A critical and exegetical commentary on the Acts of the Apostles

Division IS Ves al ee ae
Section | OAT G 6
Vie |

Veg PY l
il eh

pry ey

ate

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

LANGE’S

COMMENTARIES ON THE OLD AND NEW
TESTAMENTS,

IN IMPERIAL 8VO.

Messrs. CLARK have now pleasure in intimating their arrangements,
in conjunction with the well-known firm of SCRIBNER AND Co., of New
York, and under the Editorship of Dr. Puitrp Scuarr, for the Publica-
tion of Translations of the Commentaries of Dr. LANGE and his Co//a-
borateurs, on the Old and New Testaments.
Of the O_p TEsTaMENT they have published the Commentary on
THE Book or GENEsIS, One Volume ;
to which is prefixed a Theological and Homiletical Introduction to
the Old Testament, and a Special Introduction to Genesis, etc. ; and
|

PROVERBS, ECCLESIASTES, and SonG or SOLOMON, in One Volume.

They have already published in the Foreign Theological Library the
Commentaries on St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and the Acts of the
Apostles. They propose to issue in the same form the Commentary
on St. John’s Gospel, which will not, however, be ready for some time.

There are now ready, of the New TESTAMENT—

ROMANS. One Volume.

Ist and 2d CORINTHIANS. One Volume.

THESSALONIANS, TIMOTHY, TITUS, PHILEMON, and
HEBREWS. One Volume.

PETER, JOHN, JAMES, and JUDE. One Volume.

And they hope to publish in 1870—

GALATIANS, EPHESIANS, PHILIPPIANS, and COLOSSIANS.
One Volume.
REVELATION. One Volume.

Messrs. CLARK will, as early as possible, announce further arrange- |
᾿ ments for the translation of the Commentaries on the Old Testament |
Books.
The Commentaries on Matthew, in one volume ; Mark and Luke, in _ |
one volume ; and on: Acts, in one volume, may be had uniform with |
the above if desired. |
Each of the above volumes will be supplied to Subscribers to the |
FoREIGN THEOLOGICAL Lisrary and ANTE-NICENE LIBRARY at I5s.
The price to others will be 21s.

Che Corks of St. Angustine.

τ ἡ.

MESSRS. CLARK beg to announce that they have in prepara-
tion Translations of a Selection from the Writincs of St.
AUGUSTINE, on the plan of their ANTE-NICENE LiprarRy, and
under the editorship of the Rev. Marcus Dops, A.M. They
append a list of the works which they intend to include in the
Series, each work being given entire, unless otherwise specified.

All the TREATISES in the PELaGIaN, and the four leading
TREATISES in the DONATIST CONTROVERSY.

The TREATISES against Faustus the Manichzan ; on CHRIS-
TIAN DocrrRiNnE ; the TRINITY ; the HARMONY OF THE
EVANGELISTS ; the SERMON ON THE MOUNT.

Also the LecrurEs on the GosPEeL or 51. JoHN, the CONFEs-
SIONS, the City oF Gop, and a SELEcTION from the
LETTERS.

All these works are of first-rate importance, and only a small
proportion of them have yet appeared in an English dress. The
SERMONS and the COMMENTARIES ON THE Psatms having been
already given by the Oxford Translators, it is not intended, at
least in the first instance, to publish them.

The Series will include a Lire or 51. AuGusTINE, by ROBERT
Rainy, D.D., Professor of Church History, New College, Edin-
burgh.

The Series will probably extend to Twelve or Fourteen
Volumes. It will not be commenced for some time, so as to
allow the ANTE-NICENE SERIES to approach nearer to completion ;
but the Publishers will be glad to receive the Vames of Subscribers.

The form and mode of printing have not yet Deen finally settled ;
but in any case the quantity of matter wil! be equal to the sub-
scription of Four Volumes for a Guinea, as in the case of the
_ ANTE-NICENE SERIES.

A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY

ON THE

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

PRINTED BY MURRAY AND GIBB,
FOR

T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.

i } Ἦ
YONDON, . . . . . . HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. —
DUBLIN, . . . . . . JOHN ROBERTSON AND CO. —
NEW YORK, . ... . . SCRIBNER AND CO.

¥
i

A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
COMMENTARY

ON THE

AOTS OF THE APOSTLES.

BY/
τς
PATON FE GCHOALE. D:D.

tk Late DA ESE.

EDINBURGH:
T. AND T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.

MDCCCLXX.

μι hed

Tea ae a 1)

-

κΊ Δ EAN
ΟΡΝΑ PO
ὙΠ IAT) 9 :
> (

ΠΥ 10

9 ie "
᾿

Ἢ" ‘

Ν' ᾿
ν ᾿
Π ‘

‘#

Π Ls ἢ

TO

GOTTHARD VICTOR LECHLER, DD,

PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AND SUPERINTENDENT IN LEIPSIC,

THIS WORK IS RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED,
IN TESTIMONY OF
THE A υ THOR’S
APPRECIATION OF HIS PROFOUND SCHOLARSHIP, CHRISTIAN CHARACTER,

AND VALUED FRIENDSHIP.

Actas
Rare,
ΕΝ

207 ‘
ube Ay 1)
a ar Ue \, 4 ee

aes

7}:

ye Ἶ ΝΣ

1 ae

ἀν ΠῚ ΠΝ Ag Ter hy

oh

ΠΝ ἡ ,

ihe! mh a i

roa nny Ἔ yi ἣν Ἢ ᾿

Ἂν ‘Sig

PREFACE.

—>——_.
ale HIS exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the
FA P24) Apostles has occupied the attention of the writer
for several years. Being engaged in the pastoral
oversight of a tolerably populous parish, he has
of course been able to devote to it only a limited portion of
time; but he has not ventured on its publication without a
careful consultation of all the authorities, both English and
German, within his reach,

The Acts of the Apostles is distinguished from the other
books of the New Testament by this important peculiarity,
that it comes much in contact with many well-known facts
of the ancient world, and thus admits of many illustra-
tions from external sources of information. The Epistles
treat chiefly of Christian doctrine and practice, and for the
most part can only ke explained and illustrated by internal
criticism and mutual comparison. The scene of the Gospel
narratives, on the other hand, is almost wholly confined to
the narrow limits of Palestine, and profane history can there-
fore afford very little assistance in their study. But the
Acts of the Apostles touches at every point on the history
of the world. Countries and cities renowned in ancient
times were visited by Paul and his companions; and persons
who played an important part in the history of the world
have also their places in the history of the church.

St. Chrysostom complains that in his days the Acts of the
Apostles was comparatively neglected; and the same com-

x PREFACE.

plaint would not be unwarrantable in the present day, when
many are disposed to regard the Acts as of secondary import-
ance compared with the Gospels and the Epistles. There
appears to be no sufficient ground for such an opinion. The
Acts of the Apostles may serve a different purpose from that
of the rest of the New Testament, but is not on that account
of inferior importance. It constitutes the continuation of
the Gospels, and the necessary introduction to the Epistles.
It contains the history of the development of the church-—of
the growth of those principles which Jesus Christ brought
down from heaven and planted in the heart of humanity.
It is the model of church history, and the compendium of
the principles of church government. It contains notices
of the lives of the holy apostles, and first martyrs and con-
fessors ; and without it we would be almost wholly ignorant
of the history of Paul, the greatest of them all, the noblest
and most influential of the children of men.

There are few works in our country which profess to be
criticisms on the Acts of the Apostles. Alford and Words-
worth both treat of it in their Greek Testaments: the notes
of the former are valuable for their conciseness and critical
sagacity; whilst those of the latter are distinguished for
their scholarship and patristic learning. The only purely
critical work in this country, of which the author is aware,
which treats separately of the Acts, is the Commentary by
the Rev. William Humphry of Trinity College, Cambridge ;
a work certainly of great value in a philological point of
view, but professedly of an elementary or introductory cha-
racter, and without any minute treatment of the various and
important discussions to which the Acts of the Apostles has
given rise. In America there is the admirable Commentary
of Dr. Hackett, decidedly the best work on the subject in
the English language. The edition of it in this country,
published by the Bunyan Society, is defective, and is rendered

PREFACE. xi

in a great degree worthless by the omission of many of Dr.
Hackett’s most valuable critical observations. The transla-
tion of the text annexed to that edition is, however, of con-
siderable value. The second part of the Acts, which recounts
the missionary labours of Paul, has recently been fully dis-
cussed, and much learning and research have been brought
to bear upon it. Two works are especially instructive, and
deserve careful perusal—The Life and Epistles of St. Paul
by Lewin, and the classical work on the same subject by
Conybeare and Howson: in the former the historical
connections of the Acts are chiefly stated, and in the
latter its geographical relations. Neither of those works,
however, professes to be a critical examination of the book
itself,

In Germany, critical works on the Acts, or on detached
portions of it, are very numerous. The works of Baur, espe-
cially his Apostel Paulus, the Commentary of Zeller, and
other writings of the Tiibingen school, are distinguished for
their ability, and have called forth a multitude of learned
treatises on the Acts. De Wette’s Commentary is most
valuable for its critical notes, its grammatical details, and
its exegesis. The works of Lange, Lekebusch, Oertel,
Olshausen, and Baumgarten, are highly to be commended,
as exhibiting much of that profound scholarship which is
the peculiar characteristic of German theologians. The
Commentary of Lechler in Lange’s Bibelwerk is one of great
excellence, exhibiting at once the erudition of an accomplished
scholar and the piety of a Christian. The third edition,
recently published, is enriched with an enlarged introduction
and many important additional remarks. But by far the
most valuable work on the Acts, and that from which the
author has derived greater assistance than from all other
works put together, is Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte. This work
cannot be too highly praised : it is the perfection of a Com-

xil PREFACE,

mentary, at once full and concise, though unhappily some-
what tainted with rationalistic opinions. It is a matter of
surprise that the Commentaries of this great man, perhaps
the most eminent of living biblical critics, have never been
translated into English. It would be a great boon to English
theological students, who are unacquainted with German,
if the enterprising publishers of the “ Foreign Theological
Library ” would make them a part of their series.

Two noted books dealing with this subject have been
published since this Commentary was written—-Dr. David-
son’s Introduction to the New Testament, and Renan’s Saint
Paul. The author has given these works his careful
consideration, and has embraced in the body of the Com-
mentary, or in notes, such references to them as appeared
to him to be requisite. But he found that, with all their
undoubted ability, they added but little to the elaborate
criticisms of the German theologians. Dr. Davidson’s book
belongs to the Tiibingen school, and the opinions adopted
are similar to those of Baur and Zeller. It appears to the
author that neither Renan’s Saint Paul, nor his previous
work, Les Apétres, which deals in his wonderfully arbitrary
manner with the earlier portion of the Acts, can be regarded
as an important contribution to the literature of the subject,
or is likely to take much hold on the English mind. Despite
the remarkable charm of ‘his style, and his unquestionable
scholarship, he wants the critical acumen of Baur. His
arbitrary conjectures, the unwarrantable theories which he
builds on the slightest foundations, appear to the author to
deprive his work of much substantial value, and give it the
tone of a romance rather than a history. Plausible though
he be, Renan is far from being a formidable antagonist of
sound theology. These works proceed, however, from wholly
different fundamental opinions from those which the author
entertains, and on which he has based his Commentary.

PREFACE, xili

A few words are necessary, in explanation of the method
adopted in the composition of the present Commentary.

The translation is not from the teatus receptus, but from
the last (the seventh) edition of Tischendorf’s Novum Testa-
mentum Greece, now generally accepted as the best critical
edition of the text. The Critical Notes contain the authority
for the readings of Tischendorf, when they differ materially
from the readings of the textus receptus. When the author
has differed from Tischendorf with regard to the correct
reading of any passage, he has stated his reasons for it in
the Exegetical Remarks. The quotations in Greek in the
Exegetical Remarks are from the text of Tischendorf, and
not from the textus receptus.

The principal part of the Commentary consists of the
Exegetical Remarks. The meaning of the text has been
carefully examined; and all information which the author
could gather from external sources has been brought to bear
upon its elucidation. The apparent discrepancies between
the Acts and other authorities—and, in short, all those diffi-
culties which are started by Baur and De Wette—have been
met, and never in a single instance wilfully omitted. The
work, however, it is to be recollected, professes to be purely
exegetical: the dogmatical aspects of the Acts have not been
considered at all, nor has any attempt been made to draw
practical inferences. The Commentary does not profess to
be a contribution to dogmatic theology or practical religion.

Several discussions on various questions of more than usual
importance or difficulty are treated of separately. These are
generally inserted as appendices or notes to the sections in
which the points discussed are specially adverted to. Various
geographical notices in regard to the places mentioned in
the Acts have not been thought wholly inappropriate to the
present work, and it is to be hoped may be found to be of

interest.

xiv PREFACE.

In conclusion, the author is anxious to say that it has been
his special endeavour to avoid all theological intolerance, and
to discuss the opinions of those from whom he differs most
with candour and deference, not only from a sincere respect
for the distinguished abilities and learning of the greater
number of the authors whose opinions he has had occasion
to consider, but especially because he believes himself to
have been actuated solely by the desire to discover and
express the truth, and to defend it by reason and not by
passion; and he has attempted to form his judgment anew
on all the points discussed with as little bias as possible from
preconceived opinions. It is right, however, to say that his
firm belief in the reality of miracles, and in the resurrection
of Christ, renders his principles of interpretation diametri-
cally opposed both to the Rationalism of Kuincel, and to the
mythical explanation of the Tiibingen school.

BLANTYRE MAnsg, 1870.

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION,

ΞΈΟΤΙΟΝ 1.
2:
3.

1.

aN DD ὧι αὶ ὦ LO

The Authorship of the Acts,

. The Sources of Luke’s Information,

. The Readers for whom the History was suid

. The Design of the Acts, Σ :
. Time and Place of the Composition of the Acts, .
. The Language and Text of the Acts,

. Arrangement of the Acts,

. Chronology of the Acts,

Pee Ben? δὶ

PROGRESS OF CHRISTIANITY IN JUDEA, AND ITS

EXTENSION TO THE GENTILES.

The Ascension—Ch. i. 1-12,

The Election of Matthias—Ch. i. 13-26,

The Miracle of Pentecost—Ch. ii. 1-13,
On the Gift of Tongues, .

. The Discourse of Peter at Pentecost—Ch. ii. 14-36,

On the Nature of Hades, .

. Effects of Peter’s Discourse—Ch. ii. 37-47,
. The First Miracle—Ch. iii. 1-26, 5
7. Peter and John before the Sanhedrim—Ch. iv. 1-22,

On the Sanhedrim,

. Prayer of the Church, and Communit of Gute

Ch. iv. 23-37,

33

99
δ4
68
80
91
105
108
120
138
152

155

xvi CONTENTS.

PAGE:

Section 9. Internal Danger and External aia of the Church
—Ch. v.1-16, . Ἶ + ae
» 10. Second Arrest of the Apostles—Ch. v. 17-42, - | a
», 11. The Election of the Seven—Ch. vi.1-7, Ὶ . 208
css: bes Stephen before the Sanhedrim—Ch. vi. 8-15, . ae
On the Synagogues, : 3 . 224
», 13. The Defence of Stephen—Ch. vii. 1-53, . . ae
General Remarks on Stephen’s Speech, . . τοῦ
» 14, Martyrdom of Stephen—Ch. vii. δ4-00,. . 2089
», 15. Planting of the Church in Samaria—Ch. viii. 1-13, 270
On Samaria, : F : , . 29]

,, 16. Mission of Peter and John to Samaria—Ch. viii.
1 Ξ «See
», 17. Conversion of the Ethiopian Βαπαοῖι. ΟΝ. vill. 26-40, 298
,, 18. Conversion of Paul—Ch. ix. 1-19, . : .. ee
» 19. Paul’s Ministry at Damascus—Ch. ix. 19-30, «ἢ ool
5, 20. The Miracles of Peter—Ch. ix. 31-43, : Bey testi
», 21. Visions of Cornelius and Peter—Ch. x. 1-23, sig OO
5, 22, Conversion of Cornelius—Ch. x. 23-48, ; : ἘΝ ae
5, 29. Peter’s Apology—Ch. xi. 1-18, : : . 386
,, 24. The First Gentile Church—Ch. xi. 19-30, . . 894
,, 20. Persecution by Herod—Ch. xii. 1-19, ; . 410
On James the Lord’s Brother, . : ΥΩ
26. Death of Herod—Ch. xii. 19-9ὅ,. ε . 4380

INTRODUCTION.

74 Fat LE title, “The Acts of the Apostles” (πράξεις τῶν

ΘῈ ἀποστόλων), would be readily suggested by the
contents of the work. Πράξεις is the Greek term
commonly employed for res geste : thus, πράξεις
Κύρου, “ the actions of Cyrus” (Xen. Cyr. i. 2,16). Whether
this title proceeded from the author himself is doubtful; but
it is certainly very ancient, and occurs in the earliest notices
of this book. The work is so called in the Muratorian Canon,
and by Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullian. There is
some variation in the readings of the title in the different
manuscripts. Four uncial manuscripts (A, E, G, and H)
have πράξεις τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων, the reading adopted by
the teatus receptus. The Codex Bez (D) has πρᾶξις ἀποσ-
τόλων. The Vatican ms. (B) has πράξεις ἀποστόλων, the
reading adopted by Tischendorf, Lachmann, Bornemann,
Meyer, Wordsworth, and Alford, as being the most simple,
and probably the most ancient.

Several critics (De Wette, Ebrard) have challenged the
appropriateness of this title as an indication of the contents
and design of the work. It has been asserted that it is at
once too narrow and too comprehensive: too narrow, as the
work contains the actions of teachers who were not apostles,
as the proto-martyr Stephen, and Philip the evangelist; and
too comprehensive, as of the apostles only Peter and Paul
are prominently brought forward; and John, James his
brother, and James the son of Alpheus (if indeed James,
the Lord’s brother, is to be regarded as the apostle of that
name), are only incidentally mentioned. And yet it would

VOL. I. A

2 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

be difficult to invent a more appropriate title. Kuinel
supposes that ἀπόστολοι is employed in a wide sense, to de-
note the teachers of the Christian religion generally, even
although they were not apostles strictly so called. But such
a latitude of meaning is unnecessary ; for, as Meyer observes,
the title sufficiently indicates the nature of the work, in-
asmuch as the development and diffusion of the Christian
church — the general contents of the book — were effected
chiefly by the apostles, particularly by Peter, the apostle of
the circumcision, and by Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles.

I. THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE ACTS.

The author is not named, but it is the almost universal
opinion that this was Luke, the author of the third Gospel.
The proofs of this are very strong, amounting almost to a
demonstration. They may be arranged under two distinct
heads: the testimony of the Christian Fathers, and the re-
lation of the Acts to the third Gospel.

We have the explicit testimony of the Christian Fathers.
The allusions to the Acts by the apostolic Fathers are not
numerous, and are somewhat vague. Their extant writings
are few, and they seldom refer directly to the books of
Scripture. The most definite allusion is in the Epistle of
Polycarp to the Philippians (A.D. 108), where we find the
words, “ Whom God hath raised, having loosed the pains of
death” (ὅν ἔγειρεν ὁ Θεὸς λύσας τὰς ὠδινᾶς τοῦ ἅδου), a
highly probable allusion to Acts ii. 24, The Acts was known
to the author of the Clementine Recognitions (A.D. 175), as
is evident from the nature of the references in that work to
Simon Magus and Gamaliel.| The first direct quotation
occurs in the Epistle of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne
(A.D. 177), where we have these words: “They prayed for
those who were so bitter in their hostility, like Stephen, that
perfect martyr, ‘Lord, lay not this sin to their charge’”
(Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ν. 2). The first Father, so far as is known,
who mentions Luke as the author of the Acts, is Ireneus

1 See Zeller’s Apostelgeschichte, pp. 60-62.

INTRODUCTION. 3

(A.D. 178). “That Luke,” he observes, “ was inseparable
from Paul, and his fellow-worker in the gospel, he himself
shows; not indeed boasting of it, but impelled by truth itself.
‘For, he says, ‘when Barnabas and John, who is surnamed
Mark, separated from Paul, and had sailed to Cyprus, we
came to Troas; and when Paul had seen in a dream a man
of Macedonia, saying, Come over to Macedonia, and help
us, immediately,’ says he, ‘ we endeavoured to go into Mace-
donia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us to
preach the gospel to them’” (adv. Her. ili. 14, 1). The
Muratorian Canon (A.D. 1170 1) also ascribes the Acts to
Luke: “The acts of all the apostles are written in one book.
Luke relates the events of which he was an eye-witness to
Theophilus.” Clemens Alexandrinus (A.D. 190) makes the
same statement: “As Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles,
records Paul to have said, ‘Ye men of Athens, I perceive
that ye are in all things too superstitious’” (Stromata y.).
Tertullian (A.D. 200) frequently quotes the Acts, and once
expressly ascribes its authorship to Luke (de Jejuniis, ch.
x.). Origen (A.D. 230), commenting on the Epistle to the
Hebrews, says: “ Some suppose that it was written by Cle-
ment, who was Bishop of Rome, and others by Luke, who
wrote the Gospel and the Acts” (Kuseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 26).
And Eusebius (A.D. 325) places the Acts among those books
which were universally acknowledged; and as to its author-
ship he observes: ‘ Luke, who was born at Antioch, and
by profession a physician, being for the most part connected
with Paul, and familiarly acquainted with the rest of the
apostles, has left us two inspired books, the institutes of
that spiritual healing which he obtained from them. One of
these is his Gospel, in which he testifies that he has recorded
as those who were from the beginning eye-witnesses and
ministers of the word delivered to him; whom also, he says,
he has in all things followed. The other is his Acts of the
Apostles, which he composed not from what he had heard

1 According to Tischendorf, the Muratorian Canon was written a little

after the age of Pius 1. (A.D. 142-157), about a.p. 170. See Westcott on
the Canon, p. 186.

4 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

from others, but from what he had seen himself” (Hist.
Eeel. iii. 4).

This general testimony of the Christian Fathers was called
in question by the early heretics, and that not on historical
grounds, but from purely dogmatical reasons, because the
contents of the Acts did not agree with their opinions.
Thus the Ebionites rejected it, because it taught the recep-
tion of the Gentiles without circumcision into the Christian
church ; the Marcionites, for an opposite reason, because
they could not endure its doctrine concerning the connection .
of Judaism and Christianity ; the Severians, because their
ascetic principles were incompatible with the teaching of
Paul recorded in the Acts; and the Manichzans, on account
of the history of the descent of the Holy Ghost.? Not until
the time of Photius, in the ninth century, was any mention
made of another author: “Some,” he says, “ believed the
writer to be Clement of Rome, others Barnabas, and others
Luke the evangelist,” an assertion unsupported by the
Christian Fathers, and which seems merely to be the arbi-
trary opinion of individuals. Photius himself concurred in
the general opinion of the church as to the authorship of Luke.
Chrysostom, in his homilies on the Acts, makes the strange
statement, that ‘“‘ many Christians were unacquainted with
the existence of the book, and with the name of the author”
(Hom. i.),—a statement which is evidently a rhetorical ex-
aggeration, because in his time this book was regularly read
in the Greek Church between Easter and Whitsuntide.
There might, however, have been circumstances which then
led to the comparative neglect of the Acts, and to a pre-
ference being given to the Gospels and the Epistles.

Another and distinct line of argument is derived from the
relation of the Acts to the third Gospel. The Acts professes

1 See, for other testimonies from the Fathers, Lardner’s Works; David-
son’s Introduction to the New Testament, vol. ii. pp. 1-3 ; Westcott on the
Canon of the New Testament, and similar works. To the above testi-
monies have also to be added the Syriac and Latin versions, which our
best critics agree were made about the middle of the second century.

2 Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 3.

INTRODUCTION. 5

to be written by the same author: it alludes to the Gospel
as “ the former treatise,” and is addressed to Theophilus, the
same person for whose special use the Gospel was written.
This identity of authorship was never called in question by
the early church ; and in modern times biblical critics have
shown that there is such an identity of diction and style as
proves that both works must have proceeded from the same
person. Dr. Davidson, in his Introduction to the New
Testament, mentions no less than forty-seven terms which
are peculiar to the writer, and which oceur in both works,
but nowhere else in the New Testament.’ Indeed, the state-
ment that the Acts and the third Gospel are the composition
of one author, has seldom, if ever, been called in question.
Even De Wette observes: “It is certain that the writer is
the author of the third Gospel, and his peculiarity of style
remains the same in both works, and in the Acts of the
Apostles from the beginning to the end.”* And so also
Zeller remarks: “If we combine all these arguments, re-
ferring to the language and construction of both writings,
to their contents, their design, and their composition, we have
every reason to credit the assertion of the Acts, and the
universal testimony of tradition concerning the identity of
the author with the writer of the Gospel.”* Admitting this
sameness of authorship, it follows that the whole series of
testimonies which assert that the third Gospel was written
by Luke, are also proofs that the Acts was written by the
same person.

Now the testimonies asserting that Luke is the author of
the Gospel which bears his name are strong and numerous.
We have an apparent allusion to this Gospel in the First
Epistle of Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians (A.D. 96) ;*

1 Davidson’s Introduction, vol. ii. p. 8. See also Davidson’s New
Introduction, vol. ii. p. 268, and Zeller’s Apostelgeschichte, pp. 414-425.

2 De Wette’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 10.

8 Zeller’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 442.

4 οἰ Remember the words of the Lord Jesus: for He said, Woe to
that man (by whom offences come)! It were better for him that he
had not been born, than that he should offend one of my elect. It

6 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES,

and it is universally admitted that it was known to Marcion
and Justin Martyr (a.p. 140). Luke is directly .asserted
to be the author of the third Gospel by Irenzus, Tertul-
lian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and Eusebius; indeed,
Olshausen has good grounds for the assertion which he
makes: “ In the primitive church there was no opposition
either to Luke’s Gospel or to the Acts of the Apostles.” *

In modern times, objections have been raised, not so much
to Luke’s being the author of the Acts, as to his being the
companion of Paul and the eye-witness of those facts which
he relates; and accordingly, those portions of the Acts
which profess to be the testimony of an eye-witness, have
been ascribed to others. The objections, however, are by no
means formidable.

It has, for example, been objected that Luke is not men-
tioned in any of the epistles of Paul written during his
missionary journeys. This indeed at first sight seems strange,
but when carefully examined is easily accounted for. It
does not appear that Luke (if the author of those portions of
the Acts where the first person is used) was with Paul when
he wrote these epistles. He was with Paul at Philippi (Acts
xvi. 17), but he seems to have remained behind, because the
personal and direct style of narrative is immediately dropped
after Paul had left that city; and he appears not to have
rejoined the apostle until seven years after, when the direct
style is resumed on Paul’s return to Macedonia (Acts xx.
5, 6). Now it was during these seven years that all these
epistles, except the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, were
written. Luke was not with Paul at Corinth (Acts xviii. 1),
where the two Epistles to the Thessalonians were written ;
nor at Ephesus (Acts xix.), where the First Epistle to the
Corinthians, and perhaps the Epistle to the Galatians, were
written ; nor, again, when Paul wintered at Corinth (Acts

were better for him that a mill-stone should be tied about his neck,
and that he should be drowned in the sea, than that he should offend
one of my little ones” (1 Clem. xlvi.). Compare with this, Luke
xvii. 2. ,

1 Olshausen on the Gospel and Acts, vol. i. p. xli.

INTRODUCTION. 7

xx. 3), where the Epistle to the Romans was written.’ There
is, indeed, some probability that Luke was with Paul when
the Second Epistle to the Corinthians was written from some
place in Macedonia (2 Cor. ii. 13); and there is also a pro-
bability, as Neander after Jerome and Chrysostom supposes,
that he is alluded to in that epistle as “the brother whose
praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches” (2 Cor.
viii. 18) ;° but be this as it may, the very indefiniteness of the
above expression proves that distinguished fellow-labourers
might be with Paul, and yet not be named by him in his
epistles. It was by no means his practice to specify all those
who were with him; and in two of his epistles, in that to the
Galatians and in that to the Ephesians, no names are given.

Another objection is, that there is no mention of Luke in
the Epistle to the Philippians. According to the Acts of the
Apostles, the writer of the narrative, where the direct style is
employed, was with Paul when he first preached the gospel
in Philippi (Acts xvi. 16); and, as stated above, it would seem
that he remained there for several years. It is also certain
that the Epistle to the Philippians was written from Rome
during Paul’s imprisonment ‘there (Phil. iv. 22); and we
learn, both from the Acts and from other epistles of Paul,
that Luke was with him in that city. Now, this being the
case, if Luke were the writer of those portions of the Acts
in which the pronoun “we” occurs, he stood in a peculiar
relation to the church of Philippi, and therefore the omission
of his name in an epistle to that church is considered as in-
explicable. But in the Epistle to the Philippians there are
no salutations sent: there is merely the general declaration,
“The brethren which are with me salute you” (Phil. iv. 21);
and the names of these brethren would be communicated to

the Philippians by Epaphroditus, the bearer of the epistle.

1 Alford’s Greek Testament, vol. ii. p. 2; Birk’s Horx Apostolice,
p. 351.

2 The subscription to this epistle declares that it was written from
Philippi, a city of Macedonia, by Titus and Lucas. This proves that it
was an ancient tradition that Luke was the companion of Titus on his
mission to Corinth, although not mentioned in the body of the epistle.

8 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

Besides, although Luke was with Paul at Rome, yet it does
not follow that he was always with him; and therefore it is
not to be taken for granted that he was in his company when
the Epistle to the Philippians was written. And that this
omission of Luke is nothing the least strange, is evident from
a similar instance in the case of Timothy. Timothy was the
companion of Paul when he preached the gospel in Galatia,
and planted the churches in that country (Acts xvi. 1-6) ;
and yet in the Epistle to the Galatians there is no special
mention of him: if with Paul when that epistle was written,
he is merely included in the general phrase, “ All the brethren
which are with me” (Gal. i. 2)."

A third objection is, that the inferior position which Luke
occupies in the epistles of Paul, is unfavourable to the sup-
position that he was for some time the companion of that
apostle in his missionary journeys, and the narrator in the
first person. “In the Epistles to the Colossians and to
Philemon,” observes Mayerhoff, “ which were written at an
early period of Paul’s imprisonment, Luke is mentioned in
such a manner that we must conclude that he only then
became acquainted with Paul. In the Epistle to Philemon
he occupies the last place among Paul’s fellow-labourers—
first Hpaphras, then Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, and last
of all Lucas; and in the Epistle to the Colossians, the place
before the last, for here Demas is put after him, who at all
events only then became acquainted with Paul. Now, if
Luke had actually been the companion of the apostle in his
earlier journeys, his position not only after Timothy, who is
honourably associated with Paul in the salutations at the
commencement of both epistles, but after Tychicus, Onesimus,
Marcus, Jesus surnamed Justus, and Epaphras, is unsuitable
and surprising; whereas if Luke only became acquainted
with the apostle at Rome, it is entirely natural, and he shares
a similar position with Demas, with whom he appears to
stand in the same relation to the apostle.”” But such reason-
ing is singularly weak. There is no proof that Paul in his

1 See Davidson’s Introduction to the New Testament, vol. ii. pp. 11, 12.
2 Mayerhoff, Einleitung in die petrinischen Schriften, pp. 11, 12.

INTRODUCTION. 9

epistles arranged his fellow-workers in accordance with the
length of his acquaintance with them. The manner in which
Luke is alluded to in the Epistle to the Colossians, as “‘ Luke
the beloved physician,’ renders it probable that Paul had
experienced his worth after a friendship of some standing.
And the mention of persons in the epistles is a presumption
that they were not altogether unknown to the churches to
whom the epistles were written, and that consequently they
were most probably Paul’s fellow-travellers in his missionary
journeys when he visited these churches.

Chiefly for these reasons, the Acts of the Apostles, or at
least those portions of it which profess to come from an eye-
witness, have been assigned by modern critics to other persons
besides Luke. The person who is most frequently brought
forward as the writer of at least a considerable portion of the
Acts is Timothy. It has been supposed that all those parts
where the author speaks of himself as present were written
by Timothy. This was the opinion advanced by Schleier-
macher, Ulrich, and Bleek. It is also supported by so dis-
tinguished a critic as De Wette. According to him, the
author of the Acts, from ch. xvi. 10 and onwards, used a
journal written by Timothy, and allowed the first personal
pronoun to remain.’ The chief reason for this supposition
is, that everywhere when Timothy is present the narrative -
is distinguished by a copiousness of detail, but that this
ceases when Timothy is absent. This, however, is erroneous :
Timothy was with Paul when he planted the gospel in Galatia,
and yet the account of this is omitted in the narrative (Acts
xvi. 6); and he was absent when Paul was at Athens (Acts
xvii. 15, 16), and at Ephesus when the tumult occasioned by
Demetrius and the craftsmen occurred (Acts xix. 22), and
yet in both instances the narrative is minute.

This hypothesis of the authorship of Timothy is at variance
with the acknowledged accuracy of style of the writer of the
Acts ; that in one part of a document, supposed to be written
by Timothy, he should leave the first personal pronoun “we”
unaltered (Acts xvi. 16, xx. 5), and in another part of the

1 De Wette’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 10,

10 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

same document should alter it into the third pronoun “ they,”
or insert the name Timothy (Acts xvii. 14, xviil. 5, xix. 22).
The only answer that has been given to this objection is,
that the writer or compiler of the Acts, through carelessness,
sometimes left the “we” of the original document unchanged,
—a carelessness which, as Meyer observes, is something un-
paralleled, and even monstrous.’ Besides, the authorship of
Timothy is inconsistent with the book itself. In Acts xx. 4, 5
we read, “And there accompanied him into Asia, Sopater
of Berea; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Se-
cundus; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timotheus; and of Asia,
Tychicus and Trophimus. These, going before, tarried for
us at Troas;” where it is evident that the persons named,
among whom was Timothy, who went before, are different
from the narrator, who remained behind with the apostle.
To remove this objection, Ulrich proposes to read the passage
thus: ‘There accompanied him into Asia, Sopater of Berea ;
and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and
Gaius of Derbe, and Timotheus” (where, in the original
document, ἐγώ stood). Here a full stop is supposed, and
then follows: “But the Asiatics, Tychicus and Trophimus,
these (namely, the Asiatics) going before, tarried for us at
Troas.” The catalogue of Paul’s companions is thus divided
into two parts—those who accompanied him, and those who
went before; and by this method Timothy is included among
the “we” party who accompanied Paul. But such a con-
struction is unnatural, if not inadmissible, and is, as Schwan-
beck observes, an evident makeshift, to avoid a difficulty
arising from the plain sense of the passage.”

Mayerhoff goes further, and supposes that the whole of
the Acts as well as the third Gospel was written by Timothy,
and that Luke acted only in the capacity of a transcriber.
“ The part of Luke,” he observes, “ both in the Gospel and

1 So also Renan observes: ‘‘ Such an error might only exist in a most
careless compilation; but the third Gospel and the Acts form a work
very well prepared, composed with reflection, and even with art ; written
by the same hand, and on a connected plan.”

2 Schwanbeck’s Quellen der Apostelgeschichte, pp. 161, 162.

INTRODUCTION. ll

in the Acts of the Apostles, is entirely subordinate—that of
a transcriber of the works composed by Timothy; and it is
only a later tradition which made Luke what he never was
in reality,—an attendant on Paul in his journeys, and the
author of the Acts as well as of the Gospel.”* This opinion
accounts for the similarity of style pervading these two books,
and which forms a difficulty in the way of the other hypo-
thesis. But it is exposed to all the objections already brought
forward to the partial authorship of Timothy ; and, besides,
is encumbered with its own peculiar difficulties. No reason
can be assigned, if Timothy were the author of the Acts and
the third Gospel, why these works have been ascribed to the
unknown Luke in preference to one so well known as Timothy.
Besides, this opinion is opposed to the manner in which
Timothy is for the first time mentioned as “ one who was well
reported of by the brethren” (Acts xvi. 2): the author would
hardly have thus written of himself to Theophilus.

Another person supposed to be the author of a consider-
able portion of the Acts is Silas. This opinion has been
adopted and defended by Schwanbeck. He supposes that
from ch. xv. 13 and onwards was written by Silas; and
that this document was inserted by Luke, as the general
editor, in his work, with a few trifling alterations.” The
chief reason assigned for this is the minuteness with which
the transactions at the Council of Jerusalem are recorded,
as if the account was the report of an eye-witness. This
hypothesis is wholly unsupported by external testimony, and
is entirely founded on arbitrary assumption. The same ob-
jection, arising from the arbitrary change from the first
to the third personal pronoun, which was brought against
the authorship of Timothy, applies here with equal force.
Besides, this opinion is opposed to the manner in which
Silas is introduced to the readers of the book along with
Judas Barsabas, as “ chief men among the brethren” (Acts
xv. 22). The only answer that Schwanbeck gives to this
objection is, that this notice was either an insertion by the

1 Mayerhoff’s Einleitung in die petrinischen Schriften, p. 21.
᾿ς 2 Schwanbeck’s Quellen der Apostelgeschichte, pp. 168-186.

12 COMMENTARY.ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

editor, or, what is more probable, that it referred only to
Judas, but was extended by the editor to Silas. Such
arbitrary conjectures cannot possibly be encountered by
argument.

A fourth hypothesis, advanced by Hennel, is that Luke
and Silas are the same person. “ There is reason,” he
observes, “ to conjecture that Luke and Silas are one person.
The pronoun ‘ we’ occurs in the narrative for the first time
in ch. xvi. 10, ‘We endeavoured to go into Macedonia.’
The only companions of Paul at that time were Silas and
Timothy (ch. xv. 40, xvi. 3, 4, 6). Accordingly, one of
these three wrote the Acts of the Apostles. But it is evident
from ch. xx. 4, 13, that neither Paul nor Timothy wrote
it. Silas therefore was the author. Wherever the pronoun
‘we’ occurs, there is no reason against the opinion that
Silas was of the company. The name Silas or Silvanus has
nearly the same import as Lucas or Lucanus,—the one being "
derived from silva, a wood, and the other from /ucus, a grove ;
both being only Latinized forms from the original Greek or
Hebrew name of the author.”” Hence it is inferred that
Luke, to whom the early Fathers assigned the authorship
of Acts, is the same as Silas, who from internal evidence
appears to have been its author. These arguments, how-
ever, have little force. The hypothesis is exposed to all the
arguments already adduced against the partial authorship of
Silas. In the epistles of Paul, Silas and Luke are both
mentioned as if they were different persons,—there being -
not the slightest intimation given us of their identity. No
argument can be based on the supposed similarity of names.
The identity of Cephas and Peter, both signifying a rock,
is not parallel, as these names do not signify similar things,
but precisely the same thing; and besides, they are from
different languages, the one being Hebrew and the other
Greek—not like ducus and silva, words of the same language.
A man may translate his name from one language to another,
as was done by the French refugees after the revocation
of the edict of Nantes, who, when they came to England,

1 Schwanbeck’s Quellen, pp. 173, 174. 2 Ibid. p. 170.

INTRODUCTION. 13

translated their names into English; but it is very far-
fetched to argue that cognate names in the same language,
as “Grove” and “ Wood,” probably belong to the same
person.

We do not at present enter upon a consideration of the
credibility of the Acts as an authentic history, because the
examination of particular points will naturally occur in the
course of our exposition. We would only observe that there
are two distinct lines of argument which demonstrate the
trustworthiness of the book. First, the agreement which
exists between the Acts and the epistles of Paul is of
such a nature as to prove them to have been independently
written; and thus they mutually corroborate each other.
This line of argument has been carried out by Paley in his
masterly work the Hore Pauline. Examples of such unde-
signed coincidences will be given in their proper place.

A second proof of the credibility of the history is the
agreement of the narrative of the Acts with information
derived from other sources. This agreement embraces many
particulars. The historical transactions recorded in the Acts
are in accordance with the information given us by such
independent writers as Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius.
The statements with regard to the governors of particular
countries, and the political condition of particular cities, are
corroborated by coins which have come down to us.’ And
the topography of the places mentioned in the account of the
missionary journeys of Paul corresponds both with ancient
geography as given by Strabo, and with the investigations
of modern travellers. Frequently this agreement extends to
minute particulars, and is of a complicated nature, such as
could not possibly have occurred in the work of a forger.
We shall have frequent occasion to notice instances of such
agreement in the course of our exposition.

According to the views of De Wette, the second part of
the Acts, where the author depended on his own observation
and on his intercourse with Paul, is much more credible

1 The reader is here specially referred to ἐπ ch Numismatic
Illustrations of the New Testament.

14 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

than the first part, which is drawn chiefly from traditionary
accounts. In the first part, he observes, there are “ inexpli-
cable difficulties, exaggerations, incorrect statements, doubt-
ful facts, unsatisfactory information, and traces of ignorance
with Jewish history and customs.” But when he adduces
proofs of such an assertion, they are found to be for the
most part irrelevant, or difficulties which, when carefully
examined, admit of explanation. The instances brought for-
ward of apparent contradictions and misstatements will all be
examined in their proper place.

Baur, Zeller, Késtlin, Hilgenfeld, Schrader, and other
writers of the Tiibingen school, go much further. They
have attempted to transfer to the Acts the mythical character
which Strauss has assigned to the Gospels. Baur supposes
that it was written toward the middle of the second century,
and that it is not a purely historical work, but a conciliatory
treatise by a disciple of Paul, with a view to reconcile the
opinions of that apostle with those of Peter and the other
original apostles. So also Zeller observes: “The Acts is the
work of a Pauline of the Romish church: the time of its
composition may most probably be fixed between the years
110 and 125, or even 130, after Christ.”? Hence the his-
torical truth in it is but stalls and the miracles recorded
are to be accounted for not from natural causes, but either
as the inventions of the writer or as mythical tales. Such
an attempt of extreme criticism never received much support
in Germany; and in all probability it would have been for-
gotten, had it not been for the distinguished ability and
learning of its two great promoters and defenders, Baur and
Zeller. It seems to have arisen entirely from the views of
the school regarding the impossibility of miracles; and as the
natural solution of miracles had failed, they endeavoured to
substitute their mythical hypothesis. We shall revert to this
subject when we consider “ the design of the Acts.”

We have little information concerning Luke himself, the
author of the Acts. His name Lucas is a contraction for

1 De Wette’s Apostelgeschichte, Ὁ. 12.
2 Zeller’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 488.

INTRODUCTION. 1.

Lucanus, but is not to be confounded with Lucius (Acts
ΧΙ, 1; Rom. xvi. 21). He is thrice mentioned by Paul in
his epistles. In the Epistle to the Colossians he is described
as Luke “the beloved physician” (Col. iv. 14); in the
Epistle to Philemon he sends his salutations with others of
Paul’s fellow-labourers (ver. 24); and in the Second Epistle
to Timothy he is mentioned as being with the apostle when
he stood before Ceesar (2 Tim. iv. 11). Nothing is known of
his native place. Eusebius informs us that he was a native
of Antioch (Hist. Eccl. iii. 6), but this may arise from con-
founding him with Lucius of Cyrene (Acts xiii. 1); others
fix on Troas as his native city, where he first joined the
apostle ; and others on Philippi, where he seems to have
resided for several years. We learn from Col. iv. 14 that he
was a physician; and Michaelis and others affirm that there
are evidences of this in his writings, from the precise and
exact manner in which he alludes to diseases." Grotius sup-
poses that he was originally a slave, because among the
Romans physicians were frequently slaves; but there is no
ground for this opinion, as physicians were not necessarily
slaves, and as, on the contrary, among the Greeks the pro-
fession was highly esteemed, and practised by men of liberal
education. The tradition that he was a painter rests on the
authority of Nicephorus of the fourteenth century, and is
entitled to no credit (Hist. Eccl. ii. 43). From a statement
made by Paul (compare Col. iv. 11 with ver. 14), it is with
considerable probability inferred that he was a Gentile by
birth. The purity of his Greek, and the comparative absence
of Hebraisms, are in favour of his Gentile origin; though
this may also be accounted for on the supposition of his
being a Hellenistic Jew. Indeed, his acquaintance with the
Septuagint, his familiarity with Jewish customs, and the
occasional Hebraisms which occur in his writings, render the
statement of Jerome somewhat probable, that he was a pro-
selyte to Judaism before his conversion to Christianity. The
statement of Epiphanius, that he was one of the seventy
disciples, is refuted by the testimony of Luke himself in the
1 Marsh’s Michaelis, vol. iv. pp. 229, 230.

16 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

Gospel, where by implication he says that he was not an eye-
witness and minister of the word (Luke i. 1, 2).

We know nothing of the personal history of Luke beyond
what is told us in the Acts. He was already a Christian
when he joined Paul at Troas, but by whom converted is
unknown. He accompanied Paul to Philippi, where he
remained some years. Afterwards he rejoined the apostle
on his return to Macedonia, and accompanied him, probably
as one of the messengers of the churches, on his last journey
to Jerusalem. He sailed with him from Cesarea to Rome,
and was in his company when he wrote certain of his epistles
from that city. The subsequent history of Luke is involved
in obscurity. According to Epiphanius, he preached the
Gospel in Gallia, Italy, Dalmatia, and Macedonia; Gregory
Nazianzen reckons him among the martyrs; and according
to Nicephorus, he returned to Greece, where he suffered
martyrdom. .

1. THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S INFORMATION.

The Acts of the Arpostles bears evidence of being the
composition of one person. The peculiar diction and simi-
larity of style which pervade it throughout are considered
by the most distinguished biblical scholars to be sufficient
proofs of this. Dr. Davidson enumerates forty terms and
expressions peculiar to the writer, which are not confined to
one part of the book, but pervade it throughout, besides
numerous favourite phrases occurring in all parts of the
work.' This similarity is of such a nature as to prove that,
if the author employed written documents, he did not incor-
porate them mechanically into his book unchanged, or with
only slight alterations ; but he so altered them as to impress
upon them the peculiarities of his own style, and to pervade
them with his own spirit. And yet, on the other hand, this
similarity does not exclude a certain deviation of style per-

1 Davidson’s Introduction, vol. ii. pp. 4-6; Davidson’s New Introduc-
tion, vol. ii. pp. 261-265 ; Zeller’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 388 ; Lekebusch’s
Apostelgeschichte, pp. 87-79.

INTRODUCTION. 17

ceptible in different portions of the book, as will be after-
wards observed; a deviation, however, not at variance with
the fact that there was only one author. In short, the Acts
is not the work of a mere annalist or compiler, but of a highly
characteristic historian, one whose style is as marked and
peculiar as the style of any of the other writers of the New
Testament. Moreover, in the book itself there are numerous
references to what has been already said, and which go to
prove the unity of the work. The following is a list of them
as given by De Wette: xi. 16, compare i. 5; xi. 19, compare
vill. 1; xii. 25, compare xi. 30; xv. 8, compare xi. 47; xv.
58, compare xiii. 13; xvi. 4, compare xv. 23; xviii. 5, com-
pare xvil. 15 ; xix. 1, compare xvili. 23; xxi. 8, compare vi. 5;
xxi. 29, compare xx. 4; xxii. 20, compare vii. 58."

It is an interesting matter of inquiry, What were the
sources of Luke’s information? Whence did he obtain the
materials out of which he formed his history? It is evident
from the work itself that he was only an eye-witness of a
small portion of the transactions which he relates. He
joined the apostle on his second missionary journey, and
then appears to have been separated from him for several
years, and afterwards accompanied him on his third mis-
sionary journey to Jerusalem; consequently he must have
received at second hand the whole of the first portion of the
Acts, and much of the second. In what manner, then, from
whose testimony, or from what documents, was his history
composed ?

The sources of Luke’s information may be considered as
threefold : personal observation, oral testimony, and perhaps
written documents.

The first and most direct source of information was per-
sonal observation. Luke was the companion of Paul during
a part of his travels, and was an eye-witness of several of the
transactions which he relates. He was with Paul during his
first visit to Philippi, he accompanied him on his last journey
to Jerusalem, and sailed with him to Rome. In all proba-

1 De Wette’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 10. See also Davidson’s New Intro-
duction, vol. ii. pp. 265-267 ; Zeller’s Apostelyeschichte, p. 403.

VOL. I. ee

18 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

bility he was present at Jerusalem when the apostle was
arrested ; and it is also likely that he was at Ceesarea during
a portion of the two years of the apostle’s imprisonment in
that city, for it was from Cesarea that he embarked with
him to Rome. The account of the voyage to Rome bears
indubitable marks of being written by one who was present.’
Thus, then, the information contained in ch. xvi. 8-40, xx.,
Xxi., xxvii., and xxviii., and perhaps also in ch. xxii.—xxvi.,
was derived from direct observation.

The second source of information is that derived from the
testimony of others. Now here Luke would be chiefly in-
debted to Paul himself. From his own mouth he would
learn the account of that apostle’s conversion and missionary
journeys, so that the information contained in the whole of
the second part of the Acts (ch. xili—xxvili.) may be accounted
for without having recourse to the supposition of written
sources. When in Judea, where he probably resided during
the two years of Paul’s imprisonment at Czesarea, he would
procure information from James and the church of Jeru-
salem: from them he might derive his accounts of the
ascension, the miracle of Pentecost, the acts of Peter, the
dispute between the Hellenists and the Hebrews, the martyr-
dom of Stephen and of the Apostle James. And there is
also the information which he would obtain from the church
of Cesarea: in that city he met with Philip the evangelist
(Acts xxi. 8), and perhaps also with Cornelius the devout
centurion. From this source he would derive his informa-
tion concerning the evangelistic labours in Samaria, the con-
version of the Ethiopian eunuch, the visions made to Peter
and Cornelius, and the particulars connected with the death
of Herod Agrippa 1. Schneckenburger lays great stress on
Luke’s acquaintance with Philip at Caesarea; and, indeed, it
is highly probable that much of his information was derived
from him. Thus, then, by far the greater portion, if not the
whole of the first part of the Acts, would be obtained from
those who were directly connected with the transactions

1 The reader is here referred to the interesting work of the late James
Smith, Esq. of Jordanhill, On the Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul.

INTRODUCTION. 19

recorded, “who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the
word.”

The third source of information mentioned is written
documents. It is indeed questioned whether there were any
such used by Luke in his composition of the Acts. So far
as we can see, the accounts containéd in it might be obtained
from the direct testimony of the eye-witnesses themselves ;
and if so, it is more probable that Luke would derive his
information from this quarter than from any written sources.
On the other hand, most biblical critics interpret the intro-
duction to Luke’s Gospel as a declaration on the part of the
author that he availed himself of written documents in
preparing that work: καθὼς παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν οἱ am ἀρχῆς
αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου. If, then, it is
argued he employed written documents in the composition of
his Gospel, the probability is that he also employed them in
the composition of his history of the apostles. Besides, it is
a remarkable fact, that although the style of the Acts is
substantially the same throughout, yet there is a greater
number of Hebraisms in the first part, where he depended
on information at second hand, than in the second part, where
he was indebted to his own observation. |

Some critics go the length of asserting that the whole of
the Acts is a mere mechanical compilation. Thus Schwan-
beck affirms that the Acts is composed of the four following
documents: first, a biography of Peter; secondly, a rhetori-
eal account of the death of Stephen ; thirdly, a biography of
Barnabas ; and fourthly, the memoirs of Silas. He further
affirms that Luke was a mere compiler, and did not repro-
duce the contents of these sources in a free manner, and
incorporate them in a whole, but only attached single por-
tions of the different writings to each other, and that for the
most part unchanged.” The similarity of style throughout
confutes such a supposition. If written documents were

1 These words, however, do not necessarily affirm that Luke employed
written documents, but may merely mean that he received his informa-
tion from those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word.

2 Schwanbeck’s Quellen der Apostelgeschichte, p. 253. ἡ

20 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

employed, which is in itself doubtful, they are so freely
inserted and used, that all attempts to distinguish the separate
writings are unavailing. The letter of the Council of Jeru-
salem, being an official document, is perhaps inserted verbatim
(Acts xv. 23-29). Probably the same was also the case
with the official communication of Claudius Lysias to Felix
(Acts xxiii. 26-30). Both these short documents have
internal marks of originality. Some also suppose that the
early church possessed a written account of the speech of
Stephen, their first martyr, which Luke freely used and
_ inserted in his narrative. Others (Bleek, Meyer, Olshausen)
think that the narrative of Paul’s first missionary journey,
in company with Barnabas (ch. xiii. xiv.), may have been a
report drawn up by the missionaries themselves. But this is
improbable, as ch. xiii. 1 is connected with ch. xii. 25 and ἡ
xi. 19-21; and ch. xiii. 13 is connected with ch. xv. 37, 38.
Besides, Luke might easily have derived his information
from the personal communications of Paul, so that he was
under no necessity to have recourse to a written source.

The remarks made regarding the sources of Luke’s in-
formation, apply of course to the discourses which he has
inserted in his history: these were either heard by himself,
told by ear-witnesses, or were perhaps derived from written
documents. It is not, however, to be supposed that all the
discourses are given in the precise words in which they were
delivered. With some of them this was impossible, because
they were spoken in the Aramaic language, as Paul’s
defence before the Jews (Acts xxii. 2), and probably also
Peter’s discourse on the day of Pentecost, and Stephen’s
apology before the Sanhedrim. In the case of others, Luke
has impressed on them his own style and diction. Still,
however, it must not be supposed that they were composed
by Luke: they bear internal marks of being the discourses
of those to whom they are ascribed. Learned critics have
shown that, in the discourses of Peter and Paul in particular,
there are not only the sentiments peculiar to these apostles,
but often their favourite phraseology. Thus, as Alford
remarks, in the discourse to the Ephesian elders, there is a

INTRODUCTION. 21

rich storehouse of phrases and sentiments peculiar to Paul.'
Instances of such internal marks of genuineness in the dis-
courses will occur in the course of the exposition. It is also
a matter of dispute whether the discourses are given in their
fulness, or whether we have in general mere abbreviations
containing their substance and spirit. Certainly the speech
of Tertullus, and the answer of Paul in the trial of the
apostlé before Felix, look like abbreviations. But, on the
other hand, some of Paul’s discourses, as his address to the
Athenians, and his defence before Agrippa, are so full and
graphic, that it is probable they are given us entire.

The Acts of the Apostles appears to have been begun in
the form of a diary kept by the author. The journey of
Paul from Macedonia, to his arrival in Jerusalem, is given
with great minuteness: the references to time are definite,
and almost every day is marked by the events which hap-
pened on it; so that it would seem as if a regular diary were
kept. And the same remark is true with regard to the voyage
from Ceesarea to Rome: there is in the narrative the same
preciseness with regard to time, and the same minuteness of
detail. Afterwards this journal would be increased by Luke’s
own personal knowledge of what formerly happened when he
first joined the apostle at Troas, and by information received
at second hand. This may account for the peculiar character
of the work, giving first the general annals of the church,
and then dwelling almost exclusively on the personal labours
of the Apostle Paul.’

Ill. THE READERS FOR WHOM THE HISTORY WAS INTENDED.

The Acts of the Apostles, as well as the third Gospel, was
addressed to Theophilus, who, from the epithet κράτιστε,
most noble, being applied to him, was probably a Greek
Christian of rank.’ Kuincel, Heinrichs, and others, suppose

1 Alford’s Greek Testament, vol, ii. pp. 138-15.

2 See this opinion stated and illustrated by Alford in his Greek Testa-
ment, vol. ii. pp. 8-15.

3 See note to Acts i. 1.

22 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

that it was written for the use of this individual, and that
the sole design of the author was to impart to him informa-
tion concerning the diffusion of the gospel. So also Meyer
remarks that the work was primarily a private composition
written for Theophilus, and that its design was similar to
that of the Gospel—namely, to impart to him accurate infor-
mation concerning Christianity, in order to confirm him in
the faith; and that it was partly the wants of Theophilus,
and partly Luke’s sources of information, that guided the
author in the choice of materials for his history." But this
is a partial and meagre view of the subject. Luke, in in-
scribing his work to Theophilus, probably merely followed
the practice of dedicating his book to some person of rank
and influence.

We are led to believe that Luke wrote his history for the
instruction of Christians in general: his object was to pre-
serve the memorials of the apostles for the good of the
church. It may be the case that it was designed primarily
for the use of the Gentile Christians, of which class Theo-
philus may be considered as the representative; but not to
the exclusion of the Jewish Christians. Its being written in
Greek, and not in Hebrew, is no reason for supposing that
it was not intended for the use of the Jewish Christians,
because the Jews had adopted the language of the countries
where they resided; and even in Palestine, it would seem
that Greek was then generally understood. The Epistle to
the Hebrews, addressed primarily to the Jewish Christians,
and in all likelihood to those resident in Judea, was written
in Greek, and indeed there is no record of its ever being
translated into Hebrew.

It may be asked, In what sense is it affirmed that the
Acts, being addressed to no particular church, but to an
individual, was intended for the Christian church at large?
One understands for what publicity the epistles of Paul were
intended, being addressed to Christian communities; but
how was it meant that the Gospels and the Acts should be
published? But we think that the fact that these works

1 Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 8.

INTRODUCTION. 23

were disseminated, is in itself a proof that their publication
was the intention of their authors: for, on the supposition of
their being mere private writings, their after diffusion is un-
accountable, or at least would be extremely unlikely. As to
the mode of publication in the absence of printing, we are
comparatively ignorant; but the same ignorance applies to
all the works of the ancients. In all probability, copies of
these works were made by zealous Christians, and distributed
among the different churches, and would be gradually mul-
tiplied.

IV. THE DESIGN OF THE ACTS.

In considering the design of the Acts, we must attend to
the statements of the author himself in the preface to his
Gospel; because the design of the Acts must be similar to
that of the Gospel, inasmuch as the author represents it as
the second part (δεύτερος λόγος) of his former work. Now,
in the Gospel, Luke affirms that his design in writing was
“to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are
most surely believed among Christians, in order that they
might know the certainty of those things wherein they had
been instructed” (Luke i. 1, 4): in other words, to give an
account of the life of Jesus for the information and use of
Christians. And in conformity with this, in his preface to
the Acts, he describes his former treatise, or the Gospel, as an
account “of all that Jesus began both to.do and to teach”
(Acts i. 1). Hence, then, it would seem that the Acts was
designed to be a continuation of the same work which Jesus
began, carried on by His apostles—a record of the teaching
and actions of the apostles; so that its title, “The Acts of the
Apostles,” is by no means inappropriate. The Acts, then, is
a history of the progress of the religion of Christ for the
instruction of Christians; or, as it is otherwise described,
“a history of the progress of the Christian church from
Jerusalem to Rome:” so approximately Lardner, Mayerhoff,
Lekebusch, Ewald, Hackett, Alford. There is no part of
the book where any such design is formally stated, unless it is
to be found in that statement of our Lord to His disciples :

24 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

“Ye shall be witnesses to me both in Jerusalem, and in all
Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the
earth” (Acts i. 8).

To this view of the subject, it is objected that this is to
confound the contents of the book with the design which
the author had in writing it. But in historical works, the
contents are often the design: the simple record of events
may be what Luke intended; or if a subjective motive be
required, the instruction of Christians is sufficient. Again,
it is objected that this does not account for the omissions in
the book. Nothing is related of the acts of most of the
apostles, the narrative concerning Peter breaks off abruptly,
and even the history of Paul is defective: we are not in-
formed of his three years’ residence in Arabia, of his dispute
with Peter at Antioch, of his preaching the gospel in Galatia,
and of the result of his Roman imprisonment; and from
2 Cor. xi. 24, 25, it would appear that only a few of his.
trials and sufferings are described.’ But it is evident that
Luke could not write everything that occurred, otherwise
his work would exceed all bounds. We may not indeed be
able to affirm in all cases on what principle he made his
selection; but we may trace an order in his narrative—
a record of the gradual development of Christianity. At
first, the church is almost entirely confined to Jerusalem and
its neighbourhood; then, after the dispersion, by reason of
the persecution which followed the death of Stephen, it
extends to Samaria and the adjoining provinces; then
Cornelius is converted, and the Gentiles are received into
the Christian church ; then missionary efforts commence at
Antioch ; then Paul and his companions propagate the
gospel in Asia, and carry it over to Europe, until at length
it is established in Rome, the capital of the civilised world.

Various other designs have been attributed to Luke. We
have already alluded to the meagre view of Kuincel, that
the Acts was written simply to afford information to Theo-
philus. Grotius supposes that the Acts is a biography of
Peter and Paul. And certainly it is so far true that these

1 Kuincel’s Novi Testamenti Libri Historici, vol. iii. p. 6.

INTRODUCTION. 25

two apostles occupy a prominent place in the history: Peter
is the leading person in the first part, and Paul in the second
part of the Acts; but this was the case because it was chiefly
through their instrumentality that Christianity was propa-
gated. The design of the work is much wider than to give
a mere biography of individuals: it relates their actions only
when these have reference to the general history of the
church, but it omits those private incidents which were not
followed by any public consequences. By considering the
Acts as a history, and not a biography, we may account for
many omissions in the life of Paul. Thus, for example, his
three years’ residence in Arabia is passed over, because it
formed no part of his missionary labours.

Others more in accordance with their preconceived opinions,
or with the opinions peculiar to later times, than with any-
thing found in the work itself, have ascribed apologetic or
conciliatory designs to Luke. Michaelis supposes that Luke
had a twofold object in the composition of his work : first,
to relate in what manner the gifts of the Holy Spirit were
communicated on the day of Pentecost, and the subsequent
miracles performed by the apostles, by which the truth of
Christianity was confirmed; secondly, to deliver such accounts
as proved the claim of the Gentiles to admission into the
church of Christ,—a claim disputed by the Jews, especially at
the time when Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles." So also
Griesbach thinks that the Acts is a justification of Paul con-
cerning the reception of the Gentiles into the church. Similar
is the view taken by Paulus: he supposes the Acts to be
the justification of the Pauline doctrine of the universality
of Christianity.” But such opinions convert an inference
deducible from the work into the design. No doubt the
Acts teaches the reception of the Gentiles into the Christian
church, and their equality with the Jews ; but that this was
not the sole design of the work, is evident from its contents.

Schneckenburger proceeds further: he carries out the idea

1 Michaelis’ Introduction to the New Testament, translated by Marsh,

vol. iv. p. 330.
2 See Lekebusch’s Apostelgeschichte, pp. 235, 236.

26 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES,

suggested by Griesbach, and assigns to the Acts a purely
apologetic desion. He supposes it to be a defence of Paul
against the attacks of Judaizing Christians. With this object
in view, the author attempts to prove the perfect similarity
between Peter and Paul, by making Peter act as Paul would
do, as when he preached the gospel to Cornelius; and by
making Paul act as Peter would do, as when he took on
himself the vow of the Nazarites. So also the two parts
into which the Acts are divided are made to correspond: in
the first part the actions of Peter are given, and in the
second part the actions of Paul; and between the actions of
these two apostles there is a striking coincidence. In short,
the parallelism between Peter and Paul pervades the whole
book, the discourses as well as the narratives, and accounts
both for the reception and the omission of incidents. ‘Thus,
for example, the dispute between Peter and Paul at Antioch,
and the refusal of Paul to circumcise Titus, are omitted, as
these incidents are opposed to the design of the author.’ It
is, however, to be observed that Schneckenburger does not
call in question the historical credibility of the Acts; on the
contrary, he repeatedly maintains it against its opponents.
But what he asserts is, that the justification of Paul was the
principle which guided Luke in his selection of the mass
of materials before him; so that the Acts is not so much a
history as an apology.

Baur, to whose opinion we have already alluded, carries
out the theory of Schneckenburger to what we must say
appears. to be its legitimate consequences. According to
the view of Schneckenburger, a one-sided representation is
given of Paul: important facts are omitted or unhistorically
stated, and the speeches inserted do not agree with the
peculiar doctrine of Paul; and thus historical truth is sacri-
ficed. Paul is converted into a Petrine Christian, and Peter
into a Pauline believer. The true Paul and Peter are not
described. ‘The Paul of the Acts,” observes Baur, “is
different from the Paul of the epistles.” Accordingly,

1 Schneckenburger, Ueber den Zweck der Apostelgeschichte.
2 See Baur’s Apostel Paulus, vol. i. 8-13.

INTRODUCTION, 27

Baur defends the apologetic design which Schneckenburger
supposes to be contained in the Acts, and employs it as an
argument against its authenticity. He supposes that the
Acts was the composition of a Pauline Christian in the second
century, with a view to reconcile Pauline and Petrine Chris-
tianity : he maintains a conciliatory rather than an apologetic
design.

The hypothesis of Baur is merely the creation of an in-
genious mind, supported by the learning of the accomplished
scholar. The general reader must certainly fail to see any
such trace of a conciliatory design as Baur supposes contained
in the Acts. The opposition between the views of Paul and
Peter is entirely fanciful; and the resemblance between the
actions of these two apostles is certainly, to say the least, far-
fetched. Nor is there the slightest trace of the use of Paul’s
epistles in the book; whereas if the Acts were of so late a
date as Baur supposes, the author would have employed them,
especially as they would have furnished him with material
in support of his conciliatory hypothesis, and in favour of
Judaism, as when Paul enumerates the privileges of the
Jewish nation, and expresses his ardent attachment for his
countrymen (Rom. ix. 1-5)."| And the supposition that the
Acts is a fictitious work of the second century (110-130)
is irreconcilable with the direct testimony of Irenzeus, who
lived in that century, to the authorship of Luke, with the
undesigned coincidences between the Acts and the Pauline
epistles, and with the general agreement between it and
Jewish and Roman histories. In short, this hypothesis of
Baur is unsupported by the book itself, and at variance with
the general testimony of antiquity ; and, as Meyer observes,
all those reasons which Baur and his followers bring forward
do not prove what they are designed to prove, and are not
able to overthrow the recognition of the ancient church.”

The opinion advanced by Baumgarten after Olshausen,
and adopted by Lechler, Burton in his Bampton Lectures,

1 The agreement also between the Acts and the Pauline epistles would
have been more artificial.
2 Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 6.

28 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

Wordsworth, and others, is entitled to more consideration.
Baumgarten supposes that the Acts of the Apostles is a con-
tinuation of the life of Christ. He grounds this view on the
words with which Luke describes his former treatise, as being
an account “of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach”
(ὧν ἤρξατο ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ποιεῖν τε καὶ διδάσκειν). According to
him, the word ἤρξατο is not ἃ pleonasm, but full of meaning:
the gospel is the beginning of the doing and teaching of
Jesus, and the Acts is the continuation. The same work
which Jesus began on earth, He continues in heaven. He
Himself is the agent, the apostles are the mere instruments
whom Heemploys. Not Paul, nor Peter, but Christ Himself,
is the centre character of the Acts. In the words of Lechler :
“This book professes to be the second part of the Gospel of
Luke, so that the transactions of the apostles are simply the
continuation of the life of our Lord. This connection is
extremely important and instructive: for it teaches us that
the earthly life of Jesus concluded with the ascension, has
its fruit and continued efficacy ; and His heavenly life com-
mencing with the ascension, has its manifestation and proof
in the acts and experiences of the apostles and first churches.” ἢ

Now, no doubt the view here expressed of the actions of
the apostles is important and suggestive. The history of
the church was under the immediate control of the exalted
Redeemer, and may justly be considered as the continuation
in heaven of the work which He had begun on earth. But
perhaps it is pressing the idea too far to affirm, that to show
this was the special design of Luke in writing the Acts: it
confounds an inference which may be drawn from the work,
or a use which may be made of it, with the design. If this
were the intention of Luke, it would have been more clearly
intimated and more prominently brought forward, and we
would not have been left to infer it from a single phrase of
doubtful interpretation. Still it asserts a great truth—the life
of Christ in His church. As Chrysostom expresses it: “The

1 Baumgarten’s Apostolic History, vol. i. pp. 6, 7.

2 Lange’s Bibelwerk; Apostelgeschichte von Lechler, p. 1. See also
Wordsworth on the Acts, pp. 2-5.

INTRODUCTION. 29

Gospels are the history of what Jesus did and taught; the
Acts is the history of what the other Comforter did and
taught.””*

Vv. TIME AND PLACE OF THE COMPOSITION OF THE ACTS.

Nothing can with certainty be affirmed with regard to the
time when the Acts was written: there is nothing in the
book itself which would lead to a determination on this

oint. German critics in general suppose that it was written
after the destruction of Jerusalem. This is the view advyo-
eated by De Wette, Ewald, and Meyer. Meyer fixes the
date of its composition about the year 80, being, as he
observes, nearly contemporary with the Gospel of John and
the History of Josephus.” The reason, however, which these
biblical critics assign for thus dating the Acts after the de-
struction of Jerusalem, is because, according to their rational-
istic views of prophecy, the Gospel of Luke, “the former
treatise,” was written after that event. Lechler, who is far
removed from such rationalistic views, fixes upon the same
date, following the tradition of Irenzeus, who relates that
Luke wrote his Gospel after the death of Peter and Paul.

Schneckenburger thinks that he has found an indication
of time in ch. viii. 26, αὕτη ἐστὶν ἔρημος, “ which is desert,”
and which he applies to the destruction of Gaza during the
continuance of the Jewish war; and that the absence of all
allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem proves that that event
had not taken place. He therefore fixes the time of writing
after the death of Paul and during the Jewish war. For
the same reason, Lekebusch fixes the date of composition
about the year 70; because, he observes, the notice concern-
ing Gaza proves that its fate was in the fresh recollection of
the writer as a fact which had shortly before occurred.’ But

1 So also Bengel observes: non tam apostolorum, quam Spiritus sancti
Acta describens, sicut prior liber Acta Jesu Christi habet.

2 Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 17. The same date is fixed on by
Renan.

3 Lekebusch, Apostelgeschichte, pp. 420=422.

30 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

the pronoun αὕτη is indefinite: it may as well apply to the
road to Gaza as to the city.

The probability is, that both the Gospel of Luke and the
Acts were written before the destruction of Jerusalem,—
perhaps the former at Czesarea during Paul’s imprisonment
there, and the latter at Rome. If the destruction of Jeru-
salem had already taken place, we should have expected some
allusion to it in the work. There is no reason why the book
may not have been written at the very period when the
history ends; that is to say, about the year 63, or in the
second year of Paul’s imprisonment at Rome. This is in
itself the most probable opinion, and there are no presump-
tions against it. Why the book ends apparently so abruptly
with the statement that Paul dwelt two whole years in his
own hired house, will be afterwards considered.

If the above opinion as regards the time is correct, then
the place of composition would be Rome. Other places have
been mentioned, as Alexandria (Mill), Antioch (Hilgenfeld),
proconsular Asia (Kostlin), but without any presumptions in
their favour.

VI. THE LANGUAGE AND TEXT OF THE ACTS.

That the Acts of the Apostles was originally written in
Greek, is a statement which admits of no dispute, and is now
universally accepted. The opinion of Harduin, that it is
a translation from the Latin, is wholly unfounded. The
Greek is purer than in most of the other writings of the
New Testament. As already observed, a similarity of style
pervades the whole book from beginning to end; yet the
similarity is not exact, for the first part perceptibly differs
from the second part by a more copious use of Hebraisms.*
The first part exactly resembles in style the third Gospel,
whereas the Greek in the second part is purer. The probable
reason of this difference is, that in the first part of the Acts
and in the Gospel Luke was dependent upon foreign sources ;

1 For a list of these Hebraisms, see De Wette’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 12;
Davidson’s Introduction, vol. ii. p. 28 ; Schwanbeck’s Quellen, p. 36, etc.

INTRODUCTION. 31

whereas the second part of the Acts being for the most part
the testimony of an eye-witness, he was more unfettered in
the use of his peculiar style.

The text of the Acts, as it has come down to us, has a
greater variety of readings than any other book of the New
Testament, except the Apocalypse. It is not easy to assign
a reason for this. The Acts seems to have been less read
than the Gospels and Epistles, and this comparative neglect
may have occasioned less anxiety to preserve its purity.
Various attempts were also made to amend the text, and
supposed omissions were supplied ; as, for example, the three
accounts of the conversion of Paul have been made to cor-
respond even in verbal expressions. In consequence of this
disturbed state of the text, great difficulty has been experi-
enced in arriving at the correct reading. Hic liber, observes
Mattheei, in re critica est difficillimus et tmpeditissimus, quod
multa in eo turbata sunt. The most numerous variations are
found in the Codex Bezz. Bornemann has adopted this
codex as containing the true readings. “The Codex Beze,”
he observes, “ excels all other manuscripts in internal good-
ness to an extent that is incredible, and a better text is con-
tained in no other parchment which has come down to our
time; so that the work may be said to have issued from the
most complete and ancient fountain of all.” Such an opinion
is unfavourably regarded by critics of the highest eminence,
though many of the readings found in that manuscript are
of great value and interest. By the labours of Tischendorf,
Lachmann, and De Wette, the original text may now be
considered, to all intents and purposes, restored.

The following is a list of the uncial mss. which are pre-
served of the Acts of the Apostles, with the marks by which
they are known among biblical critics :—

x. The Codex Sinaiticus.—This celebrated Ms., which it
is proposed to designate by the Hebrew letter x, was found
by Tischendorf in the Convent of St. Catherine on Mount
Sinai in 1859. According to him, it belongs to the fourth
century, and is probably the oldest ms. of the New Testa-
ment. It contains the Acts entire.

32 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

A. The Codex Alexandrinus.—This Ms. was presented by
Cyrillus Lucaris, patriarch of Constantinople, to Charles 1.
It is preserved in the British Museum. Tischendorf supposes
that it was written about the middle of the fifth century. It
contains the Acts entire.

B. The Codex Vaticanus.—This is one of the oldest and
most valuable mss. which we have. It is preserved in the
Vatican Library. Tischendorf assigns it to the fourth cen-.
tury. It has been collated by Bartolocci, Bentley, and Birch.
The edition of it published by Cardinal Mai has been unfa-
vourably judged by biblical critics. It contains the Acts entire.

C. The Codex Ephremi.—This ms. is preserved in the
Royal Library of Paris. It is so called because the works of
Ephrem the Syrian were written over a part of it. Tischen-
dorf thinks that it belongs to the fifth century. It contains
the following fragments :—From ch. i. 2 to iv. 3; from ch.
v. 35 to x. 42; from ch. xiii. 1 to xvi. 36; from ch. xx. 10
to xxi. 30; from ch. xxii. 21 to xxiii. 18; from ch. xxiv. 15
to xxvi. 19; from ch. xxvii. 16 to xxviii. 4.

D. The Codex Beze or Cantabrigiensis.—This Ms. is so
called because it was presented by Beza to the University of
Cambridge in 1581. Tischendorf supposes that it belongs
to the sixth century. It is defective as follows:—From ch.
viii. 29 to x. 14; from ch. xxi. 2 to xxi. 10; from ch. xxi.
17 to xxi. 18; from ch. xxii. 10 to xxii. 20; from ch. xxii.
29 to the end of the book.

E. The Codex Laudianus.—This Ms. is so called because
it was presented by Archbishop Laud to the University of
Oxford. It is supposed to have been written toward the
close of the sixth century. It is highly praised both by
Michaelis and Tischendorf. There is a defect from Ὃ δὲ
Παῦλος, ch. xxvi. 29, to πορεύθητι, ch. xxviii. 26.

G. The Codex Bibliothece Anglice.—This Ms. receives
its name because it is preserved in the Anglican Library of
the Augustinian monks at Rome. ‘Tischendorf observes that
it could not have been written before the middle of the ninth
century. It commences at ch. viii. 10, and is complete to
the end.

INTRODUCTION. 33

H. The Codex Mutinensis.—This ms. is deposited in the
Library of Modena. According to Tischendorf, it was
written in the ninth century. It begins with ch. v. 28, and
is defective in the following places:—From ch. ix. 39 to x.
19; from ch. xiii. 36 to xiv. 3; the portion from ch. xxvii. 4
to the end has been supplied in uncial letters by a later
hand, about the eleventh century.'

VII. ARRANGEMENT OF THE ACTS.

The work is divided into two distinct parts: the first part,
embracing the first twelve chapters, contains an account of
the progress of Christianity among the Jews, and of its
extension to the Gentiles; and the second part, embracing
the remaining sixteen chapters, contains an account of the
missionary journeys of Paul. These two parts, again, admit
of various subdivisions. Thus the first part may be divided
into four subdivisions—the history of the church before
Pentecost, the progress of the church in Jerusalem, its pro-
gress in Judea and Samaria, and its extension to the Gentiles.
The second part also admits of a fourfold subdivision,x—
namely, the three missionary journeys of Paul, each of them
beginning at Antioch and terminating at Jerusalem; and
the account of his imprisonment. According to this plan, the
Acts of the Apostles admits of the following arrangement :—

Part I. PRoGRESS OF THE GOSPEL IN JUDEA, AND ITS EXTENSION TO
THE GENTILES.
Sec. 1. History of the Church before Pentecost, Acts i.
Sec. 2. Progress of the Gospel in Jerusalem, Acts ii.—vil.
Sec. 3. Progress of the Gospel in Judea and Samaria, Acts viii. ix.
Sec. 4. Extension of the Gospel to the Gentiles, Acts x.—xii.

Part II. Tue Missionary Lasours OF THE APOSTLE PAUL.
Sec. 1. Paul’s first missionary journey, Acts xiii—xv. 35.
Sec. 2. Paul’s second missionary journey, Acts xv. 36—xviii. 22.
Sec. 3. Paul’s third missionary journey, Acts xviii. 23—xxi. 16.
Sec. 4. Paul’s imprisonment, Acts xxi. 17—xxviil.

1 The authority for the above information is Tischendorf. See his
Prolégomena. .
VOL. I. σ

34 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

VIII. CHRONOLOGY OF THE ACTS.

The Acts of the Apostles evidently proceeds in a chrono-
logical order; but it is extremely difficult to fix the precise
dates of the different events recorded. Even the years of
the birth and death of our Lord are matters of uncertainty.
There are few notices of time given us in the earlier portion
of the Acts, and those given are for the most part indefinite ;
but toward the close of the second portion, when Luke him-
self was with the apostle, the statements as regards time are
definite. In the Epistle to the Galatians, also, exact dates
are given. Paul there mentions two visits which he paid to
Jerusalem (Gal. i. 18, ii. 1): the first corresponding with the
visit mentioned in Acts ix. 26, three years after his conver-
sion; and the second corresponding with the visit mentioned
in Acts xv., fourteen years after his conversion.’ The date
of Paul’s conversion, however, is a matter of extreme uncer-
tainty. There are also several historical facts alluded to in
the Acts, and which are mentioned by Jewish and Roman
historians. The chief among these are the death of Herod
Agrippa 1., the famine in the time of Claudius, the expulsion
of the Jews from Rome, and the procuratorships of Felix and
Festus.

There is only one date which can be determined with
certainty, and that is the period of the death of Herod
Agrippa 1. Josephus tells us that he reigned three years
under Claudius, after he had received from him the whole
of the dominions of his grandfather Herod the Great.
Now Claudius, immediately on his accession to the imperial
throne in the beginning of the year 41, made Herod Agrippa
king of Judea and Samaria; consequently the death of that
king is to be fixed in the year 44.

1 The second of these visits of Paul to Jerusalem is, however, a sub-
ject of much dispute ; and it is also disputed whether the fourteen years
are to be calculated from the conversion of the apostle, or from his
first visit to Jerusalem. These controverted points will be afterwards
discussed.

INTRODUCTION. 35

Another date which is nearly certain, or at least may be
determined within a year, is the removal of Felix from the
procuratorship of Judea, and the entrance of Festus upon
that office. On the departure of Felix, the Jewish inhabit-
ants of Czesarea sent a deputation to Rome to accuse him to
the emperor; but Josephus informs us that he was screened
by the court influence of his brother Pallas (Ant. xx. 8. 9).
The deputation, then, must have arrived at Rome before
the year 62; for in that year, according to Tacitus, Pallas
was put to death by Nero (Ann. xiv. 65). According to
Josephus, Burrus was also alive when the accusers of Felix
were at Rome; but he died in March 62. Hence the recall of
Felix must Have occurred before A.D. 62. Again, Josephus
states that, shortly after the entrance of Festus upon office,
the Jews sent a deputation to Rome about a matter of dis-
pute between them and that governor; and that the decision
was given in their favour in order to gratify Poppza, the
wife of Nero (Ant. xx. 8.11). Now this could not have
happened earlier than the year 62, for according to Tacitus
it was not until that year that Poppza became Nero’s wife
(Ann. xiv. 60); and allowing some time for the dispute
to arise, and the deputation to be sent, Festus could hardly
have been earlier in office than the year 60. From these
data it has been inferred by the ablest chronologists, that
Felix was removed from office and Festus succeeded in
A.D. 60.

A multitude of attempts have been made to give an exact
chronology of the Acts. The ablest work on this subject is
Wieseler’s Chronologie des Apostolischen Zeitalters. Lists
have been given by Meyer, Wieseler, Olshausen, and David-
son, of upwards of thirty chronological tables, not one of
which agrees with another.

We give, for the sake of reference, a table containing a
list of the Roman emperors and of the governors of Judea,
along with the chief events mentioned in the Acts, chronicled
under the years in which these events most probably occurred,
similar to the tables given by Alford, Wordsworth, and
Conybeare and Howson.

36

COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

EMPERORS.

33.

Tiberius.

. Caligula.

. Nero.

58.

. Claudius. | Herod Agrippa 1.

JEWISH GOVERNORS.

Pontius Pilate.

Marullus.

i

Cuspius Fadus.

Tiberius Alexander.

OO pe Na α “ς

Ventidius Cummanus. +

Felix.

came ne ae ae

PRINCIPAL EVENTS IN THE ACTs.

The ascension? miracle of Pen-
tecost—Acts i. ii.

During these years, the events
recorded in Acts iii.—vi. 7
probably occurred.

Martyrdom of Stephen ; evan-
gelistic labours in Samaria—
Acts vi. 8-viii.

Conversion of Paul ?—Acts ix.
1-19.

Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem ;
he retires to Tarsus—Acts ix.
23-31.

The missionary labours of Peter;
conversion of Cornelius; the
church at Antioch; Paul at
Antioch—Acts ix. 32—xi.

Death of Herod; Paul’s second
visit to Jerusalem—<Acts xii.

Paul’s first missionary journey
—Acts xii. xiv.

During these years, Paul ap-
pears to have been at An-
tioch, where he abode long
time with the disciples—Acts

Sav. 28.

Council of Jerusalem; Paul's
third visit. Commencement
of his second missionary jour-
ney—<Acts xv.—xvi. 5.

Paul in Macedonia and Achaia
—<Acts xvi. 6-xviii. 1.

Paul at Corinth—Acts xviii.
1-17.

Paul’s fourth visit to Jerusalem.
Paul’s third missionary jour-
ney, commencing at Pente-
cost 54; he resides in Ephesus
for nearly three years—Acts
xviii. 18—xix. 20.

Paul leaves Ephesus at Pente-
cost, and winters in Corinth
—<Acts xix. 21-xx. 3.

Paul’s journey to Jerusalem,
which he reaches at Pente-
cost; his arrest and imprison-
ment—Acts xx. 4-xxiv. 26.

INTRODUCTION. 37

EMPERORS. JEWISH GOVERNORS. PRINCIPAL EVENTS IN THE Acts.
‘ Paul a prisoner in Cxesarea—
59. Nero. Felix. 5 re
(| Acts xxiv. 26, 27.

Paul’s defence before Agrippa;

ἢ in the autumn he sails for

60. ni Festus. Rome, and winters at Malta
—<Acts xxv.-xxviii. 10.

Paul’s arrival at Rome in the

(
Bi. i spring—Acts xxviii. 11-29.
a heey ἱ om i ets at Rome—<Acts
; ( Close of Paul’s two years’ im-
63. 2 prisonment—Acts xxviii. 30,
31.

List of Works, with their Editions, cited in this Commentary.

Akerman’s Numismatic Illustrations of the New Testament. London
1846.

Alexander on the Acts of the Apostles. London: Nisbetand Co. 1857.

Alford’s Greek Testament, vol. ii, Third edition, 1857.

Baumgarten’s Apostolic History. Clark’s translation. 1863.

Baur’s Apostel Paulus. Zweite Auflage. Leipzig 1866.

Bengelii Gnomon Novi Testamenti. LEditiotertia. Tubing 1850.

Biscoe on the Acts of the Apostles. ‘Oxford 1829.

Calvin’s Commentary on the Acts. Calvin Translation Society.

Chrysostom’s Homilies on the Acts.

Conybeare and Howson’s St. Paul. New edition, 1862.

Cook on the Acts of the Apostles. Second edition. London 1866.

Davidson’s Introduction to the New Testament. London: Bagster and
Sons. 1849.

Davidson’s Introduction to the History of the New Testament. London:
Longmans. 1868.1

De Wette’s Apostelgeschichte. Dritte Auflage, 1848.

Doddridge’s Family Expositor. London 1840.

Du Veil on the Acts of the Apostles. London 1851.

Eadie’s Bible Encyclopedia.

Eusebii Historia Ecclesiastica.

Ewald’s Geschichte des Volkes Israel. Zweiter Ausgabe. Sechster
Band, 1858.

1 These works of Dr. Davidson are two entirely different books, and
view the Acts from two different standpoints. In order to distinguish
them in the references, the last published is called the ‘‘ New Intro-
duction.”

38 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

Gieseler’s Church History. Clark’s translation. 1846.

Griesbach’s Novum Testamentum Greecum.

Hackett on the Acts. Boston 1863.

Horne’s Introduction to the Scriptures. Ninth edition, 1846.

Humphry’s Commentary on the Acts. Second edition. London 1854.

Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities and Jewish War.

Kitto’s Iustrated Commentary on the Bible.

Kuincel’s Novi Testamenti Libri Historici, tom. iii. London 1835.

Lange’s Apostolische Zeitalter. Braunschweig 1853.

Lange’s Bibelwerk: Der Apostel Geschichten von Lechler. Dritte
Auflage, 1869.

Lardner’s Works. 5 vols. quarto. London 1815.

Lekebusch’s Composition und Entstehung der Apostelgeschichte. 1854.

Lewin’s Life and Epistles of St. Paul. London 1851.

Lightfoot’s Horze Hebraic et Talmudice. Oxford 1859.

Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte. Dritte Auflage, 1861.

Michaelis’ Introduction to the New Testament. By Bishop Marsh.

Neander’s History of the Planting of Christianity. Bohn’s translation.

Neander’s Church History. Bohn’s translation.

Oertel’s Paulus in der Apostelgeschichte. Halle 1868.

Olshausen on the Gospels and the Acts. Clark’s translation. 1856.

Paley’s Hore Pauline.

Pearson’s (Bishop) Lectures on the Acts. Cambridge 1851.

Renan’s Les Apdotres.

Renan’s Saint Paul.

Robinson’s Lexicon of the New Testament. New edition. London 1858.

Schaff’s History of the Apostolic Church. Edinburgh: Clark. 1854.

Schwanbeck’s Quellen der Apostelgeschichte. Darmstadt 1847.

Smith’s (Dr. William) Dictionary of the Bible.

Smith’s (James) Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul. Second edition,
1856.

Thiersch’s History of the Apostolic Church. Translated by Carlyle.

Tischendorf’s Novum Testamentum Greece. Editio septima, 1859.

Tischendorf’s Vetus Testamentum Greece. 1850.

Whitby’s Commentary.

Wieseler’s Chronologie des Apostolischen Zeitalters. Gottingen 1848.

Winer’s Biblisches Realworterbuch. Zweite Aufiage. ’

Winer’s Grammar of the New Testament. Translated by Masson. Fourth
edition.

Wordsworth’s Greek Testament: The Acts. Fifth edition.

Zeller’s Apostelgeschichte. Stuttgart 1854.

PRICE R

PROGRESS OF CHRISTIANITY IN JUDEA, AND ITS
EXTENSION TO THE GENTILES.

SECTION IL

THE ASCENSION—Acrts 1. 1-12.

1 The first treatise I made, O Theophilus, concerning all things
which Jesus began both to do and to teach, 2 Until the day on which
He was taken up, after that He through the Holy Ghost had given
commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen: 3 To whom also
He showed Himself alive after His passion by many infallible proofs,
being seen by them during forty days, and speaking of the things con-
cerning the kingdom of God: 4 And, being assembled together, He
commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to await the pro-
mise of the Father, which ye heard from me. 5 Because John baptized
with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not long after
these days. 6 When they therefore were come together, they asked
Him, saying, Lord, restorest Thou at this time the kingdom to Israel ?
7 But He said to them, It pertains not to you to know the times or
the seasons, which the Father has put in His own power. 8 But ye
shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and
ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in
Samaria, and to the end of the earth. 9 And when He had spoken
these things, while they beheld, He was lifted up ; and a cloud received
Him from their sight. 10 And, while they were gazing up to heaven,
as He went away, behold, two men stood by them in white garments ;
11 Who also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye looking up to
heaven? this Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, shall come
in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven. 12 Then they
returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from
Jerusalem a Sabbath-day’s journey.

39

40 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

CRITICAL NOTES.

Ver. 8. Mov, found in A, B, C, D, s, is much better attested
than μοι, found in E. Ver. 10. The plural ἐσθήσεσιν λευ-
xais, found in A, B, C, 8, is preferred by Lachmann and
Tischendorf to the singular ἐσθῆτι λευκῇ, found in D, Εἰ.

EXEGETICAL REMARKS.

Ver. 1. Tov μὲν πρῶτον Noyov—The first treatise. There
is no necessity for supposing that πρῶτον is here used for
πρότερον, the former. This “ first treatise” is beyond ques-
tion the third Gospel. Mév is here used without the corre-
sponding δέ, the sentence being incomplete : some such clause
as “this second treatise I now compose” requires to be added.

Ἂ Θεύόφιλε---Ο Theophilus. It is evident from Luke’s
Gospel that Theophilus was a convert to Christianity (Luke
i. 4); and it is also probable that he was a man of rank, as
the epithet κράτιστε, most noble, is there prefixed to his
name,—an epithet which generally refers not to character,
but to station; being the same which is given by Claudius
Lysias and Tertullus to Felix, and by Paul to Festus. Some
of the Fathers, as Origen, Ambrose, and Epiphanius, suppose
that the word is not a proper name, but an appellative de-
noting a “lover of God,” and applicable to every Christian
reader ; but its occurrence in two purely historical works,
and the epithet κράτιστε, refute this opinion. Theodore
Hase supposes that Theophilus is the same as Theophilus
the son of Annas, who was for some years the high priest
(Joseph. Ant. xviii. 5. 3 and xix. 6. 2), and that the third
Gospel and the Acts were apologies for Christianity ; an
opinion which Michaelis is inclined to support,’ but which
is at; variance with the dedication of the Gospel, which inti-
mates that Theophilus was a Christian. The most extra-
ordinary opinion is that advanced by Jacob Hase, that
Theophilus was none other than the distinguished Jewish
philosopher Philo.

Περὶ πάντων --- concerning all. Luke here asserts the

1 See Marsh’s Michaelis, vol. iv. p. 239, second edition.

THE ASCENSION. —I. 1. 41

completeness of his Gospel; but the words must not be
pressed too far, as many important events of the life of
Christ, recorded by the other evangelists, are omitted by
Luke; and because, as St. John tells us, it would be im-
possible to write all that Jesus did (John xxi. 25).

ὯΩν ἤρξατο ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ποιεῖν τε καὶ Siddoneww—which Jesus
began both to do and to teach. Different meanings have been
attached to the word ἤρξατο. Some, as Kuineel, suppose it
to be pleonastic, and the clause to be equivalent to ἐποίησε
τε καὶ ἐδίδαξε '—which Jesus did and taught; but this is a
mere arbitrary and unnecessary conjecture. Others, as
Winer, suppose it to be elliptical, and would read the
sentence thus: which Jesus began and continued to do and
teach, until the day that He was taken up ;? which certainly
gives a good sense. Lightfoot explains it thus: “In the
former treatise I discoursed of all those things which Jesus
Himself began to do and teach; in this I am to give a
relation of those things which were continued by the apostles
after Him.” * Alford supposes the meaning to be that the
Gospel contained the dpyds, the outset of the doings and
teachings of Jesus, as distinguished from this second treatise,
which was to relate their sequels and results. And some-
what similar to this is the opinion of Olshausen and Words-
worth, adopted and defended at great length by Baumgarten,
that the Gospel contains the beginning, and the Acts of the
Apostles the continuation, of the doings and teachings of
Jesus;* an opinion which indeed contains a great truth,
and is most suggestive, but which, if intended, would have
been otherwise indicated than merely by the indefinite word
ἤρξατο The simplest meaning seems to be: of all that
Jesus from the beginning did and taught, until the day that He
was taken τι."

1 Kuineel’s Libri Historici, vol..iii. p. 3.

2 Winer’s Grammar of the New Testament, p. 643, Clark’s translation.
3 Lightfoot’s Hore Hebraicex, vol. iv. p. 6.

* Baumgarten’s Apostolic History, vol. i. p. 9.

5 See Introduction, pp. 27-29.

® The translation adopted by De Wette.

42 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

Ver. 2. "άχρι ἧς ἡμέρας---ἀνελήμφθη---ιριίλϊ the day when
He was taken up. The ascension is the boundary between
the Gospel and the Acts. The Gospel ends, and the Acts
commences, with an account of it: in the former, the
ascension is the termination of the earthly life of Jesus; in
the latter, it is the commencement of His heavenly life.

Διὰ Πνεύματος ayiou—through the Holy Ghost. There is
a diversity in the reading and punctuation of these words:
they admit of a threefold construction. 1. Some connect
them with dvernud0n—He was taken up by the Holy Ghost ;
a reading which has few supporters. 2. Others (Lardner,
Michaelis, Kuincel, Olshausen, De Wette) connect them with -
ods e&enéEato—the apostles whom He had chosen by the Holy
Ghost. 3. And others (Lechler, Meyer, Alford, Words-
worth) connect them, as in our English version, with ἐντεὺ-
Adpevos—having given commandments by the Holy Ghost ;
and this seems to be the most simple and appropriate con-
struction. This construction, however, is itself capable of
various meanings. Some (Bengel) render it, that Jesus
gave these commandments by the communication of the
Holy Ghost; not orally, but by inspiration. Others (Dr.
Burton), that “He told His apostles that His commands
would be more fully made known to them by the Holy
Ghost.” But the obvious meaning is, that Jesus by word
of mouth, anointed as He was by the Holy Ghost, gave
commandments to the apostles.

Ver. 3. Ἔν πολλοῖς τεκμηρίοις---ὔν many infallible proofs.
The word τεκμήριον is used to denote the strongest of all
proofs—sure tokens. It is employed by Aristotle to signify
demonstrative evidence. Beza renders it certissimis signis ;
and our English translation, infallible proofs, does not too
strongly express its meaning. These infallible proofs of His
resurrection Christ gave to His disciples. He appeared to
them frequently: at least nine different appearances are
recorded by the evangelists:—1. His appearance to Mary
Magdalene; 2. His appearance to the women on their way
from the sepulchre; 3. His appearance to the disciples
going to Emmaus; 4. His appearance to Peter; 5. His

THE ASCENSION.—I. 3. 43

appearance to the apostles, Thomas being absent; 6. His
appearance when Thomas was present; 7. His appearance
at the Sea of Tiberias; 8. His appearance at a mountain in
Galilee; and 9. His last interview with His disciples at Jeru-
salem. And at these appearances He gave His disciples ample
opportunity of testing the reality of His resurrection, by
speaking to them, eating and walking with them, and allowing
Thomas to touch the print of the nails, and to thrust his hand
into His side. He gave them sure tokens (τεκμήρια) that.
the same body which was crucified was raised from the dead.

᾿Οπτανόμενος avtois—being seen by them. Baumgarten
supposes that this implies that Christ rose from the dead
with a glorified body; that His body after the resurrection
was spiritual, different from that body of flesh and blood
which He possessed before His passion. “The word ὀπτανό-
μενος," he observes, “signifies that, in order to converse
with His disciples during these forty days, He quitted the
invisible world on each occasion.” But this is putting a
meaning into the word which it does not bear: it merely
signifies that Jesus appeared to His disciples, perhaps sud-
denly, but it determines nothing as to the nature of His
body. ‘There is, it must be admitted, a certain degree of
mystery connected with Christ’s raised body. After His
resurrection He did not live among His disciples, but only
appeared to them occasionally, and that often suddenly and ~
unexpectedly, and vanished from their sight as suddenly as
He came. But still the idea that His body was entirely
spiritual does not accord with His eating and drinking with
His disciples. Chrysostom remarks on these words: “He
was not always with them now, as He was before the
resurrection; for Luke does not say that He was seen by
them forty days, but during forty days.””

Av ἡμερῶν teccapdxovra—during forty days. This is the
only place where the interval between the resurrection and
the ascension is given. It has been asserted that there is
here a discrepancy between the Acts and the narrative of the

1 Baumgarten’s Apostolical History, vol. i. p. 9.
2 Chrysostom on the Acts, Hom. i.

44 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

resurrection given in Luke’s Gospel. It has been affirmed
that, according to the Gospel, the resurrection and the ascension
took place on the same day.’ Meyer thinks that this diversity
supposes that a considerable interval occurred between the
composition of the Gospel and of the Acts, during which the
tradition of forty days was developed.” But the discrepancy
is only in the minds of these writers. Luke, in the Gospel,
gives no determinations of time, and it is highly improbable
that all which he relates as occurring after the resurrection
could be compressed within the limits of a single day.
Baotheias τοῦ Ocod—the kingdom of God. That is, the
Messianic kingdom ; the kingdom which Jesus Christ came
to establish in the world ; that kingdom which “is not meat
and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy
Ghost” (Rom. xiv. 17): in other words, the dispensation of
the gospel.
Ver. 4. Suvarsowevos—being assembled together. The
margin of our Bible reads, eating together with them; and so the
word was understood by Chrysostom, Jerome, Theophylact,
among the Fathers, and by Meyer among modern critics.
But this arises from mistaking the etymology of the word ;
as it is not derived from GAs, salt, but from dda, an assembly,
or perhaps rather from ἁληής, collected together. Others,
again, suppose it to belong to the middle voice, and render it
assembling them—calling together the apostles ; but there is no
example of the word being so used. 'The correct meaning,
then, is, being assembled together, the verb being in the passive.
Olshausen and others suppose that the meeting here men-
tioned in the fourth verse is different from the one after-
wards mentioned in the sixth verse, and took place some
days before the ascension.’ Lightfoot supposes that this
meeting took place in Galilee, and was the meeting of Jesus
with His disciples in the mountain of Galilee, according
to the appointment He had made. But the reasons given

1 Zeller’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 77. Davidson’s New Introduction, vol.
ii. p. 196. Renan’s Les Apétres.

* Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 27.

3 Olshausen on the Gospels and Acts, vol. iv. p. 230.

THE ASCENSION. —I. 4. 45

for this distinction of the meetings are insufficient: the nar-
rative is continuous throughout; and the particle οὖν in the
sixth verse seems to connect the meeting there mentioned
with the fourth verse, Accordingly this meeting took place
on the day of the ascension; and the place of meeting was
either Mount Olivet or Jerusalem, from which we read,
“Jesus led them out as far as Bethany” (Luke xxiv. 50).
No doubt this meeting was by the appointment of Christ ;
for we cannot suppose that otherwise the apostles would
have left Galilee, to which they had betaken themselves, and
where Christ had appeared to them so long before the feast
of Pentecost, unless they had been directed to do so by their
Lord.

Παρήγγειλεν abtois—He commanded them. The persons
assembled with Christ were the apostles, the same as those
to whom He showed Himself alive after His passion.
Whether they only were present, or whether there were other
disciples with them, is undetermined: the narrative would
seem to suggest that the former opinion is the more probable.

Τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν tod IIatpos—the promise of the Father.
The promise here referred to.was the bestowal of the Holy
Spirit, and especially the miraculous gifts which were con-
ferred on the disciples on the day of Pentecost. The apostles
had already obtained the influences of the Spirit, but by no
means in so copious a measure as they were to receive them
after the ascension of their Lord. “The Holy Ghost,” we
are expressly informed, “was not yet given, because Jesus
was not yet glorified” (John vii. 39). Now that the Messiah
promised to the fathers has appeared, the gift of the Spirit
is peculiarly the promise, the coming of which we are to
expect. Here, and in Luke’s Gospel (ch. xxiv. 49), this gift
is called “the promise of the Father,’ because it was re-
peatedly and expressly promised by God under the Old Tes-
tament dispensation (Joel ii. 28, etc.). Our Lord also here
reminds the apostles that He Himself had often made the
same promise—which ye have heard of me; the allusion being
not to the promise recorded in Luke’s Gospel (Luke xxiv. 49),
as there also the last interview of Jesus with His disciples is

46 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

probably related, but rather to the promises made by our
Lord in His last discourses before He suffered, as recorded
in John’s Gospel (John xiii—xvi.).

Ver. 5. “Ort Iwavves μὲν ἐβάπτισεν tOati—because John
baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy
Ghost. There appears here to be a reference to the testi-
mony of the Baptist himself: “I indeed baptize you with
water ; but One mightier than I cometh: He shall baptize
you with the Holy Ghost and with fire” (Luke iii. 16).
This promise was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, when
cloven tongues like as of fire sat upon each of the disciples,
and when they were all filled with the Holy Ghost. This
was, as Calvin happily expresses it, the common baptism of
the church; for it was for the use of the church that the
gifts of the Spirit were so largely conferred on the disciples.

Οὐ μετὰ πολλὰς ταύτας ἡμέρας---ποί long after these days ;
or, as we would express it, after a few days. ‘The period
which intervened between the ascension and Pentecost, when
this promise was fulfilled, and the apostles were baptized with
the Holy Ghost, was only ten days.

* Ver. 6. Κύριε, εἰ ἐν τῷ ypove—Iopair—Lord, restorest
Thou at this time the kingdom to Israel? 'This question of
the apostles was suggested by the conversations which Jesus
had with them concerning the kingdom of God, and by the
promise which He made them of a speedy advent Ἢ the Holy
Ghost. {They inquired whether Jesus was now about to estab-
lish His Messianic kingdom over Israel. Lightfoot supposes
that the question was one of astonishment: “Lord, wilt
Thou restore the kingdom to those who have dealt so basal
and perfidiously with Thee?”* But the words are obviously
the language of desire and hope. Meyer, we think correctly,
refers the time of the restoration inquired after to the οὐ μετὰ
πολλὰς ταύτας ἡμέρας" The apostles connected the out-
pouring of the Spirit with the establishment of the Messianic
kingdom; and therefore, when our Lord promised that after
a few days they would be baptized with the Holy Ghost,

1 Lightfoot’s Hore Hebraicz, vol. iv. p. 10.
2 Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, pp. 29, 30.

THE ASCENSION.—I. τ. 47

they regarded this as an indirect indication that He would
then, ἐν τῷ χρόνῳ τούτῳ, restore the kingdom to Israel.

It is, however, not very clear what ideas the apostles
attached to the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. No
doubt they shared in the erroneous notions of the Jews in
general concerning a temporal Messiah. ‘They still clung to
the idea that the Messiah would restore to Israel the palmy
days of David and Solomon; that He would rescue Judea
from the Roman yoke, -and establish His throne in Jeru-
salem. These views had indeed received a terrible shock by
the crucifixion of their Master; but His resurrection, and
His renewal of the promise of the Spirit, had inspired them
with new hopes. Still, however, we cannot suppose that the
apostles, after being so long associated with Christ, would
entertain wholly carnal views concerning the Messianic king-
dom. They probably imagined that the world would be
gradually converted to Judaism, and that Jerusalem, the
holy city, would be the resort of all nations: most evidently
they had not the slightest conception of any other way by
which the Gentiles could be admitted into the kingdom of
God, except by embracing the Jewish religion. It was not
until many years after this that they realized the great truth,
that God was the God of the Gentiles as well as of the Jews,
and that all were freely invited into the Messianic kingdom.

Ver. 7. Our Lord, in His answer, represses the curiosity
of the apostles, their impatience, and perhaps also the narrow
spirit with which they restricted the kingdom to Israel. The
apostles had asked Him concerning the time, and our Lord’s
answer is confined to this point. He tells them not to be too
curious regarding the future, but to refer times and seasons
to Him who has reserved them in His own power. But it is
to be observed that He neither denies nor affirms the fact of
the kingdom. He does not correct the misconceptions which
He well knew the apostles entertained, knowing that the
Holy Spirit, who was shortly to be given, would impart to
them clear views of the spiritual nature of His kingdom,
and would guide them into all truth. The course of events,
also, would soon correct their erroneous notions. «Χρόνους

48 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

ἢ Katpous—the times or the seasons. 'These words are not to
be regarded as equivalent terms. Χρόνος is time absolutely,
without regard to circumstances; καιρός is a definite deter-
mined period. Καιρός, observes Meyer, “ signifies a definite
limited, space of time, with the idea of fitness.” Time, in
both these points of view, both absolute and relative, is by
the Father retained in His own power.

Ver. 8. Avvapw ἐπελθόντος τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἐφ᾽
ὑμᾶς---ροιυθ)" after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you.
The margin of our Bible reads, the power of the Holy Ghost
coming upon you; but the other rendering, with the con-
struction of the genitive absolute, is to be preferred.

Καὶ ἔσεσθέ μου pdptupes—And ye shall be my witnesses,
both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and to
the end of the earth. In these words the office and mission
of the apostles are declared. Their office is that of witness:
“they were not to be prophets of the future, but witnesses
of the past.” Their mission was to witness for Christ in
Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and to the end of the earth.
We see here the actual course which the gospel took: first
it was preached in Jerusalem ; and after the dispersion, by
reason of the persecution which followed the martyrdom of
Stephen, in Judea and Samaria, and afterwards by Peter to
Cornelius, the first Gentile convert, and by Paul in Asia
and Europe. By ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς is not to be understood
the limits of the Holy Land, but the end of the earth. This
mission was not, in its completeness, executed by the apostles:
it continues to be the mission of the church, until the whole
world shall be converted, and do homage to Clirist as its
Lord and King.

Ver. 9. éanp0n—LHe was lifted up. Luke informs us, in
his Gospel, that the ascension occurred when Jesus was in
the act of blessing His disciples: “ And it came to pass,
while He blessed them, He was parted from them, and car-
ried up to heaven” (Luke xxiv. 51). When, however, we
speak of the ascension of Christ, it must be understood only
of His human nature; for as God He is everywhere present.
His ascension did not consist in any local removal of His

THE ASCENSION.—I. 9. 49

divine nature, but in the exaltation of His humanity. He
entered heaven as Mediator between God and man, and
as such was exalted far above all principality and power.
“ While,” as Baumgarten beautifully expresses it, “ the
ascension of Elijah may be compared to the flight of a bird,
which none can follow; the ascension of Christ is as it were
_a bridge between heaven and earth, laid down for all who
‘are drawn to Him by His earthly existence.”?

Καὶ vepérn—and a cloud. This cloud was the visible
symbol of the presence of God. Chrysostom calls it the
“royal chariot.” It was the Shekinah of the Jews, the
bright cloud which is so frequently mentioned as appearing
to the Israelites during their march through the desert, and
which rested on the mercy-seat of the temple built by Solo-
mon. ‘This cloud is also mentioned in the narrative of the
transfiguration: “ A bright cloud overshadowed them; and
behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved
Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. xvii. 5).

