chosen persons lived in Co-
rinth. In 2 Cor. xii. 1, etc., Paul gives a detailed description of an
ecstatic vision of this kind. (Ver. 7. Svrojuopt'w occurs nowhere
else in the New Testament ; it comes from o[iogog^ which appears
to be compounded of viwv and opog. — Ver. 10. 'EmrtOtvai rivi denotes
primarily "' to lay something upon one :" in the middle it is used

Jews to the Gospel, in order to obtain a good apology for labouring among the Gentiles.
It is a proper remark which Kliog (Studien 1837, H. 2, s. 307) makes on this notion:
" one must be astonislied at the critical acumen, which could seduce one into an idea so
destitute of all propriety."

362 Acts XVIII. 12-17.

for seizing, assaulting, as it were, " to throw one's self upon a per-
son, to fall upon him.")

Vers. 12-17. — The extraordinary success attending the preaching
of Paul, might excite the hatred of the Jews particularly against
him. With their new president at their head (ver. 17), they accused
him before the proconsul Gallic, "''•" and dragged him even before his
tribunal. This excellent man was a brother of the philosopher Lu-
cius Anneeus Seneca ;f he was called, originally Novatus, but assumed
the other name from one Junius Gallio. (See Grotius on this pas-
sage. Tacitus Ann. vi. 3, xv. 73, makes mention of him.) This
relationship of Gallio was probably what occasioned the fabrication
of the apocryphal correspondence between Paul and Seneca. (See
J. A. Fabricii. cod. apocr. N, T., vol. i.) It has been supposed that
Gallio was converted by Paul, J and that he then brought about an
acquaintance between Paul and his brother, who also was won over
to the Gospel. (Gallio entirely declined to enter upon the consider-
ation of controverted points in the Jewish law, and required that
the Jews should accuse Paul of some moral offence, which, however,
they could not do, and this was a testimony in favour of the apostle.
Ver. 12. Achaia denotes not simply the district of this name in the

* Regarding Gallio consult the excellent notices of Tholuck (Glaubw. s. 113), wliicli
bring into view how minutely Luke shews himself to have been acquainted with all
circumstances. Luke styles Gallio proconsul: now these ofQcers were only in the
provinciis senatoriis; but Achaia was changed by Tiberius into a provincia impera-
toria, and provinces of this kind were only governed by procurators. (Tacit. Annal.
i. 76.) But Claudius had given back Achaia to the Senate. (Suet. Claud, c. 25.)
Luke's narrative is therefore quite accurate. With propriety does Tholuck draw
attention to the circumstance, that it might have been supposed Luke had here com-
mitted a mistake, if this one passage of Suetonius had been wanting. How much, there-
fore, that is apparently wrong, would appear quite right, if all sources lay completely
before us.

f Gallio is here spoken of very favourably. And certainly there is but small ground
furnished in the text for that obloquy which has been thrown upon this Roman governor.
He acted rightly when he refused to be a judge in the case of a religious dispute between
the Jews and one of their countrymen. He was ready to Hsten to any accusation that
might refer to criminal conduct, and to sift the evidence that might be adduced ; but
he would not constitute himself a judge of Jewish controversy. In this certainly he
acted a wise and noble part ; and it was his conduct that secured for Paul a peaceful
opportunity of prosecuting his ministry at Corinth. Why, then, has Gallio been so un-
sparingly condemned? The reason lies in a misapprehension of one clause in the 17th
verse, where it is said GalUo cared for none of these things, which has beeu understood
to mean, that he was wholly indifferent to religious matters, and was an infidel. But this
is not the sense of the words. They mean that he would not interfere at all in the way
of constituting himself a judge of the disputed points, that he even allowed the parties
to come to blows without interposing his authority. Now, Gallio was perfectly right in
wholly refraining from giving a judgment on the disputed points ; but he was wrong in
not employing his authority to prevent all violence. He should have kept the peace be-
tween the contending parties. — [Tb.

J This, according to Eusebius (Chron. a. 66), is improbable, as Gallio put a period to
his own existence.

Acts XVIII. 18-22. 363

Peloponnesus, but it was also employed by the Romans to designate
the whole of Greece, and the Peloponnesus, which formed one prov-
ince.— Ver. 14, 'Padtovpyrjiia = padiovpyla in xiii. 10. The first of
these words, however, like dfiaprrj^a, as compared with dfiapria^ only
denotes the single act, or wickedness viewed as an isolated deed. —
Kara Aoyov, " rightly, conformably to reason." — Ver, 15. The word
ovoiia refers to the name Messiah, which the Jews affirmed should
not be given to Jesus.)

Vers. 18-22. — This conduct of the proconsul made it practicable
for Paul to remain a long time in Corinth* (see verse 11), and at
last he left the city of his own accord, without being further molested
by his adversaries. The friendly family of Aquila accompanied him
to Ephesus, where they remained behind (ver. 26). Paul took ship-
ping in Cenchrea, the harbour of Corinth, situated on the Asiatic-
side, seventy stadia from the city ; the other harbour, that looked
in the direction of Italy, being called Lecheeus. In Cenchrea, Paul
had his hair shorn in fulfilment of a vow. It has been supposed by
many, that the words KeiQdfievog rfjv KecpaXi^v refer to Aquila ; but
the connexion is decidedly opposed to this idea. It is only quite
incidentally that mention is made of Aquila and Priscilla ; Paul is
the subject of the whole sentence, and also of the one that follows.
No reason can be perceived, why so unimportant a circumstance
should have been stated regarding Aquila. It is true those learned
men who deny the reference of the words to Paul, suppose that the
statement cannot be applied to him, because it would have been
inconsistent with his principles regarding the abrogation of the cere-
monial law of Moses to have taken upon him a vow. But that sup-
position is grounded upon a total misconception of Paul's view of
the law. Strenuously as the apostle contended that the native
Gentiles, to whom the law was a foreign institution, should not be
compelled to observe it, yet he was very far from forbidding the na-
tive Jews to keep it, or from disregarding it altogether himself. It
is quite probable that Paul, when he was living among Gentiles,
conducted himself very freely with reference to the legal observances
of Moses, which was the ground of the charge he was afterwards
called upon by the apostles in Jerusalem to confute practically ;f
but that he should have altogether abandoned, while residing in
heathen lands, the obsei-vance of the law in reference to his own
person, is in the highest degree improbable, because he would thus

* The stay of the apostle Paul in Corinth is worthy of attention on this ground, that
it -was during it he began his labours in writing. The Epistles to the Thessalonians, the
oldest among those preserved to us, Paul wrote from Cormth. The particulars regarding
the time and the occasion of composing these, and all the other letters of Paul, will be giveix
in the introductions to them.

I See Acts xxi. 17, etc., and the Commentary on this passage regarding the freedom
of the Jewish Christiana from the law.

364 Acts XVIII. 18-22.

have violated Lis own principle of respecting the scruples of weak
brethren ; for there were Jews everywhere, to whom his conduct
must have given offence. This passage, therefore, is important,
because it shews, and perhaps for this very reason it was introduced
by Luke, that Paul had not altogether given up the personal ob-
servance of the law, but retained it as a religious usage. With
respect to the subsequent accusation, therefore, mentioned in chap,
xxi. 17, etc., he is with the readers of the Acts of the Apostles jus-
tified in advance. The entire loosening of the whole church, and
even of JeAvish Christians, from the outward forms of the Old Tes-
tament, Paul would not on any account bring about with revo-
lutionary precipitation ; but he left it to be effected gradually by
the evolution of events ; and it was at last accomplished in this
way for the mother church of the Jewish Christians, by the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem by Hadrian, and by the fact that the Jews were
forbidden to dwell in iElia Capitolina, the city which was built in
its room.

The occasion of the vow itself {evx^) which Paul had made, is
not known to us. Many have imagined that it was the Nazarite
vow which he had taken on him, but this certainly is not to be
thought of. The probability is, that, according to the custom of
the Jews, it was in some danger or difficulty he had made the vow
in question ; and now therefore, in prosecution of this vow, he cuts
his hair, and hastens to Jerusalem that he may there offer the requi-
site sacrifice within the prescribed term* of thirty days. In this
manner we find an explanation of the haste with which he leaves
Ephesus (ver. 21), and at the same time of the subsequent repe-
tition of a similar vow, chap. xxi. 17, etc., which best enabled him
to confute all accusations of the Jews, just as he confuted them at
this time.

In Ephesus, Paul, according to his custom, appeared again in the
synagogue. The Jews were quite friendly, particularly as they
found him occupied with the performance of a vow, and they re-
quested him to remain. But as he needed to present the oflering
in Jerusalem itself, he hastened speedily away, promising however
to come back. He went by Caesarea to Jerusalem ; but of his stay
there Luke mentions no particulars ; only the participle dva[3dg in
verse 22 points to it, for dval3aLveiv = nVy, is specially applied to the
journey to Jerusalem. From Jerusalem he went down to Antioch,
for he always regarded the church there as the one which had sent
him forth to the heathen.

* See on this point, J sephus (B. J. ii. 15, 1), who makes mention of a vow of Bere-
nice, and then adds : roig yap ij voau KaTanovovjievov^, ij riaiv uTiXaic uvuyKaic, edo(
evxeaOai npo rpiuKovra ij/iepuv, i/c unoduaeiv jiiXXoiev ■Qvcia^, olvov re d^e^aadai aai
^pjjaaaGat rug KOftag.

Acts XVIII. 18-22. 365

A chronological question which presents itself here regarding
not only the year, but also the season of the year ; for Paul names
a feast (ver. 21) which he purposed to observe in Jerusalem, as it
coincided with the time when his oifering was to be presented, and
he would probably at the same time obey the Mosaic injunction,
which required that the great festivals should be attended by all
the male members of the Israelitish nation. Now most chronolo-
gers (see the second chronological table) regard Pentecost as the
feast referred to by Paul, and probably Pentecost of the year 55
after the birth of Christ ; but still this is only a supposition, for
there are no decisive arguments to prove it, and the date of the
other events in the life of Paul is not so accurately fixed, that from
the earlier or the later we can reckon back to this feast, and deter-
mine which of the great festivals Paul here means.

(In the Codices A. E. 13, 14, 15, 36, and others, this clause of
ver. 21 is wanting : del fie ndvTojg t7jv eoprriv rrjv tp;^;o/xev7;v TroiTJaai eig
'lepoooXviia ttuXlv. On the authority of these manuscripts many dis-
tinguished critics regard the words in question as a gloss, and even
Heinrichs and Kuinoel follow them. They proceed on this principle
that the omission of them would be inexplicable, but the insertion
of them easily accounted for, transcribers supposing that the fulfil-
ment of the vow required the journey to Jerusalem. But the omis-
sion may be very easily explained from a confounding of the similar
words 6el and de at the beginning and end of the clause ; and the
statement itself is of a kind which could not weU be made by a
transcriber desirous of inserting a mere notice : in no case certainly
would a transcriber have made mention of a feast, to which there
was nothing in the connexion to lead. Any person, designing to
supplement the verse merely from the connexion, would have stated
something regarding the offering. But if the words be genuine,
they determine more particularly the reference of dva/Ba^ in verse 22,
which many interpreters do not regard as pointing to Jerusalem,
but to Csesarea. But as KareXOcbv elg Kaiadpeiav occurs before, and
Karefiri eig 'Avrioxecav follows, it is plain that dvaftaiveiv cannot be
used with respect to Paul's entrance into Caesarea, supposing even
that it lay upon a high shore. It still remains therefore the most
probable supposition, that Paul journeyed to Antioch by wayof Jeru-
salem, where he saluted the mother church and the apostles.)

III.
PART THIRD.

FROM PAUL'S THIRD MISSIONARY JOURNEY TILL THE FIRST
CAPTIVITY AT ROME.

(Acts xviii. 23 — xxviii. 31.)

§ 1. Paul's Third Missionary Excursion. Abode in
Ephesus.

(Acts xviii. 23 — xix. 41.)

Ver. 23, — Luke gives us but very general information regarding
Paul's journey through Asia Minor during which he visited individu-
ally the churches of Galatia, and also regarding the time of his stay
in Antioch, It is probable that the ardent apostle broke away very
speedily again from Antioch, that he might confirm his numerous
churches in Asia. This might appear to him the more necessary,
if, as is probable, the differences with Peter, of which we have
already spoken at chap. xv. 1, arose during his present visit to the
mother church of the Gentiles. Perhaps in Antioch Paul found
himself, along with a number of preachers of the Gospel, engaged
in something like a general consultation regarding the principles of
their apostolic ministry ; and as on this occasion what was new in
the Gospel presented itself most strongly in conflict with the whole
ancient forms of religious life, Peter might be led to waver for a
moment, particularly as some of the strict Jewish Christians pressed
hard upon him. (See further particulars in the exposition of the
Epistle to the Galatians, which was written shortly after this journey.)

Vers. 24-28. — Before Luke however describes the labours of
Paul in Ephesus, he mentions the accession to the church of Christ
of a man of great influence, viz., ApoUos of Alexandria, who was at
that time sojourning in Ephesus. The statements made regarding
this learned and distinguished man, taken in connexion with the
notices that immediately follow in chap. xix. 1-7, are among the
most interesting parts of the Acts of the Apostles. They give us
an insight into the excited state of religious life at that time, such
as few other sections of this book afford. True, this passage has its
own peculiar difficulties. ApoUos himself, like those twelve men

Acts XVIII. 24-28. 367

mentioned in chap. xix. 7, whom one at first is tempted to distinguish
from him, was a disciple of John the Baptist : he had been directed
by this faithful witness of the truth to Jesus as the true and long
expected Messiah, or, if he had not known John himself, he had
been guided by disciples of his school to the Saviour. He himself,
however, or his instructors among the disciples of John, had learned
nothing regarding the glorification and exaltation of Christ in his
resurrection and ascension, nor regarding the gift of the Holy Ghost
as the consequence of his elevation. That Apollos taught not only
regarding John the Baptist, but also regarding Jesus, is plain not
only from ver. 25, where the expressions KaTrjxw^vog ti)v bdhv rov
Kvpiov and 6c6daKetv dKpi[3u)g rd nepl rov kvq'lov^ but also particularly
from chap, xix 2, where the name nadTjrai. is applied to disciples of
John, who occupied a quite similar position to Apollos. Here then
we find Christians who lived, as it were, beside the great spiritual
fellowship of the Gospel, like an ofishoot from the tree of the king-
dom of God, without knowing anything of the church.*

Two considerations are pressed upon our notice by this fact. On
the one hand, we perceive from it with what power the appearance
of Christ in the world wrought at that time : even in remote districts
he was acknowledged, and the fact of his advent (vers. 25, 26), was
spread abroad with zeal and courage, while as yet the full splendour
of his light was not beheld. From the school of John there pro-
ceeded not merely men like the apostles, who attached themselves
wholly to the church, nor merely men who openly opposed Christi-
anity, and, like the later Zabeans, made the Baptist, contrary to his
own will and public declarations, their Messiah ; but also an inter-
mediate party, who had been directed by the Baptist to Jesus as the
Messiah, and been illuminated with some beams of his light, but
had acquired no further knowledge of him, probably because their
connexion with Palestine was early broken off, perhaps by journeys
which they made into the heathen world before the outpouring of
the Holy Ghost. And, on the other hand, the fact before us shews
how expansive was the brotherly love that was cherished by the
apostolic church. Notwithstanding the very weak apprehension
which these disciples of John certainly had of the new dispensation
of Divine mercy, the apostles recognized them as disciples, on the
principle that no one can call Jesus Lord but by the operation, known
or unknown, of the Spirit, and only endeavoured to advance their
knowledge of Divine things. It is true, if the disciples of John had
withstood the ofiered means of advancement, they would have ex-
posed themselves to censure, and would have gone over into heresy,
like the Zabeans ; but so long as they were merely ignorant of the

* See Neander's Church History, part ii. p. 646, etc,, also Gesenius irn Proboheft der
Encyclop. Ton Grubcr uud Ersch Art. Zabier.

368 Acts XVIII. 24-28.

principle of life procured by Christ, the apostles treated them only as
immature disciples, who were in a state of transition from the Old
Covenant to the New, acquainted indeed with the high priest of the
latter by name, but without having felt the power of the blood of
sprinkling.

Now if ApoUos, according to the view we have given, occupied
precisely the same position in respect of religion with the disciples
of John subsequently mentioned there arises a difficulty in the
account before us, in the apparently different treatment of Apollos
and of the twelve disciples of John. They are baptized (chap.
xix. 5), but he only receives more minute instruction regarding
the Gospel (chap, xviii. 26). We cannot believe that it was the
greater learning of Apollos and his talents which occasioned this
difference of treatment, because it is self-evident, that such en-
dowments belonging to the natural man could never render the
higher principle of the Holy Ghost unnecessary. And just as little
is it probable that the apostles would pursue a vacillating course in
their treatment of the disciples of John : we must rather suppose
that they were guided as to this point by some fixed principle.
Now as Apollos received his first clear views of the nature of the
Gospel only from Aquila, who, as not being an apostle, could not
impart to him the Holy Ghost, the most suitable supposition we
2an make is, that Apollos was really baptized in the name of Christ
in Ephesus by Aquila, but first received the Holy Ghost through
Paul in Corinth. In this view the occurrence forms no contra-
diction at aU with chap, viii, : there the apostles do not repeat
the act of baptism, because Philip had administered Christian
baptism in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost : but here the baptism of the Spirit is connected with Christ-
ian water baptism, because the disciples had only received John's
baptism of repentance.*

(Ver. 24. — The form of the name Apollos, 'AttoAAw^, is abbrevi-
ated from 'A.noXX6vLo^. — The description dviip X6yio<; may refer either

* If the general practice in the apostolic church was that the apostles alone imparted
the gift of the Holy Ghost, the question may be asked, what was the case after their
death ? The imposition of hands continued, it is known, in the church, and every bishop
or presbyter communicated the gift of the Spirit according to the measure in which he
had received him ; but no one possessed the Spirit in the same rich manner and with such
original power as the apostles ; and therefore if ;i;api(7//ara (gifts) were to be found here
and there after the apostles' death, the probabOity is that their manifestations were far
weaker than in the time of the apostles. Paul only had not received the Holy Ghost by
the imposition of the hands of another apostle (Gal. i. 12), but immediately from the Lord.
When and how this communication of the Spirit was made to the Apostle Paul, we know
not : as was remarked at the passage in Acts ix. 17, it almost appears that the Holy Ghost
was communicated to him, as to CorneUus, before baptism. At all events, however, the
Spirit came to him, without the intervention of an apostle, as is clearly apparent from
Galat. i. 12.

Acts XIX. 1-7. 369

to eloquence or to learning ; but as the Jewish form of learning is
plainly described in the words dwarbg Iv ToXg ypa(palg^ the idea of
eloquence is rather to be preferred in this case. ApoUos then pos-
sessed a distinguished git\ of speaking, and was at the same time
very accurately acquainted with the Scriptures, without doubt ac-
cording to the mode of interpretation prevalent among the Gnostics
of Alexandria. If ApoUos, as has been supposed, or at least some
man very similarly trained, was the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, then wo see in this remarkable composition, how the
Spirit of Christ consecrated that form of culture, and purified it from
false intermixtures. — Ver. 25. The phrase ^ieiv nvevi^art is found
also in Rom. xii. 11. Apollos, and probably many other elevated
men of that stamp, were already animated to enthusiasm by the
idea, that the ancient promise of the Messiah had received its fulfil-
ment in the advent of Christ, and yet they knew not the plenitude
of spiritual gifts, which were bestowed through him upon the human
race. — Ver. 27. IvjifiaAXeadat is to be understood in the signification
of " conferre," " to be profitable," " to give support and help."
And %api5- == ;^;api<Tj[ia, is to be understood of the peculiar gift of
teaching and preaching, which Apollos possessed. — Ver. 28. Evrovcog
has already occurred in Luke xxiii. 10. — The form diaKareXeyxeadai^
which strengthens the signification of the simple verb, is found in
no other part of the New Testament.)

Chap. xix. 1-7. — The commencement of this chapter looks back,
it is obvious, to the account of Paul's journey interrupted at chap,
xviii. 23, and mentions his arrival in Ephesus. (The iiepr] ['Atrmf]
dvcjrepiKa, upper pm'ts of Asia, denote the provinces that lay more
in the interior of Asia Minor, as opposed to Ephesus, which lay
upon the sea-shore.) Here the apostle found twelve disciples of
John (ver. 7), who, like Apollos, were only acquainted with John's
baptism of repentance (ver. 3); they had been directed by the Bap-
tist to look to Jesus as the Messiah (ver. 2), but they knew nothing
of the Holy Ghost, the higher principle of heavenly life procured
by Christ for his disciples (John vii. 39). The only difficulty con-
nected with this account springs from the remark in ver. 2 : dXX'
ov6e el nvevna dyiov eotlv -qKovaanev, ive have not even heard if there
is a Holy Ghost. It certainly appears astonishing that these men
should know nothing of the Holy Ghost ; while yet the Old Testa-
ment frequently speaks of an outpouring of the Spirit. The par-
ticiple 6o0iv has therefore been supplied to tariv, and some Codices
too instead of to-iv read Xa[if3dvovai nveq. In this view the disciples
of John, when they used these words, only declared that they had
not heard that any outpouring of the Spirit had actually taken
place. But if we compare the passage in John vii. 39 (see the re-
marks there offered), it will appear that this view merely throws
Vol. III.— 24

370 Acts XIX. 1-7.

back the difficulty, but does not solve it. The meaning of the words
"Undoubtedly is, that those men knew nothing even of the existence
of the Holy Ghost. It is true the doctrine was clearly unfolded in
the Old Testament that God is a Spirit, and that he is holy ; but
that in the Divine Being there exists that peculiar power which the
church names the third person in the Godhead, they did not know ;
and they could not discover it in the Old Testament, because it is only
the clearness of the New Testament which enables one looking back-
ward to find it in the Old. It is probable even that they did not
regard the Messiah as the only begotten Son of God, but merely as
an extraordinary man (avSpwiro?- Kwr* iKXoyrjv). The meaning of
their words therefore is, that God stiU appeared to them as a sim-
ple, self-contained, indivisible unity, and that they knew nothing
of those distinctions of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, necessarily
grounded in the nature of God's spiritual essence, without which
we cannot conceive God communicating and revealing himself as
the Living one. Now, on account of this imperfect knowledge of
God, they needed still to be baptized in the name of the Fathej',
the Son, and the Holy Ghost. What we have supposed therefore
in the case of Apollos, is here plainly declared, viz., that those who
had received the baptism of John were baptized the second time.

It was a very obvious course for all the advocates of rebaptizing
from Cyprian down to the Anabaptists and Mennonites, to adduce
this passage in their defence ; and the views of it which were
adopted by the orthodox, in order to deprive them of the argument
based upon it, were certainly more forced than even their interpre-
tation of it in favour of their darling idea. It was said, for example,
that ver. 5 still refers to the baptism of John, and is so connected
with the words of Paul in ver. 4, that the meaning is, " when they
heard him, viz., the Baptist, they were baptized by him in the name
of the Lord Jesus." But it is manifest that the baptism of John
could not possibly be styled baptism^ in the name of Jesus : the
Baptist only directed those already baptized to Jesus, after he was
convinced of his Messiahship by the descent of the Spirit upon him.
Yet men like Beza, Calixtus, Buddeus, could allow themselves to
be so misled as to adopt this untenable supposition, that they might
wrench from the Anabaptists their proof-passage. The best expe-
dient was the one devised by Ziegler. (Theol. Abh. Th. ii.) He
supposed that these disciples of John had been infected with the
error of those who declared the Baptist himself to be the Messiah,
and who were also baptized in the name of the Baptist. They had
not, therefore, received the right Johannic baptism, and of course
they needed to be baptized again, which would not have been the
case, had they been properly baptized by John in the name of the
approaching Messiah. Under this view, certainly, we can carry

Acts XIX. 8-12. 371

through the principle that the disciples of John were not baptized,
as there are no certain traces of it elsewhere to be found. But even
this explanation is untenable, being fully refuted by the single con-
sideration that in that case the disciples of John would certainly
not have been styled nadTjral, as they are in chap. xix. 1.

But even taking the words in their obvious sense it does not
thence follow that the Anabaptists are right, in adducing this
passage in their defence. They only assert, in the first place,
that no child should be baptized, because in their view the in-
ward baptism, which presupposes consciousness, should always co-
incide with the outward ; and, in the second place, that those
who have been baptized simply as unconscious children, and thus
have not received the true baptism at all, ought to be baptized
when they come to maturity. An actual repetition of baptism,
therefore, is not taught by the Anabaptists : they merely assail the
propriety of infant baptism, of which there is nothing said in the
passage before us, which therefore it is clear, on a closer view of the
point of debate, ought never to have been applied to the question
at all.

If then the apostles baptized anew, on their entrance into the
Christian church, those who had been baptized by John the Bap-
tist or by his adherents, the question arises, whether those who were
baptized by the disciples of Jesus before the institution of the
sacrament of baptism (see John iii. 26, iv. 2) would also require to
submit to baptism again ? There is nothing certainly in the nature
of this baptism, to shew that this might not be the case, for as the
power of the Holy Ghost was not yet imparted, it could not be the
laver of regeneration ; moreover, it is probable that the disciples
had baptized but a few, and that only immediately after they were
disengaged from the Baptist and connected with Jesus, and while
they were still under the influence of the ideas of John. And this
explains why it is only at this early period in the passages cited
above, that we find any notice of the subject, and nowhere ob-
serve any further traces of it. But these few individuals may have
attached themselves quite closely to the company of Christ, and
thus along with the apostles, who were not afterwards baptized by
the Lord, they may have immediately received on the day of Pente-
cost the Holy Ghost, whose communication would render quite un-
necessary the administration of the outward ordinance.

Vers. 8-12. — The following verses give a short account of the
ministry of Paul in Ephesus. For three months he preached to the
Jews : afterwards he turned to the Gentiles, and laboured for two
years among them, teaching in the school-room of one Tyrannus.*

* It was during the period of this residence of Paul ia Ephesus that the Epistle to
the Galatians, and the two to the Corinthians, were composed. The second of the tvo

372 Acts XIX. 13-17.

Many cures too were performed by Paul in this place. (On aKXrjpv-
veadai in vers. 9, see at Rom. ix. 18. Here the. hardening is ascribed
to the unfaithfulness of the Jews themselves, but there it is attrib-
uted to God. The milder form of expression which is here chosen,
" the hardening of one's self/' is the more usual one in Scripture. —
Yer. 9. 'A^wptcre refers merely to the separation of their places of
meeting. Ix^^V means a school or lecture room ; it is probable that
Tyrannus kept a school of rhetoric— Ver. 12. On oovSdpiov comp. at
John xi. 44. luiKivdiov, from " semi" and " cingere," denotes an
apron, and occurs not again in the New Testament. It is such
articles of dress plainly, as could be easily laid aside and used else-
where, that are named. Regarding cures effected by such objects,
see remarks on Acts v. 15. Here, however, the conduct of the mul-
titude exhibits more decided marks of superstition than the case
mentioned in chap. v. 15. The person of Peter was always present
along with his shadow, but here articles of clothing only make their
appearance, and they are regarded as impregnated with the apostle's
power. When these have a healing efficacy ascribed to them, which
is traced back to God, this can only be regarded as a condescension
of the Divine mercy to individuals who, though erring, are yet well-
intentioned. The apostles themselves certainly have not given
countenance to such ideas, for there is no trace of them anywhere
to be found.*)

Vers. 13-17. — With this account of the miracles performed by
Paul, Luke connects the description of an occurrence altogether sin-
gular. Jewish exorcists who witnessed the mighty works of the
apostle, supposed that his power lay in the use of the name Jesus ;
and therefore they expected that the mere employment of it would
enable them to exhibit similar results. (See the remarks at Matth.
xviii. 5 on a like occurrence.) However strange this notion may ap-
pear to us, still it is in entire accordance with the ideas of antiquity,
and particularly those of wonder-workers among the Jews, who
imagined that the utterance of certain words or formulae had a
mighty power connected with it. And therefore the Ptabbins after-
wards explained the miracles of Jesus himself by the supposition
that he was acquainted with the holy name of Jehovah. (»-25s:3 e»n.)
(See Eisenmenger's entdeck. Judenth. Part I. p. 154.) The em-
ployment of the name of Jesus by the exorcists had no effect upon
the demoniacs, nay, they even manifested hostility to them ; a hos-

latter however was probably written after the apostle was driven away by the proceed-
ings of Demetrius the goldsmith, and most likely in Macedonia. (Acts xx. 1, 2.)

* There is no necessary limit to God's mode of miraculous working. We might connect
it alike with the touching of the Saviour's garment, with the shadow of Peter, and with
the napkin borne from Paul. So long as there was the actual exercise of miraculous power,
and it was ascribed to its right source, there seems no ground for the imputation of supe^
Btition. — [K.

Acts XIX. 18-20. 378

tility easily explained from that heightened power of perception
developed among such unfortunates, by which they at once recog-
nized the inefficacy of the words uttered. (That the Jews too
attempted to exorcise evil spirits,* and that often with success, has
already appeared from Matth. xii. 27. — In ver. 13, the words bpKil^u)
vfidg Tov 'iTjaovv are followed by bv 6 UavXog KTjpvaaei ; for the reason,
doubtless, that the name of Jesus was so common, that there was
need of a more particular description to point out the person in-
dicated. Now as these Jews could not of course recognize Jesus
as the Messiah, no other method was left but to mark him out
by the person who was preaching him with such zeal in Ephesus.
On the construction of dpd^oj with the accusative, with which sup-
ply 6cd, see Mark v. 7, and 1 Thess. v. 27. — The persons who made
this attempt in Ephesus were seven sons of Sceva, a priest of dis-
tinction [dpxt'^p^f^^], who probably was at the head of the Ephesian
Jews. — On the use of Tig in connexion with numbers, see Winer's
Gram. p. 158. It is found again in Acts xxiii. 23. However,
it might be better to suppose that rig does not here refer to the
number, but that Luke states the number by way of addition. —
Ver. 15. The phrase nvevi^a -rrovTjpSv is used by Luke with peculiar
frequency : instead of it the other two synoptical Evangelists com-
monly employ nveviia aKadaprov. — In ver. 16, the reading diJuf>oTip(jiv
has probably arisen from this, that it was regarded as impossible that
one should be able to contend against seven. In demoniacs, how-
ever, as in the insane, the power of the muscles is often found aug-
mented to an incredible extent. See at Matth. viii. 28.)

Vers. 18-20. — What occurred with the sons of Sceva only aug-
mented, as was to be expected, the consequence of Paul. Almost
tEe entire mass of the people began to repent, and many, beholding
the real wonders of the living God, destroyed the idolatrous charms
by which the priests attempted to counterfeit miracles. (In ver. 18,
i^ofio^oyelodaL and dvayyiXXeiv rag irpd^eig cannot, as Kuinoel sup-
poses, apply to the general confession of their sins : in this view it
would be impossible to keep the two sufficiently distinct from one
another in sense. The npd^ecg rather denote, as is plain from the
connexion, magical arts, and l^ofioXoyeladai means to make confes-
sion of these before the apostle or individual believers ; dvayyeXXeiv,
on the other hand, refers to the public acknowledgment of them
before all, for the purpose of warning against such delusions. — ^Ver.
19. Uepiepyog, like curiosus, is applied particularly to those curious
and busy individuals, who employ magical arts to search into the
future. The worship of Artemis in Ephesus was connected with
many mysterious ceremonies, by which her priests and worshippers

* Joflephua too (Antiq. viii. 2, 5) makes mentioa of magical charms, which were a»>
cribed to Solomon, and hy which the Jewish conjurers attempted to perform cures.

374 Acts XIX. 21-27.

were led to the practice of magical arts, whicli they cultivated to a
great extent. The Ephesian charms and amulets [ypaju/zara dXe^t^
<f)dpfiaKa 'E(peoia] * were therefore prized above all others. — The esti-
mated value of these books amounted to fifty thousand drachmae,
that is, about six thousand rix doUars.f — Ver. 20. Kara Kpdrog is to
be understood adverbially in the signification of " admodum, vehe-
menter ;" not with Qeov supplied in the sense of juvante Deo.)

Vers. 21, 22. — After these occurrences, Paul now determined, as
the Gospel appeared quite firmly established in Ephesus, both to
revisit the churches in Macedonia and Achaia, and also to go to
Rome, the great metropolis of the heathen world. Previously, how-
ever, he merely sent away Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia, and
for some time longer he exerted liis energies in behalf of Asia. — (Ver.
21. The phrase tde-o iv nvevnaTi. supposes the previous entrance of
the plan into one's mind, and indicates that a decision had been
come to in its favour. On the other hand, the words elg ttjv 'AaiaVj
in ver. 22, are to be understood as meaning, " for the benefit of
Asia." — In Rom. xvi. 23, another Erastus is named, who was resi-
dent in Corinth. This travelling companion of Paul appears again
in 2 Tim. iv. 20. — 'E-nixetv scilicet iavTov^ in the sense of " to detain
one's self, to sojourn, to tarry," occurs no where else in the New
Testament, but frequently in good Greek writers, e. g., Xenophon,
Paul's purpose in sending forward his two associates to Macedonia,
was no other than this, to make preparations for the collection,
which he was desirous of carrying to the poor saints in Jerusalem.
Comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 1, etc.)

Vers. 23-27. — But immediately after the dismission of these two
assistants, a mighty storm arose against the apostle, which was oc-
casioned by Demetrius, a goldsmith. This man was employed m
making little silver images of the celebrated Temple of Artemis,
and he found his gains curtailed by the prodigious influence of the
apostle in the whole of Asia-f Now, as he exercised his trade on a
great scale, and many men were dependent upon him, he stirred up
against Paul in the hearts of the fanatical multitude the same
hatred which burned in his own bosom. — (Ver. 24. It has been

* Hesychius, in his Lexicon under this word, adduces some forms from such magical
books ; for example, the words uoki, KaTuam, "kli, Terpu^, dauva^evevg, alciov. He sup-
poses that they were Greek words designedly transposed, but perhaps they wer_ only un-
meaning sounds, which have a resemblance quite casually to Greek. Similar sounds in
a Latin form are to be found in the magical books of the middle ages.

\ In forming a judgment of this great sum (about £1350 stg.), which, according to
another calculation, rises much higher still, we must bear in mind, first, the high price of
books generally in ancient times, and, secondly, the exaggerated value which the magi-
cians ascribed to their books of magic.

X Regarding the rapid spread of Christianity in Asia Minor, see the account given by
Pliny in his letters, (x 97.) This account is printed in my work Monum. hist. eccl. i.
23, etc.

Acts XIX. 28-34. 375

falsely supposed that the silver temples were medals with the im-
pression of the Temple of Diana upon them, but we should rather
view them as. small images of the building, which travellers and pil-
grims purchased for a token of remembrance. Such little temples
were called dcpidpvuaTa. Dionys. Hal. ii. 22. And they were made
of gold, sih-er, or wood. — Ver. 25. EvTropia, " abundantia, opulence."
— Ver. 26. The words on ovk eial Qeol oi 6id ;^£/pwv yivofievot, refer to
the rude popular view which supposed the image to be the God
himself The better educated heathens regarded the image merely
as a symbol of the heavenly divinity. — Ver. 27. The word aTreXeynog
occurs nowhere else in the New Testament : elg d-jeXeyiibv iXdelv is
synonymous with dneXtjx^'^Qa'-)

Vers. 28-34. — The multitude, excited by the covetous Deme-
trius, raised the cry, " great is Diana of the Ephesians ;" and rushed
to the theatre, as the place commonly employed for meetings of the
people. Two travelling associates of Paul, Gaius and Aristarchus,
both from Macedonia, they dragged along with them ; Paul himself
would have gone forth among the multitude, but he was held back
by his distinguished patrons. The unruly crowd, swelled by mere
alarmists, who knew not even the cause of the tumult (ver. 32),
would not suffer a Jew named Alexander, who wished to speak to
the people, to utter a word ; and it was only when the town-clerk
appeared, that the uproar was hushed.

Ver, 29. — Not to punish the prisoners, as in the persecutions of
later times, but only to procure a meeting of the people, the ex-
cited multitude betook themselves to the theatre. Aristarchus is
more particularly described in chap. xx. 4, as also Gains. The per-
son named in Rom. xvi, 23, who resided in Corinth, is not to be
confounded with him. — IvvtKdTjuog^ fellow-traveller, occurs again in
the New Testament in 2 Cor, viii. 19. — Ver. 31 shews how consider-
able was the influence which Paul had acquired in Ephesus, and
with this his declaration in 1 Cor. xvi. 9, quite agrees. The friends
of Paul belonged to the Asiarchs, who always required to be the
richest and most respectable people of the city. The office of these
men, who were changed from year to year, had reference entirely to
religious affairs : the Asiarchs had the oversight of the sacred places
of the city, and were required to arrange the sacred games at their
own expense. Besides Ephesus, the other cities of Asia too ap-
pointed Asiarchs, who formed together a coUege (to koivov). The
president of this college appears always to have belonged to the
metropolis: at least we find that the years were counted by the
Asiarch, as by the consuls among the Romans. (See Euseb. Hist.
Ecc. iv. 15 ; Winer's Reallex. under the word Asiarch.) — Ver. 38.
Alexander the Jew, who wished to speak, and who doubtless de-
signed to speak against the apostle and his ministry, is perhaps the

376 Acts XIX. 35-41.

person whom Paul describes in 2 Tim. iv. 14, as his furious
enemy.* The Jews pushed him forward as their speaker, that their
influence too might be employed in turning the tumult to the dis-
credit of Paul ; but on this occasion the heathen element had so
great a preponderance, that they could make no impression.

Vers. 35-41. — The town-clerk now quieted the uproar ; and he
both did justice to the zeal of the Ephesians for their goddess, and
at the same time referred to the innocence of the accused, and
pointed out the hazardous political consequences which such popular
commotions might produce. This latter suggestion might probably
appear to Demetrius himself a very important one, and he might
then employ his influence in appeasing the multitude. — (Ver. 35.
The office of the ypanfiarevg was a very respectable one in Ephesus,
as in the other cities of Asia. The name probably arose from this,
that the archives of the state were under his csire, and it was his
duty to prepare all official writings. The expression corresponds
nearly to our secretary of state. [See Hemsen in his life of the
apostle Paul, page 232. Note.] — KaTaariXXeiv is the usual word for
suppressing a popular commotion. — New/copoj- means properly sweep-
ing, t. e. cleansing the temple, and then in general, careful about the
worship of the gods. The word is not unfrequently found on coins
as an epithet of several cities. — To AioTrereg supply dyaXna. So were
certain idols named, which were supposed to have fallen from heaven.
This was long regarded as a mere fable, like the accounts of showers
of stones given by the ancients ; but it is more probable that real
aBrolites, whose origin they were unable to explain, were regarded by
them as presents from the gods. The stone, which the Komans
brought from Asia to Rome as the image of Cybele, was undoubt-
edly a meteoric stone. The accounts, however, given by the ancient
writers of the image of Diana of the Ephesians are very various.
[See Plin. H. N. xvi. 79.J— Ver. 36. The town-clerk, as well as the
Asiarchs, is manifestly favourably disposed towards Paul ; he takes
upon himself the defence of him and his attendants. — ITpoTrerT^f
means properly " praeceps," "falling forward, • then praecipitate,
over-hasty, rash." It occurs in the New Testament again in 2 Tim.
iii. 4. — 'Ver. 38, dyopaioi must be carefully distinguished from dyopaXoi
in chap, xviii. 5. The latter denotes men who rove or loiter idly
about the market-place ; the former, with which supply I'^epai,
means court days, dies judiciales. The plural avdvixarot. does not
mean that there were several proconsuls, but only indicates that
there was always a proconsul among them. — Ver. 40. It was a very
skillfully directed warning the town-clerk gave them, that the Ro-

* According to 1 Cor. xvi. 9, however, the apostle had many that withstood him iu
Ephesus: the Alexander therefore who opposed him towards the end of his life, may
have been another IndividuaL

Acts XX. 1-3. 377

mans might see something of sedition in this tumult ; the fear
therefore of losing still more in money and goods, than they had lost
by the preaching of the apostle, speedily brought them to a state of
quietness. IvorpocpTJ here means only an uproar, but as the word
also involves the idea of a conspiracy [see Acts xxiii. 12], it was
probably designedly chosen to suggest to the meeting, what con-
struction might easily be put upon the commotion.

§ 2. Paul's Journey from Ephesus to Jerusalem.

(Acts XX. 1 — xxi. 16.)

Vers. 1-3. — The departure of Paul from Ephesus took place
after a solemn meeting, in which the apostle took leave of the
brethren. It stands in connexion certainly with the uproar of De-
metrius, but that it was occasioned or hastened thereby, as Eich-
horn supposes, is not at all indicated : indeed the Avords "after the
tumult ceased" (juera to navaaaOai tov 66qv[3ov) are opposed to this
idea, for the mention of the ceasing of the tumult shews that the
apostle might have remained quietly in Ephesus if he had chosen.
We may therefore suppose that the apostle attained his purpose, of
waiting in Ephesus till Pentecost, viz., of the year 59, and of seeing
Timothy return from his mission (1 Cor. xvi. 8, 11), and therefore
the time shortly after the departure of Paul from Ephesus would be
a suitable period to which to assign the composition of the first
Epistle to Timothy. (See 1 Tim. i. 3.) The apostle, according to
•what is here narrated, goes first to Macedonia (by Troas, to wit,
where he expected Titus, who was to bring him intelligence regard-
ing Corinth, and the impression his first epistle had made on the
church there, 2 Cor. ii. 12, 13), and he was also going, according to
1 Tim. i. 3, to Macedonia, having left Timothy behind in Ephesus.
Either from Troas, therefore, or from Macedonia, where he wrote
the second Epistle to the Corinthians, might Paul have dispatched
the letter in question to Timothy. But the internal features of the
first Epistle to Timothy are not in accordance with this date, al-
though Hemsen still decides in its favour. The first Epistle to
Timothy represents him as presiding over the Ephesian church for
a considerable time, while here he reappears immediately in the
company of Paul, and again the epistle exhibits an unsettled state
of the church, and speaks of the presence of many false teachers,
while, according to Acts xx. 29, such teachers are described by the
apostle as only to make their appearance afterwards. It is better,
therefore, to assign the epistle in question to the last period of the
life of Paul.

3t8 Acts XX. 4-6.

Kegarding'the duration of Paul's stay in Troas and Macedonia
nothing definite is stated ; but, as his stay in Greece, that is in
Corinth, is fixed at three months (verse 3), and, as immediately
thereafter (verse 6), mention is made of the paschal feast (viz., of
the year 60), it is probable that the whole time, from Pentecost
to the end of the year, was spent on the journey from Ephesus to
Corinth. In this city, where Paul wrote the Epistle to the Komans,
the Jews contrived another plot against him, verse 3 ; and, to escape
their snares, he departed from Corinth sooner than he had purposed.
As the winter season did not permit him to choose the direct course
to Syria by sea, he went back in the first place to Macedonia, that
he might thence prosecute his journey.

Vers. 4-6. — In the progress of his journey, the apostle made a
stay in Philippi, where Luke (who again uses the first person)
meets him, having been formerly left behind (xvi. 40) in Philippi,
and having spent perhaps the whole time there. The numerous at-
tendants of Paul went before him to Troas, and waited for him
there, and he arrived after Easter, and remained seven days. Many
interpreters, to whose views Hemsen in recent times accedes, regard
a retinue of seven persons as too large ; but it is by no means easy
to perceive any thing extraordinary in this. Besides t]ie attendants
whom Paul always had beside him, and who were absolutely neces-
sary to him for baptizing and arranging the affairs of the new
churches, there are here merely added some believers from the prov-
ince in which he had been labouring. Of Sopater (IcjTrarpof) noth-
ing further is known ; perhaps he is the same person with lodoinaTpog
mentioned in Rom. xvi. 21. Aristarchus and Gains were already
mentioned at chap. xix. 29. There, however, the latter is called a
Macedonian, while here he seems to be called Aepf3alog, a man of
Derbe. Undoubtedly we might, with Meyer, regard this Gains as
another person : it is welly however, not unnecessarily to increase
the number of biblical persons. It has, therefore, already been pro-
posed by Ernesti, Valckenaer, Kuinoel, and Neander, to put a point
after Gains, so that he might be included among the Thessalonians
mentioned, and Timothy be described as a native of Derbe. Nor is
the position of nal. after A£p/3aTof, adverse to this view ; for it can be
taken in the signification of " even, also," and therefore need not be
changed. Secundus is not mentioned elsewhere in the New Testa-
ment ; the two assistants of the apostle, however, Tychicus and
Trophimus, natives of proconsular Asia, are well-known. — Ver. 6.
"Axpt-g is used to denote a definite date " till five days," for " on the
fifth day." The passages in Rom. viii. 22 and Heb. iii. 13, to which
Kuinoel appeals in favour of this idea, are by no means analogous
to the one before us ; for it is not a point of time which is spoken
of in them, but an action continuing and reaching down to a certain

Acts XX. 7-16. 379

term. But it is only by an ellipsis that this passage can be thus ex-
plained, to wit, by supplying with Tjkdofiev the idea of the preceding
sailing.

Vers. 7-12. — The following account of the meeting in Troas, and
of the falling of a young man named Eutychus from the window of
the third story, is not of much importance considered in itself, but it
is interesting, first, because it presents an example of a meeting by
night, and, secondly, because it shews that the observance of Sunday
existed as early as the times of the apostles, which is also proved by
1 Cor. xvi. 2. The connexion plainly leads to this conclusion, that
the apostle wished to observe Sunday with the church, and to cele-
brate the Lord's Supper, as also the agape with them, before he left
Troas. The most natural supposition is, that from the very com-
mencement of the church, believers distinguished the day of our
Lord's resurrection, and celebrated it with solemn meetings. Thus
the observance of this day spread equally among Christians, both
of Jewish and Gentile extraction.

(On the expression fxia -Hv aafSpd-cjv^ see Comm. at Matth.
xxviii. 1, — Ver. 8. The numerous torches served probably not merely
to give light, but also for ornament. Sabbaths, it is known, are still
celebrated among the Jews with many lights. — Ver. 9. 6vpi?, "aper-
ture of a window," occurs again in the New Testament in 2 Cop. xi.
33. — Ver. 10. The declaration of Paul, tj ipvxi) avrov iv av-Qi ioriv,
his life is in Mm, does not permit us to suppose that this was a
case of raising from the dead. The account is quite parallel to the
account given by Matthew (ix. 24) of the raising of the daughter of
Jairus, and the remarks there made are applicable here also. Cal-
vin expresses himself in the same manner, as so many interpreters
do with respect to the perfectly analogous narrative in the Gospels :
" non negat Paulus fuisse mortuum juvenum, quia miraculi gloriam
hoc modo extinguerit, sed sensus est, vitam illi redditam esse Dei
gratia." But it does not become us to increase or to magnify mira-
cles ; we should take every thing as the Scripture presents it to us
Ver. 11. It is worthy of notice that the apostle does not permif
himself to be disturbed by this sad accident : he holds the love-feast
which was probably delayed by reason of his long discourse, and en-
ters into affectionate conference with those who were present till the
dawn of morning.)

Ver. 13-16. — As Luke himself was now again in the company,
he was able to give quite a precise account, and accordingly he speci-
fies Avith care the stations as far as Miletus. Paul, who seems on
this occasion to have had the entire control of the ship, sailed past
Ephesus, because he was afraid the multitude of his friends would
detain him there too long, as he was desirous of being in Jerusalem
at Pentecost. (Ver. 13. 'Aacrof was a city in Troas : Paul went

880 Acts XX. 17-21.

this length on foot, probably that he might enjoy the company of
the believers from Troas.* — Ver. 15. TpcjyvkXtov is a promontory
of Ionia, opposite the island of Samos.)

Vers. 17-21. — But although the apostle had not himself touched
at Ephesus, yet he longed to address the rulers of the church there,
that he might give them, as he supposed, his last injunction. He
caused the elders of that church, therefore, to be invited to Miletus,
and delivered an address to them, which is fully communicated to
us by Luke.f This speech is interesting, not simply because ^it
expresses in a very lively manner the heartfelt love of the apostle
to his spiritual children and the faithful solicitude of his efforts,
but it is also important as opening a prophetic view of the future
fortunes of the church. Paul points in it to the threatening dangers
which awaited the church from false teachers, and he gives most
earnest warnings against them. How much the fears of the great
apostle of the Gentiles were unfortunately justified in the sequel, is
shewn to us, not simply by the first Epistle of Paul to Timothy, in
which he is obliged to instruct his disciple regarding the measures
to be taken against the heresy which had broken out, but also from
the writings of John. The Gospel and the Epistles of John were
composed in Ephesus itself, and they all express, very mildly indeed,
but still unmistakably, opposition to the false teachers whom Paul
had already assailed. Several learned men of recent times, and even
ancient fathers of the church, particularly Irenfeus, iii. 14. 2, have
supposed that Paul held a formal council in Miletus, there being
assembled there, not only rulers of the church at Ephesus, but also
of many other neighbouring churches. But the text is not favour-
able to this view ; rather ver. 28, as it speaks of but a single church,
is directly opposed to it. Probably this idea arose only from the
circumstance that, in ver. 28, several tmatco-not, are named, from
which the conclusion was drawn, at the time when the names of
presbyters and bishops had become markedly distinguished from one
another, that the bishops of several churches must have been con-
vened. But it is now generally acknowledged that in the primitive
church the two words were used quite synonymously, + as is plain in
the New Testament from Acts xx. 17, compared with ver. 28 ; Phil.

* Hemsen, p. 478, throws out the conjecture that Paul weDt on foot alone, in order
that he might give to his followers an opportunity of meditating and conversing about
Lis last discourses: to me this does not seem probable, for the apostle had chiefly spoken,
not for those who were going with him, but for those who remained behind.

f Menken's practical exposition of tliis speech, in his Blicke in das Leben Pauli, p. 488,
etc., is worth reading here. See also Stier's Reden der Apostel, part ii. p. 170, etc. As a
farewell speech, this discouree bears a resemblance to Matth. xxiv. As in that passage
our Lord himself opens to his disciples views into futurity, bo does Paul here to his spirit-
ual children.

X See Neander's Church History, voL L, p. 184^ eta

Acts XX. 17-21. 381

i. 1 ; 1 Tim. lii. 2, compared with ver. 8, and Titus i. 17. And even
the ecclesiastical father, Theodoret, makes the remark on Phil. i. 1 :

iniOKonovg rovg TrpeafSvT^povg KaXsl, dutporepa yap elxov Kar' Ikuvov tov
Kaipov rd dvofiara, he calls the elders bishops, for they had at that
time both names. The question, however, regarding the offices must
be carefully distinguished from the question regarding the names.
With respect to the former it is plain, even from the New Testa-
ment (see Comm. on Acts xii. 17, xxi. 18, and on the Epistles to
Timothy and Titus) that in the larger churches there was a presi-
dent of the college of Presbyters, who afterwards received kut' t^oxr'iv
the name hioKo-nog. Where the number of believers was great, and
consequently also that of the presbyters, it would happen in the
nature of things that some one possessing the highest qualifications
of an external and internal kind, would assume the place of leader
of the whole body. But the spirit of brotherly love which reigned
in the apostolic church would cause this result to be developed, with-
out that presumption and arrogance which were afterwards unfor-
tunately so much displayed by the bishops towards the subordinate
functionaries and members of the church.*

The apostle mentions at the commencement of his address the
faithful solicitude with which he had devoted himself to their in-
terests, during the long time he was among them. He could do this
without the fear of being regarded as vain and self-sufficient, since
it was riot himself he praised, but the gift of God in him. — (Ver. 18.
The phrase -navra rov xpovov fied^ vfiojv iyevoixrjv, is not to be inter-
preted with scrupulous exactness, as if the apostle had not left
Ephesus for a single day, but certainly it excludes journeys of a
month's duration, so that we cannot well suppose him to have made
long excursions from Ephesus. — Yer. 19. TaTreivocppoavvrj is fre-
quently found in the epistles of Paul, but elsewhere only in 1 Pet.
V. 5. Also the adjective rafreivocfypcdv occurs in 1 Pet. iii. 8. — Ver.
20. 'TTTooTeXXeadai corresponds to the Latin " se subducere," to
withdraw from a thing, to neglect it. Comp. ver. 27. — Ver. 21.
The connexion of nerdvoia with Qeog, and oimong with Christ is pe-
culiar. Kuinoel refers the former only to the Gentiles, who were
first made acquainted with the true God by the Gospel, the other
he refers to Jews and Gentiles. But such a contrast is not here
spoken of at all : the explanation rather is that in God the Father

* In Hebrews xiii. 7, 17, 24, the rulers of the church are styled ^yovuevoi, which is
equivalent to tniaKOTioi. This word, like the name npEajSvTepoc, is derived from the con-
stitution of the Jewish synagogue, which was presided over by aged persons, B'^Sftt
or by pastors, d''Oi"iB- On the last name, see Buxtorf Lex. Rabb. p. 1821, under the
word DSiB, that is, to tend a flock. The constitution of the synagogue, however, did
not lead so decidedly to the creation of a president in the college of elders, probably on
account of the predominant influence of the Sanhedrim existing in the theocratic centre
of the nation.

882 Acts XX. 22-28.

the idea of strict rigtiteousness is exhibited, to which repentance
directs itself, but in Christ the idea of compassion, to which faith
looks.)

Vers. 22-27. — Paul is now led by the dangers he was about to
encounter in Jerusalem, which made him apprehend he should see
his beloved Ephesians no more, to make mention of his faithful
labours in the Gospel among them, and of his consequent freedom
from guilt, if any of them still should perish. If we suppose a
second captivity of Paul, then certainly he came again into those
regions (see 2 Tim. iv. 13-20), but this supposition need occasion
no difficulty, because the apostle here expresses merely a private
opinion, and by no means intimates that he was led to it by the
unerring Spirit of God. He probably saw quite correctly the end of
his course, viz., the death of martyrdom, but he did not know the
space of time that was yet to intervene in his life.

(Ver. 22. — The words 6e6e[XEvog ruj -nvevfiaTi^ hound hy the Spirit j
refer simply to the journey. To this the apostle felt with himself
an inward pressing summons ; but, according to his own confession,
he knew nothing of what was to befall him. For the Holy Ghost
does not teach each one everything, but, according to God's appoint-
ment, he teaches each one what is needful for him. His approach-
ing captivity Paul had to learn from other persons, who were
endowed with the Spirit of God [see chap. xxi. 12]. Perhaps this
arrangement was made by God, for the purpose of testing Paul's
obedience to the leadings of the Spirit, even in cases where they
appeared to him imsuitable ; for certainly it could not but appear to
him strange that he who was able every day to gain over thousands
to the kingdom of God, should be for years withdrawn from the min-
istry of the word. The dative tgj -nveiyiaTL further is not to be
understood as the dative of association, " bound to the Spirit," but
as the dative of instrument, "bound by the Spirit." The Spirit is
viewed as a power taking possession inwardly of the wdll of man, and
binding it. — Ver. 25. The words h olg dtrjXdov might be referred
to the travels of Paul in different places, and thus it would be made
probable, that there were presbyters present from other cities : but
the words may be just as well applied to the labours of Paul in the
city of Ephesus alone. — Ver. 26.' — Kadapbg dub aliiarog = t^tt •'jjb.
The blood is viewed as the principle of life.)*

Ver. 28. — This verse is in several respects remarkable. We
perceive from it, in thejirst place, how very important and influen-
tial a position the apostle ascribes to the rulers of the church, which
they acquire in nowise merely by their own arbitrary power, nor by

* It is not to be overlooked that Paul places first the expression Ti-poaixc'e iavTolc,
teaching iis that concern for his own soul is the first duty of every individual, and in the
case of teachers, an indispensable qualification for their labours.

Acts XX. 28. 883

that of the cliurch. that chose them, hut from ahove. The bishops
are considered as appointed by the Holy Ghost, and they are ad-
monished not only to take care of their own souls, but also to feed
well the flock of God over which they are placed. This representa-
tion is not favourable to the view now widely diffused among Pro-
testants,* that the ancient constitution of the church was completely
democratical, so that every individual had essentially the same right
and the same duty as the rulers of the church. This opinion, too
rudely formed in opposition to the principles of the Catholic hier-
archy, has still this amount of truth, that every believer, even the
humblest, possesses a priestly character, in reference to himself and
his household, but not at all in reference to the general body. The
Holy Scriptures (James iii. 1) give an express warning against every
one setting himself up as a teacher. The idea of an order of teach-
ers in the church rests upon the conviction that God imparts his
gifts in various measures, and that not only in the case of natural
endowments, but particularly also of the gifts of the Holy Ghost.
(See Comm. on 1 Cor. xii. 11.) Now those persons, who have re-
ceived a larger measure of the gifts of the Spirit, ought to possess
the guidance of the whole body. In the apostolic church, where the
rulers were chosen, either by the apostles, who were filled with the
Spirit, or by the congregations among whom the Holy Ghost reigned
in his primitive power, these rulers corresponded entirely to this
idea. But circumstances were afterwards completly changed : un-
qualified persons by corrupt practices of all kinds got hold of the
government of the church, and qualified persons were excluded from
it. This state of matters naturally brought about a reaction, in
which men went to another false extreme.

In the second place, we see from this verse that the pastoral care
of the church (noiiiaivetv rfjv iiiKXrjaiav)^ which includes alike the
government (^icvfiepvrjoig) and teaching (didaoKaALo) of the chur«h,f
by no means concerns itself merely with the statement of true doc-
trine, but also with refuting the false. The admonition to feed the
flock stands in immediate connexion with the prediction that false
teachers were to arise, and it is with reference to them that Paul
recommends watchfulness. See further on this subject in the pas-
toral epistles.

Finally, the verse has acquired great 'importance on account of
the concluding words, which, if the usual reading could be regarded
as genuine, would not only make Christ bear the name of God, but

* The Reformers were far removed from this view : thejs rather affirmed most em-
phatically that a peculiar order of teachers was indispensable in the church. The false
extreme indicated above was exhibited in the extrcmest form among the Anabaptist and
Quaker sects.

f On the relation of these xf^P^of^ara, as well as on the distmction between nptajiv-
repoi diduGKOvTeg and avpepvCJvTec, see the particulars at the pastoral epistles.

384 Acts XX. 29-32.

would also appear to justify the confusion of the qualities of his na-
tures made by the Monophysites.* Its genuineness however cannot
be defended consistently with the critical authorities. The reading
Qeov occurs in the celebrated Codex B., but it is not the original
reading there ; it is a subsequent correction, and is found no-
where else save in the Yulgate, the Syriac version, and some of the
fathers. But, on the other hand, A.C.D.E., and several other
Codices, have the reading kvqloVj which all recent critics recognize
as the right one. The readings icvplov Oeov and XpioTov are not at
all to be taken into account, as they have plainly sprung from the
other two. The preponderating critical authorities are also sup-
ported by the circumstance, that it may be easily explained hov
Qeov might be substituted in the room of Kvptov^but not the reverst
The phrase eKKXTjoia Kvpiov is nowhere else to be found, while tKKXrjai
Oeov is of very frequent occurrence ; and therefore it might readil
happen that the familiar expression would be chosen instead of th j
more uncommon one, attention not being paid to the following alfia.
That this connexion of 6e6g and alfia has no foundation in the
style of the apostles, is plain from the fact, that no such forms of
expression are found in the New Testament. True, the expression
alfia Kvpiov, blood of the Lord, is also a singular one, and appears
to wear a colouring of Monophysitism, for Kvpiog commonly ex-
presses the Divine nature of Christ. But the connexion with
iKKXrjoia shews that here it only means in general "leader, gov-
ernor," and therefore is to be understood in the same manner as
in John xiii. 13, 14, 16, and not a few other passages, where
Kvpiog stands along with dtddoKaXog, and only forms a contrast with
owXog.

Another various reading in the passage before us is that which
Griesbach and other modern critics have received into the text,
viz., aip.aTog rov l6iov, instead of the common reading Idiov alua-
Tof. This reading is susceptible of meaning, only as we might
refer 6 l6io<; to Christ. (Rom. viii. 32.) But if Kvpiov, as we
have seen, is the right reading, then this explanation cannot be
admitted, and Idiog accordingly must in this case be referred to
alixa. UeptTTOLeXaOai occurs only once again in the New Testament,
viz., in 1 Tim. iii. 13, in the signification of " earn, obtain, acquire."
But the substantive nepircoirjoig is frequently found. The idea that
the Lord has redeemed the church with his own precious blood,
and purchased it for a possession, expresses its great value, and
thus heightens the obligation of taking the deepest interest in its
welfare.

Vers. 29-32. — There is now appended the warning that great
dangers threaten the church, to ward off which the apostle demands

* On this point see Xhe ninth excursus appended to the commentary of Heinricha.

Acts XX. 33-38. 38j5

the entire watclifulness of the rulers, after the pattern of his own
diligence. The dangers themselves are described as being of two
kinds. In the first place, from loithout furious enemies of the
church, seeking their own advantage, were to break into her ; and,
in the second place, even ivithin her own bosom false teach-
ers were to spring up. It has been common to understand the
parties described in ver. 30 as synonymous with those mentioned in
ver. 29, or, lilce Grotius, to view the wolves as heathen persecutors,
and the others as heretics. Both views are certainly wrong. Heathen
enemies cannot well be the parties spoken of, because in foretelling
them there would have been no need of so solemn an announcement ;
for, in the nature of things, it was to be expected that the Romans
would set themselves against the spread of Christianity. The open
enemy too, who insisted upon apostacy, brought far less danger in
his train than the apparent friend. Yet the words kol l^vniov, and
the contrasts between eheXevoov-ac and dvaoTTjoovratj between Xvkoi
8apeTg and /^.aXovvreg diearpajineva^ imperatively require that the ene-
mies of the church described in the two verses should be viewed as
different. The nature of this difference becomes plain, when, as was
intimated above, we view it as grounded on a difference of origin.
Hostile men, the apostle means to say, would bring errors into the
church from without, but also from amongst themselves, nay from
their very instructors, false teachers would arise. Tlien the concluding
words, Tov aTToanav rovg fiadrjTag dmau) avrCiv^ to draw aioay disciples
after them, describe the wicked object pursued in common by the
two parties, viz., to draw believers away from Christ, and to attach
them to their own persons. Here we find exactly described the
characteristic distinction of the sectarian, which continues the same
in all times and under all circumstances. The upright messengers
of the truth forget themselves for the sake of the great cause which
they are defending : they desire no attachment to their own persons,
but only demand obedience to Grod and his word ; but the founder
of sects draws men away from the Eternal, and sets up his own
paltiy self instead ; thus he injures both himself and others. — (Ver.
29. Regarding XvKog, see Comm. at Matth. vii, 15, x. 16. — Bapvf
denotes here " dangerous, terrible." As to ver. 30, comp. 1 Tim. iv.
1. — Aiea-pai^iixivov occurs in Matth. xvii. 17. — Ver. 31. Paul's speci-
fying here three years as the time of his stay in Ephesus, which
really lasted only two years and three months (see xix. 8, 10), is
to be explained on the supposition, that his earlier residence too
(xviii. 19) is included, and a round number employed. — Ver. 32. On
napaTiOefiac, see Acts xiv. 23.)

Vers. 33-38.— At last, after the apostle had mentioned that he
had always supported himself by the labour of his own hands, and
had rather given than received, he concludes his discourse, and
Vol. III.— 25

386 Acts XXI. 1-9.

takes an affecting leave of his friends, who depart from him as if
they were to see him no more here below. The reason why Paul
adverts here to the manner in which he had supported himself in
Ephesus, is douhtless simply to shew that he was not actuated,
according to the reproaches of his Jewish enemies, by any outward
grounds of self-interest, but solely by love to their souls. (See the
remarks at chap, xviii. 3.) The connexion therefore shews that the
dadevovvreg of the 35th verse is primarily applied only to those who
are literally poor and weak. (On dvrLXaii(idveodai^ see Luke i. 54.)
But it cannot surely be supposed that the rich meaning of our Lord's
words, [laKapiov koTL ndXXov 6i66vat rj XafipdveiVj it is more blessed, etc.,
is exhausted by the reference to outward giving and receiving. Kather
it holds true of this maxim, as of many others, that it is susceptible
of an application to the highest relations as well as to the lowest.
It applies in the most absolute sense to the relation of the Creator
to the creature, for God is the alone blessed, because he alone gives
everything to all. (This maxim finally belongs confessedly to those
which were preserved only by tradition. Several of the Kedeemer's
utterances of this kind are collected in Fabricii. Cod. Apocr. N. T.
Y. I.)

Chap. xxi. 1-4. — Here follows the continuation of the account
of Paul's journey, in the first place, on to Tyre, where he abode one
week. It seems an extraordinary statement which is made in ver.
4, that some believers, who were filled with the Spirit, said to Paul
that he should not go to Jerusalem. The apostle has already
declared (xx. 22) that he was going up under the impulse of the
Spirit ; it might seem therefore that the Spirit contradicted himself
in his communications through different channels. But the apparent
contradiction arises solely from the brevity of the narrative, which is
supplemented by the more detailed statements of the 11th and 12th
verses. Those men possessing the prophetic gift discerned quite
correctly by the illumination of the Spirit the approaching captivity
of the apostle, and on this account they besought him of their own
accord, rather not to pursue the journey ; but in Paul the Spirit de-
clared, that even though bonds awaited him, he must yet go up. —
(Ver. 1. Udrapa was a well-known city of Lycia. — Ver. 3. Fo/zof
signifies wares of every kind, as in Kev. xviii. 11, then particularly
the lading of a ship = ^opriov^ whence dno'^opri^eadaij " to discharge,
unload a ship's cargo.")

Vers. 5-9. — At the close of the period specified, the believers in
Tyre escorted the apostle, and he came by Ptolemais (now St. Jean
d'Acre) to Cassarea, where he lodged in the house of Philip the dea-
con.— Ver, 5. 'E^apTLoac is explained by CEcumenius as = nXijpcJaat.
But there is no ground for deviating from the usual signification " to
equip, to prepare," for the accusative denotes, as usual, duration of

Acts XXI. 10-16. 387

time. The word occurs also in 2 Tim. iii. 17, in the same signifi-
cation. The fact that children are mentioned along with the rest,
cannot be employed as a proof of infant baptism, for not only is there
wanting every indication that they were baptized, but it might even
be grown children that were meant. As in chap, xx. 6, so here
prayer is made upon the knees : the ancient Christians appear al-
ways to have prayed in this posture, which symbolizes the deep
humiliation of the soul before God ; but on Sunday they stood, to
indicate that God in Christ had raised men up from the fall.

With respect to Philip, it is plain, from the descriptive clause,
ovTog m TU)v tTv-d, being one of the seven, that he was not the apostle,
but the deacon, of whose labours mention has already been made in
chap. viii. When ancient writers call him apostle* (see Euseb. H.
E. iii. 31, 39, v. 24), we need not suppose any confounding of the
two persons, but the word " apostle" is only used in a wider sense,
like evayyeXtGTTJg in the signification of " travelling teacher." (On this
point, see Acts xiv. 4, 14, where Barnabas too is called apostle.) It
seems surprising, however, that this Philip travels and is settled in
Csesarea, when he had a stated ecclesiastical office in Jerusalem.
The two things could not be united, and as we afterwards find Philip
even in Hierapolis in Phrygia (see the passages above cited from
Eusebius), we must suppose that he had resigned his office of deacon.
Moreover, as the daughters of Philip possessed the gift of prophecy,
so we find something similar even in the Old Testament in the cases
of Miriam and Deborah, and in the prophecies Joel iii. express inti-
mation bad been given that the gifts of the Spirit were to be imparted
also to the female sex. This does not at all stand in contradiction
to the law that the woman was not to teach in the church, for we
need only suppose that such women made no use of their gift in the
public assemblies.

Vers. 10-16. — During Paul's stay in Caesarea, the prophet Aga-
bus, who has already been mentioned in chap. xi. 28, came thither,
and also declared his approaching captivity. But the apostle, fol-
lowing the impulse of the Spirit, expressed his joyful obedience even
to death, and departed with a convoy of believers from Caesarea to
Jerusalem, where he took up his abode with an old and well-known
disciple named Mnason. (Agabus discloses his prophecy by a sym-
bolical act, as our Lord himself had done in a similar manner to
Peter. [See the Comm. on John xxi. 28.] The word evromoi is
not found elsewhere in the New Testament, but it occurs in the best

* On account of these passages Gieseler (in Ullmann's Studien, year 1829, part i. p.
139, etc.) would, though quite unwarrantably, regard ver. 9 as an interpolation, for he
supposed that the four daughters belonged to Philip the apostle, and that a reader had
confounded the deacon here mentioned with him. But there Is not the least trace ia tho
critical authorities that this verse is not genuine.

388 Acts XXI. 17-26.

Greek authors in the signification of " inhabitants of a place/*—
Ver. 13. Ivvdpvnro), to break to pieces, applied tropically to deep
anguish. — Ver. 15. There are here a multitude of various readings :
in place of the usual reading dnoaicevodiievoi, we find also tmoKevaad-
fxEvoc, TrapaoKEvaadiievoij d-rroTa^diiEvoij all words which denote prepar-
ing to depart, while dnoaKevaodfievot, " sarcinas deponere," is applied
to persons arriving. But it is probable that the internal difficulty
of the word has occasioned transcribers to make these changes, and
this consideration gives strong support to the usual reading. The
artifices, however, which have been employed to force a different
meaning upon dnooKevd^o), are to be altogether rejected ; the common
meaning is appropriate, if we suppose that Paul left the greatest
part of his baggage behind in Caesarea, that he might the more
lightly prosecute the land journey. — Ver. 16. Ilap' w — Mvdauvi by
attraction for Trpog Mrdocova^ nap' w «. t. A.)

§ III. The Apprehension of Paul in Jerusalem.

(Acts xxi. 17— xxiii. 10.)

Vers. 17-26.'' — On the appearance of the apostle in Jerusalem,
which was the central point of Jewish Christian life, his peculiar
position in reference to the law could not but come again imme-
diately into question. On the very day after his arrival he betook
himself, with his attendants, to James (without doubt the so-called
brother of our Lord, see xv. 13), with whom all the presbyters were
assembled. It has already been remarked at chap. xx. 17, that this
James plainly appears as primus inter pares, as head of the college
of presbyters, that is, as bishop. And if we consider that the whole
of Christian antiquityf styles him, and afterwards his brother Simon
(see Matth. xiii. 55), bishop of Jerusalem, there is no ground left
for doubting that the episcopal dignity is as old as the church itself,
although the name was only gradually fixed in this acceptation.^
As soon, then, as James heard the apostle's account of the progress
of the gospel in the heathen world, he drew his attention to the po-
sition he occupied with reference to the Jewish Christians, which^ on

* A Commentary upon the Acts of the Apostles from this place to the end is famished
in the second part of Bottger's contributions towards an introduction to the Epistles of
Paul (Gottingen, 1837), constructed on juridical and archaelogical principles.

f See the account of his martyrdom taken from the work of Jlegeslppus in Eusebius
(H. E. ii. 23). It is printed in my "monum. hist. eccl. i. 11, etc."

I In Jerusalem, where the first great church consisted of thousands, there was also
first felt the need of a president of the presbyters. But of course this necessity would first
appear when the apostles left the city, for so long as they were present they exercised a
controlling influence. (See the remarks at Acts vi. 7, xx. 17.) Therefore probably the
episcopal office may have first developed itself in Antioch and Rome.

Acts XXI. lT-26. 889

account of their number, could not but appear a matter of the high-
est importance. For, granting that the expression Troaat jj-vpidSeg is
not to be taken literally, still it must denote a very considerable
number, whom we are not to suppose as belonging to Jerusalem
alone, but to the whole of Palestine. (The word decjpelg in verse 20,
may refer to the number of presbyters present, which represented,
as it were, the number of believers.) The duties of the Gentile
Christians had been definitely settled by the apostolic decrees (chap.
XV.), but as to the Jewish Christians, the report was now spread
abroad that Paul led the Jews, who attached themselves to Christianity
in the heathen world, to give up the observance of the law, and this
had excited the most furious hatred against the apostle, as one who
taught apostacy from the holy law of God. The heads of the church
in Jerusalem, therefore, dreaded nothing but an uproar, if Paul's
presence in the city should become known. In order, therefore, to
appease the multitude, they proposed to the apostle to observe
the sacred usages publicly in the Temple, with four men who were
paying their vows, and to present an offering for himself (see on this
point the remarks at chap, xviii. 18, etc.) a proposal which he will-
ingly adopted.

And here now the question presents itself, was it a just charge,
that Paul seduced the Jews to abandon the law when they joined
the church ? We may easily explain how this charge arose, but it
was by no means well-founded. It stood in direct contradiction to
the publicly declared principles of Paul, that he would ask no one
arbitrarily to renounce the law (see Comm, on Rom. vii. 1, etc., and
on Acts xiv. 15): on the contrary it was his practice quietly to let
every one decide, according to his spiritual advancement and the in-
struction of the Spirit, what position he would assume in reference
to Old Testament rites ; but the connexion of salvation with the
observance of the law, he energetically resisted as unchristian. Al-
though, therefore, we cannot suppose the Apostle Paul to have made
any direct opposition to the ceremonies of the law (see chap, xxviii.
17), yet on the other hand we may readily conceive that his exam-
ple, and the whole spirit of his ministry, would lead many Jewish
Christians to give up with a good conscience the observance of the
Mosaic institutions. This was noticed by the strict Jewisli Chris-
tians, and therefore they ascribed to Paul the positive design of sup-
planting the law, while the event was merely a consequence of the
spirit of his doctrine. Without any hypocrisy, therefore, he could
observe the law himself, because love prompted him to become a
Jew to the Jews. In the same manner the Jews already bad expe-
rienced, in the ministry of our Lord himself, and also of Stephen,
who appears as the forerunner of Paul (Acts vi. 13, 14), that the
Gospel occasioned an indifference to the forms prescribed by the

390 Acts XXI. 27-40.

law, and therefore they ascribed to them the actual endeavour to
overturn the law, although they left the removal of its outward
forms to the slow course of inward development, and hence observed
the law themselves so long as these forms had existence. (Ver, 26.
'Ayviofiog denotes the abstinence practised during the vow. When
the appointed days, which in this case were seven [ver. 27], had ex-
pired, Paul made it known [diayyeXXcjv] to the priests, for the sake
of the offerings which were to be presented.)

Vers. 27-32. — But although the concession of the apostles to
the weak brethren proceeded from a good intention, it turned
out disastrously. The furious enemies of Paul were only the more
exasperated by it, particularly by the circumstance that Trophimus,
who was uncircamcised, was found in the company of Paul, and it
was supposed that the apostle had taken him with him into the
Temple, and had thus defiled it ; for Gentiles by birth could only tread
the court of the Gentiles, but not that of the Israelites : they were
debarred from entering the latter by monitory tablets. (See Joseph.
B. J. V. 5, 2.) An uproar was excited in the Temple by Jews from
Asia ; the apostle was dragged away from the environs of the Tem-
ple, and would have been killed, if the Eoman garrison had not
hastened to his help.

(Ver 30. — They hurried the apostle out of the Temple, that is,
out of the courts of it, that they might not stain it with his blood.
The watchmen of the Temple also immediately took the precaution
of shutting the great gates that led into the courts.^Ver. 31. The
Komans, who had a garrison in the castle of Antonia, that lay over
against the Temple, viewed this uproar as connected with the at-
tempts of a rebel [ver. 38J and therefore they hastened immediately
to the spot, and saved the life of Paul, ^doir^ rumour, occurs no-
where else in the New Testament. — On onelpa, see Matth. xxvii. 27 ;
Acts X. 1. — Regarding x'^^'^^PXo?' see John xviii. 12.)

Vers. 33-40. — After the Roman tribune had rescued the apostle
from the tumult, and had learned that he was not the rebel whom
he at first supposed him to be, Paul received permission from him
to address the excited people, who, when they heard* their beloved
mother tongue, listened with quietness to the words of the apostle,
who was now beyond their power. — (Ver. 34. Ilapen[3oXi] denotes here
the barracks situated in the fortress to which a stone staircase led
up, of which the dvafiadfiol. are the steps. — Ver. 38. With regard to
the Egyptian rebel [AiyvTrnoc:], Josephus gives a detailed account
of him and his unfortunate attempt against the Romans, which
was suppressed by the procurator Felix. [Arch. xx. 8-6. BelL

* The inference that, according to this passage, it would not have been remarkable if
Paul had spoken Greek, leads to the supposition that the Greek tongue even at that time
was ■widely diffused through Palestine.

Acts XXII. 1— XXIII. 5. 391

Jud. ii. 13, 5.] The number of his followers is given by Josephua
at a far higher amount than by Luke, viz., 30,000. But there is
plainly an error in the number of Josephus, because he mentions
that Felix had killed the most of them, and yet in the first of the
two passages cited, the number killed is fixed at four hundred. Per-
haps, too, the flower of his army ought to be distinguished from the
disorderly mass of people who followed it. On this apparent differ-
ence, see the remarks of Tholuck in his Glaubwiirdigkeit, p. ] 70, etc.,
•where he supposes that the large number of Josephus must be un-
derstood only of the rabble that followed. The name aiKaptoq^ sica-
rius, denotes a class of men that arose amid the terrible distractions
of the Jewish state under the rule of the Komans, and abandoned
themselves of set purpose to murder and robbery.)

Chap. xxii. 1-21. — Paul hoped to make an impression upon his
enemies, by recounting the manner in which God had brought him
to the acknowledgment of the Messiahship of Jesus ;* but, as soon
as he made mention of his Divine calling to go as a teacher among
the Gentiles, their rage, hitherto restrained, broke out afresh, and
they called upon the tribune to put Paul to death. (On this sec-
tion, see particulars at chap. ix. 1, etc.)

Vers. 22-29. — When the tribune saw that all was fruitless, he
took Paul into custody, and led him into the castle, with the view
of scourging him, that he might ascertain, by this kind of torture,
in what the transgression he supposed him guilty of, consisted.
But the right of Roman citizenship asserted by the apostle, rescued
him from this infliction. — (Ver. 23. Throwing dust into the air
is a symbolical expression of disquietude and perplexity. — Yer.
24. 'Kverd^tadai, inquirere, refers here to the investigation of the
supposed crime. — Ver. 25. Upo-eivscv ludai is best understood here
in the sense of " hand over," " give up to." And the thongs denote
the instrument of punishment, so that the meaning is, " when they
gave him over to the scourge." The word cannot well be applied
to the binding of the body, and to the stretching of it thus occa-
sioned, because the thongs were not used as instruments of binding.
On Paul's right of citizenship, see at chap. xvi. 37. — Ver. 28. Ke^a-
Xaiov is here used in the genuine Greek signification of " sum,"
" sum of money.")

Chap. xxii. 30 — xxiii. 5. — In order however to save himself from
being brought to any account, the tribune determined to deliver
ovQr the accused to the Jewish tribunals, and Paul was thereupon
placed before the Sanhedrim, over which Ananias at that time pre-
sided. This violent man commanded his servants to insult Paul,

* In chap. xxii. 3, the apostle himself calls Tarsus his birth-place. The statement of
Jerome, therefore (catal. vir. ill. b. v. Paulus), that Paul was born in Giskalis in Judea^
and came afterwards to Tarsus, is deserving of no regard.

392 Acts XXII. 30— XXIII 5.

when he appeared before the Sanhedrim with an open declaration of
his consciousness of innocence. Now if the apostle does not here
apply the command of our Lord (Matth. v. 39) literally, he is cer-
tainly acting quite in the spirit of the precept ; as we have seen that
the Redeemer himself did not literally follow it with reference to
rude men of the world. (John xviii. 22.) But it appears improper
for the apostle to use an abusive word,* and the more so, as it was
epoken in presence of the court, and to the high priest. The latter
circumstance indeed appears to be softened by the consideration,
that the apostle declares he knew not it was the high priest : yet
again it seems diificult to imagine how he could be ignorant that he
was standing before the Sanhedrim, and of course also before the
high priest.f This statement of the apostle therefore may seem
like an untruth, employed to excuse a word rashly spoken. The
matter indeed assumes rather a different aspect, when it is consid-
ered that this Ananias, the son of Nebedasus, was a man of criminal
life, who was afterwards displaced from his office and dragged to
Eome to answer for his conduct, so that the reproach cast upon him
by Paul was entirely merited. Besides he was not the legal high
priest, for after he was liberated through Agrippa's intercession in
Rome, he did not again recover his dignity, though he still arrogated
to himself the power of the office. (See Joseph. Arch. xx. 8. 8.) But
these circumstances cannot justify the conduct of the apostle, as we
must necessarily suppose that he knew before what authority he was
standing : if he had wished to notice the fact that Ananias was not
the legal high priest, then he should have protested against the in-
vestigation altogether, while the course he pursued violated the
respect that was due to the supreme tribunal. The supposition pro-
pounded by Calvin, and approved by Heinrichs, Meyer, and other
modem critics, that the words ovk ydeiv are ironical, and to be un-
derstood thus : "I could not at all regard as high priest a man who
is so unholy," is plainly forced as to the language, and inappro-
priate as to the fact. There is nothing left therefore but to say,
that the apostle confounded the person of the judge with the office,

* This is the view which Jerome (at Galat. v. 1 2) takes of the matter, who is by no
means distinguished by bold conceptions.

f Suppose P;;ul did not know it was the high-priest, still he must have known he was
standing before a judge, and though it had been the lowest judge, such words would
still be improper. According to the view however of ovic y^eiv, which makes it mean,
"I did not consider," the precipitation of Paul, of which in any view we must allow
the possibQity, carries its correction along with it, and thus no harm accrues from sup-
posing its existence. The only way in which the expression can be defended, is to say
that the apostle spoke by Divine commission in execution of a Divine judgment, although
one sees not how in this case the words ovk rjdeiv can be explained. Besides, the apostles
could exercise such authority only within the church, as upon Ananias and Sapphira,
but not without it; during their earthly life their supreme authority had reference only
to the church of Christ.