It has been objected to the reality of the ascension, that
it is only mentioned by two out of the four evangelists, Mark
and Luke, and these were neither apostles nor eye-witnesses
of the fact which they relate. Matthew and John, who are
represented as present, are silent on the subject. And it has
been further urged that this event is not dwelt upon by any
of the other writers of the New Testament. Now it must be
confessed that this comparative silence of the sacred writers,
concerning an incident of such importance in the life of our
Lord, does at first indeed appear strange; but let us inquire
into its extent, and the reasons for it.

It is a mistake to suppose that the ascension is only men-
tioned by Mark and Luke: it is clearly implied by the two
other evangelists. Thus, in St. Matthew’s Gospel, our Lord
is represented as saying, “ Hereafter shall ye see the Son of
man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the
clouds of heaven” (Matt. xxvi. 64). And St. John tells us
that our Lord told His disciples in general, that “the Son of
man would ascend up where He was before” (John vi. 62) ;

1 Baumgarten’s Apostolical History, vol. i. p. 21.

VOL. I. D

50 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

and that, after His resurrection, He said to Mary Magdalene,
“Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto
my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your
God” (John xx. 17). Nor are the other sacred writers
entirely silent about the ascension. St. Paul expressly says
that Christ “was received up into glory” (1 Tim. ii. 16);
and St. Peter declares that Christ “is ΠΝ into heaven,
and is on the right hand of God” (1 Pet. ili. 22); and
yet even more distinctly, in his ‘first address τ the Jews,
when contrasting David with Christ, he says, “ For David is
not ascended into the heavens” (Acts ii. 84),—thus treating

the ascension as a known fact (see also Acts i. 22). And

the book of Revelation is full of proofs that Christ in His
glorified humanity has entered into heaven. But besides
these direct proofs, as Olshausen has well remarked, the
ascension is necessarily presupposed in the idea of the resur-
rection. Jesus having risen from the dead, no other mode
of departure from this world is conceivable than an ascension
into heaven. We cannot possibly imagine that He would
die again; for if so, instead of overcoming death, He would
in the end be overcome by it. Even although Luke had
given us no account of the visible ascension of Christ in the
presence of His apostles, yet His last interview with them,
and His disappearance from them, must have been regarded
by us as a removal to heaven.

Still, however, although not as an “argument against the
ascension, the fact remains, that this great event is less fre-
quently alluded to by the sacred writers than we might have
expected. Can we assign areason for this? We think, with
Lange and Olshausen, that it is to be found in this, that
the ascension was not regarded by the sacred writers as a dis-

tinct and separate event, but as part of the resurrection and _

glory of the Redeemer. The resurrection was the essential
point—the triumph of the Redeemer over death, the com-
pletion of salvation, the public manifestation of His divine
Sonship, the commencement of His heavenly life. The
ascension was a part of that glory which followed; so much
so, indeed, that all those passages which refer to Christ’s

THE ASCENSION.—I. 10-12. 51

exaltation, virtually include His ascension. For this reason
both the sacred writers and the early Church gave far greater
prominence to the resurrection than to the ascension. “ Every-
thing of importance,” observes Olshausen, “in a doctrinal
point of view was concentrated in the resurrection: with it
closed the earthly being of Christ. The ascension, and also
the outpouring of the Spirit, which was connected with'the
ascension, and dependent upon it, are only the results of the
resurrection, viewed as the glorification of the body, and the
consequences of the victory over death.”?

Ver. 10. Whilst the apostles stood gazing up to heaven,
and fixed in mute astonishment, their attention was drawn
by the sudden appearance of two men in white garments.
These were doubtless angels in the form of men; the white
garments being the emblem of heavenly purity. As angels
proclaimed His birth to the shepherds of Bethlehem, and
announced His resurrection to the women at the sepulchre ;
80 they now appear to the apostles at His ascension, and
predict His second advent.

Ver. 11. Οἱ καὶ etrav— Who also said, Ye men of Galilee,
why stand ye gazing up to heaven? The apostles are here
gently reprimanded for spending their time in idle contem-
plation; whilst their mission was actively to be engaged as
witnesses for Christ, and patiently to await His second
coming.

Οὗτος ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς---οὐρανόν. Whilst the angels reprove the
apostles for their inactive contemplation, they also comfort
them with the prospect of Christ’s second coming. He will
come again as He went to heaven, with similar glory, and in
similar circumstances. As He ascended in a visible manner,
so, when He appears the second time, every eye shall see
Him. As a cloud received Him out of the sight of His
apostles, so shall He come again in the clouds of heaven.
And as angels accompanied Him on His ascension to heaven,
so shall they attend Him at His second coming.

Ver. 12. ᾿Απὸ ὄρους τοῦ καλουμένου ’EXatdvos—from the

1 See Olshausen on the Gospels and Acts, vol. iv. PP. 234-238 ; also
Lange’s Life of Christ, vol. v. pp. 184-140.

52 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

mount called Olivet. This mount was so called from the
number of olive trees which grew upon it. Its highest
point, the so-called “ Mount of the Ascension,” is about 2700
feet above the level of the sea, being, however, only 200 feet
above Mount Zion, and 300 feet above the temple. It lies
to the east of Jerusalem, being between it and the Dead
Sea. At its foot, on the western side, is situated the garden
of Gethsemane; and Bethany lies on the other side, being
two miles distant from Jerusalem. The highest point is in
the centre, and is, according to tradition, the spot where
Christ ascended. It was here that the Empress Helena
erected her church as a memorial of that event.

The tradition which fixes upon “ the Mount of the Ascen-
sion” as the true spot is probably erroneous. In the Acts
we are indeed informed that the apostles returned from the
mount called Olivet; but St. Luke in his Gospel tells us
that “‘ Jesus led them out as far as Bethany” (Luke xxiv..
50). Nor is there any discrepancy in these accounts, as
Bethany lay near the foot of the Mount of Olives, on its
eastern slope, away from Jerusalem. This being the case,
it would follow that the ascension did not take place from the
summit of Mount Olivet, the so-called “ Mount of the Ascen-
sion,” but at least a mile distant from it, in the neighbour-
hood of Bethany.’ Still it was on the same mount where He
endured His great agony. “The same place, therefore,” as
Olshausen remarks, “where the deepest humiliation of our
Lord occurred, viz. in the conflict of Gethsemane, witnessed
also His sublimest elevation.”

Σαββάτου ὁδόν---α Sabbath-day’s journey. This, accord-
ing to the traditions of the Jews, was two thousand cubits,
or about three-quarters of a mile. It was the supposed
distance between the camp and the tabernacle in the wilder-
ness (Josh. iii. 4). The law of Moses gave no directions
about this matter; but the regulation was not considered the
less binding, nor was the violation of it the less punishable,
on that account. This is one of those examples in which the

1 Others suppose that by Bethany is meant not the village, but the
district of Bethany. See Wordsworth’s Commentary.

THE ASCENSION.—I. 12. 53

traditions of the elders were as carefully observed as the
commands of the law. Hence our Saviour, in His predic-
tion of the destruction of Jerusalem, tells His disciples to
pray that their flight might not be on the Sabbath-day (Matt.
xxiv. 20), when probably they would have been prevented.
But what distance is here mentioned? Bethany, the place
to which our Lord led His disciples, is, we are informed in
St. John’s Gospel, fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem (John
xi. 18). The Mount of Olives, on the other hand, is said by
Josephus in one place to be five furlongs distant (Ant. xx. 8.
6), and in another place to be six furlongs (Bell. Jud. v. 2, 3).
From this, then, it would seem that not the distance of the
precise spot where the ascension took place, but of the Mount
of Olives, on which it happened, is intended by the sacred
historian."

1See Hackett on the Acts, p. 41; Smith’s Dictionary—Mount of
Olives; Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 32. ;

SECTION IL

THE ELECTION OF MATTHIAS—Acrts 1. 13-26.

13 And when they came in, they went up into the upper room,
where abode both Peter, and John, and James, and Andrew, Philip,
and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and
Simon the Zealot, and Judas of James. 14 These all continued with
one accord in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus,
and with His brethren. 15 And in those days, Peter, rising up in the
midst of the brethren, said (the number of the names together was
about an hundred and twenty), 16 Men and brethren, it was neces-
sary that this scripture should be fulfilled which the Holy Ghost fore-
told by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was guide to those
who took Jesus. 17 For he was numbered among us, and received the
office of this ministry. 18 Now this man purchased a field with the
wages of iniquity ; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst,
and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it was known to all the inha-
bitants of Jerusalem; so that that field was called in their own dialect,
Akeldama, that is, The field of blood. 20 For it is written in the book
of Psalms, ‘‘ Let his habitation be desolate, and let there be no dweller
therein ;” and, ‘‘ His office let another take.” 21 Therefore it is neces-
sary that, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the
Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 Beginning from the baptism
of John, unto the day when He was taken up from us, one should be-
come a witness with us of His resurrection. 23 And they appointed
two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. —
24 And having prayed, they said, Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts —
of all, show whom of these two Thou hast chosen, 25 To take the place
of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas turned aside, that he
might go to his own place. 26 And they cast lots for them; and the
lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

CRITICAL NOTES.

Ver. 14. Kai τῇ δεήσει is wanting in all the uncial
MSs., and is rejected by Griesbach, Tischendorf, Lachmann,
δά

THE ELECTION OF MATTHIAS.—I. 13. δῦ

Meyer, and De Wette. Ver. 1ὅ. A, B, ©, s, have ἀδελφῶν,
the reading adopted by Tischendorf and Lachmann, instead
of lisbipedus contained in D, E. Ver. 25. λαβεῖν τὸν τόπον;
found in A, B, Ὁ, D, is “Ane better attested than λαβεῖν τὸν
κλῆρον, fitch ins. Ver. 26. Instead of αὐτῶν, A, B, C, καὶ
read αὐτοῖς, the reading adopted by Tischendorf.

EXEGETICAL REMARKS.

Ver. 13. Καὶ ὅτε εἰσῆλθον---αγα when they came in, namely
into the city. ᾿᾽Εις τὸ brep@ov—into the upper room. Some
(Lightfoot, Du Veil, Hammond) suppose that this upper
room was one of the chambers attached to the temple; but ᾿
it is in the highest degree improbable that the Jewish hier-
archy, who had the charge of these rooms, would permit the
disciples of Jesus to assemble in one of them for worship.
We are then to understand the upper room of some private _
house which the apostles had hired, or whose possessor was
a disciple. Epiphanius tells us that it was on Mount Zion,
and that a Christian church was afterwards erected on the
spot where it stood. It is to be observed that this upper
room is particularized by the definite article—the upper room,
some well-known upper room; perhaps, as Ewald suggests,
the large upper room in which our Lord partook of the pass-
over with His apostles (Luke xxii. 12), or the room where He
appeared to them after His resurrection (John xx. 19, 26).
Upper rooms, directly under the flat roof, were in the East
large and spacious, and were often set apart as halls for
meetings. Thus it was in an upper room that Paul delivered
his farewell address to the disciples at Troas (Acts xx. 8).

Οὗ ἦσαν Katapévovtes—where abode. This is not at
variance with the statement in Luke’s Gospel, that after the
ascension the disciples were continually in the temple, prais-
ing and blessing God (Luke xxiv. 53): for that statement
merely implies that, as devout Israelites, they were to be
found in the temple at the stated hours of prayer; whereas
here we are informed that at other times they assembled in
this upper room for prayer and religious fellowship.

56 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

Ὅ τε Ilétpos—both Peter. This is the fourth catalogue
which we have of the apostles. The other catalogues are
Matt. x. 2-4, Mark iii. 16-19, and Luke vi. 14-16. They
all vary in the order in which the names are given, and
several of the apostles are mentioned under different names.
Peter, John, James, and Andrew are in all the catalogues,
though not in the same order, placed first. Philip is said to
be of Bethsaida; and Thomas is surnamed Didymus, or the
twin (John xi. 16); Bartholomew is supposed to be identical
with Nathanael of Cana (John i. 46, xxi. 2); Matthew is
called the publican, and is identified with Levi (Luke v. 27),
as the circumstances of his call and that of Matthew are the
same (Matt. ix. 9). James is here, and in the other three
catalogues, designated *Addaiov, of Alpheus; the genitive
being used to denote relationship, and signifying in general,
the son of. Whether he is the same as James the Lord’s
brother, the so-called bishop of Jerusalem, is a matter of
dispute, and shall afterwards be considered.’ Simon, here
surnamed 6 Ζηλωτής, the zealot, is in St. Matthew’s Gospel
called ὁ Kavavaios,” a word of similar import. Some
suppose that this surname refers to his having previously
belonged to the political sect of the Zealots, and others to his
ardent disposition. The last name is Judas of James, which
some render Judas the brother of James (Jude 1), and
others Judas the son of (an unknown) James, regarding him
as a different person from Jude, the author of the epistle.
He is in St. Matthew’s Gospel called “ Lebbzeus, whose sur-
name was Thaddeus” (Matt. x. 3); Lebbzeus signifying,
according to Lightfoot, a native of Lebba, a maritime town
of Galilee; and Thaddzeus being, according to Dr. Words-
worth, of similar derivation with Judas.

Ver. 14. Σὺν yuvarEiv—with the women. The women here
mentioned are probably those devout women of Galilee who
followed Christ in His missionary journeys, and accompanied
Him on His last visit to Jerusalem, and who were present
both at the cross and at the sepulchre. The Gospels men-

1 See note to Acts xii. 17.
2 The reading of B, C, D, adopted by Tischendorf, Matt. x. 4.

THE ELECTION OF MATTHIAS.—I. 15. 57

tion by name Mary Magdalene; Mary the mother of James
and Joses; Joanna the wife of Chusa, Herod’s steward ;
Salome the mother of James and John; and a certain
Susanna. Kal Μαριὰμ τῇ μητρὶ τοῦ ’Incotb—and Mary the
mother of Jesus. Mary is here mentioned for the last time.
Her subsequent history is involved in obscurity. Accord-
ing to one tradition, she died in peace at Jerusalem; and

according to another, she accompanied the Apostle John to
Ephesus, where she died in extreme old age. Her assump-
tion into heaven is a comparatively modern legend. Kai
σὺν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς abtodD—and with His brethren. We reserve
consideration of the relationship of these brethren to Christ."
There are two opinions. The one is, that the word brother
is here used to signify near relatives, cousins; and that
among these brethren are to be reckoned two of the apostles,
James of Alpheus, and Judas of James. The other opinion
is, that they were the real brethren of Jesus, being either
the sons of Joseph and Mary, or the sons of Joseph by a
former marriage, who would be considered as His brethren ;
and that none of these brethren were apostles. This verse
favours, though slightly, the latter view: the brethren of
Jesus are here apparently mentioned as a distinct class from
the apostles.

Ver. 15. Καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις tavtaus—and in those days,
that is, during the ten days intervening between the ascension
and Pentecost. ’Avaoras Ilétpos—Peter rising up. Peter
here, as well as elsewhere in the early part of the Acts, takes
precedence. It is evident that he possessed a certain degree
of priority among the apostles. He was honoured by our
Lord to be the first to preach the gospel, both to the Jews
and to the Gentiles. St. Chrysostom calls him “the mouth
of the apostles, and the head of their choir.”? But, at the
same time, this priority gave him no authority over them.
He does not here, in virtue of his primacy, take upon himself
the right to fill up the vacancy in the apostolic office, but

1 See note to Acts xii. 17.
2 Chrysostom’s Lectures on John, Homily 88, στόμα τῶν μαθητῶν καὶ
κορυφὴ τοῦ xopov. :

58 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES,

brings the matter before the brethren. And it is not the
apostles only, but the whole assembly, who agree to the pro-
posal of Peter, and set apart two as fit candidates for the
apostolic office. ἔ

ἪΝν τε dyAos—the number of the names together was a
hundred and twenty; that is, the number of persons—the
apostles, the women, the brethren of Jesus, and others—then
present in the upper room. There is here not the slightest
discrepancy, as Baur and Zeller suppose, with the statement
of Paul, that our Lord, after His resurrection, was seen of
above five hundred brethren at once (1 Cor. xv. 6)." On the
one hand, Paul does not mention where this appearance took
place: most probably it was in Galilee, where the disciples
would be more numerous than at Jerusalem. And, on the
other hand, Luke does not here give the whole number of
the disciples, but only the number present in the upper
room. It is probable that this was the whole number then
in Jerusalem, and that the Galilean disciples had not yet
come up to the feast of Pentecost.

Ver. 16. "Avdpes aderdhoi—Men and brethren, it was neces-
sary that this scripture should be fulfilled, which the Holy
Ghost foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas. ‘The
allusion here is to those two passages from the book of Psalms,
afterwards mentioned in the twentieth verse. David is there
regarded as the type of the Messiah, and the enemies of
David as the type of the enemies of the Messiah; and thus
all those calamities which David predicted or imprecated as
befalling his enemies, were predictions of the calamities
which should befall the enemies of the Messiah.) David, it
is probable, intended only his own enemies; perhaps there
was no reference, or only an obscure reference, to the Messiah
in his mind: for it is to be observed that it is not said that
the scripture should be fulfilled which David foretold con-
cerning Judas, but which the Holy Ghost foretold. These
prophecies are examples of what are termed secondary pro-
phecies: primarily they refer to David and to the enemies
of David; but in a secondary and higher sense they re-

1 Zeller’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 117.

THE ELECTION OF MATTHIAS.—I. 17-19. : 59

ceive their full accomplishment in the Messiah and His
enemies.

Ver. 17. Ὅτι κατηριθμημένος tv—for this man was num-
bered among us, and received the office of this ministry.
Literally, the lot (τὸν κλῆρον) of this ministry. This word,
however, was used metaphorically to signify the office allotted
toa person. St. Peter does not mention the apostleship of
Judas in order to aggravate his crime, that he sinned not-
withstanding his great privileges, but with a view to the
prediction mentioned in ver. 20: “His office (τὴν ἐπισκοπήν)
let another take.”

Vers. 18, 19. These two verses are by many (Calvin,
Kuineel, Olshausen, Hackett, Humphry) supposed to be not
a part of the address of Peter, but an explanatory clause
inserted by Luke. It is argued that it was superfluous in
Peter to relate the death of Judas, as this fact must already
have been well known to the disciples; and that the translation
of the word ἀκελδαμάχ, would not occur in an address spoken
in Aramaic, whereas it was appropriate in a history addressed
to Gentile readers. But Peter does not mention the fate
of Judas in order to give information to the disciples, but
to show that it was the fulfilment of prophecy. Besides, the
connective. particles μὲν οὖν in ver. 18 forbid us to suppose
this clause to be an insertion. And the rhetorical style is
that of an address, not of a narrative. Hence we conclude
that these verses are part of the address of Peter, and that
the only words inserted by Luke are τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ
αὐτῶν, and the translation of the Aramaic word Akeldama,
τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν χωρίον αἵματος.

The account here given of the death of Judas is apparently
at variance with the account of the same event given by
Matthew (Matt. xxvii. 3-8). There are three points of
difference. -1. We are here informed that Judas purchased
a field with the wages of his crime; whereas Matthew in-
forms us that the chief priests and elders purchased the field
with the money which Judas restored. 2. The death of
Judas is here described as occasioned by a precipitous fall;
whereas in the Gospel we are told that he went and hanged

60 ᾿ COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

himself. ὃ, According to the Acts, the field received its
name, “the field of blood,” from the violent death of Judas ;
whereas according to Matthew it was so called because the
money with which it was purchased was the price of blood.

The first difference is easily removeable. When Peter
says that Judas purchased a field with the wages of his crime,
he employs a common rhetorical expression applied to a fact
well known to his hearers, meaning that the field was pur-
chased with the money of Judas, the verb being used in a
causative sense; in a somewhat similar manner as a man is
said to build a house, although actually the house was not
built by him, but with his money.’ In reality, the field was
not purchased by Judas, but by the priests with the money
which they paid to him.

The second difference relates to the mode of the death of
Judas. Peter says that, “falling headlong, he burst asunder
in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out;” whereas
Matthew says that “he went and hanged himself.” The
common mode of reconciliation is that first advanced by
Casaubon, that Judas went away and hanged himself; but
that the rope breaking, he fell down from a considerable
height with such violence, that, in the words of Peter, “he
burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.”
But this has too much the appearance of an hypothesis
invented to remove a difficulty. It, however, proves this
much, that the accounts are not contradictory ; because the
death may have taken place in the manner supposed, or
something similar may have occurred. It is, however, im-

possible to point out the precise mode of agreement, as we

are entirely ignorant of the particular circumstances attend-
ing the death of Judas. All that we know is, that his death
was one of violence, caused, as Matthew tells us, by his own
hands.

The third difference is the reason assigned for the peculiar
name of the field. According to Peter, it was called “the
field of blood” on account of the violent death of Judas ;

1 For examples of this mode of expression in Scripture, see Words-
worth on the Acts, p. 40.

—— ων

THE ELECTION OF MATTHIAS.—I. 90. 61

and according to Matthew, because it was purchased with
the price of blood. Some suppose that there are two “ fields
of blood,’—the one purchased by the price of blood, and the
other that where Judas met his death. But only one field
is here alluded to, and it is not intimated that Judas met his
death in it. There is no improbability in the supposition
that the field received its name for a twofold reason; both
because it was purchased by blood-money, and because the
traitor employed came to a violent end. Meyer observes that
there is nothing improbable in the supposition that the name
Akeldama was, soon after the death of Judas, formally given
by the Sanhedrim to the field purchased by them for a
public benefit.

᾿Ακελδαμάχ τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν χωρίον ,aipatos—Akeldama, that
is, the field of blood. The word Akeldama is Aramaic, the
language then spoken in Palestine. Jerome says that this
field was situated without the wall of Jerusalem, on the south
side of Mount Zion, near to the valley of Hinnom. As late
as the seventeenth century the supposed Akeldama was used
as a burying-place by the Armenian Christians in Jerusalem.

Ver. 20. Γέγραπται yap ἐν βίβλῳ Paryav—for it is
written in the book of Psalms. There are in this verse two
quotations from the Psalms. The first is from Ps. Ixix. 25,
γενηθήτω ἡ ἔπαυλις αὐτοῦ ἔρημος, καὶ μὴ ἔστω ὁ κατοικῶν ἐν
αὐτῇ---ἰοὶ his habitation be desolate, and let there be no dweller
therein. It varies somewhat from the Septuagint, where it
stands, γενηθήτω ἡ ἔπαυλις αὐτῶν ἠρημωμένη, καὶ ἐν τοῖς
σκηνώμασιν αὐτῶν μὴ ἔστω ὁ κατοικῶν---ἰοὲ their habitation
be desolate, and let there be no dweller in their tents. The
plural is here changed into the singular, in order that the
reference to Judas might be more pointed. This psalm is
one of those termed Messianic. It is thrice applied by the
sacred writers to Christ. Thus, ver. 9, where it is said, ‘“‘ The
zeal of Thine house hath eaten me up,” is applied to Christ
by St. John (John ii. 17); and the words which follow,
“The reproaches of them that reproached Thee are fallen
upon me,” are referred to Christ by St. Paul (Rom. xv. 3).

1 Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 37.

62 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

And the remarkable prediction in ver. 21, “They gave me
also gall for my meat, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar
to drink,” is mentioned by St. John as being fulfilled at the
crucifixion (John xix. 28, 29).

Τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν αὐτοῦ λαβέτω Erepos—his office let another
take. This second quotation is from Ps. cix. ὃ, and is given
verbatim from the Septuagint. In this psalm David is sup-
posed to refer to Doeg the Edomite, or to Ahithophel. It
is the most imprecatory of all the psalms, and may well be
termed the Iscariot Psalm. What David here refers to his
mortal enemy, finds its accomplishment in the betrayer of the
Son of David. It is from this second prediction that St.
Peter infers the necessity of filling up the vacancy occasioned
by the death of Judas: it was, says he, predicted that another
should take his office.

Vers. 21, 22. In these verses Peter assigns the necessary
qualifications of the new apostle. He must have associated
with them during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in
and out among them; that is, during the whole of His
public ministry. He states the commencement of that period
to be the baptism of John, and its termination to be the day
of the ascension. That the new apostle should be one of the
seventy disciples (Kuincel), is a probable conjecture. The
office of an apostle is here also stated as that of a witness of
᾿ Christ’s resurrection (μάρτυρα τῆς ἀναστάσεως αὐτοῦ). The
resurrection was the principal fact in the life of Christ to
which the apostles had to bear witness; it was the crowning
proof of the divinity of His mission, the divine declaration
of His Sonship, and that which gave efficacy to His vicarious
sufferings and death.

Ver. 23. Καὶ ἔστησαν dvo—and they appointed two: namely,
the assembly appointed them; not Peter, nor the apostles as
a body. They do not venture to appoint one, because they
would leave the ultimate choice with the Lord. It is im-
possible to assign the reason why only two, and not more,
were proposed as candidates; perhaps a larger and more
intimate acquaintance with the Lord might entitle them to a
preference.

THE ELECTION OF MATTHIAS.—I. 23. 63

ἸΙωσὴφ τὸν καλούμενον Βαρσαββᾶν, ὃς ἐπεκλήθη ᾿Ιοῦστος
—Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus. This
Joseph had two other names. The one, Barsabbas, a name
of doubtful import, but probably a patronymic, signifying
the son of Sabbas; as Bartholomew is the son of Ptolemy,
Barjonas the son of Jonas, etc. The other name, Justus, is
a Roman surname, the practice of adopting which was then
usual among the Jews. We know nothing about this Joseph,
and the attempts to identify him with other scriptural cha-
racters are mere conjectures. Ullmann supposes that he is
the same as Joses surnamed Barnabas; but Barnabas is
not the same as Barsabbas, and he is mentioned in Acts
iv. 36 as if he were introduced to the notice of the reader
for the first time. Lightfoot and Doddridge think that he
might be the same as Joses the son of Alpheus, the brother
of James (the Less), and one of the brethren (cousins) of
our Lord; but except that this Joses would possess the requi-
site qualifications, and that his brother James was also called
the Just, no reasons are assigned for this opinion. Others
think that he was the same as Judas surnamed Barsabbas,
mentioned in Acts xv. 22, who accompanied Paul and Bar-
nabas from Jerusalem to Antioch, and who is described as a
chief man among the brethren; but the utmost that could
be inferred from this statement is, that Joseph Barsabbas
and Judas Barsabbas might possibly be brothers. Eusebius
states that Papias relates that this Joseph called Barsabbas
drank a deadly poison, but through the grace of God expe-
rienced nothing injurious (ist. Eccl. iii. 39).

Καὶ Mar@iav—and Matthias. We are equally ignorant
about Matthias. All that we know of him is, that he was a
disciple of Christ, and a constant attendant on His travels
and ministry, from its commencement until His ascension.
Some, with that strange perversity which attempts on purely
.conjectural grounds to identify scriptural characters, suppose
him to be the same as Nathanael, because both names signify
the gift of God. Eusebius says that he was one of the
seventy disciples (Hist. Eccl. i. 12),—a tradition probable in
itself, and which is also noticed by Epiphanius. According

64 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

to Nicephorus, he preached the gospel and suffered martyr-
dom in Ethiopia (Nicephorus, ii. 40).

Ver. 24. Kat προσευξάμενοι eirav—And having prayed,
they said. Peter here probably prayed as the spokesman of
the apostles. It is a matter of dispute to whom this prayer
was offered. The general opinion is, that Christ is the Lord
here addressed. ‘The reasons for this are: 1. The word
Κύριος, when used absolutely in the New Testament, gene-
rally refers to Christ. 2. Jesus is directly called Κύριος in
ver. 21, and it is to Him that αὐτοῦ in ver. 22 applies; and
therefore it is most natural that the Κύριε of ver. 24 should
be referred to Him as the nearest antecedent. 3. The election
was that of an apostle of Christ, and the other apostles were all
chosen directly by Christ, and so afterwards was Paul. 4. The
first Christians were in the habit of praying directly to Christ
(Acts vii. 59). This opinion has been called in question by
Meyer. He observes that in Acts xv. 7 Peter says expressly
of God, that He made choice that the Gentiles should by
him hear the word of God; and he there calls God Καρδιο-
γνώστης, “ who knows the hearts.”' But the circumstance
to which Meyer refers is not a call to the apostleship, but the
call of the Gentiles. And that God is called Καρδιογνώστης
does not preclude a similar designation of Christ; indeed,
Peter himself on a former occasion directly appeals to Christ
as acquainted with the heart: “ Lord, Thou knowest all
things ; Thou knowest that I love Thee” (John xxi, 17),

Ver. 25. Eis τὸν τόπον τὸν idvov—to his own place. Various
meanings are attached to these words. Some (Hammond,
Knatchbull) refer them to the successor of Judas—that the
person who succeeded might go to his own place, namely the
apostleship,—a meaning which is unnatural and tautological.
Others, referring them to Judas, interpret them, that he
might go to his own house (Keuchen) ; and others to his own
society, namely the Pharisees and the enemies of Jesus
(Heinrichs),—meanings at variance with the violent death of
Judas, on which Peter insists; and others (Meyer, De Wette),
that he might go to the place of punishment—that place

1 Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 39.

i Δ. ᾿ -

THE ELECTION OF MATTHIAS.—I., 26. 65

worthy of him, and which he has merited by his crime.
And this seems to be the true meaning. This sense is agree-
able to the language of the Jews; for the Jewish rabbis
thus interpret the passage where it is said that Balaam went
to his own place (Num. xxiv. 25), that is, say they, to hell
(Lightfoot). The treason of Judas was such an enormous
crime, that the hearers of Peter could be in no doubt what
was meant by his own place.

Ver. 20. Καὶ ἔδωκαν κλήρους avtois—and they cast lots for
them. The lot was employed in Old Testament times for
various purposes: 1. The division of land among the tribes
of Israel was decided by lot (Num. xxvi. 55; Josh. xviii. 10).
2. In criminal cases, when there was not sufficient evidence,
the lot was employed (Josh. vii. 14, 18; 1 Sam. xiv. 41, 42).
3. In warlike enterprises, the armies employed were often
selected by lot (Judg. xx. 10). 4. In the appointment of
persons for important offices, when several appeared to
possess equal qualifications, the election was by lot: as the
appointment of Saul to be king of Israel, and here the elec-
tion of Matthias to the apostleship.’

From the employment of the lot in the election of Matthias,
and from its frequent use under the Jewish dispensation,
many have argued in favour of its admissibility. It has,
they observe, the sanction of apostolic example. In cases of
difficulty, when the reasons on both sides of the question
appear equally balanced, and it seems impossible to decide,
recourse may be had, after prayer for the divine direction,
to the lot. Calvin declares in favour of its use. “ Those
men,” he observes, “ who think it to be wickedness to cast
lots at all, offend partly through ignorance, and partly they
understand not the force of this word. There is nothing
which men do not corrupt with their boldness and vanity,
whereby it is come to pass that they have brought lots into
great abuse and superstition; for that divination and con-
jecture which is made by lots is altogether devilish. But
when magistrates divide provinces among them, and brethren
their inheritance, the lot is a thing lawful. Which thing

1 See Winer’s biblisches Wérterbuch, art. Loos.

VOL. I. E

66 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES,

Solomon doth plainly testify when he makes God the governor
of the event: ‘The lot is cast into the lap, but the whole
disposing thereof is of the Lord’ (Prov. xvi. 33).”* So also
Olshausen observes : “ Certainly this occurrence—the election
of Matthias by lot—will always remain a proof not to be
overlooked of the lawfulness of the lot in those cases where a
decision needs to be given, and when it transcends the ability
of man to discover what is right.” The. Morayians are the

only sect of Christians who recognise the lawfulness of the ©

lot, and employ it in the government of their church.—It
must be admitted that this appeal to apostolic practice and
scriptural usage has considerable weight, and consequently
the use of the lot in difficult questions is not to be at once
condemned as unscriptural and superstitious. But, on the
other hand, it is to be observed that, under the Old Testament
dispensation, the Jews were under the immediate government
of God, who miraculously interposed in their affairs; and as
regards the election of Matthias, the circumstances were so
peculiar, that it can hardly be regarded as an example for
imitation. We do not find that after the outpouring of the
Holy Spirit the disciples had recourse to the lot.

The propriety of the whole transaction—the election of
Matthias to the apostleship by the disciples—has been called
in question by Stier and others.® It was, it is asserted, the
duty of the church not to act, but to wait, until by the gift
of the Holy Spirit they were endowed with power from on
high; the choice of Matthias took place before the Holy
Spirit was given, and therefore is to be regarded as a mere
human act; Christ indeed intended that the apostleship
vacant by the death of Judas should be filled up in accord-
ance with the prediction adduced by St. Peter, but He Him-
self, and not the church, was to fill up the vacancy; it was
Paul, the great apostle of the Gentiles, and not the obscure
Matthias, who was the destined successor of Judas; Peter

1 Calvin on Acts, i. 26.

2 Olshausen on the Gospels and Acts, vol. iv. p. 241, Clark’s translation.
So also Schleiermacher adopts a similar view.

3 Stier’s Words of the Apostles, pp. 12-15, Clark’s translation.

9

THE ELECTION OF MATTHIAS.—I. 26. 67

here acted rashly as on other occasions, and the church was
wrongly persuaded by him. Now there is considerable
plausibility in this view of the subject. We hear nothing
of Matthias; whereas Paul comes prominently forward as a
new apostle. But, on the other hand, we think that if the
church had here committed a mistake, there would have been
some indication in the history to that effect. The compara-
tive obscurity of Matthias equally belongs to the greater
number of the apostles. And as to Paul, he seems to have
occupied a position distinct from the twelve; they being the
apostles of the circumcision, and he the apostle of the uncir-
cumcision. In the words of Lange, ‘“ we find not the least
trace in Scripture or in the ancient church that this step
taken by Peter had been disapproved of. As regards Paul,
he himself better understood his position in the kingdom of
God. He is contrasted with the apostles of the Jews, as the
apostle of the Gentiles; or more exactly, the apostle of pro-
gress, as contrasted with the apostles of the foundation.”*
1 Lange’s Apostolische Zeitalter, vol. ii. p. 12.

SECTION III.
THE MIRACLE OF PENTECOST.—Acrts u. 1-13.

1 And while the day of Pentecost was being fulfilled, they were all
together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound,
as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they
were sitting. 8 And there appeared to them tongues, as of fire, dis-
tributed among them, and it sat upon each of them. 4 And they were
all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues,
according as the Spirit gave them utterance. 5 But there were dwell-
ing at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6. Now, when this sound took place, the multitude came together, and
were confounded, because that every man heard them speaking in his
own dialect. 7 And they were amazed, and marvelled, saying, Behold,
are not all these who speak Galileans? 8 And how hear we every man
in our own dialect, wherein we were born? 9 Parthians and Medes,
and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, Judea, and Cappadocia,
Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of
Libya about Cyrene, and the Roman sojourners, both Jews and prose-
lytes, 11 Cretes and Arabians, we hear them in our tongues, speaking
the great things of God. 12 And they were all amazed, and were in
doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? 13 But others,
mocking, said, They are full of sweet wine.

CRITICAL NOTES.

Ver. 7. Πάντες after ἐξίσταντο δέ, found in A, Οὐ, Εἰ, x,
but wanting in B, D, several cursive Mss., and versions, is
omitted by Tischendorf, Bornemann, and Lachmann. Πρὸς
ἀλλήλους, found in D, Εἰ, is also omitted by Tischendorf and
Lachmann, being wanting in A, B, C, x.

EXEGETICAL REMARKS.

Ver. 1. Καὶ ἐν τῷ ouvrdnpotcbai—And while the day of
Pentecost was being fulfilled. The day of Pentecost is here
68

THE MIRACLE OF PENTECOST.—II. 1. 69

marked as the time when the effusion of the Spirit occurred.
Συνπληροῦσθαι denotes the fulfilment of a certain period.
Compare πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, Gal. iv. 4. The reference is
to the day itself, not to the completion of the interval between
the Passover and Pentecost (Baumgarten, Olshausen), All
interpretations which fix upon another day are erroneous ; as
the opinion of Hitzig, who, rendering the clause, “ when the
day of Pentecost was approaching its fulfilment,” thinks that
the occurrence took place before Pentecost ; and the opinion
of Lightfoot, who, rendering it, “ when the day of Pentecost
was completed or past,” thinks that it occurred on the day
after Pentecost.

The word Pentecost signifies “the fiftieth.” It was used
as a substantive among the Hellenistic Jews to denote one
of their three great feasts, and is so employed in the Apoc-
rypha. Thus, “In the feast of Pentecost, which is the
holy feast of the seven weeks” (Tobit 11. 1); “After the
feast called Pentecost” (2 Macc. xii. 32). So also Joseph.
Ant. iii. 10. 6. It was so called because it happened on the
fiftieth day, calculated from the second day of unleavened
bread. In the Old Testament it is called “the feast of
weeks,” and ‘the feast of harvest.” It differed from the
other two national festivals, “the feast of the passover” and
“the feast of tabernacles,” in being restricted to a single
day. These annual festivals were attended not only by
multitudes of Jews from all parts of Palestine, but also by
Jews from the adjoining countries. “ An innumerable mul-
titude,” observes Josephus, “came thither (to Jerusalem at
the passover) out of the country, nay, from beyond its limits
also, to worship God” (Ant. xvii. 9. 2). Even during the
raging of the Jewish war this assembling of the Jews at
their feasts was not relinquished: for Josephus informs us
that Titus laid siege to Jerusalem when it was crowded with
pilgrims who had come ‘up to the passover, and who were
on a sudden shut up by the Roman army (Jud. Bell. vi. 9. 3).
The primary object of the feast of Pentecost was to thank
' God for the blessings of the harvest. It was pre-eminently
a joyful feast, a thanksgiving (Deut. xvi. 10, 11). After-

70 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

wards it came to be considered as a commemoration of the
giving of the law, as it appears from various notices that the
law was given from Sinai fifty days after the first passover,
or after the departure of the Israelites from Egypt. There
is, however, no allusion to the law in the description of this
festival either in the Old Testament or in Josephus.

The day of Pentecost was, according to the law of Moses,
to be reckoned “ from the morrow after the Sabbath, from
the day that the sheaf-offering was made” (Lev. xxii. 19).
This, according to the general opinion among the Jews, was
from the day after the first day of the passover week (that
day being a holy or sabbatical day), or from the sixteenth
of the month Nisan, the passover itself being on the four-
teenth day (Ley. xxiii. 5; Joseph. Ant. in. 11. 5, 6); but,
according to the Karaites, who reject all traditions and ad-
here to the Scriptures as the only rule, Pentecost was to
be reckoned from the Sabbath in the passover week. The
reckoning of the Karaites, however, cannot be traced back
to Old Testament times. The season of the year on which
this feast occurred was the month of May. The common
tradition is that this particular Pentecost, on which the Holy
Spirit was given, like the day of the resurrection, occurred
on a Sunday. If, as is most probable, the passover was
celebrated on the evening of Thursday, the day before the
crucifixion, when our Lord partook of it with His disciples,
then Thursday would be the fourteenth day of Nisan, and
Saturday, or the Jewish Sabbath, the sixteenth day; and
consequently the fiftieth day from that, or Pentecost, would
occur on a Sunday. According to the method of reckoning
employed by the Karaites, Pentecost always happened on a
Sunday."

1 There is, however, a difficulty in these calculations, partly owing
to the different commencement of the Jewish day, and partly to the
doubtful question from what day the fifty days are to be caleulated—
whether the sixteenth of Nisan is included or excluded in the calcula-
tion. Olshausen observes: ‘‘ 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.” Wordsworth gives the following calculation :—

THE MIRACLE OF PENTECOST.—IIL. 2. 71

Ἦσαν ἅπαντες ὁμοθυμαδόν ---ἰἤιογ were all with one accord.
The persons present are not to be restricted to the apostles
(Hammond) ; nor even to the hundred and twenty disciples
who met in the upper room after the ascension; because
many of our Lord’s numerous followers in Galilee would
have come up to Jerusalem to the feast, and would have
been present on this occasion.

Ἐπὶ τὸ avté—in one place. In the next verse we are
informed that the place of assembly was a house (τὸν οἶκον).
For reasons already stated, we are not here to think of the
temple (see note on ch. i. 13). That the third hour, or
the hour of prayer, is mentioned by Peter in his discourse
(ver. 14), is no proof that the disciples met in the temple ;
because this assembly would have taken place some time
before that hour, as an interval must necessarily have
elapsed before Peter addressed the multitude. Neither is
the assembling of the multitude, who would be at the
temple, any argument, because the wonderful circumstances
attending the event would have drawn a crowd together
wherever it took place. And the reason that, “as the crown-
ing inauguration of Christ took place in the temple (John
xii. 28), so it also behoved to be the case with the founding
of the church ; that the solemn inauguration of the church
of Christ presents itself as an imposing spectacle in th
sanctuary of the old covenant” (Olshausen) ; or that “the
new spiritual temple must proceed from the hall of the old
temple” (Lange); is wholly fanciful and destitute of all
weight. Were the temple the: place of meeting, Luke
would have mentioned it, and not have left it to be guessed
by the reader.

Ver. 2. Kai ἐγένετο ἄφνω---απὰ suddenly there came from
heaven a sound as of a mighty rushing wind. What happened

Thursday, the 14th day of the month Nisan, Christ institutes the holy
Eucharist. Friday, the 15th day of Nisan, He was crucified. Saturday,
the 16th day of Nisan, He rests in the grave. Sunday, 17th day of
Nisan, He rises from the grave. From the end of Saturday, the 16th
day of Nisan, forty-nine days are counted ; and the fiftieth, or feast of
Pentecost, falls on a Sunday.

12 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

took place suddenly, unexpectedly (ἄφνω). The disciples
had, during the ten days which intervened between the
ascension and Pentecost, been engaged in incessant prayer,
waiting for the promise of the Father; and now, without
any previous intimation, this promise was fulfilled. Luke
evidently represents this sound from heaven as miraculous
in its nature, being the symbol of the Spirit. It was not
a mighty rushing wind, but like to it (ὥσπερ). We are
then to discard all natural explanations, such as a thunder-
storm (Renan), a blast (Ewald), or an earthquake attended
by a whirlwind, which shook the building in which the
disciples were assembled (Neander), as uncountenanced by
the text, and as unwarrantable attempts to explain away the
miraculous.

Ver. ὃ. Kai ὦφθησαν aitots—and there appeared to them;
not, and there was seen on them (Luther). Ζιαμεριζόμεναι---
distributed, 1.6. among the disciples. Thus Olshausen, De
Wette, Meyer, Lechler, Hackett, and Robinson (compare
Luke xxii. 17). The meaning is that the flames, in the form
of tongues, distributed themselves among those present.
The other rendering, disparted, or cloven, as in our transla-
tion (Calvin, Heinrichs, Stier, Alford), is a more unusual
sense of the word. According to this view, the tongues pre-
sented a fork-like appearance.

Γλῶσσαι ὡσεὶ mupds—tongues as of fire. As the sound
from heaven is not to be explained as a natural occurrence,
so neither are the “ tongues as of fire.’ We cannot then here
think of electric lights, which occasionally fix themselves
upon pointed objects, such as towers, masts of ships, and
even on men (Paulus, Thiess): this occurrence took place
inside of a house, whereas these phenomena always happen
in the open air. Equally to be rejected is the idea of a flash
of lightning passing through the room, which the excited
minds of the disciples caused them to see in strange forms
(Heinrichs, Renan); or that in an ecstatic state they believed
that they themselves saw tongues of fire (Heumann).

᾿Εκάθισε τε ἐφ᾽ ἕνα ἕκαστον aitav—and it sat upon each of —
them: i.e. not an indefinite object, “something sat upon each

THE MIRACLE OF PENTECOST.—II. 4. 73

of them;” nor “the Holy Ghost” (Calvin), which is unin-
telligible; but “a tongue as of fire.’ The fire-like tongues
were distributed among the assembly, so that one of them
sat upon each of the disciples. Doubtless both these appear-
ances—the sound from heaven and the tongues of fire—had
a symbolical import. The sound, as of a mighty rushing
wind, was a symbol of the mighty power of the Spirit; and
its coming from heaven represented its origin. The tongues
represented the gift of tongues about to be conferred on the
disciples; and their appearance in the form of fire might be
intended to denote the zeal and inspiration which were to be
kindled in the breasts of the disciples, and to be manifested
in their lives.

Ver. 4. Kat ἐπλήσθησαν ἅπαντες Πνεύματος ayiov—and
they were all filled with the Holy Ghost. Before the day of
Pentecost the disciples had received the Holy Ghost, but
only to a limited extent; but now the Holy Ghost was
poured out upon them in an abundant measure. Yet we
must not suppose that the Holy Ghost was bestowed upon
them in such a measure as to preclude all increase, or to
supersede a gradual growth in grace.

Καὶ ἤρξαντο λαλεῖν ἑτέραις γλώσσαις---απὰσ they began to
speak with other tongues. ‘This was the immediate effect of
their being filled with the Holy Ghost. They commenced
to utter words in other tongues. ‘The most natural interpre-
tation of this—when taken in connection with what follows
—is that they spoke in other languages than their native
Aramaic. The word γλῶσσα is capable of three significa-
tions: 1. The tongue, the organ of speech. Hence some
(Bardili, Eichhorn, Wieseler) suppose that the disciples here
uttered inarticulate sounds; but it is evident that γλῶσσα
and διαλέκτος are here used in the same sense: the hearers
are said to have heard them speak each in his own dialect.
2. An antiquated form of expression (Bleek); as glossary is
used by us to signify a list of antiquated expressions. This,
however, is not the usual, but a rhetorical sense of the word,
and besides does not answer the conditions of the pheno-
menon. 3. Speech or language. This is the only meaning

74 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

of the word which suits the passage under consideration.
“They began to speak with other tongues,” that is, in
languages different from their own. Meyer, although he
disputes the fact altogether, yet, with his wonted candour,
admits that this is the only meaning which the words will
here bear. “For the sure determination of what Luke here
means,” he observes, “it is decisive that ἑτέραις γλώσσαις
on the part of the speakers was, in point of fact, what the
Parthians, Medes, Elamites, etc., designated as ταῖς ἡμετέραις
γλώσσαις. The other tongues, then, are, according to the
text, to be considered as absolutely nothing else than lan-
guages which were different from the native lanouage of the
speakers. They, the Galileans, spoke Parthian, Median,
Persian, etc., and therefore foreign languages; and indeed
—the point wherein precisely appeared the miraculous
operation of the Spirit—unacquired languages (γλώσσαις
kawais, Mark xvi. 17). Accordingly, the text itself de-
termines the sense of γλῶσσαι as that of languages, and
excludes as impossible the explanations which differ from
this.”?

Καθὼς τὸ [[vetpa—according as the Spirit gave them utter-
ance, 1.6. in such manner and measure as was granted to
them by the Holy Spirit. Their utterances were thus not
under their own control, but under the control of the Holy
Spirit. They were inspired, in the strictest sense of the
term.

Ver. 5. Ἦσαν δὲ ἐν ‘Tepovoarip Kxatouxodvtes—but there
were dwelling at Jerusalem. Κατοικοῦντες is certainly not
generally used to denote a temporary residence, but an
abiding dwelling; but here, as is evident from the context,
it must be taken in a wide sense: for among the hearers are
mentioned dwellers (of κατοικοῦντες) in Mesopotamia, and
Roman sojourners. Probably among those devout men there
were not only those who had come to Jerusalem to worship
at the feast of Pentecost, but many also who from religious
motives had fixed their residence in the holy city.

᾿Ιουδαῖοι, ἄνδρες εὐλαβεῖς -- Jews, devout men. ‘They

1 Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, pp. 49, 50. ᾿

THE MIRACLE OF PENTECOST.—II. 6. 75

showed their devotion by coming from such distances to
worship at Jerusalem, and several of them by wishing to
spend their last days in the neighbourhood of the temple.
Bishop Pearson supposes, with much probability, that at
this particular period numerous foreign Jews flocked to
Jerusalem, because of the persuasion concerning the near
approach of the Messiah."

"Ard παντὸς ἔθνους τῶν ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν --- out of every
nation under heaven. An hyperbolic expression, denoting the
wide dispersion of the Jews. The Jews, then as now, were
scattered throughout the world. Philo says that “the Jews
sojourn in the greater number and in the more prosperous
of the cities throughout the provinces and islands of Europe
and Asia.” And Josephus represents Agrippa as_ saying,
that “there was no nation upon earth who had not Jews
dwelling among them” (Jud. Bell. ii. 16. 4). There were
three noted dispersions of the Jews. The first was when
Shalmaneser settled the ten tribes in the cities of the Medes.
The second was the Babylonish captivity, when the Jews
were settled chiefly in Mesopotamia. And the third was the
colonization of Alexandria and several districts of Egypt
with Jews by Alexander the Great and Ptolemy Lagus. In
addition to these, vast numbers of Jews had, for the sake of
trade, settled in various countries.” This. dispersion of the
Jews was strikingly providential; for by it the knowledge
of the true God was disseminated, the expectation of the
Messiah became current, and thus men of all nations were
in a measure prepared for the reception of Christianity,

Ver. 6. Γενομένης δὲ τῆς φωνῆς tavtns—now when this
sound took place. These words have been variously inter-
preted. According to some (Calvin, Beza), the rumour of
the occurrence is meant; as in our version, ‘‘ when this was
noised abroad.” But this would be to take φωνή in the
sense of φήμη, a meaning which is doubtful. According to
others (Bleek, Kuincel), the loud voices and speaking of the
disciples are meant; but then φωνή would have been in the

1 Pearson’s Lectures on the Acts, p. 9.
2 See Du Veil on the Acts, p. 36; Cook on the Acts, p. 17.

76 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

plural, and there is no intimation that the disciples spoke so
loudly as to draw together a multitude. Others (Meyer,
De Wette, Lechler, Hackett, Alford) translate it sound, a
common meaning of the word, and refer it to the sound
(Ἶχος) as of a mighty rushing wind; and this appears to
be the correct interpretation. The miraculous sound had
been heard throughout the city, and had arrested the atten-
tion of the worshippers in the temple.

Συνῆλθε τὸ wAHOos—the multitude came together. We are
not informed by what means the multitude were drawn to
the particular house where the disciples were assembled :
perhaps the sound issued from the house as a centre, or on
its occurrence the disciples may have gone out to the streets
and commenced speaking with tongues. To affirm, with
Neander, that the shock of an earthquake drove the people
from their houses, and occasioned the concourse,’ is to assert
what is not in the text.

Τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ —in his own dialect. Not properly
national language, but dialect; the word being perhaps
designedly chosen, as several of the nations afterwards
mentioned spoke dialects of the same language. However,
the word is not to be taken too strictly, as several distinct
national languages are supposed, as Greek, Persian, and
Arabic.

Ver. 7. Οὐκ ἰδοὺ πάντες ᾿οὗτοι.---Γαλιλαῖοι--- Behold, are
not all these who speak Galileans? ‘The disciples are here
called Galileans, not to denote that they belonged to a par-
ticular sect (Hichhorn, Kuinel); for the name Galilean
was not given to Christians until afterwards. Nor is there
any reference here to their ignorance or want of culture
(Heinrichs). But they are so called on account of their
nationality. The Galileans used a particular dialect which
distinguished them from the inhabitants of Judea.” Thus
Peter’s mode of speech betrayed him, and at once disclosed
the place of his nativity: “Surely thou art one of them:
for thou art a Galilean, and thy speech agreeth thereto”

1 Neander’s Planting, p. 17, Bohn’s edition.
2 See Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 58.

THE MIRACLE OF PENTECOST.—II. 8-11. 77

(Mark xiv. 70). What astonished the multitude, was to find
these men, who were known to be Galileans, speaking in
foreign tongues. All the apostles were inhabitants of
Galilee, where our Lord principally resided; and by far the
greater part of the disciples belonged to the same district of
country.

Ver. 8. Καὶ πῶς ἡμεῖς ἀκούομεν ---απα how hear we every
man in our own dialect, wherein we were born? The Jews
who dwelt in foreign countries had to a great extent lost
their acquaintance with their native language, and then, as
now, spoke the language or dialect of the countries in which
they dwelt. Even the foreign Jews who had taken up their
residence in Jerusalem retained their foreign languages, and
had separate synagogues where these languages were used.
Indeed, it would seem that Greek was at this period very
much ἜΡΙΝ, in Palestine. When Paul addressed the multi-
tude in Aramaic, it seems to be implied that they understood
Greek, and were even prepared to listen to a Greek oration
(Acts xxii. 2).

Vers. 9-11. In these verses we have a list of the different
nations to which the foreign Jews belonged, who heard the
disciples speak in their own languages. This list is not to be
understood as given by the wondering multitude, but as a
historical remark introduced by Luke. The nations also, it
is to be observed, are mentioned with respect to their dialects.
The first three names, Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites,
represented portions of the Barsiah empire. It was among
these nations that Shalmaneser, the king of Assyria, settled
the ten tribes. Mesopotamia is the well-known district
between the Euphrates and the Tigris. It was here that the
Jews led captive by Nebuchadnezzar were settled. Judea
is next mentioned, where certainly we would not have ex-
pected it, as its language was not foreign to the disciples.
Different readings occur in the writings of the Fathers.
Theophylact has omitted the word; Jerome reads “ Syria ;”
and Tertullian and Augustine read “ Armenia;” but the
overwhelming preponderance of authority is in favour of
Judea. We do not think that the reason of its insertion

78 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

was that it was mentioned from a Roman point of view and
for Roman readers (Olshausen) ; or because the dialect of
Judea was different from that of Galilee (Meyer, De Wette,
Bengel, Wordsworth); or from a territorial point of view,
because Judea lay in the direction followed in the list
(Alford); but because Luke would enumerate all the
languages which the disciples spoke before the multitude
(Hackett). Cappadocia was at this time a Roman province.
Pontus, situated along the borders of the Black Sea, was
then governed by chiefs dependent on the Romans, and was
reduced to the state of a province in the reign of Nero. By
Asia here, and in the Acts generally, is to be understood
neither the continent of Asia nor Asia Minor, but the
Roman province of Asia. When Attalus bequeathed the
kingdom of Pergamus to the Romans, they converted it into
the province of Asia. It was the coast-line along the Medi-
terranean, and included the old districts of Ionia, Lydia, |
Mysia, and Caria, and at times part of Phrygia. Asia was
one of the richest of the Roman provinces, containing
numerous flourishing cities; its capital and seat of govern-
ment was Ephesus. Phrygia was not then a Roman province,
but a district of country which contributed portions to several
provinces: at this time the greater part of it belonged to the
province of Asia. Pamphylia was a small district situated
between Cilicia and the Lydian part of proconsular Asia.
Egypt was inhabited by numerous Jews; so much so, that
two-fifths of the population of Alexandria were said to have
been Jews (Philo in Flace. p. 973). Cyrene was a large
city in Libya, a country to the west of EKeypt. The Jews
there constituted one-fourth of the population (Joseph. Ant.
xiv. 7.2); and so many Cyrenian Jews lived in Jerusalem,
that they had a synagogue of their own (Acts vi. 9). oman
sojourners, that is, Roman Jews who now sojourned at Jeru-
salem. We learn from Tacitus, that the Jews were so
numerous at Rome that they were regarded with jealousy by
the government. Jews and proselytes refer to all the pre-
ceding nations; Jews by birth, and proselytes, converts
from heathenism. Cretes, the inhabitants of the island of

THE MIRACLE OF PENTECOST,.—II. 11-13. 79

Crete, where the Jews were very numerous. And Arabians,
among whom, as their country bordered on Judea, there
must have been numerous Jews.

De Wette declares that this catalogue of names is inaccu-
rate and unmeaning. Many of the nations mentioned spoke
the same language: in Mesopotamia and Judea, Aramaic
was spoken; in the states of Asia Minor, in Egypt, Cyrene,
and Crete, Greek; and in Rome itself, Greek was generally
known. But although many of these nations spoke the
same language, yet cath doubtless had its own dialect, and
it is especially of dialects (διάλεκτος) that Luke speaks. De
Wette himself mentions that the Parthians, Medes, and
Elamites spoke different though cognate languages.

Ver. 11. Ta μεγαλεῖα τοῦ Ocod—the mighty things of
God. The disciples praised God in these different languages;
thus offering to Him, on this the birthday of the new crea-
tion, the homage of all nations, the hallelujah of the human
race. ὔ :

Vers. 12, 13. The effect upon the multitude was twofold.
Some were impressed, and became inquirers: “They were
amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What
meaneth this? Others, mocking, said, They are full of
sweet wine.” Meyer supposes that these scoffers belonged
to the hierarchical party of the Jews—the enemies of Christ.
Others (Lightfoot, Alford, Wordsworth, Hackett) think that
they were natives of Judea, who, not understanding that the
disciples spoke in foreign languages, imagined that they only
uttered incoherent Sordi It is snibable that there was
something in the excited manner in which the disciples acted,
and in thet _ejaculations of praise in foreign Sabdudnde
which would’ appear to the unsusceptible as fanaticism
(compare 1 Cor. xiv. 23). IAevxous—sweet wine. This word
denotes a certain kind of sweet wine used in the East which
was very intoxicating.

1 De Wette’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 27.

80 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

ON THE GIFT OF TONGUES.

We have deferred the particular consideration of this inte-
resting and difficult subject until we had concluded our exe-
getical remarks on the text. As we have already observed,
the obvious meaning of the passage under consideration is,
that the disciples were miraculously endowed with the faculty
of speaking in foreign languages. The word γλῶσσα in this
connection can only denote language; and ἑτέραις γλώσσαις
can only mean other languages than those known to the dis-
ciples. The assembled multitude were confounded, because
every man heard his own dialect spoken ; they were amazed,
because those who thus spoke were known to be Galileans ;
and a long list of nations is given who heard, in their own
tongues, the wonderful works of God. Now, were this the
only place where the gift of tongues is mentioned, there would
be little difficulty in understanding what is meant by it. But
the subject becomes in no small degree complicated when we
compare the phenomenon of Pentecost with the description
of the gift of tongues given us in other parts of Scripture,
and especially in 1 Cor. xiv.

The following are the other notices which we have in
Scripture of this gift. Our Saviour, after His resurrection,
mentions among the signs that should follow those who be-
lieved, that they should speak with new tongues (Mark xvi.
17). When Cornelius and his company were converted, the
Holy Ghost fell on them as on the disciples at Pentecost
(Acts xi. 15), and they spoke with tongues, and magnified
God (Acts x. 46). When Paul laid his hands on the

Ephesian disciples who had only been baptized unto John’s
/ baptism, “the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake

with tongues, and prophesied” (Acts xix. 6). Paul, in enu-
merating the gifts of the Spirit, mentions among them as
distinct gifts, “kinds of tongues,” and “the interpretation of
tongues” (1 Cor. xii. 10). And especially, in the fourteenth

chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, the gift of

tongues is dwelt upon at length. Paul there speaks of

ON THE GIFT OF TONGUES. 81

“diversities of tongues,” and of “speaking and praying in
tongues.”

There is some variety in the names which this gift bears
in the New Testament. In our passage it is called ἑτέραις
γλώσσαις λαλεῖν ; in Mark’s Gospel we find καιναῖς γλώσ-
oats λαλεῖν ; in Acts x. 46, xix. 6, and in 1 Cor. xiv., it is
simply γλώσσαις or γλώσσῃ λαλεῖν. St. Paul also speaks
of γένη γλωσσῶν (1 Cor. xii. 28) and γλώσσῃ προσεύχεσθαι
(1 Cor. xiv. 14).

We shall at present restrict ourselves to the occurrence on
the day of Pentecost, and inquire how it has been understood
by various writers.

1. And, first, let us attend to the natural explanations
which have beeh given of it by critics of the rationalistic
school. It is supposed by them that the disciples were not
all Galilean Jews ; but that among them there were several
foreign Jews who addressed the multitude in their own
languages, so that all the foreigners in Jerusalem heard the
gospel in their own tongues. This is the theory adopted,
with some variations, by Paulus, Kuinel, Heinrichs, and
Thiess. But, not to mention that this opinion charges the
historian with an attempt at deception—for he certainly gives
us the impression that the disciples spoke in languages
strange to them—it is exposed to unanswerable objections.
It is extremely improbable that there should at this time
have been a number of foreign Jews among the disciples,
as it was not until after Pentecost that the Christian com-
munity extended itself. Besides, this opinion would remove
all cause of wonder, because, according to it, every man
spoke in his own language. And such a use of their native
tongue could not be called a gift of the Spirit. In short,
every attempt to remove the miraculous in this manner,
and to explain the phenomenon by assuming that the dis-
ciples spoke in their native languages, is directly against the
nature and words of the narrative, and is now generally
rejected by critics of every school.

2. Another opinion, more common in ancient than in
modern times, is that which converts the miracle of speaking

VOL. I. F

82 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

into a miracle of hearing. The disciples, it is said, did
indeed speak in their own languages; but, the foreign Jews,
by a spiritual sympathy, believed that they heard them speak
in their own tongues. Thus, according to this view, Peter
indeed addressed the multitude in Aramaic, but to one hearer
the words sounded as Greek, to another as Arabic, and to a
third as Persian. This opinion was advanced by Cyprian,
Gregory of Nyssa, and Bede, among the Fathers, by
Erasmus at the time of the Reformation, and in more recent
times by Martensen and Schneckenburger. Billroth sup-
poses that there is a primitive language, and that this was
made known by the Spirit to the disciples, and that each of
the hearers thought they found their own dialect in it. But
such an opinion is not borne out by the narrative. It does
not agree with the declaration that the disciples spoke with
other tongues. It would transfer the miracle of Pentecost
from believers to unbelievers. And, besides, it would be
practising a deception upon the hearers, leading them to
think that they heard what they actually did not hear: the
words which sounded in their ears as Greek, Arabic, or Per-
sian, being in reality Aramaic.

3. A third hypothesis is, that the speaking with tongues
was merely incoherent utterances— jubilant expressions.
This opinion was advanced by Bardili and Eichhorn, although
they applied it only to 1 Cor. xiv. They defended their
opinion by an appeal to 1 Cor. xiv. 7, 8, where speaking
with tongues is compared to the indistinct sounds of in-
struments. Bunsen also held a similar opinion. So also
Wieseler thinks that, when the disciples spoke with other
tongues among themselves (Acts ii. 4), soft, unintelligible
whisperings are meant, similar to the phenomenon described
in 1 Cor. xiv.; but that when they addressed the multitude,
the second stage, or the interpretation of tongues, is meant—
that the speakers explained their unintelligible utterances.
But such a hypothesis would divest the narrative of the
miraculous, and degrade the whole phenomenon into a species -
of fanaticism. Luke leaves on us the decided impression that
the words spoken were not inarticulate utterances, but that

ON THE GIFT OF TONGUES. 83
the hearers understood what was said. And in the passage
it is evident that γλῶσσα and διάλεκτος are interchanged.

4. Another opinion is, that by other tongues is meant
poetical, antiquated, unusual, provincial, and foreign expres-
sions; that we are to think of a discourse not in foreign
languages, but in expressions which were strange to the
language of common life, and in which there were several
phrases borrowed from foreign dialects. This opinion was
advanced and supported with great erudition and ability by
Bleek. He founds his argument chiefly on the peculiar
meaning given to γλῶσσα by rhetoricians, namely an anti-
quated expression. But such a meaning is unknown in the
Septuagint and in the New Testament. Besides, it cannot
be made to correspond with the phenomenon in question.
How, on this view, could the Parthians, Medes, Elamites,
etc., affirm that they heard the disciples speak each in his
own language? Bleek himself is constrained to acknowledge
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.” *

5. A very common opinion, maintained in a variety of
forms, is that the gift of tongues was not an actual speech in
foreign languages, but ecstatic utterances spoken in a high
state of inspiration, and often destitute of intelligible mean-
ing. The mind of the inspired was raised above its natural
powers, and received impressions of new truths, or was filled
with such joyful emotions, that the man felt it impossible to
express in ordinary language his views and feelings, and
hence resulted a speaking with tongues. This opinion is
chiefly defended by an appeal to 1 Cor. xiv. But however
much it may seem to agree with the gift of tongues there
described, it is irreconcilable with the gift of tongues on the
day of Pentecost. It may be that the utterances of the dis-
ciples were words of praise, and in this sense ecstatic ; but
then they were spoken in foreign tongues, and the hearers
understood them. There is not the least intimation given
that they were unintelligible, but the reverse. Accordingly,

1 See Olshausen on the Gospels and Acts, vol. iv. p. 259.

84 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

Meyer modifies the hypothesis: he combines it with that of
Kuinel and the Rationalists. He supposes that the utter-
ances were indeed ecstatic, and in general unintelligible; but
that among the disciples, who were for the most part Gali-
Jeans, there were also a few foreigners, and that they natu-
rally expressed their ejaculations not in the acquired Galilean
dialect, but in their mother tongue. He further supposes
that Luke, in describing the phenomenon as a miraculous
speech in foreign languages, adopted a distorted report.’
But this explanation is a wholly unwarrantable attack on the
sacred text; not a solution, but a cutting of the knot—an
attempt to get rid of the miraculous in the narrative.

6. A modification of this hypothesis of ecstatic utterances
has recently been advanced by Dr. Plumptre. He does not
think that the disciples spoke languages with which they
were previously unacquainted; but merely in a state of
ecstasy uttered foreign expressions of praise and joy, in
words which they had formerly heard, and which were now
brought vividly to their recollection, ‘In all likelihood,”
he observes, “such words as they then uttered had been
heard by the disciples before. At every feast which they
had ever attended, from their youth up, they must have
been brought into contact with a crowd as varied as that
which was present on the day of Pentecost, the pilgrims of
each nation uttering their praises and doxologies. The
difference was, that before the Galilean peasants had stood
in that crowd neither hearing, nor understanding, nor re-
membering what they heard, still less able to reproduce it ;
now they had the power of speaking it clearly and freely.
The divine work would in this case take the form of a super-
natural exaltation of the memory, not of imparting a miracu-
lous knowledge of words never heard before.”? But this
ingenious hypothesis does not recommend itself to us as the
true solution: it is not naturally suggested by the narrative.
The miracle is there distinctly represented as one of other

1 Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, pp. 53, 54. The opinion of Neander is
somewhat similar.
2 See Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, art. Gift of Tongues.

ON THE GIFT OF TONGUES. δ δ

tongues—the gift of speaking the languages of Parthians,
Medes, Elamites, etc., not the mere exaltation of the memory.

7. The only hypothesis which suits all the conditions of
the case, is that of an actual speech in foreign and previously
unacquired languages ; a miraculous gift of tongues, so that
the disciples were enabled to speak Persian, Arabic, Latin,
etc. This opinion is adopted, though variously maintained,
by Baumgarten, Olshausen, Lechler, Kahnis, Schaff, Biium-
lein, and Wordsworth. Various objections, however, against
this view of the subject have been advanced.

It is considered to be inconceivable and contradictory.
“The sudden communication,” observes Meyer, “ οἵ an
ability to speak in foreign languages is neither logically
possible, nor psychologically and morally conceivable, and
we do not find the least trace of it in the apostolic epistles
or elsewhere.”* So also Alford, to whose particular view
we shall afterwards advert, remarks: “ Such an endowment
would not only be contrary to the analogy of God’s dealings,
but, as far as I can see into the matter, self-contradictory,
and therefore impossible.” But it is no argument against
the reality of the miracle, that we cannot conceive how men
should speak in foreign languages which they have never
learned: it may have taken place, although we are utterly
ignorant of the mode of its occurrence. The gift of tongues
is manifestly exhibited as a miracle, and it is of the nature
of a miracle that it cannot be explained by ordinary prin-
ciples. As it is not an impossibility to learn a foreign lan-
guage, so we do not see how it can be considered impossible
and contradictory that a language should be impressed on the
mind, without previous study. Miracles frequently consist
in the compression of much labour and time into a small
space. As, for example, our Saviour converted water at
once into wine; whereas, in the natural order, water has to
go through a variety of forms and processes before it is so
changed. So, in the natural order, the acquirement of a
language occupies much time and study; but, for all that we
see, this time and study may be miraculously dispensed with.

1 Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 51.

γ

86 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

Again, it is objected that this hypothesis of speaking
foreion languages is opposed to Acts xiv. 11. It is there
asserted that Paul, who spoke with tongues more than all
the Corinthian disciples (1 Cor. xiv. 18), did not under-
stand the dialect of Lycaonia. Now, taking for granted
that this is the correct meaning of the passage, it is to be
observed that the gift of speaking in foreign languages need
-not have been permanent; it was only “as the Spirit gave
them utterance.” Paul, for example, had the gift of heal-
ing; yet he could not exercise this gift on all occasions, for
in Te Second Epistle to Timothy he mentions that he had
left Trophimus at Miletum sick; and in his Epistle to the
Philippians he speaks of Epaphroditus being sick nigh unto
death.

But the great objection to this speaking in foreign lan-
[guages is, that however much it agrees with the miracle of
| Pentecost, it apparently disagrees with the description of the
gift of tongues given by Paul in 1 Cor. xiv. There the
speaking with tongues was unintelligible to the hearers: he
that spoke in an unknown tongue, spoke not to men, but to
God, for no man understood him: the man often could not
interpret what he himself said; an interpreter was necessary
to explain what was spoken, and sometimes there was no
interpreter present in the assembly: the gift is compared
with the tinkling of a cymbal, the indistinct sound of an
instrument, and the speech of a barbarian: Paul himself
spoke eit tongues more than they all, but he says that
he would rather speak five words with his understanding,
that he might teach others, than ten thousand words in
a tongue; and he forbids any to speak with tongues in
the church, unless there be an interpreter. Now, certainly
there does appear to be a difference between this speaking
with tongues and that mentioned in the Acts. Both were
spiritual gifts supernatural manifestations; in both the
mind of the speaker was controlled by the Spirit; both are
described as speaking with tongues—yAwooas λαλεῖν. But
the speech of the disciples at Pentecost was directly intelli-
gible to the hearers; whilst the speech of the Corinthians

ON THE GIFT OF TONGUES. 87

required the medium of an interpreter to be understood.
The speaking at Pentecost was evidently a speaking in
foreign languages; whilst it is not so evident that this was
the case with the converts at Corinth.

Alford attempts to reconcile these two phenomena. He
supposes that the disciples at Pentecost were merely the
mouthpieces of the Spirit—they spoke only as the Spirit
gave them utterance; that they did indeed speak in foreign
languages, but that they did not themselves understand
what they said; that they were moved to the utterance of
certain sounds dictated by the Holy Spirit, but that these
sounds were perfectly intelligible to the foreigners who
heard them in their own languages. Or, as he expresses it:
“T believe the event related in our text to have been a sud-
den and powerful inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by which
the disciples uttered, not of their own minds, but as mouth-
pieces of the Spirit, the praises of God in various languages,
hitherto, and possibly at the time itself, unknown.”? Hence
the necessity of an interpreter to explain what was said, as
the speaker himself was ignorant of what he uttered. Such
a reconciliation is ingenious, and the explanation given may
possibly apply to the gift of tongues mentioned in 1 Cor. xiv.;
but there is nothing in the account given us in the Acts
which would lead us to suppose that the disciples did not
understand what they said.

Others (Thiersch, Lechler) suppose that Acts ii. and
1 Cor. xiv. describe phenomena which, although in many
points similar, coming under the same category, yet have
peculiar differences. According to them, in Acts ii. there
was a real and actual power of speaking in foreign languages
conferred on the disciples. They utter the praises of God,
so that the Parthians, Medes, and Elamites understood
them, each in his own language. Whereas in 1 Cor. xiv.
there was no speaking in foreign languages, but a high
state of rapture and inspiration; an exaltation of soul; a
state of holy ecstasy, perhaps similar to that which Paul

1 Lange’s Bibelwerk: Apostelgeschichte, von Lechler, p. 42.
3 Alford’s Greek Testament, vol. ii. pp. 13, 14.

88 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

experienced when, being caught up to the third heavens, he
heard unspeakable things, which it is not lawful for a man
to utter. And corresponding with this difference there is a
difference of expression: in Acts ii. the disciples are said to
speak' with other tongues; whereas in 1 Cor. xiv. there is
only mention of speaking with tongues.’ According to this
view of the subject, the gift of tongues at Pentecost was
unique in its nature. Its purpose was not to enable the dis-
ciples to address the foreign Jews in their own languages ;
for there is no mention that they discoursed in them, but
merely that they declared the wonderful works of God. It
was rather designed to call attention ; to excite the spirit of
inquiry among the multitude; to arouse their curiosity. It
also gave authority to the disciples : it invested the doctrines
which they declared with all the weight of inspiration. It
was, so to speak, the bell which called the people to wor-
ship, and the credentials which God Himself gave to His
messengers.

This explanation, though not wholly satisfactory, especially
regarding the gifts of tongues in 1 Cor. xiv., seems to come
nearest to the probable:truth. The phenomenon at Pentecost °
was a miraculous indication of the arrival of the heavenly
gift, and a manifestation of its power; and being a miracle,
it is hardly to be expected that we shall be able to apprehend
the modus operandi. A solution of the question in this sense
cannot be looked for. Only this is to be remembered, that
we must receive the Scripture as it stands; and on the one
hand, not explain away the natural meaning of the language;
nor, on the other, put meanings into it which it cannot bear.

We are probably to understand the occurrence somewhat
as follows:—When the Holy Spirit was poured out upon
the disciples, they were endowed with the gift of tongues:
they spoke foreign languages which they had never acquired,
at first among themselves (Acts ii. 4). A multitude assem-
bled around the house where they were: the disciples went

1 See this difference between the phenomenon at Pentecost and the

speaking of tongues in the Corinthian church well stated by Thiersch in
his History of the Apostolic Church, translated by Carlyle, pp. 62, 63.

ON THE GIFT OF TONGUES. 89

out to them, speaking in these languages ; and each foreigner,
to his surprise, heard his own language spoken by those

whom he knew were Galileans. It is certainly not to be_

supposed that each disciple spoke a multitude of languages
(Bleek); but that one spoke in one language and another in
another, so that every foreign Jew heard spoken the wonder-
ful works of God “in his own tongue wherein he was born.”
Whether the disciples actually discoursed to the multitude
in foreign languages, or whether the words which they
uttered were the ecstatic expressions of praise to God (τὰ
μεγαλεῖα τοῦ Ocod), cannot be determined from the narrative.

The common opinion is, that the gift of tongues was be-
stowed upon the disciples to assist them in the propagation
of the gospel. They were commissioned to preach the gospel
to all nations ; and to enable them to execute this commission,
they were promised by our Lord the gift of new tongues
(Mark xvi. 17); and at Pentecost, when the Spirit was
given, this promise was fulfilled.*. Others, however, think
that such an opinion goes beyond the information given us
in Scripture. The testimony of the Fathers is ambiguous.
Irenzeus speaks of those who had prophetic gifts, and spoke
through the Spirit all kinds of languages (παντοδαπαῖς
λαλούντων διὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος γλώσσαις). But with the
exception of this testimony, until the time of Chrysostom
there is no mention that such a power was exercised by
the apostles. Of course, little stress can be put upon the
tradition of Papias, mentioned by Eusebius, that Peter was
accompanied on his travels by Mark as his interpreter 3° but
it shows that the primitive church did not consider the gift
of tongues as a permanent endowment to fit the apostles for
preaching the gospel. Nor, it may be added, was such a
gift so necessary as it would be to missionaries in the present
day. In the providence of God, the civilised world was
united into one mighty empire and one language, the Greek ;

1 See this opinion ably supported by Bishop Wordsworth, The Acts
of the Apostles, pp. 44, 45.

2 Treneus, adv. Her. v. 6; Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 7.

8 Euseb. Hist, Eccl. iii. 39.

90 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

or at the most, two, the Greek and the Latin, formed the
medium of communication throughout the empire.’ In all
the countries which Paul visited in his extensive missionary
journeys, Greek alone sufficed. It may indeed be“objected
that the power to speak, and especially to write Greek, must
necessarily have been miraculously conferred on the Galilean
apostles; but there appear in their writings, especially in
their use of Hebraisms, indications that it was in all pro-
bability acquired by them according to natural laws; at least
their speaking and writing Greek is not a proof that that
language was miraculously conferred on them, especially
considering that it was at this period extensively used in
Palestine. Not only John, Peter, and James, but also
Josephus, wrote in Greek.”

Various phenomena have occurred in the Christian church
analogous to this speaking with tongues: such as the ecstatic
prayers and prophecies of the Montanists in the second
century, of Fox and his disciples and of the French prophets
in the seventeenth; and especially the so-called “unknown
‘ tongues” of the Irvingites in the nineteenth. These, how-
ever, cannot be considered as supernatural phenomena in the
sense of miraculous, but are mere imitations of the gift of
tongues mentioned in Scripture; and with regard to many
of them, although certainly not the result of imposture, were
the effects of a contagious religious fanaticism. Certain it is,
that in none of these instances was there an actual speaking
of foreign languages such as occurred on the day of Pentecost.

1 Aramaic, Greek, Latin, the three languages of the inscription on
the cross, were media of intercourse throughout the empire.” ‘‘ The
conquests of Alexander and of Rome had made men diglottic to an extent
which has no parallel in history."—Dr. PLUMPTRE.

2 See Merivale’s History of the Romans, ch. xxix. He observes: ‘‘ The
prevalence of the Greek language even in Jerusalem itself is marked by
an interesting circumstance recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. On
the occasion of a riot which was excited in that city through the jealousy
which existed between the Oriental and Greek Jews, Paul addressed the
multitude: ‘When they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue, they
the more kept silence ;’ from which it appears that they would have
listened to him, and understood him, even if he had spoken in Greek.”

SECTION IV.
THE DISCOURSE OF PETER AT PENTECOST.—Acrs u. 14-36.

14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and
addressed them, Ye men of Judea, and all ye dwellers in Jerusalem, be
this known unto you, and hearken to my words: 15 For these men are
not drunken, as ye suppose, for it is the third hour of the day. 16 But
this is that which was spoken by the prophet: 17 ‘‘It shall be in the
last days, saith God, that I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh ;
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men
shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18 And on
my servants, and on my handmaids, I will pour out in those days of
my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: 19 And I shall give wonders in
heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and
vapour of smoke: 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the
moon into blood, before the great and illustrious day of the Lord come :
21 And it shall be, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord
shall be saved.” 22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus the
Nazarene, a man approved of God among you by powers, and wonders,
and signs, which God did by Him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves
know: 23 Him, being delivered up according to the determinate
counsel and foreknowledge of God, having crucified by the hand of law-
less men, ye have slain; 24 Whom God raised up, having loosed the
pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be holden by
it. 25 For David says with reference to Him, ‘‘I saw the Lord always
before me; for He is on my right hand, that I be not moved: 26 There-
fore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad ; moreover also, my
flesh shall rest in hope: 27 Because Thou wilt not leave my soul in
Hades, nor give Thy Holy One to see corruption. 28 Thou hast made
known to me the ways of life: Thou wilt make me full of joy with Thy
countenance.” 29 Men and brethren, I may speak to you with freedom
of the patriarclt David, because he is both dead and buried, and his
sepulchre is among us unto this day. 30 Therefore, being a prophet,
and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit
of his loins, one should sit on his throne ; 31 He, foreseeing this, spoke
concerning the resurrection of Christ, that He was not left in Hades,
neither did His flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus did God raise up,
of which we all are witnesses. 83 Therefore, being by the right hand of

91

92 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy
Spirit, He shed forth this which ye see and hear. 34 For David is not
yet ascended into the heavens: but he says, ‘‘The Lord said unto my
Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make Thy foes Thy
footstool.” 86 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly,
that God made Him both Lord and Christ, even this Jesus whom ye
have crucified.

CRITICAL NOTES.

Ver. 16. Ἰωήλ' καὶ is found in A, B, C, E, x, but is
wanting in D; and is omitted by Tischendorf and Lachmann,
surely for insufficient reasons. Ver. 23. Δαβόντες, D, E,
is wanting in A, B, CO, 8, and is rejected by Tischendorf.
Instead of χειρῶν, Εἰ, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Borne-
mann read χειρός, after A, B, C, D, 8. Ver. 80. The words
τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ἀναστήσειν τὸν Χριστόν are wanting in A,
B, C, 8, and are rejected by Mill, Griesbach, Lachmann,
and Tischendorf. Ver. 31. Ἢ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ, found in Τὺ, is
wanting in A, B, C’, D, δ, and is omitted by Griesbach,
Lachmann, Meyer, and Tischendorf. Ver. 33. Griesbach,
Lachmann, Bornemann, and Tischendorf have omitted νῦν
before ὑμεῖς, as it is wanting in A, B, Οἱ, D, x.

EXEGETICAL REMARKS.

Ver. 14. Sraeis δὲ Πέτρος σὺν τοῖς Evdexa—But Peter,
standing up with the eleven. The disciples were accused of
drunkenness, and Peter commences his address by vindicat-
ing them from that charge. Peter stood up with the eleven,
in their company, and speaking in their name. As Neander
remarks, “ Peter came forward with the rest of the eleven ;
aud as the apostles spoke in the name of the whole church,
so Peter spoke in the name of the apostles.”* The eleven—
as Matthias now supplied the place of Judas. Ye men of
Judea—native Jews. All ye dwellers in Jerusalem—foreign
Jews and proselytes, dwellers and sojourners in Jerusalem.
Peter would address the multitude in Aramaic, as this lan-
guage would be most generally understood.

1 Neander’s Planting, vol. i. p. 18, Bohn’s edition.

THE DISCOURSE OF PETER AT PENTECOST.—II. 15. 99

Ver. 15. Οὐ γὰρ --- οὗτοι μεθύουσιν — for these are not
drunken, The persons referred to (οὗτοι) are not the apostles,
to the exclusion of the disciples; for all were alike charged
with drunkenness. De Wette, on the other hand, supposes
that the disciples only are meant, and not the apostles.
“ Peter,’ he observes, “defends not himself and his col-
leagues, but the other disciples (οὗτοι) : it thus appears that
the apostles had not the gift of tongues,—a proof that this
speaking with tongues was a low kind of spiritual speech.” ἢ
But this is an evident mistake: Peter here speaks in the
third person, not to exclude himself and the other apostles,
but as if he were an impartial advocate to defend his fellow-
disciples from the accusations of the multitude.

Ἔστι yap ὥρα τρίτη τῆς huépas—for it is the third hour
of the day. The division of the day into twelve hours—a
mere conventional division—was unknown among the Jews
until the Babylonish captivity. The first mention of it is in
the book of Daniel. Before that, the periods of the day were
distinguished by natural appearances, as morning, noon-day,
and evening. Herodotus informs us that the Babylonians
were the first to divide the day into twelve parts. Accord-
ing to the Hebrews, the civil day was reckoned from sunset
to sunset, and the natural day from sunrise to sunset. This
natural day was divided into twelve equal parts, and the
length of each hour would of course vary according to the
season of the year, being proportionally longer in summer
and shorter in winter. The third hour, then, was about nine
in the morning, or more correctly, the middle space between
sunrise and noon: it was the hour of morning prayer. The
Jews had three hours of prayer—namely, in the morning,
or the third hour (Acts 1]. 15), when the morning sacrifice
was offered; at noon, or the sixth hour (Acts x. 9); and in
the evening, or the ninth hour (Acts iil. 1, x. 30), the period
of the evening sacrifice. Peter gives it as a reason why
the disciples were not drunken, “ because it was the third
hour of the day.” We learn from Josephus and other
Jewish writers, that on Sabbaths and festivals it was un-

1 De Wette’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 37.

94 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

usual for the Jews to eat or drink until the hour of morn-
ing prayer had expired (see Joseph. Vita, 54; Lightfoot’s
Hore Hebraice, vol. iv. p. 29). And, generally speaking,
drunkenness was a vice which courted the shades of night:
“ They that are drunken are drunken in the night” (1 Thess
v. 7). So that what the apostle insists upon is the extreme
improbability of such a number of persons being drunken at
so early a period of the day.

Vers. 16-21. The quotation from the prophecy of Joel (in
the Hebrew, ch. ii. 28-30; in the Septuagint, ch. iii. 1-5) is
taken, with a few slight variations, from the Septuagint. The
chief variations are the following: Instead of ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις
ἡμέραις (ver. 17), the Septuagint has μετὰ ταῦτα, in which
it agrees with the Hebrew. The two last clauses of ver. 17
are in the Septuagint transposed. In ver. 18 the words καὶ
προφητεύσουται are added; and in ver. 19 ἄνω and κάτω
are wanting in the Septuagint.

Ver. 17. Ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις }uépais—in the last days. This
in the Septuagint is μετὰ ταῦτα, after these things. Kimchi
asserts that these two phrases signify the same thing, for he
has this note upon the passage in Joel: “‘ And it shall be
after these things’ is the same as ‘ And it shall be in the last
days.” ”1 The phrase “ the last days” occurs in the Old
Testament (Isa. ii. 2; Mic. iv. 1), and is a Jewish form of
expression to denote the days of the Messiah. This era was
so called because it was the last dispensation of religion ;
and as the Jewish dispensation then came to an end, the
phrase is also occasionally used to signify the last days of
the Jewish church. Generally, however, it signifies the age
of the Messiah, comprehending all the events that occurred
in that age. Compare 2 Tim. iii. 1, “In the last days
perilous times shall come;” Heb. i. 2, “ God hath in these
last days spoken unto us by His Son;” 1 John ii. 18,
“ Little children, it is the last time.” ᾿Εκχεῶ ἀπὸ τοῦ Πνεύ-
patos μου---ἶ will pour out of my Spirit: in the Hebrew it
is, I will pour out my Spirit. Olshausen supposes that in
the discourse of Peter a powerful but yet partial effusion of

1 Lightfoot’s Hore Hebraicex, vol. iv. p. 30.

THE DISCOURSE OF PETER AT PENTECOST.—II, 18, 19. 9

the Spirit is intended; whereas the prediction of Joel, in its
original form, as given in the Hebrew, still remains for the
future, when there shall be a complete effusion of the Spirit.
But this appears far-fetched: the quotation exactly agrees
with the Septuagint. ᾿Επὶ πᾶσαν σάρκα, on all flesh ; that
is, on all kinds of men, without distinction of sex—sons and
daughters ; of age—young men and old men; and of condi-
tion—servants and handmaids. Joel may have had respect
only to Israel; but Peter here regards Israel as the people
of God, and extends the prophecy to all believers in Christ.
He himself had indeed at this time very imperfect views as
to the admission of the Gentiles into the Christian church ;
but doubtless, in the intention of the Spirit, the phrase is
without distinction of nations—Jews and Gentiles. Καὶ
mpopntevcovatyv —and they shall prophesy. All were to
prophesy : the gift of prophecy was not to be confined to a
few distinguished persons, as under the Old Testament dis-
pensation, but was to extend to all believers (compare Jer.
xxxi. 34). The special reference here is to the speaking
with tongues. ὋὉράσεις, visions, revelations in the day-time ;
ἐνυπνίοις, dreams, revelations at night. These were the two
usual modes in which God communicated His will under
the Old Testament dispensation (Num. xii. 6).

Ver. 18. "Emi τοὺς δούλους μου καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς δούλας μου.
In the original Hebrew it is, upon the servants and upon the
handmaids, that is, upon slaves. Here and in the Septuagint
it is, upon my servants and upon my handmaids. The addi-
tion of you does not permit us to explain it of those who are
in a servile condition, in accordance with the original text
(Heinrichs and Kuineel); for the service is here referred
to God as the great Master. The Spirit is to be poured
upon those who are His servants and His handmaids; in
other words, on all true Christians, inasmuch as they recog-
nise God as their Master.

Ver. 19. Wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth
beneath, are here stated as what would happen in the last
days—the portents of the dreadful calamities which would
occur. The earthly signs are blood, fire, and vapour of

96 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

smoke. By these we are not to understand, with Meyer,
natural signs—bloodshedding (fire, sedition, and murder)
and conflagration ; but rather, with De Wette, supernatural
wonders and signs—prodigies: αἷμα, showers of blood; πῦρ,
fiery meteors; ἀτμίδα καπνοῦ, pillars of smoke rising from
the earth. In the somewhat similar words of our Lord,
with reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, “ Fearful
sights and great signs shall there be from heaven” (Luke
xi, 11),

Ver. 20. The signs from heaven are: ‘ The sun shall be
turned into darkness, and the moon into blood ;” i.e. the light
of the sun shall be withdrawn, and the moon shall exhibit a
bloody appearance. The words of our Lord are similar, and
equally strong: ‘ Immediately after the tribulation of those
days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give
her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the
powers of the heavens shall be shaken” (Matt. xxiv. 29).
Πρὶν ἢ ἐλθεῖν τὴν ἡμέραν Kupiov—before the day of the Lord
come; 1.6. before the day of Christ come. This advent of
Christ is not to be understood of His first coming in the
flesh, but rather of His second coming to judgment; but in
such a manner that every infliction of judgment is to be
regarded as a coming of Christ, the Judge. For example, He
came in Spirit when Jerusalem was destroyed: the Roman
soldiers were His ministers.

Ver. 21. The prophecy concludes with a universal invita-
tion: Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be
saved. 'The Lord mentioned is evidently, according to the
apostle, Christ—Jesus, the crucified and the exalted, who has
been manifested to be both Lord and Messiah. ‘The invita-
tion is universal; there is no exception, no hindrance: all
flesh (πᾶσα σάρξ) is mentioned; and whosoever is included
under this general appellation is invited. :

Such is the exegesis of the prophecy. But the question
is, How did Peter understand it? And how are we to
understand it? What did the spirit of prophecy intend by
it? Evidently Peter wished to show to the Jews that the
effusion of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and the

THE DISCOURSE OF PETER AT PENTECOST.—II. 22. 97

miraculous events with which it was accompanied, were a
fulfilment of the prophecy of Joel. According to this point
of view, “the last days” is the present period—the age of
the Messiah commenced; the effusion of the Spirit is the
outpouring on the day of Pentecost; the prophesyings, the
visions, and the dreams, are the utterances with other tongues.
The calamities predicted—the wonders in heaven above, and
the signs in earth beneath—were indeed as yet future; but
they were regarded by Peter as unavoidable and impending.
The day of the Lord was come, and vengeance was about
to befall His enemies.

But although the prophecy of Joel had special relation to
the day of Pentecost, yet it was not completely fulfilled on
that day. It embraces periods and events far distant from
each other in time; it is a comprehensive statement of what
will occur in the “ last days.” By many it is restricted to the
destruction of Jerusalem; and certainly in that great event,
in the overthrow of the Jewish religion and polity, it received
a striking fulfilment. Then, not only according to our
Saviour’s prediction, but also according to Josephus, there
were fearful sights and great signs from heaven, not inappro-
priately denominated “ blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke.”
But as, according to the phraseology of our Saviour in His
prediction of that event, there is a manifest reference to the
day of judgment, to the end of the world, of which the
destruction of Jerusalem was the type, so there is also a like
reference in this similar prophecy of Joel. In short, we
believe that not only at Pentecost, but on every great his-
torical crisis, at every striking effusion of the Spirit, and at
every convulsion among the nations, this prophecy of Joel
receives a partial fulfilment; but that its complete fulfilment
is yet in reserve, when the world will have nearly come to
its close, and when the awful judgment of God—that great
and illustrious day of the Lord—is about to take place.

Ver. 22. ᾿Ιησοῦν τὸν Nafwpatov — Jesus the Nazarene.
Peter names Jesus as the Lord upon whom they shall call.
He calls Him the Nazarene, that is, a native of Nazareth,
not as being a term of reproach applied to Him by His

VOL. I. G

98 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

enemies (Calvin), or because such was the title affixed to
the cross (Beza), but for the sake of distinction, being His
ordinary designation among the Jews (Acts iii. 6), as Jesus
was acommon name. A man approved of God among you—
that is, proved to be the Messiah, divinely accredited by the
miracles He wrought; as Nicodemus justly argued: “ We
know that Thou art a teacher come from God: for no man
can do these miracles that Thou doest, except God be with
him” (John 11. 2). By powers, and wonders, and signs—
three terms expressive of the miracles which Jesus wrought :
powers, because they were the effects of supernatural power ;
wonders, as being works out of the ordinary course of nature ;
and signs, as being the credentials of Christ—the proofs that
He was sent from God.

Ver. 23. Τοῦτον τῇ ὡρισμένῃ . . . Exdotov—Him, being de-
livered up according to the determinate counsel and foreknow-
ledge of God. The apostle, in referring to the death of
Christ, views it with respect to God and man. With respect
to God, he declares that it was in accordance with His
counsel and foreknowledge. (The words are in the dative
of accordance; see Acts xv. 1: Meyer, De Wette, Winer.)
"Exdotov —delivered up: by whom, is left undetermined ;
perhaps a reference to the treachery of Judas. The apostle
intends that what happened to Jesus was not the mere result
of successful wickedness, but was in full accordance with
the fixed plan of God: that all had been previously foretold
by the prophets in their predictions of the Messiah.

Next follows man’s part in the transaction: διὰ χειρὸς
ἀνόμων---ὔν the hand of lawless men. By lawless men here
are meant the heathen who were without the law (Rom.
ii. 14), and particularly Pilate who condemned Christ, and
the Roman soldiers who nailed Him to the cross. Προσ-
mnéavres—fastened, affixed, or nailed to something: the cross
is presupposed as known; σταυρῷ has consequently to be
supplied. ’Avetkare—ye have slain. Peter here charges the
multitude with being the murderers of Jesus. But where-
fore? Doubtless there were many of those foreign Jews
who were not in Jerusalem on the day of the crucifixion ;

THE DISCOURSE OF PETER AT PENTECOST.—II. 24-26. 99

and though some then present may have joined in the cry,
“Crucify him,” yet all were not thus guilty. Olshausen’s
opinion, that the reason was because the crucifixion of Christ
was the deed of the human race, inasmuch as it was the sin
of mankind that brought Jesus to the cross, though doc-
trinally true, is far-fetched. Rather Peter regards it as the
sin of the Jewish nation, because it was the sin of their
rulers, with the full consent and approbation of the multi-
tude; as when they exclaimed, “ His blood be upon us, and
upon our children.”

Ver. 24. Avoas τὰς ὠδῖνας τοῦ Oavatov—having loosed the
pains of death. There is considerable difficulty in the inter-
pretation of this expression. Ol]shausen supposes that the
word @divas is to be taken in the sense of cords, bonds,
snares ; as “the snares of death” is translated in the Sep-
tuagint, ὠδῖνες θανάτου (Ps. xviii. 5). Such an interpreta-
tion gives a distinct meaning to the passage. Still, however,
it is doubtful whether ὠδέν is ever used in this sense. Meyer
supposes that death itself is here represented as in travail,
until the dead is raised; then these pains cease—they are
loosed; and because God has raised up Christ, He has
loosed the pains (birth-pangs) of death. It is, however,
more natural to refer the pains to Jesus, than to conceive
death itself being in pain. The meaning would seem to be,
that death was regarded as a painful condition, because the
body was threatened with corruption; and that consequently
these pains were loosed when the body was raised and de-
livered from corruption (Lechler).

Vers. 25-28. This quotation is from Ps. xvi. 8-11 (xv.
8-11 according to the Septuagint). It is taken verbatim
from the Septuagint, and varies very slightly, and not at all
in sense, from the Hebrew original.

Ver. 25. IIpoop@pnv does not signify “I foresaw,” in the
sense of to see beforehand; but to see before oneself, to have
a vivid view of an object; similar in sense to the Hebrew,
“T have set the Lord always before me.”

Ver. 26. Therefore did my heart rejoice—the heart being
considered the seat of the will and affections. And my

100 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

tongue was glad. Instead of my tongue, the Hebrew has my
glory, probably a free translation in the Septuagint. More-
over also, my flesh shall rest in hope: by which the Psalmist
expresses his hope of final deliverance; or, as applicable to
the Messiah, and as interpreted by Peter, in hope of the
resurrection.

Ver. 27. Because Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades—in
the abode of the dead—the state of separate spirits. Nor
give Thy Holy One to see corruption—permit Thy Holy One
to suffer the corruption of the grave. In an historical sense,
these words can with difficulty be referred to David, as if he
meant that God would not suffer him to die in his present
peril (Meyer); a meaning which evidently comes far short
of the expressions employed. They must be regarded as a
direct prophecy of the Messiah, applicable to Him alone.

Ver. 28. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life—
the paths which lead to life. Thow wilt fill me with joy with
Thy countenance—in fellowship with Thee. According to the
meaning attached to this by St. Peter, it refers to the resur-
rection of the Messiah, by which God made known to Him
the ways of life; and to His ascension to heaven, where there
is fulness of joy in the immediate presence of God. We
are not left to ourselves to discover the interpretation of this
quotation from the Psalms, as Peter himself interprets it in
the verses which follow.

Ver. 29. ᾿Εξὸν (sc. ἐστῇ) εἰπεῖν μετὰ παῤῥησίας πρὸς ὑμᾶς
—I may speak to you with freedom. By these apologetic words
the apostle introduces what he is to say concerning David:
he may speak with freedom, because he was to state a matter
of fact which could not be denied. The fulfilment of the
prophetic words in another and greater than David did not
detract from that illustrious prophet and king. Περὶ τοῦ
πατριάρχου AaBid—concerning the patriarch David. David
is here called by the honourable title of patriarch, because
he was the father of the royal family, and because the Mes-
siah was to descend from him. The name is applied in the
New Testament to Abraham (Heb. vii. 4), and to the sons
of Jacob (Acts vii. 8).

THE DISCOURSE OF PETER AT PENTECOST.—IL. 30, 31. 101

Καὶ τὸ μνῆμα αὐτοῦ... ravtns—and his sepulchre is among
us until this day. David was buried in the city of David
(1 Kings ii. 10), that is, Mount Zion; and most of the
Jewish kings were interred in the same sepulchre. After
the return from Babylon, “the sepulchres of David” were
still pointed out (Neh. iii. 16), and doubtless repaired.
Josephus informs us that, one thousand and three hundred
years after the death of David,’ his sepulchre was pillaged
by the high priest John Hyrcanus, who took out of it three
thousand talents, being part of the treasure which Solomon
had lodged in it ; and that after him Herod the Great opened
another chamber, and took away a great amount of money
(Joseph. Ant. vii. 15. 3, xiii. 8. 4). Elsewhere, however, he
states that Herod, on opening the sepulchre, found no money,
but furniture of gold and precious goods; and that in attempt-
ing to make a more diligent search, two of his guards were
killed by a flame which burst out upon those who went in
(Joseph. Ant. xvi. 7.1). The whole account certainly looks
like an exaggeration. In the time of Hadrian the sepulchre
of David had fallen into decay (Dion Cassius, lxix. 14).
Jerome mentions its ruins as extant in his time. The
edifice now shown as such is on the hill on the south side of
Jerusalem, supposed to be Mount Zion, and is probably not
far from the spot. ἡ

Vers. 30, 31. In these verses we have the application of
the prophecy to Christ. David, observes the apostle, did not
speak of his own resurrection, seeing that he is dead and
buried; but as a prophet, and the divinely assured ancestor
of the Messiah, he foretold the resurrection of Christ. He
had been divinely informed, that of the fruit of his loins one
should sit upon his throne (Ps. exxxii. 11) ; and with a pro-
phetic view of this, recognising this heir as the Messiah, he
spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that He should not be
left in Hades, neither should His flesh see corruption. And
the very same inference is drawn from this psalm by Paul:
“Wherefore He saith in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer

1The date given by Josephus. The proper reckoning is about 880
years.

102 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

Thine Holy One to see corruption. For David, after he had
served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep,
and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: but He
whom God raised again saw no corruption” (Acts xiil.
35-37). The argument of these two apostles is obvious:
David says, “‘ Thou shalt not suffer Thine Holy One to see
corruption ;”? but to David himself these words cannot apply,
for he died and saw corruption: they must therefore apply
to another, to the Messiah, the Son of David.

But how did David understand these words? Did he,
when he uttered them, speak of himself, or of some other
person? It is evident from the nature of the case, and from
the words of Peter (1 Pet. i. 10-12), that the prophets
had only a dim apprehension of the meaning of their pro-
phecies; but still, without doubt, David had a prophetic
knowledge of that illustrious Son of his who was to sit
upon his throne, and did connect Him with the idea of
the Messiah: and thus, like Abraham, though dimly, he saw
Christ afar off. In this psalm he utters sentiments which
can be applicable to none else than the Messiah; and espe-
cially in the quotation which Peter next gives, he expressly
distinguishes between himself and that illustrious Prince :
“The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand”
(Ps, /exs1),

Ver. 32. Οὗ πάντες ἡμεῖς ἐσμὲν waptupes—of which we all are
witnesses. Οὗ may be regarded either as masculine or neuter.
If masculine, then the translation is, whose witnesses we are ;
if neuter, then it refers to Christ’s resurrection. This latter
is preferable; as the apostles considered themselves to be
especially the witnesses of His resurrection (ch. i. 22).

Ver. 33. Τῇ δεξιᾷ οὖν τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑψωθείς. This has been
variously translated. Some (Olshausen, De Wette, Hackett,
Wordsworth) render it, ewalted to the right hand of God,—a
sense which perhaps agrees best with what follows in ver. 34,
but which, however, is hardly in accordance with the struc-
ture of the Greek language. Meyer observes, that the con-
struction of verbs of motion, with the dative instead of with
πρός or εἰς, is found in classical writers only among the poets,

THE DISCOURSE OF PETER AT PENTECOST.—II. 34-36. 103

though such a usage occurs in later writers; but there is no
undoubted instance of such a construction in the New Tes-
tament.' The words, then, are to be rendered, exalted by
the right hand of God (Lechler, Meyer, Winer, Alford).
The objection of De Wette, that such a sense is inappro-
priate and unmeaning, is groundless: on the contrary, it
gives an obvious sense, that God’s mighty power is seen not
only in the resurrection, but also in the exaltation of Christ.
᾿Εξέχεε τοῦτο---- [16 has shed forth this. Τοῦτο is probably to
be understood indefinitely—this thing which ye do see in the
conduct and hear in the discourses of the disciples: so that
Peter leaves it to the hearers themselves to infer that this
miraculous communication was the same as the promise of
the Spirit.

Vers. 34, 35. This second quotation is from Ps. cx. 1 (cix. 1
in the Septuagint). It is taken verbatim from the Septua-
gint, which is an exact translation of the Hebrew. Our
Lord cites the same passage as a proof that David owned
his inferiority to the Messiah. ‘“ How doth David in spirit
eall Him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit
Thou on my right hand, till I make Thine enemies Thy
footstool? If David then called Him Lord, how is He his
son?” (Matt. xxii. 43-45.) The words are a direct prophecy
of the Messiah. They cannot apply to David, not only
because, as St. Peter says, “ David hath not yet ascended
into the heavens,” but because David expressly distinguishes
himself from the person spoken of, and owns Him as his
King. This King, then, is the illustrious son of David, the
Messiah ; and His session at the right hand of God is His
ascension. Certainly the idea conveyed by this is, that
Christ is made a partaker of the divine power and glory,
which He could only be by reason of His divine nature: it
is, however, the mediatorial throne which is here primarily
intended, and to which He, as Lord and Christ, is exalted.

Ver. 36. “Acdaras οὖν ywaoxérw—Therefore let all the
house of Israel know assuredly. The conclusion of the entire

1 Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, pp. 70, 71. See also Winer’s Grammar,
sec. xxxi. 5.

104 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

discourse. From the correspondence of the resurrection and
ascension of Christ with the sure word of prophecy, the
inference is undoubted (ἀσφαλῶς) that Jesus is the Messiah.
Κύριον καὶ Xpuorov—Lord and Christ. Lord, the Supreme
King; Christ, the Greek for Messiah. Peter would assert,
as the conclusion of his whole discourse, that Jesus was that
illustrious King and Prophet whom the Jews so eagerly
expected. Whilst on earth He was both Lord and Christ ;
but then He was in the form of a servant: but by His
resurrection and ascension He is openly declared to be so.
Τοῦτον τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν ὃν ὑμεῖς eotavpdcate—even this Jesus
whom ye have crucified. So the discourse ends in the most
emphatic manner, well fitted to pierce the hearers to the
heart with a sense of their guilt and danger: as if the apostle
had said, Ye have not only committed the awful crime of
crucifying your Messiah ; but He whom you have crucified
is now your Lord and Judge: you are helpless in His hands.

It is to be observed on this whole discourse of Peter,
that although he mentions the miracles of Jesus—His
“powers and signs and wonders”—and especially the crown-
ing miracle of His resurrection, yet he does not put the
chief stress of his argument upon them. He argues not
from miracles, but from prophecies. He proves from the
prophecy of Joel, that the present effusion of the Spirit was
predicted as an event that should occur in the days of the
Messiah ; and from two passages from the Psalms, he shows
that the risen and exalted Jesus was the Messiah, because it
was predicted of the Messiah that He should rise from the
dead and ascend into heaven. And the reason of this line
of argument was because Peter’s hearers were Jews: they
believed in the prophecies concerning the Messiah; and
therefore the fulfilment of these prophecies in the person of
Jesus was to them a convincing proof of His Messiahship.
The whole discourse of Peter must, to a Jewish mind, have
been most conclusive, and have carried home to their hearts
the conviction, that God had made that same Jesus whom
they had crucified both Lord and Christ.

ON THE NATURE OF HADES. 105

ON THE NATURE OF HADES.

We have deferred until now the consideration of Hades,
that place in which the Psalmist predicted the soul of the
Messiah would not be left, and in which Peter tells us Christ
was not left. “Ads is a well known Greek term, signifying
the invisible state, the infernal regions, the abode of the
dead. It is derived from a, privative, and ἰδεῖν, to see—that
which is not, and cannot be seen. In the Septuagint it is the
translation of the Hebrew DINY, Sheol, a word of the same
import. According to Hebrew scholars, Sheol is derived
from a word signifying a hollow. So also the German
Holle, and the English hell, have probably a similar deri-
vation. Now, however, these words have quite a definite
meaning, signifying the place of the punishment of the
wicked after the judgment ; a meaning which it is question-
able if Hades and Sheol ever bear. There is no appropriate
word in English to express what is meant by Hades: it
would have been perhaps better to have left it untranslated.
In Latin, infernus is a tolerable translation. In German,
De Wette suggests Unterwelt, and Lechler more appropriately
renders it Yodtenreich.

The word aéns occurs eleven times in the New Testament ;
in ten places (Matt. xi. 23, xvi. 18; Luke x. 15, xvi. 23;
Acts ii. 27, 31; Rev. i. 18, vi. 8, xx. 13, 14) it is translated
hell, and in one place (1 Cor. xv. 55) grave. The trans-
lation hell is peculiarly unfortunate, as the idea conveyed
by Hades is different from the future state of punishment.
For this another word, yéevva, is usually employed in the
New Testament. Sheol, again, is variously rendered hell and
the grave. In some places the grave is its obvious meaning ;
as in Gen. xlii. 38, 1 Sam. ii. 6, Ps. cxli. 7. In one place
(Ps. ix. 17) it would seem to denote the future state of
punishment, hell properly so called. In the New Testa-
ment, however, the meaning of Hades approximates to the
Greek idea of that word, as the state of the dead in general,
where the righteous are happy and the wicked miserable.

106 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

The Greeks termed the place of the blessed Elysium, and
the abode of the miserable Tartarus, both being regions of
Hades. In the New Testament the former word does not
occur, Paradise being perhaps used in its stead (Luke xxiii. 47).
The latter term, Tartarus, is however employed by St. Peter
when he says, ‘God cast down the angels which sinned to
hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness to be reserved
unto judgment” (2 Pet. ii. 4), where the word employed is
ταρταρώσας : they are confined in Tartarus, as in a prison,
waiting for the judgment. “Adys, then, signifies the abode
of the dead, the separate state: when the body is conceived
as without the soul, it is equivalent to the grave; and when
the soul is conceived as without the body, it is what is termed
the intermediate state—the state intervening between death
and the resurrection. The souls both of the righteous and
the wicked are in Hades, though considered as in different
regions: the former inhabiting the region of the blessed,
or Paradise ; the latter being confined in the dungeon of
Tartarus.

Hades is represented as situated in the lower parts of the
earth. Hence the depth of Hades is contrasted with the
height of heaven (Matt. xi. 23; Luke x. 15). It is also
regarded as an abode; and hence we read of the house of
Hades, the gates of Hades (Matt. xvi. 18), and the keys of
Hades (Rev. i. 18). It is the inseparable companion of
death (Rev. vi. 8). And after the judgment Hades shall be
no more: it and its companion Death shall be cast into hell
(Rev. xx. 13, 14). In Luke xvi. 23, where it is said that the
rich man lifted up his eyes in Hades, being in torment, the
idea of a place of punishment is certainly intended; but
this is Tartarus, not hell. Both Lazarus and the rich man
were in Hades; the one in the mansions of the blessed, and
the other in those of the wretched.

In the passage under consideration, where it is said that
Christ’s soul was not left in Hades—unhappily rendered in
our version hell—the meaning is, that His soul was not left
in the abode of separate spirits, even as His body did not
remain in the grave. Some, indeed, suppose that Hades

ON THE NATURE OF HADES. 107

and the grave mean the same thing, and that by the soul of
Christ is to be understood Himself; so that when it is said
that “ His soul was not left in Hades, neither did His flesh
see corruption,” the same sentiment is twice expressed by
different phrases. But, as Principal Campbell well observes,
“we ought never to recur to tautology for the solution of
a difficulty, unless where the ordinary application of words
admits of no other resource.”

It is doubtless from this passage of Scripture that the
article in the Apostles’ Creed, “ Christ descended into hell,”
was derived. All that can be inferred from this passage is
that at death the soul of Christ was separated from His
body: that whilst His body was in the grave, His soul was
in Hades, the abode of separate spirits; or, as He Himself
terms it, Paradise, the abode of the blessed."

1 For discussions on the nature of Hades, see Smith’s Biblical
Dictionary, art. Hell; Trench on the Parable of the Rich Man; and
especially Principal Campbell’s valuable dissertation.

SECTION V.
EFFECTS OF PETER’S DISCOURSE.—Acts 11. 37-47.

37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and
said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘‘ Men and brethren, what
shall we do?” 588 Then Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptized
every one of you on the name of Jesus Christ, in order to the remission
of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the
promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, as
many as the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with many other words
he testified and exhorted, saying, Be ye saved from this perverse genera-
tion. 41 Then they, having received his word, were baptized: and in
that day there were added about three thousand souls. 42 And they
continued stedfastly in the doctrine of the apostles, and in fellowship, in
breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 And fear came upon every soul:
and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. 44 And all
who believed were together, and had all things common; 45 And sold
their possessions and goods, and distributed them to all, as every one -
had need. 46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the
temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did take their food in
gladness and singleness of heart, 47 Praising God, and having favour
with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily the
saved.

CRITICAL NOTES.

Ver. 41. "Acpévws after οὖν, found in Εἰ, is omitted in
A, B, C, Ὁ, s, and rejected by Tischendorf and Lachmann.
Ver. 42. Kai before τῇ κλάσει is omitted in A, B, C, D, x,
and rejected by Bornemann, Lachmann, and Tischendorf.
Ver. 47. Τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, found in D, E, is wanting in A, B,
C, 8, and several versions. It is rejected by Mill, Bengel,
Lachmann, and Alford, but is retained by Griesbach,
Lechler, Meyer, and Tischendorf.

108

EFFECTS OF PETER’S DISCOURSE.—II. 37, 38. 109

EXEGETICAL REMARKS.

Ver. 37. Κατενύγησαν τὴν xapdiav—they were pierced to
the heart. The hearers of Peter’s discourse were deeply
affected by it. They were convinced that Jesus, whom they
had crucified, was indeed Lord and Messiah. They felt that
they had committed the awful crime of putting to death the
Lord’s Anointed; and hence they were filled with remorse.
And they felt also that they were exposed to the divine
wrath—that they were completely in the power of Him
whom they had murdered; and hence they became alarmed
under a sense of danger. ‘Their remorse and fear, however,
had not the effect, as in the cases of Cain and Judas, of driving
them from God, but of causing them to make immediate
application to Peter as the chief spokesman, and to the rest
of the apostles, for advice. What shall we do? How can
we escape the punishment to which our crime exposes us?
Calvin well observes: “Luke doth now declare the fruit of
the sermon, to the end we may know that the power of the
Holy Ghost was not only showed forth in the diversity of
tongues, but also in the hearts of those who heard.”

Ver. 38. Metavonoate—repent. The verb petavoéw is
not to be restricted to mere sorrow for sin—repentance
in the sense of contrition; but it imports a change of
views, mind, and purpose, and a consequent change of dis-
position—repentance in the sense of conversion. Here
Peter’s hearers are required to change their views concern-
ing Jesus. From regarding Him as an impostor, a false
Christ, they were now to believe on Him as the true
Messiah, and to submit themselves to Him as their Lord
and King. With this change in their views, there would
be a corresponding change in their feelings. Μετανοήσατε,
then, denotes a change in an ethical sense, as the immediate
moral condition of their baptism ; not, as the Roman Catho-
lics in the Douay version translate it, from dogmatic views,
do penance,—a meaning which it can never bear.

Kai βαπτισθήτω---απα be baptized. The rite of baptism
is here supposed as known. The Jews were accustomed to

110 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

baptize proselytes and their children, so that it was not to
them a new institution. Besides, John the Baptist seems
to have created a considerable sensation in Judea. And
although Jesus Himself did not baptize, yet His disciples
baptized under His direction. This is the first instance
recorded of the performance of Christian baptism. Peter's
hearers were exhorted not only to repent, but to submit to
the ordinance of baptism as the initiatory rite of the Chris-
tian dispensation. They must make a public profession of
their belief in Jesus as the Messiah, as an evidence of the
reality and sincerity of their repentance.

᾿Επὶ τῷ ὀνόματι ᾿Ιησοῦ Xpictrod—on the name of Jesus
Christ, i.e. on the ground of the name of Jesus the Messiah,
so that their Balietos in Jesus as the Messiah was the ground
on which they were to be baptized. This is the only place
where to be baptized on the name (ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι) of Christ
occurs. Elsewhere it is “into the name (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα) of the
Lord Jesus” (ch. viii. 16, xix. 5); that is, into a profession of
the religion of Jesus—into a belief of the doctrines which He
taught. So also “in the name (ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι) of the Lord”
(ch. x. 68) occurs. Whether the express words of the insti-
tution (Matt. xxviii. 19) were employed, we are not informed ;
most probably they were, as being given directly by Christ :
all that we are here informed, is the ground on which the
converts were baptized.

Eis ἄφεσιν apaptiav—in order to the remission of sins.
The end or design of their baptism: in order that their
guilt in putting to death their Messiah might be forgiven.
This may be regarded as the negative side of the blessing.
The positive side is, that they might receive the gift of the
Holy Ghost—that the promise foretold by the prophet Joel
might be fulfilled in their experience.

Ver. 39. Ὑμῖν yap ἐστιν ἡ érayyedia—for the promise is to
you. The promise here referred to is the well-known promise
of the Holy Ghost; that promise which Joel predicted as
the characteristic of the days of the Messiah, and which our
Lord designated as the promise of the Father (Acts i. 4).
It refers to the miraculous gifts which were then conferred

EFFECTS OF PETER’S DISCOURSE.—II. 89, 111

on the early church; but certainly it also includes the sancti-
fying influences of the Spirit.

Kal τοῖς τέκνοις buav—and to your children: either to your
little ones (Alford), or to your posterity (Hackett). The
promise not only embraces and refers to those Israelites who
are now present, but it stretches itself to the future—to the
posterity of Israel. By the rite of circumcision, the children
of the Israelites were included in the covenant: this privilege
is not done away with by Christianity, but on the contrary
confirmed—the children are included in the promise.

Καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς εἰς waxpav—and to all that are afar off.
It is a matter of dispute who are here intended. Baum-
garten and Meyer refer it to place—all those who are
situated at a distance; that is, to all the members of the
Jewish nation who neither dwell here at Jerusalem, nor
are now present as pilgrims to the feast, both Hebrews and
Hellenists." Hence, according to this opinion, the Jews of
the dispersion are meant. But they are already obviously
included in the promise, as being Jews; and, besides, were
now represented by Jews being present out of every nation
under heaven (Acts ii. 5). Accordingly Beza and others
refer it to time—to all those who are at a distance in point
of time. According to this, the meaning would be: The
promise is not only to you, but also to your remotest pos-
terity. But this idea is already included in the expression
“to your children.” Most (Calvin, De Wette, Bengel,
Kuinel, Lechler, Lange, Alford) refer the expression to
the Gentiles. According to this, Peter affirms that the pro-
mise is not confined to the Jews and their descendants, but
that it also extends to the Gentiles. The expression afar off
is used, both in the Old and in the New Testament, to re-
present the Gentiles. Thus Zechariah says: “They that
are afar off shall come and build in the temple of the Lord”
(Zech. vi. 15); and Paul uses a similar expression, when,
addressing his Gentile converts—those who were in times
past Gentiles in the flesh—he says, “ Now, in Christ Jesus,
ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood

1 Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 74.

1.9 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

of Christ” (Eph. ii. 11-13). The great objection to this
view is, that Peter was as yet ignorant of the admission of
the Gentiles into the Christian church, and that he required
a special revelation to remove his prejudices (Acts x.).
But to this it may be answered, that Peter’s ignorance was
not concerning the fact, but concerning the mode, of the
admission of the Gentiles. That the Gentiles were to be
received into the church was already revealed in the Old
Testament, and could not have been unknown to Peter.
Indeed, Christ Himself had commanded the apostles to
preach the gospel to all nations. Peter, then, did not doubt
that the Gentiles would become Christians, but he supposed
that they would become so through the medium of the
Jewish religion: as yet, he knew nothing of the abrogation
of Judaism.

Ver. 40. Σώθητε ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς THs σκολιᾶς TavtTns—Be
ye saved from this perverse generation. Peter here exhorts
them to save themselves from that wicked Jewish gene-
ration which was doomed to destruction—to separate them-
selves from it by repentance and baptism. Σ΄ κολιός, crooked,
as opposed to straight (Luke i. 5); and so rendered with a
moral reference in Phil. ii. 15: “in the midst of a crooked
(σκολιᾶς) and perverse nation.” Hence perverse or wicked.
The phrase is probably borrowed from Deut. xxx. 5: “a
perverse and crooked generation ;” in the Septuagint, γενεὰ
σκολιὰ Kal διεστραμμένη.

Ver. 41. Οἱ μὲν οὖν ἀποδεξάμενοι . . . ἐβαπτίσθησαν----
Then they, having received his word, were baptized. On the
same day in which they believed—during the course of it—
the sacrament of baptism was administered to three thousand.
This must necessarily have been by sprinkling, and not by
immersion—when we consider the number baptized, and the
scanty supply of water which then was at Jerusalem. Baptism
by immersion of so great a number, and in so short a space
of time, could not have been administered without the con-
sent of the Jewish rulers, which we may be perfectly certain
would not have been obtained. It is also to be observed that
1 See Davidson’s New Introduction to the New Testament, vol. ii. p. 227.

EFFECTS OF PETER’S DISCOURSE.—II. 42. 113

baptism was administered to this multitude without any pre-
vious instruction: all that was required of them was a pro-
fession of their repentance, and of their belief in Jesus as
the Messiah: instruction in the nature of Christianity did
not precede baptism, but followed it. Hence, as Olshausen
observes, “ we may see that it was not dogmas (as a pre-
paration for baptism) upon which the apostles laid stress, but
the disposition and bent of the mind.”

Ψυχαὶ ὡσεὶ τρισχίλιαι ----αὐοιιξ three thousand souls.
From the great number of those converted, we must sup-
pose either that Peter did not merely preach a single sermon,
but addressed several groups; or, what is more probable,
that whilst Peter was preaching, the other apostles and dis-
ciples were engaged in the same duty, with the same happy
results.

Ver. 42. In this verse we have the rudiments or outlines
of the worship of the primitive and apostolic church. There
are four points mentioned, and each may be considered as a
distinct act of worship—the apostolic doctrine, fellowship,
breaking of bread, and prayers.

Τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων---ἴη the doctrine of the apostles.
That is, the disciples, or perhaps specially, the newly con-
verted, diligently attended to the instructions of the apostles.
This διδαχή would consist chiefly in the correspondence of
the life and death of Jesus with the prophecies concerning
the Messiah in the Old Testament; and in the peculiar doc-
trines of Christianity, so far as they were at this time revealed
to the apostles. That after this time the apostles themselves
made a further progress in doctrine, appears from the new
views which they received in regard to the admission of the
Gentiles into the Christian church, and to the abolition of
the Jewish rites and ceremonies.

Καὶ τῇ xowwvia—and in fellowship. The precise idea to
be attached to this term has been much disputed. Some
(Pearson, Mede) refer it to what follows, and conjoin it
with the breaking of bread, either in communion, namely the
breaking of bread; or in communion of the breaking of bread.
The Vulgate gives the last sense—in communicatione frae-

VOL. I. H

114 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

tionis panis. The spuriousness of καί before τῇ κλάσει
prevents us adopting the first meaning; and the structure of
the Greek language will hardly permit us to accept the
second. Others suppose that the communion itself, the
Lord’s Supper, is intended; but this peculiar sense of the
word κοινωνία does not seem to have been employed until
the fourth century, though certainly suggested by 1 Cor.
x. 16. Most biblical critics (Olshausen, Kuinel, Baum-
garten, Lechler) understand by it liberality to the poor; as
the word frequently signifies communication to others, distri-
bution. But to this Meyer objects that this peculiar sense
requires to be indicated by a special clause, or to be un-
doubtedly inferred from the context, as in Rom. xv. 26,
Heb. xiii. 16; that κοινωνία does not in itself signify com-
municatio, but communio; and that it is only from the con-
text that the idea of liberality instead of fellowship can be
inferred, which is not here the case.' Neander understands
it of the social intercourse which the disciples had with one
another,—a meaning which the word fully bears. The objec-
tion, however, to this is, that the word is here evidently used
in a religious sense, as an act of worship. We therefore agree
with Meyer, De Wette, and Bengel in referring it to the
religious fellowship which the disciples had with each other.
The word is similarly employed in Phil. i. 5, where the
apostle renders thanks to God on behalf of the Philippians
for their fellowship in the gospel.

Τῇ κλάσει τοῦ aptov—in breaking of bread. The inter-
pretation of this clause is still more difficult. The common
opinion is, that the Lord’s Supper is meant either by itself,
or accompanied by the Agapz, or love-feasts. The phrase
occurs several times in the New Testament. Thus it is said
that Christ manifested Himself to the disciples at Emmaus in
“breaking of bread” (Luke xxiv. 35), where certainly there
is no reference to the Lord’s Supper. In ver. 46 of our
chapter, it is said that the disciples broke bread from house
to house; where the idea conveyed must be the same as in
the verse under consideration. In Acts xx. 7, 11, it is said

1 Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 75.

EFFECTS OF PETER’S DISCOURSE.—IIL 42. 115

that the disciples came together to break bread, and that they
broke bread, and ate; where, from the context, the phrase
evidently denotes some act of Christian worship. And
Paul, in referring to the Lord’s Supper, uses the expression
“the bread which we break” (1 Cor. x. 16).—Here the
phrase denotes some act of Christian worship, as in Acts xx.
7, 11. Some (Doddridge, Grotius) suppose that it means
that the disciples took their meals in common, and that this
was done in a religious spirit; that there is no reference
here to the Eucharist, but only to feasts similar to the
Agapx. Others (De Wette, Olshausen, Meyer, Hackett)
suppose that in the apostolic church, the Agapx were ac-
companied by the celebration of the Eucharist, after the
example of the last supper of our Lord; and that, accord-
ingly, the phrase “ breaking of bread” does not mean the
Agape or the Lord’s Supper exclusively, but both con-
joined. And certainly from the statements of Paul, in
reference to the manner in which the Lord’s Supper was
celebrated in the church of Corinth, there seems to be
ground for this supposition. This, however, would infer
that the first disciples daily partook of the Lord’s Supper
(ver. 46), which appears extraordinary according to our
views of the ordinance.

In most Christian churches of our day there is nothing
resembling the love-feasts (ἀγάπαι) of the early Christians.
That there were such feasts in the apostolic times is un-
doubted. They are directly mentioned in the Kpistle of
Jude (Jude 12), and most probably alluded to by Peter
(2 Pet. ii. 13). It would appear that the members of the
Christian church partook of their food in common, probably
on the first day of the week (Acts xx. 7), when the rich
brought provisions for the entertainment of their poorer
brethren ; and that the feast was either preceded or con-
cluded by the celebration of the Eucharist. A description
of the Agape is furnished to us by Tertullian. “ Our
feast,” he says, “shows its character by its name; it bears
the Greek name of love: and however great may be the
cost of it, still it is gain to be at cost in the name of piety,

116 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

for by this refreshment we make all the poor happy. No
one sits down at the table till prayer has first been offered
to God; we eat as much as hunger requires, we drink no
more than consists with sobriety: while we satisfy our
appetites, we bear in mind that the night is to be con-
secrated to the worship of God. The supper being ended,
and all having washed their hands, lights are brought in,
and every one is invited to sing, either from Holy Scripture
or from the promptings of his own spirit, some song of
praise to God for the common edification.” * It was the
abuse of the Agape that gave rise to those extraordinary
disorders that prevailed in the Corinthian church at the
celebration of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. xi. 20-22). And
in consequence of frequent abuse, the Agapz were forbidden
by the Council of Laodicea (a.p. 320) and other ecclesias-
tical councils to be held in churches, so that they gradually
fell into disuse.

Καὶ ταῖς mpocevyais—and in prayers. This fourth par-
ticular requires no explanation. Prayers, probably includ-
ing praise, are an essential part of worship. Meyer observes
that the plural may denote different kinds of prayers, which
were partly new Christian prayers restricted to no forms,
and partly the Psalms and the ordinary Jewish prayers,
especially those which referred to the Messiah and His
kingdom. Ὁ

Ver. 48. We have here the impression which was pro-
duced upon those who did not become believers. A sense
of fear came upon them: though not actually converted,
they were impressed with a reverential respect toward the
disciples. And this would be confirmed and deepened by
what is related concerning the activity of the apostles: and
many wonders and signs were done by the apostles—probably
miracles of healing were performed by them.

Ver. 44. "Emi τὸ atvto—together. This does not refer
merely to unanimity of spirit, but intimates that they met or
assembled together. The vast number of the disciples is no
objection to this meaning: for (1) many of the newly con-

1 Neander’s Church History, Bohn’s edition, vol. i. p. 451.

EFFECTS OF PETER’S DISCOURSE.—II. 44-46. 117

verted might have been foreign Jews, pilgrims to the feast,
who would soon return to their native countries; and (2) the
words do not necessarily imply that they all met at the same
time and in the same place: on the contrary, it would seem
that there were several places of meeting in the city (ver.
46); though perhaps there was one special place—the well-
known upper room, to which the disciples resorted after the
ascension, and where they were assembled when the Holy
Ghost was given (ch. i. 15, ii. 1).

Vers. 44, 45. In these verses the community of goods is
mentioned. We, however, defer the consideration of its
nature until in the course of our exposition we come to οὗ...
iv. 34-37, where it is more particularly described. Here
it is stated that the disciples had all things common, that
is, that they had a common store or fund; and that they
sold their possessions (κτήματα, landed property) and goods
(ὑπάρξεις, moveables), and delivered the proceeds to all, as
every one had need. Such Christian liberality as was here
displayed would be peculiarly seasonable, as probably several
of the foreign Jews would wish to remain for some time
longer in Jerusalem, in order to receive further instruction ;
and as perhaps some of the converts might have alienated
the affections of those upon whom they were dependent for
support. Whatever might have been the extent of this
community of goods, it was a remarkable consequence of the
beneficial influence of the effusion of the Spirit upon the
minds of men.

Ver. 46. Καθ᾿ ἡμέραν te... ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ---απὰ they, con-
tinuing daily with one accord in the temple. The Christians
did not forsake the services of the temple. As Luke in his
Gospel tells us that after the ascension of Christ “ they were
continually in the temple praising and blessing God” (Luke
xxiv. 53), so in his apostolic history he asserts the same
fact. In this they followed the example of their Master.
The time had not yet arrived when they should entirely
separate themselves from the old worship of the sanctuary.
Although Christians, they were still Jews: they performed
the rites and ceremonies of the Jewish religion, and were

118 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

regular in their attendance in the temple at the stated hours
of public prayer.

Kar’ oixov—from house to house. Along with this worship
of God in the temple, they had also a peculiar worship
among themselves. Kaz’ οἶκον is here contrasted with ἐν τῷ
ἱερῷ : it may either signify in the house (De Wette, Meyer,
Wordsworth), or from house to house (Robinson). (Compare
Luke viii. 1; Acts xv. 21; Tit. i. 5.) As the number of the
disciples had greatly increased, they could not all meet in
the same house ; and therefore it is probable that they had
meetings in several houses. Besides, each family would give
entertainments (ἀγάπαι) to their brethren, and especially to
those who were sojourners at Jerusalem.

Μετελάμβανον tpopis—did eat their food with gladness
and singleness of heart. Thus they were so actuated by the
new life which the Holy Spirit infused within them, that
their most ordinary actions were converted into religious
exercises: their meals became feasts of love; gladness of
spirit and simplicity of disposition, the moral virtues of God’s
children, imparted a relish even to their daily bread.

Ver. 47. Αἰνοῦντες τὸν Oedv—praising God: descriptive
not only of the manner in which they partook their food,
but of their whole religious spirit, which expressed itself in
hymns of praise and thanksgiving. “Eyovtes yaépuw—having
favour with all the people. Thus God, in His providence,
for a time protected His infant church: He secured for it
the popular favour; the storms of persecution had not yet
commenced.

Swfouévous — the saved. Undoubtedly not, as in the
authorized version, such as should be saved: for this would
require the verb to be in the future—cw@yoopuévouvs. And
yet it is remarkable that this false translation should have
been adopted by all the early English versions, except that
of Wickliff. This could not have arisen from any doctrinal
interest in support of Calvinism, as even the Roman Catholic
version has the same translation. The word is a present or
imperfect participle, and must be rendered the saved, or those
who were being saved. So it is correctly translated in Luther’s

EFFECTS OF PETER’S DISCOURSE.—II. 47. 119

version. Christians are elsewhere so styled: “The preach-
ing of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto
us which are saved (τοῖς σωζομένοις) it is the power of God”
(1 Cor. i. 8). Salvation is not something entirely future,
but something present; a blessing which has commenced ;
a process which is going on in the souls of believers.

Τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ---ἰο the church. This important word here
occurs for the first time in Luke’s apostolic history. (See
critical note.) Its literal meaning is an assembly, without
any relation to the purpose of meeting (Acts xix. 32). The
word, however, soon became appropriated as a Christian
term to denote an assembly of Christians—the Christian
community. Here it evidently denotes the Christian circle,
the communion of the disciples of Christ. By a natural
transition, it came to denote the house in which the assembly
met; though perhaps there is no decided example of this use
of the term in the New Testament. (See, however, Matt.
xvi. 18, where the church is compared to a building.)

SECTION VI,

THE FIRST MIRACLE.—Acts τη. 1-26.

1 Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour
of prayer, namely the ninth hour. 2 And a certain man, who was lame
from his mother’s womb, was carried, whom they placed daily at the
gate of the temple called Beautiful, to ask alms of them who entered
into the temple; 3 Who, seeing Peter and John about to enter into the
temple, asked alms. 4 But Peter, looking intently at him, with John,
said, Look on us. 5 And he gave heed to them, expecting to receive
something from them. 6 But Peter said, Silver and gold I have not;
but what I have give I thee: in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene,
arise and walk. 7 And having taken him by the right hand, he raised
him up: and immediately his feet and ankles were strengthened. 8 And
he, leaping up, stood, and walked, and entered with them into the
temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God. 9 And all the people
saw him walking and praising God.. 10 And they knew him, that. this
was he who sat for alms at the Beautiful gate of the temple: and they
were filled with wonder and amazement at that which had happened to ἢ
him. 11 And as he held Peter and John, all the people ran together to
them to the porch called Solomon’s, greatly astonished. 12 And when
Peter saw it, he answered the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye
at him? or why look ye so intently on us, as if by our own power or
piety we had made him to walk? 13 The God of Abraham, and Isaac,
and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus ;
whom ye delivered up, and denied Him in the presence of Pilate, when
he had decided to release Him. 14 But ye denied the holy and just
One, and desired a man, a murderer, to be granted to you; 15 And
ye killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which
we are witnesses. 16 And His name, on account of faith in His name,
has made this man strong, whom ye see and know; and the faith which
is through Him has given him this perfect soundness in the presence of
you all. 17 And now, brethren, I know that in ignorance ye did it, as
did also your rulers. 18 But God thus fulfilled what He announced
before by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ should suffer.
19 Repent therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted
out, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the
Lord; 20 And that He may send Christ Jesus, who was appointed for

120

THE FIRST MIRACLE.—III. 1. 121

you: 21 Whom heaven must receive until the times of the restoration
of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of His holy prophets
from the beginning. 22 Moses said, A Prophet will the Lord your God
raise up unto you from your brethren, like unto me: Him shall ye hear
in all things whatsoever He shall say unto you. 23 And it shall be,
that every soul who will not hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from
among the people. 24 And all the prophets from Samuel, and those
who followed, as many as have spoken, also foretold these days. 25 Ye
are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with
our fathers, saying to Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the families of
the earth be blessed. 26 Unto you first, God, having raised up His
Servant, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from
your iniquities.

CRITICAL NOTES.

Ver. 11. The words τοῦ ἰαθέντος χωλοῦ are wanting in
A, B, C, E, x. They were probably inserted instead of
αὐτοῦ, as being the commencement of a church lesson.
They are omitted by Tischendorf and Lachmann. Ver. 18.
Bengel, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, on the authority of
B, C, D, E, 8, and many cursive Mss., have placed αὐτοῦ
after Χριστόν, and not after προφητῶν. Ver. 20. Instead
of προκεκηρυγμένον, Griesbach, Tischendorf, and Meyer
read προκεχειρισμένον, after A, B, C, 1), E, 8. Ver. 22. The
words yap πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας are wanting in A, B, C, x,
and are rejected by Lachmann and Tischendorf. Ver. 26.
Ἰησοῦν after αὑτοῦ, found in A, and omitted by B, C, Ὁ, E, x,
is considered by Tischendorf an addition not sufficiently at-
tested.

EXEGETICAL REMARKS.

Ver. 1. There is no indication of the time when the event
recorded in this chapter took place: probably it was not
long after Pentecost, as the activity of the apostles would
soon display itself. The connection of the narrative with
what precedes appears to be this: the historian had men-
tioned that many wonders and signs were done by the apostles
(Acts ii. 43); and of these he now adduces a remarkable
instance.

122 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

Πέτρος καὶ "Iwdvvns—Peter and John. These two apostles,
so dissimilar in character—the one being impulsive, and the
other calm and contemplative—are often mentioned as being
together. They were sent by Christ to make preparations
for the last passover ; they were most probably both present
in the hall of Caiaphas; they ran together to the sepulchre ;
they followed Christ, after His manifestation at the sea of
Tiberias ; now, here, they go in company to the temple;
and afterwards they were sent forth by the church to con-
firm the converts in Samaria. “Everywhere,” says St.
Chrysostom, “‘ we find these two apostles in great harmony
together.” ἢ

"AvéBawov εἰς τὸ iepov-—went up into the temple. The
temple built by Solomon on Mount Moriah had been com-
pletely destroyed by the Babylonians. Probably the only
remnant of it was the great embankment, by which Solomon
extended the eastern part of the mount. On the return of
the Jews from captivity a second temple was built, but far
inferior to the first in magnificence. Herod the Great, in
the eighteenth year of his reign, commenced the restoration
of the temple, and so embellished and almost entirely rebuilt
it, that it might well be regarded as a third temple. The
Herodian temple, from the descriptions which have come
down to us, was in all probability not inferior to the temple of
Solomon: it was one of the grandest edifices then in the world.
The restoration of what was strictly the temple only occupied
a year and a half;? but eight years were spent in completing
the cloisters with their gorgeous pillars and cedar roofs, and
the open courts with their tesselated work. Afterwards the
successors of Herod continued, with interruptions, to adorn
the temple until the commencement of the Jewish war.
Hence, although properly speaking only ten years were spent
in the building, yet, as the improvements continued, the
Jews, reckoning from the time when Herod commenced the
work, said, “ Forty and six years was this temple in building”
(John 11. 20).

We would form an erroneous notion of the temple, if we

1 Chrysostom on the Acts, Hom. viii. 3 Joseph. Ant. xv. 11. 6.

THE FIRST MIRACLE.—III. 1. 123

conceived it similar to any of our cathedrals. Perhaps its
most magnificent part was not the temple proper, but its
cloisters and courts. We must conceive a series of terraces,
rising one above another, on the highest of which the temple
was placed. The entire space occupied was a square, a fur-
long on each side, so that its circumference would be about
half a mile." The outer court,.commonly called the court of
the Gentiles, was the most magnificent of all. It was enclosed
with a lofty wall, and surrounded the temple. On each side
there were porches or cloisters, with Corinthian pillars of
white marble and roofs of cedar. “ The pillars,” observes
Josephus, ‘“ were each of them of one entire stone, and that
stone was white marble; and the roofs were adorned with
cedar curiously engraven. The natural magnificence and
excellent polish and the harmony of the joints in these clois-
ters afforded a prospect which was very remarkable.”? On
three sides there were two rows of pillars; but on the south
side, called after Herod “ the royal porch,” there were four
rows. The open court was inlaid with stones of various
colours. Around this court was a stone balustrade about
four and a half feet high, on which were pillars at intervals
with Latin and Greek inscriptions, declaring that beyond
this no Gentile was permitted to pass.

A flight of fourteen steps led from the outer to the inner
court. This was a square, and was divided into several
terraces, which rose above one another in a westerly direc-
tion; the temple itself being situated not in the centre of
the square, but toward its western extremity. The first
terrace constituted the “court of the women,” so called not
because it was the space allotted exclusively to the women,
but because they were not permitted to advance farther.
This court had also cloisters supported by very fine and
‘large pillars: there was, however, only a single row of them,
and they were inferior in size to those of the outer court.
Five, or according to some fifteen, steps farther led to the
“court of the Israelites.” This again was separated by a

1 Joseph. Ant. xv. 11. 3; Winer’s Wanteruch- Tengen
2 Joseph. Bell. v. 5. 2.

124 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

low wall from a still higher court, called the “ court of the
priests.” This last court surrounded the temple on every
side, and led to it by a flight of twelve steps.

The temple itself was comparatively of small dimensions,
being about 150 feet long, and at the vestibule 150 feet
broad, but only 90 feet at the back.’ There is a diversity
of opinion as to its height: Josephus states it at 150 feet.
It was built of large blocks of white marble, and its front
was covered with plates of gold. It was divided into three
parts. The vestibule, which was sixty feet wider than any
other part of the house, appears to have been partially open:
Josephus says that “its gate was without doors, for it repre-
sented the universal visibility of heaven.” The Holy Place
was separated from it by a golden door, before which hung
a richly embroidered curtain. Beyond this there was a
second curtain or veil, screening from the view of all the
“ Holy of Holies,” into which the high priest alone entered
once a year. It appears also, that besides these three com-
partments, there were rooms on each side of the temple.
The appearance of the building to a stranger viewing it
from the Mount of Olives, is thus described in the well-
known passage of Josephus: “The outward face of the
temple in its front wanted nothing that was likely to sur-
prise either men’s minds or their eyes; for it was covered
over with plates of gold, which at the first rising of the sun
reflected back such a splendour as made those who forced
themselves to look upon it to turn away their eyes, just as
they would have done at the sun’s rays. This temple ap-
peared to strangers, when they were at a distance, like a
mountain covered with snow; for those parts of it that were
not gilt were exceeding white”? (Joseph. Bell. v. 5. 6).

"Evi τὴν ὥραν τῆς προσευχῆς τὴν évvatnv—at the hour of
prayer, namely the ninth. For the hours of prayer, see note
to Acts ii. 15. The ninth hour was about three in the after-

1 Joseph. Bell. Jud. v. 5. 4.

2 For descriptions of the temple and its courts, see Conybeare and
Howson’s St. Paul, Smith’s Biblical Dictionary, Winer’s biblisches Wor-
terbuch, and especially Josephus’ Ant. xv. 11, and Jud. Bell. v. 5.

THE FIRST MIRACLE.—III. 2. 125

noon, or, more exactly, the middle space between noon and
sunset.

Ver. 2. Πρὸς τὴν Ovpav . . .“Apatav—at the gate of the temple
called Beautiful. It is a matter of dispute what particular
gate is here alluded to. Our information concerning the
gates of the temple, both from Josephus and the Talmud, is
defective : nor is there any of the gates described which has
the name of Beautiful. Josephus, however, informs us that
there was one of the gates which excelled all others in mag-
nificence and beauty. It was made of Corinthian brass, and
hence called the Corinthian gate. “ Nine of the gates,” he
observes, “were on every side covered over with gold and
silver, as well as their side posts and lintels; but there was
one gate that was without the holy house, which was of
Corinthian brass, and greatly excelled those which were only
covered over with silver and gold. Its height was fifty cubits,
and its doors were forty cubits; and it was adorned after
a most costly manner, as having much richer and thicker
plates of silver and gold than upon the others” (Joseph.
Bell. ν. 5. 3). In all probability this was the gate which
received the appropriate name‘of Beautiful. It is, however,
doubtful to what gate Josephus alludes. The general opinion
is that it is the inner gate, called in the Talmud “ Nicanor,”
which led from the outer into the inner court. This is
certainly the gate mentioned by Josephus, when he says:
“Moreover, the eastern gate of the inner temple was of
brass, and vastly heavy, and could be with difficulty shut
by twenty men, but it opened of its own accord about the
sixth hour of the night” (Joseph. Bell. vi. 5. 3). Others,
again (Bengel, Olshausen, Lange), suppose that the Corin-
thian gate of Josephus was an outer gate to the east of the
court of the Gentiles, in the neighbourhood of Solomon’s
porch, elsewhere called the gate Shushan. It is argued that
the beggar would take his place at an outer and not at an
inner gate, because all would enter by it; and it is expressly
said that Peter and John were about to enter into the temple.
It is, however, probable that there would be several beggars
at the different gates of the temple. Lightfoot supposes that

126 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

it was the gate Hulda, situated to the west of the court of
the Gentiles. He derives Hulda from a word signifying
time, and translates ὡραίαν (from ὥρα, an hour) porta tem-
pestiva, the gate of time. We learn from Martial that
beggars sat at the gates of heathen temples. Chrysostom
recommends the practice as regards Christian churches.

Vers. 3-5. As Peter and John were about to enter the
temple—either into the outer court by the gate Shushan, or
more probably into the inner court by the gate Nicanor—
they encountered a lame beggar sitting at the gate, who
asked alms of them. Peter—compassionating his miserable
condition, and doubtless moved by a divine impulse, which
intimated to him that the divine energy was about to be
displayed by the illustrious miracle to be wrought by his
means—looked intently at him, and said, “‘ Look on us;”
thereby seeking to arouse his attention, so that the cure
which he was about to confer on his body might benefit his
soul. The lame man, however, did not expect anything
extraordinary: all that he hoped for was something in the
way of alms.

Ver. 6. Εν τῷ ὀνόματι 1. X.—in the name of Jesus Christ.
That is, in virtue of the name; as that which is the efficient
cause of the miracle; as that by the power of which the
lame man was to arise and walk. ‘The difference in the
manner in which Christ wrought His miracles, and the
apostles performed theirs, is here observable. The apostles
performed their miracles through Christ, in virtue of His
name and authority. It was in the name of Jesus of
Nazareth, as the Messiah, that this miracle was performed.
They were the mere instruments; He was the efficient
agent. Christ, on the other hand, performed His miracles
in His own name and on His own authority. He wrought
independently. His language was that of omnipotence;
theirs was that of faith in Him. He said, “I say unto you,
Arise ;” they said, “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth,
rise up and walk.” He was the Messiah, the Son; they
were the servants of the household.

Vers. 7, 8. From these verses we learn the greatness and

THE FIRST MIRACLE.—IIL. 9, 10. 127

the perfection of the miracle. The man had been lame »

from his mother’s womb; his lameness was not caused by
some disease which might be cured, but arose from a defect
of nature; he never had walked; he had to be carried to
the Beautiful gate of the temple; he was above forty years
of age (ch. iv. 22). He was a well-known character; there
could be no deception in his lameness. The miracle was
publicly performed: it was not wrought in the closet, but at
one of the chief entrances to the temple. Ai βάσεις are
here the feet, as the instruments of walking: so Wisdom
xii. 18; Joseph. Ant. vii. 5.5. The word literally signifies
a step, pace. Ta σφυρά, the ankles, here added as showing
wherein the lameness of the man consisted. He leaped and
walked as an evidence of his joy and exuberance of spirits ;
certainly not, as Bloomfield strangely imagines, at first from
ignorance how to walk, by which his essays would be rather
leaping than walking. Thiess imagines that the beggar only
pretended to be lame, and that, frightened by the severe
rebuke of Peter, he rose up and walked, and that afterwards,
from fear of the rage of the people, he kept close to the
apostles. Such an opinion changes the entire narrative, and
converts the apostles into deceivers: it is here only men-
tioned, to show the length to which the rationalistic school
can go, and the extreme shifts to which they have recourse,
in order to destroy the miraculous in the narrative, and yet to
preserve its credibility.

Vers. 9,10. Here we are informed of the effect of the
miracle upon the multitude. The lame man was well known.
He was laid daily at one of the most frequented gates of the
temple. And now the people are filled with astonishment to
see the same lame man in full possession of the use of his
limbs—leaping, and walking, and praising God. The great
design of the miracle seems to have been to arouse the atten-

tion of the multitude—to convert them into inquirers. As |

has been well said, “ miracles are bells to call the people to
worship.” Of course, over and above this, they are also

the divine credentials of the messengers—of those who are |

to conduct the worship.

t t

128 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES,

Ver. 11. "Eat τῇ στοᾷ τῇ καλουμένῃ Σολομῶντος --- ἴο
‘ the porch called Solomon's. This porch or cloister was on
the eastern side of the “court of the Gentiles.” It is
thus described by Josephus: “These cloisters (the eastern
cloisters) belonged to the outer court, and were situated in a
deep valley, and had walls that reached four hundred cubits
in length, and were built of square and very white stones,
the length of each of which was twenty cubits, and their
height six cubits. This was the work of King Solomon,
who first of all built the entire temple” (Joseph. Ant.
xx. 9. 7). It is not, however, probable that any of the
porches built by Solomon survived such a lapse of time and
so many disasters. Solomon, we are informed, filled up part
of the adjacent valley toward the east, and built there an
outward portico which was called Solomon’s porch. The.
artificial embankment would perhaps remain; but the porch
itself would be destroyed. This porch, then, was called
Solomon’s, not because it was the very same that was built
by Solomon, but because, being erected on the same artificial
terrace, and constructed on the same plan, it retained its
original name. It was in this porch, or in the court in —
front, that the traffic of the money-changers and the sale of
oxen and doves were carried on; and it was here also that
our Lord was surrounded by the unbelieving Jews when
they threatened to take away His life (John x. 23). And
now here another crowd of Jews, actuated by better feelings,
filled with astonishment at the great miracle which had been
performed, surrounded the two apostles.

Ver. 12. ’Azexpivato—not addressed the people, but
answered them; because their astonishment and exclama-
tions of surprise expressed a wish for an explanation of the
wonderful event that had happened. (Compare ch. ii. 12,
“What meaneth this?”) Tovrm—masculine, not neuter:
not, as in the authorized version, Why marvel ye at this?
but, Why marvel ye at this man ?—corresponding to ἡμῖν in
the second clause of the sentence. Their wonder was not in
itself the subject of censure, but because they referred the
miracle to the power or piety of the apostles. It took this

THE FIRST MIRACLE.—III. 18. 129

shape: What wonderful men are these who have performed
so great a miracle? ᾿Ιδίᾳ δυνάμει----ὔγ ow own power, in
virtue of our inherent power; ἢ evceBeca—or piety. Some
transcribers, not seeing the connection between the per-
formance of the miracle and piety, have written, ἐξουσίᾳ,
authority. But the obvious meaning is: as if we were such
pious people, that God should reward us with the power
of working miracles. Hence Luther renders it Verdienst,
merit, which certainly is implied in the term.

Ver. 13. Ὃ Θεὸς ᾿Αβραὰμ — the God of Abraham, and
Tsaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers. The apostle most
appropriately commences his discourse with the mention of
God as their ancestral God. He thus shows them that it was
no new religion, inconsistent with the law of Moses, that
Jesus came to introduce, but that the God of their fathers
was the author of them both: in short, that the gospel and
the religion of Moses sprang from the same divine source.
He thus at the outset removes what might have been an
obstacle to their reception of the truth.

Tov παῖδα αὑτοῦ "Incotyv—His servant Jesus. This by
the Vulgate and almost all ancient interpreters, and among
moderns by Kuincel and Heinrichs, has been rendered as
if it were the same as His Son Jesus. But the word for
“son” is υἱός, not παῖς. Almost all modern interpreters are
now agreed that the phrase must be rendered His servant
Jesus. So Bengel, Nitzsch, Olshausen, De Wette, Meyer,
Baumgarten, Lechler, Stier, Hackett, Wordsworth, Alford.
Lechler observes, that since Nitzsch has thrown light upon
the subject, all modern interpreters have agreed that παῖς
Θεοῦ is not the Son of God, but the servant of God. It
thus designates not His nature, but His official and Messianic
character—as the servant of God so often foretold in the
later chapters of the prophecies of Isaiah (xl—Ixvi.). This
title is directly applied to Christ in St. Matthew’s Gospel,
in a citation from these prophecies, ‘“ Behold my servant
(παῖς) whom I have chosen” (Matt. xii. 18); and in the
Acts of the Apostles it occurs four times in reference to
Christ; in our passage, in ver. 26 of this chapter, and in

VOL. I. I

130 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

ch. iv. 27, 30: in all these places it must be translated
servant. So also the title is once applied to Israel (Luke
i. 54), and twice to David (Luke i. 69; Acts iv. 25). None
of the apostles, however, is ever called παῖς Θεοῦ, but only
δοῦλος Θεοῦ.

Ver. 14. Τὸν ἅγιον καὶ δίκαιον---ἰ6 Holy and Just One.
The peculiar titles of the Messiah in the Old Testament.
He is there called the Righteous Branch, the Lord our
Righteousness, the Holy One, God’s righteous Servant. He
is called the Holy One, because He was set apart by God ;_
and the Just One, on account of His innocence and perfect
righteousness. These epithets are here used to mark the
contrast between Him and Barabbas. "ἄνδρα hovéa—a man,
a murderer: more emphatic than if he had merely said a
murderer: a man belonging to the class of murderers.

Ver. 15. Tov ἀρχηγὸν τῆς Gons—the Author of life. This
is the only place where Christ is called the Author of life:
elsewhere He is called ἀρχηγὸς τῆς σωτηρίας (Heb. ii. 10)
and ἀρχηγὸς τῆς πίστεως (Heb. xii. 2). Christ is the Author
of life because He preached eternal life to the world, pro-
posed it to believers, purchased it for them by His precious
blood, and shall at length bestow it upon them.

In these two last verses (vers. 14, 15) the guilt of the
Jews is prominently brought forward by a series of anti-
theses. There is the contrast between their conduct and
that of the heathen Pilate: they delivered up and denied
their Messiah before Pilate; whereas Pilate, convinced of
His innocence, had decided to release Him. And there is
the contrast between the character of Jesus and that of
Barabbas: they denied the Holy and Just One, and desired
in His place a man, a murderer. They killed the Author
of life, whilst they interceded for the pardon of a murderer,
the destroyer of life.

Ver. 16. ᾿Επὶ τῇ mictex—on account of faith in His name.
These words have been variously rendered. Some (Olshausen,
Stier, Heinrichs, Humphry) render them, for or to faith in
His name; and suppose that the meaning is, that Peter
healed the lame man for the purpose of leading him as well

THE FIRST MIRACLE.—III. 17. 131

as others to faith in Christ." But such a meaning strains
the preposition, and does not well suit the context. Peter
speaks of himself and the apostles as witnesses, and he brings
‘forward an instance of the efficacy of their faith; and there
is an evident parallelism between the first and second clauses
of the sentence: the same faith is mentioned, but in the
second clause it is evidently the faith of the apostle. We
therefore prefer the interpretation, on account of faith in His
name (Meyer, De Wette, Hackett, Alford) ; that is, because
we have faith in His name—the faith alluded to being that
of the apostles. Ἢ πίστις ἡ δι’ adtod—the faith which is
through Him: not our faith in Him (Piscator) ; nor our faith
in God, or our miraculous faith (De Wette); but rather that
— faith which is wrought or produced in us by Him (Alford,
Meyer, Olshausen).

It is to be observed that there is no mention of the faith
of the lame man. The faith in this sixteenth verse has no
reference to him. He was at first without faith: instead of
expecting to be cured, he hoped to receive money from the
apostles. Afterwards, indeed, faith was excited within him,
when he went with the apostles into the temple, praising
God; but it was not demanded from him as a prerequisite
to his cure. The miraculous faith, or that faith which was
the instrumental cause of the miracle, was not in the man,
but in Peter. Our Lord certainly frequently required faith
in those whom He cured; but it does not seem to have been
an indispensable condition. In the case of this lame man it
seems to have been wanting; it followed, but did not pre-
cede his cure.

Ver. 17. Κατὰ ἄγνοιαν émpdéate—in ignorance ye did it.
The apostle, whilst he charges the Jews with being the
betrayers and murderers of their Messiah, yet admits, as a
mitigation of their guilt, that they had committed the crime
through ignorance. They were not aware that He whom)
they had put to death was the Messiah. Their ignorance”
arose from expecting a victorious Messiah, who should free
them from the galling yoke of Rome, and restore to them

1 Stier's Words of the Apostles, pp. 48, 49.

132 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

the kingdom of David; and hence they were prejudiced
against the claims of Jesus to be the Messiah. This
ignorance extended also to their rulers: for the words are
not to be rendered, “In ignorance ye did as your rulers
did;” but that what their rulers did was also in ignorance.
Of course there were different degrees of this ignorance,
from the insensate blindness of the multitude to the moral
blindness of the Pharisees, who shut their eyes against the
{truth. Yet all were ignorant ; for we believe that the
| Jewish hierarchy, had ae been fully persuaded that Jesus
| was the Messiah, would not have dared to put Him to death
\(see 1 Cor. ii. 8). This ignorance, although it excused, yet
laid not exonerate them: so far as it was voluntary and
avoidable, it was culpable. Hence our Lord, whilst He
(prays for the forgiveness of His enemies on account of their
J ignorance, yet in doing so recognises their guilt: “ Father,
rgive them ; for they know not what they do.”

Ver. 18. Πάντων τῶν προφητῶν---οὐ all the prophets.
| ΤῊΣ i is not to be understood as a hyperbole (Kuineel): for
\ the Messiah was indeed the centre subject of Jewish pro-
“plikey: and the sufferings of the Messiah, along with His
future glory, were the gréat subjects of Mosaic prophecy
(1 Pet; 4.11), ΐ

Ver. 19. Eis τὸ ἐξαλειφθῆναι, etc.—that your sins may be
᾿ blotted out. The immediate end to be obtained by their

(repentance and conversion. In consequence of them, their
sins would be blotted out. The idea of forgiveness is here,
as in Col. ii. 14, represented as the blotting out or erasure
of a handwriting. Ὅπως av—in order that; not to be
rendered, as in our version, when with the future—postquam
_(Beza, Castalio): ὅπως ἄν united with the subjunctive

| entirely precludes such a translation. The words can only
“admit of the meaning in order that (Winer, Meyer, De
Wette, Wordsworth, Alford).

ἜἜλθωσι καιροὶ ἀναψύξεως .--ἐϊηιο8 of refreshing may come.
|The remote end of their repentance and conversion. But

‘what is here meant by times of refreshing? Certainly the

| conversion of the Israelites would be to themselves the cause

THE FIRST MIRACLE.—III. 20. ; 133

of much spiritual joy and peace of mind; and accordingly
many refer these times to the present, and understand by
them the spiritual refreshment which arises from believing
in Christ. And so undoubtedly we would have interpreted
the phrase, had it stood alone; but taken in connection with
the next verse, which speaks of the coming of Christ, these
times of refreshing can refer only to the second advent.
Peter here conceives that the conversion of the Jews, as a
nation, would be attended with some extraordinary scene of
spiritual prosperity which would prepare the way for the
second advent of Christ. All those interpretations which re-
fer “the times of refreshing” to anything unconnected with
the second advent are to be rejected; such as the deliverance
of ‘the Christians at the destruction of Jerusalem (Ham-
mond, Grotius); the period of rest after death (Schulz) ;
the refreshment to be enjoyed under the gospel (Kuincel,

Lightfoot, Stier); or the removal of punishment from the |

!

Jews on their repentance (Barkey). a
Ver. 20. Καὶ ἀποστείλῃ ὑμῖν I. X.—and that He may send
to you Jesus Christ. This is to be considered either as con-
temporaneous with the times of refreshing, or as immediately
following them. The reference is evidently to an objective,
and not asubjective advent. The text cannot allude to Christ’s
coming in spirit to destroy Jerusalem, especially considering
that that was not a time of refreshing, but a time of judg-
ment. It is a matter of dispute in what manner the apostles |
regarded the second coming of Christ. In all probability |
they were so engrossed with it, that they lost sight of inter-
mediate events; it was the object of their earnest desire: —
the period indeed was concealed from them, but they con-
tinually looked forward to it; they expected it as that which
might occur at any moment. Afterwards, as revelation dis=~
closed itself, and the course of providence was developed,
they did not expect it to occur in their days. Paul especially
seems to have regarded it as an event in the remote future,
and cautions his converts not to be shaken in mind, or to be
troubled, as if the day of Christ was at hand (2 Thess. 11. 2).
The precise period of the second advent, we are expressly

134 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES,

informed by our Lord, formed no part of divine revelation :
it was designedly left in uncertainty by God. Προκεχειρισ-
μένον properly signifies, taken in hand, undertaken, determined,
appointed : Jesus was appointed for them to be their Messiah.
He was their predestined Messiah. Literally, and that He
may send the appointed one to you, Christ Jesus.

Ver. 21. Ὃν δεῖ οὐρανὸν μὲν δέξασθαι. These words admit
of two translations: either who must receive heaven, or whom
heaven must receive. The first interpretation is adopted by
Olshausen, Lange, Heinrichs, Bengel, Stier, and other divines
of the Lutheran Church. There are several reasons which
decide against this meaning. It is doubtful if the verb
δέχομαι is used in the sense of to possess ; only one example of
such a use has been brought forward. Besides, “ who must
receive (that is, possess) heaven” is here without any suitable
meaning; whereas it is most appropriate to affirm that
heaven must receive Christ until the period of His second
advent. Hence the other translation is to be preferred, whom
the heaven must receive (Meyer, De Wette, Lechler, Kuineel,
Baumgarten, Alford). Christ, the apostle observes, is at
present in heaven, and will remain there until His second
advent. ) .

"Axpt χρόνων ἀποκαταστάσεως Tavt@v—until the times of
the restoration of all things. The meaning of this clause is
attended with considerable difficulty. The substantive azro-
κατάστασις does not again occur in the New Testament; but
the verb from which it is derived is of frequent occurrence.
It is often used in the sense of spiritual restoration: “ Klias
truly shall first come, and restore all things ” (Matt. xvi. 11) ;
“ Lord, wilt Thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”
(Acts i. 6.) The word signifies restoration from a state of
decay or ruin. It cannot bear the meaning of fulfilment ;
so that the passage does not mean that Christ will remain
in heaven until the fulfilment of all those things which the
prophets foretold (Theophylact, Grotius, Stier, Whitby).
What is meant is the restoration of all things to their primeval
condition. Not that all things, absolutely considered, will be
restored to their former state, but that there will be a moral

᾿

THE FIRST MIRACLE.—III. 239-94. 135

restoration: the present disorders of this world will be re-
moved; the good will finally triumph over the evil; holiness
and happiness will prevail throughout the world. Accord-
ingly, the idea of the apostle seems to be, that so long as the
unbelief of Israel continues, Christ will remain in heaven ;
but that their repentance and conversion will bring about the
times of refreshing, and of the restoration of all things, which
will either precede or coincide with the second advent. It
is further to be observed, that ὧν does not refer to πάντων,
as if the meaning were the restoration of all those things
which God hath spoken by the mouth of His holy prophets ;
but the “times of the restoration of all things” is to be re-
garded as a single phrase, and it is these “times of the re-
storation of all things” which is the subject of the predictions
of the prophets. ὯΩν stands for οὕς, agreeing with χρόνους.

Vers. 22, 23. The quotation in these verses is from Deut.
xviil. 15, 18,19. The language of the Septuagint is fol-
lowed for the most part; but the citation is freely given.
There is no necessity, from the context in the Old Testa-
ment, to refer the prediction to the order of prophets in
general, as contrasted with false prophets (Olshausen, Nean-
der, De Wette). The word is in the singular; and there is
no reason for considering it in a collective point of view.
Peter does not merely accommodate the prophecy, but gives
the true sense, when: he refers it to the Messiah. And it is
evident from the Gospels and from this address of Peter,
jthat the Jews so understood it: the Messiah was regarded
by them as that great prophet like unto Moses who should
come into this world. And to Christ alone can this prophecy
apply. No other prophet resembled Moses. Christ alone
was like Moses—a lawgiver, a mediator between God and
the people, and the author of a new dispensation of religion.

Ver. 24. Καὶ πάντες δὲ οἱ προφῆται, etc. That is to say,
all the prophets succeeding Moses, from Samuel downwards,
have likewise foretold of those days. Samuel is here men-
tioned, because few or no prophets intervened between him
and Moses; at least he is the next prophet whose writings
have come down to us. He is called by the Jews “ the

136 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

master of the prophets ;” and was the founder of the schools
of the prophets—of that prophetic class of which David and
Elijah were the highest types. Tas ἡμέρας tavtas—of those
days. There is no necessity to limit this to the times of the
restoration of all things (Meyer, De Wette). It rather
refers to the gospel times in general, which were indeed con-
nected with, and preparatory to, these times of restoration
(Alford). In all probability, this verse only contains an
epitome of Peter’s discourse : he perhaps proved by express
quotations from the prophets the assertion it contained. His
address was to the Jews; and therefore his appeal was to
prophecy.

Ver. 25. Ὑμεῖς ἐστε οἱ viol τῶν tpopntav— Ye are the sons
of the prophets. The prophets were called spiritual fathers ;
and they who were taught by them were called the sons
of the prophets. Besides, the Jews inherited the promises
and blessings revealed by the prophets: “to them were
committed the oracles of God.” Kai τῆς διαθήκης--απὰ of
the covenant : namely, the covenant which God made with
Abraham, in choosing him and his posterity for a peculiar
people, and in restricting the promised seed of the woman to
his family. Καὶ ἐν τῷ σπερματί cov, etc.—and in thy seed
shall all the families of the earth be blessed. The quotation
is from Gen. xxii. 18. It is, however, not exactly taken
from the Septuagint: the order of the words is changed,
and ai πατριαὶ is used instead of τὰ ἔθνη. The seed of
Abraham is, according to Peter, not to be understood in a
collective sense, as the Israelites, the posterity of Abraham ;
but in a singular sense, as one seed, the descendant of
Abraham, namely the Messiah. And so Paul says: “He
said not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to
thy seed, which is Christ” (Gal. iii. 16).

Ver. 26. Ὑμῖν πρῶτον---ἰο you first. The gospel was first
to be preached to the Jews. Our Lord commanded His
apostles to begin at Jerusalem; and accordingly, we not
only find that this was historically the case; but Paul, in
his missionary journeys, first addressed himself to the Jews,
before he turned to the Gentiles. Certainly the preaching

THE FIRST MIRACLE.—IIL. 26. 137

of the gospel to the Gentiles is here presupposed. Nor is
this at variance with the fact that Peter required a special
revelation before he ventured to preach to Cornelius and his
Gentile companions ; for it does not appear that he ever
entertained the notion that the Gentiles should not be brought
within the church, but only that this would take place through
the medium of Judaism. It was this error, this exclusiveness,
that was removed by a special revelation. "Avaotijcas τὸν
παῖδα avtov—having raised up His servant. Not having
raised Him up from the dead (Luther, Beza); but having
raised Him up in the sense of ver. 22, “ A Prophet shall the
Lord your God raise up unto you:” that is, caused to appear,
etc. ; sent Him to bless you with the salvation which He has
procured, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.
The discourse thus comes to a definite conclusion, and does
not appear to have been interrupted by the arrival of the
priests and the captain of the temple.

SECTION VIL
PETER AND JOHN BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM.—Acrts rv. 1-22.

1 And as they were speaking to the people, the priests, and the
captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them, 2 Being
indignant because they taught the people, and preached in Jesus the
resurrection from the dead. 3 And they laid hands on them, and put
them in prison until the morrow; for it was already evening. 4 But
many of them who heard the word believed; and the number of the
men was five thousand. 5 And it came to pass on the morrow, that
their rulers, and elders, and scribes were gathered together in Jeru-
salem, 6 And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and
Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest.
7 And having set them in the midst, they asked, By what power or by
what name have ye done this? 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy
Ghost, said to them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, 9 If
we this day are examined concerning a good deed done to an infirm man,
by what means he has been cured; 10 Be it known to you all, and to
all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene,
whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, in Him does this
man stand here before you whole. 11 This is the stone which was
despised by you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12 And there is salvation in no other; for there is no other name
under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. 13 And:
seeing the boldness of Peter and John, and having ascertained that they
were unlearned and ignorant men, they maryelled ; and they recognised
them, that they had been with Jesus. 14 And, beholding the man who
had been healed standing with them, they had nothing to oppose.
15 But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the San-
hedrim, they conferred among themselves, 16 Saying, What shall we
do to these men? for that a notable miracle has been done by them
is manifest to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and we cannot deny
it. 17 But that it may not spread further among the people, let us
strictly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this
name. 18 And when they had called them, they commanded them not
to speak at all, nor to teach, in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and
John, answering, said to them, Whether it is right in the sight of God
to hear you rather than God, judge ye. 20 For we cannot but speak

138

ῶ

PETER AND JOHN BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM.—IV.1. 189

the things which we have seen and heard, 21 So, when they had
further threatened them, they released them, finding nothing how they
might punish them, because of the people ; for all glorified God for that
which was done. 22 For the man was above forty years old on whom
this miracle of healing was wrought.

CRITICAL NOTE.

Ver. 5. Ἐν “Ιερουσαλήμ is found in A, B, D, E, and is
preferred by Tischendorf, Lachmann, and Bornemann to εἰς
‘I. of the tevtus receptus, found in &, which, however, is de-

fended by Meyer and De Wette.

EXEGETICAL REMARKS.

Ver. 1. Whilst the apostles Peter and John were address-
ing the people, they were interrupted by the interference of
the Jewish rulers. Three classes of adversaries are here
mentioned—the priests, the captain of the temple, and the
Sadducees. The priests (οὗ ἱερεῖς) were those who at the
time officiated in the temple. The priesthood was divided
by David into twenty-four courses; and each course had
charge of the temple service for a week. ‘This institution
seems to have been revived after the captivity.

Ὃ στρατηγὸς τοῦ iepot—the captain of the temple. Some
(Calvin, Hammond, Pearson) suppose that this was the
captain of the Roman garrison which was placed in the
Castle of Antonia, to guard and control the temple. It is,
however, improbable that he would concern himself in the
present matter. The captain of the temple was more pro-
bably the Jewish priest in command of the Levitical guard
of the temple. This officer appears from Josephus to have
been a person of distinction among the Jews. ‘The charge
with which he was entrusted, that of guarding the temple,
was one of great importance and influence. He is mentioned
in 2 Mace. iii. 4 under the title of προστάτης τοῦ ἱεροῦ : he
is again alluded to in the Acts (ch. v. 24), and is frequently
mentioned by Josephus (Ant. xx. 6.2, Bell. Jud. vi. 5. 3).
In one of these passages, Josephus speaks of him as a person

140 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

of such consequence, as to be sent along with the high priest
prisoner to Rome (Ant. xx. 6. 2).

Oi Saddoveaior.—The Sadducees are one of the two great
Jewish sects mentioned in Scripture as the opponents of
Christ and His apostles. The origin of the name is disputed.
Some suppose that they were so called as being the disciples
of a certain Zadok, the scholar of a distinguished rabbi,
Antigonus Socho. The doctrine of Antigonus, we are in-
formed, was that virtue is its own reward, and is to be
practised irrespectively of all rewards and punishments in
a future state; which maxim Zadok and his disciples per-
verted into a denial of a future state. Others derive the
name from a Hebrew word signifying righteousness, and
suppose that the Sadducees so called themselves, because
they prided themselves on the rectitude of their conduct.
Josephus informs us that they and the Pharisees arose in the
time of Jonathan Maccabeeus.

With regard to the peculiar doctrines of the Sadducees,
these appear to have been chiefly three. 1. They rejected
the traditions of the Fathers. The written word, according
to them, was the only rule of faith and doctrine; and all
the supposed traditions, derived from Moses, were spurious.
“The Sadducees,” observes Josephus, “ affirm that we are
to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in
the written word, but are not to observe what are derived
from the tradition of our forefathers” (Ant. xiii. 10. 6). It
is, however, erroneous to suppose that they rejected all the
Jewish Scriptures except the law of Moses. There is no
mention of this in Josephus, or in other Jewish writers ; and
such a statement rests on the sole authority of Epiphanius.
2. The Sadducees rejected the doctrine of a future state.
They not only affirmed that there was no resurrection of the
body ; but they went much further, and asserted that there
was no hereafter—that this life was the whole of man’s
existence. ‘The Sadducees,” says Josephus, “take away
the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the
punishments and rewards of Hades” (Jud. Bell. ii. 8. 14).
Indeed, from an expression used by Luke, they appear to

PETER AND JOHN BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM.—IV. 1. 141

have been materialists: ‘The Sadducees say there is no
resurrection, neither angel nor spirit” (Acts xxiii. 8). This
opinion of theirs seems to have arisen from their denial of
tradition: because, as they supposed, the doctrine of a future
state was not taught in the law of Moses; and although
passages from the Psalms and the prophets might be adduced
as directly asserting it, yet, in their opinion, these were to be
interpreted in accordance with the writings of their great
lawgiver. ὃ. The Sadducees, in opposition to the Pharisees,
asserted the freedom of the will, and, as it appears, denied
the doctrine of divine influences. “The Sadducees take
away fate, and say there is no such thing, and that the events
of human affairs are not at its disposal; but they suppose
that all our actions are in our own power, so that we are
ourselves the causes of what is good, and receive what is
evil from our own folly” (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 5. 9). Thus,
according to them, human virtue depended upon man’s own
efforts. From all this it would appear, that whilst the
Sadducees escaped the hypocrisies and superstitions arising
from the pharisaical doctrine of tradition, they fell into the
more dangerous state of infidelity and selfish worldliness.

The followers of the Sadducean party, compared with
those of their rival sect, were few in number; but this was
counterbalanced by their superior influence. “Their opinions,”
observes Josephus, “ were received by few, yet by those of
the greatest dignity” (Ant. xviii. 1. 4). At this period,
the most influential men among the Jews were probably
Sadducees. It is even probable that the high priests Annas
and Caiaphas belonged to this sect. Luke, when relating
another hostile attack of the hierarchy on the apostles,
says, “The high priest arose, and all they that were with
him, which is the sect of the Sadducees” (Acts v. 17); and
Josephus expressly asserts that a son of Annas, of the same
name, and afterwards high priest, was a Sadducee’ (Ant.
me ὃ: 1).

It must have struck every reader of the Scriptures, that
whereas in the Gospels the Pharisees are represented as the

1 Winer’s biblisches Wérterbuch, Smith’s Dictionary, ete.

142 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

great opponents of Christ, in the Acts it is the Sadducees
who are the most violent opponents of the apostles. The
reason of this seems to be, that in the Gospels Jesus Christ
came in direct collision with the Pharisees, by unmasking
their hypocrisies, and endangering their influence among the
people; whereas the apostles, in testifying to the resurrection
of Christ, opposed the creed of the Sadducees. Perhaps also,
in attacking the apostles, who taught the resurrection of that
Jesus whom the Pharisees had persecuted and crucified, the
Sadducees aimed an indirect blow at the favourite dogma of
their rival sect.

These three parties—the priests, the captain of the temple,
and the Sadducees—had each a separate ground for hostility.
The priests would be displeased, because the apostles, who
were not of the sacerdotal class, invaded their province by
teaching the people. The captain of the temple might fear
a disturbance from the assembled multitude; for it must be
remembered that it was within the sacred precincts of the
temple, in Solomon’s porch, that the people were gathered
together. And the motive of the hostility of the Sadducees
is expressly told us: “ They were indignant because the
apostles taught the people, and preached in Jesus the resur-
rection from the dead.”

Ver. 2. Ἐν τῷ "Incod--in Jesus; that is, in the person
of Jesus. The apostles do not seem directly to have taught
the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead; but in testify-
ing to the resurrection of Jesus, which was the great subject
of their testimony, they asserted its possibility, by adducing
an actual instance of one raised from the dead.

Τὴν ἀνάστασιν τὴν ἐκ vexpov—the resurrection from the
dead. Principal Campbell, in his note on Matt. xxii. 23,
asserts that ἀνάστασις does not in itself signify the resurrec-
tion, but merely the future life; and that it is only by the
addition of other words that the resurrection of the body is
implied. “The word ἀνάστασις," he observes, “ or rather
the phrase ἀνάστασις τῶν νεκρῶν, is indeed the common term
by which the resurrection properly so termed is denominated
in Scripture. Yet this is neither the only nor the primitive

PETER AND JOHN BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM.—IV. 3-5. 143

import of the word ἀνάστασις. When applied to the dead,
the word denotes properly no more than a renewal of life to
them, in whatever manner it may happen.” The Sadducees,
he observes, denied not only the resurrection from the dead,
but the future state of retribution. The same view of the
subject is taken by Dr. Dwight. The word itself literally
signifies a rising up,—a mode of expression which is closely
allied to the idea of a resurrection, but seems obscurely and
inaptly to apply to the immortality of the soul. Besides, it
is doubtful whether the Jews in the time of our Saviour
had any distinct idea of the existence of the soul apart from
that of the body. And it is evident that in the passage under
consideration, the words ἡ ἀνάστασις ἐκ νεκρῶν signify the
resurrection properly so called, because the reference is dis-
tinctly to the rising of Jesus from the dead. By ἀνάστασις,
then, we think, is meant the whole future state—the resur-
rection of both soul and body; so that when it is said that
the Sadducees denied the ἀνάστασις, the meaning is that
they called in question this future state.

Ver. ὃ. Ἦν yap ἑσπέρα 5n—for it was already evening.
It was three in the afternoon when Peter and John went up
to the temple to pray ; it was some time afterwards that they
addressed the multitude: the address itself also would occupy
some time, so that it would be evening, or six o’clock, when
the priests and the Sadducees came upon them.

Ver. 4. ᾿Εγενήθη ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν avdpdv—the number of
the men was about five thousand. Some suppose that the
men, to the exclusion of the women, are here mentioned.
Olshausen, contrary to all probability, thinks that at first it
was only men who were added to the church. ᾿Ανδρών is
here probably used for ἀνθρωπῶν, as including both men
and women, in the same sense as when Luke speaks of the
number of souls (ch. ii. 41). The number here given, five
thousand, is the number of Christians then in Jerusalem,
and is to be considered as including the three thousand who
were converted on the day of Pentecest.

Ver. 5. Αὐτῶν τοὺς ἄρχοντας καὶ πρεσβυτέρους καὶ ypap-
pateis—their rulers, and elders, and scribes. Αὐτῶν here

144 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES,

refers not to the apostles, but to the Jews in general. By
the rulers, elders, and scribes, are to be understood the San-
hedrim, or supreme council of the Jewish nation. By the
rulers are meant the Sanhedrim in general, or its principal
members, the chief priests ; by the elders, perhaps the heads
of the twenty-four courses of the priests, or the presidents
of the synagogues; and by the scribes, those of the inter-
preters of the law who were members of the Sanhedrim.
Ἔν ‘Iepovoadjp—in Jerusalem. The manuscripts here
differ (see critical note). Some (Meyer, Bengel, Light-
foot, De Wette) read, as in the textus receptus, eis “Iepov-
σαλήμ---ἰο Jerusalem ; and suppose that it means that those
members of the Sanhedrim who resided out of the city came
up from their country residences. The Syriac version omits
the words entirely. Others (Alford), adopting the reading
in Jerusalem, think that it implies that the meeting was not
held in the temple, but in the city.
Ver. 6." Avvay τὸν apytepéa—Annas the high priest. Annas
—or, as he is called by Josephus, Ananus—appears at this
‘time to have been the most influential man among the Jews.
He was made high priest by Cyrenius, the governor of Syria,
in the thirty-seventh year after the battle of Actium (Joseph.
Ant. xviii. 2. 1), and continued so until the beginning of the
reion of Tiberius, when he was deprived of the priesthood
by Valerius Gratus, the procurator of Judea. But although
no longer high priest, he still retained his authority: he
exercised the chief influence during the long priesthood of
his son-in-law Caiaphas; and no less than five of his sons—
Eleazar, Jonathan, Theophilus, Matthias, and Ananus—
were advanced to the office of high priest in his lifetime.
He lived to an old age, and died before the Jewish war.
Josephus says of him: “This elder Ananus proved a most
fortunate man, for he had five sons who had all performed
the office of a high priest, and he had himself enjoyed that
dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to
any of our high priests” (Ant. xx. 9.1). There is here a
difficulty in the fact that Annas is here plainly termed the
: high priest ; whereas Caiaphas in reality at this time occupied

<

7

PETER AND JOHN BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM.—IV. 6. 145

that office. Various explanations have been given of this
anomaly. We cannot suppose, with Meyer and De Wette,
that Luke is here mistaken, because the historical fact was
notorious; or with Baumgarten, that there is reason for
supposing that Annas was the high priest for this year,—
an opinion which contradicts history ; or with Calvin, that
this event occurred several years after the memorable day
of Pentecost, when Jonathan the son of Annas was high
priest, and that he was also called by the same name as his
father ; or with Lange and Wordsworth, that the Jews re-
garded Annas as the legitimate high priest (de jure), and
Caiaphas only as the nominal one, which is a mere arbitrary
supposition. The most probable opinion is, that Annas is
here called the high priest, as by reason of his great autho-
rity and influence he in reality exercised all the powers of
the high priest." Hence in Luke’s Gospel he is mentioned
along with Caiaphas, and that first in order: “ Annas and
Caiaphas being the high priests” (Luke ii. 1); and John
tells us that the Jews led Jesus to Annas first, in all proba-
bility because he was a more important person than Caiaphas.
There is, in the great influence which Annas possessed,
ground for the supposition that he was the Nasi or president
of the Sanhedrim, an office at least equal to the high-priest-
hood in power and importance; for although the office of
president of the Sanhedrim was in general conferred on the
high priest, yet this was not always the case.”

Kai Kaiagav—and Caiaphas. Caiaphas was raised to the
high-priesthood by Valerius Gratus, the governor of Judea,
and continued undisturbed in this office during the whole pro-
curatorship of Pilate, for a period of nearly twelve years,
from A.D. 24 to A.D. 36. He was deposed at the commence-
ment of the reign of Caligula by Vitellius the governor of
Syria, and was succeeded by Jonathan, one of the sons of

1 Another probable opinion is, that he is here called high priest be-
cause he once occupied that office. This, however, will hardly account
for his being placed before Caiaphas, the actual high priest.

2 This supposition is merely stated, without placing any weight upon
it, as it is in itself doubtful.

VOL. I. K

146 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

Annas. He was entirely under the influence of Annas, who
was connected with him as his father-in-law.

Καὶ ᾿Ιωάννην καὶ ’AdéEavdpov—and John and Alexander,
We know nothing of these two influential persons. As re-
gards the first, Lightfoot supposes him to have been the same
as Johanan ben Zaccai, a distinguished Jewish rabbi, who,
after the destruction of Jerusalem, obtained permission from
the Romans that the Sanhedrim might be settled at Japhneh,
and whois frequently mentioned in the Talmud. The Codex
Bezze reads Jonathan, a reading adopted by Bornemann, which,
if correct, would make him the same as Jonathan the son of
Annas, who afterwards became high priest.—Alexander is
by some supposed to have been the same as Alexander Lysi-
machus, who afterwards became the Alabarch or governor
of the Jews in Alexandria, and who, according to Josephus
and Eusebius, was the brother of Philo. There is, however,
no evidence to support this supposition.

Ver. 7. Ἐν ποίᾳ δυνάμει ἢ ἐν ποίῳ ὀνόματι --- by what
power or by what name have ye done this? Τοῦτο refers not
to the teaching of the apostles (Olshausen), but to the miracle
they performed, for so Peter understood it. The Sanhedrim
inquire by what power they had done this miracle: not by
what authority—potestate (Beza); but by what physical
power—vi (De Wette). They also inquire, By what name?
In doing so, they wished to found a charge of heresy against
the apostles, if they replied that the miracle was performed
in the name of Jesus, whom the council had condemned as a
false Messiah.

Vers. 8-10. These verses contain the answer of Peter.
He commences by acknowledging their authority as rulers of
the people and elders of Israel. He then answers the ques-
tion, that in the name of Jesus the Nazarene, in virtue of
His name as the efficient cause of the miracle, whom they
had crucified, but whom God had raised from the dead, even
by Him was this lame man cured. The lame’man himself
was present; and by pointing to him, the apostle so enforced
his reply that it could not be contradicted. It is here to be
observed that Peter does not say that the miracle was per-

PETER AND JOHN BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM.—IV. 11, 12. 147

formed in the name of God, in whose name, according to the
Jews, the prophet was required to perform his miracles ; but
in the name of Jesus the Nazarene, thus indirectly ascribing
divine honour to Him.

Ver. 11. The allusion in this verse is to Ps. exviii. 22.
Our Lord quotes the words as referring to Himself: “ Jesus
saith unto them, Did ye never read in the Scriptures, The
stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the
head of the corner?” (Matt. xxi. 42.) In the primary mean-
ing of these words, David refers to himself. He complains
that he was rejected by the rulers and chiefs of Israel, but that
notwithstanding he was chosen by God to be the head of the
Jewish nation; like a stone cast aside by the builders as use-
less, but which afterwards became the principal stone of the
building. It is.also probable that the words became a proverb,
and admitted of a variety of applications. What man despised
and rejected, that God honoured and exalted. Here Peter
applies the words to Christ, to whom in their highest sense
they certainly refer. The Jewish rulers were the builders
of the theocracy; to them was entrusted the charge of the
house of God: they had rejected Jesus, their true Messiah ;
they had cast Him aside, and esteemed Him as nothing: but
God, by raising Him from the dead, had constituted Him
the head of the corner—that on which the whole theocracy
rests—the only sure foundation of God’s spiritual temple.

Ver. 12. Kai οὐκ ἔστιν... ἡ cwtnpia—and there is salva-
tion in no other. Some understand ἡ σωτηρία of the cure
of the lame man, and render it, there is healing in no other
(Michaelis, Whitby); but such a meaning weakens the
words, and is contradicted by the statement which follows.
Peter had already passed from the cure of the lame man to
the character of Jesus as the promised Messiah. Others
understand the word in a double sense, as comprehending
both corporeal and spiritual salvation (Heinrichs, Stier). The
reference is evidently to that salvation which the Messiah
was to work out—a salvation from sin and its consequences.
As Messiah, Jesus was constituted the only Saviour (Acts
yi. 31). So Calvin, De Wette, Olshausen, Meyer.

148 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

Ver. 13. Παῤῥησίαν --- boldness. This word, which is
frequently used in the Acts of the Apostles, literally signi-
fies freedom of speech. It is derived from πᾶν ῥῆσις, free-
spokenness, if we may use such a word. Hence boldness,
freedom of utterance. And certainly, in accusing the chief
priests and rulers to their face with being the murderers of
τ their Messiah, the apostle showed great boldness of speech.

ἤάνθρωποι ἀγράμματοι καὶ idvarrai—unlearned and ignorant
men. ᾿Δηράμματοι signifies without letters, hence uneducated.
Here it denotes that the apostles were destitute of rabbinical
learning: they had not been trained in the Jewish schools.
᾿Ιδιῶτοι has been variously rendered. Its precise meaning
depends on the context. Hence it sometimes signifies a
private man, a plebeian, one unlearned, a common soldier,
one not trained in gymnastic exercises (Meyer). The usual
meaning given to it in this passage by commentators is
plebeian, denoting that the apostles did not belong to the
rulers, but were of the common people—that they were men
of no mark. Hence Lightfoot renders it vulgar. As, how-
ever, the contrast here is between the speech of the apostles
and their want of learning, it is perhaps best to retain the
translation in the authorized version—ignorant. The San-
hedrim were astonished that a man so destitute of learning
as Peter should so powerfully address them. So, in like
manner, the discourses of Jesus gave rise to a similar
astonishment : “ How knoweth this man letters, having
never learned?” (John vii. 15.)

*Exeyivecxov τε αὐτοὺς ὅτι civ τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ joav—and they
recognised them, that they had been with Jesus. At first, it
appears that the acquaintance of the apostles with Jesns did
not strike them. But, as Meyer observes, their wonder
sharpened their intellects ; so that, on observing their prisoners
more closely, they recognised them as persons whom they
had seen with Jesus. Although the ministry of our Lord
was chiefly confined to Galilee, yet He frequently appeared
in Jerusalem with His disciples. And on several occasions
some of the rulers were present at His discourses, and thus
would become acquainted with the personal appearance of

i
-
q
-
5
_
‘

PETER AND JOHN BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM.—IV. 14-18. 149

at least His two most distinguished followers. Besides, we
are informed that one of Christ’s disciples, probably John,
was personally known to Caiaphas, the high priest (John
xviii. 15).

Ver. 14. The man himself, who had been miraculously
restored to the use of his limbs, was present in the court.
He was there standing, no longer the cripple who never had
walked, and who had to be carried to the Beautiful gate of
the temple. The miracle, then, could not be gainsayed;
Peter’s declaration could not be called in question. Baur
objects that it is extremely improbable that the Sanhedrim
would permit the man to be present to their own confusion,
and that this notice of his presence renders the whole narra-
tive suspicious." But the lame man might have been called
for examination, as the Jews formerly examined the man
who had been born blind, whom our Lord had restored to
sight; or, as the Sanhedrim was an open court, he might
have come as an interested spectator; or, as Neander con-
jectures, he might also have been arrested at the same time
with the apostles.

Vers. 15, 16. It is to be Gheanwed that, in the consultation
of the διωιυξιντι they do not attempt to deny the miracle ;
on the contrary, they admit that this is a fact which cannot
be denied. Modern sceptics would deny the possibility of
the miracle entirely; but Jewish sceptics admitted the
reality of the miracle, but evaded the inferences derived
from it, by referring it to some other power than God.
Hence they formerly accused Christ of performing miracles
by the power of Beelzebub.

Vers. 17,18. "AAW ἵνα μὴ ert... εἰς τὸν Nadv—but that
it spread no further among the edgiie The Sanhedrim find
that they cannot deny the miracle, and that they cannot
punish the apostles for having done a good deed to an in-
firm man: and besides, the multitude were at this time on
the side of the apostles; and as the rulers would not yield,
the only course left was by means of threats to endeavour
to shut the mouths of the apostles. Since they cannot

1 Baur’s Apostel Paulus, p. 22

wv

150 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

answer the apostles by reason, they seek to silence them by
violence. They therefore command them not to speak at
all, nor teach, in the name of Jesus.

Vers. 19, 20. To this prohibition Peter replies, that they
must obey God rather than man. The meaning is not, as
in the authorized version, that they should hearken to God
more than they hearken to man; but that in this matter
they should hearken to God, and not to man at all. Two
commands here came into collision: the command of the
rulers not to teach in the name of Jesus, and the command
of God to teach; and the weaker authority must yield to
the stronger—God must be obeyed, and not man. Peter
appeals to the consciences of his judges: “ Whether it is right
in the sight of God (judice Deo) to hearken to you rather
than to God, judge ye.” There is a passage in the life of
Socrates which bears a striking resemblance to this. When
they were condemning him to death for teaching the people
their duties to God, he replied: “O ye Athenians, I will
obey God rather than you (πείσομαι δὲ τῷ Θεῷ μᾶλλον ἢ
ὑμῖν) ; and if you would dismiss me and spare my life, on
condition that I should cease to teach my fellow-citizens, 1
would rather die a thousand times than accept the proposal.”

Ver. 21. Μηδὲν εὑρίσκοντες, ete.— finding nothing how they
might punish them. ‘This does not mean that they could not
discover any pretext to punish them—any ground of aceusa-
tion (Kuineel); but that they could not find any particular
punishment to inflict, without arousing the indignation of the
people (Meyer). Mua τὸν Aadv—because of the people. The
people for the present favoured the disciples: they were their
defence against the hostility of the rulers. It is, however,
probable, as Neander and Lange remark, that another reason
of the present leniency of the Sanhedrim was, that several
of its members favoured the Christians. The apostles had
friends in the Sanhedrim. Joseph of Arimathea and Nico-
demus were perhaps among its members; and we after-
wards read that Gamaliel, the leader of the Pharisaic party,
was inclined to befriend them. Perhaps also the rivalry
between the Sadducees and the Pharisees may on this occa-

PETER AND JOHN BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM.—IV. 21. 151

sion have benefited the apostles. The Sadducees were the
chief promoters of this prosecution, because the apostles
preached in Jesus the resurrection; but as this was a
favourite dogma of the Pharisaic faction, naturally they
would not unite with the Sadducees. Afterwards indeed,
when, as it appeared to them, the Mosaic religion itself was
endangered by the preaching of Stephen, both sects laid
aside their mutual enmity, and the Pharisees as well as the
Sadducees united in their efforts to crush Christianity. At
present, however, it was chiefly with the doctrines of the
Sadducees that the teaching of the apostles came into colli-
sion.

It is to be observed that this trial of Peter and John
before the Sanhedrim formed a crisis in the history of Chris-
tianity. The Jewish rulers were called, for the first time,
to give their decision. It is true that the same council had
rejected Jesus; but circumstances were altered. They had
rejected their Messiah through ignorance; but now there
were strong proofs that He was raised from the dead, and
thus declared by God to be the Messiah. The Holy Spirit
had been poured forth. Thousands of Jews had become
converts to Christianity. What, then, are the council to do?
Are they to yield to these evidences, and acknowledge the
crucified One as their Messiah? Or are they to persevere
in unbelief? And it is to be observed that the Sanhedrim
was not only the highest civil authority in the nation, but
the highest religious authority. The Jews were still a
theocracy, and their scribes and elders sat in Moses’ seat.
How important, then, the crisis! What consequences de-
pended on this present decision! They consult and delibe-
rate, and decide against Christianity. ‘“ What a shock to
the mind,’ as Baumgarten observes; “ what perplexity,
weakness, and want of faith would in these days show .
themselves, if the highest authority in sacred things were to
decide against the truth! How many are there at all times
who are disposed to maintain inviolate a respect for such an
authority, which they say is indispensable for the general
good, even though truth would in some degree suffer thereby !

152 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

How few in such a case would maintain either internal cer-
tainty, or even external firmness! And what is any sacred
authority among ourselves, compared with the Sanhedrim of
Israel in the first days after Pentecost!” ἷ

The rulers of Israel, however ignorant when they rejected
and crucified Jesus, must now have strongly suspected that
He whom they had crucified was indeed the Messiah. But
if they acknowledged this, then they must confess that they
were guilty of a crime of the greatest magnitude. This
they could not prevail upon themselves to do. They there-
fore stifle their convictions; and, as is generally the case with
those who do so, they come forth as persecutors of that cause
which they more than half suspect is true; they attempt
to drown by violence the accusations of their conscience.
They had only one choice: they must either acknowledge
that they had crucified their Messiah, or else persecute the
Christians as the disciples of a pretended Messiah; and they
choose the latter alternative.

ON THE SANHEDRIM.

Our information concerning the Sanhedrim is but scanty. .
The Jewish rabbis trace its origin back to the time of
Moses, and suppose it to have been the same as the council _
of seventy elders appointed in the wilderness to assist Moses
in his judgments (Num. xi. 10). They maintain that this
council was continued until the captivity, and was re-
organized by Ezra on the return of the Jews. This opinion
has been supported by Grotius, Salmasius, and Selden. It
would, however, appear that this council of seventy elders
was only provisional, and that it ceased on the establishment
of the Israelites in Canaan, as there is no mention of it in
the subsequent history of the nation. Besides, the word
Sanhedrim is Greek (συνέδριον), and therefore its origin is
to be dated after the Jews came in contact with the Greeks.

1 Baumgarten’s Apostolic History, vol. i. p. 96.

ON THE SANHEDRIM. 153

The first mention of it by Josephus is in the time of the high-
priesthood of Hyrcanus, when Herod (afterwards the Great)
was summoned before it (Ant. xiv. 9.4). In all probability,
it is the same with the Council of the Jews (γερουσία τῶν
᾿Ιουδαίων) mentioned in the second book of Maccabees
(2 Mace. i. 10, iv. 44).

It is generally agreed that the Sanhedrim was composed
of seventy-one persons ; there being seventy members and a
president. These members seem to have included the high
priest for the time being, the former high priests, the heads
of the twenty-four priestly courses, and others from among
the elders or rulers of the synagogues, and from among the
scribes or the interpreters of the law. The president of this
council was called the Nasi, and was at this period one of the
most influential men among the Jews. In general, the high
priest was also the president of the Sanhedrim, although
this was not necessarily the case. There was also a vice-
president, who sat at his right hand, called in the Talmud
“ the father of the house of judgment.”

The place where the Sanhedrim at first met was a room
in the temple, situated between the court of the Israelites
and the court of the priests, called the Hall of Gazzith.
Forty years, however, before the destruction of Jerusalem,
we are informed that, for some unknown reason, their place
of meeting was removed to a building without the courts of
the temple, but still adjoining to them, situated on Mount
Moriah. After the destruction of Jerusalem, the Sanhedrim,
by the permission of the Romans, removed to Japhneh, and
after several other changes was settled at Tiberias.

The Sanhedrim was the highest national court among the
Jews. Its jurisdiction extended to all manner of questions,
both civil and religious. Political offenders as well as religious
heretics were summoned before it. The accused were heard
in defence, witnesses were examined, and sentences from
which there was no appeal were pronounced. We find that
Jesus was tried before this court as a false Messiah; Peter
and John as workers of miracles, who appropriated divine
powers to themselves ; Stephen as a blasphemer; and Paul

|

154 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

as a teacher of false doctrines. In one important matter,
however, the authority of the Sanhedrim was abridged: the
Romans deprived it of the power of life and death. They
might pronounce sentence of death, but the sanction of the
Roman governor had to be obtained before that sentence
could be carried into execution. According to the Talmud,
the Sanhedrim was deprived of the power of inflicting
capital punishment forty years before the destruction of
Jerusalem; whereas formerly it alone of all the Jewish
courts possessed this power (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 9.3). Hence
the remark of the Jewish rulers to Pilate: “It is not lawful
for us to put any man to death” (John xviii. 31). The
stoning of Stephen is not an exception to this; for that
happened during a popular tumult, and when, in all proba-
bility, there was a vacancy in the Roman procuratorship, after
Pilate had been sent to Rome. A similar instance occurred
afterwards, when James the Just was put to death by the
high priest Ananus during the absence of the Roman gover-
nor: for Josephus expressly informs us that this was an
illegal assumption of power, and for which Ananus was de-
posed from the high-priesthood (Ant. xx. 9.1). Nor was
the Sanhedrim merely a criminal court, but also a court of
legislature. They made laws for the regulation of worship,
and they fixed the days of the new moons. Under the
Roman government, however, its legislation would neces-
sarily be almost entirely confined to religious matters. It
would seem also that its jurisdiction was not confined to
Judea, but extended to the Jews resident abroad; for when
Paul went to persecute the Christians at Damascus, he
carried with him letters from the Sanhedrim to the syna-
gogues of that city (Acts ix. 2)."

1 Winer’s biblischer Wérterbuch, article Synedrium ; Smith’s Biblical
Dictionary ; Olshausen’s Gospel and Acts, vol. iv. p. 72.

SECTION VIII.

PRAYER OF THE CHURCH, AND COMMUNITY OF GOODS.—
Acts Iv. 23~37.

23 And, being released, they went to their own, and related what
things the chief priests and elders said to them. 24 And they hay-
ing heard it, lifted up their voice with one accord to God, and said,
‘** Lord, Thou who hast made the heaven, and the earth, and the sea,
and all things in them; 25 Who by the mouth of Thy servant David
hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the peoples imagine vain
things? 26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were
gathered together against the Lord, and against His Christ. 27 For of
a truth, in this city, against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou hast
anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the
peoples of Israel, were gathered together, 28 To do what things Thy
hand and Thy counsel determined before to be done. 29 And now,
Lord, behold their threatenings: and give to Thy servants, that with
all boldness they may speak Thy word, 380 Whilst Thou stretchest
forth Thine hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done
through the name of Thy holy servant Jesus.” 31 And when they had
prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled; and they
were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God
with boldness.

32 And the multitude of believers were of one heart and of one soul :
and not one said that ought of the things which he possessed was his
own; but they had all things common. 33 And with great power
gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus; and
great favour was upon them all. 34 Neither was there any among
them that needed: for such as were possessors of fields or houses sold
them, and brought the prices of what was sold, 35 And placed them at
the feet of the apostles; and distribution was made unto every man
according as he had need. 36 And Joseph, who by the apostles was
surnamed Barnabas, which is, by interpretation, The son of exhortation,
a Levite, a Cyprian by birth, 87 Having a field, sold it, and brought
the money, and laid it at the feet of the apostles.

CRITICAL NOTES.

Ver. 24. Ὁ Θεός is wanting in A, B, δὰ, several versions
and Fathers, and contained in D, E; it is omitted by Lach-
155

156 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

mann and Tischendorf, but retained by Meyer, De Wette,
and Alford. Ver. 25. The readings in this verse are various ;
among which ὁ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου στό-
ματος Δαυεὶδ παιδὸς σου εἰπών is the best attested: it is
contained in A, B, Εἰ, δὲ ; it is, however, rejected by Tischen-
dorf and Meyer, who retain the reading of the textus
receptus. Ver. 27. "Ev τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ is contained in
A’, B, D, E, 8, and is inserted by all modern critics as un-
doubtedly genuine. Ver. 36. Instead of ᾿Ιωσῆς, A, B, D, ἘΣ, αὶ

read ᾿Ιωσὴφ, the reading now generally adopted.

EXEGETICAL REMARKS.

Ver. 23. Πρὸς τοὺς idiovs—to their own. Olshausen sup-
poses that by ἴδιοι is here meant the household church of
the apostles, those with whom they were accustomed to unite
in social prayer ; but there is nothing in the context to limit
the expression to so narrow a circle. Meyer and De Wette
suppose that the fellow-apostles are meant, because it is said
of all present that they spake the word of God (ver. 31),
and because in ver. 32 the multitude of believers are distin-
guished from them; but speaking the word of God was not
a matter confined to the apostles, and ver. 32 is the com-
mencement of a new paragraph. By ἴδιοι, then, is most
naturally meant the community of believers, the church in
general. So Kuincel, Baumgarten, Lechler. Among be-
lievers the apostles felt themselves at home, as contrasted
with being among the rulers in the Sanhedrim. To them
they relate all that the chief priests and rulers—that is, the
Sanhedrim—had said to them. “ Not for their own glory,”
says St. Chrysostom, “ did they tell the tale; but what they
displayed were the proofs therein exhibited of the grace of
Christ. All that their adversaries had said, this they told :
their own part, it is likely, they omitted.”

This was a most important crisis for the infant church.
The highest civil and religious authority in the nation had
decided against it. But, weak and defenceless in itself, it
does not despond: on the contrary, it betakes itself to God

PRAYER OF THE CHURCH.—IV. 24. 157

in prayer; and filled with a holy boldness, it defies all the
powers of the world combined to overthrow the cause of
Christ. “The church,” observes Baumgarten, “ is no doubt
shaken ; but it is the shaking of a tree by the wind, which
only causes it to strike a deeper and firmer root into the
ground.”?

Ver. 24. Οἱ δὲ ἀκούσαντες ὁμοθυμαδὸν, ete.—But when they
heard that, they lifted up their voice with one accord to God.
To the threats of their enemies, the church opposes prayer to
God. The origin of this prayer has been variously under-
stood. Bengel supposes that Peter was the spokesman, and
that the other disciples repeated the words after him; but,
according to the context, it was Peter and John who gave
the account, and those who heard that prayed. In a similar
manner, Baumgarten supposes that the whole assembly sang
together the second Psalm, and that Peter made an applica-
tion of it to their present circumstances; but the words of
the psalm are so interwoven with the application as to form
one prayer. Meyer thinks that the words uttered were a
form of prayer of the apostolic church of Jerusalem, com-
posed under their fresh impressions of the sufferings of
Christ, and under the impulse of the Holy Ghost, and which
was now used on account of its suitableness to the occasion ;?
but the impression conveyed in the narrative is, that the
prayer was now for the first time composed, since it ex-
pressly refers to the threatenings of the Sanhedrim, of
which they had just been informed. ‘The most probable

opinion is that adopted by De Wette, Olshausen, Stier, Ὁ

Lechler, and Alford, that one of the apostles or of the dis-
ciples uttered the prayer, and the rest either followed it by
word of mouth, or inwardly assented to it.

Δέσποτα, σὺ ὁ ποίησας τὸν ovpavov—Lord, Thou who hast
made the heaven. Some supply εἶ after σὺ--- Πογα, Thou art
He who hast made; but the addition is unnecessary. God
is here spoken of as the Creator of all things, because the
disciples had recourse to His Omnipotence as a defence

1 Baumgarten’s Apostolic History, vol. i. p. 100, ces translation.
2 See also Wheatly on the Prayer Book.

158 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

against their enemies. All the power of their adversaries
is but feebleness, compared with the power of Him who
is the Maker of heaven and earth, the sea, and all things
in them.

Vers. 25, 26. This quotation is from Ps. ii. 1, 2. The
words are taken verbatim from the Septuagint. The second
Psalm is in this passage ascribed to David. There is no
superscription either in the Hebrew or in the Septuagint;
but the Jews ascribed all those psalms whose authors are not
mentioned to David; and there are strong presumptive
evidences that this second Psalm in particular was his com-
position." ᾿Εφρύαξαν properly refers to the rage of an un-
manageable horse; hence to rage, to make a noise, to raise a
tumult. Κατὰ tod Χριστοῦ avtod—against His Anointed.
This reference is to the Jewish custom of anointing kings,
prophets, and priests, when they were consecrated to their
respective offices. “Christ” from the Greek, and “ Messiah”
from the Hebrew, both suggest the same idea—the Anointed.

With regard to the meaning of these words, they may
have a historical foundation, and a primary application to
David. He was God’s anointed king. Against him the
kings of the earth and the rulers were combined. He was
exposed to the attacks of foreign enemies: the Philistines,
Moabites, Ammonites, Idumeans, and Syrians were confede-
rate against him. He was a prey to civil dissensions, and
once he had to fly before his rebellious son. But David here
strencthens himself in God; and strong in His protection,
he derides all the efforts of his enemies. He was the anointed
king of Zion, and therefore all the attacks of his enemies
were directed against the Lord Himself.

But whatever may have been its primary meaning, the
Psalm is evidently Messianic. It is frequently applied by

the inspired writers to Christ, as is here done by the church
in general. Thus Paul, in speaking of the resurrection of
Christ, expressly quotes it: “ As it is written in the second
Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee”

1 Its applicability to the circumstances of the life of David is very
evident. See below.

PRAYER OF THE CHURCH.—IV. 27, 28. 159

(Acts xiii. 83).' Its Messianic character is also admitted by
Rabbi David Kimchi, Saadias Gaon, and other Jewish
writers. And those German critics, such as De Wette, who
appear the most unwilling to admit the Messianic nature of
the Psalms, yet allow that this psalm refers to the Messiah.”

Ver. 27. In this verse, the church in its prayer makes an
application of the prophetic words of David to their present
circumstances. “Ev τῇ πόλει ταύτη---ἴη this city. These words,
although not in the textus receptus, are regarded as genuine
by all modern critics: they answer to “ Upon my holy hill
of Zion” in the second Psalm (Ps. ii. 6). ᾿Επὶ τὸν ἅγιον
παῖδα σου ’Incotyv—against Thy holy servant Jesus. aida,
the same word which is applied to David in ver. 25: it
signifies, not son, but servant. See note to ch. ili. 26. “αοῖς
*Iopandk—the peoples of Israel, in the plural: used probably
to correspond with λαοῖς in the prophecy, and without
reference to the ten tribes, or to the Jews dispersed among
the nations. There is a designed correspondence between
the different enemies who rose against God’s holy servant
Jesus, and those mentioned in the Psalm as gathered to-
gether against the Lord and His Anointed. Thus the
heathen correspond to the Gentiles, that is, the Romans;
the peoples to the people of Israel; the kings of the earth
to Herod; and their rulers to Pontius Pilate. And so also
the Lord in the Psalm corresponds to God, the Maker of
heaven and of earth; and the Lord’s Anointed to “ Thy holy
servant Jesus, whom Thou hast anointed.”

Ver. 28. Ποιῆσαι ὅσα ἡ χείρ σου, etc.—to do whatsoever
Thy hand and Thy counsel determined before to be done.
These words are not to be connected with éypucas—that
God had anointed Jesus to do whatsoever He had previously
determined (Limborch),—a meaning which does violence to
the text. But they belong to cvviy@ncav—that Herod and
Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel,
were gathered together to do whatsoever God’s hand and

1 For the application of this psalm to Christ, see Heb. i. 5, v. 15, Rev.

ii. 26, 27, xii. 5, xix. 15.
2 De Wette, Apostelgeschichte, p. 53.

160 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

counsel determined before to be done. They thought to do
their own will, but in reality they were fulfilling the purpose
of God. He makes the actions of His enemies subservient
to His purposes. “The death of the Lord,” as Meyer
observes, ‘ was not the accidental work of hostile wilfulness ;
but, on the contrary, the necessary result of the divine
determination, which must use the free action of man as its
instruments.”* This determination of God, however, must
be explained in such a manner as to make it consistent with
the free agency of men. Herod, and Pontius Pilate, and
the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, though acting as the
instruments of God’s will, were not freed from moral
responsibility, nor was their guilt thereby in the least degree
extenuated. Xeip refers to the power, and βουλή to the
wisdom of God.

Vers. 29, 30. These verses contain the petition of the
church. The church entreats the Lord to behold the
threatenings of its enemies; that is, to behold them accord-
ing to His watchful providence, His restraining power, and
His protecting care. It is, however, to be observed that the
disciples do not imprecate the vengeance of God upon their
enemies: what they pray for is not acts of wrath, but deeds
of mercy. For themselves, the disciples pray for boldness
of utterance— that with all boldness they may speak the
word ;”’ that they might not be intimidated by the declared
opposition of their rulers, seeing that no combination of
power can prevail against the Lord and His Anointed. And
they further pray for success in their ministry: that God
would stretch forth His hand, not to smite His and their
enemies, but to heal; and that signs and wonders (miracles
of healing) might be done through the name of His holy
servant Jesus.

Ver. 31. ᾿Εσαλεύθη ὁ toros—the place was shaken. This
was evidently a miraculous shaking, as the direct act of God ;
and is not to be explained as a natural event—the accidental
occurrence of an earthquake (Kuinel, Heinrichs). It is
here mentioned as the divine answer to the prayer of the

1 Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 107.

COMMUNITY OF GOODS.—IV. 32. 161

church; a sign that God had heard their requests, similar
to the other external and miraculous signs which occurred
on the day of Pentecost. Both the heathen and the Jews
thought the earthquake an intimation of the divine presence.
For the heathen ideas on the subject, see Virgil, Zn. iii. 89,
and Ovid, Met. xv. 672. There are also similar references
in the rabbinical writings, and in the Old Testament. See
Ps, xxix. 8, lxviii. 8; Isa. xxix. 6; Ezek. xxxviii. 19; Joel
ili. 16; Hab. iii. 6, ete. Baumgarten supposes that the
shaking of the place where they were assembled was a
sion that the will of God had power over the foundations
of the earth; that not only all the might of the world,
but the world itself, depended for its continuance on the
divine will. Bengel thinks that it was the symbol that all
things were about to be shaken by the Gospel. Perhaps,
however, it is to be regarded merely as an answer to prayer:
that the disciples were not to be alarmed, seeing that God
was on their side. The declared favour of God is here
opposed to the declared hostility of their enemies. And
accordingly it follows that “they were all filled with the
Holy Ghost, and spoke the word of God with boldness.”

' Ver. 32. Tod δὲ πλήθους τῶν πιστευσάντων, ete.—And the
multitude of believers were of one heart and of one soul. This
is to be considered as the commencement of a new paragraph,
descriptive of the state of the church. Four particulars are
mentioned : unity of spirit, apostolic testimony to the resur-
rection of Christ, great favour upon all the disciples, and
the community of goods. The first particular is unity of
spirit: the disciples were of one heart and of one soul,—a
proverbial expression for the most endearing friendship. As
in Plutarch, δύο φίλοι, ψυχὴ μία. There was among them
no difference of sentiment. This was the more remarkable
when we consider the number of the disciples, now amount-
ing to five thousand. This concord arose from their being
comparatively free of all selfish aims: they sought not their
own interests, but the interests of each other. ‘Not one
said that ought of the things which he possessed was his own,
but they had all things common.”

VOL. 1. L

162 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

Ver. 33. Καὶ μεγάλῃ δυνάμει, ete.—And with great power
gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.
This is the second particular. It was the peculiar province
of the apostles to bear witness of the resurrection of Christ
(Acts i. 22, ii. 32, etc.). This witness they gave with great
power, either with powerful and effective eloquence (7ap-
pnova, boldness of speech), or by the performance of miracles
of power.

Χάρις τε μεγάλη ἣν ἐπὶ πάντας ad’tovs—and great favour
was upon them all. This is the third particular. These
words admit of two different meanings, according as we refer
χάρις to men or to God. Some (Calvin, Grotius, Kuineel,
Olshausen, Humphry) understand by it, favour among the
people. They think that the love of believers displayed
toward each other called forth the admiration of the Jewish
people, and rendered them favourably disposed (Vide, ut
sese invicem diligant—Tertullian). This corresponds with
what Luke had already said, that the disciples had favour
with all the people (Acts ii. 47). “This served,” observes
Calvin, “not a little to the diffusion of their doctrine, that
by assisting the poor they found favour at the hands of
strangers. They were beloved, because they were bountiful.
No doubt, also, their honesty, and temperance, and modesty,
and patience, and other virtues, did provoke many to bear
them good-will.” Others (Beza, Meyer, De Wette, Baum-
garten, Lechler, Alford, Wordsworth, Hackett) understand
by it divine favour, the grace of God. According to this
opinion, χάρις was not the result of their liberality among
themselves, but its cause. It is difficult to determine which 15
the more correct meaning, inasmuch as each meaning gives a
good sense, and suits the context. If a preference is to be
given, we would say that, upon the whole, the second mean-
ing is in more logical connection with what follows—ovde yap
ἐνδεής τις ὑπῆρχεν. The word can hardly have, as Bengel
supposes, two different meanings, and signify both favour
with the people and the grace of God.

Vers. 34, 35. The fourth particular mentioned in these
verses is the community of goods. This will require more

COMMUNITY OF GOODS.—IV. 34, 35. 163

oe It was formerly mentioned by Luke in ch.

. 44, 45. The expressions are too strong to permit us
τὶ suppose, that all that is meant is merely that the disciples
were extremely generous and liberal—that they gave freely
of their substance (De Wette). There was obviously, in
some sense, an actual community of goods; and it will not
do to say, with De Wette, that Luke here exaggerates. And
yet we must not go to the other extreme, and suppose that
all property ceased among the Christians ; that they sold all
their possessions and goods, and placed them in a common
fund, out of which all were supported. The words certainly
at first sight would seem to imply as much; but there are
several considerations which render such a meaning im-
probable.

It would appear that this community of goods, whatever
is meant by it, was entirely confined to Jerusalem. There
is no trace of it in any of the epistles, or in the Acts of the
Apostles, except as regards the church in Jerusalem. On
the contrary, the whole charge which is given in Scripture
for almsgiving, all the rules which are laid down to the rich,
the different degrees of rank recognised in Scripture, the
warnings against covetousness, and the exhortations to bene-
volence, clearly demonstrate that nothing resembling a com-
munity of goods existed in the Christian church at large.
Indeed, it does not seem to have continued long in Jerusalem.
It was instituted to meet existing emergencies, when the
church was poor, weak, and feeble; and when the circum-
stances of the case were altered, it was abandoned. Meyer,
with whom Alford agrees, thinks that this may explain the
great poverty of the church of Jerusalem—that by this
method their possessions were naturally soon exhausted. He
also thinks that their expectation of the near approach of the
second advent made them put the less value on their earthly
possessions, and might have contributed to this community of
goods.