Acts XXIII. 6-10. 393

and hastily vented his feelings against the former, where the latter
alone was concerned. And the words ovk {jdeiv is this case are best
understood as meaning " I considered not." They bear a similar
sense in Ephes. vi. 8 ; Col. iii. 24, agreeably to the analogy of the
Hebrew y:;:. The remembrance of the words of Scripture in Exod.
xxii. 28 leads Paul back to the right position. If we consider*
that there is uo reference to dogmatical points, and that the
apostles nowhere represent themselves as morally perfect, we shall
find nothing in this result of the investigation to prejudice the char-
acter of the apostle as an infallible teacher of truth : on the con-
trary, he here teaches by example the maxim so difficult to act
upon, that, where undue precipitation has been manifested, it is
best immediately to acknowledge it, and bring one's conduct to the
word of truth.

(Ver. 3 — The expression roXxe icEKovtafj,eve corresponds to the sim-
ilar expression rdcpog KeKoviaiiivog, which was explained at Matth.
xxiii. 27, and denotes the hypocrisy, which employs outward show
and ornament to cover inward abomination.)

Vers. 6-10. — The breach occasioned by this occurrence Paul em-
ployed with skilful dexterity, to make the composition of the San-
hedrim subservient to his own views and the holy cause which he
represented. The parties of the Pharisees and Sadducees were op-
posed to one another in the assembly. The high priest himself
belonged to the latter party. Against this materializing sect the
apostle brought forward the circumstance, that it was really his faith
in eternal life and the resurrection of the dead which exposed him
to persecution. This manoeuvre had a remarkable effect. The two
parties fell into strife among themselves, and so the apostle escaped
their hands. If we compare this incident with the earlier accounts
of the proceedings of the Sanhedrim in reference to Christians, we
find indications of a remarkable change of views which had already
taken place in the interval. Pharisees and Sadducees were also
previously united in the Sanhedrim, but the question about the res-
urrection of Jesus had never brought them to a contest. Both par-
ties had leagued together against the new church that was springing
up. However, we have seen in chap. vi. 7, that at an early period
there were priests, mostly Pharisees, who attached themselves to
the church ; and Gamaliel's counsel (v. 34), points at least to the
possibility that Jesus Christ might be the Messiah ; and now the
party of the Pharisees appear to have turned to the cause of truth
80 much, that they regarded the difference between them and the
Sadducees as more important than their difference with the Chris-
tians. And this explains how it was that, according to the accounts
of Hegesippus (Euseb, H. E. ii. 23), and also of Josephus (Arch.

* Regarding this point soe the similar occurrence mentioned in Acts xv. 36, etc.

394 Acts XXIII. 11-15.

XX. 9j 1), James, the brother of our Lord, Christian bishop of Jeru-
salem, could be so generally honoured and styled the "just." This
circumstance shews how near the Jewish people, as a whole, were to
the acknowledgment of Jesus as the Messiah, and that perhaps it
was only by the influence of a small party of wild zealots that this
acknowledgment was prevented.*

(Ver: 6, — In tXmdog Koi dvaordaeog the Kat is omitted in many
Codices, but undoubtedly it is genuine, and the phrase is to be
viewed as a Hendiadys. — On the doctrine of the Sadducees, com-
pare the Comm. at Matth. iii. 7 and xxii. 23. — In ver. 9 nvevixa, as
used by the Pharisees, is plainly to be understood as the apparition
of a departed soul, because it is distinguished from dyyeXog : if
hearing something from the Spirit of God were meant, the article
could not be dispensed with before nvevfia, nor would eXaXrjae be ap-
plied in this manner to the Spirit. The Pharisees, it appears from
this, knew the history of the conversion of Paul, and acknowledged
something real in it. The additional clause p) Oeo^iaxcJixev is want-
ing in the MSS. A.B.C.E. and others, as also in the Vulgate and
other versions. Perhaps it might creep in from the analogous pas-
sage in Acts V. 39, which it was very natural to compare with this.
The thought too expressed in these words appears to lead almost too
far for Pharisees to have uttered it : it would in fact imply the con-
fession of the Redeemer as risen from the dead, which we cannot
assume even in the most favourably disposed members of the San-
hedrim belonging to the Pharisees. — Ver. 10. EvXafieXodai occurs only
once more in the New Testament in Heb. xi. 7, in the signification
of " apprehending, fearing, dreading." The adjective evXafirjg we
found already in Luke ii. 35.)

§ 4. Paul's Deportation to C^sarea and Imprisonment There.

(Acts xxiii. 11 — xx^vl 32.)

Vers. 11-15. — On the night after this occurrence, Paul had
another vision of the Lord (in an ecstacy, not a dream), to prepare
him for his future labours in the capital of a Gentile world, and at
the same time to calm his mind in reference to the danger with
which he was now assailed. These visions running through the

* The Scriptures themselves permit us to maintain along with the acknowledgment,
on the one hand, of necessity in the evolution of human affairs, the possibility, on the
other, of tilings having been different. Only imagine that the Messiahship of Jesus had
been acknowledged by the Sanhedrim themselves, and thus by the whole Jewish nation,
and what an effect must this have produced I In John iv. 35, Jesus points to something
of the kind.

Acts XXIII. 16-30. 395

whole life of Paul, but to be met with in the case of no other
apostle, appear to stand connected with the peculiar task to which
he was called. Though he had not enjoyed personal intercourse
with the Lord, his nevertheless was the high destiny of maintaining
not simply in opposition to the enemies of the truth, but even in
part against the other apostles, the more enlarged view of the Gos-
pel, as the universal religion, and the spiritual fulfilment of all the
prefigurations of the Old Testament. For this calling he required
an extraordinary assistance, to make him certain himself that he
was in the right way, and this assurance the Lord gave him in the
manner which has been indicated.

While in the preceding narrative we must recognize the favour-
able disposition of a part of the Jewish nation towards Christianity,
the following displays in a terrible form the rage of the apostle's
enemies. Forty fanatics bound themselves by an oath to kill Paul,
and they put themselves in communication with the hostile part of
the Sanhedrim, that through their influence they might obtain an
opportunity of carrying their wicked plot into execution. — (Ver. 12.
On avo-po(pri compare xix. 40. — On dvadeiiarl^co see Mark xiv. 71.—
Ver. 15. 'E/z0avt^(o we found in John xiv, 22 in the signification of
" shewing ;" here it means, " giving information, sending notice."
So in chap. xxiv. 1 it denotes judicial information, accusation.)

Vers. 16-22. — With this wicked plot the apostle was made ac-
quainted by his sister's son. Then he caused the centurion who was
entrusted with the keeping of him, to conduct the young man to
the chief captain, to whom likewise he communicated the whole.
(Ver. 16. 'Ev£(5pa, " concealment, ambuscade, stratagem," occurs
again in Acts xxv. 3. The verb eveSpevcj has already occurred in
Luke xi. 54, and appears again ver. 21. In ver. 21, the clause npoa-
Sexonevot rfiv dnb oov inayyeXiav, luaiting the promise, etc., intimates
that the members of the Sanhedrim had entered into the plot, and
that the conspirators were only now waiting for the consent of the
tribune.)

Vers. 23-30.— But the faithful Claudius Lysias was far from en-
tering into such a wicked scheme. He immediately commanded two
centurions to prepare an escort, and sent down the apostle with them
in safety to Csesarea to the proconsul Felix. Luke gives us the
letter containing information regarding Paul, not probably in its
original form, but constructed according to his own views of what it
would be ; for the evangelist might know how such " elogia" (the
Eoman name for such letters of escort) were wont to be arranged.
We are led to this view by the expression -neptixovaav rov rvnov
TovTov in ver. 25, where rv-nog denotes the sketch or general outline
of the epistle. Here then perhaps we have an instance of the for-
mation of single sections by the writer himself, such as are often

396 Acts XXIIl. 31-35— XXIV. 1-9.

found in the Eoman and Greek historians in the case of speeches,
letters, and the like.

(Ver. 23. — The name de^ioXafSog is quite unknown. It is found
in no other ancient author. Some manuscripts therefore read de^io-
PoXol/-' that is, slingers, who throw with the right arm ; but certainly
the common reading is to be preferred on critical grounds. Some
have been disposed to understand the word Se^coXdfioi. of military
lictors, because they held or bound prisoners by the right hand,
but the large number of two hundred is not compatible with
this idea. Some manuscripts, it is true, read eighty instead, but
even this number would be too great for the purpose supposed.
The word is best explained either with the Etymologicum Magnum
by ro^oPdXog, or with Suidas by -napa^vXa^. The latter explanation
is most conformable to etymology, as the name would seem to denote
those who guarded the right side of their lord. — In ver. 24 «:-?/v7y,
jumenta, sumpter horses. Here too Luke passes over from the
direct to the indirect style. — In ver. 25 Trepiex^ entirely = the Latin
contineo. Comp. 1 Pet. ii. 6. — Ver. 26. Nothing further is known
of Claudius Lysias, but Antonius Felix was a brother of the well-
known Pallas, freedman of the mother of Claudius, and favourite of
this Emperor. [Tacit. Hist. v. 9, 6. Annal, xii. 54, 1.] Under the
protection of his brother, Felix indulged in the most terrible extor-
tions in his office of proconsul. — On Kpdrtarog, see Luke i. 3.)

Vers. 31-35. — The whole company conducted the apostle as far
as Antipatris, but here the foot soldiers returned, because the
greatest danger was past, and the horsemen alone took him all the
way to Cassarea. In the first instance the proconsul enquired only
after his place of brith, and then ordered him to be guarded in the
praetorium of Herod. {'AvrLrrarptg, midway between Jerusalem and
Caesarea, was called orignally Ka(papaaXaiJ,d. [1 Mace. vii. 31.] Herod
the Great completed the building of the city, and named it after
his father. — Ver. 34. ^Enapxca^ the usual word for provincia. — Ver.
35. On 7Tpair6ptov, consult Comm. at John xviii. 33. Here it simply
means palace. Perhaps, however, the proconsul resided in this
building, and had chambers fitted up in it for prisoners of the better
class.

Chap. xxiv. 1-9. — A few days after the arrival of Paul, the high
priest himself came down to Caesarea with a Roman agent, to accuse
the apostle. With base flattering speeches, TertuUus. attempted to
gain the good will of Felix, while he at the same time attempted to
throw suspicion upon Paul as a dangerous stirrer up of strife.

(In ver. 3, several manuscripts read, instead of KaTopdcjiiaTc^v^ the
synonymous dtopdofiaTov. The word means here improved regula-

* According to 'Wetsteiii the word occurs sometimes in the later writers, Theophylact,
Simocatta, and Constantino Porphyrogenneta.

Acts XXIV. 10-23. 397

tions of government. But to ascribe these to Felix was mere flat-
ter}'-, for he was only concerned about his own advantage, and thought
not of the welfare of the country. The improved regulations he had
introduced were calculated merely for ostentation. — Ver. 4. 'Ey/couTw,
properly to "cut in or into," e. g., a way; then, to detain, to hinder.
Kom. XV. 22, Gal. v. 7. — Swrd/^w^, briefly, concisely ; Aeydvrwv may
be supplied. — In ver. 5, the participle evQovre^ has no verb after
it ; the speaker abandoning the intended construction. Aoifxogj
properly, plague, then one who brings plague and destruction.
The Seventy employ this word to express ^srVa in 1 Sam. ii. 12. —
Ilp(OToaTd.r7]g occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. In the
mouth of the orator, it means the same as " head, ringleader." As
a name of the Christians employed to express their meanness (chap,
ii. 22), 'Na^copaloc occurs no more in the New Testament. On the
form of the name, consult the Comm. at Matth. ii. 23. — In verse 9,
the textus receptus reads awtdtvTo, i. e., " they concurred." But
the best critics have preferred the reading owenidevTo, as the more
difficult. The word ovvemrldeodai occurs nowhere else in the New
Testament : it means " to join in assailing.")

Vers. 10-23. — Having received permission from the proconsul,
Paul immediately rose up in his own defence, and gave a true
account of the events which had led to his apprehension in Jerusa-
lem. And as here again the Sadducees might be his chief accusers,
he brought afresh into view the resurrection of the dead as a prin-
cipal charge brought against him by his enemies. The proconsul
plainly was convinced of his innocence, and therefore granted him
much indulgence in his captivity, although he by no means set him
immediately at liberty.

(Ver. 10. — Paul could speak with justice of many years during
which Felix had governed in Palestine, for although he had now
been but six years proconsul, yet he had previously held the chief
command in Galilee. [Joseph. Arch. xx. 6, 3, Bell. Jud. i. 2, 12.]
• — Ver. 11. Among the twelve days here mentioned, are included
the five [chap. xxiv. 1] spent by Paul in prison, for he counts the
twelve days down to the moment he is speaking. Meyer has shewn
from the connexion of the passages touching this matter from
chap. xxi. 15, that the number comes out rightly, which furnishes
a highly favourable testimony to the accuracy of the account. —
Ver. 12. 'Emavaraaig occurs again in 2 Cor. xi. 28, in the sense
of " overflow of business, importunate calls," and the trouble
thereby caused. Here it = avarpocp^, " uproar, tumult," — Ver.
14. Alpemg has here a bad idea associated with it, which is fre-
quently not the case. Comp. Acts v. 17, xv. 5, xxvi. 5. — Ver. 16.
'Ev rovTO) refers to the foregoing description of his doctrine and
views : " according to my principles I make it my endeavour also to

398 Acts XXIV. 24-27.

walk." — 'Anpoaiconog occurs again only in 1 Cor. x. 32. — Yer. 18.
'Ev olg scilicet xPW^^^h amidst these innocent, nay, honourable em-
ployments.— Ver. 19. According to the textus receptus, rtv^g is
connected with evpov, but Griesbach, on the authority of the Manu-
scripts A.C.E. and others, has adopted the reading nveg 6e, which,
as the more difficult, undoubtedly deserves the preference. In this
case a verb must be supplied to rivig, and the most suitable is rjaav.
— Yer. 22. 'AvafidXXeodai means also, in good Greek writers, " to
throw back," that is, " to adjourn, to procrastinate, to defer." The
phrase aKpifieaTepov eldcbg rd Trepl rfig odovj hnoiving more accurately
respecting the loay, is not to be interpreted too rigidly, for we cannot
suppose this Roman to have possessed an accurate acquaintance
with the doctrines of the Gospel ; but as there were believers in
Csesarea itself, Felix might have a general knowledge of the sect
of the Nazarenes, and [which alone concerned him] of their political
inoffensiveness. — Yer. 23. "Kvtaig denotes here the mildness of his
captivity, similar to what Paul, according to Luke's account [Acts
xxviii. 30, 31], enjoyed even in Rome.)

Yers. 24-27. — The concluding verses of this narrative furnish
evidence both of the spiritual power which displayed itself in the
captive apostle, and of the excitable conscience of the Roman, as
well as the moral debasement which led him to stifle the impressions
he had received. There might be something exciting to him and
his wife Drusilla in the appearance of Paul ; and therefore they
caused him to be brought one day before them. The apostle availed
himself of this opportunity to touch their conscience, and with deep
knowledge of human nature and skill in teaching, he brought the
law to bear upon his object. To penitent hearts he preached the
crucified Jesus as the Mediator, to these worldly persons he dis-
played him as the Judge. The sword of God's word pierced deep
into the heart of Felix, but for this very reason he suddenly broke
off the conference. But his moral baseness betrayed itself strikingly
in this, that he could still hold fast his prisoner for the mere purpose
of obtaining money for his release, nay, that at his departure from
the province, he left him in prison out of complaisance to the Jews.

(Yer. 24. — Felix had two wives of the same name ; the first was
a grand-daughter of Antony by Cleopatra ; the second, who is here
referred to, was the daughter of Herod Agrippa, whose death is
recorded at chap. xii. 23.* She had been married first to Prince
Azizus of Emesa, but deserted him and married the Roman pro-
consul, Joseph. Arch. xx. 7, 1. Comp. Winer's Reallex., under
Drusilla. Drusilla being a Jewess by birth, might particularly

* Heinrichs, in his Commentary (proleg. p. 67) gives a genealogical table of the
family of Herod, like that of Raumer in his Geography of Palestine. Regarding the wivoa
of Felix, see Tacit. Histor. v. 9, Sueton. Claud, c. 28.

Acts XXV. 1-5. 399

desire to hear of Jesus, the pretended Messiah, and therefore Felix
had Paul brought before him. — Ver. 25. The word ty/cpareta refers
particularly to abstinence from sexual excesses, of which both of
them, Felix as well as Drusilla, had been guilty. — To vvv txov scilicet
Kara, is a circumlocution for vvv. — Ver. 26. Ato koi nvKvorepov k, t. A.
Felix wished to let him understand, by the kindness with which he
treated him, that he was ready to let" him go : perhaps also he
designed to put him to the proof, whether he would employ improper
means for his rescue. — -Ver. 27. Two years appeared now to have
been completely lost by the apostle, for in Cassarea itself he prob-
ably had but small oi>portunity of labouring. But the main design
of God in this remarkable procedure might perhaps be to grant the
apostle a quiet period for inward recollection and meditation. The
continual movement of Paul's life must of course have made diffi-
cult for him that self-culture which is the necessary condition of a
blessed inward development. Divine grace therefore is able to unite
both objects ; for while it uses its instruments for the advancement
of truth among others, it sometimes puts these instruments them-
selves to school for their own personal improvement.)

Chap. XXV. 1-5. — The mention of the entrance of Festus upon
office is one of the passages of Acts, as has already been remarked
in the introduction, which furnish a point of contact with profane
history. We know that Nero came to the government in the year
56 after Christ, and that in the seventh year of his reign, and con-
sequently in the year 62 after Christ, Porcius Festus entered upon
his office. (Compare Joseph. Arch. xx. 8, 9, and the particulars
stated by Hug in his introduction, 2d edition, vol. ii. p. 279, etc.)
Immediately after his entrance on office the new proconsul visited
Jerusalem, and the fanatical Jews took this opportunity of solicit-
ing him to deliver the apostle again into their hands. But Festus,
who had heard of his character and circumstances (compare ver. 10),
declined the proposal, because no Roman citizen could be handed
over to a foreign tribunal. He announced to them therefore that
he would speedily (ev rdxei', ver. 4) return to Ctesarea, and be ready
there to hear their complaint. (In ver. 4 the expression rrjpEladai
Tov IlavXov tv KaKTapeia is manifestly elliptical. It might refer to
the secure keeping of Paul, so that the sense may be : he will not
escape you, he is well guarded in Ca3sarea. It is better however to
suppose, in accordance with the subsequent narrative, ver. 9, etc.,
that the proconsul designed to intimate that Paul was not subject
to their jurisdiction. And thus the Eoman authority which had
been the means of bringing the Redeemer to the cross, was here to
be the instrument of delivering the apostle of the Gentiles. — In ver.
5 6vvaroL denotes the most distinguished members of the supreme
council.)

400 Acts XXV. 6-22.

Vers. 6-12. — According to the command of the proconsul, there-
fore, accusers speedily came from Jerusalem to Caesarea, whither
Festus had returned after a few days. In their fury they brought
forward the most unrighteous charges, hut charges at the same time
altogether incapable of proof, and to them Paul replied with vigour.
The proposal, however, of the proconsul, to let the matter be brought
to a termination in Jerusalem, was declined by Paul, who appealed
to Caesar.

(Ver. 7. — The impudent accusations brought by the Jews against
the apostle appear, from ver. 8, to have been partly of a political
character. They pro'bably attempted to make his preaching of
Christ appear as if it were the proclamation of a new emperor. —
Ver. 9. — The proposal of Festus was perhaps only designed as an
act of complaisance to the Jews. Without doubt he knew before-
hand, that Paul would not accede to it. The apostle accordingly
appeals in his answer to the knowledge which the proconsul had of
the state of matters. — Ver. 12. The appeal to the Koman people,
or, in later times, to Cassar, was a right of Koman citizens. Pliny
also, Epist. X. 95, mentions that he would send to Eome those Christ-
ians who possessed the right of Koman citizenship. — The ovn(3ovXcov
denotes the counsellors or assistants in the office of the proconsul.
They bore the title of consiliarii, or assessores, Trdpedpoi. Sueton.
Tib. c. 33 ; G-alba c. 19 ; ^lius Lamprid. in Alex. Severo c. 46.)

Vers. 13-22. — Now after the lapse of a few days, king Agrippa,
with his sister Berenice,* arrived in Csesarea to pay a visit to the
new proconsul. Festus availed himself of this opportunity to lay
before him the controversy regarding the apostle. From the whole
narrative it is apparent that Paul had excited in Festus a lively
interest in his favour, nor were Agrippa and Berenice less desirous of
beholding the remarkable man. Festus therefore promised to bring
Paul before them.

The Agrippa here mentioned is the younger Agrippa, son of the
older, who came before us in chap. xii. 20, etc. He enjoyed the
favour of Claudius Ceesar, and retained his provinces even after the
destruction of Jerusalem, which he outlived. Berenice was his
sister, who at first was married to her uncle Herod, prince of Chalcis,
and then to king Polemon of Cilicia. She was a woman of distin-
guished beauty, and captivated even Titus and Vespasian. But her
character was very bad, for she lived in incest with her brother.
(Comp. Joseph. Arch. xx. 5, 1, and 7, 3. Bell. Jud. i. 2, 21.
Sueton. Vit. Tit. c. 7. Tacit. Hist. ii. 81.)

* How accurately informed Luke shews himself here again, how readily he might
have confounded this Berenice with other celebrated women of the same name, if he
had followed a later uncertain tradition, may be seen by consulting Tholuck's Credibihty,
p. 168. The name of Berenice, according to Valkenser, has been formed from (pepovU^.

Acts XXV. 23-27; XXVI. 1-18. 401

(In ver. 16, many manuscripts supply elg d-!ru)Xeiav to x^^P'-^^^^^^'-i
but this supplement is unnecessary. The word here bears the sig-
nification of " sacrificing, condemning without enquiry at the pleas-
ure of some one." This was contrary to the strict judicial procedure
of the Romans, which required a formal investigation. The con-
struction ttqIv txoi, occurs nowhere else in the New Testament :
other readings, txxi or *%£«, are merely readings made to smooth the
difficulty. The optative here may probably be explained on the
piinciple of passing from the oratio directa to the oratio obliqua.
[Comp. Winer's Gramm. p. 273.] — Ver. 17. 'Kva^ioXri " mora,
delay," from dvajSaXXeadai, see chap. xxiv. 22. — Ver. 18. Festus had
supposed that they would accuse Paul of palpable crimes : religious
differences he took not into account. — Ver. 21. I,e(3aaT6g, the stand-
ing word for the title of the Emperors, Augustus. — /^idyi'uoig occurs
only here : the verb we had in chap, xxiii. 15, xxiv. 22.)

Vers. 23-27. — The placing of the apostle before Agrippa and
Berenice afforded the first fulfilment of our Lord's prediction : " ye
shall be brought before kings and princes for my sake." Matth. x.
18 ; Mark xiii. 9. With great pomp the royal personages made
their appearance, and the most distinguished ones of the city ; and
thus Paul obtained an opportunity of preaching the power of the
risen Redeemer before the elite of a great city, before the king and
the proconsul. After the king and his sister had entered, the apostle
was introduced in bonds, xxvi. 29, and Festus placed him before
Agrippa, briefly stating his case, and declaring that he was desirous
of finding out what it was that Paul was really accused of, that he
might be able, when he sent him to Rome, to give some information
regarding him.

(Ver. 23. ^avraoia occurs nowhere else in the New Testament ;
it comprehends whatever shines or greatly strikes the eyes. The
word aKpoar/jQcov denotes the public hall of judgment in the palace
of the proconsul. — Ver. 24. 'EvTi'y;y;av£tv nvi means to meet with
any one, to go to any one with entreaties. — Ver. 26. 'O Kvptog is here
the emperor Nero. Instead of ypaV^t, A. C. and other manuscripts
read ypdxpcjj. It is probable, however, that this reading took its rise
from the preceding ypd\(}ac.)

Chap. xxvi. 1-18. — With the permission of king Agrippa, the
apostle delivers a discourse in his bonds before this splendid assem-
blage. He first of all expresses his joy that he was allowed to defend
himself before one, who was acquainted with the manners and cus-
toms of the Jewish nation, and then gives a narrative of his life, and,
in particular, a detailed account of the important occurrence which
had led to his conversion, regarding which compare the particulars
stated at chap. ix. 1, etc.

(Ver. 1. — The stretching out of the hand is not to be regarded
Vol. III.— 26

402 Acts XXVI. 19-32.

as designed to produce silence in the meeting ; the presence of the
king would at once quell every commotion ; it is rather the gesture
appropriate to the commencement of a discourse. — Yer. 3. TvuaTTjg,
" one who accurately knows a thing, a witness, a guarantee," is
found nowhere else in the New Testament. It occurs besides in
the apocryphal book of Susanna, ver. 42 ; in profane authors the
form yvuoTTJp is also found. The accusative after the preceding
oov is to be explained as an anakoluthon. — Ver. 4. Undoubt-
edly d-rr' apx^jg indicates that Paul came at an early period from
Tarsus to Jerusalem to the school of Gamaliel. — Ver. 5. "Avudev is
synonymous with the above. — Ver. 6. The errayyeXia of which the
apostle speaks, is as is plain from what follows, the promise of the
Messiah. — Ver. 7. The substantive dwde/ca^uAov, as denoting the
whole people of Israel, is found only here in the New Testament.
In James i. 1 the twelve tribes are named to designate the whole
peoj)le of the Israelites, 'Ev iKrevda = iicTevoJg. 1 Pet. i. 22. —
Ver. 8. With the hope of the Messiah the resurrection of the dead
stands connected, for Jesus the true Messiah was raised from the
dead. — On the use of el in direct and indirect questions, com-
pare Winer's Gramm. p. 475, and Passow in his Lex. under this
word.)

Vers. 19-23. — In the conclusion of his discourse the apostle ap-
peals to the conscience of the king, whether he could have properly
disregarded such a vision, and affirms again that the only ground of
charge against him was that he believed the hope of the patriarchs
had been accomplished, and the true Messiah had appeared in his
suffering state. — (Ver. 20. 'EmoTpE<peiv means, as a!i» so often does in
the prophets, a spiritual change, conversion. Comp. xi. 21. — Ver.
22. 'EmKovpla = (SorjOeta, occurs nowhere else in the New Testament.
According to this passage Paul too recognizes Messianic predictions
in the Pentateuch. — Comp. Comm. on Luke xxiv. 27. — Ver. 23 is
to be viewed as an indirect question, in which el is used. See at
ver. 8. The doctrines regarding the suffering and resurrection of
Christ are viewed as presented for examination, and exhibited as
proved by the apostle. It has already been remarked in the Comm.
on Matth. xxii. 29, that the phrase dvaaraaig veKgCJv is also applied
to Christ instead of the more usual one dvdoraoig ek veKpdv, See
Comm. Col. i. 18.)

Vers. 24-32. — Perhaps the elevated address of the apostle pro-
duced not less effect upon the proconsul Festus than Felix had
already experienced (chap. xxiv. 35), but he attempted by an unsea-
sonable jest to destroy the impression. Paul however confirmed the
substance of his speech by the testimony of Agrippa, who on his
part acknowledged that he was mightily affected. If the fear of
men and love of the world restrained these persons from doing

Acts XXVII. 1-5. 403

honour to the truth and joining themselves to the despised com-
pany of believers, they were yet obliged to confess the innocence
of the apostle. The appeal to Ceesar, however, which already
had been made, rendered his journey to Rome still indispensable,
because this appeal, according to the principles of Roman law, could
not be passed over, or ■ retracted. Bottger, as already cited, page
27, etc.

(In ver. 24 ixacveaOat means " to be mad, phrenzied, enthusiastic."
Festus certainly did not himself believe that the apostle was out of
his senses ; he only wished jestingly to characterize the elevated
state of the apostle's mind. This man of the world, as Pilate had
done before him, chose rather to let his head struggle against the
impressions his heart had received. Further, he traced the aberra-
tion of Paul to his too great love of study, for the apostle had
repeatedly referred to the Holy Scriptures. — Ver. 27. 'Ev ywvi'a,
equivalent to ev Kpvnrio^ occurs only in this passage of the New
Testament. — Ver. 28. 'Ei^ ^Atyw, with XP^'^^ supplied, might mean
" soon, in a short time," viz. if I should allow you to speak longer.
But as in ver. 29, according to A.B. and other authorities, for oAtyw
KoX ttoAAgj we are to read jueya'Aw, it is on all accounts better to under-
stand the h dXiyo) of the 28th verse as meaning " with a little,"
that is, with so little exertion, with so few words. This declaration
of Agrippa would seem also in jest, but it is probable that he was
concealing his inward emotion under the form of pleasantry.)

§ 5. Paul's Joukney from C^sarea to Rome.

(Acts xxvii. 1 — xxviii. 15.)

Vers. 1-5. — Under the guidance of a benevolent centurion (ver.
3) named Julius, the apostle proceeded to Rome in pursuance of his
appeal to Caesar, accompanied by Aristarchus and Lucas, '^ who still
narrates in the first person, for, where the third person presents it-
self here, it is owing simply to the mention of the ship's company.
In a ship of Adramyttium, sailing along the coast of Syria and
Asia, he came to Lycia. Julius was captain of the oneLprj lejSaari],
that is, of the cohors Augusta. This name was either derived from
the circumstance that in the legion there was a body guard of the
emperor, or that the cohort consisted of inhabitants of the city Se-

* The minuteness, so unprecedented, with which this voyage is described, may per-
haps be explained from the circumstance of Luke's keeping a diary at the time, and
afterwards inserting it unchanged into his work. Regarding the accuracy of the narrative
in a geographical and antiquarian point of view, consult here again Tholuck's Credibility,
page 385, etc.

404 Acts XXVII. 6-20.

baste. To me the former idea appears the more probable, because,
on the latter supposition, the phrase used would likely have been
oneipT] 'LefiaoTrjvCjv, as Josephus expresses himself in Arch. xx. 6.

(Yer. 2. — The name 'AdpanvTTTjvo) is differently written in the
manuscripts. We are not, however, to refer it to Hadrumetum in
Africa, but to Adramyttium in Mysia. The adjective formed from
the former city is 'Adpvfj.i]Tioc. — Instead of neXXovreg many manu-
scripts read ^eXXovrtj but the first is to be preferred as the more
difficult reading. — Ver. 4. 'Tno-nXelv denotes to coast along under
shelter of the shore before the violence of the winds. — Ver. 5. In-
stead of Mvpa, IfMvpvaVj and even Avorpa, is an erroneous reading ;
the former city lay much farther north ; the latter was in the in-
terior.)

Vers. 6-12. — In Myra the captain took another ship. An Alex-
andrian vessel received the apostle and his companions, but the
badness of the season made sailing very arduous, and the good
advice of Paul to take shelter betimes in winter quarters was disre-
garded by the Centurion. (In ver. 6, ip-Pipd^o) is a genuine Greek
expression for " embarking, putting on board of a ship." Comp.
Xenoph. Anab. v. 3, 3. — Ver. 7. Salmone is a promontory of the
island of Crete, on the east side of the island. — Ver. 8. IlapaAeyw,
to sail past : Xeyu) is applied, quite like the Latin word lego, to
" voyaging, sailing." — KaXol Xijiiveg, fair havens, was the name given
to the place mentioned, perhaps because in the one baj' there were
several good anchorages for ships. — For Aaaaia many manuscripts
read "AXaooa, but on critical grounds we prefer the first reading. Of
the place, however, nothing further is known. — Ver. 9. The vrjarEia is
plainly here a mark of time : it refers to the great feast of atone-
ment on the 10th of Tisri, that is, towards the end of September,
when the equinoctial storms blow. Kegarding this feast, styled
fnnsrn tj'i'', consult Winer's Reallex. under the article Versohnung-
stag. — Ver. 10. "On is connected with the infinitive neXXeiv instead
of idXXei. On this point, compare Winer in his Gram. p. 315. —
Ver. 11. l^avKXT]pog denotes the proprietor of the ship, the owner who
in ancient times was wont to sail in her himself. — Ver. 12. 'Avevde-
Tog, " not well situated, inconvenient," occurs nowhere else in the
New Testament. The harbour Phoenix, on the south side of the
island, was protected against most winds, and they could readily
sail into it with a south-west wind [Xlrp], and a north-west wind
[;^;wpof, Latin, corus, caurus],* and therefore the mariners were de-
sirous of wintering in it.)

Vers. 13-20. — But a storm overtook the ship on her way to this
harbour, and she was driven ashore on the island of Clauda. —

* Comp. Karl. v. Raumer's treatise on the names of the Greek winds in the Rheiu-
Museum, fur Philologie 1837.

Acts XXVII. 21-26. 405

(Ver. 13. 'Tnonveu), " to blow softly," denotes a favourable wind. —
Kpareiv -rrpoOeoecjg, to carry a purpose into effect. With dpavre^
supply dyKvpav. — For daaov some manuscripts read "Actctov, but no
name of a city could stand here without a proposition : daaov is
the comparative of the adverb djxi-j near : it is found chiefly in
poetical diction, but it also occurs in good prose. The conjecture
Odaaov, "rapidly, quicldy," is quite unnecessary. — Ver. 14. Tvcfxoviicoc;,
stormy ; the direction of the wind, which was blowing with vehe-
mence, is indicated by the name F.vpaKvXo)v. This reading I prefer,
with Grotius, Mill, Bengel, and others, to the common reading
EvpvaXvdojv or EvpoKXvSojv, words which can only denote the breadth
and height of the waves, and consequently indicate the severity of
the storm, in which case they form a tautology with Tv0wvi«:6f. But
EvQaKvXG)v denotes the north-east wind, which, according to the
direction in which they were going, must have been disastrous to
them, because it drove them from land. — Ver. 15. 'Avro00aAjueiv,
to look in the face, confront, then, " withstand." — Ver. 16. KXavdrj,
for which KXavda and Kavdr] are also found, was a small island
beside Crete. Comp. Pliny, H. N. iv. 22. — iKacp?] is the ship's
boat, which was put out, and could not be brought on board again
without difficulty. — Ver, 17. 'TTro^(i)vvvecv refers to the strengthen-
ing of the ship's sides, by beams and cords, that she might with-
stand the shocks of the waves. BoijOetat is then best understood
of these material appliances. To lighten the ship still further,
they let down the mast. I.Kevog denotes here either the sail yards
with the sails, or the mast. Ver. 40 renders the latter more pro-
bable. The ships of the ancients were, after the manner of our
river ships, supplied with masts which could be let down. Meyer
will have the word to mean the sails : these doubtless, as insep-
arably connected with the mast, are comprehended, but not exclu-
sively meant. — Besides, they lightened the ship by casting out first
bales of goods and other things that did not properly belong to
her, and then the proper furniture of the ship, beams, tackling, and
so on. iKevi], found in the New Testament only here, means pro-
perly " dress, attire," and applied to a ship, whatever belongs to her
equipment.)

Vers. 21-26. — In this dangerous condition of the ship the apos-
tle, full of earnestness and mildness, came into the midst of the
desponding crew. He blamed them for having gone further, in
opposition to his counsel, but promised, as instructed by a heavenly
messenger,* that there should be no loss of human life, though they
must be cast away upon an island (tJeZ, according to the Divine ap-

* Here too it is not said that this appearance took place in a dreara, nor, in view of
the remarks ah-eady made on the visions of Paul, is this at all probable. (Comp Comm.
on chap. xvL 10.)

406 Acts XXVII. 27-38.

pointment, to God's immutable -will.) In these words the only
remarkable expression is KexapiOTai ooi 6 Qebg -rravrag k. r. A., God has
granted to you them all, etc., in ver. 24. We must of • course sup-
pose that Paul had wrestled in prayer for the lives of the men, that
this prayer had been heard, and that the whole company were in a
manner given to him. Such passages as Psalm cxlv. 19 furnish the
key to this thought.

Vers. 27-32. — On the fourteenth night the ship's crew suddenly
perceived a rapid diminution of the depth of the sea, which indi-
cated approach to land. They threw out the anchor, therefore, that
they might not drift upon the shore, and waited for the morning.
The seamen, however, persuaded that land was near, attempted to
escape by means of the boat. But although the apostle had re-
ceived assurance from heaven of the deliverance of all on board, yet
he omitted no possible precautions, and by his advice the soldiers
detained the sailors on board, because they alone were able to supply
the proper means of escape.

(Ver. 27. — The Adriatic sea, according to the ancient usage of
language, comprehends the whole portion of the Mediterranean
lying between Greece, Italy, and Sicily. — Atacpepeadac = (pepeaOac, to
be driven about. — ^Ver. 28. BoAi^w, from (3oXt.g, the sounding lead.
"Opy via, from dptyetv, a fathom, the space measured by the arms
stretched out. — Ver. 29. Tonoi, rpaxelg, stony places, rocky banks.
Four anchors were thrown out, but it must be remembered that the
anchors of the ancients were far smaller than ours, for the most
part, probably, at this period, heavy stones fastened to chains : no
ship now carries four anchors.)

Vers. 33-38. — Although Paul was a prisoner, yet in the general
confusion he exercised all the authority of a head, as the rest of the
narrative shews. As the ship must be abandoned, he exhorted them
all to take food for their refreshment after the long toil which had
prevented all regular meals ; and when their repast was ended, they
threw the provisions overboard to lighten the ship, that she might
approach as near as possible to the shore. (Ver. 33. Mrjd&v -npoG-
XapSf-ievoi is of course to be understood as only intimating that during
the period of danger they had sat down to no regular meal, but
Paul induced them to do this, that they might be strengthened.
This meal was observed by the apostle and the other Christians quite
as a love-feast (ver. 35), although it might not be so understood by
the unbelievers present. — In ver. 34 the words ovdevbg vnCJv OqI^ iic
Trig i<-^<Po,X7ig djToXelrai exhibit a manifest allusion to Luke xxi. 18,
where the very same words occur. — Ver. 37. The number of men in
the ship, two hundred and seventy-six, indicates that her size was
considerable. — Ver. 38. Kovcpi^o), from Kovcpog, denotes " to lighten,
to make light.")

Acts XXVII. 39-44; XXVIII. 1-6. 407

Vers. 39-44. — In the morning the shipwrecked mariners saw the
land before them ; they lifted the anchors and stranded the vessel
upon a favourable part of the shore. To prevent the flight of the
prisoners, the soldiers wished to kill them, but Julius the centurion
had contracted a love for Paul, and therefore he did not permit this.
Agreeably to Paul's predictions, they all reach the land in safety,
some on planks and some swimming.

(In ver. 39, instead of i(3ovXevaav-o, several manuscripts read
tPovXevovro or il3ovXovTo. The last reading is certainly to be re-
jected ; the two others are equally appropriate to the sense, but
critical authorities are decidedly in favour of tfiovXevoavro. — ^Ver.
40. Elo)v elg t?/v QdXaoaav^ they committed themselves to the sea,
that is, they let themselves drift.* As the ship was on the verge
of being lost, they sacrificed the anchors, cutting them loose. liegi-
aiptG), chop off, cut away. At ver. 20 we had the word in this
sense, but figuratively, as also in Hebrews x. 11. — UrjddXiov
means the rudder, of which anciently the larger ships had several.
They were managed, as is still the case, with ropes, which were now
let go, that the ship might be sufiered entirely to drift. ['Avivreg,
from dvLTjiii, reonittere, slacken, let go, abandon.] In order to run the
vessel at once quickly and high upon the beach, and facilitate the
escape of the crew, they raised up the mast again, and spread out a
sail upon it. 'Apreiuwv is not the mast but the sail, but as the 17th
verse tells us the mast was lowered down, the hoisting of the sail
intimates that it was again erected. With ry nveovoxi supply avpa. —
Ver. 41. Tonog diddXaooog, a projecting headland, which had water
on both sides of it. Before this headland there may have been a
sand-bank lying, or it may have run out into one, but the phrase
TOTTog diddXaaaog does not by itself mean a shallow, or sand-bank. —
'EnoidXXetv, to drive up, to cause to strike against. — Ver. 44. I^avtg,
asser, a board or plank. Ta dnb rod nXoiov are beams of the ship,
that was now broken by the violence of the waves.)

Chap, xxviii. 1-6. — It was when they landed that they first
learned that they were driven ashore upon the island of Malta. The
inhabitants of the island received the shipwrecked strangers in a
friendly manner, and kindled a fire to warm them, stiff as they were
with cold. On this occasion Paul experienced the protection of
God in a manner which made him appear to the rude islanders en-
dowed with supernatural powers.

(Ver. 1. — There was an island of the name of lleXirr^^ on the
coast of Illyricum, which at the present day is called Meleda.
But the subsequent description of their course shews that it can
only be Malta beside Sicily which is meant. This island was inhab-

* Doubtful if tluv can be taken thus reflexively. Better (-with Hackett, De "Wette,
etc.) to refer it to uyKvpac : they let go the anchors into the sea. — [K.

408 Acts XXVIII. 7-15.

ited "by colonists from Phoenicia or Carthage, who are therefore
called pdpPapoc.^. — Ver. 2. Uvpd, a heap of wood, a pile of wood. —
'E0e(7T6jf signifies properly adstans, here " oppressive, heavy." — Ver.
3. ^pvyava^ brushwood for keeping up the fire.^ — ''Ej\;tdva, a viper, a
poisonous serpent. — Kadd-rrTco, to fasten to, to affix ; here taken,
quite unusually, in a middle acceptation. Many manuscripts
therefore read Kadi]xpaTo. On this point consult the full discussion
in Suiceri Thes. sub voce. — The superstitious and fickle multitude
are just as ready to record a vote of condemnation as of deification.
When it is said, however, for the purpose of evading a miracle, that
the serpent may not have "been poisonous, we must certainly confess
that this is not expressly stated, but just as certainly it is not ex-
pressly denied ; and the whole tone of the narrative plainly leads to
the conclusion, that all who were present regarded the serpent as
poisonous. We may therefore in this narrative recognize a fulfil-
ment of the promise contained in Mark xvi. 18.)

Ver, 7-10. — A Roman of distinction named Publius had posses-
sions in Malta, He took a friendly interest in the apostle and his
companions, a kindness which Paul was able to requite by healing
his father. — (Ver. 7. The Romans had naturally taken this island,
lying so near Sicilj^, into their possession, and a distinguished indi-
vidual named Publius had even settled in Malta. It is probable
that at the same time he exercised the functions of the mag'stracy ;
but the word Trpwrof does not necessarily imply this. — Ver. 8,
AvaevTepia, dysentery, diarrhcea with colic or gripes. — Ver. 10, The
word Tip-al is to be understood of aids of every kind which were fur-
nished to the apostle, not only during the time of his stay, but also
for his departure.)

Vers, ] 1-15, — After the lapse of three months, when the weather
again permitted sailing, the company proceeded on their voyage
in a ship of Alexandria, which had wintered in the island. In Sy-
racuse they lay for three days, and then landed in Pnteoli, Here
there were already believers, and now they proceeded by land to
Rome, from which brethren came out to meet them as far as Appii
Forum and the Three Taverns.

(In ver. 11, rrapdorjij.ov denotes the ship's sign, which was usually
placed on the prow. For this ship there had been cIk sen the
figures of Castor and Pollux, the guardian deities of seafaring
men, — Ver. 13, 'FijyLov^ a city and promontory in Calabria, called
at present Reggio. — On Sevrepaloi,, see at John xi. 39. — JiorLoXoL, Pu-

* The mention of A<k7?, that is, of the avenging Nemesis, provos nothing to the con-
trary; for, ill the first place, many barbarians had adopted Grecian elements into their
religious views; and again, no nation is without the idea of a retributive justice which
displays itself in the government of the world, and Luke may have only employed the
familiar G reek term to express this idea. Tradition states, that from this time tha island
of Malta was entirely freed from serpents.

Acts XXVIII. 16. 409

teoli, was usually called in Greek AiKatdpxeia. The fact that already
there were believers in this city, furnishes an important proof of the
rapid spread of Christianity even in Italy. Doubtless the gospel
came hither from Rome, with which Puteoli was closely connected,
being, as it were, the harbour for the larger ships of th* metropolis
of the world. Ostium could be visited only by small ships. That
Paul received permission to spend seven days with the brethren, is a
proof of the good will of Julius. During the centurion's intercourse
with Paul he had certainly not remained without movements of
heart, and through him Paul might afterwards in various ways be
introduced into those military circles where his labours were so
effective. [Comp. Phil. i. 13 ; iv. 22.]— Ver. 15. Forum Appii, a
town on the via Appia, see Horat. Sat. i. 6, 3. On this road lay the
tree tabemoB, six miles from Rome. Comp. Cic. ad Attic, i. 13.)

§ 6. Paul's Stay in Rome.

(Acts xsviii. 16-31.)

Ver. 16. — And now the great apostle of the Gentiles had reached
the city which God's providence had appointed to be the queen of
the world, not only in the old but also in the new order of things.
The most heterogeneous elements were blended together in this
huge metropolis. The Lord had a numerous people in it, and
there was a flourishing church composed of the excellent individ-
uals that were there ; but the world of evil, too, had here its
mightiest representative, and, in the very person of the ruling
emperor Nero, there had been set up a formal anti-christian
power. Before him, the blood-thirsty tyrant, Paul knew that he
must appear (xxvii, 24), to defend the gospel of God, and to seal
it with his blood. What feelings, then, would agitate the bosom
of the apostle, when he trod the city that was first to be drunk
with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the witnesses of
Jesus (Rev. xvii. 6-18), and how much he would need brotherly
consolation and refreshment in spirit, may be readily understood
after these remarks. Here, in the great central point of the heathen
world, Paul felt that he had first fulfilled his calling as apostle of
the Gentiles in its full extent ; hence his desire had long turned
hither (Rom. i. 13), but the accomplishment of this desire brought
also before his soul the presentiment of the end which was here
awaiting him.

(The orparoneSdpxrjg to whom the prisoners were to be deliv-
ered, is the praefectus prajtorio, the highest military authority
in the city. It could hardly be the excellent Burrhus, who was

410 Acts XXVIII. 17-22.

preceptor of Nero, along with Seneca, for lie had died so early as
the spring of the year 62. The apostle, however, received permis-
sion, doubtless on giving security, which the Koman law required in
such a case, and which he would readily find among the Christians
in Kome, to ?eside in a private house, with a soldier chained to him,
after the Eoman custom. (Verses 23, 30, h Idiu) ixioduixaTi, perhaps
with Aquila, who, according to Kom. xvi. 8, had returned to Rome.)
But as the soldiers were changed, and Paul was also probably required
to appear from time to time before the preefect, he might thus, al-
though residing in a private house, find access to the Emperor's
body-guard. Comp. Phil. i. 13,

Vers. 17-22. — A few days after his arrival Paul called together
the most influential among the Jews, that he might vindicate
himself to them, and prevent them from forming^an opposition
against him. But they declare that, although they have heard
of the sect of the Nazarenes, and of the opposition raised against
them, yet they have received no information against the apostle,
either by letter or by oral communication. This declaration is
very remarkable, when it is considered how zealous the Jews were
to send emissaries everywhere after the apostle ; and, moreover,
as the communication with Eome was so quick, and Paul's journey
had lasted so long, we cannot understand how no warning against
the apostate should have reached Eome. We cannot conceive there
was any concealment of the truth on the part of the Jews, as no
ground at all appears which could have led them to be silent on
the matter. Bottiger's supposition (work already cited, pages 15,
etc., 43, etc.), that the Jews pretend ignorance, as fearing that Paul
might put them on their defence, when they felt themselves unable
to carry out their charge against him, is quite untenable, because
the apostle could institute no process against the Jews of Eome,
who had done him no injury, but only against the Jews in Jeru-
salem. Bottiger represents the matter as if the whole Jewish
nation were bound to answer for the wrong, which had proceeded
from certain Jews in Jerusalem. Add to this, that if the fear in
question might have determined the Jews in Eome to so strange
a procedure, certainly it could not be the occasion of their falling
out among themselves about the Messiahship of Jesus, according
to the account here given by Luke. But we have already noticed,
at chap, xviii, 1, what furnishes the key to the difficulty before
us. Under Claudius, the Jews, and along with them the Chris-
tians, had been expelled from Eome, and thus the connexions
which the Jews of Jerusalem had with them were interrupted.
And it was only quite slowly and secretly that the Jews returned
under the government of Nero, which was very peaceful at its
commencement, and at the same time, too,. the Christian church

Acts XXVIIT. 23-29. 411

was gathered together again. But both Jews and Christians alike
maintained a designed separation, and thus gradually lost their
acquaintance with one another. But in Palestine they were not
so accurately informed with regard to the state of matters in
Kome, and thus it happened that no intelligence was sent thither,
which certainly would not have been omitted in the case of any
other place.

(In ver. 17 the apostle declares most decidedly that he did
nothing directly opposed to the customs and usages of the fathers.
[See particulars at chap. xxi. 17, seq.] — Ver. 19. 'A.XXd must be
supplied to ovx w? ; Paul wishes to intimate that he designs
nothing against his nation, but is rather suffering persecution from
them. — In ver. 20, tX~l^ -ov 'lapar/A denotes the appearance of the
Messiah. Compare Coram, on Luke ii. 25.' — Ver. 22. The manner
in which the Jews of Rome speak of the opposition given to the
Christians, is not such as to render it probable that in Eome itself
there had already been such contentions, as arose for example in
Galatia. The character of the Epistle to the Eomans confirms
this supposition, for, according to it, there had only been unimpor-
tant collisions there. See the particulars in the introduction to the
Epistle to the Romans, and at Rom. xvi. 17, etc.)

Vers. 23-29. — That the Jews in Rome rather speak of the Chris-
tians as a sect opposed elsewhere, than as one requiring to be op-
posed in their own immediate neighbourhood, is plain also from
what follows. They are quite in the dark regarding the nature
and pecuKar doctrines of Christianity, and learn them, as it seems,
for the first time from the mouth of Paul. As to the mode of recon-
ciling this with the circumstance that the Epistle to the Romans,
which was written before this period, supposes the existence of a
considerable Christian church in Rome, read the detailed statement
made in the introduction to that Epistle. What is stated in the
passage before us, certainly makes the impression, that the Jews in
Rome heard the preaching of the gospel of Christ for the first time :
there arose, as usual, a controversy among themselves, for some
were convinced of the Messiahship of Jesus, others not. This state
of matters would be inexplicable, if the church had not, as has been
detailed above, been again but recently gathered together. The
apostle, however, dismissed the doubting Jews with a reference to
the language of rebuke uttered by the prophet Isaiah, and contrasted
with their unbelief the faith to be expected from the Gentiles.

(Ver. 23. — As the assemblage in which Paul spoke took place in
his own residence, it is not improbable that he staid with Aquila,
who always had a place for meetings in his house. See Rom. xvi.
3, — Ver. 26. The passage from Isaiah vi. 9, 10, has already been ex-
plained at Matth. xiii. 14, 15. — Ver. 29 is wanting in many Codi-

412 Acts XXVIII. 30, 31.

ces, but doubtless improperly. Probably on account of aTxeXvovro in
ver. 25, the words were regarded as superfluous. But there it is the
breaking off of the discourse that is meant, here it is the final de-
parture from the house.)

Vers. 30, 31. — Two whole years the apostle remained in this sit-
uation, and preached, without hindrance, to all. The specification
of the time here made, thus leads us, at the conclusion of the Acts
of the Apostles, to the spring of the year Q5, as in the spring of
63 Paul arrived in Kome. The supposition of Bdttiger (Beitr.
Part II. p. 32, etc.), that Paul was only a few days in imprison-
ment in Rome, as described in chap, xxviii. 16, and that he is
here, in verse 30, represented as free from confinement, is quite in-
admissible, because the expression tv rw Wiw utadu^an in verse 30
is not difterent from (livetv Kad' kavrov in verse 16, but means pre-
cisely the same thing. This appears manifest from the circum-
stance that there is mention made only of the receiving of visits
on his part : he was not permitted to go about without restraint,
to enter into the synagogue, and the like. The concluding words,
therefore, iie~a Tidarjg Trapprjaiag aKu^vroog refer only to the perfect
freedom he enjoyed in his private residence, but not beyond it.
That it was not after the lapse of these two years Paul suffered
martyrdom, but that he was set free at his first trial before Nero,
and then perished in a second imprisonment, will be shewn further
in the Commentary on the pastoral epistles. Here the only question
is, why Luke concludes his work in the manner he does. Not only
is there no particular account of the process against Paul, but we
also feel the want of a concluding address to Theophilus, and a re-
view of the whole, in a short formal conclusion of the book. It is
certainly a remark of some weight, that this phenomenon may be
explained from the circumstance that Luke has detailed the events
as far as they had developed themselves at the time, and thus we
have a clue to the time of the composition of the work. (Compare in
the Comm. B. i. Introd. § vi.) Meyer's remark on the other hand
(Comm. on Acts p. 8 and 845), that the sonorous and solemn con-
clusion marks an absolute completion of the work, is plainly wrong :
the sonorousness of the participial conclusion can prove nothing
here : the question is about the substance of the concluding verses,
which leave the commenced account regarding Paul unfinished ; the
decision of his appeal to the Emperor must have been stated, if it
had taken place when Luke concluded. But even suppose that
Luke had no additional fact to narrate, or that he supposes every-
thing which has occurred in Rome to be known to Theophilus, still
it must always appear to the reader that there was need of a more
formal conclusion. The passage xxviii. 31, concludes at most the
last narrated event, but it does not form a conclusion to the whole

Acts XXVIII. 30, 31. 413

work : we naturally expect a reference to the beginning of the
book, and to Theophilus. When we consider the commencement
of the treatise (Luke i. 1-4), it seems a natural expectation that
Luke would conclude with some such statement as this : " I have
now, beloved Theophilus, mentioned everything which I have as-
certained : from the point of time which we have now reached, you
have a personal knowledge of all that has occurred, and therefore I
conclude here." If Luke, then, did not purpose to issue a third
treatise, as Heinrichs supposes, undoubtedly the proper formal con-
clusion of the work is wanting.

If, at the conclusion of this remarkable monument of the ancient
church, we look back to the course hitherto taken by the seed of
God's word in its growth, we perceive in it three great intermis-
sions or stages, all proceeding from east to west. " In the first
place, we find the gospel at work among the Jews only, and
during this period Jerusalem forms the central point of Christian
life ; in the next place it advances to the boundaries of the heathen
and Jewish world, and Antioch now becomes the centre of activity ;
and, finally, it gains a firm footing in the greatest city of heathen-
dom, in Kome itself, and thus the victory of the gospel over the
Gentile world is declar#d. As Jerusalem, too, about the same time
when Peter and Paul were labouring in Kome, and sealed their
ministry with their blood, was destroyed, the universal character of
Christianity was then also established in opposition to every partic-
ular system. The first two points are completely carried through
in the book of Acts ; but it merely introduces us to the third point,
which is one of great importance. The letters of the apostles,
however, which follow, embrace, in substance, its further develop-
ment ; for, like branches into which the one stem of the tree of life
is divided, they bring the various tendencies slumbering in its germ
to their individual perfection. In this gradual transference, then,
of the gospel from the people of Israel to the Gentiles, lies the key
to the remarkable fact, which, more than everything else, demon-
strates the Divine power of the risen Redeemer, that not only in the
book of Acts, but also in the whole extension of the clmrch, and in
the writings that constitute the canon of the church, the Twelve
who had seen the Lord for three years, and lived with him, give
place to a man who hardly had seen Christ, and who had even for a
length of time persecuted Christians with a blind fury. The Apostle
Paul stands before us as an image of the whole apostate race of
man, or at least of Israel, who are long struggling against the Lord,
but are at last to become a mighty instrument for the accomplish-
ment of God's designs. After his entire surrender to his Lord and
Saviour, his life and spirit became so intimately blended with the

414 Acts XXVIII. 30, 31.

being and nature of Christ himself, that in the following treatment
of his profound epistles, we cannot be persuaded that we find any-
thing hostile to the gospel, but only its true essential nature, which,
mirroring itself in a capacious intellect and a profound sensibility,
carries with it, besides its indwelling heavenly nobleness, the magic
of living personal experience, and the adornment of profound and
richly developed thought. While, therefore, we have had hitherto to
do with the greatest and most comprehensive phenomena, with the
progress of the Kedeemer's life and that of his church, whicb re-
quired the utmost possible expansion of view, we proceed now to
inquiries in which individual doctrines and practical relations are
brought under the most minute examination ; while the concluding
book of the New Testament, the Apocalypse, again takes the reader
back to the most comprehensive position, uniting the general and
the particular in one harmonious whole.

THE

EPISTLES OF THE APOSTLE PAUL.

yJilNERAL INTRODUCTION

IHE EPISTLES OF PAUL.

§ 1. Of the Life* and Ministry of Paul in General.

Although iq the Acts of the Apostles the principal points in
the life of the Apostle Paul have already passed before us, yet the
connected consideration of his Epistles calls for a summary view of
his noble character, as well as of the way in which the Lord of the
church prepared this distinguished instrument for the execution of
his purposes. For so entirely are Paul's writings the proper growth
of his own mind and spirit, living parts, so to speak, of his very self,
that it would be most difficult to understand their peculiar nature
without a clear perception of these points. Of course, however, the
special points, which in Luke's narrative have been thoroughly
treated, will here receive no further attention.

Paul was called, for the further spread of the gospel, to form the
connecting link between the Grasco-Roman and the Jewish world ;
it was necessary, therefore, that both heathen and Jewish habits of
life and thought should bear a part in his education, in order that
he might be able to understand and sympathize with both. Born
of Jewish parents, and subsequently brought up at the feet of Ga-
maliel, in the principles of the Pharisees, Jewish views and feelings
certainly formed the ground-work and substance of his education.
But, as his birth-place was Tarsus, where Grecian art and science
flourished in a high degree,t this could not fail to exert an imme-

* On tho life of Paul, besides the older works of Pearson (Annales Paulini) and Palej
(Horae Paulinae), there have more recently appeared the writings of Menken, " Blicke in
das Leben des Apostels Paulus" (Bremen, 1828), of Hemsen (Gottingen, 1830), of Schra-
der (Leipz. 1830-32, iii. vols.), and of Schott (Jena, 1832). The work of Schrader is rich
in new results, which, however, cannot bear the test of an impartial criticism. Very in-
teresting and instructive are the remarks of Tholuck in the " Studien und Kritiken" of
1835. P. ii. p. 364, etc.

f Strabo (Geogr. xiv. p. 991, ed. Almelov.) places Tarsus, in this respect, on a lovel
with Athens and Alexandria.

Vol. m.— 2V

418 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

diate effect upon the ouUcard form of his culture ; an influence still
evident from the quotations made in his writings from Grecian poets.
(Acts xvii. 28, 1 Cor. xv. 33, Tit. i. 12.) Again, it is at least more
than probable, that, in the later part of his life, when he had es-
caped from the stern bondage of narrow-minded Pharisaism, the
views he had gained in his youth of the nobler aspects of Grecian
life, again rose up before his mind, and gave him that just appreci-
ation of Gentile life, which is discernible in his writings.

For, just as Philo and other Jews, who lived entirely amongst
Greeks, as well as the earlier Fathers of the Church (e. g., Justin
Martyr), regarded the better men amongst the Gentiles as by no
means excluded from the blessings of the Divine Logos, the Giver
of the heavenly powers of holiness and the knowledge of God ; so
also did Paul recognize within the heathen world a spiritual Israel ;
that is, nobler spirits, who thirsted after truth and righteousness
(Rom. ii. 14, 15); and whom he sought, through the preaching of
the gospel, to lead to the covenant of promise. Even the birth,
therefore, of the Apostle, and the elements of culture amidst which
he grew up, were so ordered by the providence of God, as best to
train him for the teacher of the Gentiles (Galat. i. 15). For though,
at first sight, it might appear that his connexion with the sect of
the Pharisees would not conduce to that freedom of spirit which he
afterwards attained to, yet, on closer consideration, we shall discern
in even this, the wisdom of a directing Providence.

In the first place there were found in this sect many elements
of truth, more especially moral earnestness and strictness of life,
which in many only, but by no means in all, became hyj^ocrisy.
And, besides this, such a nature as that of Paul needed the full
experience of all that one system had to offer, before he would be-
come fully conscious of what was erroneous and one-sided in it, and
embrace, with complete devotion, and all the powers of his being,
the complementary truth which that system obscured or denied. The
energy and decision of his will made him carry out his principles as a
Pharisee to a fanatical extreme against the Christians ; and it
was not till he had done this, that he was possessed by that in-
tense longing which this system of life could not satisfy, and which
led him to jierceive the state into which he had fallen. Hence,
although the miraculous vision which was imparted to him, and the
startling announcement, that he who was still tha raging opposer
of the Crucified, was henceforth to be his messenger to the Gen-
tiles, are of course to be considered as the decisive causes of the
sudden change in his spiritual state, yet at the same time, we can-
not doubt that his sincere striving after righteousness by the mere
works of the law had already, though perhaps without his own con-
sciousness, awakened in the depth of his soul the conviction that

GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 419

his own strength could not attain to the fulfilment of righteousness ;
nay, that it might even lead him, with all his goodness of intention,
into the most fearful errors. This conviction brought with it that
which, though not the cause j was a necessary condition of his pass-
ing into the new life ; — namely, the longing after something higher,
and the power of appreciating such moral phenomena, as the min-
istry and death of Stephen, in which that for which he longed was
presented to him in actual life.

Without entering more at length, in this place, into the consid-
eration of that event which transformed Paul into that mighty and
honoured instrument in the kingdom of God, which we recognize in
him (it having been discussed at that passage in Acts which records
it, compare Acts ix. with xxii, and xxvi.), let us notice, first, the
position which he obtained with respect to the Twelve and the
Seventy, after his conversion. His relation to the Twelve it is of
particular importance to determine ; for though the Seventy seem
to come nearest him, in respect of their ministry, which was also
directed to the Gentile world,* yet these so entirely disappear as
a body from the history after the resurrection of the Lord, that
no trace of them remains. The separate members of it might in-
deed have been afterwards actively engaged in preaching the gospel,
but no rivalry could have arisen between them, as such, and Paul,
since no one could doubt that Paul was at least equal to them.
But the case was quite different Avith respect to the Twelve. These
formed a strictly defined and limited body ; so that, even after the
Ascension, the vacancyf which was occasioned in their number by
the apostacy of Judas Iscariot was immediately filled up by the
express command of the Lord. (Acts i. 15, etc.) This body was,
in fact, to contain within itself the pillars and supports of the
church, in proof of which we find the twelve apostles spoken of
as the spiritual fathers of the spiritual Israel. (Matth. xix. 28 ;
Rev. iv. 10, xxi. 14.) The question, then, is forced upon us : — in
what relation did Paul stand, according to the mind of the Lord,
to this sacred body of Twelve ? Now, regarding this question
purely ohjectively, apart from individuals, we cannot deny that the
Twelve stand higher than Paul, as those who had been with the
Lord throughout his earthly pilgrimage (which Peter considers
as requisite in a true apostle, Acts i. 21), and the proper wit-
nesses of the whole progress of the Redeemer's life on earth. They
are, and must continue to be, the proper foundations of the New

* See at Luke x. i.

f It would help U3 to understand the important position which we find James, the
brother of the Lord, afterwards occupying, if we might assume that he was taken into
the number of the Twelve in the place of James, who, we learn (from Acts xii. 2 ), was
beheaded. Still, we have no distinct historical evidence on this point ; and besides, he
aoes not appear to have left Jerusalem, whilst the apostles were to travel

^0 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

Jerusalem (Rev. xxi. 14), the roots, so to speak, of the entire
tree, those who received from the Lord the first fruits of the
Spirit. Paul might indeed justly call himself a witness of the
resurrection,* since he had heheld the crucified Jesus as the risen
Lord, and had experienced in his own person his Divine power ;
but he manifestly had not the privilege of having seen the whole
course of the life of Christ, and in this respect he stood, as it
were, one step further from that throne of glory which was im-
mediately siT.rrounded by the Twelve. But, turning from the ab-
stract relation to the men themselves as they appear in history,
we must confess, on the other hand, that the apostle Paul left all
the Twelve far behind him, in that " he (that is, the grace of God
in him) laboured more abundantly than they all." (1 Cor. xv. 10 ;
2 Cor. xi. 23.) And this arose by no means from his personal
devotedness alone, but also in a great measure from circumstances.
For, since the vineyard of Grod's kingdom was taken away from the
Jews, and opened to the Gentiles, and Paul was called to labour
especially among the latter, as the Twelve primarily amongst
the former, it was natural that the minstry of Paul should bear
much richer fruit, and that all the other apostles should in com-
parison with him fall into the back-ground. From this we may
likewise easily perceive how the relation of the gospel to the out-
ward institutions of the Old Testament, and the admission of the
Gentiles into the church without observing these, should have be-
come plain to the Apostle Paul, at an earlier period, and more com-
pletely than to any of the other apostles — more especially than to
Peter, who was called to labour immediately amongst the Jews, and
who was designed to represent, as it were, the element of stability
in the church. Under this state of things, therefore, the apostle
stood on a level with the Twelve, as entirely independent of them,
and occupied a position of his own, as called immediately by the
Lord to be the Apostle to the Gentiles. (Acts xxvi. 17.) And
this is a point on which Paul often found it necessary to insist
in his arguments with his opponents, who wished to impugn his
authority as an apostle. (See on Galat. ii. 9.) In doing so he
laid particular stress upon the fact, that he did not in any ivay
receive his knowledge of the gospel from the Tioelve, or from any
other Christian, hut immediately from the Lord himself. (See
on Galat. i. 12.) Now, as regards the purely spiritual part of
the gospel, there is no difficulty in conceiving how Paul could
have made this his own without any instruction from man. For
the Holy Ghost, who was imparted to him, filled his inner man as

* It would indeed appear probable, from 2 Cor. v. 16, that Paul bad seen our Lord
before bis resurrection, on the occasion of his presence at the Passover in Jerusalem;
but certainly no nearer connexion had subsisted between him and the Saviour.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 421

an all-pervading light, and made plain to him, through his helief in
Jesus as the Messiah, the whole of the Old Testament, in which all
the germs of the New were already laid down. In the Spirit, who
is absolute truth (1 John v. 6), was given the assured conviction of
the truth of the gospel, and insight into its meaning, in details.
With regard, however, to the historical elements of Christianity, the
case appears different ; and yet there are points connected appar-
ently altogether with this (as, for example, the institution of the
Lord's Supper, 1 Cor. xi. 23, etc.), of which the apostle asserts that
he had received them immediately from the Lord. Now, we should
undoubtedly be running into an erroneous extreme, if we were to
assume that all historical particulars in the life of our Lord were im-
parted to him by revelation. The general outlines of Christ's out-
ward life, the history of his miracles, of his journeys, and what
belongs to them, were, no doubt, related to him by Ananias or
other Christians. But whatever in that life was necessarily con-
nected with the peculiar doctrines of the gospel, as, for instance,
the institution of the Sacraments, the Eesurrection, and similar
points, came, no doubt, to the apostle in an extraordinary manner,
by immediate revelation of the Lord ;* so as to accredit him as an
independent witness, not only before the world, but also to believers.
No one could come forward and say, that what Paul knew of the
gospel had been received through him. For it was from no man,
but from the highest Teacher himself, that he had received alike
the commission to preach, the essential facts of the gospel, and the
Holy Spirit who gives light and life to those fact's.

By this, however, it is not intended to deny that there was a
development in the new hfe of Paul ; though assuredly (as will be
shewn more at length in the following paragraphs'), no further revo-
lution in doctrinal views could take place in him. But even he;
doubtless, advanced gradually from childhood to youth, and then to
manhood in Christ. And so, when the apostle came forward as a
teacher at Damascus, immediately after his conversion (Acts ix. 19
etc.), it was but the expression of the true feeling of the necessity
which lay upon him at once to bear open witness to the change which,
through God's grace, had taken place in him. But he himself, no
doubt, soon began to perceive that, before he could labour with a
blessing, there was needed a deepening and thorough remoulding
of the elements of his spiritual life. In consequence of his percep-
tion of this truth, he retired into Arabia for three years— a time
which, it is probable, he spent chiefly in a thorough study of the
Scrip tures.f In these studies, probably, the enlightening of the

* According to the account given in the Acts, Paul was more than once graciously
honoured with a vision of the Lord. (See Acts xxii. 17, xxiii. 11.)

t See, on this point, the remarks on Acts ix. 20, etc. Paul h'jQself enjoina Timothy

422 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

Holy Ghost first revealed to him, as a connected whole, the great
purpose of the Lord with respect to the human race ; and now
inwardly ripened, and firmly established in true principles of doc-
trine and life, he went forth into the great field of labour which the
Lord had appointed him. As the waters of a stream are spread
abroad, so did he spread abroad, beyond the narrow depths in which
they had hitherto been confined, the quickening powers contained
in the new doctrine ; and the whole heathen world, which, left to
itself, had come nigh to entire corruption, was made fruitful by it
with new germs of heavenly life. Now, as an energetic character,
as one whose whole work lay out of himself, the apostle was in dan-
ger of forgetting himself in his care for others ; or, at least, of letting
his incessant labours drain and exhaust his inward life. In order to
prevent this, we perceive, on the one hand, the grace of God eftect-
ually renewing him with the powers of the higher world (2 Cor. xii,),
since the mighty labours in which he was engaged had not been
undertaken by him on his own impulse, but had been expressly
assigned to him by the Lord. And, on the other hand, God so
ordered his circumstances as to afford seasons of rest to his spirit ;
to which belong, particularly, the imprisonments which he had to
undergo. In such times of solitary stillness his spiritual life was
more fully developed within itself, so that the preacher of the word
might not preach to others and be himself a castaway.

The last stage in the Apostle Paul's progress towards perfection
was finally to be his martyrdom. That which John experienced
inwardly in the spirit, Peter and Paul were to experience also in the
body.* It was in the centre of the heathen world, in Eome, during
the first great persecution which befel the church of God, that Paul
died, beheaded, as a Koman citizen, with the sword. The fact itself
of his death is established by so many and ancient witnesses (amongst
whom the presbyter Gains, and the bishop Dionysius of Corinth,
are the oldest, see Euseb. H. E. ii. 25.), that it cannot be questioned.
There remains, however, an uncertainty as to the year of his death,
because in this is involved the doubtful question concerning Paul's
second imprisonment at Eome.f The question will subsequently
occupy us, and I only here remark, in passing, that I think it neces-
sary to assume a second imprisonment of Paul in Kome, and cannot,
therefore, place his death earlier than the last year of the reign of
Nero (A.D. 67 or 68).

(I Tim. iii. 6), that no new convert shall be a bishop. Is it, then, likely that he -would
have acted in opposition to his own rule? or would his wonderful conversion have ex-
empted him from a rule to which even the Twelve were subject ?

* See more on this subject at John xxi. 20, etQ.

f Compare, on this point, in Hemsen's Life of Paul, the concluding consideration on
his death.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

§ 2. The Peculiarities of Paul's Character.*

That Paul was one of those energetic characters, of whom, in difter-
ent ages of the church, the Lord has taken so many into his service,
is too evident to escape the observation of any. Whatever may be
thought of the sentiments of the apostle, even the sceptic must con-
fess that a powerful and earnest spiritf breathes through his writ-
ings, full of the glow of enthusiasm for that which he held as true,
and of burning zeal which he was able to communicate to all. But
it is of the greatest consequence to obtain a more accurate knowl-
edge of the peculiarities of Paul's mind ; because his wi-itings and
doctrine will be much more easily comprehended if we keep before
our minds a clear image of their author.

Now the simplest way of obtaining an insight into the peculiar-
ities of Paul's character is by comparing him with John the Evan-
gelist. Contemplation (rvwoi^-), in the highest sense of that word,
we found to be the peculiar feature of John's life.^ The whole
bent of his mind was introspective and meditative. His soul was
entirely receptive, all eye, as it were, to gaze upon the eternal ideas of
truth. Thus outward labours were with him less prominent, and the
flower and crown of his life was prophecy. The image presented
to us by Paul is very different from this. Although, of course, not
deficient in a living and intuitive knowledge of truth, yet in his
mode of treating religion he gives scope to a dialectical element
unknown to John, an element marked by a predominant intellectual
acuteness which loves to work out ideas into abstract conceptions.
Through this talent for reasoning Paul became the author of a
sharply defined doctrinal language, and the founder of theology, as
a science, in the church of Christ. In him is represented the neces-
sity of science for the church, even in the very narrow circle of those
on whom the Holy Spirit was first poured forth.§ And the same

* On the subject of the following paragraphs, compare the essay of Neander on the
Apostle Paul, in his History of the Apostolic Age (Geschichte des apostolischen Zeit-
alters, vol ii. pp. 501, soq.)

f Wo are easily tempted to picture to ourselves Paul's personal appearance, aa very
po\verful,^r even colossal ; but, according to 2 Cor. x. 10, just the contrary was the
case. In'ihe dialogue Philopatrfs (which, however, to be sure, was not written earlier
than the fourth century), Paul is called, " The Galilean with the bald head, and the hooked
nose." (See Tholuck's remarks, noticed at the beginning of this Introduction, in which
he describes the temperament of the apostle as the cholerico-melancholic.)

X See the Introduction to the Gospel of John.

§ It is in this dialectic character of Paul's discourse that we may find the reason that
Longinus places the apostle on a level with the famous Greek orators, if, at least, thefam.
ous passage of that rhetorican, in which he makes mention of the apostle, is really genu*

424 GENERAL INTRODUCTION

character of mind, which made him express his religious ideas in a
scientific form, made him also, in the fruitful labours of his outward
life, develop especially the gift of wisdom (1 Cor. xii. 8). In addi-
tion to the energy which belonged to him as a man of action, we
may discern in his activity the peculiar faculty of using the most
difficult and complicated worldly relations for the purest and noblest
purposes of the kingdom of God, so that we must distinctly recog-
nize in this a distinguishing feature of his character. This is espe-
cially clear, if we compare him with Peter ; for though in the latter
there was no less energy, yet it seems in him to be fettered with a
stiffness and want of pliancy which, though quite in keeping with his
character as a rock, yet contrasts unmistakeably with that of Paul.
This bent of Paul's mind influenced, as we might have expected,
his whole apprehension of the gospel. While John received it more,
in its abstract character, as an object of contemplation, and so made
its revelations of God and Christ the centre of his doctrine, Paul
regarded it rather subjectively, as bearing upon himself, and so made
its relations to humanity and human salvation, the prominent points
of his theology. In the experience of his own life he had seen the
sinful state of the human heart, as weU as man's inability to de-
liver himself from it, and the consequent need of a Divine remedy
such as was realized in Christ ; and from this as a living source sprang
his whole system of doctrine. The occidental character of Paul's
mind is seen in this conception of the gospel as clearly as in the
bent of those two great kindred spirits of his, Augustine and Luther,
in whom indeed his own process of culture was repeated. In John,
on the other hand, is shown the oriental spirit, which loses itself in
the contemplation of that which is presented to it of God, and
which, through all the developments of doctrine in later ages, ever
dwelt by preference on theology and christology in their more ab-
stract character. So that though there is no specific difference, no
actual contradiction between the teaching of Paul and John, yet
these two apostles already exhibit in themselves the two chief ten-
dencies of the later development of doctrine. As the grain of corn,
though one, opens itself into two halves on the unfolding of the
germ, or as the magnet, from one middle point, discharges, at the
same time, a positive and a negative power ; so the two chief ten-
dencies of the church, the Eastern and Western, which mutually

ine. Besides vigorous powers of reasoning, the might of deep conviction, and the glow
of enthusiasm, manifest themselves in Paul's writings, so that Jerome (in his work against
Jovinian) declares " quotiescunque Paulum apostolum lego, non verba audu-e mihi videor,
Bed tonitrua." (See Flacii clav. S. S. Basil, 1567, p. 387, seq., and the works of Bauer,
Philologia Thucydideo-Paulina (Halse, 1773), Logica Paunna(ib. 1774), Rhetorica Paulina
(ib. 1782). Also Tzschirner's treatise in his opusc. acad., edited by "VVinzer. Leips. 1829.
Lastly, Tholuck's Eemarks, pp. 387, soq., as noticed at p. 1 of this Introduction.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION. ^5

complete each otlier, are represented in the earhest ages hy the two
great apostles, John and Paul.

From the vigorous and decided manner in which the apostle both
taught and acted, we might at once conclude that it was not likely
that any considerable change would take place in his convictions,
after that first great spiritual conversion, by which the fierce oppo-
nent of Jesus Christ became his fearless witness. After his ad-
mission into the church of Christ, he no doubt early formed for
himself a consistent view of Cliristian truth, and therefore expresses
himself, even in his latest epistles, in the same way as in his ear-
liest ; from the Epistles to the Thessalonians down to those to
Timothy and Titus, we find the same fundamental truths ever re-
curring. In one single point only can we discern in his later
writings a difierent form of doctrinal statement from that contained
in his earlier epistles : that is, in his views concerning the second
coming of Christ. In his earliest epistles Paul expresses a hope
that he may himself live until the time of the Lord's return (see 1
Tbess, iv.; 2 Cor. v.), but in the later he has renounced this hope,
and longs to depart and to be with Christ (Phil. i. 23). The modi-
fication of his views on this point may, however, be easily ex-
plained, from the peculiar nature of the subject. The time of
Christ's second coming was, according to our Lord's own teach-
ing, to remain uncertain (see remarks at Matth. xxiv. 1); Paul
himself, therefore, neither knew nor could know this time (Acts i.
7). Whilst, therefore, the fervour of his love made him at first re-
gard all things as near, and long after the kingdom of God upon
earth as the highest good ; at a later period the great crisis of the
Advent retreated, in his apprehension, to a greater distance. We
cannot therefore say that Paul's convictions on this point of doctrine
underwent a change ; but only that his own individual position with
respect to the object presented in this doctrine was altered. If,
however, the above observations show that the substance of Paul's
doctrine remained unchanged, yet we may certainly observe a con-
stant progress in the merely/or7)ia? development of it ; for we can-
not fail to perceive, that his theological language is more full, and
his conceptions more complete and symmetrical, in the later epis-
tles, especially those to the Philippians and Colossians, than in the
earlier.

Paul not only kept aloof from the gnostical tendency (the rela-
tive truth of which is represented by John), and vigorously com-
batted the errors into which, as is plain from the Epistles to the
Colossians, to Timothy, and Titus, it soon led some of its followers;
but also from that judaico-materialist tendency, which showed
itself in so many of those who had left the sect of the Pharisees to
join the Christian church. As a tree torn from its original soil, and

426 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

transplanted with all its roots and fibres into the other ground, such
had been the change eflected in Paul at his conversion ; he there-
fore transferred nothing of the one-sidedness and narrowness of the
Pharisaic system into his views of Christian doctrine. The attempts
made to explain many leading features of his system from his Jew-
ish views of life,* show just as little knowledge of the human heart
as those which seek to explain Augustine's doctrine by his former
Manich^an errors, and Luther's by his education as a monk. We
find, on the contrary, that men of energetic character are gener-
ally inclined, after such transitions, to despise too much the systems
from which they have escaped, and to reject even what is true in
them, rather than to transfer anything belonging to them into their
new line of thought and life. But from this error into which Mar-
cion and his disciples fell, Paul was preserved by that fundamental
Christian view, wrought livingly in him by the Holy Spirit, which
regards the Old Testament as Divine in its nature, and under a
typical and prophetical veil, as containing in the germ all the essen-
tial truths of Christianity, He merely discarded as erroneous that
rigid Pharisaic spirit which regarded the husk of the letter as the
substance of the spirit itself " Paul therefore represented the true
and just mean between the false spiritualism of the Gnostics, and
Jewish materialism, viz., the true scripture doctrine of the reality
and proper relations of both spirit and matter ; and this in such a
manner as fully to maintain his balance, without leaning to either
error. In the theology of John while indeed the same correct
views of the relation of matter and spirit cannot be mistaken, still
in his Gospel and Epistles we find an inclination towards genuine
spiritualism, of course without any concession to Gnostic error's:
it was only in the Apocalypse that John found the opportu-
nity of bringing forward in greater prominence the material as-
pects of the gospel ; and therefore any future author who wishes
to give a just view of John's doctrine, must consider the ideas
of the Apocalypse as complementary of those of his remaining
works.

This perfect balance in the character and theology of Paul,
is also the reason why the instinct of the church, guided in this
matter also into the truth by the S])irit of Christ working in her,
has regarded the collection of his epistles in which every thought
is expressive of that correct mean which he preserved in his doc-
trine, as the crown of the canon of the New Testament. Whilst

* "We need hardly remark that we do not therefore mean to deny that the history of
Jewish doctrine furnishes us with a key to the further understanding of many particular
statements in Paul's writings ; we only wish to maintain, that the essential points of hia
system are the results of his own inward experience ; the views which he entertained in
earlier life at most only affected the form in which he presented the truth.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 427

every separate Gospel found its necessary complement in the other
Gospels, and altogether form the roots of the New Testament;
whilst the Acts of the Apostles only constitutes, so to speak,
the stem, which unites the roots with the crown of the tree —
Paul, without laying claim to any independent authority in point
of doctrine, stands before us in all the riches of his personal en-
dowments, spreading around on all sides the fruitfulness of his
inward life. He was the first, in whom was mirrored in all its
various aspects, as far as was possible in one man, not indeed
the character of the Lord himself, but that Spirit which he had
bestowed upon the church ; and this universality of character and
gifts of grace made him capable, through the powers of the same
Spirit, of so unfolding the peculiar nature of the principles of Chris-
tianity both in his doctrine and in his life, as to represent it to the
Gentile world almost in his sole person, "Whatsoever, therefore,
appeared in the Gospels as a bud but partially disclosed, and indeed
in the synoptical evangelists manifestly engrafted upon Old Tes-
tament principles — that the apostle displays before us openly and
freely, and in some parts of his writings, for instance, in the Epis-
tles to the Eomans and Galatians, in so strictly didactic a form,
that it commends itself as much by the cogency of the arguments to
the thoughtful, as to the feeling mind by that glow of enthusiasm
which breathes throughout his statements. If, however, we compare
the collection of the catholic epistles (with which we nuist also
class the Epistle to the Hebrews, as proceeding from the same start-
ing point), with the Epistles of Paul, we shall perceive that the
latter are more calculated for the beginning of the spiritual life,
whilst the concluding writings of the New Testament tend more
directly to the perfection of the fruits of regeneration in holiness
and sanctification. Accordingly, if in the epistles of Paul the central
ideas, around which he considers everything to move, are faith in
opposition to the works of the \n,vi, justification and atonement, and
we cannot fail to perceive the earnestness with which he labours to
impress these deeply on the minds of his hearers and readers ; the
Epistle to the Hebrews and the catholic epistles, on the other
hand, setting out with these doctrines as their admitted founda-
tion, teach from thera how man is to perfect himself in holiness.
The latter epistles, therefore, seem to bear more of a legal char-
acter, and on that account found much less access to the mind
of the church than those of Paul. They demand, also, for their right
comprehension a higher degree of development in the regenerate
soul ; and because this was often deficient, a correct percej)tion of
the difficulties of those writings deterred many expositors from at-
tempting to explain them. The different collections therefore which
compose the New Testament canon, proceed each from a different

428 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

point of view, and on this very account mutually complete each
other, furnishing satisfaction for every stage of advancement, and
incitement to higher culture. (See Comm. P. I. Introd. § 2.

§ 3. Order of Succession of Paul's Epistles.

From the thoroughly practical character of Paul's life, we might
at once expect that his productions as an author would have nothing
of an abstract form about them. And in fact we neither possess
any treatises by him on religious subjects, nor have we any reason to
suppose that he ever wrote any. His letters are all suggested by
existing circumstances, and adapted to the most special occasions
of actual life. Hence everything in them is individual, marked,
traced with strong and definite outlines, and yet, by means of that
spiritual principle which animated the apostle, truths the most uni-
versal are reflected in those special cases, and give to all his remarks
and counsel a meaning and importance for every age. In what man-
ner thosQ epistles of the aj)ostle which have come down to us were
formed into one collection, it is now impossible to make out on satis-
factory historical grounds. We find, indeed, in the hands of Mar-
cion the Gnostic, a collection of ten epistles of Paul, the three
pastoral epistles of Timothy and Titus being wanting, whilst in the
Catholic church the collection consisted of thirteen epistles (that to
the Hebrews not being included) : this might then be regarded as
the original nucleus of the collection of epistles, to which the pas-
toral epistles were added at a later period. And yet on closer con-
sideration, this does not appear probable, and we may therefore
suppose that the pastoral epistles were only accidentally omitted
from the canon of Marcion. For we find that the order of succes-
sion of the epistles, according to Marcion's arrangement, was an
entirely difierent one from that of the collection sanctioned by the
Catholic church ; but if the latter had only inserted the pastoral
epistles of Marcion's collection, the order would have remained un-
altered. The discrepancy of the order was, moreover, occasioned by
the adoption of an entirely distinct principle of arrangement ; the
Marcionites arranging the epistles, as we shall soon prove, accord-
ing to their chronological succession ; the Catholics, in the first
place, according to the importance of the churches to which they
were addressed, and then according to the dignity of the private
persons who had received them. This appears most plainly in the
case of the Epistle to Philemon ; this belongs manifestly to the
Epistle to the Colossians, where Marcion has also placed it ; but in
the collection of the Catholic canon, it followed last of all, as being
the shortest epistle directed to a private person. The Marcionite

GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 429

collection was most probably first formed in Asia Minor. In its
composition the framers of it either proceeded on the principle of
omitting letters to private persons, and only admitting epistles to
whole communities (the letter to Philemon finding a place in the
collection merely as an appendage to the Epistle to the Colossians),
or they were unacquainted with the pastoral epistles. On the other
hand, the Catholic collection of Paul's epistles probably had its rise
in Eome ; and the authors of it followed the order of importance of
the communities to which the epistles were addressed, and also ad-
mitted such private letters as seemed to be of value for the church
at large. The special attention in the Koman church to matters of
outward church constitution answers remarkably well to this suppo-
sition with respect to the pastoral letters, and therefore also in-
creases the probability that the Catholic canon of Paul's epistles
was formed at this place.

In our investigation of the order of succession in Paul's epistles,
we shall, however, not only exclude the Epistle to the Hebrews
(which does not proceed from the apostle himself, although it was
composed under his sanction*), but also the Epistles to Timothy
and Titus ; for these involve such complicated relations, that they
require a distinct consideration. We have, therefore, in the first
place, only to do with the order of succession of those ten epistles of
Paul, which even Marcion included in his collection. With respect
to the years to which their composition is assigned, a great discrep-
ancy doubtless exists in the views of the learned, because the chro-
nology of the apostolic history in general, and of Paul's life in
particular, is so very uncertain. But our present subject is properly
only the order in which the epistles follow upon one another ; and
in the determination of this point, the views taken are by no means
so widely difierent, as in deciding the years under which every single
epistle ought to be arranged, (because this last question must always
depend upon the chronological system adopted by the particular in-
vestigator), a circumstance by which the correctness of the general
order of succession assigned to them, is remarkably confirmed. To
facilitate our survey of the difierent views which have been taken on
this subject, we give, in the following tabular form, the opinions of
three scholars belonging respectively to the earliest, modern, and
most recent times.

* See the two critical treatises on the subject of the Epistle to the Hebrews in Olshau-
sen's Opuscula Theologica, — [The author's theory is, that it was written by the clergy of
some church in which Paul was sojourning, and that the apostle approved it when fin-
ished. Thus he thinks to account at once for the connexion of Paul's name with the
epistle, and for the difference from the style of his undoubted compositions. (Opuscula
Eerol., 1834, pp. 91-122.) The reader may be referred to Dr. Mill's remarks, Praelectio
Theologica, Cantabr., 1843, pp. 6, 7, and note p. 32, B.]

430 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

Mardon* Eichhorn. Schroder.

Galatians. I. Thessaloniana. I, Corinthiana.

I. Corinthians. IL Thessalonians. II. Corinthians.

II. Corinthians. Galatians. Romans.
Romans. I. Corinthians. I. Thessalonians.

I. Tliessalonians. II. Corinthians. II. Thessalonians.

II. Thessalonians. Romans. Ephesians.
Ephesians. Ephesians. Colossians.
Colossians. Colossians Philemon.
Pliilemon. Philemon. Philippians.
Philippians. Philippians. Galatians.

In the first place, from this table, we cannot but perceive that,
as we have already mentioned above, Marcion could not have
placed the epistles in this order accidentally; it corresponds too
exactly with the results of the most industrious critical researches,
not to have proceeded from the design of arranging the epistles
according to the date of their composition. The conclusions of the
most recent examiner, Schrader, coincide exactly with Marcion's
scheme, except with respect to the Epistle to the Galatians. Cer-
tainly, with respect to this composition, the discrepancy is so much
, the greater : for whilst Marcion assigns to it the first place, Schra-
der places it last. Eichhorn, in this case, agrees rather with Mar-
cion than with Schrader, in that he places the Epistle to the Gala-
tians, in point of time, before those to the Corinthians and Komans ;
at the same time, he differs from both in respect to the Epistles to
the Thessalonians, for whilst they put these letters immediately
after the Epistle to the Komans, Eichhorn considers them to have
been written first of all. Since more exact information with regard
to the dates of the composition of the separate epistles may best
be prefixed to the special introduction devoted to each, we will only
briefly consider in this place the epistles of which the date is ques-
tionable, those to the Thessalonians and Galatians, in respect of the
time of their composition, in order to advance a ^re^mmary justifi-
cation of our adoption of the order assigned by Eichhorn, in favour
of which Hemsen and the majority of modern scholars have also
decided. (Comp. at Acts xviii. 18, seq., xix. 8, seq.)

The peculiarity of Schrader's arrangement of the epistles of
Paul, is founded on a theory propounded by this scholar, according
to which the apostle made a journey to Jerusalem, after leaving
Ephesus (where, according to Acts xix., he passed more than two
years). He thinks that this journey took place in the interval
between the events recorded in the 20th and 21st verses of this
chapter. In consequence of this journey, in which he supposes
Paul to have visited Thessalonica, Schrader places the composition
of the Epistles to the Thessalonians at a period subsequent to that

* See Epiphanius. hcer. xliL, c. 9.

GENERAL INTEODUCTION. 431

of those to the Romans and Corinthians. Schott has, however, al-
ready proved at length,* that nothing can be found in the Epistles
to the Thessalonians which favours this later time of composition,
but rather that everything indicates that they were written in Co-
rinth, immediately after the first visit of Paul to Thessalonica (Acts
xvii.), on the occasion of the first planting of that church. The
Epistles to the Thessalonians must, therefore, necessarily be reck-
oned amongst the earliest, and it is a decided mistake to place them
after the Epistle to the Romans, if only for this reason, that Paul
did not write the latter until he was at Corinth on his third mis-
sionary journey. But Schrader's hypothesis, with respect to the
Epistle to the Galatians, is even more capricious. His assumed
journey from Ephesus to Jerusalem is in fact supposed to be that
mentioned, Galat. ii. 1, from which it would no doubt follow that
the composition of the letter belongs to a much later period, since
the apostle, in the course of that chapter, mentions many other oc-
currences in his life. But the very circumstance that Barnabas
accompanied the apostle to Jerusalem, in the journey alluded to,
Galat. ii, 1, whilst it is certain from the account in Acts xv. 36, etc.,
that they had parted from one another long before Paul went to
Ephesus, is decisive against this wholly unfounded theory ; and
Schrader's assertion that the difference between Paul and Barnabas
had previously been made up, is likewise founded upon mere hy-
pothesis. For though I am very far from accounting for this
separation, as Schott appears to do (Erijrterung, p. 64, etc.) by sup-
posing a discrepancy in their views, and am much rather inclined
to assume merely outward reasons for its continuance, yet the cir-
cumstance, that after Acts xv. 26, etc., Barnabas is no more men-
tioned in connexion with Paul, is decisive against Schrader's
assumption.! But the arguments, which Schrader thinks he can
adduce from the contents of the Epistle to the Galatians in favour
of this hypothesis, are so completely overthrown by Schott in detail
(p. 65, etc.), that it is enough in this place to refer to the latter
writer's treatise. Schrader thinks especially that he discovers in
the passage, Galat. vi. 17, a declaration of the apostle, that he is
looking forward to the sentence of death, and, therefore, concludes
that the composition of this letter must be referred to quite the
end of Paul's life. But how entirely unfounded is such an explana-

* See Scliott's Programm, '' Isagoge h'storico-critica ia utramque Pauli ad Tlie?saloni-
censes epistolam." Jcnce, 1830. And the same author's " Erorterung einiger wichtigen
chronolog. Puiikte im Lobon PauU" (Jena, 1832), p. 43, etc.

f The passage 1 Cor. ix. G, is the only one which appears to support a later coming
together of Barnabas and Paul; if wo are not willing to admit that Barnabas was
separated from Paul in Corinth. He must, however, at all events have visited this citj,
according to the passage above quoted, after the estabhshment of the Christian commu-
nity there.

432 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

tion of the text will appear hereafter from our commentary upon it.
Kohler*, also, has made a similar attempt to refer the composition
of the Epistle to the Galatians to a later period ; hut he does not
understand the journey to Jerusalem mentioned in Galat. ii. 1, like
Schrader, of a separate journey made from Ephesus, hut thinks that
he discovers in it the journey recorded in Acts xviii. 22. No douht,
as I have already endeavoured to represent as prohahle in my com-
mentary on the passage, Paul did visit Jerusalem ahout that time
(which Schott is mistaken in denying, p. 37), hut for the assumption
that this journey is mentioned in Galat. ii. 1, there is not a shadow
of proof ; it is certain, rather, that it was that made from Antioch
to the council of the apostles, Acts xv. Much less, however, can
we assent to Kohler's view, that Paul first preached the gospel in
Galatia, on his journey through that province mentioned in Acts
xviii. 23, since the words added in that passage, tma-rjpt^tov rovg
HadTjrdg, establishing the disciples, plainly express that the apostle
wished to confirm in the faith the churches which he had already
founded in Galatia. (See Acts xvi. 6.) Since, moreover, this
scholar can only give even a shadow of probahility to his postpone-
ment of the composition of the Epistle to the Galatians to the latest
period of Paul's life, by means of a conjecture and hypothesis heaped
upon his first assumption, we cannot feel ourselves called upon by
his arguments to depart from that order of succession of the epistles
of Paul which is now almost universally received. This is connected
in the following manner with the principal events of Paul's life,
according to the chronology which we have adopted from Hug : in
this account, we must, however, as we have already remarked, leave
the pastoral epistles again untouched, because they present peculiar
difficulties in their adjustment to the history of Paul's life, and
hence demand a separate consideration.

After Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus (about the
year 36 after the birth of Christ), he went to Arabia, where he re-
mained three years. (Galat. i. 17.) After this he returned to Da-
mascus, but in this city he was persecuted by the Jews, and only
escaped to Jerusalem with extreme difficulty (2 Cor. xi. 32. Acts
ix. 24, 25). On this visit of Paul to Jerusalem, Bai-nabas intro-
duced the apostle to Peter and James (Galat. i. IS, 19); he, how-
ever, remained there only fourteen days. On leaving Jerusalem, the
apostle repaired first to his native city. Tarsus (Acts ix. 25, etc.),
from whence Barnabas, who it appears was the first to discover his
wonderful gift of teaching, brought him away to Antioch, at which
place, in the meantime, Christianity had also begun to spread
amongst the heathen. (Acts xi. 19.) This happened about a. d.

* " Uberdie Abfassungszeit der epistolischen Schriften des Neuen Testament."
1830.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 433

42. Paul and Barnabas had been teaching together about a year
in Antioch when the great famine made its appearance in Palestine,
in consequence of which they were both sent to Jerusalem (Paul for
the second time) as the bearers of a contribution to the necessities
of the poor brethren at that place. (Acts xi. 30.) Perhaps, however,
Paul himself did not go to Jerusalem, for it is not stated in the
Acts that he did, and that difficult passage Galat. ii. 1, would ren-
der the supposition probable. After the accomplishment of this
business, the people of Antioch expressed a wish that the gospel
might be preached to the Gentiles in other countries also. The
elders of the church thereupon chose Paul and Barnabas as their
messengers to the heathen, and they accordingly entered upon
their first missionary Journey (about a. d. 45). They went first
by Cyprus through Pamphylia and Pisidia, and then returned to
Antioch by sea (Acts xiii. 5 ; xiv. 26). The time of their return
it is as impossible to determine with certainty, as the length of
their subsequent stay at Antioch (Acts xiv. 28). At the same time
there can be no doubt that the third journey of Paul to Jerusalem,
occasioned by the disputes concerning the reception of Gentile con-
verts into the church, formed the conclusion of this residence (Galat.
ii. 1). The apostles and the presbyters of the church at Jerusalem
examined into this question together, and, after hearing the reports
of Paul and Barnabas, decided in favour of the milder course, ac-
cording to which the heathen were not obliged to submit to circum-
cision, and observe the whole law. This important transaction, the
so-caUed apostolic council (Acts xv.), happened a.d. 52 or 53.
Immediately after the return of Paul from Jerusalem to Antioch,
about A.D. 53, he entered upon his second missionary journey,
which he undertook in company with Silas. On this journey he
first of all visited again the churches he had already planted, and
then procee'Sed to Galatia, and by Troas to Macedonia (Acts xvi. 9).
Philippi was the first city of this country in which Paul taught, but
this place he was soon obliged to leave in consequence of a tumult
stirred up against him by the employers of a female ventriloquist,
and to betake himself to Thessalonica (Acts xvi. 12, etc.) The
apostle was able to preach here only a few weeks, yet even in this
short time a Christian community was formed there. But a tumult
occasioned by the Jews compelled Paul soon to flee from Thessalon-
ica, and to go to Athens by Berea, to which latter place his enemies
continued to follow him (Acts xvii. 13). His companions, Silas and
Timothy, he had left behind him at Berea, but soon called upon
them to follow him to Athens, probably that he might obtain intel-
ligence of the churches in Macedonia (Acts xvii. 15). However, he
immediately dispatched Timothy to Thessalonica, in order that he
might establish in the faith that young and hardly pressed commu-
VoL. III.— 28

434 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

nity (1 Thess. iii, 1). In the meantime the apostle, after the dis-
missal of Timothy, left Athens, where he does not appear to have
laboured long, and returned to Corinth (Acts xviii. 1). Here he
met with the famous Jewish family of Aquila and Priscilla, which
had been expelled from Rome by Claudius ; and as Aquila practised
the same handicraft which Paul had learned, the latter undertook
to work with him, and since his preacliing produced great effect, re-
mained there a year and a half. By means of the fact here men-
tioned, the expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Claudius, we also
obtain pretty exact information with respect to the dale of Paul's
residence at Corinth ; it must have been in the years of our Lord
54 and 55. During his stay at Corinth, it would appear that the
apostle commenced his labours as a writer, at least nothing remains
to us of any letters which he may previously have indited. In fact,
when Timothy had returned from his mission to Thessalonica, Paul
wrote his First Epistle to the Thessalonians, and soon afterwards
the Second, likewise from Corinth. All his apostolical epistles
belong, therefore, to the later and more mature period of his life, a
circumstance which is certainly not to be regarded as accidental.

After the lapse of a year and a half Paul left Corinth in the
company of Aquila and Priscilla, in order to go up to Jerusalem to
keep a vow (Acts xviii, 18). In his voyage he touched at Ephesus,
without, however, being able to make any long stay there, as he
wished to be at Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost. At the same
time he promised to return thither as soon as possible ; and, in ac-
cordance with this promise, immediately after a brief sojourn in
Jerusalem (his fourth visit to that city, see Commentary on Acts
xviii. 22) and in Antioch, he set off again to proceed to Ephesus ;
this forms the commencement of his third missionary journey (about
A.D. 57). The apostle continued in this important city two years
and three months, and wrote from hence in the first place to the
Galatians (perhaps as early as a.d. 57, certainly not later than the
beginning of 58); he had visited them on his journey to Ephesus,
and had perhaps, even on this occasion, remarked sundry errors, or
at all events had soon after heard of such. Next the apostle began
his correspondence with the Corinthian church, writing likewise from
Ephesus, in consequence of the unfavourable accounts which he had
received of them also. The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians
is lost (1 Cor. V. 9), but after it was sent, new reports arrived from
Corinth, which caused the apostle to send thither Timothy and
Erastus (1 Cor. iv. 17, etc.. Acts xix. 22), and immediately after-
wards he composed the first epistle to the Corinthians which is yet
extant. The writing of this letter may be referred to a.d. 59, or
the commencement of 60. Scarcely, however, had Paul finished
this letter, when the goldsmith Demetrius stirred up a tumult

GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 435

against him in Ephesus, in consequence of wliicli lie was obliged to
flee. The apostle proceeded by Troas to Macedonia, fuU of desire
to receive more exact information concerning the state of things in
Corinth. When he had received this from Timothy and Titus, who
came directly from Corinth, he wrote about a.d. 60, the second epis-
tle to the Corinthians. Titus conveyed this letter to Corinth ; and
the apostle himself journeyed after him slowly through Achaia, to
the same city. During this his second stay in Corinth, Paul found
occasion to write to the Komans, which he must have done as early
as in the year 60, shortly before his departure from Corinth, since in
Komans xv. 25, 26, he makes mention of the charitable collections
made for the Christians in Jerusalem, as well as of the journey he
had in prospect. This journey to Jerusalem, his ffth, the apostle
accomplished by sailing from Philippi in Macedonia to the coasts of
Asia Minor, then proceeding to Syria, and from thence visiting
Jerusalem (Acts xx. 3, etc.) As early as the tenth day after his
arrival there, he was taken into custody, on the occasion of an up-
roar of the people, and remained (from a.d, 60 to 62) two years in
prison at Csesarea. When, however, Pontius Festus was made Pro-
consul of Syria in the room of Felix, he sent the apostle to Kome,
on his appealing to Ceesar. On his voyage to Rome, Paul was
shipwrecked upon the island of Malta, and did not reach Eome, in
consequence, until the beginning of the year 63 (Acts xxv-xxvii.)
Here he remained two years (from 63 to 65) in a mild imprisonment
(Acts xxviii. 30), and composed in this period the Epistles to the
Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, and the Philippians.*

The question concerning the date of the composition of the
three pastoral epistles, as well as that concerning the apostle's
second imprisonment and the time of his death at Eome,f which
is so closely connected with it, we leave here, as already re-
marked, untouched ; inasmuch as the special introduction to these
epistles, which form, as it were, a little whole of themselves, wiU
furnish us with a more suitable opportunity for the discussion of
these points. We reserve also the more detailed exposition of our
reasons for the place which we have assigned to each of the epistles
for the special introductory observations on those epistles ; and,
finally, we explain them in the order followed by the ordinary edi-
tions, since the plan of beginning with the Epistle to the Romans

* The view which has quite recently been put forward by several scholars, and espe-
cially by Bottger (Beitrage, ii.), that those epistles which have hitherto been attributed
to the period of Paul's first captivity at Eome might have been written during his cap-
tivity at Caesarea, we shall consider more at length in our introductions to these epistlea,
adducing the reasons by which it is supported, and our objectibns to it.

f Amongst the most recent investigators, Bleek declares himself decidedly for the as-
sumption of a second imprisonment, in his review of Mayerhoff's work, in the Studien,
1836. H. iv. p. 1028.

436 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

affords many advantages towards tlie doctrinal exposition of the
rest, and if any one should prefer to study Paul's epistles in their
chronological order, nothing would interfere with his subjecting
them to a more accurate consideration, according to the assigned
order, because every composition, with its commentary, forms a little
whole. If any important changes could be pointed out in the
course of Paul's spiritual advancement, it would certainly be the
preferable plan to expound his epistles in their chronological order :
but as this, as we have already seen, is not the case, it appears to us
much better to follow the ordinary arrangement. In observing this
order, we have, first of all, the opportunity, in the Epistle to the
Romans, of considering in their connexion the central ideas of Paul's
doctrinal system, presented, so to speak, in a doctrinal compen-
dium. A number of passages in Paul's other epistles thus receive
their explanation by anticipation, while it would be difficult to ex-
plain them at all if the Epistle to the Romans had not previously
been interpreted. On the other hand, in the Epistles to the Corin-
thians Paul's principles of practice are developed, and the external
relations of the apostolical church are discussed with so much ac-
curacy that, by their help, much light is thrown upon many passages
in the smaller epistles. Such being the peculiar nature of the
larger epistles of Paul, we are persuaded that every connected ex-
position of the apostolical writings will best begin with them, because
only on this plan can the riches of Paul's ideas be properly unfolded
in all their different relations, and without repetition.

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS,

INTRODUCTION.'

§ 1. Of the Genuineness and the Integrity of the Epistle.

The authenticity of Paul's Epistle to the Christians of Kome
is warranted by such a completeness of evidence, both internal
and external, that no one could think of denying, on any sys-
tem of impartial criticism, its claim to be the composition of
the apostle. Nor, indeed, did any one in all antic[uity dispute
its genuineness ; for, while it is true that the Judaists and all
Judaising sects make no use of Paul's Epistle to the Eomans
(as also of his other epistles), the reason is not that they consider it
spurious, but, on the contrary, that they see in it a genuine produc-
tion of that apostle whom they regard as the greatest enemy of
Judaism, and an apostate from the truth. Even the searching
criticia n of later German theology has left this epistle altogether
unassailed ; an Englishman of the name of Evanson alono has, in
his work against the Gospels, cursorily expressed his doubts as to
the genuineness of the Epistle to the Kpmans also. His grounds,
however, are of such a kind that no better testimony in favour of
its genuineness need be desired than the fact that arguments of
this quality are the only ones which can be brought against it. The
silence of the Acts of the Apostles as to this epistle, the existence
of a great Christian community at Rome before an apostle had been
there, and the numerous greetings to the church of Rome at a time
when Paul had not yet visited it — such are the chief points which
appear to Evanson to render the genuineness of the epistle ques-
tionable. (Compare Reiche's Comm. p. 20, seq.)

The case is different as to the integrity of the epistle ; this has
been very often called in question, and especially in modern times.
All the more ancient witnesses, however — ^fathers of the church,
versions, and MSS. — regard it as a connected whole ; for Mar-
cion's copies cannot be made to tell on the other side, inasmuch

* For the introduction to the Epistle to the Romans, compare, among earlier writers,
J. L. Rambach's Introductio Hist Theologica in Ep. Pauli ad Romanos. Halae, 1730.
In the most recent times, it has been most fullj and learnedly treated \>j Eeiche, in his
Conomentary, pp. 1-106.

440 INTRODUCTION.

as he treated the Epistles no less capriciously than the Gospels ;
and Tertullian's quotation of the passage xiv. 10, as contained in
the "clausula epistolae" (Adv. Marcion v. 14) cannot possibly be
used as evidence that he was not acquainted with the 15th and 16th
chapters, since the expression clausula is so general that it need
not be strictly limited to the last two chapters. The scholars of
later times, consequently, found themselves altogether restricted to
the department of what is termed the higher criticism — a depart-
ment in which it is not often that any very trustworthy results are
to be obtained.

Heumann* led the way, by asserting that the Epistle to the Ko-
mans properly ends with the chap, xi., and that chap. xii. is the
beginning of a new letter, which extends to chap. xv. This letter he
supposes to have been likewise addressed to the Romans, but not to
have been composed by Paul until after the completion of the first
and longer epistle, on occasion of reports which had in the meantime
reached him as to the moral laxity of the Romans. In the sixteenth
chapter, according to this view, are contained some further post-
scripts, which had been originally intended to accompany the first
letter. These, it is supposed, were written on the same parchment
with the two epistles, and thus the various parts came to be united.
This hypothesis, however, is so improbable that it has not been able
to make any way. Heumann's process of dividing this epistle
might, with equal reason, be applied in separating the doctrinal from
the ethical part in every other of Paul's writings. In the passage xii.
1, the particle ovv is evidently a mark of transition from the preceding
to the following portion ; and so the a/x^'v at the end of chap. xi. is
clearly not the termination of the epistle, but merely the doxology
with which Paul very appropriately concludes the doctrinal portion.

The integrity of the epistle was attacked in a different way by
J. F. Semler, according to whom it is only in chaps, xv. and xvi.
that an incongruity with the Epistle to the Romans is to be traced. f
The grounds on which he relies, however, are, for the most part, of
no greater weight than those which had been advanced by Heumann.
Still, there is some plausibility in Semler's manner of turning to
account the mention of Aquila and Priscilla's family (xvi. 3, seq.).
These persons, it is observed, were still at Ephesus when the first
Epistle to the Corinthians was written (1 Cor. xvi. 19) ; since, then,
Paul wrote to the Romans soon after the date of his Epistle to the
Corinthians, there cannot, in Semler's opinion, have been time

* Comp. Heumann's ErkL des N. Test. vol. vii. p. 537, seq.

f Semler de duplici appendice epistolae Pauli ad Romanos, Halae, 1767. He supposes
chap. xvi. to be a list of persons to be saluted by the bearer of the letter on his way from
Corinth to Home, and chap, xv., in like manner, to bo a separate production, intended not
K) much for the Romans as for all brethren who might be mot with on the way.

INTRODUCTION. 441

enough for Aquila first to travel to Kome, and afterwards to send
accounts of himself to the apostle at Corinth — which he must be
supposed to have done, as we find Paul informed that Aquila had
again a church in his house. (Rom. xvi. 5.) The case, however, is
quite intelligible, if we suppose that Aquila left Ephesus suddenly,
and that he sent an early report of his new circumstances in Eome
to the apostle at Corinth ; for it is impossible to determine exactly
by months the dates of the epistles in question, while, even with
the slow means of communication which the ancients possessed, a
few months would be sufficient for the journey from Ephesus to
Rome and back. In any case, a circumstance of this nature cannot
be a sufficient argument to justify Semler's theory. But when
this learned writer proceeds to make it a difficulty that several
places of Christian assembly are mentioned as existing in Rome (xvi.
5, 14, 15), it appears to us that an exactly opposite inference would
be more legitimate. In a vast capital, the resort of all the world,
such as Rome was, the necessity of places of assembly in various
quarters of the city would surely become manifest on the very first
formation of a church ; and, in like manner, the numerous saluta-
tions (xvi.) to a church which Paul had not yet visited, may be
easily explained from the character of the city, which was continu-
ally receiving visHors from every corner of the world, and in turn
sending out travellers into all countries. Hence the apostle may not
have been acquainted, except by reputation, with many of the per-
sons who are named ; and yet may have sent his greeting to them,
because he felt himself most intimately connected with them by the
bond of the same faith.

These objections to Semler's hypothesis hold good also against
the kindred view of Dr. Paulus,* who is of opinion that chap. xv. is
a special epistle to the more enlightened Christians of Rome, and
that chap, xvi. is addressed to the governors of the church only.
Every letter to a church, he observes, would, as a matter of course,
in the first instance, be put into the hands of the presbyters, who
read it in public, and delivered the greetings which it contained :
it could not be at once given to the whole community. But it does
not necessarily follow from this remark that the portion which con-
tains the greetings was addressed to the presbyters exclusively of
the churcJi in general, and consequently, cannot be regarded as an
integral part of the epistle ; and while, in like manner, we allow
that in chap. xv. the apostle writes in part with an especial regard
to the more advanced members of the Roman church, still this cir-
cumstance by no means obliges us to consider that chapter a letter

* First set forth in a programme (Jena, 1801) ; afterwards in his Erklarung dea Rsmer*
und Galaterbriefe (Heidelberg, 1831).

44b2 introduction.

by itself, inasmuch as the less advanced believers are not excluded
from a share in its instruction.

Most recently the genuineness of the last tvfo chapters has been
again denied by Baur (Stud. 1836. No. iii.) He supposes that
a later writer of Paul's school attempted to effect a compromise
between his party and the Judaisers, who were predominant in
Bome ; and that, with this view, he endeavours, by annexing these
two chapters, to soften what was offensive in the epistle. The
only evidence offered for the theory is of the internal kind — e. g.,
that chap. xv. 1-3 contains matter which has already been far better
expressed in chap. xii. — xiv. But against this it has already been
remarked, by Kling (Stud., 1837. No. ii. p. 309), that, while in
chap. XV. 1-13 there is a recurrence of ideas similar to some which
had before been treated, they are reproduced with ingenious and
spirited modifications, in entire accordance with the apostle's usual
practice. It is alleged further, that the phrase dtuKovog rTi<; nepiTo-
liT]q (xv. 8), is not in Paul's manner ; that, in xv. 14, seq., the cap-
tatio benevolentice seems unworthy of the apostle ; and, lastly, that
the mention of Illyria and Spain, in xv. 17-24, must be a spurious
insertion. These points I have already discussed at length in my
essay against Baur (Stud. 1838. No. iv.) and they will be more
particularly considered in the commentary on the several passages.
I shall only observe further, that the first words of chap. xv. are of
themselves sufficient to render Baur's supposition altogether im-
probable. The expression i^^ng ol dwaroij lue the strong, charac-
terizes the Gentile Christians as the more liberal and enlightened
party ; surely a follower of Paul, writing for the purpose of concili-
ating the Judaisers, could not have made choice of a more inappro-
priate phrase. Moreover, Baur's idea of a Judaising tendency in
the Eoman church requires us to assume that the presbyters too
were members of the Judaising party ; but how can it be supposed
that, in such circumstances, a disciple of Paul could add a forged
appendage to the apostle's letter ? Baur's hypothesis, then, ap-
pears to be merely the work of a misdirected acuteness and an unre-
strained hyper-criticism, and will, therefore, never be able to estab-
lish itself*'

We must notice, finally, the attempts of Eichhorn, Griesbach,
and Flatt,! to explain the different positions of the concluding
doxology, and its relation to the various forms of conclusion which

* Bottger, in his Beitrage, Supplem. Gottingen, 1838, pp. 17, seq., also declares him-
self against Baur's theory.

\ Eichhorn, Einleit. ins N. T., vol. iii., Griesbach, Curoc in historiam textus Gr. epis-
tolanim Paul!, p. 45. Flatt, in the appendix to his Erklarung des Romerbriefs. Schulz
has lately maintained that chap. xvi. does not properly belong to the Epistle to the
Romans, but may have been perhaps intended for Ephesus. (Comp. Stud, und Kritiken,
for 1829, No. ui. pp. 309, seq.)

INTRODUCTION. 443

occur after xiv. 23. These writers assume, althougli witli various
modifications, that Paul ended his epistle on the large parch-
ment at xiv. 23, and that the rest was written on smaller pieces,
which were afterwards shifted and arranged in different ways. Thia^
hypothesis, it must be allowed — especially as stated by Eichhorn —
explains all the critical difficulties which occur in the last chapters.
Still, it is not to be denied that it has somewhat of a far-fetched
and strained character, and therefore we could wish to dispose of
these difficulties by some easier and simpler solution. J. E. Chr.
Schmidt (in his Introduction) supposed that this easier explanation
was found in assuming the spuriousness of the doxology ; and this
supposition has lately been stated by Keiche in a manner which in
fact renders it very plausible. If, he observes, the circumstances of
the case be closely examined, the difficulties of the last chapters are
all in reality to be traced to this doxology. But, in the first place,
it is altogether wanting in some MSS. (especially in F); while in
others, such as D and G, it is struck out by a later hand. Then,
it is found in the MSS. in three different places ; (1) at the end, in
B, C, E, and several other critical authorities ; (2) after xiv. 23, in
the codex J, and in almost all such MSS. as are written in small
letters ; and (3), in loth places, as particularly in the codex A.
That such differences are very ancient, is remarked by Origen in his
commentary on the epistle ; though he does not state that he was
acquainted with copies which had the doxology in both places. Oil
the other hand, Jerome (on Ephes. iii. 5) knew of copies in which
the doxology was altogether wanting. Keiche, then, supposes that
the reading of the epistle in the public assemblies of the early Chris-
tians probably extended only as far as xiv. 23, since little that is of
an edif)4ng kind follows in the after part of the epistle. In order
that the conclusion in this place might not be without a benedic-
tion, he supposes that the doxology was first added in copies which
were used in church ; that it was originally moulded after the dox-
ology at the end of Jude's epistle, and was afterwards gradually
extended, until at length it was placed, as a full-sounding form, at
the conclusion of the whole epistle. To give this view additional
support, its learned author endeavours to show that the substance
of the doxology itself does not indicate Paul as the writer. He
considers it inflated, overladen, obscure as to the connexion of the
ideas, and merely made up from Pauline forms. But precisely here
seems to me to be the weak side of Keiche's theory. The spurious-
ness of the doxology would appear to me probable in the highest
degree, but for its intrinsic quality. In this opinion concur Schott
(Einl. p. 250), KoUner and Fritzsche in their commentaries ; the last-
named expositor, in particular, may be considered to have settled
the question by his excellent defence of the doxology (vol. i. pp. 38

444 INTRODUCTION.

seq.) The very commencement, toJ de dwafiivi^ v [idg arript^at Kara
TO evayjEXiov [lov^ k. t. A., is enough to make the assumption of its
spuriousness exceedingly questionable. If the passage had origin-
ated in the way which Keiche points out, we might expect to find
it a simple doxology, and in all likelihood a short one ; but here
the personal relations of Paul and of his readers are distinctly
marked. He addresses them, speaks of himself in the first person,
expresses ideas peculiar to himself exactly in the manner usual with
him, and yet so that the doxology as a whole appears altogether
new, and without a parallel in the Pauline epistles. Such an addi-
tion would hardly have been ventured on by one of the clergy who
wished merely to supply a good conclusion for the public reading.

I cannot, therefore, regard the doxology as spurious, and am
rather disposed to adopt Eichhorn's view,* although not insen-
sible to its partly far-fetched character ; it has the merit of solv-
ing the difiiculties, and hence is to be adhered to until some-
thing more deserving of commendation shall be discovered. But
at all events, it is established that the various positions of the dox-
ology is the only subject to be discussed, and that this subject has
no connexion with any question as to the matter of the last two
chapters. The Epistle to the Romans, consequently, is not only
genuine, but it has also descended to us in a state of completeness,
without mutilation or addition.

§ 2. Time and Place of the Composition.

The Epistle to the Eomans, dictated by Paul to a person named
Tertius (xvi. 22), and sent by the hands of the deaconess Phoebe
(xvi. 1), contains such decisive indications as to the time and the
place of its composition, that there has been little difierence of
opinion on these points, whether in earlier or more modern times.
The only difiorence which can be properly said to afiect the subject,
belongs to the general chronology of the apostle's life. Dr. Paulus,
of Heidelberg, indeed, has (in the two publications already referred
to) proposed the novel opinion, that the epistle must have been
written in lilyria, because the writer states xv. 19, that he had tra-
velled from Jerusalem unto Illyricum ; but it is very evident that

* The opinion of Koppe and Gabbler, that the transposition of the concluding dox-
ology is to be traced to the ecclesiastical use of the epistle, would not be undeserving of
attention, if a suflBcient probability could be made out for the annexation of the doxology
to chap. xiv. "While chap. xv. has a good termination, it must still be very forced to sup-
pose the final doxology transferred from the end of the epistle, not to chap. xv. but to
chap. xiv. If chap. xvi. were omitted, it is most likely that the doxology would also have
been given up with it.

INTRODUCTION. 445

the apostle, in tliat passage, intends to name Illyricum only as the
furthest point westward to which he had at the time penetrated,
and not as the country in which he was at the moment of writing.
An equally extravagant view as to the time when the epistle was
written has been proposed by Tobler,* who maintains, on the ground
of the apostle's extensive acquaintance with the Christians of Eome,
that it should probably be referred to a date later than his first im-
. prisonment. But it is at once manifest what a violent construction
this supposition would require us to put on such passages as i. 9,
and XV. 23, in which the apostle plainly declares that he had not yet
been at Eome. The ordinary view, then, which regards the epistle
as written from Corinth, during the visit which Paul paid to that
city after having been driven from Ephesus, and having travelled
through Macedonia — is the only one which has the advantage of
accounting easily and naturally for all the passages in which he
speaks of himself, his journeys, and his undertakings. Thus, in 1
Cor. xvi. 1, he mentions an intention of going from Corinth to Jeru-
salem with a collection ; and we find from Kom. xv. 25, that he pur-
posed to set out on this journey immediately after despatching his
epistle to Kome. Aquila and Priscilla, who were still at Ephesus
when Paul thence wrote his first Epistle to the Corinthians, had, at
the date of the present epistle, again arrived at Eome. (1 Cor.
xvi. 19 ; Eom. xvi. 3.) We find from Acts xix.21, that the apostle
intended to visit Eome after he should have accomplished his jour-
ney to Jerusalem about the business of the collection ; and in Eom.
XV. 28, he. speaks of the same design, only with the difference, that
his plan had been extended to the extreme west (xi'p/ia tt/^ duaew^-),
so as to embrace a visit to Spain. If, in addition to these chief
grounds, we take into consideration some coincidences in detail with
what we know otherwise of Paul's history, e. g., that he sends greet-
ings to the Christians of Eome from Caius (xvi, 23), a person men-
tioned in 1 Cor. i. 14, as then resident at Corinth ; that Erastus,
from whom he in like manner conveys greetings (xvi. 23), and whom
he styles oliiovofio^ rrig TroXewg {i. e. of the city in which he was writ-
ing) is also mentioned elsewhere as an inhabitant of Corinth (2 Tim.
iv. 20) ; that Phoebe, the bearer of the epistle, was a deaconness of
the church at Cenchrea, the port of Corinth — and other circum-
stances of a like kind — there can be no further doubt that the
Epistle of Paul* to the Eomans was written from Corinth during his
second visit to that city. And consequently, according to the system
of chronology which we have adopted, the time of its composition is
to be referred to about a.d. 59.

The circumstance that the epistle was written in Greece, and in

* Compare Tholuck's Comm. In trod. p. x. Tobler's view is refuted hj Flatt in a
programme which is inserted in Pott'a Sylloge Comment. voL ii.

446 INTRODUCTION.

an entirely Greek city, would at once render it highly probable that
it was composed in Greek ; and this idea is confirmed by the uni-
versal tradition of the ancient church, and by the style of the com-
position, which throughout appears to indicate an original. Indeed
both earlier and later writers have been almost unanimous in the
opinion that it was originally written in Greek, since Paul, as a na-
tive of Tarsus, must have had the command of that language, while
in Rome it was sufficiently diffused to be generally intelligible.
(Comp. Sueton. Claud, c. 4. Dialog, de Orator, c. 29. Juvenal, Sa-
tir. iv. 18.5, seqq.) Bolten, however (whose views have been adopted
by Bertholdt), has here, as in other cases, wasted his acuteness,
with a view of shewing that Paul probably composed the epistle in
Aramean — a notion which is surely, from the nature of the case,
the most improbable that could be conceived. We might even
rather suppose, with Hardouin, that it was originally written in
Latin, and that it is still preserved to us in the ancient form in the
Vulgate, if it were not too evident that this supposition is intended
merely to enhance the glory of the version received in the Roman
Catholic Church. So manifest is this, that the futility of the opin-
on has been shown even by some more liberal members of the au-
thor's own communion.

§ 3. Of the Roman Church.

The circumstances under which the Roman church was formed,
and the date of its origin, are involved in a darkness which could
only be dissipated by the discovery of ancient documents hitherto
unknown — a discovery which we can now hardly venture to hope for.
At the time when Paul wrote to the Romans, there already ex-
isted in the capital of the world, a church so considerable that
it was spoken of throughout the world (i. 8), and required sev-
eral places of assembly in the various quarters of the city (xvi).
The Church of Rome cannot have been founded by an apostle, for
in that case Paul would neither have addressed it by letter nor have
visited it in person, since it was a general principle with him, as is
expressly stated in this very epistle (xv. 20), to avoid interference
with the work which had been already begun by another apostle :
and when, in addition to this, we find in the Acts no mention of an
apostle's having been at Rome, we may fairly reject the assertion,
which originated early, and has long been maintained by the Rom-
ish Church, that Peter was the founder of the Church of Rome.*
On the other hand, the presence of Peter in Rome at a later time,

* It is surprising that even some Protestant writers, such as Bertholdt and Myaster,
can have acquiesced in this altogether unsupported notion o£ the founding of the Roman
Ckurch bj Peter.

INTRODUCTION. 447

and his martyrdom there, are facts so well attested by historical
evidence that they oug!it never to have been questioned.* In the
first place, Cains, the well-known Koman presbyter, and zealous op-
ponent of the Montanists, states that in his time (towards the end
of the second century), the graves of the apostles were pointed out
at Kome. "When it is considered that he wrote in Rome itself, and
that he is particular in mentioning the localities (viz., on the Vati-
can, and on the road to Ostia), it is inconceivable that there should
be a mistake in this statement, since thousands must at once have
confuted him. If the apostles died at Rome, and that by public
execution, their death, and the place where their bodies rested could
not possibly have remained concealed ; if they did not die there, it
is impossible to account for so early an origin of the tradition that
they died there, unless we suppose the whole church to have con-
sisted of mere deceivers ; and, moreover, there must, in that case,
have been some other discoverable statement as to the place of Pe-
ter's death, since the most celebrated of the apostles could surely
not disappear without leaving some trace. But even allowing Caius
to be no valid witness, because he was a Roman presbyter, and
might have been desirous to enhance the lustre of his church by the
alleged fact, no such exception can be taken to Dionysius, Bishop
of Corinth, who lived half a century earlier, and, although inter-
ested in like manner for the church of Corinth, yet plainly witnesses
that the two great apostles died, not in bis own city, but in Rome.
(Comp. the passages of the two fathers in Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 25.)
To these testimonies add those of Irenaeus {adv. Hcer. iii. 1, in Eu-
seb. Hist. Eccl. V. 8), Clement of Alexandria (in Euseb. Hist. Eccl.
ii. 14, 15 ; vi. 14), and of the critical Origen, who, like others,
refers the martyrdom of Peter and Paul to Rome.f (Euseb. H. E.
iii. 1.)

As, then, the apostles must have died somewhere, and no other
city of antiquity claims the honour of their death, there is really
no sufficient ground for doubting the account which is thus ac-
credited.

* The question has lately been again raised by Baur, in his essay on the party " of
Christ" at Corinth {Tubing. Zeitschr. 1831, No. iv.), and even Neander appears to have
been shaken by his reasoning, (Apost. Zeitalter, ii. 459, seqq.) To me, however, Baur's
grounds seem altogether insuflQcient, and I consider the death of Peter at Rome a fact
not to be denied. In this judgment Bleek agrees (Stud, for 1836, No. iv. pp. 1061, seqq.)
I have examined the matter more fully in a separate essay against Baur's hypothesis {S(ud.
1838, No. iv.) "Winer, on the other hand (Reallex. new ed. Art. Petrus) considers the
accounts to be at least doubtful

\ Reiche {loc. cit. p. 40), Note 8, doubts whether the account in Eusebius ought to bp
referred to Origen ; but the concluding words of the chapter raOra 'ilpiyivei Kara Atftv,
K. r. A., evidently apply to the whole relation. We could, at the utmost, only doubt (with
Valesius) whether the words from Ow/idf fuv, k. t. ?.., be Origen's ; from Uirpoc 6e k r. A.
they are certainly his.

448 INTRODUCTION.

Still, however, we get from this no light as to the origin of the
Roman church. For even although the Apostle Peter be styled by
Caius and Dionysius the founder of the church of Rome, the ex-
pression refers, obviously, not to the original foundation of the com-
munity, but to its enlargement and more complete establishment by
him ; and in this sense Paul also is always named with him as joint
founder of the church in Rome. We are, therefore, wholly left to
conjecture on this point ; and perhaps the most likely way of ac-
counting for the formation of this body may be, to suppose that a
knowledge of Christianity was early conveyed to the capital by trav-
ellers, if not even by the Romans who were present at the feast of
Pentecost (Acts ii. 10), and that through the influence of these per-
sons a church was gradually formed there. For if any one decidedly
prominent individual had been the only agent in the foundation of
the Roman church, it is more than probable that his name would
have been preserved. And, again, the lively intercourse which Rome
kept up with all parts of the empire, renders it equally inconceivable
that Christians should Qot early have come to the capital from An-
tioch or Jerusalem ; and if they came, their zeal would have also
led them to preach the word there.

We have not, however, any certain trace of the existence of a
Christian community in Rome earlier than the present epistle. For
whether (as many have supposed, and as appears to myself proba-
ble^, Aquila and Priscilla were already Christians at the time of
their banishment from Rome by the edict of Claudius, is a point
incapable of proof, since the passage. Acts xviii. 1-3, does not ex-
pressly state it ; although, if we consider that otherwise their
conversion would surely have been related, it can hardly be well
doubted that this family brought its Christian faith from Rome
with it.

But, even if it were not so, still it is evident that a community
BO considerable as that of Rome appears from Paul's epistle to have
been, could not have come into existence all at once, but required
Bome time for its formation ; and for this reason, if for no other, we
must refer the foundation of the church to a period much earlier
than the date of the epistle.

There is, however, a difficulty in reconciling this supposition
(which the contents of the epistle to the Romans oblige us to adopt),
with the narrative of Luke at the end of the Acts, where it is stated
that Paul, on arriving in Rome, sent for the elders of the Jews who
lived there, and related to them the cause of his being a prisoner,
to which they are represented as answering, that they had not re-
ceived any letters concerning him, but that, as to the sect of the
Christians, they begged him to give them some information, since
they had only heard that it was everywhere spoken against (Acta

INTRODUCTION. 449

xxviii, 17-22). From this it would appear that no church could
then have existed in Rome, since otherwise it would seem incon-
ceivable that the Jews should not have been aware of its existence.
This conclusion was actually drawn by Tobler {Theol. Aufs. Ziirich,
1796), who, in consequence of it, referred the composition of the
epistle to the latest period of Paul's life — an opinion which is, of
course, altogether untenable (as has already been observed), but
which has some excuse in the difficulties of this yet unexplained
passage, since it certainly removes them. If it be supposed (with
Tholuck and Reiche) that the Jews may have concealed their knowl-
edge of the matter, it is impossible to see why they should have
done so. A man so dangerous as Paul must have appeared from a
Jewish point of view, would surely have been met at once by them
with open opposition. But this supposition becomes yet more im-
probable on a more particular consideration of the sequel, as related
in the Acts. For we find that at their next meeting with Paul, the
chiefs of the Roman Jews appear really unacquainted with the sub-
ject of the gospel ; it is evident that they hear it for the first time,,
and the announcement of it raises, as was usual, a contention among;
their own number — some assenting to it, and others opposing it j
and surely it is impossible to suppose this contention feigned. Hence
we might suppose that the church may have been entirely broken
up by the persecutions of Claudius (Sueton. Claud, c. 24), and that
its subsequent gathering may have been so gradual that the fevx
Christians who were at Rome when Paul arrived there were un-
known to the Jews of the capital.* I had myself formerly declared
in favour of this opinion (Comm. on Acts xxviii. 17, seqq., 1st ed»);
but it furnishes no escape from the difficulty, since the date of the
Epistle to the Romans falls in the interval between the persecution
of the Jews, under Claudius, and Paul's visit to Rome, and the
epistle supposes the existence of a Jlourishing church ; it is there-
fore impossible that, at the later period there can have been but a
small number of Christians in Rome, as the community was already
so numerous at an earlier time.

There is, however, the greater reason for desiring a solution of
the difficulty, because thus light would be thrown on the relation of
the Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome — a subject of so great
importance for the explanation of the whole epistle. For that there
were Christians in Rome when Paul arrived there, appears (if indeed
it yet require any proof), from Acts xxviii. 15, where it is related

* There had been an expulsion of the Jews from Rome as early as the reign of Tibe-
rius. (C£ Sueton Tib. c. 36. Tacit. Ann. ii. 85; Joseph. Arch, xviii. 4, 15.) Perhaps
the passage of Suetoniue about the expulsion of the Jews in the time of Claudius may
indicate also an expulsion of the Christians, who would not at first be sufficiently distin-
guished from the Jews.

Vol. III.— 29

450 INTRODUCTION.

that brethren went fis far as Forum Appii and Tres Tabernao to
meet the apostle ; nor is there any conceivable reason why the
Christians of Rome should have become fewer at the time of Paul's
arrival than they were at the date of the epistle, since (in so ftir as
we know) nothing had happened in the meantime to disturb them ;
and yet it would appear that the chiefs of the Jewish community in
Rome knew nothing of the Christians. This indicates a peculiar
relation between Gentiles and Jews, Gentile and Jewish Christians,
in Rome, and so leads to the important question — What loas the
character of the church of Home, or ivhat may have been the tenden-
cies existing in it when Paul wrote ? a question closely coinciding
with the inquiry as to the occasion and object of the epistle, since
the epistle is the only source from which we can derive our informa-
tion as to the tendencies which, in the earliest times, were prevalent
in that church.

Now in the Epistle to the Romans itself there is no special cause
assigned for its being written.* Paul merely mentions (i. 9 seqq. ;
XV. 15, seqq.) his desire to preach the gospel, as to the Gentiles in
general, so especially to the inhabitants of Rome, as being the cap-
ital of the heathen world ; whence it would simply appear that his
object in writing his epistle was of quite a general kind. Notwith-
standing this, it has often been attempted to point out particular
causes, and thus also particular objects, for the sending of the epistle
to the Romans. It has been supposed by many writers, and some
of them highly distinguished, that the only, or, at least, the most
important object was to mediate between contending parties in
Rome, especially the Gentile and the Jewish Christians. Others
find in the epistle a controversial design against Jews or Jewish
Christians ; while others again suppose that Paul wished to guard
against the abuse of his doctrine as to grace, or that he meant to
oppose, the Jewish spirit of insurrection. All these views, however
(as to which more particular information maybe gathered from Reiche,
pp. 75 seqq.), on closer consideration appear untenable ; the whole ex-
hibition of doctrine in the epistle is purely objective in its character,
nor is there, except in passing, any intentional and conscious regard
to anything save the truth of the gospel. But it is, of course, in
the very nature of truth that it stands in opposition to all errors,
and thus far such opposition appears also in the Epistle to the
Romans ; and, moreover, it was a part of the apostle's wisdom as a
teacher, that he so represents in advance the doctrine of the gospel
that the statement itself may be a safeguard against the errors

* Dr. Paulua takes a naif view of the matter, inferring from xv. 19 that the beautiful
appearance of Italy from the high coast of lUj'ria awakened in the apostle's mind a longing
for Rome. This aesthetic motive, however, is very problematical, inasmuch as (not to
mention other objections) it is well-known that Italy cannot be seen across the Adriatic-

INTRODUCTION, 451

which could not but fall iu the way of the Christians ; but besides
the endeavour to exhibit the gospel to the Christians of Rome in its
natural relation to the law, and in its practical results on life, it is
quite impossible to discover in the Epistle to the Romans a further
design to oppose the Jews, and to keep differences with them in view,
such as is clearly expressed in the Epistle to the Galatians.

The idea of differences between the Gentile and the Jewish
Christians at Rome, for the appeasing of which it is supposed that
the apostle's letter was intended, is, however, so widely prevalent,
that it is necessary for us to go into a more particular inquiry as to
this point.* This opinion may probably have at first been occa-
sioned by the obvious parallel between the Epistle to the Romans
and that to the Galatians ; and next by the idea, that on account
of the large body of Jews in Rome, there must also have been there
a great number of Jewish Christians ; and that if so, it is not to be
supposed but that the Roman community came in for a share of the
all-pervading contentions between Gentile and Jewish Christians.
But plausible as this conclusion may appear, it is evident that it
ought in the first place to be capable of historical proof ; not only,
however, is there an utter absence of such proof, but there are very
important reasons to the contrary. In the whole Epistle to the
Romans there is not a syllable which mentions disputes as to the
relations of the law and the gospel, such as those which prevailed
in Galatia. In xv. 7 seq., there is a faint hint that in the case of
the ascetics, towards whom the apostle had recommended a tender
course of dealing (ch. xiv.), the difference of Jewish Christians also
came into question ; and again, in xvi. 17-18, there is a warning
against such as might cause divisions ; but in xvi. 19 the Romans

* It has very recently been again proposed in a peculiar form by Baur (Stud. 1836,
No. 3), and Kling (Stud, 1837, No. 2) partly agrees with him. I have more fully con-
sidered the treatises of these two writers in an essay (Stud. 1838, No. 4), to which I
must here refer the reader, contenting myself with shortly characterizing the views of
Baur and KJing. Baur supposes the main part of the epistle to be, not ch. iii. — viii., but
the section ch. ix. — xL This portion, he argues, is intended to assert against the Jewish
Christians the universality of the Christian dispensation ; and he supposes that ch. iii. —
viii. were intended to lead to this conclusion, the object of those chapters being to quench
the jealousy of the Jews at the influx of Gentiles into the church, by showing that Jews
and Gentiles stand in the same relation with respect to Christianity. Thus it is sup-
posed that a Judaising spirit, opposed to Paul, had prevailed in Rome. Baur had pre-
viously endeavoured to prove this in the TiJbingcr Zeitschrift, 1831, No. 4, and he now
attempts to bring further evidence of it from the Acts, which book he supposes to have
been composed at Rome, for the purpose of defending Paul's course of operation against
the antipauline party ; a view of which I have already given my opinion in commenting
on the Acts. Kling is inclined to adopt Baur's views, to the extent of recognizing in the
epistle a controversial design against Jewish opinions ; but finds fault with him for con-
sidering the mass of the Roman church as Judaistic, instead of regarding the Judaisera
as only one element iu it, la the mass, he says (p. 320), the Roman church might
rather be considered as animated by a Gentile-Christian tendency.

452 INTRODUCTION,

are plainly described as yet free from such errors, so that it is only
the possibility of a disturbance of their peace that is contemplated.
All that could be said, therefore, is this, that, while the apostle's
argument is not openly directed to the subject of divisions, it is yet
so managed as to make us feel through it that he has a covert regard
to the two opposite systems.

If, however, the matter be so understood, it must also be allowed
that this feeling may very easily deceive, and by so much the more
because these possible divisions are not expressly represented as
origmating from the Judaising party. Where such difference ac-
tually existed, as in Galatia, Paul speaks out plainly respecting
them ; why, then, should he not do so in this case ? If he wished,
independently of any possible or existing errors, to set forth the
nature of the evangelical doctrine of salvation, he could not do so
otherwise than by representing the relation of this new element to
the two old systems of the Gentile and the Jewish life ; both
must, of course, give place to the gospel, and hence his mode
of conceiving the subject appears polemical. But that it is not
so, even in a covert, intentionally-concealed manner, is shown by
the notice in the Acts of Paul's appearance at Rome, which has
not been at all sufficiently brought to bear on the inquiry as to the
object of the Epistle to the Romans. If we conceive the state
of the church in Rome at the date of the epistle according ta the
common view, the history of Paul in that capital is utterly incom-
prehensible. It is supposed that the Roman church was divided
into two parties ; that the strict Jewish Christians wished still to
observe the Law of Moses, even outwardly, with circumcision, keep-
ing of the Sabbath, and the like ; that the Gentile Christians, on
the other hand, had freed themselves from it. Must we not, on this
supposition, necessarily assume that the Roman Jewish Christians
adhered to the synagogue in Rome ? As the Jewish Christians of
Jerusalem remained attached to the Temple, and did not renounce
the Jewish policy, so, too, the Jewish Christians of Rome could not
have separated themselves from the Synagogue. But now let us
read the narrative in Acts xxviii. 17, seq., which represents the
Christians as quite unknown to the rulers of the Roman synagogue,
and let us ask whether, according to this, the supposition just stated
has any appearance whatever of probability ? There is in that pas-
sage (as has already been remarked) no ground at all for supposing
an intentional concealment ; and if this cannot be assumed, we
are compelled to believe that the chiefs of the Jews really knew
nothing of the Christians in Rome. The speech of Paul (Acts
xxviii. 17-20) is evidently reported in an abridged form : he had
spoken in it of his belief in Christ, as is still indicated by the men-
tion of the hope -)f Israel (iXmg rov 'lapa-qX). On this, then, the

INTRODUCTION. 453

Jews declare that they are aware that this sect is everywhere spoken
against {nepl rTiq alp^aecog t av tt] g yvcjorov toriv 7'iiuv otl iravraxov
dvTiXeyETai). Do people speak thus of a sect which is before their
eyes — on whose struggles and contentions they are looking ? This
can hardly be made probable. And to this add the discussion which
follows with Paul (xxviii. 23, seq.), in which for a whole day he ex-
pounds the Scriptures to them, in order to prove the Messiahship of
Jesus, whereupon there arises a contention among the Jews them-
selves : — all which would, according to the common view, have been
sheer deception, since by that view the Jews must be supposed to
have known of Christ long before, and to have decided against him.*
It is only in the towns where there were not as yet any churches
that we find the Jews so free from prejudice as they here appear in
Rome ; where, on the other hand, they were already acquainted with
the gospel through the formation of a church, they did not allow
any expositions of doctrine by Christians. As, however, there must
yet have been a church in Rome, the question is, how we are to ex-
plain this remarkable position of the Jews towards it ?

The only possible explanation of this phenomenon — and it is one
which at the same time indicates the origin of the tendency which
we afterwards find in the Roman church — appears to be this.f It
must be assumed that the Christians of Rome were induced, by the
persecutions directed against the Jews under Claudius in the ninth

* This is decisive against the supposition of Meyer, that the Jews spoke only as oflQ-
cials, and in this capacity shewed an official reserve — that they merely meant to say that
nothing had been officially announced to them. But — besides that this is an evident
transferring of modern cu-cumstances to the ancient world— the disputes which arose
among tho Jews themselves in consequence of Paul's preaching will not allow us to ex-
plain the phenomena before us by the character of the official body of the Roman Jews.

f For the further establishment of this view, and the justification of it against the
attacks of Baur, I refer to my essay, already cited above, in the Studien for 1838, No. 4.
This only I remark here, that his appeal to Tacitus (Ann. xiv. 44), by way of proof that
the Christians were quite well known in Rome, is by no means adapted to decide the
question before us, since it is the Jews who are here spoken of as unacquainted with the
Christians, while Tacitus speaks of heathens ; moreover, it was only by means of the
rack that the heathens extorted the names of the members of the Christian community
in Rome: which evidently argues their concealed and retired condition. Khng (Stud.
1837, No. 2, p. 307, seq.) refutes, indeed, the capricious fancies of Baur, but himself re-
verts to the old untenable view, that the Jews of Rome only pretended to know nothing
of Christians there, in order to avoid disputes with them. That they wished to hear
Paul, is explained by Kling merely from the forward curiosity of Jews, which led them
to seek an opportunity of hearing a discourse from a famous rabbi. But it is unnecessary
to shew how unsatisfactory this representation is. The Jews of Rome evidently hear of
Christ for the first time ; they fall into disputes among themselves ; this, surely, cannot bo
pretencel Unless we suppose the Acts of the Apostles to be tinged with fiction (as
Baur maintains), there remains no other explanation than that hero proposed. Bottger's
explanation of the case is also extremely unsatisfactory. He supposes that the difficul-
ties are all of my own creation, and that in reality there are none. (Comp. Beitrage,
Supplem. p. 27, seq.)

454 INTRODUCTION.

year of his reign, to make their differences from the Jews dearly and
strongly apparent — perhaps in consequence of the influence which
even at that early time some disciples of Paul already exercised on
the Koman church ; exactly as at a later date the Christians of
Jerusalem separated themselves from the Jews, that they might not
he confounded with them, and might be allowed to live in MWa. If
disciples of Paul early acquired a decisive influence in Kome, we
shall also understand how it was that the apostle could regard the
Roman church as his own, and could open his correspondence with
it without invading another's field of labour. In consequence of this
persecution of the Jews, Aquila and Priscilla took refuge at Corinth;
and there they were found by the Apostle Paul (Acts xviii. 2), who,
without doubt, became even at that time acquainted, by means of
these fugitives, with the Roman church and its circumstances. On
this knowledge Paul, four or five years later, at the beginning of
Nero's reign, on his third missionary journey, wrote from Corinth his
epistle to Rome. There is little likelihood that any great number
of Jews can have ventured so early to return to Rome ; those who
returned were obliged to keep themselves in concealment, and it was
naturally the interest of the Christian community there to remain
as far as possible from them. Even three years later, when Paul
himself appeared in Rome, the body of the Jews there may still not
have been considerable — in part, too, it may not have been composed
of its old members, who had lived there before the persecution by
Claudius, but of altogether new settlers, who were unacquainted
with the earlier existence of a Christian church. And thus it might
come to pass within eight or ten years that the Christian community
at Rome appears entirely separated from the body of the Jews in
that city ; and in such a state of separation we find it, according to
the notice at the end of the Acts. As, according to the same nar-
ration, the Jews did not receive Paul, so that here also he found
himself obliged to turn to the Gentiles, this separation continued,
and thus there was gradually developed at Rome a directly anti-
Judaic tendency, which caused a prohibition of celebrating the
Sabbath, and of everything Jewish.* According, then, to this re-
presentation, it is altogether unlikely that there should have been
Jewish Christians in Rome from whom contentions with the Gentile
Christians could proceed. Christians of the former kind were in
the habit of keeping up the connexion with the synagogue, and if

* The latest expositor of the epistle, Dr. KoUner, supposes that Paul, during his im-
prisonment, sent for the chief of the Jews for the purpose of gaining them, and that
Luke did not intend to,give an account of his intercourse with the Christians. This,
However, is but an evasiou of the difficulty ; the real point is — how the behaviour of the
Jews which is in question can be conceivable, if in Rome itself there existed a Christian
community, in which there were Judaizing Christians. KoUner has advanced nothing
towards the solution of the difficulty.

INTRODUCTION. 455

BO, the chief persons of the synagogues could not be unacquainted
with the existence of a community which dechired him who was
crucified to be the Messiah. There might still have been Jews
by birth or proselytes among the members of the Roman church,
but these would, in that case, have altogether taken up the freer
Pauline view of the law, and have detached themselves from the
connexion of the synagogue. If, indeed, there were any decided
testimony for the fact that in Rome, as in Galatia, there existed
within the church itself a party of perverse Jewish Christians, the
view which has just been given, and which rests on the evidence
of history, might be combated with some appearance of justice ;
but there is no such testimony whatever. There is, as has been
observed, an utter absence of express statements on the subject in the
Epistle to the Romans ; for (as I have above remarked) xvi. 17,
seq., points only to a possible danger, and the proper doctrinal body
of the epistle (chap. iii. — viii.) treats the relation between law and
gospel in a purely objective way, without any reference to differ-
ences in the bosom of the church itself Chapters ix. — xi. are
evidently intended for Gentile Christians only, who also are through-
out exclusively addressed, and, lastly, chapters xii. and xiii. contain
wholly objective admonitions. There remain, consequently, only the
earlier and later chapters ; and in these very chapters the hints of
such contentions have been supposed to be found. In ch. ii., it is
said the subject is quite clearly the Jews, who are expressly ad-
dressed (ii. 17, 27), so that the epistle must also necessarily be sup-
posed to have been written to Jewish Christians ; in iii. 1, seq., the
advantages of the Jews are discussed, and, although in ch. xiv. the
mistaken freedom of Gentiles is reproved, yet it is in contrast with
Jewish scrupulous7iess, which, must, therefore, necessarily be also sup-
posed to have had certain representatives in the Roman church. To
the observations from the opening chapters, however, it is to be an-
swered, that Paul assuredly did not write to Jews, and yet it is
Jeivs and not Jewish Christians, who are addressed in the passages
ii. 17, 27 ; the address, therefore, is evidently not to be made a
foundation for inferences as to the character of the readers, but is
rather to be regarded as merely a rhetorical figure. Paul's object
in the first chapters is only to prove of both Gentiles and Jews that
they had need of Christ the Saviour ; but into these two elements
the whole world was divided, when regarded from the theocratic
point of view ; and thus, so far as Paul had an universal purpose
in writing his epistle, in so far was he obliged to contemplate
Christianity in its relation to the previously existing stages of re-
ligious life and culture, without giving us a ground for thence
deducing anything as to the composition of the Roman church.
Hence it was requisite that the advantages of the Jews also

456 INTRODUCTION.

should be discussed (iii. 1, seq.), inasmuch as if was necessary for
the Gentiles, even if they embraced Christianity without any inter-
mediate step, to understand their relation to the Old Testament
economy and to the people of Israel ; and, consequently, from a
discussion on these points nothing can be inferred for the existence in
Eome 'of Jewish Christians in the proper sense of the term — i. e., of
persons who not only were of Jewish descent (for in that sense Paul
himself would be a Jewish Christian), but who attached an exag-
gerated value to Jewish views, and adhered to the synagogue
and the temple. A more plausible evidence for the existence of
such a party at Eome is ch. xiv. — according to which, undoubt-
edly, there must have been in Eome a class of persons scrupu-
lous as to the law. It is, however, extremely improbable that
these were Judaisers of the ordinary kind, such as were found in
Galatia ; for the latter haji no scruple as to the eating of flesh in
general, but only the flesh of unclean animals ; whereas the Eoman
ascetics, on the other hand, disapproved of all use of am7nal/ood,
and lived wholly on herbs and fruits (xiv. 2). The whole question
as to the character of these persons, therefore, requires a closer ex-
amination, which we shall institute in the exposition of the passage;
at all events, however, we must not regard ch. xiv. as proving the
existence of Judaisers in Eome, since the description is not at all
suitable to them.

We regard, consequently, the hypothesis of an intended settle-
ment of dispute between Gentile and Jewish Christians in Eome as
wholly untenable ; and we find in the Epistle to the Eomans a purely
objective statement of the nature of the gospel, grounded only on
the general opposition between Jews and Gentiles, and not on the
more special opposition existing in the church itself, betioeen Juda-
ising and non-Judaising Christians.'^

§ 4. Argument of the Epistle.

With respect to the plan of the Epistle to the Eomans, two
extremes are to be avoided : frst, the view which represents the

* It were to bo desired that the terms Jewish and Gentile Christians were more care-
fully distinguished than they usually are from Judaising and non-Judaising Christians. It
is, indeed, certainly to be supposed that most of those who were Jews by birth retained,
even as Christians, a great attachment to the Jewish law, and that most of those who
were Gentiles by birth remained free from it as Christians ; yet, doubtless, there were also
many Jews by birth (and consequently Jewish Christians) who, as Christians, did not
Judaise ; and, in like manner, many of Gentile birth might have already, as proselytes,
been so strongly implicated in Judaism, that, even after becoming members of the Christ-
ian church, they maintained a Judaising tendency. The names of Jewish and Gentile
Christians, therefore, ought to be used only to signify descent, and the erroneous spiritual
twidency to be denoted by the epithet Judaising.

INTRODUCTION. 457

apostle as having written according to a most exactly elaborated
logical scheme ; and, secondly, the supposition that, without hav-
ing any settled design, he merely abandoned himself to his inward
impulses. Between the two views, the following appears obviously
the true and correct idea — that Paul had undoubtedly designed
a general plan for the epistle, but without having carried it into
detail. His epistle, consequently, has not the precision of a theo-
logical treatise, but preserves the freer form of a letter ; still, there
is expressed in it so determined and clear a train of thought that
he cannot have written it without any plan, and in mere obedi-
ence to the current of his feelings. For how different a shape such
an absolutely free and unpremeditated eftusion takes, we see, among
other instances, in the Epistle to the Ephesians. Owe leading idea,
the relation of Law and Gospel, is carried out so carefully by the
apostle, with the necessary preliminaries for understanding it, and
the most important consequences which result, that nothing what-
ever of essential importance can be pointed out as missing in his
statement. ■••'

The whole epistle falls under four divisions. The^rs^ part con-
tains the opening (i. 1-17), in which, after the salutation (1-7), is
given the Introduction to the following discussion (8-17). The last
two verses expressly state the theme for the whole epistle, viz., that
the gospel is a power of God, and in it is revealed the righteousness
from faith.

This idea is developed in the Second Part(\. 18 — xl. 36), which,
as being the doctrinal portion of the epistle, gives it its great im-
portance. It falls into^'ye sections, of which the^rs^ (i. 18 — iii. 20),
is a preparation for the deduction properly so called ; being devoted
to proving the universal sinfulness of all mankind, in order to mani-
fest the insufficiency of the law, both moral and ceremonial, and the
necessity of another way of salvation, the righteousness of faith.
First of all, the apostle proves the sinfulness of the Gentile world
(i. 18-32); next, he treats of the Jews more especially (ii. 1-29) ;
lastly, he further considers the relation of the Jews to the Gentiles,
and allows to the former great advantages in their calling, but de-
clares that they have forfeited these by their unfaithfulness ; where-
fore there is now no difference between Jews and Gentiles in their
relation to the gospel (iii. 1-20).

With the second section (iii. 21 — v. 11), the apostle enters
on the doctrinal exposition itself. Since the law, whether cere-
monial or moral, was not sufficient to render men righteous and

* Tbe view proposed by Baur (Stud. 1836. No. 3), that the main part of the epistle
consists, not of the section ch. iii. — viii., but of eh. ix. — xi., has been already noticed above.
The untenable character of this supposition has been shewn in my essay, already more
than once cited (Stud. 1838. No. 4), to which I now refer the reader.

458 INTRODUCTION.

holy before God, he has opened another way, namely this, that men
should become rigliteous and blessed through faith in Jesus, who is
set forth as a mercy-seat* (iii. 21-31). To the germs of this right-
eousness by faith, Paul points in the Old Testament, as far back
as the life of Abraham, who pleased God not by works of the law,
but by faith, which was imputed to him for righteousness (iv. 1-25),
This holy way, then, by which alone man in his sinful state can
attain to peace with God, has through the love of Christ been
manifested to all men ; for which cause we may not now glory save
in Christ only (1-11).

The third section indicates the internal necessary connexion of
this way of faith with the nature of man. As from Adam the stream
of sin poured itself forth over mankind, and hence every one who is
descended from him has fallen under sin — so from Christ does right-
eousness proceed, which he imparts to the faithful in the new birth.
The law, therefore, is intended only to make sin powerful, in order
that grace may become more powerful (ver. 12-21.) The same, there-
fore, which took place in Christ, has been accomplished in his people
also, seeing that all are in him, as they were in Adam. For this
cause, also, must not any one who has been incorporated into Christ
any longer serve sin ; for he has died in the old man, and, like a
woman who has been set free by the death of her husband, he has
become married to another husband, even Christ (vi. 1 — vii. 6).

After this follows, in the fourth section, the description of the
course of conversion in man (vii. 7 — viii. 39). From the first move-
ments of grace and the quickening of sin, the apostle portrays
the progress of the inner life up to the fully developed contest
between light and darkness in the soul, which at last is triumph-
antly ended by experience of the power of the grace of Christ (vii.
7-24). With this is connected the description of the life in grace
itself, and in the gradual growth therein, to the completeness and
perfection of the entire man in God (vii. 25 — viii. 17). Lastly, the
apostle passes from the perfection of the individual to that perfec-
tion of the whole, which is represented and assured in it ; and with
this is attained the purpose of the course of the world, since thus all
that was corrupted by the fall will be restored to its original purity
(viii. 18-39).

In the fifth section (ix. 1 — xi. 36), the apostle brings back his
readers to the peculiar relation in which, the Jews stand towards th«
Christian system of salvation. It is primarily intended for them;
and, nevertheless, they appear as if expressly shut out from it, and
the Gentiles as if called before the Jews. In consequence of this
relation, the apostle first unfolds the doctrine of election in generah
agreeably to the indications in the Old Testament, and shews that
* 'U.acT7}pLov, ver. 25. Propitiation, Eng. "er.

INTRODUCTION. 459

the holiness and blessedness of the creature are solely the work of
God's gracious election, and that the unholiness and damnation of
the creature are no less to be regarded as solely his own work (ix.
1-29). He then shews that it is the unfaithfulness of the Jews
which has hindered them from laying hold on the righteousjiess
which is by faith ; they had obstinately clung to the law as the way
of salvation, whereas Christ is the end of the law, and in him alone
dwelleth peace for Jews and Gentiles (ix. 30 — x. 21). And, lastly,
Paul opens the prospect, that even for the Jews a conversion to
Christ is yet to be expected. He points to the fact that a holy seed
has yet remained in the people, which will not be lost ; and then, in
bold prophetic glances, he passes on to the end of days, when Israel
shall again be engrafted into the olive tree, in whose roots the Gen-
tiles only have at first been set as wild shoots. This contemplation
incites the apostle at last to an enthusiastic ascription of praise to
God, with which he concludes this second and most important part
of the epistle (xi. 1-36).

The third part, the hortatory (xii. 1 — xv. 33), may be divided
into three sections. In the first (xii. 1 — xiii. 14), Paul gives gen-
eral admonitions to brotherly love, and to obedience. In the second
section (xiv. 1. — xv. 13), he treats of the regard to be paid to such
as are weak in faith, and suppose themselves obliged to an exact
observance of some altogether unessential practices or precepts.
The apostle exhorts the stronger members of the church to treat
these with a forbearing consideration, and prays them rather, after
their Lord's example, to refrain from using their liberty than to
ofiend a brother. In the tliird section (xv. 14-33) Paul communi-
cates notices respecting himself and his intended journeys.

l^h.e fourth and concluding ^ar^ forms the epilogue, and contains
greetings and good wishes for the readers (xvi. 1-27).

According to this summary of the contents, the nine chapters
from the third to the eleventh form unquestionably the most essen-
tial part of the epistle They furnish a careful doctrinal exposition
of the nature of the Christian scheme of salvation,* by no means, as
Keiche says (p. QQ), merely apologetico-polemical considerations on
it. But the peculiar character of the epistle still requires a special
consideration, on which we intend to enter in the following para-
graphs.

* So, with substantial correctness, Hopfner, De consecutione sententiarum in Pauli
epistola ad Romanos ; Lips. 1828. Compare also Fuhrmam's Essay, De Concinnitate in
Ep. ad Rom. in Velthusen, etc., Sylloge, vol. L 461, seq.

460 INTRODUCTION.

§ 5. The Value and the Peculiar Character of the
Epistle.

Among the epistles of Paul, three classes may be distinguished ;
first, epistles of doctrinal instruction ; next, epistles of practical
instruction ; and, lastly, friendly outpourings of the heart. To the
last class belong the Epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the
Colossians, and Philemon. All these presuppose the common faith
as known, and aim only at perfecting believers in it, and confirm-
ing them in brotherly love. Those which I have styled epistles of
practical instruction are especially occupied with the outward aspects
of ecclesiastical life. The Epistles to the Corinthians, to Timothy,
and to Titus, are those which, while they touch on individual points
of doctrine, set especially before our view the ecclesiastical rela-
tions of the apostolic age. But the Epistle to the Romans, with
those to the Galatians and Thessalonians, belongs, beyond the pos-
sibility of mistake, to 'the first class — the epistles of doctrinal in-
struction. In respect of subject, it is most nearly akin to that to
the Galatians ; both treat of the relations of law and gospel : while,
however, as has been shown above, this relation is treated altogether
objectively in the Epistle to the Romans, the Epistle to the Gala-
tians represents it polemically, in opposition to the Judaising
Christians. The Epistle to the Galatians, moreover, limits itself
exclusively to this relation, and discusses it more briefly than is
done ill the Epistle to the Romans. In this, on the other hand, the
relation of law and gospel is set forth didactically, in the proper sense
of the word, nay, scientifically, so that the doctrine of the sinful-
ness of human nature, which is essential to its foundation, and the
doctrine of the Divine decree, which furnishes the key to the pass-
ing of the gospel from the people of Israel to the Gentiles, are also
set forth in connexion with it."*

Hence we may say that in the Epistle to the Romans is con-
tained, as it were, a system of Pauline doctrine, inasmuch as all the
essential points which the apostle was accustomed to bring forward
with essential prominence, in treating of the gospel, are .here un-
folded in detail. It is very appropriate that he, the apostle of
the Gentiles, set forth this in an epistle of instruction to the Christ-
ians of Rome in particular, since that city represented, as it were,
the whole Gentile world, as Jerusalem represented the Jewish.

* That in the Epistle to the Galatians the relation between law and gospel alone is
treated, while in that to the Romans the doctrine of election is also considered, may be
regarded as the reason why Luther commented on the Galatians only ; he wished undoubt-
edly to avoid decla':ing himself on predestination.

INTRODUCTION. 461

The Epistle to the Komans is thus far a letter to all Gentiles and
Gentile Christians collectively (as the Epistle to the Hebrews is
addressed to all Jews and Jewish Christians, with a view of bring-
ing them nearer to the more comprehensive Pauline position) ; — and
in consequence of this significancy, its contents have also, in perfect
accordance with the process of the church's development, become
the basis of all the doctrinal development of the Western Church.
There is in human nature an inclination to deviate ever again and
again from the essential character of the gospel, and to sink back
into the law. The difficulty of overcoming the law, and of enfor-
cing the gospel truth in its peculiarity, shewed itself, even as
early as the founding of the church. Even those who had experi-
enced the power of the gospel, like the Christians of Galatia, might
be again led astray, and drawn back to the Old Testament level
of the law. Afterwards, during the medieval period, a new legal
character was developed in the bosom of the church itself, and the
righteousness of faith, without the works of the law, was altogether
lost sight of By the light of the word of God, and especially by
the careful, profound, and experimental statement of the doctrine
in the Epistle to the Eomans, the Eeformers again discovered the
original doctrine of the righteousness which comes of faith, and so
they buUt the church anew on its eternal, indestructible foundation.
Since the middle of the eighteenth century, lastly, the church again
sank to the legal position, in the systems of neological rationalism
which, from that period, became prevalent ; and if a more recent
age has been able once more to find the jewel of faith under
the ruins of the demolished church, it is mainly indebted for this
to the comprehensive, and, to every yearning heart, convincing
exhibition of truth in Paul's Epistle to the Romans.* And as
the church, collectively, has always been in danger of losing the
evangelical truth, and sinking back to the level of the law, the
same is to be observed in the development of the life of the
indindual also. Every awaking of sin, and of striving after
deliverance from it, proceeds from the endeavour to fulfil the law of
•God, whether the inward law of the conscience, or the outwardly
given law of revelation. The vanity of the struggle which arises
from this striving is the first thing which brings to the conviction
that there must be another way which leadeth unto life. From
this feeling of the need of salvation, arises by means of the preach-
ing of Christ, faith, and in it regeneration, the transformation of

* That after this the apostle's fundamental suppositions are the only part of the epistle
to which Reiche (vol. i. p. 91) is even now able to attach a value, is intelligible from
this learned writer's doctrinal position. Kollner (p. 58) considers it necessary to extract
the kernel from the husk before we can get at abiding truths in the epistle ; he, too,
regards its significance as a whole as only temporary.

462 INTRODUCTION.

the whole inward man, and the filling it with the power of Divine
life. As, however, the old man, in whom sin dwells, still remains
alive in the individual after this has taken place, there remains also
for him the danger of relapsing into the law, which becomes all the
more threatening, if he is obliged to feel that he has not avoided
the opposite extreme, of relaxing in the struggle against sin, and
falsely taking comfort from the merits of Christ. And as this
danger of relaxing in the struggle threatens the individual, so again
does it threaten the collective body also, and to the avoiding of it
are directed (as has been already observed) the catholic epistles,
with the Epistle to the Hebrews, which, in this respect, form a
necessary complement to the body of Paul's epistles in general, and
to the Epistle of the Romans in particular.

A treatise of such profound and decisive significancy — which in the
course of centuries has been the regulating authority for the church
in the most critical moments of her development — which has already
been, is, and to the end of time will continue to be, the regulating au-
thority for persons without number, in the training of their individual
life — must have had the deepest foundation in the life of its author.
It was only from lively experience that the apostle could treat a rela-
tion of such unwonted difficulty as is here discussed, in such a manner
that his words still, after thousands of years, tell as profoundest truth
in the hearts of millions, and in the collective consciousness of great
ecclesiastical communities. Indeed the whole substance of the vast
experiences through which Paul had passed in his own life may be
traced back to the relation between law and gospel. Before his con-
version, he knew no other way than that of fulfilment of the law, and
with all the ardour of his noble soul he threw himself on the mass of in-
ward and outward precepts which the Mosaic law and the tradition
of the Pharisees presented to him, with the intention of fulfilling them
all. His zeal was honest, and he advanced far ; he was regarded by
those around him as pious and God-fearing. In the depth of his soul,
however, the Divine Spirit testified to him the contrary ; the life of
the believers, whom in his zeal for the law he persecuted unto blood,
shewed him something in which he was lacking. To the stirrings
of this inward craving the power of grace attached itself, and the
appearance of the Lord near Damascus darted like a ray from a
higher world into his darkness. He was now penetrated by a feel-
ing at once of the infinite impotence of man, and of the abounding
power of grace. All his exertion in fulfilment of the law had re-
sulted in a fighting against God and his holiest working ; him, the
fighter against God, grace in a moment changed into an instrument
for his purposes. Hence the apostle, after this experience, knew
not how to preach anything save the grace of God in Christ, whereby
man is enabled to accomplish whatever the rigid law can require,

INTRODUCTION. 463

and still infinitely more, without becoming high-minded, void of
love, or contemptuous towards the weak, inasmuch, namely, as it is
grace that works all in him, not he himself by his own might. The
words of Augustine — Da quodjuhes, Deus meus^etjuhe quod vis'-' —
contain, therefore, the whole system of the Apostle Paul.