Another thing to be remarked is, that this community of
goods was perfectly voluntary on the part of the disciples.
There was no law in the church, no apostolic injunction

164 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

which bound believers to sell their lands, and to place their
money in a common fund. This is evident from what
Peter said to Ananias: “ Whilst thy possession remained,
was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in
thine own power?” (Acts v. 4); the natural meaning of
this being, that Ananias might have done with it what he
pleased. His sin did not consist in giving only part of the
price to the apostles, but in pretending that, in giving that
part, he was giving the whole. This community of goods,
then, was not a matter of law, but of love. As Neander
well observes, ‘‘ the community of goods practised by the first
Christians, whatever form we suppose it to have taken, was
something that was formed from within: it was the natural
expression of a spirit which bound them all to one another.
Everything here must have proceeded from the power of
the one Spirit, must have depended solely on the free act
of the pure disposition; nothing was effected by the force of
outward law.”

And further still, it does not appear that this community
of goods was a universal custom, so that all the disciples
(not of constraint, but voluntarily) disposed of their pos-
sessions, and put the proceeds into one common fund. Cer-
tainly, at first sight, the words “such as were possessors of
fields and houses sold them, and brought the prices of the
things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet,”
seem to favour such a view. (See also Acts ii, 44, 45.)
But if this were the case, the goods of the church would
soon have been consumed; nor would the instance of Bar-
nabas have been adduced as anything remarkable. We read
also afterwards of Mary the mother of John, surnamed
Mark, possessing a house in Jerusalem (Acts xii. 12). But
although not a universal custom, yet it was probably pretty
general. Many, though not all, sold their houses and pos-
sessions, and put the money in a common fund, which was
placed at the disposal of the apostles.

It would appear, then, that by the community of goods is
meant, not that the disciples lived in common, and that all
/ property ceased among them, but that a common fund was

COMMUNITY OF GOODS.—IV. 34, 35. 165

instituted. The disciples were actuated by the spirit of love
toward each other, which impelled them to regard the neces-
sities of their brethren as their own. Not only did they give
largely of their wealth, but many placed the whole of it at
the disposal of the apostles. “In the Acts of the Apostles,”
says St. Jerome, “ when the blood of our Lord was yet warm,
and a young faith was glowing in the believers, they sold all
their possessions, and laid the price of them at the apostles’
feet, to show that money was worthy of no regard.” Out of
this common fund the wants of the poor were supplied ;
there was a daily distribution to the widows (ch. vi. 1) ;
there was none among the disciples that needed (ch. iv. 34).
Perhaps also the expenses of the Agapzx were defrayed out
of it: for we find that it was afterwards the custom for the
rich to bring of their provisions to supply the wants of their
poorer brethren. Thus, in the first glow of Christian life,
the disciples put into actual practice the precept of our
Lord: “ Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide for your-
selves bags that wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that
faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth cor-
rupteth ” (Late xii. 33).

Grotius, Heinrichs, and other writers, suppose that the
church ὙὝΨΕΕΙΣ this idea of a community of goods from
the Essenes. We learn from Josephus that this Jewish sect
possessed such an institution. “These men,” he observes,
“are despisers of riches. Nor is there any one to be found
among them who has more than another: for it is a law
among them, that those who come to them must let what
they Gave be common to the whole order; insomuch that
among them all there is no appearance of poverty or excess
of riches, but every one’s possessions are intermingled with
every other’s possessions: and so there is, as it were, one
patrimony among all the brethren” (Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 3).
But this community of the Essenes was with them a com-
pulsory act: it was founded on Jaw, not on voluntary offer-
ings. And besides, there is no trace of a connection between
the apostles and that sect. It does not appear that at this
time the‘church had come in contact with them.

166 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

In every age of the church there have been imitations of
this community of goods, such as the various orders of monks,
the mendicant friars, the Apostolici, etc.; but they have all
failed, because they interpreted that as an institution of per-
manent and universal obligation, which was only designed
to meet a present emergency ; and because, moreover, they
attempted to regulate by law that which, to succeed at all,
must proceed from voluntary love: they made that a matter
of external regulations, which can only be effected by the
power of love operating from within. But although the
external practice of community of goods is by no means to
be imitated, yet the spirit of love which gave rise to it is
to be imbibed. We should, like these early Christians,
regard our possessions as not our own, but as given us by
God, to be employed in His service, and for the good of
our brethren ; and thus, in this sense, “no one should say
that ought of the things which he possessed was his own,’
but that all should be employed for the common good."

Ver. 36. Ἰωσὴφ, ὁ ἐπικληθεὶς BapvaSas—Joseph, who
was called Barnabas. This is the well-known Barnabas, the
companion of Paul. He has been confounded with Joseph
Barsabbas, one of the candidates for the apostleship (Acts
i. 23); but the names are entirely different. The name
Barnabas was given to him by the apostles, in a similar
manner as the names Peter and Boanerges were given by
our Lord. The word is compounded of Bar and Nabi, and
literally signifies the son of a prophet, or of prophecy. It
is here translated by Luke vids παρακλήσεως, that is, the
son of exhortation or consolation ; for the word παράκλησις
includes both ideas. According to the New Testament lan-
guage, prophecy is not so much the prediction of the future,
as an inspired discourse—spiritual insight—and consequently
embraces both exhortation and consolation; and therefore
Luke, in his interpretation of the name, might well use the
word παράκλησις instead of προφητεία (Olshausen). Bar-
nabas was probably so called on account of his remarkable

1 There is an excellent and exhaustive note on the community of goods
in Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, pp. 77-79, Dritte Auflage. ‘

COMMUNITY OF GOODS.—IV. 37. 167

powers of exhorting the people, and administering to them
consolation. (See Acts xi. 23.) Elsewhere he is designated
a prophet (Acts xiii. 1). He is here said to be a Levite,
as distinguished perhaps from a priest; and a native of
Cyprus, and therefore a Hellenist. According to tradition,
he was one of our Lord’s seventy disciples. ‘“ It is unneces-
sary,” observes Clemens Alexandrinus, “ for me to use more
words, when I can bring forward the apostolic Barnabas : for
he was one of the seventy, and a fellow-worker with Paul”
(Clem. Alex. Strom. ii.). “ No catalogue,” says Eusebius,
“is given of the seventy disciples: Barnabas is said to be
one of them, of whom there is distinguished notice in the
Acts of the Apostles” (Hist. Eccl. i. 12).

There is an epistle still extant which claims to have been
written by Barnabas. It is often quoted by the Fathers,
especially by Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen. Eusebius
in one portion of his history regards it as spurious (List.
Eccl. iii. 26), and in another place he says that its genuine-
ness is disputed (Hist. Eccl. vi. 14). Its authenticity is now
generally given up, and it is regarded as a work of the
second century.’

Ver. 37. Ὑπάρχοντος αὐτῷ ἀγροῦ, ete.—having a field, sold
ἐξ. Baumgarten supposes that it was not allowable for him
as a Levite to possess land, and that therefore he sold his
possession, and delivered the proceeds to the apostles. But
this, from the well-known instance of Jeremiah to the con-
trary (Jer. xxxii. 7), appears to be a mistaken notion. And
if, before the captivity, the priests and Levites were accus-
tomed to possess lands, this custom would prevail afterwards
to a greater extent, when the special provisions of the law of
Moses concerning heritages could not be strictly observed.
The question arises, Why, if believers in general sold their
possessions, is this instance of Barnabas so prominently
brought forward? Meyer supposes that he is mentioned

1 The Epistle of Barnabas does not, we think, after a careful perusal,
bear any internal marks of spuriousness, and does not appear, as has
been asserted, to be the work of an Ebionite. The sentiments contained
in it are in agreement with the writings of the apostles.

168 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

only as an example of what was general, so that there was
nothing remarkable in what he did. But it rather appears
that he is here distinguished from others, and held forth as
an illustrious example. He surpassed the other disciples in
his generosity ; either because the sacrifice which he made
was greater and more complete, or because the sale of pos-
sessions was not universal, or because he set a striking and

edifying example.

SECTION IX.

INTERNAL DANGER AND EXTERNAL PROGRESS OF THE
CHURCH.—Acrzrs v. 1-16.

1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a
possession, 2 And purloined part of the price, his wife also being
aware of it; and having brought a certain part, laid it at the feet of the
apostles. 3 But Peter said, Ananias, wherefore has Satan filled thine
heart to deceive the Holy Ghost, and to purloin part of the price of the
land? 4 When it remained, was it not thine own? and when it was
sold, was it not in thy power? Wherefore hast thou entertained this
thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied to men, but to God. 5 And
Ananias hearing these words, falling down, expired: and great fear came
on all who heard it. 6 And the young men arising, wound him up, and
earried him out, and buried him. 7 And it came to pass, after the
interval of about three hours, his wife came in, not knowing what had
happened. 8 And Peter answered her, Tell me whether ye sold the
land for so much? And she said, Yes, for so much. 9 Then Peter
said to her, Wherefore have ye concerted together to tempt the Spirit of
the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried thy husband are
at the door, and shall carry thee out. 10 Then immediately she fell
down at his feet, and expired; and the young men coming in found
her dead, and having carried her out, buried her by her husband.
11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon all who heard
these things.

12 And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders
wrought among the people. And they were all together in Solomon’s
porch. 13 But of the rest no one presumed to join themselves to
them: but the people magnified them. 14 And believers were the
more added to the Lord, a multitude both of men and women; 15 So
that they brought forth the sick to the streets, and laid them on beds
and couches, that at the least, as Peter passed, his shadow might over-
shadow some of them. 16 There came together also a multitude from
the neighbouring cities to Jerusalem, bringing the sick, and those who
were vexed with unclean spirits: who were all healed.

EXEGETICAL REMARKS.

The external danger to which the church was exposed by
the hostility of the rulers had only the effect of increasing
169

170 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

its boldness and confidence in Christ; but now an internal
danger arises much more to be dreaded. The most noble
virtue of the church—its unselfishness—is in danger of being
perverted ; and covetousness and falsehood display themselves
in the matter of the community of goods. “These things,”
observes Calvin, “ which Luke hath hitherto reported, did
show that that company which was gathered together in the
name of Christ was rather a company of angels than of
men. Moreover, that was incredible virtue, that the rich
did despoil themselves of their own accord, not only of their
money, but also of their land, that they might relieve the
poor. But now he showeth that Satan had invented a shift
to get into that holy company, and that under the colour of
such excellent virtue.”?

Ver. 1. "Avipp δέ τις ’Avavias, etc.—But a certain man
named Ananias. Ananias is. introduced as a contrast to
Barnabas. Barnabas freely disposed of his possession for
the good of the church; but (δέ) a certain man named
Ananias acted differently. We are not informed who
Ananias was; but it is probable that he was one of the
richer members of the church, as he had landed property to
dispose of,

Ver. 2. ᾿᾽Επώλησε κτῆμα, καὶ ἐνοσφίσατο ἀπὸ τῆς τιμῆς---
sold a possession, and purloined part of the price. The sin of
Ananias consisted in this: he sold his possession professedly
for the good of the church; but instead of giving the whole
sum, he retained a part for himself, and the other part he
laid at the apostles’ feet, pretending that it was the whole
amount which he had received. His sin did not consist in
retaining part of the price—he was at liberty to give or not
to give, as he pleased: he might with a safe conscience have
given either the whole or a part—there was in this matter no
compulsion. But his guilt lay in the falsehood of his asser-
tion that the part which he actually gave was the whole—in
his attempt to deceive the apostles, who were under the
guidance of the Holy Ghost. It is not mentioned how
much he retained, but probably it was only a small portion,

1 Calvin’s Commentaries—Acts v. 1.

INTERNAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH. —V. 3. 171

as otherwise it would have appeared that he had sold his
land for too small a sum, and consequently might have been
suspected.

The motive which induced Ananias to commit this sin
was vanity, or the love of ostentation. Seeing others giving
liberally for the support of the church, he desired also to be
looked upon as charitable and liberal. He was in reality
covetous, and yet he wished to be regarded as charitable ;
and hence it was that he played the hypocrite. “It is pro-
bable,” as Olshausen observes, ‘‘ that among the new Chris-
tians 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 actuated many a one who was not in
heart properly freed from attachment to earthly things; and
thus it happened that Ananias, too, sold some property, but
afterwards secretly kept back part of the price. Vanity was
the motive of the sale, hypocrisy the motive of the conceal-
ment, He wished to appear as disinterested as others, and
yet he could not let go his hold of mammon.”* Lechler
supposes, that actuated by generous motives he sold his pos-
session ; but that when he received the money his covetous-
ness was excited, and he could not think of parting with
the whole of it.

Ver. 3. Εἶπε δὲ Ilérpos—but Peter said. Peter discerns
his falsehood. It is not said how Peter obtained his know-
ledge; but the words imply that it was by divine inspiration,
because he not only recognised the crime, but its heinous-
ness, and the corrupt disposition from which it arose. Ζιατί
ἐπλήρωσαν ὁ Σατανᾶς τὴν καρδίαν cov— Wherefore has Satan
filled thine heart? The question is one of stern reproof:
Why hast thou permitted Satan to do it ?—implying that he
might have resisted Satan. All that Satan can do is to
tempt, not to constrain men to sin (Jas. iv. 7; 1 Pet. v. 9).
Ananias should have had his heart filled with the Holy
Ghost, instead of permitting Satan to take possession of it.
Wevoacbai ce τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ---ἰο deceive the Holy
Ghost; not, as in the authorized version, to lie to the Holy

1 QOlshausen’s Commentary on the Gospels and Acts, yol. iv. p. 297.

172 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

Ghost. Ψευσασθαί constructed with the dative is to lie to;
but constructed with the accusative, it is to deceive (Lechler,
Robinson’s Lexicon). This expresses the design of Satan
in filling the heart: it was to deceive the Holy Ghost, that
is, the apostles, who were actuated by the Holy Ghost.
“He,” says Paul, “that despiseth, despiseth not man, but
God, who hath also given unto us His Holy Spirit” (1 Thess.
iv. 8). And so also the attempt to deceive Peter and the
other apostles was in reality an attempt to deceive the Holy
Ghost, who resided within them.

Ver. 4. Οὐχὶ μένον, col &wevev—When it remained, was
it not thine own? It evidently appears from this that the
disciples were not obliged by an apostolic command to sell
their goods, and to put their money into a common fund.
Ananias might have done with his field and money what he
pleased. Τί ὅτι ἔθου ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ cov τὸ πρᾶγμα τοῦτο---
literally, Why hast thou put this thing ἐπι thy heart? Why hast
thou permitted such a sinful idea to take possession of thy
mind? ‘There is no contradiction between this and the fact
that it was Satan who filled his heart. Satan suggested the
idea, and Ananias entertained it in his heart. Οὐκ ἐψεύσω
ἀνθρώποις, ἀλλὰ τῷ OcH—Thou hast not lied to men, but to
God. ‘The expression is not to be weakened, as if it meant
only that Ananias lied not so much unto men as unto God;
but that his sin against men was nothing in comparison with
his sin against God. So also David, even in the case of the
murder of Uriah, takes the same view of his guilt: “ Against
Thee, Thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in Thy
sight” (Ps. li.4). As Lange well observes, “the objective
weight of his guilt does not consist in this, that by this em-
bezzlement he became a deceiver of the brethren. This
vileness vanishes, as if it were nothing compared with the
wickedness that he ventured by fraud to attempt to deceive
the Spirit of the church.” *

This verse has been often and justly quoted as a proof of
the personality and divinity of the Holy Ghost. If he that
deceiveth or lieth to the Holy Ghost, deceiveth or lieth not

1 Lange’s das apostolische Zeitalter, vol. ii. p. 65.

INTERNAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH.—V. 5. 173

to man, but to God, it is a proof that the Holy Ghost is God.’
In attempting to deceive Peter and the other apostles,
Ananias lied unto men; but in attempting to deceive the
Holy Ghost, he lied unto God."

Ver. 5. The sudden death of Ananias has been variously
understood. Some (Ammon, Heinrichs) suppose that it was
a stroke of apoplexy, brought on by terror and the unex-
pected disclosure of his hypocrisy. But this does not
account for the death of Sapphira, inasmuch as it was
expressly foretold by Peter; and besides, it would suppose
that two persons were equally susceptible to such an unusual
effect of terror. Most German critics (Lange, Olshausen,
Neander, Baumgarten, Lechler) suppose that here the
natural and the supernatural were united ; that the psycho-
logical aspect of the case—the effect which the discovery of
his hypocrisy would have upon Ananias—ought not to be
overlooked. ‘“ When,” observes Neander, “ we reflect what
Peter was in the eyes of Ananias, how the superstitious
hypocrite must have been confounded and thunderstruck to
see his falsehood detected, how the holy denunciations of a
man speaking to his conscience, with such divine confidence,
must have acted on his terrified feelings, we shall not find
it very difficult to conceive how the words of the apostle
would produce so great an effect. The divine and the
natural seem here to have been closely connected.”” But
we do not see how this opinion essentially differs from that
of the Rationalists, that the death was merely a natural
occurrence. The design of the entire narrative (as is
especially seen in the case of Sapphira) is to represent the
death of Ananias as a direct act of God, inflicted on him by
reason of his sin (De Wette, Meyer).

But here arises the question as to Peter’s connection with
the death of Ananias. Were his words an actual sentence
of death, miraculously carried into execution? Meyer
asserts that the sudden death of the two is to be regarded
as a result effected by the will of the apostle, by means of

1 See the excellent remarks of Bengel on this subject.
? Neander’s Planting of the Church, vol. i. p. 28, Bohn’s edition.

a

age

ai

174 COMMENTARY ON THE A&1S OF THE APOSTLES.

the miraculous power residing within him; and that especially
in the case of Sapphira, Peter, without the consciousness
of his will being here an active element, could not have
addressed her as he did without the greatest presumption.’
Others, again, desirous of vindicating Peter from a supposed
charge, assert that all that Peter did in the case of Ananias
was merely to disclose his sin, and in the case of Sapphira
he merely foretold her impending fate (Baumgarten, Lechler).
But although the statement of Meyer is too strongly ex-
pressed, it comes nearer the truth. Peter was here the
organ of the Holy Ghost; his address to both was an actual
sentence of death upon them. It was not indeed Peter who
killed them; God Himself was the direct agent. It is
indeed quite possible that, in the case of Ananias, Peter
himself was taken by surprise when death was the immediate
result of his address; but this will not hold good in the case
of Sapphira, for Peter expressly announced her death:
“Behold, the feet of those who have buried thy husband are
at the door, and shall carry thee out.” Doubtless Peter
would pronounce their doom with sadness; but the burden
was laid upon him, and he could not shrink from performing
the duty. The same apostle who had himself fallen so
deeply as to deny the Lord, was chosen to denounce the
severity of the divine justice.

Ver. 6. "Avaoravtes δὲ οἱ vewtepor—and the young men
arising. These are the same who are called in ver. 10
οἱ νεανίσκοι. Some (Olshausen, Neander, Meyer, Mosheim,
Kuinel, Cook) suppose that these were official servants of
the church, occupying a position similar to that of the
acolytes at a later period. But there is no reason to believe
that such an ecclesiastical order then existed. The only
order as yet mentioned is the apostleship: the deaconship
had not yet been instituted, and the eldership is not men-
tioned until ch. xi. 30. Hence the opinion of those, that the
young men are here mentioned on account of their age, as
being the most suitable to perform such an office, is to be
preferred. So De Wette, Neander, Rothe, Lechler.

1 Meyer, Apostelgeschichte, p. 113, Dritte Auflage.

Gr

INTERNAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH.—V. 7, 8. 17

Συνέστειλαν ad’tov—wound him up. The meaning of the
verb συστέλλειν is doubtful. The common interpretation is
that of the authorized version, where the verb is used in the
sense of περιστέλλειν---ἰο prepare for burial, by washing,
winding up in dead-clothes, etc. Meyer renders it placed
together; and thinks that the young men laid out the
stiffened limbs, in order to carry the body more easily away.
De Wette renders it covered him, and the Vulgate removed
him,—meanings which the word will hardly admit. Καὶ
ἐξενέγκαντες ἔθαψαν ----απὦ having carried him out, buried
him. By reason of their laws concerning the uncleanness
of contact with a dead body (Num. xix. 11), the dead among
the Jews were interred as soon as possible. It is still, in the
East, the frequent custom to bury a person the same day on
which he died, as corruption commences almost immediately
after death, on account of the warmth of the climate.
* Among the present inhabitants of Jerusalem,’ we are
informed, “burial, as a general rule, is not deferred more
than three or four hours.”

Ver. 7. ᾿Εγένετο δὲ ὡς ὡρῶν τριῶν διάστημα---Α πᾶ it came
to pass after an interval of about three hours. Three hours
appear to have elapsed between the departure of the young
men to bury Ananias and their return. This may well have
been the case, as they had to prepare the grave; and parti-
cularly if, as is most probable, the place of sepulture was at
a distance from Jerusalem. The Jews, in general, buried
outside of their cities.

Kai ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ, ete.—His wife came in, not knowing
what had happened. His wife was privy to the fraud, but
was ignorant of her husband’s doom. How she could have ἡ
remained ignorant of such a striking event for three hours
after its occurrence, appears indeed strange; but circum-
stances which we know not might have been the occasion of
it. Perhaps no one had the courage to inform her of the
dreadful fate of her husband.

Ver. 8. ᾿Απεκρίθη δὲ αὐτῇ ὁ Iérpos—And Peter answered
her. Her entrance into the assembly of the saints was
equivalent to her speaking (Bengel). Tell me whether ye

176 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

sold the land for so much? pointing, as Meyer supposes, to
the money still lying before him; or rather, for so much as
Ananias said—for so much as he wished to put into the
common fund.

Ver. 9. Ὁ δὲ Πέτρος πρὸς αὐτήν---Βιιέ Peter said to
her. Peter, as the organ of the Holy Ghost, announces her
doom. As she was a sharer in the guilt of her husband, so
she was also to be a partaker of his punishment. “ Where-
fore have ye concerted together to tempt the Spirit of the
Lord?” He expresses at once his surprise and detestation —
of their attempt to deceive the Holy Ghost. ‘To tempt the
Spirit of the Lord, is to put to the proof whether the Holy
Spirit ruling in the apostles could be deceived. Behold, the
feet of them that buried thy husband are at the door, and shall
carry thee out: either a forcible expression, announcing her
immediate death; or the statement of what was an actual
fact, that the young men who had buried her husband were
now on their return standing outside at the door.

Ver. 10. Ἔπεσε δὲ παραχρῆμα, etc.—And immediately she
fell down at his feet, and expired. As in the case of Ananias,
Sapphira fell down dead immediately after the address of
the apostle. The language of Peter to her will not permit
us to suppose that he was ignorant of the fate that awaited
her; nor will the words allow us to regard her death in
any other light than as a supernatural occurrence.

Ver. 11. Καὶ ἐγένετο φόβος péyas—And great fear came
upon all the church, and upon all who heard these things.
Here we are informed of the effects which these judgments
had upon the church and upon the world. Great fear came
upon all the church: fear of the divine justice, and of the”
punishment which would befall all similar transgressors.
The church is never happier than when the sons of false-
hood are either expelled from it, or deterred from intruding
into it. If its numbers are teas numerous, it is an ample
compensation that its members are purer. Great fear also
came upon all those who heard these things. Those who
were not Christians would be impressed with the idea that
there was something supernatural about the apostles, and

INTERNAL DANGER OF THE CHURCH.—V. 11. LUZ

thus would regard them with religious awe. Without
doubt,” observes Bengel, “ the rulers of the Jews also heard
of these things; and yet they did not institute proceedings
on that account against Peter.”

The punishment inflicted on Ananias and Sapphira has
been often denounced as too severe, and not in accordance
with the merciful spirit of the gospel. Even in the early
ages, Porphyry accused Peter of cruelty, and the Fathers
undertook his defence. The same charge has been repeated
in modern times by De Wette. “ The cruelty,” he observes,
“ formerly charged upon the apostle, and which is especially
shown in this, that the husband was buried quickly, without
the knowledge of his wife, cannot be justified on the ground
that such a warning was necessary. Did Christianity at this
time require such aid? Must the Holy Ghost kill sinners
in the midst of their sins?”* But, as has been well an-
swered, it is not Peter who is here animadverted upon, but
God: God Himself was the direct agent in their deaths ;
Peter was the mere instrument employed. “ The Apostle
Peter,” says St. Jerome, “ by no means calls down death
upon them, as the foolish Porphyry falsely lays to his charge,
but by a prophetic spirit announces the judgment of God,
that the punishment of two persons might be the instruction
of many.”

Still, however, it may be said that this is but shifting the
difficulty. Simon the magician, and Elymas the sorcerer,
were for similar, or even greater, crimes more lightly dealt
with. Miracles of mercy, and not those of judgment, are
more in accordance with the spirit of the gospel. ‘“ As to the
death of Ananias and Sapphira,” observes Dr. Davidson, “ it
is evidently set forth as the miraculous, instantaneous effect
of Peter’s words. This, with the harshness of the divinely
inflicted punishment, which is out of character with the
gospel history, prevents the critic from accepting the fact as
historical—at least in the way it is 014. 5 The following
considerations have to be taken into»account:—l. The sin

1 De Wette’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 56, Dritte Auflage.
* Davidson’s New Introduction, vol. ii. p. 243.
VOL. I. M

͵

118 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

of Ananias, objectively considered, was by no means such
a light crime as it at first sight appears. It was not only a
falsehood, an attempt to deceive the apostles, but a complica-
tion of iniquity. There entered into it vanity and hypocrisy,
covetousness and fraud, impiety and contempt of God. It
was also a deliberate act of wickedness, preconcerted between
him and his wife. 2. We must attend not merely to the
actual sin, but to the person who committed it. Ananias
was a member of the Christian church: he had, in all pro~
bability, with the rest received the Holy Ghost; and hence
he was in the enjoyment of greater privileges, and under
heavier responsibilities, than either Simon or Elymas. A sin
committed by him was more heinous than a similar or greater
sin committed by them (Olshausen: Heb. vi. 4-6). 3. The
sin of Ananias was directly against the Holy Ghost. He
was accused by Peter of deceiving the Holy Ghost. The
Holy Ghost at this time obviously actuated the apostles. In-
deed, there is some ground for the remark of Olshausen:
“Tt almost appears as if the act of Ananias were represented
as a sin against the Holy Ghost, which would explain the
fact that all admonition to repentance, and all mention of
pardon, are wanting. The apostles in this case only exercise
the prerogative of retaining sin.”* 4. But the chief reason
of this severity appears to be, that the sin was committed at
the commencement of Christianity. It was essentially neces-
sary that the purity of Christianity should be protected and
vindicated at its outset. In like manner, at the commence-
ment of the Mosaic dispensation, similar severe punishments
were inflicted. Nadab and Abihu were struck dead for offer-
ing up strange fire; Korah and his company were slain for
opposing Moses and Aaron; and a man was put to death for
gathering sticks on the Sabbath-day. On the entrance of
the Israelites into Canaan, and the establishment of the
worship of Jehovah in that country, Achan was slain for
purloining a Babylonish garment. And therefore it seemed
also fit that the first great offence under the gospel should

1 Olshausen on the Gospels and the Acts, vol. iv. p. 298, Clark’s trans-
lation.

eT Δ, δα μὰ

EXTERNAL PROGRESS OF THE CHURCH.—V. 12. 179

receive an exemplary punishment. This would also most
effectually deter any dishonest and hypocritical persons from
joining the church ; and especially any from doing so merely
for the sake of receiving alms; not to mention that it would
also prevent spies intruding among the disciples.

Vers. 12-16. This is a new paragraph, descriptive of the
progress of the church, but in close connection with the pre-
ceding. These verses are somewhat intricate, and some of
the statements apparently contradictory; and hence various
attempts have been made to render them more perspicuous.
Our English version connects the first part of ver. 12 with
ver. 15, and regards the intervening sentences from καὶ ἦσαν
(ver. 12) to γυναικῶν (ver. 14) as a parenthesis. But this is
at variance with the laws which regulate parentheses among
the Greeks. Lachmann conceives ver. 14 only to be a
parenthesis; but, as Winer observes, the words ὥστε κατὰ
Tas πλατείας ἐκφέρειν τοὺς ἀσθενεῖς are as appropriately
connected with ver. 14 as with ver. 13+ (see note). Others,
again, in defiance of all critical evidence, regard ver. 14 as
an interpolation; and others suggest various unauthorized
transpositions of sentences. The words are to be taken
simply as they are; and there is no necessity to have re-
course to any conjectures in the form of parentheses, emen-
dations, transpositions, or interpolations. ;

Ver. 12. Kai ἦσαν ὁμοθυμαδὸν &rravtes—and they were all
with one accord. It is doubtful who are meant by ἅπαντες.
Some (Baur, Kuincl, Alford, Hackett) suppose that the
apostles only are meant. They are the last mentioned, and
consequently the word all seems naturally to refer to them
as its antecedent. But there is nothing in the Acts to lead
us to suppose that the apostles thus kept themselves aloof
from the other disciples: on the contrary, we are, a few
verses before, informed that all the disciples were of one
heart and of one soul. By ἅπαντες, then, is rather to be
understood the disciples in general, as is the case in ch. il. 1,
where the same words are employed. The objection to this

See Winer’s Grammar of the New Testament, p. 586, Clark’s trans-
lation.

180 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES,

opinion is, that the disciples were now so numerous, that
those in charge of the temple would not permit them to
crowd together in Solomon’s porch. But to this it may be
answered, that, on the one hand, it is not to be understood
absolutely that all the disciples were present at the same
time; and, on the other hand, we are expressly informed
that at this period the people were impressed with a sense of
religious awe toward the disciples, on account of which they
would leave them undisturbed. Perhaps the great number
of the disciples was the very reason why they assembled in
a court so capacious as that of Solomon’s porch. (See note
to Acts iii. 11.)

Ver. 18. Τῶν δὲ Xourav—but of the rest no one presumed
to join himself to them. Different meanings have been attached
to τῶν λοιπῶν. According to some (Baur, Lightfoot, and
others), believers are meant: “none of the rest of the dis-
ciples ventured to equal themselves to the apostles :” they
kept at a distance from them, regarding them as superhuman.
But this opinion gives an evidently erroneous view of the re-
lation between the apostles and the church; and besides, the
verb κολλάω does not mean to equal or compare with, but to
associate or unite with. Others (Kuincel, Alford) understand
the rest who were in Solomon’s porch to be partly believers
and partly unbelievers; but this opinion depends upon under-
standing ἅπαντες of the previous verse to denote the apostles
exclusively. Others render it, “ none of their enemies dare
attack them,”—a meaning which κολλᾶσθαι cannot bear.
Others restrict the expression to the rich and noble, that
they were terrified by the judgment inflicted on Ananias, -
who belonged to their class; but this is an arbitrary suppo-
sition. If by ἅπαντες of ver. 12 is to be understood believers
generally, then by τῶν λουπῶν, as contrasted with them, is
to be understood unbelievers (Bengel, Meyer, De Wette,
Lechler). The meaning seems to be, that none of the rest
of the people ventured on false pretences to unite themselves
to the church: by the death of Ananias, an effectual stop
was put to hypocrisy for a time.

Ver. 14. Μῶλλον δὲ προσετίθεντο, etc.—but believers were

EXTERNAL PROGRESS OF THE CHURCH.—V. 15, 16. 181

the more added to the Lord. The construction admits of τῷ
Κυρίῳ being united to mictedovtes—believers in the Lord
were the more added; but ch. xi. 24 decides for its union with
προσετίθεντο (Meyer). By τῷ Κυρίῳ here is evidently meant
Christ. The salutary fear of hypocrisy did not cause any
temporary pause in the diffusion of the gospel: on the con-
trary, multitudes, impressed with its truth, were converted.
It was a season of sifting: the gospel repelled some, and
attracted others.

Vers. 15, 16. These verses record the miracles which were
performed by the apostles, and especially by Peter. ἽΩστε---
so that. ‘“ From the two facts, that the apostles were held in
estimation, and the number of believers had increased, it is
to be understood why the sick should have been brought out
into the streets” (Winer). Stress is here laid upon the faith
of those who applied for healing. In the case of the lame
man, faith was subsequent to the miracle: here it preceded.
Κατὰ tas mwdatelas—along the streets; 1.6.7 the sick were
carried out from their houses to the streets. Κἄν (καὶ édv)—
af at least. The expression is rhetorical : the sick were anxious
that something belonging to Peter might touch them, even
if it were only his shadow. To πλῆθος τῶν πέριξ πόλεων---
multitudes from the neighbouring cities. Such was the fame
of the miracles, that many from the cities adjoining Jeru-
salem brought their sick, and they were all healed.

The special difficulty connected with these verses is, that
Peter’s shadow is said to have effected miraculous cures. To
this it is replied, that this was only the opinion of the people,
and that Luke does not assert that the cures were effected
by the shadow. But still it must be confessed that the
impression which the words convey is, that the people not
only sought for cures in this manner, but that these cures
were actually wrought. There are analogous instances re-
corded in the evangelical history: as when the woman with
the issue of blood was cured by the mere touch of the
Saviour’s garment (Matt. ix. 21, 22); and when cures were
effected by handkerchiefs and aprons taken from the body
of Paul (Acts xix. 12). The remarks of Lange on this

182 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

subject are judicious: ‘To the shadow of Peter,” he observes,
“a healing virtue is plainly ascribed for all the sick on whom
it rested. But it is evident, first, that here only those are
spoken of who had faith in the miraculous powers of the
apostles ; secondly, it is only mentioned as the opinion of the
favourably disposed among the people, that even the shadow
of Peter could heal; thirdly, it is indicated by the very form
of the expression that they sought the laying on of Peter’s
hands, but that in case of necessity they would be content
with his shadow overshadowing them; not to mention that
there is something figurative in this expression, which points
out the fact that the sick expected a cure from every contact
with Peter.”?

It is evident that in the early part of the Acts, and espe-—
cially in this passage, a pre-eminence is given to Peter.” Here
the other apostles sink into the shade; and Peter is brought
forward as working miracles, so much so that a miraculous
virtue is ascribed, whether in the mere opinion of the people :
or in truth, to his shadow. We do not see how this pre-
eminence can be denied; and certainly we must not permit
ourselves, from dogmatic views on the subject, to attempt to
explain it away.

1 Lange’s das Apostolische Zeitalter, vol. ii. p. 67.
2 See note to Acts i. 15.

SECTION X.
SECOND ARREST OF THE APOSTLES.—Acts v. 17-42.

17 Then the high priest arose, and all who were with him, which is
the sect of the Sadducees, and were filled with zeal; 18 And they laid
hands on the apostles, and put them in the public prison. 19 But an
angel of the Lord by night, having opened the doors of the prison, and
brought them forth, said, 20 ““ Go, and standing, speak in the temple
to the people all the words of this life.” 21 And when they heard that,
they entered into the temple at the dawn of day, and taught. But the
high priest having arrived, and they who were with him, summoned the
Sanhedrim, and all the eldership of the children of Israel; and they
sent to the prison to have them brought. 22 But the officers, when
they came, found them not in the prison; and returning, brought infor-
mation, 23 Saying, The prison we found shut in all security, and the
keepers standing at the doors; but when we had opened, we found no
man within. 24 But when the priest and the captain of the temple and
the chief priests heard these words, they were in perplexity concerning
them, what this thing would become. 25 Then came one and informed
them, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are in the temple stand-
ing, and teaching the people. 26 Then the captain with the officers
went, and brought them without violence: for they feared the people,
lest they should be stoned. 27 And when they had brought them, they
set them before the Sanhedrim: and the high priest asked them, saying,
28 ‘‘ We have strictly commanded you not to teach in this name; and
behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring
upon us the blood of this man.” 29 Then Peter and the apostles
answering, said, ‘‘ We ought to obey God rather than men. 30 The God
of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, having hanged Him on a
tree. 31 Him has God exalted by His right hand as a Prince and a
Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32 And
we are His witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost,
whom God has given to those who obey Him.” 33 When they heard
this, they were enraged, and took counsel to slay them. 34 Then there
stood up in the Sanhedrim a certain Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor
of the law, honourable among all the people, and commanded to put the

183

184 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

men out for a little; 385 And said to them, ‘‘ Ye men of Israel, take
heed to yourselves, with respect to these men, what ye intend to do.
36 For before these days arose Theudas, saying that he was somebody ;
to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who
was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought
to nothing. 37 After this man arose Judas the Galilean in the days of
the enrolment, and drew away people after him: he also perished; and
all, as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. 88 And now I say to you,
Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this
work be of men, it will be overthrown: 39 But if it is of God, ye will
not be able to overthrow them, lest ye be found even to fight against
God.” 40 And they were persuaded by him; and when they had called
the apostles, and scourged them, they commanded that they should not
speak in the name of Jesus, and released them. 41 And they departed
from the presence of the Sanhedrim, rejoicing that they were counted
worthy to suffer shame for the name. 42 And daily in the temple, and
from house to house, they ceased not to teach and to preach Jesus the
Christ..

CRITICAL NOTES.

Ver. 18. Αὐτῶν after χεῖρας, contained in E, is wanting in
A, B, D, δὰ, and is omitted by all the modern critics. Ver.
23. "E£&w is considered as a spurious addition: it is omitted
in all the best Mss. ᾿Επί is attested by A, B, D, x, and is
preferred by Meyer, Lachmann, and Tischendorf to πρό,
found in E. Ver. 24."O τε ἱερεὺς καί is omitted in A, B, D,x,
and erased by Lachmann and Bornemann; but on account
of the difficulty of understanding it, its omission may be
accounted for, and hence it is retained by Tischendorf and
Meyer: Εἰ has οἱ ἱερεῖς. Ver. 28. Ov is wanting in A, B, x,
and several of the most important versions, and is rejected
by Lachmann and Tischendorf: it is found in D, E. Ver.
84. Τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, A, B, δὲ, is preferred by Tischendorf
and Lachmann to τοὺς ἀποστόλους, D, E, H. Ver. 37.
‘Ixavov, E, H, is wanting in A, B, 8, and is erased by Lach-
mann and Tischendorf; C and D have πολύν. Ver. 39.
Αὐτούς is attested by all the best mss. and versions, whilst
αὐτό is weakly attested. Ver. 41. Tod ὀνόματος without
αὐτοῦ is by all the best critics regarded as the correct
reading.

SECOND ARREST OF THE APOSTLES.—V 17-19. 185

EXEGETICAL REMARKS.

Ver. 17. ‘O ἀρχιερεὺς. Here in all probability Annas is
meant, in accordance with ch. iv, 6, although Caiaphas was
nominally the high priest. Ka’ πάντες οἱ σὺν a’t@—and
all who were with him; 1.6... not who were members of the
Sanhedrim along with him, but who were united with him
in this hostile attack upon the Christians. These belonged
to the Sadducean faction. This sect, as Josephus informs
us, numbered among its members the most influential among
the Jews. It is not indeed precisely said that Annas him-
self was a Sadducee; and accordingly some suppose that he
merely united on this occasion with the Sadducees in a
common object to oppose Christianity, as formerly Herod
and Pilate united against Christ. But certainly the most
natural meaning is, that he himself belonged to this sect ;
and Josephus informs us that one of his sons was a Sad-
ducee. “The younger Ananus,” he observes, “ who took
the high-priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very
insolent : he was also of the sect of the Sadducees” (Ant.
xx. 9.1). The Sadducees would be the most ready to exert
themselves in persecuting the apostles, as they were most
exasperated against their doctrine, which was in direct
opposition to the opinions they maintained.

Ver. 18. “Ev τηρήσει Snwocig—in the public prison. The
Sadducean faction of the Sanhedrim made another attempt
to crush Christianity. They arrested the apostles—that is,
Peter, and others of them, as leaders of the Christians—and
put them in the public prison.

Ver. 19. "Ἄγγελος δὲ Κυρίου, ete.—But an angel of the
Lord by night opened the doors of the prison. ‘These words
do not admit of any rationalistic explanations: as that a
peal of thunder or an earthquake opened the doors, or that
some secret friend—perhaps the jailor himself, or a zealous
Christian—brought them out of prison (Thiess, Kichhorn,
Heinrichs). Neander and Meyer, on the other hand, sup-
pose here a mythical embellishment. “The fact of a re-
lease,” observes Neander, “by a special divine guidance to

186 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

us unknown, became involuntarily transferred into the ap-
pearance of an angel of the Lord.”* Baur and Zeller con-
clude from the circumstance of the angelic interference,
that the whole occurrence is unhistorical. All these are
attempts to get rid of the miraculous in the narrative. The
deliverance of the apostles at this time was similar to the
deliverance of Peter on a subsequent occasion. Nor was it,
as Baur objects, useless, as the apostles were immediately
afterwards arrested; because it evidently filled their enemies
with perplexity, and themselves with boldness and confidence
in Christ.

Ver. 20. Πάντα τὰ ῥήματα τῆς ζωῆς tavtys—all the words
of this life. This expression is singular; as throughout
Scripture “this life” is opposed to “the life to come” (1
Cor. xv. 19), whereas here no such opposition can be under-
stood. Accordingly it is generally thought that the figure
of speech called by grammarians a hypallage, is here em-
ployed; and that the words are used for ῥήματα ταῦτα τῆς
fwis—these words of life (Winer, Bengel, Kuincl). Others
put stress upon them, as being spoken by an angel, a being
from heaven : the life which he himself enjoyed (Olshausen).
Others as if they were spoken in opposition to the Saddu-
cees: of this life which the Sadducees deny (Lightfoot).
But the most correct meaning is, the words of this life which
the apostles taught—the eternal life which the Messiah came
to reveal (Meyer, Lechler).

Ver. 21. Συνεκάλεσαν τὸ Svvédpcov—summoned the San-
hedrim. The Sanhedrim was the supreme council of the
Jewish nation, and especially legislated upon their religious
matters. Although the Romans had deprived it of the power
of life and death, still they recognised its authority; and
among the Jews its decisions were held sacred, and beyond
appeal. (See a former note on the Jewish Sanhedrim.)

Καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γερουσίαν τῶν υἱῶν ᾿Ισραήλ---απὰ all the
eldership of the children of Israel. Τερουσία signifies a
council of elders, a senate, the eldership. The word only
occurs here in the New Testament. Some suppose that, in

1 Neander’s Planting, vol. ii. p. 71, Bohn’s edition.

SECOND ARREST OF THE APOSTLES.—V. 23, 24. 187

consequence of the importance of the occasion, not only the
elders who were members of the Sanhedrim, but the whole
college of elders, were summoned to assist in deliberation
(Stier, Meyer). But the existence of such a college of
elders is doubtful. It is best to understand the expression
as pleonastic: “the Sanhedrim, that is, the whole eldership
of the children of Israel.” Γηρουσία τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων is the
phrase employed in the Apocrypha to denote the Jewish
council, and which is supposed to be identical with the
Sanhedrim * (2 Mace. i. 10, iv. 44).

Ver. 23. Ἐν πάσῃ ἀσφαλείᾳ: not, as Luther renders it,
mit allem Fleiss ; or the Vulgate, eum omni diligentiad ; but,
in all security.

Ver. 24. "O icpeds—the priest. (See critical note.) The
priest by way of eminence, or the already designated priest ;
that is, the high priest, namely Annas. The word does not
in itself imply the high priest; but this meaning is derived
from the context. (See 1 Macc. xv. 1; Heb. v. 5, 6.) ‘O
στρατηγὺὸς τοῦ icpod—the captain of the temple. The captain
of the temple was, as we have formerly remarked, the Jewish
priest in command of the temple guard. Οἱ dpytepets—the
chief priests. These are generally supposed to have been the
former high priests, and the heads of the twenty-four priestly
courses. Perhaps they are the same who are called in ch.
iv. 6, ὅσοι ἐκ γένους ἀρχιερατικοῦ. At this period the San-
hedrim appears to have been an aristocracy. It was, how-
ever, divided into two factions: the Sadducees, who were
probably under the leadership of Annas; and the Pharisees,
who appear to have been led by Gamaliel. Asnmépovv περὶ
avtav—they were in perplexity concerning them. Αὐτῶν, not
neuter, concerning these things; but masculine, concerning
them,—namely, the apostles. The extraordinary deliverance
out of prison, even although they might have been ignorant
of the angelic interference, filled them with consternation.
The Sanhedrim was thus, instead of being prepared to adopt
strong measures, thrown into a state of helpless perplexity.
As St. Chrysostom observes: “Truly this makes good that

1 So also ἡ γερουσία τοῦ ἔθνους, 1 Mace. xii. 6.

188 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

proverb, ‘ Evil do, evil fare” as we may see in this case.
Here were these men in bonds, set at the bar of judgment,
and the men that sit in judgment upon them were in distress
and helpless perplexity. For as he who strikes a blow upon
adamant gets the shock of the blow himself, so it was with
these men.”?

Ver. 26. ᾿Εφοβοῦτο yap τὸν Aaov—for they feared the
people. The multitude were at this time so strongly in
favour of the apostles, that they showed symptoms of stoning
the captain of the temple and his officers; which, however,
was without doubt prevented by the apostles voluntarily sur-
rendering themselves. This was a surprising change which
had come over the people, considering the eagerness with
which they had demanded the crucifixion of Christ. Pro-
bably the numerous blessings which the apostles had con-
ferred by the healing of the sick, their disinterested love
toward each other as displayed in the community of goods,
as well as their recent deliverance out of prison, had com-
bined to impress the multitude in their favour. The Phari-
sees also, the popular faction, were for the present neutral.
The lapse of a few months, however, gave another illustration
of the proverbial fickleness of popular favour. The dis-
appointment of popular expectations converted in the case of
the apostles, as in the case of their Master, popular favour
into popular animosity.

Ver. 28. Πεπληρώκατε τὴν “Ἱερουσαλὴμ ... τούτου--- Ye
have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring
upon us the blood of this man. The meaning of this charge
may be: You would lay the responsibility of his death upon
us, as if he were an innocent person, and we were his
murderers. Or perhaps rather the apostles are here charged
with exciting the multitude against the Sanhedrim: You
would incense the populace against us, as if he were an
innocent person whom we had murdered. So Meyer: “Ye
would cause the blood of this man to be avenged on us by an
insurrection of the people.”’ If the first meaning be the

1 Chrysostom’s Homilies on the Acts, Hom. xiii.
2 Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 123.

SECOND ARREST OF THE APOSTLES.—YV. 29-31. 189

sense of the passage, then the accusation was true; for the
apostles directly charged the Sanhedrim with being the
murderers of their Messiah. But if the second meaning
be correct, then nothing could be more false; for although
the apostles refused to obey the command of their rulers
to preach no more in the name of Jesus, yet they passively
submitted to whatever punishment was inflicted upon them
on account of their disobedience.

Ver. 29. ᾿Αποκριθεὶς δὲ Πέτρος, ete.—Then Peter and the
apostles answered. Peter here again speaks in the name of
the apostles. He has recourse to his former reply, that God
ought to be obeyed rather than man (ch. iv. 19); only he
states it with greater confidence at the commencement of his
answer, and as a maxim of universal application.

Ver. 30. Peter here applies the maxim to the particular
case. ὋὉ Θεὸς τῶν πατέρων tuav—the God of our fathers,
and therefore to whom obedience must be universal and unre-
served (comp. ch. iii. 13). Ἤσγειρεν Inootv—raised up Jesus.
Some refer this to the resurrection from the dead, as the sen-
tence which succeeds contains a contrast to it, and the exal-
tation of Jesus afterwards follows (Erasmus, Meyer). But
then ἐκ νεκρῶν would have to be supplied ; besides, the idea
of the resurrection is involved in that of the exaltation, and
the sentences seem to form a sequence in point of time—
raised up, slain, exalted. Hence, then, the phrase signifies
raised up, as the Sent of God (Calvin, Bengel, De Wette,
Lechler). See note to ch. iii. 26. Κρεμάσαντες ἐπὶ ξύλου
—having hanged Him on a tree. The cross is here designedly
so called ; because, according to the Jewish law, being hanged
on a tree was esteemed an accursed death (Gal. iii. 13). The
boldness of Peter is here very remarkable, when contrasted
with his former timidity in the house of Caiaphas: there he
denied his Master with oaths and curses; but here he accuses
the chief priests and elders with being the murderers of their
Messiah.

Ver. 31. "Apynyov καὶ σωτῆρα--α Prince and a Saviour.
See note to Acts iii. 15. There is no necessity, as Kuinel
supposes, to change the meaning of ἀρχηγός. The leading

190 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

idea is, that Christ is the founder or beginner of salvation.
It is not, however, to be translated ἀρχηγὸς τῆς σωτηρίας---
the author of salvation (Heinrichs). As a Prince, Christ
bestows repentance to Israel; and as a Saviour, He gives
forgiveness of sins. Τῇ δεξιᾷ avtot—not to His right hand
(Hackett, Wordsworth), but by His right hand. See note to
ch. ii. 88. Aodvar μετάνοιαν τῷ ᾿Ισραὴλ---ἰο give repentance
to Israel. This does not mean to give place or room for
repentance—to open up a way of access to God; so that
through means of Christ’s death the forgiveness of sins might
be conferred on all who truly repent. But it means that
repentance itself is the gift of God, in the same sense as
forgiveness is.

Ver. 82. Αὐτοῦ paptvpes—either witnesses of Him, or
better, His witnesses. Τῶν ῥημάτων tovtwv—literally, of
these sayings, namely the death and exaltation of Christ;
consequently to be translated, of these things. The apostles
were the eye-witnesses of them ; to witness was their peculiar
province. Καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα δὲ τὸ &ytov—and so is also the
Holy Ghost. Two classes of witnesses are mentioned as dis-
tinct from each other, the apostles and the Holy Ghost. By
the witness of the Holy Ghost is meant, not so much His ~
ruling in the apostles, or His being conferred on those who
believe, because such a testimony is borne rather to believers
than to unbelievers; but the miracles which the apostles per-
formed through the power of the Holy Ghost, and which
miracles were the divine credentials of their mission.

Ver. 33. Διεπρίοντο --- they were enraged ; literally, they
were sawn through, or asunder; hence dissecabantur (Vul-
gate). A figurative expression for being greatly enraged,
exasperated. Compare διεπρίοντο ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν (ch.
vil. 54). "EH BovAevovto—they took counsel : that is, they pro-
posed to pass sentence of death upon them; which sentence,
however, could be only carried into effect a the pene
of the Roman government.

Ver. 34. Gamaliel is described by Luke as a member of
the Sanhedrim, a Pharisee, a doctor of the law, and one who
was had in reputation among all the people. We are also

SECOND ARREST OF THE APOSTLES.—V. 34. 191

elsewhere informed that he was the preceptor of Paul (Acts
xxii. 8). There are two celebrated men of this name known
in Jewish history. The first of them, or Gamaliel the elder,
flourished at this period, and is almost universally acknow-
ledged to be the person here mentioned. He was the son of
the Rabbi Simeon, whom some, on doubtful grounds, sup-
pose to be the same who took the infant Jesus in his arms εὖ
and the grandson of the celebrated Hillel, the founder of one
of the rabbinical schools. The Jewish writers concur with
the sacred historian in testifying to the estimation in which
this remarkable man was held, not only by the learned, but
by the common people. He was called the “ Beauty of the
law ;” and it is a saying in the Talmud, that “since Rabban
Gamaliel died, the glory of the law hath ceased.” He
was not, however, as some suppose, the president of the
Sanhedrim. Luke merely describes him as “one in the
Sanhedrim.” Although a Pharisee, he was, we are in-
formed, liberal in his views, and addicted to the study of
Greek philosophy. He died eighteen years before the de-
struction of Jerusalem, and retained his popularity to the
last. He was held in such estimation among the Jews, that
seventy pounds weight of perfumes were burned αὐ his
funeral.”

According to ecclesiastical traditions, Gamaliel became a
Christian, and was baptized, along with his son Abib and
Nicodemus, by Peter and John (Photius, Cod. 171). The
Clementine [Recognitions assert that he was at this time a
Christian, and by the advice of the apostles remained in the
Sanhedrim to act as a spy upon its proceedings. Peter, in
this work, is represented as saying: “ Which when Gama-
liel saw, who was a person of influence among the people,

1 The only reason advanced is, that these two Simeons probably lived
at the same time.

2 Josephus mentions Jesus the son of Gamaliel as high priest shortly
before the Jewish war (Ant. xx. 10. 7); and Simeon, another son of
Gamaliel, who took an active part in opposition to the faction of the
Zealots (Bell. Jud. iv. 3.9). The latter is also mentioned by Jewish
writers, and is said to have perished in the siege of J erusalem (Light-
foot).

192 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

but secretly our brother in the faith, and with our privity
among them” (Recognit. Clem. i. 65). We are also informed
that, four centuries afterwards, his body was miraculously
discovered with that of the martyr Stephen. All these are
idle traditions, without any authority. There is nothing in
the counsel of Gamaliel to lead us to suspect that he was a
Christian : his words are merely the language of a tolerant
and sagacious man. The Jewish accounts, that he died a
Pharisee, are without doubt correct.

The moderation and prudence of Gamaliel’s disposition
may have inclined him to favour the Christians; but per-
haps also his pharisaical principles induced him. He seems
to have been the leader of the party of the Pharisees in the
council; and at this time the Sadducees were the chief
opponents of the apostles. The preaching of the resurrec-
tion, which was the great cause of offence to the Sadducees,
would be a recommendation to the Pharisees. And when
we consider the hostile feelings which were between these
two sects, we are not to wonder that at this time the Chris-
tians should be to some extent favoured by the Pharisees.
Afterwards, however, when Christianity, in the person of
Stephen, manifested its anti-pharisaical principles, the for-
bearance of that sect no longer continued; and we find Saul
of Tarsus, a Pharisee and a disciple of Gamaliel, among the
bitterest persecutors of the Christians, There is extant “a
prayer against heretics,” aimed against the Christians, said
to have been either composed or sanctioned by Gamaliel ;
which, if genuine, is however not inconsistent with the
character here given of Gamaliel, as the progress of Chris-
tianity, and especially the evolution of its anti-pharisaical
tendencies, would necessarily modify the views of such a
strict Pharisee as Gamaliel, and cause him to regard believers
as heretics.’

Ver. 35. Gamaliel here warns the Sanhedrim against
adopting violent measures toward the apostles. He tells

1 Lightfoot’s Horx Hebraice, vol. iv. p. 53—Maimonides. This prayer

is given in Horne’s Introduction to the Scriptures, 9th edition, vol. iii.
pp. 278, 274.

SECOND ARREST OF THE APOSTLES.—V.: 36. 193

them to let the matter alone: and that it will either, if of
human origin, come to nothing of itself without their inter-
ference ; or, if of divine origin, that no opposition of theirs
will prevail against it. But before stating this maxim, he
first enforces the principle of non-interference by the examples
of two political agitators, whose enterprises came to nothing,
without any interference on the part of the Sanhedrim.

Ver. 36. Πρὸ τούτων τῶν iywepav—before these days; 1.6.
not long ago—in the memory of some of you. “He does
not recount ancient: histories, although he might have done
so, but more recent instances, which are most powerful to
produce belief” (Chrysostom). ’Avéots Ocevdas — arose
Theudas. This example is quoted by Eusebius in his His-
tory, who compares the Theudas of Luke with the Theudas
of Josephus (Kuseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 11). Aéyov εἶναι twa
éavtov—saying that he was somebody; that is, a person of
consequence—perhaps a prophet, or the Messiah.

We now come to the consideration of a great difficulty : an
apparent discrepancy between this account of Theudas given
us by Luke, and the account given us by Josephus. There
is a Theudas mentioned by Josephus, whose history agrees
with that here stated of Theudas by Luke, but with an entire
and irreconcilable difference in point of time. The account
given by Josephus is as follows: “Now it came to pass,
while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magi-
cian, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great company
of people to take their effects with them, and follow him to
the river Jordan; for he told them that he was a prophet,
and that he would, by his own command, divide the river
and afford them an easy passage over it: and many were
deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit
them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent
a troop of horsemen against them, who, falling upon them
unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them
alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head,
and carried it to Jerusalem.”* This narrative agrees with
the account given by Luke. Theudas gave himself out to

1 Joseph. Ant. xx. 5. 1.
VOL. I. N

194 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. ‘

be a person of consequence: the Theudas of Josephus
called himself a prophet. Theudas was slain, and his fol-
lowers dispersed; according to Josephus, Cuspius Fadus
dispersed the rebels, whilst Theudas himself was slain, and
his head brought to Jerusalem. The only difference in the
accounts is, that the Theudas of Luke had only about four
hundred followers; whereas the Theudas of Josephus per-
suaded a great company of people (τὸν πλεῖστον ὄχλον) to
follow him. But whilst there is this agreement in par-
ticulars, there is an entire disagreement in point of time.
The Theudas of Josephus lived in the reign of Claudius,
when Cuspius Fadus was procurator of Judea, about ten
years after Gamaliel made his speech. It is also to be
observed that, according to Gamaliel, Theudas appeared
before Judas the Galilean, who arose immediately after the
dethronement of Archelaus in the reign of Augustus: so
that a period of about forty years intervened between the
Theudas of Luke and the Theudas of Josephus.

One class of critics (Wetstein, De Wette, Meyer) suppose
an anachronism on the part of Luke. Luke, they assert,
or the unknown author of the source of his information, in
the account of the speech of Gamaliel, puts a proleptical
mistake into his mouth. This, it is supposed, would occur
the more easily, as the speech must have been handed down
by tradition; and it is more probable that Luke has erred,
who was at a distance from the scene of the history, than
Josephus, in whose lifetime the event occurred. But it is
extremely improbable that Luke should have committed such
a gross error as a mistake of forty years, especially as he was
an intimate companion of Paul, a disciple of Gamaliel, who
could not be unacquainted with the celebrated speech which
his master made on this occasion; not to urge the unim-
peachable accuracy of Luke on other occasions.

Another class of critics (Michaelis, Lightfoot, Jahn, Du
Veil) have sought for a solution in an opposite direction, and
suppose that Josephus is in error. Josephus, it is observed,
frequently commits chronological mistakes; and as he was
only nine years of age when Cuspius Fadus left the govern-

SECOND ARREST OF THE APOSTLES.—V. 36. 195

ment of Judea, it is by no means improbable that he has
confused names and periods. ‘Grant only,” observes Light-
foot, “that Josephus might slip in his chronology, and there
is no difficulty in the matter. Nor do I see why we should
give so much deference to Josephus in this matter, as to take
so much pains in vindicating his care and skill in it. We
must, forsooth, find out some other Theudas, or change the
stops in the verses, or invent some other plaster for the
sore, rather than Josephus should be charged with the least
mistake; to whom yet, both in history and chronology, it is
no unusual thing to trip or go out of the road of truth. I
would therefore think that the Theudas in Josephus is the
same mentioned by Gamaliel; only that the historian was
mistaken in his account of time, and so defaced a true story
by a false chronology.”' But this is a violent solution of the
difficulty. Josephus is exact in the determination of time,
and circumstantial in the details of the occurrence: so that
a mistake on his part is improbable.

Calvin supposes that there is no discrepancy at all; and
that the speech of Gamaliel occurred after the revolt of
Theudas, as recorded by Josephus: that whereas Luke
seems to place the revolt of Judas of Galilee after the revolt
of Theudas, he proposes to translate the words μετὰ τοῦτον,
moreover or besides: and that Gamaliel, in bringing forward
two examples, puts the one before the other, without respect
of time.” But such a solution is entirely at variance with
the chronology of Scripture. The speech of Gamaliel must
have taken place in the reign of Tiberius, and therefore ten
years before the revolt of the Theudas of Josephus, which
occurred in the reign of Claudius.

Various attempts have been made to identify the Theudas
of Luke with other insurgents who lived shortly before
Judas the Galilean, either toward the close of the reign of
Herod the Great, or during the reign of his son Archelaus,
and who are mentioned by Josephus. Thus Sonntag en-
deayours to identify him with Simon, who at the death of

1 Lightfoot’s Hore Hebraice et Talmudice, vol. iv. p. 54.
2 Calvin on Acts v. 35.

196 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

Herod attempted to be king (Ant. xvii. 10. 6, Bell. Jud.
ii. 4. 2); because there is a similarity in the particulars of
this revolt with those mentioned by Luke concerning the
insurrection of Theudas. This opinion is adopted by no
less an authority than Ewald.’ Wieseler supposes him to be
the same with Matthias the lawyer, who, along with Judas
the son of Saripheus, broke in pieces the Roman eagle placed
over the gate of the temple (Ant. xvii. 6. 2); but the only
argument which he adduces is the similarity in the meaning
of the names.” This opinion is also embraced by Lange.
Archbishop Usher, Whiston, and others, suppose that Judas
the son of Hezekias is meant, who after the death of Herod
seized upon the palace of Sepphoris in Galilee (Ant. xvii.
10. 5); as the names Theudas, Thaddeus, and Judas are
all similar. And Zuschlag supposes that Theudion is meant,
who was implicated in an attempt to poison Herod (Joseph.
Ant. xvii. 4, 2). All these opinions are mere conjectures,
supported by reasons which are by no means conclusive. As
Winer remarks, “striving to know more than can be known,
has produced only vague conjectures.”

There is another solution which, although also a conjecture,
is, we think, supported by better arguments than any of the
above, and entitled to more consideration. It is supposed
that there were two insurgents called Theudas: the one
the Theudas of Luke, who lived in the reign of Augustus ;
and the other the Theudas of Josephus, who lived in the
reion of Claudius. This opinion is adopted by Beza,
Grotius, Hammond, Lardner, Whitby, Heinrichs, Kuinel,
Bengel, Guericke, Winer, Ebrard, Olshausen, Wordsworth,
and others. The following are the reasons by which this
opinion is supported:—1. The name Theudas, as Lightfoot
in his Hore Hebraice shows, was not an uncommon name
among the Jews; and therefore it is not improbable that,
among so many insurgents, two should be named Theudas.
2. Especially as, among the insurgents mentioned by
Josephus, several of them possessed the same name: there

1 Ewald’s Geschichte des Apostolischen Zeitalters, p. 532.
2 Wieseler’s Synopsis, p. 103.

SECOND ARREST OF THE APOSTLES.—V. 37. 197

are four named Simon, who followed each other within forty
years; and three named Judas within ten years. 3. At
the death of Herod the Great there were numerous insur-
gents. Josephus mentions three of them by name; but he
also observes: “At this time there were great disturbances
in the country; and the opportunity that now offered itself
induced a great many to set up for kings.” “Judea was at
this time full of robberies; and as the several companies of
the seditious lighted upon any one to lead them, he was
created a king forthwith” (Bell. Jud. ii. 4. 1, Ant. xvii. 10. 8).
Hence it appears that there were many insurgents unnamed
by Josephus, and one of these might have been the Theudas
of Luke. To these reasons it is objected that it is impro-
bable that two persons of the same name should make
similar pretensions, and have a similar fate. But to this it
is replied that these particulars are general, and suit several
of the rebels mentioned by Josephus.

Ver. 37. As there is a difference between the accounts of
Luke and Josephus concerning Theudas, so there is an
agreement in their accounts concerning Judas the Galilean.
He was the most celebrated of the Jewish demagogues, and
is frequently mentioned by Josephus (Ant. xviii. 1. 1-6, xx.
5.2; Bell. Jud. ii. 8.1, 11. 17.7). In one place he is said
to be a native of Gamala; but elsewhere he is called, as by
Luke, Judas the Galilean. Josephus styles him the author
of a fourth Jewish sect, although his followers did not neces-
sarily differ in opinion from the Pharisees. His political
doctrine was, that God was the only ruler of their nation,
and that consequently it was sinful to pay tribute to Czsar.
When Quirinus, the governor of Syria, caused an enrolment
with a view to taxation, he exhorted the nation to assert
their liberty, and prevailed with many to revolt. His fate
is not mentioned by Josephus, but Luke here informs us
that he perished. Although his followers were dispersed and
himself slain, yet the faction was not destroyed; for he is
considered to have been the founder of the political faction of
the Zealots. Two of his sons, James and Simon, were after-
wards taken and crucified by Tiberius Alexander, the successor

198 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

of Fadus (Ané. xx. 8.2); and a third son, named Menahem,
caused great disturbances shortly before the Jewish war,
and was also put to death (Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 8).

Ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς arroypapis—in the days of the enrol-
ment. The enrolment here mentioned is that which took
place when Quirinus was governor of Syria, and Coponius the
procurator of Judea—after the dethronement of Archelaus,
when Judea was converted into a Roman province. It was
in consequence of this enrolment that Judas the Galilean
revolted (Ant. xviii. 1.1). This enrolment is different from
that mentioned in Luke’s Gospel (Luke ii. 2), and occurred
about seven years later. The enrolment mentioned in the
Gospel was a census of the population; the enrolment here
alluded to was with a view to taxation, and to the conver-
sion of Judea into a Roman province.

Vers. 38, 39. These verses contain the counsel of Gamaliel.
It is the principle of toleration. Abstain from punishing
these men: if their work is of human origin, it will come
to nothing of itself, without our interference ; but if of divine
origin, no power of ours will overthrow it, but we will be
found even to fight against God. Meyer supposes, from the
different construction of the two clauses containing these
alternatives—the former being in the subjunctive (ἐὰν 7—
if it be), and the latter in the indicative (εἰ ἐστιν ---ὐῦ it is)—
that in the opinion of Gamaliel the latter alternative, or the
divine origin of Christianity, was the more probable." But
this seems to strain the words. Gamaliel states the alter-
native, without giving any opinion—as if the matter was
in dubio.

This celebrated counsel of Gamaliel has been variously esti-
mated. Some have judged it harshly, as if Gamaliel meant
that success was the great criterion of truth (Schrader), But
as applied to religious matters, it is in reality the great prin-
ciple of toleration—that men are not to be punished for their
religious opinions. It does not imply that other means might
not be used, such as arguments, persuasions, etc., to convince
the apostles ; but merely that the Sanhedrim should abstain

1 Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 130.

SECOND ARREST OF THE APOSTLES.—V. 40, 41. 199

from civil penalties. As Neander well observes: “ On the
one hand, Gamaliel had a clear perception of the fact that
all fanatical movements are generally rendered more violent
by opposition ; and that what in itself is insignificant, is often
raised into importance by forcible attempts to suppress it.
On the other hand, the manner in which the apostles spoke
and acted made some impression on a man not wholly pre-
judiced ; while their strict observance of the law, and hostile
attitude toward Sadduceeism, must have disposed him more
strongly in their favour; and hence the thought might arise
in his mind, that after all there was something divine in the
cause they advocated.”

The maxim upon which the counsel of Gamaliel is grounded
has been applied to the propagation of Christianity, and has
been esteemed an argument in favour of its divine origin.
The counsel of the apostles has not been overthrown ; there-
fore it is not a human contrivance, but of divine origin.
The argument, however, is precarious. Mere success is no
test of truth, otherwise Mohammedanism is of God. It is
only when the success of any religion cannot be accounted
for by human causes, that we are entitled to have recourse
to divine interposition.

Ver. 40. The Sanhedrim were persuaded by the argument
of Gamaliel, to which result his influence contributed. Per-
haps also the recent wonderful deliverance of the apostles
out of prison shook their opinions; and thus the hostility
of the Sadducean faction was averted. They, however,
scourged the apostles, in order that it might appear that it
was not without cause that this prosecution was raised.
They then dismissed them, with the repetition of the com-
mand that they should preach no more in the name of
Jesus.

Ver. 41. Xaipovres—rejoicing. The apostles, instead of
being in the least dismayed, departed from the Sanhedrim
rejoicing. They rejoiced that they had an opportunity of
expressing so emphatically their attachment to the cause of
Christ. Ὑπὲρ τοῦ dvowatos—for the.name; 1.6. for the

1 Neander’s Planting, vol. i. p. 47-

200 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

glorification of the name—the name whose confession and
announcement was always the highest and the holiest solici-
tude of the apostles: either the name Jesus, as last men-
tioned, in which they were forbidden to speak; or rather
the sacred name Christ, or Messiah, for the confession of
which they suffered. ᾿Ατιμασθῆναι---ἴο suffer shame. The
allusion is to the scourging ; a punishment regarded by the
Romans as so shameful, that it was forbidden to be inflicted
on a Roman citizen; and among the Jews was also looked
upon as disgraceful. It is called by Josephus τιμωρία
aicxictn—* the most shameful punishment.”

Ver. 42. Πᾶσάν τε ἡμέραν ἐν τῷ lep@—and every day in
the temple. The Sanhedrim could not in the meantime inter-
pose its authority to check the preaching of the apostles ;
and hence they preached for some time longer unmolested in
the temple. Kart’ oixov—from house to house. A contrast
to “in the temple.” It refers to the private assemblies of
the Christians in various houses, in different parts of Jeru-
salem. See note to ch. 11.406. Εὐαγγελιζόμενοι τὸν Χριστὸν
*Incootv—preaching Jesus the Christ ; that is, they announced
that Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified, was the Messiah.

SECTION XI.
THE ELECTION OF THE SEVEN.—Acts vi. 1-7.

1 Now in those days, when the disciples became numerous, there arose
a murmuring of the Hellenists against the Hebrews, because their widows
were overlooked in the daily ministration. 2 Then the twelve, having
called the multitude of the disciples together, said, It is not agreeable
that we should forsake the word of God, and serve tables. 3 Therefore,
brethren, look ye out among you seven men of good report, full of the
Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint over this business. 4 But
we will devote ourselves to prayer, and to the ministration of the word.
5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen,
a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus,
and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of
Antioch; 6 Whom they set before the apostles: and having prayed,
they laid their hands upon them. 7 And the word of God increased ;
and the number of disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly: and a
great multitude of the priests became obedient to the faith.

CRITICAL NOTES.

Ver. 3. “Ἁγίου after Πνεύματος is wanting in B, D, x, and
is omitted by Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tischendorf. It
is, however, contained in A, C, E, H. Καταστήσομεν, A,
C, D, E, s, is to be preferred to καταστήσωμεν. Ver. 7.
‘Iepéwy is decidedly to be preferred to the weakly attested
reading ᾿Ιουδαίων, which, however, is found in the Sinaitic
codex, and in the Syriac.

EXEGETICAL REMARKS.

Ver. 1. 4é—but. A contrast to the prosperous condition
of the church mentioned at the close of the preceding para-
graph. The enemies of the church—the Sadducean party—
were for a time rendered inactive. External hostility had in

201

202 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

a measure ceased; but (δὲ) a new evil arose within the church
—an internal dissension. ᾿Εν ταῖς ἡμέραις ravtaus—in those
days. The time here adverted to is the period when the
apostles were preaching unmolested in the temple. As the
passage appears to be introductory to the history of Stephen,
it was probably not long before his martyrdom ; consequently
in the year 35 or 36.1 Πληθυνόντων τῶν waOntav—when the
disciples became numerous. ‘The more the church increased
in numbers, the greater the diversity of its members, and the
more liable did it become to internal dissensions.
“Ελληνιστῶν---ἰ 6 Hellenists. This word is derived from
ἑλληνίζειν, to hellenize, “to speak Greek,” and translated in
our version Grecians. The persons here called Hellenists are
evidently those who were converted to Christianity from the
Jewish religion; for as yet the gospel was not preached to
the Gentiles. The word in the New Testament for the
Gentiles among the Greeks is “Ελληνες, translated in our
version Greeks. Some (Beza, Salmasius, Lardner, Pearson)
suppose that by the Hellenists are meant, not Jews by birth,
but proselytes from among the Gentiles. The chief argu-
ment for this opinion is derived from Acts xi. 19, 20, where
the Hellenists are distinguished from the Jews; but in that
passage the reading ᾿λληνιστάς is doubtful. Besides, it is
extremely improbable that there should be at this time in the
church of Jerusalem any large number of Jewish proselytes.
The Hellenists, then, are here contrasted with the Hebrews
as regards language. As the Hebrews are those Jews who
spoke the Hebrew language, or rather that dialect of it then
current, the Aramaic—the Palestinian Jews; so the Hel-
lenists are those Jews who, residing chiefly in foreign parts,
had lost the use of their native Hebrew, and spoke the Greek
language—the Hellenistic Jews. So Erasmus, Lightfoot,
Grotius, Bengel, Kuincl, Winer, Wieseler, Olshausen,
Meyer, De Wette, Stier, and Wordsworth. Thus the dis-
tinction was not one of nationality, but of language. Both
parties were Jewish Christians. The one party were chiefly

1 On the supposition that St. Paul’s conversion occurred about the
year 37.

THE ELECTION OF THE SEVEN.—VI. 1. 203

Jews resident in Palestine, and the other party were the Jews
of the dispersion, including also the proselytes from among
the Greeks who had become Christians.

The word ᾿Ελληνιστής occurs only two, or at the most
three, times in Scripture, and that in the Acts of the Apostles.
Here the Hellenists are distinguished from the Hebrews in
respect to language. In Acts ix. 29 it is said that Paul, on
his first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion, disputed
with the Hellenists. Being himself a Jew of Tarsus, he
expected to find more sympathy with them than with the
more rigid Palestinian Jews. In Acts xi. 20 it is said that
those who were scattered abroad came to Antioch and preached
the gospel to the Jews only ; but that some of them addressed
the Hellenists. Modern critics, however, are in favour of
the reading Ἕλληνας, the Greeks. It is probable, as Meyer
observes, that as the acquaintance of the Greek Jews with
foreign culture tended to lessen and overcome the Jewish
narrowness of spirit, many of them would be the more
inclined to embrace Christianity." Still, as in Jerusalem
they were few in comparison with the native Jews, they must
at this time have formed the minority in the Christian church.

Ὅτι παρεθεωροῦντο ἐν τῇ διακονίᾳ, etc.—because their
widows were overlooked in the daily ministration. Some
(Olshausen, Lekebusch) suppose that the widows are put
by synecdoche for all poor and needy persons.’ But this is
an unnecessary supposition. They are mentioned just be-
cause it was the real’ or supposed neglect of them that was
the occasion of the discontent. Καθημερινῇ, formed from
καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, is only found here in the New Testament, but
occurs in Plutarch and the later Greek writers. The mini-
stration here referred to is the distribution either of food or
money among the poorer members of the church.

We are not informed whether the complaint of the Hellen-
istic Christians concerning the neglect of their widows was
well founded; but it would seem, from the change in the
arrangements, and the institution of a separate body of men

1 Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 133.
* Lekebusch’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 93.

204 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

to manage the distribution of the charities, that there was
some ground for it. We are not, however, to suppose that
this neglect was intentional, arising from the self-conceit or
positive ill-will of the Palestinian Christians (Meyer). We
may conceive that for some time the apostles themselves had
managed the distribution ; but as the number of the disciples
increased, they felt constrained to depute this business to
others, in order that they might devote themselves more
entirely to the ministry of the word: and thus, either from
the neglect of the persons entrusted with this matter, or
from the want of some regular plan, or from the increasing
number of converts from among the poor, or perhaps from
the natural jealousy between the two parties, this murmuring
arose, and the complaint was made to the apostles by the
Hellenistic Christians that their widows were neglected in
the daily ministration (Rothe, Neander).

We have here the account of the first dissension within
the church. Hitherto the disciples had been of one heart
and one mind, but now this unity was broken. The dispute
was between the Palestinian and the Greek Jews. There
was a natural jealousy between these two parties. The
Palestinian Jews prided themselves upon their pure nation-
ality, and looked upon the Greek Jews as their inferiors.
They were also much more bigoted in their attachment to
Jewish notions; whereas the Greek Jews, by their inter-
course with foreigners, had attained to a certain laxity of
opinion. The fact that both parties were Christians, although
it would undoubtedly moderate, yet did not destroy, their
prejudices. In this dissension may perhaps be discerned
the germ of those future dissensions which arose when the
Judaizing Christians disturbed the peace of the church, and
which at length, in the age after the apostles, resulted in the
separation of the Hebraistic (Ebionitish) and Greek elements
(Baur, Meyer, De Wette).

Ver. 2. Τὸ πλῆθος τῶν pabntav—the multitude of the
disciples. The complaint of the Hellenistic Christians being
brought before the apostles, they summoned a general meet-
ing of the disciples. Lightfoot supposes that by the multi-

——— ee

THE ELECTION OF THE SEVEN.—VI. 2. 205

tude of the disciples is to be understood the original hundred
and twenty (ch. i. 15), who alone, he thinks, are called "
disciples as distinguished from believers. But this opinion
is not supported by the language of Luke: throughout his
history the words “disciples” and “believers” are used as
synonymous. Besides, we are informed that the proposal of
the apostles was acceptable to the whole multitude (παντὸς
τοῦ πλήθους, ver. 5). Mosheim and Kuincel think that
the church of Jerusalem was divided into seven congrega-
tions, that each of these congregations assembled in a
separate place, and that each chose for itself a distributor
of its funds; but this is a mere arbitrary supposition. The
objection that the disciples were now so numerous that they
could not possibly assemble in one place, is without weight ;
inasmuch as we are not informed where this assembly took
place, nor is it necessary to suppose that in a general meet-
ing of the Christians all would be present: -the meeting
would be chiefly composed of those who were interested in
the matter.

Οὐκ ἀρεστόν éotw—it is not agreeable (non placet). It was
not agreeable to the apostles to neglect their chief duty,
the preaching of the word, in order to attend to a subordinate
matter—the distribution of the charities of the church.
This also implies that the distribution could not now be
carried on as formerly; that there must be a separation
between the ministration of the word and the ministration of
the charities; that the apostles could no longer attend to both.

Διακονεῖν tpaméfais—to serve tables. Kuincel supposes
that money-tables are meant, and that the distribution was
in the form of money; but the verb διακονεῖν proves that the
reference here is to the distribution of food ; and besides, if it
were in the form of money, there would have been no use of a
daily ministration. Perhaps there were several places in diffe-
rent parts of the city where there were apartments for eating,
and where the poor were fed free of expense (Olshausen).
The Agapz would also be dispensed in the different places
of meeting belonging to the church.. The phrase also may

1 Lightfoot’s Horx Hebraicex, vol. iv. p. 64.

206 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

be taken in a general sense, and imply an attention to the
' bodily wants of the poor. The money to defray the expenses
of this distribution was from the common fund, established
in consequence of the community of goods.

Ver. ὃ. ᾿Επισμέψασθαι οὖν ἐξ tuev—Therefore lod ye
out among yourselves.—The election of the seven was not
made by lot, as when Matthias was chosen to the apostleship ;
nor by the apostles themselves, as when Paul and Barnabas
ordained elders in every church (Acts xiv. 23); but by the
church at large. The reason of this probably was, that as it
was a matter concerning money, it was prudent to allow the
church to choose its own almoners.

‘“Erra—seven men. Various reasons have been assigned
why seven should be the number selected. Some suppose
that it was because this was the sacred number among the
Jews (Meyer, De Wette) ; others that there were now seven
thousand believers, and that one almoner was chosen for
each thousand (Bengel); others that the church of Jeru-
salem was divided into seven congregations (Mosheim,
Kuineel) ; Mede supposes that it has reference to the fan-
tastic notions of the Jews concerning the seven archangels ;
and Lange supposes it to be either a contrast to the twelve,
as a sign of official subordination, or to have reference to the
seven days of the week. But all these are arbitrary suppo-
sitions. As Lightfoot observes: ‘‘ Why there should be just
seven, let him τ hath confidence adi pretend to assign
a ὝΕΣ reason.’

The qualifications of these seven are here stated. 1. They
were to be waptupovpévor—men of good report: that is, of
unimpeachable honesty ; literally, attested. 2. They were to
be πλήρεις [Ivetpatos—full of the Spirit ; not in a low sense,
“ filled with a holy ardour,” but inspired by the Holy Spirit
—thoroughly religious men. 3. They were to be πλήρεις
copias—full of wisdom ; that is, full of prudence—a virtue
indispensably necessary for the performance of their special
duties.

Ver. 4. The apostles, in thus setting apart a special body
of men to attend to the wants of the poor, declare that they

THE ELECTION OF THE SEVEN.—VI. 5. 207

would devote themselves to prayer and the ministration of
the word. Avaxovia τοῦ λόγου is here contrasted with: dca-
κονεῖν τραπέζαις. The greater duty is to be preferred to the
less important.

5. Of the seven here mentioned, two only, Stephen and
Philip, are elsewhere alluded to in Scripture; one, Nicolas,
is mentioned in ecclesiastical tradition; the other four are
totally unknown.

Stephen is famous as the first martyr of Christianity. He
is here said to be ἄνδρα πλήρη πίστεως---α man full of faith ;
which is not to be understood merely in the sense of fidelity,
trustworthiness (Kuinel, Wetstein), because such a quality
was essential in itself, and could not be considered peculiar
to him; but of faith, in the scriptural sense of the term, as
the root of all Christian virtues. It was the superiority of
his religious character which recommended him first of all to
the choice of the church. Stephen is here placed at the head
of the seven, as Peter is placed at the head of the twelve.
*¢ See how, even among the seven, one was pre-eminent, and
won the first prize. For though the ordination was common
to him and them, yet he drew upon himself greater grace”
(Chrysostom).

Philip is the same who afterwards preached the gospel in
Samaria, and converted the Ethiopian eunuch. At a later
period he is mentioned as resident in Ceesarea, and is alluded
to as ἐκ τῶν émtd—one of the seven (Acts xxi. 8). For the
various traditions concerning him, see note to ch. viii. 40.

Nicolas is described as a proselyte of Antioch ; that is, a
Gentile by birth who had embraced the Jewish religion, and
submitted to the rite of circumcision before he became a
Christian. Salmasius supposes that the whole seven were
proselytes : that whereas Nicolas is said to have been a pro-
selyte of Antioch, it is implied that the other six were prose-
lytes of Jerusalem. But this is a forced inference, arising
from the opinion that the seven were all Hellenists, and that
by this term is meant proselytes. It would rather appear
that Nicolas was the only proselyte, and that ἐπε rest were
either Palestinian or Hellenistic Jews.

208 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

According to ecclesiastical tradition, Nicolas is said to
have been the founder of the impure sect of the Nicolaitanes
mentioned in Rey. ii. 6, 15; but the traditions on this sub-
ject are various and contradictory. Irenzeus asserts that he
was the founder of this sect,—a statement which is also made
by Tertullian, Epiphanius, and Jerome. Clement of Alex-
andria, on the contrary, mentions an anecdote from which it
would appear that Nicolas was only the innocent cause of
this heresy, which arose from a zross perversion of his words ;
and that he himself was noted for the purity of his conduct
(Kus. Hist. Eccl. iii. 29). Indeed, it is doubted by many
whether the term Nicolaitanes is not a mere appellative, being
the Greek translation of the followers of Balaam (Kuincel) ;
so that no particular sect of heretics is alluded to, but those
in general who turned the grace of God into lasciviousness.
Neander supposes that a certain Nicolas (a name common
among the Greeks) might have been the founder of the sect,
but not he who is spoken of as one of the seven.

It is to be observed that all the seven names are Greek.
From this many have supposed that they all belonged to the
. Hellenistic faction of the church. Some (Mosheim, Michaelis,
Heinrichs, Kuincel, Olshausen) suppose that there were already
almoners appointed for the Hebrews, and that it was the
wants of the Hellenists only that were here supplied; but
this arises from what we consider a false supposition—that
there was an earlier body of ‘office-bearers similar to those
now appointed. Until the election of the seven, the apostle-
ship is the only ecclesiastical office which is mentioned.
Others (Rothe, De Wette, Thiersch, Stier) think that, by
the impartiality of the Hebrew part of the church, pure
Hellenists were appointed,'in order effectually to remove all
cause of complaint. But, as Lange well observes, this impar-
tiality would be converted into a partiality of the Hellenistic
party; and besides, might afford ground for future com-
plaints on the part of the Hebrew Christians. The mere
fact of the names being Greek is in itself no reason to con-
clude that the seven were all Hellenists, as it was customary
among the Jews to have two names—the one Hebrew, and

we

THE ELECTION OF THE SEVEN.—VI. 6, 7. 209

the other Greek: two of the apostles, Andrew and Philip,
who were certainly Hebrews and not Hellenists, are yet
known to us by Greek names. It is then most probable
that the seven were partly Hebrews and partly Hellenists
(Meyer, Bengel, Lechler, Lange).

Ver. 6. ᾿Επέθηκαν αὐτοῖς tas yetpas—they laid their hands
on them. The imposition of hands, as a solemn dedication
to office, was an ancient custom. It was employed by Moses
when he set apart Joshua as ‘uis successor (Num. xxvii. 18).
In the early church it was used on various occasions. Here
the seven were solemnly set apart by the imposition of the
hands of the apostles for their ecclesiastical office. Believers
also. received by this means the gifts of the Holy Ghost
(Acts viii. 17). The ministerial office was conferred by the
laying on of the hands of the presbytery (1 Tim. v. 22);
and in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the laying on of hands
is mentioned as a special Christian institution (Heb. vi. 2).

Ver. 7. Καὶ ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ηὔξανε, etc.—and the word
of God increased ; and the number of the disciples multiplied
in Jerusalem greatly. All served for the increase of the
church. The dissension within it was healed; its unity was
restored; the spirit of love again influenced its members ;
and thus united in itself, the church made aggressive attacks
upon the world. As Neander observes: “ By this appoint-
ment of deacons, distinguished men of Hellenistic descent
and education were brought into the public service of the
church ; and the Hellenists, by their freer mental culture,
were in many respects better qualified rightly to understand
and to publish the gospel as the foundation of a method of
salvation independent of Judaism, and intended for all men
equally without distinction.”

Πολύς τε ὄχλος τῶν ἱερέων --απα a great multitude of the
priests became obedient to the faith. This statement has ap-
peared to many so very improbable, that various attempts have
been made to neutralize it. Some, contrary to the rules of
criticism, adopt the feebly attested reading "Iovda/wv. Beza
conjectures that the original reading is, πολύς. τε ὄχλος, Kal

1 Neander’s Planting, vol. i. p. 35, Bohn’s edition.

VOL. I. O

210 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

τῶν lepéewv—and a great multitude, and certain of the priests,—
a reading which rests on no evidence. Elsner and Kuincel
would translate the phrase as if it meant priests of the lower
orders, sacerdotes ex plebe, as distinguished from the chief
priests, ἀρχιερεῖς, ----ι meaning which the phrase cannot bear.
The words must be taken in their literal sense, that a great
many of the priests were converted to Christianity. We
would certainly not have expected that numerous priests
would have become Christians, considering the bitter resent-
ment to which they would be exposed ’from their unbelieving
brethren, and the loss of livelihood they would incur from
being expelled from the priestly office. But, on the other
hand, they were the better prepared for the reception of
Christianity, by their superior acquaintance with the pro-
phecies of the Old Testament.

It is a matter of dispute whether we have in the election
of the seven an account of the institution of the diaconate ;
or whether the office here adverted to was merely temporary,
to suit a present emergency. Various reasons have been
assigned to prove that the diaconate was then instituted :—
1. The expressions employed, διακονίᾳ καθημερινῇ (ver. 1)
and διακονεῖν τραπέζαις (ver. 3), are considered to imply
that the office is that of deacon. 2. The primitive church
generally supposed that we have here the account of the
institution of the diaconate (Ignatius, Irenzeus, Origen) ; and
for this reason they restricted the number of deacons in their
churches to seven. Eusebius informs us that in his time the
Church of Rome, whilst it had forty-six presbyters, had only
seven deacons (Church History, vi. 43). 3. It is thought
that the appointment of a mere temporary office would not
be so important as to deserve such a lengthened statement.
Equally strong reasons are, however, brought forward on the
other side of the question :—1. It is observed that none of
the seven is ever called by this name. Philip, when men-
tioned, is called, not a deacon, but an evangelist (Acts xxi. 8).
2. The office of deacon is never once expressly mentioned
in the Acts of the Apostles, and is alluded to for the first
time in the Epistle to the Philippians (Phil. i. 1),—an epistle

THE ELECTION OF THE SEVEN.—VI. 7. 911

written after the imprisonment of Paul at Rome. 3. There
is only a remote resemblance between the duties and quali-
fications of the seven, and the duties and qualifications of
the deacons, as laid down by Paul in his First Epistle to
Timothy. 4. When Paul and Barnabas brought the alms
of the churches to Jerusalem, they entrusted them not to
the deacons, but to the elders (Acts xi. 30). St. Chrysostom
supposes that the seven were neither deacons nor presbyters,
but appointed for a peculiar emergency: ‘“ What sort of
rank these bore, and what sort of office they received, this is
what we need to learn. Was it that of deacons? And yet
this is not the case in the churches. But is it to the presby-
ters that the management belongs? And yet at present
there was no bishop, but the apostles only. Whence I think
it clearly and manifestly follows, that neither deacons nor
presbyters is their designation ; but it was for this particular
purpose that they were ordained.”* Perhaps the truth lies
between these two opinions: that the office of the seven was
not that of the diaconate, properly so called, but that this
latter office grew out of it. When churches became nume-
rous, men with functions somewhat similar to those of the
seven were appointed to watch over the temporal concerns of
the church, and to administer its charities. This will account
for the early church always regarding the election of the
seven as the model on which the diaconate was formed.

The meaning of the word διάκονος is, a servant, an attend-
ant. It frequently occurs in the New Testament; but only
in four places is it used as an official designation (Phil. i. 1;
1 Tim. iii. 8, 12, iv. 6):? in all the other places it signifies either
a servant employed for temporal purposes, or a servant of God
ministering to the spiritual wants of men. In the passage
under consideration, the noun διακονία simply means service,
ministration ; and the ministration of the word is there con-
trasted with the ministration of tables—the spiritual service
with the temporal.

The seven were appointed to attend to the distribution of

1 Chrysostom’s Homilies on the Acts, Hom. xiv.
2 Perhaps also Rom. xvi. 1.

212 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

the charities of the church. It was their duty to take the
oversight of the daily ministration, and to serve tables.
We have no particular information as to the functions of
the early deacons either from Scripture or the writings of
the Fathers; but the oversight of the wants of the poor was
part of their duties. It is a matter of dispute whether the
function of preaching belonged to the office of the deacon.
Certainly it is evident that, in the case of the seven, the
ministry of the word was included; for the two who are
elsewhere mentioned in Scripture, Stephen and Philip, both
preached: they were διάκονοι τοῦ λογοῦ. Just as the
apostles, who devoted themselves to the ministry of the word,
did not divest themselves of all care for the poor; so the
seven who were specially appointed to take care of the poor,
were not thereby excluded from preaching the gospel. In-
deed, it would almost appear that at this early period there
was no regular ministry, the office of the eldership being not
yet instituted; but that those preached who felt themselves
influenced by the Holy Spirit: in short, that the ecclesiastical
offices grew out of the wants of the church, just as a present
emergency led to the election and official consecration of the
seven.

SECTION XII.
STEPHEN BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM.—Acrs vi. 8-15.

8 And Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs
among the people. 9 But there arose certain of them from the syna-
gogue, which is called that of the Libertines, and of the Cyrenians,
and of the Alexandrians, and of them from Cilicia and Asia, disputing
with Stephen. 10 And they were unable to resist the wisdom and the
spirit with which he spoke. 11 Then they suborned men, who said,
We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.
12 And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes;
and having come upon him, they seized him, and led him to the Sanhe-
drim; 13 And they set up false witnesses, who said, This man does not
cease to speak words against the holy place and the law: 14 For we
have heard him say that this Jesus, the Nazarene, will destroy this
place, and change the customs which Moses delivered tous. 15 And
all who sat in the Sanhedrim, looking stedfastly on him, saw his face as
it had been the face of an angel.

CRITICAL NOTES.

Ver. 8. Χάριτος is found in A, B, D, 8, and is to be pre-
ferred to πίστεως, the reading of the textus receptus. Ver.
13. Βλάσφημα after ῥήματα is wanting in the most impor-
tant mss., A, B, C, D, xs, and is rejected by most recent
critics.

EXEGETICAL REMARKS.

Ver. 8. 4&—but. No sooner was the internal dissension
quieted, than a new trouble arose from without. Πλήρης
ydpiros—full of grace: not favour with the multitude
(Heinrichs), of which there is no mention, but rather the
reverse, in the context (ver. 12); but divine grace, favour
with God. Καὶ 8vvdywews—and power; power to perform

213

214 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

miracles, or Christian fortitude. "Emote τέρατα, ete.—did
great wonders and signs among the people. This is the first
time that we read of any of the disciples, except the apostles,
performing miracles.

Ver. 9. In this verse we are informed that Stephen entered
into controversial disputes with the Hellenistic Jews in their
synagogues. Hitherto the disciples had confined their public
discourses to the temple and its neighbourhood; but now,
after the example of their Master, they discourse in the
synagogues. The disputes were carried on with the Helle-
nistic Jews. Stephen was, in all probability, of Hellenistic
descent and education, and was therefore brought into
direct contact with them. From the accusation brought
against him, it would appear that he had freer notions con-
cerning the Jewish law than even Peter and the apostles
at this time possessed. No such accusation of an attempt
to abolish the Jewish law had been preferred against the
apostles: so far as it appears, they had as yet made no direct
attack upon Jewish legalism. The Hellenists, as a body,
were also much less bigoted than the Palestinian Jews, and
it is probable that the gospel had more success among them ;
but we may well imagine that while the more liberal among
them had passed over to the Christian church, the more
fanatical and bigoted, such as Saul of Tarsus, remained
obstinately attached to Judaism.’ The subject of the dispute
which Stephen carried on would doubtless be the proof from
the prophecies of the Old Testament that Jesus was the
Messiah ; perhaps also he insisted on the necessity of faith
and repentance as the only means of salvation, in opposition
to the legalism of the Pharisees; and, as appears from
his speech, he was very direct in his denunciations against
all who obstinately persevered in unbelief. For these and
similar reasons, he excited greater resentment among his
hearers than had as yet been called forth against the
disciples.

AiBeprivev—Libertines. The conjectures which have been
made concerning the Libertines are numerous. 1. Some

1 Baumgarten’s Apostolic History, vol. i. p. 130.

.

STEPHEN BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM.—VI. 9. Fis

have had recourse to critical conjecture. Ccumenius, Beza,
Clericus, would read Ai8verivev—Libyans ; but this is con-
trary to the authority of all Mss., versions, and Fathers, with
the sole exception of the Armenian version. Schulthess sup-
poses that the original text is Διβύων τῶν κατὰ Κυρήνην---
an entirely unauthorized emendation. The reading of the
text, “ιβερτίνων, is unquestionable. 2. Gerdes supposes that
Jews belonging to a city or district called Libertum, in pro-
consular Africa, are meant. Suidas, a Greek writer of the
eleventh century, explains the: Libertines as the name of a
nation; and in the Council of Carthage, in 411, there is
mention of an Episcopus Libertinensis. But the existence
of this place is problematical ; and even if it did exist, the
Jews would not have been so numerous as to form a syna-
gogue in Jerusalem. 3. Lightfoot supposes that the Liber-
tines were Jewish servants who had received their freedom
from their Jewish masters; but against this supposition is
the Latin name by which they are denominated, and the
improbability that such persons should form themselves into
a separate synagogue. 4. Grotius, Vitringa, and Selden
understand by them, Roman freemen who had become prose-
lytes to Judaism, and who were thus not Jews, but Gentiles
by birth or descent. But if such were the case, we would
have expected that the word proselytes would have been
added ; and besides, it is wholly improbable that any great
number of Roman proselytes to Judaism should reside in
Jerusalem. 5. The most probable opinion, which is also the
most common, is, that by the Libertines are meant Jews or
their descendants who had been led captive as slaves to Rome,
and had there received their liberty ; and who, in consequence
of the decree of Tiberius, about the year 19, expelling them
from Rome, had returned in great numbers to Jerusalem.
Thus Chrysostom, Bengel, Kuincel, Olshausen, Meyer, De
Wette, Ewald, Lange, Lechler, Winer, Pearson, Lardner,
Wordsworth, Alford. Multitudes of Jews were led captive
by Pompey to Rome, and were afterwards liberated. Philo
tells us that “the Roman Jews were for the most part
persons who had been manumitted (οἱ πλείους ἀπελευθερω-

216 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES,

θέντες) ; for after having been brought as captives to Italy
(by Pompey and others), they obtained their freedom from
their masters, and were permitted to follow their religious
customs unmolested” (Leg. ad Caium, p. 1014). Now
Tacitus in his Annals relates, that “ Tiberius took measures
for suppressing the Egyptian and Jewish mysteries; and
that a decree of the Senate was passed, by which four
thousand of the descendants of manumitted slaves (libertini
generis) were sent to Sardinia, on the pretence of checking
robbery there; and the rest were ordered to depart from
Italy, unless by a stated day they had renounced their pro-
fane rites” (Annal. 11. 85). This statement is confirmed by
Suetonius. “Tiberius,” he observes, “ distributed the Jewish
youths, under the pretext of military service, among the
provinces noted for an unhealthy climate; and dismissed
from the city all the rest of that nation, as well as those who
were proselytes to that religion, under the penalty of slavery
for life unless they complied” (Tiberius, 36). And so also
Josephus asserts that “ Tiberius ordered all the Jews to be
banished out of Rome; at which time the consuls enlisted
four thousand men of them, and sent them to Sardinia” (Ant.
xvi, 3.5). By combining these authorities, we learn that
the Roman Jews were chiefly the descendants of emanci-
pated slaves (Philo, Tacitus: Tacitus expressly calls them
Libertini), and that they were banished from Rome about
seventeen years before this by Tiberius (Tacitus, Suetonius,
Josephus): and thus we can account for a large number of
them being at this time in Jerusalem. As has been well
remarked, they were likely to be the chief opponents of
Stephen, by whose preaching, as they supposed, the religion
for which they had suffered at Rome was endangered in
Jerusalem (Humphry).

Kupnvaiwv—Cyrenians. The Cyrenians were the Jewish
inhabitants of Cyrene, a large and important city in the
African province of Cyrenaica. One-fourth of its inhabit-
ants, as Josephus informs us, were Jews (Ant. xiv. 7. 2).
They had been settled there by Ptolemy Lagus. There is
frequent mention made of Cyrenian Jews. The second book

STEPHEN BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM.—VI. 9. 217

of Maccabees is an abridgment of a larger work written by
Jason of Cyrene (2 Mace. ii. 23). Simon the Cyrenian
carried the cross of Christ (Luke xxiii. 26). Jews from the
parts of Libya about Cyrene were in Jerusalem on the day
of Pentecost (Acts ii. 10). Men of Cyrene came to Antioch,
and preached to the Greeks the Lord Jesus (Acts xi. 20).
Lucius of Cyrene is mentioned among the distinguished
prophets and teachers, when Barnabas and Paul were sent
forth by the church on their missionary journeys (Acts xiii. 1).
And here we are informed that the Cyrenians possessed a
synagogue of their own in Jerusalem.

’AnreEavdpémv—Alexandrians. Alexandria, the capital of
Egypt, and the seat of Hellenistic learning, was the second
city of the empire. It contained a population of 300,000
freemen, with at least an equal number of slaves.’ A large
part of the city was assigned to the Jews, and their numbers
are estimated at 100,000, or one-third of the free population.
According to Philo, two of the five parts into which the city
was divided were called the Jewish quarters (Philo, in Flacc.).
The Jews were first settled there as a colony by Alexander
the Great, who gave them equal privileges of citizens with
the Macedonians themselves (Joseph. Ant. xii. 1); and this
colony was afterwards greatly increased by fresh emigrations
from Judea in the reign of Ptolemy Lagus. Under the first
Roman emperors they possessed peculiar privileges: they had
a governor of their own, called ὁ ἀλαβάρχης (Joseph. Ant.
xiv. 7. 2), and a council to superintend their affairs according
to their own laws. Josephus mentions Alexander, the brother
of the distinguished Philo, as being in the reign of Claudius
the alabarch of the Jews at Alexandria (Ant. xviii. 8. 1).
Alexandria was the chief seat of the Hellenistic Jews, who
were celebrated for their freedom of opinion and their culti-
vation of Greek philosophy. Philo, who may be considered
as their representative, was at this time living in Alexandria.
The rabbinical writers, as Lightfoot shows, expressly inform
us that the Alexandrian Jews had a synagogue of their own
in Jerusalem.

1 Gibbon, ch. x.; Merivale, ch. xxviii.

218 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

Kidixias—Cilicia. This country is bounded on the south
by the Mediterranean, on the east by Syria, from which it is
separated by Mons Amanus, on the north by Lycaonia, and
on the west by Pamphylia, from both of which provinces it
is separated by the Antitaurian range. It was inhabited by
numerous Jews, a colony of whom had been settled there
by Antiochus the Great. Cilicia formerly belonged to the
Syrian monarchs, but was at this period a Roman province,
having been subdued by Pompey. [0 is particularly interest-
ing to us as the native country of Paul; and nothing can be
more probable, than that among the ablest of the disputants
of Stephen in the synagogue of Cilicia, he would be found
who afterwards became the greatest promoter of that faith
which he now endeavoured to disprove and to destroy.

"Acias—Asia. See note to ch.ii.9. We must be careful
not to confound the Asia of the Acts of the Apostles with
that large tract of country afterwards called Asia Minor; a
chronological mistake which many commentators have made."

It isa matter of dispute how many synagogues are here
mentioned. .The language is indefinite. Some (Calvin,
Beza, Bengel, Wieseler) suppose that only one synagogue is
mentioned, to which all those Hellenistic Jews from these
different cities and countries belonged.” This opinion arises
from applying the words τῆς συναγωγῆς to the whole
list. But this is improbable, when we consider the great
number of synagogues which there were at Jerusalem; and
especially that the Libertine, Cyrenian, Alexandrian, Cili-
cian, and Asiatic Jews must have been so numerous, that
one synagogue would not suffice for them. ‘The words τῆς
λεγομένης annexed to τῆς συναγωγῆς are most naturally to
be restricted to the Libertines, inasmuch as this was not, like
the others, a geographical term. Winer and Ewald, on
grammatical grounds, suppose that two synagogues are men-
tioned: the one the synagogue of the Libertine, Cyrenian,
and Alexandrian Jews; and the other the synagogue of the

1 The term Asia Minor is first found in Orosius, a writer of the fourth

century.
2 See Wieseler’s Chronologie, p. 63.

STEPHEN BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM.—VI. 10, 11. 219

Cilician and Asiatic Jews. But the restriction of τῆς λεγο-
μένης to the Libertines is opposed to this opinion. We
therefore suppose that five synagogues are mentioned. The
Jewish writers inform us that there were 480 synagogues in
Jerusalem; a number which need not be considered as an
exaggeration, when we reflect on the vast population of the
city, and the attention which the Jews as a nation then paid
to the external duties of their religion. The number of
synagogues being so great, it is highly probable that each of
these five classes possessed a separate synagogue, especially
when we consider the vast number of Jews who resided in
Cyrene, Alexandria, Cilicia, and proconsular Asia. Meyer
infers from the grammatical construction of the words, that
the opponents of Stephen from these five synagogues were
arranged into two groups: one, those belonging to the three
synagogues of the Libertines, Cyrenians, and Alexandrians
(Roman and African Jews) ; and the other those belonging
to the two synagogues of Cilicia and Asia (Asiatic Jews).’

Ver. 10. Kai οὐκ ἴσχυον 'ἀντιστῆναι τῇ copia—and they
were unable to resist the wisdom. By the wisdom of Stephen
is not to be understood exclusively his Jewish learning
(Kuincel, Heinrichs) ; but the Christian wisdom with which
he was inspired, according to the promise which our Lord
made to His disciples: “I will give you a mouth and
wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to
gainsay nor resist” (Luke xxi. 15). Καὶ τῷ Πνεύματι---
and the Spirit; that is, not merely ardour of mind, but the
Holy Spirit, with whom we are informed Stephen was filled
(ver. 5).

Ver. 11. «“Ὑπέβαλον avipas—they suborned men. The verb
ὑπόβαλλω occurs only here in Scripture. Its literal meaning
is, to throw under ; hence to put one person in place of another,
to substitute. Here it is to be translated to instigate, to put
forward by collusion, to suborn,—a meaning not unknown
in Greek writings. The Hellenistic opponents of Stephen
substituted other persons: they kept themselves in the back-
ground, as if they were impartial disputants, and instigated

Δ Meyer's Apostelgeschichte, p. 140.

220 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

others to accuse him. As they could not overcome him by
fair arguments, they had recourse to low and dishonest
means. Their design was to stir up the people against
Stephen, and to bring an accusation against him before the
Sanhedrim, as a blasphemer of religion.

“Ῥήματα Bradopnua—blasphemous words. The charge
which these men made against Stephen was, that he was
guilty of blasphemy; a capital crime, according to the Mosaic
law (Deut. xiii. 6-10). He had spoken blasphemous words
against Moses—that is, had attacked the Jewish religion ;
and therefore he had blasphemed God, as the Jewish reli-
gion was from Him. It was also for the offence of blas-
phemy that the Sanhedrim pronounced sentence of death
against Christ.

Ver. 12. Συνεκίνησαν τε τὸν Nadov—and they stirred up the
people. This is the first time that we read of the hostility of
the people toward the disciples. Hitherto believers were in
favour with the people; the apostles enjoyed a certain degree
of popularity: the pharisaic faction—the popular party—
were at least neutral, if.not favourably inclined; the great
opponents of the Christians were the Sadducees. But now
a change took place: the people became hostile. And the
reason of this seems to be, that Christianity now came in
contact with the Pharisees; Stephen, in particular, attacked
Jewish legalism: the gospel displayed its anti-pharisaical
side. The priests and scribes, who were chiefly Pharisees,
were stirred up: the cry that the Mosaic religion itself was
in danger, that this new sect was undermining the principles
of Judaism, excited their hostility. And thus the popular
party having become hostile, the people as a natural conse-
quence became hostile also. “ Until the time of the election
of Stephen,” as Lange observes, “the Pharisees were some-
what favourably inclined toward the preaching of the Risen
One: the popular voice was on the side of the Christians ; and
it was a very favourable symptom, that ‘a great company of
the priests became obedient to the faith.’ Everything seemed
to promise that all Israel would be converted. But entirely
different was the state of matters after the appearance of

STEPHEN BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM.—VI. 12. 221

Stephen. He, in his discourses, brought prominently for-
ward the insufficiency of the Jewish law and the temple, and
attacked the unbelief of the Jews, and their guilt in the
death of their Messiah, more strongly than Peter had done.
Peter indeed had upbraided the nation with this guilt, but he
had still more prominently brought forward the counsel of
God in the death of Jesus. Stephen, on the contrary, insists
more on their guilt in connection with their entire history,
because he felt himself constrained to pull them, as it were
by violence, from their present position. Hence it was that
he was accused by the Jewish fanatics as an enemy of the
Old Testament theocracy; and from this time we see the
pharisaical party united with the Sadducees in bitter hostility
against the Christians.” ἢ

Certainly this formed an important crisis for Christianity.
It was the first decided step that was taken in the direction of
a separation from Judaism. Hitherto the disciples would
be regarded as a sect of Jews entertaining the notion that
Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified, was the true Messiah;
but still attentive to the ceremonies of the law, worshipping
in the temple at the stated hours of prayer, and frequenters
of the synagogues. But now they are regarded as a hostile
sect, the enemies of the Jewish religion. And in the provi-
dence of God, it was exactly this turn of matters which
paved the way for the disruption between the Christians and
the Jews, and for the wider diffusion of Christianity. This
led to the preaching of the gospel by Philip and the Helle-
nistic Christians among the Samaritans, and even beyond
the limits of the Holy Land; and this prepared Peter for
the reception of the revelation that he should take the still
more decided step of preaching Christ to the Gentiles, with-
out insisting upon any intermediate conversion to Judaism.
Henceforth Christianity was no longer the creed of a Jewish
sect; but was to- proceed, free and untrammelled, in its
triumphant course throughout the world.