Such being the nature of the contents of the Epistle to the Ro-
mans, it may be understood why it is usually regarded as very diffi-
cult. Indeed it may be said that where there is wanting in the
reader's own life an experience analogous to that of the apostle, it is
utterly unintelligible. Everything in the epistle Avears so strongly
the impress of the greatest originality, liveliness, and freshness of ex-
perience ; the apostle casts so sure and clear a glance into the most
delicate circumstances of spiritual life in the regenerate ; he can
with such admirable clearness resolve the particular into the general,
that the reader who occupies the low and confined level of natural
worldly knowledge, now feels his brain reel as he gazes at those stu-
pendous periods of development in the universe disclosed by Paul,
and now finds his vision fail as it contemplates the minute and
microscopic processes which Paul unveils in the hidden depth
of the soul. AVhere, however, analogous inward experience, and
the spiritual eye sharpened thereby, come to the task, the essen-
tial purport of the epistle makes itself clear, even to the simplest
mind, as Luther has shewn in the most popular manner in his cele-
brated prefiice to the Epistle to the Eomans. It is not, however,
my intention by this, to deny that, even where experience is pre-
supposed, there still remain considerable difficulties in the general
carrying out and mode of statement, as also in particular parts of the
epistle — e. g., in the dissertation on election ; but these are stiU
only subordinate parts of the epistle, as compared with the leading
main ideas respecting law and gospel. It would, however, be a great
mistake to suppose from what has been said that it is intended to
represent the study of the Epistle to the Romans as useless in cases
where the transition from law to gospel has not yet been experi-
enced ; rather the thorough and laborious study of its profound
contents is very often the means by which a yet defective experience
trains itself My intention is rather to warn against the employment
of guides who, without a glimmering of the true sense of the apos-
tolic treatise, can only hinder the beneficial effect of the study of it by
their erroneous explanations.

* "Give, 0 my God, what thou requirest, and require what thou wilt." — [K.

464 INTBODUCTION.

§ 6. Literature.

Hardly any book of the New Testament has been so frequently
and fully treated as the Epistle to the Eomans — a circumstance
sufficiently explained by the significance of its contents. A com-
prehensive surv^ey of the literature connected with this epistle is
furnished by Keiche (pp. 95 seqq.) ; the following appear to be the
principal works.

First, as to the Fathers of the church — ^we have no commentary
from that doctor who would have been qualified, above all others,
for a deeply-grounded exposition of the epistle — Augustine. We
possess by him only a fragmentary exposition of some passages,
under the title, Expositio quarundam propositionum ex Epistola ad
Komanos, and the commencement of a work on too extensive a plan,
and therefore left incomplete. This embraces only the greeting (i.
1-7), and is entitled Inchoata expositio Epistolee ad Romanes. On
the other hand, a commentary on the Epistle to the Romans by his
celebrated opponent Pelagius, is preserved among the works of
Jerome, and in the revision of Cassiodorus. The work of Origen on
this book we possess only in Rufinus' translation, by which it has
lost much of its value for us. Besides these, we have commentaries
by Chrysostom and Theodoret, executed in their usual manner.
The exposition by the so-called Ambrosiaster is peculiar ; but his
exposition of Paul's epistles is of more importance with reference
to history than to doctrine. In later times (Ecumenius and Theo-
phylact employed themselves on the epistles of Paul, and also on the
catholic epistles ; their commentaries, however, contain but little of
their own. But the Greek Fathers altogether have, in consequence
of their Pelagianising tendency, been very far from successful in
the exposition of the Epistle to the Romans ; the whole purport of
the epistle was too remote from them to admit of their mastering it.

The middle ages were especially unfitted, by the prevailing ten-
dency to a legal system, for the profitable illustration of the Epistle
to the Romans. It was not until the Reformation that a new pe-
riod for the interpretation of it commenced. Luther, indeed, was
in the same case with Augustine ; he left no commentary on this
epistle. On the other hand, besides Calvin's profound work, the
most intimate associate of Luther, Melancthon, has presented us
with an exposition in which we clearly trace the spirit of the great
reformer. He published in 1522 a shorter exposition, under the
title of Annotationes in Epistolam ad Romanes, Viteb. 1522, 4to.
A more detailed commentary afterwards appeared under the title of
Commentarii in Epist. ad Romanes, 1 540, 8vo. Expositions of the

INTRODUCTION. 465

Epistle to the Romans also Appeared by BugenhagCD, Zwingli, CEco-
lampadius, Miisculiis, Bucer, in all which, however, as is easily ac-
counted for, controversy against the Romish church predominates.
In the seventeenth century, and in the earlier half of the eighteenth,
many additional commentaries appeared, in which the same polem-
ical reference was prominent. Among the better of the expositors
who took this direction is Sebastian Schmidt (Commentarius in
Ep. ad Romanos, Hamburg, 1644); Abraham Calovius, in his Biblia
Illustrata, combats Grotius, and his often (especially in the expo-
sition of the Epistle to the Romans) very shallow views. Among
the Roman Catholics, Cornelius a, Lapide wrote in the seventeenth
century, a commentary on this, and also on the rest of Paul's epis-
tles, which is still, at this day, not wholly "without use. (Ant-
werp, 1614.)

From the middle of the last century until near its end, special
expositions of the Epistle to the Romans were written by Baum-
garten (Halle, 1747). Mosheim (whose work was edited by Boysen,
1770), Koppe (first in 1783, the latest edition, under the care of Von
Ammon., appeared in 1824), Andr. Cramer (Kiel, 1784), and Morus
(edited by Holzapfel, 1794).

After this, for about a quarter of a century, no labour of any
importance was bestowed on the ejDistle, until since 1820, the ac-
tivity of literary men has again been directed to it. The latest ex-
positions* are by Bockel (G-reifswalde, 1821), Tholuck (first edition,
1824 ; third edition, 1830), Flatt (edited by Hoffmann, Tubingen,
1825), Stier, in the second Sammlung der Andeutungen (Leipzig,
1828, pp. 205^51), Klee (Roman Catholic in his view, Mayence,
1830), Ruckert (Leipzig, 1831), Benecke (Heidelberg, 1831), Dr.
Paulus (Heidelberg, 1831), Reiche (2 vols., Gottingen, 1833-4),
Glockler (Frankfort on the Maine, 1834), Kollner (Gottingen, 1834),
and Fritzsche (Halle, 1836, vol. i.) A work very important for the
doctrinal part of the exposition is Leonhard Usteri's Entwicklung
des Paulinischen Lehrbegriffs (Zurich, 1833, fourth edition). Com-
pare also Dahne's Paulinischer Lehrbegriff (Halle, 1835). Ear-
lier works of this kind, as Meyer's Entwicklung des Paulinischen
Lehrbegriffs (Gottingen, 1801), have in the present state of theolog-
ical science but slight utility.

* Compare Klings's essay, Der Brief an die Romer und deesen neuere Bearbeitungen,
in Klaiber's Stud. vol. iv., No. 2, pp. 59 seqq- ; voL v. No. i., pp. 1 seqq., and his review
of Reiche and KoUner in the Stud, for 1836, No. 3.
Vol. III.— 30

EXPOSITION OF THE EPISTLE.

PAKT I.
(I. 1-17.)

THE INTRODUCTION.

The apostle opens the first part of his great doctrinal epistle,
according to his practice in all his epistles, with a salutation (i. 1-7);
but the fulness of the ideas which he brings before his readers even
on his first address, such as he seldom (and never in such a de-
gree) thus early presents to them, shows how entirely full his
heart was with his subject ; he hastens, as it were, even in the salu-
tation, to give a sketch of the whole contents of the composition
which is to follow. With the salutation is immediately connected
some introductory matter, concluding with the statement of the
theme, of which he designs to treat (ver. 8-17). We shall, there-
fore, consider the first part of the epistle, under these two di-
visions.

§ 1. The Salutation.

(I. 1-7.)

We find an entirely distinct character impressed upon the forms
of salutation in Paul's epistles, in that they contain, instead of the
XaipELv (James i. 1) customary amongst the Greeks, a benediction
accompanied by the name, the calling, and the designation of those
to Avhom the letter is addressed. The blessing thus added has the
same tenor in all the epistles, except that in those to Timothy, be-
sides ^apff and elprivT], tXeog is also mentioned : the same phrase is
used in the Second Epistle of John, and a similar in the Epistle of
Jude — viz., x^P^^, eipijvT] kol dydm] nXrjdvvdeir], grace, peace and love
he multiplied, which last word is also found in the two Epistles of
Peter. Peculiar, however, to the salutation of the present epistle is
the addition of intervening doctrinal statements, by which it is con-
verted into a small self-contained whole ; in the Epistles to the Gala-
tians and Titus a similar peculiarity may be observed, but in a very

468 Romans I. 1.

inferior degree. In three parenthetical clauses, which may be dis-
tinguished by the usual marks, the apostle directs attention in his
Epistle to the Romans — 1, To the pre-announcement of the gospel
by the prophets ; 2, to the dignity of the Redeemer ; and 3, to his
own calling to the office of apostle : thus he would lead his readers
to remark alike the nature of the gospel, its historical connexion
with the Old Testament, and the personal relation in which the
apostle himself stood to it.

Ver. 1. — Paul generally calls himself at the beginning of his
epistles simply aTToaroXog 'Irjoov Xgiorov, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
but in this place and Phil. i. 1, dovXog 'l-qaov Xpiarov, servant of
Jesus Christ, and in Tit. i. 1, SovXog Oeov, servant of God. The
term SovAog designates here the spiritual condition of the apostle in
general, whilst dnooToXog defines it more exactly. He had been
overcome by the Redeemer, conquered and subdued by his higher
power (i. 4.) But as one not merely outwardly conquered and stiU
disposed to resist, but inwardly subdued, Paul had at the same time
become a willing instrument for executing the purposes of his Lord,
as an apostle. Since the article is wanting both to this word and
to dovXog, we may observe that Paul places himself upon a level
with other servants and apostles of Christ, without, however, in this
place (as in Galat. i. 1) defending . his apostolical dignity with espe-
cial emphasis, since it had never been impugned by the Roman
Christians. But the epithet /cAT/rdf , called, designates his office as not
chosen by his own will, but one to which he was ordained by the
will of God (cf Acts xxii. 21). KXrjTog has not, therefore, here the
general meaning (Matth. xxii. 14), under which every member of
the Christian church, to whom in any way the Divine call has come,
is so designated (as in ver. 6 below), but that special meaning which
makes it synonymous with eKXenrog, chosen. From the general num-
ber of the icXijTot, a new and more exclusive KXijcFig (i. e., the iKXoyri),
called Paul to be an apostle. Consequently aTrooToXog cannot here
mean any itinerant teacher of the gospel whatever (as in Acts xiv.
4, 14 ; Rom, xvi. 7 ; 1 Cor. xii. 29), but it denotes (as Galat. i. 1,
where the apostle himself lays stress upon the word) a teacher
chosen by Christ himself, and standing upon a level with the body
of the Twelve. Besides Paul, the only one we find in this high
position, standing entirely parallel with the Twelve, is James, the
brother of the Lord, the Bishop of Jerusalem (cf at Galat. i. 19,
ii. 9), who filled up the vacancy which occurred by the death of
James, the son of Zebedee (Acts xii. 1), without, however, having
been formally elected, as Matthias. In KX-qrog, therefore, the same
thought is implied, as is expressed, 2 Cor, i, 1, by 6ia deXruiarog Qeov,
hy the will of God, or negatively in Galat. i, 1, by ovk an' dvdpuTrcjv,
not from men. The words dcpcjgia^ivog tig EvayyeXiov Qeov, separated

Romans I. 2. 469

to the gospel of God, appear therefore tautological if we refer them
also, as is commonly done, to Qeog, as the Separator. Besides, if the
apostle had meant to say this of God, he would scarcely have added,
eeov to evayyeXiov, It is therefore much better to regard this ad-
dition as a nearer definition of dnooroXog, and we may th'en, no doubt,
see in them an obvious reference to the account given in Acts xiii. 2,
where the Holy Ghost says, d^opiaare d/j fiot rbv Bapvdfiav koI tov lav-
Xov elg TO tpyov, b TTpoaKeKXT]fj.ai, avrovg, separate for me, etc Even
Theodoret, amongst the Fathers, appears to have thought of this
reference (as later Turretin), in that he bids us remark how, not
only the Father and the Son, but also the Holy Ghost, had sent
forth the apostle. The reference of dcpoyptanevog (in Hebrew, ci-s), to
the former state of Paul as a Pharisee, must be rejected altogether
as a mere play upon words ; nor is the element from which Paul
was separated to be regarded as the world, but as the Christian
church itself, to which he already belonged, when his original call-
ing of God to be an apostle was outwardly confirmed by the choice
of the church at Antioch. In the words evayyeXiov eeov, the geni-
tive does not denote the object, for that is Christ (ver. 3), but the
author of the gospel. The words elg evayyeXiov, unto the gospel,
are rightly resolved into elg to Krjpvyna evayyeXiov, imto the preaching
of the gospel, for unto the gospel in itself, i. e., to the personal enjoy-
ment and use of the gospel, every Christian is separated, but not
every one is commissioned to teach it. (James iii. 1.)

Yer. 2. — The first parenthesis* refers, as already remarked, to
the relation of the gospel to the Old Testament Scriptures : being
intended to declare that this does not stand disconnected from his-
torical relations, but is, as it were, the blossom which had sprung
from the roots of the Old Testament (cf Acts xxvi. 22). Paul does
not, however, subjoin this remark, in order to encounter Jewish op-
ponents, for such did not exist in Kome, but to impress upon his
hearers from the very first that truth which he proves at greater
length in a subsequent part of his epistle — viz., that the Old and
New Testaments are closely connected. It was needful that the
relation of the two dispensations should be made no less plain to
Gentiles than to Jews ; we are not, therefore, from such allusions to
the Old Testament, to form any conclusion concerning the position
of Jews, and Judaising Christians in Eome. Qeog is to be supplied
as the subject of TTpoeTrrjyyeiXaTo from the preceding evayyeXiov Beov.
The prophets appear as the instruments of the Divine will, and their

* Fritzche wishes to connect ~epl tov vlov airov, not with evayyeliov Oeov, but with
irpoETTTjyyEilaTo, so as to avoid making ver. 2 a parenthesis, and to consider it quite as
part of the principal thought; but the position of nepl t. v. a. does not accord with this
view. At the same time, we must allow that the pare Bthetical nature of the clauses ic
Ters. 3, 5, is much more strongly marked than here.

470 KoMANs I. 3.

communications are considered to be contained in the holy Scrip-
tures, whose Divine authority is pre-supposed as a matter of course.
The TTQocpTjrai are not, however, merely prophets in the more confined
sense, but all the sacred writers, inasmuch as they were filled by
God's Spirit. All the passages, therefore, which refer to the Messiah
are included in these words, from Genes, iii. 15, to Malach. iv. 2 ; for
wherever a prophecy was uttered concerning Christ, it was uttered
concerning the gospel, for he is himself the gospel.

(UpoeTTayyeXXeadai, "to promise or grant anything before-hand
[before its appearance]" is found in the New Testament only here.
'Ev ypacpaXg dyiaig we must not, with Dr. Paulus, interpret "in
passages of the Holy Scripture." The reason of the omission of
the article is simply this, that the expression denotes a well-known
whole ; the words are therefore to be translated, " in the collection of'
sacred writings with which you are so well acquainted." The Old
Testament was naturally introduced at once even into communities
consisting of Gentile converts.)

Ver. 3. — The gospel of God treats of Ids Son, it is therefore
most nearly connected with himself, and a special object of his care.
But the apostle cannot mention the sacred person of the Son of God
without entering into a closer definition of his nature ; he describes
him, therefore, under the two relations of his being, the human and
the Divine. To connect "nepi rov vlov avrov^ concerning his Son,
with evayyiXiov Oeov, Gospel of God, is no doubt the most natural,
since 'Irjoov Xpiorov in the 4th verse evidently has regard in the same
way to vlov avrov, passing over the second parenthesis. Of this
parenthesis, the first half, rov yevo[isvov ek onepfiaTog Aa/3M icard odpica,
who sprang from the seed, etc., presents no difificulty. The meaning
of Kara odpKa, as to thefiesh, can hardly be mistaken, if we define it
by the help of the contrasted Kara -nvEvixa, as to the spii^if ; it will
then signify the earthly human element of our Lord's being, that
by which he was subject to birth and growth, that by which he ap-
peared to the world. {Teveadai is opposed to elvai. See at John i.
1.) Idp^ is, in fact, employed not merely to denote the substance of
the flesh (see at vii. 14), but also the human soul and spirit, that is
to say, a complete human nature, which is here designated by the
word odp^ only in order to express more strongly its identity with
universal human nature (see at viii. 3). The special reference to
the " seed of David" is evidently occasioned by the mention of the
prophecies in the preceding verse, which represent the Kedeemer
as being in his human nature of the family of David.* It might,

* The supposition that Paul here expresses his adoption of the Ebionite view of the
generation of Christ by the words iK aTrip/iaroc Aa3i6 is altogether inadmissible. Christ's
descent from David through the Virgin Mary entirely justifies this expression. The
apostle's object did not in the least call upon him to specify how Jesus was begotten of

KoMANS I. 4. 471

however, at first sight appear that the apostle used the name 6 vlb^
Tov Geou, Son of God, not only of the Divine, but also of the human
nature of Christ, that is of his whole person, since rov yevo/zeVov is im-
mediately connected with vlov avrov. But since, in the very next
verse, the fourth, vlbg Qeov, Son of God, is expressly applied to the
Divine nature, we must acknowledge that this connexion oiyevonhov
with vlov can be explained only by supposing that reference is made
to the unity of the person in which the human and Divine natures
united in it are not in general expressly separated. That the appli-
cation of this expression to the God-Man is admissible, is founded
upon the fact, that the Lord as man is and may be called the Son
of God, no less than as God. When, however, we consciously
separate the Divine in him from the human, the term vlbg Qeov can
only be applied to the Divine nature of Christ, to the eternal Logos.
(See particulars at Luke i. 35.) Hence there is no tautology in the
words of this and the fourth verse, vlov avrov — bpiodivrog vlov Qeov, for
the vlov Qeov (ver. 4), is to be taken in contrast with the vlov ^ajSiS in
ver. 3, or the vlov dvdQu)TTov which is implied in the first part of verse 4.
Ver. 4. — He did not, therefore, also become such ; he only man-
ifested himself as such in his eternal power. The vlbg Qeov, Son of
God, forms, therefore, in this place, a contrast and climax to the
vlbg Aa(3i.6j Son of David. Christ was both at the same time, the
Son of God from eternity, the son of David in time. So among recent
commentators, Eiickert clearly and definitely apprehends the passage.
The choice of the word dpl^eadat^ however, has led several ancient
and modern commentators to understand the words in an entirely
difierent sense. This word, in the language of the New Testament,
means " to fix, determine, choose for some purpose." (Luke xxii.
22, Acts ii, 23, x. 42, xvii. 26.) From this has been derived the
translation, " God has chosen, appointed him to be the Son of God,"
which would at once lead to the Jewish view of Christ's subordinate
character, viz., that he was the Son of God not in his essential
being, but only by God's election (fe'«Aoy//). (Justin Martyr. Dial.
c. Tryph. Jud., p. 267.) In close connexion with this stands an-
other interpretation, which makes optadevrog identical in meaning
with npoopLaOevTog, a word which Epiphanius has even admitted into
the text. Accordingly the expression is translated prcedestinatus
est, and referred to God's decree with respect to the incarnation.
(Iren. adv. haer. iii. 22, 23. August, de praedestin. sane. c. 15.)
But both views, to say nothing of the untenableness of the former

the Virgin Mary. Nothing but that rage for scepticism, which announces itself in the
assertion that Christ was not at all descended from David's famQy, but that this descent
■was only attributed to him on account of certain passages in the Old Testament, can be-
lieve itself warranted in construing this passage as if it den^'ed the generation of Christ
by the Holy Spirit.

4t2 Romans I. 4.

on doctrinal grounds, must be rejected ; because from the connexion
it is manifestly not the decree of God, but the jiroof before men of
Christ's Divine Sonship, that is here in question, No other course,
therefore, remains but to take dpi^eodai in the sense " to declare, to
exhibit as something," as Chrysostom has already rightly done.
This explanation of the expression is, in respect to the thought,
sufficiently supported by passages such as Acts ii. 22, in which
Christ is called " dvi)p dnb rov Qeov dTTodedeiynEVog dvvdiieai Koi repaai^ a
man o-pproved of God, etc." We may therefore render dpiodivrog^
with Chrysostom, by deixdevrog, dvacpavdivrog. There is indeed some
difficulty in proving that opi^eaOat is ever used in this sense. For
dpi^oj means originally " to define the limits," bqi^eadai, " to determine
limits for one's self," i. e., to determine. No passage in which it
means directly " declarare, ostendere," is to be found either in the
profane or scriptural writers. But still, the notion that Christ was
by his resurrection determined to be the Son of God, is so entirely
at variance with every doctrinal system, and the whole range of
scriptural ideas, as well as with the language of the Bible (for, even
supposing that vlog Qeov meant merely " Messiah," yet Christ was
not first appointed or made Messiah by his resurrection), that we are
compelled to assume that the apostle has here used the word in a
rather wider sense, in that the context requires the interpretation
" prove, set forth." It can, after all, only be regarded as accidental
that a convincing example of this use of the word is wanting ; for
when a man is defined as to his character by means of some public
act, such as the resurrection, he would seem thereby declared to be
that which he really is. Thus only too can tv dwdixei-, in poiver, be
fitly connected with opi^eodai ; the resurrection is in fact considered as
an expression of the almighty power of God, as it is also usually repre-
sented elsevv'here in the New Testament (Acts xvii. 32 ; Eom. iv. 24 ;
1 Cor. XV. 3, 17.) But that expression could not be employed of
the Divine decree, and any other connexion whatever of tv 6vvdp.et is
equally untenable. But if it has been held, as even Tholuck main-
tains, that the resurrection of Christ was not adapted to prove his
higher nature, it is because men have started in this assertion with
the supposition that the resurrection of Christ, like the resurrec-
tion of Lazarus, was merely the revival of his mortal body ; but
in our exposition of the history of the resurrection we have proved
at length, that the resurrection was the glorification of Christ's
humanity, a view which gives to this event an importance such as
the New Testament attributes to it. Finally, we have already re-
marked at Matth. xxii. 29, that this is the only passage in which
dvdoTaaig vsKpcJv stands instead of sk vg/cpoJv.* But no doubt it is

* The expression uvdaTaacc venpuv has so fixed an usage as signifying the resurreo

KoMANS I. 4. 473

only the preceding kK which has caused the omission of the prepo-
sition before veKgdv. To understand this formula as having the
same signification as tf ov avtorr]^ since he arose, and to refer it to the
work of the glorified Redeemer by his Spirit in the church, is, so far
as respects the thought, unobjectionable. The fact of the resurrec-
tion is always presented to us in the New Testament as that from
which the ascension and all the influences of the Spirit in the church
proceed as simple consequences. But Kara -nvevfia can here, accord-
ing to the context, be merely contrasted with Kara adpKa, and can-
not, therefore, be referred to the operations of the Spirit ; and,
moreover, if this reference were not admitted, that is to say, if we
took tf dvaoTaaecjg as merely indicating the time at which the influ-
ences of Christ began to manifest themselves, no stress would bo
laid upon the resurrection as especially declaring him to be the Son
of God.

Finally, with respect to the expression Kara irvevna dyiuavvrjg,
according to the spirit of holiness, the indeterminateness of the word
dycuovvT] in the language of the New Testament allows no certain clue
to its meaning, and we must therefore be guided entirely by the con-
text. For while cytorTjg signifies the state of holiness (Hebr. xii. 10 ;
2 Maccab. xv. 2), and dyiaoiw^ denotes the becoming holy (Rom. vi.
19 ; 1 Thess. iv. 3 ; 2 Thess. ii. 13), dyiwavvq is sometimes taken as
synonymous with dyiaofioc (2 Cor. vii. 1 ; 1 Thess. iii. 18), and
sometimes equivalent to dyiSrrjg. Regarded in itself, therefore, the
phrase might be equivalent to nvevfia dyiov, Holy Spirit. But
resting on this grammatical possibility, to apply the expression of the
text either to those prophecies of the Old Testament, which were
given by the Holy Ghost (as if the words stood Kadu)g ro nvevfia
dyiov TTposiQTjKe), or to that Spirit who was imparted to Christ at his
baptism, is, according to the context, which must here alone decide,
alike inadmissible. The contrast with Kara adpna, as to the flesh, re-
quires it to refer to the Redeemer himself, and therefore the third
Person of the Godhead cannot here be meant, but the Divine nature
of Christ. To denote this, nvevna, Spirit, is chosen on account of the
preceding odp^, flesh, just as in 1 Pet. iii. 18, compared with Rom. ix. 5.
The Divine nature of the Son of God is therefore here very properly
said to consist in the Spirit {nvevjia), which is the substance of God
(John iv. 24), and forms a contrast to the flesh {odp^'), in which the
eternal Word veiled himself (John i. 14). (See also 1 Tim. iii. 16;

tion of the lody^ that we cannot suppose there is in this any reference to that spiritual
resurrection, which Christ brought into the world ; perhaps, however, Paul here chose an
expression which does not so emphatically designate the resurrection of Jesus alone,
uvuaTaaiq ek veKpuv, in order to intimate, that with him the saints of the Old Testament
had also risen (Matth. xxvii. 53). At the same time this also was but a partial uvdaraatCf
and it was therefore necessary again to distinguish the uvdaraaic vEKpuv from the nvdo'
raaic riJv veKpuv.

474 Romans I. 5.

1 John iv. 2 ; 2 John ver. 7 ; Heb. ii. 14.) But this Spirit, as the ab-
solute Spirit, is not only in himself the Holy One, but also the sanc-
tifier of collective humanity, i. e., he who communicates his nature to
the creatures ; this latter quality is however here less prominent, the
subject being specially the description of the Lord himself.

Ver. 5. — At the naming of the holy name of Jesus Christ, the
common Lord of all believers, the apostle feels himself constrained
to enlarge in another parenthesis on that which this bountiful Lord
had done for him, who was so undeserving of it. We must not
think that any polemical allusion is intended (as in Galat. i. 1), and
therefore suppose an implied contrast of ov St' dvdpcJTrojv with (Ji' ov.
Paul mentions this grace of the Lord out of a pure feeling of
thankfulness for the mercy which had been shewn to him, " Grace
and apostleship" (x^^Qi-g koX d-noaToXri) is not to be taken as a hen-
diadys, but as a designation of general grace (that of calling and for-
giveness of sins), and of particular grace (his election to be an apostle).
Augustine saysjustly, "gratiam cum omnibus fidelibus, apostolatum
non cum omnibus communem habet." 'AttocttoA^, apostleship, with
the clause defining it, requires iXdlioixev, we received, to be referred
solely to the apostle. The whole following clause, ei^ vnaKoi]v mareoyg
ev TxdoL Toig tdveoiv vrrep rov ovonarog avrov is Hebraistic, and answers
to the words 'vas V? synr! Vba fij^'sxin ?''tt®vV I^ P^^'® Greek this must
have run, Iva vTraKovcdoc dt' tnov navTa rd tOvq ry niaTei k. t. A., tJiat all
nations may obey the faith, etc. Paul often uses the word vnaKorj
(the opposite to TrapaKorj, " neglect of hearing, turning a deaf ear,"

2 Cor. X. 6), e. g., Rom. xv. 18, xvi. 19 (also found 1 Pet. i. 2), in the
sense of " obedience to the influence of Divine grace," properly the
listening to anything, giving earnest heed to it. Ulong, faith (see
more at length at Eom. iii. 21) does not mean the doctrines of the
faith, but the disposition of faith which necessarily supposes the obe-
dience {vnaKoi]). But the ministry of the apostle was to extend to the
whole Gentile world, and therefore the Romans could not be excluded
from it, since their city was the centre of all Gentile life. (Cf ver.
11.) Of the words vnlp rov dvofiarog avrov we must certainly regard
the most important meaning to be " for the honour and glory of his
name" (cf. Acts xv. 26, xxi. 13); ovoiia — oo, stands for being, the
personality itself (cf Comm. on Matth. xxviii, 19 ; John xiv. 11-14).
Still we must not overlook the fact, that in the language of Paul,
as in the discourse of all persons of comprehensive minds, yet not
thoroughly trained in style, there often occur expressions which are
loosely and indeterminately connected, and therefore allow of mani-
fold applications. Such instances of sublime indefiniteness a con-
siderate expositor will not dare to sweep away ; he will take them
just as they present themselves. The wide range and bearing of
single thoughts gives, in fact, a peculiar charm to the language ; it

Romans I. 6, 7. 475

enables us to take a view of the world of the author's ideas, even
though it did not permit him, on account of its very riches, to ex-
press at once, as he desired, all that filled hjs mind. Thus, in this
very instance, it cannot be denied that the connexion which Tho-
luck has defended, of these words with vnaKorj niaTecjg, so as to give
the meaning, " ut obediatur fidei ob ejus nomen," is equally natural
with the above ; all things in all both are and shall he for God and
for the accomplishment of his will, whether it be Paul's apostolical
office, the faith of the whole heathen world, or that of every indi-
vidual member of the church.

Vers, 6, 7. — The Christians in Kome therefore are also members
of that great Gentile world which was committed to him ; and in
that place the Gentile element from the very beginning assumed a
decided prominence in the church. The glory of their calling to be
members of the kingdom of God, the apostle represents by several
commendatory epithets ; he styles them called, beloved of God, holy.
The name dyanrjrol Qeov, beloved of God, is not found elsewhere in
the New Testament. It answers to the Hebrew n-'h; or ^^■^. This
name, as well as the following, dytoi, saints, denotes Christians as
the spiritual Israel of the new covenant ; for what is called Israel
after the flesh in the New Testament also bears the name d-'tt-r;?
Deuter. xxxiii. 3 ; 1 Sam. ii. 9 ; Ps. iv. 3, On dyiog, dytd^eiv, see the
observations on John xvii, 17, and Acts ix. 13. The word, in its
immediate signification, denotes no degree of moral perfection (the
Corinthians, who were in so many respects deserving of blame, are
called dytoi, saints), but refers to the separation of believers from the
great mass of the tcoaiiog, the Gentile world. Yet it doubtless also
implies, that Christians have been made partakers of the principle
of a higher moral life, which, as in a course of development, is
gradually to pervade the whole man, and produce perfect holiness.
Now this principle is the Spirit of Christ, so that Paul's idea,
"made us accepted in the beloved" (txapiri^aev I'maq iv to) ^ya-
TTT/fiEvw), is also applied to the conception of dyiog. Christians are
holy on account of Christ, who lives in them, and who is their true
self. The very juxtaposition ofKXrjroi, called, and dyioc, saints, which
we find here, points to the gradual development of holiness ; for, as
Augustine justly observes, " non ideo vocati sunt, quia sancti erant,
sed ideo sancti efiecti, quia vocati sunt."

The words x^f-? W^^ 'f«^ eip?yv7y, grace to you and peace, finally,
contain the special form of salutation, Xapig, grace, is no doubt
the Latin salus, which was also the customary form of greeting in
letters ; but in the mouth of the apostle this expression, as well as
elprjvT], peace, which is the oriental form, receivch a deeper signifi-
cance. Grace and peace are related to one another as cause and
effect ; grace is the Divine love manifesting itself towards sinful

476 KoMANs I. 8.

humanity, peace is that state of inward harmony of life which arises
in man from the reception of grace. Grace, however, does not merely
begin the new life ; it also supports it every moment, and is capable
of an infinite increase, as a consequence of which peace is also per-
fected in its turn. The source of grace is God, the Father of all
men ; the organ by which it is communicated is the Son, the eter-
nal Word (John i. 1), by whom all things were originally made, and
by whom the fallen creature must be again restored. And nothing,
finally, speaks more decisively for the divinity of Christ, than these
juxtapositions of Christ with the eternal God, which run through
the whole language of Scripture, and the derivation of purely Di-
vine influences from him also. The name of no man can be placed
beside that of the Almightj^ He only, in whom the Word of the
Father, who is himself God, became flesh, may be named beside
him ; for men are commanded to honour him, even as they honour
the Father. (John v. 23.)

§ 2. Introduction.
(I. 8-17.)

The apostle begins the letter itself with the expression of his
hearty joy for the faith of the Romans, and with the mention of
his desire to be permitted to visit them. For, since his commis-
sion was directed to all Greeks and barbarians, he naturally enter-
tained the wish to preach the gospel at Rome also. The essence .of
this gospel Paul immediately points out to be that righteousness
of God by faith which is revealed in it ; he thus propounds the
subject, which he intends to treat at length in the epistle itself

Ver. 8. — Paul opens most of his epistles with giving thanks to
God for the faith of his readers ; it is only in the second Epistle to
the Corinthians, and in that to the Galatians, where he was obliged
to find decided fault, that this thanksgiving is wanting. But as in
the life of the believer everything is received through his relation to
the Redeemer, so also here the apostle thanks God through Jesus
Christ. We must not regard this as a mere phrase, but as a true
utterance of the apostle's deepest consciousness. Thanksgiving and
prayer are only pleasing to God when ofi'ered through the Spirit of
Christ dwelling in the heart. The object of these thanks is, how-
ever, the Roman Christians themselves, not anything in them, for
the life of faith is a matter belonging to our essential personality ;
by means of this life Paul had, as it were, himself gained them, and
could therefore return thanks for them as brothers given to him. It
followed from the very nature of the case, that the faith of the Ro-
man Christians would be known generally amongst believers, since

Romans I. 9. 477 ~

Rome, as the capital of the world, had connexions with all parts of
it, hence Irenseus (iii. 3) designates the Roman church as that,
" in qua fideles undique conveniunt." In the faith of the capital
city, therefore, was contained, in the apostle's view, the pledge
that this iliith would soon spread itself universally over the Gentile
world.

(Paul had in his mind at first a devregov <5t' to correspond to the
preceding npoJTov jutv, but left the second half of the sentence uncom-
pleted.— Instead of vn^p, A.B.C.D. read Tregi, which is indeed often
interchanged with v-^^g ; at the same time we may here very well
prefer vntp, on behalf of, as it seems to express the more uncommon
thought, that the Romans themselves are the objects of the apostle's
thanks. — That no stress is to be laid upon iv 6Aa> rw Koofico, is self-
evident ; we must refer it to the countries in which the gospel had
already spread itself ; beyond the limits of the Christian church
little was as yet known of Christianity.)

Ver. 9. — As the reason of the thanks, which he presented to God
on their behalf, the apostle appeals to his continual prayers for
them, prayers which he no doubt offered up to God, as for the Ro-
man community, so also for all the churches in the world. This
calling God to witness is not here intended to remove any distrust
on the part of his readers, but only to give more emphasis to the
thought. But if Paul here calls himself the servant of God, as he
above called himself the servant of Christ, it is plain that he only
served God through Christ, and in Christ only served God. The
expression Xarpevco, however, represents more the spiritual aspect of
the relation than dovXevo) (see Phil. iii. 3). And therefore in this
place (as weU as in the passage cited) the worship is referred to the
Spirit, without, however, any antithesis to the Jewish religion being
intended. Against Theodoret's reference of these words to the spir-
itual gift, charisma, which the apostle enjoyed, it is sufficient to ad-
duce the fiov ; but it is also inadmissible to take TTvevfid fiov, my spirit,
as a mere designation of personality. Both ocofia and i^vxri can be
put to represent personality, by no means, however, promiscuously,
but under such conditions as are supplied by the context. (See on
this subject my opusc. theol. p. 156, seqq.) The added clause, iv roi
Evay-yeXici) rov vlov avrov, in the gospel of his Son, refers not merely
to Paul's official labours as a teacher, but rather to the element
which controlled his own personal religious life, and his worship of
God. That strong form of affirmation which has something of the
nature of an adjuration, God is my witness (jidgrvg fiov 6 Qeo^)
is often found in Paul. See 2 Cor. i. 23, xL 31 ; Phil. i. 8 : 1
Thess. ii. 5. The <l)g before dSiaXei-Trug is here rightly taken by
Fritzsche as equivalent to on ; Calvin, Heumann, Flatt, Reiche,
take it erroneously for quam. — (The form ddLaXeL-rr-cjg fiveiav ttoiov"

478 Romans I. 10-12.

fiai is a favourite expression with Paul, see Ephes. i. 16 ; Phil. i. 3 ;
Col. i. 3 ; 1 Thess. i. %)

Ver. 10. — As the subject of his prayers, Paul now mentions bis
wish to reach Rome, by which visit the Romans would receive
the surest pledge of his frequent thoughts of them. This desire,
on which the apostle enlarges in the following verses, doubtless
proceeded from his longing to preach the word of reconciliation
in the very heart of the Gentile world. He could not think
that he had fulfilled the command which the Lord had laid upon
him before he had preached the gospel in Rome, the mistress of
the world.

(EiTTw^- TJSr, TTore must be rendered " whether perchance at length
at some time " See on rjSr) in the sense " at length," Hartung's
Partikellchre. vol. i. p. 283. — Hvodovv means strictly " to prepare a
favourable way for some one," and then generally " to further, to
favour ; hence tvcSovodat^ " to proceed favourably, to succeed." [See
1 Cor. xvi. 2 ; 3 John ver. 2.] The apostle has learned to place
himself and his plans entirely under God's guidance and superin-
tendence.)

Yer. 11. — Entirely possessed with the great object of his calling,
Paul longs to communicate to others out of the fulness of his own
spiritual life in Rome also, and to strengthen the believers there.
*' Spiritual gift" {xapiafxa TrvEVfiaTiKov) we are not, as Reiche justly
remarks, to refer to any extraordinary gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor. xii.);
for Paul did not estimate these so highly as to consider the commu-
nication of them the business of his life ; but we are to understand
by it the spiritual renewal of faith, and love, and hope, in short, of
the Christian life in general. {Xdpio[Ma = d^prifxa^ Rom. v. 16, 17.)
The apostle, therefore, presupposes that the spark of the Divine life
has been kindled in his readers, and only contemplates its increase.
(I.Tr]pix6rivai = (ie(3aiovadai, Rom. xvi. 25 ; 1 Thess, iii. 2, 13 ; 2
Thess, ii. 17. On elg to with an infinitive following, see Winer's
Grammar, p. 304.)

Yer, 12. — Far, however, from wishing to intrude himself upon
the Roman Christians as a teacher, the humble-minded apostle only
places himself upon a level with them as a brother; he desires to
establish himself together with them in the faith.

(The compound oviinapaKaXeladai is found only here in the New
Testament, in the sense "mutually to strengthen one another in
spirit." The infinitive is to be taken as parallel to Grrjpixd/jvai,
not, with Tholuck, to be referred back to Emnodio : in fact, it merely
explains oT7]pixBf]vai. The ev aXX-qkoii;, among one another, de-
notes, as Reiche well observes, that reciprocal feature of the life of
faith which has a strengthening and quickening power. In viiiov
re KoX i[i0Vy both of you and me, on the other hand, the common

KoMANS I. 13, 14. 479

possession of faith is expressly declared, and brought more distinctly
into consciousness.

Ver. 13. — Paul's wish to go to Kome had already several times
grown into a distinct resolution,* but at the same time he had al-
ways been prevented from carrying his resolution into effect.
Nothing at all is known of the causes which hindered him ; what-
ever, therefore, may be said on this subject, rests upon mere con-
jecture. Paul represents, as the object of his journey to Rome,
" that he might have some fruit there also," such as he had already
gathered among the other Gentiles. That, by this fruit, he meant
nothing for himself, but only acquisitions for the kingdom of God,
is manifest ; which still, under the influence of pure love, he regards
as his own gain, according to the principle, " all things are yours."

(Paul frequently uses the formula, ov dtXu viidg dyvoelv^ see 1 Cor.
X. 1, 2 Cor. i. 8. For this very reason, the reading ovk olfxai, fur-
nished by D.E.G., is perhaps to be preferred, because the alteration
of so common a form of expression is scarcely to be expected. In
this passage only, in the New Testament, 6evpo denotes time, else-
where always place. The reading nvd napnov is by all means to be
preferred, as well on account of its MSS. authority, as of the sense ;
Kap-nov riva would imply a doubt whether any fruit of his labours
would ever be seen, and to doubt this were to doubt the power of
Christ. In the term Kap-no^^ fruity the apostle has in mind the image
of the sower.)

Ver. 14. — Paul regards his relation to the Gentile world as in-
volving a debt to be discharged. In the gospel an infinite treasure
had been committed to him, out of which he considered himself
bound to impart to all Gentiles without exception. " Greeks and
barbarians" ("EAA7/ai re koX (iapfidpoig)^ signify, therefore, merely the
universal heathen world ; the Jews, whom even Philo (vit. Mos. p.
685) reckons amongst the barbarians, are not mentioned at all here,
since Paul did not consider himself as their debtor. (See at Galat.
ii. 7.) The Romans, however, as partaking of the general civiliza-
tion of the world at that time, are of course to be reckoned amongst
the Greeks, which expression had then lost, to a certain degree, its
merely national application, but had obtained this wider meaning,
merely because the culture of the old world had proceeded from the
Greeks. The second contrast, "wise and unwise" (oo(polg re koI
dvoriroL^), is by no means parallel to the first ; amongst the Greeks
there were many dv6i]rot, unwise, and amongst the barbarians were
individual oocpoi, wise. Whilst, therefore, the first contrast is
founded upon a general distinction, the second referg to particular,

* According to Acts xxiii. 11, the Apostle Paul had a vision of Christ, in which it was
expressly said to him, " Thou must bear -witness cf me at Rome also." But this yisiOQ
did not take place until o/ter the composition of tho Epistle to the Romans.

480 KoMANS I. 15, 16.

individual differences ; but the gospel is equally adapted to all dif-
ferences of national and personal character, and therefore Paul
regards himself as a debtor to the whole vast Gentile world. The
above contrasts, finally, would greatly surprise us in the Epistle to
the Romans, if, as Baur supposes, the church in Rome had indulged
in a Judaising tendency, and was, therefore, composed for the greater
part of Jews, But the supposition, either that Paul was entirely
sUent about his readers, or (if we consider the Jews included in this
expression) reckoned them amongst the barbarians, is certainly ir-
rational.

Ver. 15. — From this, his general spiritual relation, Paul then
deduces his readiness to serve the Romans also.

(As to the grammatical connexion of this verse with the pre-
ceding, we may best consider ovro) as elicited by a KaOojg, latent in
verse 14. To connect it with the KaOcog so far back as verse 13,
only increases the difficulty. Still the supplying of Ka6u)g is not
absolutely necessary ; the clause may rather be taken merely con-
secutively according to the analogy of Acts xvii. 33, xxvii. 17, 44 ;
1 Cor. xi. 28, xiv. 25. "I am debtor to all the Gentiles — so, as
such, I am ready to preach to you also." Thus, in profane writers
also, ovTO)g stands directly for ovrog. [See Matthias's Gr. Gramm.
vol. ii. p. 1235.] The words to Kar' ifie -npodvuov are best taken in
the sense, " my inclination, my readiness." UpodviJ.oVj as substan-
tive, is found in the best authors, e. g., Eurip. Medea, v. 178 ; Iphig.
Taur. V. 989. And Kar' tfce is a circumlocution for ^nov^ this form
of expression being chosen to point to a contrasted Kad' vjidg. —
EmyyeAi^w and — eodai = ntoa is construed in the New Testament
either with rivi or nvd.)

Ver. 16. — With a sudden, but, as respects the thought, natural
transition, Paul now comes to the nature of the gospel itself.
Both the doctrine of Christ crucified, and the circumstances under
which it must be preached in Rome, seemed to the eye of man to
render a successful result of Paul's preaching there very improbable.
In the magnificent capital of the earthly potentate of the world,*
in a city where all the schools of Grecian philosophy had their rep-
resentatives, it might well appear hopeless to the natural man to
preach the crucified Son of God, a Master who could only promise
his disciples while on earth death and suffering. Nevertheless,
under the conviction of that Divine power which resided in the gos-
pel, Paul utters his om erratoxyvonai, I am not ashamed. This must
be considered a Litotes, inasmuch as the preaching of the gospel
was to him the subject of his highest glory (1 Tim. i. 8, etc.) To
shew plainly how little cause he had to be ashamed of the gospel,

* Alexander Morus says very strikingly on this subject, " audax facinus ad cmcem
vocare terraram dominos." See Reiche on this passage.

Romans T. 17. 481

he terms it '' tJie poioer of God" {Svvaiiig Qeov). The expression
combines a reference to the exalted source, and to the almighty-
power of the gospel, which stand in strange contrast with its insig-
nificant, nay, startling outward appearance, at which both Jews and
Gentiles stumbled. (1 Cor. ii. 2, etc.) It is not, however, the
doctrine in itself which possesses this power, but the doctrine in
living unity with the events to which it is related. The gospel is a
Divine act, which continues to operate through all ages of the world,
and that not in the first place outwardly, but inwardly, in the depths
of the soul, and for eternal purposes. (SwTT/pm, salvation, is the
opposite of d-u)Xeia, perdition. See Matth. xviii. 11. Because salva-
tion from temporal and eternal ruin is the highest end of Christianity,
the gospel itself is called evayy^Xiov riig oo)rr]Qiag, gospel of salva-
tion, and Christ dpx7]ybg TTjg oiOTTjpiag, Captain or prince of salvation.)
The condition of its operation in man is only Txionq, faith. (On the
import of niong, see at Eom. iii. 21.) The medicine only works
when it is taken by the patient ; and in like manner the gospel is
effectual only when received in faith. But this faith is, by God's
grace, possible to every one, the time of whose calling has arrived ;
the Jews have, however, the first claim to this calling. The con-
trast of Jews and Greeks has nothing in common with that of
Greeks and barbarians in ver. 14. There the apostle was speaking
of his personal relation to all classes of the Gentile world, here he is
speaking of the purely objective relation of the gospel to the human
race. Mankind as presented to us in the Divine economy, he con-
siders as forming two divisions, the Jewish and the Gentile world,
and ascribes to all the privilege of being called to believe, whilst he
recognizes a certain prerogative on the part of the Jews (see also ii.
9, 10). This prerogative was no mere pretension advanced on the
part of that people from pride and blindness,* but a Divine ordi-
nance, which had the design of erecting amongst the people of Is-
rael, a hearth and an altar for God,f from which, as a centre, the
sacred fire might then be more easily spread over the whole earth.
(See at John iv. 22.) How the Jews lost the advantage thus as-
signed to them, by their unbelief, is mentioned later, in chap. x.

Ver. 17. The apostle again, through yap, annexes the reason
why the gospel could be thus effectual as a Divine power unto eter-

* From the general prevalence of this view arose, no doubt, the omission of nptjrov,
observable in some MSS., viz., B.G., which is, however, certainly quite erroneous. No
doubt, in the case of the Jews, there was frequently connected with the consciousness of
their election, arrogance and contempt of the Gentiles, instead of humility; but the con-
viction of their election was not, on that account, by any means, itself an error.

+ Upurov is therefore not merely to be referred, as is done by the Greek Fathers, to
the earlier calling, but also to their larger endowment with the gifts and fulness of grace.
Theodoret erroneously asserts that irpurov designates merely rd^euc ri/x^v, ov ;(f«'pirof

Vol. III.— 31

482 Romans I. 17.

nal salvation : namely, because in it a new wa/ of salvation is dis-
closed, " the righteousness of God, proceeding from faith." The
explanation of the leading ideas in the theme which the apostle
thus proposes, i. e., the " righteousness of God" [SiKaioovvr] Qeov), and
"faith" (niarig), we defer to iii. 21. I merely make the prelimi-
nary remark, that the former word does not here signify the Divine
attribute of righteousness, or goodness, or faithfulness, as has been
supposed, but that the apostle opposes the righteousness of God
(jSiKaioavvrj Qeov, or tK Qeov, Phil. iii. 9), to legal, or our personal
righteousness (dtKaioavv?] t« voiiov, or t| dvdgcoTrov. i. e., Wi'a), and
embraces under it the entire peculiar influence of the gospel.
The realization of absolute perfection (Matth, v. 18) is the highest
end of man's existence ; the law could effect nothing of this be-
yond a mere outward legality ; but regeneration produces through
grace, in believers, an internal, moral state, the righteousness
of God, which answers the highest requirements. This new way
of salvation was hidden from all eternity (Ephes. iii, 9 ; 1 Cor.
ii. 7); it needed, therefore, to be revealed by Christ in his actual
accomplishment of the work of redemption ; Paul's business was
simply to communicate this information. From the connexion with
ver. 16, which exalts the gospel as the power of God, it is plain,
that ducaioovvT] Oeov, righteoiisness of God, cannot signify the mere
declaring a person righteous, but the really making him righteous.
This Paul declares, not only of those who were then living, but also
of all later generations, because he considers the righteousness of all
as absolutely realized in Christ. That which in him was perfected
once for all, is gradually transmitted to individual men in propor-
tion to the degree of their renewal, and is received by them in faith,
and reckoned to their account. Peculiar in the present passage is
the addition of elg monv, to faith. Doubtless we are not to under-
stand this as denoting an increase of faith, an inward development
of faith from a lower degree to a higher, the advance from a more
external stage in our personal appropriation of salvation to one
more profound and spiritual. There was plainly no occasion whatever
here for Paul to allude to the development of faith (in itself by all
means to be acknowledged as a fact); on the contrary, this inter-
pretation would leave, in the mention of the righteousness of
God, the capital point, namely, that it proceeded (on man's
part) /rom faith, entirely untouched. 'E/c does not, therefore, indi-
cate in this place, as Eeiche has justly remarked, the point of de-
parture with respect to an advance, but the ground of obtaining
righteousness, the personal appropriation of the Divine benefit, which
becomes also particularly clear, if we for a moment leave elg ttLotlv
out of sight. Eif TTLOTLV, therefore, can only be taken as = elg ma-
Tevovrag^ since it is only those who believe that secure the righteous-

KoMANs I. 17. 483

ness of faith, and thus for them alone it is revealed in tl e gospel.*
The entire combination, Ik Triaretog elg iriariv, seems designed to
bring out faith with emijhasis, as the essential feature of the New
Testament, as works were of the Old.

In the same way that the apostle proves, in a subsequent part
of his epistle (chap, iv.), by the example cf Abraham, that, even in
the case of the pious men who lived before Christ, it was faith which
made them righteous ; so also here he describes the new way of sal-
vation in its historical connexion. We must not consider this a
mere accommodation, and application of Old Testament expressions
to entirely different relations ; this retrospective use of the Old Tes-
tament is rather to be derived from that scriptural fundamental
view of it, Avhich supposes that in it all the germs of the New Tes-
tament are already really contained, and that, therefore, the New
Testament is only the TTXijpuaig, fulfilment, of the Old. (See at
Matth. V. 17.) The quotation from Habak. ii. 4, is also made use
of in Galat. iii. 11, and Heb. x. 38, in both with reference to faith
and the righteousness of the New Testament, and we must acknowl-
edge with justice, since it is but one faith at different stages of its
development which is represented in both the Old and New Testa-
ment. (See Heb. xi. 1, etc.) Eternal life (^>]asTai is used in a preg-
nant sense = ^o)ijv alu)viov t'|ef) is never obtained otherwise than by
faith. According to the Hebrew text, r^T^"^^ 'Jira^:? p"";^, tK moreug
cannot be connected with diKatog, yet in Paul's use it must be thus
taken. We frequently meet with such free interpretations of the
Old Testament text, and it has already been remarked, that the
indeterminateness of Hebrew constructions very much favours such
a proceeding.f Applied in a profane spirit, as by the Kabbinical
writers, this method perverts the Scripture ; but when exercised in
the Holy Spirit, this liberty is a means of manifesting the infinite
fulness of its contents. (The LXX. must have read ■'nr^iKxa,, for
they translate it tic ■ntarecjg juov, and ascribe feith, i. e., faithfulness,
to God. But the faithfulness of God is doubtless manifested in
sending the Messiah, and in his work, so that this conception of
the passage leads us back to the right thought.)

* Better, I think, to take sic -niaTiv as a sort of emphatic and intensifying repexition
"from faith into faith," beginnirg and ending in faith; wholly of faith. — [K.
f See the Comm at Luke iv, 18, 19.

PART II.

(1. 18— XI. 36.)
THE DOCTRmAL EXPOSITION.

SECTION L
OF THE SINFULNESS OF THE HUMAN RACE.

(I. 18— III. 20.)

The very nature of the apostle's undertaking required that
before portraying the character of the new method of salvation, he
should demonstrate its necessity. It was further requisite that this
necessity should be pointed out in both those great divisions, under
which the human race is considered in its relations to the kingdom
of God, i. e., alike among Jews and Gentiles or Greeks ; that it
might plainly appear that such a new and complete way was needed
by all in common. Paul, therefore, from chap. i. 18-32, treats ex-
clusively of the condition of the Gentiles ; from ii. 1-20, the Jews
principally occupy his attention ; and lastly, from iii. 1-20, he draws
a parallel between the two, in which he considers their different re-
lations to the remedial provisions of Divine mercy. We treat this
first section under these three divisions.

§ 3. Condition of the Heathen Wokld.

(I. 18-32.)

In describing the necessity of a new way of salvation for the
heathen world, the apostle naturally set out with considering their
degraded moral condition.* But it was also required that this state
of alienation from God should be traced to its origin. Even the
Gentile world was not without some knowledge of God, and in con-
sequence some insight into the Divine law ; but the knowledge
which was thus within their reach, the Gentiles lost by their own

* See Usteri's Pail Unischer Lehrbegriff, 4tli ed. p. 15, seq., and the passages there
quoted-

Romans I. 18. 485

fault, and witli tlieir theoretical errors, the stream of their practical
transgressions rose to a most fearful height. The mere recovery of
that general knowledge of God, which they once possessed, could, of
course, elSect nothing in this evil case, for if it had not been effect-
ual in preventing them from sinking into vice, still less could it raise
the mass from the slough of iniquity into which it had fallen ; it
was therefore necessary that a new element of life, a Divine power
(dvpa^ig Osov) should be introduced into the world, which should
render possible a new beginning for man ; such the gospel proved
itself to be.

Ver. 18. — The apostle had already used yap three times in suc-
cession in vers. 16, 17, and uses it yet a fourth time, to connect this
verse with the preceding, as (1 Cor. ix. 16, etc.). For with the reve-
lation of God's righteousness in the gospel he contrasts the revela-
tion of his wrath in the law : as the former comes to believers {elg
TrlariVj i. e., dg navrag -maTevovrag) so the latter on all imgodliness
{tnl irdoav doefieiav). But the deductive yap connects what follows
in such a manner with what has gone before, as to direct attention
to the life which is by faith. Those only who are just by faith shall
live, for God's wrath reveals itself against all unrighteousness
(which cannot be avoided by him who lives not by faith). Looking
upon yap as intended to connect, or explain the clauses of an argu-
ment (see Hartung's Partikellehre, i. 363, etc.), we may here trans-
late it by " yea ;" it points back to the well-known truth of God's
justice in punishing sin, which the life of faith alone can satisfy. In
this general idea, therefore, that God punishes sin, on which the
apostle Paul grounds his whole argument, he already intimates the
contrasts between the two dispensations ; since vers. 17, 18, exactly
correspond to one another. Sinful man has the most pressing need
of the revelation of the righteousness of God, for without this he is
subject to the wrath of God {opyrj Qenv). (The endeavours to force
another meaning upon yap, e. g., " but," are altogether to be rejected.
Comp. Winen's Gramm. §423 etc.) The Divine anger (see at Matth.
xviii. 34, 35, John iii. 35, 36), we of course consider as merely sig-
nifying the manifestation of God's justice against sin ; this is here
represented in its two principal forms, as alienation from God {doe-
peia), and discord in earthly relations {dduda)^ and these in all pos-
sible cases, greater as well as smaller (Trdaa). The only further ques-
tion is this, how are the words dTioiiaXv-rrrerat art' ovQavov, revealed
from heaven, to be taken ? Great stress has been laid upon the
expression " from heaven," and some interpret it of some particular
judgment of God, e. g., lightning, or refer it to the last; judgment.
But the general character of the whole passage by no means admits
of such special applications. Each and every, outward as well as
inward, present as well as future, act of God's punitive justice

486 KoMANS I. 19. '

is here designed ; they are for this reason only represented us coming
from heaven as they contrast with sin on earth that eternal harmony
which reigns in the heavenly and spiritual world, whence alone pro-
ceed all pure manifestations of the Divinity — even those of holy and
just punishment.

In the contrast lying in the phrase rCJv t^v dhjOetav Lv dducia Kare-
XovTuv, iclio hy uni^ighteousness repress the truth, truth, as the prin-
ciple of all good (comp. in Comm. at John i. 14, viii. 44), is set
against falsehood, as the mother of all sin (as well of doe[3eta as of
ddiKia), and is represented as oppressed hy it through ddtda. (Wo
are not to take tv ddida as=adi«;wf, or dvofiG)^, since the suppres-
sion of the truth is, as a matter of course, criminal ; the thought
is rather this, that unrighteousness = dvofiia departure from the
Divine law, stifles the truth, and gives birth to error and lies.
KarexeiVj in the sense " to keep under, to restrain the activity of,"
is found also in 2 Thess. ii. 6, Acts xxvii. 40.) Here, moreover,
the suppression of the truth has neither an exclusively external, nor
exclusively internal reference ; hut combines both ideas. This per-
nicious energy of sin naturally begins, of course, in the heart of the
individual man, but extends itself gradually onward, and darkens
the conscience of whole nations and ages, rendering it incapable
of perceiving the voice of truth and duty. Thus, in the case of
the Romans, from the total obscuration of conscience, wickedness
reached such a pitch, that the gladiatorial games, one of the most
horrible outgrowths of sin which has ever appeared in the history of
mankind, were the general custom.* Accordingly there is contained
in this passage an assertion, that ever since the fall, and in the state
of hereditary sin, there was and is a truth in human nature, which
by constant active sin may be kept under and finally stifled. Paul
does not represent man as being, in consequence of hereditary sin,
in such a state that he can sink no deeper, but rather as having a
light in himself; by the extinguishing of which light he may become
at length wholly blind.

Ver. 19. — The Gentile world was not, however, excusable in these
its errors, from what might be thought the impossibility of its attain-
ing to the knowledge of God — God, on the contrary, revealed him-
self to it. This thought is expressed in ver. 19, where it is stated
that the knowledge of God is founded upon the manifestations of the
Divine energy ; God, in fact, is spoken of as he who manifests

* It may be said that tbe practice of causing thousands of their fellow men to be
slaughtered merely to feed their eyes with a sight of shows, was almost worse even than
that of eating human flesh, which appears to have proceeded at first only out of the un-
bridled fury of battle. That the gladiatorial games were not only maintained at the
time of the highest civilization of the ancient world, but then first attained a definite
form, shews how little the education of the head, without the real reformatior of the heart
humanizes the manners.

EoMANS I. 20. 487

himself to men. And it is for this very account that their knowl-
edge of God is so undeniable, viz., because it is conveyed by the
beams of the original source of light, God himself. The expression
TO yvuorbv rov Geov, is peculiar to this passage ; the word yvoia-ov
may mean either that which is known, or that which mo.y he known ;
according to the first meaning, the phrase would mean the same as
yvCdOL^ Tov Qeov ; the latter would, on the other hand, distinguish
that which may be known of God from that which may not. (1 Tim.
vi. 16.) In our choice between the two interpretations, we can be
guided only by the whole connexion of the passage, according to
which (as will soon be shewn more at length), the absolute incapa-
city of the heathen for the knowledge of God, is just as strongly
denied, as the possibility of their unlimited knowledge of him. The
expressions yvcjmg, or inLyvcoaig rov Qeov, knowledge of God, denote,
however, in the language of the New Testament, that absolute
knowledge of God which is conveyed to man by means of the mani-
festation of God in Christ ; from which we may assume that the
form TO yvooTov tov Qeov was purposely chosen by the apostle, in
order to designate that lower degree of acquaintance with God,
which was given to men on the footing of the Gentiles, and which
was only gradually obscured by sin.

However, it is plain that the knowledge of God, which is here
spoken of, is not to be referred merely to his government of the
world, and his works in it, but also particularly to himself

(TvcjoTog in the New Testament generally means recognized,
known [Acts i. 19, ii. 14, iv. 10, etc., Luke ii. 44, xxiii, 49], for
which in classical Greek the form yvoorog is usual. The sense
" which may be known" is supported by no other example in the
New Testament ; but abundantly by the classics,'-' — 'Ev avrolg, in
them, refers to the internal nature of the knowledge of God ; the
meaning of the apostle is, that the nature of God is represented in
the soul as in a mirror, so as not to be mistaken. It is a miscon-
ception of the passage to suppose with some that this expression is
used only of the philosophers who lived in the Gentile world, for the
apostle is here treating of a universal character of human nature,
and what is here said of the heathen, it is needless to sa}^, refers to
Jews also.)

Ver. 20. — Once more with a fresh yap, for (the seventh, which
follows without interruption from ver. 16, for diori, ver. 19, is in
meaning exactly the same as yap), the apostle annexes a thought in
which the agency by which God reveals himself, is described more
closely. We can point to no manifestations of Deity, either imme-
diate or by angels, to the Gentile world, such as were vouchsafed to

* See Hermann's note on the CEdip. Rex. of Sophocles, v. 3G2. Even the general
analogy of tiie verbala in rog also supports this interpretation.

488 KoMANS 1. 20.

the' Jews ; but God revealed himself to them by his creation from the
very beginning. — 'Atto iirioecog K6aiiov,from the creation of the tvorld,
can only refer to time, as Riickert and Reiche justly observe (on
which account, also, ^(pavepoxje stands in the past tense at ver. 19) ;
otherwise Troirnxara immediately afterwards, denoting the created
world, is merely tautological.* The determination of the time is
besides particularly important here, because it is the apostle's ex-
press purpose to prove that at no time, and under no circumstances,
was there any excuse for the deep moral depravity of the Gentiles,
since the knowledge of God in the works of nature was ahvays within.
their reach. At the same time, ivhat God was pleased to reveal
concerning himself, is more exactly declared in the words rd dopara
avTov, his invisible things, which expression is explained and lim-
ited at the end of the verse by ij re didiog avrov Svvafiig koI deioTTjg,
his eternal poioer and divinity. The "eternal power" is very definite
and easy to understand. In the contemplation of the creation, the
infinite poioer, which this presupposes, first impresses itself upon the
spirit (see Wisdom, ch. xiii.) ; and as compared with the merely
temporal evolutions of fthysical agencies, creative power appears as
eternal. On the other hand, the expression OecoTTjg, is both strik-
ing and obscure, since Qeov is necessarily supplied. But doubtless
the apostle, by this word, as above, by choosing yvwardi/, intended
to mark the incompleteness of their knowledge. The divin-
ity of God, i. e., his higher nature in general, the dominion of a
mighty power over the elements of the world, and of a condescending
benevolence in the care of all the creatures — all this may be recog-
nized in the mere contemplation of nature ; but by no means the
true deioTTjg of God, his personal existence as the absolute Spirit, as
well as his justice and holiness. Still, the most remarkable part of
this passage is the dopara avrov, his invisible things ; this seems to
imply something visible, a bparhv Qeov. And doubtless this is just
the meaning of the apostle. The world is the mirror in which the
inward nature and being of God is displayed ;f the garment which
clothes his very self (Ps. civ. 2). Therefore also, the world, in order
to lead man to the knowledge of God, needs to be contemplated
with a spiritual eye {yoovjieva iiaOopdrac = ev toj vCJ nadopdrai) ', as
only the spirit can comprehend the spiritual expression of the hu-
man countenance, because in like manner, the invisible being of
man is mirrored in his visible form, so also nature speaks of God's

* On /criffif, see the remarks on viii. 19. It denotes properly and primarily the ad of
creation, KTiapa, that which is created; in the New Testament, on the other hand, uriais
denotes commonly that which is created.

f Calvin justly observes on this passage, Deus per se invisibilis est, sed quia elucet
ejus majestas in operibus et creaturis universis, debuerunt illro homines agnoscere, nam
artificem suum perspicue declarant.

EoMANS I. 20. 489

might and goodness to him aloner, who beholds her with more than
the mere bodily eye ; the latter finds in her only disorder.

(Ktloic Koqiov [see at viii. 18] cannot mean the world, that which
was created, but only the act of creating. Taken in the former
sense, its connexion with KaOopdrai by dno would present a difficulty ;
in that case, t/c would have been chosen, as in an entirely parallel
passage in Wisdom xiii. 5. Meyer, to be sure, refers to Matth. viL
16, where is found dnb tc5v KaprrCdv t:myv6aeaOe [Berl. Jahrb. 1836, N.
113]. But icaOopd-ai can scarcely be found constructed with dno. — •
'Aidtog from del, everlasting, eternal ; d'idjg, invisible. — Oeorrjg and
6ec6-7]g differ, as Qeog, and Oeiog, of which they are the abstract nouns.
The fuhiess of the OeiorTjg resides in the world, the fulness of the OedxT/f
in Christ [Coloss. ii. 9]; in him alone can the Father be personally
contemplated.)

And now, at this remarkable passage, the question arises,
what does Paul wish ' strictly to intimate by this thought ? We
might think it implied in the passage, that men m earlier times,
when they stood nearer to the primeval age, had been able to
acquaint themselves with God through nature but by continual
unfaithfulness, had all, without exception, lost this knowledge, and
become abandoned to idol-worship. But this is plainly not the
meaning of the apostle ; rather is he speaking here of human
nature as it manifests itself at all times and places, so that he
conceives the knowledge of God may always develop itself afresh
from the contemplation of the world, whether by reflection on its
phenomena, by immediate impressions on the mind, or the stir-
rings of conscience. The germ of sin, which existed in all men,
would not indeed have been done away with, but certainly, by
obedience to that knowledge of God which was thus within their
reach, checked in its development. But instead of this, men gave
themselves up to the evil desires of their hearts, darkened thereby
the knowledge of God which yet remained to them, and thus
in turn heightened their animal passions into unnatural and mon-
strous lusts, and debauched their souls by a still more unnatural
and monstrous idolatry. But there were at all times individuals
who proved, by leading a nobler life, even in the most debased
states of heathenism, that it was at all times possible for man,
by the earnest contemplation of nature, to raise himself to a certain
knowledge of God. This power given to sinful man of acquainting
himself with God in nature, is brought forward by the apostle in
other places also, particulary. Acts xiv. 15, etc., xvii. 23, etc. The
Redeemer himself assumes such a power in passages like Matth, vi.
22, 23, John viii. 17. (Comp. Usteri's Paul. Lehrb. p. 21.) There
is, therefore, nothing in the passage we are now considering that is
not found elsewhere. But as this passage is found in the apostle's

490 Romans I. 21.

proof of the sinfulness of human nature, the impression has been
produced upon many minds, that the idea expressed in it concern-
ing the capability of man to raise himself to the knowledge of God,
limits the greatness of man's depravity. But in this the truth has
been overlooked, that moral depravity has not its immediate ground
in the understanding, but in the loill, and presupposes the want of
real love, on which account even morally evil spirits are said to
have the knowledge of Grod, (James ii. 19.) In fact, the capability
of knowing God heightens the moral depravity of man ; for that
they, notwithstanding this knowledge, can go on further and further
in sin, supposes a higher degree of aversion of the will from the
law than if they had sinned without this knowledge. The Koman
Catholic Church, as well as Eationalists, regard altogether errone-
ously the simple yvhyoTov rov Qeov as involving also true love and
obedience. But again, as we have already observed, the apostle
restricts that knowledge of God to which man can attain by the
mere contemplation of nature, to the knowledge of the might and
goodness of God. For the proper nature of God, as the Supreme
Spirit, and pure Love, *. e., communication of self remained unknown
to the heathen, as well as to most of the Jews themselves ; on which
account Christ is often obliged to tell the Jews that they know not
God. Accordingly Paul might, with equal justice, have here brought
out the- idea (if it had happened to suit his argument), that man,
from the mere contemplation of nature, could never arive at the true
knowledge of God ; passages, therefore, such as Ei^hes. ii. 12, are
not in the least inconsistent with the present. Even the best of the
heathen, with their weak glimmering of the knowledge of God,
remained without hope, because it was able to awaken in their minds
only fear, at most a longing after the unknown God. But when
Schneckenburger says that Paul might have derived this view from
the Alexandrian Gnostics, he brings forward a very unnecessary
hypothesis ; it is much simpler to suppose that it arose indepen-
dently in his own mind, as it did also in that of the Alexandrians,
from the immediate contemplation of the nobler moral phenomena
amongst the Gentiles. Granting even that Paul had heard of the
doctrine of the Alexandrians, yet he did not adopt it from them,
but uttered it only on account of the deep truth which he recognized
in it by the light of the Spirit.

Ver 21. — Paul points out the unfaithfulness of the Gentiles to
the measure of the knowledge of God which they possessed as the
beginning of their errors. (The yvSvreg r bv Qeov, knoiving God,
is not inconsistent with the preceding more general term OeioTTjg,
divinity, for here he is only speaking historically of that true knowl-
edge of God which existed in men originally, and which they
gradually lost.) God, as the absolutely highest Being, claims man

EoMANS I. 22, 23. 491

entirely, with all his adoration and all his gratitude, and (since God
is Spirit and Love, and man, in his true nature, is so likewise), 5/jzVz^-
ual adoration, and spiritual gratitude, i. e., the complete surrcndei
of self, and the obedience of the inmost powers of life. T/ius, as
the highest Spirit, and purest Love {cjg Oeov) they honoured him not,
even if they did not fail in outward homage. The consequence of
their forsaking the truth was then their sinking into vanity (luarai-
ovodat — V-'ron, Jerem. ii. 5); of their forsaking the Light, the sink-
ing into darkness, the element of sin. (The diaXoyiaixoi are the
actions of the vovg [see my Opusc Theol., p. 157] ; hence both vovg
and icapSiaj the two principal powers of the man, are drawn down
deeper into sin. With the vovr begins also the restoration of the
man in the new birth. See at vii. 25.)

Vers. 22, 23. — Gradually the Gentile world became more and
more degenerate, till the idea of God was entirely obliterated, so
that men, and even beasts of the meanest and most disgusting
forms, received divine honours. Amongst modern expositors, Reiche
has contested this profound derivation of idol-worship from sin,
which is yet undeniably expressed in the Old Testament. (Jerem.
ii. 11 ; Ps. cvi. 20.) His opinion is rather (p. 158), that the deifi-
cation of the powers of nature, and of individual created things,
preceded Monotheism, since all the conditions for the highest de-
velopment of the religious feeling were wanting. In this Eeiche
sets out with the quite unscriptural, and altogether untenable view,
that the course of human development begins with the completest
rudeness, and proceeds to the gradual perfection of our inward as
well as outward life. But the doctrine of the apostle is founded
on the opposite view of a gradual sinking out of a nobler state
into sin, parallel with which degradation appears the restoration
of man to his original glory, by a succession of God's gracious "mani-
festations. He means, therefore, to say, that the degradation of
the human race did not show itself suddenly in the fearful form of
the worship of created powers and images, but presupposed a con-
tinual succession of transgressions, and developments of sin.'-' In
consequence of these the higher power of man's life (the Trvevfia)
almost entirely disappeared, and only the brutal inclinations and
instincts remained, without a ruler. In this way man, of course, fell
a prey to the powers of nature, in which he perceived that working
on a mighty scale wiiich he felt to be active in himself It was
especially the generative and receptive powers of nature which were
recognized by man as the most powerful in himself and in external
things, and hence were in all nature- worship honoured with all kinds

* The necessity of a preaching of the name of the Lord (Genes, iv. 26) is the first in-
dication of that falling away from the true God, wLxh it was the object of the preaching
of the successive patriarchs to prevent.

492 EoMANS I. 24, 25.

of cruel and impure services. Where holy love to the Highest Good
was lost, another love must necessarily occupy the heart, for luith-
out love man cannot exist ; but as is the object of his love such
does Dian himself becomo, for love implies self-surrender to its ob-
ject. The speculative reason of man could not free him from this
bondage of the powers of nature, for it awakened no higher love, and
led at best to a hylozoistic Pantheism. The wisdom of man was
foolishness (1 Cor. iii. 9). The law, at the same time, could only
awaken the feeling of bondage, and the longing after freedom ; but
freedom itself, and the raising of the spirit to communion with God
the Spirit, could be wrought only by the imparting of a higher prin-
ciple of love through Christ ; whence also it is the Son who makes
free.

("HAAa^av do^av, k. t. A., answers exactly to Ps. cvi. 20, where the
LXX. have TjXXd^avro ttjv 66^av avrojv [i. e., Jehovah], ev 6noi(x)[j.aTi
fioGxnv. In ev biioL^jxa-i ehovog,'^ in the likeness of the image, is, no
doubt, an allusion to Gen. i. 26. Man, according to God's will, is
certainly intended to present an image of himself in holiness and
righteousness, but this image is not to be abused to purposes of
adoration ; since he, as (pdaproi;, is separated from the acpdag-og by
an infinite chasm. On Siioiojfia and duotiomg, see at Rom. viii. 3.
The worship of beasts had developed itself in Egypt in the grossest
forms and to the adoption of the most hideous errors, so that even
bestiality formed an element of their worship, as in the service of
Mendes. The expressions used by the apostle are applicable to the
worship of the Ibis, Apis, Crocodile, etc., etc.)

Vers. 24, 25. — God punishes sin by sin, that sin may bring with
it those fearful consequences which first tend to lead man to the
consciousness of his alienation from God. He, therefore, withdraw-
ing the influences of his grace, now left men in their blindness to
their own evil lusts, which shewed themselves especially in the un-
checked dominion of the most powerful of their natural instincts,
viz., sexual desire, and to the power and Prince of darkness, who is
the Lord of sin and all its manifestations. (By aTind^eodat ra
Gcofiara ev iavrdlg^ dishonouring their bodies, etc., unnatural lust is
not yet meant, but simply lust in general, which always in its sin-
ful exercise d'^ files the body, whilst other sins are without the body.
1 Cor. vi. 18. The opposite is Kxaadai OKsvog iv nn^. 1 Thess. iv. 4.)
Such abominations, which were considered not only lawful, but the
proper service of their gods, originated in the straying from truth into
falsehood.

('AAT^^eta, truth, and ipevdog, falsehood, are here to be taken abso-

* The expression kut" eUona koI kuO' 6/ioiuciv (Genesis i. 26), which there form a
Hendiadys, are here compounded into one expression, Sfiotufia eIkovoc — God will Ito
worshipped only m the perfect image of his Son, not in Adam, and his children.

KoMANS I. 26-28. 493

lutely, not as logical^ or simply formal, mathematical truth and false-
hood, but as essential, real truth. God himself is Essence and Truth
[cf. John i. 14]; sin is the absence or perversion of the real, is noth-
ingness and lie. I,e(3d^eadaL = npooKvveXv is found in the New Testa-
ment only here. Uapa rov KTiaavra is best taken as, putting into the
back ground, passing over the true God, or being hostile, opposed to
him. The doxology is intended to give prominence to the contrast
between the heathen's forge tfulness of God, and the honour which
was due to him.)

Vers 26, 27. — God let the Gentiles sink to yet lower degrada-
tion, in permitting them to fall into unnatural lusts. Here hu-
manity appears degraded below the beasts ; in the indulgence of
natural passions, man falls under the power of a very strong appe-
tite, and has in that a certain excuse ; but sins of unnatural lewdness
are the abominations of unmixed wickedness. That they were bo
much in vogue in the Roman and Grecian world, is a convincing
proof of the depravity of the age, notwithstanding all its outward
polish of cultivation. (Compare Tholuck's Abhandlung iiber den
sittlichen Zustand der Heidenwelt, at the beginning of Neander's
Denkwiirdigkeiten, B. I.)

Ver. 28. — The punishment of such abominations was the com-
plete spiritual ruin which accompanied it (avrifitodcav iv tavroXg, i. e.,
iv T6J vQ d-noXaixf^dvovreg, ver. 27), and which again could not but
bring disorder into all political and social relations. God permitted
them to fall into this condition, to bring the consequences of their
sin completely home to their consciences.

(As the hnoiuledge of God is eternal life [John xvii. 8], so Paul
rightly finds in the absence of it the source of all sin, and of its re-
sults. The ddoKinog vovg contains a verbal allusion to ovk edoKiixaoav.
The fact that they did not consider God, who is the absolute Good,
as good, made them reprobates ; while they fancied that they were
rejecting Jiiyn, he cast away them, and they cast away themselves.
The reference of the dSoKi^ua to the vovg marks corruption as havin^^
penetrated to the deepest spring of life ; the vovg was intended to
govern both body and soul : how great then must be the ruin, if the
highest principle, the power by which man receives the Divine ele-
ment, is itself destroyed. [Matth. vi. 22.] Sexual impurities are
set forth as the source of all other vices, because they destroy the
most sacred and tender relations of human nature.)

Vers. 29-31. — In the following catalogue of sins (a similar list
is found Galat. v. 19, etc.; 2 Tim. iii. 3), by which the mind
that is estranged from God discloses its enmity, no perfectly
distinct succession can certainly be traced out, and occasionally
the apostle is guided in the connexion by similarity of sound
in the words; still it is undeniable that, setting out with the

494 KoMANS I. 32.

more general forms of sin, he passes to its more special manifes-
tations.*

(The reading -nopveia is not found in A.B.C. and several other
MSS. and critical authorities. Without doubt this reading is not
here genuine, as Paul had already treated at length of sins relating
to the sexes. Transcribers, who thought that this very sin was here
missing, added this expression instead of novrjpia. — Uovrjpla and
Kada are nearly allied, yet the former renders more prominent the
producing of evil ; Trovrjpog is rather the corrupting, Kaicog the cor-
rupted.— ^Oovov and (j)6vov are connected in the same way on ac-
count of the sound In Euripides Troad, v, 763. — KaKoijBeia denotes
depravity of mind, inclination to evil, the opposite to evriOeta.
■iidvQiaT7]gj a secret calumniator, back-biter ; KardAaXog, every slan-
derer, even the common, public evil-speaker. — The latest investiga-
tions do away the distinction between OeoorvyTjg^ God-hating, and
OeooTvyijg, God-hated. f The active meaning, contemners of God,
is probably to be here preferred, since all evil-doers, as such, are
without exception displeasing to God, but sin does not rise in all to
the actual contemning of God. The ancients also mention the par-
ticular sin of QeoaexOgia. See Aristoph. Vesp. v. 416. — 'T(3piorrjg
marks the violent and insulting, vnep/jcjiavog him who is proud of
his personal dignity, etc. — 'Aawtrovg is wanting in several authori-
ties, but is to be retained as genuine on account of the Parono-
masia with davvdtrovg. It is most suitably taken as '' foolhardy,
rash in wicked enterprises," whilst dovvOsrog denotes the covenant-
breaker. — 'Aanovdovg is not found in A.B.D.E.G. and several other
critical authorities : still it was probably only omitted by the copy-
ists on account of its similarity in form to the other words, unless it
has found its way into this passage from 2 Tim. iii. 3. It difi'ers from
the kindred davvOerog in this, that it marks not the breaking of the
covenant, but the refusal to enter into one, and therefore implies
implacableness, want of love.)

Ver. 32. — Into this flood of sins the holy God permitted unholy
men to sink ; not by any special influence tending to make them bad,
but according to the necessary law in the moral economy of the world.
For where God and his holy character is not, and therefore the
vanity of the creature's self is the ruling power, there sin begets sin,

* Glockler's endeavour only conflrras me in my view, that wo must not attempt to go
further in demonstrating the order of the words ia tlie following catalogue of tlie mani-
festations of sin. lie regards ddiKla, KOKia, and Kaiiv<jl/Eia as the general expressions,
and all tliat follows upon them, as the special manifestations of these. But against tliis
BO much may be urged in almost every particular expression, that it is better to consider
the order of succession under a freer aspect.

f The accentuation of the word as an oxytone is to be preferred, in conformity with
the rule, that compound adjectives ia rjg ara always oxytones. See Buttmann's Larger
Grammar, B. II. p. 317.

Romans I. 32. 495

and piinislies itself by sin. In this law Divine love shews itself as
plainly as Divine justice ; for the frightful consequences of sin are
intended to awaken in the man the germ of those better feelings
that slumber there. And if even within the Christian world in-
stances of all these manifold forms of vice present themselves, this
is only a proof how carefully the visible church of Christ is to be
distinguished from its invisible reality ; nay, if even in the heart of
the believer traces of some of the sins which are here denounced as
heathenish are to be found, this only declares the truth, that in him
too the " old man" is living, who, as such, carries with him that
alienation from God which is the mother of all sin. But as in the
new man, in the case of the individual believer, so also in the invis-
ible church, in the case of that community of Christ on earth to
which so much is yet lacking, there is, through the Spirit which fills
her, a new principle active, which recognizes the true character of
all these abominations, corrects them in itself and others, and con-
tains within itself the power gradually to overcome them. But it
is precisely this, viz., t?mth existing in the very state of sinfulness, i. e.,
true repentance, which the apostle so painfully feels the lack of in
the heathen world. It knows the commandment of God, it knows
how deserving of death are its transgressions, and yet it not only
practises them itself, but praises others also who practise them.