Καὶ ἐπιστάντες συνήρπασαν avtov—And having come upon
him, they seized him, and led him to the Sanhedrim. The

1 Lange’s Das apostolische Zeitalter, vol. ii. p. 77.

22} COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

hostile Hellenistic Jews, having stirred up the people, now
proceed to strike the blow. They arrested Stephen while he
was engaged in his official occupations, and brought him, to
the Sanhedrim, which was the only Jewish court that could
try capital offences.

Vers. 13, 14. In these verses we are informed of the nature
of the accusation which was brought against Stephen before
the Sanhedrim. They set up false witnesses against him,
just as had been formerly done in the case of his Master.
The general accusation was, that he ceased not to speak words
against the holy place and the law; that is, that he unceas-
ingly attacked the temple and the law of Moses; that he
was not only heretical in his opinions, but decidedly hostile,
And in proof of this general accusation, they adduce a parti-
cular saying of his: “This Jesus, the Nazarene, shall destroy
this place, and change the customs which Moses delivered to
us.” The words ᾿[ησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος οὗτος are not indeed
to be considered as if they were intended to be the words of
Stephen, but are spoken in a contemptuous manner by the
false witnesses ; not that ὁ Ναζωραῖος is itself an expression
of contempt, but is so when combined with οὗτος : this Jesus
the Nazarene (compare Luke xv. 30).

It is a matter of dispute in what sense these witnesses are
called false ; in other words, how far the accusation brought
against Stephen was false, especially as the words reported
contain the truth, inasmuch as the temple was actually de-
stroyed, and the Jewish customs were abolished. Baur and
Zeller maintain the essential truth of the charge, and accuse
the historian of falsehood, inasmuch as he calls them false
witnesses.. But the general charge, that Stephen attacked
the Jewish religion, as if it were not of divine origin, was cer-
tainly false; and as to the particular words, we cannot sup-
pose that he was so far advanced in Christian knowledge as
to perceive that the Mosaic law was to be abolished: for this
was a doctrine of which the apostles themselves at this time
had no conception ; so that there must at least have been a
perversion of his words. The witnesses, then, were false,

1 Zeller’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 146.

a δλυδιυνόω ἀν. « ....

STEPHEN BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM.—-VI. 15. 223

because they perverted some strong expression of Stephen ;
just as the false witnesses perverted the words of our Lord,
when He spoke of destroying the temple, and building it up
in three days. Stephen, in all probability, had denounced

- the legalism of the Pharisees, and had threatened the un-

believing Jews with the divine judgments on account of
the heavy guilt they had incurred in the murder of their
Messiah. But we do not learn, either from the defence of
Stephen or from anything in the narrative, that he had
attained to accurate notions concerning the abolition of the
Jewish law, or even concerning the admission of the Gentiles
without circumcision into the Christian church.

There must, however, have been something peculiar in the
preaching of Stephen to have excited such hostility, and to
have given rise to such misrepresentations. The accusation
of the false witnesses was probably more a perversion of the
truth than a grossinvention. As a Hellenist, Stephen would
entertain freer notions than his Palestinian brethren; and
he appears to have insisted strongly upon the uselessness
of mere formal observances in comparison with spiritual
worship (vers. 48-50), and on the guilt and consequent
danger of those who rejected the gospel (vers. 51-53). Ῥτο-
bably also he dwelt upon the predictions of the Lord con-
cerning the destruction of Jerusalem, and upon the calamities
which threatened the Jewish nation. In short, his teaching
was anti-pharisaical in its nature and tendency; and this
stirred up against him the fanaticism of the popular party.
“He was,’ as Neander observes, “the forerunner of the
great Paul in his perception of Christian truth, and the
testimony he bore to it (although far inferior to that apostle
in the clearness of his view), as well as in his conflict for it
with the carnal Jews who obstinately adhered to their ancient
standpoint.”*

Ver. 15. “Ωσεὶ πρόσωπον ἀγγέλου---αϑ the face of an angel.
When Stephen was brought before the Sanhedrim, all who
sat in the council fixed their eyes upon him, from curiosity
to see the new Hellenistic preacher;'and they saw such

1 Neander’s Planting, vol. i. p. 50.

-

—

224 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

majesty and exultation in his countenance, as if it had been
the countenance of an angel. Some (Kuineel, Neander,
De Wette, Lange, Bloomfield) suppose that this was merely
a natural appearance; and that the phrase is intended to
represent the serenity, dignity, and calm composure that
were impressed upon the countenance of the illustrious
martyr,—a dignity which evidently for a time commanded
the respect of his enemies, and secured for him a hearing.
Others (Lechler, Baumgarten, Hackett, Alford) suppose
that the appearance was supernatural: that a heavenly glory
shone from his countenance, somewhat similar to that glory
which appeared on the face of Moses, or to that of our
Lord when He was transfigured. Upon the whole, we are
inclined to think that the holy martyr had a glimpse of that
heavenly world upon which he was about to enter, and that
his face was lighted up with a transport of inward joy: that
the Spirit so filled his soul, as to impress a heavenly glory
upon his countenance, such as we read has been the case
with several martyrs and dying Christians. At all events,
the glory, whether natural or preternatural, did not prevent
his enemies from wreaking upon him the full fury of their
malice.

ON THE SYNAGOGUES.

Συναγωγή signifies a gathering, a collecting, and hence an
assembly, a congregation. The word is now restricted to
denote the assemblies, or, as we would call them, the churches
of the Jews. There is no mention of synagogues until the
return of the Jews from Babylon. The first mention of
them by Josephus is in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes
(Bell. Jud. vii. 3. 3). It is, however, probable that they
arose during the captivity; as the Jews, then at a distance
from the temple, would be constrained to build meeting-
houses, where they might keep up their peculiar worship, in
the idolatrous countries where they were settled. After their

~~

ON THE SYNAGOGUES. 225

return, they retained the custom in the Holy Land. The
rabbis, indeed, carry back the origin of synagogues even to
the patriarchal times; but they assign no reasons worthy
of consideration for this opinion. The only passage in the
Old Testament where synagogues seem to be mentioned, is
Ps. Ixxiv. 8, where, according to our translation, we read
that the enemies of the Jews “burned up all the synagogues
of God in the land.” But according to Prideaux, syna-
gogues are not here meant, but the proseucha, or oratories ;
the word literally signifying “the assemblies of God,”
that is, the holy places. In the Septuagint the passage is
translated, καταπαύσωμεν τὰς ἑορτὰς Κυρίου ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς.
Other eminent critics conclude that this psalm was not com-
posed until after the exile. James also says, that “from
ancient times Moses is read in the synagogues every Sabbath-
day” (Acts xv. 21); but to refer these times to the period of
the return from the captivity, is a date sufficiently ancient.

In the time of our Lord, synagogues existed in every
considerable village in Palestine; and in the cities there
were several. Thus, as already mentioned, it is stated that
there were 480 synagogues in Jerusalem. The Jews of the
dispersion also had their synagogues ; and so we are informed
that Paul, on his missionary journeys, whenever he arrived
at any city, first went to the synagogue, and there taught.
When the Jews abroad were not sufficiently numerous to
have a synagogue, they had their proseuchw (προσευχαί), or
places of prayer, which were enclosures, frequently without
roofs, outside of the city, and generally in the neighbour-
hood of a stream, for the sake of their ceremonial ablutions
(Acts xvi. 13).

The service of the synagogue consisted in the repetition
of set forms of prayer, and in reading lessons out of the law
and the prophets. There is still in use an ancient Jewish
liturgy of eighteen prayers, which many suppose was em-
ployed in the time of our Saviour. The law was divided
into fifty-two sections, so that the whole was read during
the course of the year. To each section of the law, there
was annexed a special portion from the prophets: so that

VOL. I. P

226 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

the lessons for each day were fixed, just as is the case with
the service of the Church of England. After the reading
of the law and the prophets, a discourse was delivered, gene-
rally by one of the elders, or by a person of known character
and learning, who was requested to address the congregation.
Thus we find that our Lord and Paul were often asked to
preach in the synagogues.

Various officers were attached to the synagogue. These
were not confined to the sacerdotal class, but might be
chosen from the nation at large. At the head of them was

the ruler or president of the synagogue (ἀρχισυνάγωγος), who ἢ

had the chief management of all its affairs, and saw that its
assemblies were orderly conducted. There were the elders
(πρεσβύτεροι), called also sometimes rulers (Acts xiii. 15),
who appear to have formed a college under the presidency
of the chief ruler, to aid him with their advice. There was
also an officer called “the angel of the church” (legatus
ecclesiv), whose duty it was to conduct the devotions of the
assembly, being the reader of the prayers. And, lastly,
there was the minister (ὑπηρέτης, Luke iv. 20), who took
charge of the sacred books, attended to the cleansing of the
room, and opened and shut the doors. All these officers
were solemnly set apart by the imposition of hands. It
would also appear that formerly the schools were closely
connected with the synagogues, so that the synagogues were
not merely places set apart for public worship, but also for
instruction, catechizing, and religious disputation ; and hence
it is that we read that Stephen disputed in the various syna-
gogues. Such also was the frequent practice of Paul.
Synagogues also appear in the apostolic times to have
possessed certain judicial functions. They were courts under
the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrim; and to them seem to have
been committed the trial and punishment of minor offences.
Especially they had the oversight of the religion of their
members, or perhaps even of the Jewish residents in the
district, for among the Palestinian Jews at least there was
no such thing as religious toleration: heresy was regarded
as a crime. Hence our Saviour warns His disciples that

ON THE SYNAGOGUES. oat

they would be regarded as apostates from the Jewish religion,
and be scourged in the synagogues (Matt. x. 17, xxiii. 34) ;
and Paul says, that when he persecuted the church, he beat
in every synagogue those who believed on Christ (Acts xxii.
19, xxvi. 11). The Romans do not seem to have interfered
with the Jews in the administration of their laws, at least
in Palestine ; except that they protected the Jewish Roman
citizens, who were forbidden to be scourged; and whilst they
permitted the Jews to inflict minor punishments, they wisely
deprived them of the power of life and death.

The influence which the synagogue exercised upon the
Jewish character was very great. It was this system which
preserved them for ever from relapsing into idolatry. Reli-
gion was openly taught and impressed upon them; the law
and the prophets were read every Sabbath-day: and thus
they were led to look with aversion upon the religious systems
of their heathen neighbours. A more intellectual form of
religion came in the place of the ceremonial. A new class
of men arose, who rivalled in influence the sacerdotal class.
In the synagogue, the service of the priest and the Levite
might be dispensed with: the elder and the scribe occupied
their place. Through the synagogues also, it is probable that
the Pharisees obtained and exercised their great influence
among the people; the scribes and elders in general belonged
to that party, whereas the worldly Sadducees were compara-
tively indifferent to the outward forms of religion. It was
the Pharisees who made long prayers standing in the syna-
gogues, and thus obtained the praise of men.—It is an in-
teresting question—the discussion of which, however, would
occupy too much space—What influence the synagogue exer-
cised upon Christianity? How far the church, in its service
and officers, resembles the Jewish synagogue? How much,
if anything, was borrowed by the early Christians from the
ecclesiastical polity of the Jews??

1 For authorities on the subject of the synagogue, the reader is re-
ferred to Prideaux’s Connection of the Old and New Testament, Conybeare
and Howson’s St. Paul, Dr. Plumptre’s article in Smith’s Biblical Dic-
tionary, and the article ‘‘ Synagogen” in Winer’s biblisches Worterbuch.

SECTION XIII.
‘THE DEFENCE OF STEPHEN.—Acts vu. 1-58.

1 And the high priest said, Are then these things so? 2 And he
said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared
to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt
in Haran, 8 And said to him, Depart from thy land, and from thy
kindred, and come hither into the land which I shall show thee. 4 Then,
having gone out of the land of the Chaldeans, he dwelt in Haran; and
thence, when his father was dead, He removed him into this land, in
which ye now dwell. 5 And He gave him no inheritance in it, not even
a foot-breadth: and He promised to give it to him for a possession, and
to his seed after him, when he had no child. 6 And God spoke on this
wise, That his seed should be sojourners in a strange land ; and that they
should bring them into bondage, and oppress them for four hundred
years. 7 And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage will I judge,
saith God: and after these things they shall come forth, and worship
me in this place. 8 And He gave him the covenant of circumcision:
and so he begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac
begat Jacob; and Jacob the twelve patriarchs. 9 And the patriarchs,
moved with envy, sold Joseph into Egypt: and God was with him,
10 And delivered him from all his afflictions, and gave him favour and
wisdom before Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him governor over
Egypt, and all his house. 11 But there came a famine over all the land
of Egypt and Canaan, and great affliction : and our fathers found no food.
12 But when Jacob heard that there was corn, he sent out our fathers
first into Egypt. 13 And at the second time Joseph was recognised by
his brethren ; and Joseph’s kindred was made known unto Pharaoh.
14 Then Joseph sent, and called his father Jacob and all his kindred,
seventy-five souls. 15 And Jacob went down and died, he and our
fathers. 16 And they were removed to Sychem, and laid in the sepul-
chre that Abraham bought for a sum of money from the sons of Emmor,
of Sychem. 17 But as the time of the promise drew near, which God
had declared to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt,
18 Until another king arose, who knew not Joseph: 19 The same
dealt with subtlety toward our kindred, and oppressed our fathers, so
that they cast out their infants, that they might not be preserved alive.
20 In which time Moses was born, and was exceeding fair, who was

228

THE DEFENCE OF STEPHEN.—VII. 1—53. 929

nourished in his father’s house three months. 21 And when he was
cast out, Pharaoh’s daughter took him up, and nourished him for her
own son. 22 And Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyp-
“ tians, and was mighty in his words and works. 23 And when he was
full forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren the
children of Israel. 24 And seeing one suffer wrong, he defended him,
and avenged him that was oppressed, by smiting the Egyptian: 25 For
he supposed that his brethren would have understood how that God by
his hand would give to them deliverance; but they understood not.
26 And the next day he appeared to them as they strove, and urged
them to peace, saying, Sirs, ye are brethren; why do ye injure one
another? 27 But he who injured his neighbour thrust him away,
saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us? 28 Wilt thou kill
me, as thou didst kill the Egyptian yesterday? 29 Then fled Moses at
this saying, and was a stranger in the land of Midian, where he begat
two sons. 30 And when forty years were fulfilled, there appeared to
him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, an angel in a flame of fire in a
bush. 31 When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight: and as he
drew near to behold it, the voice of the Lord came, 32 I am the God
of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob. Then
Moses trembled, and durst not behold. 383 But the Lord said to him,
Put off thy shoes from thy feet: for the place where thou standest is
holy ground. 34 I have distinctly seen the ill-treatment of my people
which is in Egypt, and I have heard their groaning, and I am come down
to deliver them. And now come, I will send thee into Egypt. 35 This
Moses whom they denied, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge?
the same has God sent to be a ruler and a redeemer, with the hand
of the angel who appeared to him in the bush. 36 This man brought
them out, after that he had wrought wonders and signs in the land of
Egypt, and in the Red Sea, and in the wilderness forty years. 37 This
is that Moses who said to the children of Israel, A prophet will God
raise up to you of your brethren, like unto me. 38 This is he who was
in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him
in Mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received the living words to
give tous; 39 To whom our fathers were unwilling to be obedient,
but thrust him from them, and in their heart turned back to Egypt,
40 Saying to Aaron, Make us gods who will go before us: for as for this
Moses, who brought us out of the land of Egypt, we know not what has
happened to him. 41 And they made a calf in those days, and offered
sacrifice to the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their hands. 42 But
God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is
written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered
to me sacrifices and offerings for forty years in the wilderness? 43 And
ye took up the tabernacle of Molech, and the star of the god Rephan,
figures which ye made, to worship them: and I will remove you beyond

230 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

Babylon. 44 The tabernacle of witness was with our fathers in the
wilderness, as He who spoke to Moses commanded, to make it according
to the pattern which he had seen: 45 Which also our fathers having
received, brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom
God drove out from the face of our fathers, until the days of David;
46 Who found favour before God, and requested to find a dwelling for
the God of Jacob. 47 But Solomon built Him a house. 48 Howbeit
the Most High dwelleth not in what are made with hands; as says the
prophet, 49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what
house will ye build me? saith the Lord; or what is the place of my
rest? 50 Did not my hand make all these things? 51 Ye stiff-necked
and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost:
as your fathers did, so do ye. 52 Which of the prophets did not your
fathers persecute? and they slew those who foretold the coming of the
Just One: whose betrayers and murderers ye have now become: 53 Who
received the law as ordinances of angels, and did not keep it.

CRITICAL NOTES.

Ver. 12. Eis Αἴγυπτον is found in A, B, ©, E, x, and
is decidedly to be preferred to ἐν Aiyurtm, found in
D, H. Ver. 15. Eis Αἴγυπτον is cancelled by Tischen-
dorf, though it would seem without sufficient reason. Ver.
16.”O before ὠνήσατο, found in H, is to be rejected;
and the reading ᾧ, found in A, B, C, Ὁ, E, x, to be pre-
ferred. Ver. 17. Instead of ὥμοσεν, found in H, Tischen-
dorf, Lachmann, and Meyer read ὡμολόγησεν, after A, B,
C, x. Ver. 21. The reading of the textus receptus, ἐκτεθέντα
δὲ αὐτόν, found in Εἰ, H, is adopted by Tischendorf, Alford,
and De Wette; whereas Lachmann reads ἐκτεθέντος δὲ
αὐτοῦ, certainly a better attested reading, being found in
A, B, C, Ὁ, x. Ver. 22. Αὐτοῦ after ἔργοις is attested by
A, B, C, Ὁ, E, 8, and is inserted by all the recent critics.
Ver. 26. Συνήλασεν, the reading of the textus receptus, is
found in A, E, and is preferred by Tischendorf, Meyer, and
De Wette, as the more difficult reading, to συνήλλασσεν,
although supported by B, C, D, and s. Ver. 30. Lach-
mann, Tischendorf, and Alford read ἄγγελος without Κυρίου,
after A, B, C, 8. Φλογὶ πυρός of the textus receptus is found
in B, D, H, x, and is adopted by Lachmann and Alford;

THE DEFENCE OF STEPHEN.—VII. 1, 2. 231

whereas Tischendorf reads πυρὶ φλογός, found in A, C, E.
Ver. 31. Πρὸς αὐτόν after Κυρίου, found in Οὐ, is omitted
by Tischendorf and Lachmann, being wanting in A, B, x.
Ver. 32. Tischendorf and Lachmann read ὁ Θεὸς ’ABpaap,
καὶ ᾿Ισαὰκ, καὶ ᾿Ιακώβ, after A, B,C, 8. Ver. 35. Borne-
mann, Lachmann, and Tischendorf read σὺν χειρί, after
A, B, C, D, E, instead of ἐν χειρί, found in H and ἃ. Ver.
37. The shorter reading ἀναστήσει ὁ Θεὸς, after A, B, Ὁ), x,
is adopted by Tischendorf, Lachmann, and Alford, instead
of the reading of the tewtus receptus, ἀναστήσει Κύριος ὁ θεὸς
ὑμῶν, found in OC, E, H. Αὐτοῦ ἀκούσεσθε, found in Οὐ, E,
is omitted by Tischendorf and Lachmann, being wanting in
A, B, H, δ. Ver. 43. Ὑμῶν after θεοῦ is wanting in
B and D, and is omitted by Lachmann and Tischendorf :
it is found in A, C, E, x. The reading ‘Pegay, found in
C, E, is adopted by Lachmann and Tischendorf as being the
most probable. Ver. 48. Naois, found in H, is rejected by
all recent editors, being wanting in A, B, C, Ὁ, E, x. Ver.
52. The reading ἐγένεσθε, found in A, B, C, Ὁ, E, x, and
adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Meyer, is decidedly
to be preferred to γεγένησθε of the textus receptus, found

in H.

EXEGETICAL REMARKS.

Stephen, being accused before the Sanhedrim of blas-
phemy against the Mosaic religion, and against God, defends
himself in the following speech. As to the nature of the
speech—its relation to the charges brought against Stephen,
and the objects which the protomartyr had in view—see
remarks at the close of the exposition.

Ver. 1. Εἶπεν δὲ ὁ dpysepeds—But the high priest said.
The glorified countenance of Stephen has caused a pause of
surprise and admiration, which the high priest interrupts by
calling upon the accused for his defence.

Ver. 2. "Avdpes, ἀδελφοὶ, καὶ matépes—Men, brethren, and
fathers. Stephen, addressing the audience, calls them
brethren ; and addressing the members of the Sanhedrim,

232 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

calls them fathers. ‘O Θεὸς τῆς S0&ns—the God of glory.
This is not to be considered as a Hebraism equivalent to
Θεὸς ἔνδοξος (Humphry); but it refers to the δόξα of the
Jews—the glory of God, which, as a pillar of fire, guided
them in the wilderness, and rested upon the mercy-seat
in the tabernacle and in the temple—called by them the
Shekinah. Hence Paul mentions ἡ δόξα as one of the
peculiar privileges of the Jewish nation (Rom. ix. 4). "Ev
τῇ Mecorrotayia—in Mesopotamia. In the Old Testament,
the place where Abraham first resided is called Ur of the
Chaldees (Gen. xi. 28), and lay to the north of Mesopotamia,
near to the sources of the Tigris. “Ev Xappav—in Haran.
Haran, called here and in the Septuagint Charran, and by
the Greeks and Romans Carrhe, was also situated in the
district of Mesopotamia, but to the south of Ur, and on the
side bordering on Palestine. It is noted in Roman history
as the scene of the defeat of Crassus, B.c. 51: “‘ Miserando
funere Crassus Assyrias Latio maculabit sanguine Carras”

(Lucan, i. 104); Carras cede Crassi nobiles (Plin. v. 24; |

Strabo, xvi. 1. 23). In the wars of Julian it is mentioned as
a Roman city, and in the days of the caliphs it was a place
of some consequence. It is still known by its ancient name,
and is inhabited by a few wandering Arabs. Niebuhr says
that it is two days’ journey from Orfa.

Ver. 3. Kal εἶπε πρὸς adtov—and said to him, Depart
from thy land, and from thy kindred. The quotation is taken
verbatim from the Septuagint of Gen. xii. 1, except that the
words καὶ ἐκ τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ πατρός σου, and from the house of
thy father, are here omitted. There is here an apparent dis-
crepancy between the statement of Stephen and the Mosaic
narrative. According to Stephen, the call of Abraham took
place in Ur of the Chaldees before he dwelt in Haran;
whereas, according to Moses, the call occurred in Haran.
Accordingly many critics (Grotius, De Wette, Meyer) think
that Stephen has here committed a mistake, and followed an
erroneous tradition of the Jews. But the discrepancy is
only apparent. It would appear from the sacred narrative
that Abraham was twice called: once in Ur of the Chaldees,

THE DEFENCE OF STEPHEN.—VIIL. 4. 233

and afterwards at Haran. His removal from Ur, we are
expressly informed, was in consequence of a divine revela-
-tion: “Tam the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the
Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it” (Gen. xv. 7).
And in the book of Nehemiah there is a reference to this
early call: “Thou art the Lord, the God who didst choose
Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chal-
dees” (Neh. ix. 7). Josephus mentions this earlier call of
Abraham in Chaldea, but he omits entirely the sojourn in
Haran (Ant. i. 7.1). To this solution of the difficulty, Meyer
objects that the verbal quotation from Gen. xii. 1 proves
that Stephen had in view no other call than that mentioned
in this passage. But, on the one hand, it is not surprising
either that the call should be repeated to Abraham in nearly
the same words, or that Stephen should apply the well-
known words found in Gen. xii. 1 to the earlier call. And,
on the other hand, the words are not precisely the same; for
here there is no mention of a departure from his father’s
house, as there is when God called Abraham at Haran.
When Abraham removed from Ur of the Chaldees, he did
not depart from his father’s house, for Terah his father
accompanied him; but when he removed from Haran, he
left Terah (if he was then alive) and his brother Nahor.
Ver. 4. Μετὰ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν τὸν πατέρα avtov—after his
Jather was dead. Here there is another variation from the
Mosaic narrative. In Gen. xi. 26 we read that Terah lived
seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and in
Gen. xi. 32 we are informed that the days of Terah were
two hundred and five years. Now Abraham was seventy-five
when he removed from Haran (Gen. xii. 4) ; and therefore it
would follow that Terah, so far from being dead, lived sixty
years after the departure of Abraham (70 + 75 + 60 = 205).
There was a tradition of the Jews, that Abraham, actuated
by filial piety, remained in Haran until the death of his
father. Philo, in his Life of Abraham, also mentions the
death of Terah as occurring before the removal of Abra-
ham (De migr. Abrah. 32); and hence many suppose that
Stephen here followed a rabbinical tradition, though erro-

234 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

neous (Meyer, De Wette, Lechler, Alford). Bengel sup-
poses, that while Terah lived in Haran, Abraham had his
paternal home there, and only lived as a stranger in the land
of Canaan; but such a solution of the difficulty is forced
and unnatural. Baumgarten asserts, that although Terah
yet lived when Abraham went into Canaan, yet Stephen
thought it necessary to mention his death, for the purpose of
showing, that for the commencement of the new relation
which God designed to form with the human race, Abraham
was to be taken into consideration, not as associated, but as
separate from Terah,—an explanation which is unsatisfactory
and mystical. Many critics (Michaelis, Kuincel, Liiger,
Olshausen, Stier) suppose that Stephen here adopts the
Jewish notion, that Abraham left Haran after the spiritual
death of Terah, that is, after his apostasy into idolatry.
According to this view, ἀποθανεῖν must signify spiritual
death,—a sense which is not justified by the context, and
which would never have been adopted had not this apparent
discrepancy occurred. The Samaritan Pentateuch reads one
hundred and forty-five years as the age of Terah,—a reading
which has been adopted by Bochart and Whiston. If
correct, it is a complete solution of the difficulty ; for then
Terah would be dead before Abraham left Haran. The
most probable explanation is, that Abraham was the youngest
son of Terah, and was not born until Terah was a hundred
and thirty years old (Lange, Lightfoot, Hackett, Biscoe,
Wordsworth). It is indeed said that Terah was seventy
years old when he begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; but by
this may be only meant, that he was that age when his first
child was born; and Abraham may be mentioned first, not
because he was the oldest, but because he was the most dis-
tinguished. Lightfoot has shown that some Jewish writers
assert that, although first mentioned, Abraham was the
youngest of the brethren; and they illustrate this from the
order observed in numbering the sons of Noah, where Shem
is first in the catalogue, though he was younger than Japhet.
The great number of years (sixty) between the birth of the
oldest and of the youngest son of Terah on this supposition

:
|
:

THE DEFENCE OF STEPHEN.—VII. 5-7. 235

is, it must be admitted, an objection to this solution of the
difficulty ; but, considering the ages of the patriarchs, it
cannot be asserted to be insurmountable."

Ver. 5. Καὶ οὐκ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ κληρονομίαν ἐν abtp—and
He gave him no inheritance in it. Tere a third apparent
contradiction to the Mosaic narrative occurs. According to
Stephen, Abraham had no inheritance in Canaan, not even
a foot-breadth ; whereas, according to the Mosaic narrative,
he purchased the field and cave of Machpelah at Hebron
(Gen. xxiii. 20). Various explanations have been given.
Meyer supposes that the statement of Stephen refers only
to the first period of Abraham’s residence in Canaan, before
the institution of circumcision ; whereas that field was pur-
chased toward the close of his life. Kuincel and Olshausen
think that οὐκ here stands for οὔπω, not yet. Bengel and
Lechler find the solution of the difficulty in this, that Abra-
ham had to purchase the field, and did not receive it as a
gift from God. But, after all, what is the use of all these
attempts at reconciliation? Surely a burying-place cannot
be called an inheritance. Although the whole land of
Canaan was given by promise to Abraham, and to his seed
after him, yet he could only find in it a grave for himself
and family.

Vers. 6, 7. These verses are a quotation, with a few varia-
tions, from the Septuagint of Gen. xv. 13, 14. The last words,
λατρευσουσί μοι ἐν τῷ τόπῳ τούτῳ, are taken from Ex. iii. 12,
where, however, τύπῳ is substituted for dpe. By the words
“in this place,” are meant the land of Canaan; whereas,
in the book of Exodus, “ in this mountain” refers to Sinai.
The words are a permissible application of the language of
the Mosaic narrative, by which the promise that the Israelites
would worship God in Sinai is transferred to their worship
in the Holy Land; and it is hypercriticism to affirm that
here there is another mistake committed by Stephen. Such
applications of the prophecies of the Old Testament are fre-

quently made by the sacred writers.
_ Ἔτη tetpaxdcta—four hundred years. This is the number
1 See especially, on this difficulty, Biscoe on the Acts, pp. 545, 546.

—

236 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

in the passage of which these words are a quotation, accord-
ing to the text both of the Hebrew and of the Septuagint
(Gen. xvi. 13). The exact number of years, as we elsewhere
learn, was four hundred and thirty (Ex. xii. 40; see also
Gal. iii. 17). A round sum is here given, without taking
into account the broken number. But the question is, From
what period are these years to be reckoned? Do they refer
exclusively to the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt, com-
mencing at the removal of Jacob into that country? Or do
they commence from the call of Abraham, and include also
the sojourn in Canaan? Certainly, at first sight, the words
in the Mosaic narrative would seem to intimate that this was
the period of Egyptian bondage; but Paul understands it
differently. He reckons four hundred and thirty years as
extending from the call of Abraham to the giving of the law
(Gal. iii. 17). And there are internal marks in the Mosaic
narrative which show that this reckoning is correct; for the
mother of Moses was the daughter of Levi (Ex. vi. 20),
which would be impossible were the whole period of Egyptian
bondage four hundred and thirty years.' The period of
four hundred and thirty years appears to be divided into two
equal parts, the one being the sojourn in Canaan, and the
other being the sojourn in Egypt. The former period is
thus reckoned: From the call of Abraham to the birth of
Isaac, twenty-five years; from the birth of Isaac to the birth:
of Jacob, sixty years; from the birth of Jacob to his removal
to Egypt, a hundred and thirty years (Gen. xlvii. 9): 2 - 60
+130 = 215. And the latter period may be thus accounted
for: From Jacob’s removal to Egypt to the death of Joseph,
seventy-one years; from the death of Joseph to the birth
of Moses, sixty-four years; from the birth of Moses to the
exodus, eighty years: 71 + 64 - 80 = 215. Josephus is
not consistent with himself. In one place he says that the
Israelites spent four hundred years under the afflictions in
Egypt (Aut. ii. 9. 1), and in another place he states that the
children of Israel left Egypt four hundred and thirty years

1 See a valuable note by Alford on Gal. iii. 17 ; and also Wordsworth ἡ
on the Acts, p. 67.

THE DEFENCE OF STEPHEN.—VII. 8-13. 237

after Abraham came into Canaan, but two hundred and
fifteen years only after Jacob removed into Egypt (Ant.
in 15, 2).

Ver. 8. Διαθήκην mepitouns—the covenant of circumcision.
Circumcision was the sign or seal of the covenant which God
made with Abraham, that He would give to him and to his
seed the land of Canaan for a possession; so that, fully
expressed, the idea is: He gave to him circumcision, the seal
of the covenant. Circumcision, however, is called in the
Old Testament, as here, the covenant (Gen. xvii. 10, 11);
the sign being called by the name of the thing signified.

Ver. 9. Kal οἱ rwatpidpya: —and the patriarchs. The
twelve sons of Jacob are here honoured by the name patri-
archs, as being the heads of the twelve tribes or πατριαί.
Ζηλώσαντες, τὸν ᾿Ιωσὴφ arédovro—moved with envy, sold
Joseph. Without doubt, Stephen, in mentioning the envious
jealousy of the patriarchs toward Joseph, had in view the

- wicked disposition of the Jewish rulers toward Jesus. There

is here, as well as in the mention of the rejection of Moses,
an indirect attack upon his accusers: that they, in rejecting
Jesus and persecuting His disciples, were just acting over
again the conduct of their forefathers.

Ver. 10. Kai ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ydpw—and gave him favour and
wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh. By this we are not to under-
stand favour in the sight of God, and wisdom in the sight of
Pharaoh (Meyer). Both favour and wisdom have reference
to the view of the king. Joseph, by displaying his wisdom
as an interpreter of dreams, obtained favour with Pharaoh,
so much so that he constituted him his vizier. Pharaoh
appears to have been the common title of the Egyptian kings,
as Ptolemy was in after ages, and as Ceesar was the title of
the Roman emperors.

Vers. 11-13. Xoptdcpata—food ; literally fodder, a de-
ficiency in which was the greatest want for a pastoral people
like the Israelites. Ὄντα ovria—that there was corn. Where,
is not said, but Egypt is supposed. Egypt was the great
corn country of the ancient world; it was the granary of the
Roman empire. Eis Aiyurrov—into Egypt. These words

238 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

are not connected with συτία, as in our version, but with
ἐξαπέστειλε, as is evident from the preposition eis. (See
critical note.) II pa@rov—/irst, 1.6. before going himself.
To γένος "Iwonp—the kindred of Joseph was made known to
Pharaoh ; not that Pharaoh now learned for the first time
the Hebrew origin of Joseph, but merely that he was in-
formed of the arrival of his kindred in Egypt.

Ver. 14. Ψυχαῖς éSdounxovtarévte—seventy-five souls.
The readings of the Hebrew and the Septuagint here differ.
According to the Hebrew text, the descendants of Jacob
amounted only to seventy (Gen. xlvi. 27; Ex. i. 5; Deut.
x. 22), and the same number is given by Josephus (Ant. ii.
7. 4); whereas according to the Septuagint (Gen. xlvi. 27
and Ex. i. 5, but not in Deut. x. 22) the number is seventy-
five. According to the Hebrew, the descendants of Jacob
who came into Egypt were sixty-six; and Jacob himself,
Joseph and his two sons, made up the seventy : whereas in
the Septuagint, after giving the number sixty-six, it is added,
“ And the sons of Joseph born unto him in the land of Egypt
were nine souls; so all the souls of the house of Jacob who
came into Egypt were seventy-five” (Gen. xlvi. 26, 27). By
the nine sons of Joseph are probably meant his two sons and
their five children and grandchildren (Gen. xlvi. 20, accord-
ing to the LXX.), and reckoning Jacob and Joseph them-
selves to make up the number (Alford). Various attempts
have been made to reconcile the statement of Stephen with
the Hebrew account. It has been supposed that in the
Hebrew those only are mentioned who were descended from
Jacob—his sons and grandsons; whereas Stephen mentions
those who came down with him into Egypt, including the
wives of the patriarchs, and excluding Joseph and his two
sons, who were already in Egypt. But such an explanation
is unsatisfactory. Stephen, in giving the number at seventy-
five, just follows the Septuagint, the translation which he, as
a Hellenist, used; and according to it, the number is made
up by adding the five descendants of Joseph."

Vers. 15, 16. These verses contain the greatest apparent

1 See Wordsworth on the Acts, p. 68.

THE DEFENCE OF STEPHEN.—VII, 15, 16. 239

discrepancies which exist between the speech of Stephen and
the Mosaic narrative. There are three variations: 1. Ac-
cording to Stephen, it would appear that Jacob was buried
in Shechem; whereas according to the Mosaic account he
was buried with Abraham and Isaac at Hebron. 2. Accord-
ing to Stephen, the twelve patriarchs were buried at Shechem;
whereas according to the Mosaic narrative this was indeed
true of Joseph, but there is no mention of the rest of the
patriarchs. (This, however, can hardly be called a discre-
pancy, as there is here no statement of Moses at variance
with the words of Stephen.) ὃ. According to Stephen, it
would seem that the field of Shechem was purchased by
Abraham of the sons of Emmor, the father of Shechem;
whereas according to the Mosaic account this purchase was
made by Jacob (Gen. xxxiii. 19),—the purchase of Abraham
being the cave of Machpelah at Hebron from Ephron the
Hittite (Gen. xxiil. 20).

With regard to the first and second variations, the diffi-
culty consists in this, that Stephen appears to state that
Jacob and the twelve patriarchs were buried in Shechem ;
whereas according to the Mosaic narrative Jacob was buried
at Hebron, and it is mentioned of Joseph only that his bones
were buried in Shechem: “The bones of Joseph, which the
children of Israel brought up out of Egypt, buried they in
Shechem, in a parcel of ground which Jacob bought of the
sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem” (Josh. xxiv. 32).
There is no mention in the Old Testament of the burial-
place of the other patriarchs; and, according to Lightfoot,
all Jewish writers are wholly silent with regard to their burial
in Shechem. According to Josephus, their bodies were buried
at Hebron (Ant. ii. 8.2). Christian tradition, however, fixes
en Shechem as their place of sepulture. Thus Jerome, who
himself lived in the neighbourhood of that city, giving a de-
scription of the travels of Paula through the Holy Land,
says: “She came to Shechem, and passing thence, she saw
the sepulchres of the twelve patriarchs” (Jp. 86). And it is
not improbable, that with the bones of Joseph, the Israelites
buried also the bones of the other patriarchs at Shechem

240 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

This, however, does not solve the difficulty with regard to the
burial of Jacob; and on this point most commentators con-
sider that Stephen was mistaken (De Wette, Meyer, Alford,
Lange). But if we suppose that of πατέρες ἡμῶν only,
without αὐτός, is the nominative to μετετέθησαν, then the
difficulty is removed ; and this is a construction which is ap-
proved of by critics of the highest order (Kuincel, Olshau-
sen, Hackett, Wordsworth), a certain allowance being made
for a loose construction. The passage would then read as
follows: “And Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he
and our fathers. And they (our fathers) were removed to
Sychem.”

The third variation creates a more serious difficulty, as
there is, according to the present reading, an evident con-
tradiction. According to Stephen, Abraham purchased the
sepulchre at Shechem from the sons of Emmor, the father
of Shechem; but according to the Mosaic account, not
Abraham, but Jacob, purchased this field (Gen. xxxiii. 19;
Josh. xxiv. 92). Abraham, on the contrary, purchased the
cave at Hebron from Ephron the Hittite (Gen. xxiii. 16,
xlix. 29). Hence it would appear that Stephen has con-
founded the two purchases of Abraham and Jacob. Most
critics have given up the attempt at reconciliation as hopeless,
and have admitted that Stephen, in the excitement of the
moment, fell into a mistake, and that Luke, or the editor
of the speech, did not feel himself justified in correcting it
(De Wette, Meyer, Olshausen, Lechler, Alford, Humphry).
Some (Hammond, Krebs) would explain ’ASpaayp as a patro-
nymic in the sense of Abrahamides—that is, Jacob; but
such an explanation is arbitrary, and evidently erroneous.
Others (Biscoe, Bengel, Liiger, Stier) suppose that Stephen,
for the sake of brevity, unites the two transactions; and they
thus paraphrase the passage: “Jacob died, he and our fathers;
and they were removed to Shechem (and to the sepulchre of
Hebron): and they were laid (in the parcel of ground at
Shechem, and) in the sepulchre (of Hebron) which Abra-
ham (and Jacob) had bought for a sum of money from
(Ephron the Hittite, and) from the sons of Emmor, the

THE DEFENCE OF STEPHEN.—VIL. 18. 241

father of Shechem.” But this, so far from removing the
difficulty, makes the discrepancy only the more apparent.
In short, all solutions of the difficulty as the text now stands
are inadmissible:' as Calvin observes, “It is plain that a
mistake has been made in the name of Abraham ; this passage
must be corrected.” Accordingly various critical emenda-
tions have been suggested. Some (Beza, Bochart, Kuincel,
Whitby, Hackett) suppose that the word ’ASpadp is spurious,
and that the verb ὠνήσατο stood by itself : so that the passage
is to be rendered, “and laid in the sepulchre which one pur-
chased ;” and that some of the earliest transcribers, seeing the
verb without a nominative, supplied "A@padu. The solution
is plausible. It is, however, a mere conjectural emenda-
tion, the authority of all mss. and versions being against its
adoption. If an error has entered into the text, it must have
been committed by one of the earliest copyists. If conjec-
tural emendation is ever admissible, this is certainly a pas-
sage where its exercise would be justifiable, considering the
evident nature of the error, and the improbability that it
was committed by Stephen, a man full of wisdom and of
the Holy Ghost; and that, if committed, it was passed over
without correction by the sacred historian.

Ver. 18. Βασιλεὺς Etepos—another king: not merely the
successor of the last king, but another kind (ἕτερος) of king
—the king of another dynasty (Ex. 1. 8). “The crown
being now come into another family” (Joseph. Ant. ii. 9. 1).
According to Sir G. Wilkinson, this new king was Amosis
or Ames, the first of the eighteenth dynasty, or that of the
Diospolitans from Thebes. “Os οὐκ ἤδει τὸν ᾿Ιωσήφ---ιοῆο
knew not Joseph: that is, say some, who did not recognise
the merits of Joseph (Kuincel, Olshausen) ; or, according to
- others, who was entirely ignorant of his history and services
to the land (Meyer, Lechler). The lapse of sixty years
after the death of Joseph, taken in connection with the com-

1 Dr. Wordsworth, in a long note, attempts to show that Abraham
first purchased the field at Shechem, and that it was afterwards
‘recovered by Jacob. This, however, appears to be an unnatural
solution.

VOL. I. Q

242 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

mencement of a new dynasty, sufficiently accounts for this
ignorance of Joseph.

Ver. 19. Tod ποιεῖν τὰ βρέφη ἔκθετα adtav—so that they
cast out their children. Meyer thinks that we have here the
construction of the infinitive of purpose: he oppressed them
in order to make them so desperate as to destroy their own
children. But such a meaning does not suit the context,
and is grammatically unnecessary. In Hellenistic Greek the
indication of the purpose is often changed into that of the
result (see Winer’s Grammar, p. 347, English translation).
The reference is to the command of Pharaoh, given to the
Egyptians, that they should cast out all the male infants of
the Israelites into the Nile.

Ver. 20. ’Acteios τῷ Ocd—euceeding fair ; literally, “fair
toward God,” “beautiful in the judgment of God” (Winer,
p- 262). The words, however, are to be regarded as a
common Hebraism for the superlative of intensity, and the
translation of our version is to be retained. Thus Nineveh
is called in the Septuagint πόλις μεγάλη τῷ Θεῷ (Jonah
iii. 11). So that the sense corresponds with the Mosaic
narrative, where it is said of Moses that he was a goodly
child (Ex. ii. 3). In Josephus Moses is called παῖδα μορφῇ
θεῖον (Ant. ii. 9.7). There are many Jewish traditions which
extol the beauty of Moses. Thus, Josephus informs us that
none was so indifferent a spectator of beauty that he would not
admire the beauty of Moses; and that those who met him as
he was carried along the streets not only looked at the coun-
tenance of the child, but also, forgetting other business, stood
still a great while to gaze upon him: for such was the child’s
beauty, that it captivated and detained the beholders (Ant.
τ 9. 6).

Ver. 21. ‘H θυγάτηρ Papad—the daughter of Pharaoh,
called by Josephus and others Thermutis (Ant. 11. 9. 5).
᾿Ανείλετο avtov—took him up ; not adopted him, but lifted
him out of the water. Καὶ ἀνεθρέψατο αὐτὸν ἑαυτῇ εἰς υἱόν
—and nourished him for her own son ; that is, he became by
adoption the son of Pharaoh’s daughter: and the privileges
of adoption in oriental countries are much greater than they

THE DEFENCE OF STEPHEN,—VII. 22, 23. 243

are in our country. According to the Egyptian law, Moses
would probably be regarded as the real son of Pharaoh’s
“daughter. According to Jewish tradition, Moses was chosen
as Pharaoh’s successor.

Ver. 22. Kai ἐπαιδεύθη M. . . . Aiyurtiov—And Moses
was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. The Egvyp-
tians were at this period the most learned people in the world.
Their learning, we are informed, embraced natural science,
astronomy, and mathematics. ‘“ Moses,” says Augustine,
“took the wisdom of the Egyptians, as the people did the
golden vessels.” But it is false to imagine that Moses, as the
founder of the Jewish religion, was indebted for his religious
opinions to his Egyptian training. There is no resemblance
between the pure monotheism of the Hebrews and the low
fetichism of the Egyptians. Muvatds ἐν Noyous—mighty in
words. In the Old Testament it is said of Moses that he
was slow of speech, and of a slow tongue (Ex. iv. 10). In
our passage it is affirmed that his words were weighty—
that they were accompanied with power; and indeed it fre-
quently happens that a powerful intellect is combined with
a want of fluency in utterance. According to Josephus,
‘‘ Moses was very able to persuade the people by his speeches”
(Ant. iti. 1.4). Καὶ ἔργοις αὐτοῦ---απὰ in his works. This
does not refer to his miracles wrought in Egypt and in the
wilderness, but to the works performed in the early part of
his life. We have no account of these in the Old Testament.
On this period of his life sacred history is entirely silent.
Josephus mentions that, when the Ethiopians invaded Egypt,
Moses at the head of an army defeated them (Ant. 11. 10. 1).

Ver. 23. ‘Os δὲ ἐπληροῦτο αὐτῷ τεσσαρακονταετὴς χρόνος
—and when he was full forty years old. Stephen, according to
a Jewish tradition, divides the age of Moses into three periods
of forty years: forty years in Egypt (ver. 23); forty years
in Midian (ver. 30); forty years in the wilderness (ver. 42).
So in Bereschith Rabba it is said: Moses in palatio Pharaonis
40 annos degit, in Midiane 40 annos, et 40 annos Israeli mini-
stravit. There are some traces of this division in the Old
Testament. The whole age of Moses is stated at 120 years

244 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

(Deut. xxxiv. 7), the period spent in the wilderness at
forty years (Ex. xvi. 32), and his age when he stood before
Pharaoh at eighty years (Ex. vii. 7). There is, however, no
mention either of the time he spent in Egypt before his flight
to Midian, or of the duration of his residence in that country.

Ver. 24. ᾿Εποίησεν ἐκδίκησιν τῷ Katatrovovpéeve—avenged
him that was oppressed. Moses felt impelled to be the de-
liverer of Israel, the avenger of the wrongs of his brethren.
Πατάξας τὸν Aiytrrtiov—having smitten the Egyptian. In
the preceding part of the verse it was not mentioned that it
was an Egyptian who was the oppressor; but thisis explained
by the circumstance that the story was universally known,

Ver. 25. ᾿Ενόμιζε δὲ συνιέναι --- for he supposed that his
brethren would have understood. Stephen understood this act
of Moses, by which he delivered an individual Israelite and
slew an individual Egyptian, as an intimation of that national
deliverance from Egyptian bondage which God would effect
by his means (Lechler). Moses supposed that his brethren
would have understood this, and would have readily acknow-
ledged him as their deliverer. We are not informed on
what grounds Moses founded his supposition. Probably he
had before this divine intimations that he was the destined
deliverer of Israel. The approach of the period of the pro-
mised ‘deliverance should have prepared the Israelites to
expect it; and the appearance of such an illustrious person
as the adopted son of Pharaoh’s daughter to be their de-
fender, should have induced them at least to investigate his
claims.

Vers, 26-28. "260n—appeared, t.e. showed himself to
them; appeared not of his own accord, but as the messenger
of God. Surjracev αὐτοὺς eis eipnvnv—urged them to peace.
The verb signifies that he used efforts to reconcile them;
literally, “he drove them together into peace.” Μὴ ἀνελεῖν
με σὺ θέλεις, ete.— Wilt thou hill me, as thow didst kill the
Egyptian? It is plain that the speech of this individual is
represented as expressing the sentiments of the whole body
of the people—the feeling of Israel toward Moses. (See
ver. 35.)

THE DEFENCE OF STEPHEN.—VII. 29, 30. 245

Ver. 29. Ἐν γῇ Madivdu—in the land of Midian. Midian
was a district of Arabia Petraea lying along the eastern
“branch of the Red Sea, or the Elanitic Gulf, bordering on
the country of Moab on the one side, and the wilderness of
Sinai on the other. There is mention, in the travels of the
middle ages, of the ruins of a city Madian, on the east side
of the Elanitic Gulf. Probably the Midianites under Jethro
were a nomadic tribe, as we do not find them in this district
when the Israelites encamped at Mount Sinai.

Ver. 30. Ev τῇ ἐρήμῳ τοῦ ὄρους Swa—in the wilderness
of Mount Sinai. The Sinaitic peninsula is here indicated as
the place where the call of Moses occurred: it was in the
neighbourhood of Mount Sinai. In the New Testament and
Josephus, Sinai only occurs, and not Horeb; whereas in the
Pentateuch both names appear to be used indiscriminately.
According to Robinson, Horeb is the general name for the
whole mountain range, and Sinai is the name of the parti-
cular mountain from which the law was given. “Aryyehos—
an angel. It is generally admitted by recent critics that this is
the correct reading, and not ἄγγελος Κυρίου, as in the tewvtus
receptus. Commentators are almost equally divided as to
whether this was a created angel or the Jehovah Angel—the
Messenger of the Covenant—the Son of God (Isa. Ixiii. 9).
Meyer, Baumgarten, and Lechler think that a created being
is here meant; whereas Bengel, Nitzsch, Lange, Stier, Heng-
stenberg, Wordsworth, and Alford identify the angel with
God, as the Jehovah Angel. The Mosaic narrative is in
favour of the latter view. The Angel of the bush who guided
the Israelites in the wilderness, is in the Old Testament fre-
quently identified with God; and here He appropriates to
Himself the titles of the Supreme Being: for, speaking out
of the bush, He says: “I am the God of Abraham, and of
Isaac, and of Jacob” (see Mark xii. 26). ᾿Εν πυρὶ φλογός---
in a flame of fire. The flaming fire was a supernatural light .
belonging to the glory of God. All attempts to explain it by
natural causes—as a meteor, lightning, ete.—are unavailing.
The heathen in their mythologies mention similar appear-
ances. The Persians relate a similar story concerning their

246 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

lawgiver Zoroaster: that, as he was leading a solitary life in
a mountain, he one day found it on fire, and approached it
without danger, and sacrificed to God.

Vers. 31-33. Φωνὴ Kupiov—the voice of the Lord, 1.6. the
voice of the Jehovah Angel; for we do not think that these
words can be explained by saying that the voice of God’s
messenger is equivalent to the voice of God (Meyer). Δῦσον
τὸ ὑπόδημα τῶν ποδῶν cov—put of thy shoes from thy feet.
The holiness of God’s presence, according to the custom of the
East, required that Moses should be without shoes as a symbol
of reverence. The priests in the temple, we are informed,
performed their ministry without shoes. So also in the pre-
sent day, the Arabs take off their shoes before entering their
mosques (Alford). The probable reason of the custom was,
lest the dust which was on their sandals should defile the
holy place.

Ver. 34. ᾿Ιδὼν cidov—T have distinctly seen ; literally,
seeing I have seen: a Hebraism, though a similar construction
sometimes occurs among the Greek classics (see Winer’s
Grammar, p. 371).

Ver. 35. Τοῦτον τὸν Mwiafjv—this Moses. The frequent
repetition of the pronouns (τοῦτον, οὗτος, os) in the following
verses (vers. 35-38) imparts additional emphasis to the dis-
course—this Moses, and none other. “Ov npvycavto—whom
they denied: the plural used designedly, because the voice of
one Israelite was the disposition of the whole nation. “Ap-
yovTa καὶ λυτρωτήν---α ruler and a redeemer. There is here,
first, a contrast between the judgment of men and the deed
of God: him whom they denied to be a ruler and a judge,
God sent asa ruler and a redeemer. Secondly, there is a
climax expressed in these words: the Israelites rejected Moses
as a δικαστῆς, a judge—one who decides private matters ;
God sent him as a Avtpw77s, a redeemer of the whole nation.
Δυτρωτήν---α redeemer. The word is frequently employed
in the Septuagint, but does not again occur in the New
Testament; the usual word to express the same idea being
σωτήρ.

Vers. 36, 37. Οὗτος, emphatic—this man. The terms of

THE DEFENCE OF STEPHEN.—VII. 88, 39. 247

high respect in which Stephen here speaks of Moses tended
to prove how false was the accusation that he was guilty of
blaspheming him. With the same design of magnifying
Moses, he brings forward the celebrated Messianic prophecy,
in which Moses represents himself as the type of the Messiah.
The words are a free citation from the Septuagint of Deut.
xviii. 15. The passage was already quoted by Peter in his
address to the Jews. (See note on Acts iil. 22.)

Ver. 38. Mera τοῦ ἀγγέλου, καὶ τῶν πατέρων Hwav—with
the angel, and with our fathers. Moses is thus represented as
a mediator between the angel who conducted Israel through
the wilderness, and the people: he intervened between them.
Paul expressly calls him μεσίτης, mediator (Gal. ili. 19, 20).
In this respect Moses was a remarkable type of Christ ;
and doubtless Stephen had this in view in insisting so much
upon the rejection of Moses by the people. “Ἅόγια ζῶντα---
living words: not to be translated life-giving (Beza, Grotius,
Kuineel), for then the word would be ζωοποιοῦντα. Words
which were not dead, but living, operating with divine
power: proving themselves to be living, both by imparting
life to those who obeyed them, and by killing those who dis-
obeyed them.

Ver. 39. ᾿Εστράφησαν τῇ καρδίᾳ avtav—in their heart
turned back to Egypt. This does not mean that they wished
to return to Egypt; for this does not correspond with the
historical narrative. At this time the Israelites expressed no
wish to return to Egypt: on the contrary, the memory of
their recent hardships in that country made them thankful
for their deliverance. Afterwards, indeed, when the memory
of these hardships faded, they desired to make a captain,
and to return to Kgypt (Num. xiv. 4). The meaning, then,
is either that they longed after the good things of Egypt
(Num. xi. 5); or perhaps rather, as appears from the con-
text, that they apostatized in heart to the gods of Egypt.
So Meyer, Stier, Alford, Humphry. It is improbable that
a nation so disposed to idolatry as the Israelites would have
resided so long in such an idolatrous country as Egypt with-
out being contaminated with its superstitions. It would

248 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

appear from a statement of Ezekiel, that they had been ad-
dicted to the worship of the idols of Egypt whilst they lived
in that country (Ezek. xx. 7).

Ver. 40. Οἱ προπορεύσονται hudv—who will go before us :
not, who will go before us in our return to Egypt; but, who
will conduct us as Moses did to the promised land. ‘O yap
Motos obtos—for this Moses. The nominative absolute
stands first, to render the whole sentence emphatic. Οὐκ
οἴδαμεν τί γέγονεν. a’t@—we know not what has become of
him. The allusion is to his stay of forty days on the top of
Mount Sinai. The whole verse is taken verbatim from the
Septuagint of Ex. xxxii. 1, except that the words ὁ ἄνθρωπος
after οὗτος are omitted.

Ver. 41. ᾿Εμοσχοποίησαν --- they made a calf: a word
found nowhere else. In the Septuagint the equivalent ex-
pression is ἐποίησαν μόσχον. The Israelites appear to have
intended this calf to be the image or emblem, not of any
Keyptian god, but of Jehovah, who had delivered them from
Egypt. Aaron, on the occasion of this worship, proclaimed
a feast to the Lord (Ex. xxxii. 4). ‘They changed,” says
the Psalmist, “the glory of God into the image of an ox
which eateth grass” (Ps. cvi. 20). See also Neh. ix. 18. So
that their sin, strictly considered, consisted in the violation
of the second commandment—worshipping God through the
medium of a graven image. It is certain, however, that
this species of idolatry was borrowed from Egypt. There
the ox was worshipped both at Memphis under the name
Apis, and at Heliopolis under the name Mnevis: at both
places divine homage was paid to living bulls. The common
opinion is, that the golden calf was an imitation of Apis, but
Ewald supposes that it was Mnevis; and this opinion is
advocated by Sir George Wilkinson, who observes: “The
offerings, dancings, and rejoicings practised on that occasion
were doubtless in imitation of a ceremony they had witnessed
in honour of Mnevis.” Calf-worship was afterwards estab-
lished by Jeroboam in the kingdom of Israel, and appears
to have continued so long as that kingdom endured. Here
also it is evident that Jeroboam did not wish to introduce

OE LL =<

THE DEFENCE OF STEPHEN.—VII. 42, 43. 249

the worship of new gods, but that he regarded the calves as
emblems of the true God; for he introduced his worship with
the same proclamation which Aaron made to the Israelites
(1 Kings xii. 28).

Ver. 42. "Eotpewe δὲ ὁ Ocds—but God turned—withdrew
Himself from them, thus showing His manifest displeasure
at their iniquity. Τῇ στρατιᾷ τοῦ obpavod—the host of heaven.
That to which God gave them up as a judgment was star-
worship (Sabeanism), which appears to have been the earliest
form of idolatry (Job xxxi. 26), and which was native to
Chaldea. As animal-worship was the prevalent form of
Egyptian idolatry, so was star-worship the prevalent Chaldean
form. ᾽ν βίβλῳ τῶν προφητῶν---ἴη the book of the prophets ;
that is, of the twelve minor prophets, whose prophecies
among the Jews formed one book.

Vers. 42, 43. A quotation, with a few trivial alterations,
from the Septuagint of Amos v. 25-27, except that here
Βαβυλῶνος is substituted for Aapyacxod (see below). There
is, however, a difference between the Septuagint and the
Hebrew. In our version it is, “ Ye have borne the taber-
nacle of your Molech and Chiun, your images” (Amos vy.
26). Many Hebrew scholars (Bengel, De Wette, Hengsten-
berg), however, suppose that Molech and Chiun are not
proper names, but appellatives; and that the clause should
have been translated, ‘‘ Ye have borne the tabernacle of
your king (Molech), and the support or framework (Chiun)
of your images.” Other authorities defend the translation
given in our version. The Septuagint evidently regarded
the words as proper names: it, however, substitutes the word
Rephan for Chiun. Rephan is a Coptic word, and is sup-
posed to be the Egyptian equivalent for Chiun, an Arabic
word, and both denoting the god Saturn.

Μὴ σφάγια καὶ θυσίας προσηνέγκατέ, etc.— Have ye offered
to me sacrifices and offerings for forty years in the wilderness ?
The question thus put by God through the prophet evidently
supposes a negative answer: that the Israelites had not
offered sacrifices and offerings to God during the forty years
in the wilderness. The apparent contradiction between this

250 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

statement and the accounts of the sacrifices in the Mosaic
narrative is easily removed, by taking the words rhetorically.
Their idolatrous disposition rendered nugatory all the sacri-
fices which they offered to God: it vitiated their worship :
it was as if they had never sacrificed to Him. Hence there
is no reason, with Olshausen and Kuincel, to explain pov as
equivalent to ἐμοὶ μόνῳ, or to suppose that the prophet
alludes not to their legal, but to their voluntary sacrifices.
Τὴν σκηνὴν τοῦ Modoy—the tabernacle of Molech. Molech
was the tutelar god of the Ammonites (1 Kings xi. 7). He
is supposed by some to have been the Pheenician Saturn, and
by others to have been the Sun, or the Tyrian Baal. If
Molech and Rephan are different idols, the latter opinion is
the more correct, it being now generally agreed that Rephan
is the Egyptian name for Saturn. The worship, however,
of the god Molech is similar to that which was paid to
Saturn. According to rabbinical tradition, the image of
Molech was a hollow figure, with the head of an ox and
outstretched arms. A fire was kindled below, and a child
was put into its arms, and was thus burned to death. The
priests beat their drums in order to stifle the cries of the
child, and hence the image was called Tophet (tophim,
drums). Now this is precisely similar to the description of
the worship of Saturn among the Carthaginians, given us by
Diodorus Siculus. “ They had,” he says, “an image of
Saturn made of brass, stretching out his hands, extended
towards the earth; so that a child being put into them, fell
into a great gulf of fire.” The worship of Molech was pre-
valent among the Jews after their establishment in Canaan.
Solomon, we are informed, erected a high place to Molech,
the abomination of the children of Ammon (1 Kings xi. 7) ;
and from his time, with some intermissions, until the extine-
tion of the kingdom of Judah in the reign of Zedekiah, the
abominable rites of Molech were practised (Jer. xxxii. 35).
By the tabernacle or tent of Molech is probably meant a
portable tent, wherein the statue of the god was placed.
Diodorus Siculus mentions the ἱερὰ σκηνή in the camp of the
Carthaginians. To ἄστρον tod θεοῦ ‘Pepav—the star of the

THE DEFENCE OF STEPHEN.—VII. 44. 251

god Rephan. Rephan is the translation in the Septuagint
of the Hebrew Chiun. He is generally supposed to be the
same as Saturn. According to Kircher, Rephan is a Coptic
word, and answers to the planet Saturn, and Chiun is the
Arabic term for the same planet; and as the translators were
Egyptian Jews, they gave to the Hebrew word its Coptic
equivalent (see Winer’s Worterbuch, Saturn). Some suppose
that Molech and Rephan are names for the same idol, and
that both denote the god Saturn ; and certainly the peculiar
worship of Molech favours this supposition: they, however,
appear to be distinguished in the text. ᾿Επέκεινα Βαβυ-
A@vos—beyond Babylon. Here the words differ from the
Septuagint, where we read ἐπέκεινα AapyacKxod—beyond *
Damascus ; with which also the Hebrew agrees. The fulfil-
ment of the prophecy in the well-known Babylonish cap-
tivity, made it natural and permissible to substitute Babylon
for Damascus.

There is a difference of opinion with regard to the time
when this idolatry took place: whether it was in the wilder-
ness or after the establishment of Israel in the promised
land. There is no mention elsewhere of the god Rephan or
Chiun; but the worship of Molech was prevalent in the
kingdom of Judah. Some accordingly suppose that it is
these idolatries which are referred to. But the words of
the prophet appear rather to refer to the idolatries practised
during the forty years in the wilderness. Molech was at
that time a god not unknown to the Israelites, for they are
expressly warned against his cruel rites (Lev. xviii. 21); and
if there is reason to suppose that he is the same as the
Tyrian Baal, then this idolatry may be referred to the wor-
ship of Baal-peor on the plains of Moab (Num. xxv. 2, 3).

Ver. 44. ‘H σκηνὴ tod paptupiov—the tabernacle of witness :
the translation of yin 5n&— the tabernacle of the congre-
gation.” It is so called because it was the tent where God
gave witness of Himself; on which the glory of God, the
Shekinah, rested. There does not appear to be any designed
contrast to σκηνὴ τοῦ Μολόχ. Καθὼς διετάξατο, etc.—as
He who spoke to Moses commanded to make it according to the

952 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

pattern which he had seen. (See Ex. xxv. 40; Heb. viii. 5.)
The holiness of the tabernacle was evident from this cir-
cumstance, that its pattern was revealed by God to Moses.
As Stephen had been accused of blaspheming the Jewish
religion, he here in his defence speaks with the greatest
reverence of their sacred places.

Ver. 45. AvadeEdpevor—having received. The word lite-
rally signifies, having received by succession, or succeeded to.
Mera "Incot—with Jesus, 1.6. Joshua; for the names Jesus
and Joshua are the same, both signifying a saviour, ᾿Εν
τῇ κατασχέσει τῶν EOvav—into the possession of the Gentiles.
Here the preposition ἐν is used, when we would have ex-
pected eis: the probable force of it being, that the tabernacle
was so brought into the possession of the Gentiles, that it
permanently remained there; the idea both of entrance and
of subsequent rest being implied. Winer observes that the
Greeks, even Homer, sometimes use ἐν with verbs of motion,

_ to indicate at the same time the result of the motion, that is,

rest (Winer’s Grammar, p. 432). Meyer, De Wette, and
Alford render the clause, “ at their taking possession of the
Gentiles.” “Eas τῶν ἡμερῶν AaBid—until the days of David.
These words are to be connected with ὧν ἔξωσεν, “ whom
the Lord drove out until the days of David” (Kuineel,
Baumgarten, Alford)—inasmuch as the work of driving out
the Canaanitish nations continued until the time of David—
and not with εἰσήγαγον, “which our fathers brought in with
Jesus until the days of David” (De Wette, Meyer, Lechler,
Hackett, Cook), inasmuch as this is the more remote ante-
cedent, and besides, hardly affords an intelligible sense.

Ver. 46. Kai nrjcato—and requested ; not desired, as in
the English version. The medium of David’s request and
of God’s answer was the prophet Nathan. Σ᾽ κήνωμα τῷ
Θεῷ ᾿Ιακώβ---α dwelling for the God of Jacob: probably ἃ
quotation from Ps. cxxxii. ὃ (Septuagint, exxxi. ὃ). 3 κή-
νωμα, a dwelling, in distinction from σκηνή, a tent.

Vers. 47, 48. Σολομῶν δὲ φκοδόμησεν, etc.—But Solomon
built Him a house. David was not permitted to build the
temple, because he was a man of war, and the temple was to

THE DEFENCE OF STEPHEN.—VII. 49-81. 253

be the abode of peace. ’AAN οὐχ ὁ ὕψιστος ἐν χειροποιήτοις
katroixei—Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in what are
made with hands. Baur and Zeller suppose that there is
here a designed depreciation of the temple on the -part of
Stephen—an attack upon the Jewish mode of worship. But
there is no ground for such a supposition, as the same senti-
ment was expressed by Solomon himself, and indeed in
stronger terms, at the dedication of the temple (1 Kings
vili. 27).

Vers. 49, 50. The passage here quoted is from Isa. Ixvi.
1, 2, and is taken almost verbatim from the Septuagint.
Stephen here quotes this passage, because it was of import-
ance for him to show that the spiritual worship which he
inculcated, in opposition to the legalism of the Pharisees,
had been already enforced by their own prophets.

Ver. 51. Σ᾽ κληροτράχηλοι---Υὸ stiff-necked. Here, on a
sudden, Stephen breaks out into an invective. Hitherto he
had treated the subject historically, now he becomes personal
in his remarks: hitherto his tone was calm and didactic, now
it becomes vehement and passionate. Accordingly, some
(Olshausen, Kuincel, Heinrichs) account for this remarkable
change on the supposition that he was here interrupted
either by the shouts of his audience, or by their threatening
gestures. Schwanbeck discovers here an omission of the
reporter." Others (Meyer, Lechler, Neander, Alford) think
that the change of tone arose naturally out of the speech.
“ Stephen,” observes Meyer, “ has ended his calm historical
narrative; but now it is time that the accused should become
the bold accuser, and apply the result of his observations to
his judges. Therefore he interrupts his calm defence, and
as a prophet of reproof addresses his judges in the language
of moral indignation.” Neander supposes that the contem-
plation of the idolatries and wickedness which followed the
age of Solomon overcame him, and filled his soul with holy
indignation, which found vent in a torrent of rebuke against
his ungodly and hypocritical judges. We have no right to
suppose that Stephen here either indulged in impatience or

1 Schwanbeck’s Quellen der Apostelgeschichte, p. 252.

254 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

gave way to passion: he only exercised the function of a
stern reprover of iniquity.

Ver. 52. Τοῦ dicaiov—the Just One. Stephen here for
the first time reprimands the Jews with being the betrayers
and murderers of their Messiah, and bears testimony to the
Messiahship of Jesus. Their fathers had been moved with
envy against Joseph, the saviour of their house, and had re-
jected Moses, the deliverer of their nation; but this iniquity
reached its height in themselves by the rejection and cruci-
fixion of the Just One: this was the climax of the nation’s guilt.

Ver. 53. Eis διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων---αϑ ordinances of angels.
Different meanings have been attached to these words. Some
(Grotius, Calvin) render them, troops of/angels being present ;
but this would be to take dvatayds in the sense of διατάξεις,
a meaning which it does not bear. Lightfoot supposes that
ἀγγέλων here is to be taken in the sense of messengers, and
that the prophets are meant. Chrysostom supposes that the
angel who spoke unto Moses in the bush, the Jehovah Angel,
is meant. The correct meaning seems to be, ‘as ordinances
of angels” (Bengel, Lechler): that is to say, that the Israel-
ites received the law with such respect as if it were the
ordinances of angels; as Paul said of the Galatians, “Ye
received me as an angel of God” (Gal. iv. 14). Or perhaps
rather it may refer to the law being communicated by the
ministration of angels. We have several intimations of the
presence of angels at the giving of the law. In the Mosaic
narrative there is no mention of it. Traces of it are, how-
ever, found in the Septuagint. Thus, in Deut. xxxiii. 2 we
read ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ ἄγγελοι μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, where the Hebrew
has, “ From His right hand went a fiery law for them.” In
the Psalms we are informed that the angels were present at
Sinai (Ps. Ixviii. 17). St. Paul expressly says that the law
was ordained of angels—évatayels δι᾿ ἀγγέλων (Gal. iii. 19).
And the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews mentions it

as “the word spoken by angels” (Heb. ii. 2). The same

opinion was among the traditions of the Jews. Josephus
mentions that the Jews learned the holiest part of the law
from angels (Ant. xv. 5. 3).

Όι

THE DEFENCE OF STEPHEN. 95

GENERAL REMARKS ON STEPHEN’S SPEECH.

Opinions are divided concerning this speech of Stephen.
Some regard it as inconclusive, illogical, and full of errors ;
others praise it as a complete refutation of the charges
brought against him, and as worthy of the fulness of the
Spirit with which he was inspired.’ Erasmus says: “ Many
things in this speech have not very much pertinency to the
matter in hand which Stephen undertook.” On the other
hand, Bengel observes: “ Although he does not put his
enunciations in direct contradiction to the enunciations of
his adversaries, yet he answers all the charges with power”
(Bengel’s Gnomon, Acts vii. 1). The relation of the speech
of Stephen, in all its particulars, to the charges brought
against him is certainly at first sight not obvious; and, ac-
cordingly, different opinions have been formed as to the
object which Stephen had in view. According to Grotius,
Stephen’s object is to show in an historical manner that the
favour of God is not bound to any place, and that the Jews
had no preference over those who were not Jews, in order
to justify his prophecy concerning the destruction of the
temple and the call of the Gentiles. But the doctrine con-
cerning the call of the Gentiles appears neither to have been
understood by Stephen, nor was it brought as a charge
against him; and certainly there is no justification of it in
his speech. According to Baur, the theme of the discourse
consists in this: ‘The more gloriously God manifested His
grace to Israel, even from the beginning, the more perverse
and ungrateful was the conduct of the people ;”* but such a
theme suits only a portion of the speech. Meyer represents
the chief thought of the speech to be as follows: “I stand
here accused and persecuted, not because 1 ain a blasphemer
of the law and of the temple, but in consequence of that
spirit of resistance to God and His messengers which ye,
according to the testimony of history, have received from
your fathers, and have yourselves fostered. Thus the guilt

1 Baur’s Apostel Paulus, vol. i. p. 50; Zeller’s Apostelgeschichte, p.
148 ; Davidson’s New Introduction, vol. ii. pp. 198, 199.

256 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

"is not mine, but yours.”* Olshausen conceives that Stephen’s
reason for narrating the history of the Old Testament was
just to show the Jews that he believed it, and thus to induce
them through love of their national history to listen with
calm attention.” Chrysostom thinks that Stephen’s object
was to prove the superiority of the promise to the law. “ He
shows here,” he observes, “ that the promise was made before
the place, before circumcision, before sacrifice, before the
temple.”* Similar views are also advocated by Liiger and
Baumgarten.

It is to be observed that the speech of Stephen is an
unfinished production. He was interrupted before he came
to the conclusion. He had only entered upon the principal
part of his discourse—his testimony to Jesus as the Messiah.
We are therefore to regard it as in a measure imperfect. It
is indeed an apology or defence against the accusations with
which he was charged. He shows that, so far from being a
blasphemer of Moses, he honoured him as the prophet of
God and the redeemer of Israel; and so far from attacking
the temple, he regarded both it and the tabernacle as divine __
institutions. At the same time,ghe shows that what God ~
requires is obedience and spiritual worship, and not mere ~
reliance on outward privileges. But along with this apolo-—
getic nature of the discourse, there enters a strong polemic
element. He attacks the legalism and unbelief of the Phari-
sees. In citing the examples of the rejection of Joseph and
Moses by their fathers, he indirectly points to the rejection of
Jesus; in recounting the apostasies of their forefathers, he
describes in a figure the unbelief and rebellion of his hearers;
and in that portion of his speech where his enemies interrupt
him, as the intrepid messenger of God, he fearlessly attacks
their obstinacy and resistance of the Holy Ghost, and, like
Peter, charges them with being the betrayers and murderers
of their Messiah. Stephen probably adopted the form of a
historical narrative, in order to veil for a time his attack on

1 Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 151, Dritte Auflage.

2 Olshausen’s Gospel and Acts, vol. iv. p. 816, Clark’s translation.
8 Chrysostom on the Acts, Hom. xv.

THE DEFENCE OF STEPHEN. 257

Jewish legalism, so that he might secure the attention of his
hearers. This view of Stephen’s speech is similar to that
given by Neander. “The object of Stephen’s discourse,”
he observes, “ was not simple, but complex; yet it was so
constructed that the different topics were linked together in
the closest manner. Its primary object was certainly apolo-
getic; but as he forgot himself in the subject with which he
was inspired, his apologetic efforts relate to the truths main-
tained by him, and impugned by his adversaries, rather than
to himself. Hence, not satisfied with defending, he developed
and enforced the truths he had proclaimed ; and at the same
time condemned the carnal, ungodly temper of the Jews,
which was little disposed to receive the truth. Thus, with
the apologetic element, the didactic and polemic were com-
bined. Stephen first refutes the charges made against him,
of enmity against the people of God, of contempt of their
sacred institutions, and of blaspheming Moses. He traces
the procedure of the divine providence in guiding the people
of God from the times of their progenitors. He notices the
promises and their progressive fulfilment, to the end of all
the promises, the end of the whole development of the
theocracy—the advent of the Messiah, and the work to be
accomplished by Him. But with this narrative he blends
his charges against the Jewish nation. He shows that their
ingratitude and unbelief, proceeding from a carnal mind,
became more flagrant in proportion as the promises were
fulfilled, or given with greater fulness; and their conduct in
the various preceding periods of the development of God’s
kingdom was a specimen of the disposition they now evinced
towards the publication of the gospel.” *

The genuineness of Stephen’s speech has been called in
question by Baur and Zeller, but certainly without reason.
It bears in its nature and contents the impress of authen-
ticity. If a spurious composition, it would have borne a
more direct relation to the accusations, and been a clearer
refutation of them; or it would have been more fully an
attack upon the Jewishrulers. The last verses of the speech

1 Neander’s Planting, vol. i. p. 52, Bohn’s edition,

VOL. I. R

258 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

would have been more extended. The historical references
also would have been more obvious in their application ; and
the apparent discrepancies to the Mosaic narrative, with
which the speech abounds, would have been either fewer in
number or entirely omitted."

With regard to the mode of its transmission, we are not
indeed to consider it as taken down by a shorthand writer in
the court where it was uttered. This would be to transfer
modern appliances to ancient times. But the speech of the
first martyr must have made a deep impression on the church,
and would probably be immediately noted down. Some of
the disciples may have been present when it was delivered,
or some of the members of the Sanhedrim may have been
secret friends. Many (Baumgarten, Liiger, Wordsworth,
Humphry, Alford) suppose that Paul himself was the re-
porter, as he was most probably present when the speech
was made; but as at that time he was not a Christian, but
an opponent, the supposition is, to say the least, doubtful.
Stephen’s speech, however, was probably a separate docu-
ment, which Luke incorporated in his work, as there is a
certain peculiarity of style and expression about it.

Opinions are divided as to the language in which the speech
was spoken. Meyer supposes, that although a Hellenist, yet
before the Sanhedrim Stephen must have spoken in the
language of the country, that is, in the Aramaic dialect of
the Hebrew. Others, again (De Wette, Lechler, Stier,
Alford), think that Greek was the language employed.
Greek was the native language of Stephen, and _ history
informs us that it was occasionally employed in the judicial
transactions of the Jews: besides, all the numerous refer-
ences to the Old Testament are taken almost verbatim from
the Septuagint. The mere fact, however, of all the quota-
tions being from the Septuagint is no proof that the language
in which Stephen spoke was Greek, inasmuch as they might
fairly be thus inserted by the original reporter or by Luke.

1 Dean Stanley enumerates no less than twelve variations from the
Mosaic narrative.

SECTION XIV.
MARTYRDOM OF STEPHEN.—Acts vu. 54-60.

54 But, hearing these things, they were cut to the heart, and they
gnashed on him with their teeth. 55 But he, being full of the Holy
Ghost, looking up stedfastly to heaven, saw the glory of God, and
Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 And he said, Behold, I
see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand

οὗ God. 57 Then they, crying out with a loud voice, stopped their

ears, and rushed upon him with one accord. 58 And, casting him out
of the city, they stoned him; and the witnesses laid down their gar-
ments at the feet of a young man called Saul. 59 And they stoned
Stephen, invoking and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. 60 And,
falling on his knees, he cried with a loud voice, Lord, retain not this
sin to them. And saying this, he fell asleep.

CRITICAL NOTE.

Ver. 56. "Avewypévous, found in D, E, H, is not so well
attested as διηνουγμένους, found in A, B, C, δὲ, the reading
preferred by Tischendorf.

EXEGETICAL REMARKS.

Ver. 54. ’Axovovtes δὲ tadta—But hearing these things.
The speech of Stephen, especially its direct personal appli-
cation at the close (vers. 51-53), enraged his audience.
Their conscience told them that his reproofs were too well
founded ; and their rage, hitherto with much difficulty re-
strained, now found a vent. Avempiovto ταῖς καρδίαις αὑτῶν
—they were cut to the heart ; literally, they were sawn through
or asunder—the same verb which is used in ch. v. 33. (See
note.) A different verb is employed when it is said of the
converts on the day of Pentecost, that “they were pierced

259

260 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

to the heart.” There the verb is κατανύσσω (ch. ii. 37). Kat
ἔβρυχον τοὺς ὀδόντας ἐπ᾽ abrov—and they gnashed on him
with their tecth: an expression frequently used in the Old
Testament to denote furious rage. See Job xvi. 9; Ps.
xxxiv. 16, xxxvi. 12, in the Septuagint. Still, however, the
members of the Sanhedrim had not recourse to open vio-
lence: they express their rage by threatening gestures. It
was what follows that gave occasion to their assault upon
Stephen.

Ver. 55. Ὑπάρχων δὲ πλήρης Πνεύματος ayiov—But he,
being full of the Holy Ghost. Fixing his gaze upwards, a
vision of heaven was granted to Stephen. The vision was
internal, not external—subjective, not objective: it was seen
by Stephen only, and not by any of his hearers. It is then
childish to inquire how he could see through the roof of
the chamber where they were assembled. To his spirit the
heavens appeared opened ; the veil that conceals the heavenly
world from the view of mortals was removed; a visionary
representation of heaven, and of Jesus standing at the right
hand of God, was vouchsafed to him. “The scene before
his eyes was no longer the council-hall at Jerusalem, and
the circle of his infuriated judges; but he gazed up into the
endless courts of the celestial Jerusalem, with its innumer-
able company of angels, and saw Jesus, in whose righteous
cause he was about to die” (Conybeare and Howson). Ζόξαν
Ocod—the glory of God, i.e. the glory in which God mani-
fests Himself, the Shekinah of the Jews. (Compare ver. 2,
ὁ Θεὸς τῆς δόξης.) ᾿Ιησοῦν ἑστῶτα ἐν δεξιῶν τοῦ Ocod—
Jesus standing at the right hand of God. In other places,
Jesus is represented as “ sitting on the right hand of God”
(Matt. xxvi. 64): but here Stephen sees Him standing ;
rising as it were from the throne of His glory to protect —
and defend His distressed servant, and to receive him. So
Bengel: Quast obvium Stephano. Or, as Gregory the Great
expresses it, in a passage adduced by Kuineel: Sedere judi-
cantis et imperantis est, stare vero pugnantis vel adjuvantis.
Stephanus stantem vidit quem adjutorem habuit. Alford’s
explanation, that the vision has reference to Joshua the

MARTYRDOM OF STEPHEN.—VII. 56. 261

high priest standing in the presence of the angel of the
Lord (Zech. iii. 1), and that Stephen, cited before the Sad-
ducean high priest, is vouchsafed a vision of the heavenly
High Priest standing and ministering at the throne, amid
the angels and just men made perfect, is not so natural,
and appears far-fetched. De Wette and other critics, on
the other hand, think that to explain the mere posture of
standing is fanciful, and is giving a mystical meaning to
Scripture. All rationalistic attempts to explain this vision of
Stephen are unavailing, and contradict the text: as that of
Hezel, who supposes that Stephen, looking up, saw through
the window a bright cloud, which he regarded as the symbol
of the divine presence; that of Michaelis, who supposes that
Stephen here only expressed his strong faith in the glory of
Christ, and his approaching admission into heaven; and
that of Baur, who thinks that the historian wished to give
distinctness to his individual view of the subject, by express-
ing himself as if an ecstatic vision had actually been granted
to Stephen.

Ver. 56. Τοὺς οὐρανοὺς Sinvovypévovs—the heavens opened.
The plural is employed, according to the Jewish notion of
three heavens—the air, the celestial firmament, and the
highest heaven, or the immediate residence of the divine
glory. Stephen saw through all these heavens: like Paul,
he was carried in spirit to the third heaven. Tov υἱὸν τοῦ
av@parrov—the Son of man. This title, which Christ often
gave to Himself, was never applied to Him by any of the
apostles or evangelists, except in this place by Stephen. It
does not occur in the Gospels in the mouth of another, nor is
it found at all in the epistles, nor elsewhere in the Acts of
the Apostles. It is here used by Stephen, probably to denote
that Jesus appeared to him in human form, as that same
Jesus whom the Jewish rulers crucified, and also to intimate
that this Jesus was the Messiah. The reference is probably
to the name by which the Messiah was generally known
among the Jews, as given Him by the prophet Daniel (Dan.
vii. 13); and also because -it was the peculiar Messianic
name which Jesus most frequently appropriated to Himself.

262 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

The peculiar use of this name, as well as the mention of
the singular posture of standing instead of sitting, are testi-
monies in favour of the authenticity of the narrative.

Ver. 57. Κράξαντες δὲ φωνῇ weyarn—Then they, erying out
with a loud voice. When Stephen announced his vision, that
he saw that same Jesus whom they had rejected and mur-
dered standing as the Son of man—the promised Messiah—
exalted to the right hand of eternal glory, their rage knew
no bounds: they could restrain themselves no longer ; their
pent-up passions broke through every barrier. They inter-
rupted him with loud shouts, perhaps that the charge of
blasphemy brought against him was proved by his own
words, and that he should be stoned to death (Acts xxii. 22).
They stopped their ears, to prevent them hearing any more
such blasphemy. They rushed upon him with one accord :
the audience was worked up into a frenzy: the Jewish
fanatics then present seized upon Stephen: and some of the
members of the Sanhedrim perhaps joined in the outrage ;
for when passion is excited, reason and justice are gone.

Ver. 58. Kal ἐκβαλόντες ἔξω τῆς πόλεως--απά casting him
out of the city. According to the Mosaic law, malefactors
among the Jews were executed without the gates of their
cities (Lev. xxiv. 14). Thus our Lord suffered without the
gate. Locus lapidationis erat extra urbem; omnes enim
civitates, muris cincte, paritatem habent ad castra Israelis :
Gloss in Babyl. Sanhedr. (Meyer.) ’E)sO080n0uv— they
stoned him. Stoning was a Jewish mode of punishment
inflicted on different kinds of capital offences. One of these
offences was blasphemy, the crime of which Stephen was
accused, and for which he was now stoned (Lev. xxiv. 16).
The manner in which this punishment was inflicted is thus
described by the Jewish rabbis :—The scaffold or place of
stoning, to which the criminal was to be led with his hands
bound, was to be twice the size of a man. One of the
witnesses was then to smite him with a stone upon the breast,
so as to throw him down. [If he were not killed, the second
witness was to throw another stone at him. And then, if he
were yet alive, all the people were to stone him until he was

9

MARTYRDOM OF STEPHEN.—VII. 58. 263

dead. The body was then to be suspended till sunset. (See
Lightfoot’s Hore Hebraic.) Kat οἱ paptupes—and the
witnesses. According to the law of Moses, the witnesses
‘were to cast the first stones (Deut. xvii. 6, 7). The wit-
nesses here mentioned are those false witnesses who accused
Stephen of speaking blasphemous words against the temple
and the law (Acts vi. 13). “ Although,” observes Beza,
“all these things were done tumultuously, and that not
without violation of the authority of the governor of the
province, yet they would seem to do nothing but what the
law of God enjoined them.” Neaviov καλουμένου Σ᾿ αὐλου---
a young man named Saul. The first mention of the great
apostle of the Gentiles: he appears on the stage of eccle-
siastical history in connection with the murder of Stephen,
evidently a zealot of the pharisaical school, and a bitter
enemy of Christianity. His name, Saul, was the same as
that of the first king of Israel, who also, like him, belonged
to the tribe of Benjamin. Probably the name, rendered
illustrious by King Saul, was common in his native tribe.
Paul is here called νεανίας, a: young man; but this deter-
mines nothing as to his age, because this term is applied
even up to the age of forty-five. Thus Varro says a man
is young (juvenis) till forty-five, and aged at sixty. Dio
Cassius calls Caesar a young man when he was about forty.
Thirty years after the martyrdom of Stephen, Paul speaks
of himself as “ being such an one as Paul the aged” (πρεσ-
Burns, Philem. 9); so that then he could not be under
sixty.' Therefore at this period he must have been at least
thirty ; and indeed we can hardly suppose, if he were much
under that age, that the Sanhedrim would have entrusted
him with so important a commission, when they sent him to
Damascus. Probably Chrysostom is not far from the truth,
when he states that Paul, at the time of Stephen’s death,
was thirty-five. There is, however, no reason to suppose,
with Alford and others, that he was a member of the San-
hedrim, and one of Stephen’s judges. (See note to ch. xxvi.

1 “ How different,” observes Dr. Wordsworth, ‘‘ was.Saul the young
man from Paul the aged !”

264 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

10.) Paul does not seem to have taken any active part in
the death of Stephen: he cast no stone at him; but still, by
willingly taking charge of the garments of those who slew
him, he showed how heartily he consented to this deed of
theirs. To this act he alludes, years afterwards, in his de-
fence before the Jews: “ When the blood of Thy martyr
Stephen was shed, I also was standing by and consenting to
his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him” (Acts
xxil. 20).

Ver. 59. "Emuxarotvpevov — invoking. It is not directly.
said whom Stephen invoked, but the prayer which follows
intimates that it was Jesus. Hence, then, the ellipsis is either
to be left unsupplied, or supplied either by the name “Jesus”
or by the words “the Lord;” but not, as in our English
version, by the name “ God” (calling upon God). The effect
of this interpolation is to draw away the attention from Jesus
as the person to whom the prayer was addressed, and thus
to obscure a strong proof of the divinity of Christ. Κύριε
’"Inood—Lord Jesus. Here undoubtedly Stephen prays to
Jesus; and all attempts to explain this away are unavailing,
and rejected by critics even of the rationalistic school. It
has been asserted that ᾿Ιησοῦ is in the genitive, and that
the words ought to be translated “Lord of Jesus;” but,
as Kuincel observes, this would require the article, and we
should read Κύριε τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ:; and besides, the same words
are used in Rey. xxii. 20, ἔρχου Κύριε ᾿Τησοῦ, where ᾿Τησοῦ
is undoubtedly in the vocative. Paul describes Christians as
those who “call upon the name of Jesus Christ” (1 Cor.
1. 2). 4έξαι τὸ πνεῦμά pou—receive my spirit. The petition
is not similar to the impatient requests of Moses (Num.
xi. 15), Elijah (1 Kings xix. 4), and Jonah (Jonah iv. 3),
that God would take away their lives; but it is a request
that God would receive His spirit after martyrdom—similar
to the prayer of Jesus on the cross, “ Father, into Thy hands
I commend my spirit” (Luke xxiii. 46). Thus, then, Stephen
worships Christ in the same manner as Christ before His
death worshipped the Father.

Ver. 60. Θεὶς δὲ τὰ yovata—falling on his knees: either

MARTYRDOM OF STEPHEN.—VII. 60. 265

as the appropriate attitude of prayer, or perhaps thrown
down upon his knees by the stoning. Μὴ στήσῃς αὐτοῖς
τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ta’tnv—retain not this sin to them. Grotius
renders these words, “ Weigh not this sin to them,” 1.6.
Punish them not according to their deserts; but to this
Meyer and De Wette object that it is not the sin, but the
punishment, which is weighed. Meyer renders them, “ Fix
not this sin upon them;” a negative corresponding to the
positive expression, Forgive them this sin. De Wette
renders them, “ Retain not this sin to them”—let it not be
treasured up against them; similar to our English version,
“ Lay not this sin to their charge.” Here again the words
employed are similar to those uttered by Jesus on the cross,
“Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do”
(Luke xxiii. 84). Doubtless this prayer of the dying Stephen
was heard, and his request granted; to what extent, we
cannot teli. But among those present there was one who
was afterwards converted, who rose up in the martyr’s stead,
another and a mightier Stephen; and though perhaps some-
what fanciful, yet it is a pleasing thought to associate the
conversion of ‘Pan with the martyrdom ee Stephen, and to;
say in the memorable words of St. Augustine, Si Stephanus”
non ovasset, ecclesia Paulum non haberet. ’ExouunOn—he fell
asleep. A description of his calm and peaceful death.
_ Although murdered by violent hands, yet his end was as a
quiet sleep—a translation rather than a death. Although
this verb is occasionally used by heathen writers to express
death, yet it is consecrated as a Christian term. Death is
sleep to believers. (See John xi. 11; 1 Cor. xi. 30; 1
Thess. iii. 13.) The body sleeps in the sure and certain
hope of a blessed resurrection. Hence the Christian term
for the place of burial, cemetery, is just the Greek term
κοιμητήριον, a place for sleeping.

Such was the death of Stephen. “ He was,” as Eusebius
observes, “the first after our Lord, who at the time of
ordination, as if ordained to this very purpose, was stoned to
death by the murderers of the Lord. And thus he first
received the crown, answering to his name (στέφανος), of the

266 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

victorious martyrs of Christ” (/Zist. Eccl. 1.1). In reality,
by his calm courage, his noble confession, above all, his
forgiving spirit, he was the conqueror; whereas his enemies
who put him to death, by their brutal rage, their contempt
of justice, and their blind fury, were vanquished. The truth
for which Stephen bled gained the victory over the violence
which his enemies employed; and in consequence of his
death, the cause for which he suffered penetrated beyond
Jerusalem to Samaria, Antioch, Europe, and the ends of the
earth.

Opinions differ as to the time and place of Stephen’s
martyrdom. With regard to the place of martyrdom, all
that we are told in Scripture is, that it was outside of Jeru-
salem. There are two traditions: the earlier is that Stephen
was put to death at the north of Jerusalem, beyond what is
now called the Damascus gate; and the more recent, which
is the present tradition, is that the scene of martyrdom was
to the east of Jerusalem, near the brook Kidron, outside
of the gate which is now called, in honour of the martyr,
St. Stephen’s gate. With regard to the time, ecclesiastical
tradition has fixed on the 26th of December of the year
of our Lord’s crucifixion. But this is obviously erroneous,
as it is impossible to compress all that occurred in thie
interval between the crucifixion and the death of Stephen
within the short space of a few months. The most probable
as well as the most common opinion, is that which fixes upon
the year 36 as the date. Considering the previous extension
of Christianity, the number of disciples in Jerusalem, and
the gradual growth of hostility on the part of the Jewish’
people, it could hardly have been earlier. Wieseler fixes on
the year 39, and Meyer on the year 33 or 34.

It is disputed whether the death of Stephen was the result
of a legal condemnation of the Sanhedrim, or an act of
popular violence committed without legal authority. The
question is not easily answered: as, on the one hand, there
is no mention of a formal sentence, but rather an intimation
of violence (vers. 57, 58); and, on the other hand, there was
a regular trial before the Sanhedrim, and the execution was

MARTYRDOM OF STEPHEN. 267

performed according to the regulations of the Mosaic law.
Some (Biscoe, Ewald, De Wette, Humphry) suppose that
there was a formal and regular sentence of death pronounced
upon him by the Sanhedrim. The great objection to this
view is, not that there is no mention of such a sentence, but
that at this time the Sanhedrim had not power to put such a
sentence into execution, the Romans having deprived them
of the power of life and death. Hence the statement of the
Jewish rulers to Pilate, “It is not lawful for us to put any
man to death” (John xviii. 381); a statement the truth of
which is presupposed by Josephus (Ant. xx. 9, 1), and
directly affirmed by the Talmud. (See note on the San-
hedrim.) Τὸ this Ewald replies, that the Sanhedrim might
appeal to the permission granted them by Pilate in John
xviii. 31; but Pilate did not then give them permission to
inflict the punishment of death, but merely told the Jews to
judge Jesus according to their laws, which permitted them
to inflict lesser punishments. Paul, indeed, says that he
persecuted Christians even to the death, and that when they
were put to death he gave his vote against them (Acts xxii.
4, xxvi. 10); but here either the permission of the Roman
government might have been obtained, or the zealots among
the Jews may, as was often the case at this period, have
taken the law into their own hands.

Others (Calvin, Beza, Neander, Olshausen, Meyer, Lechler,
Lange, Hackett, Alford, Wordsworth) suppose that the
death of Stephen was an act of popular fury; or if a sen-
tence of the Sanhedrim were pronounced (which is not
evident), that they, in carrying it into effect, exceeded
their legal power; and this seems to be the more probable
opinion. In the excitement of the moment, Stephen was
violently seized, dragged out of the city, and stoned to
death. That the Jews attended to the regulations of the
Mosaic law concerning stoning, is no objection to this view of
the subject, as religious fanatics are often scrupulous about
these matters. Similar instances of violence were at that
time of frequent occurrence in Jewish history. Thus, on

1 Ewald’s Geschichte, p. 195.

268 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

one occasion in the life of our Lord, we are informed that
the Jews took up stones to stone Him (John viii. 59); and
in a somewhat similar manner to Stephen, James the Just
was put to death. On that occasion, indeed, the high priest
Ananus and the Sanhedrim passed formal sentence of death,
and carried that sentence into execution. But for this illegal
act Ananus was deposed from the priesthood by the Roman
governor (Joseph. Ant. xx. 9. 1). Some suppose that the
martyrdom of Stephen took place shortly after the deposition
of Pontius Pilate, and before his successor had arrived,
when there was no proper Roman authority to put down
disturbances; in like manner as James the Just was put to
death after the decease of Festus, and before the arrival of
Albinus. At all events, it is well known that the Romans
were accustomed to connive at these disturbances when they
did not materially interfere with their interests.

Baur considers the violent death of Stephen as a proof
that the whole trial before the Sanhedrim is unhistorical. He
thinks it incredible that such an act of violence should have
been perpetrated before a court of justice; and that there
should have been such a contrast between the calm hearing
of Stephen and the passionate termination of the trial." But
it is to be observed, that at the commencement of Stephen’s
address his object was not apparent; he might even seem as
if about to retract his opinions; he spoke reverently of
Moses, of the law, of the temple; until near the close there
was no allusion to Jesus; and it was not until then that he
directly charged the Jewish rulers with being the betrayers
and murderers of their Messiah. Then it was that their
. rage broke forth, and this must have greatly increased and
become irrepressible when Stephen called aloud that he saw
Jesus standing at the right hand of God. If Stephen were
now allowed to escape unhurt, it would be a confession on
the part of the Sanhedrim that they had been guilty of shed-
ding the blood of their Messiah. According to their stand-
point, they must find the charges of the witnesses proved ;
for either they were murderers, or Stephen was a blasphemer.

1 Baur’s Apostel Paulus, vol. i. p. 61.

MARTYRDOM OF STEPHEN. 269

And supposing that no regular sentence was pronounced, we
are not to wonder that they should have permitted their
prisoner to have been put to death by violence. Such acts
of violence were then not unusual among the Jews: the
principles of the sect of the Zealots were, that they should
take the punishment of offenders into their own hand ; and
doubtless the Sanhedrim would be well pleased in this man-
ner to get rid of so able and dreaded an opponent. Indeed,
it is in itself not improbable that some of its members joined
in the tumult.

SHEOTION XV.
PLANTING OF THE CHURCH IN SAMARIA.—Acts vm. 1-13.

1 And Saul was consenting to his death. And there arose at that
time a great persecution against the church which was in Jerusalem ;
and they were all dispersed through the regions of Judea and Samaria,
except the apostles. 2 And devout men buried Stephen, and made great
mourning over him. 3 But Saul laid waste the church, entering in
from house to house, and dragging away both men and women, com-
mitted them to prison. 4 They therefore who were dispersed went
about preaching the word. 5 And Philip having gone down to a city
of Samaria, preached the Christ to them. 6 And the people with one
accord gave heed to the things spoken by Philip, hearing and seeing
the signs which he did. 7 For from many who had unclean spirits
these came out, crying with a loud voice: and many paralyzed and lame
were healed. 8 And there was great joy in that city. 9 But a cer-
tain man, Simon by name, formerly practised sorcery in that city, and
astonished the nation of Samaria, saying that he was some great one:
10 To whom they gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying,
This man is the power of God, which is called Great. 11 And to him
they gave heed, because for a long time they had been astonished by his
sorceries. 12 But when they believed Philip preaching concerning the
kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both
‘men and women. 13 And Simon also himself believed: and being
baptized, he continued with Philip ; and beholding the miracles and signs
which were done, he was astonished.

CRITICAL NOTES.

Ver. 5. The article τὴν before πόλιν occurs in A, B, x,
but is considered an addition in order to designate the city
Samaria. It is omitted in C, D, E, H, and erased by
Tischendorf, Meyer, and De Wette. Ver. 7. Πολλῶν is
only found in H, but is retained by Griesbach, Tischendorf,
De Wette, and Meyer, as being the more probable reading.
Πολλοί, found in A, B, C, Εἰ, 8, is supposed to have been

270

PLANTING OF THE CHURCH IN SAMARIA.—VIII. 1. ITT

a correction to correspond with the latter clause of the verse.
᾿Εξήρχοντο is the reading of A, B, C, Ὁ, Εἰ, x, and is pre-
ferred by Tischendorf to ἐξήρχετο, the reading of H. Ver.
10. ‘H καλουμένη before μεγάλη is attested by A, B, C, Τὴ),
E, x, and is inserted by all the recent critics. Ver. 12. Ta
before περί is wanting in A, B, C, D, E, δὲ, and is accord-
ingly omitted by Lachmann and Tischendorf. Ver. 13.
Μεγάλας is wanting in two uncial ss., G, H, and is re-
garded as an interpolation by Tischendorf and Meyer.
Great variations also occur in the position of the words.
The reading which Tischendorf adopts is, δυνάμεις καὶ σημεῖα
γινόμενα.

EXEGETICAL REMARKS,

Ver. 1. Yadros δὲ ἣν συνευδοκῶν τῇ ἀναιρέσει αὐτοῦ--- And
Saul was consenting to his death. This sentence has been
considered by Tischendorf and Hackett as forming the con-
clusion of the account of Stephen’s martyrdom ; but it rather
appears to be introductory to the account of the general per-
secution which now follows. Σ᾽ υνευδοκῶν, not assenting, but
consenting—taking an active part, joining with those who put
Stephen to death. ‘“ When the blood of Thy martyr Stephen
was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting to his death ”
(Acts xxii. 20, where the same words are repeated by Paul
himself). ᾿Αναιρέσει, a stronger term than death, perhaps
murder. ᾿Εγένετο δὲ ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ---απὰ there arose on
that day. Most critics (Lechler, Meyer, De Wette) take
these words literally, and suppose that on the same day on
which Stephen was slain, a general persecution against the
church commenced. The martyrdom of Stephen was but
the prelude to the onslaught upon the Christians." The
multitude, having tasted blood, became ferocious. There is

1 This would especially be the case if, as some suppose, the death of
Stephen involved a legal decision that Christianity was blasphemy, and
therefore a capital offence: it could not then be professed without
danger to life. This would follow even supposing the Sanhedrim, in
passing sentence against Stephen, had exceeded its powers.

ΘᾺ COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

nothing improbable in this view of the subject. However,
as all that is here mentioned concerning the dispersion of
the disciples could hardly have occurred on a single day, the
words are probably to be taken indefinitely—“ at that time”
(English version). It is true that, in general, the phrase is
limited to the particular day ; but occasionally it admits of a
wider signification (see John xiv. 20, xvi. 23, 26). διωγμὸς
μέγας---α great persecution. This was an important crisis in
the history of the church. The people of Israel, once favour-
able, had now become decidedly hostile. The Pharisees,
\ formerly neutral, were now united with the Sadducees in
hatred to the Οἶδας The prudent counsels οἵ Gamaliel
no longer exerted a restraining influence ; and the Roman
government does not appear to Ἵ interfered for the pro-
tection of the Christians. Perhaps, as has already been
hinted, this persecution occurred during the vacancy of the
Roman procuratorship, after the deposition of Pilate, and
before the arrival of the new procurator Marullus; and’
that advantage of this was taken by the Jews. Πάντες δὲ
Sueorrapnoav—and they were all dispersed. It is improbable,
and indeed at variance with the mention made soon after of
the church at Jerusalem (ch. ix. 26), that all the Chris-
tians, with the sole exception of the apostles, were dispersed.
Accordingly, Bengel restricts πάντες to the teachers; and
Baur, Zeller, De Wette, and Renan, to the Hellenistic Chris-
tians. Baumgarten supposes that the dispersion refers to an
assembly of Christians who were then met together. He
thinks that the rabble, returning from the murder of Stephen,
burst in upon that assembly, and dispersed it; and that the
dispersion through the regions of Judea and Samaria was
subsequent. “The assembly,” he observes, “ were all scat-
tered abroad, the apostles as well as the rest; but as for
the dispersion into the regions of Judea and Samaria, there
were many among the dispersed who were not driven to
these quarters, and especially the apostles.” He accordingly
limits πάντες διεσπάρησαν to those disciples who were then
assembled. But this limitation is not suggested by the text;
1 Baumgarten’s Apostolic History, vol. i. pp. 169, 170. |

PLANTING OF THE CHURCH IN SAMARIA.—VIIL. 2. 273

on the contrary, the words κατὰ tas χώρας τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας καὶ
Σαμαβείας are directly connected with διεσπάρησαν. It is
best to understand πάντες as a hyperbolical expression (Meyer,
Lechler),—not that all Christians, with the sole exception of
the apostles, but that very many of them, had to fly from
Jerusalem: multi (Kuincl). For a similar use of πάντες,
see Matt. iii. 5, Mark i. 838. Πλὴν τῶν arroctoA@v—encept
the apostles. Whilst other Christians took their flight from
Jerusalem, the apostles remained: they were preserved by
the providence of God in the centre of the persecution.
We might indeed have expected that they would have been
the first to be attacked; but perhaps some portion of that
veneration with which the people formerly regarded them
(Acts v. 13) still remained: as yet, they did not venture
to attack them. The apostles regarded Jerusalem as their
post of duty; perhaps, as Meyer supposes, they held that
the centre of the old theocracy was to be the centre of
‘the ‘new. Jerusalem was still to them the holy city, the
future capital of the Messianic kingdom. According to
an ancient tradition, the apostles were commanded by our
Lord to remain for twelve years in Jerusalem. Thus Apol-
lonius, who wrote in the second century, states that it was
handed down by tradition, that our Saviour commanded
His disciples not to depart from Jerusalem for twelve years
(Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. y. 18). And the same tradition is
recorded in the apocryphal work entitled The Preaching of
Peter: “The Lord said to His apostles, If any one there-
fore of Israel repent, and through my name be willing to
believe in God, his sins shall be forgiven him. After twelve
years, go ye out into the world, lest any say, We have not
heard.”

Ver. 2. “Avdpes εὐλαβεῖς --- devout men. It is disputed
whether these “ devout men” were Christians, or Jews
favourably disposed to Christianity, but who had not openly
avowed themselves. Some (Heinrichs, Ewald, De Wette)
suppose that they were Christians who showed this mark of
respect to the first martyr of their faith. Others (Kuincel,
Meyer, Baumgarten, Olshausen, Lange, Stier, Lechler) sup-

VOL. I. 8

274 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

pose that they were religious Jews secretly inclined to Chris-
tianity, who had now the courage to declare their respect for
the martyred Stephen; as Joseph of Arimathea and Nico-
demus buried Christ. It is argued that ἄνδρες εὐλαβεῖς is
the phrase employed to denote devout Jews who were not
Christians (Acts 11. 5). The only exception to this remark is
Ananias, who, according to the probable reading of the text,
is called ἀνὴρ εὐλαβής (Acts xxii. 12). Further, it is sug-
gested that, in consequence of the outbreak of the persecu-
tion, the Christians would have been hindered from burying
Stephen; and if not, that Luke would have designated
them more distinctly by the word “disciples,” “ believers,”
or “brethren.” Upon the whole, the probability is, that
the devout men here mentioned were friends and admirers
of Stephen, who had not openly avowed themselves to be
Christians. The simple statement of Luke concerning the
burial of Stephen has been expanded into an elaborate legend.
Four hundred years after this, Gamaliel appeared in a vision
to Lucius, a presbyter of the church of Jerusalem, and
informed him where the body of Stephen lay. The high
priest had designed that the corpse should be devoured by
beasts of prey ; but Gamaliel rescued it, and buried it at his
own villa at Caphar Gamala, twenty miles from Jerusalem.
All the apostles attended the funeral, and the mourning
lasted forty days. Gamaliel himself, and Nicodemus, were
afterwards buried in the same grave. The relics of Stephen,
thus miraculously discovered, were brought to Jerusalem, and
authenticated by the many miracles wrought by them among
the people. They were afterwards buried at the supposed
scene of his martyrdom, and a magnificent church was erected
over them by the Empress Eudoxia in 460. (See Cony-
beare and Howson ; Smith’s Dictionary, art. Stephen.)

Ver. 3. ᾿Ελυμαίνετο ---- laid waste, made havoc of, raged
like some furious beast of prey. Kata τοὺς olxovs—from
house to house. Saul was the first inquisitor. In this per-
secution he was without doubt supported by the authority of
the Sanhedrim : access was afforded him into the houses of
private individuals, and the public prison was at his command.

‘
Nn ge ae, νπωλδνα ἱ.- νι μννι:."... ὦ ν΄... ..

PLANTING OF THE CHURCH IN SAMARIA.—VIII. 4, 5. 275

There are many references to this persecution in his speeches
(Acts xxii. 4, 19, xxvi. 9-11). It was then that he caused
the Christians to be scourged in the synagogues ; and, as it
would appear, Stephen was not the only one who was put to
death. And it was then also, what must have been to many
worse than imprisonment and death, that he compelled them
to blaspheme the holy name of Jesus. The dispersion of
the disciples was promoted by his intolerant zeal; for, as
he himself tells us, he persecuted them even unto strange
cities.