(AiKa/wfxa is used here in the sense of ivro^ij, pH, ordinance. See
on Eom. iii. 21, and on the thought itself on Rom. ii. 14, 15. The
MSS. D.E.G. and several versions, contain after emyvovreg the words
ovK tv6r]aaVj or ovk tyvcjoav, ov ovvrjicav. These additions have, how-
ever, arisen only from a misapprehension of the thought here ex-
pressed ; the meaning of the apostle is this, that they not only
recognized sin, but also punishment as its just desert. "A^iog davd-
rov implies the idea that death is the consequence of sin as such,
just as life is of righteousness. [See Rom. viii. 13.] The apostle
had mentioned many fruits of the sinfulness of the heart, which,
considered by themselves, could not be punished with deatii by the
civil power ; but in the individual the}' never appear isolated, and
in the sight of God, who knows the inmost disposition of the heart,
the lesser outward transgression is considered equally culpable, if com-
mitted under aggravating circumstances, with the grosser outward
offence committed under circumstances of palliation. A man's own
sinful deed commonly disturbs, by the increased force it gives to the
lusts, his power of clear judgment ; and therefore to take pleasure
in the sins of others when one's own evil desires are more subdued,
and therefore the voice of conscience is more easily heard, indi-
cates a greater progress in sin than the sinful action itself)

490 Romans II. 1.

§ 4. The Condition of the Jews.

(II. 1-29.)

That condition of moral depravity amongst the Gentiles, de-
picted in the first chapter, made apparent the necessity of a new
•wa^r of salvation ; but previous to describing this way, the apostle
directs his attention to the second great diviwon of the human race,
as considered from the theocratic point of view, that is, to the Jews.
It is, however, only in ver. 11 that Paul begins to treat expressly of
the Jews ; for in the first verses he is still speaking of Gentiles, of
thos'e, namely, who had been preserved from the grosser forms of
vice. He represents these as excusing themselves, and declaring
the gross sinners to be alone culpable. Tb»! s denial of the charge of
sinfulness lay also in the spirit of the Jewish people, who were ac-
customed to look down upon the whole Gentile world as sinners
compared with themselves ; therefore the apostle, in these verses,
which form a transition to the other subject, amalgamates this part
of the Gentile world with the Jewish world, which must have re-
cognized its share in the rebuke, ia order that he might in the first
place exhibit the degradation of the latter more plainly, by con-
trasting it with the excellencies of some really nobler spirits amongst
the Gentiles. The apostle, therefore, first proves that the state of
sinfulness does not the' less exist, even in cases where it produces no
such outward evil fruits. The manifestations of sin only assume a
less gross and prominent form, without being on that account essen-
tially different. None should therefore judge his neighbour, but
rather judge himself, and let the goodness of God lead him to re-
pentance, knowing that the just God punishes without fail all sin,
whether refined or coarse, whether outward or inward, and only
rewards the good. Now if this principle was applicable to all men,
it was so in an es.pecial manner to the Jews, who had received an
express law ; but on this very account they would but be more
strictly punished if they had not observed this holy law, and put to
deep shame by many heathens, who had walked according to their
inferior knowledge more faithfully than many Jews had followed
their deeper acquaintance with God. Even circumcision, the seal
of their election to be God's people, had a significance only when
recognized as an obligation to a faithful observance of the law.
The real character of the Jew was not therefore outward, but in»
ward, and depended on the circumcision of the heart.

Ver. 1. — The view, that the apostle from the very first verse
addresses himself to the Jews alone, has been supported by Flatt,
Tholuck, Riickert, and Reiche, besides other expositors ; this view.

KoMANS II. 1. 497

however, appears, from tlie general character of the expressions em-
ployed by the apostle, altogether untenable. For instance, w avdpu>-ne
TTflf, 0 every man (in ver. 1) in connexion with -ndoa ipvx'ti dv6p6noVj
every soul of man (ver. 9) is so general, that Jews alone cannot
well be meant by it.* Besides, avrd -npdoaecgj thou practicest, etc.
(ver. 1) taken according to the usual explanation, as spoken of the
outward practice of all Jews, bears no proper sense, inasmuch as the
Jewish people collectively were actually much more free from gross
vices than the Gentile world. At the same time it is quite true that
those Gentiles, whose condition is depicted in the first chapter,
cannot be spoken of in the second (though some older commenta-
tors, e. (/., Calovius, have supported this view); for the persons who
outwardly indulged in all the vices there delineated, certainly would
not dare to judge others under the sense of their own innocence.
Such persons could only be either hypocrites or idiots, with whom
further argument would be useless. The connexion appears then
only natural and complete, when we assume that Paul is speak-
ing to Gentiles indeed, but only to such as lived in outward re-
spectability, addicted to no such flagrant vices. These considered
themselves better than their degraded fellow-countrymen, and
therefore sat in judgment upon their sins. The Jews too stood
in a similar position. In general, they were more free from gross
viciousness than the Gentiles, and were hence inclined to condemn
them ; in this manner then, the apostle obtains an easy transition
to the consideration of the condition of the Jews, in that he points
out how the germ of all those vices is also slumbering in their
hearts, as in those of the better Gentiles.f Augustine rightly un-
derstood the passage in this manner, and it is only thus that tha
argument of the apostle receives its full truth. All the Gentilea
did not actually live in the commission of the crimes painted in such
glaring colours in chapter i., and but few of the Jews especially ;
nevertheless, they are all, both Jews and Gentiles, sinners without
exception, because they all bear within them the germ of all vices.
The Gentiles who are commended in chap. ii. 14, 15, receive this
commendation only because they assent to this truth. The apostle
therefore distinguishes in his description three classes of men,% who

* Glockler recognizes the general character of these expressions, but supposes still
that Paul is merely speaking of the Jews ; he does not, however, shew how these two
views can co-exist. The first passage (j uvdpune nug might still be construed as is done
by Fritzsche, " whosoever thou art, even if thou shouldest belong to the people of God."
But ver. 9 is clearly to be taken quite generally.

f Yery instructive for the right understanding of this passage is Galat. ii. 15, where
it is written, ijfielc (pvaei 'lovdaloi, koI ovk i^ kdvCiv u/iapruXoi. Here then also the Gen-
tilea are called KaT" e^oxtjv the u/xapruXoi, as the most morally sunken, according to which,
the Jews as a body must be conceived of as the dinmoi, i. e., of course as the righteous
after the law.

t These three classes we meet with agaiu in all places and at all times, and therefore

Vol.. III.— 32

498 KoMANs II. 1.

indeed are all, without exception, sinners, but yet stand in a different
relation to sin. The^rs^ class consists of all those who live uncon-
cerned in flagrant vices ; to this class belonged the great mass of
the Gentile world, and some few individuals amongst the Jews.
The second class consists of those who check the grosser outbreaks
of sin, but nevertheless bear in their hearts the germ of sinfulness,
and with it all its subtler manifestations, but without recognizing
their sinful condition, and without longing for something better.
To this class belonged the great mass of the Jews and individual
Gentiles. Their condition is only apparently better than that of
those belonging to the first class, since, while they lacked the lat-
-er's coarse sensuality and vice, they suffered from spiritual blindness
and want of love, so that their apparent virtues were in fact but
" splendida vitia." To the third class, lastly, belong those who not
only have avoided the grosser outbreaks of sin, but at the same time
also recognize, with penitent sorrow, their inward sinfulness, and
cherish a longing for a more perfect condition. Of these alone can
it be said, that they keep that law (ii. 14, 15, 26, 27) which de-
mands love and truth. They fulfil the law of love in that humility
which will not permit them to judge their weak fellow-creatures ;
they fulfil the truth in that repentance which teaches them to con-
demn their own sin, even though it does not break out into gross
iniquity. A picture of this genuine Gentile piety is presented to us
in Cornelius (Acts x.); and Paul can have meant only such, accord-
ing to his fundamental view in ii. 14, 15, 26, 27.*

Accordingly the person mentioned in ii. 1, as judging others, is
a man who has not, indeed, outwardly indulged in the same grosser
sins which he condemns in others, but who is, in fact, inwardly liv-
ing after a subtler form in the same corrupt frame of mind ; and it
is just precisely this which is expressed by the words " thou doest the
same things" (ra yap avra Trpdaaeig). According to the usual inter-
pretation, it must be, e. (/., a murderer who condemns another for
murder, an assumption wholly unnatural, as we have already ob-
served. According to our view, on the other hand, the man who
judges the murderer does the same thing if he hates his brother. It
is, however, very conceivable, that a man may not recognize the

the apostle's statement has not merely a temporary import, but depicts in an entirely ob-
jective manner the nature of the human heart in itself.

* The greater number of modern expositors have misunderstood the apostle's repre-
sentation in this place. Benecke comes the nearest to the truth, but at the same time he
has not accurately and pointedly conceived the character of the pious Gentiles described
in ii. 14, 15, inasmuch as he also only understands by these persons men outwardly
faithful to the law, without recognizing in them the elements of repentance and faith.
The manner in which he approximates to the view taken by us, shews itself especially
in his remarks on ver. 23, where he calls attention to the fact, that in the very act of con-
demning others, that very ain is incurred which in its turn condemns the condemner.

Romans II. 2-5.' 499

same sin iii the hatred as in the murder, and will therefore set
himself above his fellow-creature. In the same way, therefore,
as our Lord, in the Sermon on the Mount, so here the apostle
endeavours to bring to men's consciousness their sin in its radical
principle.

(Aw refers to i. 32, where the knowledge of God's law is attrib-
uted to sinners. On account of this knowledge, even he who trans-
gresses the law in a less obvious manner, and judges his fellow-man,
has no excuse, for the law requires also humility and compassionate
love. — 'Ev 6j is not to be explained by i»xa, but as the following Td
avrd shews, by supplying tv tovtg). The stress is laid upon the fact
that the person judging commits the same sin as the person con-
demned.)

Ver. 2. — The apostle illustrates the foregoing thought from the
conception of Divine justice, God's judgment is an absolutely true
one, and therefore punishes sin as well in its subtler as in its grosser
manifestations, since the law demands its perfect fulfilment. (Kara
aATJOeiav is to be construed with Kptjua, as designating the nature of
the Divine agency in the work of judgment. The verdict of men is
often erroneous, God's judgment alone can judge hidden sins in ac-
cordance with truth.)

Vers. 3, 4. — In order to awaken the consciousness of sin in these
persons, the apostle next points out that the impunity they had
hitherto enjoyed in their sinful state was not to be considered as
a token of Divine favour towards them, since the only object of
God's long-suffering was to lead them to repentance. That, there-
fore, which the law was specially intended to produce, repentance
(neTdvoia), was precisely what was stUl wanting in them, whilst those
who are depicted afterwards (ii. ] 4, 15) had obtained this blessing.

(In ver. 3 Aoyi<^?; c5e tovto is to be understood, " But canst thou
suppose or imagine this ?" — Ver. 4. The expressions ;^p7?(tt6t77^,
dvoxrj, fiaiipodv[j,ta, goodness, forbearance, long-suffering, contain a
climax describing the relation of God to this class of sinners, who are
often with the most difficulty convinced of their guilt. XprjaTOTTjg,
viz., denotes goodness in general, dvoxrj its exercise in postponing
punishment, /ua«:po0^|uta, continued dvox^. To all three Paul applies
the expression nXovTog, which he frequently uses as synonymous with
nlripiofia. [See Eom. ix. 23, xi. 23 ; Ephes. i. 7, ii. 7, iii. 16 ; Coloss. i.
27.] Merdvoia, repentance, denotes here, precisely as in the gospels
[see on Matth. iii. 2], the painful conviction of sin, accompanied with
a longing hope of help from above. Repentance is the mother of
compassion, and covers a brother's sin instead of judging him. This
expression is not, however, one of those in current use with Paul ;
it is only found besides in 2 Cor. vii. 9 ; 2 Tim. i. 25.)

Ver. 5, — The abuse of the long-suffering of God only leaves there-

500 Romans II. 6-8.

fore, in the mind of tlie impenitent a fearful anticipation, becoming
ever more oppressive, of future judgment.

(iKX-qpoTTjg denotes that state of spiritual hardness and unsuscep-
tibiHty by which the influences of Divine grace are rendered inef-
fectual, and the exercise of repentance prevented. The form
diJ.eTav6rjTog is found only here in the New Testament, Kara is to be
taken here, "according to the measure," not, with Koppe, as stand-
ing for the dativus instrumenti. — The rjnepa dpyrj^ is to be under-
stood of the general day of decision, of the judgment of the world,
on which the manifestation of the righteousness of God, so long de-
ferred, will infallibly take place. He, then, who despises the good-
ness of God is increasing his guilt against this day of decision, and
therefore increasing that punishment which proceeds from God's
punitive justice. In the treasured up wrath, therefore, the cause is
put for the effect. — The substantive diKatoKpioia is found only in this
passage of the New Testament ; it appears elsewhere only in a
Greek translation of Hosea vi. 5. /^maioKpiTrjg is found 2 Maccab.
xii. 41.- — ^Instead of dnoKaXvij'EG)^, some MSS. read dvraTTodoaccog, yet
the preponderance of critical authority requires us to retain the com-
mon reading. A considerable number of MSS. read Kai after dnoKa-
Xvxpewg. and Mill, Wetstein, and Knapp have approved of this
reading ; yet it has probably been inserted only on account of the
three consecutive genitives, and therefore it is better, with Gries-
bach, to erase it. The passage loses all appearance of harshness, if
we consider ducaioKpiata rov Qeov as one conception, the subject of the
dnoKdXvrjJig.^

Vers. 6-8. — This passage, which describes so simply the course
of retributive justice, has been misunderstood by the Romanists
and used as evidence against the Protestant doctrine of justifi-
cation by faith ; it has, in consequence, been interpreted with an
excess of caution on the part of Protestants. We cannot, in fact,
agree with them in thinking that the apostle intended to speak
merely objectively of the judgment of God, and that he wished to
assert, not that any one would actually, on account of his works,
receive eternal life, but only that if any one had these to shew, he
would receive it ; the fact being that no one has them, because all
without exception are sinful, and therefore no one can, on account
of his works, obtain everlasting life. There is, indeed, no doubt that
this argument is in perfect harmony with Paul's principles ; but if
he had intended it in this place, surely he would not immediately
afterwards have spoken of Gentiles who do the works of the law (ii.
14, 15). The interpretation of the passage turns rather on our
determining the import of the trile tpyov dyaOov, good ivorh (ii. 7),
whence also the phrase -noielv rd rov vofiov, doing the things of the
law, will be rightly apprehended. From the whole tenor of the

Romans II. 6-8. 501

apostle's argument, it is plaia that a good work (tpyov ayaQdv) can-
not be understood merely of an outward work done in obedience
to an outward law, wbicb work might be combined with self-conceit
and pride, but only of works proceeding from a genuine state of
penitence, of which state faith always forms an element. As Abra-
ham and other saints, before the coming of Christ, lived a life of
faith, so individual pious Grentiles had also those germs of faith
in their bearts, without which no good works are possible, because
where they are wanting the best outward actions remain tpya vtKpd^
dead works. We may therefore affirm, that God always judges
men according to their works, alike those who lived before Christ,
and those who live after him, because, in fact, tbe inward man must
ever be manifested in certain outward appearances, and the latter
bear testimony to the character of the former. We may, however,
also say, conversely, that as well before as after Christ, men are al-
ways judged according to their faith, because it alone is the principle
of good works ; indeed, we might call faith itself the greatest and
most important work (see at John vi. 29), inasmuch as it is the
mother of all good works. The faith of men before and after Christ
is not, therefore, specifically different, but different only in degree
and in object. (See at Eom. iii. 21, etc., Heb. xi. 1, etc.) But as
faith in its highest exercise causes men to judge themselves, in so
far are believers under the New Covenant not judged at all (John
iii. 18), and thus the difficulty of the present passage vanishes when
viewed on this side also. The remark, therefore, of Hopfner and
Usteri that Paul speaks here from a merely legal point of view, is so
far well founded, as that, had the fact been otherwise, Paul would
not have so expressed himself* At the same time, the thought,
although proceeding from legal premises, reaches such a universal
application, that it has its truth, with regard to God's judicial deal-
ings, for all stages of spiritual development. The distinction be-
tween the blessedness of heaven and the degrees of this blessedness,
which latter depend upon the man's works, whilst faith is the con-
dition of the former, is indeed in itself correct and scriptural (see
at 1 Cor. iii. 11, etc.), but it has nothing whatever to do with the
present passage. Eeiche's interpretation of the passage is entirely
erroneous. He would distinguish between the strict moral economy
of the universe, and its limitation by the grace which is in Christ ;
here, he thinks, the former is alone spoken of, and the latter left
entirely out of sight. But he considers the latter to be merely an
amnesty once allowed for special circumstances, and which admits

* At the same time we find, even in 1 Sam. xxvi. 23, " The Lord recompenses every
man according to hia righteousness and his faith. On the other hand, in Ps. xxviii. 4 ;
Ecclea. xil 14; Jerem. xvii. 10, as well as in Matth. xvi. 27, mention is made of workt
odIj.

502 Romans II. 6-8.

of no further extension so as to embrace the world after Christ. It
is manifest, however, that the very nature of Christianity, as a means
of salvation, as an institution calculated for all men in all ages,
would be entirely destroyed by such an assumption. The grace of
God in Christ does not restrict the range of the moral economy of
the universe, but establishes it upon its real principles, and gives it
the fullest scope. Finally, this and similar passages (as e. g., iii. 6,
xiv. 10, 1 Cor. V. 13), on the subject of the last judgment, are par-
ticularly important as coming from Paul, inasmuch as we may con-
clude from them that Paul did not entertain any discrepant views
with respect to the damnation and the resurrection of the wicked.
He openly asserts neither of these (except in 2 Thess. i. 9, we find
the words " eternal destruction"), and much in his epistles seems to
indicate the contrary. (Comp. at Rom. xi. 32, 1 Cor. xv. 24, etc.) But
from his description of the day of judgment, it is assuredly probable
that, whilst Paul gave but little prominence to this doctrine, he en-
tertained the same fundamental views as the other writers of the
New Testament.

(As regards the construction, Reiche has again attempted to con-
nect ^TjTovoL with ^o)Tjv alu)vioVj and, on the other hand, to attach
do^av K. T. A., to dnodwaei ; but, although this connexion is not abso-
Bolutely impossible, we prefer, in common with almost all exposit-
ors, the connexion of i^w^v aiu)viov with d-nod^an^ in which case
66^av-^7]Tovoi stands in apposition with rolg ^ev «. r. A. It is assur-
edly, beyond denial, a very forced construction to connect ^rjTovoi
^oirjv al6vwv with roTg fxiv^ and throw between the accusatives, gov-
erned by d-TTodojoEi.'^ — In the conception of the tpyov dyaOov, good
worJc, we are to have respect, as has been already observed, not
merely to the lawfulness of the deed, but especially to the purity of
the motive, which can be nothing but faith, without which it is im-
possible to please God in any stage whatever of spiritual life ; it
stands, therefore, opposed, not only to the epyov rrovT/pov, wicked
work, but ^Iso especially to the epyov vsKpov, dead work. — The ad-
dition, Kud' vTTnuovTjv [see Rom. xv. 4 ; 1 Thess. i. 3 ; 2 Cor. i. 6],
refers to the continuance of activity in well-doing, and forms the
contrast with those transient ebullitions of better feelings in the
heart, of which even the wicked are not entirely destitute, but which
disappear as quickly as they arise. The expression may be resolved
into TTciai Tolg vno^Evovmv tv tpyco dyadoj, to all loTio enduringly con-
tinue in good works. The sense of spiritual need which belongs to

* For roif 6e in the Comm. (evidently a mere slip of the pen), I have not hesitated to
substitute toIq fisv. Eeiche's construction is, indeed, intolerably harsh. I doubt the
precise correctness of Olshausen's. Instead of taking roif /lev together, and ^TjTovai in
apposition, i. e., "to the one class — seeking," etc., it seems better to take ToIc-^TjTovac to-
gether, as the subject, giving to fiev its usual signification, i. e., " to those on the one hand
who seek," etc. So rolg 61 k^ ipidda^, "but to those who are of contention." — [K.

Romans II. 8-10. 503

those who receive eternal life is pointed out by the clause in apposi-
tion, in which ^rjrelv denotes the hungering and thirsting after right-
eousness. Aofa, TijU7/, dcpdapaia, glory , honour, immortality, are to be
regarded as forming a climax. The future glory is contrasted with
the shame, which is the lot of the humble man here below ; the nuri
with that driiila in which he perceives himself ; the d(j)6apoia with
that fiaraioTT]^ and (pdopd with which he feels himself now burdened.
— Ver. 8. Zcjfjv al6viov should have been followed by the accusatives
dpyfjv Koi dvfj.6v. The apostle, however, drops that construction, and
finishes the sentence as if d-nodoOijaeTai had preceded. Qdvaroc, also,
should strictly have been opposed to the idea of life in the preceding
clause ; opy?) koI dvnog finally denote, as in ver. 5, the cause instead
of the efi'ect. — The expression oi i^ epideiag is founded upon the figure
of the being born of a certain element, an idea elsewhere expressed
by vlSg or tekvov. [See Phil. i. 16, 17, 1 John iv. 5.] The word
epideia^^ is found in the classics only in Aristotle (Polit. v. 2, 3) ; he
uses it in the sense of " faction, party." Its etymology is doubtful ;
it may come from epidevo) (from ^piov, " wool") which means " to
work in wool," and then " to work" in general, " to work at a per-
son, to seek to bring a person over to one's own side ;" or it may come
from epig, "strife," and from the verb ipii^etv, when it would signify
" love of strife." This meaning is best suited to its use in the New
Testament. [See 2 Cor. xii. 20 ; Galat. v. 20 ; Phil. i. 16, ii. 3 ; James
iii. 14.] Since here kgidda is opposed to tpyov dyadov, it can natu-
rally denote only rebellion against God, to which is opposed devotion
and praise to God. In this condition the man believes himself to
possess all that is necessary for him, and is, therefore, without spirit-
ual desires and aspirations. The apposition koX dneiOovoi k. t. A., gives
here a more exact description of the state of the godless, as, above,
the ^T]Tovot K. T. A., of the condition of the righteous. The root of
their sin is disobedience to the truth. To truth, falsehood should
properly be opposed ; the apostle, however, puts for it ddiicia, inas-
much as this, as the opposite to ditcaioovvrj, comprehends falsehood
in itself)

Vers. 9, 10. — The apostle repeats once more the same thought
for the sake of greater emphasis, but, in the first place, with that
modification which is usually found in the New Testament accounts
of the Divine judgments, namely, that the gracious acceptance of
believers, and not the just rejection of unbelievers, is mentioned
last, so as to leave upon the mind the cheerful impression of
that redemption which has been accomplished (see on Matth. xxv.
41-46); and, in the second place, with a more distinct reference to
the Jews, whose condition alone he considers in fuller detail in what

* With req)ect to ipideia see the Excursus of Fritzsche, vol. L p. 143 sqq.

504 KoMANS II. 11-13.

follows. In fact, in the case of the Jews, both blessing and curse
must necessarily manifest themselves with increased intensity, since
they had much fuller means of becoming acquainted with God, as
the following representation illustrates. The Jews, therefore, are so
far from being exempt from the general judgment as the chosen
people of God, that it visits them the more severely in case of un-
faithfulness.

(The opposite to orevoxo^pta, viz., evpvxcjpta, is not found in the
New Testament, though used by classical writers. The word de-
notes, like dXixfjig, the spiritual punishment of sin, since, in this
place, it is not the earthly consequences of wickedness that are
spoken of, but the punishments inflicted at the ?JjWKpa dpyijg, day of
wrath (ver. 5), on which account also it is said -ndaa ipvxi] dvdptdnovj
every soul of man, which cannot be said of earthly punishments,
since many wicked men escape them altogether. In the same way
glory, honour, and peace [66^a,TCfirj, eipTJvrj] refer here only to life in
its inward aspects [see ver. 16] ; for, to all outward appearance, the
contrary is the case in this world, on which account the natural
man, in his false security, supposes that he shall be able to escape
the judgment of God (ver. 3). The more special definitions of ver.
7, 8, are here resolved into the abstract terms kukov and dyaOov. The
verb tpxETai or tart must be supplied.)

Ver. 11. — The higher position of the Jews, simply on account of
their physical descent from Abraham, a prerogative which they were
always so ready to assert against the Gentiles, is denied by the
apostle on the grounds of the impartiality of God ; the free im-
provement and application of those means to which each man has
access, is that which alone determines his character in the sight of
God (see on Matth. xv. 14, etc.) The privileges of the Jews, there^
fore, only heightened their responsibility. The faithful use of them
alone enhanced their value. There is, however, here no allusion to
converts from Judaism ; the apostle is rather treating the subject,
as well in regard to Jews as Gentiles, entirely irrespectively of indi-
viduals, in order to demonstrate from it the necessity of some other
way of salvation than that which the law presented. The sub-
stantive TTpoaG)TToX7]xl)ia is also found in Ephes. vi. 9 ; Coloss. iii. 25 ;
James ii. 1.)

Vers. 12, 13. — As the cause of the greater responsibility of the
Jews, and the lesser responsibility of the Gentiles, the apostle brings
forward the law of Moses, which the Gentiles did not possess. But
the grace of God always supposes the exercise of free will in man,
and therefore wherever this grace is at work, the guilt of man may
be increased through the abuse of his freedom.

('Avojuct)?", without law, is not intended to express here the abso-

Romans II. 12, 13. 505

lute absence of all law,* as ver. 15 shews, but only the want of the
positive law of Moses. In 1 Cor. ix. 21, Ewoiioq is found as the oppo-
site to avoiioi;. The opposite terms 6ia voiiov and dvoncog are natu-
rally to be understood as signifying, " mth or without reference to
the law of Moses." The " perishing without law" (avojuw^ Koi dnoXovv-
rat) is startling ; we might expect that they would not be judged at
all. But as no one is absolutely without law, he shall be judged
according to his knowledge. Neither, therefore, can the perdition
be considered as absolute. In the same way we find, Luke xii. 48,
that he who knew not his Lord's will received /ei^ stripes, but by no
means none at all. We shall reserve for Kom. iii. 21, the more ex-
act determination of the meaning of diicaioi, and SiKaio)di'joovTai^ and
only mark here their general opposition to dnoXovvrai and icpLdijaov-
rai. In this passage odo^F.adai^ saved, might have been substituted
for diKaiog elvat or dmaiovodai, justified, since it is only the Divine
acknowledgment of the existing SiKaioovvrj which is intended ; and
of course God, who is eternal truth, cannot recognize anything
which does not exist. The -noL-q-aX rov v6[iov, doers of the laio, have
therefore, in Paul's opinion, a certain dtKaioavvj], righteousness, at all
stages of their spiritual life. But since the performance of the law
before regeneration is that which is here spoken of, the diKaioavvT]
which God recognizes in the doers of the law, can of course only be
understood of their oion righteousness {I6ia dinaioovvT]). This must,
however, be recognized as far as it goes ; it is by no means, in con-
sequence of hereditary sin, a matter of indifference, whether a man
endeavours to observe the law or not. The righteousness of the
law, in its genuine form, that is to say, when the man retains the
consciousness of his own need, prepares the way for the reception of
that righteousness which is by faith, whilst unfaithfulness renders it
more diflacult. For that opinion, of which we have already spoken
in our observations on ver. 6, which affirms that the apostle is here
only speaking hypothetically of the performance of the law, since
that was altogether beyond the power of sinful man, is plainly inad-
missible, since he speaks in the verses immediately following of
Gentiles who do perform the works of the law. That this, however,
does not deny the truth, that man in his natural state is unable to
keep the law, will be shown in the following remarks. De Wette's
interpretation of the passage is entirely wrong ; for he asserts that
ver. 1 3 refers altogether to the Jews, and that Paul only returns to
the mention of the Gentiles in ver. 14. Kather does ver. 13 refer to
all who keep the law, whether they be Jews or Gentiles ; but since

* In classical writers nvofiug is only found in the signification of " contrary to law ;"
even in Isocrates Panegyr. p. 28, edit. Mori, this meaning is to bo retained, although in
this passage the other meaning " without law," is also interwoven. (See Alberti obser-
vatt. in New Testament, p. 473.)

506 KoMANS II. 14, 15.

the possibility of observing the law might seem scarcely conceivable
in the case of the Gentiles, it is explained in ver. 14 how far this
may be predicated of them also.

Vers. 14, 15. — In order to prove that question of observing
the law applies also to the Gentiles, the apostle proceeds to de-
monstrate, in the first place, that a law was in fact also given to
the Gentiles. He defines this law as one written in their hearts
(vonog ypaTTTog iv raig Kapdiatg^, which expression forms a contrast
with the law of the Old Testament, which was engraven on tables
of stone (see 2 Cor. iii, 2, 3), and obviously means by this term the
voice of God in the conscience, which makes itself heard, how-
ever indistinctly, even in the most degraded state of the heathen
world. But with respect to the relation which this inward law bears
to the outwardly given law of Moses, we must allow that the latter
is not only more clear and definite, and much more exact in its de-
mands, but also that it stands much higher on this account espe-
cially, that it claims most expressly to be the law of God himself.
The want of this distinct reference of the law to God, in the case
of the inward law of the heathen, manifests itself most clearly by
the struggle of their thoughts ; for the language of lust and sin
always succeeds in making itself heard in conflict with this better
voice, because the latter is not expressly recognized as that which it
really is, the voice of the Most High God ; at the same time, the
more indistinct the inward law appears, the more exalted is the
faithfulness of those who yield obedience to its weak and confused
admonitions. The difference, therefore, between the law of the
heathen, and the clear law of Moses, invested as it is with undoubted
Divine authority, is immense, and, in consequence, the advantage
of the Jews in the possession of this law was very great also. At
the same time, this difference appears somewhat diminished by
the fact, that the Mosaic law with all its definiteness, required for
any particular case an application determined by the mode in which
it was conceived and interpreted ; and this naturally depended as
much upon the entire state of mind of the individual Jew, as the
interpretation of the inward law upon that of the individual Gen-
tile. However, the number of the purely external commandments
was so great, that, by means of them, even in those characters
amongst the Jews, in which the moral feeling was but little devel-
oped, there was continually preserved alive the consciousness of a
God, who comes to men with inexorably strict requirements. But
still more important than the information, that even the Gentiles were
not absolutely without law, is, in the second 2:>lace, the express assertion
of the apostle, that they were also in a condition to follow this law, to
keep its commandments, and to fulfil it (see vers. 26, 27). It has
already been remarked (on ver. 1), that this is not to be understood

Romans II. 14, 15. 507

merely of au external and legal observance of it, in that tliis would
by no means deserve to be called the fulfilment of the law (tpyov
dyadovj ver. 7), but that the necessary condition of every good work,
faith and love,^' which never exist without one another, must also
be presupposed in the case of the pious Gentiles. But now the
question arises, how is this assertion to be reconciled with the doc-
trine, that it is only through the grace of Christ that really good
works can be produced ? Through Christ a pure and holy principle
of life has been acquired for man, the Divine seed {antpfia rov Qeov),
which is absolutely without sin, even as God. The regenerate, in
whom this principle dwells, cannot sin (1 John iii. 8); the sins of
the regenerate are, in fact, only the utterances of the sinful old man,
who at some moments forces back the new ; but the essential prin-
ciple of their life remains untouched by sin. (See further at Kom.
vii. 25.) Such an absolutely pure principle wrought neither in the
Gentiles, nor in general in the period before Christ ; it was first
made attainable by men on the completion of the work of Christ.
(See on John vii. 39.) Hence, also, the doctrine of the sinfulness of
all men without exception, even of those who do the work of the
law, retains its full truth ; for, in the first place, not only is he under
sin who commits it constantly or often, but also he who commits it
only once, or only transgresses the law under a single aspect. (See
at Galat. iii. 10.) If, therefore, the devout Gentiles sometimes, or
even often, followed their better motions, yet they did not always
do so, and therefore they remained sinners. But again, our concep-
tion of sin varies widely, according to the degree of our spiritual
knowledge. Even the better Gentiles were in this respect but little
advanced, and their performance of the law must always, therefore,
be but relative ; he only, who fails not even in a single word, can
be reckoned entirely perfect and without sin. (James iii. 2.) The
possibility of a relative fulfilment of the law is, however, in contradic-
tion neither to the scriptural nor church doctrine of the sinfulness of
human nature ; both Scripture and the church only deny the possibil-
ity of an absolute fulfilment of the law.-j- On this account, also, the
relative obedience of the Gentiles cannot of course as such, be taken
as the foundation of their eternal blessedness, this could only be
supplied by such an absolute holiness as is possible to no mere man ;
but in connexion with that whole frame of mind, which even a
merely relative fulfilment of the law presupposes in a Gentile, it
can form such a foundation, inasmuch as it may render him capable

* With respect to the sense in which it may be said of the Gentiles also, that they
have failh and love, further remarks will be found in the notes to Matth. xxv. 31, etc.,
Rom. iii. 21, etc., Heb. xi. 1, etc.

f This manifests itself particularly in the doctrines of the gratia universalis and of the
actus manududorii ad conversionem.

508 Romans II. 14, 15.

of receiving, in penitent faith, the salvation which is offered in
Christ. As, therefore, the true children of Abraham are the chil-
dren of promise in Christ, so also are the devout Gentiles, because
they also are true children of Abraham. (See ii. 28, 29.) This ap-
propriatiou of the salvation which is in Christ on the part of the
Gentile world, is recognized in Scripture as possible in the doctrine
of the " descensus Christi ad inferos."

A limitation of the conception of a fulfilment of the law, on the
part of the Gentiles, is therefore by all means required ; still, with
all the necessary restriction, this passage yet contains a most con-
solatory truth. Even in the wilderness of the heathen world, does
the apostle teach us, the Xoyng anepnariKog had scattered his precious
seed ; there were Gentiles, who, by a certain conviction of their
sins, had become humble and contrite, who had an earnest desire to
be faithful to the light which was vouchsafed them, who cherished
longings for a better spiritual state, and therefore possessed the
capacity for apprehending Christ, when he presented himself to
them, whether in this or a coming state. These elements sufficed,
in their position and relations, to constitute a foundation for eternal
blessedness ; in fact, that which did not accrue to them here, they
received in the regions of the dead, after Christ's manifestation
there. (See at 1 Pet. iii. 18.) Humble faithfulness then, the apos-
tle would say, to our knowledge, however small, of Divine truth, in
case our ignorance he not self-incurred, will, whatever be our posi-
tion and grade of culture, receive its reward. Unfaithfulness, on the
other hand, even when accompanied by the greatest privileges, re-
ceives at all times its deserved punishment. But the reward of the
Gentile world, so far as it was well-pleasing to God, was this, that
it was capable of being led to Christ, because it possessed in repent-
ance the capacity of apprehending him. It was not, therefore, even
in the case of the pious Gentiles, works as such, which were the
condition of their salvation, but the germ of faith from which they
proceeded. That which they retain of undiscovered sin is forgiven
them without works, through the merits of Christ, as they inherited
this without conscious guilt from Adam. Christ appears, therefore,
as the Redeemer of all those who do not positively reject him, and
retain the capacity for receiving him into their hearts. (See at
Acts X. 34-36.)

(It is wholly erroneous to understand orav ttol^ of a merely ideal
possibility; the apostle plainly speaks of an actual reality (vers. 26,
27) ; because there do really exist pious Gentiles, Paul concludes
they must have some Ig-w or other which they follow. "Orav, with
a following subjunctive, no doubt denotes a merely possible, but
also a frequently recurring relation, with respect to which it is
only left indeterminate where and when it actually occurs. Paul

Romans II. 14, 15. 509

means not to designate any particular persons, but certainly to
aflfirm that such exist. [See Matthias's Greek Gr. § 251, Winer's
Gram. p. 255.] Bengel, followed by Riickert, takes 4>vaeL with ^xovra,
but both its position'and the sense demand its connexion with what
follows. It was, in fact, unnecessary to remark that the Gentiles
had not anything by nature, since the Jews especially already rated
their condition low enough ; but it was very needful to call atten-
tion to the fact, that they could without higher support obey the
law in a certain measure, ^vgk;^ has here a doctrinal signifi-
oancy. It denotes in the New Testament, 1, the natural con-
stitution of anything, as in Rom. i. 26. xi. 21-24 ; Galat. iv. 8 ; or
the natural descent after the flesh, as in Galat. ii. 15 ; 2, the con-
dition of man without the grace of God, as he is flesh born of the
flesh. [John iii. 6.] In this sense it is found Rom. ii. 27, and
especially in Ephes. ii. 3, 4. Paul, therefore, manifestly sup-
poses that in the fallen nature of man the seeds of something
better still remain, which, in individual characters, sometimes at-
tain to a remarkable development, producing a complete suscep-
tibility to gracious influences. So, e. g., in the Canaanitish woman.
[See at Matth. xv. 22, etc.] The natural man finds himself
indeed burdened with a " proclivitas peccandi," but no " necessitas
peccandi," so far at least as action is concerned ; but for the con-
quest of evil desires, and an inward conformity to the Divine
law, he is wholly inadequate. The words tavroX^ dai vofiog, are
a laiu to themselves, are not intended to deny that God is the
author of this inward law also, but merely to intimate that the Gen-
tiles are not conscious of this connexion, and, therefore, in so far
appear as if they were a law to themselves. The inward law of God,
which exists indeed constantly in man, and makes itself known to
him unmistakably by the motions of his conscience and the inward
conflict of his thoughts, will herafter at length become manifest to
all in the actual consequences of obedience or disobedience to this
law [tvdeiKvvvTac h rjfiepa k. t. A.], in that many will wonder that so
many heathens are deemed worthy to sit down with Abraham, and
Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven, whilst so many Jews are
excluded. — "Y.Qyov rod vojiov, work of the law, I cannot consider with
Tholuck as pleonastic, nor can I regard it with Reiche as synonymous
with the plural ra tpya, for individual works are not written in the
heart of man, since they are elicited by circumstances. The apos-
tle's intention is rather to declare that there is not merely a knowledge
of the law in the minds of the Gentiles, but also that their will has
the power to a certain degree of observing this law. On this account
the man's thoughts may justly accuse him, because he actually had
the power to abstain from the sinful deed. And, therefore, tpyov is
to be considered = to ifryd^eadai. Glockler takes it similarly, as that

510 KOMANS II. 16.

which the law is intended to produce, viz., righteousness In the
same way that Paul speaks of a law written in the heart (vojuo?
ypanrbt; tv ral^ icapdiaig), so also Plutarch [Moral, vol. v. p. 11, edit.
Tauchn. ad princ. in erud. c. 3] of a law not written outwardly in
books, but dwelling in the soul [vofiog ovk. iv l3if3Xioig e^w yeypaniievo^,
cA,A' tfixjjvxog u)v dvdpcjTTG)]. It is that law of the mind [v6[j.og rov
vo6<;'\ of which Paul treats, Kom. vii. 23, and of which we shaU
Bpeak at greater length at that place. But avvel6T]aig, conscience,
possesses always, in addition to the knowledge of the law, the con-
sciousness in itself of being able and bound somehow or other to
observe that law. At the same time, this original law must be
accurately distinguished from that which, according to Jerem. xxxi.
33 ; Heb. ix. 10, is written in the hearts of the regenerate by the
Spirit of Christ. This latter is the absolutely perfect law, which
communicates at the same time the highest power for its fulfilment,
and, therefore, also strengthens the will ; the former is a weak glim-
mer of that light which filled the heart of the first man.* — Ivfifxap-
TVQelodai is only a stronger form of [lapTvpeladac, i. e., to testify,
and thereby bring before the consciousness. A-oyionog is also found 2
Cor. X. 5. LLaXoyiap,6g [i. 21], diavorjiia, voT/fta, are more common
expressions to denote the operations of the Xoyog or vovg. The
accusing principle is that of the Divine Spirit, the excusing that
of the natural life ; this inward heaving and tossing of the thoughts
is wanting in those who are wholly dead, but also in those who
are perfectly sanctified, whose souls enjoy peace like that of the
unruffled mirror of the ocean. This inward conflict, then, as more
fuUy described by Paul in the 7th chapter, is but a melancholy ad-
vantage, a consequence of the awakening of the inner life, a wit-
ness of our lost original holiness, and yet it is better than death.)

Ver. 16. — With an implied reference to ver. 5, the apostle
transfers this manifestation of the state of the Gentile world, of
which the Jews in particular would know nothing, to the decisive
day of judgment.

(Reiche has defended the old way of connecting ver. 16 with ver.
12, so that vers. 13-15 form a parenthesis. However, this connexion
has its difficulties, not so much on account of the length of the
parenthesis, as of the contents of vers. 13-15. For the subject of
these verses stands in the closest connexion with ver. 12, and forms
the foundation of the ideas expressed in the last verse ; they can-
not, therefore, be regarded as parenthetical. The whole difficulty
of the passage disappears if, with Bengel, we lay the emphasis upon

* In the Rabbinical writers the law in the conscience is caUed niyata ffn, or also
ft'i^ats rr^'in from yat;, nature. (See Buxtorf. lex. rabb. et talmud. p.' !j62, and 1349.)
The opposite to this is formed by the ansao Mn'ig, lex quae scripta est scil. in tabulifl
lapideis. • ' *

Romans II. 17-20. 511

hSeUvvvraij are manifested, in ver. 15. Conscience and the accusing
and excusing thoughts are no doubt always at work in the heart of
man, but are not manifested in conjunction with their consequences.
This shall take place in the case of all, as well of those who have fol-
lowed the admonitions of the inner voice, as of those who have neg-
lected them, only at the day of judgment. [See on Matth.xxv. 81, etc.]
It is only by this construction too, that ivdeUvvvTai forms a fitting
contrast to rd Kpvrrrd, the secrects ; those inward transactions which
take place in the depths of the soul generally remain quite indiscern-
ible, on which account the apostle deems it necessary in this place to
bring them before the consciousness of his readers in general, and of
the Jews amongst them in particular. They remain indeed hidden
not merely to others, but in their real nature, to the man's own self,
in that the good consider themselves worse, and the evil better than
they are. The parable in Matth. xxv. 31, etc., is therefore in this
respect an excellent commentary on the present passage. Alike,
the acquitting and the condemning voice of conscience in the day of
judgment, seem here brought to view. Other explanations of the
relation of ver. 16 to what has gone before, such as Heumann's
view, that vers. 13-15 might have been written afterwards by the
apostle on the margin, or Koppe's opinion, that juera^y is to be taken
in the sense of ^ereneLTa, are altogether untenable. In itself [isra^v
can indeed signify "afterwards" [see at Acts xiii. 42], but here its
connexion with dAA?/Acjv will not allow of this meaning.— Christ is
here, as ever in the New Testament, represented and conceived of
as carrying into effect the last judgment of the world. [See on
Matth. xxv. 31, etc.; Acts vii. 17, 31.] — The addition Kara to
Evayyi/uov /iov, according to my gospel, does not refer, as was
erroneously supposed by the ancients, to a written gospel of Paul's,
but designates merely the spirit and substance of his evangelical
preaching.)

Vers. 17-20. ■'■' — Paul now finally directs himself to the Jews in
a definite address, and in the first place brings forward prominently
all those advantages which had been vouchsafed them, in order then
to make them perceive how little they had shewn themselves worthy
of them, and how therefore they could make no boast of superiority
to the Gentiles, amongst whom noble natures were to be found. It
has been erroneously concluded, as already remarked in the Intro-
duction, from this address, that there must have been in Rome a
party of rank Jewish Christians. Paul however speaks, as already
observed in the Introduction, not of Jewish Christians, but entirely
objectively of all the Jews and all the Gentiles in the world, and
this definite address can therefore be regarded only as a rhetorical
figure. If therefore there were even amongst the Roman Christians,

* On the paaeage ii. 17-29, see Augustine, de spir. otlitt. c. 8.

612 KoMANS II. 21-24,

as is probable, those who had formerly been Jews, yet these were
not affected with a Judaising tendency ; but this is the only point
of importance in the question respecting the composition of the
Koman church. *

(The reading of the textus receptus Idi has been rightly rejected
by the greater number of modern critics and exegetical commenta-
tors ; si 6e has not only, the most important critical authorities in its
favour, especially A.B.D.E. and others, but is also favoured by the
connexion. To be sure an anacoluthon is occasioned by it, but it is
probably only to the endeavour to get rid of this that ISe owes its
origin .-^'ETTovo/iai^eiv, iiTavanaveiv are sonorous words chosen on pur-
pose to mark distinctly the excessive self-conceit of the Jews. On
the form Kavxdaat, see Winer's Gr. p. 72. 'Ev eea5 intimates God's
special relation to Israel as its covenant God, — AoKifxa^eiv rd Siacpe-
povra is found also Phil. i. 16. AoKifid^eiv implies not merely exam-
ination, but consequent recognition and approval ; 6ia(j)epeiv marks
difference either for the better or worse ; in the New Testament
only for the better. The objective law of God is taken as the rule
of the examination. — In consequence of this position of privilege;
the Jews, blind to their own glaring unfaithfulness, arrogated to
themselves the most decided spiritual authority over the Gentiles,
whom they regarded as altogether blind in comparison of them-
selves. 'OSrjybg tv0Awv, gtcide of the blind, alludes no doubt to
Matth. XV. 14. This tendency in Judaism to overrate their mere
outward calling had developed itself most strongly amongst the
Pharisees, "Acppoveg, foolish, and vrjmoi, babes, have this difference,
that the former denotes a low degree of knowledge [in this case of
Divine things], the latter a low degree of spiritual development in
general, — The description of the law as a nopcpojoig r/^f yvuxjeug kuI
dXi]6eiag,for'm of knowledge and truth, still indicates an advantage on
the side of the Jews ; the Gentiles had not even a typical represen-
tation of essential truth. At the same time by the choice of the word
fi6p(f)(x)OLg it is implied, that in the Old Testament the substance
itself was not yet given, Mopcfxjjoig is used here in the sense of pic-
ture, outline [see 2 Tim. i, 13, iii, 5], like the oKid as contrasted with
the awjtm, [Coloss. ii. 17.] Knowledge [John xvii. 3] and truth
[John i. 17] are essentially imparted in the New Testament, and not
merely typically.)

Vers. 21-24. — In what follows, the unfaithfulness of the Jews is
presented in the most glaring contrast with their assumptions. Not-
withstanding their possession of the Divine law, the Jews transgress
its holy commandments in particular cases outwardly, and the great
mass of them inwardly, in cherishing evil desires ; and thus, by their
openly immoral or arrogant conduct, and that want of real self-
knowledge which it betrays even to the pious^Crentiles, they injure

Romans II. 25. 513

the cause of truth, instead of promoting it according to God's will
by faithfulness and humility. And whilst in such a condition them-
selves, they wish yet to teach others, in the feeling of their proper
vocation to be teachers of the world ; but to them may be applied
those words of the Psalmist (Ps. 1, 16, 17), " What hast thou to do
to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in
thy mouth, seeing thou hatest instruction and castest my words
behind thee ?"

(The answering clause [the apodosis] of the sentence should pro-
perly have followed in ver. 21, with perhaps a diart, luhy ? but in-
stead of this, the apostle drops the construction. — I prefer, with
Knapp, not to take the following sentences interrogatively ; the
address becomes more emphatic by the definite declaration. Ye are
unfaithful. — In the mere external sense, it is impossible to under-
stand these sins as committed by all the Jews ; for as now, so also
then, the great mass of the Jews lived in outward morality, espe-
cially in respect of sexual intercourse. — 'QdeXvaaeodai, to entertain
abhorrence, particularly against idolatrous practices ; therefore
PSiXvyna = y^ptj, an idol. [1 Kings xi. 5 ; Isaiah ii. 8.] With this,
however, lepoavXelv forms no proper contrast, meaning only to plunder
or rob the sanctuary. But no doubt covetousness, the national sin of
the Jews, was present to the apostle's mind when he made choice
of this expression ; covetousness he regards as an inward idolatry
[Col. iii. 5], so that the contrast thus comes out clearly : " Thou
abhorrest idols, and yet, in thy covetousness, thou thyself prac-
ticest idolatry." "••' No doubt lepoavXelv cannot in itself mean, "to
indulge covetousness," but lepoavXelv as the most daring mani-
festation of the covetous spirit, may be used to express that which
is its motive.f Israel was in God's purpose intended to ex-
hibit to the Gentiles a picture of truly holy national life ; its un-
faithfulness therefore dishonours God himself ; it causes the Gen-
tiles to say, " The God of this nation cannot be the true God !"
This fearful effect of Israel's sin [which is repeated in the case of
all who are called upon at any period to be the focus of Divine life
and by unfaithfulness fall away from their vocation], is already
rebuked by the prophets of the Old Testament. See Isaiah Iii. 5 ;
Ezek. xxxvi. 20 ; another parallel is, 2 Sam. xii. 14.)

Ver. 25. — Paul, however, by no means loses sight of the prero-
gatives of Israel (see iii. 1, etc., where he considers them at greater

* Stier, in his " Andeutungen" (part ii. p. 267), follows Luther, who says on this pas-
sage, " Thou art a thief towards God, for honour belongeth unto God, and this all self-
righteous persons take from him." The connexion, however, points to actual sin, not to
mere self-righteousness.

f An example of such sacrilege is related by Josephus (Arch. xxii. 6, 2), who tells
us that the presents of the rich proselyte Fulvia were pilfered by the Jews, to whom they
had been entrusted.

Vol. III.— 33 *

514 Romans II. 26, 27.

length) ; he only shews that they demand faithfulness to those
responsihilities which are connected with them by God, if they are
not to turn to their deeper condemnation. The apostle, therefore,
pre-supposes, in all stages of spiritual life, the possibiUty of a cer-
tain measure of faithfulness and moral earnestness, corresponding
to the degree of knowledge ; and the personal condition of the indi-
vidual is determined by his exercise of this faithfulness.

(Circumcision is here regarded as the seal of the Divine election,
so that in it all theocratical privileges are considered as consecrated.
The Jews, therefore, with their materializing tendencies, attributed
the greatest value to the outwardly performed rite of circumcision.
In consequence of this view, it is declared in the Talmudic treatise
Shemoth [see Schottgen on the passage], that in the case of Jews
who are damned, the foreskin must first be outwardly restored. The
Gentile world is therefore also called at once aKpofSva-la = nVns^ un-
circumcision, as unclean, lacking the sign of the covenant.* 'Eav
in ver. 25, as in ver. 26, is used not merely conditionally, for Paul
does not overlook the transgressions of the Jews, and the faithful-
ness of many Gentiles ; but like orav in ver. 14, of a certain fact
which remains uncertain only as to the cases of its actual occur-
rence.

Vers. 26, 27. — If such a degradation of the Jew to a lower sta-
tion as to privilege and honour was conceivable to him, from the
dreadful threatenings under which the Old Testament demanded
obedience (see Deut. xxviii. 15, etc.) ; yet the reception of the Gen-
tiles to grace was to him inconceivable. And yet the apostle asserts
this also, and sets the Gentiles before the eyes of the Jews as rebuk-
ing the latter by their good conduct.

(Ai/caiOjua = ivroXi], the particular command of the general
vofiog. — In the phrase Xoyi^eoOat elg TTepiTon7]v there is an evident
allusion to the Xoyt^eadai elg dcKatoovvrjv in iv. 3 ; that which they
have not is imputed to them as if they had it. Now the ground of
this imputation is this, that though they have not indeed the sign,
they have instead of it the germ of the reality which the sign
represents, viz., the covenant with God of a good conscience, which
they maintain faithfully, according to the small measure of know-
ledge which they have of God ; and therefore they may not untruly
be regarded as having the sign also, ver. 27. Kat is best taken as
carrying on the question with ov%t understood. Kpiveiv of course
merely marks the essential rebuke which unrighteousness always
receives from righteousness. [Matth. xii. 42 ; Heb. xi. 7.] The
connexion of t«; (pvaecog is uncertain ; at first sight its position seems
to necessitate its connexion with aKgo^varia^ denoting natural in con-

* The form of the word in pure Greek was uKpoivoadia. See on this point Fritzsche,
vol. L, p. 136.

Romans II. 28, 29. 515

trast with spiritual circumcision. Thus Thohick, Riickert, and
Reiche, Still, plausible as is this construction, I cannot regard it as
the right one. For, in the first place. Ik (pvaeoog added to dKpojJvoria
is wholly superfluous : if Paul had thereby wished to distinguish
born Gentiles from Jews with Gentile sentiments, as is the mean-
ing of uKpofivaTia in ver. 25, he must have added t« (l)v(jeo)g to d«:po-
Pvaria at once in ver. 26 ; but since he twice uses dKpo(3vaTia in ver.
26 without this addition, it appears out of place in ver. 27. On
the other hand, the contrast with 6 6id ypdfinarog Koi TtepiTonrjg rtapa-
PdTTjg, imperatively demands that tK (pvasug be referred to human
nature left to itself, whilst ypdnjia [== vofiog, or v6[io<; ypanTog, 2 Tim.
iii. 15, in so far as it is contemplated amongst the Jews as some-
thing externally given, and contrasted with the man] and Treptrop/
denote the grace of God, in which the Israelites made their boast.
Thus Koppe rightly, but he made the mistake of referring Ik
(pvoeojg immediately to reXovaa^ a construction conflicting with
the order of the words. But the case is otherwise, if we take dKpo-
(ivoria rov v6[j,ov reXovaa as forming one conception : e/c (pvaecog then
becomes related to this one collective thought, and the whole idea
comes out clearly, while its reference to dKpofivoTia alone in-
troduces some awkwardness. The meaning of the words is then
" that Gentile world, which, without special help from above,
observed the law, judgeth thee who, in the possession of this special
help from above, transgressest the law." Beza's interpretation of
6td as instrumental, making the sense, " the law and circumcision
were to the Jews occasions of sin," expresses a thought in itself cor-
rect ; but it is improbable that Paul should have so far anticipated
the course of his argument as to introduce it here ; he reserves it to
a later stage of the discussion [vii. 14]. Riickert rightly derives the
application of 6id here from its local signification " through, hence,
with, during, under the circumstances,"* See Rom. iv. 11, xiv. 20.
The meaning, " notwithstanding, in spite of," which Glcickler sup-
ports, is unprecedented. The way in which Meyer endeavours to
justify this meaning, " breaking through, as it were, its limits," is
in the highest degree forced.)

Vers. 28, 29. — In these verses is contained the key to the whole
of the apostle's argument in the first two chapters of the Epistle
to the Romans, Paul conceives in a very profound manner the
contrast between Jews and Gentiles. It is not bodily physical
descent, or the circumcision of the flesh, which constitutes the true
son of Abraham, but conformity to Abraham's life of faith (for their
ancestor, Abraham, had also sons who were not partakers of the

* That i3 strictly, dul, through, either as separative ; hence, between, in the midst of;
or as continuative, heaco ; during, along with, attended by ; thus : " those who through, in
the midst ot, attended by, the letter," etc. — [K.

516 Romans II. 28, 29.

promise, Rom. ix. 7 ; Galat. iv, 22), and that circumcision of the
heart by which the sinful irpoaaQTTJfiaTa rT]g tpvxrjg are removed. In
the outward, natural Israel, there exists therefore a heathen world,
which God, in that great judgment which visited the Jews at the
destruction of Jerusalem, condemned, whilst the few genuine Israel-
ites were either received into the Christian Church, or preserved for
later times as the germs of a new generation (Rom. xi.) But in
the Gentile world also there is to be discovered an Israel — that is
to say, a number of noble souls, truly susceptible to all that is
more elevated, for whom the Divine promises are not less intended
than for Israel after the flesh, for those at least of it who belong
also to the spiritual Israel ; still, it is not to be denied that,
under like circumstances, the children of Abraham after the flesh
had a more comprehensive vocation, so that, for instance, there could
not have been Gentiles numbered amongst the Twelve, nor could
Christ have been born with the same propriety of a Gentile mother.
(See at John iv. 22.) This view is not found merely amongst the
later Rabbinical writers,* who might have adopted it from the effects
of Christian influence, but also in the Old Testament Scriptures.
These not only demand the circumcision of the heart (Deut. x. 16,
xxx. 6 ; Jerem. iv. 4, compared with Coloss. ii. 11 ; Phil. iii. 2), but
also represent the true children of God as scattered throughout all
the world, and amongst all nations. Thus especially in Isaiah xliii.
5, etc. Here the Lord commands that his children be brought from
the ends of the world, " even every one that is called by his name,
and whom he has created for his glory." It is not the dispersion of
Israel after the flesh amongst all nations, that is spoken of in this
passage ; by these, then, can only be meant 'the nobler souls scat-
tered amongst all nations, those in whose hearts the Aoyo^ onepim-
TiKog has deposited its seeds. In the same sense the Redeemer
speaks of other sheep, which are not of this fold, i. e., of the com-
munity of Israel after the flesh. (See at John x. 16, xi. 52, and, in
the Old Testament, Micah ii. 12.) According to this scriptural con-
ception, therefore, the election of God appears in complete harmony
with the free self-determination of man. In the case of every man,
whether much or little have been entrusted to him, all depends upon
the personal faithfulness with which he improves the privileges to
which he has been called ; and by the faithful employment of that
which has been vouchsafed to him the most insignificant may out-

* Compare the remarkable words of Rabbi Lipmann, in the Nizzachon, p. 19. "Irri-
sit nos Christianus quidam dieendo : mulieres quce circumcidi noD possunt, pro Judseis
non sunt habendse ; verum illi nesciunt, quod fides non posita sit in circumcisione, sed in
corde. Quicunque Tero non credit, ilium circumcisio Judseum non facit ; qui vero recte
credit, is Judaus est, etiam si non circumcisus." Reiche adduces a very striking passage
from Plutarch (de Isid. et Osir. p. 352), where, on the principles of the heathen religJou{\
the same is said of the genuine worshippers of the gods.

Romans II. 28, 29. 517

strip the man to whom the greatest gifts have been entrusted, and
who yet shews himself unfaithful. The difficulty returns upon us,
however, with increased strength, when, penetrating deeper into the
subject, we regard faithfulness itself as a fruit of grace ; this, how-
ever, will be considered at Rom. ix. The whole passage, finally, is
remarkable, as exhibiting the manner in which the apostles and
writers of the New Testament explained the Old ; verbally indeed,
but by no means literally.

( Ver. 28. — The yap is to be explained by the thought implied in
ver. 27, " Jews can also be rejected." To this, then, as its reason, is
annexed the thought, that the true idea of the Jew as a member
of the theocratic nation, and of circumcision as the seal of the theo-
cratic covenant, is not an outward but an inward one. External
descent from Abrahaip, the external rite of circumcision, has no
significance without the inward foundation of a right disposition.
KpvTTTo^, as the opposite of (pavepog, used of the moral disposition, is
also found 1 Pet. iii. 4. — Ver. 29. Ov ypdiijiari, is difficult from the
indefiniteness of the relation of the contrasted h TTvevp.aTL. The con-
trast of ypdfina and nvev^a is not essentially different from that of
odp^ and TTvevna. As body is the covering of the spirit, on which the
spirit stamps its impress, and without which it does not reveal itself
personally on earth — so, in Scripture, the letter is the transparent veil
of the spirit, giving it its fixed and determinate form. Thus then we
should find expressed in it the contrast of the outward and the in-
ward, the (pavepov and Kpvnrov. But the contrast already expressed in
these terms can scarcely be repeated by ypdufxa and nvevfia without
tautology ; and hence it is better, doubtless, here, with Beza, Heu-
mann, Morus, and Reiche, to understand ygdpua, as in ver. 27, of the
law, but of course of the law conceived in its purely literal aspects.
For, regarded in its profounder character, the -nveviia was also in the
law. Riickert, therefore, is not wrong in understanding -nvtvua of
the New, ypdmia of the Old Testament, for the spirit in the Old
Testament is precisely the New in consummation. [Matth. v.
17.] Ver, 29 is therefore to be understood thus : " but the
inward Jew and the circumcision of the heart is the true circum-
cision, in that it contains the reality of the thing represented by the
outward sign, after the spirit and not after the mere letter." The
concluding clause, ov 6 enaivoc;, k. t. X., refers, of course, to the
leading idea, that is, to the true Jew, or perhaps to rrvetSfxa, which
amounts substantially to the same thing ; the judgment of God on
man, as the true judgment, is opposed to the false judgment of
man, which is determined by outward appearances. 'E/c is here
highly appropriate, for a commendation pronounced by man can also
he from God, if it is a just one.)

618 KOMANS III. 1.

§ 5. Comparison of the Jews and Gentiles.

(III. 1-20.)

This spiritual view of the relation between the Jews and tlie
Gentiles might, however, as the apostle, not without reason, feared,
be easily misunderstood. Paul, therefore, finds it necessary to call
attention to the fact, that this representation of the relation was by
no means intended to depreciate in themselves those advantages
which the Jews possessed above the Gentile world ; on the contrary,
he recognizes them as of the greatest importance. But these advan-
tages had. annexed to them the condition of faith, and this condition
bad not been fulfilled by the mass of the nation ; although, there-
fore, the promises of God had been accomplished notwithstanding
their unbelief, yet the people of Israel, as such, had lost their theo-
cratical prerogative, and the spiritual Israel alone, composed of Jews
and Gentiles, bad, as the true children of faithful Abraham, received
the promise. Under this view of the connexion, the difficulties dis-
appear, which have been supposed to embarrass this portion of the
Epistle to the Komans. The apostle does not at all lose the thread
of his argument (so that it were necessary to assume, as even Reiche
stiU proposes, that it is resumed only at Rom. ix. 4), but be here, so
far as was needful, completely obviates the objection. For that no
dtvTtpov follows the -ngihrov in ver. 2, is naturally accounted for by
the fapt, that this first which is adduced, includes all else which
could still have any claim to be mentioned. The passage iii. 9,
stands, however, in no contradiction with ver. 2 ; for, whilst this
passage treats of the original calling of the Jews, the former speaks
of the actual state of their relations to God, which had been intro-
duced by their unbelief. All the promises of the Old, as well as
the New Testament, are, in fact, conferred upon the condition of
believing obedience ; if this does not exist, they are, eo ipso, an-,
nulled, nay more, the blessing is converted into its direct opposite,
the curse. (See Deut. xxviii. 1, etc., 15, etc.) Paul might, there-
fore, have expressed himself even more strongly than he does in
iii. 9 ; he might have said, " the Jews have not only no advantages
over the Gentiles, but the Gentiles are now preferred to them, they
have been grafted into the olive tree in place of those branches which
have been hewn ofi"." But, according to Rom. xi. 20, etc., the same
condition holds good also of the Gentiles, and they may, through
unbelief, just as weU forfeit their calling to privileges, as the Jews
did before them. Chapters ix. — xi. are therefore a kind of extended
commentary upon this passage, but without being a continuation of
what is bere begun.

KOMANS III. 1-3. 619

Vers. 1, 2.— With a glance back at the foregoing exhibition of
the sinfulness of the Jews, the apostle now asks, what then has
become of the privileges of the Jews ? Their sinfulness had placed
them on a level with the Gentiles, for the law had not at all m their
case attained its exalted object. The law was intended to produce
the imyvo^acg diiaprlag, Jcnowledcje of sin (iii. 20), that is to say, true
repentance, instead of which, on account of their unbelief, and its
consequent unfaithfulness, it only produced sin itself, and indeed
the very worst form of sin, the exact contrary to repentance, the ar-
rocrant opinion that they were without sin, and as the descendants
of Abraham after the flesh, were already heirs of the kingdom of
heaven. Nevertheless, the Divine promise retained its objective
reality ; those Jews, who apprehended in faith the salvation offered
to them in Christ, received also his full blessing, notwithstanding
the great body of the nation forfeited it.

(To TTepioaov stands, like to yvcoarov in i. 19, substantively in the
sense of " advantage, prerogative." Here also we are not, as Reiche
justly remarks, to regard Paul as disputing with actual personages :
the discussion is wholly objective— The opposite to Kara Tzavra rpo-
TTov is found in 2 Maccab. xi. 31, Kar^ ovdiva Tp67:ov.-No doubt ^po)-
rov iiiv points, in its mere form, to other advantages, which Paul
• intended to name. But he felt quite rightly, that all was in reality
contained in the one which he had adduced. In the mterpretation
of ^ntarevQTiaav, Reiche is inclined to the view of Koppe and Cramer,
who translate, " the Divine promises were confirmed to them." But
its usual meaning "confide," manifestly accords better with the con-
nexion, in which their own faithlessness [antarta] m keeping the
trust is adverted to. The Divine faithfulness [mang-] is mentioned
only in consequence of this dmarla. [On the well-known construc-
tion of the passive see Winer's Gram. p. 237.] The Xdyta rov Beov
are no doubt primarily the promises [Acts vii. 88 ; 1 Pet. iv. 11 :
Heb V. 12], especiaUy those of the Messiah and the kingdom ol
God' to which all the others had reference. But inasmuch as these
promises constituted the essential part of Holy Scripture, the whole
word of God is also indicated by this expression.)

Yer. 3.— It is not altogether easy to follow the course of the
apostle's thoughts in this transition ; Tholuck has, however, already
ri-htly supplied the links which are wanting. The apostle presup-
poses the notorious fact of the unbelief of the Jews, just at the time
when the promises were being fulfilled, and deduces from thence
that even if the blessing was lost to the nation collectively, it yet,
according to God's faithfulness, remained even now confirmed to
individual believers, and should hereafter also belong to the whole
of Israel when God should have led them back by wondrous
ways (Rom. xi. 26.) He forbearingly calls the unbelievers

520 Romans III. 4.

TLv^g in the hope that many in Israel might yet turn to Christ.
See ix. 1, etc.

(For rjmarTjaav the MS. A. reads rjneidrjCFav, because the Xoyia
were taken as synonymous with the law. It is explained more in
accordance with Paul's views by regarding unbelief as the root of
disobedience. [See at John xvi. 9.] With regard to TrloTtg, maievcj
and its opposite dmaTtco, see at Rom. iii. 21. On KarapyeXv^ which
occurs so frequently with Paul, see at Luke xiii. 7, the only place in
the New Testament in which it is found except in Paul's writings.
In the LXX. also it occurs but four times.)

Ver. 4. — With man's unfaithfulness is now contrasted the un-
changeable faithfulness of Grod, who can form for himself, in spite
of sin, the inheritors of his promises. For God's promises cannot
be fulfilled without the existence of persons to accept them ; he is,
therefore, not only true in giving and keeping his promises for his
own part (since, if all men were unfaithful, they would surely not
remain unfulfilled), but he is also faithful in creating such as are
worthy to receive them. In chap, ix, this idea is carried out more
at length, and it is only when thus understood that the words, " if
we believe not, yet he remaineth faithful, he cannot deny himself,"
receive their full meaning. The streams of Divine grace, when
repelled on the one side, turn themselves to the other, and form for
themselves, amongst Jews and Gentiles, organs for the kingdom of
God, without, however, operating by constraint, without any preju-
dice to man's freedom, nay, rather really establishing and complet-
ing it.

(M^ yivoLTo answers to the Hebrew nV-'Vn, which is thus translated
by the LXX. [See Gesenius' Lexicon under V-^Vn.] It is also fre-
quently found in Polybius, Arrian, and others ; particularly often
with Paul in the New Testament, thus in the Epistle to the Ro-
mans iii. 6, 31, vi. 2, 15, vii. 7, etc. To translate yiv^ado) 6e, " let
it be rather so, God is faithful," etc., is forced. Reiche justly ob-
serves, the imperative only expresses emphatically the irrefragable
nature of the assertion. Udg dvdpunog 'ipevaT7]g, every man a liar, is
taken from Ps. cxvi. 11. It has in so far its perfect truth, that man
in his separation from, nay, even opposition to God, who has alone
essential bein^:: and truth, becomes untrue and unfaithful ; so far as
he is good and true, it is God in him. Whenever, therefore, this Di-
vine truth takes up its abode in a heart, the man confesses himself
to be untrue without God, and with this first truth begins his true
life. [See at ver. 10.] For further confirmation, Ps. li. 4 is quoted
exactly after the LXX. In this Psalm the struggles by which the
soul works its way out of the night of sin are described in an inimit-
able manner. David wrestles, as it were, and contends with God,
•who, by the operation of his Spirit, convinces him of his sin ; the cou'

KoMANS III. 5-7. 521

fession of David is the victory of the truth in him. On a larger scale
the same struggle is going on in this sinful world, and the moment
in which any individual emerges into the element of light is that
in which he makes the confession here expressed. God is ever the
victor when the creature ventures into a controversy with him — a
controversy always involved in any distrust of his providences — appear-
ing as just in all his promises. — AiKaiovaOai means here " to be recog-
nized as just." See at iii. 21.— The parallelism would certainly lead
us to understand Xoyot here primarily of law-suits, as in Acts xix. 38,
but it stands, in Paul's application of the passage, parallel to Xoyia,
ver. 2. Accordingly, Kpiveadai. in the apostle's use of it can only be
taken as passive, although, according to the original text, the active
meaning should predominate.)

Ver. 5. — According to the apostle's view, therefore, God is the
only good being, the Good in all good, so that even the best man
has no merit ; sin alone is man's property, and his fault ; while
yet even this must serve to manifest God's glory and excellence
the more brightly. This relation of truth to falsehood, of right-
eousness to unrighteousness, man, in his estrangement from God,
does not recognize ; he thinks that God could not punish sin if
it produced what was good. But the good belonging to it is the
work of God, not of sin ; sin still remains, what it is, that, name-
ly, which deserves a curse, and has its punishment in and from
itself.

(^AiKaioavvrj and ddiKia are here to be taken in the most general
sense, see on Rom. iii. 21. — Iwiardveiv signifies here to represent,
and by representation to make anything known in its real nature.
Eom. V. 8. — The formula H ipovf-iev is frequent with Paul, especially
in objections. Eom. vi. 1, vii. 7, ix. 14. — The formula Ka-d dvdgo)-
TTov Ai-yo), / speak as a man, is treated happily by Reiche at this
passage. He justly observes, that the meaning of this phrase of
such multifarious significations is to be determined solely by the
context. It may be used either of the way of all men, or of the
majority, or of a certain class of men. Here it is most appropriately
referred to the natural man as alienated from God, who is without
true knowledge of God, and is therefore incapable of forming a judg-
ment of God's dealings. In the passage Rom. vi. 19, dvdp6mvov
Xiycj is used instead, for which in profane writers Kara to dvdpcj-ntvoVj
dvdpcjTTivojg, dv6pG)7T£i(.jg Xiyu) are found. See the passages cited by
Tholuck on vi. 19.)

Vers. 6, 7. — The unreasonableness of the above question is de-
monstrated by Paul from that truth which all Jews acknowledged,
that God would judge the Gentile loorld ; this would be impossible,
if, the fact that man's unrighteousness exalts the righteousness of
God, precluded him from punishing sin. For then the Gentile

522 Romans III. 8.

might also say, " My sin, too, has magnified God's righteousness,
how then can I be condemned as a sinner ?" Reiche has proved,
by convincing arguments, in opposition to Thcluck and Ruckert,
that ver. 6 is not to be understood of the universal judgment, but
only of the judgment of the Gentiles, who from the Jewish point of
view were considered as the world in its proper sense, as sinners
pre-eminently {diiaQTc^Xol kut' i^oxrjvj Galat. ii. IG). In fact, it is
only in this way of understanding it, that the argument can hold,
because we prove that which is uncertain by that whi^h is acknow-
ledged. For it was only with respect to the Gentiles that a Divint-
judgment was considered certain ; regarding themselves, the Jews
had made it a question (ver. 5). To this may be added, that it
is only by this explanation we can gain any distinct notion of the
person referred to in Kayo), I also. " I also," says the Gentile,
" might claim exemption from judgment, for of me also the same
holds true." The only thing which could be urged against this ref-
erence of the passage to the Gentile world with any show of reason,
is that this Jewish notion of the judgment which shall visit the
Gentile world is false, and that Paul would not argm from an error.
But this view of the Jews was not in and of itself false, it only be-
came false in consequence of their supposing that this judgment
would concern the Gentiles only, and not the Jews also. Now it is
precisely this very falsehood in it that the apostle coml«.ts, and we
need, therefore, surely feel no scruple about assuming hij argument
to be as stated above.

(As regards the use of aooiiog for " Gentile world,'' I cannot
with Reiche so explain it in Rom. iii. 19 ; 1 Cor. xi, 32, * but
no doubt the context imperatively demands it in Rom. xi. 12 ; 1
Cor. i. 21. This meaning may be unhesitatingly assigned to the
word, since its general idea, " that of the creature in its aliena-
tion from God," may be restricted to the Gentile world, as repre-
senting the corruption of the creature in its most glaring colours.
— ievaiia is not found elsewhere in the New Testament. In opposi-
tion to dXriOeia it denotes that entire state of falsehood, i. e., ahena-
tion from God, from which all the particular utterances of sin
proceed. The Divine 66^a is here the knowledge of God's sublime
attributes, which are brought out more distinctly by the contrast of
man's sin )

Ver. 8. — As at all times, so even in the apostle's day, the gos-
pel was reproached as tending to promote sin,f and teaching men to

* In his explanation of Rom. iii. 19, this scholar rightly understands the whole hu-
man race to be meant by kou/uo^. His adducing the passage as above, can therefore only
be an oversight.

f Of such hypocritical slanderers Luther says, " God grant us grace that we may be
pious sinners (that is, poor in spirit, humble), and not holy slanderers (that is outwardly

EoMANS III. 9. 523

do evil that good might come ; yet this did not deter him from
declaring God's faithfulness amidst our unfaithfulness. Paul there-
fore finds himself obliged (vi, 1 etc.) to refute this error with
greater care, and to expose it in all its absurdity. The man who
can make such an assertion as this pronounces his own condemna-
tion, by showing that the nature of Divine grace, and of that love
which it kindles in the heart, is wholly unknown to him. Doubtless,
it was men such as the Judaisers, whom Paul had to oppose in Gala-
tia, who circulated such blasphemies.

(With respect to the construction Koi nrj is to be taken as an
anacoluthon ; the apostle intended at first to proceed with noijjou-
(iEv but afterwards connected the principal thought by means of o-i
immediately with Xsyetv in the parenthesis. The conjecture t~c is
therefore as inadmissible as the omission of oTi.-~'E.vdcKog, that which
is founded ev ry drnxi, is only found besides in the New Testament at
Heb. ii. 3.)

Ver. 9. — After obviating these misunderstandings of that impor-
tant truth, that the unfaithfulness of men does not annul the faithful-
ness of God, the apostle could bring forward the concluding thought
of the whole argument contained in the first two chapters, and as-
sert, that all Jews as well as Gentiles are under sin. He in no way
contradicted by this assertion his previous declaration as to the
great advantages of the Jews (iii, 1), for to every Jew who acknow-
ledged his sinfulness, in whom, therefore, the law had accomplished
its purpose, in stopping his mouth (ver. 19) , and awakening him to
a knowledge of his own sin and need of redemption (ver. 20), these
privileges were still available in their fullest extent. But to those
TLveq (ver. 3), who formed the mass of the nation, these advantages
were no doubt lost, for in them the truth had so far yielded to
falsehood, that they no longer even retained the fundamental truth
of confessing their own sinfulness, but boasted of external things as
of essential privileges. Hence only the true inward Jews, amongst
Israelites and Greeks, the poor in spirit, the humble, hungering and
thirsting after salvation, these only, received the promise. But since
it was in every one's power to become such an one, in that he only
needed to give up his active resistance to the Spirit of truth, which
bore witness to him of his sin, no one could complaim ; God ap-
peared just, as in his promises, so also in their fulfilment.

(Ti ovv ; is best taken as a separate sentence. It is found com-
plete Acts xxi. 22. npo£;^w is found no where else in the New Tes-
tament ; in the active it means " to have advantage over," prcestare.

observers of the law, apparently holy, but really proud). For the Christian is in the state
of becoming such, not in the state of having become so ; whosoever therefore is a Chris-
tian, is no Christian, that is, whosoever thmks that he is already a Christian, whUst ho
is only becoming one, is nought."

524 KoMANS III. 10-18.

But in this case the passive form springs from the meaning " to
prefer," a usage completely established also in classical Greek ;
" are we then preferred by God ?"* The meaning " to advance as
a pretext," hence, " have we anything to urge in palliation ?" which
Meyer and Fritzsche have lately defended after Ernesti, Morus,
Koppe, etc., is allowed indeed by the word, but unsuited to the con-
text. For the question is not, whether the Jew has anything to
defend himself with, to allege in his defence, but whether or not he
has any advantage over the Gentiles. In ov Travrw^, the negative
particle could no doubt limit the meaning of ndvTCjg, = " not in every
respect ;" but the context demands that ndvTOjg be taken as giving
emphasis to the negation, nequaquam. If persons have demurred
about giving to Travreg its full signification, and have wished to ex-
plain it by TioXXoi^ although the ovdl elg which follows leaves no
doubt as to the apostle's meaning, this has arisen from a misappre-
hension of the proper nature of the aKpoPvaria vofxov reXovoa [ii. 27],
to which assuredly we must naturally suppose a rrepiTonTj vojjlov
TtXovaa [xi, 4] to correspond in every age of history. This misap-
prehension has presented a considerable obstacle to a well defined
conception of this section in the case of the greater number even of
modern expositors. A more detailed explanation of this subject
will immediately follow in the notes upon verses 10-18. — npoatTmo-
[lai, is found nowhere else in the New Testament. — In the words •j;0'
dfiapriav elvat sin is represented as a tyrannical power from which a
XvTgoxTig is needed. [See on Kom. vii. 1, etc., and vii. 14. Uenpani-
vog vTTo rfiv diiapriav.'] The two parallel passages, Kom, xi. 32 ;
Galat. iii. 22, throw a striking light upon this passage. See the ex-
position of them.)

Vers. 10-18. — Since nothing is more intolerable to the high-
spirited natural man than the confession of his sinfulness, i. e., not
only of individual sinful actions, but of sinful corruption in general,
and the inability to do anything good of himself, the apostle justly
applies all his power to the proof of this point. By a long succes-
sion of passages from the Old Testament, he proves that the word
of God corroborates his doctrine, in that it denies to eveiy man,
without exception, a true righteousness. The question now arises,
how are the assertions of the apostle, ii. 14, 26, 27, to be reconciled
with the present text. For there individual Gentiles were spoken
of who observed the law, and we must of course assume, that this
could be said of multitudes of pious men among the Jews. (See
Luke i. 6.) The usual assumptions that the apostle is speaking only
of his contemporaries, or secondly, that the observance of the law is
only to be understood of an external observance, and not of that in-

* Better, I think, to regard npoexofieda as Mid. in Act. sense : " do we have ourselyeB
above?" — "do we surpass?" "are we superior?" — [K.

Romans III. 10-18. 525

ward law as more strictly defined by Christ in his Sermon on the
Mount, or lastly, that the words of the apostle refer only to the mass,
and may yet admit particular exceptions, arc (without denying the
truth contained in the second remark) still mere ways of escaping from
the difficulty, rather than of satisfactorily solving it. The last view
is especially erroneous, namely, that particular exceptions are to be
admitted to the general rule of man's sinfulness, for the apostle's
whole demonstration of the necessity for a new way of salvation for
all men without exception, rests upon the fact that all, without ex-
ception, are sinful. As already indicated above, but one interpreta-
tion of the passage is possible, and by this all Paul's ideas preserve
their full harmony. The apostle, namely, understands by the faithful
men who observe the law, such as unite with earnest endeavours to
walk in conformity with their knowledge, an humble insight into
their spiritual poverty, and real need of redemption, men of whom
the centurion Cornelius (Acts x.) furnishes us with an example.
These faithful persons are then so far from being excluded from the
universal sinfulness, that they confess themselves in the most de-
cided manner to be sinners, and acknowledge the justice of the
charge which the Word of God brings against them.* Those, in
whose minds the earnest endeavour to keep the law is not united
with humility, have but a mere apparent righteousness, inasmuch
as that law, all whose commandments may be reduced to love and
truth, they grossly violate in its innermost substance by their want
of love, and denial of their alienation from God. To them, there-
fore, apply the apostle's words in Rom. ii. 1. All men, therefore,
without exception, are sinners ; the only difference between them is
this, that some give honour to the truth, and acknowledge them-
selves as such, and in their case the law has accomplished its pur-
pose and they are ripe for the gospel ; whilst others are either in a
complete state of death, and serve sin without any rebuke from
conscience, or if impelled by conscience to a certain legal striving
they thus only accumulate to themselves fresh sin, viz., proud self-
complacency, and contempt of others.

(In the Codex Alexandrinus the collection of texts which Paul
here adduces are adopted into Psalm xiv., doubtless only from this
passage. — Vers. 10-12 are cited freely from Ps. xiv. 1-3. — Iwtiov —
iiis»tt. — 'EkkXIvcj = -fi53. — 'Axpecoo) is not found elsewhere in the New
Testament, but frequently in Polybius. — Ver. 13 is from Ps. v. 9.
The image is probably derived from beasts of prey. — 'EdoXiovoav is
a Boeotian form for tdoXtovv^ The words log donid(ov vtto to, x^'-^V
avrCdv are from Ps. cxl. 3. — Ver. 14 is after Ps. x. 7. The Hebrew
text has n'ltt-iM which does not mean m/tpta but deceit. Probably the

* This confession is the first work in them, which is wrought in God, whence they do
Dot Bhrink back from coming to the light. (See notes on John iii. 20, 21.)

526 Romans III. 19.

LXX. had another reading, — Vers. 16, 17 are taken from Isaiah lix.

7, 8. — IvvTpifjfia ical TaXacrrcjpia answer to latuj itf. — Yer. 18 is from
Ps. xxxvi. 1, 'Antvavn rcov d^OaXiiuv avrojv = vs-^y ia:V. These pas-
sages of the Old Testament refer indeed undeniably in their primary
connexion to more special relations, but these the apostle recognizes
as types of the universal ; and justly. For every germ of sin con-
tains within it the possibility of all the different forms which it can
assume, and no one is without this germ. The more entirely, there-
fore, the inward eye is opened, the more ready is man to recognize in
his heart the source of every error whatever. Even the least leaven
leavens the whole lump ; and man is in God's sight only either en-
tirely holy, or entirely a sinner.)

Ver. 19. — The delineation of sinfulness in the above-cited pas-
sages has so objective a character, that it applies not only to the
Jews, but equally well to the Gentiles. The law of nature also for-
bids such manifestations of sin not less than the written law of
Moses. Therefore the apostle, in conclusion, considers the position
of men with respect to the law quite universally, and declares that the
law condemns every one Avho has such sinful motions in himself, and
that as none can entirely acquit himself from these, every one, with-
out exception, falls under the curse of the law. The connexion re-
quires that vonog be taken in the same sense in vers. 19 and 20 ; but
as the conclusions which Paul derives from the substance of the first
two chapters are entirely general, therefore rojuof must also in this
place signify in the most general sense the law as such, as well
the Mosaic law (and that especially in its moral requirements) as
the law written in the heart (ii. 15). '^o formal reference therefore
is here intended to the passages above cited, but only to the sub-
stantial thought which they express. Every law forbids such sins
to those who are subject to it. Reiche most inconsistently under-
stands by vojttof the law of the Jews only, and yet proceeds to refer
-nagb Koofiog, all the world, to all men. The context indeed impera-
tively demands the latter reference, but on this very account voiiog
must also be taken in the most comprehensive sense.*

(The expressions XiyEiv and XaXelv are here accurately distin-
guished ; the former denotes rather speech in its intellectual char-

* I believe that Reiche is right; that ver. 19 does refer directly and formally to
the above-cited passages from the Old Testament; and that 6 vo/io^ refers (as the article
clearly indicates) specifically to the Jewish law. The passage is cited to meet the in-
quiry whether the Jews have any essential superiority to the Gentiles ; and after quoting
from the Old Testament a passage which affirms universal sinfulness, the apostle adds
most naturally, that such a declaration made by the law of course applies to those who
are its immediate subjects. This becomes perfectly consistent with the application of
TTuf 6 Koafioc to all men, by merely assuming a very slight and natural ellipsis : " it
saith to those who are under the law in order that (thus by bringing down the Jew to the '
level of the Gentile) every mouth," etc. Thus then we take 6 vofioc (ver. 19) of the re-
Tealed Jewish law ; ol kv tu v6/xu of Jews ; and vo/io^ (ver. 20) of law in general. — [K.

KoMANS III. 20. 527

acter, in its production of thoughts and words ; the latter, the mere
outward utterance of our conceptions. The dative XaXei Tolq tv rw
vofxco is of course to be taken thus, " this it declares for those living
under the law," i. e., in order that they may fulfil it. By the ex-
pression ol iv -rw vouo) we are led, indeed, to think, in the first place,
of ii. 12, where it denotes the Jews ; but the context in the present
passage is too distinctly general to allow us to retain this meaning
here. We must, therefore, understand the thought as including all
those who are subject to the sphere of the law, without its having
particular respect to the wider or narrower sphere of law, amongst
Jews and Gentiles. — I,T6i.ia (pQaaaeiv is a strong expression for " to
reduce to silence," in this case by convincing of unrighteousness.
'TTTodiKof, fallen under diar]^ is not found elsewhere in the New Tes-
tament. Most interpreters, even Tholuck and Reiche, erroneously
understand Iva in this place as denoting result, and not purpose.
The strong delineations of man's sinfulness, in Scripture, have the
object of excluding every excuse. Calvin rightly said, long ago, "ut
praecidatur omnis tergiversatio, et excusandi facultas.")

Ver. 20. — As the great and decisive result of his whole argument
concerning the nature of sin, the apostle therefore, with a retro-
spective glance at Rom. i. 16, 17, sets forth this truth, that man in
his natural condition cannot attain to true SiKacoavvrj^ righteousness,^
by means of the works of the Jaw, because the law produces only
the conviction of sin. And therefore the revelation of a new way
of salvation was needed, in accordance with which SiKatoavvT] should
be revealed and communicated luitJioitt laiv; and this way both Jews
and Gentiles had to follow in order to obtain salvation. (Ver. 21,
etc.) The impossibility of attaining to ScKaioovvT] by tpya vofiov,
works of laiv, is founded, in fact, upon the absolute character of the
law, in consequence of which the smallest transgression, and that
only once committed,^ constitutes a transgression of the luhole law,
and that for ever. (Galat. iii. 10.) Human weakness {odg^') can-
not, without the help of the Divine Spirit (nvevna)^ satisfy these
absolute requirements. It is, moreover, by no means the purpose of
the law to realize in man true righteousness (Galat. iii. 19, 21), but
only to present moral perfection as the object of his endeavours, to
produce thereby a sense of sin (tmyvG)atg dimpTia^) and thus pave
the way for the reception of tbe gospel. (Galat. iii. 25.) This enly-
vuotg d[iapTLag is, however, by no means to be regarded as a mere un-

* The first half of this verse, like the parallel passage in fbe concluding words of
Galat ii. IC, appears to be a reminiscence of Pa. cxliii. 2.

f The popular feeling has embodied this truth in a proverb : lie wlio has once stolen
is, and ever remains, a thief; [Once a thief always a thief] even if he never steals any.
thing again, yet he remains for ever one who haa stolen. Thus the transgressor in the
smallest matter retains also for ever the character of a sinner in the sight of the holy God,
until the a^ecrtf rF/g ufiapnac and SiKacuaic have erased this character indelibilis.

528 Romans III. 20.

concerned Icnowledge about sin; (this may be possessed by one who
is entirely unawakened, and in whom the law has not at all done its
work ;) but as a true knowledge of its nature and reality. This can
only be conceived as existing in connexion with deep sorrow on ac-
count of it, and a lively, longing desire to be delivered from it. The
imyvcjoLg dfiapTiag is, therefore, synonymous with that fj-erdvoLa, re-
pentance, unto which, as the proper fruit of the Old Testament
economy, John the Baptist baptized those who came to him. (See on
Matth. iii. 1.) It relates not merely to particular unlawful actions
and their unpleasant consequences, but to sin itself, to that sin which
affects the whole man, and thus to the habitus peccandi.'^ But sin
in its true nature is always unbelief (John xvi. 9), from which, as
their source, all other sinful outbreaks proceed. We may, therefore,
affirm, that the tmyvcomg dixapriag^ as the Xvnr] Kara Geov, sorrow
after a godly sort (2 Cor. vii. 10), has necessarily the germ of
faith already existing in it. It is only truth which can discover
falsehood in its true character, only niaTig, faith, which can fathom
dirtoTta, unbelief Although, therefore, the law brings down the
curse (Galat. iii. 10), and man, under the consciousness of sin, bit-
terly experiences this curse, yet this feeling again always contains
within itself a blessing; the deepest repentance is, on this very
account, the farthest from despair, because the humble and contrite
heart, as an already believing heart, is well pleasing to God (Ps. li.
19), and because it is only out of that which he has already reduced
to nothing that the Lord creates something, that is to say, the new
man created in Christ Jesus unto good works. (Ephes. ii. 10.)

SECTION II.

(III. 21— V. 11.)

Exhibition of the New Way of Salvation in Christ.

Having thus laid the foundation for his superstructure of doc-
trine, by proving the necessity of a new way of salvation, the apostle
proceeds to describe this way itself. In this everything assumes a
different aspect from that which it wore under the Old Testament ;
instead of the demands of the law we hear the voice of grace ; instead
of works faith is presupposed ; and yet the law is not abolished but

♦ Stier distinguishes in a very striking manner (Andeut. P. ii. p. 269) between the
kniyvuaic ufiapriag and the mere kiriyvuaig tov diKaiu/^arog tov Oeov (i. 32, iL 2), which
alike the depraved and the apparently reformed may bear in their conscience.

KoMANS III. 21-3]. 529

rather confirmed (iii. 21-31). Of this way of salvation, says Paul,
even the Old Testament itself gave intimations, especially in that
Abraham, the great progenitor of Israel, was justified by faith and
not by works, and only received circumcision as a sign and seal of
that faith which he had whilst yet uncircumcised. Faith in Christ,
therefore, was indeed a neto way of salvation, and yet, after all, the
ancient way, which all the saints had trodden (iv. 1-25). This is
therefore the only way which leads to the desired end, and even the
sorrows, which are connected with walking in this way, must min-
ister to man's perfection. For, instead of the spirit of fear, the spirit
of love will be thereby shed abroad in his heart — of love enkindled
by the exceeding abundant love of Christ (v. 1-11).

§ 6. The Doctrine of Free Grace in Christ.

(III. 21—31.)

Before we enter upon the explanation of this important passage,.

the citadel of the Christian faith, we must explain the leading terms,
which Paul employs in communicating his ideas, and throw light upon
the various points of vieio from which they have been considered.
To the leading conceptions with which we have to do in apprehend-
ing Paul's doctrine, belongs, primarily, duiaioavvri [righteousness], by
which word is denoted the common object as well of the Old as of
the New Testament dispensation. In the definition of this term,
the common mistake has been, either to enumerate too many mean-
ings of it, deduced from a mere superficial view of particular pass-
ages (thus Schleusner gives it not less than fourteen significations),
or, as Bretschneider and Wahl, whilst assuming fewer meanings, to
neglect to develope them from the fundamental meaning. Not-
withstanding several separate treatises on this term, as those of
Storr (in his opusc. acad., vol. i.), of Koppe in his fourth Excursus
to the Epistle to the Oalatians, of Tittmann (de synonymis N. T. i.
p. 19, seq.), and of Zimmerman, we are yet in want of a thorough
development of this important term from its radical meaning. I
therefore propose the following essay to the consideration of scholars.
The root of 6iKaiog, dmaioavvrj, and all expressions connected
with it, is 6iKT], whose fundamental meaning is " manner and
way, right relation," as Timasus explains in his Platonic Lexicon,
6 TQOTTog Koi 7/ duoiorrjg. This term came to be principally applied in
common language to the relations of law, and Siktj therefore denoted
the right relation between guilt and punishment, between merit and
reward. As applied to earthly affairs, the terms thus used in accord-
ance with their fundamental signification, present no difficulty; but
Vol. III.— 34

630 KoMANS III. 21-31.

■when transferred to spiritual matters the manifold eharacter of the
relations creates obscurity. We best distinguish here two relations,
first that of God to men, and secondly that of men to God ; from
this distinction arisas the following difference of meanings. Since
in God, as the absolute Being, all qualities are absolute, we must
conceive of the SLKaioavvrj in him as absolute, so that he orders all
relations with absolute justice. God's inherent righteousness {justi-
tia Dei, qua Justus est) manifests itself therefore differently accord-
ing to the different characters of men ; towards the iviclced as pun-
ishing, towards the good as rewarding. Hence diKaioovvq, applied
to God and his relation to men, has not merely the signification of
punitive justice, but also that of goodness, grace. That '^iJ72£, in the
language of the Old Testament, as well as of the Rabbinical writers,
is also used in the same manner, has lately been proved at length by
Tholuck. (Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount, p. 347, etc.)
(Comp. Ps. xxiv. 5 ; Prov. xxi. 21 ; with Matth. i. 19, vi. 1 ; 2 Cor.
ix. 10.) But as regards, in the second place, the position of man
with respect to God, this is, first of all, in his present condition, a
disturbed relation to God, ddcda. The right relation, the diKaLoavv-q,
must be sought after by him. But this endeavour can only gradu-
ally attain its object. Man, in his alienation from God, commences,
namely, with considering that law of God which meets him from
without as something external, and by sincere endeavours, corre-
sponding to his knowledge, to observe this as an outivard law, he
enters into a relatioa to God which is relatively true. On this
account there is ascribed* to him a righteousness of the law {diKaio-
avvT] rov vofiov, or Ik vofiov), a righteousness of Ms oion (SiKaioovvr) Idla^
Rom. X. 3 ; Phil. iii. 9), because the man renders this obedience
with, so to speak, his oion powers, those moral powers which remain
to him after the fall, without the operation of grace. But if we
consider the matter more deeply, we must of course regard these
powers also as of God, and man's own righteousness also as inca-
pable of being produced without God and his co-operation ; though
grace in its proper and special sense does not yet appear operative in
this case. But man is not to stop with this relatively true condi-
tion, rather must he arrive at an absolutely right relation ; not
merely his outward act, but his inward disposition and inclinations
must be conformed to the Divine law. But this, as presupposing an
inward transformation, man cannot of himself, and by his own
strength, accomplish ; hence it is called diKaioovvr) Qeov, or t«; moreuyg
= did maTeo)^ (Galat. ii. 16), because God gives it, and man receives
it in faith. In this case it is God himself in man, Christ in us, who

* Paul also uses, as equivalent to this, the words diKaLovadai if epyuv vofiov, ot h
v6fi<,>, 6iu vofiov, see Galat. ii. 16, 21, iii 11.

Romans III. 21-31. 531

satisfies that which God demands of him,* and, therefore, that which
on the side of evil exhibits itself not as substance, but as a mere
relation, has on the side of good in its completion passed into suh-
stantiality; for nothing is really good but God himself and his influ-
ences ; but where he works there he also is. From these considera-
tions we very easily explain the use of the expressions derived from
ScKaiog. AiKaiou) = p'^i^Hj denotes the Divine agency in calling into
existence dtKaioavvTjj which of course involves the recognition of it as
such. ^LKacovaOai = p^Jt, denotes, on the other hand, the condition
of the SiKaiog elvai, and of being recognized as such. In both expres-
sions, at one time, the notion of making righteous, or of being made
righteous, at another, that of accounting or declaring righteous, or
being accounted or declared righteous, comes forward the more
prominently, but always in such a way that the latter presupposes
the former. Nothing can be reckoned or declared righteous by God
which is not so. AiKaicjfxa = to dUaiov signifies that which is right
in any particular relation, so that it may be taken as synonymous
with h-oXri^ tssctt, ph. AiKatucng, on the other hand, denotes the act
of SiKatovv taken abstractly, the making righteous (Rom. iv. 25, v.
18). In two passages, Rom. v. 16, 18, the signification of dcKaiuna
passes over into that of SiKatcjocg ; which cases are, however, ac-
counted for by the peculiarity of the context, as wdll be shewn in the
exposition of the passage.

From this explanation it is plain that the common rendering of
dcKaioavvT], by " virtue, uprightness," proceeds from the Pelagian and
Rationalistic view of the subject, and is, therefore, at most, only
admissible for the SiKaioavvr] tov vofiov. For the righteousness
which is by faith it is wholly unsuited ; we shall therefore best
translate diKaioavvi] by " righteousness," and, indeed, " the righteous-
ness of God,"f since the expressions "justification," or "righteous-
liess which avails in the sight of God," so far as they are considered
as synonymous with " recognition as righteous," do not, at all events,
express the immediate and original meaning of the word, as the
phrase yiveoBat, SiKaioavvr] Qeov iv XpiarGJj become the righteousness of
God in Christ, 2 Cor. v. 21, evidently proves.

To the common goal of SiKaioavvrj^ therefore, two ways lead ;
first, that by the vofwg, laiv, secondly, that by x^P''^, grace. With
both of these, on the part of man, are connected certain correspond-
ing acts, with the law, woi'ks (tpya), with grace, faith (jria-Lc;). These
terms now equally need a closer definition. With respect, first, to

* Therefore it is termed in Paul's •writings SiKaioavvij U Qeov (Phil. iii. 9), which ia
equivalent to SiKaiudfjvat if XpicTiJ (GaL ii. 17), because union with Christ by faith {evpe-
B^vai iv Xpiarij, Phil. iii. 9) is the means of obtaining it.

f See Augustine (do spir. et. litt. c. 9), who observes with great justice : " justitia Dei,
non qui Justus est, sed qu^ induit hominem, cum justificat impium."

532 Romans III. 21-31.

the term vdjuof, laiv, this designates, in its widest sense, the Divine
will, so far as it meets man with certain requirements. The par-
ticular expressions of the law, in concrete cases, are termed tvroXat
commands, or SiKaiwiiaTa Judgments, ordinances. But the Divine law
manifests itself as well among the heathen, by the inward voice of con-
science (Rom. ii. 25), as in the Old Testament hy means of the Mosaic
institutions (in which, besides moral, ceremonial and political injunc-
tions also are found), and finally, as in the New Testament, where
Christ, especially in his sermon on the mount, establishes the law in
its completeness (TrAT^pwaf {•) . The essence of this TrXijpoioig does not
consist in imparting altogether new laws, difierent from that of con-
science and that of Moses ; but in revealing the nature of these very
laws in their inmost depths. It is, therefore, merely a development of
that one principle, " Be ye perfect even as God is perfect" (Matth.
v. 48) which is the same thing as. Love God above all tilings, for it
is, in fact, by means of love that the Perfect One communicates him-
self, and produces what is perfect. It is, then, entirely erroneous,
in exhibiting Paul's view of the way of salvation, to confine our con-
ception of the law to any one of these forms of its manifestation,
and especially with Pelagian and Rationalistic interpreters to refer
it merely to the ceremonial part of the Old Testament law. The
apostle speaks of all men, Jews as well as Gentiles, and therefore the
law is also to be taken in its widest sense, so that the meaning of
X(j^pi? vonov, without law, is, " in no form can the law produce a true
spiritual righteousness : only an apparent and external righteous-
ness is attainable by the mere votary of law." Further, if we con-
sider more closely the relation of man to the law, * i. e., the tpya,
works, which the law requires or forbids, we find that three classes
of them may be distinguished. First, tpya irov-qpa or Kawd, wicked
works (Rom. xiii. 3), i. e., open transgressions of the commandments,
egya OKorovg, of darkness (Rom. xiii. 12), or oagtcog, ofjlesh (Galat.
V. 19), also called dimpTrjfiara, sins, napanToJimTa, trespasses, -rrapa
f3daetg, transgressions, in short, the utterances of dfxapTia, of the sin-
ful nature of man. Secondly, ^pya vsKpd, dead works (Heb. vi. 1,
ix. 14), or vonov, of law, i. e., works, which outwardly correspond
with the commandments, but do not proceed from an absolutely pure
disposition ; these, therefore, in their extension over the whole life,
constitute the condition of diKaioavvri Idia, a higher state, no doubt,
than that of open disobedience to the law, but yet only in case it
is accompanied by a consciousness of distance from the goal, by true
repentance. Unless it include this, it becomes Pharisaic self-right-

* The general character of the legal position is the prominence oi activity (the 'kouIv),
•whilst that of the New Testament is marked by the predominance of passivity, that is, an
openness to receive the Divine powers of life, by which, however, certainly a new and
higher activity is generated.

Romans III. 21-31. 633

eousness, which is no less displeasing to God than gross transgres-
sion of the law ; for it is in fact itself a gross, nay, the grossest trans-
gression of the law, being a violation of that fundamental principle
of all the commandments, love, which is self-rendnciation, whilst
the former state implies self-exaltation. (See at Rom. ii. 1, etc.)
The third class of works, lastly, are the tpya dyadd, good works,
or TTto-ec^g, of faith, also called tpya KaXd (Tit. ii. 7, 14 ; Colos.
i. 10) ; t'pya -ov Oeov (John vi. 28) ; in them is realized not merely
an outward, but also an inward conformity to the law. They are,
therefore, possible only through that faith which receives the powers
of grace ; for good works are fruits (/capTroi), i. e., the organic produc-
tions of the inward life, and it is, of course, only the tree which has
been made generous that can bear generous fruit ; this can, how-
ever, never be conceived as without fruit, because the powers of its
inward life necessarily produce them. When, therefore, Paul
declares of the works of the law, that they are incapable of leading
to dcKaioovvTj, he means especially those of the second class ; but he
does not say the contrary even of those of the third class, because
he would rather lay stress upon the principle, ■Kiorig, than upon the
effects; James speaks differently (ii. 24).

Now, with respect to the second way, that of grace, this is found
also in the Old Testament, as also the law is recognized in the
New ; but grace forms the predominant feature of the new cove-
nant, and manifests itself there in its full power, while before Christ
it only appeared indistinctly revealed. For in its most compre-
hensive signification grace is the will of God, as it exhibits itself in
communicating, and not in demanding.* Since now justice and
grace are the eternal forms of God's revelation of himself, he worked
also under the form of grace amongst Jews and heathen. Grace,
however, in these phases of spiritual life could only manifest itself
in consolations and promises ; it was not until after the accomplish-
ment of Christ's work that grace appeared in the New Testament,
imparting itself as a positive and creative power. All the former
operations of Divine grace were, therefore, so to speak, but a breath-
ing of the Spirit upon humanity, it was only in the Redeemer that
the streams to grace were poured forth. (See on John i. 14.) To
Christ, therefore, grace is pre-eminently ascribed, whilst love, i. e.,
the source of grace, resides in the Father. (See on 2 Cor, xiii, 13.)
But we are by no means to regard grace as the mere heightening
of the natural powers of the man from within, but as the commu-

* la relation to the creature, therefore, A'«p«f conveys the idea of that which is unde-
aerved, see Rom. iii. 23, iv. 4. The communication of the life of the Father to the Sot^
is not called Af^P'ft I'ut dyunr}. But, inasmuch as the creature is at tlie same time re-
garded as miserable, Weof , tjn?.uyxva are substituted for ;ta/3tf . (Comp. the principal paa»
sage, 2 Cor. xiiL 13.)

534 KoMANs III. 21-31.

nication of a higher, absolutely pure, and perfect principle, that is
to say, of the nvevfia dyiov^ to which the human ixvevfia stands in the
same relation as the V"^%^ to the nvevi^a in man. (See on Eom.
viii. 16.)

Finally, with respect to faith, by which man is brought into re-
lation to grace, we have, indeed, spoken already several times concern-
ing this term, in our observations on Matthew viii. 2, xiii. 58; Mark
ix. 20-27 ; Matth. xxi. 17 ; but its importance demands here a fresh
and more comprehensive consideration. We start in the first place
with the assertion, that this term also has in all the writers of the
New Testament but one radical meaning, though modified by its
respective relations. Holy Scripture itself gives us this radical
meaning in a formal definition, inasmuch as it designates faith, as
iXTn^^ojMvojv vnoaraoig, Trpay/zarwv eXsyxog ov /SAeTrojUEVojv, substance of
things hoped, etc. (Heb. xi. 1.) Faith, therefore, taken in its most
general meaning, forms the opposite to that knowledge of the visi-
ble which appears to the natural man to be the most certain of all,
as well as to that heholding of invisable things which belongs to a
higher state, and which Paul denotes by the expression neptTTareXv 6id
Eidovg (2 Cor. v. 7, compared with 1 Cor. xiii. 12). Now man's
relation to that which is invisible and eternal may be regarded as
threefold; it is either entirely founded upon the thinhing faculty,
or it is entirely based upon the loill and the affections, or lastly, it
rests uniformly upon all the powers of man. In the first of these
significations. Scripture ascribes marig even to the devils (Jas. ii. 19),
and supposes the possibility that faith may exist in men,* without a
corresponding life (Jas. ii. 17, 20 ; 1 Cor. xiii. 2). Such a dead head-
faith, merely literal faith, is not only of no use to men, but even
makes them more deeply responsible.f In the second relation, it
appears as ihQ faith of the heart, i. e., as a living susceptibility to
the powers of the higher world, the soul absorbing, so to speak, the
streams of the Spirit as a thirsty land. It was this kind of faith,
which, as we showed, in the above quoted passages of our Com-
mentary, was exhibited by those who came to Christ to be healed,
as recorded in the Gospels. In these persons we could only assume
a very imperfect and indistinct knowledge of Divine things, but they
manifested a heart glowing with love, and were therefore capable of
receiving :\:ap<?". We, in consequence, also designated faith as iden-
tical with receiving Zot;e, whilst grace is imparting love. Since now

* Tetrus Lombardus makes the following just distinction between " credere Deum, i. e.,
credere quod Deus sit, quod etiam mali faciunt," and " credere in Deum, i. e., credendo
amare Deum, credendo ei adhaerere." The belief in God is a dedication, a consecration
of ourselves to him.

f The case of the man who is burdened with such a dead faith is doubtless worse than
if he did not believe at all ; yet not for those around him. The word which is spoken
even l)y one who is dead, may be the means of awakening others to life.

Romans III. 21-31. 535

from the heart proceeds life (Prov. iv. 23), such faith is ever a
living, though still often an imperfect faith. For it only shews
itself as a complete faith when, in the third place, it takes posses-
sion of the whole man, when, therefore, it combines a living suscep-
tibility with clear and comprehensive knowledge. Meanwhile, we
find that New Testament usage applies to that true knowledge of
the Divine which springs from its essential communication, the
term yvCjaig^ hioivledge, so that niorLg and yviliocg are complementary
to one another, as expressing respectively the intellectual and the
emotional elements of our sjjiritual life. But if in the passage in
John xvii. 3, yvojaig presupposes niarig, so, conversely, in many pas-
sages, TTiorig presupposes yvojoig. Neither can be conceived absolutely
without the other, so long as both retain their true nature ; though,
for their equal and harmonious cultivation, particular circumstances
are required. Such equal culture is not necessary to salvation, though
faith, as an element of the Jieai^t, is absolutely so ; for without this,
the reception into our own nature of the principle of Divine life is
utterly impossible. But if faith is modified in this way by the ex-
tent to which it reigns in man, its character depends equally upon
the object to which it refers. In fact, faith is the universal founda-
tion of religion at all stages of spiritual development, so that not
only in the New, but also in the Old Testament (see the whole 11th
chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews), nay, even amongst the Gen-
tiles, the existence of faith must be recognized. " Without faith it
is impossible to please God." (Heb. xi. 6.) Those faithful Gen-
tiles, therefore, whom God regards as the circumcision (Rom. ii. 14,
26, 27), must have been well-pleasing to God from their faith, in
the same way as the true Israelites. It also appears from the gospel
history, that there existed in many Gentiles (the centurion of Ca-
pernaum, the Canaanitish woman, and others),* a very powerful
faith, a lively susceptibility to the powers of the Divine life. What,
then, is the difference between these degrees of faith ? From the
point occupied by the noble Gentiles the object of faith was Divin-
ity as an abstract, indefinite conception, whence, in their case, it
could only manifest itself as a longing, testifying of the remains of
the Divine likeness in man. This longing is not, properly speaking,
faith, until the moment when the desired object presents itself, and
is embraced by it, in the same way that the eye does not see until
the sun discovers itself We might, therefore, ascribe to the noble-
minded Gentiles faith potentially, i. e., the completely developed ca-
pacity for believing, which presents itself actually only on the revelation
of Divinity to them, either in doctrine or in life. The condition of
dniarca, unbelief, may, on the other hand, be considered as the undevel-

* Worthy of special remark are the passages with respect to Rahab, to whom, as a
Gentile woman, faith and the works of faith are attributed, Heb. xi. 31; Jas. ii 25.

636 KoMANS III. 21-31.

oped, or even suppressed, capacity for believing, according as the
term is taken merely in the negative, or also in the privative sense.
Even, therefore, when this Gentile faith, so to speak, was exercised
towards Christ himself, as, for example, in the case of the centurion
of Capernaum, etc. (Matth. viii. 1, etc.), it was still incapable of re-
cognizing in him more than a general manifestation of Divinity,
although the thirst of the spirit found itself truly quenched in com-
ing to him, as the eye of the child rejoices in the sun, without
knowing what it is. Genuine Judaism, on the other hand, held a
position which enabled it to recognize, consciously, in its object of
faith, the personal Godhead. But the faith of the Jew still con-
ceives this personal manifestation of God as meielj future, to be
realized in the Messiah, and as something external. It is only
Christian faith that is able to raise itself to the conception of the
Divine Personality, that had appeared in Christ, as present and in-
ternal. Christ, in his work and character, will not merely shine upon
men from without ; but he will dwell and work in them inwardly,
in order that man may become what he is. (1 John iv. 17.) As hu-
manity in general, has, therefore, to pass through these different
stages of faith, so also the individual. In childhood, when even
human personality is as yet but imperfectly unfolded, he believes
only in the Divine : with advancing age he beholds in Christ the
Divine Personality, but first only as an outward fact, whose full in-
fluence upon his heart is yet future : at last he experiences its ope-
ration as something present and inward, and then only is his faith
completed : it becomes a devotion of himself to God, an espousal of
his soul to the heavenly bridegroom, whereby he becomes one with
Christ, and Christ's whole work and Being become his own. (Hosea
ii. 20.)* In this form, therefore, faith is identical with regenera-
tion, because, whilst faith thus manifests its power, the whole dis-
position becomes a new creature ; the man of earth is transformed
into a man of heaven and of God. (2 Tim. iii. 17.) The lower
degrees of faith, on the other hand, are as yet without regeneration.
(See at John i. 17.) In aU stages of development, the essence
of faith remains the same, the susceptibility of the inward life to
Divine influence. But, as divinity reveals itself variously, under
the successive aspects of Father, Son, and Spirit, hence this one
faith presents itself in several forms. Finally, it was only in its
subjective character (fides qua creditur) that -nloTLc required a minute
investigation ; of its objective use (fides quae creditur) as denoting

* When faith is represented as a xupiofia (1 Cor. xii. V, xiii. 3), it denotes the capacity
for appropriating the Divine power, so as to perform miracles by means of it. Faith, in-
deed, is requisite for the reception of all gifts of the Spirit (see Matth. xvii. 19, 20), but it
appears in a particularly heightened and concentrated form as a special gift of grace ia
the passages above cited.

KoMANs III. 21-31. 537

the subject-matter of faith, we need only mate mention. When
used of God (Rom. iii. 3 ; 2 Cor. i. 18 ; 2 Tim. ii. 18, several times),
it denotes the faithfulness of God in the fulfilment of his promises.

From this unfolding of the import of terms, we proceed to con-
sider the contents of the passage itself, Rom. iii. 21. In the first
place, vvvi^ now (=tv ru> vvv Kaipui, Galat. iv. 4, and below, in ver.
26), is evidently to be referred to the time since the accomplish-
ment of the work of the Lord, so that the ages before Christ appear
as the mighty past.* In these, indeed, redemption, as a future
blessing, was announced beforehand, and confirmed by witnesses, in
the Law (Gen. xlix. 10 ; Ex. xxxiv. 6 ; Deut. xviii. 15) and in the
prophets (Jer. xxiii. 6, xxxiii. 16 ; Is. xlv. 17, liii. 1, etc.); but in
these, and in the symbols of the sacrificial worship, it was hidden
under a veil, on which account the saints of the Old Testament it-
self had only an indistinct presentiment of the mode of redemption
(1 Pet. i. 10, 11); it was not until the death and resun-ection of the
Redeemer, that the mystery was revealed. (Rom. i. 18, xvi. 25, 26.)i-
NoAv the subject of this revelation is this : the high goal of human-
ity, the righteousness of God (diKaioavvrj Qeov), is to be obtained
without laio, through faith in Christ. The %wptf vofiov^ luitliout law,
however, as is self-evident, is not intended to express a renunciation
of the law, for the law is holy and good (vii. 12), and necessary for all
phases of life, but to designate an altered position of man in relation
to it. By nature, man stands under the law, and is impelled by the
law to righteousness ; this relation is to cease ; man can, indeed,
never be above the law, but can certainly live in the law, and bear
the law essentially in himself. Accordingly, in 1 Tim. i. 9, it is said,
diKULG} voiiog ov Kelrai, the law is not made for the righteous, on which
passage consult Augustine's excellent remarks (de spir. et. lit. cap.
10). This condition, in which man is thoroughly one with the law,
even as our Lord tells us God himself is (Matth. v. 48), constitutes

* Fritzsche takes vvvl 6e as a mere form of transition, and it is no doubt correct to
suppose that no determination of time is indicated in the relation of ver. 21 to ver. 20.
But the subsequent mention of the law and the prophets renders it necessary to assert for
vvvl the sense of time. [ I think not. The reference to the law and the prophets is
equally pertinent and forcible, if we give to vvvl the meaning, not of tiow, in contrast
•with a former time, but of now, as the case stands, in contrast with the other case stated
or supposed. Such a use of vvv (more rarely vvvi) is abundant in the Greek classics, and
frequent in the New Testament (Luke xix. 42 ; 1 Cor. xv. 20). It is therefore very natu-
ral, in contrasting the existing fact of a righteousness without law, with that legal state in
which righteousness is impossible, to add that it is "attested by the law," "the proph-
ets" being then added as a mere after-thought, to complete the idea. While, therefore, I
reject Olshausen's interpretation of vvvi as that of mere time, I regard Fritzsche's as equally
unsatisfactory, which makes it a mere particle of transition.] — [K-

f Paul does not merely say : The way to attain to the righteousness of God is mani-
fested, but this latter is itself revealed, for it is personally in Christ, and appears in met
only as Christ in us ; man has no righteousness of God besides Christ, whatsoever ot this
righteousness the regenerate man possesses is entirely of Christ.

538 Romans III. 21-31.

exactly that righteousness of God to which faith brings us, because
through faith man receives the being of God into tke depths of his
soul. In this passage, therefore, ^wpt^- v6[j,ov, luithout law, is exactly
parallel to %wp<r tpywv vSnov, ivithout works of law (Galat. ii. 16),
by which it is not denied that good ivories exist in the life of faith,
but only that these works form the foundation of that right
relation to God which is restored under the new covenant, they be-
ing, in fact, merely the consequences of this relation. This founda-
tion lies positively in the work of Christ, negatively in faith, from
which works both outwardly and inv/ardly conformable to the law
necessarily proceed. Dead works, in the sight of God, do not even
constitute a diKaioovvri vonov — these, therefore, cannot at all be meant.
The profound meaning of this verse will unfold itself before our eyes
most plainly in detail, if we review the false interpretations to which
it has been exposed. Of these, the coarse view of Pelagian Ration-
alism refutes itself. According to this, vSnog is to be understood
simply of the ceremonial law, niang of the assent of the understand-
ing to the doct7'ine of Christ, and dtKaioavvr] of morality ; so that the
sense would be, " outward religious exercises avail nothing, but only
virtue according to the pure moral precepts of Christ." In this en-
tirely external view, however, one slight circumstance is overlooked,
that, according to the apostle's doctrine, it is impossible for sinful
man to exhibit this pure morality (viii. 3); the question, therefore
is, whence does the man obtain strength for this work ? The new
features of the gospel do not consist in a more excellent system of
morality, but in its opening a new source of strength, by which true
morality is attainable. Much subtler is the error of the Roman
Catholic Church in its doctrine of diKaioavvrj. The point of differ-
ence, with respect to this doctrine, between her and the Protestant
Church is this, that the latter considers dtumoavvT] as a judicial act
of God (actus forensis), a recognition as righteous (declaratio pro
justo),* whilst the former regards it as a condition of soul called
forth in the man (habitus infusus), in accordance with which "jus-
tificatio" has its degrees ; so that the Protestant view regards it
mainly in its objective, and the Roman Catholic in its subjective
aspect. The Protestant Church by no means denies the truth
contained in the Roman Catholic view ; she places the subjective
element under the name of sanctification, immediately along side
oi justification, making it spring from justification as its necessary

* It is quite false to suppose, that the Protestant Church regards justification as some-
thing merely outward, because she sees in it a declaration of God, as Mohler misrepresents
U3 in his Symbolik. Justification contains, according to Luther's system of doctrine, not
merely remissio peccatorum, but also impuiatio meriti Ohristi, and the adoptio infilios Dei.
The Divine declaration is consequently to be regarded as an inward operation in the con-
Bciousness of the man, as is, indeed, necessarily implied in the idea : what God declares
is so by his very word.

Romans III. 21-31. 539

consequence. The Roman Catholic church, however, denies the
truth contained in the Protestant doctrine, and here lies the error
of her doctrine. Looldng at the strict meaning of the word, diKaiovo-
6at is no douht more properly interpreted "rendered righteous,"
than, according to the Protestant church " declared righteous ;"
but since nothing can be decided by God to be righteous which
is not so in fact, it follows that the translation of diKaioavvr] by
" the righteousness which avails before God," is not false, but only
secondary ; diKaioovvt] Geov, means, primarily, the righteousness
which is lorought by God : but that which God produces answers
to his idea, and must therefore avail before him,* The Roman Ca-
tholic church, therefore, gains by this mere verbal advantage ab-
solutely nothing ; on the other hand she has not only lost sight of
an important element of the truth, but also, when this was pointed
out to her, opposed it ; an element which the Protestant church
has established with more grammatical strictness upon the formula
Xoyi^eodai elg diKaioovvrjv, to impute as righteousness, than upon the
expression dtKaioovvr] Qeov, righteousness of God. This important
point is, in fact, the purely objective nature of justification, which
the expression actus forensis is intended to affirm, so that justifica-
tion does not depend upon the degree of sanctification, but entirely
upon the purpose of God in Christ Jesus ; by the passive and active
obedience of Christ the sin of all has been expiated, and the obe-
dience of all fulfilled in him. God, then, regards no more men in
Adam, but in Christ, from whom, in the work of conversion, the germ
of the new man is transmitted to the individual. Thus only does
the gospel become, in truth, good news, since thus the salvation of
man does not depend upon his own unstable conduct (on which
supposition, as the Roman Catholic church believes and requires, a
constant uncertainty must remain in the man's mind here below
whether or not he be in a state of grace), but on the cont«-ary, by
the unchangeable purpose of God, which man apprehends in faith,
the instability of his own character is corrected. " If, therefore, man
believes not, yet God abideth faithful, he cannot deny himself" (2
Tim, ii. 13), and the unfaithfulness of man is not removed by the
fact that he strives to be faithful (for this very endeavour is unfaithful,
and at best but discloses presumptuous pride), but simply and alone
by believing in the faithfulness of God in Christ, through which
faith he becomes partaker of a higher power. As, therefore, the
mother of all sins is the not believing in him whom God hath sent,

* Benecke's opinion, that itKaioovi'T] Oeoii in this passage, as well as in vers. 25, 26,
means the justitia Lei qua, Justus est, is equallj' untenable in the connexion, with his
view, that Trlarig'lTiaov denotes the faithfulness which Jesus exercises. Faith stands here
©ridently in opposition to the Ipyoi^ implied in the words X'^P'-i vofiov. That, however,
tho grace and faithfulness of Christ produce faith also in men, is maintained hj him with
perfect justice.

540 KoMANS III. 21-31.

80 to believe in him is the mother of all virtues (Johu xvi. 9); beside
faith, there can exist no virtue, but all that is true and real in man
proceeds from it. The Eoman Catholic church erroneously under-
stands by faith, fides formata, i. e., faith tvith other virtues, from its
always regarding faith as a dead assent of the understanding to mere
historic truth, while, according to the Protestant view, harmonizing
also with that of Scripture, it is life and blessedness. The doctrine
of a meritum congrui, and meritum condigni, has arisen entirely out
of the Pelagianizing views of the Roman Catholic church, which
make man, in the fall, to have lost merely a donum sujoernaturale,
but still to possess all his natural faculties, and, consequently, the
capability of loving God, and keeping his commandments. Accord-
ing to my view, the transition from the state under the law to the
state under the gospel (of which we shall treat more at length at
ch. vii.), must be conceived of somewhat after this manner : In his
state under the law, man is able, by his natural powers, which, how-
ever, can never be considered as wholly separated from the influences
of the Logos, to perform certain opera civilia. But the more pow-
erfully the light of truth works in his mind, the more plainly will he
perceive that all his endeavours to establish a perfect righteousness
are vain, and that his best works, on account of the selfishness which
cleaves to them, are, as Augustine says — severely, indeed, yet truly —
but splendida vitia, the wild fruit of a degenerate tree. With this
recognition of sin {inlyvoyot^ rrig dimpTcag, iii. 20) is connected the
longing for deliverance (vii. 24), and if the preaching of the gospel
brings to his view the true Redeemer, faith apprehends this Saviour,
and appropriates both him and his work. On man's side, no merit,
no righteousness, is pre-supposed, but simply a living faith in the
merits and righteousness of Christ ; these faith takes up into itself,
and thus everything which is Christ's becomes man's. This transfer
to the sinful man of the being of Christ is denoted by the expression
" righteousness is imputed to him." The work which was object-
ively accomplished upon the cross, is thus subjectively applied to
the individual believer ; the germ of the new man which exists in
Christ is grafted into and born in the old man. This act of transfer
is, therefore, a mysterious process in the depths of the soul, a new
creation, which none can eflect by his own power, a pure gift of the
Spirit, who breatheth where he will. Since, however, in every re-
generate man, the old man still lives, and, therefore, sinful motions
must still exist, the question arises, how can God, the Omniscient,
the Holy, the Just One, regard the imperfectly sanctified man as
entirely righteous ? The answer is : Because God judges the man^
not according to that which is realized in him, but according to that
■which is in Christ. As all men have fallen in Adam, so in Christ
have they all been raised ; God therefore recognizes all as righteous

Romans III. 22, 23. 541

in him, even generations yet to come. If tliis Divine declaration is
actually made to man, and he receives it in faith, it produces in him
the new life : hut inasmuch as this life is derived from another, and
can, therefore, also he lost, it does not constitute the decisive point
in the Divine judgment as to the state of grace. And therefore,
also, the believer, in his own judgment, must not found his hopes of
salvation upon his inward condition, hut upon the merits of Christ.
Still, as an evidence of being in a state of grace, the inward condi-
tion is important, because a justifying faith cannot be conceived to
exist without an inward transformation, and powers received from
above, which enable the regenerate man to do that which under the
law he could not do. (See at Rom. vii. 24, viii. 3.)

Vers. 22, 23. — This way of salvation by faith is now equally ne-
cessary for all, because the law could conduct none to the righteous-
ness of God, in that all ivithout exception have sinned^ even if not
actually, in such gross forms as those mentioned in ch. i. and ii. yet
inwardly, since the germ of all sins lies in every one.

(The fiiV navrag koI em Travrag constitutes not merely an accumu-
lation of synonyms, but a climax ; the image of a flood of grace
seems to be at the foundation of this expression, a flood which
penetrates to all, and even streams over all. — The words diKaioovvTj
Qeov [scil. t'p;^fTa(] elg ndvrag, the righteousness of God for all, are,
however, only to be understood of the Divine purpose, " it is in-
tended for all," without any intimation of the actual restoration of
all. — litarL^ 'iTjoov, faith of Jesus, stands for moTig elg 'Itjcjovv, faith
in Jesus, as elsewhere niarig eeov for elg Qeov. [Mark xi. 22 ; Acts
iii. 16 ; Galat. ii. 20.] — Udvreg rmaprov, all have sinned, refers not
merely to actual sin, the consequence of hereditary sin, but espe-
cially to the latter. Even where no actual sins have been com-
mitted, as, e. g., in the case of unconscious children, the power of
redemption is still needed. [See at vii. 12.] — To understand vare-
povadat rrjg do^rjg tov Qeov, to come short of the glory of God,
of the approval of God, as Winer, Fritzsche, and Reiche still
hold, or of boasting before God, for which Kavxrma commonly
stands, as Rosenmiiller and Tholuck explain it, is plainly feeble.
Riickert has decided in favour of the old interpretation, which
refers it to the image of God in which man was created ; and
tliis appears to me also to be alone admissible. There is no diffi-
culty in giving this meaning to the expression 66^a rov Qeov, accord-
ing to the analogy of n;.n^ n-as [see on John i. 1], even though it
does not happen to occur elsewhere in the New Testament. Finally,
the comparison of these words of Paul in ver. 22, diicaioovvTj Qeov 6cd
ntareug, righteousness of God through faith, with the parallel, Galat.
V. 5, en marecjg eXiriSa SiKaioavvrjg d7Teicdex6[J.e0a, we aivait the ho2:)e of
righteousness from faith, is instructive. The words in the present

642 Romans III. 24, 25.

passage are uttered from a point of view entirely objective; in Christ
the righteousness of God exists for believers absolutely complete ;
but the subjective mode of contemplating it has also its truth, al-
though occurring less frequently in Paul's writings. From this
point of view righteousness is an object of hope, because in this
world it can only be imperfectly realized in man. See the Comm.
on Galat. v. 5.)

Vers. 24, 25. — Since, then, they cannot become righteous by
merit, they are made righteous gratuitously, i. e., without previous
works and proper deserts, out of pure grace through the redemption
of Christ. (Grace is the operative cause, redemption the means by
which it works.) We arrive now at another very important point,
namely. How has Christ produced the possibility of the dcKaioavvrj
eeov through faith in himself ? The apostle answers this question
by laying stress, not upon the communication of a higher spirit
through Christ and upon his Divine glory, but, on the contrary, upon
his deepest humiliation, his suflferings and his death, by which he de-
clares that redemption was accomplished. Now, in the fii^st place,
with respect to the language of the Bible on this point, we meet
with three expressions, by which the redemptive agency of Christ is
designated. 1. The term dTroAvrpwaf?-, redemption, of which we
have already treated at Matth. xx. 28. Paul generally employs this
form (Ephes. i, 7, 14, iv. 30 ; 1 Cor. i. 30), since the arrd expresses
the idea of making free more strongly than the simple ?ivTpG)oig.
At the foundation of this word lies the figure of slavery,'^ from
which man must be redeemed by a ransom (whence e^ayopd^cj is used,
Galat. iii. 13, iv. 5), in order to attain to freedom, as with aurrjpla,
salvation (Rom. v. 9, 10), the figure is that of g?xat danger or dis-
tress (aTTwAaa), from which he is to be delivered. The ransom
Q^vrpov) is the blood of Christ, which constitutes the ofiering made
by love to justice, which objective transaction in God, alone renders
possible the real forgiveness of sins and its appropriation in the
individual case. 2. We find the expression KaraXXayrj, reconcilia-
tion (Rom. V. 10, ix. 15 ; 2 Cor. v. 18, 19), at the root of which lies
the idea of an enmity which is done away. The choice of this par-
ticular word to express this thought is, however, in the highest
degree significant. KaroAAaaao), in fact, means, primarily, " to
exchange, interchange," and hence " to reconcile." (Rom. v. 10 ; 2
Cor. V. 18, 19.) In reconciliation, harshly opposing contraries make,
as it were, mutual exchanges, and form again an harmonious unity.
So Christ takes upon himself our misery, and imparts to us his glory,
in order to reconcile us to God. The distinction which Tittmann

* No doubt, therefore, redemption and atonement are symbolical expressions, but
symbols full of essential truth, which cannot find any substitute whatsoever in Human lan-
guage, and are therefore necessary.

Romans III. 24, 25. 543

assumes between SiaXXdaaco, to remove a recqji'ocal enmity, and
KaraXXdoao), an enmity existing on one side only, has been proved
by Tholiick to be utterly unfounded. (Bergpred. p. 192, etc.)* We
find, 3, and lastly, IXaanog, propitiation (1 John ii. 2, iv. 10 ; IMa-
Keadai, Heb. ii. 17), the proper term, even in Old Testament lan-
guage, for expressing the idea of expiation by sacrifice.f Christ
is therefore himself called the Ovaia^ sacrifice, or Tvpoacpopd, offering
(Eplies. V. 2 ; Heb. x. 12 ; and t^daxa, passover, 1 Cor. v. 7), or d^vog,
lamb (John i. 29, 36 ; 1 Pet. i. 19), dpvlov (Rev. v. 6, 8, 12, 13, vi.
1, etc.) With respect to the relation of these expressions to one
another, we may finally remark, that KaraXXayrj and IXaofiog always
denote the beginning of Christ's work, whilst dTroXvTpcoai^ includes
not only the beginning, but the end also (see Rom. viii. 23 ; 1 Cor.
i. 30) so that this is the most comprehensive term, comprising even
dytaanog, sanctification, itself (it stands = dcpeoig rCJv dfxaprtwv, remis-
sion of sins, Ephes. i. 7 ; Col. i. 14, whilst equivalent to icaraXMoacov,
we find fii] Xoyi^ofievog avrolg rd TTapariTGJf^iara avrCJv^ not imputing to
them their offences, 2 Cor. v. 19).

But in the second place, the ideas themselves designated by
these terras belong to the most difficult in Holy Scripture. Still,
the last few years have brought to light such profound views
on these subjects, that, in fact, very much has been done towards
their solution. In particular, we may not only consider that ration-
alistic view to be set aside, which, in reducing the work of Christ to
doctrine and examjjle, wholly misunderstands the essence of Chris-
tianity, bat also the infinitely deeper mode of representation of
Schleiermacher (Glaubenslehre P. ii. p. 252). | The latter theo-
logian, namely, considers the work of Christ as the Redeemer to
precede his work of reconciliation, and considers both only from his
own subjective point of view. With him, therefore, redemption is
the communication to believers of the siulessness and perfection of
Christ, and reconciliation the adoption into that blessed fellowship

* In Heb. ii. 15, we find uTzalldT-en', but = D.evOepovv.

f Nitzsch, in his "System of Christian Doctrine," distinguislies between "VersGh-
nung" and " Versuhnung," i. e., "reconciliatioD" and "propitiation." This distinction is
very serviceable for maintaining the distinction between KaraMay^ and Umou'x:. That a
separation of these two expressions has not long ago been established, may be explained
from the fact, that the profound meaning embraced in the idea o? propitiation had entirely
escaped our entire age. It was not, in fact, merely in theology that the significance of
this idea was overlooked, but also in the science of law ; punishment was degraded into
a mere human invention /or deterring men from crime, instead of being ennobled and hal-
lowed by that propitiation of justice which it manifests. In the recovery of this idea, an
essential advance has been made towards deeper views of the whole work of Christ.

X Usteri, in the fourth edition of his " Paulinischer Lehrbegrifif" (p. 8G, etc.), still ad-
heres to Schleiermacher's view of this doctrine. Amongst the most recent excgetical
commentators. Riickert has, in particular, taken a correct exegetical view of Paul's doc-
trine, without, however, having been able to adopt the idea of an atonement, not merely
on man's part, but also on God's.

544 Romans III. 24, 25.

with Christ, which follows, as a necessary consequence, from that
communication. This is an entirely arbitrary definition of the terms.
Besides, this view leaves out of sight a most essential point, namely,
the blotting out of the guilt of sin, which Schleiermacher was obliged
in consistency to omit, because he had denied the reality of evil, and
was thus obliged to rest content with a mere replenishment of man's
emptiness. This one point, therefore, it only remains for us to dis-
cuss— how the death of Christ is related to the forgiveness of sins,
and whether this death has reference merely to men, or also to the
Divine Being himself And here, in the first place, I feel myself
constrained to remark, that the views I expressed at Matth. xx. 28,
implying that reconciliation was an act on man's side alone, have
been modified by recent profound researches, as I have also intima-
ted at John iii, 16 (vol. ii. p. 362, note). For the profoundest
investigation of this subject we are indebted to a man who has
rendered great service to Theology and Philosophj^, as well as to Law,
Karl Friedrich Goschel.* In fact, we may say, if reconciliation were
an act taking place in man only, we could speak of no " ministry of
reconciliation" (2 Cor. v. 18) ; for then to preach reconciliation
would not be to announce an act of God, but only an act of men^
and indeed only of a/ei^ men, for how many are there who will not
be reconciled unto God ! Even if, therefore, in the New Testament,
the expression, " God is reconciled," does not occur (see the note to
John iii. 16), because he appears throughout it as the Author and
Founder of this reconciliation, yet there is contained in the very idea
of sacrifice and expiation (as the Old Testament plainly shews) a
necessary reference to an altered relation of God himself. Every
sacrifice is intended to expiate the guilt of men, and propitiate the
anger of God, consequently the sacrifice of sacrifices, in which alone
all the rest have their truth, must effect that which the others only
foreshadow. Since now the view of the Scotists (gratuita accep-
tatio) disproves itself, inasmuch as God can never regard an object
as that which it is not, and the view of Grotius (acceptilatio) is
erroneous, in which law and righteousness are considered as detached
from the Divine Being and Nature ; there remains but the highly
acute theory of Anselm (satisfactio vicaria) a theory, when rightly
understood, equally consonant with the doctrine of Scripture and
the demands of philosojihy. The elements of which it is composed
are, on the one side, the enormity of sin itself, and the guilt and

* See GOschel's " Zerstreute Blatter aus den Hand und Hulfeacten eines Juristen." Er-
furt, 1832. See besides the Essays in Tholuck's lit. Anz. 1833. Num. 8-14. An essay
of the same in the Evang. Kirch. Zeit. 1834, January No. Very well worth reading
are also the treatises of Stier, which appeared earlier (Andeut. P. i. p. 379, seq., more
accurately defined in the Andeut. P. ii. p. 24, seq.), of Meyer (in the "Blatter fur hohere
Wahrheit," vol. vi. 384 eta, xL 206 etc.), and Tholuck ("Yon der Sunde, und vom
Versohner," p. 92, fif.).

Romans III. 24, 25. 545

liability to punishment whicli proceeds from it ; and, on the other,
the impossibility of conceiving in God one attribute as active with-
out the other, as, e. g., love without righteousness, on which account
God cannot forgive sin on mere repentance, as can a man who is
himself a debtor ; and between these two elements comes the Per-
son of the God-Man, who is not a man, amongst and by the side of
many others, but the man, the second spiritual Adam of the whole
race,* who is connected alike with sinners by his true though most
holy humanity, and with the Lord of the world by his Divine nature,
in that in him love is manifested as brightly as righteousness in the
Father, while again love in the Father shines as purely as righteous-
ness in the Son. That, therefore, which cannot be conceived as.
united in any human act (as man can ever only exercise either grace
or justice), the highest act of grace, the absolution of a whole sin-
ful race, and the perfectly righteous punishment of sinners in the
death of him who bore the whole race in himself (as the centre em-
braces the collective radii of the circumference), is harmoniously
blended in the death of Christ ; and therefore the giving up of the
Son by the Father, and the free sacrifice of the Son, constitute the
highest act of God, worthy to form the subject of preaching to the
whole human race, because it has power to breathe life into the
dead bones, and truly to impart that peace which flows from the
forgiveness of sins. It is to this objective act of God, according to
Protestant doctrine, that faith attaches itself, and by the powerful
glow of its flame all those half or wholly Pelagian views must be
dissipated, which would have the Divine life of love to derive assist-
ance from the exertion of man's natural powers. For whoi-e life is
not awakened by gazing on that serpent which is lifted up ^an effect
just the contrary to that produced by beholding the head of Medusa),
the most decided commands, and the most ascetic exertions and
acts of self-denial, can only produce a bare respectability, or ridicu-
lous conceit. In this fountain thus opened alone flows the water of
life ; on this altar alone can heavenly fire be obtained ; here right-
eousness and grace melt into an ineffable unity, as they are one in
God himself ; for the forgiveness of sins on account of the death of
Christ is ovde Kara v6[iov, ov6e Kara voiiov, dXXd vnep vofiov teal vnep
vonov, i. e., not according to the law, for by that man was to bear
his own sin, and yet not against the law, since in the sufferings of
Christ satisfaction was rendered to its demands, but above the law,
because grace is mightier than lughteousness, and for the law, be-
cause law is itself established thereby. (See Tholuck " von der
Siinde," p. 108, 3d ed.)

* On the vicarious character of Christ see details at Rom. v. 2, seq. Here we are
immediately concerued only with the idea of satis/action, which is entirely scriptural,
though the expression is not found in Scripture.
Vol. III.— 35

546 Romans III. 24, 25.

It is only as thus apprehended that the representation of tne
apostle admits also an exact verbal interpretation. He calls Christ
iXaoTripLov, a word which is not, however, to be taken = IXaajwg^
or to be explained with the addition of dvjj.a of the sin-offering,
but with iniOefia supplied, of the covering of the A7'k of the Cove-
nant, in which expression, at all events, the idea of expiation
is most distinctly enunicated, even according to the etymology
of the word. This covering, in fact, made of fine gold, 2^ cubits
long and 1-J- broad, at whose ends the two cherubim stood over-
shadowing the ark with their wings, was the throne of the She-
chinah, symbol of the presence of God ; on this account it is
called, Heb. iv. 16, Opovog x^^pi-^og, throne of grave. (See Exod.
XXV. 17, etc.) On this mercy-seat the High Priest sprinkled once
every year, on the great day of atonement, the blood of a bul-
lock seven times, and the blood of a goat seven times, to make
atonement for the sin of the people, (Levit. xvi. 18, etc.) This
lid is called in the Old Testament fi';!33, from "iss, " to cover," i. e.,
according to the Old Testament view, " to forgive," because sin in
this dispensation could not yet be entirely removed, but only re-
mained suspended through the long-suffering of God, until the com-
pletion of that true sacrifice which was able to take it away. The
LXX, translate it IXaorripiov. As now the whole form of Old Tes-
tament worship was symbolical, so this institution also represented
figuratively the essential truth. As the mercy-seat of the taber-
nacle presented itself to the spirits of the people as the place from
which the forgiveness of their sins proceeded ; so also is the Re-
deemer solemnly presented, in the Holy of Holies of the universe, as
in the true Temple of God, to the believing gaze of the whole of
that spiritual Israel, which is gathered out of all nations, in order
that they may re'ceive forgiveness of sins through his blood. As he
is therefore the sacrifice, so is he also the mercy-seat itself, because
all opposites are harmonized in him : " God was in Christ reconcil-
ing the world unto himself." (2 Cor. v, 19.) So God himself was
enthroned between the cherubim, above the sacred covering of the
Ark of the Covenant, and accepted the offering made for the forgive-
ness of the sins of the people. (Lev. xvi. 2 ; Heb. ix. 7, etc.)

On the side of m.siu faith alone is required (Scd TTiaTeojg is not to
be connected with dLKaiovfievot dcjpedv so as to stand parallel with did
Trig dnoXvTpi^oaecjg, but with IXaaTrjpiov, though we are not to consider
this latter as dependent upon rrioTig, but must supply as follows,
" which must be received through faith in his blood") ; but this faith
is not by any means to be regarded as a human work, but as the gift
of God, and is indeed "niaTig iv tu> avrov alfiari, faith in his blood.
(TLcoTig ev aLfiari, after the analogy of moTig ev XpiOToJ, Galat. iii. 26 ;
Ephes. i. 15, is repeatedly found, in which phrases no interchange of

Romans III. 24, 25. 547

prepositions is to be assumed, for the indwelling of believers in
Christ, and of Christ in them, and their abiding with him and his
blood is indicated by them.) But the usual assertion, that atjua,
blood, denotes the bloody death of Christ, and that this represents
his collective sufferings, is not indeed untrue, but still does not ex-
haust the meaning. We never find a faith in Christ's death (Trtart?
elg Odvarov) spoken of,* it is the blood of Christ which is constantly
mentioned. (Acts xx. 28 ; Rom. v. 9 ; Ephes. i. 7, ii. 13 ; Col. i.
14, 20 ; 1 Pet. i. 18, 19 ; 1 John i. 7 ; Heb. ix. 12, 14, x. 19, xiil
12 ; Rev. i. 5, v. 9, vii. 14, xii. 11.) The invariable use of this lan-
guage must be founded upon some internal reason, and. this we find
plainly at Heb. ix. 22, " without shedding of blood there is no remis-
sion of sins." (See Levit. xvii. 11.) For, as we find it expressed in
this latter passage, " the life of the body is in the blood." The
phrase TTLorig slg Odvarov , faith in death, would therefore be much
less appropriate, as not conveying the idea of the forgiveness of sins
and of the expiatory sacrifice, and, again, Odvarot; denotes only death
as such, the mere dying. But the death of Christ, who is life itself
(John i. 3), is the effusion or pouring forth of his holy life, i. e., of
his blood, which he also communicates constantly to his people in
faith, and in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. (John vi. 47, 54.)
The formula mang iv rw atnari, faith in his blood, is therefore
in the highest degree significant, in that it declares, that the shed-
ding of the blood and the death of him, who was called the Life
itself, is the expiation of the sin of the world, and is not something
dead, but essentially and pre-eminently living, so that in his death,
death itself appears swallowed up of life. As therefore the vial of
balsam, if it is to refresh all those who are in the house by the
odour of its contents, must be opened and poured forth, so also did
the Redeemer breathe out into the dead world that fulness of life
which was contained in him, by pouring forth his holy blood, the
supporter of his life,t and this voluntarily, since none could take his

* "We find in Rom. v. 10, "we are reconciled to God by the death of his Son," only
because the opposition with ^utj required this expression. In Col. i. 22, Odvarog is more
exactly defined in ver. 20.

I No doubt a true and deep idea lies at the foundation of Ackerman's ingenious
treatise " On the chemical feature in the Christian conception of sanctification" (in Fichte's
Zeitschrift fur Philosophic and speculative Theologie. Bonn. 1837. 1 vol. 2d part, pp.
232 seq.); this namely, that in the influence of Christ and his blood {i. e., of his life) upon
the sinful race of man there exists an analogy with chemical agents and reagents ; that
thus God has formed Christ by the development of his human life into a special source of
healing and principle of attraction. But this idea, when carried out into detail, easily
gives rise to dangerous errors, and tends to lower the whole process of restoration revealed
in Christianity into a mere physical one.

[The note proceeds to cite from Ackermann, in terms of decided condemnation, pass-
ages which illustrate the influence of the Saviour's death and blood by the action of
chemical agents. The English translator has omitted this portion of the note, and the
American editor has not thought it worth whUe to add it.]

548 KoMANs III. 24, 25.

life from him, (John x. 18.) Thus did he, through the Holy Spirit,
offer himself as the most precious sacrifice to God, that he might
purge our consciences by the sprinkling of his blood, to serve the
living God. (Heb. ix. 14.)

In the concluding words of ver. 25, diKaioavvT], in elg tvSst^iv t%
diKaioavvqq avrov^for the manifestation of Ms righteousness, might, in
itself, be understood of the goodness of God, which, in the sacrifice
of Christ, manifests itself as plainly as his rigour; but the added
clause, " for the remission," etc, (6ta ttjv ndpeoiv, k. t. A.), and ver.
31, demand here specially the adoption of the latter signification.
Those sins of the world before Christ, which had hitherto been,
as it were, overlooked (Ps. Ixxviii. 38), rendered necessary the final
manifestation of God's righteousness, and were punished by the
righteous God in Christ, the representative of the whole race, who
voluntarily gave himself up for all. At the same time, as is proved
by the -rrpbg evdei^tv, k. t. A., in ver. 26 (which is by no means a
simple repetition of dg tvdei^iv), there is a constant allusion to that
grace which manifests itself in the work of redemption, and is par-
ticularly expressed in the diKaiovvra, k. t. A., even while justifying,
etc, ; and, in fact, both these attributes, justice and mercy, like the
Divine and human natures of Christ, can, in the work of redemp-
tion, properly be considered separate only in abstracto, inasmuch as
it actually exhibits them blended into a perfect unity.

{Udpeaig occurs nowhere else in the Bible ; had Paul intended it
then as = dcpeoig [as the term itself would allow], he would doubt-
less have chosen, in preference, the latter well-known word. Exod.
xxxii. 34, in connexion with Acts xvii. 30, is a sufficient explanation
of this passage ; vnepiMv — -las there signifies " the overlooking,"
or "letting go."* The dfiaprrniara npoyeyovoTa, sins that are past,
can, however, according to the following kv roi vvv Kaipo), at the pres-
ent time, only mean the sins of the world before Christ's coming, in
connexion, of course, with that original sin of Adam which was
the source of all subseq^uent transgressions. In the Old Testament
there was no real, but only a symbolical forgiveness of sins ;f the
former could not then exist [Heb. ix. 12, 13] , because it was only

* Com. Ver. : " For the remission of sins that are past." Olshausen : " On account of
God's overlooking {nupeaiv) sins previously committed," i. e., leaving them unpunished,
whence they now need expiation and forgiveness. — [K.

■j- The expression ^ ucpeaic rcjv ufxapTiuv or napaTTTufiuTuv, remission of sins (Ephea. i.
7), must not be confounded with u</>fCTff ufiapT^fiaruQ, remission of a sin. The theocratical
forgiveness of any particular sin was possible even under the Old Testament, but the for-
giveness of all sins, actual sins as well as hereditary sin, can only proceed from Christ, and
is a Divine act. It presupposes, namely, nothing less than the creation of a new and holy
man, and the slaying of the old man, inasmuch as it is regeneration itself, on which ac-
count the forgiveness of sins is at the same time life and salvation. This happens, there
fore, also only once or twice, and is only confirmed from time to time to the believer, as in
the Eucharist ; the former, however, is frequently repeated. (I John ii, 1 ; Job xxxiii. 29,)

Romans III. 26-29. 549

through their relation to Christ that the sacrifices of the Old Testa-
ment received their power of forgiveness.)

Finally, nothing can be more erroneous than, as Riickert and
Reiche have recently proposed, to confine the redeeming and forgiv-
ing power of Christ to those sins only which were committed in the
time of ignorance, and to deny the possibility of any forgiveness in
the case of believers. This view, consistently carried out, would en-
tirely destroy the very essence of the gospel, and convert it into glad
tidings for the unbelieving only, but for believers a new and even
more hopeless law. The utter fallacy of this opinion will, however,
be further demonstrated at vii. 14, etc. Rather may we regard the
time of ignorance as belonging not only to the whole race, and to
whole nations, but also to every individual, and it must ever be re-
garded as a state which only gradually disappears. We must, if I
may thus express myself, conceive of humanity as divided, not merely
in its breadth, but also in its length ; and every individual passes
through, in his own case, the same stages of development as the
race. To connect tv rg dvoxq rov Qeov, in the forbearance of God,
with what follows, is entirely unnatural : it should be construed
with -ndgecK;, overlooking, passing hy, of which it discloses the in-
ward ground.

Ver. 26.— As the apostle had first exhibited the element of
severity, he now also brings forward that of grace, which no less
disjjlays itself in the work of redemption. That to designate this,
he likewise uses the expression dtKaioavvr], arises no doubt from his
desire to accumulate expressions of the same kind. As Sticaioavvij,
righteousness, itself proceeds from Christ, as he produces nothing
but diKaiovg, righteous, so also his work, in every form of its mani-
festation, has the Divine SmaLoavvr] as its foundation.

(Ilpof tv6ei^iv is scarcely a mere repetition of the foregoing elg ev-
Sei^iv • true, ev rw vvv KaipCi might seem to favour it ; but diicaiovvra,
K. T. A., is too decidedly against it. In elg to elvat avrbv dUaiov, that
he may be just, is implied at the same time his being recognized as
such by men. — ^iKaiovv can only be understood as a manifestation
of grace.)

Vers. 27-29. — After this explanation of the nature of the new
way of salvation, Paul returns to that question which he had been
treating in iii. 1, etc., whether there was any advantage in the case
of the Jews,* and answers, no ! ('E«:/c/,£iw, see Galat. iv. 17, " to
exclude, i. e., to make unavailing, inadmissible.") For, since here
the question is not concerning such works as the law could alone
produce, but concerning faith. Gentiles as well as Jews had access

* la the conception of Kuvxriaic, glorying, hoasiing, is implied that which belongs to
Belf, as opposed to grace ; thia iv. 2 shews with especial clearness. To i^eKXeiadt] we must
supply vrrb tov Oeov.

650 EoMANS III. 30, 31.

to this grace, in case they believed. If the Jews had lived in trae
love, they would have rejoiced at this fact, but instead of this thev
were offended because God was so gracious.

(Nofto^-, law^'-' has here the more extensive signification of " Divine
ordinance or institution." The gospel may therefore be called the
v6\io^ -nloreco^, law of faith, in so far as it is that Divine ordinance
which requires of men faith. And indeed faith alone, [as Luther
rightly translates this passage in the sense of the apostle], for in it
is contained everything, as the collective fruit of the tree in its germ ;
beyond and besides it there is nothing which belongs to the same
spiritual position. Since, however, Gentiles as well as Jews are here
spoken of, the t'pya vonov, works of laiu, can only mean the works of
the moral law, which are derived from the will of God, demanding
man's obedience.f These, in the most favourable case, are but the
products of the man's own life, and are therefore transitory, like this
life itself, but the works of faith partake of the eternal nature of
that principle from which they proceed.)

Vers. 30, 31. — The one God stands in the same relation to all his
children, and his different modes of dealing do not contradict one
another,! but afford to one another mutual support.

('ETreiTTfp, quandoquidem, siquidem, is found nowhere else in the
New Testament. On this account, also, it is not probable that the
reading dTrep, which Lachman has admitted into his text from A.C.
and other critical authorities, is the original one. — 'E/c and dia -nia-
reux; do not stand parallel to one another, as designations of the
source and cause, as Reiche still supposes ; in this case, etc TTjg
mareoyg must also have been written. Am Trjg mareug alone refers
to tlie principal thought ; Ik morecdg has a special reference to the
Jews [see iv. 12], who supposed that they were partakers of Divine
grace, not as believers, but simply as the children of Abraham after
the flesh. — The gospel establishes the law because it is the most
sublime manifestation of the holiness and strictness of God. Sin

* The meaning of v6/joc here may, perhaps, be what Olshausen assigns to it : the ground
of its use, however, seems purely rhetorical. As the apostle is dwelling on law and its
inability to justify, he naturally employs the same term in describing its opposite. Just
as a man would say, " I know no law but the law of love." So at eh. viii. 3, "the law
of the spirit of life." It seems, therefore, hardly worth while to attempt to fix the exact
signification of a term which is used simply by way of rhetorical contrast. — [K.

\ Glockler is quite mistaken in his view that Xf^ph ipyuv vofiov is to be translated,
"without the law of works," as the very collocation of the words shews. The law,
according to Paul, is only to be abolished in its old form, in which it appears as making
requirements upon the fhan from without ; in the economy of grace it presents itself again
as an inwardly operative law. (See on Galat. ii. 16, 18.)

X Calvin has this apt remark on the passage : " Ubi lex fidei opponitur, ex eo statim
quondam repugnantise suspicionem caro arripit, ac si alteram alteri adversaretur. Prae-
Bertim vero facile obtinet falsa hsec imaginatio inter eos, qui prajpostera legis intelligentid
imbuti nihil aliud in ea quserunt quam operum justitiam, promissionibus oraissis."

Romans IV. 1, 2. 551

never appears more fearful than at Golgotha, where, on account of
it, God spared not his own Son.)

§ 7. Abraham Justified by Faith.
(IV. 1-25.)

In order to demonstrate more exactly the connexion between the
New Testament and the law, and to vindicate the gospel from every
charge of introducing any foreign element into religion, the apostle
next proceeds to shew that even the saints of the Old Testament,
amongst whom he mentions Abraham and David, had walked in the
path of righteousness by faith. In order rightly to comprehend this
whole argument, we must further remark, as was already observed
on Matth. xi. 11, that the position of all the pious men in the Old
Testament was by no means similar. There were some amongst
them whose piety wore a purely legal expression, e. g., Elijah ;
others in whom the legal form was thrown into the background, and
the life of faith was predominant. To these last belong, in an es-
pecial degree, Abraham and David, the development of whose spirit-
ual life bears, in fact, considerable resemblance to that of believing
Christians. At the same time, with all this similarity, we must not
lose sight of the difference between them, for by so doing we should
rob the gospel of its specific character (John i. 17). The faith of
Abraham and David had indeed, as well as the Christian's, the person
of the Kedeemer for its object, but then it was directed to him that
should come, not to him who had appeared ; it was only after the
appearance of Christ, and the accomplishment of his work, that real
power could proceed from him. (John vii. 29.) The very regene-
ration of the Old Testament, if we are disposed to assume its
existence (see on Matth. xi. 11), can therefore only be regarded as
symbolical, a character which the apostle himself seems to ascribe
to it in ver. 23.

Vers. 1, 2. — Paul proves, from the Old Testament itself, that the
righteousness of Abraham had not proceeded from his works.* He
names Abraham, as being the natural progenitor of the Jewish race,
as one whose spiritual character formed the illustrious example to
which all Israelites looked.

(Ti ovv epovnev is not here constructed as an independent formula ;
for Ti must be connected with evpTju^vai. Were we to take ri. ipovnev in
the usual way, we should still be obliged to supply ri to evprjKevai.
[See JLschyl. Eumenid. v. 154.] Strictly, Paul does not wish to ask,

* That it is possible to take another view of the histor7 of Abraham is shewn by the
epistle of Jamos, ch. ii.

552 Romans IV. 3-5.

what has Abraham found or obtained, but lioiv has he received that
righteousness which we allow hira to have ? This thought is, how-
ever, intimated in the turn, what has he obtained Kara adpiia, accord-
ing to the Jlesh ? The answer, therefore, is also not completely
carried out, but only negatively ; ver. 3 contains, on the other hand,
the positive side, though indirectly. The ovv, then, in ver. 1, con-
nects this chapter with dXXd v6[j,ov loTtJfiev, we establish laio, in
the last ; " If, then, we establish the law by faith, so that the two
cannot contradict one another, what can Abraham have obtained by
works .''" — We must connect Kara odpKa with evprjicevat [i. e., hath
found according to the flesh], and not with -narepa. In its sense it =
fef tpywv, from works, ver. 2. We may best understand fiesh, here,
of the outward in general [Galat. iii. 3], as contrasted with the -nvev-
fj-a, spirit, the inward and life-giving. [See on Jas. ii. 26.] — Aikui-
ovadai t^ tpycjv = ^x^lv 6lKaLoovv7]v Ik vofiov. — Kavx^jfia denotes the
act of boasting and its object, materia gloriandi. — The fourth verse
discloses plainly the ideas which lie at the foundation of this whole
argument. Works give merit, merit justifies demands or boasting ;
grace, therefore, is incompatible with works ; its only relation is that
of debt. But God can never stand in the relation of a debtor to any
creature, therefore Paul says dXX' ov npog rbv eeov. For even where
a 6iKatoavv7j rov voixov, righteousness of the law, is in question, it is
only by a gracious condescension on God's part that this becomes
possible ; it is, in fact, always only a righteousness in the sight of
men. In ver. 2, el iSiKaicodr] — t;^£i Kavxnua is to be construed, " if
he, namely [as is in fact the case], is justified by works, he has in-
deed glory, but not before God, only before men." Paul then says
here the same as James ii. 21. [On d with the indicative, see
Winer's Gram. p. 267.] If it meant, " if he had become righteous
he would have glory," we should have eZ;^^^ dv.)

Vers. 3-5. — The apostle then proves from Gen. xv. 6, a passage
which he quotes from the LXX., that it was not by his works that
Abraham became righteous, but that his faith was reckoned to him
for righteousness. Works might have brought him into the relation
of a debtor or creditor, hwi faith brought him into the relation of
grace, since it referred to a promise flowing entirely from the Divine
mercy. This line of argument, taken in connexion with chapter vii.,
where we shall return to it, is admirably calculated to give us a clear
conception of Paul's doctrine of justification. For it is not dtKaiovaOai,
justified^ itself, but Xoyi^eadai eig diKaioovvrjv^ counted for 'righteous-
ness, which corresponds to the Hebrew rij-jHS '.V nai-h n, and which forms
the centre of the apostle's statement in this chapter. The two are,
however, by no means synonymous, but stand exactly in the same
relation to one another as the Roman Catholic (so far at least as it
contains truth) and Protestant doctrines of justification, inasmuch

KoMANS IV. 3-5. 553

as the former is implied in the ducaiovaOac (to be made a righteous
person), the latter in the Xoyl^eaOat (to he accounted as such).
Whatsoever is reckoned or imputed to a person, that the person
cannot himself possess (see Rom. ii. 26, aKgoPvaria elg ■nepr-oiJ.rjv Xoyi-
^erai, uncircumcision is counted, etc.), but he is looked upon and
treated as if he had it. This, now, is not predicated in the present
passage of Abraham only, who lived 2000 years before the reconciliation
eflfected in Christ, without which the dmaioavvriv rov Qeov, righteous-
ness of God, cannot be conceived as existing, but also of tliose loho
lived according to his example after Christ (vers. 11-24), so that the
formula Xoyi.^eadai el^ 6i,Katoavvrjv, counted for righteousness, appears
as a general designation of justification in addition to SiKatovoOai,
made righteous, Justifed. In order duly to understand the meaning
of these expressions, and to perceive their bearing upon the subject
before us, we must consider yet more closely than was done at
iii. 21, the transition from the legal position to that of grace, a
matter which it is particularly difficult to represent. When the law
has accomplished its purpose on the man, i. e., when the recognition
of sin (tn-iyvojCTi^- T7]g dfiapriag, iii. 20) or true repentance is produced
in him, he regards righteousness (which he recognizes as a reality,
and in recognizing which he becomes aware of the contrast of his own
condition) as something completely external to himself But in the
announcement of the Messiah the promise is made to him, that this
righteousness shall, through His work, become an inivard reality to
himself ; this announcement he embraces in faith, and, although
still sinful, and far from diKaLoavvq, yet his faith in that which is
outward and future is reckoned" to him as righteousness, i. e., he is
treated as a righteous person, and therefore as standing in a state
of grace.* Now, the difficulty in this view lies especially in the cir-
cumstance that Grod, in his truthfulness, cannot regard a person as
that which he is not ; if the man is sinful, it would seem that the
True One must look upon him and treat him as a sinner, until
he ceases to be such ; and if he actually ceases to be such, he can
then again only be regarded as a righteous person, and no longer as
a sinner at all. On this argument rests the opposition of the Ro-
man Catholic church to the Protestant view, an argument which it
seems at first sight impossible to refute ; yet on closer examination
it proves false, and calculated to lead men entirely astray with re-
spect to the way of salvation. In fact, according to the Romish
view, it is not the objective purpose of God which forms the irre-

* Redemptiou makes man, in the process of sanctification, free from sin ; with ein no
one can become blessed, as is, indeed, self-evident, for sin itself is the only source what-
soever of misery. But it is quite true that redemption begins in sin, that is to say, the
man must begin as a sinner, must look upon himself in faith as righteous /or Chrisfs sake,
not on account of the somewhat improved condition of his own soul.

654 Romans IV. 3-5.

fragable foundation of man's faith, but the shifting condition of his
own heart. If man thinks that he can discover this condition of
righteousness wrought in him, he assures himself of his state of
grace, but if, in times of temptation, he cannot discover it in him-
self, he doubts or despairs of it The purged eye of the regenerate
man can detect, even in his best condition, much in himself that stiU
needs to be cast out. (See at vii. 14.) The Romish church conse-
quently maintains, and in perfect consistency with her principles,
that man, in his earthly life, can never be certain of his being in a
state of grace, but must remain in constant uncertainty ; whilst the
Protestant church teaches the exact contrary. The truth of the
Protestant conception of this subject is seen most distinctly when
we look more closely at that principle on which the Catholic doctrine
is founded, namely, that God cannot regard any one as different
from what he is. Take this sentiment literally, and since without
the work of Christ no forgiveness of sins and no sanctification is con-
ceivable, it will follow that before the accomplishment of Christ's
atoning sacrifice no holy man could have lived, which contradicts
the whole doctrine of Scripture. The notion must therefore be
modified, in the first place, in accordance with that principle which
teaches, that in every action of God all his attributes co-operate.
God can therefore assuredly account a man to be something which
he is not at present, whilst he looks to his own purpose which shall
render the man that which he as yet is not. As unalterable, there-
fore, as is this determination, so true, also, is God's contemplation
of that which is not yet as already existing (ver. 17). But besides
this, it belongs to the very nature of faith, as a living state, and not
a mere historical assent, that it already contains within itself the
essence of the object of belief; it is an act of man appropriating the
Divine, which of course presupposes that his inmost nature is akin
to the Divine. At the time of Abraham, indeed, Christ himself
and his whole work were as yet future ; of Abraham, therefore, it
can only be said, that God counted to him his faith for righteous-
ness, inasmuch as in that omniscience to which all things are pres-
ent, he regarded this future work as already accomplished. But in
the case of all those who believe after the coming of Christ, faith
contains already in itself the substance of this righteousness, in that
the Redeemer has once for all accomplished the work of justification,
as well, indeed, as of sanctification and glorification for all men
(Rom. viii. 30). But if faith turns itself away from its proper ob-
iect, the Christ tvithout us and God's objective purpose of redemp-
tion, and directs itself to the Christ ivithin us as the ground, not the
consequence, of redemption, and we regard ourselves as objects of
Divine favour only because and so long as we discover him within
us — then faith altogether loses its proper nature, and we fall again

Romans IV. 3-5. 555

under the law, as did once the Galatians. For man, therefore, so
long as he is in this world, the imputing of righteousness {Xoyi^eadai
elg diKaioavv7]v) must ever remain the way to true dimioovvTj itself ;
and if he thinks that he no longer needs the former because he al-
ready possesses the latter, he has ftillen from faith.* As, therefore,
the forgiveness of sins (that^rs^ single remission, by which man is
translated into the state of grace, as well as . subsequent daily
forgiveness) is not imparted to the old man, who must die, nor to
the 7iew man, who cannot sin (1 John iii. 9), but to the inmost per-
sonality itself, which is conscious alike of the old man and of the new,
as helo7iging to it, and which in the progress of regeneration must
be gradually altogether transformed into the new man ; so, also, with
the imputation {Xoyi^eodai). Righteousness is not imputed to the old
man but to the true personality, which perceives the essence of the
old man as its own, but with deep repentance, and with a lively
longing to be delivered from it. The substance of this true person-
ality is, however, nothing else than that scintilla of the Divine like-
ness which has remained in man since the ftill, and without which
sin would form the very substance of the human being. Faith
attaches itself to this spark, and then, deriving nourishment from
the higher world, elicits again from this spark the flame of the Di-
vine life.

(JEgyd^eodat = epya -noieXv, and that moreover as a means of at-
taining to dLKaioovvq. According to the Divine jus talionis, man is
treated according to the position which he assumes ; the man who
has recourse to justice alone, is treated according to its stern law,
" Cursed is every one who continueth not in all that is written in
the law" (Galat. iii. 10) ; but whosoever, on the other hand, clings
in faith to grace, is regarded according to its overruling law.
Xdpig, grace, as the opposite to d(f)eiX7]iJ.a, debt, has here accordingly
the sense of, " what is undeserved," " what depends on no merit." —
In ver. 5 the epithet applied to God, diKaiiov rbv daefi/j. Justifying
the ungodly, does not refer to Abraham alone, as Reiche still asserts,
nor yet to other men loithout him ; rather is it a general designation
of God's relation to mankind. For to suppose that allusion is here
made to some particular sin of Abraham's, for instance to his par-
ticipation in the idolatry of his father Terah, as many commentators
have been disposed to assume, is quite inadmissible ; the ques-
tion regards entirely universal sinfulness. And then we have
in this way of understanding the passage an important proof, that

* "We must not, therefore, frame the antithesis in this manner, either the man is a
sinner, or he is a regenerate and holy man ; the latter, also, is still a sinner, inasmuch as
he retains the old man until death. But in his case God does not look to the old man,
but to his own purpose of grace in Christ, and regards him, for Christ's sake, as altogether
righteous.