Ver. 4. AupOov — went through ; i.e. they spread them-
selves through the countries to which they had fled. Thus
the death of Stephen and the persecution at Jerusalem served
to the increase of the church. The church at Jerusalem was
violently broken up, but the consequence was its extension
in other quarters. Sanguis martyrum, semen Christianorum
(Tertullian). At first the dispersed betook themselves to
the regions of Judea and Samaria. But soon they spread
farther: “Some of them travelled as far as Phenice, and
Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word” (Acts xi. 19).
Probably at this time Ananias went to Damascus, and some
of the dispersed penetrated even to Rome; for, among the
Christians there, we find mention made of Andronicus and
Junia, who were of note among the apostles, and who were
also in Christ before Paul’s conversion (Rom. xvi. 7).

Ver. 5. Φώλυππος δὲ xateXCav—and Philip went down.
This Philip must not be mistaken for Philip the apostle; a
mistake made by Polycrates, and apparently adopted by
Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. iii. 31), though in another part of his
history he correctly informs us that this Philip was one of
those who had been ordained to the office of deacon (List.
Ecel. ii. 1). That he was Philip the deacon, is evident from
several considerations. First, we are informed that the
apostles remained behind at Jerusalem. Secondly, when
tidings of the conversion of the Samaritans came to Jeru-
salem, the Apostles John and Peter were sent to confer on
the converts the gift of the Holy Ghost, which would not
have been the case had Philip been an apostle. And thirdly,

276 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

at the conclusion of this narrative, we are informed that
Philip came to Czsarea (Acts viii. 40); and we read that
afterwards, when Paul came to Cesarea, he abode in the
house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven
(Acts xxi. 8). In the list of the seven deacons, Philip is
mentioned second; and he now succeeds Stephen as a preacher
of the gospel, and, like him, is the instrument of a further
extension of the church. It is probable that the office of
“evangelist” (Eph. iv. 11), under the guidance of the Spirit,
arose at this time from the course of events. Philip is
expressly termed an “evangelist ;” and others among the
dispersed performed the functions of evangelists. .

Eis πόλιν τῆς Yapapelas—into a city of Samaria. Eras-
mus, Beza, Calvin, Kuincel, Wordsworth, suppose that τῆς
Σαμαρείας is the name of the city, and not of the country.
The old city of Samaria was rebuilt by Herod the Great,
and called Sebaste in honour of Augustus; but still, as we
find from Josephus, it was occasionally called by its old
name (Ant. xx. 6. 2). But if the city had been meant,
either the definite article would have been placed before
πόλιν (see Critical Note), or Samaria would have been
placed in apposition in the accusative. Σαμαρείας, then, is
the name of the country; and therefore all opinions regarding
the particular city to which Philip came are mere conjectures.
Some (Grotius, Ewald, De Wette) conjecture that, although
not expressly named, Samaria, the then recognised capital of
the country, is meant; but it is improbable that this city
would be so indefinitely mentioned as “a city of Samaria.”
Others (Olshausen, Alford) think that the more considerable
city of Shechem is meant, where our Lord Himself preached,
and so prepared the way for the introduction of Christianity
(John iv. 5). Tov Xpictov—the Christ. That is, Philip
preached to them Jesus as the Messiah promised to the Jews,
and whom the Samaritans also expected (John iv. 25).

Vers. 6-8. When Philip preached Jesus to the Samaritans
as the Messiah, they gave him a favourable hearing; and
this was in part occasioned by the miracles which he per-
formed among them. If the city was Shechem, the previous

PLANTING OF THE CHURCH IN SAMARIA,—VIII. 9. 277

preaching of Christ was another cause of their favourable
reception of Philip. Different translations have been given
of ver. 7. Kuincel supposes πνεύματα to be in the nomina-
tive, and would translate the clause as in our version: “ For
unclean spirits came out of many who were possessed of
them.” If πολλοί, which has the preponderance of authori-
ties, be the correct reading, the words are to be rendered,
“For many of them who had unclean spirits, crying with a
loud voice, came out.” Bengel observes that Luke in the
Acts never employs the term δαιμόνια in speaking of those
possessed, although in his Gospel he employs it oftener than
any other evangelist; and from this he infers that the power
of possession was feebler after the death of Christ.’

Ver. 9. ᾿Ανὴρ δέ τις ὀνόματι Yipwv—but a certain man,
Simon by name. Most critics (Rosenmiiller, Kuincel, De Wette,
Gieseler, Neander, Lechler, Alford) suppose this Simon to
be the same as Simon the magician mentioned by Josephus.
The following is the account given us by Josephus: Felix
being enamoured with Drusilla, the daughter of Herod
Agrippa 1., and the wife of Azizus king of Emesa, sent to
her one of his friends, whose name was Simon. He was a
Jew, a Cyprian by birth, and professed to be a magician.
This man endeavoured to persuade her to forsake her hus-
band Azizus, and to marry Felix, promising that she would
ensure to herself great happiness if she did so (Ant. xx. 7. 2).
Justin Martyr gives a different account of Simon Magus:
he says that he νγὰβ ἃ Samaritan by birth, a native of Gitta,
or Gitton, in Samaria. This statement of Justin, however,
is of no great authority, as he lived a hundred years after-
wards; and his account is full of those traditionary legends
which afterwards arose concerning Simon. Alford ingeni-
ously attempts to reconcile the statements of Josephus and
Justin, by supposing that either Justin or Josephus may have
confounded Gittim with Chitum—that is, Citium in Cyprus.
A more considerable objection to the identification arises
from the difference of time, as about twenty years intervened

1 The consideration of the nature of demoniacal possession is deferred
until in the course of the exposition we come to ch. xix. 13-16.

278 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

between the encounter of Philip with Simon Magus and the
employment of Simon by Felix; and it is highly improbable
that the magician, especially after his wickedness was dis-
closed by the Apostles Peter and John, would have success-
fully carried on his knavery for so long a period. Besides,
Simon was one of the most common of Jewish names; and
at that period sorcerers.were numerous throughout the East.
The points of resemblance between these two persons—both
called by the name of Simon, and both professing to -be
magicians—are too few and slight to serve as grounds of
identification. We therefore regard this attempt to identify
Simon Magus with Simon the magician mentioned by Jose-
phus as a failure, arising from an unreasonable desire to
identify persons mentioned in Scripture with historical cha-
racters, to whom they bear only a remote resemblance; an
exercise of the imagination which in sober criticism ought
not to be fostered, but restrained. (For ecclesiastical tradi-
tions concerning Simon, see note to ver. 24.)

Maryetdov—used sorcery. Simon was one of those magi-
cians or sorcerers who were then frequent in the East. It
was a period of a great religious crisis; there was a general
expectation throughout the East of the advent of some great
deliverer: the Messianic notions of the Jews were spread
abroad; and hence many impostors, taking advantage of this
expectation, deceived the people. We have examples of
them in Elymas the sorcerer (Acts xiii.); in Apollonius of
Tyana in Cappadocia, a contemporary of the apostles; and
in Alexander of Abonoteichos in Pontus (Lucian). These
men went about as sorcerers, and deceived the people with
their tricks, perhaps by possessing a superior knowledge of
the laws of nature, especially of chemistry. As astrologers,
they pretended to read the fortunes of individuals in the
heavenly bodies; and as magicians, they deceived the people
by their magical arts, and thus obtained credit as if they
were actually endowed with supernatural powers.

Δέγων eivat twa ἑαυτὸν péyav—saying that he was some
great one. Simon Magus professed to be some distinguished
person, some famous prophet, a messenger sent from heaven

PLANTING OF THE CHURCH IN SAMARIA.—VIIL. 10. 279

endowed with supernatural powers. The opinion which the
people formed of him—and which, doubtless, he fostered, if
he did not by his own assertions directly give rise to it—
was, that he was the power of God, which is called Great.
These pretensions are greatly enlarged by the traditions of
the church. Justin Martyr tells us that Simon asserted
that he was God, above all principality, power, and virtue.
Irenzeus says that he boasted that he appeared to the Sama-
ritans as the Father, to the Jews as the Son, and to the
Gentiles as the Holy Ghost (Adv. Her. i. 23.3). Accord-
ing to Jerome, he said: “I am the Word of God, I am
the Paraclete, I am the Almighty, I am all things of God”
(Jerome on Matt. xxiv. 5),—extravagant declarations, sup-
posing an acquaintance with the doctrines of Christianity
which Simon Magus could not at that time have possessed.
Ver. 10. Ὧ προσεῖχον---ἰο whom they gave heed. The ex-
pectation which was raised concerning the advent of some
great deliverer, as well as the general want of faith in the
religions of the Gentiles, had created in men’s minds a sus-
ceptibility to religious impressions, a certain craving after
the supernatural. Hence they were liable to be deluded by
the pretensions of false prophets. “ At that time,” observes
Neander, “an indefinite longing after a new communication
from heaven—an ominous restlessness in the minds of men,
such as generally precedes great changes in the history of
mankind—was diffused abroad; so this indistinct anxiety did
not fail to lead astray and to deceive many who were not
rightly prepared for it, while they adopted a false method of
allaying it.”? ᾿Απὸ μικροῦ ἕως weyddhou—from little to great;
i.e. both young and old. Οὗτός ἐστιν ἡ δύναμις τοῦ Θεοῦ
ἡ καλουμένη μεγάλη .---ἰἰιὲβ man is the power of God, which
is called Great. Neander and Meyer suppose that the
Samaritans here refer to the philosophical notions of the
Alexandrian school concerning the Logos, and that they sup-
posed Simon Magus to be an incarnation of the Logos—a
power or emanation of God. But it is improbable that these
philosophical notions were prevalent among so secluded a
1 Neander’s Planting, vol. i. pp. 57-60.

280 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

people as the Samaritans. De Wette thinks that the Sama-
ritans regarded Simon as an angel in human form, because
angels were called by them “powers of God” (δυνάμεις).
Others suppose that they regarded him as the Messiah—“ the
highest power of God.” But most probably all that is meant
was, that they looked upon him as a person endowed with
supernatural powers; they regarded his magical arts as real
miracles; and perhaps formed some indistinct notion that
he was a being of supernatural origin. According to the
tradition of the church, an altar was erected to Simon at
Rome, where he was worshipped as a god. (See note to
ver. 24.)

Ver. 12. When Philip came and preached the kingdom of
God—the Messianic kingdom—and Jesus as the Messiah ;
and when he confirmed his preaching by real miracles, which
not only cast the false miracles of Simon into the shade,
but disclosed their falsehood, the Samaritans became con-
verts, and were baptized. ‘They were more disposed to
believe on Jesus Christ than the Jews, because they do not
seem, like the Jews, to have expected the Messiah as a
temporal deliverer, but rather as a moral restorer. '

Ver. 13. Ὃ δὲ Σίμων καὶ αὐτὸς érictevce—and Simon
also himself believed. Here we have a simple statement of a
fact, that Simon himself believed as well as the Samaritans.
Some suppose that Simon here merely acted the hypocrite:
that what he did believe was not that. Jesus was the Messiah,
but that Philip was a greater magician than himself; and
that he attached himself to Philip, in order either to hide the
shame of his defeat, or to discover the secret of Philip’s
miraculous powers (Grotius, Limborch, Kuinel). Certainly
his offer to purchase the Holy Ghost appears to justify this
view of the subject. But perhaps he was for a time
impressed: he felt the falsehood of his own pretences, and
the reality of Philip’s powers. The idea that Jesus was
the Messiah may have forcibly struck him; and thus, over-
come by the power of truth, he made profession of his faith
in Jesus, and was baptized. That these impressions were
temporary, that his heart was unchanged, the result soon

ON SAMARIA. 281

showed. ’E&lataro—he was astonished. As Simon had
astonished the Samaritans by his sorceries, so he in his turn
was astonished by the miracles of Philip. It is the same
word which had been used in vers. 9, 11 to express the
impression which Simon’s sorceries made on the Samaritans ;
a fact which is lost sight of in our English version by the
word being there translated “ bewitched,” whilst here it is
more properly rendered “ wondered.”

ON SAMARIA.

The district of Samaria was the middle portion of Palestine.
It was bounded by Galilee on the north, the Jordan on the
east, Judea on the south, and the Mediterranean on the
west. It included the possessions of the tribes of Ephraim,
and that part of Manasseh which lay west of Jordan, and
perhaps a small portion of the tribe of Issachar. “The
country of Samaria,” observes: Josephus, “ lies between
Judea and Galilee: it begins at a village that is in the great
plain (Ksdraelon), called Ginea, and ends at the toparchy
of Acrabbene (in the lower part of the tribe of Ephraim).”
(Bell. Jud. iii. ὃ. 4.)

The Samaritans were originally colonists planted in the
district by Shalmaneser, or, according to others, by Esar-
haddon, the king of Assyria. “The king of Assyria brought
men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and
from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in
the cities of Samaria, instead of the children of Israel”
(2 Kings xvii. 24). And Josephus says: “ Shalmaneser
removed the Israelites out of their country, and placed
therein the nation of the Cutheans, who had formerly be-
longed to the inner parts of Persia and Media, but were
then called Samaritans by taking the name of the country
to which they were removed” (Ant. x. 9.7). “ They are
ealled in the Hebrew tongue Cutheans, but in the Greek
Samaritans” (Ant. ix. 14.3). Some suppose that the Sa-

282 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

maritans were purely of Gentile origin, and only mixed with
those Jews who afterwards came among them as renegades.
Others suppose that they are a mixed people, composed
partly of the Israelites who remained after the Assyrian
captivity, and partly of the colonists implanted. Whichever
opinion is the more correct, it is probable that Gentile blood
constituted the chief element of the nation; and that the
Israelites whom the Assyrians left, if there were any, were
exceedingly few.

The Samaritans, however, at an early period in their
history, forsook their idolatrous practices, and embraced
the Mosaic religion. On the return of the Jews under
Ezra, they made proposals to unite with them in rebuild-
ing the temple of Jerusalem; which proposals, however,
the Jews rejected. Similar advances made to Nehemiah
met with a similar refusal. Irritated at this treatment, they
erected a temple for themselves upon Mount Gerizim, and
consecrated the renegade Manasseh, the son of the high
priest Joiada, as their first priest (Neh. xiii. 28), and thus
set up a rival worship to that at Jerusalem. In the division
of the empire of Alexander, Samaria along with Judea fell
to the lot of the Syrian kings. During the severe persecu-
tions of the Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes, the Samaritans
joined their adversaries, and gained the favour of the Syrian
king by dedicating their temple on Mount Gerizim to Jupiter.
They were at length conquered by John Hyrcanus, who
destroyed their temple, and incorporated them into the
Jewish kingdom. On the dissolution of this kingdom by
the deposition of Archelaus, the son of Herod the Great,
they passed over to the Romans, and became part of the
province of Syria. Although bitter enemies to the Jews,
yet they were involved with them in the same calamities
during the Jewish war; Josephus informs us that Cerealis,
one of Vespasian’s generals, slew 11,600 Samaritans at
Mount Gerizim (Bell. Jud, iii. 7. 32). After this there is
little mention of them as a nation, until, the reign of Zeno
toward the end of the fifth century, when they were nearly
extirpated in consequence of an outrage committed by them

ON SAMARIA. 283

on the Christians at Shechem. They remained in obscurity
until the sixteenth century, when the correspondence between
them and the illustrious Scaliger again brought them into
notice.

The Jews and the Samaritans entertained the most violent
hatred toward each other. Although both professing the
Mosaic religion, and living under the same government, they
regarded each other as enemies. We find in the Gospels
that the Samaritans prevented Jesus and His disciples pass-
ing through their country, because they were going to keep
the passover at Jerusalem. Josephus informs us that they
waylaid and robbed the pilgrims from Galilee to Jerusalem
(Ant. xx. 6.1); and that once they designedly polluted the
temple, by scattering dead men’s bones in the cloisters (Ant.
xviii. 2.2). When the Jews were in prosperity, the Sama-
ritans professed themselves to be Jews; but when they were
in adversity, they joined their enemies, and asserted their
Gentile origin (Ant. ix. 14. 3). The Jews, on the other
hand, repaid this enmity of the Samaritans with interest.
“To be a Samaritan and to have a devil” was the strongest
expression of reproach which they could pronounce. ‘They
would have no dealings with them (John iv. 9), and re-
garded them as aliens. ‘There are two manner of nations,”
says the wise son of Sirach, “whom my heart abhorreth,
and the third is no nation: they that sit on the mountain of
Samaria, and they that dwell among the Philistines; and
the foolish people that dwell in Shechem” (Ecclus. 1. 25, 26).
The accumulated mutual wrongs of ages embittered the re-
sentment of these two nations; the foreign origin of the
Samaritans caused them to be despised by the Jews; and
especially the erection of a temple on Mount Gerizim as the
rival to that on Mount Zion, and the destruction of the
Samaritan temple by John Hyrcanus, must have perpetuated
their hatred.

The Samaritans from the time of Manasseh, their first
high priest, received the law of Moses in all its strictness
and purity. They rejected the traditions of the elders; but
along with them they seem also to have rejected the other

284 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

writings of the Old Testament. It is a mistake to suppose
that their religion was a mixture of heathen superstition and
Judaism; it was the rigid observance of the Mosaic law.
Like the Jews, they expected the coming of the Messiah :
“T know,” said the woman of Samaria, “that Messias
cometh, who is called Christ ;” but they do not appear, like
them, to have entertained the notion of a temporal Messiah.
Besides, they do not seem to have been so intolerant and
bigoted, and to have entertained that contempt for other
nations which the Jews displayed, and which was so great an _
obstacle to their reception of that religion which knew no
difference between Jew and Gentile. Thus the Samaritans
were in a measure prepared for the reception of the gospel.
The Jewish prejudices against the Christian scheme did not
exist among them; and as worshippers of the true God, and
believers in Moses, there were points of connection between
them and Christianity which did not exist in the case of the
idolatrous Gentiles. The seed also was already sown among
them by the short residence of Christ Himself in their
country. And thus it happened that the gospel had great
success among them, and multitudes of them embraced the
Christian faith.

The Samaritans are still settled at Shechem, or, as it is now
called, Nablous, a corruption of the Greek name Neapolis.
This interesting people are greatly reduced in number: ac-
cording to Winer, there are not more than thirty families,
and according to Hessey about two hundred persons. They
still regard Mount Gerizim as the holy mount set apart by
Moses, their great lawgiver, to be the peculiar spot for the
worship of Jehovah, and to it they direct their prayers. We
are informed that they are strict observers of the Sabbath
and the Jewish festivals; that they celebrate the passover
with minute attention to the enactments of the Mosaic law;
that they carefully attend to the practices of circumcision
and holy washings ; that they are firm believers in the unity
and spirituality of God; that they permit no image of
Jehovah to be made; that they live in the expectation of
the Messiah ; and that they are believers in the existence of

ON SAMARIA. 285

angels and of a future state. They still entertain feelings
of enmity toward the Jews, and marriages with them are
forbidden. Whilst they assert that they are Israelites, the
descendants of Joseph, they indignantly deny that they are
Jews. (See Winer’s Worterbuch, Gieseler’s Church History,
Stanley’s Sinai and Palestine, and an article on the Samari-
tans by Hessey in Smith’s Dictionary.)

SECTION XVL

MISSION OF PETER AND JOHN TO SAMARIA.—
ACTS vil. 14-25.

14 But when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had re-
ceived the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John: 15 Who,
having come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy
Ghost. 16 For as yet He was fallen upon none of them: only they were
baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on
them, and they received the Holy Ghost. 18 But when Simon saw that,
through the imposition of the hands of the apostles, the Spirit was given,
he offered them money, 19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on
whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. 20 But Peter
said to him, Thy silver perish with thee, because thou didst think to
purchase the gift of God with money. 21 Thou hast neither part nor
lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right before God. 22 Repent
therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray the Lord, if perhaps the
thought of thy heart may be forgiven thee. 23 For I see that thou
art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. 24 Then
Simon answered, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these
things which ye have spoken come upon me.

25 Then they, after they had testified and spoken the word of the
Lord, returned to Jerusalem, and evangelized many villages of the
Samaritans.

CRITICAL NOTES.

Ver. 18. Instead of θεασάμενος, found in G, H, Griesbach,
Tischendorf, and Lachmann read ἰδών, found in A, B, C,
Ὁ, E, 8. Tischendorf omits τὸ ἅγιον after Πνεῦμα, although
attested by A, C, D, E, and wanting only in B and x.
Ver. 22. Tischendorf and Lachmann read Kupéov, found in

A, B, C, Ὁ, E, 8, instead of Θεοῦ, found in G and H. Ver.

25. The imperfects ὑπέστρεφον, εὐηγγελίζοντο, are better

attested than the aorists ὑπέστρεψαν, εὐηγγελίσαντο, and
are preferred by Tischendorf, Lachmann, and Bornemann.
286

MISSION OF PETER AND JOHN TO SAMARIA.—VIII. 14. 287

' EXEGETICAL REMARKS.

Ver. 14. ᾿Ακούσαντες δὲ of ἐν ἱΙεροσολύμοις ἀπόστολοι----
And the apostles in Jerusalem having heard. The apostles
here act as a body, as they did formerly at the election of
the seven (Acts vi. 2). Ὅτι δέδεκται ἡ Sapdpeca—that
Samaria had received the word of God. Samaria here is the
name of the country, and not of the city. (See note to ver.
5.) The success of the gospel in a particular city of Samaria
was regarded as a proof or pledge that the Samaritans in
general had embraced the gospel: it showed that there was
nothing either in the nature of the gospel or in the nation of
the Samaritans which formed an obstacle to their conversion.
This was an important step in advance. Hitherto Chris-
tianity had been limited to those who were pure Jews;
Christians before this were merely a Jewish sect; but now,
in the reception of the gospel by the Samaritans, it overpassed
the limits of Judaism. ᾿Α ππέστειλαν πρὸς αὐτοὺς Πέτρον καὶ
*Iwdvynv—they sent to them Peter and John. Two were sent,
as formerly Jesus sent the apostles and the seventy, two by
two. So Paul and Barnabas went together to preach the
gospel among the Gentiles; and after their separation, Paul
chose Silas, and Barnabas took Mark. This is the last time
that John is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles.

Different opinions have been entertained regarding the
object of the mission of Peter and John to Samaria.
Neander supposes that the conversion of the Samaritans was
regarded with suspicion by the church at Jerusalem: partly
because the event was itself unexpected, and regarded as
improbable; and partly by reason of the national distrust felt
toward the Samaritans. He also supposes that the Hebrew
Christians might be jealous of Philip, because he was a
Hellenist.* Meyer and De Wette, on the other hand, think
that the purpose of their mission was what they actually did
after their arrival,—namely, to bestow upon the Samaritan
converts the gift of the Holy Ghost. Perhaps the purpose
was general—to examine into the state of the church in

1 Neander’s Planting, vol. ii. p. 80, Bohn’s edition.

---

288 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

Samaria, to supply what was wanting, to extend the hand of
fellowship to the newly converted, and to unite them and the
Jewish Christians into one church of Christ ; in like manner
as, when at a later time tidings of the conversion of the
Gentiles at Antioch came to the church at Jerusalem, Bar-
nabas was sent to visit the Christians in that city (Acts
xi. 22).

Vers. 15, 16. "Oras λάβωσι Πνεῦμα ἅγιον --- that they
might receive the Holy Ghost. By the Holy Ghost here is
not to be understood the ordinary or sanctifying influences
of the Spirit. The Samaritans, in the act of believing the
gospel, received the Holy Ghost in this sense. Besides, the
reception of the Holy Ghost here was accompanied by
certain outward manifestations, for it is said that Simon
saw that the Holy Ghost was given; nor would Simon
have any desire to purchase the sanctifying influences of
the Spirit. The miraculous influences of the Spirit, which
were manifested by speaking with tongues and prophesyings,
are here meant. As Calvin remarks, “ Luke speaks not in
this place of the common grace of the Spirit, whereby God
regenerates us that we may be’ His children, but of those
singular gifts wherewith God would have certain endowed
at the beginning of the gospel to beautify the kingdom of
Christ.”

But the question arises, Why could not Philip bestow the
Holy Ghost? Did the reason of this inability arise from.
Philip, or from the Samaritans? Neander supposes that the
defect lay with the Samaritan converts. He thinks that
they were only half Christians: that like as they formerly
believed Simon on account of his magical arts, so they now
believed Philip on account of his miracles; but that there
was no real internal reception of the gospel. The Christ
whom Philip preached to them was merely the outward
object of their faith, but had not yet passed into their hearts ;
they had not yet attained to the consciousness of a vital
union with Him, or of a personal divine life; in short, they
had not yet experienced the indwelling of the Spirit. When
Peter and John came, this state of things was rectified ; by

MISSION OF PETER AND JOHN TO SAMARIA.—VIII, 15, 16, 289

their preaching and prayers, the work of Philip was carried
on; and the Samaritans were rendered susceptible for the
reception of the Holy Ghost." There is, however, nothing
in the context to justify this view of the matter; no mention
of any defect in the faith of the Samaritans. The common
opinion appears to be the correct one,—namely, that Philip
could not bestow the Holy Ghost, because he was not an
apostle. This, though not expressly stated, yet seems im-
plied in the narrative. So Chrysostom and Epiphanius
among the Fathers; and Grotius, Lightfoot, De Wette,
Baumgarten, Meyer, Olshausen, and Wordsworth among
the moderns.

But another question occurs: Was the bestowal of the
Holy Ghost the prerogative of the apostles, so that they
only could confer this gift? This was the opinion of the
Fathers. “ Philip,’ observes Epiphanius, “ being a deacon,
had not authority to give the Holy Ghost by the imposition
of hands.” So also the Apostle Paul bestowed the Holy
Ghost on his converts (Acts xix. 6). On the other hand,
it is objected that Ananias, who was not an apostle, con-
ferred the Holy Ghost on Paul by the imposition of hands
(Acts ix. 17). But this case was peculiar, as Ananias
was directed to do so by special revelation ; and the inde-
pendence of Paul, as himself an apostle, required that he
should not be indebted for the Holy Ghost to the other
apostles. Some (Meyer, Baumgarten) suppose that the
reason was, not because the bestowal of the Holy Ghost was
an apostolic prerogative, but on account of the great import-
ance of the matter—the reception of the Samaritans into the
church of Christ. It was necessary that a step in advance,
so important as the progress of Christianity beyond the terri-
tories of Judea into Samaria, should not be completed without
the direct co-operation of the apostles ; whereas in ordinary
cases the Holy Ghost was bestowed by others besides the
apostles.” The reason here given, if not entirely satisfactory,
is certainly ingenious.

1 Neander’s Planting, vol. i. p. 60, and vol. ii. p. 81, Bohn’s edition.

2 Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 186.

ΜΟΙ, I. τ

290 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

Ver. 17. Τότε ἐπετίθεσαν τὰς χεῖρας ἐπ᾽ abtots—Then
they laid their hands on them. Concerning the ceremony of
imposition of hands, see note to Acts vi. 6, Καὶ ἐλάμβανον
Πνεῦμα ἅγιον---απα they received the Holy Ghost. They
were endowed with the miraculous influences of the Spirit.
Although these miraculous influences had been displayed
among them by Philip, yet they had not until now been com-
municated to themselves. As Neander remarks: “ Manifesta-
tions now followed similar to those on the day of Pentecost ;
and the believers were thus recognised and attested to be a
Christian church, standing in an equal rank with the first
church at Jerusalem.”?

Ver. 18. ᾿Ιδὼν δὲ ὁ Yipov—And when Simon saw that
through the imposition of the hands of the apostles the Holy
Ghost was given. Simon saw it: the effects of the com-
munication therefore were visible, probably in the gestures
and inspired utterances of the recipients. It has been gene-
rally affirmed that Simon himself did not receive the Holy
Ghost, because his moral character rendered him unsus-
ceptible. But it does not decidedly appear that the miracu-
lous influences of the Spirit were limited to those who had
already received His ordinary influences. Still, however, as
it is said that Simon merely saw that the Holy Ghost was
given, it follows that he was a mere spectator, and not a
personal recipient. Meyer supposes that his impatient covet-
ousness did not permit him to wait until he himself had an
experience similar to the other believers: for the power of
the apostolic prayer would have embraced even him, and
filled him with the Holy Ghost; and that before his turn
came to receive the imposition of hands, he made the nefa-
rious proposal to purchase the Holy Ghost.’ It is also to be
observed, that although Simon had seen the miracles per-
formed by Philip, yet this was the first time he had seen mira-
culous influences communicated from one person to another :
his wonder must have been greatly increased when he saw the
Samaritan converts themselves filled with the Holy Ghost.

1 Neander’s Planting, vol. i. p. 62. ;
2 Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 187.

a

MISSION OF PETER AND JOHN TO SAMARIA.—VIII, 20, 21. 291

Προσήνεγκεν αὐτοῖς ypnuwata—he offered them money.
Simon supposed that the apostles might bestow the power of
communicating the Holy Ghost which they possessed upon
others; and being utterly incapable of any spiritual discern-
ment, he had the baseness and wickedness to offer them
money, provided they would confer this power upon him. He
was evidently a perfect stranger to the internal influences
of the Spirit, and was only astonished by the external mani-
festations ; and hence he perhaps regarded the apostles as
magicians superior both to Philip and himself. The motive
of his proposal was evidently a desire to increase his magical
arts. He regarded the communication of the Spirit as alto-
gether independent of moral qualifications, susceptible of
being transferred and exercised according to pleasure. He
thus wished to exalt himself in the world as a superior
thaumaturgus, and to bewitch men more effectually than he
formerly did by his sorcery (Lechler).

Ver. 20. To ἀργύριόν. cov σὺν σοὶ εἴη εἰς ἀπώλειαν--- ΤΊ
silver perish with thee. ᾿Αργύριον, silver; whereas the word
χρήματα, monies, is used in the other clause of the verse and
in yer. 18. Literally, “ Thy silver with thee be unto destruc-
tion.” Various attempts have been made to explain away
the seeming imprecation of Peter, as if it were contrary to
the spirit of the gospel. Some suppose that it is merely a
strong admonition; and that Peter, so far from cursing
Simon, exhorts him to repentance and amendment of life.
Others think that it is a prediction of what would be the
fate of Simon if he did not repent. But the words are evi-
dently an imprecation, to which, doubtless, Peter was divinely
moved. Luther renders them in these strong terms: Dass
du verdammet werdest nut deinem Gelde. The imprecation,
however, is modified by the subsequent exhortation to repent-
ance. Simon was not absolutely doomed to destruction; he
might avoid the impending danger by timely reformation.

Ver. 21. Ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τούτῳ — in this matter ; literally,
“in this word.” Some (Grotius, Neander, Olshausen) sup-
pose that the gospel is intended; that Peter here affirms
that Simon had neither part nor lot in the gospel, and con-

292 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

sequently in none of its privileges. But this sense is here
inappropriate, as there is in the context no mention of the
gospel. Lange, still adhering to the literal meaning of the
term λόγος, supposes that the inspired utterances of those
who had received the Holy Ghost are meant: “in this
word” —this speaking with tongues." The term λόγος is
sometimes employed for the matter spoken of, the subject of
discourse, as in Luke i. 4, Acts xv. 6: hence some (Lechler,
Meyer, De Wette) translate the phrase “in this matter,” or
more exactly, “in this matter about which the discourse
is;” that is, in the gift of the Holy Ghost: and this seems
to be the correct interpretation. Peter here, then, indignantly
repudiates the idea that Simon had any concern whatever
either in receiving or in communicating the Holy Ghost.

Ver. 22. Kai δεήθητι τοῦ Kupiov—and pray the Lord.
The Lord here is evidently Christ. If Κυρίου be the correct
reading, this is one of those many scriptural proofs that it
was the custom of the apostolic church to address their
prayers to Christ. Ei dpa adeOnoetar.—if perhaps the
thought of thy heart may be forgiven thee. Here evidently
a doubt as to Simon obtaining forgiveness is expressed.
Meyer supposes that the doubt refers to God’s forgiveness ;
that Simon’s sin was so heinous, that it was doubtful, even
although he did repent, whether God would forgive him.
Some (Hackett, Alford) suppose that Peter here expresses
his doubts whether Simon, in desiring to purchase the Holy
Ghost, may not have committed the unpardonable sin. Others
(De Wette, Bengel, Kuinel) refer the doubt to Simon’s
repentance. Simon was so far gone in sin, so sunk in de-
pravity, that his repentance was extremely doubtful. And
it is the blessed doctrine of the gospel, that whoever repents,
be his sins what they may, will be forgiven. The sin against
the Holy Ghost excludes the idea of repentance. eter here,
then, expresses no doubts of God’s forgiveness, no limitation
of His mercy; but the doubt refers to Simon’s repentance,
which was hardly to be expected.

Ver. 23. Eis χολὴν πικρίας --- in the gall of bitterness.

1 Lange’s Apostolisches Zeitalter, vol. ii. p. 107.

a ὅν ω..χ...... .

MISSION OF PETER AND JOHN TO SAMARIA.—VIII. 23. 293

The preposition εἰς, into, occasions difficulty in the transla-
tion of this verse. Some (Lechler, Bengel) make it the sign
of the predicate: “I perceive that thou art the gall of bitter-
ness.” A similar use of εἰς occurs elsewhere in the New
Testament. (See Matt. xix.5; 1 Cor. vi. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 18;
Winer’s Grammar, p. 196, English translation.) This mean-
ing, however, is harsh, when applied to the second clause of
the sentence—“ the bond of iniquity.” Others (Stier, Lange)
suppose that the words are a prophetic description of what
would be Simon’s character and conduct if he did not repent :
“JT perceive that thou wilt yet fall into the gall of bitter-
ness, and into the bond of iniquity.” Others suppose that
εἰς stands for év,—a solution never to be resorted to unless
where absolutely necessary. The true force of εἰς seems
to be to represent a falling into a certain state, and a con-
tinuance in it: “I perceive that thou hast fallen into sin, Ἢ
_and art now in it.’ So Olshausen, Meyer, De Wette,
Alford. Χολὴν mixplas—gall of bitterness. Similar to ἐν
χολῇ καὶ πικρίᾳ, Deut. xxix.18. So also a somewhat similar
expression is used by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
when he speaks of the “root of bitterness” (Heb. xii. 10).
Gall here signifies “ poison,” as, according to the opinion
of the ancients, the poison of serpents resided in their gall.
(Job xx. 14; Rom. iii. 13). The expression denotes extreme
depravity—the corrupting and poisoning influences of sin.
Some suppose that there is here a Hebraism for “ bitter
gall;” but such a supposition is unnecessary, and weakens
the expression. Σύνδεσμον adixias—bond of iniquity. The
same words occur, in a similar sense, in Isa. lviii. 6, ἀλλὰ
Ade πάντα σύνδεσμον ἀδικίας, “but loose every bond of
iniquity.” The meaning is, that Simon was wholly enchained
by sin—confirmed in the habit of sin. Iniquity is here re-
presented as a chain which bound him. Others (Kuineel,
Ewald, Lechler, Stier) take συνδεσμός in the sense of bundle,
and suppose that Peter means that Simon’s character was, as
‘it were, a bundle, whose separate parts are iniquity. But
this is an unusual meaning of the term; and besides, we
would have expected ἀδικίας to have been in the plural.

mga

904 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

It has often been observed that Simon Magus is much Ὁ
more gently dealt with than Ananias, for a crime of similar
turpitude. Both were guilty of sinning against the Holy
Ghost; Ananias of an attempt to deceive Him, and Simon
of a wish to purchase His gifts with money. But whereas
Ananias without a moment’s respite fell down dead at the
apostle’s feet ; Peter, whilst he severely rebukes Simon, does
not exclude him from the hope of forgiveness. But the cases
are entirely dissimilar: Ananias was the greater criminal of
the two. Simon sinned in comparative ignorance—he him-
self had not received the Holy Ghost, and he was a stranger
to the spiritual nature of religion—he was so deceived by his
own magical arts, that he entertained the monstrous opinion
that he could purchase the Holy Ghost ; whereas Ananias
sinned in knowledge —he was a member of the Christian
church, and most probably a partaker of the extraordinary
influences of the Spirit. Simon sinned openly—there was
no disguise, no concealment, about his offer; whereas false-
hood constituted the essence of the sin of Ananias, Although
it. is said that Simon believed Philip, yet he can hardly be
called a Christian at all—he was an outsider; whereas
Ananias belonged to the Christian community. The judg-
ment inflicted upon Ananias was necessary to preserve the
purity of the church at its commencement; whereas there
was no such necessity in the case of Simon.

Ver. 24. In this verse there is nothing to intimate that
Simon repented of his wickedness, but rather the reverse.
Instead of praying for himself, he requests the apostles to
pray for him. Instead of deploring his wickedness, he is
afraid of the punishment which it might bring upon him.
“Fe confesses his fear of punishment, not horror of guilt”
(Bengel). There is nothing here, then, to contradict the
traditions of the church, that Simon afterwards became a
violent opponent of Christianity ; and although these tradi-
tions are doubtless mythical, yet it is probable that they
sprang from some historical fact.

Scripture is silent regarding the subsequent history of
Simon; but he occupies a prominent place in ecclesiastical

MISSION OF PETER AND JOHN TO SAMARIA.—VIII. 24. 295

tradition. He is there represented as a kind of hero among
heretics—the impersonation of the anti-Christian principle;
and a far larger space in the legends of the church is allotted
to him than we would have expected from the short notice of
him in the Acts. Irenzeus calls him magister et progenitor
omnium hereticorum, “the master and progenitor of all
heretics” (Adv. Her. i. 27). Eusebius says that he took
the lead in all heresy (Heel. Hist. ii. 13); and the Fathers
in general regarded him as the founder of Gnosticism.
According to Justin Martyr, he went to Rome accompanied
by a female named Helena, formerly a prostitute of Tyre,
whom he called his ἔννοια, or divine intelligence. Here he
was reverenced as a god, and had a statue erected to his
honour on an island in the Tiber, between the two bridges,
with the inscription “Simoni Deo Sancti” (Justin, Apol. i. 26;
Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 13). According to Eusebius, he again
in the reign of Claudius Cesar encountered Peter at Rome,
who confounded him by his prayers and miracles (//ist. Eccl.
ji. 14). His death is variously described. According to
Hippolytus, he was buried alive at his own request, saying
that he would rise again on the third day (Adv. Her, vi. 20).
According to Arnobius, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Constitut.
Apost. (ii. 14, vi. 9), he met his death at Rome in an en-
counter with Peter: he raised himself in the air by the aid
of evil spirits; but in answer to the prayers of Peter, he fell
and broke his bones, and out of vexation committed suicide.

The remark of Justin Martyr, that Simon had a statue
erected to his honour at Rome on an island in the Tiber, with
the inscription “ Simoni Deo Sancto,” has been explained
ina very remarkable manner. In the year 1574 a stone was
dug up at the spot described by Justin, with the inscription
( Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio Sacrum,”—an inscription which
applies to the Sabine god Semo-Sancus—the Sabine Her-
cules. Hence, as it is in itself improbable that Simon, how-
ever successful as a magician, would ever be admitted among
the deos Romanos; and also equally improbable that Justin
Martyr, in an apology written at Rome, would state what he
did not see; taking this in connection with the discovery of

-

296 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

the statue at the very place described, it follows as a reason-
able inference, that Justin must have confounded the god
Semo-Sancus with Simon Magus."

It is impossible to say what amount of truth lies at the
root of. these legends: they can hardly be mere unfounded
fables. It is not unlikely that Simon, being repelled by Peter,
proceeded from bad to worse; that he continued his magical
arts, and became a violent opponent of Christianity. There
was a sect which continued until the time of Origen, known
by the name of the Simonians, who claimed Simon Magus as
their founder. Neander informs us that they accommodated
themselves sometimes to paganism, sometimes to Judaism, or
to the religious opinions of the Samaritans, and sometimes to
Christianity : they appear sometimes to have been rigid ascetics,
and at other times wild scoffers of all moral law. Simon
Magus was their Christ. It was one of the numerous gnostic
sects by whom Christianity was so dreadfully corrupted and
distorted. We cannot suppose that Simon himself was the
founder of the sect, but rather that it sprung up at a later
period. Others, again, think that Simon Magus, and Simon
the founder of the sect of the Simonians, were different per-
sons, and that they were by mistake confounded together.”

Ver. 25. Ὑπέστρεφον, ednyyeriSovro—were returning, were

preaching the gospel. The imperfects of the verbs, according

to the best attested reading, being employed instead of the
aorists, imply that the apostles devoted some time to the
publication of the gospel. They did not go directly to Jeru-
salem, but employed themselves in the villages of Samaria
preaching the gospel. It has been well observed, that the
same John who once wished fire to come down from heaven
to consume the Samaritans, now preached to them the gospel

1 Neander’s Church History, vol. ii. p. 123, note, Bohn’s edition ;
Gieseler’s Ecclesiastical History, vol. i. p. 49, Clark’s translation ;
Renan’s Les Apétres, ch. xv. Ἷ

2 For an account of the Simonians, see Neander’s Church History,
vol. ii. pp. 122, 123; Gieseler’s Ecclesiastical History, vol. i. pp. 49,
50; and Mosheim’s Church History, vol. i. pp. 140-143, Maclaine’s
translation.

΄

MISSION OF PETER AND JOHN TO SAMARIA.—VIII. 25. 297

of peace., He had since that time learned much in the school
of Christ: then he knew not what spirit he was of, but now
he was actuated by the Holy Spirit. It was a different kind
of fire which he now prayed might descend from heaven
upon the Samaritans—the fire of the Holy Ghost.

SECTION XVIL

CONVERSION OF THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH.—Acrts vu. 26-40.

26 But an angel of the Lord spake to Philip, saying, Arise, and go
toward the south, to the way that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza,
which is desert. 27 And he arose and went: and, behold, an Ethiopian,
a eunuch and a distinguished officer of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians,
who was over all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem to worship,
28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot, and read the prophet
Isaiah. 29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, Go near, and join thyself
to this chariot. 80 And Philip having run up, heard him read the
prophet Isaiah, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest ?

31 And he said, How can I, except some man shall guideme? And Ὁ

he desired Philip to come up and sit with him. 382 The passage of
Scripture which he read was this: He was led as a sheep to the
slaughter ; and as a lamb dumb before its shearer, so He opens not His
mouth: 33 In His humiliation His judgment was taken away: and who
shall declare His generation? because His life is taken from the earth.
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom
speaks the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then
Philip, opening his mouth, and beginning from this scripture, preached
to him Jesus. 36 And as they went along the road, they came to a
certain water: and the eunuch said, Behold, here is water; what hinders
me to be baptized? 87, 98 And he commanded the chariot to halt:
and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch ;
and he baptized him. 389 And when they were come out of the water,
the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, and the eunuch saw him no
more: for he went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip was found at
Azotus: and journeying on, he evangelized all the cities, till he came to
Czesarea.

CRITICAL NOTES.

Ver. 37. This verse, Εἶπε δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος" Ei πιστεύεις ἐξ
ὅλης τῆς καρδίας, ἔξεστιν. ᾿Αποκριθεὶς δὲ εἶπε' Πιστεύω τὸν
υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν, is contained in only

298

CONVERSION OF THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH.—VIUI. 26. 299

one uncial ms., Εἰ, whilst it is wanting in A, B, C, G, H, κι:
there is a hiatus in D. It is accordingly rejected by our best
biblical critics. Bornemann alone hesitates. The interpola-
tion, if it be such, however, is very old, being found in the
writings of Ireneus (Adv. Her. iii. 8), and in the Syriac,
Vulgate, and Armenian versions. It is supposed to have
been added from dogmatic reasons, because a confession of
faith by the eunuch was judged to be necessary before his
baptism.

EXEGETICAL REMARKS.

Ver. 26. ᾿άγγελος Kupiov—an angel of the Lord ; not, as
in our version, “ the angel of the Lord,’—an expression which
does not occur in the Acts. ᾿Ελάλησεν πρὸς Φίλυιππον---
spoke to Philip. Olshausen supposes that merely an inter-
nal intimation is meant, and that the phrase is similar to
“the Spirit of the Lord” in ver. 29. But the difference
of expression rather intimates that they are dissimilar.
Others (Heinrichs, Kuincel) suppose that the angel appeared
to Philip in a dream; and for this they appeal to the word
ἀνάστηθι, “ arise.’ But this word in itself does not suggest
the idea of arising from sleep, but is merely a call to action ;
and in the context there is no intimation of a vision or
dream. Luke, then, here relates the actual appearance of an
angel to Philip. So Meyer, De Wette, Lechler. ᾿Δνάστηθι
καὶ πορεύου κατὰ μεσημβρίαν... Γάζαν --- Arise, and go
toward the south, to the way that goes down from Jerusalem to
Gaza. Zeller infers from these words that Philip returned
with the apostles to Jerusalem, and that he went from that
city to Gaza." But such an opinion is unnecessary and im-
probable. It was necessary to go southward from Samaria,
in order to join the road from Jerusalem to Gaza. The
mention of the return of Peter and John to Jerusalem seems
to intimate that Philip did not return, but remained behind.

Tagav—Gaza. This city is situated about two miles from
the Mediterranean, at the southern extremity of Palestine,

1 Zeller’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 175.

300 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

distant about sixty miles from Jerusalem to the south-west.
It is one of the oldest cities in the world, being mentioned
in Gen. x. 19. Originally it formed part of the tribe of
Judah; but it was long before the Israelites obtained pos-
session of it. The Philistines, their great enemies, made it
their capital. Although conquered by David, it soon reco-
vered its freedom, and is mentioned as an independent city
of the Philistines as late as the time of Hezekiah (2 Kings
xvi. 8). After the captivity it became of considerable
importance in a military point of view, being the last town
of Palestine on the frontier of Egypt, and consequently the
key to Egypt and Syria. It was taken after a siege of five
months by Alexander the Great, who partially destroyed
it (Plutarch’s Alexander; Strabo, xvi. 2. 30). Under the
Syrian kings it revived, but was again taken and completely
destroyed by King Alexander Jannzeus about 96 years before
Christ (Joseph. Ané. xiii. 13. 3). The Roman general
Gabinius (B.c. 58) rebuilt it; and by reason of the advantage
of its situation, it soon became a flourishing city. At a later
period it was assigned by Augustus to Herod the Great as
part of his kingdom, and after his death it was incorporated
into the province of Syria. At the time referred to in the
Acts, Gaza was a city of some consequence. Pomponius
Mela, who lived in the time of Claudius, calls it ingens urbs
et munita admodum. Shortly after this, however, it was
partially destroyed by the Jews at the commencement of the
Jewish war (Joseph, Bell. Jud. ii. 18.1). It was an im-
portant city in the time of the Crusaders, and was finally
taken by Saladin. At present, Gaza is a considerable town
with a population of about 15,000, known by the name of
Ghuzzeh, and much frequented by merchants going between
Syria and Egypt."

Αὕτη ἐστὶν Epnuos—which is desert. It has been disputed
whether these words apply to the city of Gaza or to the way
to it; and whether they form part of the address of the
angel, or are a note added by the historian. Many com-
mentators refer the words to Gaza, but among those who

1 See Winer’s biblisches Worterbuch—Gaza.

CONVERSION OF THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH.—vull. 26, 901

do so there is a variety of opinion. Some (Hug, Schnecken-
burger, Lekebusch, Olshausen) suppose that the description
refers to the destruction of the city during the Jewish war ;
and that Luke mentions the deserted state of Gaza on account
of its recent occurrence. But, not to mention that it is
doubtful, if the Acts was of so late a date, such a remark is
unsuitable, because it could have no bearing on the narrative
before us, which relates not to the city, but to the road to it,
as the scene of the occurrence. Others (Pearson, Humphry)
refer the epithet to old Gaza, and suppose that the new town
was built at some distance from it. According to Strabo,
old Gaza was destroyed by Alexander the Great, and remained
deserted (καὶ μένουσα ἔρημος : Strabo, xvi. 2. 30). They
accordingly suppose the clause, “which is desert,” to be a
parenthesis inserted by Luke to explain which Gaza was
meant. The statement of Strabo, however, has been disputed ;
and indeed the words which are quoted from him are regarded
as an interpolation, as they are wanting in several manuscripts
of his works. Unless the distance between the two Gazas,
the old and the new, was considerable, it does not appear what
connection the remark has wth the narrative. Others (Wolf,
Krebs) translate the word ἔρημος “ unfortified.” This, how-
ever, is a doubtful meaning of the term, has no connection
with the narrative, and besides would express what was pro-
bably not the fact: on the contrary, Pomponius Mela asserts
that Gaza was fortified. Others (Heinrichs, Kuincel) suppose
that the remark is a gloss of some commentator, which was
afterwards inserted in the text. But this supposition is at
variance with the combined testimony of all mss. and versions,
and is therefore wholly inadmissible.

The term ἔρημος, then, applies to the way— which way
is desert.” So Beza, Winer, Ewald, Baumgarten, Lechler,
Wieseler, Meyer, Stier. This gives a good sense; it served
to designate the particular road which Philip should take,
and on which he should meet the Ethiopian eunuch. There
were several roads leading from Jerusalem to Gaza. Besides
the most frequented at the present day, the road by Ramleh,
Dr. Robinson mentions two others,—the one down the great

302 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

Wady es-Surar by Bethshemesh, and the other through
Wady el-Musurr to Eleutheropolis, and thence to Gaza by a
more southern tract. The last-named route, as being through
a district thinly inhabited, he supposes to have been the
particular way on which Philip met with the eunuch. But
besides these, there appears to have been in ancient times
another road, which is with still greater probability identified
with the road in the narrative. Von Raumer shows that
there was a road from Jerusalem to Gaza by the way of
Bethlehem and Bethzur to Hebron, and which, after leaving
Hebron, led through a region actually called a desert (Luke
i. 80). The term desert here is employed, as elsewhere in
Scripture, to denote a barren district destitute of dwellings.
The words, then, “ which is desert,” are to be considered as
the words of the angel pointing out to Philip the particular
road which he should take,—namely, that which was then
known by the name of the desert road, or which led through
the desert of Judea. This is to be regarded as the sole object
of the remark. Other reasons are mere groundless supposi-
tions: as that Philip was directed to this desert road, that
there might be no fear of an attack from the Jews (Chrysos-
tom); or because the place was fitting for undisturbed com-
munication (Baumgarten, Wieseler). Lange strangely takes
the word in a spiritual sense—that Philip was sent to a
district spiritually barren, “‘ which is waste;” that is, must
now be spiritually prepared and made.”

Ver. 27. Καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνὴρ Aidioy—And behold an Ethiopian.
Ethiopia was the name used for those lands which lay south
of Egypt, including the modern countries of Nubia, Cordofan,
and Northern Abyssinia. Here the northern part of this
district, anciently called Meroé, is meant, for of this district
Candace was queen. Evdvotyos—a eunuch. Such persons
were employed in Eastern courts as chamberlains, keepers
of the harem, etc. The term is occasionally used to denote
an officer of state—a chamberlain; and so some (Kuincel,
Olshausen, Kitto) suppose that it is here used. But the

1 Baumgarten’s Church History, vol. i. pp. 190-192.
2 Lange’s Apostolisches Zeitalter, p. 109.

CONVERSION OF THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH.—VIII. 27. 303

designation δυνάστης which follows denotes his rank, and
thus renders such a meaning of εὐνοῦχος tautological.
Avvacrns—a distinguished officer. This word is generally
used to denote a potentate or prince; but here it must be
limited to denote one high in authority under a prince.

Κανδάκης, βασιλίσσης Αἰθιόπων---οΥ Candace, queen of the
Ethiopians. This, we learn from heathen authors, was the
common name of the queens of Meroé, the northern part of
Ethiopia. Strabo and Dio Cassius inform us that a power-
ful queen of Ethiopia of this name, whose capital was Napata,
made war against Petronius, the Roman governor of Egypt,
in the reign of Augustus (Strabo, xvii. 1. 54, 55; Dio Cass.
liv. ὅ).} Pliny, who lived in the reign of Titus, tells us
that in his time Candace was the queen of Meroé, and he
adds that for many years this had been the name of their
queens (Plin. Hist. Nat. vi. 35); and Eusebius informs us
that even in his time “the custom still prevailed in Ethiopia
to be governed by queens” (Euseb. Hist. Kecl. ii. 1). It
would appear from the statement of Pliny that Candace was
not the particular name of this individual queen, but a titular
distinction for the queens of Meroé, similar to that of Pharaoh
and Ptolemy in Egypt, and Cesar in Rome.

Ὃς ἣν ἐπὶ πάσης τῆς γάζης αὐτῆς--ιυΐο was over all her
treasure. Γάξα, treasure, taken from the Persian: pecuniam
regiam gazam Perse vocant (Qu. Curt. iii. 13. 5). “Os ἐλη-
λύθει προσκυνήσων eis ‘I.—who had come to Jerusalem to
worship. It is disputed whether the Ethiopian eunuch was
a Jew, an uncircumcised Gentile, or a Jewish proselyte.
Olshausen supposes that he was a Jew, and that he was
called an Ethiopian only from his place of residence.” Jews,
as we elsewhere learn, were numerous in Ethiopia. The
reason, however, which Olshausen assigns, “ because prose-
lytes were seldom acquainted with the Hebrew tongue,” is
singularly weak; for the eunuch might read the prophecy of
Isaiah from the Greek translation. The natural meaning of
Αἰθίοψ" is, that it denotes the nation to which he belonged—

1 See Merivale’s History of the Romans, vol. iv. 158.
2 Olshausen on the Gospels and Acts, vol. iv. p. 341.

304 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

that the eunuch was actually an Ethiopian. Meyer and De
Wette suppose that he was an uncircumcised heathen—a so-
called proselyte of the gate—a worshipper of the true God,
but who had not been incorporated among the Jews by the
rite of circumcision.' The reason they assign for this is,
because eunuchs were prohibited from approaching the con-
gregation of the Lord (Deut. xxiii. 1). According to this
view, the Ethiopian eunuch, and not Cornelius, was the first
convert from the Gentile world. So also Eusebius desig-
nates him as the first among the Gentiles (πρῶτος ἐξ ἐθνῶν)
who was converted (Hist. Eccl. ii. 1). The reason, however,
assioned (Deut. xxiii. 1) is insufficient: there was nothing to
prevent the eunuch becoming a Jewish proselyte, and being
admitted to the same religious privileges with those Jews
who were in a similar condition. The Acts of the Apostles,
although it does not directly assert, yet seems strongly to
intimate, that Cornelius was the first Gentile convert (Acts
xv. 7). The great journey of the eunuch from Ethiopia to
Jerusalem in order to worship, as well as his speedy recep-
tion into the Christian church, are better explained on the
supposition that he was a full Jewish proselyte, than that he
was merely a devout Gentile like Cornelius.

Ver. 28. Ἦν trootpépwv—was returning. The Ethio-
pian eunuch, on his return from Jerusalem, had to pass
through Gaza in order to get to Egypt. ’Aveyivwonev τὸν
προφήτην “Hoaiav—read the prophet Isaiah. He probably
read from the Septuagint. This translation was in general
use out of Palestine; and the quotation which follows is
taken from it. In all probability, he had heard when at Jeru-
salem of the wonderful events connected with the life and
death of Jesus, and of the existence of a numerous party
who believed that He was the Messiah of the Jews. Of this
he could not possibly be entirely ignorant; for the disciples
were numerous in Jerusalem, and had attracted much atten-
tion. This may have led to his study of Isaiah, the most
evangelical of the prophets, and to this particular passage
of his prophecy, where the sufferings of the Messiah are so

1 Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 192.

ee τἀνεο'ο ΨΥ

* CONVERSION OF THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH.—VII, 29-33. 305

clearly described. According to this supposition, he was
examining the prophecies with reference to the question
whether Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah—whether the
prophet Isaiah described His sufferings or those of some
other man.

Vers. 29-31. Εἶπεν δὲ τὸ [Ivedpa—then the Spirit said.
The first of those intimations of the Holy Spirit which were
afterwards of frequent occurrence. The Spirit spoke by means
of an internal intimation. “Apaye γινώσκεις ἃ avaywooKers—
Understandest thou what thou readest? Philip heard him read
the prophet Isaiah, but was doubtful whether he understood
its Messianic reference. Πῶς yap ἂν duvaiwnv—How can I,
except some man should guide me? The fulfilment is the key
to the interpretation of the prophecy. Now, although the
Ethiopian eunuch must have heard something of Jesus in
Jerusalem, yet he was in a great measure ignorant of His
life and death, and therefore wanted this key of interpreta-
tion; and hence he requests Philip to explain the passage to
him.

Vers. 32, 33. This passage is taken almost verbatim from
the Septuagint of Isa. lili. 7, 8: the only differences are, that
in the Acts αὐτοῦ is inserted after ταπεινώσει, and δέ before
yeveav. The words, however, differ somewhat from the
original Hebrew, where, instead of “ In His humiliation, His
judgment was taken away,” we read, “ He was taken from
prison and from judgment.”

Ver. 33. ᾽Εν τῇ ταπεινώσει αὐτοῦ ἡ κρίσις αὐτοῦ ἤρθη---- ἴηι
His humiliation His judgment was taken away. This difficult
verse has been variously interpreted. The chief. difficulty
lies in the meaning of the words, “ His judgment was taken
away.” Some (Bengel, Lechler) render them, “The judg-
ment pronounced on Him by His enemies was taken away—
cancelled or set aside by God.” Others (Meyer, Robinson)
render them, ‘“ His judgment, the punishment inflicted upon
Him by His enemies, was taken away—removed, ended, or
finished by His death.” Humphry supposes that the judicial
power of the Messiah as Son of God is here alluded to:
“In His state of humiliation, while He was in this world, His

VOL. 1. U

306 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

judicial power was taken away—He did not appear as the
Divine Judge of men.” On the whole, the popular meaning
is to be preferred as the most simple and natural: “ His judg-
ment—the judgment due to Him—His rights of justice—
were withheld by His enemies.” Jesus appeared in a form so
humble, a man so poor and insignificant, that Pilate, though
convinced of His innocence, thought it not worth while to
hazard anything to preserve His life.

Τὴν δὲ γενεὰν αὐτοῦ τίς Sinyjnoetac—and who shall declare
His generation? Different interpretations have also been
given of this clause. The Fathers in general referred it to
the mystery of the Messiah’s deity: Who shall declare His
generation—His Divine Sonship ?—a meaning approved by
Wordsworth, but which ill suits the connection with the
following clause. Others (Luther, Calvin, Beza, Vitringa,
Bengel, Hengstenberg) refer the words to the duration of
His kingdom and His spiritual seed; as if the prophet had
said, Who shall declare the duration of His reign, or count
the number of His spiritual offspring? Γενεά may certainly
signify posterity, and may thus refer to the spiritual offspring
of the Messiah; but then such a meaning does not well suit
the following clause, “ for His life is taken from the earth :”
at least the connection is remote. Besides, such an interpre-
tation would be tautological; for the prophet in a subsequent
verse expresses this idea in clearer terms: “He shall see
His seed, He shall prolong His days” (Isa. liii. 10). Bishop
Lowth renders the passage, “ His manner of life who shall
declare?” He informs us that it was the custom, before any
one was punished for a capital offence among the Jews, to
make the following proclamation : ‘“ Whoever knows anything
of the innocence of this man, let him come and declare it.”
And he supposes that when such a proclamation was made
in the case of Christ, no one stood up in His defence. But
such a meaning is inadmissible, as yeved does not signify
manner of life. Others (Meyer, De Wette, Lechler, Robin-
son, Alford) render the passage: “ Who shall declare His
generation ?”—that is, set forth the wickedness of His con-
temporaries? This meaning certainly best suits the context :

CONVERSION OF THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH.—VIII. 34, 35, 307

“ For”—as a proof and demonstration of this indescribable
wickedness—“ His life was taken from the earth,” ὁ.6. He was
put to death. ;

Ver. 34. Περὶ τίνος ὁ προφήτης λέγει τοῦτο ; περὶ ἑαυτοῦ,
ἢ περὶ ἑτέρου twos—Of whom speaks the prophet this? of
himself, or of some other man? The eunuch, in studying the
prophecy with reference to Jesus, saw a possible objection :
that the words might not be a prediction, but the historical
statement of a fact; and that Isaiah might be speaking of
himself either as an individual, or as the representative of
the prophetic class. Perhaps the opinion that Isaiah was the
person spoken of might have been advanced by the Jews in
Jerusalem in their arguments with the disciples of Jesus, and
the eunuch might have heard the passage so expounded.

Ver. 35. Εὐηγγελίσατο αὐτῷ τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν--- He preached
to him Jesus. Philip showed the correspondence between
the life and death of Jesus and the predictions of the pro-
phet, and thus proved from this and other prophecies that
Jesus was the Messiah whom the Jews expected. The
Messianic nature of this prophecy has been generally ad-
mitted by all Christians; it is one of the strongholds of
Christianity ; indeed, when reading this fifty-third chapter
of Isaiah, we seem rather to be reading a history of the past
than a prediction of the future, so clear is the correspondence
between the prophecy and the history of Jesus. In these
later chapters of Isaiah there is a description of “ the servant
of the Lord;” and it is of him that the prophet speaks.
Modern Jews have referred the prediction to various indivi-
duals—to Hezekiah, to the prophet Isaiah himself, and to
Jeremiah ; but all these applications are inadmissible: there
is little or no correspondence between the prophecy and its
supposed fulfilment in any of these persons. More plausible
is the opinion, that by “the servant of the Lord” Israel
collectively is meant. But here also the application is forced ;
and even although there may be a reference to Israel, yet it
can only be in a subordinate sense, as a type of the Messiah.
Accordingly several Jewish writers, such as Rabbi Solomon
Jarchi, and Rabbi Isaac Abrabanel, admit that the Messiah

308 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

is here spoken of, although they are either so blind or so
prejudiced as not to draw the inference that Jesus of Naza-
reth is that Messiah.’ .

Ver. 80.---λθον ἐπί τι tdwp—they came to a certain water.
As the particular road along which Philip and the eunuch
travelled is a matter of conjecture, so the water, the fountain
or brook in which he was baptized, must remain undeter-
mined. ‘Tradition fixes on a fountain near Bethsur, on the
road from Jerusalem to Gaza, which passes by Hebron, and
which, as we have already seen, was probably the way along
which the eunuch was journeying. Both Eusebius and
Jerome concur in this tradition. The latter states: “ Bethsur,
now called Bethsoron, is a village on the road from /élia
(Jerusalem) to Hebron, at the twentieth milestone, near
which there is a fountain, which issues at the base of the
mountain, and is absorbed by the same ground in which it
rises; and the Acts of the Apostles relates that here the
eunuch of Candace was baptized by Philip”? (Jerome, de
loc. Heb. Bethsur). The site of this fountain has been iden-
tified near a village called Betur, beside which are the ruins
of a Christian church. It is, however, improbable that this
was the spot, as Bethsur is situated before that part of the
road is reached which can with any propriety be called
desert. In the age of the Crusaders, Ain Haniyeh, five
miles south-west of Jerusalem, was fixed upon as the place
of the baptism, where there is still a fountain, known by
the name of St. Philip’s fountain. Dr. Robinson supposes
that the baptism took place in a brook near Tell el-Hasy, on
the road from Beit Jibrin to Gaza. “ When,” he observes,
(( we were at Tell el-Hasy, and saw the water standing along
the bottom of the adjacent wady, we could not but remark
the coincidence of several circumstances with the account of
the eunuch’s baptism. This water is on the most direct
route from Beit Jibrin to Gaza, on the most southern road
from Jerusalem, and in the midst of a country now desert,
that is, without villages or fixed habitations.”

1 See Du Veil on the Acts of the Apostles, p. 210.
2 Pearson’s Lectures on the Acts.

CONVERSION OF THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH.—VIII. 87-39. 309

Vers. 37, 38. For ver. 37, see Critical Note. Eis τὸ ὕδωρ
—into the water. It is generally supposed that these words
are in favour of baptism by immersion. But whatever was
the practice in apostolic times, the words do not necessarily
bear this meaning: they merely imply that Philip and the
eunuch went into the water for the purpose of baptism ; but
they state nothing as to the mode of its administration.

Ver. 39. The Alexandrine ms. (A’, but according to
Tischendorf corrected by the original scribe) after ὕδατος
reads, Πνεῦμα ἅγιον. ἐπέπεσεν ἐπὶ τὸν εὐνοῦχον, ἄγγελος δὲ
Κυρίου, etc.—“ The Holy Ghost fell upon the eunuch, but
the angel of the Lord caught away Philip.” This reading is
also found in seven cursive MSS., two versions, and Jerome.
It is curious, but doubtless spurious, and has never been
adopted by any eminent critic. Πνεῦμα Κυρίου ἥρπασε τὸν
Didirrov—the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip. Some
(Olshausen, Hackett) suppose that these words merely inti-
mate that Philip felt himself urged by a divine impulse to
depart, but not that the mode of his departure was miracu-
lous in any other respect." But the impression which the
narrative leaves upon the mind, the forcible word ἥρπασε,
the eunuch seeing him no more, and Philip being found at
Azotus, upwards of thirty miles distant, is, that the removal
was miraculous, although its mode and nature are not de-
scribed. So Meyer, De Wette, Bengel, Alford, Wordsworth.
Similar miraculous removals appear to have happened in the
case of Elijah (1 Kings xviii. 12; 2 Kings ii. 16). The
same verb occurs in the description of the ecstasy of Paul
(2 Cor. xii. 2, 4). Zeller infers, from the account of the
miraculous nature of Philip’s removal, that the whole narra-
tive is mythical, and that the only historical truth in the
account is, that a certain Ethiopian nobleman was converted
to Christianity.” Such attempts to explain away the mira-
culous by mere unsupported assertions cannot be met with
arguments. If the miraculous be denied, then certainly the
whole narrative is mythical. But if once admitted, then our

1 Hackett on the Acts, p. 158.
* Zeller’s Apostelgeschichte, pp. 175, 176.

310 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

sole duty is to find out the true meaning of the passage, and
not to receive some miracles and reject others on mere arbi-
trary considerations. ᾿Εἰ πορεύετο yap τὴν ὁδὸν αὑτοῦ χαίρων
—for he went on his way rejoicing. Tap—for, ποῦ and, as in
our version. A reason is here given: “ The eunuch saw him
no more, because he went on his way rejoicing.” The mira-
culous removal of Philip was an attestation to the eunuch of
Philip’s teaching, and a confirmation of his faith.

Tradition states that this eunuch, whose name is given as
Indich, preached the gospel in his own country after his
return; that queen Candace was converted; and that a
flourishing church was established in Ethiopia (Nicephorus,
i. 6). Eusebius states, that “on his return to his country
he proclaimed the knowledge’ “of God, and the salutary abode
of our Saviour among men” (fist. Heel. ii. 1); and Jerome
writes, “* The panes was sent as an apostle to the nations
of the Ethiopians” (Jerome on Isa. liii.). These traditions
are probably erroneous; at least history does not record any
traces of Christianity among the Ethiopians until the fourth
century, when their conversion was effected by Frumentius,
in the reign of Constantine.

Ver. 40. Εἰς "ASwrov—at Azotus. The force of the pre-
position εἰς is, that Philip was carried away by the Spirit
until he came to Azotus. Azotus, or Ashdod, was one of the
five chief cities of the Philistines. It was about thirty miles
from Gaza, and lay midway between it and Joppa, about three
miles distant from the Mediterranean. Although allotted to
the tribe of Judah, yet it continued to maintain itself as a
Philistine city until the time of Nehemiah (Neh. xiii. 23, 24).
It is said to have sustained a siege of twenty-nine years by
Psammetichus king of Egypt, by whom it was at length
taken (Herod. ii. 157). Afterwards it was destroyed by
Jonathan Maccabeeus, but rebuilt by the proconsul Gabinius.
It belonged to the kingdom of Herod the Great, who be-
queathed it to his sister Salome. It is now an insignificant
village, and still’retains its ancient name, Esdud. Evnyye-
λίζετο τὰς πόλεις Tadcas—he’ evangelized all the cities. In
journeying from Azotus to Cesarea, Philip would pass

ΤΡ ὙὙ ΨΥ Ὑ ΨΥ Ὁ ee, ee

CONVERSION OF THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH.—VIUI. 40. 311

through the populous plain of Saron, and would preach the
gospel in Lydda, Joppa, and other cities. “Ews τοῦ ἐλθεῖν
αὐτὸν εἰς Kaodpevav—until he came to Caesarea. Leke-
busch supposes that this statement is made by anticipation,
and that Philip spent some time in preaching the gospel
before he came to Cexsarea; and that this was the reason
why there is no notice of him in the narrative of the con-
version of Cornelius." Twenty years after this, mention is
made of Philip as still resident in Caesarea. When Paul
was on his Jast journey to Jerusalem, we read that when he
and his company came to Cesarea, they entered into the
house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven,
and abode with him (Acts xxi. 8). In the traditions of the
church, Philip the deacon is confounded with Philip the
apostle (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 31). He is said to have died
bishop of Tralles.

Oxsarea, called Caesarea Augustus—Kawoapela Σεβαστή
—was situated on the shores of the Mediterranean, about
seventy miles distant from Jerusalem. It was also called
Ceesarea Palestine, and Ceesarea Stratonis. In the time of
Strabo it was known by the name of the Tower of Strato,
and was merely a station for vessels (Strabo, xvi. 2. 27).
Herod the Great, however, in the course of ten years built
a magnificent city, and named it, in honour of Augustus,
Cexsarea. Josephus calls it a city of palaces. ‘ Herod,” he
says, “built it all with white stone, adorned it with the most
splendid palaces, and, what was the greatest and the most
laborious work of all, with a harbour which was at all times
free from the waves of the sea” (Ant. xv. 9. 6; Bell. Jud.
i. 21. 5). The harbour, he tells us, was equal in size to the
celebrated Pirzeus at Athens. After the death of Herod,
and when Judea was made a part of the Roman empire,
Czesarea became the residence of the Roman procurators.
Here Pontius Pilate, Felix, and Festus held their courts.
Here were the headquarters of the Roman troops. Hence it
was called by Tacitus the capital of Judea (caput Judea,
Tac. Hist. ii. 79). Although the Jews were numerous, yet

1 Lekebusch’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 101.

312 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

the inhabitants were chiefly Gentiles, and Greek was the
language spoken. At the commencement of the Jewish
war, all the Jews resident in Cesarea to the number of
twenty thousand were killed; so that, in the emphatic words
of the Jewish historian, in one hour Czsarea was emptied of
its Jewish inhabitants (Bell. Jud. ii. 18.1). Here Vespasian
was declared emperor; and in consequence of the fidelity of
the city, he raised it to the dignity of a Roman colony, and
bestowed upon it many privileges." Afterwards Ceesarea
occurs seldom in history: it appears to have fallen gradually
into decay and obscurity. Husebius, the father of ecclesi-
astical history, was born there, and resided as bishop. It is
occasionally mentioned in the wars of the Crusades. Czsarea
is now a large heap of ruins, and its stones are used to build
and repair the neighbouring towns of Syria; whilst the old
name Kaisariyeh still lingers to mark the spot where the
proud metropolis of Roman Judea stood, and to teach a
lesson of the vanity of earthly greatness. But in the apos-
tolic age Caesarea was at the height of its splendour—the
city of palaces, the seat of Roman government and law, and
the rival of Jerusalem as the capital of Judea.”

1 The history of Czsarea is thus summed up by Pliny: Stratonis
turris, eadem Czesarea, ab Herode rege condita: nunc Colonia, prima
Flavia, a Vespasiano Imperatore deducta (v. 14).

2 Winer’s biblisches Worterbuch ; Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible ;
Conybeare and Howson’s Travels of St. Paul.

SECTION XVIII.
CONVERSION OF PAUL.—Acts 1x. 1-19.

1 And Saul, yet breathing threatening and murder against the
disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, 2 And desired of him
letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he should find any who
were of the way, both men and women, he might bring them bound
to Jerusalem. 8 And it came to pass, as he journeyed, that he drew
near Damascus; and suddenly there flashed around him a light from
heaven: 4 And having fallen to the earth, he heard a voice saying
to him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5 And he said, Who
art Thou, Lord? And He replied, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest :
6 But arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou
must do. 7 And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless,
hearing the voice, but seeing no one. 8 And Saul arose from the earth ;
and when his eyes were opened, he saw nothing: and they, leading him
by the hand, brought him to Damascus. 9 And he was three days not
seeing, and neither did eat nor drink.

10 Now there was a certain disciple in Damascus, named Ananias ;
and the Lord said to him in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold,
I am here, Lord. 11 And the Lord said to him, Arise, and go into
the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas
for one called Saul of Tarsus: for, behold, he prays, 12 And has seen
a man named Ananias coming in, and laying his hand on him, that
he might receive his sight. 13 And Ananias answered, Lord, I have
heard by many concerning this man, how much evil he did to Thy
saints at Jerusalem: 14 And here he has authority from the chief
priests to bind all who invoke Thy name. 15 But the Lord said to
him, Go: because he is to me a chosen vessel, to bear my name before
the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: 16 For I shall show
him how much he must suffer for my name’s sake. 17 And Ananias
went, and entered into the house ; and putting his hands on him, said,
Brother Saul, the Lord sent me, even Jesus, who appeared to thee on
the way as thou camest, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be
filled with the Holy Ghost. 18 And immediately there fell from his
eyes as it were scales ; and he received sight, and arose, and was baptized.
19 And having received food, he was strengthened.

313

314 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

CRITICAL NOTES.

Ver. 5. The words Κύριος εἶπεν are found only in G, H,
but are wanting in A, B, Οὐ, and are rejected by Lachmann
and Tischendorf; δὲ has ὁ δὲ eizrev. Vers. 5, 6. After διώκεις
the textus receptus has σκληρόν cor πρὸς κέντρα λακτίζειν.
Τρέμων te καὶ θαμβῶν εἶπε: Κύριε, τί με θέλεις ποιῆσαι ;
Καὶ ὁ Κύριος πρὸς αὐτόν. But no Greek ms. whatever has
been found which contains these words. E has only the first
five words. They are therefore omitted by all recent critics.
Ver. 8. Οὐδένα is found in C, E, G, H; whereas A, B,
and καὶ read οὐδέν : the latter reading has been preferred by
Tischendorf, Lachmann, and Meyer. Ver. 12. The words
ἐν ὁράματι before ἄνδρα, found in this order in Εἰ, G, H, and
in B and C before εἶδεν, are wanting in A and 8, and are re-
jected by Lachmann and Tischendorf. Ver. 18. Παραχρῆμα
is found in E, G, but omitted in A, B, C, H, 8, and is re-
jected by later critics.

EXEGETICAL REMARKS.

Next to the narrative of the effusion of the Holy Ghost at
Pentecost, this is the most important section of the Acts of
the Apostles. We have in it the account of the conversion
of the greatest defender and the most successful missionary
of the Christian faith; a man who, beyond all the other
apostles, has indelibly impressed his name and spirit upon
Christianity, and especially upon Protestantism; and who
has thus of all men exerted the mightiest influence upon the
world. Besides numerous allusions to the event in the epistles
of Paul, we have three separate accounts of it in the Acts:
the first is the narrative of Luke, now under consideration ;
the second is contained in the speech of Paul before the
Jewish multitude at Jerusalem (Acts xxii. 4-16); and the
third forms part of his defence before King Agrippa (Acts
xxvi. 12-18). These accounts agree in the principal par-
ticulars, but differ in subordinate details; thus affording

CONVERSION OF PAUL.—IX. 1. 315

that mark of internal credibility—substantial truth combined
with circumstantial variety ; and this is the case whether the
differences between the accounts be capable or incapable of
reconciliation. They also mutually supply what is wanting
in each other, and complete the history. From Acts xxii.
we learn that the appearance occurred at noon ; and from
Acts xxvi., that the light which shone down from heaven sur-
passed the sun in brightness. And by comparing the three
accounts together, we find that whereas the phenomenon
affected both Paul and his companions, the impression
which it made upon Paul was clear and definite, whilst the
impression which it made upon his companions was indis-
tinct : the voice from heaven addressed the former, but not
the latter.

Ver. 1. Ὃ δὲ Σ᾿ αῦλος ἔτι ἐμπνέων . . . Kupiov—And Saul,
yet breathing threatening and murder against the disciples of
the Lord. The last account which we had of Paul was that
he was consenting to the death of Stephen, and made havoc
of the church; we are now told that his persecuting zeal,
instead of diminishing by time, increased. It must have
increased his rage to find that the dispersion of the Christians
served to the diffusion of their opinions; to hear that those
whom he had been instrumental in driving from Jerusalem
were so successful in preaching the religion he was so eager to
root out. ᾿Ε πνέων, a stronger term than πνέων. Προσελθὼν
τῷ apyepei—having gone to the high priest. As the precise
year of Paul’s conversion is uncertain, so it is also uncertain
who was then the high priest in office. If the conversion of
Paul took place as early as the year 36, then Caiaphas was
still high priest; but if, as is more probable, it did not occur
until the year 37, then either Jonathan the son of Annas,
who was made high priest by Vitellius, governor of Syria, at
the passover of that year (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 4. 3), was in
office; or his brother Theophilus, who succeeded him at the
following Pentecost (Ant. xviii. 5. 3). Annas, however, the
father-in-law of Caiaphas, and father of Jonathan and Theo-
philus, seems still to have exercised the chief power. (See
note to Acts iv. 6.) |

316 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

Ver. 2. "Hrjcato παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ émictodas—desired of him
letters. The Sanhedrim, however much its power might
have been abridged by the Romans, was still recognised as
the supreme Jewish court, and exercised great influence and
authority among the Jewish synagogues abroad, especially in
cities bordering upon Palestine. (See former note on the
Sanhedrim.) Eis Δαμασκὸν ---ἰο Damascus. Damascus is
about 140 miles north-east from Jerusalem, situated on a large
fertile plain or oasis, well watered with many rivulets, and on
all sides surrounded by the desert. Its name occurs as early
as the time of Abraham, being mentioned as the residence of
Eleazar, the steward of his house (Gen. xv. 2). Afterwards
it became the capital of the Syrian kings, who were engaged
in constant war with the kings of Israel and Judah. Twice
it was occupied by the Israelites—once by David, and a
second time by Jeroboam 11. king of Israel. It was suc-
cessively possessed by the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians,
and Greeks, and at length fell into the possession of the
Romans during the wars of Mithridates, when it was taken
by Pompey (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 2. 3). At the time of Paul’s
conversion, Damascus was probably under the Romans, though
some suppose that it was temporarily occupied by Aretas, the
king of Arabia Nabatea (1 Cor. xi. 32). But this occupa-
tion probably occurred three years afterwards. (See note to
Acts ix.25.) It abounded so much with Jews, that Josephus
tells us that during the Jewish war ten thousand of them
were massacred in one hour (Sell. Jud. ii. 20.2). In the
year 634 it fell into the hands of the Saracens, and under
the Ommiad caliphs became the capital of the Mohammedan
world. It was much celebrated in the wars of the Crusaders.
At present it is one of the largest cities in the East, contain-
ing a population of 150,000, of whom nearly 20,000 are
Christians."

Πρὸς τὰς cuvaywyds—to the synagogues. As there was a
large Jewish population in Damascus, there would be several

1 Conybeare and Howson’s St. Paul; Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible ;

Winer’s biblisches Wéorterbuch ; Kitto’s Illustrated Commentary, vol. i.
pp. 33, 34.

CONVERSION OF PAUL.—IKX. 3. 317

synagogues. The Christians had not as yet ceased to worship
there, and the rulers of the synagogues exercised an over-
sight over the religious opinions of their members. (See
former note on the synagogue.)

"Oras ἐάν τινας εὕρῃ τῆς ὁδοῦ évtas—that if he found any
of the way. “The way” is a common expression in the Acts
for the Christian religion (Acts xix. 9, xxii. 4, xxiv. 22). It
signifies a particular mode of life or conduct. Some render
it the way of salvation, the way of faith in Jesus Christ, the
way of the Lord. Here, however, being used by one who
was then an opponent of Christianity, it is equivalent to the
word “sect:” “if he found any of the sect”—that sect
among the Jews who believed that Jesus of Nazareth was
the Messiah. It is evident that Christians were then so
numerous at Damascus, that a report of them had reached
Jerusalem. Probably several natives of Damascus had been
converted on the day of Pentecost; and some of the dis-
persed who travelled as far as Phenice and Antioch might
have reached Damascus. Being a great mercantile city,
there was a constant influx of strangers. Paul may have
fixed on Damascus as the sphere of his persecuting zeal, on
account of the number of Christians there. Perhaps also,
as Lange remarks, he regarded Damascus as the gate to the
dispersed Jews of the East in Mesopotamia, Babylon, and
Assyria, and it appeared to him to be above all things neces-
sary that that gate should be closed."

Ver. 3. "Ev δὲ τῷ πορεύεσθει---αγἃ as he journeyed. There
* were several roads between Jerusalem and Damascus, so that
it is doubtful which way Paul and his companions took.
One road led by Neapolis (Shechem) and Scythopolis,
crossing the Jordan at the foot of the Sea of Tiberias,
thence to Gadara, and so to Damascus. Another went by
a more northern direction, crossed the Jordan a few miles
above the Sea of Tiberias, and thence led by Czsarea
Philippi to Damascus. And a third joined the road between
Petra and Damascus by Jericho and Heshbon.? Whichever

1 Lange’s Apostolisches Zeitalter, p. 114.
2 Conybeare and Howson’s St. Paul, vol. i. p. 102.

318 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

way was taken, the time occupied in the journey would be
about six days. ᾿Εγένετο αὐτὸν ἐγγίζειν τῇ Δαμασκῷ---ἰξ
came to pass that he drew near Damascus. Tradition fixes
the scene of the conversion on “an open green spot sur-
rounded by trees,” now used as the Christian burying-place
on the eastern side of the city."

᾿Εξαίφνης te περιήστραψεν αὐτὸν φῶς ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ---
and suddenly there flashed around him a light from heaven.
Several (Eichhorn, Ammon, Rosenmiiller, Kuincel, Heinrichs,
Ewald) attempt to account for the entire occurrence on
natural principles. They, suppose that Paul was in a dis-
turbed state of mind. He had been deeply impressed with
the heroic death of Stephen and other martyrs, and was
moved by the prudent counsels of Gamaliel. Hence he felt
that he might be in the wrong, and the Christians in the
right; and this new outbreak of fanaticism was only an
attempt to stifle his convictions. The assertions of the
Christians about the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus
also weighed upon him. While journeying to Damascus in
this perturbed mental state, he encountered a great thunder-
storm (Ewald supposes the sirocco):? one vivid flash of
lightning struck him to the ground, and his excited imagina-
tion caused him to see in the lightning the appearance of
Jesus, and to hear in the rolling thunder the words of Jesus.
And when he arose from the earth he saw no man; he was
temporarily blinded by the lightning.’ Such an opinion is
composed of suppositions entirely arbitrary, and has not the
slightest foundation in the text, where no mention is made
of a storm of thunder and lightning. Besides, of all men,
Paul was the most free from fanaticism, and the most un-
likely to mistake mere natural phenomena for an actual
appearance of Christ; above all, to think that he heard defi-
nite words addressed to him, whilst in reality it was only a
peal of thunder. His avoidance of unnecessary suffering, his
appeal to his privileges as a Roman citizen when threatened

1 Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible.

2 Ewald’s Geschichte des Apostolischen Zeitalters, p. 346.
3 See Kuincel’s Novi Testamenti Libri Historici, vol. iii, p. 152.

tl i

CONVERSION OF PAUL.—IX. 3. 319

with scourging, and his courteous reply to the sneers of
Festus, are totally incompatible with the spirit of a fanatic.
He was indeed full of zeal; but his zeal was guided by
reason and tempered by prudence, as any one may see who
carefully peruses his Epistles to the Corinthians.

The view taken by Renan is somewhat similar. He sup-
poses that Paul, when journeying to Damascus, was in a
distracted state of mind; that he was troubled and shaken
in his faith; that he was frequently filled with remorse for
his conduct; that at times he fancied he saw the sweet face
of the Master, who inspired the disciples with so much
patience, regarding him with an air of pity and tender re-
proach; and that he was much impressed with the accounts
that he had heard of the apparitions of Jesus. As he drew
near Damascus these feelings overcame him; his nerves
were relaxed; a fever or sunstroke suddenly attacked him,
deprived him of consciousness, and threw him senseless on
the ground. Then he became a prey to hallucinations: he
saw the countenance which had haunted him for several
days: he saw Jesus Himself, and heard Him saying, “ Saul,
Saul, why persecutest thou me?” His impetuous nature
hurried him from one extreme to another; and when he
recovered from this nervous attack, he passed from being a
zealous persecutor to be an equally zealous apostle. Renan
supposes that it is not improbable that external circumstances
may have brought on the crisis: that a thunderstorm may
have suddenly broken out; and that Paul, in his excitement,
interpreted as the voice of the storm the thoughts really
passing in his own mind.*

But all these rationalistic writers are surpassed by Bahrdt,
who supposes that Jesus was only apparently dead upon the
cross, and that after His revival He lived in retirement,
and came forth from it to present Himself to Paul in order
to destroy his persecuting zeal. Equally unfounded is the
opinion of Bretschneider, who supposes that all this hap-
pened to Paul in a trance, and was the same vision to which
he alludes in 2 Cor. xii. 1-7. Paul was not alone when the

1 Renan’s Les Apdtres, ch. x.

320 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

event happened: he had companions with him, who were
also arrested by the appearance.’

Another class of critics (Baur, Zeller), finding the ration-
alistic explanation indefensible, endeavour to account for
the occurrence on mythical principles. They suppose that
the true account of Paul’s conversion has been embellished
by a series of myths and miraculous interpositions. But
still the fact that Paul was converted has to be accounted
for; and Zeller is forced to admit that Paul himself was
convinced of the reality of the appearance of Christ to him.?

All these explanations are attempts to get rid of the
miraculous. As Neander well observes: “In the explana-
tion of the transaction of which we are here speaking, it is
of consequence in what relation the inquirer is placed to
that on which the essence of the Christian faith rests, and
with which it stands or falls—the fact of the actual resur-
rection of Christ. Whoever acknowledges this, occupies a
standpoint where he can have no motive to deny the super-
natural in the history that is connected with that fact.
Such a person can have no ground for mistrusting the ex-
pressions of Paul respecting this appearance to him of the
risen Saviour. But whoever, from his own point of view,
cannot acknowledge the actual resurrection of Christ, is so
far incapacitated for admitting the objective nature of this
appearance to Paul, and must from the first stand in a
hostile relation to it.” ὃ

The state of Paul’s mind at the time of his conversion is
an interesting subject of inquiry: in other words, How far
was this sudden conversion prepared? Some (Neander,
Olshausen) suppose that there was a preparation. Accord-
ing to them, Paul was deeply impressed with the death of

1 50 also Dr. Davidson accounts for Paul’s conversion by conceiving
that the phenomena were subjective, and not objective ; and he explains
it by parallels in the lives of Ignatius Loyola and Colonel Gardiner (ew
Introduction to the New Testament, ii. 246-248).

? Zeller’s Apostelgeschichte, pp. 195-197.

3 Neander’s Planting, vol. ii. p. 94. See also the short but excellent
remarks of Meyer on Paul’s conversion, Apostelgeschichte, pp. 200-203.

OO ς.....ὕ..-

CONVERSION OF PAUL.—IX. 4, 5. 321

Stephen; he felt that Jesus might possibly be the Messiah,
and there was a violent struggle carried on within him be-
tween his old pharisaical notions and these new convictions.’
But, in the narrative, there is nothing to countenance this view
of the subject. On the contrary, we are informed that Paul
consented to the death of Stephen, and that his hatred against
the Christians was not in the least abated. Accordingly others
(Baumgarten, Meyer) suppose that there was no prepara-
tion whatever; that he was blinded up to the very moment
of his conversion ; that he had neither doubts nor scruples
about what he was doing.” The truth seems to lie between
these extremes. Paul, in the midst of all his errors, was
actuated by the love of the truth; his zeal for what he
thought the truth of God was the cause of his bitter hostility
to the Christians. The chief priests, the Sadducees, and the
Pharisees, persecuted in a great measure from impure and
unworthy motives; whereas with Paul there was always the
conviction that he was doing God service. Falsehood and
insincerity were foreign to his character.

Ver. 4. The light which flashed around Paul and his
companions was the light of the divine glory (d0&a)—the
Shekinah, in which Christ now dwells. It is not directly
asserted, but seems implied, that Paul saw in this light the
glorified body of Jesus (note to ver. 17). The voice called
him by name, “ Saul, Saul!” Elsewhere we are informed
that these words were spoken in the Hebrew tongue; and
accordingly the words here are according to the Hebrew,
and not the Greek form: Σαοὺλ, Σαοὺλ, τέ με διώκεις ;—why
persecutest thou me? As Chrysostom beautifully renders
it, “ What wrong, great or small, hast thou suffered from
me, that thou doest these things?” Christ here identifies
Himself with His people. He does not charge Paul with
persecuting His disciples, but with persecuting Himself
(Luke x. 16).

Ver. 5. Tis εἶ, Κύριε ;—Who art Thou, Lord? Paul would

1 Olshausen on the Gospels and Acts, vol. iv. p. 547.
2 Baumgarten’s Apostolic History, vol. i. p. 206; Meyer's Apostel-
geschichte, p. 201.

VOL. I. x

322 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

at first be awe-struck when he saw the glorified appearance,
and heard the voice speaking to him; but the thought would
soon occur to him that He who now addressed him was Jesus,
whose disciples he was persecuting. ‘“ Conscience itself
would readily say that it is Jesus” (Bengel). The inter-
polation which follows in the tewtus receptus—from σκληρόν
to πρὸς αὐτόν of ver. 6—is found in no Greek manuscript
(see Critical Note). It occurs in the Vulgate, and is quoted
by Theophylact and Cicumenius. It is evidently borrowed
from other accounts of Paul’s conversion: the words σκλη-
pov σοι πρὸς κέντρα λακτίζειν are taken verbatim from ch.
xxvi. 14; and Κύριε, τί με θέλεις ποιῆσαι; are borrowed
from ch. xxii. 10. All Greek manuscripts begin, ver. 6,
with ἀλλὰ.

Ver. 6. According to the account here given by Luke, the
whole address of the Lord to Saul is: “I am Jesus, whom
thou persecutest; but arise and go to the city, and it shall be
told thee what thou must do;” whereas, according to Paul
himself, in his apology before Agrippa, a longer address is
given (Acts xxvi. 16-18). Zeller finds in this a discrepancy
between the two narratives;+ but rather it is one of those
variations which confirm the truth of the fact, proving that
these two accounts, though incorporated in the Acts, proceed
from different sources. Some suppose that the address given
in Paul’s apology was directly uttered by Jesus to him on the
road to Damascus: nor does the short account of Luke forbid
this supposition. Others (Meyer, Baumgarten, Olshausen,
Lange) suppose that Paul, in his defence before Agrippa,
for the sake of brevity, omits all mention of the ministry of
Ananias, and gives the address which Ananias was commis-
sioned by Christ to make as if it was actually spoken by
Christ in person; so that, as Meyer observes, “ Paul con-
denses his narrative, and what was at a later period enjoined
by the mediation of another is put at once into the mouth of
Christ, the immediate author of that injunction.”? Either
hypothesis affords a reasonable explanation of the variation in

1 Zeller’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 192.
2 Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 204.

CONVERSION OF PAUL.—IX. 7. ὅσο

the different accounts, and certainly it cannot be maintained
that there is any discrepancy between them: the utmost that
can be said is, that the one narrative mentions what the other
omits,

Ver. 7. In this verse, however, there are two variations
which seem much more like discrepancies. First, we are
informed that the men who journeyed with Paul stood
speechless; whereas, according to ch. xxvi. 14, they all fell
to the ground. Secondly, we are told that they heard the
voice, but saw no one; whereas, according to ch. xxii. 9, they
saw the light, but heard not the voice of Him who spake.
But even these differences evidently relate to minute par-
ticulars, and instead of militating against the narrative, serve
rather, as the unimportant differences of independent wit-
nesses, to confirm its truth.’

The first apparent discrepancy relates to the posture of
Paul’s companions. According to Luke, they stood speech-
less; according to Paul, they all fell to the ground. Many
critics (Neander, Olshausen, Meyer, De Wette, Alford)
freely admit the discrepancy, but regard it as minute and
entirely unimportant. Others (Lechler, Kuinel, Baum-
garten, Bengel) suppose that these statements refer to
different periods of time; that at first they all fell panic-
struck to the ground, but that the companions of Paul
recovered from their fright sooner than himself, and rose up.
Oihers (Lange, Hackett) suggest what appears the correct
solution of the difficulty: that the phrase εἱστήκεισαν ἐνεοί,
stood speechless, does not refer to posture at all, but merely
intimates that they remained fixed, were panic-struck, were
overpowered by what they heard and saw. It is natural to
suppose that they would all fall to the earth through fear ;
and Paul himself informs us they actually did so.

The second apparent discrepancy relates to the voice from
heaven, which according to Luke was audible to Paul’s com- -
panions, but according to Paul was inaudible. Here there

1 Although these testimonies are in the same book, yet they proceed

from different sources; the one is the narrative of Luke, and the other
the narrative of Paul.

324 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

seems an actual contradiction. Luke states, ἀκούοντες μὲν
τῆς φωνῆς-- -““ hearing the voice ;” whereas Paul says, τὴν
φωνὴν οὐκ ἤκουσαν Tod λαλοῦντος wor—“ they heard not the
voice of Him who spoke to me” (Acts xxii. 9). Here also
many critics (Neander, Olshausen, Meyer, De Wette, Alford)
acknowledge the discrepancy, and do not attempt its removal.
By those who attempt a reconciliation, various solutions have
been advanced. Some (Castalio, Beza) suppose that when
Luke says “they heard the voice,” he means the voice of
Paul. But this is a forced solution. The voice referred to
is, without doubt, the voice of the Lord. Others (Ham-
mond, Rosenmiiller, Heinrichs) suppose that φωνή in Luke’s
narrative is to be taken in the sense of thunder—“ they heard
the thunder ;” a meaning of the word not uncommon in the
Septuagint, but here inadmissible. Others (Baumgarten,
| Lechler, Lange, Wordsworth) think that the meaning, ac-
cording to Luke, is that they heard the sound of the words ;
/and according to Paul, that they did not understand what
‘was spoken. This appears a perfectly admissible solution.
Nor does it do any violence to the words, as ἀκουεῖν is often
used in the sense of to understand—to hear with the under-
standing. According to this solution, then, the meaning is,
that the words of the Lord were heard indeed both by Paul
and his companions, but were understood only by the former ;
or, as Baumgarten states it, that “‘ Paul received a clear and
definite impression, but his companions an indefinite one.”*
Lange directs attention to a similar circumstance in the life
of Christ; where a voice from heaven to Him was heard
in a threefold manner: those who were believers recognised
it as the voice of God, and heard the words; those who
were not believers, but susceptible, heard it as the indis-
tinct utterance of an angel; whilst the unsusceptible mul-
titude regarded it as the noise of thunder (John xii. 28,
29).
Ver. 8. ᾿Ηνεφγμένων δὲ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτοῦ οὐδὲν ἔβλεπε
—and when his eyes were opened he saw nothing. Paul, rising

1 Baumgarten’s Apostolic History, vol. i. p. 209, Clark’s translation.
? Lange’s Apostolisches Zeilalter, vol. ii. Ὁ. 116.

CONVERSION OF PAUL.—IX. 9. 325

from the ground, and opening his eyes, found himself blind.
He himself tells us that he was blinded by the light which
shone from heaven. “I could not see,” says he, “ for the
glory of that light” (Acts xxii. 11). The blindness is not
to be explained on natural principles. Some (Kichhorn,
Kuincel) suppose that he was blinded by the lightning, and
that the cause of this blindness was temporary amaurosis
(schwarzer Staar).' The light which blinded him was super-
natural. Although not asserted in the narrative, yet it is
reasonable to suppose, with Calvin, that this blindness had a
moral purpose, and served not only to intimate to Paul the
blindness of the state in which he had been, but also to
impress him with a deeper sense of the power of Jesus as
the protector of His people, and to turn his thoughts inward,
while he was rendered less liable to distraction by external
objects. Xespaywyodvtes δὲ αὐτὸν, εἰσήγαγον εἰς Δαμασκόν
—Leading him by the hand, they brought him to Damascus.
Thus Paul entered Damascus in a very different manner
from that which he had planned: instead of haling men
and women, and committing them to prison, he himself
is led, humbled, afflicted, and blind, the prisoner of Jesus
Christ.

Ver. ὃ. Μὴ βλέπων ---ποὲ seeing. Winer directs attention
to the difference between μὴ βλέπων and ov βλέπων, the one
being a milder form of expression than the other. Had οὐ
βλέπων been used, it would have intimated that Paul had
become “ stone blind;” but this Luke does not say: he uses
the words μὴ βλέπων, which express the present blindness
of one who formerly had his sight, and might be supposed
to recover 1.5 Kal οὐκ ἔφωγεν οὐδὲ érvev—and neither did
eat nor drink. Some suppose that this was a voluntary fast,
in token of his deep humiliation for the guilt he had con-
tracted ; but it is much more probable that it was the result
of the concentration of his mind on spiritual objects. Paul
was so deeply affected by all that he had seen and heard—he
was then passing through such a great spiritual crisis—that

1 Kuineel’s Novi Testamenti Libri Historici, vol. iii. p. 186.
2 Winer’s Grammar of the New Testament, p. 508.

326 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

for a time he appeared to be entirely withdrawn from the
external world.

Ver. 10. ’Avavias. We read only of Ananias in connec-
tion with Paul’s conversion. Some think that he was a native
of Jerusalem, who on the dispersion of the disciples came
to Damascus; others that he was a native of Damascus who
was converted at an earlier period, perhaps on the day of
Pentecost. Several rationalistic writers (Eichhorn, Kuincel,
Heinrichs) suppose a previous acquaintance between Paul
and Ananias: that they were both deeply interested in each
other’s welfare, and that both had remarkable dreams; and
that this accounts for the interview between them. But this
opinion is completely at variance with the text. Ananias,
it is evident, only knew Paul by report; and the definite
naming of Ananias (ver. 12) in the vision to Paul shows that
he was unacquainted with him. According to the traditions
of the church, Ananias became bishop of Damascus, and there
suffered martyrdom.

Ver. 11. "Emi τὴν ῥύμην τὴν καλουμένην Ev@ciav—to the
street which is called Straight. A particular street with colon-
nades in Damascus is still known by this name; it runs for
about two miles through the breadth of the city, from the
eastern to the western gate. It is called by the inhabitants
the “street of the bazaars.” Tradition also points out the
house of Judas, with whom Paul lodged.

Vers. 13, 14. Κύριε, ἀκήκοα ἀπὸ πολλῶν περὶ Tod ἀνδρὸς
τούτου --- Lord, I have heard by many concerning this man.
Ananias knew Paul only by report. Perhaps those who fled
from Jerusalem to Damascus had informed him of Paul.
He was also acquainted with the purpose for which Paul
had come to Damascus... This he may have learned by
letters from Jerusalem, or Paul’s companions in travel may
have mentioned it; for it was now three days since they
arrived at Damascus. The remarkable event which arrested
their progress—the appearance by the way, and Paul’s blind-
ness—may have been rumoured abroad. Various motives
have been assigned for the apparent hesitation of Ananias to
comply at once with the intimation of the Lord. Calvin sug-

CONVERSION OF PAUL.—IX. 15, 16. 327

gests fear—that Ananias was afraid to appear before Saul
the persecutor ; but this is evidently erroneous, for Paul was
represented to him as praying, and blind. Others think that
it was a feeling of moral indignation that such a violent
persecutor should receive any marks of the divine favour.
But the words do not seem to be the expression of reluc-
tance, but of astonishment; as if he had said, “ Is it possible
that I should be sent by my Lord to Saul of Tarsus, the
violent opponent of the Christians,—Saul, who was coming
here with power and authority from the chief priests to per-
secute the disciples?” Tots ἁγίοις cov—to Thy saints. Chris-
tians are here called, for the first time, saints. Elsewhere
they are called “ disciples,’ “ brethren,” “ believers.” ‘This
word may allude either to the holiness of their characters, or
to their being consecrated and set apart from the world to
Christ. Τοὺς ἐπικαλουμένους τὸ ὄνομα couv—who invoke Thy
name: another designation of believers. See note to Acts
vii. 59.

Ver. 15. Sxedos ἐκλογῆς---α chosen vessel: an instrument
for the purpose of carrying the name of Christ, 1.9. His
name as the Messiah and Saviour. ᾿Εἰνώπιον ¢@vav—before
the Gentiles. The Gentiles are mentioned first, because Paul
was the apostle of the Gentiles. Ananias could not infer
from this that the gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles
while they continued uncircumcised; for that was a doctrine
which neither Paul nor any of the apostles yet knew. Kai
βασιλέων---απῷ kings. And this Paul did when he appeared
before the Roman governors Sergius Paulus, Gallio, Felix,
and Festus, and the Jewish king Herod Agrippa. Yidv
te ᾿Ισραήλ---απὰ the children of Israel. So far were the Jews
from being excluded from the sphere of Paul’s ministry, that
it was his custom to preach the gospel to them first before he
turned to the Gentiles.

Ver. 16. T'ap—for—giving a reason why he was to be a
chosen vessel. He was called to great labours and much
suffering for the sake of Christ. The more zealous he was
as a missionary, the greater suffering he would have to
endure. Ὑποδείξω αὐτῷ---1 will show to him—namely, by

328 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

experience. I will cause him to learn in the after course
of his life; not, “I will reveal to him at this time” (De
Wette). |

Ver. 17. ᾿Ιησοῦς, ὁ ὀφθείς σοι ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ ἡ Hpyou—Jesus,
who appeared to thee in the way as thou camest. Neither in
Luke’s narrative of Paul’s conversion, nor in either of the
accounts of the same occurrence by the apostle himself, is it
directly stated, in so many words, that he actually saw the
glorified Jesus. This, however, seems to be implied in
each of the narratives; at least it is the impression which
these narratives generally leave on the reader. But what
‘can there be only inferred, is elsewhere positively asserted.
Here Ananias says that Jesus appeared to him by the way ;
and Barnabas affirms that he had seen the Lord in the way,
and had spoken to Him (Acts ix. 27). But still more direct
and positive, and at the same time more convincing, are the
apostle’s own declarations. In enumerating the evidences of
his apostleship, he affirms that he had seen Jesus Christ:
οὐχὶ ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν ἑώρακα; (1 Cor. ix. 1).
And so also, in mentioning the appearances of Christ after
His resurrection, he writes, “‘ Last of all He was seen of me
also” (1 Cor. xv. 8), where he obviously refers to a real ἢ
corporeal manifestation corresponding with the other mani-
festations mentioned.’ Christ Himself, then, appeared to
Paul on his way to Damascus. He saw Him, and heard
His words. 'To his companions, however, no such revelation
was granted: they saw the light from heaven, but not the
Person who resided in it; they heard, indeed, the words of
Him who spoke, but they heard without understanding
them. Πλησθῇς Πνεύματος dyiov—and be filled with the
Holy Ghost. From this it would seem that Paul received
the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands of Ananias. —
Elsewhere it appears to have been the function of the
apostles to bestow the miraculous influences of the Spirit ;
- but Paul did not receive them through the apostles, because
he was to occupy an independent position, in order that his
gospel might be seen not to be of man, butof God. As

1 Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, pp. 201, 202.

CONVERSION OF PAUL.—IX. 18. 329

Lange finely observes: “A child of the faith was sent to bind
the lion of legal fanaticism with the bands of the Lord. No
Peter or J λῶν was necessary to convert and anoint him after
the Lord had converted him: an unknown disciple was
sufficient.” ?

Ver. 18. ᾿Απέπεσαν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν 6f0arpav—there fell
from his eyes as it were scales. Some (Lechler, Hackett)
suppose that the meaning here is, that Paul, on the recovery
of his sight, experienced a sensation as if there fell something
like scales from his eyes. Others (Meyer, Bengel) think
that some scaly substance had spread over his eyes, and that
this substance fell off when he received sight. Eichhorn
attempts to account for this on natural principles; that fast-
ing, joy, and the cold hands of an old man removed the
amaurosis. ΤῸ such a strait is this rationalistic critic forced
to betake himself. As the blindness of Paul was miracu-
lous, so also was his cure. The blindness was an emblem of
the darkness and prejudice which before veiled his eyes ; and
the falling off of the scales represented the clearer views of
divine truths which he should afterwards receive.

The conversion of Paul is a strong internal proof of the
divinity of Christianity. As Lord Lyttleton observes : “The
conversion and apostleship of Paul alone, duly considered, is
of itself a demonstration sufficient to prove Christianity to
be a divine revelation.” The change which came over him
was thorough and universal: the zealous persecutor became
the equally zealous missionary ; the Jewish fanatic was
changed into the Christian philanthropist. No conceivable
motives of personal interest—no desire of fame, riches, power,
ease—can possibly account for the change. He himself tells
us that it arose from a miraculous appearance of Christ.
The narrative of this event cannot possibly be accounted for
on the hypothesis that it was either a natural occurrence or
a vision. No mythical embellishment can remove the fact
of at least Paul’s own belief in the appearance of Christ to
him. No fanaticism in Paul can account for his being
deceived by a mere delusion, and that more especially as

1 Lange’s Apostolisches Zeitalter, vol. ii. p. 121.

330 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

he was accompanied by others. The only solution possible
is, that the event really took place; that Jesus of Nazareth,
the Risen One, revealed Himself as the Messiah to Paul
when on his way to Damascus; and that this revolutionized
his entire character and conduct, and converted him from
Saul the Jewish persecutor, to Paul the champion of the
Christian faith.

SECTION XIX.
PAUL'S MINISTRY AT DAMASCUS.—Acrts 1x. 19-30.

19 And he was certain days with the disciples at Damascus. 20 And
immediately he preached Jesus in the synagogues, that He is the Son of
God. 21 But all who heard him were amazed, and said, Is not this he
who destroyed in Jerusalem those invoking this name, and came hither
for this purpose, that he might bring them bound to the chief priests ?
22 But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews
who dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is the Christ. 23 But when
many days were fulfilled, the Jews conspired to kill him: 24 But their
plot was known to Saul: and they watched the gates day and night to
kill him. 25 Then his disciples, having taken him by night, let him
down through the wall, lowering him in a basket.

26 And when he was come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join him-
self to the disciples: and all were afraid of him, not believing that he
was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the
apostles, and related to them how he had seen the Lord in the way,
and that He had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly in
Damascus in the name of Jesus. 28 And he was with them coming in
and going out at Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord.
29 And he spoke and disputed with the Hellenists: but they went
about to slay him. 30 And the brethren having learned it, brought him
down to Cesarea, and sent him to Tarsus.

CRITICAL NOTES.