556 Romans IV. 6-8.

Paul does not consider any one as excluded from the general sinful-
ness of the race ; even Abraham himself, that venerable and holy
patriarch, is an doePijg, ungodly. All men in respect of God are
in a state of ungodliness, and unable by their own powers to
raise themselves into any other condition.* God alone, therefore, is
the author of StKaioovvr], and proves himself to be such to those
who come forward to meet him in faith ; the endeavour to estab-
lish one's own righteousness is the surest method of shutting one's
self out from the StKaioavvi] Qeov, righteousness of God. See
Eom. X. 3.)

Vers. 6-8. — Paul then corroborates the truth he has advanced by
the example of David, from Ps. xxxii. 1, 2, a passage which is like-
wise quoted according to the LXX. If we find here expressly added
X(^pi? ^py(^v, without ivorks, it is yet plainly not the meaning of the
apostle that works should be tuanting; on the contrary, these possess
in faith, and in that imputation of righteousness of which it is the
means, their most plentiful source (Galat. v. 6) ; but however richly
and purely works may proceed from this source, the foundation of
final blessedness does not exist in them, but in that principle by
which alone they become possible, i. e., not in man, but in God. As,
therefore, it is to God alone that thanks are due for the existence
and creation of man, so also to him alone for man's goodness: it is
not as if there entered into the latter two creative energies, first
that of God, and then that of man (such a dualism makes all true
goodness impossible, for this consists especially in the deliverance
from all that belongs to self) ; there is assuredly but one, namely,
of God, because all pure, good, true action on man's part, is the act
of God, the only true Good, in him, so that man has and can re-
gard nothing as his own, but sin, unfaithfulness and unbelief, (See
at ix. 1.)

In the passage, however, adduced by the apostle, the question
appears not at all to regard the positive imputation of righteous-
ness, but only the negative non-imputation of sin, while at the same
time nothing is expressed about faith. We might therefore regard
the passage as inapplicable : hut forgiveness of sins is surely not a
human fancy, or a human action, in which man says to himself, " I
have forgiveness of my sins," but a Divine act, a living word of God

* The degrees of sinfulness are not to be considered in regard of the life of faith, in
and for themselves, but only the effect which is thereby produced upon the inmost condi-
tion of the so'il. A person in a deeply sunken state may stand quite near to the king-
dom of God, if sin has made him of a broken and contrite spirit (Matth. xxi. 31 ; Luke
XV. 30), and a strict observer of the law outwardly may be far from this kingdom, if he
has become, through hia striving, hard-hearted, loveless and arrogant. The most desira-
ble condition is, of course, one of earnest striving and freedom from gross transgressions,
combined with humility, a sense of need, and faith. But every one who desires to come
to Christ, must altogether, and in everything, recognize himself as a sinner.

Romans IV. 9-12. 657

uttered into the heart, -which faith alone can appropriate. But the
word and act of God is the most positive thing we can conceive, it
is being itself; on which account Luther most rightly terms the for-
giveness of sins, " life and blessedness," since it contains within
itself the imputation of the righteousness of God.

(^Aipih'ac and tTnKaXvnreiv = nw and nos. The first expression
indicates rather the New Testament aspect of the forgiveness of
sins, as the real, even though but gradual, taking aivay of sin ; the
second, on the other hand, as well as the diiapriav ov Xoyl^eadai, not
imputhig sin, rather the Old Testament view, according to which
sin remains under the forbearance of God [Rom. iii. 25], until the
completion of the work of Christ, in connexion with which the
actual forgiveness of sins was first imparted to those who lived
before Christ. Comp. Matth. xxvii. 53 ; 1 Pet. iii. 18.)

• Vers. 9, 10. — Hereupon the apostle returns to consider the rela-
tion between Jews and Gentiles, and proves that this way of salva-
tion by faith was designed, not merely for the Jews, but also for the
Gentiles, since the occurrence in Gen. xv. 6 took place before cir-
cumcision was instituted, at a time, therefore, when Abraham stood
on a level with the Gentiles.

(In ver. 9, supply tpxerai. — It were better to connect Aeyo/zev yap,
K. T. X.,for we say, etc., with ver. 10, for the sense is, "from the
passage concerning David it is not so distinctly to be gathered,
whether or not the Gentiles are to be included amongst those to
whom faith is counted for righteousness, but from that concern-
ing Abraham, for," etc. — In ver. 10 rrwf means " under what cir-
cumstances.")

Vers. 11, 12. — Circumcision was not, therefore, the means of his
justification, but only the sign of that justification which had pre-
ceded it ; just as, also, baptism does not beget faith, but presupposes
it. On this account also his name, " the Father of the Faithful,"
relates not merely to those who are physically circumcised, but to
all those, whether Jews or Gentiles, who, like him, believe.

(A. C. and other critical authorities read ireptronriv instead of
TTepLT0fj,7jg ; the genitive is, however, to be preferred as well on exter-
nal as internal grounds. — Irjfidov = nnx^ that which points back to
something else ; o^payig the impression of a seal, by which some-
thing is confirmed [1 Cor. ix. 2 ; 2 Tim. ii. 19]. So in Heb. tn'n.
— AiKaioovvT] moreuyg [ver. 13], the righteousness imputed, is treated
as a true righteousness. — Elg to elvai is not, with Tholuck, to be un-
derstood merely of consequence, but of intention, as ver. 16 proves.
Abraham received the seal of circumcision first, in order that he
might be presented as the general Father of believers. The con-
ception of Father turns here on the community of character in
father and child ; believers are his true children [for the outward

558 Romans IV. 13-15.

circumcision is the unessential part, ii. 28, 29], and these alone re-
ceive also the righteousness which he received. — In marevovreg 6i*
aKpofivariag, 6td is not to be understood causaliter, but as in ii. 27,
" during, under such circumstances." — The transition from the gen-
itive to the dative (Tolg) was perhaps occasioned by his looking back
to XoyLoBrivai. — "LroLXf^i^ = TTepcnaTtcj^ comp. Galat. v. 25, vi. 16 ;
Phil. iii. 16. To refer aroLxovv-eg again to the Gentiles, is inad-
missible, and requires the harsh inversion of explaining rolg ovk by
ov rolg.')

Ver. 13. — This leads to the more explicit statement, that in
Abraham's case legal relations had nothing whatever to do, but, as
in the case of every promise, gro.ce alone. It is remarkable, that
it is here not merely said, the promise did not come by the law, for
of course all that follows upon this must be regarded as reward, but
that there is added, it came through the righteousness of faith. We
should have expected that it would be said through grace, for it
seems natural that the promise should precede, and then faith ap-
prehend it as an object. But this difficulty vanishes, if we consider
that the promises of God to Abraham form a climax, and that in
this, whilst the first promise preceded his faith, the higher ones fol-
lowed it. Here then, as Tholuck rightly remarks, reference is made
to that promise which succeeded Abraham's greatest trial of faith
(Gen. xxii. 16), and therefore his heirship of the world {KXripovoiiia
K6a\iov) does not mean the mere possession of Canaan, either liter-
ally or spiritually, but the incorporation into himself of the whole
race, so far as it is believing, and the consequent spiritual control of
the world by his influence. At the same time the idea reaches yet
further, as even the Eabbinical writers indicate in that saying
" possidet Abraham pater noster (et nos cum illo) mundum hunc et
futurum." In its deepest sense it points to Christ's dominion over
the world, which his believing people shall share with him (Rom.
viii. 17 ; Rev. iii. 21), and in which spiritual elements shall manifest
their energy outwardly. On this account, also, roj onipfian aijrov, to
his seed, is added,* by which expression, according to Galat. iii. 16,
Paul considers Christ to be designated, and further, in Christ, as the
second Adam, the collective body of believers. (Galat. iii. 28, 29.)
A similar thought is found in so many words in no passage of the
Old Testament, but substantially in Gen. xv. 7 (where Canaan is
promised) and Gen. xxii. 16.

Vers. 14, 15. — If accordingly they who are of the law were heirs,
the promise would be annihilated, for they would be able to demand

* "Wo must not overlook v ^v onepfxaTi, for which only inconsiderable MSS. read koI
Tu aTzep/jaTi. The 7/ introduces a more exact definition, " or rather," for it was in Christ
that Abraham first became truly heir and lord of the world, and in Christ the human
race.

KoMANs IV. 16. 559

all as 7'eiuard. But since none can so keep the law as to be able
to found any demands upon it, since it rather kindles God's anger
against them, the entire assumption is inadmissible. (In ver. 14,
ol tK vojiov are opposed to ol t/c TTLarecog, see Galat. iii. 9, 10. — Kevova-
6ai, to be made /cevdv, empty, powerless. — Between ver. 14 and ver.
15, we must supply the thought, " But it is in the very nature of
the law impossible t'hat it should make men heirs of the world, for
so far from conferring merit, it only awakens indignation." — Ver.
15, (5py/yv iiarepyd^erai, worketh wrath, not by its nature, for that is
holy and good, but through its power in bringing to light the depths
of sin. [See more at vii. 10, etc.] " For where there is no law,"
etc. [ov yap ovK, K. t. X.], is merely a clause suggesting the ground
of the dpyijv Karepyd^eodac ; it is the law only that involves men in
wretchedness, how then should it be able to make them the heirs of
the world ?)

Ver. 16. — The promise, then, could only come through faith, in-
asmuch as it thus only proved a tnie promise, i. e., a merely gracious
assurance ; thus only, indeed, could it appear assured to all, inas-
much as if dependent upon the law its fulfilment would have been
left to the will of unfaithful man, who in fact is only by the law
exhibited as exceeding sinful. The contrast therefore, between
" him who is of the law" {tQ iic rod vofiov) and " him who is of faith"
(rw Ik moreojg), is not between Jews and Gentiles, but only between
the legally righteous and believers, whether Jews or Gentiles. The
member of the theocracy has not, merely as such, a share in the
promise, unless he is at the same time a believer. But in these
words the expression elg to elvac (ie^aiav^ that the 'promise may he
sure, introduces to us a thought which is very important for the un-
derstanding of Paul's ideas in their entire connexion. Everything
which depends upon the decision, faithfulness, and constancy of such
an irresolute and wavering being as man, is, in Paul's view, extremely
uncertain ; but that which depends upon God, the unchangeable
and eternal, is firmly established. On this account, the Divine
promises afford an irrefragable certainty, because nothing can annul
them ; as God gives the promise, so also does he raise up men to
believe it, and thus accomplishes all his works. But so great is the
perversity of man, that he will not recognize this most certain
foundation of salvation ; he wishes to have God's unalterable prom-
ises and prophecies considered as dependent upon him for their exe-
cution, though in this way the fulfilment of a prophecy would tend
to the merit of man, and not to the glory of God, which were plainly
a blasphemous assertion. According to Paul's mode of representa-
tion, the blessedness of man is certain only because God has promised
it and fiimly intends it, and he only who believes in this decided will
of God, has this salvation also wrought in him. (On the harmony

560 Romans IV. 17.

of this with human freedom, nay, on its being the only true basis of
that freedom, see at chap, ix 1, etc.)

Ver. 17. — The citation of Gen. xvii. 5 (which passage is also
quoted exactly according to the LXX.), is intended to prove still
more decidedly Abraham's right to the title of Father of the Faith-
ful, as a relation extending beyond the limits of Israel, and embra-
cing all nations. (Ttdevai = the Hebrew ipj.) But with respect to
the latter half of the verse, which presents many difiSculties, in the
first place the reading imarevaag, which is given by F. G. and the
Syriac version, by which the following words are connected with
the quotation, must be rejected as inadmissible, from the prepon-
derance of critical evidence in favour of the usual reading. The
construction Kartvavrt ov eTriarevae Qeov must be explained as an at-
traction of an unusual character certainly, since in this case a dative
is affected by it. (See the treatise of Schmidt on this verse in the
tubinger Zeitschrift, 1831, part ii.; Bernhardy's Syntax, p. 299, etc. ;
and Winer's Gram. p. 155.) But the sense of the words it must be
allowed that it is difficult to determine, on account of the Ka-evavn,
whose usual signification, " against, over against," seems here unfit-
ting. We may, however, take it most simply as = \i^V or T»a, in
the following sense ; " Abraham is, in the eye of God, i. e., of
his omniscience, the father of us all, even before we existed."* To
this sense the subsequent description of God, the object of Abra-
ham's faith, as the Creator, answers very well. The ^o)OTToielv rovg
veKpovg, quickening the dead, and KaXeiv rd fii] ovra (bg bvra, calling
the things lohich are not as though they were, refer, primarily, as the
context shews, to the begetting of Isaac (ver. 19, 20) by his parents,
Abraham and Sarah, when their bodies were " dead." The whole
history of Abraham is, however, here as also elsewhere (Gal. iv.)
treated as a type, and thus Isaac, who was born through the power
of God, is considered as an image of the entire spiritual Israel, and
consequently ^cjonoieTi), quickening, and KaXeTv, calling, as designations
of spiritual awakening and regeneration, (vi. 13.) Thus taken, the
" calling the non-existent as existent" {jiaXeiv rd jxi) ovra (bg ovra)
becomes particularly significant. The non-existent {rd firj ovra) is
by no means to be understood of that which is absolutely nothing
(nihilum negativum), of which it can only be said that it is not ;
but only of that existence which is not yet fashioned into a concrete
form, as it is also to be taken in the language of Plato and Philo.

* Amongst the many explanations from different sources to be found in Tholuek and
Reiche, that of the ancient Fathers, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others, deserves atten-
tion. They take KarhavTi after Genes, ii. 18 = nad' o/ioiuifia, so as to get the sense,
" Abraham is the image of God, an image of the true Father of all paternity." The
meaning is beautiful, but does not agree with the context, because the following descrip-
tion of the creative agency of God, if this interpretation were admitted, must then bear
an application to Abraham, which is not the case.

KoMANS IV. 18. 561

(See Philo de vita Mosis, p. 693, de creat. p. 728.) Thus, not ouly
may whole nations, in so far as they have not yet entered into exist-
ence, be called ///) ovra, although they already exist in God's sight,
and already live potentially in their progenitors, but the natural,
unregenerate man, may also be called a ^r} wv, non-existent, inas-
much as in him the true idea of man, the dvdgojTTog Oeov, is not yet
realized, which is realized only by his regeneration.

(Kaketv = Mn;?, is the creative call of the Almighty, by which
he, according to the analogy of the first act of creation [Gen. i. 3],
calb forth concrete formations from the general stream of life. 'Of
is to be taken simply as a particle of comparison, " vocat ea, quae
[non nondum] sunt, tamquam [jam] adsint." What a power-
ful description of that God who beholds all the future as essentially
present !)

Ver. 18. — The example of Abraham was of too much importance
to the apostle for him to break ofi" his contemplation of it so soon.
Every thing, in fact, which is related of him, is a type of the life of
faith under the new economy (vers. 23, 24). As, therefore, Abraham,
against all hope, was obliged to believe in hope, and, consequently,
to wrestle in order to hold fast his faith and hope against all the
contradictions of the senses and of nature ; so also does the conflict
of faith manifest itself in every child of God.*

Harder and more deeply reaching than all legal struggles, is the
struggle of faith against unbelief, which would rather have the ten-
der conscience believe anything than its own salvation. It was only
in appearance that Abraham's fight of faith referred to anything
else than his salvation ; for, in fact, Abraham's blessedness depended
just as much upon the birth of his promised son, from whom the
Messiah was to descend, as the blessedness of every believer upon
the birth of the new man in him. But faith itself is already this
new man coming to the birth, and, therefore, all depends upon its
maintenance and increase.

(Chrysostom very justly observes, in explanation of the Oxymoron,
Itt' eXmdi -rj rov Qeov, Trap' tXTrlda rijv dvdipo)Tiivr]v^ in hope, viz., in Godf
against liope, viz., human hope. — E/f -o yeveodai must again be under-
stood of purpose : the exercises of Abraham's faith were appointed
not only with the design of perfecting him, but also of depositing
in him the germs of perfection for future believers ; his life was not
merely a foreshadowing, but, if I may be allowed the expression, the

* TTe might accordingly say, that the further faith stands from the objects of its long-
ing, or hope from its fulfilment, the more intense and powerful it must be, if it asserts
itself at all. Abraham's faith may therefore appear to be greater than that of believing
Christians, for they have their exercise of it rendered easier, by beholding the effects of
that which they believe. At the same time, in considering the degree of faith and its
character, we must especially take into account its real substance, and in this respect the
New Testament stands far above the Old.

Vol. III.— 36

562 Romans IV. 19-24.

{ore-realiti/y i. e., the true germ of what was to come. De Wette
supposes that this interpretation would ascribe to Abraham a dis-
tinct intention in his believing. But we surely need not assume
that the patriarch was conscious of the purpose of these dispensa-
tions ; the words refer only to the purpose of God. — The new quo-
tation is from Gen. xv. 5, where ovtcj^, so, refers to the stars, with
whose multitude God compares Abraham's descendants.)

Vers. 19-22. — As the object on which Abraham's faith was espe-
cially exercised, the apostle now names the birth of Isaac. If we
regard this event merely as securing to Abraham legitimate issue,
there appears in fact an essential difference between Abraham's faith
and that of the New Testament ; but this mode of understanding it
is entirely opposed to the view of Paul. From Galat. iv, 22, etc., it
appears that the significance of Isaac was no less than this, that he
was a type of Christ, who was to proceed from his descendants.
Paul, therefore (Galat. iii. 16), treats of the seed of Abraham, i. e.,
primarily, Isaac, as Christ, and in Christ again, as the second Adam,
beholds all his believing people.

(Ver. 19. — The usual reading ov KaTevo-qae is indeed preferable to
the wf, which perhaps sprang from ov by a mistake of the copyists,
but must yield, as Reiche justly remarks, to the simple KaTevorjae.
For this brings out the thought that Abraham was well acquainted
with all the unfavourdlole outward circumstances, and yet believed.
A. C. 67, as well as the Syriac and Coptic versions, support KarEvorjoe,
but it is difficult to understand how ov can have crept into the text.
Yet it is only with the reading KarEvoqoe that the following 6e [ver.
20] has its proper force. — The words veKpovodai and veKpoyocg refer
here to the deadness of the powers of generation. [Heb. xi. 12.]
Concerning Abraham's and Sarah's age, see Gen. xvii. 17. — Uov
without accent means, in the case of numbers, " about ;" so in the
New Testament only here ; in Heb. ii. 6, iv. 4, it means " some-
where."— AiaKpiveoOai, properly "to be divided, separated," and
thereby " to lose one's position, to waver, stagger." So repeatedly
of unbelief, as spiritual unsteadiness [Matth. xxi. 21 ; Mark xi. 23 ;
James i. 6 ; Eom. xiv. 23]. With this is contrasted, in Ivdwauovo-
6ai, moral firmness and strength. — As opposed to nXrjQocpopetGdac, un-
belief might also have been designated by Kevu)aiq ; for tliis verb, as
well as the substantive ■nXrjpo(j)opi.a, represents faith as the replen-
ishment of the inward man with spiritual life [Rom. xiv. 5 ; Col. ii.
2 ; 1 Thess, i. 5 ; 2 Tim. iv. 17].—" Giving glory to God ' [Sovg
do^av TO) 9e(2i] is the practical recognition of the Divine omnipotence,
which accomplishes that which it promises.)

Vers. 23, 24. — After this detailed consideration of the life of faith
as manifested in Abraham, Paul declares the principle which justi-
fies such a consideration. Abraham's history he regards not as

Romans IV. 25. 563

something dead and past, but as the living history of believers in
every age. This passage, along with 1 Cor. ix. 10, x. 6 ; Galat. iv.
24, etc., belongs to those most significantly instructive as to the
mode of treating the Old Testament according to the doctrine of
the apostles. Its value lies not in the externals of its history, but
in the spirit which pervades them, and in this it has under the new
economy, also, its abiding truth. To attribute the whole mode of
treatment, which Paul here as elsewhere applies to the Old Testa-
ment, to Jewish habits of thought, a view which Reiche in particu-
lar has again defended, destroys not only the apostolical character
of Paul, but also the very essence of the Old Testament, which, as
the eternal word of God, is, according to our Lord's own words
(Matth. V. 18), to abide when heaven and earth have passed away.

(The iieXXel Xoyi^eodaL, is to he reckoned, must be regarded from
the position occupied by Abraham and his generation. But if
in this place not faith in Jesus, but in the Father who raised him
up, is brought forward, it is accounted for by a reference to the
" quickening" [^woTroteZv] in ver. 17, which manifested itself most
gloriously in the resurrection of Christ. For the physical and spirit-
ual interpenetrate each other in the conception of ^woTroieZv, as in
that of C^?/. [John vi.] God is the awakener of life in every form
of its manifestation. Besides, the eyeipeiv, raising, presupposes a
preceding Ovrjaicecv, dying, so that a reference to the death of Christ
is implied in this verse, as well as distinctly expressed in that im-
mediately following.)

Ver. 25. — But whUe in iii. 25 diKacoavvr] is connected simply
with the blood-shedding of Christ, dtKaicjoig is here connected with
the resurrection. The older commentators have found great diffi-
culty in this mode of representation, but understood according
to the tenor of v. 10, vi. 4, the thought expressed in the pas-
sage is quite simple. For as resurrection necessarily presupposes
the preceding death, so also upon the death of Christ, who is
the life, necessarily follows the resurrection, i. e., the victory over
death. These therefore in the life of our Lord stand related to
each other as two necessary complementary halves, which it is
altogether impossible to conceive as existing without each other.
It is not the death of Christ in itself which has significance,
but only that death which is done away by the resurrection. But
as the death and resurrection of Christ form an intimate unity,
so also in man the death of the old and the rising up of the new ;
neither can be conceived apart from the other. It is impossible,
that in any person sins can really be forgiven, and the old man be
crucified without the new man arising ; and when the new man
begins to live, the death of the old man must take place at the
Bame time. In consequence, therefore, of the necessary connex-

664 EoMANs V. 1.

ion between these two events, only one at a time is commonly
mentioned, either negatively the forgiveness of sins, or positively
the communication of the new life. But in some cases both are
united, as here, and in v. 10, and then the negative feature,
the putting away of the old, is connected with the death, and
the positive, the communication of the new, is annexed to and
founded upon the resurrection of the Kedeemer. In the term
dcKaiuaig in this passage, therefore, we must recognize the act, which
makes righteous and creates the new man, an act expressed in ver.

10, by au)^eo9at, saved; while the expression Sid rd 7TapanT6fia-a
ilnCdv,for our offences, answers to the KaraXXay/], reconciliation, in v.

11. For the -napajTr^iiaTa are the sins which separate man from God,
and which need first of all a remission, a reconciliation [dcpeoig,
KaraXXay?]), on account of which the Son of God was delivered up
to death. In these two mutually complementary halves the whole
work of God in the soul of man is complete, and neither can be
wanting where this work has truly begun, although no doubt at dif-
ferent crises of the spiritual life, now one, now the other element
may predominate.

(On rrapadidovai, scil. elg Odvarov, see Acts iii. 13 ; Eom. viii.
32 ; Isaiah liii. 12. In Ephes. v. 2, it is said, -napidcjKev tavTov
npoa^oQdv Kal Bvaiav, he delivered himself an offering and sacrifice.
— In the life and work of Christ all was done for us, nothing for
himself; for he already possessed all things with his Father, before
he became man [2 Cor. viii. 9]. — Ai/catwaff is not here = diKaioovvr] ;
for as did rd napa-nTwuara -qnCdv must be understood " in order that
our transgressions might be pardoned," so did ttjv diaKaicoaiv ijiiCJv
must be explained "in order that righteousness may be wrought
in us." AbKai(i)Gig, therefore, denotes the Divine act of making right-
eous, as did rd napa7TTU)iJ,aTa, the Divine act of forgiveness.)

§ 8. Of the Fruits of Faith.

(Y. 1-11.)

To this complete exposition of the doctrine of the new way of
salvation itself, according to its scriptural foundation, the apostle
now annexes some intimation of the effects of the life of faith, by
which its pre-«minent excellence is first fully brought to light. True,
Paul could here only cursorily allude to them, because their full
development needed to be preceded by some preliminary topics
which are discussed in the next chapters. It is not until the eighth
chapter that we find a full portraiture of the infinite consequences
of redemption, alike to the individual and to the whole creation.

Romans V. 1, 2. 565

Ver. 1. — Paul includes under one expression the whole fulness of
those blessings which accrue to the man who is justified through
faith (as the receptive cause), hy grace (as the creative cause), viz.,
tlpi]vri TTpbg rbv Qedv, j)eace loith God. The conception of elprivr} =
t'.hv is here distinguished hy the addition of npb^ rbv Geov, not
merely from Mse peace, the elpijvrj Trpbg rbv Koanov^ peace tuith the
world, which is destroyed by the influence of Christ (John xvi. 33),
which calls forth a struggle against sin (ver. 3, etc.); but also from
that higher degree of peace, that inward peace of soul, the elprjvTj
npbg Gsavrov, which Paul also calls elpTJvTj Qeov, peace of God (Phil,
iv. 7 ; Col. iii. 15), and Christ in John's gospel elprjvr] efirj, my peace.
(John xiv. 27.) The two stand, in fact, in the same relation to one
another as justification and sanctification ; justification (the Xoyi^ea-
6ai elg diKaioovvrjv) gives at once reconciliation, and with it peace
toiuard God, the consciousness of being in a state of grace, the con-
trary to which is enmity toward God (t^^pa dg Qeov. See viii. 7).
No doubt this state contains within itself sanctification in the germ,
but only in the germ ; because the old man still lives, inward har-
mony of life is at first only partially restored. The completeness of
this harmony is only a fruit of life in the Spirit (Rom. viii. 6 ;
Galat. v. 22), whilst the life of faith begins with Eiprivr] npbg rbv
Qeov, as flowing at once from the first act of grace. As an author
of peace in every form, God himself is moreover called 6 Qebg Trjg
elp7]vrjg, the God of peace (Rom. xv. 33 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 11 ; 1 Thess.
V. 23 ; 2 Thess, iii. 16. The reading exf^iJ-^v, which Lachmann and
Scholz have adopted from A.C.D.I., must, from internal considera-
tions, yield to the reading exojjiev ; for it is scarcely pertinent to call
upon men to have peace with God ; peace with God is the gift of
his grace.)

Ver. 2. — As the second blessed consequence of justification, the
apostle, after a parenthesis, presents to us the exultation felt in
the hope of future glory. For the words " through whom," etc.,
cannot be understood to mean, that the access (rrpocraywy?/) is ano-
ther result of the justification by faith {SiKaiovodai en mareoig), for then
in the first place the construction would have been continued with
Kai, and then Paul would have avoided the introduction of the
words elg t^v x°'9^'^^ ^'^^<^ ^^^<2 grace, which necessarily suggest quite
another thought. Tholuck, indeed, has proposed to place a stop
after eaxrinaftev, but this the reading r^ marei will not permit.
These words are indeed wanting in B.D.F.G. and other critical au-
thorities, but were manifestly omitted only to avoid the connexion
of TTgooayo)y7] with what follows. Besides, even if ry niareL were
away, the placing a stop after eaxnua^ev leaves to elg ri^v x^ptv Tavrrfv
no proper connexion with what follows. And further, that Paul
elsewhere (Ephes, ii. 18, iii. 12, the verb is found 1 Pet. iii. 18) uses

566 BoMANs V. 3, 4.

this word of that access to Grod which is opened for the soul, can be
no reason for giving it this sense in the present passage, since here
it is defined more exactly by the addition of elg t?)v x^P^'^ TavTTjv.
The whole clause, 6t' ov—eariJKaiisVj through lohom — we stand, must
therefore be placed in a parenthesis, expressive of the fact that the
power of the Redeemer not only produces peace at the same time
with justification, but even introduces the soul into the antecedent
state of grace so that " this grace" [t] %aptr av-rj) is the very righteous-
ness of faith itself, to which not our own power, but Chiist's grace
alone can conduct us.

(The allusion to a npooayuyevg who, so to speak, introduces the
soul to God, is, by the above remarks, proved to be inappropriate ;
nor has it otherwise any scriptural foundation. — The perfect, ioxrj-
KaneVj we have had, forms an opposition to the preceding present
exoiJ.ev. Paul wishes to refer all to Christ, to make him appear as
the Author and Finisher of our renewal. The Kat is, therefore, to be
taken emphatically, " by whom also already we have received
access." — T^ marei may also be connected with e/f riiv x^-pi-v, yet it is
better to take d^ = Ttpof, to connect it with Trpocraywy?/, and to re-
gard T^ irlam = morevovreg. — 'EoriJKai^ev does not denote the mere
standing in a certain relation ; but intimates the firmness and se-
curity of the state of grace, as opposed to all wavering. — The do^a
eeov, glory of God, Reiche refers to the Divine image in man ; this
does not, however, suit the context, because t-n' iXmdCj in hojpe, is
added ; for the Divine likeness is not merely restored to the regen-
erate man in hope, but in reality. The expression rather denotes
the heavenly existence of God, participation in which constitutes
the highest blessedness of the creature. And in the connexion of
Kavxaadac with iXnig is implied the irrefragable certainty of being
partaker of the glory of God.)

Vers. 3, 4. — Parallel with this survey of the glory of the
future, the apostle, by a bold contrast, places the sufferings of the
-present, which proceed just as necessarily from the righteousness
of faith, as does the ^eace with God. (2 Tim. iii. 12.) For there
resides in the believer a principle which rebukes the sin which
is in the world, and by so doing excites it against him, which
allows no indecision, but everywhere either attracts or repels.
In these very sufi'erings of the present, therefore, is contained a
source of exaltation* for the Christian, in that they are not punish-

* Ruckert very pointedly remarks on this passage : " We must not detract any-
thing from the conception contained in KavxaoOai, unless we wish, at the same time,
to detract from the powerful character of the apostle ; he is not only undaunted, not
only of good courage, but really joyful, really lifted up in mind, nay, he reckons it as an
hovour to himself, that tribulation befals him, for this is to him a pledge of future glory."
But what an advance manifests itself here when compared with the Old Testament I In
the book of Job the doubts of the sufferer, on account of his sufferings, wrestle anxioualj'

Romans V. 5. 567

ments to him, but the means of his perfection. (James i. 2, etc.)
The three stages of vnonovrj^ doncfiTi^ and eXnig, endurance, ap-
proval, and hope, are considered as proceeding from the sufferings ;
whilst the former denotes the state of moral earnestness and
of faithful endurance, do/ciju^ relates to that state of approval as
genuine which thence results, and bears within it hope as its
blossom.*

{/^oKij-irj is the act of testing, but also that state of approval as
genuine which proceeds from trial. So doKificov unites in itself both
significations. [See James i. 3 ; 1 Pet. i. 7.] Karaiaxvvcj is to be
taken actively, " hope puts not to shame," not intransitively, " hope
is not ashamed," {. e., is well-founded.)

Ver. 5. — This hope, thus born in conflict, contains, however,
within itself, the assurance of obtaining future, glory ; for, as an
earnest of it, we have already here below the love of God shed
abroad in our hearts. The " love of God" is thus conceived, there-
fore, to be only, so to speak, the secret presence of God himself
in our souls, whilst in eternal blessedness God gives himself to his
saints as the manifested One. Accordingly the love of God is not
the inward life of man in a state of exaltation, the life of feel-
ing heightened in intensity, but it is a higher principle which has
been grafted into the man, the Uvevjxa ayiov^ the Holy Spirit.
These words express the substantial cause, love the actual effect :
but essentially they are identical, for the love of God cannot be re-
garded as separate from the essential being of God in its highest
manifestation, i. e., the Holy Ghost. God's love is there only where
he himself is, for he is love, and does not have love as something in
or beside himself.

(Karatoxvvo} = ttj'a " to make ashamed, to disappoint by want
of success." Rom. ix. 33, x. 11. — In ?/ 6e lXm<; the article is not to
be taken = a?;T7/, for there is but one true hope ; rather is this clause
to be taken as the fourth member, denoting, " but hope works ful-
filment, or has in itself fulfilment," so that the colon must be placed
after Ka~aLaxvvti. The words otl, k. t. A., ver. 5, are not in fact to
be connected with Karaioxvvet alone, but with Kavxc^i-ieda [ver. 3,]
and indeed the whole passage in vers. 3, 4. — According to that Pela-
gian and Rationalistic view which is opposed to the doctrine of the
communication of the Spirit, dydnr) Qeov, love of God, means the
love of man to God ; in the apostl«'s meaning it is the love of God
to man, which however awakens in him reciprocal love [1 John iv. 19],
not indeed proceeding from his own mere natural powers, but from
the higher powers of the Divine Spirit. Only when thus taken can

with his still weak faith ; here the believer rejoices boldly in all afiSiction, and exulla
in it

* 0» ihe import of eXnig see more at Rom. viil 2i.

568 KoMANS V. 6.

it be properly said of love, that it is shed abroad, for it is iden-
tical with the clement of the Spirit, and only contained in his mani-
festation. The cicictxvratj shed forth, is founded upon the figure of
a spiritual stream which spreads itself out over men ; a figure, in-
deed, but in which there is this reality, that a higher power takes,
possession of man's being. [See John vii. 38, 39 ; Acts ii. 16, seq.;
Is. xxxii. 15 ; Ezek. xxxvi. 25 ; Joel ii. 28.] The movement, by
which the Spirit is shed abroad, is conceived as connected with his
remaining in the inner man ; therefore we find h not d^. — The
Kogdia, heart, is regarded as the receptacle of the Spirit, as the
centre of the disposition and of the inclinations ; for instance, vovg
could not be used here. [See my opus, theol. p. 156 seq.] — The added
clause rov dodivTog rjiuv, loho is [leas'] given to us, is not pleonastic
beside ekkex^tm ; the relation of the two expressions is this : the
Spirit was given at the day of Pentecost once for all to mankind as
a whole, but it is not therefore shed forth in every individual heart ;
this requires the personal appropriation of the work of Christ. The
addition of rov doOevTog rjfuv is not therefore unnecessary, but ex-
presses the possibility, which is provided for every one, of receiving
the Holy Spirit poured forth into his heart. See John vii. 39,
xvi. 7.)

Ver. 6. — The nature of Divine love is then exhibited by the
apostle, in the most illustrious proof which it could give of its
power, in the sacrifice of the Son of God. It manifests itself, there-
fore, in the same self-sacrificing character in the hearts of believers
also, to whom it is imparted by that Holy Spirit which Christ ob-
tained for men by his death. (John vii, 39.) The leading thought
in this verse presents no difficulty, after what has been said on iii.
25, but the different readings of the text demand a more exact con-
sideration. The tri at the commencement of the verse has probably
occasioned all the variations with which it abounds.* In the first
place, for en several MSS. read elye, others d yap, or el tl. Semler,
followed by Usteri, concludes, therefore, that el is the right reading,
and supposes, in the original letter of the apostle, an anacoluthon, to
avoid which some transcribers wrote en. This hypothesis seems, in
fact, at first sight, decidedly plausible ; yet the unwonted position
of en afi'ords a sufficient explanation of the origin of the different
readings, while on carefully weighing the passage, we find its pre-

* Compare, on this point, the critical essay of Professor Franz Ritter, of Bonn, in the
"Zeitschrift fiir Philosophic und kathol. Theologie," Heft 19 (Cologne, 1836), p. 46, etc.,
who reckons this passage among the few in the New Testament to which conjectural
criticism must be applied. In fact, according to Ritter, we should here read l^t yup bvrov
flfiuv daOevuiv kutH Kaipuv Xpiaroc virip ucre(3u)v aTcidave, according to the analogy of ver.
8, in which the same collocation is found. But the exercise of conjecture, where so many
critical appliances present themselves, appears justly to most modern critics altogether in-
admissible.

KoMANs V. 7, 8. 569

fixture accounted for on grounds of emphasis, which led the ardent
soul of the apostle to its premature utterance. Yet, besides this,
several weighty authorities, A.B.C.D.F.Gr. and others, repeat en
after dadevu)v. Gricsbach has even admitted this reading into the
text ; but it was rejected at once by Knapp, and, in fact, it appears
only to have been adopted by those MSS. which had erased trt at
the beginning of the verse, and were determined by the parallel in
ver. 8. If we retain the double hi, we must explain the repetition
by the strong feeling under which Paul wrote, just as in vii. 21. No
doubt the whole stress of the thought (as in iv. 5) is laid upon the
fact, that men did not amend themselves hefore, and do not now
receive the blessings of Christ, as it were, for a reward, but that he
died for them, even whilst they were yet godless and estranged from
God, so that this highest act of love was the very means of their
transformation. The objection, viz., that God, in his holiness, cannot
love the ungodly so long as they remain what they are, is obviated
by the consideration that in no man does evil manifest itself abso-
lutely, but always in such a way as to attach itself to the remains of
the image of God in him. Inasmuch, therefore, as God loves the
proper substance of man, his true, though now darkened and repressed
self, he hates that element of sin in or about man which impedes his
free development. (On the transposition of tn, see Winer's Gram.
p. 509. — 'KodevCov, loeak, is explained not merely by daefiiov, ungodly,
but also in ver. 8, by duaQrcjXQv, sinners, and in ver. 10 by t^x^poi,
enemies. At the same time it is not personal trangressions which
are referred to, which are only derived from something deeper, nor
o.few particularly sinful men only (iv. 5), but the condition of moral
weakness belonging to all men, without exception. [See Galat. iv.
9, 13 ; Heb. iv. 15, v. 2.] — Ka-d /caipov = evKaiQojg, at the time
appointed by God. [Galat. iv. 4 ; 1 Pet. i. 20 ; Heb. ix. 26.]— On
the signification of virtg, in its reference to the vicarious death of
Christ, see Kom. v. 15.)

Vers. 7, 8.— In order to display in the fullest light the excellency
of the Divine love, it is compared with the noblest workings of
natural human love, which, however, remain far below it. But in
the communication of the love of God to men through the Holy
Spirit (ver. 5), is also given the possibiHty of imitating Christ in the
point of loving our enemies (Matth. v. 44, 45 ; 1 Pet. ii. 21). Special
difficulties have been discovered, strange to say, in ver. 7, though, as
Keiche justly remarks, the passage is quite simple. Semler even
regarded vers. 7, 8, as interpolated ; Grotius would read ddiKov for
iiKuiov, and others have asked, whether dmaiov and dyaOov were sub-
stantives or adjectives, masculines or neuters. Since the whole
question is about persons, in the first place both expressions must,
of course, be also referred to persons. And further, as regards the

670 Romans V. 7-10.

terms StKaiog, righteous, and dyadog, good, the context plainly leads
us to assume that SiKaiog designates the character of the righteous
man, who performs whatever can be required of him, dyaOog the
character of the benevolent man, who does more than others venture
to ask.* The former we may esteem and respect, the latter, on the
other hand, we can love ; and even earthly love can lay down its life
for the objest of its affections, but Divine love died for its en-
emies.

(Ver. 7, — The first yep is explained by an ellipsis, " but this is
something noble, something unheard of I" — Tdxa = loc^g is found
again in the New Testament, only at Philem. ver. 15. — ToAjuav marks
the highest degree of self-sacrifice. — I,vvi<7Tdvatj " to prove, make
known." See iii. 5.)

Vers. 9, 10. — As in iv. 25, Paul now again places alongside of the
^rst effect wrought hy Christ, viz., the justification (diKaicdoig) pro-
cured by his death, the other part of his work which is here desig-
nated as salvation {ocdrrjpia) , and ascribed to his life. The two, as
already remarked at the former passage, are by no means to be sepa-
rated, but, at the same time, in their connexion they must also not
be confounded. The first is always absolute ; for although the first
forgiveness of sins, by which man enters into a state of grace, is
daily repeated, on account of continual transgressions (1 John ii. 1),
yet it is always vouchsafed total and entire, for a partial forgiveness
is none at all ; the second, on the other hand, is the subject of a grad-
ual development, and is complete only with eedemption {d-noXvTQUiaigj
lCor.i.30; Piom.viii. 23), in the more limited sense of the word. On
this very account, therefore, as has already been remarked, the state
of grace cannot have its foundation in the new life in man, because
this is always but relative, and therefore can never give peace (ver.
1); where this is, notwithstanding, done, as in the doctrine of the
Eomish church, its consequence is continual insecurity {i. e., an
uncertainty as to one's being in a state of grace), a condition which
the doctrine of truth rejects, because no effort can be successful
which does not proceed from a heart altogether reconciled, and liv-
ing at peace ivith God. In this essential difference between forgive-
ness of sins and sanctification, lies the apostle's justification for
representing them as standing in mutual relation, and drawing from
one a conclusion with respect to the other,

(AiKatovoOai, justified, and KaraXXdaoeodai, reconciled, are here
used as entirely synonymous ; the proper substance of both is the
rein%ission of sins, the negative element of salvation, the removal of
the old, the barrier. [On KoraXkayri, see at Rom, iii, 24, 25.] This

* The same relation subsists in Latin between Justus and honus. See Cicero de offia
iiL 15. " Si vir bonus is est, qui prodest quibus potest, nocet nemini, recte^'t«/MW virum,
"bonum non facile reperiemus."

KoMANS V. 9, 10. 571

transaction, an act of God, occurs while man is yet in the condition
of an enemy to God ; since, then, by this act, he becomes a friend
[(piXo^ Qeov, ijyarrTjuEvog, Ephes. i. 6], how much more easy is it to
be assured that the work he has begun will be consummated in
salvation, [oojTTjpia]? Neither is this last, however, according to
the apostle, a ivorh of man, as if God began, indeed, the new
life in him, but the man himself is to continue and complete it [see
at ix. 1] ; he who is the Author is himself also the Finisher of our
faith [Heb. xii. 2], and that indeed by his C^^?/, his glorified life at
the right hand of God. And it is precisely this climax, indicated by
the -RoXXCi [idXXov, much more [which is expressly repeated in ver. 10]
that constitutes the peculiarity of the present passage as compared
with iv. 25. The thought is not to be understood objectively, as im-
plying that Christ, when exalted, had more power than in his humili-
ation, but only subjectively, as it is apprehended by man. The power
of Christ is equal in all stages of his life, but in his state of humili-
ation he withheld the manifestation of his power, and hence, after
his resurrection, it presents itself to our human apprehension as a
positively increasing power. We may exj^lain the thought, there-
fore, thus : he whom God has regenerated, he will, we may trust,
maintain and perfect in his regenerate state, and the conceivable-
ness of apostacy gradually diminishes till it reaches a minimum.
I^cjTTjpia, salvation, here, as well as dnoXvrpiooig, redemption, in 1 Cor.
i. 30, is to be taken in the narrower sense ; in its wider signification
it includes, also, that justification (diKaiovadai) in which lies the pledge
of the further development of spiritual life. IcjTTjpia, finally, stands
commonly alone, as the mere contrary to dncjXeia, perdition, but in
this passage it appears in a connexion which we should never have
expected, and this shews us with what care and judgment we should
supply ellipses in Scripture. Had not dno TTjg 6pyTi^,from wrath,
stood here, certainly no one would have supplied this phrase, but
perhaps d-h -ijg d^apr lag, from sin. For it would seem that justifi-
cation had already relieved us from wrath, and that therefore in the
further development of the life the only question could be about our
entire deliverance from the old man of sin. But however true this
may bo, it is not less true that every, even the least "sin, has the Di-
vine wrath [ppyn] for its necessary accompaniment. We may there-
fore say of him who is justified [pLKaKjiOdg] or reconciled [KaraXXayeig]^
on the one hand, that he, as such, is already delivered from wrath,
inasmuch as in the substance of his character he is saved [John iii.
36], but, on the other hand, that he remains yet under "wrath,"
inasmuch as the totality of his being is not yet sanctified, and he
needs continual forgiveness ; the latter mode of representation is that
here chosen, while the former is the more usual.)

Ver. 11. — Yet wi^h this salvation, whose attainment is still

572 KoMANS V. 11, 12.

future^ the apostle once more contrasts, as in ver. 2, that joy already
present, which is to believers the earnest of the Divine glory (viii.
24). The present blessing of reconciliation here below, with which
is connected the gift of the Spirit (ver. 5), is to them so sure a pledge
of their future inheritance, that they feel as if they possessed it
already.

(To oudTjaofxeda is opposed icavxo^fJ-evot, sc. eo[xev [for which later
MSS. read Kavx^li^Qo, and /cai;%wjU£i^]. — The climax ov fiovov — dXXd
Kat raises Kavxdadat above the preceding GG)6T]a6[j.eda ; the latter con-
tains, in fact, only the mere conception of eXnig, whilst Kavx^jaig goes
far beyond this. There is no reference here to a new and higher
object Fritzsche and Winer retain the strict participial construc-
tion of Kavx(x)[ievoi, and co-ordinate it with icaTaXXayevreg, making
both depend upon acjdrjooneda, with the following sense : " not only
reconciled, but also glorying, exulting in God, we shall be saved."
But the thought " we shall be saved exulting," is scarcely accordant
either with itself, or with the previous "we shall be saved, being
reconciled." We therefore prefer to take the participle as = Ind.
making an advancement from the subject of redemption to the new
subject of Kavxrjotg.)

SECTION III.
(V. 12— VII. 6.)

Of the Vicarious Office of Christ.

After this exhibition of the nature of the new way of salvation,
and its eflects, Paul might at once have proceeded to set forth how
the individual man is developed in it, which at chap. vii. 7, etc., he
does, but that .an intermediate thought, which then presented, as it
does now, especial difficulties to men, the vicarious office of CJirist,
required a further treatment for the establishment of the doctrine
itself. Without the idea of his vicarious office the whole work of the
Sa^ iour would remain isolated, a splendid act of individual sacrifice,
with none of that real power for the mass which alone made it a proper
object of proclamation to the world, and the turning-point of the
world's history. The apostle proves, therefore, this important point
most carefully, and does so Jirst, by bringing Christ, as the second
Adam, into parallel with the first, and shewing that, as from the

KoMANs V. 12-21. 573

first, sin, so from the second, grace issues, like streams from different
well-springs (v. 12-21). Second!?/, Paul sets forth how, accordingly,
all that took place in Christ was accomplished also in believers, who
are in him as they were in Adam (vi. 1-11). And, lastly, he infers,
that no one, consequently, who is in Christ can serve sin, for that,
by his very being in Christ, he has died to sin and become free, in
order to his entering a higher relation (vi. 12, vii. 6).

§ 9. Parallel between Adam and Christ.*

(V. 12-21.)

According to the general tenor of the epistle, the apostle's pri-
mary object here was only to set forth Christ as the representative of
the whole race, and as the author of righteousness for all. In order,
however, to make this relation perceptible, he sets out from the
relation of Adam to the human race, which he presumes as ac-
knowledged, and so gains occasion to trace the fact of universal
sinfulness, developed in chapters i. and ii. in its ultimate principle.
Accordingly, the following weighty section forms the foundation for
two doctrines of truth equally important, and mutually supporting
each other ; for the doctrine of original sin, that is, the procUvitas
peccandi, which diffuses itself over the race, in the way of generation
from Adam, independently of the proper personal sin of men, and
for the doctrine of the vicarious ojice of Christ. As Paul's exposition
sets out from the former as a thing presumed, we also take it first
into consideration that the latter may follow upon it. Meanwhile
both rest upon a common basis, to which, tlierefore, we must previ-
ously make reference. For a discussion like that in which we are
now engaged, it is quite impossible to arrive at any satisfactory re-
sult if we are divided in fundamental views. The hope of uniting
all expositors in the view of this passage must be entirely aban-
doned, for the reason that there is no prevailing unity in their
principles. No one with the best intention, can make any other
exposition, than such as shall apprehend the ideas of the sacred
writer (with which he himself wishes to agree), in a complete har-
mony that is, in accordance with his principles ; a process cer-
tainly far from producing a uniformity of result. Of the truth of this
assertion with regard to this passage, every one may be convinced
by the treatise of Reiche (Comm. ad loc. p. 409-446). This learned
man treats the difficult and important passage with great industry,

* Compare, upon this important section of the epistle, Rothe's Monographlo (Leipzig,
1836), and the Essays of Finkh (Tubing. Zeitschrift, 1830, U. 1.), and Schmid (Ibid.
H..4).

574 KoMANs V. 12-21.

and certainly witli impartiality : yet he arrives at results which are
in direct contradiction to the express words of the apostle, and the
collective doctrine of Scripture ; and this, for the single reason that
he sets out from an entirely different basis from that occupied by
Paul. From this, his different point of view, all the expressions of
the apostle present themselves to him in a false light ; so that his
entire conception is necessarily erroneous. The controversy, there-
fore, regarding the mode of interpreting individual passages, is
endless, and hence utterly unsatisfactory and useless. Yet from a
conference in regard to the common basis something may surely be
lioped — to this, therefore, we mainly apply ourselves ; as to particu-
lars, touching, according to our plan, only upon what is most im-
portant.

Antiquity knew but two different points of view from which to
consider this passage, which though under altered names and forms,
with shades of distinction and modification, have yet continued to
the present essentially unchanged, since their first clear and sharp
utterance, viz., the Augustinian and the Pelagian. The difference
between these two, when carefully considered, is not in some, but
in all points, and they vary specifically upon the great collective
problems ; reconciliation, therefore, between them is out o:^ the
question : they run like parallel lines, constantly beside, without
getting nearer to each other. For our purpose, these two systems
suggest the following observations upon the interpretation of this
passage. The Pelagian (whether a. partial, or a complete one, makes
no difference here) can never conceive of mankind otherwise than as
an aggregate of independent, free, intelligent individuals ; in virtue,
as in sin, every person stands and falls by himself.* The Augusti-

* "Whether the fall of individuals be said to occur in this world, or, according to Ori-
gen, in a former, is in the main aU one ; each individual ever stands or falls by himself
according to this theory. See thereon the admirable exposition in the Phil, des Uechta
by my honoured colleague, Prof. Stahl, vol. 2, part i. (Heidelberg 1833), p. 99, etc., where
he says, " Adam is the original matter of humanity, Christ is its original idea in God,
both personally living. Mankind is one in them, therefore Adam's sin became the sin
of all, Christ's sacrifice the atonement for all. Every leaf of a tree may be green or
wither by itself, but each suffers by the disease of the root, and recovers only by its
healing. The shallower the man so much the more isolated will everything appear to
him, for upon the surface all lies apart. He will see in mankind, in the nation, nay, even
in the family, mere individuals, where the act of the one has no connexion with that of
the other. The profounder the man, the more do these inward relations cf unity, pro-
ceeding from the very centre, force themselves upon him. Yea, the love of our neighbour
is itself nothing but the deep feeling of this unity, for we love him only with whom we
feel and acknowledge ourselves to be one. What the Christian love of our neighbour is
for the heart, that unity of race is for the understanding. If sin through one, and re-
demption through one is not possible, the command to love our neighbour is also unin-
telligible. Christian ethics and Christian faith are therefore in truth indissolubly united.
Christianity effects in history an advance like that from the animal kingdom to man, by
ita reveaUng the essential unity of men, the consciousness of which in the ancient

KoMANS V. 12-21. 575

nian just as necessarily conceives of mankind as a collective, self-
completed body, in which the separate individuals are by no means
disengaged and independent wholes, but integrating parts of the
totality. The interpreter who makes the former system his start-
ing-point, has only the choice between two ways ; either to take
the words of the apostle, in this place, to mean, that the effect
of Adam's sin and the effect of Christ's righteousness are to be
understood merely as the operation of doctrine and example, but
in no respect as really inwrought, which indeed, according to
his principles, they cannot be, or to say, that Paul proposes in-
deed a different view, but that this view is false. He, on the
other hand, who interprets the words from the second point of
view, finds himself in their most obvious, and simplest meaning,
in perfect harmony, alike with the Apostle Paul, and the whole
Scripture. That the advantage, therefore, is on this side, needs no
proof ; yet that alone certainly cannot determine one to incline to
it ; but independently of this, the deeper truth lies in the contem-
plation of mankind as a completed unity, since the independence
and separateness of individuals is but a very relative one, and being
thus relative is comprised in that unity, just as the relative inde-
pendence of the members of a body is embraced by the absolute
vital unity of the entire animal organism. (Comp. further at
xi. 1.) This is, of course, not the place to enter more particularly
into this extensive inquiry ; suffice it here to notice, that the Scrip-
ture itself accords with this conception by the images of the body
(1 Cor. xii. 20), of the vine (John xv. ], etc.), and olive tree (Rom.
xi. 17, etc.), whereby it marks the vital unity of our collective hu-
manity. But in these images, consecrated by spiritual use, the idea
is expressed in a singularly illustrative manner. For, as in a tree
not every little branch is of essential importance to its whole growth,
but as many may be broken off, without causing damage to the
entire tree, so also in the human race. But at two points the
destruction even of the smallest twig utterly annihilates the tree.
Fii'st, at the sprouting of the seed, secondly, at the grafting of the
tree. By breaking off' the apparently insignificant sprout, or the
feeble graft, the whole tree is destroyed. Even so, mankind has two
critical periods in its development, on which turns its entire destiny.
First, Adam, the germ from which the whole race was developed ;
his death immediately after his creation would have annihilated
mankind ; the injury he suffered damaged the \yhole race that
sprang from him, as a mutilated germ makes the whole tree grow
scant and crooked. Secondly, Christ, whose relation to the race de-
world had vanished when the nations were separated." Even so ; man comes not truly
to himself until ho cornea to God in Christ ; without Christ he remains in the element of
animal life.

576 KoMANS V. 12-21.

rived from Adam, is like that of the noble graft to the wild tree
[Jer. ii. 21];* were it conceivable that Christ had been taken away
before the completion of his work, mankind would then have re-
mained in their natural rudeness, as a tree whose graft was de-
stroyed, and which now puts forth mere water-shoots. But if the
noble graft abide, it ennobles the whole tree ; all juices, which are
conducted through it, change their nature, and are no more wild.
Men are wont to say that parables prove nothing ; nevertheless,
comparisons in their depth of meaning often teach infinitely more
and better than all abstract arguments, seeing they are derived
from nature, the mirror of the glory of the unseen God, living de-
monstrations, as it were, of the Most High God himself. Finally,
it follows of course, that these fundamentally different views, must
essentially modify our opinions (which here come naturally under
consideration) respecting the origin of souls.-\ The Pelagian can
only consistently follow Creatianism, or what leads to the same
isolating of men, Prce-existentianism, for which Benecke has again
attempted to plead. The Angus tinian principle leads to Tradu-
danism, which alone accords with Scripture and experience, and,
kept clear of Materialism, is able to satisfy all requisitions of the
Christian consciousness. The consequence, therefore, is, that, as
the existence of this passage, with its definite declarations, has only
compelled the Pelagians of all centuries to endeavour by subtleties
to evade its import so hostile to their system ; so even were it want-
ing, the Augustinian principle would stand equally firm, since it rests
by no means merely on these words, but upon the coherent doctrine
of Scrij)ture and its inward necessity.

An entirely difierent position, however, regarding the questions
discussed in this passage, from that occupied by antiquity, has been
assumed by recent theologians,:J: from which point of view also,

* As to how far it can be said that Christ represents also the sinful tendency in hu-
manity, see the observations at Rom. viii. 3.

f The discussion of this subject at large we defer to Heb. vii. 9, etc. I have only
now to remark, that it would not be very difBcult to get rid of the objections, lately
made by Tholuck (lit. Anz. Jahrg. 1834, Num. 23), against the traducian view, from the
experience of bad children being often begotten of good parents, and vice versa ; since
the old man still lives even in the best, and germs of nobler life are resting in the worst ;
and in individual cases we cannot trace, without prejudicing in some degree the main
view, by what law the one element or the other gains predominance in the moment of
generation. The assertion, however, that every traducian view is materialistic, is decidedly
false, and will meet its refutation at the passage referred to.

^ The interpretation of the passage proposed by Benecke needs but a brief notice,
since it proves itseh" at once to be untenable. He supposes, with Origen, that every man
has sinned by himself, not, however, in this world, but in a state of pre-existence. The
Scripture, however, does not acknowledge any personal pre-exlstence, it teaches rather
merely a pre-existent state of being in the Divine mind, since God beholds the future as
present. (Comp. thereon Ephes. i. 4.) The further defence of pre-existence by Benecke
in a letter to Lucke (Stud- 1832, No. 3, p. 616, etc.), brings forward no new matter.

Romans V. 12-21. 577

Usteri (Paul. Lehrbegr., 4th edit. p. 24, etc.) gives his ex2)08itioa
This recent school discards that mechanical view of the world on
which rests the Pelagian scheme of isolation ; on the contrary, in
respect to the relation of the individual to the whole, it adopts en-
tirely the dynamical system which forms the basis of the Augusti-
nian theory. But it deviates none the less, in the result, because it
sets out from a different view in regard to evil. As Schleierma-
cher's doctrine of predestination could not but be quite different from
the Augustinian, since he openly avowed the restoration ; so also
the doctrine of original sin could not but take a different form, if
evil, as he and the Hegelians assert, is held as mere negation.
Adam's fall could be no loss to him, for he had nothing to lose, but
only the manifestation of that deficiency which clave to him as a
creature ; the sinfulness of the race could not proceed from Adam's
act, because all bear in themselves the same deficiency which made
Adam's fall necessary, and they just as much as Adam must have
been brought into that opposition, of which it is no advantage not to
know ; Christ, accordingly, worked only so far in redeeming and aton-
ing, as by his Divine fulness of life he made up the created deficiency
in the creature. Infinitely more full of spirit and depth of meaning,
however, as is this doctrine of modern theology than the shallow
Pelagian rationalism, we feel ourselves nevertheless unable to adopt
it, since evil, according to the Scripture, is by no means represented
as a mere negation. It is not, indeed, like good in its complete mani-
festation, substance, as Manichseism holds, yet surely something real
and positive ; it has, that is, without substantial being, its positive
reality in actually disturbed relations. As such positive discord in
the relations ordained by God, Holy Scripture transfers evil in its
origin and its operative power into the spiritual world ; from hence
it works, ever propagating its disorganizing nature, until it finds its
barrier in the element of good. Therefore is the foil of Adam set
forth in the Bible as the opening of a gate to the spirit world, so
that it is not his act, outward and isolated, which is efiicient, but
that act in connexion with the fearful element to which it allowed
entrance. Thus, as a spark thrown into inflammable matter can
enkindle a fire to consume the greatest wood, or one stone taken
from a protecting dam cause a whole stream to pour away ; so
Adam's apparently inconsiderable sin. Spark and stone, without
touch-wood and stream, could do no essential harm ; so without the
existence of a kingdom of darkness Adam's sin could not have
caused such injury. In relation to this kingdom Adam stood like
the porter, while he also held in his hand the keys of the kingdom
of light ; he opened that door and the lot was cast for ages. In the
same position we behold the Saviour. According to the history of
the temptation, the key to the kingdom of the prince of this world
Vol. III.— 37

578 KoMANS V. 12.

was offered also to him, but lie refused it and opened for man-
kind Paradise instead, whereby the stream of light which broke in
had power to chase away the shadows which had been gathering
through the night of centuries. It is only as thus apprehended,
that Adam and Christ appear in their full representative and cen-
tral significance, as portrayed in Scripture. They are the hinges
round which the doors of the powers of the universe move ; the
poles from which life and death, light and darkness stream, which
reveal themselves in world-controlling power alike in the mass and
in the individual. The life of the great collective body, which we
call mankind, oscillates between Adam and Christ, nay, the life of
the whole universe, for Adam's fall and Christ's resurrection are
turning-points of universal development. (Comp. at Rom. viii. 19,
etc.) And even so the being touched by the life-stream of Christ is
for individuals greater or less, for nations and men, the turning-
point of their existence. If, therefore, our recent theology and
philosophy are to attain to a complete appropriation of the sub-
stance of the gospel which they are striving for as the noblest object,
a revision and more profound establishment of the doctrine of evil
will be of urgent necessity. (Comp. the observations at Matth.
viii. 28.)

Ver. 12.^ — The apostle now clearly, as he passes with a 6id tovto,
for this 7'eason, from the foregoing exposition of the efficacy both of
the death and life of Christ, presumes, by the particle of comparison
looTTepjjust as, the relation of Adam to the sinfulness of the whole race
as acknowledged. The question, however, is, how far Paul could do
this ? For we certainly do not find among the Rabbins any agree-
ment upon the doctrine of the origin of sin. They term the general
sinfulness ^'"p^^., that is, " confusion, desolation," or as inherited sin
yy^ -1^;:, that is, "framing, thinking evil." (Comp. Buxtorf. lex.
talm. pag. 973 and 2041.) At one time, however, they refer the
origin of sin in man to Adam's fall, at another they represent it as
created with man by God.* Meanwhile Tholuck observes justly,

* Compare Schottgen and "Wetstein ad loc. Tholuck and Reicbe also hav^ given
copious extracts in their commentaries ; the views of Biblical Dogmatists may b's seen
in Usteri, Paul Lehrbegr. s. 25, note. Among the passages which refer sin to the fall of
Adam, besides the interpretations of later Rabbins, to which certainly we are to attach
less importance, and the Targums on Eccles. vii. 29; Ruth iv. 22. — Jalkut Rubeni, fol.
18, 1, is particularly important, where it is said : " nisi Adam peccaset, fuisset nudus et
coitum exercuisset et concupiscentia prava neminem induxisset ; postquam vero peccavit
et concupiscentia prava ynn/ lat-; adest, nemo nudus incedere potest." The ynn 1X^,
on the contrary, appears as created by God in Succa fol. 52, 2. " Quatuor sunt, quorum
poenitet Deum, quod ille creaverit, nimirum captivitatem, Chaldaeos, Ismaelitas et concu-
piscentiam pravam." It may be questioned notwithstanding, whether creare here, hke
planiare in Aben Ezra ad Psalm, li. 7, ought not to be otherwise interpreted, namely, to
be understood of the negative operation of God, permission. Nothing evinces more a
correct apprehension of the doctrine by the Rabbins than the circumstance that they had

Romans V. 12. 579

that the latter of these conceptions could proceed only from the
theory of cabbalistic emanation, which makes evil appear as mere
negation. Since then no trace is to be found among the Jews of the
properly Pelagian view, that every one is himself the originator
of his own sinfulness by personal abuse of free wiU, we may all the
more consider the doctrine of Adam's sin as the causa efficiens of
the sinfulness of his race to have been the prevailing Jewish doc-
trine ; for the cabbala was always confined within a narrow circle,
and the Apocryphal writings clearly shew how fully the doctrine of
original sin was matured at the time of their composition. (Comp.
Wisd. Sol. ii. 23, xii. 10, xiii. 1 ; Sirach xxv. 24.) Most decisive,
however, is the collective import of the Old Testament with its doc-
trine of the Messiah and his sacrifice, which, as the Epistle to the
Hebrews proves at large, necessarily presupposes the sinfulness of
the entire race through Adam. For were all men born with the
same moral powers as were created in Adam, and did they all sin
by the mere abuse of their own free will, neither regular expiatory
sacrifices could have been beforehand ordained for all, since at any
moment some one might have proved himself entirely pure, and at
all events children who died in infancy must have been excepted
(whom nevertheless the law held as equally unclean with the dead);
nor could so all-pervading an influence have been derived from the
appearing of One Person, as is connected with the Messiah. Pas-
sages like Ezek. xviii. 1, etc., are but apparently contradictory, for the
doctrine of original sin in no way excludes responsibility for particu-
lar sins, nor a faithful use of the proffered means of salvation spoken
of in that passage. The doctrine of original sin does not say, that
one must steal, commit adulteiy, or such like ; on the contrary man
possesses even after the fall, according to the doctrine alike of Scrip-
ture and the systems of faith, power enough to perform opera
civilia, and to abstain from positive transgressions of the law. It
only teaches, that man is unable by his own power to get rid of the
prava concupiscentia/-^' the evil desire that swells up in the heart,
and the bias to sin, into which the mere possibility of sinning cre-
ated by God in the first man passed, when by the first sin he yielded
to the influence of darkness.

also conceived correctly the parallel between Adam and the Messiah as his antitype. So
in Nevo Schalom, fol. 160, 2. " Quemadmodum homo primus (Adam) fuit Nttha nht*
(that is, the first, or rather only one, in sin, the representative of the whole sinning race of
man) sic Messias erit ultimus ad auferendum peccatum penitus." The doctrine of the
Messiah alone, in the complete form in which the Jews already had it, could not, indeed,
consistently followed out, lead to any other view upon the origin of the sinfulness of tho
race, than that the whole must have fallen in Adam and through him.

* Luther : " Original sin is not done like all other sins, but it is, it liveth and doethail
other sins." — And in another place : " Thou canst do nothing but sin, do as thou wiliest ;
all which thou settest about is sin, and abidelh sin, let it show as fine as it may ; begitx
ning, furthering, and perfecting [righteousness] is all of God."

580 Romans V. 12.

Now, liow the apostle could have expressed in more decided
and explicit terms the doctrine of the sin of Adam originating
the sinfulness of his race, than by saying : " through one man sin
entered into the world" ((Jt' tvo^ dvOpdJirov tj duapria elg rov k6(J[j,ov
eloTiXde), cannot certainly be conceived : and yet upon these simple
words have been lavished all the arts of subtle criticism. One
mode of evasion is by taking ajuaprm, sin, as denoting indepen-
dently sinful actions {jpeccata actualid), while it in fact designates
the sinful habit (habitus peccandi), whose particular manifesta-
tions are termed dimprjjfiaj napdnrtoiia^ Trapdfiaoig. So far as these
separate acts necessarily presuppose the sinful habit, dfiaprta also
may certainly denote the sinful act, but the following exposition of
the apostle shews, that where a sinful act is to be expressly men-
tioned, he makes use of one of those words. Granting, finally, that
duagria might be so taken here, the dC hog dvdguyixov (which thus
occurs again 1 Cor. xv. 21), would be sufficient to forbid that the
passage should be interpreted : " Adam opened the series of sinful
acts," whereby alone it can be brought near to the Pelagian view.
But the modern theory of sin being created in man is contradicted
not only by the 6id, through, but the eloriXde, entered, Sin, on that
theory, existed already loith and in Adam, it did not come first
by him. According to that Paul must have written "as sin in
the first man first also manifested itself." — The elg dvdpunog, one
man, is moreover, as ver. 14 shews, Adam. If it is said, 1 Tim. ii.
14, of Eve, that she, not Adam, was deceived, this form of exposi-
tion refers merely to the relation of woman and man, the former
being certainly more accessible to sin. But where mention is made
of the race collectively, and the relation of man and woman is not
brought forwartl, Adam is named, as the head of the first human
pair, which is to be regarded as unity. — As consequence of sin,
death only is made prominent, in which, as the sum of all evil,
every other form of it is comprised. Here indeed Odvarog signifies
principally the death of the body, as also Gen. iii. 3, 4, but this had
not been possible without the spiritual death, which entered with
sin itself.* For it is the nature of death to disturb and separate
that which belongs together ; in the first state, indeed, man was no
more exempted from the possibility of dying, than from the possi-
bility of sinning; both these possibilities he possessed, and they
passed by sininto the necessity of dying ; and the proclivitas peccandi.
Thus, while bodily death is the separation of the soul from the

* Comp. Augustine's treatise hereon, in the first chapter of the thirteenth book, id ci-
vitateDei; particularly in cap. 5, upon the question: "Quoil sicut iniqui male utuntur
lege, quse bona est, ita et justi bene utuntur morte, quae mala est." Adam's life after his
fall was, as it were, a slow dy/ng, that reached its completion in his physical death:
Christ's ^uoTvoirjatc, quickening, of mankind is also gradual, the culminating point of which
is the glorification of the body

Romans V. 12. 581

body, spiritual death appears as the separation of the spirit from
the soul. This latter, however, was not a total separation, as sin
did not develope itself, as with the fallen angels, in man himself,
but was brought to him from without, as in the temptation of
Christ, The necessity of sinning appears therefore only as the
second death (ddvarog Sevrepog), as the highest point of sinful de-
velopment. The reciprocal influence of spiritual and physical ele-
ments, which here finds expression, is not, however, limited according
to the Pauline doctrine merely to man ; its disturbance reacts also
upon the creation {urioi^) generally, as at Rom. viii, 17, etc., will be
further shewn.* But if to Adam's sin was applied only the expres-
sion elg Koafxov elarjXdeJt came into the world (where Koofioc signifies
not the universe, for sin was already in the spiritual world, but the
world of man), yet this sin, in death as its bitter fruit, appears as a
principle penetrating through (di/^A^ev) the entire race, and which is
true of all development, advancing in ever heightened forms toward
perfection. (The ovrio^ must be understood therefore " in the connex-
ion of sin and death.") Although therefore Adam's act was not the
act of an isolated individual, but the act of the race, since he is not
to be considered as a man by the side of and among many others, but
as man,f yet the continued progress of sin by the sin of his pos-
terity, so far from being thus set aside, is most decidedly established.
But sin itself is ever to be considered as punishment of sin, so that
the sinning of posterity became the very saddest consequence and
punishment of the first sin. Had it been possible for the immedi-
ate descendants of Adam, for instance Abel, or Seth, by perfect
righteousness to stop the stream of corruption that came breaking
in, to stand ii». the gap (Ezek. xxii. 30), Adam's act would have had
no greater significance than any other sin, and it would then have
been not merely fitting for the apostle to mention any other, by way
of antitypical comparison with Christ's act, but it would 'have
answered even better : for instance, Cain's hilling would apparently
have formed a far stronger contrast with Christ's being killed. But
every one feels that such a course would have been utterly incon-
sistent with the views of the apostle. To him Adam's sin is the
mother of all the rest, and therefore, however insignificant in out-
ward seeming, j'Ct in its essence the sin of all sins ; because
the greatness of the sin depends on the position which the signer

* Glociner (p. 84) says very strikingly: "Sia has the power of reproducing itself in
our immediate aescendant, and that to the fuU extent, with all its consequences, unless it
be suhtiuca oy ihat descendant's mightier spiritual power (derived from Christ). Espe-
cially must this be the case with <Aa< oflFspring who owes his whole existence to a living
organism which is penetrated throughout by the power of sin. Here, conception is
already a conception in sins, even the first germ of life receives the whole form of sin."

f Rightly says Augustine : " In Adamo omnes tunc peccaverunt, quando in ejus natur*
adbud omnes ille unua fuerunt." (De pecc. men et rem. iii. 7.)

582 KoMANS V. 12.

occupies, and no sinner ever yet stood where eternal love had placed
Adam.

After these observations, it is clear what ought to be thought of
the ordinary Pelagian-rationalistic view, that the clause e^' w Trdv-
reg i'niaQTov, in that all sinned, signifies that the sinfulness of men
is not caused by Adam's act, but by their own sins. For it is evi-
dent that the apostle regards that universal sinning as the conse-
quence of Adam's sin, and adds this clause merely to shew that if
any one could have been supposed who sinned not, as was afterwards
the case with Christ, then indeed a limit had been thereby set to
death, provided that he occupied as central a position as Adam and
Christ. Aside from this, we could only say that the apostle intends
to intimate that the unfaithfulness of men, in not resisting sin even
to the extent that with the moral powers still left to them they might
have done, diffused the common sinfulness more quickly and gener-
ally than otherwise it would have been. Although, therefore, t^' w
is doubtless not to be translated with the Vulgate in quo, in lohom,^
and so forms no proof in favour of the representation of the race by
Adam, still it furnishes no weapon against this doctrine itself, which,
in the connexion of the whole argument, is sufficiently established.
Gramatically, t-^' w can only be taken as conjunctive, as absolutely
no antecedent can be traced, to which the relative could be natur-
ally applied.f Thus, t0' w answers to our " in that" (indem) =
i«S?, and denotes the being connected with and dependent upon
another,^ As to r^juaprov, many are of opinion that Paul refers in
the word to actual sins which proceed from the proclivitas peccandi.
But if the Travref, all, as the tenor of the whole chapter requires, is
to be understood in its most proper sense of the entire mass, and so

* How little iv tj would be contrary to Paul's meaning, is shewn by 1 Cor. xv. 22,
where it is said: 6antp iv tu> 'ASufindvTeg aTTodvTjCKOvaiv, ovru nal hv tC> Xpiaru navTe^
^uoTroiTjOiiaovTai.

\ Glockler and Schmid (ad loc, p. 191, etc.) would refer e^' u to ddvaro^, "unto which
all sinned," making death the end {te?m(.) of sin ; but this is extremely forced.

X In passages like 2 Cor. v. 4; Phil. iii. 12, if v is also conjunctive, not merely kTvi
with the relative, as also it cannot possibly be here. According to Rothe's explanation,
who takes kf u = im tovtu uare, the sense would also be: " in such wise that, under
the certainty that." But he assumes that all sinned themselves. Now this was not so ;
death struck many without their having themselves sinned, e. g , all infant children. But
it is precisely on ituvtec, all, that all the emphasis in the argument is laid. According to
the apostle's meaning, therefore, iv avru is doubtless to be supplied, and the passage to
be taken thus: since they had all (collectively) sinned, namely in Adam. This sense, too,
alone agrees with what follows, where even the difference oftlie sinning, of those, for in-
stance, who lived before the Mosaic law, from Adam's sinning, is set forth. Adam acted
as a person, and transgressed a positive command of God, the collective body sinned only
in him ; yet the punishment of death fell upon all together, as a proof, that even the par-
ticipation in the general sin is of itself sin before God, although certainly in another sense
than purely personal sin. (Upon the classical usage of i<f>' u in the signification inl TovT(p
Ctare, comp. Matthi?e's Gr. § 473, p. 1063 ; Bernhardy's Syntax, p. 268 ; Fritzsche ad loo
p. 200, etc. — Upon the use of the synonymous iv ^, comp. at Rom. viii. 3.)

Romans V. 12. 583

to include children dying in unconsciousness, this view becomes in-
volved in extreme perplexity, and is driven to the assertion that
Paul speaks only of individuals capable of sin ; an assertion, how-
ever, which assuredly draws on the difficult argument, where the
capability of sin begins.* How entirely untenable this view is, ap-
pears by this its own principal support in the most glaring light !
Augustine's theory, on the contrary, although his translation of
i(f)' di by in quo is wrong, is here in thought impregnable. For the
rjfiaprov signifies " being sinful," together with " committing sin,"
and it is only accidental in individual cases that the latter does not
issue from the former, the being sinful remaining nevertheless. The
sense of the words therefore is : " in that (in Adam) all (without
exception) sinned, and with the greater number as consequence
thereof the original sin expressed itself besides in further sinful acts,
therefore did death also, the wages of sin, penetrate through to all."
Taken so, the imputatio in poenam et reatum of the sin of Adam has
its truth ; taken so, the efficiency of Christ, in whom all in fact
rose again just as they had in fact fallen in Adam, forms with that
truth a true parallel. The question how in Adam all who were not
yet in existence could sin with him is difficult only while we hold
the isolation of individuals. Eelinquish this, and all takes a simple
form, and in Adam every one of his descendants must have sinned
with him, just as in the act of one man all his members and ever)
drop of blood co-operate ; and in an army not the general only con-
quers or is defeated, but every warrior of the host conquers or is
conquered with him.f

(As concerns the structure of the whole sentence, loanep has no
apodosis. To consider vers. 13-17 as parenthetic digression, in fa-
vour of which Reiche, after Grotius, Wetstein, and Flatt, has again
pronounced, is harsh, because in this digression the substantial
thought of the apodosis is already anticipated. It is better there-
fore to suppose an anacoluthon here also, and to consider ver. 18 as
a recapitulating resumption of the discourse in ver. 12. So Rothe
explains it, with Winer, Riickert, and others. Besides this concep-
tion of the passage as anacoluthon, De Wette's view is the only one
which can claim any attention, that the second member is introduced

* The manner in which Meyer (in his comm. ad loo.) tries to solve the difficultj, why
children should die in infancy, if death is the consequence of actual sins only, is too
meagre; he supposes (p. 120): "Paul entirely forgot this necessary exception (I)" Else*
where, surely, the memory of the great apostle in no respect fails him.

\ Riickert's explanation of ver. 12 is quite correct. He says, p. 218, " According to
this verse, therefore, Adam is the originator of human sinfulness, and so far the first cause
of death ; but men have withal by their own sinning deserved it." But the last part of
the sentence is not quite strictly expressed, for Paul does not intend to allege two causes,
the sinning of men rather is itself founded in Adam's sin; their unfaithfulness has only
enhanced sia.

584 KoMANS V. 13, 14.

with u)anep, and the first presupposed from what has heen said be-
fore, as ooanep occurs Matth. xxv. 14. But it is against this inter-
pretation, that this preceding member has not previously been
sufficiently expressed to be immediately understood with the words :
dta TovTo toaTzep. Moreover, with this construction the leading
thought of the apostle would be the connexion of sinful man with
Adam ; while his chief purpose, on the contrary, is to set forth
the connexion of believers with Christ. Hence this principal idea
must also be considered as resting upon the incidental subordinate
thought, which he assumes as acknowledged, viz., the sinfulness
of men since Adam, and hence the coonep be followed by an ovrcog.
But as Paul wished to shew the difference as well as the similarity
between Adam and Christ, and further to exhibit the relation of the
law to these two critical stages in the life of humanity, while the
parallel obviously suggested itself from the line of argument, he
neglected the formal apodosis, and at ver. 18 returned to the lead-
ing thought. — In the Codd. D.E.F.Gr., and other critical authorities,
6 ddvarog is omitted before dirjXdev. There are grounds for the
omission alike critical and exegetical ; for Odva-og being but subor-
dinate,* it would seewi^more fitting to refer duiWe to the principal
idea, ajuaprm, out of which the presence of Odvarog follows of course.
But the yap connecting ver. 13 with the preceding, favors the
reading 6 ddvarog dtTjXdev, since thus the mention of duapria implies
an immediately preceding Odvarog, which, as mere consec[uence, pre-
supposes the cause, and as crown and consummation, is put for all
consequences.)

Vers. 13, 14. — This general dominion of death, even in the time
before the promulgation of the positive Law of Moses, when there-
fore men could not by personal transgression of the law incur guilt
as Adam did (vii. 7), proves the presence of sin in humanity,
through the influence of original sin, for the righteous God cannot
suffer punishment {i. e., here, ddva-og) to come where there is no
guilt. These two verses are commonly considered as a passing ob-
servation ; but according to the train of thought above indicated,
such is not the case. The apostle uses them rather, immediately to
corroborate the principal thought in ver. 12. That sin was in the
world after the law he presumes as a matter of course, but even
before it, ht says, sin was there, as death proves, although it might
have been supposed there was then no sin, because there was no
commandment to transgress. Paul therefore clearly infers from
the imputation of punishment (imputatio pcence), the imputation
of the guilt of Adam's sin {imputatio reatus peccati Adamitici).

* Rothe (p. 36) protests against ddvaroc being subordinate, but the 6ici rj/c u/xaprtas i
duvaToc, death hy sin, clearly enough makes death to be conditioned by sin ; it is subordi-
nate, therefore, although it becomes especially prominent afterwards.

KoMANS V. 13. 585

As regards tlie supposition of many of the most distinguished ex-
positors and dogmatists, as Origen, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas,
Melancthon, Beza, that the sinfulness of cliildren is intended here,
this view, in itself inadmissible, has somewhat of truth, in that the
period from Adam to Moses is in fact the time of the childJwod of
humanity. Adam himself before the fall occupied indeed a higher
level of consciousness, but after it he sunk with his descendants to a
childish unconsciousness, in which a law could not even be given to
men. Every individual has a similar period in his own life, during
the twilight consciousness of childhood (comp. at vii. 9, etc.);
nevertheless man, like the race in general, nay the very child in the
cradle, is even during this period in sin, and suffers the punishment
for sin, even death ; so that here it is perfectly clear that the apos-
tle means by djiapTia not sinful independent actions, but the state of
■inward discord from which springs that outward discord whose con-
summation is death. This disorganized condition is found also in
the beast, nay in the physical creation (Rom. viii. 17, etc.), but it is
called djiapria^ si7i, only in connexion with the possibility of conscious
development, elsewhere only (f)dopd^ corruption,

(Ver. 13. — Paul does not mean to assert an absolute absence
of law, as Rom. ii. 14, 15, shews ; but where there is no outward
law, it is only by veiy indistinct warnings that the inward law gives
indication of itself, especially in the dawning life of childhood.
Personal ijjijmtation [tkAoyeToOaL] of personal acts [the unconscious
one shares only the guilt of the mass], is therefore out of the ques-
tion during such a state.* Yet a (SaotXeia davdr ov^ Icingdom of
death, found place [the opposite of the kingdom established by
Christ, the PaoiXeia ^(»)i]g, Tcingdom of life], even [kul] over those who
had not, like Adam, transgressed a positive command ; death there-
fore has of course no less dominion over those who, arrived at a state
of consciousness, have by their own guilt increased the sin which
they inherited. — The /«/ before dfiaprTjaavrag is omitted in some of
the Fathers. But as all MSS, have it, and the context properly un-
derstood requires it, the omission can proceed only from misinter-
pretation.— The enl roi dfioiwuaTt answers to rn^s^D Daniel x. 16).
"With an entirely new thought : og iart rvnog rov neXXovrog, who is the

* The acceptation of i/.loyeladai proposed by Usteri (fourth edit, of the Paul. Lehr-
begr. p. 42) and Glocklcr (p. 82), instead of the explanation given here, and correctly put
forth by Ruckert also, is quite inadmissible. They would understand it not of the imputa-
tion of God, but of the self-imputation of men, so that the sense should be : " Without law,
man does not impute sin to himself, that is, he is not conscious of it as such, heeds it not,
therefore, and does not take it truly to heart." This is opposed to the train of thought,
because it is not the subjective judgment of man which is here treated of, but the judg-
ment of God. God allows to death, indeed, admission to all men, because it is the conse-
quence of the collective guilt contracted through Adam, but the individual guilt of men
Is not yet punished, as is shewn by the instance of Cain and Lamech, the law being
tvanting (Comp. upon the Tupeaig at Rom. iil 25.)

586 KoMANS V. 13.

type of the future, sc. Adam, Paul now passes to that statement to
which the representation of the efficacy of Adam's sin is intended
merely to be a foil. Christ and Adam bear the relation of antitype
to type, or as a Kabbin says : h"'?'an t'o Niin d7N n'o — that is : "the
mystery of Adam is the mystery of the Messiah." The elements of
forgotten typology are becoming more and more recognized, and can-
not, consistently with truly historical exposition, be overlooked in the
New Testament. The Old Testament is to all the writers of the
New Testament an adumbration of truth [juop^waif rrig dkTjOecag], and
according to this principle Christ must naturally appear as the second
Adam (1 Cor. xv. 45), the whole race being represented by him after
a spiritual, as by Adam after an outward manner. Now the point of
comparison between Adam and Christ here is manifestly the passing
over of sin and of righteousness from them upon all. Accordingly
this passage must present great obstacles to Benecke's doctrine of
pre-existence ; he is obliged therefore to have recourse to the forced
interpretation of iitXXov-og as neuter, scil. yivovq, so that Adam is
called a type of the race to come, because all sinned like him. The
arbitrariness of this construction is evident.'-'

Ver. 15. — Yet the relation between the effects wrought by Adam
and by Christ, with all its analogies, still involves great diversity ;
the power revealed in Clirist is incomparably more mighty. But
this preponderance is not, with Grotius and Fritzsche, to be referred
to a mere logical superiority of possibility and certainty, but to the
intensive power of grace. First (ver. 15) it shews itself stronger,
in that in Adam's sin the principle of righteousness merely is mani-
fested, but in Christ the overflowing element of Divine grace.
Next (ver. 16) Adam wrought but negatively, Christ positively, for-
giving the many sins by his sacrifice. Nay, not by forgiveness merely
does he operate, but also (ver. 17) by communicating a new and
higher life. Then follows, in vers. 18, 19, an antithetic repetition of
the whole thought. Here accordingly Paul asserts the idea of the
vicarious office of Christ, with which the doctrine of satisfaction,
expressed Kom. iii. 24, 25, is so closely united. For were Christ one
man beside and among many others, it were indeed inconceivable
how his doing and suffering could have any essential influence upon
collective humanity ; he could have worked only by doctrine and
example ; but he is, besides bis Divine nature, to be conceived of as
the man, that is, as realizing the absolute idea of humanity, and
therefore potentially bearing mankind in himself spiritually, just as

* The whole exposition given here may be used in favour of the doctrine of the re-
storation. Since namely Adam's sin came in fact to all, its power would appear greater
than the power of Christ, if the wicked could resist the latter, and it penetrated all
That would, however, lead to the gratia irresistibilis, which Paul does not teach, as will
be shewn at ch. ix. ; we must, therefore, with regard to the greater power of grace, lay
stress only on those points which are brought forward.

Romans V. 15. 587

Adam did corporeally. This character of the human nature of
Christ dogmatic theology designates by the term impersonalitas,
and Philo, anticipating the profound idea, described the Logos as
rov kut' dXTjOeiav dvdpunov, that is, as the idea of man, the human
ideal. Under this his universal character, the Redeemer becomes in
a twofold respect vicarious ;'•' first, in that standing in the stead of
sinful men, by his own sufiering he takes their suffering on himself,
as a sacrifice for the sins of the world ; then, in that he perfected in
himself absolute righteousness and holiness, so that the believer
does not generate them afresh, but receives their germ along with
the Spirit of Christ. The former is the ohedientia jpassiva, the lat-
ter the ohedientia activa. The latter will be further treated of at
ver. 19 ; of the former it is to be remarked with reference to vers.
6, 7, 8, that it is commonly said of Christ in the language of the
New Testament : v n e p r)iji,6jv dntdavej he died ON behalf of us.
Meanwhile it has been already noticed at Matth. xx. 28, that also
TTEpij 6idj and even dvri are used. The two former of these preposi-
tions certainly can signify no more than " for, in behalf of," but in
dvTt the signification " in the place of, instead," is clearly prominent,
which, according to ver. 7, and 2 Cor. v. 20, vnep also undoubtedly
bears. But according to the contrast here carried through of Adam
and Christ, it becomes perfectly evident that the apostle conceives
the life and death of our Lord as vicarious, so that what took place
in him, virtually occurred in all (2 Cor. v. 15.) — But again the term
Xdgiana is here (ver. 15) contrasted with TTapd7TT0)iJ.a (the sin of
Adam), as also at ver. 16 placed parallel with 66prina, that in Christ's
act of love the circumstance of its having been done once for all
may contrast with the sin committed once for all by Adam (this
being indicated by the termination itta).t Moments, not extended
periods, decide the destinies of the race ; so also in the life of indi-
viduals and nations there are sharply-defined moments on which is
staked the determination to better or worse for long periods ; alter-
native courses, the choice of which at the outset may control ages of
development.

(pi TToXXotj the many (with the article) is equivalent to -n-avref,
all, above, ver. 12. As Augustine, cont. Jul., vi, 12, says : omnes
revera sunt multi. Without the article, indeed, a part only of the
race could be meant,| but with it the expression has regard to the

♦ In both relations the power of Christ, in its passing over into humanity, is to be
compared with a movement proceeding from a centre, concentrically diffusing itselC
Christ brings his death and resurrection to every individual, the former for the old, the
latter for the new man.

f Compare Buttman's large Gramm. B.ii. p. 314. The syllable juof denotes the abstract,
ua the concrete, fir/ fluctuates between both. This with reference to Rothe's opinion,
who thinks this conception of ;\;upi(T/ia and duprjua capricious.

\ Glockler is wrong in saying that navreg could not be used, because the one is taken

688 Romans V. 16, 17.

preceding -ndvTe^. — Xdpig, grace, is general, the love of God in its
utterance toward sinners, Scoped, gift, its special expression in the
mission and the work of Christ, Ueptaaeix.) is not to be taken transi-
tively, as Paul certainly uses the word [2 Cor. ix. 8 ; Ephes. i. 8 ;
1 Tliess. iii. 12], but as usual, intransitively. The aorist is put,
that grace in its historical manifestation in the work of Christ may
be set in the balance against dnedavov, the effect of justice.)

Vers. 16, 17. — But there is a further distinction between Christ's
efficacy and that of Adam, in that it operates not merely negatively,
but positively, justifying mankind from the infinitely many trans-
gressions, nay even imparting to them a new and higher life.

(Ver. 16. — The reading diJ,apr7]fia~og is found instead of d[xaprTJ-
oavrog, arising doubtless merely from the seeming incompleteness of
the antithetic member. The complete construction would require
dC hoq dtnaiov to be added to ddyprnia. — Kplp-a, judgment, is the act of
Divine justice objectively considered, which after Adam's, the first
man's sin, could shew itself only as KardKpina, condemnation. The
antithesis tic noXkoJv 7TapaT-o)ndTo)v, indicates TrapanrcjuaTog to be sup-
plied with fcf ev6^. In tie -noXXiov TrapanrcjiidTCdv, TioXktJv is not mas-
culine ; the ma7iy sins rather are opposed to Adam's one. The
preposition, however, is in neither case explained as "proceeding
from," but " on account of, in consequence of ;" so that the sense
is : "in consequence of one sin God's judicial agency jmssed into
condemnation, in consequence of the many sins among mankind
God's gracious agency passed into justification."* — The use of
6iKaL(.)[j,a here and ver. 18 is peculiar, as was observed at Rom, iii. 21.
Commonly it signifies that which in a particular case is SiKaioVj
therefore " statute, ordinance, iv-oX?]." But here it is used, as
dcKuccooig ^u)7lg in ver. 18 shews, like diKaicjaig = rb dcicaiovv, j>''ixn,
Justification. This deviation from the common use in the passage
before us has its ground in the structure of the entire sentence.
The apostle's point was, to contrast the act of Christ's efficacy with
the act of the fall ; and dmaicjdfxa expressed the momentary better
than 6tKaLU)oig. — Ver. 17. The dative -napaTiToJiiari, denotes the causa
efficiens of death, did rov ivog, through the one, designates Adam as
the organ, through whom the cause became operative. So was God
also through Christ the causa efficiens of his work (2 Cor, v, 19).- —
The dinaioavvj] is that which is worked in man by the Sucaicjoig =
dttcaioona of Christ. — By an easy turn of the parallel, instead of putting

out. For it is the same at ver. 18, and yet nuvrec is used there. Besides, the one con
tinues to belong to the whole, nay he is the whole.

* If ef ii>6i and ek tvoUCjv are to form an antithesis, it might be supposed whether tho
many sins did not designate those merely which brought Christ to the cross ; certamly ;
but this was done not merely by the sins of those who lived at the time, but of all men
of all times ; so that it comes to the same thing. The emphasis in this verse, moreover
is lai i on diKatu/ia ; God did not only forgive the sins, but he made the smners righteous

Romans V. 18, 19. 589

^w^, life, itself as the reigning power in opposition to the reigning
edvarog, death, the living [^^vreg] are represented with Christ as
those who reign ev rf] l3aaiXeia rov Oeov, in the kingdom of God.)

Vers. 18, 19. — Finally, the apostle once more comprises in these
verses this great contrast between Adam and Christ, and in so doing
not only lays stress on the fact that their respective influences are
universal/^ but indicates also, that the diKacoavvT] and ^uri, which he
had just before treated abstractly, as separate points, in the con-
Crete blend with each other, yet with this distinction— that the
diKaMoig, justification, always appears as absolute, no degrees being
conceivable in the forgiveness of sins, the ^(ofj, life, on the contrary,
perfects itself gradually.— In ver. 19, the fundamental idea of the
whole passage is expressed in altered terms, and with a distinctness
which sheds light on Paul's real meaning beyond all he has said
before.f Not the personal transgressions of individual men, but the
disobedience of Adam was the sole ground of all being sinners ; and
BO conversely, the personal strivings of individuals could not make
them righteous (for the very best efforts of man's own powers remain
powerless and defiled without Christ's support), but the obedience
of Christ is the only effectual cause of the righteousness of all. No
expression can be imagined by which Paul could have himself more
distinctly defined vers. 12 and 15, and protected his meaning from
erroneous conceptions. If he has still not succeeded in preventing
them, the ultimate cause of the failure must be found in the heart'^s
resistance to this doctrine, bringing, as it does, to nothing, all man's
self-sufficiency, a resistance which even unconsciously asserts itself
in the interpretation of such passages.— The expression i^naKo?], obe-
dience, applied to Christ, deserves a closer consideration here, as it
involves the question of the obedientia activa and passiva. (Comp.
Phil. ii. 8.) Now we must certainly allow, that the doctrine of
active obedience cannot be proved from this passage, for viraKori in
contrast to irapaKo^ (Adam's eating of the fruit), must denote prima-
rily the obedient surrender of Christ to death, as the single, unre-
peated act of love, to which Phil. ii. 8 also has reference. ^ Still,
the doctrine of active obedience has foundation in the Scripture,
though it must rest on other passages, particularly Rom. viii. 30.

* As ol rroUoL is said as weU of Christ as of Adam, i. c, ndwEg, it must be said,
to evade the restoration, that mention is here made of the Divine purpose in the work of
the redemption, and not its result. (Comp. upon the restoration more particularly at ix.
1, and xi. 25.) ^, ,, ^^ ^ . .

+ Yet Usteri says (p. 27) even of this passage, that it means no more than : that m tho
sinfulness of Adam, which first made itself known as actual conscious sin in the transgrcs-
sion of a positive command, the sinfulness of the whole human nature was brought to light.
How the words Jtd r^ irapaKofic rov ivog, by the disobedience of the one, could be chosen
to express such a thought as this, the foundation of which is the false aasumptiou that
sinfulness belongs to thQ character of tho creature, is inconceivable.

590 Romans V. 20.

The whole life of Christ, as such, is his work, and even his death, as
its consummation, receives its significance only from its connexion
with his perfect life. As death and resurrection, so in this his collec-
tive life, Christ's active and passive obedience stand related ; while
again we must remember that there is here no absolute distinction,
as the passive and active elements mutually pass into and complete
each other.

(Ver. 18. — 'Apa ovv^ in Scripture, contrary to classical usage,
commences a clause. [Comp. Rothe ad loc. p, 136.] In ver. 18
also, KQLiia and %apf(Tjua epx^rai are to be supplied from ver. 16. As
to KaraaradrjaovTat in ver, 19, tcadiaTaodai certainly signifies " to be
set forth as something, and by the setting forth to be declared
something," so that the expression is parallel with Xoyi^eodat elg
SiKaLoavvi^v^ imputed/or righteousness. But as the discourse relates
to Divine acts, it must be borne in mind that God cannot pronounce
any one to be what he is not ; so far KadLaraadat, like KaXeladaLj
dvond^eoOai, coincides with elvai.)

Ver. 20. — The apostle's readers must naturally, after this expo-
sition, have felt it requisite to ascertain in what relation then the
law, which is assuredly a Divine institution, stood to the great crit-
ical points of the world's history.* Paul therefore here briefly
touches upon this question, although in chap. vii. he discusses it at
large. His view is briefly this : the import of the law lies in its being
a preparatory stage to the life of faith ; it comes in between Adam
and Christ, to awaken the consciousness of sin, and thereby to
sharpen the longing for redemption ; (comp, at iii. 30, and vii. 24,
25.) The chief object, therefore, in its being given, is not that it
may be fulfilled — for no one exists who could keep it in its spiritual-
ity, as set forth in the Sermon on the Mount ; and a half or imper-
fectly fulfilled law is, before God, a law not kept at all (Gal. iii. 10) ;
although, in respect to man, the prevention of gross sins is not un-
important (Gal. iii. 19) — it is rather to be the TraiSaycjybg elg Xpiorov
(Gal. iii. 24). Yet, as Divine and eternal in its nature (vii. 12), it
continues, even to believers, the absolute law and rule for aU the
conduct of life.

(The TTagetaTjXdev indicates not only its coming in between, but
also its subordinate and not strictly indispensable character, the law
being essentially comprised in the ministry of Christ ; its antecedent
promulgation by Moses was only to facilitate man's attaining to
Christ. — The napaTTTOj^a, trespass, offence, is remarkable ; for the law
was to enhance, indeed, internal sin, but to check [Gal. iii. 19] rather
than augment its open outbreaks ; yet napdnTCj^a cannot signify the

* The treatise, Gal. iii. 19, etc., is quite a parallel to this ; the commentary upon U
may be compared here.

KoMANS V 21. 591

sinful state.* Doubtless, therefore, the expression here must be
taken thus : the law, indeed, is not purposely to multiply the out-
breaks of sin, but they are, notwithstanding, its inevitable con-
sequences [vii. 8] ; inasmuch, then, as the consciousness of sin is
awakened by it, the transgression itself may be also regarded as an
object of the law. It is inappropriate to take ha merely ^Kl3aTiKU)g ;
to regard it as mere consequence, is in evident contradiction to the
sentiment of the apostle, as chap. vii. 8, etc., will further shew. He
regards the law as a beneficent medicine, which forces outwards a
disease which is raging undiscerned amidst the nobler elements
within, f On account of the aorists, ov is better taken, with Grotius
and De Wette, in the signification " as, when," instead of " where :"
the apostle is speaking of the Divine arrangements altogether ob-
jectively, in their results ; their subjective aspect in the Divine
purpose is here left out of the account. The aorist inXeovaae refers,
therefore, to the fact of the killing of the Son of God, in which sin
actually reached its summit, but at the same time grace appeared
in still higher measure, in that the highest sin gained and made
sure the salvation of the world. Kothe endeavours to explain the
aorists from the circumstance that the clause, in his Oi)inion paren-
thetical [ov — %opf^], contains a thought expressed as an axiom or
proverb. But this is opposed by the peculiar character of the
thought, so entirely harmonizing with the system of Paul, and bear-
ing not the slightest proverbial character. — 'TrrepTrepiaaevo) is to be
taken like irXeovd^o), intransitively, in the signification of "super-
abounds." In the passages 2 Cor. vii. 4 ; 1 Tim. i. 14, the parallel
vTTepnXeovd<^(jj occurs.)

Yer. 21. — The absolute reign of grace, therefore, to eternal life
(vi. 22, 23), is the final aim of redemption through Christ, while tiU
then sin reigned to death.

(The strict antithesis would have required elg ddvarov or iv ^w^,
but as discriminated, tv denotes that sin itself is spiritual death, el^
points rather to the end. The SiKaioavvT] is conceived as the means
by which grace exercises her dominion. But beyond this Christ him-

* Rothe's supposition must be considered faulty, which explains TrapuKTUfza of Adam's
7rapuTrT(jfj.a more and more developing itself, and diffusing itself according to its effects.
In treating of the operation of the law upon the sinful state, the actual sins of single m-
dividuals only, but not the entire collective act of Adam, can bo intended.

f Augustine correctly expresses himself upon the relation of the law : " Data est lex
ad ostendendum, quantis quamque arctis vinculis peccatorum constricti tenerentur, qui de
suis viribus ad implendam justitiam prsesumebant." Equally so, Calvin : " Erant quidem
hommes naufragi ante legem, quia tamen in suo interitu sibi videbantur natare, in pro-
fundum demersi sunt, quo illustrior fieret liberatio, quum inde praeter humanum sensum
emergant. Noque vero absurdura fuit, legem hac partim de causa ferri, ut homines semel
damnatos bis damnet; quia nihil justius est, quam modis omnibus adduci homiue^ imo
oonvictos trahi, ut mala sua sentiant."

592 Romans VI. 1.

self is considered as the holy Instrument, through which the reign
of life is realized ; an instrument, viz., inasmuch as the Father, who
sends the Son into the flesh, is thus conceived as the ultimate ground
and author of the plan of grace.

§ 10. The Believer is Dead to Sin.
(YI. 1— Yll. 6.)

The incidental mention of the law, and its relation to grace (v. 20,
21), can hardly have induced the apostle, in what follows, to proceed
to refute the error, that we might continue in sin that grace should
abound. It answers far better to connect (with Kothe, p. 49) the
subsequent words with the leading thought of chap. v. in this man-
ner : " What shall we say, then, in this state of things .? That is,
since justification through faith in the redemption by Christ, in its
specific operation is essentially the sanctification of believers. Shall
we, therefore, yet think of continuing in sin ?" The apostle then
prosecutes the refutation of this error in such a manner, that the
principal idea of the section, the vicarious relation of Christ to the
collective body, always continues in the foreground, and forms the
substance of the argument. Although, however, according to the
general scope and tenor of the epistle, the following discussion forms
but a subordinate part of it, it is, notwithstanding, of the highest
importance for the practical application of the apostle's doctrine of
justification by faith, without the works of the law ; and this indeed
not merely at that time, but in every time, and especially in the
present. 'For, first, there are never wanting persons who, in fact,
misunderstand this holy doctrine, and through misunderstanding
abuse it. Whether from stupidity, or which is perhaps more common,
from depravity, more or less unconscious, many construe the doctrine
of justification as allowing them to live on quietly in sin, as if Christ
would make a man blessed with sin, which yet is itself unblessed ness,
and not from sin. No one has ever consciously taught such doctrine,
because it is in fact too absurd for the lowest grade of spiritual
attainment not to acknowledge its pei-verseness ; but depravity of
heart beclouds the consciences of many, and in such a state they
apply the doctrine falsely, and turn grace to wantonness. (Jude
ver. 4.) But, secondly, this discussion is no less important for the
reason that the opponents of the doctrine of justification regard this
abuse of it as legitimate, and essentially founded in it, and think
themselves obliged, therefore, to combat the doctrine as an extremely
dangerous one. In this error are found not merely all the grossly
rationalistic-pelagian theologians, but others, also, who, with no liv-

Romans VI. 1, 2. 593

ing experience of the nature of faitli and of justification, are animated
by a kind of legal jealousy, and flatter themselves that by their own
efforts they can soon attain, if they do not already exhibit the type
of absolute perfection. With every one, however, who is willing to
see, the apostolic doctrine, as illustrated by this section, will find a
ready justification ; on the other hand, indeed, against impurity of
heart, or against the conceit of self-righteousness, there is no rem-
edy to be found, unless grace itself reveals to the heart its secret
sins ; at least the statement of the apostle has not itself been able
to prevent tlie errors either of the former or of the latter. Meanwhile
the Scripture fulfils, even by this inability, one of its purposes, that,
namely, of becoming, like Christ himself, the fall of many (Luke iL
34), not to destroy them, but by revealing to them their most secret
sins of impurit}^, or of conceited self-confidence, to save them.

Vers. 1, 2. — Without noticing any particular party — such as Jews
or Jewish Christians only — the apostle proposes the question quite
generally, as one proceeding from impurity of heart in general —
whether, according to what had been said, the meaning be, that sin
could be continued in, in order to let grace have its full power ? He
answers this question most decidedly in the negative, by designating
believers as those who are dead with respect to sin, who cannot
therefore live in it any more.* This idea of believers being dead,
Paul carries through to ver. 11, and that in such a manner as to
regard the death of Christ not merely as a symbol of the death of
believers, but as a real event in them of which, through faith, they
are partakers, as also of his resurrection. Here, then, is manifest,
how sharply, and with what thorough decisiveness Paul conceives
and applies the vicarious office of Christ. He is mankind ; what
occurred in him, occurred virtually in all ; in him are all dead,
have all suftered death for sin ; in him are all risen again, and have
received the new life. The history of Jesus, therefore, is a living,
abiding history, since it is livingly repeated in every one. ' (1 Pet.
ii. 24.) According to the Pelagian interpretation, this passage is
understood only of the resolution or the voiv of abstaining from sin,
which was entered into at baptism. But Paul, by such a sentiment,
would clearly contradict himself, for down to iii. 20 he had shewn
at large that man is incapable, by mere resolve, of renouncing sin.
According to such an acceptation, moreover, even the So^d^ecVj glo-
rifying, in the passage Rom. viii, 30, could not be conceived as a
thing already past, which nevertheless, like all the other several

* So Calvin, when he justly observes : " Plusquam igitur prsepostera esset operis Dei
inversio, si occasione gratiae, quae nobis in Christo offertur, peccatum vires colligeret.
Nequo onim mcdicina morbi, quern extinguit, fomentum est." Yet man can hardly believe
in the power of Christ without law; hence Luther says well: " The multitude will have
a Moses with horns ;" that is, the law, with its terrifying power.

Vol. UL— 38

594 Romans VI. 3, 4.

points, is put in the aorist. The Pauline idea doubtless is, that our
Lord, in those words upon the cross, " it is finished," declared the
work of atonement and redemption to be accomplished not merely for
himself, but also for all believers of all times, so that whoever believes
in him as surely died with him,'-' and with him rose again. The very
idea of substitution renders such a postulate not merely, perchance,
admissible, but necessary; as in Adam all fell, so must all die and
rise again in Christ, for he was themselves.

(Griesbach is right in putting the reading im^evufxev into the
text ; as also Lachmann ; while other codd. read ImiieivuiieVj im-
jU£V0juev, emiiEvovnev. The last is the reading of the text, rec, and
has distinguished critical authorities also in its favour ; yet it must
yield to the first. 'ArroOvqcKetv tlvl, dying to one, like ^^v -ivi, living
to one (ver. 10) is also in profane authors the usual figurative expres-
sion for "maintaining or breaking off connexion with any one."
But the following discussion shews that Paul does not use the lan-
guage merely as figurative, but employs it spiritually indeed, yet
in its strictly proper sense. Avry alone might have stood for ev
avry.)

Vers. 3, 4. — In proof of the above affirmation, Paul appeals to the
consciousness of his readers with regard to their own experience.
They had gone through, he says, in baptis77i, the death, nay, the
burial of Christ with him, as also the awakening to a new life.f In
this passage, also, we are by no means to refer the baptism merely to
their own resolutions, or see in it merely a figure, in which the one
half of the ancient baptismal rite, the submersion, merely prefigures
the death and the burial of the old man — the second half, the emer-
sion, the resurrection of the new man — we are rather to take bap-
tism in its interior and spiritual character, as a process in the soul.
That which was already ohjectiv-ely fulfilled on and in the person of
Jesus, the same is through him in faith appropriated subjectively to
man ; he experiences i\iQ power as well of the sufferings and of the
death, as of the resurrection of the Lord (Phil. iii. 10). Accord-
ingly this efficacy can only be ascribed to the baptism of grown per-
sons, and in their case it coincides with regeneration ; in the bap-
tism of infants a spiritual influence certainly is already wrought
upon the child ; but the personal appropriation of the power of
Christ does not take place before that later awakening and conver-
sion, the necessity of which is prefigured by confirmation.

* The old man is not to be gradually sanctified, but must die as a sinner, as Luther
aptly says : " Flesh and blood abideth ever and ever unclean, until they fetch shovel
strokes upon it ;" that is, until it is dead and buried. And in another i^lace : " We must
scourge the old man and strike him on the face, pain him with thorns, and pierce him
througli with nails, until he boweth his head and giveth up the ghost."

f Riickert's observation ad loc. is quite just ; that the apostle is not saying here what
Christiana have done at their baptism, but what has hem done to them in baptism.

EoMANs VI. 5. 595

(The ovveTd<pr)iieVj huried ivtth, is only a stronger expression for
Odvarog, death. Burial withdraws the dead person entirely from
view, and is equivalent to annihilation. [Comp. Kom. viii. 17 ; Col.
iii. 1 ; 2 Tim. ii. 11.] The PaTTTtaOtjvac elg XpioroVj being baptized
into Christ^' [comp. at Matth. xxviii. 19], is only more fully de-
fined by the jSaTrTLadTjvat, elg rbv Odvarov avrov^ being baptized into
Ms death, as by the avvTa(p7ivai avrui elg rbv Odvarov, being buried
with him info death. The baptized person vows himself to the
whole Christ, and Christ himself wholly to him, consequently death
and resurrection become equally man's. The elg ddvarov, is not
to be understood, therefore, = etc Trionv davdrov, into the faith of
his death, but of death itself, the participation of which indeed is
secured by faith. For the awakening power we are pointed to " the
glory of the Father" [66^a rov nar^og], that is, the whole fulness and
majesty of his being ; for even in the creation of the world the Di-
vine attributes beam not with such splendour, as in the redemption
and the resurrection of Christ. UepiTTarelv, loalking, means abiding
continuance and living in that newness of life [liaivoTTig ^w?/^, 2 Cor.
V. 17 ; Galat. vi. 15 ; Ephes. ii. 15, iv. 23] which forms the con-
trast with the old, sinfhl state, which is in itself properly a death, so
that in the regeneration, death, which has in itself a positive power,
is, in truth, itself killed, that is, the life of pure spirit is born.)

Ver. 5. — Upon the necessary connexion of the one with the other,
the apostle then grounds the proof, that where the death of Christ
shews itself effective, his awakening life must be also powerful
(comp. 2 Cor. iv. 14) ; for it is life only that kills the old man.

{I.vH^vro<; is found in the New Testament only in this passage ;
in profane authors it occurs, like ov[i(f)V7]g, very often in the signifi-
cation, " grown to, grown together, hence, united, bound together."
This sense is perfectly applicable here ; believers are considered as
grown together with Christ to one unity.f Instead of Christ him-
self, first dfiotdjixari Oavdrov, with the likeness of his death only [that
is, bfioiiog, or oiioLOL davdrov], and afterwards dvaardaecjg, of his resur-
rection, is used, because the two combined represent his entire work.
It is inappropriate to take the dative as instrumental here, and to
found avfKpvToi yeydva/icv upon it, Tholuck asserts, that according
to the acceptation proposed here the dvdaraacg must then be applied
not merely to the spiritual, but also to the bodily resurrection. But
we need not hesitate at that [comp. at Kom. viii. 11], since the

* Against ^adseil's observations upon this formula (Stud. 1832, p. 410, etc.), comp.
the striking refutation of Fritzsche ad L I. p. 359, not.

f Calvin observes rightly on the passage : " insitio non exempli tantum conformitatem
desipnat, scd arcanam conjunctionem, perquam cum ipso coaluimus, ita ut nos spiritu suo
vegetans ejus virtutem in nos transfundat. Ergo ut surculus communem habet vitoe ct
mortis conditionem cum arbore, in quam insertus est, ita vitse Christi non minus, quam et
mortis participes nos esse consontanoum est. " ,

696 Romans VI. 6, 7.

bodily resurrection is but the ultimate and crowning exhibition of
the life of Christ in man [comp. at John vi.39]. 'KXXa Kai is not to
be taken as merely inferential, as Elickert and Reiche correctly ob-
serve, but to be explained rather from a latent ov iiovov in the first
clause, since the resurrection, as life, is more powerful than death
[comp. at V. 10, 11.] The reading ana Kai has arisen merely from a
correction.)

Vers. 6, 7. — But at all events the service of sin must be out of
the question with one who is dead ; for death, the sum of all pun-
ishment, necessarily frees every one from the sin on account of
which it is suffered.

(TovTo yivoooKovreg = ovic dyvoovvTe<;j " since we know certainly." —
Ivveoravpcjdr], was crucified ivith, a stronger expression than ddvarogj
which is partly chosen to point to the death of Christ, partly to
describe the death of the old man, as a painful and ignominious one.
The TTaXaLog dv6po)7Tog, old man, forms the contrast with the Kaivog^
new [Ephes. iv. 24], answering to the nv-^n N;";a, by which pro-
selytes were designated. In consequence of the doctrine of regener-
ation this name was assigned in a higher signification to believers.
In the passage Rom. vii. 21, etc., the relation of the two will be
treated more at large. I only observe here, that this contrast is by
no means identical with "the outward, and the inward man" [6 t^w,
6 tao) dvdpuTTog, Rom. vii. 22], for this latter contrast has place also
in the natural man, but the first only in the regenerate. — Karap-
yelaOai = avvra^rivai, to be entirely done away, annulled in its effi-
cacy.— The opinion, that here the adiia TJjg dnapTcag, body of sin, de-
notes the body as in and by itself the seat of sin, which De Wette
has again adopted, is sufficiently refuted by Reiche.* After the owea-
ravQoJdr] the KaTapyqdxf cannot have any weaker meaning ; according to
De Wette it is merely " to make inactive." Yet in the stronger
and strict acceptation, the thought is untrue, for the body subject to
sin is not to be annihilated in the process of regeneration, but glo-
rified. It were a forced explanation to say, that in its very glorifi-
cation the sinful body is actually annihilated and absorbed by the
spiritual body. Here, therefore, we might perhaps compare the He-
brew usage of b^sy or ti'ii, by which the reality and substance of a
thing is denoted. Still it is simpler to interpret oibixa from the com-
plete carrying out of the image of the crucifixion of sin, sin itself
being considered as embodied. Thus Theodoret, later Koppe, Flatt,
Benecke, Reiche. — Ver. 16, etc., the service of sin is described at
length as SovXeta, hondage.-\ — The whole of ver. 7 is wanting in

* We shall declare ourselves more at large at the close of the Tth chapter, on the rela-
tion which, according to the Pauline conception, the bodily substance bears to sin.

I At '.he words tov /jijkcti 6ov1eveiv Calvin observes : " unde sequitur, nos, quamdiu
samus Adse filii ac nihil quam homines, peccato sic esse mancipatos, ut nihil possimua

Romans VI. 8-10. 597

gome of the Fathers, but it is without doubt genuine, and omitted
only as being merely explanatory ; as such it cannot refer immedi-
ately to spiritual, but to physical death ; though conceived indeed
in its analogy with spiritual death. In physical death, however, we
are not so much pointed to the fact that the sinner is free from sin,
that is, that he cannot sin any more [for 6e6tKai.(OTai , is Justified, has
a character too decidedly judicial], as rather to a sentence of punish-
ment to which Christ's death also points ; he who died in consequence
of this sentence, even although he returned to life is acquitted from
the sin on account of which he was condemned,* for he has expi-
ated it, [Guilt before men only, is spoken of in this sentence, and
satisfaction to civil justice ; not Divine eternal justice.] So is man
also dead in Christ, and as dead, incapable of serving sin. Thus,
justification stands in no contradiction with the law. According to
the law the sinner must die, and even so he dies who is justified
through Christ ; but in the dying of the old man the new gets life.
Upon 6iKacovodat, diro comp. Acts xiii. 39.)

Vers. 8, 9. — In the certainty, therefore, of death with Christ lies
the certainty also of life with him, that is, of his life in us, for in
him dwelleth the fulness of infinite, immortal life. Entirely the
same train of thought is found 2 Cor. v, 14, etc., from which repe-
tition may be perceived what deep root it had in the apostle's
mind. (While the believer has in his immediate consciousness the
certainty of his death with Christ, yet his livi7ig tvith Him [av<^v],
although likewise present in him in the germ, is still in so far future,
as it reaches its complete development only in the ^w?) alojviog, eter-
nal life. But this faith has its firm ground in the unconquerable
life of Christ, which he dispenses without ceasing to his people. —
The ovKerc Kvpievei, hath dominion no longer, intimates that death
certainly had dominion over Christ,f in that he really died, but not
by the necessity of nature, but by freely giving up himself in love
[John X. 18 ; Phil. ii. 7]. Yet even in death life could not be
holden of death.)

Ver. 10. — The relation which Christ, the life (John i. 4), bore to
death, on which our hope of life rests, is yet more nearly defined,
namely, that His death, sufiered once for all, occurred only for our
sins ; but in that he liveth, he liveth to God. There is no diffi-

aliud, quam peccare ; Christo vero insitos a misera hac necessitate liberari ; non quod
Btatim desinamus in totum peccare, sed ut simus tandem in pugna superiores."

* In entirely the same sense the Talmud says : postquam mortuus est homo, cessat a
praeceptis. Shabb. fol. 151. 2 (comp. Meusclien, N. T. e Talmude, illustr. pag. 170).

f If theologians of the Reformation believed that death had dominion over Jesus un-
til the resurrecton, their opinion rests upon a false conception of the descent to hell and
its import (Comp. at 1 Pet. iii. 18.) Our Lord appeared among the dead as already
conqueror over death ; God is not a God of the dead, but of the living, may also be said
of him.

598 KoMANS VI. 11.

culty in the first half of the verse ; the idea of Kvpitmiv (ver. 9) leads
the apostle to a closer description of the death of Christ. He died
not for himself, but for men, that is, for the doing away of their
sins, not often and for ever, but once. (Hebr. ix. 12, 26, etc., x. 10.)
The greatness of his sacrifice outweighed by his dying once man-
kind's eternal death. In the second half, however, the ^^ tw esw,
liveth to God, causes a difficulty, some antithesis being looked for
to icpdna^, once for all, or at least to dfiapria, sin, but neither is
found in the ^^ tw Gew. The antithesis to icjidTra^, once for all, may
lie in the present tense by its expression of continuity. The tw
9«a> is more difficult. For if the words are to be construed : " He
liveth for God, with regard to God," this did Jesus even on earth,
and in his heavenly Being he lives again not less for men than on
earth. The whole thought, then, appears somewhat irrevelant ;
diKqioavvT] might, it would seem, have been better opposed to duapria.
The only tenable acceptation of the passage seems to many to be
that of the Fathers. Chrysostom, and after him Theophylact, take
TGj Geo) as tv T^ dvvdfiei tov Oeov, that is, through God ; taken so, the
idea certainly of eternal and imperishable life, which the context
requires, comes clearly into view, since it is God who only hath im-
mortality (1 Tim. vi. 16). But even so, there arises no antithesis to
dfiapria, and then too we have no fitting sense for ver. 11, where "liv-
ing to God" is said of men, and where yet it can have no other sense
than ver. 10. Accordingly we can only say, that to live to God is the
same as "to live to righteousness," namely, for the purpose of fur-
thering it among men ; thus this sense results : Christ died once
for sin, that is, to extirpate it, and lives eternally for God, that is,
to further righteousness. Death is then as at v. 10, 11, understood
as working forgiveness, and the resurrection, righteousness. And in
ver. 11, the idea is brought down to the human level, and under-
stood as a dying from sin and a living for God.

(The 0 is best taken as accusative of the object, in the sense^ " in
as far as, in respect that," so that in the first member the odp^, in
the other the nvevfia, is to be understood. Thus the passage be-
comes entirely parallel to 1 Pet. iii. 18, davarcodeig //tv aagd, ^coottoit]-
6eig 6s TTvevfiari, put to death indeed in the fiesh, etc. [comp., too,
the parallel 2 Cor. xiii. 4]. Keiche take it so only in the second
member, but the antithesis requires it equally in the first. To com-
plete the antithesis, some would construe t^ d/xapria also : ^^ through
sin" [comp. upon the ablative use of the dative Winer's Gram. p.
194]. But the parallel vsKpol duapria, ver. 11, forbids this, as we
observed upon ^^v Gsw, which cannot mean to live through God.)

Ver. 11. — Hitherto Paul had conceived and set forth the relation
of believers to sin entirely abstractly, and accordingly said that what
came to pass in Christ, came to pass virtually in all believers. As

KoMANS VI. 11. 699

Christ died and rose again, so are also all, who are incorporate in
him through the washing of regeneration, really dead in the old man,
can tliereforc, as being dead, serve sin no more, and live really in
the new man. But the relation does not so purely shew itself in the
concrete case. As doubtless the kingdom of God, which has peace,
righteousness, and happiness in its train, exists on earth, yet peace,
righteousness, and happiness have not yet dominion upon earth ; so
may also the new man, Christ in us, truly live in an individual man,
without having as yet absolute dominion. Eather does the process
alike of tlie dying of the old man, and of the growing life of the
new (which mutually condition each other) extend over our wliole
earthly life, while to ihQ future life is reserved their consummation,
which without the glorification of the body (Rom. viii, 11), is im-
possible. Therefore the life of the believer exhibits itself as an
oscillating between two opposite extremes ; its result, the final
perfection of the new man, as well as the complete death of the old,
reaches beyond this present life. To this relation, as it appears in
the concrete, the apostle passes with the Xoyl^eode tavrovg vsKpovg,
reckon yourselves dead. For as iii. 21, etc., he had represented ab-
stract righteousness, and then iv. 1, etc., in the imputation of
righteousness (Xoyi^eadai elc; 6iKdcoavvT]v) , considered its concrete
production in man, he draws here a like distinction. This passage
is therefore pre-eminently important to the apprehension of Paul's
doctrine of the old and new man, a doctrine specially treated at vii.
8, etc., in the portraiture of the process by which the new man is
developed. The common view already touched at vi. 2, that the
apostle is treating here merely of purposes and vows to forsake sin,
and practise righteousness, as assumed at baptism, has an apparent
support in the imperative form given to the subsequent discourse.
Paul exhorts to forsake sin and serve righteousness (vers. 13, 18, 19);
he presumes consequently, it is said, that this has been, as yet, by no
means done, but merely promised in good resolutions. Thence it is
inferred that no real vicarious power is ascribed to the dying and
rising again of Christ, but that it has only the weight of an influen-
tial example. But the conception of the true relation between the
old and the new man gives a perfect insight into Paul's mode of ex-
pression. Where by regeneration a new man is born, there the man
is certainly no more sub lege (ver. 14), but still as yet by no means in
lege, since even the new man needs for this a full development, in
which alone he gets absolute dominion ; he must rather walk con-
stantly cum lege, and by no means arbitrarily break loose from the
law, for against this, vii. 1, etc., he is warned, as against a spiritual
adultery. Just as little, however, may he fall back again into a legal
state (which the apostle censures in the Galatians), since then fear
rules him instead of love, and his works are not the outgushing of

600 Romans VI. 12-14.

grateful love, but the means of purchasing salvation. Yet tho
spectacle of the old man still mighty in him tempts him continually
to such relapse into the state under the law ; therefore the apostle
gives here the wise precept, preventing alike both forms of deviation,
so in faith always to regard himself as absolutely dead to sin, that
is, in other words, constantly in faith to appropriate Christ, as him
who slays sin and quickens the new man. By this continual action
of faith the new man is constantly nourished by powers from above,
and the man — the essential self — is engaged in a continual Exodus
from the Babel of sin. This considering ourselves dead to sin,
however, is no comforting self-deceit, but it is a spiritual operation
entirely genuine, perfectly corresponding to the purpose of Christ,
without which in general no real sanctification, the gaining, above
all, of thorough humility and divesture of selfishness, is possible.
For it has its truth in this — that the germ of the man created in re-
generation in fact is absolutely pure (1 John iii. 9), and salvation is
not to be considered as depending on its development, but the de-
gree of glorification only. (Comp. particularly thereon at 1 Cor.
iii. 11, etc.) Therefore may the believer, although he knows that
he is capable of a greater development of the new man, look to-
wards death without anxiety for his salvation, because this depends
not upon the degree of individual development, but upon the faith-
ful laying hold of God's objective decree of grace, which can nei-
ther be increased nor diminished, but abides unchangeable, as God
himself This " reckon yourselves dead unto sin, but alive unto
God," is finally so much the more an urgent admonition for all, as
even in the life of the maturest believers times of heavy conflict
frequently set in, in which their new life in God is quite hidden
from themselves, and they seem abandoned to sin. In such times of
sternest ordeal, it behooves them, through the faith that sees not,
that against hope believes in hope (iv. 18), to maintain themselves,
and secure the victory.

(The addition tw Kvgi(x) rmdv is wanting in the oldest and best
Codd. Perhaps the words have found way into the passage from
liturgical use. Whether the stop be placed after vfiel^ or after
eavrov^ makes no difference to the thought ; after vnelg is the more
simple as to ixrammar.)

Vers. 12-14.* — Sin, therefore (with a glance back to ver. 1), is
no more to have dominion over him who does not live under the
law, but under grace, than death over Christ (ver. 9); he has access
to those resources of spiritual life in Christ, which are stronger than
sin (v. 15). But the apostle purposely chooses the words fiaatXsveiv,

* From ver. 12 the principal ideas of sin, unrighteousness and righteousness, have as-
Bumed almost personal forms ; in order that this personification may be distinguished,
Fritzsche has had them not unsuitably printed with capital initial letters

EoMANS VI. 12-14. 601

Kvpieveiv here, to signify the relation of the behever to sin. For
while the laio is able to check gross outward transgressions {t:pya
novTjpa), and in it a man, even without grace, can perform ojjera
externa and civilia; yet even under grace he may not entirely
avoid and check more subtle workings of sin, inconsiderate words
and deeds, sinful desires and impulses, since the old man at times
represses the new, and restricts his action. Hence there is need of
the constant cleansing and ever renewed intercession of Christ (1
John ii. 1), of daily repentance and forgiveness, as expressed iu
the Lord's Prayer, and symbolically represented by the washing
of the feet. (Comp. at John xiii. 11, etc.) From this state,
however, the dominion of sin must be distinguished, that is, its
free, unresisted sway in the life of man ; this in the regenerate is
utterly inconceivable. (Comp. at vii. 25.) The whole representa-
tion finally in this passage (as in the following 16-21) is so man-
aged that the man never appears absolutely indejjendent, as the
natural man is disposed to consider his state, but as constantly
governed by an element. As one who is swimming in a powerful
stream, notwithstanding his self-willed movements, finds himself
compelled to follow the course of the current ; such is the condi-
tion of the unregenerate man in this world's sinful stream ; he
receives his course from the prince of this world {clpx^v tov kooixov
TovTov), and is incapable of freeing himself from this stream, how-
ever he may be able, by applying his powers in true practice of law
(which affords him the attainment of a justitia civilis), to avoid
sinking yet deeper into the mire. But if the higher and redeeming
power of Christ has drawn him from this sinful stream (vii. 24),
he stands not even then absolutely isolate and independent, A
new stream receives him, yet a holy, blessed stream of Divine
light, by which to let himself be governed and determined is the
highest freedom. In service, therefore, man is alivays; and there
is no middle state between the service of sin and the service of
God. Man has either justification, or forgiveness of sins (and
with it life and salvation), entirely, or he has it not at alU* Sanc-
tification, which springs from living faith, as the fruit of love re-
turned, has its degrees, and may be pursued more earnestly or more
lukewarmly; but this does not determine, as was observed be-
fore, the state of grace, salvation, but only the degree of glory in
salvation (1 Cor. iii. 12-15.) This is the apostolic and evangelical
doctrine, which no force and no prudence can protect from misun-
derstanding (whether it come undesignedly from ignorance, or de-
signedly from depravity of heart), but which nevertheless remains

* Rightly says Luther : " Where this article is gone, the church is gone, and no error
can bo withstood. If wo stand to it, we have tho true, heavenly sun, but if we let it
go, we have uothing but hellish darkness '*

602 KoMANS VI 12-14.

the way which alone leads to God, and upon which the sincere and
humble cannot err. The erring of the insincere upon it, as well
as the offence which the ]-)roud take at this way of God, is most
properly, as was observed before, one among the Divine purposes
in having this word of reconciliation preached (2 Cor. v. 18, etc.),
for Christ is to be as well the rock on which the proud are shattered,
as on which the humble stay themselves. The key, however, to
this mystery, that the doctrine of reconciliation without exacting
works, begets in the mind the purest works, lies here ; that love
awakens answering love and strong desire for holiness. Thereby
man's striving ceases to be a heavy, bitter task-work ; he no more
struggles that he may be saved and please God; but because he
is become, without deserving, saved, and acceptable to God in
the Beloved (Ephes. i. 6), he works for love as in his own cause.
So there are but tivo states of man (ver. 14); he is either under
law, or under grace. Under the scourge of the law he deals in
works, and serves for hire (iv, 4), but according to strict principles
of retribution, he fares by it but badly ; if he is tempted he falls,
and sin has rule, even though the better elements occasionally con-
quer. On the other hand, under grace, man is indeed also tempted,
but he conquers, even though sin, at intervals, still reasserts hei
power.

(As regards the expression h rili Ovijru) vjmv acofian, in your mor-
tal body, dvTjTov ocoiia, mortal body, is used entirely = odp^,Jlesh
[vii. 18], or rd jueA?/, members [vii. 23-25]. But this by no means
implies that, in Paul's view, sin is to be sought for in the body, and
its sensual impulses alone; it would seem rather merely to signify
that it commonly makes itself known in the body by excited sensu-
ality. [Comp. more particularly thereon at Rom. vii. 17.] But in
the "body," its attribute of mortality is made prominent, in order
to contrast the sinful body, and, as sinful, especially exposed to all
temptations, with the sanctified organ of the glorified one [viii. 11],
The words " let not sin reign in your body," must not therefore be
regarded as distinguishing the body as the place where it should
not reign, for in vii. 25 the body is described as still subjected
to sin, even in the regenerate ; but they are to be connected
thus : " let not the sin revealing itself in your mortal body reign,
so that ye yield to it, but oppose strong resistance to it from the
spirit." With iv rw 0v7]t(^ v^Cdv oojuari, we may, therefore, sup-
ply ovaa, being, or ohovoa, dwelling. — At the close of ver. 12, the
Codd. vary much. Some have only avrxi, others only ralg inidvuiaig
avrov, others both together. One dative only can be received, for
the blending of the two in the text. rec. by an additional iv is cer-
tainly inadmissible. Goschen has declart^ for the reception of ratg
imdviiiaig avrov ; notwithstanding, the addition of the dative might

Romans VI. 15, 16. 603

be more easy of explanation than its omission, as the mere infinitive
seems somewhat hare.— Uapiardvai, to present, that is, to give up
or ofier for disposal. The word onXa is suggested by the figure
of a contest, which lay at the foundation of the apostle's concep-
tion. [Comp. Ephes. vi. 12, etc.] The addition wf t« veKpcjv ^ojvTag,
as alive from the dead, intimates that the service of sin is possible
only in spiritual death ; where life is, there is its longing for the
fountain of life.)

Vers. 15, 16. — After this statement, the apostle expressly re-
sumes the question from ver, 1, only with this modification, that he
considers more definitely the Christian's relation to the law, his being
under law and under grace. For as the purpose of God in Christ
is so hard to be comprehended, not merely by the Jew, but by
man generally, that he slowly abandons the dream that right-
eousness and salvation must be his work, not God's act ; so also
he is exposed to the opposite Antinomian error, that, if man is
not saved by the law, but by grace, sin is a thing iudifierent,
and the law useless. To this error the apostle, in what follows,
opposes the reasoning, that if the man be no more under law, he on
no account lives without the law, or above the law, but in and tuith
it. Man's state is under the law, when, as a foreign element, it
meets him from without, and by its rigid commandment, checks and
confines the resisting life ; this is not in itself a false, though a sub-
ordinate state, which is to bring on the higher one of the life in and
with the law. For in this state, the law establishes itself as the in-
ward principle of life itself ; it appears as written on the tables of
the heart, and as one with the will of man. Without law, or alto-
gether above the law, man can never be, for the law is the expression
of the Divine essence itself. Upon this deeper conception of the na-
ture of the law, Paul also founds his argument, in which, although he
does not use the terms ev vo/jw, avv vofiu), he, in fact, expresses the
idea which they denote. He refutes, namely, the question, whether
we shall sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace ?
by saying, we are in the very state of grace made free from sin, and
become servants to God (6ovXo)6tvrEg Gew, ver. 22), and therefore can
serve it no more. This thought of the service of God, or, which is
the same thing, of righteousness, must not, however, be again un-
derstood as an outward and servile relation towards God, as under
the dominion of the law ; for this is just what grace has overcome
(viii. 15) ; but as an inivard one. The soul of him who is living in
the state of grace serves God, inasmuch as he makes abode in it by
his Spirit, which is his own being (John xiv. 23 ; Rom. v, 5), and
BO becomes the determining principle of its life. Now, as the Divine
nature has th'e law not in itself or beside itself, but being Divine, is
itself the law, so also the regenerate man, in the indwelling of the

604 EoMANS VI. 15, 16.

Divine Spirit, as the moving, governing power within him, has the
law itself essentially within him (Rom. viii. 14), and cannot, as such,
act otherwise than perfectly (1 John iii. 9). True, this state appears
absolutely, in no one here on earth ; for as in every regenerate man the
old man still lives, so also moments occur in the life of every one in
which it gets the better of the new (1 John ii. 1). The service of
God in Christ still appears to the old man as a yoke (Matth. xi. 30),
because he feels that it leads him unto death ; while on the other
hand, in his exemption from the yoke of the law, he feels himself
entirely without restriction. Thus understood, the entire follow
ing passage is in strictest consistency with itself, and with what
precedes it ; to the false EXevdepia^ liberty (Galat. v. 13 ; 1 Pet.
ii. 16) is opposed the true, which is indeed dependence upon God
himself.

(The reading aftapr^awjitev has certainly weighty authorities ;
particularly the Codd. A.C.D.E., etc. Still it is probably only a
correction of duaprijoojievj because the future seemed unusually
applied here. But it is to be understood here as the possibility or
admissibleness of disregarding the law. The conjunctive of the fu-
ture, besides, is not found in the New Testament, except in various
readings.* (Comp. Winer's Gr. p. 70, e.) The first half of ver. 16
seems pleonastic, but the actual bondage [dovXoi. eare (L vnaKovere] is
to be understood as the consequence of the yielding one's self [Trapca-
rdvai], so that the sense is : " to whom ye yield yourselves to obey,
to him ye must then pay obedience." Thus the dependence of man
as creature is held to view ; he serves always, if not God, then sin
and its prince. [John viii. 44.] He cannot, however, at any moment
he would, release himself from his service to whom he once yielded
himself ; but the power of that element to which he surrendered
himself, either of good or evil, binds him. As the sinner feels the
heavy yoke of sin, he would often be quit of it ; but as he hates
only the evil consequences, and not sin itself, he continues bound,
and sin becomes the punishment of sin. As the Christian feels the
bitterness of the Cross, and the world's contempt, which befalls
him, the wish may at the same time rise within him, Couldst thou
be again as thou wast before ! but the power of grace holds him
to his good, and so becomes its own reward. — Ver. 16. " Sin and
obedience" [ap,apTia, vTra/co?/], and " death and righteousness"
\ddvaTO(;, SiKaioovvr]] do not form sharply defined antitheses. How-
ever, as it is clear, according to v. 19, that the very nature of sm, is
disobedience [uapaKo?/, comp. 1 Sam. xv. 23. Rebellion is as the sin
of witchcraft], its contrast may be vnaKorj, obedience. And to Odva-
rog, as spiritual and bodily death, as consummated fruit of sin (ver.

* But ufiapTijaufXEv is not a ConJ. Future, but Aorist, the 1 Aor. from r/fidpTTjaa being
used in tho New Testament. So Win. Gr. 6 ed. p. Y6.

Romans VI. 17-20. 605

21), not less aptly is opposed SiKmoavvrj = dUatog elvai, the essential
internal state of righteousness, as in germ identical with eternal
life [ver. 22], which is not merely to be hoped for hereafter, but
begins already here. — The omission of dg ddvarov in D.E. and
other authorities, may doubtless be accounted for by ddvarog not
appearing to the copyists to form an antithesis to diKatoovvq. — The
rJToi is = i), the earlier writers usually put I'lroi once only, the later
also repeat it.

Ver. 17. — This salutary turn then, Paul continues, has, thanks
be to God (vii. 24), taken place with his readers ; they have aban-
doned the service of sin, and become obedient to the truth. The
same holds good of all the truly converted ; the old is passed away,
and a new life has begun. In the passage vii. 24, 25, this transition
will be more particularly represented in its peculiar character.

(In the ijre SovXot the preterite has its full force, so that the former
state is conceived as past by ; for, though sin in the believer is not
entirely removed, yet it does not control the man, but is controlled by
him. The vnaKoveiv is = dovXog elvat tov Oeov ; in order, however,
to distinguish it from a mere show of life in faith, the apostle adds
^!k Kapdiag^from the heart [= a?^ Vsa, Deut. vi. 5], which marks the
entrance of the whole being, with the very seat of personality, into
the gospel. — The expression rvTrog didax^gj form of doctrine, for
EvayyeXiov, is remarkable. The idea of " form, type," scarcely har-
monizes with the verb vnaKoveiv ; it should have been said, seem-
ingly : " Ye have shaped yourselves to the form of doctrine." But
in the vnaKoveiv this idea is, in fact, latent, for as the servant of sin
admits its image in himself, so he who obeys the truth receives
her form within him. Commonly, indeed, the Old Testament is
called Tvnog, as type of the New [1 Cor. x. 6 ; Heb. viii. 5], but
the New Testament itself may also be called rv-rrog, as the model
for the life of believers. — ^As to the construction, v-naKoveiv is never
construed in the New Testament with elg, but always with the
dative ; it is more appropriate, therefore, to connect elg with nape-
660i]TEj = bg napedodr] elg vp.dg or viuv ; so that napadidovat denotes the
guidance of Divine grace, which leads men to the gospel. This
certainly unaccustomed use of ■napadidoadai has induced Van Hengel,
after the analogy of Rom. i. 24, 26, 28, to refer it to a deliverance
to errors, which, however, rvirog Stdax^ig cannot possibly denote. The
accusative tvtcov stands according to the proposed resolution of the
construction by attraction for tvttg).)

Vers. 18-20. — To the false freedom, which the natural man is
wont to find without the restraint of the law, the apostle opposes
the true, which consists in deliverance from the yoke of sin, and in
the service of God and of righteousness, which his Spirit creates in
man. This conception of righteousness as a new bondage (dovXela),

606 Romans VI. 18-20.

Paul justifies as a necessary condescension to the level of his readers.
The notion of freedom (John viii. 36) might have been conceived by
them as absolute and unbounded licentiousness, therefore he describes
it as a new and nobler bondage, as the Redeemer also himself
(Matth. xi. 29, 30) represented it as the assuming of a yoke, a
burden. The earthly life of the believer, since true freedom never
appears perfected, is represented with perfect truth as the going
under a yoke or burden {^vyo^, (popriov), though easier than that of
the Old Testament. For although God's commandments are not
grievous to the new man who lives in love (1 John v. 3), yet this
new man, the real self, still continues united with the old man, and
BO far is sensible of a servitude of righteousness. Not until in the
impossibility of sin comes absolute perfection, and God in Man
is become all in all, does the eXevdepia tT](; 66^7]g roJv tekvov, t. 0.,
glorious freedom of the sons of God (Rom. viii. 21) appear. Yet
even in the earthly life of the believer we observe a specific differ-
ence from the natural state. In the latter, although with some
good, the man expressly and unresistingly served sin ; in the state
of grace, although he sometimes fall, he as expressly* serves right-
eousness unto perfection.

(The parenthesis : dvdgoiTTLvov Aeycj k. t. A., has reference, not
barely to the figure generally, but also to the nature of the figure,
as Riickert rightly observes. The dvdpco-mvov therefore can only be
= Kar' dvOpuTTov [comp. iii. 5], but on no account signify, as Ori-
gen, Chrysostom, Wetstein, Semler, propose, "what is to be per-
formed by man, possible for man ;" for Paul requires, what no man
can perform, absolute righteousness. — The dadeveta rrfg oapKog, tueaJc-
ness of the flesh, however, cannot be understood, with Reiche, of
mere weakness of intellect, which we have no warrant whatever for
attributing to the Christians of Rome ; there is intelligence, indeed,
treated of here, but the relations to which it refers are such that the
comprehending of them is hard even to men of strong intellect, if
wanting in the inward experience, and easy to those of ivedk intel-
lect, if they possess it. 2ap^, flesh, therefore, is the whole sinful
nature of man, whereon more particularly at vii. 18. — Paul again
calls the [leXr] as ver. 12, the (Tc5//a, in order to denote the coming of
the evil desire into act, in which sin, when it is finished, bringeth
forth death (James i. 15). — 'AnaOapala, uncleanness, and dvofiia, law-
lessness, iniquity, regard sin respectively in its more passive and more
active elements, that of enjoyment, and that of violence. In elg rriv

* Excellent are the words of Anselm, ad loc, which Tholuck quotes: " Sicut ad pec-
candurn vos nullus cogebat timor, sed ipsius libido voluptasque peccati, sic ad juste
vivendum Don vos supplicii metus urgeat, sed ducat delectatio justitias. Sicut ergo ille
iniquissimus, quern ne poenae quidem temporales deterrent ab immundis operibus, ita
justissimus ille, quern ne poenarum quidem temporah'um timore revocatur a eanctia
operibus."

Romans VI. 21, 22. 607

dvofxiav the idea of dvofua is extended, so as to become the entire oppo-
site to dyiaono^, thus designating the nature of sin as opposition to
law. But the apostle Avith profound perception makes this to spring,
like a blossom, from sin itself ; for sin continually brings forth sin;
only that she produces forms ever more and more fearful from her
teeming womb. Even so also, righteousness successively reproduces
herself in nobler forms, until she becomes sanctification [dyiaoixo^.
Comp. upon dyid^eiv at John xiii. 31, 32]. This expression denotes
here, as in 1 Tliess. iv. 3, 4, 7, the state of being holy, which arises
in the holy God's communication of his holiness to man [1 Pet. i.
16] ; but so far as the being holy proceeds from a gradual develop-
ment of the new man, dyiaofcog is used also for becoming holy [2
Thess. ii. 13 ; 1 Cor. i. 30 ; 1 Pet. i. 2]. — ^ovXog occurs as an ad-
jective in the New Testament only here.)

Vers. 21, 22. — To discriminate still more sharply between the
two conceptions of law and of grace respectively, the apostle points,
in conclusion, to the final result of their development. He desig-
nates it as fruit, according to that uniform Scripture image which
compares man, in his moral constitution, with good or bad trees.
(Ps. i. 3 ; Is. Ixi. 2 ; Matth. xii. 33 ; John xv. 1, etc. ; Rom. xi. 16,
etc. ; Jude ver. 12.) This image is eminently significant in its decisive
antagonism to the Pelagian spirit, so convenient to fallen human
nature. The natural man, without knowledge of himself, of God,
and of sin, fancies that he will, by his own power and adequate en-
deavour, produce a virtue wLich shall be able to stand before God's
judgment ; he knows not, that necessarily and naturally he can
bear no other than evil fruit, as the wild tree can only bring forth
uncultured, bitter fruits. For, granting his virtuous striving to be
completely successful, it brings in its train a hard unloving spirit,
and conceited presumption, and thus as inevitably has death for its
reward as if the life were defiled by fleshly transgressions. The
beginning of truth — whose fruit, holiness, is no less conformable to
nature, and the product of that moral necessity which is identical
with true freedom — is for man ever the confession that the principle
of death rules in him, and that life must be conveyed to him from
without (vii. 24).

(Tore and ote, ver. 20, answer to the vnb v6fj.ov, as vvv dees to
the vTTo xO'Pi-v elvai. — Paul does not name the fruit of sin itself, as no
expression parallel to dyiaaiwg presented itself to him ; hence arises
the inexact connexion by t^' olg, which refers back to Kapnog, taken
collectively, and thus refers to those evil works [^'pya ■novripd'], the
consciousness of which fills the. better part in man with shame.*

* From deep experience Calvin says: "Sola est lux Domini, quae potest oculos nostros
aperire, ut prospicere queant latentem in came nostra foeditatem. Ille igitur demum

608 KoMANS VI. 23 ; VII. 1-3.

The note of interrogation, therefore, is without doubt better placed
after rore, than after inaiaxvveade. — TeXog is by no means to be taken
= Kapnog, but as denoting the final use made of the fruit in accord-
ance with its essential nature. Death therefore signifies here the
being rejected as of no use and worthless ; eternal life, the being
acknowledged as useful, essentially answering its end. This, of
course, does not imply that ddvarog and ^(ofj alcoviog have here other
than their ordinary signification ; but that the figure from which
they properly spring gives to them a modified relation. To explain
Kapnog as " advantage, gain," is, as Keiche has well proved, here less
natural, especially as vii. 4, 5, speaks of bearing fruit unto death
[icapno(popi]aai toj davdru)]. In the t%£iv Kagnbv elg dyiaaiiov, having
fruit unto holiness, holiness again is conceived, as at vi. 19, as the
gradually developed result of the life of faith.)

Ver. 23. — In the closing verse there is not so much a new thought
expressed, as that stated in vers. 21, 22, more closely defined. Al-
though, namely, both courses of life bring their fruit, whose different
quality decides the final event, yet their respective relations are by
no means identical. Sin is altogether man's ; death, therefore, the
wages of it, must also devolve upon him, according to the law of
strict justice ; but righteousness and holiness are absolutely not of
man, but the work of God in him (Ephes. ii. 8-10). He cannot,
therefore, as holy, demand, and, according to the law, receive, any-
thing ; but the mercy of God adds to the gracious gift of forgiveness
of sins and sanctification, the new gift of eternal life beside. Thus
the lost one must confess, that through himself he has lost all, the
saved one that through himself he has gained nothing, to the glory
of the justice and grace of the Lord. Thus did Augustine rightly
apprehend the passage (Epist. 105), while he writes: "adversus
elationis pestem vigilantissime militans, stipendiu7n, inquit, peccati
mors. Kecte stipendium quia debetur, quia digne retribuitur, quia
meritum redditur ; deinde, ne justitia de humano se extolleret bono
merito, sicut humanum malum non dubitatur esse peccatum, gratia,
nquit, Dei vita asterna."

('Oi/'wvfov properly signifies provisions, then pay of soldiers
[Luke iii. 14 ; 1 Cor. ix. 7 ; 1 Mace. iii. 28, xiv. 32], finally, merited,
earned wages [2 Cor. xi. 8]. So here = incdog, contrast to xapiofia,
comp. iv. 4. How Eeiche in such passages as 2 Cor. iv. 17, v. 10 ;
2 Tim. i. 12, iv. 8, 18 [Phil. iv. 5 is wrongly cited], can find the con-
trary, namely that eternal life is a merited reward, not the gift of
grace, is to me inconceivable.)

Chap. vii. 1-3. — Now although the question proposed at vi. 1,
as to the relation which one living under the gospel sustained

Cairistianae philosophise primordiis imbutus est, qni sibi serio displiceri ac suse miseriaa
vsreoundia beue confundi didicerit."

Romans VII. 1-3. 609

to sin, might appear sufficiently elucidated by the previous dis-
cussion, yet the apostle, in order to leave no uncertainty in regard to
this important and difficult point, deems it proper once more sum-
marily to exhibit his idea by a fresh similitude. This comparison
is taken from marriagej by the laws of which the wife is bound to
the husband until he dies. His death allows her the freedom to
form another connexion, without being therefore considered as an
adultress. This relation of the vrife to the husband belongs to the
race universally ; any predominant reference, therefore, to Jews or
proselytes, is here inadmissible. Even with the nations, among
whom polygamy prevails, the wife is the property of the husband,
and is not free of him until he dies. Riickert, therefore, is right in
observing that neither the address ddeXrpoi, brethren, relates to Jew-
ish Christians, nor the clause " for I speak to persons who know
law" {yivcboKovoi yap rojUovAaAw). Baur, therefore, seeks here in vain
a support for his opinion, that the Christians of Rome had a Juda-
ising tendency. For as the article is used neither with ycv^cKovai
nor with vonov, no contrast can be found here, to others, who do not
know the law (and such indeed could hardly be supposed) ;* but
the clause is to be taken like the dvdp6mvov Aeyo, vi. 19. No/iof
signifies here the regulation existing among all nations, that the
wife is bound to the husband, not the Mosaic law. The apostle
reasons from premises common to mankind ; in writing, therefore,
to his immediate readers, he writes for all intelligent men without
exception. The way of applying this parable, however, to the rela-
tion of man to sin has its difficulties. The figure of marriage as
significant of the relation of the soul to God is-certainly not unusual
either in the Old (Is. liv. 5 ; Hos. ii. 16, etc.) or in the New Testa-
ment (John iii. 29 ; Ephes. v. 22, etc.) ; but here a second marriage
is spoken of, which is entered into, the first being considered as dis-
solved by the death of the husband. Now unless it be said that
we are not to press the dying of the husband, which of course can-
not be admitted, inasmuch as it is on this very point that the whole
argument turns, the question then is, who is to be considered as the
dying husband ? Riickert, indeed, asserts that we have here no
comparison, but a mere example ; that the apostle could find no in-
stance, in which the subject party should die, and, therefore, notwith-
standing the want of strict consistency, chose this one of marriage,
in which the ruling party dies ; and that Paul might have merely
reversed the same similitude, and said that by the death of the wife
the husband is free of her, if that had served his purpose better.
But taken so he could make no possible use of the comparison of

* Glockler would have those understood who wilX not know the law, that is, the un-
ruly ; however, if this contrast had been intended, another expression would probably
have been chosen for yivcJoKeiv,

Vol. III.— 39

610 KoMANS VII. 1-3.

marriage for the illustration of his thoughts. De Wette dispenses
entirely with the solution of the difficulty by asserting, that the
apostle has not chosen his example accurately, and in this, instead
of bringing in the death of the party bound to the law (ver. 1), has
brought in the death of the one to whom the law binds, and has
continued this confusion in the application (ver. 4). As we may
safely assume that Paul knew how to choose his instances with ex-
actness and precision, we must ascertain with more carefulness who
the dying husband is. Two opinions j)revail upon this ; according
to one, which Origen, Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Hilary proposed,
and afterwards Calvin and Bucer defended, as lately Tholuck also
has done, the laio is the dying husband. But first of all, it is mani-
festly unfit to consider the law, holy, just, and good (vii. 12), as
abolished ; it is in fact not abolished for the believer (Matth. v. 17),
but only assumes a different relation towards him ; he is no more
under the law, but lives in it. In the next place, according to this
view, we pass suddenly at ver. 4 into another comparison, for there
it is said, " ye are dead ;" yet such a change is at all events extremely
awkward, and should be assumed only in extreme necessity.^-*

The other opinion is proposed by Augustine, and afterwards
especially defended by Beza. According to this, the lust of sin is at
first the husband, and the old man, the wife ; but in the second mar-
riage, the new man is the wife, and Christ, the principle of righteous-
ness, the husband. Against this there is less weight in Tholuck's
objection — "that in what follows (ver. 7, etc.) it is not the relation
to lust, but to the moral law, that is treated of ;" for the law excites
(according to ver. 11) lust (vii. 8, etc.) — than in its assuming a second
wife, while according to the comparison, the wife continues the same.
This difficulty will be radically removed only by the following con-
ception of the passage. As in Christ himself, without prejudice

* There seems no objection to supposing a slight inexactness in the form of the
apostle's figure. He illustrates the Christian's emancipation from the law bj that of
the wife from her obligations to her husband. In both cases the relation is broken
up by the death of one of the parties ; in the case of the wife, by the death of her hus-
band ; in that of the Christian, by the seeming paradox of his own death. In both,
therefore, the emancipation is complete, and turns upon the same general fact, viz , death.
The comparison then is pertinent and forcible, the two cases having a substantial resem-
blance, and their difference being but subordinate and incidental. The great fact is
brought out, tliat death has come in to dissolve a pre-existing relation. The more obvi-
ous explanation of the comparison seems therefore preferable to the somewhat fanciful
one adopted by Olshausen. There would, indeed, be no objection to regarding believers
as emancipated by the death of the law. For if it be urged (as by Olshausen) that the
law is not dead to the Christian, since he still lives in it, we may answer that it Is not of
the law as a rule of life that the apostle is speaking, but as a ground of justification. In
this sense, therefore, as he is said (ver. 6) to be dead to the law, the law may, with equal
propriety, be said to be dead to him. Still it seems more accordant with the apostle's
purpose and language to represent the change as taking place rather in the person than
in the law. — [K.

Romans VII. 1-3. 611

to tLe unity of his personality, the mortal is distinguished from the
immortal Christ (comp. ver. 4, with 1 Pet. iii. 18), so in man also
the old man is distinguished from the new, without prejudice to the
unity of his j^ersonality, which Paul subsequently (ver. 20) desig-
nates by fc'yw. This true personality, the proper self of man, is the
wife, who, in the natural state, appears in marriage with the old
man, and, in intercourse with him, generates sins, the end of which
is death (vi. 21, 22). But in the death of the mortal Christ, this
old man is dead with him ; and as the individual man is grafted by
' faith into Christ, his old man dies, by whose life he was holden un-
der the law. As, however, with the death of Christ, the immortal
Saviour of the world also arose, even so with the death of the old
man, the new man becomes living ; and with this, the Christ in us,
the proper self (the tyw) enters upon a new marriage, from which
the fruits of the Spirit are born. But here it might be asked, whether
such a distinction of the self, the " I," from the old and new man
has warrant from other passages of Scripture ? I refer with regard
to this question, besides the explanation already given at Matth. x.
40, to the following illustration of Rom. vii, 7, etc., for the distinc-
tion lies at the foundation of this passage throughout ; and I have
only to refer further to the forgiveness of sins, the nature of which
necessarily leads to this difference ; for sin cannot be forgiven to the
old man, that must die ; not to the new, for this is sinless ; but to the
personal self, who is the bearer, as well of the old as of the new man,
and through whom the man can speak of Ms old and his new man.
In the reference, however, to the vonog, laio, there is still a seeming
inexactness in the apostle's statement ; but this is inseparable from
the use of similitudes, since the thing compared can never entirely
resemble the object to which it refers. In vers. 2 and 3, which con-
tain the similitude itself (ver. 1 expressing the thought which forms
its general basis), the vofiog is only the marriage law, or the precept,
that the woman may only be the wife of one man, to whom she be-
longs. But in the three following verses (vers. 4-6), vonog is the
law generally, and in fact not merely the ceremonial law, but the
law in every expression of it, and thus particularly the moral law ;
wherefore Paul's statement holds good for all times and every
state of things, because the moral law is given with the very essence
of man.

(Ver. 1. comp. upon ^ ayvoetre, or are ye ignorant, the passage
vi. 8. — The 6 vSjiog Kvptevei rov dvdpu)T:ov expresses the general thought,
from which is deduced, ver. 2, the special case of marriage with the
precepts relating to it. The thought exactly answers to the passage
vi. 7. Hence dvdpconog need not be explained of the wife, for the
same thing is true of the husband, as it is also of the slave. Death
makes every one free from every law. — Ver. 2. "Tnavdpog signifies

612 , Romans YII. 4.

subject to the power of the husband, according to Numb. v. 29.
Btc-iN t\hr\ n»N [comp. Sirach ix, 9, xli. 21]. — The construction KaTrjp-
yqTai dnb vonov is peculiar. The verb Karapyelodai commonly refers
to things, especially to law, but not to persons. Besides this pas-
sage it is found vii. Q, and Galat. v. 4, used in the same way = kXev-
Bepovodai. The Chald. i» V^a, Ezra iv. 21, 23, v. 5, vi. 8, is used in
exactly the same manner, for which the LXX. have always KaraQyelv,
though without the following and. — No/zof dvdQog not the law, which
the husband gives, the imperium domesticum, but which protects
the husband in his right over the wife, and determines it. — Upon
XprjiJ^aH^o) in the meaning " to be, to be called," comp. at Acts xi.
26. — Ttveodai dvdpl trepo) = "^hN ti^^h n^n^ Deut. xxiv. 2.)

Ver. 4. — The apostle now applies this comparison by represent-
ing believers themselves as dead in their old man, and thereby
freed from the yoke of the law (Acts xv. 20), so that freedom is
acquired for them to devote themselves to another husband, even
Christ (2 Cor. xi. 2). But the death of the faithful in the old man
is again, as vi. 2, 4, 6, connected with the death of the Redeemer,
so that Ms death was their death, and did not merely prefigure it ;
for no one by his own power or resolution can die in the old man,
because no one can generate the new man, by whose birth the death
of the old is conditioned. Christ is therefore the living type both of
the old and new man ; of the old, by that dadeveia TTjg aagnog, weak-
ness of thejiesh (2 Cor. xiii. 4 ; 1 Pet. iii. 18), which was in him, and
because he bore the sin of the world ; of the new, by the power of
the Eternal Spirit, which filled him. From this spiritual union,
then, spring spiritual fruits (Galat. v. 22), begotten to the honour of
God. According to this representation, it is clear that the libera-
tion from the law must not be an act of self-will. As little as the
wife may wantonly separate from her husband, since his death is
requisite for her liberation ; so little may the ly6 free himself from
the law, as long as the old man is living. If this is done, therefore,
as is always the case where a mere seeming faith prevails, it is a
spiritual adultery, the lust after false freedom, that is, licentiousness,
lawlessness,. The liberation from the law rightly takes place only
where the new man has arisen in the stead of the old, where, there-
fore, Christ is truly living in the man. There is no licentiousness,
for Christ brings with him the strictest law, wherever he works ;
but the yohe of the law is removed by that love, which is shed forth
into the hearts. This love impels to do more than the law requires,
and to fulfil every act with purer intention than the most threaten-
ing law can demand. For Love is insatiable, she never satisfies her-
self and the Beloved ; she burns on, till with her fire she glows
through the whole heart and being, and has sacrified her all to the
Beloved. In this manner works the gospel all in man without law

KoMANs VIT. 4. 613

(iii. 21) although it exacts nothing from him, but only promises and
gives to him. But because it gives all of grace, and even loves and
blesses enemies, it wins the inmost self of man, and with this
all his powers. As on the one side, however, there is danger lest a
man liberate himself from the law, and persuade himself that he
has fliitli and is regenerate, a way that seduces to false freedom ;
so, on the other side, there threatens a danger equally great, which
leads into a new, and indeed still more galling slavery, than the
former.* A false zeal for sanctification, proceeding from vanity, and
striving only to see itself speedily perfected in an image of its own
design, often fancies that the slow but certain way of sanctifying
grace in Christ does not lead quick enough to the goal, and so wben
the life in grace has scarce begun, draws back again under the law.
What God in man has begun, the man himself (in contradiction to
Phil. i. 6 ; Heb. xii. 2) would complete ; he will not become blessed
through Christ, but with and beside him through himself, and so
destroys the delicate work of the new man in him. This then, is
not merely to wake up the old dead man again, but even to despise
the new true husband, to rate lightly his power, nay, to count the
blood of the covenant unholy, and to do despite to the Spirit of
Grace, (Heb. x. 29,) Hence it is, that Paul so emphatically warns
the Galatians, who had entered on it, from this dangerous byway.
(Galat. ii, 16, etc, iii. 3, etc) And yet so strong is the temptation, for
precisely the more earnest, zealous men, to fall into this error, that
even the Apostle Peter, Barnabas, and others, could be for a moment
seduced from the way of grace ! (Galat. ii, 12, etc.) Nay, the his-
tory of sects shows that most of their founders made use of a self-
willed striving after sanctification as their motive-power in collect-
ing their followers, and, in their guidance of that striving, exer-
cised often a frightful spiritual tyranny. Therefore the Apostle
Paul teaches the true middle way, which in the conduct of this
stri\T[ng equally forbids a man arbitrarily to loose himself from the
law, and again to subject himself to it, since Christ continues to
him alike the Beginner and Finisher of Faith. (Heb. xii. 2.)f This
completion, however, Christ, of course, does not perfect out of and
without the man, but in the very depth of his own self, since he
takes in full possession the noblest thing man possesses, even his

• * Of tliis Luther says, coarsely but strikingly, ""Where law and reason unite, t. e.,
where sophistry seeks to prove that there is salvation only in the law, faith has there
lost her virgin purity." — (Leipz. Ed. vol. xi. p. 83.)

f Of the contrast between true and false righteousness, Luther speaks profoundly in
his exposition of the 38th Psalm: " It is a wondrous thing ; whoso hath no sin (because
of faith) he feeleth and hath it (in true penitence and humility); and whoso hath sin, he
feeleth it not, and hath none" (after the conceited blindness of his heart). And at the
143d Psalm : " Satan is such a dexterous master that he can make even the very best
works (by admixture of conceit) the very greatest sina"

614 Romans VII. 6, 6.

love, and fills it with the powers of his higher love, which makes
him mighty enough for all, even the weightiest requirement. If he
sees, therefore, that the old man still is stirring, he draws in faith
unceasingly fresh power from Christ's fountain, and so is more
than conqueror in him who loved us.

("Qcrre is here a particle of inference, " accordingly ;" comp.
Winer's Gr. p. 271. The expression 6cd rov odJiiarog rov Xpcorov,
through the body of Christ, can, of course, only form the antithesis
to the iyepdelg ek vekqCjv, risen from the dead. Hence prominence
is here given to the aw/ia, as at 1 Pet. iii. 18, to crap^, in order to
signify the mortal portion of the Eedeemer, to which is opposed
the immortal, the spirit [Trvev^wa] of the risen Christ.)

Vers. 5, 6. — That he may once more render clear to his readers
the difference between the two states, Paul places them alongside of
each other in their fundamental features. In the legal state, the
sinful impulses (rd Tradiyiara ruv d^aprMv^ the individual movements
of the spiritual members of the old man), work with absolute sway
in man's entire nature, even to the utmost limits of physical life, so
that they become act. In the state of grace the old man dies with
all his individual impulses, and man can then, free from the fetter
of the law, which could only bind the old man, serve God in spirit
and in truth. The dying of the old, and the rising of the new man,
however, are, of course, not perfected in him all at once, but through
his earthly life they maintain themselves side by side in the believer
(comp. more particularly at vii. 25), although the former is to be
constantly decreasing, the latter ever growing. Therefore the prob-
lem is, because the old man still continues to exist, and may
become strong again, never to be secure, and yet on account of the
ever efficacious and accessible grace, never to despond, but to fight
most zealously against all doubts of God's grace and power against
sin.»

(2ap^ can here signify only the old man, as viii. 8, 9 ; it forms

* The observation of Melanctbon, ad loc, is very pertinent : " Hie locus diligenier
observandus est ut discamus duhitationes de gratia Dei esse peccaium, ut repugnemus et
erigamus nos evangelio et sciamus, esse cidtum Dd in illis terrorihus repugnare dubitaiioni
et diffidentioe. Surely the beloved man of God says right, that it is not permitted only,
but a duty, ay, Iwliest service of God, to conteud to the utmost against all doubts of God
and of Ids grace, for those never spring from a good source. Yet, on the contrary, it is
very wrong to smother the doubts of himself and his own virtue, which God's Spirit •f
grace calls forth, in order to convert the man ; it is to contend against God and hinder
regeneration. The Eomish church, however, with which all sects that proceed from
Pelagain principles agree, deters from the certainty of the state of grace, and demands
uncertainty towards God. Such uncertainty of hearts is then a convenient means to keep
men in the leading-strings of the priesthood or ambitious founders of sects ; for since they
are not allowed to have any certainty themselves respecting their relation to God, they
can only rest upon the judgments of their leaders about it, who thus rule souls with ab-
solute dominion ; the true evangelic doctrine makes free from such slavery to man.

KoMANS VII. 5, 6. 615

indeed the antithesis to the vwlj k. t. A. (ver. 6). Theodoret,
Grotius, and others, would understand it of the Old Testament,
which in and by itself might certainly be admissible, but still only
where the contrast of the -nvev^a clearly stands out. With ra dta
rov voiiov only Kivovfieva can, according to ver. 11, be supplied ; it
would seem to be intimated that the law is the inducing, provoking
cause of sin. — To take tvTjpyelro passively, leads entirely to error ;
for the i-telT] = oCoj-ia appear then to be the proper seat of sin,
whereas it really manifests itself outwardly from within. Doubtless
indeed its crowning development is thus made in the outward life,
for a restraining powder of spirit is implied in any hindrance of its
outward eruptions. — Qdvarog appears again as the riXog [vi. 23], in-
asmuch as the sins collectively work, as it were, for it and its king-
dom.— In ver. 6, a variety of readings are found. For the aTroda-
vovTog of the text rec, A.C., and many other Codd., as also the
Greek Fathers, have dTTodavov-eg, w^iile D.E.F.G. and the Latin
Fathers read rov Oavdrov. This latter reading, however, looks very
like a correction of the copyists, from their not understanding how
the apostle could speak of a dissolution of the law itself. The geni-
tive singular again proceeded from that conception of the passage,
which regards the law as the dying husband ; but to this WavaT^drjre,
ver. 4, is ojDposed. 'A.T:odav6vregj therefore, is certainly the only
correct reading, for which Lachmann also has decided. — Karex^adai,
to he held, marks the binding, compulsory power of the law. The
iv (L refers to vd/joc, and is on no account to be taken, " in as
far, in as much as." — KaivoTrjg -nvevjiarog, neioness of spirit, is =
Kaivorrig ^oJijg,- neivness of life, in vi. 4. The Trvevj-ia is considered
as the principle from which the new life issues. The old, therefore,
is a spiritless, merely physical life (1 Cor. ii. 14). — The substantive
•naXaiorrrig is found in the New Testament only here. But ypdm^a
forms here, as in ii. 29, an antithesis with rtvevfia, as odp^ elsewhere,
to denote the exterior as the form in which the life manifests itself
The choice of this particular expression is founded in this passage
upon the reference to the law, which, in its most complete form, the
law of Moses, appears to be embraced in the letter, but in this form
is for sinful man a heavy, death-producing yoke. 2 Cor. iii. 6, 7.)

END OF VOL. H:

r^"

^.^-

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Biblical commentary on the New Testament"

See other formats