Ver. 19. “O Σ᾿αῦλος, the commencement of a church lesson,
is wanting in A, B, Οὐ, E, δὰ, and rejected by recent critics.
Ver. 20. Instead of Χριστόν, A, B, C, E, καὶ read ᾿Ιησοῦν,
which is undoubtedly the true reading. Ver. 25. The teatus
receptus has αὐτὸν of μαθηταί, the reading of E, G, H;
whereas A, B, C, 8 read of μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ : this latter read-
ing has been preferred by Tischendorf, Lachmann, and
Meyer; on the contrary, Alford and De Wette prefer the
former. (See Exegetical Remarks.) Ver. 26. Ὁ Σαῦλος,

331

992 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

found in G, H, and omitted in A, B, C, x, is rejected by
all recent critics. Instead of εἰς ‘Iep., found in A, B, C, x,
Tischendorf, Lachmann, and Meyer read ἐν ‘Iep., found in

E,G,H. Ver. 28. Here, on the contrary, the reading εἰς.

‘Iep., found in A, B, C, E, G, x, is best attested. Κυρίου
᾿Ιησοῦ is the reading of G, H; whereas Κυρίου alone is
found in A, Β, E, x, and is the reading adopted by Tischen-
dorf and Lachmann.

EXEGETICAL REMARKS.

Ver. 19. Ἡμέρας twas — certain days. Paul, after his
conversion, associated with the disciples. Without doubt,
Ananias would introduce him to them; he acted the same
part at Damascus which Barnabas afterwards did at Jeru-
salem. By “certain days” are here meant a few days—a
short period.

Ver. 20. Καὶ εὐθέως ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς ἐκήρυσσεν---απά
immediately he preached in the synagogues. Paul, immediately
after his conversion, commenced to preach with the zeal of
a new convert. He appeared in the synagogues, but for a
different purpose from that for which he came up from
Jerusalem: not to deliver his letters of authority from the
chief priest, and to arrest the Christians; but to proclaim
that faith which he came to Damascus to destroy. Tov
᾿Ιησοῦν, ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Ocot—Jesus, that He is the
Son of God. ’Incodv, and not Χριστόν, is the correct reading
(see Critical Note)—that the individual person Jesus was
the Son of God. The Jews did not deny that Christ was
the Son of God; but what they strongly contested was, that
Jesus of Nazareth was so. This is the only passage in the
Acts where the phrase ὁ vids τοῦ Θεοῦ occurs. It was one
of the Messianic titles used by the Jews; so that the phrases
“Jesus is the Son of God” (ver. 20), and “ Jesus is the
Christ” (ver. 22), are equivalent. Thus Nathanael expresses
his belief in the Messiahship of Jesus in these terms: ‘ Rabbi,
Thou art the Son of God; Thou art the King of Israel”
(John i. 49). And Peter in his confession says, “Thou art

Lanny v-
a |

PAUL'S MINISTRY AT DAMASCUS.—IX. 21-23. 333

the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. xvi. 16) ;
which in the other Gospels is merely, “Thou art the
Christ.” .

Ver. 21. ’E&icravto δὲ mdvres—all who heard him were
astonished. Paul’s preaching Jesus as the Christ would
doubtless create great astonishment in the synagogues. The
report of his coming to Damascus as a persecutor of the
Christians had preceded him ; but instead of putting his
letters of authority into execution, he had been transformed
from a persecutor to a Christian evangelist, and publicly
avowed his belief in the Messiahship of Jesus. The astonish-
ment here spoken of was that of the unbelieving Jews, not
that of the Christians, who had already been informed of
Paul’s conversion. Τοὺς ἐπικαλουμένους τὸ ὄνομα τοῦτο---
those invoking this name. This name, namely Jesus: those
who believed that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah.

Ver. 22. Συμβιβάζων ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Xpiotds—proving
that this was the Christ. At first Paul merely announced
that Jesus was the Messiah; but as he became bolder, he
commenced to reason with the Jews: he proved from the
correspondence between the life of Jesus and the prophecies
of the Old Testament, that He was the Messiah. Σύυμβι-
Bator, joining together, putting things together; hence
proving, demonstrating. His past knowledge of the Scrip-
tures, having now found the true key to their interpretation,
peculiarly fitted him to be a skilful disputant. As Chry-
sostom observes: “They thought they were rid of disputa-
tion in such matters in getting rid of Stephen; but they
found another more vehement than Stephen.”*

Ver. 23. Ἡμέραι ixavai—many days. According to Paul’s
own statement, he went immediately after his conversion to
Arabia, and returned to Damascus; and it was not until
three years after, that he went to Jerusalem (Gal. i. 16, 17).
By “many days,” then, are here meant these three years,
spent partly in Arabia, and partly in Damascus. Of course,
- unless we had been elsewhere informed to the contrary, we
should naturally have concluded that Paul had never left

1 Chrysostom’s Homilies on the Acts, Hom. xx.

334 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

Damascus. ‘Ixavos is often used to signify great, consider-
able ; and hence, in connection with χρόνος or ἡμέραι, it
signifies a long period. We have a similar expression in the
Old Testament (in the Hebrew, not in the Septuagint),
where “ many days” are actually used to denote three years:
“ And Shimei dwelt in Jerusalem many days (0°37 0%),
And it came to pass at the end of three years, that two of the
servants of Shimei ran away” (1 Kings ii. 38, 39).

Ver. 24. Παρετηροῦντο τὰς πύλας ---ἰἤου watched the gates;
i.e. the unbelieving Jews did so. Paul, alluding to this oc-
currence, says: “In Damascus, the governor (ethnarch)
under Aretas the king kept the city of the Damascenes with
a garrison, desirous to apprehend me” (2 Cor. xi. 32). It
is not difficult to reconcile this difference between the ac-
counts.” Either the Jews, by the permission of the ethnarch,
watched the gates themselves; or, at their instigation, the
ethnarch employed his soldiers to do so. Lewin supposes
that by the ethnarch is meant a Jewish magistrate appointed
by Aretas. Anger thinks that an officer of Aretas happened
accidentally to be present in Damascus, and that he used
his influence with the Roman government on behalf of the
Jews; but this is at variance with 2 Cor. xi. 32, which
asserts that the ethnarch kept the city with a garrison.
Others suppose that Aretas in Corinthians is not the Ara-
bian king of that name, but the name of the ethnarch, and
read the passage thus, “The ethnarch Areta of the king,”
i.e. of the Roman emperor; but ’Apéra is the genitive of
"Apéras, the name of the kings of Arabia Nabatzea, and the
Roman emperor is never called in Scripture βασιλεύς, but
Kaicap.

Still, however, the fact of the occupation of Damascus is a
historical difficulty. There is no mention of it in Josephus, or
elsewhere in history. Damascus was under the Roman govern-
ment, having been added to the empire by Pompey. Aretas,

1 See Lange’s Bibelwerk : Apostelgeschichte, p. 166.

2 And yet, as Paley observes, there is such a difference between the
two accounts as renders it utterly improbable that the one should be
derived from the other.

ΕΝ ἀν. -

PAUL’S MINISTRY AT DAMASCUS.—IKX. 24. 335

on the other hand, was the king of Arabia Nabatzea (whose
capital was Petra), and not of Damascus (Strabo, xvi. 4. 24).
Aretas seems to have been the common name of a dynasty
who ruled over Petra from the time of the Seleucide until
Trajan, when Arabia Nabateea was incorporated with the
Roman empire; under the emperors, these Arabian princes
were not independent, but subject to the Romans. The
Aretas in question was the father-in-law of Herod Antipas,
the tetrarch of Galilee. The difficulty is, how this Aretas
could have obtained possession of Damascus, a Ronian city.
Various attempts have been made ata solution. Josephus
informs us that Aretas and Herod Antipas quarrelled because
Herod had repudiated his wife, the daughter of Aretas, and
had married his own niece Herodias, the wife of Herod
Philip. This quarrel had been increased by some disputes
about the boundaries of their respective territories ; in con-
sequence of which a war ensued, in which Herod was com-
pletely defeated, and his army cut in pieces. Herod applied
to Tiberius for assistance, who ordered Vitellius, the governor
of Syria (father of the Emperor Vitellius), to make war on
Aretas, and to take him either dead or alive. Upon this
Vitellius marched at the head of two legions from Antioch ;
but when he had reached Jerusalem, he heard of the death
of Tiberius and the succession of Caligula; and being, as
Josephus informs us (Ant. xvill. 4. 5), on bad terms with
Herod, he made this a pretext for withdrawing his army, and
putting them into winter quarters, saying that he had not now
the same authority for carrying on the war (Ant. xviii. 5. 1-3).
It has been accordingly supposed that Aretas, on the with-
drawal of the army of Vitellius, seized upon and occupied
Damascus. But it is extremely improbable that Vitellius,
who is described by Tacitus as an able governor (Ann. vi.
32), would suffer such a petty and dependent prince as
Aretas to take possession of so important a city. The opinion
advanced by Wieseler, that Aretas received Damascus as a
free gift from Caligula, is more probable. On the succession
of Caligula, there must have been a complete change of
policy : Herod Antipas was in disgrace, and his rival Herod

336 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

Agrippa was in favour. Josephus also tells us that Vitellius,
on account of a personal quarrel, took the opportunity of
avenging himself on Herod Antipas. “ Vitellius,” he ob-
serves, “ concealed his wrath against Herod until he could be
revenged on him, which he was enabled afterwards to effect
when Caius succeeded to the government” (Ant. xviii. 4. 5).
Hence it is extremely probable that the Romans changed
sides in the quarrel. The anger of Tiberius against Aretas
rested on his personal relations to Herod Antipas; but under
Caligula,’ Herod was out of favour, and was soon after
banished to Lyons, and his tetrarchy given to his rival
Herod Agrippa. Wieseler accordingly supposes that the
Emperor Caligula, on the adjustment of the Asiatic pro-
vinces, bestowed on Aretas the government of Damascus,
subject to the Romans. This is the more probable, as Da-
mascus bordered on his kingdom, and was formerly possessed
by his ancestors. It is some confirmation of this opinion,
that although there are Damascene coins of Augustus and
Tiberius, and then of Nero and his successors, there are
none belonging to the intervening emperors, Caligula and
Claudius (Kckhel). This may indeed be accidental; but it
follows, at least, that it cannot be proved that Damascus
under these emperors was Roman. Wieseler also lays stress
on the fact that there is a coin of Damascus with the inscrip-
tion βασιλέως ’Apétou φιλέλληνος (two such coins are in the
British Museum); but the opinion of Eckhel is now gene-
rally assented to, that this coin belonged to an earlier Aretas,
who was contemporary with the later Seleucide ;’ and it
would seem from Josephus, that the kings of Arabia Naba-
tzea then possessed Damascus (Ant. xiii. 13. 3; B. J. i. 6. 2).
If the supposition of Wieseler is correct, the occupation of
Damascus by Aretas would take place during the reign of
Caligula (A.D. 387-40). This, however, gives no certain data
by which the chronology of the life of Paul might be fixed,
as it is altogether uncertain in what year this occupation
took place.”

1 Eckhel, Doctrina numorum veterum, vol. iii. p. 330.
2 For the discussion of this interesting subject, the occupation of

PAUL'S MINISTRY AT DAMASCUS.—IX. 25. 337

Ver. 25. Οἱ μαθηταὶ abrod—LHis disciples. (See Critical
Note.) This is the reading adopted by Tischendorf, as it
is, upon the whole, better supported, and more difficult. Τῇ
correct, the allusion is to those Jews whom Paul converted
at Damascus. De Wette, however, observes: “ Evidently
αὐτοῦ is false; for of Paul’s disciples there can be no men-
tion.”' Διὰ τοῦ τείχους Kabjxav—let him down through the
wall. This entirely agrees with the account which Paul
himself gives of his escape: “ And through a window in a
basket was I let down by the wall” (2 Cor. xi. 33). In both
passages, dua τοῦ τείχους are the words employed. This may
signify through a window of a house overhanging the wall ;
and, as Conybeare and Howson tell us, there are such houses
in the wall of Damascus at the present day. Or, as Hackett
supposes, it may have been through a window in the external
face of the wall, opening to houses in the inside of the city.
Such houses, he says, he saw to the left of the gate, on the east
side of Damascus.” Similar modes of escape are mentioned
in the Old Testament. Rahab let down the spies through the
window, for her house was upon the town wall (Josh. ii. 15) ;
and David, by means of his wife Michal, made his escape
in a similar manner (1 Sam. xix. 12). In both instances
the words da τῆς θυρίδος are employed in the Septuagint,
—the same expression which occurs in Paul’s account of his
escape (διὰ θυρίδος, 2 Cor. xi. 33). Tradition fixes on the
south side of the city as the place of Paul’s escape.

We have reserved until now the consideration of Paul’s
journey to Arabia. Paul, in his Epistle to the Galatians,
speaking of the time of his conversion, says: “ Neither went —
I up to Jerusalem to them who were apostles before me;
but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

Damascus by Aretas, see Wieseler’s Chronologie, pp. 167-173; Conybeare
and Howson’s St. Paul, vol. i. ch. iii.; Winer’s Wéorterbuch, article
Aretas; Alford’s Greek Testament, Acts ix. 24; Lewin’s St. Paul, vol. i.
pp. 68-70; and Kuineel’s Libri Historici, vol. iii. pp. 161, 162.

1 De Wette’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 90.

3 Hackett on the Acts, vol. i. p. 189; Conybeare and Howson, vol. i.
pp. 124, 125.

VOL. I. δ ς

338 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

Then, after three years, I went up to Jerusalem” (Gal. i.
17,18). In the narrative of Luke there is no mention of
this journey to Arabia, and no intimation that three years
intervened between Paul’s conversion and his visit to Jeru-
salem ; although, with regard to the latter point, ἡμέραν ixavaé
may extend over a space of time as large. The entire omis-
sion of the journey may at first sight seem strange, and an
apparent discrepancy with the account which Paul himself
gives; but we must remember that no objection can be drawn
from mere silence, especially if this silence can be in some
measure accounted for.

The object of Paul's visit to Arabia, immediately after his
conversion, has been variously considered. Some suppose
that all that is meant is, that he made Damascus—which,
according to their opinion, then belonged to the kingdom of
Aretas, king of Arabia—a centre from which he went to
preach the gospel in the neighbouring districts. This would
certainly remove the difficulty occasioned by the entire omis-
sion of this journey in the Acts; but it does not agree with
the account of the apostle, who expressly says that he left
Damascus, and after a residence in Arabia returned to it.
Neander supposes that he spent the three years in preaching
the gospel in Arabia; for otherwise we would have read
ἔρημον ’ApaBias.. The common opinion is by far the most
probable, that he retired for meditation and prayer. The great
change which had come over him would certainly urge him
to retirement, in order to meditate upon this great crisis in his
life. He was now about to enter upon his great work as the
apostle of Jesus Christ, and he must have felt the import-
ance of preparing for it. These three years which Paul
spent in Arabia, no doubt receiving revelations from above,
were similar to those three years which the other apostles
spent in immediate intercourse with the Lord. And this
retirement has also its counterpart in the life of Christ Him-
self, who, before the commencement of His ministry, with-
drew into the wilderness to pray.

But the great point of present consideration is, How is this

1 Neander’s Planting, vol. i. p. 91.

PAUL’S MINISTRY AT DAMASCUS.—IX. 25. 339

journey to Arabia to be reconciled with the narrative of
Luke? In what part of this narrative is it to be inserted ?
Very different opinions have been formed. Some (Baur,
Zeller, De Wette) suppose that there is here an inexplicable
discrepancy; that in the narrative given us by Luke of
Paul’s ministry at Damascus, there is no room for the inser-
tion of a three years’ residence in Arabia.’ But this is a
violent solution, which ought not to be resorted to until all
means of reconciliation have failed. Bishop Pearson places
it before the ἡμέρας τινάς of ver. 19;* but the words, “and
he was certain days with the disciples at Damascus,” cannot
be otherwise understood than that he continued after his
conversion for some time with the disciples. Others (Hein-
richs, Michaelis, Ewald, Lardner) place it after “ the certain
days” of ver. 19, but before he preached in the synagogues,
as mentioned in ver. 20; but this supposition is contradicted
by the word εὐθέως, which represents Paul as immediately
after his conversion proclaiming Jesus as the Son of God.
Others (Olshausen, Kuincel, Ebrard) place this journey and
the return to Damascus ‘after his escape from that city as
mentioned in ver. 25. But many considerations are opposed
to this: in Paul’s account, he states that he retired imme-
diately (εὐθέως) after his conversion (Gal. i. 16); in the
Acts we are informed that, after his escape, he went up to
Jerusalem; nor is it at all probable that he would return
to Damascus after the Jews had sought his life, and he had
made his escape from it. Others (Lange, Alford) find the
point of connection between Luke’s narrative and Paul’s
account of his journey in the words μᾶλλον ἐνεδυναμοῦτο
—increased the more in strength—in ver. 22.? But these
words form a continuous narrative with the preceding; and
imply what is otherwise most natural, that Paul, by continu-
ing to preach, had gained additional courage and confidence ;
and certainly it is far-fetched to discover in these words any

1 Zeller’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 202.

2 Pearson’s Annals of St. Paul, pp. 80, 81.

8 Alford’s Greek Testament, on Acts ix. 22; Lange’s Apostolisches Zeit-
alter, vol. ii. p. 122.

340 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

reference to a journey to Arabia. Others (Lechler, Meyer,
Neander, Paley, Wordsworth, Hackett) fix upon the ἡμέραι
ixavai, the many days (ver. 23), as the space of time for the
insertion of the Arabian journey. And this appears to be
the correct solution. It is said in the Acts, “ And when
many days were fulfilled.’ Now during this long period
Paul may have gone to Arabia. De Wette’s objection, that
Paul would then have gone out of the way of his enemies,
so that their designs against him could never have taken
place, is without weight; for, according to this supposition,
these hostile designs did not occur until after Paul’s return
to Damascus from Arabia.’ It is also to be observed that,
on the one hand, Luke does not assert that “the many days”
were all spent in Damascus; nor does Paul state that he
resided for three years in Arabia, but merely that it was
after the lapse of three years that he went up to Jerusalem.
According to this opinion, then, “the many days’ were
spent partly in Arabia and partly in Damascus.

The following appears to have been the series of events :—
Paul, immediately after his conversion, spent a few days with
the disciples at Damascus, preaching Christ in the synagogues
of the Jews (vers. 19-22). Soon afterwards, urged by an
internal impulse, he went to Arabia, where he spent two or
three years in retirement, preparing himself for his great
mission (Gal. i. 15-17). Then he returned to Damascus,
and spent some time longer there preaching the gospel (ver.
23). Afterwards, in consequence of a plot of the Jews
against his life, he effected his escape, and betook himself to
Jerusalem (vers. 24, 25). It is probable that the greater
part of the three years was spent, not in Damascus, but in
Arabia; for it is to his residence in Arabia that Paul him-
self gives the greater prominence. Damascus is only inci-
dentally mentioned by him. This also, as we shall see, best
accounts for the cold reception which he received from the
disciples in Jerusalem.

No explanation, however, has been given of the omission
of the Arabian journey by Luke. Most critics suppose that

1 Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 209.

PAUL’S MINISTRY AT DAMASCUS.—IX. 26. 341

he was ignorant of it, there being no mention of it in the
sources from which he drew his history, and that all that he
knew was that an interval had elapsed between Paul’s conver-
sion and his visit to Jerusalem. But it is not to be supposed
that the companion of the apostle could be ignorant of such
an important fact in his life: his conversion must often have
been a frequent topic of conversation between them. The
probable reason of the omission is, that the journey to Arabia
did not lie within the scope of Luke’s history. The Acts
is not a biography of Paul, and therefore many important
events in his life may well be omitted, without supposing any
ignorance on the part of the historian. Besides, as the retire-
ment of the apostle was most probably spent in prayer and
meditation, and not in preaching the gospel, it evidently
formed no part of his missionary labours, which Luke chiefly
describes. Paul, in Arabia, was not an evangelist, but a
student of theology; not a dispenser, but a receiver of reve-
lations. He who formerly at Jerusalem sat at the feet of
Gamaliel, in Arabia sat as a student at the feet of Jesus ;
and the Acts records not his studies, but his labours: it
relates public events which are history, not private events
which are biography.

Ver. 26. Παραγενόμενος δὲ ἐν “Iepovcadnp—and having
come to Jerusalem. This was Paul’s first visit, after his con-
version, to Jerusalem. It occurred three years after the
appearance of Christ to him, and the purpose for which he
made this visit was'to see Peter. “After three years, I
went up to Jerusalem to see Peter” (Gal. 1. 18). Driven
from Damascus, he naturally betook himself to the apostles
and the first disciples. Kat πάντες ἐφοβοῦντο αὐτόν, ete.—
And all were afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple.
Here it must be confessed there is no slight difficulty. How
can we reconcile this incredulity on the part of the disciples
with Paul’s miraculous conversion, and with his being a
believer for three years? “The first persecution of the
primitive church,” observes Zeller, “broke out not only in
Jerusalem, but throughout Palestine, and beyond it, so that
the disciples were filled with fear. At the head of the per-

342 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

secutors is Saul. He is in the act of carrying on the per-
secution even in Damascus, when all at once he steps to the
side of his opponents, publicly declaring himself in the syna-
gogues of Damascus for that religion whose deadly foe he
had hitherto been, and confounding the Jews with proofs of
the divine mission of Jesus. Who will believe that such an
important and extraordinary occurrence could possibly have
remained unknown for three years to the Christians of Jeru-
salem ; that from the neighbouring city of Damascus, where
there was a numerous Jewish population, and constant inter-
course with Jerusalem, no information of it had reached
Jerusalem; or if such information be supposed, that the
appearance of Paul at Damascus had not been able to allay
every suspicion of the sincerity of his conversion ?” + Neander
accounts for this want of information on the ground that
Saul had not at this time attained to much importance, and
that in consequence of the war with King Aretas the com-
munication between Damascus and Jerusalem was partially
interrupted.” But Paul was well known to the primitive
church as a persecutor, and the war with Aretas was in all
probability long before this concluded. The three years’
retirement of Paul in Arabia appears to be the solution of
this difficulty. Paul after his conversion retired, and was
unheard of for three years. This would occasion many
doubts as to its reality. The impression which the event at
first made would have been much diminished by time, and
fear that Paul had again fallen back would arise. And
when we remember that he was not only a persecutor, but
an inquisitor, we need not be surprised that the disciples
αὖ Jerusalem received him with some degree of suspicion.
It is also to be observed that Luke does not affirm that the
disciples had never heard of his conversion, but only that
they did not believe that he was a disciple: they doubted the
sincerity of his conversion. The more they had suffered
from him as a persecutor, the more incredulous would they
be inclined to be. As Hackett puts it, “ the sudden appear-

1 Zeller’s Apostelgeschichte, pp. 203, 204.
2 Neander’s Planting, vol. ii. p. 98.

PAUL’S MINISTRY AT DAMASCUS.—IX. 27. 343

ance of Voltaire in a circle of Christians, claiming to be one
of them, would have been something like this return of Saul
to Jerusalem as a professed disciple.’* And to make the
case still more parallel, we must conceive Voltaire a perse-
cutor, and appearing among those whom he had persecuted.

Ver. 27. Βαρνάβας δὲ ἐπιλαβόμενος adtov—but Barnabas
took him. Barnabas, already a chief man among the
brethren, introduced him to the apostles. Meyer and others
suppose a previous acquaintance between Barnabas and Paul.
“It is probable,” observes Howson, “that Barnabas and
Saul were acquainted with each other before. Cyprus is
within a few hours’ sail of Cilicia. The schools of Tarsus
may naturally have attracted one who, though a Levite,
was a Hellenist; and there the friendship may have begun
which lasted through many vicissitudes, till it was rudely in-
terrupted in the dispute at Antioch.”* Such a supposition,
however, is without support in the text, and is unnecessary
to account for the interest of Barnabas. “H-yayev πρὸς τοὺς
amoarorxous—brought him to the apostles. Here also there is
an apparent difference between this narrative of Luke and
the apostle’s own, statement. Paul mentions that on this
visit to Jerusalem he saw none of the apostles save Peter,
and James the Lord’s brother (Gal. i. 18,19). Not only
Baur and Zeller maintain that Luke was here in error,
but also such critics as Neander, Meyer, and Lekebusch.’
But the difference between these accounts is imaginary.
If Barnabas brought Paul to two of the apostles, Peter
and James, probably the only apostles then at Jerusalem,
Luke was entitled to use the expression ἤγαγεν πρὸς
τοὺς ἀποστόλους. The one account explains and modifies
the other. Καὶ dimynoato avtots—and declared to them.
Not Paul himself (Beza), but Barnabas, delivered this

account of the apostle’s conversion. “Ev τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ
c

1 Hackett on the Acts, vol. i. p. 190.

2 Conybeare and Howson’s St. Paul, vol. i. p. 127.

3 Zeller’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 205; Neander’s Planting, vol. ii. p. 96 ;
Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 210 ; Lekebusch’s Composition der Apostel-
geschichte, p. 283.

344 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

Ἰησοῦ --- ὧν the name of Jesus: the great subject of his
preaching—the centre truth on which he insisted: the con-
fession and publication of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of
God.

Ver. 28. The time which Paul remained at Jerusalem
was short, being, as he himself tells us, only fifteen days
(Gal. i. 18). Zeller takes exception to this, and objects
that, according to Luke, a much longer residence is presup-
posed: Paul preaches in the synagogues, disputes with the
Hellenists, and raises against him a host of opponents. But
there is not one word in the Acts from which a longer
residence can be inferred; and certainly all that happened
does not necessarily require a duration of more than fifteen
days. The Jews would be at once excited against Paul,
whom they must have regarded as a renegade, ‘and bitterly
hated; and therefore it is not surprising that they should
almost immediately have formed plans for his murder.

Ver. 29. ᾿Ελάλει τε καὶ συνεζήτει πρὸς τοὺς ᾿Ελληνιστάς---
and he spoke and disputed with the Hellenists. The Hellenists
are those Jews who used the Greek language. (See note to
Acts vi. 1.) Paul would be naturally led to dispute with the
Hellenists, as he was himself az Hellenist. Perhaps in the
same synagogue of Cilicia where he formerly disputed with
Stephen, he now disputed with his former allies. He might
think that the fact of his conversion would have weight with
them, and that the miraculous event which happened to him
would convince them also that Jesus was the true Messiah.
He wished in some measure to repair the injury he had
done.

Ver. 30. ᾿Επιγνόντες δὲ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ, κατήγαγον αὐτὸν εἰς
Καισάρειαν---Απα the brethren having learned it, brought him
down to Cesarea. According to Luke, Paul departed from
Jerusalem in consequence of the plots of the Jews to kill
him. He himself assigns a different motive—that he de-
parted in consequence of a divine revelation: “ And it
came to pass, that when I was come again to Jerusalem,
even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance; and
saw Him saying to me, Make haste, and get thee quickly

PAUL'S MINISTRY AT DAMASCUS.—IX. 30. 345

out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony
concerning me” (Acts xxii. 17, 18). But these two motives
do not exclude each other. Paul, notwithstanding the
opposition and machinations of the Jews, may have felt de-
sirous to remain: he had a warm heart toward his brethren
according to the flesh; he was eager for their conversion ;
and it required a revelation from Christ Himself to cause
him to comply with the importunity of his friends, and to
depart. Luke mentions the external reason; Paul the
internal motive. Eis Kaicdpevav—to Cosarea. Paul says
that after he departed from Jerusalem, he came into the
regions of Syria and Cilicia. Some (Calovius, Doddridge,
Du Veil, and Olshausen) suppose that Ceesarea Philippi is
here meant, because that was the most direct road between
Jerusalem and Syria. But the word Cesarea by itself
evidently points to the much more celebrated city on the
Mediterranean, the residence of the Roman procurators—
Cesarea Palestine. And as to his journey through Syria,
this might easily have taken place, either by his proceeding
from Ceesarea to Tarsus by land, or by sailing to Tyre or
Sidon or any of the Phcenician ports, or perhaps at once to
Seleucia, the port of Antioch, and then by land from Antioch
to Tarsus.

Eis Tapoov—to Tarsus. This city must always be in-
teresting to Christians, as the birthplace of Paul—“a Jew
of Tarsus, a city of Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city”
(Acts xxi. 39). Situated on a fertile plain on the banks of
the Cydnus, which flowed through it, it was then a populous
city, and the capital of the Roman province of Cilicia.
Tarsus was celebrated for its schools, and rivalled the re-
nowned universities of Athens and Alexandria. “They of
Tarsus,” observes Strabo, “are much addicted to the study
of philosophy, and excel Athens and Alexandria, and every
other place where there are schools of philosophy. And the
reason of this is, because at Tarsus both the natives and
strangers are fond of learning: whereas in the other cities,
except Alexandria, many come to them; but you will see
few of the natives either going abroad or caring to study at

346 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

home.” And he adds: “ Rome is best able to inform us
what number of learned men this city has produced, for it
is filled with persons from Tarsus and Alexandria” (Strabo,
xiv. 5. 12-15). In all probability, it was at these celebrated
schools that Paul received his first instructions. Tarsus
obtained from Antony the privilege of a free city,—that is,
although belonging to the Roman empire, it enjoyed the
right of being governed by its own laws, and of choosing its
own magistrates; but it is a mistake to suppose that this
privilege constituted its inhabitants Roman citizens. It was.
not until several years afterwards that it became a Roman
colony. It is now a poor and dirty town, known by the
name Tarsous, though it has still a population of 30,000.

Paul in Tarsus was now in his native city. He had
gone forth from it a Pharisee, a zealot for Judaism; he had
now returned a Christian, and was about to commence his
apostolic career. He did not spend his time here, as in
Arabia, in retirement, but in preaching the gospel. He
himself tells us that he preached Christ in Cilicia, of which
Tarsus is the capital; and doubtless the churches of Cilicia,
afterwards mentioned (Acts xv. 23, 41), owe their origin
to this residence of Paul in his native country. Here, in
all probability, he resided for about two years; after which
he was sought out by the same Barnabas who had intro-
duced him to the apostles, and was called to engage in a far
wider sphere of labour—as the apostle, not of Cilicia merely,
but of the whole Gentile world.

1 Strabo makes frequent mention of the gymnasium for young men at
Tarsus. Perhaps it was from the games exhibited in this gymnasium of
his native city, that Paul derived his numeroué illustrations drawn from
the Greek games.

2 Winer’s Realwérterbuch ; Conybeare and Howson, vol. i. pp. 27 and
130.

SECTION XX.
THE MIRACLES OF PETER—Acts 1x. 81-43.

31 Then the church had peace throughout all Judea, and Galilee,
and Samaria, being edified and walking in the fear of the Lord, and by
the exhortation of the Holy Ghost, was multiplied. 32 And it came to
pass that Peter, passing through all places, came down also to the saints
who dwelt at Lydda. 33 And he found there a certain man named
Aineas, who had kept his bed for eight years, and was paralyzed.
34 And Peter said to him, Auneas, Jesus the Christ makes thee whole;
arise, and make thy bed. And immediately he arose. 35 And all the
inhabitants of Lydda and Saron saw him, and they turned to the Lord.

36 Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, who
by interpretation is called Dorcas: she was full of good works and alms
which she did. 37 And it came to pass in those days, that she fell sick,
and died: whom when they had washed, they laid in an upper chamber.
38 And as Lydda was near Joppa, the disciples having heard that Peter
was there, sent two men to him, exhorting him, Delay not to come to
us. 99 Then Peter arose, and went with them. When he was come,
they brought him to the upper chamber: and all the widows stood by
him weeping, and showing tunics and garments which Dorcas made while
she was with them. 40 But Peter, having put them all out, kneeled
down and prayed; and having turned to the body, he said, Tabitha,
arise. And she opened her eyes; and seeing Peter, she sat up. 41 And
having given her his hand, he raised her up; and when he had called
the saints and widows, he presented her alive. 42 And it was known
throughout all Joppa; and many believed on the Lord. 43 And it came
to pass, that he remained many days in Joppa with one Simon a tanner.

CRITICAL NOTES.

‘Ver. 31. The singular ἡ... ἐκκλησία. .. εἶχεν...
οἰκοδομουμένη Kal πορευομένη... ἐπληθύνετο, is the reading
of A, B, Ὁ, s, and is preferred by all the recent critics to the
plural, the reading of the textus receptus, which is found in
E, G, H. Ver. 38. Μὴ ὀκνήσῃς διελθεῖν ἕως ἡμῶν is found
_ in A, B, C, E, δὰ, and is preferred by all the recent critics

347 ᾿

348 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

to μὴ ὀκνῆσαι διελθεῖν ἕως αὐτῶν of the textus receptus, found

in G, H.

EXEGETICAL REMARKS.

Ver. 31. ‘H μὲν οὖν éxxrAnoia—Then the church. The
church (see Critical Note) is here mentioned in its unity, as
embracing all the different churches throughout the three
provinces of Palestine. ‘The external bond of this unity
was the apostles; the internal, the Holy Ghost: Christ, the
one head: the forms of the union were as yet undeveloped”
(Meyer). Ka ὅλης τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας, καὶ Γαλιλαίας, καὶ Sapa-
petas—throughout all Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria—the
three districts into which Palestine was at that time divided.
We have been already informed of the planting of the
church in Samaria by Philip the evangelist; the dispersed
preached the gospel in Judea, and doubtless established
churches there (Acts viii. 1); and in Galilee, the chief scene
of Christ’s ministry, and the residence of the apostles, the
disciples were numerous from the beginning — it was the
cradle of Christianity.

Εἶχεν cipnvnv—had peace; 1.6. rest from the persecution
which arose after the death of Stephen. The time when
this peace occurred was probably before Paul came to Jeru-
salem, and during his three years’ residence in Damascus and
Arabia; for there is no reason to believe that the persecution
lasted three years." According to this view, the account of
Paul’s visit to Jerusalem (vers. 26--30) is given by anticipa-
tion. Different causes have been assigned for this cessation of
the persecution. The common opinion is, that it was caused
by the conversion of Paul, the chief persecutor having turned
‘a Christian. But there is no reason to suppose that Paul’s
influence was so great: he was only an instrument in the —
hands of the Sanhedrim. Calvin thinks that the peace is to
be ascribed to the departure of Paul from Jerusalem ;? that
the sight of him provoked the fury of his enemies, and that

1 The peace extended from the year 38 to the year 44.
2 Calvin on Acts ix, 31.

THE MIRACLES OF PETER.—IX. 81. 349

on his departure their fury was quieted. But the peace,
here referred to, is not merely the peace of the church in
Jerusalem, but of the church throughout Palestine. De
Wette, with greater probability, supposes that it was occa-
sioned by the general alarm among the Jews, when Petro-
nius, the proconsul of Syria, attempted to introduce the
statue of Caligula into the temple.’ This occasioned great
commotion in Palestine, so that there was imminent danger
of a war with the Romans. The Jews would then be too
much engrossed by their opposition to it, to attend to other
matters. The calamity was only averted by the opportune
death of Caligula (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 8. 2-5; Bell. Jud.
fe 10+ 1).

Oixodopovpéevn—being edified ; i.e. made progress in Chris-
tian perfection, according to the usual meaning of the word
in the New Testament: not “increased in numbers” (Kuincel),
for that idea is expressed in the succeeding clause. Kal
πορευομένη τῷ φόβῳ τοῦ Kupiov—and walking in the fear of
the Lord; i.e. leading a holy life. Christianity proved its
efficacy by the holiness of the lives of its disciples. Kat τῇ
παρακλήσει τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἐπληθύνετο---απα by the
exhortation of the Holy Ghost, was multiplied. This difficult
clause has been variously translated. Some (Beza, Rosen-
miiller), as in our English version, connect it with πορευομένη
—“ walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of
the Holy Ghost;” but it rather appears to be connected
with ἐπληθύνετο, for which it assigns the reason. Some
(Beza, Calvin) render παρακλήσει comfort, a meaning which
the word certainly has, but which does not here give a very
intelligible sense. The other meaning of the word, exhor-
tation, is more appropriate; namely, that the Holy Ghost
inspired those who preached the gospel, and inclined the
hearts of those who heard. (So Meyer, De Wette, Alford,
Lechler.) ᾿Επληθύνετο---ποῦ was filled (Calvin), but, ac-
cording to the usual meaning of the word in the Acts, was
multiplied. The piety of the Christians, and their freedom

1 De Wette’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 91; see also Lardner’s Works, vol. i.
pp. 54-56. i

350 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

from persecution, would have a tendency to increase the
number of the disciples among the Jews.

Ver. 32. ᾿Εγένετο δὲ I[létpov—And it came to pass that
Peter. The time of this apostolic visitation of Peter has
been variously fixed. It must have taken place either before
Paul came to Jerusalem, during those three years which he
spent in Damascus and Arabia, or after he had departed
from Jerusalem; because during his residence there, Peter
was present. Some (Olshausen, Wieseler, Alford) adopt the
former opinion, that this visitation took place before the
arrival of Paul at Jerusalem, and when he was still in
Arabia. They argue that it is improbable there should be
so great an interval as three years, respecting which no ac-
count is given; and that as it can hardly be conceived that
the persecution lasted three years, Peter would not delay so
long, but set out soon after the peace was established.’ But
these reasons are not conclusive. According to this opinion,
the conversion of Cornelius, and the admission of the Gen-
tiles without circumcision into the Christian church, would
have occurred before Paul came to Jerusalem. The history,
however, would rather seem to indicate that it was after his
departure to Cilicia, because the preaching of the dispersed
to the Gentiles at Antioch appears to have been contempo-
raneous with the preaching of Peter to Cornelius and his
company (Acts xi. 19-21; see notes to that section); and it
was this preaching at Antioch which was the occasion why
Barnabas brought Paul from Tarsus to that city (Acts
xi. 25). The other opinion (Meyer, De Wette, Lange) is,
upon the whole, more probable, that this visitation of Peter
occurred during Paul’s residence in Tarsus, after his de-
parture from Jerusalem. There is no improbability in sup-
posing that the pause from persecution occurred some time
before Peter’s journey; and as to the fact that almost three
years are passed over in silence, similar omissions are not
unusual in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts xxiv. 27).

Διερχόμενον διὰ πάντων --- passing through all. After
πάντων Meyer supplies ἁγίων; but, as Wieseler remarks,

1 Wieseler’s Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters, p. 146.

THE MIRACLES OF PETER.—1X. 383. 351

διέρχεσθαι διὰ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων is an unusual expression.
See, however, Rom. xv. 28. Πάντων is rather to be con-
sidered as neuter — passing through all places. Peter, as
Chrysostom observes, is here again seen to have a certain
priority among the apostles. ‘ Like the commander of an
army, he went about inspecting the ranks, what part was
compact, what in good order, what needed his presence.”* ©
Peter's visitation was for the purpose of settling and con-
firming those churches which were established by the mini-
stry of the dispersed preachers, and also for the purpose of
bestowing the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost.

Κατελθεῖν καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἁγίους τοὺς κατοικοῦντες Δύδδα---
came down to the saints who dwelt αἱ Lydda. Lydda, the
Lod of the Old Testament (Ezra ii. 33), was about a day’s
journey from Jerusalem. It was at this period a place of
considerable importance; Josephus observes that it was not less
than a city in size (Ant. xx. 6. 2). Cassius, in order to raise
money, sold its inhabitants as slaves. It was twice taken in
the Jewish war, first by Cestius Gallus, and at another time
by Vespasian (Bell. Jud. ii. 19.1, iv. 8. 1). Afterwards it
was rebuilt by the Romans, and called Diospolis. From the
fourth century it was the seat of a bishopric. In 415 a
council was held here which acquitted Pelagius of heresy.
During the wars of the Crusaders, Lydda received the name
of St. George, after the patron saint of England, who was
said to have been martyred there. At present it is a con-
siderable village, retaining its ancient name Ludd, and is the
seat of a Greek bishop, who, however, resides in Jerusalem.
“ Lydda,” observes Raumer, “is situated in a beautiful un-
dulating plain, which seems like a garden full of olive and fig
trees.”

Ver. 33. It is disputed whether Alneas was a Christian.
Some suppose that, on account of the indefinite expression
ἄνθρωπόν τινα, a certain man, and from his not being called,
like Tabitha, a disciple, he was not a believer (Lechler,
Stier). But the probability is that he was a Christian ; for

1 Chrysostom on the Acts, Hom, xxi.
2 Lange’s Apostolisches Zeitalter, vol. ii. p. 127.

352 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

it is said that Peter went down to visit the saints in Lydda;
and in general, faith in Christ was a prerequisite in those
upon whom miracles of healing were wrought. The name
is Greek, so that he was probably of Hellenistic descent.

Ver. 34. ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ Χριστός : not, as in our version, Jesus
Christ, but Jesus the Christ—the Messiah. Si tpdcov σεαυτῷ---
make thy bed ; 1.6.. in proof of the reality of thy recovery, make
thy bed, on which thou hast lain for eight years. Observe
here the difference between the manner in which this miracle
was wrought by Peter, and the manner in which Jesus Christ
performed His miracles. The different characters of the ser--
vant and the Son are most apparent (see note to Acts iii. 6). °

Ver. 35. Kat εἶδαν αὐτὸν ravres—And all the inhabitants
of Lydda and Saron saw him, and they turned to the Lord.
Kuincel translates the words, “all the inhabitants of Lydda
and Saron who had turned to the Lord saw him;”’ that is,
all Christians who resided in Lydda and Saron. But this
is to take the aorist in the sense of the pluperfect, and would
make the mention of the fact,meaningless. Auneas would
be seen by others besides believers (Alford). The meaning
then is, that all the inhabitants of Lydda and Saron saw
him, and in consequence of this evidence of the Messiahship
of Jesus turned to the Lord. Πάντες is here to be taken
in a popular sense, expressing tlie numerous conversions
which occurred in consequence of this miracle. Zeller’s
objection, that there is here a gross exaggeration, is hyper-
criticism. Tov Yapwva—Saron. Saron, or, as it is called in
the Old Testament, Sharon, is a large fertile plain extending
along the coast of the Mediterranean for about thirty miles
from Joppa to Cesarea. It is always mentioned with the
definite article—the Sharon, that is, according to some inter-
preters, the plain. Its beauty and fertility are often alluded
to by the sacred writers: as in the Song of Solomon, “I am
the rose of Sharon” (Cant. ii. 1); and in the prophecies of
Isaiah, “ The excellency of Carmel and Sharon” (Isa. xxxv.
2). And notwithstanding the present desolation of the land,
it is still represented by travellers as an undulating plain
remarkable for its richness and beauty.

THE MIRACLES OF PETER—IX. 86. 353

Ver. 36. Ev ‘Idray—in Joppa. This celebrated seaport
is about thirty-five miles distant from Jerusalem. It was
the chief seaport of Judea, until Herod the Great made the
artificial harbour of Cesarea Palestine. We find it first
mentioned in the book of Joshua by the name of Japho, as
belonging to the tribe of Dan (Josh. xix. 46). It was, how-
ever, a Philistine city, and was probably not acquired by the
Israelites until the days of David. It was the place to which
the materials were brought for building both Solomon’s and
the second temple (2 Chron. ii. 16; Ezra iii. 7). From
Joppa Jonah took ship to flee from the presence of the
Lord (Jonah i. 3). Jonathan Maccabeus took it from
the Syrian kings (1 Macc. x. 76). Pompey attached it to
the province of Syria; but it was restored to the Jews by
Julius Ceesar, and confirmed to Herod the Great by Augustus.
After the deposition of Archelaus, it was again incorporated
in Syria. At the time to which the history refers, Joppa
was a flourishing town. In the commencement of the Jewish
war, it was destroyed by Cestius Gallus on his march to
Jerusalem ; and it was a second time taken and destroyed by
Vespasian, who, in order to protect the country against pirates,
erected a fort there, which became the nucleus of a new town
(Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 19, iii. 9. 2-4). Joppa is frequently men-
tioned in the wars of the Crusaders, being the port at which
the pilgrims landed ; and it was among the last towns which
surrendered to the Saracens. In modern times it has gained
an unhappy notoriety on account of Napoleon’s massacre
of his prisoners. At present it is the principal seaport of
Palestine, with a wretched harbour, known under the name
of Jaffa, and containing a population of five thousand, of
whom about a thousand are Christians. Joppa is beauti-
fully situated on the undulating plain of Sharon: in the
distance are the mountains of Judea, and before it the
Mediterranean. Tradition points out the house of Simon,
with whom Peter lodged."

Ταβιθά, ἣ διερμηνευομένη λέγεται Aopxrds—Tabitha, who

1 Winer’s biblisches Wéorterbuch; Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible ;
Lange’s apostolisches Zeitalter, vol. ii. p. 128.

VOL. I. Z

854 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

by interpretation is called Dorcas. Tabitha in the Aramaic,
and Dorcas in the Greek, signify a gazelle. opxas appears
as a female name among the Greeks (Lucret. iv. 1154), and
was not unknown among the Jews. Thus Josephus speaks
of one John, who “ was called the son of Dorcas, in the
language of our country” (Bell. Jud. iv. 3. 5). Luke gives
her name both in Hebrew and Greek, from which some
suppose that she was a Hellenist, whilst others draw the
opposite inference that she was a pure Hebrew. But such
inferences are mere conjectures. It was at this time the
custom for Jews to have two names, the one Hebrew and
the other Greek; and this would especially be the case in
the seaport of Joppa, which was at once a Gentile and a
Jewish town.’ Besides, it is by no means clear that Tabitha
was actually called Dorcas: Luke perhaps only gave the
interpretation of her Jewish name for the benefit of his Greek
readers.

Ver. 37. Aovcavtes δὲ avtyv—having washed her. The
custom of washing the dead was common, not only among
the Jews, but also among the Greeks and Romans (corpusque
lavant frigentis et unguunt: Virgil, din. vi. 219). Thus
Maimonides says: “It is the custom in Israel about the
dead and their burial, that when any is dead, they shut his
eyes and wash his body.”

Ver. 38. ᾿Εγγὺς δὲ οὔσης Avddas τῇ ᾿Ιόππη---απᾶ as
Lydda was near to Joppa. The distance between the modern
village of Ludd (the ancient Lydda) and Jaffa is only about
nine miles. [Μὴ ὀκνήσῃς διελθεῖν ἕως ἡμῶν---ο not delay to
come to us. In the direct form. (See Critical Note.) It
does not appear that the disciples, in sending for Peter, had
any idea that he could restore Dorcas to life; but they sent
for him, that he might give them advice and assistance in
their distress.

Ver. 39. Χιτῶνος καὶ iuatva—tunics and garments. Χυτῶν,
a tunic, the inner garment worn next the skin; ἱμάτιον, the
outer garment or mantle, different from the tunic, and worn

1 According to Strabo, Joppa was inhabited by a mixed population,
composed of Egyptians, Arabians, and Phoenicians (Strabo, xvi. 2. 34).

THE MIRACLES OF PETER.—IX. 40. 355

above it: so that the words may be translated inner and outer
garments.

Ver. 40. ᾿Εκβαλὼν δὲ ἔξω πάντας ὁ II.— But Peter having
put them all out; after the example of his Master, and in
order that he might be undisturbed in his prayers. Θεὶς τὰ
γόνατα mpoonvéato—kneeled down and prayed ; namely, to
Christ, in whose name the apostles performed their miracles.
“ This prayer,” observes Lechler, “is the essential feature by
which the resurrection of Tabitha is distinguished from that
of the daughter of Jairus. Jesus, without any preceding
prayer, took the dead child by the hand, and recalled her to
life; but Peter does not do so until he had prayed to the
Lord for this miracle.” ὦ

The raising of Tabitha—the first instance of such a miracle
in the Acts—has been explained away by those critics who
do not believe in the reality of miracles; some explaining it
as a natural occurrence, and others as an unhistorical legend.
Critics of the rationalistic school (Heinrichs, Kuincel) ex-
plain the fact as an awakening from apparent death. With
them Ewald agrees, who refers the awakening to that boun-
dary line when the last spark of life still remains in man.
So also De Wette observes, that although the idea of an
apparent death is contrary to the view of the author and of
the eye-witnesses, yet they might have erred in their judg-
ment of the case.” But such an opinion is directly opposed
to the words of the narrative. Tabitha is there represented
not only as dead, but as having been dead for some time
(ver. 37). Critics of the mythical school (Baur, Zeller)
have recourse to the explanation of mythical exaggeration.
They suppose that this narrative is a mere transference of
the narrative of the resurrection of the daughter of Jairus,
for the purpose of glorifying the apostles. Baur even lays
stress on the similitude of sound between Ταλιθά (Mark v.
41) and Ταβιθά, and supposes that the latter is borrowed
from the former. And Zeller supposes that the narrative is
taken rather from Mark’s Gospel than from Luke’s, because

1 Lange’s Bibelwerk: Apostelgeschichte, p. 174.
2 De Wette’s Apostelyeschichte, p. 92.

356 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES,

it did not proceed from the author of the Acts himself, but
from another who had the Gospel of Mark before him.’ To
such forced suppositions must these critics have recourse.
The account given of Tabitha is entirely natural, especially
the fact that the assembled widows showed to Peter the
garments she had made. There is no resemblance between
this Christian woman and the daughter of Jairus, who is
represented as a girl of twelve years of age; so that they
cannot be supposed to be one and the same person.

Ver. 43. Ἡμέρας ixavas—many days: a long period.
(See note to Acts ix. 23.) Perhaps for a year; for we find
that Peter abode in Joppa, until he went to Caesarea. The
city was large, and the inhabitants showed a susceptibility
toward the gospel. Παρά τινι Σίμωνι βυρσεῖ --- with one
Simon, a tanner. By the strict Jews the operation of
tanners was regarded as unclean, and they were ordered to
dwell apart. This conduct of Peter, then, in lodging with
a tanner, proves that he was free from these scruples. The
Jewish law in its strictness was gradually losing its hold on
‘him, and he was becoming prepared for the reception of the
great truth—the admission of the Gentiles without circum-
cision into the church of Christ.

1 Zeller’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 177.

SECTION XXI.
VISIONS OF CORNELIUS AND PETER.—Acrts x. 1-23.

1 And a certain man in Casarea, called Cornelius, a centurion of the
cohort called the Italian, 2 A devout man, and fearing God with all
his house, and doing many alms-deeds to the people, and praying to God
always, 3 Saw in a vision evidently, about the ninth hour of the day,
an angel of God coming to him, and saying to him, Cornelius. 4 But
he, gazing on him, and being afraid, said, What is it, Lord? And he
said to him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial
before God. 5 And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, who
_ is surnamed Peter: 6 He lodges with one Simon a tanner, whose house
is by the sea-side. 7 And when the angel who spoke to him was de-
parted, he called two of the household servants, and a devout soldier of
them who waited on him; 8 And having related all things to them, he
sent them to Joppa.

9 And on the morrow, as they journeyed, and drew nigh to the city,
Peter went up to the house-top to pray, about the sixth hour. 10 And
he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but, while they made
ready, an ecstasy happened to him, 11 And he saw heaven opened, and
a certain vessel descending, as a great linen cloth, united by the four
corners, and let down to the earth; 12 In which were all quadrupeds
and reptiles of the earth, and birds of heaven. 13 And there came a
voice to him, Rise, Peter, kill and eat. 14 But Peter said, By no means,
Lord ; for I have never eaten anything that is common and unclean.
15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, What God has
cleansed, that regard not thou as common. 16 And this happened thrice:
and straightway the vessel was taken up into heaven. 17 Now, while
Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen might be,
behold, the men sent from Cornelius, after they had made inquiry for
Simon’s house, stood at the gate; 18 And having called, they asked
if Simon, who is called Peter, lodges here. 19 While Peter thought
on the vision, the Spirit said to him, Behold, men seek thee. 20 Arise
therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing:
because I have sent them. 21 Then Peter, having gone down to the
men, said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore
ye are come? 22 And they said, Cornelius, a centurion, a just man,
and one who fears God, and of good report among all the nation of the
Jews, was warned by a holy angel to send for thee to his house, and to
hear words from thee. 23 Then, having invited them in, he lodged them.

357

358 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

CRITICAL NOTES.

Ver. 1. Ἦν after τις is wanting in A, B, Οὐ, E, G, and x,
and is omitted by Lachmann and Tischendorf. Ver. 4.
᾿Ενώπιον before τοῦ Θεοῦ, found in C, E, G, is rejected by
Tischendorf, who prefers ἔμπροσθεν, found in A, B, x.
Ver. 5. After Σέμωνα Tischendorf and Lachmann read
twa, found in A, B, Ὁ. Ver. 6. The concluding words,
οὗτος λαλήσει σοι, Ti σε δεῖ ποιεῖν, are wanting in A, B, Ὁ,
E, G, and δὲ, and consequently are to be rejected as spurious.
Ver. 7. After λαλῶν G reads τῷ Κορνηλίῳ ; whereas A, B,
C, E, καὶ read αὐτῷ, the reading adopted by the best critics.
Αὑτοῦ after οἰκετῶν, found in G, is omitted in A, B, C, E, 8,
and rejected by Lachmann, Tischendorf, ete. Ver. 10. EK, G
read ἐπέπεσεν ; whereas A, B, C, & read ἐγένετο, the reading
preferred by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Alford. Ver. 11.
After καταβαῖνον the textus receptus has ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, which
is wanting in A, B, E, δὶ, and rejected by the best critics.
Ver. 12. A, B, C, E, & place τῆς γῆς after ἑρπετά, the position
adopted by Lachmann and Tischendorf. The words καὶ τὰ
θηρία, found in G, are omitted in A, B, E, δὲ, and erased by
Lachmann and Tischendorf. Ver. 16. Instead of πάλιν, A,
B, C, E, & read εὐθύς, the reading now generally adopted.
Ver. 19. The compound διενθυμουμένου, found in all the
best Mss., is to be preferred to the simple verb ἐνθυμουμένου.
Τρεῖς after ἄνδρες is found in A, C, E, 8, and wanting in
D, G, H (B reads δύο) : it is omitted by Tischendorf.
Ver, 21. The words τοὺς ἀπεσταλμένους ἀπὸ τοῦ Κορνηλίου
πρὸς αὐτόν are only found in a single uncial us., H, and are
certainly spurious.

EXEGETICAL REMARKS.

This and the two subsequent sections treat of an event
which formed a most important crisis in Christianity.
Hitherto Christianity had been limited to the Hebrew and
Hellenistic Jews, the Jewish proselytes, and the Samaritans,
whose religious opinions were allied to those of the Jews;

VISIONS OF CORNELIUS AND PETER. 359

and thus the Christians might still be regarded as a Jewish
sect, differing from their fellow-countrymen only in their
belief that Jesus of Nazareth was the true Messiah. But
now it was to include the Gentiles: the restrictions which
still existed were to be abolished; the universal character of
the gospel was to be proclaimed. This truth, almost self-
evident to us, was one of the most important declarations in
the apostolic times: it was, as Paul terms it, that mystery
“which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of
men, but was now revealed unto the holy apostles and pro-
phets by the Spirit, that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs
and of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ
by the gospel” (Eph. iii. 5, 6).

It may indeed, at first sight, appear strange that Peter
should require a special revelation to teach him that the
gospel should be preached to the Gentiles, especially after
the repeated predictions of the call of the Gentiles made in
the Old Testament, and the plain statements of the Lord
Himself on this subject. But it is to be observed, that the
apostles did not doubt that the Gentiles should be received
into the Christian church : they received and held it as the
commission of their Master, that they should make disciples
of all nations. But then they supposed that the conver-
sion of the Gentiles would take place through the medium
of Judaism; that in order to be received into the Chris-
tian church, they must be circumcised and keep the law of
Moses. Some of the Christian teachers, as Stephen, Philip,
and other Hellenists, may have held more liberal views ; but
even they do not seem to have attempted the direct con-
version of the Gentiles. Indeed, there were difficulties in
the reception of this truth, which nothing but a divine reve-
lation could overcome. Circumcision was of God, and the
uncircumcised were commanded to be cut off from among
His people: the law of Moses was of divine origin; Jesus
Himself had said, that He came fot to destroy the law, but
to fulfil it; and besides, all their national prejudices as Jews
were enlisted in the maintenance of the opinion that they
were the peculiar people of God. Hence it was necessary

360 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

that believers should be taught by a direct example, that the
law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ; that the legal restric-
tions were now abolished; and that the Gentiles, without
circumcision, were admissible into the kingdom of God. The
subject is so important, that it is detailed at great length :
three accounts are given of the vision of Cornelius, and two
of the vision of Peter.

Ver. 1. ’Avnp δέ tus—But a certain man. The beginning
of this narrative is not abrupt, as in our version, but con-
nected with what goes before by the particle de. It was
while Peter was at Joppa, in the neighbourhood of Cesarea,
that the event here recorded happened. “Ev Kaioapeta—in
Cesarea. For a description of Cesarea, the Roman capital
of Judea, and the residence of the Roman governor, see
note to Acts viii. 40. ᾿Ονόματι Κορνήλιος, éxatovtdpyns—
by name Cornelius,’ a centurion. A centurion was strictly a
commander of a hundred men, but the word was used with
some degree of latitude. It is a remarkable fact, that all
the centurions mentioned in the New Testament are favour-
ably noticed. There is the centurion in Capernaum, whose
faith our Lord commended (Matt. viii. 5); the centurion
who attended at the crucifixion, and who acknowledged Jesus
as the Son of God (Matt. xxvii. 54); the centurion who
accompanied Paul to Rome, and was so favourably disposed
to him (Acts xxvii. 3, 43); and here Cornelius, the first-
fruits of the Gentiles. "Ex σπείρης---οὔ the cohort. A cohort
was about the tenth part of a legion, and consisted of about
six hundred men. It however varied, according to the size
of the legion. Τῆς καλουμένης ᾿Ιταλικῆς.---οαἰϊοά the Italian.
This cohort was so called, probably because the soldiers
belonging to it were Italians, or Romans. In general, the
Roman troops were at this time drawn from the inhabitants
of the countries where they were quartered (Joseph. Ant.
xiv. 15.10). This Italian cohort would be somewhat similar
to a British regiment in India, as distinguished from the

1No inference can be drawn in favour of the superior rank of
Cornelius, because he bore such’a distinguished name (Conybeare and
Howson, vol. i. p. 143). The name was common among the Romans.

VISIONS OF CORNELIUS AND PETER.—X, 2. 361

Sepoys, or native troops. This cohort was at Caesarea, and
perhaps formed the body-guard of the Roman governor :
they were troops on whom he could depend in disputes with
the natives. This Italian cohort, however, is not to be con-
founded with the Italian legion (Legio Jtalica), which Tacitus
mentions in his history of the reign of Otho (/Zist. i. 59. 64) ;
as, according to Dio Cassius, this legion was not formed
until the reign of Nero (lib. lv. 24). It is generally supposed
to have been an independent cohort, attached to no legion,
being a species of pretorian guard to the Roman procurator.
Wieseler, with some degree of probability, supposes that it
was composed of Italian volunteers. Arrian speaks of οἱ τῆς
σπείρης τῆς ᾿Ιταλικῆς πεζοί, “ the foot-soldiers of the Italian
cohort ;” and there is an ancient inscription, in which the
following words occur: Cohors militum Italicorum voluntaria
que est in Syria—* The cohort of Italian volunteers which is
in Syria” (Gruter, Inser. p. 434, 1).

Ver. 2. Εὐσεβὴς, καὶ φοβούμενος tov. Ocdv—pious, and
fearing God. Cornelius was one of those Gentiles, not un-
common in the apostolic age, who had become dissatisfied
with the religious worship of his ancestors, and was at-
tached to the purer religion of the Jews. He had ceased to
be an idolater, and had become a worshipper of the true
God. He had so far adopted the principles of Judaism,
that he kept its hours of worship, attached himself in some
degree to the Jews, and perhaps attended their synagogues,
_ but yet had not submitted to the rite of circumcision, or
adopted their ceremonial observances. Ποιῶν τε ἐλεημο-
σύνας πολλὰς τῷ AaSG—and doing many alms-deeds to the
people. ‘O λαός here evidently refers to the people of Israel;
and hence it is said that “he was of good report among all
the nation of the Jews.” (Acts x. 22). There is a striking
resemblance between Cornelius and the centurion in Caper-
naum, of whom it is said that he loved the nation of the
Jews, and built for them a synagogue (Luke vii. 4, 5).
Καὶ δεόμενος τοῦ Θεοῦ διὰ mavtos—and praying to God

1 Quoted in Akerman’s Numismatic Illustrations of the Acts, pp. 33-35.
See also Wieseler’s Chronologie, p. 145; Biscoe on the Acts, pp. 300-314.

362 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

always. Cornelius, having in a measure adopted the prin-
ciples of Judaism, shared with the Jews in their Messianic
hopes. He could not have been entirely ignorant of the
claims of Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah. Philip the
evangelist was probably already in Cesarea, preaching the

gospel (Acts vill. 44): there must have been Christians there ; '

and the fame of Peter’s miracles and preaching in the neigh-
bouring cities may have reached the Roman centurion. The
narrative itself supposes that Cornelius was not ignorant of
the facts of the life of Jesus. Peter in his address takes
for granted that he was acquainted with the word which
God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by
Jesus Christ (Acts x. 36, 37). Hence, then, there is nothing
improbable in the supposition that the great subject of the
prayers and fastings of Cornelius was that he might obtain
more religious light, and especially might be led to the truth
with regard to Jesus Christ (Lange, Neander, Alford,
Schaff). As Lange observes: “ He knew the history of
Jesus so far as it was spread abroad: he knew that no small
part of the Jews recognised him as the Messiah, and that a
division upon this question agitated his co-religionists; and
probably his own soul was agitated by the same inquiry, and
he longed after a true solution from above.” *

It is the common opinion that Cornelius was already a
proselyte of the gate. So Grotius, Olshausen, Neander,
Wieseler, Lekebusch, Stier, and Lange. The character
given of him, εὐσεβὴς καὶ φοβούμενος τὸν Θεόν, is said to
be the exact description of such a proselyte. Cornelius also
adopted the Jewish hours of prayer, and was acquainted with
the books of the Old Testament, for Peter in his address to
him appeals to the prophets ; and he was held in estimation
by the Jewish inhabitants of Cesarea. On the other hand,
Meyer asserts that the whole description supposes that he

was completely unconnected with the Jews by proselytism.

Peter calls him ἀλλόφυλος, with whom a Jew was not per-

mitted to hold intercourse (Acts x. 28). According to

Jewish writers, there were two kinds of proselytes—“ pro-
1 Lange’s apostolisches Zeitalter, vol. ii. p. 129.

ee δ ελυυυνδ υΝνμμοννν.. “ω...

VISIONS OF CORNELIUS AND PETER.—X. 3. 363

selytes of the gate,” and “ proselytes of righteousness.”
The proselytes of the gate were those who remained un-
circumcised, but were worshippers of the true God, and
observed the so-called seven precepts of Noah. These pre-
cepts forbade blasphemy, idolatry, murder, incest, theft,
disobedience to magistrates, and eating flesh with the blood
in it. Such a proselyte they considered Naaman the Syrian
to have been. The proselytes of righteousness, again, were
those who adopted the whole law of Moses, and in the case
of males were circumcised. These were received into the
Jewish theocracy, and were regarded as complete Jews.
Such a distinction is, however, doubtful. Many eminent
critics suppose it to have been a mere invention of the Jewish
rabbis. And even if it did exist before the Babylonish
captivity, yet, as De Wette and Winer remark, referring to
Selden (de jure nat. et gent. p. 153) and Maimonides (Heb.
Mele. i. 6), the inferior grade of proselytism ceased to have
any significance after the overthrow of the Jewish kingdom."
The only proselytism which the Jews seem to have recog-
nised was when the Gentiles adopted the whole law: such
Gentiles are the only persons who, in the Acts, are called by
the name of proselytes. Those devout persons who, like
Cornelius, worshipped the true God, and adopted the spiri-
tual element of Judaism, were not regarded by the Jews as
proselytes; but, so long as they continued uncircumcised, as
Gentiles, with whom it was unlawful to hold intercourse.
We judge, then, that there was, at least in apostolic times,
no such class as “ proselytes of the gate;” and that Cor-
nelius, although inclined to Judaism, yet, being uncircum-
cised, was not in any sense a proselyte, but a type of a
numerous class of Gentiles in that day, who, dissatisfied with
polytheism, had embraced the monotheism of the Jews.

Ver. ὃ. Εἶδεν ἐν ὁράματι havepas—saw in a vision evi-
dently. The nominative to εἶδεν is ἀνὴρ ὀνόματι Κορνήλιος
of ver. 1, making one long sentence. It would seem that
there was an actual outward appearance of an angel to Cor-
nelius, although the word ὅραμα is frequently used for that

1 Winer’s Wérterbuch—Proselyten.

804 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES,

which has no objective existence (Acts x. 17, xii. 9). Cor-
nelius was awake when the vision appeared to him; and the
word φανερῶς implies that it was a reality, and no dream.
“Ὠσεὶ ὥραν ἐνάτην τῆς ἡμέρας ---αὐοιι the ninth hour of the
day ; that is, about three in the afternoon, the hour of the
evening sacrifice. Cornelius, although not a Jew, yet adopted
their hours of prayer as the proper seasons for his devotion.
"Ayyerov τοῦ Ocod—an angel of God. All attempts to give
a natural explanation of this appearance are inadmissible,
and contradict the text. Eichhorn supposes that Cornelius
was very desirous to become acquainted with the distinguished
Peter, and had learned from a citizen of Joppa the place of
his abode; and whilst engaged in earnest prayer, he felt a
peculiar elevation of spirit, by which, as by an angel, he was
confirmed in the resolution to make Peter’s acquaintance.
So also Ewald thinks that Cornelius, hesitating whether or
not he should make the acquaintance of Peter, was fixed in
his determination to do so, as if he were enlightened by a
heavenly certainty, and directed by an angelic voice.’ And
_ even Neander, by unwarrantably mixing up his own sup-
positions with the sacred narrative, has given reason to sus-
pect that he assigns to the event a natural explanation. He
supposes that Cornelius, acquainted in some measure with the
evangelical history, was eagerly desirous of further enlighten-
ment, and of becoming acquainted with Peter. For this
purpose he set apart some days for fasting and prayer. In
this state of mind he received, by a voice from heaven, an
answer to his prayers. That an angel actually appeared to
him may be an objective event; but “‘we need not suppose
any actual appearance, for we know not whether a higher
spirit cannot communicate itself to men living in a world of
sense by an operation on the inward sense. Cornelius is the
only witness for the objective reality, and he can only be taken
as a credible witness of what he believed he had perceived.” ”
It is, however, to be observed, that not only did the angel
appear to Cornelius, but communicated to him information

1 Ewald’s Geschichte des apostolischen Zeitalters, p. 222.
* Neander’s Planting, vol. i. pp. 68-70.

———————— τὰ »-»--ν»

VISIONS OF CORNELIUS AND ΡΕΤΕΠ.--Χ. 4--0. 365

concerning the residence of Peter; and it is clear from the
term φανερῶς, and the expression ὡς ἀπῆλθεν ὁ ἄγγελος, that
an objective appearance is described.

Ver. 4. Ai mpocevyal σου καὶ ai ἐλεημοσύναι σου, ete.—
Thy prayers and thy alms are come up for a memorial before
God. There is here no reference to the Jewish notion that
prayers are carried by the angels to the throne of God; or,
as Bengel expresses it, “ angels are not said to be ἱερεῖς, but
yet they are λειτουργοί." Some suppose here a doctrinal
difficulty, that the good works of Cornelius were accepted
before he had faith in Christ ; but as Calvin well remarks,
“He could obtain nothing by prayer, unless faith went
before, which only opens the gate for us to pray.”! He
had that faith which was at the time possible. He believed
in the Messiah of the Old Testament, and was now to be led
to a higher faith—belief .in Jesus, the Messiah of the New
Testament (Meyer).

Ver. 5. Μετάπεμψαι Σίμωνα twa, etc.—send for one
Sumon, who is surnamed Peter. Twa is affixed after Σίμωνα,
because Simon was one of the most common names among
the Jews: it also suggests that Cornelius and Peter were
previously unacquainted. Cornelius is not referred to Philip
the evangelist, although probably then resident in Czsarea ;
because so important a matter as the admission of the Gen-
tiles into the church of Christ was to be effected by the
apostles. Nor is he commanded to send to Jerusalem for
James or John, but.to Joppa for Peter; because it was the
peculiar privilege of Peter, granted him by Christ, to open
the door of admission into the Christian church, both to
the Jews as at Pentecost, and to the Gentiles as at this
time.

Ver. 6. °Q) ἐστὶν οἰκία παρὰ Oaraocav—whose house is by
the sea-side. (See note to Acts ix. 43.) The house of
Simon was on the shore of the Mediterranean, without the
walls of Joppa. This was not only for the sake of con-
venience, but the trade of a tanner was regarded by the Jews
as unclean, and was not permitted to be exercised within

1 Calvin on Acts x. 4.

366 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

their cities. Cadavera et sepulera separant et coriarium quin-
quaginta cubitos a civitate (Surenh. Mischn. xi. 9).

Ver. 7. 'ῆς δὲ ἀπῆλθεν ὁ dyyehos—but when the angel was
departed. 'This proves that, according to Luke, there was an
objective appearance of an angel to Cornelius: he comes and
goes. Avo τῶν οἰκετῶν : literally, two members of his house-
hold; that is, two of his domestics. Stpatwryv εὐσεβῆς--
a devout soldier. 'The soldier had the same religious spirit
as his master: he also had renounced idolatry, and was a
worshipper of the true God.

Ver. 9. Τῇ δὲ ἐπαύριον ὁδουπορούντων---απα on the morrow,
as they journeyed and drew nigh to the city. Joppa was about
thirty miles south of Czesarea, and thus the journey would
occupy more than one day. The messengers of Cornelius
would leave Caesarea about three in the afternoon, and they
arrived at Joppa next day at noon. So also, on their return
to Cxsarea, they spend more than one day.

Thus Cornelius was directed by a vision to send for Peter.
But there was another difficulty to overcome. Would Peter
be willing to come when sent for? The law of Moses, as
then interpreted, forbade the Jews to associate with other
nations. ΤῸ remove this difficulty, Peter also has a vision to
prepare him to receive the message sent by Cornelius. The
two visions correspond: the one answers to the other; and
this mutual relationship is an argument in favour of the
divine origin of each. ᾿Δνέβη Πέτρος ἐπὶ τὸ δῶμα προσ-
evEacOai— Peter went up to the house-top to pray. ἁῶμα
here is not to be understood in the sense of ὑπερῶον, “ an
upper chamber” (Luther, Erasmus): this would be contrary
to all usage. The vision took place in the open air: Peter
saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending. It is
true that δῶμα by itself signifies only a house; but the words
ἐπὶ τὸ δῶμα signify “on the house-top” (Luke v. 19).
The roofs of houses in the East were flat, and consisted of a
water-tight floor a little elevated in the centre, to permit the
rain-water to run off. In Judea they were, in conformity
with the law of Moses, protected by parapets (Deut. xxii. 8).
In general, there were two stairs up to them,—the one

VISIONS OF CORNELIUS AND PETER.—x. 10, 11. 367

through the house, and the other from the street. One
could walk along the roofs from one end of the street to the
other. We find that they were employed for various pur-
poses: in summer, men slept on them; tents were erected
upon them at the feast of tabernacles; conferences were
held upon them ; and they were used as places for religious
exercises (2 Kings xxiii. 12; Jer. xix. 13; Zeph. i. 5).' So
here Peter betakes himself to the house-top for the purpose
of prayer; perhaps on account of the retirement, or the
advantage it gave him to look toward the temple of Jeru-
salem, to which all devout Jews had a regard: thus Daniel
in Babylon prayed with his face directed toward Jerusalem
(Dan. vi. 10). Περὶ ὥραν ἕκτην---αδοιιέ the sixth hour ; that
is, at noon. Besides the two stated hours of prayer—the
third and the ninth—the more devout among the Jews set
apart a third, at noon. Thus Daniel prayed three times a
day (Dan. vi. 10); and David says, “‘ Evening, and morning,
and noon will I pray.” (See note to Acts ii. 15.)

Ver. 10. Πρόσπεινος --- very hungry. Πρός, the sign of
intensity. This word is not found elsewhere. ᾿Εγένετο ἐπ᾽
αὐτὸν ékotacis —an ecstasy happened to him. "Εκστασις
literally signifies “ standing out of oneself :” hence a trance
or rapture; or, as St. Chrysostom explains it, “The soul,
so to speak, was withdrawn from the body.” Paul in his
ecstasy, when he was taken up to the third heavens, says
that he was doubtful whether he was in the body or out of
the body (2 Cor. xii. 1-3). The ἔκστασις of Peter seems to
differ from the ὅραμα of Cornelius in this, that whereas Peter
was entirely insensible to external things, and saw only that
which passed before his spirit, but which as in a dream had
no objective reality; Cornelius in a waking state, and atten-
tive to what was around him, saw what actually occurred.
The linen cloth which came down from heaven was an
internal vision imparted to Peter, whereas the angel who
stood before Cornelius was an external reality.

Ver. 11. Καὶ θεωρεῖ τὸν οὐρανὸν dvewypévov—And he saw
heaven opened, and a certain vessel, as a great linen cloth ; ve.

1 Winer’s Wérterbuch—-Dach.

368 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

he saw something like a great linen sheet descending from
heaven to earth. The connection between the natural and
the supernatural is here to be noted. Peter was very hungry,
and would have eaten; and whilst he was in this state he
saw in a trance a great linen cloth, containing all manner of
food. In the kingdom of God, the natural is made subser-
vient to the spiritual. As Neander observes on this point:
“Two tendencies of his nature came into conjunction: the
power of the divine had the mastery over his spirit, and the
power of the animal want had the mastery over his lower
nature. Thus it came to pass that the divine and the natural
were mingled together: the divine employed the reflection of
the natural as an image or vehicle for the truth about to be
revealed. The divine light, which was breaking through the
atmosphere of traditionary notions, and was about to rise in
his soul, revealed itself in the mirror of sensible images which
proceeded from the present want of his animal nature.” ?
Τέσσαρσιν ἀρχαῖς Sebenevov—united by the four corners. The
literal meaning of ἀρχή is the beginning; hence ἀρχαῖς is
here used to signify the beginnings—that is, the extremities
or corners—of the linen cloth. Alford objects that, if this
were the signification, it would require the definite article ;
and hence he renders it “‘ by four rope-ends.” But no passage
can be produced where ἀρχή signifies a rope-end: this is
introducing another term (rope) into the text. The four
corners are by many (Bengel, Lange, Neander, Alford,
Wordsworth) supposed to denote the four quarters of the
globe: that the whole world—north, south, east, and west—
was included in the kingdom of God.

Ver. 12. Πάντα τὰ tetpdrroda—all quadrupeds and reptiles
of the earth, and birds of heaven. These words are not to be
restricted as if they signified that there were presented to
Peter some kinds of animals, or only the unclean animals
forbidden to be eaten by the Jewish law; but are to be taken
in their literal acceptation, that all animals whatsoever were
seen in the vision. The objection to this, that this was an
impossibility, is easily answered; for, as Calvin observes,

1 Neander’s Planting, vol. i. p. 72.

VISIONS OF CORNELIUS AND PETER.—X. 14, 15. 369

“we must not measure this seeing according to the manner
of men, because the trance gave Peter other eyes.”

Ver. 14. Μηδαμῶς, Κύριε" ὅτι οὐδέποτε ἔφαγον πᾶν κοινὸν
καὶ axd@aprov—By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten
anything that is common and unclean. The devout Jews
religiously kept the precepts of the Mosaic law concerning
clean and unclean meats. Daniel and his companions chose
to be fed on pulse, rather than defile themselves with the
king’s meat (Dan. i. 8, 12). Eleazar (2 Macc. vi. 18),
and the Jewish mother and her seven sons (2 Mace. vii.),
suffered death rather than partake of swine’s flesh. Hence
Peter’s refusal to obey a command, against which all his
religious notions as a Jew revolted.

Ver. 15. “A ὁ Θεὸς ἐκαθέρισεν, σὺ μὴ Koivov—What God
has cleansed, that regard not thou as common. The import of
the vision is obvious. It was explained to Peter by the Spirit,
and by the opportune arrival of the messengers of Cornelius.
It referred not merely to clean and unclean animals, but to
men—to the distinction between Jews and Gentiles. The
Jews looked upon unclean animals as an image of the Gen-
tiles, whom they called dogs. But now Peter was taught
that all men were on the same footing in the sight of
God. Indirectly also it referred to meats. The distinction
between clean and unclean meats which formed so consider-
able a part of the Mosaic law was abolished; and thus one
of the great barriers of separation between Jews and Gentiles
was removed. The other great barrier, that of circumcision,
was also removed by the direct outpouring of the Holy Ghost
upon Cornelius and his household. Some (Olshausen, Lange,
Alford) suppose that there is here an intimation of a real
purification and consecration of the animal creation: that
“the reason of the declaration, ‘What God has cleansed,
that regard not thou as common,’ is to be sought for in the
completed redemption which is regarded as a restitution of
the whole creation.”* All things are thus regarded as con-
secrated by the death of Christ. If the first creation was
declared by God to be very good, much more is the second

1 Olshausen on the Gospels and the Acts, vol. iv. p. 370.

VOL, 1. 2A

370 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

purified in the redemption which came down from heaven
(Lange). This opinion, however, appears to be far-fetched,
and puts a mystical meaning into the text. The distinction
of clean and unclean animals was instituted as a barrier of
separation between Jews and Gentiles: and when this sepa-
ration had served its purpose, and was to be abolished in
Christ—when the church of God was no longer to be limited
to one particular nation, but was to embrace the whole earth
—this distinction was done away with; and that which in the
Mosaic law referred to animals, is in the religion of Christ
spiritualized, and refers to the morality of our actions: “ Not
that which goeth into the mouth is unclean, but those things
which come out of the mouth defile a man.”

Ver. 16. Τοῦτο δὲ ἐγένετο ἐπὶ tpis—and this happened
thrice. The vision was thrice repeated, to impart the greater
emphasis to it as a thing most important and established by
God; and to place it beyond suspicion, as if it were a mere
phantom or delusion.

Vers. 17, 18. ‘As δὲ ἐν ἑαυτῷ διηπόρει ὁ Ilétpos—Now
while Peter doubted in himself. 'The true import of the vision
was not immediately recognised by Peter ; but the arrival of
the messengers of Cornelius at this very time, accompanied
by the intimation of the Spirit, imparted to him its true
meaning. Φωνήσαντες --- having called. Not because the
Jews excluded Gentiles from their houses (Kuincel); but
merely in order to make the necessary inquiries as to whether
they had reached their proper destination.

Ver. 19. Εἶπεν τὸ Πνεῦμα attad—the Spirit said to him.
Neander supposes that Peter on the house-top heard the mes-
sengers of Cornelius calling on him from below. ‘ Voices of
strangers in the court of the house, by whom his own name
was repeated, excited his attention. They were the three
messengers of Cornelius who were inquiring for him. While
Peter was observing the men, who by their appearance were
evidently not Jews, the Spirit of God imparted to him a
knowledge of the connection between the symbolic vision and
the errand of these persons.”* But there is nothing of all

1 Neander’s Planting, vol. i. p. 73.

ae

VISIONS OF CORNELIUS AND PETER.— x. 20-23. 371

this in the text: the arrival of the messengers is first made
known to Peter by the Spirit. This was necessary to impart
to him undoubted certainty as to the meaning of the vision.
We must always remember, in these numerous supernatural
interventions and minute divine directions, the infinite import-
ance of the truth revealed—that Christianity should no longer
continue a Jewish sect, but become the destined religion of
the world: that God was not the God of the Jews only, but
also of the Gentiles.

Ver. 20. "Ore ἐγὼ ἀπέσταλκα airovis—because I have sent
them. The Spirit is said to be the sender of the mes-
sengers, as they could not have come without His divine co-
operation : Cornelius was induced by a divine revelation to
send them. “Great is the authority of the Spirit! What
God doth, this the Spirit is said to do” (Chrysostom).

Vers. 22, 23. “EypnyaticOn—was warned. Χρηματίζω in
the New Testament is to give a response from God; in the
passive, it is to receive a divine response—to be warned or
admonished by God. See Matt. ii. 12 (Robinson’s Levicon
of the New Testament). The revelation on the part of the
angel was regarded as the divine answer to the prayers of
Cornelius. «Αὐτοὺς é&évicev—he lodged them. Peter lodged
them, although they were Gentiles. He thus acted up to
the spirit of the vision, showing how readily he complied
with the intimation imparted to him to call no man common
or unclean.

SECTION XXII.
CONVERSION OF CORNELIUS.—Acrs x. 23-48.

23 And on the morrow he arose and went with them, and certain of
the brethren from Joppa accompanied him. 24 And the morrow after
he entered into Czesarea. And Cornelius was expecting them, having
called together his kinsmen and intimate friends. 25 And it came to
pass, as Peter entered, Cornelius having met him, falling at his feet, did
him reverence. 26 But Peter raised him, saying, Arise; I myself also
amaman. 27 And conversing with him, he went in, and found many
assembled. 28 And he said to them, Ye know that it is unlawful for
a man who is a Jew to associate with or come unto a foreigner; but
God showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
29 Therefore came I without opposition when sent for: I ask therefore
for what reason ye have sent for me? 30 And Cornelius said, Four days
ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I was praying
in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing,
31 And said, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are remem-
bered before God. . 32 Send therefore to Joppa, and call hither Simon,
who is surnamed Peter; he lodges in the house of Simon, a tanner, on
the sea-side: who, when he comes, shall speak to thee. 33 Immediately
therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come.
Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that
are commanded thee from the Lord. 34 Then Peter, having opened his
mouth, said, In truth, I perceive that God is not a respecter of persons :
35 But in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness,
is acceptable to Him; 36 (This is) the word which He sent to the children
of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ; He is Lord of all. 87 Ye
know the events which happened throughout all Judea, beginning from
Galilee, after the baptism which John preached ; 38 (Ye know) Jesus
of Nazareth, how that God anointed Him with the Holy Ghost and with
power; who went about doing good, and healing all who were oppressed
with the devil: because God was with Him. 39 And we are witnesses
of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem ;
whom also they slew, having hanged Him ona tree: 40 Him God raised
up the third day, and showed Him openly; 41 Not to all the people,
but to witnesses before appointed of God, even to us who did eat and
drink with Him after He rose from the dead. 42 And He commanded

372

CONVERSION OF CORNELIUS.—xX. 23-26. 373

us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who is ordained
by God as judge of the living anddead. 43 To Him all the prophets bear
witness, that through His name, every one who believes in Him should
receive forgiveness of sins.

44 While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on
all who heard the discourse. 45 And believers of the circumcision who
accompanied Peter were astonished, because that on the Gentiles also
the gift of the Holy Ghost was poured out. 46 For they heard them
speaking with tongues, and magnifying God. 47 Then Peter answered,
Can any one forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, who
have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded
them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they desired him to
remain certain days.

CRITICAL NOTES.

Ver. 23. Ὃ Πέτρος is by the best critics omitted, being
inserted as the commencement of an ecclesiastical lesson :
*Avaords, wanting in the tertus receptus, is found in A, B, C,
D, 8, and is inserted by Tischendorf, Lachmann, and Meyer.
Ver. 24. The singular εἰσῆλθεν, found in B, D, is preferred
by Tischendorf and Lachmann to the plural εἰσῆλθον, found
in A, C, E, G, H, s. Ver. 33. Instead of ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ,
found in D, G, H, Tischendorf, Meyer, and Lachmann
prefer ἀπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου, found in A, C, E.

EXEGETICAL REMARKS.

Ver. 23. Twes τῶν adekhpav—certain of the brethren. These
brethren perhaps accompanied Peter on account of the im-
portance of the matter in hand, that they might be witnesses
when he gave in his report to the church at Jerusalem. The
number of men, as we are elsewhere informed, was six (Acts
xi. 12).

Ver. 24. Τῇ δὲ ἐπαύριον---απα on the morrow; te. the
morrow after the day they set out—the next morning. As
the messengers of Cornelius took two days in journeying
from Czxsarea to Joppa, a distance of thirty-two miles, so
two days were also consumed on their way back.

_ Vers. 24-26. Ὁ δὲ Κορνήλιος ἣν προσδοκῶν avtovs—but

374 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES,

Cornelius was expecting them. He had calculated that they
would return about this time, and had accordingly collected
a company, composed of those who were similarly disposed
with himself, to meet Peter: these were his relations (συγ-
yeveis) and his intimate friends (ἀναγκαίους φίλους). ‘Qs δὲ
ἐγένετο τοῦ εἰσελθεῖν τὸν Πέτρον, etc.—And it came to pass,
as Peter entered, Cornelius having met him. The Codex
Βεζ (Ὁ) has the following addition: Προσεγγίζοντος δὲ
tov Πέτρου eis τὴν Καισάρειαν, προδραμὼν εἷς τῶν δούλων
διεσάφησεν παραγεγονέναι αὐτόν: ὁ δὲ Κορνήλιος ἐκπηδήσας
καὶ συναντήσας αὐτῷ πεσὼν πρὸς τοὺς πόδας προσεκύνησεν
αὐτόν---“ And as Peter drew nigh to Cesarea, one of the
servants running, told that he was coming; and Cornelius,
having run out and met him, falling at his feet, did him
reverence.” Although defended by Bornemann, this addi-
tion is undoubtedly spurious, being found in no other Greek
MS. or version, except as a note on the margin of the Syriac.
Πεσὼν ἐπὶ τοὺς πόδας, rpocextvncev—falling at his feet, did
him reverence. It was the custom in the East to express the
highest degree of respect by falling down at the feet of the:
person honoured. It is, however, probable that the reve-
rence here bestowed partook rather of a religious than of a
civil character. Cornelius regarded Peter as a being of a
superior order, and was perhaps not altogether free from his
former heathen notions concerning the deification of heroes,
and the appearance of the gods in human form. ὋὉ δὲ
Πέτρος ἤγειρεν αὐτὸν λέγων, ᾿Ανάστηθει, etc.—But Peter raised
him, saying, Arise; I myself alsoamaman. Peter rejects
the reverence which Cornelius paid him, because it savoured
of divine homage. (Compare also the conduct of Paul and
Barnabas at Lystra, Acts xiv. 15.) There is here a re-
markable difference between the conduct of Christ and of
His apostles. Christ never rejected any honour that was
paid Him, nor rebuked His disciples and the multitude for
worshipping Him,—thus proving that He claimed to be of
divine origin.

Ver. 27. Καὶ συνομιλῶν αὐτῷ εἰσῆλθεν ----απὦ conversing
with him, he went in. Eio7i6e—went into the room where

CONVERSION OF CORNELIUS, —X. 28. 375

the company was assembled; whereas τοῦ εἰσηλθεῖν τὸν
Πέτρον (ver. 25) refers to his entrance by the outer door
into the house.

Ver. 28. Ὑμεῖς ἐπίστασθε ὡς ἀθέμυτόν ἐστιν ἀνδρὶ ᾿Ιουδαίῳ
κολλᾶσθαι ἢ προσέρχεσθαι ἀλλοφύλῳ ----Υὁ know how tt is
unlawful for a Jew to associate with or come unto a foreigner.
*Adéuitov—unlawful. This word only occurs once again in
the New Testament, and that in one of Peter’s own epistles
(1 Pet. iv. 8). There is no direct command in the Mosaic
law forbidding Jews to associate with those of other nations.
De Wette calls in question the truth of the statement; and
Zeller regards it as a proof of the falsehood of the narrative.
He refers to the case of Izates king of Adiabene, who
was told by Ananias, a Jewish merchant, that he might
worship God without being circumcised (Joseph. Ant. xx.
2.4). And besides, considering the mercantile spirit of the
Jewish nation, it was an impossibility for them to avoid in-
tercourse with the Gentiles; not to mention that Cornelius
had to some extent already adopted the Jewish religion.’
But this objection evidently proceeds on a strained inter-
pretation of the text. Peter makes a general statement,
that there was a repugnance among Jews to associate with
Gentiles. The Jewish laws of clean and unclean meats
necessarily prevented them from mixing freely with the Gen-
tiles, lest by partaking of their food they should be defiled.
And it is to eating that the words of Peter seem chiefly to
refer ; for the accusation brought against him by the Jewish
Christians was, “ Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and
didst eat with them” (Acts xi. 3). Although the Jews were
permitted to transact business with the Gentiles, yet all inti-
mate acquaintance was disallowed. “ Moses,” says Josephus,
‘does not allow those who come to us without living after
our laws to be admitted into communion with us” (Contra
Apion, ii. 29). Hence the Jews became obnoxious to the
heathen for their unsocial character, and for the hatred and
disdain which they bore to all other nations. Thus Tacitus

1De Wette’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 96; Zeller’s Apostelgeschichte, p.
187.

<=

376 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

observes of them: “They harbour the bitterest animosity
against all other nations” (fist. v. 5) ; and Juvenal says that
“they will not point out the way unless to those of their
own religion, and that they will conduct those only to the
fountain inquired after who are circumcised ” (Sat. xiv. 103).

Ver. 29. ’Avavtippytas—without opposition, without hesi-
tation, promptly. Τίνι Aoye—/or what reason? Although
Peter knew the reason, both from revelation and from the
messengers of Cornelius, yet he desires him to relate it for
the benefit of the company, and that Cornelius himself might
be the more impressed by the narration.

Ver. 30. ᾿4πὸ τετάρτης ἡμέρας μέχρι ταύτης τῆς ὥρας
ἤμην νηστεύων--- ἔοι!» days ago I was fasting until this hour.
Different meanings have been attached to these words. Some
(De Wette, Neander) suppose that Cornelius fasted for four
days, until the hour when he saw the vision. According to
this opinion, however, Cornelius would make no special men-
tion of the day on which he had seen the vision, and which
alone was important; and besides, ταύτης τῆς ὥρας evidently
refers to the present hour, not the hour when the vision
happened. Others (Heinrichs, and formerly Meyer) suppose
that the words mean that Cornelius fasted four days, reckon-:
ing backward from the present time. But besides the im-
probability that his fast would continue after he had seen the
vision, ἤμην, the historical tense, cannot be understood so as
to include the present. Others (Beza, Grotius, Kuincel,
Olshausen, Bengel, Lechler, Alford, Wordsworth, and Meyer
in his last edition) suppose that the meaning is, that four days
ago Cornelius was fasting until this very hour of the day in
which he was speaking to Peter,—namely, the ninth hour.
This agrees exactly with the time mentioned. The mes-
sengers of Cornelius took two days to go to Joppa, and two
to return; so that four days had elapsed from the time
that Cornelius had seen the vision. Ταύτης τῆς apas—this
hour ; the hour of the day in which Cornelius was speaking
with Peter, and which was the ninth (τὴν ἐνάτην), or three
in the afternoon—the same hour of the day on which Cor-_
nelius four days ago had seen the vision.

CONVERSION OF CORNELIUS.—X. 30-35. Sit

Vers. 30-32. We have here a second account of the
vision of Cornelius. The angel is described, according to
his appearance, as “a man in bright clothing.” (See Matt.
xxvill. 3.) And whereas in ver. 4 the prayers and alms are
combined, and are said to ascend up together ; here they are
separated—the prayer is heard, and the alms are remembered
before God.

Ver. 33. ᾿Ενώπιον τοῦ Ocotd— before God; i.e. in the
presence of God. He who so wonderfully arranged matters
as to call us together, is present with us, to assist you in
speaking and us in hearing.

Ver. 34. Ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι προσωπολήμπτης ὁ Ocos—that God
is not a respecter of persons. Προσωπολήμπτης, a word un-
known in classical Greek, found only in this passage of the
New Testament, compounded of λαμβάνειν and πρόσωπον.
The meaning here is, that God has not a more favourable
regard to the Jews than to the Gentiles. It was no easy
lesson for Peter and the Jewish Christians to learn that the
distinction between Jews and Gentiles was now abolished—
that God is the God of the Gentiles as well as of the Jews.

Ver. 35. ᾿Αλλ’ ἐν παντὶ ἔθνει ὁ φοβούμενος αὐτὸν, ete.—
But in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteous-
ness, is acceptable to Him. These words have been perverted
as if they taught the superfluousness of faith in the doctrines
of Christianity. It has been urged, if a man be only a good
man, if he be religious and virtuous, he will be accepted
by God, whatever his faith may be: it is not creed, but
practice, that God requires. But evidently this is not the
doctrine taught us in these words. Even De Wette asserts :
“To understand this expression δεκτὸς αὐτῷ ἐστίν as if it
meant the equal value of all religions, and to discern in
it a palliation of indifferentism, is the greatest exegetical
trifling.”* Peter is speaking of the admissibility of the
Gentiles into the church of Christ: and he here asserts
that there is no natural obstacle in the way of any one who
fears God and works righteousness; that there is now no
barrier such as circumcision, no external hindrance, but that

1 De Wette’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 97.

378 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

all are equally acceptable to God. As Meyer well puts it,
δεκτὸς αὐτῷ ἐστίν indicates the capability in relation to God
to become a Christian, but not the capability to be saved
without Christ; or, as Bengel observes, non indifferentissimus
religionum, sed indifferentia nationum hic asseritur." “ As
to these memorable words of Peter,” observes Neander, “ the
sense cannot be, that in every nation, every one who only
rightly employs his own moral power will obtain salvation :
for had Peter meant this, he would, in what he added, an-
nouncing Jesus as Him by whom alone men could obtain
forgiveness of sin and salvation, have contradicted himself.
But evidently Peter spoke in opposition to the Jewish
nationalism : God judges meri not according to their descent
or non-descent from the theocratic nation, but according to
their disposition. All who, like Cornelius, honour God up-
rightly, according to the measure of the gift entrusted to
them, are acceptable to Him; and He prepares by His grace
a way for them, by which they are led to faith in Him who
alone can bestow salvation.” ”

Vers. 36-88. The grammatical construction and interpre-
tation of these verses is very difficult. The question resolves
into this: What governs τὸν λόγον (ver. 36) in the accusa-
tive? The different interpretations arrange themselves into
two classes: the one which unites ver. 36 with vers. 34, 35,
and the other which unites it with vers. 37, 38.

The first class of interpreters connect ver. 36 with the
preceding sentence. According to this view, the words are
to be translated as follows: “In truth, I φρο ϊξβηνό that God
is not a respecter of persons; but in every nation he that
feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to
Him: (this is) the word which He sent to the children of
Israel, preaching peace (between Jews and Gentiles) through
Jesus Christ: He is Lord of all.” This is the reading
adopted by Tischendorf, who places a comma after ἐστί in

er. 35.2 Some (De Wette, Baumgarten, Lange, Alford)

1 Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 228 ; Bengel, in loco.

? Neander’s Planting, vol. i. pp. 74, 75.
3 We have accordingly, following Tischendorf, so translated it in

CONVERSION OF CORNELIUS.—X. 36-38, 919

suppose that τὸν λόγον is governed by καταλαμβάνομαι, I
perceive, in ver. 34. Others (Beza, Castalio, Grotius) take
τὸν λόγον ὅν as equivalent to ὃν Aéyov—“ which word He
sent to the children of Israel.” Others (Rosenmiiller, Bengel)
suppose that κατά is to be supplied —“ according to the
word which He sent to the children of Israel.” Olshausen
supposes τὸν λόγον to be the accusative absolute, and connects
it with δεκτὸς αὐτῷ ἐστι. According to Ewald, τὸν λόγον,
etc., is an explanation of δικαιοσύνην--- God is no respecter
of persons; but in every nation, every one will be acceptable
to’ Him who practises that fear and righteousness which He
has declared to Israel in the gospel, promising peace through
Jesus Christ.”* The objection to all these interpretations
is, that it makes the sentence involved; and almost necessi-
tates us to give an improbable meaning to εἰρήνην, as if it
signified peace between Jews and Gentiles. (See below.)
The second class of interpreters (Erasmus, Luther, Hein-
richs, Kuincel, Meyer, Winer, Lechler, Wordsworth) con-
nect ver. 36 with what follows, and suppose τὸν λόγον to be
governed by ὑμεῖς οἴδατε of ver. 37.’ According to this inter-
pretation, there are three successive sentences governed by
ὑμεῖς οἴδατε. Peter indicates that what he was about to state
was already known to his hearers in a threefold manner:
1. As the word sent to the children of Israel—rov λόγον ;
2. As events which had happened—vo γενόμενον ῥῆμα;
3. As regards the person of Jesus of Nazareth—Inoodr, etc.’
One objection to this is, that the construction is interrupted
by a parenthesis, οὗτός ἐστιν πάντων Κύριος, preceding the
governing verb. “In Acts x. 36,” observes the distinguished
grammarian Winer, “dv λόγον is probably connected with

our version, although the other interpretation appears to us the more
correct.

1 Olshausen on the Gospels and the Acts, vol. iv. p. 374.

* Ewald’s Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. vi. p. 230.

8 According to this view, the words are to be translated: ‘‘ Ye know
the word which He sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace, peace,
through Jesus Christ: He is Lord of all; even the matter which hap-
pened thoughout all Judea,” ete.

. Ὁ Lange’s Bibelwerk; Apostelgeschichte, p. 172.

380 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

ver. 37; and the words οὗτος, ete.—which, as an independent
clause, express a leading thought, which Peter could not well
connect by a relative—form a parenthesis; and in ver. 37
the speaker, after this interruption, proceeds by an extension
of the thought.”* The strongest objection to this rendering
is, that Cornelius and his company did not know τὸν λόγον.
“These new hearers,” observes Bengel, “knew the history
concerning which Peter presently speaks; but they did not
as yet know its inner bearings and principles, concerning
which he treats in this verse.”” But to this it is answered
that the gospel is here spoken of in general terms, without
reference to its inner bearings and principles, as announcing
salvation through Jesus Christ; and it is not improbable that
Cornelius and his companions, considering their residence in
Judea, and their religious disposition, would be generally
acquainted with it.

Ver. 36. Eipnvnv—peace. Some (De Wette, Heinrichs,
Alford) understand this of peace between Jews and Gentiles,
as in Eph. ii. 17; but this is here an unnatural interpretation,
there being no allusion to such a peace in the context. Rather
by peace is here meant salvation in general (Meyer)—the
glad tidings of the gospel. ITavtwy—masculine, not neuter:
Lord of all men, and therefore of the Gentiles as well as of
the Jews. This description evidently refers not to God, but
to Jesus Christ, the last antecedent: He is the supreme Head
and King of men.

Ver. 37. Τὸ γενόμενον pnua—thé thing (spoken of) which
happened. ‘Pia, according to Meyer, signifies not the thing,
but the word: it resumes the delineation of τὸν λόγον, for-
merly mentioned. Τὸ ῥῆμα certainly does not signify merely
the thing, but the thing adverted to or spoken of ; hence the
matter, the report, the history:* You know the thing to
which the word (ὁ λόγος) refers. Γενόμενον has been trans-
lated, published, or which was spoken οἵ ; but as afterwards

1 Winer’s Grammar of the New Testament, p. 586.

2 Bengel’s Gnomon, in loco.

3 “"Piwe,” observes Dr. Wordsworth, ‘‘ means more than λόγος. Λόγος
is the word; but ῥῆροω is the matter or thing declared by the word.”

eee

CONVERSION OF CORNELIUS.—X. 38. 381

the events of the life of Jesus are mentioned, it is better to
translate it happened (see Luke ii. 15, iii. 2). ᾿Αρξάμενον
ἀπὸ τῆς Tadiraias—beginning from Galilee. Jesus Christ
commenced His ministry, and His fame had its beginning, in
Galilee.

Ver, 88, ᾿Ιησοῦν τὸν ἀπὸ Nafapé6—Jesus of Nazareth.
᾿Ιησοῦν governed by ὑμεῖς oldare—' Ye know Jesus.” Cor-
nelius must have been acquainted with the chief facts of the
life of Jesus. He was a resident in Ceesarea, which, although
at that time a Roman city, was within the country of Judea,
and formerly formed part of the kingdom of Herod and of
his son Archelaus. The fame of the miracles of Jesus must
during His life have reached Cxsarea; for although it does
not appear that He ever visited that city, yet He could not
have been far from it when He came to the coasts of Tyre
and Sidon. Several Christians would at this time be resident
in Cxsarea, and perhaps a Christian church was already
planted there by those who were scattered abroad at the per-
secution which arose about Stephen. Philip the evangelist,
we are informed, came to Ceesarea (Acts viii. 40), and without
doubt carried on his evangelistic labours in that city. Add
to all this, that the pious and inquiring spirit of Cornelius
would lead him to examine into the facts connected with the
life and death of Jesus. ‘Qs ἔχρισεν αὐτὸν ὁ Ocos—how God
anointed Him with the Holy Ghost. This refers chiefly to the
miraculous powers with which Jesus was endowed, and which
manifested themselves in healing all that were oppressed by
the devil. These miraculous powers were not unknown to
Cornelius: he must have heard the fame of the miracles of
Jesus. Ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς ἣν μετ᾽ avtod—because God was with
Him ; i.e. Jesus was the commissioned messenger of God
(John 11. 2). The mysterious relation between the Son and
the Father is not excluded by this general expression, but is
not prominently brought forward, because Peter accommo-
dates himself to his hearers, and leads them gradually to
higher views of the person and doctrine of Christ. “He
speaks somewhat sparingly of the majesty of Christ, so as to
adapt himself to the capacity of his hearers” (Bengel).

382 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. ;

Ver. 39. Ἡμεῖς wdprupes—we are witnesses. You know the
report, and we are witnesses of the facts. “Ov καὶ ἀνεῖλαν---
whom also they slew. By καί, “also,” etiam, there is a
reference to the other sufferings of Jesus. inflicted on Him
by the Jews. Peter was not ashamed to own that the
person whom he preached as the Messiah suffered an igno-
minious death, that He was taken by His own countrymen
and hanged on a tree; since the ignominy of His death was
removed by the circumstances which he proceeds to relate.
The shame of the cross was done away with by the glory of
the resurrection.

Vers. 40, 41. "Ἔδωκεν αὐτὸν ἐμφανῆ γενέσθαι --- showed
Him openly ; literally, “ gave Him to become visible.” Οὐ
παντὶ τῷ Aaw—not to all the people, i.e. not to all the Jews.
᾿Αλλὰ paptvcow—but to witnesses. The office of an apostle
was to bear witness of Christ’s resurrection (Acts i. 22).
II poxexerpotovnevors—chosen before. This word only occurs
here in the New Testament: it refers to the time when they
were chosen to be the apostles, which happened before the
resurrection of Christ. Οἵτινες συνεφάγομεν καὶ συνεπίομεν
αὐτῷ---τὐΐιο did eat and drink with Him ; referring not to the
communion of the apostles with Christ before His death
(Bengel), but to His eating and drinking with them after
His resurrection, as an evidence of its reality. The fact is
here stated, that Christ did not appear publicly after His
resurrection to the Jews, and so confound His enemies by
His presence; but that His appearance was restricted to
chosen witnesses. It would be out of place to assign the
reasons for this fact: this has already been well done by
Paley and other writers on the evidences. We would only
remark that the evidence which God gave of the resurrection
of Christ by the miraculous gifts conferred on the chosen
witnesses of it, was more convincing to the world than His
appearance in the temple for several days could have been.

Ver. 42. Τῷ λαῷ---ἰο the people. Not to the Gentiles as
well as to the Jews (Kuinel); but to the Jews, which is the
only meaning assignable to λαός in this connection (ver. 41).
Κρυτὴς ζώντων καὶ verpoav—Judge of the living and dead.

CONVERSION OF CORNELIUS.—x. 43, 44. 383

Olshausen understands by the living those who are spiritu-
ally alive, and by the dead those who are spiritually dead.
But this is certainly an erroneous interpretation, not justified
by anything in the context; and it is an important canon of
interpretation, “that a figurative sense of words is never
admissible except when required by the context” (Alford).
The words are to be taken in their obvious sense: by the
living are meant those who will be alive at the time of the
advent, and by the dead those who will then be dead.

Ver. 43. Τούτῳ πάντες oi προφῆται μαρτυροῦσιν---ἰο Him
all the prophets bear witness. All the prophets in general—
the prophetical class. It is to be observed that Peter first
mentions the person, miracles, and resurrection of Christ as
things that were known to Cornelius and his company; and
then contents himself with telling them in general that the
Jewish prophets bore witness to Him: and the reason of this
is, because he was at present addressing a company of Gentiles
to whom miracles were the most obvious proof of a divine
commission, but who were comparatively ignorant of the
Jewish prophecies. Compare the difference in Paul’s mode
of reasoning with the Jews and with the Gentiles: in the one
case his appeal is to prophecies, and in the other case to
miracles. Πάντα τὸν πιστεύοντα eis avtov—every one who
believes on Him. Here there is no limitation to the Jews,
but a declaration of the universality of Christianity: all
national restrictions were at anend. This statement is most
appropriately placed by Peter at the conclusion of his dis-
course.

Ver. 44. "Ett λαλοῦντος τοῦ Πέτρον τὰ ῥήματα--- While
Peter was yet speaking these words. Having declared the
universal nature of Christianity, Peter would doubtless have
applied it to the present circumstances; but the effusion
of the Spirit, while he was in the act of speaking, ren-
dered all further continuation of his discourse unnecessary,
and indeed impossible. Peter’s speech, like Stephen’s, is
left unfinished; but he was not, like Stephen, interrupted
by the outcries of a raging multitude, but by the inspired
utterances and praises of believers. ᾿Εἰπέπεσὲν τὸ Πνεῦμα

384 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES,

TO ἅγιον ἐπὶ mavras—the Holy Ghost fell on all. This
is the only example in the Acts of the miraculous in-
fluences of the Spirit being bestowed before baptism. In
general, this gift was conferred after baptism, and the im-
position of the hands of the apostles. Olshausen supposes
that this singular event happened for the sake of Peter, in
order that he might be assured that the Gentiles without
circumcision should be received into the church of Christ;
but Peter had already learned this truth by the vision granted
him. Meyer and De Wette think that the reason was on
account of the peculiar susceptibility of Cornelius and his
company. But others as susceptible received the Spirit in
the ordinary manner. The probability is, that this exception
to the general rule was made for the sake, not of Peter, but
of his companions, in order that they might be convinced of
the admission of the Gentiles without circumcision into the
kingdom of Christ, and might bear testimony in regard to it
before the church of Jerusalem. Thus were Cornelius and
his company consecrated to God as the first-fruits of the
Gentiles to Christ ; and thus did God, by directly receiving
them into the Christian church, through the effusion of His
Spirit, enjoin that they should receive the initiatory rite of
baptism.

Ver. 45. Οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς mictoi—believers of the cireum-
cision; i.e. the six Jewish Christians who accompanied Peter
from Joppa. Henceforth Luke distinguishes Christians
into two classes—those of the circumcision, and those of the
uncircumcision: calling the former Jews, and the latter
Gentiles or Greeks. “E&éornoav — were astonished. The
Jews had a proverb, that the Holy Ghost never rested upon
a Gentile; and this astonishment proves that such a notion
was prevalent even among the Jewish Christians. ᾿Εἰπὶ τὰ
€Ovn—on the Gentiles. Cornelius and his company repre-
sented, in the view of the astonished Jewish Christians, the
whole Gentile world: they rightly regarded it as a proof
/ that the barrier between Jews and Gentiles was now broken
down.

Ver. 46. Μαλούντων γλώσσαις --- speaking with tongues.

— και ων Σν χονναι ὁ... ... ...

CONVERSION OF COKNELIUS.—X. 47, 48. 385

For the phenomenon of speaking with tongues, see note at
the end of Section mr. Here, and in Acts xix. 6, it is
simply γλώσσαις, not ἑτέραις γλώσσαις, as in Acts ii. 4.
We are not therefore constrained to suppose that these Gen-
tile converts spoke in foreign languages, as the converts on
the day of Pentecost did; but the meaning may only be,
that they gave vent to inspired utterances, holy ejaculations :
for we are told that they heard them speaking with tongues,
and magnifying God.' Baumgarten thinks that in this
speaking with tongues there is a bond of connection between
the speaking on the day of Pentecost, which was the praises
of God uttered in foreign languages, and the speaking of
the Corinthian church, which consisted of ecstatic utterances.

Ver. 47. To tdwp—the water. Not water, as in our
version, but the water, as co-ordinate with the Spirit — τὸ
TIvedpa—“ Can any forbid the water, that these should not
be baptized, who have received the Spirit?’ The two great
parts of baptism—the sign, and the thing signified. ΑἹ-
though Cornelius and his company had received the sub-
stance, yet Peter did not consider the symbol unnecessary.
Non dicit: jam habent Spiritum, ergo aqua carere possunt
(Bengel).

Ver. 48. Προσέταξεν αὐτοὺς βαπτισθῆναι --- he ordered
them to be baptized. Peter did not baptize them himself, but
ordered others to perform that ceremony. So our Lord did
not Himself baptize, but His disciples; and it was Paul’s
usual custom to employ others to administer baptism (1 Cor.
1.17). ᾿Επιμεῖναι---ἰο remain. And, as we are in the next
chapter informed, Peter complied with the request: he re-
mained, and did eat with them (Acts xi. 3).

1 See however Wordsworth, in loco.

VOL. I. 2B

SECTION XXIIL
PETER’S APOLOGY.—Acts x1. 1-18.

1 But the apostles and the brethren who were throughout Judea heard
that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2 And when Peter
was come up to Jerusalem, they of the circumcision disputed with him,
saying, 8 Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with
them. 4 But Peter began and explained it in order to them, saying,
5 I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in an ecstasy I saw a vision,
a certain vessel, as a great linen cloth, descending, being let down from
heaven by the four corners; and it came even to me: 6 On which
when I had gazed, I considered, and saw quadrupeds of the earth, and
wild beasts, and reptiles, and birds of heaven. 7 And I heard also a
voice saying to me, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. 8 But I said, By no
means, Lord: for nothing common or unclean ever entered into my
mouth. 9 But a voice answered the second time from heaven, What
God has cleansed, that regard not thou as common. 10 And this was
done thrice, and all were drawn up again into heaven. 11 And, behold,
immediately three men, sent from Cesarea to me, stood at the house
where I was. 12 And the Spirit bade me go with them. And these
six brethren also accompanied me, and we entered into the man’s house.
13 And he related to us how he saw the angel in his house standing and
saying to him, Send to Joppa, and call for Simon, surnamed Peter:
14 Who shall speak to thee words by which thou and all thy house shall
be saved. 15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them,
as on us in the beginning. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord,
how He said, John baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized
with the Holy Ghost. 17 Since then God gave them the like gift as
to us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, how then was I able to
withstand God? 18 When they heard these things, they were silent,
and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles given
repentance unto life.

CRITICAL NOTES.

Ver. 8. Πᾶν before κοινόν of the textus receptus is found
in G, H, but is wanting in A, B, D, H, x, and is rejected
by recent critics. Ver. 9. Mou before φωνή is found in E,

386

PETER’S APOLOGY.—XI. 1, 2. 387

G, H, but omitted in A, B, s, and is accordingly rejected
by Tischendorf, Lachmann, and Meyer. Ver. 12. The
words μηδὲν διακρινόμενον, found in Εἰ, G, H, are wanting in
D; A, B, x read μηδὲν διακρίναντα or διακρίνοντα. Tischen-
dorf has omitted the words entirely. Ver. 13. After ᾿Ιόππην
the textus receptus has ἄνδρας, found in E, G, H, but wanting
in A, B, D, δὰ, and rejected by recent critics.

EXEGETICAL REMARKS.

Ver. 1. Οἱ ἀπόστολοι---ἰἶ6 apostles. It is quite uncer-
tain who of the apostles were at this time in Jerusalem. It
would seem that on Paul’s visit, shortly before this, only
Peter and James the Lord’s brother were there. Kata τὴν
*Iovéaiav—not in Judea (English version), but throughout
Judea. “Ori καὶ τὰ ἔθνη ἐδέξαντο τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ ---
that the Gentiles had received the word of God. This event
must have created great excitement among the Jewish Chris-
tians: the important consequences arising from it could
hardly be over-estimated. Hitherto the gospel had been
preached to those only who had embraced the Jewish re-
ligion—it was the gospel of the circumcision ; but now, by
the conversion of Cornelius, the door was opened to the
Gentiles. The conversion of Cornelius was rightly regarded
not as an exceptional case, but as a proof that the Gentiles
in general might without circumcision be received into the
church of Christ.

Ver. 2. Οἱ ἐκ repitopis—they of the circumcision. It is
disputed who are here meant. All the brethren then in Jeru-
salem belonged to this class: they were either Jews or Jewish
proselytes. Accordingly some (Olshausen, Meyer, Stier)
suppose that all the Christians in Jerusalem, including the
apostles themselves, contended with Peter—found fault with
him on account of his free intercourse with the Gentiles.
But it would seem that of ἐκ περιτομῆς are here mentioned
as a special class among believers, and not as a mere designa-
tion of the disciples in general. Accordingly others (Calvin,
Lechler, Lange, Alford) restrict this description to those who

388 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

were strict Jews—who gave special prominence to circum-
cision, and to the observance of the Mosaic law in general.
The phrase seems afterwards to have been employed to de-
signate the Judaizing Christians—those who regarded the
observance of the law of Moses, if not absolutely essential
to salvation, yet of the greatest importance; and Luke pro-
bably here employed the phrase with the meaning which was
attached to it at the time he wrote (Alford). It is not im-
probable that even some of the apostles may have at this
time belonged to this class; but it is highly improbable that
all the apostles and brethren would unite in finding fault
with Peter. Avexpivovto πρὸς avtov—disputed with him.
From this it is evident that believers knew nothing of the
supremacy of Peter, much less of the infallibility which the
Romish Church ascribes to him: they freely call in question
his conduct, and find fault with him.

Ver. 8. Ὅτι εἰσῆλθες πρὸς ἄνδρας ἀκροβυστίαν ἔχοντας, etc.
— Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.
It is to be observed that they do not find fault with Peter for
baptizing the Gentiles, but for holding intercourse with them,
and especially for eating with them (comp. Gal. ii. 21). They
accuse him of breaking the Jewish laws with regard to the dis-
tinction of meats. This was the great offence which in their
view he had committed—a grave offence against the notions
and practice of the legally disposed among the brethren (see
note to Acts x. 28). This may be considered as the com-

mencement of the Jewish controversy which troubled the early —

Christian church. The great controversy which then existed
was not concerning any of those doctrines which afterwards
gaye rise to our modern controversies, such as the divinity of
Christ, the nature and extent of the atonement, and predes-
tination ; but it was concerning the bearing of the Jewish reli-
gion on the Gentiles. The point discussed was, whether the
gospel should be preached to the uncircumcised Gentiles—the
admissibility of the Gentiles into the church of Christ.
Afterwards, in the celebrated Council of Jerusalem, the
question was revived in a somewhat different shape—whether
the converted Gentiles were bound to be circumcised, and to

Ee ,. « πὰ»

PETER’S APOLOGY.—XI. 4-12. 389

keep the Jewish law. “ Certain taught the brethren, say-
ing, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses,
ye cannot be saved” (Acts xv. 1). And after this point was
settled, various other points of dispute arose with regard to
the extent to which the Mosaic law was binding on the
Gentiles, and on Christians in general. This controversy
was chiefly carried on by the Apostle Paul on the one side,
and by the Judaizing Christians on the other; and this gave
rise to the first great schism which divided the church, when
the Ebionites separated themselves, and formed a Jewish
Christian sect, about the beginning of the second century.

Ver. 4. ᾿Αρξάμενος δὲ Ilétpos—But Peter began and ea-
plained ἐξ in order to them. 'The conduct of Peter is here to
be commended. He might have silenced his opponents by
reason of his apostolic authority ; and to this course he must
have been tempted when unjustly accused, because he had
faithfully obeyed the intimation of God. But instead of
this, he defends himself in the spirit of gentleness, forbear-
ance, and condescension: he calmly enters upon his apology,
and merely states the facts, allowing these to speak for him.

Vers. 5-10. In these verses we have the second account
of the vision of Peter. The variations in the accounts are
slight and unimportant. ᾿Εκστάσις and ὅραμα are here
mentioned as synonymous. Instead of the simple expression
καθιέμενον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, “ let down to the earth,” we have the
more enlarged form, καθιεμένην ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ ἦλθεν
ἄχρις ἐμοῦ, “let down from heaven, and it came even to
me.” The attention of the apostle is here particularly
specified: εἰς ἣν ἀτενίσας κατενόουν, “on which, when I
gazed, I considered,”—words which are omitted in the mere
description of the vision. Instead of οὐδέποτε ἔφαγον, “1 did
never eat,” we have οὐδέποτε εἰσῆλθεν εἰς TO στόμα μου,
“never entered into my mouth.” And instead of ἀνελήμφθη,
was received up, we have the more expressive word ἀνεσ-
πάσθη, was drawn up. For the explanation of the vision,
and remarks upon it, see notes to ch. xi. 10-16.

Vers. 11, 12. Here we have also a second account of
Peter’s journey, accompanied by the messengers of Cornelius

390 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

to Cesarea. The three men standing at the house where
Peter was, furnished the interpretation of the vision ; and
the intimation of the Spirit to him was an assurance of its
correctness. Ἦλθον δὲ σὺν ἐμοὶ καὶ οἱ ἕξ ἀδελφοὶ οὗτοι---
and these six brethren also accompanied me. From this it
would appear that the six brethren from Joppa, who came
with Peter to Czesarea, also accompanied him to Jerusalem.
Probably Peter took them with him, because he expected
that his conduct might be called in question by the church
of Jerusalem, or on account of tlie extreme importance of
the event, in order that they might be there as witnesses of
what took place in the house of Cornelius. They could
testify to the direct effusion of the Holy Ghost upon Cor-
nelius and his household, before Peter received them into
the Christian church by baptism. It was of great import-
ance that the facts should be fully attested. The existence
of Christianity as a universal religion, and not as a mere
Jewish sect, depended on the decision arrived at in this
dispute: it was the most important crisis through which the
church had yet passed, since its birth on the day of Pente-
cost.

Vers. 13, 14. Here we have the third account of the vision
of Cornelius. Tov dyyedov—the angel ; 1.6. the angel already
mentioned in ch. x. Luke writes from the standpoint of his
readers, or Peter mentions the angel definitively, because he
himself was already informed about his appearance. Pro-
-bably, however, the church of Jerusalem had already re-
ceived a general account of the vision. Καὶ πᾶς ὁ οἶκός σου
—and all thy house. 'These words are here added. The
household of Cornelius were similarly disposed with himself
(Acts x. 2), and were therefore included in the message of
the angel. And the event justified the declaration ; for while
Peter ἜΚ the Holy Ghost fell on all them who heard ἀπε
word (Acts x. 44).

Ver. 15. ᾿Επέπεσεν τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς ail
Holy Ghost fell on them. It does not appear that this effusion
of the Spirit took place in a visible form, as was the case
with the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost, when cloven

PETER’S APOLOGY.—XI. 16, 17. 391

tongues as of fire rested on each of the disciples; but the
descent of the Spirit was made evident in an audible manner
by Cornelius and his friends speaking with tongues and
magnifying God. Ὥσπερ καὶ ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς---αβ onus ; referring
to the fact of the descent of the Spirit, and not necessarily
to its form. ᾿Εν dapyj—in the beginning. The beginning
here referred to is evidently the memorable day of Pentecost,
when the Holy Ghost in a visible form descended on the dis-
ciples. This may well be regarded as the beginning of the
Christian dispensation, the birthday of the church of Christ,
just as the announcement of the law at Sinai was regarded
as the beginning of the Jewish dispensation: both events
happened at the same period of the year, namely at Pente-
cost. If, as is most probable, the call of Cornelius is to
be dated after Paul’s departure from Jerusalem to Tarsus,
then a period of nearly eight years had elapsed between the
effusion of the Spirit at Pentecost and the admission of the
Gentiles into the church of Christ: for so long a period had
Christianity been restricted to the Jews.

Ver. 16. ᾿Εμνήσθην δὲ τοῦ ῥήματος Kupiov—And Iremem-
bered the word of the Lord, how He said, John indeed baptized
with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. This
word of the Lord was uttered by Him after His resurrection,
and shortly before His ascension (Acts i. 5), with a probable
reference to the words of the Baptist himself (Luke iii. 16).
(See note to Acts i. 5.) Peter remembered the word. The
saying was forcibly brought to his recollection by the event
which happened. In the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on
the Gentiles, he saw the fulfilment of the promise which the
Lord had made to His apostles. Hence he regarded the
Gentiles as included in the pronoun ὑμεῖς : the promise em-
braced them. If, then, argues the apostle, the Lord Himself
bestowed on them the substance of baptism, by making them
partakers of the Holy Ghost, surely the symbol was not to be
denied them. By receiving the Spirit, they were already
constituted members of the church of Christ.

Ver. 17. Ei οὖν τὴν ἴσην δωρεὰν ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Θεὸς ὡς
καὶ Huiv—Since then God gave them the like gift as He did to

392 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

us; ἴ.6.. Since God made-no distinction between them and
us, bestowing upon both the gift of the Holy Ghost. Πισ-
tevcacw—who believed. This participle has been variously
understood. Some (Beza, Heinrichs, Kuinceel, Humphry)
unite it with adtots—on their believing ; but this is the remote
antecedent, and is thus contrary to ordinary usage. Others
(Alford, Hackett) suppose that it refers to both pronouns—
αὐτοῖς and 7juiv—setting forth the analogy between the two
cases on believing. All received the same gift of the Holy
Ghost in the same character, viz. that of believers. The
most natural interpretation, however, is to unite it to the
subject nearest to it, 7uév—to us who believed. So Meyer,
Bengel, Lechler. Nor is this, as some object, an unmeaning
addition; for it marks the special character of the Jewish
Christians, on account of which the Holy Ghost was bestowed
on them. As Bengel well observes: “ It was not, says Peter,
because we had circumcision, but because we had faith, that
the Holy Ghost was given to us.” ἢ

᾿Εγὼ δὲ τίς ἤμην δυνατὸς κωλῦσαι τὸν Oecv—How then
was I able to resist God? 'Two questions are conjoined in
one, Who am I, to resist God? And, Was I able to resist
God? The first question contrasts the insignificance of man
with the majesty of God, and the second question the weak-
ness of man with the omnipotence of God. The meaning
evidently is: God, by the effusion of His Spirit, had made
known His will that the Gentiles should be received into the
Christian church. How then was it possible for me to oppose
myself to this revealed will of God? To forbid or hinder
that which God had determined to be done, was not only an
act of folly or impiety, but an impossibility.

Ver. 18. ᾿Ακούσαντες δὲ ταῦτα ἡσύχασαν--- When they heard
these things, they were silent. The opponents of the apostle
were silenced by his statement of the facts of the case: they
ceased to contend. The greater part of them were probably
convinced of the propriety of the apostle’s conduct ; and thus
their objections were changed into exclamations of praise and
thanksgiving to God: “They glorified God, saying, Then

1 Bengel’s Gnomon, in loco.

PETER’S APOLOGY.—XI. 18. 393

hath God to the Gentiles given repentance unto life.” Thus
the controversy was quieted for a time: the Jewish Christians
as a body acquiesced in the admission of the Gentiles with-
out circumcision into the church of Christ. Shortly after-
wards the controversy broke forth anew: it was difficult for
the Jews to relinquish their peculiar privileges as the favoured
people of God: it required much teaching and many reve-
lations and dispensations of Providence, before they could
assent to the fact that the law of Moses, having served its
purpose, was at once fulfilled and abolished in Christ Jesus.

SECTION XXIV.
THE FIRST GENTILE CHURCH.—Acts xt. 19-80.

19 Now they who were dispersed, owing to the persecution which
arose on account of Stephen, travelled as far as Phoenicia, and Cyprus,
and Antioch, declaring the word to none but to the Jews only. 20 But
some of them were Cyprians and Cyrenians, who, when they were come
to Antioch, spoke to the Greeks, preaching the Lord Jesus. 21 And the
hand of the Lord was with them; and a great number who believed
turned to the Lord.

22 And tidings concerning them came to the ears of the church which —
was in Jerusalem ; and they sent forth Barnabas, to go as far as Antioch :
23 Who, when he came, and saw the grace of God, rejoiced, and ex-
horted them all with purpose of heart to cleave to the Lord. 24 For
he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: anda
great multitude was added to the Lord. 25 Then he departed to Tarsus,
to seek Saul; and having found him, he brought him to Antioch.
26 And it came to pass, that during a whole year they assembled in
the church, and taught much people ; and that the disciples were called
Christians first in Antioch.

27 And in those days came prophets from Jerusalem to Antioch.
28 And there arose one of them, named Agabus, and signified by the
Spirit that there should be a great famine over the whole empire: which
also came to pass in the reign of Claudius. 29 Then the disciples, every
man according to his ability, determined to send relief to the brethren
dwelling in Judea: 80 Which also they did, sending it to the elders
by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.

CRITICAL NOTES.

Ver. 20. The two readings of this verse are, ᾿Ελληνιστάς,
Hellenists, adopted by the textus receptus; and “Ελληνας,
Greeks. The former reading is best attested by external
authorities: it is found in B, E, G, H; whereas the latter
is found only in A, D. The Codex Sinaiticus (8) reads
ἐλάλουν καὶ πρὸς τοὺς εὐωγγελιστάς, probably a mistake for

994

THE FIRST GENTILE CHURCH —XI. 19. 395

ἑλληνιστάς : this has been changed by a later hand into

Ἕλληνας. Nevertheless the latter reading, “Ελληνας, is
preferred by the great majority of recent critics, as it alone
gives a good sense. It would be nothing new or strange
that the dispersed preached to the Hellenists; whereas it was
a remarkable and most important fact that they preached
to the Greeks, or uncircumcised Gentiles. Ver. 25. “O Bap-
vaBas, found in E, G, H, is wanting in the more important
mss. A, B, D, 8, and is accordingly rejected by Lachmann,
Tischendorf, and Meyer. Ver. 26. Αὐτούς after ἐγένετο δέ
is found in G, H; whereas A, B, E, καὶ read αὐτοῖς, the read-
ing adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Bornemann.
Ver. 28. The feminine μεγάλην ... ἥτις, found in A, B, x,
is by Lachmann, Winer, and Tischendorf preferred to the
masculine μέγαν... ὅστις, found in D, G, H. Καίσαρος,
found in E, G, H, is wanting in A, B, Ὁ), 8, and is rejected
by recent critics.

EXEGETICAL REMARKS.

Ver. 19. Οἱ μὲν οὖν Siacrrapévtes—Then they who were dis-
persed. Otdv—then, a connective particle. Some (Kuineel,
Schneckenburger, Lange) suppose that this section is directly
connected with the conversion of Cornelius; that, in conse-
quence of the intelligence of his conversion, the preachers of
the dispersion addressed themselves to the Greeks, or uncir-
cumcised Gentiles. _Olshausen, although he does not go the
length of maintaining such a direct connection, supposes the
force of οὖν to be that Luke would indicate that “this first
attempt to preach the gospel to the Gentiles was speedily
followed by others.” The passage is rather to be considered
as a resumption of the narrative of the labours of the
preachers of the dispersion: indeed, the precise words by
which they are here described, of μὲν οὖν διασπαρέντες, occur
in Acts viii. 4. Luke had there informed us that these
evangelists went everywhere preaching the word in the dis-
tricts of Judea and Samaria; and now he relates a further
progress which the gospel made in consequence of this dis-

396 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

persion : “ Now they who were dispersed travelled as far as
Pheenicia, and Cyprus, and Antioch.” ’Ao τῆς θλίψεως---
owing to the persecution : in consequence of it. Τῆς γενομένης
ἐπὶ STepavw—which arose concerning Stephen. So Erasmus,
Beza, Luther, Castalio, Meyer, De Wette. Others (Hein-
richs, Kuincel, Olshausen, Humphry) render it after Stephen
—post Stephanum: an admissible translation, but perhaps
not so suitable.?

Διῆλθον ἕως Φοινίκης -- travelled as far as Phoenicia.
Pheenicia was a district lying along the coast of the Medi-
terranean, to the north of Palestine. It is supposed to have
received its name on account of the palm trees with which it
abounded.” The native name of the district seems to have
been Canaan, as it was the only part of ancient Canaan
which was never subdued by the Israelites (Matt. xv. 21, 22).
Its extent varied at different times. It is generally given as
120 miles long, with an average breadth of 15 miles, extend-
ing from the mouth of the river Eleutherus on the north to
Mount Carmel on the south. Its chief cities were Tyre,
Sidon, Berytus (the modern Beirit), Byblus, and Tripolis.
Formerly Pheenicia was the most commercial country in the
world; but in the days of the apostles its commerce had
somewhat declined, as Antioch to the north and Cexsarea to
the south had arisen as rivals to Tyre. Under the Romans,
it formed part of the province of Syria. We are here in-
formed that those who were dispersed preached the gospel in
Pheenicia; and we have elsewhere in the Acts incidental
notices of there being Christians in its two principal cities,
Tyre (Acts xxi. 4) and Sidon (Acts xxvii. 3). Καὶ Κύπρου
—and Cyprus. We defer our remarks on this large and
fertile island until Acts xiii., where we have an account of
its being visited by the great Christian missionaries Paul and
Barnabas.

Kai ᾿Αντιοχείας---απὰ Antioch. This celebrated city is,
next to Jerusalem, the most important in the apostolic

1 See Winer’s Grammar of the New Testament, p. 410.

2 According to others, it derived its name from the purple dye for
which it was so celebrated.

THE FIRST GENTILE CHURCH.—XI. 19. 397

history; for as the church of Jerusalem may be said to be
the mother church of the Jewish Christians, so the church
of Antioch may be said to be the mother church of the
Gentile Christians. It was at Antioch that the first Gentile
church was formed; and from it, as his starting-place, Paul
set out on his three great missionary journeys (Acts xiii.
1, 4, xv. 40, xviii. 22, 23). Antioch was situated on the
banks of the river Orontes, about sixteen miles from the
Mediterranean, with which it communicated by means of its
port Seleucia (Strabo, xvi. 2. 7). It was built partly on
a level, and partly on the northern slope of Mount Silpius.
The situation was well chosen both for maritime commerce
and inland traffic. “It united,’ as Howson remarks, “the
inland advantages of Aleppo with the maritime opportu-
nities of Smyrna.”?

Antioch was founded by Seleucus Nicator about three
hundred years before Christ, and received its name in
honour of his father Antiochus. Under the Seleucidz
kings of Syria it flourished as their capital. It was composed
of four cities joined in one, hence called by Strabo Tetra-
polis (Strabo, xvi. 2. 4), and was surrounded by a wall fifty
feet high and fifteen feet broad. Its principal street, formed
by Antiochus Epiphanes, was four miles in length, adorned on
either side with colonnades. The Jews formed no inconsider-
able part of the population. Josephus tells us that Seleucus
Nicator made them free citizens, and gave them equal
privileges with the Greeks and Macedonians. They were
permitted to live under their own laws; and as in Alexan-
dria, they had their own governor, known by the name of
Alabarch. They were also very successful in making prose-
lytes among the Greeks (Ant. xii. 3.1; Bell. Jud. vii. 3. 3).
Under the Romans the prosperity of Antioch iricreased.
Pompey made it a free city, and it became the capital of the
important province of Syria. “ Antioch,” says Strabo, “ is
not much inferior in riches and magnitude to Seleucia on
the Tigris, and Alexandria in Egypt” (xvi. 2.5). “ Antioch,”
observes Josephus, “is the metropolis of Syria, and without

1 Conybeare and Howson’s St. Paul, p. 149.

398 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

dispute deserves the place of the third city of the habitable
earth under the Roman empire, both in magnitude and also
in other marks of prosperity” (Bell. Jud. iii. 2. 4). In the
third century it is said to have had a population of 300,000
free citizens; which, allowing for a nearly equal number of
slaves, gave a population of upwards of half a million. The
population must have been mixed—composed of Syrians,
Greeks, Romans, and Jews: the Greek language would, how-
ever, predominate as the vehicle of ordinary communication.
Antioch is described as the abode of luxury and wealth,
and as excelling all other oriental cities in the magnificence
of its palaces. After the establishment of Christianity it
became one of the five patriarchates—Rome, Constantinople,
Alexandria, and Jerusalem being the other four. War and
natural convulsions were the cause first of its decline, and
at length of its ruin. It is said to have been eleven times
taken and pillaged, and four times destroyed by earthquakes.
In one earthquake, which occurred in the reign of Justinian,
A.D. 526, 250,000 are said to have perished (Gibbon, ch.
xlui.). The once flourishing capital of the East has now
become a wretched town: its splendid buildings are re-
duced to hovels; the immense population of 500,000 is now
diminished to scarcely 10,000 ; and nothing but its ruins
remain as evidence of its former greatness.”

Μηδενὶ λαλοῦντες τὸν λόγον εἰ μὴ μόνον *Iovdalouy —
preaching the word to none but to the Jews only. At first,
and probably for a considerable time, the preachers of the
dispersion restricted themselves to the Jews and Jewish

1 The two cities superior to Antioch were Rome and Alexandria.
‘* Antioch and Alexandria,” observes Gibbon, ‘‘ looked down with dis-
dain on a crowd of dependent cities, and yielded with reluctance to the
majesty of Rome alone” (Roman History, ch. ii.).

2 For accounts of Antioch, see Winer’s biblisches Realwérterbuch ;
Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible; Conybeare and Howson’s St. Paul ;
Merivale’s History of the Romans under the Empire, vol. v. p. 14, second
edition ; Lewin’s Life and Episiles of St. Paul, vol. i. p. 107 ff.; and
Renan’s Les Apétres, ch. xii. Maps of ancient Antioch, taken from
Malela, otherwise called John of Antioch, are given by Lewin, and
Conybeare and Howson.

THE FIRST GENTILE CHURCH.—XI. 20. 399

proselytes. Like the other preachers, they still considered it
unlawful to preach to the Gentiles: they were ignorant of
the great truth, that the Gentiles should be received into the
church of Christ without circumcision; a truth of which
the apostles themselves were ignorant, until it was miracu-
lously revealed to Peter.

Ver. 20. Twes ἐξ at’tav—some of them ; 1.6. not some of
the Jews (Kuincel), but some of the preachers of the dis-
persion. ἄνδρες Κύπριοι καὶ Κυρηναῖοι --- Cyprians and
Cyrenians ; i.e. natives of the island of Cyprus, and of the
city of Cyrene in Africa, consequently Hellenistic Jews.
The Hellenists, by coming in frequent contact with men of
other nations, were more liberal-minded than the Hebrews;
and consequently they were the first to break through the
restraints of Jewish legalism. Among the Cyprian Jews,
mention has already been made of Barnabas. The Cyrenian
Jews were present at the day of Pentecost, and had a syna-
gogue of their own at Jerusalem ; and among the preachers
at Antioch there is special mention of Lucius of Cyrene.

᾿Ελάλουν καὶ τοὺς “EXnvas—spoke to the Greeks. See
Critical Note to this verse. The two rival readings are:
᾿Ἑλληνιστάς, the Hellenists or Greek Jews; and” EAXqvas,
the Greeks, or uncircumcised Gentiles. The decided pre-
ponderance of external evidence is in favour of ᾿Ελληνιστάς:
only two uncial mss., the Alexandrian and the Beze, read
Ἕλληνας; yet there are strong reasons for adopting this
_ latter as the true reading, inasmuch as it alone conveys an in-
telligible meaning. 1. There was nothing worthy of remark
in these men preaching to the Hellenists, who had long
before this been received into the Christian church; whereas
their preaching to the Gentiles was a new feature of the
case. 2. There is an implied contrast between ver. 19 and
ver. 20. At first, those who were dispersed preached only to
the Jews; but afterwards some of them preached to others
who were not Jews. But there is no contrast between the
Jews and the Hellenists: indeed, the Hellenists are included
in the general term ᾿Ιουδαῖοι ; whereas there is a decided
contrast between the Jews and the Greeks—the circumcised

400 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

and the uncircumcised. For these reasons the reading
Ἕλληνας, though more feebly attested, has been generally
adopted by modern critics. So Griesbach, Bengel, Lach-
mann, Tischendorf, Bornemann, De Wette, Wieslon Meyer,
echior, Alford, etc.

The time of this occurrence is a matter of dispute.
Some hold that it took place before the conversion of Cor-
nelius, and that in reality this preaching of the gospel to
the Greeks at Antioch was the first call of the Gentiles.
But this is doubtful: Peter, it would seem, distinctly claims
to have been the first to preach to the Gentiles (Acts xv. 7).
Others think that it was in consequence of information con-
cerning the conversion of Cornelius ; Peter’s example having
emboldened them to speak to the Greeks. But there is no
hint of this in the text. It would rather appear that this
preaching was spontaneous on the part of the Hellenistic
teachers. It would seem that both events were nearly
simultaneous, and independent of each other; the preaching
of Peter to Cornelius being, however, the first in point of
time. The idea was dawning upon the church that the
gospel should be preached to the Gentiles; and this occurred
in two different places, at Caesarea and Antioch, about the
same time, without any connection with each other,—just
as the Reformation arose almost simultaneously and inde-
pendently in Germany, Switzerland, and France.

Ver. 22. ᾿Ηκούσθη δὲ ὁ λόγος, ete.— But the report concern-
ing them came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem. The
church in Jerusalem, as the mother church, seems to have
exercised at this time a general superintendence over the
other churches. The news of the conversion of Cornelius
had probably before this reached Jerusalem; perhaps Peter
had already made his defence; and thus the prejudices of
the strict Jews toward preaching the gospel to the Gentiles
would be somewhat abated. ᾿Εξαπέστειλαν Βαρνάβαν διελ-
θεῖν ἕως ’Avtwyelas—they sent forth Barnabas to go as far
as Antioch. Tworemarkable points of difference are observ-
able between this mission of Barnabas to Antioch, and the
mission of Peter and John to Samaria. 1. The apostles sent

THE FIRST GENTILE CHURCH.—XI. 23, 24. 401

Peter and John; whereas the church in Jerusalem, as a
body, sent Barnabas. 2. Those who were sent to Samaria
were original apostles; whereas it was Barnabas, a man of
note indeed among the brethren, but not one of the original
apostles, who was sent to Antioch. Perhaps by this time
most of the apostles had left Jerusalem. Barnabas was,
however, in all respects a suitable person for such a mission,
both on account of his personal character (ver. 24), and
because he was connected with those Cyprian and Cyrenian
Jews who now preached to the Greeks, being himself a
Hellenist, and a native of Cyprus. By sending Barnabas,
the church in Jerusalem showed the apostolic conception
of the Christian church. They wished to preserve unity
among the disciples, to draw all believers together, and thus
to guard against Christianity being split up into a number of
small sects: the Jewish and Gentile Christians were to be
the members of the same community.’ The object of the
mission of Barnabas was to examine into the facts of the
case, to guard against any abuses that might possibly have
occurred, and especially to prevent all schism and divisions;
for there was a danger of a Gentile Christian church at
Antioch springing up, as a rival to a Jewish Christian church
at Jerusalem,—a danger which, under Providence, this mis-
sion of Barnabas averted.

Vers. 23, 24. Barnabas, when he came to Antioch, found
nothing to correct, but much to rejoice in. When he saw
the grace of God, as it appeared in the numerous conversions
of the Gentiles, he rejoiced, and exhorted them with full
purpose of heart to cleave to the Lord. Iapexader—he
exhorted. Compare Acts iv. 36, vids παρακλήσεως. Ὅτι---
because. This refers not to the reason why the church of
Jerusalem sent Barnabas to Antioch, but to the reason why
Barnabas rejoiced at the success of the gospel among the
Gentiles. ᾿Ανὴρ ἀγαθός---α good man ; referring not merely
to his uprightness of character (Meyer), but to the benevo-
lence of his disposition—a benevolent man. This is the evi-
dent meaning of ἀγαθός in Rom. v. 7, where it is distinguished

1 See Olshausen on the Gospels and Acts, vol. iv. p. 378.

VOL. I. 20

402 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

from δίκαιος. His benevolence effectually prevented him
censuring anything that might be new or strange in these
preachers to the Gentiles, and caused him to rejoice in their
success, and in the remarkable proofs of the divine blessing
upon their labours.

Ver. 25. Ἐξῆλθεν δὲ εἰς Ταρσὸν ἀναζητῆσαι SatrAov —
Then he departed to Tarsus to seek Saul. The conversion
of numerous Gentiles rendered additional assistance neces-
sary for their instruction. Hence the thoughts of Bar-
nabas were directed toward Paul, with whose miraculous
conversion he was intimately acquainted. ‘ He needed
assistance. He needed the presence of one whose wisdom
was higher than his own, whose zeal was an example to all,
and whose peculiar mission (to the Gentiles) had been
miraculously declared.’* We were already informed that
Paul, on his departure from Jerusalem, went to Tarsus
(Acts ix. 30). How long he had been in Tarsus before
Barnabas sought him, is wholly uncertain. Burton supposes
a lengthened residence of nine years; whereas Wieseler
shortens the period to six months or a year.? Anger fixes it
at two years. It is improbable that, having already entered
upon his apostolic career in Jerusalem, he would have re-
mained long in obscurity in Tarsus: a year, or a year and a
half, was probably the utmost. Accordingly, four or five
years would have elapsed since Paul’s conversion.

Ver. 26. Χρηματίσαι τε πρῶτον ἐν ᾿Αντιοχείᾳ τοὺς μαθητὰς
Χριστιανούς---απὰ that the disciples were called Christians first
at Antioch. Xpnuaticar depends upon ἐγένετο. Χρημα-
τίζειν, to transact business, to negotiate on state affairs, to
intimate the response of an oracle; and in later Greek, to
give a name, to be called. (See note to Acts x. 22.) Some
(Benson, Doddridge) render it, “were called by divine ap-
pointment ;” but if this were its meaning, the name “ Chris-
tians” would have more frequently occurred in the mouth of
believers themselves. It is only once more used in the New
Testament in the sense of to be called (μουχαλὶς χρηματίσει,

1 Conybeare and Howson, vol. i. p. 146.
? Wieseler’s Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters, Ὁ. 147.

THE FIRST GENTILE CHURCH.—XI. 26. 403

Rom. vii. 8).} The name “ Christians” was first given to
the disciples at Antioch, but by whom is not mentioned. It
is improbable that it was given by the disciples themselves.
The name only occurs twice again in the New Testament,
and in both instances as proceeding from those who were
not Christians. Thus Agrippa said to Paul, “ Almost thou
persuadest me to be a Christian” (Acts xxvi. 28); and Peter
says, “If any man suffer as a Christian (the name given to
them by their enemies), let him not be ashamed” (1 Pet.
iv. 16). If it had originated in the church, we would have
expected its more frequent occurrence. The names by which
believers distinguished themselves were οὗ πιστοί, οἱ μαθηταί,
οἱ ἀδελφοί, of ἅγιοι, of τῆς ὁδοῦ. Still less can we sup-
pose that it was given them by the Jews. It is not to be
imagined that they would give the sacred name Χριστός to
those whom they regarded as heretics and apostates. The
name which they applied to them was οἱ Nafwpato. (Acts
xxiv. 5), a term of contempt. It therefore remains that the
name proceeded from the Gentiles. Its form is in favour of
this. The Romans called a political or religious body by the
name of its leader or founder; as, for example, the Herodians,
the Epicureans, etc. So we read in the civil wars of the
Pompeians and Ceesarians, and under the empire of the
Othonians and Vitellians. Ewald supposes that the name
was given by the Roman government at Antioch; but such
a supposition is unnecessary: for although the word is of
Roman origin, yet the Greeks would naturally adopt the
Latin form of their political rulers. It would seem that the
Gentiles, mistaking the appellative ὁ Χριστός for ἃ personal
name, used the term Χριστιανοί to denote those who believed
that Jesus was the Christ. Believers were called Christians,
not Jesuits.” So Tacitus: Vulgus Christianos appellabat.
Auctor nominis ejus Christus, Tiberio imperitante, per procu-
ratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus erat (Ann. xv. 44).
The bestowal of the name is a proof of the great progress
1 See Olshausen on the Gospels and the Acts, vol. i. p. 65.

2 Tt is singular that whereas Christian is an honourable name, Jesuit
is frequently used as a term of contempt.

404 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

which Christianity had made among the Gentiles. So long
as Christianity was confined to the Jews and Jewish prose-
lytes, the Christians would not be distinguished from them,
and would be regarded by the Gentiles as a Jewish sect;
but now the fact that numerous Gentiles were received
without circumcision into the church was a proof that Chris-
tianity was different from Judaism; and thus the disciples
could no longer be regarded in the same point of view as
the Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, and other Jewish sects.
Hence arose the necessity of a distinctive name; and no name
could be more appropriate than that of their great Founder.
Some suppose that the name was given in a spirit of ridi-
cule ;! but there is no reason for this supposition, except that
from a few notices it would appear that the people of Antioch
were famed for their wit. There does not appear to have
been anything sarcastic in the name itself. But although, in
all probability, the name proceeded from the enemies of the
church, yet believers not only soon adopted it, but gloried in
it: it became the name above every name; believers suffered
martyrdom rather than renounce it; and the declaration,
“T am a Christian,” was their noble confession before their
heathen persecutors.

Ver. 27. Κατῆλθον ἀπὸ ‘Iepocortpwv—came from Seru-
salem. Not fled from Jerusalem (Ewald), as the persecu-
tion had long before this ceased; nor sent by the church of
Jerusalem, of which there is no intimation; but came of
their own voluntary impulse. IIpo¢jtar—prophets. These
inspired teachers are frequently mentioned in the New Testa-
ment. They appear to have exercised their gifts in super-
natural teaching ; having a divine insight into the truths of
the gospel; piercing with the eye of the soul into spiritual
realities. The mere foretelling of the future does not seem
with them, any more than with the prophets of the Old
Testament, to have been an essential part of their prophetical
gifts.

Ver. 28. "AyaSos — Agabus. Agabus at this time must
have been comparatively a young man, as twenty years

1 As in modern times the names Quakers, Puritans, Methodists, etc.

THE FIRST GENTILE CHURCH.—XI. 28. 405

afterwards he is mentioned as coming from Jerusalem on
purpose to warn Paul not to approach that city (Acts xxi.
10). Some, without reason, suppose that he was one of the
seventy disciples; according to tradition, he suffered martyr-
dom at Antioch. ᾿Εσήμανεν διὰ τοῦ [Ivetpatos—signijied
by the Spirit. The prophecy of Agabus is characterized as a
real prediction—a revelation of the Holy Ghost. Hence all
natural explanations are to be rejected as contrary to the
text; as that the famine had already commenced, or that
Agabus saw the symptoms of it in deficiency of the crop and
in dearness of Provisions (Eichhorn, Heinrichs, Winer).
ἘΦ ὅλην τὴν oiKoupevny—over the whole empire. Different
meanings have been given to this expression. Some trans-
late it, over the whole land, and suppose that the land of
Palestine is meant." But these words were spoken to the
Gentiles at Antioch : therefore, although ἡ οἰκουμένη might
mean ‘the habitable land,” yet they ‘could not understand
that Palestine was meant ef it ; it would be more natural in
them to refer it to Syria. The word is commonly used by
Greek and Roman writers to signify the Greek and Roman
world, and is hence employed to signify the Roman empire.
“Hrs καὶ ἐγένετο ἐπὶ KXavdiov—which also came to pass in
the reign of Claudius. Claudius reigned thirteen years, from
the year 41 to 54. In his reign, and therefore within these
years, this famine took place. It is not implied that this
prediction of Agabus was made before Claudius commenced
to reign, but it is merely an intimation by the historian when
the famine occurred.

The reign of Claudius was disastrous, -by reason of the
number of famines which occurred in it. History records
four. In his first and second years (A.D. 41, 42) there was
a great famine in Rome (Dion Cass. ix. p. 949); in his
fourth year (A.D. 44), Josephus mentions a great famine
which prevailed in Judea (Ant. xx. 2. 5); in his tenth year
(A.D. 50), Eusebius records a great famine in Greece (Euseb.
Chron. i. 39); and in his twelfth year (A.D. 52), Rome was
again visited by so severe a famine, that the people rose in

1 See this opinion ably maintained by Lardner, vol. i. pp. 132-134.

406 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES,

rebellion, and Claudius was in imminent danger of his life
(Tacitus, Ann. xii. 43; Suetonius, Vit. Claud. xix.). These
famines appear to have been local; but their frequency
proves that there must have been a scarcity over the whole
empire. The particular one here alluded to was probably
that which visited Judea in the years 44, 45; for it was to
Judea that the disciples of Antioch sent assistance. This
famine, Josephus tells ‘us, occurred when Cuspius Fadus
and Tiberius Alexander were governors of Judea. Now
Fadus came to Judea on the death of Herod Agrippa 1., in
the autumn of 44, and Tiberius Alexander succeeded him
about a year and a half afterwards. This famine was so
severe, that many died for want of food. It was relieved
by the generosity of Helena queen of Adiabene, and of her
son Izates, Jewish proselytes, then in Jerusalem. Helena,
Josephus informs us, bought corn at great expense in Cyprus
and Egypt, and caused it to be distributed among those who
were in need (Joseph. Ant. xx. 2.5; 5.2.) Eusebius alludes
to the same famine ; and he adds: “ You will find this state-
ment in accordance with the Acts of the Apostles, where it is
said that, according to the ability of the disciples at Antioch,
they determined each one to send to the assistance of those
in Judea” (Euseb. Hist. ecl. ii. 12).

Ver. 29. Τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν ἐν τῇ ᾿Ιουδαίᾳ ἀδελφοῖς ---ἰο the
brethren dwelling in Judea. It is disputed whether this relief
was sent to Judea before the famine broke out, in dependence
on the prophecy of Agabus, or after it had commenced.
Neander and Baumgarten adopt the former view ; Wieseler,
Lechler, and Meyer, the latter." The latter view has been
supported by the following considerations: Until the famine
had commenced, the disciples could not have known that Judea
was the place specially adverted to in the general prophecy
of Agabus; and until the occasion arose, the relief would be
unnecessary. Besides, it would seem from the next chapter,
that Barnabas and Paul were in Jerusalem with their con-
tribution shortly after the death of Herod Agrippa (Acts
xii. 25); and according to Josephus, the famine then com-

1 See Wieseler’s Chronologie, Ὁ. 149.

THE FIRST GENTILE CHURCH.—XI. 30. 407

menced. The Gentile Christians, in thus sending assistance
to the brethren of Judea, manifested a spirit of true Christian
liberality: they felt deeply indebted to them for spiritual
benefits, and therefore they embraced the opportunity of
repaying them in temporal gifts (Rom. xv. 27). Some
suppose that the Christians in Jerusalem had become im-
poverished by reason of the community of goods established
among them; but whatever prejudicial effect such an insti-
tution might have had upon the wealth of the church, this
relief was sent, not on account of this impoverishment, but
to meet a temporary necessity. As Queen Helena ministered
to the wants of the Jews in general during the famine, so
did these Christians of Antioch minister to the wants of their
Jewish brethren, who, on account of their religion, might
have been neglected in the national distribution.

Ver. 30. ᾿Αποστείλαντες πρὸς τοὺς mpecRutépouvs—sending
it to the elders. This is the first time that the elders are
mentioned in the Acts. We have no account of the origin
of the eldership, as we have of the deaconship. It is gene-
rally supposed to have been instituted after the pattern of
the Jewish elders attached to the synagogues. Some sup-
pose that by the elders here the Jewish elders are meant, and
that the collection was sent, not specially to the Christians,
but to the Jews in general. Others think that Christians
are meant, those who still retained the office of elder in
the synagogues. But certainly the most natural interpreta-
tion is, that the elders or overseers of the Christian church
are here meant. Οἱ πρεσβύτεροι are in the New Testament
identical with of ἐπίσκοποι. See Acts xx. 17,28; Phil. 1.1;
1 Tim. i. 5, 7; 1 Pet. v. 1, 2. So Theodoret, on Phil. i. 1,
observes: ᾿Επισκόπους τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους καλεῖ: ἀμφότερα
γὰρ εἶχον κατ᾽’ ἐκεῖνον τὸν καιρὸν τὰ ὀνόματα (quoted by
Meyer). Se Alford observes: “ The title ἐπίσκοπος, as
applied to one person superior to the πρεσβύτεροι, and
answering to our bishop, appears to have been unknown in
the apostolic times.”

Ava χειρὸς BapvaBa καὶ Σ᾿ αὐλου---ὔν the hands of Barnabas
and Saul. Here.a difficulty occurs. How are we to explain

408 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

this second visit of Paul, after his conversion, to Jerusalem,
with what he himself says in Gal. ii. 1? According to the
account in the Epistle to the Galatians, he went up to
Jerusalem three years after his conversion, when he con-
tinued for fifteen days; and fourteen years after that, he
went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas. Some (Zeller, Meyer)
hold that these accounts are utterly irreconcilable, and that
there is an error here in Luke’s history. Neander also
expresses himself in a doubtful manner. “ What conclusion,”
he asks, ‘must we draw from this, relative to the account in
the Acts? Nothing more than this: that the tradition which
Luke followed, and which united Paul and Barnabas in their
labours at this period, joined them here together, although
for some reason this was an exception; or else Paul might
have been chosen as a delegate, but some unknown circum-
stance might have prevented his taking the journey. At
least we can more easily admit an oversight here, than resolve
to do violence to Paul’s own declaration.”* Various attempts
have been made ata solution of this difficulty. De Wette
supposes that both Paul and Barnabas went into Judea, but
that Barnabas only went to Jerusalem. But this is an
evasion of the difficulty ; for, as Zeller observes, “ if we are
constrained, in spite of the assertion of the author, to affirm
that Paul was not at Jerusalem, what assurance have we that
Barnabas went thither, and that the whole narrative has any
historical foundation?”? Both Paul and. Barnabas must
have gone to Jerusalem ; for we are expressly told that they
returned from it (Acts xii. 25). Schleiermacher supposes
that this journey of the eleventh chapter is identical with
that of the fifteenth chapter, and that it was originally men-
tioned in ch. xi. 30 in anticipation, but that the compiler of
the Acts mistook it for a separate journey, and by ch. xii. 25
represented it as such. But such a supposition does not
Jessen the difficulty, but only removes it to another place: it
still supposes an error on the part of Luke. Others, again,
think that this journey, and not that mentioned in ch. ΧΥ.; is

1 Neander’s Planting, vol. ii. p. 105.
2 Zeller’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 223.

THE FIRST GENTILE CHURCH.—XI. 30. 409

the same as the one mentioned in Gal. ii. But the dates do
not correspond. This journey took place shortly after the
death of Herod Agrippa 1., and consequently in the year 44,
which by no calculation will admit of being fourteen years
after Paul’s conversion, as was the case with the journey
mentioned in Galatians. The true solution seems to be,
that Paul in his epistle does not mention all his visits to
Jerusalem, but only those which were of importance for
the object he had in view—the establishment of his apostolic
office. There may have been other visits not mentioned
during the fourteen years which intervened between the two
visits of which he writes. Now in this visit it does not
appear that he met with the apostles, but only with the
elders: Peter at least was absent, having retired from Jeru-
salem after his miraculous release from prison (Acts xii. 17).
When, then, we consider the purpose Paul had in view in
the Epistle to the Galatians, and the nature of this visit, the
argumentum a silentio cannot be applied as an objection
against its occurrence. This view of the subject is adopted
by Ewald, Baumgarten, Lechler, and Lange.

SECTION XXV.
PERSECUTION BY HEROD.—Acrs xm. 1-19.

1 Now, about that time, Herod the king laid hands on certain of the
church to vex them. 2 And he killed James the brother of John with
the sword. 3 And seeing that it was pleasing to the Jews, he pro-
ceeded to seize on Peter also. Then were the days of unleavened bread.
4 Whom having apprehended, he put in prison, delivering him to four
quaternions of soldiers to keep him, intending after the passover to
bring him forth to the people. 5 Peter therefore was kept in the
prison ; but earnest prayer was made by the church to God concerning
him. 6 But when Herod was about to bring him forth, the same night
Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains; and
the keepers before the door guarded the prison. 7 And, behold, an
angel of the Lord stood by him, and a light shone in the room ; and he
smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, saying, Arise quickly. And
his chains fell off from his hands. 8 And the angel said to him, Gird
thyself, and bind on thy sandals. And he did so. And he saith unto
him, Cast thy garment about thee, and follow me. 9 And having gone
out, he followed him; and did not know that it was true which was done
by the angel; but he thought he saw a vision. 10 And having passed
through the first and second watch, they came to the iron gate that leads
to the city; which opened to them of its own accord: and having gone
out, they went along one street; and immediately the angel departed
from him. 11 And when Peter was come to himself, he said, Now I
certainly know that the Lord has sent His angel, and has delivered me
out of the hand of Herod, and from all the expectation of the people
of the Jews. 12 And having become aware of it, he came to the house
of Mary the mother of John, surnamed Mark; where many were
assembled, and were praying. 13 And as he knocked at the door of
the gate, a maid came to hearken, named Rhoda. 14 And when she
knew Peter’s voice, she opened not the gate for joy; but running in,
told how Peter stood before the gate. 15 And they said to her, Thou
art mad. But she affirmed confidently that it was so. Then they said,
It is his angel. 16 But Peter continued knocking : and having opened,
they saw him, and were astonished. 17 But he, beckoning to them
with the hand to be silent, related how the Lord had brought him out
of prison. And he said, Tell these things to James and the brethren.

410

PERSECUTION BY HEROD.—XIL. 1. 411

And he departed, and went to another place. 18 But when it was
day, there was no small commotion among the soldiers as to what had
become of Peter. 19 And when Herod had sought for him, and found
him not, he examined the keepers, and ordered them to be led to
execution.

CRITICAL NOTES,
Ver. 5. “Exrevijs, found in E, G, H, is preferred by

Tischendorf and Lachmann to ἐκτενῶς, found in A, B, δ.
Περί, found in A, B, D, δὲ, is preferred by Tischendorf and
Lachmann to ὑπέρ, found in Εἰ, G, H. Ver. 8. The simple
verb ζῶσαι of A, B, D, δὲ, is preferred by Tischendorf
and Lachmann to the compound verb περιζῶσαι, found in
E, G, H. Ver. 13. Αὐτοῦ before τὴν θύραν, found in
A, B, D, 8, is by recent editors preferred to τοῦ Πέτρου,
attested by E, G, H.

EXEGETICAL REMARKS.

Ver. 1. Kar’ ἐκεῖνον δὲ τὸν xatpov—Now about that time.
The date of this persecution by Herod was A.D. 44, the year
in which he died. The time here referred to is the one
year’s residence of Paul and Barnabas at Antioch, before
their visit to Jerusalem; as the famine, for the relief of
which they were sent, did not happen until after the death
of Herod, when Fadus was governor of Judea. (See
Wieseler’s Chronologie, p. 152.)

Ἡρώδης ὁ βασιλεύς --- Πογροά the king. This monarch,
called by Josephus, Agrippa, and commonly known by the
name of Herod Agrippa 1., was the son of Aristobulus, and
the grandson of Herod the Great; he was the nephew of |
Herod Antipas, the brother of Herodias, and the father of
that Agrippa before whom Paul made his defence. Sent at
an early age to Rome, he obtained the favour of the Emperor
Tiberius, ini was educated along with his son Drusus.
Toward the close of that emperor’s reign he fell into dis-
“grace, on account of paying open court to Caius Caligula ;
and in consequence of using some unguarded expressions he

412 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

was cast into prison, where he remained for six months,
until the death of Tiberius. Caius Caligula, on his accession
to the imperial throne, set him at liberty, changed his iron
chain for one of gold of the same weight, and bestowed
upon him the tetrarchies of Philip (Iturea and Trachonitis),
and of Lysanias (Abilene), with the title of king (Ant. xviii.
6.10). This excited the envy of his uncle Herod Antipas,
the tetrarch of Galilee, who also coveted the royal. dignity.
In order to obtain it he repaired to Rome, but was there
accused by his rival Agrippa with such effect, that Herod
Antipas was banished to Lyons, and the tetrarchy of Galilee
was added to the dominions of Agrippa (Ané. xvili. 7. 2 ;
Bell, Jud. ii. 9. 6). After the murder of Caligula, Herod
took an active part in securing the succession of Claudius,
and for this important service was rewarded by the gift of
Samaria and Judea (Ant. xix. 5.1). Thus Judea was for
a short period partially freed from the Roman yoke, and had
in Herod Agrippa for the last time a monarch of its own.
He ruled over all the territories which were formerly pos-
sessed by his grandfather Herod the Great; and to these
were added Abilene, or the kingdom of Lysanias (Bell. Jud.
ii. 11.5). The revenue which he derived out of these do-
minions was very great. According to Josephus, it amounted
to twelve millions of drachme (Ané. xix. 8. 3), a sum which
has been calculated to be equal to £425,000 sterling. He is
described by Josephus as an excellent monarch, mild in his
temper, and liberal to all men; generous in his tastes, and
desirous of securing the good opinion of his subjects; not
cruel like his grandfather, but of a gentle and compassionate
disposition ; loving to reside in Jerusalem, and strict in his
observance of the Mosaic Jaw (Ant. xix. 7.3). This cha-
racter is certainly drawn by a partial pen. Herod Agrippa
was evidently a man of considerable ability, but crafty and
extravagant, and always acting with a selfish regard to his
own interests. He may not have had the splendid talents of
his grandfather, but his reign was not stained by many acts
of cruelty. His reign was of short duration: he ruled four
years under Caligula, during three of them over the tetrarchies

PERSECUTION BY HEROD.—XII. 2. 413

of Philip and Lysanias, and in the fourth year Galilee was
added to his government ; but the duration of his reign over
the whole of Palestine, under Claudius, amounted only to
three years (Ant. xix. 8.2). Although he left a son, the
Agrippa of the Acts, yet he did not succeed; and with the
death of Herod the Jewish kingdom became for ever extinct.
Judea was again reduced to a Roman province, and Cuspius
Fadus was sent as its governor.' ν

᾿Επέβαλεν τὰς χεῖρας---ἰαϊά hands on. Not to be taken in
the sense of ἐπεχείρησε (Acts ix. 29), attempted (Heinrichs,
Kuineel), but in the ordinary sense of the words, laid hands
on. Herod seized on certain of the members of the church,
in order to maltreat them. The full construction is, ἐπέβαλεν
Tas χεῖρας ἐπί τινας τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τοῦ κακῶσαι
αὐτούς (Alford). Κακῶσαί τινας τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας---
to vex certain of the church. The enemies of the church had
now increased in numbers and influence. At first they were
confined to the members of the Sanhedrim, especially the
Sadducean faction, whilst the people were favourable. After-
wards, in the persecution which arose about Stephen, the
people and their rulers united; but still the civil power in
the hands of the Romans was not hostile. But now the civil
power in the person of Herod is combined with the eccle-
siastical power of the chief priests and the fanaticism of the
people, against the disciples of Christ.

Ver. 2. ’Aveirev δὲ ᾿Ιάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν ’Iwdvvov—he
slew James the brother of John. This was James the son
of Zebedee, called “ the Elder,” to distinguish him from the
other apostle of the same name, James the son of Alpheus.
He was one of Christ’s three favourite disciples who only
were permitted to witness the raising of the daughter of
Jairus, the transfiguration, and the agony in the garden.
He was the first of the apostles who suffered martyrdom.
Our Lord’s prediction concerning him was fulfilled. He
now drank of the cup of which Christ drank, and was bap-

1 Coins of Herod Agrippa 1. have been preserved, with the inscrip-

tion, βασίλευς weyas Αγρίππᾶς φΦιλοκαίσαρ. See Akerman’s Numismatic
Illustrations, p. 38 ; Madden’s Jewish Coinage, p. 106.

414 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

tized with the baptism with which He was baptized (Matt.
xx. 23). The time of his martyrdom was shortly before the
passover of the year 44, and the place was Jerusalem.
Whereas the death of Stephen is described at great
length, the martyrdom of James, one of the chief apostles,
is related in two words: avetAev—payalpy. Various reasons
have been assigned for this brevity. Lekebusch, with much
probability, supposes that Luke’s design was to mark the pro-
gress of the church; and for this reason he gives the account
of Stephen’s martyrdom at length, because the disciples, dis-
persed on account of it, were the bearers of the gospel to a
distance; whereas no such effect followed the martyrdom of

James: it was not the signal of a new persecution, by which —

an impulse was given to the diffusion of the gospel.’ Meyer
thinks that Luke intended to write a third history, in which
he would give a narrative of the labours of the other apostles,
besides Peter and Paul, and that he reserved for it the
account of the death of James.” Baumgarten thinks that
Luke had nothing further to relate; that James died without
giving any testimony. Lcclesiastical tradition, however, has
supplied what was apparently wanting in Luke’s narrative.
Clemens Alexandrinus tells us that the man who led James
to the judgment-seat was converted by his testimony, and
confessed himself a Christian. Both were led away to die.
On the way he entreated James to forgive him, who replied,
‘“‘ Peace be to thee,” and kissed him; and then both were
beheaded at the same time (EKuseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 9).
Maxaipn—with the sword. The Romans had deprived the
Jews of the power of life and death; but Judea was at this
time under the rule of a native prince who possessed that
power. Slaying with the sword was a Roman form of

punishment ; but according to Lightfoot, it had been adopted

by the later Jews, and was regarded by them as a disgraceful
death.’ John the Baptist was slain in a similar manner by

Herod Antipas.

1 Lekebusch’s Quellen der Apostelgeschichte, pp. 218, 219.
2 Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 247.
8 Lightfoot’s Hore Hebraice, vol. iv. p. 105.

1
Ὶ
᾿
j
.
|

eee eee ee

PERSECUTION BY HEROD.—XIl. 3, 4. 415

Ver. 3. [dav δὲ ὅτε ἀρεστόν ἐστιν τοῖς “Iovdalous—and
seeing that it was pleasing to the Jews. Josephus tells
us that Herod Agrippa was greatly desirous of popularity.
He had before his accession to the throne of Judea gained
the favour of the Jews, by employing his influence, at
great personal risk, to dissuade Caligula from erecting his
statue in the temple of Jerusalem. He fixed his chief resi-
dence in Jerusalem, and was strict in the observance of the
Mosaic law. To please the inhabitants of Jerusalem, he
relieved them of the house-tax, and erected splendid public
buildings. He also commenced to surround the city with a
new wall, so as to render it impregnable. “ This king,’
observes Josephus, “was by nature very liberal in his gifts,
and ambitious to oblige people with large donations; and he
rendered himself illustrious by the many costly presents he
made. He took delight in giving, and rejoiced in living in
good reputation” (Ant. xix. 7. 8)... To obtain popular ap-
plause was one of the chief motives which influenced the
conduct of Herod; and for this reason he sacrificed the life
of James, and now desired to sacrifice the life of Peter. It
was pleasing to the Jews. The people were now hostile to
the Christians. The Pharisees, the popular faction, had
declared against them. Perhaps observing the numerous
conversions to Christianity, they regarded the Jewish religion
as in danger, and looked upon Christians in general, as they
did on Stephen, as blasphemers of Moses and of God. The
reception also of the Gentiles without circumcision must have
increased the Jewish fanaticism. “Hoav δὲ ai ἡμέραι τῶν
atvpov—Then were the days of unleavened bread. For seven
days at the feast of the passover the Jews had to eat un-
leavened. bread (Ex. xii. 15). The passover itself was par-
taken on the first day, but the feast was continued six days
longer; hence it is called “the feast of unleavened bread”
(Ex. xii. 13).

Ver. 4. Téccapow τετραδίοις otpatiwtav—to four quater-
nions of soldiers. A quaternion of soldiers was a company of

1 See an account of Herod Agrippa’s popular measures, in Biscoe on
the Acts, pp. 48-50.

416 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

four, so that there were sixteen who guarded Peter. They
would be appointed to guard in turns; four during each of
the four watches into which the night was divided. Accord-
ing to some, two soldiers were with Peter within the prison,
and two before the door; but according to others, the two
soldiers within, who slept with Peter, remained all night, and
did not belong to the quaternion who guarded the prison out-
side. Meta τὸ racya—after the passover. Wieseler supposes
that the day of the passover, the 14th of the month Nisan,
was the day of Peter’s imprisonment; and that the day after,
the 15th, was designed to be the day of his execution. But
by πάσχα here is meant not merely the day on which the
passover was partaken, but the whole paschal feast, which
lasted seven days, corresponding with ai ἡμέραι τῶν ἀζύμων.
According to the strict Jews, it was not reckoned lawful to
defile their festal days with executions ;? and Herod Agrippa
prided himself on being a strict observer of the law. The
rule, however, was not observed in the case of Christ, who
was crucified on the paschal week.

Ver. 5. Ὃ μὲν οὖν Πέτρος ἐτηρεῖτο ἐν τῇ budaxn—Peter
therefore was kept in prison. Herod put James to death,
and seized on Peter with the intention of slaying him also,
because they were the two most prominent leaders of the
Christian church in Jerusalem: the one was designated by
the Lord ‘“ the Son of Thunder,” and the other “ the Rock.”
᾿᾽Εκτενής, earnest, a word peculiar to the later Greek (1 Pet.
iv.8). Τὸ oppose the power of Herod, the church betakes
itself to earnest prayer,—a weapon more powerful than all
the resources of the monarch of Judea.

Ver. 6. Τῇ νυκτὶ éxetvn—on that night ; namely, the night.
before the day when Herod had resolved to bring him forth
to the people. “Μεταξὺ δύο στρατιωτῶν δεδεμένος ἁλύσεσιν
duciv—between two soldiers, bound with two chains. It is cer-
tainly not said that Peter was chained to these two soldiers,
but only that he was bound with two chains. However, we
learn that it was the Roman mode of securing prisoners to

1 Wieseler’s Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters, p. 215.
2 Non judicant die festo was the rule given in the Talmud.

PERSECUTION BY HEROD.—XII. 7-9. 417

chain them to the arms of soldiers. In general, the prisoner
was bound only to one soldier: the soldier, we are informed,
had the chain fastened to his left arm, while the prisoner
had it fastened to his right. Occasionally, for greater
security, the prisoner was bound to two soldiers, one on each
side. Thus probably Paul was to be secured, when the chief
captain commanded him to be bound with two chains (Acts
xxi. 33). Herod himself, when cast into prison by Tiberius,
was thus bound; Josephus speaks “of the soldier to whom
he was bound” (Ant. xviii. 6.7). This practice of chaining
prisoners to soldiers is frequently adverted to by ancient
writers ; thus in the Epistles of Seneca we read, Quemadmo-
dum eadem catena et militem et custodiam copulat (Epist. v.).

Ver. 7. Ἄγγελος Kupiov—an angel of the Lord; not “the
angel of the Lord,” a phrase which does not occur in the
Acts. There was an objective appearance of an angel to
Peter, and not a mere impression or vision, as is evident
from the narrative. Οἰκήματι---ἴη the room. Not the prison
(Meyer), but the cell in which Peter was confined.

Ver. 8. Περιβαλοῦ τὸ ἱμάτιόν cov—Cast thy garment about
thee. The cloak or outer garment, which had been cast off
before going to sleep. Peter was to do all things leisurely
to gird himself, bind on his sandals, and put on his upper
garment, as if he were in no danger.

Ver. 9. "E&eX@av—having gone out; that is, from his cell.
᾿Εδόκει δὲ ὅραμα Brerrew—he thought he saw a vision. He
was taken with such surprise, and thrown into such confusion,
that he was not aware that what had happened was a real
occurrence, but thought that it was a dream. There is a
beautiful ecclesiastical lesend which this deliverance of Peter
recalls to recollection. It is said that, when Peter was in his
last imprisonment at Rome, he made his escape; and as he
went along the street, he met the Lord Jesus bearing His
cross. Peter asked Him whither He was going? Our Lord
replied, To Rome to be crucified. Peter returned immediately
to prison, and on the following day was crucified, and by his
own request with his head downwards—considering himself
unworthy to suffer death in the same manner as his Master did.

VOL. I. 2D

418 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

All rationalistic explanations to account for this deliverance
of Peter are in direct opposition to the narrative. According
to Hezel, a flash of lightning shone into the prison, and
loosened the chains of Peter. According to Eichhorn and
Heinrichs, the jailor or others, with his knowledge, delivered
Peter, without the apostle being conscious to whom he owed
his freedom; and as the soldiers are a difficulty in the way
of this explanation, they suppose that a sleeping draught was
administered to them. All this is mere trifling. Others
endeavour to. get rid of the miraculous by questioning the
correctness of the narrative. Meyer and De Wette think
that the truth is here so mixed up with the mythical element,
that it is impossible to affirm what actually took place. Baur
supposes that Herod himself delivered the apostle, as he
found in the interval that the people were not gratified by
the death of James, but that, on the contrary, that proceeding
had made him unpopular.” Neander passes over the narrative
with the remark: ‘ By the special providence of God, Peter
was delivered from prison.” * When once the miraculous in
the narrative is given up, the only resource is the mythical
theory—to call in question the truth of the history—as all
natural explanations are wholly unavailing. The narrative
here, however, has no resemblance to a myth: there is a
naturalness and freshness about it, which remove it from all
legends of a mythical description.*

Ver. 10. Διελθόντες δὲ πρώτον φυλακὴν καὶ Sevrépav—
and having passed through the first and second watch. After
leaving his cell, Peter and his angelic guide passed the first
and second watch—that is, the other two soldiers of the
quaternion who watched before the door. Some, however,

1 Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 249; De Wette’s Apostelgeschichte, p.
105. So also Dr. Davidson observes: ‘‘ The basis of the story is some
unexpected deliverance of the apostle, which was afterwards set forth in
a mythic dress” (New Introduction, vol. ii. p. 251).

2 Baur’s Apostel Paulus, vol. i. p. 184.

3 Neander’s Planting, vol. i. p. 102.

* So Renan himself admits: ‘‘ The account in the Acts,” he observes,
‘Cis so lively and just, that it is difficult to find any place in it for any
prolonged legendary elaboration.”

PERSECUTION BY HEROD.—XII. 11, 12. 419

assert that the word διελθόντες (passed through) implies that
there were more than one soldier who constituted each watch.
Τὴν πύλην τὴν cdnpav—the tron gate. The gates of fortified
places in the East were covered with iron. This was the
outside gate, which led from the prison to the street. The
prison is supposed to have been the tower of Antonia.

Ver. 11. Ἔν ἑαυτῷ yevouevos—came to himself. All was
done in such haste, that Peter had no time to recover from his
surprise; but now, being left by the angel, and finding himself
in the street, he recovered his self-consciousness: he became
aware that his deliverance was no dream, but a reality.

Ver. 12. Σ᾿ υνιδών --- having become aware. Not, “when
he had considered” (Vulgate, Grotius), either “what he
ought to do” (Bengel), or “the state of matters” (Beza) ;
but, when he had become aware of his deliverance from
prison. Συνεῖδω, to see, or perceive with oneself, hence to
become aware. Τῆς Μαρίας τῆς μητρὸς ᾿Ιωάννου, τοῦ ἐπικα-
λουμένου Mapxov—of Mary the mother of John, surnamed
Mark. John was a common name among the Jews, and
therefore he is distinguished by his Latin surname Marcus.
He was, without doubt, the same who accompanied Paul and
Barnabas to Cyprus (Acts xii. 25, xiii. 5, xv. 27). He was
sister’s son to Barnabas—o ἀνεψιὸς Βαρνάβα (Col. iv. 10)
—and consequently the Mary here mentioned was the sister
of Barnabas. There is no reason to discredit the commonly
received opinion, that this Mark was the same whom Peter
calls his son (1 Pet. v. 13)—that is, his convert—and who
was the author of the second Gospel. Οὗ ἦσαν ἱκανοὶ συνη-
θροισμένοι, καὶ mpocevydpevor—where many were assembled,
and were praying. This was a midnight assembly of the
Christians, either for fear of their Jewish enemies, or more
probably on account of the pressing necessity and importance
of the case (ver. 5). The primitive Christians in those times
of peril held their sacred assemblies in the night season ; and
afterwards in peaceful times these nocturnal assemblies were
continued, owing to their greater solemnity, and on account

1 The meaning of ὠνεψός is, however, disputed, many critics rendering
it, not ‘‘ nephew,” but ‘‘ cousin.”

420 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

of a prevalent persuasion that the Lord Jesus would come
during the night.

Ver. 13. Τὴν θύραν τοῦ murA@vos—the door of the gate.
Θύρα is probably the small outside door that formed the
entrance from the street into the court or area where the ~
house was; πυλῶν was the large door or gate of the parti-
cular house.! ᾿Ονόματι ‘Podn—named Rhoda, or Rose. The
Jews frequently gave to their female children the names of
plants and flowers: thus Susannah signifies a lily, Esther a
myrtle, and Tamar a palm tree.

Ver. 15. ‘O ἄγγελος ἐστιν avtod—it is his angel. Some
(Hammond, Basnage, Du Veil) render this, “It is his mes-
senger,” and suppose that the disciples thought a messenger
had been sent by Peter out of the prison. No doubt this is
a common meaning of ἄγγελος ; but against this interpreta-
tion are the considerations, that the disciples could not have
expected such a messenger, and that it is expressly said that
Rhoda recognised the voice of Peter. Others take ἄγγελος
in the sense of πνεῦμα, and suppose that the disciples thought
that it was the spirit of Peter which came to give them a
premonition of his death ; but the notion that the soul leaves
the body of a man before his death does not seem to have
been adopted by the Jews, nor would they have employed
the word ἄγγελος to express it. The only meaning of which
the words are capable is—it is his angel. ‘The idea of
guardian angels is here alluded to. This belief is chiefly
founded on these words of our Lord: “I say unto you,
That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of
my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. xviii. 10). This
notion, that each individual has his guardian angel, was
strongly maintained by the early Fathers. Thus Chrysostom,
in commenting on this passage, observes: “Thus it is true
that each one of us has his own angel: ὅτε ἕκαστος ἡμῶν
ἄγγελον ἔχει. How far the doctrine of guardian angels is
scriptural is a difficult question. The words of our Saviour
may be interpreted as asserting the guardianship of angels
in general, and not that a particular angel is attached to

1 For another interpretation, see Robinson’s Lexicon—dvpa.

PERSECUTION BY HEROD.—XII. 17, 18. 421

each individual. And as to the phrase in the text, there is
in it no announcement of doctrine, but merely the expres-
sion of the opinion of those assembled in Mary’s house. The
belief in guardian angels was not confimed to the Jews, but
was common both to the Greeks and Romans. Every scholar
will recall the famous instance of Socrates.

Ver. 17. ᾿Απαγγείλατε ᾿Ιακώβῳ --- announce to James.
This James is doubtless the so-called bishop of Jerusalem,
who afterwards is several times mentioned in the Acts and
in the Epistle to the Galatians. He appears to have been
a person of considerable weight and importance among the
apostles. Paul calls him one of the pillars of the church.
As to the question whether he was the same with James
the son of Alphzeus, one of the original apostles, see note
at the end of this section.

᾿Εξελθὼν ἐπορεύθη εἰς ἕτερον torov—having departed to
another place. Whither Peter betook himself is not men-
tioned. Meyer thinks that it is not necessary to suppose
that he even left the city; for ἐξελθών, he observes, does
not signify relicta urbe, but relictéd domo. But it is not said
that he entered into the house, and certainly the natural
meaning is that he left the city. The reason of his de-
parture was a regard to personal safety. Baumgarten
thinks that this was unworthy of an apostle, and that he
left because the tie which bound the apostles to Jerusalem
was now broken: “After such abominations, Jerusalem
neither could nor ought to be the peculiar and permanent
resting-place of the apostles.”* But this is a reason foreign
to the text. Peter was delivered from prison in order to
escape danger; and his departure was no cowardice, but
merely a compliance with the intimations of Providence.
He followed the injunction of Christ: “ When they perse-
cute you in one city, flee ye to another.”

Ver. 18. Γενομένης δὲ juépas—but when it was day. Peter
must have escaped during the last watch, otherwise his de-
parture would have been observed before daybreak, when
the guard was changed. If, however, the two soldiers in

1 Baumgarten’s Apostolic History, pp. 318, 314.

422 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

the cell remained all night, this supposition is unnecessary.
Ἔν τοῖς otpati@tais—among the soldiers ; that is, among the
sixteen soldiers who were appointed to guard Peter, and
especially among the particular quaternion who were on
guard when Peter made his escape, and who’ would have
the most reason to fear the consequences.

Ver. 19. ᾿Εκέλευσεν arraxOjvat—ordered them to be led
to execution. ’Amdyw signifies to lead away, and in a
judicial sense to lead to execution ; hence ἀπαχθῆναι in the
passive, to be led to execution, to be put to death. Thus Pliny
in his celebrated letter to Trajan, speaking of the Christians,
says: ‘‘ When they again confessed, and I had the third time
questioned them with threats of punishment, seeing them
obstinate, I commanded them to be led away,” that is,
to be put to death. We are not to think that this was an
extraordinary act of cruelty on the part of Herod. A soldier
to whom a prisoner was entrusted, and who permitted his
escape, was held guilty of a capital offence. Nor is it neces-
sary to suppose that the whole sixteen soldiers were put to
death, but only the four who were on guard at the time of
the escape.

ON JAMES THE LORD’S BROTHER.

After the death of James the brother of John, there is
frequent mention in the Acts and the Pauline epistles of
another James. He was a person of great importance in
the Christian church. Peter directs that information of his
escape should be sent to him; he presides at the celebrated
Council of Jerusalem; mention is made of those who came
from James to Antioch; to him Paul repairs on his arrival
at Jerusalem; he is called the Lord’s brother, and one of
the three pillars of the church. Now, besides James the
brother of John, there was another James among the
apostles, called James the son of Alpheus. The question
has been raised whether James “the Lord’s brother” was

ON JAMES THE LORD’S BROTHER. 423

the same as James the apostle, “the son of Alphzeus ;” or
whether they were different persons.

There are three opinions: 1. That this James “ the Lord’s
brother,” who is so prominently mentioned in the Acts and
the Pauline epistles, was an apostle, and the cousin of our
Lord, the same with James the sonof Alpheus. 2. That he
was the son of Joseph and Mary, and not one of the original
apostles. 3. That he was the son of Joseph by a former
marriage, and was therefore called a brother of our Lord.

The first opinion asserts the identity between James
“the Lord’s brother,’ and James “the apostle, the son of
Alpheeus.” According to this hypothesis, it is supposed that
the word ‘“ brother” is used in a lax sense to signify “ cousin.”
The argument by which this opinion is maintained is as
follows:—The brethren of Christ are stated to have been
James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas (Matt. xiii. 55;
Mark vi. 3). Now three of these names—James, and Joses,
and Judas—are elsewhere mentioned as the names of the sons
of Mary, the sister of the Virgin, and the wife of Clopas.
We are informed that there stood at the cross of Jesus His
mother and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas,
and Mary Magdalene (John xix. 25); and it is elsewhere
said that this Mary, the sister of the Virgin, was the mother
of James the Less and Joses (Matt. xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40):
consequently these two—James and Joses—were the cousins
of our Lord. Again, it is maintained that Alphzeus is in
Hebrew the same name as Clopas;’ so that James the apostle,
the son of Alphzeus, is the same as the above-mentioned
James the cousin of our Lord: and we know that he had
a brother named Judas, another of the apostles (Acts i. 13).
Hence these children of Clopas, or Alpheus, and Mary the
sister of the Virgin—namely, James, and Joses, and Judas—
are regarded as the same as those bearing the same names
who are mentioned as the brethren of Christ. The names
are the same, and to identify them we have only to suppose
that the word “brethren” is used in an extended sense so as
to include cousins.

1 Winer’s Wérterbuch—Alpheus. ~

424 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

This opinion, however, is supported by some doubtful
suppositions, rests on arbitrary assumptions, and is liable to
several objections. 1. It is ,doubtful whether Mary the
wife of Clopas was the sister of the Virgin. John says:
“There stood at the cross of Jesus His mother and His
mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magda-
lene.” Now these words may be read as mentioning four
women at the cross: first, our Lord’s mother and her sister,
whose name is not given; and secondly, Mary the wife of
Clopas and Mary Magdalene. On this supposition, the
sister of our Lord’s mother and Mary the wife of Clopas
are different persons. As we learn from the other evange-
lists that Salome the mother of John was at the cross, some
suppose that it was she who is intended by “ His mother’s
sister.” Besides, it is very unlikely that the Virgin and her
sister would both be called by the same name.’ It is also
doubtful if ᾿Ιούδας ᾿Ιακώβου is to be translated “ Judas the
brother of James,” and not rather “ Judas the son of James.”
And it is by no means a certainty that the names Clopas and
Alpheus are identical. 2. It is an arbitrary assumption that
the word “brethren” here signifies “cousins.” The word
brethren is frequently used in Scripture in a metaphorical
sense, but without any danger of misconception. In only
two instances is it used to signify a relationship different
from that of a brother. Lot is called the brother of Abra-
ham, and Jacob the brother of Laban, whereas in reality
they were merely nephews; but it is never once used to
denote cousins.” The objection is equally strong in reference
to those who are called the sisters of Christ. 3. We are in-
formed by John that “ His brethren did not believe on Him”
(John vii. 5). But according to the hypothesis that James
the Lord’s brother was the son of Alpheus, two of these
brethren—James and Judas—were at that time apostles. To

1 According to this supposition, the sons of Mary the wife of Clopas
were no relations to Christ; whereas James and John, the sons of
Zebedee and Salome, were His full cousins.

? If they had been cousins, we would have expected the word ὠνέψι οι;
and not ὠδελφοί.

ON JAMES THE LORD’S BROTHER. 425

this objection two answers are given: First, it is not neces-
sary to suppose that John is speaking of all the brethren of
Christ, but merely of His brethren in general terms. Or,
secondly, the unbelief here adverted to might have been
some temporary wavering, to which even the apostles might
be liable. 4. The brethren of Christ are several times ex-
pressly distinguished from the apostles; as in Acts i. 13, 14,
where the apostles are mentioned first, and then the brethren
of Christ (see also John ii. 12; 1 Cor. ix. 5). No great
weight, however, can be put on this objection taken by itself.
These are the chief objections against the opinion that James
the brother of the Lord, and James the son of Alphzeus, are
the same. This is, however, the most general opinion: it
was asserted by Papias, Clemens Alexandrinus, Jerome, and
Augustin among the Fathers, and is embraced by Calvin,
Pearson, Eichhorn, Lampe, Schneckenburger, Gieseler,
Lange, Ellicott, and Wordsworth among the moderns.

The second opinion is, that the James of the Acts was not
an apostle, and was a real brother of our Lord, being the son
of Mary and Joseph. Among the brethren of our Lord,
there is mention of a James (Matt. xiii. 55) ; and Paul speaks
of Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Κυρίου --- James the Lords
brother (Gal. 1.19). According to this hypothesis, these ex-
pressions are taken in their natural acceptation. There are,
however, difficulties in the way of this conclusion. 1. It is
opposed to the general sentiment and universal tradition of
the church. Both the Western and Eastern Churches cling to
the idea that the Virgin remained always a virgin; hence the
name ἀειπάρθενος among the Greeks, and semper Virgo among
the Latins." The grounds of this opinion are well stated by
Bishop Pearson in his Exposition of the Creed: “ We believe
the mother of our Lord to have been, not only before and
after His nativity, but also for ever, the most immaculate and
blessed Virgin. For although it may be thought sufficient
as to the mystery of the incarnation, that when our Saviour
was conceived and born His mother was a virgin; though

1 Τὴ the Helvetic Confession, Jesus is spoken of as natus ex Maria,
semper virgine.

426 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

whatsoever should have followed after could have no reflective
operation upon the first-fruit of her womb; though there be
no further mention in the Creed than that He was ‘ born of
the Virgin Mary ;’ yet the peculiar eminency and unparal-
leled privilege of that mother, the special honour and reve-
rence due unto that Son, and ever paid by her, the regard of
that Holy Ghost who came upon her, and the power of the
Highest which overshadowed her, the singular goodness and
piety of Joseph, to whom she was espoused, have persuaded
the church in all ages to believe that she still continued in
the same virginity, and therefore is to be acknowledged ‘the
ever-virgin Mary.” + On the other hand, those who adopt
the opposite opinion hold this to be no argument, but a mere
appeal to sentiment, arising from a false notion of the supe-
rior sanctity of the unmarried life. (See Luke ii. 7; Matt.
1.25.) 2. It is objected that, if Mary had children of her
own, Jesus would not have recommended her to the care of
John (John xix. 25-27). We consider this a strong objec-
tion. The only answer that has been given to it is, that His
brethren did not then believe; but this is a feeble reply, as
immediately after His resurrection we find them among the
number of the disciples. 3. It is asserted that this James is
expressly called an apostle: “Other of the apostles,” says
Paul, “saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother” (Gal.
i. 19). To this two answers are given. First, it is said that
the words do not imply that James was an apostle, but may
be thus read: “I saw none other of the apostles, but only (I
saw) James the Lord’s brother.” This, however, is not so
natural and obvious an interpretation. It is also apparently
opposed to Acts ix. 27, where it is said of the same visit,
that “ Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles ;”
from which it would follow that Peter and James, the only
two whom he then saw, were both apostles. Secondly, it is
said that the word ἀπόστολος is not confined to the twelve,
but is applied not only to Paul, but also to Barnabas (Acts
xiv. 14), This lax sense of the term, however, hardly suits
Paul’s argument, and is certainly not the obvious meaning in
1 Pearson on the Creed—Article iii.

ON JAMES THE LORD’S BROTHER. 427

the passage (Gal. i. 17-19). 4. James is here introduced
by Luke without any designation: now, with the exception
of James the brother of John, who had just been slain,
the only other James known to his readers, and whom he
had already mentioned (Acts i. 13), was James the son of
Alphzeus; and therefore, it is argued, it is more natural to
suppose that he meant this James than a James unknown to
his readers. 5. It is objected that, by supposing James to
be the actual son of the Virgin Mary, you would introduce
two sets of the same names—James, Joses, and Judas—as
sons of the Virgin Mary, and sons of Mary the wife of
Clopas. Not much, however, can be made of this objection,
as these names were among the most common Jewish names ;
and, as already stated, it is a somewhat doubtful supposition
that the Apostles James and Judas were brothers.

The opinion that James was the son of Mary and Joseph
was first started toward the close of the fourth century by a
certain Helvidius, whose followers were called Helvidians or
Antidicomarianite, and were universally regarded as heretics.
‘Antidicomarianite appellati sunt heretici, qui Marie virgini-
tati usque adeo contradicunt, ut affirment eam post Christum
natum viro suo fuisse commixtam (Augustine). The opinion
was condemned by the sixth General Council. It has since
been revived and embraced by Meyer, Lechler, Neander,
Wieseler, Stier, Alford, and Davidson among the moderns.

The third opinion is, that James and the other brethren
and the sisters of our Lord were the children of Joseph by a
former marriage, and were, on account of this relationship,
regarded as His brethren and sisters. No positive arguments
can be adduced in favour of this opinion: however, it is
exposed to no great objections, and it avoids some of the
difficulties which beset the other two theories. It accounts
for these disciples being called the brethren of Jesus; it
lessens the objection arising from Christ recommending His
mother to the care of John ;! and it does no violence to the
universal sentiment of the church concerning the perpetual

1 Especially if John were the full cousin of Christ, and the nephew of
the Virgin. See above. ;

428 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

virginity of Mary. Nevertheless it has not been favourably
received in modern times, and has gained few supporters,
probably because it savours too much of a mere arbitrary
supposition adopted to avoid difficulties, and is destitute of
positive arguments in its favour. It is not, however, neces-
sarily erroneous, and we do not think ought to be summarily
dismissed. It was the favourite opinion of the early Fathers,
being held by Origen, Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of
Alexandria, Epiphanius, Hilary, Victorinus, and Ambrose ;
and has become the generally received opinion of the Greek
Church.’

Such are the three opinions concerning James the brother
of our Lord. The third opinion is the least supported. The
great objection to the first opinion is, that some disciples are
actually called the brothers and sisters of Christ. And the
great objection to the second opinion, is the difficulty of
reconciling it with John xix. 25-27 and Gal. i. 19. Itisa
perplexing question ; it is hard to say on what side the pre-
ponderance of evidence lies; and we feel constrained to
leave the matter in dubio. Happily it is a question of small
doctrinal importance, though of considerable interest.”

James, the brother of our Lord, is frequently mentioned
in the history of the church. He is there known by the

1 This opinion is also maintained by Cave in his Lives of the Apostles.
Lardner concludes his learned dissertation by leaving it in doubt
whether James was the son of Joseph by a former wife, or a relation of
the Virgin Mary. He, however, maintains that he is the same as the
Apostle James, the son of Alpheus. There is a modification of this
opinion, which supposes these brethren of Christ to have been the
adopted children of Joseph, being the sons of his brother Clopas, or
Alphezeus.

? This interesting question is discussed at length in Smith’s Dictionary
of the Bible, articles *‘ the Brethren of Christ,” and ‘‘ James the Lord’s
Brother ;” Winer’s biblisches Worterbuch, article ‘‘ Jacobus ;” Pearson
on the Creed—Article iii. ; Lange’s Life of Christ, vol. i. 421-437, Clark’s
translation ; Neander’s Planting, vol. i. 350-354; Schaff’s Apostolic
History, vol. ii. pp. 35-38; Alford’s Introduction to the Epistle of James;
Lardner’s Works, vol. iii. pp. 368-384; Davidson’s New Introduction,
vol. 1. pp. 281-284 ; Wordsworth on the Acts, pp. 99, 100; Andrew’s
Life of our Lord, pp. 97-108.

ee

ON JAMES THE LORD'S BROTHER. 429

name of Bishop of Jerusalem ; and certainly, if not actually
bishop, it would appear from the Acts of the Apostles that
he at least exercised an important influence in the mother
church. <A long account of his character and death, written
by Hegesippus, who lived about the middle of the second
century, is preserved by Eusebius. He informs us that he
was universally known by the name of the Just, and along
with the apostles received the government of the church.
He lived as a Nazarite: he drank neither wine nor strong
drink, and no razor came upon his head. He was in the
habit of entering the temple alone, and was often found
upon his bended knees, interceding for the forgiveness of
his people; so that his knees became as hard as camels’, in
consequence of his habitual supplication before God. He
was put to death, shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem,
by the fanatical Jews. His last words were: “I entreat
Thee, O Lord God and Father, forgive them; for they know
not what they do.” “ Thus,” concludes Hegesippus, “ he
suffered martyrdom, on the spot where his tombstone is still
remaining, by the temple. He-was a faithful witness, both
to the Jews and to the Greeks, that Jesus is the Christ.
Immediately after this, Vespasian invaded and took Judea”
(Kuseb. ii. 23). Josephus also gives a similar account of
his martyrdom. He tells us that he was put to death by the
high priest Ananus, during a vacancy in the Roman procu-
ratorship, after the death of Festus, and before his successor
Albinus had arrived in Judea. “ Ananus,’ he writes,
“ assembled the Sanhedrim, and brought before them the
brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was
James, and some of his companions; and when he had
formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law,
he delivered them to be stoned” (Ant. xx. 9.1). According
to this account, James was martyred in the year 63, shortly
before the commencement of the Jewish war.

SECTION XXVI.
DEATH OF HEROD.—Acts xm. 19-25.

19 And having gone down from Judea to Cesarea, he remained
there. 20 And he was greatly enraged against the Tyrians and Sido-
nians: but they came with one accord to him, and having conciliated
Blastus the king’s chamberlain, they requested peace ; because their
country was nourished by the king’s country. 21 And on an appointed
day, Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon a throne, and made an
oration to them. 22 And the people cried out, The voice of a god, and
not of aman. 23 And immediately an angel of the Lord smote him,
because he gave not the glory to God: and being eaten of worms, he
expired.

24 But the word of God grew and multiplied. 25 And Barnabas and
Saul returned from Jerusalem, having fulfilled their ministry, taking
with them John, who was surnamed Mark.

CRITICAL NOTE.

Ver. 20. After ἣν δέ the textus receptus has ὁ ᾿Ηρώδης,
with E. The words are wanting in A, B, D, δὲ, and are
rejected by all recent critics. ‘They were probably inserted
because ver. 20 begins a new section describing the death of

Herod.

EXEGETICAL REMARKS.

Ver. 19. Καὶ κατελθὼν ἀπὸ: τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας εἰς τὴν Καισά-
petav—And having gone down from Judea to Caesarea. Eis
τὴν Καισάρειαν does not here stand for ἐν τῇ Καισάρειᾳ
(Kuinel), but is grammatically connected with κατελθών
(Winer’s Grammar, p. 434). For a description of Cesarea,
see note to Acts viil. 40. Czesarea, when Judea was subject
to the Romans, was the residence of the Roman procurator ;
but it was now attached to the kingdom of Herod Agrippa,

430

~
ee ——————— ee

DEATH OF HEROD.—XII. 20. 431

and formed the northern part of his dominions. Josephus
expressly mentions that Claudius added Judea, Samaria, and
Ceesarea to the other dominions of Agrippa (Ant. xix. 8. 2).
The usual residence of this prince was Jerusalem; but he
resided occasionally in Caesarea, the second city of his king-
dom. It was more a Gentile than a Jewish city. The ob-
ject of this visit to Caesarea is not stated by Luke. Some
suppose that it was from vexation on account of the escape
of Peter; because he was prevented fulfilling the promise
made to the Jews, in bringing forth Peter unto the people
(ver. 4). Josephus tells us that it was to celebrate games
in honour of Claudius Cesar, and that great numbers of
persons of rank and distinction resorted to Cesarea on this
- occasion (Ant. xix. 8. 2).

Ver. 20. Ἦν δὲ θυμομαχῶν Τυρίοις καὶ Σ᾿ ιδωνίοις---απὰ he
was greatly enraged against the Tyrians and Sidonians. Θυμο-
μαχῶν is not to be taken in the sense either that he waged
war, or that he intended to wage war; for an actual war
with the cities of Tyre and Sidon, which were then subject
to the Romans, and constituted a part of the province of
Syria, is not to be thought of, and is historically unknown.
The word is to be taken in a qualified sense, as meaning
that Herod was greatly enraged—highly displeased, as it is in
our English version. Herod probably showed his displeasure
by putting restrictions on the commerce of Tyre and Sidon,
preventing them obtaining supplies from Judea, and closing
his ports against them. It was because their country was
nourished by the king’s country, that the Tyrians and Sido-
nians desired peace. Perhaps also the signs of the famine
which next year attacked Judea were already apparent, and
made it the more necessary to procure supplies. The occa-
sion of this difference between Herod and the Pheenicians
is unknown; but probably it was something connected with
commerce, as Czsarea had now become the rival of Tyre
and Sidon. Years before this, in a dispute between the
Sidonians and the inhabitants of Damascus about the limits
of their respective territories, Herod was bribed by the
Damascenes to use his influence in their favour with Flaccus,

432 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

the governor of Syria (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 6. 3); so that it
is probable there may have been always a want of amity
between him and the Pheenicians. Παρῆσαν πρὸς αὐτόν---
they came to him; namely, by means of deputies from both
cities. Καὶ πείσαντες Bdaotov —and having conciliated
Blastus, probably by means of a bribe. Blastus is a Roman
name; and Herod being long resident in Rome, it is not
improbable that he would have a Roman as his chief steward.
Tov ἐπὶ τοῦ κοιτῶνος τοῦ Bacihéws—the king’s chamberlain ;
literally, “him who was over the king’s bed-chamber”—pre-
fectus cubiculo (Suetonius, Domitian, xvi.)—perhaps treasurer,
finance minister of the king. ᾿Ητοῦντο eipnvnv—they desired
peace. Peace is not here opposed to war, but to alienation—
reconciliation. Ava τὸ τρέφεσθαι αὐτῶν τὴν χώραν, etc. —
because their country was nourished by that of the king. Phee-
nicia being a district of narrow limits, depended upon the
adjoining countries for its supplies of grain. It seems from
the days of Solomon to have been specially dependent on
Palestine (1 Kings v.11). zekiel, in his description of the
merchandise of Tyre, says that Judah and the land of Israel
were her merchants, and traded with her in wheat, and honey,
and oil, and balm (Ezek. xxvii. 17). Besides, Judea must
have been one of the principal countries where the Pho-
nicians disposed of their goods. The splendid harbour of
Czesarea also must have been most convenient for their
numerous ships. It was therefore their policy to live on
good terms with Herod Agrippa, as it was in his power to
cripple their trade, and to stint them in their supplies of
grain.

Ver. 21. Τακτῇ δὲ ἡμέρᾳ--Απά on an appointed day.
According to Josephus, this day was the second day of the
games celebrated in honour of Claudius; and the place of
assembly was the theatre of Cesarea. ᾿Ενδυσάμενος ἐσθῆτα
Baoitixnv—clothed in royal apparel. Josephus makes ex-
press mention of this royal garment: στολὴν ἐνδυσάμενος
ἐξ ἀργυρίου πεποιημένην tacav—clothed in a robe entirely
made of silver (Ant. xix. 8.2). Kaicas ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος
—sat upon the throne. Βήμα (in Latin, suggestus) is the ele-

DEATH OF HEROD.—XII. 22, 23. 433

vated seat in the theatre set apart for the king, from which
he might look at the games 6r address the assembly. ᾿Εδη-
μηγόρει πρὸς avtovs—made an oration to them. Anpnyopéa,
to harangue in a public assembly ; πρὸς αὐτούς, not to the
assembly, but to the deputation from Tyre and Sidon, to
whom he granted a public audience, and to whose requests
he graciously acceded, as is evident from the acclamations
which followed his address. There is a variety of opinion
with regard to the season of the year when this occurred.
Josephus says that the games were celebrated in honour of
the emperor for his safety: εἰς τὴν Καίσαρος τιμὴν ὑπὲρ τῆς
ἐκείνου σωτηρίας. Accordingly Anger thinks that they were
in honour of the safe return of Claudius from his expedition
to Britain, and occurred in the month of April or May,
shortly after the passover of the year 44. Wieseler con-
troverts this opinion, and supposes that it was the festival of
the Quinquennalia, instituted by Herod the Great in honour
of Augustus, and celebrated on the first of August.’ There
was probably only a short interval between the passover and
Herod’s death.

Ver. 22. Ὃ δὲ δῆμος---απὰ the people. Δῆμος (not λαός,
vers. 4, 11), the assembled people. We cannot suppose that
this assembly was composed of Jews, and that they uttered
this profane flattery. Czesarea, as already observed, was a
Gentile city, and therefore the audience were chiefly Gentiles;
and the words are appropriate enough in the lips of idolaters.
Θεοῦ φωνὴ καὶ οὐκ avOperrov—literally, God's voice, and not
mans. Only, as proceeding from Gentiles, θεοῦ does not
here refer to the Supreme Being, but is to be taken inde-
finitely —“ a god’s voice,” or “ the voice of a god.”

Ver. 23. ᾿Επάταξεν αὐτὸν ἄγγελος Kupiov—an angel of the
Lord smote him. The sudden attack of disease is repre-
sented as a divine punishment, inflicted by the instrumen-
tality of an angel. There was no visible appearance of an
angel—nothing to cause the audience to suspect his inter-
position, except that the disease attacked Herod at the very

1 Wieseler’s Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters, pp. 132-136.

VOL. I. ~ 2a

434 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

moment when he was receiving their impious flatteries: we
only learn from the evangelist the fact that it was an angel
who smote Herod. The idea of inspiration does not permit
us to suppose, with De Wette, that this is a mere accommo-
dation to the superstitions of the Jews, who attributed any
great calamities which befell their enemies, or any great
judgment inflicted on themselves, to angels (2 Sam. xxiv. 17;
2 Kings xix. 35). It is the evident doctrine of Scripture,
that the angels are the instruments with which Providence
works—the ministers of Christ: the messengers (ἄγγελοι)
of mercy, as in the case of the deliverance of Peter; or of
vengeance, as in the case of the death of Herod. Angelus
Domini eduxit Petrum; Angelus Domini percussit Herodem
(Bengel).

᾿Ανθ᾽ ὧν οὐκ ἔδωκεν τὴν δόξαν τῷ OcH—bLecause he gave not
God the glory. It was Herod’s vanity—his love of popular
applause, a ruling passion of his life—that was the cause of
his destruction: “ Not because of Peter, but because of his
arrogant speaking” (Chrysostom). Baumgarten allegorizes
this account of the punishment inflicted on Herod. He
supposes that Herod here represents the world’s ruler in his
conflict with the kingdom of God; and that Nimrod and
Nebuchadnezzar were also similar representatives. “It is,”
he observes, “not for one moment to be doubted that, by
this sudden stroke, which transmuted the god Herod into
a mortal man, it is intended that we should be reminded
of the fate of Nebuchadnezzar.”+ The resemblance be-
tween Nebuchadnezzar, who was certainly the ruler of the
world in his day, and Herod Agrippa, a dependent prince
of a small province, is too slight to warrant such fanciful
notions. Sacred history is not thus to be converted into an
allegory.

Καὶ γενόμενος σκωληκόβρωτος---απα being eaten of worms.
Luke, “the beloved physician,” here gives a more exact
description of the disease of which Herod died than Josephus,
who merely says, γαστρὸς ἀλγήμασι διεργασθείς. This disease

1 Baumgarten’s Apostolic History, vol. i. pp. 317-329.

DEATH OF HEROD.—XII, 23. 435

is one of the most horrible to which human nature is liable,
and is thought to be reserved by God for tyrants and perse-
cutors. The examples of it recorded in history are rare, and
nearly the whole of those who were attacked by it were
infamous for their cruelties. Antiochus Epiphanes, the great
persecutor of the Jews (2 Macc. ix. 5-9); Pheretima, a queen
of the Cyrenians notorious for her cruelties (Herod. iv. 305) ;
Herod the Great (Joseph. Ant. xvii. 6. 5); Claudius Lucius
Herminianus, governor of Cappadocia, a cruel persecutor
(Tertullian, Ad Scapulam); and the Emperor Galerius, of
infamous memory (Euseb. Hist. Hecl. viii. 16), are all said
to have died of this disease. It is the observation of Niebuhr,
a man not of a superstitious, but rather of a sceptical turn
of mind, in describing the death of Sylla, that “this disease
for the most part occurs among tyrants, as Philip 11, the
Jewish king Herod, and Antiochus Epiphanes.”*
᾿Εξέψυξεν---τό expired. Uerod, as Josephus informs us,
died in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and in the seventh
of his reign, after having reigned three years over the
tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias alone, one year over these
tetrarchies with the addition of Galilee, and only three years
over all Palestine. His death did not occur immediately
after he was smitten with disease, but he lingered for five
days, suffering excruciating torments. Wieseler thinks that
the exact day of his death may be determined. He judges
that the games which he celebrated in honour of Claudius were
the Quinquennalia, which commenced on the first of August.
He was attacked by disease on the second day of the games,
and lingered five days, so that his death occurred on 6th
August 44. Herod Agrippa left four children: one son,
Agrippa, then seventeen, the Agrippa of the Acts, before
whom Paul made his defence; and three daughters,—the
eldest Bernice, then married to her uncle Herod, the king
of Chalcis, afterwards mentioned along with her brother
(Acts xxv. 13); and the others, Mariamne, then ten years

1 Niebuhr’s Vortriige iiber romische Geschichte, vol. ii. p. 386.
5 Wieseler’s Chronologie, p. 136.

436 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

of age, and Drusilla, six, afterwards the wife of Felix (Acts
xxiv. 24), (Joseph. Ant. xix. 9.1).

It is instructive and interesting to compare Luke’s account
of the death of Herod Agrippa with that of Josephus.
Agrippa, Josephus observes, when he had reigned three
years over all Judea, came to Caesarea, and there exhibited
games in honour of Claudius Cesar, at which a great num-
ber of the principal persons of the province were present.
On the second day of the games, he put on a garment made
wholly of silver, and came into the theatre early in the
morning; at which time the silver of his garment, being
illuminated with the rays of the rising sun, shone in a
dazzling manner: and presently his flatterers cried out that
he was a god; and they added, “Be gracious to us; for
although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man,
yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal
nature.” The king did neither rebuke nor reject their
impious flattery. But as he immediately afterwards looked
up, he saw an owl sitting on a rope above his head, and
immediately understood that this bird was the messenger
of evil tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good
tidings: and he fell into the deepest sorrow. Soon after-
wards he was seized with exquisite torments in his bowels ;
and forthwith he addressed the audience: “I, whom you
call a god, am commanded presently to depart this life.
Providence thus reproves the lying words you just now
addressed to me; and 1, who was by you called immortal,
am immediately to be hurried away by death. But I am
bound to accept what Providence allots; for we have had
our day, and lived in no little splendour.” As he said this,
the pain became more violent; and he was carried into his
palace, where, after suffering violent agonies for five days,
he expired (Ant. xix. 8. 2).

The account of Josephus confirms and illustrates the nar-

rative given us by Luke. It agrees with it in the following

points :—Both accounts tell us that the death of Herod hap-
pened in Czesarea, where he had arrived shortly before; that

DEATH OF HEROD.—XII. 23, 437

the first attack of his illness took place in a public assembly,
before which he appeared in full state, arrayed in a magni-
ficent dress; that immediately before the attack, the multi-
tude flattered him in an impious manner, saluting him as if
he were a god; that the king neither rejected nor discouraged
the idolatrous flattery ; and that shortly afterwards he expired
in excruciating pain. It is also observable that both Luke
and Josephus agree in representing his illness as a divine
judgment for not rejecting the flattery of the multitude.

The points of difference between the two accounts are few
and unimportant. 1. Josephus makes no mention of the
embassy from Tyre and Sidon, nor does Luke of the games
in honour of Claudius. It is probable that both circum-
stances took place, and that it was on the second day of the
celebration of these games that Herod in full state gave a
public audience to the Pheenician ambassadors. 2. Josephus
makes no mention of the angel who smote the king, nor does
Luke of the owl which sat above his head. But in Luke’s
narrative no appearance of the angel is implied; and the
owl is doubtless a superstitious addition. Josephus had
already mentioned that, when Herod was a prisoner at Rome,
an owl sat on a tree on which he leant; and that a German
soothsayer indicated to him that this owl was a messenger of
good tidings, but that if he saw the bird again he would only
live five days longer (Ant. xviii. 6.7). Eusebius converts
the owl which, according to Josephus, Herod recognised as
a messenger of evil tidings (ἄγγελος κακῶν), into the angel of
the Acts, the messenger of the Lord (ἄγγελος Κυρίου). Pro-
fessing to quote Josephus, he says, “ The king, raising him-
self, saw an angel sitting above his head” (Hist. Eccl. ii. 10) ;
an unfortunate and most unjustifiable attempt at reconcilia-
tion. 3. Josephus says that Herod, after being smitten with
disease, lingered for five days; whereas Luke simply states
that he was eaten of worms, and expired. But in Luke’s
narrative it is not implied that he expired in the assembly :
for all that is there stated, there might have been an interval
between the stroke and the death. 4. As to the disease of

438 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

which he died, there is no great difference: Josephus
asserts that he suffered violent pains in his bowels; and
Luke describes it more definitely—that he was eaten of
worms. ‘There is surely here no contradiction, and therefore
it is wholly superfluous in Baur to have recourse to his
mythical explanation: that the worms have reference to the
gnawing worm which preys on the condemned, and that the
death of Herod is so described to resemble the death of
Antiochus Epiphanes, the king so hateful to the Jews, the
cruel persecutor of all the true worshippers of God, the
enemy of the true religion, who in his pride compared him-
self to the supreme God.

Ver. 24. Ὃ δὲ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ηὔξανε καὶ ἐπληθύνετο---
but the word of God grew and multiplied. 4dé—but—in con-
trast to the tragical end of the persecutor. Herod is eaten
of worms, but the word of God progressed. After the death
of Herod, the persecution ceased; and the gospel could again
be preached and propagated without danger: the restraints
in the way of its progress were removed.

Ver. 25. BapvaBas δὲ καὶ Σ᾽ αῦλος---αὐιά Barnabas and Saul.
Barnabas here takes the precedence of Paul, because be was
still the principal person. “ Luke still mentions Barnabas
first; for Paul was not yet famous—he had not yet wrought
any sign” (Chrysostom). ‘Yéotpeyrav—returned, namely
to Antioch. ᾿Εξἕ ‘Iepoveadyu—from Jerusalem. This verse
is connected with Acts xi. 30, where we are told that Bar-
nabas and Saul were sent with the alms of the disciples of
Antioch to Judea; and it is introductory to the next chap-
ter, where mention is made of their presence in the church
which was at Antioch. Πληρώσαντες τὴν Siaxoviav—having
fulfilled their ministry. Meyer supposes that Barnabas and
Paul first visited the churches of Judea, and went to Jeru-
salem last; so that the execution of James, and the imprison-
ment and deliverance of Peter in Jerusalem, and the death
of Herod in Cesarea, occurred when Paul and Barnabas
were in Judea, before they came to Jerusalem.2 But it

1 Baur’s Paulus, vol. i. p. 183. 2 Meyer's Apostelgeschichte, p. 256.

DEATH OF HEROD.—XII. 25. 439

is most probable that they did not commence their journey
until after the death of Herod, for it was not until then that
the famine commenced. Their residence in Jerusalem would
be short and unimportant, for Paul makes no mention of it
in his Epistle to the Galatians. Συμπαραλαβόντες ᾿Ιωάννην
τὸν ἐπικληθέντα Madpxov—taking with them John, who was
surnamed Mark: Mark, already mentioned, the son of Mary,
in whose house the disciples were assembled, and the nephew
or cousin of Barnabas. (See note to Acts xii. 12.) Pro-
bably his relationship to Barnabas was one of the chief
reasons which induced them to take him.

END OF VOL. I.

MURRAY AND GIBB, EDINBURGH,
PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE.

ὁ

ene a ela «αν ii

Date Due

ἘΞ ects
yl
4
4 oe ᾿
a | 2 - 4 Ha
ΜΙ κ᾿
Ἐ5
ἢ

-
2

AK ea
᾿

ΣΧ
- an

τς

ae

SCS

PIES E ES BS2625 .G562 v.1
Bets ΣΕ ΕΗ A critical and exegetical commentary on

ii

gic

ill

nary

r

iii

1 1012 00067 0101

$350: